Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
B777-9X: Engine (103klbs), EIS 2020  
User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 336 posts, RR: 3
Posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 35278 times:

Emirates seems to have given some more hints of what they've been offered. It seems the engines for the 9X has been increased to 103,000lbs of thrust and EIS is set to be in 2020 with the 8LX EIS 9 months later.

The article also indicates that only the 9X and 8LX are on offer, confirming an article on aviationweek.com from a few weeks ago.

http://pro.flightglobal.com/news/art...-control-777X-supply-chain-385953/

The article might be open only to flightglobal pro subsribers only but this is an excerpt....


" Both variants will be powered by the General Electric GE9X with the 777-9X the lead variant slated for service entry in 2020. The -8X will follow around nine months later.

"We were concerned about it being underpowered in the early days, and Boeing has now grown the thrust [from under 100,000lb] to around 103k," Clark says.

"We want the -9X to be able t fly routes like Dubai-Los Angeles and Buenos Aires-Dubai with maximum payload - 400-plus passengers and a modicum of freight - around 55t."


The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
172 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 35190 times:

Quoting waly777 (Thread starter):
EIS is set to be in 2020 with the 8LX EIS 9 months later.

Interesting. We have been hearing 'end of the decade' for a long time. I, along with others I believe, have been taking that to mean 2019. However, I just thought about that and technically December 31, 2020 is still this decade. Logic being that decade #1 = 1/1/01 - 12/31/10 or 10 years. If that is true then I am going to feel a little annoyed by the semantics/games.

A nine month delay between the two frames sounds aggressive.

Quoting waly777 (Thread starter):
"We want the -9X to be able to fly routes like Dubai-Los Angeles and Buenos Aires-Dubai with maximum payload - 400-plus passengers and a modicum of freight - around 55t."

Oh is that all? All kidding aside I was thinking that the 8LX would be the DXB-LAX/EZE frame with 55t of freight but it sounds like he wants it on the 9X.

tortugamon


User currently offlineAviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 619 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 34844 times:

55 t payload on 16h30-16h45 mission, that's more than A380-800 575t can do (circa 50 t) !     

User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 336 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 34722 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 1):

Oh is that all? All kidding aside I was thinking that the 8LX would be the DXB-LAX/EZE frame with 55t of freight but it sounds like he wants it on the 9X.

Trust him to want close to the impossible....either that or he was referring to the 8LX which certainly be capable of such a feat. In the arricle he did mention the 8LX will be able to do those routes seating 330 pax for emirates whilst carrying quite an amount of cargo.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 1):
A nine month delay between the two frames sounds aggressive.

Hmm it seems so but being a straight shrink of the 9X with the primary difference being the cabin length, it seems feasible as the differences btw those 2 will be minimal.



The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 34471 times:

Quoting waly777 (Thread starter):
Emirates seems to have given some more hints of what they've been offered. It seems the engines for the 9X has been increased to 103,000lbs of thrust and EIS is set to be in 2020 with the 8LX EIS 9 months later.

I always seemed surprised that the 777-9X only needed barely more thrust than the smaller A3510, when it's longer, has a bigger wing and is hardly a generation ahead in terms of efficiency. Even now, it's still an impressive drop in thrust from the 115k of the current 77W.



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1580 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 34455 times:

A lot of us were sceptical that you could power the -9X on 99.5k engines, 103k sounds more reasoable.

Quoting waly777 (Thread starter):
"We want the -9X to be able t fly routes like Dubai-Los Angeles and Buenos Aires-Dubai with maximum payload - 400-plus passengers and a modicum of freight - around 55t."

But this aircraft is going to be the Tim Clark special, it will be spec'd for missions that no other operator will really require and because of that it is going to be a less than optimal fit for them, unnecessarily expensive, heavy and thirsty because of the weight and thrust bump, Emirates won't have to worry about the cost of course because they will get a massive discount.

Plus if you are not planning to run 10 across do you gain much from the 777X?



BV
User currently offlinesirtoby From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 375 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 34124 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 4):
has a bigger wing

The large wing is the reason why it needs a relatively low thrust. A high L/D means low T/W for a certain runway performance.


User currently offline9w748capt From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 587 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 34022 times:

Does anyone have that schematic that shows the relatives proportions of all the newer Boeing wbs - someone posted it in another thread. But it was a great visual reference as to what's actually proposed here - had the 787-8/9/10 stacked against the 77W and 777-8L/9 models. Would love to see it again (link is ok too) - TIA!

User currently offlinevirginblue4 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 903 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 33954 times:

Quoting 9w748capt (Reply 7):
Does anyone have that schematic that shows the relatives proportions of all the newer Boeing wbs - someone posted it in another thread. But it was a great visual reference as to what's actually proposed here - had the 787-8/9/10 stacked against the 77W and 777-8L/9 models. Would love to see it again (link is ok too) - TIA!

I assume this is the one you're after?

http://arpdesign.files.wordpress.com...2/08/presentation_master-copy2.png



[Edited 2013-05-17 07:08:02]


The amazing tale of flight.
User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2613 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 33922 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 4):
I always seemed surprised that the 777-9X only needed barely more thrust than the smaller A3510, when it's longer, has a bigger wing and is hardly a generation ahead in terms of efficiency

It is because of the larger wing that enables the thrust to be reduced, because the new, larger wing will generate more lift than the current wings. It is also because of that larger CFRP wing and the new GE9X engines that will enable the 777-9X to keep its fuel burn in check. It is projected to have a 16% lower operating cost per seat over Boeing's 365-seat 777-300ER, yet offers only 11% more seats, ergo its trip costs are likely to be very similar, if not lower, despite the increase in capacity, thanks to a new wing and new engines.

The GE9X is a generation ahead of the GE90, and an all new wing design is a generation ahead of the current design.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 5):
it will be spec'd for missions that no other operator will really require and because of that it is going to be a less than optimal fit for them, unnecessarily expensive, heavy and thirsty because of the weight and thrust bump

Tell that to QR, BR, BA, and a host of airlines that have expressed an interest in taking the 777X. To say that "no other operator" will need the 777X's capabilities is an argument not grounded in facts. The fact is that more and more operators of the 777 are going for a 10-across economy seating to increase the 777-300ER's seating capacity in order to further reduce per seat costs. Those are the airlines to whch Boeing are pitching the 777X.

[Edited 2013-05-17 07:17:48]


Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 336 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 33577 times:




The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30977 posts, RR: 86
Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 33400 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 5):
But this aircraft is going to be the Tim Clark special, it will be spec'd for missions that no other operator will really require and because of that it is going to be a less than optimal fit for them, unnecessarily expensive, heavy and thirsty because of the weight and thrust bump, Emirates won't have to worry about the cost of course because they will get a massive discount.

Airbus making the A350-1000 heavier, thirstier and more expensive doesn't seem to have spiked sales for that model...

Though it did annoy EK and QR, who now are rumored to be huge customers for the heavier, thirstier and more expensive 777X...   


User currently offlinedavs5032 From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 393 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 32797 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 5):
Plus if you are not planning to run 10 across do you gain much from the 777X?

If you're hauling a lot of freight, then yes. Also, keep in mind that by the time 2020 comes around, the number of airlines operating the 777 with 9X will be a minority.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1580 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 32808 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Airbus making the A350-1000 heavier, thirstier and more expensive doesn't seem to have spiked sales for that model...

But the 777X models will be even heavier than the A350-1000. My point is that not every airline requires the things from an aircraft that middle east carriers demand.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Though it did annoy EK and QR, who now are rumored to be huge customers for the heavier, thirstier and more expensive 777X...

I know, go figure..

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 9):
It is projected to have a 16% lower operating cost per seat over Boeing's 365-seat 777-300ER, yet offers only 11% more seats, ergo its trip costs are likely to be very similar, if not lower, despite the increase in capacity.

If its trip costs are going to be similar to the 777W it will get killed by the A35J. The problem with VLA's is they only work efficiently if you can fill them up, and in this case you have to be willing to fly 10 across. Unless an airline is willing to go 10 across and commit to filling 400 seats I don't think the 777-9X works.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 9):
Tell that to QR, BR, BA, and a host of airlines that have expressed an interest in taking the 777X. To say that "no other operator" will need the 777X's capabilities is an argument not grounded in facts. The fact is that more and more operators of the 777 are going for a 10-across economy seating to increase the 777-300ER's seating capacity in order to further reduce per seat costs. Those are the airlines to which Boeing are pitching the 777X.

What is BA's longest route? Off the top of my head I'd say LHR-EZE, that's 1,500 miles less than DXB-EZE so BA at least do NOT need the range. Extreme range flights are more or less limited to Mid East operators. Also as above unless BA are going 10 deep in a 777 carcass they will not be getting Boeing seat mile costs.



BV
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4982 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 32579 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 13):
so BA at least do NOT need the range.

True, but if they ( SQ, CX et al) see a need for about 350 seats in a premium configuration they will consider it. They will operate their A35J at about 300 seats, do they need something bigger, time will tell.


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2613 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 32025 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 13):
But the 777X models will be even heavier than the A350-1000.

But also larger, so it carries more passengers and cargo for greater revenue potential.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 13):
If its trip costs are going to be similar to the 777W it will get killed by the A35J.

No it won't, because the 777-9X is large enough to differentiate itself as being one step up from the A350-1000 in terms of size and capacity.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 13):
The problem with VLA's is they only work efficiently if you can fill them up, and in this case you have to be willing to fly 10 across. Unless an airline is willing to go 10 across and commit to filling 400 seats I don't think the 777-9X works.

No argument there, but given that there are an increasing number of airlines putting 10 seats across in economy on their 777-300ERs, the market for a 10 across 777-9X is potentially quite large.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 13):
What is BA's longest route?

Willie Walsh had said that the 777X is the "perfect fit" for some of BA's network. Maybe he can answer your question better.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently onlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1884 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 31954 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Airbus making the A350-1000 heavier, thirstier and more expensive doesn't seem to have spiked sales for that model...

Sorry, but I beg to differ. Qatar converted majority of its order for -800s to -1000s, despite constant moaning of Al Baker. Cathay Pacific ordered some and so did British Airways. Rumor has it JAL will also get some.

Keep in mind that this is 350-seater and those will never sell in quantities smaller aircraft do.



STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1580 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 31665 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 15):
Willie Walsh had said that the 777X is the "perfect fit" for some of BA's network.

Airline CEO's say all kinds of things, do you believe everything Alan Joyce, O'Leary or Ali baker says too?



BV
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5576 posts, RR: 28
Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 31539 times:

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 16):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):Airbus making the A350-1000 heavier, thirstier and more expensive doesn't seem to have spiked sales for that model...
Sorry, but I beg to differ. Qatar converted majority of its order for -800s to -1000s, despite constant moaning of Al Baker. Cathay Pacific ordered some and so did British Airways. Rumor has it JAL will also get some.

Keep in mind that this is 350-seater and those will never sell in quantities smaller aircraft do.

I might be misunderstanding, but I think Stitch was saying that the increased weight/thrust/etc of the A350-1000 didn't seem to hurt it's sales, and so why shouldn't the same be true/possible with the 777X.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30977 posts, RR: 86
Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 31000 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Airbus making the A350-1000 heavier, thirstier and more expensive doesn't seem to have spiked sales for that model...
Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 16):
Sorry, but I beg to differ.
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 18):
I might be misunderstanding, but I think Stitch was saying that the increased weight/thrust/etc of the A350-1000 didn't seem to hurt it's sales, and so why shouldn't the same be true/possible with the 777X.

Correct. I was using an American Gridiron Football term for throwing the ball into the ground. So my comment was that it did not hurt sales, but instead boosted them (created A spike, so to speak).


User currently onlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1884 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 30564 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
Correct. I was using an American Gridiron Football term for throwing the ball into the ground.

Thanks. I am totally unfamiliar with those American sports terms, depite living in the USA for thirteen years. I appreciate your clarification.



STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offline9w748capt From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 587 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 30189 times:

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 20):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
Correct. I was using an American Gridiron Football term for throwing the ball into the ground.

Thanks. I am totally unfamiliar with those American sports terms, depite living in the USA for thirteen years. I appreciate your clarification.

LOL but the way Stitch initially used the term is totally different in context from spiking a football. "spike" in everyday vernacular definitely means increase/sharp increase ... which is the way it was originally intended  

Anyway back to the discussion at hand...

And thank you to those for sharing the image of the different wbs compared - straight porn to us widebody lovers!  


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 29643 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 15):
Willie Walsh had said that the 777X is the "perfect fit" for some of BA's network.

Yes he did. Just before BA ordered A350-1000s and then relegated the 777X from "a perfect fir" to a far less flattering "still a possibility".   



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 29447 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 9):

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 4):
I always seemed surprised that the 777-9X only needed barely more thrust than the smaller A3510, when it's longer, has a bigger wing and is hardly a generation ahead in terms of efficiency

It is because of the larger wing that enables the thrust to be reduced, because the new, larger wing will generate more lift than the current wings. It is also because of that larger CFRP wing and the new GE9X engines that will enable the 777-9X to keep its fuel burn in check. It is projected to have a 16% lower operating cost per seat over Boeing's 365-seat 777-300ER, yet offers only 11% more seats, ergo its trip costs are likely to be very similar, if not lower, despite the increase in capacity, thanks to a new wing and new engines.

The GE9X is a generation ahead of the GE90, and an all new wing design is a generation ahead of the current design.

A generation ahead of the current 77W/GE90 yes, but not a generation ahead of the clean sheet A3510/TXWB combo, which hasn't even flown yet! It has a longer and wider non composite fuselage too, so therefore will need more powerful engines than the A3510; its original 100k engines, seem optimistic



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineContnlEliteCMH From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1458 posts, RR: 44
Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 29199 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 23):
A generation ahead of the current 77W/GE90 yes, but not a generation ahead of the clean sheet A3510/TXWB combo, which hasn't even flown yet! It has a longer and wider non composite fuselage too, so therefore will need more powerful engines than the A3510; its original 100k engines, seem optimistic

 

Why does the 77X need to be a generation ahead of the A350? These planes are contemporaries; I don't expect either one to be a "generation ahead" of the other (whatever that means).



Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
User currently offlineaircal62 From United States of America, joined May 2011, 8 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 29394 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

is the A350 fuselage all composite? I thought that the fuselage was a mix of metal alloy and composite.

User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2485 posts, RR: 11
Reply 26, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 28637 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 15):
Willie Walsh had said that the 777X is the "perfect fit" for some of BA's network. Maybe he can answer your question better.

Probably. But then again, maybe, before writing his memoires, he should first publish:

Buying Big Twins for Dummies
Quote:
. . . the best time to publically talk up the competition, just before you sign the dotted line on the 350 series!



Oh, and for the record, before I get    if the 777-8X turns out as Boeing predicts, I'm sure BA will order them in considerable numbers.

PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 336 posts, RR: 3
Reply 27, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 28999 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 23):
so therefore will need more powerful engines than the A3510;

But yet it will have a wing which is 6.2 meters longer and with a larger surface area than the A350-1000. Larger wing = even more lift and hence less thrust is required. Which would explain the difference in thrust required between the bigger GE90 and the GE9X



The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2485 posts, RR: 11
Reply 28, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 28492 times:

Quoting waly777 (Reply 27):
Larger wing = even more lift and hence less thrust is required

More weight = more drag = more thrust. Larger wing will only partially off set that.

I can see how it needs less thrust that the 77W, but at its proposed 344,000 kg, it is still a whopping 36,000 kg    (= 12%) heavier than the 308,000 kg MTOW of the 350-1000 (is this the latest figure?). I'm still quite sceptical that a mere 5000lbs of thrust delta between the 350-1000 and 777X is sufficient, despite the larger wing.

I have always believed that 105k - 110 lbs would seem much more likely. But again, kudos to Boeing if they can pull it off!   

PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 28371 times:

What is it runway performance going to be like? I would assume approach will be a bunch slower and rotation speed lower as well - but what about field length given the probable lower rate of acceleration but lower lift off speed?

User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5455 posts, RR: 30
Reply 30, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 28246 times:

Quoting morrisond (Reply 29):

Approach and takeoff performance will depend on the high lift devices as much as clean wing area.



What the...?
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 31, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 27833 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 4):
I always seemed surprised that the 777-9X only needed barely more thrust than the smaller A3510,

Agreed. Even now it is only about 6% higher which, if it happens, would still be an impressive figure as the 77X is heavier and carries 16% more seats. We will see.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 3):
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 1):
A nine month delay between the two frames sounds aggressive.
Hmm it seems so but being a straight shrink of the 9X with the primary difference being the cabin length, it seems feasible as the differences btw those 2 will be minimal.

I think that this implies that Boeing is not planning much optimization on the 8X.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 13):
If its trip costs are going to be similar to the 777W it will get killed by the A35J.

I am not so sure. A says the 351 will have a 25% lower trip cost relative to the 77W. Boeing says 20%. Lets assume 22.5%. The 351 has 4.25% less seats than the 77W so that explains some of the difference as it is a smaller plane. Still a very big deal though and clearly an excellent option for many airlines.

However this is where the 9x makes sense for some airlines. In EK configuration Stitch has a quote from EK saying the 351 has 317 seats in their configuration. Based on TC's quote above the 9X will have 400 plus seats in EK configuration or 28% more seats. Even if the 351 has 22.5% lower trip cost than the 77X, the fact that the 77X would have 28% more seats (in EK configuration) should result in enough lower per seat costs (roughly 6%), more seat revenue (28% times seat load factor), and larger payload revenue to compensate. If you know that you can fill the seats, and even with 77W trip costs, the 9X could make sense for some airlines.

Regardless, BA is predicting 21% lower seat costs on the 9X relative to the 77W and with only 11% more seats they are clearly expecting trip costs will be lower by around 10%. Clearly the 351 will have a lower trip cost vs the 77X. The question will be just how close these trip costs are for each airline's configuration as well as billion other important factors .

tortugamon


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 32, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 27851 times:

Re how you get a 779 or 3510 of the ground:

1. For both you need the lift from the wing to lift the weight of the aircraft + a bit extra for the climb speed. You need that regardless if the wing is comparatively small (77W) normal (3510) or large (779).

2. The key question is how much drag the engines must overcome to keep the speed or even increase it when the wing generates the need lift in 1. A small wing (77W) generates a lot of drag = really large engines. A normal wing (3510) generates a normal amount of drag = normally large engines. A large wing (779) generates proportionally less drag = proportionally smaller engines.

3. So from 1 and 2 we understand that what is needed is low drag for the 777-9X to work. Then lets qualify what we mean with large wing:

- At start 80% of the drag comes from drag due to lift = induced drag in this case (compression drag is 0). So what differs between these 3 birds is the level of induced drag.

- Induced drag you lower by higher aspect ratio. Aspect ratio is defined as wing span^2/ wing area. Hence 71m span wings on the 779.

Thus, the key to the relatively smaller engines on the 779 vs 3510 and 77W is the high wingspan. This is so important that B goes to the trouble of folding raked tips.

[Edited 2013-05-17 15:39:09]


Non French in France
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1580 posts, RR: 3
Reply 33, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 27070 times:

Quoting PW100 (Reply 28):
I'm still quite sceptical that a mere 5000lbs of thrust delta between the 350-1000 and 777X is sufficient, despite the larger wing.

Yup, Boeing still risk being caught in the increasing MTOW wedge that caught the 787 and A35J, engine manufacturers can build you an engine of whatever size you just have to be honest about your weights.

I think most of us, at least the a.netters who have had girlfriends, and I know that's not all of us   have had the does my tail look big in this discussion.. The PR men have to be honest with themselves and admit weight gain is a probability, the 777-9X is not a size 0 bird.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 30):
Approach and takeoff performance will depend on the high lift devices as much as clean wing area.

Which add noise, will it have the same QC noise rating as the A35J, this could easily be a deal breaker for BA, but we assume that this will part of the design parameters.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 23):
It has a longer and wider non composite fuselage too, so therefore will need more powerful engines than the A3510

I remember a certain company using the wider needs more power and burns more fuel argument against the cabin width of the A350 v the 787 not so long ago, now who were they again... That's right Boeing. So maybe they should explain why this is not the case for the 777X.



BV
User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 336 posts, RR: 3
Reply 34, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 25708 times:

Quoting PW100 (Reply 28):
More weight = more drag = more thrust. Larger wing will only partially off set that.

This explains it much better than I can....

Quoting ferpe (Reply 32):

The reason the 77W has such high thrust engines is to compensate for it's relatively small wing for the weight it carries. (ideally, boeing would have liked that wing to be bigger but that would have been just more work).

Besides, it has been said by boeing insiders on a.net that the 777 wing is over-engineered and there's a lot of weight to remove from it and sinc the 777x will have a primarily composite wing, I can assume it will weigh roughly the same or just a little bit more...however the wing will produce a lot of lift to carry even less weight than the 777W (MTOW differences)



The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 35, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days ago) and read 25187 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PW100 (Reply 26):
if the 777-8X turns out as Boeing predicts, I'm sure BA will order them in considerable numbers.

On what basis would BA 'need' the 8X rather than the 9X? I don't see it myself.   



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3409 posts, RR: 4
Reply 36, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days ago) and read 25131 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 4):
Even now, it's still an impressive drop in thrust from the 115k of the current 77W.

The current GE engines on the current 200LR/300ER have the ability to use more than rated thrust for a short period if the operator is willing to shorten the overhaul interval. It could be that the 103K rating can still provide 115K or more for those operators needing the extra thrust out of hot and high airports.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4512 posts, RR: 18
Reply 37, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 24532 times:

Something's not right here.


Lift is not free, with lift comes drag and a bigger wing creates a lot of extra lift and a lot of extra drag.


This is unprecedented for Boeing, to produce a variant with significantly less power than the previous version and only fractionally lighter.


As I said, something's not right.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5576 posts, RR: 28
Reply 38, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 24255 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 33):
I remember a certain company using the wider needs more power and burns more fuel argument against the cabin width of the A350 v the 787 not so long ago, now who were they again... That's right Boeing. So maybe they should explain why this is not the case for the 777X.

Sure, but in that case they both could readily seat the same - 9 abreast. Therefore, with the A350 you were paying for more width without getting more seats. With the A350 vs 777X, one will readily seat 9 abreast and one will readily seat 10 abreast. Obviously a larger, heavier frame seating one extra seat across will have to utilize increased thrust and burn more fuel. How much is the question.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1580 posts, RR: 3
Reply 39, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 24096 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 38):
Sure, but in that case they both could readily seat the same - 9 abreast. Therefore, with the A350 you were paying for more width without getting more seats. With the A350 vs 777X, one will readily seat 9 abreast and one will readily seat 10 abreast. Obviously a larger, heavier frame seating one extra seat across will have to utilize increased thrust and burn more fuel. How much is the question.

Not buying it. The 787 was conceived as an 8 across aircraft, yes you can fit 9 across in it; the A350 as a 9 across aircraft in which 10 across is possible so if an operator chooses they can use the extra width. Boeing simply chooses to assume that while operators will max out seating in their aircraft but that they will not do so in a competitors to make its advert stack up.

One of the reasons the A350 is going to be more efficient that the 777 is that it does not fly with an empty attic that the 777X will continue to cart around.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 35):
On what basis would BA 'need' the 8X rather than the 9X? I don't see it myself.

Is there anything that the -8X would bring to BA that the A359/J won't? I thought that the A350 order ruled the -8X out in the short / medium term.



BV
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5455 posts, RR: 30
Reply 40, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 24025 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 38):

The difference in width between the 787 and 350 is less than the difference between the 737 and the 320, and it doesn't seem to be making a huge difference in the narrow bodies...so I don't see why the difference will make a lot of difference in the much larger planes.

The extra weight of the 350 has more to do with it's proposed capabilities more than the diameter of its fuselage. The 350-800 is roughly equivalent to the 789 and the 350-900 is close to the capabilities of, (and much more efficient than), the 77E...and Boeing really doesn't have anything coming up that can compete, feature for feature. The -10 will be close in passenger loads but lack the range.

The 350-1000 will likely be more efficient than the 777-8x for shorter to mid ranges and will be considerably more efficient than the 77W.

So fuselage diameter only tells a small part of the story when explaining aircraft weights.



What the...?
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5576 posts, RR: 28
Reply 41, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 23985 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 39):
Not buying it.

Shocking.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 39):
The 787 was conceived as an 8 across aircraft, yes you can fit 9 across in it

Hmmm.... So Boeing conceived an 8 abreast aircraft - that just "happened" to fit 9 across with the common 17.2" seats. Wow, how random....

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 39):
the A350 as a 9 across aircraft in which 10 across is possible so if an operator chooses they can use the extra width

Your wording paints the picture perfectly. 787 - Readily fits 9 abreast. A350 - ".....it's possible....IF an operator chooses..." In other words - not readily a 10 abreast aircraft.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 39):
Boeing simply chooses to assume that while operators will max out seating in their aircraft but that they will not do so in a competitors to make its advert stack up.

I'm not Boeing. I am simply offering a counterpoint to your blurb earlier.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 39):
ne of the reasons the A350 is going to be more efficient that the 777 is that it does not fly with an empty attic that the 777X will continue to cart around.

Relax. I'm sure the A350 will be a knock-out, and I'm not buying any aircraft myself. You don't need to try to win me over.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2613 posts, RR: 5
Reply 42, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 23881 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting scbriml (Reply 22):
Yes he did. Just before BA ordered A350-1000s and then relegated the 777X from "a perfect fir" to a far less flattering "still a possibility".

"Still a possibility" does not mean that it is in any way less of a "perfect fit" than it was when he made the statement. Just because they haven't bought some yet doesn't mean they won't in future, nor does the order for the A350-1000 in any way diminishes the possibility of a 777X joining the fleet, unless and until they unequivocally rule out that possibility.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 23):
A generation ahead of the current 77W/GE90 yes, but not a generation ahead of the clean sheet A3510/TXWB

No, nor will a clean sheet "Y3" be likely to be a generation ahead of the A350. The new wing and new engine design is, for want of a better word, the same "generation" as the wing and engine on the A350.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 33):
I remember a certain company using the wider needs more power and burns more fuel argument against the cabin width of the A350 v the 787 not so long ago, now who were they again... That's right Boeing. So maybe they should explain why this is not the case for the 777X.

It's called marketing, something that Airbus themselves do so well. Maybe they should explain why their "four engines for long haul" campaign doesn't apply to the A350?

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 39):
Boeing simply chooses to assume that while operators will max out seating in their aircraft but that they will not do so in a competitors to make its advert stack up.

There are numerous examples of Airbus doing the same.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 39):
Is there anything that the -8X would bring to BA that the A359/J won't?

The 777-8LX will offer increased payload-range over the A350-900.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2351 posts, RR: 2
Reply 43, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 23767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Max Q (Reply 37):
Lift is not free, with lift comes drag and a bigger wing creates a lot of extra lift and a lot of extra drag.

All else being equal, a bigger wing of used to produce the same lift will generate less induced drag (lower alpha), but more parasitic drag. A wing of the same area, but of higher aspect ratio, will produce similar parasitic drag, but lower induced drag. Lowering the lift needed (reducing the mass of the aircraft while keeping the wing the same) also reduces induced drag (while leaving parasitic drag roughly unchanged).

Boeing appears to be lightening the aircraft, while increasing the wing area and the aspect ratio. That should result in a significant reduction in induced drag, with a modest increase in parasitic drag. So the L/D of the aircraft should be improved.

An interesting side effect may be lowering the best economy cruising speed a bit. If we accept that the current 777 is somewhat underwinged in comparison, its best cruise would be pushed higher because of the excess induced drag produced by the higher needed alpha. Best cruise is not quite best L/D, but it's in the neighborhood (but somewhat faster), and best L/D is invariably very, very close to where induced and parasitic drag are equal. That may also make higher altitude cruise easier, particularly when the plane is heavier.

Unfortunately I don't understand the implications of a larger wing on shockwave drag enough, so that muddies the issue more than a bit.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1580 posts, RR: 3
Reply 44, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 23694 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 42):
It's called marketing, something that Airbus themselves do so well. Maybe they should explain why their "four engines for long haul" campaign doesn't apply to the A350?

Wasn't that Branson? But yes I take your point, marketing is mostly BS on both sides.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 42):
There are numerous examples of Airbus doing the same.

There are, but the Airbus view of Boeing seat counts is generally recognised as being more real world than Boeings view of Airbus seat count.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 41):
Hmmm.... So Boeing conceived an 8 abreast aircraft - that just "happened" to fit 9 across with the common 17.2" seats. Wow, how random....

So you are saying that the 787 was not conceived as an 8 across aircraft? If I recall they then screwed with the sidewalls and to end up with enough space for your 'standard' 9 so not random nor originally planned.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 42):
The 777-8LX will offer increased payload-range over the A350-900.

Which is fine if you need the range, BA don't need the extreme ranges being talked about by Emirates.



BV
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5576 posts, RR: 28
Reply 45, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 23579 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 44):
So you are saying that the 787 was not conceived as an 8 across aircraft?

That's not what I said. However, I don't think they were clueless about the potential. YMMV.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlinecx828 From Hong Kong, joined May 2007, 159 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 23612 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

so can the 777-8LX has the range of LHR-SYD so that BA can buy some exclusively for this route??

User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5455 posts, RR: 30
Reply 47, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 23445 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 45):
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 44):
So you are saying that the 787 was not conceived as an 8 across aircraft?

That's not what I said. However, I don't think they were clueless about the potential. YMMV.

Boeing had already learned the lesson of the 777 when they envisioned it as a very roomy 9 abreast airliner, and ever intrepid EK realised that it could be a somewhat comfortable, very profitable 10 abreast airliner.

There can be little doubt that Boeing saw the possibility of 9 abreast when they decided on the fuse diameter for the 787.



What the...?
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 48, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 22634 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 47):
There can be little doubt that Boeing saw the possibility of 9 abreast when they decided on the fuse diameter for the 787.

Although I do not have any inside information to base it on, I agree. What may have been a surprise was the number of airline customers that went with 9 abreast. If you were designing a fuse from scratch, is there anyone commenting on this topic that thinks that it was not a good idea to position it in a way to maximize airline choice and flexibility while carrying LD3s? Well stated Joe.

Quoting rwessel (Reply 43):
Unfortunately I don't understand the implications of a larger wing on shockwave drag enough, so that muddies the issue more than a bit.

Not sure either but I would think that Boeing will make the wing much thinner and increase the degree of sweepback resulting in lower shockwave drag and maybe moving the ideal cruise speed a little to the right (everything else being equal). I have read that Tim Clark expects the aircraft to fly faster but I am not not sure how B will get there and if it will come down to the new supercritical CFRP airfoil but I think we will see the 777X tick up to .85 Mach which means EK will fly it at .86. From the 767 to the 787 the wing became much thinner, wings were more swept back and cruise speed jumped .05m but that may be do to other things and I may be oversimplifying.

tortugamon


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11639 posts, RR: 33
Reply 49, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 22526 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 15):
No it won't, because the 777-9X is large enough to differentiate itself as being one step up from the A350-1000 in terms of size and capacity.

  

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 13):
But the 777X models will be even heavier than the A350-1000. My point is that not every airline requires the things from an aircraft that middle east carriers demand.

I agree and while the potential sales numbers for the Middle East carriers are huge, they are nowhere close to the numbers Boeing need to keep the 777X selling for the next 15 to 20 years. But do you think the thrust increase is too much for most other airlines?

I think the 777-9 will just do fine.

[Edited 2013-05-18 03:51:29]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 50, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 22508 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cx828 (Reply 46):
so can the 777-8LX has the range of LHR-SYD so that BA can buy some exclusively for this route??

Frankly, I don't ever seeing an airline operating this route non-stop.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8362 posts, RR: 10
Reply 51, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 22383 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 1):
Oh is that all? All kidding aside I was thinking that the 8LX would be the DXB-LAX/EZE frame with 55t of freight but it sounds like he wants it on the 9X.
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 13):
But the 777X models will be even heavier than the A350-1000. My point is that not every airline requires the things from an aircraft that middle east carriers demand.

Sounds like the same exact argument EK used for the 748I. The big question is: Will Boeing take the bait this time around?


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5455 posts, RR: 30
Reply 52, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 22240 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 50):
Frankly, I don't ever seeing an airline operating this route non-stop.

At least not until we can buy tickets on suborbital airliners.



What the...?
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1823 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 22039 times:

How far is LHR-PER? I would rather bypass ME or Asia, not my favorite places in this world anymore.

User currently offline817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2379 posts, RR: 1
Reply 54, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 22007 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 53):

How far is LHR-PER?

7829nm according to GCM

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



Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently offlineangmoh From Singapore, joined Nov 2011, 488 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 21983 times:

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 54):
Quoting sweair (Reply 53):

How far is LHR-PER?

7829nm according to GCM

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


And it is an absolute no-go for a commercial service the next 10 years...

Apart from the fact that the flight itself is not viable, PER is probably one of the worst places in the world to transfer from international to domestic due to design of the airport...


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4982 posts, RR: 5
Reply 56, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 21780 times:

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 54):
7829nm according to GCM

The airways distance is about 8100nm . A flight plan that SX1899 did , on the day, the westbound ESAD was about 8600nm and the sector time in excess of 18 hours.


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 57, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 21717 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 42):
"Still a possibility" does not mean that it is in any way less of a "perfect fit" than it was when he made the statement.

It simply now sounds far less likely - "perfect fit" to "meh, well maybe". Actions speak louder than words.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 42):
nor does the order for the A350-1000 in any way diminishes the possibility of a 777X joining the fleet

It does, simply because it's up to 36 large twin frames (more if they buy for IB as well) that Boeing are not going to sell to IAG. With that many large A350s in the fleet, plus the A380s and all the 787s to come (some presumably -10s), I'm struggling to see where the 777X now fits in.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 611 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 21744 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 39):
One of the reasons the A350 is going to be more efficient that the 777 is that it does not fly with an empty attic that the 777X will continue to cart around.

Except that the A350 will fly with an empty attic as well - albeit a less voluminous one.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 44):
Wasn't that Branson?

From what I can recall which I believe is very correct, that line originated from Airbus though SRB adopted and propagated it so well that most people thought that is was from him.



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5576 posts, RR: 28
Reply 59, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 21487 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 48):
If you were designing a fuse from scratch, is there anyone commenting on this topic that thinks that it was not a good idea to position it in a way to maximize airline choice and flexibility while carrying LD3s?

BoeingVista?

Quoting sweair (Reply 53):
How far is LHR-PER? I would rather bypass ME or Asia, not my favorite places in this world anymore.

It just seems that it'd be better to connect somewhere more central if for no other reason than it allows for one aircraft to meet the mission of both segments. If you fly a 778L or whatever it is LHR-PER, is that really the best aircraft to continue on to SYD with?

Quoting scbriml (Reply 57):
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 42): nor does the order for the A350-1000 in any way diminishes the possibility of a 777X joining the fleet
It does, simply because it's up to 36 large twin frames (more if they buy for IB as well) that Boeing are not going to sell to IAG. With that many large A350s in the fleet, plus the A380s and all the 787s to come (some presumably -10s), I'm struggling to see where the 777X now fits in.

I'm looking forward to seeing what Boeing does with the 777X, but am not optimistic. I agree - if IAG has the 787/350/380, there just is not a huge need for anything else. A need at all? Perhaps. But with the 351 now coming their way, the number of frames needed will be smaller and I would imagine that this would reduce the the efficiency of having another fleet type.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11639 posts, RR: 33
Reply 60, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 21357 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 1):
Oh is that all? All kidding aside I was thinking that the 8LX would be the DXB-LAX/EZE frame with 55t of freight but it sounds like he wants it on the 9X.

That is impossible with the given engine thrust. I think he meant 55t total payload, so 40-45t passengers and 10-15t additional cargo. Or he meant the -8LX.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 61, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 21207 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 51):
The big question is: Will Boeing take the bait this time around?

I would let EK make the 8LX into anything that he wants but the 9X has to have a wider net.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 52):
At least not until we can buy tickets on suborbital airliners.

It sounds like Branson is on it. I hope it comes to happen in my lifetime even if it is just for uber rich.

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 54):
7829nm according to GCM

Depending on the route they could fly over Syria, Iraq and a lovely refueling station in DXB on route! Just don't see this one happening. Crazier things have happened though I guess.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 60):
Or he meant the -8LX.

I really hope so. Otherwise we may not see this 77X get off the ground.

tortugamon


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1580 posts, RR: 3
Reply 62, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 20932 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 51):
Sounds like the same exact argument EK used for the 748I. The big question is: Will Boeing take the bait this time around?

Yes, exactly the same. I think that they will but that in doing so the -9X will end up with a high OEW and price which will hamstring other operators. It will work for EK but few others.

Quoting angmoh (Reply 55):
And it is an absolute no-go for a commercial service the next 10 years...

People say that but I can see a market for a daily direct LHR-PER for local traffic, Perth has the highest proportion of Ex-Brits in Australia.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 59):
BoeingVista?

If you read my comments my point was don't do the A.net thing and try to change history. Flexibility sure but the 787 was conceived and marketed as 8 across.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 59):
I'm looking forward to seeing what Boeing does with the 777X, but am not optimistic. I agree - if IAG has the 787/350/380, there just is not a huge need for anything else. A need at all? Perhaps. But with the 351 now coming their way, the number of frames needed will be smaller and I would imagine that this would reduce the the efficiency of having another fleet type.

Exactly, Boeing have done the same thing that they did with the MAX, wait until their customers have walked to Airbus before offering an upgrade. IAG have been sitting on this order for 1 maybe 2 years, then just as they sign with Airbus Boeing rushes through an authority to offer but one that is nebulous, the -8X and -9X configurations are still not fixed and maybe for the obvious reason that they cannot meet the needs of every segment that they want to with the 777X.



BV
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5576 posts, RR: 28
Reply 63, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 20875 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 62):
If you read my comments my point was don't do the A.net thing and try to change history. Flexibility sure but the 787 was conceived and marketed as 8 across.

Actually, it seems that you are the one that is speaking for the inner workings of Boeing. Whatever they marketed, it doesn't mean that they never considered the possibilities of 9 across and what it would entail.

From 2002 to 2004, the average price of crude oil ranged from $23-$37 per barrel. By 2008 the average rose to $91+. At the outset they clearly would know what the cabin was capable of, how close they were to 9 abreast, but how the market at the time was likely geared more towards comfort than just fighting fuel costs. As the market began responding to the spike in oil prices, they needed to adjust to the new paradigm.

I'm happy to say that you see it one way and I see it another, but perhaps there is evidence that they never knew that 9 abreast would be possible or desired?

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 62):
Boeing have done the same thing that they did with the MAX, wait until their customers have walked to Airbus before offering an upgrade. IAG have been sitting on this order for 1 maybe 2 years, then just as they sign with Airbus Boeing rushes through an authority to offer but one that is nebulous, the -8X and -9X configurations are still not fixed and maybe for the obvious reason that they cannot meet the needs of every segment that they want to with the 777X.

Your characterization of the 777X program relative to the MAX program is not one that I agree with. Since you made this statement following an "Exactly." to my comments, I felt I should just clarify that.

The MAX was clearly a deer in the headlights scenario. The 777X is not. Boeing doesn't have two competing directions to go in this market segment, as they've already decided to go with the overhaul versus a cleansheet. The challenge now is one of scale and timing. How you read it otherwise is up to you, but please don't put those words in my mouth.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1580 posts, RR: 3
Reply 64, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 20768 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 63):

Actually, it seems that you are the one that is speaking for the inner workings of Boeing.

Its on the record.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 63):
Your characterization of the 777X program relative to the MAX program is not one that I agree with. Since you made this statement following an "Exactly." to my comments, I felt I should just clarify that.

Exactly, as in I don't see a great role for the 777X within IAG.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 63):
The MAX was clearly a deer in the headlights scenario. The 777X is not. Boeing doesn't have two competing directions to go in this market segment, as they've already decided to go with the overhaul versus a cleansheet.

Even though a clean sheet was never on the cards there were many directions to go in for the upgrade and Boeing has been deer in the headlights about which side of the road to jump to (cabin lengths, carbon wing, carbon cabin, wing span, required thrust, MTOW, required range, do we need to do anything? can we do anything until we have sorted out the 787) and every time they have looked at the 777 upgrade it got placed into the too hard basket.

They may now have manoeuvred themselves into the position where as a lot of the major airlines have already signed for the A35J they have to chase the orders of the 2 or 3 airlines with the ability to order 50+ frames and in doing that they may end up with an aircraft that is sub optimal for the majority of airlines.



BV
User currently offlinedynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 873 posts, RR: 9
Reply 65, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 20761 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 44):
So you are saying that the 787 was not conceived as an 8 across aircraft? If I recall they then screwed with the sidewalls and to end up with enough space for your 'standard' 9 so not random nor originally planned.

The 787 was configured specifically to allow for 9 abreast seating. The fuselage width was set based on this requirement. My source for this is a guy directly involved in the early 787 configuration work. They did not "screw with the sidewalls" to achieve this as an afterthought.


User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5576 posts, RR: 28
Reply 66, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 20649 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 64):
Exactly, as in I don't see a great role for the 777X within IAG.

There's a big difference between that statement and your diatribe comparing the 777X to the MAX. I understand that you are vested in one scenario but that doesn't mean my view on the overall 777X program in any way relates to the MAX and how it's moved along.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 64):
Even though a clean sheet was never on the cards there were many directions to go in for the upgrade and Boeing has been deer in the headlights about which side of the road to jump to (cabin lengths, carbon wing, carbon cabin, wing span, required thrust, MTOW, required range, do we need to do anything? can we do anything until we have sorted out the 787) and every time they have looked at the 777 upgrade it got placed into the too hard basket.

Sure. That's called making tough choices. When you are spending billions of dollars and there isn't a slam dunk choice, it takes time, deliberation, review of emerging techniques/tecnologies, etc. Again, I understand that you are vested in seeing it one way but it really doesn't seem that way at all.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 64):
Its on the record.

See:

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 65):
The 787 was configured specifically to allow for 9 abreast seating. The fuselage width was set based on this requirement. My source for this is a guy directly involved in the early 787 configuration work. They did not "screw with the sidewalls" to achieve this as an afterthought.

But, again, maybe there was a quote from Boeing that they never realized that the 787 could go 9 abreast? It certainly could have happened.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineHamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2744 posts, RR: 58
Reply 67, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 20626 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 44):
So you are saying that the 787 was not conceived as an 8 across aircraft? If I recall they then screwed with the sidewalls and to end up with enough space for your 'standard' 9 so not random nor originally planned.

Source?

None of my sources at Boeing knows anything about them "screwing with the sidewalls," ever, in the program. Granted, only a few of them have been with the program since the Sonic Cruiser days, but I still trust them.

Anyway, here is a diagram from Flight Global from 2006 which clearly shows 3-3-3 seating. Maybe not quite the 'conceived' picture you were looking for. . . but let me assure you, the 787 fuselage diameter was very, very carefully chosen - and for very good reasons.

http://images.search.yahoo.com/image...ef&.crumb=gMRRzY0pLgA&fr=yfp-t-900

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 62):
IAG have been sitting on this order for 1 maybe 2 years, then just as they sign with Airbus Boeing rushes through an authority to offer but one that is nebulous, the -8X and -9X configurations are still not fixed and maybe for the obvious reason that they cannot meet the needs of every segment that they want to with the 777X.

Will completely agree with the MAX. Though there was more work going on behind the scenes than most people realize, it wasn't until Boeing learned AA was leaning toward Airbus that they rushed to offer it.

However, I don't see how on God's green earth you can say the same about the 777X, when it has been talked about for over 2 years now, with most of the changes identified at least a year ago. Hell, up until the point Boeing finally did grant ATO, every hack on here (and some in the media) were criticizing Boeing for dragging their feet, and that they should have granted ATO 12 months ago. Now, suddenly they are being criticized for "rushes through an authority to offer"?!?! I'm honestly staggered.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 64):
They may now have manoeuvred themselves into the position where as a lot of the major airlines have already signed for the A35J

Define "a lot." By my count, I have:

- Air Lease Corp. (leasor, almost guaranteed to by both)
- Asiana Airlines (never operated the 77W, and I certainly don't see them as a 777X customer)
- British Airways (operate 77W at 9-abreast, but have still shown strong interest)
- Cathay Pacific Airways (operate 77W at 9-abreast, I don't see them adding the 777X)
- Emirates Airlines (rumored to be launching 777X)
- Etihad Airways (I'd be shocked if they don't eventually order 777X)
- Qatar Airways (rumored close to also signing up for 40-50 777X)

Now, obviously the comments are my own. However, out of the 40+ 77W customers, 6 have now ordered the A35J. And at least 4 of those are almost certainly 777X customers, too.

Not really what I'd consider a position where they are already "chasing" orders. . .

Hamlet69



Honor the warriors, not the war.
User currently offlinedynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 873 posts, RR: 9
Reply 68, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 20576 times:

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 65):
My source for this is a guy directly involved in the early 787 configuration work.

To elaborate, I've gone back and refreshed my memory. The guy I'm referring to was John Roundhill who retired as VP of product development from Boeing in 2002. My recollection from what he said at his lecture was that he led the team configuring the tube and wing baseline for the Sonic Cruiser to be traded against, and continued to do so as this eventually evolved into the 787.

He was in the country to, among other things, give the Sir Charles Kingsford Smith Memorial Lecture to the Royal Aeronautical Society. He also visited us at Boeing which was where I saw him speak. He had a lot of interesting things to say about how the 787 came to be how it was. Since it was a Boeing audience, he went beyond what he could say in public, so I don't know how much of what he said I could repeat here.


User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5576 posts, RR: 28
Reply 69, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 20460 times:

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 67):
Source?
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 64):
Its on the record.

Apparently his source is "on the record". We just need the record.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 67):
I'm honestly staggered.

I'm honestly staggered that you're staggered.  

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1580 posts, RR: 3
Reply 70, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 20349 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 66):
There's a big difference between that statement and your diatribe comparing the 777X to the MAX.

Try putting a full stop after "Exactly" and consider yourself disassociated with my 777X statement. Just because its a statement you disagree with does not make it a diatribe.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 67):
Hell, up until the point Boeing finally did grant ATO, every hack on here (and some in the media) were criticizing Boeing for dragging their feet, and that they should have granted ATO 12 months ago. Now, suddenly they are being criticized for "rushes through an authority to offer"?!?! I'm honestly staggered.

Not sure that this level of fake indignation deserves a reply. You seem to have trouble holding 2 concept in your head at the same time, something can be both late and rushed, for this I offer the implementation of the 787 program. I'm staggered that you cannot understand this.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 67):
Source?
Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 68):
To elaborate, I've gone back and refreshed my memory.
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 69):

Apparently his source is "on the record". We just need the record.

You guys are hilarious! The memory hole that is A.net never fails to amuse (and stagger) me but try playing this record an official Boeing presentation from Mike Denton, Boeing vice president of engineering..

Page 9: - Wide 8 across cross section
Page 16: - The economy concepts envisaged by Boeing are clearly 8 across look at the fuselage cross section and the seating examples.
Inclusive tour, ie charter (Asia X, Thompsonfly etc) could get 9 BUT the economy concepts for the 787 were clearly 8 across as I said.

http://safetyforum.alpa.org/LinkClic...ticket=vRUyTHJ4MD8=&tabid=2886

Everybody elses sources seem to be off the record oddly..

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 69):
I'm honestly staggered that you're staggered.

I'm shocked that he's staggered.

[Edited 2013-05-18 21:03:48]

[Edited 2013-05-18 21:06:55]


BV
User currently offlineStressedOut From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 78 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (1 year 4 months 22 hours ago) and read 20179 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 39):
Not buying it. The 787 was conceived as an 8 across aircraft, yes you can fit 9 across in it

Sorry, you are wrong. The fuselage cross section is one of the most critical decisions on an airplane and I can assure you that Boeing designed the 787 for 8 per row and 9 per row seating in economy class. If I remember right they noted in a public setting of some sort that due to needing less insulation than they originally thought that they could widen the inside of the fuselage a bit but they had planned on 9 across seating long before that.

In fact while I worked at Boeing I saw some of the original configuration work on the 787 during a class I took and they planned on 8 and 9 across seating from the beginning.

[Edited 2013-05-18 22:52:46]

User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5576 posts, RR: 28
Reply 72, posted (1 year 4 months 21 hours ago) and read 20045 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 70):
Try putting a full stop after "Exactly" and consider yourself disassociated with my 777X statement. Just because its a statement you disagree with does not make it a diatribe.

Oye. You made it sound like we were in agreement when clearly that wasn't the case.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 70):
Page 9: - Wide 8 across cross section
Page 16: - The economy concepts envisaged by Boeing are clearly 8 across look at the fuselage cross section and the seating examples.
Inclusive tour, ie charter (Asia X, Thompsonfly etc) could get 9 BUT the economy concepts for the 787 were clearly 8 across as I said.

So, August 21, 2003, there was a presentation made that showed 9 abreast seating as an option in the "7E7". The seats would have been 17" or so (I don't know what the aisles were in that proposal). That is pretty similar to the seats in other economy cabins operated on many mainstream airlines. Again, just because you want it treated as some sort of abnormality is telling. To me, what would be more abnormal would be the 16.5" seats offered on a 10-abreast A350 - but that's just me.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 70):

You guys are hilarious!

Actually, we're irritated.

Anyhow, your original statement:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 39):
Not buying it. The 787 was conceived as an 8 across aircraft, yes you can fit 9 across in it;

IMO is debunked by not only the various anecdotal statements here but also by the very presentation that you linked to. I don't know why it really matters but clearly it bothers you.

Anyhoo...

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 73, posted (1 year 4 months 20 hours ago) and read 20008 times:

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 67):
And at least 4 of those are almost certainly 777X customers, too.

Great comments. In addition, I believe those same 4 customers have ordered additional 77Ws since ordering the A351.

I realize that many will disagree with me but I think CX may be a 77X customer as well. But the seat widths! And 9Y! I know guys no one yell at me. Zeke (knows his CX) has indicated that the 351 will have almost the same number of seats as the 77X. I just cannot believe that in a couple years that their largest aircraft will be a 77W. They do have a 2-3-2 regional 777 that will not be possible on a CX A351. Also, the added width could allow them to make a 9 abreast economy plus at the same 19.3 seat width as their current 8 abreast economy plus and expand it. I will not propose 10 abreast Y. I think it was extremely wise to take those early positions when EY made them available but ordering 26 (16 converted from 359s and can go back) is not enough to even begin to replace the 747s, 773s, and the 50 77Ws. There has been VLA talk/speculation and if that goes through then probably all 777X bets are off but until then I think there is a chance. The freight market will come back and it will take more than what they have on order to accommodate their normal business operations and 777X will help there as well.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 70):
the economy concepts for the 787 were clearly 8 across as I said.

I admire you for keeping this fight alive despite all of the first hand accounts. I realize this is useless but I will add a comment. I promise not to respond so bash these all you would like.

Argument #1: The presentation you presented clearly shows 9 abreast in it. Yes they call it 'inclusive tour' but they still thought it. I think the argument all along (at least mine) has been that they envisioned 8 abreast with the possibility of 9 but they probably thought more customers would go with 8 but the flexibility was valuable. I see this presentation as in-line with that. You probably won't. They even named the slide 'Interior Flexibility Provides Choices and Comfort' for heaven's sake.

Argument #2: Why would they make the fuse 14" wider than the A330 if they did not think that it was that 14" that could give them another seat? Why not make it 4" wider where they could still say "Our 8 abreast cabin is wider!"? What was so important about the added 14" that they were willing to take the drag penalty to provide it? I phrase these as questions but it is rhetorical.

tortugamon


User currently offlinedynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 873 posts, RR: 9
Reply 74, posted (1 year 4 months 18 hours ago) and read 19816 times:

Your contention is this:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 44):
So you are saying that the 787 was not conceived as an 8 across aircraft? If I recall they then screwed with the sidewalls and to end up with enough space for your 'standard' 9 so not random nor originally planned.

It may have been conceived and marketed as 8 across, and I don't disagree with that. However, the decision to allow for 9 abreast was very deliberate, required no "screwing with sidewalls", and was planned prior to the outer mold lines being set. Apparently Boeing was not happy that some airlines were squeezing 10 across into 777s, so they wanted to ensure that if airlines chose 9 across then it would not be so marginal. As I said, the decision set the fuselage width.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1580 posts, RR: 3
Reply 75, posted (1 year 4 months 18 hours ago) and read 19847 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 72):
IMO is debunked by not only the various anecdotal statements here but also by the very presentation that you linked to. I don't know why it really matters but clearly it bothers you.

Yes, debunked by a presentation from Boeing vice president of engineering that states it, very good. This wasn't the only time that this was stated.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 72):
So, August 21, 2003, there was a presentation made that showed 9 abreast seating as an option in the "7E7". The seats would have been 17" or so (I don't know what the aisles were in that proposal). That is pretty similar to the seats in other economy cabins operated on many mainstream airlines. Again, just because you want it treated as some sort of abnormality is telling. To me, what would be more abnormal would be the 16.5" seats offered on a 10-abreast A350 - but that's just me.

I like the way you try to restate it but no, Economy was 8 across in several configurations, tour operator 9 across. Clearly this was a long time ago which is why I used the words at conception and things have changed since.You asked for a source I gave you one, I could give you another but you seem incapable of admitting what your eyes see so whats the point?

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 72):
Actually, we're irritated.

I find that people get irritated when something that they didn't believe gets proved to them and they have to suck it up.

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 74):
It may have been conceived and marketed as 8 across, and I don't disagree with that.

Hallelujah!

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 74):
However, the decision to allow for 9 abreast was very deliberate, required no "screwing with sidewalls", and was planned prior to the outer mold lines being set. Apparently Boeing was not happy that some airlines were squeezing 10 across into 777s, so they wanted to ensure that if airlines chose 9 across then it would not be so marginal. As I said, the decision set the fuselage width.

From my recollection there were discussions about making the sidewalls thinner in order to gain a few extra inches, I'll give you that that was not 'screwing with sidewalls' but part of the design process. Nope I am not going to provide a source for that as it makes no difference, people like to remember things the way they remember things, the truth is irrelevant.

[Edited 2013-05-19 02:45:34]


BV
User currently onlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 76, posted (1 year 4 months 15 hours ago) and read 19672 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 32):
a bit extra for the climb speed

This is not just a bit.
At a 5° climb out flight path about 30t of the 344t total weight appears on the axis of the drag and is fighting the thrust. Having a high aspect ratio and less thrust to just lift off is one thing, but maintaining a continuos climb requires a lot of thrust anyway.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Konstantin Tyurpeko - RuSpotters Team



The much higher MTOW also significantly reduces the acceleration during the take off roll by the simply f = m*a formula. The inertia is a resistance that only comes from weight. The fabulous aspect ratio won't help at all here.

From this we can assume that the 77X will like long runways and no much obstacles in front of the runway...


User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 336 posts, RR: 3
Reply 77, posted (1 year 4 months 13 hours ago) and read 19483 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 75):
the truth is irrelevant

That is not true, the truth is right in front of you but you refuse to see it because it doesn't match with what you're trying to say. In other words, it is you who is dismissing the truth.

As has been shown to you, including the presentation you cited and dating back to the early 2000's...9 abreast was always part of the plan for the 787 (without anything done to the sidewalls, the 777x is the only aircraft i've heard of regarding the sidewalls being thinned to get more space).

Boeing thought airlines would take up the 8 abreast option but the 9 abreast option has always been on the cards. However between then and now, fuel price has more than doubled. What was once economy class seat width is now premium economy class seat width, concurrently, economy class seating has been reduced in width generally. Hence majority of customers have gone for the 9 abreast...including 4 and 5* airlines. Which certainly gives credence to the 777x most likely being a 10 abreast for most if not all future operators.

To put it simply, admit you're wrong like an adult seeing as you've been proven wrong by multiple sources including yours and let's keep the discussion going.



The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11639 posts, RR: 33
Reply 78, posted (1 year 4 months 12 hours ago) and read 19339 times:

Quote:
A330 is a 9 across with 10 option for economy

Nope, A330 is a 8 across with 9 option for economy.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3409 posts, RR: 4
Reply 79, posted (1 year 4 months 12 hours ago) and read 19253 times:

A330 can do 9 in charter configuration. Thats less than a 17" seat
A350 can do 10 in charter configuration. Thats less than a 17" seat

I've heard its 16.5" seats that are needed for a 10Y A350, but I don't recall seeing any diagrams or support for it. The current 777 needs 17" seats or (and?) special cutouts on the window seats to do 10Y.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11639 posts, RR: 33
Reply 80, posted (1 year 4 months 11 hours ago) and read 19284 times:

This is the only picture of a 10-abreast A350 cabin Airbus ever released:



And the airbus.com website says:

Quote:
The seating flexibility offered in the A350 XWB’s economy class begins with a baseline nine-abreast configuration. This baseline configuration offers economy class passengers 18” seat width, as on any other Airbus aircraft. Premium economy is created in an eight-abreast arrangement, while 10-abreast seating is available for high-density layouts.

But no numbers about seat and aisle widths, only these pictures:

8-abreast:


9-abreast:


10-abreast:


[Edited 2013-05-19 09:33:31]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2485 posts, RR: 11
Reply 81, posted (1 year 4 months 11 hours ago) and read 19144 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 35):
On what basis would BA 'need' the 8X rather than the 9X? I don't see it myself

Mea Culpa. Slip of the pen . . .eh . . . keyboard.

I did mean 9X off course. I do not think BA is seeing markets where they need the -8X range potential, that can't be covered by 359 or 351. The -9X will offer additonal pax capacity.

PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11639 posts, RR: 33
Reply 82, posted (1 year 4 months 11 hours ago) and read 19190 times:

In reply to the 10-abreast A350 cabin, I found this in the A350 technical data pdf:

http://oi44.tinypic.com/2va0fps.jpg

A typical 9-abreast A350 cabin means:

- 18.1" aisles
- 18" seat cushions
- 1.5" armrests

Total cabin width: 216.2"

When I put the data in Excel I get the following numbers for a 10-abreast cabin:

- 16.1" aisles
- 16.5" seat cushions
- 1.5" armrests

Total cabin width: 216.7"



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5576 posts, RR: 28
Reply 83, posted (1 year 4 months 7 hours ago) and read 18865 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 75):
You asked for a source I gave you one

And your source showed both 8 and 9 abreast options????

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 75):
I find that people get irritated when something that they didn't believe gets proved to them and they have to suck it up.

Or....they get frustrated when people with an obvious agenda over dozens of posts keep saying things that just aren't accurate.

But that's just one example. I'm certainly not pointing fingers at you personally. And beyond that, I'll give you the last word.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 82):
But no numbers about seat and aisle widths, only these pictures:

8-abreast:


9-abreast:


10-abreast:

What's interesting about those diagrams is that the 8- and 9- abreast options are the same width in the pictures but the 10-abreast is wider. Is that to make the seats appear larger or did you change the formatting at all? Just curious, because those aisles already look pretty tight.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4736 posts, RR: 39
Reply 84, posted (1 year 4 months 7 hours ago) and read 18858 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Interesting thread. That the EIS has "shifted" to 2020 at the earliest comes as no surprise. Just as the engine thrust at 103k lbs is no surprise. It will be interesting to see how these numbers will play out when compared to the competition.  .

User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 85, posted (1 year 4 months 7 hours ago) and read 18802 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 76):
This is not just a bit.
At a 5° climb out flight path about 30t of the 344t total weight appears on the axis of the drag and is fighting the thrust. Having a high aspect ratio and less thrust to just lift off is one thing, but maintaining a continuos climb requires a lot of thrust anyway.

We are not talking about the same "bit" of climb. You are talking about the normal twin engine climb, which for all twins is a no problem as their engines gets sized from two other criteria:

- the regulatory requirement to maintain safe climb speed after an engine went inop after rotation, the requirement is for 2.4% climb at V2 which is around 175kt for the 777-9X. The drag is then around 58klbf whereof 45klbf is induced drag. This leaves 17klbf for the 2.4° climb angle as the engine only develops some 75klbf at 175kt due to forward speed momentum lapse. All FCOM minimum field length and obstacle clearance data is based on one engine going inop.

- keeping twin engine climb speed over 300ft/min at the intial cruise FL of 330, the thrust is then 2*20klbf (http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/331445/)

The resulting 2*103klbf static TO thrust gives even a 344t 777-9X good everyday climb performance, climb after take-off is in the same ballpark as 789 (2700 ft/min at 1500ft).



Non French in France
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 86, posted (1 year 4 months 5 hours ago) and read 18538 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 86):
That the EIS has "shifted" to 2020

Has it really shifted? I have been doing some searches and I cannot find any quote from management that says 2019. I have read 'end of the decade' a bunch. Technically the end of the decade is 12/31/20 (see reply #1). I was expecting 2019 as well and Boeing did not going out of their way to clear that up but technically I do not think it has shifted.

tortugamon


User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 336 posts, RR: 3
Reply 87, posted (1 year 4 months 3 hours ago) and read 18406 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 84):
That the EIS has "shifted" to 2020 at the earliest

Hmm but something that hasn't been set can't be shifted? If I remember correctly, the 2019 was more of a speculation or an educated guess. It was never confirmed as the year the 9X will EIS. Emirates just seemed to have confirmed a date Boeing has presented to them.



The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11639 posts, RR: 33
Reply 88, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 17952 times:

I think 2019 comes from the media and analysts, nothing was confirmed by Boeing.


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4736 posts, RR: 39
Reply 89, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 17834 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 86):
Has it really shifted?
Quoting waly777 (Reply 87):
Hmm but something that hasn't been set can't be shifted?

You are both correct. That is why I put shifted between "".  . Maybe I should have expressed myself a bit more clear.

But at least now we have some more detailed numbers (on thrust and EIS) to go on.

[Edited 2013-05-20 04:38:45]

User currently onlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 90, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 17824 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 85):
The drag is then around 58klbf whereof 45klbf is induced drag. This leaves 17klbf for the 2.4° climb angle as the engine only develops some 75klbf at 175kt due to forward speed momentum lapse.

The fact that 17klbf would not be just "a bit" of 58klbf was my point. And IMO 17klbf is still not enough.

I get 32klbf that would be needed beyond drag to maintain a 2.4° climb angle. So you (or I) need to revise our numbers to get an agreement. According to my calculation, at 344t the 77X would fail to reach a 2.4° climb angle initially.

So beside other things the weight does affect proportionally the maximum possble climb angle at a given thrust. And as the 779X should have about the same thrust as the A351 but much more weight, Boeings claims seem fishy from my point of view. I expect the 77X thrust to end up closer to the 77W´s thrust than to the A351´s thrust in the end...

[Edited 2013-05-20 04:50:46]

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13110 posts, RR: 100
Reply 91, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 17607 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting waly777 (Thread starter):
"We were concerned about it being underpowered in the early days, and Boeing has now grown the thrust [from under 100,000lb] to around 103k," Clark says.

Needed for EK's infamous 114F (temperature) takeoff requirement.

Quoting waly777 (Thread starter):
"We want the -9X to be able t fly routes like Dubai-Los Angeles and Buenos Aires-Dubai with maximum payload - 400-plus passengers and a modicum of freight - around 55t."

Where is the market for the 8LX with that payload at range?!? I'm confused...

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 5):
Plus if you are not planning to run 10 across do you gain much from the 777X?

Who won't go 10 abreast in the 777? Isn't the 777X getting a wider cabin still (thinning out the frames)?

9 across for internet search seats makes no sense. If passengers want room, they'll pay for Y+ or J.

Quoting PW100 (Reply 28):
More weight = more drag = more thrust. Larger wing will only partially off set that.

But the 777 has room for weight reduction and while the 777X will have a higher MTOW, it won't be that bad. The added span will mean better fuel burn and the new wing profiles will cut fuel burn nicely. Also, with a new wing, there will be an improvement in lift enhancement devices. The 777 is overpowered in cruise... Or more precisely, the engines are loaded at such a low level at cruise they are not as efficient as possible. But that takes a larger wing...

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 80):

This is the only picture of a 10-abreast A350 cabin Airbus ever released:

Thank you. I wish it wouldn't happen, but charters/AirAsia or someone else will make it happen.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 80):
10-abreast:

Dude, where did my isle go? (It looks very tight...)

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinetexl1649 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 296 posts, RR: 0
Reply 92, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 17517 times:

Serious question; when was the last time Boeing actually hit a forecast EIS date for a major model? 737-900?

User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4982 posts, RR: 5
Reply 93, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 17263 times:

Quoting waly777 (Thread starter):
"We want the -9X to be able t fly routes like Dubai-Los Angeles and Buenos Aires-Dubai with maximum payload - 400-plus passengers and a modicum of freight - around 55t."

[quote=KarelXWB,reply=60]Or he meant the -8LX.

No mention of the 8500nm. From Ferpes table for the -8XL he will get close to his 55t on a time table day of 16hr 20min or about 7900nm ESAD . For the period from Jan 21 to May 19th 2013 the median day was 15hr 50min or about 7650nm ESAD which would give better then 55t days. Comparatively the -9X would only give 50t   


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 94, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 16982 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 90):
I get 32klbf that would be needed beyond drag to maintain a 2.4° climb angle.

The requirement is for a 2.4% climb as I wrote, that equates to a climb angle of 1.4°, sorry for the typo (if you would have calculated from the requirement you would have seen that).

The formula for your climb performance is climb = ARCTAN ((thrust/weight)-(1/(L/D)))

As can be seen it is dependent on L/D, improve it and your climb performance improves. This is what the 71m wing does for Boeing, V2 L/D is around 13.6 whereas the L/D for the 3510 is only 12.1 at it'S V2 of 165kt. The major reason for that is the lower span, the induced drag at the lower V2 is the same as for the 344t 777-9X.

As said the 777-9X climbs as a 789, the 3510 is a bit better than that at 3100ft/min at 1500ft and 250kt CAS.



Non French in France
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1566 posts, RR: 2
Reply 95, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 16705 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 49):
But do you think the thrust increase is too much for most other airlines?

Do you think the original thrust spes under 100,000lbs were simply to attract interest and possibly competition from RR (?P&W), to extract as much new development out of GE as possible?

Ruscoe


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30977 posts, RR: 86
Reply 96, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 16721 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 49):
But do you think the thrust increase is too much for most other airlines?
Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 95):
Do you think the original thrust spes under 100,000lbs were simply to attract interest and possibly competition from RR (?P&W), to extract as much new development out of GE as possible?

Based on comments from GE in 2011, they were committed to making the GE9X as good as they could because they believe that RR and P&W could be competition for them at the top end of the engine market (in terms of thrust).



As to the question if 103,000 pounds of thrust would be too much for airlines not operating out of hot and/or high fields, they could always de-rate the engine and enjoy maintenance savings due to less wear-and-tear during take-off and initial climb-out.


User currently onlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 97, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 16498 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 94):
The major reason for that is the lower span, the induced drag at the lower V2 is the same as for the 344t 777-9X.

Without the typo I do get the same figures as you (I did only work with your numbers and not look up the requirements). The effect of span on induced drag is also clear (induced drag is proportional to weight per span).

But even if the induced drag of the 779X and A351 will be the same, the 779X should have quite higher parasitic drag and the higher weight would reduce the available thrust for climb also quite a bit more.

Therefore if the A351 would have the thrust to just match the minimum climb requirement the 779X would not. Or if the 779X does (as it seems to do marginally), the A351 will have excess thrust at that stage.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 98, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 16402 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 97):
(induced drag is proportional to weight per span

Induced drag is proportional to lift^2 / span^2 whch for level flight then is weight^2 / span^2 . It is the span^2 which makes modern frames seeking to extend the span which is where CFRP has real advantages. To put CFRP in the fuselage does not work as well as you loose a natural return path in a very electrically crowded area.



Non French in France
User currently onlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 99, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 16227 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 98):
It is the span^2 which makes modern frames seeking to extend the span which is where CFRP has real advantages.

Though in case of the 77X the span^2 will only make up the disadvantage from the weight^2 which works adversary. The weight appears also in a squared term.

And while the huge span might be mandatory to lift the 77X off the ground, the benefit for a good cruise efficiency is not that accentuated (because of higher parasitic drag of the larger wing).

And the last point which might favour the 77X only at first sight is the flapped span. As the 77x will very likely have not more flapped span as the A351 (if at all), the benefit from the large span might turn out smaller than assumed so far. Why? Because the largest lift is coming from the flapped span only so the span that is relevant for the induced drag is not the full span anyway (at takeoff).


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 100, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 15747 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 99):
And while the huge span might be mandatory to lift the 77X off the ground, the benefit for a good cruise efficiency is not that accentuated (because of higher parasitic drag of the larger wing).

Here their drag values at mid cruise weight:

FL370......................Drag due to lift............Drag indep. of lift......Total drag
350-1000 at 252t..........11700 lbf........................15400 lbf............27100 lbf
777-9X at 287t.............13600 lbf........................17000 lbf............30600 lbf

as can be seen they are proportioned about the same, with induced drag + compression (which is minimal at 7 and 8 pro mille respective) about 43-44% of total drag. The 777-9X has 11.5% higher drag due to its higher weight and larger wetted area (wing 40m2, fuselage 100m2) but it also transports some 13% more pax.

The CFRP wing brings the 777-9X aerodynamics in the ballpark of the 3510, the engines gives it a tad less fuel burn per pax (on paper and 3 years after the 3510, lets see what it will be in reality), finally it's alu hull will require more maintenance.



Non French in France
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11639 posts, RR: 33
Reply 101, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 15476 times:

There was an interesting talk by Boeing today. Some keypoints by Jon on Twitter:

> Boeing for the first time has confirmed the existence of the 777-8X and -9X, 20% improvement in fuel burn, 15% improvement in cost.
> Those comparisons by Boeing on 777-8X & -9X have been baselined off of a 365-seat 9-abreast 777-300ER.

So now we're talking about a 20% fuel burn improvement compared to an 9-abreast 77W   



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineAtlflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 736 posts, RR: 0
Reply 102, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 15508 times:

Here is a nice summary:

http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...gy/2021033087_boeingconnerxml.html

On 777X, Conner said the larger -9X variant, the one without an Airbus rival, will debut first.

And he said he’s confident the 777-8X will compete well with the A350-1000.

Conner said the -8X will fly further with 20 percent better fuel economy and 15 percent better per-seat operating costs than the current star of Boeing’s widebody line-up, the 777-300ER.

Airbus touts an even bigger efficiency jump for its equivalent sized A350-1000, saying it’s going to be 25 percent more fuel efficient than the 777-300ER.

But Conner disputed that, saying that the 777-8X “operating costs are at least on a par with what we think (Airbus) can do.”

How is it possible that the 777-8x will have operating costs on par with the A350-1000?


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11639 posts, RR: 33
Reply 103, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 15485 times:

Not. You're falling in the pitfall called "marketing".

[Edited 2013-05-22 10:10:09]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineAtlflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 736 posts, RR: 0
Reply 104, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 15457 times:

Also Connor said the 777-9x will have 40-50 seats more than the 777-300ER. Are they basing this off the original 365 seat 777-300ER or the 386 seat count they now post with 10-abreast seating? Seems Boeing uses one number or the other whenever it makes what they are talking about sound better.

Will the 777-9x really be a 415 or 436 seat airplane?!

[Edited 2013-05-22 10:15:29]

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11639 posts, RR: 33
Reply 105, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 15427 times:

See reply #101, it is based on a 9-abreast 77W.


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineAtlflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 736 posts, RR: 0
Reply 106, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 15419 times:

I guess the market will show us how competitive the 777-8x actually is against the A350-1000...

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30977 posts, RR: 86
Reply 107, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 15397 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Atlflyer (Reply 102):
How is it possible that the 777-8x will have operating costs on par with the A350-1000?

If the 777-8X has a similar OEW (remember, it's smaller than the A350-1000) and engines as fuel-efficient at cruise as the A350-1000 (and perhaps more fuel efficient at cruise) and a similar seat-count (via an additional seat per row) and perhaps better aerodynamics (thanks to the greater wing span), why would it not have operating costs similar to the A350-1000?

If I recall correctly, ferpe's calculations seem to imply this could be the case.


User currently onlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1884 posts, RR: 4
Reply 108, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 15253 times:

For some reason, there is (incorrect) assumption on a.net that 777-8X will be inefficient aircraft. Quite opposite - it will win many RFPs with post - 2022 deliveries, due to its superior capabilities.

I actually expect Delta and American to fly these babies (777-8x) in due time. It is a perfect trans-Pacific machine for all US-based carriers.



STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11639 posts, RR: 33
Reply 109, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 15163 times:

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 108):
there is (incorrect) assumption on a.net that 777-8X will be inefficient aircraft

Those assumptions are based on what we've seen in the past with ULH airframes.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 336 posts, RR: 3
Reply 110, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 15038 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 109):
Those assumptions are based on what we've seen in the past with ULH airframes

Indeed but those have been heavy ULH frames @ the 300 seat mark, which gave them rather high cost per seat figures.

With the seat numbers @ 353 (by boeing) or 330+ (by emirates) and with even better fuel efficiencies, this may just turn the tide around. Because the cost economics on a per seat basis will be phenomenal particular on routes where the larger siblings will struggle with payload restrictions and they'll have the ability to outlift them, giving a higher chance for revenue. I say this because increasingly airlines with cargo fleets are turning more to underbelly space to move cargo versus dedicated freighters.



The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11639 posts, RR: 33
Reply 111, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 15025 times:

Sure, I also expect it to sell more than today's 77LR but it remains a 9400nm niche aircraft: I don't see it selling in the same numbers as of today's 77W.


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 112, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 14962 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 111):
Sure, I also expect it to sell more than today's 77LR but it remains a 9400nm niche aircraft: I don't see it selling in the same numbers as of today's 77W.

The 777-9X is a bit of a no-brainer, here B plays the card they have of the only efficient 10 abreast cross section in the mid range market (the 748 cross section is not efficient , to much wetted area for what it does, see the Tech/Ops A380 wing thread. The 380 is in another leage, true VLA).

The interesting frame is the -8. Here B can show their hand with fine-tuning a frame to a market, they will either succeed and give the 3510 a ride for the money or not. Their freedom of design is large, at one end they have the engines, wing and MLG of the -9X so they can go as close to 344t as customers want and efficiency allows, on the other end they need to remain wihtin the effciency window of those same engines and wing. It is the A358 dilemma over again, your donor gives you big clothes, you have to decide to what extend and how you fill them  Wow! .

I am convinced this is where a lot of the finetuning of the 777X is taking place right now. I think the likelihood of only one -8 variant is large, a variant very much a cross between a speculated -8 and -8LX. It makes economic sense to only do one smaller frame and to try and capture as much as possible of the 3510 market with that. The competitive tricks one can play vs 3510 is a frame with a larger payload-range window but which has the same trip fuel burns at the more normal 10-15 hour legs. Given the later engines this is possible, the TXWB can be pipped after the 2017 EIS but there are limits what one can do, the pressure ratio of 61:1 is at the heart of the GE9X fuel efficiency and that one can not PIP into a TXWB in aftermath (the TXWB is at 53:1)   .



Non French in France
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5576 posts, RR: 28
Reply 113, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 14893 times:

Quoting Atlflyer (Reply 104):
Also Connor said the 777-9x will have 40-50 seats more than the 777-300ER. Are they basing this off the original 365 seat 777-300ER or the 386 seat count they now post with 10-abreast seating? Seems Boeing uses one number or the other whenever it makes what they are talking about sound better.

See:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 103):
You're falling in the pitfall called "marketing".

There's really so much spin in these things that it's hard to follow for this layman. I just assume they'll be great aircraft but I am not going to vest myself emotionally into their success. I think the 350-1000 will be a great machine and will likely win the majority of RFP's in that size category. Which isn't a bd thing anyhow.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30977 posts, RR: 86
Reply 114, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 14925 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 111):
Sure, I also expect it to sell more than today's 77LR but it remains a 9400nm niche aircraft: I don't see it selling in the same numbers as of today's 77W.

It's 9400nm with a full load of ~350 passengers and baggage. Add in a full load of revenue cargo and it's probably going to be closer to 7500nm based on what the 777-200LR can do at MZFW.

Which is over 1500nm farther than a 777-300ER can take a full load of 365 passengers, baggage and revenue cargo.

That just might have some appeal to current 777-300ER operators currently flying payload-restricted on B-market missions (11000 - 14000 kilometers).


User currently offlineAviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 619 posts, RR: 8
Reply 115, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 14588 times:

From a Bloomberg article

Quote:
Boeing plans to have a “777 family” including an 8X, which will have 20 percent lower fuel burn than the current 777-300ER and greater range, and the 9X, which will seat 40 to 50 more passengers than the 777-300ER while matching its range, said Ray Conner, chief of Boeing’s commercial airplane unit

So what ?
777-9X with 400-410PAX at less than 8000 Nm range ?
And Boeing seems to be focused on rendering the -8 "acceptable" as a lot of the rethoric is focused on this bird. What for ? Convicting airlines that the 777X is a real familly ? Focusing right on the A350-1000.
777-8X is head on competition with the A350-1000 pax count wise ... And it seems that this bird is the most feared by Boeing. 777 program for now is a cash cow ... something the 787 isn't yet


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11639 posts, RR: 33
Reply 116, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 14556 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 112):
The 777-9X is a bit of a no-brainer, here B plays the card they have of the only efficient 10 abreast cross section in the mid range market (the 748 cross section is not efficient , to much wetted area for what it does, see the Tech/Ops A380 wing thread. The 380 is in another leage, true VLA).

Sure, I was talking about the -8(L)X. I have no doubts about the -9X.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 112):
The interesting frame is the -8. Here B can show their hand with fine-tuning a frame to a market, they will either succeed and give the 3510 a ride for the money or not. Their freedom of design is large, at one end they have the engines, wing and MLG of the -9X so they can go as close to 344t as customers want and efficiency allows, on the other end they need to remain wihtin the effciency window of those same engines and wing. It is the A358 dilemma over again, your donor gives you big clothes, you have to decide to what extend and how you fill them   .

I agree 100% with you, but all above assumptions are also based on the information that is available today. So until Boeing officially launches the 777X and releases all specs, we have to stick with the little information/rumors we have.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 114):
It's 9400nm with a full load of ~350 passengers and baggage. Add in a full load of revenue cargo and it's probably going to be closer to 7500nm based on what the 777-200LR can do at MZFW.

Which is over 1500nm farther than a 777-300ER can take a full load of 365 passengers, baggage and revenue cargo.

I know and my point remains the same: not everyone needs those payload capabilities so it's a niche aircraft (assumptions based on the knowledge of today).



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineAviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 619 posts, RR: 8
Reply 117, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 14537 times:

777X will be class F on runway and on part on taxiway (I can't imagine the 777 unfolding or folding wingtips on the runway, it will eat some useful slots
So it's not going to be able to call in every airport ... 787-10 / A350 are much more "universal"

Personnally I don't like these folding wings


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5455 posts, RR: 30
Reply 118, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 14140 times:

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 115):
777-8X is head on competition with the A350-1000 pax count wise

The 9x is coming for sure, but the 8x may never get made, and if it does, it will be because somebody wants it. It may also become the new 777F, since it's doubtful the 77x and the 77L/F's will be made in parallel.

The focus is on the 9x...that's where most of the interest is and that's what will be made first. The 8x will be a shrink of that, trading volume for range.

If there is no market for it, it won't get made.



What the...?
User currently offlineAviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 619 posts, RR: 8
Reply 119, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 13937 times:

Joecanuck Conner spoke about the -8X
He might indeed need to convince customers and the board


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5455 posts, RR: 30
Reply 120, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 13841 times:

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 119):
He might indeed need to convince customers and the board

Maybe I'm a cynic but I've started taking all these announcements with a grain of salt until paper is signed.



What the...?
User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2613 posts, RR: 5
Reply 121, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 13574 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting Atlflyer (Reply 102):
How is it possible that the 777-8x will have operating costs on par with the A350-1000?

I assume he means operating costs per seat, in which case it is entirely possible.

Quoting Atlflyer (Reply 104):
Also Connor said the 777-9x will have 40-50 seats more than the 777-300ER. Are they basing this off the original 365 seat 777-300ER or the 386 seat count they now post with 10-abreast seating? Seems Boeing uses one number or the other whenever it makes what they are talking about sound better.

Will the 777-9x really be a 415 or 436 seat airplane?!

The 777-9X is projected to be a 407 seat aicraft in Boeing's standard configuration, giving it a 42 seat advantage over the 777-300ER.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 109):
Those assumptions are based on what we've seen in the past with ULH airframes.

But the 777-8LX isn't just an ULH frame, as has been mentioned in another thread. It's superior payload range performance could see airlines taking a significant number of these aircraft to fly long haul routes with a full payload. Based on Boeing's payload-range chart, the current 777-200LR can fly up to 7500nm ESAD without any payload penalties, and I have no doubt that the 777-8LX will have a superior payload-range performance than even the 777-200LR. The advantage of being able to operate long haul routes such as east coast USA to Asia and Middle East to west coast USA with a full payload may see this becoming a rather popular aircraft.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 112):
I think the likelihood of only one -8 variant is large, a variant very much a cross between a speculated -8 and -8LX.

Agreed.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 115):
So what ?
777-9X with 400-410PAX at less than 8000 Nm range ?

The 777-9X is projected to have 8000nm range, although I suspect it will end up being higher.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 115):
What for ? Convicting airlines that the 777X is a real familly ?

I have no idea what you're trying to say. The 777X is a "real family". The 777-8LX is going to be a very capable aircraft for airlines that need that capability, and it may have operating costs per seat on par with the larger A350-1000.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 117):
So it's not going to be able to call in every airport ... 787-10 / A350 are much more "universal"

No. Its folding wingtips will ensure that it can park at code E gates just fine.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineAviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 619 posts, RR: 8
Reply 122, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 13392 times:

CXB77L, I was just telling that folding / unfolding will take time on the threshold / end of runway
or
Will need to make sure final parts of taxiway are code F compliant if done will taxying ...

Not so straightforward for me I think at thr airport level if it's not a class F airport...

Just have a look at carrier operations ...


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3409 posts, RR: 4
Reply 123, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 13365 times:

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 122):

CXB77L, I was just telling that folding / unfolding will take time on the threshold / end of runway
or
Will need to make sure final parts of taxiway are code F compliant if done will taxying ...

Not so straightforward for me I think at thr airport level if it's not a class F airport...

Just have a look at carrier operations ...

Not at all. While we don't know exactly how Boeing will do the folding mechanism, its possible that It can fold at low speeds meaning its in the process of folding as the aircraft exits the runway. So while you might be right, its far from certain.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5455 posts, RR: 30
Reply 124, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 13279 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 123):

I have no problem believing that Boeing can make folding wingtips which can be extended and folded while taxiing.



What the...?
User currently offlineHeavierthanair From Switzerland, joined Oct 2000, 795 posts, RR: 0
Reply 125, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 13264 times:

G´day

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 124):
Boeing can make folding wingtips which can be extended and folded while taxiing.

From an engineering point of view that is no problem, you also can design them to extend and fold in flight, you can even design them to flap in flight for added lift.  Wow!

All that makes it more complicated and adds weight, that does not exactly help overall efficiency.   


Cheers

Peter



"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." (Albert Einstein, 1879
User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2613 posts, RR: 5
Reply 126, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 13218 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 122):
I was just telling that folding / unfolding will take time on the threshold / end of runway
or
Will need to make sure final parts of taxiway are code F compliant if done will taxying ...

The aircraft does not need to be at a complete standstill before activating the folding wingtips. It can do so while vacating the runway without slowing more than they would normally need to.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 124):
I have no problem believing that Boeing can make folding wingtips which can be extended and folded while taxiing.

Likewise.

Quoting Heavierthanair (Reply 125):
All that makes it more complicated and adds weight, that does not exactly help overall efficiency.

It's always a trade-off, but the additional weight isn't going to be prohibitive when compared with the gains as a result of the larger wingspan. In terms of weight and complexity, it will not be as heavy or as complex as the one proposed for the original 777.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineAviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 619 posts, RR: 8
Reply 127, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 13228 times:

I just said that it will imply some constraint on taxiway or aircraft taxiing
For sure it will be done will taxiing but

1) You have to make sure at aircraft level that you're not spreading you wings on a non "classe F" part of the taxiway
2) Have done the paperwork to verify at every class E airport that you can spread your class F wing at dedicated point close to the runway ...

You can't, at least for take off, you'll probably have to line up, spread or wing, and then go take off

Folding wing aren't without some drawback

For sure Boeing will make it as straightforward in everyday life as it can be.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 128, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 13178 times:

Regarding these folding wingtips. I suspect that any airport that is A380 and B748 compliant should be ok with the proposed 77X. The 748 is 2.5 meters shorter than the proposed 777X before folding wing tips so there may be some additional calculation made, however that aircraft has already been to over 100 compliant airports at this point and the A380 with a larger wingspan has already landed at 135 airports (that number surprised me) and by the time 2020 comes around I suspect that number will grow pretty dramatically so that dealing with the 77X will not be the first time that a particular airport has had to deal with similar wingspans. I am speculating here but I think a lot of the airport compliant problems other than pavement loading really came down to engine clearance on the outer engines, right? That will not apply here obviously.

Long and short of it is that I do not see the folding wing tips even being relevant except for parking at a gate and not clipping the wing with a neighboring aircraft. I suspect we will be seeing these folding wings on most very large aircraft from here on out once 777X shows proof of concept.

tortugamon


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2613 posts, RR: 5
Reply 129, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 13142 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 127):
1) You have to make sure at aircraft level that you're not spreading you wings on a non "classe F" part of the taxiway
2) Have done the paperwork to verify at every class E airport that you can spread your class F wing at dedicated point close to the runway ...

That is not a big deal.

Nevertheless, it is highly unlikely that the 777X will be used to any airport other than major hubs which are already A380/747-8 capable, so this really is a non-issue.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineAviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 619 posts, RR: 8
Reply 130, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 13148 times:

Tortugamon, of course A380 compliant airport will be fine with 777X, and even at the gate ... I think.

There's also spacing problems on parallel taxiways... twins won't have ingestion problems on narrow taxiway. it's just a matter of spatial separation.

I agree, for the proof of concept ...


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30977 posts, RR: 86
Reply 131, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 12936 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 777X wings look to be about 6m wider than the 777, so I'd be surprised if this was even a minor issue on taxiways at major airports.

The idea that a 777X would have to position and hold on the active before it could lower it's wingtips strikes me as so unlikely as to be almost fantastical.

[Edited 2013-05-24 17:52:43]

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 132, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 12854 times:

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 127):
Folding wing aren't without some drawback

For sure. They have had the technology before this for sure.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 129):
and even at the gate ... I think

You are probably right but I am sure Boeing is trying to make sure that the 77X does not have to park at A380 gates so it can open up additional airports. They will have a hard time selling 700+ of these things if they can only go where the A380 can go.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 130):
ingestion problems

Ah that is it! Engine clearance was an issue but it was the ingestion problem. Thanks for the reminder.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 130):
I agree, for the proof of concept ...

A380 opens up the airports to the idea of a really large aircraft and 777X opens up the idea to a folding wing. Its great to see both A & B pushing the envelope and resulting in changes to the broader aviation establishment/structure.

tortugamon


User currently offlineflyabr From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 659 posts, RR: 0
Reply 133, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 12780 times:

Who knows...maybe when the wheels go down...the wingtips go up...and vice versa! That should alleviate any problems with runway/taxiway clearance at many airports where the current 777 is allowed.

User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1864 posts, RR: 0
Reply 134, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 12709 times:

Quoting flyabr (Reply 133):
Who knows...maybe when the wheels go down...the wingtips go up...and vice versa! That should alleviate any problems with runway/taxiway clearance at many airports where the current 777 is allowed.

I can pretty much guarantee you the wing tips aren't going to automatically go down on takeoff.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3409 posts, RR: 4
Reply 135, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 12293 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 124):
I have no problem believing that Boeing can make folding wingtips which can be extended and folded while taxiing.

The main thing i could see preventing it is if they use a locking system that pins it when there is positive lift. This is so that it can't fold in flight even if the mechanism is triggered. That said I think Boeing would first try for using the landing gear weight switch to disable it. After all the spoilers are done that way and a spoiler deploying in cruise is a whole lot worse than the wing tip folding.

That said, right now the FAA has its short pants on, and insists on wearing them on its head... So god only knows what they will require.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5455 posts, RR: 30
Reply 136, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 12172 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 135):

That said, right now the FAA has its short pants on, and insists on wearing them on its head... So god only knows what they will require.

Boeing has said they plan to certify the plane with one or both wingtips folded. At Taxi speed, hydraulics are more than capable of resisting what little lift there is to get a positive lock...and the process also has the weight of the tip working for them.

Controls, flaps, slats gear doors all operate at flight speeds mostly flawlessly, so the folding thing really doesn't seem like a problem to me, especially considering it will have the narrow edge to the relative wind...unlike the controls..



What the...?
User currently onlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10023 posts, RR: 96
Reply 137, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 12196 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 128):
and the A380 with a larger wingspan has already landed at 135 airports (that number surprised me)

Especially when we've all be A-net indoctrinated that there would only ever be 21 x A380 compatible airports ....  
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 128):
Long and short of it is that I do not see the folding wing tips even being relevant except for parking at a gate and not clipping the wing with a neighboring aircraft.

Real-life experience suggests that the 777X's size might be an issue at some of the airports it would like to fly to, and then for a period of time, not necessarily for ever. But those constraints will be in the margins as far as the business case for the aircraft is concerned.

It is enjoyable though to watch how the issue of airport constraints has suddenly taken an about-face on A-net now that the subject is a 777 rather than an A380. Most amusing.

The only thing I see for the 777 is that it will be expected to sell in much larger numbers than the A380, and visit a much larger number of airports. But, like the A380, as the economic case grows, the airports WILL accommodate   

Rgds


User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 381 posts, RR: 0
Reply 138, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 12091 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 137):
Real-life experience suggests that the 777X's size might be an issue at some of the airports it would like to fly to, and then for a period of time, not necessarily for ever. But those constraints will be in the margins as far as the business case for the aircraft is concerned.

Tim Clark seems to be concerned about space at his DXB hub, and I guess he is insisting that the 9X fits in to present 777 box

I guess that Boeing carefully listens to what he has tho say about this plane.


User currently offlinespink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 318 posts, RR: 1
Reply 139, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 11999 times:

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 138):
Tim Clark seems to be concerned about space at his DXB hub, and I guess he is insisting that the 9X fits in to present 777 box

I guess that Boeing carefully listens to what he has tho say about this plane.

The bigger issue for the 777x is that if it is at all close to being as successful as its parent, there simply aren't enough bigger parking spaces available. If you look at most airports that can handle the 380, they generally have a small handful of 2-3 gates that can handle the plane. Which is fine because except for a couple of airports, the 380 is a rare bird. If the 777x couldn't fit in the 777 sized gate, that would present a massive issue at most airports like SFO, LAX, ATL, etc. Even at DXB if they roll over most of the 777 fleet to 777x!


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2613 posts, RR: 5
Reply 140, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 11924 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 138):
Tim Clark seems to be concerned about space at his DXB hub, and I guess he is insisting that the 9X fits in to present 777 box

I guess that Boeing carefully listens to what he has tho say about this plane.

Hence the folding wingtip solution to enable the 777X to fit into the same gates as the current 777. The 71m wingspan will be reduced to 65m when folded.

Quoting spink (Reply 139):
The bigger issue for the 777x is that if it is at all close to being as successful as its parent, there simply aren't enough bigger parking spaces available. If you look at most airports that can handle the 380, they generally have a small handful of 2-3 gates that can handle the plane.

It will fit in 777-300ER sized gates with the wingtips folded.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30977 posts, RR: 86
Reply 141, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 11568 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 122):
CXB77L, I was just telling that folding / unfolding will take time on the threshold / end of runway...
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 126):
The aircraft does not need to be at a complete standstill before activating the folding wingtips. It can do so while vacating the runway without slowing more than they would normally need to.

  

Per one of the books on the 777's development, the original folding wingtip was designed to work once the aircraft was on the ground and traveling below 50kts (90km/h).

I would expect the same here, allowing the tips to fold up during taxi to the gate and fold down during taxi to the active.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4736 posts, RR: 39
Reply 142, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 11071 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 141):
I would expect the same here, allowing the tips to fold up during taxi to the gate and fold down during taxi to the active.

I would expect the same. And I do not expect this to be an issue which could cause worries to Boeing or the customers. It is technically not more challenging then modern flap systems imho.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 138):
Tim Clark seems to be concerned about space at his DXB hub, and I guess he is insisting that the 9X fits in to present 777 box

I guess that Boeing carefully listens to what he has tho say about this plane.

I am sure they will listen very, very carefully.  .

Quoting astuteman (Reply 137):
It is enjoyable though to watch how the issue of airport constraints has suddenly taken an about-face on A-net now that the subject is a 777 rather than an A380. Most amusing.

Dont't you just love how predictable replies on issues on A-net sometimes can be? Especially if the A380 and/or B777 are involved "suddenly" different standards seem to apply.   


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3523 posts, RR: 66
Reply 143, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 10961 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 142):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 141):
I would expect the same here, allowing the tips to fold up during taxi to the gate and fold down during taxi to the active.

I would expect the same. And I do not expect this to be an issue which could cause worries to Boeing or the customers. It is technically not more challenging then modern flap systems imho.

Since it only operates on the ground, the proposed 777X tip fold is more akin to a cargo door than a flap system.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlinebrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3013 posts, RR: 4
Reply 144, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 10959 times:

10 abreast on the A350 looks to be as inhumane as 9 abreast is on the A300/310/330/340 with 16.5" seats. I've done it, once, on a Euro holiday airline. Fine for a vacation I guess but I don't think the majors will go for it. I think the A350 will remain a 9 abreast aircraft for most operators.

Which is good because it will be a more comfortable option than the 777X at 10 abreast.



Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11639 posts, RR: 33
Reply 145, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 10538 times:

So what's the deal with the MTOW increase?

> Boeing ups 777-9X’s MTOW to 351,534kg from 340,000kg
> Boeing ups 777-8X’s MTOW to 351,534kg from 315,000kg

Sounds almost unrealistic, especially for the -8X.

[Edited 2013-05-30 01:16:28]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30977 posts, RR: 86
Reply 146, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 10482 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

That would be the same weight as the 777-300ER, so I am guessing it's to improve payload-range even more.

User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 336 posts, RR: 3
Reply 147, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 10395 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 145):
So what's the deal with the MTOW increase?

> Boeing ups 777-9X’s MTOW to 351,534kg from 340,000kg > Boeing ups 777-8X’s MTOW to 351,534kg from 315,000kg

Sounds almost unrealistic, especially for the -8X.

Ah most likely to boost the range.

Though you remember what is now offered as the 8X is what was once referred to as the 8LX, which is the straight shrink of the 9X vs the previous version which had lower rated engines and most peolple didn't see a point to when compared to the a350-1000



The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 148, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 10393 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 145):
So what's the deal with the MTOW increase?

> Boeing ups 777-9X’s MTOW to 351,534kg from 340,000kg
> Boeing ups 777-8X’s MTOW to 351,534kg from 315,000kg

Sounds almost unrealistic, especially for the -8X.

The -9X is logical, that is needed to fulfill EKs wishes, for the -8X I think his source has said there will be an MTOW increase but not the exact number, he assumes it will be the same. I don't think so, the frame would fly for 20 hours or more in the spec config, I think it will be more like 330-340t when they announce it, it will give them the 9400nm spec range which is rumored.

Once again, D Tsang is fine for digging out rumored facts, don't take everything at face value, do the acid test = is it plausible.



Non French in France
User currently onlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1884 posts, RR: 4
Reply 149, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 10242 times:

Don't 77L and 77W have the same MTOW as well?
If so, I think it means that Boeing is designing 777-8X as a straight shrink of 777-9X.



STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offlineAviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 619 posts, RR: 8
Reply 150, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 10221 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 148):

Going from
- "the same range as 777-300Er" quoted by boeing official next weekso 7700-7900 nm mark
to
- Tsang quoted 8100 nm ...
and
- Knowing that A350-1000 is at 8400 Nm
and
- Knowing that A350-900 is probably where it promised to be


This might explain the creep ...

Or might explain nothing 


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 151, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10215 times:

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 149):
Don't 77L and 77W have the same MTOW as well?

Nope, 77W MTOW is 351.5t and 77L 347.5t. But the 77L has got a lot of flak because it is to inefficient in everyday utilisation (= 10-15 hours legs) and no-one needs 20 hours flying time, therefore you put the -8X with engines which are 10% leaner at what is reasonable, 22 hours is not asked for in the market. It is of course a question of payload-range but also at 330t you fly a full ship pax+cargo 8500 to 9000nm ESAD. You don't need more, any increase in MTOW means heavier ship means you suffer on all normal distances.



Non French in France
User currently offlineAviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 619 posts, RR: 8
Reply 152, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10312 times:

Can we say the 777L has got a lot of flak, because in the 300 segment you can have the A330-300 ... when you don't need range / payload, an A340-300 in the past (not so inefficient comparing to -200ER/LR.
In the 350 -400 PAX segment, all you can have is a 777-300 right now (and A340-600 a while ago), so one must fits all ?
in everyday life according to boeing, 777-200Lr is a good as 777-200ER with RR or PW engines in spite being heavier and costlier...

:D


User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 336 posts, RR: 3
Reply 153, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10273 times:

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 150):

Still not sure where you're getting the quote of 'the same range as the 777-300ER', the 9X has been given a range of 8100nm from the start and this is a direct quote from Jim McNerney 8 days ago.

" As a result of this composite wing, the 777X would be heavier and yet fly farther than the 777-300ER, despite using a General Electric GE9X turbofan with 13% less power than the latter's GE90-115B engine, says Boeing CEO Jim McNerney."

Then again, it is a rumour....as Boeing hasn't yet mentioned anything about this. Though as Ferpe mentioned...this might be to fulfill EK's wish for what a 9X should be.



The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently offlineAviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 619 posts, RR: 8
Reply 154, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10264 times:

The same day, McnNerney or Conner said that the range was on par with the 777-300ER ...

http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?...S972I01-3VKK35JJJH9V6N7C0AH7SB7HVU

" Boeing plans to have a “777 family” including an 8X, which will have 20 percent lower fuel burn than the current 777- 300ER and greater range, and the 9X, which will seat 40 to 50 more passengers than the 777-300ER while matching its range, said Ray Conner, chief of Boeing’s commercial airplane unit."


User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 336 posts, RR: 3
Reply 155, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 10223 times:

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 154):

Ah I saw that article as well, but the 9X matching the range of the 300ER doesn't mean it will have the same range. Put into context, he is highlighting that the 9X will carry more passengers and still do what the 300ER can.

Then again, there isn't a world of difference between the stated ranges of the 300ER and the 9X.....7930nm(365 pax)/7825nm (386pax) vs 8100nm



The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4982 posts, RR: 5
Reply 156, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 10142 times:

Quoting waly777 (Reply 155):
Then again, there isn't a world of difference between the stated ranges of the 300ER and the 9X.....7930nm(365 pax)/7825nm (386pax) vs 8100nm

True, but it does not make the oft quoted 8500nm that EK say they need .


User currently onlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 157, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 10146 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 145):
> Boeing ups 777-8X’s MTOW to 351,534kg from 315,000kg

Sounds almost unrealistic, especially for the -8X.

This IMHO only corrects what has not been realistic before...

Quoting ferpe (Reply 151):
It is of course a question of payload-range but also at 330t you fly a full ship pax+cargo 8500 to 9000nm ESAD. You don't need more, any increase in MTOW means heavier ship means you suffer on all normal distances.

It is misleading to say a 351t 778X would have an increased MTOW. Because the relevant parts of the airframe would support that weight anyway. A 315t 778X on the other hand would be more or less only derated nominally to safe some fees. But in its DNA it would still be a 351t plane. This is the fortune of all simple shrinks.

Summarized we can say that going to 351t from the 315t-version would not penalize the 778X because the 315t-version already is a 351t airframe (all the wings, the gears, the engines have the dimensions and the accompanying weight to support 351t).

Of course you don't need the capability to lift 351t for the intended range/payload of the 778X. A good indicator how much weight you would have "to spend" to reach that goal would be the A351: 308t. So the 778X is a 351t plane for something you ideally would need a 308t aircraft. By not loading it up to the 351t mark, you won't gain back hardly any of the losses...

See why (despite the hype) the 778X will face a tough fight against the longest A350? IMO if Boeing really fears the A351 the most the 778X would not be an appropriate answer.

Sure it will sell by the hundreds. You just need to be aware that selling by the hundreds still is a significant decrease from the standard the 777 has set until now.


User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 336 posts, RR: 3
Reply 158, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 10134 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 156):
True, but it does not make the oft quoted 8500nm that EK say they need

Inded but the 8100nm range is based on a 340 ton 9X, this rumoured 351ton version would most likely be given a good range boost. It might even have something to do with the increased engine thrust. If this rumoured MTOW increase is true, I suspect it is to give EK what they want.

Then again, Ferpe's calculations for the 9X put it in the 8400nm or so mark at 340 tons.



The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5455 posts, RR: 30
Reply 159, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9980 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 157):
Sure it will sell by the hundreds. You just need to be aware that selling by the hundreds still is a significant decrease from the standard the 777 has set until now.

It would only be a significant decrease from the present 777 program if you don't take the -9X into consideration. Those hundreds of sales of the -8X would be pure bonus for Boeing...especially since the main focus of the 777x program is the -9X. Now that they have basically admitted that the -8 will be as simple a shrink as they can do, it will not cost a lot to certify, and will be their new freighter.

They really don't expect the -8X to be the big seller...that's why most of the hype of the 777X program is focussed on the -9X and why it will be produced first.