User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9620
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing 777-8 / 777-9 Customer base and Future Sales

Fri Jul 07, 2017 5:20 pm

Stitch wrote:
seabosdca wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Near 100% of the 777X order book was filled in the initial selling campaign at no doubt rather "attractive" pricing. That is a larger percentage of overall orders than we saw with the 787 : 400..450 frames gifted away to show strong customer interest early.


I can only imagine the names you would call me if I characterized A350 launch orders as aircraft "gifted away."


Airbus matched 787 pricing in early A350 RFPs to better improve their chances of a win. So during that time, A350s that won were sold at the same "give away" price as the 787's that won. :angel:

Also some of Airbus's A350xwb orders stem from contracts made on the very different A350 Mk1. While the order contracts had to be renegotiated when going from MK1->XWB the margins of some of those are probably razor thin.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26461
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Fri Jul 07, 2017 5:23 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
Just to show how cheap the early A350s were: earlier this year Finnair arranged a sale-and-leaseback for one of their A350s and it resulted in a € 50 million positive impact on their Q2 results.


I believe Finnair was one of the customers for the 2004-spec A350 (as were Qatar). They would have probably made out like bandits as I expect Airbus had to offer them pricing for the A350-900XWB close to what they paid for the A350-900 to get them to both convert and wait the extra time for delivery.
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2540
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

Re: Boeing 777-8 / 777-9 Customer base and Future Sales

Fri Jul 07, 2017 6:38 pm

Stitch wrote:
seabosdca wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Near 100% of the 777X order book was filled in the initial selling campaign at no doubt rather "attractive" pricing. That is a larger percentage of overall orders than we saw with the 787 : 400..450 frames gifted away to show strong customer interest early.


I can only imagine the names you would call me if I characterized A350 launch orders as aircraft "gifted away."


Airbus matched 787 pricing in early A350 RFPs to better improve their chances of a win. So during that time, A350s that won were sold at the same "give away" price as the 787's that won. :angel:


More than matched. One RFP I know of had A350's $10+ million cheaper than 787-9's. Per frame.

Hamlet69
All gave some. Some gave all.
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Fri Jul 07, 2017 6:43 pm

One could argue that the 777X is analogous to the A350 MK1... interesting to consider.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9620
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Fri Jul 07, 2017 6:46 pm

SCAT15F wrote:
One could argue that the 777X is analogous to the A350 MK1... interesting to consider.

I don't see how. The A350 MK1 was getting a lukewarm response against a highly anticipated competitor in a time when airlines were ordering widebodies left and right. The 777X is getting a lukewarm response against a competitor that thus far has an equally lukewarm orderbook (although it is a good product), which says more about the state of the market right now than the two product offerings.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1077
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Fri Jul 07, 2017 7:32 pm

That A350 mk1 was about the fourth version touted, as well. It never got to wing production, as the 779 has, to be sure.

Airbus surely didn't want to take the step lightly of abandoning the old A300 cross section entirely. The ensuing seating density changes over the past fifteen years are what they didn't anticipate, in the end. Not as expensive a mistake as the sonic cruiser would have been, of course. Not sure how Boeing figured airlines were ready to burn more gas to go faster.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21796
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 777-8 / 777-9 Customer base and Future Sales

Fri Jul 07, 2017 7:43 pm

Hamlet69 wrote:
Stitch wrote:
seabosdca wrote:

I can only imagine the names you would call me if I characterized A350 launch orders as aircraft "gifted away."


Airbus matched 787 pricing in early A350 RFPs to better improve their chances of a win. So during that time, A350s that won were sold at the same "give away" price as the 787's that won. :angel:


More than matched. One RFP I know of had A350's $10+ million cheaper than 787-9's. Per frame.

Hamlet69


Finally all the good stuff is coming out! :-)
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9620
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Fri Jul 07, 2017 7:45 pm

texl1649 wrote:
Not sure how Boeing figured airlines were ready to burn more gas to go faster.

Because the Sonic Cruiser was initially developed in the go-go late 90s/early 00s before the dot com bubble burst, before 9/11, and before gas prices started skyrocketing. People, especially in regards to technology, tended to be a bit optimistic about the future in those days.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21796
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Fri Jul 07, 2017 7:55 pm

Polot wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
Not sure how Boeing figured airlines were ready to burn more gas to go faster.

Because the Sonic Cruiser was initially developed in the go-go late 90s/early 00s before the dot com bubble burst, before 9/11, and before gas prices started skyrocketing. People, especially in regards to technology, tended to be a bit optimistic about the future in those days.

Yep, and during the same time period another company was deciding that they needed to build an airliner with a maximum capacity of 825 passengers, with a stretch built-in as well. In hindsight they too were a bit too optimistic.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Fri Jul 07, 2017 9:27 pm

Polot wrote:
SCAT15F wrote:
One could argue that the 777X is analogous to the A350 MK1... interesting to consider.

I don't see how. The A350 MK1 was getting a lukewarm response against a highly anticipated competitor in a time when airlines were ordering widebodies left and right. The 777X is getting a lukewarm response against a competitor that thus far has an equally lukewarm orderbook (although it is a good product), which says more about the state of the market right now than the two product offerings.


326 firm orders is about as lukewarm a response as lava is about as cold as ice :roll:
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
morrisond
Posts: 1694
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm

SCAT15F wrote:
One could argue that the 777X is analogous to the A350 MK1... interesting to consider.


I would agree - they should have made the 777 wider (to accommodate 11W) just like the A350 eventually became the A350 XWB to be a real 9W and 10W for some Operators in a Leisure density.

The 777X is quite heavy compared to the A350 and they will never get over that disadvantage.

If they had started with the 787 (reuse nose, but use same technology set) and Ovalized it by 38"(19" each side - Hold your hands 19" apart and think how insignificant that is compared to the 216" internal width of a 787) to accommodate 2 more seats in the middle row and built a new Wingbox/gear, longer wing with Folding tips(same length as 777X wing - maybe not as much chord due to lighter weight of the plane) I'm pretty sure the finished product would have come in a lot lighter than the 352T MTOW of the 777X, while using less thrust as well (due to the mega long wings and lighter weight). In 70M and 80M lengths the 70M version would have a capacity similar to 777-300/A350-1000 and the 80M version would be a new capacity variant that would have really triggered the death knell of the A380.

Then Boeing would have nice 7W (MOM/NSA), 9W (787) and 11W Cross Sections on which to build variants.

Yes it would have been a more significant investment, but at the end of the day it probably would have the potential to remain in production a lot longer repaying the higher capital cost.
 
User avatar
RL777
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 1:43 am

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:58 pm

Any new aircraft thread always eventually strays into this side discussion and its ridiculous to read at times. Nearly every aircraft project in history has gained significant percentages of its order book prior to EIS near launch due to the pricing available, I'm not sure how some people are trying to say the 777X is the only project to ever have given massive discounts for signing before the aircraft is "proven". The A350 situation is completely different as like others have pointed out, pricing for the original MK1 program was much different to the XWB and during renegotiation those customers likely asked for similar if not cheaper pricing for the new program in order to stay on for a later EIS.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2910
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:58 pm

texl1649 wrote:
The 779 has lost precisely one significant sales campaign, to my knowledge. The 2013 JAL decision was a disappointment to Boeing I'm sure. But whatever, it's tough to panic in 2017 about that single order.


Didn't it lose out on the BA campaign too?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26461
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Fri Jul 07, 2017 11:28 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
The 779 has lost precisely one significant sales campaign, to my knowledge. The 2013 JAL decision was a disappointment to Boeing I'm sure. But whatever, it's tough to panic in 2017 about that single order.


Didn't it lose out on the BA campaign too?


BA ordered the A350-1000 in April 2013, which was before the 777X was launched (in November). At the time, BA noted the A350-1000s were for 747-400 replacement and that the 777X and 787-10X could be "key contenders" for future orders.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2910
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Fri Jul 07, 2017 11:30 pm

morrisond wrote:
The 777X is quite heavy compared to the A350 and they will never get over that disadvantage.


Every independent analysis shows the 777-9 burning less fuel per seat than the A35K, though that advantage would disappear absent the SFC edge.
While it's true that 779's metal fuselage makes it suboptimal against the state of the art, the A35K is suboptimal as well.
Airbus optimized the A350 for the -900, which was almost certainly the right decision. That means the A35K has fairly high wing- and span-loading and a very stressed engine (likely high mx costs and lower time on wing).
While the A35K is lighter, its wing is suboptimally small. While the 779 fuselage is heavier, its wing is optimized for it.
Both of these designs are compromises that ultimately reflect OEM judgment that the era of domination by the biggest twin is over. That really only applied to the 77W anyway and that was entirely because of its economics versus contemporaries.

There probably is no technical solution to delivering compelling economies of scale at the larger end of widebody ranges when everyone is using the same single-deck cantilevered wing design. Fuel efficiency is a matter of weight, L/D, and SFC; there's no sense in which a larger single deck massively excels a smaller one. There are economies of scale on flight crew, capital, and en route fees. These economies will continue to motivate buying larger twins for very thick routes where additional frequency offers little benefit and/or isn't possible. That will be a smaller niche than in the heyday of 77W or 744.

Given this dynamic, we'll see continued domination of the widebody space by the mid-size twins until something - strut braced wings or double-deck fuselage for example - disrupts it.
Last edited by Matt6461 on Fri Jul 07, 2017 11:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2910
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Fri Jul 07, 2017 11:34 pm

Stitch wrote:
BA ordered the A350-1000 in April 2013, which was before the 777X was launched (in November). At the time, BA noted the A350-1000s were for 747-400 replacement and that the 777X and 787-10X could be "key contenders" for future orders.


It was after ATO, however, and LH committed to the 777X prior to official launch. IIRC Boeing actively competed for the order.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26461
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Fri Jul 07, 2017 11:54 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
Stitch wrote:
BA ordered the A350-1000 in April 2013, which was before the 777X was launched (in November). At the time, BA noted the A350-1000s were for 747-400 replacement and that the 777X and 787-10X could be "key contenders" for future orders.


It was after ATO, however, and LH committed to the 777X prior to official launch. IIRC Boeing actively competed for the order.


Well BA and IAG both still seem to be pretty complimentary of the type, so it might be a future option for 777 replacement.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Sat Jul 08, 2017 12:02 am

morrisond wrote:
SCAT15F wrote:
One could argue that the 777X is analogous to the A350 MK1... interesting to consider.


I would agree - they should have made the 777 wider (to accommodate 11W) just like the A350 eventually became the A350 XWB to be a real 9W and 10W for some Operators in a Leisure density.

The 777X is quite heavy compared to the A350 and they will never get over that disadvantage.

If they had started with the 787 (reuse nose, but use same technology set) and Ovalized it by 38"(19" each side - Hold your hands 19" apart and think how insignificant that is compared to the 216" internal width of a 787) to accommodate 2 more seats in the middle row and built a new Wingbox/gear, longer wing with Folding tips(same length as 777X wing - maybe not as much chord due to lighter weight of the plane) I'm pretty sure the finished product would have come in a lot lighter than the 352T MTOW of the 777X, while using less thrust as well (due to the mega long wings and lighter weight). In 70M and 80M lengths the 70M version would have a capacity similar to 777-300/A350-1000 and the 80M version would be a new capacity variant that would have really triggered the death knell of the A380.

Then Boeing would have nice 7W (MOM/NSA), 9W (787) and 11W Cross Sections on which to build variants.

Yes it would have been a more significant investment, but at the end of the day it probably would have the potential to remain in production a lot longer repaying the higher capital cost.


The whole point of the 777X was leveraging what they had versus going clean-sheet, which this essentially would have ended up as. With all the arguing about the viability of the VLA market would making something larger than the 777-9 really be prudent? I have my doubts, especially given their finances and the development plans of other new models (read 797).
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
Channex757
Posts: 2364
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:07 am

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Sat Jul 08, 2017 12:08 am

Stitch wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
Stitch wrote:
BA ordered the A350-1000 in April 2013, which was before the 777X was launched (in November). At the time, BA noted the A350-1000s were for 747-400 replacement and that the 777X and 787-10X could be "key contenders" for future orders.


It was after ATO, however, and LH committed to the 777X prior to official launch. IIRC Boeing actively competed for the order.


Well BA and IAG both still seem to be pretty complimentary of the type, so it might be a future option for 777 replacement.

More likely for growth. I'm thinking of Iberia and their South American routes, and BA to China and Africa.

All heavy cargo routes where the 777X and its additional hauling capacity could fit well.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6550
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Sat Jul 08, 2017 12:55 am

Iberia is an interesting question. I'm not sure any of the big modern twins is going to have the field performance of their 346 fleet (or the 388 for that matter) on their high-altitude Latin America routes. The 779 will probably be about the same as the 77W for field performance, which is suboptimal, but the 35K won't be much better. The best answer on those routes might be to downsize to the excellent 359 and add frequency.

But BA will have plenty of use for the 779. Even with all their A350 orders they still have some 744 replacements unaccounted for.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1077
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Sat Jul 08, 2017 1:06 am

I surely wouldn't consider BA a lost customer, no.
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Sat Jul 08, 2017 6:15 am

texl1649 wrote:
I surely wouldn't consider BA a lost customer, no.


Neither would I, especially since it matches the 744 nearly 1:1.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
scotron11
Posts: 1432
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:54 pm

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Sat Jul 08, 2017 6:30 am

texl1649 wrote:
I surely wouldn't consider BA a lost customer, no.


Probably right. BA weren't a 773ER customer before the 787 cock-up and like them a lot. Right now they have 18 A350s coming with 18 options plus 12 787-10s. They have always contended that these orders will replace their 744s...but it's still early and the 779 hasn't flown yet.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8821
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Sat Jul 08, 2017 7:42 am

texl1649 wrote:
I surely wouldn't consider BA a lost customer, no.


For long haul BA was once a pure Boeing customer, 747, 767, and 777. Than they bought A380 and added 787. The 747 and 767 will disappear and also the 777-200 are getting old. Now BA is getting A350 and we do not know what wide body order could come next. How is it not a loss for Boeing? First they lost the BA narrow body fleet and now long haul has become at least mixed fleet. Why should it be sure that BA buys the 777-9 instead of adding more A350-1000?
The ageing 777-200 could be replaced with A350-900.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Sat Jul 08, 2017 8:13 am

mjoelnir wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
I surely wouldn't consider BA a lost customer, no.


For long haul BA was once a pure Boeing customer, 747, 767, and 777. Than they bought A380 and added 787. The 747 and 767 will disappear and also the 777-200 are getting old. Now BA is getting A350 and we do not know what wide body order could come next. How is it not a loss for Boeing? First they lost the BA narrow body fleet and now long haul has become at least mixed fleet. Why should it be sure that BA buys the 777-9 instead of adding more A350-1000?
The ageing 777-200 could be replaced with A350-900.


I feel bad you typed that all out when it had nothing to do with what he meant. He was saying "Don't count out a potential BA 777X order." Nothing more, nothing less. He wasn't reviewing BA's decade's long order portfolio.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Sat Jul 08, 2017 8:25 am

KarelXWB wrote:
Just to show how cheap the early A350s were: earlier this year Finnair arranged a sale-and-leaseback for one of their A350s and it resulted in a € 50 million positive impact on their Q2 results.


Airframe sans engines ? I'd like to see the transaction in all its details ( prepayments and currency effects are mentioned. i.e. my guess would be that less than the full transaction price on the Airbus side is handled.

How many frames at loss leader pricing stays a relevant metric to judge project health.
( project accounting at Boeing with communist "ordered profits" hides a lot of this behind smoke and mirrors.)
Murphy is an optimist
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8821
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Sat Jul 08, 2017 9:06 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
I surely wouldn't consider BA a lost customer, no.


For long haul BA was once a pure Boeing customer, 747, 767, and 777. Than they bought A380 and added 787. The 747 and 767 will disappear and also the 777-200 are getting old. Now BA is getting A350 and we do not know what wide body order could come next. How is it not a loss for Boeing? First they lost the BA narrow body fleet and now long haul has become at least mixed fleet. Why should it be sure that BA buys the 777-9 instead of adding more A350-1000?
The ageing 777-200 could be replaced with A350-900.


I feel bad you typed that all out when it had nothing to do with what he meant. He was saying "Don't count out a potential BA 777X order." Nothing more, nothing less. He wasn't reviewing BA's decade's long order portfolio.


I clearly understood what he meant. BA is buying 18 A350-1000, the nearest competitor to the coming 777-9, how can that NOT be defined as a loss?
They are designated to replace 747-400.
As BA has usually not one of each of every competing frame like LH, it is a clear indication what frame could have the better chance for future orders at BA.
 
pabloeing
Posts: 592
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:00 pm

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Sat Jul 08, 2017 9:17 am

The B777-9X is perfect for IB ........
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Sat Jul 08, 2017 9:17 am

mjoelnir wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

For long haul BA was once a pure Boeing customer, 747, 767, and 777. Than they bought A380 and added 787. The 747 and 767 will disappear and also the 777-200 are getting old. Now BA is getting A350 and we do not know what wide body order could come next. How is it not a loss for Boeing? First they lost the BA narrow body fleet and now long haul has become at least mixed fleet. Why should it be sure that BA buys the 777-9 instead of adding more A350-1000?
The ageing 777-200 could be replaced with A350-900.


I feel bad you typed that all out when it had nothing to do with what he meant. He was saying "Don't count out a potential BA 777X order." Nothing more, nothing less. He wasn't reviewing BA's decade's long order portfolio.


I clearly understood what he meant. BA is buying 18 A350-1000, the nearest competitor to the coming 777-9, how can that NOT be defined as a loss?
They are designated to replace 747-400.
As BA has usually not one of each of every competing frame like LH, it is a clear indication what frame could have the better chance for future orders at BA.


You keep looking backwards. Others are looking forwards.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8821
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Sat Jul 08, 2017 9:25 am

pabloeing wrote:
The B777-9X is perfect for IB ........


Iberia has A350 on order.
 
pabloeing
Posts: 592
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:00 pm

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Sat Jul 08, 2017 9:33 am

mjoelnir wrote:
pabloeing wrote:
The B777-9X is perfect for IB ........


Iberia has A350 on order.

The A350-900 is not a perfect replacement for the A346 fleet......They need another plane....the A350-1000 or the B777X
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8821
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Sat Jul 08, 2017 9:49 am

pabloeing wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
pabloeing wrote:
The B777-9X is perfect for IB ........


Iberia has A350 on order.

The A350-900 is not a perfect replacement for the A346 fleet......They need another plane....the A350-1000 or the B777X


Exactly, the A350-1000 for commonality and they can use the pilots from the A340.
 
pabloeing
Posts: 592
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:00 pm

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Sat Jul 08, 2017 9:51 am

mjoelnir wrote:
pabloeing wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

Iberia has A350 on order.

The A350-900 is not a perfect replacement for the A346 fleet......They need another plane....the A350-1000 or the B777X


Exactly, the A350-1000 for commonality and they can use the pilots from the A340.

In this times this is not a problem.....AC change all the fllet for the MAX and now have A320.....and more airlines makes the same......
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8821
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Sat Jul 08, 2017 10:01 am

pabloeing wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
pabloeing wrote:
The A350-900 is not a perfect replacement for the A346 fleet......They need another plane....the A350-1000 or the B777X


Exactly, the A350-1000 for commonality and they can use the pilots from the A340.

In this times this is not a problem.....AC change all the fllet for the MAX and now have A320.....and more airlines makes the same......


But having bought A350 and using A330 and A340, it would not be a change over, but a mixed fleet with a small extra pilot pool and huge added training cost for pilots and service personal for a not very big fleet.
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Sat Jul 08, 2017 10:13 am

KarelXWB wrote:
Just to show how cheap the early A350s were: earlier this year Finnair arranged a sale-and-leaseback for one of their A350s and it resulted in a € 50 million positive impact on their Q2 results.

You cannot extrapolate the original contract price from the sale/leaseback deal with any degree of certainty, unless you are privy to all the unpublished T7C's of the sale / lease, including the contracted purchase price and final balloon payment formula. In my experience, what the seller receives upfront, is deducted during the life and end of the lease.
 
Eyad89
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Sat Jul 08, 2017 11:41 am

Matt6461 wrote:


While the A35K is lighter, its wing is suboptimally small. While the 779 fuselage is heavier, its wing is optimized for it.




Well, I would like to discuss this further.


Based on how Ferpe calculated the wing ratios for A35K and 779, we got the following:


- A35K got a lower wing loading (461 vs 503). This shows that A35K has wings that are not suboptimally small When compared to 779 at least IMO.
- They both have very similar aspect ratios, with 779 being a bit higher (9.61 vs 9.39). Here we can see how the wing of A350 is more optimal with an aspect ratio of 9.77

- the lift off speed for the A35K is 162, while the 779 has it a bit higher at 165. It means for their respective weights, the wings of A35K manage to lift off at slightly lower speeds.

- The A35K needs a roll acceleration distance of 2.45, while the 779 needs a distance of 2.79, for the 779, that's even more than the distance required for 77W witg 2.71.



I guess we agree that the A359 was given the most optimized wings in the family, and so was the 779 in its family, that does not mean that the wing of 779 is more optimized than the wing of A35K IMO. While each OEM had a different design philosophy, we could agree that both wings would perform quite close to each other.


A more optimal wing does not guarantee a better fuel burn per seat as you implied. I mean, the A35K has less fuel burn per sear than the A359 even though the A359 has more optimal wings. The extra area the A35K provides outweighs the more optimal wing that the A359 has.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 777-8 / 777-9 Customer base and Future Sales

Sat Jul 08, 2017 2:39 pm

Revelation wrote:
Hamlet69 wrote:
More than matched. One RFP I know of had A350's $10+ million cheaper than 787-9's. Per frame.

Hamlet69


Finally all the good stuff is coming out! :-)


usually you would match
789 against A358
7810 against A359

And Boeing was in quite the bind when offering 789: The "turn of the tide" in profits
was much higher for the 787 than what was projected for the A350. And Airbus seems to have
kept quite well to that projection.
Murphy is an optimist
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1133
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: Boeing 777-8 / 777-9 Customer base and Future Sales

Sat Jul 08, 2017 4:24 pm

WIederling wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Hamlet69 wrote:
More than matched. One RFP I know of had A350's $10+ million cheaper than 787-9's. Per frame.

Hamlet69


Finally all the good stuff is coming out! :-)


usually you would match
789 against A358
7810 against A359

And Boeing was in quite the bind when offering 789: The "turn of the tide" in profits
was much higher for the 787 than what was projected for the A350. And Airbus seems to have
kept quite well to that projection.


Or it could be that the slowing WB market in a strong economic climate has Airbus wanting to squeeze in as much backlog before the next economic slowdown
 
MEA-707
Posts: 3736
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 1999 4:51 am

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:02 pm

Perhaps it's posted before, I didn't read everything, but given that the assembly is due to start by the end of 2017, a Line Number of the first frame should be known already? I would guess it would be around LN 1550, but perhaps they start recounting at LN 1 for this version?
nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26461
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:03 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
I clearly understood what he meant. BA is buying 18 A350-1000, the nearest competitor to the coming 777-9, how can that NOT be defined as a loss?


Do we know for a fact that Boeing responded with the 777X to the BA RFP? If they didn't, then how can a plane never offered in a competition be considered a loser in said competition?

Depending on how Business Class yields on the current High-J 747-400 routes trend, the 777-9 could make a better replacement option than the A350-1000 as it offers more floorspace to hold more seats from it's longer and wider cabin (ClubWorld will be 2+3+2 on the A35K vs. 2+4+2 on the 744 | 77W | 779).

WIederling wrote:
usually you would match 789 against A358 and 7810 against A359


Boeing would RFP both the 787-8 and 787-9 against the A350-800 as it bracketed that model in capacity. Which might explain why it never took off with potential customers.

I expect they're doing the same now with the 787-9 and 787-10 against the A350-900 depending on the route structure. As Airbus likes to note, the vast majority of current A340-300 and 777-200ER operations fall within the range envelope of the A330-300 / A330-900 so they would also fall within the range envelope of the 787-10. Only at the outer edge would the range of the 787-9 and A350-900 be required and then you're looking at load factors to see whether the A350-900's extra 27 Economy seats would be filled on a regular-enough basis. And as has been noted time and again, most average load factors are in the 80th percentile which is well within the Economy seat differential between the 787-9 and A350-900.
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:38 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
pabloeing wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

Iberia has A350 on order.

The A350-900 is not a perfect replacement for the A346 fleet......They need another plane....the A350-1000 or the B777X


Exactly, the A350-1000 for commonality and they can use the pilots from the A340.


Which is exactly why the 777X would be perfect for BA.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8821
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:38 pm

Stitch wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
I clearly understood what he meant. BA is buying 18 A350-1000, the nearest competitor to the coming 777-9, how can that NOT be defined as a loss?


Do we know for a fact that Boeing responded with the 777X to the BA RFP? If they didn't, then how can a plane never offered in a competition be considered a loser in said competition?

No we do not know that, but the A350-1000 are supposed to replace the 747-400 at BA. 18 A350-1000 leave only 18 to be replaced.

Stitch wrote:
Depending on how Business Class yields on the current High-J 747-400 routes trend, the 777-9 could make a better replacement option than the A350-1000 as it offers more floorspace to hold more seats from it's longer and wider cabin (ClubWorld will be 2+3+2 on the A35K vs. 2+4+2 on the 744 | 77W | 779).


The obsession with airlines have to replace a frame with a frame of the same capacity. If it is acceptable to replace the first 18 747-400 with 18 A350-1000, it should be possible to imagine to replace the next batch of 18 747-400 again with A350-1000. Having started with using the A350-1000 as 747-400 replacement, gives it a certain etch to replace the next batch.
 
StTim
Posts: 3474
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:43 pm

Boeing778X wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
pabloeing wrote:
The A350-900 is not a perfect replacement for the A346 fleet......They need another plane....the A350-1000 or the B777X


Exactly, the A350-1000 for commonality and they can use the pilots from the A340.


Which is exactly why the 777X would be perfect for BA.



Sorry this seems a non sequitur to me.
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:56 pm

StTim wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

Exactly, the A350-1000 for commonality and they can use the pilots from the A340.


Which is exactly why the 777X would be perfect for BA.



Sorry this seems a non sequitur to me.


Of course it does, mate.

Now, in reality, BA has a sizable 777 and 787 fleet. Integrating the 777X would be easy, as would integrating the A350-1000 at IB.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
StTim
Posts: 3474
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Sat Jul 08, 2017 6:11 pm

Now that I agree with and BA may decide to get them. They will also have a large A350 fleet by then so it will not be integration of a different type (as it would in IB if they went for the 777x)

Hence the non sequtur
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26461
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Sat Jul 08, 2017 6:30 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
The obsession with airlines have to replace a frame with a frame of the same capacity. If it is acceptable to replace the first 18 747-400 with 18 A350-1000, it should be possible to imagine to replace the next batch of 18 747-400 again with A350-1000.


Yes it would, but BA have 41 747-400s configured with (effectively) three different cabins. If "one size fit all", then one would think BA would have just ordered 41 A350-1000s and considered it done, but they didn't. Based on their statements, the A350-1000 and 787-10 are intended to be 747-400 replacements and those two frames are not identical in size or capability so BA seems to feel "one size does not fit all" when it comes to replacement. And since they have 18 A35K and 12 78X on order, that means they still have 11 744 that do not yet have replacements should BA feel they need replacing.

BA's new Club World will fit 8-abreast on the A350 and 787 as opposed to the 7-abreast of the current one and BA did patent an A350-1000 configuration with 11 rows and they have said some A350-1000s will not have First Class so I am guessing the 96-seat Club World birds will be three classes only (CW | WT+ } WT). So they could just decide to drop First on the most-premium-heavy 744 routes and use three-class A35Ks, but being the most-premium-heavy routes, that seems kind of counter-productive.

As such, I don't think it is ridiculous to consider the 777-9 as a replacement for the 80 CW-seat 747-400, the A350-1000 as a replacement for the 70 CW-seat four-class 747-400 (as well as the 777-300ER down the road) and the 787-10 as a replacement for the 52 CW-seat 747-400.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Sat Jul 08, 2017 6:48 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
pabloeing wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

Exactly, the A350-1000 for commonality and they can use the pilots from the A340.

In this times this is not a problem.....AC change all the fllet for the MAX and now have A320.....and more airlines makes the same......


But having bought A350 and using A330 and A340, it would not be a change over, but a mixed fleet with a small extra pilot pool and huge added training cost for pilots and service personal for a not very big fleet.


I'm certainly not going to advocate against an all-Airbus fleet at IB - it serves them well. However, plenty of carriers have small subfleets in their longhaul fleets. Ignoring the various A380 operators with relatively few in their fleet, we have carriers like Swiss who is largely all-Airbus but also operating the 77W. It's probably not their first choice, but for various reasons - price, availability, capability - they have instead stepped over the easy choice and introduced a small subfleet.

Again - to be clear - I'm not advocating that for IB. I'm simply pointing out that it's not out of the realm for even smaller carriers to have mixed fleets.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
rotating14
Posts: 1390
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:54 pm

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Sat Jul 08, 2017 7:08 pm

mjoelnir wrote:

The obsession with airlines have to replace a frame with a frame of the same capacity. If it is acceptable to replace the first 18 747-400 with 18 A350-1000, it should be possible to imagine to replace the next batch of 18 747-400 again with A350-1000. Having started with using the A350-1000 as 747-400 replacement, gives it a certain etch to replace the next batch.



BA operated 55 747s and wouldn't touch the 748i with 10 ft pole. Boeing thought that they'd be a sure thing. Not the case. A certain poster, username starting with a K, ending in je, tends to say basically the same thing. If you buy the A35K, you can't operate the 779 with it, despite the fact that airlines have bought both and plan to operate both.


BA could replace the remaining 747s with A35ks but it would be limiting itself to just 366 seats, maximum. No 10 Abreast. And yes, 10 abreast sucks but airlines don't buy planes on customer surveys. If BA wants an aircraft with better flexibility than the A380 but more capacity than the A35K, the 779 seems like the best option.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8821
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Sat Jul 08, 2017 7:39 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
pabloeing wrote:
In this times this is not a problem.....AC change all the fllet for the MAX and now have A320.....and more airlines makes the same......


But having bought A350 and using A330 and A340, it would not be a change over, but a mixed fleet with a small extra pilot pool and huge added training cost for pilots and service personal for a not very big fleet.


I'm certainly not going to advocate against an all-Airbus fleet at IB - it serves them well. However, plenty of carriers have small subfleets in their longhaul fleets. Ignoring the various A380 operators with relatively few in their fleet, we have carriers like Swiss who is largely all-Airbus but also operating the 77W. It's probably not their first choice, but for various reasons - price, availability, capability - they have instead stepped over the easy choice and introduced a small subfleet.

Again - to be clear - I'm not advocating that for IB. I'm simply pointing out that it's not out of the realm for even smaller carriers to have mixed fleets.


I was arguing against Iberia being the ideal 777-9 customer, but forward without supporting evidence.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8821
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Sat Jul 08, 2017 7:41 pm

rotating14 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

The obsession with airlines have to replace a frame with a frame of the same capacity. If it is acceptable to replace the first 18 747-400 with 18 A350-1000, it should be possible to imagine to replace the next batch of 18 747-400 again with A350-1000. Having started with using the A350-1000 as 747-400 replacement, gives it a certain etch to replace the next batch.



BA operated 55 747s and wouldn't touch the 748i with 10 ft pole. Boeing thought that they'd be a sure thing. Not the case. A certain poster, username starting with a K, ending in je, tends to say basically the same thing. If you buy the A35K, you can't operate the 779 with it, despite the fact that airlines have bought both and plan to operate both.


BA could replace the remaining 747s with A35ks but it would be limiting itself to just 366 seats, maximum. No 10 Abreast. And yes, 10 abreast sucks but airlines don't buy planes on customer surveys. If BA wants an aircraft with better flexibility than the A380 but more capacity than the A35K, the 779 seems like the best option.


BA is absolutely not limited to 366 pax. They have the big bird and have been talking of wanting to add some.

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