User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 19365
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:48 pm

MileHFL400 wrote:
I’d hate to be stuck in one of those!

I don't know about that, both of them are quite pretty! :biggrin:
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
 
ewt340
Posts: 379
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:52 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
A350-1000 provide great fuel efficiency and lower risk.

The A350-1000 isn't that great at all.

The A350-900 will always have 75+% of the order book which shows the 1000 isn't attractive.

The reasons why is as follows: The 1000 is heavy as it is not a simple stretch. Most stretchs add capacity but put on very little weight giving a big boost in efficiency.

The 787-10 for instance is a simple stretch that keeps the same wing, landing gear and MTOW and the OEW only goes up 5%. Cabin area goes up 13%. So the fuel burn per passenger improves with the 787-10.

The A350-1000 OEW goes up 11% and cabin area goes up by only 14%. Fuel burn per passenger does not improve it is just simply bigger. With A350-1000 it will need more than 11% additional thrust to push through the air due to the OEW increase. The 1000 runs into another problem as the wing does not get more span only bigger flaps despite the 13% maximum takeoff increase. This means the lift to drag ratio gets worse, for every ton of weight you need more thrust to push it through the air. So you require another 4-5% more thrust for every ton of weight. So you now have 1.11 x 1.05 = 1.165 so a big 16% increase in thrust required.

This is why the A350-1000 has 97,000lb of thrust compared to the A350-900's 84,200lb. That is actually more thrust per passenger on the 1000.

The A350-1000 really needs a simple stretch to 80m with no MTOW increase. That will make it more efficient per passenger than the A350-900. We might have to wait until after the A380 production ends.


A350-1000 is meant to be heavy since they

There is few factors that make A350-900 more popular:
- Smaller capacity.
- The right timing for A340 and B777-200ER replacement.

And I think we need to look into the number of seats added instead of the cabin area: (configs by today's standard and Airbus pdf files)
- A350-900 = 40 reversed herringbone business class seat + 267 economy class seat at 32" pitch.
- A350-1000 = 48 reversed herringbone business class seat + 315 economy class seat at 32" pitch.
Those are 18.24% increase in seat count.

Also 36 LD3 on A350-900 and 44 LD3 on A350-1000. 22.2% increase in LD3 capacity.

4.76% increase in total wing area.
12.86% increase in MTOW.
11.46% increase in OEW.
15.2% increase in Maximum thrust.
12.78% increase in the maximum fuel carried.
+300 nmi extra range on A350-1000 compared to the standard A350-900.

all this against the 18.24% increase in passengers capacity and 22.2% increase in cargo capacity.
In terms of "thrust per passengers logic" if you count the actual seat numbers, A350-1000 have lower thrust per passengers....
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1134
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:08 pm

MileHFL400 wrote:
But the 77W had improved wingspan too.

Exactly. More wingspan, new engines and the stretch was a massive 10metres not 7 metres like the A350.

777-200ER to 777-300ER
Empty weight increased by 16%
Cabin area incressed by 21%
MTOW increased by 18%
Wing span incressed by 6% and it got new generation engines.

A350-900 to A350-1000
Empty weight increased by 11%
Cabin area incressed by 14%
MTOW increased by 13%
No wingspan increase or new engines.

So the percentages of scaling are very similar for both. But the 777-300ER got more value for that weight incresse it got extra span and new engines which makes a big difference.

If the A350-1000 for instance got 4metres wingtip extensions and Rolls Royce advance engines which are half a generation ahead of the XWB then it would outsell the current 900.
 
incitatus
Posts: 3242
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Thu Jan 10, 2019 2:24 pm

One of the main factors for the A350-900 - A350-1000 trade-off is actual pricing, and few people have access to accurate information. The incremental seats of the -1000 won't always be filled, and will be filled at incremental fares. The price difference has to be small enough not to completely erase the revenue difference.
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 7806
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:48 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
MileHFL400 wrote:
But the 77W had improved wingspan too.

Exactly. More wingspan, new engines and the stretch was a massive 10metres not 7 metres like the A350.

777-200ER to 777-300ER
Empty weight increased by 16%
Cabin area incressed by 21%
MTOW increased by 18%
Wing span incressed by 6% and it got new generation engines.

A350-900 to A350-1000
Empty weight increased by 11%
Cabin area incressed by 14%
MTOW increased by 13%
No wingspan increase or new engines.

So the percentages of scaling are very similar for both. But the 777-300ER got more value for that weight incresse it got extra span and new engines which makes a big difference.

If the A350-1000 for instance got 4metres wingtip extensions and Rolls Royce advance engines which are half a generation ahead of the XWB then it would outsell the current 900.


The A350-900 and A350-1000 have different engines. Both have a similar span as the 777-300ER with a far lower MTOW. An increase in span would need folding wingtips. The 777-200ER and the 777-300ER do have the same wings. The 777-300ER has raked wingtips that brings the increase in span against the 777-200ER. There are more years between the EIS of the 777-200ER and the 777-300ER than between the A350-900 and the A350-1000, so it is crazy to think about the next engine generation.

My take is, that there is a tendency away from the big twins. Hitting the A350-1000, but also the 787-10 and 777-9.
 
trav777
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:17 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:32 pm

The 78J is the replacement aircraft for the 77W for all routes under 6000nm. The lion's share.

It's simply going to outperform anything AB offers from a cost perspective, along with anything BA offers (77x). As we've seen from the 789, airlines are getting or shedding range by adopting different configurations; bear in mind several operators of that jet are already flying nearly 300pax on it. Most notably, NZ has it with that pax load on ORD-AKL, which is at 7111nm. This in my estimate is at the range edge of this plane in this configuration. I expect airlines to do similar things with the 78J. Lop off 500nm range for 50 pax or thereabouts. That puts the 78J right smack in the middle of 77W territory except for the longest routes. The 789 can already carry nearly 300 to almost the range limit of the W (7300ish nm). You have to consistently carry a LF greater than .8 to need the extra seats. The fuel burn economics of the 787 family make even that problematic- I don't expect that the additional revenue of the W's seats vs a NZ-config 789 make up the difference in operating cost...the smaller jet is literally more profitable at a lower load.

Only airlines who can sell the extra 100+ seats in a 779 are potential buyers- this is the ME3. Boring had to design this plane almost for them. The similar lack of sales for the 35K shows that nobody is much interested in that frame either.

If you're an airline planner, and you're looking for the best cost profile on a plane/route, the 78J is your go-to unless you absolutely have to have range and can suck up the extra operating cost necessary to get it. And even then, it's a MUCH safer plan to go with a 789 in a NZ config; you're only unable to do the present longest *16* routes with that jet in that config.
 
musman9853
Posts: 345
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:47 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
The only way to make a 777-10 is a simple stretch of a 777-9, same MTOW. No bigger engine needed.

Any increase in MTOW would need a new MLG with big changes. Perhaps a third center MLG would do it, but I can not see such a solution. No sense to produce some few frames with big changes.

The situation of the 777-9 is bad enough. No new orders for one and a half year. Only four airlines apart from the ME3 ordered it. Nearly 70 % ordered by the ME3. Reduction of orders by Etihad should be expected. The launch customer, LH, talking about having ordered to many of them. No Leasing company shows any interest in the 777-9, usually counted as a bad sign.
Replacement of A380 by 777-9 is a pipe dream. The two airlines having replaced, SQ, or are about to replace, EK, replace A380 with A380.



with a380 production on the brink, the plane is doomed. Most airlines that bought the a380 clearly regret it, and are planning to replace them with smaller jets. the 777x is the only real replacement for VLAs, as the 777x is a VLA itself. The a350 simply can't really be made to compete without significant expense. long term the 777x has a decent future imo.
 
B1168
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:26 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:25 pm

trav777 wrote:
The 78J is the replacement aircraft for the 77W for all routes under 6000nm. The lion's share.

It's simply going to outperform anything AB offers from a cost perspective, along with anything BA offers (77x). As we've seen from the 789, airlines are getting or shedding range by adopting different configurations; bear in mind several operators of that jet are already flying nearly 300pax on it. Most notably, NZ has it with that pax load on ORD-AKL, which is at 7111nm. This in my estimate is at the range edge of this plane in this configuration. I expect airlines to do similar things with the 78J. Lop off 500nm range for 50 pax or thereabouts. That puts the 78J right smack in the middle of 77W territory except for the longest routes. The 789 can already carry nearly 300 to almost the range limit of the W (7300ish nm). You have to consistently carry a LF greater than .8 to need the extra seats. The fuel burn economics of the 787 family make even that problematic- I don't expect that the additional revenue of the W's seats vs a NZ-config 789 make up the difference in operating cost...the smaller jet is literally more profitable at a lower load.

Only airlines who can sell the extra 100+ seats in a 779 are potential buyers- this is the ME3. Boring had to design this plane almost for them. The similar lack of sales for the 35K shows that nobody is much interested in that frame either.

If you're an airline planner, and you're looking for the best cost profile on a plane/route, the 78J is your go-to unless you absolutely have to have range and can suck up the extra operating cost necessary to get it. And even then, it's a MUCH safer plan to go with a 789 in a NZ config; you're only unable to do the present longest *16* routes with that jet in that config.


Sure. 78X seems to be able to bite down a significant share of potential 35K buyers unless they demand range that long, wishing to have a 77w-size replacer.
However, we are worring 77X more than 77w,which are distinctly different. I think there is a hole between 78X and 778, which 35K legitimately fill.
 
trav777
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:17 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:36 pm

B1168 wrote:
Sure. 78X seems to be able to bite down a significant share of potential 35K buyers unless they demand range that long, wishing to have a 77w-size replacer.
However, we are worring 77X more than 77w,which are distinctly different. I think there is a hole between 78X and 778, which 35K legitimately fill.


Agree. It's just a relatively small hole
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6389
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:44 pm

trav777 wrote:
The 78J is the replacement aircraft for the 77W for all routes under 6000nm. The lion's share.

It's simply going to outperform anything AB offers from a cost perspective, along with anything BA offers (77x). As we've seen from the 789, airlines are getting or shedding range by adopting different configurations; bear in mind several operators of that jet are already flying nearly 300pax on it. Most notably, NZ has it with that pax load on ORD-AKL, which is at 7111nm. This in my estimate is at the range edge of this plane in this configuration. I expect airlines to do similar things with the 78J. Lop off 500nm range for 50 pax or thereabouts. That puts the 78J right smack in the middle of 77W territory except for the longest routes. The 789 can already carry nearly 300 to almost the range limit of the W (7300ish nm). You have to consistently carry a LF greater than .8 to need the extra seats. The fuel burn economics of the 787 family make even that problematic- I don't expect that the additional revenue of the W's seats vs a NZ-config 789 make up the difference in operating cost...the smaller jet is literally more profitable at a lower load.

Only airlines who can sell the extra 100+ seats in a 779 are potential buyers- this is the ME3. Boring had to design this plane almost for them. The similar lack of sales for the 35K shows that nobody is much interested in that frame either.

If you're an airline planner, and you're looking for the best cost profile on a plane/route, the 78J is your go-to unless you absolutely have to have range and can suck up the extra operating cost necessary to get it. And even then, it's a MUCH safer plan to go with a 789 in a NZ config; you're only unable to do the present longest *16* routes with that jet in that config.


NZ use a 275 seat configuration for ORD-AKL. They are looking at another less dense configuration for ULH like NYC/GRU between that and A350/777X.
 
trav777
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:17 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:55 pm

ZK-NBT wrote:
NZ use a 275 seat configuration for ORD-AKL. They are looking at another less dense configuration for ULH like NYC/GRU between that and A350/777X.


so they are shedding like 2t to cover the westbound winds...makes sense. The jet will do 7100ish in still air I estimate.

I also knew about their inquiries into a less dense 789 config for AKL-JFK. I honestly doubt they will pursue the 359, which won't do that leg anyway full. Maybe they pick up a 778 for it but I think it'd be more cost effective to simply fly a QF config on a 789 tbh.
 
smartplane
Posts: 405
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:34 pm

MileHFL400 wrote:
LH will not reduce their firm order, maybe just not take up their options. Let’s just be clear.

After initial deliveries, unless growth dictates, LH will slow deliveries to harmonise with 748 buyback milestones.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1134
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:35 am

mjoelnir wrote:
The A350-900 and A350-1000 have different engines. Both have a similar span as the 777-300ER with a far lower MTOW. An increase in span would need folding wingtips.

The engines are the same generation on the A350. The 777W were half a generation ahead with higher bypass ratio etc.

It is irrelevant if the A350 has lower weight with the same wingspan as the old 777W as they are decades apart. The point was the 777W got extra span and better engines to handle the weight, the A350-1000 did not.

Regarding the XWB-97 engine for the A350-1000 that engine apparently has worse SFC than the A350-900 engine. The massive thrust bump required a bigger core reducing bypass ratio as the fan was kept the same size. The fan now spins slightly faster than optimal. This problem occured due to the A350 growing in weight, the XWB engine was never intended to exceed 90,000lb of thrust. The wikipedia page did show this bypass and rpm difference but has since been changed for some reason.

mjoelnir wrote:
There are more years between the EIS of the 777-200ER and the 777-300ER than between the A350-900 and the A350-1000, so it is crazy to think about the next engine generation.

New engines for the A350 were purely hypothetical as there aren't any available. But without increased span or new engines the A350-1000 will only capture a small portion of the orders.

The A350-1000 is slightly overweight, underwinged and under-fanned compared to the A350-900. This gives the 777X a fighting chance to capture some of the shrinking VLA market.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 5976
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:04 am

RJMAZ wrote:
The A350-1000 is slightly overweight, underwinged and under-fanned compared to the A350-900. This gives the 777X a fighting chance to capture some of the shrinking VLA market.


"Underwinged" in terms of span, not area. The A350-1000 actually has very slightly lower wing loading than the -900 at MTOW.

But in any event the engine SFC issue you raise is a valid one, and makes me wonder whether the A350-1000 would meaningfully improve in efficiency if it got 1) a lower MTOW of about 295 t, 2) the -900 engines, and 3) new, longer wingtip devices. Such a thing ought to fly around 6000 nm with a full passenger load. Could it dethrone the 787-10 as a medium range CASM king?
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1134
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:54 am

seabosdca wrote:
"Underwinged" in terms of span, not area. The A350-1000 actually has very slightly lower wing loading than the -900 at MTOW.

But in any event the engine SFC issue you raise is a valid one, and makes me wonder whether the A350-1000 would meaningfully improve in efficiency if it got 1) a lower MTOW of about 295 t, 2) the -900 engines, and 3) new, longer wingtip devices. Such a thing ought to fly around 6000 nm with a full passenger load. Could it dethrone the 787-10 as a medium range CASM king?

I thought the bigger wing was just in the flaps and didn't make a difference in cruise.

What made the A350-1000 get a big OEW increase was the shift to a 6 wheel MLG. The A350-900 would already have the 4 wheel MLG maxed out on landing weight and takeoff weight.

The A350-1000 "medium range" would need to be like the 787-10 and retain the same MTOW to keep same MLG.

Most families the stretch trades range for CASM efficiency. 777LR/W A332/A333, 762/763, 789/79J, A342/A343. All of these the stretch gained very little OEW and MTOW. They sacrificed range for efficiency making two unique roles, so operating both types gives immense flexibility.

With the A350-1000 it did not trade range for better efficiency. It maintained range which added extra weight and kept efficiency the same. So all it offers is the same as the A350-900 just slightly bigger.

The A350-1000 even at 280T would probably have sold better. The A350-900 has better payload range than the 797-9 so a simple stretch A350-1000 would probably have had better payload range than the 797-10.

Who knows if the A380 ends production Airbus might size the ultrafan for the 1000 model causing sales to surge and also do a 1100 stretch. The A350-900 might end up like the 787-8 with its smaller landing gear and low commonality.

Airbus might do a cleansheet 8ab MOM which could take some A350-900 orders on the low end. Just like how the 797 will compete with 787-8 orders.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 5976
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:19 am

RJMAZ wrote:
I thought the bigger wing was just in the flaps and didn't make a difference in cruise.


It's a trailing edge extension along the entire length of the wing, including flaps, ailerons, and elsewhere. It increases wing area and reduces aspect ratio even with high-lift devices stowed. What you describe sounds like what Airbus did for the A321.

RJMAZ wrote:
The A350-1000 "medium range" would need to be like the 787-10 and retain the same MTOW to keep same MLG.


I think that even with the increased OEW brought on by the 6 wheel bogeys an A350-1000 with more span and optimized engines, with the highest MTOW that those engines can handle with somewhat reasonable field performance, might be what the doctor ordered. It would be interesting to compare that on both a CASM and payload range basis with the simple stretch of the A350-900 you're contemplating.
 
sabby
Posts: 121
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:33 am

RJMAZ wrote:

Most families the stretch trades range for CASM efficiency. 777LR/W A332/A333, 762/763, 789/79J, A342/A343. All of these the stretch gained very little OEW and MTOW. They sacrificed range for efficiency making two unique roles, so operating both types gives immense flexibility.

With the A350-1000 it did not trade range for better efficiency. It maintained range which added extra weight and kept efficiency the same. So all it offers is the same as the A350-900 just slightly bigger.

The A350-1000 even at 280T would probably have sold better. The A350-900 has better payload range than the 797-9 so a simple stretch A350-1000 would probably have had better payload range than the 797-10.


I think the answer to your questions is how Airbus saw the future market demand. For the medium haul low CASM missions, there are already 4 air frames available - 789 and 78J from Boeing, A339 and A359R from Airbus. Introducing another frame with even higher pax wouldn't make as much sales as they wanted is my guess.

On the other hand, there were zero competition for 77W, that's a large frame with long range and FAT profit margin (before end of line discounts) and 845 of them got sold. A35K is around similar capacity, with more range, significantly more efficient AND 35 T lighter to take off at full load. If Airbus didn't launch A35K, I doubt Boeing would bother with 777X program.
 
MileHFL400
Topic Author
Posts: 532
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:42 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:49 am

sabby wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:

Most families the stretch trades range for CASM efficiency. 777LR/W A332/A333, 762/763, 789/79J, A342/A343. All of these the stretch gained very little OEW and MTOW. They sacrificed range for efficiency making two unique roles, so operating both types gives immense flexibility.

With the A350-1000 it did not trade range for better efficiency. It maintained range which added extra weight and kept efficiency the same. So all it offers is the same as the A350-900 just slightly bigger.

The A350-1000 even at 280T would probably have sold better. The A350-900 has better payload range than the 797-9 so a simple stretch A350-1000 would probably have had better payload range than the 797-10.


I think the answer to your questions is how Airbus saw the future market demand. For the medium haul low CASM missions, there are already 4 air frames available - 789 and 78J from Boeing, A339 and A359R from Airbus. Introducing another frame with even higher pax wouldn't make as much sales as they wanted is my guess.

On the other hand, there were zero competition for 77W, that's a large frame with long range and FAT profit margin (before end of line discounts) and 845 of them got sold. A35K is around similar capacity, with more range, significantly more efficient AND 35 T lighter to take off at full load. If Airbus didn't launch A35K, I doubt Boeing would bother with 777X program.


The fact that it’s a more straightforward change from 77W to 77x rather than to A350 counts for a lot though!
Thanks and best Regards
AA
 
sabby
Posts: 121
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:27 am

MileHFL400 wrote:
The fact that it’s a more straightforward change from 77W to 77x rather than to A350 counts for a lot though!

Oh, no doubt about that ! My post was more to do with why Airbus didn't make A35K a simple stretch like 78J to optimize CASM. I still think Boeing would be happy selling 77W if Airbus didn't make A35K and hence we wouldn't have the 777X, maybe more PIP to existing GE90-115 to make them more efficient but not investing billions for major changes.
 
travelhound
Posts: 1805
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:42 am

bunumuring wrote:
Hey RJMAZ....
QF group doesn't operate ATRs... And never has. The Virgin Australia group however does. You obviously meant QFLink Q400s plus the remaining Q200s and Q300s, and maybe even the QFLink 717s and Network Fokkers and A320s as well?
You present an interesting scenario, however I cannot see QF only operating A220s and 797s domestically, even with a double stretched A220. I am a fan of both the A220 and the potential 797 and hope they both eventually grace Australian skies, but I just can't see them replacing all of the existing QF domestic fleet alone.
Cheers,
Bunumuring


Alan Joyce himself stated the 737's could be replaced with a mix of 797 and A220 aircraft.

This is quite interesting as we can suppose there is a considerable deviation in underlying demand in the routes QF fly.

As such in 2025 and there after the A320 / 737 duopoly may become a thing of the past.
 
ewt340
Posts: 379
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:27 am

RJMAZ wrote:
seabosdca wrote:
"Underwinged" in terms of span, not area. The A350-1000 actually has very slightly lower wing loading than the -900 at MTOW.

But in any event the engine SFC issue you raise is a valid one, and makes me wonder whether the A350-1000 would meaningfully improve in efficiency if it got 1) a lower MTOW of about 295 t, 2) the -900 engines, and 3) new, longer wingtip devices. Such a thing ought to fly around 6000 nm with a full passenger load. Could it dethrone the 787-10 as a medium range CASM king?

I thought the bigger wing was just in the flaps and didn't make a difference in cruise.

What made the A350-1000 get a big OEW increase was the shift to a 6 wheel MLG. The A350-900 would already have the 4 wheel MLG maxed out on landing weight and takeoff weight.

The A350-1000 "medium range" would need to be like the 787-10 and retain the same MTOW to keep same MLG.

Most families the stretch trades range for CASM efficiency. 777LR/W A332/A333, 762/763, 789/79J, A342/A343. All of these the stretch gained very little OEW and MTOW. They sacrificed range for efficiency making two unique roles, so operating both types gives immense flexibility.

With the A350-1000 it did not trade range for better efficiency. It maintained range which added extra weight and kept efficiency the same. So all it offers is the same as the A350-900 just slightly bigger.

The A350-1000 even at 280T would probably have sold better. The A350-900 has better payload range than the 797-9 so a simple stretch A350-1000 would probably have had better payload range than the 797-10.

Who knows if the A380 ends production Airbus might size the ultrafan for the 1000 model causing sales to surge and also do a 1100 stretch. The A350-900 might end up like the 787-8 with its smaller landing gear and low commonality.

Airbus might do a cleansheet 8ab MOM which could take some A350-900 orders on the low end. Just like how the 797 will compete with 787-8 orders.


I think people forget that Airbus increase the MTOW for A350-1000 to boost the performance for airlines like Cathay, United, and SQ.

Also, they tend to offer different weight variants for their products. A350-1000 are offered in the standard 308t variant, 311t, and 316t. They also planned for lighter version of 260t and 270t.
A350-900 have 14 variants they said.

The 308t variant have a range of 7,950 nmi. While the heavier 316t variants have a range of 8,400 nmi.

http://newsinflight.com/2018/06/13/airbus-confirmed-two-more-payload-variants-of-a350-1000/
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/TCDS_EASA%20_A_151_Airbus350_Iss15_2018-09-26.pdf PAGE 20
 
trav777
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:17 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:54 pm

sabby wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:

Most families the stretch trades range for CASM efficiency. 777LR/W A332/A333, 762/763, 789/79J, A342/A343. All of these the stretch gained very little OEW and MTOW. They sacrificed range for efficiency making two unique roles, so operating both types gives immense flexibility.

With the A350-1000 it did not trade range for better efficiency. It maintained range which added extra weight and kept efficiency the same. So all it offers is the same as the A350-900 just slightly bigger.

The A350-1000 even at 280T would probably have sold better. The A350-900 has better payload range than the 797-9 so a simple stretch A350-1000 would probably have had better payload range than the 797-10.


I think the answer to your questions is how Airbus saw the future market demand. For the medium haul low CASM missions, there are already 4 air frames available - 789 and 78J from Boeing, A339 and A359R from Airbus. Introducing another frame with even higher pax wouldn't make as much sales as they wanted is my guess.

On the other hand, there were zero competition for 77W, that's a large frame with long range and FAT profit margin (before end of line discounts) and 845 of them got sold. A35K is around similar capacity, with more range, significantly more efficient AND 35 T lighter to take off at full load. If Airbus didn't launch A35K, I doubt Boeing would bother with 777X program.


Probably.

The irony is that the 35K hasn't sold at all. It's been a flop.
 
trav777
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:17 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:56 pm

[quote="ewt340"]
I think people forget that Airbus increase the MTOW for A350-1000 to boost the performance for airlines like Cathay, United, and SQ.

Also, they tend to offer different weight variants for their products. A350-1000 are offered in the standard 308t variant, 311t, and 316t. They also planned for lighter version of 260t and 270t.
A350-900 have 14 variants they said.

The 308t variant have a range of 7,950 nmi. While the heavier 316t variants have a range of 8,400 nmi.

Brochure ranges from AB are probably 600nm overstated, as BA's used to be.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2309
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:14 pm

trav777 wrote:

The irony is that the 35K hasn't sold at all. It's been a flop.


You should pass this information onto QR, CX, VS, BA, JL and OZ. They've bought thin air?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 19365
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:18 pm

trav777 wrote:
The irony is that the 35K hasn't sold at all. It's been a flop.

To me the irony is if Airbus had built the A350-1000 Mk I (simple stretch) they'd have kept EK's order for 50 frames and would be delivering those frames right about now, while saving the resources they spent on A350 Mk 2 (pushed TXWB-97 core, more MTOW, different wing trailing edge) for the time where they could get an engine in the same class as GE9X (Advance? UltraFan?) that would make the program a much bigger success. They could have done this while still capturing EK's business and other customers who are finding simple stretches like 787-10 to be compelling. Maybe if RR wasn't dorking around with TXWB-97 there would be an Advance right about the time 777X launches that could power a more fit for purpose A350-1000 Mk 3 and an A380neo too. Instead Advance has fallen off the road map and A380neo too, and we're left with A350-1000 Mk 2 and the next window for a new engine around 2025.
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
 
trav777
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:17 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:10 am

Revelation wrote:
trav777 wrote:
The irony is that the 35K hasn't sold at all. It's been a flop.

To me the irony is if Airbus had built the A350-1000 Mk I (simple stretch) they'd have kept EK's order for 50 frames and would be delivering those frames right about now, while saving the resources they spent on A350 Mk 2 (pushed TXWB-97 core, more MTOW, different wing trailing edge) for the time where they could get an engine in the same class as GE9X (Advance? UltraFan?) that would make the program a much bigger success. They could have done this while still capturing EK's business and other customers who are finding simple stretches like 787-10 to be compelling. Maybe if RR wasn't dorking around with TXWB-97 there would be an Advance right about the time 777X launches that could power a more fit for purpose A350-1000 Mk 3 and an A380neo too. Instead Advance has fallen off the road map and A380neo too, and we're left with A350-1000 Mk 2 and the next window for a new engine around 2025.


I think what you say is pretty clearly true.

What's got to sting is now that the 35K is built it isn't selling. They beefed up performance for buyers who haven't stepped up in any size and I guess seem to have abandoned what would have been a more lucrative market.

I just honestly don't see how any jet competes head to head with the 78J in this 300+ pax echelon unless you have to fly aberrantly far. It's going to be so much more efficient on fuel burn as to make it a no-brain buy. Boeing seems to realize this and has sized their 77x above what the J can carry, certainly in terms of range they're putting their stake in the ground with the -8 and with VLA the -9 for what that market's worth. ME3 may be all it will ever really sell to in numbers...we shall see.

Once an airline gets consistently full planes with great cost economics and the executives start tasting the bonus checks, this will create savage risk aversion like we see in the US.
 
ewt340
Posts: 379
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:30 am

Revelation wrote:
trav777 wrote:
The irony is that the 35K hasn't sold at all. It's been a flop.

To me the irony is if Airbus had built the A350-1000 Mk I (simple stretch) they'd have kept EK's order for 50 frames and would be delivering those frames right about now, while saving the resources they spent on A350 Mk 2 (pushed TXWB-97 core, more MTOW, different wing trailing edge) for the time where they could get an engine in the same class as GE9X (Advance? UltraFan?) that would make the program a much bigger success. They could have done this while still capturing EK's business and other customers who are finding simple stretches like 787-10 to be compelling. Maybe if RR wasn't dorking around with TXWB-97 there would be an Advance right about the time 777X launches that could power a more fit for purpose A350-1000 Mk 3 and an A380neo too. Instead Advance has fallen off the road map and A380neo too, and we're left with A350-1000 Mk 2 and the next window for a new engine around 2025.


The version that Emirates canceled are not a simple stretch. While it's lighter and have shorter range, it's not a simple stretch like B787-10. There's Thrust increase and modifications to the wings already. While they could kept Emirates order, they might not get as much order from Cathay or Qatar which is 2 of their largest customers. They seem to use this aircraft for long-haul to North America. Which in previous version, would have payload restrictions for these kind of operations.

I think the lighter variants might be available in 2025 alongside the new engines. As some of the publications suggested, the 260t and the 270t variants.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3231
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:30 am

smartplane wrote:
My view is Boeing has seller's remorse with the 777X. They have conditional orders for over 300, which at launch prices barely cover costs.

In contrast, the 787 and 737 are reportedly cash cows, with the promise of more as volumes increase.

Put another way, 600 sales of the X are likely to generate lower profits than the sale of 200-300 787's, though I'm sure folding wing technology costs will be transferred internally to the 787 and 797 families at inflated values, perhaps even including a royalty.

Does the Boeing Board cap 787 sales and profits by refusing to fund a second 787 wing, fuselage extension, fuel and other upgrades because it cuts into 778 territory?

Does the Boeing Board approve a 797 based on a super lightweight fuselage, which can later be offered on the 787 8-11, making the family even more profitable per unit?

Does the Boeing Board cancel the 778 to give the 787 family more wriggle room, and press ahead instead with a 10?

Or does it cancel or put the entire X project on hold?

Many critics here consider Airbus was distracted by the A380, instead of improving the A330 sooner, and building a better A350. Is Boeing doing the same with the X?

Volume profits are everything now, and niche is not.

I don't see how Boeing can lose much on an airplane who's design is an addendum to a previous design. Most, If not a;; of the proving work has already been Done
so all they're doing is Backend Marketing and tweaking the systems. The New B777;s have massive Electronic upgrades and they've upgraded the ELMS cabinets to the point hey're no longer Backwards Compaitble.
 
parapente
Posts: 3057
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:09 am

The primary reason the 350-1000 is not selling (in large numbers - as has been said) is that it is a straight 'swap' for the 773er ( but far more economical of course).But the 773er is a very young fleet globally and not ready to be replaced yet.Airbus always knew this which is why the 350-800 was slated to come out ' before' the 1000.
That aircaft never materialised as was too heavy in its class ( vs 787 how does Airbus marketing make such mistakes - it's beyond me).

One has to assume that 'Airbus Marketing '- them again- got very strong feedback that the 1000 needed good transpacific range,thus requiring all the necessary late changes.(wouldn't it have been better to find that out before design/build).Anyway they did it .
I do wonder whether Airbus make it up as they go along sometimes.- perhaps it was because they were so sales led rather than marketing led??
They recently re-twisted the (brand new) 359 wing and added bigger blended windtips.Quite a big change imho.Couldnt they have sorted this out first as well?
However it's a long game and the replacement cycle has not cut in yet for either 773er replacement aircraft ,the 779 or 351.So really too early to tell how the 779 will fair.
 
smartplane
Posts: 405
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:16 am

strfyr51 wrote:
smartplane wrote:
My view is Boeing has seller's remorse with the 777X. They have conditional orders for over 300, which at launch prices barely cover costs.

In contrast, the 787 and 737 are reportedly cash cows, with the promise of more as volumes increase.

Put another way, 600 sales of the X are likely to generate lower profits than the sale of 200-300 787's, though I'm sure folding wing technology costs will be transferred internally to the 787 and 797 families at inflated values, perhaps even including a royalty.

Does the Boeing Board cap 787 sales and profits by refusing to fund a second 787 wing, fuselage extension, fuel and other upgrades because it cuts into 778 territory?

Does the Boeing Board approve a 797 based on a super lightweight fuselage, which can later be offered on the 787 8-11, making the family even more profitable per unit?

Does the Boeing Board cancel the 778 to give the 787 family more wriggle room, and press ahead instead with a 10?

Or does it cancel or put the entire X project on hold?

Many critics here consider Airbus was distracted by the A380, instead of improving the A330 sooner, and building a better A350. Is Boeing doing the same with the X?

Volume profits are everything now, and niche is not.

I don't see how Boeing can lose much on an airplane who's design is an addendum to a previous design. Most, If not a;; of the proving work has already been Done
so all they're doing is Backend Marketing and tweaking the systems. The New B777;s have massive Electronic upgrades and they've upgraded the ELMS cabinets to the point hey're no longer Backwards Compaitble.

Boeing may regret publicising such radical changes / differences, unless the X won't utilise grandfathering to speed it's certification.

One offline meeting at the December G20 involved aviation safety agencies involved in commercial air frame, engine and component design / manufacture, as all interested party countries were present as leaders or guests.

Could a review or announcement on a change in grandfathering eligibility rules have been on the agenda? And partly explain recent urgency in respect to models where certification has previously been dragging?
 
MileHFL400
Topic Author
Posts: 532
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:42 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:48 am

Sorry, I think this thread has gone a little off topic, can we stick to who we think will order this plane. Ignore the A350-1000 etc
Thanks and best Regards
AA
 
Dave05
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 2:09 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Thu Jan 17, 2019 6:35 am

The 777x will be successful in their own right. They will not sell as much as the 777W, due to so many other aircrafts option for a single engine widebody. I've heard that some are worried that the 777-9 is too big of an aircraft thus passing the sweet spot to airbus. I think the 777-200 LR is a bit diffrent to the 777-8. After all 777-8 is the size of 777-300ER, but 777-200LR only has capacity of 300. Due to the much lower RnD cost Boeing will be able to be more aggressive with pricing. Just imagine if Boeing is willing to give more discount on the 777-8, any potential A350k buyer will just get the 777-8 even though they don't need the range.
 
MileHFL400
Topic Author
Posts: 532
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:42 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Thu Jan 17, 2019 6:46 am

Dave05 wrote:
The 777x will be successful in their own right. They will not sell as much as the 777W, due to so many other aircrafts option for a single engine widebody. I've heard that some are worried that the 777-9 is too big of an aircraft thus passing the sweet spot to airbus. I think the 777-200 LR is a bit diffrent to the 777-8. After all 777-8 is the size of 777-300ER, but 777-200LR only has capacity of 300. Due to the much lower RnD cost Boeing will be able to be more aggressive with pricing. Just imagine if Boeing is willing to give more discount on the 777-8, any potential A350k buyer will just get the 777-8 even though they don't need the range.


What is the fuel burn of the -8 compared to the A350-1000?
Thanks and best Regards
AA
 
smokeybandit
Posts: 887
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:24 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:19 pm

 
justloveplanes
Posts: 890
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:48 pm

sabby wrote:
MileHFL400 wrote:
The fact that it’s a more straightforward change from 77W to 77x rather than to A350 counts for a lot though!

Oh, no doubt about that ! My post was more to do with why Airbus didn't make A35K a simple stretch like 78J to optimize CASM. I still think Boeing would be happy selling 77W if Airbus didn't make A35K and hence we wouldn't have the 777X, maybe more PIP to existing GE90-115 to make them more efficient but not investing billions for major changes.


I don't think AB thought there was much point to making the A35K a simple stretch (Other than for ME3 customers, AB probably thought they wouldn't lose those... water under the bridge). A35K already had the efficiency advantage over the 77W, so increasing that gap over a smaller range.. not sure what additional sales that brings. Compete in the (now smaller) VLA space made more sense. AB doesn't seem to want to leave the VLA space to Boeing, which is why the A380 was made (rightly or wrongly) in the first place.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1204
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:10 am

MileHFL400 wrote:
Sorry, I think this thread has gone a little off topic, can we stick to who we think will order this plane. Ignore the A350-1000 etc



Boeing is not w/o its faults but their track record on not building duds is enviable.
 
cheapgreek
Posts: 566
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:57 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:45 am

The A380 has lost its appeal and as some will be coming on the used market and new orders being cancelled, the 777-9 will look good as a replacement. Able to serve more airports and cover more routes profitably.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:09 am

The 777-9 is too big, too heavy, too much capacity. International yields and traffic volume are still weak.

I am not optimistic about the 777-9x in the short term. Order book is small and mostly confined to the distressed ME3 (the bloom is off their rose).

I'll bet if Boeing had it to do over, they would have done the new midsized airplane first. The action is in the middle of the market.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 5976
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:24 am

SteelChair wrote:
I'll bet if Boeing had it to do over, they would have done the new midsized airplane first. The action is in the middle of the market.


I would bet against this based on Emirates alone. Boeing had a pretty stark choice: build a 777 with competitive seat-mile costs to the A350-1000, or watch Airbus sell a shedload of A350-1000s (or -1100s) to EK as 77W replacements. That could have killed the 777 program. Instead, Boeing built exactly the airplane Emirates wanted, and have an order for 150 as a result, which has unlocked additional orders from blue-chip airlines.

And Emirates needs those 779 frames no matter what the future holds for it. If the airline has to shrink, some of them will replace A380s. If the airline treads water, they will replace 77Ws one for one. And if the airline can manage to grow, they can operate the premium routes, displacing 77Ws with older cabin products to less premium service. The 777X order is the safest order in the EK order book (yes, substantially safer than Boeing's 787 commitment).

The other two ME3 orders may well be soft, but they are also of much less strategic importance.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 2154
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:39 am

Dave05 wrote:
After all 777-8 is the size of 777-300ER, but 777-200LR only has capacity of 300.


Could we stop this myth already? The 777-8 is sized between the 777-200 and -300. It is 6 meters longer than the -200, and 4 meters shorter than the -300. At a pitch of 30 inches, it seats 50 fewer passengers in 10-abreast economy configuration than a -300ER. Even Boeing markets it as a ULH 777-200LR replacement, not a -300ER replacement.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:26 pm

seabosdca wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
I'll bet if Boeing had it to do over, they would have done the new midsized airplane first. The action is in the middle of the market.


I would bet against this based on Emirates alone. Boeing had a pretty stark choice: build a 777 with competitive seat-mile costs to the A350-1000, or watch Airbus sell a shedload of A350-1000s (or -1100s) to EK as 77W replacements. That could have killed the 777 program. Instead, Boeing built exactly the airplane Emirates wanted, and have an order for 150 as a result, which has unlocked additional orders from blue-chip airlines.

And Emirates needs those 779 frames no matter what the future holds for it. If the airline has to shrink, some of them will replace A380s. If the airline treads water, they will replace 77Ws one for one. And if the airline can manage to grow, they can operate the premium routes, displacing 77Ws with older cabin products to less premium service. The 777X order is the safest order in the EK order book (yes, substantially safer than Boeing's 787 commitment).

The other two ME3 orders may well be soft, but they are also of much less strategic importance.


Agree that Boeing built the perfect airplane for Emirates. Everyone else? Not so much. Imho that goes a long way towards explaining why sales are so tepid.
 
waly777
Posts: 669
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:35 pm

SteelChair wrote:
seabosdca wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
I'll bet if Boeing had it to do over, they would have done the new midsized airplane first. The action is in the middle of the market.


I would bet against this based on Emirates alone. Boeing had a pretty stark choice: build a 777 with competitive seat-mile costs to the A350-1000, or watch Airbus sell a shedload of A350-1000s (or -1100s) to EK as 77W replacements. That could have killed the 777 program. Instead, Boeing built exactly the airplane Emirates wanted, and have an order for 150 as a result, which has unlocked additional orders from blue-chip airlines.

And Emirates needs those 779 frames no matter what the future holds for it. If the airline has to shrink, some of them will replace A380s. If the airline treads water, they will replace 77Ws one for one. And if the airline can manage to grow, they can operate the premium routes, displacing 77Ws with older cabin products to less premium service. The 777X order is the safest order in the EK order book (yes, substantially safer than Boeing's 787 commitment).

The other two ME3 orders may well be soft, but they are also of much less strategic importance.


Agree that Boeing built the perfect airplane for Emirates. Everyone else? Not so much. Imho that goes a long way towards explaining why sales are so tepid.


And yet Airlines from Asia and Europe have ordered the plane too. As for sales, it is quite clear that the 77W replacement time frame is not yet here.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8155
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:35 pm

SteelChair wrote:
Agree that Boeing built the perfect airplane for Emirates. Everyone else? Not so much. Imho that goes a long way towards explaining why sales are so tepid.

So if the A350-1000 was built for everyone else, why has its sales been the same,,,tepid.
Methinks that is too simple and explanation
 
SteelChair
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:38 pm

waly777 wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
seabosdca wrote:

I would bet against this based on Emirates alone. Boeing had a pretty stark choice: build a 777 with competitive seat-mile costs to the A350-1000, or watch Airbus sell a shedload of A350-1000s (or -1100s) to EK as 77W replacements. That could have killed the 777 program. Instead, Boeing built exactly the airplane Emirates wanted, and have an order for 150 as a result, which has unlocked additional orders from blue-chip airlines.

And Emirates needs those 779 frames no matter what the future holds for it. If the airline has to shrink, some of them will replace A380s. If the airline treads water, they will replace 77Ws one for one. And if the airline can manage to grow, they can operate the premium routes, displacing 77Ws with older cabin products to less premium service. The 777X order is the safest order in the EK order book (yes, substantially safer than Boeing's 787 commitment).

The other two ME3 orders may well be soft, but they are also of much less strategic importance.


Agree that Boeing built the perfect airplane for Emirates. Everyone else? Not so much. Imho that goes a long way towards explaining why sales are so tepid.


And yet Airlines from Asia and Europe have ordered the plane too. As for sales, it is quite clear that the 77W replacement time frame is not yet here.


Notably very few orders
 
SteelChair
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:43 pm

par13del wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
Agree that Boeing built the perfect airplane for Emirates. Everyone else? Not so much. Imho that goes a long way towards explaining why sales are so tepid.

So if the A350-1000 was built for everyone else, why has its sales been the same,,,tepid.
Methinks that is too simple and explanation


Perhaps not much of a market for that plane either? A mistake by Airbus makes a mistake by Boeing not a mistake?

As previously stated, Intl yields are weak, lots of carriers are feeling the pressure. Both of these airplanes have better chances than the 748 and 380, but that doesn't mean (necessarily) that they were a good idea (at this time).
 
waly777
Posts: 669
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:43 pm

SteelChair wrote:
waly777 wrote:
SteelChair wrote:

Agree that Boeing built the perfect airplane for Emirates. Everyone else? Not so much. Imho that goes a long way towards explaining why sales are so tepid.


And yet Airlines from Asia and Europe have ordered the plane too. As for sales, it is quite clear that the 77W replacement time frame is not yet here.


Notably very few orders

And yet the 35K which is the closest to the 778/9 is facing the same sales issue but it's supposedly less customized with more mass appeal. How do you explain that one?
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
SteelChair
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:51 pm

waly777 wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
waly777 wrote:

And yet Airlines from Asia and Europe have ordered the plane too. As for sales, it is quite clear that the 77W replacement time frame is not yet here.


Notably very few orders

And yet the 35K which is the closest to the 778/9 is facing the same sales issue but it's supposedly less customized with more mass appeal. How do you explain that one?


See above, far too little intl air travel demand and growth to support all these large and expensive plane orders. Its almost a criminal use of shareholder assets imho.

Didn't Emirates recently retire/park 6-7 year old 777-300 ER's? Why then, order more (larger) planes?
 
waly777
Posts: 669
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:09 pm

SteelChair wrote:
waly777 wrote:
SteelChair wrote:

Notably very few orders

And yet the 35K which is the closest to the 778/9 is facing the same sales issue but it's supposedly less customized with more mass appeal. How do you explain that one?


See above, far too little intl air travel demand and growth to support all these large and expensive plane orders. Its almost a criminal use of shareholder assets imho.

Didn't Emirates recently retire/park 6-7 year old 777-300 ER's? Why then, order more (larger) planes?


There is a reason EK has an average fleet age of less than 6 years, AC typically spend 12 years in the fleet. They took delivery of a few 77W and 380's last year whilst a few 77W were retired.

If you consider the 779 too large, by all accounts the 77W is too large too considering the difference between them is 2.9m (a 4% increase in length) or circa 30 Y seats. And yet, the 77W has sold too.

Ps. International pax traffic grew by 6.4% for 2018 vs 2017.

https://www.icao.int/Newsroom/Pages/Sol ... -2018.aspx
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
SteelChair
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:20 pm

77W different time different market. The market has changed.

Its just inconceivable to me that anyone could retire 6 year old frames and then belly up.to the trough for more new large widebodies.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:23 pm

waly777 wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
waly777 wrote:
And yet the 35K which is the closest to the 778/9 is facing the same sales issue but it's supposedly less customized with more mass appeal. How do you explain that one?


See above, far too little intl air travel demand and growth to support all these large and expensive plane orders. Its almost a criminal use of shareholder assets imho.

Didn't Emirates recently retire/park 6-7 year old 777-300 ER's? Why then, order more (larger) planes?



Ps. International pax traffic grew by 6.4% for 2018 vs 2017.

https://www.icao.int/Newsroom/Pages/Sol ... -2018.aspx


One metric? How about yields? How about EK? How are they doing compared to the last 10 years? Do you think TKs new hub will help or hurt EK?

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