Egerton wrote:

In the March 2017 ACAP, the 777-9 OEW is TBD, presumably To Be Disclosed? In the absence of this important number, presumably we have to rely on working back from the Payload Range or other data? How accurate are these calculated OEW numbers?

Leeham cited Boeing sources for a 407,000lb OEW in a paywall story. It may come in a bit more or less than that, but not enough to change the basic story.

Stitch wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

Zodiac has unveiled its 777X economy seats. Due to the wider cabin, seats are now 17.4" instead of 17" on the current 777.

Which is what the 747 family offered for decades with nobody screaming about being . In fact, the folks carping about the 777 at 10-abreast pointed to how much more comfortable the 747 at 10-abreast was so if they're still complaining it's not acceptable...

So...Boeing has caught up with 1980's standard in 2020? I wonder what other standards we should aspire to that was prevalent in the 1980's, more smoking on flights?

Matt6461 wrote:

The high payload limits seem to account for max-density, max-cargo usages.
The OEM's are probably beginning to see that very few customers will ever adopt these usages.

Could be, I have no idea how much belly cargo airlines handle. Some people praise the 777 for its cargo capabilities; Boeing itself seem to think otherwise and is now reducing those capabilities.

On the pax front, the 77W has 5 Type I exit doors and was designed to seat up to 550 passengers. The 777-9 trades one Type I door for a smaller Type III door, reducing the exit limit to 475 passengers. It's clear that Boeing sees no business case for max-density configurations anymore.

enzo011 wrote:

Stitch wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

Zodiac has unveiled its 777X economy seats. Due to the wider cabin, seats are now 17.4" instead of 17" on the current 777.

Which is what the 747 family offered for decades with nobody screaming about being . In fact, the folks carping about the 777 at 10-abreast pointed to how much more comfortable the 747 at 10-abreast was so if they're still complaining it's not acceptable...

So...Boeing has caught up with 1980's standard in 2020? I wonder what other standards we should aspire to that was prevalent in the 1980's, more smoking on flights?

I only fly First Class and Business so Economy seat width is a non-issue for me, but folks are free to vote with their wallets (just as I do by flying premium) and if 777Xs fly as empty as 777s than maybe Boeing will "modernize" their standards.

But then, 777s don't fly empty, do they?

Could be, I have no idea how much belly cargo airlines handle. Some people praise the 777 for its cargo capabilities; Boeing itself seem to think otherwise and is now reducing those capabilities.


Clever move by Boeing perhaps? If they reduce the cargo capabilities, maybe they will get more cargo sales?

(Disregard)

KarelXWB wrote:

Some people praise the 777 for its cargo capabilities; Boeing itself seem to think otherwise and is now reducing those capabilities

You have to differentiate between weight limitations and volume limitations.
As I laid out above, weight limitations are rarely reached given modern seating densities.
Instead, belly cargo is a matter of volume limitations.
Boeing is not reducing the volume cargo capability, which is what really matters.
The A380 can carry much more weight than the 77W. It would be better than 77W at cargo if air cargo were lead.

Per the ACAP, standard LD3's have gone from 44 on the 77W to 48 on the 779. There is also an option for 50 LD3's.

So no. Boeing is not reducing the 779's cargo capabilities.

Stitch wrote:

enzo011 wrote:

Stitch wrote:

Which is what the 747 family offered for decades with nobody screaming about being . In fact, the folks carping about the 777 at 10-abreast pointed to how much more comfortable the 747 at 10-abreast was so if they're still complaining it's not acceptable...

So...Boeing has caught up with 1980's standard in 2020? I wonder what other standards we should aspire to that was prevalent in the 1980's, more smoking on flights?:

I only fly First Class and Business so Economy seat width is a non-issue for me, but folks are free to vote with their wallets (just as I do by flying premium) and if 777Xs fly as empty as 777s than maybe Boeing's customers will "modernize" their standards.

I know you know this, but it still seems worth re-iterating for the forum as a whole that the 777 was originally mostly configured as 9-abreast (and I believe this was Boeing's baseline layout), with a few particularly high-density operators going for 10-abreast. It seems mostly within the last 5 years or so that 10-abreast has switched from the exception to the norm.

With that being the case, Boeing squeezing an extra inch or two out of the sidewalls of the 777X is a welcome development that mitigates the recent trend among their customers.

If only we could buy airline space as conveniently as you suggest. Usually most or all of the airlines available to me on a route I'm traveling offer the same seat widths, and roughly the same pitch. Even with premium economy, pricing is usually way out of line with the value - I seldom see upgrades offered for better than a 50% price premium for 10% more space. I can't really justify spending 2-3 days extra salary on an international flight for 160 square inches of extra space (based on BA, who has the most spacious premium economy I've seen) and a complimentary drink.

Effectively, most of us are stuck either with a decision either to accept absurd price premiums or to accept the wallet-voting of the majority of the market, who choose smaller seats.

iamlucky13 wrote:

I know you know this, but it still seems worth re-iterating for the forum as a whole that the 777 was originally mostly configured as 9-abreast (and I believe this was Boeing's baseline layout), with a few particularly high-density operators going for 10-abreast. It seems mostly within the last 5 years or so that 10-abreast has switched from the exception to the norm.

Indeed. Fares don't seem to be climbing as quickly as costs so airlines are adding more seats to try and balance the equation again.

iamlucky13 wrote:

With that being the case, Boeing squeezing an extra inch or two out of the sidewalls of the 777X is a welcome development that mitigates the recent trend among their customers.

Yup. And more comfort is certainly better. I just grow tired of how some people just keep harping on it to perpetuate Airbus vs. Boeing agendas.

Matt6461 wrote:

[Leeham cited Boeing sources for a 407,000lb OEW ( 186.6t) in a paywall story. It may come in a bit more or less than that, but not enough to change the basic story.

Based on the MZFW in the ACAP sheets of 254918kg and Leeham's figure of 68t max payload you get an OEW of ~186900kg. Pretty close!!

It's not just Boeing airlines putting 17"ish seats in their aircraft. There are 330 operators who have 17.5", or smaller, seats as standard. If you really want to compare apples to apples, take the plane out of the equation and compare the same planes sharing the same markets, with different seats.

KLM and Lufthansa have 17-17.5" seats on their 330's and 340's. Now Air France has 18" seats. These airlines share lots of routes so there is no argument about people being forced to choose tortuous 17 inch seats over luxurious 18" seats.

So why not dig up the load factor differences between similar aircraft on similar routes and compare how those load factors differ in regards to seat width?

If 18" economy seats were such a critical metric for economy travellers...I would think that KLM and Lufthansa would have long ago been put out of business by AF...yet, decades later...here they are.

And they are not the only 330 flying airlines that chose, long ago, to use smaller than 18" seats in their 330's when they all had the choice of seat width when configuring their aircraft.

So please enough with the bullsh*t about seat width. Either come up with some real world data, or shut the hell up about it.

As for the extra 4" Boeing is adding to the interior of the 77X, who says it's going to seat width? After all, airlines get more advantage out of wider aisles than wider seats.

Still haven't seen anything on the design for the switch / lever ? that will operate the wingtips from the cockpit, any one have information on this ?

Regarding the seat comfort debate. If you do not like the product, book another airline, still do not like it,book Y+ or J. Too expensive for you, well your problem.

A few questions;

How do 778 and 779 compare with 350J?

With the romours of RR XWB getting PIPs around 2020 will the 778 and 779 beat 350J in the market?

KarelXWB wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

The high payload limits seem to account for max-density, max-cargo usages.
The OEM's are probably beginning to see that very few customers will ever adopt these usages.

Could be, I have no idea how much belly cargo airlines handle. Some people praise the 777 for its cargo capabilities; Boeing itself seem to think otherwise and is now reducing those capabilities.

On the pax front, the 77W has 5 Type I exit doors and was designed to seat up to 550 passengers. The 777-9 trades one Type I door for a smaller Type III door, reducing the exit limit to 475 passengers. It's clear that Boeing sees no business case for max-density configurations anymore.

I notice on page 2-5 showing the manufacturer seating layout it appears the type III doors in the aft economy cabin are optional - would this fit within the maximum distance between doors issue that the A346 experienced? (In fact on page 2-8 it confirms it is optional, so it must be)

I expect this door to not be taken up by most operators, as I believe with 4 pairs of full sized doors the 440 passenger exit limit would still cover the majority, if not all, premium carriers 779 layout.

Edit: Boeing shows it able to be used as a service door, so this may affect airlines decision on this option.

olle wrote:

A few questions;

How do 778 and 779 compare with 350J?

With the romours of RR XWB getting PIPs around 2020 will the 778 and 779 beat 350J in the market?

Hmm compare in what way or metric? It will be a bit hard to accurately compare those as concrete performance numbers aren't publicly available yet for either.

I imagine the GE9X will also see pips over time too.

JoeCanuck wrote:

If you really want to compare apples to apples, take the plane out of the equation and compare the same planes sharing the same markets, with different seats.

The whole discussion was always about seat width. But as "narrow seats" are much more often found in 787 and 777 cabins and "wider seats" much more often in A330, A350, A380, you have to forgive, that people frequently use 787 and 777 as synonym from cramped cabins. But principally you are correct, the discussion is not about planes, but about seat width.

JoeCanuck wrote:

It's not just Boeing airlines putting 17"ish seats in their aircraft. There are 330 operators who have 17.5", or smaller, seats as standard. If you really want to compare apples to apples, take the plane out of the equation and compare the same planes sharing the same markets, with different seats.

KLM and Lufthansa have 17-17.5" seats on their 330's and 340's. Now Air France has 18" seats. These airlines share lots of routes so there is no argument about people being forced to choose tortuous 17 inch seats over luxurious 18" seats.

So why not dig up the load factor differences between similar aircraft on similar routes and compare how those load factors differ in regards to seat width?

If 18" economy seats were such a critical metric for economy travellers...I would think that KLM and Lufthansa would have long ago been put out of business by AF...yet, decades later...here they are.

And they are not the only 330 flying airlines that chose, long ago, to use smaller than 18" seats in their 330's when they all had the choice of seat width when configuring their aircraft.

So please enough with the bullsh*t about seat width. Either come up with some real world data, or shut the hell up about it.

Seat width is not a discriminator a passenger could choose in any of the examples. Tons of important other factors (that are different in the examples you mention) make it impossible to judge the impact of the seat width. If you would want to probe really the impact of seat width on the financial bottom line of an airline, you would have to compare cases where:
- Both fly the same route, same time
- Same price
- Basically every other factor, that might influence the buying behavior of a passenger would need to be the same
- And, very important, the available seat dimensions would have to be made transparent to the passenger

Only then we could judge the impact of narrow seats based on "real world data". But, as this is realistically not possible, you have to live without such evidence. Which means, you have to live with the seat width discussion as longs as somebody else might have other preferences than you.

Read e.g. pax comments here: click!. People are saying things like "With the change to the 3-4-3 configuration across, 1.5 inch less in width and up to 2 inch less in leg room, I'm close to hating flying on Air Canada." Lots of such subjective feedback is all we'll ever get. But there is no "real world" evidence, that narrow seats don't hurt the airlines, as you seem to say. At least not from the broad examples you have given.

JoeCanuck wrote:

As for the extra 4" Boeing is adding to the interior of the 77X, who says it's going to seat width?

Boeing, Zodiac

JoeCanuck wrote:

After all, airlines get more advantage out of wider aisles than wider seats.

Only if they stop listening to pax feedback and don't care about condemning seat width comments and ratings in the online media. There is some evidence however, that both of these things are not happening, which means you are wrong.

Not trying to be argumentative, but I think we can make some general comparisons. Neither the F-8 nor the F-4 were lifting bodies, nor blended wing/fuselage frames like the F-15.

If you look at the video i linked, MD didn't think it was possible to fly the F-15 with only 1 wing and they came to the conclusion that since the speed in comparison to the weight of the plane was fast enough the minute lift from the body, which also the F-8 and F-4 will provide, was sufficient. None of them are/were built to have a lifting body, and I wouldn't consider the F-15 to have blended wing/body either. With enough speed the need for lift is greatly reduced and that is the point I'm trying to make with regard to comparing commercial planes (slow and heavy) to fighters (fast and light). But like I said before, I agree it won't be a big deal if the wing tip is in the folded position during flight since it's such a small percentage of the total wing area.

What about the asymmetric lift - perhaps it would be best if one wingtip failed and retracted that the other one did so as well. I realize that most current winglet equipped aircraft can be dispatched with one missing, but this is not your everyday winglet. Assym flaps is a big no-no, so perhaps that is a factor for this wingtip as well.

waly777 wrote:

I imagine the GE9X will also see pips over time too.

The brochure advantages of the 777X/GE9X combo are applicable at EIS ( 2020/21 )
relative advantage over the A350 referenced published targets for that frames EIS. ( 2017 )

i.e. for the three "interregnum years" the A350 turns into a moving target via airframe and engine tweaks.
IMU the smaller A35k could be on par for 779X EIS ( actually better by A350k to 779X scaling effects.)

From there on both start to move. Question is if both frames have similar design potential.

Stitch wrote:

I only fly First Class and Business so Economy seat width is a non-issue for me, but folks are free to vote with their wallets (just as I do by flying premium) and if 777Xs fly as empty as 777s than maybe Boeing will "modernize" their standards.

So when you say this above, what is your skin in the game by comparing the 777 with the 747 standards in economy? You have no interest in seat width for economy passengers yet you post about it a lot.

Stitch wrote:

Yup. And more comfort is certainly better. I just grow tired of how some people just keep harping on it to perpetuate Airbus vs. Boeing agendas.

Yes, I grow tired when the same people that fly J and F try to convince others that 1" in Y doesn't matter or that there are options out there for people as they could just get more money somehow and fly J or F.

I do agree that the 777X will be better for economy passengers than the 777, there is that at least.

Has anyone done the math around the feasability of 11 abreast 777x ? I know it would be very tight (9 abreat A330/10 abreast A350 tight) but would it be possible ?

enzo011 wrote:

Yes, I grow tired when the same people that fly J and F try to convince others that 1" in Y doesn't matter...

And I suppose you're exhausted by the millions of people every day who seem to agree that 1" doesn't matter (or matter enough) since they continue to fly on Boeing even when offered the option of Airbus (as so many long-haul and even many short-haul airlines operate both OEM's equipment).

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Has anyone done the math around the feasability of 11 abreast 777x?

Unless it's restricted to toddlers, it would be impossible from a certification standpoint due to the size of the seats based on minimum aisle widths.

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Has anyone done the math around the feasability of 11 abreast 777x ? I know it would be very tight (9 abreat A330/10 abreast A350 tight) but would it be possible ?

Seat width at 11 abreast would be:

~16.27" with 1.5" armrests and 17" aisles
~16.7" with 1" armrests and 18" aisles
~15.8" with 2" armrests and 16" aisles

Based on minimum aisle width requirements.

77west wrote:

What about the asymmetric lift - perhaps it would be best if one wingtip failed and retracted that the other one did so as well. I realize that most current winglet equipped aircraft can be dispatched with one missing, but this is not your everyday winglet. Assym flaps is a big no-no, so perhaps that is a factor for this wingtip as well.

Wouldn't an engine failure create more asymmetric-ness?

olle wrote:

A few questions;

How do 778 and 779 compare with 350J?

There are charts that show the 35J has a payload of 62t @ 5100nm; the 779; 70t @5300nm and the 778; 67t at 6500nm. I believe these values may need to be adjusted down for the DOW component, probably ~ 5t.

817Dreamliiner wrote:

Seat width at 11 abreast would be:

~16.27" with 1.5" armrests and 17" aisles
~16.7" with 1" armrests and 18" aisles
~15.8" with 2" armrests and 16" aisles

Based on minimum aisle width requirements.

So, since some here claim the only relevant factor is cost, this configuration is inevitable..

Maybe that's the explanation for the optional exit ...
How is the A350 @10ab ?

817Dreamliiner wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Has anyone done the math around the feasability of 11 abreast 777x ? I know it would be very tight (9 abreat A330/10 abreast A350 tight) but would it be possible ?

Seat width at 11 abreast would be:

~16.27" with 1.5" armrests and 17" aisles
~16.7" with 1" armrests and 18" aisles
~15.8" with 2" armrests and 16" aisles

Based on minimum aisle width requirements.

So it would technicly be doable ... hopefully this goes down the same path as the 9 abreat A330's as in "exception rather than the norm".
1" armrests do seem rather thin if you're going for the most livable configuration.

Bottom line (pun intended) is that at 17.4" you are getting the same ( or more) as you do on many 744's which have been buzzing around for 20+ years.So whilst one might 'want' a wider seat (of course) no one can complain as it is clearly not a degrade in 'standard' service.

Since so many airlines have converted their 773,s to x10 it will clearly be an upgrade when it arrives.You might notice a downgrade if you fly on one of the (very) few airlines that are still X9 though.

If you really want noticeable additional comfort long distance in Y there is only one aircraft type that can offer this.

For 10 abreast, 18" seat, 1.5" armrest, 17" aisle looks like the best compromise imo

In the table below seat width is shown at different aisle width and with 2 inch armrests. The 777x @ 10 abreast has the same seat, aisle and armrest width as the 787 @ 9 abreast. The short haul 737 has slightly better seat, aisle and armrest width than the long to ultra-long 777x and 787. 777x @ 11 abreast is not possible. The A380 @ 10 abreast on the main deck and 8 abreast on the upper deck is better than a 777x @ 9 abreast and a 787 @ 8 abreast. Also note that the A350 @ 9 abreast is worse, in regards to seat width, than common configurations of any other Airbus aircraft. A350s with 10 abreast seating is already flying (Air Carabies).



I think the importance of seat width is exaggerated by some posters. Yesterday I self connected at LGW between flights operated by the European LCC Easyjet and Norwegian. They operate A320 family aircraft and 737/787 aircraft respectively. Yes, I measured seat, armrest and aisle width. They both have the same seat and armrest width. The difference is in aisle width, and I must say that Easyjets 26 inch wide aisle (> 40 % wider than on Norwegian) makes a huge difference. No passenger or FA dumps into you in your aisle seat, and it is possible to easily pass the trolleys or other passengers on your way to the toilet. Boarding and disembarking goes more quickly. Aisle width is just as (or maybe more important) than seat width in my option.

There are a number of comments about the engine ground clearance. The ACAP sheets show minimum clearance at 28" for the 788 and 24" for the 789. No value yet for the 78X but some other dimensions from bottom of doors to the ground shows the 78X the same as the 789.

sunrisevalley wrote:

There are a number of comments about the engine ground clearance. The ACAP sheets show minimum clearance at 28" for the 788 and 24" for the 789. No value yet for the 78X but some other dimensions from bottom of doors to the ground shows the 78X the same as the 789.

Shouldn't be any difference since it's the same airframe, just with a fuselage stretch.

WIederling wrote:

waly777 wrote:

I imagine the GE9X will also see pips over time too.

The brochure advantages of the 777X/GE9X combo are applicable at EIS ( 2020/21 )
relative advantage over the A350 referenced published targets for that frames EIS. ( 2017 )

i.e. for the three "interregnum years" the A350 turns into a moving target via airframe and engine tweaks.
IMU the smaller A35k could be on par for 779X EIS ( actually better by A350k to 779X scaling effects.)

From there on both start to move. Question is if both frames have similar design potential.

Those are quite a few assumptions based on your opinion. By that logic, the GE9x should see more PIPs as the XWB on the 35K is closer to max capability considering the changes required to get 97klb thrust. Fact remains, the XWB will get tweaks and improvements, as will the GE9X. Neither will be a standing target.

A quick Google suggests TBD = To be determined.
When one does not actually know what an acronym means, better check, it is often a surprise

Matt6461 wrote:

Per the ACAP, standard LD3's have gone from 44 on the 77W to 48 on the 779. There is also an option for 50 LD3's.

B779 needs more belly space anyway for the bags of the additional passengers.

So no. Boeing is not reducing the 779's cargo capabilities.

Are you sure the 77W never hits a weight restriction? I feel something has to give but cannot put my finger on it. If both 77W and 779 carry the same payload, and the 779 does not hit weight restrictions, does that mean the 77W is over built? Usually a higher OEW is being compensated by a MTOW bump, but that's not happening on the 777X.

[quote="KarelXWB"] I feel something has to give but cannot put my finger on it. If both 77W and 779 carry the same payload, and the 779 does not hit weight restrictions, does that mean the 77W is over built? [quote]

This is only so up to -5700nm. After that the 779 payload becomes increasingly greater.

KarelXWB wrote:

does that mean the 77W is over built?

Yeah that's precisely my point.
The 77W as well as A380 and other frames that are built for max-density configs plus the ability to carry cargo.
In today's market, there simply aren't many cases in which you'll want 500+ pax in a 77W plus the ability to cargo.
Even if the absence of such capability would affect an order here or there, the gains in other sales and in the ability to price ALL sales according to the efficiency savings likely far outweigh the foregone orders.

KarelXWB wrote:

B779 needs more belly space anyway for the bags of the additional passengers.

Using Leeham's estimate of 26 pax bags per LD3, the B779 needs ~1 more LD3 versus 77W, but offers 4-6.

KarelXWB wrote:

I feel something has to give but cannot put my finger on it.

You're focused on the wrong issue. The limit on belly cargo is typically volume, not weight. (again, where range isn't the issue. I'm only arguing that the structural reinforcement for excessive payload isn't worth the efficiency penalty)

Stitch wrote:

Shouldn't be any difference since it's the same airframe, just with a fuselage stretch.

Part of the difference maybe the engine diameter. The 788 may show the 64k engine whereas the 789 shows the 74k engine. Also the tire diameters may have an effect.

Stitch wrote:

And I suppose you're exhausted by the millions of people every day who seem to agree that 1" doesn't matter (or matter enough) since they continue to fly on Boeing even when offered the option of Airbus (as so many long-haul and even many short-haul airlines operate both OEM's equipment).

Using the sales of the 777 as some kind of justification is looking at the trees and not seeing the woods, but then again I don't think you are here to debate about the comfort of Y seats in the 777 as much as defending the company line. Its great that the 777X will have more space than the 777, but seeing as seat manufacturers are advertising 17.4" seats it makes a little mockery of the Boeing marketing numbers. Then again it is Boeing marketing so you may just buy that bridge of that guy if you believe what they tell you.

sunrisevalley wrote:

Stitch wrote:

Shouldn't be any difference since it's the same airframe, just with a fuselage stretch.

Part of the difference maybe the engine diameter. The 788 may show the 64k engine whereas the 789 shows the 74k engine. Also the tire diameters may have an effect.

Sorry - meant to say there shouldn't be a difference between the 787-9 and 787-10.

enzo011 wrote:

Using the sales of the 777 as some kind of justification is looking at the trees and not seeing the woods, but then again I don't think you are here to debate about the comfort of Y seats in the 777 as much as defending the company line.

It's not a case of "defending the company line". It's a case of combating hyperbole.

To listen to some people on this forum, that one inch of seat width - be it Economy, Premium Economy, Business or First Class - literally makes a flight - be it 15 minutes or 15 hours in duration - "tolerable" or "intolerable". And while it is unreasonable or even unfair for people to state that folks should just pay more for more comfort, we have people claiming that "the public" will in fact pay more to fly an A320 over a 737 or an A330/A350 over a 777/787 to get that one inch - even if they give up legroom to do it (like EK's 10-abreast 777, which have 34" pitch - 3-4" more than many competitor's A330s/A350s).

Seat width plays as much a role of comfort in premium cabins as it does in non-premium. I prefer the 20-21" wide seats of the 747/777 over the 19" wide seats in the 767, for example. But I'm not going to book a one-stop 777 over a non-stop 767 for that one inch. Nor will I pay more for a 747/777 flight over a 767 flight that meets my other trip criteria. And I am certainly not going to claim that "the premium cabin public" will take longer routings or pay a fair bit more for a 20" wide Business Class seat over a 19" wide one.

enzo011 wrote:

Stitch wrote:

And I suppose you're exhausted by the millions of people every day who seem to agree that 1" doesn't matter (or matter enough) since they continue to fly on Boeing even when offered the option of Airbus (as so many long-haul and even many short-haul airlines operate both OEM's equipment).

Using the sales of the 777 as some kind of justification is looking at the trees and not seeing the woods, but then again I don't think you are here to debate about the comfort of Y seats in the 777 as much as defending the company line.

Boy, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. Seriously, disparaging Stitch like that is quite unnecessary, particularly when you - yet again - go out of your way to disparage Boeing in your comments.

KarelXWB wrote:

The aircraft is larger though, sounds like the 777-9 will sacrifice cargo capabilities for additional passengers.

Larger wing, larger horizontal stab, larger vertical stab, longer fuselage, larger engines, larger gear, more passenger seats, longer cargo bay

"Compared to the 777-300ER, the 777-9X
– Overall length is 2.9 m (9.4 ft) longer
– Folded wingspan same, unfolded wingspan is 7 m (22.8 ft) wider
– Horizontal stabilizer is 3.0 m (9.9 ft) wider
– Wheelbase is 1.1 m (3.6 ft) longer
– Distance from the nose to the nose landing gear remains the same
– Engine to fuselage centerline is 1.0 m (3.3 ft) further outboard
– Vertical tail max. height is < 1.0 m (< 3.0 ft) higher
– Main landing gear width is 0.2 m (6 in) narrower"

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commer ... ochure.pdf

Stitch wrote:

To listen to some people on this forum, that one inch of seat width - be it Economy, Premium Economy, Business or First Class - literally makes a flight - be it 15 minutes or 15 hours in duration - "tolerable" or "intolerable". And while it is unreasonable or even unfair for people to state that folks should just pay more for more comfort, we have people claiming that "the public" will in fact pay more to fly an A320 over a 737 or an A330/A350 over a 777/787 to get that one inch - even if they give up legroom to do it (like EK's 10-abreast 777, which have 34" pitch - 3-4" more than many competitor's A330s/A350s).

Seat width plays as much a role of comfort in premium cabins as it does in non-premium. I prefer the 20-21" wide seats of the 747/777 over the 19" wide seats in the 767, for example. But I'm not going to book a one-stop 777 over a non-stop 767 for that one inch. Nor will I pay more for a 747/777 flight over a 767 flight that meets my other trip criteria. And I am certainly not going to claim that "the premium cabin public" will take longer routings or pay a fair bit more for a 20" wide Business Class seat over a 19" wide one.

I think when there is no real option, people fly whatever is available and cheaper. But if there is an option, people pick the better seats. I don't have hard numbers but two examples:
1) I know quite a number of people, who when flying EK ensure their route is A380 instead of 777. For example, some routes have both A380 and 777 and about 3 different timings to complete it. Some, but not everyone, will pick the timing which ensures A380 only.
2) SQ used to have 2 flights to FRA: a 9 abreast 77W SIN-FRA-SIN and a 747 SIN-FRA-JFK-FRA-SIN. I did my best (and I was not the only one in my company) to avoid the 747 and fly 77W. Later the 747 was replaced by an A380 with significantly more seats than the 747 and not only we stopped avoiding the flight which come from/went on to JFK, it also became harder to book a ticket on that flight as it was often full, while I had not seen the 747 full for a long time. Of course other than seat width (the reason I avoided the 747), the entertainment system was also crappy and outdated on the 747.

I have to admit that with both examples, you looking at same airline and same fare. But comfort is a factor especially if you fly 8+ hours. For myself seat width is a big factor and in 9-abreast 777 or in a A380, my shoulders take the full width of the seat and if there is a big guy next to me we rub shoulders all the way (I had that on a 9-abreast 77W flight once and it was unpleasant for both of us). I can notice that the A350 is more cramped than 9-abreast 777 by just sitting down and rubbing shoulders with the passenger seated next to me (armrest are half the width on A350 than they are on 77W).

Zeke wrote:

larger horizontal stab, larger vertical stab

Are we sure that the stabilizers are bigger in area as well as span/height?
There are reasons to think yes/no on each side:

Reasons for bigger control surfaces:

• lower takeoff speeds so probably a lower minimum control speed target, thus a need for more lift from control surfaces

On the other hand:

• larger moment arm from the fuselage stretch
• lower max thrust from engines, even beyond the SLS rating due to greater thrust lapse sensitivity of higher-BPR engines

From just eyeballing the drawings, it's at least conceivable that the stabilizers are smaller. But at least as conceivable that they are both larger and longer.

AngMoh wrote:

I think when there is no real option, people fly whatever is available and cheaper. But if there is an option, people pick the better seats. I don't have hard numbers but two examples:
1) I know quite a number of people, who when flying EK ensure their route is A380 instead of 777. For example, some routes have both A380 and 777 and about 3 different timings to complete it. Some, but not everyone, will pick the timing which ensures A380 only.

Well I prefer the A380 over the 777 when flying EK and the First Class suites are the same. But I prefer the wider and quieter cabin along with the higher cabin pressure and greater cabin humidity of the A380. So even if EK's 777s were 9-abreast with the same seats as the A380, I think most people having flown both would prefer the A380.

AngMoh wrote:

But comfort is a factor especially if you fly 8+ hours. For myself seat width is a big factor and in 9-abreast 777 or in a A380, my shoulders take the full width of the seat and if there is a big guy next to me we rub shoulders all the way (I had that on a 9-abreast 77W flight once and it was unpleasant for both of us). I can notice that the A350 is more cramped than 9-abreast 777 by just sitting down and rubbing shoulders with the passenger seated next to me (armrest are half the width on A350 than they are on 77W).

Again, no argument with folks saying they prefer wider seats or that wider seats are more comfortable. My...beef...is with people who claim that Boeing planes are just untenable because the seat is 1-2cm less wide and that no one would ever choose a Boeing plane if they could get an Airbus model. Many airlines operate flights with both OEM's products on the same routes or routes of similar lengths and the Boeing planes don't go out at significantly lower load factors. And where you have two airlines operating the same route, one with Boeing and one with Airbus, the Boeing operator doesn't have to offer lower (much less steeply lower) fares to generate traffic nor are the load-factors significantly different between them.

817Dreamliiner wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Has anyone done the math around the feasability of 11 abreast 777x ? I know it would be very tight (9 abreat A330/10 abreast A350 tight) but would it be possible ?

Seat width at 11 abreast would be:

~16.27" with 1.5" armrests and 17" aisles
~16.7" with 1" armrests and 18" aisles
~15.8" with 2" armrests and 16" aisles

Based on minimum aisle width requirements.

I hope this will come in the future. It will help to reduce the ticket price further or keep it constant in face of rising costs.

16,7" seat, 1" armrest and 28" pitch.

waly777 wrote:

Those are quite a few assumptions based on your opinion. By that logic, the GE9x should see more PIPs as the XWB on the 35K is closer to max capability considering the changes required to get 97klb thrust. Fact remains, the XWB will get tweaks and improvements, as will the GE9X. Neither will be a standing target.

Facts. not opinion.

Spec datum as offered is projected to be achieved at EIS.
That is 2017 for the A35K and 2020/21 for the 779X.
Comparisons made reference EIS spec for both types. i.e. they compare a 2017 A35K to a 2020/21 779X.

From there on each frame moves upwards in the regularly observed process of mini to minor pips.
That says that the A35K moves while the 779X still tries to sail "at spec" over the EIS line.

That is not difficult to understand, is it?

Matt6461 wrote:

Are we sure that the stabilizers are bigger in area as well as span/height?

The part in quotes was directly from the Boeing 777X Airport Compatibility Brochure in the link I provided. Boeing overlaid the 77X over the 77W and you can easily see the larger size.