Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
JetBuddy wrote:Ethiopian already operate A350, 787, 767 and 777 widebody aircraft. Does fleet commonality not matter to them?
JetBuddy wrote:Ethiopian already operate A350, 787, 767 and 777 widebody aircraft. Does fleet commonality not matter to them?
idp5601 wrote:You do realise United, American, JAL, and many others operate or have orders for all of these fleet types right? I don't see why ET would have a problem operating multiple widebodies.
na wrote:Well, if this turns into an order it surely is a replacement for the 777s now in service.
JetBuddy wrote:idp5601 wrote:You do realise United, American, JAL, and many others operate or have orders for all of these fleet types right? I don't see why ET would have a problem operating multiple widebodies.
Because United, American and JAL are huge airlines with massive overhead costs, and large subfleets of each type. Ethiopian is a 97 aircraft airline, and that includes narrowbodies and freighters. They have 7 different types of aircraft, and that is when I've merged various subfleets of the same type. The 767s will leave the fleet shortly, but that still makes 6 types.
Now look at SAS, also a legacy carrier. They're a 164 aircraft airline, operating only 4 types of aircraft. They've hardly been the role model for fleet commonality, and they're phasing out one type and will be down to 3 types in a few years.na wrote:Well, if this turns into an order it surely is a replacement for the 777s now in service.
Yes. And one way to get rid of too many fleet types is to phase one out. This potential 777X order just means they'll keep flying 7 different types. I'm not saying 777X isn't the right aircraft for them, but they really should start looking at fleet commonality.
Polot wrote:ET’s hot and high requirements generally means it works out better to select the aircraft best optimized for the mission rather than sticking to aircraft families (as stretched aircraft generally have worse field performance). The 778, for example, would probably out perform the A350-1000 from ADD while giving ET more capacity on a route than the A359.
Polot wrote:ET’s hot and high requirements generally means it works out better to select the aircraft best optimized for the mission rather than sticking to aircraft families (as stretched aircraft generally have worse field performance). The 778, for example, would probably out perform the A350-1000 from ADD while giving ET more capacity on a route than the A359.
rnav2dlrey wrote:will the -8X be able to fly from ADD to north america without refueling? currently even the ADD-IAD flight has to make a tech stop in DUB because of ADD’s elevation.
fsabo wrote:Polot wrote:ET’s hot and high requirements generally means it works out better to select the aircraft best optimized for the mission rather than sticking to aircraft families (as stretched aircraft generally have worse field performance). The 778, for example, would probably out perform the A350-1000 from ADD while giving ET more capacity on a route than the A359.
Yet the A350-1000 isn't exactly a simple stretch. It has more wing area and higher thrust engines. What are the expected wing area and thrust to weight ratios of the aircraft?
jmchevallier wrote:A350-1000 : MTOW 308T, engines 2 x 97 000lb, wing area 445sqm
B778 : MTOW 352T, engines 2X 105 000lb, wing area 480sqm (?).
So the B778 has 14.3% more TOW, over a 7.9% larger wing, driven by 8.2% more powerful engines. Not a significant difference !
fsabo wrote:jmchevallier wrote:A350-1000 : MTOW 308T, engines 2 x 97 000lb, wing area 445sqm
B778 : MTOW 352T, engines 2X 105 000lb, wing area 480sqm (?).
So the B778 has 14.3% more TOW, over a 7.9% larger wing, driven by 8.2% more powerful engines. Not a significant difference !
So 778 has 8% bigger wing, 8% more thrust, but 14% higher MTOW. I really don't see an advantage for the 778 here.
Polot wrote:fsabo wrote:jmchevallier wrote:A350-1000 : MTOW 308T, engines 2 x 97 000lb, wing area 445sqm
B778 : MTOW 352T, engines 2X 105 000lb, wing area 480sqm (?).
So the B778 has 14.3% more TOW, over a 7.9% larger wing, driven by 8.2% more powerful engines. Not a significant difference !
So 778 has 8% bigger wing, 8% more thrust, but 14% higher MTOW. I really don't see an advantage for the 778 here.
At MTOW (which is likely restricted for both planes at ADD’s altitude anyways) the 778 has almost 9000nm of range, which is far more than what ET needs. So they don’t have to load the plane up to MTOW. The wing area and thrust are really the important parts as that is what is getting it off the ground.
fsabo wrote:jmchevallier wrote:A350-1000 : MTOW 308T, engines 2 x 97 000lb, wing area 445sqm
B778 : MTOW 352T, engines 2X 105 000lb, wing area 480sqm (?).
So the B778 has 14.3% more TOW, over a 7.9% larger wing, driven by 8.2% more powerful engines. Not a significant difference !
So 778 has 8% bigger wing, 8% more thrust, but 14% higher MTOW. I really don't see an advantage for the 778 here.
berari wrote:If the 77X and the A350-1000 are so close in terms of performance, then ET may swing either way, now that Airbus has made inroads into ET's fleet composition. If it goes Airbus, it can address a fleet commonality issue.
iadadd wrote:First off the 767s will be gone in the next 3-5 years, they were supposed to be retired by this year but due to rapid expansion they decided to extend the life of those birds by a few years. The 77Ls are now 7 years old and will be probably kept for only another 10ish years. Finally the 77Ws are leased so they'll eventually be phased out probably in 8-10 years as well.
Looks like long term fleet will be as such
DH8 - Domestic
738/MAX 8 - Short Haul/Domestic
788 - Medium Haul and some thin long haul
789 - Longer Haul/Medium demand
77X -Long Haul, Very High Demand
A359 -Long Haul, Large Demand
The only type that seems a little odd is the 789; I'm still not really sure why ET purchased those as additional A359 would have seemed to make more sense, but maybe Boeing offered a sweet deal?
ET seems to love their A359, so Boeing is likely carefully analyzing this and will potentially offer ET a nice deal if it ends up choosing the 77X.
iadadd wrote:First off the 767s will be gone in the next 3-5 years, they were supposed to be retired by this year but due to rapid expansion they decided to extend the life of those birds by a few years. The 77Ls are now 7 years old and will be probably kept for only another 10ish years. Finally the 77Ws are leased so they'll eventually be phased out probably in 8-10 years as well.
Looks like long term fleet will be as such
DH8 - Domestic
738/MAX 8 - Short Haul/Domestic
788 - Medium Haul and some thin long haul
789 - Longer Haul/Medium demand
77X -Long Haul, Very High Demand
A359 -Long Haul, Large Demand
The only type that seems a little odd is the 789; I'm still not really sure why ET purchased those as additional A359 would have seemed to make more sense, but maybe Boeing offered a sweet deal?
ET seems to love their A359, so Boeing is likely carefully analyzing this and will potentially offer ET a nice deal if it ends up choosing the 77X.
pabloeing wrote:“We delayed the 777X order because Airbus promised us the A350-1000, but then we saw the figures and it was clear the -1000 will not perform well out of Addis.”
hayzel777 wrote:pabloeing wrote:“We delayed the 777X order because Airbus promised us the A350-1000, but then we saw the figures and it was clear the -1000 will not perform well out of Addis.”
Interesting statement...is the A35K not a good hot/high performer?
pabloeing wrote:
“The Boeing 777-300ERs will be replaced by the 777-9 with about 50 seats more, while the 777-8 will replace our 777-200LRs.”
JustSomeDood wrote:pabloeing wrote:
“The Boeing 777-300ERs will be replaced by the 777-9 with about 50 seats more, while the 777-8 will replace our 777-200LRs.”
So something like 380 seats for the 778 and 450 seats for the 779, those are some big planes to fill! Good luck to ET with putting bums on seats profitably with them.
iadadd wrote:JustSomeDood wrote:pabloeing wrote:
“The Boeing 777-300ERs will be replaced by the 777-9 with about 50 seats more, while the 777-8 will replace our 777-200LRs.”
So something like 380 seats for the 778 and 450 seats for the 779, those are some big planes to fill! Good luck to ET with putting bums on seats profitably with them.
If they purchase 20, I think 12 779s and 8 778s will be a perfect combo
OA940 wrote:How much demand does Ethiopia have anyway? I mean ET has been doing fantastically and I do love the underdog pulling through, but still. Also I think the -8 is more likely to be ordered since ET's 77W's are newer than their 77L's, and I doubt they have a need for the 779 in terms of capacity. Either way I'm really glad we may see another order for the 777X.
AA777223 wrote:The article above is literally titled "Ethiopian wants Addis Ababa to be Africa’s Dubai"ET seems to be working hard to become an alternative to connecting airlines like EK, QR, EY but for Africa. It kinda makes sense to me, because the only significant carriers on the continent that come to my mind are SA (which is a mess, and not well positioned geographically for connections) and Egyptair, which also suffers the same geographic issues in that they are a bit far north. Having a carrier more centrally located on the continent seems logical. Given the *A connections between the other two mentioned, it seems like a possibility. I wish them all the best.
OA940 wrote:How much demand does Ethiopia have anyway? I mean ET has been doing fantastically and I do love the underdog pulling through, but still. Also I think the -8 is more likely to be ordered since ET's 77W's are newer than their 77L's, and I doubt they have a need for the 779 in terms of capacity. Either way I'm really glad we may see another order for the 777X.
JustSomeDood wrote:pabloeing wrote:
“The Boeing 777-300ERs will be replaced by the 777-9 with about 50 seats more, while the 777-8 will replace our 777-200LRs.”
So something like 380 seats for the 778 and 450 seats for the 779, those are some big planes to fill! Good luck to ET with putting bums on seats profitably with them.
iadadd wrote:If they purchase 20, I think 12 779s and 8 778s will be a perfect combo
pabloeing wrote:“We will order ten to 20 Boeing 777Xs until the end of 2018, a mix of -8s and -9s,” states Gebremariam.
“We delayed the 777X order because Airbus promised us the A350-1000, but then we saw the figures and it was clear the -1000 will not perform well out of Addis.
“The Boeing 777-300ERs will be replaced by the 777-9 with about 50 seats more, while the 777-8 will replace our 777-200LRs.”
cledaybuck wrote:AA777223 wrote:The article above is literally titled "Ethiopian wants Addis Ababa to be Africa’s Dubai"ET seems to be working hard to become an alternative to connecting airlines like EK, QR, EY but for Africa. It kinda makes sense to me, because the only significant carriers on the continent that come to my mind are SA (which is a mess, and not well positioned geographically for connections) and Egyptair, which also suffers the same geographic issues in that they are a bit far north. Having a carrier more centrally located on the continent seems logical. Given the *A connections between the other two mentioned, it seems like a possibility. I wish them all the best.
Bricktop wrote:cledaybuck wrote:AA777223 wrote:The article above is literally titled "Ethiopian wants Addis Ababa to be Africa’s Dubai"ET seems to be working hard to become an alternative to connecting airlines like EK, QR, EY but for Africa. It kinda makes sense to me, because the only significant carriers on the continent that come to my mind are SA (which is a mess, and not well positioned geographically for connections) and Egyptair, which also suffers the same geographic issues in that they are a bit far north. Having a carrier more centrally located on the continent seems logical. Given the *A connections between the other two mentioned, it seems like a possibility. I wish them all the best.
Not a horrible model for Africa. Why schlep all the way up to DXB when you can transfer in ADD?
JustSomeDood wrote:Bricktop wrote:cledaybuck wrote:The article above is literally titled "Ethiopian wants Addis Ababa to be Africa’s Dubai"
Not a horrible model for Africa. Why schlep all the way up to DXB when you can transfer in ADD?
I do see some unique things ET could do that would be tough for ME3 to emulate:
- Connecting Asia to various African locations, China + India alone would provide a fair bit of business demand given how much the former has invested in the African subcontinent.
-Connecting China/South (east) Asia to Latin America, again, geography helps ET as the ME3 have to fly much further from their hubs to LatAm than ET does (SCL is not that realistic while EZE is pushing it), while Connecting through Europe has inconvenient timings and the US is a terrible transit hub to foreign countries b.c immigration is a PITA.
If done right, that'd be a decent market niche for ET moving forward, whether it necessitates that much added planes is another matter..