VC10er
Topic Author
Posts: 3082
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:59 pm

All I have really done in the way of “research” is check out Boeing.com and Airbus.com. Plus, some things I e read here...but not all in the same thread.

I’m also totally inept when it comes to reading charts.

With the 777-300 being so popular over the years, what will these new 777-X’s do that beats their predecessor? Will the 77X be so much more desirable than the 777-300ER in terms of economics?

I understand their will be more seats (ala: 748 killer), better economics, and that the 8 flies much further than the 9 potentially opening up new ULH destinations nonstop. Please tell me if I’m wrong, but I’m under the impression that the 77X-8 will have the longest legs ever?

But I realize that there are only so many routes in the world that are so far apart that can also fill such a big bird nonstop, ex: (SYD/LHR, SYD/NYC, SIN/NYC, GRU/NRT) and perhaps if they can’t fill it is that the role of a 789 or A350-900? I’m assuming the latter could probably do most of those routes but not have the number of seats that need filling?

Is the BIG idea that the 77X-9 will be a VLA that can replace the 777-300ER (all 747) on routes like NYC/HKG with more pax and less cost? Big, but not as big as an A380?

Will it be imprudent to fly a 77X-9 from NYC to NRT or FRA or even LHR because it wastes its range?

Then there is the A350! Can the A350 (900 or 1000) fly the same very long nonstop routes as the 777-8 & 9? What is the passenger count difference? (I realize that airlines with an F cabin will differ from a 2 cabin airline and that changes butt count but I’m not sure about weight difference, some of the new F cabins look very heavy)

I guess I’m looking at the not so distant future and wondering about (what seems to me) like thinly sliced capability differences between these beautiful airplanes and if such proximity to each other (in terms of mission specs) have the market for many hundreds of each type?

Thanks again R
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10510
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Wed Dec 27, 2017 11:59 pm

Randy:
Image

Leahy:
Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Varsity1
Posts: 1237
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:12 am

The A350-1000 and 777-9x aren't even in the same ballpark capacity wise, comparing weights is senseless.

Might as well strike up a comparison between the 767 and A380.
"PPRuNe will no longer allow discussions regarding Etihad Airlines, its employees, executives, agents, or other representatives. Such threads will be deleted." - ME3 thug airlines suing anyone who brings negative information public..
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2315
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:28 am

This image should help explain the differences. Lower CASM is the goal.

Image

The 77W wing was a bit undersized. The 777x solves that problem. It allows the airplane to have more seats and fly further while having engines that produce 9% less thrust.

Image

Image
Last edited by Newbiepilot on Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:38 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
VC10er
Topic Author
Posts: 3082
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:30 am

Varsity1 wrote:
The A350-1000 and 777-9x aren't even in the same ballpark capacity wise, comparing weights is senseless.

Might as well strike up a comparison between the 767 and A380.


I prefer the 767 to the A380!

That chart is easy for me to understand: thanks!
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
flyboy80
Posts: 1940
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2001 8:10 am

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:02 am

I read the 777-8/9 wing is larger than even the “747” assuming that means the -400 specifically, but perhaps the -8 as well... anyone confirm?

I’m interested to hear and say how the -8 competes with the A350. Will the 350
Still have a considerable weight advantage as well
As well as comparable capacity on (not necessarily payload) on missions currently flown by 772ER...or is the -8 really intended only for LR replacement?
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 7547
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:11 am

It will be interesting to see who if any will put 400 seats in a 777X.
 
VC10er
Topic Author
Posts: 3082
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:13 am

Thanks everyone

It’s very exciting!

So, I’m still curious about the kinds of missions appropriate for both the 778&9X. Is the 9X still going to have better economics on 7/8 hour flights as 12/16 hour flights? Eg: a great people mover from hub to hub?
And I’ve read that the market for the 8X is more limited given it was built for range (as per chart above) but the chart doesn’t give miles of range?
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 7547
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:16 am

If you look at the way EK used the 777-200LR and 300ER, they would open routes with the LR then upgrade to the 300ER even if they took a hit in payload by blocking seats, the 778 is supposed to be a long range 777W so rather than just replacing the 200LR is has great range plus 300ER capacity, the issue is how many carriers other than the ME3 need that combination in one frame.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 16943
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:21 am

VC10er wrote:
Will the 77X be so much more desirable than the 777-300ER in terms of economics?

In viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1358735 I provided a nice chart from FG that lives in the bottom half of this graphic:

Image

and some commentary on it:

While specs can be gamed by varying seating configurations etc, you can see in these figures that the A35J will fly a similar number of pax a longer distance in a much lighter aircraft -- Leahy claims -25% fuel burn relative to 77W in the article.

You see Boeing is offering bigger products and/or longer ranged products but nothing that fills the spot that the 77W filled as well as does the A35J.

Airbus is saying this happened because Boeing could not compete head-on with the A35J. Boeing will tell you there's a big need for a bigger plane and/or longer range and/or both, and the article mentions the ME3 orders as well as the recent SQ win as positive reinforcement, but seemingly there's no avoiding that big hole in the their line up right at the 77W sweet spot, or is there?

So, personally, I think A350-1000 will be more desirable than the 777-300ER in terms of economics. 777-900 will make good money doing what it does best, but I think the sweet spot in the market is the A350-1000 or below.
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24813
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:30 am

VC10er wrote:
With the 777-300 being so popular over the years, what will these new 777-X’s do that beats their predecessor? Will the 77X be so much more desirable than the 777-300ER in terms of economics?


Well it will burn a fair bit less fuel thanks to the GE9X engine vis-a-vis the GE90.


VC10er wrote:
I understand their will be more seats (ala: 748 killer), better economics, and that the 8 flies much further than the 9 potentially opening up new ULH destinations nonstop. Please tell me if I’m wrong, but I’m under the impression that the 77X-8 will have the longest legs ever?


Well in terms of Design Range (pax+bags with no revenue cargo), the A350-900ULR will do 9700nm per Airbus, but the payload at DR will be significantly lower than the 777-8 at DR so with an A350-900ULR's payload, a 777-8 may or may not fly farther (as it will be fairly empty at that point).


VC10er wrote:
Is the BIG idea that the 77X-9 will be a VLA that can replace the 777-300ER (all 747) on routes like NYC/HKG with more pax and less cost? Big, but not as big as an A380?


More or less. The A350-1000 is aimed at the same role.


VC10er wrote:
Will it be imprudent to fly a 77X-9 from NYC to NRT or FRA or even LHR because it wastes its range?


No less so than doing it with a 777-300ER today (which many airlines do).



Revelation wrote:
So, personally, I think A350-1000 will be more desirable than the 777-300ER in terms of economics. 777-900 will make good money doing what it does best, but I think the sweet spot in the market is the A350-1000 or below.


The A350-1000 is tailor-made to be a direct replacement for the 777-300ER at 9-abreast with significantly lower operating costs.

As the majority of 777-300ERs are now 10-abreast, that will help the 777-9 (as it is a 10-abreast frame) - especially on routes with year-round high load factors - but I expect the A350-1000 to become more successful as time moves forward due to it's overall excellence for the role and I expect it to take the majority of 777-300ER replacement market.
 
IndianicWorld
Posts: 2930
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:32 am

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Thu Dec 28, 2017 3:14 am

I do find it kind of funny that Boeing have tried to claim that the market is moving to a point to point model, which the 787 was designed to capture, yet talks up the 777X.

The A350-1000 does appear to be a better fit for many airlines, especially when paired with a A350-900 fleet. They offer significant benefits, at the right size, along with the ability to utilise the A350-900ULR model if there is a need for very long routes.

QF’s Project Sunrise does make for compelling viewing though, as the 777-8 does seem to have the edge but at the same time it may create headaches down the track if those routes do not work out as planned. QF would be left with a heavier plane, which would not then be used for the optimized role it was designed for.

They all have their benefits, but I do tend to think that given market trends that the 787/A350 models are likely bound to find more value for airlines than trying to find a role for the 777X on most missions.
 
tvarad
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:37 pm

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Thu Dec 28, 2017 3:42 am

IndianicWorld wrote:
I do find it kind of funny that Boeing have tried to claim that the market is moving to a point to point model, which the 787 was designed to capture, yet talks up the 777X.

Singapore, Emirates, Qatar, Cathay and Lufthansa still operate on the hub and spoke model very successfully so the 777X is mainly for them; for the others with point to point needs it's the 787. So there's nothing inherently contradictory in what Boeing says. Who's to argue with 300 plus orders with more to come if it's the end of the road for the A380 as is being rumored.
 
Varsity1
Posts: 1237
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Thu Dec 28, 2017 3:50 am

par13del wrote:
It will be interesting to see who if any will put 400 seats in a 777X.


You mean like everyone? Carriers like AC already have 450 the 777-300ER. The 777-9X is a 450 seat aircraft.
"PPRuNe will no longer allow discussions regarding Etihad Airlines, its employees, executives, agents, or other representatives. Such threads will be deleted." - ME3 thug airlines suing anyone who brings negative information public..
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24813
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Thu Dec 28, 2017 3:54 am

par13del wrote:
It will be interesting to see who if any will put 400 seats in a 777X.


EK have said their two class 777-9 configuration will be 440 [49J | 391Y].

Based on where the fuselage plugs are, I am guessing for most carriers we will see the addition of one or two rows of Business Class and two rows of Economy class to their current 777-300ER configuration.
 
IndianicWorld
Posts: 2930
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:32 am

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Thu Dec 28, 2017 4:31 am

tvarad wrote:
IndianicWorld wrote:
I do find it kind of funny that Boeing have tried to claim that the market is moving to a point to point model, which the 787 was designed to capture, yet talks up the 777X.

Singapore, Emirates, Qatar, Cathay and Lufthansa still operate on the hub and spoke model very successfully so the 777X is mainly for them; for the others with point to point needs it's the 787. So there's nothing inherently contradictory in what Boeing says. Who's to argue with 300 plus orders with more to come if it's the end of the road for the A380 as is being rumored.


Of course it has a role, just as the A380 still has its strengths for some carriers.

It all depends though on just how much the 777X development costs are to see if it is a market that is worth chasing.

It seems though that there was word around that LH may well be looking at ways to reduce its 779 order, so we will see if that occurs or if other carriers also look at revising their strategy.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 5810
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Thu Dec 28, 2017 7:54 am

How will the 778 perform on a standard 12/13hr long haul? I’m thinking of carriers like NZ here where the 779 May be to big but the 778 could be used on new ULH routes plus trunk AKL-LAX/SFO routes.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2028
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Thu Dec 28, 2017 8:11 am

I think it's quite an achievement that the improvements over what is THE long haul aircraft of the last decade are so large, has to be said.

I'm personally of the view that the 779 will not replicate the 77W's success and will be somewhat far off by the end of its life, one due to there being a much more viable direct competitor (the A35K), but more importantly: the market trend has almost overwhelming been to go for the 'sweet spot' where the 789 and A359 sit, and the 78X and 788 to a lesser extent. In absolute terms, there's no doubt that the 779 and A35K are more desirable in terms of efficiency and technology, but in relative terms I think they appeal less due to the competition from 'below'. It's actually quite noticeable that even some 'hub/spoke' carriers are using those smaller aircraft on 'hub to hub' routes, you see a fair few 77W flights becoming A359 flights, and airlines like BA, AF, the US3 and more use 787s and A350s on very busy routes. Competition from LCCs forces them to become a bit 'leaner', although they do use the plane to open routes previously not viable as well. Maybe the market will grow and the 'sweet spot' will move upwards, but right now the A35K and 777X are not the best-sellers. Airbus could possibly leverage the strong A359 customer base more than Boeing can leverage the 787 base, but yet to be proven whether this will happen.

In terms of range, the 778 and A359LR will be quite close, but the 779, A359, A35K and 789 are all very capable, probably not many routes that any one could do but another couldn't.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11700
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Thu Dec 28, 2017 8:31 am

I hear the 777-8/9 will not have ETOPS approval at EIS due to an unexpected blade failure during testing.

If that proves to be true at EIS, it will have significant operational impact.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1493
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Thu Dec 28, 2017 8:47 am

Varsity1 wrote:
par13del wrote:
It will be interesting to see who if any will put 400 seats in a 777X.


You mean like everyone? Carriers like AC already have 450 the 777-300ER. The 777-9X is a 450 seat aircraft.


I am sure par13del means in three classes, not one class or two class layouts.


Stitch wrote:
EK have said their two class 777-9 configuration will be 440 [49J | 391Y].

Based on where the fuselage plugs are, I am guessing for most carriers we will see the addition of one or two rows of Business Class and two rows of Economy class to their current 777-300ER configuration.


The A330 carries 400 passengers as well, but the caveat is there that it is for LCC long haul at 9-abreast and it doesn't compete against the 77W in terms of capacity. The EK 77W (2-class) already has more than 400 seats already so your posts seems a little like stating the obvious. Do you have confirmation of where the stretch is coming from for the 779? I cannot find information where the extra length is from, but I can see it with the A35K as posted below. It will then be interesting to see where and how airlines like EK can add to their 77W in terms of capacity.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26313
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:55 am

Stitch wrote:
As the majority of 777-300ERs are now 10-abreast, that will help the 777-9 (as it is a 10-abreast frame) - especially on routes with year-round high load factors - but I expect the A350-1000 to become more successful as time moves forward due to it's overall excellence for the role and I expect it to take the majority of 777-300ER replacement market.


It's not that simple. We are already seeing 77W routes being replaced by smaller A350-900 aircraft as the market becomes more and more fragmented. This trend will continue as more airlines have announced plants to replace aircraft by smaller models.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26313
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:19 am

Varsity1 wrote:
par13del wrote:
It will be interesting to see who if any will put 400 seats in a 777X.


You mean like everyone? Carriers like AC already have 450 the 777-300ER. The 777-9X is a 450 seat aircraft.


Certainly not everyone. The aircraft is just a 2.7 meters stretch.

In a 2-class configuration, Boeing lists the aircraft as having 414 seats (42J + 372Y).
In a 3-class configuration, Boeing lists the aircraft as having 349 seats (8F + 49J + 292Y).

If we strip out the F class and add a W section you can have anything between 350 and 410 seats.

Rule of thumb: take an airline current 77W configuration and add 1 J row and 2 Y rows.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
VC10er
Topic Author
Posts: 3082
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:34 am

What would you put the odds at that Delta and United will order the A350-100? They both have many A350-900’s on order (well I know UA has a lot, I’m not sure how many Delta ordered). I ask because if UA bought 14 (then 4 more) 77Ws (albeit at low price) and they seem to be very happy with those first 14 - then wouldn’t they possibly want the A350-1000 which is basically equal in size but with 25% less fuel burn?

Also, since so many airlines have 77Ws now, should they replace them with A350-1000, is the different cabin width an issue? Ex: putting their F and J seats from a 77W on a less wide aircraft? Perhaps I’ve got my thinking all wrong???
It’s just that I recently learned how much new lie-flat seats cost in another post I made. I would presume that seats are not so interchangeable from one ac frame to another, that there are adjustments made to their measurements per given frame...so adding a different model 77W to A350 would incur more massive cost for F and J seats, on top of the price of the airframe.(?)
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
WIederling
Posts: 5010
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:30 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
The A350-1000 and 777-9x aren't even in the same ballpark capacity wise, comparing weights is senseless.

Might as well strike up a comparison between the 767 and A380.


<roll eyes>
779 is one slot ( 10..15% .. who's numbers do you believe ) up from the A35K.
767 and A380 in comparable density seating are a factor 2+ apart?

A35K and 77W are a wash capacity/payload/range wise.
A35K is said to be 22..25% more efficient than 77W
779 by way of engine improvements denser seating, a small stretch and scaling gains
is said to be on par with the A350K ( per seat )
Most of the "good" brochure numbers require 77W@9across as reference to the 779 @10across to compute.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24813
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:39 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
It's not that simple. We are already seeing 77W routes being replaced by smaller A350-900 aircraft as the market becomes more and more fragmented. This trend will continue as more airlines have announced plants to replace aircraft by smaller models.


Is it true fragmentation (which would support the "point to point" strategy) or is it the natural evolution of replacing an airframe with inferior CASM with one that has superior CASM (even if said airframe has less seats). The 777-300ER was in many ways a "magic" airplane - it had great CASM and great performance so it quickly became the standard for long-haul travel in most of the world's airlines even if it was not the optimal choice in terms of capacity. The 787-9 and A350-900 also have great CASM and great performance so it seems natural they would also quickly be adopted by airlines, especially in roles where the 777-300ER was the best available airframe at the time, but no longer is in comparison to the 787 and A350.



As to 777X's ETOPS certification, certification of the GE9X engine began in May after a full year of testing and that testing appears to have gone to plan up to that point and I can find no reports of any issues with the certification path to date nor reports of a blade failure during testing. The FAA did issue a Special Condition for the GE9X due to it using composite fan blades as opposed to metallic, but that was not in relation to any issues discovered, but due to the materials change itself.
 
Varsity1
Posts: 1237
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:20 pm

WIederling wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:
The A350-1000 and 777-9x aren't even in the same ballpark capacity wise, comparing weights is senseless.

Might as well strike up a comparison between the 767 and A380.


<roll eyes>
779 is one slot ( 10..15% .. who's numbers do you believe ) up from the A35K.
767 and A380 in comparable density seating are a factor 2+ apart?

A35K and 77W are a wash capacity/payload/range wise.
A35K is said to be 22..25% more efficient than 77W
779 by way of engine improvements denser seating, a small stretch and scaling gains
is said to be on par with the A350K ( per seat )
Most of the "good" brochure numbers require 77W@9across as reference to the 779 @10across to compute.


The Euro posters on a.net are like a cult. Airbus Airbus Airbus!

The 777-9x will have the highest aspect ratio wing ever put on a widebody. Nevermind that induced drag is the largest percentage of total drag in cruise!

The A350 is a 787 competitor. It can't realistically seat 10 across without ridiculous clown seats. It can't seat 450+ like the -9x will in standard layouts. I doubt we will see many operators north of 400 seats at all (minus the euro tour operators with clown seats).
"PPRuNe will no longer allow discussions regarding Etihad Airlines, its employees, executives, agents, or other representatives. Such threads will be deleted." - ME3 thug airlines suing anyone who brings negative information public..
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Posts: 183
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:59 pm

Revelation wrote:
So, personally, I think A350-1000 will be more desirable than the 777-300ER in terms of economics. 777-900 will make good money doing what it does best, but I think the sweet spot in the market is the A350-1000 or below.


The sweet spot may be way lower...

Why obtain such large capacity aircraft for routes that don't absolutely require it year round. That market may be poorer for both the A350-1000 and the 779...especially the heavy 779 which needs to be full of passengers, payload and stretch its legs to make sense. I suspect the A359 / 787 may be optimal for most...only EK and a few others running hubs that can support 779. The 777X may be a disappointment for B...surviving only because of EK and 77W replacement cycle.

We already are moving to narrow-body NEO / Max aircraft for trans-Atlantic (sadly for comfort)...the Norwegian model, and possibly a NMA offering from B in a few years. The 350-400 passenger aircraft may be a niche already...slow sellers in a up-market -- only needed for ME3 or seasonal up-gauges on 12+ hour flights.

Both A350 versions will be OK, the 787-10 for flights less than 10 hours...The 777X looks somewhat like the A340-500/600 did fifteen years ago.
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11700
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Thu Dec 28, 2017 7:42 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
The 777-9x will have the highest aspect ratio wing ever put on a widebody. Nevermind that induced drag is the largest percentage of total drag in cruise!


Sorry that statement is not true, the largest percentage of total drag in cruise (around 50%) will be skin friction, which is a function of wetted area. Compared to the 77W the 77X should have higher skin fiction drag as the wetted area has increased through longer fuselage, larger engine nacellles, and more wing area.

http://flightshield.com/docs/Boeing%20Report.pdf
http://www.cdti.es/recursos/doc/eventos ... 11/5g1.pdf
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1493
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Thu Dec 28, 2017 7:59 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
The A350 is a 787 competitor. It can't realistically seat 10 across without ridiculous clown seats. It can't seat 450+ like the -9x will in standard layouts. I doubt we will see many operators north of 400 seats at all (minus the euro tour operators with clown seats).



Well the A359 and 78X is close in length and thus capacity (A359 66.8m and 77X 68.28m). The A35K is 5 metres longer than the 78X, and you think they are competing against each other and not the 777?
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 744
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:35 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
It can't seat 450+ like the -9x will in standard layouts. I doubt we will see many operators north of 400 seats at all (minus the euro tour operators with clown seats).


The -9X cannot "seat 450+ in standard layouts". Or what is "standard layouts"? 450+ would be in an all economy layout in which case the 77W would actually seat more than the 779X. Seating capacity between the 77W and 779X is marginal. The difference between a A35K and 779X in an all economy layout is 35 seats. That's going by the exit limits. Big difference in MTOW though.
 
StTim
Posts: 2602
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:05 am

Varsity1 wrote:
The Euro posters on a.net are like a cult. Airbus Airbus Airbus!



Talk of the pot calling the kettle black!
 
VC10er
Topic Author
Posts: 3082
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Fri Dec 29, 2017 3:31 pm

This was NEVER meant to be a B v A thread. While my questions were mostly about the 77X - I wanted to understand where the A350 (gorgeous aircraft) sits v the 777X and the 787 (another beauty) too because of the long legs a 788/9 have.

I learned about “the sweet spot” and understanding that now makes many things clear.

It would seem to me that a very large global airline would benefit from having the bulk of their international fleet in the “sweet spot” but with sub fleets of 77X and maybe just the right amount of A380s. I look directly at Lufthansa who also has the 748, and I’m very impressed by their fleet. (Although their A340s seems are the oddball now)

And lastly (aside from the ME3 and Singapore and Cathay) who are the airlines that will eventually make great use of both the 77X 8/9.

Thanks all

I look at United and wonder if they could use a sub fleet of a VLA for some missions. Clearly their 767 issue seems more urgent.

BA, they seem to be heading in the right direction, although I still struggle with their retirement of the 744s...but that’s probably because they are so inextricably linked in my head.
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
WIederling
Posts: 5010
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:23 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
The A350-1000 and 777-9x aren't even in the same ballpark capacity wise, comparing weights is senseless.
Might as well strike up a comparison between the 767 and A380.


Varsity1 wrote:
The Euro posters on a.net are like a cult. Airbus Airbus Airbus!


Well it is the regular run of the mill ping pong of posts.
Some (on first blush) B linked member posts something preposterous
and
some (on first blush) A connected member plays the school thing : "wrong, think again, take your place" :-))

This hasn't changed from the first time I ever hit on this site. ( 2002..3 )
Much more tech interested and savvy posters than on any German speaking site I know
but also a really hard to take bunch of exeptionationalists.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 16943
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:53 pm

QuarkFly wrote:
Revelation wrote:
So, personally, I think A350-1000 will be more desirable than the 777-300ER in terms of economics. 777-900 will make good money doing what it does best, but I think the sweet spot in the market is the A350-1000 or below.


The sweet spot may be way lower...

Why obtain such large capacity aircraft for routes that don't absolutely require it year round. That market may be poorer for both the A350-1000 and the 779...especially the heavy 779 which needs to be full of passengers, payload and stretch its legs to make sense. I suspect the A359 / 787 may be optimal for most...only EK and a few others running hubs that can support 779. The 777X may be a disappointment for B...surviving only because of EK and 77W replacement cycle.

We already are moving to narrow-body NEO / Max aircraft for trans-Atlantic (sadly for comfort)...the Norwegian model, and possibly a NMA offering from B in a few years. The 350-400 passenger aircraft may be a niche already...slow sellers in a up-market -- only needed for ME3 or seasonal up-gauges on 12+ hour flights.

Both A350 versions will be OK, the 787-10 for flights less than 10 hours...The 777X looks somewhat like the A340-500/600 did fifteen years ago.

I think we are in agreement, which is why I wrote 'or below'. The A350-900, 787-9 and 787-10 will be printing money.

I guess we'll find out more about the market in the post-A380 world, which I think is coming soon. If A moves to make a A350-8000 then we can infer they think there is a big enough market above the A350-1000 to justify the spending on the new model, either because they think they will make money, or because they think they need to try to prevent Boeing from making money.
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11700
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:02 pm

VC10er wrote:
While my questions were mostly about the 77X - I wanted to understand where the A350 (gorgeous aircraft) sits v the 777X and the 787 (another beauty) too because of the long legs a 788/9 have.


Basically the buckets and routes which suit each type best.

Ultra long haul
250 pax - A350-900ULR
300 pax - 778

Long haul
200 pax - 788
250 pax - 789/350-900
300-350 pax - A350-1000
350-400 pax - 779

Medium haul
200 pax - A330-900/788
250 pax - A350-900R
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24813
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:39 pm

I'd add the 787-10 to the 250 pax Medium Haul bucket.
 
heavymetal
Posts: 4501
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:27 am

zeke wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:
The 777-9x will have the highest aspect ratio wing ever put on a widebody. Nevermind that induced drag is the largest percentage of total drag in cruise!


Sorry that statement is not true, the largest percentage of total drag in cruise (around 50%) will be skin friction, which is a function of wetted area. Compared to the 77W the 77X should have higher skin fiction drag as the wetted area has increased through longer fuselage, larger engine nacellles, and more wing area.

http://flightshield.com/docs/Boeing%20Report.pdf
http://www.cdti.es/recursos/doc/eventos ... 11/5g1.pdf


Thank you for this clarification. I fear many on this board would not have caught the error in Varsity1's statement and would have taken it as gospel, perpetuating the error.

zeke wrote:
VC10er wrote:
While my questions were mostly about the 77X - I wanted to understand where the A350 (gorgeous aircraft) sits v the 777X and the 787 (another beauty) too because of the long legs a 788/9 have.


Basically the buckets and routes which suit each type best.

Ultra long haul
250 pax - A350-900ULR
300 pax - 778

Long haul
200 pax - 788
250 pax - 789/350-900
300-350 pax - A350-1000
350-400 pax - 779

Medium haul
200 pax - A330-900/788
250 pax - A350-900R


Good list. I would add the 787-10 to the medium haul list, and I would clarify that the A350-900ULR will not be a 250-seat aircraft. It will be under 200 seats.
 
VC10er
Topic Author
Posts: 3082
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:35 pm

Is there an expectation that the 787-10 will have its range extended? Eg: ER?
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
WIederling
Posts: 5010
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:47 pm

VC10er wrote:
Is there an expectation that the 787-10 will have its range extended? Eg: ER?


A major revamp. ( new wing, new gear, ... )
Anyone's guess if Boeing has the money, time or valor for that.
Murphy is an optimist
 
heavymetal
Posts: 4501
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:59 pm

VC10er wrote:
Is there an expectation that the 787-10 will have its range extended? Eg: ER?


I suspect that will be challenging. The 787-10 is pretty much already maxed out from a performance perspective. The wing is heavily loaded, and the engines are already operating at low thrust:weight ratios, so there seems to be little room for MTOW growth. I suppose it could be possible as long as airlines were comfortable with the resulting takeoff performance deterioration, but I would assume that any incremental range will really only come from payload reductions.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 11700
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Sat Dec 30, 2017 2:33 pm

heavymetal wrote:
Good list. I would add the 787-10 to the medium haul list, and I would clarify that the A350-900ULR will not be a 250-seat aircraft. It will be under 200 seats.


Reminds me of what people said a couple of decades ago about the A330, and it has grown by 40 tonnes since EIS. What do you think will happen when the -1000 enters service ?

Where I work we already operate the A359 over 8200 ATC planned nautical miles (eg HKG-EWR) with 280 passengers.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 16943
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Sat Dec 30, 2017 2:44 pm

zeke wrote:
heavymetal wrote:
Good list. I would add the 787-10 to the medium haul list, and I would clarify that the A350-900ULR will not be a 250-seat aircraft. It will be under 200 seats.


Reminds me of what people said a couple of decades ago about the A330, and it has grown by 40 tonnes since EIS. What do you think will happen when the -1000 enters service ?

A330 had MTOW growth 'baked into it' because of its A340 sibling, and I can imagine modern era computers running stress calculations can find lots of room for improvement on an 80s vintage design. I'd be surprised if Airbus left that much unused potential in the current A350.
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
WIederling
Posts: 5010
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:03 pm

Revelation wrote:
A330 had MTOW growth 'baked into it' because of its A340 sibling, and I can imagine modern era computers running stress calculations can find lots of room for improvement on an 80s vintage design. I'd be surprised if Airbus left that much unused potential in the current A350.


Obviously that kind of capabilities blooming won't happen again.
But I don't think the A350 is at a hard limit like the 787 is yet.

Its wing loading is still reasonable and pavement loading is lower than on the 787 or 777( x or not).
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Faro
Posts: 1644
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:05 pm

zeke wrote:
I hear the 777-8/9 will not have ETOPS approval at EIS due to an unexpected blade failure during testing.

If that proves to be true at EIS, it will have significant operational impact.



Would you happen to have any references to this failure?...Lightsaber once mentioned in another thread that GE got a regulatory waiver re blade-off testing for the GE9X and that this understandably enraged RR and PW...


Faro
The chalice not my son
 
heavymetal
Posts: 4501
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:09 pm

zeke wrote:
heavymetal wrote:
Good list. I would add the 787-10 to the medium haul list, and I would clarify that the A350-900ULR will not be a 250-seat aircraft. It will be under 200 seats.


Reminds me of what people said a couple of decades ago about the A330, and it has grown by 40 tonnes since EIS. What do you think will happen when the -1000 enters service ?

Where I work we already operate the A359 over 8200 ATC planned nautical miles (eg HKG-EWR) with 280 passengers.


I get that, and I'm not fighting you on the A350's range capability. It perhaps could even have a touch more range added, given the wing isn't heavily loaded (though the engines are pretty close to tapped out). However the ULR modification will not be 250-seats.
 
WIederling
Posts: 5010
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:21 pm

heavymetal wrote:
However the ULR modification will not be 250-seats.


They won't be <200 low weight Y seats either.
Business or better.
'What is the weight metric?

1J equals 3..4Y
1F equals 10Y or 3J

there abouts?
Murphy is an optimist
 
mat66
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:12 am

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Sat Dec 30, 2017 6:02 pm

WIederling wrote:
heavymetal wrote:
However the ULR modification will not be 250-seats.


They won't be <200 low weight Y seats either.
Business or better.
'What is the weight metric?

1J equals 3..4Y
1F equals 10Y or 3J

there abouts?


It's probably more 1J = 2.5Y and 1F = 5Y or 2J
You mustn't forget the weight of the Y Passangers and baggage (95kg) you don't have to lift in the F and J seat.
That said I'm still guessing here.
 
WIederling
Posts: 5010
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Sat Dec 30, 2017 6:16 pm

mat66 wrote:
It's probably more 1J = 2.5Y and 1F = 5Y or 2J
You mustn't forget the weight of the Y Passangers and baggage (95kg) you don't have to lift in the F and J seat.
That said I'm still guessing here.


hehe.
but 200-n PAX weigh about the same independent of class. ( I'd see more of an inverse relationship really :-)
what changes is infrastructure i.e. monument weights.

then one F class seat probably compares to one PAX by weight.

lets assume one Y seat @20kg as reference. ( high!)
180J@95 + (2.5*20) is 26t payload
recompute for Y: 226 Y-PAX ( where no one will expect the expenditure markup for the non stop relation.:-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
VC10er
Topic Author
Posts: 3082
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Sat Dec 30, 2017 6:17 pm

May I ask, what exactly does a “heavily loaded wing” mean? I’m taking it to mean that the wing in its current form is at the max of the weight it can hold/lift given the total max aircraft weight.
Or, does it mean something else?
I just wonder how many more destinations the 787-10 could make if it had another 700 to 1000 miles added to its range?
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
WIederling
Posts: 5010
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: 77X-8/9 compared to 777-300ER & A350-1000 (&787)

Sat Dec 30, 2017 6:48 pm

VC10er wrote:
May I ask, what exactly does a “heavily loaded wing” mean? I’m taking it to mean that the wing in its current form is at the max of the weight it can hold/lift given the total max aircraft weight.
Or, does it mean something else?
I just wonder how many more destinations the 787-10 could make if it had another 700 to 1000 miles added to its range?


Lift.
You can always beef up structure. But per area wing loading gets maxed out.
Not in a hard way. Just pronounced performance degradation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_load ... erformance
Murphy is an optimist

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: atlamt, estorilm, neutrino, yblaser and 16 guests

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