Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Glareskin
Posts: 1014
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:35 pm

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 11:56 am

Quoting a380heavy (Reply 27):
Am I the only person who wishes that the aircraft manufacturers would develop airliners that get from A to B quicker rather than fly further for longer.

No you are not. I very much agree with you and I wish we could finaly stop the fuel-burn discussion and start working on speed again!
As I recall this was the initial idea of the Dreamliner.
Hopefully the economical effects of the shale gas will force the oil prices down and open-up the road (skies) for speed again.
There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
 
brilondon
Posts: 3121
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 11:56 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 11):
I'm one of those that would rather just stay on the plane instead of making a stop. It would have to be in at least a Y+ format but I find a stop just makes my total flight time longer and gives me less chance for a good, long sleep.

Give me non-stop every time.

I like to stop if anything but to get out of the aircraft which I have been in for 8-10 hours and just walk to stretch and get some fresh air.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 15):

Doesn't Airbus say the A350-900R will be able to do LHR-AKL nonstop w/o pax and LHR-SYD with pax? So wouldn't that be the longest ranged pax airliner?



They only need to fly halfway around the world non stop or find out why they flew in the wrong direction.
Rush forever Closer To My Heart
 
User avatar
Vio
Posts: 1583
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 5:23 am

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 12:08 pm

Question is, who the hell wants to sit in economy for 19 hours?... Not me, thanks. I rather have 2 flights that are each 9.5 hrs long   At least I can get up and walk around for a few hours in some hub airport.  
Superior decisions reduce the need for superior skills.
 
waly777
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 12:11 pm

Quoting faro (Reply 41):
But most cargo isn't in a such a hurry to absolutely avoid a fuel stop midway along its route; and the bonus is that you consume less fuel with such stop than without. Cargo is not ULH-sensitive; it is cost-sensitive

Indeed, however underbelly cargo is more profitable on routes pax fly to vs using dedicated freighters with multiple stops.

E.g. I know on the DXB-LAX routes, a B77W and a B77L were used, the latter being used to carry cargo the former couldn't carry even with blocked out seats on that route. With the 8LX, it will do be able to do those routes carrying almost full or even full payload.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1513
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 12:22 pm

Quoting Superfly (Reply 6):
I think they want to do ULH more profitably than the existing 777-200LR and A340-500.

It will do that and so will a 350R (basically a 350-1000 shrink). While there are around 100 x 77L / 345 in service the vast majority are not deployed on ULH flights. Yes, they deliver cargo non-stop, but most cargo does not mind a stop and a stopping cargo flight uses less fuel than a non-stop. So the market is always going to be small which is why these aircraft are developed as incremental investments on the back of their sister aircraft.

Airlines with a single global hub strategy like EK (and in the future, TK) may have a need on their longest routes from their global hub.

[Edited 2013-05-04 05:24:15]
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10261
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 1:37 pm

Quoting a380heavy (Reply 27):
Am I the only person who wishes that the aircraft manufacturers would develop airliners that get from A to B quicker rather than fly further for longer.
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 38):
You will burn more fuel by travelling faster. Are you willing to pay twice for a ticket if an airline can cut travel time in half? Most people not.

It used to be that supersonic flight required engines to be in burner, now a/c can supercruise without burners, so the technology is getting there where the fuel burned is getting lower.
Do not look at the civilian OEM's to bring this technology to the fore, private or military will develop it and once proven and deemed safe for commercial application, the money makers will jump on-board. Issue is that the Concorde could have been replaced if the industry wanted an improved a/c, fact is they wanted to make money so the path of least resistance was chosen, we are where we are as a result.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27087
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 1:39 pm

Quoting a380heavy (Reply 27):
Am I the only person who wishes that the aircraft manufacturers would develop airliners that get from A to B quicker rather than fly further for longer.

Boeing tried with the Sonic Cruiser, but once fuel prices started to rise sharply in the early 2000's, speed was abandoned for efficiency and the Sonic Cruiser became the 787.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10261
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 1:56 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 56):
Boeing tried with the Sonic Cruiser,

In some circles, thsi is the second time around.
Boeing did attempt to compete with the Concorde and those fizzled for efficieny and payload in the form of the 747, we see a parallel?
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 2:07 pm

Quoting Superfly (Reply 45):
Any chance of seeing a 747-8I LR version?

No chance at all.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 53):
E.g. I know on the DXB-LAX routes, a B77W and a B77L were used, the latter being used to carry cargo the former couldn't carry even with blocked out seats on that route. With the 8LX, it will do be able to do those routes carrying almost full or even full payload.

   However, EK will send the A380 to LAX in the near future so pax are still more important than cargo. Perhaps they can serve that route with both aircraft.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
lebb757
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 11:36 pm

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 2:20 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 55):
Quoting par13del (Reply 55):
It used to be that supersonic flight required engines to be in burner, now a/c can supercruise without burners, so the technology is getting there where the fuel burned is getting lower.
Do not look at the civilian OEM's to bring this technology to the fore, private or military will develop it and once proven and deemed safe for commercial application, the money makers will jump on-board. Issue is that the Concorde could have been replaced if the industry wanted an improved a/c, fact is they wanted to make money so the path of least resistance was chosen, we are where we are as a result.

Concorde didnt need the burners during cruise
 
PHX787
Posts: 7892
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:46 pm

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 2:25 pm

Im dreaming here but man, B should make another 4 engine widebody, but with powerful enough engines that are fuel effecient enough to do the long range job   
Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 2:37 pm

Quoting questions (Reply 7):
And how long do people really want to be on a flight?

I fly LAX-SYD-LAX in F several times a year for the past few years. I'm so ready to get off that plane after 14 hours!

Here is a quote from a business guy flying on the SIN-EWR route:

Quote:
"I'm disappointed I can't fly direct to New York anymore," said Paul Ng, global head of aviation for law firm Stephenson Harwood. He flies to the U.S. about three times a year. "There's been quite good demand overall, both times I flew them they were full," said Mr. Ng, who advises airlines and is an expert on aviation finance.

He was not the only one, SQ received more disappointments from other customers:

Quote:
"Although disappointing that we will be halting these services, we remain very committed to the U.S. market," said Singapore Airlines Chief Executive Goh Choon Phong in a statement Wednesday.

Of course, that A340-500 is all business class. I understand that such a long trip will be less pleasant in Y.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MK-BY241A_LONGH_G_20121024184208.jpg
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 2:42 pm

I could live with flying to Perth from central EU in a one hop route. Then sleep on Australian soil before going east again. More of a psychological thing for me. I hate getting off the aircraft in an early hour in SIN or BKK.. If I wanted to go to Asia I would go to Asia, I want to go to AUS..  
 
thorntot
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 4:31 pm

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 2:44 pm

IAD or JFK to SYD, CGK, KUL, BKK, SIN, SGN...just a few suggestions of routes that should someday see non-stop service.

Although, aircraft interiors designers may need to think "outside-the-box" to accommodate passengers staying aloft for that long.
Work Hard. Fly Right. Fly United.
 
User avatar
N62NA
Posts: 4462
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 2:51 pm

Quoting questions (Reply 7):
And how long do people really want to be on a flight?

I fly LAX-SYD-LAX in F several times a year for the past few years. I'm so ready to get off that plane after 14 hours!
Quoting crownvic (Reply 8):
The ULH market has only had marginal success and what we need, is something supersonic
Quoting crownvic (Reply 8):
It is quite frustrating that there is nothing on the drawing board, to address the real need.
Quoting a380heavy (Reply 27):
Am I the only person who wishes that the aircraft manufacturers would develop airliners that get from A to B quicker rather than fly further for longer.
Quoting Glareskin (Reply 50):
I wish we could finaly stop the fuel-burn discussion and start working on speed again!

Yep, I agree with all of you. Unfortunately, looking at the "innovation" in civilian aircraft over the past 50 years, well, there really hasn't been any. If anything, flying today usually takes longer than it did 50 years ago and I can see another 50 years going by without any attention paid to the speed part of the equation.

Remember, 50 years from now the most common airplanes in use will be: 737s and A32S.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27087
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 2:58 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 57):
Boeing did attempt to compete with the Concorde and those fizzled for efficieny and payload in the form of the 747, we see a parallel?

The 2707 was killed more due to concerns about the environmental impact of SSTs than fuel efficiency.




As to the 777-8XL, as BlueSky1976 noted - it's about the payload.

At the design range of 14,500km, the 777-300ER can haul about 35 tons of payload, which is half of it's maximum structural payload. The 777-200LR, on the other hand, can haul 59 tons that distance - 91% of it's maximum structural payload.

The 777-8XL will carry about as many passengers at 10-abreast as the 777-300ER does at 9-abreast. So you're looking at a plane with the capacity of the 777-300ER, but a design range closer to that of the 777-200LR.

If EK was a 9-abreast 777 operator, they'd probably have already bought the first few years of production (   ) , but even as a 10-abreast operator, the extra 6m of length the 777-8XL has over the 777-200LR will be beneficial as they will be able to fill those extra 60 seats (assuming they are all Economy) and be able to load more cargo in the belly.
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 3:56 pm

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 5):
I don't see the point.

Many ULH routes are being found to be an non-viable business cases and the other markets that have not yet been able to be flown so far, like those listed by point2point are untested and may well find the same fate.

Unless the plane is a massive breakthrough that turns these routes into profitable endeavours, don't boher.

The point is not that they will sell a truckload of these, but that the return on investment will be a net positive given the small amount that will need to be invested on the 777-8LX as opposed to it being a stand alone project. It is developed in conjunction with the 777-9X which is likely to be very successful. Any failure by the 777-8LX to sell in significant numbers is likely to be made up for by the success of the 777-9X. In such a case, the question isn't "why", but "why not".

The 777-8LX is not a stand-alone project and should not be treated as such when discussing the potential profitability. As long as the 777X program as a whole returns a net profit, I don't see why Boeing shouldn't develop the 777-8LX.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 6):
How many would Boeing need to build to reach the break even point?
Since it's using and existing frame, my guess is that it wouldn't be that much compared to designing an all new aircraft from ground up.

  

I would agree with that guess.

Quoting questions (Reply 7):
And how long do people really want to be on a flight?

I think that's beside the point. The technological advancements in engine technology has allowed Boeing to build such an aircraft. As long as there are airlines that want to fly that far non-stop, it'll sell.

Nevertheless, the 777-8LX isn't just about range, it's also about payload, as has been mentioned in numerous posts above. Currently, the 777-200LR can carry its full payload up to 7600nm ESAD. The 777-8LX will combine th capacity of the 777-300ER with the payload-range performance of the 777-200LR.

Quoting crownvic (Reply 8):
It is quite frustrating that there is nothing on the drawing board, to address the real need.

If speed were a real need, there would be demand for it from the airlines. Clearly, then, the real need is in efficiency and range, but not so much speed.

Quoting rj777 (Reply 10):
1)Will the 777X have any design elements from the 737MAX (for example the new winglets)

The 777X will have a new wing, not just new winglets. It'll also have new engines. I don't know which design elements from the 737MAX you're referring to, but it's more likely that the 777X will "borrow" some elements from the 787 than it is from the 737MAX.

Quoting rj777 (Reply 10):
2)How much of a size difference will there be between the -8X and the -200LR and the -9X and the -300ER?

Wingspan for both the 777-8X and 777-9X will be 71m, as opposed to the 64.8m on the 777-200LR and 777-300ER.
Overall length for the 777-8X is planned to be 69.55m and the 777-9X 76.48m. The 777-200LR is 63.7m and the 777-300ER 73.9m.

In terms of seating capacity, the Boeing typical three class configuration lists the 777-200LR at 301 seats and the 777-300ER at 368 seats, while the 777-8X is projected to be a 353 seater and the 777-9X will have 407 seats.

Quoting rj777 (Reply 10):
3)And with so much interest from airlines practically ORDERING Boeing to commit to it (BA, EK, etc.), how long will it be before the first official commitment is made from a customer?

Hopefully by the end of the year when the program officially launches. I would expect EK to be the launch customer, given how much pressure they've been putting on Boeing to build it.

Quoting soyuz (Reply 12):
As for the ultra-long range, there would have to be a big fuel saving compared to its contemporaries if it is to be used for that purpose by airlines.

Well, the GE9X engines powering the 777X family will have a lower specific fuel consumption than the current GE90-115Bs. For the 777X, the more efficient GE9X engines contributes to the extra range and payload-range performance of the aircraft.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 15):
Doesn't Airbus say the A350-900R will be able to do LHR-AKL nonstop w/o pax and LHR-SYD with pax? So wouldn't that be the longest ranged pax airliner?

If and when it is launched, it might very well become the longest ranged passenger airliner. At the moment, the title belongs to the 777-200LR. The 777-8LX will beat that, as will the A350-900R if and when it is launched. The difference, though, is that while Boeing now have an authority to offer the 777X, which includes the 777-8LX, Airbus have remained relatively silent on the issue of whether, and when we'll see the A350-900R.

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 18):
I can't realistically see how airlines would be demanding that Boeing builds this.

Airlines haven't flocked to other products they have made to satisfy demand in the part, including the 77L and even more recently the 748. Initial interest is one thing, but handing over the cash is another.
Quoting DIJKKIJK (Reply 22):
There is no market for Ultra Long Range aircraft and Boeing must know this. The 77L and the A345 have not been very successful. I wonder why Boeing wants to get into this segment again.

Well, they are, and I can't see why the 777X family as a whole isn't going to be successful. If the 777X project is successful and profitable for Boeing, it matters not that the 777-8LX derivative doesn't sell more than, say, 60 copies. The likely success of the 777-9X and a potential 777-8F will more than cover for any failure to sell the 777-8LX in significant numbers.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 24):
Forget about range. It's all about PAYLOAD.

  

Indeed.

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 43):
The 777-8LR will be great for maximising payloads on current routes like SYD-DFW, JFK-JNB and DBX-LAX, but I don't see longer ones appear.

Which is what most airlines will use it for - its payload range capability rather than its maximum range capability. There may not be that many flights that truly qualify as "ultra long haul", but that does not necessarily mean that aircraft with the range of the 777-8LX will fail to sell. I believe it is likely to sell on th back of its payload-range performance. What airline wouldn't want to fly standard long haul routes with a full payload?

Quoting workhorse (Reply 47):
It is actually the other way round. No carrier, with the exception maybe of the most ruthless LCC's, is going to put 10 seats across in the A350. And you can be sure that, with the excuse of "thinner walls ", all carriers (even those who put 9 across in current generations 777's) will go 10 across on the 778/779. With this, and the generalization of the 9 abreast 787, it looks like Boeing is set to become the "less comfort" manufacturer compared to Airbus. Which is a real pity, if you ask me.

I don't understand how that contradicts the post you were replying to. Soyuz said in Reply 12 that the big selling point of the 777X is its width, which would allow one extra seat per row in economy class than most A350-1000s, which would, in turn, increase its seating capacity and decrease its operating costs per seat. That is what will make the aircraft more attractive to airlines.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 49):
Right. Because they've never done that before. 787-300, 748i *caugh*

The fact that the 787-3 was a non-starter and the 747-8i isn't selling as well as Boeing would like does not mean anything for the likelihood of the success of the 777X. Every program is different.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 49):
That all depends on how much it will cost to develop/produce, much like the 77L. If it's just another variant with minimal investment required, I don't see why not.

The same argument could be made for the 777-8LX.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 51):
They only need to fly halfway around the world non stop or find out why they flew in the wrong direction.

The equatorial circumference of Earth is 40,075.017km, according to Wikipedia. The projected maximum ranges of the 777-8LX and the A350-900R is still less than half of that.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 64):
If anything, flying today usually takes longer than it did 50 years ago and I can see another 50 years going by without any attention paid to the speed part of the equation.

How so? Aircraft today are faster than they were 50 years ago. 50 years ago, the Concorde didn't exist. Flying the same distance today should take less time than it took 50 years ago.

[Edited 2013-05-04 10:01:27]
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
JAAlbert
Posts: 1982
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:43 pm

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 4:12 pm

Quoting soyuz (Reply 12):
IMO, a big selling point for the new 777 will be its (paradoxically) wider body than the XWB's.

What will the cabin width of the 777x be? I understand Boeing hopes to get a bit more space by making the side walls thinner, but I can't see that providing more than what, 4" more space. To provide 18" Y seats, at 10 per row, Boeing needs to gain at leat 8" doesn't it?
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 4:16 pm

18" Y in 10 abreast is impossible, unless you have Smurfs on board.

I believe the thinner walls will make 17.4" seats in 10 abreast possible, versus 17" today.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
cv990Coronado
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:38 pm

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 4:28 pm

Quoting CXB77L
"How so? Aircraft today are faster than they were 50 years ago. 50 years ago, the Concorde didn't exist. Flying the same distance today should take less time than it took 50 years ago."

You make some very informed points in your long post but, I feel I must disagree with the last statement you mentioned above. If you look at old timetables of the era of 1963 + - you will see that non stop flights operated by jets had shorter scheduled timing than they currently do. I think this was partly due to airlines needing now to allow more taxi time for obvious reasons. Aircraft generally cruised at higher mach numbers and these were reduced to save fuel after the oil crisis of the early and late 70's. I agree where now flights are non stop when previously they were one or multi-stop then yes the journey times are shorter.
SSC-707B727 737-741234SP757/762/3/772/WA300/10/319/2/1-342/3/6-880-DAM-VC10 TRD 111 Ju52-DC8/9/10/11-YS11-748-VCV DH4B L
 
brilondon
Posts: 3121
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 4:31 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 61):
Here is a quote from a business guy flying on the SIN-EWR route:

You need a whole plane load of "business guy"

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 68):

18" Y in 10 abreast is impossible, unless you have Smurfs on board.

I believe the thinner walls will make 17.4" seats in 10 abreast possible, versus 17" today.

Or a plane load of supermodels with short legs.

On a more serious note, do we really need a plane that is capable of doing that? Realistically, there are only a few routes in the world that would support this kind of plane. We have seen the demand for both the A380 and the B748 and to be honest IMO there really is not any at this time.
Rush forever Closer To My Heart
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 4:34 pm

Quoting brilondon (Reply 70):
On a more serious note, do we really need a plane that is capable of doing that?

For the range? Probably not. For the payload? Yes.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 4:36 pm

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 67):
What will the cabin width of the 777x be? I understand Boeing hopes to get a bit more space by making the side walls thinner, but I can't see that providing more than what, 4" more space. To provide 18" Y seats, at 10 per row, Boeing needs to gain at leat 8" doesn't it?

They are looking at gaining 4" more width. They are not looking at providing 18" Y seats at 10 per row, but rather they are aiming for the 10 across configuration to feature the same width seats as on the 747 (17.5").

Quoting brilondon (Reply 70):
On a more serious note, do we really need a plane that is capable of doing that? Realistically, there are only a few routes in the world that would support this kind of plane. We have seen the demand for both the A380 and the B748 and to be honest IMO there really is not any at this time.

But there is a demand for higher capacity 777s, judging by the increasing number of airlines opting for 10 across configurations on their 777-300ERs. The 777-9X will have a trip cost advantage over the A380 and the 747-8, and as it, too, will also be capable of seating 400+ passengers, I would envisage that it will outsell both the A380 and the 747-8 combined.

[Edited 2013-05-04 09:40:00]
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
VC10er
Posts: 4258
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 4:48 pm

Somewhat on topic: if a 777 uses so much fuel to land and take off and land again, why are there such short tags on 777's? One is the United 777 tag from GRU to GIG, a 39 minute flight with about 39 people abord. At the same time in the morning I believe UA has 3 767's at GRU, but use the 3 class IAD metal to collect all the on-going pax to Rio. There are many other similar tags.

Wouldn't the 767 cost less fuel for such a short tag with so few pax? Will the 8X or 9X be more fuel efficient on take-off?

More on topic: As for 15 to 18 hour flights, unless you're in a wide bed seat and nobody next to you, I can't begin to imagine being smashed into Y. I'd take a flight with at least one stop as walking around the cabin had disappeared after 9/11 and since I was a victim of a "coach class DVT" at the age of 35, today at 50, I would think it would be unhealthy. Also, if Boeing plans to keep the tube metal, I assume there won't be improved cabin pressure vs the A350.
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
PanAm788
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:43 pm

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 4:52 pm

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 66):

Great post but I'd like to clarify the notion that there is no demand from airlines for a SST. The issue isn't that there is no demand. I think everyone here would agree that a reliable, safe, cost-effective SST would be a great product that would be be superior to the long-haul airliners currently in service/production. The issue lies with the fact that technology doesn't exist where an SST can be economically operated by airlines. Energy costs are too high, SSTs are too inefficient, and no one is willing to pay $10,000 more to get somewhere a few hours earlier. If, however, an efficient SST that could operate profitably were to be developed, airlines would pounce. The demand is there, the technology and cost-effectiveness is not.
 
MD-90
Posts: 7836
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 4:52 pm

Quoting questions (Reply 7):

I fly LAX-SYD-LAX in F several times a year for the past few years. I'm so ready to get off that plane after 14 hours!
Quoting crownvic (Reply 8):
I could not agree with you more. While this is just an opinion on my part, I do several transpac and transatl flights every year in a premium cabin, and cannot stand it. My duration is about 10 hours. Beyond this, I have had enough. When these flights push 12 hours, it is just too long, let alone the 15-18 hour sectors.

Feel sorry for us poor slobs sitting behind you in row 60 instead!
 
astuteman
Posts: 7133
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 5:58 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 65):
So you're looking at a plane with the capacity of the 777-300ER, but a design range closer to that of the 777-200LR

sounds like a great summation  
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 66):
I don't see why Boeing shouldn't develop the 777-8LX.

It will actually cost less to develop than the 777-8X - less will change relative to the 777-9.

Which is pretty much the approach Airbus adopted with the A350-800.
It does mean it will be sub-optimised in many applications though, like the A350-800.

If it's efficient enough, though, that shouldn't matter too much

Rgds
 
ferpe
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 6:04 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 76):
t will actually cost less to develop than the 777-8X - less will change relative to the 777-9.

Which is pretty much the approach Airbus adopted with the A350-800.
It does mean it will be sub-optimised in many applications though, like the A350-800.

If it's efficient enough, though, that shouldn't matter too much

It makes sense for B to do the -8LX and the -9X, I checked what would be the diff in making a 8X or 8XL (higher OEW), in my model the fuel burn difference on a 7500nm ESAD leg is only 0.1t between a -8X (ie a 315t bird) and a 340t -8LX. The latter can use a lot more components from the main entry, the -9X without any changes, it would take the wing, engines, MLG etc unchanged and mate to a prolonged -200LR fuselage (64m to 69m). The 9400nm range but moreover it's outstanding full cabin full cargo hold range would set it apart from the 35J. Me thinks a lot of the deliberations over the last months has been to make the -8X a viable model with it's own niche vs 35J and 7810   .
Non French in France
 
IMissPiedmont
Posts: 6199
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 12:58 pm

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 6:22 pm

Quoting tioloko100 (Thread starter):
enjoy lots of non-stops flights around the globe

I don't think the word enjoy belongs in any discussion of air travel ion today's climate. Perhaps endure, tolerate or suffer are better.

And that is my opinion of flights of 2 hours or more. Of course for first class travel with fares of $20,000 dollars these flights would be survivable but what does that say about the market for this type of aircraft? Just that there is no market.
The day you stop learning is the day you should die.
 
wingscrubber
Posts: 823
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2001 1:38 am

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 6:27 pm

Passengers don't want more range at Mach 0.8, the experience is already miserable enough, worth sedating yourself for. Refueling stops are welcome respite for any flights over 9 hours - What's needed is more speed! But that'll never happen.
Such a depressing era to be an aerospace engineer.
Resident TechOps Troll
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10261
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 6:52 pm

Quoting VC10er (Reply 73):
Somewhat on topic: if a 777 uses so much fuel to land and take off and land again, why are there such short tags on 777's? One is the United 777 tag from GRU to GIG, a 39 minute flight with about 39 people abord. At the same time in the morning I believe UA has 3 767's at GRU, but use the 3 class IAD metal to collect all the on-going pax to Rio. There are many other similar tags.Wouldn't the 767 cost less fuel for such a short tag with so few pax? Will the 8X or 9X be more fuel efficient on take-off?

Yes the 767 would be cheaper.
A look at the arrival and departure times of all a/c would provide a better answer, perhaps the crews for the 767 are getting required rest for their return flight while the 777 crews are still in hours??? a UA operational issue with their crew.
 
ferpe
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 6:58 pm

Quoting wingscrubber (Reply 79):
Such a depressing era to be an aerospace engineer.

Worked on the Concorde eh?
Non French in France
 
morrisond
Posts: 2660
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 7:16 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 77):

Ferpe - how much more cargo can the 8LX lift than the A351 at max weight - same range?
 
User avatar
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3276
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 7:42 pm

Quoting crownvic (Reply 8):
I could not agree with you more. While this is just an opinion on my part, I do several transpac and transatl flights every year in a premium cabin, and cannot stand it. My duration is about 10 hours. Beyond this, I have had enough. When these flights push 12 hours, it is just too long, let alone the 15-18 hour sectors. The ULH market has only had marginal success and what we need, is something supersonic. I would much rather sit in a basic 2 x 2 Business Class seat and get to my international destination in 3-4 hour, than be wined and dined in Business Class or in a First Class suite for 12 - 18 hours.

I was fortunate enough to have flown Concorde JFK-LHR. Unless you have done this, one cannot describe the feeling of getting off a plane so far from home, in just a few hours time. It is quite frustrating that there is nothing on the drawing board, to address the real need.

If they offer such a service I am sure they could develop a 140 to 180 pax supersonic airplane and there would be demand for it, instead of spending 7500 dollars one way to be 14 hours there and have a lux bathroom and a large screen, Id pay that for a 6 hour flight in a 34 pitch with nice width and a small IFE.

Quoting mariner (Reply 13):
I'm exactly the reverse. After about eight hours, I;m screaming to be let off. I'd rather have a stopover for a couple of days, somewhere interesting.

Why pay all that money just to get there?

I am the same I always try to break my flights if I can to 6 to 8 hours tops. No ammount of space and ice can take my boredom away..

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 18):
I can't realistically see how airlines would be demanding that Boeing builds this.

Airlines haven't flocked to other products they have made to satisfy demand in the part, including the 77L and even more recently the 748. Initial interest is one thing, but handing over the cash is another.

When you spend tones of fuel to carry fuel for range it make it silly, factor in the possible increases in iol prices and you are looking at disaster.

Quoting DIJKKIJK (Reply 22):
There is no market for Ultra Long Range aircraft and Boeing must know this. The 77L and the A345 have not been very successful. I wonder why Boeing wants to get into this segment again.

Pissing contest... they need the PR after the 787 fiasco, heck the 345 sold like 2 dozens and nobody wants it second hand...

Quoting a380heavy (Reply 27):
Am I the only person who wishes that the aircraft manufacturers would develop airliners that get from A to B quicker rather than fly further for longer.

How many people step off a long haul flight after breathing in 350 other people's farts for 15 hours, look happy and refreshed?

ZERO, Id pay twice to get there faster. transpac and transatlantic flghts are the reason for SS travel.

Quoting faro (Reply 33):
Factor in any jump in fuel prices over the next 6-7 years and the cost of burning fuel to carry fuel may become quasi-prohibitive for any normal (ie, non J-only) pax mix.

100% agree.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 38):
You will burn more fuel by travelling faster. Are you willing to pay twice for a ticket if an airline can cut travel time in half? Most people not.

YES resounding YEs, and also the technology to make it cheaper to operate and economics of consumption are already there....its just that nobody has the cojones that Juan Trippe has these days..

TRB
The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
 
ferpe
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 9:00 pm

Quoting morrisond (Reply 82):
Ferpe - how much more cargo can the 8LX lift than the A351 at max weight - same range?

It is better I show a payload-range chart for the A350-1000, 777-8LX and 777-9X. The numbers after the models are the kg/knm/m2 cabin area but it is for the leg where they fly their nominal payload, ie full pax+bags. When I make them all fly the same leg they are virtually consuming the same fuel per m2 transported. This is when we assume the 35J has 153t OEW ie about 3t overweight from original spec and the -8LX comes in at 160t and the -9X at 175t. That might seem high but includes those extra seats and their galleys (200LR goes from 301 to 353 pax and 77W from 365 to 406), extra aircond, oxygen, safety equipment etc (click on the chart to see better).

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/PR35J8LX9X_zps7e30794b.jpg

Now you can put in 35t for the 35J and -8LX pax and then look at how much cargo you will have weight for left given the range you want to fly. Space wise for LD3 they stack up like 35J 44, -8LX 36, -9X 46 . The -8LX seems small cargo wise but the -200LR has 32 LD3 positions and the -8LX is 7 frames longer dividing into 4 ahead of the wingbox and 3 behind I would assume, giving 1 more row of LD3 in each bay (frame spacing 0.645m).

Edit: just to be clear I no longer assume the -9X comes in at 344t, the stronger engines and EKs influence points to more like 348t which I have here.

[Edited 2013-05-04 14:04:37]
Non French in France
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5613
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 9:12 pm

Quoting a380heavy (Reply 27):
Am I the only person who wishes that the aircraft manufacturers would develop airliners that get from A to B quicker rather than fly further for longer.

The problem is physics; as you approach the sound barrier nasty things happen aerodynamically; only one of which is the sonic boom. The long and short of it is that modern airliners are flying as fast as is economically feasible with current technology. Remember that the Sonic Cruiser was going to be only a few percent faster than current jets and burn the same fuel; the 787 ended up flying the same speed and burning 20% less fuel.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 38):
You will burn more fuel by travelling faster. Are you willing to pay twice for a ticket if an airline can cut travel time in half? Most people not.

Try paying twice the price to get there 20% faster. I had dramatic proof of this in my 182: I could burn 6-7 gallons an hour and cruise at about 110 knots, or I could burn 12-13 gallons an hour and cruise at 130-135 knots. That is nearly doubling fuel consumption to gain less than 20% more speed.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8267
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 9:19 pm

Must be a slow news day at Boeing PR department, after working real hard on full page apology ad. If they sold only 59 x 200LRs, what is the market for this? Hard to believe there are many ultra-long-haul city pairs in the world with 400 x daily.
All posts are just opinions.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11180
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 9:59 pm

As I understand it, Airbus has not launched the A-359R (or the proposed A-359F) yet. The ULH market is currently filled with a modern airplane, the B-772LR, launched within the past 10 years. I believe Boeing has sold about 55 B-77Ls to date, and Airbus sold about 34 A-345s and A-345IGWs The A-345 was also launched just 11 years ago.

The B-77L has about 500 nm (9500nm) more range than the A-345IGW (9000nm). That is more than 18 hours for the A-345IGW and more than 20 hours for the B-77L.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 10:58 pm

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 66):
Aircraft today are faster than they were 50 years ago.

That's basically incorrect, with rare exceptions like the 747 and A380 which are roughly as fast as the 707s, 727s and DC-8s of 50 years ago. Most other current types are slower, and when combined with airport and ATC congestion, plus airport security checks and related hassles, virtually all nonstop block times are slower today than 50 years ago.

For example, in April 1962 AA's scheduled block time for their 5 daily 707s JFK (then IDL)-LAX was 5 hrs. 20 min. Today it varies from about 6 hrs to 6 hrs. 30 min.for all carriers operating JFK-LAX. Most of the difference isn't due to the aircraft's slower cruising speed but some of it is.
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sat May 04, 2013 11:22 pm

Quoting questions (Reply 7):

I travel business class for work, and economy with the whole family (business as a couple), and 14 hours for me is the limit too on the A380, and ideally a couple of hours less on other aircrafdt types.

For work, we increasingly meet at a logical midpoint. Means meetings are off employee & supplier radar too. If urgent, we conference call or in exceptional cases, charter. For pleasure, stopovers break the journey.

A long range direct flight would be a benefit to attend say a funeral, between a busy work schedule. Thats an example though where family should take priority over work.
 
User avatar
NWAROOSTER
Posts: 1329
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:29 pm

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sun May 05, 2013 12:07 am

To fly a 9000 mile or more flight requires tankering a lot of fuel which carries extra weight and is expensive to buy and tanker. There are also other costs, such as a heavier and more rugged aircraft along with increased crew members and rest areas for them along with with increased food that must be carried and and larger lav storage capacities. The aircraft would need to fly full to even consider this. Aircraft like this would be more expensive to fly on shorter routes due to the weight penalty due to it's higher empty weight than a shorter range aircraft. It would be simpler and more cost effective to make a technical stop for fuel and service the aircraft than to fly an aircraft on such long flights. The only real added charge would be for the landing fee required to make the fuel stop.   

[Edited 2013-05-04 17:12:06]
Procrastination Is The Theft Of Time.......
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sun May 05, 2013 12:23 am

Quoting ferpe (Reply 84):
It is better I show a payload-range chart for the A350-1000, 777-8LX and 777-9X.

Thank you as always for putting these charts together ferpe. So the 351 should have a lower trip costs on all routes and up to 5400nm it should be able to lift approximately the same payload as the 8LX. After that, depending on weights, the 8LX will be able to carry more cargo than the 351. The question for airlines come down to at what payload and range does that trade off happen.

It looks like it would be a good aircraft for airlines with customers who are comfortable with a 17.4" seat and have hubs in Asia or Middle East and want to fly to the Americas with varying level of cargo needs. It is difficult to find a European route where the 8LX is better than the 351. Limited sales to airlines with strong US East Coast presences. Not going to be in every airline's stable but it does serve a purpose.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
N62NA
Posts: 4462
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sun May 05, 2013 12:27 am

Quoting PanAm788 (Reply 74):
The issue lies with the fact that technology doesn't exist where an SST can be economically operated by airlines.

Right - and is likely to stay that way for at least the next 50 years.

Quoting cv990coronado (Reply 69):
If you look at old timetables of the era of 1963 + - you will see that non stop flights operated by jets had shorter scheduled timing than they currently do. I think this was partly due to airlines needing now to allow more taxi time for obvious reasons. Aircraft generally cruised at higher mach numbers and these were reduced to save fuel after the oil crisis of the early and late 70's.

Exactly my original point. I didn't think I had to spell it all out like you did, but the fact that someone challenged my statement indicates that I probably should have. Anyway, thanks for clarifying.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27087
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sun May 05, 2013 12:37 am

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 86):
If they sold only 59 x 200LRs, what is the market for this?

I would not be surprised if Boeing was pitching this to A340-600 and 9-abreast 777-300ER operators.

Most customers did not buy the 777-200LR to fly only passengers and bags 9000nm. They bought them to fly passengers and bags and a full belly of revenue cargo 7000nm.

I expect most customers who buy the 777-8XL will do the same (but with more people, bags and cargo).
 
Desh
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:52 pm

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sun May 05, 2013 12:57 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 13):
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 11):
I'm one of those that would rather just stay on the plane instead of making a stop. It would have to be in at least a Y+ format but I find a stop just makes my total flight time longer and gives me less chance for a good, long sleep.

Give me non-stop every time.

I'm exactly the reverse. After about eight hours, I;m screaming to be let off. I'd rather have a stopover for a couple of days, somewhere interesting.

Why pay all that money just to get there?

Yep - I cannot expect ultra long hauls being a preference for most people I know - 8 - 10 hrs and I am ready to get out of a plane. The key here is the limitation of passengers - seat pitch will never increase commensurate with the increase in range of the plane.

Also, I have not seen much of a price difference when it comes to pricing of tickets.
"History is merely a list of surprises. It can only prepare us to be surprised yet again." - Kurt Vonnegut
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sun May 05, 2013 1:00 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 93):
9-abreast 777-300ER operators.

Good point. And there are a surprising number of 9 abreast 777-300ER operators. Also surprising to me was that many of these aircraft are in Asia. I have collected some data on 77W sales and started a new thread here.

777-300ER Deliveries And Orders Analysis (by tortugamon May 4 2013 in Civil Aviation)

tortugamon
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sun May 05, 2013 1:12 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 91):
So the 351 should have a lower trip costs on all routes and up to 5400nm it should be able to lift approximately the same payload as the 8LX.

You need to take into account the ( expected) higher efficiency of the -8LX engines . This will tighten the margin.
Looking at Ferpes table and plotting the -8LX at EK's 8500nm requirement , the ~45t payload looks pretty good . Say 365 passengers and ~ 10t of cargo. On a timetable day of just over 16hrs ( ~7700nm ) the 55t payload has to be very attractive although I suspect it may be volume limited to something less than that.
 
YYZAMS
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 4:54 pm

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sun May 05, 2013 4:10 am

I wonder during my lifetime there will be a commercial aircraft that will make it around the world without stopping.

Maybe airline companies will just have air to air fueling like the military some time soon.

or aircraft will be able to leave earth's atmosphere cheaply and let the rotation of the earth "fly" you there for long haul flights
 
ferpe
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sun May 05, 2013 4:14 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 87):
The B-77L has about 500 nm (9500nm) more range than the A-345IGW (9000nm).

This is not the ranges in the standard configuration, both the 77L and 350 play with cargo hold tanks to get to those ranges ie then their 32 and 30 LD3 capacity is no longer there and their OEWs no longer are at their standard values. With standard configs they fly about 9000nm and 8600nm respectively.

Edit: the A340-500 has cargo hold tanks as standard, they need 15t more fuel (total 168t) than the A340-600 to get to 8600nm, the 30 LD3 is with these tanks in place. The 77L gets to 9000nm without tanks, it has 146t of fuel. Quite an amazing difference in efficiency  Yeah sure .

[Edited 2013-05-04 21:49:53]
Non French in France
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner

Sun May 05, 2013 5:24 am

How much difference would the 8X,8X-LR, 8X-F and the 9X really have, fuselage plugs mostly?

The freighter and the LR is the same frame as I understand, but the non LR should have a lower MTOW and less tanks? But still same engines and wings? I know engines can be de-rated with software.

So really how much expense would the 8X be if B does the freighter anyway? Maybe flying around with huge fans is a bit wasteful if the thrust needs are lower?

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos