I always felt the 777-8/9 had too much range for BA, JL and NH. Then NH went ahead and ordered it, which blew that out of the water. I'd have thought LH would have though the A350-1000 was sufficient for their needs, but perhaps they needed more capacity.

How much more square footage does a 777-9 have versus an A350-1000?

BA has less than 300 total seats on both their 744s and 77Ws. Most recently the swapped 4 789s to 788s, so I do not think the A350-1000 will ever be configured anywhere near 366 seats. As to 10 abreast 777s, only the LGW ones will be configured as such.

StTim wrote:

Now that I agree with and BA may decide to get them. They will also have a large A350 fleet by then so it will not be integration of a different type (as it would in IB if they went for the 777x)

Hence the non sequtur

18x A350-1000s isn't my definition of a large fleet compared to a fleet of several dozen 777/787s, with many still coming.

So you will forgive me if I see your argument as unreasonable. Keep your non sequitur.

Hey Ho....

Prost wrote:

How much more square footage does a 777-9 have versus an A350-1000?

Calculating based on cabin length times cabin width, the 777-9 comes out ahead by around 31 square meters. The 777-9 cabin is around 3 meters longer (what the A350-900 has over the 787-9) so that is around two more rows of Club World or World Traveller Plus or three more rows of World Traveller. Or it can be used for additional gallery / water closet space (with or without additional seating).

Boeing778X wrote:

StTim wrote:

Now that I agree with and BA may decide to get them. They will also have a large A350 fleet by then so it will not be integration of a different type (as it would in IB if they went for the 777x)

Hence the non sequtur

18x A350-1000s isn't my definition of a large fleet compared to a fleet of several dozen 777/787s, with many still coming.

So you will forgive me if I see your argument as unreasonable. Keep your non sequitur.

Did I say it is, or will be rather, a large fleet? I said those 18 A350-1000 are to replace 18 of 36 747-400 at BA and that it would not be unreasonable to expect the other 18 747-400 to be replaced by A350-1000 too.

This ongoing A vs B urination contest which seems to overtake every thread and result in hundreds of posts of circular arguments is really getting tiresome. How about we leave the "Boeing 777X - Updated Information and Developments" thread for, perhaps, updated information and developments about the Boeing 777X? Given that we're a bit over a year and a half from first flight, there may not be all that many updates and developments yet, but likewise there is going to be very little in the way of new information to understand how the 777X and A350 compare to one another.

V/F

Eyad89 wrote:

A35K got a lower wing loading (461 vs 503).

You're right. I might quibble with the exact numbers you present but I was incorrect that the A35K has very high wingloading. Was going off memory rather than checking the figures. Good you put in the work.

The span/AR advantage is still quite significant. Enough to pull the frame within a few percentage of the A35K given equal SFC, and to surpass it given ~5% lower SFC.

Eyad89 wrote:

- the lift off speed for the A35K is 162, while the 779 has it a bit higher at 165. It means for their respective weights, the wings of A35K manage to lift off at slightly lower speeds.

I'm pretty sure both of these planes are V2-limited for takeoff. They could probably both get airborne at lower speeds but that wouldn't satisfy the mandate that V2 be no more than 1.05x liftoff speed. The 777-9 probably needs a higher V2 because it has lower T/W.

Eyad89 wrote:

A more optimal wing does not guarantee a better fuel burn per seat as you implied. I mean, the A35K has less fuel burn per sear than the A359 even though the A359 has more optimal wings.

I made no such implication. A359 has the more optimal wing but A35K the more optimal fuselage. Giving the A359 the optimal fuselage would have meant no room for family growth. In any event, Ferpe also calculated that the A35K is barely better on fuel than A359. Its economies of scale mostly stem from flight crew, capital, and fees. The same could be said of the 777-9 versus A35K, as the former is only slightly better on fuel/seat.

mjoelnir wrote:

rotating14 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

The obsession with airlines have to replace a frame with a frame of the same capacity. If it is acceptable to replace the first 18 747-400 with 18 A350-1000, it should be possible to imagine to replace the next batch of 18 747-400 again with A350-1000. Having started with using the A350-1000 as 747-400 replacement, gives it a certain etch to replace the next batch.

BA operated 55 747s and wouldn't touch the 748i with 10 ft pole. Boeing thought that they'd be a sure thing. Not the case. A certain poster, username starting with a K, ending in je, tends to say basically the same thing. If you buy the A35K, you can't operate the 779 with it, despite the fact that airlines have bought both and plan to operate both.


BA could replace the remaining 747s with A35ks but it would be limiting itself to just 366 seats, maximum. No 10 Abreast. And yes, 10 abreast sucks but airlines don't buy planes on customer surveys. If BA wants an aircraft with better flexibility than the A380 but more capacity than the A35K, the 779 seems like the best option.

BA is absolutely not limited to 366 pax. They have the big bird and have been talking of wanting to add some.

In ordering the A35K for the remainder of the 744 replacement, as you suggested, you are limited to 366 seats. Yes, I remember that in Jan 2016, IAG was looking for either used A380s or 77Ws to lease . Keyword being lease.

VirginFlyer wrote:

This ongoing A vs B urination contest which seems to overtake every thread and result in hundreds of posts of circular arguments is really getting tiresome. How about we leave the "Boeing 777X - Updated Information and Developments" thread for, perhaps, updated information and developments about the Boeing 777X? Given that we're a bit over a year and a half from first flight, there may not be all that many updates and developments yet, but likewise there is going to be very little in the way of new information to understand how the 777X and A350 compare to one another.

V/F

I subscribed to this thread to keep abreast of the 777X program information and all I have seen is A vs B. I agree Virgin Flyer!

I find the A vs B comparisons very interesting and informative, rather bizarre to be 'offended' by such on
an aviation enthusiast site I think, reading is not mandatory though..

I don't mind them but it should be done in another thread.

Does anybody actually have any recent developments about the 777X, as would be implied by the title of the thread, to discuss?

keesje wrote:

Looking at preliminary specifications (empty weight, capacity) and costs (entirely new wing, engine, LDG), competition (A350-1000) I wonder if the ROI will be an easy one.

The fact the 777-300ER was very successful doesn't provide any guarantees for the future. It's a different aircraft & a different market environment.

The old 777 was not going to compete against the new A350. Therefore Boeing had three choices.

1) Make an all new airplane (moonshot!!)
2) Redo the 777 into the 777X
3) Walk away from that part of the market.

What might you have picked?

kitplane wrote:

Therefore Boeing had three choices.

1) Make an all new airplane (moonshot!!)
2) Redo the 777 into the 777X
3) Walk away from that part of the market.

What might you have picked?

1. Boeing should have built Y3 as a 777/747/A380 replacement. Small (relatively) double-decker with 80m, high-AR wing. Likely a twin.

Time will tell.I have a sneaky feeling that when this aircraft flies its gonna be a good'en.Its impossible to know of course but that wing looks awful efficient from what I have read and I bet the GE engine is too.Pax density is good without being overcramped (IMHO).
Again IMHO the very fact that Airbus has talked so much about stretching the 351 tells me the 779 is about right sized.Thats not to say the 351 is too small,there is room for both sizes.
If there ever is a need for 'one size up' then only one company can respond btw.

Boeing778X wrote:

StTim wrote:

Now that I agree with and BA may decide to get them. They will also have a large A350 fleet by then so it will not be integration of a different type (as it would in IB if they went for the 777x)

Hence the non sequtur

18x A350-1000s isn't my definition of a large fleet compared to a fleet of several dozen 777/787s, with many still coming.

So you will forgive me if I see your argument as unreasonable. Keep your non sequitur.

BA has 46 777-200 ( 3 -200, 43 200ER ) in its fleet. But their median age is 20++ years, isn't it ?
My guess would be that they are on their way out in the next decade.

12 777-300ER probably in the 10 years age group.

They have 12 787 in fleet now with another 18 to come.

The "unbalance" you describe will in all finality not turn out as unbalanced as you describe

VirginFlyer wrote:

This ongoing A vs B urination contest which seems to overtake every thread and result in hundreds of posts of circular arguments is really getting tiresome. How about we leave the "Boeing 777X - Updated Information and Developments" thread for, perhaps, updated information and developments about the Boeing 777X? Given that we're a bit over a year and a half from first flight, there may not be all that many updates and developments yet, but likewise there is going to be very little in the way of new information to understand how the 777X and A350 compare to one another.

V/F

Can we please just stop with the discussion of BA's 747 fleet as well? Fully endorse VirginFlyer's plea above.

WIederling wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

StTim wrote:

Now that I agree with and BA may decide to get them. They will also have a large A350 fleet by then so it will not be integration of a different type (as it would in IB if they went for the 777x)

Hence the non sequtur

18x A350-1000s isn't my definition of a large fleet compared to a fleet of several dozen 777/787s, with many still coming.

So you will forgive me if I see your argument as unreasonable. Keep your non sequitur.

BA has 46 777-200 ( 3 -200, 43 200ER ) in its fleet. But their median age is 20++ years, isn't it ?
My guess would be that they are on their way out in the next decade.

12 777-300ER probably in the 10 years age group.

They have 12 787 in fleet now with another 18 to come.

The "unbalance" you describe will in all finality not turn out as unbalanced as you describe

I don't know where you got your "12 777-300ER probably in the 10 years age group." information from??

They average less then 5 years old according to the basource.com.


Registration MSN First Flight BA Delivery Base Configuration Status Operator
G-STBA 40542 21/06/2010 09/07/2010 LHR 14F/56J/44W/183Y Active British Airways
G-STBB 38286 09/09/2010 31/08/2010 LHR 14F/56J/44W/183Y Active British Airways
G-STBC 38287 18/10/2010 04/11/2010 LHR 14F/56J/44W/183Y Active British Airways
G-STBD 38695 06/10/2011 15/10/2011 LHR 14F/56J/44W/183Y Active British Airways
G-STBE 38696 21/11/2011 09/12/2011 LHR 14F/56J/44W/183Y Active British Airways
G-STBF 40543 10/02/2012 21/02/2012 LHR 14F/56J/44W/183Y Active British Airways
G-STBG 38430 22/08/2013 13/09/2013 LHR 14F/56J/44W/183Y Active British Airways
G-STBH 38431 01/10/2013 19/10/2013 LHR 14F/56J/44W/183Y Active British Airways
G-STBI 43702 15/01/2014 28/01/2014 LHR 14F/56J/44W/183Y Active British Airways
G-STBJ 43703 26/02/2014 06/03/2014 LHR 14F/56J/44W/183Y Active British Airways
G-STBK 42121 15/05/2014 28/05/2014 LHR 14F/56J/44W/183Y Active British Airways
G-STBL 42124 02/07/2014 28/07/2014 LHR 14F/56J/44W/183Y Active British Airways

kitplane01 wrote:

The old 777 was not going to compete against the new A350. Therefore Boeing had three choices.

1) Make an all new airplane (moonshot!!)
2) Redo the 777 into the 777X
3) Walk away from that part of the market.

What might you have picked?

The way you frame the question leads one to select (2), but the original statement was "The old 777 was not going to compete against the new A350" and it's not clear to me that the new 777 does compete well against the new A350. It ends up giving it a lot of competition on the high end of the market, but at the sweet spot the A359 is rocking 628 orders and is well positioned as the 777-200ERs age out, and the A351 is doing quite well with 211 as well. Basically the size/weight of the 777 forced the 777X to grow and the result is that it isn't exactly an A350 competitor, and in particular it's not the best 777-200ER replacement. The ideal replacement would indeed have been the moonshot, but the 787 debacle made that a non-starter for many different reasons.

Max Q wrote:

I find the A vs B comparisons very interesting and informative, rather bizarre to be 'offended' by such on
an aviation enthusiast site I think, reading is not mandatory though..

I'm not offended by it. I think it is probably interesting to look at comparisons based on hard evidence, or even a bit of speculation. What I find tiresome is the same arguments being rehashed over pages and pages, bringing nothing particularly new because the ground has already been well and truly covered, and getting increasingly hyperbolic as they circle over and over again like an aircraft last in line in the Heathrow stack. I can't always get to this web site every day, so if I come back and there are three pages of new posts, it makes it quite a job to keep up to date. I want to keep up to date with this topic, so I don't really want to just skip to the end of three pages. Perhaps an A350/777X comparison thread would be in order?

V/F

VirginFlyer wrote:

Perhaps an A350/777X comparison thread would be in order?

And/or a "Will BA order the 777X?" thread...

Revelation wrote:

VirginFlyer wrote:

Perhaps an A350/777X comparison thread would be in order?

And/or a "Will BA order the 777X?" thread...

I agree with that so I could steer well clear of it.

StTim wrote:

Revelation wrote:

VirginFlyer wrote:

Perhaps an A350/777X comparison thread would be in order?

And/or a "Will BA order the 777X?" thread...

I agree with that so I could steer well clear of it.

Amen, Brother!

An old southern expression of agreement.

nikeherc wrote:

StTim wrote:

Revelation wrote:

And/or a "Will BA order the 777X?" thread...

I agree with that so I could steer well clear of it.

Amen, Brother!

An old southern expression of agreement.

Looks like we did BA vs 77X two years ago: viewtopic.php?t=592143

And plenty of threads did A350 vs 77X: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A ... 8&oe=utf-8

As mentioned by some members, please keep this thread on topic, which is Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments. I fully agree that the thread sometimes touches other topics, but it went way off topic. Feel free to open new threads to continue to discuss some of the topics which were discussed here.

It seems my earlier post didn't appear, so sorry if this question was replied before.
As the first 777X goes into final production by the end of 2017, someone should know already what the first LN will be. Based on the current 777 production I would guess something between LN1540 and 1550. 1550 would be nice. Or is there a possibility Boeing will restart with LN1 just like when they started the 737NG back in 1997?

olle wrote:

Right now it seems like the A350-1000 will be better then original estimated. Will thsi mean that the B778 never be built?

It seems the 778 is deemed the ideal replacement for the 777F in the freighter lineup so I can't imagine that they wouldn't move forward with it. Perhaps if anything it gets pushed back.

I think Boeing has a great design for the Boeing 777X. I'm excited to fly on it in the next 10 years.

Does anyone know when GE9X flight testing is supposed to begin?

SCAT15F wrote:

Does anyone know when GE9X flight testing is supposed to begin?

Somewhere next year (2018). Ground tests are already underway.

Given the current softness in the widebody market, I doubt that the expected sales numbers would have ever supported researching, developing, and setting up for manufacture and then producing an all-new frame. So, their choices were really: sell the current 777 until the line dries up and wind it down or upgrade the existing 777 enough to make it attractive for purchasers. As Boeing wants to be an ongoing presence in that market segment, winding down the line was not an option.

I would not be surprised if Boeing is developing another large widebody slowly in the background for a launch in the mid to late 2020s.

LightningZ71 wrote:

Given the current softness in the widebody market, I doubt that the expected sales numbers would have ever supported researching, developing, and setting up for manufacture and then producing an all-new frame. So, their choices were really: sell the current 777 until the line dries up and wind it down or upgrade the existing 777 enough to make it attractive for purchasers. As Boeing wants to be an ongoing presence in that market segment, winding down the line was not an option.

I would not be surprised if Boeing is developing another large widebody slowly in the background for a launch in the mid to late 2020s.

And where does the money for that development come from? The Phantom Works ?

I suspect in the year 2030-40 period there will be a totally new suite of technologies that will ultimately render the current A350 and 777 redundant. If this is the case product releases may be based around treading water, rather than releasing the best technology product available!

travelhound wrote:

I suspect in the year 2030-40 period there will be a totally new suite of technologies that will ultimately render the current A350 and 777 redundant. If this is the case product releases may be based around treading water, rather than releasing the best technology product available!

That may be but who knows what disruptive technology will emerge?

Maybe none will so no treading water.

StTim wrote:

travelhound wrote:

I suspect in the year 2030-40 period there will be a totally new suite of technologies that will ultimately render the current A350 and 777 redundant. If this is the case product releases may be based around treading water, rather than releasing the best technology product available!

That may be but who knows what disruptive technology will emerge?

Maybe none will so no treading water.

I expect strut-braced wings with 20+ AR at ~current wing weights to upend the market around then. Huge carry-on effects on wing laminar flow, engine size.

Expect and delivered are two separate things. Completely separate.

I hope for disruptive technologies. It has been too long in aviation!

mjoelnir wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

That would imply the stabilizer on the 787-8 to be to small. As the 787-9 is the longer frame, the horizontal stabilizer should be rather bigger on the 787-8, as it works on the shorter arm.

Moment is the operational concept, not just moment arm.
Horizontal stabilizer balances the wing's rotational moment, which might be greater at critical sizing conditions for the -9 than for the -8 due to higher weights (thus more lift, thus more rotational moment from wing).

...not sure which Hstab is bigger, too lazy to look up ACAP. Boeing might have designed a commonly-dimensioned Hstab sufficient for both planes even if optimal for neither.

As we are talking also about the same wing I am ready to believe the lazy from you. Anyway I checked and they are all the same size -8 -9 and -10.

Anyway if you can show me one example of an increased size of the horizontal stabilizer needed for a stretch of a frame!?

Yes, the A340-500/600 have a bigger horizontal stab relative to the 200/300, and a larger V stab as well. To what extent you call those two subgroups the same type is a separate question, considering the wings and engines are bigger and the MTOW is 100 tons higher. Also, the 748 has a double-hinged lower rudder, the OEI load was a greater addition to the yaw moment than the 1.6m stretch accounted for.

From the earning call today:

$BA 777X has hit peak on cap spending. 777X moving forward right on plan, expect delivery of those planes in 2020 as planned.

https://twitter.com/IBD_GRich/status/890224247389519873

They must mean peak rate of spend and not maximum capital spend.

It seems like a new premium carrier in Taiwan called Starlux want to order 777X or A350-1000 for their longhaul operation.
See viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1367903
- Thew new airlines' chairman is personally type-rated for the 777 and said that if the airlines order 777X then he will personally pilot the aircraft so it seems rather likely for them to buy 777X?
- But on the other hand the medium end aircraft types they are considering are A350 and 787, if they go for A350 plus A350-1000 then that would give them commonality advantages.

So, as of today, what is the status of the first 777-9 airframe? Wing construction? Fuselage parts? I understand the engine has had its initial ground run(s). It will definitely be interesting to see one of them on the test bed aircraft, if anything just to see the size.

superbizzy73 wrote:

So, as of today, what is the status of the first 777-9 airframe? Wing construction? Fuselage parts? I understand the engine has had its initial ground run(s). It will definitely be interesting to see one of them on the test bed aircraft, if anything just to see the size.

I don't think they've said anything publicly since giving a few reporter tours several months ago to show that they were doing pre-production test parts, or in at least one case, a production part for static test.

http://www.king5.com/tech/science/aeros ... /447163765

superbizzy73 wrote:

So, as of today, what is the status of the first 777-9 airframe? Wing construction? Fuselage parts? I understand the engine has had its initial ground run(s). It will definitely be interesting to see one of them on the test bed aircraft, if anything just to see the size.

The GE9X has began initial testing but still has a long way to go. Boeing has been fairly secretive in terms of 777X program details lately, I don't believe any parts have been constructed or cut yet.

RL777 wrote:

superbizzy73 wrote:

So, as of today, what is the status of the first 777-9 airframe? Wing construction? Fuselage parts? I understand the engine has had its initial ground run(s). It will definitely be interesting to see one of them on the test bed aircraft, if anything just to see the size.

The GE9X has began initial testing but still has a long way to go. Boeing has been fairly secretive in terms of 777X program details lately, I don't believe any parts have been constructed or cut yet.

They are most likely constructing the wings for the stress tests right now, based on the most recent info available.

The first 777-9 line numbers as follows:

- LN 1567
- LN 1574
- LN 1581
- LN 1587

See http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost. ... count=3008

KarelXWB wrote:

The first 777-9 line numbers as follows:

- LN 1567
- LN 1574
- LN 1581
- LN 1587

See http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost. ... count=3008

Wonderful development! Thanks for relaying Karel!

What number are we on currently? (Completed)

Boeing778X wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

The first 777-9 line numbers as follows:

- LN 1567
- LN 1574
- LN 1581
- LN 1587

See http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost. ... count=3008

Wonderful development! Thanks for relaying Karel!

What number are we on currently? (Completed)

Currently around 1516

First test wing for 777X has entered final assembly

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ly-441762/

Would love to see the 777X wings flex like the wings on the 787s. That would be some sight to see.