Agree, Boeing seem to want to launch an a/c that a Airbus competitor has already rendered obsolete. Another one is the engines on the 787 / A350, as the XWB engines will always be 5% more efficient than the 787, Boeing has somehow found a way for an engine OEM who provides engines for both frames to deliver a less capable engine to them, the mind boggles. Perhaps Irma's pending arrival has me seeing things that have not been written...my bad

A filled 777-9x is more efficient than a filled A350 (https://www.airinsight.com/the-super-tw ... us-777-9x/). I think once you pass roughly 380 seats demanded, the 777-9 wins.

That means pretty much every A380 route with sub 75% load factor (which is a lot), every 744/748 route, and a ton of filled up 77W routes are filled perfectly by the 777-9x. I just can't see why people think Boeing made a terrible mistake.

par13del wrote:

Agree, Boeing seem to want to launch an a/c that a Airbus competitor has already rendered obsolete. Another one is the engines on the 787 / A350, as the XWB engines will always be 5% more efficient than the 787, Boeing has somehow found a way for an engine OEM who provides engines for both frames to deliver a less capable engine to them, the mind boggles. Perhaps Irma's pending arrival has me seeing things that have not been written...my bad

That is because the XWB builds on the learnings of the Trent 1000. Now a lot of what can be rolled back into the T1000 has been done as part of the current ten model. But there is a dual edged sword in that for Boeing as those enhancements are also rolling back into the T700 to become the T7000

Now you can only very rarely take all the improvements back a generation (or even half a generation) but Rolls is providing substantial upgrades.

StTim wrote:

But there is a dual edged sword in that for Boeing as those enhancements are also rolling back into the T700 to become the T7000

RR isn't rolling the enhancements onto the T700. They are taking the T1000 Ten, making it bleedair, and calling it the T7000 since it will be on the A330 and the previous RR engine on the frame was the T700.

The commonality between the T700 and T7000 won't really be any higher than the commonality between the T700 and T1000 Ten.

uta999 wrote:

Should the 777X be cancelled now before they cut metal? It's too big and too heavy and there are fewer carriers big enough to order it.

At the moment it looks very much like a 747-8i that simply won't sell, but production carries on regardless. How many of those current orders could actually be paid for today? Most airlines are run on fumes.

Boeing should concentrate and grow the 787, and build something new for the 757/767 market.

I always love comments like this from "experts" in airplane sales and marketing who clearly have greater insight than Boeing leadership. As others have noted, the 777X has the most orders ever so far of any wide body airplane before it even cut metal. I'm sure it will eventually be very successful just like the current 777 models.

Jayafe wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The 777-9 will be the A380 replacement as well as most remaining 747. The 777-8 will be hugely popular for opening new ULR routes. In combination with the 787 it will give Boeing a big lead in the twinaisle market. I really do not understand the lack of faith into Boeing's design team.

No to the 2nd one, and definetly not to the 1st one.

Since when design, engineering and market is a matter of faith?

That is why I am certain Boeing will get it right. The performance targets that they need to achieve are easy to define and they should know what they need to achieve to have a winner with the 777X.

mjoelnir wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The 777-9 will be the A380 replacement as well as most remaining 747. The 777-8 will be hugely popular for opening new ULR routes. In combination with the 787 it will give Boeing a big lead in the twinaisle market. I really do not understand the lack of faith into Boeing's design team.

I really do not understand how a much smaller frame should be the replacement for the A380, just because it is the biggest frame Boeing will offer in the future. You would have to buy three 777-9 for every two A380 being replaced.
At the EIS of the 777-9 there will be few 747-400 left to be replaced. All 777-8/9 ordered up to now, but at LH, are ordered as replacement for the 777-300ER and -200LR in those fleets.

Not really true. The much discussed [url]777-10X would, for instance at SQ[/url], https://leehamnews.com/2017/02/16/singapore-777-9-order-pressures-not-kill-a380/ seat about the same number as their A380's (420 or so).

Not really true. The much discussed [url]777-10X would, for instance at SQ[/url], https://leehamnews.com/2017/02/16/singapore-777-9-order-pressures-not-kill-a380/ seat about the same number as their A380's (420 or so).[/quote]

Could you please educate me about your claim, and that it is an apples:apples comparison. What is the available floor space in square metres in an A380, and on a B777-10?

Thanks!

BoeingGuy wrote:

uta999 wrote:

Should the 777X be cancelled now before they cut metal? It's too big and too heavy and there are fewer carriers big enough to order it.

At the moment it looks very much like a 747-8i that simply won't sell, but production carries on regardless. How many of those current orders could actually be paid for today? Most airlines are run on fumes.

Boeing should concentrate and grow the 787, and build something new for the 757/767 market.

I always love comments like this from "experts" in airplane sales and marketing who clearly have greater insight than Boeing leadership. As others have noted, the 777X has the most orders ever so far of any wide body airplane before it even cut metal. I'm sure it will eventually be very successful just like the current 777 models.

Don't get too exited The current 777X-models are a "quick fix" to remain in the big twin market. IMO it will have a decent market share, but it won't be the game changer the 77W has been.

keesje wrote:

I think hundreds of A350-900 will be converted to A350-1000's, because the airlines say so.

I guess you missed the UA announcement.

WIederling wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

Maybe not for airlines, but 777X marketing numbers have been baselined off a 9-abreast 77W. Cost per seat savings will be smaller for existing 10-abreast operators.

What was the reference for 77W superiority in other comparisons ( like A380 ) 9-across or 10-across?

The Dreamliner will be 20+++++% better than the current generation of frames. ( which contracted to "767 only" after intense asking.)

The good news is that the airlines - when it comes right down to it - will get guarantees. Smoke and mirrors are great in marketing, but the airlines will have more information and be better informed than the general public.

keesje wrote:

The A350-900 is competing with the 777-8 and 787-10, two niche aircraft.

If the 787-10 is such a "niche" aircraft, why do you advocate for Airbus making a larger Airbus A330-1000 with higher operating weights to directly compete with it?

7BOEING7 wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think hundreds of A350-900 will be converted to A350-1000's, because the airlines say so.

I guess you missed the UA announcement.

I would not be surprised if the A350-1000 does see not-insignificant conversions from the A350-900 because of the 787-10. I would not be surprised if the 787-10 eventually does to the A350-900 what the A330-300HGW did to the 777-200ER in supplanting it in airline fleets due to offering similar capacity and better operating economics on the vast majority (90%+) of missions being operated. So just as airlines went bigger with the 777-300ER, I believe they will do so with the A350-1000 and we'll see plenty of mixed 787-10 and A350-1000 fleets in two decades just as we today see plenty of mixed A330-300 and 777-300ER fleets.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

The good news is that the airlines - when it comes right down to it - will get guarantees. Smoke and mirrors are great in marketing, but the airlines will have more information and be better informed than the general public.

The lever used afaics is indirect.
You influence the shareholder community that then influences how management joins up with public expectations
to keep their share value up.
( if it doesn't work that way nobody and especially Boeing would not spend a single dime on
infusing the public media scape with semi truth and overstatement )

sassiciai wrote:

Not really true. The much discussed [url]777-10X would, for instance at SQ[/url], https://leehamnews.com/2017/02/16/singapore-777-9-order-pressures-not-kill-a380/ seat about the same number as their A380's (420 or so).

Could you please educate me about your claim, and that it is an apples:apples comparison. What is the available floor space in square metres in an A380, and on a B777-10?

Thanks![/quote]

It's not really my claim, so I will pass, thanks. But it is accurate to say that Leeham (hardly a bastion of pro-Boeing bias) and their comments at the link I provided give substantial credence to the assertion.

I believe EK seats 489 to 517 for it's A388's, and 360-428 for the 77W. It's not unreasonable to assume they'll have roughly 420 seats in their 779's, thus, and closer to 450 in any 777-10X (being just a basic 40 seat stretch of the 779). This is about 10% fewer seats vs. their A380's for a 777 operator that uses 10 percent of the 777's made to date, and has been suffering from low load factors for the past couple years, with vastly lower service costs.

Oh, and they're considering going to some all-economy A380's (presumably to get better utilization, due to lack of premium payers). The VLA premium game has been played better by no other airline (since Pan Am in the early 70's), and they are basically done with the concept, I would project/assert. Regardless of the % difference in square footage between the outgoing A388 and 779, the 77-10X represents a logical replacement/future (being just a basic 4 row stretch of the -9X).

sassiciai wrote:

Could you please educate me about your claim, and that it is an apples:apples comparison. What is the available floor space in square metres in an A380, and on a B777-10?

Thanks!

Take a look at how most carriers have their A380's configured, no one is putting 500+ pax on board, most are low 400 so what we have is a lot of wasted space, I mean premium amenities.

Stitch wrote:

I would not be surprised if the A350-1000 does see not-insignificant conversions from the A350-900 because of the 787-10. I would not be surprised if the 787-10 eventually does to the A350-900 what the A330-300HGW did to the 777-200ER in supplanting it in airline fleets due to offering similar capacity and better operating economics on the vast majority (90%+) of missions being operated. So just as airlines went bigger with the 777-300ER, I believe they will do so with the A350-1000 and we'll see plenty of mixed 787-10 and A350-1000 fleets in two decades just as we today see plenty of mixed A330-300 and 777-300ER fleets.

Personally I'll be astonished if what you predict actually comes to pass.

The 230t A330-300 has dramatically lower trip costs than the 300t 777-200ER. The weight difference is 30%

You can get a fag paper between the trip costs of a 254t 787-10 vs a 275t A350-900 (a weight difference of 8%). But that's about it.
It wouldn't surprise me to see these flown side-by-side, to be honest.

Rgds

dtw2hyd wrote:

Hamlet69 wrote:

Of course they do. No one is arguing otherwise, especially me. But what you are suggesting is that the market that has, over time, been filled with 744's, A346's, 77W's and A380's (again, ~1700 frames) will suddenly dwindle to a max market of 200 frames, which is over 50% less than what has already been sold between the 777X and A35K. Market conditions change. They do not change THAT much.

You are conveniently ignoring the reality. That segment is mostly captured by B787 and A350 and A330 and B737MAX and A320NEOs.

In the past, if an airline has to carry (any distance) 350+ with enough premium floor space only options were B747,B773, B77W or A380.

Now with premium traffic in trouble and there are many aircraft if the range is not an issue. Less than 4,500 miles B787-10 is the perfect aircraft, not B777X or A380.

Every airline CEO was told, bigger the better, per seat cost is the most important metric and see how well Tim is running with a biggest huge fleet of biggest aircraft.

That fog is cleared. If an airline flying B777X on a B787-10/B787-9 capable route, it is safe to assume airline management doesn't have skills

Saudia ordered A330-300 Regional, a perfect high-density widebody aircraft for missions less than 4 hours.

Which of those are being replaced with Maxes or NEO's? The market shift of replacing short-haul widebodies with more frequent narrowbody service already mostly occurred when the previous generation of narrowbodies achieved trans-continental range, and in general it wasn't 744's that were flying those routes.

I already asked, but I don't think you have addressed the matter that the market sub-segment (777X and A350-1000) you claimed is only 200 frames has already reached 2-1/2 times that many sales before either enter service. Is it your contention those orders represent severe over-capacity in the segment, even if the traffic growth forecasts are met?

I am skeptical the 777X will reach the legacy 777 sales level, for basically the same reasons you suggest. But you're taking the logic quite a bit further than I see rationalized - to the effect that the 777X and A350-1000 will together only garner 1/15th or what Boeing and Airbus both believe is a 3000+ airframe market segment.

Stitch wrote:

keesje wrote:

The A350-900 is competing with the 777-8 and 787-10, two niche aircraft.

If the 787-10 is such a "niche" aircraft, why do you advocate for Airbus making a larger Airbus A330-1000 with higher operating weights to directly compete with it?

Agreed, I certainly wouldn't call perhaps the most optimally poised aircraft of the new generation for transatantic hops (especially east coast ops) niche.

texl1649 wrote:

It's not really my claim, so I will pass, thanks. But it is accurate to say that Leeham (hardly a bastion of pro-Boeing bias) and their comments at the link I provided give substantial credence to the assertion.

I believe EK seats 489 to 517 for it's A388's, and 360-428 for the 77W. It's not unreasonable to assume they'll have roughly 420 seats in their 779's, thus, and closer to 450 in any 777-10X (being just a basic 40 seat stretch of the 779). This is about 10% fewer seats vs. their A380's for a 777 operator that uses 10 percent of the 777's made to date, and has been suffering from low load factors for the past couple years, with vastly lower service costs.

Oh, and they're considering going to some all-economy A380's (presumably to get better utilization, due to lack of premium payers). The VLA premium game has been played better by no other airline (since Pan Am in the early 70's), and they are basically done with the concept, I would project/assert. Regardless of the % difference in square footage between the outgoing A388 and 779, the 77-10X represents a logical replacement/future (being just a basic 4 row stretch of the -9X).

I don't see how EK will have 420 seats in the 779 though. They have 360 in the 77W, so if we assume they only add Y seats in the 779 they could have 390 seats in three classes. If you assume again the extra seats in the 777-10X will only be Y seats then it would be 430 seats. So the difference would be 17% and not 10%. This is all for the 3-class models.

But what about premium seats? You would have 50 J and F seats in the 777 but you have 90 in the A380. The premium ratios are at the moment about 17% premium seats in the A380 and 14% in the 77W. If you take the 430 seats in the 777-10X with only 50 premium seats its only 12% premium seats. Then you have to consider the 777 has an inferior J product than the A380 (7-abreast vs 4-abreast). So a 400 seat 777-10X with a 15% premium difference would still see a 35 or so increase in Y seating along with 10 extra J or F seats. I don't know if it is even possible to do this with the space between the doors, but seeing as we are talking about a paper model we can use mystery numbers.

So it would be safer to assume that the 777-10X would hold around 400 seats with a decent premium seat increase as well. Then the difference is 23% in seats between the 2 which makes a switch between the 2 models a bit more difficult. On routes that do struggle to fill 70% it makes sense, but I doubt that only the A380 routes are struggling with load factors at EK.

astuteman wrote:

Personally I'll be astonished if what you predict actually comes to pass.

You're probably right, considering the OEW difference between a 787-10 and A350-900 should be less than the 9% of the A333 and 77E, but I do believe the 787-10 could become the dominant player on 8-10 hour missions while the A350 takes the lead on longer roles. And I tend to think those longer stage lengths could favor the A350-1000 over the A350-900 just as they came to favor the 777-300ER over the 777-200ER since the better RASM/CASM will make them more attractive where utilization's lower (due to time aloft).

iamlucky13 wrote:

Which of those are being replaced with Maxes or NEO's? The market shift of replacing short-haul widebodies with more frequent narrowbody service already mostly occurred when the previous generation of narrowbodies achieved trans-continental range, and in general it wasn't 744's that were flying those routes.

I already asked, but I don't think you have addressed the matter that the market sub-segment (777X and A350-1000) you claimed is only 200 frames has already reached 2-1/2 times that many sales before either enter service. Is it your contention those orders represent severe over-capacity in the segment, even if the traffic growth forecasts are met?

I am skeptical the 777X will reach the legacy 777 sales level, for basically the same reasons you suggest. But you're taking the logic quite a bit further than I see rationalized - to the effect that the 777X and A350-1000 will together only garner 1/15th or what Boeing and Airbus both believe is a 3000+ airframe market segment.

Again your hypothesis is based on a WB getting replaced with another similar sized WB. That is far from reality in current market conditions.

An LHLCC like Norwegian/WOW with a TATL capable narrowbody on some weird route will have an impact on some wide-body missing a warm body in its seat.

Airbus CMO suggests 140 VLA between 2017-2016. Boeing CMO doesn't even mention VLA/near-VLA. But A.net forecasts 1000.

Long-haul future belongs to LHLCCs, medium range NBs and Small/Medium capacity WBs. Large/Very Large WBs are history.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Long-haul future belongs to LHLCCs

I'm not sure that is a done deal. We need to see these companies survive many more years and through economic downturns/fuel spikes. When the domestic LCCs hit the major airlines were caught flat footed, but the whole industry has changed and will not be as easy to disrupt in a major way this time.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Again your hypothesis is based on a WB getting replaced with another similar sized WB. That is far from reality in current market conditions.

An LHLCC like Norwegian/WOW with a TATL capable narrowbody on some weird route will have an impact on some wide-body missing a warm body in its seat.

Airbus CMO suggests 140 VLA between 2017-2016. Boeing CMO doesn't even mention VLA/near-VLA. But A.net forecasts 1000.

Long-haul future belongs to LHLCCs, medium range NBs and Small/Medium capacity WBs. Large/Very Large WBs are history.

I wouldn't really say I have a specific hypothesis, and certainly not one as specific as a market segment currently holding 500 orders will only amount to 200 actual deliveries.

I presume we'll see a mix of like-for-like replacement; up-gauging for growth, especially at slot-restricted airports; and down-gauging for frequency or right-sizing for routes that previously could only be reached by 777's or through connections. What the resulting mix of those will be, I can't say, but from what I see, for the last 20 year period, the deliveries were around 1200 aircraft (773, 77W, A346, 744). You're making an extraordinary claim in saying the net effect of these shifts will result in more than an 80% drop in large widebody deliveries despite the overall passenger airline market growing, and you're not providing similarly extraordinary evidence.

We seem to be looking at different market outlooks. I just double checked what I had previously looked up this morning, and Airbus 2017-2036 forecast says
1,184 VLA's,
2,692 large twin aisles
5,483 small twin aisles.

Category definitions are a bit hazy on Airbus's forecast, but they do indicate VLA's have over 450 seats, so it appears 2,692 is the number we're most interested in from Airbus.

Boeing says:
3160 medium/large widebodies
5050 small widebodies.

They specifically identify the bottom of the medium/large category as being the 787-10 and A350-1000 and also indicate they are including the VLA's.

I've long had doubts the market forecasts aren't to some degree A & B telling themselves what they want to hear, but not to nearly the degree you're proposing.

astuteman wrote:

Stitch wrote:

I would not be surprised if the A350-1000 does see not-insignificant conversions from the A350-900 because of the 787-10. I would not be surprised if the 787-10 eventually does to the A350-900 what the A330-300HGW did to the 777-200ER in supplanting it in airline fleets due to offering similar capacity and better operating economics on the vast majority (90%+) of missions being operated. So just as airlines went bigger with the 777-300ER, I believe they will do so with the A350-1000 and we'll see plenty of mixed 787-10 and A350-1000 fleets in two decades just as we today see plenty of mixed A330-300 and 777-300ER fleets.

Personally I'll be astonished if what you predict actually comes to pass.

The 230t A330-300 has dramatically lower trip costs than the 300t 777-200ER. The weight difference is 30%

You can get a fag paper between the trip costs of a 254t 787-10 vs a 275t A350-900 (a weight difference of 8%). But that's about it.
It wouldn't surprise me to see these flown side-by-side, to be honest.

Rgds

The numbers you are using are MTOW, not OEW. The OEW of 787-10 is not released yet.

I got those values from right from a Boeing manual:
OEW of 787-8: 119,950 KG
OEW of 787-9: 128,850 KG
OEW of 787-10: TBD

Well, Boeing site says that 789 got a 20% increase in capacity over 788 with a 9 tons difference in weight, and 787-10 got 14% increase in capacity over 789. Therefore, we could guess that 787-10 would get 6.5 tons of extra OEW over 789. We can assume that the OEW of 787-10 would be somewhere between 135t - 136t.

Now, the OEW of A359 is somewhere between 135t-137t as pointed out by A350 pilots in these forums, taken right from the manual. Well, I couldn't find the OEW at Airbus website, if you are able to find it, please let me know.


It means: the OEW of A359 and 787-10 could be more or less the same. the 8% pointed in your comment is the MTOW difference for some variants. Hell, the OEW difference between A359 and 789 should be somewhere around 5%, imagine what the OEW difference would be like for the 787-10 and A359.(consider that OEW difference between 788 and 789 is 7%)

I am interested in the cost per trip comparison between those two. We know the OEW would be almost the same, with 787-10 likely being slightly lighter (we will see). I don't have solid information on the SFC for their engines, but I know all Trent-XWB-84 would have a 1% improvement in fuel consumption starting 2018 as stated by RR. For the wings, I think it is clear that A359 has the more optimized wings and likely less induced drag. 787-10 got the extra capacity and seats, so that would probably give it the edge in CASM (just by a bit).

Note: When comparing A359 against 777-200ER in terms of weight and market, don't forget that A359 is 3.1m longer.

Eyad89 wrote:

Well, Boeing site says that 789 got a 20% increase in capacity over 788 with a 9 tons difference in weight, and 787-10 got 14% increase in capacity over 789. Therefore, we could guess that 787-10 would get 6.5 tons of extra OEW over 789. We can assume that the OEW of 787-10 would be somewhere between 135t - 136t.

for the guestimating:
788 to 789 brought a longer fuselage _and_ beefed up structure ( to be capable to use the
253t MTOW ceiling incurred by other design decissions) while a lot of excess weight
in other places was also cut.

789 to 7810 is a simple stretch. further weight reductions will have been rather limited.
Getting there on a different way nonetheless 1t/m probably is still a good guess.
( final numbers from Boeing will be rather educative

Outcome is like on the A333/789 set similar OEW with different MTOW.
big difference in the first case the lesser MTOW has the (relatively) bigger wing
while in the 7810 A359 case the higher MTOW also sports the much larger wing.

In both cases the 787 falls back via a too small wing.

I'll throw something else out there.

If an airline operates with 10-across Y 777s currently, they may be more likely to get the 777X.
9-across Y airlines, the A350.

The 777-8/9 has very nice order numbers for a frame having its EIS about three years away. I just think that the big buyers have already ordered. I do not expect any USA airline to buy the 777-9 nor the 777-8 in the near future. For the rest of the world are, here on A.net, every bigger airline mentioned. I do not believe that, the A350 and the 787 are in most cases the more logical frames.

mjoelnir wrote:

The 777-8/9 has very nice order numbers for a frame having its EIS about three years away. I just think that the big buyers have already ordered. I do not expect any USA airline to buy the 777-9 nor the 777-8 in the near future. For the rest of the world are, here on A.net, every bigger airline mentioned. I do not believe that, the A350 and the 787 are in most cases the more logical frames.

Fully agree.

The X will be a success - the initial numbers almost guarantee that (as long as the initial deals were not too good) - but I do not foresee a huge market in other airlines. The A350 and 787 are going to take most of what was the 777 market. They make far more sense for most airlines.

The 777X and A330neo is in a similar situation.

First delivery:
A330: 1994
777: 1995

Both families has gone thru significant upgrades since first delivery, with significant MTOW increases. The aircraft addresses different market segments, with the A330 beeing a medium sized widebody.

Number of pax aircraft delivered since first delivery:
A330 (-200/-300): 1323 aircraft
777 (-200/-300): 1377 aircraft

Boeing launched the 787, where the 787-8 is near identically sized as the A330-200, and the 787-9 is near identically sized as the A330-300.

A few years later Airbus launched the A350, where the A350-900 and A350-1000 are near one to one replacements for the 777-200ER and 777-300ER respectively.

Airbus responds to the 787 by upgrading the A330 family: New engines, increased wingspan, cabin upgrades etc. The A330neo is born.

Boeing responds to the A350 by upgrading the 777 family: New engines, increased wingspan, cabin upgrades etc. The 777X is born.

I reckon these two warmed over families will continue to sell in similar numbers. At the press conference when the A330neo program was launched, Airbus stated that they project to sell about 500 A330neos. I think it is reasonable to assume that about 500 777X will be delivered before the 777 line is closed down. Whether that is a success or not, depends on the price Boeing is able to achieve per aircraft sold. Ref. return on investments made.

Boeing faces the added difficulty of selling large widebodies in todays market, while Airbus faces possible competition from a Boeing MOM.

I think Boeing should have, instead of launching the 777X program, compete with Airbus on price, thus selling the 77W at a highly competitive price against the A350. Boeing could thereafter do a 787-10ER and a 787-11 (same length as the A350-1000). Yes, this is a significant R&D expense, but so is the 777X program. I think the return on investment would be greater doing a 787-11 than the 777X.

I don`t think so. B777 programe is bit diffrent then A330. A330 is upgraded in steps but T7 has virtualy two generations and 777-8/9 will be the third. And A330NEO is less expensive then B777X programe. A330NEO is selling with good price advantage compare to B787 to offset slight less fuel efficiency but B777X grew in size to compete with A350 by increased capacity to offset heavier design but I not see any price advantage there.

iamlucky13 wrote:

I wouldn't really say I have a specific hypothesis, and certainly not one as specific as a market segment currently holding 500 orders will only amount to 200 actual deliveries.

I presume we'll see a mix of like-for-like replacement; up-gauging for growth, especially at slot-restricted airports; and down-gauging for frequency or right-sizing for routes that previously could only be reached by 777's or through connections. What the resulting mix of those will be, I can't say, but from what I see, for the last 20 year period, the deliveries were around 1200 aircraft (773, 77W, A346, 744). You're making an extraordinary claim in saying the net effect of these shifts will result in more than an 80% drop in large widebody deliveries despite the overall passenger airline market growing, and you're not providing similarly extraordinary evidence.

We seem to be looking at different market outlooks. I just double checked what I had previously looked up this morning, and Airbus 2017-2036 forecast says
1,184 VLA's,
2,692 large twin aisles
5,483 small twin aisles.

Category definitions are a bit hazy on Airbus's forecast, but they do indicate VLA's have over 450 seats, so it appears 2,692 is the number we're most interested in from Airbus.

Boeing says:
3160 medium/large widebodies
5050 small widebodies.

They specifically identify the bottom of the medium/large category as being the 787-10 and A350-1000 and also indicate they are including the VLA's.

I've long had doubts the market forecasts aren't to some degree A & B telling themselves what they want to hear, but not to nearly the degree you're proposing.

Your numbers are correct, I was looking at Europe forecast. Airbus forecast has 900+ VLA between Asia and ME. Which may be valid based last years data, now middle east is stagnant, cannot take 400 VLAs and China has no plans to buy 500 VLAs.

Slot restriction is man made disaster and VLAs are not the solution. There is no need for every passenger to go through LHR, DXB or another handful of slot restricted airport. ATL and ORD are able to handle more traffic with smaller aircraft.

777X would be $50MM expensive than a 787-9/10. Having dealt with tanking resale values of A380 and 777, Global financiers are not eager to lease/finance these niche monster planes. They are happy to finance commodity planes every one could use.

Boeing778X wrote:

I'll throw something else out there.

If an airline operates with 10-across Y 777s currently, they may be more likely to get the 777X.
9-across Y airlines, the A350.

While this could sound like an interesting thought at first, let's remember that all 777 operators started out as 9-across. Over the years, they switched to 10-across because simply they can just do that to get the potential additional revenue for pretty much the same consumed fuel per trip. If they managed to fill those extra seats on some flights, then that's good added revenue. If those seats were not sold, well they are paying almost the same trip cost as 9-across anyways. Your suggestion is different, choosing either A35K or 779 would have a big impact on costs per trip. They have to choose wisely here based on the demand around the year.

mjoelnir wrote:

The 777-8/9 has very nice order numbers for a frame having its EIS about three years away. I just think that the big buyers have already ordered. I do not expect any USA airline to buy the 777-9 nor the 777-8 in the near future. For the rest of the world are, here on A.net, every bigger airline mentioned. I do not believe that, the A350 and the 787 are in most cases the more logical frames.

Airplanes sell better while in service than before launch. You have posted the sales figure of the A330 vs 787 many times over the past 10 years to show that. The 777 vs A350 sales show the same trend as well. I expect 777-8/9 sales to continue once the airplane enters service. In 5 years when 777-9s can be ordered and delivered within 2 of the order, I think we will see more airlines ordering it.

kimimm19 wrote:

Stitch wrote:

keesje wrote:

The A350-900 is competing with the 777-8 and 787-10, two niche aircraft.

If the 787-10 is such a "niche" aircraft, why do you advocate for Airbus making a larger Airbus A330-1000 with higher operating weights to directly compete with it?

Agreed, I certainly wouldn't call perhaps the most optimally poised aircraft of the new generation for transatantic hops (especially east coast ops) niche.

If 177 orders for the 787-10 makes it a niche aircraft, the the A350-1000 is also a niche aircraft since that is exactly how many orders it has now as well after UAs order change. At just over 200 orders, I guess the A339 is niche as well. There are tons of choices in the widebody market right now. The 777-8/9 are positioned at the top of the twin market. There are a whole lot of 77Ws in service now. It will be interesting to see what airlines do to replace them in 7-10 years.

Keesje seems to think a number of A359 orders will be converted to A35Ks. He can have his opinion. I don't think evidence really supports that, but that is just my opinion as well. Lots of opinions without a whole lot of facts.

reidar76 wrote:

I think Boeing should have, instead of launching the 777X program, compete with Airbus on price, thus selling the 77W at a highly competitive price against the A350. Boeing could thereafter do a 787-10ER and a 787-11 (same length as the A350-1000). Yes, this is a significant R&D expense, but so is the 777X program. I think the return on investment would be greater doing a 787-11 than the 777X.

They probably should have. But remember, at the time, the 787 was considered to be 'tainted', including financially, in contrast to the 777.

But the prime reason this didn't happen, is that there were two factions inside Boeing, and it became a 777 v 787 argument. That's why Airbus manages the A330 and A350 with a single management team (initially not when the first A350 iteration was mooted), so we see A330NEO developments constrained / margins inflated, to nurture A350 volumes and protect margins.

Because of the internal rivalry, the 777 team lobbied for the 787 not to get the dollars for a new 787 wing, which in itself became harder to cost justify because of the likely 787/777 product overlaps.

If the decisions were being taken today, I'm sure they would indeed be different.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Having dealt with tanking resale values of A380 and 777, Global financiers are not eager to lease/finance these niche monster planes. They are happy to finance commodity planes every one could use.

I wouldn't say not eager to finance A380, 777 and even 748, but the preference, is to lease from new over shorter terms and lower residuals (junior debt), like EK.

Financiers are more nervous about aircraft with new engine offerings at present.

The leasing industry views the A330 family as the only current commodity WB model. The 787 is seen as excessively high tech in terms of on-ground IT support, making it harder to place used aircraft with first-time users (OK if an existing operator is adding to their fleet).

Newbiepilot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

The 777-8/9 has very nice order numbers for a frame having its EIS about three years away. I just think that the big buyers have already ordered. I do not expect any USA airline to buy the 777-9 nor the 777-8 in the near future. For the rest of the world are, here on A.net, every bigger airline mentioned. I do not believe that, the A350 and the 787 are in most cases the more logical frames.

Airplanes sell better while in service than before launch. You have posted the sales figure of the A330 vs 787 many times over the past 10 years to show that. The 777 vs A350 sales show the same trend as well. I expect 777-8/9 sales to continue once the airplane enters service. In 5 years when 777-9s can be ordered and delivered within 2 of the order, I think we will see more airlines ordering it.

Agreed. Once the 778/779 enters service, I think many airlines will be more convinced that is the ultimate VLA. They will replace their 77W with it. There are currently 550+ in service and many are fairly new. The 778/9 program is still several years away and many replacements for the 77W won't be needed for at least another 10 years. By then it will be operational and many of these 77W customers will take a hard look at it as a replacement for their current 77W's. Many airlines like SQ, AF and QF will probably also replace their A380's with it. Time will tell

reidar76 wrote:

I think Boeing should have, instead of launching the 777X program, compete with Airbus on price, thus selling the 77W at a highly competitive price against the A350. Boeing could thereafter do a 787-10ER and a 787-11 (same length as the A350-1000). Yes, this is a significant R&D expense, but so is the 777X program. I think the return on investment would be greater doing a 787-11 than the 777X.

Well Boeing is selling the 777-300ER at lower ASPs than they have in the past, but eventually once the A350-1000 is in serial production, it's going to be hard for Boeing to use pricing to offset a 20%+ higher fuel burn, especially considering the 777 is an "expensive" plane to build in terms of labor (which is why Boeing has been working to automate 777 and 777X production to a greater extent).

As for stretching the 787, that would have required an investment at least as large as the 777X's as it would have required a larger wing (probably with folding wingtips) and new six-wheel undercarriage. They also were at direct risk from Airbus just stretching the A350 the same length as both are 9-abreast airframes. With the 777X, Boeing at least had a wider fuselage so they could put in more seats across for the same length.

An (over simple) thought.The 787-10 seems fine on size/pax numbers but a tad limited on range.Airbus loves using the ACT route to add range.Could Boeing swap some cargo space for an act or two or is it already over limited to do this?
PS will the Trent -10 buy them more range or is it already factored in?

parapente wrote:

An (over simple) thought.The 787-10 seems fine on size/pax numbers but a tad limited on range.Airbus loves using the ACT route to add range.Could Boeing swap some cargo space for an act or two or is it already over limited to do this?
PS will the Trent -10 buy them more range or is it already factored in?

???
The only Airbus I'm aware uses ACT's is the A320 family.
Boeing also offer them on the 77L, but not many operators take them up.
I'm not sure it would fix the issue you describe for the 787-10 without an MTOW increase - much like the A321LR

Rgds

Planesmart wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Having dealt with tanking resale values of A380 and 777, Global financiers are not eager to lease/finance these niche monster planes. They are happy to finance commodity planes every one could use.

I wouldn't say not eager to finance A380, 777 and even 748, but the preference, is to lease from new over shorter terms and lower residuals (junior debt), like EK.

Financiers are more nervous about aircraft with new engine offerings at present.

The leasing industry views the A330 family as the only current commodity WB model. The 787 is seen as excessively high tech in terms of on-ground IT support, making it harder to place used aircraft with first-time users (OK if an existing operator is adding to their fleet).

The 767-300ER has the strongest resale market (meaning most transactions) right now from what I see followed by the A330 for widebodies. The bigger the plane, the harder they are to place on the used market.

Big or financially stable airlines will be able to get good financing terms on the 777x. Smaller or less financially stable airlines would likely find an easier time financing 787s or A350s.

parapente wrote:

An (over simple) thought.The 787-10 seems fine on size/pax numbers but a tad limited on range.Airbus loves using the ACT route to add range.Could Boeing swap some cargo space for an act or two or is it already over limited to do this?
PS will the Trent -10 buy them more range or is it already factored in?

I haven't heard fuel capacity is the issue. MTOW is the issue. As astuteman says, the A321, 737-9/10 are the only planes commonly with aux tanks. that lets the OEMs out range each other on marketing charts by changing aux tank numbers.

parapente wrote:

An (over simple) thought.The 787-10 seems fine on size/pax numbers but a tad limited on range.Airbus loves using the ACT route to add range.Could Boeing swap some cargo space for an act or two or is it already over limited to do this?
PS will the Trent -10 buy them more range or is it already factored in?

787-10 is MTOW limited. similar to the 788.
( extreme case is the A332: until recently you could tanker an "empty" plane to the MTOW limit )

Just look at how far down the "second corner" in a payload range diagram sits.
That is were you loose the ability to swap payload for fuel because tankage is maxed out
and you have to drop about twice as much payload for any further incremental increases in range.

parapente wrote:

An (over simple) thought. The 787-10 seems fine on size/pax numbers but a tad limited on range.Airbus loves using the ACT route to add range. Could Boeing swap some cargo space for an act or two or is it already over limited to do this?

Like all 787s, the 787-10 is fuel-weight limited, not fuel-volume. The 787-10 can tank close to 95,000kg of fuel, but at MZFW (maximum payload) it can only tank 59,000kg of fuel before it reaches MTOW. To carry a full load of fuel with the existing tank volume, payload would drop to around 25,000kg which would be less than half of what she could carry at MZFW.

Stitch wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

I think Boeing should have, instead of launching the 777X program, compete with Airbus on price, thus selling the 77W at a highly competitive price against the A350. Boeing could thereafter do a 787-10ER and a 787-11 (same length as the A350-1000). Yes, this is a significant R&D expense, but so is the 777X program. I think the return on investment would be greater doing a 787-11 than the 777X.

Well Boeing is selling the 777-300ER at lower ASPs than they have in the past, but eventually once the A350-1000 is in serial production, it's going to be hard for Boeing to use pricing to offset a 20%+ higher fuel burn, especially considering the 777 is an "expensive" plane to build in terms of labor (which is why Boeing has been working to automate 777 and 777X production to a greater extent).

As for stretching the 787, that would have required an investment at least as large as the 777X's as it would have required a larger wing (probably with folding wingtips) and new six-wheel undercarriage. They also were at direct risk from Airbus just stretching the A350 the same length as both are 9-abreast airframes. With the 777X, Boeing at least had a wider fuselage so they could put in more seats across for the same length.

Ah I see that the doubt is now finally settling into this thread about whether the B777X was a better decision than launching bigger B787 variants.

Don't doubt it, I already give you the conclusion that it was a poor decision and if we may believe some posters above, not a decision made for the right reasons, ie offering the most competitive aircraft in the segment.

I think that the wider fuselage of the B777X is a poor argument considering that the additional seat advantage argument only applies to economy class, which in turn doesn't represent the full length of the cabin. The additional width is not sufficient to add a C-class seat, let alone a Y+ seat.
However, the biggest prblem is not even that. The additional cross-section comes at a huge cost in weight and drag.
So what if the bigger B787 was at risk of forcing Airbus to react with another stretch of the A350? The B777X is incurring the same risk only that it's not competitive in the first place and Airbus doesn't even see the need to react with a stretch.

Airbus is sitting on a A350 backlog that takes them all the way into 2025.

Boeing could have launched the bigger B787 in the same timeline as the B777X. They would have racked up orders that needed to be fulfilled until 2025, and would have been more competitive all the way into the 2030's. At the same time, given the low fuel prices, the B77W line could have remained open and could have been offered as a low capital alternative to both the bigger B787 and the A350, giving Boeing control of the market segment.

Sinking the money into renewing the B777 was a mistake.
Point final.

Waterbomber wrote:

Don't doubt it, I already give you the conclusion that it was a poor decision and if we may believe some posters above, not a decision made for the right reasons, ie offering the most competitive aircraft in the segment.

...

Sinking the money into renewing the B777 was a mistake.
Point final.

I am not trying to offend you, but I find both of these statements rather arrogant. Making point final conclusions that the 777x is a mistake two years before entry into service is ignorant in my opinion. Is it a bit early for such a conclusion? Is that more of an opinion?

The 787 has a 25% smaller wing so the plane can't simply be stretched to make it a viable A350 competitor. Some have the opinion that a higher weight stretched version is a good idea. However Boeing has secured over 300 orders for the 777-8/9. That's more than the A330neo in total has secured. It proves that there is a market for a larger 777. There haven't been many large widebody orders in the past 4 years and the A350 isn't dominating the 777 in sales.

You are welcome to have your own opinion and I am not trying to be offensive, but I don't think many will take your conclusion seriously that the 777 is a mistake that shouldn't be built unless they are very pro Airbus or anti Boeing.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Big or financially stable airlines will be able to get good financing terms on the 777x. Smaller or less financially stable airlines would likely find an easier time financing 787s or A350s.

Emirates lease cost went up by 30% last year with A380s and 77Ws. How do you explain that?

Bulk ordered WBs have another side effect. The well discounted great initial price may not look that good compared to FMV for the last batch of deliveries.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Big or financially stable airlines will be able to get good financing terms on the 777x. Smaller or less financially stable airlines would likely find an easier time financing 787s or A350s.

Emirates lease cost went up by 30% last year with A380s and 77Ws. How do you explain that?

Bulk ordered WBs have another side effect. The well discounted great initial price may not look that good compared to FMV for the last batch of deliveries.

Where did find out that lease costs went up 30%? I would like to better understand that. Emirates retired 26 planes last week

Newbiepilot wrote:

Waterbomber wrote:

Don't doubt it, I already give you the conclusion that it was a poor decision and if we may believe some posters above, not a decision made for the right reasons, ie offering the most competitive aircraft in the segment.

...

Sinking the money into renewing the B777 was a mistake.
Point final.

I am not trying to offend you, but I find both of these statements rather arrogant. Making point final conclusions that the 777x is a mistake two years before entry into service is ignorant in my opinion. Is it a bit early for such a conclusion? Is that more of an opinion?

The 787 has a 25% smaller wing so the plane can't simply be stretched to make it a viable A350 competitor. Some have the opinion that a higher weight stretched version is a good idea. However Boeing has secured over 300 orders for the 777-8/9. That's more than the A330neo in total has secured. It proves that there is a market for a larger 777. There haven't been many large widebody orders in the past 4 years and the A350 isn't dominating the 777 in sales.

You are welcome to have your own opinion and I am not trying to be offensive, but I don't think many will take your conclusion seriously that the 777 is a mistake that shouldn't be built unless they are very pro Airbus or anti Boeing.

Newbie. The 777x has garnered an impressive number of sales from a small number of airlines. The fletch question is where the next tranche of sales over 10 to 15 years are to come from. This is a much harder question despite the desires of the ultra fan boys who even have US3 airlines buying them.

The market is changing and the 777x is on the wrong side of it. Boeing saw what was happening with the A380 and still launched the 747-8. They felt what was happening to the 747-8 and then launched the 777x. I have no idea what launch discounts were given but I suspect they were pretty high. They are getting to the point they need real orders to fill out the delivery schedule. Those 426 frames do not do it if you look at the timings.

StTim wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Waterbomber wrote:

Don't doubt it, I already give you the conclusion that it was a poor decision and if we may believe some posters above, not a decision made for the right reasons, ie offering the most competitive aircraft in the segment.

...

Sinking the money into renewing the B777 was a mistake.
Point final.

I am not trying to offend you, but I find both of these statements rather arrogant. Making point final conclusions that the 777x is a mistake two years before entry into service is ignorant in my opinion. Is it a bit early for such a conclusion? Is that more of an opinion?

The 787 has a 25% smaller wing so the plane can't simply be stretched to make it a viable A350 competitor. Some have the opinion that a higher weight stretched version is a good idea. However Boeing has secured over 300 orders for the 777-8/9. That's more than the A330neo in total has secured. It proves that there is a market for a larger 777. There haven't been many large widebody orders in the past 4 years and the A350 isn't dominating the 777 in sales.

You are welcome to have your own opinion and I am not trying to be offensive, but I don't think many will take your conclusion seriously that the 777 is a mistake that shouldn't be built unless they are very pro Airbus or anti Boeing.

Newbie. The 777x has garnered an impressive number of sales from a small number of airlines. The fletch question is where the next tranche of sales over 10 to 15 years are to come from. This is a much harder question despite the desires of the ultra fan boys who even have US3 airlines buying them.

The market is changing and the 777x is on the wrong side of it. Boeing saw what was happening with the A380 and still launched the 747-8. They felt what was happening to the 747-8 and then launched the 777x. I have no idea what launch discounts were given but I suspect they were pretty high. They are getting to the point they need real orders to fill out the delivery schedule. Those 426 frames do not do it if you look at the timings.

Markets change and evolve. Concluding two years before entry into service of a plane with over 300 orders that it was a mistake sounds premature and ignorant to me. I can understand someone having an opinion that the 777x won't sell as well as the A350 but not final point conclusions that the 777x is a mistake.