User avatar
flee
Posts: 932
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

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

Tue Nov 08, 2016 2:38 pm

787fan8 wrote:
A 777-10? Dear god, that would be a long plane. Does SQ intend on replacing their oldest A380's with this aircraft?

The first five A380s will be replaced by new build A380s (MSNs 243, 247, 251, 253 & 255) - these are already on order and will be delivered commencing 2017.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20611
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Tue Nov 08, 2016 2:49 pm

787fan8 wrote:
Does SQ intend on replacing their oldest A380's with this aircraft?


The five oldest SQ A380s will be replaced by A380s. They've been on order for a long time, the only question was if the five would be for replacement or for growth, and SQ has recently stated they will be for replacement and not for growth.

The next question is shall this newly mooted contest between the world's largest twins be for A380 replacement? I think it won't lead to the total replacement of the A380, it still is quite good when you can fill it, and it looks like SQ does fill it on some key routes. However if SQ keeps getting pounded by its competitors it might eventually reduce the fleet from its current size of 19, or even eliminate it.

It is interesting to ponder why SQ wants these frames given that they have 61 A350s on order on top of 30 787-10s. If the order is big enough to be a launch order for these new big twins they must anticipate a lot of growth, no? Yet we know EK and others are making things tough on them. On the other hand, perhaps they really do want to draw down the A380 fleet a lot faster than most would anticipate.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Eyad89
Posts: 601
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

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

Tue Nov 08, 2016 3:05 pm

Strange. A350-2000 would more in the size of 779. 777-10 provides different capacity, range, and purpose, yet they are comparing it to A350-2000. The only thing they have in common is that they both are still paper airplanes that are to be launched when airlines show interest. I believe they already know which one to order, but they are using the other as a way to pressure Airbus/Boeing and get a good deal.
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 604
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

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

Tue Nov 08, 2016 3:05 pm

On a side note, according to CNN, the 777 is only a mere 263 inches long

Image

Link to article: http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/07/news/companies/singapore-airbus-boeing-campaign/
 
jbs2886
Posts: 2081
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

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

Tue Nov 08, 2016 3:11 pm

jeffrey0032j wrote:
On a side note, according to CNN, the 777 is only a mere 263 inches long

Image

Link to article: http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/07/news/companies/singapore-airbus-boeing-campaign/


:lol: good catch
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10422
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

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

Tue Nov 08, 2016 4:12 pm

flee wrote:
LH has another reason for having so many aircraft types - it is so that they can feed the MRO business, Lufthansa Teknik. By having experience working on all types of aircraft, they can win MRO business from other airlines. That was one of the reasons why their A320Neo fleet will have both CFM and PW engines.


Lufthansa Passage will sure as hell not spend extra money to help Lufthansa Technik, a different company, to have an easier sales job to do. That will be a consideration if they can get it basically for free. The CFM and PW powered aircraft will be matched to routes where there individual strength come into play.
Thinking that LH orders 16 Billion (List Price, fixed and options) Aircraft just to please potential MRO customers in that very, very limited 748 market, but not buying a single 77W oder a decade is beyond simply ridiculous.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
ILNFlyer
Posts: 356
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:34 pm

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

Tue Nov 08, 2016 4:15 pm

intotheair wrote:
How much of the galleys can really be put below the main deck? I understand putting lavs underneath (I love the setup in LH's 346s), but it seems like it wouldn't be very efficient to put ovens and whatnot down a staircase as long as you're still serving a giant Y cabin with carts. Or maybe they can come up with some sort of dumb waiter/elevator scheme? That would be interesting.


As I recall, the L-1011 had a lower gallery with a dumbwaiter to resolve just such an issue.
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Posts: 2121
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

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

Tue Nov 08, 2016 4:16 pm

Can someone explain why the competition is supposedly between the A350-2000 and the 777-10X? What would the A350-2000 offer that the 777-9X doesn't, that needs to be countered with the -10? Given that the 777 is wider than the 350, and can thus accommodate an extra seat per row, that should make up for the 777-9 being slightly shorter than the 350-2000. With the 777-10 being both longer and wider than the Airbus, that seems like it would be quite a big larger in capacity.
The plural of Airbus is Airbuses. Airbii is not a word.
There is no 787-800, nor 787-900 or 747-800. It's 787-8, 787-9, and 747-8.
A321neoLR is also unnecessary. It's simply A321LR.
Airplanes don't have isles, they have aisles.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9282
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

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

Tue Nov 08, 2016 4:22 pm

I don't understand this period. How can SQ decide between two paper airplanes that neither company have any authority to offer right now?
 
User avatar
Richard28
Posts: 2745
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 5:42 am

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

Tue Nov 08, 2016 4:46 pm

hOMSaR wrote:
Can someone explain why the competition is supposedly between the A350-2000 and the 777-10X? What would the A350-2000 offer that the 777-9X doesn't, that needs to be countered with the -10? Given that the 777 is wider than the 350, and can thus accommodate an extra seat per row, that should make up for the 777-9 being slightly shorter than the 350-2000. With the 777-10 being both longer and wider than the Airbus, that seems like it would be quite a big larger in capacity.


CASM I think is the answer.

To compete with the A350-1000, Boeing had to lengthen the 777 frame to fit in more seats and reduce CASM.

If airbus do the same by lengthening the 1000, then the 777-10x is likely the only way Boeing can react to stay competitive in that segment.

This is, in a way the Achilles heal of the 777x project, it needs its size to compete with the airbus threat.

If you don't or can't fill the 777x then that is a lot of extra weight and fuel cost... but if you can fill it then......
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20611
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Tue Nov 08, 2016 4:47 pm

Polot wrote:
I don't understand this period. How can SQ decide between two paper airplanes that neither company have any authority to offer right now?


Presumably SQ will write contracts that protect itself if the aircraft never are put on offer, and Ab/BA's company's board or senior execs need to sign off to accept such contracts.

Either that or it will just announce an intent to order if/when the aircraft are ordered and if that doesn't happen as planned it simply issues a new RFP.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12941
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Tue Nov 08, 2016 4:53 pm

Polot wrote:
I don't understand this period. How can SQ decide between two paper airplanes that neither company have any authority to offer right now?


They did it many times before already. It's called launching customer. They used to be so prominent they got what they wanted cheaply & replaced it after 8 years for something new. That was before EK, that now dominate the A380 and 777X specs.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9527
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

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

Tue Nov 08, 2016 5:13 pm

ILNFlyer wrote:
intotheair wrote:
How much of the galleys can really be put below the main deck? I understand putting lavs underneath (I love the setup in LH's 346s), but it seems like it wouldn't be very efficient to put ovens and whatnot down a staircase as long as you're still serving a giant Y cabin with carts. Or maybe they can come up with some sort of dumb waiter/elevator scheme? That would be interesting.


As I recall, the L-1011 had a lower gallery with a dumbwaiter to resolve just such an issue.


I believe that A310 from Belarus in World War Z did also....though that didn't work out so well.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
tortugamon
Topic Author
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

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

Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:49 pm

intotheair wrote:
How much of the galleys can really be put below the main deck? I understand putting lavs underneath (I love the setup in LH's 346s), but it seems like it wouldn't be very efficient to put ovens and whatnot down a staircase as long as you're still serving a giant Y cabin with carts. Or maybe they can come up with some sort of dumb waiter/elevator scheme? That would be interesting.
As others have mentioned, DC-10s, 747s, L1011s, etc. This is not unique but I personally don't think it has been well done in more modern times. If this galley node with a cart elevator could be pushed up against the winbox then it wouldn't impact cargo operations that much and would free up valuable real estate.

And with 44+ LD3s as is, loading time and cargo demand on a 'quick' turnaround this space could be underutilized anyway.

mjoelnir wrote:
I can imagine a 777-10, but not imagine a "777-10" really heavy lifter. IMO the MLG hits its limits. Boeing is not increasing the MTOW of the 777-8/9 against the 777-300ER

The 77X is getting brand new gear. Hard to understand how gear that doesn't even exist yet has already hit its limits.

OA940 wrote:
There will be a need to redesign gates and taxiways to fit it in them.

How so? If you look where door 2L is, its actually more aft allowing the 779 to move forward which should make airport operations easier, not harder. This modest stretch doesn't change anything significantly. This airplane would only be going to A380 compliant airports in all likelihood.

parapente wrote:
However the 777-10 is the natural 747 replacement - if there is a big enough marketplace to justify the investment.
We are probably talking ~2023 with this variant. Hard to believe there will be many 747 passenger planes to replace at that point. I agree with your second point though that it does make the A380ceo even less tenable. If that was even possible.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26237
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Wed Nov 09, 2016 12:35 am

Dutchy wrote:
How many launch orders do either company needs? 40 seems a bit low.


Depends on the development costs of each model. If it's a simple stretch and thrust bump, 40 might be plenty. If more extensive changes are needed (undercarriage, wings, empennage, etc.) than 40 might not be.

And it depends on the demand - one imagines more airlines than SQ are interested. So a fair bit more than 40 frames could be at play and that would support a more expensive program.
 
User avatar
sassiciai
Posts: 1068
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:26 pm

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

Wed Nov 09, 2016 2:45 am

Is it not a bit premature to talk about commitments and orders?

It was mentioned up-thread "By the end of the year, the airline is expected to back one of the company's designs". Backing a design is a lot different to making launch orders. One of the planes is a stretch of a plane that is almost ready to fly, the other is a stretch of a plane whose design is not yet frozen, IIRC. In other words, these are aircraft based on aircraft whose real world performances are unknown. Who in their right mind would commit to an unknown built on another unknown?

I would invite you to debate what exactly "SIA backing" actually means, has such backing happened in the past, and what - if any - commitment is SIA actually making?

Recall that as an example, Qantas was a member of the small group of airlines that took part in the B777 specifications, but as of today, did not order any.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26237
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Wed Nov 09, 2016 3:01 am

sassiciai wrote:
Is it not a bit premature to talk about commitments and orders?


I get the impression this is an RFP from SQ to both OEMs and that they will commit to one model or the other. That commitment might not be enough to launch the model, but once Airbus or Boeing has that commitment, they can start shopping the design to other customers and if enough of them come on board, it could be the decider. It is also possible Airbus and Boeing have other discussions underway for these concepts with other carriers and SQ is the first one ready to pull the trigger with a formal RFP.

And honestly, 40 frames might very well be enough to launch. The 787 launched with 50 from ANA and the A350 launched with 60 from QR and the A350XWB launched with only 20 from SQ (though QR was almost assuredly on-board, as well).
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8361
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

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

Wed Nov 09, 2016 4:33 am

tortugamon wrote:
intotheair wrote:
How much of the galleys can really be put below the main deck? I understand putting lavs underneath (I love the setup in LH's 346s), but it seems like it wouldn't be very efficient to put ovens and whatnot down a staircase as long as you're still serving a giant Y cabin with carts. Or maybe they can come up with some sort of dumb waiter/elevator scheme? That would be interesting.
As others have mentioned, DC-10s, 747s, L1011s, etc. This is not unique but I personally don't think it has been well done in more modern times. If this galley node with a cart elevator could be pushed up against the winbox then it wouldn't impact cargo operations that much and would free up valuable real estate.

And with 44+ LD3s as is, loading time and cargo demand on a 'quick' turnaround this space could be underutilized anyway.

mjoelnir wrote:
I can imagine a 777-10, but not imagine a "777-10" really heavy lifter. IMO the MLG hits its limits. Boeing is not increasing the MTOW of the 777-8/9 against the 777-300ER

The 77X is getting brand new gear. Hard to understand how gear that doesn't even exist yet has already hit its limits.

OA940 wrote:
There will be a need to redesign gates and taxiways to fit it in them.

How so? If you look where door 2L is, its actually more aft allowing the 779 to move forward which should make airport operations easier, not harder. This modest stretch doesn't change anything significantly. This airplane would only be going to A380 compliant airports in all likelihood.

parapente wrote:
However the 777-10 is the natural 747 replacement - if there is a big enough marketplace to justify the investment.
We are probably talking ~2023 with this variant. Hard to believe there will be many 747 passenger planes to replace at that point. I agree with your second point though that it does make the A380ceo even less tenable. If that was even possible.



tortugamon


What brand new gear? 8 wheel boogies? Do you have a reference for something more than some design changes compared to the other 777? Bring it on.

That is your brand new gear incorporating some technical changes, with the same max weight limit as the 777-300ER, in American speak 770,000 lbs capacity, or a bit more than 350 metric ton. You can also read in the technical points given by Boeing for the 777-8/9 a MTOW of 351,534 Kg, identical to the 777-300ER.

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commer ... ochure.pdf

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/bo ... ding-gear/
 
User avatar
MoKa777
Posts: 917
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:47 am

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

Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:04 am

The currently planned MTOW for the 778/9 does not preclude the MLG from handling more, even if it not currently offered/planned.

Originally, the A359 MTOW was 268t. Now it is planned for 280t by 2018/2020. Same MLG.
Never be proud. Always be grateful.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13695
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:31 am

Sq will order whatever they think suits them best, regardless of what anyone posts on this thread.

No one on this thread had the rfp that sq is trying to fill, and no one knows what the OEMs are offering.

The whole thread is nothing more than a fairy tale.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2207
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

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

Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:32 am

MoKa777 wrote:
The currently planned MTOW for the 778/9 does not preclude the MLG from handling more, even if it not currently offered/planned.
Originally, the A359 MTOW was 268t. Now it is planned for 280t by 2018/2020. Same MLG.

Perhaps, but I believe that the issue is pavement loading rather than MLG/structural loading.

Increasing weights much further, without increasing pavement loads beyond current limits (which would require very expensive runway/taxiway reinforcement work at many airports), would require additional wheels or significantly increased tyre diameter and/or width, any of which would very significant (hence very expensive) changes to the existing 777 structure.

I'm pretty sure that increasing take-off or landing weights would be a very expensive exercise.
 
User avatar
MoKa777
Posts: 917
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:47 am

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

Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:08 am

speedbored wrote:
MoKa777 wrote:
The currently planned MTOW for the 778/9 does not preclude the MLG from handling more, even if it not currently offered/planned.
Originally, the A359 MTOW was 268t. Now it is planned for 280t by 2018/2020. Same MLG.

Perhaps, but I believe that the issue is pavement loading rather than MLG/structural loading.

Increasing weights much further, without increasing pavement loads beyond current limits (which would require very expensive runway/taxiway reinforcement work at many airports), would require additional wheels or significantly increased tyre diameter and/or width, any of which would very significant (hence very expensive) changes to the existing 777 structure.

I'm pretty sure that increasing take-off or landing weights would be a very expensive exercise.


To be honest, I did not consider that... good point.

Does anyone know what the 77W load distribution is and how that compares with other aircraft? Are its tyres and MLG at the limits yet or is there still some breathing room? If changes need to be made for an even heavier 777, how extensive would said changes need to be?
Never be proud. Always be grateful.
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 3732
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

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

Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:21 am

zeke wrote:
Sq will order whatever they think suits them best, regardless of what anyone posts on this thread.

No one on this thread had the rfp that sq is trying to fill, and no one knows what the OEMs are offering.

The whole thread is nothing more than a fairy tale.

Well, it always has been like this, hasn't it? And it will always be like this...

Still not convinced if "order" is the correct wording. As others already pointed out, both planes are not offered by their OEMs and the number of airframes would most probably not justify to start a new version. Hehe, in that respect it's really a fairytale and we don't know the outcome...
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8361
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

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

Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:47 am

The 777-300ER is with a high pavement loading. 350 metric ton on two six wheel buggies. The 747-8 has four four wheel buggies, the A380 has two four wheel buggies and two six wheel buggies, both have a lower pavement loading. 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 or 777-8/9.
There is only so much you can do with two six wheel buggies and IMO the 777-8/9 is near the limit.
I can even imagine that the MLG load was a consideration why Boeing did not stretch the 777-9 all the way to nearly 80 m, with perhaps the need to raise MTOW. This way the lowered need for tankage compensates for the raised MEW without the need for a raised MTOW and a completely new MLG.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:04 am

mjoelnir wrote:
There is only so much you can do with two six wheel buggies and IMO the 777-8/9 is near the limit.


The A359 seems to get ~30t ( vs. 789/10) markup from its "splayed feet" 4 wheel bogie design.
( MLG loads are said to be a "harder" limit on the 787. and with the smaller wingbox storage space probably is tight
constraining changes.)
The A3510 currently shows a narrower 3axle bogie. But IMU the storage space is there for a bit of more "splay".

I've really no idea how much leeway the 777x design offers in that respect.
The wings are new but the basic wingbox is said to carry over from the 77W.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2207
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

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

Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:17 am

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.
 
PhoenixVIP
Posts: 374
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:41 pm

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

Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:20 am

Revelation wrote:
787fan8 wrote:
Does SQ intend on replacing their oldest A380's with this aircraft?


The five oldest SQ A380s will be replaced by A380s. They've been on order for a long time, the only question was if the five would be for replacement or for growth, and SQ has recently stated they will be for replacement and not for growth..


Let's not get factually wrong here. The 5 A380s bought by SQ were for replacement and growth as evidenced by stoppage of lease of only the first A380. Typically wrong. :roll:

Sq will order whatever they think suits them best, regardless of what anyone posts on this thread.

No one on this thread had the rfp that sq is trying to fill, and no one knows what the OEMs are offering.

The whole thread is nothing more than a fairy tale.


zeke is always right. :)
Inspire the truth.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:34 am

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.


Per Wheel/Tire contact area is only dependent on inflation pressure and load. Radial build behaves closer to theory than bias ply.

First order limit is absolute point loading. limits tire pressure.
Second order limit is contact pressure per wheel. limits per wheel loading.
Third order limit is loading on the spanned area per gear leg. limits per gearleg loading.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 3732
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

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

Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:38 am

PhoenixVIP wrote:
Revelation wrote:
787fan8 wrote:
Does SQ intend on replacing their oldest A380's with this aircraft?


The five oldest SQ A380s will be replaced by A380s. They've been on order for a long time, the only question was if the five would be for replacement or for growth, and SQ has recently stated they will be for replacement and not for growth..


Let's not get factually wrong here. The 5 A380s bought by SQ were for replacement and growth as evidenced by stoppage of lease of only the first A380. Typically wrong. :roll:


You are correct. So far SQ has just decided to return their first A380, which will be replaced by one of the five A380s currently on order (and on production).
Here is a quote of Singapore Airlines chief Goh Choon Phong:

Singapore Airlines has emphasised that it remains committed to the Airbus A380 despite a decision not to extend the lease on its earliest aircraft.

The airline is still deciding on the future of other A380 leases.

Its first A380, MSN3, is one of five early airframes leased by the carrier, all of which were among the first 10 A380s produced.

Speaking in Toulouse as the carrier accepted its latest A350-900, Singapore Airlines chief Goh Choon Phong said the airline “continued to see a role” for A380s, particularly on high-demand routes to slot-constrained airports.

He would not elaborate on the prospects for the other early A380s in its fleet.

“Each lease has a different timeline,” says Goh, adding that the carrier would examine them as their expiry approached and “announce accordingly”.

The carrier has another five A380s on order which are due to arrive from 2017.

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ef-430430/

I by myself, however, believe that SQ will return the oldest four A380s as well and replace them with new airframes as well, thereby keeping their A380-fleet on a constant level (19 units) but that's just my personal OPINION (vs. a fact).
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2207
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

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

Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:47 am

WIederling wrote:
Per Wheel/Tire contact area is only dependent on inflation pressure and load.

In theory, but other factors also come in to play.

But I stand by my assertion that the increased tyre diameter on the A340 allows it to use a greater per-tyre footprint to spread the higher per-tyre load. Hence the A340s ability to offer a higher MTOW compared to the 777, even with the same number of MLG wheels.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8361
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

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

Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:02 am

Comparison of the MLG of the 777-8/9 and the A350-1000.

MLG truck width 777 1400 mm on all axles. A350 axle 1 and 3 1397 mm, axle 2 1474 mm
MLG truck length 777 axle 1 and 2 1450 mm, axle 2 and 3 1480 mm. A350 axle 1 and 2, 2 and 3 1400 mm.
Tyre size 777 52 x 21 R22. A350 50 x 20 R22.

The change from 777-200ER/300 is tyres 52 x 21 R22 instead of 50 x 20 R22 and the truck length between axle two and 3 is increased by 30 mm.
IMO similar sized MLG on the 777 and A350-1000.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Wed Nov 09, 2016 12:37 pm

speedbored wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Per Wheel/Tire contact area is only dependent on inflation pressure and load.

In theory, but other factors also come in to play.

But I stand by my assertion that the increased tyre diameter on the A340 allows it to use a greater per-tyre footprint to spread the higher per-tyre load. Hence the A340s ability to offer a higher MTOW compared to the 777, even with the same number of MLG wheels.


The bigger diameter reduced tire deformation ahead and behind the actual contact area while rolling ( and thus thermal loading )
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2207
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

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

Wed Nov 09, 2016 12:54 pm

WIederling wrote:
The bigger diameter reduced tire deformation ahead and behind the actual contact area while rolling ( and thus thermal loading )

Perhaps.

But for any given size of tyre, regardless of different combinations of pressure and load, there is a physical limit to the contact area that the tyre can present to the pavement surface, to spread the load. Once you reach that area limit, at the limit of how much pressure the pavement surface can sustain, the only way to increase the load is to use a bigger tyre that will allow a larger contact area. Both the 777 and A340, at their highest weights, are approaching the certified pavement limits of very many airports. The fact that the A340 can handle a ~30t greater all-up weight at those airports is mostly due to the larger tyres.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12941
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Wed Nov 09, 2016 1:26 pm

zeke wrote:
Sq will order whatever they think suits them best, regardless of what anyone posts on this thread.

No one on this thread had the rfp that sq is trying to fill, and no one knows what the OEMs are offering.


.. and even those are just assumptions :D :D

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
WIederling
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Wed Nov 09, 2016 1:33 pm

speedbored wrote:
The fact that the A340 can handle a ~30t greater all-up weight at those airports is mostly due to the larger tyres.


3 MLG @ ~32% of MTOW each versus
2 MLG @ ~47% of MTOW each

3 4 wheel bogie MLG seems to "top" :-) the wider area covered by the 6 wheel bogie
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26237
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Wed Nov 09, 2016 4:53 pm

Guy Norris at Aviation Week weighed in on the planned stretches. He states that focus for both OEMs has been Asia and that Cathay Pacific has expressed interest in a larger A350 model.

Regarding the 777-10X, Boeing might be able to increase the MTOW by up to 10,000lbs and to keep the OEW to within 15-30,000 pounds of the 777-200LR/777-300ER OEW. GE also believes they have room to grow GE9X thrust beyond the current 102-105,000 pounds. Still don't understand why the "-10X" was not the baseline for the -9X, but I am guessing length was a concern for some customers.

Article Link (free registration required)
 
User avatar
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

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

Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:09 pm

Stitch wrote:
Still don't understand why the "-10X" was not the baseline for the -9X, but I am guessing length was a concern for some customers.


If they only offered 8X and 10X sized craft, it would have also been a very large jump in capacity for the 777-300ER replacement market. That might have steered even more buyers towards the A35J.

Obviously A350-1000 is going to eat some of the 777-300ER replacement market. But for those who need the capability, the 9X fills that role with modest growth potential. The 10X might be the ultimate 747 replacement and will put the same pressure on the A380 as the the A35J puts on the 9X.
learning never stops.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:01 pm

Stitch wrote:
Guy Norris at Aviation Week weighed in on the planned stretches. He states that focus for both OEMs has been Asia and that Cathay Pacific has expressed interest in a larger A350 model.

Regarding the 777-10X, Boeing might be able to increase the MTOW by up to 10,000lbs and to keep the OEW to within 15-30,000 pounds of the 777-200LR/777-300ER OEW.


I'd read that a bit different.

Given baseline is 77W,
778X will have 15klb more OEW while the
779X will have 30klb more OEW ( weight delta is 2,270lb per m length diff. that is tight imho.)
Murphy is an optimist
 
tortugamon
Topic Author
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

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

Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:25 pm

zeke wrote:
Sq will order whatever they think suits them best, regardless of what anyone posts on this thread.

Is there anyone on this thread suggesting that what is written here will influence SQ? That would be pretty dumb. As is suggesting that it is.

speedbored wrote:
any of which would very significant (hence very expensive) changes to the existing 777 structure.

The gear is new.

mjoelnir wrote:
What brand new gear? 8 wheel boogies? Do you have a reference for something more than some design changes compared to the other 777? Bring it on.

You can do the google search I am sure. Not hard to find. New gear. New OEM entirely. From a new country too. New gear for a plane that isn't yet built, lacking ability to handle aircraft being shopped to airlines would be pretty dumb. I don't think they are dumb.

ODwyerPW wrote:
If they only offered 8X and 10X sized craft, it would have also been a very large jump in capacity for the 777-300ER replacement market. That might have steered even more buyers towards the A35J.
[/quote]
I agree with you. I would add to it that EK and the big 77X buyers need a lot of capability and this 777-10x stretch is not the most capable aircraft in the world. It would be a non-starter for the backbone of the EK fleet that the 77W is.

tortugamon
 
WIederling
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:05 pm

tortugamon wrote:
zeke wrote:
Sq will order whatever they think suits them best, regardless of what anyone posts on this thread.

Is there anyone on this thread suggesting that what is written here will influence SQ? That would be pretty dumb. As is suggesting that it is.


probably written in the hope that select posters would refrain from doing their "Delenda est Carthago" thing and go for some real dialog.:-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8361
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

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

Thu Nov 10, 2016 12:15 am

tortugamon"
[quote="mjoelnir wrote:
What brand new gear? 8 wheel boogies? Do you have a reference for something more than some design changes compared to the other 777? Bring it on.

You can do the google search I am sure. Not hard to find. New gear. New OEM entirely. From a new country too. New gear for a plane that isn't yet built, lacking ability to handle aircraft being shopped to airlines would be pretty dumb. I don't think they are dumb.

tortugamon[/quote]

I can do my google search, you do not seem able to do it.

New OEM yes, that was also in the reference I gave in my post. New gear, no.

The new manufacturer will do the MLG for all still produced 777 from next year, 777F, 777-300ER and the gear for the 777-8/9. The old manufacturer would not agree to a price reduction, so Boeing found somebody who made it for a lower price for them, that is the reason for a new OEM.
In the article from the Seattle Times is also described what changes are done to the gear between the 777-300ER and the 777-8/9, same maximum weight limitation. Design changes yes, a new gear no. Boeing gives the same tyres and the same measurements for the bogies of the "new" MLG for the 777-8/9 as for the MLG for the 777-300ER
You do not even have to do a search, just read the references I gave in the last post.

The point is that the 777-300ER is with its gear already on the limit regarding pavement pressure, the next step up would be to increase the number of bogies, perhaps a central boogie like on the A340, or go for two 8 wheel boogies, or perhaps an 6 wheel boogies longer, broader and with far bigger tyres.
But Boeing kept to the old size and design of the MLG and is not increasing MTOW for the 777-8/9.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8361
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

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

Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:51 am

WIederling 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.


Per Wheel/Tire contact area is only dependent on inflation pressure and load. Radial build behaves closer to theory than bias ply.

First order limit is absolute point loading. limits tire pressure.
Second order limit is contact pressure per wheel. limits per wheel loading.
Third order limit is loading on the spanned area per gear leg. limits per gearleg loading.


Bigger tyres allow a lower tyre pressure for the same load, or a higher load for the same tyre pressure and so decrease the pavement pressure.
To calculate the contact area out of inflation pressure and load assumes a perfect elastic sphere, a rather inaccurate description of what happens when a tyre touches the ground.
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2207
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

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

Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:36 am

tortugamon wrote:
speedbored wrote:
any of which would very significant (hence very expensive) changes to the existing 777 structure.

The gear is new.

Noone said it wasn't.

We were talking about what would be required to increase the maximum weights much above what they already are. That would require yet another new gear,changes to the wheel wells and all of the surrounding and mounting structure. Or an additional gear. All of which would be very expensive and, IMO, very difficult to cost justify.

tortugamon wrote:
New gear for a plane that isn't yet built, lacking ability to handle aircraft being shopped to airlines would be pretty dumb. I don't think they are dumb.

Do you have any evidence at all that they are "shopping to airlines" any version of the 777 with much more than 350t MTOW? Google can't find any.
 
tortugamon
Topic Author
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

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

Thu Nov 10, 2016 10:35 am

Its been 20 years since Boeing deigned the original 777 gear. Its clear they have been discussing this stretch with airlines. Even this past summer it was disclosed/mentioned at the air show. If they needed MTOW room then I think customers would have expressed that by now, and the new design, after 20 years of advancement, could implement said changes if necessary. Even tire technology has improved, let alone material science that could address loading concerns.

All that being said, I don't think there is a big need for a MTOW bump. SQ wouldn't send this bird to the Americas and 95%+ of their flights are less than 6,000nm anyway. Why would a 3m stretch to a 8,000nm-779 need crazy range anyway? Especially if we are talking about putting galleys in the belly- Its clear we aren't talking about a huge cargo volume, crazy lifting, ultra-long-range, aircraft here. That's not the market.

If this thing gets built its because it would be the cheapest seat in the sky for trips between 3,500 and 6,000nm and not because it can fly 15 hours.

tortugamon
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10422
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

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

Thu Nov 10, 2016 10:56 am

tortugamon wrote:
and 95%+ of their flights are less than 6,000nm anyway. ..... Why would a 3m stretch to a 8,000nm-779 need crazy range anyway? Especially if we are talking about putting galleys in the belly- Its clear we aren't talking about a huge cargo volume, crazy lifting, ultra-long-range, aircraft here. That's not the market.


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.

best regards
THomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
tortugamon
Topic Author
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

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

Thu Nov 10, 2016 11:15 am

tommy1808 wrote:
tortugamon wrote:
and 95%+ of their flights are less than 6,000nm anyway. ..... Why would a 3m stretch to a 8,000nm-779 need crazy range anyway? Especially if we are talking about putting galleys in the belly- Its clear we aren't talking about a huge cargo volume, crazy lifting, ultra-long-range, aircraft here. That's not the market.


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.

best regards
THomas

The 779 is still a longer range flyer than the 77W regardless of how we look at it. A small stretch to that ULH aircraft isn't going to suddenly make it incapable of flying 12 hours. Lets not downplay the impact of those new engines and that much larger wing on fuel burn reduction. EK suggests ~14%.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ns-415293/

tortugamon
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8361
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

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

Thu Nov 10, 2016 11:44 am

tommy1808 wrote:
tortugamon wrote:
and 95%+ of their flights are less than 6,000nm anyway. ..... Why would a 3m stretch to a 8,000nm-779 need crazy range anyway? Especially if we are talking about putting galleys in the belly- Its clear we aren't talking about a huge cargo volume, crazy lifting, ultra-long-range, aircraft here. That's not the market.


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.

best regards
THomas


Also the 777-300ER as most frames does not have its full range at MZFW, the 7,370nm are for full passenger and bags.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10422
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

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

Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:13 pm

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
This Singature is a safe space......
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

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

Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:25 pm

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 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)
 
olle
Posts: 935
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

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

Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:39 pm

SO how will the B779 do against this A350-2000? Considering if the plain is a stretch of the A350-1000 how much range will it get?

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