User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 20963
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Thu Aug 15, 2019 11:35 am

musman9853 wrote:
My bet is we'll only see the 778 as a freighter then. Like 30 orders isn't enough to make imo

I would think in "normal times" 30 frames would have been enough to justify the model, but these aren't "normal times" for Boeing.

fcogafa wrote:
How long can Boeing continue to produce the current 777 freighter. Is the line compatible with the -9?

Yes, the line can produce both 777 classic and X. The line has self-positioning platforms to deal with the differences. The same tech is being used by Airbus at XFW.

It's kind of amazing that they will continue to produce such an old model, but they also still produce 767 and 747F.

To me it's amazing that FX/5X/USAF will still buy 767s whose engines are already two generations out of date, and plan to operate them for decades more.

keesje wrote:
This is blatant misinformation in my opinion, I have to step in for Jon. You can check out 2004-20010 events on this site.

I too support Jon. I also support Leeham and other independent aviation media sources. I don't treat their info as gospel truth, so I don't get upset should they get something wrong.

I think we're lucky to have people like them doing the hard work to bring people like us the info we crave.

JerseyFlyer wrote:
From FG, a rather weak statement considering it will have been thoroughly "PR'd" before release:

"Boeing says it will continue to work with current and potential 777X customers. “This includes our valued customer Qantas,” it adds."

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... nt-460286/

A somewhat updated report from FG ( https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... co-460294/ ) says:

FlightGlobal understands, from a source close to the initiative, that Boeing is keen to remain within the Project Sunrise competition and has put a "compelling option" to the Australian carrier intended to "help manage potential timing issues".

Boeing has been offering the 777-8 as an alternative to the Airbus A350 to serve the 'kangaroo' routes between the UK and eastern Australia. Qantas already uses Boeing 787s on a non-stop route between London and Perth.

I guess Boeing PR people are very practiced in the "nothing to see here, move on now" approach to dealing with bad news.

I think it's a bit more than a "potential timing issue" if you can't tell a customer when you plan to make a product available.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13045
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:28 pm

Revelation wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:
From FG, a rather weak statement considering it will have been thoroughly "PR'd" before release:

"Boeing says it will continue to work with current and potential 777X customers. “This includes our valued customer Qantas,” it adds."

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... nt-460286/

A somewhat updated report from FG ( https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... co-460294/ ) says:

FlightGlobal understands, from a source close to the initiative, that Boeing is keen to remain within the Project Sunrise competition and has put a "compelling option" to the Australian carrier intended to "help manage potential timing issues".

Boeing has been offering the 777-8 as an alternative to the Airbus A350 to serve the 'kangaroo' routes between the UK and eastern Australia. Qantas already uses Boeing 787s on a non-stop route between London and Perth.



Maybe Boeing is getting creative.
They could overhaul newish 777-200LR's (e.g. Etihad),
refurbish them and lease them for 5 years to QF.
Compensate QF for the higher fuel costs.
Maybe in combination with a 777X/ 787 order.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 20963
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:42 pm

keesje wrote:
Maybe Boeing is getting creative.
They could overhaul newish 777-200LR's (e.g. Etihad),
refurbish them and lease them for 5 years to QF.
Compensate QF for the higher fuel costs.
Maybe in combination with a 777X/ 787 order.

That's an interesting and creative approach.

Thing is, I would say QF was one of the customers most burned by the 787 delays.

I'm wondering how management would deal with the idea of Boeing never delivering 778x hanging over their heads.

I think it really would need to be a very "compelling" proposal to gain acceptance.
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
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1488
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: 778x mothballed?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:00 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Momo1435 wrote:
Boeing would also not have an aircraft which is directly placed against it's rivals offering in a still niche market segment.


So .. no ULH from Boeing, as there is the A359 already in the 787 size class, the A351 seems to take the 778 place, and if you need something smaller you can buy the A338 that already has range to offer.

best regards
Thomas

What are we considering ULH? Because Boeing already has a plane that can fly PER-LHR.
As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free.
 
User avatar
Erebus
Posts: 1004
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:40 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:02 pm

keesje wrote:
Revelation wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:
From FG, a rather weak statement considering it will have been thoroughly "PR'd" before release:

"Boeing says it will continue to work with current and potential 777X customers. “This includes our valued customer Qantas,” it adds."

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... nt-460286/

A somewhat updated report from FG ( https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... co-460294/ ) says:

FlightGlobal understands, from a source close to the initiative, that Boeing is keen to remain within the Project Sunrise competition and has put a "compelling option" to the Australian carrier intended to "help manage potential timing issues".

Boeing has been offering the 777-8 as an alternative to the Airbus A350 to serve the 'kangaroo' routes between the UK and eastern Australia. Qantas already uses Boeing 787s on a non-stop route between London and Perth.



Maybe Boeing is getting creative.
They could overhaul newish 777-200LR's (e.g. Etihad),
refurbish them and lease them for 5 years to QF.
Compensate QF for the higher fuel costs.
Maybe in combination with a 777X/ 787 order.


If it is a simple issue of timing, it kind of echoes what Boeing tried with Delta. IIRC, they offered Delta some (new build?) 777-200LRs as a placeholder till more 787 slots became available but wasn't enough to keep them from going with Airbus.

But in this case, I don't know what Boeing can offer to keep QF's Sunrise goal on track. I kind of feel the "compelling offer" is being thrown in there to try squeeze Airbus of margin even though it may not win.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10644
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: 778x mothballed?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:04 pm

cledaybuck wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Momo1435 wrote:
Boeing would also not have an aircraft which is directly placed against it's rivals offering in a still niche market segment.


So .. no ULH from Boeing, as there is the A359 already in the 787 size class, the A351 seems to take the 778 place, and if you need something smaller you can buy the A338 that already has range to offer.

best regards
Thomas

What are we considering ULH? Because Boeing already has a plane that can fly PER-LHR.


It definitely is already ULH. Way ULH. The A338 has more range still since it goes 251t, at least Airbus claims that....

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 20963
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:24 pm

Erebus wrote:
I kind of feel the "compelling offer" is being thrown in there to try squeeze Airbus of margin even though it may not win.

If what I read is true, 'last and final offers' are already in QF's hands, so I don't think it's a bid/counter-bid 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
 
Sokes
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: 778x mothballed?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 3:18 pm

SQ32 wrote:
The economics of 777x series is a concern. The 779 may (may not ) beats A351 simply because it is a larger plane. The fuel efficiency of A351 vs 779 are roughly on par. But yield quickly fall off if 779 cannot be filled up. Hence 779 is a very risky bet, while A351 is a better investment.


We don't know fuel efficiency yet.


tommy1808 wrote:
It is also not strictly impossible that the 779 is turning out so well in the numbers they may already have, that it is reducing the potential 778 market to being irrelevant.


That is a very convincing assumption.


Will transpacific cargo always be done via Anchorage or is there a chance that Seattle becomes a transpacific passenger + freight hub with B777-9x?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
WorldFlier
Posts: 309
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 2:10 pm

Re: 778x mothballed?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 3:23 pm

RickNRoll wrote:
scbriml wrote:
Jon is normally a pretty reliable source, so I certainly wouldn't bet against it. There has been a lot of talk about it being dropped, but many here didn't give that much credit.

Given Boeing's other issues, it seems like a fairly obvious way to clear some stuff off their plate. The cost may be the loss of 777-8 orders to Airbus, especially if the rumoured A35KULR is launched, but it seems that's something Boeing might be prepared to swallow.
Boeing it's better off working on it's strengths. The 774I didn't make sense either. A replacement for the 737 would have been a better idea.


The 747-8i was a (almost free, by airline development standards) nail in in the A380 Coffin. It can be argued that every single 748i sale was a sale denied to the A380. Also, it will sell to upgrade Airforce 1 which will pay for a good chunk of development too.

The 777-9X and (future) 10X were the final nails. From a strategic business "warfare" perspective the 748i did what it needed to do. The 748F is the only option for large volume freighters.

The 777-8 needs to die. The A350-1000 (and, ironically, a 787-10 MTOW bump) put a nail in the 777-8s coffin.

The 777-9 and 10 are in a league of its own if you want that size, and will sell on their merits. I think they won't sell like the 777-300ER because of the 787-10 and A350-1000 splitting that market.
 
sabby
Posts: 322
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:44 pm

I really don't see Boeing bothering with a 777X freighter. I mean they have virtually no competition for 77F or 747-8F. Building a better freighter that will probably sell a couple of hundreds over a decade would probably at the bottom of their priority list. If Airbus launch A359F with longer range than 5000nm, which I don't see them doing for the next 7-8 years as they can't even cope up with delivering passenger versions, Boeing just need to slap the 777-9 engines on 77F and call it a day. No need to change fuselage, wings etc.
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3720
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:11 pm

Revelation wrote:
A somewhat updated report from FG ( https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... co-460294/ ) says:
FlightGlobal understands, from a source close to the initiative, that Boeing is keen to remain within the Project Sunrise competition and has put a "compelling option" to the Australian carrier intended to "help manage potential timing issues".
Boeing has been offering the 777-8 as an alternative to the Airbus A350 to serve the 'kangaroo' routes between the UK and eastern Australia. Qantas already uses Boeing 787s on a non-stop route between London and Perth.

I guess Boeing PR people are very practiced in the "nothing to see here, move on now" approach to dealing with bad news.
I think it's a bit more than a "potential timing issue" if you can't tell a customer when you plan to make a product available.


This one is straight from PR academy . . . :

Boeing wrote:
The move to “adjust” the schedule of the ultra long-range variant of the 777X programme is to “[reduce] risk in our development programme, ensuring a more seamless transition to the 777-8.”

“We remain committed to the 777-8, which will be the most flexible commercial jet in the world and offer our customers optimal range and payload.”
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
Armodeen
Posts: 1176
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:17 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:57 pm

Seems the 777-8 is delayed in the same way the A358 is. I will be surprised if it is ever built.

Wonder if this paves the way for an eventual 777-10, in a few years time.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 20963
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:02 pm

PW100 wrote:
This one is straight from PR academy . . . :

Boeing wrote:
The move to “adjust” the schedule of the ultra long-range variant of the 777X programme is to “[reduce] risk in our development programme, ensuring a more seamless transition to the 777-8.”

“We remain committed to the 777-8, which will be the most flexible commercial jet in the world and offer our customers optimal range and payload.”

I'm starting to wonder how the NMA presser will be worded, sigh.
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
 
DenverTed
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:30 pm

The 777x wing and engine combo looks to be more capable than the A350, especially with the record of the new GE 9 engine. I think they can upgrade the available thrust. The question is what to do with it. Obviously not much of an asset on the 778, as the lighter fuselage of the A350 beats it. The only place the A350 can't go is higher weights. So maybe a higher weight 779, a 779F, or a 77710. But can the landing gear take any more weight? So it looks like they can't exploit the advantage of the big wing and engine, unless they solve the gear limitation. Center gear, quadruple bogey?
 
dampfnudel
Posts: 410
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:42 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:36 pm

I may be ultimately wrong here, but at the moment I’m getting A338 vibes with the 777-8. It may be project sunset for the aircraft.
A313 332 343 B703 712 722 732 73G 738 739 741 742 744 752 762 76E 764 772 AT5 CR9 D10 DHH DHT F27 GRM L10 M83 TU5

AA AI CO CL DE DL EA HA KL LH N7 PA PQ SK RO TW UA YR
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8687
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:37 pm

keesje wrote:
Maybe Boeing is getting creative.
They could overhaul newish 777-200LR's (e.g. Etihad),
refurbish them and lease them for 5 years to QF.
Compensate QF for the higher fuel costs.
Maybe in combination with a 777X/ 787 order.

Remind us again how this strategy worked for Airbus with the A340-600 versus the 777W?
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6491
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:41 pm

dampfnudel wrote:
I may be ultimately wrong here, but at the moment I’m getting A338 vibes with the 777-8. It may be project sunset for the aircraft.

I guess that's what they refer to as 'arrested development'..... :duck:
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 20963
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:51 pm

in the QF thread member qf789 posted some very interesting info in the post viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1402165&p=21589747#p21589629

qf789 wrote:
Scott Hamilton is suggesting the 777-8 will be delayed by about 2 years

https://leehamnews.com/2019/08/05/boein ... -for-777x/

The SMH is reporting that QF could delay their decision on Project Sunrise. Last week at the CAPA event in SYD QF CEO Alan Joyce said they were currently putting all their resources into Project Sunrise and was hoping to reach a decision by the end of the year if the business case makes sense.

https://blueswandaily.com/qantas-sees-r ... lan-joyce/

A Qantas spokesperson also says the 777-8 is not out of contention

A Qantas spokesman said Boeing's delay delivering the 777X-8 did not mean the aircraft was out of contention, and it continued to work with both manufacturers.


https://www.smh.com.au/business/compani ... 1565857287

It's pretty interesting to read that QF may delay their plans and the 778 is still in contention.

Pushing the time line out two years further seems to be a long time, though, and the timing of the 'mothballing' announcement seems pretty odd.

Other very interesting stuff from the Leeham link is:

Market intelligence also indicates that Boeing is offering the 777-8F sooner than originally planned. This was to come about two years after the 777-8 passenger model.

“We continue to focus on further bolstering the 777X skyline. On 777X development,” Muilenburg said on the earnings call. But no mention was made about a 777F and the Boeing spokesman declined comment.

According to two sources, Boeing is offering at least 25 777-8 freighters to Federal Express. Airbus is offering the A330-900 in a freighter form, as it is to UPS. UPS has the remaining commercial backlog for the 747-8F but needs to replace its Boeing MD-11Fs in the coming years.

Seems there will be some battles over MD11F replacement at UPS and presumably FX too, with A339F in the frey as well.

It's hard to make a clear picture with all these products and all these requirements and all these dates, at the same time Boeing is telling us they are freezing 8X work.
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
 
ILNFlyer
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:34 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:59 pm

Seems the 737 Max 8 pebble in the pond has made waves that are reverberating across nearly the entire Boeing lake.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6472
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:27 pm

So let's think about 787 growth, which a few posters are throwing around as a way for Boeing to get back into the 350-seat game.

Approach A is to wait for substantial engine improvements. Airbus is clearly hoping for a new A350 engine in the mid- to late 2020s. There hasn't been as much chatter out of Boeing about a new engine, but one assumes that where one Trent goes another can follow. A new engine with 10% fuel burn improvement, a 260 t MTOW as widely rumored, and no other changes could produce any of the following:

787-9NX - ~8900 nm brochure range with Boeing 290-seat configuration
787-10NX - ~7500 nm brochure range with Boeing 330-seat configuration
787-11NX - 3 m stretch of 787-10NX, presumably with 350-seat brochure configuration; such a beast would probably have OEW around 139 t and ~6800 nm brochure range

With this relatively low-cost approach, Boeing would once again have a ULH machine with the 787-9NX, and the 787-10NX would become the mainstream TPAC aircraft. The 787-11NX would fly routes a 787-10 can fly today, and could save a lot of money compared to a 777-300ER on those routes. But it would not be a true 777-300ER replacement.

Approach B would be to beef up the 787 and use updated A350-size engines. In this scenario, you'd have to enlarge the gear bay to hold 359-sized main gear, and you'd probably lose 2 LD3 positions at a given fuselage length. It would likely cost 3-5 t OEW for the bigger center wing box and gear, although maybe there is room to take some of that back out of the airframe. Wing would be unchanged except for longer tip extensions. Bigger gear would buy you MTOW up to ~280 t. I think you would have to rejigger the fuselage lengths to keep cargo capability at least equal and to prevent the smaller variant from becoming too heavy for its capability. Variants might look like this:

787-9.5 HGW - 3 m stretch of current 787-9 - 315 passengers brochure configuration, 9000+ nm range (possibly way over 9000). A more fuel-efficient successor to the heavy A350-900 variants.
787-11 HGW - 3 m stretch of current 787-10 - 350 passengers brochure configuration, 7800 nm range. Pretty much a drop-in 777-300ER or A350-1000 replacement.
787-12 HGW - 6 m stretch from current 787-10 - 375 passengers brochure configuration, 7000 nm range. Not really sure anyone needs one this big, so it might not get produced. But if the 777-9 falters, it could be a replacement at the high end.

These would do a better job of hitting the really heavy missions, but would leave a big fat gap at the low end.
 
User avatar
CarlosSi
Posts: 551
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 8:29 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:57 am

If the 778 is really that doomed (or any short variant like the a338 or a358) why bother making two variants ever if the only one that will actually sell will be the larger one? What if the base was the 779 and the stretch the 77J? Would the 779 be the “doomed” aircraft in this case? Doesn’t seem like there’s been a lot of room for multiple variants when it comes to wide bodies. I’m confused.
 
thatguy
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:53 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:00 am

Just goes to show you how cyclical the aviation industry is. Not that far back the Airbus wb strategy seemed to be a mess, with the A350 and A330NEO product lines being destroyed by the 787 and the 777X looking to slaughter the A380 and A35K. Now, the 777X is in trouble and production of the 787 is raising many concerns in terms of quality of the products and longevity of the line.
Summer flying is the worst :mad:
 
User avatar
SQ32
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:18 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:52 am

CarlosSi wrote:
If the 778 is really that doomed (or any short variant like the a338 or a358) why bother making two variants ever if the only one that will actually sell will be the larger one? What if the base was the 779 and the stretch the 77J? Would the 779 be the “doomed” aircraft in this case? Doesn’t seem like there’s been a lot of room for multiple variants when it comes to wide bodies. I’m confused.


The shorter variant was the basis of the design, and longer one was the stretched, taking penalties on reduced ranged, but increased efficiencies in fuel consumption. 772 was released earlier than 773 in gen 1. Then come the subsequent NEOs increasing the range in gen 2. 772ER, 773ER are gen 2. The smaller variant with better engines subsequently acquire better and better range after every NEOS and eventually become a ULR planes. The heavier variant after NEOs take over the long mission of the smaller variant.

If there is a 787 Ultrafan, then 787-10 will fly the mission of last generation 789.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2618
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Fri Aug 16, 2019 3:20 am

SQ32 wrote:
CarlosSi wrote:
If the 778 is really that doomed (or any short variant like the a338 or a358) why bother making two variants ever if the only one that will actually sell will be the larger one? What if the base was the 779 and the stretch the 77J? Would the 779 be the “doomed” aircraft in this case? Doesn’t seem like there’s been a lot of room for multiple variants when it comes to wide bodies. I’m confused.


The shorter variant was the basis of the design, and longer one was the stretched, taking penalties on reduced ranged, but increased efficiencies in fuel consumption. 772 was released earlier than 773 in gen 1. Then come the subsequent NEOs increasing the range in gen 2. 772ER, 773ER are gen 2. The smaller variant with better engines subsequently acquire better and better range after every NEOS and eventually become a ULR planes. The heavier variant after NEOs take over the long mission of the smaller variant.

If there is a 787 Ultrafan, then 787-10 will fly the mission of last generation 789.


Lots of wrong info here. The 772,773 and 77E are all “gen 1” of the 777s. The 77E is just a 772 with higher weights.

The “gen2” 777s are the 77L, 777F and 77W. Which have the GE90-110/115B which came the capability to have a MTOW at 351t.

Also keep in mind the 777X is based off of the 77W. Not the 778.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Fri Aug 16, 2019 4:27 am

If the 777-8 got cancelled then bring on the 787-8ER.

The 787-8ER would be the ultimate aircraft for Qantas with 90+% commonality with their 787-9's. To open a new risky route it is always good to have a smaller aircraft.

For those who haven't heard about the theoretical 787-8ER it is a standard 787-9 with the shorter 787-8 fuselage length. Keeping the higher 254t MTOW it results in a 26t increase over the current 787-8. Empty weight might increase slightly but it would give 9000+nm range straight off the bat.

The current 787-8 at 100% fuel capacity can fly 9500nm with 20,000lb of payload according to the ACAP. A MTOW increase would see the 787-8ER do 40,000lb of payload to a distance of 9000nm with the current maximum fuel limit. The 787-8ER would only be taking off at approx 243t. The 777LR used LD3 sized aux fuel tanks that had 5800kg of extra fuel. One of these fitted into the 787-8ER would allow London to Sydney in any weather condition with no restrictions. Qantas could even use a standard density cabin. With that single ACT it could do 9500nm with around 170 passengers.

Keeping the higher MLW of the 787-9 the 787-8ER would make a good basis for a freighter.

Once the 797 is launched I expect it to take over the role of the 787-8 when it comes to domestic short/medium haul work. This would free up the 787-8 to become the 787-8ER to be Boeings ultra long haul option and future freighter. I did expext this to happen in 10 years time with the 777-8 having some short term success.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8524
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Fri Aug 16, 2019 5:16 am

The 777-8 got delayed not cancelled. They simply need the engineers for the 797.
 
77H
Posts: 1443
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Fri Aug 16, 2019 5:37 am

Revelation wrote:
musman9853 wrote:
My bet is we'll only see the 778 as a freighter then. Like 30 orders isn't enough to make imo

I would think in "normal times" 30 frames would have been enough to justify the model, but these aren't "normal times" for Boeing.

fcogafa wrote:
How long can Boeing continue to produce the current 777 freighter. Is the line compatible with the -9?

Yes, the line can produce both 777 classic and X. The line has self-positioning platforms to deal with the differences. The same tech is being used by Airbus at XFW.

It's kind of amazing that they will continue to produce such an old model, but they also still produce 767 and 747F.

To me it's amazing that FX/5X/USAF will still buy 767s whose engines are already two generations out of date, and plan to operate them for decades more.

keesje wrote:
This is blatant misinformation in my opinion, I have to step in for Jon. You can check out 2004-20010 events on this site.

I too support Jon. I also support Leeham and other independent aviation media sources. I don't treat their info as gospel truth, so I don't get upset should they get something wrong.

I think we're lucky to have people like them doing the hard work to bring people like us the info we crave.

JerseyFlyer wrote:
From FG, a rather weak statement considering it will have been thoroughly "PR'd" before release:

"Boeing says it will continue to work with current and potential 777X customers. “This includes our valued customer Qantas,” it adds."

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... nt-460286/

A somewhat updated report from FG ( https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... co-460294/ ) says:

FlightGlobal understands, from a source close to the initiative, that Boeing is keen to remain within the Project Sunrise competition and has put a "compelling option" to the Australian carrier intended to "help manage potential timing issues".

Boeing has been offering the 777-8 as an alternative to the Airbus A350 to serve the 'kangaroo' routes between the UK and eastern Australia. Qantas already uses Boeing 787s on a non-stop route between London and Perth.

I guess Boeing PR people are very practiced in the "nothing to see here, move on now" approach to dealing with bad news.

I think it's a bit more than a "potential timing issue" if you can't tell a customer when you plan to make a product available.


My understanding is that the freighter carriers are less concerned about fuel efficiency as they are not utilized nearly as much as passenger airlines. As for USAF, efficiency is of no concern as they have a bottomless pit of funds to pay for fuel courtesy of the US taxpayer.

77H
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1728
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Fri Aug 16, 2019 5:40 am

Revelation wrote:
Erebus wrote:
I kind of feel the "compelling offer" is being thrown in there to try squeeze Airbus of margin even though it may not win.

If what I read is true, 'last and final offers' are already in QF's hands, so I don't think it's a bid/counter-bid situation.


I don't think so. QF asks for last and final offers, says nothing, then waits for the vendors to offer something even better. It's not a Government tender. They can negotiate as much as they want till the contract is signed.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12323
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: 778x mothballed?

Fri Aug 16, 2019 5:50 am

planecane wrote:
If the 779 was doing better than expected that would probably help the case for the 778, not hurt it.

History tells us a consistently different story.

BR was for a long time the launch customer for the 77L, however when the 77W turned out to be a better/longer ranged performer than predicted, BR felt its performance was sufficient to cover the mission profile planned for the -LR.

We saw numerous examples of that in the 238T+ A333 as well. Once it achieved that MTOW and higher, alongside the performance to boot, orders for the A332 essentially ground to a halt.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
Someone83
Posts: 4274
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:47 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Fri Aug 16, 2019 6:02 am

RJMAZ wrote:
If the 777-8 got cancelled then bring on the 787-8ER.

The 787-8ER would be the ultimate aircraft for Qantas with 90+% commonality with their 787-9's. To open a new risky route it is always good to have a smaller aircraft.
.


One issue is that Qantas has asked for a 300 seats aircraft (for Project Sunrise), thus this is too small
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10644
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Fri Aug 16, 2019 6:09 am

seahawk wrote:
The 777-8 got delayed not cancelled. They simply need the engineers for the 797.


didn´t i just read in another threat that the 797 is on ice at the moment?

Anyhow, i would think the -8 gets delayed until they make the -8F, at which point the pax model essentially comes for free, without taking up resources now.
Or the -9 has really just gotten good enough to fly any -8 mission other than project sunrise, and then there really is no point building it.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10644
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: 778x mothballed?

Fri Aug 16, 2019 6:12 am

LAX772LR wrote:
We saw numerous examples of that in the 238T+ A333 as well. Once it achieved that MTOW and higher, alongside the performance to boot, orders for the A332 essentially ground to a halt.


And that is despite the A332 still having a useful range advantage over the A333. With the ranges we are approaching now *more* range simply becomes irrelevant after you can already fly essentially around half the globe. And the antipoden airliner is pretty much just one engine update away for the 787-9 and A350 family.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8524
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: 778x mothballed?

Fri Aug 16, 2019 6:36 am

LAX772LR wrote:
planecane wrote:
If the 779 was doing better than expected that would probably help the case for the 778, not hurt it.

History tells us a consistently different story.

BR was for a long time the launch customer for the 77L, however when the 77W turned out to be a better/longer ranged performer than predicted, BR felt its performance was sufficient to cover the mission profile planned for the -LR.

We saw numerous examples of that in the 238T+ A333 as well. Once it achieved that MTOW and higher, alongside the performance to boot, orders for the A332 essentially ground to a halt.


Simple physics and mathematics. If the stretch with more seats can fly the same range, the trip costs increase is typically lower than the combined CASM improvement. So unless you are very certain that you can not use the extra seats of the -9, the -8 makes no sense in that scenario.
 
Sokes
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: 778x mothballed?

Fri Aug 16, 2019 6:52 am

tommy1808 wrote:
And the antipoden airliner is pretty much just one engine update away for the 787-9 and A350 family.


B777-8X: 69,8 m length
B777-9X: 76,7 m length
Fuselage diameter 6,2 m
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_77 ... ifications

over-stretched DC8-63: length 57,1m, fuselage width 3,73m,
57,1m/ 3,73m = 15,3

B777-8X: 69,8m/ 6,2m = 11,3
B7779-X: 76,7m/ 6,2m = 12,4

Why didn't Boeing choose 75/ 80m length models?
75,0m/ 6,2m = 12,1
80,0m/ 6,2m = 12,9

Would 80 m be over-stretched/ require strengthened frame? Tail strike problem?

But I think Tommy is right. It becomes less important to ask for range and more important to ask for range at MZFW. Do we approach a time in which most wide bodies can fly pretty much all missions with the difference between missions being cargo load or initial cruise altitude?
How did airlines use the B777-300ER? What would be a common minimum distance the B777-300ER was used for?
Last edited by Sokes on Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:20 am, edited 2 times in total.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Fri Aug 16, 2019 6:55 am

Someone83 wrote:
One issue is that Qantas has asked for a 300 seats aircraft (for Project Sunrise), thus this is too small

Not really, I could not find a direct quote stating 300 seats.

Fuel burn per seat is by far the most important criteria. If two aircraft have equal fuel burn per seat then airlines will nearly always go with the smaller aircraft. The smaller aircraft has less risk when opening a route.

If the 787-8ER could carry two thirds of the passengers and do it with two thirds of the fuel burn then it would be by far the best option. I do not doubt Qantas could fill 300 seats on Sydney to London but there are many thinner routes that Qantas wants to open in Europe and they also want to fly some routes from Brisbane. These might not be able to fill a 777-8.
 
B764er
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2018 2:19 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:19 am

Boeing may go solo with the 779x for now and surprise us with a 777-10x down the road. 778x may end up with the 783, 751 and 723 among other planes that never flew.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:24 am

tommy1808 wrote:
Anyhow, i would think the -8 gets delayed until they make the -8F, at which point the pax model essentially comes for free, without taking up resources now.

The problem is the 777-8F offers no performance over the 777F when operating as a freighter. A few users have discussed this in the tech ops thread.

The original 777F retained the same landing weight as the 777W, with the shorter and lighter 200 fuselage length then it gave a very large max payload of 102t.

If the 777-8F had the same max landing weight as the 777-9 then the max payload of the 777X freighter will be 80-85% of the original 777F.

Now if the 777X freighter might burn 20% less fuel but carries 20% less payload so then there is no fuel burn improvement. The fuel burnt per kg of payload is unchanged. You would only gain some extra cabin volume for lightweight parcels.

The larger 777X wing provides big advantages on ultra long haul flights. But on shorter flights the higher empty weight reduces the advantage to near zero.

In addition to this an ultra long haul passenger 777-8 does not need the high landing weight of a freighter. So the passenger version would have a lot of deadweight.

It would be cheaper to just produce discounted 777F's. If the 777-8 and 787-8F cost $2 billion to develop then Boeing save that $2 billion and use that money to knock off $20 million from the price of 100 777F's.

It would only worth making the 777-8 freighter if the passenger version was made. If the 777-8 passenger version gets beaten by the A350-1000ULR then Boeing should just pull the plug on it.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10644
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: 778x mothballed?

Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:41 am

Sokes wrote:
Why didn't Boeing choose 75/ 80m length models?
75,0m/ 6,2m = 12,1
80,0m/ 6,2m = 12,9

Would 80 m be over-stretched/ require strengthened frame? Tail strike problem?


I would think product management. The -9 is a moderate upgauge from the 77W and hence not that hard a choice for airlines in that capacity bracket, and i wouldb´t be surprised if they wanted to keep trip costs below the 77W and close to the A351, and an even longer stretch may have fallen short on either or both.

RJMAZ wrote:
The problem is the 777-8F offers no performance over the 777F when operating as a freighter. A few users have discussed this in the tech ops thread. .


Makes sense.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
WIederling
Posts: 8500
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:57 am

ILNFlyer wrote:
Seems the 737 Max 8 pebble in the pond has made waves that are reverberating across nearly the entire Boeing lake.

pond? global ocean!

Tsunami like, high speed waves but nearly invisible over deep enough water.
They've been running for a while and now have made land fall.
Murphy is an optimist
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3309
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:19 am

Seems like in the past few years Boeing has become wiser and is wary of producing aircraft that aren't a sound business case. Just because you can build it doesn't mean you should. The 778 was a bad idea from the start, and the order book reflected that. A niche product for Qantas isn't going to turn it into a cash cow variant. I can see better things to spend money on, like 78X upgrades.
 
olle
Posts: 1150
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:24 am

With the delays of B778 the A35K getting closer or beyond in both efficiency and what it can handle.

Second late 2020s A350 will get a NEO treatment killing 778.
 
marcelh
Posts: 649
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Fri Aug 16, 2019 10:22 am

MSPNWA wrote:
Seems like in the past few years Boeing has become wiser and is wary of producing aircraft that aren't a sound business case. Just because you can build it doesn't mean you should. The 778 was a bad idea from the start, and the order book reflected that. A niche product for Qantas isn't going to turn it into a cash cow variant. I can see better things to spend money on, like 78X upgrades.

If the 778 was a bad idea from the start, why did they even offered it (= spent money) and accepted the orders?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 20963
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:38 am

RJMAZ wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Anyhow, i would think the -8 gets delayed until they make the -8F, at which point the pax model essentially comes for free, without taking up resources now.

The problem is the 777-8F offers no performance over the 777F when operating as a freighter. A few users have discussed this in the tech ops thread.

The original 777F retained the same landing weight as the 777W, with the shorter and lighter 200 fuselage length then it gave a very large max payload of 102t.

If the 777-8F had the same max landing weight as the 777-9 then the max payload of the 777X freighter will be 80-85% of the original 777F.

Now if the 777X freighter might burn 20% less fuel but carries 20% less payload so then there is no fuel burn improvement. The fuel burnt per kg of payload is unchanged. You would only gain some extra cabin volume for lightweight parcels.

The larger 777X wing provides big advantages on ultra long haul flights. But on shorter flights the higher empty weight reduces the advantage to near zero.

In addition to this an ultra long haul passenger 777-8 does not need the high landing weight of a freighter. So the passenger version would have a lot of deadweight.

It would be cheaper to just produce discounted 777F's. If the 777-8 and 787-8F cost $2 billion to develop then Boeing save that $2 billion and use that money to knock off $20 million from the price of 100 777F's.

It would only worth making the 777-8 freighter if the passenger version was made. If the 777-8 passenger version gets beaten by the A350-1000ULR then Boeing should just pull the plug on it.

Interesting, yet Leeham reports Boeing has sales campaigns with FX for 25 778F and with UPS to replace MD11 with 778F at a time when they could just offer cheap 777F, so somehow they have made the sums work in a way that they have a viable 8F product.
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
 
tealnz
Posts: 560
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:54 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Someone83 wrote:
One issue is that Qantas has asked for a 300 seats aircraft (for Project Sunrise), thus this is too small

Not really, I could not find a direct quote stating 300 seats.
Fuel burn per seat is by far the most important criteria. If two aircraft have equal fuel burn per seat then airlines will nearly always go with the smaller aircraft. The smaller aircraft has less risk when opening a route.
If the 787-8ER could carry two thirds of the passengers and do it with two thirds of the fuel burn then it would be by far the best option. I do not doubt Qantas could fill 300 seats on Sydney to London but there are many thinner routes that Qantas wants to open in Europe and they also want to fly some routes from Brisbane. These might not be able to fill a 777-8.

QF have been firm that they need around 300 seats so they can have a four-class configuration. That came as a surprise to those of us who thought they would be focusing on the A359 as the Airbus option, but they have clearly made a judgment that they need the larger airframe to deliver the yields they want.

If you add up the different long-haul sectors Joyce has talked of for the new aircraft – ORD, NYC, GRU/GIG, LHR in addition to DFW and US west coast ports, from some combination of SYD/MEL/BNE, and with Paris and Frankfurt also in the mix – you can see we're talking about a substantial fleet. The reality is that the Sunrise aircraft – which now looks set to be the A35K – will be the new backbone of the QF long-haul fleet. If you think of it basically as a modern 77W with a capability, in the ULR variant, to handle extreme sectors such as LHR, it all makes sense.
 
marcelh
Posts: 649
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:02 pm

Revelation wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Anyhow, i would think the -8 gets delayed until they make the -8F, at which point the pax model essentially comes for free, without taking up resources now.

The problem is the 777-8F offers no performance over the 777F when operating as a freighter. A few users have discussed this in the tech ops thread.

The original 777F retained the same landing weight as the 777W, with the shorter and lighter 200 fuselage length then it gave a very large max payload of 102t.

If the 777-8F had the same max landing weight as the 777-9 then the max payload of the 777X freighter will be 80-85% of the original 777F.

Now if the 777X freighter might burn 20% less fuel but carries 20% less payload so then there is no fuel burn improvement. The fuel burnt per kg of payload is unchanged. You would only gain some extra cabin volume for lightweight parcels.

The larger 777X wing provides big advantages on ultra long haul flights. But on shorter flights the higher empty weight reduces the advantage to near zero.

In addition to this an ultra long haul passenger 777-8 does not need the high landing weight of a freighter. So the passenger version would have a lot of deadweight.

It would be cheaper to just produce discounted 777F's. If the 777-8 and 787-8F cost $2 billion to develop then Boeing save that $2 billion and use that money to knock off $20 million from the price of 100 777F's.

It would only worth making the 777-8 freighter if the passenger version was made. If the 777-8 passenger version gets beaten by the A350-1000ULR then Boeing should just pull the plug on it.

Interesting, yet Leeham reports Boeing has sales campaigns with FX for 25 778F and with UPS to replace MD11 with 778F at a time when they could just offer cheap 777F, so somehow they have made the sums work in a way that they have a viable 8F product.

It may be possible that Boeing is initating those campaigns to “kill of” 77F sales. It keeps the 778F (and 778) alive instead of hibernating, pushes also the sales of the 77X program and keeps Boeing in the lead of the WB freighter market.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8687
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:08 pm

tealnz wrote:
QF have been firm that they need around 300 seats so they can have a four-class configuration.

So to be clear, you are saying around 300 not 300.....

https://samchui.com/2018/11/14/qantas-c ... Vaca-hKizc
 
tealnz
Posts: 560
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:36 pm

par13del wrote:
tealnz wrote:
QF have been firm that they need around 300 seats so they can have a four-class configuration.

So to be clear, you are saying around 300 not 300.....

https://samchui.com/2018/11/14/qantas-c ... Vaca-hKizc

Yes. QF management have also acknowledged that they won’t be able to carry full pax to London but have said the technical offerings from Airbus and Boeing would allow them to carry a commercially viable payload. QF are no strangers to blocking seats on sectors at the edge of aircraft range – think of DFW-SYD. So I guess they figure they can still make a buck on SYD-LHR with 250 pax and 50 seats blocked in Y.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 20963
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:47 pm

marcelh wrote:
It may be possible that Boeing is initating those campaigns to “kill of” 77F sales. It keeps the 778F (and 778) alive instead of hibernating, pushes also the sales of the 77X program and keeps Boeing in the lead of the WB freighter market.

I suppose, but it's pretty clear Boeing now has a 9-12 month slip in when they thought they could be making 779x and could use some 777F orders to fill some slots.

On the other hand, they may do what they did with the tanker program, and keep producing 777X on the original schedule and hope that they don't need to do a lot of rework after the flight test program ends, but given the wing is all new that may be a risk they don't want to take, and given that the MAX is chewing through cash maybe they don't want to have a lot of undeliverable and unflyable 779s sitting at KPAE.
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
 
mig17
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Fri Aug 16, 2019 1:12 pm

marcelh wrote:
MSPNWA wrote:
Seems like in the past few years Boeing has become wiser and is wary of producing aircraft that aren't a sound business case. Just because you can build it doesn't mean you should. The 778 was a bad idea from the start, and the order book reflected that. A niche product for Qantas isn't going to turn it into a cash cow variant. I can see better things to spend money on, like 78X upgrades.

If the 778 was a bad idea from the start, why did they even offered it (= spent money) and accepted the orders?

If they knew it was a mistake at the beginning, they wouldn't have done it like they did. Same goes for the MD-11, A340NG, A380, 737MAX and 748 ...
But for a few years now we see that the 777-X positionning in the market is problematic.

777-8 : All the orders are launch orders in 2013 from the middle east big 3. Since then, the ME market has been transforming and the A35K has been improving drastically. The A35K has now the advantage with a larger cabin, the same payload/range habilities, better fuel burns and less expensive price list. Etihad in a financial crisis may have cancelled it's 777-X order or at least all 778 and still has the A35K on order. Emirates is talking with Boeing about their 777-X order and is now an A350 customer again. Qatar Airways is the largest A35K operator. Even Qantas seems to be choosing the A35K. The 777-8 market doesn't exist anymore.

777-8F : Boeing already owns the heavy freighter market with the 77F (and 744-8F ...). Their is no competition. 777-8F is an odd investment from Boeing.

777-9 : Larger cabin than the A35K but less payload / range, less fuel efficient, now alone in it's family and more expensive. Even to replace A380s, it may not be the most popular choice ... And like for the 777-8, the main customers are ME3 at launch with Etihad now almost out, Qatar with a lot on order and Emirates buying smaller frames and renegociating.

The 777-X is really looking more and more like Boeing's A340-500/600. Or A380 in some ways to.
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.
 
Elementalism
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Fri Aug 16, 2019 1:58 pm

Interesting the smallest version of new aircraft are not performing well.

737-7 MAX - 60 of 5037 total orders
A330-800 - 10 of 248 total orders
A350-800 - cancelled
787-8 - Outlier in it has sold well with 444 of 1462 total orders
777-8 - 45 of 325 total orders

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