Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27462
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Thu May 15, 2014 3:02 am

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 95):
Like you though I also wondered if the 20 firm had anything to with 748 options, I can't seem to find up to date information about these options do Boeing still show them?

The original PR from Boeing and LH noted the contract was for 20 firm orders and 20 purchase rights, so I believe we've come to a general consensus that they didn't have options on the plane.



Quoting mffoda (Reply 94):
Not all of the early reports were consistent.
Some suggest, even more.... Like this AW piece?

In LH's 2013 Annual Report, they list 34 777X orders (page 55). From reviewing past reports, their annual reports do not list firm orders plus options, just firm orders.
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2060
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

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

Thu May 15, 2014 3:07 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 98):
Unless you think the 778 is competitive on sub 5knm routes then we have more to worry about then following the conversation and we have to start wondering about aptitude.

What the hell are you talking about?

Seriously you pick arbitary figures and then bang in a specious claim, the 787-10 is designed to haul a full passenger and cargo load about 12,000 km as launched, we assume that people considering buying it would want to use a fair bit of that range so why would any aircraft need to be competitive down to 5000 km 41% of the range to be considered against it???

And yes I am wondering about 'aptitude'.
BV
 
Cerecl
Posts: 626
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:22 am

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

Thu May 15, 2014 3:37 am

To me the theoretical 787-10ER is beside the point. Not only because this is a 77X thread  

787-10 is due to debut in 2018-19 which means it will not have RR Advance engine at EIS. I am not at all certain that it is going to be straight-forward to put such engine on 787-10. Even if 787-10ER were to materialise eventually it would be a mistake to assume that A359 will stand still between now and then to be "destroyed". Further, I continue to be doubtful of the extent of efficiency gain 787-10 enjoys over a 2018-2019 A359 in real world scenarios.

Similar argument applies to A350-1100 and 777-9

As to the OP's question, why don't we wait till Farnborough?
Fokker-100 SAAB 340 Q400 E190 717 737 738 763ER 787-8 772 77E 773 77W 747-400 747-400ER A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A346 A359 A380
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

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

Thu May 15, 2014 5:04 am

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 101):
Seriously you pick arbitary figures and then bang in a specious claim, the 787-10 is designed to haul a full passenger and cargo load about 12,000 km as launched, we assume that people considering buying it would want to use a fair bit of that range so why would any aircraft need to be competitive down to 5000 km 41% of the range to be considered against it???

My figures are not arbitrary, please pay closer attention. I have not mentioned kilometers, I have used 'knm' where knm = 1,000's of nm's. At 5,000nm (9260 kilometers) most ~8,000nm (14,800+ kilometer) aircraft will become payload limited as is the 77W (4,500nm is its max range at max mtow I believe without consulting the chart) and that is where the 778 has a possible payload (revenue) advantage. If you aren't carrying a payload beyond these ranges, presumably the 778 could be a good fit. The 781 even with a range boost won't change this dynamic.

tortugamon

[Edited 2014-05-14 22:17:27]
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

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

Thu May 15, 2014 5:23 am

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 99):
Maybe we should ask SQ why they flew 777's around Asia for a decade when they were probably not the right aircraft for the job, they didn't need the range, before switching to the A333.

I don't know why. Maybe "nobody wants to buy an airbus".  

Seriously, the point was that a 778 (which will be a very niche aircraft) is likely not cannibalizing sales of the less-capable 787-10. More than likely, it will be a 77X vs A35X scenario or perhaps a 787/77X vs A35X scenario. It's less likely that it's a 787-10 vs 777-8 competition.

Do you disagree, and if so, why?

-Dave
-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
BoeingVista
Posts: 2060
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

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

Thu May 15, 2014 6:24 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 103):
knm

1000's of newton meters? Nanometers? A nautical mile would be a NM or nmi..Try to be clearer and not misuse SI units.

I suggest that you

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 103):
please pay closer attention.

But taking your arbitary figures.. There are many situations in which fleet buys do not conform to your rules, but the SQ utilisation of 777's still stands out.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 104):
I don't know why. Maybe "nobody wants to buy an airbus".

Haha, ok I'll pay that but SQ fleet utilisation does undercut your original argument.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 104):
It's less likely that it's a 787-10 vs 777-8 competition.

Yes, I do accept that this is less likely.

[Edited 2014-05-14 23:27:48]
BV
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

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

Thu May 15, 2014 6:32 am

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 105):
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 104): It's less likely that it's a 787-10 vs 777-8 competition.
Yes, I do accept that this is less likely.

Well, I stumbled into the conversation so I might have misread it, but that was the only point I was trying to make. And in actuality, I think it was actually Tortugamon that was making it - I was just trying to clarify.

I'm a glutton for punishment.

-Dave
-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
Stitch
Posts: 27462
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Thu May 15, 2014 2:24 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 103):
(4,500nm is its max range at max mtow I believe without consulting the chart)

The ACAP for the 777-300ER gives a range of around 5750nm at MTOW at Maximum Structural Payload (70,000 kilograms). Actual customer performance will vary based on DOW, mission rules, winds aloft, airport / runway conditions, etc.
 
mffoda
Posts: 1099
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

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

Thu May 15, 2014 7:36 pm

While not an order... The WSJ has a piece from the AerCap CEO. (Perhaps they are waiting for FAS?)


"AerCap Expects to Buy Upgraded Boeing 777, CEO Says"

"The chief executive of AerCap Holdings AER -2.62% NV said Thursday that the newly enlarged aircraft-leasing company expects to buy the upgraded Boeing Co. BA -1.58% 's 777 jet but isn't evaluating a proposed revamp of the rival A330 from Airbus Group EADSY -1.74% NV."
harder than woodpecker lips...
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

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

Thu May 15, 2014 7:51 pm

I expect other lessors to buy it as well, the question is when.

Air Lease Corporation is also looking at it but said the price is too high.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

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

Fri May 16, 2014 1:03 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 109):
Air Lease Corporation is also looking at it but said the price is too high.

I haven't read that they said that (though I wouldn't be terribly surprised). I have read: “They have an acquisition price advantage,” when talking about the A351 but I think that should clearly be expected. I think AL will be a customer before EIS.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

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

Fri May 16, 2014 8:51 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 110):
I haven't read that they said that

It was a few months ago "the price is an issue".
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

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

Fri May 16, 2014 3:57 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 111):
It was a few months ago "the price is an issue".

Missed that, thanks.

tortugamon

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