EK schedule to UK will show a reduction of approx 1/3rd from preCovid levels. LHR 5x daily...LGW 1x daily...MAN...2x daily...GLA 1x daily. All on A380 effective October.

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/ne ... 31851.html

Seperately, they announced they will cover medical costs for any passengers that contact Covid 19 during their travel with EK. Will also include the cost of quarantine for upto 14days.

https://www.thejakartapost.com/travel/2 ... costs.html

PepeTheFrog wrote:

Emirates believes the 777X will slip further and deliveries won't happen before 2022.

So it seems Emirates was probably right.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... 4P2JI?il=0

SEATTLE/PARIS (Reuters) - Boeing Co (BA.N) is preparing to delay its all-new 777X jet by several months or up to a year, three people familiar with the matter said, as the COVID-19 crisis exacerbates a drop in demand for the industry’s largest jetliners.

scbriml wrote:

PepeTheFrog wrote:

Emirates believes the 777X will slip further and deliveries won't happen before 2022.

So it seems Emirates was probably right.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... 4P2JI?il=0

SEATTLE/PARIS (Reuters) - Boeing Co (BA.N) is preparing to delay its all-new 777X jet by several months or up to a year, three people familiar with the matter said, as the COVID-19 crisis exacerbates a drop in demand for the industry’s largest jetliners.

I think this is the right decision. The aircraft is not needed now, 2-3 years down the line when capacity will (hopefully) been needed airlines will be keen to take their 777X. Moreover, (hopefully) US-China relations will improve and they can lock in those orders

Here is the link
https://simpleflying.com/emirates-ceo-no-widebodies/

Will this Post-COVID market change widebodies role to domestic? I mean, the A380/747 are ending production in a couple of years, the 777X is getting delayed, 767F production will be down to 2 per month by 2025, the 787 has trent-1000 issues, the A330 production is slowing down dramatically, and with the introduction of long-range narrowbodies like the A321XLR, I think I can see a trend here. Another thing I want to ask is about the 797/NMA, and how it will be affected. If no new widebodies are expected, then what will happen to this proposal. Ever since April's end, we've seen HEAVILY RUMORED studies of a 757-Plus and 767X, so doubt was already on the NMA then. With this, do you think we'll see an NMA? I know it is supposedly a really small widebody, but still.

Thanks for answering

What's the problem? 3 to 4 years is a mighty short time.

COVID and other factors have temporarily slowed down global international traffic (obviously)

A321XLR will be even more of a big hit than anybody thought. Need for A380, 747, 777X is almost nil. They do not have superior unit cost to A350 and 787 AFAIK. The justification to bring in a VLA fleet with such narrow window of usability is just impossible now. Not "hard" but actually impossible.

The 777-9 will launch, and my understanding is that Lufthansa will take the first ones.

The NMA/797 is being reviewed to find an aircraft that can better match the future market slots - with a new cockpit design. That indeed is years away.

There is no 757 + being considered.

The 767-400 Freighter using updated engines (787/747 engines) will almost certainly be launched as the existing 767F does not meet the IACO 2028 standards for "In Production Aircraft." However, that will take a few years. I don't expect to see it launched before 2025.

I don't see how a 767-400 Passenger Aircraft with new engines would be competitive to more recent aircraft. I cannot see it being launched.

Note that this info on the existing B767 can be extracted from the "Proposed" EPA regulation posted this past week on Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Aircraft. They have some charts on allowed "New Designs - after 2020" and "Existing In Production Aircraft" which has unlabeled symbols for recent previous and existing in production aircraft. The Charts are based on MTOW (labeled as MTOM) - and you can figure out which dots are for which base models based on looking up the weights(mass) of various aircraft.

I actually have a nice picture of the Wide-body charts where I have labeled the dots (A380, B747, B777, A350, B787, A330, B767); but have yet figured out a way to make that picture visible on this site (and had more important things to do yesterday and today). I expect to have time by mid week.

Have a great day,

Both Airbus and Boeing are bleeding cash right now, no airline seems to want the orders they already booked, because they cannot finance them. There will be a LONG pause before there are any new derivatives, much less a new model.

Neither Airbus or Boeing or the airline customers are currently in situation where they are going to commit to an all new wide body. Boeing is lucky that they hadn't committed to this NMA in whatever form a couple of years ago. The plans for a new large narrow-body (which was dubbed by one of the unnamed sources as a 757-Plus, but it was not a 757) and a re-engined 767 were on the table before Corona, most people didn't notice this because people don't actually read the articles that start a discussion. It they continue with those plans fully depends on their financial situation and how the market rebounds after this pandemic is over.

Other then a NMA there is also not a need for a new wide-body. Boeing has it's 787 line-up as the base with the 777X on top of this. Airbus has the A350 line-up + the A330neo underneath it. That should be enough for any airline that will want to move forward with new wide-body planes post Corona.

At some point new freighters are needed because of environmental regulations, but they can be created from the existing models. Any new engine developments will also be incorporated in the 787 and the A350 before a completely new plane is needed.

2175301 wrote:

The 777-9 will launch, and my understanding is that Lufthansa will take the first ones.

The NMA/797 is being reviewed to find an aircraft that can better match the future market slots - with a new cockpit design. That indeed is years away.

There is no 757 + being considered.

The 767-400 Freighter using updated engines (787/747 engines) will almost certainly be launched as the existing 767F does not meet the IACO 2028 standards for "In Production Aircraft." However, that will take a few years. I don't expect to see it launched before 2025.

I don't see how a 767-400 Passenger Aircraft with new engines would be competitive to more recent aircraft. I cannot see it being launched.

Note that this info on the existing B767 can be extracted from the "Proposed" EPA regulation posted this past week on Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Aircraft. They have some charts on allowed "New Designs - after 2020" and "Existing In Production Aircraft" which has unlabeled symbols for recent previous and existing in production aircraft. The Charts are based on MTOW (labeled as MTOM) - and you can figure out which dots are for which base models based on looking up the weights(mass) of various aircraft.

I actually have a nice picture of the Wide-body charts where I have labeled the dots (A380, B747, B777, A350, B787, A330, B767); but have yet figured out a way to make that picture visible on this site (and had more important things to do yesterday and today). I expect to have time by mid week.

Have a great day,

Lufthansa also bought the 747-8 Intercontinental. Safe to say that LH isn't afraid to be unique.

Duh, that's a nobrainer. Look at it from the opposite point of view. Boeing has the 777X and 787 and Airbus has the A350 and A330neo. All are relatively new designs. Why would there be a new widebody for years?

As a huge 777X fan, it might actually be a few years too late. It will certainly be the last "VLA" as we know it, but will survive, IMHO.

Its my opinion that Boeing Commercial Airplanes should:

-Continue development of the FSA. Launch it mid decade, EIS late decade, to replace the MAX.
-Consider a 787-9LR and 787-10LR as eventual 777X successors (Rewing, Reengine?)
-767 updates
-Early next decade, perhaps revisit SSTs and Hybrids, perhaps reapproach Embraer as a JV.

The internal pessimist believes that even the 787 and A350 will be too big to fly profitably for the next several years, with a very slow crawl back to 2019 baseline stretching through the end of the decade. The A321(XLR) and whatever long range narrowbody Boeing or whoever cooks up will become the backbone of TATL travel like the 767 and A330 were beforehand. A narrowbody that can make Los Angeles to Northeast Asia will be the death knell for most TPAC widebody operations.

johns624 wrote:

Duh, that's a nobrainer. Look at it from the opposite point of view. Boeing has the 777X and 787 and Airbus has the A350 and A330neo. All are relatively new designs. Why would there be a new widebody for years?

Exactly! The question is ridiculous. We’re, at minimum, a decade before the question needs to be addressed.

However, look at the other “whistling by the graveyard” topics and posts. Livery, ramp expansion, deliveries, route discussion, etc etc. These are trivial matters when an atomic bomb of Orwellian proportion has been dumped on the industry. The contraction is real. It doesn’t matter what aircraft are scheduled for delivery. It doesn’t matter what gates are expanding. It doesn’t matter livery an airline has. This is a generational event that appears to have missed many here.

The only new wide-body I could see launching is the Airbus A330-800neo-based freighter at 251 metric tons, which would be an instant improvement over the 233 metric ton A332 freighter (which could also be de-rated to 242 metric tons)...the idea being to have enough range to compete with the Boeing 777 freighter. The Boeing 767 will need to be re-engined, as I do see hundreds of examples, mostly if not all freighters by then, with maybe LATAM and a few CIS operators still flying passenger examples, still in service by then.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

The only new wide-body I could see launching is the Airbus A330-800neo-based freighter at 251 metric tons, which would be an instant improvement over the 233 metric ton A332 freighter (which could also be de-rated to 242 metric tons)...the idea being to have enough range to compete with the Boeing 777 freighter. The Boeing 767 will need to be re-engined, as I do see hundreds of examples, mostly if not all freighters by then, with maybe LATAM and a few CIS operators still flying passenger examples, still in service by then.

Why new build freighter when so many frames are going to be available to convert?

There would be no widebody until 2030-2035 I say.

In couple of years, both A350 and B787 would got New Engine Options. So rather than coming up with new widebody, Both Airbus and Boeing would just push these aircraft rather than developed a new one.

What would probably happen is that they would make update and optimization to fit into Airlines operations. Maybe regional version (already done for SQ's A350R), higher MTOW or LR variants (SQ's A350ULR).

A smaller market does not mean smaller widebody aircraft.
A smaller market means less routes, less frequencies and more focus on the top markets.

I believe what will suffer the most are the so called point to point routes or routes with little connecting traffic. Typically routes promoted by Boeing as the "787 routes". I fear many wont come back before years and if they do and are within the A321 XLR range then they could restart with the A321XLR.

I also believe the hub to hub routes like SIN to LHR etc should remain operated by large widebody however as they will benefit from the traffic which can no longer fly point to point and maybe less Airlines on the routes. Also there should be less emphasis on frequencies as business traffic will be slow to recover.

All in all it should not be a surprise if we observe less but on average larger widebody being used on the long haut markets .

Sherlock realized now? If he predicted a decade back he would have been a visionary. If he predicted 5 years back he can be considered a good planner. Now anybody can tell.

There is no way anyone could have predicted current situation is a just an excuse. At the minimum there should have been a plan B which EK completely lacks.

32andBelow wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

The only new wide-body I could see launching is the Airbus A330-800neo-based freighter at 251 metric tons, which would be an instant improvement over the 233 metric ton A332 freighter (which could also be de-rated to 242 metric tons)...the idea being to have enough range to compete with the Boeing 777 freighter. The Boeing 767 will need to be re-engined, as I do see hundreds of examples, mostly if not all freighters by then, with maybe LATAM and a few CIS operators still flying passenger examples, still in service by then.

Why new build freighter when so many frames are going to be available to convert?

The question, which I have not yet figured out from the "proposed" EPA Aircraft emissions standard: How are P2F conversions handled under the standard? That was not obvious to me. It is obvious that the current 767F will not be allowed when the 2028 standards kick in. Does that also mean that 767 P2F conversions also stop at that point? That only the "neo's" "max" or other recent upgrade designations can be converted?

This question clearly also applies to the older models of most of the Airbus products as well.

Have a great day,

dtw2hyd wrote:

Sherlock realized now? If he predicted a decade back he would have been a visionary. If he predicted 5 years back he can be considered a good planner. Now anybody can tell.

There is no way anyone could have predicted current situation is a just an excuse. At the minimum there should have been a plan B which EK completely lacks.

So enlighten me as to what Plan B did any other airline, and yourself have. I'll be very interested because I sure haven't seen any.

UA748i wrote:

As a huge 777X fan, it might actually be a few years too late. It will certainly be the last "VLA" as we know it, but will survive, IMHO.

Its my opinion that Boeing Commercial Airplanes should:

-Continue development of the FSA. Launch it mid decade, EIS late decade, to replace the MAX.
-Consider a 787-9LR and 787-10LR as eventual 777X successors (Rewing, Reengine?)
-767 updates
-Early next decade, perhaps revisit SSTs and Hybrids, perhaps reapproach Embraer as a JV.

I'm going to disagree. In the industry, we look for step changes in efficiency. That would be the Blended Wing Body (BwB). It has huge structural efficiency advantages and some aerodynamic advantages. I participated in studies that I believe have cleared the evacuation issues. The BwB efficiency grows with scale more than a cigar with wings.

The VLA requires a significant efficiency advantage due to the risk of not filling seats (likely to be realized).

Eventually we will have another VLA. (Never say never) Certainly not in the near term.

Basically, we already know the NMA is delayed. But development won't stop. Only half of new technology can be retrofitted to an existing design. So eventually we will develop new widebodies. But not in the near term.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

Basically, we already know the NMA is delayed. But development won't stop. Only half of new technology can be retrofitted to an existing design. So eventually we will develop new widebodies. But not in the near term.

The problem is that we now need to redefine near term, it's hard to use the term without a redefinition.

Even before CV19 the press was talking about the airliner bubble. Even before CV19 RR was losing money due to the cost of T1000 rework and compensation. Even before CV19, GE was restructuring at the corporate level. Even before CV19, PW was struggling with GTF "durability" issues. Even before CV19, Boeing was up to its eyeballs in red ink due to MCAS and had stood down NMA. Now with CV19 the entire revenue stream of the entire industry has taken a ~80% hit and no one can predict the recovery timeline. Now the industry is still coasting on financing secured before CV19 and it's clear the financial community is going to be taking some major hits as many of their assumptions about asset value are now incorrect so new financing will be very challenging. The world's largest economy is now entering Wave 1b of CV19.

I think all the major players had just made huge investments before CV19 and will be very reluctant to make huge investments after CV19 until their old investments are paying off, and I think that will take longer than most people think.

johns624 wrote:

Duh, that's a nobrainer. Look at it from the opposite point of view. Boeing has the 777X and 787 and Airbus has the A350 and A330neo. All are relatively new designs. Why would there be a new widebody for years?

That was my reaction too.... Sort of a Captian Obvious Conclusion even pre-Covid19. We always knew NMA was going to be a single isle anyway.... so no one was really expecting any new widebodies for sometimes... sans that aforementioned 767-400 freighter... and perhaps some wb freighter activity on the Airbus side... Boeing wasn't going to have a line-up of 3 widebodies 777,787,797(nma) and still just fly around the 737MAX for single aisle mission/markets....

2175301 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

The only new wide-body I could see launching is the Airbus A330-800neo-based freighter at 251 metric tons, which would be an instant improvement over the 233 metric ton A332 freighter (which could also be de-rated to 242 metric tons)...the idea being to have enough range to compete with the Boeing 777 freighter. The Boeing 767 will need to be re-engined, as I do see hundreds of examples, mostly if not all freighters by then, with maybe LATAM and a few CIS operators still flying passenger examples, still in service by then.

Why new build freighter when so many frames are going to be available to convert?

The question, which I have not yet figured out from the "proposed" EPA Aircraft emissions standard: How are P2F conversions handled under the standard? That was not obvious to me. It is obvious that the current 767F will not be allowed when the 2028 standards kick in. Does that also mean that 767 P2F conversions also stop at that point? That only the "neo's" "max" or other recent upgrade designations can be converted?

This question clearly also applies to the older models of most of the Airbus products as well.

The devil will be in the detail, yet to be determined.

However, if the regulations parallel ICAO definitions, unless P2F conversions are re-engined, 767 conversions will cease.

Outside the USA, the environmental community is confident Biden will tighten, widen and bring forward US aviation participation and compliance.

lightsaber wrote:

UA748i wrote:

As a huge 777X fan, it might actually be a few years too late. It will certainly be the last "VLA" as we know it, but will survive, IMHO.

Its my opinion that Boeing Commercial Airplanes should:

-Continue development of the FSA. Launch it mid decade, EIS late decade, to replace the MAX.
-Consider a 787-9LR and 787-10LR as eventual 777X successors (Rewing, Reengine?)
-767 updates
-Early next decade, perhaps revisit SSTs and Hybrids, perhaps reapproach Embraer as a JV.

I'm going to disagree. In the industry, we look for step changes in efficiency. That would be the Blended Wing Body (BwB). It has huge structural efficiency advantages and some aerodynamic advantages. I participated in studies that I believe have cleared the evacuation issues. The BwB efficiency grows with scale more than a cigar with wings.

The VLA requires a significant efficiency advantage due to the risk of not filling seats (likely to be realized).

Eventually we will have another VLA. (Never say never) Certainly not in the near term.

Basically, we already know the NMA is delayed. But development won't stop. Only half of new technology can be retrofitted to an existing design. So eventually we will develop new widebodies. But not in the near term.

Lightsaber

A blended wing body aircraft has about as much chance of occurring in the next 20 years as the Handley Page skewed wing SST did of becoming reality.

With only two major aircraft makers, they can just put on the brakes for development and do as little as possible. Minor improvements and changes, little more. Nothing risky.

That will be safest. I suspect an SST might be a possibility down the track with variable cycle engines, but it’s surely a long way off and it probably won’t be in the remainder of my lifetime.

This pandemic still isn’t defeated yet either.

Aither wrote:

A smaller market does not mean smaller widebody aircraft.
A smaller market means less routes, less frequencies and more focus on the top markets.

I believe what will suffer the most are the so called point to point routes or routes with little connecting traffic. Typically routes promoted by Boeing as the "787 routes". I fear many wont come back before years and if they do and are within the A321 XLR range then they could restart with the A321XLR.

I also believe the hub to hub routes like SIN to LHR etc should remain operated by large widebody however as they will benefit from the traffic which can no longer fly point to point and maybe less Airlines on the routes. Also there should be less emphasis on frequencies as business traffic will be slow to recover.

All in all it should not be a surprise if we observe less but on average larger widebody being used on the long haut markets .

Actually it does mean smaller aircraft. Think about it. Many major routes would be back and running again, but unlike before, many major airport would have way more free slots because there would be many routes that got cut.

This would led to airlines using smaller aircraft for frequency because they got soo many excess slots. And many of them would prefer to stick to profitability rather than capacity right now.
Also, it seems like a second wave are more likely. So it's not like we are currently got the demands back.

lightsaber wrote:

UA748i wrote:

As a huge 777X fan, it might actually be a few years too late. It will certainly be the last "VLA" as we know it, but will survive, IMHO.

Its my opinion that Boeing Commercial Airplanes should:

-Continue development of the FSA. Launch it mid decade, EIS late decade, to replace the MAX.
-Consider a 787-9LR and 787-10LR as eventual 777X successors (Rewing, Reengine?)
-767 updates
-Early next decade, perhaps revisit SSTs and Hybrids, perhaps reapproach Embraer as a JV.

I'm going to disagree. In the industry, we look for step changes in efficiency. That would be the Blended Wing Body (BwB). It has huge structural efficiency advantages and some aerodynamic advantages. I participated in studies that I believe have cleared the evacuation issues. The BwB efficiency grows with scale more than a cigar with wings.

The VLA requires a significant efficiency advantage due to the risk of not filling seats (likely to be realized).

Eventually we will have another VLA. (Never say never) Certainly not in the near term.

Basically, we already know the NMA is delayed. But development won't stop. Only half of new technology can be retrofitted to an existing design. So eventually we will develop new widebodies. But not in the near term.

Lightsaber

Realistically speaking, if we look at what both Airbus and Boeing had done in the last few decades. We know such project in near future would be out of the question.

What really happened was both manufacturer goes with safer and cheaper options that they know would work rather than creating a new model that revolutionized the industry. Even the next-gen aircraft like B787 and A350 were design using traditional design rather than an experimental one.

Currently we are at the point of maximizing efficiency for older design like engines, fuselage, wings, etc. But there isn't much development in technology that could actually revolutionized the industry.
The best one we had soo far is composite materials. But that technology has been proven on military aircraft for decades. So it's actually an older technology that just got implemented into commercial side. It's already there for a long time.

BwB is a big risk that could bankrupt either company. Heck, even a re-engine project caused soo much problems with Boeing.

cpd wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

UA748i wrote:

As a huge 777X fan, it might actually be a few years too late. It will certainly be the last "VLA" as we know it, but will survive, IMHO.

Its my opinion that Boeing Commercial Airplanes should:

-Continue development of the FSA. Launch it mid decade, EIS late decade, to replace the MAX.
-Consider a 787-9LR and 787-10LR as eventual 777X successors (Rewing, Reengine?)
-767 updates
-Early next decade, perhaps revisit SSTs and Hybrids, perhaps reapproach Embraer as a JV.

I'm going to disagree. In the industry, we look for step changes in efficiency. That would be the Blended Wing Body (BwB). It has huge structural efficiency advantages and some aerodynamic advantages. I participated in studies that I believe have cleared the evacuation issues. The BwB efficiency grows with scale more than a cigar with wings.

The VLA requires a significant efficiency advantage due to the risk of not filling seats (likely to be realized).

Eventually we will have another VLA. (Never say never) Certainly not in the near term.

Basically, we already know the NMA is delayed. But development won't stop. Only half of new technology can be retrofitted to an existing design. So eventually we will develop new widebodies. But not in the near term.

Lightsaber

A blended wing body aircraft has about as much chance of occurring in the next 20 years as the Handley Page skewed wing SST did of becoming reality.

With only two major aircraft makers, they can just put on the brakes for development and do as little as possible. Minor improvements and changes, little more. Nothing risky.

That will be safest. I suspect an SST might be a possibility down the track with variable cycle engines, but it’s surely a long way off and it probably won’t be in the remainder of my lifetime.

This pandemic still isn’t defeated yet either.

SST is so costly, it will only be for limited passenger payloads. We'll have to see how those go in this downturn.

I don't expect a BwB soon, but the basic efficiency is there. Everyone is trying to bring that efficiency. As you note, there are only two vendors who will, like all near monopolies, restrain development. There is always development of those thinking of re-entering the civil market. Businesses are always looking for opportunities.

But with the Boeing BwB x-48, Northrop UCAS, B-21 Raider, and Airbus MAVERIC (I know, small), research continues.
The reality is supersonic transport requires 1st class and higher pricing to move people that quickly.

If you want to cut the cost of air travel, the BwB is a fairly mature technology. The issue, is the efficiency is a *huge* function of scale. The gains really only start for a 250 seater. As environmental concerns grow, there will be a need for a step function reduction in fuel burn. The BwB is one of the few step functions waiting to be implemented now that GTFs are flying, variable cycle in engines has started (just started), and the first bit of CMCs will on the 779.

I worked a little consulting on the Sonic Cruiser very early in my carrier. I was appalled at the sharp increase in fuel burn. For Supersonic flight, that is far worse.

But for the next few years, this is idle discussion.

Lightsaber

ewt340 wrote:

Aither wrote:

A smaller market does not mean smaller widebody aircraft.
A smaller market means less routes, less frequencies and more focus on the top markets.

I believe what will suffer the most are the so called point to point routes or routes with little connecting traffic. Typically routes promoted by Boeing as the "787 routes". I fear many wont come back before years and if they do and are within the A321 XLR range then they could restart with the A321XLR.

I also believe the hub to hub routes like SIN to LHR etc should remain operated by large widebody however as they will benefit from the traffic which can no longer fly point to point and maybe less Airlines on the routes. Also there should be less emphasis on frequencies as business traffic will be slow to recover.

All in all it should not be a surprise if we observe less but on average larger widebody being used on the long haut markets .

Actually it does mean smaller aircraft. Think about it. Many major routes would be back and running again, but unlike before, many major airport would have way more free slots because there would be many routes that got cut.

This would led to airlines using smaller aircraft for frequency because they got soo many excess slots.

There aren't that many slot-restricted major airports. Carriers could have been using smaller aircraft to most major airports all along. That's was the fundamental misunderstanding behind the A380 - the belief that capacity constraints would drive larger aircraft.

Is the word "launch" here mean something like "Boeing launching the 797 projects" instead of the launch of actual aircraft?

LCDFlight wrote:

The justification to bring in a VLA fleet with such narrow window of usability is just impossible now. Not "hard" but actually impossible.

Huh?? Several airlines have clarified their intent to still take VLAs. Some in reduced number, but hardly "impossible."

dtw2hyd wrote:

Sherlock realized now? If he predicted a decade back he would have been a visionary.

At the minimum there should have been a plan B which EK completely lacks.

^This. Granted, it took a bit longer than some of us would've thought; but anyone with sense had to realize that a major day of reckoning was eventually coming for EK's utterly ridiculous fleet plan.

This is the first major downturn they've faced with their fleet as it is (they didn't have anywhere near the relative composition of 77Ws and A380s back in 2009), and it just so happens to be the worst in history.

Yet their only recourse plan (for if the bottom fell out of the Dubai or world markets) while in possession of hundreds of inflexibly-large aircraft, appears to be -- nothing.

As I see it, Boeing has the widebody market pretty well covered with the 788/9/J and 778/9. Airbus has their A339 and A359/J. Airbus probably has the bigger hole to fill in their market, but they have the A321LR/XLR, which fits all of the F, all of the J, and 70% of the Y of a 762 on something like half the fuel burn.

The last 20 years have been remarkable for commercial aviation with the advent of the 787, the longer-range 777s and then now the 77X, the A380, and the A350.

There are two obvious holes. The first is the gulf between the A321 and the 788. There should be a decent 763 replacement, meaning an aircraft that sits about 220-300 passengers and can fly 12 hours. The second obvious hole is the 737. The 737MAX is a dismal failure and even when they get it certified, it will be stained by the longest ground of any jet airliner. Moreover, the physical design of the 737 precludes LR/XLR variants.

So I think that Boeing needs to work on a 737 replacement and Airbus needs to figure out how to fill the gap between the A321 and the A339.

MIflyer12 wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

Aither wrote:

A smaller market does not mean smaller widebody aircraft.
A smaller market means less routes, less frequencies and more focus on the top markets.

I believe what will suffer the most are the so called point to point routes or routes with little connecting traffic. Typically routes promoted by Boeing as the "787 routes". I fear many wont come back before years and if they do and are within the A321 XLR range then they could restart with the A321XLR.

I also believe the hub to hub routes like SIN to LHR etc should remain operated by large widebody however as they will benefit from the traffic which can no longer fly point to point and maybe less Airlines on the routes. Also there should be less emphasis on frequencies as business traffic will be slow to recover.

All in all it should not be a surprise if we observe less but on average larger widebody being used on the long haut markets .

Actually it does mean smaller aircraft. Think about it. Many major routes would be back and running again, but unlike before, many major airport would have way more free slots because there would be many routes that got cut.

This would led to airlines using smaller aircraft for frequency because they got soo many excess slots.

There aren't that many slot-restricted major airports. Carriers could have been using smaller aircraft to most major airports all along. That's was the fundamental misunderstanding behind the A380 - the belief that capacity constraints would drive larger aircraft.

There aren't many, that's true, but the one that have those problems tend to be the major airport than many airlines wanted to fly to because of high premium demand. LHR, SYD, NRT, HND, JFK, LAX, SFO, FRA, etc.

In the future there would be expansion and such improvements would reduces the need for VLA. But for now, aircraft the size of B777-300ER would still be flying. Not sure about anything bigger though.

DocLightning wrote:

As I see it, Boeing has the widebody market pretty well covered with the 788/9/J and 778/9. Airbus has their A339 and A359/J. Airbus probably has the bigger hole to fill in their market, but they have the A321LR/XLR, which fits all of the F, all of the J, and 70% of the Y of a 762 on something like half the fuel burn.

The last 20 years have been remarkable for commercial aviation with the advent of the 787, the longer-range 777s and then now the 77X, the A380, and the A350.

There are two obvious holes. The first is the gulf between the A321 and the 788. There should be a decent 763 replacement, meaning an aircraft that sits about 220-300 passengers and can fly 12 hours. The second obvious hole is the 737. The 737MAX is a dismal failure and even when they get it certified, it will be stained by the longest ground of any jet airliner. Moreover, the physical design of the 737 precludes LR/XLR variants.

So I think that Boeing needs to work on a 737 replacement and Airbus needs to figure out how to fill the gap between the A321 and the A339.

I'd say that Airbus would be in better position to developed such aircraft. Their A330neo is drying up in recent months because of the pandemic. They would need to think about its replacement in 2025 at least.

ewt340 wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

As I see it, Boeing has the widebody market pretty well covered with the 788/9/J and 778/9. Airbus has their A339 and A359/J. Airbus probably has the bigger hole to fill in their market, but they have the A321LR/XLR, which fits all of the F, all of the J, and 70% of the Y of a 762 on something like half the fuel burn.

The last 20 years have been remarkable for commercial aviation with the advent of the 787, the longer-range 777s and then now the 77X, the A380, and the A350.

There are two obvious holes. The first is the gulf between the A321 and the 788. There should be a decent 763 replacement, meaning an aircraft that sits about 220-300 passengers and can fly 12 hours. The second obvious hole is the 737. The 737MAX is a dismal failure and even when they get it certified, it will be stained by the longest ground of any jet airliner. Moreover, the physical design of the 737 precludes LR/XLR variants.

So I think that Boeing needs to work on a 737 replacement and Airbus needs to figure out how to fill the gap between the A321 and the A339.

I'd say that Airbus would be in better position to developed such aircraft. Their A330neo is drying up in recent months because of the pandemic. They would need to think about its replacement in 2025 at least.

Airbus is in a better position to think about new programs in general. Boeing is going to spend most of this decade getting their house in order, I think we can all agree on that. And I think they will. They need to restore stability on the MAX program and then focus on speeding up and marketing the 777X program when the time is right.

DocLightning wrote:

As I see it, Boeing has the widebody market pretty well covered with the 788/9/J and 778/9. Airbus has their A339 and A359/J. Airbus probably has the bigger hole to fill in their market, but they have the A321LR/XLR, which fits all of the F, all of the J, and 70% of the Y of a 762 on something like half the fuel burn.

The last 20 years have been remarkable for commercial aviation with the advent of the 787, the longer-range 777s and then now the 77X, the A380, and the A350.

There are two obvious holes. The first is the gulf between the A321 and the 788. There should be a decent 763 replacement, meaning an aircraft that sits about 220-300 passengers and can fly 12 hours. The second obvious hole is the 737. The 737MAX is a dismal failure and even when they get it certified, it will be stained by the longest ground of any jet airliner. Moreover, the physical design of the 737 precludes LR/XLR variants.

So I think that Boeing needs to work on a 737 replacement and Airbus needs to figure out how to fill the gap between the A321 and the A339.

Could the 763 sized hole be filled with a stretched A321 XLR?

More passengers and likely more fuel tank space that way, sort of an Airbus take on what Boeing did with the 757-300.

TheWorm123 wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

As I see it, Boeing has the widebody market pretty well covered with the 788/9/J and 778/9. Airbus has their A339 and A359/J. Airbus probably has the bigger hole to fill in their market, but they have the A321LR/XLR, which fits all of the F, all of the J, and 70% of the Y of a 762 on something like half the fuel burn.

The last 20 years have been remarkable for commercial aviation with the advent of the 787, the longer-range 777s and then now the 77X, the A380, and the A350.

There are two obvious holes. The first is the gulf between the A321 and the 788. There should be a decent 763 replacement, meaning an aircraft that sits about 220-300 passengers and can fly 12 hours. The second obvious hole is the 737. The 737MAX is a dismal failure and even when they get it certified, it will be stained by the longest ground of any jet airliner. Moreover, the physical design of the 737 precludes LR/XLR variants.

So I think that Boeing needs to work on a 737 replacement and Airbus needs to figure out how to fill the gap between the A321 and the A339.

Could the 763 sized hole be filled with a stretched A321 XLR?

More passengers and likely more fuel tank space that way, sort of an Airbus take on what Boeing did with the 757-300.

That's the fabeled A322, which has been discussed to no end. It should have less range than the 763 but similar pax capacity.

ewt340 wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

As I see it, Boeing has the widebody market pretty well covered with the 788/9/J and 778/9. Airbus has their A339 and A359/J. Airbus probably has the bigger hole to fill in their market, but they have the A321LR/XLR, which fits all of the F, all of the J, and 70% of the Y of a 762 on something like half the fuel burn.

The last 20 years have been remarkable for commercial aviation with the advent of the 787, the longer-range 777s and then now the 77X, the A380, and the A350.

There are two obvious holes. The first is the gulf between the A321 and the 788. There should be a decent 763 replacement, meaning an aircraft that sits about 220-300 passengers and can fly 12 hours. The second obvious hole is the 737. The 737MAX is a dismal failure and even when they get it certified, it will be stained by the longest ground of any jet airliner. Moreover, the physical design of the 737 precludes LR/XLR variants.

So I think that Boeing needs to work on a 737 replacement and Airbus needs to figure out how to fill the gap between the A321 and the A339.

I'd say that Airbus would be in better position to developed such aircraft. Their A330neo is drying up in recent months because of the pandemic. They would need to think about its replacement in 2025 at least.

I don't think there are enough room between A321 and A359 to support a new widebody design, just as 797 couldn't be launched as a widebody

Vicenza wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Sherlock realized now? If he predicted a decade back he would have been a visionary. If he predicted 5 years back he can be considered a good planner. Now anybody can tell.

There is no way anyone could have predicted current situation is a just an excuse. At the minimum there should have been a plan B which EK completely lacks.

So enlighten me as to what Plan B did any other airline, and yourself have. I'll be very interested because I sure haven't seen any.

Others already have Plan B, they are called narrow body aircraft, others also have smaller wide body aircraft. One need not be a rocket scientist to figure out that having mixed fleet is the best way to run an airline.

I have to agree with statements above: For the moment nobody will order or develop anything. So "no new widebodies" is not much of a genius prediction as we already have the newly developed 787 and A350 families on the market.
On the medium run I'd say it's not unlikely that A and B will invent new widebodies like the reconfigured NMA and some A310/A330-follow on. There is room between the big twins above and the biggest narrowbodies. Especially now that the big quad capacity is gone for maybe forever.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Vicenza wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Sherlock realized now? If he predicted a decade back he would have been a visionary. If he predicted 5 years back he can be considered a good planner. Now anybody can tell.

There is no way anyone could have predicted current situation is a just an excuse. At the minimum there should have been a plan B which EK completely lacks.

So enlighten me as to what Plan B did any other airline, and yourself have. I'll be very interested because I sure haven't seen any.

Others already have Plan B, they are called narrow body aircraft, others also have smaller wide body aircraft. One need not be a rocket scientist to figure out that having mixed fleet is the best way to run an airline.

Interesting. We are seeing on these pages the dire straights of the industry and suddenly you are claiming all airlines have a plan B except Emirates because they have different aircraft types. Emirates geographical position leads to a different model, and even a rocket scientist knows that an airline has to be run depending on it's particular model, and which fitted Emirates perfectly. Now you're claiming, in the face of a worldwide pandemic which could never have been predicted, that they 'lack' a plan B. I don't think so at all, and I still don't see a plan B from others regarding their recovery, unless your plan B seems to only relate to aircraft type.

Revelation wrote:

Now the industry is still coasting on financing secured before CV19 and it's clear the financial community is going to be taking some major hits as many of their assumptions about asset value are now incorrect so new financing will be very challenging.

I'd questioning if financing would really be that unavailable - there's still more money to invest than there are investment opportunities, and every bit of central bank money pumping into the economy is increasing it. So whilst many groups will have been seriously hurt on past investments, that's a sunk loss, irrelevant to the decision to invest new.

Of course that doesn't mean there's opportunity for new aircraft purchases as there's still the problem of used being available which will reduce the possible prices for new, possibly to below even a cost where it's worthwhile ticking along producing them for the future opportunities, but I don't think we should assume financing is gone, there's a real shortage of returns out there anywhere and a lot of cash sloshing about.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Vicenza wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Sherlock realized now? If he predicted a decade back he would have been a visionary. If he predicted 5 years back he can be considered a good planner. Now anybody can tell.

There is no way anyone could have predicted current situation is a just an excuse. At the minimum there should have been a plan B which EK completely lacks.

So enlighten me as to what Plan B did any other airline, and yourself have. I'll be very interested because I sure haven't seen any.

Others already have Plan B, they are called narrow body aircraft, others also have smaller wide body aircraft. One need not be a rocket scientist to figure out that having mixed fleet is the best way to run an airline.

Remind us how the B-plan is working for Air Asia?

Or Indgo?

Air X Asia?

Your logic making no sense.

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Vicenza wrote:

So enlighten me as to what Plan B did any other airline, and yourself have. I'll be very interested because I sure haven't seen any.

Others already have Plan B, they are called narrow body aircraft, others also have smaller wide body aircraft. One need not be a rocket scientist to figure out that having mixed fleet is the best way to run an airline.

STC has no credibility left. His lack of plan B is gross mismanagement. (I see no relevance in the post of FPE about the LCCs he mentions).

2175301 wrote:

The 767-400 Freighter using updated engines (787/747 engines) will almost certainly be launched as the existing 767F does not meet the IACO 2028 standards for "In Production Aircraft." However, that will take a few years. I don't expect to see it launched before 2025.

I don't see how a 767-400 Passenger Aircraft with new engines would be competitive to more recent aircraft. I cannot see it being launched.

Hi,

a 767neo would be highly competitive in Asia. There are a lot of rather short routes less than 3000nm that are now served by 787/A330/777/A350. Granted, these airplanes use the newest lightweight technologies, but they still need a lot of extra structural weight do be able to fly long distances. However if you don't need that it is simply wasted.

The 767 is designed only for medium distances and therefore lighter by design. Even without modern materials the 767-400ER is for example 15t lighter than the B788, however it still offers a few more seats.

With modern engines the fuel consumptions per seat would be comparable, the airport fees would be less due to smaller wings and less MTOW and also the purchase price would be less due to the lack of modern technologies. Furthermore most airports in the US have more gates for cat. D aircrafts.

All in all a modernized 767 is the best Boeing could currently do. The design is well know and tested, the assembly line is still open, all the tools are still there and the GE engines are also reliable and tested on the 787 and 748. The cockpit is also already modernized by the tanker program, so there are no big investments needed. Furthermore, after the 767Max disaster, Boeing need to get back credibility asap. An updated 767 would not be a technological game changer, but a reliable, modern though still affordable work-horse - sth that Boeing would need now imo, to regain lost trust.

Maybe the best part: Airbus doesnt have anything comparable in that segment. They often advertise their A330neo as the upper part of the MoM, but that design is also over weight, the reason why nobody orders the A330-800.

Besides: As you said, Boeing will modernize the 767 anyways because of the freighter program. To certify a passenger version also is not that much more of an effort. I would call it really s....trange, if they would't do it.

regards

A.

But even without covid, this was almost a given?

The 777X is going to be the upper limit of Boeing's WB offering for a while and if Airbus wants to counter it, they're more likely to build an upgraded A350 than a new plane. The medium-sized market is filled by the 787/A330neo/A350, so which new WB was he expecting?

c933103 wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

As I see it, Boeing has the widebody market pretty well covered with the 788/9/J and 778/9. Airbus has their A339 and A359/J. Airbus probably has the bigger hole to fill in their market, but they have the A321LR/XLR, which fits all of the F, all of the J, and 70% of the Y of a 762 on something like half the fuel burn.

The last 20 years have been remarkable for commercial aviation with the advent of the 787, the longer-range 777s and then now the 77X, the A380, and the A350.

There are two obvious holes. The first is the gulf between the A321 and the 788. There should be a decent 763 replacement, meaning an aircraft that sits about 220-300 passengers and can fly 12 hours. The second obvious hole is the 737. The 737MAX is a dismal failure and even when they get it certified, it will be stained by the longest ground of any jet airliner. Moreover, the physical design of the 737 precludes LR/XLR variants.

So I think that Boeing needs to work on a 737 replacement and Airbus needs to figure out how to fill the gap between the A321 and the A339.

I'd say that Airbus would be in better position to developed such aircraft. Their A330neo is drying up in recent months because of the pandemic. They would need to think about its replacement in 2025 at least.

I don't think there are enough room between A321 and A359 to support a new widebody design, just as 797 couldn't be launched as a widebody

Surely a 200-250 seater with range around ~6,000nmi would be useful since Both Airbus and Boeing doesn't offer one.

B797 is too small and compete with A321XLR and it doesn't have enough range and capability to replace B767-300ER. It's a lose-lose design.

ewt340 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

I'd say that Airbus would be in better position to developed such aircraft. Their A330neo is drying up in recent months because of the pandemic. They would need to think about its replacement in 2025 at least.

I don't think there are enough room between A321 and A359 to support a new widebody design, just as 797 couldn't be launched as a widebody

Surely a 200-250 seater with range around ~6,000nmi would be useful since Both Airbus and Boeing doesn't offer one.

B797 is too small and compete with A321XLR and it doesn't have enough range and capability to replace B767-300ER. It's a lose-lose design.

Conversely, the fact that Airbus and Boeing have not made a 200-250 seater with 6000 nm range may indicate that they don't think the market is there. Something like the 762ER has been out of production for a long long time and is rarely seen in commercial service anymore - the market had a need for it but it wasn't a particularly large need. Certainly it wasn't a market large enough to justify its own purpose-designed aircraft (particularly at today's R&D costs).

It's why the 737 isn't a good long range aircraft (and will likely never be) - to give it that capability would screw up its performance on the missions it earns its bread and butter on. That's also why A321XLR might be too niche for its own good - it adds cost and weight to a mission that is kind of rare.

Airbus already sold about 600 XLRs. Do you still consider this too niche?

smithbs wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

I don't think there are enough room between A321 and A359 to support a new widebody design, just as 797 couldn't be launched as a widebody

Surely a 200-250 seater with range around ~6,000nmi would be useful since Both Airbus and Boeing doesn't offer one.

B797 is too small and compete with A321XLR and it doesn't have enough range and capability to replace B767-300ER. It's a lose-lose design.

Conversely, the fact that Airbus and Boeing have not made a 200-250 seater with 6000 nm range may indicate that they don't think the market is there. Something like the 762ER has been out of production for a long long time and is rarely seen in commercial service anymore - the market had a need for it but it wasn't a particularly large need. Certainly it wasn't a market large enough to justify its own purpose-designed aircraft (particularly at today's R&D costs).

It's why the 737 isn't a good long range aircraft (and will likely never be) - to give it that capability would screw up its performance on the missions it earns its bread and butter on. That's also why A321XLR might be too niche for its own good - it adds cost and weight to a mission that is kind of rare.