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

First this me preface this thread by explaining why I started it. In a thread discussing Tim Clarks comments regarding a potential change to their orders, I became involved in a discussion relating to the 77X and how it will fit within the aviation market. Of course, due to the conversation being perfectly civilized and interesting the thread was immediately locked as it wasn’t quite on topic.

I hope to continue the conversation here. Much of what I will initially post will be a rehash of what was already posted within the now defunct thread, so I am sorry if you have already read that. I would also welcome relevant tangents; such as the potential profitability of an aircraft program and how we judge its success.

Let’s address the “elephant” – The reason I see so much similarity between the A380 and the 77X programs despite them having some key differences such as one being a complete clean sheet design and the other just an update of an old frame, they have a lot in common. And it’s not just that at launch they will be the largest aircraft available, its more to the fact that I think they were both designed and developed with a specific market in mind, but once they got past the point of no return and with their EIS imminent, the market they sought to address no longer existed.

The A380 was obviously designed to replace and better the 747, and back when development started in the early 2000’s it seemed to be a buoyant market, it’s problem was in 2004 the 77W entered service and changed everything. Now airlines had a much better option to replace aging 747’s with a much more efficient twin. I think this also took Boeing somewhat by surprise, their answer to the A380 was the 748, which I can only assume they thought would perhaps garner half of the 747-replacement market. But, as we now know in almost every instance 747 operators went with the 777 as a replacement, leaving the A380 with a very niche market serving either very congested, slot restricted routes or outfitted with ultra-premium interiors to act as a “flag-ship” within a sales campaign.

The 77X I believe was designed to replace the 777, back in 2012 when it was launched the 77W was still selling well, and although I am sure Boeing knew the 787 and it’s future stretch’s would be take some of the market, it wouldn’t have the range or lift capacity so all was good. There were 1400 passenger 777’s to be replaced at some point, and the 77X being a derivative should be a cheap and easy update allowing them to capture that market.

In 2014 the A350 entered service. By which time the 800 version had been abandoned and a future stretched A35K with higher weights and capabilities proposed. The perfect 777 replacement. Although I am sure Boeing were aware of it, I think they thought it more as a 787 counter, rather than what it has become: a 777 replacement. With over 900 orders so far, and more variants in development it’s been a huge hit for Airbus, but more importantly it along with the 787 now own the 777 replacement market.

So what is the 77X for? It can carry a couple of dozen more passenger’s than the A350, but at the expense of being much heaver and both more expensive to operate and purchase. To me it’s telling that the only airlines that have ordered it, also ordered the A380. Either because they have very congested routes, or they want to fit it with some ultra-luxury interior. With perhaps the exception of EK, no one has ordered enough to even think about replacing their 777 fleet with them, and I think with the exception of ANA all of its customers have already ordered A350’s to replace their 777s.

So to me, the 77X is very much in the same situation as the A380 was. It was developed for a market that no longer exists. That’s not to say I expect it to suffer quite the same fate, I expect Qatar to order some freighters, and perhaps a few top up orders from its current customers. But considering it’s 5 years late to a party that it no longer has an invite for, billions over budget and due to compensation payments unlikely to ever be sold at a profit.

It’s a Boeing A380

This is going to go well - since literally any thread relating to the 777X or XF has the same "debate."

jbs2886 wrote:

This is going to go well - since literally any thread relating to the 777X or XF has the same "debate."

I thought the exact same. But the mod's locked the thread as it was off-topic. So what can you do?

Although rather a contentious subject, it is interesting. And certainly worth discussing, IMHO.

What is the 777X USP? What was the A380 USP?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

To me, the problem with the 380 wasn't that the market went away it's that it consolidated into one (1) carrier (Emirates). The expected plan was for BA, LH, AF, KL to order for conx over their hubs to the middle east & India. It was also expecting to se Qantas and Asian carriers to order more significantly but Emirates cornered the market there too so those carriers never needed the aircraft. If you're already flying 777's, you likely have markets that the 777X will work with.

flipdewaf wrote:

What is the 777X USP? What was the A380 USP?

If by USP you mean Unique Selling Proposition then for the A380 it was that its bigger, much bigger, and if fitted in a high density layout much more efficient than anything else on the market.

For the 77X, I am genuinely not sure. And that is the crux of my argument: it has the space for 2 more rows of economy seats? It’s wing-tips fold so it looks cool? It is definitely more efficient than the 777, but not more than the A350. So I dunno?

If anything its USP is much weaker than that of the A380.

TWFlyGuy wrote:

To me, the problem with the 380 wasn't that the market went away it's that it consolidated into one (1) carrier (Emirates). The expected plan was for BA, LH, AF, KL to order for conx over their hubs to the middle east & India. It was also expecting to se Qantas and Asian carriers to order more significantly but Emirates cornered the market there too so those carriers never needed the aircraft. If you're already flying 777's, you likely have markets that the 777X will work with.

Emirates account for half of the 77X order book, its very much a one carrier aircraft. And I agree, if any of customers who have signed up for the 77X had not already started replacing their 777’s with A350’s it would indeed be a great replacement.

Really not an interesting discussion as the 777X is still two years away from EIS. Until real world performance numbers come out comments made are pure speculation. As the OP is already calling the 777X "the Boeing A380" we clearly know where his bias lies. Personally, I will wait for the performance data before for I make up my mind.

You really can’t compare the two. If you can’t see how the two aircraft designs target two different markets then I can’t help ya. The problem with the A380 that it wasn’t designed as a 744 replacement. It was designed to mass people mover going into slot restricted airports with a intended family to seat 600-800 passengers. The 777X will not be looking to cover that market, it will be cover the markets that current 77W operators use the airframe for, (premium heavy or required capacity above what your 789s, A359s, 772s, need.)

The other thing that you have clearly missed the mark on or failed to address in your other posts is that the 77Ws haven’t hit its peak replacement cycle yet as there are a ton of newer frames still flying around with the late 77W sales surge. We will start to see that replacement t cycle start up a couple years after the the 777X EIS.

I think you are jumping the gun calling the 777X a white elephant and I also believe that comparing the 777X and A380 is also flawed as well. Will the 777X have the same success that the 77W, I don’t see it. But will it be a white elephant that you think it will, I don’t see that either.

I will say this, if it is a dud performance wise, then it will not successful.

ALL big aircraft are suffering in today's market. Not only due to corona. A380, 747-8, 777-9 and -8, A350-1000 and even A330neo.
Mid sized modern fuel efficient twins and small twins like the A321neo win at this moment.

It will live or die on operating costs: Will there an aircraft that has comparable range and equivalent CASM with a lower increment of capacity, as the 77W killed the A380? If it's 6-8% cheaper per seat mile than an A350-1000 on 6000-8000nm stages, the 777X will do fine. If it can't beat the seat economics of a 787-10 on stages less than 6000nm it won't be found (except for utilization runs) on those routes.

Outside of national vanity programs (cough SpaceJet, cough C919), and programs distorted by the availability of non-market launch aid, it's the economics of investment and operation that decide what succeeds. The OP really doesn't make an educated argument founded in fundamentals of aircraft economics.

When it was launched, I called the A380 and the 777x the last of the flying boats. Meaning, they were dinosaurs and the landscape of aviation had changed rendering them obsolete. Of course, Tim Clark had been telling Boeing they needed a 77W re-engine and he would buy hundreds. And from Boeing's perspective, if the 787-9/10 was the largest offering, they would have been risking the A350-1000 being a runaway success with no competition like the 77W.

One thing in the 77X's favour, like the 777 "classic" and 350 is it can carry large amounts of freight, which can make otherwise unviable routes viable. The 380 can't do that.

But really its too early to tell. I'm sure there's some nervous folks in Chicago and Everett right now with the relatively small order book at this time, but a lot can change in the next 5 years or so when things will really become critical without further orders. The aircraft might totally overperform, or continue to be dogged by issues. Economies might boom, or inflation might bite and tensions with China might boil over. All we can do is wait and see.

When the 77X goes into service, it will be the largest airliner currently in production, but it will still be smaller than the A380 and I believe slightly smaller than the 744. There are multiple large trunk routes that do require the capacity of this aircraft and it will not have the airfield and facility restrictions that the A380 brought. In addition, the market has spoken again and again: quads are out as passenger aircraft. Any successful passenger aircraft going forward will be a twin.

There will be a market for this aircraft, and as long as Boeing can deliver on its performance and safety (and, for that matter, deliver the aircraft at all), I think it will be a successful model.

It will face some stiff competition from the A35J, but it will offer a unique set of capabilities. I look forward to flying aboard one.

ElroyJetson wrote:

Really not an interesting discussion as the 777X is still two years away from EIS. Until real world performance numbers come out comments made are pure speculation. As the OP is already calling the 777X "the Boeing A380" we clearly know where his bias lies. Personally, I will wait for the performance data before for I make up my mind.

Yes, it is indeed two years from EIS, and yet its engines are already certified, and presumably its performance figures known. Yet we know nothing, if the GenX were as magical as expected then you would think Boeing would be boasting about how efficient it is in order to get more sales.

And why is calling it an A380 a bias? I love the A380, it’s the most comfortable long-hauler I have ever been on.

bigb wrote:

You really can’t compare the two. If you can’t see how the two aircraft designs target two different markets then I can’t help ya. The problem with the A380 that it wasn’t designed as a 744 replacement. It was designed to mass people mover going into slot restricted airports with a intended family to seat 600-800 passengers. The 777X will not be looking to cover that market, it will be cover the markets that current 77W operators use the airframe for, (premium heavy or required capacity above what your 789s, A359s, 772s, need.)

The other thing that you have clearly missed the mark on or failed to address in your other posts is that the 77Ws haven’t hit its peak replacement cycle yet as there are a ton of newer frames still flying around with the late 77W sales surge. We will start to see that replacement t cycle start up a couple years after the the 777X EIS.

I think you are jumping the gun calling the 777X a white elephant and I also believe that comparing the 777X and A380 is also flawed as well. Will the 777X have the same success that the 77W, I don’t see it. But will it be a white elephant that you think it will, I don’t see that either.

I will say this, if it is a dud performance wise, then it will not successful.

I am not comparing the two in terms of what market they address, I am comparing the two in that the market they were supposed to address no longer exists. You are correct in pointing out that many of the 77W’s certainly are not yet due for replacement, but is that not relevant to the greater point I raised, which is why would an airline spend more to both purchase and operate a 77X when they can use an A350 or 787 to do the same job?

Please correct me. If you know of a route, or an airline which desperately needs a couple of dozen extra seats in order to make a route viable then post it. But having looked myself many times I cannot see any justification for an airline choosing to spend significantly more in both purchase and operating costs over the A350 to order the 77X.

DocLightning wrote:

When the 77X goes into service, it will be the largest airliner currently in production, but it will still be smaller than the A380 and I believe slightly smaller than the 744. There are multiple large trunk routes that do require the capacity of this aircraft and it will not have the airfield and facility restrictions that the A380 brought. In addition, the market has spoken again and again: quads are out as passenger aircraft. Any successful passenger aircraft going forward will be a twin.

There will be a market for this aircraft, and as long as Boeing can deliver on its performance and safety (and, for that matter, deliver the aircraft at all), I think it will be a successful model.

It will face some stiff competition from the A35J, but it will offer a unique set of capabilities. I look forward to flying aboard one.

I have never said that there is “no market” for the 77X, but that it is limited to a very similar market that the A380 was – hence I drew the comparison.

For some of the EU major’s with slot restricted bases, it makes sense, just as the A380 did.

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.

I genuinely don’t see who else would order the 77X?

BTW – I started this thread expecting a bloodbath, thankyou for a well-reasoned and thought-out response.

I think another similarity between the 777X and the A380 is that the two largest aviation markets, China and the US, haven’t embraced either frame. Yes, CZ bought 5 A380s, but that isn’t much for a population of their size.

Daysleeper wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Really not an interesting discussion as the 777X is still two years away from EIS. Until real world performance numbers come out comments made are pure speculation. As the OP is already calling the 777X "the Boeing A380" we clearly know where his bias lies. Personally, I will wait for the performance data before for I make up my mind.

Yes, it is indeed two years from EIS, and yet its engines are already certified, and presumably its performance figures known. Yet we know nothing, if the GenX were as magical as expected then you would think Boeing would be boasting about how efficient it is in order to get more sales.

And why is calling it an A380 a bias? I love the A380, it’s the most comfortable long-hauler I have ever been on.

Boeing I believe recently stated that fuel burn is slightly better than expected. Don’t have time to find the link.

You are not going to see much boasting from try and drum up sales right now because:

A) Due to pandemic most airlines are not interested in large wide bodies at the moment

B) Boeing will wait until they have a firmer idea of when certification will be.

They seem to tell STC July 2023.

Daysleeper wrote:

Let’s address the “elephant” – The reason I see so much similarity between the A380 and the 77X programs despite them having some key differences such as one being a complete clean sheet design and the other just an update of an old frame, they have a lot in common.

"Old frame"? The "old frame" 777 first flew in 1994 and the A320 first flew in 1987. The A320 is an even older frame, and the neo update has been enormously successful.

So maybe doing an update of an old frame can be a good thing, eh?

Daysleeper wrote:

It’s a Boeing A380

That's quite a stretch for a conclusion at this time - it will be at least 10 years before anybody will know that.

David

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

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

Welcome to the cub!

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.

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 missed the specs. Can guy share how you know that it has worse fuel burn per seat than a 789?

Daysleeper wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Really not an interesting discussion as the 777X is still two years away from EIS. Until real world performance numbers come out comments made are pure speculation. As the OP is already calling the 777X "the Boeing A380" we clearly know where his bias lies. Personally, I will wait for the performance data before for I make up my mind.

Yes, it is indeed two years from EIS, and yet its engines are already certified, and presumably its performance figures known. Yet we know nothing, if the GenX were as magical as expected then you would think Boeing would be boasting about how efficient it is in order to get more sales.

Engine performance is proprietary information especially during testing. This week Boeing issued a statement alluding to better than expected fuel burn as well as the ability to have a MTOW of 805k lbs.

https://aviationweek.com/shownews/dubai ... ai-airshow

Based a OWE of 184t and and spec pax of 426 going 7285nm I would expect a fuel usage of 117t or 274kg/seat. (351.5-184- (0.095 *426(pax))-5(pantry)-5(reserves) = 117t
a B789 with the same cabin density would take 310pax and when going 7285nm would burn 83.7t of fuel or 270kg/seat

If it really is getting good fuel burn and/or projecting lower weights then why wouldn't Boeing be saying so?

Fred



Fred

When the 777X was launched Boeing made sure that its economics would beat the A350-1000; if it couldn’t there would be absolutely no point in building it. That’s why they went with the new wing, with stretching it and carving out the sidewalls to make it 10 abreast standard. Just re-engining the 77W would have been even less successful than the A330NEO, and Boeing knew it. So it comes down to real world performance, of which we have had few indications. If in fact it does beat the A350-1000 by a reasonable margin it has a future. If it doesn’t it doesn’t. It is down to that.

Opus99 wrote:

So does that make your above statement correct or incorrect?

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.

The 777 will not be another 787 or A330, but I am certain that Boeing in the end will have built much more aircraft than there are orders today. I guess it will be around 600-700 at the end.

Daysleeper wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

So does that make your above statement correct or incorrect?

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.

His math showed an additional 116 passengers on the 777X. That is a tad bit more than a “couple dozen”.

Quoted, is Opus from another thread

Nobody will order 777X but Airbus will have enough drive and interest to bring an A350-1100 to market? I die.

Yes, I think they would serve similar markets, and if the 77X doesn’t garner more orders I doubt Airbus would bother. The difference is, should, as it looks like they are already are produce the A350F then they will have already done most of the structural work to increase its weights, adding a few more frames shouldn’t be all that difficult or expensive. And given the A350 already has a very large installed customer base, it should be an easier sell to an airline who already operates the type, but needs something a bit bigger… Think Emirates – They would also already have a very large Airbus trained pilot pool, looking for a new type as the A380 gets retired.

The 777X current orders stand at 320 officially. The 270 is Adjustments that fluctuate.

Yeah I just referenced that below, I think the latest I saw was 191 orders. So I’m going to stick with 270 – its sorta half way between the best and worst case scenario.

We have Korean, Eva Air, the Chinese carriers, we could have top up orders from existing customers if the aircraft performs well we have saudia looking at it as well as Ethiopia so let’s see how 2022 plays out, which I think it will. BA has another 24 options on the aircraft. We did see Singapore top up at the start of this

Korean: Maybe – Although they only ever ordered 10 A380’s of which 9 are still parked. As are 16 777’s. I see them going more with 787’s and perhaps A350’s rather than something really big again. But maybe they would order 10.

Eva: No idea if you mean for freighter’s or passenger variants. But nah, the 777’s are all under 10 years old and they are buying 787s.

Chinese Carriers: Okay I have may have missed a few here, but here are the main ones I have looked into:

Air China – Operate 28 777’s and a few 748’s But they have already received 15 frames of an order for 30 A350’s. Maybe but…nah…
China Airlines – Operate just 10 77W’s have already received 14 A350’s and I believe have options for more. Maybe would order the 77X though as they have a lot of freighters.
China Southern - Operate 15 77W’s and are about halfway through receiving and order for 20 A350’s..Very doubtful.

Saudia: No idea, but definitely a possibility. However, from the stats I’m looking at their 777 fleet is only around 6 years old on average. So it would be a while before they wanted replacing or up gauging.

Ethiopia -Large A350 operator, with another 8 of an order for 24 left to be delivered. Have 10 777’s, and some freighters. So maybe. Especially given Boeings recent comments about how it was their badly trained pilots which caused the Max’s crashes – They maybe able to get them comped

Finally BA: My favourite (Nah I love me a little KLM) Not entirely sure, but I highly doubt that they will ever exercise those options. I think the 18 on order will replace the A380’s eventually on very congested routes. And the 777’s be replaced with A350’s and 787’s both of which they have and have on order.

So really officially it only needs 80 orders. Even if let’s say 350 passenger orders. And 200 freighter orders.

Maybe it only needs 80, maybe or maybe it needs 210 – I am not even going to pretend to understand the accounting of such things, and having seen the debates already on this site regarding “order adjustments” I say we just settle at 270 as I suggested earlier, so they would need 130 addition firm orders to make 400.

I still think with the existence of the 350F Boeing will still hold majority of new builds and new large freighters.

It’s obvious Akbar is coming on the XF and it will be made up of conversion of the 10 -8s and exercising his 50 purchase rights. FedEx following their own comments I expect to move to the XF as well, they have a board meeting next month to decide and at the start of 2020 FedEx was looking for the XF but for 2027. At the time Boeing wanted it earlier but now it works.

I agree, I think if or when the 77XF becomes a reality it will still dominate the freighter market, however it would not own it. And that was my main point, we have already seen the likes of FX making noises about the A350F – Perhaps just to get a better deal from Boeing on the 777 – Who knows. But there is no way Boeing will be able to make anywhere near as much money from freighters as they used too. Plus there are still a lot of very young 777Fs around, its going to be a while before they are needed.
.

I think maybe the bigger concern is the 330NEO being optimally sized for this market is sitting on 200 orders after 3 years in service.

350-1000 is 3 years in service and sitting on about 150 orders? So why is everybody so obsessed with pointing fingers at the 777X?

Because it’s boeing and it’s fun to diss boeing. Understandably to be fair

You know, although I do have my biases and I will admit, that I think Boeings conduct of recent has been utterly disgusting and there should be real consequences for those at the company who all but destroyed one of the worlds greatest engineering firms. I’m not and never have been a hater. Nor will I be trolled or baited by seemingly random comments regarding the Neo… better luck next time

I just honestly don’t see a great future for the 77X – Sorry, I don't see where the orders will come from. (Other than AAB, to spite Airbus as I said earlier)



**See look at that, see how kind I am by saving you the effort of making the same arguments again? And now that the thread isn't locked you can respond! And we can discuss it.

I bet you Fred wouldnt have done that ...

If the premise is, will the 777X be a sales flop, the answer is regrettably yes, but the reason for each failure is different. The A380 failed (ironically) because heavy twins like the 777-300ER provide more frequency and flexibility. The 777X is also struggling because of the 777-300ER (more irony!), most of which are only in mid-life and remain very potent, but most of all the 777X is struggling because it’s an old school design going up against a clean state dream machine, the Airbus A350, which is phenomenal, the pinnacle of airline style (and although through no foresight on Airbus’ part, even feels right-sized for the post-Covid era)

Daysleeper wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

So does that make your above statement correct or incorrect?

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.

Opus99 wrote:

To what end? There’s really no point

There is if you're right, and I am wrong. That's the whole point of these places, well it used to be.

I'm an enthusiast, this is a hobby. I'm talking about something I love - but if Im wrong, I'm wrong. Prove me wrong, I will be happy that you did so.


**Side note, I will be happy, but once im not working at the weekend I may drink a bottle of scotch and totally flame you...swings and roundabouts

Opus99 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Based a OWE of 184t and and spec pax of 426 going 7285nm I would expect a fuel usage of 117t or 274kg/seat. (351.5-184- (0.095 *426(pax))-5(pantry)-5(reserves) = 117t
a B789 with the same cabin density would take 310pax and when going 7285nm would burn 83.7t of fuel or 270kg/seat

If it really is getting good fuel burn and/or projecting lower weights then why wouldn't Boeing be saying so?

Fred



Fred

So does that make your above statement correct or incorrect?

Still correct.

A 77W with the same cabin density can't actually fly 7285nm but if its MTOW was increased (to about 355t) it would burn 347kg/pax

Opus99 wrote:

Calhoun said the aircraft is performing well and according to customer commitments with regards to NAMS. Boeing and GE have also been more and more recently saying the aircraft is achieving 20% reduction in fuel burn.

Would they have promised customers bad fuel burn?

who knows what they promised. Maybe I am wrong on the fuel burn and its really low but to square that circle the payload would be low too...

Fred

SEPilot wrote:

Daysleeper wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

So does that make your above statement correct or incorrect?

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

If the MTOW on the 777-9 goes up from 775Klb to 805Klb, that should make the 777-8 obsolete. Will they add a new or bigger fuel tank to take 30Klb of fuel?

Opus99 wrote:

Daysleeper wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

To what end? There’s really no point

There is if you're right, and I am wrong. That's the whole point of these places, well it used to be.

I'm an enthusiast, this is a hobby. I'm talking about something I love - but if Im wrong, I'm wrong. Prove me wrong, I will be happy that you did so.


**Side note, I will be happy, but once im not working at the weekend I may drink a bottle of scotch and totally flame you...swings and roundabouts

Neither of us can be “right” because they’re both opinionated statements as we do not know the future. Unless you’re psychic?

True.

But that’s what discussion is for, its to debate a point until a resolution (or not) is made. If you only want to debate or voice option on fact, then I will send you an invite to the “British Standards Institute” discussion forum where we just post our latest HAZCHEM information.

It’s not a competition, much is to be learnt from discussion and sometimes argument. And it can be fun, as long as you don’t take yourself too seriously.

Opus99 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

So does that make your above statement correct or incorrect?

Still correct.

A 77W with the same cabin density can't actually fly 7285nm but if its MTOW was increased (to about 355t) it would burn 347kg/pax

Opus99 wrote:

Calhoun said the aircraft is performing well and according to customer commitments with regards to NAMS. Boeing and GE have also been more and more recently saying the aircraft is achieving 20% reduction in fuel burn.

Would they have promised customers bad fuel burn?

who knows what they promised. Maybe I am wrong on the fuel burn and its really low but to square that circle the payload would be low too...

Fred

I’d rather wait for Boeing to release the data

Thanks

Fair enough. Personally I'm happy with Boeing saying it was going to be 20% better, then releasing specs that suggest it will be 20% better and now both Boeing and GE saying it is achieving 20% better.

Fred

SEPilot wrote:

Daysleeper wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

So does that make your above statement correct or incorrect?

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.

The most reasonable and accurate comments in this thread imho. The primary competitor will be the A350-1000. If the 779 beats it by 5-7% in CASM you will have a winner. If not, it will be the next A346. All the comments I have heard on engine performance says it is exceeding expectations. Lightsaber has talked quite a bit about how the engine is performing. As from the OEW....I have seen a lot of speculation but no facts. Ditto any performance improvements with the new wing.

The market will tell us if the 779 is a winner or not. Right now.....far too early to say.

SEPilot wrote:

When the 777X was launched Boeing made sure that its economics would beat the A350-1000; if it couldn’t there would be absolutely no point in building it. That’s why they went with the new wing, with stretching it and carving out the sidewalls to make it 10 abreast standard. Just re-engining the 77W would have been even less successful than the A330NEO, and Boeing knew it. So it comes down to real world performance, of which we have had few indications. If in fact it does beat the A350-1000 by a reasonable margin it has a future. If it doesn’t it doesn’t. It is down to that.

The question on that is how close are we now to an A350 PiP? Given the delays we must be closer than Boeing expected (corona effects unknown!).

How much more does the 777C weigh than the 777-300ER? I keep seeing claims that it’s much heavier, but I’m struggling to understand how that reconciles with a larger airframe and lower thrust engines than the -300ER.

I have been giving the subject of the B777X's program viability some more thought since the EK order thread was locked. Here are my thoughts:

- How viable is (was?) the market for VLA's? The A380 hit its sales ceiling very quickly after launch and not because it was an unsuccessful design, but because the number of airline customers needing VLA's seating over 400 passengers turned out to be much smaller than expected. I think Airbus was counting on the prestige factor of airlines owning the A380 to expand that program's sales reach, but that did not have many takers. And let's not forget that Boeing also took the VLA "bait" by green lighting the expensive development of the B748i that only sold in the dozens.

- With the VLA market potential low, what is the new "sweet spot" for a large, long-hauling twin? Is it 350 passengers in a 3/4-class layout, where the A350-1000 is sized? So far, sales for the A350-1000 have been tepid, with only 165 units ordered and nearly 1/3rd of those ordered already delivered. And QR, the A350-1000's biggest customer (and a major customer for the B777X), has been public with their recent criticism of the A350, which is never a good sign.

- Did the B777X program follow too close on the heels of the B77W, which is the dominant large, long-haul airliner? Will the new CFRP wing and GEn9X engines deliver enough of an efficiency improvement to move up enough B77W users (still reeling from the pandemic) from their tried and true workhorses? And is a 3/4-class layout size between 350 and 400 passengers still too big?

- Is international travel ever going to recover to the levels prior to the pandemic? Will passengers avoid the Middle Eastern mega-hubs and choose airlines that overfly them, instead? In spite of STC's comments of "all is well with the recovery" EK still has 70 A380's snoozing in the sun at DWC by the latest count, which questions their need to add more capacity anytime soon.

In my opinion, Boeing probably should have passed on the B777X and developed a HGW version of the B787-10 that could fly 325 (multi-class) passengers on 7,500 nm long-haul routes. But what could have happened, did, so Boeing will have to ride out what will probably be a largely-unprofitable B777X program for years to come.

I'm pessimistic on the prospects of the 777X, I think it'll do OK, but probably not as successful as Boeing needs it to be. The fact that its customer base is mostly A380 territory (with a few potential outliers as well as CX) isn't good reading, and neither is the dependence on 3 airlines, of which 2 have been reported to be considering a review of their orders.

With the 787 and A350 in service and performing well, the 777X does lose a lot of appeal, and its troubles and delays don't help. The fact that the 77W has been extremely popular and still has almost the entire replacement ahead of it will help, but a lot of that will go to the smaller frames, as that is the general trend we see, leaving only a few small orders here and there. They'll add up, but will it make money for Boeing? Not as much as they need, given that the company is having a rough time now.

I don’t think a 787-10 that flies 7,500nm is possible.