Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
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
Prost wrote:How much more square footage does a 777-9 have versus an A350-1000?
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.
Eyad89 wrote:A35K got a lower wing loading (461 vs 503).
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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
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
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?
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..
VirginFlyer wrote:Perhaps an A350/777X comparison thread would be in order?
Revelation wrote:VirginFlyer wrote:Perhaps an A350/777X comparison thread would be in order?
And/or a "Will BA order the 777X?" thread...
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.
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.
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?
SCAT15F wrote:Does anyone know when GE9X flight testing is supposed to begin?
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.
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!
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.
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!?
$BA 777X has hit peak on cap spending. 777X moving forward right on plan, expect delivery of those planes in 2020 as planned.
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.
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.
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.
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
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)