Page 3 of 3

Re: SQ to Decide Between A350-2000 and 777-10 By Year End, CNN

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:40 pm
by olle
If Boeing need a stretch of the B779 to compete how will the B779 become in the market?

Re: SQ to Decide Between A350-2000 and 777-10 By Year End, CNN

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:55 pm
by tommy1808
SCAT15F wrote:
I have a very hard time believing that a 777-10x with 450 pax couldn't fly at least 6000nm, even without a MTOW increase (unless OEW goes up by an obscene amount)


I am not talking about 450 pax, i am talking about loaded up to the brim, also know as MZFW. Very few aircraft fly 6000nm or beyond with that, i think currently only the A388, the A345 and the 77L and in the future the 777-8x.

best regards
Thomas

Re: SQ to Decide Between A350-2000 and 777-10 By Year End, CNN

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2016 4:35 pm
by Stitch
tommy1808 wrote:
I understand with MZFW the 779 has quite a bit less than 6000nm range and without an MTOW hike or fuel burn reduction the MZFW range of an -10x may be more in the A339 territory than 77W.


MZFW range of the 777-300ER is 5750nm and I would expect the 777-9 to be similar due to the better aerodynamics and lower fuel burn. Mind you, that's a "best case" scenario and real-world will be less. But then it's going to be less for any airframe compared to the "best case" scenarios published in the Airbus and Boeing ACAPs.

So even a 5000nm "real-world" MZFW range would be right in the neighborhood of not just the 777-300ER, but also the 777-200ER, 787-9, A340-300E, A350-900 and A350-1000. So plenty to handle any non-ULR mission currently being flown by / planned to be flown by those aircraft. And probably around a good 1000nm more than the A330-300 / A330-900 (with a significantly higher payload).

Re: SQ to Decide Between A350-2000 and 777-10 By Year End, CNN

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2016 5:15 pm
by RL777
I find it quite amusing that an aircraft (777-9) that will have the capability to fly 15+ hours (with payload restrictions in some cases) will suddenly be incapable of flying 12 due to a simple stretch. Lets not forget that the 777-9 is considerable more capable than the 77W in terms of range and payload mainly due to the new GE9X and larger wing. The 777-10 would likely have similar range to the 77W which can operate much longer segments than 12 hours and there are airlines who routinely do so.

Re: SQ to Decide Between A350-2000 and 777-10 By Year End, CNN

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2016 5:35 pm
by NYCRuss
tommy1808 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Also the 777-300ER as most frames does not have its full range at MZFW, the 7,370nm are for full passenger and bags.


I do know that. But with the new generation of WB the difference between MZFW range and Brochure range is bigger.

Tortugamon link is behind a paywall, but from the payload range chart that surfaced here in the forum before, the 777-9x doesn´t fly further at MZFW than the 77W. And that is shorter than the 6000nm.

Hence "95% is less than 6000 miles" doesn´t cut it, if your stretch can only fly 5000 nm or so with a really full load. That doesn´t make it less economic of course, but the argument doesn´t work.

best regards
Thomas


I can get to the full article just by being logged in at Flight Global. I have a free account.

Re: SQ to Decide Between A350-2000 and 777-10 By Year End, CNN

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2016 5:42 pm
by tommy1808
RL777 wrote:
I find it quite amusing that an aircraft (777-9) that will have the capability to fly 15+ hours (with payload restrictions in some cases) .


If you want to fly 15 hours, you will always be payload restricted. Basically to passengers and their bags.
The 77W and 779 can do 12 hours fully loaded, without an MTOW increase the 777-10 obviously will stay up less time than the 779.

Best regards
Thomas

Re: SQ to Decide Between A350-2000 and 777-10 By Year End, CNN

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2016 6:07 pm
by RL777
tommy1808 wrote:
RL777 wrote:
I find it quite amusing that an aircraft (777-9) that will have the capability to fly 15+ hours (with payload restrictions in some cases) .


If you want to fly 15 hours, you will always be payload restricted. Basically to passengers and their bags.
The 77W and 779 can do 12 hours fully loaded, without an MTOW increase the 777-10 obviously will stay up less time than the 779.

Best regards
Thomas


Exactly, my point was that the 777-10s range would be similar to the 77W which is shorter than the 777-9.

Re: SQ to Decide Between A350-2000 and 777-10 By Year End, CNN

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2016 6:46 pm
by tommy1808
RL777 wrote:
Exactly, my point was that the 777-10s range would be similar to the 77W which is shorter than the 777-9.


The 779 has pretty exactly the same MZFW range as the 77W.
Only with less than max payload the 779 slowly pulls away to the just pax & bags difference in range.

Best regards
Thomas

Re: SQ to Decide Between A350-2000 and 777-10 By Year End, CNN

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2016 6:50 pm
by RL777
tommy1808 wrote:
RL777 wrote:
Exactly, my point was that the 777-10s range would be similar to the 77W which is shorter than the 777-9.


The 779 has pretty exactly the same MZFW range as the 77W.
Only with less than max payload the 779 slowly pulls away to the just pax & bags difference in range.

Best regards
Thomas


Thanks for the clarification, so when looking at range, I should be more focused on the MZFW range as opposed to the brochure range which would lead you to believe it has significantly better range than the 77W?

Regards,

RL

Re: SQ to Decide Between A350-2000 and 777-10 By Year End, CNN

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:46 pm
by tortugamon
tommy1808 wrote:
Tortugamon link is behind a paywall, but from the payload range chart that surfaced here in the forum before, the 777-9x doesn´t fly further at MZFW than the 77W. And that is shorter than the 6000nm.
Hence "95% is less than 6000 miles" doesn´t cut it, if your stretch can only fly 5000 nm or so with a really full load. That doesn´t make it less economic of course, but the argument doesn´t work.


As others have said I don't see why the payload range at MZFW would be fundamentally different than the 77W when we consider the better aero and higher brochure range for the 779. The ACAPS I have seen don't have a 779 Payload Range chart but if you can locate one I would certainly like to take a look.

Regardless, most aircraft don't fill up to their MZFW for a number of reasons not the least of which is cargo density so I am not even sure if any reduction from the 77W figure is real-world material anyway. I count 4 destinations that require 5,500-5,900nm range. Vast majority is far far less.

tortugamon

Re: SQ to Decide Between A350-2000 and 777-10 By Year End, CNN

Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2016 12:06 am
by mjoelnir
tortugamon wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Tortugamon link is behind a paywall, but from the payload range chart that surfaced here in the forum before, the 777-9x doesn´t fly further at MZFW than the 77W. And that is shorter than the 6000nm.
Hence "95% is less than 6000 miles" doesn´t cut it, if your stretch can only fly 5000 nm or so with a really full load. That doesn´t make it less economic of course, but the argument doesn´t work.


As others have said I don't see why the payload range at MZFW would be fundamentally different than the 77W when we consider the better aero and higher brochure range for the 779. The ACAPS I have seen don't have a 779 Payload Range chart but if you can locate one I would certainly like to take a look.

Regardless, most aircraft don't fill up to their MZFW for a number of reasons not the least of which is cargo density so I am not even sure if any reduction from the 77W figure is real-world material anyway. I count 4 destinations that require 5,500-5,900nm range. Vast majority is far far less.

tortugamon


IMO the range of the 777-9 and payload will be similar at MZFW as the 777-3000ER, the advantage will be lower fuel burn with a bigger capacity for passengers.

Stretching that frame and keeping the MTOW, like it is done with the stretch from the 787-9 to the 787-10, Will lead to a higher MZFW, lower payload and less range.

Re: SQ to Decide Between A350-2000 and 777-10 By Year End, CNN

Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2016 7:50 pm
by Revelation
Aviation Week has published an article today on this topic:

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... _AW-18_517

One thing I hadn't read elsewhere is:

The potential launch of a larger A350 could create the first application opportunity for Rolls-Royce’s Advance engine initiative.


More details:

The exact timing will likely have a major influence on Airbus’s choice of an engine. The A350-900 and -1000 are powered by versions of the Rolls-Royce Trent XWB, the largest of which is the XWB-97 at 97,000 lb. Although Bregier has indicated he would prefer a relatively simple and small stretch of the A350 beyond the -1000, a more powerful version of the engine is almost certainly needed, which may require significant additional engineering effort. The A350 already has a complicated engine history: Airbus and Rolls-Royce were forced by key customers such as Qatar Airways and Emirates to beef up the XWB-97 because Gulf carriers at the time were concerned about an earlier proposal’s performance limitations. Qatar stuck to its order (and is planned to be the first operator of the -1000 in late 2017), but Emirates canceled its A350 order in 2014, unconvinced by the changes. The order at the time included 50 A350-900s and 20 -1000s.

If Airbus prolongs a decision, the A350-2000 could be the first application for Rolls-Royce’s Advance program, the new baseline architecture that supersedes all the engines that have been based on the RB.211—including the Trent family.


So it seems Airbus's path may involve utilizing a new engine. The article claims the GE9x will have enough margin for the modest stretch being mooted for the -77710X.

Re: SQ to Decide Between A350-2000 and 777-10 By Year End, CNN

Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2016 2:17 pm
by OldAeroGuy
speedbored wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
The A340-600 distributes its 380 t on three four wheel buggies, that is not more wheels but a wider distribution of the load than the 777-300ER

The A340 also has slightly larger (~6%) diameter wheels so the load on each tyre is also spread over a larger footprint.


The A346 also had to carry more load than the 773ER. Its Max Taxi Weight was 381t vs 352.4t for the 773ER (8% higher).

Re: SQ to Decide Between A350-2000 and 777-10 By Year End, CNN

Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:29 pm
by mjoelnir
OldAeroGuy wrote:
speedbored wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
The A340-600 distributes its 380 t on three four wheel buggies, that is not more wheels but a wider distribution of the load than the 777-300ER

The A340 also has slightly larger (~6%) diameter wheels so the load on each tyre is also spread over a larger footprint.


The A346 also had to carry more load than the 773ER. Its Max Taxi Weight was 381t vs 352.4t for the 773ER (8% higher).


Sometimes I doubt if people can follow an argument, we or perhaps only I were comparing MLGs in regards to load capacity.

Re: SQ to Decide Between A350-2000 and 777-10 By Year End, CNN

Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:08 pm
by Tedd
Judging by the nimble power to weight ratio the A350-900 seems to enjoy with the RR XWB-84,
do we know for sure that an A350-2000 with RR XWB-97`s wouldn`t be viable? I would hazard a
guess that it should be powerful enough, as I`d expect the A350-1000 to be similarly spritely.
If the `97 isn`t up to the job, then could we expect Airbus/RR to come up with something in time
or wouldn`t it be worthwhile considering the potential numbers?

Re: SQ to Decide Between A350-2000 and 777-10 By Year End, CNN

Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2016 9:57 pm
by SCAT15F
IF MTOW stays the same on the -2000, there is certainly no need to increase thrust. The advance engine idea would cost a lot more and take longer to get to market. I'm sure the (likely) much larger fan diameter might cause some $ issues as well...

Re: SQ to Decide Between A350-2000 and 777-10 By Year End, CNN

Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2016 9:59 pm
by SCAT15F
Also, the -1000 has greater range than the -9 and even a simple stretch with XWB-97's should still have more than enough...

Re: SQ to Decide Between A350-2000 and 777-10 By Year End, CNN

Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2016 4:07 am
by tjh8402
What passenger facilities are allowed to be underfloor? Obviously Lavs are acceptable. If these planes are enjoying an excess of space in their baggage holds, could Airlines like the ME3, VS, and KE who like to offer extra niceties like showers, bars, and lounges put those underfloor? If EK claims the A380 commands a price premium from passengers, both of these proposals could help close that gap for people in the front cabins by offering similar niceties, assuming that's legal. Something like Boeing had on the old 377 Stratocruisers. Could they put berths down there for Y or W class passengers who might want to pay extra for the opportunity to lay down for a few hours without having to splurge on the cost of a J seat?

Re: SQ to Decide Between A350-2000 and 777-10 By Year End, CNN

Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2016 9:50 am
by Heavierthanair
G'day

http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engines/d ... h-decision

Quote:
Leahy acknowledged that Singapore Airlines was the “one pushing most in the market and is a very important customer”, but added “we can’t launch it for just one customer. ...
Unquote:

I doubt Airbus is simply going to hand this order to Boeing, but then again both A and B are in a similar situation in that they only have one launch customer for now.


Cheers

Peter

Re: SQ to Decide Between A350-2000 and 777-10 By Year End, CNN

Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2016 5:14 pm
by NYCRuss
Heavierthanair wrote:
G'day

http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engines/d ... h-decision

Quote:
Leahy acknowledged that Singapore Airlines was the “one pushing most in the market and is a very important customer”, but added “we can’t launch it for just one customer. ...
Unquote:

I doubt Airbus is simply going to hand this order to Boeing, but then again both A and B are in a similar situation in that they only have one launch customer for now.


Cheers

Peter

From what I've read, it will cost Boeing $0.8–1.2 billion to develop a 777-10. Depending on what SQ is willing to pay, it may be worth it to Boeing for just that one customer.

Re: SQ to Decide Between A350-2000 and 777-10 By Year End, CNN

Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2016 5:18 pm
by Stitch
NYCRuss wrote:
From what I've read, it will cost Boeing $0.8–1.2 billion to develop a 777-10. Depending on what SQ is willing to pay, it may be worth it to Boeing for just that one customer.


It depends on how many they want.

SQ pushed Boeing for years to launch a 777-100 and one expects that would not have been too expensive to engineer, but Boeing never did and they instead went for five of the A340-500 when that model became available. So five likely wasn't enough to cover the investment for Boeing.

It stands to reason SQ will convert some of their A350-900s to A350-1000s, as 777-300 replacements if nothing else. I also expect them to replace some of their 777-300ER fleet. So we're probably talking at best a 20 frame order and perhaps even less.

Re: SQ to Decide Between A350-2000 and 777-10 By Year End, CNN

Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2016 5:21 pm
by ikolkyo
Stitch wrote:
NYCRuss wrote:
From what I've read, it will cost Boeing $0.8–1.2 billion to develop a 777-10. Depending on what SQ is willing to pay, it may be worth it to Boeing for just that one customer.


It depends on how many they want.

SQ pushed Boeing for years to launch a 777-100 and one expects that would not have been too expensive to engineer, but Boeing never did and they instead went for the A340-500 when that model became available.


Really makes me wonder why they didn't just hold off for the -200LR

Re: SQ to Decide Between A350-2000 and 777-10 By Year End, CNN

Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2016 5:24 pm
by Stitch
ikolkyo wrote:
Stitch wrote:
NYCRuss wrote:
From what I've read, it will cost Boeing $0.8–1.2 billion to develop a 777-10. Depending on what SQ is willing to pay, it may be worth it to Boeing for just that one customer.


It depends on how many they want.

SQ pushed Boeing for years to launch a 777-100 and one expects that would not have been too expensive to engineer, but Boeing never did and they instead went for the A340-500 when that model became available.


Really makes me wonder why they didn't just hold off for the -200LR


They didn't want to wait for it. They'd been pushing Boeing since the late 1990s and when Airbus committed to the A340-500, they took it.

Re: SQ to Decide Between A350-2000 and 777-10 By Year End, CNN

Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 7:06 pm
by OldAeroGuy
Stitch wrote:
NYCRuss wrote:
From what I've read, it will cost Boeing $0.8–1.2 billion to develop a 777-10. Depending on what SQ is willing to pay, it may be worth it to Boeing for just that one customer.


It depends on how many they want.

SQ pushed Boeing for years to launch a 777-100 and one expects that would not have been too expensive to engineer, but Boeing never did and they instead went for five of the A340-500 when that model became available. So five likely wasn't enough to cover the investment for Boeing.

It stands to reason SQ will convert some of their A350-900s to A350-1000s, as 777-300 replacements if nothing else. I also expect them to replace some of their 777-300ER fleet. So we're probably talking at best a 20 frame order and perhaps even less.


Boeing didn't want to do a 777-100 since like most shrinks, it was a dog with little market appeal except for SQ. The 772LR sales history confirms that assessment.

The 777-10 probably has a market potential beyond SQ, making it more of a possibility.

Re: SQ to Decide Between A350-2000 and 777-10 By Year End, CNN

Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2016 10:45 pm
by abies111
Hello everybody. First post here in Anet. As it has been suggested that the hypothetical A350-2000 would need a more powerful engine, could the GE9x be used for that purpose? Or maybe there are technical/contractual too big obstacles for that combination?

Re: SQ to Decide Between A350-2000 and 777-10 By Year End, CNN

Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2016 10:47 pm
by Stitch
abies111 wrote:
Hello everybody. First post here in Anet. As it has been suggested that the hypothetical A350-2000 would need a more powerful engine, could the GE9x be used for that purpose? Or maybe there are technical/contractual too big obstacles for that combination?


RR has exclusivity on the A350 (de facto on the A350-900 and actual on the A350-1000) so they would effectively be the only option for another A350 stretch.