frmrCapCadet
Topic Author
Posts: 1119
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sat Mar 03, 2012 4:44 am

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...echnology/2017651815_boeing03.html

Interesting article. Clark, in a low key way, says he wants the 777 for 13-18 hour flights. Describes the 350-10 as filling another niche - 10 hour flights.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2608
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:47 am

Clark has been basically saying this all along, if I recall, that he bought the A350-1000 to replace the 777-300 'A' models on medium haul routes. The 777-9X's greater passenger capacity and higher lift would definitely attract airlines such as EK. 13-18hrs is basically ULH territory, so I'd imagine that the 777-8LX has some roles to play in the EK fleet of the future.

Given that EK is the largest 777 operator at present, and the way they're praising the 777X, I think it would be very likely that EK could be the launch airline for the 777X project, if Clark is willing to put his money where his mouth is - which he will, I'm sure, so long as Boeing meets its targets with the 777X.
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23465
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:50 am

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 1):
Clark has been basically saying this all along, if I recall, that he bought the A350-1000 to replace the 777-300 'A' models on medium haul routes.

That is also the impression I have been getting from folks who talk to folks in EK's Fleet Planning group. The A350-1000 is a "super 777-200ER | A330-300" as well as a 777-300 replacement more than a pure 777-300ER replacement.
 
IndianicWorld
Posts: 2823
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:32 am

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:58 am

Different planes have different roles, even when its not always apparently so clear at first glace.

EK has had a habit of using aircraft in varying roles for quite a while, and the use of the next geeration of aircraft will likely be no different.
 
User avatar
rotating14
Posts: 1151
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:54 pm

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sat Mar 03, 2012 7:09 am

Hypothetically speaking if A brings the 350-10 with no further delays, when would it be set for its first flight?
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2608
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sat Mar 03, 2012 7:11 am

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 4):
Hypothetically speaking if A brings the 350-10 with no further delays, when would it be set for its first flight?

Airbus are targeting a 2017 EIS, so I'd imagine its first flight would be late 2015/early 2016.
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:24 pm

Given this use of the 350-1000 one can understand EKs frustration when A delays it 2 years to add 400nm to the ULH range. The new version also added 400nm to the max payload range from 5100nm to 5500nm but it did not increase the MSP rather lowered it with 1t to 67t.

The present 300ER is 3t better then that and expect the new to add 5t or more to that, ie the 777X would outlift the -1000 with 8-12t, that would be up to 15% more.
Non French in France
 
kaitak
Posts: 9031
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:15 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 6):
Given this use of the 350-1000 one can understand EKs frustration when A delays it 2 years to add 400nm to the ULH range. The new version also added 400nm to the max payload range from 5100nm to 5500nm but it did not increase the MSP rather lowered it with 1t to 67t.

Yes, but looking at a range ring with the current max range (8,420nm) from DXB:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=8420nm%40DXB

There's really nowhere on the EK network that it can't fly.
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5065
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:35 pm

My view is that EK look at just about the worse case ESAD for a city pair and set the space to sell based on that. Based on the restrictions they put on what they will sell on the 77W DXB-LAX I figure that they are basing these on an ESAD/ Gate to gate time in excess of the time table time. I believe this is consistent with their policy of being able to execute a flight close to 100% of the time based on the parameters they have set. Their timetable time DXB-LAX is 16h 30m or ~7600nm ESAD yet the seat limit they put on suggests something close to a 7800nm ESAD. Checking the last 20-days on FlightAware their sector times have been between 14h 24m. and 16h 01m. If they load the max passengers ( is it about 328?) do they vary their cargo load depending on the forecasted winds for the flight. I don't know. I believe the reason they keep the 77L on the DXB-LAX route is to sop up the cargo that they cannot load on the 77W flights.
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sat Mar 03, 2012 4:17 pm

Quoting kaitak (Reply 7):
Yes, but looking at a range ring with the current max range (8,420nm) from DXB:

Well EK does not reason like that, the 8400nm is for a spec cabin (ie light) with a spec load (ful pax+bags only, no cargo), now lets look at their real case:

1. They cram as many people in there as possible in more comfortable seats. ie their cabins weight 3-5t more then the spec case, ie we would have a OEW of 165-167t.

2. They need catering as well and newpapers to the pax, add 3-4t more, ie DOW 168-171t.

3. Load the craft with pax+bags and cargo: Pax+bags will be something like 33-35t so now you have 14-19t for cargo but you only have 24 LD3 positions left after the bags are loaded, at 0,5t a piece you get 7t cargo on board as well unless you go for pallets or bulk cargo.

4. So the ship is loaded at 208-213t so you get some 95 to 100t fuel in it before you are at MTOW, enough for a max 13-15 hours in the air which gives you a safe 6000-6500nm leg to aim for.

The 8400nm is only there if you fly with a part fill cabin in the real case.
Non French in France
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23465
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sat Mar 03, 2012 4:36 pm

At MTOW, an EK 777-300ER can load 60t of payload and 111t of fuel. I'm not sure if EK's 777-300ERs are at 351.5t, but if we assume it is, that would give them a DOW of 180.5t.

Trip fuel for LAX-DXB on the 777-200LR is 122t with a minimum fuel load of 133t and a TOW of 343t | MZFW of 209t.

Now going west, you fight winds aloft, so I would expect the fuel load to be higher. For DXB-JFK on a 777-300ER, average trip fuel is 109t with an average flight time of 13h30m.

[Edited 2012-03-03 09:11:14]
 
kaitak
Posts: 9031
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:29 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 9):
enough for a max 13-15 hours in the air which gives you a safe 6000-6500nm leg to aim for.

OK, let's work on that basis, taking the 6,000nm aircraft:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=6000nm%40DXB

It's not a North America or South America machine, but it'll do everything else except SE Australia; it'll be far more capable range-wise, than the standard 773. I'd call that a pretty good airplane.
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:40 pm

Quoting kaitak (Reply 11):
I'd call that a pretty good airplane.

Which is why EK bought a big chunk of them.
Non French in France
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23465
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sat Mar 03, 2012 7:12 pm

EK does use the 777-300ER to the Americas, so it must be at least somewhat of a "machine" for those missions.   
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5065
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sat Mar 03, 2012 7:31 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 9):
2. They need catering as well and newpapers to the pax, add 3-4t more, ie DOW 168-171t.

I believe 175t DOW for a 77W was quoted by a pilot insider on another forum . Stitch might have that link.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
I'm not sure if EK's 777-300ERs are at 351.5t,

I believe they had a few that were slightly more than that or is it that they have a few at this MTOW with most a little less.?

EK use 180kg/m3 as a freight density , at least for the 777F so I don't see it varying much for passenger belly cargo.
My take from the load range table is , based on the DOW and MTOW above they are limited to ~209t ZFW or a payload of 31t plus a bit which is right on the mark for a 328- passenger load ~7600nm ESAD. With a slightly less MTOW than 351.5t. the ZFW drops back to ~206t which gets rid of the "plus a bit".
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23465
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sat Mar 03, 2012 7:36 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 14):
I believe they had a few that were slightly more than that or is it that they have a few at this MTOW with most a little less.?

351.5t would be Boeing's listed MTOW.

On the 10 April 2008 DXB-GRU flight, with 264 passengers, an EK 77W had a ZFW of 237t. It tanked 109t of fuel for the flight and departed with a TOW of 346t.
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5065
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:24 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
On the 10 April 2008 DXB-GRU flight, with 264 passengers, an EK 77W had a ZFW of 237t. It tanked 109t of fuel for the flight and departed with a TOW of 346t.

I don't doubt the numbers since they were supplied by someone else. I am puzzled by them . They mean a payload of about 62t. The passenger load would have been by generally accepted standards ~ 26.4 t which leaves 35.6t for cargo. I have trouble with that , unless the belly cargo on that day was about one third heavier than the typical industry standard. I suppose that is possible , there are always exceptions to the rule.   
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sun Mar 04, 2012 7:22 am

Just realized I made quite a mistake in my previous post, the OEW of the 350-1000N is 152t not 162t OOOPS,  Wow!    .

So adjust everything 10t:

1. They cram as many people in there as possible in more comfortable seats. ie their cabins weight 3-5t more then the spec case, ie we would have a OEW of 155-157t.

2. They need catering as well and newpapers to the pax, add 3-4t more, ie DOW 158-161t.

3. Load the craft with pax+bags and cargo: Pax+bags will be something like 33-35t so now you have 24-29t for cargo but you only have 24 LD3 positions left after the bags are loaded, at 0,5t a piece you get 7t cargo on board as well unless you go for pallets or bulk cargo.

4. So the ship is loaded at 198-203t so you get some 105 to 110t fuel in it before you are at MTOW, enough for a max 14-16 hours in the air which gives you a safe 6700-7200nm leg to aim for.

The 8400nm is only there if you fly with a part fill cabin in the real case.
Non French in France
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1586
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sun Mar 04, 2012 7:50 am

So where is the 787-10 positioned in all this?

Ruscoe
 
packsonflight
Posts: 329
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:55 pm

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:00 am

Emirates and Qatar for that matter, are probably valuing payload vs burn differently than most carriers since they are getting the fuel at much lower prices at home base.

I am saying that they will prefer the higher payload capability of the 777 over lower burn figures of the 350 since they don't pay market price for fuel.
 
User avatar
Ncfc99
Posts: 779
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 2:42 am

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:15 am

Quoting ferpe (Reply 17):
3. Load the craft with pax+bags and cargo: Pax+bags will be something like 33-35t so now you have 24-29t for cargo but you only have 24 LD3 positions left after the bags are loaded, at 0,5t a piece you get 7t cargo on board as well unless you go for pallets or bulk cargo.
Quoting ferpe (Reply 17):
4. So the ship is loaded at 198-203t so you get some 105 to 110t fuel in it before you are at MTOW, enough for a max 14-16 hours in the air which gives you a safe 6700-7200nm leg to aim for.

Sorry to point out another flaw in your calculations, but if you have 24 LD3's at 0.5t each, thats 12t of cargo you can load, not 7t. That makes the ship loaded at 203-208t to leave 100-105t of fuel to acheive MTOW.

A quick question for you, how many litres of fuel is 100t?
 
User avatar
Ncfc99
Posts: 779
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 2:42 am

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:19 am

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 19):
Emirates and Qatar for that matter, are probably valuing payload vs burn differently than most carriers since they are getting the fuel at much lower prices at home base.

I am saying that they will prefer the higher payload capability of the 777 over lower burn figures of the 350 since they don't pay market price for fuel

I think you forgot the smiley to let everyone know the above post was a joke.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10097
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:37 am

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 20):
A quick question for you, how many litres of fuel is 100t?

Just divide it by the specific gravity, 0.8 would work for Jet A1.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5065
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sun Mar 04, 2012 9:10 am

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 18):
So where is the 787-10 positioned in all this?

Assuming a MTOW within the present landing gear capability, max passenger load of 323 at ~6500nm.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6406
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sun Mar 04, 2012 9:19 am

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 1):
Clark has been basically saying this all along, if I recall, that he bought the A350-1000 to replace the 777-300 'A' models on medium haul routes.

The A350-1000 is in no way a medium haul aircraft, no matter what Tim Clark says. We might as well call the 773ER and 787 "medium haul" too

Quoting ferpe (Reply 9):
They need catering as well and newpapers to the pax, add 3-4t more, ie DOW 168-171t.

The DOW of EK's 773ER's is some 175 - 176 tonnes. I somehow doubt that the DOW of the A350-1000 would be only 5 tonnes less. The difference in the weight of the engines alone approaches that.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 17):
Just realized I made quite a mistake in my previous post, the OEW of the 350-1000N is 152t not 162t OOOPS

Fair comment. So if it's spec is 350 pax for 8 400Nm, then it should be good for a ZFW of 184 tonnes to 8 400Nm (which implies 124 tonnes of fuel tanked for that range)

But in the same way EK's 773ER's have a DOW some 9t heavier than the "spec" 166 tonnes, I think it would be safe to assume the same for the A350-1000.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
I'm not sure if EK's 777-300ERs are at 351.5t, but if we assume it is, that would give them a DOW of 180.5t.

My understanding is that the 773ER's that EK fly on DXB-LAX are indeed the 352 tonners, procured for just that purpose.
This plane, at 7 600Nm ESAD will have a ZFW of about 210 tonnes, according to the ACAP. And this aligns quite nicely with the 35 - 36 tonnes payload EK's 773ER's are said to be capable of from DXB - LAX, if the troe DOW is 174 - 175 tonnes.
Fuel tanked must be about 142 tonnes if they take off at MTOW

(By my calculations) The A350-1000 should be capable of a ZFW of about 194 tonnes at 7 600Nm ESAD (and 114 tonnes of fuel tanked), which notionally implies a payload of about 42 tonnes. But if it's fit-out for DOW is similarly heavy to the 773ER, in reality, this is more likely to be about 33-34 tonnes, by my calcs - a midges less than the 773ER

(As a data point, to mimic EK's alleged 21% difference in fuel burn, it would be necessary for the A350-1000 to tank 117 tonnes, for a ZFW of 191 tonnes, which would put the payload at 7 600Nm ESAD down around 31 tonnes....unless I've got something wrong)

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 18):
So where is the 787-10 positioned in all this?

About 1 500Nm behind the A350-1000's "medium haul" routes.
I wonder if that classifies the 787-10 as a "short-haul" aircraft     

Rgds
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2608
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:15 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 24):
The A350-1000 is in no way a medium haul aircraft, no matter what Tim Clark says. We might as well call the 773ER and 787 "medium haul" too

I didn't say that the A350-1000 is a 'medium haul' aircraft, I only pointed out that EK purchased the A350-1000 for that purpose, as per Clark's statement. Right now there's nothing that's specifically designed as a high capacity medium haul aircraft, like the 777-300 was, so the only option for replacement would be to "abuse" longer ranged aircraft on such routes. The 773ER would be somewhat heavier than the A35J, and would therefore be too inefficient for such a purpose - much like the position that the 772ER is in now. The A35J's weight advantage should work in its favour here.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 24):
I wonder if that classifies the 787-10 as a "short-haul" aircraft

Touché.

I'd say the 787-10 is a proper medium haul aircraft, but it doesn't quite have the capacity of the A350-1000.
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:33 pm

Thanks all for finding my mis-calculations, must bring my brain to maintenance soon    .

I don't think TC referred to the present 77W being that much more a craft then the -1000N, his talking in Seattle alludes to the 777-9X being the thing he wants, he told B what he needs and he might get it. Does not mean it fits everyone elses needs.

When there was discussion of changes to the 35J to increase capacity he said you need to increase its payload substantially to respond to their ULH needs, the 35J they bought did not and that is not what they bought them for as well. TC wants 45t+ to travel some 8500nm or the better part of that spec. The 35J carries 35t 8400nm (if my brain works ), that is a bit from TCs whishes. For him that it does that at 20+% less fuel burn then today is fine (he bought the craft) but it is not enough to switch to the 35J for the 350-400 pax ULH missions he sees going forward.

Fair point, let's see what B can fulfill of that wish and at what fuel burn    .
Non French in France
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:47 pm

TC was always good for a lot of stories.

I remember the 748i fans putting their (almost last) hope in EK because TC has dreamt of a VLA with more range than his A380's (for the LAX route). It was a time, when hard data for the two planes have not yet been fully established. The pipe dream component in the 748 propaganda was not yet erased by real evidence. Boeing's absurd claims, that the 748i would not only be more efficient per seat, but also have longer legs, was considered as credible by many observers.

But even then, big doubts were more than warranted. And once the dust has settled and real world data was there, the 748i wasn't in the foucs anymore and nobody at EK wanted it any longer.

So will this story repeat? I don't know. The amount of actual A380 orders however hints, that even very favouring talk by EK management about a competing aircraft does not mean much.

In other words, if EK talks about the 77X as it talked about the 748i but orders the A350 as they have ordered the A380, Boeing will look dumb and Airbus won't have any reason to complain, that their product wasn't rated as long range aircraft back in 2012.
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2608
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sun Mar 04, 2012 2:11 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 27):
because TC has dreamt of a VLA with more range than his A380's

That's right, as I recall. EK wanted a 744-sized aircraft that could do 8500nm, not a stretched 744 that could only fly 8000nm. Since Boeing didn't build the 748i that EK wanted (other airlines - such as LH, wanted a larger 747), EK decided not to go ahead with the purchase.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 27):
Boeing's absurd claims, that the 748i would not only be more efficient per seat

It is ... if airlines configured their aircraft with the Boeing standard 467 seats, they, too, could achieve a better per seat cost than a 525-seat A380. Whether any airline will actually do so, however, is an entirely different story. It doesn't make Boeing's claim wrong, based on the variables that they set for the comparison.
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 1588
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sun Mar 04, 2012 2:24 pm

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 19):
Emirates and Qatar for that matter, are probably valuing payload vs burn differently than most carriers since they are getting the fuel at much lower prices at home base.

I am saying that they will prefer the higher payload capability of the 777 over lower burn figures of the 350 since they don't pay market price for fuel.

  

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 27):

TC says:"Boeing, Make me this plane and I will buy it."

Boeing gets as close as possible and airbus get scared because they might lose out on big order and so update their plane to get it a bit closer to TC's wishes.

End result: TC has made both OEMs make planes closer to the spec he wants and hasn't put any money on the table.

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3802
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sun Mar 04, 2012 2:55 pm

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 29):
TC has made both OEMs make planes closer to the spec he wants and hasn't put any money on the table.

He sure has a lot of power given the big orders he places at both companies. He might have a bit too much power, but if the OEM's give in, then they must agree with him up to some point.

But the B777-X and the A35J are much bigger then EK alone. So even if TC states something, it should not be seen as the all deciding only truth about a plane on offer from either Airbus or Boeing.  .
 
eaa3
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:49 am

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sun Mar 04, 2012 3:01 pm

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Thread starter):
Describes the 350-10 as filling another niche - 10 hour flights.

How can basically every destination on the Eurasian continent, Africa, South-East Asia be considered a niche. It's the backbone of Emirates fleet. Emirates biggest business is connecting Europe and Asia through Dubai which can all be done with the A350-1000 at incredible economics.

Plus I remember seeing a payload-range chart on A.net comparing the B777-300ER with the A350-1000 in which the A350 matched or beat the B777 at every payload.
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2608
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sun Mar 04, 2012 3:09 pm

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 31):
Plus I remember seeing a payload-range chart on A.net comparing the B777-300ER with the A350-1000 in which the A350 matched or beat the B777 at every payload.

No, it does not. The 777-300ER has a payload advantage over the A350-1000 up to approximately 7000nm.

The chart is in this thread: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How? (by WarpSpeed Nov 15 2011 in Civil Aviation) (reply 23).

[Edited 2012-03-04 07:17:25]
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
ytz
Posts: 3039
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sun Mar 04, 2012 3:13 pm

Doesn't EK only have 20 A35Ja on order? So why the worrying? Or is he planning on converting all his A359 orders.
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sun Mar 04, 2012 3:58 pm

Here a payload range chart of the 77W (B ACAP figures), 35J and 35JN (A figures):


Payload-range 77W vs 351 and 351New


Once you are around or beyond 6000nm ESAD they are pretty similar and they don't differ by more then 3t nominally before. The major difference is the fuel burn for any payload range, the 77W which has been flying for 7+ years now will consume some 20+% more per pax come 5 years when the 35J EIS (if things go to plan).

Given that you earned that payload-range capability for some 12-13 years this is nothing to be surprised about.

[Edited 2012-03-04 08:05:42]
Non French in France
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23465
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sun Mar 04, 2012 4:21 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 27):
In other words, if EK talks about the 77X as it talked about the 748i but orders the A350 as they have ordered the A380, Boeing will look dumb...

When EK talked about the 747-8, they talked about a shorter version than the model that was already available. Of course, they were never serious about it, anyway, and I expect Boeing knew that and therefore (privately) called their bluff at which point EK just ordered more 777-300ERs.

If Boeing is pinning their hopes on the 777X with EK like they did with LH on the 747-8, they are doing so because EK has already agreed to buy a score or more of them, with as many options, just as LH did.

There is no way Boeing is going to grant Authority to Offer to a plane that has no offers already in hand.

[Edited 2012-03-04 09:03:26]
 
ytz
Posts: 3039
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sun Mar 04, 2012 4:50 pm

I would think that EK is just working towards fleet simplification here. Seems pretty obvious to me that the A35J will be for any trip less than 10 hrs. And the 777X for any trip longer.

This would allow EK to simplify configurations. A 2-class and 3-class configuration for the A35J. And a single 3-class configuration for the 777s.

What I'm curious about is why EK ordered so many 777s if they intend to use A350s for trips inside 10 hours. How many destinations does EK have outside 10 hours of flying time anyway? How many could they have? Just the Americas and the southern Pacific. Seems like a lot of 777s to serve those destinations....and that's assuming that many of these aircraft are converted to 777X orders.

[Edited 2012-03-04 08:51:19]
 
frmrCapCadet
Topic Author
Posts: 1119
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sun Mar 04, 2012 5:08 pm

LH targets their wide bodies very carefully. Perhaps that is the manner in which Clark from EK used the term 'niche' for the 350-10, with the implication that the 7778-9 was another niche. Another way of saying it, his model is 'right tool for the right job'. Now there are other business models, but that is another discussion.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
astuteman
Posts: 6406
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sun Mar 04, 2012 6:30 pm

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 25):
I didn't say that the A350-1000 is a 'medium haul' aircraft, I only pointed out that EK purchased the A350-1000 for that purpose, as per Clark's statement

That's fair enough

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 29):
End result: TC has made both OEMs make planes closer to the spec he wants and hasn't put any money on the table

  

One of the advantages that his order quantities confers, I guess...

Rgds
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sun Mar 04, 2012 7:04 pm

As CXB77L pointed out in the "777, 7810 and 350 killer thread"  the payload-range chart I presented above was an old one that I had in my image bank here on A.net, he made me realize it stems from the time when I did not estimate the MSP/MTOW corner correctly, here a chart with better calculations but also real B and A figures for the 77W and 35J and 35JN:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Payloadrange359vs35Jvs35JNvs77W-2.jpg
Non French in France
 
User avatar
rotating14
Posts: 1151
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:54 pm

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sun Mar 04, 2012 9:55 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 27):

Keep in mind that we are talking about a carrier who operates over 100 777's with over 90 more on the way. I would bet the farm that EK and Boeing already have some sort of MOU on the new T7 variants. TC was quoted as to have said that if B were to build them the aircraft they want, that Boeing would have a customer for life. Its kind of looking that way from some perspectives. The 748 was built in part to take some of the market share from the A380 not to beat it.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 35):

  
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 12031
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Sun Mar 04, 2012 10:54 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 38):
One of the advantages that his order quantities confers, I guess...

That it is... Nothing stops either OEM from ignoring him. But that would be like ignoring Juan Tripp's TATL famous 707 order.

Step #1: negotiate with both OEMs and have both ignore PanAm's requirements
Step#2: Order 27 Douglas (the strong party at that time) and 20 Boeings (struggling to stay in commercial aircraft at that time).
Step#3: Accept the phone call that the 707 will now be built to Juan Tripp's specifications.
Step#4: Never look back as the 707 dominates the market.

I look at those payload range charts and I see quite a capable aircraft. However, for EK, it will also be the 114F at '600 foot altitude takeoff' (barametric, not physical altitude) that will determine their order too.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 36):
What I'm curious about is why EK ordered so many 777s if they intend to use A350s for trips inside 10 hours

The advantage for EK of the 77W is its excellent resale value. The bulk of 77Ws are on 'operating leases' for EK. In other words the 'bank' has taken on the resale risk. When the leases expire, EK will rotate them out of their fleet just as EK is about to rotate out the A340-300s as the leases expire.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
LAXDESI
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:56 am

Copy of OP from my thread in the technical forum comparing A350-1000 to B777-9X(407) seats.
A350-100 Versus B777-9X(407 Seats) Analysis (by LAXDESI Mar 4 2012 in Tech Ops)

Summary of changes to B77W to create B777-9X(407 Seats) :
CFRP wings with 234 ft wingspan
MTOW of 753,000 while preserving current payload/range capability of 77W
Engine thrust at 99,500 lbf. with higher bypass and ceramic matrix
Larger wing with its increased lift to drag ratio, coupled with the a 10% improvement in specific fuel consumption for the GE9X engine.

The 777-9X will be 2 meter longer than the 77W, and will have a slightly wider cabin for more comfortable 10Y. The OEW of 777-9X is an estimate that reflects the longer and lighter fuselage due to use of lighter material, higher wingarea, lighter composites for wings, lighter engines, and additional furnishings for the 42 seats.

General Specifications:
....................................A3510.......................B777-9X
Fuselage Length..............242..........................249 feet
Fuselage Width.................19.6........................20.33
Wingspan.......................213..........................234
Wingarea......................4767.........................5050 sq. feet(my estimate)
Seats(3 class).................350..........................407 (210 lbs. per passenger/baggage)


MTOW.....................679,000....................753,000 lbs.
MZFW......................485,000...................525,000
OEW........................335,000...................375,000 (my estimates)
MSP.........................150,000...................150,000
Design Range................8,400.....................8,200 nm (passenger only, and zero cargo)
List Price........................$309......................$320(?) million
Engine Thrust..............97,000...................99,500 lbf

Ratois
OEW/MTOW.....................0.49...........................0.50
OEW/MZFW......................0.69...........................0.71
MTOW/Wingarea............143............................149 (777 has higher wingloading)
MTOW/Thrust....................3.50...........................3.78 (A350-10 has more powerful engines normalised for MTOW)

Under the assumption of a 7,300 nm (LAX-DXB) mission at MTOW:
B777-9X burns about 3,500 gallons more at a current cost of $13,000.
Negligble difference in cargo payload for the above mission length.
B777-9X has the potential to earn about $24,000 in additional 57 seat revenues at 70% load factor.

Overall, B777-9X has a net operating advantage of $11,000 for a 7,300nm mission in 10-abreast 777-9X configuration, and more if one accounts for 7-abreast J class layout of EK, which would be difficult to arrange in A350-1000. This translates to annual operating advantage of nearly $4 million for B777-9X. One can see why EK is excited about 777-9X.

For an operator like CX which is more likely to configure 777-9X in 9-abreast, the numbers for a 6,300nm mission(LAX-HKG) are as follows:

B777-9X burns about 3,000 gallons more at a current cost of $10,500.
Negligble difference in cargo payload for the above mission length.
B777-9X has the potential to earn about $8,000 in additional 18 Y seat(2 meter stretch) revenues at 70% load factor.

A350-1000 has an operating advantage of $2,500 per trip, which is about $1 million annually.

For long dense routes, B777-9X with 9-abreast is at a slight disadvantage against A350-1000. A350-1000 has a trip cost advantage that bodes well for it with operators looking for flexibilty in deploying one aircraft across many types of route profiles, capacity wise .
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 1588
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:50 am

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 42):

If the A3510 has a lower wing loading and a higher T/W how will the 779X wing differ to gain similar runway performance and what bearing will this have on weight?

I personally can see the 779x coming out with 105klb engines.

Fred
Image
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:16 am

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 28):
EK wanted a 744-sized aircraft that could do 8500nm, not a stretched 744 that could only fly 8000nm. Since Boeing didn't build the 748i that EK wanted (other airlines - such as LH, wanted a larger 747), EK decided not to go ahead with the purchase.

So it is unlucky that the 77X would have a 8000nm design range as well (as currently drafted). And almost funny is that the A35J now has 8500nm design range.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 35):
Of course, they were never serious about it, anyway, and I expect Boeing knew that and therefore (privately) called their bluff at which point EK just ordered more 777-300ERs.

I am not sure:
http://www.iag-inc.com/2010/01/20/bo...ng-747i-is-tim-clark-reading-this/

You see, from my point of view the 77X resembles very closely what the 748i was for Emirates. All this payload+range emphasis was exactly the same some years ago. Clark could have bought an aircraft that was superior regarding payload over range. But he did not. When weighting payload vs. efficiency he was not bothered by a considerable lack of the former and picked the 77W. And he started very prominently to trash the same aircraft, that he was interested before (748i):
http://www.thenational.ae/thenationa...ew-747-flies-but-will-it-sell#full
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-gain-will-threaten-747-8i-226082/

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 32):
The 777-300ER has a payload advantage over the A350-1000 up to approximately 7000nm.

Do you think that differences, that are so small, are nearly as significant as much larger gaps in efficiency?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 35):
If Boeing is pinning their hopes on the 777X with EK like they did with LH on the 747-8, they are doing so because EK has already agreed to buy a score or more of them, with as many options, just as LH did.

Even if EK has agreed to buy 77X it does not mean much. An EK-tailored 77X might still make it a niche player.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 35):
There is no way Boeing is going to grant Authority to Offer to a plane that has no offers already in hand.

Having orders at launch time is not a good indicator for a successful aircraft. The 748i could be mentioned as example for this.

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 40):
Keep in mind that we are talking about a carrier who operates over 100 777's with over 90 more on the way. I would bet the farm that EK and Boeing already have some sort of MOU on the new T7 variants. TC was quoted as to have said that if B were to build them the aircraft they want, that Boeing would have a customer for life. Its kind of looking that way from some perspectives.

EK is an absolute 777 carrier. If only because of that there is just a natural interest in the 77X. EK is the safest 77X customer at all. Nice sales are almost a given.

EK is however not a very typical airline. Their needs don't necessarily speak for the needs of many other airlines. So having this prominent advocate for the 77X might not serve Boeing better overall, than LH advocating the 748. LH's interest was a coaxing trap, that blurred the picture about the prospects of a new 747 upgrade at a critical moment in Boeing's history.

The 777 is much more a volume model than the 747. 777's are produced in record high numbers (for VLA's). So for the 77X to continue the current success, it must attract much more airlines than just EK. It must fit a the center of very average needs. Not at some extreme end on a payload/range diagram.
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2608
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:50 am

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 44):
So it is unlucky that the 77X would have a 8000nm design range as well (as currently drafted). And almost funny is that the A35J now has 8500nm design range.

How so? EK wanted 8500nm from the 748i, not from the 777-9X. What they want from the 777-9X is quite clearly encapsulated in that article.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 44):
You see, from my point of view the 77X resembles very closely what the 748i was for Emirates. All this payload+range emphasis was exactly the same some years ago. Clark could have bought an aircraft that was superior regarding payload over range.

The 748i does not have a greater payload/range capability over the 77W. The 77W is both more capable and more efficient. The 748i wins only on passenger capacity. What EK wanted was a more capable 748i payload/range wise, with the same passenger capacity as the 744. I see nothing inconsistent about what they've been chasing from Boeing.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 44):
Do you think that differences, that are so small, are nearly as significant as much larger gaps in efficiency?

That was compared with the current 777-300ER, not the much improved 777-9X. The 'gap' in efficiency for the 777-9X will be much, much smaller, thus making the extra payload capability and passenger capacity more attractive. Based on LAXDESI's analysis in A350-100 Versus B777-9X(407 Seats) Analysis (by LAXDESI Mar 4 2012 in Tech Ops) ; the 777-9X has the potential to earn more revenue than it loses to the A35J in costs.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 44):
Their needs don't necessarily speak for the needs of many other airlines.

Granted, but I fail to see the basis for your assertion that "many" of the other airlines won't need the 777-9X's extra capabilities. Every airline that operates the 77W at 10-abreast - and there are an increasing number of them - will find the 777-9X's extra cabin width attractive. Every airline that has cargo as a significant portion of its revenue will find the 777-9X's extra payload range capabilities attractive. To focus purely on CASM is a very simplistic and one-sided argument.
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
astuteman
Posts: 6406
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:20 am

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 45):
The 748i does not have a greater payload/range capability over the 77W.

I think you'll have a hard time selling that idea..

The 748i shouldh have a max payload range of some 6 200Nm, some 500m greater than the 777-300ER.

It should also be capable of lifting a "nominal" 42 tonnes payload at 8 000Nm, compared to the 777-300ER, which has a ZFW of about 201 tonnes at that range, implying a "nominal" payload of 33 tonnes (on its nominal 168t OEW)

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 45):
To focus purely on CASM is a very simplistic and one-sided argument.

Absolutely  

Rgds
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2608
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:38 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 46):
The 748i shouldh have a max payload range of some 6 200Nm, some 500m greater than the 777-300ER.

It should also be capable of lifting a "nominal" 42 tonnes payload at 8 000Nm, compared to the 777-300ER, which has a ZFW of about 201 tonnes at that range, implying a "nominal" payload of 33 tonnes (on its nominal 168t OEW)

That it does. I stand corrected. I was mistakenly looking at the 744 chart ...  
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
irishpower
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 2:18 am

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:42 am

Clark mentioned in the article that EK will be adding 2 new US destinations to their network, what are they? ORD? MIA? IAD? ATL?
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10

Mon Mar 05, 2012 12:33 pm

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 43):
If the A3510 has a lower wing loading and a higher T/W how will the 779X wing differ to gain similar runway performance and what bearing will this have on weight?

This is what I can't grasp either. The dimensioning case for the wing and engines are many times the 1 engine out at V2, ie about 170kts, there the dominant drag is your induced drag (about 80%) so the 777-9X higher aspect ratio (A) will help, but only to the same degree as wingarea (S) (both are in the denominator for induced drag, here the equation Di=k * W^2 / (V^2 * S * A)).

All things counted the 777-9X has about 58000lbf total drag at 170kt and the 35JN about 50000lbf, both taking of at ISA at MTOW. With a difference in single engine thrust of 2500lbf there is some 5500lbf smaller single engine margin for the 777-9X. I don't think we have all the figures described correctly, IMO the 99,5klbf engine RFP is for a 320t 777-8X and there is a stronger engine required for a 340t 777-9X, something like 105000lbf.

[Edited 2012-03-05 04:48:02]
Non French in France

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos