Isn't It Kind Of Weird 777X MOU's Aren't Firm Yet?

morrisond · Sat May 10, 2014 11:12 pm

It's now been quite some time since the initial 777X launch flurry and MOU's. Many/most of them have not been firmed up yet?

Why such a long delay?

Has EK rejected the Concept and is asking for something different?

Are they maybe contemplating Clean Sheet and an even bigger twin?

tortugamon · Sat May 10, 2014 11:34 pm

I am sure Boeing would have liked for them to be singed by now but I don't think it is a big deal yet. It often can take a considerable amount of time between commitment and firm order and I don't think the 77X spec is perfectly clear at this moment. If you remember there were changes to engine thrust levels leading up to the DXB air show and I think they prematurely announced in order to get the positive PR that comes from the order but there are still a number of performance characteristics that need to be worked out and agreed to before the lawyers sign off. Either side would have used the media by now if there was significant discontent.

If we get to November then I will begin to question it but is there really another aircraft on the horizon that will work for EK? The 778 and the 779 are built for them and although I think they would prefer to have a fleet entirely of A380s, they cannot feasibly do that for the time being leaving these aircraft as the likely choice to replace most of their 77Ws.

tortugamon

rotating14 · Sat May 10, 2014 11:40 pm

It may be a matter of firming them at Farnborough. For all we know they might be firm already but both parties are keeping quiet.

Stitch · Sat May 10, 2014 11:45 pm

Quoting morrisond (Thread starter):
Why such a long delay?

The Middle Eastern carriers often choose to firm their orders at the largest annual air show for maximum new exposure, so I expect EK and QR will do so next month at Farnborough.

Quoting morrisond (Thread starter):
Has EK rejected the Concept and is asking for something different?

Very unlikely. If Tim Clark wasn't happy with the design, he would not have placed such a large MoU in the first place.

And Akbar Al Baker of QR is not shy about calling a press conference to announce his dissatisfaction with an OEM.

Quoting morrisond (Thread starter):
Are they maybe contemplating Clean Sheet and an even bigger twin?

I'm confident is saying "no".

Boeing778X · Sun May 11, 2014 4:12 am

Quoting morrisond (Thread starter):
Has EK rejected the Concept and is asking for something different?

Are they maybe contemplating Clean Sheet and an even bigger twin?

BIG No!
What other big twins are there?

chiad · Sun May 11, 2014 6:19 am

Quoting morrisond (Thread starter):
Has EK rejected the Concept and is asking for something different?

I have been wondering about this, especially since the commitment never firmed up last year.
But I am the only one it seems. Oh ... and you perhaps.

So I resist when "everybody" counts this almost as a firm order.
Some claimed that this "was not your average order" and therefore it was as good firm.
Most media and news report treat it as firm also.
Who ever wrote about the B777X in Wiki placed this order in the "firm pool", only with a foot-note mentioning it as a commitment.
So what can I do when so many wants it to be firm so much that they disregard the fact that it's "only" a commitment (a long with hundreds of other frames with both Boeing and Airbus)?

Let's hope it will be firmed during Farnborough so it will finally be settled.

astuteman · Sun May 11, 2014 7:01 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 1):
I don't think the 77X spec is perfectly clear at this moment.

One of two things occurs to me.
Either EK are using the muscle of a 150 frame order to influence the spec some more, or
There's a fierce haggle going on about the final pricing and contract conditions.
The 777X lists as very expensive, and it was Tim Clark's ONE gripe about the 77W

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
If Tim Clark wasn't happy with the design, he would not have placed such a large MoU in the first place.

Agreed. I don't the order is ultimately at risk

Rgds

ZKCIF · Sun May 11, 2014 7:05 am

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 2):
For all we know they might be firm already but both parties are keeping quiet.

is it legal for Boeing under USA laws to do this?

BoeingVista · Sun May 11, 2014 7:08 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 6):
There's a fierce haggle going on about the final pricing and contract conditions.

Possibly as Boeing does not currently state a list price for the 777X though an estimate based on the Lufthansa order puts it at $347m Wall St suspects that it is more towards $400m

DocLightning · Sun May 11, 2014 8:28 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 6):
The 777X lists as very expensive, and it was Tim Clark's ONE gripe about the 77W

And I wonder why. The airframe is the same, just the wing and engines. That's not small, but why so much more than the clean-sheet A350?

ha763 · Sun May 11, 2014 8:41 am

It is only Emirates and Qatar that are taking a longer time to firm their orders. Maybe it is taking longer to line up the financing due to the size of their orders. ANA's order was announced a little more than a month ago. Lufthansa, Etihad, and Cathay all have firm orders.

Quoting ZKCIF (Reply 7):

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 2):
For all we know they might be firm already but both parties are keeping quiet.

is it legal for Boeing under USA laws to do this?

Boeing will list firmed orders for airlines that are not ready to announce under 'Unidentified Customer(s).'

[Edited 2014-05-11 01:42:08]

cv990Coronado · Sun May 11, 2014 9:18 am

I have been wondering the same myself, at times I thought I might have somehow missed the announcement.

Having in jest, called it the 777-EK or 777-ME, I can't see how Tim Clark could get any other suitable aircraft tailored to his needs. Conversely I can't see any other airline or combination of airlines being ready to order 150 aircraft.
As has been mentioned it is probably about the price and also EK fighting to get the spec as tailored to their requirements as possible. Boeing must obviously be trying to keep as higher margin as possible. At the same time trying to avoid making the aircraft too ME specific.

Farnborough would be an ideal time to firm up. Sort of double PR event after announcing the MOU at the Dubai airshow. I think the general media and public don't really differentiate much between a MOU and an order . Great PR some might even think it's two orders.

The question could be asked why LH were so quick to order? Maybe to stop the ME3 messing too much with the spec? Maybe to make sure they got the right delivery slots or maybe both?

KarelXWB · Sun May 11, 2014 10:28 am

Tim Clark publicly stated that Emirates and Boeing are still talking about performance figures. The contract will be signed once both parties have reached an agreement. We may expect another range boost.

[Edited 2014-05-11 03:55:57]

PW100 · Sun May 11, 2014 1:25 pm

Quoting ha763 (Reply 10):
Boeing will list firmed orders for airlines that are not ready to announce under 'Unidentified Customer(s).'

Right, 150 firm 77X orders under Unidentified will not disclose the customer . . . Hope they firm it at Farnborough at the latest.

PW100

fpetrutiu · Sun May 11, 2014 2:57 pm

777X Summary Through April 2014

Customer Name

Cathay Pacific Airways>20-Dec-2013 >21
Etihad Airways > 17-Nov-2013 > 25
Lufthansa German Airlines > 17-Nov-2013 > 20

According to Boeing, there are already 66 firmed 777X orders. It is really great to see LH being one of the first and leading the charge on the 777.

[Edited 2014-05-11 07:59:37]

ericm2031 · Sun May 11, 2014 3:24 pm

Are any of the 787-10 orders firm yet?

BoeingVista · Sun May 11, 2014 3:36 pm

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 14):
According to Boeing, there are already 66 firmed 777X orders. It is really great to see LH being one of the first and leading the charge on the 777.

This could also be the problem.. LH having firmed up and got guarentees on a spec that the EK don't like which is exactly what happened with the 747-8.

Stitch · Sun May 11, 2014 4:23 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 6):
There's a fierce haggle going on about the final pricing and contract conditions.
The 777X lists as very expensive, and it was Tim Clark's ONE gripe about the 77W.

TC and AAB have noted in the press they used the combined size of their commitment (200 frames) to secure "advantageous" pricing from Boeing.

Quoting ericm2031 (Reply 15):
Are any of the 787-10 orders firm yet?

The 787-10 has 132 firm orders from 6 customers currently on the books.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 16):
This could also be the problem.. LH having firmed up and got guarentees on a spec that the EK don't like which is exactly what happened with the 747-8.

I remain convinced that EK was never serious about the 747-8. With the TOW increase, the OEW and SFC reductions and the tail fuel tank the plane should be able to do the 8300nm nominal mission they claimed to need and yet Tim Clark formally rejected any interest in the plane once it could hit his numbers.

mffoda · Sun May 11, 2014 4:28 pm

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 8):
Possibly as Boeing does not currently state a list price for the 777X though an estimate based on the Lufthansa order puts it at $347m Wall St suspects that it is more towards $400m

It's listed on Boeing's "newairplane" web page.

http://www.newairplane.com/777x/

777-8X = $349.8 million

777-9X = $377.2 million

zotan · Sun May 11, 2014 8:32 pm

I believe most orders are firm? Where are you getting this information?

zotan · Sun May 11, 2014 8:34 pm

Quoting ha763 (Reply 10):
It is only Emirates and Qatar that are taking a longer time to firm their orders. Maybe it is taking longer to line up the financing due to the size of their orders. ANA's order was announced a little more than a month ago. Lufthansa, Etihad, and Cathay all have firm orders.

That's not how aircraft financing works. Financing will be dealt with much closer to delivery.

Revelation · Sun May 11, 2014 8:36 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 1):
I am sure Boeing would have liked for them to be singed by now but I don't think it is a big deal yet.

If you read the Seattle papers, all the important things are happening such as the agreements with labor, the siting for the new wing plant, etc. If these things weren't happening, that would be the 'big deal'.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 9):
Quoting astuteman (Reply 6):
The 777X lists as very expensive, and it was Tim Clark's ONE gripe about the 77W

And I wonder why. The airframe is the same, just the wing and engines. That's not small, but why so much more than the clean-sheet A350?

The short answer has to be that Boeing thinks it can get the larger sum, or at least it thinks the customers will feel like they got a bigger price break during negotiations if it starts with a larger sum!

Besides, doing a new wing using a new material and design for the model, then hanging new generation engines off it and certifying all of the above is not a small thing to do. Yes, it's mostly a scaled up 787 wing with scaled up GE90/GEnx tech on it, but the devil is in the details.

KarelXWB · Sun May 11, 2014 8:39 pm

Quoting zotan (Reply 19):
I believe most orders are firm? Where are you getting this information?

The Qatar Airways and Emirates orders are not yet listed in the order book.

http://active.boeing.com/commercial/...definedselection.cfm&pageid=m15527

81819 · Sun May 11, 2014 9:01 pm

Quoting zotan (Reply 20):
Quoting ha763 (Reply 10):
It is only Emirates and Qatar that are taking a longer time to firm their orders. Maybe it is taking longer to line up the financing due to the size of their orders. ANA's order was announced a little more than a month ago. Lufthansa, Etihad, and Cathay all have firm orders.

That's not how aircraft financing works. Financing will be dealt with much closer to delivery.

What's the rush to firm these orders up?

The MOU would cover pricing arrangements and delivery slots, so from a contract perspective the airlines have probably covered what they need to cover for the time being. Also, with EK and QR placing the two largest orders for the type they could have negotiated more favourable contract terms that the other airlines couldn't

With the 777X still being a paper plane it could be advantages for these airlines to delay formal signing of the order. Am I right in suggesting deposits would be paid at order stage?

Stitch · Sun May 11, 2014 9:09 pm

Quoting travelhound (Reply 23):
Am I right in suggesting deposits would be paid at order stage?

They would likely have paid some form of deposit when they signed their MoUs committing them to buy the plane. Boeing has noted that 737 MAX commitments have a deposit so it stands to reason so would 777X commitments. There is probably an additional deposit paid when the MoU is firmed.

mjoelnir · Sun May 11, 2014 9:17 pm

Quoting zotan (Reply 19):
I believe most orders are firm? Where are you getting this information?

Qatar and Emirates have not ordered yet. It is now about half a year since the MOU's.

KarelXWB · Sun May 11, 2014 9:17 pm

Quoting travelhound (Reply 23):
The MOU would cover pricing arrangements and delivery slots,

This Bloomberg article from January this year has some details.

Emirates and Boeing are still talking about performance guarantees

Basically, both parties are talking about:

> Performance guarantees
> Technical support
> Warranties

etc

Regarding the performance guarantees, it's not a secret EK wants a bit more range for the 777-9. Lufthansa however quickly firmed their order to prevent EK from making more changes. It will be interesting to see the final outcome.

SEPilot · Sun May 11, 2014 10:06 pm

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 16):
LH having firmed up and got guarentees on a spec that the EK don't like which is exactly what happened with the 747-8.

I think that this is a bit overblown; EK did not really want the 748, while LH did. So Boeing pleased LH. It is clear that EK really does want the 779; and when push comes to shove, they will get the plane they want and LH will have to accept it. If LH wants to order 155 of them instead of 20 they can call the shots.

KarelXWB · Sun May 11, 2014 10:08 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
I remain convinced that EK was never serious about the 747-8. With the TOW increase, the OEW and SFC reductions and the tail fuel tank the plane should be able to do the 8300nm nominal mission they claimed to need and yet Tim Clark formally rejected any interest in the plane once it could hit his numbers.

Besides, EK never signed a MoU for the 747-8i in the first place. And they had an alternative aircraft available (A380) which is not the case for the 777X.

seabosdca · Sun May 11, 2014 11:46 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 9):
That's not small, but why so much more than the clean-sheet A350?

Because Boeing's analysts think the aircraft will be worth that much more (or, more realistically, that much more after the usual discounts) to customers. Pricing isn't based on the cost to manufacture, it's based on the OEM's perception of customer return on investment.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
I remain convinced that EK was never serious about the 747-8.

The EK 747-8 hoopla was a fairly transparent attempt to exert some leverage on Airbus regarding A380 pricing and performance guarantees (remember that EK always talked about the 747-8 only for their most demanding missions, where it looked early on like it would have a range advantage over the A380). EK had essentially no leverage against Airbus and talking up the 747-8 was an attempt to find some.

BoeingVista · Mon May 12, 2014 12:01 am

Quoting mffoda (Reply 18):
It's listed on Boeing's "newairplane" web page.

http://www.newairplane.com/777x/

777-8X = $349.8 million

777-9X = $377.2 million

That does not agree with what LH say the list was unless they bought the -8X, which I don't think they did or Boeing have raised their list price towards what Wall Street expected.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 27):
I think that this is a bit overblown; EK did not really want the 748, while LH did. So Boeing pleased LH. It is clear that EK really does want the 779; and when push comes to shove, they will get the plane they want and LH will have to accept it. If LH wants to order 155 of them instead of 20 they can call the shots.

Thats not really the way that contracts work, Boeing have to deliever the specification that they promissed LH or pay penalties (see 787).

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 28):
Besides, EK never signed a MoU for the 747-8i in the first place. And they had an alternative aircraft available (A380) which is not the case for the 777X.

I think that they would have ordered some if they got the spec what they wanted but yes they had an alternative.

lightsaber · Mon May 12, 2014 12:27 am

QR lagging to firm up an order is normal for AAB. He needs some more time to negotiate in the press.

For EK, I subscribe to the theory they are trying to improve details. Until the MOU approaches expiration, they have no rush. As with the GE-90 powered 777s, they will likely remain the #1 customer, so Boeing will negotiate.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 30):
I think that they would have ordered some if they got the spec what they wanted but yes they had an alternative.

I agree. However Airbus did improve the A388 performance at range which opened up DXB-LAX which was a bit too far, due to 'fittings weight' for the initial EK A388s.

Lightsaber

SEPilot · Mon May 12, 2014 12:28 am

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 30):
Thats not really the way that contracts work, Boeing have to deliever the specification that they promissed LH or pay penalties (see 787).

With this much money at stake, and LH having bought only 20 while EK has bought 150, believe me, Boeing will find a way to get LH to accept the specs that they agree to with EK, even if it involves paying penalties. But I think it will eventually be resolved without that. I suspect that EK wants more range than LH does, and ultimately that is what they will get. And I also suspect Boeing will find a way to meet the fuel burn specs that they have guaranteed to LH, and so everyone will be happy.

BoeingVista · Mon May 12, 2014 1:02 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 32):
With this much money at stake, and LH having bought only 20 while EK has bought 150, believe me, Boeing will find a way to get LH to accept the specs that they agree to with EK, even if it involves paying penalties.

Yup, I agree but it gets a bit more problematic if Airbus and / or LH start talking serious talk of an A350-1100, LH walking away is the nightmare scenario that Boeing will avoid at all costs.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 32):
I suspect that EK wants more range than LH does, and ultimately that is what they will get.

Thats going to add weight and the 777X is already a bit of a porker.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 32):
And I also suspect Boeing will find a way to meet the fuel burn specs that they have guaranteed to LH, and so everyone will be happy.

As Scotty used to say, you can't change the laws of physics.

tjh8402 · Mon May 12, 2014 1:03 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 9):

Quoting astuteman (Reply 6):
The 777X lists as very expensive, and it was Tim Clark's ONE gripe about the 77W

And I wonder why. The airframe is the same, just the wing and engines. That's not small, but why so much more than the clean-sheet A350?

Because Boeing is a for profit business and they can. If they sell the 777x for more than the A350 while spending less on it's development and construction than Airbus did on the A350, Boeing shareholders will forget the 787 fiasco that much quicker. Some reason Ford loves loaded up $60k Platinum Trim F150s - they don't cost 3x a base model F150 to make, but people will still pay that for the privilege of ownership. It has been widely reported that the F series and its derivatives are responsible for as much as 90% of Ford's profits.

rotating14 · Mon May 12, 2014 1:22 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
TC and AAB have noted in the press they used the combined size of their commitment (200 frames) to secure "advantageous" pricing from Boeing.

Correct. The following link illustrates how EK and QR were matched on the 777x deal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Cmwm481nkc

BoeingVista · Mon May 12, 2014 2:57 am

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 35):
Correct. The following link illustrates how EK and QR were matched on the 777x deal.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 32):
I suspect that EK wants more range than LH does, and ultimately that is what they will get.

This feeds into the major gripes that the majority of airlines have with Airbus / Boeing widebodies and the ME3,

1) That the OEM's build aircraft with excesive range that makes flying their routes less efficient than the ME3 who need the extra range.

2) That the ME3 get ridiculous discounts that push up the purchase price of aircraft for everybody else.

Both of these factors make it difficult for world airlines to compete.

rheinwaldner · Mon May 12, 2014 4:24 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 32):
And I also suspect Boeing will find a way to meet the fuel burn specs that they have guaranteed to LH, and so everyone will be happy.

But this means that from the point, where fuel burn ist merely met, the 777X will "improve" towards more range.

This is the bad aspect for LH (and the bulk of other non-ME3 operators).

When the 77W appeared, the positive surprise was better CASM than expected.

EK will make sure that the surprise in case of the 77X will be "more range", which is just boring and useless to most other carriers...

SEPilot · Mon May 12, 2014 6:08 am

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 33):
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 32):
And I also suspect Boeing will find a way to meet the fuel burn specs that they have guaranteed to LH, and so everyone will be happy.

As Scotty used to say, you can't change the laws of physics.

.No, you can't; but every plane seems to improve beyond its original specs, and I do not see this trend stopping. Boeing will find some more weight that they can eliminate, and GE will find a couple more tenths of a percent of fuel burn improvement, and they will get there. And from what I have seen, LH is about the only carrier who has complained about manufacturers offering TOO MUCH range, but when offered the only plane out there that is designed for reduced range (the 7810) they turned up their nose at it. So Boeing will find a way to make them happy with more range than they wanted.

frigatebird · Mon May 12, 2014 11:30 am

Would it be very difficult for Boeing to offer two versions of the 777-9? One with the same range as the 77W (which IIRC is the current spec), which should be enough for most non-ME airlines - and a ME special with extra thrust (water injection maybe), additional fuel capacity etc.
Not unlike the current 777-200LR, you can choose between 110k or 115k thrust engines, and additional fuel tanks are an option too.

81819 · Mon May 12, 2014 11:39 am

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 39):
Would it be very difficult for Boeing to offer two versions of the 777-9? One with the same range as the 77W (which IIRC is the current spec), which should be enough for most non-ME airlines - and a ME special with extra thrust (water injection maybe), additional fuel capacity etc.

Not unlike the current 777-200LR, you can choose between 110k or 115k thrust engines, and additional fuel tanks are an option too.

..... but, you would probably make the 778X obsolete in doing so.

From where I sit taking weight out of the plane to gain efficiency would be far more advantageous than putting weight in to gain range.

frigatebird · Mon May 12, 2014 11:52 am

Quoting travelhound (Reply 40):
..... but, you would probably make the 778X obsolete in doing so.

Question is how bad that would be for Boeing

The 777-8X definitely is a ME special, can't see anyone else than EK and EY ordering it... Not even QR is interested.

EPA001 · Mon May 12, 2014 1:10 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 26):
Regarding the performance guarantees, it's not a secret EK wants a bit more range for the 777-9. Lufthansa however quickly firmed their order to prevent EK from making more changes. It will be interesting to see the final outcome.

Well, I don't expect a EK-tailored B777-9 at this point in time, but who knows what the outcome will be. LH firming their orders as a launch customer was indeed a strong tactical move against the giant from Dubai.

CXB77L · Mon May 12, 2014 1:40 pm

Quoting morrisond (Thread starter):
Why such a long delay?

What's the hurry? We're still at least five years away from the 777X's debut.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 9):
That's not small, but why so much more than the clean-sheet A350?

Because they can? If customers are willing to buy the 777X at a higher price than the A350, then there's no reason to drop the price. Besides, I doubt many airlines, if any at all, buy at list price, so I'd argue that list prices are almost irrelevant these days - it's just a starting point in negotiations between carriers and Boeing.

Quoting zotan (Reply 19):
I believe most orders are firm? Where are you getting this information?

Boeing lists the number of firm orders at 66. The rest are "commitments", but I'd be very surprised if the majority of them didn't turn into firm orders.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 30):
That does not agree with what LH say the list was unless they bought the -8X, which I don't think they did or Boeing have raised their list price towards what Wall Street expected.

... or they just got a launch customer discount.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 30):
Thats not really the way that contracts work, Boeing have to deliever the specification that they promissed LH or pay penalties (see 787).

That's not the way businesses work. Sometimes it is cheaper to terminate the contract and pay the penalties than to forego a potentially larger profit from a bigger client.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 40):
From where I sit taking weight out of the plane to gain efficiency would be far more advantageous than putting weight in to gain range.

I'm not sure I agree: passenger capacity and payload-range are the discernible advantages of the 777X over the A350 (along with fuel burn per seat that's pretty much on par), so if you were to remove one of its advantages, I think it could adversely affect the business case for the 777X. The A350, being lighter, will in any event be a better aircraft for shorter routes, not to mention the 787. As such, I don't see the sense in reducing the range capabilities of the 777X.

BoeingVista · Mon May 12, 2014 1:43 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 38):
No, you can't; but every plane seems to improve beyond its original specs, and I do not see this trend stopping. Boeing will find some more weight that they can eliminate, and GE will find a couple more tenths of a percent of fuel burn improvement, and they will get there.

Yes, eventually 2-3 years after EIS they will grab an extra few percent but you draw the best plane that you think you can build with the technology you believe you have; you can't just magic up extra performance or you end up in 787.. Its pretty obvious that LH firming up first has caused issues for Boeing WRT EK's demands.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 38):
And from what I have seen, LH is about the only carrier who has complained about manufacturers offering TOO MUCH range, but when offered the only plane out there that is designed for reduced range (the 7810) they turned up their nose at it. So Boeing will find a way to make them happy with more range than they wanted.

Who says that its the range that LH are after? Maybe they want the capacity as an early replacement for the 747-8's.

From the article referenced in post 26

Quote:
“I’d say we have agreement on probably the most significant part of contract, but there is a lot of additional detail to work out,” Bentrott said today in an interview at the Bahrain Air Show. “That will take us a few more weeks to sort through.”

A few more weeks was 5 months ago..

Stitch · Mon May 12, 2014 2:17 pm

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 39):
Would it be very difficult for Boeing to offer two versions of the 777-9? One with the same range as the 77W (which IIRC is the current spec), which should be enough for most non-ME airlines - and a ME special with extra thrust (water injection maybe), additional fuel capacity etc.

The airframe structure still has to be designed to support the higher thrust and higher operating weights which adds weight. But if that extra weight provides a significant amount of extra performance the tradeoff seems acceptable. The 777-300ER did as well as it did not only because of the CASM, but because it also offered better payload-over-range than originally projected.

As noted by SEPilot, LH went with the smaller and heavier A350-900 over the larger and lighter 787-10 in part because they needed the extra performance of the A350-900 to cover the 30% of the missions the 787-10 could not because it lacked the range.

tortugamon · Mon May 12, 2014 3:03 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 37):
But this means that from the point, where fuel burn ist merely met, the 777X will "improve" towards more range.
This is the bad aspect for LH (and the bulk of other non-ME3 operators).

I would love to see the fuel burn analysis between a 7,800nm 777x and an 8,300nm bird. I have a hard time believe that 500nm makes a World of difference to fuel burn. Really are we even talking about .5% here?

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 44):
A few more weeks was 5 months ago..

It was less than four months. Fuzzy math on your end.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...d-performance-guarantee-talks.html

tortugamon

KarelXWB · Mon May 12, 2014 3:10 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 46):
Really are we even talking about .5% here?

A 0.5% fuel burn cut is a figure airlines will hunt for, especially when you have 34 of those jets on order.

[Edited 2014-05-12 08:12:01]

tortugamon · Mon May 12, 2014 3:31 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 47):
A 0.5% fuel burn cut is a figure airlines will hunt for, especially when you have 34 of those jets on order.

It sure is and I bet LH will fight for whatever they can get. However, my point was that I don't even think it is that big of a difference and to suggest that a European airline wouldn't be interested in the aircraft because of such a small fuel burn difference is splitting hairs. I don't think an airline chooses to not go with the 777x because it has 8,200nm range instead of 7,800nm. The times that they can load more cargo and charge more money should make up for the tiny additional fuel burn that they may have to carry around when they would rather not.

tortugamon

rheinwaldner · Tue May 13, 2014 4:17 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 46):

I would love to see the fuel burn analysis between a 7,800nm 777x and an 8,300nm bird. I have a hard time believe that 500nm makes a World of difference to fuel burn. Really are we even talking about .5% here?

Look at the formulas here, the Breguet formula in the first chapter 13.3:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FA...L/thermodynamics/notes/node98.html

The only measure to increase range is to increase the term Wi / Wf (weight initial divided by weight final). As final weight stays, MTOW must go up. But how much?

Range scales with the natural logarithm of the term Wi / Wf.

8300nm is 6,4% more range than 7700nm.

Assume Wi / Wf is about 2 at 7700nm range (very roughly is good enough, because the ln 's slope differs not that much between 1,7 and 2,2).

Lets now look at this diagram:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Log4.svg

Using my calculator I can extract the weight increase needed, to make the term ln(Wi/Wf) 6.4% larger.

Doing so I get:
MTOW must be increased by 5%.

So as (induced) drag scales proportionally with W and drag equals thrust, average thrust must be 2.5% more. And so must fuel burn...

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net