Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 1157
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 9:51 am

https://simpleflying.com/ethiopian-boeing-777x/

No it’s not an order or anything like that.

CCO of Éthiopian confirms that they have their eyes on the 777X and they are certainly considering it when it’s time for them to place orders regarding their growth. Back in 2016 they were considering ordering the A350-1000 or the 777X and it was dependent on which aircraft can perform well out of their hub with the very warm temperatures as well as the need for them to grow their hub and spoke model.

Of course he says this all depends on how demand recovers post Covid.

Thoughts?
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1557
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 10:27 am

It would be interesting to understand any performance limitations for the A35K out of ADD - especially the version tweaked for QF's Project Sunrise.
 
cityshuttle
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 3:56 pm

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 10:39 am

Is a new type / sub-fleet really the better economic choice rather than choosing the largest B787 / A350 model for which they already have experience as both aircraft are in the fleet ?
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4689
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 10:46 am

cityshuttle wrote:
Is a new type / sub-fleet really the better economic choice rather than choosing the largest B787 / A350 model for which they already have experience as both aircraft are in the fleet ?


It's a hot and high airport. Cargo is important in Africa, because ground infrastructure is poor. It isn't hard to imagine that an aircraft that can drag slightly more payload out will cover the added cost of a unique fleet. They also have a fleet of 777-200LR, -200F and -300ER, so the type won't be completely new to them.

That having been said, the A350-1000 has a reputation for being a capable hot and high performer, so it isn't given that the 777X holds an advantage here.
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 1157
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 10:48 am

VSMUT wrote:
cityshuttle wrote:
Is a new type / sub-fleet really the better economic choice rather than choosing the largest B787 / A350 model for which they already have experience as both aircraft are in the fleet ?


It's a hot and high airport. Cargo is important in Africa, because ground infrastructure is poor. It isn't hard to imagine that an aircraft that can drag slightly more payload out will cover the added cost of a unique fleet. They also have a fleet of 777-200LR, -200F and -300ER, so the type won't be completely new to them.

That having been said, the A350-1000 has a reputation for being a capable hot and high performer, so it isn't given that the 777X holds an advantage here.

Exactly. I believe they’re both capable In those conditions so it will come down to price really in my opinion
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4689
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 10:58 am

Opus99 wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
cityshuttle wrote:
Is a new type / sub-fleet really the better economic choice rather than choosing the largest B787 / A350 model for which they already have experience as both aircraft are in the fleet ?


It's a hot and high airport. Cargo is important in Africa, because ground infrastructure is poor. It isn't hard to imagine that an aircraft that can drag slightly more payload out will cover the added cost of a unique fleet. They also have a fleet of 777-200LR, -200F and -300ER, so the type won't be completely new to them.

That having been said, the A350-1000 has a reputation for being a capable hot and high performer, so it isn't given that the 777X holds an advantage here.

Exactly. I believe they’re both capable In those conditions so it will come down to price really in my opinion


I believe they will wait and see if Airbus will roll out some of those improvements that they talked about, not least the muted RR Ultrafan, and if the 777X will live up to expectations. While the original 777-300ER exceeded expectations, Ethiopian knows better than most how the 787 gained a lot of unwanted weight shortly before EIS, since they ended up taking a load of those for cheap.
 
DCA350
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat May 04, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 10:59 am

777X should have an advantage unless ET wants to streamline their fleet.
 
eamondzhang
Posts: 1876
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:23 am

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 11:38 am

DCA350 wrote:
777X should have an advantage unless ET wants to streamline their fleet.

Enlighten me how exactly does 777X has an advantage on an airport with 7,600ft elevation when they're 1) heavier in empty weight; 2) has a larger engine fan diameter (which from my understanding will cause more loss of power)?

Michael
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 1157
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 11:47 am

eamondzhang wrote:
DCA350 wrote:
777X should have an advantage unless ET wants to streamline their fleet.

Enlighten me how exactly does 777X has an advantage on an airport with 7,600ft elevation when they're 1) heavier in empty weight; 2) has a larger engine fan diameter (which from my understanding will cause more loss of power)?

Michael

300ER has both of things vs the 1000 and is fantastic at high&hot. so I don’t think that should be the basis of your argument. I don’t know what gives the 777X the edge with high and hot operations but those points don’t help your case.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20584
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 11:47 am

VSMUT wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
VSMUT wrote:

It's a hot and high airport. Cargo is important in Africa, because ground infrastructure is poor. It isn't hard to imagine that an aircraft that can drag slightly more payload out will cover the added cost of a unique fleet. They also have a fleet of 777-200LR, -200F and -300ER, so the type won't be completely new to them.

That having been said, the A350-1000 has a reputation for being a capable hot and high performer, so it isn't given that the 777X holds an advantage here.

Exactly. I believe they’re both capable In those conditions so it will come down to price really in my opinion


I believe they will wait and see if Airbus will roll out some of those improvements that they talked about, not least the muted RR Ultrafan, and if the 777X will live up to expectations. While the original 777-300ER exceeded expectations, Ethiopian knows better than most how the 787 gained a lot of unwanted weight shortly before EIS, since they ended up taking a load of those for cheap.

RR cannot afford to replace the Txwb yet. The Osborne effect would kick in (customers waiting for the next product) which would be very bad for RR.

I expect variable cycle PiPs (e.g., variable turbine inlet cooling as with the GE9x) to be added to the GEnX and thus T1000.

Engines cost about as much as the airframe to develop and 7+ years. I really hope Ethiopian orders within 7 years.

I have always thought the 777x was a good fit for Ethiopian. I do not consider it certain.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19293
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 12:03 pm

VSMUT wrote:
It's a hot and high airport.


I understand the planned new airport will not be as high, so it will be less of an issue.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 2715
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 12:16 pm

scbriml wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
It's a hot and high airport.


I understand the planned new airport will not be as high, so it will be less of an issue.



If it is still in the same vicinity as ADD, how much lower can it reasonably be?
"Nous ne sommes pas infectés. Il n'y a pas d'infection ici..."
 
eamondzhang
Posts: 1876
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:23 am

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 12:29 pm

Opus99 wrote:
eamondzhang wrote:
DCA350 wrote:
777X should have an advantage unless ET wants to streamline their fleet.

Enlighten me how exactly does 777X has an advantage on an airport with 7,600ft elevation when they're 1) heavier in empty weight; 2) has a larger engine fan diameter (which from my understanding will cause more loss of power)?

Michael

300ER has both of things vs the 1000 and is fantastic at high&hot. so I don’t think that should be the basis of your argument. I don’t know what gives the 777X the edge with high and hot operations but those points don’t help your case.

I wouldn't say it's fantastic at hot and high when the birds can barely carry cargo on its flights to China and the flight aim't that long, some 10hr max roughly (although admitted there isn't too much of that). They utilise its ability more on the way back - not on the way in.

Michael
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15285
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 12:55 pm

Opus99 wrote:
https://simpleflying.com/ethiopian-boeing-777x/

No it’s not an order or anything like that.

CCO of Éthiopian confirms that they have their eyes on the 777X and they are certainly considering it when it’s time for them to place orders regarding their growth. Back in 2016 they were considering ordering the A350-1000 or the 777X and it was dependent on which aircraft can perform well out of their hub with the very warm temperatures as well as the need for them to grow their hub and spoke model.

Of course he says this all depends on how demand recovers post Covid.

Thoughts?


I saw nothing in that blog that suggests any change to what they have said previously.

They have said they are evaluating both the A350 and 77X for years now.

Opus99 wrote:
300ER has both of things vs the 1000 and is fantastic at high&hot. so I don’t think that should be the basis of your argument.


The 300ER is not fantastic at hot and high, far from it.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4689
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 1:03 pm

scbriml wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
It's a hot and high airport.


I understand the planned new airport will not be as high, so it will be less of an issue.


The new airport will be lower, but definitely still high.
 
Bostrom
Posts: 1027
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 7:11 pm

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 1:03 pm

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
scbriml wrote:

I understand the planned new airport will not be as high, so it will be less of an issue.



If it is still in the same vicinity as ADD, how much lower can it reasonably be?


According to Wikipedia, Bishoftu is roughly 1920 m.a.s.l. and the current airport (QHR) is 1890 m.a.s.l. So the new airport should be around 400-450 m lower than ADD.
Last edited by Bostrom on Thu Sep 03, 2020 1:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 1157
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 1:03 pm

zeke wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
https://simpleflying.com/ethiopian-boeing-777x/

No it’s not an order or anything like that.

CCO of Éthiopian confirms that they have their eyes on the 777X and they are certainly considering it when it’s time for them to place orders regarding their growth. Back in 2016 they were considering ordering the A350-1000 or the 777X and it was dependent on which aircraft can perform well out of their hub with the very warm temperatures as well as the need for them to grow their hub and spoke model.

Of course he says this all depends on how demand recovers post Covid.

Thoughts?


I saw nothing in that blog that suggests any change to what they have said previously.

They have said they are evaluating both the A350 and 77X for years now.

Opus99 wrote:
300ER has both of things vs the 1000 and is fantastic at high&hot. so I don’t think that should be the basis of your argument.


The 300ER is not fantastic at hot and high, far from it.

Yikes. Is the 1000 fantastic at high and hot?
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8507
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 1:08 pm

eamondzhang wrote:
DCA350 wrote:
777X should have an advantage unless ET wants to streamline their fleet.

Enlighten me how exactly does 777X has an advantage on an airport with 7,600ft elevation when they're 1) heavier in empty weight; 2) has a larger engine fan diameter (which from my understanding will cause more loss of power)?

Michael


If lighter, and a smaller fan diameter, were all there was to performance, a 737-100 would be perfect, wouldn't it?

Has Boeing published performance charts yet?

Oh, to be the Ethiopian exec responsible for fleet analysis or capital spending! I would want to see the prospective routes and frequencies to use 15-20 777X, all to be acquired over a span not longer than 4-5 years so they age-out at roughly the same time. The routes need to be segments that can't be done by 787 and A350 variants, types already in the fleet today, with crew and economies of scale. I'm skeptical - Ethiopian isn't Lufthansa/SQ/ANA - and isn't going to be over the next 25+ years.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 1:47 pm

No modern twin is really fantastic at hot and high (for long-haul). I really wonder and would like to know what the difference in capability between the 777-family and the A350 is. Still none of them is really going to shine. It is a problem of twins in general because of the one engine out requirement and the maximal thrust one engine can output in the conditions given. The 77X will be no different. Simply put, if the additional weight of the 777X cannot be offset with the additional thrust and lift of the new wing (meaning it needs to gain more relative thrust to relative weight) it will be as "good" as the 77W. Same will be valid for the A350 family of course. So what we need to know is which aircraft has the best climb performance with one engine out at MTOW at a given pressure/temperature set.

It is no surprise that the A340 did most of the hot and high routes for a long time even though it was far inferior to the 777ER.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1470
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 1:48 pm

The 77x was arguably designed for very hot field performance; specifically to handle EK’s demands during Dubai’s hottest 3 months without any load penalties. The A350 has benefited elsewhere as they didn’t cater to the ME3’s demands as much, but here I would expect the 77x might have a ‘leg up’ due to aforementioned design decisions.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4689
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 1:51 pm

Opus99 wrote:
zeke wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
https://simpleflying.com/ethiopian-boeing-777x/

No it’s not an order or anything like that.

CCO of Éthiopian confirms that they have their eyes on the 777X and they are certainly considering it when it’s time for them to place orders regarding their growth. Back in 2016 they were considering ordering the A350-1000 or the 777X and it was dependent on which aircraft can perform well out of their hub with the very warm temperatures as well as the need for them to grow their hub and spoke model.

Of course he says this all depends on how demand recovers post Covid.

Thoughts?


I saw nothing in that blog that suggests any change to what they have said previously.

They have said they are evaluating both the A350 and 77X for years now.

Opus99 wrote:
300ER has both of things vs the 1000 and is fantastic at high&hot. so I don’t think that should be the basis of your argument.


The 300ER is not fantastic at hot and high, far from it.

Yikes. Is the 1000 fantastic at high and hot?


The A350-1000 has a pretty big wing, 464 square meters, compared to the 436 sqm of the 777-300ER. At the same time it weighs a fair bit less. The 777X is somewhat bigger at 516 sqm, but the aircraft also weighs more. Wing loading at MTOW for the A350 and 777X is the same at 0,68 tons/sqm, whereas the 777-300ER is higher at 0,80 tons/sqm. Brake-energy limitation is going to be better for the lighter A350. Rotation angle will be a bigger issue for the 777X since it is longer, so another plus for the A350.


texl1649 wrote:
The 77x was arguably designed for very hot field performance;


But so was the A350.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24809
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 2:59 pm

VSMUT wrote:
I believe they will wait and see if Airbus will roll out some of those improvements that they talked about, not least the muted RR Ultrafan, and if the 777X will live up to expectations. While the original 777-300ER exceeded expectations, Ethiopian knows better than most how the 787 gained a lot of unwanted weight shortly before EIS, since they ended up taking a load of those for cheap.

I think that will be a long wait. Taking an engine from a set of demonstration blocks to production takes a lot of cash, and RR doesn't have that right now. Plus, as Lightsaber suggests, RR really needs to use the current generation TXWBs to help dig them out of the financial hole, so they won't want to disrupt the market. GE also won't want to rock the boat, they've just put out a lot of money to develop Ge9X and its ROI is also under fiscal duress. I think Ge9X is the last new engine we will see for quite a while.
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
Boeing757100
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed May 06, 2020 10:09 pm

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 3:03 pm

VSMUT wrote:
cityshuttle wrote:
Is a new type / sub-fleet really the better economic choice rather than choosing the largest B787 / A350 model for which they already have experience as both aircraft are in the fleet ?


It's a hot and high airport. Cargo is important in Africa, because ground infrastructure is poor. It isn't hard to imagine that an aircraft that can drag slightly more payload out will cover the added cost of a unique fleet. They also have a fleet of 777-200LR, -200F and -300ER, so the type won't be completely new to them.

That having been said, the A350-1000 has a reputation for being a capable hot and high performer, so it isn't given that the 777X holds an advantage here.



I never heard of A350s being in hot and high conditions. I've heard that DL's 359s have to stop in Cape Town before going to JNB, but I guess the variant is different for Ethiopian? :confused:
The 757-MAX is happening tomorrow.
 
checklist1
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 5:46 am

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 3:12 pm

VSMUT wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
zeke wrote:

I saw nothing in that blog that suggests any change to what they have said previously.

They have said they are evaluating both the A350 and 77X for years now.



The 300ER is not fantastic at hot and high, far from it.

Yikes. Is the 1000 fantastic at high and hot?


The A350-1000 has a pretty big wing, 464 square meters, compared to the 436 sqm of the 777-300ER. At the same time it weighs a fair bit less. The 777X is somewhat bigger at 516 sqm, but the aircraft also weighs more. Wing loading at MTOW for the A350 and 777X is the same at 0,68 tons/sqm, whereas the 777-300ER is higher at 0,80 tons/sqm. Brake-energy limitation is going to be better for the lighter A350. Rotation angle will be a bigger issue for the 777X since it is longer, so another plus for the A350.


texl1649 wrote:
The 77x was arguably designed for very hot field performance;


But so was the A350.



Beyond these enchanting arguments against the 777-9.

What are the real shortcomings of the A350-1000 knowing that it has proven its worth in market acceptance?

VSMUT wrote:

The A350-1000 has a pretty big wing, 464 square meters, compared to the 436 sqm of the 777-300ER. At the same time it weighs a fair bit less. The 777X is somewhat bigger at 516 sqm, but the aircraft also weighs more

With 516 sqm vs 464 sqm
I would say for my part that the wing of the 777-X is significantly larger for a little more weight which has positive Consequences in flight compared to the A350-1000 IMO.

VSMUT wrote:
Brake-energy limitation is going to be better for the lighter A350


I think that this argument makes no sense knowing that a 787 would also have less energy than an A350 just like the 767 or the A330 would have even less ...

What are you trying to make us understand?...
 
checklist1
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 5:46 am

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 3:20 pm

Revelation wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
I believe they will wait and see if Airbus will roll out some of those improvements that they talked about, not least the muted RR Ultrafan, and if the 777X will live up to expectations. While the original 777-300ER exceeded expectations, Ethiopian knows better than most how the 787 gained a lot of unwanted weight shortly before EIS, since they ended up taking a load of those for cheap.

I think that will be a long wait. Taking an engine from a set of demonstration blocks to production takes a lot of cash, and RR doesn't have that right now. Plus, as Lightsaber suggests, RR really needs to use the current generation TXWBs to help dig them out of the financial hole, so they won't want to disrupt the market. GE also won't want to rock the boat, they've just put out a lot of money to develop Ge9X and its ROI is also under fiscal duress. I think Ge9X is the last new engine we will see for quite a while.


Indeed this really proves that the 777-9 is in a monopoly position at least until 2040 ... :)

I wish
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24809
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 3:38 pm

checklist1 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
I believe they will wait and see if Airbus will roll out some of those improvements that they talked about, not least the muted RR Ultrafan, and if the 777X will live up to expectations. While the original 777-300ER exceeded expectations, Ethiopian knows better than most how the 787 gained a lot of unwanted weight shortly before EIS, since they ended up taking a load of those for cheap.

I think that will be a long wait. Taking an engine from a set of demonstration blocks to production takes a lot of cash, and RR doesn't have that right now. Plus, as Lightsaber suggests, RR really needs to use the current generation TXWBs to help dig them out of the financial hole, so they won't want to disrupt the market. GE also won't want to rock the boat, they've just put out a lot of money to develop Ge9X and its ROI is also under fiscal duress. I think Ge9X is the last new engine we will see for quite a while.

Indeed this really proves that the 777-9 is in a monopoly position at least until 2040 ... :)

Let us hope it is not the same kind of monopoly that the A380 enjoyed.

At least 777x does have best of breed engines, something A380 never enjoyed since its EIS was delayed past 77W.

Regardless, it's going to be several lean years coming up for the aviation industry as a whole and for 777x in particular.
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
Devilfish
Posts: 7167
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 3:47 pm

Opus99 wrote:
Of course he says this all depends on how demand recovers post Covid.

Wasn't ET reportedly in a bit of financial bind even pre-COVID :?:
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20584
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 4:09 pm

Revelation wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
I believe they will wait and see if Airbus will roll out some of those improvements that they talked about, not least the muted RR Ultrafan, and if the 777X will live up to expectations. While the original 777-300ER exceeded expectations, Ethiopian knows better than most how the 787 gained a lot of unwanted weight shortly before EIS, since they ended up taking a load of those for cheap.

I think that will be a long wait. Taking an engine from a set of demonstration blocks to production takes a lot of cash, and RR doesn't have that right now. Plus, as Lightsaber suggests, RR really needs to use the current generation TXWBs to help dig them out of the financial hole, so they won't want to disrupt the market. GE also won't want to rock the boat, they've just put out a lot of money to develop Ge9X and its ROI is also under fiscal duress. I think Ge9X is the last new engine we will see for quite a while.

Sadly, I agree. Until oil is back over about $120/bbl, there just won't be the urgency for reduced fuel burn.

I'm racking my mind to think how the execs would prioritize the minimal R&D spending for 2021 through 2024, as an engine takes 7+ years to develop and multiple billions of dollars (ir euros) with a demonstrator being the first $100 million.
CFM: Fix the combustor durability and look into porting the GE9x CNC ceramics into the LEAP. No new CFM engine before 2032 is plausible.

GE: besides supporting CFM, they will probably move the variable turbine inlet cooling from the LEAP and GE9x to the GEnX and some of the other wickedly advanced cooling tech.

Pratt: Install PiPs into GTF and PW800 fleet (also combustor liners, plus seals and control logic that beat up sesks). Current priority looks to ne getting existing engines onto new platforms. Otherwise, saving the division that was Collins (Raytheon Technologies owns Pratt).

Safran: PiPs for helicopter engines and otherwise saving the division they bought that was Zodiac. I really like the Silvercrest concept (full disclosure, I consulted on it, so I'm probably not 100% neutral in my opinion. I also consulted on the PW800 family, it just comes down to the PW812 being too expensive for that market. It has maintenance and durability advantages that price point doesn't pay for versus the Silvercrest).

With the broadest new portfolio, Pratt lucks out. My look on engines:

Small business jets will continue the sales slump and doesn't effect RR, so I won't discuss.

PW812, no competition. The Pearl won't scale down this small efficiently.
PW816, dang that pesky Pearl (which I also consulted on, honestly, both great engines and we can debate here on a.net).

Pearl for G700, Passport as competition (Pratt never developed the GTF PW800, honestly, it could have stopped at the cocktail napkin design stage). Great engine, but RR now has two competitors at the top levels of the business jet market. A great engine that is unlikely to see the volume if the BR700.

Passport: Arguably has the top of the business jet market, but the Pearl on the G700 will take some sales away. This hurts Pearl volumes for RR.

CF-34-8, out of date, but untill a PW1200G comes in under scope, it will sell. Impacts RR in that some business jet deals, but minor impact.

PW1200G: Only modern engine. Because this is a frankenstein engine, a new design conventional (non-GTF) could compete, but no market.

CF-34-10: The ARJ-21 will ship, but the PW1200G and PW1500G so obsolete this engine, I consider the continued production purely political. Does not impact RR.

PW1500G, no real competition for its size. Its one big advantage is all the other new engines/platforms are too optimized fir longer flights. This 90 minute optimization has very low climb fuel burn achieved at a small sacrifice of cruise fuel burn.

PW1100G, LEAP has more market share. But the lower long range fuel burn. Locked out RR from narrowbody engines

LEAP-1B. Also Optimized for shorter mission.

LEAP-1A/C: The combined LEAP volume with Pratt competition keeps RR out if the volume market.

T1000/7000: We know the issues, but a good design. A volume engine for RR. But no WB demand

GEnX: Hurt the T1000 by being the dominant engine

Txwb RR latest engine, but no wb demand

GE9x: The mist technologically advanced engine, but no wb demand.


The only opportunities I see are business jet engines and military (off topic). So no new commercial engines.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1913
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 4:30 pm

Opus99 wrote:
Yikes. Is the 1000 fantastic at high and hot?



Looking at the ACAPs, the 77W can take off from 6000ft (hypothetical new airport) on a 4km runway on ISA conditions it can take 310T payload.

The A35K on the same hypothetical runway can take off with around 288T.

So the 77W loses about 11.6% of its payload (rough calculations, 41T of 351T available at sea level) and the A35K loses 9% (28T of 316T). I am most likely way off with my calculations and open to correction.

At the current airport with altitude of 7600ft the 77W can take about 290T and the A35K can take around 268T-270T. Unless I am reading the chart incorrectly the A359 can take around 250T.
 
berari
Posts: 917
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 3:47 pm

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 4:35 pm

Does the B777-300 have a place at ET anymore? With 14 A350s (two more with imminent delivery,) and a large number of B78s, I feel like its years are numbered with ET. I also see the passenger B777-200LRs still parked while A350s/B78s are doing the flying mostly.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10197
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 4:51 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
Oh, to be the Ethiopian exec responsible for fleet analysis or capital spending! I would want to see the prospective routes and frequencies to use 15-20 777X, all to be acquired over a span not longer than 4-5 years so they age-out at roughly the same time. The routes need to be segments that can't be done by 787 and A350 variants, types already in the fleet today, with crew and economies of scale. I'm skeptical - Ethiopian isn't Lufthansa/SQ/ANA - and isn't going to be over the next 25+ years.

ADD can have a significant overlap with the ME hubs and with EK shrinking after the retirement of their A380's and lack of slots at DXB, ADD could easily take some of that traffic.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5649
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 5:03 pm

VSMUT wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
VSMUT wrote:

It's a hot and high airport. Cargo is important in Africa, because ground infrastructure is poor. It isn't hard to imagine that an aircraft that can drag slightly more payload out will cover the added cost of a unique fleet. They also have a fleet of 777-200LR, -200F and -300ER, so the type won't be completely new to them.

That having been said, the A350-1000 has a reputation for being a capable hot and high performer, so it isn't given that the 777X holds an advantage here.

Exactly. I believe they’re both capable In those conditions so it will come down to price really in my opinion


I believe they will wait and see if Airbus will roll out some of those improvements that they talked about, not least the muted RR Ultrafan, and if the 777X will live up to expectations. While the original 777-300ER exceeded expectations, Ethiopian knows better than most how the 787 gained a lot of unwanted weight shortly before EIS, since they ended up taking a load of those for cheap.

I expect both airframe manufacturers and all engine manufacturers are going to be under severe pressure for probably most of the decade, and improvements are going to be few and far between. And of all of them I think RR is probably in the worst shape. I would be very surprised to see any improvements or new models coming from them for some time.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5649
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 5:09 pm

scbriml wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
It's a hot and high airport.


I understand the planned new airport will not be as high, so it will be less of an issue.

But lower will also be hotter, so some of the advantage may be lost.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
sixfootscream
Posts: 130
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 8:07 pm

ET was late to the 773 party. So I assume they will be late to the 777x party as well.
 
checklist1
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 5:46 am

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 9:52 pm

Revelation wrote:
checklist1 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
I think that will be a long wait. Taking an engine from a set of demonstration blocks to production takes a lot of cash, and RR doesn't have that right now. Plus, as Lightsaber suggests, RR really needs to use the current generation TXWBs to help dig them out of the financial hole, so they won't want to disrupt the market. GE also won't want to rock the boat, they've just put out a lot of money to develop Ge9X and its ROI is also under fiscal duress. I think Ge9X is the last new engine we will see for quite a while.

Indeed this really proves that the 777-9 is in a monopoly position at least until 2040 ... :)

Let us hope it is not the same kind of monopoly that the A380 enjoyed.

At least 777x does have best of breed engines, something A380 never enjoyed since its EIS was delayed past 77W.

Regardless, it's going to be several lean years coming up for the aviation industry as a whole and for 777x in particular.


The 777-9 resembling the 777-300ER, not the A380.

The A380 was carrying a lot of people with little cargo in the hold (up to 36 LD3 containers) while the 777-9 will carry 48 LD3 containers while the 777-300ER and A350-1000 44 LD3 containers.

What I am observing is that the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting all aircraft as well as the A350 and even the 787 and A330.

To say that it is exclusively at 777-9 is a false belief, a lie for me...
 
checklist1
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 5:46 am

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 9:59 pm

berari wrote:
Does the B777-300 have a place at ET anymore? With 14 A350s (two more with imminent delivery,) and a large number of B78s, I feel like its years are numbered with ET. I also see the passenger B777-200LRs still parked while A350s/B78s are doing the flying mostly.


It just doesn't make sense. What will replace its 777-300ER eventually? They have A350-900s but no A350-1000s.

If they wanted it they would have ordered it long ago ...
 
checklist1
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 5:46 am

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 10:09 pm

sixfootscream wrote:
ET was late to the 773 party. So I assume they will be late to the 777x party as well.


In 2015-2016 ET was interested in the 777-8's and had not reached a financing agreement for their acquisition.

This article may actually reveal a media strategy of ET for Boeing to kick back this potential order by including the A350-1000 to undercut price in negotiations

This is what makes sense to me
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15285
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Thu Sep 03, 2020 10:21 pm

enzo011 wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Yikes. Is the 1000 fantastic at high and hot?



Looking at the ACAPs, the 77W can take off from 6000ft (hypothetical new airport) on a 4km runway on ISA conditions it can take 310T payload.

The A35K on the same hypothetical runway can take off with around 288T.

So the 77W loses about 11.6% of its payload (rough calculations, 41T of 351T available at sea level) and the A35K loses 9% (28T of 316T). I am most likely way off with my calculations and open to correction.

At the current airport with altitude of 7600ft the 77W can take about 290T and the A35K can take around 268T-270T. Unless I am reading the chart incorrectly the A359 can take around 250T.


The new airport is to go where QHR/HAHM is in Bishoftu, the runway elevation is 6200 ft, with an average temperature of 25 deg C, that means a density altitude of around 9000 ft, equivalent to operating out of JNB at a temperature of 32 deg C.

Per the 77W acaps, a 14,500 ft runway (same as JNB) at 9000 ft density altitude give a RTOW of 280 tonnes, DOW 170 tonnes, leaves 110 tonnes for fuel and payload. A 12 hr flight, average of 7.5 tonnes per hour, 90 tonnes of fuel, leaves 20 tonnes left for payload and fuel reserves.

A350-1000 under the same conditions would have a RTOW of 272 tonnes, DOW 150 tonnes, leaves 122 tonnes for fuel and payload. A 12 hr flight, average of 6.0 tonnes per hour, 72 tonnes of fuel, leaves 50 tonnes left for payload and fuel reserves.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1866
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Fri Sep 04, 2020 12:27 am

zeke wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Yikes. Is the 1000 fantastic at high and hot?



Looking at the ACAPs, the 77W can take off from 6000ft (hypothetical new airport) on a 4km runway on ISA conditions it can take 310T payload.

The A35K on the same hypothetical runway can take off with around 288T.

So the 77W loses about 11.6% of its payload (rough calculations, 41T of 351T available at sea level) and the A35K loses 9% (28T of 316T). I am most likely way off with my calculations and open to correction.

At the current airport with altitude of 7600ft the 77W can take about 290T and the A35K can take around 268T-270T. Unless I am reading the chart incorrectly the A359 can take around 250T.


The new airport is to go where QHR/HAHM is in Bishoftu, the runway elevation is 6200 ft, with an average temperature of 25 deg C, that means a density altitude of around 9000 ft, equivalent to operating out of JNB at a temperature of 32 deg C.

Per the 77W acaps, a 14,500 ft runway (same as JNB) at 9000 ft density altitude give a RTOW of 280 tonnes, DOW 170 tonnes, leaves 110 tonnes for fuel and payload. A 12 hr flight, average of 7.5 tonnes per hour, 90 tonnes of fuel, leaves 20 tonnes left for payload and fuel reserves.

A350-1000 under the same conditions would have a RTOW of 272 tonnes, DOW 150 tonnes, leaves 122 tonnes for fuel and payload. A 12 hr flight, average of 6.0 tonnes per hour, 72 tonnes of fuel, leaves 50 tonnes left for payload and fuel reserves.

Hold the press: are you saying that the A350-1000 is doing better than the 77W in high and hot situation? There goes the urban myth that only the 777 can viably do those airports...
Maybe DL was right to order the A350 after all... :duck:
 
checklist1
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 5:46 am

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Fri Sep 04, 2020 5:55 am

WayexTDI wrote:
zeke wrote:
enzo011 wrote:


Looking at the ACAPs, the 77W can take off from 6000ft (hypothetical new airport) on a 4km runway on ISA conditions it can take 310T payload.

The A35K on the same hypothetical runway can take off with around 288T.

So the 77W loses about 11.6% of its payload (rough calculations, 41T of 351T available at sea level) and the A35K loses 9% (28T of 316T). I am most likely way off with my calculations and open to correction.

At the current airport with altitude of 7600ft the 77W can take about 290T and the A35K can take around 268T-270T. Unless I am reading the chart incorrectly the A359 can take around 250T.


The new airport is to go where QHR/HAHM is in Bishoftu, the runway elevation is 6200 ft, with an average temperature of 25 deg C, that means a density altitude of around 9000 ft, equivalent to operating out of JNB at a temperature of 32 deg C.

Per the 77W acaps, a 14,500 ft runway (same as JNB) at 9000 ft density altitude give a RTOW of 280 tonnes, DOW 170 tonnes, leaves 110 tonnes for fuel and payload. A 12 hr flight, average of 7.5 tonnes per hour, 90 tonnes of fuel, leaves 20 tonnes left for payload and fuel reserves.

A350-1000 under the same conditions would have a RTOW of 272 tonnes, DOW 150 tonnes, leaves 122 tonnes for fuel and payload. A 12 hr flight, average of 6.0 tonnes per hour, 72 tonnes of fuel, leaves 50 tonnes left for payload and fuel reserves.

Hold the press: are you saying that the A350-1000 is doing better than the 77W in high and hot situation? There goes the urban myth that only the 777 can viably do those airports...
Maybe DL was right to order the A350 after all... :duck:


I thought the thread was talking about ET and a potential 777-X order. I don't know what DL and the A350-900 are doing here ... :duck:
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Fri Sep 04, 2020 6:59 am

WayexTDI wrote:
zeke wrote:
enzo011 wrote:


Looking at the ACAPs, the 77W can take off from 6000ft (hypothetical new airport) on a 4km runway on ISA conditions it can take 310T payload.

The A35K on the same hypothetical runway can take off with around 288T.

So the 77W loses about 11.6% of its payload (rough calculations, 41T of 351T available at sea level) and the A35K loses 9% (28T of 316T). I am most likely way off with my calculations and open to correction.

At the current airport with altitude of 7600ft the 77W can take about 290T and the A35K can take around 268T-270T. Unless I am reading the chart incorrectly the A359 can take around 250T.


The new airport is to go where QHR/HAHM is in Bishoftu, the runway elevation is 6200 ft, with an average temperature of 25 deg C, that means a density altitude of around 9000 ft, equivalent to operating out of JNB at a temperature of 32 deg C.

Per the 77W acaps, a 14,500 ft runway (same as JNB) at 9000 ft density altitude give a RTOW of 280 tonnes, DOW 170 tonnes, leaves 110 tonnes for fuel and payload. A 12 hr flight, average of 7.5 tonnes per hour, 90 tonnes of fuel, leaves 20 tonnes left for payload and fuel reserves.

A350-1000 under the same conditions would have a RTOW of 272 tonnes, DOW 150 tonnes, leaves 122 tonnes for fuel and payload. A 12 hr flight, average of 6.0 tonnes per hour, 72 tonnes of fuel, leaves 50 tonnes left for payload and fuel reserves.

Hold the press: are you saying that the A350-1000 is doing better than the 77W in high and hot situation? There goes the urban myth that only the 777 can viably do those airports...
Maybe DL was right to order the A350 after all... :duck:


Good DL is (or better was) not operating the heavy 77W out of JNB. The question will be what the 779 can do out of such an airport and if the additional wing area and thrust from the new parts is enough to offset the additional weight.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3711
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Fri Sep 04, 2020 8:08 am

checklist1 wrote:
With 516 sqm vs 464 sqm
I would say for my part that the wing of the 777-X is significantly larger for a little more weight which has positive Consequences in flight compared to the A350-1000 IMO.

For takeoff it would be prudent to assume a limitation based largely on limitations of ClMaxto which would effectively be the same for both aircraft.
The driving factors for takeoff are effectively wing loading (Weight per unit area of wing) and the thrust to weight ratio. A lower wing loading giving an indication of effective speed required to get and thrust to weight ratio giving an approximation of the acceleration to reach those speeds.

For the A350 the MTOW 319000kg with a 464m^2 wing with a total thrust of 863kn giving a wing loading of 687.5kgm^-2 and a thrust to weight of 2.705Nkg^-1
For the B779X the MTOW 351534kg with a 517m^2 wing with a total thrust of 934kn giving a wing loading of 680kgm^-2 and a thrust t0 weight ratio of 2.657Nkg^-1

regarding takeoff distance the lower wing loading will reduce the length and the a lower thrust to weight will increase the length and so basically one divided by the other gives a fuller story (lower number indicates shorter takeoff run)
A350 - 687.5/2.705 = 254.1
B779X - 680/2.657 = 255.9
The difference here is less than 1 percent and so we realistically cannot deduce a difference between them here.

Regarding the bigger wing having consequences in flight I assume that you are referring to the increase in span giving a reduced induced drag and increasing overall UL/D. There appears to be a slightly lower spanwise loading for the 779X vs the A350 (4899kgm^-1 vs 4927kgm^-1) the 779X does cruise slightly slower and has a larger surface area.

My personal analysis puts the fuel burn per pax at a similar level to the A351 (giving a higher block fuel burn of course), my take if this is the case is much like the A380, if you can fill it, its worth it. I wouldn't be surprised to find the 779X to beat specs, Lightsaber seems to believe the Ge9X is a bit of a beast compared to what we have seen before.


checklist1 wrote:
I think that this argument makes no sense knowing that a 787 would also have less energy than an A350 just like the 767 or the A330 would have even less ...

What are you trying to make us understand?...
Its likely based on number of brake units, the A350-1000 and the 779X of course having 12. The 787 and A330 having 8.

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
Faro
Posts: 2006
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Fri Sep 04, 2020 8:33 am

lightsaber wrote:
PW1200G: Only modern engine. Because this is a frankenstein engine, a new design conventional (non-GTF) could compete, but no market.

PW1500G, no real competition for its size. Its one big advantage is all the other new engines/platforms are too optimized fir longer flights. This 90 minute optimization has very low climb fuel burn achieved at a small sacrifice of cruise fuel burn.

PW1100G, LEAP has more market share. But the lower long range fuel burn. Locked out RR from narrowbody engines



And remember for the GTF family, PW may one day --technology & fuel prices aiding-- reconsider their exclusion of the variable-area fan nozzle concept from the production engines...perhaps a further 0.5% - 1.0% fuel efficiency gain there potentially...


Faro
The chalice not my son
 
checklist1
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 5:46 am

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:39 am

flipdewaf wrote:
checklist1 wrote:
With 516 sqm vs 464 sqm
I would say for my part that the wing of the 777-X is significantly larger for a little more weight which has positive Consequences in flight compared to the A350-1000 IMO.

For takeoff it would be prudent to assume a limitation based largely on limitations of ClMaxto which would effectively be the same for both aircraft.
The driving factors for takeoff are effectively wing loading (Weight per unit area of wing) and the thrust to weight ratio. A lower wing loading giving an indication of effective speed required to get and thrust to weight ratio giving an approximation of the acceleration to reach those speeds.

For the A350 the MTOW 319000kg with a 464m^2 wing with a total thrust of 863kn giving a wing loading of 687.5kgm^-2 and a thrust to weight of 2.705Nkg^-1
For the B779X the MTOW 351534kg with a 517m^2 wing with a total thrust of 934kn giving a wing loading of 680kgm^-2 and a thrust t0 weight ratio of 2.657Nkg^-1

regarding takeoff distance the lower wing loading will reduce the length and the a lower thrust to weight will increase the length and so basically one divided by the other gives a fuller story (lower number indicates shorter takeoff run)
A350 - 687.5/2.705 = 254.1
B779X - 680/2.657 = 255.9
The difference here is less than 1 percent and so we realistically cannot deduce a difference between them here.

Regarding the bigger wing having consequences in flight I assume that you are referring to the increase in span giving a reduced induced drag and increasing overall UL/D. There appears to be a slightly lower spanwise loading for the 779X vs the A350 (4899kgm^-1 vs 4927kgm^-1) the 779X does cruise slightly slower and has a larger surface area.

My personal analysis puts the fuel burn per pax at a similar level to the A351 (giving a higher block fuel burn of course), my take if this is the case is much like the A380, if you can fill it, its worth it. I wouldn't be surprised to find the 779X to beat specs, Lightsaber seems to believe the Ge9X is a bit of a beast compared to what we have seen before.


checklist1 wrote:
I think that this argument makes no sense knowing that a 787 would also have less energy than an A350 just like the 767 or the A330 would have even less ...

What are you trying to make us understand?...
Its likely based on number of brake units, the A350-1000 and the 779X of course having 12. The 787 and A330 having 8.

Fred


Thank you for your figures and analysis.

If the 777-X has the same performance as the A350-1000 I would be curious to know why these airlines have opted in favor of the 777-X with +300 orders in 7 years against +/- 170 orders for the A350-1000 in 14 years old.

Unfortunately, I think that no calculation would allow us to understand this situation.

Regards :)
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2688
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:44 am

checklist1 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
checklist1 wrote:
With 516 sqm vs 464 sqm
I would say for my part that the wing of the 777-X is significantly larger for a little more weight which has positive Consequences in flight compared to the A350-1000 IMO.

For takeoff it would be prudent to assume a limitation based largely on limitations of ClMaxto which would effectively be the same for both aircraft.
The driving factors for takeoff are effectively wing loading (Weight per unit area of wing) and the thrust to weight ratio. A lower wing loading giving an indication of effective speed required to get and thrust to weight ratio giving an approximation of the acceleration to reach those speeds.

For the A350 the MTOW 319000kg with a 464m^2 wing with a total thrust of 863kn giving a wing loading of 687.5kgm^-2 and a thrust to weight of 2.705Nkg^-1
For the B779X the MTOW 351534kg with a 517m^2 wing with a total thrust of 934kn giving a wing loading of 680kgm^-2 and a thrust t0 weight ratio of 2.657Nkg^-1

regarding takeoff distance the lower wing loading will reduce the length and the a lower thrust to weight will increase the length and so basically one divided by the other gives a fuller story (lower number indicates shorter takeoff run)
A350 - 687.5/2.705 = 254.1
B779X - 680/2.657 = 255.9
The difference here is less than 1 percent and so we realistically cannot deduce a difference between them here.

Regarding the bigger wing having consequences in flight I assume that you are referring to the increase in span giving a reduced induced drag and increasing overall UL/D. There appears to be a slightly lower spanwise loading for the 779X vs the A350 (4899kgm^-1 vs 4927kgm^-1) the 779X does cruise slightly slower and has a larger surface area.

My personal analysis puts the fuel burn per pax at a similar level to the A351 (giving a higher block fuel burn of course), my take if this is the case is much like the A380, if you can fill it, its worth it. I wouldn't be surprised to find the 779X to beat specs, Lightsaber seems to believe the Ge9X is a bit of a beast compared to what we have seen before.


checklist1 wrote:
I think that this argument makes no sense knowing that a 787 would also have less energy than an A350 just like the 767 or the A330 would have even less ...

What are you trying to make us understand?...
Its likely based on number of brake units, the A350-1000 and the 779X of course having 12. The 787 and A330 having 8.

Fred


Thank you for your figures and analysis.

If the 777-X has the same performance as the A350-1000 I would be curious to know why these airlines have opted in favor of the 777-X with +300 orders in 7 years against +/- 170 orders for the A350-1000 in 14 years old.

Unfortunately, I think that no calculation would allow us to understand this situation.

Regards :)


Runway performance out of hot and high airports is not a huge issue for most airlines, there are only a handful that really need it. The reason the 777X has more orders has nothing to do with hot and high performance.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3711
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Fri Sep 04, 2020 11:44 am

checklist1 wrote:

Thank you for your figures and analysis.

No Problem, I always say I do someone elses job for my hobby and others probably do my job for their hobby..
checklist1 wrote:

If the 777-X has the same performance as the A350-1000 I would be curious to know why these airlines have opted in favor of the 777-X with +300 orders in 7 years against +/- 170 orders for the A350-1000 in 14 years old.

Imagine you are able to sell tickets such that you receive 10% profit on each one. Would you rather sell 426 tickets or 365 tickets....it is, like a lot of things, horses for courses.

If the 777X had a lower fuel burn than the A35k it would be able to go significantly further than 7285nm with 426pax

Or it would not have the headroom to lift as much cargo as the A35k.

I'm hoping the 7285nm figure is boosted to 7500-7600nm as a reflection of the better performance.
checklist1 wrote:


Unfortunately, I think that no calculation would allow us to understand this situation.

Regards :)


I agree, the things we need to make the calculations mean anything to establish this are buried under secrecy for good reason.

Fred
Image
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 1157
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Fri Sep 04, 2020 1:03 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
checklist1 wrote:

Thank you for your figures and analysis.

No Problem, I always say I do someone elses job for my hobby and others probably do my job for their hobby..
checklist1 wrote:

If the 777-X has the same performance as the A350-1000 I would be curious to know why these airlines have opted in favor of the 777-X with +300 orders in 7 years against +/- 170 orders for the A350-1000 in 14 years old.

Imagine you are able to sell tickets such that you receive 10% profit on each one. Would you rather sell 426 tickets or 365 tickets....it is, like a lot of things, horses for courses.

If the 777X had a lower fuel burn than the A35k it would be able to go significantly further than 7285nm with 426pax

Or it would not have the headroom to lift as much cargo as the A35k.

I'm hoping the 7285nm figure is boosted to 7500-7600nm as a reflection of the better performance.
checklist1 wrote:


Unfortunately, I think that no calculation would allow us to understand this situation.

Regards :)


I agree, the things we need to make the calculations mean anything to establish this are buried under secrecy for good reason.

Fred

Airlines going for the 777X is a combination of things. Acquisition price, payload, fuel burn, and most importantly return on investment, commonality in fleet, operating cost, engines etc. In some of those categories the A350-1000 beats the 777X but overall I think the 777X is favourable purchase not only as an aircraft but as an asset.

In most ways between the 777x and the A35K I understand that Boeing is able to offer a better price than Airbus on the A35K because the a35K is an expensive aircraft to build.

I think the major thing is the acquisition price because that will heavily influence the operating cost of the aircraft. So even if the A35K might have some better performance attributes, the 777X has some better performance attributes on its side. It’s a very close battle and it comes down to economics. If Airbus is charging a higher price on the A35K it may put off airlines. And subsequently means your ROI for the 777x is higher especially if the 777x has slightly better economics due to the higher passenger load and the fact there are higher revenue opportunities.

The a380 has the highest revenue opportunities passenger wise right but as WW pointed out the acquisition cost for the aircraft does not make it favourable in a period of economic downturn and he was right because here we are in 2020 and nobody wants to touch it. Apart from its high fuel burn and 4 engine economics, it’s high price of acquisition makes it hard to break even. But the A35K is nowhere near the A380 it’s far more efficient and has far better economics but it also has competition.

My take on project sunrise on why it took so long when the A35K was clearly the obvious choice at that point in time was probably the acquisition price that Boeing gave for the 778 which probably made it attractive operationally speaking. But i don’t think it was the right choice simply because the technology hadn’t been proven so the risk was too high and QF had to get Airbus on a price that made sense.

Let me also add. I believe I saw this on a previous thread but Airbus themselves did not see a market for the 350-1000 pass 250 units and RR says they may never break even on the 97. I’m happy to be corrected. But that may have to do with the cost of building the aircraft. I don’t know for sure. Happy to be corrected as well
 
checklist1
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 5:46 am

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Fri Sep 04, 2020 3:14 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
checklist1 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
For takeoff it would be prudent to assume a limitation based largely on limitations of ClMaxto which would effectively be the same for both aircraft.
The driving factors for takeoff are effectively wing loading (Weight per unit area of wing) and the thrust to weight ratio. A lower wing loading giving an indication of effective speed required to get and thrust to weight ratio giving an approximation of the acceleration to reach those speeds.

For the A350 the MTOW 319000kg with a 464m^2 wing with a total thrust of 863kn giving a wing loading of 687.5kgm^-2 and a thrust to weight of 2.705Nkg^-1
For the B779X the MTOW 351534kg with a 517m^2 wing with a total thrust of 934kn giving a wing loading of 680kgm^-2 and a thrust t0 weight ratio of 2.657Nkg^-1

regarding takeoff distance the lower wing loading will reduce the length and the a lower thrust to weight will increase the length and so basically one divided by the other gives a fuller story (lower number indicates shorter takeoff run)
A350 - 687.5/2.705 = 254.1
B779X - 680/2.657 = 255.9
The difference here is less than 1 percent and so we realistically cannot deduce a difference between them here.

Regarding the bigger wing having consequences in flight I assume that you are referring to the increase in span giving a reduced induced drag and increasing overall UL/D. There appears to be a slightly lower spanwise loading for the 779X vs the A350 (4899kgm^-1 vs 4927kgm^-1) the 779X does cruise slightly slower and has a larger surface area.

My personal analysis puts the fuel burn per pax at a similar level to the A351 (giving a higher block fuel burn of course), my take if this is the case is much like the A380, if you can fill it, its worth it. I wouldn't be surprised to find the 779X to beat specs, Lightsaber seems to believe the Ge9X is a bit of a beast compared to what we have seen before.

Its likely based on number of brake units, the A350-1000 and the 779X of course having 12. The 787 and A330 having 8.

Fred


Thank you for your figures and analysis.

If the 777-X has the same performance as the A350-1000 I would be curious to know why these airlines have opted in favor of the 777-X with +300 orders in 7 years against +/- 170 orders for the A350-1000 in 14 years old.

Unfortunately, I think that no calculation would allow us to understand this situation.

Regards :)


Runway performance out of hot and high airports is not a huge issue for most airlines, there are only a handful that really need it. The reason the 777X has more orders has nothing to do with hot and high performance.


I agree.
The hot and high airport is a false problem. Otherwise what would be "the problem" with the 787-10 that Emirates "does not want" when it works well for Etihad?

In reality it does not make sense except that EK had a contract to honor with Airbus due to the discontinuation of the A380 program in 2021.

In reality the A350-900 and A330-900 order solves the problem so the 787-10 is simply no longer justified and then the MOU expired so EK settled for the smaller 787-9 than the 787-10 and A350-900 ...

If the 777-X is selling well or "selling well" is which I think IMO is a question of whether the airlines can offer something else with a wider fuselage than the A330, 787 and A350.

It is in reality IMO a question of product diversification thanks to high contribution seat offers (Premium, business and First) that one might not find elsewhere on an A330, 787 or A350 even if the latter can sport easily for example a Q Class for Qatar Airways on the A350-1000 as well as on the 777-300ER.

British Airways, Lufthansa, Catay Pacific, SIA, Ana, Qatar Airways, Emirates and Etihad are among the prestigious airlines that own almost all A380s and 777-200ER / -300ER / -200LR / 200LR Freighter which have operated iconics 747 for decades.

I think it's a question of mindsets and a culture that you can't break overnight. In other words I think IMO that the 777-300ER / 777-X today are aircrafts which are halfway to the bigger 747 / A380 and smaller 787 / A350 and they IMO think that owning such an Aircraft (at mid -path) will not be resolved by an extended A350-900 fuselage (A350-1000) of the same product, hence the product diversification which is important.
They probably see a shortcoming in operating an A350-1000 when the 777-X does as well and being a larger shape.

It makes a lot more sense to me when it comes to choosing the 777-X.

I think we are on a hint of an answer here ...

Regards
 
User avatar
Ncfc99
Posts: 784
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 2:42 am

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Fri Sep 04, 2020 3:30 pm

Opus99 wrote:

In most ways between the 777x and the A35K I understand that Boeing is able to offer a better price than Airbus on the A35K because the a35K is an expensive aircraft to build.
[/quote][/quote]

Have you got any evidence or links to show the A350 is expensive to build? Or are we stating it is expensive like a few people are stating the 330 is more expensive than the 787. I'm not saying its not correct but I'd like to see something to substantiate it.
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 1157
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Ethiopian has its eyes on the 777X

Fri Sep 04, 2020 3:36 pm

Ncfc99 wrote:
Opus99 wrote:

In most ways between the 777x and the A35K I understand that Boeing is able to offer a better price than Airbus on the A35K because the a35K is an expensive aircraft to build.
[/quote]

Have you got any evidence or links to show the A350 is expensive to build? Or are we stating it is expensive like a few people are stating the 330 is more expensive than the 787. I'm not saying its not correct but I'd like to see something to substantiate it.[/quote]
of course:

https://www.thenational.ae/business/avi ... r-1.876741

Airbus has been focusing on bringing the cost on their A350s down. And WW in 2016 said at a seminar that Airbus builds fantastic aircrafts no doubt; but they are very expensive. And as I understand it (this I don’t have an article for) but the materials used to make the 350 are expensive compared to the 777X? I am again very happy to be corrected.

Also the 330 argument, I’m not learned on that so I don’t really know
Last edited by Opus99 on Fri Sep 04, 2020 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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