lightsaber wrote:

cpd wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

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

AlanG1302 wrote:

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

smithbs wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

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.

AlanG1302 wrote:

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

smithbs wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

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.

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.

ewt340 wrote:

smithbs wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

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.

Well they actually have A330-200 and A330-800neo which seats 240-260 seats. But it got too much range and capability that aircraft this size doesn't actually need.

So far we know B767-300ER is extremely successful with some airlines still operating it today. There is a proven market for such aircraft.

Airbus also have a big gap between A321XLR and A350-900. Unless they want to give all the market to Boeing, they have to counter with something.
Obviously designing a new aircraft to go head to head with B787 would be a suicide. So they have to focus on medium-haul market instead.

zeke wrote:

Even after being terminated don’t they go into 25% basic pay, free health care and accommodation until they leave the country ?

That’s the UAE sponsorship visa conditions isn’t it ?.

KingOrGod wrote:

zeke wrote:

Even after being terminated don’t they go into 25% basic pay, free health care and accommodation until they leave the country ?

That’s the UAE sponsorship visa conditions isn’t it ?.

I worked in a rich neighbouring emirate, and some time ago (before corona) when my contract was summarily terminated, they didn't even give me the agreed notice period. They terminated my visa and I had 8 days to sell up and leave otherwise face arrest. They play their own game there and one should realise they have no conscience with a lot of stuff. Play with fire, get burned. It's the ME all over. No ethics.

KingOrGod wrote:

zeke wrote:

Even after being terminated don’t they go into 25% basic pay, free health care and accommodation until they leave the country ?

That’s the UAE sponsorship visa conditions isn’t it ?.

I worked in a rich neighbouring emirate, and some time ago (before corona) when my contract was summarily terminated, they didn't even give me the agreed notice period. They terminated my visa and I had 8 days to sell up and leave otherwise face arrest. They play their own game there and one should realise they have no conscience with a lot of stuff. Play with fire, get burned. It's the ME all over. No ethics.

Revelation wrote:

PepeTheFrog wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I agree. 77X is right about where its business plan suggested it should be. 309 orders before EIS from blue chip customers around the world, many of whom are A350 customers, some of whom are A350-1000 customers. It found as good a degree of acceptance as I think could have been expected.

Hmm, 309 orders doesn't say much. If I may add some nuance: Emirates already trimmed its order backlog from 150 to 115 aircraft. Cathay Pacific is looking to defer deliveries, Lufthansa believes they have too many 777X on order and Etihad Airways is not in a position to take the aircraft but cannot get out of the contract. This "degree of acceptance" is lower then you might think.

Really, 309 orders are not a good degree of acceptance before EIS? For a point of comparison, A380 had 177 pax orders at EIS ( ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_A ... deliveries ) and that included the dubious Kingfisher and Virgin orders. It was also a clean sheet with a much bigger spend than 777x has, and where Airbus had the freedom to target any market segment they wanted since they had a blank check. Therefore I feel my statement is quite justified.

I think my comment should be read in the full context which I included above. If you were expecting 777x to have order books the size of 787 or A350 before EIS, then IMO you have unrealistic expectations.

PepeTheFrog wrote:

Revelation wrote:

PepeTheFrog wrote:

Hmm, 309 orders doesn't say much. If I may add some nuance: Emirates already trimmed its order backlog from 150 to 115 aircraft. Cathay Pacific is looking to defer deliveries, Lufthansa believes they have too many 777X on order and Etihad Airways is not in a position to take the aircraft but cannot get out of the contract. This "degree of acceptance" is lower then you might think.

Really, 309 orders are not a good degree of acceptance before EIS? For a point of comparison, A380 had 177 pax orders at EIS ( ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_A ... deliveries ) and that included the dubious Kingfisher and Virgin orders. It was also a clean sheet with a much bigger spend than 777x has, and where Airbus had the freedom to target any market segment they wanted since they had a blank check. Therefore I feel my statement is quite justified.

My point was that the real backlog is much smaller than 309 aircraft when you remove the shaky orders. The A380 got nothing to do with it.

I think my comment should be read in the full context which I included above. If you were expecting 777x to have order books the size of 787 or A350 before EIS, then IMO you have unrealistic expectations.

You should read the 777x threads on a.net from 2013, when the jet was launched. Many people predicted 600+ orders before EIS.

lightsaber wrote:

PepeTheFrog wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Really, 309 orders are not a good degree of acceptance before EIS? For a point of comparison, A380 had 177 pax orders at EIS ( ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_A ... deliveries ) and that included the dubious Kingfisher and Virgin orders. It was also a clean sheet with a much bigger spend than 777x has, and where Airbus had the freedom to target any market segment they wanted since they had a blank check. Therefore I feel my statement is quite justified.

My point was that the real backlog is much smaller than 309 aircraft when you remove the shaky orders. The A380 got nothing to do with it.

I think my comment should be read in the full context which I included above. If you were expecting 777x to have order books the size of 787 or A350 before EIS, then IMO you have unrealistic expectations.

You should read the 777x threads on a.net from 2013, when the jet was launched. Many people predicted 600+ orders before EIS.

We can agree the 777x needs more orders. In the mid-term, I expect Boeing to try to sell 777xFs. I'm starting to get scared on freight demand due to economic concerns.

Fans predicting orders has nothing to do with a business case.

EK must down size. That means fewer 779. The 778 business case is extra precarious.

But this is an EK thread, not 779 vs. A388.

Due to far more technology advance in the 779, I see a good future at EK. The trick is getting to say 2025.

Lightsaber

ewt340 wrote:

Interestingly enough, I just found out that they still have 18 B777-300ER on backlog. Which is mind blowing.

scbriml wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

Interestingly enough, I just found out that they still have 18 B777-300ER on backlog. Which is mind blowing.

Where did you find that? I believe it's incorrect. They have 115 x 777X and 30 x 787 outstanding with Boeing. Their last few 77Ws were cancelled as part of their order switch from 777s to 787s.

StTim wrote:

I agree the 777x is looking increasingly the wrong plane at the wrong time.

It will continue to burn money for years to come, if it is ever profitable.

Boeing is in a world of hurt at the moment with 737Max and Covid. The only really profitable plane they currently have is the 767 - who would have thought that.

It is also certainly not rosy at Airbus but I think they are in a better place and will also support their suppliers better.

Opus99 wrote:

StTim wrote:

I agree the 777x is looking increasingly the wrong plane at the wrong time.

It will continue to burn money for years to come, if it is ever profitable.

Boeing is in a world of hurt at the moment with 737Max and Covid. The only really profitable plane they currently have is the 767 - who would have thought that.

It is also certainly not rosy at Airbus but I think they are in a better place and will also support their suppliers better.

767? I think you mean 787!

x1234 wrote:

They should have switched to MIA as QR is successful there. I know FLL was chosen due to JetBlue connections to Latin America.

USAirALB wrote:

Not surprising. I do think this goes to show how the strength of MIA and how it is the preferred airport for intercontinental traffic. Outside of DY (and it's possible that they might not even resume service), all foreign long-haul carriers (SA/BA/EK) have all discontinued their FLL service.

It's interesting as I overwhelmingly prefer FLL to MIA, and FLL appears to be relatively popular amongst US leisure travelers thanks to the plethora of WN/B6/NK/G4 flights, but I wonder if FLL is simply more popular because of the US LCCs and because it is right next to Port Everglades, and I doubt international travelers were coming by the busload to take a cruise out of FLL.

USAirALB wrote:

Not surprising. I do think this goes to show how the strength of MIA and how it is the preferred airport for intercontinental traffic. Outside of DY (and it's possible that they might not even resume service), all foreign long-haul carriers (SA/BA/EK) have all discontinued their FLL service.

Bricktop wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

Not surprising. I do think this goes to show how the strength of MIA and how it is the preferred airport for intercontinental traffic. Outside of DY (and it's possible that they might not even resume service), all foreign long-haul carriers (SA/BA/EK) have all discontinued their FLL service.

Off the top of my head, the other only international longhaul I can think of is Azul, probably because of B6 as well. Air Canada and Bahamasair also go there, but for this discussion I wouldn't count them.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

American (next year) from there too.

MIflyer12 wrote:

What makes FLL inferior to MIA for O&D? It's not like ONT vs. LAX.

MIAFLLPBIFlyer wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

Not surprising. I do think this goes to show how the strength of MIA and how it is the preferred airport for intercontinental traffic. Outside of DY (and it's possible that they might not even resume service), all foreign long-haul carriers (SA/BA/EK) have all discontinued their FLL service.

Off the top of my head, the other only international longhaul I can think of is Azul, probably because of B6 as well. Air Canada and Bahamasair also go there, but for this discussion I wouldn't count them.

Avianca also. Azul is a unique case because they've become super-popular with the Brazilian VFR crowd based in Deerfield, Boca and Delray, so since that seems to have become Azul's base flier. FLL geographically makes more sense than MIA. Maybe the only case for an airline foreign or domestic that it makes more sense to fly to FLL than MIA geographically (The Canadian airlines are 6 of one, half dozen of the other. Maybe FLL slightly better for them but MIA not too cumbersome either).

Caribbean Airlines flies to both - the Trini & Jamaican community is more Central Broward than Dade, but not in Palm Beach. Central Broward to Miami drives are fine. It's the specific Brazilian pocket well north of FLL that Azul caters to.

MAH4546 wrote:

Never made sense to fly to FLL. When they return to South Florida it will certainly be to MIA.

klm617 wrote:

EK only flew to FLL because of their agreement with Jetblue.

Brickell305 wrote:

MIAFLLPBIFlyer wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Off the top of my head, the other only international longhaul I can think of is Azul, probably because of B6 as well. Air Canada and Bahamasair also go there, but for this discussion I wouldn't count them.

Avianca also. Azul is a unique case because they've become super-popular with the Brazilian VFR crowd based in Deerfield, Boca and Delray, so since that seems to have become Azul's base flier. FLL geographically makes more sense than MIA. Maybe the only case for an airline foreign or domestic that it makes more sense to fly to FLL than MIA geographically (The Canadian airlines are 6 of one, half dozen of the other. Maybe FLL slightly better for them but MIA not too cumbersome either).

Caribbean Airlines flies to both - the Trini & Jamaican community is more Central Broward than Dade, but not in Palm Beach. Central Broward to Miami drives are fine. It's the specific Brazilian pocket well north of FLL that Azul caters to.

CM also flew to both pre-COVID, though MIA got significantly more flights than FLL. BW has (I'm assuming temporarily as no announcement has been made) consolidated ops at MIA for the time being.

MAH4546 wrote:

Never made sense to fly to FLL. When they return to South Florida it will certainly be to MIA.

Agreed. I know some will say that's where the B6 connections are but those had to be marginal at best, especially when you look at the arrival time of the flight from DXB.

airbazar wrote:

klm617 wrote:

EK only flew to FLL because of their agreement with Jetblue.

EK was getting nothing out of JetBlue at FLL. They went to FLL because hardly anyone else was there. DY only had a couple of routes IIRC, and BA joined later. I know this is "permanent" but there's no such thing in this industry. I can see them return in a few years. Only question is whether it will be FLL or MIA.

dcajet wrote:

Buenos Aires EZE and Rio de Janeiro GIG have been dropped too. Santiago SCL was already announced a few weeks ago.

SurfandSnow wrote:

I was honestly shocked to see EK try service to FLL. "Fort Lauderdale" might be well known to Americans and Canadians, but probably far less so to Indians and Saudi Arabians. Sure, the airport is centrally located in the South Florida metropolitan area, but wouldn't many O&D pax - especially those at the front of the plane - want to be arriving as close to ritzy South Beach as possible (that is, at MIA)?

Sure, the B6 partnership was a consideration, but what does FLL offer that JFK does not? LIM and UIO? I highly doubt many EK pax were connecting onwards to Lima and Quito, let alone other B6 destinations like Aguadilla, Cartagena, Kingston and Port of Spain. I know that if I were connecting, I would much rather do so via JFK than FLL!

This cut isn't surprising at all. If B6 still doesn't want to serve MIA (with all their foreign partners you would think at the very least BOS/JFK-MIA would be a no-brainer, although I guess doing so now could jeopardize their partnership with AA) perhaps EK could fly there itself in the future. An airline as premium as EK does not belong at an airport as awful as FLL!

MIAFLLPBIFlyer wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

Not surprising. I do think this goes to show how the strength of MIA and how it is the preferred airport for intercontinental traffic. Outside of DY (and it's possible that they might not even resume service), all foreign long-haul carriers (SA/BA/EK) have all discontinued their FLL service.

Off the top of my head, the other only international longhaul I can think of is Azul, probably because of B6 as well. Air Canada and Bahamasair also go there, but for this discussion I wouldn't count them.

Avianca also. Azul is a unique case because they've become super-popular with the Brazilian VFR crowd based in Deerfield, Boca and Delray, so since that seems to have become Azul's base flier. FLL geographically makes more sense than MIA. Maybe the only case for an airline foreign or domestic that it makes more sense to fly to FLL than MIA geographically (The Canadian airlines are 6 of one, half dozen of the other. Maybe FLL slightly better for them but MIA not too cumbersome either).