waly777 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

waly777 wrote:

And yet the 35K which is the closest to the 778/9 is facing the same sales issue but it's supposedly less customized with more mass appeal. How do you explain that one?

See above, far too little intl air travel demand and growth to support all these large and expensive plane orders. Its almost a criminal use of shareholder assets imho.

Didn't Emirates recently retire/park 6-7 year old 777-300 ER's? Why then, order more (larger) planes?

Ps. International pax traffic grew by 6.4% for 2018 vs 2017.

https://www.icao.int/Newsroom/Pages/Sol ... -2018.aspx

waly777 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

seabosdca wrote:

I would bet against this based on Emirates alone. Boeing had a pretty stark choice: build a 777 with competitive seat-mile costs to the A350-1000, or watch Airbus sell a shedload of A350-1000s (or -1100s) to EK as 77W replacements. That could have killed the 777 program. Instead, Boeing built exactly the airplane Emirates wanted, and have an order for 150 as a result, which has unlocked additional orders from blue-chip airlines.

And Emirates needs those 779 frames no matter what the future holds for it. If the airline has to shrink, some of them will replace A380s. If the airline treads water, they will replace 77Ws one for one. And if the airline can manage to grow, they can operate the premium routes, displacing 77Ws with older cabin products to less premium service. The 777X order is the safest order in the EK order book (yes, substantially safer than Boeing's 787 commitment).

The other two ME3 orders may well be soft, but they are also of much less strategic importance.

Agree that Boeing built the perfect airplane for Emirates. Everyone else? Not so much. Imho that goes a long way towards explaining why sales are so tepid.

And yet Airlines from Asia and Europe have ordered the plane too. As for sales, it is quite clear that the 77W replacement time frame is not yet here.

Planeflyer wrote:

MileHFL400 wrote:

Sorry, I think this thread has gone a little off topic, can we stick to who we think will order this plane. Ignore the A350-1000 etc

Boeing is not w/o its faults but their track record on not building duds is enviable.

ewt340 wrote:

waly777 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Agree that Boeing built the perfect airplane for Emirates. Everyone else? Not so much. Imho that goes a long way towards explaining why sales are so tepid.

And yet Airlines from Asia and Europe have ordered the plane too. As for sales, it is quite clear that the 77W replacement time frame is not yet here.

Middle east is Asia first of all. So yeah, majority of orders did come from Asia.

BUT, ANA only order 20, same with SQ and Lufthansa, and then CX order 21.
And Lufthansa is the only European airlines currently buying it.
Non-ME3 airlines order took 25% of the order books right now.

So we know for a fact that the market is only in Asia for B777X. Like it or not, B777X faith is almost as similar to A380.

Boeing hit the Jackpot with B777-300ER. They should have made a NEO version of it instead of creating B777X. B777-8 are not selling as well like A330-800. And B777-9 are too big for most.

SteelChair wrote:

Its just inconceivable to me that anyone could retire 6 year old frames and then belly up.to the trough for more new large widebodies.

SteelChair wrote:

waly777 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

See above, far too little intl air travel demand and growth to support all these large and expensive plane orders. Its almost a criminal use of shareholder assets imho.

Didn't Emirates recently retire/park 6-7 year old 777-300 ER's? Why then, order more (larger) planes?

Ps. International pax traffic grew by 6.4% for 2018 vs 2017.

https://www.icao.int/Newsroom/Pages/Sol ... -2018.aspx

One metric? How about yields? How about EK? How are they doing compared to the last 10 years? Do you think TKs new hub will help or hurt EK?

SteelChair wrote:

waly777 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

See above, far too little intl air travel demand and growth to support all these large and expensive plane orders. Its almost a criminal use of shareholder assets imho.

Didn't Emirates recently retire/park 6-7 year old 777-300 ER's? Why then, order more (larger) planes?

Ps. International pax traffic grew by 6.4% for 2018 vs 2017.

https://www.icao.int/Newsroom/Pages/Sol ... -2018.aspx

One metric? How about yields? How about EK? How are they doing compared to the last 10 years? Do you think TKs new hub will help or hurt EK?

bigjku wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

waly777 wrote:

And yet Airlines from Asia and Europe have ordered the plane too. As for sales, it is quite clear that the 77W replacement time frame is not yet here.

Middle east is Asia first of all. So yeah, majority of orders did come from Asia.

BUT, ANA only order 20, same with SQ and Lufthansa, and then CX order 21.
And Lufthansa is the only European airlines currently buying it.
Non-ME3 airlines order took 25% of the order books right now.

So we know for a fact that the market is only in Asia for B777X. Like it or not, B777X faith is almost as similar to A380.

Boeing hit the Jackpot with B777-300ER. They should have made a NEO version of it instead of creating B777X. B777-8 are not selling as well like A330-800. And B777-9 are too big for most.

Jesus. The straight NEO of the 777-300ER suggestion basically outs you as being ignorant of what is going on. Like your credibility goes direct to zero. It simply wasn’t a realistic option.

ewt340 wrote:

waly777 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Agree that Boeing built the perfect airplane for Emirates. Everyone else? Not so much. Imho that goes a long way towards explaining why sales are so tepid.

And yet Airlines from Asia and Europe have ordered the plane too. As for sales, it is quite clear that the 77W replacement time frame is not yet here.

Middle east is Asia first of all. So yeah, majority of orders did come from Asia.

BUT, ANA only order 20, same with SQ and Lufthansa, and then CX order 21.
And Lufthansa is the only European airlines currently buying it.
Non-ME3 airlines order took 25% of the order books right now.

So we know for a fact that the market is only in Asia for B777X. Like it or not, B777X faith is almost as similar to A380.

Boeing hit the Jackpot with B777-300ER. They should have made a NEO version of it instead of creating B777X. B777-8 are not selling as well like A330-800. And B777-9 are too big for most.

ewt340 wrote:

bigjku wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

Middle east is Asia first of all. So yeah, majority of orders did come from Asia.

BUT, ANA only order 20, same with SQ and Lufthansa, and then CX order 21.
And Lufthansa is the only European airlines currently buying it.
Non-ME3 airlines order took 25% of the order books right now.

So we know for a fact that the market is only in Asia for B777X. Like it or not, B777X faith is almost as similar to A380.

Boeing hit the Jackpot with B777-300ER. They should have made a NEO version of it instead of creating B777X. B777-8 are not selling as well like A330-800. And B777-9 are too big for most.

Jesus. The straight NEO of the 777-300ER suggestion basically outs you as being ignorant of what is going on. Like your credibility goes direct to zero. It simply wasn’t a realistic option.

I know, it's not efficient enough, they have to stretch the fuselage so that airlines could crammed in more seats which in return would make the plane have better fuel efficiency per seat.
It's not good enough to compete with A350-1000. And many of them are fairly young, really young to the point where even A350-1000 doesn't even sell because many airlines just bought their B777-300ER in less than 5 years ago.

BUT, I'm talking about the CAPACITY of the B777-300ER. The 340-360 seat is a great market for Big jet like B777-300ER. It hits the sweet spots for many airlines. Not just ME3.

And I'm not talking about today. I'm talking about 2025.

waly777 wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

bigjku wrote:

Jesus. The straight NEO of the 777-300ER suggestion basically outs you as being ignorant of what is going on. Like your credibility goes direct to zero. It simply wasn’t a realistic option.

I know, it's not efficient enough, they have to stretch the fuselage so that airlines could crammed in more seats which in return would make the plane have better fuel efficiency per seat.
It's not good enough to compete with A350-1000. And many of them are fairly young, really young to the point where even A350-1000 doesn't even sell because many airlines just bought their B777-300ER in less than 5 years ago.

BUT, I'm talking about the CAPACITY of the B777-300ER. The 340-360 seat is a great market for Big jet like B777-300ER. It hits the sweet spots for many airlines. Not just ME3.

And I'm not talking about today. I'm talking about 2025.

Your thought process assumes most airlines have no intentions of growing when they order a replacement.

I wonder what seems to terrify some folks on here when it comes to the 779. It's a 2.9m stretch.. i..e 4% over the 77W. Length wise, you probably won't be able to tell the difference to the 77W except they're next to each other.

It's less than the difference between the 788 and 789 or 789 and 78X. It's less than the difference between the 359 and 35J or 332 and 333.

SteelChair wrote:

Didn't Emirates recently retire/park 6-7 year old 777-300 ER's? Why then, order more (larger) planes?

Revelation wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Its just inconceivable to me that anyone could retire 6 year old frames and then belly up.to the trough for more new large widebodies.

That's not what is happening.

EK tends to acquire planes on 10-12 year leases or do buy/leaseback transactions with similar durations.

Their local tax and accounting laws makes that a good option for them.

That allows them to avoid the cost of heavy maintenance and makes it easy to roll in new seating configurations as new planes enter the fleet.

It will not be the runaway success of the first two generations of 777 models, but it will make a lot of money for Boeing.

People say "customer X only ordered 20" but list price for 779 is $425M so even after discounts that is a LOT of money.

ewt340 wrote:

trav777 wrote:

seabosdca wrote:

If they make it, EK will buy it.

Assuming no further A380 developments, it could also be an attractive A380 replacement for those operators who aren't still in love with the big beast.

But it would really be too big, and likely too range-challenged, to be attractive to the big Far East operators who have ordered (or will likely order) the 777-9.

I think the challenge is that any stretch of either the A350-1000 or the 777-9 will immediately provoke a similar stretch of the other, resulting in an unchanged competitive situation. Both OEMs see this and neither particularly wants to spend capital and achieve that result. That's my feeling on why Airbus backed off the A350-1100/2000/whatever plan.

The 380 is dead, stick a fork in it please. No more wishful thinking. It's not economically competitive, didn't sell. Nothing can or will change that.

What I want is a can of New Coke made with the aluminum from an A380 so I can in one hand hold two of the worst major business decisions in history.

That said, if you have a LF around .8 for a 380, you can fill a 779. Profit is improved. Simple as that. The trend is to fill planes, not drag around "CASM" that doesn't earn anything for you. Most airlines cannot make 400 seats work. I think the 778 will sell around as much as the -9 ex-ME3....neither will be the homeruns that the original 777s were. The -8 is already as big as the 77W and should have a better operating cost profile. The -9 is just larger.

I'm just not seeing anywhere in the market where the trend is to pick up planes in this size class...the slowing and even lately anemic A350 sales, especially 35K, make it seem that with the 78J coming, nothing much else is gonna sell. NZ already flies the 789 with almost 300 pax; the 78J in a similar density...what are we talking here, like 350 pax? What point is the 77x or the 350 unless you have a need for great range? And the 359 only offers 400 or so nm at that passenger load tbh beyond the 789.

As I see it, the 789 has 300ish covered to 7100nm. The 78J has 350ish covered to 6400. The entire rest of the market can be fought over by the 350 and 77x...but at substantial operating cost disadvantage. It's just not as big of a market as it used to be.

Well the market is bigger than before, it's just that the capability of smaller widebodies are getting better to the point where a medium sized wide-body could have enough range for long-haul operations with high fuel efficiency and low operating cost.

B777-8 is a failure, just like B777-200LR. B777-9 is hard to fill and expensive. B777-300ER are still efficient and young, the capacity just fits right into many airlines. A350-1000 provide great fuel efficiency and lower risk.

.8 of A380 tend to come with lots of discounted fares to fill up the seats. So B777-9 would be filled but with lower profit margin, which is not optimum.

waly777 wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

bigjku wrote:

Jesus. The straight NEO of the 777-300ER suggestion basically outs you as being ignorant of what is going on. Like your credibility goes direct to zero. It simply wasn’t a realistic option.

I know, it's not efficient enough, they have to stretch the fuselage so that airlines could crammed in more seats which in return would make the plane have better fuel efficiency per seat.
It's not good enough to compete with A350-1000. And many of them are fairly young, really young to the point where even A350-1000 doesn't even sell because many airlines just bought their B777-300ER in less than 5 years ago.

BUT, I'm talking about the CAPACITY of the B777-300ER. The 340-360 seat is a great market for Big jet like B777-300ER. It hits the sweet spots for many airlines. Not just ME3.

And I'm not talking about today. I'm talking about 2025.

Your thought process assumes most airlines have no intentions of growing when they order a replacement.

I wonder what seems to terrify some folks on here when it comes to the 779. It's a 2.9m stretch.. i..e 4% over the 77W. Length wise, you probably won't be able to tell the difference to the 77W except they're next to each other.

It's less than the difference between the 788 and 789 or 789 and 78X. It's less than the difference between the 359 and 35J or 332 and 333.

jagraham wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

trav777 wrote:

The 380 is dead, stick a fork in it please. No more wishful thinking. It's not economically competitive, didn't sell. Nothing can or will change that.

What I want is a can of New Coke made with the aluminum from an A380 so I can in one hand hold two of the worst major business decisions in history.

That said, if you have a LF around .8 for a 380, you can fill a 779. Profit is improved. Simple as that. The trend is to fill planes, not drag around "CASM" that doesn't earn anything for you. Most airlines cannot make 400 seats work. I think the 778 will sell around as much as the -9 ex-ME3....neither will be the homeruns that the original 777s were. The -8 is already as big as the 77W and should have a better operating cost profile. The -9 is just larger.

I'm just not seeing anywhere in the market where the trend is to pick up planes in this size class...the slowing and even lately anemic A350 sales, especially 35K, make it seem that with the 78J coming, nothing much else is gonna sell. NZ already flies the 789 with almost 300 pax; the 78J in a similar density...what are we talking here, like 350 pax? What point is the 77x or the 350 unless you have a need for great range? And the 359 only offers 400 or so nm at that passenger load tbh beyond the 789.

As I see it, the 789 has 300ish covered to 7100nm. The 78J has 350ish covered to 6400. The entire rest of the market can be fought over by the 350 and 77x...but at substantial operating cost disadvantage. It's just not as big of a market as it used to be.

Well the market is bigger than before, it's just that the capability of smaller widebodies are getting better to the point where a medium sized wide-body could have enough range for long-haul operations with high fuel efficiency and low operating cost.

B777-8 is a failure, just like B777-200LR. B777-9 is hard to fill and expensive. B777-300ER are still efficient and young, the capacity just fits right into many airlines. A350-1000 provide great fuel efficiency and lower risk.

.8 of A380 tend to come with lots of discounted fares to fill up the seats. So B777-9 would be filled but with lower profit margin, which is not optimum.

And why do you think the 777-8 has already failed where the A350-1000 has succeeded???

lightsaber wrote:

waly777 wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

I know, it's not efficient enough, they have to stretch the fuselage so that airlines could crammed in more seats which in return would make the plane have better fuel efficiency per seat.
It's not good enough to compete with A350-1000. And many of them are fairly young, really young to the point where even A350-1000 doesn't even sell because many airlines just bought their B777-300ER in less than 5 years ago.

BUT, I'm talking about the CAPACITY of the B777-300ER. The 340-360 seat is a great market for Big jet like B777-300ER. It hits the sweet spots for many airlines. Not just ME3.

And I'm not talking about today. I'm talking about 2025.

Your thought process assumes most airlines have no intentions of growing when they order a replacement.

I wonder what seems to terrify some folks on here when it comes to the 779. It's a 2.9m stretch.. i..e 4% over the 77W. Length wise, you probably won't be able to tell the difference to the 77W except they're next to each other.

It's less than the difference between the 788 and 789 or 789 and 78X. It's less than the difference between the 359 and 35J or 332 and 333.

Good points. It is a small stretch of the 77W. I agree with the above, a simple MAX would have sold better. Those airlines will be happy with the 778 or A35K.

For airlines that want profit per flight, the 779 is the plane. My back of the envelope math has greater profit per flight than the A388 unless the other side of a fed hub needs every seat.

Lightsaber

ewt340 wrote:

waly777 wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

I know, it's not efficient enough, they have to stretch the fuselage so that airlines could crammed in more seats which in return would make the plane have better fuel efficiency per seat.
It's not good enough to compete with A350-1000. And many of them are fairly young, really young to the point where even A350-1000 doesn't even sell because many airlines just bought their B777-300ER in less than 5 years ago.

BUT, I'm talking about the CAPACITY of the B777-300ER. The 340-360 seat is a great market for Big jet like B777-300ER. It hits the sweet spots for many airlines. Not just ME3.

And I'm not talking about today. I'm talking about 2025.

Your thought process assumes most airlines have no intentions of growing when they order a replacement.

I wonder what seems to terrify some folks on here when it comes to the 779. It's a 2.9m stretch.. i..e 4% over the 77W. Length wise, you probably won't be able to tell the difference to the 77W except they're next to each other.

It's less than the difference between the 788 and 789 or 789 and 78X. It's less than the difference between the 359 and 35J or 332 and 333.

You might get a wrong idea regarding my comment.

My thought process is the fact that many airlines these days are using the point to point model instead of the hub and spoke model.
Smaller and medium size wide-body aircraft (B787-8, B787-9 and A350-900) are selling rather well compared to the larger variants like A350-1000, B777-8, B777-9, B787-10 or A380.

Those 2.9 meter stretch on B777-9X able to carry 40 extra economy class passengers. It is 4% increase in fuselage length, but doesn't mean it's not significant. It's not the look that's important, it's the usage of it that really matter.

Your thought process assumes that Airlines could only grow by buying larger aircraft. They could increase frequency as well, which probably what most airlines does if they don't have slots restrictions.

As far as I'm concerned, B777-300ER had 844 orders to this date and the -9 have 237 orders, while it's nice. It's nowhere near good enough.

waly777 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

waly777 wrote:

Ps. International pax traffic grew by 6.4% for 2018 vs 2017.

https://www.icao.int/Newsroom/Pages/Sol ... -2018.aspx

One metric? How about yields? How about EK? How are they doing compared to the last 10 years? Do you think TKs new hub will help or hurt EK?

Your words were "far too little international demand and growth", i just proved that wrong and you change your tune? Can you please provide evidence to your assertions?

And also where in the world did you see that EK retired 6 year old aircraft? Sounds ludicrous to me. They have have retired older 777 and replaced with new 77W, the last of which came in late 2018

bigjku wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

waly777 wrote:

And yet Airlines from Asia and Europe have ordered the plane too. As for sales, it is quite clear that the 77W replacement time frame is not yet here.

Middle east is Asia first of all. So yeah, majority of orders did come from Asia.

BUT, ANA only order 20, same with SQ and Lufthansa, and then CX order 21.
And Lufthansa is the only European airlines currently buying it.
Non-ME3 airlines order took 25% of the order books right now.

So we know for a fact that the market is only in Asia for B777X. Like it or not, B777X faith is almost as similar to A380.

Boeing hit the Jackpot with B777-300ER. They should have made a NEO version of it instead of creating B777X. B777-8 are not selling as well like A330-800. And B777-9 are too big for most.

Jesus. The straight NEO of the 777-300ER suggestion basically outs you as being ignorant of what is going on. Like your credibility goes direct to zero. It simply wasn’t a realistic option.

waly777 wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

waly777 wrote:

Your thought process assumes most airlines have no intentions of growing when they order a replacement.

I wonder what seems to terrify some folks on here when it comes to the 779. It's a 2.9m stretch.. i..e 4% over the 77W. Length wise, you probably won't be able to tell the difference to the 77W except they're next to each other.

It's less than the difference between the 788 and 789 or 789 and 78X. It's less than the difference between the 359 and 35J or 332 and 333.

You might get a wrong idea regarding my comment.

My thought process is the fact that many airlines these days are using the point to point model instead of the hub and spoke model.
Smaller and medium size wide-body aircraft (B787-8, B787-9 and A350-900) are selling rather well compared to the larger variants like A350-1000, B777-8, B777-9, B787-10 or A380.

Those 2.9 meter stretch on B777-9X able to carry 40 extra economy class passengers. It is 4% increase in fuselage length, but doesn't mean it's not significant. It's not the look that's important, it's the usage of it that really matter.

Your thought process assumes that Airlines could only grow by buying larger aircraft. They could increase frequency as well, which probably what most airlines does if they don't have slots restrictions.

As far as I'm concerned, B777-300ER had 844 orders to this date and the -9 have 237 orders, while it's nice. It's nowhere near good enough.

You do realise an overwhelming majority of international passengers still transit through hubs? Take a look at the world's largest airlines... or better yet, those who currently operate 77W and let me know what % of those fly their international passengers point to point versus hub to spoke. What the 788/9 has done is enable airlines to reduce from spoke - hub - hub - spoke to spoke - hub - spoke... via cost efficiencies. The hub remains and isn't going anywhere. The A359 (789 to an extent) has largely replaced A343 and 77E type routes but with better cost efficiency.

My thought process does not assume that, i am looking at it from a route and network perspective, you can grow ASK whilst maintaining fleet numbers by upgrading routes that require it.... and a 4% increment at lower operating costs is a win. Very few large airlines have the liberty to increase frequency as they wish, especially when bilateral agreements and slot constraints are taken into account. Additional aircraft = additional manpower costs.

Ps. It doesn't seat 40 seats extra than a 77W in the same config. It would be 30 Y seats... i.e. 3 rows of Y or 1 row of J/1row of Y (14 to 16 seats total).

Incase you haven't noticed, the -9 hasn't flown yet but has almost 30% of the 77W numbers which was launched 18 years ago with a fraction of the current 77W numbers by first flight.

ewt340 wrote:

jagraham wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

Well the market is bigger than before, it's just that the capability of smaller widebodies are getting better to the point where a medium sized wide-body could have enough range for long-haul operations with high fuel efficiency and low operating cost.

B777-8 is a failure, just like B777-200LR. B777-9 is hard to fill and expensive. B777-300ER are still efficient and young, the capacity just fits right into many airlines. A350-1000 provide great fuel efficiency and lower risk.

.8 of A380 tend to come with lots of discounted fares to fill up the seats. So B777-9 would be filled but with lower profit margin, which is not optimum.

And why do you think the 777-8 has already failed where the A350-1000 has succeeded???

Actually, A350-1000 to this day is a failure because of the low order numbers. But it's in a position where it have better edge compared to B777-8.

It's a new technology.
Commonality with the successful A350-900.
Lower operating cost compared to B777-8.
Lower purchasing price compared to B777-8.
And recently, possible neo version by 2025.
Also, B777-8 is a shrink version, which usually have fuel burn penalty. Don't have the data yet, but it should be similar to A330-200 and A350-800 conditions.

Planeflyer wrote:

All fair points but a few of these were close cousins to freighters. No question the 764 and 748( I have said on other threads that the 748 is the worst call ever. The 380 is the most expensive but the 8 was the worst as they could see that the 380 was a dud by the time the 8 was launched) were duds but overall I think when you look at Roi on new product development and market assessment Boeing has been far more right than wrong.

jagraham wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

jagraham wrote:

And why do you think the 777-8 has already failed where the A350-1000 has succeeded???

Actually, A350-1000 to this day is a failure because of the low order numbers. But it's in a position where it have better edge compared to B777-8.

It's a new technology.
Commonality with the successful A350-900.
Lower operating cost compared to B777-8.
Lower purchasing price compared to B777-8.
And recently, possible neo version by 2025.
Also, B777-8 is a shrink version, which usually have fuel burn penalty. Don't have the data yet, but it should be similar to A330-200 and A350-800 conditions.

Maybe the 77x doesn't have a brand new fuselage, but it does have brand new composite wings with folding wingtips. That's where most of the gain is . .
Except for the engines. Which are also new and best in the world.

The 778 will be equal to or a little better than the A35J because of the new wings and engines. All while carrying 35 more tons. It's OEW should be equal to a 77W when all is said and done. Only if something breaks during certification will there be a problem.

EChid wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

All fair points but a few of these were close cousins to freighters. No question the 764 and 748( I have said on other threads that the 748 is the worst call ever. The 380 is the most expensive but the 8 was the worst as they could see that the 380 was a dud by the time the 8 was launched) were duds but overall I think when you look at Roi on new product development and market assessment Boeing has been far more right than wrong.

People frequently make arguments about various models being 'mistakes' because they didn't sell well. That ignores a lot about how competition works. The 748 was a relatively cheap upgrade to lengthen the functional lifetime of a model. It has proven quite popular as a freighter and, as a passenger version it had the very important role of not allowing AB to charge higher prices for the A380. By placing the 748i in the market, they undermined the potential margins on the A380. The A330neo has forced the same behaviour from Boeing on the 787. Sure, the vast majority of purchases are still going to the better plane - but each company is making less money on their superior plane because a 2nd option exists.

ewt340 wrote:

jagraham wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

Actually, A350-1000 to this day is a failure because of the low order numbers. But it's in a position where it have better edge compared to B777-8.

It's a new technology.
Commonality with the successful A350-900.
Lower operating cost compared to B777-8.
Lower purchasing price compared to B777-8.
And recently, possible neo version by 2025.
Also, B777-8 is a shrink version, which usually have fuel burn penalty. Don't have the data yet, but it should be similar to A330-200 and A350-800 conditions.

Maybe the 77x doesn't have a brand new fuselage, but it does have brand new composite wings with folding wingtips. That's where most of the gain is . .
Except for the engines. Which are also new and best in the world.

The 778 will be equal to or a little better than the A35J because of the new wings and engines. All while carrying 35 more tons. It's OEW should be equal to a 77W when all is said and done. Only if something breaks during certification will there be a problem.

If B777-8 have equal OEW to B777-300ER which is larger in terms of length and passengers capacity, then it would be a bad thing don't you think?

A350-1000 edge is the fact that they carry less, I know it sounded weird but lower MTOW could also mean a good thing, depending on the airlines and how they would utilized it. Would they fill the cargo with more payload and sacrifice the fuel efficiency and range?

The thing is both doesn't sell too well.

Ellofiend wrote:

EChid wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

All fair points but a few of these were close cousins to freighters. No question the 764 and 748( I have said on other threads that the 748 is the worst call ever. The 380 is the most expensive but the 8 was the worst as they could see that the 380 was a dud by the time the 8 was launched) were duds but overall I think when you look at Roi on new product development and market assessment Boeing has been far more right than wrong.

People frequently make arguments about various models being 'mistakes' because they didn't sell well. That ignores a lot about how competition works. The 748 was a relatively cheap upgrade to lengthen the functional lifetime of a model. It has proven quite popular as a freighter and, as a passenger version it had the very important role of not allowing AB to charge higher prices for the A380. By placing the 748i in the market, they undermined the potential margins on the A380. The A330neo has forced the same behaviour from Boeing on the 787. Sure, the vast majority of purchases are still going to the better plane - but each company is making less money on their superior plane because a 2nd option exists.

But let’s be honest, EK would likely be the only operator that would have paid higher prices for the A380, I doubt QF, TG, MH or AF would have Webster more time on the A380 if the costs were placed much higher.

SteelChair wrote:

waly777 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

One metric? How about yields? How about EK? How are they doing compared to the last 10 years? Do you think TKs new hub will help or hurt EK?

Your words were "far too little international demand and growth", i just proved that wrong and you change your tune? Can you please provide evidence to your assertions?

And also where in the world did you see that EK retired 6 year old aircraft? Sounds ludicrous to me. They have have retired older 777 and replaced with new 77W, the last of which came in late 2018

Ah, yes. The "proof" police.

Didn't EK just have their worst year in recent memory? Haven't other International carriers scaled back expansion plans? Why would they do that? Yields perhaps? Isn't the 748 and A380 dead on the vine and the 350-1000 and 777x dealing with tepid order books? There is NO OPTIMISM about future international growth at this point. Airlines make purchase decisions looking years ahead. You quoted one statistic and made a grand claim and act as if you own the truth. So be it.

It does appear that the 6 year old EK 777s were only temp parked. I was wrong on that one. So they parked 12 year old airplanes when "real" airlines fly them 20-30 years.

ewt340 wrote:

waly777 wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

You might get a wrong idea regarding my comment.

My thought process is the fact that many airlines these days are using the point to point model instead of the hub and spoke model.
Smaller and medium size wide-body aircraft (B787-8, B787-9 and A350-900) are selling rather well compared to the larger variants like A350-1000, B777-8, B777-9, B787-10 or A380.

Those 2.9 meter stretch on B777-9X able to carry 40 extra economy class passengers. It is 4% increase in fuselage length, but doesn't mean it's not significant. It's not the look that's important, it's the usage of it that really matter.

Your thought process assumes that Airlines could only grow by buying larger aircraft. They could increase frequency as well, which probably what most airlines does if they don't have slots restrictions.

As far as I'm concerned, B777-300ER had 844 orders to this date and the -9 have 237 orders, while it's nice. It's nowhere near good enough.

You do realise an overwhelming majority of international passengers still transit through hubs? Take a look at the world's largest airlines... or better yet, those who currently operate 77W and let me know what % of those fly their international passengers point to point versus hub to spoke. What the 788/9 has done is enable airlines to reduce from spoke - hub - hub - spoke to spoke - hub - spoke... via cost efficiencies. The hub remains and isn't going anywhere. The A359 (789 to an extent) has largely replaced A343 and 77E type routes but with better cost efficiency.

My thought process does not assume that, i am looking at it from a route and network perspective, you can grow ASK whilst maintaining fleet numbers by upgrading routes that require it.... and a 4% increment at lower operating costs is a win. Very few large airlines have the liberty to increase frequency as they wish, especially when bilateral agreements and slot constraints are taken into account. Additional aircraft = additional manpower costs.

Ps. It doesn't seat 40 seats extra than a 77W in the same config. It would be 30 Y seats... i.e. 3 rows of Y or 1 row of J/1row of Y (14 to 16 seats total).

Incase you haven't noticed, the -9 hasn't flown yet but has almost 30% of the 77W numbers which was launched 18 years ago with a fraction of the current 77W numbers by first flight.

Uhmmm......

You just ignore every single aspect that determine the market itself. You see, for Emirates. If you notice, They are faced with problems of not having enough slots in some major airports like JFK, SYD, LHR, etc.
They of course use A380 to supplement that.

How about the fact that many airlines especially full service carrier are cutting back on capacity and focusing on their profitability and increase passenger load factor by using smaller aircraft?
Especially since some LCC are making big moves into Long-haul market, pretty sure they don't need B777-9.

Your arguments regarding slots constraints could also be used for A380. But the reality is it's still doesn't work. By no mean, there are major airports in the world that needed an aircraft larger than B777-300ER.
But it's more logical to use B777-300ER and crammed in more seats and/or loss of revenue for airlines that needed the capacity.

Your current theory about the orders they recieve during their launch is bullish. Again you could do the same comparison with A380 launch order and B747-100 Launch order. Realistically speaking, how many more B777-8 and B777-9 could be sold after 5 years they're been in service?

PS. B777-9 could carry 40 more seats. The 2.9 meter stretch + The new door configurations allowed them to add more seats. They are offered in 2 configs, one with 8 Type A doors for low density configurations while the other is 8 Type A doors and extra smaller doors which is either Type III or Type C. B777-300ER have 5 Type A doors. So now you understand why I said 40 seats instead of 30. These doors, especially Type A doors which I believe took at least 63" of space for both spacing and the actual door. It would mean that removing a set of Type A doors could accommodate 2 more row of economy class seats.

ewt340 wrote:

jagraham wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

Actually, A350-1000 to this day is a failure because of the low order numbers. But it's in a position where it have better edge compared to B777-8.

It's a new technology.
Commonality with the successful A350-900.
Lower operating cost compared to B777-8.
Lower purchasing price compared to B777-8.
And recently, possible neo version by 2025.
Also, B777-8 is a shrink version, which usually have fuel burn penalty. Don't have the data yet, but it should be similar to A330-200 and A350-800 conditions.

Maybe the 77x doesn't have a brand new fuselage, but it does have brand new composite wings with folding wingtips. That's where most of the gain is . .
Except for the engines. Which are also new and best in the world.

The 778 will be equal to or a little better than the A35J because of the new wings and engines. All while carrying 35 more tons. It's OEW should be equal to a 77W when all is said and done. Only if something breaks during certification will there be a problem.

If B777-8 have equal OEW to B777-300ER which is larger in terms of length and passengers capacity, then it would be a bad thing don't you think?

A350-1000 edge is the fact that they carry less, I know it sounded weird but lower MTOW could also mean a good thing, depending on the airlines and how they would utilized it. Would they fill the cargo with more payload and sacrifice the fuel efficiency and range?

The thing is both doesn't sell too well.

Ellofiend wrote:

EChid wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

All fair points but a few of these were close cousins to freighters. No question the 764 and 748( I have said on other threads that the 748 is the worst call ever. The 380 is the most expensive but the 8 was the worst as they could see that the 380 was a dud by the time the 8 was launched) were duds but overall I think when you look at Roi on new product development and market assessment Boeing has been far more right than wrong.

People frequently make arguments about various models being 'mistakes' because they didn't sell well. That ignores a lot about how competition works. The 748 was a relatively cheap upgrade to lengthen the functional lifetime of a model. It has proven quite popular as a freighter and, as a passenger version it had the very important role of not allowing AB to charge higher prices for the A380. By placing the 748i in the market, they undermined the potential margins on the A380. The A330neo has forced the same behaviour from Boeing on the 787. Sure, the vast majority of purchases are still going to the better plane - but each company is making less money on their superior plane because a 2nd option exists.

But let’s be honest, EK would likely be the only operator that would have paid higher prices for the A380, I doubt QF, TG, MH or AF would have Webster more time on the A380 if the costs were placed much higher. This even would have driven them to purchase the 77W and not the A330 (too small) or the A359 (first flight 10 years after A380 first flight), in this way, Airbus was poorly positioned in the market at the time, now however their A350 range pulls the largest in the market and then slightly below whereas the B777-9 extends from the largest economically feasible passenger load at this current point in time and the 777-8 just about covering the top but not just below as the A359 does, this is in where my opinion Boeing should extend the lineup to bring the best of the 787-10 and B777-8 together Similar to the mix in the MAX 10 and B787-8 to create the NMA

jagraham wrote:

777-8 has engines that are 3000 lb heavier than the GE90-115. And larger, which affects the pylon. I am presuming Boeing found weight savings elsewhere. But this is a good tradeoff, as the GE9x is both 10% more fuel efficient than GE90-115, AND 10% less thrust (due to the wing). The 77W vs 77L difference is 50000 lb / 33 ft = 1515 lb/ft. The 778 is 13 feet shorter than the 77W, so that is 19696 lb less.

On second thought, the 778 should weigh no more than 355000 lb, a 15000 lb saving vs the 77W. Thanks for making me think about it.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Boeing has a rather strange ad in today's UK Times. Features graphics of both a 779 and 787-10 with the line:

"The future of aircraft is built here"

Is this a sign of the pending IAG widebody order, or at least the BA component of it?

waly777 wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

waly777 wrote:

You do realise an overwhelming majority of international passengers still transit through hubs? Take a look at the world's largest airlines... or better yet, those who currently operate 77W and let me know what % of those fly their international passengers point to point versus hub to spoke. What the 788/9 has done is enable airlines to reduce from spoke - hub - hub - spoke to spoke - hub - spoke... via cost efficiencies. The hub remains and isn't going anywhere. The A359 (789 to an extent) has largely replaced A343 and 77E type routes but with better cost efficiency.

My thought process does not assume that, i am looking at it from a route and network perspective, you can grow ASK whilst maintaining fleet numbers by upgrading routes that require it.... and a 4% increment at lower operating costs is a win. Very few large airlines have the liberty to increase frequency as they wish, especially when bilateral agreements and slot constraints are taken into account. Additional aircraft = additional manpower costs.

Ps. It doesn't seat 40 seats extra than a 77W in the same config. It would be 30 Y seats... i.e. 3 rows of Y or 1 row of J/1row of Y (14 to 16 seats total).

Incase you haven't noticed, the -9 hasn't flown yet but has almost 30% of the 77W numbers which was launched 18 years ago with a fraction of the current 77W numbers by first flight.

Uhmmm......

You just ignore every single aspect that determine the market itself. You see, for Emirates. If you notice, They are faced with problems of not having enough slots in some major airports like JFK, SYD, LHR, etc.
They of course use A380 to supplement that.

How about the fact that many airlines especially full service carrier are cutting back on capacity and focusing on their profitability and increase passenger load factor by using smaller aircraft?
Especially since some LCC are making big moves into Long-haul market, pretty sure they don't need B777-9.

Your arguments regarding slots constraints could also be used for A380. But the reality is it's still doesn't work. By no mean, there are major airports in the world that needed an aircraft larger than B777-300ER.
But it's more logical to use B777-300ER and crammed in more seats and/or loss of revenue for airlines that needed the capacity.

Your current theory about the orders they recieve during their launch is bullish. Again you could do the same comparison with A380 launch order and B747-100 Launch order. Realistically speaking, how many more B777-8 and B777-9 could be sold after 5 years they're been in service?

PS. B777-9 could carry 40 more seats. The 2.9 meter stretch + The new door configurations allowed them to add more seats. They are offered in 2 configs, one with 8 Type A doors for low density configurations while the other is 8 Type A doors and extra smaller doors which is either Type III or Type C. B777-300ER have 5 Type A doors. So now you understand why I said 40 seats instead of 30. These doors, especially Type A doors which I believe took at least 63" of space for both spacing and the actual door. It would mean that removing a set of Type A doors could accommodate 2 more row of economy class seats.

Thankfully I don't ignore the market forces as I require it to plan and forecast on a daily basis. Trunk routes remain and there is a market for a marginally larger aircraft than the 77W.

To compare the 779 to the 380 regarding slot constraints shows perhaps a misunderstanding that I can't help clarify (similarly configured, there is @ least a 120 to 160 pax difference i.e 3 to 4 step difference in capacity), apples and oranges. From the start, I pointed out the 380 and 748's excess capacity.

There is a large space for trunk route markets when the 380, 747's and some of the 77W are retired. We've placed out bets on the 778/9 and in the next 5 years you will see airlines starting to choose their replacement. The choices in this capacity will be A35K or 777-8/9.

We agree to disagree and I'm fine with that.

RJMAZ wrote:

Interesting. I think the 777-8 will weigh more than 355,000lb, probably just over 360,000lb.

The OEW goes a very long way in determining the fuel load and then the maximum range at any given payload.

I'll have a shot with the numbers.

The 777-9 on wikipedia has a high OEW listed of 181T or 13T higher than the 777-300ER for a 2.9m stretch.

If we assume the 200LR to 300ER gained 22T for 10m then it is 2.2T per metre. A 777-300ER stretched to 777-9 length should weigh 6.3T more. This means at an OEW of 181T there is 6.7T of extra weight in the larger wing and engines. That sounds realistic to me.

The 777-8 is 7m shorter than the 777-9 so if we start off with an OEW and use the 2.2T per metre then the 777-8 weighs 165T. So the 777-8 weighs 2T lighter than the 777-300ER but 20T heavier than the 777-200LR

RJMAZ wrote:

jagraham wrote:

777-8 has engines that are 3000 lb heavier than the GE90-115. And larger, which affects the pylon. I am presuming Boeing found weight savings elsewhere. But this is a good tradeoff, as the GE9x is both 10% more fuel efficient than GE90-115, AND 10% less thrust (due to the wing). The 77W vs 77L difference is 50000 lb / 33 ft = 1515 lb/ft. The 778 is 13 feet shorter than the 77W, so that is 19696 lb less.

On second thought, the 778 should weigh no more than 355000 lb, a 15000 lb saving vs the 77W. Thanks for making me think about it.

Interesting. I think the 777-8 will weigh more than 355,000lb, probably just over 360,000lb.

The OEW goes a very long way in determining the fuel load and then the maximum range at any given payload.

I'll have a shot with the numbers.

The 777-9 on wikipedia has a high OEW listed of 181T or 13T higher than the 777-300ER for a 2.9m stretch.

If we assume the 200LR to 300ER gained 22T for 10m then it is 2.2T per metre. A 777-300ER stretched to 777-9 length should weigh 6.3T more. This means at an OEW of 181T there is 6.7T of extra weight in the larger wing and engines. That sounds realistic to me.

The 777-8 is 7m shorter than the 777-9 so if we start off with an OEW and use the 2.2T per metre then the 777-8 weighs 165T. So the 777-8 weighs 2T lighter than the 777-300ER but 20T heavier than the 777-200LR

On an ultra long haul flight with 25T payload we can calculate how much fuel can be added before hitting MTOW. The 777-200LR can carry 177T of fuel the 777-8 can carry 161T of fuel. So the 777-200LR can carry 10% more fuel than the 777-8 but the 777-8 engines burn 10% less fuel per pound of thrust which completely cancels it out. The 777-8 requires 10% less thrust due to the bigger wing which means 10% less fuel burnt per hour.

The 777-8 should fly 10% further than the 777-200LR in ultra long haul while burning 20% less fuel er hour which is very impressive.

I have noticed one potentially big problem with the 777X if you redo the calculations with maximum payload rating in a freighter application. If we put 100T of payload in both the 777-200LR and 777-8 the fuel loads are now 103T and 86T respectively. That is a 20% difference that means the 777-8 can not fly any further than the 777, it simply offers lower fuel burn.

Strato2 wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

MileHFL400 wrote:

Sorry, I think this thread has gone a little off topic, can we stick to who we think will order this plane. Ignore the A350-1000 etc

Boeing is not w/o its faults but their track record on not building duds is enviable.

757-300, 777-200(LR), 777-300, 767-400ER, 747SP, 747-8i all disagree. I'm sure there are more. When you start to think about it a sizable amount of various Boeing models have been marketing disasters. In the past they were able to afford it of course since the competition was made of weak McDonnell Douglas and little upstart Airbus.

Planeflyer wrote:

Ellofiend wrote:

EChid wrote:

People frequently make arguments about various models being 'mistakes' because they didn't sell well. That ignores a lot about how competition works. The 748 was a relatively cheap upgrade to lengthen the functional lifetime of a model. It has proven quite popular as a freighter and, as a passenger version it had the very important role of not allowing AB to charge higher prices for the A380. By placing the 748i in the market, they undermined the potential margins on the A380. The A330neo has forced the same behaviour from Boeing on the 787. Sure, the vast majority of purchases are still going to the better plane - but each company is making less money on their superior plane because a 2nd option exists.

But let’s be honest, EK would likely be the only operator that would have paid higher prices for the A380, I doubt QF, TG, MH or AF would have Webster more time on the A380 if the costs were placed much higher. This even would have driven them to purchase the 77W and not the A330 (too small) or the A359 (first flight 10 years after A380 first flight), in this way, Airbus was poorly positioned in the market at the time, now however their A350 range pulls the largest in the market and then slightly below whereas the B777-9 extends from the largest economically feasible passenger load at this current point in time and the 777-8 just about covering the top but not just below as the A359 does, this is in where my opinion Boeing should extend the lineup to bring the best of the 787-10 and B777-8 together Similar to the mix in the MAX 10 and B787-8 to create the NMA

Boeing wrote down development costs when they realized the # of sales would not cover the investment. Boeing would be much better off had they invested elsewhere. And a $5,000,000,000 investment is big money.

But worse, at the time they made the investment they could see that the vla market was shrinking which is why they decided to pass on the market in the first place.

So while they may have shaved some 380 margins they did so at loss to themselves. A Pyrrhic victory.

Planeflyer wrote:

bigjku wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

Middle east is Asia first of all. So yeah, majority of orders did come from Asia.

BUT, ANA only order 20, same with SQ and Lufthansa, and then CX order 21.
And Lufthansa is the only European airlines currently buying it.
Non-ME3 airlines order took 25% of the order books right now.

So we know for a fact that the market is only in Asia for B777X. Like it or not, B777X faith is almost as similar to A380.

Boeing hit the Jackpot with B777-300ER. They should have made a NEO version of it instead of creating B777X. B777-8 are not selling as well like A330-800. And B777-9 are too big for most.

Jesus. The straight NEO of the 777-300ER suggestion basically outs you as being ignorant of what is going on. Like your credibility goes direct to zero. It simply wasn’t a realistic option.

All fair points but a few of these were close cousins to freighters. No question the 764 and 748( I have said on other threads that the 748 is the worst call ever. The 380 is the most expensive but the 8 was the worst as they could see that the 380 was a dud by the time the 8 was launched) were duds but overall I think when you look at Roi on new product development and market assessment Boeing has been far more right than wrong.

trav777 wrote:

The 778 I find interesting, given RJMAZ's burn estimates; the 77L was burning 6.7t/hr on LH segments and if they can reduce this by 10%, they put this plane right smack dab on the 35K's burn rate.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Boeing has a rather strange ad in today's UK Times. Features graphics of both a 779 and 787-10 with the line:

"The future of aircraft is built here"

Is this a sign of the pending IAG widebody order, or at least the BA component of it?

seabosdca wrote:

trav777 wrote:

The 778 I find interesting, given RJMAZ's burn estimates; the 77L was burning 6.7t/hr on LH segments and if they can reduce this by 10%, they put this plane right smack dab on the 35K's burn rate.

That seems unlikely. The raw engine SFC improvement will be on the order of 10%, but the 778 will be significantly heavier than the 77L, likely just a bit heavier than 77W OEW (heavier engines partly balanced out by slightly shorter fuselage). Keeping that extra weight in the air will burn some fuel.

That said, it does seem as though the combination of less-than-optimal fan size and less-than-optimal aspect ratio may be causing the 35K to underperform a bit given its relatively light empty weight. The 77X, while heavier, won't have either of those issues.

StTim wrote:

I would be gobsmacked if the sfc improvement from the engines on the A350 to the B777X. The is a step change - not an incremental change.

seabosdca wrote:

StTim wrote:

I would be gobsmacked if the sfc improvement from the engines on the A350 to the B777X. The is a step change - not an incremental change.

10% is compared to the second-gen GE90, not the Trent XWB. GE has been consistent in predicting a 10% delta between the GE90-115B and GE9x.

seabosdca wrote:

trav777 wrote:

The 778 I find interesting, given RJMAZ's burn estimates; the 77L was burning 6.7t/hr on LH segments and if they can reduce this by 10%, they put this plane right smack dab on the 35K's burn rate.

That seems unlikely. The raw engine SFC improvement will be on the order of 10%, but the 778 will be significantly heavier than the 77L, likely just a bit heavier than 77W OEW (heavier engines partly balanced out by slightly shorter fuselage). Keeping that extra weight in the air will burn some fuel.

That said, it does seem as though the combination of less-than-optimal fan size and less-than-optimal aspect ratio may be causing the 35K to underperform a bit given its relatively light empty weight. The 77X, while heavier, won't have either of those issues.