Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8
 
User avatar
PolarRoute
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:56 pm

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 2:48 am

Aseem747 wrote:
Airbus bias + the decline in demand for new large aircraft always makes discussions on the 777X pretty hilarious to read. Especially when you see the same people bashing the 777-9 praising the A350-1000, which has been doing far worse in terms of orders I'm pretty sure a leasing company or something in 2019 or 18 said there was no demand for it.
The 777X judging from the present condition of order book without any bias surely would looks like it'll be the airplane that'll give the large wide body market at least some kind of strong market presence in the future? It's the only large passenger aircraft to get orders since 2020 too I believe, 11 to be exact.
777-300ER are still young and strong airplanes, the most common wide body in the world to be exact so majority of it's operators haven't even had any proper replacement or retirement plans for it too.

Also, what do the people complaining about Chinese and US carriers not ordering the 777X want. China Southern to replace their 5 year old 777-300ER fleet? Or maybe United's 4-5 year old 777-300ER fleet? I doubt there's a single main land Chinese or American 77W operator whose fleet is even 10 years old so chill, their time will come too.


People bash the 779 and praise the 351 at the same time just like they do with the 380 and 77w. They do so because each pair is in the same relationship with another. The 351 is to the 779 what the 77w was to the a380; smaller, lighter, enough payload range (even better, in 351's case), enough cabin floor area, and provides marginal CASM difference.

Airbus bias? Maybe. But 'same people bashing the 779 and praising the 351' can't be the sole reason to accuse posters of being biased, as their arguments for bashing 779 but praising 351 are valid.

Also, the 777x is not the only pax airliner that got orders since 2020. A339 did as well. It is kinda nitpicking, but to keep others from being lead falsely.
 
2175301
Posts: 2246
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 2:50 am

PolarRoute wrote:
Also, another thing that the a380 is paralleled by the 779:

At the point of its EIS, the a380 had 189 firm orders from some strong customers, excluding the options. And yet it still turned out to be a financial flub. Likewise, the 779 has, 191 "firm" blue chip customer orders, and that 191 is a statement from Boeing.
The number stems from an accounting rule ASC 606, which requires a different classifications for those orders that are unlikely to materialize, for whatever reason. And this is Boeing themselves classifying the other 118 orders as 'unlikely to happen.' So I think that's a solid reason to go by the number 191.


A key difference though. The A380 was a clean sheet program, and the B777X is a derivative program.

The cost of the B777X development is a fraction of the A380 (likely about 1/4 - 1/3).

So there is a lot less money that has to be earned back from sales of B777X to move into "Program Profitability" (i.e. where the money profit earned from sales pays for all the development and initial build cost).
 
User avatar
PolarRoute
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:56 pm

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 2:55 am

2175301 wrote:
PolarRoute wrote:
Also, another thing that the a380 is paralleled by the 779:

At the point of its EIS, the a380 had 189 firm orders from some strong customers, excluding the options. And yet it still turned out to be a financial flub. Likewise, the 779 has, 191 "firm" blue chip customer orders, and that 191 is a statement from Boeing.
The number stems from an accounting rule ASC 606, which requires a different classifications for those orders that are unlikely to materialize, for whatever reason. And this is Boeing themselves classifying the other 118 orders as 'unlikely to happen.' So I think that's a solid reason to go by the number 191.


A key difference though. The A380 was a clean sheet program, and the B777X is a derivative program.

The cost of the B777X development is a fraction of the A380 (likely about 1/3).

So there is a lot less money that has to be earned back from sales of B777X to move into "Program Profitability" (i.e. where the money profit earned from sales pays for all the development and initial build cost).


True. In financial standpoint, the possibility of 779 becoming another 380 is lower than it was for the a380 (now that the a380 is proven to be a financial dud, the possibility is 100%, which makes it an obvious non-argument.... but you know what I mean)

But overall life cycle and the circumstances each product is/was in, I'd say they are more alike than they are different.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1211
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 3:10 am

Opus99 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
I cannot think of a sound reason beyond maximum size per movement that would make an airline choose it over the current widebody options. On current specs it has worse fuel burn per seat than a 789. It appears to have the best aero/engine combination going but it’s got some bad weight issues.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

“I think 20% better than 77W per seat is totally reasonable, particularly at the high weights. 10% lower SFC, 3.8% higher UL/D, and 6.5% higher capacity (cabin area).
If they are using 20% less per seat with 6.5% more pax then we'd reasonably expect the trip fuel burn to be ~13.5% lower. A 77W with 385pax going 7300nm has a requirement for about 43t payload (the obligatory pantry) and so with 167t OWE it gives 141t of fuel required (not all burned). This means about 122t for the 779X with 426pax which is about 47t payload. 351.5-122-47= 182t leaving a max payload of about 73t (same as the 77W?)

In all honesty I expect it to be better than this and I think we could see the Spec range rise up to ~7500nm

Game on!

Fred

Edit: removed the word reasonably a few time as apparently that's my word for the day.”


viewtopic.php?t=1452269&start=50

But Fred, these were your words a year ago.

I’m not trying to be funny or anything like that just genuine questions.

You expected the jet to be better than 20% per seat, so what has changed? Has some data been revealed that we don’t know? If you are privy to it I hope you don’t mind sharing

Don't forget 10% less thrust


Or is 20% less fuel burn per seat than a 77W still worse than the 789?

Again I’m not trying to be funny or anything I’m actually trying to understand
 
jagraham
Posts: 1211
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 3:28 am

Daysleeper wrote:
First of all let me just say, “respect” it’s great to see that we can still debate a contention issue here without the tread being locked.

Of the many interesting responses a few stand out as they seem to follow a theme, so I think they are worth addressing furthers.

First of all. CASM. This is the true “golden calf” of arguments to me, in that it is entirely false. The A380 at full capacity is the CASM king, and yet it still didn’t sell. For LCC’s CASM maters, but for the legacy big carriers which have ordered the 77X itis not so much CASM which matters but the actual cabin hard product that allows them to upsell tickets.

So should the 77X best its targets and become the most efficient way to get 400 people from A to B, then although a great achievement, I still don’t see anyone ordering it. For the exact same reason no one ordered the A380 in a high-density configuration – There is no demand for it.

So we are back to what I stated within the initial post, the only potential customers for the 77X are airlines with very congested routes or those which wish to make a statement with a “flag ship” product to sell seats. The EXACT same market as the A380 ended up in.

What I also find telling to the desperation of the 77X program is the fact Boeing are considering a freighter version even before the EIS of the passenger variant. Typically (with the exception of the 747) Boeing has targeted passenger aircraft first as there is more money to be made in that market. Later a freighter would be made available in order to keep the line busy.

The fact that they are already scrambling to offer the 77XF to garner a few more orders before a potential A350F “eats their lunch” speaks to how bad the situation really is. Let me be clear, I have no doubt that the 77XF will be a fantastic freighter, and it will dominate the market, however, the fact that there is going to be an A350F will force Boeing to offer competitive pricing. They can no longer rely on freighter sales to make the program profitable.


Boeing is scrambling to "offer" the 77XF in order to continue its stranglehold on the widebody freighter market. I'm sure that some customer told Boeing that the A35F was coming. And while the freighter market is tougher to crack for a plane whose advantage is lower weight (which is why the A35F will be an A35J derivative rather than an A359 derivative) an A35K derived freighter will be competitive. Boeing is justifiably worried about the A35F cracking the freighter market.
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 4:24 am

Daysleeper wrote:
First of all. CASM. This is the true “golden calf” of arguments to me, in that it is entirely false. The A380 at full capacity is the CASM king, and yet it still didn’t sell.


That was never true, even with 853 PAX aboard. At full capacity, the 753, 764, DHC8-400 and 789 all delivered better CASM numbers. Lately, the 359, 35X & 339 are also present there as well.

The 380 had two appeals.

-Moving a large number of PAX between hubs at once. Failed that since the only places where that really mattered had hubs too close together for the per seat costs to drop enough.
-Having a large amount of premium real estate to offer to/from large O&D points to/from a hub. We can count on one hand with enough fingers left to play cards how many carriers that will work for.

CASM value was only ever a possibility with the 389 model, which was never built.





diverdave wrote:
Perhaps you should ask the airlines that have ordered it, or even better send letters to the CEOs and board members telling them how stupid they were to order this aircraft.


Do not assume a.net is above that.




PolarRoute wrote:

But overall life cycle and the circumstances each product is/was in, I'd say they are more alike than they are different.


I think there are a lot of differences that make a comparison nearly impossible. For a start, the 388 already had competitive replacements on the horizon as soon as two years into production. What VLA class aircraft are either A or B even looking into for a 2025 discussion?

As well, the 388 —like the 752/753— suffered from another huge problem. Both were unable to earn their keep WRT FAL space. TLS & Renton both needed those lines for other products that were selling. To the point that keeping the 757 or 380 would have materially harmed 737 & 330/350/32X sales, respectively, in the way of delivery slotting. Barring some Deus Ex Machina, Everett will be a relative ghost town with the 747 all but done, and all 787 production moving to Charleston. BCA can afford to make 3 - 5 778/9s a year until the mid 2030s when they really become necessary. At which point they will not have to develop a 'new' VLA.

This brings me to where I think there is a major perception fault in these discussions. Namely, that the 779 & 35X are not made for today's marketplace. Or even mid-decade's. But as 77Ws and the remaining 388s age out —and the bulk of neither are close to that— there will be a need for something to replace these.
Airbus are in a good spot with the 35X and the ability to develop an A350-1100 should the need arise.
If BCA do a competent job with the 779, that will likely be the final VLA we see from North America.

There are other factors I see helping the 35X/779 markets. It will become less and less defensible to run tons of surplus frequencies —both from enviro/political pressure & the reality that most corporate travel is frivolous anyway. I see this as being a place where airlines profit more from consolidation —fewer but larger aircraft, less people to hire, space to rent, etc. All of that favors VLAs in the big twin category, and if A & BCA have these cheaply ready to go, it is not much of a risk for either to develop these products while they have the time.

I recall the 380 having none of those program advantages.



jagraham wrote:
I'm sure that some customer told Boeing that the A35F was coming. And while the freighter market is tougher to crack for a plane whose advantage is lower weight (which is why the A35F will be an A35J derivative rather than an A359 derivative) an A35K derived freighter will be competitive. Boeing is justifiably worried about the A35F cracking the freighter market.


True, but BCA should never not be nervous about any Airbus product...
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3965
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:54 am

Daysleeper wrote:
SEPilot wrote:
Daysleeper wrote:

Nope, it means he is doing the math just the same as I have and realised, perhaps, that there is no point to this aircraft.

It can fly a couple dozen more passengers on the same route, but much, much more expensively. YAY! If said passengers are wiling to pay a massive premium to be packed into a 10-abreast economy seat your on to a winner.

Otherwise, as I have stated earlier in the thread, I do not see a market for this aircraft.

But again, please correct me. Tell me who is going to order it. Who needs those extra few seats to make it worth paying more to purchase the aircraft, and much more to operate it.

What is your authority for saying the 779 will fly passengers much more expensively than the A350? If indeed that comes to pass, then you will be correct and it will be a massive flop. But I do not believe that will be the case. It is unlikely that it will outperform all expectations as the 77W did, but the projections that Boeing made were that it would beat the A350-1000 in CASM by a reasonable margin. As I posted earlier, if it does, it will be a success at some level. If it doesn’t then you will be proven right. And as far as I know there are no publicly available figures to indicate which it will be.


I have nothing other than common sense as an authority to state that it will not be more efficient than the twins already on the market.

It is heavier, a lot heavier. Weight takes trust, hence fuel. It is bigger though, large enough to fit another 2 full rows of economy seating, So I could be wrong, if those 20 people are willing to pay for the extra fuel to lift 1000’s of extra KG’s I will admit I am wrong.

I also refer to my earlier referenced points, if it is indeed the king of CASM… why is no one other than those that ordered the A380 ordering it


Sadly because the 7W's are way to young to write off if they were replaced now for many carriers.
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 6:47 am

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

I think there are a lot of differences that make a comparison nearly impossible. For a start, the 388 already had competitive replacements on the horizon as soon as two years into production. What VLA class aircraft are either A or B even looking into for a 2025 discussion?

As well, the 388 —like the 752/753— suffered from another huge problem. Both were unable to earn their keep WRT FAL space. TLS & Renton both needed those lines for other products that were selling. To the point that keeping the 757 or 380 would have materially harmed 737 & 330/350/32X sales, respectively, in the way of delivery slotting. Barring some Deus Ex Machina, Everett will be a relative ghost town with the 747 all but done, and all 787 production moving to Charleston. BCA can afford to make 3 - 5 778/9s a year until the mid 2030s when they really become necessary. At which point they will not have to develop a 'new' VLA.

This brings me to where I think there is a major perception fault in these discussions. Namely, that the 779 & 35X are not made for today's marketplace. Or even mid-decade's. But as 77Ws and the remaining 388s age out —and the bulk of neither are close to that— there will be a need for something to replace these.
Airbus are in a good spot with the 35X and the ability to develop an A350-1100 should the need arise.
If BCA do a competent job with the 779, that will likely be the final VLA we see from North America.

There are other factors I see helping the 35X/779 markets. It will become less and less defensible to run tons of surplus frequencies —both from enviro/political pressure & the reality that most corporate travel is frivolous anyway. I see this as being a place where airlines profit more from consolidation —fewer but larger aircraft, less people to hire, space to rent, etc. All of that favors VLAs in the big twin category, and if A & BCA have these cheaply ready to go, it is not much of a risk for either to develop these products while they have the time.

I recall the 380 having none of those program advantages.

The only planes that have been doing better by getting larger are the single aisle aircraft, everything else is getting smaller. Those frequencies also exist to give the consumer choice. The only exceptions once again are going to be long haul routes where an airline is going to be limited by what banks they operate, or what times people want to travel. So they will park aircraft, but not because they want to.

It is similarly hard to imagine that governments will want to tank frequencies for higher gauge equipment. Most of what constitutes majority of frequencies is regional flying, and if you get rid of those frequencies, how are bills paid at the airport? These facilities like it or not operate better at scale. There are also routes where smaller planes just make more sense than bigger jets, areas where you would be better flying something like a CRJ than the A320/737 because this is what best fills that demand.

On the 777X, I think it is too late. This program goes the way of the dodo once 787/A350 re-engine is on the works. It is important to remember that airlines did not have an option when it came to getting the 747 or the 777 because they were the only options if you really wanted to go long haul and the ER versions opened up even more routes. Today, you do not have to order the A350K or 777X if you do not need the capacity. I suspect that A330's and 777's that were delivered late will be replaced by 787 and A350-900.

Today, instead of having a 777, an airline can simply take a 787-8/9 or the A350-900 and fly even more efficiently at those ranges, and then some.
 
marcelh
Posts: 1626
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 8:02 am

airbazar wrote:
diverdave wrote:
Daysleeper wrote:
I cannot find a reason either as to why anyone would order a 77X. And in multiple threads now I have asked for people to tell me where only the 77X makes sense. But so far, zero. No one can actually say why an airline would order it.


Perhaps you should ask the airlines that have ordered it, or even better send letters to the CEOs and board members telling them how stupid they were to order this aircraft.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

The 777X has its place amongst airlines that have a large cargo division. It's no coincidence that we see EK, SQ, CX, LH in the list of customers.
To me the odd duckling of 777X customers is BA.


BA needs the 779 because it is bigger than the A350-1000 and the additional floorspace is ideal for a 4 class lay-out. Post COVID the real question will be if there is enough demand to fill all those seats in First and business.
 
Daysleeper
Topic Author
Posts: 743
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 8:22 am

Aseem747 wrote:
Airbus bias + the decline in demand for new large aircraft always makes discussions on the 777X pretty hilarious to read. Especially when you see the same people bashing the 777-9 praising the A350-1000, which has been doing far worse in terms of orders I'm pretty sure a leasing company or something in 2019 or 18 said there was no demand for it.
The 777X judging from the present condition of order book without any bias surely would looks like it'll be the airplane that'll give the large wide body market at least some kind of strong market presence in the future? It's the only large passenger aircraft to get orders since 2020 too I believe, 11


What do you believe you are adding to the conversation with this post? I have not bashed the 77X or praised the A35J, I just drew a comparison between the A380 and 77X in that I believe that they were both developed for markets which will no longer exist by the time they enter service.

The A380 was designed to replace the 747, but that market was taken by the 77W. The 77X was obviously designed to replace the 777, however I think the vast majority of that market will be taken by the A350 and 787.

An important note, just as the 77W was not in the same size category as the A380 but still managed to take its market – I believe the same holds true for the 77X. So comparing it to only the A35J is very disingenuous, the A350 family has over 900 orders and many if not most of those are either replacing or supplementing 777s.

Finally, please keep the bias accusations and snarky comments to yourself. If you find this thread hilarious, have a laugh and then move onto the next without posting flame bait. Thanks.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
That was never true, even with 853 PAX aboard. At full capacity, the 753, 764, DHC8-400 and 789 all delivered better CASM numbers. Lately, the 359, 35X & 339 are also present there as well.


This I genuinely didn’t know. I stand corrected.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
I think there are a lot of differences that make a comparison nearly impossible. For a start, the 388 already had competitive replacements on the horizon as soon as two years into production. What VLA class aircraft are either A or B even looking into for a 2025 discussion?

I’m not sure I follow you here, the larger point I was trying to make by comparing the A380 to the 77X was not in terms of the actual aircraft or market they serve, but that the market they were intended for will no longer exist by the time they enter service.

The 77X will apparently add two extra rows of seats when compared to the 77W, and of course better fuel burn. How much better? we will have to wait and see, but I don’t see it beating the A350 or larger 787’s by much if anything. And both the A350 and 787 are well established in the market with many airlines already using them to replace their older 777 fleets. With the exceptions of airlines operating from extremely congested hubs (such as BA at LHR) and to offer a “flag ship” product (EK and the ME3) I just don’t see why an airline would order it over the A350 or 787 to replace a 777.

In regards to a 2025 VLA, well with the A350F development allowing for greater weights, another A350 stretch isn’t out of the question. But I would personally put the 787-9\787-10 and the A350 in the VLA category and assume both will be available post 2025. I would also point out that the 77X was supposed to enter service this year, its 5 years late. You seem to be implying that Boeing planned for the 77X to come to the market in 2025 offering the latest and greatest technology, but that’s simply not the case. With the exception of the GenX it’s systems are from the last century, with and update done around the same time as the A350 was being developed. Sorry if I got you implication wrong, but I couldn’t quite work out what you meant by 2025 VLA.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
As well, the 388 —like the 752/753— suffered from another huge problem. Both were unable to earn their keep WRT FAL space. TLS & Renton both needed those lines for other products that were selling. To the point that keeping the 757 or 380 would have materially harmed 737 & 330/350/32X sales, respectively, in the way of delivery slotting. Barring some Deus Ex Machina, Everett will be a relative ghost town with the 747 all but done, and all 787 production moving to Charleston. BCA can afford to make 3 - 5 778/9s a year until the mid 2030s when they really become necessary. At which point they will not have to develop a 'new' VLA.


While I don’t agree that Airbus needed to axe the A380 for space or to sell more A320s, or that Boeing can afford to make just 3-5 77X’s a year I acknowledge your point about Everett. To me that’s the one of the real problems with Boeing, their fixation on cutting costs by moving production to areas where there is cheap, none-union, labour has really hurt the company IMHO. Losing decade of hard won institutional knowledge. A tragedy for sure.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
This brings me to where I think there is a major perception fault in these discussions. Namely, that the 779 & 35X are not made for today's marketplace. Or even mid-decade's. But as 77Ws and the remaining 388s age out —and the bulk of neither are close to that— there will be a need for something to replace these.
Airbus are in a good spot with the 35X and the ability to develop an A350-1100 should the need arise.
If BCA do a competent job with the 779, that will likely be the final VLA we see from North America.


On this I agree. Both manufactures are trying to design aircraft to suit the needs of the next decade not the one they were created in. Where I think our opinions will differ a little is I don’t think it matters how competent a job Boeing do with the 77X it will still be 5 years late to the party, and all the hot girls (or guys, I don’t know which way the X swings :) ) will have already hooked up.


DarkSnowyNight wrote:
There are other factors I see helping the 35X/779 markets. It will become less and less defensible to run tons of surplus frequencies —both from enviro/political pressure & the reality that most corporate travel is frivolous anyway. I see this as being a place where airlines profit more from consolidation —fewer but larger aircraft, less people to hire, space to rent, etc. All of that favors VLAs in the big twin category, and if A & BCA have these cheaply ready to go, it is not much of a risk for either to develop these products while they have the time.


You know I have heard this argument before, let me think when. Oh I know, on here 15 years ago when discussing the A380 development, how congestion and consolidation will mean airlines have to order it because they will need to operate fewer larger more efficient aircraft. Yeah, that didn’t happen then and I don’t think it will now. Nice touch adding “environment” and being “green” into to the mix though, it gives the old A380 arguments a new lease on life.


DarkSnowyNight wrote:
True, but BCA should never not be nervous about any Airbus product...


I am sure Airbus feel the same way. Especially if they are boarding one and it has an X in the name :)

Sorry I couldn’t help myself, but thanks for a very informed and well thought out post. Really made me think a whole lot more about it. I’m still not convinced, but you did raise some excellent points.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4322
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 8:28 am

If you were an airline CEO why would you choose a 777x over any of the other currently available wide bodies?

What can the 777x do that the 789, 78X, A359 and A35K cannot?

As it currently stands I cannot see it offering anything other than floor area/volume.

The customers it has right now fit that need because of congested hub to hub and mega hub flying they do, same as the A380.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Opus99
Posts: 2939
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 11:01 am

DenverTed wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
PolarRoute wrote:

Yes, the 779 is not larger than any other airliners by as big of a margin as the a380 was. But, by not being explosively larger, does the 779 provide the efficiency in comparison to its smaller competitors? That's the question being asked, not just the size solely by itself.

The a35k provides at least the same, if not better, payload range capability with arguably lower trip cost. Yes, it will be restricted by the cabin floor area by some point, but if you want to argue that 779 is 'only' 2-3 rows bigger, the cabin floor area restriction can't be THAT restrictive.

The a380 was killed off by the smaller competitor, 77w, which provided substantial payload and comparable cost in per seat basis with less cabin area and trip cost. We now see the same thing happening with the 779 and 351

You’re not seeing anything because the 779 has outsold the 351. So I don’t know what you’re seeing.

Maybe wait and see what happens?

The deliveries are 57 to 0. I would be surprised if the 779 is able to surpass A351 deliveries by 2030.

A346 started deliveries before the 77W so what’s your point?
 
Opus99
Posts: 2939
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 11:04 am

PolarRoute wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
PolarRoute wrote:

Yes, the 779 is not larger than any other airliners by as big of a margin as the a380 was. But, by not being explosively larger, does the 779 provide the efficiency in comparison to its smaller competitors? That's the question being asked, not just the size solely by itself.

The a35k provides at least the same, if not better, payload range capability with arguably lower trip cost. Yes, it will be restricted by the cabin floor area by some point, but if you want to argue that 779 is 'only' 2-3 rows bigger, the cabin floor area restriction can't be THAT restrictive.

The a380 was killed off by the smaller competitor, 77w, which provided substantial payload and comparable cost in per seat basis with less cabin area and trip cost. We now see the same thing happening with the 779 and 351

You’re not seeing anything because the 779 has outsold the 351. So I don’t know what you’re seeing.

Maybe wait and see what happens?


From my earlier post:

when looking at a VLA's order book, the order count at launch and its customer base shouldn't be considered a means of market outlook for the said VLA, IMO. VLA, being a very large aircraft, will have those blue chip customers in its order book, not because it is such a sound plane, but they are the only ones with the resource and network needed to operate the VLAs efficiently enough. So naturally, they'll have big names logged in the books, but that's it. No one, with the exception of EK, who seem to be struggling with all the capacity anyways, needs multiple dozens of large guage aircraft: bigger guage, less frequency; more frequency, smaller guage. This makes harder for VLAs to garner any top-ups in substantial amount, getting them stuck in the initial figure of orders and hindering the sustained longevity of the program.


Also, another thing that the a380 is paralleled by the 779:

At the point of its EIS, the a380 had 189 firm orders from some strong customers, excluding the options. And yet it still turned out to be a financial flub. Likewise, the 779 has, 191 "firm" blue chip customer orders, and that 191 is a statement from Boeing.
The number stems from an accounting rule ASC 606, which requires a different classifications for those orders that are unlikely to materialize, for whatever reason. And this is Boeing themselves classifying the other 118 orders as 'unlikely to happen.' So I think that's a solid reason to go by the number 191.

You see what I hate. The double standard.

First of all, the 777X as it stands has 246 orders after adjustments. Not 191 but if you actually cared to research that number you would see. It has been increasing every month for the past 11 months. Secondly. Has it entered service? It may very well wrack up more orders especially with a freighter coming into play. Bear in mind 380 had a freighter at this point. Still with 189.

Also how many sales did the 35K have entering into service?

And WHY is it only the 35Ks sales that are not representative of its potential but the 779 cannot grow in sales. Like WTF
 
Opus99
Posts: 2939
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 11:13 am

flipdewaf wrote:
If you were an airline CEO why would you choose a 777x over any of the other currently available wide bodies?

What can the 777x do that the 789, 78X, A359 and A35K cannot?

As it currently stands I cannot see it offering anything other than floor area/volume.

The customers it has right now fit that need because of congested hub to hub and mega hub flying they do, same as the A380.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe because it’s may be the most profitable way to carry 350 passengers and high volumes of cargo. well according to Boeing and their launch customer airlines.

I appreciate the calculations you’ve made but at the end of the day the information you’re going on is likely different from what customers are being told and what Boeing is seeing in flight testing and that’s what we don’t know.

Also a year ago you seemed fairly optimistic that the 779 range and performance will increase to reflect its better performance etc. LH yesterday said it was 15% more fuel efficient than the 777-300ER, I know they were targeting 13% from what they told us the public so I don’t know if I’m just reading it the wrong way. And we have senior officials saying initial fuel burn results are better than expected.

If they are let us look the adjustments this month to see if they firm up even more orders.

But if you don’t mind what does 15% per trip work out to per seat when you compare the 300ER to 779


I’m just saying that you shouldn’t count it out just yet.

Another thing is the 380 burnt twice as much fuel as the 77W. The 779 is not going to do anywhere near those numbers. It will indeed be lower than 77W by 15% then than it is very good IMO for an aircraft that carries 30 more passengers
 
Daysleeper
Topic Author
Posts: 743
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 11:33 am

Opus99 wrote:
PolarRoute wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
You’re not seeing anything because the 779 has outsold the 351. So I don’t know what you’re seeing.

Maybe wait and see what happens?


From my earlier post:

when looking at a VLA's order book, the order count at launch and its customer base shouldn't be considered a means of market outlook for the said VLA, IMO. VLA, being a very large aircraft, will have those blue chip customers in its order book, not because it is such a sound plane, but they are the only ones with the resource and network needed to operate the VLAs efficiently enough. So naturally, they'll have big names logged in the books, but that's it. No one, with the exception of EK, who seem to be struggling with all the capacity anyways, needs multiple dozens of large guage aircraft: bigger guage, less frequency; more frequency, smaller guage. This makes harder for VLAs to garner any top-ups in substantial amount, getting them stuck in the initial figure of orders and hindering the sustained longevity of the program.


Also, another thing that the a380 is paralleled by the 779:

At the point of its EIS, the a380 had 189 firm orders from some strong customers, excluding the options. And yet it still turned out to be a financial flub. Likewise, the 779 has, 191 "firm" blue chip customer orders, and that 191 is a statement from Boeing.
The number stems from an accounting rule ASC 606, which requires a different classifications for those orders that are unlikely to materialize, for whatever reason. And this is Boeing themselves classifying the other 118 orders as 'unlikely to happen.' So I think that's a solid reason to go by the number 191.

You see what I hate. The double standard.

First of all, the 777X as it stands has 246 orders after adjustments. Not 191 but if you actually cared to research that number you would see. It has been increasing every month for the past 11 months. Secondly. Has it entered service? It may very well wrack up more orders especially with a freighter coming into play. Bear in mind 380 had a freighter at this point. Still with 189.

Also how many sales did the 35K have entering into service?

And WHY is it only the 35Ks sales that are not representative of its potential but the 779 cannot grow in sales. Like WTF


As I and a few others have already pointed out, comparing orders to just the A35J or any other specific variant is pointless in this context, as it is not what "competes" for a like to like basis it what has taken away the replacement market for the 777. And this has been done by A359's, A35J, as well as the larger 787s - so it serves no purpose.
 
Opus99
Posts: 2939
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 11:38 am

Daysleeper wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
PolarRoute wrote:

From my earlier post:



Also, another thing that the a380 is paralleled by the 779:

At the point of its EIS, the a380 had 189 firm orders from some strong customers, excluding the options. And yet it still turned out to be a financial flub. Likewise, the 779 has, 191 "firm" blue chip customer orders, and that 191 is a statement from Boeing.
The number stems from an accounting rule ASC 606, which requires a different classifications for those orders that are unlikely to materialize, for whatever reason. And this is Boeing themselves classifying the other 118 orders as 'unlikely to happen.' So I think that's a solid reason to go by the number 191.

You see what I hate. The double standard.

First of all, the 777X as it stands has 246 orders after adjustments. Not 191 but if you actually cared to research that number you would see. It has been increasing every month for the past 11 months. Secondly. Has it entered service? It may very well wrack up more orders especially with a freighter coming into play. Bear in mind 380 had a freighter at this point. Still with 189.

Also how many sales did the 35K have entering into service?

And WHY is it only the 35Ks sales that are not representative of its potential but the 779 cannot grow in sales. Like WTF


As I and a few others have already pointed out, comparing orders to just the A35J or any other specific variant is pointless in this context, as it is not what "competes" for a like to like basis it what has taken away the replacement market for the 777. And this has been done by A359's, A35J, as well as the larger 787s - so it serves no purpose.

But that IS the competition.

It’s either you’re buying the 35K or 779.

It was in BAs last campaign
It’s in ETs current campaign
It was going to be NZs 77W campaign


And the competition is nowhere near a slam dunk for either aircraft…yet or even ever
 
Daysleeper
Topic Author
Posts: 743
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 11:54 am

Opus99 wrote:
Maybe because it’s may be the most profitable way to carry 350 passengers and high volumes of cargo. well according to Boeing and their launch customer airlines.

I appreciate the calculations you’ve made but at the end of the day the information you’re going on is likely different from what customers are being told and what Boeing is seeing in flight testing and that’s what we don’t know.

Also a year ago you seemed fairly optimistic that the 779 range and performance will increase to reflect its better performance etc. LH yesterday said it was 15% more fuel efficient than the 777-300ER, I know they were targeting 13% from what they told us the public so I don’t know if I’m just reading it the wrong way. And we have senior officials saying initial fuel burn results are better than expected.

If they are let us look the adjustments this month to see if they firm up even more orders.

But if you don’t mind what does 15% per trip work out to per seat when you compare the 300ER to 779


I’m just saying that you shouldn’t count it out just yet.

Another thing is the 380 burnt twice as much fuel as the 77W. The 779 is not going to do anywhere near those numbers. It will indeed be lower than 77W by 15% then than it is very good IMO for an aircraft that carries 30 more passengers


Wait, I thought it was aiming to be 20% better than the 77W whilst adding 2 more rows of seats? I think the A359 aimed to be 25% more efficient than the 77W and I think the last real-world figures I saw had its fuel average fuel burn as 7500kg/h compared to the A359s 5800Kg/h - Making it around 23% better.

If indeed LH are saying the 77X is only 13% better, and they are only aiming for 15% then it's going to be burning around 6500Kg/s per hour. Almost a ton of fuel more than the A359 every hour.

Something isn't quite right here. I am sure of it, as there is noway Boeing would over--look something as major as this. Unless those 20 extra passengers are willing to pay ONE HELL of a price for 10-abreat economy.

I have more to say, but I will hold off as this cannot be correct.

Edited to add:

Opus99 wrote:
But that IS the competition.

It’s either you’re buying the 35K or 779.

It was in BAs last campaign
It’s in ETs current campaign
It was going to be NZs 77W campaign


And the competition is nowhere near a slam dunk for either aircraft…yet or even ever


No you're not, that's kinda the whole point of this thread. When the A380 was launched no one compared it to the 77W, as they were different sizes and for different markets and not at all comparable. But it was the 77W's ability to take the 747 replacement market away from the A380 which crippled its sales. I think the same is happening with the 77X, the A350 and the 787 are talking away the market it sought to address, you don't have to compare like with like. If said airline finds that they can operate a route previously flown by the 777 with a 787 then that is one less 77X Boeing can sell.
Last edited by Daysleeper on Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Opus99
Posts: 2939
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 11:57 am

Daysleeper wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Maybe because it’s may be the most profitable way to carry 350 passengers and high volumes of cargo. well according to Boeing and their launch customer airlines.

I appreciate the calculations you’ve made but at the end of the day the information you’re going on is likely different from what customers are being told and what Boeing is seeing in flight testing and that’s what we don’t know.

Also a year ago you seemed fairly optimistic that the 779 range and performance will increase to reflect its better performance etc. LH yesterday said it was 15% more fuel efficient than the 777-300ER, I know they were targeting 13% from what they told us the public so I don’t know if I’m just reading it the wrong way. And we have senior officials saying initial fuel burn results are better than expected.

If they are let us look the adjustments this month to see if they firm up even more orders.

But if you don’t mind what does 15% per trip work out to per seat when you compare the 300ER to 779


I’m just saying that you shouldn’t count it out just yet.

Another thing is the 380 burnt twice as much fuel as the 77W. The 779 is not going to do anywhere near those numbers. It will indeed be lower than 77W by 15% then than it is very good IMO for an aircraft that carries 30 more passengers


Wait, I thought it was aiming to be 20% better than the 77W whilst adding 2 more rows of seats? I think the A359 aimed to be 25% more efficient than the 77W and I think the last real-world figures I saw had its fuel average fuel burn as 7500kg/h compared to the A359s 5800Kg/h - Making it around 23% better.

If indeed LH are saying the 77X is only 13% better, and they are only aiming for 15% then it's going to be burning around 6500Kg/s per hour. Almost a ton of fuel more than the A359 every hour.

Something isn't quite right here. I am sure of it, as there is noway Boeing would over--look something as major as this. Unless those 20 extra passengers are willing to pay ONE HELL of a price for 10-abreat economy.

I have more to say, but I will hold off as this cannot be correct.

Daysleeper, relax and read again.

1. 20% I believe is per seat

2. Lufthansa said 15%

3. Publicly targeted 13%
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4322
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:09 pm

Opus99 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
If you were an airline CEO why would you choose a 777x over any of the other currently available wide bodies?

What can the 777x do that the 789, 78X, A359 and A35K cannot?

As it currently stands I cannot see it offering anything other than floor area/volume.

The customers it has right now fit that need because of congested hub to hub and mega hub flying they do, same as the A380.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe because it’s may be the most profitable way to carry 350 passengers and high volumes of cargo. well according to Boeing and their launch customer airlines.


So volume/floor area then? Lol.

Opus99 wrote:

I appreciate the calculations you’ve made but at the end of the day the information you’re going on is likely different from what customers are being told and what Boeing is seeing in flight testing and that’s what we don’t know.


Why would you assume customers are being told different? You can wish they were but assuming something is true because you want it to be is bordering on religion.
Opus99 wrote:

Also a year ago you seemed fairly optimistic that the 779 range and performance will increase to reflect its better performance etc.

That’s more from the fact that I cannot believe that Boeing would launch a plane that had more than the same sort of niche as the A380. There’s no evidence it is yet.
Opus99 wrote:
LH yesterday said it was 15% more fuel efficient than the 777-300ER, I know they were targeting 13% from what they told us the public so I don’t know if I’m just reading it the wrong way. And we have senior officials saying initial fuel burn results are better than expected.

Per passenger or per trip?
Opus99 wrote:

If they are let us look the adjustments this month to see if they firm up even more orders.

But if you don’t mind what does 15% per trip work out to per seat when you compare the 300ER to 779


Off the top of my head (not on my computer) it would take it from 20 per seat to about 22.
Opus99 wrote:

I’m just saying that you shouldn’t count it out just yet.

Another thing is the 380 burnt twice as much fuel as the 77W. The 779 is not going to do anywhere near those numbers. It will indeed be lower than 77W by 15% then than it is very good IMO for an aircraft that carries 30 more passengers


The problem with comparing it to the A380 is that it was the A380 vs the 77w back in the day. Today it’s the 777X vs the 789 and 359.

The A380 was marginally better per set than the 77W and the 779X is if the LH 15% is true is marginally better per seat than the real competition.

Granted the 779x is a lesser risk over the competition in terms of sizing but then it’s also less reward if you can fill it so swings and roundabouts.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Daysleeper
Topic Author
Posts: 743
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:20 pm

Opus99 wrote:

Daysleeper, relax and read again.

1. 20% I believe is per seat

2. Lufthansa said 15%

3. Publicly targeted 13%


I'm perfectly relaxed and calm thank you :)

But wow, I had no idea it was that bad. You know that Airbus are working on 10-abreat economy on the A350, yeah? Granted it won't be comfortable but 10 abreast never is.

I expected 20% better fuel burn, not per seat. And definitely not 13% better per seat - Let's hope these are just early testing numbers and they improve by EIS. Otherwise it's toast, why would an Airline opt to burn 10,000 KGs more fuel on a 10 hour trip for just a few extra seats? Unless as I previously stated they are slot restricted, or choosing to make it some sorta of "Flag Ship" and fuel burn be dammed. Kinda like EK did with the A380, and it looks for all intents that they plan to do with the 77X.

That's actually made me really sad, as I am genuinely not a hater and I look forwards to seeing a 77X. But unless I am understanding those numbers all wrong (which is possible, I am often an idiot) its as dead as a dodo. :(

Fuel burn numbers I grabbed from here I am not sure of where they sourced them, but they fit well with everything I have seen posted so I went with them.
 
Opus99
Posts: 2939
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:27 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
If you were an airline CEO why would you choose a 777x over any of the other currently available wide bodies?

What can the 777x do that the 789, 78X, A359 and A35K cannot?

As it currently stands I cannot see it offering anything other than floor area/volume.

The customers it has right now fit that need because of congested hub to hub and mega hub flying they do, same as the A380.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe because it’s may be the most profitable way to carry 350 passengers and high volumes of cargo. well according to Boeing and their launch customer airlines.


So volume/floor area then? Lol.

Opus99 wrote:

I appreciate the calculations you’ve made but at the end of the day the information you’re going on is likely different from what customers are being told and what Boeing is seeing in flight testing and that’s what we don’t know.


Why would you assume customers are being told different? You can wish they were but assuming something is true because you want it to be is bordering on religion.
Opus99 wrote:

Also a year ago you seemed fairly optimistic that the 779 range and performance will increase to reflect its better performance etc.

That’s more from the fact that I cannot believe that Boeing would launch a plane that had more than the same sort of niche as the A380. There’s no evidence it is yet.
Opus99 wrote:
LH yesterday said it was 15% more fuel efficient than the 777-300ER, I know they were targeting 13% from what they told us the public so I don’t know if I’m just reading it the wrong way. And we have senior officials saying initial fuel burn results are better than expected.

Per passenger or per trip?
Opus99 wrote:

If they are let us look the adjustments this month to see if they firm up even more orders.

But if you don’t mind what does 15% per trip work out to per seat when you compare the 300ER to 779


Off the top of my head (not on my computer) it would take it from 20 per seat to about 22.
Opus99 wrote:

I’m just saying that you shouldn’t count it out just yet.

Another thing is the 380 burnt twice as much fuel as the 77W. The 779 is not going to do anywhere near those numbers. It will indeed be lower than 77W by 15% then than it is very good IMO for an aircraft that carries 30 more passengers


The problem with comparing it to the A380 is that it was the A380 vs the 77w back in the day. Today it’s the 777X vs the 789 and 359.

The A380 was marginally better per set than the 77W and the 779X is if the LH 15% is true is marginally better per seat than the real competition.

Granted the 779x is a lesser risk over the competition in terms of sizing but then it’s also less reward if you can fill it so swings and roundabouts.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That 15 is per trip I think.

I mean it has to be different than what they telling us because they have the actual test data, we don’t. So they know the actual performance of the aircraft and they’re not releasing the data to us, they’re releasing it to customers.

Also on the change of optimism from last year to now.

We’ve been in a pandemic, there’s nothing that will change that outlook for a long time.

I also see the chance for the freighter to lift sales which will make it another angle that’s different to the 380. The aircraft IS different to the 380 and the customers that ordered it will tell you that. Look at the numbers per order right. BA at 18 for 779 but only 12 for the 380 and never any higher. QR at 50 for the 779 but only 10 380s. ANA has 3 380s I’m not sure how but 20 779s CX. Singapore increased their order to 31 frames this year. The 779 is even slightly smaller than the 747-400. So it’s not the 380 in many ways. The moment you have the largest aircraft available isn’t it more movement for cheaper you’re targeting? You wouldn’t buy it if you didn’t have the people to move
 
Opus99
Posts: 2939
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:36 pm

Daysleeper wrote:
Opus99 wrote:

Daysleeper, relax and read again.

1. 20% I believe is per seat

2. Lufthansa said 15%

3. Publicly targeted 13%


I'm perfectly relaxed and calm thank you :)

But wow, I had no idea it was that bad. You know that Airbus are working on 10-abreat economy on the A350, yeah? Granted it won't be comfortable but 10 abreast never is.

I expected 20% better fuel burn, not per seat. And definitely not 13% better per seat - Let's hope these are just early testing numbers and they improve by EIS. Otherwise it's toast, why would an Airline opt to burn 10,000 KGs more fuel on a 10 hour trip for just a few extra seats? Unless as I previously stated they are slot restricted, or choosing to make it some sorta of "Flag Ship" and fuel burn be dammed. Kinda like EK did with the A380, and it looks for all intents that they plan to do with the 77X.

That's actually made me really sad, as I am genuinely not a hater and I look forwards to seeing a 77X. But unless I am understanding those numbers all wrong (which is possible, I am often an idiot) its as dead as a dodo. :(

Fuel burn numbers I grabbed from here I am not sure of where they sourced them, but they fit well with everything I have seen posted so I went with them.

It obviously won’t burn the same as the A350-1000 that weighs significantly less.

There’s nothing right now that shows me airlines prefer the 35K and that’s just the way we see it.

You people act as if the aircraft has no credit or no appeal but the competition has sold less, the biggest 359 customers are 777X customers and that is also a statement of fact

So till you have anything else other than weak links, then we can have this conversation.

If we do the adjustments the 777X is at 246. If you adjust 350-1000 it’s at 131 please please.

Till those numbers and the direction their going in switches anything you’re bringing is an opinion and not worth arguing over.

Whether it’s in a family or not? That IS the competition, wtf does being in a family have to do with the fact that the numbers are poor. Somebody will say it’s about profitability now.

If the 777X is as dead as a dodo with 246 then the 351 is a ghost with 131 and I will argue no further on this topic because tf?
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 1012
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 1:34 pm

Daysleeper wrote:

That's actually made me really sad, as I am genuinely not a hater and I look forwards to seeing a 77X. But unless I am understanding those numbers all wrong (which is possible, I am often an idiot) its as dead as a dodo. :(

Fuel burn numbers I grabbed from here I am not sure of where they sourced them, but they fit well with everything I have seen posted so I went with them.


I don’t think you are understanding the numbers correctly and doubt if those numbers are even valid. Airplanes that are as dead as a dodo don’t have airline CEOs making comments like this:

FRANKFURT/BERLIN, Nov 19 (Reuters) - Germany's Lufthansa is in talks with Boeing on buying a possible new freighter version of the 777X jetliner, while welcoming competition with a new Airbus A350 cargo plane, Chief Executive Carsten Spohr said on Friday.

"We have been negotiating about this morning, but there is much more negotiation to be done," Spohr said


https://finance.yahoo.com/news/1-luftha ... 03253.html

The airplane is in flight test and Lufthansa has seen the 777x, and they are negotiating to buy more.

And before anyone makes a claim that Lufthansa is looking at cancelling its passenger orders or exchanging them for freighters, the same article says this

Speaking in Frankfurt, Spohr said Lufthansa would be the first airline to receive the 777X passenger plane in 2023.

"That was confirmed today ... we will be the first operator to receive the aircraft," Spohr added.
 
mig17
Posts: 411
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 1:39 pm

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
Daysleeper wrote:

That's actually made me really sad, as I am genuinely not a hater and I look forwards to seeing a 77X. But unless I am understanding those numbers all wrong (which is possible, I am often an idiot) its as dead as a dodo. :(

Fuel burn numbers I grabbed from here I am not sure of where they sourced them, but they fit well with everything I have seen posted so I went with them.


Airplanes that are as dead as a dodo don’t have airline CEOs making comments like this:

FRANKFURT/BERLIN, Nov 19 (Reuters) - Germany's Lufthansa is in talks with Boeing on buying a possible new freighter version of the 777X jetliner, while welcoming competition with a new Airbus A350 cargo plane, Chief Executive Carsten Spohr said on Friday.

"We have been negotiating about this morning, but there is much more negotiation to be done," Spohr said


https://finance.yahoo.com/news/1-luftha ... 03253.html

The airplane is in flight test and Lufthansa has seen the 777x, and they are negotiating to buy more.

And before anyone makes a claim that Lufthansa is looking at cancelling its passenger orders or exchanging them for freighters, the same article says this

Speaking in Frankfurt, Spohr said Lufthansa would be the first airline to receive the 777X passenger plane in 2023.

"That was confirmed today ... we will be the first operator to receive the aircraft," Spohr added.

See, I am not sure they are negociating to buy "more".
 
airbazar
Posts: 10607
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 1:39 pm

bigb wrote:
Why is BA is odd customer when their hub is a slot constraint airport, if not one of the most slot restricted one in the world….

Yet they didn't find a need to order more A380's or the 748i, and were very late to the 77W. BA also already has the A380 and the A35K.
The 777X seems like an odd fit because BA is not a huge cargo mover like the other 777X customers that I mentioned. For a strictly large passenger plane, the A35K seems to be the better option in IMO.
 
Aseem747
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 5:34 am

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 1:45 pm

PolarRoute wrote:
Aseem747 wrote:
Airbus bias + the decline in demand for new large aircraft always makes discussions on the 777X pretty hilarious to read. Especially when you see the same people bashing the 777-9 praising the A350-1000, which has been doing far worse in terms of orders I'm pretty sure a leasing company or something in 2019 or 18 said there was no demand for it.
The 777X judging from the present condition of order book without any bias surely would looks like it'll be the airplane that'll give the large wide body market at least some kind of strong market presence in the future? It's the only large passenger aircraft to get orders since 2020 too I believe, 11 to be exact.
777-300ER are still young and strong airplanes, the most common wide body in the world to be exact so majority of it's operators haven't even had any proper replacement or retirement plans for it too.

Also, what do the people complaining about Chinese and US carriers not ordering the 777X want. China Southern to replace their 5 year old 777-300ER fleet? Or maybe United's 4-5 year old 777-300ER fleet? I doubt there's a single main land Chinese or American 77W operator whose fleet is even 10 years old so chill, their time will come too.


People bash the 779 and praise the 351 at the same time just like they do with the 380 and 77w. They do so because each pair is in the same relationship with another. The 351 is to the 779 what the 77w was to the a380; smaller, lighter, enough payload range (even better, in 351's case), enough cabin floor area, and provides marginal CASM difference.

Airbus bias? Maybe. But 'same people bashing the 779 and praising the 351' can't be the sole reason to accuse posters of being biased, as their arguments for bashing 779 but praising 351 are valid.

Also, the 777x is not the only pax airliner that got orders since 2020. A339 did as well. It is kinda nitpicking, but to keep others from being lead falsely.

I'd say the 351 is to 779 what the 359 is to 789. A better comparison if you still want to use the A380 would be the 351 is to 779 what the 748 was to 388.

Also, yes 351 is a good plane and praises of them are valid too, most of them at least. But these people gotta at least admit that the demand for A350-1000 has been extremely dry according to not me but lessors and it has equally high chances if not more than 779 judging from the order books to be a "white elephant" or the "twin jet A380" which they never do or simply reject, this is what I call Airbus bias. Not just simply praising a good aircraft.

Also, I clearly specified "large aircraft" which I think disqualifies anything smaller than 351 but sorry if I got it wrong. Anyways I think my point on mentioning the 779 order was understood.
 
Aseem747
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 5:34 am

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 1:59 pm

Daysleeper wrote:
Aseem747 wrote:
Airbus bias + the decline in demand for new large aircraft always makes discussions on the 777X pretty hilarious to read. Especially when you see the same people bashing the 777-9 praising the A350-1000, which has been doing far worse in terms of orders I'm pretty sure a leasing company or something in 2019 or 18 said there was no demand for it.
The 777X judging from the present condition of order book without any bias surely would looks like it'll be the airplane that'll give the large wide body market at least some kind of strong market presence in the future? It's the only large passenger aircraft to get orders since 2020 too I believe, 11


What do you believe you are adding to the conversation with this post? I have not bashed the 77X or praised the A35J, I just drew a comparison between the A380 and 77X in that I believe that they were both developed for markets which will no longer exist by the time they enter service.

The A380 was designed to replace the 747, but that market was taken by the 77W. The 77X was obviously designed to replace the 777, however I think the vast majority of that market will be taken by the A350 and 787.

An important note, just as the 77W was not in the same size category as the A380 but still managed to take its market – I believe the same holds true for the 77X. So comparing it to only the A35J is very disingenuous, the A350 family has over 900 orders and many if not most of those are either replacing or supplementing 777s.

Finally, please keep the bias accusations and snarky comments to yourself. If you find this thread hilarious, have a laugh and then move onto the next without posting flame bait. Thanks.
.

I wasn't talking about you alone, just making some observations about the thread itself.

Also, 777X not being same category as 77W when it seats like 20-30 more in 2 abreast is kinda silly to me. If the 779 and 77W aren't the same category, neither are 77W and 351.
Do keep in mind here I'm comparing with 10 abreast 777-300ER with 10 abreast 777-9 and 9 abreast A350-1000 because what's the use of comparing 10 abreast 351 with 10 abreast 77W when almost every airline uses 9 for 351 and 10 for 77W.

Airbus made the A340-600 to replace the 747 and compete with the 777-300/ER which also was Boeing's 744 replacement. Not A380.

And yes the 787 and 359 have been replacing a lot of 777, but they're replacing 772 so it's kinda irrelevant to the 777X. Out of all the airlines who have planned any proper replacement for their 77W planned, only JAL and Etihad have chosen anything other than 777-9. While Cathay and Qatar do have a decent 351 fleet, for now plans are majority of them will be replaced by 779. (Don't think any other 77W operator has announced or chosen any proper 77W successor but I might be wrong.)
Due to 77W being the most produced wide body ever, sure there are quite a lot of "small" airlines who operate it and definitely won't be ordering any large plane for the foreseeable future due to the pandemic. Those airlines will surely down size. But the majority of the 77W order book was from pretty big airlines so even if they will order the 779, I think that'll be enough. Late 2020s is when we should expect a boom for the 779 and 351 order book since most 77W operators will be looking for a replacement by then.
Last edited by Aseem747 on Sat Nov 20, 2021 2:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Daysleeper
Topic Author
Posts: 743
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 2:11 pm

Opus99 wrote:
It obviously won’t burn the same as the A350-1000 that weighs significantly less.

There’s nothing right now that shows me airlines prefer the 35K and that’s just the way we see it.

You people act as if the aircraft has no credit or no appeal but the competition has sold less, the biggest 359 customers are 777X customers and that is also a statement of fact

So till you have anything else other than weak links, then we can have this conversation.

If we do the adjustments the 777X is at 246. If you adjust 350-1000 it’s at 131 please please.

Till those numbers and the direction their going in switches anything you’re bringing is an opinion and not worth arguing over.

Whether it’s in a family or not? That IS the competition, wtf does being in a family have to do with the fact that the numbers are poor. Somebody will say it’s about profitability now.

If the 777X is as dead as a dodo with 246 then the 351 is a ghost with 131 and I will argue no further on this topic because tf?

I’ll try and clarify this one last time, if we still don’t see it the same way I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Many, many, moons ago there was only one way an airline could operate a long-haul international route and that was to buy a 747. So, lots of them did and Boeing made a small fortune selling them 747’s. And as there was no alternative, forcing your competitors to operate the same equipment with the same costs it worked well for all involved for quite some time. This obviously lead to many routes being vastly over served in terms of seat capacity, but as it was a “one size fits all” deal there was nothing anyone could really do about it.

The A3XX project later to become the A380 was stared in the 90’s and Airbus looked at the sweet, sweet, bank Boeing were making with the 747 and though “Oui, oui, nous aurons une partie de cela” – or yes, we will have some of that. So they decided supersize Boeings jumbo making it bigger and more capable in every critical metric than the 747. This was their mistake, they had not factored into account that many of the existing 747 operators didn’t want or really need the 747, it was just, at the time of ordering, the only game in town – the only way they could operate some of their routes.

So while Airbus waited for the inevitable flood of orders to come for the A380 and Boeing put the 744 on Viagra (the French may have got them on girth, but Boeings is going to be longer!) some canny airline CEO’s did some math and worked out that they no longer needed to fly these huge quads around for the vast majority of their network. There was a new option available; the 77W. It was cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate, and although not as big, and not directly comparable to the big quads in terms of luxury. It could do enough of the job well enough to be fit for purpose – So much like they did with the 747’s in the early days they bought 77W’s as a one size fits all replacement for the 747, as at that time it was their best, or more likely their only option.

Now, to the 77X. In 2012 when it was proposed many of the airlines were still ordering and receiving 77W’s. Airbus,having realised that the 77W had killed the A380 was out for revenge, and they proposed the A350 – A smaller, much lighter and more efficient 777 killer. Boeing of course saw this, but made the exact same mistake Airbus had made with the A380, they assumed that every operator of the 77W required a replacement with the same or greater capacity, but as I have just explained above many of its operators did not – they ordered it, as at the time it was the only viable option.

Now, operators have options. They have the larger 787’s, A350 and yes the 77X to chose from. Given that the 789,78K and A350 have so far attained around 1300 orders, and the 777 only ever sold around 1400 in its entire lifespan I’d say the market has spoken. They are choosing the most efficient aircraft which is the right size for a said route. Now in some cases this will indeed be the 77X, BA has very congested routes, as do LH – and the ME3 just seem to like buying shiny big things.

After all that I hope you now understand why you cannot just simply compare the 77X to the A35J as they are similar in size. Yes they are, just like the A330 is a similar size to the 764, but it would not be fair to compare only the 764 to the A330, as its much more successful little brothers served the same market. And that is the key, the market, Boeing produced the 77X as a 777 replacement, but unfortunately many of those 777’s have already been replaced with other frames of a more suitable size.

With the few exceptions I have already outlined, like congested routes and the EK liking shiny big things I honestly do not see where the 77X would make sense, or where future orders are going to come from – And yes I agree, hopefully it will one day grow up to become a fantastic freighter, but that’s not what it was supposed to be.

And although we may still not agree, I hope I have made a reasonable effort at least to explain my logic.
 
Opus99
Posts: 2939
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 2:13 pm

Daysleeper wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
It obviously won’t burn the same as the A350-1000 that weighs significantly less.

There’s nothing right now that shows me airlines prefer the 35K and that’s just the way we see it.

You people act as if the aircraft has no credit or no appeal but the competition has sold less, the biggest 359 customers are 777X customers and that is also a statement of fact

So till you have anything else other than weak links, then we can have this conversation.

If we do the adjustments the 777X is at 246. If you adjust 350-1000 it’s at 131 please please.

Till those numbers and the direction their going in switches anything you’re bringing is an opinion and not worth arguing over.

Whether it’s in a family or not? That IS the competition, wtf does being in a family have to do with the fact that the numbers are poor. Somebody will say it’s about profitability now.

If the 777X is as dead as a dodo with 246 then the 351 is a ghost with 131 and I will argue no further on this topic because tf?

I’ll try and clarify this one last time, if we still don’t see it the same way I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Many, many, moons ago there was only one way an airline could operate a long-haul international route and that was to buy a 747. So, lots of them did and Boeing made a small fortune selling them 747’s. And as there was no alternative, forcing your competitors to operate the same equipment with the same costs it worked well for all involved for quite some time. This obviously lead to many routes being vastly over served in terms of seat capacity, but as it was a “one size fits all” deal there was nothing anyone could really do about it.

The A3XX project later to become the A380 was stared in the 90’s and Airbus looked at the sweet, sweet, bank Boeing were making with the 747 and though “Oui, oui, nous aurons une partie de cela” – or yes, we will have some of that. So they decided supersize Boeings jumbo making it bigger and more capable in every critical metric than the 747. This was their mistake, they had not factored into account that many of the existing 747 operators didn’t want or really need the 747, it was just, at the time of ordering, the only game in town – the only way they could operate some of their routes.

So while Airbus waited for the inevitable flood of orders to come for the A380 and Boeing put the 744 on Viagra (the French may have got them on girth, but Boeings is going to be longer!) some canny airline CEO’s did some math and worked out that they no longer needed to fly these huge quads around for the vast majority of their network. There was a new option available; the 77W. It was cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate, and although not as big, and not directly comparable to the big quads in terms of luxury. It could do enough of the job well enough to be fit for purpose – So much like they did with the 747’s in the early days they bought 77W’s as a one size fits all replacement for the 747, as at that time it was their best, or more likely their only option.

Now, to the 77X. In 2012 when it was proposed many of the airlines were still ordering and receiving 77W’s. Airbus,having realised that the 77W had killed the A380 was out for revenge, and they proposed the A350 – A smaller, much lighter and more efficient 777 killer. Boeing of course saw this, but made the exact same mistake Airbus had made with the A380, they assumed that every operator of the 77W required a replacement with the same or greater capacity, but as I have just explained above many of its operators did not – they ordered it, as at the time it was the only viable option.

Now, operators have options. They have the larger 787’s, A350 and yes the 77X to chose from. Given that the 789,78K and A350 have so far attained around 1300 orders, and the 777 only ever sold around 1400 in its entire lifespan I’d say the market has spoken. They are choosing the most efficient aircraft which is the right size for a said route. Now in some cases this will indeed be the 77X, BA has very congested routes, as do LH – and the ME3 just seem to like buying shiny big things.

After all that I hope you now understand why you cannot just simply compare the 77X to the A35J as they are similar in size. Yes they are, just like the A330 is a similar size to the 764, but it would not be fair to compare only the 764 to the A330, as its much more successful little brothers served the same market. And that is the key, the market, Boeing produced the 77X as a 777 replacement, but unfortunately many of those 777’s have already been replaced with other frames of a more suitable size.

With the few exceptions I have already outlined, like congested routes and the EK liking shiny big things I honestly do not see where the 77X would make sense, or where future orders are going to come from – And yes I agree, hopefully it will one day grow up to become a fantastic freighter, but that’s not what it was supposed to be.

And although we may still not agree, I hope I have made a reasonable effort at least to explain my logic.

I said this at the beginning, which is why I said we have to wait and see
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Posts: 711
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 2:36 pm

PolarRoute wrote:
time will come too.

The 351 is to the 779 what the 77w was to the a380; smaller, lighter, enough payload range (even better, in 351's case), enough cabin floor area, and provides marginal CASM difference.
[/quote]

Not even close, the A380 is around 50% larger than the 77W in terms of capacity, the 779 is just maybe 10% larger than the 35K.
The A380 is some close to 70% heavier than the 77W, the 779 is just around 15% heavier than the 35K.
While the 779 is somewhat larger it still sits somewhat in the same category as the 35K, the A380 and 77W are completely different worlds.

And even if the 779 is a bit heavier per seat it sells, even better than the 35K. So the 779 must have some noticable strenghts, its not all about OEW per Seat or range.

Have you noticed that ALL but one Airlines that ordered the 777X also operate the A350? Half of them even operate the A350-1000, so why dont they just get (more) A350-1000s if it is so much better.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 27352
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 4:14 pm

Daysleeper wrote:
My broader point was that, its intended market was as a 777 replacement. And just as the 777 took that market from the A380, the A350 has taken the 777 replacement market from the 77X.

My broader point was Airbus expected amazing things from the A380, less so for Boeing and the 777X.

Airbus planned to be producing up to 48/year, they planned for 525, 650 and even 800 seat models, and a freighter too. They invested major amounts of money for all those things to happen, with suggestions of $20B or more. They paid for ships and barges and caused harbors to be dredged and highways to bypass small villages to be built. They had four EU heads of state at the roll out ceremony. Yet in the end, one year peaked at 28 deliveries, and that was the one year in the black on a production basis.

Boeing knew 777-8/9 would not enjoy the same market that 777-200/300 enjoyed. They had already delivered 787-8 and 787-9 was flying before the 777X program launched. They knew what the 787 family could do. They saw it being ordered to replace a lot of 772s and also saw 787-10 could replace 77Ws and even 744s on many routes. They knew via competitions against A350 what that aircraft was able to do. To suggest Boeing thought 77X would be able to dominate the way the 772/3 did their prime is just not plausible, IMO.

It's not a "white elephant" like A380 IMO because (a) the investment was not on the same scale as A380 or even the 777 "classics", and (b) the whole story has yet to be written. You're deciding the baby in the womb is destined to be a farm hand instead of a CEO, and we have no way of knowing at this point in time.

If you think I'm just a 777X fanboy, here's what I've posted about A350 in the past, in threads I started to highlight A350 vs 777X:

Personally, it's clear to me that the 777W will be undermined by the A351, and there's no reason to expect that the 777X will "make the A351 obsolete" and that the 777X is being delayed because of the massive hits to the bottom line being taken to get the various 787 derivatives and the MAX out the door.

Ref: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=544429

While specs can be gamed by varying seating configurations etc, you can see in these figures that the A35J will fly a similar number of pax a longer distance in a much lighter aircraft -- Leahy claims -25% fuel burn relative to 77W in the article.

You see Boeing is offering bigger products and/or longer ranged products but nothing that fills the spot that the 77W filled as well as does the A35J.

Airbus is saying this happened because Boeing could not compete head-on with the A35J. Boeing will tell you there's a big need for a bigger plane and/or longer range and/or both, and the article mentions the ME3 orders as well as the recent SQ win as positive reinforcement, but seemingly there's no avoiding that big hole in the their line up right at the 77W sweet spot, or is there?

Ref: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1358735

In conclusion, IMO you under-sell the degree to which the A380 was/is a white elephant, and over-sell the expectations and investment Boeing has in 777X.
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 4:48 pm

Daysleeper wrote:

Many, many, moons ago there was only one way an airline could operate a long-haul international route and that was to buy a 747. So, lots of them did and Boeing made a small fortune selling them 747’s. And as there was no alternative, forcing your competitors to operate the same equipment with the same costs it worked well for all involved for quite some time. This obviously lead to many routes being vastly over served in terms of seat capacity, but as it was a “one size fits all” deal there was nothing anyone could really do about it.


Not sure why that myth refuses to die, but unless you are referring to the SP specifically, 100% of the claims that the 747 sold for its "range," or even payload range, are anecdotal nonsense.

For the first ten years of its existence, there was no route served by 747s that could not also have been done with a 707 or DC-10-30 as it pertains to range. In fact, until the SP —a variant who's capacity is in line with a DC-8-70, or more modernly, an A332— the record for in scheduled distance was Aerolineas Argentinias EZE-MAD at about 6250nm. That was in 1967. With a 707-320B. It was not until almost a decade later that a 747, —an then only an SP at that— was able to match and beat it with PA's JFK-NRT service.

All through the 1970ties & 80ties, virtually every route the 747 operated had other types as well. The claim that there was "only one plane with that range" is in no way true.

Capacity issues of the time resulted from a combination of route planning being more witchcraft than science and price regulated air travel minimizing the effect of half empty planes. Although even in those days, accounts of capacity issues are greatly exaggerated here.

Daysleeper wrote:

This I genuinely didn’t know. I stand corrected.


No worries. I agree with your larger point about CASM not being everything. That is a hand that is vastly overplayed here anyway...



Daysleeper wrote:
I’m not sure I follow you here, the larger point I was trying to make by comparing the A380 to the 77X was not in terms of the actual aircraft or market they serve, but that the market they were intended for will no longer exist by the time they enter service.


There are a lot of externalities that are difficult to see from a purely airline perspective. But they will be made manifest over the next decade. This makes it impossible to say with any clarity what the market will look like specifically, but with less and less patience for corporate travel, and more localities limiting shorter flights, it would be a well educated guess to say that frequency will probably take a back seat. This leads to larger aircraft becoming more desirable.


Daysleeper wrote:
In regards to a 2025 VLA, well with the A350F development allowing for greater weights, another A350 stretch isn’t out of the question. But I would personally put the 787-9\787-10 and the A350 in the VLA category and assume both will be available post 2025. I would also point out that the 77X was supposed to enter service this year, its 5 years late. You seem to be implying that Boeing planned for the 77X to come to the market in 2025 offering the latest and greatest technology, but that’s simply not the case. With the exception of the GenX it’s systems are from the last century, with and update done around the same time as the A350 was being developed. Sorry if I got you implication wrong, but I couldn’t quite work out what you meant by 2025 VLA.


2025 just means about the time when the need for a future VLA goes from being speculative to predicted. BCA in no way planned the 779 to enter service at that time. But there is likely a good deal of future proofing the base design for upgrades.

I think an eventual A350 stretch is a virtual certainty. Keep in mind, both A & BCA would be looking at these as multi decade long projects. It is unlikely that the 350 would have a shorter production run that the 747 did. Why would A want to go through the hassle of developing a new frame, after all, when this one is pretty well optimized? Most, if not all, future gains from this point will be from powerplant upgrades.
Ditto BCA & the 777.

As for "late" the 779 is only 2 years late. And this is largely owing to BCA's other —huge— problems and C19 making airlines completely fine with a delay.




Daysleeper wrote:
While I don’t agree that Airbus needed to axe the A380 for space or to sell more A320s, or that Boeing can afford to make just 3-5 77X’s a year I acknowledge your point about Everett. To me that’s the one of the real problems with Boeing, their fixation on cutting costs by moving production to areas where there is cheap, none-union, labour has really hurt the company IMHO. Losing decade of hard won institutional knowledge. A tragedy for sure.


In Airbus' case, probably more want than need, but they have wasted no time in repurposing TLS.

As for BCA, yep. They have made some really bad decisions in those areas over the last decade, and almost all of my predications WRT the 779 depend on them somehow fixing that. I am not 100% convinced that will actually happen, if I am being honest, and I do believe that is much more of a threat to the 779 than any external market force. A tragedy indeed, yes.



Daysleeper wrote:
On this I agree. Both manufactures are trying to design aircraft to suit the needs of the next decade not the one they were created in. Where I think our opinions will differ a little is I don’t think it matters how competent a job Boeing do with the 77X it will still be 5 years late to the party, and all the hot girls (or guys, I don’t know which way the X swings :) ) will have already hooked up.


I will be happy enough to see it get there. If it does, I think we have a winner. But there is also every possibility that BCA will throw it overboard in some spastic last ditch effort to forestall BK as a result of their other superlative failings.


DaySleeper wrote:
You know I have heard this argument before, let me think when. Oh I know, on here 15 years ago when discussing the A380 development, how congestion and consolidation will mean airlines have to order it because they will need to operate fewer larger more efficient aircraft. Yeah, that didn’t happen then and I don’t think it will now. Nice touch adding “environment” and being “green” into to the mix though, it gives the old A380 arguments a new lease on life.


Apples to Orangutans. That was an entirely different world. C19 has and will continue to have lasting effects. It would take a resurgence of leisure travel not seen in history to soak up the volume we will lose in this. And that would not be point to point anyway. These things favor more, not less, 779s & 35Xs. I will not say the same things would favor the 388s —there are some size and quad related related costs we just cannot get around— but more, smaller fleets of 779s will likely be a thing among large and mid-sized carriers. Same for the 35X, with the likelihood that sales #s will be dictated by things like price, slotting, & politics as much as capability/capacity.



Daysleeper wrote:

I am sure Airbus feel the same way. Especially if they are boarding one and it has an X in the name :)

Sorry I couldn’t help myself


No argument there.



Gremlinzzzz wrote:
The only planes that have been doing better by getting larger are the single aisle aircraft, everything else is getting smaller.


That claim is pretty hard to substantiate as both sales and deliveries of any twin aisle have been virtually nil over the last year. And the world has changed greatly in that time.
There are more single aisles flying further, but that is more a product of more entrants being in the market than in previous decades. I do think those players will be alright —for the most part. But for the ones that already operate 77Ws & 388s, the 779 & 35K —or eventual 1100— offer a significant consolidation advantage. It will get harder, not easier, to fill half a dozen flights between JFK-LHR this decade, as things like connectivity do not matter as much. But the base market still is very much there and that is the point where three frequencies a day with a 779 make more sense than five with a 789. There will be enough other city pairs in that boat to sell 779s and 35Ks.

Not thousands probably, but at least or four times the amount of 388s & 748s sold.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Those frequencies also exist to give the consumer choice.

Airlines do not care about consumers. They will give you the cheapest product they can for the most you will pay for it. This goes for things like frequency too.




Gremlinzzzz wrote:
It is similarly hard to imagine that governments will want to tank frequencies for higher gauge equipment. Most of what constitutes majority of frequencies is regional flying, and if you get rid of those frequencies, how are bills paid at the airport? These facilities like it or not operate better at scale.

No doubt. But do you really think airport authorities will run out of things to charge for?



Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Today, instead of having a 777, an airline can simply take a 787-8/9 or the A350-900 and fly even more efficiently at those ranges, and then some.


If you are not talking about LAX-LHR, JFK-NRT, etc., sure. But there are enough ULH, LH, & mid range routes that are crowded enough to justify a 779 but still ripe for frequency consolidation.

As I mentioned above, these are also designed to be multi decade products. There are not any non-powerplant leaps left and the powerplant ones that are will be largely incremental. This is why whatever VLA is needed in, say 2042, will very likely be a 779, or A35X/1100. There simply will not be a need to reinvent that wheel all over again. In a way, it is actually fortuitous that BCA can take their time waiting for this market to remature...
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:17 pm

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
That claim is pretty hard to substantiate as both sales and deliveries of any twin aisle have been virtually nil over the last year. And the world has changed greatly in that time.
Why would anyone order twin aisle aircraft or want them delivered at such a time?

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
There are more single aisles flying further, but that is more a product of more entrants being in the market than in previous decades. I do think those players will be alright —for the most part. But for the ones that already operate 77Ws & 388s, the 779 & 35K —or eventual 1100— offer a significant consolidation advantage. It will get harder, not easier, to fill half a dozen flights between JFK-LHR this decade, as things like connectivity do not matter as much. But the base market still is very much there and that is the point where three frequencies a day with a 779 make more sense than five with a 789. There will be enough other city pairs in that boat to sell 779s and 35Ks.

Not thousands probably, but at least or four times the amount of 388s & 748s sold.
There are more people flying, and as the population continues to rise, so too does that demand. With improved engine efficiency, decreasing leg room and increased competition, prices are coming down or not rising as fast as inflation and that has been the norm.

The demise of aviation has been severely overstated.


DarkSnowyNight wrote:
Airlines do not care about consumers. They will give you the cheapest product they can for the most you will pay for it. This goes for things like frequency too.
There is no business that operates like this unless they are a monopoly. Try flying out of South America in the morning and see what your loads look like. Or have you wondered why some airlines have multiple banks but some offer better yields than others? Customers decide where they want to fly and when they want to fly. Airlines have whole offices trying to figure out what is the best route to fly and what the best time to fly is, you do not go through those issues with caring what the consumers want.


DarkSnowyNight wrote:
No doubt. But do you really think airport authorities will run out of things to charge for?
They will charge as much as they can get away with. Demand is not elastic in perpetuity. There comes a time when you are charging too much for shit to make sense.


DarkSnowyNight wrote:
If you are not talking about LAX-LHR, JFK-NRT, etc., sure. But there are enough ULH, LH, & mid range routes that are crowded enough to justify a 779 but still ripe for frequency consolidation.
Why would they consolidate if they have the slots? Airlines are not in the business of letting slots go easy. If they can fly more frequencies, and they have the demand, staggering times is desirable not only for the airline but for the consumer.

Consumer choice where applicable has never and will never be a bad thing.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
As I mentioned above, these are also designed to be multi decade products. There are not any non-powerplant leaps left and the powerplant ones that are will be largely incremental. This is why whatever VLA is needed in, say 2042, will very likely be a 779, or A35X/1100. There simply will not be a need to reinvent that wheel all over again. In a way, it is actually fortuitous that BCA can take their time waiting for this market to remature...
If the ultrafan delivers on efficiency and reliability, the 777-9 is dead. Filling 270-300 seats is far easier than 400, and if you can get a change of 15-20% efficiency gain, then why would anyone want to be stuck with a frame that is heavy?

Aviation is a race to the bottom. Cost matters, and the biggest cost airlines have is fuel.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 27352
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:32 pm

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
If the ultrafan delivers on efficiency and reliability, the 777-9 is dead. Filling 270-300 seats is far easier than 400, and if you can get a change of 15-20% efficiency gain, then why would anyone want to be stuck with a frame that is heavy?

That's not the UltraFan target.

Alan Newby, Rolls-Royce’s director of aerospace technology and future programmes, said UltraFan, which will reduce fuel burn by 10% compared with Rolls’ most efficient current models, will still be needed.

Ref: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-roll ... SKBN29W1VK

Presumably that target is relative to TXWB, and GE9x is bigger and newer so I expect it to be better than TXWB.
 
sxf24
Posts: 1479
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:36 pm

Airlines are planning for the future, which is why there continue to be twin aisle orders (in small amounts) and a desire to take deliveries of existing backlogs. Every time markets have re-opened during the past 18 months, demand has returned, albeit with a different mix of business and leisure. The good news for airlines is that premium leisure demand is very strong, which justifies continued investment in twin aisle airplanes with premium cabins.

I continue to see accusations that the 777X is some heavy albatross compared to competitor airplanes. Please show actual data if you’re going to make that claim.
 
User avatar
PolarRoute
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:56 pm

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 6:00 pm

Opus99 wrote:
First of all, the 777X as it stands has 246 orders after adjustments.

I wasn't aware that they adjusted the number again. I stand corrected.

Opus99 wrote:
but if you actually cared to research

No need for this though :box:

Opus99 wrote:
Bear in mind 380 had a freighter at this point. Still with 189.

No, I was only counting the number of the pax variant, no freighter there.

Opus99 wrote:
You see what I hate. The double standard. WHY is it only the 35Ks sales that are not representative of its potential but the 779 cannot grow in sales. Like WTF

Two possible scenarios.
a) If you 'equally' set the two up for a potential of 250 orders total, the 351 should sell more than the 779 going forward.
b) Just different circumstances and boundaries. The a35k provides equal or more payload and range than the b779, with less trip cost. I think this is the main reason for people saying the 351 will garner more sales in the future than the 779.
 
User avatar
PolarRoute
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:56 pm

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 6:10 pm

DLHAM wrote:
PolarRoute wrote:
The 351 is to the 779 what the 77w was to the a380; smaller, lighter, enough payload range (even better, in 351's case), enough cabin floor area, and provides marginal CASM difference.


Not even close, the A380 is around 50% larger than the 77W in terms of capacity, the 779 is just maybe 10% larger than the 35K.
The A380 is some close to 70% heavier than the 77W, the 779 is just around 15% heavier than the 35K.

And maybe that's why all but 3 of the b77w, or something in that size class, operators also operate the a380, instead of just half :scratchchin: ;)

DLHAM wrote:
Have you noticed that ALL but one Airlines that ordered the 777X also operate the A350? Half of them even operate the A350-1000, so why dont they just get (more) A350-1000s if it is so much better.

Have you noticed only half of the a35k operators opted for the 779? Is the glass half full or half empty?
 
DenverTed
Posts: 824
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 7:06 pm

Revelation wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
If the ultrafan delivers on efficiency and reliability, the 777-9 is dead. Filling 270-300 seats is far easier than 400, and if you can get a change of 15-20% efficiency gain, then why would anyone want to be stuck with a frame that is heavy?

That's not the UltraFan target.

Alan Newby, Rolls-Royce’s director of aerospace technology and future programmes, said UltraFan, which will reduce fuel burn by 10% compared with Rolls’ most efficient current models, will still be needed.

Ref: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-roll ... SKBN29W1VK

Presumably that target is relative to TXWB, and GE9x is bigger and newer so I expect it to be better than TXWB.

I think the ultrafan will be optimized for the A359 in terms of engine diameter and thrust. A geared engine for the 789 will almost certainly EIS very near that. I think 2035 EIS is more realistic than 2030 at this point, so it gives the GE9x some years to be best in class for efficiency.
 
Opus99
Posts: 2939
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 7:40 pm

PolarRoute wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
First of all, the 777X as it stands has 246 orders after adjustments.

I wasn't aware that they adjusted the number again. I stand corrected.

Opus99 wrote:
but if you actually cared to research

No need for this though :box:

Opus99 wrote:
Bear in mind 380 had a freighter at this point. Still with 189.

No, I was only counting the number of the pax variant, no freighter there.

Opus99 wrote:
You see what I hate. The double standard. WHY is it only the 35Ks sales that are not representative of its potential but the 779 cannot grow in sales. Like WTF

Two possible scenarios.
a) If you 'equally' set the two up for a potential of 250 orders total, the 351 should sell more than the 779 going forward.
b) Just different circumstances and boundaries. The a35k provides equal or more payload and range than the b779, with less trip cost. I think this is the main reason for people saying the 351 will garner more sales in the future than the 779.

I appreciate your points but right now there’s nothing to proof it will outsell the 779. The only proof will be actual orders. And like I’ve said we have to wait and see
 
UAUA
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2019 10:50 am

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 8:05 pm

Aircraft are getting smaller smaller smaller

The B777-9 X is nothing compare to the A380/B747

I'm sure it's gonna be successful with so many orders

Hope we won't be flying on Cessna 52 LR in the long run for long haul
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 549
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 8:28 pm

779 is only 9 feet longer than the 77W and seets just 24 to 30 pax more. It's not much more a VLA than the original 300ER. That said... if you don't need to regularly move 380-396 pax in 3 classes, there are so many other economical choices now.

No doubt it will be a successful plane, it just won't enjoy the market dominance of the 300ER.
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Posts: 711
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 9:46 pm

PolarRoute wrote:
DLHAM wrote:
PolarRoute wrote:
The 351 is to the 779 what the 77w was to the a380; smaller, lighter, enough payload range (even better, in 351's case), enough cabin floor area, and provides marginal CASM difference.


Not even close, the A380 is around 50% larger than the 77W in terms of capacity, the 779 is just maybe 10% larger than the 35K.
The A380 is some close to 70% heavier than the 77W, the 779 is just around 15% heavier than the 35K.

And maybe that's why all but 3 of the b77w, or something in that size class, operators also operate the a380, instead of just half :scratchchin: ;)


The A380 is a whole different size than the 77W or 779 thats what I want to say. The A380 is too much for most markets plus has a high breakeven because it has a oversized (-- too heavy) wing.
At Emirates the A380 needs a 85% average load factor with fullfare paying passengers to break even, which is around 440 passengers. The 77W only needs 67% load factor to break even, which is just 237 passengers, which is more than 45% less. Theres not a lot of routes on the world that can sell an average of 440 passengers each day each way with full fares. And most routes that can support it need more than one daily flight to be competitive as the competition flies several daily flights (more flexibility for business travelers).
I suspect the 777-9 will have a similar break even of around 237 passengers or a bit less -- heavier airframe but more capacity and more efficient engines + wings. This makes it a much more flexible airplane regarding the number of routes it can fly profitably = higher demand.

And again: why do almost all future 777X operators also fly or plan to fly the A350? Why should they oder the 777X as well if the A350 is soooo much better.
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 11:02 pm

Revelation wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
If the ultrafan delivers on efficiency and reliability, the 777-9 is dead. Filling 270-300 seats is far easier than 400, and if you can get a change of 15-20% efficiency gain, then why would anyone want to be stuck with a frame that is heavy?

That's not the UltraFan target.

Alan Newby, Rolls-Royce’s director of aerospace technology and future programmes, said UltraFan, which will reduce fuel burn by 10% compared with Rolls’ most efficient current models, will still be needed.

Ref: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-roll ... SKBN29W1VK

Presumably that target is relative to TXWB, and GE9x is bigger and newer so I expect it to be better than TXWB.
Thanks for the correction.
 
JohanTally
Posts: 526
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:44 am

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sat Nov 20, 2021 11:20 pm

DenverTed wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
PolarRoute wrote:

Yes, the 779 is not larger than any other airliners by as big of a margin as the a380 was. But, by not being explosively larger, does the 779 provide the efficiency in comparison to its smaller competitors? That's the question being asked, not just the size solely by itself.

The a35k provides at least the same, if not better, payload range capability with arguably lower trip cost. Yes, it will be restricted by the cabin floor area by some point, but if you want to argue that 779 is 'only' 2-3 rows bigger, the cabin floor area restriction can't be THAT restrictive.

The a380 was killed off by the smaller competitor, 77w, which provided substantial payload and comparable cost in per seat basis with less cabin area and trip cost. We now see the same thing happening with the 779 and 351

You’re not seeing anything because the 779 has outsold the 351. So I don’t know what you’re seeing.

Maybe wait and see what happens?

The deliveries are 57 to 0. I would be surprised if the 779 is able to surpass A351 deliveries by 2030.

Since the A35K entry into service which model has had more deliveries the 77W or 35K?
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Posts: 711
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sun Nov 21, 2021 12:41 am

JohanTally wrote:
DenverTed wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
You’re not seeing anything because the 779 has outsold the 351. So I don’t know what you’re seeing.

Maybe wait and see what happens?

The deliveries are 57 to 0. I would be surprised if the 779 is able to surpass A351 deliveries by 2030.

Since the A35K entry into service which model has had more deliveries the 77W or 35K?


You cant compare deliveries of the new A350-1000 with recent deliveries of the almost 20 year old 777-300ER which Boeing produces since like 18 years. Being much older the 773ER of course is less efficient but has seen production numbers since its launch that the A350-1000 will never see IMO.
If you want to compare the 35K you have to do that with the 779. Or do you compare the A320neo with the 737-800NG as well?
 
User avatar
PolarRoute
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:56 pm

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sun Nov 21, 2021 1:02 am

On what basis are you making claims such as this...
DLHAM wrote:
At Emirates the A380 needs a 85% average load factor with fullfare paying passengers to break even

...or this..?
DLHAM wrote:
I suspect the 777-9 will have a similar break even of around 237 passengers or a bit less

According to the Emirates annual report 19-20, their fleet wide breakeven load factor stayed below 70%, 66.4% at the highest during the last 5 years to be precise. So if the a380 need 85% of seats filled with 'full fare' passengers, are you claiming that 777 can breakeven at below 50% to make that fleet wide average of 66.4% figure? I don't think so.

Also, how are you pulling out that 237 pax number for the 779 to break even, when you have absolutely no boundaries defined? Out of what total seat count? What percentage of those seats are premium products? 237 seats is a very specific number to end up with, without having any other numbers.

DLHAM wrote:
And again: why do almost all future 777X operators also fly or plan to fly the A350? Why should they oder the 777X as well if the A350 is soooo much better.

Again, is the glass half full or half empty?

Half of the a35k operators also opted for the b779, instead of consolidating their fleets into a35k, so there must be something only the b779 offers that the a35k doesn't. That's your point right?
But your demonstration of airlines with a35k in their fleets also opting for the b779 as the means of proving the presence of 779's unknown advantages fails to address the other side of the ball; what about the other half that hasn't?
The airlines that has ordered the a35k but not the b779 must have seen no advantage lying in ordering the b779, right? Flip the coin around and it could be used to fit either side of the argument. I see no advantage to using such method of argument as it doesn't prove anything and is heavily dependent on the perspective of the one that is using it.

Here, I'll offer you some number. Boeing claims the 779 will do 426 pax at 7300nm. So take 352T MTOW and take out the OEW 184T from it. Now take out the weight for 426 pax and bags 43T. Take another 6T out as contingency fuel. We end up with 119T. The 779 will burn 119T on a 7300nm mission, or about 7.8t/hour on average, depending on the assumption of cruise speeds ranging from 470kn to 488kn. Divide 7.8t/hr by the number of pax to get a fuel burn per pax figure of ~.01831t/hr/pax.
Now do the same with the a35k and you get ~.01848t/hr/pax. That's a ~.9% of disadvantage for the a35k, which I'd say is not sufficient for a larger equipment like the 779 to be an attractive option.

Yes, the 779 will sell, to some degree, due to its cabin floor area. Some airlines need that. But so did the a380.
 
JohanTally
Posts: 526
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:44 am

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sun Nov 21, 2021 1:19 am

DLHAM wrote:
JohanTally wrote:
DenverTed wrote:
The deliveries are 57 to 0. I would be surprised if the 779 is able to surpass A351 deliveries by 2030.

Since the A35K entry into service which model has had more deliveries the 77W or 35K?


You cant compare deliveries of the new A350-1000 with recent deliveries of the almost 20 year old 777-300ER which Boeing produces since like 18 years. Being much older the 773ER of course is less efficient but has seen production numbers since its launch that the A350-1000 will never see IMO.
If you want to compare the 35K you have to do that with the 779. Or do you compare the A320neo with the 737-800NG as well?

Certain individuals want us to believe that the 779 is DOA but the 77W was still delivering quite well up until the expected transition to the 3rd generation 779. During that same period UA chose to top up 77Ws instead of taking(a.nets vastly superior) A35K. IMHO when the 77W starts to hit a replacement cycle and if the economy is stable airlines will line up for a plane with 15% lower fuel burn while gaining 200sqft of cargo and cabin real estate. The A35K is designed to be an ULH aircraft which should prove beneficial for the freighter variant.
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Posts: 711
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sun Nov 21, 2021 1:51 am

PolarRoute wrote:
On what basis are you making claims such as this...
...
...or this..?

According to the Emirates annual report 19-20, their fleet wide breakeven load factor stayed below 70%, 66.4% at the highest during the last 5 years to be precise. So if the a380 need 85% of seats filled with 'full fare' passengers, are you claiming that 777 can breakeven at below 50% to make that fleet wide average of 66.4% figure? I don't think so.

Also, how are you pulling out that 237 pax number for the 779 to break even, when you have absolutely no boundaries defined? Out of what total seat count? What percentage of those seats are premium products? 237 seats is a very specific number to end up with, without having any other numbers.


I said I SUSPECT that number for the 777-9, based on the 77W numbers. The 777-9 at Emirates will have 350 seats with 4 cabins -- so slightly less than the 77W due to Premium Economy.

The numbers of 85%/67% load factor are specific for the route from the Airport I worked at to Dubai, I should have mentioned that. In other routes or systemwide this can sure look different but one thing is for sure: the real Cash Cows are the 77Ws!

Also: how do you get the Idea that Emirates is making money at all with their A380 fleet alone? Do we know that? Also these 85% assume that all cabins have even load factors, some routes have Business and/or First full, this of course lowers the Breakeven Load Factor.
These numbers are just to show how hard it is to fly the A380 profitable, this will not be the case with the 777-9.
 
User avatar
PolarRoute
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:56 pm

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sun Nov 21, 2021 2:55 am

DLHAM wrote:
PolarRoute wrote:
On what basis are you making claims such as this...
...
...or this..?

According to the Emirates annual report 19-20, their fleet wide breakeven load factor stayed below 70%, 66.4% at the highest during the last 5 years to be precise. So if the a380 need 85% of seats filled with 'full fare' passengers, are you claiming that 777 can breakeven at below 50% to make that fleet wide average of 66.4% figure? I don't think so.

Also, how are you pulling out that 237 pax number for the 779 to break even, when you have absolutely no boundaries defined? Out of what total seat count? What percentage of those seats are premium products? 237 seats is a very specific number to end up with, without having any other numbers.


I said I SUSPECT that number for the 777-9, based on the 77W numbers. The 777-9 at Emirates will have 350 seats with 4 cabins -- so slightly less than the 77W due to Premium Economy.

The numbers of 85%/67% load factor are specific for the route from the Airport I worked at to Dubai, I should have mentioned that. In other routes or systemwide this can sure look different but one thing is for sure: the real Cash Cows are the 77Ws!

Yes, you did say you suspect 237 pax for break even, but you didn't lay out the envelope required/used to reach that conclusion.

And from the route-specific 85% load factor figure you give, you clearly understand that breakeven load factor is a hugely fluctuateable measure. So why you would suggest a route specific number for one and an envelope-vague number for the other is... kinda nonsensical to me.

You say it was to show how hard it is to make money with the a380, but please don't do so in the context of comparison with another airliner, as presenting the most extreme number for one and not for the other skews the comparison; unless you're suggesting the b779 will *never* reach breakeven LF of 85% or similarly high number regardless of any conditions or mission specific envelopes, in which case you're making an unfounded argument, since you can't definitively rule out all the possibilities that make 85% or equally hard-to-meet breakeven LF for the b779 a possibility.

DLHAM wrote:
Also: how do you get the Idea that Emirates is making money at all with their A380 fleet alone?

I never did...? I don't know from which part of my post you inferred that. Maybe it was the '777 load factor under 50%' part? If that is the case, the phrase was said to demonstrate that systemwide, as I understood at the point of my post, breakeven LF of 85% was near preposterous, since their true systemwide average breakeven LF was ~66%, which is only possible if the 777 fleet's breakeven LF got below 50%. 66%=(85%+47%) / 2

DLHAM wrote:
...this will not be the case with the 777-9.

So won't be with the a35k either, the biggest threat, if not the a359, to making the b779 close the gap to becoming 'another a380' IMO.
 
744SPX
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: 777X – VLA of the Future or another “White Elephant” A380

Sun Nov 21, 2021 3:08 am

Another Boeing vs Airbus thread. Popcorn anyone?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8

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