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, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 36187 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Part 2 has been archived so this thread will serve as part 3.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, 7959 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 35751 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?


Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 340 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 35710 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 onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31414 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 35506 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 (1 year 3 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 35426 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, 78 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 35393 times:

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 4):

yes they will be called 777-8,9x


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13114 posts, RR: 35
Reply 6, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 35377 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, 78 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 35346 times:

right on the money  

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13114 posts, RR: 35
Reply 8, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 35336 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, 7959 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 34933 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



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4466 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 34890 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, 5219 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 34868 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 onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31414 posts, RR: 85
Reply 12, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 34814 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, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 34666 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, 13114 posts, RR: 35
Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 34404 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 offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1715 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 34351 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, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 34197 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, 4871 posts, RR: 14
Reply 17, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 33775 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, 373 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 33335 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, 1900 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 33285 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, 4871 posts, RR: 14
Reply 20, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 33226 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 onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31414 posts, RR: 85
Reply 21, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 33183 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, 13114 posts, RR: 35
Reply 22, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 32735 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 offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1715 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 32648 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, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 32068 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


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 25, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 32138 times:

Lots of 777x info in the latest Aspire article. A couple highlights:

>Cathay’s 5th London flight records “95% average load factor” in initial phase
>Boeing markets 777-9X as 420-seat “ULH heavy-duty airliner” in CX configuration: document
>Cathay calls 777-9X folding wingtip mechanics & warning systems “all fairly straightforward”: document
>Cathay says 777-9X “10 years from service”, in line with possible delivery timeframe to CX

http://www.aspireaviation.com/2013/0...anging-times/#.UjIumg3Nf-s.twitter

How can they fit 420 seats in CX configuration?

tortugamon


User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 340 posts, RR: 3
Reply 26, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 31935 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 25):
How can they fit 420 seats in CX configuration?

I'm guessing it could be a 3 class config with J, Y+ and Y....plus a 10 abreast config in Y.



The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31414 posts, RR: 85
Reply 27, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 32599 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 25):
How can they fit 420 seats in CX configuration?

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 adjusting the ratio of premium cabin seating to economy seating could make it such a configuration possible.

[Edited 2013-09-12 17:52:36]

User currently offlinetjh8402 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 189 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 32404 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 25):

Lots of 777x info in the latest Aspire article. A couple highlights:

>Cathay’s 5th London flight records “95% average load factor” in initial phase
>Boeing markets 777-9X as 420-seat “ULH heavy-duty airliner” in CX configuration: document
>Cathay calls 777-9X folding wingtip mechanics & warning systems “all fairly straightforward”: document
>Cathay says 777-9X “10 years from service”, in line with possible delivery timeframe to CX

http://www.aspireaviation.com/2013/0...anging-times/#.UjIumg3Nf-s.twitter

How can they fit 420 seats in CX configuration?

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 favoring the 777 over the A350.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 29, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 32324 times:

Quoting waly777 (Reply 26):

A CX aircraft without first class on long haul would be an interesting choice. Not sure.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 27):

I could see them getting there with that regionally. Daniel says that premium economy is working for them. Not sure how to know for sure. I could see 420 in two class but three class is tough to swallow for me. It almost certainly would require 10 abreast in why.

I have been rallying the concept of a 9-abreast premium economy and 10 abreast in Y for awhile and I think it could happen. Not so much at SQ but I think CX would be open to it.

If Cathay doesn't go for it it takes a lot of credibility away from the 777x in my opinion. It's really Taylor made for them but for the 10 abreast in Y. We will see.

tortugamon


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2694 posts, RR: 5
Reply 30, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 32282 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

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

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 bit too much like an afterthought.

Keep it simple. 777-8 and 777-9 will do just fine.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 25):
How can they fit 420 seats in CX configuration?

They could if it were in a regional configuration, or if they reduced the number of premium seats in the cabin. But I would agree that 420 in a long haul configuration is a bit of a stretch. The current 3 class 77W (J, W and Y) seats 340, so 420 would be a 80 seat increase over that, which I doubt very much would happen.

But their regional 777-300s seat 398. So if they intend to configure some of their 777-9Xs with a regional cabin as replacement for the 777-300, then it could very easily seat 420.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 340 posts, RR: 3
Reply 31, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 32219 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 29):
A CX aircraft without first class on long haul would be an interesting choice. Not sure.

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 config @ 340 seats on the 77W...so most likely with not that config even.



The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 32, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 32159 times:

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 including a great idea for the EFB. No North American customers as expected. The rest are very welcome news.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 30):

The Cathay Newsletter specifically says 420-seat for ultra long haul according to Aspire.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 31):

I am stumped as well.

tortugamon


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13114 posts, RR: 35
Reply 33, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 31955 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 25):
How can they fit 420 seats in CX configuration?

For the same reason airlines put 400 seats in the 77W: it's not a standard 3-class cabin configuration.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 32):
Aspire also indicates that BA, ANA, EK, CX, and JAL will be launch customers

The interesting part is that 3 of them (BA, EK and CX) also have a bunch of A350-1000 aircraft on order, which indicates both types are different enough to operate them together.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinespink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 319 posts, RR: 1
Reply 34, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 31911 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 25):

How can they fit 420 seats in CX configuration?

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 them another 30-40 seats (were at 400-410 now)
31" pitch gets them another 10 seats (410-423)

And there are still tricks to play trading off width for length in their config as well, esp with 4" more to play with (more angled J is one option).

So 420 seems reasonable.

[Edited 2013-09-13 01:10:26]

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13114 posts, RR: 35
Reply 35, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 31964 times:

The document also has this 777X render with a folded wing tip:



Quoting spink (Reply 34):
So 420 seems reasonable.

I would say "doable" instead of "reasonable" because it remains to be seen if they are going for 31" pitch on long-haul. Don't forget: this is only a cabin proposal from Boeing to CX.

[Edited 2013-09-13 01:21:32]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinespink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 319 posts, RR: 1
Reply 36, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 31820 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 35):
I would say "doable" instead of "reasonable" because it remains to be seen if they are going for 31" pitch on long-haul. Don't forget: this is only a cabin proposal from Boeing to CX.

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 J/E+. If they are willing to go to 18.5" E+, it becomes even easier.


User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1715 posts, RR: 1
Reply 37, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 31738 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 32):
Aspire also indicates that BA, ANA, EK, CX, and JAL will be launch customers

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 the aircraft, see QF and the 777 classic.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 30):
They could if it were in a regional configuration, or if they reduced the number of premium seats in the cabin. But I would agree that 420 in a long haul configuration is a bit of a stretch

I believe the author is even a bigger 777X fanboy than you are  
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 35):
I would say "doable" instead of "reasonable" because it remains to be seen if they are going for 31" pitch on long-haul. Don't forget: this is only a cabin proposal from Boeing to CX.

  

Quoting spink (Reply 34):
10 abreast gets them another 33 seats.
779 vs 77W length gets them another 30-40 seats (were at 400-410 now)
31" pitch gets them another 10 seats (410-423)

This is probably how they could achieve it, but in reality I can't see CX sacrificing that much of the comfort which makes them a premium, 5 star airline, to cram as many pax in their cabins. It would ruin their reputation IMO.

10 abreast in Y will only gain 23 maximum in reality. It requires an extra seat in the centre of the Y cabin, and at the back this is not possible because of the stronger curvature of the fuselage. This will affect at least 4 rows of Y at the back, see current 10Y 777 configurations. And you cannot add any seats where CX has lavs or galleys positioned in the middle.
As for Y+, reducing seat width will just scare away the passengers who are willing to pay a premium for a more comfy seat.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 35):
The document also has this 777X render with a folded wing tip:

Almost looks like a blended winglet!  



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 offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2694 posts, RR: 5
Reply 38, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 31688 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 35):
The document also has this 777X render with a folded wing tip:

Looking good  
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 35):
it remains to be seen if they are going for 31" pitch on long-haul.

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 the added width of the cabin, but I doubt very much that CX would also reduce the seat pitch in addition to increasing the number of seats per row.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 729 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 31607 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 37):
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 the aircraft, see QF and the 777 classic.

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 possible, everybody in the working group are already T7 operators so it increases the chances.   


User currently offlineholzmann From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 269 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 31519 times:

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 +++)
Bleed System/Internals: More traditional (777 + tech. update)

This is sort of what Airbus as done with XWB. If Boeing's CRFP tech has matured, why not use it?


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31414 posts, RR: 85
Reply 41, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 31520 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting holzmann (Reply 40):
I don't get it. Why go for a CRFP wing not and fuselage as well?

Because at that point it's an all-new plane and EIS would be even later.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13114 posts, RR: 35
Reply 42, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 31541 times:

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 to develop.

[Edited 2013-09-13 04:25:06]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13114 posts, RR: 35
Reply 43, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 31527 times:

Quoting spink (Reply 36):
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 J/E+. If they are willing to go to 18.5" E+, it becomes even easier.

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 now pretty clear where the 20% fuel burn advantage per passenger comes from. I wonder what the number would be for current 10-abreast operators.

[Edited 2013-09-13 04:32:53]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2694 posts, RR: 5
Reply 44, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 31480 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 43):
It's now pretty clear where the 20% fuel burn advantage per passenger comes from. I wonder what the number would be for current 10-abreast operators.

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% reduction comes with a 12% increase in seating capacity. Boeing's standard 10 abreast configuration for the 777-300ER seats 386 seats, which means it would only be a 5% increase in seat count. Someone who is better at mathematics than I am can probably estimate the claimed advantage based on Boeing's standard three class configurations.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlinespink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 319 posts, RR: 1
Reply 45, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 31421 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 44):

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% reduction comes with a 12% increase in seating capacity. Boeing's standard 10 abreast configuration for the 777-300ER seats 386 seats, which means it would only be a 5% increase in seat count. Someone who is better at mathematics than I am can probably estimate the claimed advantage based on Boeing's standard three class configurations.

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.

With both at 10 abreast the calculation would be:

Y/407 = Z * X/386 and we substitute in Y=.88X to get
.88X/407 = Z*X/386
Z = .835

So per seat at 10 abreast the 779 burns ~16.5% less fuel per seat which isn't too shabby.

[Edited 2013-09-13 05:41:40]

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13114 posts, RR: 35
Reply 46, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 30991 times:

Thanks spink.

Quoting spink (Reply 45):
So per seat at 10 abreast the 779 burns ~16.5% less fuel per seat which isn't too shabby.

It isn't, and it will generate more revenue if you can fill the seats.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31414 posts, RR: 85
Reply 47, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 30881 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 32):
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 including a great idea for the EFB. No North American customers as expected. The rest are very welcome news.

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)


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 48, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 30667 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 33):

It is indeed interesting that a350-1000 operators are choosing 777-9x. This is good news for both OEMs.

Quoting spink (Reply 34):

This is for regional cabins only. This could be what Daniel was referring to but for long haul including F I a, not it will be as easy. Clearly they are trying to differentiate it from the 351. It seems to be working but verdict is not in yet.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 37):

The F, J, and Y+ cabins could be made to have wider seats despite similar configurations than the 351. It's only the Y cabin where the seating could be about 1" different and CX has been competing with some LCC for these economy seats so this could help them compete. The premium cabins could see a marked improvement.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 47):

Six launch customers would be interesting. If correct I wonder if this is an indication of smaller sized initial orders. it certainly would be a healthy group. Again, a North American customer would really complete a great picture. What is funny is that everyone of these launch customers will be primarily using these aircraft to fly to North America and North American companies represent two of the top 5 largest 777 operators.

tortugamon


User currently offlineblrsea From India, joined May 2005, 1426 posts, RR: 3
Reply 49, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 30589 times:

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 a whole new airplane.

User currently offlinetimpdx From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 30572 times:

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 barrel will be exactly the same diameter. It is left to speculation whether B may or may not take advantage of the new Aluminium-Lithium alloys using the same tooling as the current 777 fuselage.

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13114 posts, RR: 35
Reply 51, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 30399 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 48):
Six launch customers would be interesting. If correct I wonder if this is an indication of smaller sized initial orders.

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.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 48):
Again, a North American customer would really complete a great picture. What is funny is that everyone of these launch customers will be primarily using these aircraft to fly to North America and North American companies represent two of the top 5 largest 777 operators.

It took ages before US carriers ordered a 77W, I would be surprised to see them ordering an even bigger aircraft initially.

Quoting blrsea (Reply 49):
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 a whole new airplane.

Yes, I believe Boeing will market the new seat with as 17.4" instead of the current 17.2" cushion.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinespink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 319 posts, RR: 1
Reply 52, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 30408 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 48):
This is for regional cabins only. This could be what Daniel was referring to but for long haul including F I a, not it will be as easy. Clearly they are trying to differentiate it from the 351. It seems to be working but verdict is not in yet.

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/premium Econ is used on long range flights and seats 340 with 40 J, 32 E+, and 268 E. The 420 seat config is simply increasing E rows and going to 10 abreast on the 779x.

The current 4 class w/ premium econ would configure into a 779x as 6F, 53J, 34 E+, and ~252 E. And increase of roughly 70 E seats.


User currently offlinephx787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7959 posts, RR: 19
Reply 53, posted (1 year 3 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 28926 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 35):
The document also has this 777X render with a folded wing tip:

Now how would this look compared to a 772 or 773?



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 54, posted (1 year 3 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 28696 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 37):
They are apparently on the customer working group, but that doesn't mean they'll be launch customers.
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 51):
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.

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 777X whose details are going to be finalised at an October customer working group (CWG) ahead of its launch in November’s Dubai Air Show, along with British Airways (BA), Emirates, Japan Airlines (JAL) and All Nippon Airways (ANA)."

I read this to mean that BA, EK, JAL, and ANA were launch customers but I can also read it as they are members of the working group. If he adds or subtracts a comma the meaning changes. I think you guys might be right. The only thing I know is that Daniel is often tripped up by his run on sentences.

Quoting spink (Reply 52):
The 420 seat config is simply increasing E rows and going to 10 abreast on the 779x.

Ok, I am coming around a little on this. I don't see 40 seats of extra Y rows from a 2.6m stretch but I see 30 and I can see making some 8-abreast Y seats into 10 abreast and I can even see making Y+ 9-abreast at around 19" seats which could add 4 more. So I can see a 67-seat bump over their current 77W and with some Boeing imagination and another pitch change here and there 420 doesn't seem so outrageous. But I heavily suspect we will never see it come to fruition. 407 seems reasonable to me and it still would give CX a nice capacity bump (~18% bigger than the A351?).

Anyone have an idea of A351 seating in CX (J/Y+/Y) configuration? ~344 seats is my guess; Same seating as their current 77W because of similar cabin length but a less severe aft contour should make it 9 abreast all the way back.

tortugamon


User currently offlineaviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 644 posts, RR: 9
Reply 55, posted (1 year 3 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 28581 times:

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.
And as you said you can go 9 abreast all the way back if there are lavs in front of Door 4.
On the 777-300ER the last 4 rows in front of Door5 Lavs are limited to 9 abreast.

On Y heavy layout for sure the 777-300Er is almost unbeatable ... like the new AC 458PAX 777-300ER. A350-1000 in similar layout might be 420-430 PAX "only"


User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1715 posts, RR: 1
Reply 56, posted (1 year 3 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 28593 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 54):
Anyone have an idea of A351 seating in CX (J/Y+/Y) configuration? ~344 seats is my guess; Same seating as their current 77W because of similar cabin length but a less severe aft contour should make it 9 abreast all the way back.

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/Y+/Y config (should this make any difference).



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 offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13114 posts, RR: 35
Reply 57, posted (1 year 3 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 28513 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 56):
should this make any difference

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.



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, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 58, posted (1 year 3 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 28267 times:

Quoting aviaponcho (Reply 55):
777-300Er has 5 sets of doors vs 4 sets of door for the A350-1000

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 if that will impact potential high-density operators (or aspiring 10-Y operators) possibly by limiting seating to 440 total. It should not be a problem for too many operators but there are dozens of 77Ws out there with over 440 seats.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 56):
According to Zeke, the difference with the 77W is 3 seats less for the A350-1000, so that would be 337seats

That sounds reasonable. Clearly room for both models in their fleet.

tortugamon


User currently offlineaviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 644 posts, RR: 9
Reply 59, posted (1 year 3 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 28287 times:

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 rendering of cathay's -1000 order, but not even sure that it will be an option


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13114 posts, RR: 35
Reply 60, posted (1 year 3 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 28259 times:

Quoting aviaponcho (Reply 59):
but not even sure that it will be an option

Airbus ditched the 5-door option afterwards.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31414 posts, RR: 85
Reply 61, posted (1 year 3 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 28155 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 54):
Anyone have an idea of A351 seating in CX (J/Y+/Y) configuration?
zeke has stated that the CX A350-1000 will seat 273 - 2 less than the four-class 777-300ER.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31414 posts, RR: 85
Reply 62, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 27526 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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).

User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4946 posts, RR: 40
Reply 63, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 27385 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 62):
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).

And again the combination A350-900 and B777-9. So good news for Airbus and Boeing again.  .


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13114 posts, RR: 35
Reply 64, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 27089 times:

It seems that the rumors of the $400 million unit price are about right. From Reuters:

Quote:
The combined order could be worth $17 billion at list prices based on estimated values for the 777-9X, whose new wings and engines are expected to command a premium to existing 777s.

A quick math gives me $390 million per unit:

> 25x A350-900 = 25 x $287 million = $7.175 billion
> 25x 777-9 = 25 x $390 million = $9.75 billion

They will of course get a big discount, but still  Wow!

[Edited 2013-09-18 12:33:49]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineaviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 644 posts, RR: 9
Reply 65, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 26914 times:

So for something like 10 more millions you can have an a380?

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13114 posts, RR: 35
Reply 66, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 26507 times:

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/status/380630000220659712

[Edited 2013-09-19 02:53:02]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineaviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 644 posts, RR: 9
Reply 67, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 26457 times:

Yes I checked it

So +13 m$ vs A350-1000 and +25 m$ vs 777-300ER


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 68, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 26151 times:

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 they plan on executing some of their 25 options as well.

LH indicated that they plan on being the first operator of the type.

EK has been very quiet these last few months.

Does anyone else get the impression that there are performance characteristics about this aircraft that we don't know about yet? The public information makes the aircraft seem very good but 34 LH orders is quite the statement.

tortugamon


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4946 posts, RR: 40
Reply 69, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 26091 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 68):
LH indicated that they plan on being the first operator of the type.

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.  .

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 68):
EK has been very quiet these last few months.

They will make their own show at the Dubai Air Show I presume.  .


User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 340 posts, RR: 3
Reply 70, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 26118 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 68):
Does anyone else get the impression that there are performance characteristics about this aircraft that we don't know about yet? The public information makes the aircraft seem very good but 34 LH orders is quite the statement.

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 quite phenomenal. Those large wings I suspect make quite the world of difference, but do expect a few more orders before the end of the year; perhaps up to a 100.



The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31414 posts, RR: 85
Reply 71, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 25800 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting waly777 (Reply 70):
but do expect a few more orders before the end of the year; perhaps up to a 100.

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 could secure 250-300 orders by year end.

[Edited 2013-09-19 10:39:15]

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 72, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 25736 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 69):
They will make their own show at the Dubai Air Show I presume.

I think you are right. Calm before the storm.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 70):
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 quite phenomenal.

Boeing has been saying that the -9x will be 20% better than the 77W which is pretty incredible but I just get the feeling that they are sand bagging a little bit. Under promise and over deliver I guess.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 71):
though some might be conversions from their 777-300ER order book.

I know they negotiated that into their previous order but that was in 2011 when I think EK thought they were going to get their aircraft in 2017/2018. Its slipped back from there and I wonder if Airbus will need their remaining orders to hold them over. At their current rate of delivery they should not have a backlog of 77Ws by the end of 2016. Although they should have A380s. We will see.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 71):
The program could secure 250-300 orders by year end.

That would be incredible. If they launch it with more orders than the entire A380 order book (262) it would be remarkably telling. I have my sights on 175-225 (100 for EK, 34 for LH, and three more customers at 20 a piece is my guess).

tortugamon


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13114 posts, RR: 35
Reply 73, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 25629 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 72):
Boeing has been saying that the -9x will be 20% better than the 77W which is pretty incredible but I just get the feeling that they are sand bagging a little bit. Under promise and over deliver I guess.

20%, but only if you go from 9 to 10-abreast.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 72):
That would be incredible. If they launch it with more orders than the entire A380 order book (262) it would be remarkably telling. I have my sights on 175-225 (100 for EK, 34 for LH, and three more customers at 20 a piece is my guess).

I think 300 is a bit too optimistic.



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, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 74, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 25614 times:

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 (18) have been marked to replace their oldest frames but that still leaves 25 747s that will not turn 25 until 2022 or later.

The following airlines have similarly aged 747s:
VS has 10
CA has 13
QF has 10

These 58 aircraft do not yet have clear replacements on order and will be up for replacement as the 779 is intended to be entering service. The 779 would essentially be a 1:1 replacement probably with close to a 40% reduction in CASM  Wow!.

tortugamon


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13114 posts, RR: 35
Reply 75, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 25567 times:

Yes but that will likely not all happen because:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 74):
but that still leaves 25 747s that will not turn 25 until 2022 or later.

The 12 A380s on order are also part of the 747 replacement.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 74):
VS has 10

I think VS will rather convert their A380 order to A350s and use it as 747 replacement instead.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 74):
CA has 13

But they also have 7x 748i aircraft on order.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 74):
QF has 10

But 8 more A380s on order too.

[Edited 2013-09-19 12:14:20]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4871 posts, RR: 14
Reply 76, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 25552 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 74):
The following airlines have similarly aged 747s:
VS has 10
CA has 13
QF has 10

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 for 4 more to cover those 13 pax 7444s.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 77, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 25678 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 75):
The 12 A380s on order are also part of the 747 replacement.

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 be the logical choices as they have stated that they are comfortable with the size of the A380 purchases.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 75):
I think VS will rather convert their A380 order to A350s

It would make sense if Airbus plays ball. The 777-9 is a better 1:1 replacement but that may not make the best economic choice.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 75):
But 8 more A380s on order too.

Yes, but QF has 17 747s to replace I think. All A380s and the 10 747s mentioned should be in the fleet at the same time. QF will need a top up order or a new order of 777s if they don't want to drop in capacity.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 76):
unless you meant CI and not CA

I did   Good catch.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 76):
they have orders/leases for 10 77Ws with delivery starting next year

Right, but their 747s have been refurbished and are young. The 77Ws are intended for growth and not replacement for the 13 I identified.

tortugamon

[Edited 2013-09-19 12:52:55]

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13114 posts, RR: 35
Reply 78, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 25613 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 77):
It would make sense if Airbus pays ball. The 777-9 is a better 1:1 replacement but that make not the best economic choice.

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 the A350-1000 as 744 replacement, they don't mind a small down size.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 77):
Yes, but QF has 17 747s to replace I think. All A380s and the 10 747s mentioned should be in the fleet at the same time. QF will need a top up order or a new order of 777s if they don't want to drop in capacity.

They have 15 744s and are currently retiring them. QF will keep 9 744 aircraft in the fleet until the last A380s arrives.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 77):
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 be the logical choices as they have stated that they are comfortable with the size of the A380 purchases.

I don't disagree, although it's worth saying they have 7 more options which means management has foreseen a possible future in which they could operate a fleet of 19 A380s. Time will learn.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7137 posts, RR: 46
Reply 79, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 25650 times:

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 beats the CASM of the A380 there is little incentive to buying the bigger plane.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13114 posts, RR: 35
Reply 80, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 25621 times:

The current 77W has already a lower CASM than the A380 but that did not stop airlines from buying them.


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4946 posts, RR: 40
Reply 81, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 25564 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 79):
If, as it sounds, it beats the CASM of the A380 there is little incentive to buying the bigger plane.

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 the B779. Most airlines so far have selected very spacious configurations for their A380's, with relatively large numbers of premium class seating, something they probably will not do in equal matter for their A35J's or B779's.

Airbus has plenty of time and resources after 2017 to invest in an improved A380, which they no doubt will be doing. With possibly the introduction of an A389 on top of the A388 (or as a successor) with the latest engine technology and updated aerodynamics and materials which it is build from, etc. For any competitor to beat the CASM of such an A380 we will need the successors of the A35J and B779. I expect those to enter service after 2035 or so at the earliest.  

But the gap in CASM will be a lot smaller in 2020 or so than it is now, which is around 13 years after the A380 had her successful EIS. So it is no miracle that the gaps are being closed or made significantly smaller. That is luckily just the normal evolution in aviation.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13114 posts, RR: 35
Reply 82, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 25503 times:

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.


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, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 83, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 25472 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 78):
I guess it will depend on VS's needs too. UA for example selected the A350-1000 as 744 replacement, they don't mind a small down size.

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 does need A330 replacements down the road as well so its not like this is the only swap that Airbus/VS can make. We will see. A351 does make sense from a change-order perspective and the 779 makes sense from a capacity perspective.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 78):
QF will keep 9 744 aircraft in the fleet until the last A380s arrives.

I am not up to speed on QF's 744 retirement plans. They are going to replace their 6 very young 744ERs this decade? Some of them just turned 10. Thats sad to hear.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 78):
I don't disagree, although it's worth saying they have 7 more options which means management has foreseen a possible future in which they could operate a fleet of 19 A380s. Time will learn.

Of course it is an option. I just have a hard time seeing BA replace their 52 747s without at least one 747-sized replacement. There has to be some routes where the seating was just right? We should know relatively soon because they can't go too far into the 2020s with their 744s and it looks like early slots are going to go pretty fast.

tortugamon


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13114 posts, RR: 35
Reply 84, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 25432 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 83):
Of course it is an option. I just have a hard time seeing BA replace their 52 747s without at least one 747-sized replacement. There has to be some routes where the seating was just right? We should know relatively soon because they can't go too far into the 2020s with their 744s and it looks like early slots are going to go pretty fast.

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 happens.



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, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 85, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 25319 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 81):
Most airlines so far have selected very spacious configurations for their A380's

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 the extra space. Probably both to a certain degree and clearly the high percentage of J points to the latter.

I wonder if taking into account everything that Airbus knows now, if they would still make the same sized A380. A 475-seat A380-800 could have set up nicely for a 550 seat A389. As it is, I am not sure how many airlines will have the appetite for the stretch that will clearly give it some significant efficiency gains.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 82):
IMO CASM comparisons are only relevant for similar sized aircraft.

I have a slightly different perspective: I think CASM matters its most when comparing aircraft on identical routes. Its why 737s have scared all of the wide-bodies from US domestic service. The large plane is to carry more people to decrease the CASM to offset the costs of having to carry fuel so far and so inefficiently. I think slot-limitations aside, if the 777-9x can have a similar CASM on similar routes compared to an A380, it will win most RFPs.

No way the A380 is a goner but the 779 doesn't help.

tortugamon


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13114 posts, RR: 35
Reply 86, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 25321 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 85):
The large plane is to carry more people to decrease the CASM to offset the costs of having to carry fuel so far and so inefficiently. I think slot-limitations aside, if the 777-9x can have a similar CASM on similar routes compared to an A380, it will win most RFPs.

But with the same CASM, the extra 150 seats on the A380 generate more revenue.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinephxa340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 900 posts, RR: 1
Reply 87, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 25316 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 85):
No way the A380 is a goner but the 779 doesn't help.

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 for the worse, you would rather have the 779 around as it would burn less fuel vs the A380. I think a combo of both is ideal.

Btw I agree, I think just because LH ordered the 779, all this talk to the 779 as an A380 killer is a little premature. Lets see what other airlines do.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 88, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 25254 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 86):
But with the same CASM, the extra 150 seats on the A380 generate more revenue.

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 aren't positive they can fill it all of the time, they may side with the 779 instead. I think something similar will happen with the A351 vs 779. It will be very interesting to see what the break even point is on the 779.

tortugamon


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7137 posts, RR: 46
Reply 89, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 25180 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 86):
But with the same CASM, the extra 150 seats on the A380 generate more revenue.

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 biggest attraction of a VLA is the lower CASM; this means that with the same fares it will make more profit if full. But if a smaller plane offers a lower CASM you need a lot of justification to buy a larger, more expensive, and more expensive to operate plane that you have to fill on a regular basis in order to make the same amount of profit. No, the 779 will not kill the A380, but it will severely impact it.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineA380900 From France, joined Dec 2003, 1118 posts, RR: 1
Reply 90, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days ago) and read 25090 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 85):
I wonder if taking into account everything that Airbus knows now, if they would still make the same sized A380. A 475-seat A380-800 could have set up nicely for a 550 seat A389.

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 the option to come out with something bigger. But I agree that so far, it looks like too much airplane. But anything smaller would have had to be a twin too.


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4871 posts, RR: 14
Reply 91, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days ago) and read 25081 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 77):
Quoting trex8 (Reply 76):
they have orders/leases for 10 77Ws with delivery starting next year

Right, but their 747s have been refurbished and are young. The 77Ws are intended for growth and not replacement for the 13 I identified.

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 A333s from late '15.Once the A359s actually come on line in '16 the 77Ws will replace the 744s. This will give them a little mileage on the $100 million 744 cabin upgrade they just completed on the earlier Pratt powered 744s and the 77W will only have upgauged the A343 for no more than a year or two till its proper replacement is in place. The A343 replacement need is a little more pressing than the 744 but both need to go soon. Then the next decade I could see them replacing the 77W with the 777-9 for growth.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4946 posts, RR: 40
Reply 92, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 24942 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 89):
But if a smaller plane offers a lower CASM you need a lot of justification to buy a larger, more expensive, and more expensive to operate plane that you have to fill on a regular basis in order to make the same amount of profit.

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 passenger per 100 km would an 850 seat A380 have?   

Like I already said, after 13 years of service (in 2020) it is normal for competitors to (almost) have closed the gap on paper. But they are not there yet, and also the A380 will be a moving target, being continuously improved. And that is even before a -900 version might see the light of day.  .

[Edited 2013-09-19 17:20:45]

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 93, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 24869 times:

Quoting A380900 (Reply 90):
I think, was to max out the size for the 80mX80m parking spot. They did not want that Boeing could have the option to come out with something bigger

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 will tell.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 91):
The A343 replacement need is a little more pressing than the 744 but both need to go soon.

The oldest of these frames won't be 25 years old until 2022 and they just got refurbished. I don't see why replacing them with 77Ws is urgent. I suspect they will keep them around past 2017.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 92):
How much fuel burn per passenger per 100 km would an 850 seat A380 have?

But how many airlines have a need for an 850-seat aircraft? Yes an 850 seat A380 would have terrific CASM but if you don't fill it, it won't have good revenue/margin even with its much better break even values vs the 748. I thought the highest seat count in an A380 is 538 AF (home of the 468 seat 77W) so they have a ways to go until 850.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 92):
And that is even before a -900 version might see the light of day.

I personally would love to see it but I am not sure the industry is quite ready for a 650 seat aircraft. Hopefully next decade. I think the biggest enemy is HKG, DXB, DOH, LHR, DEL, BOM, SYD, and other airport expansion plans.

tortugamon


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31414 posts, RR: 85
Reply 94, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 24888 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 83):
VS does need A330 replacements down the road as well so its not like this is the only swap that Airbus/VS can make.

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 the 787-10 and 777-9 as an A340-600 replacement now that LH has/.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 83):
I just have a hard time seeing BA replace their 52 747s without at least one 747-sized replacement.

I think BA could be looking at the 777-9 for North American 747-400 destinations that might not justify an A380-800 but need more capacity than an A350-1000 (SEA, PHX, LAS, etc.).

IB will also probably be looking hard at the 777-9 as an A340-600 replacement, though the 777-8 might work there, as well, since it should have the best hot-and-high performance for a large twin.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 95, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 24351 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 94):
I think BA could be looking at the 777-9 for North American 747-400 destinations that might not justify an A380-800 but need more capacity than an A350-1000 (SEA, PHX, LAS, etc.).


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 pilot training. I imagine the 779 is too big for IB as it looks like they are going to be down gauging. The 778 could work but I suspect that will go to the A351 that they already have options for.

tortugamon


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4871 posts, RR: 14
Reply 96, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 24214 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 93):

Quoting trex8 (Reply 91):
The A343 replacement need is a little more pressing than the 744 but both need to go soon.

The oldest of these frames won't be 25 years old until 2022 and they just got refurbished. I don't see why replacing them with 77Ws is urgent. I suspect they will keep them around past 2017.

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 a "young " fleet. In fact at one point the CEO claimed they woudln't have any planes older than 10 years. That benchmark has already fallen viz 738, 744 and most of the A343s.
The A343 s have AFAIK not been refurbished recently, the older 744s (delivered 95-98) were brought up to the same cabin standard as the newer 744s delivered 03/04 in the last 2 years.

The A343s are probably due for their 2nd D check very soon which is not helping their case for sticking around. When announcing their A359 order in 08 CI clearly said these were to replace the A343 and their "long haul" A333s (which have a less dense J cabin than the "non long haul " ones). See last para
http://www.china-airlines.com/en/newsen/newsen000438.htm
They need to replace the 744s soon the same way many other operators are needing to do so due to lower costs associated with the likes of the 77W and other newer types. As they could get early deliveries of 77Ws from GECAS and even their first owned ones will come in 14 and the A359s are delayed till 16 they have swapped what is getting replaced in the near term.

The only way I see them hanging on to the A343 is either they expand their longhaul routes and they have been saying many times in the last year or two the way forward is Japan/China and to a lesser extent east asia/Oz than more transpac or euro flights. Or they do something like the LCF cargo conversion. With the cargo market down a very cheap capital cost for a A343 LCF would allow something with adequate range for TPE-ANC with lower payload than a 744and allow more frequency and less tramping around the lower 48 states with a mostly empty 744.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 97, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 24174 times:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 96):

You raise some excellent points. I concede the 777-9x may not be the replacement for their 747s.

tortugamon


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 98, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 24009 times:

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 was for but it looks like it has to do more than that. Does the TrentXWB have this? If GE comes through could this give the 77X an advantage in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, etc?

> “The engine is key to all of this. I’ve told GE that if they don’t deliver the ceramic CFC engines there will be issues,” he says.
>"“We spent the summer working through the technical side of the aeroplane and from what I can see it looks very good."
>“It makes a very material difference to our operating capabilities in the hot months in Dubai. Without that, the 777-9X doesn’t do that much better in those conditions than the -300ER does today.”"
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...rcial-terms-for-777x-order-390795/

tortugamon


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 99, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day ago) and read 23869 times:

Quoting aviaponcho (Reply 55):
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.
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 58):
I had not considered that, you are right. I could definitely see that making a difference on a positive side.

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 with the A351. As the seating will undoubtedly be less than 440 seats I am sure that CX will have that door deactivated so they can save on weight. I forgot that Boeing intends to make the fifth door an option and it will only be the really high occupancy operators that will need it.

tortugamon


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 100, posted (1 year 3 months 19 hours ago) and read 23656 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 98):
Anyone know much about demineralized water injection systems?

Thanks for the link, tortugamon. Impressive that Emirates are angling to possibly become one of the 77X launch customers. Those systems were used in the early days to keep the engines of the time cool enough during high-power operations (like takeoffs) - I think they were actually fitted to B707s and similar marques. I suspect that with improvements in metals etc. they haven't been needed on more recent engine designs; but that, with the ever-increasing power (and therefore heat) being generated by modern engines, they look like making a comeback.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13114 posts, RR: 35
Reply 101, posted (1 year 3 months 4 hours ago) and read 23173 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 100):
but that, with the ever-increasing power

But the 777X will have less thrust than today's 77W.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7137 posts, RR: 46
Reply 102, posted (1 year 3 months 4 hours ago) and read 23202 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 100):
I suspect that with improvements in metals etc. they haven't been needed on more recent engine designs; but that, with the ever-increasing power (and therefore heat) being generated by modern engines, they look like making a comeback.

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, the greater the efficiency. But when you start with very high air temperatures coming in to the engine the risk of overheating is high. And I believe the water injection is to keep the engine from overheating. The high power is a factor, but the same issue would be present in a smaller engine designed to operate at the same temperatures. One of the ways that I believe GE is getting the efficiency they are promising is by dramatically increasing the operating temperature, and I suspect they will have less safety margin than in the GE90-110/115 engines. And hence the water injection will be vital.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 103, posted (1 year 3 months 3 hours ago) and read 23075 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 100):
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 102):

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 have ceramics in the really hot parts it does appear that the worry is the other parts of the engine. Very interesting. I had never heard that. Do we know if the A380 or A350 have this as well or don't they need the because they don't operate at such high temperatures. I am sure its the latter but I thought I would check.

It sounds like an old-school solution to a new school problem.

tortugamon


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31414 posts, RR: 85
Reply 104, posted (1 year 3 months 1 hour ago) and read 22992 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 it.

GE will be using next-generation powder metal alloys and ceramic matrix composites to support higher temperatures and higher pressure ratios (the GE9X will have a very high pressure ratio: 60:1 compared to 50:1 in the GEnx and 40:1 in the GE90).

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 103):
Do we know if the A380 or A350 have this as well or don't they need the because they don't operate at such high temperatures.

I am not aware of any current commercial airliner engine has water-injection.

[Edited 2013-09-21 14:17:11]

User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5219 posts, RR: 5
Reply 105, posted (1 year 3 months 1 hour ago) and read 22864 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 92):
How much fuel burn per passenger per 100 km would an 850 seat A380 have?

For a 569t MTOW 840 occupied seats , 6000nm sector distance , fuel burn per seat is ~ 195kg.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 106, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 22220 times:

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-generation 777 aircraft amid expectations the carrier will be next in line to buy the wide-body jet.

"Last Thursday, Lufthansa became the first airline to place an order for the long-range plane, announcing it would buy 34 777-9X.

Marty Bentrott, Boeing’s vice president of sales in the Middle East, Russia and Central Asia, refused to say whether Emirates would be next to place orders. But he said he was hopeful that Middle East carriers would be among the first customers.

“I have every confidence they [Middle East carriers] will be part of the launch of this aircraft,” Mr Bentrott said."


Read more: http://www.thenational.ae/business/a...next-generation-777s#ixzz2fgZsWWfY
Follow us: @TheNationalUAE on Twitter | thenational.ae on Facebook



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20336 posts, RR: 59
Reply 107, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 21842 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 64):
It seems that the rumors of the $400 million unit price are about right. From Reuters:

It costs as much as an A380. Lower CASM, I suppose. But smaller.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 74):
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 (18) have been marked to replace their oldest frames but that still leaves 25 747s that will not turn 25 until 2022 or later.

BA seems to be increasing the number of types in their long haul fleet. Their fleet was comprised of three long-haul types: 767, 777, and 747. Their future fleet will be a mix of 787s, 77Ws, A350s, and A380s. They might be late adopters of the 77X once they retire their 77W fleet, but that won't be for a long time.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 106):

Looks as if Emirates are well and truly 'on board' the new model:-

Given that Mr. Clark went to Boeing a few years back and sat down with their senior management and told them that he wanted a 777 that could do DXB-LAX without empty seats, essentially launching the 77X program, I'm not surprised.


User currently offlineLY777 From France, joined Nov 2005, 2740 posts, RR: 2
Reply 108, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 21615 times:

What will be the lenght of the 777-9X (in metres)?Thanks


אמא, אני מתגעגע לך
User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 651 posts, RR: 0
Reply 109, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 21615 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 107):
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 64):
It seems that the rumors of the $400 million unit price are about right. From Reuters:

It costs as much as an A380. Lower CASM, I suppose. But smaller.

That estimated figure has since been corrected downwards:-

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 66):
The correct number is 34 aircraft instead of 25, that gives around $345 million per unit. That's just under the 747-8.
Quoting aviaponcho (Reply 67):
Yes I checked it
So +13 m$ vs A350-1000 and +25 m$ vs 777-300ER



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13114 posts, RR: 35
Reply 110, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 21613 times:

Emirates is talking about the 777X since a while now, they need replacements for the 77W fleet from 2020.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 107):
It costs as much as an A380. Lower CASM, I suppose. But smaller.

The $400 million figure was based on the speculation that LH would buy 20-25 aircraft but the correct number is 34, which gives me a list price of $345-350 million instead.

That's a little less bellow the 747 list price.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 107):
Given that Mr. Clark went to Boeing a few years back and sat down with their senior management and told them that he wanted a 777 that could do DXB-LAX without empty seats, essentially launching the 77X program, I'm not surprised.

It will be interesting to see how many 777-8 aircraft EK will order for those ULH routes.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4946 posts, RR: 40
Reply 111, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 21297 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 110):
It will be interesting to see how many 777-8 aircraft EK will order for those ULH routes.

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 percentage?


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31414 posts, RR: 85
Reply 112, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 21200 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LY777 (Reply 108):
What will be the lenght of the 777-9X (in metres)?

76.5 meters - 2.6 meters longer than the 777-300ER.



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 111):
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 percentage?

I guess it depends on how well the 777-9 does out of DXB on an over-40° C day. He's claiming the GE9X needs liquid cooling to be effective on the 777-9 year-round so that might favor a higher percentage of 777-8 to 777-9 than his current mix of 777-300ER to 777-200LR.

The 777-8 is 6m longer than a 777-200LR, which translates into 60 additional Economy seats for a total of 326*. That shrinks the "seat gap" to the 777-300ER from 33% (for the 777-200LR) to 8.5% (for the 777-8).


* - As EK's 77L and 77W have the same number of First and Business Class seats, I am assuming the extra length of the 777-8 would be dedicated solely to Economy Class seating.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 113, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 21002 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 112):
The 777-8 is 6m longer than a 777-200LR, which translates into 60 additional Economy seats for a total of 326*. That shrinks the "seat gap" to the 777-300ER from 33% (for the 777-200LR) to 8.5% (for the 777-8).

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 contour then they could fit 9-15 seats more. So that gets me to ~348 seats or 95.6% of their 77Ws. As you have called it before, the 777-8 is a 77W with 77L legs.

tortugamon


User currently offlineLY777 From France, joined Nov 2005, 2740 posts, RR: 2
Reply 114, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 20927 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 112):
76.5 meters - 2.6 meters longer than the 777-300ER

Thanks!

How many economy seats rows does this allow?



אמא, אני מתגעגע לך
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13114 posts, RR: 35
Reply 115, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 20934 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 113):
If Boeing adjusts this contour then they could fit 9-15 seats more.

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?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 113):
So that gets me to ~348 seats or 95.6% of their 77Ws.

More like 97%, the ULH routes are served with the 354-seat 77W, not the 360-seat version.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13114 posts, RR: 35
Reply 116, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 20878 times:

Quoting LY777 (Reply 114):
How many economy seats rows does this allow?

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 777-9 will seat 407* pax at 10-abreast, 3-class

Difference: 21 seats.

* Some reports say 406 seats, which would give 20 extra more seats (2 rows at 10 abreast).



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, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 117, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 20807 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 115):
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?

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 not.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 115):
More like 97%, the ULH routes are served with the 354-seat 77W, not the 360-seat version.

Gotcha. I just took the most popular version. I thought the new version was 360-seats.


tortugamon


User currently offlineLY777 From France, joined Nov 2005, 2740 posts, RR: 2
Reply 118, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 20265 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 116):
One meter gives you ~ one row. Thus around 20 more seats, depending on the pitch.

Thanks!



אמא, אני מתגעגע לך
User currently onlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1385 posts, RR: 2
Reply 119, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 20177 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 106):
Looks as if Emirates are well and truly 'on board' the new model:-

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 bank. What is said here is very similar to what EK said about the 748i. Can EK make Boeing offer the 77x and later make Airbus offer an 1100 of similar capasity - who knows what will happen in the end?


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31414 posts, RR: 85
Reply 120, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 20155 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting abba (Reply 119):
What is said here is very similar to what EK said about the 748i.

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 747-8F to the 777F, as it would have been an odd-duck.

The 777X, on the other hand, offers EK something no competing Airbus product does. And EK has vast experience with the 777 family.

As such, while I never believed EK was serious about the 747-8, I believe they are very serious about the 777X and will commit to it in a large way (I could see upwards of a 100-frame order at the Dubai Air Show).


User currently offlineKengo From Japan, joined Apr 2013, 186 posts, RR: 0
Reply 121, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 20117 times:

Quoting abba (Reply 119):

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 offer earlier EIS, it would be better. Besides, the 777X will not end in failure even if Clark decides not to order after all the talkings he has done. There are other airlines interested in the 777X and I think enough will be ordered for Boeing to make a decent ROI.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4946 posts, RR: 40
Reply 122, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 20130 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting abba (Reply 119):
capasity

Is "Keesje" back?   .

Quoting Stitch (Reply 120):
As such, while I never believed EK was serious about the 747-8, I believe they are very serious about the 777X and will commit to it in a large way

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 the world, just as they are doing with the B77W right now. And what they are also doing with the A380.  .


User currently onlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1385 posts, RR: 2
Reply 123, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 19947 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 120):
As such, while I never believed EK was serious about the 747-8, I believe they are very serious about the 777X and will commit to it in a large way (I could see upwards of a 100-frame order at the Dubai Air Show).

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.  

Quoting Kengo (Reply 121):
If the 777X is good enough for LH, I don't see why the doubt on EK

The 748i and the 346 was good enough for LH too  


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5219 posts, RR: 5
Reply 124, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 19950 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 122):
I am also quite sure they will be ordering the B77X in massive numbers

And if Clark is serious about a close to max payload at 8500nm ESAD there will be some -8XL's in the mix


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13114 posts, RR: 35
Reply 125, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 19760 times:

Quoting abba (Reply 119):
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 bank. What is said here is very similar to what EK said about the 748i. Can EK make Boeing offer the 77x and later make Airbus offer an 1100 of similar capasity - who knows what will happen in the end?

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 to define the product.

Also an -1100 would have around the same amount of seats as today's 77W while Emirates wants bigger aircraft.



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, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 126, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 19720 times:

Quoting abba (Reply 119):
Can EK make Boeing offer the 77x and later make Airbus offer an 1100 of similar capasity - who knows what will happen in the end?

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 talking about A380 improvements. That is an extremely critical aircraft for EK and he needs to save all of his capital up to get that aircraft's improvements the way that he wants it. Its just as important as the 777x.

tortugamon


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 127, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 19624 times:

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 responses:

Like many around here I was surprised when the 777-9x was only a 2.5m stretch of the 77W. Most people thought that it was only stretched to that point because the MLG couldn't reach the rotation angle if the aircraft was any longer and this was the maximum that it could be stretched without significant redesign. This could very well be the case.

However, (conspiracy theory) I wonder if the -9 was stretched until the seat economics were comparable to the A351 and until the number of seats were close enough to still be competitive with it. At ~55 seats, I think they are on that cusp. Much longer and the A351 would have a huge market to itself. Also, this modest stretch would keep costs down and engine thrust could be lowered which I assume is a touch easier for GE to accomplish. I also think they wanted the -8 to be relatively close to the 787-10 so they could tag team the 320-350 seat market with a regional and something with range.

Which brings me to my next thought: Doesn't it make sense to at least plan for an ultra long haul/long haul and a regional in each family? They are doing it with the 787. They did it with the original 777.

More thoughts:
>I do not believe that in 10 years they can't find a way to make the gear work for a slightly longer aircraft without adding too much weight.
>Many airlines do not need 8,100nm range. The average A380 route is 4,000nm; only 10 routes are above 5,700nm.
>The wing span to fuse length ratio of the 787-10 applied to the 777x yields an 81m 777-10x (~460 seats) (similar results in fuse diameter to length ratio).
>It would most likely require little to no wing changes, engine changes, or fuselage strengthening (probably).
>The wing is much more capable (area and span) of handling this stretch than an A350-1100.

I am not saying its imminent I just don't see why Boeing wouldn't at least have thought about it in case the 779 sells extremely well and if gas prices sky rocket or if the A380 starts selling like gangbusters. I imagine a 460 seat twin with cargo capabilities could probably compete against a 525 quad on ~5,000nm routes. Its too small of a market for now.

tortugamon


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5219 posts, RR: 5
Reply 128, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 19559 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 127):
More thoughts

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 ?


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 129, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 19521 times:

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 advantage during these years for those who operate it. That is unmistakable. However, so has the B787 vs the A330 during 2011-2014. The A330 has shown us that it is possible to grow/change, re-position, and trade on lower acquisition costs and availability to make a successful aircraft more successful.

Largely the delivery slots are taken in the 2017-2021 time horizon for the A351 and only a handful of airlines will take possession at that time. So what about the other airlines that couldn't afford to put up deposits so far in advance? What about airlines that are growing very fast and didn't realize they needed it until it was too late to get in line?

When the A351 was delayed 2 years, sales jumped to over 200 units for the 77W. Clearly availability matters even if fuel burn is higher. Boeing should be able to compete on availability and price of the 77W for many years to come but they need the aircraft streamlined by 2017 with zero bogies. Just this year two airlines made purchases for deliveries starting next year. Despite the backlog the 77W still has room to run.

I have asked this before but have gotten crickets: Do people think there is still a PIP in the 77W's future? Can the early results of the GE9x testing be backflowed into the different architecture of the GE90 115Bs? Are there other things Boeing can do to improve the aircraft to promote sales 2017-2022 that should be considered soon?

So, I hate questions without answers: I think the 777-8x with its long range, the 777-9x super efficient 400-seater and the 77W as a readily-available, cheaper option with capacity in between both of them is still relevant for a number of years to come. Line 40-24 will stay busy. I personally don't think 1,800 non-Xs sold is out of the question but it will take a solid improvement and soon. They need it before airlines consider delaying their purchases to get it. Time is getting close to make an announcement.

tortugamon


User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2474 posts, RR: 9
Reply 130, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 19512 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 89):
No, the 779 will not kill the A380, but it will severely impact it.

As would a hypothetical and too often discussed A350-1100.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 131, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 19566 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 128):
Are you referring to the 787-10

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 capacity for range 6,850nm+ crazy efficient, long range aircraft that will undermine the A380 for inter continental routes if its sales every pick up to warrant the investment/competition. Would love your opinion sunrise on a rather unpopular thought.

I listened and read too much JL today and he has me focused on his 89 megacities by 2032 so my mind has wondered.

tortugamon


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7137 posts, RR: 46
Reply 132, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 19532 times:

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 130):

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 89):
No, the 779 will not kill the A380, but it will severely impact it.

As would a hypothetical and too often discussed A350-1100.

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 want the economy without having to go as large.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2474 posts, RR: 9
Reply 133, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 19515 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 132):
Quoting AvObserver (Reply 130):

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 89):
No, the 779 will not kill the A380, but it will severely impact it.

As would a hypothetical and too often discussed A350-1100.

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 want the economy without having to go as large.

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 theoretical -1100 that's anything more than a simple stretch will further impact the existing A388. That means costly updates for the superjumbo if Airbus proceeds with a more capable A350-1100. Not an easy decision to possibly undermine what was surely intended to be a cash cow the way the 747 had long been for Boeing.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4946 posts, RR: 40
Reply 134, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 19175 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 132):
For that matter, so will the A3510. Its CASM will undoubtedly beat the A380

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 their EIS. But there is (much) more to airliner operations then CASM.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31414 posts, RR: 85
Reply 135, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 18891 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

As EPA001 noted, CASM alone is not driving A380-800 purchases, especially for those carriers with configurations closer to 450 (even 400!) seats compared to those with 500+. The A380-800's space allows for expansive premium cabin configurations which really drives up the RASM on a route (as A380s are being deployed on routes with strong premium cabin demand) while still offering Economy Class cabins as large as or larger than those found on the 747-400 to capture the leisure and value travel market.

User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7137 posts, RR: 46
Reply 136, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 18830 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 135):

As EPA001 noted, CASM alone is not driving A380-800 purchases, especially for those carriers with configurations closer to 450 (even 400!) seats compared to those with 500+.

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 planes. If there is enough premium demand, an A380 is likely the right choice. But I suspect that most routes on most airlines can fill only a limited number of premium seats. And empty seats, especially premium ones, lead to losses. I know on my recent trip to the Philippines on DL every seat in economy was full on all segments; but I think that business class had quite a few vacancies.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31414 posts, RR: 85
Reply 137, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 18826 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 136):
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 planes. If there is enough premium demand, an A380 is likely the right choice. But I suspect that most routes on most airlines can fill only a limited number of premium seats.

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 an A380-800 there, either, considering it's all-Ecoomy configuration of 853 is between 55-70% more than a 777-300 can hold and close to double what an A350-1000 can carry.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 138, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 18795 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 137):
you can't touch an A380-800 there, either, considering it's all-Ecoomy configuration of 853 is between 55-70% more than a 777-300 can hold and close to double what an A350-1000 can carry.

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 configuration. Great in theory but useless in practice.

tortugamon


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31414 posts, RR: 85
Reply 139, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 18795 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 138):
How relevant is that type of aircraft if none have ever been sold?

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 to fill" leveled at it. Air France has 516 seats on their A380-800s and 468 seats on their 777-300ERs. So 516 seats is too big, but 486 seats is just right? And yes, I know the 777-300ER is a three-class configuration with 14 Business Class seats and the A380-800 is a four-class configuration with 80, so clearly AF has different markets served with different product configurations designed to reflect that. But they're each markets that have a lot of total traffic demand so they each need a lot of seats.

[Edited 2013-09-25 11:04:08]

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 140, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 18656 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 139):
So 516 seats is too big, but 486 seats is just right?

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 count  
Quoting Stitch (Reply 139):
So clearly AF had different markets served with different product configurations.

Again, of course. And the A380 clearly serves a very real need and it deserves to exist and prosper in its currently limited market.

Airlines are not using its Y seating capacity as its advantage; they are using it to make the premium cabins' economies work and it clearly does. I just disagree with those that say its CASM is its advantage when clearly it has not been used in that way. It has been used to deliver a higher proportion of premium passengers for cheaper than has ever been done before and using Y to pay for it.

In fact I think A380 sales drive 77W sales. Clearly there are capacity differences but one aircraft drives phenomenal J class passengers while the other drive Y class economics. EK has been making that dichotomy work for many years with its more premium heavy A380s and its resistance to its previously discussed 600+ seat version.

When an A380 is sent to a underdeveloped city I will start thinking about Y seat economics but currently A380 destinations are the who's who of developed cities (BKK sneaks in because of tourism). Coincidentally Kenya's first 77W is about to take its first flight.

tortugamon


User currently onlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1385 posts, RR: 2
Reply 141, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 18653 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 125):
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 126):

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  


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31414 posts, RR: 85
Reply 142, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 18614 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 140):
Airlines are not using its Y seating capacity as its advantage; they are using it to make the premium cabins' economies work and it clearly does.

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.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 143, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 18453 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 142):
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.

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 do you have to drop revenues in Y in order to make money in J has seemed to be the modus operandi for many legacy carriers.

But we are off topic. You used the A380s Y economics as a reason for its presumed success and I disagree. As soon as we see a 600+ seat A380 then I will start to agree that Y contributes to the A380s success.

tortugamon


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31414 posts, RR: 85
Reply 144, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 18373 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 143):
You used the A380s Y economics as a reason for its presumed success and I disagree.

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 economy cabin size and that operators of the A380 in 2013 are not facing the risks that 747 operators faced in 1973 in terms of having too much capacity and too little customers.

[Edited 2013-09-25 13:44:40]

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13114 posts, RR: 35
Reply 145, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 18318 times:

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 whole upper deck in J which can generate a lot of revenue. Other cabin product = other market purpose.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 136):
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 planes. If there is enough premium demand, an A380 is likely the right choice. But I suspect that most routes on most airlines can fill only a limited number of premium seats. And empty seats, especially premium ones, lead to losses. I know on my recent trip to the Philippines on DL every seat in economy was full on all segments; but I think that business class had quite a few vacancies.

If that were true than we should have seen more re-configurations, yet airlines are sticking with the current premium setups.

Airlines are also not (yet) looking to put in more Y seats (which is possible, by using slimline seats or going 11-abreast) which I would expect if Y seats needs to compensate for empty J seats.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 139):
Seriously, the A380-800 sees a lot of claims of being "too big to fill" leveled at it. Air France has 516 seats on their A380-800s and 468 seats on their 777-300ERs. So 516 seats is too big, but 486 seats is just right?

Straight on. And those 777s are not getting smaller with the 777X inbound.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 139):
And yes, I know the 777-300ER is a three-class configuration with 14 Business Class seats and the A380-800 is a four-class configuration with 80, so clearly AF has different markets served with different product configurations designed to reflect that. But they're each markets that have a lot of total traffic demand so they each need a lot of seats.

  

[Edited 2013-09-25 13:43:16]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2694 posts, RR: 5
Reply 146, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 17613 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 129):
When the A351 was delayed 2 years, sales jumped to over 200 units for the 77W. Clearly availability matters even if fuel burn is higher. Boeing should be able to compete on availability and price of the 77W for many years to come

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's availability post 777X EIS be hindered? If I recall correcty, some later 737 Classics were built alongside 737NGs, although I cannot recall if they were to fulfill existing orders or if there were new orders for the Classics after the NG became available.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 129):
I have asked this before but have gotten crickets: Do people think there is still a PIP in the 77W's future? Can the early results of the GE9x testing be backflowed into the different architecture of the GE90 115Bs?

I guess that depends on whether Boeing plans to continue to offer 77Ws alongside the 777X. If so, it would be rather foolish of them not to take advantage of some of the technology developed for the 777X by putting them on the 77W.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 147, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 17429 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 146):

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 up. The A330 is the model IMO.

tortugamon


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13114 posts, RR: 35
Reply 148, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 16909 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 146):
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's availability post 777X EIS be hindered? If I recall correcty, some later 737 Classics were built alongside 737NGs, although I cannot recall if they were to fulfill existing orders or if there were new orders for the Classics after the NG became available.

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 impression it will need a separate assembly line.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 146):
I guess that depends on whether Boeing plans to continue to offer 77Ws alongside the 777X. If so, it would be rather foolish of them not to take advantage of some of the technology developed for the 777X by putting them on the 77W.

The 777 freighter has to stay until the 777X freighter enters the market (probably not before 2025), so Boeing will have two 777 assembly lines running anyway and might keep offering the 77W at reduced prices. Same like we see with the A330 today.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13114 posts, RR: 35
Reply 149, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 16286 times:

Gulfnews.com has this story about Emirates and the 777X order.

> Emirates has received an official offer from Boeing
> The two sides still have to thrash out a number of issues
> Placing an order during the Dubai air show "is looking marginal” now
> Boeing is "still a bit aggressive on pricing" for the 777-9X
> Clark: "If we order the 9X, we’ll be ordering a large chunk of them"
> Clark is also upset that Boeing has pushed back the first delivery from around 2018 to after 2020

http://gulfnews.com/business/aviatio...in-talks-over-777x-order-1.1236317



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31414 posts, RR: 85
Reply 150, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 16179 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Which means he'll sign for 200 at Dubai.  

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 151, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 16107 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 149):

I thought this quote was interesting: "Still, Clark said the 777X as Boeing now envisions it “is going to be beautiful.” For passengers, “it’s going to be one of the best machines flying.”

Typical PR stuff but he rarely mentions passengers when he talks about the 777. He talks about customers when he talks about the A380 and for good reason.

This does not seem like a lot of time to negotiate pricing before the show. I imagine the first 'offer' Boeing has sent happened before now.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 150):

Which means he'll sign for 200 at Dubai.  

I read an article in Arabic last week that said the RFP was for 100 aircraft. Not sure if the article or my translation could be trusted though  .

tortugamon


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13114 posts, RR: 35
Reply 152, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 16270 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 151):
I thought this quote was interesting: "Still, Clark said the 777X as Boeing now envisions it “is going to be beautiful.” For passengers, “it’s going to be one of the best machines flying.”

I hesitated but was not sure if the PR talk was useful information for this development thread.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 151):
This does not seem like a lot of time to negotiate pricing before the show. I imagine the first 'offer' Boeing has sent happened before now.

From an other article which I can't find anymore, Clark said they finished aircraft specification (performance, cabin config etc) in August and started talking about pricing in September. That gives them ~ 2.5 months to negotiate the price.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 151):
I read an article in Arabic last week that said the RFP was for 100 aircraft. Not sure if the article or my translation could be trusted though

There are three numbers floating around the internet:

1) 100
The first 100 77W aircraft needs a replacement, starting from the end of the decade. Most likely this will be the initial order/commitment in November (perhaps with another 100 options).

2) 175
The total number of 777 aircraft in the EK fleet after 2017. The youngest 77W will need to be replaced in 2029 at an age of 12 years, so a replacement order for the last 75 aircraft might follow a few years later (hence the options in the first order). However, Clark also said he might buy more A350s or A380s to replace the remaining 777s.

3) 275
The total number of 777 aircraft Clark sees in the EK fleet after 2030. Given that timeframe (still 17 years away), I would be surprised if they order 275 aircraft at once.

[Edited 2013-10-02 15:14:14]


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, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 153, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 16203 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 152):
I was not sure if the PR talk was useful information for this development thread.

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.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 152):
There are three numbers floating around the internet:

One thing looks likely: it will probably be the largest single aircraft order in commercial aviation history by a fair margin.

tortugamon


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31414 posts, RR: 85
Reply 154, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 16173 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 153):
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.

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).


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 155, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 16120 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 154):
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).

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 in which to improve on it. I don't think we have much further detail than that though.

Interestingly enough when I was searching for the quote I found Scott's PAS presentation online. There were a couple slides I had not seen before. I am posting it below (it is a pdf).

http://www.boeing.com/paris2013/pdf/...win-Aisle_development_briefing.pdf

tortugamon


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 156, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 15751 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 155):
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 in which to improve on it. I don't think we have much further detail than that though.

Emirates thinks the airplane will be fantastic but the Boeing company is less fantastic (read the board/top management's inability to take decisions, they have been chewing on it for 3 years):

http://gulfnews.com/business/aviatio...der-1.1236317#.UkyFl7o27Qw.twitter

Clark also comments on the passenger experience:

.” For passengers, “it’s going to be one of the best machines flying.”

So the interior will get a lift compared to the 787 it seems.



Non French in France
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13114 posts, RR: 35
Reply 157, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 15693 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 156):
Emirates thinks the airplane will be fantastic but the Boeing company is less fantastic (read the board/top management's inability to take decisions, they have been chewing on it for 3 years):

Boeing is/was for some reason very conservative about the 777X. Not sure why.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 759 posts, RR: 5
Reply 158, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 15604 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 146):
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 129):I have asked this before but have gotten crickets: Do people think there is still a PIP in the 77W's future? Can the early results of the GE9x testing be backflowed into the different architecture of the GE90 115Bs?I guess that depends on whether Boeing plans to continue to offer 77Ws alongside the 777X. If so, it would be rather foolish of them not to take advantage of some of the technology developed for the 777X by putting them on the 77W.

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 777X ?

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 146):
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's availability post 777X EIS be hindered?

The battle between Washington State and North Carolina to win the assembly of the 777X program is really heating up. Quite a bit of detail on Leeham News here and here.
While the jury is still out I get the impression that the money is on Seattle to win.


Regards,
StickShaker


User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 759 posts, RR: 5
Reply 159, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 15581 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 157):
Quoting ferpe (Reply 156):Emirates thinks the airplane will be fantastic but the Boeing company is less fantastic (read the board/top management's inability to take decisions, they have been chewing on it for 3 years):

Boeing is/was for some reason very conservative about the 777X. Not sure why.

Its got me baffled too.  


Cheers,
StickShaker


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 160, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 15536 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 156):

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 understood what I meant.

If I was EK I would not be happy with Boeing either. They have stalled and stalled on this program and it is going to mean that EK will not have a replacement in place when they need it.

I think Boeing knew this and made the calculated decision to stall. The A351 was not firm and was not getting orders for a very long time and the 77W was selling well. Also, the 77w replacement market would not happen for years so having something avaiable sooner may not matter to other airlines besides EK (UA and BA showed that there was a cost).

They may have also decided that the GE9x needed time to develop because they needed the engine advantage to overcome weight issues.

Regardless, I think EK should be upset with Boeing management and I think Bowing should be relatively comfortable with it. They have sold a lot more 77Ws since the A351 launch than before and the 777x appears to not be too late to the party.

tortugamon


User currently offlinefinn350 From Finland, joined Jul 2013, 711 posts, RR: 1
Reply 161, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 14966 times:

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 designed the planes the way EK wants them.

Airbus does not have a credible alternative to 777-8/9 with their A350-900/1000. To be competitive, Airbus would have to launch A350-900R (meaning ultra long haul model here) and A350-1100. Designing those two new variants would probably take two years and stretch Airbus engineering resources beyond what is available.

So in this situation Boeing is trying to get maximum price out of its offering and EK is not happy.


User currently onlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1553 posts, RR: 3
Reply 162, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 14875 times:

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/


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 163, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 14639 times:

Quoting finn350 (Reply 161):
Boeing and EK are difficult now that Boeing has designed the planes the way EK wants them.

They need each other and they are better with each other. They will find common ground. Its up to the lawyers/negotiators now.

tortugamon


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31414 posts, RR: 85
Reply 164, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 14453 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 162):
On Leehamsnews they do not seem to be too fond of the B 777-8X...

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-abreast Business and 9-abreast Economy) with the range of the 777-200LR. The 777-300ER's payload at design range is only around 35 tons and I don't see the A350-1000 appreciably beating that. Even at lower operating weights, the 777-8 should comfortably beat both in terms of payload weight at similar ranges.


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5839 posts, RR: 6
Reply 165, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 14453 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 162):
On Leehamsnews they do not seem to be too fond of the B 777-8X

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 the 777-8X that sells the most copies won't have windows.