User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12754
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-800X?

Sun Feb 26, 2017 6:32 am

mig17 wrote:
Agreed. But from another angle, it means that almost wherever the 777-8 can go, the A350-900 and URL can too with lower trip costs and better load-factors.

I'll give you lower trip costs, but how on earth are you coming up with "better load factors" (which btw, isn't an objective measurement at all) when the A359ULR won't even be able to carry the same capacity as a standard A359 beyond 7500nm or so, let alone that of a 778.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
anshabhi
Posts: 2138
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 10:40 am

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-800X?

Sun Feb 26, 2017 6:36 am

BawliBooch wrote:
anshabhi wrote:
SpiceJet is an Indian low cost carrier, which is planning long haul operations. If they are a success, it might take them to fly ULH India-NA.


My fathers wifes brothers nephew was telling me the other day that Southwest is also planning long haul operations. If they are a success, it might take them to fly ULH Timbuctou-NA!

Bhagwaan! Not again! :roll:

Shivraatri was 2 days ago bro! Time to put away that chillum till next year wokay? :D


see this: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2 ... s-spicejet
 
WIederling
Posts: 8915
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-800X?

Sun Feb 26, 2017 9:27 am

LAX772LR wrote:
mig17 wrote:
Agreed. But from another angle, it means that almost wherever the 777-8 can go, the A350-900 and URL can too with lower trip costs and better load-factors.

I'll give you lower trip costs, but how on earth are you coming up with "better load factors" (which btw, isn't an objective measurement at all) when the A359ULR won't even be able to carry the same capacity as a standard A359 beyond 7500nm or so, let alone that of a 778.


It is the regular argument brought forth against the A380.

With comparable CASM the smaller plane will be used for similar revenue over reduced cost.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12754
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-800X?

Sun Feb 26, 2017 9:52 am

WIederling wrote:
With comparable CASM the smaller plane will be used for similar revenue over reduced cost.

I'm thinking some people are forgetting what CASM actually *is*

The A350ULR is likely to have some of (if not, the) worst CASM of anything in the sky, considering the reports that SQ is planning approx 170 seats for it.

Doesn't matter how efficient your airframe/engine combo is, if you're shorting it by nearly 100 seats relative to a typical configuration, in order to tank the fuel necessary to make range.

A359ULR on ULH will be an aircraft for high-end RASM. That's essentially all it can be.
778 on the other hand, is the one with the payload over range to shoot for a CASM advantage, should an airline configure it that way.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
mig17
Posts: 245
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Sun Feb 26, 2017 10:22 am

Yes, and so, how big do you think the market of flights above 7500NM capable of filling the full payload of a 777-8 realy is ?

The examples of London - Sydney or Paris - Papeete are never going to happen because in the first case, you have huge hubs on the road which make the competition for a nonstop flight difficult and in the second case, AF doesn't need to do it nonstop.

The real goal of UHL is to be a "prestige" flight to attract a certain prenium clientele in membership programs. You don't realy care if that particular flight do well financily and by the way it won't compare to a average medium or long haul, whatever plane you are using.
727 AT, 737 UX/SK/TO/SS, 747 UT/AF/SQ/BA/SS, 767 UA, 777 AF, A300 IW/TG, A310 EK, A318/19/20/21 AF/U2/VY, A332/3 EK/QR/TX, A343 AF, A388 AF, E145/170/190 A5/WF, Q400 WF, ATR 72 A5/TX, CRJ100/700/1000 A5, C-150/172, PC-6.
 
User avatar
Faro
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-800X?

Sun Feb 26, 2017 11:02 am

Planesmart wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:

Precisely. It's going to be a very niche aircraft, built in small numbers almost exclusively for the ME3, who have quite probably already ordered 80% plus of global, lifetime requirements, at a deep discount.




Exactly...in commercial terms and especially on A.net, the ULH market has always been over-rated, over-emphasised, over-flogged and over-discussed to the point of numbness...apart from the ME3, the 778X will have perhaps another like number of sales from other premium airlines...and that's it...I do not believe it will ever go beyond that...


Faro
The chalice not my son
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 22235
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Sun Feb 26, 2017 1:40 pm

QuarkFly wrote:
Actually I think there is a non-trivial chance that the 778 never gets built, like the 783 and A358, or perhaps pushed back a few years at least. If this platform is not soon offered as a dedicated freighter and ordered in reasonable numbers...and EK and other ME3 see softening demand...the 778 could face ME3 deferrals. Then without enough freighter demand as belly freight grows...the 778 platform dies -- and B goes on instead to invest the saved $ to make the 779 bigger. Right now, I would wager 60% chance a 778 ever flies.

I think it will get built, but won't be surprised if it gets deferred. IIRC both 77L and 77F were deferred. I agree with the other posters who feel the current order book is big enough to cover the costs of what will be a simple shrink of the -9 and will open the door to freighter and tanker variants.
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
 
VC10er
Posts: 4196
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Sun Feb 26, 2017 2:01 pm

Does anyone think that one of the US3 would EVER use a 777-8 with nose to tail business class seating? Or is that no longer an issue given the 777-8 range in a 2 class configuration?
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8915
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-800X?

Sun Feb 26, 2017 2:33 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
WIederling wrote:
With comparable CASM the smaller plane will be used for similar revenue over reduced cost.

I'm thinking some people are forgetting what CASM actually *is*

The A350ULR is likely to have some of (if not, the) worst CASM of anything in the sky, considering the reports that SQ is planning approx 170 seats for it.

Doesn't matter how efficient your airframe/engine combo is, if you're shorting it by nearly 100 seats relative to a typical configuration, in order to tank the fuel necessary to make range.

A359ULR on ULH will be an aircraft for high-end RASM. That's essentially all it can be.
778 on the other hand, is the one with the payload over range to shoot for a CASM advantage, should an airline configure it that way.


Nice argument but it does not make sense.
Obviously you would compare scaled but similar seating arrangements.
SQ ran a premium high service with afair ~100 seats. I'd assume that their new offer will show 170 _premium heavy_ seats.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13455
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Sun Feb 26, 2017 3:27 pm

There is a significant relation between empty weight and direct operating costs.Cargo is low priority on ULH flights.

I estimate A350-900LR operating empty weight at around 300k lbs.
http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/flying-a350-airbus-s-most-technologically-advanced-airliner

Is there a apple to apple 777-8 OEW estimation?
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12754
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-800X?

Sun Feb 26, 2017 8:22 pm

VC10er wrote:
Does anyone think that one of the US3 would EVER use a 777-8 with nose to tail business class seating?

No.

What route:
1) has the demand for that
2) that they don't address already
3) which wouldn't tank their, or an immunized partner's, 1stop revenues by adding a service like that?


WIederling wrote:
Nice argument but it does not make sense.

Well, as mentioned, do you understand what CASM actually is?
Because from what you're saying below, that doesn't seem to be the case.


WIederling wrote:
Obviously you would compare scaled but similar seating arrangements.

CASM is not a relative comparison. It's a direct function of configuration (among other factors, but that being primary).

You can have two of the exact same aircraft, with different configs, and the CASM for each one will be radically different.


WIederling wrote:
SQ ran a premium high service with afair ~100 seats. I'd assume that their new offer will show 170 _premium heavy_ seats.

....which is WHY I took care to specifically point out that it's purpose is to be a RASM chaser.
It *has* to be, considering the low density.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
VSMUT
Posts: 3423
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Sun Feb 26, 2017 9:04 pm

rotating14 wrote:
Can you explain how awkward nose loading freight the 748f or the 744f currently takes, is going to move on a 778F and 787-9F?


It will either downsize to fit in those types, go to specialist operators that might keep a limited fleet of 747Fs going for the next 50+ years, "military" or other specialist freighter operators (An-124, Il-76, LM100J or even Airbus Beluga/Boeing Dreamlifter style) or by ground.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18628
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Sun Feb 26, 2017 9:29 pm

VSMUT wrote:
rotating14 wrote:
Can you explain how awkward nose loading freight the 748f or the 744f currently takes, is going to move on a 778F and 787-9F?


It will either downsize to fit in those types, go to specialist operators that might keep a limited fleet of 747Fs going for the next 50+ years, "military" or other specialist freighter operators (An-124, Il-76, LM100J or even Airbus Beluga/Boeing Dreamlifter style) or by ground.

It should be emphasized that main deck freighters are losing market share. The trend is to cheaper solutions.

You are right on that if it must be through a nose door, that is trending to pay for special freight (e.g., charter).

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 3423
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Sun Feb 26, 2017 9:44 pm

lightsaber wrote:
You are right on that if it must be through a nose door, that is trending to pay for special freight (e.g., charter).

Lightsaber


How much oversized cargo requiring nose loading went on scheduled flights in the first place? Wasn't the majority, if not most of it, special freight charters already?
 
bunumuring
Posts: 2531
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:56 pm

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Sun Feb 26, 2017 10:00 pm

mig17 wrote:
The examples of London - Sydney or Paris - Papeete are never going to happen because in the first case, you have huge hubs on the road which make the competition for a nonstop flight difficult and in the second case, AF doesn't need to do it nonstop.


Hey mate,
Why then is Qantas so publicly discussing nonstop Sydney to London (and of course, Sydney to JFK nonstop), and have an active competition underway to choose between the 777-8 and A350 for the route?
While QF haven't categorically stated that they will open nonstop flights on the routes, it appears pretty certain that they will. Perth-London nonstop is going to happen, and the natural extension is the 'Holy Grail' (as Alan Joyce put it publicly) of nonstop LHR and JFK flights. One of the prime reasons for such flights is exactly to overfly the hubs you mention, to give QF a competitive edge. And in my opinion, it will work.
Air France is another matter. I remember reading here years ago that they would love to fly to Papeete nonstop from Paris but I am not familiar enough with them to know if that desire still exists.
As for freight on ULH flights, I believe that one of the reasons Qantas uses it's own planes on the JFK route (rather than just codeshares with AA out of LAX) is for freight. I suspect the market for time sensitive freight to JFK and LHR may be another niche to be mined by QF nonstop flights from Sydney. Just my opinion.
Cheers,
Bunumuring
I just wanna live while I'm alive!
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Sun Feb 26, 2017 10:02 pm

VSMUT wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
You are right on that if it must be through a nose door, that is trending to pay for special freight (e.g., charter).

Lightsaber


How much oversized cargo requiring nose loading went on scheduled flights in the first place? Wasn't the majority, if not most of it, special freight charters already?


It depends on the airline and cargo being carried. There is some oil drilling equipment that moves to more remote locations in Central Asia and Africa on scheduled freighter flights. A lot of it is scheduled charters on airlines like Cargolux, Air Bridge Cargo or Atlas Air. 777 freigters can cover most freight. Express freight usually uses the side cargo door since there are no height restrictions and it is faster loading through two lanes instead of one through the nose.
 
travelhound
Posts: 1918
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Sun Feb 26, 2017 10:28 pm

The 778X will enter service in the 2021-2022 timeframe. It will be an airframe designed for a market evolving over a 10-15 year period. It could be, as has been suggested further optimised to fly Sydney to Heathrow.

As such what is true today may not be true tomorrow.

http://www.afr.com/business/transport/a ... 126-gtz0gv

mig17 wrote:

The examples of London - Sydney or Paris - Papeete are never going to happen because in the first case, you have huge hubs on the road which make the competition for a nonstop flight difficult and in the second case, AF doesn't need to do it nonstop.


Yes, but the most optimal hub changes every time you change the origin and destination point.

For example the shortest route via a hub to LHR from Sydney is Haikou Meilan on the Chinese island of Hanain. For flights originating in Brisbane, Tapai would be the best hub airport. If we change the destination to Paris, Hanoi becomes the most optimal airport for flights from Sydney and Hong Kong for flights from Brisbane.

If we change our destination to Athens, for flights from both Brisbane and Sydney, Singapore or Mumbai probably become the most favourable hub airports. For flights originating in Melbourne, Colombo in Sri Lanka would probably be the most optimal hub.

As such for an airline like QANTAS using a hub airport to fly passengers from multiple destinations in Australia to multiple ULH destinations in Europe would be one of compromises.

As the linked article above suggests, QANTAS's relationship with Emirates gives them and their customer’s access to a large choice of destinations in Europe. As such, for QANTAS future ULH flying will probably revolve around key markets (i.e. Athens, Frankfurt, Paris, Heathrow) and not niche markets. This is a very different reality.

Another consideration is that of payload. For instance an aircraft like the 778X could be a very suitable aircraft for routes with high passenger and freight loads. For example, South East Queensland (where Brisbane is located) is a large exporter of fresh food and produce to Asia. As the 778X would have high passenger and freight capacity using this aircraft for Brisbane to Dubai could enable expansion of frsh food and produce freight into markets in the middle-east.

So from this perspective the 778X could be a relatively versatile aircraft capable of flying long haul routes with high payload requirements or ULH routes between major airports.
 
crazyplane1234
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Sun Feb 26, 2017 10:54 pm

If the 778 is discontinued, A.net will be filled with daily threads asking when the 778 (or 77L) will be brought back. There will also be lengthy debates as to whether the A350 ULR can comfortably operate SFO-DEL, JNB-ATL, and AKL-DOH.

It will be the 757 and MOM all over again.
 
mig17
Posts: 245
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Sun Feb 26, 2017 11:11 pm

Why were only 59 777-200LR made?
727 AT, 737 UX/SK/TO/SS, 747 UT/AF/SQ/BA/SS, 767 UA, 777 AF, A300 IW/TG, A310 EK, A318/19/20/21 AF/U2/VY, A332/3 EK/QR/TX, A343 AF, A388 AF, E145/170/190 A5/WF, Q400 WF, ATR 72 A5/TX, CRJ100/700/1000 A5, C-150/172, PC-6.
 
travelhound
Posts: 1918
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Mon Feb 27, 2017 12:16 am

mig17 wrote:
Why were only 59 777-200LR made?


Because the 77W was a far more capable aircraft than what Boeing first envisaged.

From memory its marketed range at full payload prior to entry to service was 7300nm. A couple of years after entry to service this was increased to 7900nm. As such, the 77W stole the heart of the market originally intended for the 77L.

I don't think this will be the case second time round with the 778X and 779X.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9185
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Mon Feb 27, 2017 12:48 am

IMO freight will not play a role on ULH routs. Freight on ULH routes will be very expensive. ULH will not be flown from secondary market to secondary market. It will be flown on routes, where there are several one stop possibilities to move the same freight for significant lower cost for a Insignificant longer trip time. I accept that it matters for passengers if the trip takes 30 hours instead of 20 hours, but what kind of freight would pay for the difference in cost?
Perishables, like fresh fish, flowers, fresh fruit? Post? I really can not imagine the freight, at least in a big amount, that would go on ULH.

If freight is a secondary point to ULH, the raw payload gets less important and trip cost could play a larger role. The A350-900 is a smaller frame than the 777-8 and will not be able to compete on payload, but should be able to compete on cost per seat. I can also see the 787-9 growing in capabilities over time and taking more of the UHL business.

But the frame that would really endanger the 777-8 could be an A350-1000 HGW or LR. We have seen the A350-9 grow in MTOW shortly after EIS, I would not be astonished if the A350-1000 does a similar growth of MTOW. I think that both 777-9 and -8 are boxed in by the current MLG and would need a serious redesign that would include a third or fourth MLG, one or two body MLG to be able to grow the MTOW over and above the 777-300ER.
 
jagraham
Posts: 973
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Mon Feb 27, 2017 1:24 am

SCAT15F wrote:
In my opinion, the 778 is a (intentional) compromise aircraft. By stretching it a full 20 ft beyond the 772LR, Boeing is sacrificing range for passenger capacity (range is no greater than the 772LR) and takes itself out of contention for opening new ultra-niche routes requiring 10,000+ nm range. (A 778 at the 772 length would easily achieve 10,000+ nm and still carry at least 25 more pax because of the interior redo) The "redo" of the A359R/LR, by not using the A351 wing and MTOW also falls well short of its original 10,000+ nm range. I think the 778 was lengthened primarily to enable a useful freighter version (and it will make a killer freighter) and secondarily to better compete with the A351. Unless Airbus decides to go ahead with the A351-based A359R, we will have to wait a long time until someone opens up the "10,000 nm ultra-niche routes" that have been discussed recently.


No ULH route requires over 10000 nm. That's halfway around the world. SIN to EWR actual routing on Singapore Airlines shows what happens if winds, unfavorable ATC, or any other reason makes flying the 9000 nm route problematic.


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1353905&hilit=qantas+777+8
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1723
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Mon Feb 27, 2017 8:23 am

travelhound wrote:
The 778X will enter service in the 2021-2022 timeframe. It will be an airframe designed for a market evolving over a 10-15 year period. It could be, as has been suggested further optimised to fly Sydney to Heathrow.

As such what is true today may not be true tomorrow.

http://www.afr.com/business/transport/a ... 126-gtz0gv

mig17 wrote:

The examples of London - Sydney or Paris - Papeete are never going to happen because in the first case, you have huge hubs on the road which make the competition for a nonstop flight difficult and in the second case, AF doesn't need to do it nonstop.


Yes, but the most optimal hub changes every time you change the origin and destination point.

For example the shortest route via a hub to LHR from Sydney is Haikou Meilan on the Chinese island of Hanain. For flights originating in Brisbane, Tapai would be the best hub airport. If we change the destination to Paris, Hanoi becomes the most optimal airport for flights from Sydney and Hong Kong for flights from Brisbane.

If we change our destination to Athens, for flights from both Brisbane and Sydney, Singapore or Mumbai probably become the most favourable hub airports. For flights originating in Melbourne, Colombo in Sri Lanka would probably be the most optimal hub.

As such for an airline like QANTAS using a hub airport to fly passengers from multiple destinations in Australia to multiple ULH destinations in Europe would be one of compromises.

As the linked article above suggests, QANTAS's relationship with Emirates gives them and their customer’s access to a large choice of destinations in Europe. As such, for QANTAS future ULH flying will probably revolve around key markets (i.e. Athens, Frankfurt, Paris, Heathrow) and not niche markets. This is a very different reality.

Another consideration is that of payload. For instance an aircraft like the 778X could be a very suitable aircraft for routes with high passenger and freight loads. For example, South East Queensland (where Brisbane is located) is a large exporter of fresh food and produce to Asia. As the 778X would have high passenger and freight capacity using this aircraft for Brisbane to Dubai could enable expansion of frsh food and produce freight into markets in the middle-east.

So from this perspective the 778X could be a relatively versatile aircraft capable of flying long haul routes with high payload requirements or ULH routes between major airports.



Do you think Emirates will continue its partnership with Qantas if they bypass the Dubai hub though to multiple cities? At the moment it allows QF more destinations in Europe while it brings more passengers for EK from Dubai to European destinations. Once QF starts flying directly to destinations and they start taking passengers from EK what is the motivation for EK to continue the partnership?
 
travelhound
Posts: 1918
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Mon Feb 27, 2017 9:52 am

enzo011 wrote:

Do you think Emirates will continue its partnership with Qantas if they bypass the Dubai hub though to multiple cities? At the moment it allows QF more destinations in Europe while it brings more passengers for EK from Dubai to European destinations. Once QF starts flying directly to destinations and they start taking passengers from EK what is the motivation for EK to continue the partnership?


The Joint Venture agreement between EK and QF would have been approved by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). Without going into specifics the ACCC would not approve an agreement that was anti-competitive or did not ultimately benefit the consumer.

As such, the agreement, as an underlying principle would require QANTAS to act as an independent entity and by default act for its own benefit and that of its consumers.

This article goes into some of the specifics about the relationship between QF and EK.

http://www.ibtimes.com.au/qantas-emirat ... ia-1472747

Recently, Sir Tim Clark himself gave his blessing to the Perth - Heathrow flights stating "they make sense". Alan Joyce has often praised the partnership between the two airlines stating both airlines respect the commercial interests of the other party.

From all accounts, the EK and QF partnership is one made in heaven. I think both parties see the benefits of the relationship.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1723
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Mon Feb 27, 2017 10:07 am

travelhound wrote:
The Joint Venture agreement between EK and QF would have been approved by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). Without going into specifics the ACCC would not approve an agreement that was anti-competitive or did not ultimately benefit the consumer.

As such, the agreement, as an underlying principle would require QANTAS to act as an independent entity and by default act for its own benefit and that of its consumers.

This article goes into some of the specifics about the relationship between QF and EK.

http://www.ibtimes.com.au/qantas-emirat ... ia-1472747

Recently, Sir Tim Clark himself gave his blessing to the Perth - Heathrow flights stating "they make sense". Alan Joyce has often praised the partnership between the two airlines stating both airlines respect the commercial interests of the other party.

From all accounts, the EK and QF partnership is one made in heaven. I think both parties see the benefits of the relationship.



I agree that right at this moment it seems to be a partnership made in heaven for both airlines, however the traffic between the EU and Australia is not unlimited and I do wonder how EK will react to the partnership once the value they are seeing right now start decreasing due to QF starting new direct flights, as you were positing in your earlier post.
 
User avatar
TedToToe
Posts: 626
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2014 11:43 pm

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Mon Feb 27, 2017 10:40 am

bunumuring wrote:
BA: LHR to SYD if QF prove that the market exists and can cater for two (possibly in conjunction)? Niche markets for sure, but potentially strong niches that may be hinged off whether or not the big brother 777-9 is operated by these last two airlines mentioned.

With A350's on order and 787's already in the fleet, if BA was going to have a go at ULH, it would be from one of those two families. As for the 777-9, it would be an excellent replacement for their Super High-J 744's but it is too much plane to be abused on the multiple LHR-JFK missions. I think we will likely see a High-J 787-10 in the BA fleet eventually.
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4038
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Mon Feb 27, 2017 4:02 pm

travelhound wrote:
Because the 77W was a far more capable aircraft than what Boeing first envisaged.

From memory its marketed range at full payload prior to entry to service was 7300nm. A couple of years after entry to service this was increased to 7900nm. As such, the 77W stole the heart of the market originally intended for the 77L.

I don't think this will be the case second time round with the 778X and 779X.


If the 77W turned out so much better than originally envisioned, surely the 77L would reap the same benefits and also turned out much better than originally envisioned: it uses the same engine, same wing, same aero package, same systems etc.
If that did not help sales very much for the 77L vs 77W, why would that now be different for the 778 vs779 (honest question)?
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9875
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Mon Feb 27, 2017 4:13 pm

PW100 wrote:
travelhound wrote:
Because the 77W was a far more capable aircraft than what Boeing first envisaged.

From memory its marketed range at full payload prior to entry to service was 7300nm. A couple of years after entry to service this was increased to 7900nm. As such, the 77W stole the heart of the market originally intended for the 77L.

I don't think this will be the case second time round with the 778X and 779X.


If the 77W turned out so much better than originally envisioned, surely the 77L would reap the same benefits and also turned out much better than originally envisioned: it uses the same engine, same wing, same aero package, same systems etc.
If that did not help sales very much for the 77L vs 77W, why would that now be different for the 778 vs779 (honest question)?

Because the 77L without those benefits was already capable enough. Adding those benefits just made it even more capable which is unneeded for 99.9% of the airlines out there. Basically more airlines could make use of the 77W's unexpected/ initially unplanned capability versus the 77L's.

A very simple analogy is adding 500 nm more range to the A333 versus 500 nm more range to the A359ULR. The former just opens up far more new viable markets than the latter.
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4038
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Mon Feb 27, 2017 4:28 pm

No argument there Polot. But why would 778/779 situation be significantly different?
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9875
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Mon Feb 27, 2017 4:33 pm

PW100 wrote:
No argument there Polot. But why would 778/779 situation be significantly different?

I, and from a quick scan of the thread most of the other members here, don't think it will be significantly different. Hence the talk of the 777-8 being a niche product only viable for Boeing because it is a cheap straight shrink of the 779 and is also a good basis for a future 778F to replace the 77F and possibly a tanker version if needed (to replace the KC-10), although I have my doubts about that one.

I disagree with travelhound's last sentence if he was talking about sales performance. At first read I thought he meant he doubts the planes will perform better than expected this time around.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18628
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Mon Feb 27, 2017 5:43 pm

PW100 wrote:
No argument there Polot. But why would 778/779 situation be significantly different?

It isn't very different. 59 77L vs 53 778.

77L sales were lost when ULH was performed by 77Ws. For example, DXB to the USA. The only EK to USA route that must be the 77L is FLL due to runway limits. Other airlines were able to operate routes with 77Ws instead of looking at the 77L.

If the 779 were to exceed promise by as much as the 77W did, some 778 orders would be converted to 779s. There is simply more revenue for little per flight cost.

As with the 777-200LR, the bulk of sales will be a 778F, not the 778pax. But even 53 sales are enough for a simple shrink. There is still the opportunity of QF, India, and a few others.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Mon Feb 27, 2017 9:25 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
IMO freight will not play a role on ULH routs. Freight on ULH routes will be very expensive..


I think CX and SIN are exceptions. CX operates 4 77W flights a day to NYC , each with less than 300 seats and using freight to fill up the balance of the available payload. SIN operates their 77W with ~ 264 seats which must allow them considerable volume in the belly. It will be interesting to see how CX fit their 777-9's out.
 
tealnz
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-800X?

Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:41 pm

Faro wrote:
Exactly...in commercial terms and especially on A.net, the ULH market has always been over-rated, over-emphasised, over-flogged and over-discussed to the point of numbness...apart from the ME3, the 778X will have perhaps another like number of sales from other premium airlines...and that's it...I do not believe it will ever go beyond that...
Faro

Hard to see the 778 selling in big numbers - too heavy and expensive. But ULH is a fact of life. There's a bunch of routes in operation or announced that are a step beyond 744 range. SYD-DFW, PER-LHR, DXB-AKL, DOH-AKL, SFO-SIN, SIN-EWR, DXB-US west coast, non-stops from Manila and Hanoi/Ho Chi Minh to New York. The reason they get so much attention here is that they're interesting: pushing out the boundaries of what's technically and commercially feasible in response to the very real demand from the market. And driving the manufacturers to innovate. What's not to like?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26583
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:58 pm

sunrisevalley wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
IMO freight will not play a role on ULH routs. Freight on ULH routes will be very expensive..


I think CX and SIN are exceptions. CX operates 4 77W flights a day to NYC , each with less than 300 seats and using freight to fill up the balance of the available payload. SIN operates their 77W with ~ 264 seats which must allow them considerable volume in the belly. It will be interesting to see how CX fit their 777-9's out.


I believe CX staff on this forum have mentioned on a number of occasions that while they have the available payload volume downstairs, they don't have the available payload weight (after DOW, catering, passengers and bags, flight planning, etc.) to carry much freight. And that the 777-9 will likely offer little to no additional payload weight at the farther end of the chart (which is where these flights operate), their addition to the fleet is more for increasing passenger traffic, not cargo traffic.

Of course, CX also has a fair-sized fleet of dedicated freighter aircraft that can do the "heavy lifting" of cargo between Asia and North America. so to speak.
 
kaitak744
Posts: 2209
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-800X?

Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:04 am

Boeing built the 777-200LR with just 5 orders from 2 customers, one of whom soon backed out.
It costs them little to offer the 777-8, so they do it.

British Airways, Virgin Atlantic, and Qantas could have the potential to buy the 777-8 once EIS gets near and the true range / fuel consumption is quantified.

anshabhi wrote:
SpiceJet is an Indian low cost carrier, which is planning long haul operations. If they are a success, it might take them to fly ULH India-NA.


I cannot tell if this is a joke...

Is SpiceJet, or any Indian carrier even profitable?
 
anshabhi
Posts: 2138
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 10:40 am

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-800X?

Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:56 am

kaitak744 wrote:
Boeing built the 777-200LR with just 5 orders from 2 customers, one of whom soon backed out.
It costs them little to offer the 777-8, so they do it.

British Airways, Virgin Atlantic, and Qantas could have the potential to buy the 777-8 once EIS gets near and the true range / fuel consumption is quantified.

Initially, AI alone had 8 B77L.

anshabhi wrote:
SpiceJet is an Indian low cost carrier, which is planning long haul operations. If they are a success, it might take them to fly ULH India-NA.


I cannot tell if this is a joke...

Is SpiceJet, or any Indian carrier even profitable?


Oops your knowledge about Indian airlines is quite outdated. Except AI all Indian airlines are profitable. And do see the link I have posted above about SG.
 
EddieDude
Posts: 7016
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:19 am

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Wed Mar 01, 2017 3:07 am

Maybe this is the aircraft that would finally allow EK to launch MEX and operate MEX-DXB-MEX nonstop both eastbound and westbound with decent payload. All that noise about routing the flight via ZRH has disappeared lately.
Upcoming flights:
April/May: AM MEX-SCL 788 (J), AM EZE-MEX 789 (J).
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13455
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Wed Mar 01, 2017 9:21 am

The A350-900s will start to operate SIN-LAX and SIN-EWR next yr the 30t heavier 777-8 from 2021.

:arrow: First & Business will mostly be 4 abreast on both 777 and A350, the 777s extra width/weight doesn't pay off.
:arrow: Same for 8 abreast Economy Plus.
:arrow: Going 10 abreast on a ULH 778 is possible, but seems unlikely & will have a marginal revenue effect anyway.
:arrow: The A350-900LR can be reconfigured back to standard -900 configuration, a lower risk in the risky ULH segment.


The 30t heavier 777-8 (from 2021), probably with way higher price / doc than 359R , is going to be a tough business case for an airline. Even more than the 777-200LR, that had little competition a broader 77W operator base to build on.

Image
A350-900 overlaid on 777-8X. Source: Leeham Co.

https://leehamnews.com/2015/07/23/options-for-singapore-airlines-to-operate-direct-flights-to-the-us-part-2/
Last edited by keesje on Wed Mar 01, 2017 9:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
kaitak744
Posts: 2209
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-800X?

Wed Mar 01, 2017 9:47 am

anshabhi wrote:
kaitak744 wrote:
Boeing built the 777-200LR with just 5 orders from 2 customers, one of whom soon backed out.
It costs them little to offer the 777-8, so they do it.

British Airways, Virgin Atlantic, and Qantas could have the potential to buy the 777-8 once EIS gets near and the true range / fuel consumption is quantified.

Initially, AI alone had 8 B77L.

anshabhi wrote:
SpiceJet is an Indian low cost carrier, which is planning long haul operations. If they are a success, it might take them to fly ULH India-NA.


I cannot tell if this is a joke...

Is SpiceJet, or any Indian carrier even profitable?


Oops your knowledge about Indian airlines is quite outdated. Except AI all Indian airlines are profitable. And do see the link I have posted above about SG.


Air India made great use of those planes.... where are they now?

And then there was Kingfisher...

And then there was Jet, who cannot find a way to fill 10 777-300ERs, while others use that type as the backbone and primary revenue earner on long haul networks.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12754
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Wed Mar 01, 2017 10:19 am

keesje wrote:
The A350-900s will start to operate SIN-LAX and SIN-EWR next yr the 30t heavier 777-8 from 2021.

SQ has (as of now) confirmed neither 1) a return to EWR nor 2) acquisition of the 778.

So not sure how either part if the quoted sentence could be accurate.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
travelhound
Posts: 1918
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:06 pm

I think we have to remember that when comparing aircraft weight, payload capacity and range, the 777X and A350 achieve efficiencies in fundamentally different ways.

For example, out of all of the 777 and A350 variants the 77L is the most structurally efficient. It can carry a payload (passengers/freight) and fuel of 139% of its OEW weight. Interestingly on the other end of the scale the 777-9X can only carry a payload and fuel of 87% of its OEW weight. Both A350 variants carry payloads and fuel of approximately 100% of the corresponding OEW weights.

If we consider the 777-9X is the most fuel efficient on a per seat basis and the 77L is the least fuel efficient, on face value structural efficiency and per seat efficiency has an inverse relationship with each other.

For Boeing and the 777, they have traditionally used structure (weight) to achieve capacity and range. For the 777X they still use structure (weight) to achieve capacity and range, but with the addition of more structure (longer heavier wings) to achieve their efficiency goals. Both of the 777X variants are heavier on a per seat basis than the corresponding models they replace (77L – 482kg/seat, 778X – 485 kg/seat, 77W – 460kg/seat, 779X – 471kg/seat).

In comparison, the Airbus aircraft have both reduced structure to achieve their efficiency goals. This is highlighted by the fact the Airbus A350-1000 uses 423 kilograms of structure for each seat, 10% less than the 777-9X’s 471 kilograms per seat.

To further explain the argument, we know Boeing added structure (longer heavier wings) to achieve efficiency. I think some have said the extra weight of the new wing equates to approximately 7 tonne.

This gives us a basic understanding of how adding structural weight can have efficiency advantages.

If we now use these principles to compare the 777-8X with the A350, we come up with some very interesting numbers.

Out of the three variants (777-8X, A350-900 & A350-1000) the 777-8X is the most structurally efficient being able to carry payload and fuel 105% of its OEW weight. This compares to both variants of the A350 that are both around or just under the 100% mark.

The difference between the 777-8X and the A350 models is that the 777-8X can carry approximately 20-35 tonnes more payload and fuel than the A350 models. It also has longer range.

From what I can work out the 777-8X on a per seat basis will be approximately 12-15% better than the 777-300ER. This means the A350 models should be approximately 5-8% more efficient than the 777-8X, again on a per seat basis.

If we throw payload and range into the equation the numbers start to dramatically change in favour of the 777-8X.

For instance, where the A350-1000 has to reduce payload so that it can load more fuel to enable more range the 777-8X can fly an extra 800nm before it has to do the same. The greater the range deficit between the two aircraft, the greater the payload deficit. As such the 8% fuel efficiency advantage of the A350 over the 778X quickly becomes a deficit once payload (passengers) have to be reduced so that range can be met.

If we now consider the 777-8X has a theoretical 15 tonne payload advantage over the A350-900, the 777-8X has additional revenue opportunity incomes of approximately $72.00 per seat per flight. Even if we take out the extra $25.00 per seat for fuel to fly the heavier 778X, the opportunity still outweighs additional fuel costs.

From where I sit the 777-8X could be a better performer than what we think.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13455
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:02 pm

The difference between the 777-8X and the A350 models is that the 777-8X can carry approximately 20-35 tonnes more payload and fuel than the A350 models. It also has longer range.


I think an airline looks at what it costs to bring xxx passengers with their luggage to a destination. 15 hr+ flights seem a highly expensive / uncompetitive way of moving cargo pallets..

The amount of fuel a 777-8 requires to bring it's heavy self + payload across the Pacific will be dominant, not its structural efficiency on a theoretical basis. Compared to the A359 is is flying around 30t of metal over long distance, without a customer paying for it. It's what killed the A340-500.

The 778 high payload potential can be an advantage on export heavy flights up to 12 hrs from Asia.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
travelhound
Posts: 1918
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Wed Mar 01, 2017 2:46 pm

The amount of fuel a 777-8 requires to bring it's heavy self + payload across the Pacific will be dominant, not its structural efficiency on a theoretical basis. Compared to the A359 is is flying around 30t of metal over long distance, without a customer paying for it. It's what killed the A340-500.


Yes, but the 777-8X is closer (probably bigger) in size to the A350-1000 than it is to the A350-900.

If we compare these two aircraft the 30 tonne difference quickly reduces to a 15 tonne difference.

If we consider the 777-8X has a wing purposely designed 7 tonne heavier for the sake of achieving greater fuel efficiency, our 15 tonne difference is now an 8 tonne difference.

If we than consider that extra 8 tonne of weight will allow the 777-8X to fly an additional 700nm or carry an additional 10 tonne of payload we have to ask ourselves. Is the cap between the 777-8X and A350-1000 really going to be the same or greater than that between the 777-300ER and A340-600.

I have my suspicions the 777-8X will be a more viable aircraft than the 77L.
 
incitatus
Posts: 3328
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Wed Mar 01, 2017 6:06 pm

travelhound wrote:
I think we have to remember that when comparing aircraft weight, payload capacity and range, the 777X and A350 achieve efficiencies in fundamentally different ways.

For example, ......



By far the best posting on the thread. I think most posters underestimate the capability of the 777-8. The range of the A350ULR is simply not the same given a similar cabin configuration. To ignore that is just deceptive.

The world of 4-engine aircraft is doomed. The 747 line is closing down. The A380 line is reduced to a trickle. Airlines can't get rid of A340s fast enough.

Maybe it is because I am so near-sighted, when I look at the 777-8 I see four engines! Seriously, the 777-8 is an ideal replacement for A340/747/A380 missions where 4 engines provide a distinct take-off performance advantage. Airlines with long-haul bases at places like ADD, IKA, MEX, JNB, DEN, BOG will carefully look at the 777-8.
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26583
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Wed Mar 01, 2017 6:28 pm

keesje wrote:
The 30t heavier 777-8 (from 2021), probably with way higher price / doc than 359R , is going to be a tough business case for an airline. Even more than the 777-200LR, that had little competition a broader 77W operator base to build on.


It will be for most airlines, but not the current customer base (the ME3) for whom it is tailor-made for. The ME3 ULR strategy has been start with a 777-200LR then relatively quickly move to a payload-restricted 777-300ER and then (if market conditions warrant) the A380-800. Now they can launch with the 777-8, which gives them effectively a payload-unrestricted 777-300ER. And they have the A380-800 if future traffic growth warrants it.
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Wed Mar 01, 2017 6:31 pm

travelhound wrote:
I think we have to remember that when comparing aircraft weight, payload capacity and range, the 777X and A350 achieve efficiencies in fundamentally different ways.

For example, out of all of the 777 and A350 variants the 77L is the most structurally efficient. It can carry a payload (passengers/freight) and fuel of 139% of its OEW weight. Interestingly on the other end of the scale the 777-9X can only carry a payload and fuel of 87% of its OEW weight. Both A350 variants carry payloads and fuel of approximately 100% of the corresponding OEW weights.

If we consider the 777-9X is the most fuel efficient on a per seat basis and the 77L is the least fuel efficient, on face value structural efficiency and per seat efficiency has an inverse relationship with each other.

For Boeing and the 777, they have traditionally used structure (weight) to achieve capacity and range. For the 777X they still use structure (weight) to achieve capacity and range, but with the addition of more structure (longer heavier wings) to achieve their efficiency goals. Both of the 777X variants are heavier on a per seat basis than the corresponding models they replace (77L – 482kg/seat, 778X – 485 kg/seat, 77W – 460kg/seat, 779X – 471kg/seat).

In comparison, the Airbus aircraft have both reduced structure to achieve their efficiency goals. This is highlighted by the fact the Airbus A350-1000 uses 423 kilograms of structure for each seat, 10% less than the 777-9X’s 471 kilograms per seat.

To further explain the argument, we know Boeing added structure (longer heavier wings) to achieve efficiency. I think some have said the extra weight of the new wing equates to approximately 7 tonne.

This gives us a basic understanding of how adding structural weight can have efficiency advantages.

If we now use these principles to compare the 777-8X with the A350, we come up with some very interesting numbers.

Out of the three variants (777-8X, A350-900 & A350-1000) the 777-8X is the most structurally efficient being able to carry payload and fuel 105% of its OEW weight. This compares to both variants of the A350 that are both around or just under the 100% mark.

The difference between the 777-8X and the A350 models is that the 777-8X can carry approximately 20-35 tonnes more payload and fuel than the A350 models. It also has longer range.

From what I can work out the 777-8X on a per seat basis will be approximately 12-15% better than the 777-300ER. This means the A350 models should be approximately 5-8% more efficient than the 777-8X, again on a per seat basis.

If we throw payload and range into the equation the numbers start to dramatically change in favour of the 777-8X.

For instance, where the A350-1000 has to reduce payload so that it can load more fuel to enable more range the 777-8X can fly an extra 800nm before it has to do the same. The greater the range deficit between the two aircraft, the greater the payload deficit. As such the 8% fuel efficiency advantage of the A350 over the 778X quickly becomes a deficit once payload (passengers) have to be reduced so that range can be met.

If we now consider the 777-8X has a theoretical 15 tonne payload advantage over the A350-900, the 777-8X has additional revenue opportunity incomes of approximately $72.00 per seat per flight. Even if we take out the extra $25.00 per seat for fuel to fly the heavier 778X, the opportunity still outweighs additional fuel costs.

From where I sit the 777-8X could be a better performer than what we think.

How does the A380 look when you apply the same methodology?
 
sf260
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:59 pm

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Wed Mar 01, 2017 6:34 pm

keesje wrote:
I think an airline looks at what it costs to bring xxx passengers with their luggage to a destination. 15 hr+ flights seem a highly expensive / uncompetitive way of moving cargo pallets..

While that is true, it is only half the story. An airline also looks also at what revenue it brings, this is equally important, one cannot go without the other.

If another aircraft costs 10% more to operate, but generates 20% more in revenue, it is basically a no-brainer and the more expensive one is the more appealing.

The payload at a certain range is also very important, especially when you reach the boundaries of the envelope. I can definitely see the 777-8 having a considerable edge over the A350 on some ULR missions (>8500nm), routes that are not served non-stop today. Passengers do care about flying non-stop and are willing to pay more. Cargo generally doesn't care that much, so this doesn't hold for freight.

However, there won't be many city pairs that far apart and with a large enough O&D market to make such routes viable. The 777-8 will remain a niche aircraft like the 777-200LR, but in my opinion, it will shine. Airlines will also use it as a marketing tool like the A380, to show off its extreme capabilities.
 
travelhound
Posts: 1918
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Wed Mar 01, 2017 8:59 pm

Planesmart wrote:

How does the A380 look when you apply the same methodology?


Good question?

On a per seat basis the Airbus A380-800 uses 509 kilograms of structure for each seat (544 seats). This is 10% higher than the 777-300ER, its main competitors 460 kilograms per seat. From all accounts the A380 has lower CASM than the 777-300ER, so we have a good example of a plane with more structure per seat (10%) being more economical than one with less.

If we compare the 777-8X (485 kilograms/seat) with the A350-1000 (423 kilograms/seat), the 777-8X has 14.8% more structure per seat.......but, to put this is into further perspective where the A380 and 777-300ER have similar mission profiles/capabilities (the A380 has a little more range) , the 777-8X is a segment above the A350-1000 in both range and payload capabilities. The extent of the efficiency gains from the extended wing is also an unknown.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9185
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Wed Mar 01, 2017 9:58 pm

travelhound wrote:
Planesmart wrote:

How does the A380 look when you apply the same methodology?


Good question?

On a per seat basis the Airbus A380-800 uses 509 kilograms of structure for each seat (544 seats). This is 10% higher than the 777-300ER, its main competitors 460 kilograms per seat. From all accounts the A380 has lower CASM than the 777-300ER, so we have a good example of a plane with more structure per seat (10%) being more economical than one with less.

If we compare the 777-8X (485 kilograms/seat) with the A350-1000 (423 kilograms/seat), the 777-8X has 14.8% more structure per seat.......but, to put this is into further perspective where the A380 and 777-300ER have similar mission profiles/capabilities (the A380 has a little more range) , the 777-8X is a segment above the A350-1000 in both range and payload capabilities. The extent of the efficiency gains from the extended wing is also an unknown.


What number of seats do you assume for the 777-300ER.
 
travelhound
Posts: 1918
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Is there a viable market for the Boeing 777-8?

Wed Mar 01, 2017 11:46 pm

365

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