Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Opus99
Posts: 982
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 7:10 am

So my understanding from this is that the 779 holds no overall improvement over the 77W, given it is “okay”. It is just a larger 77W all things considered?

Then further why on earth would anyone order it if you can get better efficiency elsewhere and at this point better everything else? Like I just find it difficult to understand why an airline will accept a “worse” aircraft? Like to what end?

I don’t know if I’m making sense but there must be something that has attracted airlines to this aircraft. Moreso than the A35K. Everything I thought it was has been shut down so what is it?
Last edited by Opus99 on Sat Feb 22, 2020 7:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Rifitto
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2018 11:46 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 7:18 am

zeke wrote:
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.

the a b777-200 has a MTOW close to the 789 ,so according to your logic we can put a 789 wing on a 772 since they have same MTOW ?
we can also put it in a b777-300 (non ER) since it shares the same wing with the 772 ?

simply ridiculous
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 826
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 7:25 am

sabby wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
zeke wrote:

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.



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.




You're right I did not make an apples to apples comparison between the 359 vs 789 and the 779 vs the 35K. I simply said the heavier plane (359) carries more payload than the 789. I also said to assume the heavier 779 cannot carry more payload than the 35K is false based on weight only as highlighted by the example I gave of the 359 vs the 789.


As for your numbers, they mostly look correct, except The A359 is actually 15T heavier than the 789. The OEW of the 789 is 284,000 lbs per the link I provided, while the typical A359 OEW is 314,000 lbs also per the link I provided. Again some 359's can be heavier than the typical OEW some can be lighter based on individual airlines specs. However, the 314,000 lbs is listed as typical.

The OEW of the 779 is listed at 400,000 lbs. MTOW at 775,000 lbs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777X

The OEW of the 35K is listed at 342,000 lbs with a MTOW of 703,000 lbs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A350_XWB


So the 779 weighs 58,000 lbs more than the 35K yet has a 72,000 lbs advantage in MTOW. Whether this translates into more payload capability for the 779 remains to be seen. However, the link I provided lists the 779 max payload at 162,000 lbs while the 35K has a 150,000 lbs max payload.

Zeke claims since introduction the 35K carries a little more payload than listed. I do not doubt that. However, I would also assume the 779 will at least meet it's preliminary targets and likely exceed them like the 35K. For now the numbers indicate a 6T payload advantage for the 779. But as always the 779 is still in flight testing. Maybe Boeing really screwed up and the 779 is garbage. Many already seem to be claiming that. I wait and see what the real data indicates.
Last edited by ElroyJetson on Sat Feb 22, 2020 7:32 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
 
Opus99
Posts: 982
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 7:30 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
sabby wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:

Maybe Boeing really screwed up and the 779 is garbage. Many already seem to be claiming that. I wait and see what the real data indicates.


Let’s even say that they did. I’m just confused as to HOW it has been deduced here and 8 leading carriers got it so wrong as to ordering it. I just want to understand how it has been able to outsell the A350-1000 almost 2:1 with such “unfavourable figures” across the board. Nobody seems to have an explanation for that. Or maybe airlines don’t do this analysis
Last edited by Opus99 on Sat Feb 22, 2020 7:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3584
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 7:30 am

Rifitto wrote:
zeke wrote:
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.


the a b777-200 has a MTOW close to the 789 ,so according to your logic we can put a 789 wing on a 772 since they have same MTOW ?
Ignoring all the integration issues, the fact that the centre wing box is a different size etc but fundamentally yes, that’s correct.
Rifitto wrote:
we can also put it in a b777-300 (non ER) since it shares the same wing with the 772 ?

I believe the 773 has the same (similar) weights to the 777-200er.
Rifitto wrote:

simply ridiculous


L=Cl*1/2*Rho*V^2*S

In what way is it ridiculous?

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited by flipdewaf on Sat Feb 22, 2020 7:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
 
astuteman
Posts: 7146
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 7:35 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
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.


The Youtube video lists the DOW of the LATAM A359 as 307,000lb, NOT it's OEW.
Assuming an OEW of around 300,000lb from that is not unreasonable.
There will always be a difference, and I know you know that, but somehow choose to studiously ignore it so as to try and make me look dumb.
Whether that's working or not is a different matter

And as I said,
Wikipedia can be wrong :)

There was a time where the Boeing ACAP listed the OEW of the 787-9 as around 129 tonnes - I'll go with that as a typical.
Not because it is in Wiki.

Evidence I have seen for A350-900's typically demonstrate OEW's a fair bit lower than 142 tonnes.
Zeke has provided another data point for CX at 135 tonnes
If you have evidence that shows the A359's that have OEW's in the 142tonne to 145 tonne I will gladly reconsider

In reality all types will have an OEW spread based primarily on their cabin outfit (and possibly as to whether they are early birds or not)
The 787-9 will not just have a single OEW which ALL 787-9's exhibit.
And that won't be their DOW either. This will be several tonnes heavier.

Rgds
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 826
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 7:52 am

Opus99 wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
sabby wrote:


Let’s even say that they did. I’m just confused as to HOW it has been deduced here and 8 leading carriers got it so wrong as to ordering it. I just want to understand how it has been able to outsell the A350-1000 almost 2:1 with such “unfavourable figures” across the board. Nobody seems to have an explanation for that. Or maybe airlines don’t do this analysis



You pose some excellent questions. I guess many here at A.net have it right and Airlines like LH and EK have it all wrong. They almost have me half convinced the 779 is crap. :)

Honestly, my assumption is this. Fuel burn will be very close. The 779 will have a CASM advantage and a moderate payload advantage. The 35K is much more the ULH plane although the 779 will have very long legs, it will just not be a niche ULH. That is what the 778 is for. The 35K will be better in some roles and the 779 will be better in some roles. I think both are and will be excellent aircraft.

Those are my assumptions. If I am wrong I have absolutely no problem admitting it. And I and genuinely interested in seeing what the final numbers look like.
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
MrHMSH
Posts: 2647
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 7:53 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:


Let’s even say that they did. I’m just confused as to HOW it has been deduced here and 8 leading carriers got it so wrong as to ordering it. I just want to understand how it has been able to outsell the A350-1000 almost 2:1 with such “unfavourable figures” across the board. Nobody seems to have an explanation for that. Or maybe airlines don’t do this analysis



You pose some excellent questions. I guess many here at A.net have it right and Airlines like LH and EK have it all wrong. They almost have me half convinced the 779 is crap. :)

Honestly, my assumption is this. Fuel burn will be very close. The 779 will have a CASM advantage and a moderate payload advantage. The 35K is much more the ULH plane although the 779 will have very long legs, it will just not be a niche ULH. That is what the 778 is for. The 35K will be better in some roles and the 779 will be better in some roles. I think both are and will be excellent aircraft.

Those are my assumptions. If I am wrong I have absolutely no problem admitting it. And I and genuinely interested in seeing what the final numbers look like.


I mean... both ordered the A380...
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 826
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 8:00 am

MrHMSH wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
Opus99 wrote:

Let’s even say that they did. I’m just confused as to HOW it has been deduced here and 8 leading carriers got it so wrong as to ordering it. I just want to understand how it has been able to outsell the A350-1000 almost 2:1 with such “unfavourable figures” across the board. Nobody seems to have an explanation for that. Or maybe airlines don’t do this analysis



You pose some excellent questions. I guess many here at A.net have it right and Airlines like LH and EK have it all wrong. They almost have me half convinced the 779 is crap. :)

Honestly, my assumption is this. Fuel burn will be very close. The 779 will have a CASM advantage and a moderate payload advantage. The 35K is much more the ULH plane although the 779 will have very long legs, it will just not be a niche ULH. That is what the 778 is for. The 35K will be better in some roles and the 779 will be better in some roles. I think both are and will be excellent aircraft.

Those are my assumptions. If I am wrong I have absolutely no problem admitting it. And I and genuinely interested in seeing what the final numbers look like.


I mean... both ordered the A380...



Well played. :)
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
 
Opus99
Posts: 982
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 8:03 am

MrHMSH wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
Opus99 wrote:

Let’s even say that they did. I’m just confused as to HOW it has been deduced here and 8 leading carriers got it so wrong as to ordering it. I just want to understand how it has been able to outsell the A350-1000 almost 2:1 with such “unfavourable figures” across the board. Nobody seems to have an explanation for that. Or maybe airlines don’t do this analysis



You pose some excellent questions. I guess many here at A.net have it right and Airlines like LH and EK have it all wrong. They almost have me half convinced the 779 is crap. :)

Honestly, my assumption is this. Fuel burn will be very close. The 779 will have a CASM advantage and a moderate payload advantage. The 35K is much more the ULH plane although the 779 will have very long legs, it will just not be a niche ULH. That is what the 778 is for. The 35K will be better in some roles and the 779 will be better in some roles. I think both are and will be excellent aircraft.

Those are my assumptions. If I am wrong I have absolutely no problem admitting it. And I and genuinely interested in seeing what the final numbers look like.


I mean... both ordered the A380...

But I mean at the same time Cathay also ordered it and hopefully LH etc won’t make the same mistake twice also take into the consideration they’ve ordered these in more numbers than they have for the 380 but that aside why not the A350-1000? If it beats the 777X across the board clearly from what has been deduced in this thread. Like for BA they have orders/commitments for 24 (18 are firm and 6 commitments) if the 350 beats the 777x across the board what is the driving force and it can’t be payload because that has been disputed as well. Like I don’t get it
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15107
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 8:13 am

Opus99 wrote:
Let’s even say that they did. I’m just confused as to HOW it has been deduced here and 8 leading carriers got it so wrong as to ordering it. I just want to understand how it has been able to outsell the A350-1000 almost 2:1 with such “unfavourable figures” across the board. Nobody seems to have an explanation for that. Or maybe airlines don’t do this analysis


As I have stated from the very beginning of this thread, airlines do not order aircraft based upon CASK, nor do they order based upon RASK.

I gave the analogy at the start of the thread, if you had $100,000 to invest, and you had a range of investment funds to invest that money in, would you :

1) choose a fund based just on the lowest fees (equivalent to lowest CASK);
2) the highest interest rate (equivalent to the highest RASK);
3) the fund that returns the highest nett return on investment over term of the investment ( revenue - minus costs equivalent to NPV analysis).

If it was your own money you would use the third method, airlines would do the same. I believe the 779 will primarily be used on routes where more premium fares can be extracted, the role for the aircraft is different to the A350-1000.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 826
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 8:16 am

astuteman wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
zeke wrote:

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.


The Youtube video lists the DOW of the LATAM A359 as 307,000lb, NOT it's OEW.
Assuming an OEW of around 300,000lb from that is not unreasonable.
There will always be a difference, and I know you know that, but somehow choose to studiously ignore it so as to try and make me look dumb.
Whether that's working or not is a different matter

And as I said,
Wikipedia can be wrong :)

There was a time where the Boeing ACAP listed the OEW of the 787-9 as around 129 tonnes - I'll go with that as a typical.
Not because it is in Wiki.

Evidence I have seen for A350-900's typically demonstrate OEW's a fair bit lower than 142 tonnes.
Zeke has provided another data point for CX at 135 tonnes
If you have evidence that shows the A359's that have OEW's in the 142tonne to 145 tonne I will gladly reconsider

In reality all types will have an OEW spread based primarily on their cabin outfit (and possibly as to whether they are early birds or not)
The 787-9 will not just have a single OEW which ALL 787-9's exhibit.
And that won't be their DOW either. This will be several tonnes heavier.

Rgds



I went with the only published data I could find. I have no reason to disbelieve it. However, we both agree the 789 is considerably lighter than the 359 and yet the heavier 359 can carry more payload. To parse the fine numbers avoids the central point. The heavier plane is not necessarily disadvantaged, and in fact the added structure can often improve payload and performance.

I know you agree with this. I also know you realize this was the point I have been making all along. Sorry if I came across as negative.
Last edited by ElroyJetson on Sat Feb 22, 2020 8:19 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
 
Opus99
Posts: 982
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 8:17 am

zeke wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Let’s even say that they did. I’m just confused as to HOW it has been deduced here and 8 leading carriers got it so wrong as to ordering it. I just want to understand how it has been able to outsell the A350-1000 almost 2:1 with such “unfavourable figures” across the board. Nobody seems to have an explanation for that. Or maybe airlines don’t do this analysis


As I have stated from the very beginning of this thread, airlines do not order aircraft based upon CASK, nor do they order based upon RASK.

I gave the analogy at the start of the thread, if you had $100,000 to invest, and you had a range of investment funds to invest that money in, would you :

1) choose a fund based just on the lowest fees (equivalent to lowest CASK);
2) the highest interest rate (equivalent to the highest RASK);
3) the fund that returns the highest nett return on investment over term of the investment ( revenue - minus costs equivalent to NPV analysis).

If it was your own money you would use the third method, airlines would do the same. I believe the 779 will primarily be used on routes where more premium fares can be extracted, the role for the aircraft is different to the A350-1000.

Okay thank you. The answer I was looking for
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13254
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 8:18 am

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.


Room. If you need space, and have routes to consistently fill it with, even if not any better per seat, it still means more revenue and profits. That is exactly why world leading airlines buy it, they have a couple of those routes.

I mean... a whole bunch of world leading airlines bought the A380, and despite being able to deliver the lowest cost per usable m2 cabin space with quite some margin, the combination of large and not-that-much-more economic limited its appeal.
The 779 has less of a capacity gap to overcome, but offers no meaningful cost advantage in turn. Arguably not even enough of a cost advantage compared to the A359 or 789.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 826
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 8:27 am

tommy1808 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.


Room. If you need space, and have routes to consistently fill it with, even if not any better per seat, it still means more revenue and profits. That is exactly why world leading airlines buy it, they have a couple of those routes.

I mean... a whole bunch of world leading airlines bought the A380, and despite being able to deliver the lowest cost per usable m2 cabin space with quite some margin, the combination of large and not-that-much-more economic limited its appeal.
The 779 has less of a capacity gap to overcome, but offers no meaningful cost advantage in turn. Arguably not even enough of a cost advantage compared to the A359 or 789.

Best regards
Thomas



It you are correct than a number of very successful and prestigious airlines have made a multi-billion dollar error. It is certainly possible as the A340 and A380 had their lunch eaten by the 77W. Do you think LH regrets buying those A346 frames?

I guess we'll all find out soon enough.
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
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13254
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 8:31 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
tommy1808 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.


Room. If you need space, and have routes to consistently fill it with, even if not any better per seat, it still means more revenue and profits. That is exactly why world leading airlines buy it, they have a couple of those routes.

I mean... a whole bunch of world leading airlines bought the A380, and despite being able to deliver the lowest cost per usable m2 cabin space with quite some margin, the combination of large and not-that-much-more economic limited its appeal.
The 779 has less of a capacity gap to overcome, but offers no meaningful cost advantage in turn. Arguably not even enough of a cost advantage compared to the A359 or 789.

Best regards
Thomas



It you are correct than a number of very successful and prestigious airlines have made a multi-billion dollar error. It is certainly possible as the A340 and A380 had their lunch eaten by the 77W. Do you think LH regrets buying those A346 frames?.


Considering the topped up their order twice I am pretty sure they didn't regret the type. I also don't think many airlines where unhappy with the A380 either, only some may have had too many.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2647
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 9:07 am

Opus99 wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:


You pose some excellent questions. I guess many here at A.net have it right and Airlines like LH and EK have it all wrong. They almost have me half convinced the 779 is crap. :)

Honestly, my assumption is this. Fuel burn will be very close. The 779 will have a CASM advantage and a moderate payload advantage. The 35K is much more the ULH plane although the 779 will have very long legs, it will just not be a niche ULH. That is what the 778 is for. The 35K will be better in some roles and the 779 will be better in some roles. I think both are and will be excellent aircraft.

Those are my assumptions. If I am wrong I have absolutely no problem admitting it. And I and genuinely interested in seeing what the final numbers look like.


I mean... both ordered the A380...

But I mean at the same time Cathay also ordered it and hopefully LH etc won’t make the same mistake twice also take into the consideration they’ve ordered these in more numbers than they have for the 380 but that aside why not the A350-1000? If it beats the 777X across the board clearly from what has been deduced in this thread. Like for BA they have orders/commitments for 24 (18 are firm and 6 commitments) if the 350 beats the 777x across the board what is the driving force and it can’t be payload because that has been disputed as well. Like I don’t get it


I was more pointing out the flaw in 'X airline and Y airline ordered it, so it can't be bad' as that applied to the A380 (more customers for that albeit at lower volume each). I'm nowhere near qualified enough to say how or why the 777X is or isn't better. My impression is that it'll have a better unit cost but is riskier as it's harder to fill. In the grand scheme of things the 777X risks being a little orphaned in the context of the 787 and A359 existing.
 
olle
Posts: 2264
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 10:08 am

A346 was the best at the moment of purchase and they could use the same pilots as 343 and 330.

Would they have done it 5 years later with 777W? Probably not.

748 was ordered. Would they have waited a few years for the 777X? Probably yes.

The question is if the same apply for 350-10 vs 777x....
 
VV
Posts: 1841
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 10:11 am

Am I now hearing the argument "777-9 is too big"?
LOL
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1901
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 10:20 am

Opus99 wrote:
So my understanding from this is that the 779 holds no overall improvement over the 77W, given it is “okay”. It is just a larger 77W all things considered?

Then further why on earth would anyone order it if you can get better efficiency elsewhere and at this point better everything else? Like I just find it difficult to understand why an airline will accept a “worse” aircraft? Like to what end?

I don’t know if I’m making sense but there must be something that has attracted airlines to this aircraft. Moreso than the A35K. Everything I thought it was has been shut down so what is it?



People are being deliberately obtuse now. The 779 is a fine aircraft, however it has some constraints that will make sales difficult for Boeing. If an airline has a route that is premium heavy all year round then the 779 crushes the A35K as an option. The extra space it has over the A35K makes up for the extra weight it carries. You can make so much more money if you have close to a 100% load that it would almost be criminal if an airline didn't buy the 779 in that situation.

Thiis is the same argument many made in favour of the A380. The very same people now urging caution because we were wrong to believe in the A380 advantage over the competition in the long run. In the end the extra revenue capability wasn't enough to sustain the orders the model needed. The other factor that makes the comparison to A380 different, as tommy1808 points out,

tommy1808 wrote:
The 779 has less of a capacity gap to overcome


So for a lot of airlines that operate the 77W, the jump to a 779 will not be as huge as the jump to a A380. So you will not see sales dry up.

But like most argument on a-net, we have to be careful as nuance lurks around every corner. Every 77W operator out there may not have chosen the model because it is the best fit for them, but it was the best compromise at the time. They may need a smaller capacity aircraft as their loads are not 100% all year round so the lighter and slightly smaller competition should be in prime position for the sale. The 779 will be a better aircraft than the 77W, but it sales will be constrained to airlines looking for larger capacities mostly as the A35K sits comfortably in the 77W space and it is lighter and more efficient than the 77W.

As for your claim about the 8 airlines that have chosen the 779 for now, those same airlines mostly also chose the A380 as well. What does that tell us? They are airlines that feel there is a need for a large capacity aircraft within their airline. I don't know if there is much more we can read into that.

ElroyJetson wrote:
I went with the only published data I could find. I have no reason to disbelieve it. However, we both agree the 789 is considerably lighter than the 359 and yet the heavier 359 can carry more payload. To parse the fine numbers avoids the central point. The heavier plane is not necessarily disadvantaged, and in fact the added structure can often improve payload and performance.

I know you agree with this. I also know you realize this was the point I have been making all along. Sorry if I came across as negative


You went with the data that supported your point of view and decided to disregard the rest. I am not sure what point you are trying to make with the 789 and A359 comparison. The empty weights of the aircraft range from it seems 130T to 140T, depending on the operator. The A359 has a higher MTOW, so it needs a bigger wing and has more space for fuel and payload. The A359 isn't that much heavier than the 789 to begin with (before you start putting in people or fuel and whatever else is needed), but the 779 is much heavier than the A35K. You can fill your A35K with everything it needs for a flight other than fuel before the 779 is ready to be filled with passengers.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1901
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 10:22 am

VV wrote:
Am I now hearing the argument "777-9 is too big"?
LOL



To big for what? To big to fit in the garage at home? Sure, but too big for EK? A resounding no. Too big for airlines like SAA? Or Philippine Airlines?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15107
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 10:32 am

VV wrote:
Am I now hearing the argument "777-9 is too big"?
LOL


For Ryanair and Southwest yes, for EK no.

If it’s a city pair that sees an A380 today, then probably the no it’s not too big. If it’s a city pair that sees a 77W today as the largest aircraft, then the answer could be yes. If it’s a city pair that only sees a 789/A350/A330 then yes.

What is the demand on a city pair, and is the demand premium heavy ?

If an airline doesn’t have the number they of city pairs to justify buying 20 779s, then probably the return on investment would be better with 15 x A350s.

You need the city pairs as well as the fleet size economies of scale to make it worth the investment.

Even a 737 could be too much aircraft for a route.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
astuteman
Posts: 7146
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 10:34 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
astuteman 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.


The Youtube video lists the DOW of the LATAM A359 as 307,000lb, NOT it's OEW.
Assuming an OEW of around 300,000lb from that is not unreasonable.
There will always be a difference, and I know you know that, but somehow choose to studiously ignore it so as to try and make me look dumb.
Whether that's working or not is a different matter

And as I said,
Wikipedia can be wrong :)

There was a time where the Boeing ACAP listed the OEW of the 787-9 as around 129 tonnes - I'll go with that as a typical.
Not because it is in Wiki.

Evidence I have seen for A350-900's typically demonstrate OEW's a fair bit lower than 142 tonnes.
Zeke has provided another data point for CX at 135 tonnes
If you have evidence that shows the A359's that have OEW's in the 142tonne to 145 tonne I will gladly reconsider

In reality all types will have an OEW spread based primarily on their cabin outfit (and possibly as to whether they are early birds or not)
The 787-9 will not just have a single OEW which ALL 787-9's exhibit.
And that won't be their DOW either. This will be several tonnes heavier.

Rgds



I went with the only published data I could find. I have no reason to disbelieve it. However, we both agree the 789 is considerably lighter than the 359 and yet the heavier 359 can carry more payload. To parse the fine numbers avoids the central point. The heavier plane is not necessarily disadvantaged, and in fact the added structure can often improve payload and performance.

I know you agree with this. I also know you realize this was the point I have been making all along. Sorry if I came across as negative.


Apology appreciated.
And I'll apologise if I come across as pedantic.
I think the fact that Zeke can find different figures to the ones you found, both from Wikipedia illustrates the limitations of some of these sources.

I completely support the view that bigger, more efficient engines, and longer, more efficient wings put extra weight to good use.
The reason the 789 vs 359 comparison is significant in my book is that, at 15k lb - 20k lb difference (5%-7%) in OEW, for frames of similar technology, the weight difference is commensurate with the size difference.
And the market has spoken - both frames are extremely popular.

There's no question that the 777-9's wings and engines aid its efficiency.
The question then becomes whether the c. 157t OEW vs c. 184t OEW - a difference of 18% and nearly 60,000lb, is still commensurate for the size difference.

It can be rightly pointed out that the 777-9X has sold - airlines have purchased it, some alongside the A350-1000.
I think the fact that 77W deliveries were huge in the last 8-10 years means that the replacement cycle has yet to occur en-masse.

I think we all also accept that a bigger frame has to have a "CASM" advantage (whatever we think that means).

That then begs a rhetorical question.
When the market at this size returns, is the c 1.5% - c.4% "CASM" advantage discussed above (if its even correct) big enough for the 777X to take a major share of the market, or is the smaller size, commonality with the A359, and flexilibity going to swing the advantage to the A350-1000?

The 777-9X will continue to sell - of that ~I have no doubt.
But will it be in that "niche" where size really matters (the A380 sales pitch)
Or will it be mainstream volume?

Time will tell us I guess, and I'm not going to predict.
That the A350-1000 won PS against all expectations might be an indicator, who knows.

It's clear that Airbus are sitting on their thumbs with respect to an A350-2000, or whatever.
I'm sure they are content to see how the market evolves
But if the PS A350-1000 is capable of shifting a 27t payload 9,500Nm, then a stretch will be a formidable competitor to the 777-9X
And may leave Boeing with little option but to drive the 777X further into "niche" territory.

All that aside, I think the 777-9X will be a very fine, well executed aircraft, and I'm looking forward to seeing it in service.

Rgds
 
xwb565
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 10:43 am

astuteman wrote:


There's no question that the 777-9's wings and engines aid its efficiency.
The question then becomes whether the c. 157t OEW vs c. 184t OEW - a difference of 18% and nearly 60,000lb, is still commensurate for the size difference.



157t?At least one operator's a35ks have a basic weight in the 147.5t region.
 
VV
Posts: 1841
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 10:47 am

enzo011 wrote:
VV wrote:
Am I now hearing the argument "777-9 is too big"?
LOL



To big for what? To big to fit in the garage at home? Sure, but too big for EK? A resounding no. Too big for airlines like SAA? Or Philippine Airlines?



Don't you remember the very long discussion about how airport's were congested and airports were slot constrained?

Do you remember how Very Large aircraft was supposed to be the solution for all kind of issues?

And now people day 777-9 is too big?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15107
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:09 am

xwb565 wrote:

157t?At least one operator's a35ks have a basic weight in the 147.5t region.


Yes, all of ours are under 150 tonne as well, hence my 20 tonnes lighter than a 77W comment earlier.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
SQ32
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:18 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:34 am

Folks here trying to propagate nihilism when Boeing appears to be loser. They claim it is not possible to compare two different planes -- never mind they are about the same mission category. The thread is then flooded with combinations of convoluted configuration to confuse readers.

Meanwhile anything about C919 and C929 will be bash bash bash, for being inferior to AB -- using simplifed metrics.

Why not say it is not possible to compare 777W vs 777x.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 527
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:48 am

Matt6461 wrote:
  • 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

[...]

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.


Difference in cabin length:
According to the ACAPS from Boeing and Airbus, the distance between front door centerline and rear door centerline is respectively, 52.71 meters for the A350-1000 and 55.04 meters for the 777X-9, a difference of 2.33 meters, or 4.4% (not 6.2% as you claim).

But we cannot place seats from the centerline of exit doors, and the exit doors on the 777X are slightly wider. Additionally, in order to take advantage of a dence 10 abreast economy seating on the 777X, the optional exit door needs to be activated. This reduces available cabin length for seats by 1.83 meters according to the Boeing ACAPS, which almost eliminate the difference in cabin length that can be used for passenger seats.

Difference in cabin width:
According to the ACAPS from Boeing and Airbus, the cabin width shown in the 10 abreast 777X economy seating, and in the 9 abreast A350 economy seating, is respectively 234 inches and 217 inches, a difference of 17 inches. Both the seats and the aisles in the 777X will be slightly narrower. Those 17 inches can't be used to add another seat abreast in premium economy or in business class (lie flat seats).

In your numbers you are counting the benefit of the additional cabin width of the 777X twice, first as the fact that the cabin is wider, then as a Y class efficiency gain (10 abreast). The wider cabin on the 777X can be used for an extra economy seats abreast, but not necessarily for much else, unless an airline uses more angled business class seats in order to take advantage of the extra cabin width. The placement of the doors makes this difficult to archive as the gain per row is quite small. The 777X is longer than the A350-1000 between door 3 and 4, not between door 1 and 2, and not between door 2 and 3.

Additionally, we need to take into account that the 777X fuselage tapers significantly towards the rear, and some towards the front door. In the rear the last few rows will need to have 7 abreast seating.

Conclusion:
I think we will see that airlines, on average, will place close to 5% more seats in the 777X. It won't be nowhere close to 15%.

I don't think that aircraft size will be an important factor when airlines make the choice between the A350-1000 and the 777X-9. There is clearly something else than capacity and CASK that differentiates these two great aircraft.

The fact that airlines like British airways have placed firm orders for both, indicates to me that each aircraft have their strengths. British airways have 331 seats in their A350-1000, and will have 325 seats in the 777X. The latter will have 6 first class seats, and that's why it has lower total number of seats. It is likely that the 777X have higher revenue potential in this configuration.

To me the differences between the A350-1000 and 777X-9 is very similar to the differences between the A350-900 and the 787-10. In other words, they are of similar size, but very different aircraft.
Last edited by reidar76 on Sat Feb 22, 2020 12:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
olle
Posts: 2264
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:58 am

reidar76 wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
  • 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

[...]

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.


Difference in cabin length:
According to the ACAPS from Boeing and Airbus, the distance between front door centerline and rear door centerline is respectively, 52.71 meters for the A350-1000 and 55.04 meters for the 777X-9, a difference of 2.33 meters, or 4.4% (not 6.2% as you claim).

But we cannot place seats from the centerline of exit doors, and the exit doors on the 777X are slightly wider. Additionally, in order to take advantage of a dence 10 abreast economy seating on the 777X, the optional exit door needs to be activated. This reduces available cabin length for seats by 1.83 meters according to the Boeing ACAPS, which almost eliminate the difference in cabin length that can be used for passenger seats.

Difference in cabin width:
According to the ACAPS from Boeing and Airbus, the cabin width shown in the 10 abreast 777X economy seating, and in the 9 abreast A350 economy seating, is respectively 234 inches and 217 inches, a difference of 17 inches. Both the seats and the aisles in the 777X will be slightly narrower. Those 17 inches can't be used to add another seat abreast in premium economy or in business class (lie flat seats).

In your numbers you are counting the benefit of the additional cabin width of the 777X twice, first as the fact that the cabin is wider, then as a Y class efficiency gain (10 abreast). The wider cabin on the 777X can be used for an extra economy seats abreast, but not necessarily for much else, unless an airline uses more angled business class seats in order to take advantage of the extra cabin width. The placement of the doors makes this difficult to archive as the gain per row is quite small. The 777X is longer than the A350-1000 between door 3 and 4, not between door 1 and 2, and not between door 2 and 3.

Additionally, we need to take into account that the 777X fuselage tapers significantly towards the rear, and some towards the front door. In the rear the last few rows will need to have 7 abreast seating.

Conclusion:
I think we will see that airlines, on average, will place close to 5% more seats in the 777X. It won't be nowhere close to 15%.

I don't think that aircraft size will be an important factor when airlines make the choice between the A350-1000 and the 777X-9. There is clearly something else than capacity and CASK that differentiates these two great aircraft.

The fact that airlines like British airways have placed firm orders for both, indicates to me that each aircraft have their strengths. British airways have 331 seats in their A350-1000, and will have 325 seats in the 777X. The latter will have 6 first class seats, and that's why it has lower total number of seats.

Do me the differences between the A350-1000 and 777X-9, is very similar to the differences between the A350-900 and the 787-10. In other words, they a similar in size, but very different aircraft. The A350-1000 will haul more payload over longer distances than the 777X-9.



This is very true. What is interesting is that the 778 that is very similar to A350-1000 seems to be inferior. If the market fof 779 increases an extension of A350 could give a direct competitor to 779 with lower weight.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3584
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 12:31 pm

Matt6461 wrote:

[*]779's Y seating is ~ 5% more space-efficient

:ROFL: I mean that’s straight from the corporate communication handbook.

My bank balance appears to be getting more and more ‘space efficient’ every day.

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13254
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 12:34 pm

VV wrote:
Am I now hearing the argument "777-9 is too big"?
LOL


Nope, not good enough to justify the extra size. The A380 was a lot more economical than the 77W, but the size difference was way larger, and couldn't do it either.
Kinda obvious from the essentially same airlines buying the ~same number of them that it has the same lack of wide appeal.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
DCA350
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat May 04, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 12:39 pm

What's the pissing contest about? They are different aircraft for different markets. You can't really compare the CASMs because they are unlikely to be outfitted the same. Every Airline that has ordered the 777X is an Airline that still values F because they have the routes to make it work. Both will be successful, although I believe the A35K will take the lionshare of the 777W replacement market because it's more flexible and cheaper to operate. The 777X will be more niche but there is enough of a market, that the program should yield a decent ROI. The key will be getting as many delivered before the A350 is NEO'd, after that point the the A350 will be far to efficient for the 777X to handle.
 
Opus99
Posts: 982
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 12:42 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
VV wrote:
Am I now hearing the argument "777-9 is too big"?
LOL


Nope, not good enough to justify the extra size. The A380 was a lot more economical than the 77W, but the size difference was way larger, and couldn't do it either.
Kinda obvious from the essentially same airlines buying the ~same number of them that it has the same lack of wide appeal.

Best regards
Thomas

Same number of what?

Qatar has 60 on order compared to the 10 A380s
BA has 24 orders/commitments for the 777x compared to the 12 A380s
Cathay has 0 compared to the 21 777xs
ANA have 3 A380s compared to the 20 777xs
Etihad have 25 (although deferred) on order compared to the 10 A380s

So I’m not sure what you mean by the same number
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2974
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 12:59 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:

[*]779's Y seating is ~ 5% more space-efficient

:ROFL: I mean that’s straight from the corporate communication handbook.

My bank balance appears to be getting more and more ‘space efficient’ every day.

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Spurious, childish argument. The idea that the 779 can fly also appears in Corp comms; doesn't diminish it.

If you stopped rolling on the floor for a minute maybe you'd be capable of the simple arithmetic of dividing cabin width by seats and comparing for each plane.
 
kurtverbose
Posts: 581
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 1:24 pm

zeke wrote:
You have been caught lying multiple times on this thread to bring the A350 into a bad light. Even when you do claim to quote wiki, you make outright lies.


I was grateful for your advice a while ago about the user control panel ignore list functionality.

I have two posters in my list. I think you can probably guess who they are.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3584
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 1:58 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:

[*]779's Y seating is ~ 5% more space-efficient

:ROFL: I mean that’s straight from the corporate communication handbook.

My bank balance appears to be getting more and more ‘space efficient’ every day.

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Spurious, childish argument. The idea that the 779 can fly also appears in Corp comms; doesn't diminish it.

If you stopped rolling on the floor for a minute maybe you'd be capable of the simple arithmetic of dividing cabin width by seats and comparing for each plane.

Wow! That hit a nerve!

I am aware of how one might calculate such a metric, the hilarity comes in the way that it is communicated.

Smaller = more space efficient got it.

Like a rocket that goes through thermally induced auto disassembly.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
mig17
Posts: 320
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 2:28 pm

Opus99 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
VV wrote:
Am I now hearing the argument "777-9 is too big"?
LOL


Nope, not good enough to justify the extra size. The A380 was a lot more economical than the 77W, but the size difference was way larger, and couldn't do it either.
Kinda obvious from the essentially same airlines buying the ~same number of them that it has the same lack of wide appeal.

Best regards
Thomas

Same number of what?

Qatar has 60 on order compared to the 10 A380s
BA has 24 orders/commitments for the 777x compared to the 12 A380s
Cathay has 0 compared to the 21 777xs
ANA have 3 A380s compared to the 20 777xs
Etihad have 25 (although deferred) on order compared to the 10 A380s

So I’m not sure what you mean by the same number


We can push that analysis:
- Qatar and specialy Etihad over ordered (and not only -X).
- ANA is the exception because they are flying an all Boeing long haul fleet if not for the 3 inherited A380.
- BA wanted to buy more A380 at the right price but didn't find an agreement with Airbus for a packaged A350/A380 order and went to Boeing to buy the next larger thing "for the right price". BA also still have 34 747-400 to replace, some of them can be concidered in the same high prenium VLA category than the A380.
- Cathay who was a 747-400 operator was one of the few suprised one to not order A380 in the end, they could have flown 10 to 20 of them if ...


Since that is already more than half of the current customer, let's continue:
- Emirates, has now exaclty 115 A380 for 115 777-X on order with teh recent first reduction of the order.
- Lufthansa 20 777-9 on order for 14 A380, like BA they also have 13 747-400 and even 19 747-8 in that segment. The CEO went on record stating "we may have ordered to much 777-9 and not enough A359.
- Singapore Airline kind of like BA, wanted the larger twin out there and asked Airbus and Boeing for larger A350-1100 or -2000 and 777-10. Neither went for it and SQ choose the larger -9, I presume at "the right price" too since it was the 1rst order in a wile for the program.
- An unidentified customer for 10, may be China Southern Airlines who has 5 A380.


And we can also speack about other A380 customers who have all 0 777-X on order :
- Air France with 10 A380, less and less probable 777-9 customer while A380 are leaving and A359 replacing it and A343/77E.
- Asiana with 6 A380 and no 77W in the fleet and 0 777-X on oreder but some A350
- Malaysia Airlines and Thai Airways with both 6 A380 are in no shape to really handle VLA. MH did phase out 777. TG can do anything ^^
- Qantas with 12 A380 has just selected A350 over 777-X for PS. Don't think they will really need a VLA larger than A35K after that.
- Korean Air on the other end is the best chance for a futur large 777-9 order. 10 A380, 12 747 and already a large 777 operator with no A350 in the fleet or on order and if I recall the CEO being elogious about the plane wile visiting Boeing. If the -X doesn't win this one, its fate will be sealed.


To summurize my point, wile some say the order book of the 777-X is reassuring because "1st tier airlines" ... I don't think so :
- Wiki say 309 today, but can we even count Etihad at 25?
- On those 309, 281 are launch order from 2013/2014 wich do not reflect the competitivness of today's Boeing intended market price for the frame.
- The A35K wasn't at that time what it si now.
- I presume even SQ and BA did not pay that intended market price concidering the slow sales.
- How "firm" are all those order? The global economy is entering turbulences and air travel is following. The growth of ME3 is in question, China have a cough, there is overcapacity in Europe and US are thriving but with smaller planes like 787/767/A330.
- The ressemblance with the A380 program is disturbing.
Last edited by mig17 on Sat Feb 22, 2020 2:40 pm, edited 5 times in total.
727 AT, 737 UX/SK/TO/SS, 747 UT/AF/SQ/BA/SS, 767 UA, 777 AF, A300 IW/TG, A310 EK, A318/19/20/21 AF/U2/VY, A332/3 EK/QR/TX, A343 AF, A388 AF, E145/170/190 A5/WF, Q400 WF, ATR 72 A5/TX, CRJ100/700/1000 A5, C-150/172, PC-6.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 2:29 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:

[*]779's Y seating is ~ 5% more space-efficient

:ROFL: I mean that’s straight from the corporate communication handbook.

My bank balance appears to be getting more and more ‘space efficient’ every day.

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Spurious, childish argument. The idea that the 779 can fly also appears in Corp comms; doesn't diminish it.

If you stopped rolling on the floor for a minute maybe you'd be capable of the simple arithmetic of dividing cabin width by seats and comparing for each plane.


Because you could not find your argument in real numbers, you had to invent a magical space efficiency number. That enhances magical the imagined efficiency of the 777-9. You left adding real numbers a while ago.
 
Opus99
Posts: 982
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 3:00 pm

mig17 wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

Nope, not good enough to justify the extra size. The A380 was a lot more economical than the 77W, but the size difference was way larger, and couldn't do it either.
Kinda obvious from the essentially same airlines buying the ~same number of them that it has the same lack of wide appeal.

Best regards
Thomas

Same number of what?

Qatar has 60 on order compared to the 10 A380s
BA has 24 orders/commitments for the 777x compared to the 12 A380s
Cathay has 0 compared to the 21 777xs
ANA have 3 A380s compared to the 20 777xs
Etihad have 25 (although deferred) on order compared to the 10 A380s

So I’m not sure what you mean by the same number


We can push that analysis:
- Qatar and specialy Etihad over ordered (and not only -X).
- ANA is the exception because they are flying an all Boeing long haul fleet if not for the 3 inherited A380.
- BA wanted to buy more A380 at the right price but didn't find an agreement with Airbus for a packaged A350/A380 order and went to Boeing to buy the next larger thing "for the right price". BA also still have 34 747-400 to replace, some of them can be concidered in the same high prenium VLA category than the A380.
- Cathay who was a 747-400 operator was one of the few suprised one to not order A380 in the end, they could have flown 10 to 20 of them if ...


Since that is already more than half of the current customer, let's continue:
- Emirates, has now exaclty 115 A380 for 115 777-X on order with teh recent first reduction of the order.
- Lufthansa 20 777-9 on order for 14 A380, like BA they also have 13 747-400 and even 19 747-8 in that segment. The CEO went on record stating "we may have ordered to much 777-9 and not enough A359.
- Singapore Airline kind of like BA, wanted the larger twin out there and asked Airbus and Boeing for larger A350-1100 or -2000 and 777-10. Neither went for it and SQ choose the larger -9, I presume at "the right price" too since it was the 1rst order in a wile for the program.
- An unidentified customer for 10, may be China Southern Airlines who has 5 A380.


And we can also speack about other A380 customers who have all 0 777-X on order :
- Air France with 10 A380, less and less probable 777-9 customer while A380 are leaving and A359 replacing it and A343/77E.
- Asiana with 6 A380 and no 77W in the fleet and 0 777-X on oreder but some A350
- Malaysia Airlines and Thai Airways with both 6 A380 are in no shape to really handle VLA. MH did phase out 777. TG can do anything ^^
- Qantas with 12 A380 has just selected A350 over 777-X for PS. Don't think they will really need a VLA larger than A35K after that.
- Korean Air on the other end is the best chance for a futur large 777-9 order. 10 A380, 12 747 and already a large 777 operator with no A350 in the fleet or on order and if I recall the CEO being elogious about the plane wile visiting Boeing. If the -X doesn't win this one, its fate will be sealed.


To summurize my point, wile some say the order book of the 777-X is reasuring because "1st tier airlines" ... I don't think so :
- Wiki say 309 today, but can we even count Etihad at 25?
- On those 309, 281 are launch order from 2013/2014 wich do not reflect the competitivness of today's Boeing intended market price for the frame.
- The A35K wasn't at that time what it si now.
- I presume even SQ and BA did not pay that intended market price concidering the slow sales.
- How "firm" are all those order? The global economy is entering turbulences and air travel is following. The growth of ME3 is in question, China have a cough, there is overcapacity in Europe and US are thriving but with smaller planes like 787/767/A330.

This is a lot of good analysis but my simple point remains that airlines did not order the same amount of A380s that they did 777Xs. Even if you take Etihad away that’s still an extra 40 units and it still hasn’t entered service.

With regards to the BA order, let’s not act like it was a thing of I want Airbus and I can’t get it so let’s go with Boeing. The tender was extended to both and Boeing had the better price point. WW was willing to take an extra 6 but had always mentioned his interest the 777-9 from back in 2014.

Ultimately right, I don’t expect the 777-9 to sell much more than it has until it proves itself. It’s an expensive jet. The 77W had a smaller order book than the 779 before EIS and look how that turned out. So honestly like a lot of posts here there a lot of unknowns so I’ve decided not to hold my breath on them. Let the figures come out and let’s see what the airlines have to say
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24367
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 3:26 pm

Opus99 wrote:
This is a lot of good analysis but my simple point remains that airlines did not order the same amount of A380s that they did 777Xs. Even if you take Etihad away that’s still an extra 40 units and it still hasn’t entered service.

With regards to the BA order, let’s not act like it was a thing of I want Airbus and I can’t get it so let’s go with Boeing. The tender was extended to both and Boeing had the better price point. WW was willing to take an extra 6 but had always mentioned his interest the 777-9 from back in 2014.

Ultimately right, I don’t expect the 777-9 to sell much more than it has until it proves itself. It’s an expensive jet. The 77W had a smaller order book than the 779 before EIS and look how that turned out. So honestly like a lot of posts here there a lot of unknowns so I’ve decided not to hold my breath on them. Let the figures come out and let’s see what the airlines have to say

Meanwhile we see A321 is heavier largely due to a larger engine than MAX-10 and offers more capacity yet airlines have no problem buying A321 even when Boeing offers aggressive pricing on MAX10.

Blue chip airlines praised for their advanced fleet planning departments and strong negotiating skills buy lots of A350s, but the same blue chips are also buying 777x. I'm sure price has a role, as does reduced training expenses for those with 777 and 787 fleets, but I'm also sure the heavier engine with the worlds biggest fan and highest overall BPR and overall pressure ratio has value, as does the very efficient and high aspect ratio wings.

Those who want to boil it down to lighter is better so A350 wins seem to change their tune when comparing heavier A321 with MAX10. Then we read a lot about how the extra capacity matters, how the extra weight allows for a bigger and better engine, how compatibility with other family members matter, etc. All true, but also true for 777x, as verified by blue chip customers who could have simply bought more A350 end up buying 777x.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Posts: 514
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 4:32 pm

VV wrote:
Airbus claims the A350-1000 has a seat cost advantage of a double digits percentage vs 777-9.
Boeing says the 777-9 has 10% better cost on per seat basis over the A350-1000.

The reality is probably somewhere in between.

I would say the two are in the same ball park from cost on per seat basis perspective.

Obviously neither aircraft manufacturer mentions whether the ownership cost is included. Not do they specify the engine maintenance cost.


I am pretty sure Airbus calculated the A35K CASM with 10 abreast to be 10% lower than the 777-9. In a real world No legacy Airline will fly the A350 with 10 abreast. I could imagine that both aircraft have around the same CASM. But of course there are more seats to fill on the 777!
My Instagram Account: Instagram
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13959
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 5:12 pm

So
OEW A350-1000 ~ 135t
OEW 777-9 ~ 181t

The 777-9 has higher capacity, maybe 35-40 seats? Still 45t is a lot of metal to carry around for 25 years for any fuel paying airline. 1000kg/passenger?
Last edited by keesje on Sat Feb 22, 2020 5:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15107
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 5:36 pm

Revelation wrote:
Meanwhile we see A321 is heavier largely due to a larger engine than MAX-10 and offers more capacity yet airlines have no problem buying A321 even when Boeing offers aggressive pricing on MAX10.


Per the engine TCDS LEAP-1A30, engine part reference M10G01 mass is 2990 kg, the LEAP-IB 2780 kg, so that’s 420 kg difference.

Considering the MAX 10 is also not certified, your claims are somewhat thin in substance. I think the range on the basic A321neo is about 1000 nm further than. MAX 10.

Not really seeing the relevance here the cost comparison between the A350-1000 and 779, we are not talking about 420 kg or even a few tonnes difference for the same capability, it’s a 35 tonne differnace.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Sokes
Posts: 1646
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 5:43 pm

zeke wrote:
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.


zeke wrote:
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.



lazyme wrote:
What is the estimated cruising altitude for the 777-X for different weights ?



flipdewaf wrote:
Rifitto wrote:
the a b777-200 has a MTOW close to the 789 ,so according to your logic we can put a 789 wing on a 772 since they have same MTOW ?...
we can also put it in a b777-300 (non ER) since it shares the same wing with the 772 ?
I believe the 773 has the same (similar) weights to the 777-200er.
simply ridiculous

L=Cl*1/2*Rho*V^2*S

In what way is it ridiculous?
Fred



https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/WindT ... rmula.html:
L = (1/2) d v2 s CL
L = Lift, which must equal the airplane's weight in pounds
d = density of the air. This will change due to altitude. These values can be found in a I.C.A.O. Standard Atmosphere Table.
v = velocity of an aircraft expressed in feet per second
s = the wing area of an aircraft in square feet
CL = Coefficient of lift , which is determined by the type of airfoil and angle of attack.

I believe those people who think that the B777-9 has better lift than a B777-300ER mean to say:
coefficient of lift and/ or wing area is better, therefore less dense air/ more altitude is possible for a given weight. Alternatively one can reduce the speed.
Flying higher or slower means less drag and therefore reduced thrust.

I want to make another point:
The engine is new. In times thrust will be increased. Payload increases accordingly. It's possible the B777-9 can't compete with A350-1000 at entry into service. I guess the early customers get an attractive price.
On the other side: Boeing couldn't bear the injustice of Bombardier selling their early planes on loss. So I assume Boeing wouldn't use such unfair methods.
Last edited by Sokes on Sat Feb 22, 2020 6:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15107
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 7:22 pm

For the record, the typical OEW is presented in the Avation Week article “Flying The A350: Airbus's Most Technologically Advanced Airliner” is in a boxed table on the right hand margin with a white background.

That is the article cited in the Wiki article, it clearly states 298,000lb/135,172 kg. Whoever keeps increasing the OEW on the Wikipedia A350 XWB page to 142 tonnes and then claiming that was figure published is being untruthful.

This is a fair used excerpt from the article “Flying The A350: Airbus's Most Technologically Advanced Airliner” showing the relevant table. (Source Aviation Week and Space Technology, May 22, 2015)

Image
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3584
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 7:31 pm

Sokes wrote:
zeke wrote:
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.


zeke wrote:
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.



lazyme wrote:
What is the estimated cruising altitude for the 777-X for different weights ?



flipdewaf wrote:
Rifitto wrote:
the a b777-200 has a MTOW close to the 789 ,so according to your logic we can put a 789 wing on a 772 since they have same MTOW ?...
we can also put it in a b777-300 (non ER) since it shares the same wing with the 772 ?
I believe the 773 has the same (similar) weights to the 777-200er.
simply ridiculous

L=Cl*1/2*Rho*V^2*S

In what way is it ridiculous?
Fred



https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/WindT ... rmula.html:
L = (1/2) d v2 s CL
L = Lift, which must equal the airplane's weight in pounds
d = density of the air. This will change due to altitude. These values can be found in a I.C.A.O. Standard Atmosphere Table.
v = velocity of an aircraft expressed in feet per second
s = the wing area of an aircraft in square feet
CL = Coefficient of lift , which is determined by the type of airfoil and angle of attack.

I believe those people who think that the B777-9 has better lift than a B777-300ER mean to say:
coefficient of lift and/ or wing area is better,

You have to be careful with words like ‘better’. The reality is that it’s ‘differently optimised’ and that can be for many reasons normally an interplay of different competing constraints.
Sokes wrote:
therefore less dense air/ more altitude is possible for a given weight.
generally speaking yes, a bigger wing may be able to get you higher but it will also likely be heavier and that of course hinders high altitude. Same with thin wings or higher sweep angles. The limits on altitude are normally either by available excess thrust giving acceptable climb rates, often known as being ‘thrust limited’ or by the buffet margin where the wing doesn’t behave nicely due to the transonic flow over them as the lift coefficient increases, this is often referred to as being ‘wing limited’. The aim of the game is to get to the limit of both at the same time. The reality is that other competing things mean that it often doesn’t work out like that.

I will try and dig out the methodology for constructing constraints diagrams. These plot the constraints on the aircraft and output the relative and available geometries available.

Sokes wrote:
Alternatively one can reduce the speed.
Flying higher or slower means less drag and therefore reduced thrust.


I remember being told at university, don’t think about planes flying high to reduce drag. Think about them flying high with the same drag but going further whilst doing it.

Sokes, I have to say I often post the simple questions like the lift thing as it’s good way to see who knows and understands, who doesn’t know or understand and those who claim to know but don’t. The last category is my least favourite but my favourite to trip up (as they are often fanboys). When I see your posts you appear to be someone who is here to learn and isn’t afraid to read and understand. I appreciate your presence here. Thank you for always having a level head and (appearing) to be always well though through.

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
Sokes
Posts: 1646
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 7:48 pm

@Fred
Thank you for your kind words. How easy it is to make somebody feel good.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2024
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 8:05 pm

*AW&ST estimated OEW; actual OEW may range from 297,000lb to 320,000lb depending upon customer options.

So Zeke is quoting 1,000lb above the minimum threshold which is convenient for his argument.

Halfway between the two weights is 308,500lb or 140.2t. That is 11t heavier than the 787-9.

The A350-900 has a MTOW 26t higher so even with this higher empty weight it can carry 15t of extra fuel/payload.

The A350-900 and 787-9 has a 465nm range difference (8100nm vs 7635nm) roughly one hour of flight time. An hour of fuel would be around 6t out of that 15t. That gives four options:

1) The A350-900 carried 9t of extra payload
2) The A350-900 OEW is 9t higher
3) The A350-900 burns 9t extra fuel which is 5-6% higher than the 787-9
4) The A350-900 range fugure of 8100nm is low.

It is probably a bit if all four.

The A350 wiki page is pretty dodgy. The MEW is listed as 115.7t from 2008 source which is before the first aircraft was even assembled.

If we look at cabin area:
787-9: 265m2
A350-900: 290m2
787-10: 299m2

The A350-900 is closer to the 787-10 which has a 135,500kg empty weight but the A350 has a much bigger wing and a 26t higher MTOW. Having an empty weight of 140t is still extremely light. That big wing provides tremendous benefits.

Generally speaking the OEW is around half of the MTOW for most airliners. So when you significantly increase MTOW the empty weight increases significantly.

Look at the 777 family with mutliple MTOW versions. The empty weight increased by 15% of the MTOW. So the 26t MTOW advantage the A350-900 has should require around 4t of OEW increase for strengthening.

If you start with an OEW half way between the 787-9/10 at 132t. Add 5t for the bigger wing and then 4t for the extra MTOW we are back at the 141t figure again.

It is definitely over 140t unless Airbus has access to alien grade material technology.
Last edited by RJMAZ on Sat Feb 22, 2020 8:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
StTim
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 8:11 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I must say your looping comment almost lose the coffee I had just put in my mouth. Made my day.
 
DCA350
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat May 04, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Sat Feb 22, 2020 8:25 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
*AW&ST estimated OEW; actual OEW may range from 297,000lb to 320,000lb depending upon customer options.

So Zeke is quoting 1,000lb above the minimum threshold which is convenient for his argument.

Halfway between the two weights is 308,500lb or 140.2t. That is 11t heavier than the 787-9.

The A350-900 has a MTOW 26t higher so even with this higher empty weight it can carry 15t of extra fuel/payload.

The A350-900 and 787-9 has a 465nm range difference (8100nm vs 7635nm) roughly one hour of flight time. An hour of fuel would be around 6t out of that 15t. That gives four options:

1) The A350-900 carried 9t of extra payload
2) The A350-900 OEW is 9t higher
3) The A350-900 burns 9t extra fuel which is 5-6% higher than the 787-9
4) The A350-900 range fugure of 8100nm is low.

It is probably a bit if all four.

The A350 wiki page is pretty dodgy. The MEW is listed as 115.7t from 2008 source which is before the first aircraft was even assembled.

If we look at cabin area:
787-9: 265m2
A350-900: 290m2
787-10: 299m2

The A350-900 is closer to the 787-10 which has a 135,500kg empty weight but the A350 has a much bigger wing and a 26t higher MTOW. Having an empty weight of 140t is still extremely light. That big wing provides tremendous benefits.

Generally speaking the OEW is around half of the MTOW for most airliners. So when you significantly increase MTOW the empty weight increases significantly.

Look at the 777 family with mutliple MTOW versions. The empty weight increased by 15% of the MTOW. So the 26t MTOW advantage the A350-900 has should require around 4t of OEW increase for strengthening.

If you start with an OEW half way between the 787-9/10 at 132t. Add 5t for the bigger wing and then 4t for the extra MTOW we are back at the 141t figure again.

It is definitely over 140t unless Airbus has access to alien grade material technology.


Nice hypothesis, however a person that flies the thing states that at his airline it is around 135. I would think they have access to the real weight. We also have a video from LATAM that states it's less than 140.

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