User avatar
Momo1435
Posts: 942
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:33 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Fri Aug 16, 2019 3:23 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Anyhow, i would think the -8 gets delayed until they make the -8F, at which point the pax model essentially comes for free, without taking up resources now.

The problem is the 777-8F offers no performance over the 777F when operating as a freighter. A few users have discussed this in the tech ops thread.

The original 777F retained the same landing weight as the 777W, with the shorter and lighter 200 fuselage length then it gave a very large max payload of 102t.

If the 777-8F had the same max landing weight as the 777-9 then the max payload of the 777X freighter will be 80-85% of the original 777F.

Now if the 777X freighter might burn 20% less fuel but carries 20% less payload so then there is no fuel burn improvement. The fuel burnt per kg of payload is unchanged. You would only gain some extra cabin volume for lightweight parcels.

The larger 777X wing provides big advantages on ultra long haul flights. But on shorter flights the higher empty weight reduces the advantage to near zero.

In addition to this an ultra long haul passenger 777-8 does not need the high landing weight of a freighter. So the passenger version would have a lot of deadweight.

It would be cheaper to just produce discounted 777F's. If the 777-8 and 787-8F cost $2 billion to develop then Boeing save that $2 billion and use that money to knock off $20 million from the price of 100 777F's.

It would only worth making the 777-8 freighter if the passenger version was made. If the 777-8 passenger version gets beaten by the A350-1000ULR then Boeing should just pull the plug on it.

First you say that a 777-8F and the passenger 777-8 will bite each other because of different optimal specs. But then you say that it would only make sense to do a 777-8F if there's also a passenger variant.

Considering the sales success of the 777F vs the 77L would ut not be ecomically possible to design a 777XF that is not linked to a passenger variant. So it won't have any of the issues related to the passenger variant?
 
DenverTed
Posts: 257
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Fri Aug 16, 2019 3:56 pm

mig17 wrote:

777-9 : Larger cabin than the A35K but less payload / range, less fuel efficient


I read the 779 payload was 73.5 t versus A3510 of 68, and fuel of 200kl versus 159kl, so it looks like the 779 has slightly more payload. But apples to apples if they both have 68t of payload, how far does the fuel take you, and what is the efficiency?

The conventional wisdom before the launch of the 777x was the CFRP was unbeatable, and there still may be some truth to this. The main rationale for the 777 is the 10x cabin and trying to beat the A350 on per seat cost. It's tough to see how the 777x would win on per pound cost in any scenario.
 
mig17
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Fri Aug 16, 2019 4:47 pm

DenverTed wrote:
mig17 wrote:

777-9 : Larger cabin than the A35K but less payload / range, less fuel efficient


I read the 779 payload was 73.5 t versus A3510 of 68, and fuel of 200kl versus 159kl, so it looks like the 779 has slightly more payload. But apples to apples if they both have 68t of payload, how far does the fuel take you, and what is the efficiency?

The conventional wisdom before the launch of the 777x was the CFRP was unbeatable, and there still may be some truth to this. The main rationale for the 777 is the 10x cabin and trying to beat the A350 on per seat cost. It's tough to see how the 777x would win on per pound cost in any scenario.

The more relevant indicator would be the ration between revenue per seat and cost per seat. Because if the 777-9 doesn't have a better cost per seat than the A35K, it is already in the grave. So the 777-9 cost per seat will be lower, because there will be more cost per flight but even more seats per flight to compensate in the 777-9. On the revenue side, with more seats, the average revenue per seat of the -9 will be lower. So the true question is will the 777-9 be better than the A35K on the ratio revenue per seat over cost per seat. Of course that is related to each airline and each route, but if in general, if it is not better, the 777-9 is in troubles.

You can also do the same comparaison with the ratio revenue per pound over cost per pound but a 27t difference in OEW between both aircraft for a 5t max payload difference isn't helping I suspect.
727 AT, 737 UX/SK/TO/SS, 747 UT/AF/SQ/BA/SS, 767 UA, 777 AF, A300 IW/TG, A310 EK, A318/19/20/21 AF/U2/VY, A332/3 EK/QR/TX, A343 AF, A388 AF, E145/170/190 A5/WF, Q400 WF, ATR 72 A5/TX, CRJ100/700/1000 A5, C-150/172, PC-6.
 
fightforlove
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: 778x mothballed?

Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:08 pm

Erebus wrote:
If it is mothballed, Boeing would be better off using the extra resources on improving the 787-10 instead.


This. I don't think there's even room for 2 competitors (actually 4 if you count A359ULR and the 789) in the ULR market for this generation. Boeing 77L and Airbus A345 combined sold what? 80 units? It's not a major loss at this time, and in some years the 787-9 can be souped-up to several hundred more miles range and serve as a smaller ULR offering.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26367
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:04 pm

Boeing's done this before.

When they launched the 777-200LR and 777-300ER, demand for the 777-200LR was so weak they stopped development for a number of years and focused on getting the 777-300ER into service. Once that was done, they restarted work on the 777-200LR and also developed the 777 Freighter at the same time, allowing the 777F to EIS within a few years of the 777-200LR.

I am of the opinion that Boeing is seeing a drying market for the 777-8. We know Etihad will not take their 10 and Emirates is said to be considering not taking some or all of their 35. If Emirates drops most or all of their planes, I would fully expect Qatar to reconsider their 10 and Qantas may or may not commit to a Project Sunrise order soon and if they do, may or may not choose the 777-8.

I'm surprised there is strong immediate interest in a 777-8 Freighter considering the 777 Freighter is still selling well and the fleet is young, but if that is the case, then I could see Boeing wanting to co-develop the passenger and freighter models together if possible.

So Boeing suspending the 777-8 to focus on the 777-9 - especially since it is now running late due to the GE9X - makes some sense and parallels what we saw with the 777-200LR and 777-300ER programs back in the day.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18099
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Sat Aug 17, 2019 12:52 am

Elementalism wrote:
Interesting the smallest version of new aircraft are not performing well.

737-7 MAX - 60 of 5037 total orders
A330-800 - 10 of 248 total orders
A350-800 - cancelled
787-8 - Outlier in it has sold well with 444 of 1462 total orders
777-8 - 45 of 325 total orders

Reorder
Shrinks that sold poorly:
737-7 MAX 60 of 5037 (1.2%, now shrink of 737-8)
A330-800 10 of 248 (4.0%)
A350-800 cancelled
777-8 45 of 325 (13.8%)

Base model since stretched and stretched again:
787-8 444 of 1462, engineering in work to reduce cost/weight (30.3%)


Shrinks used to sell well:
A319, for years largest A320 for TCON, HAWAII
After Sharklets and two engine PiPs, sales plumeted as airlines upgauged to A320.

A330-200, overcame the limited 5,200nm range of the A330-300. Once the A330-300 range went to 5,700nm, the shrink stopped selling.

Actually... Only Airbus did well with shrinks. That stopped with the A345. Boeing Stretched. The 717, 737-600, and A318 all failed.

Depending on range, the 779 might do more 77L routes. The 777-300ER has far more range than initial promise.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13966
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Sat Aug 17, 2019 12:55 am

DenverTed wrote:

I read the 779 payload was 73.5 t versus A3510 of 68, and fuel of 200kl versus 159kl, so it looks like the 779 has slightly more payload. But apples to apples if they both have 68t of payload, how far does the fuel take you, and what is the efficiency?


35K payload is over 74 tonnes, it lifts more than the 77W.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13966
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Sat Aug 17, 2019 1:15 am

Sokes wrote:
Nobody seems to be concerned with the humidity difference in cabin air between the carbon fiber fuselage B787/ A350 and Al-Li fuselage of B777X.
Isn't this one of the main selling arguments for an 18 hour business and premium economy heavy flight?


Cabin humidity is much misunderstood. The air outside an aircraft at altitude is basically dry, the humidity inside the aircraft comes out of passengers mouths. The humidity is higher in economy section than it is in premium cabin, economy class is typically between 10% and 15%, but it can drop as low as 3-5% in first-premium.

Aircraft cabins traditionally have zonal dryers to remove this humidity as it would condense in the crown cause the cabin to rain, it would also condense and pool in the keel, adding weight. What is now being done is this humidity is being captured, filtered, and redistributed back into the cabin air.

The 787 was not the first aircraft to feature this, it has been an option on all airbus aircraft, I know Air Mauritius had it on the A340s, I know some A380 operators have it in their premium cabins.

from https://news.cision.com/ctt-systems/r/w ... on,c148531

"FRI, APR 29, 2005 11:50 CET
AIR MAURITIUS will enhance cabin comfort on long haul flights with CTT´s humidification technology; the CAIR™ System Cair™ is all about the passengers health and well-being"
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Sokes
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:13 am

zeke wrote:
Cabin humidity is much misunderstood. The air outside an aircraft at altitude is basically dry, the humidity inside the aircraft comes out of passengers mouths. The humidity is higher in economy section than it is in premium cabin, economy class is typically between 10% and 15%, but it can drop as low as 3-5% in first-premium.


If a plane has no economy section, can the air exchange rate be reduced?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Sokes
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:17 am

lightsaber wrote:
787-8 444 of 1462, engineering in work to reduce cost/weight (30.3%)
Lightsaber


I don't understand what you mean. Can you please expand on it.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 21362
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:51 am

Sokes wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
787-8 444 of 1462, engineering in work to reduce cost/weight (30.3%)
Lightsaber


I don't understand what you mean. Can you please expand on it.

I can help, I speak Lightsaber.

444 of 1462 or 30.3% of all 787s on order or delivered are -8 models.

Cost and weight reduction are coming to the model because the improved -9 tail section is being retrofitted to the -8.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 21362
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Sat Aug 17, 2019 12:41 pm

Sokes wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Interesting, yet Leeham reports Boeing has sales campaigns with FX for 25 778F and with UPS to replace MD11 with 778F at a time when they could just offer cheap 777F, so somehow they have made the sums work in a way that they have a viable 8F product.


I was about to ask the following questions:
What would it cost to shrink the 9X into a 8X freighter with same MTOW?
The B777F based on -200 length is 63,7 m. Is the fuselage suitable for a 69,8 m (8X) long freighter? Would the fuselage need strengthening?

Do you have a link?

Buried in https://leehamnews.com/2019/08/05/boein ... -for-777x/

According to two sources, Boeing is offering at least 25 777-8 freighters to Federal Express. Airbus is offering the A330-900 in a freighter form, as it is to UPS. UPS has the remaining commercial backlog for the 747-8F but needs to replace its Boeing MD-11Fs in the coming years.

In hindsight my summary may or may not represent the true state of these opportunities, but I must say Scott Hamilton's writing is pretty garbled too. I've said more than a few times that while he really gathers some interesting info he really needs to hire a professional editing service.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Sokes
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Sat Aug 17, 2019 1:34 pm

Revelation wrote:
I can help, I speak Lightsaber.

444 of 1462 or 30.3% of all 787s on order or delivered are -8 models.

Cost and weight reduction are coming to the model because the improved -9 tail section is being retrofitted to the -8.


I thought a shrink/ stretch needs a different tail section. E.g. A380 is very short, therefore large tail section.
Anybody knows what are the improvements?
Where did you learn to speak Lightsaber?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3808
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:12 pm

Revelation wrote:
PW100 wrote:
This one is straight from PR academy . . . :

Boeing wrote:
The move to “adjust” the schedule of the ultra long-range variant of the 777X programme is to “[reduce] risk in our development programme, ensuring a more seamless transition to the 777-8.”

“We remain committed to the 777-8, which will be the most flexible commercial jet in the world and offer our customers optimal range and payload.”

I'm starting to wonder how the NMA presser will be worded, sigh.


That should be rather straight forward, as there have not been any conclusive pressers that would require such U-turn semantics.
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 21362
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:13 pm

Sokes wrote:
I thought a shrink/ stretch needs a different tail section. E.g. A380 is very short, therefore large tail section.

It's more complicated than that. The vertical dimension is all about controlling yaw. The worse case is single engine failure after V1. The horizontal dimension is about controlling pitch. The -9 tail may have had enough margin built in to it to meet all requirements, or it may have been resized.

Sokes wrote:
Anybody knows what are the improvements?

I shall make up for not providing links last time.

Overview:
The change was said to be triggered when AA decided to purchase 22 -8s: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1390913

I found a post ( viewtopic.php?t=570681&start=150#p8487275 ) that matches my recollection about why the two tails are so different:

Boeing decided to build the horizontal stabilizer for the -9 themselves instead of the original plan of having Alenia do it in Foggia (where the build the 787-8 HS) and they either built a new plant or re-purposed an existing plant in Salt Lake City, UT for that purpose, Boeing was also very aggressive in removing weight, so that probably cost more than planned.

I vaguely recall the Alenia HS was in three pieces thus had excess (thus heavier) joints, whereas the Boeing HS was in two pieces, but could not find a link/reference for that.

Sokes wrote:
Where did you learn to speak Lightsaber?

Right here, by reading thousands of informative posts, allowing me to get a free education in jet engines, aircraft economics, aviation manufacturing, flight test, etc.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3808
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: 778x mothballed?

Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:21 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
planecane wrote:
If the 779 was doing better than expected that would probably help the case for the 778, not hurt it.

History tells us a consistently different story.

BR was for a long time the launch customer for the 77L, however when the 77W turned out to be a better/longer ranged performer than predicted, BR felt its performance was sufficient to cover the mission profile planned for the -LR.

We saw numerous examples of that in the 238T+ A333 as well. Once it achieved that MTOW and higher, alongside the performance to boot, orders for the A332 essentially ground to a halt.


Will that line of thinking hold with respect to project Sunrise? Which would suggest that the -9X would then be the platform for Sunrise rather than the -8X?
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26367
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: 778x mothballed?

Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:39 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
BR was for a long time the launch customer for the 77L, however when the 77W turned out to be a better/longer ranged performer than predicted, BR felt its performance was sufficient to cover the mission profile planned for the -LR.

We saw numerous examples of that in the 238T+ A333 as well. Once it achieved that MTOW and higher, alongside the performance to boot, orders for the A332 essentially ground to a halt.


PW100 wrote:
Will that line of thinking hold with respect to project Sunrise? Which would suggest that the -9X would then be the platform for Sunrise rather than the -8X?


I cannot see the 777-9 working for Project Sunrise at an economical configuration as I expect the required low DOW to tank the fuel would mean a fair bit of empty cabin area. Looking at the routes Qantas has been mulling beyond SYD-LHR, SYD-DFW is possibly closing in on 8000nm "real world", with SYD-ORD towards 8500nm and SYD-JFK towards 9000nm.

In the Boeing portfolio, only the 777-8 will have the mix of useful space and range for the mission.
 
planecane
Posts: 1134
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:45 pm

Sokes wrote:
Revelation wrote:
I can help, I speak Lightsaber.

444 of 1462 or 30.3% of all 787s on order or delivered are -8 models.

Cost and weight reduction are coming to the model because the improved -9 tail section is being retrofitted to the -8.


I thought a shrink/ stretch needs a different tail section. E.g. A380 is very short, therefore large tail section.
Anybody knows what are the improvements?
Where did you learn to speak Lightsaber?


If fully optimized to each model, the shorter the distance to the center of gravity/lift the larger the stabilizer surfaces that are required. However, if the larger model has larger surfaces than absolutely necessary, then the shorter model may still be able to use the same size.

If they made a shrink of the 787-8, they would likely need larger stabilizers than what is on the -8
 
Sokes
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Sat Aug 17, 2019 3:27 pm

Revelation wrote:


From your link:
" Darrel Larson, director of aft body operations at the planemaker’s South Carolina campus, said the modifications that will be introduced later this year will make the rear fuselage of the 787-8 essentially the same as the 787-9 and 787-10 models, except for their lengths. "

Surprising.


Revelation wrote:
Sokes wrote:
Where did you learn to speak Lightsaber?

Right here, by reading thousands of informative posts, allowing me to get a free education in jet engines, aircraft economics, aviation manufacturing, flight test, etc.


Good to have grateful people around.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
TranscendZac
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Sat Aug 17, 2019 3:39 pm

Do we know around when first flight of the 777-9 will take place? Is it first of the new year? Curious to see performance numbers. I'm wondering if QF waits on the numbers then decides, and I also wonder if Boeing will completely shelve the 777-8 if they don't win project sunrise.
Zac
 
mig17
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Sat Aug 17, 2019 3:53 pm

TranscendZac wrote:
Do we know around when first flight of the 777-9 will take place? Is it first of the new year? Curious to see performance numbers. I'm wondering if QF waits on the numbers then decides, and I also wonder if Boeing will completely shelve the 777-8 if they don't win project sunrise.

Officialy the 777-9 first flight is now in 2020 while Qantas decision is supposed to be by the end of this year.

Someone in the A35KULR discussion said "the pieces are finaly falling in place" and if all we heard recently is true, this expression fits the situation:
- EK renagociating 777-X before the Dubai Airshow with rumors 777-8 is out
- Boeing focussing on 777-9 and delaying more the 777-8 after the GE delays
- Airbus may be launching an A35KULR before the end of the year with several customers interested in new frames or order upgrade
- Qantas still announcing Sunrise with it's result this year

To many coincidences to ignore.
727 AT, 737 UX/SK/TO/SS, 747 UT/AF/SQ/BA/SS, 767 UA, 777 AF, A300 IW/TG, A310 EK, A318/19/20/21 AF/U2/VY, A332/3 EK/QR/TX, A343 AF, A388 AF, E145/170/190 A5/WF, Q400 WF, ATR 72 A5/TX, CRJ100/700/1000 A5, C-150/172, PC-6.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 257
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:06 pm

The empty weight of the 779 is 400Klb, the A3510 342, so a difference of 17%. Does the 779 have 17% more seating? I assume the engine and wing of the 779 will be more efficient per pound flown. I guess the big question is what is the empty weight of the 777-8? Based on the difference between the 773 and 77L, I think the 777-8 will be 362Klb. The long span wing and GE 9 engine will have to be better than the A3510 wing/engine by 20Klb or 9t of fuel over ultra long range. How much fuel do these aircraft burn over 8,000 nm?
 
DenverTed
Posts: 257
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:24 pm

What is the usable cabin seating area of the two aircraft? I'm estimating he A350-1000 is 5% more than the 778.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10865
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Sat Aug 17, 2019 6:52 pm

DenverTed wrote:
What is the usable cabin seating area of the two aircraft? I'm estimating he A350-1000 is 5% more than the 778.


There is only a ~10m2 difference between the two, but the A351 cabin is about 5 meters longer.

DenverTed wrote:
The empty weight of the 779 is 400Klb, the A3510 342, so a difference of 17%. Does the 779 have 17% more seating?


Just about half that to ~10% more.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
DenverTed
Posts: 257
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:21 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
DenverTed wrote:
What is the usable cabin seating area of the two aircraft? I'm estimating he A350-1000 is 5% more than the 778.


There is only a ~10m2 difference between the two, but the A351 cabin is about 5 meters longer.

DenverTed wrote:
The empty weight of the 779 is 400Klb, the A3510 342, so a difference of 17%. Does the 779 have 17% more seating?


Just about half that to ~10% more.

Best regards
Thomas

How many more rows on the 779 versus the A3510, two or three which is about 4% or 6% more. With 8% more seating width, I would estimate 1.04 x 1.08 = 12% or 1.06 x 1.08 = 14.5%. I think the way the 777x can surpass the A350 is on seating.
After looking at this, It seems logical for Boeing to drop the 777-8 and look more at the 777-10. The question to that, being what could Airbus do with an A350 stretch and Ultrafan? Can the A350 take a 20t to 30t increase in MTOW? Can a 12' diameter fan fit on the A350? I'm sure they can squeeze more out of the A350, but the 777x may have better potential at the upper end, as the A350 hits its structural and geometric limits.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10865
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:37 pm

DenverTed wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
DenverTed wrote:
What is the usable cabin seating area of the two aircraft? I'm estimating he A350-1000 is 5% more than the 778.


There is only a ~10m2 difference between the two, but the A351 cabin is about 5 meters longer.

DenverTed wrote:
The empty weight of the 779 is 400Klb, the A3510 342, so a difference of 17%. Does the 779 have 17% more seating?


Just about half that to ~10% more.

Best regards
Thomas

How many more rows on the 779 versus the A3510, two or three which is about 4% or 6% more. With an 8% wider fuselage, I would estimate 1.04 x 1.08 = 12% or 1.06 x 1.08 = 14.5%. I think the way the 777x can surpass the A350 is on seating.


One more row, and an extra seat per row, 25 to 30 rows of Y ... 35 to 40 extra seats. There is just 10% more floor space to go around.
If it is 5% better on fuel per weight, it should be around the same fuel burn/seat.

The question to that, being what could Airbus do with an A350 stretch and Ultrafan? Can the A350 take a 20t to 30t increase in MTOW?


I guess that 6m more length and ~6t more pax will not need 20 to 30t more TOW when you hang ultrafans under the wings and can offload 10+t of fuel for the same flight.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
waly777
Posts: 727
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Sat Aug 17, 2019 9:18 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
DenverTed wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

There is only a ~10m2 difference between the two, but the A351 cabin is about 5 meters longer.



Just about half that to ~10% more.

Best regards
Thomas

How many more rows on the 779 versus the A3510, two or three which is about 4% or 6% more. With an 8% wider fuselage, I would estimate 1.04 x 1.08 = 12% or 1.06 x 1.08 = 14.5%. I think the way the 777x can surpass the A350 is on seating.


One more row, and an extra seat per row, 25 to 30 rows of Y ... 35 to 40 extra seats. There is just 10% more floor space to go around.
If it is 5% better on fuel per weight, it should be around the same fuel burn/seat.

The question to that, being what could Airbus do with an A350 stretch and Ultrafan? Can the A350 take a 20t to 30t increase in MTOW?


I guess that 6m more length and ~6t more pax will not need 20 to 30t more TOW when you hang ultrafans under the wings and can offload 10+t of fuel for the same flight.

Best regards
Thomas

There's a 3M difference between the A35J and B779, that would be 3 rows of Y or 1 row of J + 1row of Y in addition to 9Y vs 10Y.

Keeping in mind that the A35J will seat 20-30 (27 diff for Q suite on QR) seats less than current 10AB 77W in similar configs.
The difference between the A35J and B779 should be between 40 and 60 seats based on real world configs. Assuming a 3 cabin J/Y+/Y cabin. It might be higher a 2 cabin J/Y config.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10865
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:13 pm

waly777 wrote:
.
The difference between the A35J and B779 should be between 40 and 60 seats based on real world configs. Assuming a 3 cabin J/Y+/Y cabin. It might be higher a 2 cabin J/Y config.


Real world configurations sit about 1 pax per m2. QR packs the suits tighter on the 77W, hence 27 seats on less than 15 extra m2.
J getting bigger reduces the 10 abreast Y advantage, it does not make it bigger.

CX must somehow have a smaller version of the 77w than QR does, where the difference is only 6 seats, with the Airbus having 6 J seats more than the 77W and would have more seats total if J was the same. BA sits 32 more people on the A351 for the expense of not having first, and apparently plans to sit 6 less on the 779 at the expense of not having first, a little less J and more PE.

The only way the 779 will seat 40 more is compared to a 400 seat config on the A351.

Airbus cabins have good per m2 performance.... even 787-9 and A333, having cabin floor sizes equal to better than 0.1% AND having 9 abreast Y on the 787, VS Airbus still have the same number of seats and are more premium heavy.

Beat regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:53 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Anyhow, i would think the -8 gets delayed until they make the -8F, at which point the pax model essentially comes for free, without taking up resources now.

The problem is the 777-8F offers no performance over the 777F when operating as a freighter. A few users have discussed this in the tech ops thread.

The original 777F retained the same landing weight as the 777W, with the shorter and lighter 200 fuselage length then it gave a very large max payload of 102t.

If the 777-8F had the same max landing weight as the 777-9 then the max payload of the 777X freighter will be 80-85% of the original 777F.

Now if the 777X freighter might burn 20% less fuel but carries 20% less payload so then there is no fuel burn improvement. The fuel burnt per kg of payload is unchanged. You would only gain some extra cabin volume for lightweight parcels.

The larger 777X wing provides big advantages on ultra long haul flights. But on shorter flights the higher empty weight reduces the advantage to near zero.

In addition to this an ultra long haul passenger 777-8 does not need the high landing weight of a freighter. So the passenger version would have a lot of deadweight.

It would be cheaper to just produce discounted 777F's. If the 777-8 and 787-8F cost $2 billion to develop then Boeing save that $2 billion and use that money to knock off $20 million from the price of 100 777F's.

It would only worth making the 777-8 freighter if the passenger version was made. If the 777-8 passenger version gets beaten by the A350-1000ULR then Boeing should just pull the plug on it.


So right, just look at the 767F sales, the plane is ancient yet they are increasing the rate from 2.5 to 3 per month. It is because it is a quite good freighter within its capabilities, all others are far more capable but at a higher cost per ton carried.

Looking at the 77L, it should not have been made but the 77F was a must have model. Having GE do some pips on the current GE-90's seems to make more sense than a 778 freighter. Or set the 778 requirements for the freighter and live with the pax version that comes out.
 
olle
Posts: 1169
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:54 pm

DenverTed wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
DenverTed wrote:
What is the usable cabin seating area of the two aircraft? I'm estimating he A350-1000 is 5% more than the 778.


There is only a ~10m2 difference between the two, but the A351 cabin is about 5 meters longer.

DenverTed wrote:
The empty weight of the 779 is 400Klb, the A3510 342, so a difference of 17%. Does the 779 have 17% more seating?


Just about half that to ~10% more.

Best regards
Thomas

How many more rows on the 779 versus the A3510, two or three which is about 4% or 6% more. With 8% more seating width, I would estimate 1.04 x 1.08 = 12% or 1.06 x 1.08 = 14.5%. I think the way the 777x can surpass the A350 is on seating.
After looking at this, It seems logical for Boeing to drop the 777-8 and look more at the 777-10. The question to that, being what could Airbus do with an A350 stretch and Ultrafan? Can the A350 take a 20t to 30t increase in MTOW? Can a 12' diameter fan fit on the A350? I'm sure they can squeeze more out of the A350, but the 777x may have better potential at the upper end, as the A350 hits its structural and geometric limits.


But do not 777x also have structural limitations as well? How much over the original 777W can it go?
 
waly777
Posts: 727
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Sun Aug 18, 2019 12:23 am

tommy1808 wrote:
waly777 wrote:
.
The difference between the A35J and B779 should be between 40 and 60 seats based on real world configs. Assuming a 3 cabin J/Y+/Y cabin. It might be higher a 2 cabin J/Y config.


Real world configurations sit about 1 pax per m2. QR packs the suits tighter on the 77W, hence 27 seats on less than 15 extra m2.
J getting bigger reduces the 10 abreast Y advantage, it does not make it bigger.

CX must somehow have a smaller version of the 77w than QR does, where the difference is only 6 seats, with the Airbus having 6 J seats more than the 77W and would have more seats total if J was the same. BA sits 32 more people on the A351 for the expense of not having first, and apparently plans to sit 6 less on the 779 at the expense of not having first, a little less J and more PE.

The only way the 779 will seat 40 more is compared to a 400 seat config on the A351.

Airbus cabins have good per m2 performance.... even 787-9 and A333, having cabin floor sizes equal to better than 0.1% AND having 9 abreast Y on the 787, VS Airbus still have the same number of seats and are more premium heavy.

Beat regards
Thomas


The CX and BA 77W configs you quote seat 9AB in Y.... which i was not referring to. As all but 1 carrier seats 9AB in the 787, the 779 is going to be all 10AB as well. Thus the 40 to 60 seat diff vs a 9AB A35J remains.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10865
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Sun Aug 18, 2019 4:55 am

waly777 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
waly777 wrote:
.
The difference between the A35J and B779 should be between 40 and 60 seats based on real world configs. Assuming a 3 cabin J/Y+/Y cabin. It might be higher a 2 cabin J/Y config.


Real world configurations sit about 1 pax per m2. QR packs the suits tighter on the 77W, hence 27 seats on less than 15 extra m2.
J getting bigger reduces the 10 abreast Y advantage, it does not make it bigger.

CX must somehow have a smaller version of the 77w than QR does, where the difference is only 6 seats, with the Airbus having 6 J seats more than the 77W and would have more seats total if J was the same. BA sits 32 more people on the A351 for the expense of not having first, and apparently plans to sit 6 less on the 779 at the expense of not having first, a little less J and more PE.

The only way the 779 will seat 40 more is compared to a 400 seat config on the A351.

Airbus cabins have good per m2 performance.... even 787-9 and A333, having cabin floor sizes equal to better than 0.1% AND having 9 abreast Y on the 787, VS Airbus still have the same number of seats and are more premium heavy.

Beat regards
Thomas


The CX and BA 77W configs you quote seat 9AB in Y.... which i was not referring to. As all but 1 carrier seats 9AB in the 787, the 779 is going to be all 10AB as well. Thus the 40 to 60 seat diff vs a 9AB A35J remains.


That has already be addressed.... QR sits more because they pack J class tighter, not because of 10 AB, and fewer of them. Replace those 4 seats with 16~18Y and they sit the same per m2. You can only get seats in access of the floor space delta into a cabin if you make the space per seat smaller. Which makes the "comparison" useless and in the real world seating scales with Cabin floor space. There are just 35 m2 more in an 779, seating comes at 1 seat per m2, well... with J class having gotten bigger more like 1.1m2/seat.
There will only be 30-40 more seats on the 779 with comparable seating.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
DenverTed
Posts: 257
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Sun Aug 18, 2019 5:45 am

olle wrote:

But do not 777x also have structural limitations as well? How much over the original 777W can it go?


Yes, if they are limited by the current landing gear and tires to 775Klb, that will be a problem for harvesting the full potential of the big wing and engines.
 
waly777
Posts: 727
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Sun Aug 18, 2019 8:01 am

tommy1808 wrote:
waly777 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

Real world configurations sit about 1 pax per m2. QR packs the suits tighter on the 77W, hence 27 seats on less than 15 extra m2.
J getting bigger reduces the 10 abreast Y advantage, it does not make it bigger.

CX must somehow have a smaller version of the 77w than QR does, where the difference is only 6 seats, with the Airbus having 6 J seats more than the 77W and would have more seats total if J was the same. BA sits 32 more people on the A351 for the expense of not having first, and apparently plans to sit 6 less on the 779 at the expense of not having first, a little less J and more PE.

The only way the 779 will seat 40 more is compared to a 400 seat config on the A351.

Airbus cabins have good per m2 performance.... even 787-9 and A333, having cabin floor sizes equal to better than 0.1% AND having 9 abreast Y on the 787, VS Airbus still have the same number of seats and are more premium heavy.

Beat regards
Thomas


The CX and BA 77W configs you quote seat 9AB in Y.... which i was not referring to. As all but 1 carrier seats 9AB in the 787, the 779 is going to be all 10AB as well. Thus the 40 to 60 seat diff vs a 9AB A35J remains.


That has already be addressed.... QR sits more because they pack J class tighter, not because of 10 AB, and fewer of them. Replace those 4 seats with 16~18Y and they sit the same per m2. You can only get seats in access of the floor space delta into a cabin if you make the space per seat smaller. Which makes the "comparison" useless and in the real world seating scales with Cabin floor space. There are just 35 m2 more in an 779, seating comes at 1 seat per m2, well... with J class having gotten bigger more like 1.1m2/seat.
There will only be 30-40 more seats on the 779 with comparable seating.

Best regards
Thomas

How do they pack J class tighter when the seat pitch is the same on both AC? The only difference is a wider aisle on the 77W. If you look @ the LOPA for both AC, QR would have either 38J or 46J due to the 2L/R door placement: not a hypothetical 42 same as the 77W.

Secondly, the 77W has 3L/R doors in the Y cabin which limits an additional few rows of Y seats which nulls the J seat packing theory...the 779 will have 4 doors for operators who do not need the 475 limit which would be most carriers.

There are 32 to 33 rows of Y on both AC for QR, the 77W seats an additional pax per row. This is where the seat difference comes from as they have similar cabin lengths. The 779 by default using a similar J cabin would have 3 more rows of Y, up to 60 seat difference in the same config @ 1AB.

The 1m2 per seat is a nice hypothetical but does not translate to reality, seats are packed tighter in the 777 and 787 (B78X vs A359) than the 350. As more airlines get the A35J, we will see the difference in configs.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
sabby
Posts: 340
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Sun Aug 18, 2019 8:04 am

waly777 wrote:

Keeping in mind that the A35J will seat 20-30 (27 diff for Q suite on QR) seats less than current 10AB 77W in similar configs.


Qatar's A35J has 46 J vs 42 of 77W. If you replace those 4 extra J with 2 rows of Y, the difference come down to 13 seats - basically a little over an extra Y row in 77W.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10865
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Sun Aug 18, 2019 10:29 am

sabby wrote:
waly777 wrote:

Keeping in mind that the A35J will seat 20-30 (27 diff for Q suite on QR) seats less than current 10AB 77W in similar configs.


Qatar's A35J has 46 J vs 42 of 77W. If you replace those 4 extra J with 2 rows of Y, the difference come down to 13 seats - basically a little over an extra Y row in 77W.


And spot on the difference in cabin floor space in m2.

Same with 787-9 and A333, as evident at VS, same seats, same cabin size in m2, same number of seats, despite the 9 abreast economy on the 787-9.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
waly777
Posts: 727
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Sun Aug 18, 2019 10:33 am

sabby wrote:
waly777 wrote:

Keeping in mind that the A35J will seat 20-30 (27 diff for Q suite on QR) seats less than current 10AB 77W in similar configs.


Qatar's A35J has 46 J vs 42 of 77W. If you replace those 4 extra J with 2 rows of Y, the difference come down to 13 seats - basically a little over an extra Y row in 77W.


In theory, reality is however different and I'm looking at currently flying configurations.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
brindabella
Posts: 572
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Sun Aug 18, 2019 12:33 pm

mig17 wrote:
marcelh wrote:
MSPNWA wrote:
Seems like in the past few years Boeing has become wiser and is wary of producing aircraft that aren't a sound business case. Just because you can build it doesn't mean you should. The 778 was a bad idea from the start, and the order book reflected that. A niche product for Qantas isn't going to turn it into a cash cow variant. I can see better things to spend money on, like 78X upgrades.

If the 778 was a bad idea from the start, why did they even offered it (= spent money) and accepted the orders?

If they knew it was a mistake at the beginning, they wouldn't have done it like they did. Same goes for the MD-11, A340NG, A380, 737MAX and 748 ...
But for a few years now we see that the 777-X positionning in the market is problematic.

777-8 : All the orders are launch orders in 2013 from the middle east big 3. Since then, the ME market has been transforming and the A35K has been improving drastically. The A35K has now the advantage with a larger cabin, the same payload/range habilities, better fuel burns and less expensive price list. Etihad in a financial crisis may have cancelled it's 777-X order or at least all 778 and still has the A35K on order. Emirates is talking with Boeing about their 777-X order and is now an A350 customer again. Qatar Airways is the largest A35K operator. Even Qantas seems to be choosing the A35K. The 777-8 market doesn't exist anymore.

777-8F : Boeing already owns the heavy freighter market with the 77F (and 744-8F ...). Their is no competition. 777-8F is an odd investment from Boeing.

777-9 : Larger cabin than the A35K but less payload / range, less fuel efficient, now alone in it's family and more expensive. Even to replace A380s, it may not be the most popular choice ... And like for the 777-8, the main customers are ME3 at launch with Etihad now almost out, Qatar with a lot on order and Emirates buying smaller frames and renegociating.

The 777-X is really looking more and more like Boeing's A340-500/600. Or A380 in some ways to.


Holy Cow Batman! :o

But wait - any actual facts to support that?

:D

cheers
Billy
 
sabby
Posts: 340
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Sun Aug 18, 2019 2:13 pm

waly777 wrote:
sabby wrote:
waly777 wrote:

Keeping in mind that the A35J will seat 20-30 (27 diff for Q suite on QR) seats less than current 10AB 77W in similar configs.


Qatar's A35J has 46 J vs 42 of 77W. If you replace those 4 extra J with 2 rows of Y, the difference come down to 13 seats - basically a little over an extra Y row in 77W.


In theory, reality is however different and I'm looking at currently flying configurations.


Well we need to compare apples to apples, not oranges. SQ's A359s seat 253 in long haul and 303 in medium haul config. Their 77W seat only 264. But we all know 77W is much bigger than A359.

tommy1808 wrote:
spot on the difference in cabin floor space in m2.

Same with 787-9 and A333, as evident at VS, same seats, same cabin size in m2, same number of seats, despite the 9 abreast economy on the 787-9.

Best regards
Thomas


Actually, VS have 13 more seats in PY in A333 compared to their 789s. If they had similar number of PY in A333, they would have more seats.
Last edited by sabby on Sun Aug 18, 2019 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
mig17
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Sun Aug 18, 2019 2:23 pm

brindabella wrote:
mig17 wrote:

777-9 : Larger cabin than the A35K but less payload / range, less fuel efficient, now alone in it's family and more expensive. Even to replace A380s, it may not be the most popular choice ... And like for the 777-8, the main customers are ME3 at launch with Etihad now almost out, Qatar with a lot on order and Emirates buying smaller frames and renegociating.

The 777-X is really looking more and more like Boeing's A340-500/600. Or A380 in some ways to.


Holy Cow Batman! :o

But wait - any actual facts to support that?

:D

cheers


A350-1000 / 777-9 :
"OEM" config : 369 (54J+315Y) / 414 (42J + 372Y)
list prices : 366m / 442m
OEW : 155t / 182t
range at OEM config : 8700nm (MTOW 319t) / 7525nm (MTOW 352t)
fuel burn for previous range : 319-155-37=127t / 352-182-41=129t
ratio fuel burn / seat / nm : 127/369/8700=3.95e-5 / 129/414/7525=4.1e-5
payload at 7525nm : 319-155-114=49t / 41t
projected payload at 6000nm : 319-155-87=76t / 352-182-102=67t


The 4 first lines are official Boeing and airbus' figures. Now, unless the 777-9 exceed specification by a large margin at the end, ir doesn't look good.
For any given range above 6000nm where it "leaves" max payload, the A35K will offer more payload while burning less fuel.
For ranges under 5000nm, where the 777-9 "leaves" max payload, they will offer comparable payload while the A350 still burns less fuel. The heavier frame is not supposed to be optimised for shorter range ... Again, the 777-9 hasn't flown yet, but if it doen't bit expectation, it is bad.

The 777-9 needs better fuel burn than announced and an MTOW increase.
Last edited by mig17 on Sun Aug 18, 2019 2:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
727 AT, 737 UX/SK/TO/SS, 747 UT/AF/SQ/BA/SS, 767 UA, 777 AF, A300 IW/TG, A310 EK, A318/19/20/21 AF/U2/VY, A332/3 EK/QR/TX, A343 AF, A388 AF, E145/170/190 A5/WF, Q400 WF, ATR 72 A5/TX, CRJ100/700/1000 A5, C-150/172, PC-6.
 
Glareskin
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:35 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Sun Aug 18, 2019 2:31 pm

B764er wrote:
Boeing may go solo with the 779x for now and surprise us with a 777-10x down the road. 778x may end up with the 783, 751 and 723 among other planes that never flew.
Boeing is definitely good for surprises lately, so why not? :rotfl:
There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Posts: 8873
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Sun Aug 18, 2019 5:14 pm

mig17 wrote:
TranscendZac wrote:
Do we know around when first flight of the 777-9 will take place? Is it first of the new year? Curious to see performance numbers. I'm wondering if QF waits on the numbers then decides, and I also wonder if Boeing will completely shelve the 777-8 if they don't win project sunrise.

Officialy the 777-9 first flight is now in 2020 while Qantas decision is supposed to be by the end of this year.

Someone in the A35KULR discussion said "the pieces are finaly falling in place" and if all we heard recently is true, this expression fits the situation:
- EK renagociating 777-X before the Dubai Airshow with rumors 777-8 is out
- Boeing focussing on 777-9 and delaying more the 777-8 after the GE delays
- Airbus may be launching an A35KULR before the end of the year with several customers interested in new frames or order upgrade
- Qantas still announcing Sunrise with it's result this year

To many coincidences to ignore.


Regarding QF, when they originally set the end of the year for announcing whether they would order the Project Sunrise jet, that was set before the delays of the 777X. I was told by a very reliable source earlier in the year that QF were waiting on early flight testing of the 779 which was suppose to happen this month, obviously due to the delays that wont be happening. QF CEO Alan Joyce has consistently said they would decide between A350 and 777X provided the business case is there. Only about 10 days ago QF CEO said he hopes to make a decision by the end of the year which tells me that it isn't a guarantee that an announcement will be made this year. I have also just posted in the Sunrise thread that Boeing may be offering QF extra 787's in lieu of the 778 being delayed, this may or not be true but I don't thing we can just throw the 778 aside for now.
Forum Moderator
 
Sokes
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Mon Aug 19, 2019 6:36 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Airbus cabins have good per m2 performance.... even 787-9 and A333, having cabin floor sizes equal to better than 0.1% AND having 9 abreast Y on the 787, VS Airbus still have the same number of seats and are more premium heavy.


I don't understand what you mean by "even 787-9 and A333, having cabin floor sizes equal to better than 0.1%".
Can you expand on that?

A330-300: 63,7 m length
B787-9: 62,8 m length
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10865
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Tue Aug 20, 2019 3:35 am

Sokes wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Airbus cabins have good per m2 performance.... even 787-9 and A333, having cabin floor sizes equal to better than 0.1% AND having 9 abreast Y on the 787, VS Airbus still have the same number of seats and are more premium heavy.


I don't understand what you mean by "even 787-9 and A333, having cabin floor sizes equal to better than 0.1%".
Can you expand on that?

A330-300: 63,7 m length
B787-9: 62,8 m length


265.7 vs. 265.8 m2

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
CHRISBA35X
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:40 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:12 am

My reading of it is that they are wisely ceding the ULH sector to Airbus for the A359ULH/A350-1000ULH and putting the money saved into optimizing the 779X into its niche that Airbus has no answer to, and also into the 787-9/10 combo which is dominating the segment it plays in and has an opportunity to push the A330NEO out completely.
 
tealnz
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:24 pm

CHRISBA35X wrote:
My reading of it is that they are wisely ceding the ULH sector to Airbus for the A359ULH/A350-1000ULH and putting the money saved into optimizing the 779X into its niche that Airbus has no answer to, and also into the 787-9/10 combo which is dominating the segment it plays in and has an opportunity to push the A330NEO out completely.

Okay...
The only little complication is that the A35K was configured as a direct replacement for the 77W (size, payload at range...). Chosing not to play in that segment, with the 77W replacement cycle getting under way in a few years, is an interesting strategic call. :scratchchin:
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5455
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:31 pm

The only way the 778 can succeed against the A3510 is if the engines are enough better that they offset the increased empty weight that the 778 carries. From what Lightsaber has to say about it, that may very well happen. But if it doesn’t then the 778’s business case is pretty much nonexistent. Of course should RR succeed in producing the Ultrafan on schedule for the A350 GE will have to respond with sometuing even better, but based on RR’s current problems I suspect that is not likely to happen in the 2020s. By then Boeing may be ready to proceed with a CFRP replacement for the 777, which will level the playing field.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9037
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:39 pm

tealnz wrote:
Okay...
The only little complication is that the A35K was configured as a direct replacement for the 77W (size, payload at range...). Chosing not to play in that segment, with the 77W replacement cycle getting under way in a few years, is an interesting strategic call. :scratchchin:

I thought Boeing replacement product for the 777-200ER and 777W was the 787 at the lower end and the 777-9 at the upper, is the 777-9 not a 1 to 1 replacement for the 777W with a slight pax increase?
 
CHRISBA35X
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:40 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:45 pm

tealnz wrote:
CHRISBA35X wrote:
My reading of it is that they are wisely ceding the ULH sector to Airbus for the A359ULH/A350-1000ULH and putting the money saved into optimizing the 779X into its niche that Airbus has no answer to, and also into the 787-9/10 combo which is dominating the segment it plays in and has an opportunity to push the A330NEO out completely.

Okay...
The only little complication is that the A35K was configured as a direct replacement for the 77W (size, payload at range...). Chosing not to play in that segment, with the 77W replacement cycle getting under way in a few years, is an interesting strategic call. :scratchchin:



That assumes the optimised 779X wouldnt still take any of the 77W replacement orders on the table. How many of the current 77W operators are operating them as they were the only game in town short of a A380? Or how many found them perfectly right-sized for their needs?

I'm not saying the 779X doesnt play in that sector i'm saying the money Boeing throws at it is to optimise it for the higher end of that segment, and the A380's segment.

You are right though, the 77W market is too large to cede en masse to Airbus but my point was that we might see it split.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26367
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:53 pm

tealnz wrote:
The only little complication is that the A35K was configured as a direct replacement for the 77W (size, payload at range...). Chosing not to play in that segment, with the 77W replacement cycle getting under way in a few years, is an interesting strategic call. :scratchchin:


The 777-8 was never meant to be a compelling answer as a general 777-300ER replacement. The ME3 (and Emirates, especially), followed a strategy of launching a long-haul route with a 777-200LR and then growing it to a payload-restricted 777-300ER (blocking seats and ULD positions as necessary to allow for the necessary fuel load). The 777-8 provided the range without the need to restrict payload (as it's payload was less than a 777-300ER, but more than a 777-200LR).

Yes, comparing seating and payload weights the 777-8 and A350-1000 overlapped, so the 777-8 could easily have handled a lower-density (2+2+2 Business / 3+3+3 Economy) 777-300ER mission, but it was never going to be as compelling an answer in that role as the A350-1000 and Boeing knew it. And as Airbus continues to improve the performance envelope of the A350-1000, that only worsens the 777-8's position in that market.

So focusing on the 777-9 makes sense as it can be a compelling answer as a 777-300ER replacement (especially those operating in a 3+4+3 Economy configuration). It's less than three meters longer and should have lower trip costs, so the extra capacity is really just incremental revenue for operators to take advantage of during peak load periods (more sales) while not burdening them with a significant number of empty seats during non-peak periods.

This is why I see the 777-9 and A350-1000 more as complimentary options than competitive for the larger 777-300ER / 747-400 operators. They can use both models to tailor their fleet to their load factors, maximizing the benefits and efficiencies of each model. For smaller operators, one or the other will likely prove to be sufficient.

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