.
I think simply "350 orders in 4 years" looks much better then looking at the customer base, timing "and commitments"



Big 777 customers BA, AA, GE, JAL, United, ILFC and Air France seem missing in action.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

The 777x is taking much of the 787 technology, especially regarding engines and wing and putting it on the larger 777 platform. I'm not trying to say the 777x is better..

$12B spending to achieve incremental performance improvement over B77W???

Even with WTO blessings, Washington state incentives are prorated. All this spending for one customer who is not able to fill current B77Ws. I don't think you need a crystal ball.

It is not just A350, there are several others eating into the very large wide-body market.

Please tell us where you pulled this $12 Billion dollar number from?

Eyad89 wrote:

I mean, A350 had its EIS in 2015, and now it has 848 orders nearing the end of its third year of service. 777 had its EIS in 1995, and by 1997 it had 335 orders. THOSE numbers should be compared. 848 vs 335 orders by the end of the third year of service for each plane.

On the other hand, whet you did was compare the sales of a paper plane for most of the years vs a plane that had been flying for a very long time and it probably was able to sell for cheaper as it had recovered a lot of its investments, and it can also be delivered much faster. That is very unfair in my eye.

Using the same method that you did for 787 vs A330:

787 sales since 2004: 1278
A330 sales since 2004: 1137

This way tells that A330 is selling in numbers that are similar to 787. But again, it is unfair. Lets compare the sales of 787 now 6 years after EIS to A330 at the same point of its lifetime. This gives us 1278 orders for 787 in 2017 vs 421 orders for A330 in 2000.

I can't say there is a right way to compare, but this way above we can say it is wrong with 100% certainty. Between 1995 and 2015 the market for large wide-bodies grew two and half times. 300 orders in 1995 is not the same as 300 orders in 2015. It is evident from your data that more recent models have sold more units in their first years.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

The trend continues: Smaller planes get bigger and have huge sales; medium sized planes get a little bigger and have good sales; largest planes get fewer.

That is exactly the point. Market fragmentation has benefits for OEM, in total number of frames built, and to airlines in creating a kind of scarcity in abundance: lots of tickets to sell, but not from the same place to the same destination nor at the same time, so every proposition has a built-in kind of rarity.

If we accept that the A380 is falling victim of that, then, as the next biggest is the 779, the question is: what big is too big?

Will the market change, grow? Yes, but I am with Lightsaber on that one: the planes that will most benefit are much smaller.

Stitch wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

The 777x is taking much of the 787 technology, especially regarding engines and wing and putting it on the larger 777 platform. I'm not trying to say the 777x is better..

$12B spending to achieve incremental performance improvement over B77W???

Try more like $5 billion based on analysis by people who know the industry (not bloggers posing as such).

Not to mention, "incremental performance" means bringing its economics back to within a very close approximation of those of its newest competitor. It's the alternative between winding down the 777 family, or extending it for probably 15+ more years of profitable sales.

I don't have access to any good cost numbers, but there's also more going on than just developing the derivative. There are a huge number of production efficiency improvements being implemented as part of this upgrade, and it goes far beyond the FAUB robotic fuselage fastening that has been giving them so much trouble, but which is being ironed out.

WIederling wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

However, a program launch with 316 orders on the books looks pretty damn solid to me.

Depending on rebates and conditions probably not.

Remember the vast numbers in the 787 orderbook ( achieved on wide spectrum overpromise and price dumping ).
My guess would be that the 777X could quite well be a Potemkin facade.
( i.e. pricing you could not walk away from and provisions for dropping orders without penalty.)

The 777X was the last Boeing model with 'soft' contracts and generous rebates and guarantees.

Just how tough are the financial penalties for deferrals and cancellations? If EK's order partners defer, what impact on EK pricing? How many of the current orders are 'subject to financing on terms agreeable to the customer? By 2030, will Boeing, through Boeing Capital, own a significant number of 777X?

As Boeing has found with the 787, it takes a very long time to work through large orders with soft T&C's (it still is), allowing deferrals and model hopping at no or low cost to the customer. And that was for a volume model, with good prospects.

And worse, it creates expectations, that new top up orders for the 787 will be on the same or similar terms. And ditto for new orders. When those don't materialise.....

iamlucky13 wrote:

Stitch wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

$12B spending to achieve incremental performance improvement over B77W???

Try more like $5 billion based on analysis by people who know the industry (not bloggers posing as such).

****

Perhaps this insider knows a bit about the industry...

"Bregier complained about the $8.7 billion in support Boeing negotiated for its latest wide-body program.

“I have a problem and that’s the conditions under which the 777X has been launched,” Bregier told reporters on Monday. He pointed out that the tax breaks in his view are higher than the total development costs of the program."

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... 7x-support

WIederling wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

However, a program launch with 316 orders on the books looks pretty damn solid to me.

Depending on rebates and conditions probably not.

Remember the vast numbers in the 787 orderbook ( achieved on wide spectrum overpromise and price dumping ).
My guess would be that the 777X could quite well be a Potemkin facade.
( i.e. pricing you could not walk away from and provisions for dropping orders without penalty.)

Any program launch with 316 orders on the book well before first flight is unbelievably solid. To suggest otherwise is kind of silly. The 777x to my mind is much like the A330 neo program. A relatively low cost update with state of the art engines. The A330 neo program has been widely praised as a solid solution to counter the 787. I agree.

The 777X is similar and will no doubt eat into 35K and 380 sales. That is entirely the point. Boeing has made a smart strategic decision at relatively low cost to sustain a highly successful program. Just like the A330 neo.

I think people need to relax. The bird hasn't even flown yet.

ElroyJetson wrote:

...The 777x to my mind is much like the A330 neo program. A relatively low cost update with state of the art engines....

I stopped reading here. That's like saying that changing a tire is like changing the engine and gearbox, because "both are changes".

Jayafe wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

...The 777x to my mind is much like the A330 neo program. A relatively low cost update with state of the art engines....

I stopped reading here. That's like saying that changing a tire is like changing the engine and gearbox, because "both are changes".

Both have new engines and other improvements. One goes a big step beyond the other by also including a new wing design. Neither is a completely new product.

They're different degrees of the same strategy, and neither is even remotely as simple as changing a tire.

The market appeal of one certainly can't be judged based on that of the other, but your decision not to read and consider the prior poster's full point before dismissing it was hardly something to brag about.

keesje wrote:

I think simply "350 orders in 4 years" looks much better then looking at the customer base, timing "and commitments".

Big 777 customers BA, AA, GE, JAL, United, ILFC and Air France seem missing in action.

Speaking of customer base, big A350-900 customers AA, AF, LH, SQ, SU, MU, CZ, DL, ET and AerCap (ILFC) seem missing in action when it comes to the A350-1000. In fact the biggest A350-900 customer (SQ) recently became a 777X customer.

We know JL will not order the 777X because 1) it's too large for them, and 2) they want a dual-OEM widebody fleet

GECAS will very likely buy some down the road since they are GE-powered frames.

AA and UA have taken delivery of a significant number of new 777-300ERs and we also keep hearing (unsubstantiated) rumors that UA and perhaps also AA are "re-considering" their A350 commitments.

iamlucky13 wrote:

They're different degrees of the same strategy, and neither is even remotely as simple as changing a tire.

Pffffffft.

What remains of the original 777 is the fuselage diameter and the certification.
Most of everything else will have been changed.

compare to a 95% commonality upgrade like the A330 NEO.

The 777X will come with a price tag nearer the 787 than the A330NEO. ( much nearer afaics

WIederling wrote:

OA940 wrote:

The 35K is basically a 772 series replacement just with more capacity.

Payload range covers the 77W capabilities ( while using 20..25% less fuel ) , doesn't it?

A359 is more or less on the 772*. though A332/A333 have happily foraged there too.

Ik, but it would seem logical to add capacity when demand is increasing. Anyway I'm no expert.

keesje wrote:

.
I think simply "350 orders in 4 years" looks much better then looking at the customer base, timing "and commitments"



Big 777 customers BA, AA, GE, JAL, United, ILFC and Air France seem missing in action.

Plane isn't flying yet, so while missing, not really significant. 777s will be in all, maybe sans JAL, fleets for decades to come.

WIederling wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

They're different degrees of the same strategy, and neither is even remotely as simple as changing a tire.

Pffffffft.

What remains of the original 777 is the fuselage diameter and the certification.
Most of everything else will have been changed.

compare to a 95% commonality upgrade like the A330 NEO.

The 777X will come with a price tag nearer the 787 than the A330NEO. ( much nearer afaics

I am reading more opinion than fact in your post. The 777x has new engines, new wing structure and new flight controls. Systems such as electrical, pneumatic, air conditioning, hydraulic, and landing gear are more or less staying almost the same. Some small changes to those systems, but few significant changes. That is why it is much much cheaper than an all new airplane. The 777x is taking some of the enhancements with biggest payoff in efficiency improvement from the 787 and leaving the rest.

I find it hard to believe it is a $5bn project - much as I believe isn't a $12bn project.

I suspect somewhere in the 7 to 9 bn is more realistic.

Stitch wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think simply "350 orders in 4 years" looks much better then looking at the customer base, timing "and commitments".

Big 777 customers BA, AA, GE, JAL, United, ILFC and Air France seem missing in action.

Speaking of customer base, big A350-900 customers AA, AF, LH, SQ, SU, MU, CZ, DL, ET and AerCap (ILFC) seem missing in action when it comes to the A350-1000. In fact the biggest A350-900 customer (SQ) recently became a 777X customer.

We know JL will not order the 777X because 1) it's too large for them, and 2) they want a dual-OEM widebody fleet

GECAS will very likely buy some down the road since they are GE-powered frames.

AA and UA have taken delivery of a significant number of new 777-300ERs and we also keep hearing (unsubstantiated) rumors that UA and perhaps also AA are "re-considering" their A350 commitments.

If JAL begins to grow again I would not rule out the 777X they have very premium configurations and the 777-9 can offer more capacity at that density.

StTim wrote:

I find it hard to believe it is a $5bn project - much as I believe isn't a $12bn project. I suspect somewhere in the 7 to 9 bn is more realistic.

Some of the assembly automation is being used now on the 777 program and will then be adopted by the 777X program so where that spend is assigned can affect the spend totals for each program.

ikolkyo wrote:

Stitch wrote:

We know JL will not order the 777X because 1) it's too large for them, and 2) they want a dual-OEM widebody fleet.

If JAL begins to grow again I would not rule out the 777X they have very premium configurations and the 777-9 can offer more capacity at that density.

Well I don't believe they will grow (Japan's population is declining) and while their new Business Class product does offer direct-aisle access at 2+3+2 on the 777 compared to 2+2+2 on the A350, I don't see JL adding the 777X when they went for the A350-1000 in part to not have to depend solely on Boeing for widebodies.

Stitch wrote:

StTim wrote:

I find it hard to believe it is a $5bn project - much as I believe isn't a $12bn project. I suspect somewhere in the 7 to 9 bn is more realistic.

Some of the assembly automation is being used now on the 777 program and will then be adopted by the 777X program so where that spend is assigned can affect the spend totals for each

Smoke and mirrors!

StTim wrote:

Smoke and mirrors!

It all comes out of BCA's P&L in the end, so. *shrug*

Stitch wrote:

StTim wrote:

Smoke and mirrors!

It all comes out of BCA's P&L in the end, so. *shrug*

True. Amortised or written off - it's all bloody bean counter territory!

StTim wrote:

I find it hard to believe it is a $5bn project - much as I believe isn't a $12bn project.

I suspect somewhere in the 7 to 9 bn is more realistic.

What is that opinion based on? I haven't seen any articles or reports on 777x development costs.

Given the numbers bandied around for the 320 neo then it is a slightly educated finger in the air guess. As Stitch rightly points out they can so easily manipulate the declared figures it is impossible to know the truth.

But the fact is a billion gets you very little in terms of Airframe development.

Stitch wrote:

StTim wrote:

I find it hard to believe it is a $5bn project - much as I believe isn't a $12bn project. I suspect somewhere in the 7 to 9 bn is more realistic.

Some of the assembly automation is being used now on the 777 program and will then be adopted by the 777X program so where that spend is assigned can affect the spend totals for each program.

ikolkyo wrote:

Stitch wrote:

We know JL will not order the 777X because 1) it's too large for them, and 2) they want a dual-OEM widebody fleet.

If JAL begins to grow again I would not rule out the 777X they have very premium configurations and the 777-9 can offer more capacity at that density.

Well I don't believe they will grow (Japan's population is declining) and while their new Business Class product does offer direct-aisle access at 2+3+2 on the 777 compared to 2+2+2 on the A350, I don't see JL adding the 777X when they went for the A350-1000 in part to not have to depend solely on Boeing for widebodies.

Japan's tourism industry is skyrocketing with annual growth rates of almost 20%. By 2020 they will have 40 million tourists annually (currently around 25) and by 2030 and estimated whopping 60 million. Plenty of room for both JL and NH to grow, assuming the likes of HND, NRT or CTS can take it, which supports the need for larger aircraft even more (slot constraints):

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/ ... a8jcJ_mjqA

Newbiepilot wrote:

WIederling wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

They're different degrees of the same strategy, and neither is even remotely as simple as changing a tire.

What remains of the original 777 is the fuselage diameter and the certification.
Most of everything else will have been changed.

I am reading more opinion than fact in your post. The 777x has new engines, new wing structure and new flight controls. Systems such as electrical, pneumatic, air conditioning, hydraulic, and landing gear are more or less staying almost the same. Some small changes to those systems, but few significant changes. That is why it is much much cheaper than an all new airplane. The 777x is taking some of the enhancements with biggest payoff in efficiency improvement from the 787 and leaving the rest.

I'm not sure about things like hydraulics for flight control surfaces and whether they're adapted from the equivalent systems for the legacy wing. However, in general, there is also quite a lot being kept in the fuselage - far more than just the diameter.

StTim wrote:

Stitch wrote:

StTim wrote:

I find it hard to believe it is a $5bn project - much as I believe isn't a $12bn project. I suspect somewhere in the 7 to 9 bn is more realistic.

Some of the assembly automation is being used now on the 777 program and will then be adopted by the 777X program so where that spend is assigned can affect the spend totals for each

Smoke and mirrors!

The accounting side might resemble smoke and mirrors, and your suggestion the total will ultimately be in the $7-9 billion range does not seem out of line.

However, the commonality of a lot of the new tooling is not smoke and mirrors, just in case that's what you were referring to. Quite a bit of assembly work is happening right now with new tooling that can accommodate any of the -200LR, -200F, -300ER, -9X and -8X variants.

keesje wrote:

the A350-1000 looks to have unbeatable economics at this stage.

Do you have a single point of evidence supporting this assertion?
There were two published public analyses: Leeham and Airwaysinsight. Both showed the 777-9 beating the A35K on fuel and overall operating costs per seat.

keesje wrote:

Airbus because they don't want wake people up.

In what world do companies not "wake people up" to the virtues of their products? That doesn't breach even the vicinity of sense.

-------------------------

Re the OP: I saw an article re the new landing gear supplier for 777X (Not UTC, as you may recall). They have set their production facilities to 7/mo capacity. They expect, therefore, the 777X will likely not attain the 77W/L/F's rate of production/sales.

That seems about right to me. With the smaller plastic twins, the 777-9 (or -10) will lack the overwhelming economies of scale against smaller competition that the 77W had. Same goes for A35K. Contra Boeing's marketing shtick, the "sweet spot of the market" is now down where 787-9/10 and A359 sit.

Nontheless, Boeing can make a decent ROI by producing as few as 50 77X's/year: The 779 will be the future anchor of trunk routes flown by network carriers with great credit (ANA, CX, SIA, LH) and as such can be sold at high margin. With ~$40mn/frame profit and just 50/year, future profit stream should easily reach $2bn/year. That conservative scenario makes up the $5bn investment quite nicely. ...and they might get lucky and build 100/year a decade from now (I'd guess not).

This shouldn't be possible given that the 777X is a compromised design well short of the technology horizon for a 2020 VLA. But that's the A380's fault. There should be a better plane competing against 777X from above, but that seems highly unlikely.

Wiederling wrote:

What remains of the original 777 is the fuselage diameter and the certification.

Systems? Landing gear?

iamlucky13 wrote:

Not to mention, "incremental performance" means bringing its economics back to within a very close approximation of those of its newest competitor.

There is no way Boeing would have spent $5bn to get "very close" to a new competitor. Close is still losing; nobody would order the bigger 777-9 if its economics (per seat) were worse than A35K's (well maybe EK would still order it for congestion reasons).

Here's a link to some of Leeham's analysis, though unfortunately the findings are behind a paywall. Their article on the A380NEO included analysis of A35K and 779; Leeham sees the 779 as ~5% more efficient than A35K. If I've misrepresented any of Leeham's proprietary conclusions, someone else with a membership will surely correct me.

https://leehamnews.com/2014/12/17/a380- ... titivness/

keesje wrote:

Big 777 customers BA, AA, GE, JAL, United, ILFC and Air France seem missing in action.

Only Air France is a big customer of the most popular model of the 777 which is the 777W, BA and AA and "johnny come latelys" to the party.
Yes they were customers of smaller model, but since the 777X is on par or slightly more capable than the 777W, those airlines are not the ones I would be looking at, but the larger installed 777W base, a number of whom also have A350's on order.

Stitch wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

The 777x is taking much of the 787 technology, especially regarding engines and wing and putting it on the larger 777 platform. I'm not trying to say the 777x is better..

$12B spending to achieve incremental performance improvement over B77W???

Try more like $5 billion based on analysis by people who know the industry (not bloggers posing as such).

Aha, someone should ask Washington State why they are offering $8.7B incentives on a $5B program.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Aha, someone should ask Washington State why they are offering $8.7B incentives on a $5B program.

It's not intended to be Launch Investment to develop the program. It's intended to keep production in the State and the economic benefits that production brings to the State.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Stitch wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

$12B spending to achieve incremental performance improvement over B77W???

Try more like $5 billion based on analysis by people who know the industry (not bloggers posing as such).

Aha, someone should ask Washington State why they are offering $8.7B incentives on a $5B program.

I posted this in reply 58:

"Bregier complained about the $8.7 billion in support Boeing negotiated for its latest wide-body program.

“I have a problem and that’s the conditions under which the 777X has been launched,” Bregier told reporters on Monday. He pointed out that the tax breaks in his view are higher than the total development costs of the program."

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... 7x-support

****

So I guess you and Airbus' Fabrice Bergier have the same complaint??

keesje wrote:

Big 777 customers BA, AA, GE, JAL, United, ILFC and Air France seem missing in action.

It's no secret you dislike the 777 in general, but much to your dismay, most of those are likely 777X customers. Not sure about JL, but not UA.

Likely not all of these, but AA, AC, AF, BA, CA, CI, GE, JJ, KE, QF, SV, TG, TK, and more are all prime 777X customers, on top of the aviation powerhouses already investing in the type.

The situation the 777X is in is shaping to be very similar to the 77W; a slow, but healthy start and then an increase in orders after EIS, and I have no doubt in my mind that will happen, especially as 747/777/A380 replacement cycles begin within the next 10 years. I can concede that the 777X probably won't rack up the orders the 77W has, but I will not humor the notion the 777X is in any sort of trouble.

The 777X remains the most successful product launch Boeing has done. 326x orders is an incredible number for an aircraft like this, and it can only build on the 777s success!

Personally, I'm very excited to see her fly! Might go to Everett to watch.

Waterbomber wrote:

keesje wrote:

A350s perform as promised, the A350-1000 looks to have unbeatable economics at this stage.

The biggest A350 customers are big 777 users.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Airbus_A350_XWB_orders_and_deliveries#Orders_and_deliveries_by_customer_.28sortable.29

Some are still in denial because the 777 used to be so successful.

Boeing is denying because it hurts the stock price, Airbus because they don't want wake people up.

I think that your llast line is bang on, especiaally the Airbus part.
Airbus seems happy for Boeing to keep developping the B777X instead of an alternative (for instance based on the B787), as they can easily beat it on any sales campaign with their A350XWB.

So, if I am understanding correctly, your theory (and keesje's) is that Airbus purposely gave 326 sales away from some of the most prominent airlines in the world in order to keep how good the A350 is a secret?!? Because that makes. . . total sense.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Stitch wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

$12B spending to achieve incremental performance improvement over B77W???

Try more like $5 billion based on analysis by people who know the industry (not bloggers posing as such).

Aha, someone should ask Washington State why they are offering $8.7B incentives on a $5B program.

Or someone should ask why resident A.net "experts" can not do a 30-second Google search and find out the truth. That the 777X package is an extension of the original 787 package (taking it out to 2040), which itself is a tax reduction on ALL aerospace products produced in Washington state. So every 737, 747, 767, 777 and half of all 787's. That is where the $8.7B value comes from - it is the estimated tax savings from all commercial aerospace products produced in Washington state by Boeing from the time the extension was passed (2013) until 2040. BTW, any other company that produces aerospace products in the state, including the many suppliers, qualify for the tax break. So even Airbus aircraft got a little cheaper with it's passage.

Hamlet69

Stitch wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Aha, someone should ask Washington State why they are offering $8.7B incentives on a $5B program.

It's not intended to be Launch Investment to develop the program. It's intended to keep production in the State and the economic benefits that production brings to the State.

I know that and I don't have a problem with WA giving incentives to Boeing in general. WA/BCA could have done the same for keeping 737 completion center which is moving to China (or) 787 production ramp up/bring some of the supply-chain in-house (or) MoM.

Any other option would guarantee more jobs to WA.

As it stands now, BCA is burning cash, WA and EXIM are ready to burn cash, just to help one foreign customer, who may or may not take all deliveries.

dtw2hyd wrote:

As it stands now, BCA is burning cash, WA and EXIM are ready to burn cash, just to help one foreign customer, who may or may not take all deliveries.

Well they have certainly done well for Boeing (and Airbus) in the past, so if you're going to help anyone, why wouldn't you help Emirates?

Not that Emirates is the only customer for the 777X...

The idea that the 350-1000 is going to sink the 778 has no ground. Want to embarrass the -1000? Put it on JNB-ATL. The difference in range and lift is too big for them to be regarded as direct competitors - even though for some operators the -1000 will do just fine.

And if the -1000 is an alternative to the 779, then the 789 is an alternative to the -1000. Those are similar parallels .

incitatus wrote:

The idea that the 350-1000 is going to sink the 778 has no ground. Want to embarrass the -1000? Put it on JNB-ATL. The difference in range and lift is too big for them to be regarded as direct competitors - even though for some operators the -1000 will do just fine.

And if the -1000 is an alternative to the 779, then the 789 is an alternative to the -1000. Those are similar parallels .

Agreed.

The A350-1000 isn't, strictly speaking, an ULH aircraft. The 777-8 is. They two are built for two totally different markets.

I talked about the 778's payload/ range in another thread.....but when you look at the numbers it is a beast. Granted it is a niche aircraft, but a mission like ATL -JNB with full pax, bags, and cargo it cannot be beat.

The 35K should be a very good plane, but it is not a direct competitor to the 778. I would see the 35K as more of a replacement for the 77W, where the airline is seeking efficiency, not ULH with a huge belly cargo capacity.

Newbiepilot wrote:

I am reading more opinion than fact in your post. The 777x has new engines, new wing structure and new flight controls. Systems such as electrical, pneumatic, air conditioning, hydraulic, and landing gear are more or less staying almost the same. Some small changes to those systems, but few significant changes. That is why it is much much cheaper than an all new airplane. The 777x is taking some of the enhancements with biggest payoff in efficiency improvement from the 787 and leaving the rest.

Lets conveniently forget that there are also TWO new fuselage stretches, with the attendant structural and systems changes those need, along with a significant re-sculpting of the interior structure and systems to accommodate 3-4" of extra width - along with the new engines and all-new state of the art CFRP wing (and presumably MLG re-worked beyond that of the 77W to allow a better rotate).

The 777X is not even remotely close to the A330 NEO in terms of simplicity - the latter being a winglet and new engines on the same fuselage and same wing. To suggest that the two programmes are comparable is beyond ridiculous

Matt6461 wrote:

keesje wrote:

the A350-1000 looks to have unbeatable economics at this stage.

Do you have a single point of evidence supporting this assertion?
There were two published public analyses: Leeham and Airwaysinsight. Both showed the 777-9 beating the A35K on fuel and overall operating costs per seat.

My question for you Matt, is that having spent so much time explaining to us why the A380 has such an issue because a larger frame by definition needs lower CASM to offset the higher trip cost, where does the 777-9X's small CASM advantage fit into your theorem given that the 777-X has to carry considerably more passengers than the A350-1000 in order to spread its higher trip cost over more seats to generate a CASM advantage?.

incitatus wrote:

The idea that the 350-1000 is going to sink the 778 has no ground. Want to embarrass the -1000? Put it on JNB-ATL. The difference in range and lift is too big for them to be regarded as direct competitors - even though for some operators the -1000 will do just fine.

And if the -1000 is an alternative to the 779, then the 789 is an alternative to the -1000. Those are similar parallels .

I'm not convinced that picking a single route with particularly challenging requirements is necessarily representative of the overall market positioning of these 2 frames (I'd also have care in assuming the A350-1000 will have worse field performance than the 777-8X, but that's a different matter).

As for your other point, not only the 789, but the A359 too are indeed very valid alternatives to both the A350-1000 and 779X, and we are clearly seeing these 300 seaters bringing real fragmentation to the long-haul market for the first time - they are going to make life difficult for these bigger frames.

(As an aside, an A359 would have very little issue with operating JNB-ATL at close to full MTOW, and do it at a fraction of the cost of a 778)

Rgds

Astuteman wrote:

My question for you Matt, is that having spent so much time explaining to us why the A380 has such an issue because a larger frame by definition needs lower CASM to offset the higher trip cost, where does the 777-9X's small CASM advantage fit into your theorem given that the 777-X has to carry considerably more passengers than the A350-1000 in order to spread its higher trip cost over more seats to generate a CASM advantage?.

I'd certainly be a hypocrite if I didn't apply that principle to the 777-9 as well as A380. But I do, which is why I said upthread:

Matt6461 wrote:

I'm no great fan of the 777X, which I consider a half-*ss accountant's move.

Matt6461 wrote:

777-9 (or -10) will lack the overwhelming economies of scale against smaller competition that the 77W had.

Matt6461 wrote:

the 777X is a compromised design well short of the technology horizon for a 2020 VLA.

Per the analysis presented by Leeham (behind a paywall) and AirwaysMag (since taken down), it looks like the 779 will have ~15% greater capacity than A35K for ~8-10% greater trip cost. That makes a Marginal Capacity Cost (MCC) of somewhere around 2/3. For the A380 versus the 77W, MCC was more like 4/5. Plus A380 operators are giving up cargo whereas the 777-9 will be somewhat better than A35K for payload/range as well as cargo volume.

That's not to say the 777-9 is far superior to A35K - as I said above it will not have overwhelming advantages against smaller competition and will not come close to the 77W by widebody market share. But given the smaller capacity/risk delta over A35K, cargo parity (at least), and better MCC, the 777-9 seems way better-placed in the market than was/is A388.

In the long run, what's worse for Boeing is that the 779's advantage is ephemeral in that it relies, to great extent, on better engines. I expect Boeing to reengine the 787 sooner than currently imagined - perhaps as early as 2025 with Ultrafan - and I expect Airbus to match that move. When that happens, the A350-1100/2000/8000 will probably leapfrog the 777-9/10.

Still, Boeing can rationally expect 60-70% of orders for large twin-aisles (777-8/9 and A35K) through most of next decade. That was probably good enough to close the business case; there's no reason to panic about this program.

...of course if Airbus had launched an A380X it might have been a different story for the 777-9, but we'll never know...

Revelation wrote:

It's strange to me how some claim Boeing should have gone all-CRFP

IMO folks conflate the level of description with these claims: What we'd like to see versus what is a smart move for fiduciary Boeing managers/directors.

I would have loved to see the Y3 be a clean-sheet CFRP design instead of 777X, and I suspect it would have been transformative. But as a Boeing director there's no way I'd give management another $15bn of rope to hang everyone until and unless I saw near-flawless execution of smaller programs (737MAX, 787-10, 777X). Even then I'd still be nervous.

Hopefully the animal spirits are back on the aggressive side. Boeing management seems to realize the firm's value is in inventing and building great new planes, not in inventing great new production philosophies and recasting itself as a brand manager / general contractor as in early this century.

Matt6461 wrote:

That's not to say the 777-9 is far superior to A35K - as I said above it will not have overwhelming advantages against smaller competition and will not come close to the 77W by widebody market share. But given the smaller capacity/risk delta over A35K, cargo parity (at least), and better MCC, the 777-9 seems way better-placed in the market than was/is A388.

In the long run, what's worse for Boeing is that the 779's advantage is ephemeral in that it relies, to great extent, on better engines.

Isn't it the case that whatever the economics, per the A380 to date, whether an airline thinks it can fill such a large plane is more important?

Matt nnnn:
"it looks like the 779 will have ~15% greater capacity than A35K for ~8-10% greater trip cost. "

Taking of the cuff ( WP:EN) numbers:
even with the lowest A35K 2 class arrangement offered in specs ( 369 ) I get <11% difference to 414 seats 2 class on the 779X
( then taking the 387 2 class setup from Airbus the difference is a measly 7%.)

slinky09 wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

That's not to say the 777-9 is far superior to A35K - as I said above it will not have overwhelming advantages against smaller competition and will not come close to the 77W by widebody market share. But given the smaller capacity/risk delta over A35K, cargo parity (at least), and better MCC, the 777-9 seems way better-placed in the market than was/is A388.

In the long run, what's worse for Boeing is that the 779's advantage is ephemeral in that it relies, to great extent, on better engines.

Isn't it the case that whatever the economics, per the A380 to date, whether an airline thinks it can fill such a large plane is more important?

No that's just far too simplistic.
"What you can fill" = "what you can sell"
"What you can sell" = quantity demanded

Folks often equate the concept of "demand" with "quantity demanded." That's an Econ 101 error: a demand curve will always show different quantities demanded at different price points.

The question is where on the demand curve is profit maximized. If a bigger plane saves a lot in costs, then maybe profit maximizes farther out on the demand curve. If it saves little, then you maximize farther in.

Long story short, the actual efficiency of the plane MATTERS.

326 orders before first flight is very good. The 777-8/9 was a logical step and it could be that there was not the ROI for a clean sheet new frame in this size.

But, the size of the 777-9 is IMO less dictated by the need of airlines, but the need to keep the A350-1000 away. Being that much heavier than a A350, a new engine, new wings and the other changes were not enough.

Here is a lot of talk that the 777-9 will beat the A350-1000 in payload range. For me that is a mantra repeated again and again as a fact, without resorting to evidence. The 777-9 will be limited in MTOW growth as Boeing does not change the MLG design compared to the 777-300ER. The 777-300ER went to the limit on the MLG. So compared to the 777-300ER OEW will grow and I assume due to less fuel, the 777-9 will keep the same payload capability as the 777-300ER, that is it.
If we look at the 308 MTOW version of the A350-1000 than yes the 777-9 will carry a higher payload the same distance, but as the distance increases you get to the point were the A350-1000 moves the same payload over the same distance. Increase it more and the A350-1000 will go further with the same payload. The max payload of the 308t A350-1000 will be 65 t compared to aboyut 70 t for the 777-9.
We see the MTOW of the A350-1000 growing even before EIS. There seem to come a 311t variant and a 316t variant. The MZFW payload of a 777-300ER is about 70 t the MZFW payload of an 316 t A350-1000 will be about 68 t and could take that further, than the 777-9 takes it´s payload. The payload difference is disappearing. Yes the 777-9 will have the volume to take more freight on long trips, but it will not have the payload.

mjoelnir wrote:

Here is a lot of talk that the 777-9 will beat the A350-1000 in payload range. For me that is a mantra repeated again and again as a fact, without resorting to evidence. The 777-9 will be limited in MTOW growth as Boeing does not change the MLG design compared to the 777-300ER. The 777-300ER went to the limit on the MLG. So compared to the 777-300ER OEW will grow and I assume due to less fuel, the 777-9 will keep the same payload capability as the 777-300ER, that is it.
If we look at the 308 MTOW version of the A350-1000 than yes the 777-9 will carry a higher payload the same distance, but as the distance increases you get to the point were the A350-1000 moves the same payload over the same distance. Increase it more and the A350-1000 will go further with the same payload. The max payload of the 308t A350-1000 will be 65 t compared to aboyut 70 t for the 777-9.
We see the MTOW of the A350-1000 growing even before EIS. There seem to come a 311t variant and a 316t variant. The MZFW payload of a 777-300ER is about 70 t the MZFW payload of an 316 t A350-1000 will be about 68 t and could take that further, than the 777-9 takes it´s payload. The payload difference is disappearing. Yes the 777-9 will have the volume to take more freight on long trips, but it will not have the payload.

Are you aware that the 777-300ER just had its landing gear redesigned? The first new landing gear for the 777-300ER was delivered last year.

http://www.herouxdevtek.com/_media/docu ... -en-vf.pdf

Boeing switched landing gear suppliers in preparation for the 777x and with that came a newly redesigned landing gear. Rather than waiting for the 777x and doing a hard changeover, they have started building the gears for the 777-300ER while they phase out UTAS. If Boeing has any intention to increase MTOW for the 777-9 or create a 777-10, I am confident that they would have designed the new landing gear to be able to take higher loads. Landing gear is unlikely to be the limiting factor that you imply.

Newbiepilot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Here is a lot of talk that the 777-9 will beat the A350-1000 in payload range. For me that is a mantra repeated again and again as a fact, without resorting to evidence. The 777-9 will be limited in MTOW growth as Boeing does not change the MLG design compared to the 777-300ER. The 777-300ER went to the limit on the MLG. So compared to the 777-300ER OEW will grow and I assume due to less fuel, the 777-9 will keep the same payload capability as the 777-300ER, that is it.
If we look at the 308 MTOW version of the A350-1000 than yes the 777-9 will carry a higher payload the same distance, but as the distance increases you get to the point were the A350-1000 moves the same payload over the same distance. Increase it more and the A350-1000 will go further with the same payload. The max payload of the 308t A350-1000 will be 65 t compared to aboyut 70 t for the 777-9.
We see the MTOW of the A350-1000 growing even before EIS. There seem to come a 311t variant and a 316t variant. The MZFW payload of a 777-300ER is about 70 t the MZFW payload of an 316 t A350-1000 will be about 68 t and could take that further, than the 777-9 takes it´s payload. The payload difference is disappearing. Yes the 777-9 will have the volume to take more freight on long trips, but it will not have the payload.

Are you aware that the 777-300ER just had its landing gear redesigned? The first new landing gear for the 777-300ER was delivered last year.

http://www.herouxdevtek.com/_media/docu ... -en-vf.pdf

Boeing switched landing gear suppliers in preparation for the 777x and with that came a newly redesigned landing gear. Rather than waiting for the 777x and doing a hard changeover, they have started building the gears for the 777-300ER while they phase out UTAS. If Boeing has any intention to increase MTOW for the 777-9 or create a 777-10, I am confident that they would have designed the new landing gear to be able to take higher loads. Landing gear is unlikely to be the limiting factor that you imply.

What do you think that has to do with the possibility of increasing MTOW? The MLG of the 777-300ER is maxing out regarding pavement pressure, the reason are the two 6 wheel bogies. There is a reason that the 747 went to four bogies with four wheels each or the A380 with two 6 wheel and two 4 wheel bogies. The A340-600 uses three 4 wheel bogies with bigger tires than the 777-300ER, distributing the weight over a greater area.

The switch to the new MLG producer is a cost cutting measure, they keep to two 6 wheel bogies with the same tire size, resulting in the same pavement pressure at the same MTOW. When we see a center MLG on the 777-9, than we can expect an increase in MTOW.

It is also not only pavement pressure, but also how much weight you can put on a certain area of the pavement.