tortugamon
Topic Author
Posts: 6674
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Mon Sep 09, 2013 5:11 am

Part 2 has been archived so this thread will serve as part 3.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

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

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

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

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

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

tortugamon
 
PHX787
Posts: 7877
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:46 pm

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Mon Sep 09, 2013 3:35 pm

Rookie question- what engines will they be using? Is it going to have a larger fan diameter than the GE90? What about those toothed cowlings on the GENx?
Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
 
waly777
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Mon Sep 09, 2013 3:46 pm

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

That gives quite a nice intro, although a bit dated with things like the MTOW and engine thrust. I do believe the fan diameter will be larger @ 132" vs 128" (i think) on the current 777.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23074
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Mon Sep 09, 2013 5:43 pm

Yes, fan diameter will increase from the 128" on the GE90-11xB family to 132" on the GE9X and the blades will be made from CFRP. The GE9x will also have an improved version of the compressor used on the GEnx, which will add another compressor stage compared to the GE90 and new generations of powdered metal alloy and ceramic matrix composites to allow higher engine operating temperatures in the hot sections of the engine.
 
747megatop
Posts: 1463
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 8:22 am

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Mon Sep 09, 2013 6:01 pm

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

Here is an interesting writeup of the 777x along with a table comparing the A350 and B777 derivatives - http://www.aspireaviation.com/2013/0...eing-777x-to-spark-mini-jumbo-war/
 
tkukucka
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 12:09 am

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Mon Sep 09, 2013 6:09 pm

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 4):

yes they will be called 777-8,9x
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 19910
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Mon Sep 09, 2013 6:12 pm

They will be called 777-8 and 777-9, the X is just a development name and will be dropped (just like we had the 787-10X). I'm lazy and just call them 777-8 and 777-9 already (or even shorter: 778 and 779).
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
tkukucka
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 12:09 am

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Mon Sep 09, 2013 6:16 pm

right on the money  
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 19910
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Mon Sep 09, 2013 6:19 pm

Quoting tkukucka (Reply 7):
right on the money

Unless Boeing marketing comes with a nice suffix, like we have the 737 Max.
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
PHX787
Posts: 7877
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:46 pm

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Tue Sep 10, 2013 1:42 am

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

They should give it a less misleading name...so unlike "dreamliner" they should use "Dragon" or something mystical or something....they could sell a lot to Asia then   haha
Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
 
CX747
Posts: 5576
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Tue Sep 10, 2013 1:52 am

Any ideas on who will be the launch customers and the # of orders necessary for launch?
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 4981
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Tue Sep 10, 2013 1:56 am

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

and 777-8LR ?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23074
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Tue Sep 10, 2013 2:42 am

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

I appears the 777-8 will be a ULH plane by default, with customer option of reducing TOW and engine thrust as necessary for reduced range needs.
 
tortugamon
Topic Author
Posts: 6674
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Tue Sep 10, 2013 4:15 am

Quoting CX747 (Reply 10):
Any ideas on who will be the launch customers and the # of orders necessary for launch?

Like the 787-10 I imagine Boeing will want to try to grab a big customer from multiple regions. EK from ME with an order of at least 75 between two variants appears likely. Other customers that have expressed interest (sources for the statements are in thread #1 reply #52):

> Qatar (9x)
> Malaysian
> Ethiopian
> International Aviation Group
> Eva Air
> PR
Maybe:
> Lufthansa
> Cathay Pacific
> Singapore airlines
> EY
> AF/KLM
> ANA

Obviously it is going to be difficult to find a launch customer in North America. I don't think AC, UA, DL, or AA will order it out of the gate. A total launch order of 100 units should do the trick.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 19910
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Tue Sep 10, 2013 7:24 am

I would not bet on Malaysian, they want eventually a wide-body fleet from 1 manufacturer.
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
User avatar
frigatebird
Posts: 1172
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:02 pm

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Tue Sep 10, 2013 7:55 am

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

But that doesn't have to be Airbus it can also be Boeing, according to this article: The 1 manufacturer rule apparently only applies to the A330/777 replacement segment.

Agree that MH is unlikely as 777X launch customer though.
146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
 
tortugamon
Topic Author
Posts: 6674
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Tue Sep 10, 2013 9:32 am

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

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

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

tortugamon
 
trex8
Posts: 4599
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:01 pm

CI looking at A350-1000 or 77X- but not till 2018
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-new-narrowbody-fleet-soon-389836/
 
SeJoWa
Posts: 412
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 6:11 pm

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:05 pm

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

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

So if I understand this correctly, even if the CFRP wing layup machines were provided by another company, the wing would need to be made more or less on site?

I do hope Boeing remember how vital a competence advanced manufacturing is.
 
nomadd22
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:42 pm

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:33 pm

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

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

So if I understand this correctly, even if the CFRP wing layup machines were provided by another company, the wing would need to be made more or less on site?

.

Yes, if you consider being 7,000 miles away "on site" The wings will be made in Japan.
Anon
 
trex8
Posts: 4599
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:48 pm

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 19):

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

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

So if I understand this correctly, even if the CFRP wing layup machines were provided by another company, the wing would need to be made more or less on site?

.

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

Could B just mean the wingboxes made in Japan and the whole wing structure more locally?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23074
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Tue Sep 10, 2013 11:16 pm

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 18):
So if I understand this correctly, even if the CFRP wing layup machines were provided by another company, the wing would need to be made more or less on site?

There was some speculation Boeing might build them at or near Paine Field because Boeing is testing new automated production processes for the 777X in nearby Anacortes, WA.

However, the wings are lmost certainly going to be made in Japan and shipped via sea to Everett. Boeing has a large dock near the plant with a direct rail line so transport and delivery will not be an issue.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 19910
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Wed Sep 11, 2013 10:30 am

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

Interesting, thanks.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 15):
But that doesn't have to be Airbus it can also be Boeing, according to this article: The 1 manufacturer rule apparently only applies to the A330/777 replacement segment.

I was actually referring to an earlier interview which dates from 2012. The plan was to retire the 777s and 747s and only operate A330s and A380s. Now they are looking at 787s, A350 and 777X aircraft, it surprised me how quick they changed their minds.
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
User avatar
frigatebird
Posts: 1172
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:02 pm

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Wed Sep 11, 2013 11:17 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 22):
it surprised me how quick they changed their minds.

Yes, me too. Makes you wonder how serious one should take their public statements... Personally, I believe MH should be best off with a decent fleet of A350-1000s for routes that can't sustain A380 loads and are too long for the A333 without payload hits. And mentioning interest ind 787s or 777Xs just to keep Airbus (their planned single widebody manufacturer!) honest...
146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
 
tortugamon
Topic Author
Posts: 6674
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:19 am

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 23):
And mentioning interest ind 787s or 777Xs just to keep Airbus (their planned single widebody manufacturer!) honest...

It could be. However, seeing as they already have many Boeing pilots (almost twice as many Boeing aircraft than Airbus) and as their 15-772s are typically operated on medium/long haul flights it could be that the 787-10 would be an ideal replacement. I personally do not see a need for a 777-9x as they have already retired their 774 (passenger version anyway, they still have freighters) and MH's ASMs are dropping not increasing and I am not sure if more large long haul aircraft (including the A351s) will fix that; its a different world with the ME3 in it.

I agree that we can't necessarily rely on what the airlines say; but maybe that relates to their interest in a single supplier for their wide body fleet as well  .


tortugamon
 
tortugamon
Topic Author
Posts: 6674
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:40 am

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

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

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

How can they fit 420 seats in CX configuration?

tortugamon
 
waly777
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:49 am

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

I'm guessing it could be a 3 class config with J, Y+ and Y....plus a 10 abreast config in Y.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23074
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:52 am

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

At 7-abreast Business and 9-abreast Economy, CX fits 398 seats in their regional 777-300s.

So moving from 9-abreast to 10-abreast in Economy and adjusting the ratio of premium cabin seating to economy seating could make it such a configuration possible.

[Edited 2013-09-12 17:52:36]
 
tjh8402
Posts: 530
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:47 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 25):

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

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

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

How can they fit 420 seats in CX configuration?

also worth noting is that ANA and JAL are a part of the working group on the 777x. the second article linked to within that one says that they are favoring the 777 over the A350.
 
tortugamon
Topic Author
Posts: 6674
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Fri Sep 13, 2013 3:28 am

Quoting waly777 (Reply 26):

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

Quoting Stitch (Reply 27):

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

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

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

tortugamon
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2601
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Fri Sep 13, 2013 3:38 am

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

I hope not. I don't particularly like the "Max" nomenclature for the 737. "Dreamliner" works fine for the 787, but I just think that "Max" sounds a bit too much like an afterthought.

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

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

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

But their regional 777-300s seat 398. So if they intend to configure some of their 777-9Xs with a regional cabin as replacement for the 777-300, then it could very easily seat 420.
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
waly777
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:06 am

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

They do have a few 77W configured this way and I believe 1 or 2 of those currently operate on the LHR-HKG route, though a quick look up puts this config @ 340 seats on the 77W...so most likely with not that config even.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
tortugamon
Topic Author
Posts: 6674
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:06 am

Aspire also indicates that BA, ANA, EK, CX, and JAL will be launch customers and CX has sent 777 pilots to Everett to work on cockpit improvements including a great idea for the EFB. No North American customers as expected. The rest are very welcome news.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 30):

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

Quoting waly777 (Reply 31):

I am stumped as well.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 19910
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Fri Sep 13, 2013 7:29 am

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

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

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

The interesting part is that 3 of them (BA, EK and CX) also have a bunch of A350-1000 aircraft on order, which indicates both types are different enough to operate them together.
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
spink
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:08 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 25):

How can they fit 420 seats in CX configuration?

Based on their existing 340 passenger 77W configured in J, E+, and E: rather easily.

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

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

So 420 seems reasonable.

[Edited 2013-09-13 01:10:26]
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 19910
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:17 am

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



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

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

[Edited 2013-09-13 01:21:32]
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
spink
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:47 am

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

Sure but even without going 31" they can get to 413 pretty easy so 420 at 32" is probably doable with a little work while keeping the name number of J/E+. If they are willing to go to 18.5" E+, it becomes even easier.
 
User avatar
frigatebird
Posts: 1172
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:02 pm

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Fri Sep 13, 2013 9:45 am

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

They are apparently on the customer working group, but that doesn't mean they'll be launch customers. It doesn't even mean they absolutely will order the aircraft, see QF and the 777 classic.

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

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

  

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

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

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

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

Almost looks like a blended winglet!  
146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2601
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Fri Sep 13, 2013 10:03 am

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

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

I don't think they will, mainly because of their reputation as a "premium" carrier. 10 abreast on a 777X is a different story because of the added width of the cabin, but I doubt very much that CX would also reduce the seat pitch in addition to increasing the number of seats per row.
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
User avatar
rotating14
Posts: 1118
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:54 pm

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Fri Sep 13, 2013 10:44 am

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 37):
They are apparently on the customer working group, but that doesn't mean they'll be launch customers. It doesn't even mean they absolutely will order the aircraft, see QF and the 777 classic.

True. Of the 8 that had a hand in the T7 classic design, 7 of the 8 ended up ordering. Not 100% but still a high percentage. While anything is possible, everybody in the working group are already T7 operators so it increases the chances.   
 
holzmann
Posts: 493
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:43 pm

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:19 am

I don't get it. Why go for a CRFP wing not and fuselage as well?

Think of it is as blended design:

Engines: new/updated
Wing/Fuselage: CRFP (787 +++)
Bleed System/Internals: More traditional (777 + tech. update)

This is sort of what Airbus as done with XWB. If Boeing's CRFP tech has matured, why not use it?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23074
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:20 am

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

Because at that point it's an all-new plane and EIS would be even later.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 19910
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:22 am

Most of the fuel reduction comes from the engines and wings. The rest would reduce fuel burn with only a few percentages, but will cost a lot of money to develop.

[Edited 2013-09-13 04:25:06]
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 19910
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:31 am

Quoting spink (Reply 36):
Sure but even without going 31" they can get to 413 pretty easy so 420 at 32" is probably doable with a little work while keeping the name number of J/E+. If they are willing to go to 18.5" E+, it becomes even easier.

No argument here. In case of CX, the extra fuselage length and the step from 9 to 10-abreast will make the biggest change (60-70 more seats).

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

[Edited 2013-09-13 04:32:53]
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2601
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:09 pm

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

As far as I'm aware, Boeing claims a 21% fuel burn per seat reduction for a 407 seat 777-9X over a 365 seat 777-300ER. Which means that the 21% reduction comes with a 12% increase in seating capacity. Boeing's standard 10 abreast configuration for the 777-300ER seats 386 seats, which means it would only be a 5% increase in seat count. Someone who is better at mathematics than I am can probably estimate the claimed advantage based on Boeing's standard three class configurations.
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
spink
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:32 pm

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 44):

As far as I'm aware, Boeing claims a 21% fuel burn per seat reduction for a 407 seat 777-9X over a 365 seat 777-300ER. Which means that the 21% reduction comes with a 12% increase in seating capacity. Boeing's standard 10 abreast configuration for the 777-300ER seats 386 seats, which means it would only be a 5% increase in seat count. Someone who is better at mathematics than I am can probably estimate the claimed advantage based on Boeing's standard three class configurations.

If we go with those numbers then the trip cost would be:

X/365 * .79 = Y/407
Y = .88X

So trip fuel burn for the 779 would be ~12% better than the 77W.

With both at 10 abreast the calculation would be:

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

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

[Edited 2013-09-13 05:41:40]
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 19910
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Fri Sep 13, 2013 10:31 pm

Thanks spink.

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

It isn't, and it will generate more revenue if you can fill the seats.
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23074
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Sat Sep 14, 2013 12:33 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 32):
Aspire also indicates that BA, ANA, EK, CX, and JAL will be launch customers and CX has sent 777 pilots to Everett to work on cockpit improvements including a great idea for the EFB. No North American customers as expected. The rest are very welcome news.

Looks like we may be able to add LH to the list, per Lufthansa Said To Buy B777-9 And A350-900 Aircraft (by KarelXWB Sep 13 2013 in Civil Aviation)
 
tortugamon
Topic Author
Posts: 6674
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Sat Sep 14, 2013 3:17 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 33):

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

Quoting spink (Reply 34):

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

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 37):

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

Quoting Stitch (Reply 47):

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

tortugamon
 
blrsea
Posts: 1434
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 2:22 am

RE: 777X Updated Information And Developments Part 3

Sat Sep 14, 2013 4:14 am

The cabin width of 777x has increased due to decrease in insulation width, right? The airframe's width is no different from 77W? otherwise it will be a whole new airplane.