VSMUT
Posts: 2137
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:18 pm

OA940 wrote:
The 777X was built to be a long-term plane. As 77W's reach 15-20 years of age in mass that's when the orders will start piling on.


The A380, A330NEO, 747-8 and 767-400ER were also built to be long-term planes. Just because Boeing hopes/expects it to be so, doesn't mean it will happen.

But I do agree that the 777-300ER replacement market is holding it back for the time being. But I also expect that a lot more 777-300ER replacement orders will go to the A350-1000 rather than to the 777X. IMHO, even the 787-9 and -10 will get a larger share of that pie than the 777X. Many 777-300ER orders were placed because it offered lower CASM than the 777-200, and what many airlines really wanted was something slightly smaller with a similar range and lower cost-per-seat. This is similar to how many 747 operators got that type because of the range, not the capacity, and given the choice went for the 777-200ER. Lets face it, many operators got the 777-300ERs because of the 787 delays, and not necessarily because they wanted it, but because it was the best Boeing could offer.

There is also an example like Swiss. There is plenty to suggest that they went for the 777-300ER because it was the only aircraft with the range and payload to replace the A340, that could be delivered fast, and possibly even with some end-of-the-line discount included. It is quite a bit bigger than the aircraft it replaced. The A350 and 787 were both sold out way into the future (and the A350 hadn't even flown yet, while the 787 was knee-deep in troubles and groundings) so they weren't really an option, and the A330-300 is still a bit short-legged for the longest routes. If the replacement was to be done today, the 787-9, -10 or A350-900 could well have been the winners, which really asks the question if Swiss would be interested in further up-sizing with the 777-9? And for how many other customers was this also the case?
 
VSMUT
Posts: 2137
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:25 pm

StudiodeKadent wrote:
However, BA have slot restrictions to deal with, and neither the A350-1000 nor the 787-10 are big enough to replace a 747-400 on a one-for-one basis. So unless extra A380s are ordered, I'd suspect it will be 777-9s. Or, if Boeing want to be REALLY generous with exceptionally low prices, we MIGHT get a 747-8 order but that would require near-suicidal pricing.


The A350-1000s and 787-10 are already ordered, so they will be fitted in, regardless of slot restrictions. It is also well-known that many 747s were ordered because they were more or less the only game in town if you wanted a true long-range aircraft in the 1980s and 1990s, irrespective of capacity. It is very likely that the 747 is a tad too big and the A350 and 787 is the right size for British Airways. For the true high-capacity flights, they already got the A380.
 
B1168
Posts: 167
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:26 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:53 pm

I would love help for a question.
Has any A350s been fitted a 3-4-3 abreast for regional routes?
We all know that a lot of potential candidates of 777X have (or will soon have) A350s.
That being said, if they want to expand capacity without buying a brand new type of plane, can A350-1000 reach the capacity of B777-8 (by fitting in a regional 3-4-3 configuration) or reach the range of it (by developing an ULR variant)?
This should be a major determinant for them because many of them have feared quads for being tough to fill.
 
Gbass21
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 8:01 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:08 pm

Well, there is an other airline not mentioned here, what about Avianca getting some 777x? They have lots of 788 and just 3 789 on order. It is not a secret that they will need a bigger plane in the next 10-12 years, especially for BOG-MAD/EZE/SCL/GRU/LHR. It might sound too much of a plane, but those are extremely demanded routes out of BOG and in 10-12 years they could grow way more.

Pd: BOG es getting slot constrained. So adding more frequencies to the routes mentioned below would be a hassle
 
smartplane
Posts: 395
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:16 pm

StTim wrote:
The 777X will cover costs but I really do not see it as a blockbuster frame.

Virtually every 777X contracted frame delivered until around 2030 will be at launch prices.

Profit per frame based on current orders held (estimate, today to 2030, in order of most to least):
787
737
767
748
777X

Now we are emerging from 787 launch customer pricing and overhang, profit per frame on one 787 probably equals (or even exceeds) the combined profit on a 767, 748 and 777X. And even 737 unit profit probably exceeds 2 of these 3 combined. And opportunities exist to increase 737 and 787 profit per unit even further from scale efficiencies, unlike on the 767, 777 and 748

You can understand why Boeing are finding it difficult to commit to a fresh metal 797.

If CEO's took long-term positions, the 777X and 748 would be gone, with 787 options added at above and below the current model range.

If only the 787 had rolled out on time, and no hiccups along the way......................
 
B764er
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2018 2:19 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:04 pm

Every airline that has a fleet of 773's may eventually order the 777x, so that should be no mistery. Some will get the A350-10 and the 777x and some may switch to the A350 only. But the 777x will sell, I don't have a doubt of that. What's more, we will eventually get a 10x which will be a true 747 replacement. The next VLA generation will be of very big twinjets. I also see an Airbus A370 in the distance.
 
musman9853
Posts: 340
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:44 pm

MileHFL400 wrote:
Anyone have an idea who the UFO order for 10 frames is?



Iirc saudia
 
MileHFL400
Topic Author
Posts: 531
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:42 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:48 pm

musman9853 wrote:
MileHFL400 wrote:
Anyone have an idea who the UFO order for 10 frames is?



Iirc saudia


Ah interesting l! Thanks, would have thought that they would have declared it under Saudi ministry of finance.
Thanks and best Regards
AA
 
T54A
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:47 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:34 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
T54A wrote:
Fuel stop was only westbound, not eastbound. I know because I operated the flight many times.

It didn't fly 7000nm with a headwind. Which is what I originally said.

RJMAZ wrote:
The 747-400 also had a brochure range over 7000nm but no aircraft flew within 500nm of the brochure range. Reserves and headwinds apply to all aircraft.


Correct. It flew 7300nm in a tailwind. You chose the distance measurement, not me. As a pilot I’m only concerned with endurance. Jet airliners fly on time in the air, not distance over the ground.
T6, Allouette 3, Oryx, King Air, B1900, B727, B744, A319, A342/3/6 A332/3
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 11424
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:57 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
T54A wrote:
SAA flew their B744’s on the ATL-JNB for years, and that is over 7300 nm.

That had a fuel stop at SID.

:shakehead: :shakehead: :shakehead:

The routing for the 744s was JNB-CPT-FLL-ATL-JNB, then via SID on the westbound only thereafter.
The move was done after FLL pax had to deplane for customs/immigration processing at first point of entry, after 9/11.

SID was added to the roundtrip once the A346s took over.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
DrPaul
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 7:21 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:34 pm

ehaase wrote:
Can any of you experts see a future where Boeing drops the 777 and Airbus drops the 330 and 380, leaving Boeing with the 737(NSA)/787/797 (probably), and Airbus with the 220/320/350?


Reading some of the comments above and in other threads about trends in airliner size away from very large planes, this is a question that comes to my mind as well in respect of the 777. If the 777-8 and 777-9 turn out to be sluggish sellers, is there any possibility of a future version of the 787 with a larger wing and a length of around 240" which could compete with the A-350-1000?

On the other hand, if Airbus drops the A-330, then there will be a very big gap between the A-321 and the A-350, one which, if Airbus doesn't quickly fill with a new design (of which there seems to be no sign), would be ideal for Boeing to fill with the new design which we have discussed at length elsewhere.
 
ewt340
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:02 am

gia777 wrote:
Garuda needs big plane a lot for hajj flight


They could easily use 550 seats B777-300ER. And since their LHR plans are failing. They could just use those plane for Hajj flights instead.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1124
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:29 am

DrPaul wrote:
Reading some of the comments above and in other threads about trends in airliner size away from very large planes, this is a question that comes to my mind as well in respect of the 777. If the 777-8 and 777-9 turn out to be sluggish sellers, is there any possibility of a future version of the 787 with a larger wing and a length of around 240" which could compete with the A-350-1000?

The 787 wont need a new wing, new wing tips maybe. Wing size is roughly determined by the maximum takeoff weight. Wing loading of the 787-9/10 is actually better than the A350-1000

The 787-9/10 with its 377m2 wing and 254T MTOW has a wing loading 673kg per m2.

The A350-1000 with its 464m2 wing and 316T MTOW has a wing loading of 682kg per m2.

The A350 has a wing loading of 633kg per m2.
But the 787-8 has the lowest wing loading of only 604kg per m2.

Now when the 787 gets new engines in 10 years time that means that it can carry less fuel to fly the same distance. Wing loading will then improve. This is why most fuselage stretchs come after the engine fuel efficiency improves. In the case of the A330NEO it improved range too much and made it too capable. The 787-11 could simply use the current wing and offer A350 capacity with range similar to the current 787-10.


DrPaul wrote:
On the other hand, if Airbus drops the A-330, then there will be a very big gap between the A-321 and the A-350, one which, if Airbus doesn't quickly fill with a new design (of which there seems to be no sign), would be ideal for Boeing to fill with the new design which we have discussed at length elsewhere.

Airbus would definitely need a new aircraft between the A321 and A350-900 that is one hell of a gap!

The A350 and A321 combo are bigger than the 787 and 737 combo. So I would assume Airbus would sit their MOM aircraft just above Boeings 797. That might mean Airbus goes with a small 8ab aircraft as a counter to Boeings smaller 7ab.
 
T54A
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:47 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 5:20 am

LAX772LR wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
T54A wrote:
SAA flew their B744’s on the ATL-JNB for years, and that is over 7300 nm.

That had a fuel stop at SID.

:shakehead: :shakehead: :shakehead:

The routing for the 744s was JNB-CPT-FLL-ATL-JNB, then via SID on the westbound only thereafter.
The move was done after FLL pax had to deplane for customs/immigration processing at first point of entry, after 9/11.

SID was added to the roundtrip once the A346s took over.


FLL was stopped after 9/11. Before the A346’s took over the B744 operated JNB-SID-ATL-JNB.
T6, Allouette 3, Oryx, King Air, B1900, B727, B744, A319, A342/3/6 A332/3
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 11424
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 5:26 am

T54A wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
That had a fuel stop at SID.

:shakehead: :shakehead: :shakehead:

The routing for the 744s was JNB-CPT-FLL-ATL-JNB, then via SID on the westbound only thereafter.
The move was done after FLL pax had to deplane for customs/immigration processing at first point of entry, after 9/11.

SID was added to the roundtrip once the A346s took over.


FLL was stopped after 9/11. Before the A346’s took over the B744 operated JNB-SID-ATL-JNB.

...i.e. exactly what I just said above. :lol:
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
caverunner17
Posts: 242
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:50 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:06 am

I find it very interesting there are so many people writing off the -9 as "too big" without taking in to account the continued growth of air travel and potential for future slot restrictions at quite a few major airports.

According to a Forbes article from last fall, global air travel was over 4.1 billion (people on flights, not unique individuals) in 2017, up 7.3% from 2016. By 2025-2030, is it unreasonable to expect perhaps 6 billion flying?

Carriers for decades have flown with the 747 in their fleets. I don't find it hard to believe that a similar sized twin-engine aircraft can't find a place in quite a few of the world-wide fleets in 5-10 years as pax rates continue to raise.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2307
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:25 am

caverunner17 wrote:
I find it very interesting there are so many people writing off the -9 as "too big" without taking in to account the continued growth of air travel and potential for future slot restrictions at quite a few major airports.

According to a Forbes article from last fall, global air travel was over 4.1 billion (people on flights, not unique individuals) in 2017, up 7.3% from 2016. By 2025-2030, is it unreasonable to expect perhaps 6 billion flying?

Carriers for decades have flown with the 747 in their fleets. I don't find it hard to believe that a similar sized twin-engine aircraft can't find a place in quite a few of the world-wide fleets in 5-10 years as pax rates continue to raise.


That's basically the argument that was put forward for the A380 though...

The issue is that a lot of flying is going to be point-to-point, which mostly favours a) short haul and b) smaller aircraft. With the A350 and 787 around there's a lot less appeal for the 777X. If large size is going to be that important then the A380 is arguably the best solution, especially if it's upgraded.
 
Articuno
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 2:30 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:09 am

Boeing’s official Weibo account stated that they secured 17 firm orders for the 777 last December including 777X, which brings the total orders of the 777 family to 2013.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 6411
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:35 am

caverunner17 wrote:
...
According to a Forbes article from last fall, global air travel was over 4.1 billion (people on flights, not unique individuals) in 2017, up 7.3% from 2016. By 2025-2030, is it unreasonable to expect perhaps 6 billion flying?.


That is just creative language parsing by widebody sales teams. Global doesn't mean international. Most of the growth happening in domestic aviation contributed by narrowbodies within a handful of countries. Widebodies have no skin the game.
 
waly777
Posts: 658
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:13 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
caverunner17 wrote:
I find it very interesting there are so many people writing off the -9 as "too big" without taking in to account the continued growth of air travel and potential for future slot restrictions at quite a few major airports.

According to a Forbes article from last fall, global air travel was over 4.1 billion (people on flights, not unique individuals) in 2017, up 7.3% from 2016. By 2025-2030, is it unreasonable to expect perhaps 6 billion flying?

Carriers for decades have flown with the 747 in their fleets. I don't find it hard to believe that a similar sized twin-engine aircraft can't find a place in quite a few of the world-wide fleets in 5-10 years as pax rates continue to raise.


That's basically the argument that was put forward for the A380 though...

The issue is that a lot of flying is going to be point-to-point, which mostly favours a) short haul and b) smaller aircraft. With the A350 and 787 around there's a lot less appeal for the 777X. If large size is going to be that important then the A380 is arguably the best solution, especially if it's upgraded.


Except that the 380 was a 30 to 50% increase or more of existing wide bodies whilst the 777-9 is at most a 10 to 15% increase in capacity over the 77W.

There are still trunk routes to replace.... a lot of trunk routes. Whilst there's more p2p (including Hub to point routes) hub to hub cities are still very much in existence. If the 380 is not re-engined, the next largest available will be the 777-9.

The 777 -8/9 is in a different size/payload range category to all but the 35K and most airlines would look at either for replacements, not the smaller 350 or 787 (except the airline is undergoing major network reductions but this is rarely the case).
I find it intriguing when folks quote that 80% LF on a 777-9 is 100% on a smaller aircraft (787/350) without quite understanding the seasonality and directional pattern of pax demand, and most importantly the concept of spilling pax over a certain LF%.

In summary, the 777-8/9 will sell well but definitely not as much as the current 777 family as it has a broad market area to fill. The same reason why the 35K isn't selling like hot cakes, replacement time frame is not here yet and airlines would likely prefer to see performance numbers first.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
VSMUT
Posts: 2137
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:15 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Airbus would definitely need a new aircraft between the A321 and A350-900 that is one hell of a gap!


OTOH, Boeing managed for many years with a gap between the 737-800 and the 777-200 (and between 2004 and 2011, arguably between the 737-800 and 777-300ER).


caverunner17 wrote:
Carriers for decades have flown with the 747 in their fleets.


If you wanted a plane that could go trans-pacific or Europe-Asia nonstop in the 80s or 90s, the 747 was the only game in town. Unless you count the misfit that was the MD-11, or the almost unknown A340 from a small start-up manufacturer in Toulouse. 747s are expensive planes, you don't just get rid of them because more suitably-sized planes were suddenly available. You make the best of the investment, even if they are sub-optimal.

And thats why the 777-300ER replacement market should be taken with a grain of salt as well. Between the 2004 introduction of the type and the introduction of the 787-9 in 2014 and A350-900 in 2015, the only real alternatives if you needed the range was the much smaller A330-200 or the massively bigger A380. The A340 and 747-400 were both inferior in practically every way to the 777-300ER.

Nowadays airlines can choose among the following planes that can do the same:
787-8, -9 and -10
777-200ER/LR, -300ER, -8 and -9
A330-200, -800 and -900
A350-900 and -1000
A380
747-8
 
na
Posts: 9598
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:20 pm

Although the sheer number of 779s ordered is quite high the number of actual clients is very small compared to its predecessor the 77W.
Be sure most 779s will be direct 77W replacements. I do not think the 779 will become such a success as the 77W was. After 2030, with much stricter enviroment laws in practice and higher fuel cost (a fuel tax will come for sure!), it wont have a chance against more effective planes such as the 787NG, A350neo and A380neo.
 
MileHFL400
Topic Author
Posts: 531
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:42 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:29 pm

Articuno wrote:
Boeing’s official Weibo account stated that they secured 17 firm orders for the 777 last December including 777X, which brings the total orders of the 777 family to 2013.


Any links?
Thanks and best Regards
AA
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2307
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:39 pm

waly777 wrote:
Except that the 380 was a 30 to 50% increase or more of existing wide bodies whilst the 777-9 is at most a 10 to 15% increase in capacity over the 77W.


The point I was responding to was that there will be a lot of traffic, congestion and slots will become scarce at more major airports. I suggested that if this is the case then the largest aircraft is the solution, but the real world doesn't back that up.

There are still trunk routes to replace.... a lot of trunk routes. Whilst there's more p2p (including Hub to point routes) hub to hub cities are still very much in existence. If the 380 is not re-engined, the next largest available will be the 777-9.

The 777 -8/9 is in a different size/payload range category to all but the 35K and most airlines would look at either for replacements, not the smaller 350 or 787 (except the airline is undergoing major network reductions but this is rarely the case).
I find it intriguing when folks quote that 80% LF on a 777-9 is 100% on a smaller aircraft (787/350) without quite understanding the seasonality and directional pattern of pax demand, and most importantly the concept of spilling pax over a certain LF%.


There are, but airlines will in most cases they will just fly smaller aircraft more often, because there aren't that many routes where frequency is much less important. The aircraft that the 777X is likely to replace are not really that common anymore, most 744s have already been replaced or else have designated replacements, the 77W market is going to fragment and the smaller widebodies will snatch most of that, which just leaves the A380.

In summary, the 777-8/9 will sell well but definitely not as much as the current 777 family as it has a broad market area to fill. The same reason why the 35K isn't selling like hot cakes, replacement time frame is not here yet and airlines would likely prefer to see performance numbers first.


I agree that the 777X will sell in decent numbers, but its market appeal has narrowed, you already see quite a few 77W routes being downsized to 787s and A350s (more commonly the latter), and if those 2 are already snatching some potential 777X sales away then its hard to see the 777X as the go-to long haul airliner, even for trunk routes.

The A35K has been in service for a little while, by the way. Sometimes the larger model in a family starts slowly but overtakes the smaller sibling eventually, like the 77W itself, 789, A321 and A333 all have.
 
Articuno
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 2:30 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:43 pm

MileHFL400 wrote:
Articuno wrote:
Boeing’s official Weibo account stated that they secured 17 firm orders for the 777 last December including 777X, which brings the total orders of the 777 family to 2013.


Any links?

https://m.weibo.cn/1935917630/4325846317738881
Content in Chinese.
 
T54A
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:47 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:57 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
T54A wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
:shakehead: :shakehead: :shakehead:

The routing for the 744s was JNB-CPT-FLL-ATL-JNB, then via SID on the westbound only thereafter.
The move was done after FLL pax had to deplane for customs/immigration processing at first point of entry, after 9/11.

SID was added to the roundtrip once the A346s took over.


FLL was stopped after 9/11. Before the A346’s took over the B744 operated JNB-SID-ATL-JNB.

...i.e. exactly what I just said above. :lol:


God only knows what I read
Last edited by T54A on Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
T6, Allouette 3, Oryx, King Air, B1900, B727, B744, A319, A342/3/6 A332/3
 
T54A
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:47 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:57 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
T54A wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
:shakehead: :shakehead: :shakehead:

The routing for the 744s was JNB-CPT-FLL-ATL-JNB, then via SID on the westbound only thereafter.
The move was done after FLL pax had to deplane for customs/immigration processing at first point of entry, after 9/11.

SID was added to the roundtrip once the A346s took over.


FLL was stopped after 9/11. Before the A346’s took over the B744 operated JNB-SID-ATL-JNB.

...i.e. exactly what I just said above. :lol:


God only knows what I read
T6, Allouette 3, Oryx, King Air, B1900, B727, B744, A319, A342/3/6 A332/3
 
User avatar
frigatebird
Posts: 1523
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:02 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:12 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
77W had 837 total orders, I think no other large twin will break this record. Using the 2000x 777 classic family order book number is meaningless for this discussion.

Most of the 77W operators are very happy to replace them with 787s or A350s. So 777X is not the first choice for someone looking for a 77W replacement


So, how many airlines have ordered 787s or A350s as 77W replacement? I can only think of 1, JL, for 13 aircraft.
And how many airlines have ordered 777X as 77W replacement? There's EK, QR, CX, SQ and NH, for 270 aircraft. So 30% of the replacement market of the 77W has been taken by the 777X, 1,5% by A350. Please correct me if I've got these numbers wrong.

Surely, the A35K will catch up at some point, some airlines have ordered the 77W because they were overly optimistic they could fill them (KQ, GA for instance, and 9W until they changed their scissor-hub from BRU to AMS). AF will eventually order some A35K as 77W replacement, but not for their entire 77W fleet, they will need the 777-9 too.

And yes, on some 77W routes you see a 787 or A350 now - although some have been seasonal, and on others (like CX' HKG-AMS route) it's almost the same number of seats. It's not that those displaced 77W are sitting idle now, isn't it ;) They're just flying other routes.
146,318/19/20/21, AB6,332,333,343,345,388, 722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9, 742,74E,744,752,762,763, 772,77E,773,77W, AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E75/90,F50/70
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1124
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:25 pm

caverunner17 wrote:
I find it very interesting there are so many people writing off the -9 as "too big" without taking in to account the continued growth of air travel and potential for future slot restrictions at quite a few major airports.

That is not how it will work. Point to point means less traffic at hubs.

I'll give you an example with numbers.

Lets say you had 2000 people per day flying from Los Angeles to Sydney, one way. 600 passengers are originating from San Francisco. 600 passengers arriving in Sydney then travel to Brisbane. Of the 600 passengers going to Brisbane 200 originated from San Francisco, 400 originated from Los Angeles. This means only 1000 of the passengers from Los Angeles actually want to go to Sydney.

Based on the current hub based model you would have six daily 335 seat aircraft (777-300ER) travelling from Los Angeles to Sydney. You then have three 200 seat narrowbody flights at either end connecting the spokes. Each hub then gets nine landings and takeoffs.

On the point to point model you would have three daily 335 seat aircraft travelling from Los Angeles to Sydney. You have two daily 200 seat aircraft travelling from San Francisco to Sydney. You have two daily 200 seat aircraft flying Los Angeles to Brisbane. Finally you have one daily 200 seat flight from San Francisco to Brisbane.

Sydney and Los Angeles hubs see only five landings and takeoffs with the point to point model opposed to nine with the hub and spoke model. You've just freed up four slots.

Brisbane to San Francisco would be considered a "point to point" route. It is made possible due to efficient medium sized aircraft like the 787.

The 797 and A321XLR will capitalise on this point to point trend. They will connect even smaller cities together in the 3000-5000nm distance range. This traffic would usually go through a hub.
 
caverunner17
Posts: 242
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:50 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:54 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
caverunner17 wrote:
I find it very interesting there are so many people writing off the -9 as "too big" without taking in to account the continued growth of air travel and potential for future slot restrictions at quite a few major airports.

That is not how it will work. Point to point means less traffic at hubs.

I'll give you an example with numbers.

Lets say you had 2000 people per day flying from Los Angeles to Sydney, one way. 600 passengers are originating from San Francisco. 600 passengers arriving in Sydney then travel to Brisbane. Of the 600 passengers going to Brisbane 200 originated from San Francisco, 400 originated from Los Angeles. This means only 1000 of the passengers from Los Angeles actually want to go to Sydney.

Based on the current hub based model you would have six daily 335 seat aircraft (777-300ER) travelling from Los Angeles to Sydney. You then have three 200 seat narrowbody flights at either end connecting the spokes. Each hub then gets nine landings and takeoffs.

On the point to point model you would have three daily 335 seat aircraft travelling from Los Angeles to Sydney. You have two daily 200 seat aircraft travelling from San Francisco to Sydney. You have two daily 200 seat aircraft flying Los Angeles to Brisbane. Finally you have one daily 200 seat flight from San Francisco to Brisbane.

Sydney and Los Angeles hubs see only five landings and takeoffs with the point to point model opposed to nine with the hub and spoke model. You've just freed up four slots.

Brisbane to San Francisco would be considered a "point to point" route. It is made possible due to efficient medium sized aircraft like the 787.

The 797 and A321XLR will capitalise on this point to point trend. They will connect even smaller cities together in the 3000-5000nm distance range. This traffic would usually go through a hub.

Outside of Norwegian and a handful of random city pairings (like DL's PDX-NRT), there isn't all that much P2P flying done on long-haul international.

Your example would easily be explained by being either QF or UA (or both) flying the routes as they have hubs on both ends.

Most of the expansion done with the 787 has been through hub-spoke. Either big hub to smaller spoke (such as SFO-interior China) or small hub to large spoke (like DEN-NRT)

While US Airlines are "gifted" with the ability to have multiple hubs to route international passengers through, many aren't. At some point, these airports are going to run out of gate space making it harder/more expensive/impossible to add another spoke or increase frequency. This is going to be where larger aircraft come into play.

As far as the comparison to the A380, it's apples to oranges. BA is pretty effective in using theirs and I remember seeing their cost savings by replacing 2 flights with one. But the A380 is a different beast. It's a quad, thus more expensive to fly and maintain. And the capacity jump is huge. For flights that can already sustain a 77W, it's not that hard to fathom a 10-15% increase in demand over the next decade - which is what the 777X provides.
 
Sooner787
Posts: 2253
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:44 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 4:00 pm

I think the 777x has the potential for many more orders, but after
the troubled launch and EIS of the 787's , I'm thinking many airlines
will sit back and watch the flight test program and see how the early
frames perform before jumping on board.

Remember..... AA took their 1st 77E 's 5 years after EIS :)
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 7714
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 4:16 pm

When the passenger Quads are out of production in 5 years the only option to replace a 747 or A380 is the 777. It will sell, it will sell well.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1124
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 4:17 pm

caverunner17 wrote:
Most of the expansion done with the 787 has been through hub-spoke. Either big hub to smaller spoke (such as SFO-interior China) or small hub to large spoke (like DEN-NRT).

What defines a hub or a spoke is open to interpretation. Megahub, Mini-hub, large spoke, small spoke. Lets keep it simple and list airports as small, medium and large

A decade ago international flights were limited to flights from large airports to large sized airports or large to medium sized airports.

Today we are seeing international flights from large to small airports and medium to medium sized airports. This is the point to point model gaining momentum. That is the expansion done by the 787.

We will soon see international flights from medium sized to small airports with the 797. All this traffic gets removed from the large airports freeing up slots.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 6411
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 4:45 pm

frigatebird wrote:
...
So, how many airlines have ordered 787s or A350s as 77W replacement? I can only think of 1, JL, for 13 aircraft.
And how many airlines have ordered 777X as 77W replacement? There's EK, QR, CX, SQ and NH, for 270 aircraft. So 30% of the replacement market of the 77W has been taken by the 777X, 1,5% by A350. Please correct me if I've got these numbers wrong.


What was EK's last reported fleetwide PLF? 77.?% That is out of 400 Billion ASKMs deployed. Close to 90 Billion ASKMs are not generating revenue. Do you think they need a bigger plane? They should be working hard to fill current planes before buying bigger ones. It is still not clear EK ordered 777X as A380 replacement or 77W replacement, different theories on different threads. And, let's not go into the discussion of who put Boeing in this pickle.

QR is content with a small fleet of A380, unlike EK, QR deploys rightsize frame for the mission.

If I recall correctly, SQ is not able to the premium economy without discounts on their ULH routes.
 
caverunner17
Posts: 242
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:50 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 4:52 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
caverunner17 wrote:
Most of the expansion done with the 787 has been through hub-spoke. Either big hub to smaller spoke (such as SFO-interior China) or small hub to large spoke (like DEN-NRT).

What defines a hub or a spoke is open to interpretation. Megahub, Mini-hub, large spoke, small spoke. Lets keep it simple and list airports as small, medium and large

A decade ago international flights were limited to flights from large airports to large sized airports or large to medium sized airports.

Today we are seeing international flights from large to small airports and medium to medium sized airports. This is the point to point model gaining momentum. That is the expansion done by the 787.

We will soon see international flights from medium sized to small airports with the 797. All this traffic gets removed from the large airports freeing up slots.

This is literally not true.

Airline hubs or hub airports are used by one or more airlines to concentrate passenger traffic and flight operations at a given airport. They serve as transfer (or stop-over) points to get passengers to their final destination.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_hub

As I originally said, outside of Norwegian and a handful of one-off flights, Point to Point flights just don't exist for long haul. Everything else is to/from a hub.

True P2P flights would be:

IND-BCN
AUS-EDI

Or even say: RDU-FRA on Delta or MEM-CDG on United - where the airline doesn't have a hub or JV on one end or the other.

And while I did say that growth from hub-to-secondary cities were growing, I also said that eventually, you're going to run in to gate space restraints. The 777-9 isn't that much larger than the 300ER. For city pairs already using the 747 or 777W, it's not unrealistic to think that they can handle the 777-9 in a decade's time. Cities like London, Paris, New York, LA, Tokyo and Beijing aren't getting smaller. Eventually, you're either going to need additional gates a new airport (like PEK or IST) or you need to decrease/stabilize your aircraft movements while increasing capacity.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 19340
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 4:54 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
What was EK's last reported fleetwide PLF? 77.?% That is out of 400 Billion ASKMs deployed. Close to 90 Billion ASKMs are not generating revenue. Do you think they need a bigger plane? They should be working hard to fill current planes before buying bigger ones. It is still not clear EK ordered 777X as A380 replacement or 77W replacement, different theories on different threads.

It's still not clear one should hold EK to whatever premise they ordered the aircraft under.

They will have the data to tell them if the low LF was just a poor run of form or a long term trend.

They have quite a spectrum covered, from 787-10 to 777-8 to 777-9 to A380.

Personally I think EK will be downsizing the A380 fleet moving forward, but time will tell.
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
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 4351
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 4:57 pm

caverunner17 wrote:
While US Airlines are "gifted" with the ability to have multiple hubs to route international passengers through, many aren't. At some point, these airports are going to run out of gate space making it harder/more expensive/impossible to add another spoke or increase frequency. This is going to be where larger aircraft come into play.


What airports are those within the next ten years? (There's no point in planning aircraft purchases beyond that.) What fraction of long-haul do those slot-restricted airports represent? Hate to tell you, but LHR and NRT don't drive big frame manufacturer planning. They haven't for two decades. Most other cities relevant to the question - through expansion or new airports - have managed to add capacity.
 
MileHFL400
Topic Author
Posts: 531
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:42 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 4:57 pm

Revelation wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
What was EK's last reported fleetwide PLF? 77.?% That is out of 400 Billion ASKMs deployed. Close to 90 Billion ASKMs are not generating revenue. Do you think they need a bigger plane? They should be working hard to fill current planes before buying bigger ones. It is still not clear EK ordered 777X as A380 replacement or 77W replacement, different theories on different threads.

It's still not clear one should hold EK to whatever premise they ordered the aircraft under.

They will have the data to tell them if the low LF was just a poor run of form or a long term trend.

They have quite a spectrum covered, from 787-10 to 777-8 to 777-9 to A380.

Personally I think EK will be downsizing the A380 fleet moving forward, but time will tell.


Err they just ordered some more last year!
Thanks and best Regards
AA
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 19340
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 4:59 pm

MileHFL400 wrote:
Err they just ordered some more last year!

Yet the engine order that was supposed to be signed by the end of October is still not signed.

And even that date was later than planned.
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
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 977
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Mon Jan 07, 2019 5:13 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
caverunner17 wrote:
I find it very interesting there are so many people writing off the -9 as "too big" without taking in to account the continued growth of air travel and potential for future slot restrictions at quite a few major airports.

That is not how it will work. Point to point means less traffic at hubs.

I'll give you an example with numbers.

Lets say you had 2000 people per day flying from Los Angeles to Sydney, one way. 600 passengers are originating from San Francisco. 600 passengers arriving in Sydney then travel to Brisbane. Of the 600 passengers going to Brisbane 200 originated from San Francisco, 400 originated from Los Angeles. This means only 1000 of the passengers from Los Angeles actually want to go to Sydney.

Based on the current hub based model you would have six daily 335 seat aircraft (777-300ER) travelling from Los Angeles to Sydney. You then have three 200 seat narrowbody flights at either end connecting the spokes. Each hub then gets nine landings and takeoffs.

On the point to point model you would have three daily 335 seat aircraft travelling from Los Angeles to Sydney. You have two daily 200 seat aircraft travelling from San Francisco to Sydney. You have two daily 200 seat aircraft flying Los Angeles to Brisbane. Finally you have one daily 200 seat flight from San Francisco to Brisbane.

Sydney and Los Angeles hubs see only five landings and takeoffs with the point to point model opposed to nine with the hub and spoke model. You've just freed up four slots.

Brisbane to San Francisco would be considered a "point to point" route. It is made possible due to efficient medium sized aircraft like the 787.

The 797 and A321XLR will capitalise on this point to point trend. They will connect even smaller cities together in the 3000-5000nm distance range. This traffic would usually go through a hub.


Caverunner's reply missed your good example of the fragmentation. You were identifying a current O-H-H-D being split into the primary and secondary P-P along with O-H-D's at each end. Because of Point to Point (and P-H-P's eliminating a double hub flight) both LA and Sydney have gotten a lot of new city pairs, many of which are medium to long routes. A decade ago there was only the LAX to Sidney, now there are 3 direct cities: Sidney, Melbourne, and Brisbane. Sydney now has 4 non-stop cities in the US, with possibilities for additional, like SEA, DEN and ATL.

What point to point is really doing is collapsing the number of hub stops required. In the US from Seattle I can now fly direct to 7 Asian cities, 5 in Mexico, 6 in Canada, 8 in Europe, and Dubai. Within the US I can reach 92 cities non-stop, including 4 in Hawaii. 15 years ago there was only 1 in Hawaii, eliminating the HNL hub flights for 3 destinations. Yes I pay a premium to go to the East Coast non-stop, but not enough difference to spend 4 extra hours getting there.

The number of cities within the US or Europe that can reach 50 international destinations with just 1 stop has grown tremendously, it is basically every city and town that has service with 737 or A320.
 
Gbass21
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 8:01 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 12:16 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
caverunner17 wrote:
While US Airlines are "gifted" with the ability to have multiple hubs to route international passengers through, many aren't. At some point, these airports are going to run out of gate space making it harder/more expensive/impossible to add another spoke or increase frequency. This is going to be where larger aircraft come into play.


What airports are those within the next ten years? (There's no point in planning aircraft purchases beyond that.) What fraction of long-haul do those slot-restricted airports represent? Hate to tell you, but LHR and NRT don't drive big frame manufacturer planning. They haven't for two decades. Most other cities relevant to the question - through expansion or new airports - have managed to add capacity.



I think that he tries to say that there are major airports from big financial centers or huge cities such JFK, LHR, FRA, CDG, NRT/HND, DXB, SIN, GRU, HKG, ICN, PEK, PVG, SYD, MEX, AMS, ORD, SFO, among others, That can sustain 777x operations between them, in fact, they're connected right now with A380/747/77W. And, as time passes, they will continue getting more passengers, there is a market for +400 passengers airplanes, not as big as 787/a350, but probably more premium yielding.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 16027
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 12:31 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
caverunner17 wrote:
I find it very interesting there are so many people writing off the -9 as "too big" without taking in to account the continued growth of air travel and potential for future slot restrictions at quite a few major airports.

That is not how it will work. Point to point means less traffic at hubs.

I'll give you an example with numbers.

Lets say you had 2000 people per day flying from Los Angeles to Sydney, one way. 600 passengers are originating from San Francisco. 600 passengers arriving in Sydney then travel to Brisbane. Of the 600 passengers going to Brisbane 200 originated from San Francisco, 400 originated from Los Angeles. This means only 1000 of the passengers from Los Angeles actually want to go to Sydney.

Based on the current hub based model you would have six daily 335 seat aircraft (777-300ER) travelling from Los Angeles to Sydney. You then have three 200 seat narrowbody flights at either end connecting the spokes. Each hub then gets nine landings and takeoffs.

On the point to point model you would have three daily 335 seat aircraft travelling from Los Angeles to Sydney. You have two daily 200 seat aircraft travelling from San Francisco to Sydney. You have two daily 200 seat aircraft flying Los Angeles to Brisbane. Finally you have one daily 200 seat flight from San Francisco to Brisbane.

Sydney and Los Angeles hubs see only five landings and takeoffs with the point to point model opposed to nine with the hub and spoke model. You've just freed up four slots.

Brisbane to San Francisco would be considered a "point to point" route. It is made possible due to efficient medium sized aircraft like the 787.

The 797 and A321XLR will capitalise on this point to point trend. They will connect even smaller cities together in the 3000-5000nm distance range. This traffic would usually go through a hub.


Caverunner's reply missed your good example of the fragmentation. You were identifying a current O-H-H-D being split into the primary and secondary P-P along with O-H-D's at each end. Because of Point to Point (and P-H-P's eliminating a double hub flight) both LA and Sydney have gotten a lot of new city pairs, many of which are medium to long routes. A decade ago there was only the LAX to Sidney, now there are 3 direct cities: Sidney, Melbourne, and Brisbane. Sydney now has 4 non-stop cities in the US, with possibilities for additional, like SEA, DEN and ATL.

What point to point is really doing is collapsing the number of hub stops required. In the US from Seattle I can now fly direct to 7 Asian cities, 5 in Mexico, 6 in Canada, 8 in Europe, and Dubai. Within the US I can reach 92 cities non-stop, including 4 in Hawaii. 15 years ago there was only 1 in Hawaii, eliminating the HNL hub flights for 3 destinations. Yes I pay a premium to go to the East Coast non-stop, but not enough difference to spend 4 extra hours getting there.

The number of cities within the US or Europe that can reach 50 international destinations with just 1 stop has grown tremendously, it is basically every city and town that has service with 737 or A320.

Fragmentation will continue.

But do recall the 77W was a success as it carried people economically. The A388 wasn't enough cheaper per passenger to justify the risk of added seats (off season). In fact, the A388 burns more fuel per passenger than the 77W, so high oil hurt the business case.

The 779 carries a passenger for less than any other plane. We will have to assume EK, LH, and others compared to the A350-1000 proposals (which isn't much better than the A359). If the connecting flight is much cheaper, it will thrive.

Otherwise, I agree with the prior posts that the 777X is for trunk routes. There will be fewer than 77W/Ls, but I think we will see 700 to 900. More when the 778F arrives. ;) About 200 more.

Lightsaber
You only have the first amendment with the 2nd. If you're not going to offend someone with what you say, you don't have the 1st.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1124
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:36 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
In the US from Seattle I can now fly direct to 7 Asian cities, 5 in Mexico, 6 in Canada, 8 in Europe, and Dubai. Within the US I can reach 92 cities non-stop, including 4 in Hawaii. 15 years ago there was only 1 in Hawaii, eliminating the HNL hub flights for 3 destinations.

Good example!


lightsaber wrote:
Fragmentation will continue.

But do recall the 77W was a success as it carried people economically. The A388 wasn't enough cheaper per passenger to justify the risk of added seats (off season). In fact, the A388 burns more fuel per passenger than the 77W, so high oil hurt the business case.

The 779 carries a passenger for less than any other plane. We will have to assume EK, LH, and others compared to the A350-1000 proposals (which isn't much better than the A359). If the connecting flight is much cheaper, it will thrive.

No doubt a 777-9 will have the lowest cost per passenger upon entry into service but this applies to quite a few aircraft when they first come out. The correct question is for how long.

The 787-10 NEO may have a lower per passenger cost and its range will get a big boost bringing it close to that of the 777-9.

How far can fragmentation go?

I expect fragmentation to go from the top to the bottom. In 20 years time there will be electric planes doing 200-400nm feeder flights from what are currently GA airports operating Cessnas. Small airports that currently operate short haul ATR's and E-170's to feed into a hub will get medium to long haul international flights. We will have twice as many international airports and twice as many airports operating airlines in 10 years.

Some oceania examples of spoke to spoke would be:
Hobart to Bali eliminating the Melbourne hub stop.

Adelaide to Fiji eliminating the Sydney hub stop.

Perth to Wellington eliminating the Auckland hub stop.

Medium haul point to point routes.
 
lutfi
Posts: 776
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 6:33 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:46 am

frigatebird wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
77W had 837 total orders, I think no other large twin will break this record. Using the 2000x 777 classic family order book number is meaningless for this discussion.

Most of the 77W operators are very happy to replace them with 787s or A350s. So 777X is not the first choice for someone looking for a 77W replacement


So, how many airlines have ordered 787s or A350s as 77W replacement? I can only think of 1, JL, for 13 aircraft.
And how many airlines have ordered 777X as 77W replacement? There's EK, QR, CX, SQ and NH, for 270 aircraft. So 30% of the replacement market of the 77W has been taken by the 777X, 1,5% by A350. Please correct me if I've got these numbers wrong.

Surely, the A35K will catch up at some point, some airlines have ordered the 77W because they were overly optimistic they could fill them (KQ, GA for instance, and 9W until they changed their scissor-hub from BRU to AMS). AF will eventually order some A35K as 77W replacement, but not for their entire 77W fleet, they will need the 777-9 too.

And yes, on some 77W routes you see a 787 or A350 now - although some have been seasonal, and on others (like CX' HKG-AMS route) it's almost the same number of seats. It's not that those displaced 77W are sitting idle now, isn't it ;) They're just flying other routes.


CX A35K order is a 77W replacement order - as seen by them returning 77W to lessors. They also ordered 779 for 77W replacement for the really long routes (i.e. NYC) So a split replacement order - 20 A35K & 21 B779. Will still leave them with c. 20 B77W to replace, but presume these will be the younger ones and kept for a while

Interestingly they did downsize a few of the A35K to A359 (original order was 24 A35K I think)
 
ewt340
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:25 am

frigatebird wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
77W had 837 total orders, I think no other large twin will break this record. Using the 2000x 777 classic family order book number is meaningless for this discussion.

Most of the 77W operators are very happy to replace them with 787s or A350s. So 777X is not the first choice for someone looking for a 77W replacement


So, how many airlines have ordered 787s or A350s as 77W replacement? I can only think of 1, JL, for 13 aircraft.
And how many airlines have ordered 777X as 77W replacement? There's EK, QR, CX, SQ and NH, for 270 aircraft. So 30% of the replacement market of the 77W has been taken by the 777X, 1,5% by A350. Please correct me if I've got these numbers wrong.

Surely, the A35K will catch up at some point, some airlines have ordered the 77W because they were overly optimistic they could fill them (KQ, GA for instance, and 9W until they changed their scissor-hub from BRU to AMS). AF will eventually order some A35K as 77W replacement, but not for their entire 77W fleet, they will need the 777-9 too.

And yes, on some 77W routes you see a 787 or A350 now - although some have been seasonal, and on others (like CX' HKG-AMS route) it's almost the same number of seats. It's not that those displaced 77W are sitting idle now, isn't it ;) They're just flying other routes.


To be fair, many of those airlines order B777-9X for the capacity or to replace larger aircraft like B747-400 or A380, not to replace B777-300ER. Especially since majority of B777-300ER are pretty young.
Especially airlines like CX or NH.

And Emirates would be using it to potentially replace A380.

Like A380. B777X is in a peculiar situation, there's a market for it, but not enough to be a big seller. Because the lower end of B777-300ER would probably be snatched by A350-1000.
 
MileHFL400
Topic Author
Posts: 531
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:42 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:21 am

According to the link below orders stand at 340, last time I checked we were at 326?

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/boe ... sell-2000/
Thanks and best Regards
AA
 
Articuno
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 2:30 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:50 am

MileHFL400 wrote:
According to the link below orders stand at 340, last time I checked we were at 326?

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/boe ... sell-2000/

Apparently Boeing got new orders for the 777X in December 2018 as suggested by their official twitter and Weibo accounts.
 
User avatar
frigatebird
Posts: 1523
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:02 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:38 am

ewt340 wrote:
frigatebird wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
77W had 837 total orders, I think no other large twin will break this record. Using the 2000x 777 classic family order book number is meaningless for this discussion.

Most of the 77W operators are very happy to replace them with 787s or A350s. So 777X is not the first choice for someone looking for a 77W replacement


So, how many airlines have ordered 787s or A350s as 77W replacement? I can only think of 1, JL, for 13 aircraft.
And how many airlines have ordered 777X as 77W replacement? There's EK, QR, CX, SQ and NH, for 270 aircraft. So 30% of the replacement market of the 77W has been taken by the 777X, 1,5% by A350. Please correct me if I've got these numbers wrong.

Surely, the A35K will catch up at some point, some airlines have ordered the 77W because they were overly optimistic they could fill them (KQ, GA for instance, and 9W until they changed their scissor-hub from BRU to AMS). AF will eventually order some A35K as 77W replacement, but not for their entire 77W fleet, they will need the 777-9 too.

And yes, on some 77W routes you see a 787 or A350 now - although some have been seasonal, and on others (like CX' HKG-AMS route) it's almost the same number of seats. It's not that those displaced 77W are sitting idle now, isn't it ;) They're just flying other routes.


To be fair, many of those airlines order B777-9X for the capacity or to replace larger aircraft like B747-400 or A380, not to replace B777-300ER. Especially since majority of B777-300ER are pretty young.
Especially airlines like CX or NH.

And Emirates would be using it to potentially replace A380.

Like A380. B777X is in a peculiar situation, there's a market for it, but not enough to be a big seller. Because the lower end of B777-300ER would probably be snatched by A350-1000.

EK may or may not decide to use 777-9s as A380 replacement, but I've seen no indication they plan to do so. I'm sure they didn't have this intention when they placed their 777X order, but we'll have to wait and see if they can sustain their current plans. Anyhow, their 777X order seems pretty solid to me.

Of the airlines I mentioned none has 747-400 aircraft to replace... Only LH does.

CX indeed will return some 77W to the lessor, about 5 I believe? Yes, these will be replaced by A350-1000, you're correct.

Not disputing the lower end of the 77W replacement may very well be taken by the A35K... It's an impressive aircraft.

quote="Articuno"]
MileHFL400 wrote:
According to the link below orders stand at 340, last time I checked we were at 326?

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/boe ... sell-2000/

Apparently Boeing got new orders for the 777X in December 2018 as suggested by their official twitter and Weibo accounts.[/quote]

14 additional orders for the 777X? Perhaps LH finally firmed their remaining 14 of their order. They always said they had 34 on order, despite Boeing showing just 20.
146,318/19/20/21, AB6,332,333,343,345,388, 722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9, 742,74E,744,752,762,763, 772,77E,773,77W, AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E75/90,F50/70
 
MileHFL400
Topic Author
Posts: 531
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:42 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:55 am

frigatebird wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
frigatebird wrote:

So, how many airlines have ordered 787s or A350s as 77W replacement? I can only think of 1, JL, for 13 aircraft.
And how many airlines have ordered 777X as 77W replacement? There's EK, QR, CX, SQ and NH, for 270 aircraft. So 30% of the replacement market of the 77W has been taken by the 777X, 1,5% by A350. Please correct me if I've got these numbers wrong.

Surely, the A35K will catch up at some point, some airlines have ordered the 77W because they were overly optimistic they could fill them (KQ, GA for instance, and 9W until they changed their scissor-hub from BRU to AMS). AF will eventually order some A35K as 77W replacement, but not for their entire 77W fleet, they will need the 777-9 too.

And yes, on some 77W routes you see a 787 or A350 now - although some have been seasonal, and on others (like CX' HKG-AMS route) it's almost the same number of seats. It's not that those displaced 77W are sitting idle now, isn't it ;) They're just flying other routes.


To be fair, many of those airlines order B777-9X for the capacity or to replace larger aircraft like B747-400 or A380, not to replace B777-300ER. Especially since majority of B777-300ER are pretty young.
Especially airlines like CX or NH.

And Emirates would be using it to potentially replace A380.

Like A380. B777X is in a peculiar situation, there's a market for it, but not enough to be a big seller. Because the lower end of B777-300ER would probably be snatched by A350-1000.

EK may or may not decide to use 777-9s as A380 replacement, but I've seen no indication they plan to do so. I'm sure they didn't have this intention when they placed their 777X order, but we'll have to wait and see if they can sustain their current plans. Anyhow, their 777X order seems pretty solid to me.

Of the airlines I mentioned none has 747-400 aircraft to replace... Only LH does.

CX indeed will return some 77W to the lessor, about 5 I believe? Yes, these will be replaced by A350-1000, you're correct.

Not disputing the lower end of the 77W replacement may very well be taken by the A35K... It's an impressive aircraft.

quote="Articuno"]
MileHFL400 wrote:
According to the link below orders stand at 340, last time I checked we were at 326?

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/boe ... sell-2000/

Apparently Boeing got new orders for the 777X in December 2018 as suggested by their official twitter and Weibo accounts.


14 additional orders for the 777X? Perhaps LH finally firmed their remaining 14 of their order. They always said they had 34 on order, despite Boeing showing just 20.[/quote]

Hmm last I read Is that they were shying away from the options! Interesting times!
Thanks and best Regards
AA
 
jfk777
Posts: 6695
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:28 am

lutfi wrote:
frigatebird wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
77W had 837 total orders, I think no other large twin will break this record. Using the 2000x 777 classic family order book number is meaningless for this discussion.

Most of the 77W operators are very happy to replace them with 787s or A350s. So 777X is not the first choice for someone looking for a 77W replacement


So, how many airlines have ordered 787s or A350s as 77W replacement? I can only think of 1, JL, for 13 aircraft.
And how many airlines have ordered 777X as 77W replacement? There's EK, QR, CX, SQ and NH, for 270 aircraft. So 30% of the replacement market of the 77W has been taken by the 777X, 1,5% by A350. Please correct me if I've got these numbers wrong.

Surely, the A35K will catch up at some point, some airlines have ordered the 77W because they were overly optimistic they could fill them (KQ, GA for instance, and 9W until they changed their scissor-hub from BRU to AMS). AF will eventually order some A35K as 77W replacement, but not for their entire 77W fleet, they will need the 777-9 too.

And yes, on some 77W routes you see a 787 or A350 now - although some have been seasonal, and on others (like CX' HKG-AMS route) it's almost the same number of seats. It's not that those displaced 77W are sitting idle now, isn't it ;) They're just flying other routes.


CX A35K order is a 77W replacement order - as seen by them returning 77W to lessors. They also ordered 779 for 77W replacement for the really long routes (i.e. NYC) So a split replacement order - 20 A35K & 21 B779. Will still leave them with c. 20 B77W to replace, but presume these will be the younger ones and kept for a while

Interestingly they did downsize a few of the A35K to A359 (original order was 24 A35K I think)


While some Cathay A350 are replacing early 77W many are for expansion. Until very recently CX did not fly to Madrid, Dublin, Brussels, and Copenhagen. The A350 has allowed Cathay to have a smaller plane with equal range to the 77W. The A350 is much more an A340-300 replacement.

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