na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9705 posts, RR: 10 Reply 2, posted (3 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 41144 times:
NEOs no surprise at all, the shorthaul fleet will remain rather boring. But I´m happy to hear that two more A380s are coming into LHs fleet. A bit sad about that rumours were true about the Swiss 77W. I had hoped LH would come around that plane though what can you do when there´s no other way currently when they need something of that size. To me the 77W is like McDonalds, bland, and to be found everywhere.
LH422 From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 281 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (3 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 40975 times:
The article mentions A320neo and A321neo. I wonder if we'll be seeing A321ceo with sharklets? As of now, the two remaining planned A321ceo deliveries are planned without sharklets.
CARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 711 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (3 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 40948 times:
Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 1): Glad to see the Mighty Triple Seven joining Swiss.
Good to see it at LH Group at all. A sign for me that the 77Es of OS are not on the way out and that the 777-8 and -9 could be part of LHs fleet plan for the entire group.
SQ22 From Germany, joined Feb 2012, 93 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (3 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 40861 times:
Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 1): No surprise for anyone who was following rumours about this order. Glad to see the Mighty Triple Seven joining Swiss.
Well, some expected part of the order woul have been for the MAX as well. There were also discussions about the C-Series. I think we will see an additional order for the C-Series later, maybe soon after first flight.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3658 posts, RR: 36 Reply 10, posted (3 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 40772 times:
Quoting na (Reply 2): NEOs no surprise at all, the shorthaul fleet will remain rather boring. But I´m happy to hear that two more A380s are coming into LHs fleet.
Me too! More 4-holers is always good. And more A380's is also very good. .
Quoting na (Reply 2): A bit sad about that rumours were true about the Swiss 77W.
Not really. It is phenominal airplane and currently has no competition. It is a logical choice for LX.
Quoting CARST (Reply 6): A sign for me that the 77Es of OS are not on the way out and that the 777-8 and -9 could be part of LHs fleet plan for the entire group.
They could be. But with the B748i's they still have coming to the fleet, the B777-9X could be far away since LH flies their planes for a long time. And keep them in pristine condition.
For the long range order in the autumn I am expecting mostly A350's to be ordered. .
B777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1015 posts, RR: 3 Reply 12, posted (3 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 40634 times:
Looks like I'll be eating crow for a while. Was certain LH Group wouldn't be ordering the 77W, but then again they already have - in the shape of the 77F.
This order puts Boeing in a more comfortable position when it comes to pitching the 777X against the A350 at LH Group.
From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
CARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 711 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (3 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 40640 times:
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 10): They could be. But with the B748i's they still have coming to the fleet, the B777-9X could be far away since LH flies their planes for a long time. And keep them in pristine condition.
I see 777-9s at LX, OS and SN. And the 777-8 at LH to replace the A340s. 787-10s to replace the A333 fleet. Just one of many possibilities.
na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9705 posts, RR: 10 Reply 15, posted (3 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 40519 times:
Quoting CARST (Reply 6): Good to see it at LH Group at all. A sign for me that the 77Es of OS are not on the way out and that the 777-8 and -9 could be part of LHs fleet plan for the entire group.
Perhaps the 777-8 to replace the A346 in the mid-2020s, but the -9 isnt needed, to small the distance to the 748I which will be here well into the 2030s, and too big the distance for whatever replaces the A333/343s.
I anyway think the chance for the A350-1000 is greater, as LH doesnt need the xtras the 777-9 could perhaps offer, and its unineviatbly higher price tag, while gladly paying the lower fuel bills the Airbus will ask for.
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 10): Not really. It is phenominal airplane and currently has no competition. It is a logical choice for LX.
I second the last two points, the first only when closing my eyes . I only hope the 77Ws are leased, so can be handed back in 10 years to be replaced by one of the two types then available. Otherwise in the early 2020s Swiss will be left with old metal.
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2216 posts, RR: 4 Reply 17, posted (3 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 40379 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting na (Reply 15): but the -9 isnt needed, to small the distance to the 748I which will be here well into the 2030s
No one ever said anything about the 777-9X going to LH. CARST's post clearly refers to LH fleet plan for the entire group. The 777-9X could find its way into the LX or OS fleets.
Quoting na (Reply 15): Otherwise in the early 2020s Swiss will be left with old metal.
Hardly, these aircraft, if they are to be delivered by 2016, will only be four years young.
na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9705 posts, RR: 10 Reply 19, posted (3 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 38969 times:
Quoting autothrust (Reply 18): I would rather prefer to fly a LX 747 anyday over a 777.
I am sure most LX passengers would agree, but it seems its just one step too big.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 17): No one ever said anything about the 777-9X going to LH. CARST's post clearly refers to LH fleet plan for the entire group. The 777-9X could find its way into the LX or OS fleets.
OS very unlikely. Much too big.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 17): Hardly, these aircraft, if they are to be delivered by 2016, will only be four years young.
I am not talking about age, I am talking about technology, that by the early 2020s there will be two successors with considerably better economics. By 2022 a 2016-built 77W will be like what a 744 is now.
CARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 711 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (3 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 38964 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 17): Hardly, these aircraft, if they are to be delivered by 2016, will only be four years young.
What he meant to say is that at this time the 77W will be one generation back behind the NextGen aircraft like 787, 777X and A350. While that is true, it is not important, the 77W will make LX loads of money even with NextGen aircraft coming online at other airlines.
If you would follow that logic the A330 shouldn't have got one order after the launch of the 787 (all problems aside). But it still got a lot of orders because of slot restraints and small, continual improvements making it a fine aircraft for a lot of missions where the range or lift of the 787 and/or 77W is not needed, despite it being an older generation aircraft compared to both.
1992 A333
1994 77A
(1999 A333X, not really a new model, no new wing, just increased MTOW)
2005 77W (new wing, new engines)
2009 788
Quoting autothrust (Reply 18): Completly disagree, it's a disaster for commonality with such a small number
You can bet that the A343s will leave the fleet when the 77Ws come online. I don't expect both types to operate side-by-side for too long. I know they have more 343s than 77Ws ordered, but LH could top-up either A333 orders or 77W orders any time.
KarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 2359 posts, RR: 6 Reply 22, posted (3 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 38679 times:
Quoting CARST (Reply 13): I see 777-9s at LX, OS and SN. And the 777-8 at LH to replace the A340s. 787-10s to replace the A333 fleet. Just one of many possibilities.
Lufthansa says the 787 is too small.
"The carrier is looking at the Airbus A350-900/1000, more Boeing 747-8s and the 777X, company sources say. The 787 is not under consideration as it is too small for Lufthansa’s requirements.".
Bthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 436 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (3 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 38653 times:
Quoting SQ22 (Reply 11): Beside this I was a bit surprised about the CEO order, I expected NEO only. Any thoughts?
Aircraft availability? Backlog for the neo is quite extensive whilst there are still some slots left for ceo - well, maybe not now.
I know LH are phasing out their 737s by 2016, so if they wanted replacements for them, ceo the only option really. That, or they want quicker expansion of one of the subsidiaries.
LXLucien From Switzerland, joined Mar 2005, 223 posts, RR: 4 Reply 25, posted (3 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 39737 times:
Quoting autothrust (Reply 18): Completly disagree, it's a disaster for commonality with such a small number, and as passenger i don't welcome it.
I'm with you on that!
But the small number tells another story too.
For me it's just an interim solution till the A350 is ready, also maybe to get some pressure on Airbus to get cracking with the production (or should I say building, licensing etc.)
I mean, they want to replace 14 A340 with 6 77W? And add new routes?
On the other hand, I can't figure out who came up with that idea! In the same time period, the C Series will be phased into the fleet and to that they have to do all the type ratings for the 777 AND every year some 40 pilots should be trained onto the A320 ?? How can this work?
One thing is for sure, it's a hell of a lot to do for the Swiss Aviation Training, maybe a bit too much, but I mean the HQ is either 200km or 200m away (Basel or Rosengartenstreet), probably to far away to see the problems they will face...
Quote "Syriana": "Beirut, it's like Paris in the Mid-East"
KarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 2359 posts, RR: 6 Reply 30, posted (3 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 38948 times:
Quoting LH422 (Reply 5): I wonder if we'll be seeing A321ceo with sharklets?
Now confirmed by Airbus:
"The Lufthansa’s Supervisory Board has approved the acquisition of 100 A320 Family aircraft (35 A320neo, 35 A321neo and 30 A320ceo with Sharklets) and two A380s worth approximately US$ 11.2 billion at list prices. The engine choices will be announced by the airline at a later date."
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6953 posts, RR: 7 Reply 31, posted (3 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 38904 times:
Quoting LXLucien (Reply 25): I mean, they want to replace 14 A340 with 6 77W? And add new routes?
Exactly. It wouldn't shock me if they're leased too, rather than bought.
6 77W's that are about to become obsolete soon, mixed in a fleet with A340's and A330's makes absolutely no sense at all unless they are desperate for a short term solution. That's not to saw that they won't chose the next gen 777.
Quoting CARST (Reply 20): If you would follow that logic the A330 shouldn't have got one order after the launch of the 787
It sort of has. The A332 hasn't really sold many frames since the 788/A358 were launched. The A333 is still selling because AB actually improved the airplane significantly, and like hte 777W there is nothing better available in that size if you want it right now.
anfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 292 posts, RR: 10 Reply 32, posted (3 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 38772 times:
Interesting - I didn't expect the 77W at all, despite the rumours. Interesting also that the A319NEO isn't part of the order. LH-operated CSeries seem a distinct possibility now.
LHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1376 posts, RR: 1 Reply 33, posted (3 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 38381 times:
So what is LH itself going to do with the 350-seat range after the 346s? Does the LX order for 77Ws have any bearing on that, or is LH going to fly those for a while and then go with the next-gen offering (either 35J or 77NG)?
JU068 From Serbia, joined Aug 2009, 2579 posts, RR: 6 Reply 35, posted (3 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 38257 times:
But is the B777 fleet commonality such a big problem? For Swiss it might be but for Lufthansa Group it shouldn't be as Austrian currently operates 4, with 2 more set to join the fleet (B777-200s though). In addition to that, Lufthansa Cargo placed an order for 5 of these aircraft.
All in all there will be 17 B777 aircraft within the Lufthansa Group. I am sure if there is a need they could move them around (as they have done until now).
anfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 292 posts, RR: 10 Reply 37, posted (3 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 37898 times:
Quoting starbucks (Reply 24):
I think we can assume the 70 neo's will have the GTF hanging under it's wings??
As per the Airbus press release, the engine choice will be announced at a later date - although yes, the last batch of NEOs that LH ordered is going to be equipped with GTFs.
Passengers don't make aircraft purchasing decisions. The airline does.
Quoting na (Reply 19): By 2022 a 2016-built 77W will be like what a 744 is now.
Strongly disagree. A 6 year old 777-300ER in 2022 is still going to be a damn sight better, even relatively, than the 747-400 is now. The 777-300ER not only burns less fuel per trip than the 747-400, it also has better payload range than the 747-400. The A350-1000 as proposed matches the 777-300ER for payload range up until 7000nm before finally beating it beyond that range; it's main advantage over the 777-300ER is fuel burn per trip and per seat.
Because of that, the 777-300ER in 2022 is going to be a damn sight better than the 747-400 is now. Payload range is one of the most, if not the most important factors in an airline's purchasing decision, because how much it can carry over a certain distance has a direct correlation with how much money it can make an airline. Fuel burn is secondary to that.
Quoting CARST (Reply 20): If you would follow that logic the A330 shouldn't have got one order after the launch of the 787
Precisely. The introduction of the A350-1000 will not make the 777-300ER obsolete. The fact that the 777X will enter service after the A350-1000 wouldn't hurt Boeing any more than the A350 entering into service after the 787 has hurt Airbus.
Quoting ferpe (Reply 21): do you want to pay more to fly 747?
I think a more prudent question would be whether airlines would want to pay more to operate the 747 instead of the 777. As a.netters, choosing a flight based on aircraft type rather than price is not beyond us
Quoting LXLucien (Reply 25): For me it's just an interim solution till the A350 is ready
It would be a very expensive "interim solution" ...
I dont get the picture here, where is the sense in puting 748 and 777x side by side, and because of that I dont see 777x in LH colors, OS doesnt need that kind of capacity nor does SN, eventualy LX in 15 years time, maybe for replacing these 77W or for boosting capacaty
vegas005 From Switzerland, joined Mar 2005, 294 posts, RR: 0 Reply 43, posted (3 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 36491 times:
Quoting autothrust (Reply 41): They could use A340-600 instead (as does LH)which are much more comfortable then the 777 and the fuel burn difference wouldn't be that big.
Also I would be willing to pay more in the long haul which is traditionally ridiculously cheap compared to short haul of LX.
Swiss stated they did not want the A340-600, so we all knew something was coming. I'm just surprised they wait until 2016 to start up the 777. Almost 3 years from now...a lot can change it that time.
There is nothing ridiculously cheap about LX, including their eco long haul pricing.
LHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1376 posts, RR: 1 Reply 44, posted (3 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 36341 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 38): It would be a very expensive "interim solution" ...
Just to play Devil's Advocate, maybe not if the financial terms were right and they could get "gen 1.5" 35J's in the mid- to late-2020's, depending on when those models come out. I would think the timing would be perfect for that play, if they were thinking along those lines.
skipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 2425 posts, RR: 0 Reply 46, posted (3 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 34710 times:
Quoting na (Reply 19): I am sure most LX passengers would agree, but it seems its just one step too big.
Most passengers don't actually care, that's the commercial reality. They are concerned about the hard product in the aircraft, the service and the lounges, not the platform itself.
Swiss took the A343 quite late in the day and now are discovering the B77W a decade into service. Quite Conservative but given what happened with Swissair, slow and steady sees you fight to live another day.
Quoting autothrust (Reply 41): They could use A340-600 instead (as does LH)which are much more comfortable then the 777 and the fuel burn difference wouldn't be that big.
In what sense can one steel tube be said to be "much more confortable" against another steel tube from a comparable carrier. Again it's not a complaint from non enthusiasts in the main.
Richard28 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 1570 posts, RR: 6 Reply 47, posted (3 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 34554 times:
Interesting that they have added further to the A380 fleet but not to the 747-8 fleet.
The 747-8 had a frame cancelled in december, so having operated both types for a while now, LH have how added 4 x A380 frames (2 in 2011 and 2 in 2013) and removed 1 x 747-8 frame (2012).
TheAviator380 From UK - England, joined Feb 2013, 192 posts, RR: 0 Reply 48, posted (3 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 34491 times:
To me the 77W is like McDonalds, bland, and to be found everywhere.
____________________
Seriously? 77W is one of the efficient aircrafts out there. It's wonderful performance and good comfort makes it very fantastic aircraft, having sat on 77W good number of times now.
I would love to see 77W in LX livery..will be smashing. EK have utilized cabin space very nicely, 10 abreast or 11 honestly doesn't make much difference. Cabin looks more crowded and small aisle that's the main difference I have noticed so far (speaking from my experience as I have sat on BA/EK/AI 777 so far).
LH needed domestic revamping actually, some of their 737 getting too old now. Good to see more sale of A380 too.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26940 posts, RR: 83 Reply 49, posted (3 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 34463 times:
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 22): Lufthansa says the 787 is too small.
Which is interesting, since the 787-9 is the same size as than their A330-300s / A340-300s and the 787-10 is sized between the A350-900 and A350-1000.
I wonder if LH has decided that they'd rather have their entire widebody fleet be long-range models and accept the performance penalty on shorter missions for the flexibility to use the plane on any mission. I also wonder if they're worried about EK's smallest plane being the A350-900 and they therefore want to be able to match capacity against them.
LH was one of the few airlines that wanted a larger and longer-legged 747. Could they be one of the few airlines that wants the 777-8 because it has high capacity and great range?
Quoting vegas005 (Reply 44): I'm just surprised they wait until 2016 to start up the 777.
LH agreed to cancel one early-build 747-8 airframe to allow Boeing to use it to complete the testing for the FMC and the tail-fuel-tank fix.
LH still has 20 options for the 747-8 and have stated they're pleased with how it's working for them. As such, I expect them to convert most or all of those options down the road.
BlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2533 posts, RR: 24 Reply 51, posted (3 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 34045 times:
It seems quite a leap in capacity to go from A340 to B77W, especially (and take note Swiss, after your comfortable 2x4x2 A340s, it would be a significant, retrograde step) if they go 10 abreast in Y.
That in itself makes this order a surprise to me. I also don't see where this order fits the Lufthansa mantra that fleet commonality is one of the keys to future financial prosperity. Six B77Ws; six! It's such an oddball number in such a huge family of companies.
It leaves me leaning towards the suggestion that this may have been an affordable way, in a predominantly Airbus order, to keep Boeing involved with Lufthansa group and keep them keen on future RFP pricings.
Much as I admire the B77W for the remarkable craft that it is, Swiss would never have been on my list as possible operators, and I do wonder if these are short term gap fillers until the A359 comes on stream.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 38): It would be a very expensive "interim solution" ...
Depends if you take the order in isolation or take a long view based on the future requirements of the Lufthansa group as a whole. An expensive interim solution may turn out to be a shrewd way to ensure future advantageous terms with an OEM. Has been done in the past and will no doubt be done again in the future.
Rgds
So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26940 posts, RR: 83 Reply 52, posted (3 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 33337 times:
Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 52): It seems quite a leap in capacity to go from A340 to B77W, especially (and take note Swiss, after your comfortable 2x4x2 A340s, it would be a significant, retrograde step) if they go 10 abreast in Y.
They evidently need the capacity, but I would expect them to stay with 9-abreast in Economy as that would allow a large boost in Economy seating.
Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 52): That in itself makes this order a surprise to me. I also don't see where this order fits the Lufthansa mantra that fleet commonality is one of the keys to future financial prosperity. Six B77Ws; six! It's such an oddball number in such a huge family of companies.
LH Cargo does have the 777 Freighter coming, so there is parts commonality there. OS also flies the 777-200ER, so there is crew training commonality.
Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 52): It leaves me leaning towards the suggestion that this may have been an affordable way, in a predominantly Airbus order, to keep Boeing involved with Lufthansa group and keep them keen on future RFP pricing.
If LH is serious about being a major launch customer for the 777X, then they don't need a six-frame 77W order to get Boeing's attention.
gilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2903 posts, RR: 1 Reply 53, posted (3 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 33012 times:
I haven't been following the rumour mill with regards to LH's order today, but the 77W part of the order has come as surprise to me...
I think the reason for the surprise is that they are operating a small sub-fleet of only 6 77W's in the whole of the Lufthansa group. Piilots at present can fly the whole Airbus fleet with very little conversion training, and there is also the maintenance implications of this small fleet. Which makes me think, if there are more to come?
This is also quite a steep rise in capacity, compared to the A340, with it potentially having 100-150+ seats more.
Like others have mentioned I was expecting A350's as the most likely option, if they required aircraft of this size.
I will be interested to see if Lufthansa/Swiss go down the 9 or 10 abreast route in economy.
I am assuming these 77W's will start to replace the A340's, but there are 14 in fleet... Will these just replace the main trunk routes for Swiss and possibly more A330's ordered to replace the other four engined hair dryers, where such demand is not required of the 77W is not required?
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3658 posts, RR: 36 Reply 55, posted (3 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 32364 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 50): LH still has 20 options for the 747-8 and have stated they're pleased with how it's working for them. As such, I expect them to convert most or all of those options down the road.
If so, they will most likely not order the B777-9. Which is more or less the same size. And would be quite a lot more efficient. So I am not so sure about LH taking the options they have on the B748i if they might be going for the B777-8 or 9 for that matter.
On the other hand, they did order 2 additional A380's again. This makes for their third individual A380 order.
ETinCaribe From Ethiopia, joined Dec 2009, 634 posts, RR: 0 Reply 56, posted (3 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 32286 times:
Quoting na (Reply 19): OS very unlikely. Much too big.
There was a thread not too long ago on OS 767/777 refurbishment, that may also signal no new addition to the fleet for many years to come.
Quoting airbazar (Reply 31): 6 77W's that are about to become obsolete soon
Define soon. If less than 15 years, I would strongly disagree. Also, not sure if the 77W are leased or not. And they may have gotten a great price for them, who knows.
Quoting flyglobal (Reply 34): When will we see the Boeing Rendering for the Swiis 777-300ER ?
Opportunity missed, IMHO, by Boeing to show off the new logo on the mighty 77W.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26940 posts, RR: 83 Reply 58, posted (3 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 32134 times:
Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 54): This is also quite a steep rise in capacity, compared to the A340, with it potentially having 100-150+ seats more.
The A340-600 and 777-300ER have similar cabin floor areas, so whichever way LX went, they should have seen a similar increase in seats.
I am sure LX will keep First Class at 1+2+1 on the 77W and Business Class at 2+2+2. The 77W can fit 3+3+3 with the same seat as 2+4+2 on the A346, but the A346 can fit three more rows due to it's longer cabin (more if they went with the underfloor lavatory like LH's A346s), so total Economy seats would probably be close between them.
r2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2274 posts, RR: 1 Reply 59, posted (3 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 32014 times:
A very cold day in hell indeed!
Quoting LXLucien (Reply 25): But the small number tells another story too.
For me it's just an interim solution till the A350 is ready, also maybe to get some pressure on Airbus to get cracking with the production (or should I say building, licensing etc.)
I mean, they want to replace 14 A340 with 6 77W? And add new routes?
These aircraft are due from 2016 onwards and I'm sure LH could get decent A350 delivery slots not much later than that. And why go through the hassle of introducing a handful of a new type, retrain crews, etc, for a short-term stopgap solution? I think we must assume that the order will be topped up by more 77W's (and more A333's until the remaining A343's are replaced) and that this is part of a longer-term widebody strategy (yet to be revealed or decided). Otherwise, they could have easily leased some planes.
Quoting starbucks (Reply 24): I think we can assume the 70 neo's will have the GTF hanging under it's wings??
Not necessarily - LH hasn't hesitated to have both IAE & CFM on their OEO's... they could go for both again on NEO's.
scouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3267 posts, RR: 10 Reply 60, posted (3 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 31896 times:
There was a link a while back that suggested that these A380s were 'from within the existing' backlog - a wonder if this means a cancellation or a deferral as LH picked up two of QFs deferred slots in 2011. UU are very much struggling and have two on order......
AngMoh From Singapore, joined Nov 2011, 355 posts, RR: 0 Reply 61, posted (3 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 31789 times:
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 56): If so, they will most likely not order the B777-9. Which is more or less the same size. And would be quite a lot more efficient. So I am not so sure about LH taking the options they have on the B748i if they might be going for the B777-8 or 9 for that matter.
On the other hand, they did order 2 additional A380's again. This makes for their third individual A380 order.
The 77W order for LX shows that the 346 still does the job for LH. If it did not do the job for LH, they would be better off to transfer some 346's to LX to ensure compatibility with the rest of the LX fleet and invest in the 77W for LH and grow the fleet over time. They did not and now they can go for 351 or 779, and I think they go for 351 to have a more cost effective 9-abreast layout but they are not in a hurry and can spend some more time negotiating for a better deal based on hard data instead of powerpoints.
anfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 292 posts, RR: 10 Reply 62, posted (3 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 31587 times:
Quoting TheAviator380 (Reply 49): I would love to see 77W in LX livery..will be smashing.
Will be very white, chiefly.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 59): The A340-600 and 777-300ER have similar cabin floor areas, so whichever way LX went, they should have seen a similar increase in seats.
I though that was part of the exercise - replacing some of the A340s while also adding capacity for some routes (primarily to Latin America, I believe).
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26940 posts, RR: 83 Reply 64, posted (3 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 31482 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 50): LH still has 20 options for the 747-8 and have stated they're pleased with how it's working for them. As such, I expect them to convert most or all of those options down the road.
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 56): If so, they will most likely not order the B777-9.
With LH moving to a more premium-heavy configuration, the extra floor-space of the 747-8 could have an impact.
Losing the upper deck of the 747-8 reduces the Business Class seat count by 32. And the loss of the nose A zone means those 8 First Class suites have to be moved back and that will cost another 12 Business Class seats. And the 747-8's cabin is about three meters longer than the 777-9.
So assuming LH puts Economy at Door 3 aft on the 777-9 like they do on the 747-8 and use the same 10-abreast seating, that would offer the following rough seat count: 284 [ 8F | 54C | 222Y ]
With that capacity, it would make a decent A340-600 replacement and slot between the 362-seat 747-8 and 217 seat A330-300.
Quoting r2rho (Reply 60): These (77W) aircraft are due from 2016 onwards and I'm sure LH could get decent A350 delivery slots not much later than that.
They would be unlikely to be able to get A350-900s in that time frame and certainly not the A350-1000.
LX's only two options were the 777-300ER or A340-600. And they could have had A340-600s more or less immediately (there are said to be frames available for lease or purchase).
YULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2115 posts, RR: 6 Reply 65, posted (3 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 31152 times:
Quoting r2rho (Reply 60): These aircraft are due from 2016 onwards and I'm sure LH could get decent A350 delivery slots not much later than that. And why go through the hassle of introducing a handful of a new type, retrain crews, etc, for a short-term stopgap solution? I
Well, assuming the A350 delivery does not run late, that the A350 once in service does not run into problems. If in doubt about my statements, we do have the A380 and 787 precedents, I hate to say... (and when the A350 time comes, I would absolutely LOVE to be proven wrong about this statement!)
LX is better off with 77W if they want capacity sooner than later, and a guaranteed reliable aircraft. Re crew training etc..., the 777 is not a fully new a/c in the LH group, OS has had it for a long time (though the "classic" 772ER), and LH cargo is getting there too...
But yes, I am too very surprised at LX going for the 77W. Nonetheless, I'm sure they will find great uses for them though. Hopefully, they remain Swiss and don't go downhill (i.e., stuffing a dreadful 10 abreast. there are sub-par carriers like AF or KL to take care of this...)
Quoting na (Reply 2): NEOs no surprise at all, the shorthaul fleet will remain rather boring.
Well, for what's available anyway... that or those ugly 737s!
Quoting TheAviator380 (Reply 49): EK have utilized cabin space very nicely, 10 abreast or 11 honestly doesn't make much difference.
You must have meant 9 or 10. Well, 10 is less than ideal and I would go out my way or cheapest fare to avoid it and take another plane.
Quoting OryCdg (Reply 36): Switzerland being a premium market, and Zürich in particular (no chance now for GVA),
What do you mean about GVA being no chance? GVA is quite premium too, just a much smaller market than ZRH, and not a hub for LX, so the 77W is not to be expected at GVA on a regular basis. Other than this, I think it is quite a solid (albeit small) market.
SASMD82 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 561 posts, RR: 0 Reply 66, posted (3 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 30728 times:
Nice order again for LH/LX! When will KL/AF follow with a nice narrow body fleet order?
Honestly, I really really don't understand why they ordered 77W. Even though it is a good plane, in terms of passenger comfort, it is a step down compared to 748/A346. And introducing yet another type in their exotic mix of planes (LH group). Beside, the 77W is much bigger than their current biggest plane, the A343/A333. Unless they have big expansion plans.
Moving forward some A346 from LH towards LX and LH getting more A333/748 would have been more logical in my opinion.
Pressumably they have got a nice price from Boeing.
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6953 posts, RR: 7 Reply 67, posted (3 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 30225 times:
Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 52): It seems quite a leap in capacity to go from A340 to B77W
From what i understand they've been starving for capacity on some routes already. The only surprise here is that they're not getting them for 3 years.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 53): LH Cargo does have the 777 Freighter coming, so there is parts commonality there. OS also flies the 777-200ER, so there is crew training commonality.
AFAIK, there is no sharing of crews between OS, LX, LH.
Ferroviarius From Norway, joined Mar 2007, 179 posts, RR: 0 Reply 72, posted (3 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 29460 times:
Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 1): A bit sad about that rumours were true about the Swiss 77W. I had hoped LH would come around that plane though what can you do when there´s no other way currently when they need something of that size. To me the 77W is like McDonalds, bland, and to be found everywhere.
Indeed, indeed, indeed! To my mind a loud and nasty shadderbox. Just as the 141R locos were, as compared to the 141P...
I'd nuance a bit. It's an almost entirely white aircraft on an almost entirely white background.
You'd barely see it if it wasn't for the two bits of red...
I've seen more exciting.
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
Ferroviarius From Norway, joined Mar 2007, 179 posts, RR: 0 Reply 75, posted (3 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 29307 times:
Quoting TheAviator380 (Reply 48): Seriously? 77W is one of the efficient aircrafts out there. It's wonderful performance and good comfort makes it very fantastic aircraft, having sat on 77W good number of times now.
To my mind: It is loud, fat, short and 3-3-3.
Is there at least any chance they would go for 2-5-2?
avek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4094 posts, RR: 18 Reply 76, posted (3 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 28980 times:
The 77W is the only game in town for a plane in its size class. While the 77Ws are expensive -- and generally not going to be taken up from this point onwards except by operators topping up current orders, or (like Swiss) who are desperate for the capacity -- it's still a much, much smarter bet than acquiring used 346s. It's worth remembering that aircraft acquisitions include a multitude of financial factors, including projected aircraft valuations and resale values.
While the 77W is a tough financial proposition as it is (which explains why carriers like United and Delta are unlikely to acquire them), the 346 is far worse, practically guaranteed to be financially underwater for any operator given how few were built, the fact they're no longer seriously offered for sale as new-builds, the availability of a better-performing replacement now (77W), and the certainty of a new Airbus plane that will match or exceed A346 specs within the decade.
mcg From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 679 posts, RR: 0 Reply 77, posted (3 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 28883 times:
Quoting skipness1E (Reply 46): In what sense can one steel tube be said to be "much more confortable" against another steel tube from a comparable carrier.
UALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2348 posts, RR: 2 Reply 78, posted (3 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 28748 times:
Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 75): Is there at least any chance they would go for 2-5-2?
I believe that the connectivity of the AVOD system favors (requires?) 3-3-3. But, yes, since I mostly fly by myself, I very much prefer a window seat in a 2-whatever-2 layout over a window seat in a 3-whatever-3 layout. So I favor the 767, 330, 340 and the old 777 in 2-5-2 over the new 777 in 3-3-3, 757, 747 and 380.
But, of course, it could still be worse, if LX goes for 3-4-3...
davs5032 From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 363 posts, RR: 0 Reply 79, posted (3 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 28643 times:
Quoting YTZ (Reply 63): No CSeries. Sadly, my prediction came through.
But with no A319 ordered, the door remains open. Wasn't there something on the pre-order LH thread saying they were planning on ordering 30 more Cseries after first flight?
Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 66): Honestly, I really really don't understand why they ordered 77W. Even though it is a good plane, in terms of passenger comfort, it is a step down compared to 748/A346.
As compared to the A346, that's correct, but I disagree as to the 748. With the presumed 9-abreast Y cabin, the 777 allows for more pax space than on the 748. Of course, this is irrelevant, b/c we know that most pax won't pay a premium for an extra inch of space anyway..
anfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 292 posts, RR: 10 Reply 81, posted (3 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 28349 times:
Quoting avek00 (Reply 76): While the 77W is a tough financial proposition as it is (which explains why carriers like United and Delta are unlikely to acquire them), the 346 is far worse, practically guaranteed to be financially underwater for any operator given how few were built, the fact they're no longer seriously offered for sale as new-builds, the availability of a better-performing replacement now (77W), and the certainty of a new Airbus plane that will match or exceed A346 specs within the decade.
Well, partly for the reasons you outlined, the A340 is not just "no longer seriously offered", but officially out of production - has been since November 2011.
I wouldn't agree that the A340-500/-600 (of which a combined 131 were built) are necessarily "financially underwater" for any operator. LH seem quite happy with theirs, for example, and the relatively low cost of used A340-500/-600 can make up for the operating efficiencies you gain with 77W. It's not like the A340-600 is a terribly inefficient plane - it's just that the 77W beats it hands-down.
YTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1482 posts, RR: 23 Reply 83, posted (3 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 27655 times:
I would think that LX would lease aircraft to provide immediate lift and enable them to buy a more efficient replacement down the road. Buying (as opposed to leasing) the 5 77Ws is what seems odd to me.
TheAviator380 From UK - England, joined Feb 2013, 192 posts, RR: 0 Reply 84, posted (3 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 27593 times:
Quoting TheAviator380 (Reply 48):
Seriously? 77W is one of the efficient aircrafts out there. It's wonderful performance and good comfort makes it very fantastic aircraft, having sat on 77W good number of times now.
To my mind: It is loud, fat, short and 3-3-3.
Is there at least any chance they would go for 2-5-2?
Best,
Ferroviarius
____________________
2-5-2 is the worst config for I would say. I wouldn't sit in any aisle seat unless I am flying with 4 other people whom I know but still it's so cramped and I would avoid it for sure. Good for 2-2 people but 5? nah, no chance.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26940 posts, RR: 83 Reply 85, posted (3 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 27508 times:
Quoting YTZ (Reply 83): Buying (as opposed to leasing) the 5 77Ws is what seems odd to me.
There may not have been sufficient (or any) available frames or those that were available might not have been available for the timeframe LX is looking at. Also, if LX is planning to hold on to them for some time, a purchase might have made more sense.
Ferroviarius From Norway, joined Mar 2007, 179 posts, RR: 0 Reply 86, posted (3 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 27331 times:
Btw, while my personal impression is that GE90ed 777s are even louder than TRENT895ed, "feeling vibrations and hearing noise" is, of course, highly subjective. What do you prefer, GE90ed or TRENT895ed 777s?
Right now the most calm and noiseless craft is A380. Again I have traveled on it and certainly I felt much more peaceful even in Y in 380 cabin than any other aircraft.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26940 posts, RR: 83 Reply 90, posted (3 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 27143 times:
Quoting TheAviator380 (Reply 89): Right now the most calm and noiseless craft is A380. Again I have traveled on it and certainly I felt much more peaceful even in Y in 380 cabin than any other aircraft.
Yes, I find the A380 to be the quietest commercial airliner in service, though I like that LH added additional noise insulation to the nose of the 747-8 (as well as only having eight suites).
Interesting, didn't know that. Unfortunately I don't think I will get ride on 747-8 i in near future, as I don't fly on that route which they have at the moment which uses 747-8 i and don't think they will order any more 747-8 i soon to deploy on more routes .
bueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 547 posts, RR: 0 Reply 93, posted (3 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 26440 times:
Quoting autothrust (Reply 41): They could use A340-600 instead (as does LH)which are much more comfortable then the 777 and the fuel burn difference wouldn't be that big.
The fuel burn difference is pretty massive. The difference in efficiency between the A346 and the 77W (per pax per mile) is well into the double digits.
Quoting vegas005 (Reply 43): I'm just surprised they wait until 2016 to start up the 777.
wingman From Spain, joined May 1999, 1855 posts, RR: 5 Reply 94, posted (3 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 26260 times:
Boeing must be thrilled to confirm the supplier duopoly at LH! 27 planes ordered out of 300 in 20 years means they're almost at 10%!! And now that LH has confirmed that they have no interest in the 787 they will likely drop to 7% by the end of the year.
817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 1488 posts, RR: 1 Reply 95, posted (3 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 25352 times:
Well, it looks like the fear of LX getting 77W's turned out to be true.... Im reading all the negatives from the 77W haters and im doing this to every one of them:
Seriously though, isnt it a bit early to speculate about the configuration? I think there are more important things to worry about.... The 77W will be a good aircraft for LX and should serve them well. 6 Aircraft should be enough, not sure why people are complaining about the number... And remember they can always top up the order if they need to...
Anyway Congrats to LX and Boeing for the order, as well as Airbus for the A320 order
Blast Reality, Burst it into shreds! Banishment, This World!
autothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1489 posts, RR: 8 Reply 96, posted (3 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 24522 times:
Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 95): it looks like the fear of LX getting 77W's turned out to be true
Laugh as much as you want this would never happened if LH would't be in control of LX.
Instead they would rather have bought a 787 and A350 which offers real improvements in passanger comfort,noise,efficiency over the 777 which is a step backwards.(for LX)
Quoting bueb0g (Reply 93): The fuel burn difference is pretty massive. The difference in efficiency between the A346 and the 77W (per pax per mile) is well into the double digits.
Not entirely correct according some (A340 Pilots on A.net) that depending on the route the A346 can even be more efficient then the 77W.
I suggest you to read the several comparison threads about it.
BlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2533 posts, RR: 24 Reply 97, posted (3 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 24135 times:
Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 95): Well, it looks like the fear of LX getting 77W's turned out to be true.... Im reading all the negatives from the 77W haters and im doing this to every one of them:
Fortunately, most people are a little more mature and have offered up their opinions, usually with the caveat that the B77W is an admirable machine; where people are struggling is not through hatred for the aircraft, but for the fact they are struggling to understand the rationale behind the order.
But each to their own; you call it hatred, I call it interest. :::shrug:::
Rgds
So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
skipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 2425 posts, RR: 0 Reply 98, posted (3 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 23759 times:
How is the B77W a step back from a second hand A343? I think peep are really, really overstating the generational issue. BA, Emirates and QR are still taking new machines from the production line. Not sure Swiss is in the vangaurd of the industry, they're a quality, small player.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26940 posts, RR: 83 Reply 99, posted (3 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 23681 times:
Quoting autothrust (Reply 96): (A 77W purchase) would never happened if LH (wasn't) in control of LX.
I've long argued that a 77W order would never happen because LH was in control of LX, so I must admit that I'm somewhat shocked they actually allowed LX to do so.
UALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2348 posts, RR: 2 Reply 100, posted (3 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 23412 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 99): I've long argued that a 77W order would never happen because LH was in control of LX
Why? A standalone LX would have trouble justifying the addition of an oddball sub-fleet of 6 77Ws. However, the LH group has a bunch of 777Fs, a handful of 772s at OS, and 777 expertise in LH Technik, so that now the whole thing doesn't look so weird.
817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 1488 posts, RR: 1 Reply 101, posted (3 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 23381 times:
Quoting autothrust (Reply 96): Laugh as much as you want this would never happened if LH would't be in control of LX.
Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 97): Fortunately, most people are a little more mature and have offered up their opinions,
Well Sorry If I found it funny... Especially since most claimed it would never happen...
Quoting skipness1E (Reply 98): How is the B77W a step back from a second hand A343? I think peep are really, really overstating the generational issue. BA, Emirates and QR are still taking new machines from the production line. Not sure Swiss is in the vangaurd of the industry, they're a quality, small player.
Blast Reality, Burst it into shreds! Banishment, This World!
Because I believe LH and the LH Group would prefer to be an all-Airbus operator and select another OEM only when Airbus does not offer a viable alternative (747-8, 777F, CS100).
I guess one would argue that with the A340-600 no longer on offer, the 777-300ER was the only other option, especially if the plan is to operate the planes for a very long time (making LH/LX uncomfortable with purchasing used A340-600 frames).
UALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2348 posts, RR: 2 Reply 103, posted (3 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 22696 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 102): Because I believe LH and the LH Group would prefer to be an all-Airbus operator and select another OEM only when Airbus does not offer a viable alternative
Why would LH do that? It wouldn't seem very smart. Plus, they currently operate 737 classics, 744s, 748s, MD-11Fs, 777Fs, 767s and 772s (at OS), and others I may be forgetting... In particular, being the first (and for a long time the only) 748 customer seems to be enough to discredit any notion of LH as a future Airbus-only operator....
glideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1548 posts, RR: 0 Reply 104, posted (3 months 6 days ago) and read 22625 times:
Quoting TheAviator380 (Reply 89): Right now the most calm and noiseless craft is A380. Again I have traveled on it and certainly I felt much more peaceful even in Y in 380 cabin than any other aircraft.
Obviously never been on an LH 748-i.
"All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved"
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2498 posts, RR: 21 Reply 106, posted (3 months 6 days ago) and read 22247 times:
We often joke about reporters not knowing what they write about,, there is a note in a Wall street cheat sheet that says LH ordered 100 planes from Airbus and 8 from Boeing including 6 777s and 2 A380s .... humor for the day
wingman From Spain, joined May 1999, 1855 posts, RR: 5 Reply 107, posted (3 months 6 days ago) and read 22084 times:
I think his point, which I agree with and which is supported by the facts, is that LH seems to only order a non-Airbus product when there is no clear Airbus alternative. The 748 is such a glaring exception in that the order is 20 aircraft of 27 total passenger aircraft ordered by LH from Boeing in the past 20 years (and the 380 is arguably the alternative). Airbus doesn't make freighters, or didn't when LH Cargo was ordering new cargo jets, and any others mentioned I believe were ordered by LH Group companies prior to their acquisition by LH.
I honestly had some hope when many LH insiders on this site were talking about imminent launch orders for the 787-10 but that idea has now been squashed by the horse itself. The reality is that once they order the 350s their entire mainline fleet will be comprised of 95% Airbus and 5% Other. If you're pedantic you can argue that's not being dependent on a single supplier but the reality is that you really kinda are. I guess some of us are bummed because we thought there was some light for Boeing at LH. But it looks like their days are numbered outside of cargo.
pnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2057 posts, RR: 12 Reply 108, posted (3 months 6 days ago) and read 21956 times:
Quoting TheAviator380 (Reply 48): To me the 77W is like McDonalds, bland, and to be found everywhere.
____________________
Seriously? 77W is one of the efficient aircrafts out there. It's wonderful performance and good comfort makes it very fantastic aircraft, having sat on 77W good number of times now.
I would love to see 77W in LX livery..will be smashing. EK have utilized cabin space very nicely, 10 abreast or 11 honestly doesn't make much difference. Cabin looks more crowded and small aisle that's the main difference I have noticed so far (speaking from my experience as I have sat on BA/EK/AI 777 so far).
LH needed domestic revamping actually, some of their 737 getting too old now. Good to see more sale of A380 too.
[Edited 2013-03-14 06:56:39]
I agree with your response to the above quote and others' comments that the B777 is boring. Well what I would say it is a good thing that some Anetters don't run airlines. A McDonald's franchise is a massive money maker for the owner. While I don't like their food, if I was a multi-millionaire looking for good positive income I would buy a franchise have my franchise fee paid down quickly and starting the major cash flow to my bank account. That is the difference between a business person and an aviation fan. These are the same people that think B748's and A380;s belong in every airline's fleet in order to "keep up". While they order "interesting" aircraft might be good for the spotter but bad for the airline in the next slowdown, as they are hemorrhaging cash.
Ferroviarius From Norway, joined Mar 2007, 179 posts, RR: 0 Reply 109, posted (3 months 6 days ago) and read 21553 times:
Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 95): Well, it looks like the fear of LX getting 77W's turned out to be true.... Im reading all the negatives from the 77W haters and im doing this to every one of them:
Well, 817Dreamliiner, at least in my case I do not "hate any machine". What "hate" actually is might be quite difficult to define. I do not think it is the direct antithesis to "love", which antithesis, to my mind, is "indifference" or "unconcern". However, it is what kind of machine I prefer, in this case: which kind of machine I prefer for travelling.
And, having been many times on 777s and 340s, the latter is, to my mind, the more comfortable one, and the considerably more comfortable one, specfically because of lower noise and machine vibration - the latter of which you do not get read of by any kind of ear phones - and because of the fact that there is at least one more persons sitting in one row in Y enforcing either a 3-3-3 or 2-5-2 seating instead of the 2-4-2. This said and keeping in mind other environmental issues I do admit that the 773ER is less of an air polluter than a 346.
n93109 From United States of America, joined May 2008, 44 posts, RR: 0 Reply 110, posted (3 months 6 days ago) and read 21586 times:
All,
Are we talking about the entire flight b/c I question if the A380 is that quiet ahead of the engines on board ahead of the engines. From my experience, the 748 and 787 are almost silent. Having flown on the 748I in Lufthansa Business Class (seat 82A in dome) last year... it is almost a silent plane which is incredibly boring even on takeoff. Like on the UA 787 I fly on LAX to IAH with the GE Engines, you can barely hear the engines on takeoff a slight whine and very little buzz saw. On the other hand, the A380 seems to have the traditional growl... which by the way I am completely obsessed with and devastated that these new GE's have the lining that has all but eliminated it.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26940 posts, RR: 83 Reply 111, posted (3 months 6 days ago) and read 21466 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 102): Because I believe LH and the LH Group would prefer to be an all-Airbus operator and select another OEM only when Airbus does not offer a viable alternative (747-8, 777F, CS100).
Quoting ZRH (Reply 105): That's wrong. LH always said that they don't want to depend on only one manufacturer.
Yes they have, but their purchasing history during that time shows a preference for Airbus when Airbus offers a comparable / competitive product, as wingman noted above. And LH now appear to have formally written-off the 787, at least for themselves. Yes, they are looking at the 777X and if they do buy it either to the exclusion of the A350 or in similar numbers, that will go a long way to shut me up about their purchasing preferences.
And I don't begrudge LH their choices. I like the A320, A330, A340 and A380 families and do a fair bit of flying with LH on those families. And should they choose only the A350, that's certainly not going to be a decision that would inspire me to book away from LH.
anfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 292 posts, RR: 10 Reply 112, posted (3 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 20703 times:
Quoting wingman (Reply 108): I think his point, which I agree with and which is supported by the facts, is that LH seems to only order a non-Airbus product when there is no clear Airbus alternative. The 748 is such a glaring exception in that the order is 20 aircraft of 27 total passenger aircraft ordered by LH from Boeing in the past 20 years (and the 380 is arguably the alternative).
Didn't you just undermine your own argument by giving an example that clearly contradicts your hypothesis?
Also, for the sake of accuracy, your numbers aren't correct. The 747-8i order has been reduced to 19, and the total number of airplanes LH Group ordered from Boeing in the last 20 years is more than twice what you state - including the 747-8i and the yet-to-be-finalised 77W order, LH Group ordered the following planes between January 1993 and end of February 2013:
6x 747-400
19x 747-8i
3x 737-300
6x 777-300ER
14x MD-11F
5x 777F
Total of 53 planes, not including the 8 777F operated by LH/DHL joint venture AeroLogix.
Sure, Airbus got more orders out of LH in the same timeframe, but LH is still far off from being a single-source airline.
Quoting wingman (Reply 108): Airbus doesn't make freighters, or didn't when LH Cargo was ordering new cargo jets, and any others mentioned I believe were ordered by LH Group companies prior to their acquisition by LH.
They did. When LH ordered the MD-11F, Airbus was still making the A300F, and when LH Cargo ordered the 777F, the A330F had already entered service. Sure, A300F and A330F are in different size categories to MD-11F/777F - but that just goes to show that LH order the planes that suit them, irrespective of manufacturer.
Generally, I think your whole point of LH allegedly being Airbus-first is kind of quashed with this very order, which includes 77W - a type quite a few people (myself included) didn't expect to figure at all in LH Group's plans.
Quoting wingman (Reply 108): I honestly had some hope when many LH insiders on this site were talking about imminent launch orders for the 787-10 but that idea has now been squashed by the horse itself.
How so? It's been known that the 787/A350/777X wasn't even part of the negotiations leading to the current order, as LH stated that they were going to decide on a long-haul order in autumn.
douglasyxz From Germany, joined Jan 2013, 70 posts, RR: 0 Reply 113, posted (3 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 20608 times:
When guessing about present and future orders for a/c one should not forget LH is running its Score program with a rather high goal in terms of cost decrease. All orders have been and will be placed with the objection to save costs, improve competitiveness and keep the company making a profit.
All intra-European flights will soon be operated by 4U (except those out of FRA and MUC) with an impact on cockpit crew, FAs and ground staff - imagine how much trouble is ahead! Not to forget the loyal customers that are upset regarding the latest changes within Miles&More FT program.
I think the decision for the replacement of LH's 340 won't be a home run for Airbus, today much less than years before and in 5 years time even less. LH can't do anything but have an even closer look at the figures in order to stay healthy for the future. That given, no one can predict today what will be the outcome of their decision in autumn. Like it or not, it's gonna be an interesting time ahead.
Hamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2669 posts, RR: 59 Reply 115, posted (3 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 20432 times:
Quoting LXLucien (Reply 25): But the small number tells another story too.
Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 51): I also don't see where this order fits the Lufthansa mantra that fleet commonality is one of the keys to future financial prosperity. Six B77Ws; six! It's such an oddball number in such a huge family of companies.
Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 53): I am assuming these 77W's will start to replace the A340's, but there are 14 in fleet...
I'm quite surprised that, after 112 posts on this subject, no one has correlated this supposed 'contradiction' (14 A343's vs. only 6 77W's) with ALC's recent top-up of the latter. . .
Quoting airbazar (Reply 67): When the competition all around them is flying A350's, 787's and A380's, they will struggle to stay competitive.
Does that mean they aren't competitive now? Afterall, they (and LH, for that matter) are currently flying 14 A343's around when the competition all around them are flying A330's and 777's. . .
Quoting autothrust (Reply 80): The 777 is a fine plane, but not as passenger point of view.
This should read "but not as my point of view." I'd rather you not speak for me. I'll admit I've never flown a 10-abreast 777. However, between the 777's and Airbii I have flown, I'll take the 777 anyday. I always book a window-seat, and I've found I'm more comfortable against the sidewall on a 777 than an A330. But honestly, it entirely depends on the airline itself, not the aircraft.
I have no problem what-so-ever when people have personal preferences. I certainly have my own. But I admit it irratates me greatly when anyone makes these broad, sweeping statements that try to encompass their own bias into everyone elses. And as this single thread clearly shows - "passenger preference" is entirely dependant on the individual passenger.
Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 51): It leaves me leaning towards the suggestion that this may have been an affordable way, in a predominantly Airbus order, to keep Boeing involved with Lufthansa group and keep them keen on future RFP pricings.
Unlike, say, FR & Airbus or IB & Boeing ( ), LH and Boeing have enough mutual respect and admiration for each other that I seriously don't think LH "needed" to do anything to keep Boeing 'keen.' LH/LX are getting the 77W because that's what they want.
LXLucien From Switzerland, joined Mar 2005, 223 posts, RR: 4 Reply 117, posted (3 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 20104 times:
Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 116): I'm quite surprised that, after 112 posts on this subject, no one has correlated this supposed 'contradiction' (14 A343's vs. only 6 77W's) with ALC's recent top-up of the latter. . .
Thanks for bringing that up again, I've thought about it all day but couldn't find another answer than mine.
But LH didn't placed any orders for the A350 yet, so they will have to wait at least till 2020 to get their first delivery!?!
Quoting douglasyxz (Reply 117): Sell or transfer to OS if those are in need for more or bigger a/c. That'll be the other way round as it had happend with OS' 340
Their 772 will then be at least 25 yrs old??
But who knows, it's in 10 years time, A LOT can change...
Quote "Syriana": "Beirut, it's like Paris in the Mid-East"
LXA340 From Switzerland, joined Nov 2006, 2107 posts, RR: 4 Reply 118, posted (3 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 20000 times:
These 6 older generation A343's from the 1990's need to go and it looks like the A346 was for some reason no short term solution. Given the 9 other A343's are slighly more advanced and are only 9 - 10 years old the replacement of this fleet will not begin before 2020.
Given the pilot shortage LX is facing already now, having an extra type in the fleet which will not be allowed to be flown by the same crews as A332 / A343 also makes the fleet planing less flexible, especially if technical problems arise you can't replace a B77W flight with a A343 as the crew at the other end is not trained to fly this aircraft, and issue that will make LX less flexible. Anyway I am sure this sub fleet will be used on fixed routes; From a dispatch side it makes sense for instance to have the 6 planes operate to SIN,HKG,NRT and LAX. To increase dispatch flexibility, for routes where crews usually stay 2 nights, such as LAX or NRT, mixed operations can be done by A343 and B77W, hence like this you got one outstation that has the flexibility to operate the flights with both crews as there is always one of each kind at the outstation.
warden145 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 434 posts, RR: 0 Reply 119, posted (3 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 19882 times:
Quoting ferpe (Reply 21): The little problem is a fuel burn difference per pax of 20%, do you want to pay more to fly 747?
For the record, I am more than willing to, and actually have, paid 20% more to fly on a 747 vs a 777, 767, or A330. I know that I'm in the minority, which is really a shame IMHO...
ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21041 posts, RR: 60 Reply 121, posted (3 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 19635 times:
Quoting SQ22 (Reply 7): Well, some expected part of the order woul have been for the MAX as well. There were also discussions about the C-Series. I think we will see an additional order for the C-Series later, maybe soon after first flight.
Anyone who thought that was delusional. No major EU flag carrier is buying the MAX. Almost all came to the same "independent conclusion" many years ago that the A320 was superior to the 737NG, and those that politically dared not to, well, they have been absorbed by the owners of the bigger boys.
That the 77W got in there is a coup, but if swiss needs a large aircraft, what choice do they have? A380 is too much for them, A333 is too small/not enough range, A359 is years away and probably smaller than they want. One rumor was A346s from LH, but LX wants to make money, not lose money...
Good to see a few more A380s ordered.
Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 116): This should read "but not as my point of view." I'd rather you not speak for me. I'll admit I've never flown a 10-abreast 777. However, between the 777's and Airbii I have flown, I'll take the 777 anyday. I always book a window-seat, and I've found I'm more comfortable against the sidewall on a 777 than an A330. But honestly, it entirely depends on the airline itself, not the aircraft.
Having flown a UA 772 in F and LH A346 in J on the same trip, I couldn't tell you which was louder, because I didn't find either all that quiet. I couldn't tell you which was more "comfortable" because the UA F suite is obviously more comfortable than the LH J, but I couldn't sleep in either (UA is a bit cramped for tall people, is lumpy not flat, and blood flows to your head because it's truly "flat" on a plane that flies pitched up...). Still the most comfortable trip I've ever had was in 1J on the QF 744ER. So all of this talk of A33/40 series v. 777 series is fluff. 747 for the win!
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
SQ22 From Germany, joined Feb 2012, 93 posts, RR: 0 Reply 122, posted (3 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 18994 times:
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 122): That the 77W got in there is a coup, but if swiss needs a large aircraft, what choice do they have? A380 is too much for them, A333 is too small/not enough range, A359 is years away and probably smaller than they want. One rumor was A346s from LH, but LX wants to make money, not lose money...
Well, but maybe LH just needed the A346 for themselves and LX don't wanted used ones from 3rd parties... Who knows.
ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21041 posts, RR: 60 Reply 123, posted (3 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 18871 times:
Quoting SQ22 (Reply 123): Well, but maybe LH just needed the A346 for themselves and LX don't wanted used ones from 3rd parties... Who knows.
The only way LX would get A346s was from LH. Now, true, maybe LH wanted them for themselves, but my guess is LH is looking to replace them closer to 20 years with a new model, or a combination of 748 and A359, but LX can't wait for then to inherit the A346, which would be more of a money loser in 5 years.
For LX's needs, without any other large aircraft in their fleet, what were they to do? Go even larger with the 748? Even larger with the A380? Or take a still profitable 77W? Certainly not buy used ones, which you point out is probably a bad idea.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
bavair From Germany, joined Jul 2011, 106 posts, RR: 0 Reply 124, posted (3 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 17110 times:
I hope I didn't miss anything in this thread, but haven't seen it so far so here we go:
What is going to happen with Swiss' business Class? It's built for the standard Airbus widebody cabin width. I read somewhere that one fo the reasons why LH didn't take up the same business class is that they also opperate planes with other cabin widths (ie. A388, B744 and B748i). However, I think the new business at OS on their tripple 7's is pretty similar to what Swiss flies around, so would they just adapt this?
Again, where has LH ever said they have no interest in the 787? As far as I have ever seen, they have said the 787-8 is too small for LH to operate. And again, LH was on the record last year, at ISTAT actually, of saying they were interested in being the LAUNCH customer for the -10.
And if LH is considering the 777x seriously, that does nothing but make the 787 an even stronger candidate for the entire group as both the 777 and the 787 share a Common Type. Which means there is no additional benefits of adding the A350 over adding the 787 because they both will share the same advantage of common training.
These are the first A380's ordered by LH since they received their first 747-8i, which haven't even been flying for a year yet. LH has said they are happy with the -8i's even in their current form. Once next years batch start coming online, I'm sure they will be even happier with them.
As for 777's, anyone ever just stop to think that MAYBE the 777-300ER's might just happen to be the best aircraft for Swiss?
autothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1489 posts, RR: 8 Reply 126, posted (3 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 16486 times:
Quoting skipness1E (Reply 98):
How is the B77W a step back from a second hand A343?
Reread what i did write please, it's a step backwards compared to a 787 or A350! Undoubtly the 777 is more efficient then a A343.
Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 110): And, having been many times on 777s and 340s, the latter is, to my mind, the more comfortable one, and the considerably more comfortable one, specfically because of lower noise and machine vibration - the latter of which you do not get read of by any kind of ear phones - and because of the fact that there is at least one more persons sitting in one row in Y enforcing either a 3-3-3 or 2-5-2 seating instead of the 2-4-2.
That sums it up perfectly.
Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 116): when people have personal preferences.
Is noise or vibrations a personal preference? Apart from us airliners freaks i doubt it that most passenger welcome noise.
Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 116): However, between the 777's and Airbii I have flown, I'll take the 777 anyday.
I don't hate or dislike Boeing or the 777 itself, for many airlines it's without a doubt the best choice. However i doubt at this time it was the best choice for LX .
Quoting LXA340 (Reply 119): Given the pilot shortage LX is facing already now, having an extra type in the fleet which will not be allowed to be flown by the same crews as A332 / A343 also makes the fleet planing less flexible, especially if technical problems arise
anfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 292 posts, RR: 10 Reply 127, posted (3 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 16475 times:
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 122): Anyone who thought that was delusional. No major EU flag carrier is buying the MAX. Almost all came to the same "independent conclusion" many years ago that the A320 was superior to the 737NG, and those that politically dared not to, well, they have been absorbed by the owners of the bigger boys.
That same conspiracy theory again - which holds as much water as reversing it against US carriers. There is as much political pressure on LH or BA to buy A320 as there is on DL, SW or AA to buy 737. If you have any proof to the contrary, please share it.
pnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2057 posts, RR: 12 Reply 128, posted (3 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 16394 times:
I love the roar on takeoff personally. However noise over a long period of time does cause more fatigue. There is a small element of that in what people attribute to jet lag along with the dehydration on the flight if you don't take measures to combat it. Now I don't know at the levels we are talking about if it has any noticeable difference. I find I am more effected by the seating style and product that the aircraft. I am one of the few who still prefers the old style First Class seating than the newer pods or lay down seats. Old seats with new screens and entertainment would be my choice.
So while I love flying new aircraft, liked AC's A330's even better than the A340's, and love the 77LR and W, the 747 is still my favourite aircraft to fly. Not having been on a B748i I can't really comment but I suspect it would be in my new first place. And I don't currently fly any A380 routes.
Back on topic I love how people read company's minds when they make decisions and forget hard business analysis that goes on behind the scenes. LH has done their homework. What we don't know is price differences and other incentives for choosing the aircraft they did. And as well what other orders might be coming in other orders.
a380900 From France, joined Dec 2003, 1036 posts, RR: 1 Reply 129, posted (3 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 15331 times:
Why is LH adding a380 by increments of two? I guess it´s because of the 20 747-8. They are fine tuning their A380s needs but cannot go bigger than two because the room for VLAs in their fleet is limited.
I guess it has been covered ad nauseum but can someone sum up why they went for the 747-8. Just amazing prices from Boeing? Any chance they create a trend? Do they have freighters too?
ferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 1915 posts, RR: 56 Reply 131, posted (3 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 14867 times:
I think one shall see the LH group purchase of 777 in a somewhat different light. Lufthansa has a large decision coming up on the long term replacement of their entire 340 fleet. Without this move some 6 months before that negotiation Airbus would be pretty sure they had the upper hand, now it makes for a more interesting race seen from Boeing and Airbus and that is exactly what LH group wants.
The fact that the aircraft also fits LX needs, is the most economical in that size class, has good second hand value whenever one wants to change something, LH group is already operating the time and that B had a big delay debt to pay to LH (read 748) makes for a very tacical move by LH with a lot of upside and few downsides.
SandroZRH From Switzerland, joined Feb 2007, 3385 posts, RR: 51 Reply 132, posted (3 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 14795 times:
I dont understand the whole 10-abreast vs. premium carrier debate. Economy class nowadays has got absolutely nothing to do with premium. The reality is that economy class is such a price-sensitive market these days, that going for 9-abreast wont pay off in the long term. People will always book for price, and the fact of the matter is that when going for 10 abreast, you will be able to ask for lower fares, and people will book.
Even if LX will be going for 10-abreast, it doesnt mean that they will become an average trunk-carrier. EK went for 10-abreast, and they are still called a "premium" carrier, even though they are probably a lot closer to being a trunk-carrier than LX are. Again, most peoplein Y will go for price, they wont care about seat configurations, it's the reality we live in.
It's a whole different story for C and F however, and I'm sure LX will keep, if not improve, their renowned product, and remain a premium carrier. This is what true premium carriers seperates from others.
LH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 194 posts, RR: 0 Reply 133, posted (3 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 14744 times:
Quoting a380900 (Reply 130): I guess it has been covered ad nauseum but can someone sum up why they went for the 747-8. Just amazing prices from Boeing? Any chance they create a trend? Do they have freighters too?
The 747-8i has lower trip costs but higher seat costs (~+3%) vs the 380 and has similar amounts of premium seats to the 380 in LH outfit. When you have a premium-heavy route where the back of the bus won't make money, you put a 748 on it and cut your trip costs.
douglasyxz From Germany, joined Jan 2013, 70 posts, RR: 0 Reply 134, posted (3 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 14355 times:
I don't see LX operating 340 and 777 together for too long - instead I think in 2-4 years LX will start replacing the remaining 340. It is true that two different types in such a small fleet seems to be odd, especially when suffering from pilot-shortage. But who says this will be forever? Given the excellent economics of the new type, it will make good money by increasing pax and freight capacity at lower costs. Once this advantage is big enough, LX can easily accept the trouble caused by a new type, which - again - won't remain at 6 pieces forever.
SASMD82 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 561 posts, RR: 0 Reply 135, posted (3 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 14036 times:
Quoting a380900 (Reply 129): Why is LH adding a380 by increments of two? I guess it´s because of the 20 747-8. They are fine tuning their A380s needs but cannot go bigger than two because the room for VLAs in their fleet is limited.
I guess it has been covered ad nauseum but can someone sum up why they went for the 747-8. Just amazing prices from Boeing? Any chance they create a trend? Do they have freighters too?
Because now they went for the 77W as well, they might have the most exotic long range fleet available:
A380
748
77W
77F
346
343
333
77E
763
I totally agree with you. Now they go for the 77W as well, I really wonder why they also fly the 748. Also, on another forum there was someone saying that rationalisations are typically from the 90s. I found that a very strange comment but Lufthansa is showing that you can easily fly fourholers as well as having around 20 types flying around and still making profit.
But to give you an answer, I suspect they have got really nice prices from Boeing.
seahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 109 posts, RR: 0 Reply 137, posted (3 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 13154 times:
Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 135): But to give you an answer, I suspect they have got really nice prices from Boeing.
Probably. We have not heard a thing about LH getting compensated for the delays of the 747-8, the 747-8 being too heavy or the not useable fuel tank in the fin. I think Boeing will have offered them quite a good dea on those 777l in return. Apart from that I would not be surprised to see LH as a launch customer for the 777X. Due to Aerologic´s experience with the 777 it has built up a good reputation within LH.
CARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 711 posts, RR: 1 Reply 138, posted (3 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 13068 times:
Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 135): Also, on another forum there was someone saying that rationalisations are typically from the 90s. I found that a very strange comment but Lufthansa is showing that you can easily fly fourholers as well as having around 20 types flying around and still making profit.
Last year LHs' CEO or fleet planner said they want to reduce the number of aircraft types within LH Group to 3-4 types (IIRC). I think we can assume that sub-types of an aircraft family are not included, otherwise this would be totally different from LHs' current policy of having an aircraft in every size class to cater all markets with the optimal equiptment.
But this also shows that currently there are too many aircraft families in the LH Group and we will see some a rationalisation regarding aircraft families.
Current aircraft families at LH Group (mainline only):
1) A380
2) 747
3) 777
4) A340/A330
5) 767
6) A320
7) 737
737s are on their way out already. Still leaving us with 6 aircraft families. That is were we can speculate which aircraft families will replace 77E/A340/A330/767. IMO with brand new 77Ws and 77Fs ordered now, I see LH replacing these four familes with the 777-8X and -9X. If OS or SN need an aircraft in size smaller than 77W/778 I could see LH ordering either the A359 or the 787-9/10 for their smaller subsidaries (despite them saying the 787 is too small for LH, but perhaps they were only talking about LH itself and not LH Group in this case).
na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9705 posts, RR: 10 Reply 139, posted (3 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 13033 times:
Quoting ka (Reply 136): They will go for 10-abreast. Correct.
So they install the Avoidable class instead of Economy Class? Sad, and I wish them a disappointment with that! 10-abreast in a 777, awful.
Quoting seahawk (Reply 137): Apart from that I would not be surprised to see LH as a launch customer for the 777X. Due to Aerologic´s experience with the 777 it has built up a good reputation within LH.
I havent heard any enthusiastic comments about the 777 from inside LH as compared to the the 748I, but that aside, 777X only, and then only the 777-8, if they decide against the A350.
CARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 711 posts, RR: 1 Reply 140, posted (3 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 12940 times:
Quoting na (Reply 139): So they install the Avoidable class instead of Economy Class? Sad, and I wish them a disappointment with that! 10-abreast in a 777, awful.
Look at it this way: The very large majority of the people flying economy class are not a.netters or frequent flyers. The people building this majority are uninformed flyers, not knowing which aircraft they are on or have been on, not knowing the number of engines, sometimes not really knowing the airline.
It is not black and white, there are a lot of people knowing some of the details, but generally speaking, all the airlines flying around 10-abreast on the 777 are making loads of money with it and don't suffer from low load factors.
As long as the airlines cater the F/C/Y+ pax with the expected standard they can do what the want in Y. Y is a race to the bottom, people flying Y just want cheap/affordable transportation for everyone. There is a group of people wanting more who can not afford to fly C/J/F. For these people most airlines are introducing premium economy on their longhaul fleets. LH is thinking about it, too, as we heard some month ago.
Once again I ask where is the sence in operating 777x side by side with 748??
777x is too big for SN and OS so 787 is needed here, much more then 777x. So IMHO the 787 has the highest chance to be purchased, then 350, and then 777x
CARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 711 posts, RR: 1 Reply 142, posted (3 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 12908 times:
Quoting ZEDZAG (Reply 141): Once again I ask where is the sence in operating 777x side by side with 748??
The -8X is in the 77W/A346 size class and makes sense beside the 748 at an airline as large as LH.
The -9X could be introduced for lower yielding markets with smaller premium classes compared to the 748.
And a -9XER or something like that could replace aging 748s at one point, 15+ years from now. Would be a little bit early for LH, but as sad as I would be, I could see the 748 to be not economical viable anymore in 15 years. Perhaps LH Cargo would take them up, but this is unlikely.
na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9705 posts, RR: 10 Reply 145, posted (3 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 12770 times:
Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 143): Does LX really need a plane the size of the 77W? I was of the understanding the Swiss traffic was relatively thin but high yielding.
Apparently, otherwise they woudnt have ordered such an oddball plane.
Quoting ZEDZAG (Reply 141): Would be a little bit early for LH, but as sad as I would be, I could see the 748 to be not economical viable anymore in 15 years.
Should the 777-9X be considered as a replacement for the 748I so that someone like LH feels compelled to sell them earlier than the planned 20-25 years from now, then even more so the 777-8 and -9 combined together with the A350 will completely wipe-out the 77W and we´ll see hundreds of them being parked in the next decade. Imho thats a far bigger danger for Boeing to consider.
LXLucien From Switzerland, joined Mar 2005, 223 posts, RR: 4 Reply 147, posted (3 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 12679 times:
Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 143): Does LX really need a plane the size of the 77W? I was of the understanding the Swiss traffic was relatively thin but high yielding.
Yes absolutely! Some routes have a really high load, especially cargo.
Now the 77W has a cargo space of 216m^3 and the 343 162m^3.
For this reason the 77W is a good choice!
Now I see the 77W on these routes:
GRU!, BKK!, HKG!, maybe SIN (have to see the loads in a year or so), LAX and SFO.
Especially GRU has a high yield and a high load, so it makes perfectly sens!
Quoting Stitch (Reply 120): Based on current Average Sales Prices and Values, a six-year old 777-200ER will depreciate about 25%.
OK, thank you very much !
Quoting bavair (Reply 124): I hope I didn't miss anything in this thread, but haven't seen it so far so here we go:
What is going to happen with Swiss' business Class? It's built for the standard Airbus widebody cabin width.
SQ22 From Germany, joined Feb 2012, 93 posts, RR: 0 Reply 148, posted (3 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 12589 times:
I have an off-topic question, but maybe here's an insider being able to give an adequate answer:
So far no LH aircraft with the old C-product got the new one, only new deliveries got the new product (but A330 and B748 deliveries only, the A380s have been delivered with the old product).
As far as I know the very first aircraft to be converted to the new C-class will return into service in April (an A346). Why did they need so much time? Any special reasons?
panamair From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4595 posts, RR: 25 Reply 149, posted (3 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 12010 times:
Quoting LXLucien (Reply 147): Now I see the 77W on these routes:
GRU!, BKK!, HKG!, maybe SIN (have to see the loads in a year or so), LAX and SFO.
Especially GRU has a high yield and a high load, so it makes perfectly sens!
LX mentioned in their press release that the 77W will most likely be used on routes to LAX, SFO, JNB, HKG, BKK, SIN, PVG, PEK, and GRU
".....The new Boeing twinjets will be deployed on SWISS’s ultra-long-range routes to
destinations such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, São Paulo, Bangkok, Hong Kong,
Shanghai, Beijing, Johannesburg and Singapore....."
FlyingAY From Finland, joined Jun 2007, 648 posts, RR: 0 Reply 150, posted (3 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 11962 times:
We have LH ordering 108 planes and we have 150 messages discussing the 5.6% of the order.
Naturally the NEOs were expected after the initial order, though many here voiced the chance of a MAX order as well. I was hoping for more A380s though.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 120): Based on current Average Sales Prices and Values, a six-year old 777-200ER will depreciate about 25%.
Relatively little. High resale value of course can mean that it's not impossible that LX would sell the 77Ws out and replace them with A350s, if LH group would decide to go that route...
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6953 posts, RR: 7 Reply 151, posted (3 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 11780 times:
Quoting douglasyxz (Reply 113): All intra-European flights will soon be operated by 4U (except those out of FRA and MUC)
Given that those are the only 2 LH hubs, it leaves exactly how many flights to be operated by 4U? Not many.
Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 115): Does that mean they aren't competitive now? Afterall, they (and LH, for that matter) are currently flying 14 A343's around when the competition all around them are flying A330's and 777's. . .
Good point. LX does have the advantage of being able to pass the higher cost to it's consumers who tend to be less price conscious but in a way the answer is yes. LX's profits have been on the decline, weighed down by increasing fuel costs. LH has a much larger fleet so they can absorb the A343's better. Both LH and LX have been able to balance the less efficient A340's with more efficient A330's. LX has made it clear that they want to replace their A343's and since the A330's became available, LH has removed 7 A340-300's (and 9 A340-200's) from its fleet. That should gives us a good indication about the competitiveness of the A343 in their respective fleets, if there was ever any doubt.
ZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5544 posts, RR: 40 Reply 152, posted (3 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 11773 times:
Quoting panamair (Reply 149): LX mentioned in their press release that the 77W will most likely be used on routes to LAX, SFO, JNB, HKG, BKK, SIN, PVG, PEK, and GRU
SWISS flies all these destinations daily. 6 frames are not enough for that.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7839 posts, RR: 27 Reply 153, posted (3 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 11516 times:
Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 150): We have LH ordering 108 planes and we have 150 messages discussing the 5.6% of the order.
A320s are boring
Quoting airbazar (Reply 151): Given that those are the only 2 LH hubs, it leaves exactly how many flights to be operated by 4U? Not many.
we have BER, HAM DUS CGN HAJ NUE STR who get A319 upwards not only for domstic flights but also many European direct services. That's plenty. 4U employs currently around 40 A310 and that number will increase.
That's a good idea, GVAJFKflyer, and Finnair had this configuration on those MD11s, which I had flown on as a passenger. Not a bad idea, but I do not know whether LX would go for it. It is non standard and I am not quite sure whether the slight move of the longitudinal center of mass axis would be tolerated (even if you could compensate for it by 2-4-3 in one compartment and 3-4-2 in another).
Another question, which comes to my mind here:
LH is going to introduce Premiom Eco (and I do not know whether this will be more "Premium" or more "Eco"), Would LX and OA do the same? 2-4-2 is quite all right on a 777!
Sassiciai From Belgium, joined Jan 2013, 33 posts, RR: 0 Reply 155, posted (3 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 11476 times:
Quoting warden145 (Reply 119): Quoting ferpe (Reply 21):
The little problem is a fuel burn difference per pax of 20%, do you want to pay more to fly 747?
For the record, I am more than willing to, and actually have, paid 20% more to fly on a 747 vs a 777, 767, or A330. I know that I'm in the minority, which is really a shame IMHO...
I also shop around to have flights on aircraft I prefer (or to avoid those I dont like), and will pay more to do that! I try to avoid the B777, because IMHO it's in a noise class of its own, one (or more!) up from everything else!
I'm already advised on these forums that I should wear "noise -suppressing headphones" . I don't "do" headphones at all, so for me the difference between B777 and other widebodies is a real issue, hence one that I try to avoid!
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26940 posts, RR: 83 Reply 156, posted (3 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 11479 times:
Quoting a380900 (Reply 129): I guess it has been covered ad nauseum but can someone sum up why they went for the 747-8.
Because LH have wanted a larger 747 since at least 2001 to slot between the A340-600 and the A380-800.
Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 135): But to give you an answer, I suspect they have got really nice prices from Boeing.
Yes, I am sure LH received a nice price due to being a launch customer and the size of their launch order, but it cannot have been that amazing since Boeing has only been able to secure a few more customers and they have each ordered a handful so Boeing clearly is not willing to discount too much - by their own admission they have declined orders due to the potential customer not willing to pay what Boeing felt was an appropriate price.
anfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 292 posts, RR: 10 Reply 157, posted (3 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 11359 times:
Quoting a380900 (Reply 129): Why is LH adding a380 by increments of two?
They still had two A380 options left from their original order, so I assume this is a conversion of these two options before they expired.
Quoting a380900 (Reply 129): I guess it´s because of the 20 747-8.
19 747-8i - they cancelled the order for one that is being kept by Boeing instead (that particular frame being a bit overweight, aparrently).
Quoting a380900 (Reply 129): Just amazing prices from Boeing? Any chance they create a trend? Do they have freighters too?
Doesn't look like they've created a trend, considering how long ago they ordered the 747-8i and how few airlines have followed their lead. LH doesn't have any 747-8F in operation or on order.
Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 135): I totally agree with you. Now they go for the 77W as well, I really wonder why they also fly the 748.
The 748 is in LH's fleet, the 77W is in LX's fleet. LH's premium-heavy configuration for the 748 probably wouldn't work for LX, so LX is better served by the 77W with its slightly lower capacity - and two fewer engines.
PlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4572 posts, RR: 28 Reply 158, posted (3 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 11308 times:
Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 135): But to give you an answer, I suspect they have got really nice prices from Boeing.
I'm quite certain they did.
Quoting na (Reply 145): Should the 777-9X be considered as a replacement for the 748I so that someone like LH feels compelled to sell them earlier than the planned 20-25 years from now, then even more so the 777-8 and -9 combined together with the A350 will completely wipe-out the 77W and we´ll see hundreds of them being parked in the next decade. Imho thats a far bigger danger for Boeing to consider.
I guess I don't follow? Why would Boeing care if airlines are parking 77W's by the hundreds 10 years from now? That's just that many new 779X's that might be sold as replacements I'd think.
Quoting ZRH (Reply 152): SWISS flies all these destinations daily. 6 frames are not enough for that.
Well, Hamlet69 upthread mentioned the 10 77W's that ALC recently ordered from Boeing - perhaps it will be 16 total frames in the LX fleet?
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26940 posts, RR: 83 Reply 159, posted (3 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 11355 times:
Quoting anfromme (Reply 157): 19 747-8i - they cancelled the order for one that is being kept by Boeing instead (that particular frame being a bit overweight, aparrently).
All of LH's current 747-8's are overweight. They chose to not take it up because Boeing had been using it for testing so the airframe would have been out of specification compared to the rest of their fleet.
EK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 3981 posts, RR: 4 Reply 160, posted (3 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 11111 times:
Quoting FlyingAY (Thread starter): Lufthansa is ordering 102 Airbus planes including A380 and 6 Boeing 777-300 ER (for Swiss)!
70 A320 NEO
30 A320 OEO
6 B77W s
2 A380
Wonderful news... Congratulations LH & Airbus / Boeing!
I've asked the question in the TK Airbus order discussion so thought I'll ask... I'm curious to know why airlines order a mix of NEO & non-NEO aircraft...?
EK413
Qantas and Emirates, connecting the globe 1 stop to 65 destinations
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26940 posts, RR: 83 Reply 161, posted (3 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 11116 times:
Quoting EK413 (Reply 160): I've asked the question in the TK Airbus order discussion so thought I'll ask... I'm curious to know why airlines order a mix of NEO & non-NEO aircraft...?
You order the "old" plane because you have a need for capacity in the near-term.
You order the "new" plane because of long-term capacity needs and replacement of existing "old" planes that are ready for retirement.
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6953 posts, RR: 7 Reply 162, posted (3 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 11060 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 161): You order the "new" plane because of long-term capacity needs and replacement of existing "old" planes that are ready for retirement.
I also wonder what the cost/benefit analysis looks like for the pricier NEO to use on 60 minute segments. Could we see airlines scheduling the OEO on shorter segments and the NEO on longer segments?
anfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 292 posts, RR: 10 Reply 163, posted (3 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 11057 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 159): All of LH's current 747-8's are overweight. They chose to not take it up because Boeing had been using it for testing so the airframe would have been out of specification compared to the rest of their fleet.
Ah - I knew there was something else Thanks for the clarification!
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26940 posts, RR: 83 Reply 164, posted (3 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 11034 times:
Quoting airbazar (Reply 162): I also wonder what the cost/benefit analysis looks like for the pricier NEO to use on 60 minute segments. Could we see airlines scheduling the OEO on shorter segments and the NEO on longer segments?
All these operators will have a mix of both models in their fleets for some time, so it does sound reasonable and logical to me that they would assign the airframes based on which missions best exploit their benefits.
ZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5544 posts, RR: 40 Reply 165, posted (3 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 10838 times:
Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 154): That's a good idea, GVAJFKflyer, and Finnair had this configuration on those MD11s, which I had flown on as a passenger. Not a bad idea, but I do not know whether LX would go for it. It is non standard and I am not quite sure whether the slight move of the longitudinal center of mass axis would be tolerated (even if you could compensate for it by 2-4-3 in one compartment and 3-4-2 in another).
Boeing refers to it as a "commitment". Their press release says the 77W will be shown as an order once it's finalized.
Here is the Airbus press release:
Quoting ZRH (Reply 165): Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 154):
That's a good idea, GVAJFKflyer, and Finnair had this configuration on those MD11s, which I had flown on as a passenger. Not a bad idea, but I do not know whether LX would go for it. It is non standard and I am not quite sure whether the slight move of the longitudinal center of mass axis would be tolerated (even if you could compensate for it by 2-4-3 in one compartment and 3-4-2 in another).
Swissair and SWISS had it on their MD 11.
Many MD-11s had 3-4-2 (or 2-4-3) seating. Swissair and KLM definitely did originally. (KLM's 3-seat unit was on the right side while on Swissair it was on the left side). KLM switched from 2-4-3 to 3-3-3 on MD-11s a few years ago when they installed new seats with PTVs. I think 3-3-3 reduced the number of underseat control boxes needed from 4 to 3 per row.
Several 777 customers also selected 3-4-2 seating on some of their early deliveries. MS had it on their 777-200ERs (no longer operated). There are 2 or 3 others.
dfambro From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 257 posts, RR: 0 Reply 169, posted (3 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 9761 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 168): Several 777 customers also selected 3-4-2 seating on some of their early deliveries. MS had it on their 777-200ERs (no longer operated). There are 2 or 3 others.
columba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 6835 posts, RR: 5 Reply 171, posted (3 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9362 times:
Quoting sweair (Reply 170):
789+777ER would be a nice combo for Swiss?
Either that or 787-10 and 777W. I believe in the longterm Swiss will be Boeing Widebodies and Airbus and Bombardier narrowbodies.
Quoting CARST (Reply 138): Future mainline fleet:
1) A380
2) 747 (-8)
3) 777 (F/W/-8X/-9X)
4) A320
optional 5) 787-9/-10 or A359 (advantage 787: for cockpit commonality with the 77X / advantage A359: LH wanting to order at both manufacturers)
I don´t know if the recent reports that LH has ruled out the 787 as too small are true as it would contradict earlier statements that LH is very interested in the 787-10. I always thought that the 787-10 will be the perfect aircraft for LH. Maybe it is just a miss quote, who knows. But your idea sounds very plausible.
How about the 100 ordered A32X ? Anybody an idea if they all stay with mainline or if they will also be for Swiss, Austrian, Germanwings.....
Germanwings could definitely use more aircraft and they are starting to get A320s now as well.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
4U is due to operate up to 90 planes of which many are to be transferred from mainline. The article does not clearly state if those 90 include the fleet of Eurowings or not.
I think LH ruled out the 788 as too small, but not the 789 or 7810, the 789 is a perfect A343 replacement. The 7810 is more of a A333 replacement.
With the 77W there is a gap down in size to the 789, 350 seats compared to 270 in the 789, a good size range covered with two types, both have decent range as well.
4U is due to operate up to 90 planes of which many are to be transferred from mainline. The article does not clearly state if those 90 include the fleet of Eurowings or not.
Currently 4U operates 34 A319.
Yes, 90 aircraft total, including the 23 CR9 from Eurowings, which will still be "operated by Eurowings, for Germanwings" (kind of weird, since Germanwings was originally born as EW's subsidiary). Germanwings takes over nearly 30 Lufthansa A320s
Each evening, stars come out their daylight hiding places... But one of those, will be my wingtip, passing over...
bueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 547 posts, RR: 0 Reply 176, posted (3 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 8946 times:
Quoting autothrust (Reply 96): Not entirely correct according some (A340 Pilots on A.net) that depending on the route the A346 can even be more efficient then the 77W.
I suggest you to read the several comparison threads about it.
I'd rather refer to the studies done by professional analysts (such as http://www.aircraft-commerce.com/sam...cles/flight_operations_sample.pdf) which shows a 17 - 21 % efficiency shortfall for the A346 on most routes. Plus, if the 77W isn't more efficient, then why is the A340 line currently closed, having been beaten by the more efficient twins, while the 777 continues to enjoy massive success?
We may find twinjets boring, but you can't begrudge airlines for making sound business decisions, as this is.
In a recent article a company source is being quoted that for the widebody order this fall only the A350, 777X and 747-8I are being evaluated. The 787 has been ruled out as being too small. I find that hard to believe given earlier comments from high ranked LH officials such as Nico Buchholz regarding Lufthansa' s interest in the 787-10.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
Quoting douglasyxz (Reply 113):
All intra-European flights will soon be operated by 4U (except those out of FRA and MUC)
Given that those are the only 2 LH hubs, it leaves exactly how many flights to be operated by 4U? Not many.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 153): That's plenty. 4U employs currently around 40 A310 and that number will increase.
Heavy Typo
4U operates 34 A319s, 5 on order. Their fleet will increase to roughly 90 aircraft by mid-2013, excluding the CRJs operated by EW. As you noted correctly, all domestic and continental flights which are not ex MUC or FRA will be handled by 4U, which leaves big gatesways such as BER, CGN, DUS, BER, NUR, HAM and a lot of smaller airports all around Germany.
That's a lot of flights, especially once BER opens (LH released a press statement* in 2011 announcing 35 routes ex BER. Considering only MUC and FRA will be served by LH metal that leaves 33 mostly new routes to be handled by 4U)
Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 150): We have LH ordering 108 planes and we have 150 messages discussing the 5.6% of the order.
Semaex From Germany, joined Nov 2009, 773 posts, RR: 2 Reply 180, posted (3 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 9066 times:
Quoting JU068 (Reply 178): Even if the CRJ 900 aircraft will be operated by Eurowings, will they keep their current livery or will they be repainted as well?
According to german aviation paper AERO Intl they will stay in EW livery for cost reasons. Whether they will be painted with upcoming checks, who knows.
// You know you're an aviation enthusiast when you look at your neighbour's cars and think about fleet commonality.
According to Wikipedia they have a total of six bases: Cologne, Berlin, Dortmund, Hanover, Stuttgart and Hamburg. Will all these airports see some CRJ 900s based there or...?
AngMoh From Singapore, joined Nov 2011, 355 posts, RR: 0 Reply 182, posted (3 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 9044 times:
Quoting bueb0g (Reply 176): I'd rather refer to the studies done by professional analysts (such as http://www.aircraft-commerce.com/sam...cles/flight_operations_sample.pdf) which shows a 17 - 21 % efficiency shortfall for the A346 on most routes. Plus, if the 77W isn't more efficient, then why is the A340 line currently closed, having been beaten by the more efficient twins, while the 777 continues to enjoy massive success?
The report states that it is 17-21% "per trip" but the also that A346 carries more payload. They also state that you can not make a blanket comparison unless you take the exact seating on a case by case basis.
The 77W is more efficient and was one of the reasons for A340 to be taken out of production. But if the A346 was really this bad being 17-21% less efficient per seat, then LH would probably have initiated replacement ASAP. It appears that although the A346 has higher fuel costs, they are not that high yet that they cancel out the lower capital costs and the continue to do their job profitably in the fleet.
We are not talking here about buying brand new 77Ws vs A346 - that would not be a contest. But if you talk about replacing existing A346s with new 77Ws, it appears that there is no business case for that either.
Semaex From Germany, joined Nov 2009, 773 posts, RR: 2 Reply 183, posted (3 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 8979 times:
Quoting JU068 (Reply 181): According to Wikipedia they have a total of six bases: Cologne, Berlin, Dortmund, Hanover, Stuttgart and Hamburg. Will all these airports see some CRJ 900s based there or...?
I had a look at Wiki now too, but I cannot find the information you are quoting. According to their website EW CRJs are based in DUS and HAM and I highly doubt anything is going to change there.
As for the A319s, all except MUC and FRA, with bases all over Germany.
// You know you're an aviation enthusiast when you look at your neighbour's cars and think about fleet commonality.
KarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 2359 posts, RR: 6 Reply 184, posted (3 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 8970 times:
Quoting a380900 (Reply 129): Why is LH adding a380 by increments of two? I guess it´s because of the 20 747-8. They are fine tuning their A380s needs but cannot go bigger than two because the room for VLAs in their fleet is limited.
Nothing strange here, LH is just firming up their options (5). They first ordered 15 units in 2001, than 2 in 2010 and now 2 more again. And they still have 1 option left.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 49): Which is interesting, since the 787-9 is the same size as than their A330-300s / A340-300s and the 787-10 is sized between the A350-900 and A350-1000.
Too small can also mean not enough range. Just a guess: the 787-9 is physically too small and the 787-10X won't have the desired range?
Maybe this is an interim solution and as soon as the remaining A340 needs to be replaced around 2020 LX will go for an all A350 fleet and transfer the B77W's to LH cargo
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2216 posts, RR: 4 Reply 187, posted (3 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 8546 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting autothrust (Reply 80): I just worry and notice the comfort and service of LX going down the hill.
How is this acquisition going to have any impact on the service of LX? The two are not interrelated.
Quoting autothrust (Reply 80): The 777 is a fine plane, but not as passenger point of view.
This is only your opinion. Please do not speak for the rest of the flying public. You certainly do not speak for me.
Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 115): This should read "but not as my point of view." I'd rather you not speak for me. I'll admit I've never flown a 10-abreast 777. However, between the 777's and Airbii I have flown, I'll take the 777 anyday. I always book a window-seat, and I've found I'm more comfortable against the sidewall on a 777 than an A330. But honestly, it entirely depends on the airline itself, not the aircraft.
I have no problem what-so-ever when people have personal preferences. I certainly have my own. But I admit it irratates me greatly when anyone makes these broad, sweeping statements that try to encompass their own bias into everyone elses. And as this single thread clearly shows - "passenger preference" is entirely dependant on the individual passenger.
Well said. We all have preferences, but they have no relevance to the thread at hand. Like you, the use of statements saying "passengers prefer" one aircraft or another is one of my pet hates. It is entirely a subjective matter.
Quoting LXA340 (Reply 118): it looks like the A346 was for some reason no short term solution.
I would imagine the fact that the A346 is no longer in production may have left LX with little choice. I was expecting LX to buy used A346s, actually, so this order is as much a surprise to me (albeit a pleasant one) as it is to others. Evidently LX preferred brand new aircraft, which leaves them with little option other than the 777-300ER.
Quoting autothrust (Reply 126): Is noise or vibrations a personal preference? Apart from us airliners freaks i doubt it that most passenger welcome noise.
Quoting Sassiciai (Reply 155): I try to avoid the B777, because IMHO it's in a noise class of its own, one (or more!) up from everything else!
This noise "issue" is another subjective opinion based on personal anecdotal experience (or in some cases, I suspect, vicariously through the experiences of others). This "issue" has been blown out of all proportion.
Quoting AngMoh (Reply 182): But if you talk about replacing existing A346s with new 77Ws, it appears that there is no business case for that either.
CX, EK and QR disagree. A340-600s were gradually phased out as 777-300ERs became available at CX; EK cancelled their A340-600 order in favour of 777-300ERs and Akbar Al-Baker have stated that if the A340-600's resale value were better, he would have got rid of them already.
The A340-600 is not a bad plane. I'm not saying that it is; but that in some circumstances, replacing them with the 777-300ER does make economic sense.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26940 posts, RR: 83 Reply 188, posted (3 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 8285 times:
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 184): Too small can also mean not enough range. Just a guess: the 787-9 is physically too small and the 787-10X won't have the desired range?
I did hypothesize that LH might prefer to just have their entire widebody fleet with a range at or beyond 8000nm since it gives them the flexibility to fly any mission with any plane and just accept the operating economics hit on shorter sectors.
AngMoh From Singapore, joined Nov 2011, 355 posts, RR: 0 Reply 189, posted (3 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 8235 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 187): CX, EK and QR disagree. A340-600s were gradually phased out as 777-300ERs became available at CX; EK cancelled their A340-600 order in favour of 777-300ERs and Akbar Al-Baker have stated that if the A340-600's resale value were better, he would have got rid of them already.
The A340-600 is not a bad plane. I'm not saying that it is; but that in some circumstances, replacing them with the 777-300ER does make economic sense.
That is the whole point: CX were relatively short term leases. EK cancelled them before delivery. QR has no business case because the resale is too low. LH is same as QR: the business case is not there to replace them with 77W.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 188): I did hypothesize that LH might prefer to just have their entire widebody fleet with a range at or beyond 8000nm since it gives them the flexibility to fly any mission with any plane and just accept the operating economics hit on shorter sectors.
What's the point? I'd say 5500nm of max payload-range ESAD is more than sufficient (assuming it yields 5000nm real-world).
This is why I find it surprising that the 787-10 is apparently being ruled out.
Honestly, I thought the 787-10 would be great for them, as well. As did LH's CEO. So maybe the comment is referring only to the 787-8 and 787-9 since the 787-10 has not yet received ATO from the Boeing BoD. Or perhaps my belief that LH prefers Airbus where they can is correct and they're using the "too small" argument as a smokescreen. *shrug*
YTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1482 posts, RR: 23 Reply 194, posted (3 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 7537 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 193):
Maybe they want to reach all of South America, all of Asia and much of Australia?
But tailoring all your fleet requirements just for some markets? Isn't it much more effective to get a dedicated fleet?
Quoting Stitch (Reply 193): Or perhaps my belief that LH prefers Airbus where they can is correct and they're using the "too small" argument as a smokescreen.
Except that the A350 still won't give them 8000nm payload-range. The 777-8X definitely will, however.
Semaex From Germany, joined Nov 2009, 773 posts, RR: 2 Reply 195, posted (3 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 7490 times:
Quoting JU068 (Reply 185): I was just asking which of these bases will receive the CRJ. I didn't mean they would all be getting them.
The subfleet is too small to divide onto more than two bases efficiently. It would be quite a happening to relocate the pilot and FA pool to other bases too, so I'm quite sure nothing will change on the EW side of operations.
Whether EW has a real future, never mind growth potential, in the LH network alongside 4U? I doubt it. Time will tell, but I have a feeling they are in fighting on a front they cannot win, even within the LH group. Sad, since I really like the CRJ from a pilots POV. Hate it as a pax tho
// You know you're an aviation enthusiast when you look at your neighbour's cars and think about fleet commonality.
autothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1489 posts, RR: 8 Reply 196, posted (3 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 7451 times:
Quoting bueb0g (Reply 176): Plus, if the 77W isn't more efficient, then why is the A340 line currently closed, having been beaten by the more efficient twins
I never said the 77W isn't more efficient, per design TWO engines will always be more efficient then FOUR Engines. So it is not that of a wonder why the 777 killed the A340. But fuel efficiency depends of a lot of factors.
For hot &high zones the situation is different as example.
Quoting AngMoh (Reply 182): But if the A346 was really this bad being 17-21% less efficient per seat, then LH would probably have initiated replacement ASAP.
Honestly, I thought the 787-10 would be great for them, as well. As did LH's CEO. So maybe the comment is referring only to the 787-8 and 787-9 since the 787-10 has not yet received ATO from the Boeing BoD
I do hope so. Would love to see the 787-10 in Lufthansa colors
Quoting EK413 (Reply 160): I'm curious to know why airlines order a mix of NEO & non-NEO aircraft...?
Availability
Quoting LXA340 (Reply 186):
Maybe this is an interim solution and as soon as the remaining A340 needs to be replaced around 2020 LX will go for an all A350 fleet and transfer the B77W's to LH cargo
No, the CEO of Swiss clearly said the 777 will stay in the fleet for at least 20-25 years. Besides LH and LX are not known for changing their fleet every 5 years. They fly their money worth out of their planes.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1597 posts, RR: 0 Reply 198, posted (3 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6937 times:
Can Swiss fill a 77W? Going 9 across would be a waste of OEW, that same trip could be done in a 789.. Although a half filled 77W would take off like a rocket with those amazing suckers on its wings. GE90-115s are just brute!
I wonder if Germanwings will be around to cater for the needs of the O&D market or will they organize themselves so as to enable connections. If they go for the latter solution then the CRJ fleet could make sense.
When they launched flights to Belgrade (I think in 2006/2007) they did advertise all their connecting possibilities. As time went by it seems that they have changed their strategy and now they concentrate on the O&D market.
777 because of short term availability compared to 789, more freight w/o range limitation and LX is premium-heavy. The entire WB fleet of LX features first class.
I expect LX going for 3-3-3 similar to SIA. LX's current layout put into SIA's 77W results in appr. 50 percent increase just in Y. When you install some more C instead, you have a nice plane to grow with. Even though it seems to be a big step now, we must not forget that those planes will most probably remain for a long time with LX.
While I hope you are right, what makes you so confident they won't go for 3-4-3?
SIA shows 278 seats on its 77W, LX' press release mentioned some 330 seats (although SIA also 'loses' some seats due to their generous C configuration compared to LX'). ANA, also 9 across and featuring the same C concept as LX, has even less seats in total, although Y shows 34' pitch.
On the other hand, I also read somewhere LX being happy to offer 300 seats which could be an indication for 3-3-3...
Good day to you sir! Please turn left, your seat is in the first row.
Yes. They say since a long time that they need a bigger aircraft than a 343 on certain routes. Because they fly with three classes they can not put too many passengers in it. The 77W will only have 330 seats.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21679 posts, RR: 23 Reply 204, posted (3 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5663 times:
Quoting AntonovA330 (Reply 201): Quoting douglasyxz (Reply 200):
I expect LX going for 3-3-3 similar to SIA.
While I hope you are right, what makes you so confident they won't go for 3-4-3?
If the Reply below is correct, 330 seats would almost certainly be 3-3-3 in Y. AC has 349 seats on their 77Ws with 42J and 307Y (3-3-3) but AC doesn't have F class which would reduce total seating somewhat on the LX aircraft. 330 seats is still roughly 100 to 110 more seats than on current LX A343s (8F/47J/164Y, total 219) and A333s (8F/45J/183Y, total 236).
Quoting ZRH (Reply 203): Because they fly with three classes they can not put too many passengers in it. The 77W will only have 330 seats.
Quoting AntonovA330 (Reply 201): While I hope you are right, what makes you so confident they won't go for 3-4-3?
SIA shows 278 seats on its 77W, LX' press release mentioned some 330 seats
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2216 posts, RR: 4 Reply 212, posted (3 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4655 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting ZRH (Reply 210): I find a 9 abreast already terribly cramped.
Which airline were you flying on?
Depending on the seats that the airlines chose to put in their aircraft, 9 across on a 777 can theoretically fit the same width seats as on an 8 across A330/A340, a 10 across A380 main deck or an 8 across A380 upper deck; as well as wider seats (and aisles) than a 10 across 747. I've been on 9 across 777s on both SQ and CX and found them to be extremely spacious and comfortable.
ZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5544 posts, RR: 40 Reply 214, posted (3 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4597 times:
Quoting travelavnut (Reply 213): 9 abreast on a 777 is very roomy in my experience! As far as I know there are no airlines with 8 abreast economy on the triple 7.
Sorry, but no economy class in our days is "rommy". They are all horrible and get worse and worse with more seats in a row. I remember in the 1970ies when I was a teenager, Swissair flew their DC 10 with 8 abreast!
UALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2348 posts, RR: 2 Reply 215, posted (3 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4564 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 212): I've been on 9 across 777s on both SQ and CX and found them to be extremely spacious and comfortable.
Amen to that. A couple of months ago I was in rapid succession on a 9-abreast SQ 77W (BCN-GRU) and then on a 10-abreast JJ 77W (GRU-SCL). Both planes were full, had the latest in entertainment technology, similar legroom, and great crews. The main difference was the seat (and aisle) width. Well, the SQ flight was most enjoyable, the JJ flight not so much....
Semaex From Germany, joined Nov 2009, 773 posts, RR: 2 Reply 216, posted (3 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4498 times:
Quoting JU068 (Reply 199): I wonder if Germanwings will be around to cater for the needs of the O&D market or will they organize themselves so as to enable connections. If they go for the latter solution then the CRJ fleet could make sense.
It's 50/50. I flew 4U VIE-CGN-RLG a couple of months ago and the timing in CGN was perfect. I had the impression that CGN was run very efficiently for all 4U arrivals and departures around the time I was there.
But then of course, if they want to compete with FR, U2 and so on, they will have to do well in O&D too. I cannot judge first-hand if that's a market they are making money in too, but I hope so.
According to spokesmen, 4U has completely independent operations from LH mainline, all they have to do is turn around black numbers by the end of 2014, when they have concluded a full Fiscal Year of new operations (printpaper AERO Intl 02|13)
Like I said, the CRJ is a nice piloting-aircraft, but I fear EW/4U cannot keep them for much longer. They just don't seem to fit the network right. My guess is that cabin- and flightdeck-unions in HAM and DUS were fighting very hard to keep the fleet alive, but I can imagine them being quite a pain amongst the totally different 4U network.
Thinking about it... isn't it strange that 4U holds a base in CGN and EW in DUS? Doesn't seem plausible to me.
// You know you're an aviation enthusiast when you look at your neighbour's cars and think about fleet commonality.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26940 posts, RR: 83 Reply 219, posted (3 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4431 times:
LH is planning to launch a Premium Economy Class product, are they not?
So if LX is indeed going 3-4-3 in Economy on the 777-300ER, then I believe it is very likely they will also offer a 2+4+2 Premium Economy product on the plane.
robffm2 From Germany, joined Dec 2006, 1094 posts, RR: 0 Reply 220, posted (3 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4391 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 219): So if LX is indeed going 3-4-3 in Economy on the 777-300ER, then I believe it is very likely they will also offer a 2+4+2 Premium Economy product on the plane.
Even with 3-3-3 they could offer a 'more premium' 2-4-2. As done by BA and AF.
DALCE From Netherlands, joined Feb 2007, 1596 posts, RR: 7 Reply 222, posted (3 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4328 times:
Quoting ZRH (Reply 210): If SWISS really flies a 10 abreast 777, I will never fly it. I find a 9 abreast already terribly cramped.
Then don't complain and pay for C-class. Don't forget every airline has to make money with their aircraft, and with the low rates of today's world you can't expect any airline to fly 8-abreast in a 77W. Simply not realistic!
flown on : F50,F70,CR1,CR2,CR9,E75,143,AR8,AR1,733,735,736,73G,738,753,744,319,320,321,333,AB6.
na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9705 posts, RR: 10 Reply 223, posted (3 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4195 times:
Quoting DALCE (Reply 222): Then don't complain and pay for C-class. Don't forget every airline has to make money with their aircraft, and with the low rates of today's world you can't expect any airline to fly 8-abreast in a 77W. Simply not realistic!
The question is not about 8-abreast in Eco. 9 is standard and thats ok. But now they cramp 10 into into that ultralong tube and because its possible in a T7 and not elsewhere the 777 is a not only theoretically very bad machine for an Eco passenger and fastly develops into the worst longhaul plane fpor the average man.
Your shut-up and pay attitude comes over as very arrogant to me.
Sponsor Message: 
From Finland, joined Jun 2007, 648 posts, 
From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1733 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9705 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2216 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 2359 posts, 
.
.
From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1015 posts, 
From India, joined May 2007, 305 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1489 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2010, 1915 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 436 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6953 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 292 posts, 
From Serbia, joined Aug 2009, 2579 posts, 
From Croatia, joined May 2012, 12 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Feb 2013, 192 posts, 
From Ethiopia, joined Dec 2009, 634 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Nov 2011, 355 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1482 posts, 
From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 5102 posts, 
From Netherlands Antilles, joined Oct 2010, 79 posts, 
From Norway, joined Mar 2007, 179 posts, 
From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2348 posts, 
From Spain, joined May 1999, 1855 posts, 
From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 1488 posts, 
), LH and Boeing have enough mutual respect and admiration for each other that I seriously don't think LH "needed" to do anything to keep Boeing 'keen.' LH/LX are getting the 77W because that's what they want.
- which holds as much water as reversing it against US carriers. There is as much political pressure on LH or BA to buy A320 as there is on DL, SW or AA to buy 737. If you have any proof to the contrary, please share it.
From Belgium, joined Jan 2013, 33 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1597 posts, 
From Italy, joined Oct 2007, 81 posts, 