Would a longer 777-8 do better? Say stretch it to around 71m?

Sure it would cannibalize a bit more on the 777-9, but if the total of the two models is sufficiently higher to justify keeping two models, that doesn't matter. Most airlines don't requite 8.730Nm brochure range. At 71m it would still be around 8.500Nm. I think most airlines would value the improved CASM much more than payload-range beyond their requirement. The length gap between the 200 and the 300 was much bigger still than between the 8 and the 9, but unlike with the 777-x, the MTOW was significantly different.

Even as a freighter I think the added volume would be preferred over the extra payload-range, but that's hard to say.

That called b779

69.8m to 71m?

That would add 10 seats, improve efficiency by like 0.5% per seat.

It would actually be better to make a 66m version to increase the performance for freight. With the increase empty weight of the 777X it will be hard for the 777-8 freighter to have the same max payload of the original 777F. Reducing the length by 4m would reduce structural weight that allows more weight for payload at the current max landing weight.

RJMAZ wrote:

69.8m to 71m?

That would add 10 seats, improve efficiency by like 0.5% per seat.

It would actually be better to make a 66m version to increase the performance for freight. With the increase empty weight of the 777X it will be hard for the 777-8 freighter to have the same max payload of the original 777F. Reducing the length by 4m would reduce structural weight that allows more weight for payload at the current max landing weight.

This is just my 2 cents, however, I believe that air freights are mostly demanding on volume, rather than weight. So, I believe key customers like DHL, UPS, or FedEx would welcome more space/cargo volume than it is max payload weight (since most are either oversized cargo, or mails and small parcels on larger boxes like those from online shops).

HOWEVER, reducing it by 4m, while extending flight range substantially, could grab their attention too.

It would do better..... if those seats can be filled.

The 777-8 is the plane for somewhat thinner routes where filling seats can be a problem, which is exactly the reason it's smaller. If you cannot achieve your maximum load factor, it makes sense to put a smaller plane on the route so you don't have to haul empty seats around.

RJMAZ wrote:

That would add 10 seats, improve efficiency by like 0.5% per seat.

You're making the mistake of assuming all seats will be occupied. If you can occupy those 10 added seats, you're right. But that is a big if. Instead of the total number of seats, you should be looking at the occupied number of seats. If those seats go empty anyway, they only add volume and weight to the aircraft but don't generate any revenue. The efficiency improvement would be gone.

It's not about putting as many seats on a route as possible, it's about putting just the amount of seats on a route which you can fill. And if you can fill less seats, you put a smaller plane on the route.

Taxi645 wrote:

Would a longer 777-8 do better? Say stretch it to around 71m?

Sure it would cannibalize a bit more on the 777-9, but if the total of the two models is sufficiently higher to justify keeping two models, that doesn't matter. Most airlines don't requite 8.730Nm brochure range. At 71m it would still be around 8.500Nm. I think most airlines would value the improved CASM much more than payload-range beyond their requirement. The length gap between the 200 and the 300 was much bigger still than between the 8 and the 9, but unlike with the 777-x, the MTOW was significantly different.

Even as a freighter I think the added volume would be preferred over the extra payload-range, but that's hard to say.

B777-8 has 8 exist, B777-9 has 10 exits. I suspect that the B777-8 is as big as it can get before having to add the extra 2 exits. Adding those doors costs more money to build, more money to maintain, might require more crew and will reduce the usable space of the extra length.

I’m going to make a guess that the 777-8 fuselage dimensions were optimized for a future freighter version. With the 747-8 going out of production, the 777-8 is probably going to be the only long haul heavy freight airplane on the market for a decade unless an A350 freighter gets launched. The 747-400Fs haven’t hit a replacement cycle yet which hurt 747-8 sales, but in 5-10 years, the 777-8 will be the best option assuming that it gets launched. The 777-300ERSF probably doesn’t have enough payload as a freighter conversion

PatrickZ80 wrote:

It would do better..... if those seats can be filled.

You're making the mistake of assuming all seats will be occupied. If you can occupy those 10 added seats, you're right. But that is a big if. Instead of the total number of seats, you should be looking at the occupied number of seats. If those seats go empty anyway, they only add volume and weight to the aircraft but don't generate any revenue. The efficiency improvement would be gone.

It's not about putting as many seats on a route as possible, it's about putting just the amount of seats on a route which you can fill. And if you can fill less seats, you put a smaller plane on the route.

It's not just about filling them, but also about doing so at profitable prices. If you have to sell the 10 additional seats at production cost, why bother in the first place. Dumping cheap seats onto the market also drags down prices overall.

I think that making the 778 longer brings it too close to the 779 to make it worthwhile. If airlines are going to buy it they will be buying it for the range. But I think the previous comments about the length of the 778 being dictated by the freighter requirements are correct. I think there is a chance Boeing knows what they are doing. But with COVID, the 778 is going to be on hold for years. Don’t expect it before 2030.

evanb wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

Would a longer 777-8 do better? Say stretch it to around 71m?

Sure it would cannibalize a bit more on the 777-9, but if the total of the two models is sufficiently higher to justify keeping two models, that doesn't matter. Most airlines don't requite 8.730Nm brochure range. At 71m it would still be around 8.500Nm. I think most airlines would value the improved CASM much more than payload-range beyond their requirement. The length gap between the 200 and the 300 was much bigger still than between the 8 and the 9, but unlike with the 777-x, the MTOW was significantly different.

Even as a freighter I think the added volume would be preferred over the extra payload-range, but that's hard to say.

B777-8 has 8 exist, B777-9 has 10 exits. I suspect that the B777-8 is as big as it can get before having to add the extra 2 exits. Adding those doors costs more money to build, more money to maintain, might require more crew and will reduce the usable space of the extra length.

The 5th exit pair on the 779 is optional. You can get it with only 8 exits.

Taxi645 wrote:

Would a longer 777-8 do better? Say stretch it to around 71m?

Sure it would cannibalize a bit more on the 777-9, but if the total of the two models is sufficiently higher to justify keeping two models, that doesn't matter. Most airlines don't requite 8.730Nm brochure range. At 71m it would still be around 8.500Nm. I think most airlines would value the improved CASM much more than payload-range beyond their requirement. The length gap between the 200 and the 300 was much bigger still than between the 8 and the 9, but unlike with the 777-x, the MTOW was significantly different.

Even as a freighter I think the added volume would be preferred over the extra payload-range, but that's hard to say.

Boeing is responding to what its customers said they want. The 777-8 is the size it is for a reason - especially as a freighter.

If the EK estimates are correct, then 778 has more outstanding orders than 77L and (IINM) 748i when first metal was cut on them. And like them, it's more than likely going to have a freighter component as well (plus as with the 77L, a larger sister) to piggyback.

So if history is any indication, there's no real reason to believe that Boeing won't bring it forth.

RJMAZ wrote:

69.8m to 71m?

That would add 10 seats, improve efficiency by like 0.5% per seat.

If I'm not mistaken a 777 frame section is 21'', so if we add three we get a 1,6m stretch to 71,4m. That would mean two extra LD3's and say 16-20 extra seats. That's only 5,3m to the 777-9. That said, the difference between a A330-200 and 300 is also only 4,9m.

RJMAZ wrote:

It would actually be better to make a 66m version to increase the performance for freight. With the increase empty weight of the 777X it will be hard for the 777-8 freighter to have the same max payload of the original 777F. Reducing the length by 4m would reduce structural weight that allows more weight for payload at the current max landing weight.

What's important is to maximize the total sales of the 8, 9 and F variant while making it harder for the competition. I think the number of freighter sales you would miss because of a 1,6m stretch would be extremely limited, if any. Yes max. payload would be slightly lower, but payload at range would still be better than the 777F and you get more volume to boot. There would not be competition with a higher max payload.

Personally I suspect that total 777x sales would be higher with an 1.6m longer 8/F, but only on the condition that a passenger 8 would actually be brought to market. That said, the market right now obviously is quite difficult for this type of airliner and probably the difference in total sales would not be significant enough to make a meaningful difference.

It’s an interesting thought but I doubt it’d be on Boeing’s list of priorities right now.

Firstly, the bread and butter of Boeing’s income, the 737, has had a major impact with the grounding of the 737MAX. It will require a lot of time and rework to put the already produced MAXs into a standard that meets new aviation requirements. Given the amount of compensations delivered to clients, existing lawsuits, et al, it’s conceivable that the outstanding MAX deliveries will be revenue neutral, or there abouts; perhaps a loss on many frames.

787 production is being consolidated and reduced. 777X deliveries also being postponed, so I am highly doubtful that Boeing would even give a second of thought to the 778 frame at this point in time.

If Boeing were/are smart, then I’d suggest their efforts are more focussed on a new generation of narrow body in the region of a 737-700+ to a 757-200+ style of plane in terms of capacity and range. And leveraging a lot of technology from the 787/777X to assist in minimising costs. So possibly a plane in the 170-200-230-260 pax capability.

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

It’s an interesting thought but I doubt it’d be on Boeing’s list of priorities right now.

Firstly, the bread and butter of Boeing’s income, the 737, has had a major impact with the grounding of the 737MAX. It will require a lot of time and rework to put the already produced MAXs into a standard that meets new aviation requirements. Given the amount of compensations delivered to clients, existing lawsuits, et al, it’s conceivable that the outstanding MAX deliveries will be revenue neutral, or there abouts; perhaps a loss on many frames.

787 production is being consolidated and reduced. 777X deliveries also being postponed, so I am highly doubtful that Boeing would even give a second of thought to the 778 frame at this point in time.

If Boeing were/are smart, then I’d suggest their efforts are more focussed on a new generation of narrow body in the region of a 737-700+ to a 757-200+ style of plane in terms of capacity and range. And leveraging a lot of technology from the 787/777X to assist in minimising costs. So possibly a plane in the 170-200-230-260 pax capability.

The issue is the 777x economics of scale and cost vs cost of what you propose. Boeing needs a 777xF to keep up production and support the supply chain. That cost is low.
1
The 778, in my opinion, is only for payload at range and hot/high performance. But it will also be the basis of the freighter. The cost to develop both off the 779 is low, under $ 1 billion.

A new aircraft requires new factories. It requires an incredible engineering effort to design from scratch. A new engine alone will cost $5 to $6 billion. The airframe another $6 to $7

e.g., GE just invested $5.4 billion in factories:
https://www.ge.com/news/reports/ge-inve ... ctories-us

Every flight test hour costs over $50,000 and it takes 400+ to certify an engine and new flight testing rules push that to over 1,750 hours for a new airframe. So the flight test campaign alone costs over $100, million. While this is for any new model, the derivative can have an eighth of the engine testing and can have as little as 400 hours of flight testing.

I do not see Boeing having the funds at this time.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

I do not see Boeing having the funds at this time.

I wouldn't describe that as Boeing 'not having the funds.' Boeing still has plenty of capacity to borrow. Buyers snapped up $4.9 Billion in unsecured bonds in October with some paying less than 2.5%. Let's see AA or UA try that. This followed an over-subscribed $25 Billion offering at the end of April 2020.

This is more likely a problem of poor return on investment. You point out the large sums to be invested in a new model, and in some ULH variants. For all the talk about range-stretching aircraft - Project Sunrise, hah hah hah - we can see how poorly 77Ls and A345/346 sold. It's really a very small subset of routes for which passengers will pay to carry lots of fuel to cover a long distance non-stop. That leads to sales all the way up in the DOZENS. Try amortizing a few $Billion in development costs over those quantities.

You're surely right about the power of commonality across 777-8/777-9/777F. Let's not see them hose it up they way they did with 787s.

MIflyer12 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

I do not see Boeing having the funds at this time.

I wouldn't describe that as Boeing 'not having the funds.' Boeing still has plenty of capacity to borrow. Buyers snapped up $4.9 Billion in unsecured bonds in October with some paying less than 2.5%. Let's see AA or UA try that. This followed an over-subscribed $25 Billion offering at the end of April 2020.

But bonds are as good as you can repay the bonds back. With so many bad things happening right now, I guess the BoD would like to prioritize a more cushy cash reserve first, so if the worse is yet to come, at least they can pay bonds and debts first. Would they gamble on doing new and capital-intensive RnD and development right now? I guess not.

evanb wrote:

I suspect that the B777-8 is as big as it can get before having to add the extra 2 exits. Adding those doors costs more money to build, more money to maintain, might require more crew and will reduce the usable space of the extra length.

All good points. Those 2 additional exit doors also mean 2 additional (heavy) evac slides plus the door frames and surrounding structural reinforcement. All of this adds weight to the airframe. Extra weight reduces range/payload, etc.

lightsaber wrote:

The issue is the 777x economics of scale and cost vs cost of what you propose. Boeing needs a 777xF to keep up production and support the supply chain. That cost is low.
1
The 778, in my opinion, is only for payload at range and hot/high performance. But it will also be the basis of the freighter. The cost to develop both off the 779 is low, under $ 1 billion.

A new aircraft requires new factories. It requires an incredible engineering effort to design from scratch. A new engine alone will cost $5 to $6 billion. The airframe another $6 to $7

e.g., GE just invested $5.4 billion in factories:
https://www.ge.com/news/reports/ge-inve ... ctories-us

Every flight test hour costs over $50,000 and it takes 400+ to certify an engine and new flight testing rules push that to over 1,750 hours for a new airframe. So the flight test campaign alone costs over $100, million. While this is for any new model, the derivative can have an eighth of the engine testing and can have as little as 400 hours of flight testing.

I do not see Boeing having the funds at this time.

Lightsaber

G’day Mate,

I completely understand where you are coming from and it is completely logical. As Boeing has been quite strong in the freighter market, it makes sense that a a derivative of the 777x program be there to take up a role vacated by the demise of the 747 program.

But freighters are almost niche when compared to a passenger plane, so to speak. Which is why I suggested that Boeing focus on something that delivers more regular/mainstream revenue.

Yes I agree that any new plane will be extremely expensive to design, develop and test. And Boeing is certainly bleeding lots of cashflow of recent times. But there comes a point where they can’t just rely upon sales of 787s and 777s to save them. They need something that’s quicker to build and sell in strong numbers and to me that suggests a narrow body aircraft. The 737 has had so many facelifts that it’s now got a hairy chin. So that just leaves the option of a new platform.

Experience with the 777, 787, 777X means they already have solid systems experience with FBW and EICAS just to name a couple. This should assist with minimising costs of a new narrow body. And if 787 production is being consolidated in one location, does that not free up enough building space for a new line?

But at the end of the day they still need to find billions of dollars.

Cheers.

MIflyer12 wrote:

This is more likely a problem of poor return on investment. You point out the large sums to be invested in a new model, and in some ULH variants. For all the talk about range-stretching aircraft - Project Sunrise, hah hah hah - we can see how poorly 77Ls and A345/346 sold. It's really a very small subset of routes for which passengers will pay to carry lots of fuel to cover a long distance non-stop. That leads to sales all the way up in the DOZENS. Try amortizing a few $Billion in development costs over those quantities.

Agreed, unless it is a minimal change variant (A350-900ULR), the business case for extreme range models, seems fairly limited. You could argue that having to do the freighter anyway makes the passenger version minimal change.

It seems likely that fuel prices will rise faster (synthetic fuels or taxation) than efficiency will increase the next 20 years. That does not help the case of "carrying fuel to fly fuel".

How far along is/was Boeing with the 777-8? What would be the extra cost of making it 1.6m longer at this stage of development?

DL747400 wrote:

evanb wrote:

I suspect that the B777-8 is as big as it can get before having to add the extra 2 exits. Adding those doors costs more money to build, more money to maintain, might require more crew and will reduce the usable space of the extra length.

All good points. Those 2 additional exit doors also mean 2 additional (heavy) evac slides plus the door frames and surrounding structural reinforcement. All of this adds weight to the airframe. Extra weight reduces range/payload, etc.

Don't forget the crew too. It adds up when you start tacking on 2 more FAs for each segment, providing layover hotels, crew coordination, scheduling etc.
This was a big driver at BrandX for eliminating an FA on a certain French airplane, and came up when that FA was added back again in a... janky way.

Obviously doesn't matter with cargo. A little stretch would probably be fine for them. No doors no problem.

One problem I can see with a 777xF being viable right now is, that there are plenty of alternatives cheaply available. Freighter market is all about cheap feedstock. We have really only a handful of western designed dedicated fighters that ever were a success:

747F
767F
777F
A300F

maybe include the DC10/MD11

Now why were said aircraft very successful:
The 747F, sheer size and range and special loading door (nose), unparalleled
A300F, first twin freighter with decent range and payload
767F, succeeded the A300F
777F, massive payload and range capabilities for a twin (more economical than the 747F)

Now why do you buy new 767F or 777F? There is no cheap alternative on the second hand (conversion) market. 767 feedstock is limited, 33F is too big (wingspan) for the role of the 767F.
You also buy the 777F because there is no other twin with the capabilities to have a conversion available cheap enough. NOT YET. The next logical step here is the 77W BCF.

A potential 777xF has to compete with 77W BCF. Can Boeing produce 777xF at a price that is competitive with 77W BCFs because that's the value of it. If we have 100s of 77Ws as cheap conversion stock that is where the market goes. And Covid gave us 100s of 77W as feedstock.

Investing into the 777xF right now is throwing money at a product that is not needed for the next 10 years. Neither is the 777-8. So Boeing will have to keep the 777-9 alive somehow and in a decade develop the 777xF when the market is ready. Until then produce 77Fs and invest in conversions of 77W to make money.

They could probably still build the 77F for a few more years, I'm not sure of the status of the 77W production that is not on the 779 (different wings and engines for sure). I have seen no news of this but certainly have seen the end of line news on the 748F production.

With all of the existing fleets out there it seems plausible that freighters would be OK with say a 5 year gap in new build 777 freighters - either 77F or 778F. But Boeing would want that production and revenue.

To the OP topic: The 77W was very successful, the 77L not really. What do the airlines want from the 778? Probably the longest range for maximum payload. Haul a full plane with lots of cargo but with enough seats to spread the cost over. A couple of rows less than the 77W should suffice to do that, its more to adjust the range to fit the launch customers requirements, if cutting an extra row out brings in 8 more busy city pairs with the added range then do it.

For the freighter it is probably important to be able to lift at least the max payload of the 77F. But it is conceivable that two freighter lengths could be offered - matching the 778 and matching the 779. Solving the way to reinforce the floor beams on the 779 when at a later P2F conversion would be good.

SEPilot wrote:

I think that making the 778 longer brings it too close to the 779 to make it worthwhile. If airlines are going to buy it they will be buying it for the range. But I think the previous comments about the length of the 778 being dictated by the freighter requirements are correct. I think there is a chance Boeing knows what they are doing. But with COVID, the 778 is going to be on hold for years. Don’t expect it before 2030.

A potential 778 is squeezed on one side by the 787 and on the other bij the 779. And all that in a depressed market. Guess you are right.

FluidFlow wrote:

One problem I can see with a 777xF being viable right now is, that there are plenty of alternatives cheaply available. Freighter market is all about cheap feedstock. We have really only a handful of western designed dedicated fighters that ever were a success:

747F
767F
777F
A300F

maybe include the DC10/MD11

Now why were said aircraft very successful:
The 747F, sheer size and range and special loading door (nose), unparalleled
A300F, first twin freighter with decent range and payload
767F, succeeded the A300F
777F, massive payload and range capabilities for a twin (more economical than the 747F)

Now why do you buy new 767F or 777F? There is no cheap alternative on the second hand (conversion) market. 767 feedstock is limited, 33F is too big (wingspan) for the role of the 767F.
You also buy the 777F because there is no other twin with the capabilities to have a conversion available cheap enough. NOT YET. The next logical step here is the 77W BCF.

A potential 777xF has to compete with 77W BCF. Can Boeing produce 777xF at a price that is competitive with 77W BCFs because that's the value of it. If we have 100s of 77Ws as cheap conversion stock that is where the market goes. And Covid gave us 100s of 77W as feedstock.

Investing into the 777xF right now is throwing money at a product that is not needed for the next 10 years. Neither is the 777-8. So Boeing will have to keep the 777-9 alive somehow and in a decade develop the 777xF when the market is ready. Until then produce 77Fs and invest in conversions of 77W to make money.

Good post, thanks. If the freighter is still 10 years away and the current 777-8 proposal is too niche because almost no airline needs such extreme range/hot&high, wouldn't it be better to have a more attractive passenger model underneath the 777-9 to help keep the 77-x alive over that period as you say? Even if that might slightly compromise the freighter in payload and range in 10 years time (by then the engine will be PIP-ed anyway to recover some range), it's better than having no 777xF at all if the 777-x doesn't survive on the basis of the 777-9 alone.

A 71.4m 777-8, compared to the current 777-8 proposal, would be less of a niche because you trade a small amount of excess range for better CASM that suits more missions. Compared to the 777-9 it's still a bit easier to fill in the post-COVID period. It might help the 777-x to get through this period of low high capacity demand.

Taxi645 wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

One problem I can see with a 777xF being viable right now is, that there are plenty of alternatives cheaply available. Freighter market is all about cheap feedstock. We have really only a handful of western designed dedicated fighters that ever were a success:

747F
767F
777F
A300F

maybe include the DC10/MD11

Now why were said aircraft very successful:
The 747F, sheer size and range and special loading door (nose), unparalleled
A300F, first twin freighter with decent range and payload
767F, succeeded the A300F
777F, massive payload and range capabilities for a twin (more economical than the 747F)

Now why do you buy new 767F or 777F? There is no cheap alternative on the second hand (conversion) market. 767 feedstock is limited, 33F is too big (wingspan) for the role of the 767F.
You also buy the 777F because there is no other twin with the capabilities to have a conversion available cheap enough. NOT YET. The next logical step here is the 77W BCF.

A potential 777xF has to compete with 77W BCF. Can Boeing produce 777xF at a price that is competitive with 77W BCFs because that's the value of it. If we have 100s of 77Ws as cheap conversion stock that is where the market goes. And Covid gave us 100s of 77W as feedstock.

Investing into the 777xF right now is throwing money at a product that is not needed for the next 10 years. Neither is the 777-8. So Boeing will have to keep the 777-9 alive somehow and in a decade develop the 777xF when the market is ready. Until then produce 77Fs and invest in conversions of 77W to make money.

Good post, thanks. If the freighter is still 10 years away and the current 777-8 proposal is too niche because almost no airline needs such extreme range/hot&high, wouldn't it be better to have a more attractive passenger model underneath the 777-9 to help keep the 77-x alive over that period as you say? Even if that might slightly compromise the freighter in payload and range in 10 years time (by then the engine will be PIP-ed anyway to recover some range), it's better than having no 777xF at all if the 777-x doesn't survive on the basis of the 777-9 alone.

A 71.4m 777-8, compared to the current 777-8 proposal, would be less of a niche because you trade a small amount of excess range for better CASM that suits more missions. Compared to the 777-9 it's still a bit easier to fill in the post-COVID period. It might help the 777-x to get through this period of low high capacity demand.

The problem with the -8 is the same as with the A345. It was designed for a special role, a role that is not needed at the moment and is also really really small in general. Not a lot of routes need that massive capacity on a route that long or from a really niche place. The 77L was also not sold alot.

The aircraft is just too big and making it bigger will just make it heavier.

The 777-8 will be dropped like the A358. It has just no market. But a shrunk (might not even need a shrink just some changes) 777xF will be introduced as a freighter when it is time (when the market needs this aircraft).

Until then, Boeing has only one goal: to make the 779 line somewhat survive and take the losses.

It’s really tough to nitpick the 778 design decisions unless/until her spec’s are finalized. Any rumors when that might happen, post June or so? After Project Sunrise I assumed they’d tailor it more to the freighter, but nothing has happened so far as...leading to a prototype being built. It still is supposed to have the carbon fiber trusses for the floor, to my surprise, but I would guess everything is subject to some liberal amount of changes on this particular model still as it’s basically been...sitting on the shelf as an idea for over 3 years.

FluidFlow wrote:

The 777-8 will be dropped like the A358. It has just no market

You probably should avoid making such declarative statements with so little corroboration from the manufacture to go on.

It's generally not Boeing's MO to cancel a launched derivative with outstanding orders, no matter how few. About the only one I can think of in the last several decades is the 764ERX, which was cancelled due to the cancellation of an expectant common engine for 747 variants that never came to market. Both the 757-100 and 777-100 derivatives didn't have orders at the time of cancellation, IIRC.

LAX772LR wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

The 777-8 will be dropped like the A358. It has just no market

You probably should avoid making such declarative statements with so little corroboration from the manufacture to go on.

It's generally not Boeing's MO to cancel a launched derivative with outstanding orders, no matter how few. About the only one I can think of in the last several decades is the 764ERX, which was cancelled due to the cancellation of an expectant common engine for 747 variants that never came to market. Both the 757-100 and 777-100 derivatives didn't have orders at the time of cancellation, IIRC.

Knock-knock.
Who's there?
787.
787-who?
787-3.

The -3 orders from JAL & ANA were converted to -8s by January 2010, more-or-less under pressure from Boeing and the specs; Boeing officially cancelled the 787-3 later that year.
Similar scenario happened with the A350-800; can happen with the 777-8 as well.

Airlines and aircraft manufacturers work behind closed doors to reshuffle aircraft variants on their order; it's not hard to imagine it's a possible fate for the 777-8 as well. Not saying it will happen, saying it can.

WayexTDI wrote:

The -3 orders from JAL & ANA were converted to -8s by January 2010, more-or-less under pressure from Boeing

Fun recollection, now here's what actually happened:
JL converted its 783s to 788s in the summer of 2009 when, by their own statement to FlightGlobal, they saw similar efficiency in shorthaul with the 788 while still having flexibility to fly them longer. NH followed half a year later, with the official statement that they could get their 788s faster than the 783, whose delivery schedule had slipped past the initial mid 2010 promise.

While I'm sure Boeing wasn't exactly upset that the thought of simplifying production, if you have evidence of express pressure, then feel free to share with us how you'd know, beyond speculation.

WayexTDI wrote:

Similar scenario happened with the A350-800; can happen with the 777-8 as well.

I don't recall the A358 being a Boeing offering, nor mentioning Airbus' relevant strategy at all; thus bringing that up was rather immaterial.

...nor saying that "it can't happen" with the 778; just that the OEM has given no indication that that's their intention, primary customers still hold their orders, thus history tells us that they're more than likely to still bring it to market at this point.

I would imagine during the Research and Development phase, airline manufacturers gather many details and scenarios in which they cover what their customers' need for their network upon introduction and specifications/variants for future expansion. I imagine the department who handles this research would test multiple model sizes and segments to find advantages and disadvantages of the tweaks to the base model before choosing the best offering.

Have there been any instances where a manufacturer has offered a product that was just completely off of what is needed in the airline industry? Other than an unplanned major event changing trajectory of the industries' needs such as a financial depression during development or COVID.

DL752

Don't ever think that Boeing will cancel the 778. Never.
And don't know if Boeing was planning for a higher MTOW 778 for the cargo version or/and a stretch version.

Remember when Bamboo created a shocking statement that it planned to buy 12 Boeing 777X? Bamboo then uploaded a range-demonstration picture of the Boeing jets on social media, showing that the 778 now has 788k lb MTOW, even higher than its bigger bro 779:

One of the rare articles still keeps this illustration: https://nhipsongdoanhnghiep.cuocsongant ... 34729.html
Thread: viewtopic.php?t=1440675#p22002049

Interestingly this picture is entirely cleaned on official media and newspaper soon after that (Boeing didn't want to show the public this?), and I could only find this picture on mirror/copy sites. But I can confirm that formal media was using this picture to talk about Bamboo's potential order for a dozen of 777X.

I believe that B will make an MTOW-boost for the B778, but not a stretch.

If anything, I'd think shrinking it would be better. As a freighter, there has to be a balance between payload weight and volume. Despite the larger wing, I'd be hard pressed to believe a 777-8 freighter could carry more payload by weight than the 777F simply because there is 20 extra feet of fuselage. With the 747F gone, they ought to find a way to increase the 8F's payload to ~250k from the 777F's 225k

Also, a 777-200 length 8X would be superior on ultra-long range routes, and could do project sunrise routes both directions with ease and a very large payload. Because of the increased cabin width, Normal 3-class seating for a 772-length 8X would be around 350 or so.

Maybe a fuselage length of 219' would be better (exactly between the 777F and 8X)

I don't see any advantage to stretching the 8X unless you decide to get rid of the -9 altogether.

744SPX wrote:

If anything, I'd think shrinking it would be better. As a freighter, there has to be a balance between payload weight and volume. Despite the larger wing, I'd be hard pressed to believe a 777-8 freighter could carry more payload by weight than the 777F simply because there is 20 extra feet of fuselage. With the 747F gone, they ought to find a way to increase the 8F's payload to ~250k from the 777F's 225k

Also, a 777-200 length 8X would be superior on ultra-long range routes, and could do project sunrise routes both directions with ease and a very large payload. Because of the increased cabin width, Normal 3-class seating for a 772-length 8X would be around 350 or so.

Maybe a fuselage length of 219' would be better (exactly between the 777F and 8X)

I don't see any advantage to stretching the 8X unless you decide to get rid of the -9 altogether.

Shrink and then you have another B787-10?

Antaras wrote:

744SPX wrote:

If anything, I'd think shrinking it would be better. As a freighter, there has to be a balance between payload weight and volume. Despite the larger wing, I'd be hard pressed to believe a 777-8 freighter could carry more payload by weight than the 777F simply because there is 20 extra feet of fuselage. With the 747F gone, they ought to find a way to increase the 8F's payload to ~250k from the 777F's 225k

Also, a 777-200 length 8X would be superior on ultra-long range routes, and could do project sunrise routes both directions with ease and a very large payload. Because of the increased cabin width, Normal 3-class seating for a 772-length 8X would be around 350 or so.

Maybe a fuselage length of 219' would be better (exactly between the 777F and 8X)

I don't see any advantage to stretching the 8X unless you decide to get rid of the -9 altogether.

Shrink and then you have another B787-10?

More like a 777SP, or a 787-10 that can do 10,000 nmi

744SPX wrote:

If anything, I'd think shrinking it would be better.

Which, save for the initial sales of the A319 and A332 (for alternative reasons), rarely works out well... as shrinks inherently carry deadweight that cannot be purged.

LAX772LR wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

The -3 orders from JAL & ANA were converted to -8s by January 2010, more-or-less under pressure from Boeing

Fun recollection, now here's what actually happened:
JL converted its 783s to 788s in the summer of 2009 when, by their own statement to FlightGlobal, they saw similar efficiency in shorthaul with the 788 while still having flexibility to fly them longer. NH followed half a year later, with the official statement that they could get their 788s faster than the 783, whose delivery schedule had slipped past the initial mid 2010 promise.

While I'm sure Boeing wasn't exactly upset that the thought of simplifying production, if you have evidence of express pressure, then feel free to share with us how you'd know, beyond speculation.

WayexTDI wrote:

Similar scenario happened with the A350-800; can happen with the 777-8 as well.

I don't recall the A358 being a Boeing offering, nor mentioning Airbus' relevant strategy at all; thus bringing that up was rather immaterial.

The A350-800 was brought up as the scenario is very similar: an airframe manufacturer (be it Boeing, Airbus or whoever else) offered a family of aircraft to market, including a shorter variant that sold a few units, and said manufacturer works with the customers (airlines) to move up to the next bigger variant, removing the need for the shorter variant.
Again, happened in the past, will certainly happen again in the future.

LAX772LR wrote:

...nor saying that "it can't happen" with the 778; just that the OEM has given no indication that that's their intention, primary customers still hold their orders, thus history tells us that they're more than likely to still bring it to market at this point.

Yes, it's still on the books... until it's no longer.
The 787-3 was on the books for a while, the A350-800 was, so was the A380F; all those had orders that the customers decided to cancel/convert. And then, all of a sudden, no more customers, no more sales, no more need for that variant. However, up to the day before it was cancelled, orders were still existing, in force and valid.

Future will tell, no one else knows.

LAX772LR wrote:

744SPX wrote:

If anything, I'd think shrinking it would be better.

Which, save for the initial sales of the A319 and A332 (for alternative reasons), rarely works out well... as shrinks inherently carry deadweight that cannot be purged.

What about the 737-500 which sold 389 out of a total of 1,988 737 Classics? 20% of the total production, hardly a failure. Its direct successor (737-600) was a dud (69 out of 6,767 commercial NGs, 1% of the production).

Or the A310 (a shrink of the A300B2, with some modifications that were carried onto the A300-600) which sold 255 out of a total production of 816 A300/A310? 31% of the total production.

WayexTDI wrote:

The A350-800 was brought up as the scenario is very similar: an airframe manufacturer (be it Boeing, Airbus or whoever else) offered a family of aircraft to market, including a shorter variant that sold a few units, and said manufacturer works with the customers (airlines) to move up to the next bigger variant, removing the need for the shorter variant.
Again, happened in the past, will certainly happen again in the future.

Sure, though the statement is about what Boeing's specific history of handling these scenarios has consistently been; to which Airbus' actions are completely tangential, since we're dealing with a Boeing-customer scenario.

WayexTDI wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

744SPX wrote:

If anything, I'd think shrinking it would be better.

Which, save for the initial sales of the A319 and A332 (for alternative reasons), rarely works out well... as shrinks inherently carry deadweight that cannot be purged.

What about the 737-500 . . . Or the A310

...that's why the word "rarely" was used, not "never."

Antaras wrote:

Remember when Bamboo created a shocking statement that it planned to buy 12 Boeing 777X? Bamboo then uploaded a range-demonstration picture of the Boeing jets on social media, showing that the 778 now has 788k lb MTOW, even higher than its bigger bro 779

I think that image guarantees there will not be a stretched 778, with only 30 seats (422 vs 392), 3 rows of economy, who would bother buying the 778 now, let alone if the difference was only one or two rows.

WayexTDI wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

744SPX wrote:

If anything, I'd think shrinking it would be better.

Which, save for the initial sales of the A319 and A332 (for alternative reasons), rarely works out well... as shrinks inherently carry deadweight that cannot be purged.

What about the 737-500 which sold 389 out of a total of 1,988 737 Classics? 20% of the total production, hardly a failure. Its direct successor (737-600) was a dud (69 out of 6,767 commercial NGs, 1% of the production).

Or the A310 (a shrink of the A300B2, with some modifications that were carried onto the A300-600) which sold 255 out of a total production of 816 A300/A310? 31% of the total production.

Back then range was actually an issue for aircraft. Today not so much.

Antaras wrote:

Don't ever think that Boeing will cancel the 778. Never.
And don't know if Boeing was planning for a higher MTOW 778 for the cargo version or/and a stretch version.

Remember when Bamboo created a shocking statement that it planned to buy 12 Boeing 777X? Bamboo then uploaded a range-demonstration picture of the Boeing jets on social media, showing that the 778 now has 788k lb MTOW, even higher than its bigger bro 779:

One of the rare articles still keeps this illustration: https://nhipsongdoanhnghiep.cuocsongant ... 34729.html
Thread: viewtopic.php?t=1440675#p22002049

Interestingly this picture is entirely cleaned on official media and newspaper soon after that (Boeing didn't want to show the public this?), and I could only find this picture on mirror/copy sites. But I can confirm that formal media was using this picture to talk about Bamboo's potential order for a dozen of 777X.

I believe that B will make an MTOW-boost for the B778, but not a stretch.

This picture actually shows almost too much why the 77X has a problem. The 779 is just a heavy 787-9. You need a whooping 120 pax more to make the flight viable. When the 77W came, it outperformed every other twin in range and payload. Only quads were able to do what the 77W was capable of. And now? We have the 787-9 and the A359 that can do exactly what the 779 can. Just more economical 99% of the time. It is way more economical to leave some payload behind (so be 100% booked out) than be able to book a bit more but fly with 75% load. And you can drop a 787-9 or an A350 on a 2000nm route and make money. This will be hard with a 779 just because it is so damn heavy.

It also shows the problem of the 778. What do you really gain over the 779 or better the 787-9? A lousy few airports from Hanoi?

If Boeing bumps the range of the 787-9 (same for Airbus with the A359) with engine PiPs and MTOW increases it can do what the 778 can just more economical. On the other side PiPs on the 778 just give it more range into nowhere. For PAX operation this is just not viable any more.

Chances are, that a 777xF might even be based on the 779. The last few 747Fs were mostly ordered for the massive volume. I dont think UPS really maxes out on payload, but all them parcels need a lot of volume. Depending on the future demand, and with the increase in online retail, volume will be more important than payload.

It will be interesting to see though how super heavy payload will work out if the ANs are not coming back and also what will replace them eventually.

FluidFlow wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Which, save for the initial sales of the A319 and A332 (for alternative reasons), rarely works out well... as shrinks inherently carry deadweight that cannot be purged.

What about the 737-500 which sold 389 out of a total of 1,988 737 Classics? 20% of the total production, hardly a failure. Its direct successor (737-600) was a dud (69 out of 6,767 commercial NGs, 1% of the production).

Or the A310 (a shrink of the A300B2, with some modifications that were carried onto the A300-600) which sold 255 out of a total production of 816 A300/A310? 31% of the total production.

Back then range was actually an issue for aircraft. Today not so much.

Antaras wrote:

Don't ever think that Boeing will cancel the 778. Never.
And don't know if Boeing was planning for a higher MTOW 778 for the cargo version or/and a stretch version.

Remember when Bamboo created a shocking statement that it planned to buy 12 Boeing 777X? Bamboo then uploaded a range-demonstration picture of the Boeing jets on social media, showing that the 778 now has 788k lb MTOW, even higher than its bigger bro 779:

One of the rare articles still keeps this illustration: https://nhipsongdoanhnghiep.cuocsongant ... 34729.html
Thread: viewtopic.php?t=1440675#p22002049

Interestingly this picture is entirely cleaned on official media and newspaper soon after that (Boeing didn't want to show the public this?), and I could only find this picture on mirror/copy sites. But I can confirm that formal media was using this picture to talk about Bamboo's potential order for a dozen of 777X.

I believe that B will make an MTOW-boost for the B778, but not a stretch.

This picture actually shows almost too much why the 77X has a problem. The 779 is just a heavy 787-9. You need a whooping 120 pax more to make the flight viable. When the 77W came, it outperformed every other twin in range and payload. Only quads were able to do what the 77W was capable of. And now? We have the 787-9 and the A359 that can do exactly what the 779 can. Just more economical 99% of the time. It is way more economical to leave some payload behind (so be 100% booked out) than be able to book a bit more but fly with 75% load. And you can drop a 787-9 or an A350 on a 2000nm route and make money. This will be hard with a 779 just because it is so damn heavy.

It also shows the problem of the 778. What do you really gain over the 779 or better the 787-9? A lousy few airports from Hanoi?

If Boeing bumps the range of the 787-9 (same for Airbus with the A359) with engine PiPs and MTOW increases it can do what the 778 can just more economical. On the other side PiPs on the 778 just give it more range into nowhere. For PAX operation this is just not viable any more.

Chances are, that a 777xF might even be based on the 779. The last few 747Fs were mostly ordered for the massive volume. I dont think UPS really maxes out on payload, but all them parcels need a lot of volume. Depending on the future demand, and with the increase in online retail, volume will be more important than payload.

It will be interesting to see though how super heavy payload will work out if the ANs are not coming back and also what will replace them eventually.

I find it interesting that Airbus seems to have put a lot of R&D and weight in changing the A350-1000 to go after the 777 while the market seems to be going in the opposite direction.

Just an semi off-topic side note, but still somewhat related to this discussion.

Taxi645 wrote:

I find it interesting that Airbus seems to have put a lot of R&D and weight in changing the A350-1000 to go after the 777 while the market seems to be going in the opposite direction.

Just an semi off-topic side note, but still somewhat related to this discussion.

The A350-1000 sales also seem to confirm your thought. The market seems to move away from aircraft with that size.

Taxi645 wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

What about the 737-500 which sold 389 out of a total of 1,988 737 Classics? 20% of the total production, hardly a failure. Its direct successor (737-600) was a dud (69 out of 6,767 commercial NGs, 1% of the production).

Or the A310 (a shrink of the A300B2, with some modifications that were carried onto the A300-600) which sold 255 out of a total production of 816 A300/A310? 31% of the total production.

Back then range was actually an issue for aircraft. Today not so much.

Antaras wrote:

Don't ever think that Boeing will cancel the 778. Never.
And don't know if Boeing was planning for a higher MTOW 778 for the cargo version or/and a stretch version.

Remember when Bamboo created a shocking statement that it planned to buy 12 Boeing 777X? Bamboo then uploaded a range-demonstration picture of the Boeing jets on social media, showing that the 778 now has 788k lb MTOW, even higher than its bigger bro 779:

One of the rare articles still keeps this illustration: https://nhipsongdoanhnghiep.cuocsongant ... 34729.html
Thread: viewtopic.php?t=1440675#p22002049

Interestingly this picture is entirely cleaned on official media and newspaper soon after that (Boeing didn't want to show the public this?), and I could only find this picture on mirror/copy sites. But I can confirm that formal media was using this picture to talk about Bamboo's potential order for a dozen of 777X.

I believe that B will make an MTOW-boost for the B778, but not a stretch.

This picture actually shows almost too much why the 77X has a problem. The 779 is just a heavy 787-9. You need a whooping 120 pax more to make the flight viable. When the 77W came, it outperformed every other twin in range and payload. Only quads were able to do what the 77W was capable of. And now? We have the 787-9 and the A359 that can do exactly what the 779 can. Just more economical 99% of the time. It is way more economical to leave some payload behind (so be 100% booked out) than be able to book a bit more but fly with 75% load. And you can drop a 787-9 or an A350 on a 2000nm route and make money. This will be hard with a 779 just because it is so damn heavy.

It also shows the problem of the 778. What do you really gain over the 779 or better the 787-9? A lousy few airports from Hanoi?

If Boeing bumps the range of the 787-9 (same for Airbus with the A359) with engine PiPs and MTOW increases it can do what the 778 can just more economical. On the other side PiPs on the 778 just give it more range into nowhere. For PAX operation this is just not viable any more.

Chances are, that a 777xF might even be based on the 779. The last few 747Fs were mostly ordered for the massive volume. I dont think UPS really maxes out on payload, but all them parcels need a lot of volume. Depending on the future demand, and with the increase in online retail, volume will be more important than payload.

It will be interesting to see though how super heavy payload will work out if the ANs are not coming back and also what will replace them eventually.

I find it interesting that Airbus seems to have put a lot of R&D and weight in changing the A350-1000 to go after the 777 while the market seems to be going in the opposite direction.

Just an semi off-topic side note, but still somewhat related to this discussion.

Because everybody believes the 787-9 and A350-900 are the best things since sliced bread. Meanwhile many of them have been used for growth and fleet replacement of aircrafts their size. How can somebody say a 787-9 is more economical than a 777X 99% of the time. 99% of what? Does lower fuel burn automatically more economical? Then we should all be using gliders. There’s the assumption that the capacity upgauge from a 787-9 to a 779 is something that so so strange to this world. In case some missed there are routes that carry that payload. Do you think airlines will buy a 779 for a 787-9 route? If my 779 is filled 80% of the time that’s fine. Do you think the 77W is filled all the time? Even when other jets were on the market it wall still selling like hot cake. Why it’s an NPV/risk discussion. The A380 is either full or cash negative and that was the problem. 77W is a different story and the 779 being EVEN more efficient is easier to make money on than a 77W. If sometimes my 779 is at 50% load capacity but most times it’s at 80% I don’t mind because I will make more money this way than a 787-9 that’s 80% all round because the 779 has low fuel burn anyway. I always use the 77W as an example. Because people 77W has been there whilst there were other options. It has multiple repeat business WHILST all this market segmentation has been around. Every jet has its use. And the 787-9 will still be a best seller because MOST routes are not high cap routes. But that’s the thing about high cap. High cap also has its low days and on those low days. How does your jet fair? The A380 will lose money on those days and that’s what WW pointed out. The 77W for example will still make good money on those days and so will the 779 because it still has lower trip fuel burn regardless of a higher cap. But if I’m for example if I’m BA on a lhr to lax or lhr to jfk why will I schedule to 787-9s when I can two 779s and make more money but I won’t because I’m afraid I won’t make that much money on some days. So let me schedule a 787-9 all year round because I’m afraid of those days when I won’t have those passengers. The 380 is different because when you don’t have time you’re making a loss. So it’s up to the airline. Do I fill my 787-9 up and lose significant extra revenue OR do I upgauge to a 779 (where there’s demand of course) gain my extra revenue and still make good money on the days I’m not full. And what’s even more irritating is that these are two different aircrafts for two different purposes

Opus99 wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

Back then range was actually an issue for aircraft. Today not so much.



This picture actually shows almost too much why the 77X has a problem. The 779 is just a heavy 787-9. You need a whooping 120 pax more to make the flight viable. When the 77W came, it outperformed every other twin in range and payload. Only quads were able to do what the 77W was capable of. And now? We have the 787-9 and the A359 that can do exactly what the 779 can. Just more economical 99% of the time. It is way more economical to leave some payload behind (so be 100% booked out) than be able to book a bit more but fly with 75% load. And you can drop a 787-9 or an A350 on a 2000nm route and make money. This will be hard with a 779 just because it is so damn heavy.

It also shows the problem of the 778. What do you really gain over the 779 or better the 787-9? A lousy few airports from Hanoi?

If Boeing bumps the range of the 787-9 (same for Airbus with the A359) with engine PiPs and MTOW increases it can do what the 778 can just more economical. On the other side PiPs on the 778 just give it more range into nowhere. For PAX operation this is just not viable any more.

Chances are, that a 777xF might even be based on the 779. The last few 747Fs were mostly ordered for the massive volume. I dont think UPS really maxes out on payload, but all them parcels need a lot of volume. Depending on the future demand, and with the increase in online retail, volume will be more important than payload.

It will be interesting to see though how super heavy payload will work out if the ANs are not coming back and also what will replace them eventually.

I find it interesting that Airbus seems to have put a lot of R&D and weight in changing the A350-1000 to go after the 777 while the market seems to be going in the opposite direction.

Just an semi off-topic side note, but still somewhat related to this discussion.

Because everybody believes the 787-9 and A350-900 are the best things since sliced bread. Meanwhile many of them have been used for growth and fleet replacement of aircrafts their size. How can somebody say a 787-9 is more economical than a 777X 99% of the time. 99% of what? Does lower fuel burn automatically more economical? Then we should all be using gliders. There’s the assumption that the capacity upgauge from a 787-9 to a 779 is something that so so strange to this world. In case some missed there are routes that carry that payload. Do you think airlines will buy a 779 for a 787-9 route? If my 779 is filled 80% of the time that’s fine. Do you think the 77W is filled all the time? Even when other jets were on the market it wall still selling like hot cake. Why it’s an NPV/risk discussion. The A380 is either full or cash negative and that was the problem. 77W is a different story and the 779 being EVEN more efficient is easier to make money on than a 77W. If sometimes my 779 is at 50% load capacity but most times it’s at 80% I don’t mind because I will make more money this way than a 787-9 that’s 80% all round because the 779 has low fuel burn anyway. I always use the 77W as an example. Because people 77W has been there whilst there were other options. It has multiple repeat business WHILST all this market segmentation has been around. Every jet has its use. And the 787-9 will still be a best seller because MOST routes are not high cap routes. But that’s the thing about high cap. High cap also has its low days and on those low days. How does your jet fair? The A380 will lose money on those days and that’s what WW pointed out. The 77W for example will still make good money on those days and so will the 779 because it still has lower trip fuel burn regardless of a higher cap. But if I’m for example if I’m BA on a lhr to lax or lhr to jfk why will I schedule to 787-9s when I can two 779s and make more money but I won’t because I’m afraid I won’t make that much money on some days. So let me schedule a 787-9 all year round because I’m afraid of those days when I won’t have those passengers. The 380 is different because when you don’t have time you’re making a loss. So it’s up to the airline. Do I fill my 787-9 up and lose significant extra revenue OR do I upgauge to a 779 (where there’s demand of course) gain my extra revenue and still make good money on the days I’m not full. And what’s even more irritating is that these are two different aircrafts for two different purposes

The 77W made and sold so well because it was the only option out there in the 2000s. Later it was cheaper and easier to get your hand on a 77W than a 787 or 350 because they came later and more expensive. There is a reason the market tends to replace 77Ws with A350s and 787s now that they come up for replacement. BA will fly 787-10s on routes it used 77Ws TATL. Not all but some. There will be routes left where a 779 or even a A380 will make money consistently but that is the problem: The amount of said routes get reduced more and more as economically more viable options are available.

And Business does not work in a way that more revenue = good. Yes a 779 can make more revenue due to more seats sold but it also costs more to operate. Business is looking for the aircraft that consistently makes more profit. Losing out on more revenue is not per se a bad thing if you can maximise profits.

There will be 779s flying because they have a function for a handful of airlines on a handful of routes but will Boeing actually make money selling a handful of aircraft? Is it worth it to invest in a 778 for even less hands full of aircraft for 2-3 airlines?

FluidFlow wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

I find it interesting that Airbus seems to have put a lot of R&D and weight in changing the A350-1000 to go after the 777 while the market seems to be going in the opposite direction.

Just an semi off-topic side note, but still somewhat related to this discussion.

Because everybody believes the 787-9 and A350-900 are the best things since sliced bread. Meanwhile many of them have been used for growth and fleet replacement of aircrafts their size. How can somebody say a 787-9 is more economical than a 777X 99% of the time. 99% of what? Does lower fuel burn automatically more economical? Then we should all be using gliders. There’s the assumption that the capacity upgauge from a 787-9 to a 779 is something that so so strange to this world. In case some missed there are routes that carry that payload. Do you think airlines will buy a 779 for a 787-9 route? If my 779 is filled 80% of the time that’s fine. Do you think the 77W is filled all the time? Even when other jets were on the market it wall still selling like hot cake. Why it’s an NPV/risk discussion. The A380 is either full or cash negative and that was the problem. 77W is a different story and the 779 being EVEN more efficient is easier to make money on than a 77W. If sometimes my 779 is at 50% load capacity but most times it’s at 80% I don’t mind because I will make more money this way than a 787-9 that’s 80% all round because the 779 has low fuel burn anyway. I always use the 77W as an example. Because people 77W has been there whilst there were other options. It has multiple repeat business WHILST all this market segmentation has been around. Every jet has its use. And the 787-9 will still be a best seller because MOST routes are not high cap routes. But that’s the thing about high cap. High cap also has its low days and on those low days. How does your jet fair? The A380 will lose money on those days and that’s what WW pointed out. The 77W for example will still make good money on those days and so will the 779 because it still has lower trip fuel burn regardless of a higher cap. But if I’m for example if I’m BA on a lhr to lax or lhr to jfk why will I schedule to 787-9s when I can two 779s and make more money but I won’t because I’m afraid I won’t make that much money on some days. So let me schedule a 787-9 all year round because I’m afraid of those days when I won’t have those passengers. The 380 is different because when you don’t have time you’re making a loss. So it’s up to the airline. Do I fill my 787-9 up and lose significant extra revenue OR do I upgauge to a 779 (where there’s demand of course) gain my extra revenue and still make good money on the days I’m not full. And what’s even more irritating is that these are two different aircrafts for two different purposes

The 77W made and sold so well because it was the only option out there in the 2000s. Later it was cheaper and easier to get your hand on a 77W than a 787 or 350 because they came later and more expensive. There is a reason the market tends to replace 77Ws with A350s and 787s now that they come up for replacement. BA will fly 787-10s on routes it used 77Ws TATL. Not all but some. There will be routes left where a 779 or even a A380 will make money consistently but that is the problem: The amount of said routes get reduced more and more as economically more viable options are available.

And Business does not work in a way that more revenue = good. Yes a 779 can make more revenue due to more seats sold but it also costs more to operate. Business is looking for the aircraft that consistently makes more profit. Losing out on more revenue is not per se a bad thing if you can maximise profits.

There will be 779s flying because they have a function for a handful of airlines on a handful of routes but will Boeing actually make money selling a handful of aircraft? Is it worth it to invest in a 778 for even less hands full of aircraft for 2-3 airlines?

And if the 779 is the aircraft in which profits are maximised? I say if simply because we don’t know what the performance metrics are. There is currently no 77W TATL route that has been replaced by a -10. Nor is that the intention of the -10. Infact the 77Ws role at BA has grown.

I’ve not seen this market trend of replacing 77Ws with 787s and A350s. Like where? The introduction of the 787 and A350 has not seen less usage of the 77W.

Lightsaber was recently talking about the performance of the 779 from what he had seen and stated it could very well be the lowest cost way of transporting passengers over routes greater than 3000nm and more attributable to the performance of the GE9X contributing to low fuel burn more than the size of the jet. And also seems to make more profit than the 380.

IMO. When it comes to replacement of the the 77W. It will rest in mainly aircrafts of its size. Funny how there’s more evidence of that...than anything else

lightsaber wrote:

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

It’s an interesting thought but I doubt it’d be on Boeing’s list of priorities right now.

Firstly, the bread and butter of Boeing’s income, the 737, has had a major impact with the grounding of the 737MAX. It will require a lot of time and rework to put the already produced MAXs into a standard that meets new aviation requirements. Given the amount of compensations delivered to clients, existing lawsuits, et al, it’s conceivable that the outstanding MAX deliveries will be revenue neutral, or there abouts; perhaps a loss on many frames.

787 production is being consolidated and reduced. 777X deliveries also being postponed, so I am highly doubtful that Boeing would even give a second of thought to the 778 frame at this point in time.

If Boeing were/are smart, then I’d suggest their efforts are more focussed on a new generation of narrow body in the region of a 737-700+ to a 757-200+ style of plane in terms of capacity and range. And leveraging a lot of technology from the 787/777X to assist in minimising costs. So possibly a plane in the 170-200-230-260 pax capability.

The issue is the 777x economics of scale and cost vs cost of what you propose. Boeing needs a 777xF to keep up production and support the supply chain. That cost is low.
1
The 778, in my opinion, is only for payload at range and hot/high performance. But it will also be the basis of the freighter. The cost to develop both off the 779 is low, under $ 1 billion.

A new aircraft requires new factories. It requires an incredible engineering effort to design from scratch. A new engine alone will cost $5 to $6 billion. The airframe another $6 to $7

e.g., GE just invested $5.4 billion in factories:
https://www.ge.com/news/reports/ge-inve ... ctories-us

Every flight test hour costs over $50,000 and it takes 400+ to certify an engine and new flight testing rules push that to over 1,750 hours for a new airframe. So the flight test campaign alone costs over $100, million. While this is for any new model, the derivative can have an eighth of the engine testing and can have as little as 400 hours of flight testing.

I do not see Boeing having the funds at this time.

Lightsaber

If, as your sources have been saying, the 779 is making its numbers, then the 778 is a little bit better than the A35J. With probably a 4 to 5 hr crossover point (the A35J will be a bit more efficient taking off due to less weight). And at least 15% better than the 77W, carrying the same passengers. And if so, the 778 has a future, albeit a future off in the future.

Changing things a little won't help much. What would have been interesting would have been the original 300t design with 99klbs thrust engines. That would have been a CASM monster even at 350 pax, but certain large customers had other things in mind. So it is what it is.

But one thing is true; little changes still have big costs to bring to market. Who would be buying the extra planes? And there is the 78J to contend with, which is a CASM monster and reaches over 90% of the city pairs. If anything, increasing 78J MTOW would bring more benefit. At the cost of some 778 sales.

Opus99 wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Because everybody believes the 787-9 and A350-900 are the best things since sliced bread. Meanwhile many of them have been used for growth and fleet replacement of aircrafts their size. How can somebody say a 787-9 is more economical than a 777X 99% of the time. 99% of what? Does lower fuel burn automatically more economical? Then we should all be using gliders. There’s the assumption that the capacity upgauge from a 787-9 to a 779 is something that so so strange to this world. In case some missed there are routes that carry that payload. Do you think airlines will buy a 779 for a 787-9 route? If my 779 is filled 80% of the time that’s fine. Do you think the 77W is filled all the time? Even when other jets were on the market it wall still selling like hot cake. Why it’s an NPV/risk discussion. The A380 is either full or cash negative and that was the problem. 77W is a different story and the 779 being EVEN more efficient is easier to make money on than a 77W. If sometimes my 779 is at 50% load capacity but most times it’s at 80% I don’t mind because I will make more money this way than a 787-9 that’s 80% all round because the 779 has low fuel burn anyway. I always use the 77W as an example. Because people 77W has been there whilst there were other options. It has multiple repeat business WHILST all this market segmentation has been around. Every jet has its use. And the 787-9 will still be a best seller because MOST routes are not high cap routes. But that’s the thing about high cap. High cap also has its low days and on those low days. How does your jet fair? The A380 will lose money on those days and that’s what WW pointed out. The 77W for example will still make good money on those days and so will the 779 because it still has lower trip fuel burn regardless of a higher cap. But if I’m for example if I’m BA on a lhr to lax or lhr to jfk why will I schedule to 787-9s when I can two 779s and make more money but I won’t because I’m afraid I won’t make that much money on some days. So let me schedule a 787-9 all year round because I’m afraid of those days when I won’t have those passengers. The 380 is different because when you don’t have time you’re making a loss. So it’s up to the airline. Do I fill my 787-9 up and lose significant extra revenue OR do I upgauge to a 779 (where there’s demand of course) gain my extra revenue and still make good money on the days I’m not full. And what’s even more irritating is that these are two different aircrafts for two different purposes

The 77W made and sold so well because it was the only option out there in the 2000s. Later it was cheaper and easier to get your hand on a 77W than a 787 or 350 because they came later and more expensive. There is a reason the market tends to replace 77Ws with A350s and 787s now that they come up for replacement. BA will fly 787-10s on routes it used 77Ws TATL. Not all but some. There will be routes left where a 779 or even a A380 will make money consistently but that is the problem: The amount of said routes get reduced more and more as economically more viable options are available.

And Business does not work in a way that more revenue = good. Yes a 779 can make more revenue due to more seats sold but it also costs more to operate. Business is looking for the aircraft that consistently makes more profit. Losing out on more revenue is not per se a bad thing if you can maximise profits.

There will be 779s flying because they have a function for a handful of airlines on a handful of routes but will Boeing actually make money selling a handful of aircraft? Is it worth it to invest in a 778 for even less hands full of aircraft for 2-3 airlines?

And if the 779 is the aircraft in which profits are maximised? I say if simply because we don’t know what the performance metrics are. There is currently no 77W TATL route that has been replaced by a -10. Nor is that the intention of the -10. Infact the 77Ws role at BA has grown.

I’ve not seen this market trend of replacing 77Ws with 787s and A350s. Like where? The introduction of the 787 and A350 has not seen less usage of the 77W.

Lightsaber was recently talking about the performance of the 779 from what he had seen and stated it could very well be the lowest cost way of transporting passengers over routes greater than 3000nm and more attributable to the performance of the GE9X contributing to low fuel burn more than the size of the jet. And also seems to make more profit than the 380.

IMO. When it comes to replacement of the the 77W. It will rest in mainly aircrafts of its size. Funny how there’s more evidence of that...than anything else

So lets see:

NZ 777 out 787 in
AF 777 slowly out A350 in
EK 777 and A380 out over the next years, 787 a350 and 779in
QR 777 out and 787 a350 and 779in (we will see if they take the 60, 50 779 + 10 778)
DL 777 out a350 in

This are just the ones I right now can recall out of my head. Also the 777 are not all 77W that will be replaced.

Now as you stated at the beginning 787s and a350s were added for growth. Problem is now, international traffic is hit hard with Covid so chances are, the 787s and a350s will get back into the skies while the older aircraft will be kept on the ground. So we have a replacement at the moment. When traffic is back, the 77Ws might come back again or will just be replaced by newer 787s and a350s that are already ordered.

As to @Lightsabers comment: That is only true if we assume both, the 779 and the comparable aircraft are at MAX Payload on a route >3000nm. So full with paying customers. For a long time this was also true for the a380. When full it was a great aircraft. But the moment you have to carry fuel just to fly the empty metal the lighter aircraft will become more and more economical. Not only on a trip basis, also because of acquisition costs.

The current pandemic will also leave scars at the airlines. The bigger aircraft cost way more sitting around then the smaller ones. The trend towards smaller aircraft will continue. Just look at the coast to coast traffic in the US. Less and less WB service. In Europe we had WB service between cities. Now only a few are left. Soon we fly even more TATL on NBs. I only had the chance once in a DL 757 but I guess I will fly a few more Airbus 321s on TATL routes.

FluidFlow wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

The 77W made and sold so well because it was the only option out there in the 2000s. Later it was cheaper and easier to get your hand on a 77W than a 787 or 350 because they came later and more expensive. There is a reason the market tends to replace 77Ws with A350s and 787s now that they come up for replacement. BA will fly 787-10s on routes it used 77Ws TATL. Not all but some. There will be routes left where a 779 or even a A380 will make money consistently but that is the problem: The amount of said routes get reduced more and more as economically more viable options are available.

And Business does not work in a way that more revenue = good. Yes a 779 can make more revenue due to more seats sold but it also costs more to operate. Business is looking for the aircraft that consistently makes more profit. Losing out on more revenue is not per se a bad thing if you can maximise profits.

There will be 779s flying because they have a function for a handful of airlines on a handful of routes but will Boeing actually make money selling a handful of aircraft? Is it worth it to invest in a 778 for even less hands full of aircraft for 2-3 airlines?

And if the 779 is the aircraft in which profits are maximised? I say if simply because we don’t know what the performance metrics are. There is currently no 77W TATL route that has been replaced by a -10. Nor is that the intention of the -10. Infact the 77Ws role at BA has grown.

I’ve not seen this market trend of replacing 77Ws with 787s and A350s. Like where? The introduction of the 787 and A350 has not seen less usage of the 77W.

Lightsaber was recently talking about the performance of the 779 from what he had seen and stated it could very well be the lowest cost way of transporting passengers over routes greater than 3000nm and more attributable to the performance of the GE9X contributing to low fuel burn more than the size of the jet. And also seems to make more profit than the 380.

IMO. When it comes to replacement of the the 77W. It will rest in mainly aircrafts of its size. Funny how there’s more evidence of that...than anything else

So lets see:

NZ 777 out 787 in
AF 777 slowly out A350 in
EK 777 and A380 out over the next years, 787 a350 and 779in
QR 777 out and 787 a350 and 779in (we will see if they take the 60, 50 779 + 10 778)
DL 777 out a350 in

This are just the ones I right now can recall out of my head. Also the 777 are not all 77W that will be replaced.

Now as you stated at the beginning 787s and a350s were added for growth. Problem is now, international traffic is hit hard with Covid so chances are, the 787s and a350s will get back into the skies while the older aircraft will be kept on the ground. So we have a replacement at the moment. When traffic is back, the 77Ws might come back again or will just be replaced by newer 787s and a350s that are already ordered.

As to @Lightsabers comment: That is only true if we assume both, the 779 and the comparable aircraft are at MAX Payload on a route >3000nm. So full with paying customers. For a long time this was also true for the a380. When full it was a great aircraft. But the moment you have to carry fuel just to fly the empty metal the lighter aircraft will become more and more economical. Not only on a trip basis, also because of acquisition costs.

The current pandemic will also leave scars at the airlines. The bigger aircraft cost way more sitting around then the smaller ones. The trend towards smaller aircraft will continue. Just look at the coast to coast traffic in the US. Less and less WB service. In Europe we had WB service between cities. Now only a few are left. Soon we fly even more TATL on NBs. I only had the chance once in a DL 757 but I guess I will fly a few more Airbus 321s on TATL routes.

Every replacement on that list is extremely misleading. first of all most of them aren't 77Ws secondly people like QR already have their 77Ws being replaced by 779s and in some instances a35K (remember this discussion is about size) so that helps my situation. of course an a350-900 or a 787 will replace a 77L or 77E because thats the plane of its SIZE.

There are currently 144. 77Ws in storage out of 818 or so in service so this 'come back again' business. most of them never left.

Also acqusition cost is also important as you point out. i'm of the opinion that the 777X pricing is more comparable to 787/350 pricing than most think. as we know again, list price is a facade. and we can take BA's acquisition of the jet as an indicator. WW refused to purchase more 380s because they were very expensive. but BA's total commitment to the 779 stands at the same level for the 787/350. I'm not saying they're the same price. but not TOO far off. Now this is complete speculation on my part, Nothing else.

On your point on empty aircraft, thats true for any aircraft that is smaller than another. So lets all use A220s then ?

Opus99 wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

And if the 779 is the aircraft in which profits are maximised? I say if simply because we don’t know what the performance metrics are. There is currently no 77W TATL route that has been replaced by a -10. Nor is that the intention of the -10. Infact the 77Ws role at BA has grown.

I’ve not seen this market trend of replacing 77Ws with 787s and A350s. Like where? The introduction of the 787 and A350 has not seen less usage of the 77W.

Lightsaber was recently talking about the performance of the 779 from what he had seen and stated it could very well be the lowest cost way of transporting passengers over routes greater than 3000nm and more attributable to the performance of the GE9X contributing to low fuel burn more than the size of the jet. And also seems to make more profit than the 380.

IMO. When it comes to replacement of the the 77W. It will rest in mainly aircrafts of its size. Funny how there’s more evidence of that...than anything else

So lets see:

NZ 777 out 787 in
AF 777 slowly out A350 in
EK 777 and A380 out over the next years, 787 a350 and 779in
QR 777 out and 787 a350 and 779in (we will see if they take the 60, 50 779 + 10 778)
DL 777 out a350 in

This are just the ones I right now can recall out of my head. Also the 777 are not all 77W that will be replaced.

Now as you stated at the beginning 787s and a350s were added for growth. Problem is now, international traffic is hit hard with Covid so chances are, the 787s and a350s will get back into the skies while the older aircraft will be kept on the ground. So we have a replacement at the moment. When traffic is back, the 77Ws might come back again or will just be replaced by newer 787s and a350s that are already ordered.

As to @Lightsabers comment: That is only true if we assume both, the 779 and the comparable aircraft are at MAX Payload on a route >3000nm. So full with paying customers. For a long time this was also true for the a380. When full it was a great aircraft. But the moment you have to carry fuel just to fly the empty metal the lighter aircraft will become more and more economical. Not only on a trip basis, also because of acquisition costs.

The current pandemic will also leave scars at the airlines. The bigger aircraft cost way more sitting around then the smaller ones. The trend towards smaller aircraft will continue. Just look at the coast to coast traffic in the US. Less and less WB service. In Europe we had WB service between cities. Now only a few are left. Soon we fly even more TATL on NBs. I only had the chance once in a DL 757 but I guess I will fly a few more Airbus 321s on TATL routes.

Every replacement on that list is extremely misleading. first of all most of them aren't 77Ws secondly people like QR already have their 77Ws being replaced by 779s and in some instances a35K (remember this discussion is about size) so that helps my situation. of course an a350-900 or a 787 will replace a 77L or 77E because thats the plane of its SIZE.

There are currently 144. 77Ws in storage out of 818 or so in service so this 'come back again' business. most of them never left.

Also acqusition cost is also important as you point out. i'm of the opinion that the 777X pricing is more comparable to 787/350 pricing than most think. as we know again, list price is a facade. and we can take BA's acquisition of the jet as an indicator. WW refused to purchase more 380s because they were very expensive. but BA's total commitment to the 779 stands at the same level for the 787/350. I'm not saying they're the same price. but not TOO far off. Now this is complete speculation on my part, Nothing else.

On your point on empty aircraft, thats true for any aircraft that is smaller than another. So lets all use A220s then ?

If you cant fill anything bigger than the A220 then yes, you take the A220.

Look we are going in a circle here, but there is a reason we have full order books for single aisle till the end of the decade while we have order books for WBs up until 2025 and also only with production rates between 2 (A339 and 77X/77Fs) and 5-6 on A350s and 787s. If Boeing prices the 77X so competitive at a production rate of 2 per month to make it appealing to customers, as you suggest, then I can not see how Boeing will make money.

I cant wait to see how deferred production costs evolve on the program. I do not doubt that the 77X is a good aircraft, I doubt though that a 778 has any viability in the future and I also doubt Boeing will make any ROI on the 779 until 2030+. It took over 10 years from launch till 2016 (could even have been 2017) before the 787 had positive cash flow. And this was without a pandemic. Now if we add 4 lost years (and that is rather optimistic, so 2020-2024) to that calculation we have about 14 years before the 77X line turns cash flow positive. Now this is if the market wants that aircraft and buys it like hot cakes, similar to the 787. Otherwise it will take even longer. Right now, I do not see the market jumping at the 77X. What we see is reduction in firm orders and deferrals. At one point we will see what EK will do next, if the order will be even more trimmed below 100 orders and more 787s or if they will commit to their standing order.