Emirates renegotiating 777X order

Checklist787 · Fri Jul 05, 2019 11:21 am

RB211trent wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
RB211trent wrote:
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

It’s not because “I like” rolls-Royce engines.

Airbus then? :roll:

Checklist787 · Fri Jul 05, 2019 11:23 am

StTim wrote:
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

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.

Yes it is.
The 777-X is like a new aircraft
:bigthumbsup:

StTim · Fri Jul 05, 2019 11:30 am

Checklist787 wrote:
StTim wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:

It's wrong.

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

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.

Yes it is.
The 777-X is like a new aircraft

Do you have a source to quote on the change of material (from Al alloy to CRFP) on the fuselage frames?

RB211trent · Fri Jul 05, 2019 11:31 am

Checklist787 wrote:
RB211trent wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:

It’s not because “I like” rolls-Royce engines.

Airbus then?

No..because it’s true.

Revelation · Fri Jul 05, 2019 12:42 pm

9Patch wrote:
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.

https://leehamnews.com/2019/07/01/ponti ... -iag-deal/ says:

During the Airbus Innovation Days, and in other forums, officials promoted the idea of a 10-abreast coach-class in the A350 XWB.

Compared with the 10-abreast Boeing 777X, officials said the economics of the A350-1000 are unbeatable (along with other claims).

Boeing claims the 777-9 is 25% more economical on a per-seat basis than the A350-1000.

This is an unfair comparison, of course, because the -9 seats about 40 more passengers than the -1000 at nine abreast. Hence, the push for a 10-abreast A350.

Looks like Airbus feels the need to address a marketing challenge on the A350 XWB.

Maybe it will be EK's customers that feel the pinch (16.4" seats, ouch!).

Otherwise the 777-9 will have unbeatable economics.

FluidFlow · Fri Jul 05, 2019 12:46 pm

Revelation wrote:

Otherwise the 777-9 will have unbeatable economics.

If you can fill it.

AECM · Fri Jul 05, 2019 12:56 pm

According to SeatuGuru Air Caraibes A359 seat x10 in economy with 16,5 inch width I think that Airbus can change the cabin in order to allow for x10 with 17 inch width that is similar to the current Emirates B777

Revelation · Fri Jul 05, 2019 1:15 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
Revelation wrote:

Otherwise the 777-9 will have unbeatable economics.

If you can fill it.

Someone just posted a nice list of airlines who are betting large sums of money that they can.

Oh, here it is:

keesje wrote:
Firm orders for Boeing 777X

Lufthansa.........................20
Etihad Airways.................25
Cathay Pacific..................21
Emirates.........................150
Qatar Airways..................60
All Nippon Airways...........20
Unidentified customer......10
Singapore Airlines...........20
British Airways.................18

777-8: 53
777-9: 291
Total: 344

DCA350 · Fri Jul 05, 2019 1:21 pm

Revelation wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
Revelation wrote:

Otherwise the 777-9 will have unbeatable economics.

If you can fill it.

Someone just posted a nice list of airlines who are betting large sums of money that they can.

Oh, here it is:

keesje wrote:
Firm orders for Boeing 777X

Lufthansa.........................20
Etihad Airways.................25
Cathay Pacific..................21
Emirates.........................150
Qatar Airways..................60
All Nippon Airways...........20
Unidentified customer......10
Singapore Airlines...........20
British Airways.................18

777-8: 53
777-9: 291
Total: 344

I think the 777X will sell decently but like the A380 I don't believe all those orders will be taken. Etihad is already said to be dropping some, Emirates might exchange some and I don't think there's anyway possible Qatar takes 60, that was a look at me order..

jagraham · Fri Jul 05, 2019 1:24 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
jagraham wrote:
Mrakula wrote:

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

WRT fuselage, I know and accept the leverage issues and the resulting need to increase strength (and weight) exponentially with length, all other things being equal. But the starting point is the longer and heavier model. So the decrease should also be more than linear. But I am estimating.

As for the wing, it bears investigating. MTOW is not going up, so there was no need to significantly increase the wing area and weight. In addition, since the wing cross section is not rectangular, where Boeing chose to add area is significant. Adding area to the far edge adds less weight than adding to the wing root. So the increase need not be as straightforward as a volume rule.

In any case, the known 779 case can be worked backwards to the known 77W to fill in some gaps. But that takes time.

FluidFlow · Fri Jul 05, 2019 1:26 pm

Revelation wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
Revelation wrote:

Otherwise the 777-9 will have unbeatable economics.

If you can fill it.

Someone just posted a nice list of airlines who are betting large sums of money that they can.

Oh, here it is:

keesje wrote:
Firm orders for Boeing 777X

Lufthansa.........................20
Etihad Airways.................25
Cathay Pacific..................21
Emirates.........................150
Qatar Airways..................60
All Nippon Airways...........20
Unidentified customer......10
Singapore Airlines...........20
British Airways.................18

777-8: 53
777-9: 291
Total: 344

But who else will buy some? This is about the same numbers game as the A380 and if you cannot sell more than just the replacement of said A380 its not worth it. On top of that if either the US or Iran do something really stupid (and both governments are not really showing sanity right now), 210 of the current orders are gone. Worst case scenario? Absolutely but the heavy reliance on the ME of the 777X program is a big risk. I hope the 777X will be the next highlight in the history of the 777 but it is by far the riskiest iteration and I predict it will end like the A380. A massive prestige win for Boeing and a masterpiece of engineering but financially not a valid program.

FluidFlow · Fri Jul 05, 2019 1:58 pm

Revelation wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
But who else will buy some? This is about the same numbers game as the A380 and if you cannot sell more than just the replacement of said A380 its not worth it. On top of that if either the US or Iran do something really stupid (and both governments are not really showing sanity right now), 210 of the current orders are gone. Worst case scenario? Absolutely but the heavy reliance on the ME of the 777X program is a big risk. I hope the 777X will be the next highlight in the history of the 777 but it is by far the riskiest iteration and I predict it will end like the A380. A massive prestige win for Boeing and a masterpiece of engineering but financially not a valid program.

Why all the worry? If there is a US-IR war then the last thing one should worry about is selling airliners. Boeing has all the orders it needs to launch the product. At this point, it will be up to 77X to sell itself. Some are optimistic, some are pessimistic, let's wait and see. Boeing didn't spend clean sheet money like A380. They applied incremental steps and bought a new wing making plant that can be used on NMA and other future products. I think it will turn out fine.

I dont really worry as I will not be affected. On the other hand my pension fund would be so lets hope Boeing sells enough.

And I dont think of a war but extended periods of closed airspace in the ME due to a local crisis will lead to big problems of the ME carriers. Closed Syrian and Iranian Airspace, who knows how long the Airspace over northern Irak stays open (Kurdistan), airspace over Yemen is closed. Pakistani and north Indian airspace was closed. There is a lot of trouble and if the ME carriers lose their attractivity due to delays and cancellations because they have to fly longer routes, the 210 777X orders might be downgraded to 350 787 orders. Just because the capacity is not needed and the 787 can to ULH if necessary. That would kill the 777X and this risk has to be on the table and be discussed. Especially now since Iran will start to enrich more uranium again.

flipdewaf · Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:03 pm

jagraham wrote:

As for the wing, it bears investigating. MTOW is not going up, so there was no need to significantly increase the wing area and weight.

The requirement to increase area was born from the low cruise levels requireed at high weights hampering performance and better matching the engine limited and wing limited climb/altitude performance. MTOW increasing is all but moot for the wing weight as MTOW very little bearing on this, the weight it is driven by is MZFW.

jagraham wrote:
In addition, since the wing cross section is not rectangular, where Boeing chose to add area is significant.

They haven't added area to a part of the wing, they have designed a new wing and they have to account for and design the wing according to the aerodynamics AND structural capabilities of the WHOLE wing.

jagraham wrote:
Adding area to the far edge adds less weight than adding to the wing root.

No, the inboard part of the wing has to carry the loads of the outboard part of the wing whether you add the area there or not. Adding area to the inboard part of the wing on a tapered wing will have a two fold effect of not increasing span (and therefor moment arm of a lifting surface) as much as the outboard area increase but will also allow the section being added to be of greater thickness (assuming a similar t/c to maintain similar transonic drag levels) and so have a lower compression buckling from the wing bending moment.

jagraham wrote:
So the increase need not be as straightforward as a volume rule.

It isnt ^3 because it is a volume rule, it is because the derivation of how moments are carried in the members of a cantilever structure give rise to the loads carried and the material required to carry those loads.

jagraham wrote:
In any case, the known 779 case can be worked backwards to the known 77W to fill in some gaps. But that takes time.

Agreed, thats where the 168-170t figure came from.

Fred

Revelation · Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:13 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
And I dont think of a war but extended periods of closed airspace in the ME due to a local crisis will lead to big problems of the ME carriers. Closed Syrian and Iranian Airspace, who knows how long the Airspace over northern Irak stays open (Kurdistan), airspace over Yemen is closed. Pakistani and north Indian airspace was closed. There is a lot of trouble and if the ME carriers lose their attractivity due to delays and cancellations because they have to fly longer routes, the 210 777X orders might be downgraded to 350 787 orders. Just because the capacity is not needed and the 787 can to ULH if necessary. That would kill the 777X and this risk has to be on the table and be discussed. Especially now since Iran will start to enrich more uranium again.

Slow sales will not kill the 77X. The only thing I think that would kill it would be some sort of design screw up akin to MCAS, but it seems Boeing is being very cautious and conservative in order to avoid such a thing.

I'm not sure we can handicap the impact of closed airspace. 777X offers great range and great payload at range, and both could be at a premium when various corridors are closed.

Overall the program has a lot of blue chip customers and keeps adding more, so there's every reason to be confident about its future.

94717 · Fri Jul 05, 2019 5:54 pm

It seems like the p2p takes over. How will this give effect to me3 and its orders in 2030?

Absynth · Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:25 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
Absynth wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:

Your sources??

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

For the second time,
Your sources ?!...

https://aviationanalyst.co.uk/2019/02/1 ... 777x-jets/

Of course, since neither side has officially confirmed there is nothing to see here people. Move along all.

Stitch · Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:25 pm

olle wrote:
It seems like the p2p takes over. How will this give effect to me3 and its orders in 2030?

There will still be plenty of hub-to-spoke service: it will probably remain the majority of world air travel. DXB still has a strong location advantage which allows it to maximize the payload it's planes can move between the EU and Asia. Non-stops are going to be more expensive to operate (due to their higher fuel fraction as a function of total operating weight) and while there will be demand for such from those who value time over money, price-conscious travelers will likely continue to make up the majority of air traffic and they will take the stopover / plane-change to save money as they value it more than time. It's why they're adding smaller frames like the A339 and A359 to capture traffic from markets that currently are too small to support a 77W/779/A388.

Absynth · Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:40 pm

StTim wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
StTim wrote:

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.

Yes it is.
The 777-X is like a new aircraft

Do you have a source to quote on the change of material (from Al alloy to CRFP) on the fuselage frames?

I delivered my first hand source on the Etihad reduction, really curious to see if he can back up his claim as well. You reading this Checklist?

5427247845 · Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:47 pm

Stitch wrote:
I am on record in this thread as thinking the 319,000kg TOW A350-1000 might very well serve as a solid replacement for the missions the 777-8 was intended for, but I have been told in this very thread that EK explicitly has no A350-1000 conversion options in their current A350-900 MoU which, if true, implies they are not currently interested in the A350-1000.

They may be interested, but not for the next five years. They still have a huge number of newish 77W, so capacitywise they don’t need the A35K short term. They need a smaller plane, that’s why they chose the A330neo and A359

scbriml · Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
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.

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

And a lot has changed for Emirates between then and now, so what he said six years ago is pretty much irrelevant now. :roll:

Polot · Fri Jul 05, 2019 7:01 pm

marcelh wrote:
Stitch wrote:
I am on record in this thread as thinking the 319,000kg TOW A350-1000 might very well serve as a solid replacement for the missions the 777-8 was intended for, but I have been told in this very thread that EK explicitly has no A350-1000 conversion options in their current A350-900 MoU which, if true, implies they are not currently interested in the A350-1000.

They may be interested, but not for the next five years. They still have a huge number of newish 77W, so capacitywise they don’t need the A35K short term. They need a smaller plane, that’s why they chose the A330neo and A359

Uhh..EK is not getting their first A350 until 5 years from now (2024). They will have no problem replacing 77Ws in the interim- that is the point of all those 779s coming in starting in 2020/2021.

The A35K would also have a lower capacity than EK’s equivalently configured 77Ws, not that it matters much. This is assuming, of course, that an acceptable 10Y product for the A350 is not around 5 years from now.

I think at this point EK is not interested in the A35K because it is too close to the 779 in size and capability to be worth it for them. With the A359/A339/potential 787-10 (it rumors that they still have an interest are true) split they are close in size but the the A359 will be able to fly much much further.

keesje · Fri Jul 05, 2019 7:17 pm

So much emphasis that the A350-1000 is out of the picture for EK, it is becoming suspicious. Emirates proved very flexible changing, cancelling firm orders. It’s the topic of this thread. No exceptions for the A350s I assume.

Polot · Fri Jul 05, 2019 7:20 pm

keesje wrote:
So much emphasis that the A350-1000 is out of the picture foe EK, it is becoming suspicious. Emirates proved very flexible changing, cancelling firm orders. No exceptions for the A350s I assume.

At this point I’m not sure if EK fully knows what they want, versus what they are just rushing to because they have to do something with A380 deposit money. The Dubai Air Show in November will probably provide a clearer picture as I’m guessing that is when EK’s orders will be be finalized.

Any changes to the 777X order will result in the same thing with Boeing. EK is not going to give up money.

Then you have the whole FlyDubai/MAX complication.

lightsaber · Fri Jul 05, 2019 7:58 pm

keesje wrote:
So much emphasis that the A350-1000 is out of the picture for EK, it is becoming suspicious. Emirates proved very flexible changing, cancelling firm orders. It’s the topic of this thread. No exceptions for the A350s I assume.

This I heartily agree with.

Emirates will do what is best for themselves. Their orders are so large than neither A nor B could ever ignore them (as with many others, including FR).

They need a different fleet, that much is obvious. I speculate the pressure will become worse as the new IST ramps up and even worse as SAW expands.

Lightsaber

musman9853 · Fri Jul 05, 2019 9:16 pm

StTim wrote:
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

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.

yeah it's aluminum still. idk what that guy is talking about. the sidewalls were thinned out some, but it's not a composite barrel.

musman9853 · Fri Jul 05, 2019 9:18 pm

StTim wrote:
keesje wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:

Yes it is.
The 777-X is like a new aircraft

The 777X has new fusealge materials, dimensions, windows, new wings, landing gears, new engines, new tail and a new cockpit. Still it is certified as a 77W versions, using grandfathered design and requirements. That is an deeply unpopular smouldering topic after the ongoing MAX initiated certification investigations. The spotlights are current pulled away by the G9X delays, that buys Boeing and the FAA a little extra time on the way the 777X is certified. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1423759

Reading that thread I see known changes to the fuselage I recognise, Sculpted frames, bigger windows etc but no mention of materials changed over to CRFP to create the scuplted frames.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... a350-flies

iirc the new fuselage material is Al-Li

StTim · Fri Jul 05, 2019 9:20 pm

That would make sense.

9Patch · Sat Jul 06, 2019 12:54 am

keesje wrote:
So much emphasis that the A350-1000 is out of the picture for EK, it is becoming suspicious. Emirates proved very flexible changing, cancelling firm orders. It’s the topic of this thread. No exceptions for the A350s I assume.

Sure they could swap the A333neo's and A359 for the 1000.
They're stuck having to buy some Airbus after the A380 debacle, so anything can happen.

9Patch · Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:01 am

Absynth wrote:
I delivered my first hand source on the Etihad reduction, really curious to see if he can back up his claim as well. You reading this Checklist?

Oh, did you?
I missed it. All I saw was you telling people to google it.
Can you please re-post your first hand source?

SteelChair · Sat Jul 06, 2019 2:09 am

FluidFlow wrote:
Revelation wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
If you can fill it.

Someone just posted a nice list of airlines who are betting large sums of money that they can.

Oh, here it is:

keesje wrote:
Firm orders for Boeing 777X

Lufthansa.........................20
Etihad Airways.................25
Cathay Pacific..................21
Emirates.........................150
Qatar Airways..................60
All Nippon Airways...........20
Unidentified customer......10
Singapore Airlines...........20
British Airways.................18

777-8: 53
777-9: 291
Total: 344

But who else will buy some? This is about the same numbers game as the A380 and if you cannot sell more than just the replacement of said A380 its not worth it. On top of that if either the US or Iran do something really stupid (and both governments are not really showing sanity right now), 210 of the current orders are gone. Worst case scenario? Absolutely but the heavy reliance on the ME of the 777X program is a big risk. I hope the 777X will be the next highlight in the history of the 777 but it is by far the riskiest iteration and I predict it will end like the A380. A massive prestige win for Boeing and a masterpiece of engineering but financially not a valid program.

I completely agree with your comments. This program is on very shaky ground. Boeing just has to hold on as long as possible, stretching the timeline out until some 77W wear out and hope for some replacement orders.

My personal feeling is that it is too big, too heavy, and has too much payload range capability.

seabosdca · Sat Jul 06, 2019 3:57 am

keesje wrote:
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 idea that an ~8 m difference in fuselage length would only produce a 14 t difference in OEW has never made sense to me, and accordingly that Leeham analysis has never made sense to me either.

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

185 t does indeed seem reasonable for 777-9, but I think that points to an OEW for the 777-8 much closer to 165 t than 170 t.

Strato2 · Sat Jul 06, 2019 6:07 am

FluidFlow wrote:
Revelation wrote:

Otherwise the 777-9 will have unbeatable economics.

If you can fill it.

779 economics are NOT unbeatable. The very fact that 779 exist in its current form proves that. Boeing felt the need to stretch the current plane instead of just slapping new engines and wings on it because they knew that is the only way to get the per seat fuel burn competitive. And like said there's the big if. As we have seen the market for VLA is very limited and the 779 will have the worst RASM of any of the new planes flying. Every argument that was said against the A380 applies to the 779 too although it is funny and totally expected that the same posters have now switched their views 180 degrees on the matter.

DCA350 · Sat Jul 06, 2019 10:15 am

Strato2 wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
Revelation wrote:

Otherwise the 777-9 will have unbeatable economics.

If you can fill it.

779 economics are NOT unbeatable. The very fact that 779 exist in its current form proves that. Boeing felt the need to stretch the current plane instead of just slapping new engines and wings on it because they knew that is the only way to get the per seat fuel burn competitive. And like said there's the big if. As we have seen the market for VLA is very limited and the 779 will have the worst RASM of any of the new planes flying. Every argument that was said against the A380 applies to the 779 too although it is funny and totally expected that the same posters have now switched their views 180 degrees on the matter.

Exactly, they share the exact same position. The 777X will appeal to premium carriers that need the space as they plan to continue to offer First Class. The order book reflects this however we also know many other carriers are moving away from First so they are likely to favor the A350K as their 777W replacement.

seahawk · Sat Jul 06, 2019 10:45 am

The number of orders the 777-9 has is surprisingly high at the moment, when you consider that the 744 replacement cycle is mostly done, while the replacement cycles for the 777W and the A380 have barely started. The plane will a huge success.

In addition it is in the "why should I order now" phase of the development. You no longer get launch customer prices but can not check real life data on the performance either.

Absynth · Sat Jul 06, 2019 11:42 am

seahawk wrote:
The number of orders the 777-9 has is surprisingly high at the moment, when you consider that the 744 replacement cycle is mostly done, while the replacement cycles for the 777W and the A380 have barely started. The plane will a huge success.

In addition it is in the "why should I order now" phase of the development. You no longer get launch customer prices but can not check real life data on the performance either.

I agree there is a big untapped A380 replacement and VLA expansion market (when fat p2p long haul starts growing towards and beyond the upper range of the 777) starting about ten years from now. I'm hoping the combined experience of the A380 and A350 will lead to a lean&mean "A370" that would be 11ab / 80m, but I'm afraid Airbus burned their fingers too much on the VLA market for a 2nd try.

9Patch · Sat Jul 06, 2019 11:44 am

Strato2 wrote:
Every argument that was said against the A380 applies to the 779 too although it is funny and totally expected that the same posters have now switched their views 180 degrees on the matter.

Every argument?
The A380 has four engines.
The 777 has two.
The A380 is significantly larger than the 779.
But it is funny how quickly some A380 fans have jumped on the "small is beautiful, frequency/fragmentation" band wagon.

Scotron12 · Sat Jul 06, 2019 11:44 am

Airbus was very quick to record the EY A350 cancellations publically. There have been rumors...on various publications and Leeham...that not only did they cancel a substantial number of 777x's...but they were also looking to reduce the orders for the 787-10 as well.

Revelation · Sat Jul 06, 2019 12:46 pm

9Patch wrote:
Strato2 wrote:
Every argument that was said against the A380 applies to the 779 too although it is funny and totally expected that the same posters have now switched their views 180 degrees on the matter.

Every argument?
The A380 has four engines.
The 777 has two.
The A380 is significantly larger than the 779.
But it is funny how quickly some A380 fans have jumped on the "small is beautiful, frequency/fragmentation" band wagon.

They've also jumped on the "779 is the same as A380 and since A380 is doomed so is 779" bandwagon.

Some quick numbers:

779

349

A380

555

+37%

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_77 ... ifications and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A3 ... ifications

So they're the same only if you think 37% more passengers in three classes is the same, and the numbers get worse for A380 when comparing two class and cattle car configurations.

It's funny how annoyed some people are at the fact 77X exists. Get over it. It's an incremental investment for Boeing. It will catch on with the market long term or it will not, but for now, it has more than enough orders for the next several years, so deal with it.

I think the thing that some people find the most annoying is that many blue chip airlines who also operate A350 signed up for 777X as well, long after ordering A350, and no one seems interested in more A350-1000s.

RandWkop · Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:16 pm

Strato2 wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
Revelation wrote:

Otherwise the 777-9 will have unbeatable economics.

If you can fill it.

779 economics are NOT unbeatable. The very fact that 779 exist in its current form proves that. Boeing felt the need to stretch the current plane instead of just slapping new engines and wings on it because they knew that is the only way to get the per seat fuel burn competitive. And like said there's the big if. As we have seen the market for VLA is very limited and the 779 will have the worst RASM of any of the new planes flying. Every argument that was said against the A380 applies to the 779 too although it is funny and totally expected that the same posters have now switched their views 180 degrees on the matter.

But the A380 is no longer around. Boeing GE and RR killed it. Now the 779 has the top end of the VLA passenger and freighter segment to itself. It will be interesting to see how much of this market the A35k will be able to take. The A35k is in service. Maybe airlines are waiting to see what the 779 can do before committing to either model.

Eyad89 · Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:23 pm

Revelation wrote:

I think the thing that some people find the most annoying is that many blue chip airlines who also operate A350 signed up for 777X as well, long after ordering A350, and no one seems interested in more A350-1000s.

Really? A350-1000 has an identical capacity and an almost similar range to 778, now which one is selling better? How has that played out? Why are you bringing 779 into this smaller segment?

Counting the sales of 779 that has no competition in the market against a plane that is 13% smaller in capacity has no meaning.

The only thing 779 and A35K have in common is that both are the largest twin their OEMs could offer, yet each serves a different market segment. Hence, some airlines have ordered both.

Revelation · Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:28 pm

Eyad89 wrote:
The only thing 779 and A35K have in common is that both are the largest twin their OEMs could offer, yet each serves a different market segment. Hence, some airlines have ordered both.

I'm glad you are willing to make such a statement, many here seem to not be willing to do so.

In particular our BA 779 order thread had many expressions of dismay that BA ordered 779 rather than A35K.

Stitch · Sat Jul 06, 2019 2:19 pm

Scotron12 wrote:
Airbus was very quick to record the EY A350 cancellations publically. There have been rumors...on various publications and Leeham...that not only did they cancel a substantial number of 777x's...

Under ASC 606, Boeing is required to note orders that they have a reasonable expectation will never be delivered. At the moment, they show 5 777 subject to ASC 606. So if Etihad has informed Boeing of their intention to cancel, they have done so for at most 5 777X.

FrenchPotatoEye · Sat Jul 06, 2019 2:31 pm

Stitch wrote:
Scotron12 wrote:
Airbus was very quick to record the EY A350 cancellations publically. There have been rumors...on various publications and Leeham...that not only did they cancel a substantial number of 777x's...

Under ASC 606, Boeing is required to note orders that they have a reasonable expectation will never be delivered. At the moment, they show 5 777 subject to ASC 606. So if Etihad has informed Boeing of their intention to cancel, they have done so for at most 5 777X.

Those are nor etihhahds. The five cancelled are PK order for -300ERs.

Checklist787 · Sat Jul 06, 2019 2:32 pm

scbriml wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
scbriml wrote:

The A35K is now significantly more capable than in 2013.

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

And a lot has changed for Emirates between then and now, so what he said six years ago is pretty much irrelevant now.

A lot of time goes by that does not mean that such carrier will change strategy. This is how I said that Finnair must now order Boeing's under the pretext that time has passed. Your argument is based on your own desires.

Sorry...

94717 · Sat Jul 06, 2019 2:49 pm

I think that most people here including me consider that 777X will get the same problem as A380 with financing and small production runs.

787 and in this case A350 will because of the bigger production serials get more PIP and probably in 7-8 years from now a new engine will be on the way.

As I understand 777X has a great new wing to compensate for the older design but special it survives because a new generation engine. Will the 777x survive when A350 neo arrives? It can easily become the new A346.

Scotron12 · Sat Jul 06, 2019 2:55 pm

olle wrote:
I think that most people here including me consider that 777X will get the same problem as A380 with financing and small production runs.

787 and in this case A350 will because of the bigger production serials get more PIP and probably in 7-8 years from now a new engine will be on the way.

As I understand 777X has a great new wing to compensate for the older design but special it survives because a new generation engine. Will the 777x survive when A350 neo arrives? It can easily become the new A346.

Of course it will...it's a Boeing doh. They could only build two and it would be considered a runaway success. Sarcasm off

mig17 · Sat Jul 06, 2019 3:26 pm

Murphy tells us that given the time anything possible can happened. The 77W went from 9 to 10 per row in Y. The 787 from 8 to 9 even faster ...

Does the "smaller" Y seats in a 9 abreast 787 have prevented airlines to buy it against A350? Not really ... Does the much wider seats of the A380 helped him against the 10 abreast 77W? Not really either. Even if the pax perception favors the aircraft with larger seats, the Y travellers favor the prices first ...

A350 will go 10 per row in more than only low cost carrier. Not at SQ or CX but Emirates could ... We are talking about half an inch less than on current 777 fleets. In that perspective, is the 77X really in another market segment than the A350? Because it is not the payload / range for sure that makes the difference.

MrHMSH · Sat Jul 06, 2019 3:33 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
olle wrote:

As I understand 777X has a great new wing to compensate for the older design but special it survives because a new generation engine. Will the 777x survive when A350 neo arrives? It can easily become the new A346.

Lol!

The 777-X has absolutely nothing that is an "old design"

olle said 'older', not 'old. Saying the 777X is an older design (certainly with regards to fuselage) is an entirely factual and uncontroversial statement.

5427247845 · Sat Jul 06, 2019 3:33 pm

mig17 wrote:
A350 will go 10 per row in more than only low cost carrier. Not at SQ or CX but Emirates could ... We are talking aboit half an inch less than on current 777 fleets. In that perspective, is the 77X really in another market segment than the A350? Because it is not the payload / range for sure that makes the difference.

This. The race to the bottom in Y isn’t over yet.

And the 779 does fit into a niche, how big this is and - more important - will become, is not clear. Some political issues in the Middle East that goes south and a economic crisis can make or break the 779.

Paulotd · Sat Jul 06, 2019 3:56 pm

Emirates needs the 777X as a substitute for A380, and expansion of some long haul, crowded and profitable routes like LHR-DXB. Some old A380 will be put in retirement/scrapped.

For sure they don't need 150 777X, maybe 50-70 units will be enough.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net