Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3  
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3443 posts, RR: 10
Posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 35757 times:

Part 2 has been archived so this thread will serve as part 3. You can find part 2 here: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 2 (by jetblueguy22 Jul 9 2013 in Civil Aviation) and part 1 here: 777X Updated Information And Developments (by tortugamon Jun 18 2013 in Civil Aviation)

News has been slow in the last two months but we have this article by Dominic Gates about new machine technology:

"...the machine’s readout showed a top speed of 595 pounds of carbon fiber laid down per hour."
"... In current real-world applications, an average lay-down speed of 90 pounds per hour would be fast, he said."
http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...78392_electroimpacttoolingxml.html

and we have news about this 'secret' facility where they have started testing:
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/0...ng-secretly-testing-777x-work.html

Also, Airbus seemed to have a lead into a Japanese order for the A351...[But the "deal appeared to slip away"]:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...pan-airlines-idUSL4N0GV13320130902

The current thinking is that the 777x is on track for a November launch at the Dubai air show. Feel free to post news of anything I have missed in the last month or two.

tortugamon

278 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7474 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 35321 times:

Rookie question- what engines will they be using? Is it going to have a larger fan diameter than the GE90? What about those toothed cowlings on the GENx?


次は、渋谷、渋谷。出口は、右側です。電車とホームの間は広く開いておりますので、足元に注意下さい。
User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 335 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 35280 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 1):
Rookie question- what engines will they be using? Is it going to have a larger fan diameter than the GE90? What about those toothed cowlings on the GENx?
http://www.flightglobal.com/features/Boeing-777-special/777X/

That gives quite a nice intro, although a bit dated with things like the MTOW and engine thrust. I do believe the fan diameter will be larger @ 132" vs 128" (i think) on the current 777.



The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30910 posts, RR: 87
Reply 3, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 35076 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.

User currently offline747megatop From United States of America, joined May 2007, 716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 34996 times:

I am bit late to this thread; has Boeing officially settled for the 777x to be named 777-8 and 777-9 or will it be called the 777-400?

Here is an interesting writeup of the 777x along with a table comparing the A350 and B777 derivatives - http://www.aspireaviation.com/2013/0...eing-777x-to-spark-mini-jumbo-war/


User currently offlinetkukucka From Australia, joined Apr 2013, 73 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 34963 times:

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 4):

yes they will be called 777-8,9x


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11367 posts, RR: 33
Reply 6, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 34947 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.
User currently offlinetkukucka From Australia, joined Apr 2013, 73 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 34916 times:

right on the money  

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11367 posts, RR: 33
Reply 8, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 34906 times:

Quoting tkukucka (Reply 7):
right on the money

Unless Boeing marketing comes with a nice suffix, like we have the 737 Max.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7474 posts, RR: 18
Reply 9, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 34503 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 8):
Unless Boeing marketing comes with a nice suffix, like we have the 737 Max.

They should give it a less misleading name...so unlike "dreamliner" they should use "Dragon" or something mystical or something....they could sell a lot to Asia then   haha



次は、渋谷、渋谷。出口は、右側です。電車とホームの間は広く開いておりますので、足元に注意下さい。
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 34460 times:

Any ideas on who will be the launch customers and the # of orders necessary for launch?


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4957 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 34438 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 6):
I'm lazy and just call them 777-8 and 777-9 already (or even shorter: 778 and 779).

and 777-8LR ?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30910 posts, RR: 87
Reply 12, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 34384 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 11):
and 777-8LR ?

I appears the 777-8 will be a ULH plane by default, with customer option of reducing TOW and engine thrust as necessary for reduced range needs.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3443 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 34236 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)
> Malaysian
> Ethiopian
> International Aviation Group
> Eva Air
> PR
Maybe:
> Lufthansa
> Cathay Pacific
> Singapore airlines
> EY
> AF/KLM
> ANA

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.

tortugamon


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11367 posts, RR: 33
Reply 14, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 33974 times:

I would not bet on Malaysian, they want eventually a wide-body fleet from 1 manufacturer.


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently onlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1584 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 33921 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 14):
I would not bet on Malaysian, they want eventually a wide-body fleet from 1 manufacturer.

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.

Agree that MH is unlikely as 777X launch customer though.



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 offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3443 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 33767 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 14):
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 15):

Here is the article where they expressed interest in the 777-9x.

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20130619/BIZ/130619908

tortugamon


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4763 posts, RR: 14
Reply 17, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 33345 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

CI looking at A350-1000 or 77X- but not till 2018
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-new-narrowbody-fleet-soon-389836/


User currently offlineSeJoWa From United States of America, joined May 2006, 350 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 32905 times:

The article on Electroimpact referenced in the thread's beginning reveals an interesting technical nugget, ie.:

"Hempstead said Boeing will need a separate plant to build the composite 777X wings, which he says will be so big they’ll need to be made near the jet’s final assembly line."

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?

I do hope Boeing remember how vital a competence advanced manufacturing is.


User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1858 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 32855 times:

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 18):
The article on Electroimpact referenced in the thread's beginning reveals an interesting technical nugget, ie.:

"Hempstead said Boeing will need a separate plant to build the composite 777X wings, which he says will be so big they’ll need to be made near the jet’s final assembly line."

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?

.

Yes, if you consider being 7,000 miles away "on site" The wings will be made in Japan.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4763 posts, RR: 14
Reply 20, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 32796 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 19):

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 18):
The article on Electroimpact referenced in the thread's beginning reveals an interesting technical nugget, ie.:

"Hempstead said Boeing will need a separate plant to build the composite 777X wings, which he says will be so big they’ll need to be made near the jet’s final assembly line."

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?

.

Yes, if you consider being 7,000 miles away "on site" The wings will be made in Japan.

Could B just mean the wingboxes made in Japan and the whole wing structure more locally?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30910 posts, RR: 87
Reply 21, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 32753 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11367 posts, RR: 33
Reply 22, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 32305 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 16):
Here is the article where they expressed interest in the 777-9x.

Interesting, thanks.

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.
User currently onlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1584 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 32218 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...



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 offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3443 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 31638 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  .


tortugamon


25 Post contains links 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains links 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 Post contains links 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 Post contains images EPA001 : And again the combination A350-900 and B777-9. So good news for Airbus and Boeing again. .
64 Post contains images 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 Post contains links 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains links 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 Post contains links 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 Post contains links 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
118 LY777 : Thanks!
119 abba : EK might very well get a lot of 77x'es. However, I will not believe them much before the ink on a contract is dry and money for deposit sent to the b
120 Stitch : Except the 747-8 didn't give EK anything the A380-800 already did, so there was really no point to add it - especially after EK moved away from the 7
121 Kengo : If the 777X is good enough for LH, I don't see why the doubt on EK. Clark mentioned numerous times that he wants the 777X and only if Boeing could of
122 Post contains images EPA001 : Is "Keesje" back? . I am also quite sure they will be ordering the B77X in massive numbers. They will probably build on the largest fleet of B77X in
123 Post contains images abba : I wouldn't be surprised either. However, when it comes to TC and EK I will not sell the skin before the bear is surely shot. The 748i and the 346 was
124 sunrisevalley : And if Clark is serious about a close to max payload at 8500nm ESAD there will be some -8XL's in the mix
125 KarelXWB : The difference is, this time it's EK who was pushing Boeing to go forward with the 777X. Additionally they're working closely with the manufacturer t
126 tortugamon : EK already has an important product that they need to lobby Airbus about. Mr. Clark practically called Airbus chicken the other day when he was talki
127 tortugamon : I posted this in another thread but I think it better belongs here. I know many of you think I am wrong on this and I am anxious to hear your response
128 sunrisevalley : Are you referring to the 787-10 and a further enhancement of it to more than 323 seats as in the present Boeing defined 3-class configuration ?
129 tortugamon : Also, something that I think hasn't been properly discussed (at least here) is the role of the 77W in ~2017-2021. Yes the A351 will have a clear advan
130 AvObserver : As would a hypothetical and too often discussed A350-1100.
131 tortugamon : No, however crazy sounding I am talking about a 777-10x or a further stretch to the 777-9x. The wing seems plenty capable as are the engines. A capac
132 SEPilot : It certainly would. For that matter, so will the A3510. Its CASM will undoubtedly beat the A380, and will be even more attractive for operators who w
133 AvObserver : Which presents Airbus with a strategic dilemma. It's already encroaching somewhat on the A380's turf with it's own existing A350-1000 and a theoretic
134 EPA001 : Not if the seating is in percentages identical to each other. But the CASM gap will be virtually closed by 2017/2020 when the A35j and B779 will have
135 Stitch : As EPA001 noted, CASM alone is not driving A380-800 purchases, especially for those carriers with configurations closer to 450 (even 400!) seats compa
136 SEPilot : This is very true; however, I think the problem is that there just are not enough travelers willing to pay for premium seats to pay for all of these
137 Stitch : Whether it's 90 seats on one A380-800 or 45 seats each on two A350-1000s, it's still 90 seats. And if Economy is where the action is, you can't touch
138 tortugamon : How relevant is that type of aircraft if none have ever been sold? The 77W can fit 500+ which is great but I think only seven aircraft exist in that
139 Post contains images Stitch : Considering SEPilot's experience on DL, maybe they will consider such a configuration. Seriously, the A380-800 sees a lot of claims of being "too big
140 Post contains images tortugamon : Of course not, but the economics are very different. Incidentally, it takes carrying around 25t to get those extra 30 seats so they better make them
141 Post contains images abba : I see - the old established science of Kremel-ology has now been suplemented wit EK-ology For me it is still believing only when seeing
142 Stitch : I'd argue the premium cabins work fine (otherwise they would not be as large as they are) and the Economy cabins are just icing on the revenue cake.
143 tortugamon : I normally don't disagree with you. I think most airlines, especially on the A380, use economy to cover costs and let J make their profits. How low d
144 Post contains images Stitch : What I said was "IF Economy is where the action is"... Note the conditional. My belief is that the A380-800 is not "too large" in either premium or e
145 Post contains images KarelXWB : IMO the CASM comparisons are mostly relevant with the same cabin product. The Korean Air A380 must have a terrible CASM with only 400 seats, but has a
146 CXB77L : I agree. However, does Boeing intend to build 777Xs on the same assembly line as current 777s? If so - and this is a genuine question - would the 77W
147 tortugamon : I believe the current thinking is transitioning the 40-24 line to the 777 late next year. I believe they will be offered simultaneously during ramp u
148 KarelXWB : Based on some recent articles, the 777X will use much more automation on the final assembly line. The tooling will be different so I get the impressi
149 Post contains links KarelXWB : Gulfnews.com has this story about Emirates and the 777X order. > Emirates has received an official offer from Boeing > The two sides still have
150 Post contains images Stitch : Which means he'll sign for 200 at Dubai.
151 Post contains images tortugamon : I thought this quote was interesting: "Still, Clark said the 777X as Boeing now envisions it “is going to be beautiful.” For passengers, “it’
152 KarelXWB : I hesitated but was not sure if the PR talk was useful information for this development thread. From an other article which I can't find anymore, Cla
153 tortugamon : I understand the omission. The quote makes me wonder what they have in store for the interior other than the wider seat width and bigger windows. One
154 Stitch : I would guess it will incorporate much of the 787 and 747-8 design aesthetics (as the Signature Interior of the 767 did the 777).
155 Post contains links tortugamon : I think it was Scott Fancher who said that the 787 interior will be a generation by the time the 777x's EIS and they were trying to come up with ways
156 Post contains links ferpe : Emirates thinks the airplane will be fantastic but the Boeing company is less fantastic (read the board/top management's inability to take decisions,
157 KarelXWB : Boeing is/was for some reason very conservative about the 777X. Not sure why.
158 Post contains links StickShaker : Didn't Boeing plan to squeeze another 5% out of the 77W with the 77W enhanced program or has that been put on the back-burner with the advent of the
159 Post contains images StickShaker : Its got me baffled too. Cheers, StickShaker
160 tortugamon : My comment needed to have the word 'behind' after 'generation'. He was mentioning that it will be dated/obsolete by then. It sounds like you understo
161 finn350 : Regarding the possible EK order for 777-8/9s, I can imagine that the commercial negotiations between Boeing and EK are difficult now that Boeing has d
162 Post contains links mjoelnir : On Leehamsnews they do not seem to be too fond of the B 777-8X http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2013...ane-market-will-limit-777-8-sales/
163 tortugamon : They need each other and they are better with each other. They will find common ground. Its up to the lawyers/negotiators now. tortugamon
164 Stitch : I don't see much of a market for the 777-8LR, however the 777-8 itself might fare better as it provides the passenger capacity of a 777-300ER (at 7-a
165 seabosdca : Not much of a surprise... like the 777-200LR, it's a way for Boeing to pick up a few extra sales on the way to developing a freighter. The version of
166 sunrisevalley : From Ferpes charts the -8XL looks as if could haul full passengers and max volume limited freight ( about 24t) over a 16hr /7500nm ESAD sector . This
167 ferpe : I don't get your comment, according to Leeham and other sources there will only be one 777-8, the one with 9400nm spec range. Then there will be a lo
168 Stitch : With lighter operating weights and lower thrust engines it should consume less fuel then the "LR" model with maximum operating weights and maximum th
169 Post contains links KarelXWB : In terms of value, certainly (even with only 50 aircraft on order). But in terms of numbers maybe not, Lion Air for example ordered 234 A320 aircraft
170 ferpe : Now I understand you even less. Lets make a thought experiment, we have 2 airlines with 777-8 lining up for start, they both fly the same leg, LHR-JF
171 Post contains images Stitch : Yes, but that's not the kind of comparisonI am thinking of. My thought experiment would be a 777-8 lining up at LHR for JFK and one lining up at DXB
172 KarelXWB : True, true. But the difference is, the A330-300R is aimed at an other market (high density, short routes with 400 seats and an optimized cabin) while
173 tortugamon : Great point on production rate implications. We can debate the size and share of the a351 77x market but i think the 777x. However your point about m
174 Stitch : I continue to believe that the 777-8 could appeal to 9-abreast Economy 777-300ER operators because it will offer more usable payload on 777-300ER mis
175 Jambrain : slight issue with those numbers! now I know the below is a 20 year view but:- Airbus forecast 7,273 non VLA twin-aisle aircraft over 20 years i.e. 36
176 KarelXWB : That may be true, question is how much payload those operators really need. So far, the 9-abreast 777 operators who ordered the A351 are satisfied wi
177 KarelXWB : Ah yes, the forecast. Good one. You're numbers are about right. Boeing's forecast is a bit higher (7,800 of which 3,300 in the 777 size) thus that wo
178 Post contains links queb : From Air Insight: "We understand from industry sources that, at this stage, it is unlikely that the 777X will be built in Everett, Washington. Potenti
179 Post contains links KarelXWB : Washington State is fighting for the 777X, governor Jay Inslee has proposed extending the state tax credits to Boeing as an incentive to land the asse
180 Stitch : Even without additional incentives, I think Boeing could be wary of building the 777X in Charleston due fear of delays or quality control issues from
181 Post contains images EPA001 : It will be quite a battle between the sites where to build (or assemble) the new big fish in Boeings airliner line-up. I tend to support Stitch's vie
182 KarelXWB : I believe the 777X will stay in Everett because of the reasons Stitch has given, but I expect a future narrow- and wide-body jet (Y1/Y3) to be built i
183 tortugamon : Could you put a GE9x on a 77W to make a regional, lower MTOW version of the 77W? The GE9x is roughly the same dimensions and probably similar weight
184 PW100 : GE Test Facility slots have currently been reserved for GE9x for 2017 and 2018, which would indicate to me certification not before mid 2018 at the e
185 tortugamon : You are right, I just read the quote from GE: "The first engine will be tested in 2016, with trials on GE’s flying test bed anticipated in 2017. En
186 SEPilot : My gut feel is that South Carolina will get it, because Boeing management wants to get away from being constantly blackmailed by the unions. My take
187 JoeCanuck : My guess is the 777x goes to Everett because if there's one thing Boeing customers are wary of, it's delays. The X could almost slot directly into the
188 KarelXWB : The 777X will get a new, dedicated assembly line. New tooling, more automation etc, the assembly process will be much different. So if you have to ra
189 rheinwaldner : Availability primarily disturbs the market only as long as the competitor is not yet produced and delivered. Looking at A346/77W we know that availab
190 KarelXWB : That's a different story because the A340-600 was more inefficient compared to the 77W. This should not be the case for the A351 vs 779 as both will h
191 sweair : So anyway, what will change in the 777X besides, wing, engine and wingbox? Any new info out there? Al-Li? More electrics?
192 bikerthai : I heard on A-net window belt changes to accommodate larger windows and sculptured frames to accommodate wider seats. bt
193 panais : For that to happen, how many more passengers do you need to add? Doesn't this get you into B747 territory? So far, the 779, replaces the 747 at LH. I
194 XT6Wagon : EK will LOVE the extra width. Right now the 10Y requires special window seats cut to fit the curve of the interior panel. If Boeing can get them the
195 KarelXWB : I'm not sure what you're asking here, but the A351 with 350 seats will have around the same fuel burn per passenger as the 779 with 407 seats.
196 panais : EK can get the same price per seat whether its curved or not. These guys buy a lot of seats. As you wrote, per passenger. Less passengers on the 779 a
197 KarelXWB : Very true but as I said in another post: if an 10-abreast 77W operator can fill his airplane today than he will probably be able to fill those 20 ext
198 Post contains links KarelXWB : Leeham News has new information about this "fight". It's a large article but worth reading. http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2013...10/chasing-the-777
199 Post contains images frigatebird : Wonderful, second time I saw this argument today (also in the JAL A350 order thread). I don't think Tortugamon will mind when I quote him from the JA
200 Post contains links panais : or as rheinwaldner said Leahy Says Airbus Might Stretch The A350 Further? (by Bogi Oct 9 2013 in Civil Aviation)
201 Post contains images tortugamon : And if I was tempted to chose the A351 its because (A) I have trouble filling 77Ws/747s or (B) I don't like making more money These decisions are not
202 panais : Absolutely. Hmmm. Interesting. Do airlines like to make money or not waste money? To be or not to be? Chicken or egg? Hope it does not turn into one
203 Post contains links and images CXB77L : http://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-mulls...boeing-777x-to-replace-boeing-747s QF has now joined the queue as potential 777X (and A350) customers. Their re
204 NAV20 : Have to agree with that. And further state that, in my opinion, Boeing expect it not just to replace the B777ER, but ALSO eventually to put the B748
205 Post contains images KarelXWB : This is what you expect to happen, not Boeing. In fact, Boeing themselves expect to keep the 747-8 in production for a long time.
206 tortugamon : If they can fill the seats I don't see how it could be wasting money. It would have to be a small fleet but we will add it to the list. Yeah, I don't
207 panais : There is not an increasing number of 777-300ER operators putting 10 seats per row, actually 7, namely Aeroflot, American, Emirates, Air France/KLM, A
208 Post contains links and images KarelXWB : Yes there is. And I bet the number for 2013 will be higher.[Edited 2013-10-11 13:31:34]
209 seabosdca : Hyperbole much? Any order other than the largest order in aircraft history is a "disaster?"
210 KarelXWB : Why? In the past, many jetliners were launched with less firm orders, including the 777. Today, we're looking too much at the A320neo/737max/787/A350
211 Post contains links tortugamon : Actually there are no fewer than 13 10-abreast operators. I did an analysis on this in the spring: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...ral_aviatio
212 SEPilot : But if an airliner needs one tomorrow, it is a big difference. They can get an A330 long before they can get a 787. The more that time gap diminishes
213 PW100 : Perhaps that may have to do with the fact that the 77W rarely has an engine failure at take-off; the only time when the 115klbf is actually really ne
214 SEPilot : As I understand it the GE-90-110/115 rarely fail, period. They went a long time before the first IFSD.
215 tortugamon : I should have said that its not often that 77Ws takeoff at/near MTOW and engines are often derated. tortugamon
216 panais : 2 reasons. First they need to replace their 161 777-300ER in operations and firm orders +20 options (as per Wikipedia), and plan for growth. More on
217 KarelXWB : These are long-term numbers. Their last 77W's on order will be delivered in 2017, which means they don't need a replacement before 2029 (assuming a l
218 Post contains links panais : http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...sor-specs-before-making-order.html "Clark has said he may need as many as 275 777s for replacement and expansio
219 KarelXWB : How is this different from what I said?
220 tortugamon : This seems like solid reasoning but it does not need to happen all at once and more to the point if 100 + 100 does not happen at launch it would not
221 Post contains images KarelXWB : I expect the 777-8 to be a direct replacement for the 35 77W's with 354 seats they have.
222 XT6Wagon : That you say that shows you clearly don't understand the problem. Its an added cost because it adds complexity to every step of the plane's existance
223 Post contains images seabosdca : I'm not sure why all orders have to be so monstrous, or why EK has to replace its entire fleet in one fell swoop. It's been their style, true, but I
224 tortugamon : Interesting. I saw the 10 77Ls as the target as well. Some of them will be hitting 12 years in 2021 however some are a couple years older so they may
225 KarelXWB : Clark told reporters the 777-8 is important too. Looking at the current fleet (35 77W's with 354 seats which are being rotated in the ULH routes) I e
226 sunrisevalley : The A380 575t is unlikely to give EK much more than max passenger load on DXB-LAX. This is based on a typical timetable day of 16hrs 15m. or ESAD ~800
227 Post contains images tortugamon : I count 39 77Ws that will be 12 years old by 2020. Some of these are leased and will have to go back which means they will either need 77W replacemen
228 KarelXWB : True, but 2026 is still 13 years away from now. They could always order more in the coming years.
229 sweair : Again people dismiss the 777-8, I see one heckof a plane in this one, payload range is astounding, this is also a 350 seater, compared to 310 ish for
230 Post contains images KarelXWB : Thus same like the 777-200LR, and how many of those were sold
231 sweair : No the L seats 314...big difference.
232 sassiciai : I have no detailed info on either the A350 or B777X EIS plans, and just look forward to seeing the development of both! If Airbus can get the A350-100
233 tortugamon : True, but they will need early production slots so depending on how the ordering goes they may need to over commit earlier than they would like. Shoo
234 waly777 : I agree with this, it will bring the best of both the 77L and 77W i.e. impressive payload/range and good seat mile costs (not quite as good as the 77
235 Post contains images PW100 : OK understand now. Wasn't sure if you were playing the marketing guys numbers game . . . And incidently, good excuse for me to give a big thumps up t
236 KarelXWB : Nobody doubts the capabilities of the 777-8. Question is how many airlines will really need it. Even if it sells thrice the 777-200L numbers, that's
237 sunrisevalley : It was too late to market; carriers had loaded up on the 77E in the meantime.
238 seabosdca : The thing is that ULH routes will be competing with a moving target. Could a 777-8X ULH be competitive against a 777-300ER one-stop? Maybe. But I don
239 Post contains images tortugamon : Not sure if I am smart enough to do that . Seriously though, I really would like people's opinions on a ~105klbf GE9x 77W. I realize it is unrealisti
240 seabosdca : If the 778 can't defeat the case for this beast, then the 778 has a problem. It ought to have similar CASM, lower fuel burn (thanks to the better win
241 Stitch : EK seems to like to move from the 777-200LR to the 777-300ER on new routes quickly, so I tend to think they would see the 777-8 as a very good "launc
242 tortugamon : All true and thanks for the feedback. I don't see this frankenstein-77W as a long term option either. During 777x ramp up (~2019-2024), can the 77W w
243 NAV20 : With respect, KarelXWB, that low figure only applied to the 777-200LR? The 777-200ER sold 422 - and I think the last of them was only delivered a few
244 tortugamon : I don't see many operators substituting 778x for 77Es. If you were operating a 77E don't you think you would use a 789, 781, or an A359 for the repla
245 Post contains links and images NAV20 : Just that that's what Boeing did last time, tortugamon. 1995 - 772 introduced - low sales. 1996 - 772ER - very good sales. 1998 - 773 - poor sales. 20
246 Post contains links SV777 : Reuters learned from informed sources in the global aircraft industry that the Emirates airline plans to order 150 Boeing 777X wide-body. The sources
247 Post contains images Stitch : Well I jokingly said 200 a week or so back, so I was in the neighborhood.
248 Finn350 : I speculated on 100 orders when LH deal was announced, so If we take an average on our two guesses, it would be spot on provided this rumour is indee
249 rotating14 : Is there any mention of options? One would have to assume so.
250 Post contains images tortugamon : Good answer but you didn't really answer the question. Would like to hear your prediction on the size and mix of the order. I think you are in more o
251 Stitch : Well if the initial order is 150, as rumored, I'd say 100 777-9s and 50 777-8s.
252 Finn350 : I would speculate on a smaller number of 777-8s. As I understand it, it is needed only for ultra long haul. Lets say 75:25 for 779-9 vs. 777-8.
253 tortugamon : I respect you. Please google stuff before you make statements like this. It undermines your credibility. They are producing at 100 per year and they
254 PW100 : I don't really understand why you would use a 77X-8 to launch a route, if that mission can also be successfully flown by a 77X-9 (which is implied in
255 Stitch : A number of EK's long-haul 777-300ER missions go out payload-restricted (blocked seats). DXB-LAX, for example, is said to have around 40 Economy seat
256 waly777 : Growth will be a good start, the airlines always factor this into future fleets. With an average annual pax growth of 5%, replacing a 77E with 789 or
257 NAV20 : Stunning news, if confirmed at Dubai. That will make the best part of 200 orders even before formal launch. Excellent point, Stitch. Confirms my 'sus
258 Stitch : If you want to stay 9-abreast, the 787-9 or A350-900 is a brilliant replacement for the 777-200ER. If you are at 10-abreast, or wish to go there, the
259 Post contains images EPA001 : That is exactly the thing in large civilian airliners today. There are so many choices now for airlines to order the taylor made plane for there netw
260 Finn350 : I would be very surprised if 777-8 comes first, as it is a niche airplane specifically designed for EK ultra long haul routes. For most routes, A350-
261 Post contains links NAV20 : Interested to see this story, Finn350 - from Etihad, not Emirates, but it might be an indication of the 'next step' as far as the Gulf carriers are c
262 sunrisevalley : But this is the area of EK operations where they are in a pinch and could use relief sooner.
263 KarelXWB : Please read again, we were talking about the niche market, served by 777-200LR / 777-8 aircraft.
264 Post contains images NAV20 : Apologies, KarelXWB. But you definitely said just 'the 778200L,' not the '778LR'? In any case, see post 261 - to MY astonishment, anyway, even the B77
265 KarelXWB : There will only be one 777-8, and that's the one with the range of 9400nm. A direct replacement for the 777-200LR. Nobody claimed it to be dead, it j
266 Post contains images NAV20 : My point was that 420 sales of the basic 777-200ER were in no sense a 'niche market'? Guess we're both getting our 'type-numbers' mixed up. No surpri
267 KarelXWB : Multiple industrial sources have said the 777-9 will be the optimized base model, and the 777-8 will be a direct shrink of the base model. Hence the
268 Post contains images NAV20 : That's probably the root of our disagreement, KarelXWB. I think (trying to get my numbers right ) the '778X' will be planned as a replacement for the
269 Post contains images KarelXWB : Boeing stretched the 777-9 just large enough to equal the fuel burn per passenger of the A351. Secondly I don't see how the 777-8 can come first if t
270 Finn350 : There is some mix-up in the model numbers. Two Boeing 777 derivaties will be launched in the near future, most likely in Dubai Air Show next month: B
271 Post contains images KarelXWB : So despite all the information on the internet - including well respected sources - pointing otherwise, you believe in your own story? What kind of a
272 Post contains images NAV20 : Yeah - have to admit that I made a googling mistake there! Though there's always '10-across' and less first-class to fall back on? But can we agree t
273 KarelXWB : I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, you can also put 500 seats in the 777-300ER or 800 in the A380. In general we speak about the seat count
274 waly777 : Ah yes you're right, I should have added the 9 and 10 abreast dimension as well.
275 Post contains images CXB77L : Hardly. That may be, but Mr Clark did not specify when they need those 275 aircraft by. EK may indeed order aircraft in large numbers, but even then
276 PW100 : No real dispute in this reasoning, but it still doesn't answer my initial question/observation. Or in other words, why not using a 777-9X and blockin
277 KarelXWB : In case of 77W vs 77L, which differ 72 seats, airlines prefer the larger jet because the extra seats generate more revenue than the cargo does. Thus
278 Post contains links iowaman : Another thread that is getting quite lengthy. I opened up part four to make it easier for those with slow connections to participate: 777X Updated Inf
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
777X Updated Information And Developments Part 2 posted Tue Jul 9 2013 22:20:13 by jetblueguy22
777X Updated Information And Developments posted Tue Jun 18 2013 11:11:57 by tortugamon
A350 Production And Development Part 11 posted Fri Jun 7 2013 05:03:00 by Aviaponcho
Cathay Pacific Evaluating A380 And 748i Part 2 posted Sat Feb 9 2013 10:36:08 by iowaman
VS A330-300's - Information And Names? posted Wed Jun 6 2012 08:12:12 by virginblue4
Information And Particulars About Aviation Trade Fairs Please? posted Fri Nov 26 2010 07:52:29 by KShafiq7
Camp Mirage And YYZ - Part 2 posted Fri Oct 15 2010 23:06:39 by SA7700
Camp Mirage And YYZ - Part 1 posted Fri Oct 8 2010 04:47:53 by auroralives
2010 Boeing Orders And Deliveries - Part 2 posted Fri Sep 24 2010 12:48:44 by SA7700
2010 Boeing Orders And Deliveries - Part 1 posted Fri Jan 15 2010 09:18:28 by WestWing