Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
777X Updated Information And Developments  
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3450 posts, RR: 11
Posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 42737 times:

There has been some new information regarding the 777X during the Paris Air Show and I thought I would start a thread where future developments can be documented. So far I have the following:

Airframe News:
-Boeing has confirmed that the 777X will have folding wing tips
-It will have much larger windows, similar to the 787
-Other interior changes and a 'new passenger experience' above the 787 are in the works but details are fuzzy.

Ge9X Engine News:
-GE is promising a 10% reduction in fuel burn compared with the GE90-115B's and also promised a 5 percent improvement in specific fuel consumption versus the Trent XWB 97klbf
-This article has some excellent technical details about what GE is doing with the 9X
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...ushes-envelope-ge9x-new-boeing-777

777X Customers:
-EK says that the 8X will do SYD-ATH will 330 seats and a full payload
-EK also says "the 8x is as popular as the 9x in our planning"  Wow!
Here is a good interview: http://www.bloomberg.com/video/emira...tretch-end5dFiETve3GUw6ZJ1eEg.html
-Akbar Al Baker (QR Chief) is now saying that is not interested in the 8X only the 9X but he thinks the 9x will be 'better than they are saying'.

Feel free to add if anyone has additional news from this week.

tortugamon

256 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 891 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 42753 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
-It will have much larger windows, similar to the 787

Are larger windows justified? The cost of adding them is high.. and it doesn't result in any direct increase in revenue for Boeing.



Fly Delta Jets
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31263 posts, RR: 85
Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 42694 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ghifty (Reply 1):
Are larger windows justified? The cost of adding them is high.. and it doesn't result in any direct increase in revenue for Boeing.

If it makes the plane more appealing to passengers...

I assume they'll just apply the 787 window belt (as they applied the 777 window belt to the 747-8).


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13457 posts, RR: 100
Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 42569 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

132" fan... I'm speechless. When I started in the industry, vendors didn't even have the tools to make that big of a fan!   

My only issue with the 777X is that it kills off the space occupied by the 748i.  

But I'm ok with it pushing Airbus to develop the A389.    IMHO, these engine improvements mean that the A389 will require something more advanced than the TrentXWB. As someone in Aerospace R&D, I'm liking the pace of technology.   

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
-EK also says "the 8x is as popular as the 9x in our planning"  

   I didn't expect that. Ok, for the Americas, the 8X is a perfect fit. Same with MEL/SYD. But what is meant by 'popular?' 77L popular or a 50/50 buying plan for EK 8X/9X?

Quoting ghifty (Reply 1):
Are larger windows justified? The cost of adding them is high.. and it doesn't result in any direct increase in revenue for Boeing.

Rumor is Boeing is redoing the ribs/windowbelt anyway. I suspect the new style windows are a maintenance benefit so why not do something to add bragging rights?

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5768 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 42381 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
-EK also says "the 8x is as popular as the 9x in our planning"

   Like Lightsaber, I would really like to know what the mouth of EK actually means by this...


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3450 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 42207 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
If it makes the plane more appealing to passengers...

Yes. It has been speculated that many passengers would not even realize that they are on a 787 if it was not for the windows. Its a differentiating item that consumers will immediately recognize.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3):
132" fan... I'm speechless

Completely. I like to picture in my head a big tube with a gigantic wing and two 737s fuselages hanging off each wing; and its still bigger than that! Its really unfathomable.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3):
But I'm ok with it pushing Airbus to develop the A389.

From my seat the best thing that could happen to Boeing products is if Airbus improves Airbus' products and vice versa. The flying community benefits when competition is raised to the next level. Looking forward to the A389 as well  .

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3):
But what is meant by 'popular?'

Not sure. I really cannot see them doing anything close to 50/50 on the order but that was a bombshell to me and motivated me to create the thread. EK wants to not only be the biggest global airline but wants in on FedEx game too?

Some 'new' information
At 2:09 in the following video recap there is a picture of the 777X cabin vs the A350. I was not at the briefing but it looks like from the image that they are changing floor level to maximize cabin width at armrest level. I thought that was already the case but if not that could be a difference maker. Personally I find elbow room and seat pitch to be more important than seat cushion width.
http://www.boeing.com/Features/2013/06/airshow_day_two_wrap.html

Also, Boeing keeps referencing this 4th generation CFRP wing: I understand the first generation was the early -8s, second was recent -8s, and third was the -9. If anyone can describe what these changes are from generation to generation, I think we could all benefit.

tortugamon


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5742 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 41976 times:

Quoting ghifty (Reply 1):
Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
-It will have much larger windows, similar to the 787

Are larger windows justified? The cost of adding them is high.. and it doesn't result in any direct increase in revenue for Boeing.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
If it makes the plane more appealing to passengers...

Come on.... since when have airlines recently cared about what is more appealing to the (majority of, aka: economy) passengers?  
.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3):
Rumor is Boeing is redoing the ribs/windowbelt anyway. I suspect the new style windows are a maintenance benefit so why not do something to add bragging rights?

I also suspect it to maximize the seating capacity. If you can keep that extra row and improve aisle width to improve boarding rates its a winner. What is the maximum they could possibly add to available seating/aisle width?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 5):
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3):
But I'm ok with it pushing Airbus to develop the A389.

From my seat the best thing that could happen to Boeing products is if Airbus improves Airbus' products and vice versa. The flying community benefits when competition is raised to the next level. Looking forward to the A389 as well .

I tried to start thread on this earlier, I think the real problem for the 389 is that by going bigger it has that much more to need to fill, while the 777 and her sister craft (like the A350 etc.) can be more easily scaled/deployed and redeployed on various routes than the 389. It will eat sales that the 388 would otherwise get and require more resources to expended further hitting the ROI of the 380. I really want to see the 389 and I know it will be excellent as the 380 already is but I think it is a real conundrum for Airbus.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31263 posts, RR: 85
Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 41886 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
EK also says "the 8x is as popular as the 9x in our planning".  Wow!
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3):
I didn't expect that. Ok, for the Americas, the 8X is a perfect fit. Same with MEL/SYD. But what is meant by 'popular?' 77L popular or a 50/50 buying plan for EK 8X/9X?   

The 777-8 will give EK ~90% of the passenger capacity and ~80% of the cargo volume of the 777-300ER with no worry about having to leave passengers or cargo behind. Any EK 777-300ER mission that goes out payload restricted greater than this would be a natural 777-8 mission.


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1623 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 41770 times:

Quoting ghifty (Reply 1):
Are larger windows justified? The cost of adding them is high.. and it doesn't result in any direct increase in revenue for Boeing.

Bigger windows are ALWAYS justified!


User currently offlineJHwk From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 41666 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 5):
Also, Boeing keeps referencing this 4th generation CFRP wing: I understand the first generation was the early -8s, second was recent -8s, and third was the -9.

I would think it is a reference to out-of-autoclave production process.


User currently onlinebehramjee From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 4835 posts, RR: 44
Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 41651 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
The 777-8 will give EK ~90% of the passenger capacity and ~80% of the cargo volume of the 777-300ER with no worry about having to leave passengers or cargo behind. Any EK 777-300ER mission that goes out payload restricted greater than this would be a natural 777-8 mission.

correct...but whats with the SYD-FCO nonstop chatter by Mr Clark? Could EK legally fly nonstop SYD-FCO with traffic rights? Surely it cannot survive on its own accord on this route and would definitely require feeder support from Alitalia and other carriers out of FCO into Europe.


User currently offlinebobmuc From Germany, joined Nov 2011, 455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 41528 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
a 5 percent improvement in specific fuel consumption versus the Trent XWB 97klbf

Does this mean, that they expecting a 5% improvement only in some "specific" missions (distance, speed, etc.) versus the Trent XWB?

Maybe GE is very careful at this early stage, but doesn't sound as a solid statement for me.


User currently offlineRonaldo747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 41360 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
The 777-8 will give EK ~90% of the passenger capacity and ~80% of the cargo volume of the 777-300ER with no worry about having to leave passengers or cargo behind. Any EK 777-300ER mission that goes out payload restricted greater than this would be a natural 777-8 mission.

  

I'm not that surprised. The 777-9X might be too big for some destinations. The 777-8X offers 777-300ER capability with a considerable superior range (if needed). And it will be much more efficient.


User currently offlinePanAm788 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 292 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 41220 times:



Quoting tortugamon (Reply 5):

I screen-shotted the moment in the video you pointed out. Very interesting. It looks to me however like Boeing is thinning the 777's wall where the shoulder and armrest meet in order to tweak out some more room. Look at the bizarre shape of the blue sidewall. Very interesting stuff.



You know nothing Jon Snow
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 12737 posts, RR: 35
Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 41158 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
-EK also says "the 8x is as popular as the 9x in our planning"

I always stated that the -8X would be a perfect payload airframe for EK.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
The 777-8 will give EK ~90% of the passenger capacity and ~80% of the cargo volume of the 777-300ER with no worry about having to leave passengers or cargo behind. Any EK 777-300ER mission that goes out payload restricted greater than this would be a natural 777-8 mission.

  

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3):
I didn't expect that. Ok, for the Americas, the 8X is a perfect fit. Same with MEL/SYD. But what is meant by 'popular?' 77L popular or a 50/50 buying plan for EK 8X/9X?

He says popular in the EK fleet, not in general  

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
-Akbar Al Baker (QR Chief) is now saying that is not interested in the 8X only the 9X but he thinks the 9x will be 'better than they are saying'.

Qatar doesn't need the -8X because 1) they don't need the range (9400nm) and 2) they also don't need the payload capabilities. Baker seems to prefer the A350-1000 instead because it will offer a lower trip cost. And as an 77W operator and with traffic growth in mind, the -9X is also a no-brainer.

[Edited 2013-06-18 14:27:26]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12175 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 41029 times:

So, Air Lease actually ordered 33 B-787s, 30 -10s and 3 -9s? KE ordered 5 B-747-8Is, and 6 B-777-300ERs.

Is the order by KE for 5 more B-747-8Is in addition to the 5 they already have on order? Or are they firming up their original order for the B-747-8I? I believe this is a new order for the B-747-8I. KE already has 3 B-747-8Fs in their fleet, with 5 more still on order.

This will give KE the second largest fleet of B-747-8s with 18, when all are delivered, just one airplane behind LH who will have 19.


User currently offlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2315 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 40964 times:

Clark may mean popular in the EK fleet vs. other airlines but with his check book not many other airlines matter. Just like the 380, if he ends up with 150 units and 20 other airlines order 10-20 each then this thing should be paid and profitable right quick.

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3450 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 40855 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 6):
It will eat sales that the 388 would otherwise get and require more resources to expended further hitting the ROI of the 380.

Agreed on both accounts. And IMO this is why the A389 has not yet been launched. I suspect A388 orders will pick up (probably not to the level Airbus originally predicted) and eventually they will start making money on each frame and will start to look at making the stretch happen. Can't happen quick enough IMO but I suspect A will be cautious and I think it won't happen until 2025 or so. There is a possibility that the A389, while requiring more seats sold to break even on trip cost vs the 388, as a percentage of total capacity it may be lower as their should be a number of added efficiencies with the stretch.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
Any EK 777-300ER mission that goes out payload restricted greater than this would be a natural 777-8 mission.

But how many missions do you think that applies to? LAX, SFO, IAH, SYD, MEL, EZE...I start running out of city pairs relatively quickly. Can you really see a need for more than 20 frames? I have to imagine the -9 would be the 150+ frame choice, hence my confusion with his quote.

Quoting JHwk (Reply 9):
I would think it is a reference to out-of-autoclave production process.

Ok, so does that mean they can make the wing lighter so less drag? more smooth so less drag? best mix of materials so stronger and therefore more lift (or less drag)? Or does it just mean they are getting really good at it so it will be quicker and/or cheaper to produce and this is an economics item? These are semi rhetorical as I do not think these answers are really out there in the public domain yet.

Quoting bobmuc (Reply 11):
Does this mean, that they expecting a 5% improvement only in some "specific" missions

Specific fuel consumption (SFC) is the amount of fuel an engine consumes per unit of thrust. The actual mission is irrelevant, this is a way to compare multiple engine's fuel use across a range of thrust levels to determine which engine is most efficient. It a way of comparing engines apples to apples. To that end GE's 9X is promised to beat RR's Trent XBW by 5%. We will see!

Quoting PanAm788 (Reply 13):
I screen-shotted the moment in the video you pointed out

Great idea; its not the floor it is indeed the sidewall. Good catch. If you zoom in you can kinda see the lines where they are thinning the wall just at shoulder level. For some reason I thought this sidewall slimming would be throughout but this makes much more sense. And now that I think about it this could be Lightsaber's point in #3 when he talks about redoing the window belt  -I)). I can really see this having a real positive impact on 10Y seat quality  . Now how many 9Y 77W operators will agree?

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 14):
1) they don't need the range (9400nm) and 2) they also don't need the payload capabilities.

Right you are. Which is why it was surprising when just a couple weeks ago he said he wanted to be the launch customer for it  .

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
This will give KE the second largest fleet of B-747-8s with 18, when all are delivered, just one airplane behind LH who will have 19.

Good point, wrong thread.

tortugamon


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31263 posts, RR: 85
Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 40765 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 17):
But how many missions do you think that applies to? LAX, SFO, IAH, SYD, MEL, EZE...I start running out of city pairs relatively quickly. Can you really see a need for more than 20 frames? I have to imagine the -9 would be the 150+ frame choice, hence my confusion with his quote.


High ambient temps can impact the 777-300ER's payload on shorter missions while the 777-200LR is pretty much unaffected by them. An EK Fleet Planner on pprune,org noted that when DXB is at 37°C, a 777-300ER needs to off-load 1.7 tons of cargo for the flight to JFK. They also noted that the 777-200LR can take it's full payload to IAH even when temps at DXB are 42°C. The 777-9 could be similarly affected by high ambient temps in DXB whereas the 777-8 should not.

Honestly, I could see the A380-800 and 777-8 being the backbone for EK's long-haul fleet (13-16 hour endurance) with the A350-1000 and 777-9 being the backbone for their medium-haul (8-11 hour endurance) fleet.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3450 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 40764 times:


Here is an image of 777 in production where you can see the sidewall. 2" from each side seems reasonable to me. Also, if you look at the back of the image you can see the crew rest area. Substantial room up there, hope B can find a way to stretch that space the length of the cabin and put it to use with either revenue generating ideas or saving cabin floor space.

Image from NYCAviation.

tortugamon


User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 40448 times:

Did anyone else catch Scott Francher's "No Comment" on a possible 777X-10? in the AviationWeek article?

80M Long?


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5768 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 40432 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
They also noted that the 777-200LR can take it's full payload to IAH even when temps at DXB are 42°C.

   That is insane. It is carrying a full load of passengers stuffed into a high-density configuration plus 10 or more tons of cargo... over 7000 nm... into a headwind... while taking off in 42°C conditions? I knew the 77L was a beast, but that's something else.

Even so I remain skeptical whether such capability on the very worst days is really worth the tradeoff of reduced passenger capacity the rest of the time.


User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 337 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 40337 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 21):
Even so I remain skeptical whether such capability on the very worst days is really worth the tradeoff of reduced passenger capacity the rest of the time.

Ah but the -8X will be offering increased capacity similar to the -300ER whilst retaining that level of performance.



The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5768 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 40185 times:

Quoting waly777 (Reply 22):
Ah but the -8X will be offering increased capacity similar to the -300ER whilst retaining that level of performance.

In the context of the -8X of course "reduced capacity" refers to a comparison with the -9X.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3450 posts, RR: 11
Reply 24, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 40093 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
1.7 tons of cargo for the flight to JFK

Impressive stuff about the 77L. Not that surprised about the 77W on a 6knm mission heading west on a very hot day though. How much is 1.7t in lost revenue, $6k? Are we assuming that the 9x will not have at least a little bit better performance than the 77W because it would not take that many more seats sold in a 777-9x to make up for that.

The temperatures mentioned should only impact flights greater than 6knm taking off between 11am-3pm June through September and heading West right? DXB is busiest late at night and early AM I believe. You are definitely convincing me that -8x will be a bigger part of the EK fleet than I thought but I still don't think it will be bigger than the -9x. North America, South America, and Australia are important but Europe and Asia is their bread and butter and I do not see a reason for an 8x on those missions.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 20):
Did anyone else catch Scott Francher's "No Comment" on a possible 777X-10?

Juicy. These guys should learn to say: "that has not yet been discussed in any meaningful way". 'No Comment' seems so guilty sounding. Not sure the market is asking for a 445 seat triple stretch 777....yet!

tortugamon


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3450 posts, RR: 11
Reply 25, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 41066 times:

Quoting morrisond (Reply 20):

Here is the article Morrison references. A couple highlights:

>"Fancher told Aviation Week the folding arrangement will only be for the tip of the wing. “It is as complex as a landing gear door.” Because it will be so far outboard, only “a couple of wires”"

>“I think it will be readily accepted,” Fancher said. Boeing has had “almost no questions about it” recently, although there were a lot of discussions earlier in the development phase.

>Fancher instead insists the 777X is “very firm in the configuration, the design is very mature.”

>Fancher said, and he believes the “sweet spot” of the market will actually move from 300-350 seats to the roughly 400 seats the 9X will accommodate.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/awx_06_18_2013_p0-589371.xml&p=1

tortugamon


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1623 posts, RR: 1
Reply 26, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 40718 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3):
Rumor is Boeing is redoing the ribs/windowbelt anyway.

What about the ribs does Boeing intend on changing?

A two aisle jet with 400 passengers - it seems like it will be a beast to board and deplane a jet with that many passengers - the 380 at least has three door deplaning. And a 777-10 would be even worse. Sort of like the wide body version of the 757!


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13457 posts, RR: 100
Reply 27, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 38963 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 5):
From my seat the best thing that could happen to Boeing products is if Airbus improves Airbus' products and vice versa. The flying community benefits when competition is raised to the next level. Looking forward to the A389 as well

   Now that we can agree on.   

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 14):
He says popular in the EK fleet, not in general

That part I got.  

What I'd like to know is the ratio of 8X/9X that EK is going to order....   

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 21):
That is insane. It is carrying a full load of passengers stuffed into a high-density configuration plus 10 or more tons of cargo... over 7000 nm... into a headwind... while taking off in 42°C conditions? I knew the 77L was a beast, but that's something else.

That it is. I still remember a poster here writing about loading pipe into the 77L at IAH... (it must have been in high demand...). Versatile. I see a need for some 8X in EK's fleet... I'm just trying to figure out how many...

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 26):

What about the ribs does Boeing intend on changing?

See the picture in post #19. The idea is to widen the cabin by 2". This makes 10 across Y a little more comfortable.

But I *know nothing*. I haven't seen all the details. To say the least, I'm interested.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6962 posts, RR: 63
Reply 28, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 38872 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
If it makes the plane more appealing to passengers...

Like the 10-abreast in Y makes it less appealing.   

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 5):
Yes. It has been speculated that many passengers would not even realize that they are on a 787 if it was not for the windows. Its a differentiating item that consumers will immediately recognize.

Well, I've made six 787 flights and, frankly, I didn't notice the windows being anything special.


User currently offlineaerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2743 posts, RR: 4
Reply 29, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 38785 times:

Quoting ghifty (Reply 1):
Are larger windows justified? The cost of adding them is high.. and it doesn't result in any direct increase in revenue for Boeing.

Having flown the A380 a few times now, with it's huge "interior" widow and pinprick porthole of an exterior window, give me a big Boeing window anyday.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 5):
Yes. It has been speculated that many passengers would not even realize that they are on a 787 if it was not for the windows. Its a differentiating item that consumers will immediately recognize.

Yup.

Quoting behramjee (Reply 10):
but whats with the SYD-FCO nonstop chatter by Mr Clark? Could EK legally fly nonstop SYD-FCO with traffic rights?

A hint of a Qantas order?

Quoting PM (Reply 28):
Like the 10-abreast in Y makes it less appealing.

True, they giveth and taketh. But seriously, airbus needs to start addressing it's approach to cabin windows - the A320s are tiny and the A380 just, ugh, what a jip!


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 38283 times:

What would be the capacity on the 777-8F? Eating away at the 748F I guess..

User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7859 posts, RR: 19
Reply 31, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 38244 times:

I dont know if this was mentioned before so forgive me if it was, but are they building this out of composites like the 787?


我思うゆえに我あり。(Jap. 'I think, therefore I am.')
User currently offlineDan23 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 140 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 38244 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 31):

The new wing is believed to be composite, yes, but not the entire airframe which remains similar to todays 777.

[Edited 2013-06-19 00:40:01]

User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 38250 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 31):

There was talk about Al-Li for the structure, but nothing has been said during the show as I understand. Al-Li buys you a lot of benefits as do CFRP. Stronger, more durable yet lighter.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 12737 posts, RR: 35
Reply 34, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 38151 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 17):
Right you are. Which is why it was surprising when just a couple weeks ago he said he wanted to be the launch customer for it

Did he mentioned both types? I believe he meant the 777X in general.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineflyglobal From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 596 posts, RR: 3
Reply 35, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 38189 times:

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 29):
True, they giveth and taketh. But seriously, airbus needs to start addressing it's approach to cabin windows - the A320s are tiny and the A380 just, ugh, what a jip!



While I agree that I personally prefer big windows and the A380 windows aren't appealing for window lookers like me - we need to reflect the daily practice in planes:
On real long haul flight: Those flights are many times timed to spend the night in planes.

What happens in cabin ?

Soon after the meal service, people like to watch movies and the more its towards the 'night' want to sleep.
Typically the windows are closed then and the remaining window lookers like me are more or less politely asked to close it. Eiiiii.

So for Airbus, when they may spend money for the next gen planes (lets say A389, / A350-Mk2, they may take the window belt optimization rather a second priority, compared to e..g. wing improvements, weight reduction etc.

At least I as the arm chair Chief engineer would spend the money first on things improving customers (=airlines) calculation.

Regards

Flyglobal

[Edited 2013-06-19 00:52:05]

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3450 posts, RR: 11
Reply 36, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 38042 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 26):
What about the ribs does Boeing intend on changing?

If you zoom in extra far on the image in Reply #13 you will how Boeing is manually drawing a line at arm rest level to should level and carving out inches out of that sidewall. Its a crude picture but you can see it. If you then look at the picture of the ribs and the interior I posted in 19 you will have an idea of what needs to be done. Some how all of this sidewall needs to be thinned out. Not sure if it will be composites, or extra reinforcement on either side of the thinned wall, or Dumbledore's magic.

Quoting sweair (Reply 30):
Eating away at the 748F I guess..

10+ years away. Tough to speculate.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 34):
Did he mentioned both types?

Depends on how you interpret this: "We are very keen on the 777-8 and -9X aircraft and we are receiving presentations from Boeing in this regard," Akbar Al Baker "We hope to be one of the launch customers."
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100740414
Moot now.

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 35):
At least I as the arm chair Chief engineer would spend the money first on things improving customers (=airlines) calculation.

And you probably would have most of the aviation brain trust with you. People are seeking out the A380 and it is showing high LF as a result. Some People pay more to fly it. That may wear off but at least for the time being we are seeing aircraft ticket purchasing not just based on convenience and cost; hopefully the brain trust can find a way to bottle that and spread it around. Maybe good 'calculations' and keeping customers happy are not mutually exclusive?

tortugamon


User currently offlineKGAI From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 120 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 36690 times:


full sized version

couple observations:
1) we knew previously the new 777s will only have 8 exits. It now looks like exits 3L and 3R aren't doors at all, but large hatches.

2) Is it me or do the new 777s get 787 style vertical stabilizers?

[Edited 2013-06-19 04:57:14]

User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 36598 times:

B seems to love putting wingbend in any image of their aircraft, even on the 748i.. I think we got it by now  

User currently offlinerj777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1883 posts, RR: 2
Reply 39, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 36289 times:

Looks like on the -9 they've ditched the overwing door for a 739 style window plug aft of the wing

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31263 posts, RR: 85
Reply 40, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 35149 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PM (Reply 28):
Like the 10-abreast in Y makes it less appealing.   

It lowers CASM which lowers fares - and I am quite sure passengers find that appealing.   


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3574 posts, RR: 67
Reply 41, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 35000 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 27):
See the picture in post #19. The idea is to widen the cabin by 2". This makes 10 across Y a little more comfortable.

Each sidewall is thinned by 2" so the cabin width is increased by 4". With an EK aisle width and 10ab, the seat cushion grows from 17" to 17.4".



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3210 posts, RR: 7
Reply 42, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 34840 times:

Quoting KGAI (Reply 37):
2) Is it me or do the new 777s get 787 style vertical stabilizers?

Don't those look like 777 tails in the rendition? I'm not seeing that they appear to be changed.


User currently offlineKGAI From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 120 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 34581 times:

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 42):
Don't those look like 777 tails in the rendition? I'm not seeing that they appear to be changed.

Ya, I might be seeing things, but if you compare it to:
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bastian Ding


It appears the 777X tail has a more prominently curved leading edge, both on the base and the top. To me, it looks pretty much identical to the 787 tail in the computer rendering.
But since it is afterall a computer rendering, I might just be reading too much into it.


User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 34547 times:

So with Scott Fancher slip up on "No Comment" on 777-10X - what could Boeing be thinking?

I would think it somewhat inefficient to have three sizes - a 69.5M 778 - 76.5M 779 and 80M 771

Maybe Boeing is rethinking sizing again?

If a recall there was a rumor floating around that the 778/9 might use the original 77W MTOW.

How capable would a 73.9M 778 and 80M 779 using 77W MTOW be?

Can you still get close to 8,000 NM out of the 779 with the increase in MTOW?

Wouldn't it make sense to Build the 778 at the existing 77W length? Would it still have over 9,000NM range?

It's a 8T increase in MTOW. How much does an extra 4.4M of 777 Structure (77W-778) weigh? If less than 8T wouldn't this make sense?


User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1705 posts, RR: 12
Reply 45, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 34007 times:

Quoting KGAI (Reply 37):
1) we knew previously the new 777s will only have 8 exits. It now looks like exits 3L and 3R aren't doors at all, but large hatches.

On the -8, yes. On the -9 (assuming the artists rendition is correct) it looks like they've moved 2L/R and 3L/R farther aft compared to the 300ER and changed 4L/R to the smaller door.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31263 posts, RR: 85
Reply 46, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 33477 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KGAI (Reply 37):
It now looks like exits 3L and 3R aren't doors at all, but large hatches.
Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 45):
On the -8, yes. On the -9 (assuming the artists rendition is correct) it looks like they've moved 2L/R and 3L/R farther aft compared to the 300ER and changed 4L/R to the smaller door.

I am guessing these are Type III exits? Which are certified for 35 people per Sec. 25.807 — Emergency exits.

That would reduce the Exit Limit of the 777-8 to 365 (from 440 on the 777-200) and the 777-9 to 475 (from 550 on the 777-300).


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3450 posts, RR: 11
Reply 47, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 32503 times:

Quoting morrisond (Reply 44):
Maybe Boeing is rethinking sizing again?

This aircraft was just presented to the board two months ago, I do not think anything has changed since then to think they should shake things up. Airlines would not be expressing interest in it if they weren't sure what dimensions the aircraft will be.

My guess: They have internally talked about the possibility of another stretch way down the road and want to make sure, as always, their options are open to it. It would probably be another range for payload trade off similar to the 787-10. So an ULH (353 seats), a LH (406 seats), and 'Regional' (460 seats). Probably could do it at 81m (barely into no man's land). This regional would compete with the 777-9 and the 74...I can't even get it out. If it ever happened this would be way down the road and the market would be very different than it is now. I would think the wings and engines would have no problem accommodating.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 46):
777-9 to 475

Maybe they are doing this door as an option to save wait for non-high capacity seating. 475 should be enough for 90% of the demand and maybe you add a full door for those that want 500 regional seaters. JAL sits 500 on their 773s so I could see 475 being an issue for this stretch. Are the evacuation numbers different for a type three door that is not over wing? I could see making this type of hatch that did not require a step up and went right to a slide that could actually evacuate more people then an over wing one.

tortugamon


User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1714 posts, RR: 1
Reply 48, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 32347 times:

Quoting morrisond (Reply 20):
Did anyone else catch Scott Francher's "No Comment" on a possible 777X-10? in the AviationWeek article?

80M Long?
Quoting morrisond (Reply 44):
Maybe Boeing is rethinking sizing again?

Only if Airbus has second thoughts about an A350-1100 IMHO.



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4867 posts, RR: 40
Reply 49, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 32171 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
There has been some new information regarding the 777X during the Paris Air Show and I thought I would start a thread where future developments can be documented. So far I have the following:

Thanks for gathering all the information. It is very interesting to read.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3):
132" fan... I'm speechless.

That is some fan!  Wow! .

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3):
But I'm ok with it pushing Airbus to develop the A389.    IMHO, these engine improvements mean that the A389 will require something more advanced than the TrentXWB. As someone in Aerospace R&D, I'm liking the pace of technology.

I like that too. When the A389 is announced, (at the 2017 Paris Air Show?), she will also have some very interesting details te reveal. Also in the engine department.

Quoting PM (Reply 28):
Well, I've made six 787 flights and, frankly, I didn't notice the windows being anything special.

I too think that the experience of bigger windows is overrated.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 48):
Only if Airbus has second thoughts about an A350-1100 IMHO.

Well, not before 2021 I guess.  .


User currently offlineflyabr From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 672 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 31936 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 49):
I too think that the experience of bigger windows is overrated.

To each his own, but i'd really like to ride on an airliner and be able to look out the window without having to crane my neck into an uncomfortable position. And i'm only 6ft, gotta be really bad for folks taller than me!


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1104 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 31944 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 49):
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3):
132" fan... I'm speechless.

That is some fan!   .

I just thought about our old a-net friend friend Keesje, when I seen your reply.

He likely say, that it has 26% better SFC then the Leap-1b on the MAX because of its fan diameter!  



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3450 posts, RR: 11
Reply 52, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 31772 times:

Some news came out today about two new potential customers for the 777x so I thought I would create a list. If I miss any please let me know. Just an FYI: I am not trying to determine who should buy it, just documenting where stated interest is:

Customers Who Say They Will Likely Buy it
> Emirates (both models)
> Qatar (9x))
> Malaysian (Presumably 9x source)
> Ethiopian (See Malaysian)
> International Aviation Group (Presumably 9x)
> Eva Air ("..on our shopping list' source)
> PR ("We may buy 10 and, if it performs well, we’ll exercise an option for 10 more." source)

Customers who May be Added to the List / Customers Who Say They are Strongly Considering It.
> Lufthansa (A350-900/A350-1000, 787-10, or 777X)
> Cathay Pacific ("it is an aircraft that Cathay will look at closely" source)
> Singapore airlines (source)
> EY ("Etihad Airways...express an interest in Boeing’s...777X" source)

tortugamon


User currently offlineghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 891 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 31504 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 51):
He likely say, that it has 26% better SFC then the Leap-1b on the MAX because of its fan diameter!  

I remember in one of the many 737 MAX threads on here, one of Boeing's upper managers blasted Airbus for having a larger fan on the A320NEO v. 737 MAX because of increased drag..



Fly Delta Jets
User currently offlineTP313 From Portugal, joined Nov 2001, 260 posts, RR: 9
Reply 54, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 31420 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 52):
Customers Who Say They Will Likely Buy it
> Emirates (both models)
> Qatar (9x))
> Malaysian (Presumably 9x source)
> Ethiopian (See Malaysian)
> International Aviation Group (Presumably 9x)
> Eva Air ("..on our shopping list' source)
> PR ("We may buy 10 and, if it performs well, we’ll exercise an option for 10 more." source)

Customers who May be Added to the List / Customers Who Say They are Strongly Considering It.
> Lufthansa (A350-900/A350-1000, 787-10, or 777X)
> Cathay Pacific ("it is an aircraft that Cathay will look at closely" source)
> Singapore airlines (source)
> EY ("Etihad Airways...express an interest in Boeing’s...777X" source)

> Emirates (both models) - Yes
> Qatar (9x)) - Yes
> Malaysian (Presumably 9x source) - Maybe
> Ethiopian (See Malaysian) - Doubtful, maybe the 8x?
> International Aviation Group - Maybe, but kind of doubtful right now
> Eva Air - Maybe
> PR - Maybe
> Lufthansa - 9x will most likely replace 747s. No chance for 8x. 340s most likely replaced by 350s
> Cathay Pacific - No. Forget about 10 abreast Y 777x at CX
> Singapore airlines - Same as above for CX, unless a subfleet of 8x (with 9 abreast Y) for return to ULH routes is viable
> EY - Yes

You forgot:

Qantas - Yes
Air New Zeeland - Maybe


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3450 posts, RR: 11
Reply 55, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 31406 times:

Quoting ghifty (Reply 53):

I am so happy that this is not one of those threads  

tortugamon


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13457 posts, RR: 100
Reply 56, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 31401 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mffoda (Reply 51):
I just thought about our old a-net friend friend Keesje, when I seen your reply.

He likely say, that it has 26% better SFC then the Leap-1b on the MAX because of its fan diameter!

   and perhaps a little less tip loss to flow path ratio...
and a little higher pressure ratio
And a lower cycle life between overhauls as the engine is designed for long haul...

Yep. Just the fan size!  
Quoting ghifty (Reply 53):
I remember in one of the many 737 MAX threads on here, one of Boeing's upper managers blasted Airbus for having a larger fan on the A320NEO v. 737 MAX because of increased drag..

There are tradeoffs. I worked a program where shrinking the fan diameter happened to balance with the nacelle drag once

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20249 posts, RR: 59
Reply 57, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 31285 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3):
My only issue with the 777X is that it kills off the space occupied by the 748i.
Quoting morrisond (Reply 20):
Did anyone else catch Scott Francher's "No Comment" on a possible 777X-10? in the AviationWeek article?

80M Long?

Interesting. If we draw an analogy from the 789 and 78J we could say that 779 will have a range of around 8,000 nm. The 77J would probably be in the 6,400-7,000nm range and it will be very large. And that's if it's just a straight stretch.

Now, most widebodies fly routes that are shorter than 6,000nm (Most TATL, a lot of northern TPAC, SouthAm-NorAm, SouthAm-Europe), and longer routes tend to get thinner (a lot more people fly JFK-LHR than LAX-SYD). So actually, what you will have is a Boeing A380 competitor, although not an A380 equivalent. It will carry fewer passengers but more cargo for shorter range at lower CASM.

For an airline like BA that flies a lot of routes under 6,000nm, the 77J could be a very good fit.


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1104 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 31204 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 56):
Quoting mffoda (Reply 51):
I just thought about our old a-net friend friend Keesje, when I seen your reply.

He likely say, that it has 26% better SFC then the Leap-1b on the MAX because of its fan diameter!

   and perhaps a little less tip loss to flow path ratio...
and a little higher pressure ratio
And a lower cycle life between overhauls as the engine is designed for long haul...

Yep. Just the fan size!  
Quoting ghifty (Reply 53):
I remember in one of the many 737 MAX threads on here, one of Boeing's upper managers blasted Airbus for having a larger fan on the A320NEO v. 737 MAX because of increased drag..

There are tradeoffs. I worked a program where shrinking the fan diameter happened to balance with the nacelle drag once

Lightsaber

Thanks Lightsaber,

I guess humor, is a acquired taste around here...  



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10190 posts, RR: 97
Reply 59, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 31002 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PanAm788 (Reply 13):
It looks to me however like Boeing is thinning the 777's wall where the shoulder and armrest meet in order to tweak out some more room. Look at the bizarre shape of the blue sidewall. Very interesting stuff.

That's what I expected them to do. moving the deck etc. is BIG engineering

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 14):
Baker seems to prefer the A350-1000 instead because it will offer a lower trip cost

FWIW I think EK will slowly convert their A350-900's into -1000's to operate alongside the 777-8LX on the "shorter" sectors - you know, like 7 500Nm  
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 17):
Can't happen quick enough IMO but I suspect A will be cautious and I think it won't happen until 2025 or so.

Like you, I think Airbus will hold off on the A389 for a bit longer yet. They will want to make sure the A380 is covered off against the 777-9X

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 17):
There is a possibility that the A389, while requiring more seats sold to break even on trip cost vs the 388, as a percentage of total capacity it may be lower as their should be a number of added efficiencies with the stretch.

with a substantially better engine, i.e. one within a couple of percent of the 777-9X's GE's an 80m A389 would burn less fuel than today's A388 - and if Airbus do a "mega-sharklet" too, I'd expect to see a further 3%-4% off the fuel burn

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 25):
Fancher said, and he believes the “sweet spot” of the market will actually move from 300-350 seats to the roughly 400 seats the 9X will accommodate.

There's no doubt the sweet spot is moving upwards.

Rgds


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 30
Reply 60, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 30847 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 59):

I think the 380 will be re-engined at some point but won't get stretched. It's already the big boy on the block and I doubt making it bigger will mean more sales. It will be some time before it can be properly challenged for CASM, (if ever), but better engines will move that goalpost out of reach again.

I think we'll see fewer planes with first and more with business and Y+, pushing pax numbers over 600. We may even get the all Y, 800+ version from someone.

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to be on that one but it is cool to think about.



What the...?
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10190 posts, RR: 97
Reply 61, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 30725 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 60):
I think the 380 will be re-engined at some point but won't get stretched

We'll see.

I certainly believe Boeings line that the "sweet spot" is moving upwards, and I expect that trend to continue.
FWIW Airbus agree

In a decade or so's time I wouldn't be surprised to see 500 seats one standard deviation closer to the "sweet spot", and 600 seats where 500 is now

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 60):
It will be some time before it can be properly challenged for CASM, (if ever), but better engines will move that goalpost out of reach again.

I don't agree. I believe the 777-9X in typical configurations will handily beat the A380 on CASM.
A380 operators may move to cram more seats in, and/or trade on premium revenue.
how this pans out will dictate if we see a stretch IMO (and I suspect EK wil have a big say)
But I think the bar will go up.

I know there are sceptics on the 777 upgrade, but I think the 777-9X will sell like the 773ER

Tell you what though, I'm putting money on there being a Cat F plane in response from Airbus bigger than the A350-1000 by mid-to-late next decade.
And it might be an 80m A350-1100 with 72m wings. Then again it might not.  

Airports are going to have to get used to these wingspans over time (I'm still betting on a Cat "G" A380 one day   )

Rgds


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3450 posts, RR: 11
Reply 62, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 30531 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 47):
Maybe they are doing this door as an option to save wait for non-high capacity seating.

I am changing my mind. If this was just a weight saving mechanism why move the door from over the wing? It would save weight where ever it is put if it was an option. Instead I am struck by the fact that it is the only place on the entire aircraft where two windows are missing side by side. Look [url:http://boeing.mediaroom.com/file.php/88056/twin_aisleK65914.jpg]here[/url] and you can zoom in. It is the same on both the 8x and the 9x. They often skip one window where there is a body join for support but rarely two.

Boeing's depictions are usually accurate which makes me think there is a purpose of the missing double windows above the wing. It obviously means no seating. Could it just be a bathroom where they normally are, probably. But there are bathrooms next to R2 but there are not two missing windows there. Suspicious. Personally I wouldn't mind a view when I was 'utilizing the facilities'.

This is usually where one of the main EK galleys are located as well. Could this be a location for a food cart lift to the crown space for storage so the FA's can service all sides of the plane being strategically placed in the middle? This could help shrink the common mid-aft galley providing more seats. Could it be a set of stairs for passengers to access the crown for a bar/lounge/gym/business center/shower? "Clark stresses that Emirates has been spending a lot of time exploring how passengers can be accommodated for ultra long-haul sectors by adding bars and standing areas in a space-efficient way." Source

If ever the lack of two windows could spark wild ideas its now. Bring them on.

tortugamon


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 12737 posts, RR: 35
Reply 63, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 30486 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 61):
I don't agree. I believe the 777-9X in typical configurations will handily beat the A380 on CASM.
A380 operators may move to cram more seats in, and/or trade on premium revenue.
how this pans out will dictate if we see a stretch IMO (and I suspect EK wil have a big say)
But I think the bar will go up.

Here is some more information in what direction Airbus is looking:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...resher-to-help-rekindle-sales.html



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, 3450 posts, RR: 11
Reply 64, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 30349 times:

What should Boeing's strategy be toward the 77W as we get closer to 777X EIS and just as important the A351s EIS? The A330 strategy of offering further upgrades, increasing MTOWs, drop pricing (presumably), and increase production rates has definitely worked well.

Will that strategy work for the 77W? Do you think Boeing is happy with 8.3/month and they will do what they have to do on pricing to keep that rate as long as possible or will they take more of an aggressive stance and actively improve the 77W (engine PiP, wing body fairing improvement, etc.) In the very near future Boeing has to be thinking that any sale of the 77W is a sale not for a 351 but they also don't want to drop their pants, lower pricing/margins, flood the market with cheaper aircraft, and then find no buyers for the 777X road show.

I think its probably all of the above. Be proactive on making improvements wherever you can but hold off on announcements. Incentivize (motivate) GE to pip the GE90's with low hanging GENx and GE9x technology. An MTOW improvement would help EK on North American routes. A rate increase does not seem necessary despite the rumors of further capacity. Develop a list of weight improvements or aerodynamic improvements and roll all of this out in a PR campaign with the hope of keeping sales as strong as possible through 2020. 3% improvement would have to be a success.

Boeing cannot afford to not have a moderate production program in this space from 2017-2020 like they did with the 787 rollout (and the 767). Actively building significant 77Ws when testing the 777-9x has to be a priority. Just like the A330 we saw taking off before A359's first flight.

tortugamon


User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1714 posts, RR: 1
Reply 65, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 30250 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 61):
I know there are sceptics on the 777 upgrade

I’m one of them. Not as sceptical since the huge endorsement from EK (what was it, they plan to have 275 or so in their fleet?   ). But I’m doubtful it will find its way to as many customers as the 77W has. Maybe the ‘sweet spot’ will move from 350 to 400 seats, let’s see. But I can’t see some of the current large 77W operators like CX or SQ go for the 777X. And there others that will find the A350-1000 better suited, JL and NH could very well be amongst them.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 61):
Tell you what though, I'm putting money on there being a Cat F plane in response from Airbus bigger than the A350-1000 by mid-to-late next decade.
And it might be an 80m A350-1100 with 72m wings. Then again it might not.

And the answer from Boeing might be a 80m 777-10X, it was mentioned in the Boeing order thread. Seemed Boeing refused to comment on such a possibility   



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31263 posts, RR: 85
Reply 66, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 30195 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm quite confident the 777X is off the table for UA now that they converted/ordered 35 A350-1000s for 747-400 replacement and upgauging some 777-200ER missions. They also noted they would be replacing the 777-200(ER) fleet mostly with 787-10s (so that will be another large future order).

User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1714 posts, RR: 1
Reply 67, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 30102 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 66):
I'm quite confident the 777X is off the table for UA now that they converted/ordered 35 A350-1000s for 747-400 replacement

Leaving only DL as possible 777X customer in the USA. AA will stick to the 77W for the foreseeable future.



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineCX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6626 posts, RR: 55
Reply 68, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 30011 times:

Why are people doubting CX as a 777X operator? I would almost bet money on us buying some -9Xs.

User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3818 posts, RR: 11
Reply 69, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 29954 times:

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 68):
I would almost bet money on us buying some -9Xs

Yup, ditto.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1714 posts, RR: 1
Reply 70, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 30028 times:

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 68):
Why are people doubting CX as a 777X operator? I would almost bet money on us buying some -9Xs.

Well, according to Zeke one of the reasons the 787 lost to the A350 at CX last year was the narrow seating in the 787, preventing CX from an uniform Y seat within the whole fleet. 777X 10 abreast seating will probably give the same seat width as the 787. CX could of course keep 9 abreast Y seating in the 777X, but that would give the A350-1000 the edge in efficiency.



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineTP313 From Portugal, joined Nov 2001, 260 posts, RR: 9
Reply 71, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 29999 times:

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 68):
Why are people doubting CX as a 777X operator? I would almost bet money on us buying some -9Xs.

Because CX seating arrangements in Y will prevent any possible 777X advantage over the 350-1000 from materializing

[Edited 2013-06-20 04:46:05]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31263 posts, RR: 85
Reply 72, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 29844 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well if CX is hesitant about getting a VLA, the 777-9 would serve as a reasonable 747-400 replacement at 9Y.

User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2170 posts, RR: 4
Reply 73, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 29646 times:

Quoting KGAI (Reply 43):

It appears the 777X tail has a more prominently curved leading edge, both on the base and the top. To me, it looks pretty much identical to the 787 tail in the computer rendering.
But since it is afterall a computer rendering, I might just be reading too much into it.

Having seen what the structure of the 787 tail looks like, I would not be surprised if they change the 777 tail also.

The change would be purely from a fabrication economic stand point as the 777 tail is already composite. So if you are going to change the internal structure of the tail, might as well re-loft?

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7859 posts, RR: 19
Reply 74, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 29539 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 67):
Leaving only DL as possible 777X customer in the USA. AA will stick to the 77W for the foreseeable future.

DL is almost a guarantee for this plane. The 744 fleet is small but still lucrative. Most flights to NRT are on 744s and are jam packed.

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 68):
Why are people doubting CX as a 777X operator? I would almost bet money on us buying some -9Xs.

CX Needs a good large long haul airframe replacement and the A350 only goes so far. So I agree here.



我思うゆえに我あり。(Jap. 'I think, therefore I am.')
User currently offlineODwyerPW From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 883 posts, RR: 2
Reply 75, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 29172 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 51):
I just thought about our old a-net friend friend Keesje, when I seen your reply. He likely say, that it has 26% better SFC then the Leap-1b on the MAX because of its fan diameter!

Well he was stubborn and opinionated and we often took opposing views, but I really do miss his contributions to A.net. I'd love to see his commentary on all of the exciting announcements and developments in the past year.



Quiero una vida simple en Mexico. Nada mas.
User currently offline817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2557 posts, RR: 2
Reply 76, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 29127 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 72):
Well if CX is hesitant about getting a VLA, the 777-9 would serve as a reasonable 747-400 replacement at 9Y.

And according to their seat maps, they currently have 10 across on the 747s   



Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1104 posts, RR: 0
Reply 77, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 29105 times:

Quoting ODwyerPW (Reply 75):
Quoting mffoda (Reply 51):
I just thought about our old a-net friend friend Keesje, when I seen your reply. He likely say, that it has 26% better SFC then the Leap-1b on the MAX because of its fan diameter!

Well he was stubborn and opinionated and we often took opposing views, but I really do miss his contributions to A.net. I'd love to see his commentary on all of the exciting announcements and developments in the past year.

I couldn't agree with you more!

Perhaps we should start a campaign to have Keesje released from A-net jail?    Let Keesje go...



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9709 posts, RR: 52
Reply 78, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 28962 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 62):
I am changing my mind. If this was just a weight saving mechanism why move the door from over the wing? It would save weight where ever it is put if it was an option.

The overwing slide is rather heavy and elaborate. You save weight by putting a single aisle slide that is straight rather than a bending slide that goes down the wing..



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineCX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6626 posts, RR: 55
Reply 79, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 28958 times:

Quoting TP313 (Reply 71):
Because CX seating arrangements in Y will prevent any possible 777X advantage over the 350-1000 from materializing

Can someone explain the seat width in 10 Abreast vs 9 in the 350-1000 and the 777X? What would total pax loading be at the two different widths for the 77X and 351?

Sounds to me that the 777-9X will be more capable than the 351 in terms of pax loads, range and cargo capability. Perfect for an airline who doesn't want the 748i but wants more than a 77W. I would think CX fell into this category quite well!


User currently offlineplanesntrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5706 posts, RR: 29
Reply 80, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 28945 times:

Quoting ODwyerPW (Reply 75):
Well he was stubborn and opinionated and we often took opposing views, but I really do miss his contributions to A.net. I'd love to see his commentary on all of the exciting announcements and developments in the past year.

Great pictures. Interesting data. Somewhat of a pot-stirrer.

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 76):
And according to their seat maps, they currently have 10 across on the 747s

I would imagine that the goal is to phase those out over time so they "don't count". Any new builds, though, will likely need to meet their needs based on the current seat-width requirements.

Out with the 744. In with the 351.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 77):
Perhaps we should start a campaign to have Keesje released from A-net jail? Let Keesje go...

Please, no. There's a reason that he (and others) are not here anymore. One man's hero is another man's pain in the caboose.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3450 posts, RR: 11
Reply 81, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 28816 times:

Quoting TP313 (Reply 54):
You forgot:
Qantas - Yes
Air New Zeeland - Maybe

I considered them, then searched and searched and could not find any interview where they expressed interest. My list was of those that have made a comment up or down. But I agree that they both should be interested.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 57):
So actually, what you will have is a Boeing A380 competitor

The only way we see a 777-10 is if A388 sales really start to pick up. Right now that kind of a frame would compete with a 9x as much (more?) as an A380 and Boeing should have little interest in splitting that little of a market. I like the prospects though and if sales pick up they should be ready, no doubt.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 59):
and if Airbus do a "mega-sharklet" too

That I would like to see. After the 9x shows folding wings are o.k. it will only be a matter of time until we see them on some version of the A380 or....

Quoting astuteman (Reply 61):
And it might be an 80m A350-1100 with 72m wings.

...an A350 with folding wings.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 67):
Leaving only DL as possible 777X customer in the USA.

I have read that their 77L's do quite well to DXB, JNB and other locations. They may like the prospect of the -8x surprisingly because I do not think the A351 will be enough for what they do. That is a long way down the road though: 2030? Until then, I would be surprised if they didn't significantly down gauge their 747s. Late build 77Ws, 787-10s, or A351s is my guess before they are buyers of the 777X.

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 68):
Why are people doubting CX as a 777X operator?

I am not! With soon to be 50 77Ws and zero A351s destined to replace them you have to think that it is going to get a really good look. Why else would they have waited on their VLA purchase? They love their belly cargo and their frequencies. The only drawback in 9Y vs 10Y. But there is a solution!

Look at this seat map: http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Cat...fic_Airways_Boeing_777-300ER_A.php

Now make a couple changes to the back of the plane: 10Y in Coach, bite the bullet. Give them a nice pillow and a smile or something. Same width as 744 seats. Make that section as small as you want (only rows 57-72?) and expand economy plus by 10 rows (including the stretch) but instead of 8Y make it 9 abreast. They can still do their 19' seats at 9 abreast. Upgrade everyone with a pulse and Marco Polo (love that name) membership or charge more or just give it away. Essentially make Y+ the new Y. Even with the big increase in pitch it still improves seat count and RASM at the same time. Either its a boost to revenue or comfort. Both are a win. Oh and by the way, take a ton of belly cargo with you when you leave, thanks.

If I am not mistaken CX is slot/time restricted into LHR so they have like 3 747s leaving within one hour or something crazy so going down to a 351 will not appeal to them and if they do not do a VLA there really is no other choice.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 78):
The overwing slide is rather heavy and elaborate.

Ok, could be. How much weight X 2 would that be? .25t? Could be worth it.


tortugamon


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5156 posts, RR: 5
Reply 82, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 28734 times:

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 68):
Why are people doubting CX as a 777X operator? I would almost bet money on us buying some -9Xs.

Any of their 16hr city pairs would benefit from the -9X. The ability to up their premium cabin configuration from its ~300 seats, improve the belly cargo capacity and thus the potential cargo payload have to be all very attractive. I am convinced that the most cost effective air cargo capacity is belly cargo in passenger aircraft where the incremental cost is largely fuel. I did some calculations on a 789 that suggested these were were around .32c a kg based on IATA fuel price of $950 a tonne for a cargo payload of ~19t. HKG/JFK-YYZ-ORD at present frequency could probably use a dozen or more aircraft.
Ferpe's load/range chart shows what is possible when you compare it against the A350J. Not an awful lot but meaningful .
Lars Andersen and his team knew exactly what they were doing when they crafted out the outlines for this airplane. They were almost scuppered when ( who was it ) resisted the attempt to go to a new wing but sounder opinions prevailed .


User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 28690 times:

Quoting PanAm788 (Reply 13):
It looks to me however like Boeing is thinning the 777's wall where the shoulder and armrest meet in order to tweak out some more room. Look at the bizarre shape of the blue sidewall


It is not just the sidewall. The floor beam is also thinner so the cabin actually feels roomier.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5156 posts, RR: 5
Reply 84, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 28633 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 81):
Air New Zeeland - Maybe

I doubt it . They would need to have growth on LAX-LHR-LAX and they might accommodate this by serving the UK market from perhaps SFO. I would speculate that any increase in their AKL- North America business is more likely to accommodated by another destination, perhaps IAH. This would sure help serving the market east of the Mississippi. The 787J would be a perfect fit for them given that they have 789's to handle any > 13hr sectors they may wish to fly.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31263 posts, RR: 85
Reply 85, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 28699 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 79):
Can someone explain the seat width in 10 Abreast vs 9 in the 350-1000 and the 777X? What would total pax loading be at the two different widths for the 77X and 351?

Seat-cushion width on the 777X will be between 17.0 and 17.4" at 10-abreast.

Seat-cushion width on the A350 will be between 17.5 and 18.0" at 9-abreast.

zeke has stated that the CX A350-1000 will seat 273 in four-classes. The CX 777-300ER seats 275 in four-classes.

The 777-9's cabin is about two meters longer than the 777-300E's, so if CX put that into Economy, that would raise the seat count to 293 at 9-abreast. Moving to 10-abreast would add ~21 seats, making it ~314.

[Edited 2013-06-20 18:03:27]

User currently offlineCX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6626 posts, RR: 55
Reply 86, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 28594 times:

Thanks for the explanations. So how about cargo capacity of the 777x vs the 350-1000 over a 14-16hr sector assuming full passenger load.

To be honest if I was the company, now that premium economy is becoming established with decent loads and yields, I would be looking into expanding it and going 10x in economy. I believe the small number is premium economy seats per a/c now was a conservative move/experiment to see how it would do.


User currently offlineaerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2743 posts, RR: 4
Reply 87, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 28593 times:

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 35):
While I agree that I personally prefer big windows and the A380 windows aren't appealing for window lookers like me - we need to reflect the daily practice in planes:

Except, Boeing has managed to pull it off.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 36):
And you probably would have most of the aviation brain trust with you.

Well, not the Boeing ones. How have they managed to develop larger windows where Airbus hasn't? I'm no engineer, but could they be developing a more efficient frame that then allows them to trade off some of that efficiency for passenger enjoyment, and still be highly competitive?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31263 posts, RR: 85
Reply 88, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 28564 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 86):
So how about cargo capacity of the 777x vs the 350-1000 over a 14-16hr sector assuming full passenger load.

In terms of volume, I'm guessing we'll see another row of LD3s added to the 777-9 for a total of 46 compared to 44 for the 777-300ER and A350-1000.

In terms of payload weight for such a mission, I don't know how either plane pencils out.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3450 posts, RR: 11
Reply 89, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 28483 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 85):
Seat-cushion width on the A350 will be between 17.5 to 18.0" at 10-abreast.
Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 86):
I would be looking into expanding it and going 10x in economy. I believe the small number is premium economy seats per a/c now was a conservative move/experiment to see how it would do.

Me too. As I mentioned in reply #81. CX could upgrade most of their economy to economy plus at extra pitch and still add seats while improving comfort for frequent flyers.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 87):
Well, not the Boeing ones. How have they managed to develop larger windows where Airbus hasn't? I'm no engineer, but could they be developing a more efficient frame that then allows them to trade off some of that efficiency for passenger enjoyment, and still be highly competitive?

Boeing made marginally larger windows on the 777 but the real breakthrough came with CFRP which had more strength allowing them to make bigger windows without jeopardizing aircraft strength/integrity. They did this because they could and it did not add weight. Airbus is doing the same thing with the A350 but I believe their marketing pitch is 'widest' not 'tallest' so we will see. I would love to have the whole side of the plane as a window, maybe a glass bottom plane, sweet.

As consumers we have shown time and time again that we do not pay for 'passenger enjoyment'. We crave lower fares. Manufacturers wanted to have us fly faster (Concorde, Sonic Cruiser) and we 'said' (voted with our wallets) no thank you. We now fly slower than we did in the 70's. When consumers don't just pick the lowest fair, their preferred airline, and/or number of stops when they are making their selection (do you know many who do anything different?), then we might see aircraft making things to add to 'passenger enjoyment'. Why would manufacturers make a trade off as you say, if we don't reward that? We do not buy aircraft, airlines do. Until we change how we buy tickets, manufacturers will focus on aircraft weights and fuel efficiency and our tickets will stay cheap or get cheaper which is ok by me.


tortugamon


User currently offlinefrmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1732 posts, RR: 1
Reply 90, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 28364 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 81):
Now make a couple changes to the back of the plane: 10Y in Coach, bite the bullet. Give them a nice pillow and a smile or something. Same width as 744 seats. Make that section as small as you want (only rows 57-72?) and expand economy plus by 10 rows (including the stretch) but instead of 8Y make it 9 abreast. They can still do their 19' seats at 9 abreast. Upgrade everyone with a pulse and Marco Polo (love that name) membership or charge more or just give it away. Essentially make Y+ the new Y. Even with the big increase in pitch it still improves seat count and RASM at the same time. Either its a boost to revenue or comfort. Both are a win. Oh and by the way, take a ton of belly cargo with you when you leave, thanks.

Gasp - if airlines started thinking this way I would do a lot more tourism by air. I have had such miserable experiences in Y over the last several years, that I have chosen to do my frequent travels and vacations by car and train. And don't anyone flame me, airlines can do whatever they want, so can I.



Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlineplanesntrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5706 posts, RR: 29
Reply 91, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 28196 times:

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 87):
Well, not the Boeing ones. How have they managed to develop larger windows where Airbus hasn't?

Except they have, at least on the A350. Per Airbus.com:

"Passengers will enjoy more headroom, wider panoramic windows and larger overhead storage space."

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5156 posts, RR: 5
Reply 92, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 27981 times:

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 86):
So how about cargo capacity of the 777x vs the 350-1000 over a 14-16hr sector assuming full passenger load.

The best there is to go by is Ferpe's load/range chart that compares the two 777X versions and the A350J.

16hrs is about 7750nm and fits the HKG- JFK/ORD/YYZ sector pretty well. The -8LX payload is ~52.5t , the -9 at ~ 47,5t and the A350J at ~ 40t . I am not sure that the -8LX would make its number since it might be be volume limited although operators are getting 24t on the 77W so 20t is possible on the -8LX . Based on the standard seating of ~ 400 on the -9 and 350 on the A350J the -9 would allow ~ 9t of cargo and the A350J ~7t.
E & OE..


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10190 posts, RR: 97
Reply 93, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 27997 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 87):
Well, not the Boeing ones. How have they managed to develop larger windows where Airbus hasn't?

Apart from you, who say's that Airbus haven't?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 89):
Airbus is doing the same thing with the A350 but I believe their marketing pitch is 'widest' not 'tallest' so we will see

Correct. as far as I'm aware the window are is remarkably similar.

My understanding is that the A380 that Aerokiwi complains about also has larger windows - the issue is that they are so far away from the seat, and "buried" in a tunnel in the side lining.

God forbid I'd suggest anyone here is picking on Airbus though  

Rgds


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2170 posts, RR: 4
Reply 94, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 27750 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 93):

Apart from you, who say's that Airbus haven't?
Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 87):

Well, not the Boeing ones. How have they managed to develop larger windows where Airbus hasn't? I'm no engineer,

Well, the size of the window is really a trade off. It really is dependent on the frame and stringer spacing. Frame and stringer spacing are typically sized as a parametric trade to give the most optimal strength for fuselage. You can spread the stringer more easily than you can spread the frame. There are other parameters (design guides) that each company uses for mounting and routing systems (ECS, Wiring etc) that limit how far apart the frames can be spaced.

So ,while larger windows would be a goal to set, their size are limit to the overall airframe stringers/frame parametric trade-offs.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineCX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6626 posts, RR: 55
Reply 95, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 27621 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 92):
The best there is to go by is Ferpe's load/range chart that compares the two 777X versions and the A350J.

16hrs is about 7750nm and fits the HKG- JFK/ORD/YYZ sector pretty well. The -8LX payload is ~52.5t , the -9 at ~ 47,5t and the A350J at ~ 40t . I am not sure that the -8LX would make its number since it might be be volume limited although operators are getting 24t on the 77W so 20t is possible on the -8LX . Based on the standard seating of ~ 400 on the -9 and 350 on the A350J the -9 would allow ~ 9t of cargo and the A350J ~7t.
E & OE..

Thanks. Seems to me that for an airline with A350J like CX, there is still a place for the 777-9x and even some A380s.


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2679 posts, RR: 5
Reply 96, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 27457 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3):
132" fan... I'm speechless.

As am I. But it would look amazing!

Quoting morrisond (Reply 20):
Did anyone else catch Scott Francher's "No Comment" on a possible 777X-10? in the AviationWeek article?

80M Long?

I do not believe that will happen - hence the no comment. The 777-9X is as big as the 777 is going to get, bearing in mind that the original 777 was just shy of 64m long. I'm concerned that at 80m the 777 will be a 'stretch too far', and will be too heavy to be economical.

I believe Boeing kept the 777-9X stretch to a minimum for a reason.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 44):
I would think it somewhat inefficient to have three sizes - a 69.5M 778 - 76.5M 779 and 80M 771

Maybe Boeing is rethinking sizing again?

I'm willing to bet that there will not be a 777 larger than the -9X, so you can forget about a further stretch.

Quoting TP313 (Reply 54):
> Cathay Pacific - No. Forget about 10 abreast Y 777x at CX

I believe that if the numbers add up, they will do it. Don't forget that the 777X will have a wider cabin than the 777-300ER. It is designed so that it is possible to fit the same width seats at 10 across on the 777X as on the 747-400. CX has no qualms about operating the 747-400 at 10 across. As such, I do not believe why 10 across on the 777X will pose a problem for them.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 65):
But I’m doubtful it will find its way to as many customers as the 77W has. Maybe the ‘sweet spot’ will move from 350 to 400 seats, let’s see. But I can’t see some of the current large 77W operators like CX or SQ go for the 777X. And there others that will find the A350-1000 better suited, JL and NH could very well be amongst them.

Perhaps you're right, that there won't be as many customers for the 777X as there were for the 777-300ER, but that in itself is not fatal to the 777X program. I believe the 777X program as a whole will sell very well, at least as many as the 777-300ER has sold to date, possibly more. Even if it doesn't, what's important isn't so much how many aircraft it sells but rather whether there has been a net positive return on investment into the 777X program as a whole. If the 777X program is profitable - and I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be - then it will have been a success.

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 79):
Sounds to me that the 777-9X will be more capable than the 351 in terms of pax loads, range and cargo capability. Perfect for an airline who doesn't want the 748i but wants more than a 77W. I would think CX fell into this category quite well!

I agree with that. I think that despte CX having ordered A350-1000s, there is still room for the 777-9X in the CX fleet. The 777-9X is pretty much a 'de facto' VLA, an order of which CX have been dilly-dallying over for the past year or two. I think that it's not inconceivable that they will pass up both the 747-8i and the A380 in favour of the 777-9X.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 81):
With soon to be 50 77Ws and zero A351s destined to replace them you have to think that it is going to get a really good look.

CX have 26 A350-1000s on order. Whether they're "destined to replace" their 777-300ERs remain to be seen, though. They've stated recently that they will "look at" 777Xs, which, I guess is neither a positive nor a negative, as any airline worth their salt would "look at" new aircraft offerings by both major manufacturers to determine if it will make them money.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3450 posts, RR: 11
Reply 97, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 27033 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 96):
CX has no qualms about operating the 747-400 at 10 across. As such, I do not believe why 10 across on the 777X will pose a problem for them.

Singapore Airlines also had 10 across until they retired their last 747 last year. They have not ordered an A351 though I suspect they will with their options.

Could it be that we are making too much of this 17.4' seat thing? I pulled out a measuring tape the other day and looked at the difference between 17.4" and 18" it is about the difference of my thumbnail or about 3.4% bigger. As I mentioned up thread: for those that are worried about it, expand economy plus and upgrade frequent fliers. No loss only gain.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 96):
CX have 26 A350-1000s on order. Whether they're "destined to replace" their 777-300ERs remain to be seen, though.

So they have 26 on order and do you want to guess how many 744s and 773s they have on hand? Ding Ding Ding. 26. Now most of the 744s will be gone very soon with 77Ws taking over but their oldest (owned) 77W was received 9/2007 and they still have 18 more on order. 2020 is a perfect EIS for CX to replace these aircraft with the 777X. CX received some very early delivery slots for the 351 when EY dropped their orders and it was a great pick up but I think the 777X has a great chance.

I think 2020 EIS for this program was not a mistake. I think they wanted to give GE enough time to make sure they could offer something that was a step better than the Trent XWB (to make up for 777s higher weight) while making sure that it came into service when airlines begin to look at replacements.

tortugamon


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3450 posts, RR: 11
Reply 98, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 26982 times:

Has anyone heard about the 77W performance improvement package (pip) that has been talked about for a couple years? I have read that they have an engine improvement, a revised body fairing, and a couple other changes that will improve the model by 4%. It appears to me that very soon they will be trying to sell slots that are very close to the 351's entry into service date; not that positions are available but it marks a time when most think 77W's will drop off.

A330's did not drop off noticeably when 787s entered service, it took 2 more years or so and it is still selling decently. Maybe (1) they are waiting for GE to be ready and for the LEAP engines to be in a better place, (2) they are waiting for the 777X launch and they are going to do it all at once, or (3) more conspiracy-theory-like, they are waiting for Airbus to have a big delay with the A350 and then announce it. Anyway, any information would be appreciated. Boeing seems to believe strongly that there will be delays but there aren't many tell tale signs from my seat.

tortugamon


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10190 posts, RR: 97
Reply 99, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 26859 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 97):
I pulled out a measuring tape the other day and looked at the difference between 17.4" and 18" it is about the difference of my thumbnail or about 3.4% bigger

The difference between 17" and 16.4" is exactly the same - look at the press that gets on here.
It will matter somewhere down the line. Not everywhere. But somewhere

Rgds


User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 630 posts, RR: 0
Reply 100, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 26589 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 99):
The difference between 17" and 16.4" is exactly the same

But not in percentage terms!



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3450 posts, RR: 11
Reply 101, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 26643 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 99):

Touché. Thankfully 17.0" is minimally acceptable to the majority. How much more seat do you think it would take to get CX, SQ to go for it? Never?


tortugamon


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10190 posts, RR: 97
Reply 102, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 26679 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting neutrino (Reply 100):
But not in percentage terms!

Hairsplitter  
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 101):
Touché. Thankfully 17.0" is minimally acceptable to the majority. How much more seat do you think it would take to get CX, SQ to go for it? Never?

If I respond to my statement, it is to say that, like the sweet spot in airframe size, it's not unreasonable to suggest there is a "sweet spot" in seat width, and the more you "deviate" from that sweet spot, the lower the likelihood of acceptance (either by the passenger, or the operator)

I suspect if you plot a curve of Y class seat width v quantity, you might see a sort of normal distribution, centred somewhere around 17.5" - 17.75", with a maxima of 19" and a minima of 16.5"
On that basis, 16.5" is going to be minimally acceptable, 17" somewhat acceptable, and 17.5" and 18" the "norms".

I recognise reality is way more complex, and to answer your question.. I don't know.
On the basis of the above, though, 17.4" in a 777X may be much more competitive with 17.7" in an A350XWB than 17" in a 77W is.

That Boeing are being driven to provide 17.2" or greater tells me that, despite the ability to fit more seats at 17", that size is eating into acceptability and thus revenue more than the operators really like.
Hence in the balance of "comfort seeking" vs "cost" in the market place, I don't see the "sweet spot" reducing much below 17.5"

Rgds


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 103, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 26640 times:

The 787 has a bit wider seats at 9 across than the 77W at 10? No One seems very miffed about 3-3-3 in the 787 here, most niose is about 3-4-3 on the 777?

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3450 posts, RR: 11
Reply 104, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 26532 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 102):
I recognise reality is way more complex, and to answer your question.. I don't know.
On the basis of the above, though, 17.4" in a 777X may be much more competitive with 17.7" in an A350XWB than 17" in a 77W is.

You're right that no decision is ever made in a vacuum. Every decision in aviation seems to be one giant decision tree full of trade offs. Is it the passenger refusing to buy the seat that is cutting in on airline revenue and ultimately being relayed to Boeing or is it more direct; the airline refusing to buy and/or operate at 10Y in the first place? It does not really matter as making 10Y more comfortable helps to address both concerns and neither; JAL actually has 9 abreast 777s with seats that will fit 10 abreast so no widening is going to be enough to change that logic.

A big part of 77X's success will be convincing early 9Y customers to go to 10Y. I think the emergence of economy plus will definitely help sell the 10 abreast economy concept and I have a sneaking suspicion that 17.4' and 17.5 will be generally very acceptable as long as the economics are convincing.


tortugamon


User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 630 posts, RR: 0
Reply 105, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 26500 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 102):
Hence in the balance of "comfort seeking" vs "cost" in the market place, I don't see the "sweet spot" reducing much below 17.5"

  
It also depends on geographical region.
Broadly speaking, 17.5' is just about fine for western bottoms. In our part of the world where the physiques are lesser, 17" would be its equivalent. So 17" to 17.5" should be just about the tightest our posteriors should be subjected to beyond which it borders on inhumane.
I'm 1.7m and 72kg which is just about average over here. Having been on a few EK T7 10 across flights, they are definitely adequate. Except possibly for short hauls of say an hour, I wouldn't want to get onto a 16.4" seat whatever the price.



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10190 posts, RR: 97
Reply 106, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 26420 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting neutrino (Reply 105):
Except possibly for short hauls of say an hour, I wouldn't want to get onto a 16.4" seat whatever the price.

0.6" could make all the difference...........  

Rgds


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2679 posts, RR: 5
Reply 107, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 26312 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 97):
Could it be that we are making too much of this 17.4' seat thing?

Yes, definitely. Particularly given the fact that a lot of people seem not to take note of 9 across on a 787, or the fact that it is the standard seat width on a 10 across 747.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 97):
Now most of the 744s will be gone very soon with 77Ws taking over but their oldest (owned) 77W was received 9/2007 and they still have 18 more on order. 2020 is a perfect EIS for CX to replace these aircraft with the 777X. CX received some very early delivery slots for the 351 when EY dropped their orders and it was a great pick up but I think the 777X has a great chance.

I agree entirely with what you're saying. I do think that the 777X has a very, very good chance at finding its place in CX's fleet. I was merely pointing out that they do in fact have A350-1000s on order, and that we cannot be sure what they'll use them for as yet. I've been saying here that just because some airlines have the A350-1000 on order does not necessarily mean that those airlines will not also order the 777X, despite the views of some on here who appear to have a vested interest in seeing the 777X fail.

Quoting sweair (Reply 103):
No One seems very miffed about 3-3-3 in the 787 here, most niose is about 3-4-3 on the 777?

Tell me about it ...  

[Edited 2013-06-22 05:36:27]


Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5156 posts, RR: 5
Reply 108, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 26088 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 99):
The difference between 17" and 16.4" is exactly the same - look at the press that gets on here.
It will matter somewhere down the line. Not everywhere. But somewhere

Not replying to Astuteman in particular but to the participants to this thread as a group. On the whole matter of seat width it seems to me that the Thompson staggered system offers the best of all worlds, individual arm rests , 22" of shoulder space and 17.8" of cushion and easier egress from the window seat. Yet I don't know how many carriers have adopted it. Probably not many.
If the seat width issue was a real one then I would have thought more carriers would be using this system. Which gets me to the point of this post which is that this matter is largely an Anet , can I use the word, frenzy.   


User currently offlinefrmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1732 posts, RR: 1
Reply 109, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 25797 times:

Quoting neutrino (Reply 105):
Broadly speaking, 17.5' is just about fine for western bottoms.

Humor alert!
Western bottoms - Broadly speaking.
Is that a ethnic comment, even if broadly true?



Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 76
Reply 110, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 25810 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 107):
I've been saying here that just because some airlines have the A350-1000 on order does not necessarily mean that those airlines will not also order the 777X, despite the views of some on here who appear to have a vested interest in seeing the 777X fail.

I agree, I even see airlines operating the A330, 787, A350, and 777X together if they have a large enough network. Each airframe has a sweet spot where they will perform best.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3450 posts, RR: 11
Reply 111, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 25548 times:

Quoting neutrino (Reply 105):
In our part of the world where the physiques are lesser, 17" would be its equivalent.

But what is interesting is that its the Asian international airlines that have the widest seats versus other continents.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 107):
we cannot be sure what they'll use them for as yet.

Well we have a good idea because CX receives all 26 of their A351s before CX plans on retiring the 77W. Not sure how they did it but all 26 of their slots are in the first three years of EIS. Good for them. Anyway, my point is that we probably would need to see CX launch a reorder or announce very early retirements on their 77W if that was the plan.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 108):
22" of shoulder space and 17.8" of cushion

Heavenly. I've never had a problem with seat widths, its shoulder space that gets me. That would be excellent.

tortugamon


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31263 posts, RR: 85
Reply 112, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 25417 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 108):
On the whole matter of seat width it seems to me that the Thompson staggered system offers the best of all worlds, individual arm rests , 22" of shoulder space and 17.8" of cushion and easier egress from the window seat. Yet I don't know how many carriers have adopted it. Probably not many.

I don't believe anyone has. I believe it was Wired magazine that first reported DL would roll it out around 2010, but clearly they never did.  


User currently onlineAngMoh From Singapore, joined Nov 2011, 500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 113, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 25175 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 96):
I believe that if the numbers add up, they will do it. Don't forget that the 777X will have a wider cabin than the 777-300ER. It is designed so that it is possible to fit the same width seats at 10 across on the 777X as on the 747-400. CX has no qualms about operating the 747-400 at 10 across. As such, I do not believe why 10 across on the 777X will pose a problem for them.

Comparing the 777x with the 747 is silly. A 777x will replace a 77W and will be judged in comparison. CX put 10 across on the 747 because at that time it was the best around. Now there are many other and better options. I am wondering if CX is extra careful about "downgrading" their Y seats after the shell seat disaster.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 97):
Singapore Airlines also had 10 across until they retired their last 747 last year. They have not ordered an A351 though I suspect they will with their options.

When SQ flew both 747 and 77W to FRA, I did everything possible to take the 77W flight. The difference in width for me between the two seats was huge and and very very obvious if taking the same flight on different metal within 3 days.

I don't understand why there is this obsession with forcing every airline to fly 10 across 777X. From the order books, I guess that for high density, 777X will work better but in low density configurations A351. If an airline is looking for a specific config, why this desperate need to change their seating just so that another aircraft type will work?


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3450 posts, RR: 11
Reply 114, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 24742 times:

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 113):
I don't understand why there is this obsession with forcing every airline to fly 10 across 777X. From the order books, I guess that for high density, 777X will work better but in low density configurations A351. If an airline is looking for a specific config, why this desperate need to change their seating just so that another aircraft type will work?

For the last 15 years it did not matter. Going forward, I think it will. Before now if an airline wanted a nominal 350 seat aircraft they bought a 77W and would operate at 9 abreast or 10 and be perfectly happy. Going forward if they want a similar size aircraft, if they are not comfortable with 17.4" seat at 10 abreast than the 777X probably loses a significant amount of any economic advantage it may have as they are less than 3m different in length. So 10 abreast has to clear acceptability and then the true economic benefits are unlocked. There are others like extra cargo, going 7 abreast in J and others but the economics will definitely not be as strong.

tortugamon


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3450 posts, RR: 11
Reply 115, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 24714 times:

Does anyone have a perspective on when reporters spoke with Tim Clark about the 777X why would he mention that the 777-8X flying from Sydney to Rome?

“The 777-8X can fly Sydney-Rome,” says Clark. “That’s a 20 hour flight.” Clark stresses that Emirates has been spending a lot of time exploring how passengers can be accommodated for ultra long-haul sectors by adding bars and standing areas in a space-efficient way.
(Source)

Ben Sandilands (Hi Ben if you are reading, I enjoy your column) had some comments about it:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...rates-mention-sydney-rome-nonstop/

When I first heard the comment I actually thought he said/meant Milan and this had to do with the soon to be launched MXP-JFK rights and I thought it meant that he was hoping on expanding that to be a European hub making deals with the revenue desperate Italians and maybe expanding the partnership with U2 at their 2nd largest hub in the world. But that is not Rome.

As Mr Sandilands mentions, it is odd that he chose to reference a route that does not involve Dubai when talking of the merits of the aircraft.

tortugamon


User currently offlineCX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6626 posts, RR: 55
Reply 116, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 24700 times:

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 113):
I am wondering if CX is extra careful about "downgrading" their Y seats after the shell seat disaster.

You say disaster and whilst true that there was criticism from those who cared, the truth is that load factors did not really suffer so I think 'disaster' is a bit of a strong word!


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2679 posts, RR: 5
Reply 117, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 24446 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 113):
Comparing the 777x with the 747 is silly.

On the contrary, it's been reported that the idea behind widening the fuselage was that the 777X can fit the same seat widths at 10 across as on a 747. I disagree that the 777X is primarily a 777-300ER replacement, it is that, but it is also a 747-400 replacement, given the fact that it is somewhat larger than the current 777-300ER.

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 113):
Now there are many other and better options.

Yes, there are other options, but how much are the passengers willing to pay for them? I think too much has been made of the seat width issue already. Not very many passengers choose an airline because of the width of their seat. Just look at how successful EK and FR have been, for instance. Now, I'm not proposing for one minute that airlines should just try to cram as many seats as will fit in the cabin. There's got to be a degree of "acceptability" (for want of a better word). But if people have flown on 17.4" wide seats on a 747-400 for years, I fail to see why the same width seats on the 777X would suddenly pose a problem.

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 116):
You say disaster and whilst true that there was criticism from those who cared, the truth is that load factors did not really suffer so I think 'disaster' is a bit of a strong word!

I, for one, had no problems with flying long haul in the fixed shell seats.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineaerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2743 posts, RR: 4
Reply 118, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 24352 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 93):
Apart from you, who say's that Airbus haven't?

Hey just calling it as I sees it. The A380 windows were a real surprise - they're tiny! And while the A320 windows are better positioned for me (higher up) they too underwhelm in the size department. If the A350 is rolling out with comparatively sized/better shaped ones to the 787 (which are, frankly, brilliant), then great, Airbus has finally caught on.

What can I say? For me, the bigger, the better.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3450 posts, RR: 11
Reply 119, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 23786 times:

Swiss is leaning toward putting 10-abreast in economy on their incoming 77Ws.

From the Apex article:
"As for configuring its -300ERs in nine or 10 abreast in economy, Hohmeister is leaning towards 10. “Efficiency is the only way to balance pressure,” he says, noting that most new 777 operators have 10 abreast in economy, which is a “good product” and which Swiss will ensure is strong, pledging IFE at every seat. “This industry needs efficiency as costs increase.”
http://blog.apex.aero/cabin-interior...t-economy-777300ers-class-staying/

A premium brand like Swiss going 10-abreast is a good sign about the 777X's effectiveness in being able to market itself at 10 abreast while being 4" wider.

tortugamon


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5768 posts, RR: 6
Reply 120, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 23783 times:

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 113):
Comparing the 777x with the 747 is silly.

What? The 777-9X is sized to be a drop-in 747-400 replacement. You can't find two more directly comparable products.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1584 posts, RR: 3
Reply 121, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 23725 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 117):
I disagree that the 777X is primarily a 777-300ER replacement, it is that, but it is also a 747-400 replacement, given the fact that it is somewhat larger than the current 777-300ER.

Which is maybe a bit silly as 747-400's have mostly been replaced by the smaller 777-300ER, there will be relatively few 747-400's flying in 2021 to replace.



BV
User currently offlinericknroll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 887 posts, RR: 0
Reply 122, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 23671 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 111):
But what is interesting is that its the Asian international airlines that have the widest seats versus other continents.

The widest and the narrowest.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 76
Reply 123, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 23496 times:

We have had some details emerge as to what Boeing would like to do. Has anyone heard if the FAA/EASA will accept this as a 777 derivative, or will they be seeking a new type certificate so not to be constrained by the 777 design in order to improve efficiency ?


We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3450 posts, RR: 11
Reply 124, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 23406 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 123):
We have had some details emerge as to what Boeing would like to do. Has anyone heard if the FAA/EASA will accept this as a 777 derivative, or will they be seeking a new type certificate so not to be constrained by the 777 design in order to improve efficiency ?

Boeing has been really talking up the common flight certificate and cockpit with the 787. I do not see why the FAA/EASA would not let them operate under the common certificate assumption but I have not heard anything about that point specifically.

tortugamon


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 76
Reply 125, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 23349 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 124):

The cockpit is the least of the worries, I was thinking more along the lines of new systems and the new wing. Boeing was constrained on the 747-8 by the original 747 type certificate.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1714 posts, RR: 1
Reply 126, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 23296 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 125):

The 777X will be as close to a new cleansheet design as you can get. Seems that only the fuselage will be kept, pretty sure the landing gear will be modernised as well. Even the tailfin looks different (787!).The 747-8 had a relofted wing, it isn't as new as the CFRP wing for the 777X will be. Surely this will require new fatigue tests and so on?



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31263 posts, RR: 85
Reply 127, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 23437 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm sure the wing will require a Limit and Ultimate Load test since it will be new materials.

From what I have read, Boeing certified the existing 777 wing with the ability to be retro-fitted with the folding wingtips and the wing that underwent Limit Load and Ultimate Load testing had that modification. And they apparently did build a test unit of the folding mechanism.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 76
Reply 128, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 23378 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 127):
From what I have read, Boeing certified the existing 777 wing with the ability to be retro-fitted with the folding wingtips and the wing that underwent Limit Load and Ultimate Load testing had that modification. And they apparently did build a test unit of the folding mechanism.

Not sure about the ULT, they did build a demo

http://theplaneblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/777-folding-wing1.jpg



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2170 posts, RR: 4
Reply 129, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 22928 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 123):
Has anyone heard if the FAA/EASA will accept this as a 777 derivative,

What are the criteria for being considered as a derivative? Are you looking purely from a commonality of flight characteristics? Size and functionality?

To be sure the manufacturing process and material for the wing, tail and maybe even the fuselage may change.

I mean, if you look at the Max and the original 737 . . . how much can you stretch the derivative definition?

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3450 posts, RR: 11
Reply 130, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 22069 times:

Some new information came out today from Aspire Aviation. A couple of the highlights:

> EIS postponed to 2nd quarter 2020
> internal widening carves out frames between floor and overhead bins
> internal widening to feature reduced frame web height & thickness of insulation
> small door immediately after Door 3 for servicing galleys
> 777X small door necessitated by Door 3′s close proximity to trailing edge of the wing even with retracted flaps

These last two points help to answer our question above. Also the carving of the sidewall appears more substantial than previously thought.

tortugamon


User currently offlineaviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 641 posts, RR: 9
Reply 131, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 21914 times:

I think postponed eis a been "introduced" at PAS2013

I don't buy the door story


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3574 posts, RR: 67
Reply 132, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 21799 times:

What don't you buy about the door story?


Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2170 posts, RR: 4
Reply 133, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 21712 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 130):
> internal widening carves out frames between floor and overhead bins
> internal widening to feature reduced frame web height & thickness of insulation

This answered alot!


Thanks,

There's many way to maintaining frame section moment of inertia when reducing frame height. Interesting design question on what they are going to do . . .

bt

[Edited 2013-07-02 07:37:22]


Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineaviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 641 posts, RR: 9
Reply 134, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 21556 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 132):

Because 4 exits limits the seating capacity at 440 PAX, so you need a fifth one... High density 2 class 777-9 will go near 500 PAX i think. Just have a look at the latest AC 777-300ER layout 458 PAX first flat bed biz, eco premium ...

Modifying the framing implies no more communality, and maybe no possibility to learn from fatigue cycle on the 777-300 ?

I note : takeoff case : one wingtip in the "stored" position. if true can it increase the thrust needed ?
I also note, that the 777-9 will be a 8000 Nm birg, so shorter range the A350-1000 (to be challenged in the real life with real interior)


User currently offlineDFWHeavy From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 560 posts, RR: 0
Reply 135, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 21291 times:

A Couple of things:

1. 8,000 NM of range is a loooong way and reaches 99% of all city pairs that will logically be flown (Exception: SYD-LHR, DFW-PER, etc).

2. I'll be surprised if the 350-1000 actually has that type of range when all is said and done. Again, nothing against the plane, but that is a loooong way.



Christopher W Slovacek
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 12737 posts, RR: 35
Reply 136, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 21281 times:

1. Correct
2. The A350-1000 range is set at 8400nm



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5768 posts, RR: 6
Reply 137, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 21231 times:

Quoting aviaponcho (Reply 134):
I note : takeoff case : one wingtip in the "stored" position. if true can it increase the thrust needed ?

Not likely. The folding portion of the wingtip will be a tiny percentage of the total wing area. Having one wingtip folded will bring an efficiency penalty, but won't affect the plane's ability to take off. It would be like having a winglet or raked wingtip missing on current types.


User currently offlineTP313 From Portugal, joined Nov 2001, 260 posts, RR: 9
Reply 138, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 21231 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 136):
2. The A350-1000 range is set at 8400nm

For a 3-class 350 passenger configuration.

But from my estimation if we consider the same seating density that Airbus gives for the 359, the 35J should seat about 360 passengers, which would account for a 100 / 200 nm penalty.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 12737 posts, RR: 35
Reply 139, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 21190 times:

Quoting TP313 (Reply 138):
But from my estimation if we consider the same seating density that Airbus gives for the 359, the 35J should seat about 360 passengers, which would account for a 100 / 200 nm penalty.

Yes but the same logic applies to all other aircraft too. I believe we were talking about the default range given by the manufacturer.

[Edited 2013-07-02 09:36:34]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently onlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2566 posts, RR: 13
Reply 140, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 21104 times:

Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 135):
1. 8,000 NM of range is a loooong way and reaches 99% of all city pairs that will logically be flown (Exception: SYD-LHR, DFW-PER, etc).
Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 135):
1. Correct

Not quite.

After taking into consideration the prevailing winds, you will find year round reliable operation is limited to around 7000 nm for most routes (except some North South orientated routes). Then taking on a decent amount of cargo, and reallife usable range is around 6000 - 6500 nm. Not bad, not bad at all. But it does change the 99% claim considerably, and explains why A380, B787, A350, and now also the 777X are being designed and built as 8000+nm airliners.

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, 12737 posts, RR: 35
Reply 141, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 21049 times:

You are right of course, I forgot to add those numbers. But even 7000nm should cover a lot of routes.


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3574 posts, RR: 67
Reply 142, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 21065 times:

Quoting aviaponcho (Reply 134):
Modifying the framing implies no more communality, and maybe no possibility to learn from fatigue cycle on the 777-300 ?

The frame sculpting is probably a bigger inhibition to fatigue cycling.

Quoting aviaponcho (Reply 134):
Because 4 exits limits the seating capacity at 440 PAX, so you need a fifth one.[/quot3}

[quote=tortugamon,reply=130] 777X small door necessitated by Door 3′s close proximity to trailing edge of the wing even with retracted flaps

Both statements may be true. You need a 5th exit (but not a full door) for exit limits and galley servicing.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10190 posts, RR: 97
Reply 143, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 21111 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 135):
8,000 NM of range is a loooong way and reaches 99% of all city pairs that will logically be flown (Exception: SYD-LHR, DFW-PER, etc).

2. I'll be surprised if the 350-1000 actually has that type of range when all is said and done. Again, nothing against the plane, but that is a loooong way

8 000Nm is a long way, but the 777X has about as much chance of hitting its spec range as the A350-1000 does in a real life service environment - that is to say not very much.

rgds


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5156 posts, RR: 5
Reply 144, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 20649 times:

Quoting PW100 (Reply 140):
After taking into consideration the prevailing winds, you will find year round reliable operation is limited to around 7000 nm for most routes (except some North South orientated routes).
Quoting astuteman (Reply 143):
8 000Nm is a long way, but the 777X has about as much chance of hitting its spec range as the A350-1000 does in a real life service environment - that is to say not very much.

This is not a pick on someone post rather a question on why a certain criteria , in this case nm of range is used. Why isn't this value expressed as hours of endurance? It is easy to look at timetable endurance times for city pairs ; these will be a pretty accurate guide because they reflect typical conditions for most days as historical experience has shown.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined exactly 4 years ago today! , 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 145, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 20541 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 144):
This is not a pick on someone post rather a question on why a certain criteria , in this case nm of range is used. Why isn't this value expressed as hours of endurance? It is easy to look at timetable endurance times for city pairs ; these will be a pretty accurate guide because they reflect typical conditions for most days as historical experience has shown.

This is most likely because people has problems to convert hours to distance, they have no clue about the relationship between M numbers and distance covered per hour. We know that we are talking of about 490nm ESAD per hour but John Doe does not, that is why the manufacturer gives nm with standard frame and load.


Re the range of the -9X, 8000nm is fine with me, it then means the OEW of the frame is in the 175t range. This is also plausible, all the actions they do will increase the OEW of the frame, heavier engines (bigger fan and higher pressure ratio), heavier wing ( 10% weight gain from CFRP but 10% more area and then add folding mechanism with hydraulics), longer fuselage with more seats, galleys, exits, more sculptured frames (means thinner frame flanges means thicker gauge means heavier frames) and so on. So it will be a more capable frame but forget about a lower OEW then the 77W, it will be 5% more instead (and this is fully OK).

[Edited 2013-07-02 14:55:43]


Non French in France
User currently offlineaviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 641 posts, RR: 9
Reply 146, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 20372 times:

Hello Ferpe, did you run your model with this OEW ?
Can it be that A350-1000 will have the same Payload than 777-9 @8000 Nm (400 Nm is somewhere between 4-5t of fuel that can be converted in payload ?)


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31263 posts, RR: 85
Reply 147, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 20085 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Shouldn't a CFRP wing weigh less than an Al one? Otherwise why choose that material?

User currently offlinejustloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1063 posts, RR: 1
Reply 148, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 19804 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 126):
The 777X will be as close to a new cleansheet design as you can get. Seems that only the fuselage will be kept, pretty sure the landing gear will be modernised as well. Even the tailfin looks different (787!).The 747-8 had a relofted wing, it isn't as new as the CFRP wing for the 777X will be. Surely this will require new fatigue tests and so on?


Any discussions or comments yet on whether this 777X AL fuselage will have the cabin altitude and humidity characteristics of a 787?


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined exactly 4 years ago today! , 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 149, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 19652 times:

Quoting aviaponcho (Reply 146):
Hello Ferpe, did you run your model with this OEW ?

Yes, I have entered an OEW which would fit with the 8100nm given by Aspire and the latest changes to the GE-9X, here how the models stack up with these numbers (click on the chart to see the numbers better):

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/PRchart35J-8Xand-9XJuly2013_zps845976e4.jpg

As can be seen they are all close in fuel burn, the -9X being slightly ahead of you can fill it and the -8X slightly behind the 350-1000.



Non French in France
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined exactly 4 years ago today! , 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 150, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 19566 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 147):
Shouldn't a CFRP wing weigh less than an Al one? Otherwise why choose that material?

Yes, as I say you gain about 10% in weight for a same size wing with the same stress level. But you do not have a same size wing and not the same stress level, it is 10% larger in span and 10% larger in area and it carries a longer fuselage which is heavier (3-5t heavier). This all increases the size of all the components and the heavier fuselage increases the wing bending moment, the MLG introduces higher landing loads into the wing structure.

Now do you think you can ignore that? In my book it means not even the same weight, it means higher.

[Edited 2013-07-02 21:53:24]


Non French in France
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 30
Reply 151, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 19433 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 147):
Shouldn't a CFRP wing weigh less than an Al one? Otherwise why choose that material?

To me, one of the biggest advantages to CFRP for a wing is that complex curves and 3 dimensional shapes are much easier to implement.

They could also be easier to build. Just not having to worry about those thousands of fasteners in a wing would be a time saving.

For a fuselage, I think it's a wash between metal and composites. For a wing, I think composites win pretty handily....that is, once you've figured out how to do it.



What the...?
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined exactly 4 years ago today! , 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 152, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 19418 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 151):
For a fuselage, I think it's a wash between metal and composites. For a wing, I think composites win pretty handily....that is, once you've figured out how to do it.

I think you are right on the money, until one has figured out smarter electrical return networks, shielding techniques and knows more about damage tolerance the electrically intensive and damage prone fuselage shows much lower gains with CFRP. If you know how to do the wing with CFRP you have the advantages you listed adding things like controlled directional strengthen (for flutter control). The negative of having all that fuel in an insulator and having to add electrical pathways everywhere is easier to handle then for the electrically denser and complexer fuselage.



Non French in France
User currently offlineaviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 641 posts, RR: 9
Reply 153, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 19082 times:

Ferpe, thanks

On your payload range curves the slope of the first part of the curve is steeper for the 777-9 than for the A350-1000 (worst fuel block fuel burn than A350-1000). And @8000 Nm i read the the payload delta is only 3 t and "theoritically" the A350-1000 can go 8000 Nm with 2-3 t cargo (or 380 PAX)


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2170 posts, RR: 4
Reply 154, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 18668 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 150):

Yes, as I say you gain about 10% in weight for a same size wing with the same stress level

Through my experience from the most simple to the more complex, we get about 20% weight reduction for the same size and strength going from Al to composite. If you can get rid of more joints by going co-cured, you have a better chance of the higher weight saving.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 151):
To me, one of the biggest advantages to CFRP for a wing is that complex curves and 3 dimensional shapes are much easier to implement.

At the scale of these wing, the aerodynamic curvature can be achieved with aluminum. Even with CFRP, depending on how you cure the wing, the tooling can be a flexible caul plate instead of a hard female tool. You are only as accurate as your tool.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 151):
They could also be easier to build. Just not having to worry about those thousands of fasteners in a wing would be a time saving.

You do have fewer fasteners. However because of fail-safe design practices, you will will have some fasteners over the top of co-cured joints.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 151):

For a fuselage, I think it's a wash between metal and composites.

The way they build the fuselage with the barrel, I wouldn't be surprised if it take less time for a CFRP. It really depends on whether you use a drilling machine to drill and rivet all the fuselage lap joints on an aluminum barrel. If you are riveting those lap joint by hand, then the fiber place barrel seems to be a faster, more economical way to go . . . that is once they come down the learning curve on how to build a composite barrel.

In fact, they are doing interesting new things with composite barrels now-a-days . . . like a composite hydrogen cryo tank.

bt

[Edited 2013-07-03 06:45:39]


Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3450 posts, RR: 11
Reply 155, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 18404 times:

Flight Global has some additional information on the GE9X today:

> the high pressure compressor rig will be tested this summer
>GE has designed the GE9X with an additional stage in the compressor that can survive in higher temperatures
>GE is investing more than $2 billion to bring the GE9X to market with the 777X family by the end of the decade.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...est-on-ge9x-compressor-rig-387758/

and another:

>the GE9X will feature an exotic new material called ceramic matrix composites (CMCs), that have not entered service on any other aircraft engine so far. Able to survive in temperatures 20% hotter than metal, but twice as strong at one-third the weight
>CMCs account for up to 30% of the predicted fuel savings of the GE9X
>"At this point we are looking at doing an uncooled CMC stage 2 turbine blade," Millhaem says.
>"We'd like to push titanium aluminide as far forward as we can until it runs out of temperature capability, and then push CMCs as far aft as we can. And somewhere in the middle those two will meet."
>Running the first CMC turbine blade test in the GEnx demonstrator in 2014 is part of that strategy.
http://www.flightglobal.com/fg-club/in-focus/ge9x-13/

It is amazing how much work is already being done for an unlaunched program.  

tortugamon


User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 711 posts, RR: 0
Reply 156, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 18300 times:

Has any one heard of Boeing offering a lighter version of the 777-8x to compete closer with the Airbus comparable?

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/

Quote:
Boeing briefed the 777-8X and 9X at the Paris Air Show, but only talked about an 8X with a 9,400nm range. We have on tape comments from Mike Bair that Boeing will offer a lighter weight 8X with an 8,400nm range to more closely compete with the A350-1000. We’ll follow up with this when we are back.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3450 posts, RR: 11
Reply 157, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 18175 times:

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 156):
Has any one heard of Boeing offering a lighter version of the 777-8x

Hopefully it is not just a paper derated version a la the A350-900 lite.

tortugamon


User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 711 posts, RR: 0
Reply 158, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 18158 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 157):
Hopefully it is not just a paper derated version a la the A350-900 lite.

Yes hopefully not. At least Boeing is now recognizing that the 8x, as it is, does not offer a compelling argument to the A350-1000.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3450 posts, RR: 11
Reply 159, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 18076 times:

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 158):
At least Boeing is now recognizing that the 8x, as it is, does not offer a compelling argument to the A350-1000

Other than payload at range, I agree.

tortugamon


User currently offlinedfambro From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 343 posts, RR: 0
Reply 160, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 18069 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 157):
Quoting rotating14 (Reply 156):Has any one heard of Boeing offering a lighter version of the 777-8x
Hopefully it is not just a paper derated version a la the A350-900 lite.

How exactly does one subtract a meaningful amount of weight? I would think that the big gains would be in items that are not simple to change.

Please excuse an naiveté in the question, I'm not an engineer.


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5768 posts, RR: 6
Reply 161, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 17946 times:

Quoting dfambro (Reply 160):
How exactly does one subtract a meaningful amount of weight? I would think that the big gains would be in items that are not simple to change.

It's a difficult question and the right one to ask. So far, no one has actually succeeded in making a meaningfully lighter "lite" variant of any passenger frame. In every single case, the "lite" version was built first and then totally eclipsed by the heavier, longer-range version. In the one case where the "lite" version was intended as a later derivative -- the 787-3 -- it vanished before the heavier version even entered service.