Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
mig17
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Fri May 28, 2021 12:29 pm

Noshow wrote:
Some program delay will be included in any customers fleet strategy. I can't imagine this to be the critical issue.
Maybe EK ran out of money. But even then they'd need passengers to bring back business and profits to Dubai so they'd need aircraft in any case.

The order was negociated in 2013/2014 with an EIS in 2019. I suppose part of Boeing commercial speech was despite of the changes it was a trivial upgrade of the 77W.

Why would an airline already flying all previous 777 versions succesfully would inclued 5 years of delay on a five years programme for an additionnal version of the jet ?
Last edited by mig17 on Fri May 28, 2021 12:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A30B IW/TG, A313 EK, A318/9/20/1 AF/U2/VY, A332/3 EK/QR/TX, A343 AF, A35K QR, A388 AF, AT72 A5/TX, B722 AT, B734/8 UX/SK/TO/SS, B742/3/4 UT/AF/SQ/BA/SS, B762 UA, B77E/W AF/QR, C-150/72, CRJ1/7/X A5, E145/70/90 A5/WF, DH8D WF, PC-6.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10819
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Fri May 28, 2021 12:36 pm

Noshow wrote:
The only "hard" reason for EK to cancel I can imagine would be if the 777X does not reach the promised range. Like Dubai-Los Angeles nonstop at certain weights or whatever they might need and have written into their contract signed by Boeing. They will need big airplanes in the future otherwise their hub Dubai will lose it's role.

How likely is that?
We are here discussing the death of the replacement a/c that Boeing is putting out for their existing 777W which EK is using the fly to numerous destinations, do we believe that the Boeing designers did not have a specific range to accommodate their largest customer in their design calculations?

If the 777X is supposed to be an improvement on the 777W, do we take it that some things are going to be worse so "useable range" is the first candidate, I would think that would be the first candidate in the design and everything else follows after that, being 20% more fuel efficient than the 777W does not help the customer if the a/c cannot fly the airlines existing route structure being done by the a/c it is replacing.

Unfortunately we have very little information of what is taking place with the testing, recertification of any issues arising from testing and how they are progressing with the new certification requirements, most of which we still do not have details on, other than actuators, what do we know? Do we even know if analysis has already been submitted for the "blow out" repairs?
No one likes to be in the dark, need some led flashlights.
 
mig17
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Fri May 28, 2021 12:40 pm

Since 2003 and the 77W introduction, Boeing Comercial Aircraft division hasn't developpe a "new plane" that earned them money on aircraft sales alone.
The 787 will, but for now it is still in the red due to the developpement cost higher than expected. But the 747-8, the 737 MAX and now the 777-X are looking at losses a terminaison.
The good sales in the past of both 777-300ER and 737-800 and the spare parts, service and supports of those fleets plus 787 from now on, are what is still holding BCA togethere.
The next project has to matter or it will be the last for the commercial division ...
A30B IW/TG, A313 EK, A318/9/20/1 AF/U2/VY, A332/3 EK/QR/TX, A343 AF, A35K QR, A388 AF, AT72 A5/TX, B722 AT, B734/8 UX/SK/TO/SS, B742/3/4 UT/AF/SQ/BA/SS, B762 UA, B77E/W AF/QR, C-150/72, CRJ1/7/X A5, E145/70/90 A5/WF, DH8D WF, PC-6.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14563
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Fri May 28, 2021 12:54 pm

mig17 wrote:
the 737 MAX and now the 777-X are looking at losses a terminaison. .


Even with all the extra cost, there is plenty of volume of Max to make some good money.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
sxf24
Posts: 1194
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Fri May 28, 2021 1:23 pm

Noshow wrote:
The only "hard" reason for EK to cancel I can imagine would be if the 777X does not reach the promised range. Like Dubai-Los Angeles nonstop at certain weights or whatever they might need and have written into their contract signed by Boeing. They will need big airplanes in the future otherwise their hub Dubai will lose it's role.


Considering the 777-300ER can fly DXB-LAX (and more), it seems absurd to speculate that an airplane with improved wings and engines couldn’t serve the same mission. The question should be if it will have the marketed improvement.
 
mig17
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Fri May 28, 2021 1:25 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
mig17 wrote:
the 737 MAX and now the 777-X are looking at losses a terminaison. .


Even with all the extra cost, there is plenty of volume of Max to make some good money.

Best regards
Thomas

Maybe, but still, more than 21 billion of extra costs over 4400 plane is roughly 5 million of margin gone per plane. That is 10% of the true salling price. I don't think "good money" is the term.
Yes, the MAX will make good money on spare parts, service and support.
A30B IW/TG, A313 EK, A318/9/20/1 AF/U2/VY, A332/3 EK/QR/TX, A343 AF, A35K QR, A388 AF, AT72 A5/TX, B722 AT, B734/8 UX/SK/TO/SS, B742/3/4 UT/AF/SQ/BA/SS, B762 UA, B77E/W AF/QR, C-150/72, CRJ1/7/X A5, E145/70/90 A5/WF, DH8D WF, PC-6.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 9060
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Fri May 28, 2021 2:11 pm

mig17 wrote:
Since 2003 and the 77W introduction, Boeing Comercial Aircraft division hasn't developpe a "new plane" that earned them money on aircraft sales alone.
The 787 will, but for now it is still in the red due to the developpement cost higher than expected. But the 747-8, the 737 MAX and now the 777-X are looking at losses a terminaison.
The good sales in the past of both 777-300ER and 737-800 and the spare parts, service and supports of those fleets plus 787 from now on, are what is still holding BCA togethere.
The next project has to matter or it will be the last for the commercial division ...


In hindsight Boeing shouldn't have taken up 777X based on Tim's imaginary Noah's arc design and should have used those R&D dollars and time on something else.

Trent 972B-84 is perfect example of an attempt to cater imaginary requirements and vendor gets into trouble not meeting customer requirements, in this case wear and tear.
All posts are just opinions.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14428
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Fri May 28, 2021 3:52 pm

sxf24 wrote:
Noshow wrote:
The only "hard" reason for EK to cancel I can imagine would be if the 777X does not reach the promised range. Like Dubai-Los Angeles nonstop at certain weights or whatever they might need and have written into their contract signed by Boeing. They will need big airplanes in the future otherwise their hub Dubai will lose it's role.


Considering the 777-300ER can fly DXB-LAX (and more), it seems absurd to speculate that an airplane with improved wings and engines couldn’t serve the same mission. The question should be if it will have the marketed improvement.


77W range at MTOW is ~5700NM. DXB-LAX is 7250NM straight line, factor in a Dubai temperatures at take-off & you're all set for realistic expectations.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
rj777
Posts: 1842
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2000 1:47 am

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Fri May 28, 2021 4:50 pm

Just wait until he sees one of the planes completely painted.....he'll change his tune
 
sxf24
Posts: 1194
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Fri May 28, 2021 5:05 pm

keesje wrote:
sxf24 wrote:
Noshow wrote:
The only "hard" reason for EK to cancel I can imagine would be if the 777X does not reach the promised range. Like Dubai-Los Angeles nonstop at certain weights or whatever they might need and have written into their contract signed by Boeing. They will need big airplanes in the future otherwise their hub Dubai will lose it's role.


Considering the 777-300ER can fly DXB-LAX (and more), it seems absurd to speculate that an airplane with improved wings and engines couldn’t serve the same mission. The question should be if it will have the marketed improvement.


77W range at MTOW is ~5700NM. DXB-LAX is 7250NM straight line, factor in a Dubai temperatures at take-off & you're all set for realistic expectations.


Please tell me how does EK fly DXB-LAX today?
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14428
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Fri May 28, 2021 5:55 pm

sxf24 wrote:
keesje wrote:
sxf24 wrote:

Considering the 777-300ER can fly DXB-LAX (and more), it seems absurd to speculate that an airplane with improved wings and engines couldn’t serve the same mission. The question should be if it will have the marketed improvement.


77W range at MTOW is ~5700NM. DXB-LAX is 7250NM straight line, factor in a Dubai temperatures at take-off & you're all set for realistic expectations.


Please tell me how does EK fly DXB-LAX today?


With a seriously reduced payload and burning a lot of fuel. Or 777LR? Haven't been in LAX lately..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
sxf24
Posts: 1194
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Fri May 28, 2021 6:42 pm

keesje wrote:
sxf24 wrote:
keesje wrote:

77W range at MTOW is ~5700NM. DXB-LAX is 7250NM straight line, factor in a Dubai temperatures at take-off & you're all set for realistic expectations.


Please tell me how does EK fly DXB-LAX today?


With a seriously reduced payload and burning a lot of fuel. Or 777LR? Haven't been in LAX lately..


I would encourage you to do research before drawing conclusions. EK regularly uses 77W to LAX. I don’t know if 77L was ever regularly scheduled.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 11868
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Fri May 28, 2021 6:51 pm

keesje wrote:
sxf24 wrote:
Noshow wrote:
The only "hard" reason for EK to cancel I can imagine would be if the 777X does not reach the promised range. Like Dubai-Los Angeles nonstop at certain weights or whatever they might need and have written into their contract signed by Boeing. They will need big airplanes in the future otherwise their hub Dubai will lose it's role.


Considering the 777-300ER can fly DXB-LAX (and more), it seems absurd to speculate that an airplane with improved wings and engines couldn’t serve the same mission. The question should be if it will have the marketed improvement.


77W range at MTOW is ~5700NM. DXB-LAX is 7250NM straight line, factor in a Dubai temperatures at take-off & you're all set for realistic expectations.

77W range at max payload is ~5700nm. That is different than saying it’s range at MTOW is 5700nm. No plane in EK’s fleet can fly DXB-LAX at max payload (A380:~6700nm; 77L:~7600nm) except the 77L on a good day. With that logic a 77W would struggle to fly a basic TPAC route like LAX-HKG
 
xwb777
Topic Author
Posts: 1137
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:13 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Fri May 28, 2021 6:55 pm

According to FR24, the B777-300ER is operating the route, specifically the EP and EQ series.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26299
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Fri May 28, 2021 7:31 pm

xwb777 wrote:
According to FR24, the B777-300ER is operating the route, specifically the EP and EQ series.

Do these have the 2016 improvements?

Image

Image

Image

Ref: viewtopic.php?t=1444983
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
keesje
Posts: 14428
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Fri May 28, 2021 7:38 pm

5700Nm Range at Max payload of course. Typo. What would be interresting is to know how much payload an A350-1000 would do vs an 777-8,9 on long flights and how much fuel they would burn to do so. But we can't as 777x figures aren't confirmed yet.

And to know how many seats EK network planning wants on flights and if those forecasts changed in recent years. A 777-9 is bigger than A350-1000, but not that much in a 4 class configuration.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
744SPX
Posts: 486
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Fri May 28, 2021 7:43 pm

Revelation wrote:
xwb777 wrote:
According to FR24, the B777-300ER is operating the route, specifically the EP and EQ series.

Do these have the 2016 improvements?

Ref: viewtopic.php?t=1444983


I was wondering if they ever instituted that package. Makes me think of project Ozark for the 748i, which they never really went forward with except for some of the weight reductions.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1798
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Fri May 28, 2021 7:45 pm

They are just dickering over delivery times and official updates, to see if they can get more concessions, obviously. What would one expect Tim Clark to say now, that he is happy to take a plane on contract whenever, whether it meets spec’s or not? Of course not, especially while their A380’s have largely sat idle for over a year and they are having to take even more thru this year.

They obviously need a lot of aircraft in this size class in the mid-2020’s onward (also, note the delay on the 77x almost matches the time the A380’s have sat around unused, with deferred leases often too), and there’s a reason they didn’t order the A350-1000 in the first place. Let’s not forget, it wasn’t long ago that they were beating up first Engine Alliance, and then RR for the A380 engines, then the 787 ones, etc.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/emirates ... 15573.html

https://simpleflying.com/emirates-rolls ... rent-1000/
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1426
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Fri May 28, 2021 9:39 pm

I don't think "we will refuse delivery if not per contract" is any new threat for Emirates. I similarly recall Qatar made a point of refusing delivery of their A350's, I think it was for months, until some seemingly minor issues were corrected. The significant part today is that it suits Emirates better to play hardball now, because they don't need the seats quickly, but Boeing does need the revenue.

mig17 wrote:
The order was negociated in 2013/2014 with an EIS in 2019. I suppose part of Boeing commercial speech was despite of the changes it was a trivial upgrade of the 77W.


The launch was November of 2013, with Emirates announcing their order then. EIS was planned for some time in 2020.
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2013-11-17 ... ommitments

2019 was mentioned as a possible stretch goal while they were in the design phase, but Boeing later quietly backed away from that.

It was never a trivial upgrade. I don't know why that suggestion is being made, Hence why it was planned from the start to take in the ballpark of 7 years. They fell about 6 months behind due at least in part to issues with the engine. Then the big slide that occurred has been attributed to some combination of the current market conditions and changes in the regulatory environment driving as-yet undisclosed design changes.

mig17 wrote:
Why would an airline already flying all previous 777 versions succesfully would inclued 5 years of delay on a five years programme for an additionnal version of the jet ?


So far, officially it is 3 years on a 7 year program. Admittedly, Tim Clark should have access to good information, but he is also known for bluster. I don't know if he's challenging Boeing to release more information to prove 2023 is credible, or if he's upset about concrete information about a slide and venting to the media.

I have been wondering since the delays first started to be announced how eager Emirates is to receive the 777X. When they placed the order, they were continuing the mind-numbing growth they had experienced over the previous decades. Fast forward to just before the pandemic devastated international travel, their profits were falling fast and there were concerns of being overcapacity. Meanwhile, Qatar seems more upbeat about the prospects of receiving aircraft in 2023.

This is mere speculation on my part, but I can't help but wonder if Emirates knows they won't be ready for more capacity in 2023, and is preparing their strategy to avoid penalties for delaying delivery.

mig17 wrote:
But the 747-8, the 737 MAX and now the 777-X are looking at losses a terminaison.


This will understandably be contentious, and I'm not going to bother reposting my estimates here, but I think the 737 MAX is capable of making up the massive unexpected expenses resulting from the crashes, as long as the per-unit margin decrease is modest, and it continues to sell decently well through 2030. The 777X is harder to call, because there is a lot of uncertainty about whether VLA demand will increase again as existing aircraft age and air travel volume continues to grow. I think it also potentially can reach an eventual overall profit, but it's not guaranteed.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Fri May 28, 2021 11:38 pm

I am astonished in the undying believe that Boeing can not be in trouble with the 777-9. Yes the original 777 was a perfect throw. Underweight over performing and the 777-300ER was the King.
That does not guaranty that the 777-9 will not be overweight and underperforming.

At Airbus the very successful A330/A340 design spawned the A340-500/600. Overweight underperforming the fuselage as well as the engines. Can not happen to Boeing is not a natural law.

The order book of the 777X is shrinking not expanding. To compare the 777-9 with the A350-1000 forgets the point, that the A350 is the sibling of the very well selling A350-900, not a stand a lone as the 777-9, as the 777-8 has practically no orders any longer.
 
Opus99
Posts: 2242
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Sat May 29, 2021 12:15 am

mjoelnir wrote:
I am astonished in the undying believe that Boeing can not be in trouble with the 777-9. Yes the original 777 was a perfect throw. Underweight over performing and the 777-300ER was the King.
That does not guaranty that the 777-9 will not be overweight and underperforming.

At Airbus the very successful A330/A340 design spawned the A340-500/600. Overweight underperforming the fuselage as well as the engines. Can not happen to Boeing is not a natural law.

The order book of the 777X is shrinking not expanding. To compare the 777-9 with the A350-1000 forgets the point, that the A350 is the sibling of the very well selling A350-900, not a stand a lone as the 777-9, as the 777-8 has practically no orders any longer.

Who said it can’t. It’s also possible the a340 met its performance target. I don’t know what it was.

The 777-300ER already had one leg up the 340. Given it was a twin jet instead of a quad
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10300
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Sat May 29, 2021 6:33 am

We can simply reduce the whole discussion to the fact that EK will probably have an interest in pushing deliveries out to a later date, but they do need the 777-9 and will buy hundreds of them, making it the mainstay of their fleet together with the 787.
 
Noshow
Posts: 2503
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Sat May 29, 2021 7:34 am

We can simply reduce the whole discussion to the fact that EK will probably have an interest in pushing deliveries out to a later date, but they do need the 777-9 and will buy hundreds of them, making it the mainstay of their fleet together with the 787.

I don't see this as given. They might very well like to scale down to 787s or wait for "possible" A350neos. Aside from any issues the 777X might have at this moment.
 
HL300B4
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 5:42 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Sat May 29, 2021 7:44 am

seahawk wrote:
We can simply reduce the whole discussion to the fact that EK will probably have an interest in pushing deliveries out to a later date, but they do need the 777-9 and will buy hundreds of them, making it the mainstay of their fleet together with the 787.


Only if you ignore their new other mainstay...the A350. And I cannot take it seriously that they will buy hundreds of the 777-9 when they reduced their existing order repeatedly.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7891
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Sat May 29, 2021 7:58 am

HL300B4 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
We can simply reduce the whole discussion to the fact that EK will probably have an interest in pushing deliveries out to a later date, but they do need the 777-9 and will buy hundreds of them, making it the mainstay of their fleet together with the 787.


Only if you ignore their new other mainstay...the A350. And I cannot take it seriously that they will buy hundreds of the 777-9 when they reduced their existing order repeatedly.


Repeatedly? Once from 150 to 115 wasn’t it? What have they 40 A359 on order? So far atleast.
 
Opus99
Posts: 2242
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Sat May 29, 2021 8:51 am

HL300B4 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
We can simply reduce the whole discussion to the fact that EK will probably have an interest in pushing deliveries out to a later date, but they do need the 777-9 and will buy hundreds of them, making it the mainstay of their fleet together with the 787.


Only if you ignore their new other mainstay...the A350. And I cannot take it seriously that they will buy hundreds of the 777-9 when they reduced their existing order repeatedly.

Please how is the A350 a mainstay? They have 50 frames. Compared to 115 for the 777X. The order has been reduced once. Will it be reduced again? Probably. We’ve been hearing that for over 14 months. Here we are. Tim Clark can reduce this count as quickly as he did it before. Remember in 2019 we started hearing it from the spring, by the Dubai air show we heard the confirmation. Hmmm Dubai air show coming this year too. Let’s see what happens then
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2832
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Sat May 29, 2021 9:16 am

Historically EK wanted aircraft that can do a night turn to India, and then in the morning potter off to Sao Paulo, Auckland or LA. That necessitated them utilising the biggest, longest ranged, aircraft available, filling up the seats by offering great offers and operating massively overweight aircraft on medium length sectors. And that was all fine and dandy right up until Corona entered the stage and threw the aviation world into turmoil.

Most learned heads are telling us that it'll be years before business travel reverses, which means smaller aircraft for the foreseeable future. That means the optimal fleet structure is no longer "the biggest" on the market, it may well spell the end for both the A380 (as an operating airframe) and 777X. Should the latter be axed by EK, that would effectively end the program. And it's not inconceivable that EK will, eventually, figure out that rightsizing is an option, using the aircraft which flew to India in the middle of the night on European and Asian sectors during the day, and have a dedicated long-haul fleet to serve Australia, NZ, North- and South America.

Such a move will point towards the 787-10 and the A350-900/1000.

As with many others, my trust in Boeing being able to field a quality product has vanished; it takes a really brave soul to order anything off the Boeing market line-up right now. I don't trust Boeing to deliver the 777X in 2023 or 2024, and I don't trust that it will meet - let alone beat - the marketed numbers. This will either result in Boeing having to offer massive discounts, effectively eroding any chance of the program ever being profitable, or accept cancellations.

The 777X is today what the A380 was 10 years ago: Too big, too heavy and too expensive.
Signature. You just read one.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7891
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Sat May 29, 2021 10:14 am

B777LRF wrote:
Historically EK wanted aircraft that can do a night turn to India, and then in the morning potter off to Sao Paulo, Auckland or LA. That necessitated them utilising the biggest, longest ranged, aircraft available, filling up the seats by offering great offers and operating massively overweight aircraft on medium length sectors. And that was all fine and dandy right up until Corona entered the stage and threw the aviation world into turmoil.

Most learned heads are telling us that it'll be years before business travel reverses, which means smaller aircraft for the foreseeable future. That means the optimal fleet structure is no longer "the biggest" on the market, it may well spell the end for both the A380 (as an operating airframe) and 777X. Should the latter be axed by EK, that would effectively end the program. And it's not inconceivable that EK will, eventually, figure out that rightsizing is an option, using the aircraft which flew to India in the middle of the night on European and Asian sectors during the day, and have a dedicated long-haul fleet to serve Australia, NZ, North- and South America.

Such a move will point towards the 787-10 and the A350-900/1000.

As with many others, my trust in Boeing being able to field a quality product has vanished; it takes a really brave soul to order anything off the Boeing market line-up right now. I don't trust Boeing to deliver the 777X in 2023 or 2024, and I don't trust that it will meet - let alone beat - the marketed numbers. This will either result in Boeing having to offer massive discounts, effectively eroding any chance of the program ever being profitable, or accept cancellations.

The 777X is today what the A380 was 10 years ago: Too big, too heavy and too expensive.


EK have seperate configurations for LH/ULH, and regional, yes some long haul aircraft do regional for utilisation and some where an F cabin is needed. Let’s be fair EK probably shot themselves in the foot by only having the A380/77W few 77L.

They need more efficient aircraft for short haul although I presume they get good loads on the 2 class 77W 442 seats, the 78J might seat 380 but would be much more fuel efficient.
 
bennett123
Posts: 10815
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Sat May 29, 2021 10:42 am

First rule of business.

If you sell something, and it fails to meet the spec, then the customer will complain.
 
sxf24
Posts: 1194
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Sat May 29, 2021 1:57 pm

B777LRF wrote:
Historically EK wanted aircraft that can do a night turn to India, and then in the morning potter off to Sao Paulo, Auckland or LA. That necessitated them utilising the biggest, longest ranged, aircraft available, filling up the seats by offering great offers and operating massively overweight aircraft on medium length sectors. And that was all fine and dandy right up until Corona entered the stage and threw the aviation world into turmoil.

Most learned heads are telling us that it'll be years before business travel reverses, which means smaller aircraft for the foreseeable future. That means the optimal fleet structure is no longer "the biggest" on the market, it may well spell the end for both the A380 (as an operating airframe) and 777X. Should the latter be axed by EK, that would effectively end the program. And it's not inconceivable that EK will, eventually, figure out that rightsizing is an option, using the aircraft which flew to India in the middle of the night on European and Asian sectors during the day, and have a dedicated long-haul fleet to serve Australia, NZ, North- and South America.

Such a move will point towards the 787-10 and the A350-900/1000.

As with many others, my trust in Boeing being able to field a quality product has vanished; it takes a really brave soul to order anything off the Boeing market line-up right now. I don't trust Boeing to deliver the 777X in 2023 or 2024, and I don't trust that it will meet - let alone beat - the marketed numbers. This will either result in Boeing having to offer massive discounts, effectively eroding any chance of the program ever being profitable, or accept cancellations.

The 777X is today what the A380 was 10 years ago: Too big, too heavy and too expensive.


An airline that is making fleet decisions based on current business travel trends will whither into extinction. Business travel is expected to recover in less than 2 years, which is too late to make significant changes to fleets.

If anything, 777X EIS delays are favorable to airlines during COVID and probably match what they would have asked of Boeing should the program been on time.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26299
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Sat May 29, 2021 2:32 pm

marcelh wrote:
BA went for the B779, because it is bigger than the A35K and therefore a perfect replacement for their premium heavy (including F) B744. Not necessarily because the A35K is worse; it has a completely different role in the BA fleet.

Point is 779 has a role at blue chip, non-ME3 airlines as well as the ME3. 779, A359 and A35K are all fine airplanes, but BA was willing to forego fleet simplification to take 779 into their fleet. IAG/WW was even talking up taking 737MAX after the MCAS tragedy. Boeing is not the industry pariah that some aviation enthusiasts here make them out to be.

B777LRF wrote:
Historically EK wanted aircraft that can do a night turn to India, and then in the morning potter off to Sao Paulo, Auckland or LA. That necessitated them utilising the biggest, longest ranged, aircraft available, filling up the seats by offering great offers and operating massively overweight aircraft on medium length sectors. And that was all fine and dandy right up until Corona entered the stage and threw the aviation world into turmoil.

Most learned heads are telling us that it'll be years before business travel reverses, which means smaller aircraft for the foreseeable future. That means the optimal fleet structure is no longer "the biggest" on the market, it may well spell the end for both the A380 (as an operating airframe) and 777X. Should the latter be axed by EK, that would effectively end the program. And it's not inconceivable that EK will, eventually, figure out that rightsizing is an option, using the aircraft which flew to India in the middle of the night on European and Asian sectors during the day, and have a dedicated long-haul fleet to serve Australia, NZ, North- and South America.

Such a move will point towards the 787-10 and the A350-900/1000.

It's interesting that you draw a "death zone" so precisely based purely on unbiased intuition that takes out A380 and 777X, but not A350-1000 which EK does not have on order. Or that the death zone doesn't just stop with A380, which most of the rest of the industry is throwing the towel in on early and which is much larger than 779 and has four engines two generations out of date relative to GE9X on each aircraft. I guess we'll see how your soothsaying turns out.

Meanwhile in Seattle, LH's fourth 779 rolls out of the factory:

Image

Ref: https://twitter.com/mattcawby/status/13 ... 39043?s=20
Last edited by Revelation on Sat May 29, 2021 2:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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
 
Opus99
Posts: 2242
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Sat May 29, 2021 2:36 pm

Revelation wrote:
marcelh wrote:
BA went for the B779, because it is bigger than the A35K and therefore a perfect replacement for their premium heavy (including F) B744. Not necessarily because the A35K is worse; it has a completely different role in the BA fleet.

Point is 779 has a role at blue chip, non-ME3 airlines as well as the ME3. 779, A359 and A35K are all fine airplanes, but BA was willing to forego fleet simplification to take 779 into their fleet. IAG/WW was even talking up taking 737MAX after the MCAS tragedy. Boeing is not the industry pariah that some aviation enthusiasts here make them out to be.

B777LRF wrote:
Historically EK wanted aircraft that can do a night turn to India, and then in the morning potter off to Sao Paulo, Auckland or LA. That necessitated them utilising the biggest, longest ranged, aircraft available, filling up the seats by offering great offers and operating massively overweight aircraft on medium length sectors. And that was all fine and dandy right up until Corona entered the stage and threw the aviation world into turmoil.

Most learned heads are telling us that it'll be years before business travel reverses, which means smaller aircraft for the foreseeable future. That means the optimal fleet structure is no longer "the biggest" on the market, it may well spell the end for both the A380 (as an operating airframe) and 777X. Should the latter be axed by EK, that would effectively end the program. And it's not inconceivable that EK will, eventually, figure out that rightsizing is an option, using the aircraft which flew to India in the middle of the night on European and Asian sectors during the day, and have a dedicated long-haul fleet to serve Australia, NZ, North- and South America.

Such a move will point towards the 787-10 and the A350-900/1000.

It's interesting that you draw a "death zone" so precisely based purely on unbiased intuition that takes out A380 and 777X, but not A350-1000 which EK does not have on order. Or that the death zone doesn't just stop with A380, which most of the rest of the industry is throwing the towel in on early and which is much larger than 779 and has four engines two generations out of date relative to GE9X on each aircraft. I guess we'll see how your soothsaying turns out.

Exactly. I couldn’t agree with the death zone argument more.

People like to stop short of the 350-1000 when they talk about the death zone and I don’t know why. People say it’s because it has the strong 350-900 to support it but for example they cannot apply that same logic to say the 737 MAX10 which also has a strong MAX8 to support it. Little things like this I find interesting
 
texl1649
Posts: 1798
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Sat May 29, 2021 3:20 pm

It is funny that as STC whines about 77x progress, immediately some here jump to the conclusion a future derivative of the A350 with an all new RR engine would be seamless and meet contractual goals/timelines for EK as a substitute. LOL.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16099
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Sat May 29, 2021 3:50 pm

texl1649 wrote:
It is funny that as STC whines about 77x progress, immediately some here jump to the conclusion a future derivative of the A350 with an all new RR engine would be seamless and meet contractual goals/timelines for EK as a substitute. LOL.


As far as everyone is aware the A350 EIS has been pretty seamless for a totally new aircraft engine package, and the engine has been very reliable if your don’t pour liquids over the fuel cutoffs in the cockpit.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10300
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Sat May 29, 2021 3:53 pm

Under current condition STC would be stupid not to use any delay by Boeing to get concessions for taking the frames at a later date. This is business and we know that EK and QR like to negotiate through the press. They are building the 4th 777-9 for Lufthansa at the moment and everybody knows how involved LH usually gets in the development and testing of the planes they buy, so unless LH voices concerns, the 777-9 will be just fine.
 
Vicenza
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2020 3:21 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Sat May 29, 2021 3:53 pm

texl1649 wrote:
It is funny that as STC whines about 77x progress, immediately some here jump to the conclusion a future derivative of the A350 with an all new RR engine would be seamless and meet contractual goals/timelines for EK as a substitute. LOL.


What exactly, or why, do you find that funny, and particularly with the 'LOL'?
 
Vicenza
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2020 3:21 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Sat May 29, 2021 4:00 pm

sxf24 wrote:

An airline that is making fleet decisions based on current business travel trends will whither into extinction. Business travel is expected to recover in less than 2 years, which is too late to make significant changes to fleets.


You must be the only one with such an optimistic prediction of recovery 'in less than 2 years', because nothing I've seen even comes close.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26299
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Sat May 29, 2021 4:12 pm

zeke wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
It is funny that as STC whines about 77x progress, immediately some here jump to the conclusion a future derivative of the A350 with an all new RR engine would be seamless and meet contractual goals/timelines for EK as a substitute. LOL.

As far as everyone is aware the A350 EIS has been pretty seamless for a totally new aircraft engine package, and the engine has been very reliable if your don’t pour liquids over the fuel cutoffs in the cockpit.

I agree, but as the investment ads say, past performance is no guarantee of future performance. TXWB was an iteration of the RR architecture going all the way back to RB211 which of course did not have a smooth introduction. UltraFan is a very different architecture than that one, geared two spool rather than three spool. The tech demonstrator won't leave the ground. It's an R&D project. It'll help retire a lot of risk, but then there will be a transition to the actual production articles and those will have their own challenges.

As for the current A350 products, STC had 20 A350-1000 on order but canceled them before EIS. It was said he was not a fan of the throttle push i.e. TXWB using the same core on A359 as on A35K but spinning it faster to get more thrust. He could have gotten back into the A35K when the A380 orders were canceled, but he went all-A359 instead while keeping 779 which will be the biggest twin in their fleet.
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
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Sat May 29, 2021 4:16 pm

Opus99 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
marcelh wrote:
BA went for the B779, because it is bigger than the A35K and therefore a perfect replacement for their premium heavy (including F) B744. Not necessarily because the A35K is worse; it has a completely different role in the BA fleet.

Point is 779 has a role at blue chip, non-ME3 airlines as well as the ME3. 779, A359 and A35K are all fine airplanes, but BA was willing to forego fleet simplification to take 779 into their fleet. IAG/WW was even talking up taking 737MAX after the MCAS tragedy. Boeing is not the industry pariah that some aviation enthusiasts here make them out to be.

B777LRF wrote:
Historically EK wanted aircraft that can do a night turn to India, and then in the morning potter off to Sao Paulo, Auckland or LA. That necessitated them utilising the biggest, longest ranged, aircraft available, filling up the seats by offering great offers and operating massively overweight aircraft on medium length sectors. And that was all fine and dandy right up until Corona entered the stage and threw the aviation world into turmoil.

Most learned heads are telling us that it'll be years before business travel reverses, which means smaller aircraft for the foreseeable future. That means the optimal fleet structure is no longer "the biggest" on the market, it may well spell the end for both the A380 (as an operating airframe) and 777X. Should the latter be axed by EK, that would effectively end the program. And it's not inconceivable that EK will, eventually, figure out that rightsizing is an option, using the aircraft which flew to India in the middle of the night on European and Asian sectors during the day, and have a dedicated long-haul fleet to serve Australia, NZ, North- and South America.

Such a move will point towards the 787-10 and the A350-900/1000.

It's interesting that you draw a "death zone" so precisely based purely on unbiased intuition that takes out A380 and 777X, but not A350-1000 which EK does not have on order. Or that the death zone doesn't just stop with A380, which most of the rest of the industry is throwing the towel in on early and which is much larger than 779 and has four engines two generations out of date relative to GE9X on each aircraft. I guess we'll see how your soothsaying turns out.

Exactly. I couldn’t agree with the death zone argument more.

People like to stop short of the 350-1000 when they talk about the death zone and I don’t know why. People say it’s because it has the strong 350-900 to support it but for example they cannot apply that same logic to say the 737 MAX10 which also has a strong MAX8 to support it. Little things like this I find interesting


Who is talking about the 737-10 being in the death zone? But otherwise you are making my point earlier about the A350-1000. Not every frame in a family has to show high sales numbers to be viable.
My point about the 737-10 is, it is no real competition to the A321 neo. The 737-10 sells badly only in comparison.
The 777-9 is a stand alone frame, no other big selling frame to prop it up in the family. Yes, the 777-300ER sold heaps, but that is in the past.
Last edited by mjoelnir on Sat May 29, 2021 4:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Sat May 29, 2021 4:27 pm

Revelation wrote:
zeke wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
It is funny that as STC whines about 77x progress, immediately some here jump to the conclusion a future derivative of the A350 with an all new RR engine would be seamless and meet contractual goals/timelines for EK as a substitute. LOL.

As far as everyone is aware the A350 EIS has been pretty seamless for a totally new aircraft engine package, and the engine has been very reliable if your don’t pour liquids over the fuel cutoffs in the cockpit.

I agree, but as the investment ads say, past performance is no guarantee of future performance. TXWB was an iteration of the RR architecture going all the way back to RB211 which of course did not have a smooth introduction. UltraFan is a very different architecture than that one, geared two spool rather than three spool. The tech demonstrator won't leave the ground. It's an R&D project. It'll help retire a lot of risk, but then there will be a transition to the actual production articles and those will have their own challenges.

As for the current A350 products, STC had 20 A350-1000 on order but canceled them before EIS. It was said he was not a fan of the throttle push i.e. TXWB using the same core on A359 as on A35K but spinning it faster to get more thrust. He could have gotten back into the A35K when the A380 orders were canceled, but he went all-A359 instead while keeping 779 which will be the biggest twin in their fleet.


The XWB97 and the XWB84 do not have the same core, the XWB97 core is 5 % larger. The fan is spinning faster.

STC did not like that the capabilities of the A350-1000 had been increased. It was supposed to fit the role the 787-10 has later been ordered for. I assume STC expects to get exactly what he has ordered.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26299
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Sat May 29, 2021 4:29 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Who is talking about the 737-10 being in the death zone? But otherwise you are making my point earlier about the A350-1000. Not every frame in a family has to show high sales numbers to be viable.

Great, so we can agree the 777-8 doesn't have to show high sales numbers to be viable, just like 77L didn't need high sales numbers either. 777-8 is a simple shrink of 777-9 and will also be the basis of a future 777-XF. Right now we see 77W production has ended yet 77F is still making money and sales for Boeing. It's a nice situation to be in.

mjoelnir wrote:
My point about the 737-10 is, it is no real competition to the A321 neo. The 737-10 sells only badly in comparison.

Boeing only cares about whether it can make money on MAX10 or not. Given they are still going forward with its development, I think we can safely assume they think they will.
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
 
Opus99
Posts: 2242
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Sat May 29, 2021 4:32 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Point is 779 has a role at blue chip, non-ME3 airlines as well as the ME3. 779, A359 and A35K are all fine airplanes, but BA was willing to forego fleet simplification to take 779 into their fleet. IAG/WW was even talking up taking 737MAX after the MCAS tragedy. Boeing is not the industry pariah that some aviation enthusiasts here make them out to be.


It's interesting that you draw a "death zone" so precisely based purely on unbiased intuition that takes out A380 and 777X, but not A350-1000 which EK does not have on order. Or that the death zone doesn't just stop with A380, which most of the rest of the industry is throwing the towel in on early and which is much larger than 779 and has four engines two generations out of date relative to GE9X on each aircraft. I guess we'll see how your soothsaying turns out.

Exactly. I couldn’t agree with the death zone argument more.

People like to stop short of the 350-1000 when they talk about the death zone and I don’t know why. People say it’s because it has the strong 350-900 to support it but for example they cannot apply that same logic to say the 737 MAX10 which also has a strong MAX8 to support it. Little things like this I find interesting


Who is talking about the 737-10 being in the death zone? But otherwise you are making my point earlier about the A350-1000. Not every frame in a family has to show high sales numbers to be viable.
My point about the 737-10 is, it is no real competition to the A321 neo. The 737-10 sells badly only in comparison.
The 777-9 is a stand alone frame, no other big selling frame to prop it up in the family. Yes, the 777-300ER sold heaps, but that is in the past.

Maybe not you but a lot of people on a.net like to classify that frame as “dead”.

The 777-9 doesn’t have other frames to support it yes but it also doesn’t make it less viable than the 350-1000.
 
marcelh
Posts: 1429
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Sat May 29, 2021 6:27 pm

Revelation wrote:
marcelh wrote:
BA went for the B779, because it is bigger than the A35K and therefore a perfect replacement for their premium heavy (including F) B744. Not necessarily because the A35K is worse; it has a completely different role in the BA fleet.

Point is 779 has a role at blue chip, non-ME3 airlines as well as the ME3. 779, A359 and A35K are all fine airplanes, but BA was willing to forego fleet simplification to take 779 into their fleet.


Fleet simplification is a wet dream of some members over here and it’s often exaggerated. BA has already the 772 and 77W, so the 779 is a useful addition.
Fact is BA needed something bigger than the A35K and smaller than the A380. And it might not be the most efficient plane for the job BA has it intended for (replacing the high premium 744) it’s the only available plane - without compromising the needed floor space.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26299
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Sat May 29, 2021 6:42 pm

marcelh wrote:
Revelation wrote:
marcelh wrote:
BA went for the B779, because it is bigger than the A35K and therefore a perfect replacement for their premium heavy (including F) B744. Not necessarily because the A35K is worse; it has a completely different role in the BA fleet.

Point is 779 has a role at blue chip, non-ME3 airlines as well as the ME3. 779, A359 and A35K are all fine airplanes, but BA was willing to forego fleet simplification to take 779 into their fleet.

Fleet simplification is a wet dream of some members over here and it’s often exaggerated. BA has already the 772 and 77W, so the 779 is a useful addition.
Fact is BA needed something bigger than the A35K and smaller than the A380. And it might not be the most efficient plane for the job BA has it intended for (replacing the high premium 744) it’s the only available plane - without compromising the needed floor space.

In an ideal world all the "they can just take A35K" posts would go away, but it isn't as simple as that and this isn't an ideal world.

A35K is a fine airplane, but so is 779.

There's many reasons airlines would find roles for either, or even in some cases, both.
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
zeke
Posts: 16099
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Sun May 30, 2021 12:13 am

Revelation wrote:
UltraFan is a very different architecture than that one, geared two spool rather than three spool. The tech demonstrator won't leave the ground. It's an R&D project. It'll help retire a lot of risk, but then there will be a transition to the actual production articles and those will have their own challenges.


This is factually incorrect, the Ultrafan project is both a 2 spool and 3 spool engines, these were being developed from the Advance2 (2 spool), and Advance3 (3 spool) demonstration engines. The two spool engine is aimed at the business jet market, as the RR BR700 size engine replacement. The Advance2 engine was demonstrated, and it has now made it into a commercial product called the Pearl 10X. https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-an ... 10x.aspx#/

Like the Advance2, RR also built the Advance3, this was an 3 spool Ultrafan core with an XWB fan and Trent 1000 LPC. There is absolutely nothing stopping RR from putting this core onto the TrentXWB/1000. They have done this sort of thing before on the 747-400 with the RB211-524HT upgrade which was core replacement.

The Ultrafan demonstrator core was fitted with an XWB fan and Trent 1000 LPC, they have hundreds of hours of running that. They have already flown the new fan technology with a Trent 1000, they have also built the Power Gearbox and tested that to 70klb.

That to me points to a logical increments in development using known elements with new elements.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26299
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Sun May 30, 2021 1:21 pm

zeke wrote:
Revelation wrote:
UltraFan is a very different architecture than that one, geared two spool rather than three spool. The tech demonstrator won't leave the ground. It's an R&D project. It'll help retire a lot of risk, but then there will be a transition to the actual production articles and those will have their own challenges.


This is factually incorrect, the Ultrafan project is both a 2 spool and 3 spool engines, these were being developed from the Advance2 (2 spool), and Advance3 (3 spool) demonstration engines. The two spool engine is aimed at the business jet market, as the RR BR700 size engine replacement. The Advance2 engine was demonstrated, and it has now made it into a commercial product called the Pearl 10X. https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-an ... 10x.aspx#/

Like the Advance2, RR also built the Advance3, this was an 3 spool Ultrafan core with an XWB fan and Trent 1000 LPC. There is absolutely nothing stopping RR from putting this core onto the TrentXWB/1000. They have done this sort of thing before on the 747-400 with the RB211-524HT upgrade which was core replacement.

The Ultrafan demonstrator core was fitted with an XWB fan and Trent 1000 LPC, they have hundreds of hours of running that. They have already flown the new fan technology with a Trent 1000, they have also built the Power Gearbox and tested that to 70klb.

That to me points to a logical increments in development using known elements with new elements.

Fine, yet we were talking about the demonstrator which will be the first time the entire UltraFan suite (fan, gear, two-spool core) will all be tried together in one engine instead of the earlier demonstrators that used "known elements with new elements". This is the one the CEO is saying will be tested then put on ice till a market forms.
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
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Sun May 30, 2021 2:02 pm

zeke wrote:
Revelation wrote:
UltraFan is a very different architecture than that one, geared two spool rather than three spool. The tech demonstrator won't leave the ground. It's an R&D project. It'll help retire a lot of risk, but then there will be a transition to the actual production articles and those will have their own challenges.


This is factually incorrect, the Ultrafan project is both a 2 spool and 3 spool engines, these were being developed from the Advance2 (2 spool), and Advance3 (3 spool) demonstration engines. The two spool engine is aimed at the business jet market, as the RR BR700 size engine replacement. The Advance2 engine was demonstrated, and it has now made it into a commercial product called the Pearl 10X. https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-an ... 10x.aspx#/

Like the Advance2, RR also built the Advance3, this was an 3 spool Ultrafan core with an XWB fan and Trent 1000 LPC. There is absolutely nothing stopping RR from putting this core onto the TrentXWB/1000. They have done this sort of thing before on the 747-400 with the RB211-524HT upgrade which was core replacement.

The Ultrafan demonstrator core was fitted with an XWB fan and Trent 1000 LPC, they have hundreds of hours of running that. They have already flown the new fan technology with a Trent 1000, they have also built the Power Gearbox and tested that to 70klb.

That to me points to a logical increments in development using known elements with new elements.


The UltraFan and the Advance are related but not the same development. The Advance is about reshuffling the core, changing the distribution of work provided by the different stages. The demonstrator was build into a TXWB using more than just the fan. Additionally a new CFRP fan has been flown on a Trent 1000. This two developments are finished and waiting for an application.
A possible application would be a new version of the TXWB, T1000 or T7000. I assume, that the T1000 trouble, the work around it and now slow sales, have has slowed such a move. I actually expected the new fan on the T7000.
The UltraFan is the new fan development, using gearing and variable pitch blades. It uses the Advance core and AFAIK a 2 spool design. The fan design making the third spool unnecessary.

I doubt that the UltraFan would be the next step for the A350, I would rather imagine the Advance with the advance core and the CFRP fan would be the next step.

We have to see how well the 777-9 and GE9X will do and how much pressure the put on Airbus and RR to do something.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16099
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Sun May 30, 2021 3:57 pm

Revelation wrote:
Fine, yet we were talking about the demonstrator which will be the first time the entire UltraFan suite (fan, gear, two-spool core) will all be tried together in one engine instead of the earlier demonstrators that used "known elements with new elements". This is the one the CEO is saying will be tested then put on ice till a market forms.


RR is planning to have the Ultrafan demonstrator completed by year end, they are planning on running it in cell 80 as soon as they can.

Source https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... fan-engine
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26299
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Tim Clark: Emirates will refuse B777X delivery if not per contract

Sun May 30, 2021 4:00 pm

zeke wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Fine, yet we were talking about the demonstrator which will be the first time the entire UltraFan suite (fan, gear, two-spool core) will all be tried together in one engine instead of the earlier demonstrators that used "known elements with new elements". This is the one the CEO is saying will be tested then put on ice till a market forms.


RR is planning to have the Ultrafan demonstrator completed by year end, they are planning on running it in cell 80 as soon as they can.

Source https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... fan-engine

I wish them good luck, but that doesn't conflict with the CEO's earlier statement that the demonstrator will be tested then put on ice till a market forms.
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

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