Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
777X Updated Information And Developments Part 6  
User currently offlineSA7700 From South Africa, joined Dec 2003, 3431 posts, RR: 26
Posted (8 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 31165 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Dear members,

Please note that this thread was started in order to discuss the technical-and or possible operational details of the 777X. If you would like to discuss Unions issues, kindly feel free to do so in the dedicated Boeing / Union thread which can be found here:

Boeing And Their Unions - The Future? (by SA7700 Nov 11 2013 in Civil Aviation)


Part 5 can be found here:

777X Updated Information And Developments Part 5 (by iowaman Nov 7 2013 in Civil Aviation)


Please stay on topic.


Thanks and regards,

SA7700


When you are doing stuff that nobody has done before, there is no manual – Kevin McCloud (Grand Designs)
247 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 1, posted (8 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 30394 times:

Mitsubishi makes proposal to build 777X wings in Japan:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...n-mitsubishi-idUSL5N0IX3XN20131112



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineflyinggoat From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 149 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 30355 times:

From the article:

"According to the person with knowledge of the plan, Mitsubishi has proposed building a fleet of five 'Roll On-Roll Off' cargo ships capable of transporting sections of the 777X wing, which would be the longest Boeing has ever commissioned."

Building 5 Ro-Ro ships specifically to transport 777x wings sounds pretty impressive! Quite the investment by MHI too. I'd be curious to see what these ships look like.

Perhaps future 787 wings will be transported by ship as well.


User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2311 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 30106 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flyinggoat (Reply 2):
Building 5 Ro-Ro ships specifically to transport 777x wings sounds pretty impressive! Quite the investment by MHI too. I'd be curious to see what these ships look like.

It would certainly be a far smaller investment than Boeing made in 747LCFs. You can buy a 100,000t container ship for $150m, which would be massively too large. While a RoRo will be different than a container ship, and have some additional costs*, for carrying a few bulky, but essentially weightless, 777 wings, you'd probably end up with a ship well under 25,000t


*Obviously needing the hatches on the end and the big unobstructed deck, OTOH you won't need any deck cranes, etc.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9976 posts, RR: 96
Reply 4, posted (8 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 29988 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rwessel (Reply 3):
It would certainly be a far smaller investment than Boeing made in 747LCFs. You can buy a 100,000t container ship for $150m, which would be massively too large. While a RoRo will be different than a container ship, and have some additional costs*, for carrying a few bulky, but essentially weightless, 777 wings, you'd probably end up with a ship well under 25,000t

Indeed. It is quite an effective solution - reminiscent of the (much maligned) shipping method created for the A380. I would guess the 777X vessels would be broadly similar

Rgds


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3385 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (8 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 29982 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 4):
reminiscent of the (much maligned) shipping method created for the A380

Is the roll-on roll-off barge that is much-maligned? or the elaborate convoy itself? I thought the Ville de Bourdeaux, etc were something like $30 Million a piece for the three. That sounds like a deal to me.

tortugamon


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9976 posts, RR: 96
Reply 6, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 29168 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 5):
Is the roll-on roll-off barge that is much-maligned? or the elaborate convoy itself? I thought the Ville de Bourdeaux, etc were something like $30 Million a piece for the three. That sounds like a deal to me.

As you say, the specialist Ro-Ro ships are relatively cheap to buy and run, compared to a specialist heavy airlifter.
Mind you, it's a bit further from Japan to Seattle than it is from Ellesmere Port to Bordeaux  

(That, and I'm expecting there to be a lot more of these wings than there are A380 wings ...)

Rgds


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2064 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 29078 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 6):
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 5):

Since we are only considering the wings, they can be laid flat while at sea and can be rotated upright for the short rail trip, you really don't need to mod a RoRo that much. There are many RoRo that can handle large truck that won't require that much modification to fit a container that can handle the wing.

They do ship enough cars across the ocean from Japan to the US to know what they are talking about.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9976 posts, RR: 96
Reply 8, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 28884 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 7):
They do ship enough cars across the ocean from Japan to the US to know what they are talking about

You're not likely to find me arguing against sea transport my friend  

Airliner fan or no

Rgds


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3385 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 28886 times:

All indications are that the vote is going end up lopsidedly 'No'.

I have a hard time picturing the work being done in CA. SC makes the most sense to me if they don't build it in WA. TX could also work. That state is very supportive of companies wishing to relocate and the weather is much more conducive to consistent flights.

Obviously this is WA's to lose. This is not a good sign though. Though I suspect this was Boeing's first attempt. Once they see other options, the context for the next attempt will be set.

tortugamon


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3385 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 28871 times:

Reuters has tweeted the following:

#Airbus is expected to plaster #DXB13 with posters and invite delegates to sit in 17" seats to try to sour #Boeing's 10-abreast 777X launch

http://twitter.com/ReutersAero/status/400688893650935808

Not sure if this will be very popular. My guess is that they won't go with 17.2/17.4" seats. Although the more I read about the scalloping of the wall the more I think that the added room will come above arm rest height and closer to shoulder height. Personally, that is more important to me than a seat cushion but maybe 17.0" is indeed not going anywhere. We will have to stay tuned.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 6):
As you say, the specialist Ro-Ro ships are relatively cheap to buy and run, compared to a specialist heavy airlifter.

Right, and I suspect the 787 wings will be transitioned to these barges to once their is enough slack in the supply chain.

But you mentioned that these ro-ro's are 'much maligned' for the A380. Can you give me some background? Why was that approach not a popular one?


tortugamon


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30548 posts, RR: 84
Reply 11, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 28826 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 9):
All indications are that the vote is going end up lopsidedly 'No'.

The moderators have asked all union talk be done at Boeing And Their Unions - The Future? (by SA7700 Nov 11 2013 in Civil Aviation) and not this thread.



Quoting tortugamon (Reply 10):
Not sure if this will be very popular.

The people making the decision to buy a 777X or an A350 - airline management - generally don't fly Economy, especially on an intercontinental flight.  


In other news, The Seattle Times reports that “two sources close to Boeing” state that if Boeing chooses to not build the 777X in Washington, the current favorites are Long Beach, Salt Lake City or Huntsville.

Long Beach has the advantage of the C-17 FAL (so facilities already in place) and a skilled workforce. The disadvantages are Boeing believes CA is even less business friendly than WA, especially in terms of environmental and permitting regulations.

Utah is a non-union state and offered incentives to Boeing to place the 787-9 horizontal stabilizer assembly plant in SLC so they would very likely offer new incentives to land the 777X. Disadvantages is that structural assemblies and components would need to be delivered via rail from a West Coast seaport or direct via air.

Huntsville has an aerospace skilled workforce, but not necessarily an airplane skilled workforce. And like SLC, it's land-locked so it would require rail or air transport.

[Edited 2013-11-13 12:28:36]

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 12, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 28719 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
In other news, The Seattle Times reports that “two sources close to Boeing” state that if Boeing chooses to not build the 777X in Washington, the current favorites are Long Beach, Salt Lake City or Huntsville.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
The disadvantages are Boeing believes CA is even less business friendly than WA, especially in terms of environmental and permitting regulations.

Any idea why CHS is missing in their list of favorite locations?

[Edited 2013-11-13 13:01:42]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4858 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 28699 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 8):
You're not likely to find me arguing against sea transport my friend

Especially if it can be accomplished below the waves  


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30548 posts, RR: 84
Reply 14, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 28677 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 12):
Any idea why CHS is missing in their list of favorite locations?

No, though these locations may be in addition to CHS.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 15, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 28644 times:

Quoting flyinggoat (Reply 2):
Building 5 Ro-Ro ships specifically to transport 777x wings sounds pretty impressive! Quite the investment by MHI too. I'd be curious to see what these ships look like.

IMO Mitsubishi's proposal to Boeing is very generous, seems like they're laying all their cards on the table in the hope securing the wing work.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2064 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 28643 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Huntsville has an aerospace skilled workforce, but not necessarily an airplane skilled workforce. And like SLC, it's land-locked so it would require rail or air transport.

How did they get the Saturn 5 to Canaveral? Can they get a barge to the Mississippi?

One scenario if the contract is voted down is to have final assy still be in Everett but all the major components be fabbed elsewhere. You will still draw down a lot of work force in the Everett but have lots of major work elsewhere. Unlike the 787 though, the off-loaded work will be within the company at a non-Puget Sound site.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9976 posts, RR: 96
Reply 17, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 28569 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 10):
But you mentioned that these ro-ro's are 'much maligned' for the A380. Can you give me some background? Why was that approach not a popular one?

In truth it was probably the whole logistics system, not just the ships. When the reality is that despite the complications these transportation systems (like that suggested for the 777X wings) are a very small proportion of the overall product cost.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 13):
Especially if it can be accomplished below the waves

Ro-Fo - roll-on, fire-off  

(in retrospect, that sounds like a good evening in, doesn't it?   )

Rgds


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30548 posts, RR: 84
Reply 18, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 28539 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 16):
One scenario if the contract is voted down is to have final assy still be in Everett but all the major components be fabbed elsewhere.

Well much of the current 777 is fabricated elsewhere, currently, already. So if Boeing builds the 777X wings somewhere else and ships them to PAE, the guys who build up the current 777 wings at PAE would be gone, but most everyone else would be okay.

That being said, Boeing is working on significantly automating the assembly of 777X fuselage sections (the "Anacortes Project") and while Boeing have said they're not interested in off-shoring this tooling, back in 2003 Boeing and Mitsubishi did consider having the Japanese assemble the 777 fuselages and "pre-stuff" them as is done now with the 787. If Mitsubishi is willing to build a RO-RO to ship 777X wings, they're probably willing to do so to ship 777X fuselages, as well...


User currently offlineflyingcello From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 139 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 28472 times:

Mitsubishi are big in the ship-building sector, so throwing together a few specialist ro-ros will be easy as pie. However, am I alone in wondering about the timing of their offer? On the eve of the union vote? Interesting.

User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4453 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 28239 times:

Quite fascinating times we live in. I guess we will know whether or not Everett grasped its future or let it slip through its fingers tomorrow morning. Keeping the FAL line in Everett stays with tradition.....moving the line elsewhere though would be a bold change and something quite interesting to watch. Imagine a Boeing with a production line in Southern California! One has to wonder if the hippies would understand the mega $$$$$ and lessen their restrictions.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3476 posts, RR: 67
Reply 21, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 28052 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Huntsville has an aerospace skilled workforce, but not necessarily an airplane skilled workforce. And like SLC, it's land-locked so it would require rail or air transport.

Actually, it's not. The Tennessee River is adjacent to Huntsville.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 16):
How did they get the Saturn 5 to Canaveral? Can they get a barge to the Mississippi?

These days, the Tombigbee Waterway connects the Tennessee River to the Gulf of Mexico at Mobile.

http://tenntom.org/

You don't have to use the circuitous barge route the initial S-1C's used to get the Gulf.

(Tennessee River - Ohio River - Mississippi River)



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 27878 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
In other news, The Seattle Times reports that “two sources close to Boeing” state that if Boeing chooses to not build the 777X in Washington, the current favorites are Long Beach, Salt Lake City or Huntsville.

Any idea why St. Louis isn't on the list?


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30548 posts, RR: 84
Reply 23, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 27825 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 22):
Any idea why St. Louis isn't on the list?

Might be the same "issue" with Huntsville - they're military aerospace folks, not commercial.

[Edited 2013-11-14 00:11:11]

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 24, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 27636 times:

Aviationweek.com has a nice overview about the recent 777X developments. It doesn't contain any new information but it's still good to read.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/awx_11_14_2013_p0-636700.xml

Perhaps they should join Airbus in Alabama   



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, 4700 posts, RR: 38
Reply 25, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 27838 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 21):
Actually, it's not. The Tennessee River is adjacent to Huntsville.

I like Huntsville. Some good friends are living there quite nicely. But does The Tennessee River give Huntsville an access over water to the sea?


User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6823 posts, RR: 46
Reply 26, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 27944 times:

Quoting CX747 (Reply 20):
Imagine a Boeing with a production line in Southern California! One has to wonder if the hippies would understand the mega $$$$$ and lessen their restrictions.

Not a chance. And Boeing execs must be smoking something illegal to even think of locating any new project in California.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineC680 From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 588 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 28283 times:

Look for Boeing to quietly acquire more land in Charleston, SC - that will be the best indication of Boeing's intent.


My happy place is FL470 - what's yours?
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3476 posts, RR: 67
Reply 28, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 28053 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 25):
Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 21):
Actually, it's not. The Tennessee River is adjacent to Huntsville.

I like Huntsville. Some good friends are living there quite nicely. But does The Tennessee River give Huntsville an access over water to the sea?

Did you open the Tombigbee link provided in my Reply?



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4700 posts, RR: 38
Reply 29, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 27978 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 28):
Did you open the Tombigbee link provided in my Reply?

No I did not. Sorry, I thought that was related to the Saturn V question. My apologies, it is all clear to me now.  


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2064 posts, RR: 4
Reply 30, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 27988 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 23):

Might be the same "issue" with Huntsville - they're military aerospace folks, not commercial.

Engineers and Machinists are interchangeable. Skilled machinists gets temporarily transferred between Military and Commercial projects as manpower is needed. In fact the whole 101 building (where the F-22 wings were built) is now a BCA entity.

My question is will a completed fuselage section be able to be mounted on rail cars for a short trip to/from the docks.

If Huntsville becomes a major assembly center for the barrel, they can ship it to South Carolina as the FA without having to go to the Panama Canal. Now that's a thought.

With all this talk about high wages and cost of doing business, I am curious about the cost of Japanese labor.
You would think their co



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1828 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 27910 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 30):
Engineers and Machinists are interchangeable.

Uh.....No.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 52
Reply 32, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 27959 times:

Quoting C680 (Reply 27):
Look for Boeing to quietly acquire more land in Charleston, SC - that will be the best indication of Boeing's intent.

I agree. My guess is that they will build the wings in S.C., not Japan. Too expensive, a logistical challenge as well as Intellectual Property issues that must be considered, especially in light of the excessive outsourcing problems encountered in the 787 program.



336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 33, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 27962 times:

Quoting C680 (Reply 27):
Look for Boeing to quietly acquire more land in Charleston, SC - that will be the best indication of Boeing's intent.

I could be wrong, but I believe BCA has already acquired the necessary land. The engine nacelle parts facility that they just broke ground on is actually built several miles away, and didn't use the land that's at the main facility.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 34, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 27865 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 30):
Engineers and Machinists are interchangeable.
Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 31):
Uh.....No.

Bikerthai obviously meant they are mobile between divisions, not between the two labor categories.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2064 posts, RR: 4
Reply 35, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 27892 times:

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 31):
Quoting bikerthai (Reply 30):
Engineers and Machinists are interchangeable.

Uh.....No.[/quote

Well interchangeable may not be the right work. Semi-seamless may be a better word.

I've seen Engineers go from BCA to BDS and the otherway around with relatively minor paperwork. It's t he historical knowledge that is more difficult to replace/re-learned.



[quote=USAF336TFS,reply=32] especially in light of the excessive outsourcing problems encountered in the 787 program.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but with all the subcontract issue with the 787, the only major issue with Japan was the battery issue. I have not heard of any production issue with the Heavies.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3385 posts, RR: 10
Reply 36, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 27837 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 21):
Actually, it's not. The Tennessee River is adjacent to Huntsville.

I had not realized that. Boeing may have to navigate the Panama Canal if they chose to make the wings in Japan. Definitely not the shortest of lead times either.

I imagine Japanese wings make sense with a West Coast FAL but not for AL or SC.

Quoting C680 (Reply 27):
Look for Boeing to quietly acquire more land in Charleston, SC

Its not so quiet. They just bought 267 acres a couple months ago. Their footprint is pushing 600 acres in SC which I think gets them to around 75% of Everett. Plenty of room to grow if they want to.

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/n...on-airport-authority-approves.html

There are a couple negative aspects with Charleston though. It is likely that the 787-10 cannot be produced in Everett so it will be ramping up in Charleston around 2017 which is going to be a busy time for the 777x. Also, the 787 team is not exactly blowing people's socks off in terms of speed nor quality. There is clearly a cost savings however.

Also, the Charleston facility may not have access to a true rail spur nor clear access to the Cooper River/Port of Charleston. Of course these can be added but would represent a significant infrastructure investment.

tortugamon


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 37, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 27788 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 36):
which is going to be a busy time for the 777x.

I don't think the 777X work would interfere the 787 ramp-up in CHS (and vice versa).



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, 30548 posts, RR: 84
Reply 38, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 27813 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 35):
Correct me if I'm wrong, but with all the subcontract issue with the 787, the only major issue with Japan was the battery issue. I have not heard of any production issue with the Heavies.

There were some strength issues with the keel beams for the main landing gear well, but that was handled with titanium supports on existing frames and more CFRP on later shipsets.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2064 posts, RR: 4
Reply 39, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 27596 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 38):
There were some strength issues with the keel beams for the main landing gear well,

This would have been an Engineering Design issue. It could have been either an initial sizing miscalculation or a detailed design error. Did the Japanese do the detailed design or was the detailed design done in the US? I'm pretty sure the initial sizing was done in the US.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 34):
Bikerthai obviously meant they are mobile between divisions, not between the two labor categories.

That's what I meant.    And my reply 35 was all messed up.  

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinetistpaa727 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 324 posts, RR: 2
Reply 40, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 27505 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 33):
I could be wrong, but I believe BCA has already acquired the necessary land.

Yes, you are correct. Back in September they acquired additional land right next to the airport. I think this is different than what you were describing though.

Boeing, Charleston airport board reach new deal on land purchase



Don't sweat the little things.
User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6823 posts, RR: 46
Reply 41, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 27452 times:

My suspicion is that the Seattle area has seen the last new project that it will ever see from Boeing. Anything they can move will be moved. And anything they have to start will be started elsewhere. That means that the 777X fuselage will NOT be assembled in Everett, so worrying how to transport it is futile. It will be built where the FAL is going to be. Whatever infrastructure improvements Boeing has to make will be relatively cheap compared to the costs incurred by another major strike, and that is why, I believe, that Boeing is doing this.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinesonomaflyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1695 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 27313 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Can they keep on track with production and roll out if they don't do the FAL in the Seattle area? Airlines were already critical of the fact Boeing waited so long to launch this a/c in the first place. How thrilled will they be if the production is delayed because Boeing has to set up shop elsewhere?

Keep in mind of course that we're talking events that won't take place for years lol.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3385 posts, RR: 10
Reply 43, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 27255 times:

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 42):
Can they keep on track with production and roll out if they don't do the FAL in the Seattle area?

They won't need to start configuring the FAL for years yet. Keep in mind that Boeing broke ground in Charleston, SC in November 2009 and its first 787 was delivered in October 2012. That is three years from shovel in the ground to an aircraft in service and the 777x EIS is still seven years away. There is a lot to be done but there should be enough time.

tortugamon


User currently offlinejustloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1036 posts, RR: 1
Reply 44, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 27112 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 36):
Also, the 787 team is not exactly blowing people's socks off in terms of speed nor quality. There is clearly a cost savings however.

As a former resident of SC and a great fan of the state..... Them's fighting words!!!   

Seriously, however, how is the dispatch reliability of SC birds vs Everett? Is there a correlation? I know several AI birds came out of SC and AI is pushing 98+ dispatch reliability so far.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3385 posts, RR: 10
Reply 45, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 27017 times:

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 44):
As a former resident of SC and a great fan of the state..... Them's fighting words!

I am a fan too. Kiawah is a great place and Charleston is a solid town. No disrespect intended  .

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 44):
Seriously, however, how is the dispatch reliability of SC birds vs Everett? Is there a correlation?

Much of what we know is speculative and rumors but there is some evidence. In terms of quality we have the following: the average aircraft out of Everett takes more test flights before a customer accepts it than those in Everett. The data is found here:
http://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/p...gle=true&gid=2&output=html

Second, in terms of efficiency/speed, the ramp up has been slower than expected. They had planned on three by the end of 2013 but won't reach that mark until some point next year:
http://www.boeing.co.in/Featured-Con...First-South-Carolina-built-787-Dre

We have seen other things that don't fit in as well, with customers delaying receipt in Charleston and Everett pushing through an out of the order aircraft for a customer and delivering it despite an identical aircraft being nearly ready in Charleston. I think there is other evidence out there as well.

For example, all SC employees were called to a meeting with their chief specifically to talk about quality:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/flyingless...n-a-message-about-quality-control/

Anyway, its all semi-circumstantial but I think it points in one direction. But let us not forget that they broke ground on this facility in November 2009 and delivered its first aircraft in October 2012. That is a quick turnaround with a workforce that is not the most sophisticated aerospace professionals. They can't expect to Charleston to match Everett so quickly. Everett has been doing a very good job for decades.

tortugamon


User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6823 posts, RR: 46
Reply 46, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 26793 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 45):
But let us not forget that they broke ground on this facility in November 2009 and delivered its first aircraft in October 2012. That is a quick turnaround with a workforce that is not the most sophisticated aerospace professionals. They can't expect to Charleston to match Everett so quickly. Everett has been doing a very good job for decades.

I think this is crucial for critics of Charleston to remember. i have every confidence that the Charleston workforce, or any other workforce, can learn to build airliners just as well as the Everett workforce, but it will take time.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinejustloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1036 posts, RR: 1
Reply 47, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 26664 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 45):
For example, all SC employees were called to a meeting with their chief specifically to talk about quality:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/flyingless...trol/

Interesting articles. However to muddy the waters further....

from the article above

"Air India has eight 787s. Most or all of which were put together in South Carolina while the Dreamliners delivered to Norwegian, LOT Polish and United, were assembled in Everett, Washington."

So a sort of inconsistency. CHS is slow, but statistically, they (AI Birds) are above average whereas two of the worst cases for dispatch, United and Norweigian, are from Everett.

United and Norweigian could have other factors, such as build number (Though AI did have some earlier builds than United) and operations mentality (Maybe AI is ignoring all the software nuisance alarms and UA isn't).


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3385 posts, RR: 10
Reply 48, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 26657 times:

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 47):
So a sort of inconsistency. CHS is slow, but statistically, they (AI Birds) are above average whereas two of the worst cases for dispatch, United and Norweigian, are from Everett.

And ANA has a 99% rate and all of those aircraft come from Everett...we really can go back and forth and the reality of the situation is that we do not know based on dispatch reliability. As almost 9 out 10 787s delivered come from Everett, Charleston's sample size is too small.

However, when the same airline picks up an aircraft at each location, it takes longer for them to take delivery in Charleston than it does in Everett. That tells me they are still working through issues.

Charleston just delivered an aircraft to UA that entered final assembly more than 6 months ago and that was the quickest they have ever accomplished that. Everett does it in less than half the time.

Again, Everett has been at this a lot longer. Differences are expected.

tortugamon


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3385 posts, RR: 10
Reply 49, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 26462 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 12):
Any idea why CHS is missing in their list of favorite locations?

WSJ is reporting that CHS is indeed being considered and was being considered before the union vote.

Quote:
"Mr. Alder declined to identify the number or locations of other sites being considered, but the company's nonunion South Carolina facility—which already builds 787 Dreamliners—was being evaluated before the machinists' vote Wednesday, according to industry officials."
User currently offlinedc1030cf From United States of America, joined Sep 2012, 62 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 26407 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

What are the chances of seeing a "Douglas" built 777-NG from LGB ?

User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30548 posts, RR: 84
Reply 51, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 26383 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I am of the opinion that if we do see a full 777X FAL outside of PAE, it will be a second FAL to PAE (as the CHS 787 line is ti PAE).

If Boeing really does sell a couple hundred 777Xs this month and the plane goes on to be a major hit with sales the near side of four figures by EIS, then I do not see how Boeing would be able to build it in a new facility with a new workforce and meet the initial production rate of 100+ a year.

Two FALs would give Boeing redundancy and would allow PAE to do the initial heavy lifting (as they did with the 787) while CHS gets up to speed. Boeing can then ramp down PAE in concert until CHS is taking the entire load down the road (as they likely will the 787).


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3385 posts, RR: 10
Reply 52, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 26391 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 51):
If Boeing really does sell a couple hundred 777Xs this month and the plane goes on to be a major hit with sales the near side of four figures by EIS

I have a hard time getting my head around those kind of figures. With the 787 just now getting to 1,000 I have to imagine 400 orders for the 777x by EIS is a resounding success.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 51):
I do not see how Boeing would be able to build it in a new facility with a new workforce and meet the initial production rate of 100+ a year.

The 350 seat market is now being satisfied with ~80/year (77W) and once A351 comes on line in 2017 and 777-8 ~2021 that will be 3 different models in this space. I am not sure if I see 777x production at 100+/year in the begininng. Maybe combined with the current 777 but not just the 777x.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 51):
Two FALs would give Boeing redundancy

I love the idea because it would allow Boeing to negotiate with both sides without a gun to their heads but double lines can be very expensive. In fact it would probably mean 3 FALs as the current 777 line will need to stay open until around 2025 for the freighter as well.

I wonder if the automation that Boeing is looking to include involves a lot of expensive machinery that would double those costs or if those machines could be used in one upstream location and final assembly remains less intensive like the 787.

tortugamon


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30548 posts, RR: 84
Reply 53, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 26201 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 52):
I wonder if the automation that Boeing is looking to include involves a lot of expensive machinery that would double those costs or if those machines could be used in one upstream location and final assembly remains less intensive like the 787.

On the flip side, extensive automation for final assembly would reduce the need for assembly skilled workers and could help CHS hit higher delivery targets earlier...


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4858 posts, RR: 5
Reply 54, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 26118 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 53):
On the flip side, extensive automation for final assembly would reduce the need for assembly skilled workers and could help CHS hit higher delivery targets earlier...

Could this introduce welding instead of riveting . That would sure help the weight!


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2213 posts, RR: 5
Reply 55, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 25988 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 48):
Charleston just delivered an aircraft to UA that entered final assembly more than 6 months ago

b.t.w. was it not the idea once to do pass the FAL in only some days?


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30548 posts, RR: 84
Reply 56, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 25840 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
In other news, The Seattle Times reports that “two sources close to Boeing” state that if Boeing chooses to not build the 777X in Washington, the current favorites are Long Beach, Salt Lake City or Huntsville.

So a bit more why Boeing is considering these three sites for a/the 777X FAL and not CHS:

Long Beach - the C-17 FAL will become available for conversion to the 777X in 2015 and while the workforce is not trained on commercial work, the C-17 is a large airplane like the 777X. LGB is a union site, but they are represented by the UAW, not the IAM, and are viewed as being far more reasonable to negotiate with.

Salt Lake City - Evidently Utah is a major CFRP center for excellence so they are well-regarded when it comes to build the CFRP wings of the 777X. Boeing executives flew to SLC today to meet with Utah Gov. Gary Herbert.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 57, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 25709 times:

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 47):
Interesting articles. However to muddy the waters further....

from the article above

"Air India has eight 787s. Most or all of which were put together in South Carolina while the Dreamliners delivered to Norwegian, LOT Polish and United, were assembled in Everett, Washington."

So a sort of inconsistency. CHS is slow, but statistically, they (AI Birds) are above average whereas two of the worst cases for dispatch, United and Norweigian, are from Everett.

United and Norweigian could have other factors, such as build number (Though AI did have some earlier builds than United) and operations mentality (Maybe AI is ignoring all the software nuisance alarms and UA isn't).

Qatar's first CHS 787 also had quality issues, the airframe went back inside the assembly hall after roll out to get fixed.



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, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 58, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 25664 times:

Officials in Utah confirm Boeing leaders reached out this afternoon to Gov. Gary Herbert about Utah's interest in building 777X.

http://twitter.com/DanLewisNews/status/401133086869426176



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 52
Reply 59, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 25355 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 35):
Correct me if I'm wrong, but with all the subcontract issue with the 787, the only major issue with Japan was the battery issue. I have not heard of any production issue with the Heavies.

bt

I didn't say I blamed "Japan Inc." for the 787's growing pains, although the battery manufacturers certainly were, at least, partially responsible. My concern is handing over vital wing design technology to a potential future competitor.



336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2064 posts, RR: 4
Reply 60, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 25239 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 51):
I am of the opinion that if we do see a full 777X FAL outside of PAE, it will be a second FAL to PAE (as the CHS 787 line is ti PAE).

I second that opinion.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 52):
I wonder if the automation that Boeing is looking to include involves a lot of expensive machinery that would double those costs

Not necessarily. Depending on the production rate, even if they have fuselage assy at one place, they may still need two machine to make rate.

For final assy, or even barrel assy, you don't really need "big" machines You may need a big jig/fixture with a small robot that run along a gantry to fasten the joint. These big fixtures and small robots are a lot cheaper than those fiber placement machines for the 787 barrels

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 54):

Could this introduce welding instead of riveting . That would sure help the weight!

Welding of aluminum is tricky and limit you to specific aluminum alloys and specialty skills. Weld joints require additional safety factors in the design/analysis. If you were to weld a fuselage, you might as well make the whole thing composite and cure it like the 787.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 56):
Long Beach - the C-17 FAL will become available for conversion to the 777X in 2015 and while the workforce is not trained on commercial work, the C-17 is a large airplane like the 777X. LGB is a union site, but they are represented by the UAW, not the IAM, and are viewed as being far more reasonable to negotiate with.

Good info to know.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 56):

Salt Lake City - Evidently Utah is a major CFRP center for excellence so they are well-regarded when it comes to build the CFRP wings of the 777X. Boeing executives flew to SLC today to meet with Utah Gov. Gary Herbert.

Then rail it to Long Beach for FA   In Utah, you don't have to worry about volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes. There's plenty of sunshine for solar lighting of the factory and locust plague shouldn't impact production

 
Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 59):
My concern is handing over vital wing design technology to a potential future competitor.

The future competitor is China, not Japan. Japan had plenty of time to establish their own aircraft production but found it is more fruitfull to be a major supplier. Besides, if they do get the 777x wing and buy some P-8A in return, that would be all good   .

Note that the crown jewels in the wing design are the wing loft and composite fabrication techniques. Both are hard to duplicate and reverse engineer without patent and proprietary infringements. China may not have problems stealing these type of intellectual assets, But Japan would less likely flaunt these types of international laws.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinejustloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1036 posts, RR: 1
Reply 61, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 24983 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 60):
Welding of aluminum is tricky and limit you to specific aluminum alloys and specialty skills. Weld joints require additional safety factors in the design/analysis. If you were to weld a fuselage, you might as well make the whole thing composite and cure it like the 787.

I wonder if composite is an option if they keep the same dimensions as the existing 777?


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4858 posts, RR: 5
Reply 62, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 24906 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 60):
Welding of aluminum is tricky and limit you to specific aluminum alloys and specialty skills. Weld joints require additional safety factors in the design/analysis. If you were to weld a fuselage, you might as well make the whole thing composite and cure it like the 787.

what methodology is Airbus using on the A350 series? Riveting CRFP panels to aluminium frames?


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2064 posts, RR: 4
Reply 63, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 24808 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 62):
what methodology is Airbus using on the A350 series? Riveting CRFP panels to aluminium frames?

When assembling composite structures, hi-loc bolts are typically used.

Rivets (specially aluminum rivets) are not recommended because of galvanic corrosion issue.

Also, squeezing a rivet is not recommended on the epoxy resin.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4691 posts, RR: 14
Reply 64, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 24761 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 59):
My concern is handing over vital wing design technology to a potential future competitor.

Well if you're getting a billion $+ in free "subsidy" for the development of your new product so you don't have to spend it out of your own bank account and one of the the contractors involved has more experience than you do making single piece composite wing boxes, maybe it wasn't such a bad idea after all!


User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2366 posts, RR: 11
Reply 65, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 24656 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 48):
Everett does it in less than half the time

On the flip side, they have already buillt like 80. Where is Charleston right now 14 or so?

How long did Everet take to build their no. 14? Or maybe a better picture would be their no 25, to take out the terrible teens effect . . .

PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlinencfc99 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 738 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 24481 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 48):
Again, Everett has been at this a lot longer. Differences are expected.

Isn't the CHS line also supposed to have a lower monthly rate than PAE anyway?

PAE = 8-10 frames per month
CHS = 4-6 frames per month


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3385 posts, RR: 10
Reply 67, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 24482 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 55):
b.t.w. was it not the idea once to do pass the FAL in only some days?

I did not say it took 6 months to go through the FAL. Next month the 787 lines will be rolling out a new aircraft every 3 calendar days; closer to 2 if you take just working days. Everett final assembly is approximately 30 working days assembly loading to roll out. I believe the original speculation that it would take about three days for final assembly but did not include wing and tail integration.

Quoting PW100 (Reply 65):
How long did Everet take to build their no. 14? Or maybe a better picture would be their no 25, to take out the terrible teens effect . . .

While final assembly certainly had its lessons learned, much of the improvements in 787 production has come from suppliers improving quality and completing more work before sending the components to Boeing. This improvement helps both locations equally.

tortugamon


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 68, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 24482 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 67):
While final assembly certainly had its lessons learned, much of the improvements in 787 production has come from suppliers improving quality and completing more work before sending the components to Boeing. This improvement helps both locations equally.

CHS also had to rework the pre-LN66 birds on the assembly line while PAE had the EMC to perform this job.



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, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 69, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 24455 times:

> Boeing recently approved another thrust increase in the jet's new GE engines to 105,000 pounds, up from 102,000 pounds - a direct request from Emirates, said two people familiar with the jet's design.
> Lufthansa bought 777X early to lock in guarantees & limit the influence of Gulf carriers on the design.

Google "WSJ Boeing's New 777X Is Tailored to Please Mideast Carriers" to read the article.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2366 posts, RR: 11
Reply 70, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 24122 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 67):
While final assembly certainly had its lessons learned, much of the improvements in 787 production has come from suppliers improving quality and completing more work before sending the components to Boeing. This improvement helps both locations equally

Sure, fully agree. I certainly hope that lessons learned in Everett will roll over to Charleston as well (and vice versa).
But that still ignores that Everett has a much longer learning curve with many more frames produced. Meaning that the initial statement is somewhat dubious, in the sense that it is not a very useful comparison.

PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3385 posts, RR: 10
Reply 71, posted (8 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 24066 times:

Quoting PW100 (Reply 70):

Which statement is dubious? That Charleston is not exactly blowing people's socks off?

tortugamon


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 72, posted (8 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 23639 times:

While we wait for the formal launch of the 777X jet, here are a few nice articles to read:

> Udvar-Hazy Wants 777X Performance Compromise
> Union leader: Boeing eyes fast 777X output due to fears of Airbus jet
> Boeing says no plan to speed up 777X jet development
> Boeing, Emirates at center stage of Dubai Air Show



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, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 73, posted (8 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 23258 times:

Boeing targets 2020 first delivery for 777X -exec:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...dubai-boeing-idUSL5N0J103520131116



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2366 posts, RR: 11
Reply 74, posted (8 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 22925 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 71):
Which statement is dubious? That Charleston is not exactly blowing people's socks off

Probably poor choice of words from me.
I felt your initial statement was sort of suggesting that Everett folks were better than Charleston folks. I just wanted to point out that comparing a crew that had already assembled 75+ frames, to a crew that just finished assembling their fourteenth, was not completely fair.

However you're right, ignoring that factor, there is nothing dubious about the statement. Sorry for my poor choice of words.

Still, the question remains, how did the Everett line performon on their say Nr.25 (compared to Charleston's Nr.14) . . . ?

PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 75, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 22682 times:

New renders of the 777X jets:

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BZQnVEkCcAAxxWm.jpg:large

http://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/401989509841027072



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1869 posts, RR: 4
Reply 76, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 22539 times:

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/401988118342926336

"The Boeing 777 is now the best selling wide-body jetliner in aviation history. The 747 now abdicates her throne."

About time! 



STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 77, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 22820 times:

Tim Clark: 777-9X will have 16-17% fuel burn adv over 777-300ER. Arriving in 2020, followed by 8X 18 months later.

http://twitter.com/AvWeekFlottau/status/401992885685739520



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, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 78, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 22666 times:

A 5th door is visible on this Etihad 777X render:

http://s24.postimg.org/3y8rve1gl/Etihad_order_K66007.jpg



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, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 79, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 22686 times:

An art impression of the 777X cockpit:

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BZQ2JrLCQAA7zb3.jpg:large

Folding wings, bigger windows, new interior and big flight deck changes are confirmed.

http://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/402005806729547776



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 80, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 22652 times:

Here a couple of interesting details on the the 777X wing seen on their high resolution renderings:

Folding wingtips, note the zig-zag folding line:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/777Xwinttipfolded_zps4cd47727.jpg


Outer wingtip, once again that folding line and clean outer aileron:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/777Xouterwingdetails_zps51dba910.jpg


And an unusually busy oouter flap, with 2.5 supports and some small thing on the outer end, more complicated then the 787, streamwise deployment?? :

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/777Xinnerwingdetails_zps2248b51a.jpg



Non French in France
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 81, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 22434 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 80):
Here a couple of interesting details on the the 777X wing seen on their high resolution renderings:

Hi ferpe, where did you find that first picture?



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, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 82, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 22430 times:

Never mind, I found them.

http://s21.postimg.org/g26kvwy13/777_X_6.jpg

http://s23.postimg.org/pq16wv30b/777_X_4.jpg

http://oi44.tinypic.com/2eai7eo.jpg

Source (including a nice video):
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2013-11-...rd-Breaking-Orders-and-Commitments

[Edited 2013-11-17 01:58:41]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinedynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 868 posts, RR: 9
Reply 83, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 22380 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 80):
And an unusually busy oouter flap, with 2.5 supports and some small thing on the outer end, more complicated then the 787, streamwise deployment?? :

This was exactly what I found interesting.

The 787 outboard flap is really long and thin, and with only 2 major supports there's a lot of torsion and bending without much section to deal with it, so this could be related to that. The 787 flap does have a small track in the middle which engages only when stowed. The middle fairing looks like it's deep enough to contain a hinge, possibly without an actuator to go with it.

The blister at the outboard end could be to envelope an aux track support, again since there's not much space to play with. The 787 needs small blisters in the fixed trailing edge to accommodate the aux tracks.

Also interesting is the blister about a third of the way along the inboard flap. Not deep enough for a hinge, but there should be enough section to keep an aux support inside the wing.


User currently offlineap305 From India, joined Jan 2000, 530 posts, RR: 0
Reply 84, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 22373 times:

Looks great in the air but the 787 type pylon/wing geometry combined with the tall 777 gear is giving a absurdly(visually) high engine/ground clearance.

[Edited 2013-11-17 02:07:17]

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 85, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 22243 times:

B777-9 range set at 8200nm.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/awx_11_17_2013_p0-637685.xml



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, 2596 posts, RR: 5
Reply 86, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 21992 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 75):
New renders of the 777X jets:

Thanks for posting. They both look gorgeous  
Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 76):
"The Boeing 777 is now the best selling wide-body jetliner in aviation history. The 747 now abdicates her throne."

Indeed, this is cause for celebration   

It's always been a matter of time before the 777 overtook the 747 as the most sold widebody ever built. Congratulations to all involved.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 77):
Tim Clark: 777-9X will have 16-17% fuel burn adv over 777-300ER. Arriving in 2020, followed by 8X 18 months later.

Hmm, I wonder if he was referring to trip costs or per seat costs. The initial predictions were for a 21% fuel burn per seat reduction over the 777-300ER and 16% cash operating cost per seat. Given that the increase in seat capacity from a 365 seat 777-300ER to a 407 seat 777-9X is only 12%, the -9X looks to have a lower fuel burn per trip than the -300ER (thanks in no small part to its new wings and engines, no doubt). If he is referring to fuel burn per seat, I wonder which of EK's configurations of the 777-300ER he was referring to.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 79):
An art impression of the 777X cockpit:

Interesting although not at all surprising, that it shares a lot with the 787. Although from the rendering, it's not clear whether the 777X will have HUDs like the 787.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 87, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 21974 times:

List prices have been revealed:

> The larger 777X-9, due 2020, will cost $377.2 million
> The smaller 777X-8 debuting 18 months later is priced at $349.8 million

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 86):
The initial predictions were for a 21% fuel burn per seat reduction over the 777-300ER and 16% cash operating cost per seat.

Yes, but the 21% figure only applies for 9-abreast 77W customers going to 10-abreast in the 777X. EK is already an 10-abreast customer.



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, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 88, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 21684 times:

Table with some specs:

http://s18.postimg.org/mcve9elwp/Screenshot_from_2013_11_17_16_59_40.png



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1549 posts, RR: 1
Reply 89, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 21490 times:

The video on Boeing's website says the cabin will be "almost" a half meter wider! That's huge! I thought Boeing could only get an extra 4" of cabin space out of the current design. How will Boeing manage this much extra space?

The bigger windows - 787 windows or a different size? No mention whether they will have the electronic dimming feature. Some have mentioned that the electronic feature means the interior windows get very hot when sitting on the ground. Perhaps its a feature that won't make it onto new planes?


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 90, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 21430 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 89):
The video on Boeing's website says the cabin will be "almost" a half meter wider! That's huge! I thought Boeing could only get an extra 4" of cabin space out of the current design. How will Boeing manage this much extra space?

Marketing, optical illusion, a half meter is physically not possible.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1342 posts, RR: 2
Reply 91, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 21179 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 89):
The video on Boeing's website says the cabin will be "almost" a half meter wider! That's huge! I thought Boeing could only get an extra 4" of cabin space out of the current design. How will Boeing manage this much extra space?

Perhaps they can not think in meters, or we have to ask half a meter wider than what?
It is not half a meter wider than the B-777, than you would sit outside the cabin, it is no half a meter wider than the A350 cabin....


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1549 posts, RR: 1
Reply 92, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 20983 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 90):
Marketing, optical illusion, a half meter is physically not possible.

Why would Boeing publishing such a statistic in its prepared material that is obviously false? I can see an official misquoting such a statistic off the cuff, but in a video they've obviously spent some time creating? I realize the airline manufacturers engage in some puffery when touting their newest and greatest, but a half meter is significant. It doesn't make sense.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 91):

Perhaps they can not think in meters, or we have to ask half a meter wider than what?

Now this makes more sense -- just change what you're comparing the new 777X cabin to, without telling anyone you've changed the comparison, and you get your extra "almost" half meter. Also left undefined is the "almost" - I wonder how liberally they define this term?


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 93, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 21031 times:

Based on the latest info from the launch today and the readjustment of the A350-1000 range I have updated my model. Here is how the most interesting frames discussed today pan out over a 6000nm leg. I give it as block fuel burned, then everyone can divide with whatever passenger number which he favors, 18 inch seats or not  Wow! . I give you l fuel burned per 100km per m2 cabin space as a reference:


...................Block fuel t.........l/100km/m2
787-10...........67.9..................2.65
350-900.........66.2..................2.64
350-1000........75.5..................2.65
777-8.............79.5..................2.80
777-9.............84.4..................2.63
777-300ER......94.1..................3.12


The fuel burn for the 777-9 per m2 is 25.8% lower then the 777-300ER, that includes the gain in m2 the 777X does because of the additional 4'' of cabin width, the gain per seat would have to depend on the seating configuration. Given the very similar fuel burns one can wonder about the decision of Ethiad to take the 787-10 and the 359 and 359R. I think it will have to come down to the revenue side difference, the 787-10 has 4 more LD3 positions and 7 tons higher max payload capability, on shorter flights you can earn more revenue with the 787-10, once you pass 8-10 hour legs the 359 is taking more payload and the 787-10 does not work any more.

[Edited 2013-11-17 10:40:55]


Non French in France
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 94, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 20903 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 92):
Why would Boeing publishing such a statistic in its prepared material that is obviously false? I can see an official misquoting such a statistic off the cuff, but in a video they've obviously spent some time creating? I realize the airline manufacturers engage in some puffery when touting their newest and greatest, but a half meter is significant. It doesn't make sense.

It's marketing, meaning the information is not incorrect an sich, only misleading. They are probably comparing their product to the competitor, but making it sound like they compare it to the previous generation jet.

I think we can all agree that the 777X cabin cannot be half a meter wider than the 777-300ER, knowing the fuselage width is the same.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 95, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 20962 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 94):
I think we can all agree that the 777X cabin cannot be half a meter wider than the 777-300ER, knowing the fuselage width is the same.

The Boeing marketers got ahead of their selves  , the 777X is indeed 0.5 wider in the cabin then the .................... 787  Wow! and 0.4 m wider then the A350 , and 0.1 m wider then the -300ER. Time to study some match guys   



Non French in France
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 96, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 20807 times:

The Emirates cabin will be as follows:

> B777-8: 342 passengers in 3-class
> B777-9: 440 passengers in 2-class

http://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/402147534027517952



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1549 posts, RR: 1
Reply 97, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 20587 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 95):

The Boeing marketers got ahead of their selves , the 777X is indeed 0.5 wider in the cabin then the .................... 787 Wow! and 0.4 m wider then the A350 , and 0.1 m wider then the -300ER. Time to study some match guys

Ahah! And what a shame, the 777 certainly could use an extra half meter of width (as compared to the 777ER not the 787)!


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4858 posts, RR: 5
Reply 98, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 20248 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 93):
Based on the latest info from the launch today and the readjustment of the A350-1000 range I have updated my model

Ferpe,

Does your load/range table change very much?


User currently offlinequestions From Australia, joined Sep 2011, 750 posts, RR: 1
Reply 99, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 20014 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 88):
Table with some specs:

"Wider cabin."

0.1M? Is this coming from an improvement in the sidewalls? What gets the room? The aisles? The seats?

[Edited 2013-11-17 14:14:43]

Edit: sorry updated post after seeing others' comments


[Edited 2013-11-17 14:15:48]

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 100, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 19995 times:

Quoting questions (Reply 99):
How much wider? Does this mean more than a 3-4-3 layout?

The cabin will be 4" wider (thus each seat could increase by 0.4").



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineflyinggoat From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 149 posts, RR: 0
Reply 101, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 20012 times:

Quoting questions (Reply 99):

"Wider cabin."

How much wider? Does this mean more than a 3-4-3 layout?

4 inches wider compared to the current 777, which is supposed to offer more comfortable 10 abreast seating.

As an aviation nut, I'm excited to see the 777-8/9 take shape. As a passenger, I'm going to miss the days of 9 abreast 777s. The new wings look fantastic though!


User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2366 posts, RR: 11
Reply 102, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 20045 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 93):
...................Block fuel t.........l/100km/m2
787-10...........67.9..................2.65
350-900.........66.2..................2.64
350-1000........75.5..................2.65
777-8.............79.5..................2.80
777-9.............84.4..................2.63
777-300ER......94.1..................3.12

Thanks for these numbers, very interesting!
Really shows why Boeing HAD to do the 777X as the 77W simply was no longer going to be effective in tomorrows world.

Just for good measures, could you also thow in the 787-8/9, 346, 744 and 380?

Many thanks,
PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1695 posts, RR: 0
Reply 103, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 19921 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Why wouldn't EK go three class with the -9X?

User currently offlinencfc99 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 738 posts, RR: 0
Reply 104, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 19770 times:

Quoting PW100 (Reply 102):
Quoting ferpe (Reply 93):
...................Block fuel t.........l/100km/m2
787-10...........67.9..................2.65
350-900.........66.2..................2.64
350-1000........75.5..................2.65
777-8.............79.5..................2.80
777-9.............84.4..................2.63
777-300ER......94.1..................3.12

Thanks for these numbers, very interesting!
Really shows why Boeing HAD to do the 777X as the 77W simply was no longer going to be effective in tomorrows world.

Just for good measures, could you also thow in the 787-8/9, 346, 744 and 380?

   Also any chance of a coloum with payload carried over said 6000nm.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30548 posts, RR: 84
Reply 105, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 19768 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 103):
Why wouldn't EK go three class with the -9X?

I am sure they will put three classes in some 777-9, but I would not be surprised if the initial 777-9 missions are to India - where they need capacity, but can't send the A380.


User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6823 posts, RR: 46
Reply 106, posted (8 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 19706 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 89):
How will Boeing manage this much extra space?

Rubber rulers?
    

But there is one thing that puzzles me. I have believed that if you have a large airliner and a smaller one with similar economics, the smaller one should sell better, because it is lower risk. With this reasoning both the A3510 and the 777X should sell, but the A3510 should sell better. And yet in its first day of being officially for sale the 777X has outsold the A3510, which has been for sale for several years. I am perplexed (although as a diehard Boeing fan I am pleased. But I try to be fair.) Although to be fair, the A2510 is one model, while the 777X is two.



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, 30548 posts, RR: 84
Reply 107, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 19660 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 106):
But there is one thing that puzzles me. I have believed that if you have a large airliner and a smaller one with similar economics, the smaller one should sell better, because it is lower risk.

Actually, the larger one should sell better because it offers better revenue potential for little additional cost.

It's why the A320 and 737-800 sell better than the A319 and 737-700 - similar trip costs, so the extra seats are extra profit if you can sell them, but no real penalty if you don't.


User currently offlinericknroll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 780 posts, RR: 0
Reply 108, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 19534 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 88):
Table with some specs:

Is "offerability" a word? Surely "offered" would do the same job, more easily. These Americans and their crazy words.


User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6823 posts, RR: 46
Reply 109, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 19541 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 107):
Actually, the larger one should sell better because it offers better revenue potential for little additional cost.

It's why the A320 and 737-800 sell better than the A319 and 737-700 - similar trip costs, so the extra seats are extra profit if you can sell them, but no real penalty if you don't.

Yes, the larger variants in a given class generally sell better, but by your reasoning the A380 should have outsold the 77W and the 77W should have outsold the A333. But the smaller ones seem to have sold better.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1342 posts, RR: 2
Reply 110, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 19386 times:

The size argument is related to an a.net law:

The more capable frame with the same CASM sells always better until you get to the A 380.
The question why it changes with the A 380? Easy, its a law.

Without joke, I expect more B787 to sell than A350, more A350 than B777-8/9 and more B777-8/9 than A380.

This the bigger more capable apples only with the M3.


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3476 posts, RR: 67
Reply 111, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 19424 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 109):
and the 77W should have outsold the A333. But the smaller ones seem to have sold better.

Actually, the 777-300ER has outsold the A330-300, 717 to 659, despite being in the market place about 10 fewer years.

The 777-300ER also outsold the smaller 777-200ER (422).



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6823 posts, RR: 46
Reply 112, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 19286 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 111):
Actually, the 777-300ER has outsold the A330-300, 717 to 659, despite being in the market place about 10 fewer years.

I did not know the figures, but I had thought the A333 had outsold the 77W. Thanks for the info.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 111):
The 777-300ER also outsold the smaller 777-200ER (422).

That is understandable, as my theory does cover larger models of a family selling better, and the 77W is a significant improvement over the 77E, as welll as being larger.



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, 3385 posts, RR: 10
Reply 113, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 19200 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 110):

I would not call the A380 more capable than the 77W. It may have a small range advantage but lacks cargo capability.

tortugamon


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30548 posts, RR: 84
Reply 114, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 19184 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 109):
Yes, the larger variants in a given class generally sell better, but by your reasoning the A380 should have outsold the 77W and the 77W should have outsold the A333.

The step-change in capacity and performance between the 777-9 / A350-1000 and 777-8 / A350-900 is not as large as the step-change between the A380-800 / 777-300ER or the 777-300ER / A330-300.

As such, I would consider the 777X and A350 as to be in the same relative class, a consideration I would not extend to the the A380-800, 777-300ER and A330-300.


User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6823 posts, RR: 46
Reply 115, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 19095 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 114):
As such, I would consider the 777X and A350 as to be in the same relative class, a consideration I would not extend to the the A380-800, 777-300ER and A330-300.

Well, I can buy that. I also acknowledge Tortugamon.s point about the A380's lack of cargo capability.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 116, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 18922 times:

Here the fuel burn table with the types requested, all over a 6000nm still air leg followed by the Payload-Range table for the 350-400 pax battle:

...................Block fuel t.........l/100km/m2
787-8.............58.9..................2.96
787-9.............63.2..................2.76
787-10...........67.9..................2.65
350-800.........62.5..................2.86
350-900.........66.2..................2.64
350-1000........75.5..................2.65
777-8.............79.5..................2.80
777-9.............84.4..................2.63
777-300ER......94.1..................3.12
340-600........103.8..................3.66
747-400........123.8..................3.96
747-8i...........118.8..................3.25
380-800........149.7..................3.08


http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/PRexDubaifor77W35J778779_zpsa4f2625e.jpg

There are a number of things to say about the payload-range chart:

- the A350-1000 is with the loss of 400nm in range which was put on the web recently. This is now a frame which has it's sibling flying and is past detailed design ie it is more realistic then the 777X two which are flying on ppt right now, and they are always the most impressive in that stage of their life  .

- the MZFW for the 778 and 779 is not official, I have used values which fits with Boeings claims of more payload in weight then the A350-1000 for the 778 (with the typical marketing factor deduced  ) and a reasonable increase of the 779 over the -300ER. The 778 has an impressive max payload increase over the -1000 but it will not be usable other then past 14 hour trips as the 778 will be volume limited to the extreme. Here is why; 350 pax+bags weigh 35t. Then you can load cargo but only in the LD3 which are left after the bags have taken 18 of the 40 and a cargo LD3 normally weigh 0.5t. So you can cram 46t in the bird where you can lift 75t, what is the point??? Are you gonna fly lead in those LD3s??

As always marketing BS, the payload capability of the 778 will be useful on those ULH 15 hours+ flights when your 46t can still be flown with no seat or cargo positions vacated, that is what gives  Wow! . Impressive lifters those 777X anyhow, one can now understand Clarks comments about 35J vs 777X payload range capabilities: "the 35J is a nice local frame with "only" a 14 hour endurance if you want to carry some cargo" (my slight modification of what he said )   .

[Edited 2013-11-17 23:12:19]


Non French in France
User currently offlinencfc99 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 738 posts, RR: 0
Reply 117, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 18257 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 116):

Many thanks for this ferpe, and for your many informative posts throughout this website.


User currently offlineaviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 611 posts, RR: 8
Reply 118, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 18164 times:

Very nice Ferpe

Did you already have this one

http://avia.superforum.fr/t547p360-b...lacement-et-ou-modernisation#42466

http://www.icao.int/SAM/Documents/OP..._COSTA_777X-Tech%20Data%20July.pdf

July 2013 777X and airport compatibility

Code E to Code F wing : -4% consumption +1% lost in the folding process

Remembering the 787-8 / 787-9 wing trade-off
Looks like 777X could to with a larger and heavier wing where 787-9 vs 787-8 couldn't

[Edited 2013-11-18 04:49:15]

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 119, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 18115 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 116):
- the A350-1000 is with the loss of 400nm in range which was put on the web recently. This is now a frame which has it's sibling flying and is past detailed design ie it is more realistic then the 777X two which are flying on ppt right now, and they are always the most impressive in that stage of their life  .

There is 400nm loss but also 19 more pax, or does this not change much?

Quoting ferpe (Reply 116):
Impressive lifters those 777X anyhow, one can now understand Clarks comments about 35J vs 777X payload range capabilities: "the 35J is a nice local frame with "only" a 14 hour endurance if you want to carry some cargo" (my slight modification of what he said )

We can laugh about it, but I don't see how this differs from today's 77W, which is also a 14 hours workhorse at max payload and is adored by worldwide customers.

As always, good work on putting the numbers together  thumbsup 

[Edited 2013-11-18 04:47:32]


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, 611 posts, RR: 8
Reply 120, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 17769 times:

Ferpe

You number for 6000nm are with full pax payload, aren't they ?

Thanks


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 121, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 17772 times:

It appears that Emirates and Qatar have worked together to define the 777X.

Google for "WSJ Qatar, Emirates Joined Forces on Boeing Order" to read the article.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4858 posts, RR: 5
Reply 122, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 17660 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 119):
There is 400nm loss but also 19 more pax, or does this not change much?

To clarify, does this put the revised passenger count at 350 ? Scaled off Ferpe's updated load/range table I get a max volume limited payload for the A35J at ~61t over a ~5500nm sector.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30548 posts, RR: 84
Reply 123, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 17516 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 122):
Scaled off Ferpe's updated load/range table I get a max volume limited payload for the A35J at ~61t over a ~5500nm sector.

The Payload-Range charts for the current specification of the A350-1000 that Airbus marketing have been showing has a payload of around 65 tons at a range of 5500-5750nm. This is about 5t less than the 777-300ER at the same distance.

Design range payload for both is around 35t with an ~8000nm range for the 777-300ER and ~8600nm for the A350-1000.


User currently offlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2208 posts, RR: 5
Reply 124, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 17455 times:

The 35J is a nice local plane, but I still want lots of them, and another 50 380s, and WTH, throw in another 200 777s while I have this pen in my hand.

I was one of those many many years ago who thought EK was a figment of the imagination, but here they are with already the world's largest widebody fleet and zero signs of exhaustion. I just don't see how the Euro legacy carriers will survive this.

If one of them doesn't toss the Ring into the fiery chasms of Mt. Dubai soon all will be lost. You can almost feel the cold invade your bones as 140 A380s block out the sun over Northern Europe.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3385 posts, RR: 10
Reply 125, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 17181 times:

Quoting PW100 (Reply 74):
I felt your initial statement was sort of suggesting that Everett folks were better than Charleston folks.

Not 'better', just not far enough down the learning curve yet. They will get there eventually but I wouldn't want to launch a new program there unless I was confident on the quality of their work.

Quoting PW100 (Reply 74):
Still, the question remains, how did the Everett line performon on their say Nr.25 (compared to Charleston's Nr.14) . . . ?

I don't know. Everything we have is circumstantial. However, much of this discussions is rationale for why they are not doing a great job. Clearly there is a lot of good logic for why Boeing should not be expecting the same efficiency/quality from Charleston as they do Everett. However, my points was that its a down side with positioning the 777x there until their work/efficiency improves. I think they will have it all figured out in a couple years so it should not be too much of an issue but you can't be the quality of work that Everett has been doing for decades.

Quoting wingman (Reply 124):
I just don't see how the Euro legacy carriers will survive this.

Indeed these orders must make them cringe. This coming more efficient class of aircraft will make the economics of layovers less meaningful which could help the European legacies.

And airport commissions and communities prevent building additional runways (LHR) or landing at certain times (FRA) which are only pushing more traffic to the ME3 while using the EX/IM to finance the aircraft purchases. Its almost like chips and the rules are stacked against them.

tortugamon


User currently offlineoykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2717 posts, RR: 4
Reply 126, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 17152 times:

These items are generally known, but I thought it would be of interest to members here.

Just in from Boeing mediaroom:

Quote:
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates, Nov. 18, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- Boeing [NYSE:BA], one day after announcing the record-breaking launch of the 777X, today at the Dubai Airshow outlined the performance characteristics and a variety of features that will make the newest member of the Boeing twin-aisle family the largest and most fuel-efficient twin-engine commercial jetliner in aviation history.

Key innovations will make the 777X 12 percent more fuel efficient than its competitor: an all-new composite wing based on the innovative wing developed for the super-efficient 787 Dreamliner, aerodynamic advances such as a hybrid laminar flow control vertical tail and natural laminar flow nacelles, and all-new GE9X engines developed by GE Aviation.

In addition to unprecedented fuel efficiency and environmental responsibility, these new technologies will help the 777X deliver 10 percent lower operating economics than the competition.

"The 777X builds on the heritage of the 777-300ER and incorporates many advanced technologies designed for the 787 to create a new standard for widebody airplanes. It will truly be a worthy successor to the 777-300ER," said Fancher.

The 777X's efficiency directly links to exceptional environmental performance. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is produced as fuel is consumed. This means the reductions in fuel use will result in equivalent cuts in carbon dioxide emissions.

Two models comprise the 777X family – the 777-8X, with approximately 350 seats and a range capability of more than 9,300 nautical miles; and the 777-9X, with approximately 400 seats and a range of more than 8,200 nautical miles. The 777-8X competes directly with the Airbus A350-1000 while the 777-9X is in a class by itself, serving a market segment that no other airplane can.

"Both of these airplanes are about providing growth options and flexibility for our customers," Fancher said. "The 777-9X fits in the heart of where we think the market will go."

At 233 feet, the 777X composite wing has a longer span than today's 777-300ER. Its folding, raked wingtip delivers greater efficiency, significant fuel savings and complete airport gate capability. In addition, it allows access to the entire range of gates currently accessibly by the 777-300ER.

Adding 787 technologies in the flight deck, flight controls and other systems is just the beginning. The 777X implements 787 technologies where they add value to our customers and increase commonality across Boeing's twin-aisle product family.

Boeing is exploring a number of innovations that will advance the passenger experience and create an interior passengers will prefer. For instance, the company will reposition and resize the windows to provide more ambient light inside and provide passengers with better views outside the cabin. A new interior architecture will make the 777X cabin even more spacious, leveraging the airplane's cross-section – the widest in its class.

The 777X is targeted for first delivery in 2020.
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2013-11-...ecedented-Efficiency-and-Economics



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4700 posts, RR: 38
Reply 127, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 17118 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 75):

New renders of the 777X jets:

Just beautiful. Especially the look of the wings.  .

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 79):
An art impression of the 777X cockpit:

Still no side sticks?   .

Quoting ferpe (Reply 80):
Here a couple of interesting details on the the 777X wing seen on their high resolution renderings:

Very interesting. Thanks for posting.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 85):
B777-9 range set at 8200nm.

Which is quite close to the A350-1000's 8,400 nm. Close enough for most, if not all airlines.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 93):
...................Block fuel t.........l/100km/m2
787-10...........67.9..................2.65
350-900.........66.2..................2.64
350-1000........75.5..................2.65
777-8.............79.5..................2.80
777-9.............84.4..................2.63
777-300ER......94.1..................3.12

Thanks for the as always very interesting numbers. I am sure you will not be far off the mark.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 105):
I am sure they will put three classes in some 777-9, but I would not be surprised if the initial 777-9 missions are to India - where they need capacity, but can't send the A380.

Yet. In 2020 I think EK can send their A380's to India as well. A lot can (and will) happen in the 7 years to come. And exciting they will be.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 128, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 17052 times:

Quoting aviaponcho (Reply 118):
Did you already have this one

http://avia.superforum.fr/t547p360-b...lacement-et-ou-modernisation#42466

http://www.icao.int/SAM/Documents/OP..._COSTA_777X-Tech%20Data%20July.pdf

July 2013 777X and airport compatibility

Nope, great find    .

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 119):
There is 400nm loss but also 19 more pax, or does this not change much?

Thanks for spotting it, it does change a little, the block goes to 74.9t and the per m2 goes to 2.62. The max payload in the Payload-Range diagram also improves 2t to 63t.

Yes it is max pax payload for the frames except for the 35J which I fly with the same payload as the -8 ie 350 pax and the A380 at 550 and 748i at 425. If I fly the A380 at 525 and the 748i at 467 it shows to good and to bad fuel burn values, 550 and 425 is the real comparable figures to the rest it seems. Here the corrected Payload-Range diagram:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/PRexDubaifor77W35J778779corrected_zps86d0880d.jpg

Thanks guys for checking me, it is needed  Wow!  .

[Edited 2013-11-18 11:05:16]


Non French in France
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4700 posts, RR: 38
Reply 129, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 16883 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 128):
Thanks for spotting it, it does change a little, the block goes to 74.9t and the per m2 goes to 2.62.

According to your model this shows how close the A350-1000 and the B777-9 are.

But of course the extra tickets must be sold for the B777-9 to stay (almost) on par with the A350-1000. Otherwise the B777-9 seems fall a bit short against the A350-1000.  


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 130, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 16858 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 129):
According to your model this shows how close the A350-1000 and the B777-9 are.

Yes. LH said that the A350-900 and the 777-9 was similar in per seat burn and that is what the table shows.

With real cabins the Airbus models will be slightly worse on per pax burn as they use slightly more m2 per seat with their 18'' comfort level  but that also has a value so it is only fair to compare them with a m2 yardstick IMO (I wrote the opposite at Leeham but that was of course BS  Wow! ).



Non French in France
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 131, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 16738 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 123):
This is about 5t less than the 777-300ER at the same distance.

Here's a question: the A330 had multiple MTOW boosts over the years. Being originally a regional aircraft with a small range, this was relatively easy to accomplish. Is it possible for the A350-1000 to "recover" this 5 tonnes difference over the years after EIS (let's say post 2020), knowing it already has a range of 8000+ nm?

[Edited 2013-11-18 12:07:48]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 132, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 16626 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 131):
Is it possible for the A350-1000 to "recover" this 5 tonnes difference over the years after EIS (let's say post 2020), knowing it already has a range of 8000+ nm?

The possibility for the 330 to boost it's MTOW from 216t IIRC to ultimately 242t came to a great deal from the wing which was shared with the 343. This was designed for 271t initial MTOW and later raised to 275t so there was room to grow when it started with 216t, wingloading was low at 600kg/m2 and there was parts one could use like beefier wing center sections, center wingtanks for the -200 and ultimately -300 and what have you from the 340 range. Wingloading is now 670kg/m2 which is still modest and contributes to the 330 having acceptable start performance with 70klbf engines.

The A350-1000 starts life with a wingloading of 670 kg/m2 but the 343 has 770 and the 77W pushes 780 so there is room to grown if there is stronger engines to compensate that it will lift off later. As the engines are also a stretch I would say it can grow to some 320t or so but not as much as the 330 did for the reasons given.

[Edited 2013-11-18 12:52:47]


Non French in France
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4858 posts, RR: 5
Reply 133, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 16513 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 123):
Airbus marketing have been showing has a payload of around 65 tons at a range of 5500-5750nm.

They may well be using a different cargo density which would account for it


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 134, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 16492 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 132):

Thanks ferpe, that's what I wanted to know.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinelhrnue From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2010, 156 posts, RR: 0
Reply 135, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 16496 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 79):
An art impression of the 777X cockpit:

So which one is the new button? The button for the folding wing-tips   


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3476 posts, RR: 67
Reply 136, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 16480 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 129):
Otherwise the B777-9 seems fall a bit short against the A350-1000.

Don't quite understand what you mean by this.

From Ferpe's data:

The -9X compared to the -1000 has a:

0.7% fuel burn advantage in terms of FB per m2 cabin area (6000nm mission)
4.0% better FB per seat (407 pax vs 350 pax) (6000nm mission)
Better payload at any range
Better cargo capability with full Pax for any range less than about 8500nm (100kg per pax)

Where does the -9X fall a bit short?



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 137, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 16472 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 136):
Where does the -9X fall a bit short?

The 777-9 does not fall short, but I believe he meant something else (note the "otherwise" part in his sentence).

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 136):
0.7% fuel burn advantage in terms of FB per m2 cabin area (6000nm mission)

The figure is 2.62 instead of 2.65, see reply #128 for the correct value.

...................Block fuel t.........l/100km/m2
787-10...........67.9..................2.65
350-900.........66.2..................2.64
350-1000........74.9..................2.62
777-8.............79.5..................2.80
777-9.............84.4..................2.63
777-300ER......94.1..................3.12

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 136):
Better payload at any range

I'd replace "better" with "higher", because a higher payload doesn't necessary means better (it depend on the needs of the customer). But perhaps that's just me being silly  Smile

[Edited 2013-11-18 13:45:28]


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, 3385 posts, RR: 10
Reply 138, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 16353 times:

I think we might be taking tiny differences in these numbers too seriously. Although I have confidence in Ferpe and his work I prefer to view these things more on direction and magnitude then precise figures.

Therefore my big takeaways are:
>the new bread of aircraft are significantly better than the current very efficient twin (77W)
>there is not much fuel burn difference between the models on a normalized basis
>matching capacity with demand will be as important as ever
>if the 778 existed right now it would be a real hot commodity but in 8 years it will be a niche aircraft

tortugamon


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5311 posts, RR: 4
Reply 139, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 16309 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 138):
I think we might be taking tiny differences in these numbers too seriously.

At least, we have to acknowledge that there is quite a lot of potential error (especially compared to the tiny size of the differences between these airplanes) when we are talking about one airplane still in early flight test, two stretches (one with large changes) of airplanes still in early flight test, and two lengths of a paper airplane...


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 140, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 16321 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 139):
At least, we have to acknowledge that there is quite a lot of potential error (especially compared to the tiny size of the differences between these airplanes) when we are talking about one airplane still in early flight test, two stretches (one with large changes) of airplanes still in early flight test, and two lengths of a paper airplane...

Of course, and a 2014 A350/B787 will be different than a 2020 A350/B787.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3476 posts, RR: 67
Reply 141, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 16330 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 137):
It doesn't, I guess you missed the "otherwise" part in his sentence.

Actually, I didn't. Arguing about selling more tickets would apply to saying the -1000 falls a bit short compared to the -900 because the -1000 has to sell more tickets to have a better FB per pax.

You match the airplane to the mission.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 137):
Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 136):
Better payload at any range

I'd replace "better" with "higher", because a higher payload doesn't necessary means better (it depend on the needs of the customer).

One of the main things both OEM's sell is Payload-Range. Since higher payload means more potential revenue, "higher" generally equates to "better", as long as the operating economics are similar. Ferpe's numbers indicate that the operating economics are similar.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 137):
Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 136):
0.7% fuel burn advantage in terms of FB per m2 cabin area (6000nm mission)

The figure is 2.62 instead of 2.65, see reply #128 for the correct value.

...................Block fuel t.........l/100km/m2
787-10...........67.9..................2.65
350-900.........66.2..................2.64
350-1000........74.9..................2.62
777-8.............79.5..................2.80
777-9.............84.4..................2.63
777-300ER......94.1..................3.12

Agree on this one, with the revised figures, the -9X has 0.4% FB disadvantage based on cabin area.

The -9X FB per passenger advantage drops to 3.2%.

Still don't see how EPA001 arrives at his conclusion.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2366 posts, RR: 11
Reply 142, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 16348 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 132):
The A350-1000 starts life with a wingloading of 670 kg/m2 but the 343 has 770 and the 77W pushes 780

It has always amazed me how pretty much all Airbus widebodies had such low wingloading, compared to Boeing's (espcially 77W). I guess it's partly explained by the different way A and B define wing area.
In above comparison, did you use the standard OEM-supplied wing area, or did you apply a normalizing factor?

PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3385 posts, RR: 10
Reply 143, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 16307 times:

Quoting PW100 (Reply 142):
It has always amazed me how pretty much all Airbus widebodies had such low wingloading

I find it interesting that they can have low wingloading but are only a touch slower than the 787. Usually I equate low wing loading with a slower aircraft.

tortugamon


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3476 posts, RR: 67
Reply 144, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 16368 times:

Quoting PW100 (Reply 142):
It has always amazed me how pretty much all Airbus widebodies had such low wingloading, compared to Boeing's (espcially 77W).

You should compare the A346 to the 773ER. They're very similar, no matter which wing reference area definition you use.

The primary wing loading exception is the A380 since it was designed with a stretch in mind.

As the French proverb says: All generalizations are false, including this one.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3476 posts, RR: 67
Reply 145, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 16360 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 143):
Usually I equate low wing loading with a slower aircraft.


Time to break out the proverb again.

Remember that the A380 cruises at around 0.85M vs 0.84M for the 773ER and 0.835M for the A346. The later two have the highest wing loadings for commercial airplanes while the A380 has one of the lowest.

[Edited 2013-11-18 15:03:26]


Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 146, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 16248 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 141):
Still don't see how EPA001 arrives at his conclusion.

Perhaps "falling short" is the wrong term here, but I think EPA001 meant the 777-9 would "fall short" if you can't fill the seats because the 777-9 is a heavier airframe and with the same payload of the A351 (let's say 350 seats), the 777-9 would still have a higher trip cost.

Of course, this is obvious and one would not buy an 400-class seater if it does not support your route network.

[Edited 2013-11-18 15:07:16]


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, 30548 posts, RR: 84
Reply 147, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 16149 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 123):
The Payload-Range charts for the current specification of the A350-1000 that Airbus marketing have been showing has a payload of around 65 tons at a range of 5500-5750nm. This is about 5t less than the 777-300ER at the same distance.
Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 133):
They may well be using a different cargo density which would account for it

Perhaps, but the chart they released at the 2011 Dubai Air Show does show the 777-300ER with a 70t payload (which matches Boeing's ACAP at MZFW), instead playing up the additional range the A350-1000 offers at payload weights below 65 tons.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4858 posts, RR: 5
Reply 148, posted (8 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 15749 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 147):
instead playing up the additional range the A350-1000 offers at payload weights below 65 tons.

Ferpe's chart suggests that the A350-1000 pulls ahead of the 77W in range at about 7750nm with payload ~ 35t (or at about max passenger load) dropping down to ~ 30t at 8500nm. at which point the 77W is good for ~8000nm.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3385 posts, RR: 10
Reply 149, posted (8 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 15649 times:

With these 777x orders and combined with the A351 order book and their current planned production rate of the A351s an airline cannot effectively get the next generation of 350-400 seaters before 2022 and they will each book more orders as time goes by.

I know this sounds counter intuitive and most analysts disagree with me but due to the popularity of these new models doesn't this mean there will be continued sustained demand for 77Ws? The fuel burn difference is significant but I just don't see a complete void of an available aircraft in this segment. In my view the best thing for the 77W is the big backlogs.

I have to imagine that the larger the order book for the A351 and 777x the more demand there will be for the current 777. This is different from past model roll outs but we have never seen backlogs that are this significant either.

tortugamon


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 150, posted (8 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 15554 times:

Quoting PW100 (Reply 142):
It has always amazed me how pretty much all Airbus widebodies had such low wingloading, compared to Boeing's (espcially 77W). I guess it's partly explained by the different way A and B define wing area.
In above comparison, did you use the standard OEM-supplied wing area, or did you apply a normalizing factor?

For that very reason I use one and the same reference area definition for all my aircraft in the model. For ease of measurement I use the Airbus definition but the key thing is to use one definition, it does not matter which (Airbus, Boeing or Trapezoidal).

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 143):
I find it interesting that they can have low wingloading but are only a touch slower than the 787. Usually I equate low wing loading with a slower aircraft.

Low wingloading means good start performance and higher initial cruise level (if the engines match). For a light aircraft which has a fixed power level a lower wingloading means you have a bigger wing for the same thrust therefore your cruise speed goes down. For these aircraft the cruise speed is determined by the optimum of an increased wetted area drag of a larger wing, the induced drag of the wingspan and the lower transonic drag of that larger wing. The school-book theory is that you shall try and get the drag independent of lift and due to lift about equal at mid cruise weight, therefore a considerably larger wing and lower wingloading like for the A358 and 778 does not achieve that and you will burn more fuel when you fly more normal legs like 6000nm because the wetted area drag then dominates to much at the lower weight flown.

The practical side is that you cruise at the same speed not the least because otherwise you slow down the whole airway and you increase the thrust instead, therefore your fuel burn rises as well.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 149):
I have to imagine that the larger the order book for the A351 and 777x the more demand there will be for the current 777.

This is the A330 vs 788 effect, you have to have your lift when you need it to build your network and conquer you markets, you can't wait 3-4 years for 10% better fuel economy because then this opportunity is taken by someone else. The present available aircraft just has to be good enough to make a profit and it will be ordered despite there being a better one round the corner.

[Edited 2013-11-18 21:25:33]


Non French in France
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 151, posted (8 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 15499 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 147):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 123):
The Payload-Range charts for the current specification of the A350-1000 that Airbus marketing have been showing has a payload of around 65 tons at a range of 5500-5750nm. This is about 5t less than the 777-300ER at the same distance.

My chart now shows a 63t max payload, this is after the adjustments AIrbus made to all models recently. Re max payload of A350-1000 we are discussing one model which is past detailed design freeze with one which will have general dimensions design freeze in 2015. The -1000 lost about 5t passing those gates and the 777X has every chance to do the same  scratchchin  .

As said the birds never fly to well as on the initial ppt Big grin .

[Edited 2013-11-18 21:05:55]


Non French in France
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 152, posted (8 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 15498 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 141):
The -9X FB per passenger advantage drops to 3.2%.

That is with 350 pax for -1000 and 406 for the -9 I guess. When we divide the block burn with 369 and 406 we understand why Airbus suddenly pitches the -1000 as a 269 seater, the difference then swings the other way with the -1000 leading with +2.4%  .

This dogfight will be as intense and muddy as the 320neo vs MAX one, lets see if someone brings out Pinocchio again    .



Non French in France
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3385 posts, RR: 10
Reply 153, posted (8 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 15458 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 150):
Low wingloading means good start performance and higher initial cruise level (if the engines match)

True but isn't there a tradeoff? The larger wing has more drag which lowers speed? The fastest jets (and birds for that matter) have higher wing loading and the cruising/slow aircraft seem to have low.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 150):
This is the A330 vs 788 effect

Indeed. I wonder if Boeing will be able to launch improvements to the 77W that are remotely as beneficial as those Airbus gave to the A330 in the past 5-7 years to spur further sales. There certainly are fewer opportunities. Many of the 77W customers are buying A351s though so the dynamic is a little different this time around. I feel like a lot of the A330 resurgence was with customers that resisted buying the 787 at all.

Regardless, I agree. If you can offer a semi-competitve product 2-3 years before the better competition you will still find sales. I will not be surprised to see the 77W selling into the middle of next decade alongside the 77F.

tortugamon


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9976 posts, RR: 96
Reply 154, posted (8 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 15409 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 147):
Perhaps, but the chart they released at the 2011 Dubai Air Show does show the 777-300ER with a 70t payload

My question woyld be how many times does a 773ER actually take off with a 70t payload?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 149):
I know this sounds counter intuitive and most analysts disagree with me but due to the popularity of these new models doesn't this mean there will be continued sustained demand for 77Ws?

I suspect that it will experience something similar to the A330, just 2-3 years later. And the A330 is still being delivered at 10 per month. I see that dropping to 6 per month in the next year or two. I'd expect the 77W to do the same in 3-4 years time

Rgds


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3385 posts, RR: 10
Reply 155, posted (8 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 15321 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 154):
I suspect that it will experience something similar to the A330, just 2-3 years later.

You seem to correctly praise the value of availability. A330 production rates increased to its highest rate 2 years after 787 EIS, why would the 77W decline 2 years before A351 EIS? Why the difference?

A330s were somewhat driven off of unexpected 787 delays and if the A350 hits expectations I could see that be reason for a small difference.

tortugamon


User currently offlineCaliAtenza From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1535 posts, RR: 0
Reply 156, posted (8 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 15172 times:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...1115,0,2497272.story#axzz2l4vBdeM1

would be nice to see something built in California for a change.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 157, posted (8 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 15045 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 154):
My question woyld be how many times does a 773ER actually take off with a 70t payload?

I'm afraid we don't have access to this kind of information, but I assume at least the 9-abreast 77W operators are not filling their aircraft up to maximum payload. Hence those customers are satisfied with the capabilities of the A351.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 155):
You seem to correctly praise the value of availability. A330 production rates increased to its highest rate 2 years after 787 EIS, why would the 77W decline 2 years before A351 EIS? Why the difference?

There will be more 77W sales.

The combination of availability and (steep) discounts are the main driver behind the recent A330 sales. It will be interesting to see how long Boeing can hold the current rate of 8.3 per month; a higher rate means higher production costs which could make larger discounts a bit more difficult to achieve.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 150):
This is the A330 vs 788 effect, you have to have your lift when you need it to build your network and conquer you markets, you can't wait 3-4 years for 10% better fuel economy because then this opportunity is taken by someone else. The present available aircraft just has to be good enough to make a profit and it will be ordered despite there being a better one round the corner.

  



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineStTim From UK - England, joined Aug 2013, 633 posts, RR: 0
Reply 158, posted (8 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 14963 times:

There was an article I read yesterday saying that the next key issue for Boeing is selling the delivery slots available for the 777 legacy line before the switch to the 8X and 9X happens. Both Boeing and Airbus with the single aisle managed to sell mixed fleet orders where some of both old and new were included. these big orders for the 777X at Dubai were all for the new product - none for the existing line.

It will be interesting to watch how well they manage that. There could be some bargain new frames for the likes of Delta to pick up here if the squeeze comes on.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 159, posted (8 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 14886 times:

Quoting StTim (Reply 158):
There was an article I read yesterday saying that the next key issue for Boeing is selling the delivery slots available for the 777 legacy line before the switch to the 8X and 9X happens. Both Boeing and Airbus with the single aisle managed to sell mixed fleet orders where some of both old and new were included. these big orders for the 777X at Dubai were all for the new product - none for the existing line.

The A320ceo => A320neo and 737 NG => 737 MAX transition has to go very smooth because they use the same assembly lines. There is less to worry about for the A330 => A350 and 777 => 777X because they (will) use a different assembly line.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinecal764 From United States of America, joined May 2008, 376 posts, RR: 0
Reply 160, posted (8 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 14644 times:

I'd just like to throw out there..I had been listning to WCBS news radio 880 and they had said Boeing was still contemplating whether final assembly of the 777X should be in Seattle or elsewhere, this due to labor issues..


1. Fly to Win 2. Fund Future 3. Reliability 4. Work Together CO: Work Hard, Fly Right...
User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1564 posts, RR: 1
Reply 161, posted (8 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 14568 times:

Quoting cal764 (Reply 160):

Follow the discussion on this separate thread:

Quoting SA7700 (Thread starter):
If you would like to discuss Unions issues, kindly feel free to do so in the dedicated Boeing / Union thread which can be found here:

Boeing And Their Unions - The Future? (by SA7700 Nov 11 2013 in Civil Aviation)



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4700 posts, RR: 38
Reply 162, posted (8 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 14527 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 137):

...................Block fuel t.........l/100km/m2
350-1000........74.9..................2.62
777-8.............79.5..................2.80
777-9.............84.4..................2.63

[/quote]

I was indeed referring to these numbers.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 141):
You match the airplane to the mission.

Of course.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 141):
Still don't see how EPA001 arrives at his conclusion.

See the numbers ferpe came up with and which KarelXWB reposted in post #137. The birds are awfully close to each other, virtually on par. But the lower (better) number in this model is currently in favour of the A350-1000.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 144):
As the French proverb says: All generalizations are false, including this one.

That I can agree with.  .

Ferpe's model is a model, though a very good and very accurate one. But for every airline the numbers will look different since they depend on so many variables. But very good models, though they are generalisations by definition, are to me the best way to make comparisons.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 146):
erhaps "falling short" is the wrong term here, but I think EPA001 meant the 777-9 would "fall short" if you can't fill the seats because the 777-9 is a heavier airframe and with the same payload of the A351 (let's say 350 seats), the 777-9 would still have a higher trip cost.

That is exactly what I meant. But I also realise that is not the whole story. Since cargo capacity might shift the picture in the one way or the other. Also the financing and exactly what deals were offered to the different airlines with which purchase prices plays a major role here. But since we do not know those variables I am confident to stick with the numbers Ferpe has provided us with.

[Edited 2013-11-19 05:47:28]

User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4858 posts, RR: 5
Reply 163, posted (8 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 14485 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 154):
My question woyld be how many times does a 773ER actually take off with a 70t payload?
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 157):
I'm afraid we don't have access to this kind of information, but I assume at least the 9-abreast 77W operators are not filling their aircraft up to maximum payload. Hence those customers are satisfied with the capabilities of the A351.

I have had verification that one 9 abreast 77W operator is right around the 59t that I use. Passengers and baggage at ~35t and freight including tare at ~24t. I was surprised how close they are to some of the "standards" such as 95kg/passenger and bags ; they were a little less than the 1.3 bags/passenger and picked up one or two LD3 positions accordingly. Their cargo density was also very close to the 163kg/m3 standard.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 164, posted (8 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 14476 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 163):
I have had verification that one 9 abreast 77W operator is right around the 59t that I use. Passengers and baggage at ~35t and freight including tare at ~24t. I was surprised how close they are to some of the "standards" such as 95kg/passenger and bags ; they were a little less than the 1.3 bags/passenger and picked up one or two LD3 positions accordingly. Their cargo density was also very close to the 163kg/m3 standard.

24t freight is impressive. Can you name the airline or is this confidential information?



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3476 posts, RR: 67
Reply 165, posted (8 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 14433 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 153):
True but isn't there a tradeoff? The larger wing has more drag which lowers speed? The fastest jets (and birds for that matter) have higher wing loading and the cruising/slow aircraft seem to have low.

While skin friction drag of the larger wing is a factor, transonic airplanes also add compressability drag. Airfoil section design becomes important in determining cruise Mach so you can't generalize lower wing loading meaning lower cruise speed.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 152):
When we divide the block burn with 369 and 406 we understand why Airbus suddenly pitches the -1000 as a 269 seater, the difference then swings the other way with the -1000 leading with +2.4%