JerseyFlyer wrote:

The quoted Leeham article says:

"Lufthansa Airlines’ indications that it may reduce the order for 20 Boeing 777-9s underscores caution with which the program should be viewed."

This suggests to me a reduction from the 20 firm, not a reduction from 34 to 20.

The article has changed.

It did originally say that LH cancelled 14 779s, reducing their order from 34 to 20. However, as clarified up-thread, while all the PR at the time said LH had ordered 34, Boeing only ever booked 20 as firm.

Whether this was a slip of an MOU or a cancellation, the point of the matter is they don't want them, why? There are lots of posts running now about Norwegian's new routes and other long-haul LLC's. Is this not the key to this? The 777X will or can have a similar F, J and possibly Y + capacity as the A350 but lots more Y. In light of the probable success of the long-haul LLC's isn't this the traffic which will go to the LLC's and is marginal anyway? This seems to me that this could well be the reason LH doesn't see the need for so many in the future.

Revelation wrote:

That is probably the most apt comparison, but again, the A340NG did not have all-new wings and did not have next-generation engines and had 4 engines just as ETOPS was expanding the usefulness of the big twins. 777x should be able to secure a market position for itself despite having great competition from the A350. It has already won some head-to-head market campaigns against the A350 at airlines that already have the A350, which is a good omen for it.

The 777X is just too heavy like the A340NG and the A350 is a step change in economics like the 777W was, unless you can fill the 777X and not a lot of airlines think they can you are going to be a lot better off flying A350's. This is the conclusion of LH anyway.

Their purchase of 777-9 seems to be entirely bound up with getting out of the 748i mess that they didn't need to get into in the first place.

KarelXWB wrote:

Lufthansa never firmed up 34 777-9 aircraft; Boeing's order book always showed 20 aircraft. I guess it means LH just let those 14 purchase options expire.

Reported were orders for 34 777x and 20 A350 _plus_ options for 30 each.
see:
http://www.aero.de/news-18210/Lufthansa ... 0-900.html

Sounded fishy at the time but Boeing must have pushed the press quite a bit.

BoeingVista wrote:

The 777X is just too heavy like the A340NG and the A350 is a step change in economics like the 777W was,

A340NG to 77W was maybe 10..12% difference much less for Hot and High use cases.

77W to A350-1000 seems to give improvements _just short of 25%_ !

Maybe the A359 is big enough - they are showing a 319-seat config on their website (36J/21Y+/262Y).

Are the B779 supposed to be a direct replacement for their remaining B744 and B748?

LH has conspicuously avoided high density in their mainline fleet. They have no 9-across 777 or 787. When they originally placed the MOU for the 779, perhaps they imagined 8-across. Subsequently, 9-across has become the standard. Their CASM would be significantly higher than competing airlines with the same aircraft. Is this possibly a reason for some buyer's remorse? Just a thought I had. Of course, I know you're all busy debating the validity/quality of Leeham's reporting.

Planesmart wrote:

I'm sure you would agree, it was very unusual for a customer to reject an aircraft, and then for the manufacturer to not offer to build a replacement. Or did the manufacturer offer, but the customer declined to take a replacement? At this point, a contract variation would have been agreed, or maybe was triggered.

And that variation was to reduce the order from 20 frames to 19.

Planesmart wrote:

LH would have negotiated a buyback on the i (not on the F), as well as other incentives.

BoeingVista wrote:

Their purchase of 777-9 seems to be entirely bound up with getting out of the 748i mess that they didn't need to get into in the first place.

LH has wanted a larger 747 for almost two decades. They pushed Boeing to continue with the 747X when nobody else wanted it and they were the driving force behind the 747 Advanced, which became the 747-8. When the 787 program schedule imploded and dragged the 747-8 Freighter program with it, Boeing did a serious internal review as to whether or not they wanted to still launch the Intercontinental due to the lack of demand to date (20 frames for LH and a handful of VIP frames for ME governments).

If they had a short-term buy-back clause that LH could trigger, I don't see Boeing having gone forward with the model regardless of how rosy their statements might have been about the overall market (because by then the A380 had effectively stopped selling, as well, outside of EK top-ups) because they could have ended up spending over a billion dollars designing a model and billions more building frames that they might have to take back within a decade with no secondary customer potential, wiping out that entire investment.

Planesmart wrote:

I doubt the longevity of the 748i at LH. It was always a short-term fill in, with the 777X it's replacement.

When LH ordered the 747-8, the 777X was Yellowstone 3 (747/777 family replacement) and it had an EIS of 2030, not 2020. They ordered the 747-8 with a 20 year use cycle.

IMO, the 777-9 was chosen to slot in as a dual-use 747-400 and (56J) A340-600 replacement for high-premium routes while the A350-900 was chosen to replace the (44J) A340-600 routes and the A340-300s. I have not been following LH's traffic numbers, but I am guessing they are softening and LH is prudently doing a fleet order review. If premium travel is starting to slide in some markets currently served with 53J 744s and 56J A346s, the 48J A350-900 could be a better option than the 779.

When they originally placed the MOU for the 779, perhaps they imagined 8-across. Subsequently, 9-across has become the standard.

Not really, when LH ordered the 77X, 10-abreast was long the norm. And LX has 10-abreast. I'm pretty sure that LH sees the 77x as a 10-abreast aircraft.

I don't think this is such a big a deal as people are making it. LH firmly ordered the aircraft is was sure to need - 20, which seems quite reasonable. And then did a bit of hedging, by taking options. Depending on how the market and strategies evolve over the years, those options can be firmed up...or not. It's everyday airlines business.

It is clear however, that while the 779 will be a CASM killer, not everyone will be able to fill it. It won't be a no-brainer slam dunk like the 77W. It iwll work for some airlines, on some routes.

Makes you wonder what would happen in Boeing were to stick a cargo door in the back end. A 779M basically. Lufthansa liked their combis, and bought them across generations.

The regulatory stuff could always be got round, and fire suppression is way more advanced nowadays. It might give some extra life to the 777-9 sales campaigns and interest others such as KLM or even as a dedicated freighter for when the 748F goes away.

I could've sworn I heard somewhere LH was looking at its long-term long-haul widebody needs and making adjustments to those plans accordingly. I think maybe this is part of that adjustment?

I see this developing POTUS-Arab thing as far more threatening to the 777X. Furthermore I find it hard to understand why the A350-800 was a bad idea and the 777-8 is a good idea.

r2rho wrote:

aerolimani wrote:

When they originally placed the MOU for the 779, perhaps they imagined 8-across. Subsequently, 9-across has become the standard.

Not really, when LH ordered the 77X, 10-abreast was long the norm. And LX has 10-abreast. I'm pretty sure that LH sees the 77x as a 10-abreast aircraft.

Yes, of course, I meant that the LH fleet does not have any 777 (which are now commonly 10-across), or 787 (commonly 9-across). I think of both those configurations as high density. Not as tight as a 9-across A330, but still pretty dense.

I am thinking only of the LH mainline fleet. At this time, unless I'm mistaken, I believe there's nothing in the mainline fleet that I would consider high-density. Putting a 779 with 10-across into the LH mainline fleet would change that.

Of the 20 779's that are still on order (as far as we know, at this point), are any of them intended to end up in the LH fleet, or will they end up elsewhere in the group?

keesje wrote:

I see this developing POTUS-Arab thing as far more threatening to the 777X. Furthermore I find it hard to understand why the A350-800 was a bad idea and the 777-8 is a good idea.

The 778 is ULH and platform of the freighter. The A350-800 is neither.

aerolimani wrote:

I am thinking only of the LH mainline fleet. At this time, unless I'm mistaken, I believe there's nothing in the mainline fleet that I would consider high-density. Putting a 779 with 10-across into the LH mainline fleet would change that.

I think a 777-9 would make a solid replacement for the 371-seat and 393-seat 747-400s.

airzona11 wrote:

keesje wrote:

I see this developing POTUS-Arab thing as far more threatening to the 777X. Furthermore I find it hard to understand why the A350-800 was a bad idea and the 777-8 is a good idea.

The 778 is ULH and platform of the freighter. The A350-800 is neither.

How many of each are on order? I can't remember.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

keesje wrote:

I see this developing POTUS-Arab thing as far more threatening to the 777X. Furthermore I find it hard to understand why the A350-800 was a bad idea and the 777-8 is a good idea.

The 778 is ULH and platform of the freighter. The A350-800 is neither.

How many of each are on order? I can't remember.

Don't even think the A358 has 10 aircraft on order.

778 has 53 and is only 6 short of surpassing the 77L.

The biggest issue at the moment for the 777X program is going to be Qatar. Ignore for now whatever U-Turn Al is saying; if this diplomatic thing goes on and gets worse then they will be looking at big deferrals. Al Baker will try and save face but if his bosses decree it, the order will be cut back or postponed.

I think LH is really not happy with the 748 and they are sorry for the orders. LH I think wants to move closer to Airbus for their long haul fleet - the A350. Maybe they should have ordered the A350 - 1000 instead of the Boeing 747 - 800I.

dc10lover wrote:

I think LH is really not happy with the 748 and they are sorry for the orders. LH I think wants to move closer to Airbus for their long haul fleet - the A350. Maybe they should have ordered the A350 - 1000 instead of the Boeing 747 - 800I.

Water under the bridge, unless LH has a buyback clausulae, they might be better off just flying the planes, there will be no second hand marked for it.

Maybe LH will take over the 10 B77W's of SWISS which so don't fit into their fleet concept and eventually they will get A350's from LH instead

dc10lover wrote:

I think LH is really not happy with the 748 and they are sorry for the orders. LH I think wants to move closer to Airbus for their long haul fleet - the A350. Maybe they should have ordered the A350 - 1000 instead of the Boeing 747 - 800I.

LH is happy with the 748. In fact is often used for marketing, more often that the A380. All reactions seems to indicate that the fuel consumption is okay now, while reliability is good. And due to the 4 engines in can carry a lot of cargo into airports, where a twin would be limited. And that seems to be the problem of the 777-9 by being too close to the 748 in size but lacking this hot and high performance.

r2rho wrote:

When they originally placed the MOU for the 779, perhaps they imagined 8-across. Subsequently, 9-across has become the standard.

Not really, when LH ordered the 77X, 10-abreast was long the norm. And LX has 10-abreast. I'm pretty sure that LH sees the 77x as a 10-abreast aircraft.

upside down.
A significant part of the 777X performance markup over the 77W is going from 9 across to 10 across.

the other part is from engine improvements and wingspan increase ( that does not fully transform into better L/D ).
What is known currently this bigger wing comes with lots of dead weight added.

seahawk wrote:

dc10lover wrote:

I think LH is really not happy with the 748 and they are sorry for the orders. LH I think wants to move closer to Airbus for their long haul fleet - the A350. Maybe they should have ordered the A350 - 1000 instead of the Boeing 747 - 800I.

LH is happy with the 748. In fact is often used for marketing, more often that the A380.

Think about why you do PR. Something that sells well doesn't need it.

You have to pimp the 747. Less need for the A380.
Then Boeing is willing to aid such PR with money/immaterials. Airbus apparently is not so eager.

Lufthansa's disclosures from 2013 to 2016 all show 34 FIRM orders for the 777X, plus twenty something options disclosed separately. This does not seem to be an option expiration at all.

So there are a few possibilities now:

1) Boeing messed up with their order book (more likely because backlog disclosures, as of right now (changing soon), are not as regulated as purchase order disclosures).
2) Lufthansa messed up with their disclosures.
3) There is some wild difference between US GAAP and IFRS disclosure requirements that I am not aware of.
4) Something else.

aviationaware wrote:

Lufthansa's disclosures from 2013 to 2016 all show 34 FIRM orders for the 777X, plus twenty something options disclosed separately. This does not seem to be an option expiration at all.

So there are a few possibilities now:

1) Boeing messed up with their order book (more likely because backlog disclosures, as of right now (changing soon), are not as regulated as purchase order disclosures).
2) Lufthansa messed up with their disclosures.
3) There is some wild difference between US GAAP and IFRS disclosure requirements that I am not aware of.
4) Something else.

The 777 options went from 26 in 2015 to 20 in 2016 but yes the number of FIRM 777X (when you remove undelivered 77W's) was consistently 34.

I suspect that LH may have a walk away clause as a launch customer that has now got the number of firm down to 20.

BoeingVista wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

Lufthansa's disclosures from 2013 to 2016 all show 34 FIRM orders for the 777X, plus twenty something options disclosed separately. This does not seem to be an option expiration at all.

So there are a few possibilities now:

1) Boeing messed up with their order book (more likely because backlog disclosures, as of right now (changing soon), are not as regulated as purchase order disclosures).
2) Lufthansa messed up with their disclosures.
3) There is some wild difference between US GAAP and IFRS disclosure requirements that I am not aware of.
4) Something else.

The 777 options went from 26 in 2015 to 20 in 2016 but yes the number of FIRM 777X (when you remove undelivered 77W's) was consistently 34.

I suspect that LH may have a walk away clause as a launch customer that has now got the number of firm down to 20.

They have 25 options on the A350, just because they've firmed 20 x 779s, does not mean they will order 14 A350-1000s as an alternative. They maybe just keep with the A359.

scotron11 wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

They have 25 options on the A350, just because they've firmed 20 x 779s, does not mean they will order 14 A350-1000s as an alternative. They maybe just keep with the A359.

That doesn't seem to be an answer to any question on this thread.

The point is that LH said that they had formed 34 777X and LH themself say that they have too many 777 on order and not enough A350 so logically they will adjust their ordering accordingly.

Would it not be smarter for LH to skip the 777x? The deposits can be changed to 787 used into the LH group.

Also LH has complained about the 777x to much is defined by ME3. Perhaps the A350 9 and 10 improvements and better then expected performance is giving results?

The 777X seems to become more and more the 777ME, although LH seems to be credited as the "launch customer" were the really? The real launch customers to me seem to be the ME3 with EK on top. LH might complain about too much being defined by the ME3 but realistically without them is there a 777X?

I think LH's issues are more it over ordered when it came to VLAs (779, A380, 748) in the face of increasing competition east across the Atlantic (LCCs moving in, US2 ignoring UA because they are partner are now lean and mean compared to Euro carriers) and of course west (the constantly growing ME3) than the 777X itself. They need more smaller aircraft like the A359, which is what I expect LH to order rather than the A350-1000. I doubt A350 better than expected performance had much to do with it (although it certainly doesn't hurt). Europe is fairly centrally located in the world in a relatively mild environment; most Euro airlines have no need for extreme capability available for 90%+ of their routes.

They ordered based on their fleet make up today, but that make up was created years ago when LH had a more dominant position in the world air market. LH now needs VLAs than required in the past.

olle wrote:

Would it not be smarter for LH to skip the 777x? The deposits can be changed to 787 used into the LH group.

Also LH has complained about the 777x to much is defined by ME3. Perhaps the A350 9 and 10 improvements and better then expected performance is giving results?

Eventually I see the 777-9 fitting into the Lufthansa fleet. The question is when they plan on retiring fleets and what their capacity needs are. LH has a big fleet, so new planes don't need to directly replace older planes. If LH has too many high capacity planes, then they will want to replace bigger planes with smaller planes and reshuffle the network. LH doesn't have that many smaller widebodies, so I could see a preference for the smaller A350 given the current overcapacity in the market. With current market dynamics I think Lufthansa might be regretting not ordering smaller A330neos or 787s to help with route flexibility.

Now in the future when 747-8s and A380s are ready for retirement, the 777-9 looks like a better option. LH might push back some deliveries of 777-9s but in 10 years, I see them eventually wanting them. LH does have high demand and high capacity routes and a constrained hub at FRA.

Can't we just discuss what the articles say or don't say, instead of banging on about the perceived biases and/or motivations of the authors?

I never quite understood the 778/9. Back in the mid naughties, Boeing was busy telling us the days of very big wide-bodies was over, the A380 would be castle in the sky, and that the future would belong to smaller wide-bodies, connecting an ever increasing number of city pairs across continents. And, to a very large extent they have been absolutely right; they've sold almost 1500 of the smaller wide-body wonder, and their competitor hasn't done much worse with their, slightly larger, offering. But before either of them came to market, the 77W had already shown us where the future lied, and had to a large extent proved the 744 was commonly bought for range, not capacity.

Now I can understood how the suits in Chicago might have felt, when their erstwhile big twin cash-cow was faced with a direct replacement offering much better economics, particularly as they've just fumbled their way through the development, launch and EIS of their dream-, nee nightmare, liner. It wasn't much better at the bottom or middle end either, where the former was facing a competitor in new frock, and their middel 7-abreast offering had largely been slaughtered by the somewhat larger trois-trois, surviving only as a freighter and Frankensteined military offering. Finally, the only joy at the top end came from the stalled sales of their competitors double-decker; their own - somewhat smaller - offering faced an even bleaker future.

The common theme is 'somewhat larger', but the thing with the 778/9 is that they're touching very close to 744 size, and the market has shown that's maybe just a tad too big.

There is, however, one airline out there who seem to think bigger is absolutely better, and owns the vast majority of orders for both the 778/9 and the A380. Given the precarious nature of airline business, political fragility and all, it is difficult to see this as anything but a very large risk to both programs. The good news is, that for one of them more than 2/3 of the orders have been fulfilled. It looks less rosy for the other, but ultimately I fear both programs will face their demise far earlier than planned.

So how much larger is the 777X versus the 777W, it is a struggle to get 400 pax into a 777W and even with wall sculpting the same applies to the 777X, so why do we make it sound as if the a/c is a massive jump in capacity?

par13del wrote:

So how much larger is the 777X versus the 777W, it is a struggle to get 400 pax into a 777W and even with wall sculpting the same applies to the 777X, so why do we make it sound as if the a/c is a massive jump in capacity?

It is a little under 3m longer (so ~3 rows of Y) + with the lack of the overwing exits you can squeeze another row of Y there too. The size of the 777-9X gets overblown here on A.net. For 10Y 77W operators it is not much larger when you start to consider how airlines are increasingly adding and/or expanding their premium Y sections (and with the lack of overwing exits there is less headaches in sizing the cabin).

The biggest issue is weight, not size. The 779 is a very capable machine, but that capability and its older design means it is much heavier than the A350-1000. Some airlines may feel that giving up the extra seats and taking the smaller A350-1000s is worth it for that reason if they have no intention of using 779 anywhere close to its full potential.

BoeingVista wrote:

Their purchase of 777-9 seems to be entirely bound up with getting out of the 748i mess that they didn't need to get into in the first place.

Could you please explain what mess you are referring to? What makes you think the 748i is a mess for LH?

dc10lover wrote:

I think LH is really not happy with the 748 and they are sorry for the orders. LH I think wants to move closer to Airbus for their long haul fleet - the A350. Maybe they should have ordered the A350 - 1000 instead of the Boeing 747 - 800I.

What facts make you believe that LH is unhappy with the 748i?

B777LRF wrote:

I never quite understood the 778/9. Back in the mid naughties, Boeing was busy telling us the days of very big wide-bodies was over, the A380 would be castle in the sky, and that the future would belong to smaller wide-bodies, connecting an ever increasing number of city pairs across continents. And, to a very large extent they have been absolutely right; they've sold almost 1500 of the smaller wide-body wonder, and their competitor hasn't done much worse with their, slightly larger, offering. But before either of them came to market, the 77W had already shown us where the future lied, and had to a large extent proved the 744 was commonly bought for range, not capacity.

Now I can understood how the suits in Chicago might have felt, when their erstwhile big twin cash-cow was faced with a direct replacement offering much better economics, particularly as they've just fumbled their way through the development, launch and EIS of their dream-, nee nightmare, liner. It wasn't much better at the bottom or middle end either, where the former was facing a competitor in new frock, and their middel 7-abreast offering had largely been slaughtered by the somewhat larger trois-trois, surviving only as a freighter and Frankensteined military offering. Finally, the only joy at the top end came from the stalled sales of their competitors double-decker; their own - somewhat smaller - offering faced an even bleaker future.

The common theme is 'somewhat larger', but the thing with the 778/9 is that they're touching very close to 744 size, and the market has shown that's maybe just a tad too big.

There is, however, one airline out there who seem to think bigger is absolutely better, and owns the vast majority of orders for both the 778/9 and the A380. Given the precarious nature of airline business, political fragility and all, it is difficult to see this as anything but a very large risk to both programs. The good news is, that for one of them more than 2/3 of the orders have been fulfilled. It looks less rosy for the other, but ultimately I fear both programs will face their demise far earlier than planned.

B777X specs are not a major issue, the amount Boeing spending on ($12B) to achieve the delta performance over B77W is the issue.

Boeing could have offered B748i to Emirates with deep discounts, say for $80M a frame. Still the overall loss to Boeing will be far less and R&D team can spend time and money on something useful like MoM.

Boeing sales drank too much ME3 Koolaid and believed their growth never going to stop. ME3 doesn't care about fuel burn or to block off whole sections of the plane. Why is Boeing trying to build a perfect plane for them?

Original B77W customers, either gave up on long-haul expansion (courtesy ME3) or downsized to B787.

MoKa777 wrote:

Can't say I did not see this coming. Boeing should not have moved ahead with the 777X, IMHO...

It's a bit bold to say that Boeing should not have launched it just because LH does not want more of it. Even if we take out the ME3 orders, there are still substantial orders from three very reputable airlines: CX, SQ, NH

All the 77Ws and A380s will need to be replaced starting mid-2020s. And the 777X is the only one out there to replace the VLAs, while it competes with A350-1000 for 77W replacements.

The 777 8 and 9 stand a good chance of being the largest planes available and selling for the next 15 years. And with the 8 as a freighter it likely will have a good but not spectacular run.

keesje wrote:

I see this developing POTUS-Arab thing as far more threatening to the 777X. Furthermore I find it hard to understand why the A350-800 was a bad idea and the 777-8 is a good idea.

Because, unlike the A358, the 777-8 has the payload capacity. You should know that, keesje.

par13del wrote:

So how much larger is the 777X versus the 777W, it is a struggle to get 400 pax into a 777W and even with wall sculpting the same applies to the 777X, so why do we make it sound as if the a/c is a massive jump in capacity?

It really isn't, and every time some of these users say the 777X "is too big" or "it's too heavy", I actually let out a little chuckle.

The 777X has a bright future, and nothing said here is going to change that. Hell, even the 777-8 has outsold it's predecessor. I'm happy with that

astuteman wrote:

https://leehamnews.com/2017/06/22/prope ... -air-show/

Rgds

Worth noting that there are no MAX slots until 2022. Wow!

But Leeham changed their tune after Paris 2017 when it became obvious Boeing did very well. In my opinion, they were fanboy on the A346 (no orders but articles touting the plane), and remain harsh on the 787 and until recently the MAX.

Some is they apply quite a bit of logic in the design, but not so much in manufacturing costs. Boeing in some ways is the Delta airlines version of the aircraft manufacturers (in particular after going horribly over budget on the 787). Would a new cross section have been better for the 777X? Yes. But was it worth the costs? No.

Some of the coverage with rightfully depend on if EK orders the 787 or not.


But more on thread, The 777x has over 300 orders. That is enough to establish a resale market thanks to some commonality with the older 777s.

We've been spoiled. I spent most of my carrier with aircraft launching with similar or worse order books (ok, I'll clearly date myself typing out the types...). I do not see the direct comparison with the 748 some other posters have made due to the internal wider cabin, new wing, and a truly optimized set of engines (vs. the 748 engines being 787 hand me downs that weren't truly optimized).

The folding wingtips are the 779 are a game changer. It is one of the enabling technologies I personally have been waiting for. Waiting for over a dozen years. Real estate is expensive and folding wingtips cut the land costs.

Maybe I'm too much of a fan of the 779 because of those folding wingtips (I really want the technology to become common.). But 6m larger wingspan with 466.8 m^2 of wing area vs. 436.8 m^2 for the 77W or 6.8% more wing area for the same targeted MTOW. This should mean high cruise altitudes for early cruise on long missions, giving a nice efficiency boost plus the efficiency of the longer aspect ratio and improved laminar flow.

I like this link:
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/ques ... en-ordered

I wish I new something about the laminar flow additions of the 777X. It is far easier to design laminar flow with GFRP/CFRP than aluminum wings. This allows the fraction of the wing that is laminar flow to be increased. (e.g., we've gone from 30% topside laminar flow and negligible underside laminar flow to... more). All laminar flow design is now about correcting *nasty* stall characteristics of high laminar flow wings. FWIW, yesterday I was in a flight where the left (port) wing stalled in turbulence during cruise (wow, biggest dip I've personally experienced outside of flight testing which made me long for the 5-point harness), so I have a recent reason to appreciate benign stall recovery characteristics.

I know Boeing is looking into laminar flow on the 777X, but is monitoring development and maintenance costs. Sadly, this link is so old to be obsolete, but shows Boeing is going to be aggressive with laminar flow on the 777X:
https://www.wired.com/2013/11/manipulat ... tail-777x/

LIghtsaber

lightsaber wrote:

I know Boeing is looking into laminar flow on the 777X, but is monitoring development and maintenance costs. Sadly, this link is so old to be obsolete, but shows Boeing is going to be aggressive with laminar flow on the 777X:
https://www.wired.com/2013/11/manipulat ... tail-777x/

Wasn't that feature added to the 789 and then nixed due to an unfavorable cost/gains relation?

WIederling wrote:

seahawk wrote:

dc10lover wrote:

I think LH is really not happy with the 748 and they are sorry for the orders. LH I think wants to move closer to Airbus for their long haul fleet - the A350. Maybe they should have ordered the A350 - 1000 instead of the Boeing 747 - 800I.

LH is happy with the 748. In fact is often used for marketing, more often that the A380.

Think about why you do PR. Something that sells well doesn't need it.

You have to pimp the 747. Less need for the A380.
Then Boeing is willing to aid such PR with money/immaterials. Airbus apparently is not so eager.

Lol Oh boy......

BoeingVista wrote:

scotron11 wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

They have 25 options on the A350, just because they've firmed 20 x 779s, does not mean they will order 14 A350-1000s as an alternative. They maybe just keep with the A359.

That doesn't seem to be an answer to any question on this thread.

The point is that LH said that they had formed 34 777X and LH themself say that they have too many 777 on order and not enough A350 so logically they will adjust their ordering accordingly.

Can you (or anyone) list a time when a firm order went years without being listed in the Boeing order book? It may happen - I just don't know.

I have taken the recent LH position to be that they have 20 firm ordered 777-9s but may not need as many. If we are back to saying they are going from 34 to 20, hey, sounds good to me.

It is no secret that 779 turned out to be heavier than initially proposed. Perhaps this extra weight made it less appealing to LH? Just a thought.


Let's look at some numbers to get a grasp on what happened.

779 is supposed to get new engines that would improve fuel consumption by 10%. It is also getting new wings with improved aerodynamics so that it should improve fuel consumption by another 7%. however, 779 was initially supposed to be heavier than 77W by 12 tons. This would bring down fuel consumption by 5%. All in all, 779 was intially proposed to improve fuel consumption by 12% per trip.


Well, 779 turned out to be heavier than initially thought. Its OEW would be somewhere between 184.6 tons to 188 tons, while we have the 77W sitting at an OEW of 167.8 tons. That's a difference of 21 to 16.8 tons. Now, if extra 12 tons in OEW was supposed to bring down fuel consumption by 5%, then linear interpolation would show that extra 21 tons in OEW would bring down fuel consumption by 8.75%, and extra 16.8 tons in OEW would bring down fuel consumption by 7%.

This shows that 779 would more likely improve fuel consumption per trip somewhere between 8.25% - 10% over the 77W. (vs. 12% improvement when LH firmed its order)

Well, this just very basic calculation based on data found online. Of course, it could be very inaccurate at the end. But this just me thinking out loud. Feel free to point any error in the data I brought or the calculations I did.

~300 orders before EIS (well before). That is a nice head start for Boeing to have. The 778 will be unmatched as a freighter. The A350 probably wont get stretched that far to match the 779. Seems like there might conceivably hundreds of more orders out there.

LH didn't cancel the 77X. They haven't lost faith in it. The airline market is ever shifting and dynamic.

BoeingVista wrote:

The point is that LH said that they had formed 34 777X and LH themself say that they have too many 777 on order and not enough A350 so logically they will adjust their ordering accordingly.

The simple fact is that Boeing only ever booked 20 777X for LH. There has never been an order for the "missing" 14. Boeing's O&D page will not show a reduction for LH unless they reduce below the 20 on order.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Can you (or anyone) list a time when a firm order went years without being listed in the Boeing order book? It may happen - I just don't know.

I'm pretty sure they can't (or wouldn't even want to) do that. If a customer doesn't want a firm order revealed, Boeing will book it as "Undisclosed" (as they've done for years).

Of note, "Undisclosed" currently has over 1,000 Boeing planes on order.

airzona11 wrote:

~300 orders before EIS (well before). That is a nice head start for Boeing to have. The 778 will be unmatched as a freighter. The A350 probably wont get stretched that far to match the 779. Seems like there might conceivably hundreds of more orders out there.

LH didn't cancel the 77X. They haven't lost faith in it. The airline market is ever shifting and dynamic.

Well, why did Airbus decide not to work on the project of stretching the A350 any further? One possible cause could be that Airbus found no big market for that size, especially since 779 has already got orders from most airlines that would likely show interest in that segment. The same thing could be said about future 779 orders.

It is just a guess, but we had SQ last year announcing that they could order either a 777X or an A350-2000. Then this year, we had SQ firm an order for 777X while Airbus announced that they are no longer working on the A350-2000. To me, it seemed like Airbus told SQ that A350-2000 won't happen any time soon. The same way Airbus told EK that A380neo won't happen for only a handful of orders.