User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 1:56 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 49):
Lose out to the A350-1000? They aren't the same plane.

Isn't that what this thread is all about?  
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 5:10 am

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 50):

Refer to reply 1, 4 ,9, 11, 16, 19, 30, 40, and 45 for a complete summery of the thread   

I'll state the highlights.

>The 777-8 is not a direct competitor to the A350-1000
>The 777-8 and its ability to fulfill high payload missions will make it more attractive than the 777-200LR
>The 777-8 will outsell the 777-200LR by a fair to large margin
>The 777-8 will be popular (in it's own respect) as it will be the sole ULH aircraft in the 2020s
>The 777-8 will be more utility capable than the A350-1000 (approximately 11 more cargo, with 1,300 miles more range and 3 more passengers)
>The A350-1000 will dominate the 350 seat market
>The A350-1000 will outsell the 777-8 overwhelmingly
>The A350-1000 could replace the 777-300ER in time

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 43):
And the odds are not that good imho considering the new situation in that market segment as of 2020-2021 or so.

The 777-8 isn't at risk from either the 777-9 or A35J. In reality, it's like it's stablemate, the 777-9; an aircraft in a class of one. It will be the world's only ULH aircraft, and it will satisfy it's niche well.

The 777-8, and -9, for that matter, are aircraft Airbus simply cannot match fully. I think Boeing has positioned themselves well with the 777X. They will have an excellent ULH product in the 777-8, an excellent widebody with incredible economics with the 777-9, which also serves as a replacement for the 777-300ER and 747, and, eventually, a remarkable freighter in the 777-8.

No A350 bashing here, but as wonderful as the A350-900 and -1000 will be, they'll probably end up being the 777-200 and -300 of today, albeit with rather nice winglets. Besides, the A350 will have it's hands full competing against the 787-9 and -10 in their respected markets.

The A350 simply isn't a 777X competitor.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9207
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 6:31 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 45):
Empty weight difference will be a little less than 10%, but it will be significant. The 778 will only have an advantage on routes over 10 hours with quite a bit of cargo. I think *most* of the viable routes would be better flow with a 779 as noted:

On the other hand if weight would be so deciding the A330NEO should never have happened as it is outclassed in every metric by the 787.Asipire did a very good analysis and showed how outclassed the A330NEO really is.

777X on the other hand has a new wing, new engines.. I can see the 778 beating the A350-1000 on routes above 6000nm. The biggest enemy of the 778 will be the 777-9 - more seats for similar trip costs.
 
travelhound
Topic Author
Posts: 1932
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 7:55 am

Quoting flyabr (Reply 38):
In what way(s)?

As far as I understand it the 777X wings will have more lift (Surface area) for takeoff and less drag at cruise (wing span).

So these are two stages of the flight where the 777X wing could have an advantage over the A350 wing.

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 40):
While the 778 may have a drag advantage that helps it further out, those further out ranges will be the minority of the trips. The 778 will be somewhat like the A358: it's got more range than the other OEM's plane and a drag advantage at that range, but for little penalty you can buy the bigger sibling or save fuel on the (mostly) shorter sectors by flying the draggier but lighter competitor.

The question is when will this advantage start to kick in.

In another thread a poster referred to the 777X as a combi. Could the economics of a "combi" type aircraft change the base economics of the aircraft to a degree that the extra weight (used to haul freight) was actually an advantage, not a disadvantage?
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2945
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 8:11 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 9):
It really frustrates me to know only 169 A350-1000s and 43 777-8s have been ordered already, especially for the A350-1000, which has been on the market for 9 years (and a little over a year for the 777-8). Both aircraft have excellent capabilities.

Contrary to Boeing's public view, the "sweet spot" of the long haul market has probably moved down from 77W to 787-9 and A359. During the 77W's heyday (gawsh I feel old saying that), there weren't any smaller airliners of similar range that could touch it on efficiency. 77E, 77L, A345, A346 weren't close per seat. The A333 is close - maybe equal - per seat but doesn't have the legs. Now that airlines can get within 6-7% of a 350-seat A35J or 779 without the capacity risk, I doubt we'll see the same proportion of sales in this size class as during the last decade.

In a decade or so, when A and B re-up with Ultrafan-generation engines, there's going to be even more reason to stay around 300 seats - especially when the 78J gets ~8,000nm range. The market will shift increasingly to point-to-point, unless an ultra-efficient VLA (A380X?) or super-twin comes along.

Regarding the 778's cargo edge over the A35J - that won't matter except on 13+ hour routes anyway. There isn't enough space to put in more cargo - unless they're shipping iron ore or lead.

[Edited 2015-01-06 00:13:13]

[Edited 2015-01-06 00:14:34]

[Edited 2015-01-06 00:15:29]

[Edited 2015-01-06 00:24:38]
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2945
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 8:29 am

Quoting travelhound (Reply 53):
Could the economics of a "combi" type aircraft change the base economics of the aircraft to a degree that the extra weight (used to haul freight) was actually an advantage, not a disadvantage?

Cargo yield is relatively low. Leeham quoted it as 1/5 of pax yield per weight, although numbers I've seen say maybe between 1/3 and 1/4. For a combi to be more efficient overall, the base plane probably has to start with a significant efficiency advantage, were it all-pax. Then you can trade higher-yielder pax for lower-yielding cargo. The 778 doesn't have that kind of edge over the A35J. This dynamic is probably why Combis have not sold well, historically. Which always makes me wonder - how does KLM efficiently run those 744combis?
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2945
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 8:43 am

Quoting travelhound (Thread starter):
http://aeroturbopower.blogspot.com.a...will-more-than-challenge-a350.html

Was anybody else sort of surprised by how simplistic this analysis is, given that the author seems to be a well-respected blogger?

-it compares weight/seat at MTOW. But 779 has better SFC, as he states, and better L/D, as he seems to recognize, which means empty and average mission weight will favor the A35J to a greater degree than MTOW comparison.

-the weight/seat comparisons take the OEM seat counts for granted, whereas we know Boeing's spec premium cabin is still TWA's circa 1990.

I'm not trying to be insulting - the guy's left toe knows more about engine performance metrics than I could pretend to on the best day. But still, odd...
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 8:45 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 27):
The fact that the A350-1000 is lighter than the 777X is irrelevant.

Weight is everything but irrelevant aviation. The core market is below 5,000 nm for which the 778 is too much aircraft.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 27):
The top 50 longest flights are all well above 10 hours long, and any airline who orders the 778 could possibly even open up new markets.

The problem with ULH is that direct flights are less economical than stopovers. To give you an simplified example: an airline will make more money with an 779 + 400 pax + 10t cargo and 1 stop, than an 778 + 350 pax + 20t cargo and no stop. Passenger revenue is much higher and the aircraft can carry much less fuel. It's the same reason why airlines preferred the 77W over the 77L. And for those airlines that don't need the payload capabilities, there's an lighter alternative available (like we are seeing today with A330 vs 777).

[Edited 2015-01-06 00:52:23]
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
travelhound
Topic Author
Posts: 1932
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 8:59 am

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 55):
Cargo yield is relatively low. Leeham quoted it as 1/5 of pax yield per weight, although numbers I've seen say maybe between 1/3 and 1/4. For a combi to be more efficient overall, the base plane probably has to start with a significant efficiency advantage, were it all-pax. Then you can trade higher-yielder pax for lower-yielding cargo. The 778 doesn't have that kind of edge over the A35J. This dynamic is probably why Combis have not sold well, historically. Which always makes me wonder - how does KLM efficiently run those 744combis?

.... but, freight doesn't want in-flight entertainment, meals or a stewardesses asking it if it wants a blanky during the flight.

If we consider the industry that sits behind looking after passengers (2/3's of airlines staff) the 80% revenue advantage may only come with an effective margin of 2-3%. Remember there are freight only airlines, so the economics of carrying freight only must work.

If we consider the 778X wing as being 1-2% more efficient; and the engine 2% more efficient, than the ten tonne (or 6.5%) higher OEW weight would not be as bad as one would imagine.

If we consider the 778X higher freight hauling capability the 3-5% disadvantage could be negated by freight revenues.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9207
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:20 am

Engines could deliver more imho.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 9:40 am

Quoting travelhound (Reply 58):
If we consider the 778X higher freight hauling capability the 3-5% disadvantage could be negated by freight revenues.

It's main advantage is carrying the freight on 13/14 hour sectors. For everything below that (i.e. the core market), more economical alternatives are available (779, A35J).
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2945
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:10 am

Quoting travelhound (Reply 58):
.... but, freight doesn't want in-flight entertainment, meals or a stewardesses asking it if it wants a blanky during the flight.

If we consider the industry that sits behind looking after passengers (2/3's of airlines staff) the 80% revenue advantage may only come with an effective margin of 2-3%. Remember there are freight only airlines, so the economics of carrying freight only must work.

This is all true - can't just look at the revenue side of things, cost matters too. I'm sure you weren't accusing me of being so dumb.  

You're right that cargo revenue has very high margins - I hear the 2/3 figure thrown around a lot. I like to be analytical and look at numbers, even approximate numbers, when I can, so here goes:

A decent estimate of typical long-haul costs might be:
~45% fuel
~20% capital
~10% maintenance
~15% crew (5% flight crew, 10% cabin)
~5% fees (landing, ground handling)
~5% miscellaneous passenger-related (catering, IFE, etc.)

Of that breakdown, only 15% would be taken out for cargo. This is a very rough estimate, so let's call it 20%. So at first cut, trip cost would decline by 20% of the percentage of passengers traded for cargo. If we take out 25% of pax capacity, that's a first-cut 5% trip cost savings. For now, let's assume that pax revenue also decreases by 25%.

Let's assume we were flying at breakeven earlier, and see if we can get back to breakeven with the cargo. That means our cargo compartment has to supply revenue equal to 20% of trip revenue, were the plane all passengers.

We'll stick with the 778 for this example, and convert 25% of its passenger cabin to cargo. Estimate for length of 778 passenger cabin:
-77W's pax cabin is ~175ft long. 778's cabin should be ~14ft shorter (I think its length overall is ~228ft, 77W is ~242ft). So let's 778's cabin it's 160 feet, for convenience.
-At 25% of length, the cargo compartment is 40 feet long. It's about 19 feet wide at the floor, and let's assume you can remove crown monuments and make stack cargo 8ft high. The volume of that space is ~6,000ft3, but in containerized form it would be more like 5,500ft3 or less.*

-Industry standard cargo density is 11.85lbs/ft3. So our cargo compartment can take ~65,000lbs (!) of cargo.

Let's compare revenue where cargo yields 1/5 of pax per weight. If pax+bag is 225lbs, that's the weight of ~290 pax. Divide by 5 for lower cargo yield and our cargo gets us the revenue of ~58 pax. Typical 3-class configuration for a 778 is going to be ~350 pax, so our cargo doesn't quite get us that 20% of missing revenue (16.5%).

But all that cargo weight isn't free. We've added 65,000 lbs cargo, subtracted ~70 pax, for net weight gain of ~50,000lbs. Seats and cargo tares are a close to a wash, most likely, but just to be generous to the combi let's take another 50lbs/pax out of OEW for those missing seats. So net weight gain is ~47,000lbs.

We roughly compute increased fuel burn as follows:
-assume induced drag is 1/3 of total drag
-Holding wing constant, induced drag is proportional to the square of lift.
-at cruise Lift=weight
-779's OEW is ~400,000lbs. 778 is probably ~380,000lbs. Mission start weight with 350 [email protected] is ~459,000lbs. The combi's mission start weight with 265 pax and 47,000lbs net cargo increment is ~487,000lbs. The combi is flying ~6% heavier when it lands.
-That 6% weight increment means a ~13% increase in induced drag. However, that's at landing. Over the course of the mission, it's more like 15% because you need to burn more fuel to carry more fuel.
-If induced drag is 1/3 of total drag, total drag, and therefore total fuel burn, has increase by 5%.
-If fuel is around half of trip cost, that's about 2.5% of trip cost.

SO:
-we traded 25% of pax revenue, saving 5% of cost - net 20% below breakeven.
-Cargo revenue makes up 16.5% of the difference but
-also adds 2.5% to fuel cost

Net result: down 6% from breakeven. We got about 2/3 of the revenue we needed to breakeven. Only if cargo yield is 1/3 of pax yield (65% higher than Leeham suggests), it would be just barely breakeven. 1/3 is a very high yield figure, however.

Plus:
-we haven't considered cargo handling costs
-Actual usable volume would be lower than the 5,500ft3 taken here: 777F has ~15,000ft3 on its main deck. 778 is only ~10% longer, so all-cargo it would have ~17,000ft3 of usuable space. One quarter of that is ~4,300ft3. So really I just modeled it way too generously. Fuck. Should have started from the freighter version instead of pax... Not rewriting this post now. But anyway, it just illustrates that, even on the most generous assumptions allowed to a combi, it's really difficult to make up for lost pax revenue.

Note that these results are consistent with cargo being very high-margin. In this example it adds 16.5% to trip revenue but only 2.5% to trip cost. The problem for cargo is that trip cost is mostly fixed by fuel burn, capital, and maintenance, and these costs are very high. If, however, your base plane had a huge CASM advantage, then you could afford to trade pax floor space for cargo. If you built an A38X or somthing.  WinkRevised, Optimized A380-8X Part One: Weight Est. (by Matt6461 Dec 14 2014 in Tech Ops)

EDIT: I say "mission start weight" but should say "mission end weight."

Quoting travelhound (Reply 58):
Remember there are freight only airlines, so the economics of carrying freight only must work.

A lot of dedicated freighters these days feed belly traffic to widebodies. EK does this a lot from China, for example, where its pax network isn't as dense. Cargo goes to Dubai on freighters, then to Europe basically for free. As the example above shows, the marginal cost of carrying cargo is quite low. Substituting it for passengers, however, is quite expensive. Also, the freight-only cargo market is in dire straits. Boeing keeps thinking its revival will save the 748, but that's likely a pipe dream. Some dedicated freighters serve high-yield products for which there's no pax option, like shipping fish from Africa's Great Lakes area. On routes with widebody pax flights, however, competitive pressures from airlines who can fly cargo for free would greatly lower yields.

[Edited 2015-01-06 02:16:22]

[Edited 2015-01-06 02:17:28]

[Edited 2015-01-06 02:22:21]

[Edited 2015-01-06 02:25:34]

[Edited 2015-01-06 02:38:32]
 
travelhound
Topic Author
Posts: 1932
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 11:31 am

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 61):

Wow!

A simple metric is for every tonne of cargo you need 2 tonne of fuel. At approximately 7.8 barrels per tonne at $100.00 per barrel we have fuel costs of $1.60 per kilogram of freight. At a wholesale price of $1.90 per kilogram we have a gross margin of 19%.

A 778X with a freight payload of 15 tonne would command a gross profit of $4,500.00.

At 300 flights per year this would result in additional incomes of $1,350,000.00.

Of course the 778X will be able to carry more than 15 tonne of freight. We would also have to think, on average, the airlines would be able to command a higher gross margin the 19%.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2945
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 11:46 am

Quoting travelhound (Reply 62):
At a wholesale price of $1.90 per kilogram

Where'd you get this statistic from? Really - it's so hard to find good cargo yield data for belly freight. Is it for belly freight? And if you don't have a link handy, do you know what this is in terms of tonne-miles or kilogram-miles? The amount of fuel burned would vary with stage length, as would price presumably.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 62):
A 778X with a freight payload of 15 tonne would command a gross profit of $4,500.00.

I think this is true of belly cargo. But if you've traded belly cargo for pax, you have to ask what you would have made off those pax.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 62):
We would also have to think, on average, the airlines would be able to command a higher gross margin the 19%.

Are you talking profit margin? On cargo? Or on pax?
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2945
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:04 pm

Quoting travelhound (Reply 62):
A simple metric is for every tonne of cargo you need 2 tonne of fuel.

I suspect this might be accurate for dedicated freighters, but not for belly cargo. Here's why:

-Freighters are usually flying near their MZFW if load factors are good. Passenger planes usually don't fly close to MZFW.
-If MZFW is 25% higher than typical OEW+pax weight, then induced drag is 56% higher for the freighter at landing, 60+% higher over the mission. Compare to that to only a 15% mission induced drag delta for my above combi example.
-The key difference is that parasitic drag is usually the biggest component of drag. Weight actually contributes only a fraction (1/3) of fuel burn typically. The rest is size. Adding 3-4% of weight to pax plane, as belly freight would, doesn't change the fuel burn picture radically. Size still matters more than weight, and the more heavily-loaded plane isn't bigger.
-However, induced drag increases quadratically - with the square of weight delta. So if your cargo plane is 40% payload by mission weight, its induced drag over 2 times greater!

All of this is bad news for dedicated freighters. Which is one reason they just aren't selling very well. It'll keep getting worse when 787/350 production ramps up and the world is awash in belly cargo capacity.

[Edited 2015-01-06 04:05:23]
 
User avatar
Ab345
Posts: 1048
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 2:44 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:04 pm

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 51):
The A350 simply isn't a 777X competitor.

If we want to get very typical about it, the A350xwb is a 777Classic Competitor and since it comes with new technology , a "killer" although I m not really fond of the phrasing. Hence the X...If a hypothetical 777X mk1 let's say wasn't bigger/longer/"rang-ier" , then Boeing would have to wait for the replacement cycle of the the airlines that ordered the A350 through at least 2011-2012 among them classical Boeing clients or airlines that had massive 772/77E fleets. But since the market was not really crying for a bigger longer 77W (except the ME3) Boeing went all up-gauge on the rest of the industry to differentiate the X enough from the Classic, the A350, and come close enough to the A380 to maybe lure in Tim Clark. Unfortunatelly the second bird that got hit with the 779 stone was the 748.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 52):
On the other hand if weight would be so deciding the A330NEO should never have happened as it is outclassed in every metric by the 787.

Since we exhausted about 10 threads explaining the logic behind the 330Neo let's put it in another light since we now have actual orders to quote.
Since the A330 line is fully paid for, spending about 1.5 billion Euros on a model that can sell in mid-3digit numbers (possibly close to 4 digit), while stealing a big portion of the pie and helping big sisters A359 and A35E isn't really a bad idea when you have airlines with massive A330 fleets seeking replacement that could go to Boeing.
D7 A330 operator that was asking for the neo
DL A330 operator that was asking for the neo
UN Boeing client that cancelled the 788 probably in favor of the 338. ( At least one explanation is this)
BR Was ready to order the 787 until the Neo came along (CEO stated that they are evaluating again due to the Neo launching)
Source: http://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/ne...ng-the-a330neo-against-the-b787-10

For a plane that originated in the 70s, was transformed in the late 80s/early 90s, and got a facelift in the mid 10s it DOESN'T have to be better that the 787. It just has to be close enough to steal orders, spoil the party and continue to be the cash cow that is up to now. If I m not mistaken our most beloved AAB stated the had the A330neo been launched earlier, QR would have bought it also but for now it would probably be bought for the new Saudi subsidiary.

Now you are seriously saying that when all the big A330 operators ( CA MU CX TK EY CZ SQ TG QF KE CI AA MH PR LH KA AF ) go replacement shopping they ll say .."A330neo nuhhhhhhhh...if it ain't Boeing I ain't goin'"??  
Quoting seahawk (Reply 52):
Asipire did a very good analysis and showed how outclassed the A330NEO really is

Aspire Aviation..       Irony aside..120 firm orders in 6 months for an outclassed product? Such suckers those airlines 
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2945
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:12 pm

Quoting Ab345 (Reply 65):
spoil the party and continue to be the cash cow that is up to now

I agree with most of your analysis except that the NEO will probably not be as much of a cash cow. The 787s 8&9 are a few points better than their NEO competitors on COC. Airbus is able to close that gap with better pricing due to the paid-off production line, giving equal or better DOC. However, that's eroding both airframer's profits. The A330NEO program will still be profitable for Airbus, but not as much as before, now that 787 production is ramped up. Boeing, meanwhile, may never recover its massive deferred production costs due to the competition. Party definitely spoiled.
 
User avatar
Ab345
Posts: 1048
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 2:44 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:17 pm

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 66):
The A330NEO program will still be profitable for Airbus, but not as much as before,

Sure but now it has the big sisters to help it   The "weight" is distributed evenly now. Up to now TLS had a huge gap between A333 and A388.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 66):
may never recover its massive deferred production costs due to the competition. Party definitely spoiled.

Exactly my point 
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2945
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:19 pm

Quoting Ab345 (Reply 67):
Up to now TLS had a huge gap between A333 and A388.

Especially if we're talking program profitability...
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2945
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:25 pm

Quoting Ab345 (Reply 67):
Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 66):
may never recover its massive deferred production costs due to the competition. Party definitely spoiled.

Exactly my point 

As an aviation fan, this development saddens me. I'd prefer that both A and B make huge profits by taking risks and executing great innovative ideas. Instead it looks like both are content to give us NEOs until sometime after the world runs out of oil. That goes for the 77X as well as the A330NEO. I hope China hurries up its learning curve and starts forcing real innovation from the moribund West.

[Edited 2015-01-06 04:26:44]
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:30 pm

Wow, so many bold statements and they are incorrect.  .

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 51):
The 777-8 isn't at risk from either the 777-9 or A35J. In reality, it's like it's stablemate, the 777-9; an aircraft in a class of one. It will be the world's only ULH aircraft, and it will satisfy it's niche well.

And in that very small niche it will remain. Why? Because of the competition of the A350-1000 and the B777-9.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 51):
The 777-8, and -9, for that matter, are aircraft Airbus simply cannot match fully. I think Boeing has positioned themselves well with the 777X. They will have an excellent ULH product in the 777-8, an excellent widebody with incredible economics with the 777-9, which also serves as a replacement for the 777-300ER and 747, and, eventually, a remarkable freighter in the 777-8.

Airbus could easily match them if they would start a project for that market. Boeing was also forced to go into that position because the B77W was getting its ass kicked by 25% more fuel consumption compared to the A350-1000. A B777-X with no capacity increase would still have lost out to the A350-1000 on CASM. Therefore Boeing had to move, forced by the competition. You make it sound like Boeing invented something fantastic to which the competition has no answer where in reality the B777-X is Boeings answer to the competition.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 51):
No A350 bashing here, but as wonderful as the A350-900 and -1000 will be, they'll probably end up being the 777-200 and -300 of today, albeit with rather nice winglets.

Another bold statement of which the facts are already proving totally incorrect. Look at the sales at pre-EIS. They tell the whole story.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 51):
Besides, the A350 will have it's hands full competing against the 787-9 and -10 in their respected markets.

if we are talking about the B777-8 and its competitors, the B787 has no place in that discussion since it is so much smaller and less capable. Which will give it advantages in different markets, but those are not discussed here.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 51):
The A350 simply isn't a 777X competitor.

Oh yes it is. If it wasn't, we would have never seen the launch of the B777-X program.  
 
Cerecl
Posts: 603
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:22 am

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:50 pm

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 51):
I'll state the highlights.

I am not sure calling them the highlights/summary is entirely accurate. Some of the points are pretty controversial.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 51):
The 777-8 is not a direct competitor to the A350-1000
Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 51):
The A350 simply isn't a 777X competitor

Disagree completely. When airlines start looking for 77W/A346/A345/773 (and in some cases 77E/744) replacement they will look on A350-1000 and 777-8/9 as competing products. An example would be the two recent campaigns in Japan in which airbus won JL and Boeing won NH. Unless you are saying 777-8 is out of the game in this aspect, I don't see how this claim can stand up to scrutiny.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 51):
The 777-8 will be popular (in it's own respect) as it will be the sole ULH aircraft in the 2020s

Being the sole product does not guarantee popularity if the niche it occupies is small.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 52):
Asipire did a very good analysis and showed how outclassed the A330NEO really is.

The "Boeing will start to offer NSA when 737MAX EIS so it can kill off A320NEO (and its own product)" Aspire? The "Boeing's crushing victory is always around the corner and Airbus is always under siege" Aspire?   

Edit: Ooops edited and apologies to Boeing778X-the poster not the plane! Seriously the forum can't even offer an icon to italicise or add boldtype to font???

[Edited 2015-01-06 05:16:11]
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
 
User avatar
Ab345
Posts: 1048
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 2:44 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 1:00 pm

Quoting cerecl (Reply 71):
Again, this thread, started by you, is about competition between 777-8 and A350-1000. Why then did you insist/emphasize that they were actually not competing?

This thread was started by travelhound and not Boeing778X.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 1:10 pm

Quoting travelhound (Reply 62):
At 300 flights per year this would result in additional incomes of $1,350,000.00.

The only interesting factor is the additional income compared to other aircraft.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 62):
Of course the 778X will be able to carry more than 15 tonne of freight.

Unless the cargo is volume limited. The 778 has less LD3 positions than 779 and A35J, it can only load heavier freight, not more freight.

Many people believed Cathay Pacific - a major cargo hauler - would order the 777-8. They ordered 777-9 jets instead. Why? Because the real cargo world is not as simple a you described. As mentioned before, a 777-9 with 400 pax and 10 tonne freight makes more economical sense than a 777-8 with 350 pax and 15 tonne freight. The 777-8 makes sense when you need to carry that 15 tonne freight over an 14 hour sector. And that is a limited market.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
AngMoh
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:03 am

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 2:31 pm

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 66):
I agree with most of your analysis except that the NEO will probably not be as much of a cash cow. The 787s 8&9 are a few points better than their NEO competitors on COC. Airbus is able to close that gap with better pricing due to the paid-off production line, giving equal or better DOC. However, that's eroding both airframer's profits. The A330NEO program will still be profitable for Airbus, but not as much as before, now that 787 production is ramped up. Boeing, meanwhile, may never recover its massive deferred production costs due to the competition. Party definitely spoiled.

And that is the whole thing you don't know. You don't know how much it costs to manufacture a A330NEO and how much it costs to manufacture a 787. The same for the 777-8/9 and the A350's. Capital costs are not insignificant (and for an airline like Delta they are the #1 priority) and if fuel is down and interest rates are up, this is even a bigger issue. Just because they are competitors and similar in size, it does not mean that they cost the same to manufacture.
727 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739/ER 742 743 744/M 752 753 762 772 77E 773 77W 788 A300 A310 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A345 A346 A359 A35K A388 DC-9 DC-10 MD11 MD81 MD82 MD87 F70 ERJ145 E170 E175 E190 E195 ATR72 Q400 CRJ200 CRJ700 CRJ900 BAE146 RJ85
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 4:20 pm

Quoting Ab345 (Reply 65):
If we want to get very typical about it, the A350xwb is a 777Classic Competitor and since it comes with new technology , a "killer" although I m not really fond of the phrasing.

Unfortunately, you're probably correct with your choice of phrasing.

Quoting Ab345 (Reply 65):
Unfortunatelly the second bird that got hit with the 779 stone was the 748.

At least, as far as the 747-8i is concerned.

I believe the end of the 747-8 will come, if not sooner, with the introduction of the 777-8F.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 73):
And that is a limited market.

No arguing here.
And, of course, we're talking about a niche aircraft with an already limited market.
That said, I feel that whatever 14 hour sectors that require an addition 15 tons of freight would be satisfied.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 70):
And in that very small niche it will remain.

And it's all Boeings  
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 70):
Another bold statement of which the facts are already proving totally incorrect. Look at the sales at pre-EIS. They tell the whole story.

Oh, believe me, I have many times.
And it's disappointing that the A350-1000 hasn't sold more than it has.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 51):

>The A350-1000 will dominate the 350 seat market
>The A350-1000 will outsell the 777-8 overwhelmingly
>The A350-1000 could replace the 777-300ER in time
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 70):
Wow, so many bold statements and they are incorrect.  .

You're right, this is kind of overdoing it   
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2945
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 4:31 pm

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 74):
And that is the whole thing you don't know. You don't know how much it costs to manufacture a A330NEO and how much it costs to manufacture a 787. The same for the 777-8/9 and the A350's. Capital costs are not insignificant (and for an airline like Delta they are the #1 priority) and if fuel is down and interest rates are up, this is even a bigger issue. Just because they are competitors and similar in size, it does not mean that they cost the same to manufacture.

I don't need to know how much it costs to manufacture an A330NEO. All I need to know is that the production line is paid off, so Airbus could have closed its business case on almost any non-zero profit on recurring costs. From that, and the A330Classic's list price, I know the A330NEO will be cheaper than a 787. Plus even Boeing has admitted this. From simple economics I then know that Boeing, facing better competition than before, would have to lower its prices to match sales numbers. I then know that, because sales reductions impact profit margin at a greater rate than total revenue (assuming a plane costs more than 0 to build), that Boeing's net return on the 787 program has been seriously impacted. I happen to know that Boeing Commercial Aircraft has a ~11% profit margin. That's in public documents. If the 787 anticipated to sell for about that margin - over the course of the program, right now it's a loss-maker on recurring costs - even a 3% sales price response to the A330NEO would mean losing more than a quarter of projected profit. And that's without losing a single sales campaign, which is unlikely.

It's amazing how much you can figure out from rigorously applying a few basic concepts, rather than throwing around unknowns and becoming bewildered by them.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1744
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 5:53 pm

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 66):
However, that's eroding both airframer's profits. The A330NEO program will still be profitable for Airbus, but not as much as before, now that 787 production is ramped up.

I am sure this has been covered, but a little less profit for Airbus is more than no profit at all, which is probably what would have happened if they didn't launch the A330NEO. This also means that Boeing is kept honest with their business, whether in sales campaigns or improving their products. This is also true of the A350-1000 and the 777X, where Airbus would have had free reign had the 777X not been launched.

In the end both companies will become better because of the rivalry as they will both need to keep up with their competitors.
 
StTim
Posts: 3538
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 6:12 pm

Also why allow your competitor to feed heartilly at the trough? I am sure neither actually wants the other to go out of business - but to use a sporting term - they want to keep them honest!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 22655
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 6:34 pm

Quoting StTim (Reply 78):
Also why allow your competitor to feed heartilly at the trough?

The whole point of a duopoly is to not hit your competitor's products head on so both can keep feeding at the trough.

A350 was squarely aimed at the gap between 787 and 777W/L.
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
 
StTim
Posts: 3538
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 7:47 pm

I agree but also the 330Neo was aimed at the spot under the 787 so taking some of their profit away. It is sensible business.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3905
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 7:54 pm

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 54):
Contrary to Boeing's public view, the "sweet spot" of the long haul market has probably moved down from 77W to 787-9 and A359.

In the 15 years from 773ER EIS to 779 EIS, are you saying there is no upward pressure on airplane size due to traffic growth? If this is true, what does it say about the prospects for additional A380 sales?

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 63):
But if you've traded belly cargo for pax, you have to ask what you would have made off those pax.

Unless you're flying missions longer than the MZFW max range for the 778X, you don't need to trade passengers for cargo, you can have both.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 8:19 pm

A lot has been said in this thread regarding the 777-8 being relegated to a niche market by a superior A350-1000, as the latter is quite a bit lighter.

However -

The 777 should have newer engines with better fuel burn, say greater then 5 percent
The 777 should have better aerodynamics due to the wing (span / area / newer) and other systems (laminar flow) not installed on the A350

The A350-1000 will also compete with the 787-10, which should cover most of the A350-1000 routes, will use the same pilot pool as the 777's and will be bundled in 777-8/9 Sale Campaigns, therefore a true coverage of the entire 200 - 400 seat market.

777 is also better for these niche routes -

additional tons of payload at A350-1000 design range
or
Longer routes
Shorter Fields
Hotter takeoffs
Higher Fields

With the combination of the 787-10 and the 777-9, the -8 should do just fine as a simple shrink (better then the A318 and A330-200).

Cheers

[Edited 2015-01-06 12:38:14]
 
LH707330
Posts: 2271
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 8:23 pm

While the 778 may have a drag advantage...[/quote]

Quoting travelhound (Reply 58):
If we consider the 778X higher freight hauling capability the 3-5% disadvantage could be negated by freight revenues.

We heard a similar line back then about the A346, though to be fair the number was in the 7-10% range.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 53):
Quoting LH707330 (Reply 40):
While the 778 may have a drag advantage that helps it further out, those further out ranges will be the minority of the trips. The 778 will be somewhat like the A358: it's got more range than the other OEM's plane and a drag advantage at that range, but for little penalty you can buy the bigger sibling or save fuel on the (mostly) shorter sectors by flying the draggier but lighter competitor.

The question is when will this advantage start to kick in.

Well, first of all, it's not clear that that's even the case:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 43):
Drag advantage? It is a wider airplane with a larger frontal surface to overcome compared to an A350-1000. I can't see any drag advantages at all.

From a fuselage standpoint, the 778 will be draggier, but the wing will probably be better than the 350 in drag. If we do assume, for the sake of argument, that the 778 has a drag advantage, it starts benefiting immediately, in fact more so earlier in flight when it's heavier (less induced drag). The problem is that the heavier frame burns more fuel climbing to that altitude, so the drag savings need to outweigh the extra climb burn. Basically, optimal wing size increases with designed optimal range. Thus, for shorter sectors, the lighter, draggier frame wins, while the heavy, less-drag frame wins on the long sectors. Seeing as most routes for 350-seaters will be in the 3000-5500 nm range, the lighter plane is probably the best bet. Looking at the sales numbers or any models confirms that the 350-1000 has an advantage for most of these use cases. The 778 has only been bought by operators who plan to use them for ULH, so either a) the drag vs weight crossover point is too far to the right to matter (>6000 nm), or EPA001 is right and it doesn't exist at all, and the 778 is selling because of payload at range.

Related but slightly OT is the engine battle on the 77E: the Trents weighed 2 tons less but had worse SFC than the GE90s, so the Trents were the best pick for under 4000 nm and the GE90 for over 4000 nm
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:17 pm

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 51):
The 777-8 isn't at risk from either the 777-9 or A35J. In reality, it's like it's stablemate, the 777-9; an aircraft in a class of one. It will be the world's only ULH aircraft, and it will satisfy it's niche well.

The 777-8, and -9, for that matter, are aircraft Airbus simply cannot match fully. I think Boeing has positioned themselves well with the 777X. They will have an excellent ULH product in the 777-8, an excellent widebody with incredible economics with the 777-9, which also serves as a replacement for the 777-300ER and 747, and, eventually, a remarkable freighter in the 777-8.

The A350 simply isn't a 777X competitor.

You should apply for a job in marketing   In reality, unless you are EK, airlines issue a RFP and select the best aircraft for their needs. Hence A350 and 777X do compete with each other.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
UALWN
Posts: 2186
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:26 pm

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 82):
the -8 should do just fine as a simple shrink (better then the A318 and A330-200).

While I would be extremely surprised if the 777-8 would not sell substantially better than the A318, I am ready to bet good money that the 777-8 will not sell as well as the A330-200, which has sold 612 frames, and counting.
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/350/380
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:32 pm

Quoting UALWN (Reply 85):
the A330-200, which has sold 612 frames, and counting.

I agree. The A330-200 sold pretty well because the A330-300 was crippled in range (4,000 nm at launch) and there was a need for a long range model. The situation is not the same for 777-8 vs 777-9, the latter one already has enough range to serve the core market.

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 82):
The 777 should have newer engines with better fuel burn, say greater then 5 percent

You are right that the GE90X engine will have better TSFC than the Trent XWB. However, a better engine doesn't mean lower fuel burn, the aircraft is still significant heavier.

[Edited 2015-01-06 14:50:37]
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2271
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:53 pm

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 82):
777 is also better for these niche routes -

additional tons of payload at A350-1000 design range
or
Longer routes
Shorter Fields
Hotter takeoffs
Higher Fields

The same thing was said of the 757 against the A321. The tradeoff the other way is less fuel burned to do the job.
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 11:06 pm

I guess one could almost argue that the A350-1000 could be a niche for airlines that simply want a few to go with their -900 airplanes. If you are a 787 operator and or a 777 operator, might as well buy 777-8 for the extra performance (to go with the -10 and 777-9).

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 86):
You are right that the GE90X engine will have better TSFC than the Trent XWB. However, a better engine doesn't mean lower fuel burn, the aircraft is still significant heavier.

Thanks, was talking fuel consumption of the engine.

Cheers  
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 11:40 pm

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 88):
Thanks, was talking fuel consumption of the engine.

So was Karel. Given the fact that the 77X engines will have ~8% more thrust that the 35J engines, even if they do turn out to have 5% better TSFC (per your guesstimate), they will still have 2-3% greater total fuel consumption.

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 82):
The 777 should have better aerodynamics due to the wing (span / area / newer) and other systems (laminar flow) not installed on the A350

True but they will need to be significantly better to cancel out the effect of the 14% extra weight.

And Airbus can do laminar flow as well, you know  

Personally, I think the 35J and 779 will probably split the market, with those that need the extra payload range opting mainly for the 779, and those who don't opting mainly for the 35J.
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Tue Jan 06, 2015 11:56 pm

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 87):
777 is also better for these niche routes -

additional tons of payload at A350-1000 design range
or
Longer routes
Shorter Fields
Hotter takeoffs
Higher Fields
The same thing was said of the 757 against the A321. The tradeoff the other way is less fuel burned to do the job

I don't think Boeing builds the 757, so you might as well compare it to the 707, then your fuel burn really looks good.  

Regarding the 777 vs A350, what it means is that once you are beyond the limitations of the -1000, you are losing revenue. Adding tanks in the lower cargo (aka A321neoLR) would again reduce the revenue potential.

Cheers

[Edited 2015-01-06 16:14:46]
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Wed Jan 07, 2015 12:05 am

Quoting speedbored (Reply 89):
Quoting speedbored (Reply 89):
Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 88):Thanks, was talking fuel consumption of the engine.
So was Karel. Given the fact that the 77X engines will have ~8% more thrust that the 35J engines, even if they do turn out to have 5% better TSFC (per your guesstimate), they will still have 2-3% greater total fuel consumption.

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 82):The 777 should have better aerodynamics due to the wing (span / area / newer) and other systems (laminar flow) not installed on the A350
True but they will need to be significantly better to cancel out the effect of the 14% extra weight.

And Airbus can do laminar flow as well, you know

Personally, I think the 35J and 779 will probably split the market, with those that need the extra payload range opting mainly for the 779, and those who don't opting mainly for the 35J.

Actually, I was comparing the GE at idle vs the RR at max thrust .... geez  



I really don't know what will happen either, just thought it was funny how the 777 was described as a niche airplane. How did you come up with the 14 percent heavier.... seems a bit much (unless you are talking MTOW, not OEW).

[Edited 2015-01-06 16:23:34]
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26693
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Wed Jan 07, 2015 12:18 am

Quoting speedbored (Reply 89):
Given the fact that the 77X engines will have ~8% more thrust that the 35J engines, even if they do turn out to have 5% better TSFC (per your guesstimate), they will still have 2-3% greater total fuel consumption.

That 8% difference is when both engines are at maximum thrust, which is only used at take-off (if even then). So that extra consumption is only for a few minutes (at most).
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9289
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Wed Jan 07, 2015 2:18 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 92):
Quoting speedbored (Reply 89):
Given the fact that the 77X engines will have ~8% more thrust that the 35J engines, even if they do turn out to have 5% better TSFC (per your guesstimate), they will still have 2-3% greater total fuel consumption.

That 8% difference is when both engines are at maximum thrust, which is only used at take-off (if even then). So that extra consumption is only for a few minutes (at most).

IMO one has to expect an even higher difference during the trip. Even if both the wing and engine should be more efficient on the B777-8 it will not claw back a 14% weight difference. I expect the A350-1000 to have about the same fuel burn per seat compared to the B777-9 and between 5 to 8% better than the B777-8.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2271
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Wed Jan 07, 2015 2:56 am

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 90):

I don't think Boeing builds the 757, so you might as well compare it to the 707, then your fuel burn really looks good.

Regarding the 777 vs A350, what it means is that once you are beyond the limitations of the -1000, you are losing revenue. Adding tanks in the lower cargo (aka A321neoLR) would again reduce the revenue potential.

Exactly, but most carriers don't need anything beyond the capabilities of the A35J, so they'd be hauling extra weight around, as I stated upthread. The same way a 757 hauls extra weight around versus an A321, or a 707 hauls extra weight around versus the 757 when the 5000 nm range isn't needed (I still wish customers went for the 707-700, oh well).

Additional capability (778) means weight, which, ceteris paribus, means a fuel burn penalty on shorter legs against a frame optimized for the shorter legs (35J). Even when ceteris not so paribus on the SFC front, the extra weight of the 778 gives it a disadvantage.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2945
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Wed Jan 07, 2015 3:44 am

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 81):
In the 15 years from 773ER EIS to 779 EIS, are you saying there is no upward pressure on airplane size due to traffic growth? If this is true, what does it say about the prospects for additional A380 sales?

Setting slot constraints aside, I don't think there is such a thing as upward pressure on airplane size. In other words, nobody wants capacity for capacity for capacity's sake. If a private jet were as cheap as Ryanair, and there were enough airports to allow us all to have one, that's pretty much all that would fly. Nobody who can afford not take buses takes them. The reason planes get bigger is because bigger planes fly more efficiently. Capacity has revenue inefficiencies that may or may not negate its cost saving, depending on route size. My point about market "sweet spot" is, now that 280-300 seaters are within striking distance of today's 350-seaters, a lot of airlines that were using 77W as by far the most efficient long-haul plane anywhere near "right sized," but who still would have preferred a slightly less efficient smaller plane, will switch to 300-seaters. At the "normal" incremental changes in efficiency with airplane size, most long haul routes are still served by planes whose operators would downgauge if they could at a decent efficiency cost. I bet that even in 2025-30, when a 5000nm 757RS comes out, it'll take widebodies out of a lot of their lower-end range flying.

Re A380. The case remains what it always was, despite Airbus' misconception: There is no 500-seat (or 350-seat) market unless the bigger plane is cost-efficient enough to overcome revenue inefficiencies. The A380 is a little more efficient than 77W, a little less than 77X. The number of routes that are big enough such that the A380's small efficiency edge over 77W outweighs its capacity inefficiences is small. That the market is revealing that 77W was, for many, too big, doesn't bode well for the existence of routes on which A380 much bigger trade of capacity for efficiency works. The fragmentation of potential A380 traffic onto smaller widebodies has a small negative effect besides the immediate substitution effect, I suppose - less traffic at megahubs for possible A380 connections.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18812
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Wed Jan 07, 2015 4:05 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 52):
On the other hand if weight would be so deciding the A330NEO should never have happened as it is outclassed in every metric by the 787.Asipire did a very good analysis and showed how outclassed the A330NEO really is.

The A330NEO has two things going for it:
1. Time to delivery
2. Pricing (a 20 year old frame has little R&D to pay for other than the new wingtips and re-engine).

No one expects a long sales life on the A330NEO. That is why the engine had to be an exclusive (a 'borrowed TEN engine at that!). Due to the backlog of 787s/A350s, there is a niche for the A330NEO. I fully expect 700 to a thousand to be sold. And that will be it. It has a window of opportunity. But once the 78J is in mass production with a short lead time... it won't be able to compete. For the A338 competes with the 789 at a disadvantage and the A339 competes with the 789 and 78J. The 789 beats it handily on range as does the 78J which also has much more payload potential. IMHO, the 78J is going to own TATL travel just as the 767 did. (In other words, no where near 100%, but a bulk of the carrying capacity). One day...

Quoting speedbored (Reply 89):
So was Karel. Given the fact that the 77X engines will have ~8% more thrust that the 35J engines, even if they do turn out to have 5% better TSFC (per your guesstimate), they will still have 2-3% greater total fuel consumption.

That assumes the same cruise altitude. Lower wing loading allows a higher cruise altitude which reduces the required thrust (conveniently balanced by the thinner air). Hence why I point out the 778 is only more economical on longer missions with cargo.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
A35J
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 4:07 am

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Wed Jan 07, 2015 4:49 am

Please forgive my ignorance about this and if what I'm asking is overly simplistic (given this thread is now reaching close to it's 100th post it is unquestionably an unclear topic).

It seems to me the general consensus is the A350-1000 will be the 'superior' aircraft (if you excuse the bluntness of that comment) on missions around the 10 hour mark. However, on longer missions the 777X family comes into its own. In essence, it sounds to me like there is an operational sweet-spot beyond which the lower weight advantages of the A350 are outweighed by the 777's ability to carry more revenue raising payload (despite higher gross costs). Firstly, is this an accurate summary?

My question might be a consequence of an Australian perspective. Many of the routes we see 77Ws flying are around 13-15 hours range - Australia to North America/Middle East - even Air Canada is tending to send the 77W over the 77L on the roughly 7750nm SYD-YVR (though it is a peak season). The A350-1000 - particularly since the 2011 design adjustment - effectively looks to be a lighter (more efficient) 77W. I'm wondering at what range will the A350-1000's ability to carry a meaningful payload be significantly affected and whether we will likely see the A350-1000 flying routes such as the ones mentioned above or if they will be largely reserved for the 777X family (referring only to large twins)?

Thanks!
 
boeing737max
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 1:07 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Wed Jan 07, 2015 4:53 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 9):

With the 777-8s case we have to wait and see. Its only been out on the market for a little over a year. In the next few years I would expect a tremendous increase in orders. Same with the 777-9.
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

Can The 777-8X Compete With The A350-1000

Wed Jan 07, 2015 5:35 am

Quoting boeing737max (Reply 98):
With the 777-8s case we have to wait and see. Its only been out on the market for a little over a year. In the next few years I would expect a tremendous increase in orders. Same with the 777-9.

I agree, but nevertheless, it's market will be limited.

We shall see.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931

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