Quoting RayChuang (Reply 16): I think EK bought the 77W's for two reasons: 1. The airline still can't get any straight answers from Airbus on the A350-1000.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 25): Clarke got a straight answer from Airbus, he just didn't like the answer.

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 28): The problem with the A350-1000 as it now stands is that Airbus claims it has the same carrying capacity and range as the 77W but with lower MTOW and needing only 95,000 lb. thrust from the Trent XWB engines. Alas, the CEO of Emirates doesn't believe that, nor do most professionals in the airline industry.

Quoting ACES320 (Reply 30): I would take this as a warning bell for Airbus.

Quoting ACES320 (Reply 30): The problem was not much performance as it was commonality. In Clark's own words he placed order for the A350 with variants but he ended up with two different machines after the latest round of modifications on the A350-1000

Quoting The777Man (Reply 34): Also remember that the 350 just got delayed by Airbus and could suffer further delays. The 777-300?ER is available NOW not in four or five years.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 37): It's a given that Airbus could develop a better airplane than the 77W today. The question is how much better. What is likely giving customers pause is the magnitude by which Airbus is reducing thrust and MTOW. Has technology progressed enough since design freeze of the 77W in 2001 (and the PiPs since then) that Airbus can offer the same performance with 20% less thrust and 13% less MTOW? Tim Clarke is probably saying "Missouri."

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 43): I'm going as far as to say that there will no A350-1000 for Emirates. They will convert all the orders to the -900. Or, they will even cancel it. It seems that there are lots of uncertainties about the A350 performance.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 46): Pretty sure the A35J's delay has everything to do with this order. And maybe the A359's recent delay as well.

OK, so Boeing is offering a nearly 8,000nm-capable plane today. It seats about 360 passengers in Emirates' 3-class layout.

Airbus is offering a plane with slightly better range capability (see Airbus Reveals A350-1000 OEW (by ferpe Nov 3 2011 in Tech Ops)) but it is exactly the same length, 73.9m, and is only 9 abreast in economy vs 10 abreast in economy on the 777-300ER. So it will seat very roughly 325 rather than 360 passengers in the same Emirates configuration. It will also have 25% lower fuel consumption.

In this simple soul's view, these are two different category aircraft. Only by one notch, but one is a 325 seater and one is a 360 seater in Emirates 3-class configuration.

The A350-1000 should substantially beat the 777-300ER's CASM, despite being smaller, based on the above numbers. That would make it a winner if they were both available between now and 2017. But ONLY THE 777 is avaiable until 2017.

That is why Boeing is talking about the 777-9X ... they know the 777-300ER can't beat the A350-1000 in 2017.

In the meantime, Emirates wants to keep growing, with aircraft between the very large A380-800 and the much smaller A350-900 which is scheduled for 2014 and which they have stated will be their smallest in future. So the 777-300ER is their only choice for 2011-17.

True, Airbus have flip-flopped a bit on the A350-1000 with talk of commonality with the A350-900 then shifting more to competition with the 777-300ER. However, I think the bottom line is the A350-1000 as now defined is one notch smaller than the 777-9X will be, yet it stands a good chance of equalling it in range and efficiency. That could be a very good place to be in the market in 2017, even if it is not the number 1 answer to Emirates' needs right now.

Quoting QatarA340 (Reply 20): Guys, EK has 27 A332s + 10 A345 + 10 A343 that HAVE TO BE REPLACED

Can someone explain why these have to be replaced? How could these aircraft already be considered old and inefficient? This doesn't seem logical at all. Either that or Emirates just feels the need to "show off" that they can afford to consider 5-10 year old aircraft "old" and place huge orders to raise their PR?

My only thought is for the salesman who sealed the deal. I'm not sure what the commission structure is like, but the largest $ value order in Boeing history is for sure going to get you a new Benz and the house paid off...times 100.

Boeing is reallly setting the market up for the 777-9X/8X for the 2020 delviery timeframe. They'll certainly launch a derivative (not a new airplane) which would beat the A350-1000 in every way and they cold start it now but they want to get the A350-1000 to a point of no return (design freeze) and then launch aa plane with 10-15% better operating economics. Boeig with this and future 77W orders can bide their time till then so time is Boeing's favor.

Quoting pliersinsight (Reply 52): My only thought is for the salesman who sealed the deal. I'm not sure what the commission structure is like, but the largest $ value order in Boeing history is for sure going to get you a new Benz and the house paid off...times 100.

No commissions as it is a whole team whose job it is to sell airplanes. It certainly would be an extensive sales campaign. Also the margins are likely really high on the airplane since it is unique in being the class of its field. I can't imagine deep discounts.

Quoting QatarA340 (Reply 20): Guys, EK has 27 A332s + 10 A345 + 10 A343 that HAVE TO BE REPLACED = 47 JETS that are getting too old

Yeah, those planes are all soooo nine minutes ago...

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 27): The 4 regional 772 (A) aircraft are some of the oldest and time maxed in the world . These will almost certainly be broken up rather than sold on,

I would say that's improbable. The 772A actually works very well as a Cargo conversion candidate, as most of those routes are nothing like as range dependent as what you would find on a PAX variant. Without the heavier structure of the -ER to carry around, a 772ABCF would be a quite ideal trunk route parcel hauler, as much more of your MTOW is payload rather than fuel...
This is why FX likes to use the MD-10-10 so much more than the MD-10-30, even though there is a significant range penalty involved...


And no, even at 16 years, no 777 anywhere is remotely close to maxing out on time or cycles.

Some of the original 77A's are approaching 70,000 hours.

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 51): Can someone explain why these have to be replaced? How could these aircraft already be considered old and inefficient?

First, the A340s are less efficient than 777s. Secondly, with the A330s, Emirates flies them on relatively short flights (same with their 777-200ERs/-300s) so they rack up a lot of cycles. Third, maintaining planes costs money. For an airline like Emirates, it is certainly possible, bordering on likely, that it is cheaper overall to maintain a young fleet that will not require them to put out large sums of money for maintenance checks and yields them the most efficient planes at a given time. Not all airlines do that, but Emirates is not the only one (SQ and FR come to mind).

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 53): They'll certainly launch a derivative (not a new airplane) which would beat the A350-1000 in every way and they cold start it now but they want to get the A350-1000 to a point of no return (design freeze) and then launch aa plane with 10-15% better operating economics.

If a 777 derivative can "beat the A350-1000 in every way" someone at Airbus should be fired. And you have to note that if the 777X achieves anything close to parity with the A350-1000 in terms of CASM, a lot of that will have to do with increasing the 777's seat count. That is fine for Emirates and some other airlines, but such a plane likely won't see too many sales to European or North American airlines. Even those airlines that do buy it will likely split their fleets between that and the A350, since they can't fill that many seats on all of their flights.

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 55): The 772A actually works very well as a Cargo conversion candidate, as most of those routes are nothing like as range dependent as what you would find on a PAX variant. Without the heavier structure of the -ER to carry around, a 772ABCF would be a quite ideal trunk route parcel hauler, as much more of your MTOW is payload rather than fuel...

That heavier structure may be vital for them to make a freight conversion at all. The longer range variants do make better candidates for cargo conversion, not because the structure is necessary for range in particular, but because they need it to be able to carry freight at all. There was something on here that converting passenger 777s might require swapping out some composite floor beams, which would possibly render the whole exercise uneconomical. Not to mention that there are a lot of 777s around, so early less capable examples may be worth more as parts.

Holy Cow. Did not expect this number. Nice however.

IMO:

1: Tim is not interested in the A350-10

2: Wants the 340's out of service ASAP.

3: Why not? It's a proven winner time and time again.

I think Emirates' future fleet will be narrowed down to just 3 types: A350-900, 777-300ER, and A380. The place for the A350-1000 in the Emirates fleet is gone.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 57): If a 777 derivative can "beat the A350-1000 in every way" someone at Airbus should be fired. And you have to note that if the 777X achieves anything close to parity with the A350-1000 in terms of CASM, a lot of that will have to do with increasing the 777's seat count.

   Funny how not even the adventures with the 787 and the 748s are enough to introduce just a whiff of doubt that anything Airbus can do, can be done better, quicker and cheaper at B.

BTW another point is that those assessing the performance of the 35J on the basis of 95 k engines are not really keeping up to date. 97 k is the current aim, and that rather "nasty" word growth in "2 stage IP turbine for efficiency and growth" is in that phrase taken from the RR PDF presentation.

Trent XWB programmeChris CholertonDirector –Trent XWB Programme

Assuming the 35J is deficient in this, that and the other, also seems to ignore that a high proportion of the reduction in thrust requirement relates to the lower fuel consumption of the engines. And for once, an engine OEM seems to be enthusiastic about being able to meet its targets. The 35J will be back!

Airbus has not exactly rushed to revisit its first thoughts of re-engining the A330 as yet, even though (barring the engine bleed) two engines are available that would match the 787. GE in essence has to match the TXWB. It presumably could if it wanted to, but so far, not much sign of wanting to.

Quoting QatarA340 (Reply 20): Guys, EK has 27 A332s + 10 A345 + 10 A343 that HAVE TO BE REPLACED = 47 JETS that are getting too old/less efficient in EK standards. There are a bunch of 772 (non ERs) and 773 that have to go also. So, the order is a replacement one mainly.

I essentially agree with you. Minus the A332 which are substantially smaller. Although, for EK standards, maybe it's not that big of a deal! I still think the 787 will replace the A332 at the end.

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 61): I still think the 787 will replace the A332 at the end.

I doubt it. They'll just upgrade those routes to A350s.

Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 59): The place for the A350-1000 in the Emirates fleet is gone.

I think it's still there. Not their longest routes necessarily, but shorter routes where they want an economical plane and are willing to give up a few seats will be great for A350-1000s.

Quoting ACES320 (Reply 30): I would take this as a warning bell for Airbus.

So would I

Quoting ACES320 (Reply 30): The problem was not much performance as it was commonality. In Clark's own words he placed order for the A350 with variants but he ended up with two different machines after the latest round of modifications on the A350-1000

He has ended up with 2 variants of engines, there was always going to be wing / undercarriage differences. He does't like the size of it, he basically wants to bully airbus into making it bigger but with the same range, Airbus think that this would make it less attractive to all but Emirates so have declined.

Quoting ElbowRoom (Reply 50): Airbus is offering a plane with slightly better range capability (see Airbus Reveals A350-1000 OEW (by ferpe Nov 3 2011 in Tech Ops)) but it is exactly the same length, 73.9m, and is only 9 abreast in economy vs 10 abreast in economy on the 777-300ER. So it will seat very roughly 325 rather than 360 passengers in the same Emirates configuration. It will also have 25% lower fuel consumption.

Emirates position makes even less sense given that they could simply put 10 abreast on the A35J and get the seat count up to 77W levels.

But as we all know Middle East airline bosses are fickle and do business in a different way; the high percentage of orders held by these airlines undoubtedly at very favourable terms is a real danger for both A&B

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 63): Emirates position makes even less sense given that they could simply put 10 abreast on the A35J and get the seat count up to 77W levels.

If panels were really all that flexible, they could stick a couple of inches on each panel margin and make an XXWB and get 10 abreast comfortable.    Just joking. But RR do appear to be threatening to go over 97k. Wonder what that is about?

This is what Boeing and Emirates do the day after the deal - talk about the 777X

What do Boeing and Emirates do a day after signing a deal for 50 firm 777-300ERs and options for 20 more (a mere $26 billion if all options are exercised)? They talk about more aircraft.

Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO and President, James Albaugh, says talks with Emirates, including the airline's boss, Tim Clark, will take place on Monday about the so called 777X, the end-of-decade update to the 777 Boeing, has signalled it plans to put into the market.

Source: Aviationweek

Emirates apprently want 2017 EIS while Boeing are more interested in a slighty later date.

And with EK content to order 50+20 more 77Ws, what exactly is the rush for the 777X? None as I see it, unless Airbus can suddenly come up with a 35X that kills the 77W. That appears unlikely at this stage, Boeing will want to milk its 777 cash cow as much as it can and everything points to many more 777 orders in the next 3-4 years. I don't see any imminent announcement of the 777X. Max this year and 787-10X next year and a lot more talk about the 777X but nothing firm for 2-3 years IMO.

Can anybody explain to me how EK finances all their purchases?

Having a goal to become the world's largest airline is one thing. I'm sure UA or Lufthansa would dream of the same if only they could purchase all the new planes required for realizing the goal. It just seems to me as if EK does not have the same budget constraints as other airlines have. I know there has been several discussion on whether EK operates under normal conditions or not. Considering the economic crisis, it's yet a another move by EK that will fuel those speculations.

Quoting qfa787380 (Reply 66): what exactly is the rush for the 777X? None as I see it

Read the article, and I agree, no need to rush and Boeing are of the same opinion according to the report. This is a discussion forum and providing a linked report to some follow up discussions between the customer and OEM after such a significant deal is far better than an unsourced opinion which you're pretty good at doing on this board.

Quoting ElbowRoom (Reply 50): It will also have 25% lower fuel consumption.

That's a marketing comparison, one that compares the most favorable A350-1000 configuration/mission with least favorable of the 77W (I don't blame Airbus, Boeing does exactly the same with the 737MAX vs the A320NEO). Real world comparison would yield lower differences.

With new engines and a lower weight and new wings for the 777, the difference would be even smaller, maybe less than 10%. But the A35J will always burn less fuel, no matter what. The 777-9 can only compete as a result of more passenger capacity (maybe more than 10%, with 10 abreast Y).

Quoting Baroque (Reply 60): The 35J will be back!

No doubt about that.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 63): Emirates position makes even less sense given that they could simply put 10 abreast on the A35J and get the seat count up to 77W levels.

But they can't. EK's Y seats are narrow, but not that narrow to fit 10 abreast in an A350. That's why they pushed Airbus to the XWB, as EK couldn't fit their seat 9 abreast in the old A350.

Quoting qfa787380 (Reply 66): And with EK content to order 50+20 more 77Ws, what exactly is the rush for the 777X?

Because EK plans to retire their oldest 77W's in 2017 (according to the aviationweek article linked by Panam_DC10 in reply 65). And replacing 77W's with 77W's doesn't look very ambitious.

[Edited 2011-11-14 02:07:06]

Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Reply 68): Read the article, and I agree, no need to rush and Boeing are of the same opinion according to the report. This is a discussion forum and providing a linked report to some follow up discussions between the customer and OEM after such a significant deal is far better than an unsourced opinion which you're pretty good at doing on this board.

Had already read it and I gave my opinion on it. No need to get so snarkey for posting a link. How about some serious discussion from you instead of just posting links. Having a contradictory opinion to the masses on here can prove to be very dangerous. I'll express myself how I want within the rules and when I want thankyou very much. You might be surprised to find that my "unsourced opinions" have a bit of basis behind them.

Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 59): The place for the A350-1000 in the Emirates fleet is gone

But history confirms that EK (and QR) like to be involved in EVERYTHING, so i'm affraid the A351 will have to lumber on with EK for a while yet

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 69): And replacing 77W's with 77W's doesn't look very ambitious

Of course its not ambitious, but it is a remarkably sound decision....if it ain't broke....

Quoting qfa787380 (Reply 66): what exactly is the rush for the 777X? None

From what point of view? Airlines want lower cost. That is their rush. For Boeing it's a combination of keeping customers happy, stay competitive and technical and economical feasibility.

Quoting EBGflyer (Reply 67): Can anybody explain to me how EK finances all their purchases?

Like everyone else. Cash flow and having financiers trust in that they will pay their bills. With consistent profitability and growing revenue they are delivering just that.

Quoting EBGflyer (Reply 67): Considering the economic crisis, it's yet a another move by EK that will fuel those speculations.

With all due respect. For the most part it is people making excuses for their favorite airlines.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 69): Because EK plans to retire their oldest 77W's in 2017 (according to the aviationweek article linked by Panam_DC10 in reply 65). And replacing 77W's with 77W's doesn't look very ambitious.

But there is still no rush on EK's or Boeing's part to launch the 777X. They will do so when they are good and ready. Many carriers are new to the 77W, it seems to have universal appeal(except with QF!) and will continue to be improved. I think Boeing have a good 2-3 years up their sleeve before the need is real to launch the 777X for a 2020-2022 EIS. And of course, Airbus have their issues with the 350. Put another way, what financial incentive does Boeing have to spend billions on a 777 upgrade, when the existing product is doing so well? Of course that will change and the timing of that change is critical and the vast majority of people on this site have not a clue about that.

Quoting cmf (Reply 72): From what point of view? Airlines want lower cost. That is their rush. For Boeing it's a combination of keeping customers happy, stay competitive and technical and economical feasibility.

It is and customers also have to be happy to see their existing 777 fleet values drop and be prepared to pay the premium for the updated plane. That is the balance in the equation.

Quoting qfa787380 (Reply 73): I think Boeing have a good 2-3 years up their sleeve before the need is real to launch the 777X for a 2020-2022 EIS

As noted;

Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Reply 68): I agree, no need to rush and Boeing are of the same opinion according to the report.

No need to state you "think it" when we all know it from the article and Boeing.

Albaugh says “we are looking at the end of this decade for this airplane.”

EK can of course ask Boeing to have the 777NG ready by 2017, but whether that's realistic is another matter. And indeed, with the current airplane still doing so well, Boeing doesn't really need to have it ready that early. EK just has to bite the bullit then, like they are doing now with the 777classics.

Quoting qfa787380 (Reply 73): Airbus have their issues with the 350

Could be that the A35J's EIS may slip to 2018, now that the A359 is delayed, the same way EIS of the 787-9 has slipped as a result of the problems of the -8. But I don't Boeing can afford EIS of the 777NG much later than 2019. If you're talking about 2022, I'm with BMI727: they might very well go to an all new airplane, taking on not just the A350-1000 but the -900 as well.

Quoting qfa787380 (Reply 74): and customers also have to be happy to see their existing 777 fleet values drop

That is a point overplayed here on A.net. Second hand market prices are mainly set on demand and availability. As long as the updated model is produced in numbers equal to the model it is replacing there is minimal change.

On top of that airlines actually do expect upgrades and new models.

Quoting qfa787380 (Reply 73): But there is still no rush on EK's or Boeing's part to launch the 777X.

No rush on Boeing's part, I agree. But no rush on EK's part, are you kidding me? The fact that EK ordered 77W is because this is the best it could get at the moment. The only question Tim Clark would ask if a "super 77W" from either A or B were available in the near future would perhaps be "Where do I sign".

Quoting qfa787380 (Reply 73): what financial incentive does Boeing have to spend billions on a 777 upgrade, when the existing product is doing so well?

A different conclusion can be drawn from the story of A32xneo and 737MAX.

[Edited 2011-11-14 05:42:25]

I read a couple of things into this order. First, EK is convinced that the A3510 will not work for them; why, I don't know. Even though these planes will likely all be delivered before the A3510 will have its first delivery, I do not believe EK would order this many if they were even remotely contemplating phasing them out for something that is in the planning stage now. Second, I believe that EK has received some concrete assurances about what Boeing is going to do the the 777 to keep it competitive; if they had not they would be in a more wait-and-see mode now. This order tells me that EK has decided that the 777NG will be better for them than the A3510, and they do not see anything that Airbus can do to change that. It is telling me that when they start replacing 777's they will be replacing them with more 777's, not something else.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 79): I read a couple of things into this order. First, EK is convinced that the A3510 will not work for them; why, I don't know. Even though these planes will likely all be delivered before the A3510 will have its first delivery, I do not believe EK would order this many if they were even remotely contemplating phasing them out for something that is in the planning stage now. Second, I believe that EK has received some concrete assurances about what Boeing is going to do the the 777 to keep it competitive; if they had not they would be in a more wait-and-see mode now. This order tells me that EK has decided that the 777NG will be better for them than the A3510, and they do not see anything that Airbus can do to change that. It is telling me that when they start replacing 777's they will be replacing them with more 777's, not something else.

While there is to some point some view in your dialogue that can be read this way, I believe your view goes to much through some B-colored glasses and therefore includes also a lot of wishful speculation.

I would see it a bit more neutral and through uncolored glasses.

1) Emirates 77Ws now to pertly replace older 777s and 343 plus capacity extension for the years 2015-2017.

2) When received and 2017 the A35J is available the partly replace the more older 77Ws with new fresh A35Js on routes where they do not need the 365 Capacity of the 77W is over sized and 335 are enough. So they benefit from the about 20-25% better trip cost. They can arrive as they want to replace the older 77Ws

3) When Boeing is ready with the 777-9 and the plane turns out to be very competitive to the A35J, respectively is better (I expect them within 2-3% each other, unless Boeing builds a completely new plane), they will have placed orders for replacing further 77Ws to between 2019 and 2023.

With this strategy they will always have the most fuel efficient plane available for operation, while being able to sell the relatively young 77Ws for a rather good price given their purchasing power buying in 20-50 coupon blocks.

Regards

Flyglobal

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 79): I read a couple of things into this order

Me too...


1. EK needs safe options for expansion without a high risk of delay. (A35J)
2. EK wants to be a very important customer for both producers.
3. EK again showed that the business case for the B748I is very limited.

Quoting cmf (Reply 77): Quoting qfa787380 (Reply 74): and customers also have to be happy to see their existing 777 fleet values drop That is a point overplayed here on A.net. Second hand market prices are mainly set on demand and availability. As long as the updated model is produced in numbers equal to the model it is replacing there is minimal change.

An airline has an advantage to operate the most popular model existing and seeing production continue. There are multiple reasons.

In the short term, more airplanes means a bigger spares pool, which increases even if an airplane model is updated. That benefit is two fold, first off there are more spare parts around in inventory so if an airplane has a mechanical problem far away from the airline's hub and/or maintenance base it is easier to find parts (for example the MD-11 is not a very common airplane, so if KLM has a mechanical problem outside of AMS, it may have to ship parts all the way from AMS if other airlines like FedEx or LH don't have a maintenance base near the airplane, which results in longer ground time).

Secondly, similar to the previous reason is that if the market is bigger, more suppliers are likely to build spares parts. That makes it cheaper for spare parts since there will be suppliers other than the original equipment manufacturer that designed it through Boeing. Having additional suppliers for consumable spare parts is very beneficial since the original suppliers and ordering spare parts from Boeing and Airbus is expensive. Keeping a line up and running with refreshed updates is beneficial since the majority of the systems on the airplane remain untouched with upgrades.

In the long term, finance companies always desire to have airplanes that they can find use for on the used market. The 717 is an example of a niche plane that finance companies did not want to be involved with, which proved true when a couple major operators divested of the airplanes which resulted on excess on the used market and no takers. The 737-900ER had a hard time early on because few airlines operated it so leasing companies knew that they'd have a hard time finding a customer for it on the used market compared to a 737-800. Being more common of an airplane makes financing easier. Having follow on enhancements still results in fleet commonality and more customers.

Quoting qfa787380 (Reply 73): Boeing's part to launch the 777X. They will do so when they are good and ready.

Well, that would seem obvious.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 81): 2. EK wants to be a very important customer for both producers.

You think they ordered 50 77W's to be nice to Boeing? What was the alternative that they turned down from Airbus?

Quoting 328JET (Reply 81): 3. EK again showed that the business case for the B748I is very limited.

Gotta throw that in there, huh? Did anyone really expect them to order the B748i. It is already clearly a very niche airplane.

-Dave

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 83): You think they ordered 50 77W's to be nice to Boeing? What was the alternative that they turned down from Airbus?

I only wanted to point out that EK will not focus on one producer.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 83): Gotta throw that in there, huh?

Why shouldn´t i do it?
An order of 50 plus B748I instead of the additional B77Ws from on of the most important Boeing customers would be a great deal!

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 80): While there is to some point some view in your dialogue that can be read this way, I believe your view goes to much through some B-colored glasses and therefore includes also a lot of wishful speculation.

You may be right; however, I think this order was intended to send a signal to both Boeing and Airbus. If it was just for replacement, I don't think they would have ordered anywhere nearly as many. I would expect that planes this large and expensive they would plan on keeping them at least 10 years; and since they will only be coming on line shortly before the A35J would be available, if they were still interested in the A35J that they would have made a much smaller order (since the planes they are looking to replace are themselves still relatively young and could easily soldier on for a few more years). You don't make the largest order in Boeing's history without being aware of (and intending) the signals that that order will send. Al Baker has been consistently saying that the A35J will not work well for them; I believe that he ordered a few to try and spur Airbus to make what he wants, but has decided that they are not going to. Hence this order. I also do not think that they would have placed this big an order without being satisfied with what Boeing was going to do with the 777 going forward.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 82): An airline has an advantage to operate the most popular model existing and seeing production continue. There are multiple reasons.

And all the reasons you listed goes out the door because of the benefits of the new model. If they didn't there is no reason to produce it.

Though my post was in response to the claim that current frames in the operators inventory will lose value because a new model is introduced. Frames of the new model will not hit the second hand market for a long time. The value of the old frames, those being replaced by the new, are set by the market conditions at that time time of replacement. If there is large demand for additional frames and little supply the value will be high. If there is good supply of better performing planes the value will be low.

So this is not exctly the right thread, but I'll ask anyway:

Does EK serve Middle Eastern destinations relativley close to Dubai with wide body equipment? I.E. are places like Muscat, Doha and Riadh served with 777 or 330/340 aircraft?

The reason I'm asking is that it seems EK's fleet is entirely wide body and operating rountes of few hundred miles with this sort of aircraft would seem to be a little unusual.

Thanks in advvance.

Quoting mcg (Reply 87): Does EK serve Middle Eastern destinations relativley close to Dubai with wide body equipment? I.E. are places like Muscat, Doha and Riadh served with 777 or 330/340 aircraft?

Yes they do. Open http://www.emirates.com/us/english/flash/route_map.aspx and then click on Dubai and it will zoom in and show where in the region they fly.

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 78): No rush on Boeing's part, I agree. But no rush on EK's part, are you kidding me? The fact that EK ordered 77W is because this is the best it could get at the moment. The only question Tim Clark would ask if a "super 77W" from either A or B were available in the near future would perhaps be "Where do I sign".

But if they still order the 77W in big numbers, and they have, that means that satisfies their needs at this stage. EK need planes and they will get the best available to suit their needs. That seems to focus on 388/77W/359 at this stage. Airbus are not close to making a "super 77W", so there is no rush and EK will get their 777X when both parties can agree on a timeline, that also suits many other carriers. I don't think Boeing will go to the trouble of a 777X for EK alone, even if they commit to 200.

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 78): A different conclusion can be drawn from the story of A32xneo and 737MAX.

And what Airbus aircraft is pushing Boeing to a 777X with any great urgency??? Completely different situation I'm afraid. How long has the 35X been offered, how many orders has it garnered and now how delayed is it??? Additionally, both EK and QR are quite critical of it in its new guise.

Quoting cmf (Reply 77): That is a point overplayed here on A.net. Second hand market prices are mainly set on demand and availability. As long as the updated model is produced in numbers equal to the model it is replacing there is minimal change. On top of that airlines actually do expect upgrades and new models.

I agree with most of that. However, Boeing don't want to spend billions on a 777X unless the timing is right, the demand is there and airlines are prepared to pay the premium for the new(more expensive) model. They will want to maintain the 77W's dominance in the marketplace for as long as possible whilst planning for it's upgrade/replacement at the appropriate time.

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 28): The problem with the A350-1000 as it now stands is that Airbus claims it has the same carrying capacity and range as the 77W but with lower MTOW and needing only 95,000 lb. thrust from the Trent XWB engines. Alas, the CEO of Emirates doesn't believe that, nor do most professionals in the airline industry

Presumably they're absolutely crying with laughter then at Boeing's plans to launch an even bigger, and more capable 777-300ER variant (777X) with roughly the same thrust (which is 98 000 lb, by the way)   

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 47): To be exact, there's a long waiting list for B777s period. We've asked Boeing what delivery they could offer on 77Fs, and was told best case is around 3 years from date of order

"Long" is a relative term. Try getting early delivery slots for an A350-1000 and you'll be looking at c. 2019 with some risk, instead of 2014 with none.

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 53): They'll certainly launch a derivative (not a new airplane) which would beat the A350-1000 in every way and they cold start it now but they want to get the A350-1000 to a point of no return (design freeze) and then launch aa plane with 10-15% better operating economics

you've got to laugh sometimes.....

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 63): He does't like the size of it, he basically wants to bully airbus into making it bigger but with the same range, Airbus think that this would make it less attractive to all but Emirates so have declined.

Shades of Boeing and the 748i in there...... One airline does not a summer make..

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 79): First, EK is convinced that the A3510 will not work for them; why, I don't know.

But they ordered it anyway.
Why, I don't know.....   

I must admit I'm puzzled by these airlines that have ordered the A350-1000, pushed for changes, and then p*** and moan that it's not good enough now.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 83): You think they ordered 50 77W's to be nice to Boeing? What was the alternative that they turned down from Airbus?

There wasn't one. They have ordered it

Rgds

Quoting qfa787380 (Reply 89): I don't think Boeing will go to the trouble of a 777X for EK alone, even if they commit to 200.

The fact remains that if the A35J meets expectations it will undercut the economics of the 77W by a significant margin, and hence will seriously erode its market. Boeing knows this, and therefore WILL do something to keep the 777 competitive, whether it is improve the engines and take weight out or do that as well as make it larger. But they are not going to do nothing, and I believe that they have convinced EK that what they are going to do will do the job, and hence this order. I do not think that an order this size is just because they want the planes before the A35J will be available; they will still have to operate these planes for their expected life. If they thought the A35J was going to work better for them then they would have ordered far fewer, and kept some of their older planes until the A35J's came aboard. Part of my reasoning is the 20 options; if they just wanted replacements I don't think they would have had so many options.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 91): The fact remains that if the A35J meets expectations it will undercut the economics of the 77W by a significant margin, and hence will seriously erode its market. Boeing knows this, and therefore WILL do something to keep the 777 competitive, whether it is improve the engines and take weight out or do that as well as make it larger. But they are not going to do nothing, and I believe that they have convinced EK that what they are going to do will do the job, and hence this order. I do not think that an order this size is just because they want the planes before the A35J will be available; they will still have to operate these planes for their expected life. If they thought the A35J was going to work better for them then they would have ordered far fewer, and kept some of their older planes until the A35J's came aboard. Part of my reasoning is the 20 options; if they just wanted replacements I don't think they would have had so many options.

I agree. However, as I have said on at least 3 separate occasions, the timing of this update is critical...............and in commercial aviation, timing is everything.

Quoting mcg (Reply 87): The reason I'm asking is that it seems EK's fleet is entirely wide body and operating rountes of few hundred miles with this sort of aircraft would seem to be a little unusual.

I believe they do since they have spare hours between arrival and the next flight that the aircraft is scheduled to fly. There was a great thread on this not so long ago.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 57): That is fine for Emirates and some other airlines, but such a plane likely won't see too many sales to European or North American airlines. Even those airlines that do buy it will likely split their fleets between that and the A350, since they can't fill that many seats on all of their flights.

How many Euorpean or North American Airlines have bought the A350-1000? How many have bought the 777-300ER?

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 91): I do not think that an order this size is just because they want the planes before the A35J will be available; they will still have to operate these planes for their expected life.

I'm sure they will. But a 5 year head-start in NPV is extremely significant.

A plane of the quality of the 773ER could easily be close to having paid for itself by the time an A350-1000 comes into the market.

Rgds

Quoting cmf (Reply 86): And all the reasons you listed goes out the door because of the benefits of the new model. If they didn't there is no reason to produce it.

That's reason to do a 777X as it is not a new model. It's a new derivative, but the vast majority of the parts are usually interchangeable.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 90): Quoting RayChuang (Reply 28): The problem with the A350-1000 as it now stands is that Airbus claims it has the same carrying capacity and range as the 77W but with lower MTOW and needing only 95,000 lb. thrust from the Trent XWB engines. Alas, the CEO of Emirates doesn't believe that, nor do most professionals in the airline industry Presumably they're absolutely crying with laughter then at Boeing's plans to launch an even bigger, and more capable 777-300ER variant (777X) with roughly the same thrust (which is 98 000 lb, by the way)

98,000lbs of thrust isn't an ER, it's the base model 777-300, so I'm a bit confused about your statement. What I have heard about the A350-1000 is that it may have similar range and payload issues common to other stretched varients, although I expect it to do better than the 777-300 which at the time of introduction did not have a high enough MTOW or engine thrust to make it a versatile and more popular airliner. The same is true for other stretches of other models. The 115,000lbs thrust GE engines and related increased MTOW are what made the plane viable. Boeing took the 777 design which was optimized as a 777-200ER and increased the MTOW and performance to make it best suited to the 777-300ER.

Can you please explain what the laughter is about because I don't understand. I personally don't expect the A350-1000 to be the sales leader of the A350 family. The longest stretch usually isn't the most popular. I'd expect it to be similar to how the A321 captures only 15% of the A320 family market. Usually the middle member of the family is the best seller since the longer stretch takes some compromises as it pushes MTOW limits which impacts range and payload while the smaller member tends to be an overly capable aircraft but ends up on the heavy side with higher fuel burn.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 96): That's reason to do a 777X as it is not a new model. It's a new derivative, but the vast majority of the parts are usually interchangeable.

It is one advantage of upgrading the current model but many others are far more important and can easily make this not even considered.

And as mentioned before. It is a completely different issue than what I responded to.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 96): 98,000lbs of thrust isn't an ER, it's the base model 777-300, so I'm a bit confused about your statement.

As Astuteman already told you, it is the thrust range rumored for the 777X.

Quoting ThrottleHold (Reply 56): Some of the original 77A's are approaching 70,000 hours.

Indeed they may be. But what counts are cycles. The 77A is supported through 44,000 of those. At the rate of four trips per day, with no opportunity for MX or refit times, that works out to well over 30 years! I somehow doubt EK's A models are anywhere near that just yet.

While they may well decide to cut them up, I have no doubt there would be plenty of takers for conversions.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 60):    Funny how not even the adventures with the 787 and the 748s are enough to introduce just a whiff of doubt that anything Airbus can do, can be done better, quicker and cheaper at B.

Funny indeed. Especially considering that Airbus doesn't exactly make junk products either...

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 96): 98,000lbs of thrust isn't an ER, it's the base model 777-300, so I'm a bit confused about your statement

I don't know why, when I made it quite clear.

The proposed future variant 777X which has been discussed by Boeing to date is intended to be even more capable than the current 777-300ER, possibly even stretched, and yet also equipped with a 98k lb thrust engine - a variant of the GE90-115.

So who's laughing at 98k lb thrust now?

It's equally funny (I guess) when you find some very respected members (and you know who you are) castigating the claims for the A350-1000, with some 18% less thrust and 14% lower MTOW for the same range/payload as a 773ER, whilst at the same time defending with vigour the 64k lb engines for 787-8, which, with some 13% less thrust than an A330-200, is supposedly is capable of carrying 250 pax for 7 650Nm, some 13% MORE than an A330-200.
For me that makes a 26% difference in capability per lb thrust which most Boeing fans will die in a ditch for, whilst dismissing the A350-1000's 18% difference with BS claims like this...

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 28): The problem with the A350-1000 as it now stands is that Airbus claims it has the same carrying capacity and range as the 77W but with lower MTOW and needing only 95,000 lb. thrust from the Trent XWB engines. Alas, the CEO of Emirates doesn't believe that, nor do most professionals in the airline industry.

Still confused?

But then I guess the 787-8 is a Boeing isn't it, which makes everything possible on A-net it seems.

Or do you actually think the A350-1000 is getting a fair crack of the whip on here?   

To make it abundantly clear, I am in no way trying to impugn the data for the 787-8. But then neither am I for the A350-1000. A consistency which perhaps makes me a bit of an oddball on here....

Quoting cmf (Reply 97): As Astuteman already told you, it is the thrust range rumored for the 777X.

Indeed I did. And I'm puzzled as to how anyone could read the comment about "crying wth laughter" without reading the reason why clearly outlined in the same sentence

But hey. We see what we want to see, I guess  

Rgds