Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 28522 posts, RR: 84 Reply 3, posted (3 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 33335 times:
Yes, fan diameter will increase from the 128" on the GE90-11xB family to 132" on the GE9X and the blades will be made from CFRP. The GE9x will also have an improved version of the compressor used on the GEnx, which will add another compressor stage compared to the GE90 and new generations of powdered metal alloy and ceramic matrix composites to allow higher engine operating temperatures in the hot sections of the engine.
KarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 6669 posts, RR: 26 Reply 6, posted (3 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 33206 times:
They will be called 777-8 and 777-9, the X is just a development name and will be dropped (just like we had the 787-10X). I'm lazy and just call them 777-8 and 777-9 already (or even shorter: 778 and 779).
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
tortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 2116 posts, RR: 9 Reply 13, posted (3 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 32495 times:
Quoting CX747 (Reply 10): Any ideas on who will be the launch customers and the # of orders necessary for launch?
Like the 787-10 I imagine Boeing will want to try to grab a big customer from multiple regions. EK from ME with an order of at least 75 between two variants appears likely. Other customers that have expressed interest (sources for the statements are in thread #1 reply #52):
> Qatar (9x)
> International Aviation Group
> Eva Air
> Cathay Pacific
> Singapore airlines
Obviously it is going to be difficult to find a launch customer in North America. I don't think AC, UA, DL, or AA will order it out of the gate. A total launch order of 100 units should do the trick.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 28522 posts, RR: 84 Reply 21, posted (3 months 1 day ago) and read 31012 times:
Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 18): So if I understand this correctly, even if the CFRP wing layup machines were provided by another company, the wing would need to be made more or less on site?
There was some speculation Boeing might build them at or near Paine Field because Boeing is testing new automated production processes for the 777X in nearby Anacortes, WA.
However, the wings are lmost certainly going to be made in Japan and shipped via sea to Everett. Boeing has a large dock near the plant with a direct rail line so transport and delivery will not be an issue.
KarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 6669 posts, RR: 26 Reply 22, posted (3 months 12 hours ago) and read 30564 times:
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 16): Here is the article where they expressed interest in the 777-9x.
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 15): But that doesn't have to be Airbus it can also be Boeing, according to this article: The 1 manufacturer rule apparently only applies to the A330/777 replacement segment.
I was actually referring to an earlier interview which dates from 2012. The plan was to retire the 777s and 747s and only operate A330s and A380s. Now they are looking at 787s, A350 and 777X aircraft, it surprised me how quick they changed their minds.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
frigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1381 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (3 months 12 hours ago) and read 30477 times:
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 22): it surprised me how quick they changed their minds.
Yes, me too. Makes you wonder how serious one should take their public statements... Personally, I believe MH should be best off with a decent fleet of A350-1000s for routes that can't sustain A380 loads and are too long for the A333 without payload hits. And mentioning interest ind 787s or 777Xs just to keep Airbus (their planned single widebody manufacturer!) honest...
tortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 2116 posts, RR: 9 Reply 24, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 29897 times:
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 23): And mentioning interest ind 787s or 777Xs just to keep Airbus (their planned single widebody manufacturer!) honest...
It could be. However, seeing as they already have many Boeing pilots (almost twice as many Boeing aircraft than Airbus) and as their 15-772s are typically operated on medium/long haul flights it could be that the 787-10 would be an ideal replacement. I personally do not see a need for a 777-9x as they have already retired their 774 (passenger version anyway, they still have freighters) and MH's ASMs are dropping not increasing and I am not sure if more large long haul aircraft (including the A351s) will fix that; its a different world with the ME3 in it.
I agree that we can't necessarily rely on what the airlines say; but maybe that relates to their interest in a single supplier for their wide body fleet as well .
25 tortugamon: Lots of 777x info in the latest Aspire article. A couple highlights: >Cathay’s 5th London flight records “95% average load factor” in initial
26 waly777: I'm guessing it could be a 3 class config with J, Y+ and Y....plus a 10 abreast config in Y.
27 Stitch: At 7-abreast Business and 9-abreast Economy, CX fits 398 seats in their regional 777-300s. So moving from 9-abreast to 10-abreast in Economy and adju
28 tjh8402: also worth noting is that ANA and JAL are a part of the working group on the 777x. the second article linked to within that one says that they are fa
29 tortugamon: A CX aircraft without first class on long haul would be an interesting choice. Not sure. I could see them getting there with that regionally. Daniel
30 CXB77L: I hope not. I don't particularly like the "Max" nomenclature for the 737. "Dreamliner" works fine for the 787, but I just think that "Max" sounds a b
31 waly777: They do have a few 77W configured this way and I believe 1 or 2 of those currently operate on the LHR-HKG route, though a quick look up puts this con
32 tortugamon: Aspire also indicates that BA, ANA, EK, CX, and JAL will be launch customers and CX has sent 777 pilots to Everett to work on cockpit improvements inc
33 KarelXWB: For the same reason airlines put 400 seats in the 77W: it's not a standard 3-class cabin configuration. The interesting part is that 3 of them (BA, E
34 spink: Based on their existing 340 passenger 77W configured in J, E+, and E: rather easily. 10 abreast gets them another 33 seats. 779 vs 77W length gets th
35 KarelXWB: The document also has this 777X render with a folded wing tip: I would say "doable" instead of "reasonable" because it remains to be seen if they are
36 spink: Sure but even without going 31" they can get to 413 pretty easy so 420 at 32" is probably doable with a little work while keeping the name number of
37 frigatebird: They are apparently on the customer working group, but that doesn't mean they'll be launch customers. It doesn't even mean they absolutely will order
38 CXB77L: Looking good I don't think they will, mainly because of their reputation as a "premium" carrier. 10 abreast on a 777X is a different story because of
39 rotating14: True. Of the 8 that had a hand in the T7 classic design, 7 of the 8 ended up ordering. Not 100% but still a high percentage. While anything is possib
40 holzmann: I don't get it. Why go for a CRFP wing not and fuselage as well? Think of it is as blended design: Engines: new/updated Wing/Fuselage: CRFP (787 +++)
41 Stitch: Because at that point it's an all-new plane and EIS would be even later.
42 KarelXWB: Most of the fuel reduction comes from the engines and wings. The rest would reduce fuel burn with only a few percentages, but will cost a lot of money
43 KarelXWB: No argument here. In case of CX, the extra fuselage length and the step from 9 to 10-abreast will make the biggest change (60-70 more seats). It's no
44 CXB77L: As far as I'm aware, Boeing claims a 21% fuel burn per seat reduction for a 407 seat 777-9X over a 365 seat 777-300ER. Which means that the 21% reduc
45 spink: If we go with those numbers then the trip cost would be: X/365 * .79 = Y/407 Y = .88X So trip fuel burn for the 779 would be ~12% better than the 77W
46 KarelXWB: Thanks spink. It isn't, and it will generate more revenue if you can fill the seats.
47 Stitch: Looks like we may be able to add LH to the list, per Lufthansa Said To Buy B777-9 And A350-900 Aircraft (by KarelXWB Sep 13 2013 in Civil Aviation)
48 tortugamon: It is indeed interesting that a350-1000 operators are choosing 777-9x. This is good news for both OEMs. This is for regional cabins only. This could
49 blrsea: The cabin width of 777x has increased due to decrease in insulation width, right? The airframe's width is no different from 77W? otherwise it will be
50 timpdx: blrsea, yes, the 10Y config will be able to take advantage of a thinner wall/ insulation to help make 10 across a tad more comfortable. The fuselage b
51 KarelXWB: It's not yet clear to me if there will be six launch customers. The way I understand it, these carriers are part of the working group. It took ages b
52 spink: The 420 config that is being talked about is not a regional config. It is a current 77W long range config put into the 779x. The 77W 3 class w/premiu
53 phx787: Now how would this look compared to a 772 or 773?
54 tortugamon: Here is the quote from the Aspire article: "In the meantime, Cathay Pacific appears to be one of the launch customers of the much-anticipated Boeing
55 aviaponcho: Tortugamon, don't forget that 777-300Er has 5 sets of doors vs 4 sets of door for the A350-1000. You might fit one more row in the A350-1000 I guess.
56 frigatebird: According to Zeke, the difference with the 77W is 3 seats less for the A350-1000, so that would be 337seats. However, I am not sure if he meant the J
57 KarelXWB: Not in case of CX because: > J is 1-2-1 > Y is 3-3-3 > Y+ is 2-4-2 This should fit fine in the A350.
58 tortugamon: I had not considered that, you are right. I could definitely see that making a difference on a positive side. On a potential negative side: I wonder
59 aviaponcho: Tortugamon, You're right, 10 abreast in an A350-1000 is going to be challenging with only 4 pairs of doors. Some more exits where showns on the render
60 KarelXWB: Airbus ditched the 5-door option afterwards.
61 Stitch: zeke has stated that the CX A350-1000 will seat 273 - 2 less than the four-class 777-300ER.
62 Stitch: Philippine Airlines appears to also be a 777-9 customer per PAL To Lease 4 B77W, 10 B777-9 And 10 A350-900 (by PRFlyer Sep 17 2013 in Civil Aviation).
63 EPA001: And again the combination A350-900 and B777-9. So good news for Airbus and Boeing again. .
64 KarelXWB: It seems that the rumors of the $400 million unit price are about right. From Reuters: A quick math gives me $390 million per unit: > 25x A350-900
65 aviaponcho: So for something like 10 more millions you can have an a380?
66 KarelXWB: The correct number is 34 aircraft instead of 25, that gives around $345 million per unit. That's just under the 747-8. http://twitter.com/ReutersAero/
67 aviaponcho: Yes I checked it So +13 m$ vs A350-1000 and +25 m$ vs 777-300ER
68 tortugamon: 34 firm orders is significantly larger than I had envisioned. I don't think LH buys all of their aircraft at once either so you have to suspect that t
69 EPA001: That surprises me a bit. But they must feel very confident about the B777-9. Which is good news for the B777-8/9 program overall. . They will make th
70 waly777: Al baker earlier this year said the 779 is going to be better than what Boeing is saying, based on preliminary figures I saw last week; it will be qu
71 Stitch: I think EK alone will be good enough for that at the Dubai Air Show (though some might be conversions from their 777-300ER order book. The program co
72 tortugamon: I think you are right. Calm before the storm. Boeing has been saying that the -9x will be 20% better than the 77W which is pretty incredible but I ju
73 KarelXWB: 20%, but only if you go from 9 to 10-abreast. I think 300 is a bit too optimistic.
74 tortugamon: LH is using 779s to replace 13 of its oldest 747s (birthdays 1996-2002). BA has 28 747s with very similar birthdays. Their 787-10s (12) and A350-1000s
75 KarelXWB: Yes but that will likely not all happen because: The 12 A380s on order are also part of the 747 replacement. I think VS will rather convert their A380
76 trex8: CI have 13 similarly aged ones (unless you meant CI and not CA) and they have orders/leases for 10 77Ws with delivery starting next year and options
77 tortugamon: True. Take that away from the 25 as well. It still leaves a decent amount of 747s to replace. A351 top up order or 777-9x capacity increase seems to
78 KarelXWB: Airbus will be happy to convert the order if they threaten to go shopping over sea I guess it will depend on VS's needs too. UA for example selected
79 SEPilot: I suspect the 779 is going to not only kill off the 748i but it will pretty well take the wind out ot the A380's sails as well. If, as it sounds, it b
80 KarelXWB: The current 77W has already a lower CASM than the A380 but that did not stop airlines from buying them.
81 EPA001: With comparable seating dimensions the seat count on an A380 goes up significantly. And then will have the lower CASM, even compared to the A35J and
82 KarelXWB: IMO CASM comparisons are only relevant for similar sized aircraft. The 737 has a lower CASM than a 777 but different aircraft, different market etc.
83 tortugamon: It appears that BA is going to do something similar as well. We will see. I have no idea what their yields/loads are like and are projected to be. VS
84 KarelXWB: Well, it's not impossible IMO. BA is part of the working group and said the aircraft could be useful in the BA fleet. We'll have to wait and see what
85 tortugamon: I wonder if this is because they don't think they can fill all of the seats if they filled it to the brim or if they think they can get a premium for
86 KarelXWB: But with the same CASM, the extra 150 seats on the A380 generate more revenue.
87 phxa340: I think it comes down to risk management when deciding between the 2. The A380 might make more money when you can fill it but if the economy turns fo
88 tortugamon: Right, and that is why the A380 isn't going anywhere, IMO and thankfully because I like flying on it. If the CASM is the same then for airlines that
89 SEPilot: Only if you fill them at decent fares. The risk of not filling them, and the potential loss caused by empty seats goes up as the size goes up. The bi
90 A380900: I thinke they would do the same. The idea, I think, was to max out the size for the 80mX80m parking spot. They did not want that Boeing could have th
91 trex8: The 77Ws will initially primarily replace the A343 as the A359 is a little late. The A359 was supposed to start replacing the A343 and long route A33
92 EPA001: But that is not the case yet. Equipped with comparable cabin products the A380 will easily still have the lower CASM. How much fuel burn per passenge
93 tortugamon: Its interesting that instead of being concerned with the largest aircraft it may have made more sense to focus on building the largest twin. Time wil
94 Stitch: VS has 10 A330-300 and 4 A340-300 on hand and hold orders for 16 787-9, so I think they're covered, there. I also think VS is going to look hard at t
95 tortugamon: Exactly. I don't see it being a large order, maybe 12-15 plus options but I could see that being useful for them and it would require very little pil
96 trex8: It is highly unlikely CI will be keeping any type 25 years, while they did this occasionally in the past, after the 742 crash 10 years ago they want
97 tortugamon: You raise some excellent points. I concede the 777-9x may not be the replacement for their 747s. tortugamon
98 tortugamon: Anyone know much about demineralized water injection systems? I assume it was keep the engines cool when it is hot. I assumed that is what the ceramic
99 tortugamon: I just realized that the fifth door on the 77X won't result in a loss of a row on the 777-9x in fact it should gain one vs the 77W and be in parity w
100 NAV20: Thanks for the link, tortugamon. Impressive that Emirates are angling to possibly become one of the 77X launch customers. Those systems were used in
101 KarelXWB: But the 777X will have less thrust than today's 77W.
102 SEPilot: I believe the issue is not so much the power, but the temperatures at which the engine runs that are the issue. The higher the operating temperature,
103 tortugamon: Thanks guys, since my post I have done some reading. Apparently some B-52s had this same system in addition to the BAC 111. Although the engine will
104 Stitch: Mr. Clark's comments are the first I have heard about active liquid cooling for the GE9X engine. He also seems to be the only person saying they need
105 sunrisevalley: For a 569t MTOW 840 occupied seats , 6000nm sector distance , fuel burn per seat is ~ 195kg.
106 NAV20: Looks as if Emirates are well and truly 'on board' the new model:- "Seattle // Boeing has engaged Emirates Airline in plans to design its next-generat
107 DocLightning: It costs as much as an A380. Lower CASM, I suppose. But smaller. BA seems to be increasing the number of types in their long haul fleet. Their fleet
108 LY777: What will be the lenght of the 777-9X (in metres)?Thanks
109 neutrino: That estimated figure has since been corrected downwards:-
110 KarelXWB: Emirates is talking about the 777X since a while now, they need replacements for the 77W fleet from 2020. The $400 million figure was based on the spe
111 EPA001: I am guessing EK will order (in tranches) many B777-X's. But less then 10% of them will be the B777-8 imho. But maybe EK will surprise me on this per
112 Stitch: 76.5 meters - 2.6 meters longer than the 777-300ER. I guess it depends on how well the 777-9 does out of DXB on an over-40° C day. He's claiming the
113 tortugamon: I have it as a 5.8m stretch or 228 inches or 7 rows at 32 inch pitch. Plus, the last 5 rows of EK's 77Ls have 8 seats or less. If Boeing adjusts this
114 LY777: Thanks! How many economy seats rows does this allow?
115 KarelXWB: How do you get 15 extra seats, in the best case scenario I count 5 rows * 2 more seats (10-abreast instead of 8-abreast) = 10 more seats? More like 9
116 KarelXWB: One meter gives you ~ one row. Thus around 20 more seats, depending on the pitch. > The 777-300ER seats 386 pax at 10-abreast, 3-class > The 77
117 tortugamon: The last two rows only have 6 seats for some reason. Not sure if there is something there that would prevent them from going 10 abreast back there or