amazing news.....

We will order 10-20 @Boeing 777X by year end @flyethiopian CEO Tewolde #avgeek

¿B777-8X?

Interesting; it is only a tweet by an aviation journalist, no communication from Ethiopian or other sources available.

Cheers!

Link to the tweet:

https://twitter.com/SpaethFlies/status/ ... 6618663937

We will have to wait and see for how this will turn out. ET has been linked like this to many "orders" before over the last couple of years, including the 777X, which didn't (yet) turn into firm orders.

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?

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.

JetBuddy wrote:

Ethiopian already operate A350, 787, 767 and 777 widebody aircraft. Does fleet commonality not matter to them?

Well, if this turns into an order it surely is a replacement for the 777s now in service.

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.

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.

Let us not forget that ET is also trying to build up MRO and Technical expertise. They possibly feel that in-house experience with most aircraft types benefits them.

I agree that more fleet commonality is a good thing and hopefully, as time goes on and experience and reputation builds, they will rationalise their fleet.

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.

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.

Interesting timing given that A350-1000 field performance is better than expected.

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.

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?

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.

my suspicion is yes and that's a big reason, maybe the only reason they ordered them

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?

Yes it is not exactly a simple stretch. I suspect the -1000 will perform similar to a A359, but the 778 will likely be a monster (as the wings/engines are sized for the larger 779).

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 !

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.

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.

The larger wing and more powerful engines allow for a heavier take off in high elevations and climate, thus adding on range and/or capacity.

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.

What is the empty weight difference between the 778 and 351?

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.

Don't forget the 311t & 316t variants of the A350-1000.

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.

To be fair, if it goes 777X it does the same considering ET currently operates the 777-200LR and 777-300ER.

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.

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.

IIRC the 789s are leased, and intended mostly for medium haul as their hot and high performance are not as good as the 788’s. They are used for routes where the A359’s performance is overkill.

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.

IIRC the B789 were part of the early commitments when they signed up for 787s, before ET's rapid expansion that we have seen. Perhaps they took them anyway because they needed their delivery slots. The B789s are on lease, with two already flying and two more on order. The A359 has been good for ET, and has been deployed on routes that were historically the domain of the 77L and 77W.

If commonality/rationalization is of priority and if the larger A350 is a good fit, I would love to see the following combination:

- DH8
- 738/Max 8
- 788
- A359/A351

Ethiopian CEO confirm order

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/eth ... cas-dubai/

“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.”

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?

Given that Airbus has beaten its spec on airfield performance I am not sure what Ethiopian was expecting..... undoubtedly the 77x will lift more.

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?

Maybe not good enough for Ethiopian. And they also need a replacement for both the 77L and 77W, so the choice for both 778 and 779 is logical.

¿how many B777-300ER and 200LR have Ehiopian?

^ Currently ET has 6 B77Ls and 4 B77Ws

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.

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.

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

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

“10 to 20” is probably 10 firm to replace existingg 777s one for one with 10 options. Don’t forget they already increased their A350 order. They’re going to end up with a lot of long-haul types for an airline of their size.

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.

What is that supposed to mean? That a relatively poorer country like Ethiopia doesn't have people who can afford to fly to/through/from it? Are you serious?

AA777223 wrote:

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.

The article above is literally titled "Ethiopian wants Addis Ababa to be Africa’s Dubai"

Is it too early to congratulate Boeing, the 777X program, and Ethiopian?

So many A fans here on this A.net consider this frame to be stillborn. Obvious bias is obvious.

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.

Ethiopia does not have much demand. If you look beyond the country and focus on the airline that is purchasing the aircraft, you will note that it is the #1 airline in Africa that has made it its business to provide connectivity in a profitable, safe, and competitive manner. Their order is not going to translate to an immediate delivery, and with airline orders [which I assume you know] it will be years before they take on the aircraft. The 77Ws are all leased in, and can go whenever the lease is up. The passenger 77Ls are all owned, while the freighter ones are mostly leased.

ET does love its 77s.

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.

Their overall load factor in the last few years has been hovering around 70%. They don't expect to fill every aircraft to the brim anyway. Maybe its the capabilities of the aircraft that they are after, rather than its seat count. Also on routes like DXB, where they send two aircraft within an hour in the evening to meet demand, they could consolidate into one.

iadadd wrote:

If they purchase 20, I think 12 779s and 8 778s will be a perfect combo

I personally think that that 20 aircraft is too high of a number, considering they are looking to replace 10 aircraft (6x 77Ls and 4x 77Ws.) And this especially given their large order book for the A359. It is quite possible that ET is also thinking about its partners like ASKY and their future long haul needs.

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.”

Unless the A350-1000 is really lagging behind, isn't such statement a detriment to pricing negotiations with Boeing?

Bricktop wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

AA777223 wrote:

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.

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..

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..

You have pretty much outlined what ET is already doing.

- China is the country it flies into the most, with mostly dailies, and additional routes planned/in the works.
- India is challenging in terms of available traffic rights. Current 2x dailies to each DEL and BOM. The latter gets 2x A350s which is huge, while the former is still building and has the B763s, ET secured an additional daily frequency to India in the last couple of weeks, with possibilities including Ahmedabad, Bangalore and Calcutta.
- South America is relatively newer territory for Ethiopian yet it still sends the B77L nonstop to GRU, with EZE coming online in the next month as an extension to GRU.
- SEL and NRT are now bettter adjusted for shorter flights, with ET going ADD-SEL-NRT soon, instead of ADD-HKG-SEL/NRT. ET will also have 5th freedom between SEL and NRT.

Time to quit the word RUMOR of the title......