http://www.arabianbusiness.com/emira...oeing-builds-new-model-478883.html
The title is self explanatory, and I guess is just Emirates' response to Boeing delaying the EIS beyond 2020.

"If that's good we may start offloading the later aircraft and flog them on the secondary air market to grab the new one because it has all the fuel efficiencies that we want. But we're not there yet," Clark said. Boeing has to play a balancing act with the EIS being not too late and neither too early for such a situation.

Another thing to note is that EK plants to retire its 77Ws 2017 onwards - isn't that a little too early for that?

777-9X(74m) has better net operating revenues than A350-1000 in EK layout. 777-8X(72m, 77W length) too has better net operating revenue than A350-1000 in EK layout.

As per the link, EK wants both 777-8X and 777-9X.

Quoting raptor1090 (Thread starter): Another thing to note is that EK plants to retire its 77Ws 2017 onwards - isn't that a little too early for that?

EK's fleet plan is to unload those 77W's once they reach a certain cycle length to avoid increased maintenance expenses. Some may be leased as well and those lease cycles are up.

Boeing is well aware that EK will buy a ton of 77X's if its offered. The issue is that EK wants those a/c to have a performance envelope most airlines do not need. I'm sure Boeing will try to split the difference between Clark's insistence on a plane which can fly full loads non-stop DXB to LAX and almost every other airline that will instead want the a/c to be more efficient at ranges 500 to 1000 miles less than EK wants.

I think they will not be the only customers for the model, so i´m pretty sure that boeing will expedite a bit with this issue, they could have done a lot of more progress with this but they decide to do the B748 that we can see it´s not very popular or pax but it´s doing ok for cargo operators.

He also send a good message to Airbus about the A350-1000, i´m not sure what will happen but this kind of orders can make boeing start moving fast and secure 36bnUSD.... and not only that right now boeing has 115 B777 and many more on order so i´m sure the order will grow with options maybe up to 150 in the future and that huge money.

Seem like the B777 family will grow soon and continue being a cash cow for the guys in Seattle.

IMO, If this order materializes it will be also a big slap in Airbus face, because after securing the 70 A350 many people though that they will replace all the B777 with A350.

Lets wait and see, this is going to be interesting.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 2): Boeing is well aware that EK will buy a ton of 77X's if its offered. The issue is that EK wants those a/c to have a performance envelope most airlines do not need. I'm sure Boeing will try to split the difference between Clark's insistence on a plane which can fly full loads non-stop DXB to LAX and almost every other airline that will instead want the a/c to be more efficient at ranges 500 to 1000 miles less than EK wants.

777-8X(77W length) should easily allow DXB-LAX without blocking seats. 777-9X would meet the needs of airlines that do not need more than 8,000nm design range.

GE is still moving ahead with the engine for the 777X.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/avd_11_08_2012_p01-01-514397.xml

"General Electric (GE) is sticking to a technology test plan for the GE9X engine for the Boeing 777X, despite continuing uncertainty over Boeing’s development timetable.

The engine maker is running a raft of technology demonstrations to support FAR33 engine certification in 2018 and entry-into-service in 2019. Boeing, which has not formally announced a firm schedule for the 777 derivative, still is believed to be aiming at introducing the aircraft by 2020."

Clark said he'd "likely buy" the 747-8 if it had an 8300nm nominal range. Once Boeing (effectively) gave that to him, he responded with "we have no interest in the 747-8. We want a new 777."

Place a firm order with no-refundable deposits for 100 of them, TC, and I expect Boeing will make it happen.  

Quoting raptor1090 (Thread starter): Another thing to note is that EK plants to retire its 77Ws 2017 onwards - isn't that a little too early for that?

EK leases their 777-300ERs for 12 years and their first frames, delivered in 2006, will be 11 years old in 2017 so they're right on the cusp of lease-return.

a classic case of ...

"If you build it, EK will come" ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ay5GqJwHF8

:D

I just want to run a numbers exercise and get a few opinions.

Boeing list price for 777-300ER is $315mil. Let's postulate that in 2019 a 777-9 would have a list price of $360mil (bigger model, greater efficiency + 6 years of inflation). Boeing list price for 777-200LR is $291mil. Let's postulate that in 2019 a 777-8 would have a list price of $325mil (bigger model, greater efficiency + 6 years of inflation).

$360mil -9 / $325mil -8 as starting points for negotiations. For fun, let's go with a 75 -9 / 25 -8 split. Gives us an average starting price of $351mil per frame (weighted for the higher number of -9s to be ordered).

Next, let's go with a hefty 43% discount as launch customer. That gives an average frame price of $200mil. I know narrow bodies enjoy much higher discounts, but we are talking about a widebody family built to favor a specific customer's spec (e.g. EK's range and payload)

So that's a sale worth $20,000,000,000. Boeing delivered 82 777s in the past 12 months (Nov11-Nov12). So it represents multiple years worth of production slots (assuming slow/careful rampup...and the fact that you can't give ALL 100 of a high demand aircraft to one customer first...launch or not).

Now, let's require a 10% deposit in 2013 on all 100 frames. That's $2,000,000,000 cash in 2013 recieved towards development. That's allot of money. But that's also allot of lift (100 big planes) being developed.

Is that the kind of money an airliner needs to show an airframer to convince them to build a family of planes (777-8/9) to their specs? Is that enough risk sharing for an airframer to say, "OK, we will lock in the specs and build this airframe to favor your layout, range and payload requirements." Is this the kind of serious commitment it takes for an airliner to move a program up in priority (shoot for EIS of 2019 instead of 2021) and favor a vendor's specifications? Is it enough money to to risk alienating a few customers because you've built a plane with too much capability that has a higher costs (e.g. EK wants the full composite wing)?
Anyone have any past anecdotes to share (other than 767-400ER)?

EK will wait for Boeing to present their "best and final" offer - and then say to Airbus "Ok, if you can beat this, we'll buy a hundred of them!". And repeat.  

I'm almost more excited to see what EK can get Airbus to do, because if it's really good we might see Boeing move right to Y3 or whatever they call a clean sheet design in that size range.

-Dave

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 1): 777-9X(74m) has better net operating revenues than A350-1000 in EK layout. 777-8X(72m, 77W length)

Am I the only one to be kind of disappointed in the extra length of the 779X; I thought it would be around 76-77m; 2m (78") is barely the pitch of a F class seat row, or just over 2 Y class rows; not a lot of extra capacity.

Quoting A388 (Reply 6): I think EK will always have a Boeing/Airbus mix which will mean that their 777 fleet will never be fully replaced by Airbus aircraft. Having both Boeing and Airbus aircraft gives EK less dependability on one aircraft supplier.

Of course they will do and I think it´s a wise decssion giving the number of frames involved, but what i wanted to point out is that after EK ordering 70 frames we all though that the biggest part of the EK fleet will be around the A350 with more orders to come, but if they now place an order for 100 extra B777 that´d mean that we will not see many more EK A350 in a near future.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7): EK leases their 777-300ERs for 12 years and their first frames, delivered in 2006, will be 11 years old in 2017 so they're right on the cusp of lease-return.

are all the planes leased?? i understand than sometimes airlines lease planes and after the 10-12 years of lease the planes becomes property of the airline, i´m not sure about this because it´s quite a tricky issue usually. I would love to know more about this matter.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 1): 777-8X(72m, 77W length) too has better net operating revenue than A350-1000 in EK layout.

Since when does Boeing propose an -8X with 72m length?

Quoting kaitak (Reply 11):

I don't think anyone knows the true length the 777-8x or 777-9x will be...

What about the A350-1000 is making TC shun it so much?

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 2): I'm sure Boeing will try to split the difference between Clark's insistence on a plane which can fly full loads non-stop DXB to LAX

I believe EK operates on a basis that it “sells” a fixed payload on every flight and expects that flight to leave with that payload irrespective of the weather that the flight will experience. Using DXB-LAX as an example, for the last 120 days according to FlightAware, the shortest time was 14hr 55m and the longest 17hr 33m. Their published gate to gate time is 16hr 30m but from March of next year they are changing this to 17hr 20m. which is right on 8000nm. ESAD. Thus their insistence on 8000nm range . It is interesting to note that in the past 120 days , 48 flights have been in the 16hr to 17hr flight time range. This might well be the reason they are going to lengthen out their gate to gate times.

Quoting raptor1090 (Thread starter): Emirates To Buy 100 777Xs If Boeing Builds Them

The question is what will they buy if Boeing doesn't build the 777X. As long as Boeing makes new 77Ws better than older ones to the level that it's worth it to buy new ones, I think EK will stick with them. Boeing can probably keep enough orders for the 777 after the A350 shows up that they can keep the line moving if they want to develop a replacement. I can't imagine slowing down to the levels the 767 did when the 787 was being prepared.

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 15): What about the A350-1000 is making TC shun it so much?

Probably capacity. The A350-1000 and 777-300ER are almost exactly the same length. The 777 however is nearly wide enough for ten seats per row in coach, and the X would probably make it even better. The A350 could do ten across, but it would be much tighter than the 777. (I want to say it's like 11 inches narrower or so). My guess is that Emirates likes the extra seats. The A350-1000 should be great for replacing 777-200s though.

Even that number wouldnt force Boeing to build it if Y3, something like a big 787, might be the better solution. I couldnt care less for a plane as for another big boring twin, but EK has to replace 50+ 77Ws in the 2020s.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 10): EK will wait for Boeing to present their "best and final" offer - and then say to Airbus "Ok, if you can beat this, we'll buy a hundred of them!". And repeat.

Sure.

Quoting raptor1090 (Thread starter): Emirates To Buy 100 777Xs If Boeing Builds Them

"Show me the money."

Tim Clark loves to talk about what he's going to buy. He's a bit more reluctant to put deposits down.

Quoting TP313 (Reply 13): Since when does Boeing propose an -8X with 72m length?

I am assuming, as wished by many on A.net, 777-8X at 77W length.

Quoting Atlflyer (Reply 14): I don't think anyone knows the true length the 777-8x or 777-9x will be...

  One would think anything less than 4m difference does not make sense.

Quote: "If Boeing produced the airplane that we want I can see easily that figure, bearing in mind that we've ordered 175 of them," Clark said in an interview with Arabian Business.

No real news here.

EK's business model is based on not keeping aircraft as they age, so indeed they will be rolling into the new models as they become available.

Quote: "Unless Airbus have a 350 programme - but the 350-1000 isn't of the size of the 777ER today or the new 777. So it's not something that is that attractive to us at the moment unless they change it."

I guess someone should tell him that he has 20 on order.

Quote: Boeing's reluctance or delay to go forward with the 777-8x and 777-9x stems from a fear that the new models may stunt demand for the 747-8, analysts say

I suppose so, but I imagine it's more about the suits making sure the boffins can finally get the 787-8s out the doors in acceptable numbers, and can build the 787-9 and 787-10X, and KC-45, and 737NEO first.

They have no real reason to announce the 777X for several years, since they can't hope to productize it till the end of the decade, given all the programs currently in motion.

Quoting raptor1090 (Thread starter): Another thing to note is that EK plants to retire its 77Ws 2017 onwards

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 1): As per the link, EK wants both 777-8X and 777-9X.

It seems EK is the one that is keeping B's head spinning about 777X. 100 is attractive, but I doubt B can make EIS in 2017. A hurried 2017 EIS 777X could have too much compromise that the risk and ROI may not be worthwhile.

For EIS 2017, why not just do a 777NG (77W length) with new metal, lightened (not new) wing, an updated GE-90 and save a ton of R&D which can be used for discount to EK's liking and be done with it. It is also much easier for the supply chain to migrate to sustain volume delivery.

IMO, save the resource and move onto 787-11/12 for long term A350 competition. Otherwise, do a post 2020 EIS all CFRP 777-8X (77W length) and a 80m 777-9X and go after a market that is not touched by the A350 as well as the A380. Call it semi Y3 if you want.

As a 100 frames launch customer, wonder if EK also ask Airbus to build a A350-1100?  

Quoting Revelation (Reply 21): I guess someone should tell him that he has 20 on order.

He does seem to overlook this..     

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 22): As a 100 frames launch customer, wonder if EK also ask Airbus to build a A350-1100?

Almost without question.

Rgds

Quoting mffoda (Reply 5): GE is still moving ahead with the engine for the 777X.

Nice engine for 787-11/12, so effort is not wasted.  

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 19): Tim Clark loves to talk about what he's going to buy. He's a bit more reluctant to put deposits down.

Both manufacturers have found it's best not to believe him. He could change his mind later, if circumstances change. Clarke wants the most expensive option, but the majority of buyers don't. Planes designed for ULH to date have not been big sellers.

In regards to the claim by the analyst in that article that Boeing don't want the 777X to impact on 747-8i sales, that would be crazy if Boeing really thought that. I suspect pundits like him are generally no better informed than the average a.netter.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 25): In regards to the claim by the analyst in that article that Boeing don't want the 777X to impact on 747-8i sales, that would be crazy if Boeing really thought that.

You'd think so. Certainly Boeing management have all been to business school. But sometimes companies get irrational about protecting products that are performing poorly, even if the development cost is sunk.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 25): I suspect pundits like him are generally no better informed than the average a.netter.

The text of that article makes it completely clear that the author is making a valiant effort but doesn't know the area well. The worthwhile content is entirely in the Tim Clark quotes.

EK has specific needs in terms of payload/range few airlines have. Tough choice. A perfect A/C for EK would mean a less perfect aircraft for 80% of the market...

What range is needed for the 777x to fly at full capacity (all seats filled plus cargo) from DXB-LAX?

If I know something, this should be a very damn good incentive to launch the 777x program.

[quote=Atlflyer,reply=28]What range is needed for the 777x to fly at full capacity (all seats filled plus cargo) from DXB-LAX?



EK are asking for 8000nm ESAD or the equivalent of about 17hrs 30min sector time.

Quoting Atlflyer (Reply 28): What range is needed for the 777x to fly at full capacity (all seats filled plus cargo) from DXB-LAX?

That's 7300nm still air great circle, so you probably need more like 8000nm when you include reserves. Then, since you want full payload, you're talking about an aircraft with spec range in excess of 9000 nm.

Tom.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 2): non-stop DXB to LAX

Why does EK need the 777X to do this? It has later versions of the A380 for this role doesn't it?

So speculation has been that the 777-9x will have a range of around 8500nm. This would allow EK to fly DXB-LAX but not filled with cargo?

While Tim Clark does talk a bunch, when he finds an aircraft he likes, he buys them for EK in record setting numbers. No one can ignore him as a potential customer.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 4): 777-8X(77W length) should easily allow DXB-LAX without blocking seats. 777-9X would meet the needs of airlines that do not need more than 8,000nm design range.

   Ironic the 'long 777' will soon be the 'short 777.'   

Quoting A388 (Reply 6): I think EK will always have a Boeing/Airbus mix

Agreed. He will want to be taken seriously as a customer by both.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7): Clark said he'd "likely buy" the 747-8 if it had an 8300nm nominal range. Once Boeing (effectively) gave that to him, he responded with "we have no interest in the 747-8. We want a new 777." Place a firm order with no-refundable deposits for 100 of them, TC, and I expect Boeing will make it happen.

IIRC, Clark wanted an 8,500nm range for the 748I. One issue for Boeing is they improved the 77W enough to sway the economics for EK towards fleet commonality.

Quoting odwyerpw (Reply 9): Now, let's require a 10% deposit in 2013 on all 100 frames.

First, interesting and good post. But I think 10% down this far in advance is more than typical. It would be 20% down on the first 25 at most. (Or 5% of the sum.) As slots approach, then further down payments would be required. While a nitpick, it does make a Billion dollar difference!  

Quoting thegeek (Reply 32): hy does EK need the 777X to do this? It has later versions of the A380 for this role doesn't it?

We've been discussing how the mid-2013 A388s should be able to fly DXB-LAX, but not with cargo (just full pax). There is some debate, but for ULH, frequency is not going to do much for demand stimulation. So that is a route that will be up-gauged ASAP. I suspect LAX will not see 2X daily 777s again.  

Lightsaber

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 34): I suspect LAX will not see 2X daily 777s again

Currently, EK is operating one flight with B772L on the route. Starting in December, it switches to 77W and stays at one flight till the summer of 2013(as per Kayak).

I wonder if the demand is not there for two flights. Is TK taking away a big chunk of the transit traffic?

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 34): We've been discussing how the mid-2013 A388s should be able to fly DXB-LAX, but not with cargo (just full pax). There is some debate, but for ULH, frequency is not going to do much for demand stimulation. So that is a route that will be up-gauged ASAP. I suspect LAX will not see 2X daily 777s again.

Right, but the potential for further upgrades to the A380's capability in the time it will take to bring the 777X to market cannot be ignored.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 22): As a 100 frames launch customer, wonder if EK also ask Airbus to build a A350-1100?

Spot on.

It seems that all Airbus needs is a more powerful engine, somewhere around 100,000 lbf. This will also mitigate the performance issues for the A350-1000 by creating an A350-1000R.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 22): Unless Airbus have a 350 programme - but the 350-1000 isn't of the size of the 777ER today or the new 777. So it's not something that is that attractive to us at the moment unless they change it." I guess someone should tell him that he has 20 on order.

Unless this suggests that they have quietly cancelled them, as another mid east airline has done, maybe in a deal as part of the latest A380 order. Cancellations have been kept quiet in the past.

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 38): Unless this suggests that they have quietly cancelled them, as another mid east airline has done, maybe in a deal as part of the latest A380 order. Cancellations have been kept quiet in the past.

I have no reason to believe that they don't intend to take their A350-1000s. In Emirates' configuration, the 77W will seat significantly more passengers and the A350s will be closer in capacity to their 777-200s.

Quoting migair54 (Reply 12): are all the planes leased??

According to Emirates Group Annual Report 2012 as at 31 March 2012 Emirates airline had 169 aircraft in its fleet, 163 passenger and 6 freighters. At that time EK owned just six aircraft: 5 x A332 and 1 x 772.

All the freighters were on operating leases, while of the passenger aircraft 107 were on operating leases and 50 on finance leases. As far as I am aware, lessors include ILFC, GECAS, Noor Islamic Bank and Doric Asset Finance.

At that time, there were 223 aircraft on order with options for an additional 70. Not too bad for an airline headed by someone who's "reluctant to put deposits down."

What effect will EK dumping 100 fairly new 77W on the second hand market have? I imagine these will be attractive to many carriers.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 39): I have no reason to believe that they don't intend to take their A350-1000s. In Emirates' configuration, the 77W will seat significantly more passengers and the A350s will be closer in capacity to their 777-200s.

Would Emirates do a ten across A350?

Quoting Atlflyer (Reply 33): So speculation has been that the 777-9x will have a range of around 8500nm. This would allow EK to fly DXB-LAX but not filled with cargo?

Yes. When they give a single range figure, it's typically for a point on the payload-range curve significantly beyond maximum payload (often, it's full-pax, full baggage, no cargo). So, for example, Boeing quotes the 777-300ER as having a maximum range of 7930nm (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/pf/pf_lrproduct.html), which is for a ZFW of about 455,000 lbs. But the MZFW weight is 524,000 lbs, which corresponds to a range of about 5700nm (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/777_2lr3er.pdf p.37). You lose over 2000nm of range by going up to full payload (i.e. pax+bags+cargo up to the weight limit).

In similar fashion, if the 777x is spec'd as an 8500 nm airplane, its range with full cargo is probably more on the order of 6500 nm.

Tom.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 36): Right, but the potential for further upgrades to the A380's capability in the time it will take to bring the 777X to market cannot be ignored.

At full passenger load, the A380-800 lacks the cargo volume of the 77W/777X so that might be playing a role in EK's fleet planning for their ULH missions.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 43):

Thank you for clarifying this!

I'm sure this will have been discussed before, but I'd appreciate if someone could give me a run-down on the answer.

If Boeing continue to drag their feet on the 77X program and if we assume that Airbus don't do a 350-1100, which aircraft would be more attractive to EK going forward in the absence of anything else: the current generation 77W or the 748?

I guess another way of asking this is whether the 748 has lower operating costs than the 77W

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 46): which aircraft would be more attractive to EK going forward in the absence of anything else: the current generation 77W or the 748?

100 frames of 748i will have little residual value by the time EK retires them so no one will finance 100 frames of 748i at EK's price. 20 frames, may be.

In the worst case, Boeing+GE may do a 77W NEO if EK puts down the money for 100 frames. It may not be the most optimized, but is still better than anything at the desired timeframe for EK's particular purpose.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 47): In the worst case, Boeing+GE may do a 77W NEO if EK puts down the money for 100 frames. It may not be the most optimized, but is still better than anything at the desired timeframe for EK's particular purpose.

Isn't the engine going to have less thrust than the GE90? Without a new wing or weight loss measures, simply slapping new engines on the 777 might hurt performance.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 25): Both manufacturers have found it's best not to believe him. He could change his mind later, if circumstances change. Clarke wants the most expensive option, but the majority of buyers don't. Planes designed for ULH to date have not been big sellers.

I agree, but Boeing developed the 764 variant for just a few sales to DL and CO. Did Boeing loose money on this? If not there is nothing to stop them developing a 'niche' variant for EK? Or would Boeing prefer that all their engineers and designers worked on the new B737max?

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 42): Would Emirates do a ten across A350?

I bloody hope not!