Leeham: VLA era is over; are 779/A35K too large?

Jayafe · Fri Jun 22, 2018 10:32 pm

2175301 wrote:
May I suggest that we hold off proclaiming that this will have much effect on the 777X until we see actual 777X performance figures as well...

Let's undermine the result and performance just in case a competitor that is still to be built, tested, certified and delivered, maybe gets a result better than expected by its manufacturer. Nice logic there. Facts can be evaluated, what someone (suspiciously) "heard", can't. Facts here please.

wingman · Fri Jun 22, 2018 10:59 pm

Isn't it scary that the flight computer would be off by 30% for total fuel consumption? Nice that they had all that extra but if it had gone 30% the other way wouldn't Sam be dead now? Someone should check the fuel algorithm.

zeke · Fri Jun 22, 2018 11:04 pm

ap305 wrote:
zeke wrote:
the flight computer predicted 9.5t fob at the end of the delivery flight but they ended up with 12.5t -https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DgGgKSIVMAAprjU.jpg. That is 72.5t for 11hrs and 50 mins (albeit with a lighter payload than normal) .... Just 6.1t per hour

Do you have a photo of the 9.5 tonne prediction ? maybe they didn’t have step climbs and/or winds inserted at the time. The aircraft basically burned as planned, the “72.5t for 11hrs and 50 mins” was basically the flight planned numbers, the flight plan had it landing with 11.5 tonnes, actually landed with around 12.8. The actual ZFW was around 500 kg lighter which accounts for around 100 kg less fuel, and the actual flight time was 11:43, 7 minutes accounts for around 600 kg less fuel. The rest can be explained by more efficient levels. Actual payload was a little over 24 tonnes.

ap305 · Fri Jun 22, 2018 11:08 pm

wingman wrote:
Isn't it scary that the flight computer would be off by 30% for total fuel consumption? Nice that they had all that extra but if it had gone 30% the other way wouldn't Sam be dead now? Someone should check the fuel algorithm.

Or you could be misreading my post? They had 12.5t fob (fuel on board) at the end of the trip as opposed to the predicted 9.5t. They burnt 72.5t. That is not 30% less than predicted- it is around 4% which would jive very well with what we have been hearing.

ap305 · Fri Jun 22, 2018 11:15 pm

zeke wrote:
ap305 wrote:
zeke wrote:
the flight computer predicted 9.5t fob at the end of the delivery flight but they ended up with 12.5t -https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DgGgKSIVMAAprjU.jpg. That is 72.5t for 11hrs and 50 mins (albeit with a lighter payload than normal) .... Just 6.1t per hour

Do you have a photo of the 9.5 tonne prediction ? maybe they didn’t have step climbs and/or winds inserted at the time. The aircraft basically burned as planned, the “72.5t for 11hrs and 50 mins” was basically the flight planned numbers, the flight plan had it landing with 11.5 tonnes, actually landed with around 12.8. The actual ZFW was around 500 kg lighter which accounts for around 100 kg less fuel, and the actual flight time was 11:43, 7 minutes accounts for around 600 kg less fuel. The rest can be explained by more efficient levels. Actual payload was a little over 24 tonnes.

No photo- reading the figures on the center screen off Sam Chui's video at around 3:30 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo6T1QhVtjM . As you say perhaps the data was not fully entered- my bad.

zeke · Fri Jun 22, 2018 11:20 pm

Ok, I cannot see the details on the screen to read the numbers on my phone.

QuarkFly · Sat Jun 23, 2018 12:10 am

The 777-9 is too big and heavy (for now). A 77W replacement cycle will eventually start around 2030 when some carriers will naturally stay with the 777 platform. ..Until then, B had better hope the ME3 (ME2 ?) and a few others (NH, LH) don't reduce their orders too much. I think B intended the 779 to chase the bottom end of the A380 market which was never really there. The 777X will never sell like B hoped.

The A350-1000 is roughly 77W sized, not too big -- but now we have a 77W glut, thus a small market...but A359 carriers will eventually grow into it...like the A321 is finally coming of age after playing second fiddle to the A320 for so long.

We are living in a A350 and 787 world. Economy of scale will make these two platforms prevalent even if each has shortcomings -- think A320 and 738 -- neither perfect, but cheap and plentiful. Everybody else plays second fiddle...A330neo, A380, 747-8 will fade away and 777X will never match it's parent in sales.

Even in younger A.netters' lifetimes...787's and A350's may not see an all new wide-body replacement. They are probably the 737 / A320 of the twin-isles...and with new engine upgrades, will fly on indefinitely.

wingman · Sat Jun 23, 2018 1:20 am

ap305 wrote:
Or you could be misreading my post? They had 12.5t fob (fuel on board) at the end of the trip as opposed to the predicted 9.5t. They burnt 72.5t. That is not 30% less than predicted- it is around 4% which would jive very well with what we have been hearing.

I guess I was, that makes much more sense. Thanks for explaining that.

FlightLevel360 · Sat Jun 23, 2018 3:48 am

This is pretty depressing to be honest. I've always liked large aircraft. More comfortable than those puny "long-haulers" that seat 100-200 people. Maybe in the future we'll see A321s flying between the East Coast and China.

AirCal737 · Sat Jun 23, 2018 4:49 am

VV wrote:
Antarius wrote:
VV wrote:
"VLA era is over"

When did VLA era start?

Jan 22, 1970. EIS of the 747.

It's been over for a while though.

What was the 747's capacity back then?

When do you think VLA era ended?

Maybe when 767s started to fly ETOPS?

2175301 · Sat Jun 23, 2018 1:00 pm

Jayafe wrote:
2175301 wrote:
May I suggest that we hold off proclaiming that this will have much effect on the 777X until we see actual 777X performance figures as well...

Let's undermine the result and performance just in case a competitor that is still to be built, tested, certified and delivered, maybe gets a result better than expected by its manufacturer. Nice logic there. Facts can be evaluated, what someone (suspiciously) "heard", can't. Facts here please.

Not undermining at all... Anyone who buys or leases aircraft is well aware that actual performance of new aircraft is often different than projected performance... and should be better by a bit. There is no great surprise here.

No one is going to switch their 777X orders to 35K orders based on this... Very few who are looking at the future are going to buy the 35K based solely on this if they were looking at the 777X as a possible valid competitor. At the same time both the 35K and the 777X are in the same category typical of new planes. They received a surge of initial orders on and just after initial offer. Then almost nothing until after they enter revenue service with some real world performance data, which will be more complete than a single test flight.

The 35K is ahead of the 777X for that for obvious reasons; and will get some orders after it enters commercial service for companies who were waiting for that point and to see some actual real world performance data. Yes it will help the 35K that its performance numbers are better than projected. But, people who are looking far to the future in this size class will also wait for the 777X numbers as well.

Have a great day,

zeke · Sat Jun 23, 2018 1:24 pm

2175301 wrote:
The 35K is ahead of the 777X for that for obvious reasons; and will get some orders after it enters commercial service for companies who were waiting for that point and to see some actual real world performance data. Yes it will help the 35K that its performance numbers are better than projected. But, people who are looking far to the future in this size class will also wait for the 777X numbers as well.,

However the 35K came about as a result of improvements to the 359 that they had already certified. The 779 will be the first of model like the 788, the 35K is a mature product at EIS like the 789 was. The 779 has a fairly large change to the structure, avionics, systems, and engines compared to the 77W.

aemoreira1981 · Sat Jun 23, 2018 2:08 pm

QuarkFly wrote:
The 777-9 is too big and heavy (for now). A 77W replacement cycle will eventually start around 2030 when some carriers will naturally stay with the 777 platform. ..Until then, B had better hope the ME3 (ME2 ?) and a few others (NH, LH) don't reduce their orders too much. I think B intended the 779 to chase the bottom end of the A380 market which was never really there. The 777X will never sell like B hoped.

The A350-1000 is roughly 77W sized, not too big -- but now we have a 77W glut, thus a small market...but A359 carriers will eventually grow into it...like the A321 is finally coming of age after playing second fiddle to the A320 for so long.

We are living in a A350 and 787 world. Economy of scale will make these two platforms prevalent even if each has shortcomings -- think A320 and 738 -- neither perfect, but cheap and plentiful. Everybody else plays second fiddle...A330neo, A380, 747-8 will fade away and 777X will never match it's parent in sales.

Even in younger A.netters' lifetimes...787's and A350's may not see an all new wide-body replacement. They are probably the 737 / A320 of the twin-isles...and with new engine upgrades, will fly on indefinitely.

The 777-9X is a plane whose real danger is to the dedicated freighter. An airline like Cathay Pacific could use its belly cargo capacity to replace a dedicated freighter on HKG-JFK (the freighter operates via ANC). The 77W glut is really depressing 77E remarketing values. All that said, maybe the 777X is 5 years too soon, although the A35K may have forced Boeing's hand. I see LH having the 777-9X replacing its remaining 744s and I could also see a TK order for the 777-8X, with QF and NZ also watching as well.

lightsaber · Sat Jun 23, 2018 2:29 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
QuarkFly wrote:
The 777-9 is too big and heavy (for now). A 77W replacement cycle will eventually start around 2030 when some carriers will naturally stay with the 777 platform. ..Until then, B had better hope the ME3 (ME2 ?) and a few others (NH, LH) don't reduce their orders too much. I think B intended the 779 to chase the bottom end of the A380 market which was never really there. The 777X will never sell like B hoped.

The A350-1000 is roughly 77W sized, not too big -- but now we have a 77W glut, thus a small market...but A359 carriers will eventually grow into it...like the A321 is finally coming of age after playing second fiddle to the A320 for so long.

We are living in a A350 and 787 world. Economy of scale will make these two platforms prevalent even if each has shortcomings -- think A320 and 738 -- neither perfect, but cheap and plentiful. Everybody else plays second fiddle...A330neo, A380, 747-8 will fade away and 777X will never match it's parent in sales.

Even in younger A.netters' lifetimes...787's and A350's may not see an all new wide-body replacement. They are probably the 737 / A320 of the twin-isles...and with new engine upgrades, will fly on indefinitely.

The 777-9X is a plane whose real danger is to the dedicated freighter. An airline like Cathay Pacific could use its belly cargo capacity to replace a dedicated freighter on HKG-JFK (the freighter operates via ANC). The 77W glut is really depressing 77E remarketing values. All that said, maybe the 777X is 5 years too soon, although the A35K may have forced Boeing's hand. I see LH having the 777-9X replacing its remaining 744s and I could also see a TK order for the 777-8X, with QF and NZ also watching as well.

The 779 is a combination and should do well on routes with good belly freight rates

I agree on the 77Ws coming in soon to come off lease are depressing used widebody prices. Not just the 77E, but also A332 and thus A333. I speculate that Boeing had to drop 787 prices to keep them moving due to the glut of widebodies. In the process, they stimulated the market by making it worthwhile to go up a generation of aircraft early.

What the market needs:
A338F at an even higher MTOW to allow use of the center tank.
778F
777pax to freight

Oh, the A359 and A35K certainly forced Boeing's hand. The new GE90 sales days are over. I bet FedEx received quite a discount in their latest order to keep the line going.

In other threads, posters speculate why FedEx hasn't ordered more replacement widebodies. I believe it is because better deals are to come.

The A338F would be a good fit for about 30 frames for FedEx. So is a 777pax to freight. I hope someone invents a tool to make it cheap enough to replace the floor beams soon.

Next job is 787 pax to freight. But not for 5 to 9 years...

If you can't tell, I think the VLA freight market only works with fuel efficient tech.

The pax market needs will be well met by the 779.

Lightsaber

Noshow · Sat Jun 23, 2018 5:39 pm

Leaving aside the whole A380 topic for a moment.
Aren't really big aircraft needed? I mean look at congested airports. Could a twin be built big enough to cover the upper end? I feel a need for more very big airplanes. Traffic is growing, big cities get bigger, China and India grow out everybody else. Big MUST be needed? Big as bigger than some 777-9.

mig17 · Sat Jun 23, 2018 7:33 pm

They are not too big but they may not ensure airlines better yields than smaller frames with same range.

Larger aircraft means more expansive to buy and to operate. And even if those costs are now less expensive on a per seat basis, the yield management to fill those seat everyday will not permit the same average revenue per seat.

That is why the A380 suffers a lot. The A351 ans 779 are still significantly smaller and I don't think they will suffer has much for this reason. But I fear the 779 may be in trouble for a different reason, he is kind of an orphan. The 772, 773 and 77E are leaving. The most recent 77L never worked well. The 778, the 9 littile brother will sufer the same fate the LR did. And the 77W is what the 779 is supposed to replace. So the 779 will be the single version of a large model. That may not be ideal for most fleets outthere.

flyingclrs727 · Sat Jun 23, 2018 7:38 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
The 748i and A388 are terrible products

The products themselves weren't bad; the market analysis that led to them was.
One came way too late in its family's life, the other arguably way too early.

strfyr51 wrote:
I just retired and I worked on B747's for the last 37years non-Stop. The A380 will never even SEE that longevity. Unless you can Identify it as a beer can.

Except that this isn't the '70s anymore, and carriers have no need to buy oversized airframes for the sake of range.... which if we're to be intellectually honest, was the 747 family's saving-grace for most of its existence.

Until the early '90s, if an airline wanted to reliably go further than ~5000nm nonstop, then they had no choice but to get a 747.

Today is a market were 200seaters now have 18hr+ nonstop range; thus the only reason to acquire a VLA is if you actually NEED the capacity-- which the overwhelming majority of airlines don't. THAT is the main reason that the A380 will never have the 747's sales total, and not some untouchable prowess by the latter. Let's keep it real here.

Plus the 747 100 to 300 didn't quite have the range of today's long ranged twins. That meant that they tended to fly to and between large hubs like JFK, LHR, LAX, SIN, and NRT. These hubs could provide feed for the various 747 operators hubbing at the airport. Due to range issues even of 747's plus the restrictions of using Soviet airspace, much Europe to Asia traffic flowed through ANC. If passengers were going to be funneled through hubs anyway, it made lots of sense to operate the largest aircraft available with the lowest CASM.

tomcat · Sat Jun 23, 2018 7:52 pm

zeke wrote:
ap305 wrote:
zeke wrote:
the flight computer predicted 9.5t fob at the end of the delivery flight but they ended up with 12.5t -https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DgGgKSIVMAAprjU.jpg. That is 72.5t for 11hrs and 50 mins (albeit with a lighter payload than normal) .... Just 6.1t per hour

Do you have a photo of the 9.5 tonne prediction ? maybe they didn’t have step climbs and/or winds inserted at the time. The aircraft basically burned as planned, the “72.5t for 11hrs and 50 mins” was basically the flight planned numbers, the flight plan had it landing with 11.5 tonnes, actually landed with around 12.8. The actual ZFW was around 500 kg lighter which accounts for around 100 kg less fuel, and the actual flight time was 11:43, 7 minutes accounts for around 600 kg less fuel. The rest can be explained by more efficient levels. Actual payload was a little over 24 tonnes.

Looking at these numbers and considering the range-payload of the 316t A35K, one could start wondering if combining the A359 wing (latest iteration), landing gear and engines with a -1000 fuselage wouldn't be an interesting design (or simply put, a stretched A359). With a 280 MTOW, such a plane could haul for close to 12 hours the payload that the -1000 hauls over 8400 nm (or 17.5 hours). For the airlines that don't need the range of the A35K, the interest of the stretched A359 would be its lighter empty weight (2 to 3 tons less than an A35K thanks to a lighter wing, lighter landing gear and lighter engines), its optimized wing (less drag thanks to its reduced area) and its maximum commonality with the A359. It would also be slightly cheaper than the A35K provided that the development costs would remain limited. I recon that this may appear like a useless fine-tuning, but the A35K seems to have so much range that it might look like a waste for many airlines. The 787-10 is also showing that range is not paramount.

QuarkFly · Sat Jun 23, 2018 9:16 pm

Noshow wrote:
Leaving aside the whole A380 topic for a moment.
Aren't really big aircraft needed? I mean look at congested airports. Could a twin be built big enough to cover the upper end? I feel a need for more very big airplanes. Traffic is growing, big cities get bigger, China and India grow out everybody else. Big MUST be needed? Big as bigger than some 777-9.

Yes, that has always been the argument for the A380...but there were other ways to handle the lack of runways. 738 / A320 carriers upgrade to 737-9,10 / A321 and a new midrange MoM aircraft will start plying 150 seat 737/A320 routes with 250 seats and less flights. Same with wide-bodies...A330 and 787 upgrade to 787-10 and A350...fifty more passengers per flight. Also, lots of new airports and runways get built in China, and probably India, Middle-East/Africa. Population in Europe, N America and Japan/Korea is stagnant or falling.

Look at what is happening on transatlantic airports...originally congestion would make them perfect for A380...but carriers are actually flying narrow-body A321 and 738 on these routes into secondary airports easing up the JFK - LHR kind of congestion the A380 was made for. So small aircraft becoming medium sized is solving the problem, not the A380, 747-8 and maybe not even the 777-9.

Planesmart · Sat Jun 23, 2018 9:45 pm

2175301 wrote:
Jayafe wrote:
2175301 wrote:
May I suggest that we hold off proclaiming that this will have much effect on the 777X until we see actual 777X performance figures as well...

Let's undermine the result and performance just in case a competitor that is still to be built, tested, certified and delivered, maybe gets a result better than expected by its manufacturer. Nice logic there. Facts can be evaluated, what someone (suspiciously) "heard", can't. Facts here please.

Not undermining at all... Anyone who buys or leases aircraft is well aware that actual performance of new aircraft is often different than projected performance... and should be better by a bit. There is no great surprise here.

No one is going to switch their 777X orders to 35K orders based on this... Very few who are looking at the future are going to buy the 35K based solely on this if they were looking at the 777X as a possible valid competitor. At the same time both the 35K and the 777X are in the same category typical of new planes. They received a surge of initial orders on and just after initial offer. Then almost nothing until after they enter revenue service with some real world performance data, which will be more complete than a single test flight.

The 35K is ahead of the 777X for that for obvious reasons; and will get some orders after it enters commercial service for companies who were waiting for that point and to see some actual real world performance data. Yes it will help the 35K that its performance numbers are better than projected. But, people who are looking far to the future in this size class will also wait for the 777X numbers as well.

Have a great day,

The 777X order process isn't firm enough yet that orders won't be cancelled, deferred or model hopped.

Real A350 performance improvements will, and are undermining Boeing attempts to firm orders, which is why, on as yet to fly aircraft, supposed improvements based purely on modelling, are being leaked to the aviation media, financiers and customers.

Boeing is 12-18 months out from turning qualified / conditional orders (subject to performance and finance) into unqualified / unconditional orders (where performance guarantees are hard, as is compensation for failure), and in turn customers can use those to obtain finance.

Usually it's performance alone that determines an OEM getting dry ink on contracts, but the mood of financiers and leasing companies has changed. OEM's are building aircraft which will last longer, but their economic lifespans are shrinking. Engine concerns are being magnified where there is only a single supplier.

As a result, the 777X is going to have an unusually short time span between unconditional orders and first deliveries, which is going to test Boeing and GE nerves, and may encourage some customers to place 787 and A350 orders as insurance, eroding future 777X sales.

To remove at least one customer decision factor, expect Boeing & GE Capital to fund a record number of 777X aircraft and related engines.

zeke · Sat Jun 23, 2018 10:07 pm

Nice post, but I do not agree with the comment it is performance alone that seals the deal, for us it’s a nett present value assessment so performance, maintenance, financing etc come into play to determine lifespan costs. If the engine misses its mark the manufacturer will offer a deal, the airframe may get a guaranteed buy back price which can reduce finance costs.

Planesmart · Sat Jun 23, 2018 10:39 pm

zeke wrote:
Nice post, but I do not agree with the comment it is performance alone that seals the deal, for us it’s a nett present value assessment so performance, maintenance, financing etc come into play to determine lifespan costs. If the engine misses its mark the manufacturer will offer a deal, the airframe may get a guaranteed buy back price which can reduce finance costs.

Thanks Zeke. Yes, the ultimate buy / don't buy is 'cradle to grave cost'.

Only so much the air frame and engine OEM can do to sweeten the deal, unless losing money on every unit is the name of the game, and it most certainly isn't if we are to believe the 787 is now Boeing's Cinderella model range, and GE is being readied for sale.

The level of acquisition sophistication among the US3, EU3 and ME3 is incredible. For example, some now require contracted engine degradation and compensation based on hours and cycles, for life in the fleet (usually 12 years).

The challenge for Boeing, is just how much 777X exposure do they want, if financially the model will already under-perform for a decade after first delivery, due to giveaway pricing, compared to now selling 787's?

If they also have to fund a significant proportion of deliveries, and / or offer a buyback so customer customers can fund the 777X at margins comparable to the A350, are they financially better placed to offer existing or new 787 models to these customers, and use the X technology in new 787 models?

81819 · Sat Jun 23, 2018 11:40 pm

On all accounts the 787 should be Boeing's Cinderella model. It can perform 90% of the A350 / 777X routes, it's CASM is similar and sometimes better, it services a larger spread of the market, is more versatile in a range of markets and costs less to purchase.

At the end of the day the 777X and A350 are competing against an aircraft that is punching above its weight.

At the other end of the spectrum, there may not actually be an economic advantage for swapping out a mid life A380 with an A350-1000 and 777X for medium haul flying. If these newer aircraft are geared towards longer flight lengths the fuel/ownership/airport/maintenance/crew cost mix might still favour the older, bigger and somewhat more comfortable aircraft.

I suspect the 777X and A350-1000 have a spot in the market place. It's just that that spot isn't as big anymore!

lightsaber · Sun Jun 24, 2018 12:20 am

travelhound wrote:
I suspect the 777X and A350-1000 have a spot in the market place. It's just that that spot isn't as big anymore!

Well said. The debate is the size of the market after considering how much of it will be taken by the A321LR, 797, 787, and A359. I'm a fan of fragmentation and frequency. For example, I fly in a few weeks and I paid quite a premium to fly at certain hours and have non-stop flights. All it takes is enough people willing to do that to create hub bypass.

Aviation is very multi-facited. I see a market for the A35K and 777X. It will just be smaller than the 77W/A380 market as there will be more bypass. These planes fly people for less (per person) than smaller planes ,(and the A380).

Lightsaber

aemoreira1981 · Sun Jun 24, 2018 2:42 am

travelhound wrote:
On all accounts the 787 should be Boeing's Cinderella model. It can perform 90% of the A350 / 777X routes, it's CASM is similar and sometimes better, it services a larger spread of the market, is more versatile in a range of markets and costs less to purchase.

At the end of the day the 777X and A350 are competing against an aircraft that is punching above its weight.

At the other end of the spectrum, there may not actually be an economic advantage for swapping out a mid life A380 with an A350-1000 and 777X for medium haul flying. If these newer aircraft are geared towards longer flight lengths the fuel/ownership/airport/maintenance/crew cost mix might still favour the older, bigger and somewhat more comfortable aircraft.

I suspect the 777X and A350-1000 have a spot in the market place. It's just that that spot isn't as big anymore!

The A35K might as a more efficient version of the B77W being 35t lighter at higher MTOW, and there are some airlines with B77Ws that are ripe for replacement, such as AF and JL. (JL has the B77W prototype.) That said, I could see an airline like AF wanting a plane that can fit more Y customers for its long-haul domestic routes (to overseas departments) and the A35K is likely limited to 440 seats (AF flies a 468-seat 77W configuration primarily to overseas departments.) A35Ks could replace their 4- and 3-class 77Ws with less seats, as well as the 77Es, but the B77Ws for AF, as well as domestic 777s in Japan (500 at JL - W78Y422, formerly 514 at NH), will need something else as a replacement, although NH has apparently used a B789 replacement at W18Y377 - 25 below the exit door limit. I do acknowledge that France and Japan are special cases.

81819 · Sun Jun 24, 2018 4:41 am

[photoid][/photoid]

aemoreira1981 wrote:
travelhound wrote:
On all accounts the 787 should be Boeing's Cinderella model. It can perform 90% of the A350 / 777X routes, it's CASM is similar and sometimes better, it services a larger spread of the market, is more versatile in a range of markets and costs less to purchase.

At the end of the day the 777X and A350 are competing against an aircraft that is punching above its weight.

At the other end of the spectrum, there may not actually be an economic advantage for swapping out a mid life A380 with an A350-1000 and 777X for medium haul flying. If these newer aircraft are geared towards longer flight lengths the fuel/ownership/airport/maintenance/crew cost mix might still favour the older, bigger and somewhat more comfortable aircraft.

I suspect the 777X and A350-1000 have a spot in the market place. It's just that that spot isn't as big anymore!

The A35K might as a more efficient version of the B77W being 35t lighter at higher MTOW, and there are some airlines with B77Ws that are ripe for replacement, such as AF and JL. (JL has the B77W prototype.) That said, I could see an airline like AF wanting a plane that can fit more Y customers for its long-haul domestic routes (to overseas departments) and the A35K is likely limited to 440 seats (AF flies a 468-seat 77W configuration primarily to overseas departments.) A35Ks could replace their 4- and 3-class 77Ws with less seats, as well as the 77Es, but the B77Ws for AF, as well as domestic 777s in Japan (500 at JL - W78Y422, formerly 514 at NH), will need something else as a replacement, although NH has apparently used a B789 replacement at W18Y377 - 25 below the exit door limit. I do acknowledge that France and Japan are special cases.

I don't want to get into an argument here, but I don't see either the A35K or 777X replacing domestic configured 777's. They are a niche aircraft in their own.

If I remember correctly CX recently purchased some ex EK 777-300's (non ER) for their intra-asia routes. Again, if I remember correctly the non ER 777's have a narrower wing span, so are more suitable for domestic flying / airport gates.

I really see these aircraft serving the medium to long range segment.

Strato2 · Sun Jun 24, 2018 5:02 am

travelhound wrote:
At the end of the day the 777X and A350 are competing against an aircraft that is punching above its weight.

The 777x maybe but the A350 is just starting. New wing twist, PIPs, lighter wings and then there is the option of 10-abreast Y which will kill economics of every other widebody out there.

rheinwaldner · Sun Jun 24, 2018 7:42 am

AirCal737 wrote:
VV wrote:
Antarius wrote:

Jan 22, 1970. EIS of the 747.

It's been over for a while though.

What was the 747's capacity back then?

When do you think VLA era ended?

Maybe when 767s started to fly ETOPS?

747 continued to fly beside 767s over the Atlantic for decades.

jghealey · Sun Jun 24, 2018 8:53 am

Matt6461 wrote:
https://leehamnews.com/2018/06/18/vla-era-is-over-are-777x-a350-1000-too-large/

Story is behind a paywall; this isn't one of my catch-up on Leeham premium months, but the broad argument is in the summary.

I don't disagree that VLA's aren't selling well, obviously. The 748i and A388 are terrible products; A35K and 777-9 are suboptimal products that will likely occupy only a niche for the biggest network carriers on their thickest routes.

Per Leeham's analysis, A35K has only a ~2% cash operating cost per seat edge over A359 (~13% higher COC trip cost), while 779 has ~3-4% COC/seat edge at ~10-11% higher trip cost. A380 has ~3-5% higher COC/seat than 777-9 per Leeham at similar seating density. 748i's COC/seat is worse than 77W.

Given those stats, I remain flabbergasted that Leeham continually propounds on the state of the size-category market, rather than addressing the individual planes. It should be obvious that (1) longhaul upgauging is rare absent compelling economies of scale and that (2) today's large planes don't offer compelling economies of scale - especially above 777-9 size.

So Leeham has gone from arguing for the A380NEO business case to declaring the death of the VLA. That's sad. The A380 has burned seemingly all of its (non-EK) boosters and killed appetite and even imagination for VLA's. Instead of giving up on the whole sector, Leeham - and other analysts/stakeholders - should be considering which analytical errors caused their past misfires.

I'm still convinced a successful A380NEO is possible next decade with substantial investment and that a clean sheet VLA should appear around 2030. Pronouncements like Leeham's are boring, discouraging conventional wisdom.

Isn't there already an A380plus with new winglets etc? I really doubt Airbus will do an A380neo unless demand greatens hugely.

jambrain · Sun Jun 24, 2018 8:58 am

mig17 wrote:
They are not too big but they may not ensure airlines better yields than smaller frames with same range.

Larger aircraft means more expansive to buy and to operate. And even if those costs are now less expensive on a per seat basis, the yield management to fill those seat everyday will not permit the same average revenue per seat.

That is why the A380 suffers a lot. The A351 ans 779 are still significantly smaller and I don't think they will suffer has much for this reason. But I fear the 779 may be in trouble for a different reason, he is kind of an orphan.

Aren’t you are slightly simplifying airline ops here, if there is a fixed capacity on a route with multiple flights per day then there is a benefit of having the most popular slot utilising a VLA and the less popular flight a LA. You risk gifting the competitor the full price late booked ticket. Revenue matters as well as yield. But as many have pointed out the VLA must offer these extra capacity at a low marginal cost or the lower risk option will always be preferred by the bean counters.

Many airports have 0 slots free for the time slot preferred by the business travellers so adding frequencies is not always an option.

WIederling · Mon Jun 25, 2018 8:04 am

Matt6461 wrote:
ap305 wrote:
the flight computer predicted 9.5t fob at the end of the delivery flight but they ended up with 12.5t

Well yes if the A35K burns 30% less fuel than projected then 777X, 787, A380, A330, A320, 737, and CSeries will be in trouble.

3t less fuel than predicted is not 30% less fuel used by any way you could look at it.

WIederling · Mon Jun 25, 2018 10:30 am

wingman wrote:
Isn't it scary that the flight computer would be off by 30% for total fuel consumption? Nice that they had all that extra but if it had gone 30% the other way wouldn't Sam be dead now? Someone should check the fuel algorithm.

An absurd statement.
read again what was written. ( a potential 3t delta in _remaining fuel_ . and apparently the "unexpected" delta was much smaller )

lightsaber · Mon Jun 25, 2018 2:18 pm

QuarkFly wrote:
The 777-9 is too big and heavy (for now). A 77W replacement cycle will eventually start around 2030 when some carriers will naturally stay with the 777 platform. ..Until then, B had better hope the ME3 (ME2 ?) and a few others (NH, LH) don't reduce their orders too much. I think B intended the 779 to chase the bottom end of the A380 market which was never really there. The 777X will never sell like B hoped.

The A350-1000 is roughly 77W sized, not too big -- but now we have a 77W glut, thus a small market...but A359 carriers will eventually grow into it...like the A321 is finally coming of age after playing second fiddle to the A320 for so long.

We are living in a A350 and 787 world. Economy of scale will make these two platforms prevalent even if each has shortcomings -- think A320 and 738 -- neither perfect, but cheap and plentiful. Everybody else plays second fiddle...A330neo, A380, 747-8 will fade away and 777X will never match it's parent in sales.

Even in younger A.netters' lifetimes...787's and A350's may not see an all new wide-body replacement. They are probably the 737 / A320 of the twin-isles...and with new engine upgrades, will fly on indefinitely.

I disagree on the 779 not selling well. I see so much technology in the GE9x that it does have the potential to beat promise. Will it? That is another story...

The A35K looks to have a promising EIS.

I personally predict shorter service lives for passenger widebodies due to efficiency improvements. Let us see how the market develops. In particular as with EK 77Ws entering the used market bon quantity, there seems to be a glut impacting the whole widebody market.

Lightsaber

Bald1983 · Mon Jun 25, 2018 2:59 pm

Dutchy wrote:
These are interesting times indeed. Within the next five years, there will a shift because airlines will be part of the environmental measure and will be brought within the Paris framework. That might result in a move back towards bigger planes and, especially within the European context and perhaps within South East Asia, a move back towards the hup and spoke system, just the spokes being a high-speed train.

So I can see a move back towards A380, but it must be a NEO-ed one. B777X, don't know about this one. And a MOM-Boeing. The CSAM needs to come down fast, very fast if we want to keep within the Paris accords.

One of the biggest markets, the USA bailed on the Paris agreement. (Easy to bail when you avoid getting Senate ratification.) So, doubt your vision will occur. The CO2 emission cuts will come but in the form of more efficient aircraft, driven by market forces. Fewer emissions results from better fuel economy, which means lower fuel costs per seat.

SomebodyInTLS · Mon Jun 25, 2018 5:04 pm

wingman wrote:
Isn't it scary that the flight computer would be off by 30% for total fuel consumption? Nice that they had all that extra but if it had gone 30% the other way wouldn't Sam be dead now? Someone should check the fuel algorithm.

I could be wrong, but isn't it about a 30% difference in *REMAINING* fuel - i.e. a very small underestimate on the *TOTAL* fuel load for the trip. And probably intentionally so to remain conservative and avoid potential issues. Matt6461 seems to have missed that as well.

Edit: already covered, I see. Never mind then.

Matt6461 · Mon Jun 25, 2018 5:37 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
wingman wrote:
Isn't it scary that the flight computer would be off by 30% for total fuel consumption? Nice that they had all that extra but if it had gone 30% the other way wouldn't Sam be dead now? Someone should check the fuel algorithm.

I could be wrong, but isn't it about a 30% difference in *REMAINING* fuel - i.e. a very small underestimate on the *TOTAL* fuel load for the trip. And probably intentionally so to remain conservative and avoid potential issues. Matt6461 seems to have missed that as well.

Edit: already covered, I see. Never mind then.

Yep my mistake. Wasn't familiar with the "fob" acronym.

tortugamon · Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:13 am

dtw2hyd wrote:
You don't need to wait five more years, the answer was available five years back.

Is 777X a replacement for A380 or 77W, or a tradeoff.
A380 sold 300 copies
77W sold 700+ copies. That will remain as most successful targe twin.
777 family sold 1500+ copies, but it is irrelevant to this analysis.
At best 777X will sell 500 copies.

Why was 77W successful?
There were only two closest competitors, A340 and A330.
A340 was expensive to operate, failed.
A330 was small and has less range, still the #1 twin WB in sales.

The A330 isn't the #1 twin WB in sales...

dtw2hyd wrote:
Why 777X won't be successful?
787 has lower trip cost and can do 80%-100% of 777X missions for most airlines.
A350 is the other option
A330NEO will be one more option

The A330 was too small vs the 77W but the A330neo (same size) will compete against the 77X even though the latter has become even larger? That doesn't make sense.

dtw2hyd wrote:
If you adjust the 500 (best estimate with just two competitors) for a fragmented market with more efficient low trip-cost frames, it will be close to 300 copies.

Predicting that an aircraft will have fewer orders over a 15+ year life that it currently has right now, years before it even enters service and before one of the expected variants has even been launched, is quite the prediction. Billions of $ are being invested and thousands of people's careers are being based on the complete opposite expectation. I do not share your perspective.

tortugamon

Bald1983 · Wed Jul 04, 2018 2:25 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Bald1983 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
These are interesting times indeed. Within the next five years, there will a shift because airlines will be part of the environmental measure and will be brought within the Paris framework. That might result in a move back towards bigger planes and, especially within the European context and perhaps within South East Asia, a move back towards the hup and spoke system, just the spokes being a high-speed train.

So I can see a move back towards A380, but it must be a NEO-ed one. B777X, don't know about this one. And a MOM-Boeing. The CSAM needs to come down fast, very fast if we want to keep within the Paris accords.

One of the biggest markets, the USA bailed on the Paris agreement. (Easy to bail when you avoid getting Senate ratification.) So, doubt your vision will occur. The CO2 emission cuts will come but in the form of more efficient aircraft, driven by market forces. Fewer emissions results from better fuel economy, which means lower fuel costs per seat.

The current goal is to take 2020 as a baseline and then grow without polluting more. The current track we are on, means a doubling in seat-miles every 15 to 20 years or so. That is unsustainable form every perspective.
We'll see if my scenario will become true or we will continue heading for the cliff

We will see if your prediction comes true. Very doubtful it will. When you can fly two 787's, totaling as many or more seats as an A-380, for less money, that will win in the end. We are not heading off of any cliff. As far as high speed trains, they make work in Europe, (Although the aviation industry has grown in Europe, a lot.) but would never work in the United States as our distances are too great. People will fly; it is faster.

mjoelnir · Wed Jul 04, 2018 3:43 pm

Bald1983 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Bald1983 wrote:

One of the biggest markets, the USA bailed on the Paris agreement. (Easy to bail when you avoid getting Senate ratification.) So, doubt your vision will occur. The CO2 emission cuts will come but in the form of more efficient aircraft, driven by market forces. Fewer emissions results from better fuel economy, which means lower fuel costs per seat.

The current goal is to take 2020 as a baseline and then grow without polluting more. The current track we are on, means a doubling in seat-miles every 15 to 20 years or so. That is unsustainable form every perspective.
We'll see if my scenario will become true or we will continue heading for the cliff

We will see if your prediction comes true. Very doubtful it will. When you can fly two 787's, totaling as many or more seats as an A-380, for less money, that will win in the end. We are not heading off of any cliff. As far as high speed trains, they make work in Europe, (Although the aviation industry has grown in Europe, a lot.) but would never work in the United States as our distances are too great. People will fly; it is faster.

The point is that you do not fly two 787 for less money than one A380, even regarding fuel. furthermore has the A380 the lowest acquisition cost per seat of any wide body frame sold. You use half the number of pilots.

People have to be deaf and blind not to realize the current and coming problems with global warming. Denial does not make facts go away.

Stitch · Wed Jul 04, 2018 3:54 pm

The most likely way aviation emissions will be cut will be through taxation which will raise airfares and dampen demand. So instead of two 787s/A350s or one A380 serving a route, we will have one 787/A350.

Stitch · Wed Jul 04, 2018 6:06 pm

As Dutchy noted, there is the Non-Avation forum for these types of discussions, folks.

waly777 · Wed Jul 04, 2018 7:35 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Bald1983 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

The current goal is to take 2020 as a baseline and then grow without polluting more. The current track we are on, means a doubling in seat-miles every 15 to 20 years or so. That is unsustainable form every perspective.
We'll see if my scenario will become true or we will continue heading for the cliff

We will see if your prediction comes true. Very doubtful it will. When you can fly two 787's, totaling as many or more seats as an A-380, for less money, that will win in the end. We are not heading off of any cliff. As far as high speed trains, they make work in Europe, (Although the aviation industry has grown in Europe, a lot.) but would never work in the United States as our distances are too great. People will fly; it is faster.

The point is that you do not fly two 787 for less money than one A380, even regarding fuel. furthermore has the A380 the lowest acquisition cost per seat of any wide body frame sold. You use half the number of pilots.

People have to be deaf and blind not to realize the current and coming problems with global warming. Denial does not make facts go away.

Alan Joyce disagrees with you re- 2 787 vs 380.

According to Joyce, he can fly two 236-seat Dreamliners for less than the cost of a single 486-seat A380, which entered the Qantas fleet in 2008.

https://amp.businessinsider.com/qantas- ... ty-2017-10

Matt6461 · Wed Jul 04, 2018 8:30 pm

waly777 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Bald1983 wrote:

We will see if your prediction comes true. Very doubtful it will. When you can fly two 787's, totaling as many or more seats as an A-380, for less money, that will win in the end. We are not heading off of any cliff. As far as high speed trains, they make work in Europe, (Although the aviation industry has grown in Europe, a lot.) but would never work in the United States as our distances are too great. People will fly; it is faster.

The point is that you do not fly two 787 for less money than one A380, even regarding fuel. furthermore has the A380 the lowest acquisition cost per seat of any wide body frame sold. You use half the number of pilots.

People have to be deaf and blind not to realize the current and coming problems with global warming. Denial does not make facts go away.

Alan Joyce disagrees with you re- 2 787 vs 380.

According to Joyce, he can fly two 236-seat Dreamliners for less than the cost of a single 486-seat A380, which entered the Qantas fleet in 2008.

https://amp.businessinsider.com/qantas- ... ty-2017-10

Beat me to it, thanks. We'll see if this has any impact on mjoelnir; my guess is it doesn't. For a person to claim the A380 saves fuel in 2018, despite all published analyses and despite decades of failure, requires an impenetrable obtuseness and will to ignorance.

lightsaber · Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:56 pm

Dutchy wrote:

That's a bit sad way of augmenting your point of view. The EU will never demand a certain type. What they might do, and some might argue ought to do, is fair pricing and thus all external cost of an airstrip taking into account of the airfare with taxes. Aviation is quite exempt from taxes and excise duty, thus from these external costs. I think by 2025 we will see airlines threated the same way as other forms of transportation, VAT and excise duty on fuel. In that way more fuel efficient craft will have even more an edge. If this does mean more A380's, I doubt it, it might bring forward the proposed A380NEO, if the CSAM drops enough in relation to the CSAM of the Boeing 777-9 or Airbus A350-1000 or proposed -1100/2000.

A metropolitan area thrives on its logistics costs being low or stagnates if too high to be competitive.

Is aviation really underpaying? High taxes drive away business. It won't drive to larger gauge, it will result in less air travel.

Lightsaber

Dutchy · Wed Jul 04, 2018 10:20 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

That's a bit sad way of augmenting your point of view. The EU will never demand a certain type. What they might do, and some might argue ought to do, is fair pricing and thus all external cost of an airstrip taking into account of the airfare with taxes. Aviation is quite exempt from taxes and excise duty, thus from these external costs. I think by 2025 we will see airlines threated the same way as other forms of transportation, VAT and excise duty on fuel. In that way more fuel efficient craft will have even more an edge. If this does mean more A380's, I doubt it, it might bring forward the proposed A380NEO, if the CSAM drops enough in relation to the CSAM of the Boeing 777-9 or Airbus A350-1000 or proposed -1100/2000.

A metropolitan area thrives on its logistics costs being low or stagnates if too high to be competitive.

Is aviation really underpaying? High taxes drive away business. It won't drive to larger gauge, it will result in less air travel.

Lightsaber

Yes, aviation is really underpaying by a large margin. External cost not taken into account in the price of a ticket and thus paid by taxation elsewhere: people getting ill because of airplane noise, people getting ill because of emissions especially near airports, and the big one: environment costs, all the cost associated with climate change which aircraft emissions contribute.

The argument has always been, it is an international business so that's why we are different and can't be under the same regime and society at large must essentially subsidize me ( by footing the bill of these external cost ). Don't subscribe to this, but I also think we should do it with the EU. Raising the tax on air travel will mean other taxes can go down, the same amount needed. Thus only a shift in taxes, not raise the tax level at large. If Europes does it, it will not diminish individual city. And if the result is that travel will be done with different methods, I think it is great. To begin with travels below the 750km. High speed train is better.

Bald1983 · Thu Jul 05, 2018 2:07 am

Dutchy wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

The point is that you do not fly two 787 for less money than one A380, even regarding fuel. furthermore has the A380 the lowest acquisition cost per seat of any wide body frame sold. You use half the number of pilots.

People have to be deaf and blind not to realize the current and coming problems with global warming. Denial does not make facts go away.

Data please on what your post has remotely to do with global warming and the A380. If what you said was true why isn’t Europe mandating A380 flights on all trunk routes?

That's a bit sad way of augmenting your point of view. The EU will never demand a certain type. What they might do, and some might argue ought to do, is fair pricing and thus all external cost of an airstrip taking into account of the airfare with taxes. Aviation is quite exempt from taxes and excise duty, thus from these external costs. I think by 2025 we will see airlines threated the same way as other forms of transportation, VAT and excise duty on fuel. In that way more fuel efficient craft will have even more an edge. If this does mean more A380's, I doubt it, it might bring forward the proposed A380NEO, if the CSAM drops enough in relation to the CSAM of the Boeing 777-9 or Airbus A350-1000 or proposed -1100/2000.

Push it too far and you will get a smaller aviation industry, which does not equal more trains. IN the United States, passengers pay at least some of the costs for the FAA, airports etc. Passenger rail operating costs on the other hand are subsidized and Amtrak only makes money on the NE Corridor.

lightsaber · Thu Jul 05, 2018 3:14 am

Bald1983 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:

Data please on what your post has remotely to do with global warming and the A380. If what you said was true why isn’t Europe mandating A380 flights on all trunk routes?

That's a bit sad way of augmenting your point of view. The EU will never demand a certain type. What they might do, and some might argue ought to do, is fair pricing and thus all external cost of an airstrip taking into account of the airfare with taxes. Aviation is quite exempt from taxes and excise duty, thus from these external costs. I think by 2025 we will see airlines threated the same way as other forms of transportation, VAT and excise duty on fuel. In that way more fuel efficient craft will have even more an edge. If this does mean more A380's, I doubt it, it might bring forward the proposed A380NEO, if the CSAM drops enough in relation to the CSAM of the Boeing 777-9 or Airbus A350-1000 or proposed -1100/2000.

Push it too far and you will get a smaller aviation industry, which does not equal more trains. IN the United States, passengers pay at least some of the costs for the FAA, airports etc. Passenger rail operating costs on the other hand are subsidized and Amtrak only makes money on the NE Corridor.

What external costs aren't being paid? Aviation is an elastic market. If costs go up, passenger count goes down. Eventually, you just shift business to low tax areas. You do not shift to larger aircraft unless the cost per seat is that much less. Unfortunately for the A380, the 787-10, A35K, and 779 all carry a passenger for less money and fuel.

Everyone does realize the A388 uses more fuel per passenger than the competition? So if fuel goes up (either by tax or just supply and demand), that hurts the A380 case unless there is a NEO and a significant stretch. Even then, the 779 is likely to cost less per passenger. The A380 and 747 are done. I think due to how much tech GE put into the engines the 777X will sell more (TK and ET are two possibilities, other airlines after the airframe matures).

Lightsaber

Dutchy · Thu Jul 05, 2018 6:04 am

lightsaber wrote:
What external costs aren't being paid?

To quote myself:

External cost not taken into account in the price of a ticket and thus paid by taxation elsewhere: people getting ill because of airplane noise, people getting ill because of emissions especially near airports, and the big one: environment costs, all the cost associated with climate change which aircraft emissions contribute.

But to take it farther than that: because VAT is a big chunk of governments "income" and aviation is exempt from that, aviation isn't pulling its full weight for general cost of society: cost for education, infrastructure, law&order etc. Other parties have to pay more because of this exemption.

lightsaber wrote:
Aviation is an elastic market. If costs go up, passenger count goes down. Eventually, you just shift business to low tax areas. You do not shift to larger aircraft unless the cost per seat is that much less. Unfortunately for the A380, the 787-10, A35K, and 779 all carry a passenger for less money and fuel.

That's the argument shipping and aviation has used for ages. So that's why I said, if you want to let them pay full cost, you need to do it with a large area, EU or America/Canada/Mexico. If the consequence is that the market is becoming smaller, then so be it. I can't see a valid argument to defacto subsidize aviation by not charging for full external cost. A shift to larger a/c which are the most economical is a good thing, if this minimizes the external cost. I like the A380 and its concept, but if it is less economical, then its day is numbered, simple as that. I liked Concord too........

lightsaber wrote:
Everyone does realize the A388 uses more fuel per passenger than the competition? So if fuel goes up (either by tax or just supply and demand), that hurts the A380 case unless there is a NEO and a significant stretch. Even then, the 779 is likely to cost less per passenger. The A380 and 747 are done. I think due to how much tech GE put into the engines the 777X will sell more (TK and ET are two possibilities, other airlines after the airframe matures).

Lightsaber

If there isn't a case for an A380NEO, than Airbus isn't going to build it. Simple as that. From an aviation enthusiast point of view it will be a sad day when we realize it aint going to happen, but business is business and investing 5-10bn is definitely business.

WIederling · Thu Jul 05, 2018 8:56 am

lightsaber wrote:
Everyone does realize the A388 uses more fuel per passenger than the competition?

Isn't that due the different cabin layouts and less indicative of the type?

How many seats would an A388 have with the "LCC seating but full price" arrangement of the 788 or 789?

mjoelnir · Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:15 am

lightsaber wrote:

Everyone does realize the A388 uses more fuel per passenger than the competition? So if fuel goes up (either by tax or just supply and demand), that hurts the A380 case unless there is a NEO and a significant stretch. Even then, the 779 is likely to cost less per passenger. The A380 and 747 are done. I think due to how much tech GE put into the engines the 777X will sell more (TK and ET are two possibilities, other airlines after the airframe matures).

Lightsaber

Yes, it has been hammered so often on this point. One of course deducts a high fuel use per passenger if one compares a comfortable arrangement on the A380 with a sardine can arrangement, 9 seats a row in economy, on the 787. Put 853 passengers in a A380 and start the calculation again.

The 777-9 calculation also lives on the sardine can arrangement, 10 seats across in a row in economy..

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net