Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Special
Topic Author
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 5:30 pm

Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 1:18 pm

Reading through comments on the various topics on the forum, it seems like there's a large number of people that don't see the purpose of airlines taking future deliveries of the 777X or A350-1000 (the former more). Personally as much as I understand that smaller aircraft like the 787/A359 are sufficiently capable of handling current Covid demands, in 5-10 years when demand returns fully and there's greater pressure on aviation's environmental impact, aircraft like the 777-9 & A35K will be needed. It would cost less/save more having one/two flights on a 777-9 than having two/three on an aircraft like the 787-9 for example. I think people need to remember that the world's flying population will still be growing and airports such as Heathrow & New York JFK are growth constrained. Also the 777-9 & A350-1000 are not as large as we make them out to be.

I just wanted to get a discussion going on what people think and why. Moderators please delete if there's a similar topic already up.
 
olle
Posts: 2480
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 1:24 pm

I personally think that the period until 2027 will be very challenging.

A350 will survive because A359 to see a better day.

B777X is totally depending of 779 the bigger version and 779 is mainly depending on ME3. Without ME3 how many is left?
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4386
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 1:30 pm

The A35Ks and 777-9s are the new VLAs. VLAs have a very small customer base and therefore a very illiquid secondary market. Financing becomes more difficult and their appeal becomes more limited. Add to that the fact that most airlines have already replaced their 747s (with 77Ws, 747-8s or A380s) and that COVID makes it hard to fill large aircraft and you have a plane that will struggle for sales in the medium and long term.

The A35K has a very popular - nearly identical - smaller sibling which will help it a bit. Unfortunately for the 777-9, it doesn't.

Special wrote:
in 5-10 years when demand returns fully and there's greater pressure on aviation's environmental impact, aircraft like the 777-9 & A35K will be needed. It would cost less/save more having one/two flights on a 777-9 than having two/three on an aircraft like the 787-9 for example.


And how many routes will this realistically apply to? Think about risk - it's much less risky to buy 3x 787-9s than to buy 2 x 777-9s.
First to fly the 787-9
 
Opus99
Posts: 1157
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 1:35 pm

zkojq wrote:
The A35Ks and 777-9s are the new VLAs. VLAs have a very small customer base and therefore a very illiquid secondary market. Financing becomes more difficult and their appeal becomes more limited. Add to that the fact that most airlines have already replaced their 747s (with 77Ws, 747-8s or A380s) and that COVID makes it hard to fill large aircraft and you have a plane that will struggle for sales in the medium and long term.

The A35K has a very popular - nearly identical - smaller sibling which will help it a bit. Unfortunately for the 777-9, it doesn't.

Special wrote:
in 5-10 years when demand returns fully and there's greater pressure on aviation's environmental impact, aircraft like the 777-9 & A35K will be needed. It would cost less/save more having one/two flights on a 777-9 than having two/three on an aircraft like the 787-9 for example.


And how many routes will this realistically apply to? Think about risk - it's much less risky to buy 3x 787-9s than to buy 2 x 777-9s.

But also much more expensive because that’s one whole extra 140 million dollars. And how much risk does it really save you in times of depression
Last edited by Opus99 on Thu Oct 22, 2020 1:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Sokes
Posts: 2154
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 1:35 pm

If the new engine is good, the -9X will sell.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Opus99
Posts: 1157
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 1:44 pm

Sokes wrote:
If the new engine is good, the -9X will sell.

Which is what I think too. We are hearing it is.
 
Sokes
Posts: 2154
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 1:48 pm

Opus99 wrote:
Sokes wrote:
If the new engine is good, the -9X will sell.

Which is what I think too. We are hearing it is.

Let's see how it keeps up in service.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2688
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 1:53 pm

I'm not too optimistic about the 779, I just think airlines will prefer the security and flexibility of smaller, more popular models. The A35K itself may struggle, but if the A359 is doing OK then it's an annoyance rather than a huge problem. Are the A359/A35K built on the same line? If they are then Airbus can go for a while without A35K deliveries, and then if demand returns they just build them on the same line. The 779 has no such leverage, if it's not in demand the line will have to stop and/or slow.
 
Opus99
Posts: 1157
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 1:58 pm

Honestly. I think going into this pandemic customers like Emirates, Qatar and LH would’ve pressed Boeing for hard figures on that aircraft before making any decisions. Going into this pandemic we heard 777F swap for 777X that died. We heard 787-10 swap for 777X that also died. We’ve also heard Akbar saying the jet is a very good jet and he will be taking all 60 of them for replacement. We have seen the jet survive at least round 1 or so of this crisis which I take as a good thing. We are still waiting for Emirates to confirm. But I think that if this jet was not what customers expected we would’ve seen strong rejection from customers. GE coming out with the certification also helped and we are now hearing figures of a 20% aircraft fuel burn over the 777-300ER. What is my point? The aircraft is very good. The customers seem confident in it. EK downsizing is about meeting market demand for certain routes where it’s at not the extremely high fuel burn of the jet like the 380. Another thing that helps the 777X is a strong 777-300ER market as is. It will still be cheaper to transfer those pilots on the 777X than moving them onto the 35K. If the jet is as good/engine (which is the rumour) as GE say then I think the rightful successor to the 777-300ER is the 777-9 and then add some 380s and 747s there.
 
Opus99
Posts: 1157
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 1:59 pm

Sokes wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Sokes wrote:
If the new engine is good, the -9X will sell.

Which is what I think too. We are hearing it is.

Let's see how it keeps up in service.

Very important too.
 
Special
Topic Author
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 5:30 pm

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:09 pm

zkojq wrote:
And how many routes will this realistically apply to? Think about risk - it's much less risky to buy 3x 787-9s than to buy 2 x 777-9s.


BA will most likely end up ordering additional 779s in the future. The 747s are already gone, A380s may be on their way out and with this pandemic, Heathrow isn't getting a 3rd runway anytime soon so will once again be growth constrained when demand returns.
 
Special
Topic Author
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 5:30 pm

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:13 pm

Opus99 wrote:
Honestly. I think going into this pandemic customers like Emirates, Qatar and LH would’ve pressed Boeing for hard figures on that aircraft before making any decisions. Going into this pandemic we heard 777F swap for 777X that died. We heard 787-10 swap for 777X that also died. We’ve also heard Akbar saying the jet is a very good jet and he will be taking all 60 of them for replacement. We have seen the jet survive at least round 1 or so of this crisis which I take as a good thing. We are still waiting for Emirates to confirm. But I think that if this jet was not what customers expected we would’ve seen strong rejection from customers. GE coming out with the certification also helped and we are now hearing figures of a 20% aircraft fuel burn over the 777-300ER. What is my point? The aircraft is very good. The customers seem confident in it. EK downsizing is about meeting market demand for certain routes where it’s at not the extremely high fuel burn of the jet like the 380. Another thing that helps the 777X is a strong 777-300ER market as is. It will still be cheaper to transfer those pilots on the 777X than moving them onto the 35K. If the jet is as good/engine (which is the rumour) as GE say then I think the rightful successor to the 777-300ER is the 777-9 and then add some 380s and 747s there.


Agreed. The programme may/will start off slow due to the pandemic and young 777-300ERs in service but I do think it'll sell well years to come.
 
Ziyulu
Posts: 983
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:35 am

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:22 pm

How much bigger is the 779 compared to 773? If there is not much difference, I can see Boeing scrapping the program.
 
Opus99
Posts: 1157
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:27 pm

Ziyulu wrote:
How much bigger is the 779 compared to 773? If there is not much difference, I can see Boeing scrapping the program.

about 30-40 seats. Boeing did not scrap the 747-8, they certainly won't scrap this. This market potential is very big for this aircraft. People like to equate the super inefficient, oversized fate of the 380 to an aircraft that burns 50% less fuel and carries 150-200 less people.

And referring to orders, when has a jet that sits larger than 350 passengers launched with a high amount of orders before EIS. the 300ER struggled before performance was proven. It had less than 200 orders. I expect the younger sibling to expect the same fate. Add coronavirus to that and the order drought will be even longer
 
Ziyulu
Posts: 983
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:35 am

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:34 pm

So the 779 is wider than the 773 due to thinner side walls. Is the cabin width still narrower than the 350? Which 3-3-3 setup is more comfortable for the passengers?
 
Opus99
Posts: 1157
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:37 pm

Ziyulu wrote:
So the 779 is wider than the 773 due to thinner side walls. Is the cabin width still narrower than the 350? Which 3-3-3 setup is more comfortable for the passengers?

much wider than the 350. 779 cabin set up is 3-4-3 not up to 18 inch seats though. more like 17.5 or so
 
Aither
Posts: 1301
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:43 am

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:39 pm

My opinion may be against the general consensus : I think long haul networks could be more consolidated because it will take years before many "point to point" routes, many of those already struglling pre covid, come back. In particular they were more dependent of the premium traffic. So even if the traffic comes at 80% of 2019 level, but there are 50% less routes we may actually see bigger aircraft.
I also predict a lot more protectionism, in particular after governments injecting billions in the airline industry. This will lead to more traffic rights restrictions.
This seems counter intuitive right now but maybe we should be more concerned about the medium term future of small twin aisle rather than the biggest ones.
Last edited by Aither on Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Never trust the obvious
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:41 pm

The crucial period for the B779 would be the initial production phase - if its customers are able to take delivery of their orders as planned, Boeing can heave a sigh of relief. If customers postpone the initial deliveries, then Boeing will have to begin to worry. Airlines are probably not going to be able to recover till around 2025. Boeing needs a revised production and delivery plan till at least 2025 before even thinking of ramping up!

The A359/A35K reminds me of the A330/A340 days - I don't think Airbus will suffer as much if production of the A35K runs at a trickle. A359 production will keep the line moving. Airbus will still offer the A35K to customers as long as the A359 is in production. With hindsight, it was a good decision not to stretch the A35K when so many people here were urging Airbus to upsize it to compete with the B779. VLAs are no longer in demand these days and even the B779 and A35K, although smaller than the B748/A380, are not doing so well.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4689
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:42 pm

The A350-1000 is safe, for the mere fact that it's part of the A350 family. The A350-900 will keep the family running until the market picks up again. The 777X is in a more precarious position with the 777-8 practically dead, but will scrape through the next decade with a minimum of orders. In many ways it will mirror the A380.

Special wrote:
It would cost less/save more having one/two flights on a 777-9 than having two/three on an aircraft like the 787-9 for example. I think people need to remember that the world's flying population will still be growing and airports such as Heathrow & New York JFK are growth constrained.


You wanna apply those arguments to the A380 as well, or does it only apply to the Boeing product?

Even at the best of times, airlines couldn't justify the A380 and 747-8i with those arguments. You are suggesting that now, during the worst crisis aviation has ever faced, that airlines are suddenly going to change their minds?


Ziyulu wrote:
How much bigger is the 779 compared to 773? If there is not much difference, I can see Boeing scrapping the program.


It is just under 3 meters longer. Exact capacity is difficult to say, but Boeing lists a typical 2-class 777-9 with around 25-30 passengers more than the -300ER. It isn't getting scrapped, the 777X is too far now, but the bigger question is if Boeing will pull the plug on it early, like Airbus with the A380 and Boeing with the 747-8.


Opus99 wrote:
Honestly. I think going into this pandemic customers like Emirates, Qatar and LH would’ve pressed Boeing for hard figures on that aircraft before making any decisions. Going into this pandemic we heard 777F swap for 777X that died. We heard 787-10 swap for 777X that also died. We’ve also heard Akbar saying the jet is a very good jet and he will be taking all 60 of them for replacement. We have seen the jet survive at least round 1 or so of this crisis which I take as a good thing. We are still waiting for Emirates to confirm. But I think that if this jet was not what customers expected we would’ve seen strong rejection from customers. GE coming out with the certification also helped and we are now hearing figures of a 20% aircraft fuel burn over the 777-300ER. What is my point? The aircraft is very good. The customers seem confident in it.


IMHO, you are reading too much into it. Airlines can't just convert or cancel an order, that will involve negotiations with the manufacturer or losing the deposits. Boeing will be insisting on severe penalties for any cancellations or conversions to outstanding 777X orders, not least because the current order book is on shaky ground.


Opus99 wrote:
It will still be cheaper to transfer those pilots on the 777X than moving them onto the 35K.


Trust me, that's a minor cost, and one that the manufacturers often cover as part of the sale.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2688
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:52 pm

Special wrote:
zkojq wrote:
And how many routes will this realistically apply to? Think about risk - it's much less risky to buy 3x 787-9s than to buy 2 x 777-9s.


BA will most likely end up ordering additional 779s in the future. The 747s are already gone, A380s may be on their way out and with this pandemic, Heathrow isn't getting a 3rd runway anytime soon so will once again be growth constrained when demand returns.


The fact that the 747s are gone with no replacement doesn't exactly bode well, but even before Covid there were only a handful 744s at best that didn't have designated replacements. I don't see a scenario in which there's congestion again but the A380 isn't used to combat it.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3711
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:55 pm

Opus99 wrote:
Honestly. I think going into this pandemic customers like Emirates, Qatar and LH would’ve pressed Boeing for hard figures on that aircraft before making any decisions. Going into this pandemic we heard 777F swap for 777X that died. We heard 787-10 swap for 777X that also died. We’ve also heard Akbar saying the jet is a very good jet and he will be taking all 60 of them for replacement. We have seen the jet survive at least round 1 or so of this crisis which I take as a good thing. We are still waiting for Emirates to confirm. But I think that if this jet was not what customers expected we would’ve seen strong rejection from customers. GE coming out with the certification also helped and we are now hearing figures of a 20% aircraft fuel burn over the 777-300ER. What is my point? The aircraft is very good. The customers seem confident in it. EK downsizing is about meeting market demand for certain routes where it’s at not the extremely high fuel burn of the jet like the 380. Another thing that helps the 777X is a strong 777-300ER market as is. It will still be cheaper to transfer those pilots on the 777X than moving them onto the 35K. If the jet is as good/engine (which is the rumour) as GE say then I think the rightful successor to the 777-300ER is the 777-9 and then add some 380s and 747s there.


The only rumours I have heard about 20% better on a trip fuel burn basis appear to have originated here. The spec mission with OWE to maintain the Max payload capability of the 77W and A35k gives a per pax fuel use reduction of around 20%.

If the trip fuel burn per pax was 20% lower than the 77W then we would expect the spec mission to be in the order of 7900-8000nm. If that was the case the 778X is DOA.

With regard to the A35k, from what I hear it is incredibly capable aircraft in terms of fuel burn and payload/range performance but suffers from being complex and expensive to build compared to its stablemate the A359. My suspicion is that the A35k faces as stiff competition on a total package basis from the A359 as it does from the 779X. When the price of the 779X is pushed lower the 778X wouldn't become a factor till a much lower price. As was said above however if the production differences and complexity between the Airbus models can be reduced the A35k can sit without being produced with little bottom line effect. the 779X less so.

In times like these though development cost means nothing. Keep the cash flowing is the main aim, if the 779X manufacturing costs are low enough it will be fine.

Fred
Image
 
Opus99
Posts: 1157
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:03 pm

VSMUT wrote:
The A350-1000 is safe, for the mere fact that it's part of the A350 family. The A350-900 will keep the family running until the market picks up again. The 777X is in a more precarious position with the 777-8 practically dead, but will scrape through the next decade with a minimum of orders. In many ways it will mirror the A380.

Special wrote:
It would cost less/save more having one/two flights on a 777-9 than having two/three on an aircraft like the 787-9 for example. I think people need to remember that the world's flying population will still be growing and airports such as Heathrow & New York JFK are growth constrained.


You wanna apply those arguments to the A380 as well, or does it only apply to the Boeing product?

Even at the best of times, airlines couldn't justify the A380 and 747-8i with those arguments. You are suggesting that now, during the worst crisis aviation has ever faced, that airlines are suddenly going to change their minds?


Ziyulu wrote:
How much bigger is the 779 compared to 773? If there is not much difference, I can see Boeing scrapping the program.


It is just under 3 meters longer. Exact capacity is difficult to say, but Boeing lists a typical 2-class 777-9 with around 25-30 passengers more than the -300ER. It isn't getting scrapped, the 777X is too far now, but the bigger question is if Boeing will pull the plug on it early, like Airbus with the A380 and Boeing with the 747-8.


Opus99 wrote:
Honestly. I think going into this pandemic customers like Emirates, Qatar and LH would’ve pressed Boeing for hard figures on that aircraft before making any decisions. Going into this pandemic we heard 777F swap for 777X that died. We heard 787-10 swap for 777X that also died. We’ve also heard Akbar saying the jet is a very good jet and he will be taking all 60 of them for replacement. We have seen the jet survive at least round 1 or so of this crisis which I take as a good thing. We are still waiting for Emirates to confirm. But I think that if this jet was not what customers expected we would’ve seen strong rejection from customers. GE coming out with the certification also helped and we are now hearing figures of a 20% aircraft fuel burn over the 777-300ER. What is my point? The aircraft is very good. The customers seem confident in it.


IMHO, you are reading too much into it. Airlines can't just convert or cancel an order, that will involve negotiations with the manufacturer or losing the deposits. Boeing will be insisting on severe penalties for any cancellations or conversions to outstanding 777X orders, not least because the current order book is on shaky ground.


Opus99 wrote:
It will still be cheaper to transfer those pilots on the 777X than moving them onto the 35K.


Trust me, that's a minor cost, and one that the manufacturers often cover as part of the sale.

As minor as it is, its a cost people keep going on and on about. so it must mean something. I mean if we also look at the fact that nobody has ordered their a35Ks as replacements for the 300ERs. Emirates and United both cancelled the jet in favour of more 300ERs. I may be reading too much into it but we all came into this pandemic with different discussions in our mouths, everybody saying cancellations everywhere but here we are! A35K isn't that hot from an order number perspective and a customer book perspective.

Like I said the majority of the wide body market will be the 787 and the a359. but there is a strong market for the 777-9 and 35K size of aircraft. like I said airlines will still have 380s to replace and 777-300ERs as well as 747s. its not the largest market but its a significant market. And I think Airbus will let Boeing have it...for now. Airlines love their 300ERs even as the 350 and 787 came to market many still ordered more. why will you undermine your revenue potential on a high capacity route with slot constraints because you're afraid of risk. then you shouldn't;t be running a business. or we should all fly a320s everywhere. You have to look at the revenue potential and measure it against the risk of low passenger loads and I think the risk is EVEN lower on the 777-9 than it is on the 777-300er because the aircraft is cheaper to operate
 
Opus99
Posts: 1157
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:06 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Honestly. I think going into this pandemic customers like Emirates, Qatar and LH would’ve pressed Boeing for hard figures on that aircraft before making any decisions. Going into this pandemic we heard 777F swap for 777X that died. We heard 787-10 swap for 777X that also died. We’ve also heard Akbar saying the jet is a very good jet and he will be taking all 60 of them for replacement. We have seen the jet survive at least round 1 or so of this crisis which I take as a good thing. We are still waiting for Emirates to confirm. But I think that if this jet was not what customers expected we would’ve seen strong rejection from customers. GE coming out with the certification also helped and we are now hearing figures of a 20% aircraft fuel burn over the 777-300ER. What is my point? The aircraft is very good. The customers seem confident in it. EK downsizing is about meeting market demand for certain routes where it’s at not the extremely high fuel burn of the jet like the 380. Another thing that helps the 777X is a strong 777-300ER market as is. It will still be cheaper to transfer those pilots on the 777X than moving them onto the 35K. If the jet is as good/engine (which is the rumour) as GE say then I think the rightful successor to the 777-300ER is the 777-9 and then add some 380s and 747s there.


The only rumours I have heard about 20% better on a trip fuel burn basis appear to have originated here. The spec mission with OWE to maintain the Max payload capability of the 77W and A35k gives a per pax fuel use reduction of around 20%.

If the trip fuel burn per pax was 20% lower than the 77W then we would expect the spec mission to be in the order of 7900-8000nm. If that was the case the 778X is DOA.

With regard to the A35k, from what I hear it is incredibly capable aircraft in terms of fuel burn and payload/range performance but suffers from being complex and expensive to build compared to its stablemate the A359. My suspicion is that the A35k faces as stiff competition on a total package basis from the A359 as it does from the 779X. When the price of the 779X is pushed lower the 778X wouldn't become a factor till a much lower price. As was said above however if the production differences and complexity between the Airbus models can be reduced the A35k can sit without being produced with little bottom line effect. the 779X less so.

In times like these though development cost means nothing. Keep the cash flowing is the main aim, if the 779X manufacturing costs are low enough it will be fine.

Fred

20% came from GE themselves.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/day-cele ... mxzA%3D%3D

https://twitter.com/GEAviation/status/1 ... 30240?s=20

Many other articles of them quoting these figures, I'm just quoting them word for word. But you're probably right
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:35 pm

Opus99 wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
The A350-1000 is safe, for the mere fact that it's part of the A350 family. The A350-900 will keep the family running until the market picks up again. The 777X is in a more precarious position with the 777-8 practically dead, but will scrape through the next decade with a minimum of orders. In many ways it will mirror the A380.

Special wrote:
It would cost less/save more having one/two flights on a 777-9 than having two/three on an aircraft like the 787-9 for example. I think people need to remember that the world's flying population will still be growing and airports such as Heathrow & New York JFK are growth constrained.


You wanna apply those arguments to the A380 as well, or does it only apply to the Boeing product?

Even at the best of times, airlines couldn't justify the A380 and 747-8i with those arguments. You are suggesting that now, during the worst crisis aviation has ever faced, that airlines are suddenly going to change their minds?


Ziyulu wrote:
How much bigger is the 779 compared to 773? If there is not much difference, I can see Boeing scrapping the program.


It is just under 3 meters longer. Exact capacity is difficult to say, but Boeing lists a typical 2-class 777-9 with around 25-30 passengers more than the -300ER. It isn't getting scrapped, the 777X is too far now, but the bigger question is if Boeing will pull the plug on it early, like Airbus with the A380 and Boeing with the 747-8.


Opus99 wrote:
Honestly. I think going into this pandemic customers like Emirates, Qatar and LH would’ve pressed Boeing for hard figures on that aircraft before making any decisions. Going into this pandemic we heard 777F swap for 777X that died. We heard 787-10 swap for 777X that also died. We’ve also heard Akbar saying the jet is a very good jet and he will be taking all 60 of them for replacement. We have seen the jet survive at least round 1 or so of this crisis which I take as a good thing. We are still waiting for Emirates to confirm. But I think that if this jet was not what customers expected we would’ve seen strong rejection from customers. GE coming out with the certification also helped and we are now hearing figures of a 20% aircraft fuel burn over the 777-300ER. What is my point? The aircraft is very good. The customers seem confident in it.


IMHO, you are reading too much into it. Airlines can't just convert or cancel an order, that will involve negotiations with the manufacturer or losing the deposits. Boeing will be insisting on severe penalties for any cancellations or conversions to outstanding 777X orders, not least because the current order book is on shaky ground.


Opus99 wrote:
It will still be cheaper to transfer those pilots on the 777X than moving them onto the 35K.


Trust me, that's a minor cost, and one that the manufacturers often cover as part of the sale.

As minor as it is, its a cost people keep going on and on about. so it must mean something. I mean if we also look at the fact that nobody has ordered their a35Ks as replacements for the 300ERs. Emirates and United both cancelled the jet in favour of more 300ERs. I may be reading too much into it but we all came into this pandemic with different discussions in our mouths, everybody saying cancellations everywhere but here we are! A35K isn't that hot from an order number perspective and a customer book perspective.

Like I said the majority of the wide body market will be the 787 and the a359. but there is a strong market for the 777-9 and 35K size of aircraft. like I said airlines will still have 380s to replace and 777-300ERs as well as 747s. its not the largest market but its a significant market. And I think Airbus will let Boeing have it...for now. Airlines love their 300ERs even as the 350 and 787 came to market many still ordered more. why will you undermine your revenue potential on a high capacity route with slot constraints because you're afraid of risk. then you shouldn't;t be running a business. or we should all fly a320s everywhere. You have to look at the revenue potential and measure it against the risk of low passenger loads and I think the risk is EVEN lower on the 777-9 than it is on the 777-300er because the aircraft is cheaper to operate

I also think the other thing is that a lot of 77W‘s are quite new, I think it was maybe 2015 that they got a PIP, I personally believe the 35K is going to be a late bloomer. When we see a full demand recovery and let’s go conservative and see seven years some of these 10-15year-old triple sevens are going to be 20+ and they could have a lot of cycles by then.
 
Sokes
Posts: 2154
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:51 pm

Opus99 wrote:

What is the earlier model?
More important: What mission?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
ethernal
Posts: 328
Joined: Mon May 06, 2019 12:09 pm

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:55 pm

The A350K and 779 will be successful so long as the CASM is materially lower than smaller aircraft.

The 773 is still a very successful long haul aircraft. Why? Because it's CASM is pretty low.

The A380/747-8i have left a vaneer of "the VLA market is dead" but the only thing they have proven is that four-holers are dead. Why would I buy an aircraft that seats 500 but has the same or only slightly lower CASM than a 300 seater? All else being equal, you'll always want to use a smaller aircraft for the same demand because you can drive a RASM benefit through frequency.

The A380 and to a lesser extent the 747-8i are the worst of both worlds: massive passenger capacity but mediocre CASM (at least as configured).

If the 779 and A350K deliver materially better (15-20%) CASM over a 787-sized aircraft, there will be a market for them. If the CASM is only 5-7% better then they are dead on arrival.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24809
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:57 pm

VSMUT wrote:
You wanna apply those arguments to the A380 as well, or does it only apply to the Boeing product?

Where did Boeing build in the stretch for the even bigger 777X? Where are the third and fourth engines? Where is the eight-across full length upper deck? 777X is a stretch of an already efficient fuselage with wings designed to its exact specification rather than a future stretch, and a state of the art engines rather than the half-measures T900/GP7200 were. They are not comparable situations. It very well could be that 779 hits a sweet spot in capacity vs efficiency like 77W did before it.

flipdewaf wrote:
With regard to the A35k, from what I hear it is incredibly capable aircraft in terms of fuel burn and payload/range performance but suffers from being complex and expensive to build compared to its stablemate the A359. My suspicion is that the A35k faces as stiff competition on a total package basis from the A359 as it does from the 779X. When the price of the 779X is pushed lower the 778X wouldn't become a factor till a much lower price. As was said above however if the production differences and complexity between the Airbus models can be reduced the A35k can sit without being produced with little bottom line effect. the 779X less so.

In times like these though development cost means nothing. Keep the cash flowing is the main aim, if the 779X manufacturing costs are low enough it will be fine.

The A350 cost speculation doesn't bode too well for a future A350F, I would think. Seems Boeing's play will be to do a 778F and if it happens to bring along some pax sales, so be it. Kinda like the 77L/77F situation.
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
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4689
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:05 pm

Opus99 wrote:
I mean if we also look at the fact that nobody has ordered their a35Ks as replacements for the 300ERs. Emirates and United both cancelled the jet in favour of more 300ERs.


United hasn't cancelled, they merely converted to the A350-900, which is reasonable when you consider that their 777-200s are much older than their still very young -300ERs. Japan Airlines will be replacing the 777-300ER one-for-one with the A350-1000. You can bet that Emirates will use the smaller 787-9 and A350-900 to replace a number of of 777s too. Aeroflot will be replacing the type with the A350-900.

As has been covered ad nauseam, most 777-300ER fleets are still young. It is unreasonable to expect mass A350-1000 or 777-9 orders to replace the global 777-300ER fleet. The only two airlines with definite plans to use the 777-9 for that role are Emirates and Qatar, and they were flush with cash until recently.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4689
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:10 pm

Revelation wrote:
Where did Boeing build in the stretch for the even bigger 777X? Where are the third and fourth engines? Where is the eight-across full length upper deck? 777X is a stretch of an already efficient fuselage with wings designed to its exact specification rather than a future stretch, and a state of the art engines rather than the half-measures T900/GP7200 were. They are not comparable situations. It very well could be that 779 hits a sweet spot in capacity vs efficiency like 77W did before it.


The number of engines or decks is irrelevant, you know that. The A380 and 747-8 failed because they were too big, like the 777-9. If you can't reliably fill it with paying passengers at high enough fares, it will all be for naught.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5649
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:11 pm

The fate of the 779 will depend largely on how much more efficient it is than the A3510. If it beats it by a significant margin it will attract orders once sir travel resumes. If it does not it will go the way of the A380. The reason the A380 died was that it did not offer significantly better per seat economics than the 77W, and then the 787 (which according to some accounts I have seen actually beat it, as does the A350). Airlines will always prefer smaller aircraft that offer the same efficiency; that’s why the 748 never took off (the 77W and the 787 offered comparable economics). So if the 779 ends up being as good as some, like Lightsaber, think it will, then it has a future. If not, Boeing might as well pull the plug now. And by now they should have a pretty good idea of how it will do.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
Ncfc99
Posts: 784
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 2:42 am

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:15 pm

Revelation wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:
With regard to the A35k, from what I hear it is incredibly capable aircraft in terms of fuel burn and payload/range performance but suffers from being complex and expensive to build compared to its stablemate the A359. My suspicion is that the A35k faces as stiff competition on a total package basis from the A359 as it does from the 779X. When the price of the 779X is pushed lower the 778X wouldn't become a factor till a much lower price. As was said above however if the production differences and complexity between the Airbus models can be reduced the A35k can sit without being produced with little bottom line effect. the 779X less so.

In times like these though development cost means nothing. Keep the cash flowing is the main aim, if the 779X manufacturing costs are low enough it will be fine.

The A350 cost speculation doesn't bode too well for a future A350F, I would think. Seems Boeing's play will be to do a 778F and if it happens to bring along some pax sales, so be it. Kinda like the 77L/77F situation.


Do either of you know why or what causes the 35K to be more expensive to produce than the 359 other than the fact its larger and production costs will scale up? I expect the engines cost more as they are a more capable version, but AFAIK the basic airframe is more or less the same.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24809
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:49 pm

VSMUT wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Where did Boeing build in the stretch for the even bigger 777X? Where are the third and fourth engines? Where is the eight-across full length upper deck? 777X is a stretch of an already efficient fuselage with wings designed to its exact specification rather than a future stretch, and a state of the art engines rather than the half-measures T900/GP7200 were. They are not comparable situations. It very well could be that 779 hits a sweet spot in capacity vs efficiency like 77W did before it.

The number of engines or decks is irrelevant, you know that. The A380 and 747-8 failed because they were too big, like the 777-9. If you can't reliably fill it with paying passengers at high enough fares, it will all be for naught.

Well right now you can't fill a 787 or A350 reliably either so those are also in the 'naught' column by that measure.

The eight across upper deck in the A380 does matter, it gives it about +140 seats relative to 777x depending on configuration ( one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_fleet ) with all the extra mass and drag the upper deck creates. Our A380 anniversary thread has the 'father of the A380' talking about how overbuilt A380 is and how it did not scale as expected. It's in a league of its own, not 'like the 777-9' which is an optimization of an already successful design.
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
 
Opus99
Posts: 1157
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 5:56 pm

VSMUT wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
I mean if we also look at the fact that nobody has ordered their a35Ks as replacements for the 300ERs. Emirates and United both cancelled the jet in favour of more 300ERs.


United hasn't cancelled, they merely converted to the A350-900, which is reasonable when you consider that their 777-200s are much older than their still very young -300ERs. Japan Airlines will be replacing the 777-300ER one-for-one with the A350-1000. You can bet that Emirates will use the smaller 787-9 and A350-900 to replace a number of of 777s too. Aeroflot will be replacing the type with the A350-900.

As has been covered ad nauseam, most 777-300ER fleets are still young. It is unreasonable to expect mass A350-1000 or 777-9 orders to replace the global 777-300ER fleet. The only two airlines with definite plans to use the 777-9 for that role are Emirates and Qatar, and they were flush with cash until recently.

They cancelled the 1000 though. It’s no longer on order. 777 replacement is also SQ, CX, ANA too. They have all ordered for replacement not expansion
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3711
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 6:47 pm

Ncfc99 wrote:
Revelation wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:
With regard to the A35k, from what I hear it is incredibly capable aircraft in terms of fuel burn and payload/range performance but suffers from being complex and expensive to build compared to its stablemate the A359. My suspicion is that the A35k faces as stiff competition on a total package basis from the A359 as it does from the 779X. When the price of the 779X is pushed lower the 778X wouldn't become a factor till a much lower price. As was said above however if the production differences and complexity between the Airbus models can be reduced the A35k can sit without being produced with little bottom line effect. the 779X less so.

In times like these though development cost means nothing. Keep the cash flowing is the main aim, if the 779X manufacturing costs are low enough it will be fine.

The A350 cost speculation doesn't bode too well for a future A350F, I would think. Seems Boeing's play will be to do a 778F and if it happens to bring along some pax sales, so be it. Kinda like the 77L/77F situation.


Do either of you know why or what causes the 35K to be more expensive to produce than the 359 other than the fact its larger and production costs will scale up? I expect the engines cost more as they are a more capable version, but AFAIK the basic airframe is more or less the same.

It's the complexity of having new and different parts on the different designs. If you assume that about 20% of the parts are different (By value)* and also assume that the cost scales with weight (OWE). Using relative production figures so far with a standard learning curve figure of 0.87× cost for each doubling of production then the A 35K is about 21% more expensive to make than the A 359 despite only being about 10% heavier.

The A35k can take 20-25% More cargo has 18% more cabin space, burns about 15% more dino Juice and goes a bit further. It's on the cusp of an invisible boundary, the more common parts the better.

It's exactly the Same as Boeing are doing to the 788 Simplification.

* I don't know this but some guesses needed to feed equations.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Image
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3711
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 6:54 pm

Revelation wrote:
The A350 cost speculation doesn't bode too well for a future A350F, I would think. Seems Boeing's play will be to do a 778F and if it happens to bring along some pax sales, so be it. Kinda like the 77L/77F situation.


I agree, I think the base 778x/778F will emerge as a slightly shorter aircraft perhaps maintaining the same length difference to it's larger sibling as did the 772- 77w. In this way it will maintain the 77f Max payload and [email protected]

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Image
 
mig17
Posts: 327
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 8:32 pm

Neither are doing well in the short-term future. Now and for a few years it is going to be only deferrals and cancellations.
Same in the mid-term future, even if pax demand comes back strong after 2025, the airline industry will be sinistred, it won't be able to support large investment and will prefer low risk for some time. And there lies the difference between 779 and A35K, the former will need new orders fast to support the factory line and further developpement costs while the A359 backlog will do that for the A35K.
So I don't know about the long-term future of A35K against smaller A359 or 789, but 779 seem to have no real long-term future above the 200-250 unit already on order who will eventually be delivered.
727 AT, 737 UX/SK/TO/SS, 747 UT/AF/SQ/BA/SS, 767 UA, 777 AF, A300 IW/TG, A310 EK, A318/19/20/21 AF/U2/VY, A332/3 EK/QR/TX, A343 AF, A388 AF, E145/170/190 A5/WF, Q400 WF, ATR 72 A5/TX, CRJ100/700/1000 A5, C-150/172, PC-6.
 
Opus99
Posts: 1157
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 8:46 pm

mig17 wrote:
Neither are doing well in the short-term future. Now and for a few years it is going to be only deferrals and cancellations.
Same in the mid-term future, even if pax demand comes back strong after 2025, the airline industry will be sinistred, it won't be able to support large investment and will prefer low risk for some time. And there lies the difference between 779 and A35K, the former will need new orders fast to support the factory line and further developpement costs while the A359 backlog will do that for the A35K.
So I don't know about the long-term future of A35K against smaller A359 or 789, but 779 seem to have no real long-term future above the 200-250 unit already on order who will eventually be delivered.

Very short sighted. A lot of potential customers. Korean Air, Turkish, the Chinese carriers, Air France with 43 77Ws, KLMs all Boeing fleet with 300ERs, the American and United 300ERs much later down the line. I see a market of about 500-600 jets if I’m being honest. And then include top ups. BA will take all their 42. If the jet delivers ANA, SQ and LH will also top up
 
mig17
Posts: 327
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:12 pm

Opus99 wrote:
mig17 wrote:
Neither are doing well in the short-term future. Now and for a few years it is going to be only deferrals and cancellations.
Same in the mid-term future, even if pax demand comes back strong after 2025, the airline industry will be sinistred, it won't be able to support large investment and will prefer low risk for some time. And there lies the difference between 779 and A35K, the former will need new orders fast to support the factory line and further developpement costs while the A359 backlog will do that for the A35K.
So I don't know about the long-term future of A35K against smaller A359 or 789, but 779 seem to have no real long-term future above the 200-250 unit already on order who will eventually be delivered.

Very short sighted. A lot of potential customers. Korean Air, Turkish, the Chinese carriers, Air France with 43 77Ws, KLMs all Boeing fleet with 300ERs, the American and United 300ERs much later down the line. I see a market of about 500-600 jets if I’m being honest. And then include top ups. BA will take all their 42. If the jet delivers ANA, SQ and LH will also top up

That is a pre-covid view. And even then, AF, United were improbable du to their investment in the A350 and LH top up also. Chinese carriers were questionable. EK and EY were on reducing trend. BA, EVA, Korean were good option.

But now, with entire fleets of 777-200/ER/LR being retired early, with A388 and 744 also on there way out with no direct replacement, with CX, QR and surely NH deferring part or all, with EK negociating more swaps and EY virtualy out and with lots of more affordable recent used planes on the market, new order for the 777-9 are (to) far away in the future.
727 AT, 737 UX/SK/TO/SS, 747 UT/AF/SQ/BA/SS, 767 UA, 777 AF, A300 IW/TG, A310 EK, A318/19/20/21 AF/U2/VY, A332/3 EK/QR/TX, A343 AF, A388 AF, E145/170/190 A5/WF, Q400 WF, ATR 72 A5/TX, CRJ100/700/1000 A5, C-150/172, PC-6.
 
moyangmm
Posts: 224
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:29 pm

77X will be fine. Order book is still strong.
 
Opus99
Posts: 1157
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:33 pm

mig17 wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
mig17 wrote:
Neither are doing well in the short-term future. Now and for a few years it is going to be only deferrals and cancellations.
Same in the mid-term future, even if pax demand comes back strong after 2025, the airline industry will be sinistred, it won't be able to support large investment and will prefer low risk for some time. And there lies the difference between 779 and A35K, the former will need new orders fast to support the factory line and further developpement costs while the A359 backlog will do that for the A35K.
So I don't know about the long-term future of A35K against smaller A359 or 789, but 779 seem to have no real long-term future above the 200-250 unit already on order who will eventually be delivered.

Very short sighted. A lot of potential customers. Korean Air, Turkish, the Chinese carriers, Air France with 43 77Ws, KLMs all Boeing fleet with 300ERs, the American and United 300ERs much later down the line. I see a market of about 500-600 jets if I’m being honest. And then include top ups. BA will take all their 42. If the jet delivers ANA, SQ and LH will also top up

That is a pre-covid view. And even then, AF, United were improbable du to their investment in the A350 and LH top up also. Chinese carriers were questionable. EK and EY were on reducing trend. BA, EVA, Korean were good option.

But now, with entire fleets of 777-200/ER/LR being retired early, with A388 and 744 also on there way out with no direct replacement, with CX, QR and surely NH deferring part or all, with EK negociating more swaps and EY virtualy out and with lots of more affordable recent used planes on the market, new order for the 777-9 are (to) far away in the future.

NH has confirmed taking in 2022. I don't expect any new orders soon. United ordered the 1000 but backed out, I don't see them supporting it again, EY forget about that. EK will be the largest by far. QR has pushed back to 2022 as well. A7-BKA already on the flight line. Aircrafts on the flight line will collect in 2022. LH don't want the 1000, they have another 14 options on the -9 which will come in handy to replace 380 and 747-8 at the right time. People talk of demand coming back but the jets to meet the demand not coming back.. The 380 is not part of that equation because it was already out of the equation from 2018.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2688
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Fri Oct 23, 2020 5:14 am

Opus99 wrote:
mig17 wrote:
Neither are doing well in the short-term future. Now and for a few years it is going to be only deferrals and cancellations.
Same in the mid-term future, even if pax demand comes back strong after 2025, the airline industry will be sinistred, it won't be able to support large investment and will prefer low risk for some time. And there lies the difference between 779 and A35K, the former will need new orders fast to support the factory line and further developpement costs while the A359 backlog will do that for the A35K.
So I don't know about the long-term future of A35K against smaller A359 or 789, but 779 seem to have no real long-term future above the 200-250 unit already on order who will eventually be delivered.

Very short sighted. A lot of potential customers. Korean Air, Turkish, the Chinese carriers, Air France with 43 77Ws, KLMs all Boeing fleet with 300ERs, the American and United 300ERs much later down the line. I see a market of about 500-600 jets if I’m being honest. And then include top ups. BA will take all their 42. If the jet delivers ANA, SQ and LH will also top up


One obstacle the 777X faces is that the A350 is well-established at many of the carriers that would be interested in the 777X. The A359 (and 789) offer stability, flexibility and lower capital cost. I foresee a fair amount of downsizing, even if a lot of that will be from the 77W.

Very optimistic to claim that BA will take all 42 and that LH and SQ will top up, their priorities will be returning to profit and coming to terms with lower demand and little cash, situations for which the 777X is not helpful.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 850
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Fri Oct 23, 2020 6:03 am

All the speculation is really for naught until airlines start getting real world dats on the 779. If the rumored 20% efficiency gain over the 77W ends up being correct it should ultimately sell well for those airliners that need and can fill the extra seats versus an A35K. But a 20% improvement would have to be the minimum threshold. Any less and the 779 is in deep trouble.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
Opus99
Posts: 1157
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Fri Oct 23, 2020 8:03 am

MrHMSH wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
mig17 wrote:
Neither are doing well in the short-term future. Now and for a few years it is going to be only deferrals and cancellations.
Same in the mid-term future, even if pax demand comes back strong after 2025, the airline industry will be sinistred, it won't be able to support large investment and will prefer low risk for some time. And there lies the difference between 779 and A35K, the former will need new orders fast to support the factory line and further developpement costs while the A359 backlog will do that for the A35K.
So I don't know about the long-term future of A35K against smaller A359 or 789, but 779 seem to have no real long-term future above the 200-250 unit already on order who will eventually be delivered.

Very short sighted. A lot of potential customers. Korean Air, Turkish, the Chinese carriers, Air France with 43 77Ws, KLMs all Boeing fleet with 300ERs, the American and United 300ERs much later down the line. I see a market of about 500-600 jets if I’m being honest. And then include top ups. BA will take all their 42. If the jet delivers ANA, SQ and LH will also top up


One obstacle the 777X faces is that the A350 is well-established at many of the carriers that would be interested in the 777X. The A359 (and 789) offer stability, flexibility and lower capital cost. I foresee a fair amount of downsizing, even if a lot of that will be from the 77W.

Very optimistic to claim that BA will take all 42 and that LH and SQ will top up, their priorities will be returning to profit and coming to terms with lower demand and little cash, situations for which the 777X is not helpful.

And the A350-1000 is? It is not anymore helpful than the -9. Again did you see me put a time frame on the top up? Don’t come with this profitability stuff like they’ll never buy an aircraft again. Everybody knows what’s on ground obviously from the topic this is long term
 
Opus99
Posts: 1157
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Fri Oct 23, 2020 8:12 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
All the speculation is really for naught until airlines start getting real world dats on the 779. If the rumored 20% efficiency gain over the 77W ends up being correct it should ultimately sell well for those airliners that need and can fill the extra seats versus an A35K. But a 20% improvement would have to be the minimum threshold. Any less and the 779 is in deep trouble.

I’m of the opinion that if you can fill a 300ER, you can fill a 777-9 it’s not that much bigger really.
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Fri Oct 23, 2020 8:53 am

I think that for many airlines, getting factory new wide body aircraft will be low on their priorities when there are still so many near new ones parked in desserts with very attractive low lease rates. It may take 3-4 years to clear and until then, new aircraft demand will probably be at tick over pace.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2688
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Fri Oct 23, 2020 10:12 am

Opus99 wrote:
And the A350-1000 is? It is not anymore helpful than the -9. Again did you see me put a time frame on the top up? Don’t come with this profitability stuff like they’ll never buy an aircraft again. Everybody knows what’s on ground obviously from the topic this is long term


The A35K is smaller than the 779, cheaper to buy and offers good economics and performance, it's essentially a 77W replacement, but a bit smaller (narrower). More importantly, it can leverage the economies of scale afforded by sharing the same line as the A359, a very popular model. The 779 cannot lean on a smaller model as it is the more successful sibling. If worst comes to worst and the A35K stops selling, then the A359 will take up the slack, this option isn't available to the 779. Airbus could just wait until orders pick up without having to slow or stop the line. In an era when even prior to Covid we saw a lot of 77W routes being downgauged to A359s, I don't hold much optimism for large 779 sales, though I think it'll break even/make a small profit and pass 400 orders. There's just too much competition from the A350 and 789 for the 779 to be the most attractive option.

BA had the entirety of its 744 replacement decided even prior to Covid, they decided that 18 779s was enough, the rest of their 744 flying is/will be taken up by A35Ks, 77Ws and 78Xs, save for the handful of routes where the A380 is desirable because the specific routes are high capacity but low frequency (HKG, SIN, LAX etc). Where an extra 24 779s fit into the fleet with all 744 replacements accounted for I'm really not sure, unless BA shifts the A35K to be a 77W/77E replacement, something they have shown no desire to do as of yet.
 
Opus99
Posts: 1157
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Fri Oct 23, 2020 10:55 am

MrHMSH wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
And the A350-1000 is? It is not anymore helpful than the -9. Again did you see me put a time frame on the top up? Don’t come with this profitability stuff like they’ll never buy an aircraft again. Everybody knows what’s on ground obviously from the topic this is long term


The A35K is smaller than the 779, cheaper to buy and offers good economics and performance, it's essentially a 77W replacement, but a bit smaller (narrower). More importantly, it can leverage the economies of scale afforded by sharing the same line as the A359, a very popular model. The 779 cannot lean on a smaller model as it is the more successful sibling. If worst comes to worst and the A35K stops selling, then the A359 will take up the slack, this option isn't available to the 779. Airbus could just wait until orders pick up without having to slow or stop the line. In an era when even prior to Covid we saw a lot of 77W routes being downgauged to A359s, I don't hold much optimism for large 779 sales, though I think it'll break even/make a small profit and pass 400 orders. There's just too much competition from the A350 and 789 for the 779 to be the most attractive option.

BA had the entirety of its 744 replacement decided even prior to Covid, they decided that 18 779s was enough, the rest of their 744 flying is/will be taken up by A35Ks, 77Ws and 78Xs, save for the handful of routes where the A380 is desirable because the specific routes are high capacity but low frequency (HKG, SIN, LAX etc). Where an extra 24 779s fit into the fleet with all 744 replacements accounted for I'm really not sure, unless BA shifts the A35K to be a 77W/77E replacement, something they have shown no desire to do as of yet.

It’s not cheaper to buy. It’s very expensive which is one of the main reasons it’s not selling. It’s expensive to build and very complex. Honestly, we have to wait and see. I think the economics we are hearing is enough to beat the 35K. 35K will beat it trip burn obviously it’s much lighter but even at that it won’t be significant. As a whole package the 779 offering seems to be better than the 35K. Trip fuel burn is just one of the few things that come in when looking at aircraft acquisition especially aircrafts that are very similar in performance metrics
 
Hosta
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:52 pm

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:12 am

Opus99 wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
And the A350-1000 is? It is not anymore helpful than the -9. Again did you see me put a time frame on the top up? Don’t come with this profitability stuff like they’ll never buy an aircraft again. Everybody knows what’s on ground obviously from the topic this is long term


The A35K is smaller than the 779, cheaper to buy and offers good economics and performance, it's essentially a 77W replacement, but a bit smaller (narrower). More importantly, it can leverage the economies of scale afforded by sharing the same line as the A359, a very popular model. The 779 cannot lean on a smaller model as it is the more successful sibling. If worst comes to worst and the A35K stops selling, then the A359 will take up the slack, this option isn't available to the 779. Airbus could just wait until orders pick up without having to slow or stop the line. In an era when even prior to Covid we saw a lot of 77W routes being downgauged to A359s, I don't hold much optimism for large 779 sales, though I think it'll break even/make a small profit and pass 400 orders. There's just too much competition from the A350 and 789 for the 779 to be the most attractive option.

BA had the entirety of its 744 replacement decided even prior to Covid, they decided that 18 779s was enough, the rest of their 744 flying is/will be taken up by A35Ks, 77Ws and 78Xs, save for the handful of routes where the A380 is desirable because the specific routes are high capacity but low frequency (HKG, SIN, LAX etc). Where an extra 24 779s fit into the fleet with all 744 replacements accounted for I'm really not sure, unless BA shifts the A35K to be a 77W/77E replacement, something they have shown no desire to do as of yet.

It’s not cheaper to buy. It’s very expensive which is one of the main reasons it’s not selling. It’s expensive to build and very complex. Honestly, we have to wait and see. I think the economics we are hearing is enough to beat the 35K. 35K will beat it trip burn obviously it’s much lighter but even at that it won’t be significant. As a whole package the 779 offering seems to be better than the 35K. Trip fuel burn is just one of the few things that come in when looking at aircraft acquisition especially aircrafts that are very similar in performance metrics


Out of interest, do you know the acquisition price difference between the two models?

Where can one read about the economics of the 777-9?
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2688
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:15 am

Opus99 wrote:
It’s not cheaper to buy. It’s very expensive which is one of the main reasons it’s not selling. It’s expensive to build and very complex. Honestly, we have to wait and see. I think the economics we are hearing is enough to beat the 35K. 35K will beat it trip burn obviously it’s much lighter but even at that it won’t be significant. As a whole package the 779 offering seems to be better than the 35K. Trip fuel burn is just one of the few things that come in when looking at aircraft acquisition especially aircrafts that are very similar in performance metrics


Do we have numbers for the production costs? The A359 has been reported to be fairly expensive, but I find it hard to believe it'd be more expensive than the 779, a larger aircraft, whilst using the same production line as the A359, while the 779 has been delayed and is built on a slower production line. I know list price isn't close to what airlines pay, but $80m difference is pretty hefty ($366m vs $442m). If the A35K is more expensive to produce and sell then no airline should order it at all.

I think the A35K closes the gap if the airline also has the A359, which a few airlines - unsurprisingly - do.

Also: The A35K's problems are more with the A359 being more popular and the 77W not needing much replacement as of yet (yes, this is true for the 779 as well).
 
Opus99
Posts: 1157
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Opinions on the 779 & A35K in the long-term future

Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:54 am

MrHMSH wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
It’s not cheaper to buy. It’s very expensive which is one of the main reasons it’s not selling. It’s expensive to build and very complex. Honestly, we have to wait and see. I think the economics we are hearing is enough to beat the 35K. 35K will beat it trip burn obviously it’s much lighter but even at that it won’t be significant. As a whole package the 779 offering seems to be better than the 35K. Trip fuel burn is just one of the few things that come in when looking at aircraft acquisition especially aircrafts that are very similar in performance metrics


Do we have numbers for the production costs? The A359 has been reported to be fairly expensive, but I find it hard to believe it'd be more expensive than the 779, a larger aircraft, whilst using the same production line as the A359, while the 779 has been delayed and is built on a slower production line. I know list price isn't close to what airlines pay, but $80m difference is pretty hefty ($366m vs $442m). If the A35K is more expensive to produce and sell then no airline should order it at all.

I think the A35K closes the gap if the airline also has the A359, which a few airlines - unsurprisingly - do.

Also: The A35K's problems are more with the A359 being more popular and the 77W not needing much replacement as of yet (yes, this is true for the 779 as well).

The A359 is not more expensive than the 779 at least I believe so. But we’ve heard that the A35K is expensive to build which is what turns off a lot of customers. You should also note. The 779s list price in 2018 was 370 million. Do you really think Boeing increased it by 80 million in real terms? Airbus is not pressed to give discounts on the A35K due to its expensive nature as Boeing would on he 779. Airbus themselves have said they don’t see the A35K selling more than 250 units. RR said they may never break even on the XWB 97. And then you have Airbus’ cost problem on the 350 as well.

Part of the reason BA originally ordered the 350 because the 779 was not ready at the time BA was ready to order one. But Boeing always knew BA would. BA was part of the airlines that Boeing consulted over the 779 and at the time many doubted that BA would ever order the 779 but they did and Boeing knew that they would. A few airlines have cancelled the A35K. Again there are many reasons airlines buy planes. The 380 was expensive as hell and had bad economics. Yet people bought it because of the promise it had. That promise was too far fetched and undermined by the 77W being about half its size. We’ve also seen CX come down from the 35K to the 359. United did the same. The 359 seems to be stealing its business and not the other way around. At least for now. I think CX might have to do with the price or the size. But they came down in 2018 and then now. So 2018 might have been price and then size or BOTH. United too completely pulled out of the A35K and went fully for the 900

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

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