Eyad89 wrote:

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.

Good points. And those all advantages or good things for the 77X.

The 777 is also a larger platform vs the A350 so the A352k would have been/is a very long stretch.

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.

LH may very well have a signed a sales contract with Boeing for 34 777-9, but they only put down deposits for 20 of them so that is what Boeing booked and that is how many LH can expect to receive from Boeing until they put down more deposits.

Polot wrote:

I think LH's issues are more it over ordered when it came to VLAs...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.

I am in 100% agreement with this.

B777LRF wrote:

I never quite understood the 778/9...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.

We know Boeing was studying doing just a New Engine Option for the 777-300ER, but I expect it didn't pencil out against the A350-1000 in either economics or performance.

dtw2hyd wrote:

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

I think a lot of the 777X's R&D will be used on future BCA programs. Things like the more automated construction will allow Boeing to reduce the number of machinists they need to assemble future planes and doing the CFRP wings themselves (rather than outsourcing them to partners like on the 787) will give them experience which will help them design the CFRP wings for NMA/MOM and NSA.

dtw2hyd wrote:

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.

Well GECAS did try and sell/lease 100 747-8's to Emirates and they said no. And they did so because capital costs are not the only thing an airline looks at when performing an aircraft evaluation. Yes, they could have gotten a 747-8 cheap, but the operating costs would have been fairly higher than their A380s and 777-300ERs (and significantly higher than their 777-9s).

dtw2hyd wrote:

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?

See above - they very much care about those things. And I very much believe that the Elephant in the Room for Boeing on the 777 was the same one it is for Airbus on the A380 - Emirates. Compared to their position on the A380, EK's position on the 777 is much smaller, but they are still the largest customer for the type and the most-likely to buy (many) more. And EK has consistently wanted both a larger 777 (the "777-400ER") as well as more performance (they have to block seats on their longest 777-300ER missions and it would be even worse with a "777-400ER").

As such, I believe LH when they say the ME3 drove the specs for the 777X. The 777-8 offers a nice capacity boost to the ULH operations of EK, ET and QR currently flown with 777-200LRs and the 777-9 is effectively a 777-300ER without the payload restrictions (blocked seats) thanks to the superior aerodynamics of the wider wingspan.

MoKa777 wrote:

raylee67 wrote:

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.

Without the ME3, there are under 100 orders. It is a large, heavy aircraft. KL, AF, AC, Chinese carriers, maybe BA are reasonable potential customers.

I am not saying that Boeing should not have done the 777X just because LH may or may not be adjusting their order for the aircraft.

I will feel the same even if LH orders 50 more. The 777X is just an aircraft programme I don't feel very optimistic about especially in the face of competition from the A350. I fear that Boeing may have an A340NG on their hands and they don't need that kind of negativity after the 748 and losing ground in the 737 vs A320 battle. The problem is also that the 787 cannot grow into much more than what it is without major and expensive changes. I am concerned that the 777X may not be enough to ward off the A350.

Boeing should have held off a little longer on 77W replacenent, as difficult as that would have felt.

Again, just my "bold" opinion.

I'm not a huge fan of the 777X - it's basically the best they could do under the current market and financial circumstances. However, had they let the Triple 7 die, they'd have had nothing in the long haul segment above the 787-9. Nothing. The -10 hits a wall at a point that basically renders it uncompetitive against the A350 for a large swath of the market. They could have chose to invest large sums to enable the -10 to fly farther, but you still are somewhat limited on capacity and you also are now competing with the rest of the 787 product line for delivery slots. By doing the 777X program, imperfect as it is for most carriers, they were able to let the 787 do it's thing, maximize their facilities, and of course offer all of those 77W airlines out there a slightly larger, somewhat better performing follow-on option without having to jump all the way to an A380 or give them a reason to go A35K. It's a tough business case, and things will need to go well for it to be a long term smart investment, but I'm just not clear on what they were supposed to do otherwise short of a clean sheet design on one end or cede everything longhaul above the -9 on the other end?

Eyad89 wrote:

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.

You might be using that as an indication that there is no market for this size of plane, but that actually smacks more of a market that just can't support TWO of this size of plane. I take that to mean that there is actually a market for it, but because Boeing locked up a large chunk of it at launch, there simply was not going to be enough left to justify going ahead with their own design as well. That's far from an endorsement of the 777X, but it is also far from showing there's not case for the 777X either.

The 779 will need to show a real nice introduction with numbers on or over expectations while the 35k comes closer and closer 77w in performance each day with much less weight and fuel consumtion.

Stitch wrote:

I think a lot of the 777X's R&D will be used on future BCA programs..

And how much knowledge from the previous $25B program being used on B777X.

Stitch wrote:

Well GECAS did try and sell/lease 100 747-8's to Emirates and they said no. And they did so because capital costs are not the only thing an airline looks at when performing an aircraft evaluation. Yes, they could have gotten a 747-8 cheap, but the operating costs would have been fairly higher than their A380s and 777-300ERs (and significantly higher than their 777-9s).

Stitch wrote:

See above - they very much care about those things. And I very much believe that the Elephant in the Room for Boeing on the 777 was the same one it is for Airbus on the A380 - Emirates. Compared to their position on the A380, EK's position on the 777 is much smaller, but they are still the largest customer for the type and the most-likely to buy (many) more. And EK has consistently wanted both a larger 777 (the "777-400ER") as well as more performance (they have to block seats on their longest 777-300ER missions and it would be even worse with a "777-400ER").

You are talking in relative terms.

B748i was $110M
B77W was $160M
So probably B777X was sold at $175M-$200M

A B748i offered at $80M offsets all operational cost difference over 10-12 year period.

Now, B748i is dead, B77W will be close to $100M-$120M and almost dead, and no one will order B777X at $175M.

It is cheaper to eat the cost on as many B748s as customer ready to take than sink $12B up front and hope for the best. Even with $20M per frame loss, if EK takes 50 frames, the total loss is $1B

Imagine if the well-done-numbers airline goes sideways, Boeing will foot entire $12B bill.

The A350 MTOW was raised last month, by 8 tonnes. That seems a significant bump in maximum payload (more than 10%).

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-hikes-mtow-of-a350-1000-438814/

That would reduce the 777X payload advantage.

I wonder what the difference in payload is over a 6000NM flight, under the same conditions, and the fuel burn.



If one OE can demonstrate something flying that's better than the promise of the other, That other might be forced back to the drawing board.

I smell an early thrust / MTOW boost by the others, taking extra time.

[quote="keesje"]The A350 MTOW was raised last month, by 8 tonnes. That seems a significant bump in maximum payload (more than 10%). [quote/]

The A350ULR still has a way to go! Last week in Part 3 of the Leeham series on QF SYD-LHR which QF say they can do in an ESAD of 9500nm Leeham calculate the payload of the 777-8 as 305 passengers and the A350ULR as 230 passengers.

It's a bit funny to see Boeing being the victim of the new so called "point to point" strategy of Lufthansa...

A recent interview from LH's CEO clearly shows they are going to do more multi-hubs as the economy/yields from Germany allows that.
777-9X therefore becomes too big except maybe for FRA. But the big flights from FRA are really big making the A380 already occupy the ground of the big markets. The A380 has certainly entered too soon in the market but it's there and the 77X is therefore too late.

So again, for the fleet planners, the 77X is not an easy solution: the market is too narrow and it does not generate enough additional system revenue versus the A350 or 787-10 to justify a small sub fleet.

Eyad89 wrote:

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.

Or maybe the A350-2000 died because it could not match the superior performance and economy of the 777-9.

seahawk wrote:

Eyad89 wrote:

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.

Or maybe the A350-2000 died because it could not match the superior performance and economy of the 777-9.

had the A350-2000 been launched, it would have definitely beaten the performance and economy of the 779 (Except for range). Based on the calculations made by Ferpe A350-2000 would burn 10% less fuel per trip than 779 with a similar seating capacity. Of course it would, it would be a lighter plane with a lower wing loading.

ferpe wrote:

Just to complement, the -1100 burns 10% less trip fuel then the -9X and flies the 400 pax in 18” seats at that so it is a no brainer. Airbus will skip the -800 and do the -1100, as outlined it is a larger effort but not by much.

.

Even with that, Airbus shouldn't go ahead with an investment if they don't expect a great return on investment. It's not about making great airplanes, it's about maximizing the wealth of shareholders at the end of the day. Airbus said it clearly and directly, they don't wanna stretch A350K just to say " we want to make that too". Apparently, there is no great business case, the same reason why 777X isn't selling much outside ME3.

Still the order went to the 777-9 and the A350-1100 is just a paper plane. It is pure speculation why SIA decided the way they did.

seahawk wrote:

Still the order went to the 777-9 and the A350-1100 is just a paper plane. It is pure speculation why SIA decided the way they did.

simple, Airbus didn't want to build it. They wouldn't do it for a single or few customers. The same reason why Airbus didn't want to build A380NEO even though EK offered to buy 100 of them. How good is a program if it does not make a great return on investment?

Maybe the A350-2000 design option was shown to the airlines to make clear the A350-1000 will not be the biggest A350 for the next 20 years. That knowledge can help fleetplanner in their long term decisions, e.g. LH. The recent A350-1000 MTOW /payload bump could be another signal.

As discussed to compete the A350-900 and -10000 Boeing offers a combi of the 787-10 and 777-8. E.g. 787-10 to Asia and 777-8 TATL don't offer the same flexibility as the A350's. The OEW difference between the 787-10 and A350 seems low. The OEW difference between the 777X's and A350 very high. Now is that really that important, taking all other trade-offs and performance indicators into consideration?! Yes it is.

There tends to be a strong correlation between empty weight and capital cost (the fixed part of direct operating costs) and variable operating costs and ATC.
http://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/Aero/TU-Berlin_DOC-Method_with_remarks_13-09-19.pdf Slide 3.

If the 777-9 has a 30t OEW for 30 extra seats, there is something that's coming back in every fleet comparison.

And there's economy class comfort. Boeing and operators will deny until they die, but there might be an issue with narrow economy class.Their survey's might not lie.

Eyad89 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Still the order went to the 777-9 and the A350-1100 is just a paper plane. It is pure speculation why SIA decided the way they did.

simple, Airbus didn't want to build it. They wouldn't do it for a single or few customers. The same reason why Airbus didn't want to build A380NEO even though EK offered to buy 100 of them. How good is a program if it does not make a great return on investment?

That's easy to say right up until you don't have a product to serve the market. With the A350-1000/A380-800, Airbus didn't need to do anything. With their only remaining long range widebody being the 787-9 (effectively), Boeing needed to do something.

Simply put, Airbus is in a better position to make that choice right now than Boeing is.

keesje wrote:

Maybe the A350-2000 design option was shown to the airlines to make clear the A350-1000 will not be the biggest A350 for the next 20 years. That knowledge can help fleetplanner in their long term decisions, e.g. LH. The recent A350-1000 MTOW /payload bump could be another signal.

As discussed to compete the A350-900 and -10000 Boeing offers a combi of the 787-10 and 777-8. E.g. 787-10 to Asia and 777-8 TATL don't offer the same flexibility as the A350's. The OEW difference between the 787-10 and A350 seems low. The OEW difference between the 777X's and A350 very high. Now is that really that important, taking all other trade-offs and performance indicators into consideration?! Yes it is.

There tends to be a strong correlation between empty weight and capital cost (the fixed part of direct operating costs) and variable operating costs and ATC.
http://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/Aero/TU-Berlin_DOC-Method_with_remarks_13-09-19.pdf Slide 3.

If the 777-9 has a 30t OEW for 30 extra seats, there is something that's coming back in every fleet comparison.

And there's economy class comfort. Boeing and operators will deny until they die, but there might be an issue with narrow economy class.Their survey's might not lie.

Still SIA ordered the 777-9 and it only makes sense if they picked it on merit, unless you believe Airbus offered them a product, they did not intend to built within the required timeframe.

Isn't 777-9 and especially 777-8 optimized for ME3 who require good hot-and-high performance and therefore the plane is not an optimal match for most other carriers. EK cancelled A350-1000 order partly for its performance characteristics changes not being suitable for EK needs.

seahawk wrote:

keesje wrote:

Maybe the A350-2000 design option was shown to the airlines to make clear the A350-1000 will not be the biggest A350 for the next 20 years. That knowledge can help fleetplanner in their long term decisions, e.g. LH. The recent A350-1000 MTOW /payload bump could be another signal.

As discussed to compete the A350-900 and -10000 Boeing offers a combi of the 787-10 and 777-8. E.g. 787-10 to Asia and 777-8 TATL don't offer the same flexibility as the A350's. The OEW difference between the 787-10 and A350 seems low. The OEW difference between the 777X's and A350 very high. Now is that really that important, taking all other trade-offs and performance indicators into consideration?! Yes it is.

There tends to be a strong correlation between empty weight and capital cost (the fixed part of direct operating costs) and variable operating costs and ATC.
http://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/Aero/TU-Berlin_DOC-Method_with_remarks_13-09-19.pdf Slide 3.

If the 777-9 has a 30t OEW for 30 extra seats, there is something that's coming back in every fleet comparison.

And there's economy class comfort. Boeing and operators will deny until they die, but there might be an issue with narrow economy class.Their survey's might not lie.

Still SIA ordered the 777-9 and it only makes sense if they picked it on merit, unless you believe Airbus offered them a product, they did not intend to built within the required timeframe.

SIA was asking for either a 777-10 or an A350-2000 and got neither. So both Airbus as well as Boeing do not see an immediate market for anything bigger than what they have today and I believe in the end SIA just went for the biggest twin which they could get which is the 777-9.

seahawk wrote:

Still SIA ordered the 777-9 and it only makes sense if they picked it on merit, unless you believe Airbus offered them a product, they did not intend to built within the required timeframe.

Not necessarily, it would have made a lot of sense for Boeing to make SQ a killer price offer to stop Airbus getting the order and building the A350-2000.

keesje wrote:

If the 777-9 has a 30t OEW for 30 extra seats, there is something that's coming back in every fleet comparison.

And there's economy class comfort. Boeing and operators will deny until they die, but there might be an issue with narrow economy class.Their survey's might not lie.

Can't airbus get most of those 30 seats back anyway by moving the galleys and toilets to the lower deck so same seating as 777-9 but with 28t less OEW.

The ballooned OEW probably eats all the gains from L/D improvement via extended wing span?
required engine thrust has crept (back) up quite a bit over time.

BoeingVista wrote:

Can't airbus get most of those 30 seats back anyway by moving the galleys and toilets to the lower deck so same seating as 777-9 but with 28t less OEW.

Yes, but Boeing could do the same on the 779.

BoeingVista wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Still SIA ordered the 777-9 and it only makes sense if they picked it on merit, unless you believe Airbus offered them a product, they did not intend to built within the required timeframe.

Not necessarily, it would have made a lot of sense for Boeing to make SQ a killer price offer to stop Airbus getting the order and building the A350-2000.

And it would have made a lot of sense for Airbus to have offered SQ a killer price to order the A350-2000. Getting them on as a launch customer would have been a real coup to the program.

BoeingVista wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Still SIA ordered the 777-9 and it only makes sense if they picked it on merit, unless you believe Airbus offered them a product, they did not intend to built within the required timeframe.

Not necessarily, it would have made a lot of sense for Boeing to make SQ a killer price offer to stop Airbus getting the order and building the A350-2000.

keesje wrote:

If the 777-9 has a 30t OEW for 30 extra seats, there is something that's coming back in every fleet comparison.

And there's economy class comfort. Boeing and operators will deny until they die, but there might be an issue with narrow economy class.Their survey's might not lie.

Can't airbus get most of those 30 seats back anyway by moving the galleys and toilets to the lower deck so same seating as 777-9 but with 28t less OEW.

I think it is much more simple. SIA desired a certain capacity and neither Airbus nor Boeing were willing to commit to a stretch of their products for SIA only. So SIA chose the plane closest in capacity and probably the only one that could reach it with simple modifications as under floor toilets.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

Can't airbus get most of those 30 seats back anyway by moving the galleys and toilets to the lower deck so same seating as 777-9 but with 28t less OEW.

Yes, but Boeing could do the same on the 779.

No. Pretty sure the exit limit of the 777-9 is caped at 440 so maybe 10 extra seats this way plus it doesn't solve the weight deficit plus it make an aircraft that is arguably hard to fill even bigger and harder to fill.

Stitch wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Still SIA ordered the 777-9 and it only makes sense if they picked it on merit, unless you believe Airbus offered them a product, they did not intend to built within the required timeframe.

Not necessarily, it would have made a lot of sense for Boeing to make SQ a killer price offer to stop Airbus getting the order and building the A350-2000.

And it would have made a lot of sense for Airbus to have offered SQ a killer price to order the A350-2000. Getting them on as a launch customer would have been a real coup to the program.

Possibly but as has previously been mentioned Airbus may have been reluctant to launch for a single order of 20 aircraft.

BoeingVista wrote:

No. Pretty sure the exit limit of the 777-9 is caped at 440 so maybe 10 extra seats this way plus it doesn't solve the weight deficit plus it make an aircraft that is arguably hard to fill even bigger and harder to fill.

If you are assuming that a normally configured 777-9 has ~430 seats in it then you are going to have to do more to a A350-1000 than moving galleys/toilets downstairs to get a similar seat count- you are going to have to turn to 10 abreast. Then you have to start consider the range differences between the planes at that payload. The 777-9 is only ~3m longer than the A350-1000...most of its capacity advantage is the fact that it is 10Y standard, not 9Y like the A350.

BoeingVista wrote:

Possibly but as has previously been mentioned Airbus may have been reluctant to launch for a single order of 20 aircraft.

Which actually helps Stitch's argument. Why would, and I quote, it "have made a lot of sense for Boeing to make SQ a killer price offer to stop Airbus getting the order and building the A350-2000" when Boeing knows Airbus won't launch a new variant for only 20 orders (just like how Boeing won't launch a -10X with only 20 orders).

Seahawk's answer is the most plausible. Neither Boeing nor Airbus were willing to launch a new variant at the present time so SQ, who wanted a larger aircraft, went with the larger of the two aircraft currently available for sale.

Eyad89 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Eyad89 wrote:

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.

Or maybe the A350-2000 died because it could not match the superior performance and economy of the 777-9.

had the A350-2000 been launched, it would have definitely beaten the performance and economy of the 779 (Except for range). Based on the calculations made by Ferpe A350-2000 would burn 10% less fuel per trip than 779 with a similar seating capacity. Of course it would, it would be a lighter plane with a lower wing loading.

ferpe wrote:

Just to complement, the -1100 burns 10% less trip fuel then the -9X and flies the 400 pax in 18” seats at that so it is a no brainer. Airbus will skip the -800 and do the -1100, as outlined it is a larger effort but not by much.

.

Even with that, Airbus shouldn't go ahead with an investment if they don't expect a great return on investment. It's not about making great airplanes, it's about maximizing the wealth of shareholders at the end of the day. Airbus said it clearly and directly, they don't wanna stretch A350K just to say " we want to make that too". Apparently, there is no great business case, the same reason why 777X isn't selling much outside ME3.

IF the numbers are as dominant as you mention, they would launch it. The 77X has 300 orders already. That is not a meager amount of orders. It just seems like hyperbole to talk about a plane that is a stretch of an un-launched stretch, being 10% better than what is being offered by Boeing. A large factor in the 77X appeal is also cargo carrying is it not? There has to be something airlines see value in the 77X. Why is Boeing even in the large plane market if there is an A350 that will do it better?

Could the reason Airbus decided to not launch this "ideal" 779 competitor also be the A380 and they are doing their best to push more frames on logical customers who are saying no thank you? Maybe. SQ would be a prime example. I think this is way too focused on the shortcomings of the 779 vs the challenges Airbus faces offering a direct competitor.

The 77X is going to get more orders.

BoeingVista wrote:

. Pretty sure the exit limit of the 777-9 is caped at 440.

475 if the two Type III Doors are activated, 440 if they are plugged.

airzona11 wrote:

...The 77X is going to get more orders.

There is no evidence to support that statement.

B77W - 819 orders. Will be replaced with B787s or A350s or even A330 family based on capacity/range requirement.
A380 - -317 orders. Even if every A380 order is delivered and replaced with B777X, still only 317 total.

Excluding ME3, operators are looking for efficient smaller planes to maintain yields, not to dump capacity. VLAs are nothing but capacity dumping machines.

dtw2hyd wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

...The 77X is going to get more orders.

There is no evidence to support that statement.

B77W - 819 orders. Will be replaced with B787s or A350s or even A330 family based on capacity/range requirement.
A380 - -317 orders. Even if every A380 order is delivered and replaced with B777X, still only 317 total.

Excluding ME3, operators are looking for efficient smaller planes to maintain yields, not to dump capacity. VLAs are nothing but capacity dumping machines.

Umm, no evidence? Are you joking or do you just hate Boeing? What about the options that some airlines have? It is a pretty doom and gloom scenario to predict that a plane still more than two years away from entry into service won't get any more orders ever.

dtw2hyd wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

...The 77X is going to get more orders.

There is no evidence to support that statement.

B77W - 819 orders. Will be replaced with B787s or A350s or even A330 family based on capacity/range requirement.
A380 - -317 orders. Even if every A380 order is delivered and replaced with B777X, still only 317 total.

Excluding ME3, operators are looking for efficient smaller planes to maintain yields, not to dump capacity. VLAs are nothing but capacity dumping machines.

How in the world are you going to sit there and say no 77Ws are going to be replaced by the 777X family? Seriously dude? And 317 is quite a bit for a widebody.

dtw2hyd wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

...The 77X is going to get more orders.

There is no evidence to support that statement.

B77W - 819 orders. Will be replaced with B787s or A350s or even A330 family based on capacity/range requirement.
A380 - -317 orders. Even if every A380 order is delivered and replaced with B777X, still only 317 total.

Excluding ME3, operators are looking for efficient smaller planes to maintain yields, not to dump capacity. VLAs are nothing but capacity dumping machines.

This is exactly what I was refuting in my post. The 779 is not a massive jump from 77W. It is being treated like the A380. Had your point been about the A380. Sure. Keep telling us A330s are going to replace 77Ws.

Where is the 779 inefficient? There is such nonsense being spoken about on here, from an article about an airline that is still taking 779s. LH will still fly them. By your same logic, maybe tell LH that their are fools for flying new 748s and A380s.

airzona11 wrote:

This is exactly what I was refuting in my post. The 779 is not a massive jump from 77W. It is being treated like the A380. Had your point been about the A380. Sure. Keep telling us A330s are going to replace 77Ws.

Where is the 779 inefficient? There is such nonsense being spoken about on here, from an article about an airline that is still taking 779s. LH will still fly them. By your same logic, maybe tell LH that their are fools for flying new 748s and A380s.

Well the one difference between the 77W and the 779 is that there are now 2 competitors right in its space which will surely put pressure on sales that he 77W never had. I am not saying it will not get any further orders, but the 779 will compete with the A35K and the 78X for those 77W sales that airlines placed as the 77W was on its own in its class. This isn't anything against the 779, its just looking at the landscape where it has to compete as compared to the 77W a decade ago.

enzo011 wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

This is exactly what I was refuting in my post. The 779 is not a massive jump from 77W. It is being treated like the A380. Had your point been about the A380. Sure. Keep telling us A330s are going to replace 77Ws.

Where is the 779 inefficient? There is such nonsense being spoken about on here, from an article about an airline that is still taking 779s. LH will still fly them. By your same logic, maybe tell LH that their are fools for flying new 748s and A380s.

Well the one difference between the 77W and the 779 is that there are now 2 competitors right in its space which will surely put pressure on sales that he 77W never had. I am not saying it will not get any further orders, but the 779 will compete with the A35K and the 78X for those 77W sales that airlines placed as the 77W was on its own in its class. This isn't anything against the 779, its just looking at the landscape where it has to compete as compared to the 77W a decade ago.

I think that's a reasonable assessment, enzo011.

enzo011 wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

This is exactly what I was refuting in my post. The 779 is not a massive jump from 77W. It is being treated like the A380. Had your point been about the A380. Sure. Keep telling us A330s are going to replace 77Ws.

Where is the 779 inefficient? There is such nonsense being spoken about on here, from an article about an airline that is still taking 779s. LH will still fly them. By your same logic, maybe tell LH that their are fools for flying new 748s and A380s.

Well the one difference between the 77W and the 779 is that there are now 2 competitors right in its space which will surely put pressure on sales that he 77W never had. I am not saying it will not get any further orders, but the 779 will compete with the A35K and the 78X for those 77W sales that airlines placed as the 77W was on its own in its class. This isn't anything against the 779, its just looking at the landscape where it has to compete as compared to the 77W a decade ago.

I agree 100%.

New models create opportunities. But they also create uncertainty. Customers who have already ordered other versions want to re-visit orders, and perhaps fragment their order. Customers poised to sign for other versions, want to to wait/re-visit. Customers who have ordered earlier versions want to know what enhancements incorporated into the new model will flow back into the model/s they have ordered, how long will that take, and what difference to pricing.

Hell will have to freeze (or a significant number of currently ordered A350's and 777X models delivered), before a stretched A350 or 777X is offered.

airzona11 wrote:

This is exactly what I was refuting in my post. The 779 is not a massive jump from 77W. It is being treated like the A380. Had your point been about the A380. Sure. Keep telling us A330s are going to replace 77Ws.

Where is the 779 inefficient? There is such nonsense being spoken about on here, from an article about an airline that is still taking 779s. LH will still fly them. By your same logic, maybe tell LH that their are fools for flying new 748s and A380s.

European carriers have no need for VLAs or ULH. They are right in the middle of planet earth.

They are no longer leading six-fifth freedom aggregators, Middle East carriers playing that role.

Why would they buy very large planes they cannot fill or the range they don't need. B787/A330 are the right equipment for most of their missions, just like B757/B767 served US carriers for decades.

The days of going big are history. Even Timothy is not able to fill all the planes he bought.

Newbiepilot wrote:

... Are you joking or do you just hate Boeing? What about the options that some airlines have? It is a pretty doom and gloom scenario to predict that a plane still more than two years away from entry into service won't get any more orders ever.

I said the same thing in 2012. $12B is too much for the incremental performance over B77W and to sell 300 copies.

dtw2hyd wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

This is exactly what I was refuting in my post. The 779 is not a massive jump from 77W. It is being treated like the A380. Had your point been about the A380. Sure. Keep telling us A330s are going to replace 77Ws.

Where is the 779 inefficient? There is such nonsense being spoken about on here, from an article about an airline that is still taking 779s. LH will still fly them. By your same logic, maybe tell LH that their are fools for flying new 748s and A380s.

European carriers have no need for VLAs or ULH. They are right in the middle of planet earth.

They are no longer leading six-fifth freedom aggregators, Middle East carriers playing that role.

Why would they buy very large planes they cannot fill or the range they don't need. B787/A330 are the right equipment for most of their missions, just like B757/B767 served US carriers for decades.

The days of going big are history. Even Timothy is not able to fill all the planes he bought.

Newbiepilot wrote:

... Are you joking or do you just hate Boeing? What about the options that some airlines have? It is a pretty doom and gloom scenario to predict that a plane still more than two years away from entry into service won't get any more orders ever.

I said the same thing in 2012. $12B is too much for the incremental performance over B77W and to sell 300 copies.

But it is 300 copies before launch.

Why are airlines buying the 77W now? Or the A35K?

How much more expensive is the 779 to operate vs the 77W?

The 779 is not an A380/748.

But why buy a 778x when you can normally fly an A350 for the same cash if you don't know you can fill the beast?

airzona11 wrote:

...How much more expensive is the 779 to operate vs the 77W? ....

On the day of first 779 delivery 77W FMV would be between $80M-$100M. Why would you buy a 779 at $175M-$200M, even if 779 less expensive to operate?

My own guesstimates.

Polot wrote:

Which actually helps Stitch's argument. Why would, and I quote, it "have made a lot of sense for Boeing to make SQ a killer price offer to stop Airbus getting the order and building the A350-2000" when Boeing knows Airbus won't launch a new variant for only 20 orders (just like how Boeing won't launch a -10X with only 20 orders).

Seahawk's answer is the most plausible. Neither Boeing nor Airbus were willing to launch a new variant at the present time so SQ, who wanted a larger aircraft, went with the larger of the two aircraft currently available for sale.

Not really if Airbus got an agreement for the 20, it may have been motivated gone out looking for more orders, maybe they build it for 2 customers and 50 orders, if they don't get the initial 20 they don't go looking to consolidate program. Aircraft manufacturers play chess, your mind seems limited to checkers.

MoKa777 wrote:

Hey everyone.

Saw this posted on Leeham.

https://leehamnews.com/2017/07/21/lufth ... more-24239

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

Boeing shouldn't field the airplane??. If Airbus can Field the A380 and talk about Expanding it??
Then Boeing can and Should Field the B779.
That it's a "flop" is only Your opinion and I submit? It's probably a BAD OPINION!

dtw2hyd wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

...How much more expensive is the 779 to operate vs the 77W? ....

On the day of first 779 delivery 77W FMV would be between $80M-$100M. Why would you buy a 779 at $175M-$200M, even if 779 less expensive to operate?

My own guesstimates.

Airplanes continue to sell even after they enter service. Eventually 77Ws will age to the point where the maintenance costs escalate and fuel burn relative to the 777-9 create a business case for the new plane. Some airlines with 777-200ERs or 777-200LRs may want to upgauge. Some A380 or 747 operators may want to downgauge. Your idea that no more 777x's will be sold is preposterous. THis isn't like the Concorde, 747-100 or A380 where airlines were ordering airplanes They did not need out of pride or trying to keep up with the competition by having the biggest o fastest plane.

Just as a thought exercise, what if Boeing had instead offered the 77W as is but with the GE9X engine? I.e., the only new expense being the engine (bumped up to 110-115k).

So basically just a re-engine and 10% efficiency gain with less potential problems filling seats and saving all the expense of a composite wing with a new building to make it, sidewall thinning, bigger windows, etc...

The vast majority of the efficiency improvement is from the GE9X anyway...

enzo011 wrote:

Well the one difference between the 77W and the 779 is that there are now 2 competitors right in its space which will surely put pressure on sales that he 77W never had. I am not saying it will not get any further orders, but the 779 will compete with the A35K and the 78X for those 77W sales that airlines placed as the 77W was on its own in its class. This isn't anything against the 779, its just looking at the landscape where it has to compete as compared to the 77W a decade ago.

And, it's equally valid to flip your argument around and point out that the A35K itself will be up against stiff competition (from the 779 and 78X). In other words, the A35K will not have the market for large twins all to itself the way that the 77W once did. -ir

SCAT15F wrote:

Just as a thought exercise, what if Boeing had instead offered the 77W as is but with the GE9X engine? I.e., the only new expense being the engine (bumped up to 110-115k).

So basically just a re-engine and 10% efficiency gain with less potential problems filling seats and saving all the expense of a composite wing with a new building to make it, sidewall thinning, bigger windows, etc...

The vast majority of the efficiency improvement is from the GE9X anyway...

Smarter people than me made the decision a new wing was needed. The 777-300ER is known for low cruising altitudes and high wingloading. A re-engined 777-300ER may not have competed adequately with the A350. The larger wing on the 777-9 has allowed MTOW to remain the same, but engine thrust to decrease. That new wing and longer fuselage increase OEW quite a bit and there is a large difference in OEW between the A350-1000, 777-300ER and 777-9, but somehow the numbers work well enough for the 777-9 to earn orders and actually surpass the A350-1000 order count even though it has fewer customers due to the size of the Emirates order.

Right now, the market for the 777-9 is not yet there, because the 777-9 will likely replace the last of the 747-400's AND replace the early 777-300ER models. I expect the 777-9 order book to be stronger after 2020, especially since the 777-9 won't need the expensive reconfiguration of runways, taxiways and gate areas the A380-800 required.

dtw2hyd wrote:

VLAs are nothing but capacity dumping machines.

It's a bit simplistic. When the regional jets have been replaced by the 737/A320s from the LCCs it could be been seen as "capacity dumping machines" . But the fact is LCCs are making greater profits with their "capacity dumping". How is that possible with the traditional mindset and A.net beliefs ?

Same for Emirates, "subsidies" alone cannot explain why they make so much while putting so much capacity on the market. Emirates is actually the biggest long haul LCC carrier. Most passengers in the world don't care that much of doing one stop on 10+ hours trips. But to make this work efficiently you may need VLAs as the demand tends to concentrate on certain destinations and flights. It's not capacity dumping, it's network optimization and that's what the VLAs are good at.

So you have this "LCC model" which works on short haul and long haul and it works with huge "capacity dumping". These airlines are increasing both profits and market shares while other airlines are responding by "I'm going to decrease my market shares to try to increase my profits". Downsizing may provide some immediate positive effects but if it was the answer Alitalia would be the most profitable airline in Europe...

dtw2hyd wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

...The 77X is going to get more orders.

There is no evidence to support that statement.

Usually keesje or someone of the like wins these, but today you get the Ignorant Post of the Day Award. Congrats!

Do YOU have any evidence to back up your statement?

StTim wrote:

But why buy a 778x when you can normally fly an A350 for the same cash if you don't know you can fill the beast?

Because, given the route, the A350 may not have the utility needed. The 777-8 will perform well where it's needed.

StTim wrote:

But why buy a 778x when you can normally fly an A350 for the same cash if you don't know you can fill the beast?

In the case of the ME3, they know they can. They start these routes with ~250 seat 777-200LRs and move up to ~350-seat 777-300ERs (of which they block seats in order to make the required payload-range).

Stitch wrote:

StTim wrote:

But why buy a 778x when you can normally fly an A350 for the same cash if you don't know you can fill the beast?

In the case of the ME3, they know they can. They start these routes with ~250 seat 777-200LRs and move up to ~350-seat 777-300ERs (of which they block seats in order to make the required payload-range).

But the experience from the A330CEO vs B772ER was that the a little bit smaller but more efficient frame beat the bigger out of market. I can see the A350 do the same with B77W and now B778.