parapente
Posts: 3040
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:46 am

B777-9 prospects? Well one day probably a stretch to a 777-10. Singapore has already asked for one.Will depend on whether Airbus do anything to the A380 down the line.If they don't ,then there's 200+ Aircraft right there.The economics of such a craft ( as long as one can fill it) would be simply 'off the charts'.Particularly anything that was high J.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 6407
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:12 am

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.


So, EK is holding all the cards, including the ability to cancel without much penalties and BCA on its last piece of clothing???
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 19335
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:17 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
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.


So, EK is holding all the cards, including the ability to cancel without much penalties and BCA on its last piece of clothing???

I'm not saying EK is going to walk away from A380 but it is pretty clear they aren't taking them at the rate they once did, and I'd suggest that the trend will continue and retirements will exceed replacements.

I see a lot of a.net posters have concerns about penalties but we don't actually know the terms of the contracts. Penalties did not prevent AA from walking away from A350 and HA from walking away from A358/A338. We know the last round of Airbus-EK A380 negotiations were far from typical and as written above the airframe order is contingent on getting an engine order to close. We know no A380NEO is on offer in the near future and we know EK is not interested in the plus package so they aren't looking to increase pax per A380. We see the poor prospects for A380s on the used market and that has to be putting pressure on the financial arrangements.

I think BCA has more clothes than their competitor. EK already holds more 777s than anyone else. I think the fleet wide low overall load factor and taking 787-10 shows that the longhaul gateway to the world model is saturating and they need to capture their gains while focusing more on protecting the closer in traffic from rivals. In such a scenario the biggest plane is the most vulnerable, especially when its economics are less than outstanding.

Since all the hardware is leased EK can be flexible in terms of replacement versus renewal. Can you imagine the financial pickle EK would be if they actually owned all those A380s?
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
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 7706
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:49 pm

On the other had the A380 is important for the brand, as the public believes EK to offer a higher comfort level - which the A380 does. Once they replace it with a 787 in standard 9 abreast this image will be hard to uphold and then they only can compete through price.
 
parapente
Posts: 3040
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:03 pm

Load factor of 77.?% a blip or a trend? Right now only Emirates know this.But clearly an important factor.There will be natural capacity drop starting this year sometime with the introduction of a premium class of course.But as stated they do have the ability to 'fine tune' if they need to by altering the mix of 380/777/787.
I note that the country has no announced the postponement of any further development of their new airfield So planning will only be made on the basis of existing capacity/runways.
In a thread a while back Emirates did clearly say what the absolute maximum space there was for A380's.I can't remember but think it might have been 120 using all spare parking availability ( but perhaps less).
Where they are on max capacity on total (useful)movements I don't know.Clearly linking flight has to be possible/convenient.
But if there continues to be an airport capacity constraint then that would lead them to concentrate on destinations/aircaft that can use 'max pax' would have thought.
 
mig17
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:23 pm

The 777-X, at least the -8 and -9 aren't A380 size aircraft. I can understand some airlines may want to down-gauge the whale but that doesn't make the 777-9 a dedicated A380 for the future.
Also, the 777-X isn't in a completely different category than the A350-1000. In fact, the 777-8 has similar capacity and payload / range abilities than the A350-1000. But it is heavier and more expensive. Meaning except if you really need the few more hundreds NM, the 777-8 will suffer against the A350-1000 the same fate the A340-600 did against the 77W. The 777-9 offers more floor space, so he will be able to accommodate 30 to 50 more Y seats, but he will be even more heavy, impacting it's range and more expensive. And with no MTOW increase over the 77W, the -9 will suffer on the payload / range front.
Even the 787-10 a little smaller than 777-8 / A350-1000 seems more appealing than the 777-X considering the huge price difference if you don-t need the extra range. And if you do, the A350-1000 is there.
I can be wrong and future will tell, but I really feel that 777-X is Boeing equivalent of A340 NG. There are "better choices" with established production rate while the 777-X has been tailor made for Emirates who now even have doubts. If there is neither a MTOW bump nor a 777-10, the 777-X will not go much further than the current order-book.
Last edited by mig17 on Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.
727 AT, 737 UX/SK/TO/SS, 747 UT/AF/SQ/BA/SS, 767 UA, 777 AF, A300 IW/TG, A310 EK, A318/19/20/21 AF/U2/VY, A332 EK/QR, A333 TX, A343 AF, A388 AF, E145/170/190 A5/WF, Q400 WF, ATR 72 A5/TX, CRJ100/700/1000 A5, C-150/172, PC-6.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 19335
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:24 pm

parapente wrote:
But if there continues to be an airport capacity constraint then that would lead them to concentrate on destinations/aircaft that can use 'max pax' would have thought.

Yet even with this constraint there is a load factor of 77% which suggests a lot of money is being left on the table. Adding more "max pax" aircraft with less than stellar economics won't help.
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
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1197
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:39 pm

How many 777 and 747 left in service?

Let’s say 1/3 are replaced w 789/10/359, 1/3 351 and 1/3 777x.

Where does that put us?
 
Strato2
Posts: 329
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:42 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Fragmentation will continue.


Then there won't be 700-900 777X sold.

In fact, the A388 burns more fuel per passenger than the 77W, so high oil hurt the business case.



But that's an apples to oranges comparison since to achieve those numbers both are configured at 10-abreast Y.

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).


Gotta love how you make it sound like the A359 is a piece of trash.
 
Exeiowa
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2018 4:49 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:17 pm

Its kind of odd that this discussion is now based on the ability of a spoke-hub-spoke model of airline (although those spokes might be quite large) to order large numbers of large airplanes. In the future might efficient mid sized widebodies bypassing an intermediate be the future as some of those smaller spokes grow sufficient to support the direct flight. So instead of say Africa-India vie ME3 it becomes direct, in a way its 787(and its next iterations/equivalents) vs 777X. Or will those over flights need to be on the large plane for range, but that seem to be no longer the case these days.
 
MileHFL400
Topic Author
Posts: 531
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:42 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:25 pm

Looks like December’s order rush for the 777 didn’t include the 777X!
Thanks and best Regards
AA
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 2439
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:00 pm

A and B sell a particular model of a plane. Five years later the airline decides to wants a different model of another plane. If negotiations result in the airframe maker earning the same total profit margins or better there is little reason for A or B to be unhappy and refuse the change.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
waly777
Posts: 658
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:05 pm

Strato2 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Fragmentation will continue.


Then there won't be 700-900 777X sold.

In fact, the A388 burns more fuel per passenger than the 77W, so high oil hurt the business case.



But that's an apples to oranges comparison since to achieve those numbers both are configured at 10-abreast Y.

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).


Gotta love how you make it sound like the A359 is a piece of trash.


You misunderstood what he said re-A359. The fuel burn per pax of larger aircraft in a family is usually significantly better by virtue of more seats. However the 35K is not that much better than the 359 (likely due to the extras done on the 35K to improve payload/range capability). The 359 was not "insulted"

The 380 vs 777 is an apples to apples to comparison because those are real life numbers being used by actual airlines today. Equal config per sqm of space is an Anet fantasy and will remain so. You simply need to pick any airline with a 380 and 77W in their fleet to compare and contrast. The 380 is a double edge sword, fill it up with 700 to 800 seats to make it the CASK king and you are unlikely to get to breakeven LF. What it does do well when configured properly on the right routes is excellent RASK and good yield.

Re- fragmentation, fact remains that an overwhelming majority of international pax traffic still flew from hub to hub. The 787 and 350 did not introduce fragmentation but it's rather a natural progression of more range and better cost efficiency on routes. Hub to hub will remain the majority of travel points for international pax for quite a while, p2p isn't suddenly going to take over in 5 years. Thus there is a market for the 777-9, the replacement years will be an indicator if lightsaber's predictions are right.... and I happen to agree with him.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 16022
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:33 pm

Revelation wrote:
parapente wrote:
But if there continues to be an airport capacity constraint then that would lead them to concentrate on destinations/aircaft that can use 'max pax' would have thought.

Yet even with this constraint there is a load factor of 77% which suggests a lot of money is being left on the table. Adding more "max pax" aircraft with less than stellar economics won't help.

The 777X carries a passenger for less than an A388. So any route that that isn't filling the A388 top deck to 80% LF should be downgauge.

I see a good market for the 779.

The rule of thumb is that an aircraft has a 15 year sales life, extended by PIPs. The 777 had the 77W extend the service life. The A388? Not so much (wing twist, MTOW, and engine PIPs are the big PIPs, the GE-90 had an amazing number of fuel burn reduction PIPs and the Airframe too).

The 779 is quite the PIP. CFRP wings, a stretch, and new engines. I will be shocked if it doesn't beat range promise.

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.
 
raylee67
Posts: 590
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:06 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:20 pm

RJMAZ wrote:

The huge medium haul A330 market will be captured by the smaller A321 and 797. The 787-8 will also get downgauged to 797 size when they are due for replacement.



Not sure about this particular part about A330. At least probably that A330 market will continue to be strong in Asia. While airports continue to be built, the growth of population in major centers across Asia is tremendous. Even in Japan where the total population has been decreasing, if you look at the demographics prefecture by prefecture, you would see the population is dropping across all prefectures, except Tokyo and the surrounding prefectures, where they are still growing. People are moving quickly from rural areas and smaller cities into the few mega-cities in Asia. This is happening to Tokyo, Seoul, Taipei, the few big ones in China, Jakarta, Singapore, Delhi, Bangalore, etc.

The A333 and 772 are now mainly serving between these mega-cities in Asia. While there are more runways and more airports built even for these cities, the growth of the cities and economy will require these routes still being flown by A333 and 772 size aircraft, with increased frequency. In Asia, the threat to large aircraft in short-to-medium range routes mainly comes from high speed rail. But so many of those mega-cities are so far apart (e.g. Singapore - Tokyo is a 8-hr flight) and many of them are also separated by seas or deep forests, the development of high speed rail will still be limited.

While you probably will no longer see A333 and 767 being used in trans-continental routes in US and Europe (which they are already being progressively withdrawn and replaced by A321 like you said), they will be replaced by similar sized aircraft in Asia. The continued growth in wealth in countries like Vietnam, Indonesia and India will mean literally billions of people who cannot afford to fly now will become part of the aviation market in the next 10 to 20 years. Demand in A333 sized aircraft for intra-Asia flights will actually grow, and will compensate the reduction of such demand in US and Europe.
319/20/21 332/33 342/43/45 35K 388 707 717 732/36/3G/38/39 74R/42/43/44/4E/48 757 762/63 772/7L/73/7W 788 D10 M80 135/40/45 175/90 DH1/4 CRJ/R7 L10
AY LH OU SR BA FI
AA DL UA NW AC CP WS FL NK
CI NH SQ KA CX JL BR OZ TG KE CA CZ NZ JQ RS
 
ewt340
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:52 pm

jfk777 wrote:
lutfi 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.


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.


Maybe what people might be confusing about A350-1000 situation with CX is the fact that few years ago, CX uses 9-abreast seating on their B777-300ER which resulted in low seat count, in which A350-1000 able to replace it with. But since CX moving on the 10-abreast territory with their B777-300ER, A350-1000 can't keep up with the extra 20-30 extra economy class seat that B777-300ER could carry.
 
ewt340
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:55 pm

parapente wrote:
B777-9 prospects? Well one day probably a stretch to a 777-10. Singapore has already asked for one.Will depend on whether Airbus do anything to the A380 down the line.If they don't ,then there's 200+ Aircraft right there.The economics of such a craft ( as long as one can fill it) would be simply 'off the charts'.Particularly anything that was high J.


I don't think B777-10 would come to fruition. Remembering that only Emirates and BA able to actually fill their A380. And the fact that SQ already selling their older A380 and some other airlines scrapping them. It seems like B777-9 would be the largest aircraft most airlines could operate (apart from Emirates and BA).

It have similar capacity to B747-100/-200 which is already huge. It would just be a waste of money for Boeing to make it, knowing that only Emirates would be the potential buyers.

SQ doesn't actually needed it, they don't have problems with slots restrictions in Changi.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 428
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:01 pm

B1168 wrote:
Has any A350s been fitted a 3-4-3 abreast for regional routes?


Not for regional routes, but for long haul. For example, French bee, operates the A350-900 from Paris to the Caribbean in a 2-class configuration. Premium class at 7 abreast, and economy class at 10 abreast (3-4-3), total of 411 seats in the A350-900. Economy class seats at 16.8 inches wide.

Air Caraibes is another A350-900 using 3-4-3 layout in economy class:
Image
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:04 am

raylee67 wrote:
Not sure about this particular part about A330. At least probably that A330 market will continue to be strong in Asia. While airports continue to be built, the growth of population in major centers across Asia is tremendous.

Actually Asia has been the slowest to follow the fragmentation trend which is why we see domestic widebodies.

Once wealth grows in these countries the locals will not want to drive 4 hours to catch an international flight. They will simply open up more international airports spread across the country which we have seen western countries do.

This will see most of the Asian growth will come from smaller long range aircraft and smaller domestic aircraft as these new airports come online. As ee have seen Asia can build airports very quickly so the market could shift within the decade.

We could potentially see 20 international airports in China that have direct flights to Europe within the decade.

Exeiowa wrote:
Its kind of odd that this discussion is now based on the ability of a spoke-hub-spoke model of airline (although those spokes might be quite large) to order large numbers of large airplanes. In the future might efficient mid sized widebodies bypassing an intermediate be the future as some of those smaller spokes grow sufficient to support the direct flight. So instead of say Africa-India vie ME3 it becomes direct, in a way its 787(and its next iterations/equivalents) vs 777X. Or will those over flights need to be on the large plane for range, but that seem to be no longer the case these days.

This discussion is very important to have.

The most important thing most people dont realise is that spoke to spoke routes will have no need for extra cargo. Cargo will continue with the current model.

What this means is with passengers and bags only a small aircraft can fly much further. The 797 with bags only will be able to fly 5000nm which happens to be the same range as the 787 at max payload with a belly fully of cargo.

If a 3 class 787-8 carries 220 passengers then a long range 3 class 797 might only seat 150 passengers.

The 797 will be able to connect most of the world as look how far 5000nm will allow.

Taking off from London you can fly to the west coast of the US or to anywhere in China.

Taking off from New York you can fly to anywhere in Europe all the way to Greece or to Hawaii.

Taking off from Japan you can fly as far as Los Angeles or Melbourne.

So instead of all the traffic coming into a major i international hub these small aircraft will allow the traffic to go direct to smaller neighbouring cities.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 5974
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:15 am

Emirates will take all of its 777Xs and more. The 777X is the most secure aircraft on order at Emirates, because they need it regardless of whether they can manage to continue growing or they have to retrench. If they continue with growth, it replaces 777-300ERs. If they retrench, it replaces A380s. If they tread water, it replaces a combination of both.

If fuel efficiency is as promised it should also be attractive to a decent number of current 777-300ER operators that fly 12+ hour routes. They haven't ordered yet because 777-300ERs are too new, and have already managed to replace almost all 747-400s. The wild card is that Airbus has some headroom to improve on the current A350-1000, either through a stretch or sooner-than-expected engine improvements. The two combined--a small stretch of the A350 combined with enough fuel efficiency improvement for the stretched frame to have 7800+ nm brochure range--could be very dangerous to the 777-9.
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4861
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:16 am

Fromk RJMAZ Reply 170:
The 797 will be able to connect most of the world as look how far 5000nm will allow.

Taking off from London you can fly to the west coast of the US or to anywhere in China.

Taking off from New York you can fly to anywhere in Europe all the way to Greece or to Hawaii.

Taking off from Japan you can fly as far as Los Angeles or Melbourne.

From SYD/MEL:
Based on gross range: CMB, Burma, Easten China, VVO, TYO and some Pacific Islands but i doubt that HNL will be practical and PPT marginal.
Practical range IMHO Thailand, HKG, PVG [maybe] TYO [maybe] Southern Hemisphere Pacific Islands and Western Micronesia
Remember this is for an aircraft [B797] which DOES NOT even have a design freeze yet, so who know what the reality will be?

Gemuser
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 977
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:55 am

parapente wrote:
B777-9 prospects? Well one day probably a stretch to a 777-10. Singapore has already asked for one.Will depend on whether Airbus do anything to the A380 down the line.If they don't ,then there's 200+ Aircraft right there.The economics of such a craft ( as long as one can fill it) would be simply 'off the charts'.Particularly anything that was high J.


The -300ER is 73.86 m and it was stretched by 2.8m to the -9 at 76.7 m, leaving only 3.3 m add before it hits the 80 m box. Any larger stretch would need to be internal, like shortening the distance from the bulkhead to the tail cone. Or challenge the 80 m box, but it would be expensive to modify the airports for that excess length. The simplest would be another 2.8m stretch, all else equal.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:20 am

Gemuser wrote:
From SYD/MEL:
Based on gross range: CMB, Burma, Easten China, VVO, TYO and some Pacific Islands but i doubt that HNL will be practical and PPT marginal.
Practical range IMHO Thailand, HKG, PVG [maybe] TYO [maybe] Southern Hemisphere Pacific Islands and Western Micronesia
Remember this is for an aircraft [B797] which DOES NOT even have a design freeze yet, so who know what the reality will be?

The 797 is the aircraft designed around the fragmentation model. So it is relevant to the discussion as the fragmentation model will kill the A380 and 777X.

The 797's shorter fuselage length with the longest range will most definitely be over 5000nm. Most reports have said 5300nm. So with with a 3 class passengers and bags only that would allow routes of 4800nm to 5000nm between the actual airports. The shorter length is due to flights against the wind.
That definitely allows trips from Sydney to Hawaii but Melbourne to Hawaii would be on the limit.

Qantas will be a huge customer of the 797 most of their international network is under 5000nm. We have heard Alan Joyce talk about the 797 quite a bit. They could really simplify their fleet with the 797. They also have the super thick domestic routes that cant fragment which are ideal for the longer fuselage length but shorter range 797.

Smaller cities like Adelaide, Canberra and Hobart will get international destinations like Thailand added.

They could in theory reduce the number aircraft types from 5 to 3. Currently they operate ATR, 737, A330, 787 and A380 fleets. The ATR does small town feeder routes, A330's is domestic widebody short range international, 787 does long thin routes, A380 long trunk routes.

They could operate the A220 as a replacement for the ATR and half of the 737 fleet on feeder flights. The 797 will replace the other half of the 737's, the domestic A330's and Asian 787's routes. The 777X will replace the north american 787's, all A380 routes and open up London to Sydney.

Back to the 777X discussion. Qantas will 90% order the 777-8 and get them in 5 years time. The A380's are getting a refit right now to last another decade. They will probably miss the 777-9 boat completely. Qantas has already stated they prefer two 787 flights over a single A380 flight. The 787NEO will be out around that time and the 787-10NEO should be able to fly the A380 routes. The 787-8ER NEO should then replace the 777-8's.

So we might only see a handful of 777X with the red kangaroo.
 
B1168
Posts: 165
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:26 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:34 am

reidar76 wrote:
B1168 wrote:
Has any A350s been fitted a 3-4-3 abreast for regional routes?


Not for regional routes, but for long haul. For example, French bee, operates the A350-900 from Paris to the Caribbean in a 2-class configuration. Premium class at 7 abreast, and economy class at 10 abreast (3-4-3), total of 411 seats in the A350-900. Economy class seats at 16.8 inches wide.

Air Caraibes is another A350-900 using 3-4-3 layout in economy class:
Image


How much range does the Frenchbee/Air Caraibes A359 have? As long as an A35K with a similar layout cover a 12 hr flight (I.e. PEK-FRA, HKG-AKL) with 2-3 rows of flat business class and a 3-4-3 economy(totaling up to 425?), it is going to be as useful as a 777-8/9 on routes of such.
Meanwhile, since ULHs aren’t really that popular (a personal opinion of avoiding insanely long coach flights) with coach flyers, the size of ULHs are not that important, and a mildly smaller A35K should actually help fill up easier.
The sweet spot for 777X may just lie between 12hrs and 17hrs, aka:
N.America-Middle East&E.Africa&Australaisia&Asia and Australaisia East-Europe.
It will be most interesting to observe the desicions of American Carriers, based on above conclusions.
 
AlexBrewster03
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:12 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:48 am

Could delta one day order the 777-8x for 777-200ER/LR replacements, or will they stick to A350/A330neo?
 
MileHFL400
Topic Author
Posts: 531
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:42 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:05 am

I reckon SQ will eventually get more 777X to replace its next batch of A380’s.
Thanks and best Regards
AA
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1226
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:35 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
parapente wrote:
B777-9 prospects? Well one day probably a stretch to a 777-10. Singapore has already asked for one.Will depend on whether Airbus do anything to the A380 down the line.If they don't ,then there's 200+ Aircraft right there.The economics of such a craft ( as long as one can fill it) would be simply 'off the charts'.Particularly anything that was high J.


The -300ER is 73.86 m and it was stretched by 2.8m to the -9 at 76.7 m, leaving only 3.3 m add before it hits the 80 m box. Any larger stretch would need to be internal, like shortening the distance from the bulkhead to the tail cone. Or challenge the 80 m box, but it would be expensive to modify the airports for that excess length. The simplest would be another 2.8m stretch, all else equal.


A folding tailcone to stay within an 80m box maybe?
 
bunumuring
Posts: 2512
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:56 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:02 am

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
I just wanna live while I'm alive!
 
MileHFL400
Topic Author
Posts: 531
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:42 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:55 pm

JerseyFlyer wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
parapente wrote:
B777-9 prospects? Well one day probably a stretch to a 777-10. Singapore has already asked for one.Will depend on whether Airbus do anything to the A380 down the line.If they don't ,then there's 200+ Aircraft right there.The economics of such a craft ( as long as one can fill it) would be simply 'off the charts'.Particularly anything that was high J.


The -300ER is 73.86 m and it was stretched by 2.8m to the -9 at 76.7 m, leaving only 3.3 m add before it hits the 80 m box. Any larger stretch would need to be internal, like shortening the distance from the bulkhead to the tail cone. Or challenge the 80 m box, but it would be expensive to modify the airports for that excess length. The simplest would be another 2.8m stretch, all else equal.


A folding tailcone to stay within an 80m box maybe?


That would just add way too much complexity!
Thanks and best Regards
AA
 
parapente
Posts: 3040
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Wed Jan 09, 2019 4:26 pm

Boeing have said that a10x could squeeze an additional 4 rows of pax ( just possible depending on pitch) giving a total pax ( multi class) of 450 pax according to Wiki.That is truly more than enough these days! As stated though - how many operators could use such a beast?BA for sure!it will happen some day but don't think now is the time really.There is no hurry as there is no competition planned at all for an aircraft of this size.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1197
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:09 pm

MileHFL400 wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:
travelhound wrote:
In the last five years the cost of fuel has been relatively low. I'd suggest this has given airlines the opportunity to retain older aircraft (instead of buy new) and repair their balance sheets.

There are quite a few airlines that have been delaying the purchase of new aircraft. I'd suggest they will get to a point of where push comes to shuve. At this stage we will start to see buying trends to emerge.

If we go back to the 77W it had very few orders prior to entry into service. If you can remember back to 2003 the chat was all about the 748i and A380. The 77W was very much under the radar.


The reason the cost of fuel has been low is new supply based on fracking. As prices raise above 60 huge supply comes on line. This dyanamic will keep oil between $40-70 for the next 15 years.

After that price will be driven by ev takeup. If ev takes off look for oil at less than $20 maybe even less than $10.

How all this impacts new ac purchases will be intriguing. For sure point to point and ulr will expand.


I think you’re in dream land, we will never see oil under $30


Consider the following:

Crude oil hit low 40's a few week ago and has recovered to low 50's this week and this is with EV market share at less than 2%.

The ceiling for oil prices is no longer set by OPEC but by the frackers in North America which is why oil will be bracketed between 50-80 for the next 15-20 years.

That's the supply side of the story but longer term EV penetration will dictate the demand side.

I don't know what EV market share will be 15-20 years from now but if it gets north of say 30% which is not an unreasonable assumption crude oil for the first time in over a century becomes decoupled from transportation. If this happens the floor for oil prices lower significantly.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 5974
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:08 pm

parapente wrote:
Boeing have said that a10x could squeeze an additional 4 rows of pax ( just possible depending on pitch) giving a total pax ( multi class) of 450 pax according to Wiki.That is truly more than enough these days! As stated though - how many operators could use such a beast?BA for sure!it will happen some day but don't think now is the time really.There is no hurry as there is no competition planned at all for an aircraft of this size.


If they make it, EK will buy it.

Assuming no further A380 developments, it could also be an attractive A380 replacement for those operators who aren't still in love with the big beast.

But it would really be too big, and likely too range-challenged, to be attractive to the big Far East operators who have ordered (or will likely order) the 777-9.

I think the challenge is that any stretch of either the A350-1000 or the 777-9 will immediately provoke a similar stretch of the other, resulting in an unchanged competitive situation. Both OEMs see this and neither particularly wants to spend capital and achieve that result. That's my feeling on why Airbus backed off the A350-1100/2000/whatever plan.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 6407
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:34 pm

Is there any airline really making money on long-haul or ultra long-haul? There is no evidence that they are. My guess best profitable WB routes are below 9 hr missions. Longer routes are flag-ship routes cross-subsidized by others across the network, if not other means.

Comparing hourly revenues of these 2018 top performers(Forbes/OAG) with hourly costs(Opshots) of the frames (not including airport fees) shows none of the lh/ulh routes are printing money.

SQ LHR-SYN - $18K/hr
CX HKG-LHR $14K/hr
Less than 9 hours
BA JFK-LHR $24K/hr
EK LHR-DXB $25K/hr
QR LHR-DOH $17K/hr
SQ SIN-SYD $19K/hr

Assuming hourly operations cost range for A380 is $26K-$29K and for 77W is $14k-??k, who is printing money on these routes s?
If these are the top performers, what about the rest?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericrosen/ ... cd60d07a8c
https://www.opshots.net/2015/04/aircraf ... -expenses/
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:50 pm

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

Oops, yes i meant the Q400, QFLink also operate 18 717's.

I'm curious to know what reasons would stop the A220 and 797 replacing the Q series, 717, 737 and A330's.

The A220-100 might be bigger than a Q400 but its short field performance is excellent. I cant find a rural airport that couldn't handle the A220-100. Also with lord howe island there has been reports the flights are unsafe due to distance over water. The A220 would actually be the ultimate option for this route. It is also an exact replacement for the 717.

The 737's that fly the thin routes or off peak flights can be downgauged to A220-300's adjusting frequency accordingly. I see this as being only a small issue.

The Sydney/Melbourne/Brisbane peak 737's can entirely be upgraded to 797's as they have massive slot and gate shortages in peak hour. This would eliminate the need for the domestic A330 flight in peak hour.

The lower capacity longer ranged 797 might allow a daily asian 787 flight to be swapped to two 797 flights. For instance with Thailand
 
redroo
Posts: 468
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:28 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:10 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
MileHFL400 wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:

The reason the cost of fuel has been low is new supply based on fracking. As prices raise above 60 huge supply comes on line. This dyanamic will keep oil between $40-70 for the next 15 years.

After that price will be driven by ev takeup. If ev takes off look for oil at less than $20 maybe even less than $10.

How all this impacts new ac purchases will be intriguing. For sure point to point and ulr will expand.


I think you’re in dream land, we will never see oil under $30


Consider the following:

Crude oil hit low 40's a few week ago and has recovered to low 50's this week and this is with EV market share at less than 2%.

The ceiling for oil prices is no longer set by OPEC but by the frackers in North America which is why oil will be bracketed between 50-80 for the next 15-20 years.

That's the supply side of the story but longer term EV penetration will dictate the demand side.

I don't know what EV market share will be 15-20 years from now but if it gets north of say 30% which is not an unreasonable assumption crude oil for the first time in over a century becomes decoupled from transportation. If this happens the floor for oil prices lower significantly.


+1

Very reasoned argument
 
trav777
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:17 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:11 pm

seabosdca wrote:
parapente wrote:
Boeing have said that a10x could squeeze an additional 4 rows of pax ( just possible depending on pitch) giving a total pax ( multi class) of 450 pax according to Wiki.That is truly more than enough these days! As stated though - how many operators could use such a beast?BA for sure!it will happen some day but don't think now is the time really.There is no hurry as there is no competition planned at all for an aircraft of this size.


If they make it, EK will buy it.

Assuming no further A380 developments, it could also be an attractive A380 replacement for those operators who aren't still in love with the big beast.

But it would really be too big, and likely too range-challenged, to be attractive to the big Far East operators who have ordered (or will likely order) the 777-9.

I think the challenge is that any stretch of either the A350-1000 or the 777-9 will immediately provoke a similar stretch of the other, resulting in an unchanged competitive situation. Both OEMs see this and neither particularly wants to spend capital and achieve that result. That's my feeling on why Airbus backed off the A350-1100/2000/whatever plan.


The 380 is dead, stick a fork in it please. No more wishful thinking. It's not economically competitive, didn't sell. Nothing can or will change that.

What I want is a can of New Coke made with the aluminum from an A380 so I can in one hand hold two of the worst major business decisions in history.

That said, if you have a LF around .8 for a 380, you can fill a 779. Profit is improved. Simple as that. The trend is to fill planes, not drag around "CASM" that doesn't earn anything for you. Most airlines cannot make 400 seats work. I think the 778 will sell around as much as the -9 ex-ME3....neither will be the homeruns that the original 777s were. The -8 is already as big as the 77W and should have a better operating cost profile. The -9 is just larger.

I'm just not seeing anywhere in the market where the trend is to pick up planes in this size class...the slowing and even lately anemic A350 sales, especially 35K, make it seem that with the 78J coming, nothing much else is gonna sell. NZ already flies the 789 with almost 300 pax; the 78J in a similar density...what are we talking here, like 350 pax? What point is the 77x or the 350 unless you have a need for great range? And the 359 only offers 400 or so nm at that passenger load tbh beyond the 789.

As I see it, the 789 has 300ish covered to 7100nm. The 78J has 350ish covered to 6400. The entire rest of the market can be fought over by the 350 and 77x...but at substantial operating cost disadvantage. It's just not as big of a market as it used to be.
 
ewt340
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:28 am

reidar76 wrote:
B1168 wrote:
Has any A350s been fitted a 3-4-3 abreast for regional routes?


Not for regional routes, but for long haul. For example, French bee, operates the A350-900 from Paris to the Caribbean in a 2-class configuration. Premium class at 7 abreast, and economy class at 10 abreast (3-4-3), total of 411 seats in the A350-900. Economy class seats at 16.8 inches wide.

Air Caraibes is another A350-900 using 3-4-3 layout in economy class:
Image


Those are LCC and Budget airlines though.
 
MileHFL400
Topic Author
Posts: 531
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:42 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:34 am

ewt340 wrote:
reidar76 wrote:
B1168 wrote:
Has any A350s been fitted a 3-4-3 abreast for regional routes?


Not for regional routes, but for long haul. For example, French bee, operates the A350-900 from Paris to the Caribbean in a 2-class configuration. Premium class at 7 abreast, and economy class at 10 abreast (3-4-3), total of 411 seats in the A350-900. Economy class seats at 16.8 inches wide.

Air Caraibes is another A350-900 using 3-4-3 layout in economy class:
Image


Those are LCC and Budget airlines though.

I’d hate to be stuck in one of those!
Thanks and best Regards
AA
 
ewt340
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:41 am

trav777 wrote:
seabosdca wrote:
parapente wrote:
Boeing have said that a10x could squeeze an additional 4 rows of pax ( just possible depending on pitch) giving a total pax ( multi class) of 450 pax according to Wiki.That is truly more than enough these days! As stated though - how many operators could use such a beast?BA for sure!it will happen some day but don't think now is the time really.There is no hurry as there is no competition planned at all for an aircraft of this size.


If they make it, EK will buy it.

Assuming no further A380 developments, it could also be an attractive A380 replacement for those operators who aren't still in love with the big beast.

But it would really be too big, and likely too range-challenged, to be attractive to the big Far East operators who have ordered (or will likely order) the 777-9.

I think the challenge is that any stretch of either the A350-1000 or the 777-9 will immediately provoke a similar stretch of the other, resulting in an unchanged competitive situation. Both OEMs see this and neither particularly wants to spend capital and achieve that result. That's my feeling on why Airbus backed off the A350-1100/2000/whatever plan.


The 380 is dead, stick a fork in it please. No more wishful thinking. It's not economically competitive, didn't sell. Nothing can or will change that.

What I want is a can of New Coke made with the aluminum from an A380 so I can in one hand hold two of the worst major business decisions in history.

That said, if you have a LF around .8 for a 380, you can fill a 779. Profit is improved. Simple as that. The trend is to fill planes, not drag around "CASM" that doesn't earn anything for you. Most airlines cannot make 400 seats work. I think the 778 will sell around as much as the -9 ex-ME3....neither will be the homeruns that the original 777s were. The -8 is already as big as the 77W and should have a better operating cost profile. The -9 is just larger.

I'm just not seeing anywhere in the market where the trend is to pick up planes in this size class...the slowing and even lately anemic A350 sales, especially 35K, make it seem that with the 78J coming, nothing much else is gonna sell. NZ already flies the 789 with almost 300 pax; the 78J in a similar density...what are we talking here, like 350 pax? What point is the 77x or the 350 unless you have a need for great range? And the 359 only offers 400 or so nm at that passenger load tbh beyond the 789.

As I see it, the 789 has 300ish covered to 7100nm. The 78J has 350ish covered to 6400. The entire rest of the market can be fought over by the 350 and 77x...but at substantial operating cost disadvantage. It's just not as big of a market as it used to be.


Well the market is bigger than before, it's just that the capability of smaller widebodies are getting better to the point where a medium sized wide-body could have enough range for long-haul operations with high fuel efficiency and low operating cost.

B777-8 is a failure, just like B777-200LR. B777-9 is hard to fill and expensive. B777-300ER are still efficient and young, the capacity just fits right into many airlines. A350-1000 provide great fuel efficiency and lower risk.

.8 of A380 tend to come with lots of discounted fares to fill up the seats. So B777-9 would be filled but with lower profit margin, which is not optimum.
 
ewt340
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:52 am

parapente wrote:
Boeing have said that a10x could squeeze an additional 4 rows of pax ( just possible depending on pitch) giving a total pax ( multi class) of 450 pax according to Wiki.That is truly more than enough these days! As stated though - how many operators could use such a beast?BA for sure!it will happen some day but don't think now is the time really.There is no hurry as there is no competition planned at all for an aircraft of this size.


Those are pipe dreams though. Presumably they would so simple stretch on B777-9 and add few frames here and there to add capacity. The range would suffers without any MTOW increase or more powerful engines.

Besides, how many engines manufacturer wants to make bigger expensive engines for small number of aircraft that would be sold exclusively to Emirates anyway. It's not like the new engine variants would make any financial sense.

So these 2 factors are the current hurdle for Boeing to make B777-10.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 7800
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:44 am

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

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:48 am

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.


LH will not reduce their firm order, maybe just not take up their options. Let’s just be clear.
Thanks and best Regards
AA
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3225
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:54 am

The 778 and 779 airplanes are highly specialized airplanes. Being in the USA? I do not see where you couldn't get to with the 777-300ER. Though I do see the eventual need for the B778 or 9, It's the Folding Wing tip that gives me Pause. That airplane is a monster.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:30 am

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.
 
mig17
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:47 am

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.

So the 77W "was not great at all" compared to 77E or 773?
727 AT, 737 UX/SK/TO/SS, 747 UT/AF/SQ/BA/SS, 767 UA, 777 AF, A300 IW/TG, A310 EK, A318/19/20/21 AF/U2/VY, A332 EK/QR, A333 TX, A343 AF, A388 AF, E145/170/190 A5/WF, Q400 WF, ATR 72 A5/TX, CRJ100/700/1000 A5, C-150/172, PC-6.
 
parapente
Posts: 3040
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:49 am

No/slow sales? It's all about timing imho.
Boeing had to respond to Airbus' 351 - particularly when they had a second go and brought its performance up to and beyond the 773er. But the real reason for slow sales of both aircraft has surely got to be timing.
Now Airbus 'had' to act as they produced a dog of an aircaft,the 340-600 that had an 8% worse sfc pp than the 773er So of course it never sold, indeed the few that were built are being scrapped in Tarbes ( see different thread).But it was a forced measure,the alctual timing was just terrible.
The World has/ will have 844 773ers flying round the World.Absolutly none of which could be described as remotely old.They remain state of the art fabulous efficient aircraft.The last few are still being made and the oldest about 14? Years old. Just run in!
So it's hardly a surprise there are few airlines requiring anything in this class.Emirates because they have this totally unique policy of only keeping aircraft 12 years on lease.Other ME3's overtly piggy backed this order to get maximum discounts and LH? I think they did too but anyway they always seem to buy a bit of everything!
It's like BA buying the 351. They only did because -as they have overtly admitted themselves,they did not buy the 773er when they should have earlier on.They have said this.So obviously they would buy the 'new' 773er which is exactly what the 351 is.
Both companies are going to have to be really patient until the 773ers start showing some age.But wouldn't hold my breadth as Emirates will be releasing 140 odd 'half ( if that) used' ones in good nick.They will be well worth picking up.Particularly with oil at $50 a barrel!
 
mig17
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:50 am

MileHFL400 wrote:
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.


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

I agree, but never say never. Even so, it is not a good sign. And LH isn't a short term prospect for top up order.
727 AT, 737 UX/SK/TO/SS, 747 UT/AF/SQ/BA/SS, 767 UA, 777 AF, A300 IW/TG, A310 EK, A318/19/20/21 AF/U2/VY, A332 EK/QR, A333 TX, A343 AF, A388 AF, E145/170/190 A5/WF, Q400 WF, ATR 72 A5/TX, CRJ100/700/1000 A5, C-150/172, PC-6.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:55 am

mig17 wrote:
So the 77W "was not great at all" compared to 77E or 773?

The 77W gained only 5% in empty weight yet also got 6% more wingspan and the engines were half a generation newer.

None of this applies to the A350-1000 which gains twice as much weight, without any wingspan or engine improvements.
 
mig17
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:28 am

RJMAZ wrote:
mig17 wrote:
So the 77W "was not great at all" compared to 77E or 773?

The 77W gained only 5% in empty weight yet also got 6% more wingspan and the engines were half a generation newer.

None of this applies to the A350-1000 which gains twice as much weight, without any wingspan or engine improvements.

777-200ER: 304,500 lb / 138,100 kg to 777-300ER: 370,000 lb / 167,829 kg, that is a lot more than 5% ... more like 20%
777-200ER: max trust 417 kN to 777-300ER: max trust 513 kN => 23% more trust.

I would say the 77E => 77W look close to A359 => A35K.
727 AT, 737 UX/SK/TO/SS, 747 UT/AF/SQ/BA/SS, 767 UA, 777 AF, A300 IW/TG, A310 EK, A318/19/20/21 AF/U2/VY, A332 EK/QR, A333 TX, A343 AF, A388 AF, E145/170/190 A5/WF, Q400 WF, ATR 72 A5/TX, CRJ100/700/1000 A5, C-150/172, PC-6.
 
MileHFL400
Topic Author
Posts: 531
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:42 am

Re: B777-9 future prospects?

Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:36 am

mig17 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
mig17 wrote:
So the 77W "was not great at all" compared to 77E or 773?

The 77W gained only 5% in empty weight yet also got 6% more wingspan and the engines were half a generation newer.

None of this applies to the A350-1000 which gains twice as much weight, without any wingspan or engine improvements.

777-200ER: 304,500 lb / 138,100 kg to 777-300ER: 370,000 lb / 167,829 kg, that is a lot more than 5% ... more like 20%
777-200ER: max trust 417 kN to 777-300ER: max trust 513 kN => 23% more trust.

I would say the 77E => 77W look close to A359 => A35K.


But the 77W had improved wingspan too.
Thanks and best Regards
AA

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