User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14769
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Fri Feb 21, 2020 5:15 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
The A359 has a larger wing than the 789 with virtually identical engines in terms of thrust. As you know, the A359 has significantly more payload capability for that reason even though it is a much heavier aircraft.


The A359 carries more payload because the A359 MZFW is much higher than the 789 MZFW while the DOW is not that much greater than the 789, the MZFW-DOW drives the payload, not the wing size.

Think of a wing as a cantilevered beam, you can have two beams of the exact same size, and same weight, it is not the size or weight of the beam that determines the maximum load it can carry, it is determined by the strength of the beam. In fact if you were to make the 787 or A350 wings just out of concrete to the same shape, the concrete wing wouldn’t even be able to support its own weight let alone carry additional loads.

ElroyJetson wrote:
But as I keep saying, let's wait for the data.


You have said that on a number of posts on this thread and then taken a swipe at the A350 with numbers and opinions which have no factual basis. If you want the numbers to speak for themselves, stop posting.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Opus99
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Fri Feb 21, 2020 5:22 pm

Both aircrafts are fantastic I think but ultimately till it comes out with its figures no one really knows. Airlines have ordered the 777x for a variety of reasons. More so than the 35K. We don’t fully know why but they do. People talk with a lot of certainty but no hard data. But let’s see
 
morrisond
Posts: 2469
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:16 pm

StTim wrote:
morrisond wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:



https://leehamnews.com/2018/05/17/boein ... -carriers/

Also:
Per seat fuel burn: -1.5%
Per seat DoC: -1.2 ~ 1.5%
Aircraft trip cost: +11%
Seats per aircraft: 45 (+12%)
That's for a 7000+nm mission, should be close to the best case for the 779.

Best regards
Thomas


I think the 777X could do better than the above.

As I pointed out above - what isn't new on the 777X? People keep thinking this is a 777W with a new Wing and engines - but almost everything except for the shape of the nose and outer diameter of the Fuselage will be new. It will still be bleed air vs more electric however almost everything else will be an evolution of the 787.

They could do a lot better on weight than people are expecting. This is essentially an 787+ with 5 more years of design time in an 777 Wrapper.

Guy Norris had the OEW weight at 181T in 2018.


You think Leeham ignored those items in their analysis?

This is bar the weight assumption. In general early copies are notoriously overweight on most frames. As this is mostly a stretch then perhaps there is more chance it will not be at bit flabby at birth.


No - I think Boeing has been quiet on how much they actually changed to make sure they could slip it through on the same type certificate. This not just a stretch.

When you change the Wing/Wingbox, fuselage Ribs, skins (thickness probably changed), tail, gear and probably stringers you essentially have a whole new structure. One that isn't an Heavy 30 year old design.

They also would have had the numbers on the A359/1 in 2015/2016 and how good it was turning out to be so they would know what they have to shoot for.

This is there flagship so I would expect there best effort and A Team, B team was working on 787 Variants and unfortunately the C team is probably the one that did the MAX.

Now if in service it turns out to be just barely better than A351 then Boeing really should think about exiting the business. With 3-4 more years of design time they should be able to beat the A351 by more than 1.5% especially with Engines that are at least 1/2 a generation ahead.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Fri Feb 21, 2020 7:16 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
The Leeham analysis is interesting. Essentially Leeham is stating the 779 is more efficient than the 35K on both fuel and direct operating cost. This is attributed primarily to improved engine SFC of about 4% over the 35K.

However, this advantage quickly drops with decreased load factor. This is exactly what I would have assumed and directly contradicts our many Airbus fans in this thread.


It is the A380 trap, if you can fill it then it is great. If you cannot fill the seats then you are throwing money away compared to the A350. I don't think anyone has not been saying this when comparing the 777X to the A35K. There is a market for the 779, it is for the airlines that currently fly the 748 and A380 and need to replace their premium seats on the routes those aircraft are used. Then there is EK, who has a ton of 77W it will need to replace and the A380's eventually as well. So the extra premium seats the 779 can fit compared to the A35K will mean it will be better for those airlines.

But let's say EK decides to consolidate instead of grow as they have pretty much reached their growth potential, what could that mean? I could easily see them opting for the 78X and A35K as 77W replacements and the 779 as A380 replacements in their fleet. That way they would improve their load factors and fly fewer empty seats than currently. Just a thought.


morrisond wrote:
No - I think Boeing has been quiet on how much they actually changed to make sure they could slip it through on the same type certificate. This not just a stretch.

When you change the Wing/Wingbox, fuselage Ribs, skins (thickness probably changed), tail, gear and probably stringers you essentially have a whole new structure. One that isn't an Heavy 30 year old design.

They also would have had the numbers on the A359/1 in 2015/2016 and how good it was turning out to be so they would know what they have to shoot for.

This is there flagship so I would expect there best effort and A Team, B team was working on 787 Variants and unfortunately the C team is probably the one that did the MAX.

Now if in service it turns out to be just barely better than A351 then Boeing really should think about exiting the business. With 3-4 more years of design time they should be able to beat the A351 by more than 1.5% especially with Engines that are at least 1/2 a generation ahead.



Let me get this straight, you think Boeing is trying to sneak through a new aircraft past the regulators and pass it off as old (not much changes)? After the MAX screwed thousands out of their jobs and lost billions you think they should just go ahead and try the same crap with the 777X? What happened to changing the company culture? What about safety being one of their priorities?

In any case, if they really changed as much as you seem to think then the flight testing campaign will be longer than anticipated. This for a model they should be taking their time on in any case to show they actually take the safety thing seriously and aren't just lying and trying to "slip it through" without the proper scrutiny.
 
StTim
Posts: 3610
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Fri Feb 21, 2020 7:32 pm

I must admit I had to laugh at that line of thought. Slipping changes past the regulator!!
 
morrisond
Posts: 2469
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Fri Feb 21, 2020 7:37 pm

enzo011 wrote:
Let me get this straight, you think Boeing is trying to sneak through a new aircraft past the regulators and pass it off as old (not much changes)? After the MAX screwed thousands out of their jobs and lost billions you think they should just go ahead and try the same crap with the 777X? What happened to changing the company culture? What about safety being one of their priorities?

In any case, if they really changed as much as you seem to think then the flight testing campaign will be longer than anticipated. This for a model they should be taking their time on in any case to show they actually take the safety thing seriously and aren't just lying and trying to "slip it through" without the proper scrutiny.


Basically yes. That was their plan pre-MAX.

That of course has now changed as it will be heavily scrutinized and we are already learning that the flight campaign will probably be longer.

It is entirely different Aerodynamically and structurally - has an 787 Cockpit more or less and has adapted most of the 787 Avionics and even has 787 Smooth ride. Except for Bleed air vs more Electric it really is a 10W 787 with a bigger wing.

What is left from the 777W? I'm asking because I really want to know.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Fri Feb 21, 2020 8:08 pm

mig17 wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
The assumption you and Zeke are making that the 779 does not have a payload advantage over the 35K is not based on fact.


With no MTOW increase, or no surprisingly low DOW, no the 777-9 will not have better payload / range capability than the A35K. Fact is that the 779 is heavier than previous 77W it is based on but with the same already max out MTOW.
Fact : it is MZFW limited for max payload and MTOW limited on range.

ElroyJetson wrote:
As a number of posters have mentioned, a number of top tier airliners have ordered both. Perhaps that should give you pause?Many airlines have ordered both the A359 and 787. Real world data has confirmed within their respective roles both are excellent aircraft. If you choose to believe the 779 is inferior based on zero data that is certainly your right, but it does not add credibility to your opinion.

The same top tier airlines that are using small fleet of A380 for heavy premium and large fleet of 77W as workhorse.
We have data, maybe not up to date but official : 779 design range for standard config, MTOW, MZFW, ... We also have data on the 77W like OEW that can be extrapolate.
And to come back to your top tier comment, the number of 777-X customer is pretty low and the largest order just went down in favor of A359 ...



I said you have zero evidence that the 779 will not carry more payload than the 35K. I was very specific. I did not say payload range although that is unknown as well. If you have specific evidence to back up your claims by all means bring it forward.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Fri Feb 21, 2020 8:13 pm

zeke wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
The A359 has a larger wing than the 789 with virtually identical engines in terms of thrust. As you know, the A359 has significantly more payload capability for that reason even though it is a much heavier aircraft.


The A359 carries more payload because the A359 MZFW is much higher than the 789 MZFW while the DOW is not that much greater than the 789, the MZFW-DOW drives the payload, not the wing size.

Think of a wing as a cantilevered beam, you can have two beams of the exact same size, and same weight, it is not the size or weight of the beam that determines the maximum load it can carry, it is determined by the strength of the beam. In fact if you were to make the 787 or A350 wings just out of concrete to the same shape, the concrete wing wouldn’t even be able to support its own weight let alone carry additional loads.

ElroyJetson wrote:
But as I keep saying, let's wait for the data.


You have said that on a number of posts on this thread and then taken a swipe at the A350 with numbers and opinions which have no factual basis. If you want the numbers to speak for themselves, stop posting.



I have taken zero swipes at the 350 and in fact have been most positive. This is what I said.

"Many airlines have ordered both the A359 and 787. Real world data has confirmed within their respective roles both are excellent aircraft."


As usual you make things up. And wing provides lift that is basic aerodynamics. The smaller the wing, the less lift. It cannot be more basic. And your claim the A359 DOW is "not that much greater" than the 789 made me laugh. I guess 50,000lbs is not that much greater. :) Whatever. I wait for the numbers. Your bias is plain to see.
Last edited by ElroyJetson on Fri Feb 21, 2020 8:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3378
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Fri Feb 21, 2020 8:32 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:

As usual you make things up. And wing provides lift that is basic aerodynamics. The smaller the wing, the less lift. It cannot be more basic.

Does the 779X produce more lift than the 77W?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Fri Feb 21, 2020 8:43 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:

As usual you make things up. And wing provides lift that is basic aerodynamics. The smaller the wing, the less lift. It cannot be more basic.

Does the 779X produce more lift than the 77W?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I have not seen an analysis yet. Maybe you have. Wing area on the 77W is 436.8 m2. The 779 wing area is 516.7 m2. Would you assume Boeing would go to the expense of folding wing tips to produce a new wing that is less efficient? What would your speculation be?
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 206
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Fri Feb 21, 2020 8:50 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
zeke wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
The A359 has a larger wing than the 789 with virtually identical engines in terms of thrust. As you know, the A359 has significantly more payload capability for that reason even though it is a much heavier aircraft.


The A359 carries more payload because the A359 MZFW is much higher than the 789 MZFW while the DOW is not that much greater than the 789, the MZFW-DOW drives the payload, not the wing size.

Think of a wing as a cantilevered beam, you can have two beams of the exact same size, and same weight, it is not the size or weight of the beam that determines the maximum load it can carry, it is determined by the strength of the beam. In fact if you were to make the 787 or A350 wings just out of concrete to the same shape, the concrete wing wouldn’t even be able to support its own weight let alone carry additional loads.

ElroyJetson wrote:
But as I keep saying, let's wait for the data.


You have said that on a number of posts on this thread and then taken a swipe at the A350 with numbers and opinions which have no factual basis. If you want the numbers to speak for themselves, stop posting.



I have taken zero swipes at the 350 and in fact have been most positive. This is what I said.

"Many airlines have ordered both the A359 and 787. Real world data has confirmed within their respective roles both are excellent aircraft."


As usual you make things up. And wing provides lift that is basic aerodynamics. The smaller the wing, the less lift. It cannot be more basic. And your claim the A359 DOW is "not that much greater" than the 789 made me laugh. I guess 50,000lbs is not that much greater. :) Whatever. I wait for the numbers. Your bias is plain to see.

Where exactly is a A359 ~22t heavier than a 789 regarding DOW? 789 DOW is gonna be ~127-132t, A359 DOW is gonna be ~134t-139t. Regarding a A35K to a 789, then yes 20 ish tons is reasonable.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Fri Feb 21, 2020 9:00 pm

DylanHarvey wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
zeke wrote:

The A359 carries more payload because the A359 MZFW is much higher than the 789 MZFW while the DOW is not that much greater than the 789, the MZFW-DOW drives the payload, not the wing size.

Think of a wing as a cantilevered beam, you can have two beams of the exact same size, and same weight, it is not the size or weight of the beam that determines the maximum load it can carry, it is determined by the strength of the beam. In fact if you were to make the 787 or A350 wings just out of concrete to the same shape, the concrete wing wouldn’t even be able to support its own weight let alone carry additional loads.



You have said that on a number of posts on this thread and then taken a swipe at the A350 with numbers and opinions which have no factual basis. If you want the numbers to speak for themselves, stop posting.



I have taken zero swipes at the 350 and in fact have been most positive. This is what I said.

"Many airlines have ordered both the A359 and 787. Real world data has confirmed within their respective roles both are excellent aircraft."


As usual you make things up. And wing provides lift that is basic aerodynamics. The smaller the wing, the less lift. It cannot be more basic. And your claim the A359 DOW is "not that much greater" than the 789 made me laugh. I guess 50,000lbs is not that much greater. :) Whatever. I wait for the numbers. Your bias is plain to see.

Where exactly is a A359 ~22t heavier than a 789 regarding DOW? 789 DOW is gonna be ~127-132t, A359 DOW is gonna be ~134t-139t. Regarding a A35K to a 789, then yes 20 ish tons is reasonable.


My mistake. OEW is 50,000 lbs. 789 is 264,000 OEW. The 359 is 314,000 OEW. My point is even though the 359 is a much heavier aircraft it has greater payload capability. It also has a larger wing. To imply the greater wing area does not improve payload performance is simply not true.

Btw.....wing area of the 789 is 377 m2. The A359 is 442 m2. All the data shows the A 359 can carry more payload farther than the 789. But, hey the wing has nothing to do with it....right? :).

But if course the trade off is the additional structural weight of the larger wing. The exact same factors that are in play with the 789 A359 comparison are in play with the 35K 779 comparison.
Last edited by ElroyJetson on Fri Feb 21, 2020 9:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3378
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Fri Feb 21, 2020 9:01 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:

As usual you make things up. And wing provides lift that is basic aerodynamics. The smaller the wing, the less lift. It cannot be more basic.

Does the 779X produce more lift than the 77W?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I have not seen an analysis yet. Maybe you have. Wing area on the 77W is 436.8 m2. The 779 wing area is 516.7 m2. Would you assume Boeing would go to the expense of folding wing tips to produce a new wing that is less efficient? What would your speculation be?

I’m hoping it produces about the same, otherwise the certification process will take a long long time, the looping will take some getting past the FAA.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Fri Feb 21, 2020 9:10 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Does the 779X produce more lift than the 77W?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I have not seen an analysis yet. Maybe you have. Wing area on the 77W is 436.8 m2. The 779 wing area is 516.7 m2. Would you assume Boeing would go to the expense of folding wing tips to produce a new wing that is less efficient? What would your speculation be?

I’m hoping it produces about the same, otherwise the certification process will take a long long time, the looping will take some getting past the FAA.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Fred, I honestly don't know. I would assume due to the complexity of the folding wing tip mechanism and the new use of composites the 779 basically has a new wing. How that impacts the certification process i don't know. I do know Boeing said early on the new wing would be lighter due to composites ( about 5,000 lbs as I recall) and more efficient.

I think it is safe to say the larger wing will improve payload and cruise performance, but as always i will wait for the data.

Regards.
Last edited by ElroyJetson on Fri Feb 21, 2020 9:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 206
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Fri Feb 21, 2020 9:16 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:


I have taken zero swipes at the 350 and in fact have been most positive. This is what I said.

"Many airlines have ordered both the A359 and 787. Real world data has confirmed within their respective roles both are excellent aircraft."


As usual you make things up. And wing provides lift that is basic aerodynamics. The smaller the wing, the less lift. It cannot be more basic. And your claim the A359 DOW is "not that much greater" than the 789 made me laugh. I guess 50,000lbs is not that much greater. :) Whatever. I wait for the numbers. Your bias is plain to see.

Where exactly is a A359 ~22t heavier than a 789 regarding DOW? 789 DOW is gonna be ~127-132t, A359 DOW is gonna be ~134t-139t. Regarding a A35K to a 789, then yes 20 ish tons is reasonable.


My mistake. OEW is 50,000 lbs. 789 is 264,000 OEW. The 359 is 314,000 OEW. My point is even though the 359 is a much heavier aircraft it has greater payload capability. It also has a larger wing. To imply the greater wing area does not improve payload performance is simply not true.

Btw.....wing area of the 789 is 377 m2. The A359 is 442 m2. All the data shows the A 359 can carry more payload farther than the 789. But, hey the wing has nothing to do with it....right? :).

But if course the trade off is the additional structural weight of the larger wing. The exact same factors that are in play with the 789 A359 comparison are in play with the 35K 779 comparison.

Yeah that’s correct. 789 has a much lighter frame, 359 will take more stuff, the wing allows that higher weight, and negates fuel burn differences.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Fri Feb 21, 2020 9:20 pm

DylanHarvey wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
Where exactly is a A359 ~22t heavier than a 789 regarding DOW? 789 DOW is gonna be ~127-132t, A359 DOW is gonna be ~134t-139t. Regarding a A35K to a 789, then yes 20 ish tons is reasonable.


My mistake. OEW is 50,000 lbs. 789 is 264,000 OEW. The 359 is 314,000 OEW. My point is even though the 359 is a much heavier aircraft it has greater payload capability. It also has a larger wing. To imply the greater wing area does not improve payload performance is simply not true.

Btw.....wing area of the 789 is 377 m2. The A359 is 442 m2. All the data shows the A 359 can carry more payload farther than the 789. But, hey the wing has nothing to do with it....right? :).

But if course the trade off is the additional structural weight of the larger wing. The exact same factors that are in play with the 789 A359 comparison are in play with the 35K 779 comparison.

Yeah that’s correct. 789 has a much lighter frame, 359 will take more stuff, the wing allows that higher weight, and negates fuel burn differences.



I 100% agree with your statement.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2953
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Fri Feb 21, 2020 10:03 pm

Tommy1808 wrote:
https://leehamnews.com/2018/05/17/boein ... -carriers/

Also:
Per seat fuel burn: -1.5%
Per seat DoC: -1.2 ~ 1.5%
Aircraft trip cost: +11%
Seats per aircraft: 45 (+12%)
That's for a 7000+nm mission, should be close to the best case for the 779.


Thanks, those are different numbers than I recall from earlier Leeham analyses.
If true it puts the 777-9 in a really bad light: that's >80% marginal capacity cost.

One caveat is the seat numbers. IIRC past Leeham analysis had ~15% more seats in the 777-9. This seems more accurate:

  • 779 is 6.2% longer between door centerlines.
  • 779 cabin is ~6.5% wider
  • therefore 779 has ~13% more cabin area
  • 779's Y seating is ~ 5% more space-efficient
  • Taken together, these should give ~15% higher seating capacity than A35K

I would guess Bjorn's analysis has both the A35K and 779 with 7ab EK J-class at identical pitches. That works against the 777-9 because its wider cabin is useless for half the length. By contrast, herringbone seats and United's Polaris "herringline" seats use shorter pitch in wider cabins.

With 15% more seats rather than 12%, the CASM difference increases closer to 5%. That would be the true apples-apples comparison for airlines that don't use EK's archaic J seating, like CX and LH.

...which is still not superb, and will still mean, IMO, that Boeing will lose money overall on the 777X program.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Fri Feb 21, 2020 10:31 pm

sabby wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:

My source is Leeham's analysis (Bjorn's), which is behind a paywall and I'm no longer a subscriber.

Plus the simple fact that the 777-9 has been ordered at all tells me it's more efficient than A35K. With limited exceptions, airlines don't order larger planes unless they're more efficient.

I think that's pretty noteworthy.

I posted about the overlap between current A350 customers and future 77x customers earlier.

We're told to trust that airlines have more accurate modeling than our back of the napkin scribbles, yet those airlines who would have every reason to just add more A350s are also taking 779s.

We will be told this is just posturing, but getting an order on the books implies a lot of work on behalf of the airlines and a financial commitment that is difficult to erase as well.

Apparently the airlines see value in 779 that people here can't seem to understand.


It is quite telling that all the airlines who ordered the 777-9 operate F. Even if a widebody airliner had the CASM of A321/Max200, they won't be chosen if they are unable to carry the number of high revenue seats airlines desire. If you look at the current long haul 77W configs of those airlines, except the ME airlines, all of them seat < 300, some even < 250. They need the additional space of 777-9. This does not mean 777-9 will have better/worse CASM, but I think CASM was probably the last requirement for choosing 777-9 over A35K (ok, maybe except EK).


This really seems like a strawman argument. The actual claim is that using whatever routes/distances the airline feels are important, using the seat configuration the airline is going to use, the costs of running those flights is very important to the airline. And I really do think that the cost of running the planes i important. Otherwise, we'd still be flying around in DC-9s and A340s.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9387
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Fri Feb 21, 2020 10:37 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
Tommy1808 wrote:
https://leehamnews.com/2018/05/17/boein ... -carriers/

Also:
Per seat fuel burn: -1.5%
Per seat DoC: -1.2 ~ 1.5%
Aircraft trip cost: +11%
Seats per aircraft: 45 (+12%)
That's for a 7000+nm mission, should be close to the best case for the 779.


Thanks, those are different numbers than I recall from earlier Leeham analyses.
If true it puts the 777-9 in a really bad light: that's >80% marginal capacity cost.

One caveat is the seat numbers. IIRC past Leeham analysis had ~15% more seats in the 777-9. This seems more accurate:

  • 779 is 6.2% longer between door centerlines.
  • 779 cabin is ~6.5% wider
  • therefore 779 has ~13% more cabin area
  • 779's Y seating is ~ 5% more space-efficient
  • Taken together, these should give ~15% higher seating capacity than A35K

I would guess Bjorn's analysis has both the A35K and 779 with 7ab EK J-class at identical pitches. That works against the 777-9 because its wider cabin is useless for half the length. By contrast, herringbone seats and United's Polaris "herringline" seats use shorter pitch in wider cabins.

With 15% more seats rather than 12%, the CASM difference increases closer to 5%. That would be the true apples-apples comparison for airlines that don't use EK's archaic J seating, like CX and LH.

...which is still not superb, and will still mean, IMO, that Boeing will lose money overall on the 777X program.


The 5 % more space efficient is an opinion not a fact.
There are two factors you ignore. Premium cabin can end up more efficient or less efficient using the space on the 777-9. You have to calculate each real world set up. Shortening the used space slightly each row, does not make any advantage, if you end up with winning only part of a row.
The 777-9 cabin narrows in the tail. It could make it less efficient in regards to economy seat rows.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Fri Feb 21, 2020 10:39 pm

olle wrote:
The big advantage for the A350 1000 is not the 1000 but the 900 and the production of 8-10 per month.

I would be surprised if 779 now when 778 is more or less still born, can reachmore then 3-5 per month.

The cost of producing the 350 should be lower special considering the major investment the 777x represent because of the numbers of production.


I think that's very interesting. Is there any evidence that the 777X costs less (per seat or some other metric) that the A35K?
 
heavymetal
Posts: 4584
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Fri Feb 21, 2020 10:48 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
Tommy1808 wrote:
https://leehamnews.com/2018/05/17/boein ... -carriers/

Also:
Per seat fuel burn: -1.5%
Per seat DoC: -1.2 ~ 1.5%
Aircraft trip cost: +11%
Seats per aircraft: 45 (+12%)
That's for a 7000+nm mission, should be close to the best case for the 779.


Thanks, those are different numbers than I recall from earlier Leeham analyses.
If true it puts the 777-9 in a really bad light: that's >80% marginal capacity cost.

One caveat is the seat numbers. IIRC past Leeham analysis had ~15% more seats in the 777-9. This seems more accurate:

  • 779 is 6.2% longer between door centerlines.
  • 779 cabin is ~6.5% wider
  • therefore 779 has ~13% more cabin area
  • 779's Y seating is ~ 5% more space-efficient
  • Taken together, these should give ~15% higher seating capacity than A35K

I would guess Bjorn's analysis has both the A35K and 779 with 7ab EK J-class at identical pitches. That works against the 777-9 because its wider cabin is useless for half the length. By contrast, herringbone seats and United's Polaris "herringline" seats use shorter pitch in wider cabins.

With 15% more seats rather than 12%, the CASM difference increases closer to 5%. That would be the true apples-apples comparison for airlines that don't use EK's archaic J seating, like CX and LH.

...which is still not superb, and will still mean, IMO, that Boeing will lose money overall on the 777X program.


This is exactly correct, and this marginal capacity cost is one of the most impactful metrics in aircraft comparisons. Using the operating costs as the basis, it gives you the exact level of RASM/fare discount a carrier can stomach on the extra seats for the larger aircraft in order to generate the same profit margin. The 777-9 will not be able to stomach a large discount on the extra seats it offers, which makes it less attractive.

Multiple large, blue chip airlines use this metric as their primary tool for fleet comparisons and quick analyses.
 
Opus99
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Fri Feb 21, 2020 10:55 pm

So many people have really analysed the 777x with no concrete facts all estimates. But okay. I’m just wondering how 8 world leading airlines can make the decision to back the aircraft in the numbers that they have but somehow we’ve been able to crack the planes inability here on an Internet forum.

However your arguments do make sense. There must be something Boeing isn’t saying about the 777x that it’s telling customers which we the public haven’t been updated to yet but let’s see
 
morrisond
Posts: 2469
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Fri Feb 21, 2020 11:17 pm

Opus99 wrote:
So many people have really analysed the 777x with no concrete facts all estimates. But okay. I’m just wondering how 8 world leading airlines can make the decision to back the aircraft in the numbers that they have but somehow we’ve been able to crack the planes inability here on an Internet forum


Basically because people keep thinking of it as a derivative and not as a clean sheet. The Analogy of it being what the 359 is to the 789 is very appropriate. I think we will all be surprised how much it will be able to lift. Hence why we have heard 777-10 rumours.

If you look at Cathay Pacific A351 and 777W seat maps - you can quickly come to the conclusion that the 779 will have 50-60+ more seats (18%) vs 20-30 more seats.

155T plus 18% is 183T - two years ago the rumour was that it was 181 T - if they shaved a few off that it could be even lighter per seat with one very large wing and engines with better SFC. Just like 359 vs 789.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2953
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Fri Feb 21, 2020 11:19 pm

HeavyMetal wrote:
Multiple large, blue chip airlines use this metric [marginal capacity cost] as their primary tool for fleet comparisons and quick analyses.


Really? Do you have a cite for this? I've been trying to force this metric on A.net since ~2015 but nobody else uses it here.
 
StTim
Posts: 3610
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Fri Feb 21, 2020 11:23 pm

morrisond wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
So many people have really analysed the 777x with no concrete facts all estimates. But okay. I’m just wondering how 8 world leading airlines can make the decision to back the aircraft in the numbers that they have but somehow we’ve been able to crack the planes inability here on an Internet forum


Basically because people keep thinking of it as a derivative and not as a clean sheet. The Analogy of it being what the 359 is to the 789 is very appropriate. I think we will all be surprised how much it will be able to lift. Hence why we have heard 777-10 rumours.

If you look at Cathay Pacific A351 and 777W seat maps - you can quickly come to the conclusion that the 779 will have 50-60+ more seats (18%) vs 20-30 more seats.

155T plus 18% is 183T - two years ago the rumour was that it was 181 T - if they shaved a few off that it could be even lighter per seat with one very large wing and engines with better SFC. Just like 359 vs 789.


Speculation 101 being produced as fact.

Funny how A35K figures are disputed but people can throw figures showing the magical properties of this clean sheet 777X and they are absolute facts.

The level of debate from some on here is hilarious.
 
Opus99
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Fri Feb 21, 2020 11:52 pm

StTim wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
So many people have really analysed the 777x with no concrete facts all estimates. But okay. I’m just wondering how 8 world leading airlines can make the decision to back the aircraft in the numbers that they have but somehow we’ve been able to crack the planes inability here on an Internet forum


Basically because people keep thinking of it as a derivative and not as a clean sheet. The Analogy of it being what the 359 is to the 789 is very appropriate. I think we will all be surprised how much it will be able to lift. Hence why we have heard 777-10 rumours.

If you look at Cathay Pacific A351 and 777W seat maps - you can quickly come to the conclusion that the 779 will have 50-60+ more seats (18%) vs 20-30 more seats.

155T plus 18% is 183T - two years ago the rumour was that it was 181 T - if they shaved a few off that it could be even lighter per seat with one very large wing and engines with better SFC. Just like 359 vs 789.


Speculation 101 being produced as fact.

Funny how A35K figures are disputed but people can throw figures showing the magical properties of this clean sheet 777X and they are absolute facts.

The level of debate from some on here is hilarious.

Figures that dispute its ability are just as hilarious because we simply do not know them. Like really
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 337
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 12:02 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
I would assume due to the complexity of the folding wing tip mechanism

Folding wingtip tech is often compared to the complexity of a FLAP!!
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
StTim
Posts: 3610
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 12:38 am

Opus99 wrote:
StTim wrote:
morrisond wrote:

Basically because people keep thinking of it as a derivative and not as a clean sheet. The Analogy of it being what the 359 is to the 789 is very appropriate. I think we will all be surprised how much it will be able to lift. Hence why we have heard 777-10 rumours.

If you look at Cathay Pacific A351 and 777W seat maps - you can quickly come to the conclusion that the 779 will have 50-60+ more seats (18%) vs 20-30 more seats.

155T plus 18% is 183T - two years ago the rumour was that it was 181 T - if they shaved a few off that it could be even lighter per seat with one very large wing and engines with better SFC. Just like 359 vs 789.


Speculation 101 being produced as fact.

Funny how A35K figures are disputed but people can throw figures showing the magical properties of this clean sheet 777X and they are absolute facts.

The level of debate from some on here is hilarious.

Figures that dispute its ability are just as hilarious because we simply do not know them. Like really


I agree positive and negative speculation is meaningless.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2469
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 1:58 am

StTim wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
So many people have really analysed the 777x with no concrete facts all estimates. But okay. I’m just wondering how 8 world leading airlines can make the decision to back the aircraft in the numbers that they have but somehow we’ve been able to crack the planes inability here on an Internet forum


Basically because people keep thinking of it as a derivative and not as a clean sheet. The Analogy of it being what the 359 is to the 789 is very appropriate. I think we will all be surprised how much it will be able to lift. Hence why we have heard 777-10 rumours.

If you look at Cathay Pacific A351 and 777W seat maps - you can quickly come to the conclusion that the 779 will have 50-60+ more seats (18%) vs 20-30 more seats.

155T plus 18% is 183T - two years ago the rumour was that it was 181 T - if they shaved a few off that it could be even lighter per seat with one very large wing and engines with better SFC. Just like 359 vs 789.


Speculation 101 being produced as fact.

Funny how A35K figures are disputed but people can throw figures showing the magical properties of this clean sheet 777X and they are absolute facts.

The level of debate from some on here is hilarious.


Yes it is speculation - but the question still remains - what didn't they touch in the redesign?
 
morrisond
Posts: 2469
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 1:59 am

StTim wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
StTim wrote:

Speculation 101 being produced as fact.

Funny how A35K figures are disputed but people can throw figures showing the magical properties of this clean sheet 777X and they are absolute facts.

The level of debate from some on here is hilarious.

Figures that dispute its ability are just as hilarious because we simply do not know them. Like really


I agree positive and negative speculation is meaningless.


Then don't participate and criticize others.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7086
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 2:17 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:


I have taken zero swipes at the 350 and in fact have been most positive. This is what I said.

"Many airlines have ordered both the A359 and 787. Real world data has confirmed within their respective roles both are excellent aircraft."


As usual you make things up. And wing provides lift that is basic aerodynamics. The smaller the wing, the less lift. It cannot be more basic. And your claim the A359 DOW is "not that much greater" than the 789 made me laugh. I guess 50,000lbs is not that much greater. :) Whatever. I wait for the numbers. Your bias is plain to see.

Where exactly is a A359 ~22t heavier than a 789 regarding DOW? 789 DOW is gonna be ~127-132t, A359 DOW is gonna be ~134t-139t. Regarding a A35K to a 789, then yes 20 ish tons is reasonable.


My mistake. OEW is 50,000 lbs. 789 is 264,000 OEW. The 359 is 314,000 OEW. My point is even though the 359 is a much heavier aircraft it has greater payload capability. It also has a larger wing. To imply the greater wing area does not improve payload performance is simply not true.

Btw.....wing area of the 789 is 377 m2. The A359 is 442 m2. All the data shows the A 359 can carry more payload farther than the 789. But, hey the wing has nothing to do with it....right? :).

But if course the trade off is the additional structural weight of the larger wing. The exact same factors that are in play with the 789 A359 comparison are in play with the 35K 779 comparison.


I don't know where you are getting your weights from, but the 787-9 OEW is not 264,000lb
That's 120 tonnes, and is almost certainly the OEW of the 787-8.
When Boeing originally published OEW data for the 787-9 it was around 129 tonnes, or 285,000lb (wiki says 284,000lb)

OEW of the A350 should be around 136-137 tonnes, or around 300,000lb

Take a look at this Youtube video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVM8XZaZ5ok

At about 33 seconds you can see the DOW of this LATAM A350 published as139,575kg (307,000lb)
Which pretty much corroborates an OEW of about 136 tonnes.

The difference in OEW between a 787-9 and A359 should be about 15,000lb, not 50,000lb

Rgds
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 2:41 am

astuteman wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
Where exactly is a A359 ~22t heavier than a 789 regarding DOW? 789 DOW is gonna be ~127-132t, A359 DOW is gonna be ~134t-139t. Regarding a A35K to a 789, then yes 20 ish tons is reasonable.


My mistake. OEW is 50,000 lbs. 789 is 264,000 OEW. The 359 is 314,000 OEW. My point is even though the 359 is a much heavier aircraft it has greater payload capability. It also has a larger wing. To imply the greater wing area does not improve payload performance is simply not true.

Btw.....wing area of the 789 is 377 m2. The A359 is 442 m2. All the data shows the A 359 can carry more payload farther than the 789. But, hey the wing has nothing to do with it....right? :).

But if course the trade off is the additional structural weight of the larger wing. The exact same factors that are in play with the 789 A359 comparison are in play with the 35K 779 comparison.


I don't know where you are getting your weights from, but the 787-9 OEW is not 264,000lb
That's 120 tonnes, and is almost certainly the OEW of the 787-8.
When Boeing originally published OEW data for the 787-9 it was around 129 tonnes, or 285,000lb (wiki says 284,000lb)

OEW of the A350 should be around 136-137 tonnes, or around 300,000lb

Take a look at this Youtube video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVM8XZaZ5ok

At about 33 seconds you can see the DOW of this LATAM A350 published as139,575kg (307,000lb)
Which pretty much corroborates an OEW of about 136 tonnes.

The difference in OEW between a 787-9 and A359 should be about 15,000lb, not 50,000lb

Rgds



Looks like we're both wrong. Since you cited wiki I provided links. The typical OEW from the A359 is 314,000 lbs. That is exactly what I said. Please check the Wiki link to verify I am correct. I could have said 320,000 which is a number on the high end but I wanted to be fair. However I looked too quickly at the 787 numbers. The OEW of the 788 is 264,000 and the 789 is 284,000. So the 789 is 30,000 lbs lighter than the 359 to be absolutely precise. You said the weight difference was only 15,000lbs. I said 50,000lbs. The difference is in the middle.

However, that does not change the point I was making. The 359 is much heavier than the 789 yet carries significantly more payload. The additional structural weight of the 359 is no doubt in large part due to the much bigger wing. The exact same thing can be said of the comparison between the 779 and 35K. Yet some here would have you believe the much larger wing and more powerful engines of the 779 would not allow for more payload than the 77W which is a 25 year old design at this point.

Wiki lists the preliminary payload the 779 as 162,000 lbs. The 35K according to wiki lists a max payload pf 150,000 lbs. According to some the 35K payload has improved slightly since inception. I guess we'll have to see how the 779 does once flight tests are complete.


Listed OEW of the 359.


142.4 t (314,000 lb) typical


Listed OEW of the 789

284,000 lb / 128,850 kg



As you can see the 789 is exactly 30,000 lbs lighter than the 359.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A350_XWB

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
astuteman
Posts: 7086
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 3:10 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
astuteman wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:

My mistake. OEW is 50,000 lbs. 789 is 264,000 OEW. The 359 is 314,000 OEW. My point is even though the 359 is a much heavier aircraft it has greater payload capability. It also has a larger wing. To imply the greater wing area does not improve payload performance is simply not true.

Btw.....wing area of the 789 is 377 m2. The A359 is 442 m2. All the data shows the A 359 can carry more payload farther than the 789. But, hey the wing has nothing to do with it....right? :).

But if course the trade off is the additional structural weight of the larger wing. The exact same factors that are in play with the 789 A359 comparison are in play with the 35K 779 comparison.


I don't know where you are getting your weights from, but the 787-9 OEW is not 264,000lb
That's 120 tonnes, and is almost certainly the OEW of the 787-8.
When Boeing originally published OEW data for the 787-9 it was around 129 tonnes, or 285,000lb (wiki says 284,000lb)

OEW of the A350 should be around 136-137 tonnes, or around 300,000lb

Take a look at this Youtube video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVM8XZaZ5ok

At about 33 seconds you can see the DOW of this LATAM A350 published as139,575kg (307,000lb)
Which pretty much corroborates an OEW of about 136 tonnes.

The difference in OEW between a 787-9 and A359 should be about 15,000lb, not 50,000lb

Rgds



Looks like we're both wrong. Since you cited wiki I provided links. The typical OEW from the A359 is 314,000 lbs. That is exactly what I said. Please check the Wiki link to verify I am correct. I could have said 320,000 which is a number on the high end but I wanted to be fair. However I looked too quickly at the 787 numbers. The OEW of the 788 is 264,000 and the 789 is 284,000. So the 789 is 30,000 lbs lighter than the 359 to be absolutely precise. You said the weight difference was only 15,000lbs. I said 50,000lbs. The difference is in the middle.

However, that does not change the point I was making. The 359 is much heavier than the 789 yet carries significantly more payload. The additional structural weight of the 359 is no doubt in large part due to the much bigger wing. The exact same thing can be said of the comparison between the 779 and 35K. Yet some here would have you believe the much larger wing and more powerful engines of the 779 would not allow for more payload than the 77W which is a 25 year old design at this point.

Wiki lists the preliminary payload the 779 as 162,000 lbs. The 35K according to wiki lists a max payload pf 150,000 lbs. According to some the 35K payload has improved slightly since inception. I guess we'll have to see how the 779 does once flight tests are complete.


Listed OEW of the 359.


142.4 t (314,000 lb) typical


Listed OEW of the 789

284,000 lb / 128,850 kg



As you can see the 789 is exactly 30,000 lbs lighter than the 359.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A350_XWB

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner


As you can see from the data provided for a REAL A350-900, Wiki can be wrong :)

Rgds
 
ILikeTrains
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 3:18 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 3:47 am

Correct me if this was a dumb way of doing this. Those numbers look roughly correct based on my assumption.

Used the A359 ACAPS, the MZFW for WV009 (197.2T), minus what the max payload looked like on the the payload range chart (~53T) so that gets ~ 144T

Then looked at the payload-range chart for the 787-9, and figured ~127T at 0 payload and 0 fuel.

Again, not sure if that is a sound approximation of OEW, as I could not find it on either ACAPS.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 3:48 am

astuteman wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
astuteman wrote:

I don't know where you are getting your weights from, but the 787-9 OEW is not 264,000lb
That's 120 tonnes, and is almost certainly the OEW of the 787-8.
When Boeing originally published OEW data for the 787-9 it was around 129 tonnes, or 285,000lb (wiki says 284,000lb)

OEW of the A350 should be around 136-137 tonnes, or around 300,000lb

Take a look at this Youtube video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVM8XZaZ5ok

At about 33 seconds you can see the DOW of this LATAM A350 published as139,575kg (307,000lb)
Which pretty much corroborates an OEW of about 136 tonnes.

The difference in OEW between a 787-9 and A359 should be about 15,000lb, not 50,000lb

Rgds



Looks like we're both wrong. Since you cited wiki I provided links. The typical OEW from the A359 is 314,000 lbs. That is exactly what I said. Please check the Wiki link to verify I am correct. I could have said 320,000 which is a number on the high end but I wanted to be fair. However I looked too quickly at the 787 numbers. The OEW of the 788 is 264,000 and the 789 is 284,000. So the 789 is 30,000 lbs lighter than the 359 to be absolutely precise. You said the weight difference was only 15,000lbs. I said 50,000lbs. The difference is in the middle.

However, that does not change the point I was making. The 359 is much heavier than the 789 yet carries significantly more payload. The additional structural weight of the 359 is no doubt in large part due to the much bigger wing. The exact same thing can be said of the comparison between the 779 and 35K. Yet some here would have you believe the much larger wing and more powerful engines of the 779 would not allow for more payload than the 77W which is a 25 year old design at this point.

Wiki lists the preliminary payload the 779 as 162,000 lbs. The 35K according to wiki lists a max payload pf 150,000 lbs. According to some the 35K payload has improved slightly since inception. I guess we'll have to see how the 779 does once flight tests are complete.


Listed OEW of the 359.


142.4 t (314,000 lb) typical


Listed OEW of the 789

284,000 lb / 128,850 kg



As you can see the 789 is exactly 30,000 lbs lighter than the 359.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A350_XWB

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner


As you can see from the data provided for a REAL A350-900, Wiki can be wrong :)

Rgds



As you can see the A359 has a range of OEW with 314,000 lbs listed as typical. That is precisely what I said. Some airlines may choose a lower OEW based on options, some may pick a higher. That is why the word typical was used. If you choose to pick a low ball number to suit your argument fine. I will pick the high number listed of 320,000 lbs. Therefore the weight difference is 36,000 lbs with the 789 being that much lighter than the A359. See what I did there. :)
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
majano
Posts: 243
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 4:34 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
astuteman wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:


Looks like we're both wrong. Since you cited wiki I provided links. The typical OEW from the A359 is 314,000 lbs. That is exactly what I said. Please check the Wiki link to verify I am correct. I could have said 320,000 which is a number on the high end but I wanted to be fair. However I looked too quickly at the 787 numbers. The OEW of the 788 is 264,000 and the 789 is 284,000. So the 789 is 30,000 lbs lighter than the 359 to be absolutely precise. You said the weight difference was only 15,000lbs. I said 50,000lbs. The difference is in the middle.

However, that does not change the point I was making. The 359 is much heavier than the 789 yet carries significantly more payload. The additional structural weight of the 359 is no doubt in large part due to the much bigger wing. The exact same thing can be said of the comparison between the 779 and 35K. Yet some here would have you believe the much larger wing and more powerful engines of the 779 would not allow for more payload than the 77W which is a 25 year old design at this point.

Wiki lists the preliminary payload the 779 as 162,000 lbs. The 35K according to wiki lists a max payload pf 150,000 lbs. According to some the 35K payload has improved slightly since inception. I guess we'll have to see how the 779 does once flight tests are complete.


Listed OEW of the 359.


142.4 t (314,000 lb) typical


Listed OEW of the 789

284,000 lb / 128,850 kg



As you can see the 789 is exactly 30,000 lbs lighter than the 359.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A350_XWB

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner


As you can see from the data provided for a REAL A350-900, Wiki can be wrong :)

Rgds



As you can see the A359 has a range of OEW with 314,000 lbs listed as typical. That is precisely what I said. Some airlines may choose a lower OEW based on options, some may pick a higher. That is why the word typical was used. If you choose to pick a low ball number to suit your argument fine. I will pick the high number listed of 320,000 lbs. Therefore the weight difference is 36,000 lbs with the 789 being that much lighter than the A359. See what I did there. :)

I think it would be more useful that you provide real world examples that support your claim of 320,000 lbs instead of accusing a poster who backs up their posts with facts as being dishonest.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14769
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 5:10 am

flipdewaf wrote:
Does the 779X produce more lift than the 77W?


Fred that is such a fundamental question that went over their heads. The 77L, 77W, 778, 779 all have the same MTOW, as Lift=Weight in steady flight, they all produce the same amount of lift.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14769
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 5:21 am

kitplane01 wrote:
I think that's very interesting. Is there any evidence that the 777X costs less (per seat or some other metric) that the A35K?


On a fuel burn basis at shorter ranges around 3000nm there is no difference worth mentioning, it goes to about 1% to 7200 nm (779 design range), then after that the trend reduces in the other direction as the 779 has to trade around 140 passengers per 1000 nm in order to fly further.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 5:25 am

majano wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
astuteman wrote:

As you can see from the data provided for a REAL A350-900, Wiki can be wrong :)

Rgds



As you can see the A359 has a range of OEW with 314,000 lbs listed as typical. That is precisely what I said. Some airlines may choose a lower OEW based on options, some may pick a higher. That is why the word typical was used. If you choose to pick a low ball number to suit your argument fine. I will pick the high number listed of 320,000 lbs. Therefore the weight difference is 36,000 lbs with the 789 being that much lighter than the A359. See what I did there. :)

I think it would be more useful that you provide real world examples that support your claim of 320,000 lbs instead of accusing a poster who backs up their posts with facts as being dishonest.



I did not accuse anyone of being dishonest. The 359 has a range of OEW depending on Airline option. The range is 297,000-320,000 lbs. The typical OEW listed across options is 314,000lbs. I have now explained this three times. This should not be difficult to understand. The youtube video referenced one plane with one airline at a bit over 307,000 lbs OEW. Some 359 may have an OEW of 320,000lbs. I would draw a picture if I could but I do not know how to make this any clearer.

THE TYPICAL A 359 HAS A OEW OF 314,000 LBS. :) Dear God I hope this is clear for everyone. Even so the poster claimed the 789 was only 15,000 lbs lighter than the 359. However, by his own example of one plane with one airline (the youtube video) the difference was 23,000 lbs. (For those who find math tricky that would be 307,000 lbs - 284,000 lbs = 23,000 lbs difference).

Of course all of this deflects from the fact the 359 is much heavier than the 789 yet the 359 can carry more payload farther than the 789. The exact comparison exists with the 779 vs the 35K. I keep making this point hoping someone will get it. To assume the 779 is less capable because it is heavier belies the direct example of the 359 vs the 789.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 5:27 am

zeke wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
I think that's very interesting. Is there any evidence that the 777X costs less (per seat or some other metric) that the A35K?


On a fuel burn basis at shorter ranges around 3000nm there is no difference worth mentioning, it goes to about 1% to 7200 nm (779 design range), then after that the trend reduces in the other direction as the 779 has to trade around 140 passengers per 1000 nm in order to fly further.



This makes sense to me but can you provide the data for your claim? I would love to see it as I can find no comparison data from Airbus or Boeing.

My assumption all along was fuel burn would be close like the difference between the 359 and 789 unless Boeing made a huge mistake. However, I freely admit it is an assumption only.
Last edited by ElroyJetson on Sat Feb 22, 2020 5:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14769
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 5:33 am

astuteman wrote:
OEW of the A350 should be around 136-137 tonnes, or around 300,000lb


That is correct, our A359 empty weight is around 135 tonnes, Jayunited has also posted the UA 787-10 empty weight at 136 tonnes. The A350-900 a MZFW of 195.7 tonnes, and empty weight of 135 tonnes gives maximum structural payload of 60.7 tonnes. The 789 MZFW is 181.4 tonnes minus the empty weight of 129 tonnes gives a maximum payload of 52.4 tonnes. The 787-10 MZFW is 192.7 tonnes, and empty weight of 136 tonnes gives a maximum structural payload of 56.7 tonnes.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 5:37 am

zeke wrote:
astuteman wrote:
OEW of the A350 should be around 136-137 tonnes, or around 300,000lb


That is correct, our A359 empty weight is around 135 tonnes, Jayunited has also posted the UA 787-10 empty weight at 136 tonnes. The A350-900 a MZFW of 195.7 tonnes, and empty weight of 135 tonnes gives maximum structural payload of 60.7 tonnes. The 789 MZFW is 181.4 tonnes minus the empty weight of 129 tonnes gives a maximum payload of 52.4 tonnes. The 787-10 MZFW is 192.7 tonnes, and empty weight of 136 tonnes gives a maximum structural payload of 56.7 tonnes.



And yet the you tube video lists that particular 359 at a bit over 307,000lbs. So what gives? Clearly there is a range of OEW for the 359 from somewhere slightly below 300,000 lbs to 320,000 lbs exactly as I stated.

And btw the link I provided above says the 787-10 OEW is 298,700 or 135.5 kg. which is precisely 15,300 lbs lighter than a typical 359 OEW. Or precisely 8,300 lbs lighter than the 359 in the video. :)
Last edited by ElroyJetson on Sat Feb 22, 2020 5:43 am, edited 2 times in total.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14769
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 5:38 am

morrisond wrote:
155T plus 18% is 183T - two years ago the rumour was that it was 181 T - if they shaved a few off that it could be even lighter per seat with one very large wing and engines with better SFC..


The empty weight of the 77W is 169 tonnes, not 155 tonnes, plus 18% is 199 tonnes which is too heavy for the 779.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
sabby
Posts: 421
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 5:51 am

kitplane01 wrote:
sabby wrote:
Revelation wrote:
I think that's pretty noteworthy.

I posted about the overlap between current A350 customers and future 77x customers earlier.

We're told to trust that airlines have more accurate modeling than our back of the napkin scribbles, yet those airlines who would have every reason to just add more A350s are also taking 779s.

We will be told this is just posturing, but getting an order on the books implies a lot of work on behalf of the airlines and a financial commitment that is difficult to erase as well.

Apparently the airlines see value in 779 that people here can't seem to understand.


It is quite telling that all the airlines who ordered the 777-9 operate F. Even if a widebody airliner had the CASM of A321/Max200, they won't be chosen if they are unable to carry the number of high revenue seats airlines desire. If you look at the current long haul 77W configs of those airlines, except the ME airlines, all of them seat < 300, some even < 250. They need the additional space of 777-9. This does not mean 777-9 will have better/worse CASM, but I think CASM was probably the last requirement for choosing 777-9 over A35K (ok, maybe except EK).


This really seems like a strawman argument. The actual claim is that using whatever routes/distances the airline feels are important, using the seat configuration the airline is going to use, the costs of running those flights is very important to the airline. And I really do think that the cost of running the planes i important. Otherwise, we'd still be flying around in DC-9s and A340s.


Nice job twisting my word :bigthumbsup: It was very clear from the title as well as my post that we are speaking about the CASM difference between 777-9 and A350-1000. No one ever said cost is not important, fleet planners would obviously do the math for payload-range, operating cost, revenue potential etc. for any type of aircraft.
Let me make my previous post simple for you, the airlines that ordered 777-9 (against or in addition to A350-1000) did it because they needed heavy premium cabin i.e. F seats + additional J seats. A350-1000 is a bit smaller and hence it would leave potential revenue behind. This DOES NOT imply that 777-9 has significantly higher or lower CASM. If I had to venture a guess, I'd say both aircraft would trade blows in small % at various stage lengths for CASM in similar density - but we will have to wait for the real data after EIS.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14769
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 5:56 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
And yet the you tube video lists that particular 359 at a bit over 307,000lbs. So what gives? Clearly there is a range of OEW for the 359 from somewhere slightly below 300,000 lbs to 320,000 lbs exactly as I stated.


It’s the yet another fundamental concept you do not understand or want to understand. Airlines do not operate with OEW unless you are just flying circuits for training. Airlines use a dry operating weight (DOW), we would have around 15-20 different configurations on the A350 depending on the route. The number of crew, the amount of catering, water uplift all is route specific. We would not carry the same amount of catering for example on a 2 hr flight as a 16 hr flight, but we would carry more crew to be able to do the service in 1 hr. You don’t need to carry arctic survival equipment when flying over the tropics etc.

ElroyJetson wrote:
This makes sense to me but can you provide the data for your claim? I would love to see it as I can find no comparison data from Airbus or Boeing.


You asked the same question earlier in this thread, I will provide the same answer. “ Fuel : confidential information, the performance data provided so far for the 77X is preliminary and not validated by flight test. I can only provide the information which is general and not in breach of confidentially agreements.”

Boeing and Airbus would be more than happy to provide the same information to you directly, just place an order directly with them, sign the confidentiality agreements. I could put you in touch with the right people at both companies. Let me know I’ll give you my referral code which would set me up for retirement.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 6:10 am

zeke wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
And yet the you tube video lists that particular 359 at a bit over 307,000lbs. So what gives? Clearly there is a range of OEW for the 359 from somewhere slightly below 300,000 lbs to 320,000 lbs exactly as I stated.


It’s the yet another fundamental concept you do not understand or want to understand. Airlines do not operate with OEW unless you are just flying circuits for training. Airlines use a dry operating weight (DOW), we would have around 15-20 different configurations on the A350 depending on the route. The number of crew, the amount of catering, water uplift all is route specific. We would not carry the same amount of catering for example on a 2 hr flight as a 16 hr flight, but we would carry more crew to be able to do the service in 1 hr. You don’t need to carry arctic survival equipment when flying over the tropics etc.

ElroyJetson wrote:
This makes sense to me but can you provide the data for your claim? I would love to see it as I can find no comparison data from Airbus or Boeing.


You asked the same question earlier in this thread, I will provide the same answer. “ Fuel : confidential information, the performance data provided so far for the 77X is preliminary and not validated by flight test. I can only provide the information which is general and not in breach of confidentially agreements.”

Boeing and Airbus would be more than happy to provide the same information to you directly, just place an order directly with them, sign the confidentiality agreements. I could put you in touch with the right people at both companies. Let me know I’ll give you my referral code which would set me up for retirement.



And yet the OEW is still the OEW for each individual aircraft. It is a meaningful number that can be compared. It is apples to apples. DOW is not as many many variables change with DOW per flight, per airline, per aircraft.

The fact remains and is indisputable. The 789 is much lighter than the 359. Per hard data I have provided the 789 is between 13,000 lbs to 36,000 lbs lighter than the 359. Per the video posted the average 789 is 23,000 lbs lighter than that specific A359. Those are the facts.

Yet despite the fact the 359 is much heavier than the 789 it can carry more payload. That is also fact. Yet you are assuming because the 779 is heavier than the 35K it cannot carry more payload. I think you are in error but I will wait for the data.

As for your fuel burn claim I believe you. As I said I think both planes are very close, otherwise Boeing would have really screwed up.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
sabby
Posts: 421
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 6:41 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
zeke wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
And yet the you tube video lists that particular 359 at a bit over 307,000lbs. So what gives? Clearly there is a range of OEW for the 359 from somewhere slightly below 300,000 lbs to 320,000 lbs exactly as I stated.


It’s the yet another fundamental concept you do not understand or want to understand. Airlines do not operate with OEW unless you are just flying circuits for training. Airlines use a dry operating weight (DOW), we would have around 15-20 different configurations on the A350 depending on the route. The number of crew, the amount of catering, water uplift all is route specific. We would not carry the same amount of catering for example on a 2 hr flight as a 16 hr flight, but we would carry more crew to be able to do the service in 1 hr. You don’t need to carry arctic survival equipment when flying over the tropics etc.

ElroyJetson wrote:
This makes sense to me but can you provide the data for your claim? I would love to see it as I can find no comparison data from Airbus or Boeing.


You asked the same question earlier in this thread, I will provide the same answer. “ Fuel : confidential information, the performance data provided so far for the 77X is preliminary and not validated by flight test. I can only provide the information which is general and not in breach of confidentially agreements.”

Boeing and Airbus would be more than happy to provide the same information to you directly, just place an order directly with them, sign the confidentiality agreements. I could put you in touch with the right people at both companies. Let me know I’ll give you my referral code which would set me up for retirement.



And yet the OEW is still the OEW for each individual aircraft. It is a meaningful number that can be compared. It is apples to apples. DOW is not as many many variables change with DOW per flight, per airline, per aircraft.

The fact remains and is indisputable. The 789 is much lighter than the 359. Per hard data I have provided the 789 is between 13,000 lbs to 36,000 lbs lighter than the 359. Per the video posted the average 789 is 23,000 lbs lighter than that specific A359. Those are the facts.

Yet despite the fact the 359 is much heavier than the 789 it can carry more payload. That is also fact. Yet you are assuming because the 779 is heavier than the 35K it cannot carry more payload. I think you are in error but I will wait for the data.

As for your fuel burn claim I believe you. As I said I think both planes are very close, otherwise Boeing would have really screwed up.


I don't claim to be an expert but that comparison can be explained. A359 is 8T heavier but has 26T higher MTOW compared to 789. 779 is 26T heavier than A35K but has only 32T higher MTOW. So you can see it is not really apples to apples comparison, it would have been if you chose the 268T A359 which had shorter range. The A35K has significant longer range than 779, that extra fuel can be replaced with payload i.e. belly cargo or denser seating configuration.
Last edited by sabby on Sat Feb 22, 2020 7:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Rifitto
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2018 11:46 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 6:44 am

flipdewaf wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:

As usual you make things up. And wing provides lift that is basic aerodynamics. The smaller the wing, the less lift. It cannot be more basic.

Does the 779X produce more lift than the 77W?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The GE9X has less thrust than the GE90-115B ,with both aircrafts having same MTOW ,so the 779's wing produces more lift
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14769
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 6:48 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
As you can see the A359 has a range of OEW with 314,000 lbs listed as typical.


I am aware of no production A350-900 with an OEW above 140 tonnes, test airframes with all the additional sensors and wiring, but not a production aircraft.

ElroyJetson wrote:
And yet the OEW is still the OEW for each individual aircraft. It is a meaningful number that can be compared. It is apples to apples. DOW is not as many many variables change with DOW per flight, per airline, per aircraft.


OEW is not a meaningful number at all. Airlines use basic empty weight (BEW) plus route specific operators items to get DOW. There is only two variable weight numbers you get with a new aircraft, that is the manufacturers empty weight (MEW), the airframe without an interior, and BEW.

ElroyJetson wrote:
The fact remains and is indisputable. The 789 is much lighter than the 359. Per hard data I have provided the 789 is between 13,000 lbs to 36,000 lbs lighter than the 359. Per the video posted the average 789 is 23,000 lbs lighter than that specific A359. Those are the facts.


What rubbish, again for a person who says let the number speak for themselves, you live in a fantasy land. The video of the millionth time is DOW not OEW, the OEW of the A359 is only around 6 tonnes more than the 789 however carries 8 tonnes more payload further. The higher empty weight is being used for a stronger structure allowing the A359 to carry more payload further.

ElroyJetson wrote:
As for your fuel burn claim I believe you. As I said I think both planes are very close, otherwise Boeing would have really screwed up.


They are not close on many aspects, the A350-1000 is around 20 tonnes lighter than a 77W, and 35 tonnes lighter than a 779, hence the reason you can load the A350-1000 up with its design payload and be at around the same weight as an empty 779. The 779 has a higher design payload, however carries it over a significantly shorter distance (1500 nm). All the fancy aerodynamics and engines is being eaten up with the 35 tonne higher empty weight, not payload. The MTOW has not changed at all from the 77W.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14769
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 6:53 am

Rifitto wrote:
The GE9X has less thrust than the GE90-115B ,with both aircrafts having same MTOW ,so the 779's wing produces more lift


No, for simplicity Lift = Weight, and Thrust=Drag in steady flight. If the 779 needs less thrust for the same weight, it means drag is less, not more lift.

If lift was greater, the thrust requirement would be higher. Induced drag which is more pronounced at low speed is a function of lift.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News

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