Spetsnaz55
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:38 am

Re: Emirates renegotiating 777X order

Thu Jul 04, 2019 5:11 pm

jagraham wrote:
Mrakula wrote:
778 OEW estimation is around 167 t and A35k is around 150t! On a photo from CX A35k there is label with OEW 148 900kg on the pedestal.

Cheers


The 77W OEW is 167.8t. The 778 is 5m shorter than the 77W. At 2.3t/m, the 778 will be at least 11t less than the 77W before wings (going to composites should save weight), and engines (10% less thrust but about 3t more weight for both).


Wings are heavier to
 
9Patch
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Emirates renegotiating 777X order

Thu Jul 04, 2019 5:38 pm

jagraham wrote:
77X sides were resculpted to allow 10x 18" seats. Boeing's numbers assume 10 abreast Y.

The resculpting only adds 4 more inches spread out over 10 seats and two aisles.
Emirates currently has 17-inch seats in their 10x 777s according to SeatGuru.
They might be able to bump that up to 17.4 inches.
18-inch wide seats would result in very narrow aisles.
In some 777s configs Emirates offers 33-34 inch pitch which would offset some of the discomfort of the narrower seat.
Last edited by 9Patch on Thu Jul 04, 2019 5:56 pm, edited 3 times in total.
 
Mrakula
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:15 pm

Re: Emirates renegotiating 777X order

Thu Jul 04, 2019 5:39 pm

jagraham wrote:
Mrakula wrote:
778 OEW estimation is around 167 t and A35k is around 150t! On a photo from CX A35k there is label with OEW 148 900kg on the pedestal.

Cheers


The 77W OEW is 167.8t. The 778 is 5m shorter than the 77W. At 2.3t/m, the 778 will be at least 11t less than the 77W before wings (going to composites should save weight), and engines (10% less thrust but about 3t more weight for both).


778 is derivate of 779 not 77W. 779 OEW 181t, 14t more then 77W while is 2.9 m longer! 778 is 3.9 m shorter then 7W and 6.6 m shorter then 779. Wing and engines have same weight, so calculate weight per fuselage meter has no sense!
 
Absynth
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:37 pm

Re: Emirates renegotiating 777X order

Thu Jul 04, 2019 5:53 pm

jagraham wrote:
Mrakula wrote:
778 OEW estimation is around 167 t and A35k is around 150t! On a photo from CX A35k there is label with OEW 148 900kg on the pedestal.

Cheers


The 77W OEW is 167.8t. The 778 is 5m shorter than the 77W. At 2.3t/m, the 778 will be at least 11t less than the 77W before wings (going to composites should save weight), and engines (10% less thrust but about 3t more weight for both).


You are comparing it to a 77W and making all sorts of wild assumptions comparing apples to oranges when you should compare it to the 779X. At 2.3t/m it would be 7x2.3 = 16 ton lighter to the 779X. Since the 779X is ~185t that means the 778 should come in around 165-170t. No possible way will such a plane be more efficient than a 155t A350, but it may come close.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Middle East 3 Carriers are the Lifeline for 777-8/-9 Program

Thu Jul 04, 2019 6:06 pm

keesje wrote:
FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
keesje wrote:


C'mon keesje - the Emirates A350 deal is not firm and in Airbus' backlog. Yet.

Is there a Boeing or etubhad release noting the 777X reductions? I haven't found one despite searching. Wonder what gives?? The airline was quick to cancel 350, perhaps too quick....but I can't see some official statement on the 77x.


Does the Boeing orders & deliveries tool work for you? https://www.boeing.com/company/about-bca/#/orders-deliveries it stalls for me using different browsers..


It's strange that you have not seen that. The 777-X totals 344 firm orders so far. For a healthy discussion, please stick to the facts.

Thanks..

http://active.boeing.com/commercial/ord ... iew+Report
 
9Patch
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Emirates renegotiating 777X order

Thu Jul 04, 2019 6:13 pm

Fatbus wrote:
Don't forget EK plan to operate the 380 well into 2030's, it's not going away any time soon.

I thought they kept their planes for 12 years.
If they take their last one in 2021 that means it will be leaving the fleet in 2033.
Where did you hear that they plan to operate the 380 well into the 2030's?
 
StTim
Posts: 3406
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Emirates renegotiating 777X order

Thu Jul 04, 2019 6:21 pm

The resculpting of the sidewalls likely added weight to the fuselage. More metal required in the sculpted frames to take the stress.
 
Absynth
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:37 pm

Re: Middle East 3 Carriers are the Lifeline for 777-8/-9 Program

Thu Jul 04, 2019 6:31 pm

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

C'mon keesje - the Emirates A350 deal is not firm and in Airbus' backlog. Yet.

Is there a Boeing or etubhad release noting the 777X reductions? I haven't found one despite searching. Wonder what gives?? The airline was quick to cancel 350, perhaps too quick....but I can't see some official statement on the 77x.


Checklist787 wrote:

It's strange that you have not seen that. The 777-X totals 344 firm orders so far. For a healthy discussion, please stick to the facts.

Thanks..

http://active.boeing.com/commercial/ord ... iew+Report


The Etihad order is almost certainly reduced from 25 to 6.

OTOH that A350 order by Emirates is firm even if it isnt 100% finalised. There might still be a A380 order in the books formally, but the order has been changed over. It will likely be finalised after they have a new deal in place with Boeing. You don't buy something from A when you havent changed over that first order with B, or it puts you in a bad negotiating place with B. This is negotiation 101. Vice versa, you seriously think Airbus would allow them to cancel one order without replacing it with another?

The dense logic of some Boeing fanboys around here is getting really annoying. We know there is a significant A350 order by Emirates that likely has significant impact on their 777-8X order. We also know the Etihad 777 order is in serious jeopardy, de facto reduced to six.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Middle East 3 Carriers are the Lifeline for 777-8/-9 Program

Thu Jul 04, 2019 6:51 pm

Absynth wrote:
FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

C'mon keesje - the Emirates A350 deal is not firm and in Airbus' backlog. Yet.

Is there a Boeing or etubhad release noting the 777X reductions? I haven't found one despite searching. Wonder what gives?? The airline was quick to cancel 350, perhaps too quick....but I can't see some official statement on the 77x.


Checklist787 wrote:

It's strange that you have not seen that. The 777-X totals 344 firm orders so far. For a healthy discussion, please stick to the facts.

Thanks..

http://active.boeing.com/commercial/ord ... iew+Report


The Etihad order is almost certainly reduced from 25 to 6.

OTOH that A350 order by Emirates is firm even if it isnt 100% finalised. There might still be a A380 order in the books formally, but the order has been changed over. It will likely be finalised after they have a new deal in place with Boeing. You don't buy something from A when you havent changed over that first order with B, or it puts you in a bad negotiating place with B. This is negotiation 101. Vice versa, you seriously think Airbus would allow them to cancel one order without replacing it with another?

The dense logic of some Boeing fanboys around here is getting really annoying. We know there is a significant A350 order by Emirates that likely has significant impact on their 777-8X order. We also know the Etihad 777 order is in serious jeopardy, de facto reduced to six.


Your sources?? :roll:
 
9Patch
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Emirates renegotiating 777X order

Thu Jul 04, 2019 7:02 pm

StTim wrote:
The resculpting of the sidewalls likely added weight to the fuselage. More metal required in the sculpted frames to take the stress.

Source?
Did your read that somewhere, or is that something you made up?
 
StTim
Posts: 3406
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Emirates renegotiating 777X order

Thu Jul 04, 2019 7:22 pm

It is from an engineering perspective - although my engineering is very rusty having changed to working with 0's and 1's these days.

With an I beam - which is effectively what the element that is changed here - as you reduce the height of the I you need to add thickness in order to carry the same stresses. Indeed - if this wasn't the case do you not thing that a) it would not only be the seating area that was being resculpted and b) that the original design would not have been with a thinner wall structure.

Boeing have chosen to take a different compromise (adding weight) to give a wider cabin. Like most designs it is a trade off.
 
Absynth
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:37 pm

Re: Middle East 3 Carriers are the Lifeline for 777-8/-9 Program

Thu Jul 04, 2019 7:23 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
Absynth wrote:
The Etihad order is almost certainly reduced from 25 to 6.

OTOH that A350 order by Emirates is firm even if it isnt 100% finalised. There might still be a A380 order in the books formally, but the order has been changed over. It will likely be finalised after they have a new deal in place with Boeing. You don't buy something from A when you havent changed over that first order with B, or it puts you in a bad negotiating place with B. This is negotiation 101. Vice versa, you seriously think Airbus would allow them to cancel one order without replacing it with another?

The dense logic of some Boeing fanboys around here is getting really annoying. We know there is a significant A350 order by Emirates that likely has significant impact on their 777-8X order. We also know the Etihad 777 order is in serious jeopardy, de facto reduced to six.


Your sources?? :roll:


Yup better stay uninformed in your little bubble. More importantly, there should be a rolleyes quotum around here.
 
User avatar
FrenchPotatoEye
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:20 pm

Re: Middle East 3 Carriers are the Lifeline for 777-8/-9 Program

Thu Jul 04, 2019 7:27 pm

Absynth wrote:

The Etihad order is almost certainly reduced from 25 to 6.


Not disagreeing, but keesje's figures show 344 orders or whatever. Surely that figure should be 19 units less if Etubhad has formally canceled orders?

That's why I say I hadn't seen online a fcatual report on the orders being terminated. I have no vested interest either way. Just trying to make the math work.

Thanks:)
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17695
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Middle East 3 Carriers are the Lifeline for 777-8/-9 Program

Thu Jul 04, 2019 7:36 pm

Absynth wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
Absynth wrote:
The Etihad order is almost certainly reduced from 25 to 6.

OTOH that A350 order by Emirates is firm even if it isnt 100% finalised. There might still be a A380 order in the books formally, but the order has been changed over. It will likely be finalised after they have a new deal in place with Boeing. You don't buy something from A when you havent changed over that first order with B, or it puts you in a bad negotiating place with B. This is negotiation 101. Vice versa, you seriously think Airbus would allow them to cancel one order without replacing it with another?

The dense logic of some Boeing fanboys around here is getting really annoying. We know there is a significant A350 order by Emirates that likely has significant impact on their 777-8X order. We also know the Etihad 777 order is in serious jeopardy, de facto reduced to six.


Your sources?? :roll:


Yup better stay uninformed in your little bubble. More importantly, there should be a rolleyes quotum around here.

Does anyone have confirmation on the Emirates A330NEO and A350 order?

I do agree the A359 order should effect the 778 order. But as far as I know, the order isn't finalized for either. At this time I expect to wait until the Dubai airshow, but that means negotiations aren't final.

Interesting times ahead. Emirates is self serving, as they should be. I wouldn't rule out anything at this time. They want to accelerate retirements of both the A380 and 77W (just my reading of their poor financial performance of EK the last few years).

The new IST will soon impact yields.


Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
trex8
Posts: 5327
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

Re: Emirates renegotiating 777X order

Thu Jul 04, 2019 7:55 pm

https://www.emirates.com/media-centre/e ... -a350-900s
"announced an order for 40 A330-900 aircraft, and 30 A350-900 aircraft, in a heads of agreement signed with Airbus. The deal is worth US$ 21.4 billion at list prices."

WTH does "announce an order "and heads of agreement mean? I guess a "final " contract is still pending as its not the A order books on their website but sounds more than the 2017 787 "commitment"

Dubai, UAE, 12 November 2017 – Emirates, the world’s largest international airline, today announced a US$ 15.1 billion (AED 55.4 billion) commitment for 40 Boeing 787-10 Dreamliners.https://www.emirates.com/media-centre/e ... howmirates airline today
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1709
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Middle East 3 Carriers are the Lifeline for 777-8/-9 Program

Thu Jul 04, 2019 8:10 pm

lightsaber wrote:
The new IST will soon impact yields.

Turkish sounds not nearly as appealing in the average European ears as the brand EK has created. The gap in perception is huge.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
9Patch
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Emirates renegotiating 777X order

Thu Jul 04, 2019 8:29 pm

StTim wrote:
It is from an engineering perspective - although my engineering is very rusty having changed to working with 0's and 1's these days.

With an I beam - which is effectively what the element that is changed here - as you reduce the height of the I you need to add thickness in order to carry the same stresses. Indeed - if this wasn't the case do you not thing that a) it would not only be the seating area that was being resculpted and b) that the original design would not have been with a thinner wall structure.

Boeing have chosen to take a different compromise (adding weight) to give a wider cabin. Like most designs it is a trade off.

So it's all speculation on your part.
 
9Patch
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Middle East 3 Carriers are the Lifeline for 777-8/-9 Program

Thu Jul 04, 2019 8:36 pm

Absynth wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
Absynth wrote:
The Etihad order is almost certainly reduced from 25 to 6.

OTOH that A350 order by Emirates is firm even if it isnt 100% finalised. There might still be a A380 order in the books formally, but the order has been changed over. It will likely be finalised after they have a new deal in place with Boeing. You don't buy something from A when you havent changed over that first order with B, or it puts you in a bad negotiating place with B. This is negotiation 101. Vice versa, you seriously think Airbus would allow them to cancel one order without replacing it with another?

The dense logic of some Boeing fanboys around here is getting really annoying. We know there is a significant A350 order by Emirates that likely has significant impact on their 777-8X order. We also know the Etihad 777 order is in serious jeopardy, de facto reduced to six.


Your sources?? :roll:


Yup better stay uninformed in your little bubble. More importantly, there should be a rolleyes quotum around here.

I notice you didn't answer the question. :shock:
 
StTim
Posts: 3406
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Emirates renegotiating 777X order

Thu Jul 04, 2019 8:37 pm

9Patch wrote:
StTim wrote:
It is from an engineering perspective - although my engineering is very rusty having changed to working with 0's and 1's these days.

With an I beam - which is effectively what the element that is changed here - as you reduce the height of the I you need to add thickness in order to carry the same stresses. Indeed - if this wasn't the case do you not thing that a) it would not only be the seating area that was being resculpted and b) that the original design would not have been with a thinner wall structure.

Boeing have chosen to take a different compromise (adding weight) to give a wider cabin. Like most designs it is a trade off.

So it's all speculation on your part.



Informed speculation - I give you that. I did say likely in my first post.
 
RB211trent
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 11:35 am

Re: Middle East 3 Carriers are the Lifeline for 777-8/-9 Program

Thu Jul 04, 2019 8:47 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Absynth wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:

Your sources?? :roll:


Yup better stay uninformed in your little bubble. More importantly, there should be a rolleyes quotum around here.

Does anyone have confirmation on the Emirates A330NEO and A350 order?

I do agree the A359 order should effect the 778 order. But as far as I know, the order isn't finalized for either. At this time I expect to wait until the Dubai airshow, but that means negotiations aren't final.

Interesting times ahead. Emirates is self serving, as they should be. I wouldn't rule out anything at this time. They want to accelerate retirements of both the A380 and 77W (just my reading of their poor financial performance of EK the last few years).

The new IST will soon impact yields.


Lightsaber

The A330neo and A359 order Is definitely going ahead. Definitely!
 
musman9853
Posts: 739
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Re: Emirates renegotiating 777X order

Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:07 pm

Spetsnaz55 wrote:
jagraham wrote:
Mrakula wrote:
778 OEW estimation is around 167 t and A35k is around 150t! On a photo from CX A35k there is label with OEW 148 900kg on the pedestal.

Cheers


The 77W OEW is 167.8t. The 778 is 5m shorter than the 77W. At 2.3t/m, the 778 will be at least 11t less than the 77W before wings (going to composites should save weight), and engines (10% less thrust but about 3t more weight for both).


Wings are heavier to


it's also important to remember that the a350 is composite while the 777x is AlLi. that adds up too.
Welcome to the City Beautiful.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Middle East 3 Carriers are the Lifeline for 777-8/-9 Program

Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:16 pm

RB211trent wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Absynth wrote:

Yup better stay uninformed in your little bubble. More importantly, there should be a rolleyes quotum around here.

Does anyone have confirmation on the Emirates A330NEO and A350 order?

I do agree the A359 order should effect the 778 order. But as far as I know, the order isn't finalized for either. At this time I expect to wait until the Dubai airshow, but that means negotiations aren't final.

Interesting times ahead. Emirates is self serving, as they should be. I wouldn't rule out anything at this time. They want to accelerate retirements of both the A380 and 77W (just my reading of their poor financial performance of EK the last few years).

The new IST will soon impact yields.


Lightsaber

The A330neo and A359 order Is definitely going ahead. Definitely!

The A330/350 acquisitions are extremely complex, as all parties need to synchronise unwinding the A380 acquisition (engines and air frames), which have different status (unconditional, conditional and MoU), together with signing off multiple tranches of the new acquisitions, again some unconditional, conditional and MoU. Two other factors bundled with the acquisition will be the desire to finalise A380 buybacks, and funding for the remaining A380 deliveries.

As there is no finance or leases in place for either or both models, at the very best, the acquisition status of one tranche each are conditional orders.

In contrast, the 787 acquisition is presumably linked to the 777X, and quite possibly EK are negotiating to trade a few A380's, or at the very least, return a few EA engines.

When you package acquisition, finance, maintenance, trade-ins and cancellations, the current EK acquisitions are the largest inter-related aviation transactions the World has ever seen, and are exercising some of the keenest financial, legal and taxation brains on the planet.
 
musman9853
Posts: 739
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Re: Middle East 3 Carriers are the Lifeline for 777-8/-9 Program

Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:19 pm

RB211trent wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Absynth wrote:

Yup better stay uninformed in your little bubble. More importantly, there should be a rolleyes quotum around here.

Does anyone have confirmation on the Emirates A330NEO and A350 order?

I do agree the A359 order should effect the 778 order. But as far as I know, the order isn't finalized for either. At this time I expect to wait until the Dubai airshow, but that means negotiations aren't final.

Interesting times ahead. Emirates is self serving, as they should be. I wouldn't rule out anything at this time. They want to accelerate retirements of both the A380 and 77W (just my reading of their poor financial performance of EK the last few years).

The new IST will soon impact yields.


Lightsaber

The A330neo and A359 order Is definitely going ahead. Definitely!


with ek, it's difficult to definitively say whether or not theyre gonna fulfill an order until the planes are on property. remember, they ordered 70 a350s back in 2007 only to cancel them in 2014.
Welcome to the City Beautiful.
 
grbauc
Posts: 1369
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:05 pm

Re: Middle East 3 Carriers are the Lifeline for 777-8/-9 Program

Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:51 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
The new IST will soon impact yields.

Turkish sounds not nearly as appealing in the average European ears as the brand EK has created. The gap in perception is huge.


Turkey I believe at one time adopted the western calendar and tried to join the EU but was snubbed. So I get part of the point. Still It will effect Yields. Biases is easily overcome by price and time brand building.
 
grbauc
Posts: 1369
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:05 pm

Re: Middle East 3 Carriers are the Lifeline for 777-8/-9 Program

Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:54 pm

smartplane wrote:
RB211trent wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Does anyone have confirmation on the Emirates A330NEO and A350 order?

I do agree the A359 order should effect the 778 order. But as far as I know, the order isn't finalized for either. At this time I expect to wait until the Dubai airshow, but that means negotiations aren't final.

Interesting times ahead. Emirates is self serving, as they should be. I wouldn't rule out anything at this time. They want to accelerate retirements of both the A380 and 77W (just my reading of their poor financial performance of EK the last few years).

The new IST will soon impact yields.


Lightsaber

The A330neo and A359 order Is definitely going ahead. Definitely!

The A330/350 acquisitions are extremely complex, as all parties need to synchronise unwinding the A380 acquisition (engines and air frames), which have different status (unconditional, conditional and MoU), together with signing off multiple tranches of the new acquisitions, again some unconditional, conditional and MoU. Two other factors bundled with the acquisition will be the desire to finalise A380 buybacks, and funding for the remaining A380 deliveries.

As there is no finance or leases in place for either or both models, at the very best, the acquisition status of one tranche each are conditional orders.

In contrast, the 787 acquisition is presumably linked to the 777X, and quite possibly EK are negotiating to trade a few A380's, or at the very least, return a few EA engines.

When you package acquisition, finance, maintenance, trade-ins and cancellations, the current EK acquisitions are the largest inter-related aviation transactions the World has ever seen, and are exercising some of the keenest financial, legal and taxation brains on the planet.



"When you package acquisition, finance, maintenance, trade-ins and cancellations, the current EK acquisitions are the largest inter-related aviation transactions the World has ever seen, and are exercising some of the keenest financial, legal and taxation brains on the planet.[/quote]"

Great point worth repeating.
 
Absynth
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:37 pm

Re: Middle East 3 Carriers are the Lifeline for 777-8/-9 Program

Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:03 pm

9Patch wrote:
Absynth wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:

Your sources?? :roll:


Yup better stay uninformed in your little bubble. More importantly, there should be a rolleyes quotum around here.

I notice you didn't answer the question. :shock:


Because there is such a thing as google. I'm also not the first person to have mentioned this.
 
9Patch
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Middle East 3 Carriers are the Lifeline for 777-8/-9 Program

Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:14 pm

Absynth wrote:
9Patch wrote:
Absynth wrote:

Yup better stay uninformed in your little bubble. More importantly, there should be a rolleyes quotum around here.

I notice you didn't answer the question. :shock:


Because there is such a thing as google. I'm also not the first person to have mentioned this.

Sorry, you make the claim, you must provide the evidence.
Don't expect others to do your research for you.
 
alitis
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 11:20 pm

Re: Emirates renegotiating 777X order

Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:26 pm

StTim wrote:
It is from an engineering perspective - although my engineering is very rusty having changed to working with 0's and 1's these days.

With an I beam - which is effectively what the element that is changed here - as you reduce the height of the I you need to add thickness in order to carry the same stresses. Indeed - if this wasn't the case do you not thing that a) it would not only be the seating area that was being resculpted and b) that the original design would not have been with a thinner wall structure.

Boeing have chosen to take a different compromise (adding weight) to give a wider cabin. Like most designs it is a trade off.


I was under the impression that it was only the wall panels and insulation that is being resculpted.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Emirates renegotiating 777X order

Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:27 pm

StTim wrote:
The resculpting of the sidewalls likely added weight to the fuselage. More metal required in the sculpted frames to take the stress.


It's wrong.

On the contrary the finer CFRP will increase the cabin width by 4 "and the lighter CFRP will lighten the airplane

:banghead:
Last edited by Checklist787 on Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Middle East 3 Carriers are the Lifeline for 777-8/-9 Program

Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:36 pm

RB211trent wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Absynth wrote:

Yup better stay uninformed in your little bubble. More importantly, there should be a rolleyes quotum around here.

Does anyone have confirmation on the Emirates A330NEO and A350 order?

I do agree the A359 order should effect the 778 order. But as far as I know, the order isn't finalized for either. At this time I expect to wait until the Dubai airshow, but that means negotiations aren't final.

Interesting times ahead. Emirates is self serving, as they should be. I wouldn't rule out anything at this time. They want to accelerate retirements of both the A380 and 77W (just my reading of their poor financial performance of EK the last few years).

The new IST will soon impact yields.


Lightsaber

The A330neo and A359 order Is definitely going ahead. Definitely!


In the current times, never say "definitive" just because you like RR engines.

Experience shows that anything can happen :yes:
Last edited by Checklist787 on Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Middle East 3 Carriers are the Lifeline for 777-8/-9 Program

Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:38 pm

Absynth wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
Absynth wrote:
The Etihad order is almost certainly reduced from 25 to 6.

OTOH that A350 order by Emirates is firm even if it isnt 100% finalised. There might still be a A380 order in the books formally, but the order has been changed over. It will likely be finalised after they have a new deal in place with Boeing. You don't buy something from A when you havent changed over that first order with B, or it puts you in a bad negotiating place with B. This is negotiation 101. Vice versa, you seriously think Airbus would allow them to cancel one order without replacing it with another?

The dense logic of some Boeing fanboys around here is getting really annoying. We know there is a significant A350 order by Emirates that likely has significant impact on their 777-8X order. We also know the Etihad 777 order is in serious jeopardy, de facto reduced to six.


Your sources?? :roll:


Yup better stay uninformed in your little bubble. More importantly, there should be a rolleyes quotum around here.


For the second time,
Your sources ?!... :roll:
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13043
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Emirates renegotiating 777X order

Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:46 pm

Absynth wrote:
jagraham wrote:
Mrakula wrote:
778 OEW estimation is around 167 t and A35k is around 150t! On a photo from CX A35k there is label with OEW 148 900kg on the pedestal.

Cheers


The 77W OEW is 167.8t. The 778 is 5m shorter than the 77W. At 2.3t/m, the 778 will be at least 11t less than the 77W before wings (going to composites should save weight), and engines (10% less thrust but about 3t more weight for both).


You are comparing it to a 77W and making all sorts of wild assumptions comparing apples to oranges when you should compare it to the 779X. At 2.3t/m it would be 7x2.3 = 16 ton lighter to the 779X. Since the 779X is ~185t that means the 778 should come in around 165-170t. No possible way will such a plane be more efficient than a 155t A350, but it may come close.


If OEW of A350-1000 16t lower than 777-8, that is of metal is a lot to fly around. Similar to 150-160 passengers + luggage.

The empty weight difference with a A350 URL would be 25t. That translates in a lot of costs over a long period for Emiratess.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Checklist787
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Emirates renegotiating 777X order

Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:51 pm

keesje wrote:
Absynth wrote:
jagraham wrote:

The 77W OEW is 167.8t. The 778 is 5m shorter than the 77W. At 2.3t/m, the 778 will be at least 11t less than the 77W before wings (going to composites should save weight), and engines (10% less thrust but about 3t more weight for both).


You are comparing it to a 77W and making all sorts of wild assumptions comparing apples to oranges when you should compare it to the 779X. At 2.3t/m it would be 7x2.3 = 16 ton lighter to the 779X. Since the 779X is ~185t that means the 778 should come in around 165-170t. No possible way will such a plane be more efficient than a 155t A350, but it may come close.


If OEW of A350-1000 16t lower than 777-8, that is of metal is a lot to fly around. Similar to 150-160 passengers + luggage.

The empty weight difference with a A350 URL would be 25t. That translates in a lot of costs over a long period for Emiratess.

Image


You forget that T. Clark had said that the A350-1000 did not have the shoulders in June 2013.

5 Months later he ordered 777-X's (both versions 777-9X and - 8X combo).

There is no fit for the A350-1000 in the EK fleet ... :spit:
 
User avatar
novarupta
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 10:32 am

Emirates renegotiating 777X order

Thu Jul 04, 2019 11:08 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
keesje wrote:
Absynth wrote:

You are comparing it to a 77W and making all sorts of wild assumptions comparing apples to oranges when you should compare it to the 779X. At 2.3t/m it would be 7x2.3 = 16 ton lighter to the 779X. Since the 779X is ~185t that means the 778 should come in around 165-170t. No possible way will such a plane be more efficient than a 155t A350, but it may come close.


If OEW of A350-1000 16t lower than 777-8, that is of metal is a lot to fly around. Similar to 150-160 passengers + luggage.

The empty weight difference with a A350 URL would be 25t. That translates in a lot of costs over a long period for Emiratess.

Image


You forget that T. Clark had said that the A350-1000 did not have the shoulders in June 2013.

5 Months later he ordered 777-X's (both versions 777-9X and - 8X combo).

There is no fit for the A350-1000 in the EK fleet ... :spit:


Never definitely say never.....unless you’re in the board meetings or a particular carrier, neither you or any one not on the board will even know what the plan is, save to the 1-3% they disseminate to the media. So I wouldn’t be making statements like X model doesn’t fit airline y Airlines fleet.

Because you (or others here) don’t know, and won’t know until an official announcement is name.

Until then it’s fair game the 787-8/A330-900 all the way to the A350-1000/777-9.

(Edited as phone butchered the grammar/spelling)
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17276
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Emirates renegotiating 777X order

Thu Jul 04, 2019 11:20 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
You forget that T. Clark had said that the A350-1000 did not have the shoulders in June 2013.


The A35K is now significantly more capable than in 2013. :roll:
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 985
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

Re: Emirates renegotiating 777X order

Thu Jul 04, 2019 11:39 pm

Mrakula wrote:
jagraham wrote:
Mrakula wrote:
778 OEW estimation is around 167 t and A35k is around 150t! On a photo from CX A35k there is label with OEW 148 900kg on the pedestal.

Cheers


The 77W OEW is 167.8t. The 778 is 5m shorter than the 77W. At 2.3t/m, the 778 will be at least 11t less than the 77W before wings (going to composites should save weight), and engines (10% less thrust but about 3t more weight for both).


778 is derivate of 779 not 77W. 779 OEW 181t, 14t more then 77W while is 2.9 m longer! 778 is 3.9 m shorter then 7W and 6.6 m shorter then 779. Wing and engines have same weight, so calculate weight per fuselage meter has no sense!


It is a tricky mathematical estimate at this point...(also I am happy to move to tech ops, though my aero knowledge is pretty small compared to most on this board).

However, I'll take a rough cut..

The 779 is about 3.5% longer (5 tons extra on a 77W basis) and about 15% heavier (13.5 tons 181-167.5). Assuming fuselage and avionics are roughly equal in unit weight, we are looking at about 8. 5 tons extra due to engines and wings.

The 778 is therefore about 4.5% shorter and 6.5 tons less on. 777W basis (161 Tons). Add back 8.5 tons for engines and wings and back at 169.5 tons. I was using an 80 meter length as a 77w basis so 167 tons sounds closer actually.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26314
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Emirates renegotiating 777X order

Thu Jul 04, 2019 11:59 pm

scbriml wrote:
The A35K is now significantly more capable than in 2013. :roll:


The ironic thing is, he didn't like the A350 when it became more capable in 2013. So will he like it now that it is even more capable in 2019?
 
jagraham
Posts: 862
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Emirates renegotiating 777X order

Fri Jul 05, 2019 12:17 am

Mrakula wrote:
jagraham wrote:
Mrakula wrote:
778 OEW estimation is around 167 t and A35k is around 150t! On a photo from CX A35k there is label with OEW 148 900kg on the pedestal.

Cheers


The 77W OEW is 167.8t. The 778 is 5m shorter than the 77W. At 2.3t/m, the 778 will be at least 11t less than the 77W before wings (going to composites should save weight), and engines (10% less thrust but about 3t more weight for both).


778 is derivate of 779 not 77W. 779 OEW 181t, 14t more then 77W while is 2.9 m longer! 778 is 3.9 m shorter then 7W and 6.6 m shorter then 779. Wing and engines have same weight, so calculate weight per fuselage meter has no sense!


778 and 779 are 777s. And like the Longer Range 777 family (77F / 77L / 77W), they only differ in fuselage length. Because they are 777s, we have the opportunity to compare the differences between the 777xs relative to the 777 Longer Range passenger jets. Will the comparison be exact? NO. But it will be quite close. Maybe +/- 1t, since I am working from the known 779 baseline. But not any more. Everything going on with the 778 is already captured in the 779; only the fuselage length will be different.

As for actual fuselage lengths, 779 is 76.7 m. 778 is 69.8 m, 7.9 m shorter than 779. So if we have to go there, 181t (779) - (2.3 x 7.9) = 181t -18 t = 163t. about 1t more than the other way. No way does the 778 get to 168t.

I have not questioned the numbers, but in the end, a composite wing should not weigh as much as a metal wing if it is done right. The wingspan of the 77x without its wingtips is equal to the wingspan of the 77W and 77L with their wingtips. The 77x wing is reported to be 16% bigger in area, (800 sq ft); the wingtips are about 24 sq ft of that. The remaining 776 sq ft would represent a 3.6 ft increase in length, or 7.2 ft at the point where the wingtip of the 77W has gone down to nothing. I don't think the 77W wing is 7.2 ft at the wingtip joint so the estimates of wing area seem a little big. But I haven't transferred the 779 planform into a CAD program to find out. So it is still a guess on my part. In any case, there is no way the 77x wings are 10t heavier than the 77W wings; while I believe the 77x wings will weigh somewhat less, I have settled for equal weight for the purposes of this discussion. So the fuselage is equal weight per length (a disappointment in my eyes, but again, there can be no way the fuselage of the 77x is heavier per length than the 77W), the wings are equal weight, which leaves the engines, and the fuselage length differences. Which can be inferred well since the 77Xs are 777s and still have aluminum fuselages.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13043
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Emirates renegotiating 777X order

Fri Jul 05, 2019 12:27 am

jagraham wrote:
Mrakula wrote:
jagraham wrote:

The 77W OEW is 167.8t. The 778 is 5m shorter than the 77W. At 2.3t/m, the 778 will be at least 11t less than the 77W before wings (going to composites should save weight), and engines (10% less thrust but about 3t more weight for both).


778 is derivate of 779 not 77W. 779 OEW 181t, 14t more then 77W while is 2.9 m longer! 778 is 3.9 m shorter then 7W and 6.6 m shorter then 779. Wing and engines have same weight, so calculate weight per fuselage meter has no sense!


778 and 779 are 777s. And like the Longer Range 777 family (77F / 77L / 77W), they only differ in fuselage length. Because they are 777s, we have the opportunity to compare the differences between the 777xs relative to the 777 Longer Range passenger jets. Will the comparison be exact? NO. But it will be quite close. Maybe +/- 1t, since I am working from the known 779 baseline. But not any more. Everything going on with the 778 is already captured in the 779; only the fuselage length will be different.

As for actual fuselage lengths, 779 is 76.7 m. 778 is 69.8 m, 7.9 m shorter than 779. So if we have to go there, 181t (779) - (2.3 x 7.9) = 181t -18 t = 163t. about 1t more than the other way. No way does the 778 get to 168t.

I have not questioned the numbers, but in the end, a composite wing should not weigh as much as a metal wing if it is done right. The wingspan of the 77x without its wingtips is equal to the wingspan of the 77W and 77L with their wingtips. The 77x wing is reported to be 16% bigger in area, (800 sq ft); the wingtips are about 24 sq ft of that. The remaining 776 sq ft would represent a 3.6 ft increase in length, or 7.2 ft at the point where the wingtip of the 77W has gone down to nothing. I don't think the 77W wing is 7.2 ft at the wingtip joint so the estimates of wing area seem a little big. But I haven't transferred the 779 planform into a CAD program to find out. So it is still a guess on my part. In any case, there is no way the 77x wings are 10t heavier than the 77W wings; while I believe the 77x wings will weigh somewhat less, I have settled for equal weight for the purposes of this discussion. So the fuselage is equal weight per length (a disappointment in my eyes, but again, there can be no way the fuselage of the 77x is heavier per length than the 77W), the wings are equal weight, which leaves the engines, and the fuselage length differences. Which can be inferred well since the 77Xs are 777s and still have aluminum fuselages.


The lenght difference between the -8 and -9 is 6.9m, add 2.3t..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 985
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

Re: Emirates renegotiating 777X order

Fri Jul 05, 2019 12:43 am

Also, wing and engine weight stays the same so the linear fuselage model assumes those substantial weights shrink with the fuselage length, but they don't.

So 2.3 tons for length adjustment and a wee bit more for constant engine/wing weight and we are back to that 167-ish range.

What is of interest is exactly how much of the extra weight increases efficiency. The new wing and engine combo extra weight should not be counted as negative to fuel burn, or Boeing would not have added them. So we'll just have to wait and see.
 
Mrakula
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:15 pm

Re: Emirates renegotiating 777X order

Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:23 am

jagraham wrote:
Mrakula wrote:
jagraham wrote:

The 77W OEW is 167.8t. The 778 is 5m shorter than the 77W. At 2.3t/m, the 778 will be at least 11t less than the 77W before wings (going to composites should save weight), and engines (10% less thrust but about 3t more weight for both).


778 is derivate of 779 not 77W. 779 OEW 181t, 14t more then 77W while is 2.9 m longer! 778 is 3.9 m shorter then 7W and 6.6 m shorter then 779. Wing and engines have same weight, so calculate weight per fuselage meter has no sense!


778 and 779 are 777s. And like the Longer Range 777 family (77F / 77L / 77W), they only differ in fuselage length. Because they are 777s, we have the opportunity to compare the differences between the 777xs relative to the 777 Longer Range passenger jets. Will the comparison be exact? NO. But it will be quite close. Maybe +/- 1t, since I am working from the known 779 baseline. But not any more. Everything going on with the 778 is already captured in the 779; only the fuselage length will be different.

As for actual fuselage lengths, 779 is 76.7 m. 778 is 69.8 m, 7.9 m shorter than 779. So if we have to go there, 181t (779) - (2.3 x 7.9) = 181t -18 t = 163t. about 1t more than the other way. No way does the 778 get to 168t.

I have not questioned the numbers, but in the end, a composite wing should not weigh as much as a metal wing if it is done right. The wingspan of the 77x without its wingtips is equal to the wingspan of the 77W and 77L with their wingtips. The 77x wing is reported to be 16% bigger in area, (800 sq ft); the wingtips are about 24 sq ft of that. The remaining 776 sq ft would represent a 3.6 ft increase in length, or 7.2 ft at the point where the wingtip of the 77W has gone down to nothing. I don't think the 77W wing is 7.2 ft at the wingtip joint so the estimates of wing area seem a little big. But I haven't transferred the 779 planform into a CAD program to find out. So it is still a guess on my part. In any case, there is no way the 77x wings are 10t heavier than the 77W wings; while I believe the 77x wings will weigh somewhat less, I have settled for equal weight for the purposes of this discussion. So the fuselage is equal weight per length (a disappointment in my eyes, but again, there can be no way the fuselage of the 77x is heavier per length than the 77W), the wings are equal weight, which leaves the engines, and the fuselage length differences. Which can be inferred well since the 77Xs are 777s and still have aluminum fuselages.


That`s just speculations. If you take biffrence between 77L vs. 77W lenght diffrence 10m OEW diffrence 23t. 778 VS. 779 6.9m/14t is exactly same diffrence per 1m of fuselage.
 
Airlinerdude
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 3:07 am

Re: Emirates renegotiating 777X order

Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:52 am

Not more than 6 months ago it was cited here that EK would probably be ordering more 777Xs with the cancellation of the A380s... How times have changed?

Emirates is considering at least 20 of the 777X planes while weighing the cancellation of an existing deal for 40 Boeing 787 Dreamliners, said the people, who asked not to be named as the discussions are private.


https://www.seattletimes.com/business/e ... -shake-up/

Throwing my input into the mix:

The business model of EK is changing. Gone are the days of easy route network additions, easy frequency additions, and airport capacity at DXB to make it all happen. With ever increasing long-haul primary to secondary and secondary to secondary route pairs springing up, the asset EK had to facilitate these 'attractive' connections is diminishing. It made sense to fly EK between cities like BHX and BOM where your competitors either offered a significantly inferior product, you preferred the timings EK offered through the frequency they provided, or maybe you the price was more competitive. Either way, at some point you were likely to board a wide body aircraft at some point in your journey on such a route. Now, it's not far-fetched to imagine a 321XLR economically operating this route non-stop one day, eliminating the need to transfer at DXB. This sort of primary to secondary route examples can be extended to many of the destination EK connects through DXB.

Where EK was once competing with other carriers with similar CASM, EK will now have greater competition from lower CASM carriers when more and more narrow body aircraft gain range to become competitive on long sectors. There now has to be even greater emphasis on CASM reduction than ever before to be able to compete. Don't forget, air traffic between two points is merely supply and demand, and the factor that influences an individual's choice to fly non-stop or via intermediary points is their price sensitivity. With that said, EK can still be competitive between two points, but it has to offer a ticket price that is competitive. The only way to do this will be to somehow manage to have a CASM competitive enough with its long-haul narrow body competitors, or increase its customer's willingness to pay to fly EK.

With all those economics behind, I don't see a need to have the 778 order. The CASM of this aircraft will obviously be higher than its 359 counterpart. The list price differential is around $100m alone. From an operations perspective, there are very few destinations that would demand the range/payload superiority that the 778 has over the 359, and I don't see that changing in the immediate future. I would however suspect that we a formal launch of the 777-10 could be on the table to be a substitute for the 778 orders...
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17276
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Emirates renegotiating 777X order

Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:59 am

Stitch wrote:
scbriml wrote:
The A35K is now significantly more capable than in 2013. :roll:


The ironic thing is, he didn't like the A350 when it became more capable in 2013. So will he like it now that it is even more capable in 2019?


Are you suggesting nothing's changed at EK since 2013?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1369
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: Emirates renegotiating 777X order

Fri Jul 05, 2019 7:07 am

scbriml wrote:
Stitch wrote:
scbriml wrote:
The A35K is now significantly more capable than in 2013. :roll:


The ironic thing is, he didn't like the A350 when it became more capable in 2013. So will he like it now that it is even more capable in 2019?


Are you suggesting nothing's changed at EK since 2013?


He did not want the additional capability in 2013. At that time he wanted to use it in a 773 classic role.
 
RB211trent
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 11:35 am

Re: Middle East 3 Carriers are the Lifeline for 777-8/-9 Program

Fri Jul 05, 2019 8:15 am

Checklist787 wrote:
RB211trent wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Does anyone have confirmation on the Emirates A330NEO and A350 order?

I do agree the A359 order should effect the 778 order. But as far as I know, the order isn't finalized for either. At this time I expect to wait until the Dubai airshow, but that means negotiations aren't final.

Interesting times ahead. Emirates is self serving, as they should be. I wouldn't rule out anything at this time. They want to accelerate retirements of both the A380 and 77W (just my reading of their poor financial performance of EK the last few years).

The new IST will soon impact yields.


Lightsaber

The A330neo and A359 order Is definitely going ahead. Definitely![/quote
In the current times, never say "definitive" just because you like RR engines.

Experience shows that anything can happen :yes:


It’s not because “I like” rolls-Royce engines.
 
StTim
Posts: 3406
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Emirates renegotiating 777X order

Fri Jul 05, 2019 8:18 am

Checklist787 wrote:
StTim wrote:
The resculpting of the sidewalls likely added weight to the fuselage. More metal required in the sculpted frames to take the stress.


It's wrong.

On the contrary the finer CFRP will increase the cabin width by 4 "and the lighter CFRP will lighten the airplane

:banghead:


This is news to me that they are using CRFP in the frame. I have not read that anywhere and it would be a substantial change from a manufacturing and testing perspective.
 
StTim
Posts: 3406
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Emirates renegotiating 777X order

Fri Jul 05, 2019 8:20 am

alitis wrote:
StTim wrote:
It is from an engineering perspective - although my engineering is very rusty having changed to working with 0's and 1's these days.

With an I beam - which is effectively what the element that is changed here - as you reduce the height of the I you need to add thickness in order to carry the same stresses. Indeed - if this wasn't the case do you not thing that a) it would not only be the seating area that was being resculpted and b) that the original design would not have been with a thinner wall structure.

Boeing have chosen to take a different compromise (adding weight) to give a wider cabin. Like most designs it is a trade off.


I was under the impression that it was only the wall panels and insulation that is being resculpted.


No it is the main structure that needs amending or it would be a slam dunk and they would have done it years ago.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2799
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Emirates renegotiating 777X order

Fri Jul 05, 2019 9:36 am

jagraham wrote:
Mrakula wrote:
jagraham wrote:

The 77W OEW is 167.8t. The 778 is 5m shorter than the 77W. At 2.3t/m, the 778 will be at least 11t less than the 77W before wings (going to composites should save weight), and engines (10% less thrust but about 3t more weight for both).


778 is derivate of 779 not 77W. 779 OEW 181t, 14t more then 77W while is 2.9 m longer! 778 is 3.9 m shorter then 7W and 6.6 m shorter then 779. Wing and engines have same weight, so calculate weight per fuselage meter has no sense!


778 and 779 are 777s. And like the Longer Range 777 family (77F / 77L / 77W), they only differ in fuselage length. Because they are 777s, we have the opportunity to compare the differences between the 777xs relative to the 777 Longer Range passenger jets. Will the comparison be exact? NO. But it will be quite close. Maybe +/- 1t, since I am working from the known 779 baseline. But not any more. Everything going on with the 778 is already captured in the 779; only the fuselage length will be different.

As for actual fuselage lengths, 779 is 76.7 m. 778 is 69.8 m, 7.9 m shorter than 779. So if we have to go there, 181t (779) - (2.3 x 7.9) = 181t -18 t = 163t. about 1t more than the other way. No way does the 778 get to 168t.

I have not questioned the numbers, but in the end, a composite wing should not weigh as much as a metal wing if it is done right. The wingspan of the 77x without its wingtips is equal to the wingspan of the 77W and 77L with their wingtips. The 77x wing is reported to be 16% bigger in area, (800 sq ft); the wingtips are about 24 sq ft of that. The remaining 776 sq ft would represent a 3.6 ft increase in length, or 7.2 ft at the point where the wingtip of the 77W has gone down to nothing. I don't think the 77W wing is 7.2 ft at the wingtip joint so the estimates of wing area seem a little big. But I haven't transferred the 779 planform into a CAD program to find out. So it is still a guess on my part. In any case, there is no way the 77x wings are 10t heavier than the 77W wings; while I believe the 77x wings will weigh somewhat less, I have settled for equal weight for the purposes of this discussion. So the fuselage is equal weight per length (a disappointment in my eyes, but again, there can be no way the fuselage of the 77x is heavier per length than the 77W), the wings are equal weight, which leaves the engines, and the fuselage length differences. Which can be inferred well since the 77Xs are 777s and still have aluminum fuselages.


I estimate the wing weight of the 77W to be approximately 47t and the wing weight of the 779X to be approximately 57t.
the main drivers for the wing weight is:
span^3
Thickness^1
MZFW^1
I believe thickness will broadly remain the same
as the span has increased from 64.8-71.8 (10.8% increase) then we can assume that there will be a 1.108^3 increase in weight or 1.36x
the MZFW increases from 237t->255t a 7.5% increase.

1.36*1.075 = 1.463 x the weight of the 773 wing (all else being equal). CFRP might get rid of some of that but the wing weight will not be a wash.

The fuselage will at the very least be the same weight per linear meter increase as between the 77L and 77W but likely more as the already optimised 777 fuselage is taken to a less optimised (from a weight perspective) point. To us people sat in front of a computer not at an aero manufacturer its easy (and useful) to assume a linear increase in weight per length but there are variation in mass per unit length along the length of the fuselage and it will increase at a higher power of fuselage length so an increase in length from 70-71m would be smaller than the increase from 71-72 so an increase in length from 77L->77W would be lower (very slightly) then the increase in weight from 778X->779X.

I believe your estimates to be very wishful thinking.

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13043
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Emirates renegotiating 777X order

Fri Jul 05, 2019 9:43 am

Leeham had an analyzes where they mention the -8 is 14t lighter than the -9, around 167t.
https://leehamnews.com/2019/02/07/boeings-777x-analyzed-part-3/

The 777-9 OEW we use is based on a 2016 article (~400.00 lbs) from Norris and Flottau who demonstrated close contacts / allignement with Boeing. Apart from the strong sales campaign of the 777X at that stage and specification creep / engine uprates of a few percent that we usually see during aircraft developments. We have seen increases in takeoff thrust of the engines, ususally a way to maintain contracted payload-range for a growing OEW.

Newer more detailed analyses seem to point more in the direction of a slightly higher OEW for the 777-9: 184-185t. That would bring 777-8 more into the 168-170t area.https://seekingalpha.com/article/4071222-boeing-777x-every-kilogram-matters

Boeing has originally predicted a Operating Empty Weight of 190,000 kilograms (418,900 lbs) for the 777–9, but it pushed back to the original value of 188,200 kilograms (415,000 lbs; a estimation according to Aspire Aviation)

https://medium.com/o530-carris-pt-herald/boeing-777x-dimensions-matter-8e80dd601a83

Image

Maybe the OEW of the 777X is lower, please share the sources, links for that.

For now, OEW's of:
~ 185t for the 777-9
~ 170t for the 777-8
seem reasonable assumptions.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Checklist787
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Emirates renegotiating 777X order

Fri Jul 05, 2019 11:19 am

scbriml wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
You forget that T. Clark had said that the A350-1000 did not have the shoulders in June 2013.


The A35K is now significantly more capable than in 2013. :roll:


Except that T. CLARK preferred the specifications of the first iteration of the A350-1000 (before 2011)

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