Boeing 777X - Updated Information And Developments

Eyad89 · Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:15 pm

neutrino wrote:
Polot wrote:
anshabhi wrote:
Just saying, both the owners of Vistara are richer than Dubai govt. (Tata Group and SQ's parent Temasek Holdings).

But I suspect EK is far more important to the Dubai government than Vistara is to Tata and Temasek

(You have to be careful when looking at groups like Tata. Generally they are reporting the money from all the companies in the group. But the leaders of Tata are probably not going to drain Tata Motors, for example, in order to keep Vistara afloat.)

Same argument goes for state owners. No sane government is going to drain their other ministries to keep their national carrier afloat.

I think there is a difference. EK for example promotes for Dubai, those who fly EK are more likely to visit dubai and spend their money there. Even if EK was losing money, the money it brings into the economy of UAE in general would be a lot more. On the other hand, Tata doesn't car how much money it brings into the Indian economy, well it is a private company.

chiki · Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:53 pm

boeing has started building the first wing (under a paywall)
http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... -777x-wing

seabosdca · Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:32 am

I wouldn't be too worried about EK 777X orders. If there is a significant downturn in EK traffic, the 777X seems like just the A380 replacement the doctor ordered. If there is no downturn, it's a good early 777-300ER replacement. Either way, the order seems safe.

sadiqutp · Mon Jul 03, 2017 7:08 pm

Boeing published a short montage of the composite wing factory

https://twitter.com/BoeingAirplanes/sta ... 6469749760

WIederling · Tue Jul 04, 2017 9:54 am

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

There was this up and down on laminar flow application to the 787 tail.
IMU done more to increase effectiveness than reducing drag.
discontinued.

No idea how that influenced tail size.

OldAeroGuy · Tue Jul 04, 2017 1:15 pm

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

There was this up and down on laminar flow application to the 787 tail.
IMU done more to increase effectiveness than reducing drag.
discontinued.

No idea how that influenced tail size.

Don't forget that the wing area increased on the 777X compared to the 773ER.

The small aft body stretch wasn't enough to offset the larger wing, requiring a larger h. tail for basic stability.

WIederling · Tue Jul 04, 2017 5:36 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
The small aft body stretch wasn't enough to offset the larger wing, requiring a larger h. tail for basic stability.

Isn't that mostly due the larger lever from engines placed further out on the wing?

Matt6461 · Tue Jul 04, 2017 7:12 pm

WIederling wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
The small aft body stretch wasn't enough to offset the larger wing, requiring a larger h. tail for basic stability.

Isn't that mostly due the larger lever from engines placed further out on the wing?

OAG mentioned the H-tail, which wouldn't relate to OEI moment.
A bigger wing means slower speeds for critical rotation or approach cases. Lower speed means less control lift unless you increase HStab Cl or area. CL is probably already maxed out so you have to increase area.

Same would apply to V tail. Idk whether the lever effect or thrust effect is bigger for the 777-9; the difference in V-tail size might relate primarily to lower Mca speed.

Boeing778X · Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:25 pm

chiki wrote:
boeing has started building the first wing (under a paywall)
http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... -777x-wing

Most likely for the stress test.

VirginFlyer · Wed Jul 05, 2017 9:23 pm

Boeing778X wrote:
chiki wrote:
boeing has started building the first wing (under a paywall)
http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... -777x-wing

Most likely for the stress test.

Yes, the first few sentences (not under the paywall) say:

Boeing has begun production of the first wing spar for the initial 777X static test aircraft inside the company’s Composite Wing Center (CWC) at Everett, Washington, marking a key milestone in the development of its new large long-range flagship. Construction of the first one-piece composite spar comes as Boeing passes the 70% design release point on the 777-9, the first of the two 777X variants to be produced. Progress has been so smooth that the company confirms it is also studying ...

V/F

keesje · Thu Jul 06, 2017 10:49 am

.
I'm getting a little restless about the 777-8 / 777-9. Everyone is looking brave but I'm probably not the only one.

2 Customer take 65% of the backlog. Those are not the most predictable customers in the most stable, un political environment.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/03/trump-qatar-phone-call-arab-leaders-240193

There are 5 additional customers that signed over the last 4 years. All but ANA are in the A350 backlog too.

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.

rotating14 · Thu Jul 06, 2017 1:04 pm

keesje wrote:
.
I'm getting a little restless about the 777-8 / 777-9. Everyone is looking brave but I'm probably not the only one.

2 Customer take 65% of the backlog. Those are not the most predictable customers in the most stable, un political environment.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/03/trump-qatar-phone-call-arab-leaders-240193

There are 5 additional customers that signed over the last 4 years. All but ANA are in the A350 backlog too.

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.

One customer (EK) has more than 65% of the A380 backlog and fleet. What's your point?? There's no reason to be restless about the 777-9 or the 777-8. The fact that other airlines have purchased both types says that they can be flown side by side. Sure, the 77W offers no guarantee for the future but you're wrong about it being a different aircraft. It's a derivative of the 77W, (new wing, engine, LDG).

But, if return on investment is your aim, the A350-1000 has much less return so far vs the 779, 273 vs 211. = )

texl1649 · Thu Jul 06, 2017 1:27 pm

Of course projection seems to be the case here Keesje. The A350-1000 has been on the market how much longer than the 779? How many sales campaigns has the latter lost over the past 12-24 months? Which model is most likely to have a newer/larger version launched next which will functionally kill off the quad jumbo era?

I find it interesting that Airbus has married the A350 to a much lower aspect ratio wing than even the A330NEO. Their wing philosophy is quite different from Boeing for these two competitors.

frmrCapCadet · Thu Jul 06, 2017 1:43 pm

Given the high possibility that both the 748 and 380 (two of those unlucky 8s again) have entered the dead parrot stage (but the coroner has been delayed) the big 777s are likely well (or at least OK) positioned. When it comes to VLA one needs a lot of ( )( )s

keesje · Thu Jul 06, 2017 3:01 pm

Of course Emirates takes nearly half of the A380 orders. But there are 10-15 other customers and more importantly; they aren't just in the orderbook, EK took 95.

I'm less restless about the A350-1000, because nobody seems to be. There are about 850 A350's on order, the -1000 flies & outperforms.
So probably half the -900 backlog will leave the FAL as -1000. An usual upgrade like happened before to e.g. the 787, A321 and 767.

Sure, the 77W offers no guarantee for the future but you're wrong about it being a different aircraft. It's a derivative of the 77W, (new wing, engine, LDG)

Like the A340-600 was a A330 derivative? Even the 777 fuselage holds new material & structure. For me that makes it a 60-70% new aircraft. With the costs that come with it.

The market situation changed significantly over the last 15 years, as sales show.

Most 77W operators ordered A350s (AA-UA-DL, SQ-MH-CX-JAL, KL-AF-BA, the Chinese, Asiana, many more) That was not the situation 15 years ago when the 777W started selling.

E.g. Korean, Qantas, AF might still be interested, but no guarantees. We have to be realistic here, probably this is not what GE, Boeing and Washington State hoped for in 2013.

Newbiepilot · Thu Jul 06, 2017 3:14 pm

Keesje,

I would be worried if the 777 was losing sales campaigns to the A350-1000 Or other planes, but is It? If there aren't any airlines ordering 300+ seat planes right now then that is more of a reflection on the market rather than plane. The market probably will recover one day. How many net sales in the form of firm orders has the A350 had in the last 4 years, maybe like 40 right? If no one wants to order big twins right now, I don't think the 777x not getting orders reflects much on the actual airframe.

keesje · Thu Jul 06, 2017 3:28 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Keesje,

I would be worried if the 777 was losing sales campaigns to the A350-1000 Or other planes, but is It? If there aren't any airlines ordering 300+ seat planes right now then that is more of a reflection on the market rather than plane. The market probably will recover one day. How many net sales has the A350 had in the last 4 years, maybe like 40 right? If no one wants to order big twins right now, I don't think the 777x not getting orders reflects much on the actual airframe.

The A350 took 15 new customers (5 A350-1000) in the last 4 years, half of them 777 operators. Many will have -1000 conversions rights that they will actually activate. An entirely different situation than the 777X. It seems many see / understand this, but prefer to ignore. Which is not a problem, just not a a realistic impression of the 777-/-9 situation at this stage.

Newbiepilot · Thu Jul 06, 2017 3:37 pm

What airlines are looking at new A350-1000s or 777 orders and which ones ordered the A350 instead of the 777-8/9 in the past 4 years? Which of those 15 orders were new competitive sales campaigns against the 777 and A350. The 777-300ER has been stealing sales from the 777-8/9 as well.

seabosdca · Thu Jul 06, 2017 4:21 pm

EK is indeed operating in an uncertain environment, but the thing that is least uncertain about them is that they will need the 777X. If they have to downsize, it will make a fine A380 replacement. If they are able to resume growth, it will make a fine 777-300ER replacement (and, if Airbus is unable to justify an A380neo, eventually an A380 replacement as well once DWC is in full operation).

ILNFlyer · Thu Jul 06, 2017 5:26 pm

keesje wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
Keesje,

I would be worried if the 777 was losing sales campaigns to the A350-1000 Or other planes, but is It? If there aren't any airlines ordering 300+ seat planes right now then that is more of a reflection on the market rather than plane. The market probably will recover one day. How many net sales has the A350 had in the last 4 years, maybe like 40 right? If no one wants to order big twins right now, I don't think the 777x not getting orders reflects much on the actual airframe.

The A350 took 15 new customers (5 A350-1000) in the last 4 years, half of them 777 operators. Many will have -1000 conversions rights that they will actually activate. An entirely different situation than the 777X. It seems many see / understand this, but prefer to ignore. Which is not a problem, just not a a realistic impression of the 777-/-9 situation at this stage.

I suppose Boeing should just :white:

StTim · Thu Jul 06, 2017 5:34 pm

I thought that was what Airbus had to do

Bricktop · Thu Jul 06, 2017 5:51 pm

keesje wrote:
So probably half the -900 backlog will leave the FAL as -1000. An usual upgrade like happened before to e.g. the 787, A321 and 767.

Hold on a sec. I am having difficulty keeping up with the spin. Weren't upgauges/conversions a terrible thing just last week with the 737-10?

PlanesNTrains · Thu Jul 06, 2017 5:53 pm

ILNFlyer wrote:
keesje wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
Keesje,

I would be worried if the 777 was losing sales campaigns to the A350-1000 Or other planes, but is It? If there aren't any airlines ordering 300+ seat planes right now then that is more of a reflection on the market rather than plane. The market probably will recover one day. How many net sales has the A350 had in the last 4 years, maybe like 40 right? If no one wants to order big twins right now, I don't think the 777x not getting orders reflects much on the actual airframe.

The A350 took 15 new customers (5 A350-1000) in the last 4 years, half of them 777 operators. Many will have -1000 conversions rights that they will actually activate. An entirely different situation than the 777X. It seems many see / understand this, but prefer to ignore. Which is not a problem, just not a a realistic impression of the 777-/-9 situation at this stage.

I suppose Boeing should just

If I had a dollar for every condescending comment like this that Keesje had made on A.net, I'd be rich.

The outcome of the 777X sales success is still to be written. Having a different point of view on it is fine. Telling others that they "prefer to ignore" the reality that is Keesje POV is really what takes these conversations from healthy to unproductive.

texl1649 · Thu Jul 06, 2017 6:01 pm

Again, the 77W replacement cycle hasn't kicked in yet really. As we approach another anniversary of the July 14, 2006 launch of the A350, it's a little silly, even for A.net discussions, to focus on why the A350-1000 still has fewer sales than the 779, or any permutation thereof.

After dickering for many years with an A330 derivative, the A350 frame is 11 inches narrower than the 777, and can't grow as the eventual 77-10 can, nor are her wings designed to facilitate such expansion. The 359 is a great competitor. The question is, what combination of 359 and other birds will 77W operators go with over the next decade.

Stitch · Thu Jul 06, 2017 6:05 pm

Bricktop wrote:
keesje wrote:
So probably half the -900 backlog will leave the FAL as -1000. An usual upgrade like happened before to e.g. the 787, A321 and 767.

Hold on a sec. I am having difficulty keeping up with the spin. Weren't upgauges/conversions a terrible thing just last week with the 737-10?

ILNFlyer wrote:
I suppose Boeing should just

keesje is becoming the new Halibut, except it's now Boeing that's always "in a pickle". :biggrin:

keesje wrote:
The market situation changed significantly over the last 15 years, as sales show.

Yes, towards larger models. Many 777-200ER ULH operators first moved to the 777-300ER and later added in more seats to those frames. That trend should flatter the larger 777-9 in some RFPs.

The A350-1000 is a hell of a plane, but three customers of the type - all of them in two of the fastest-growing airline traffic areas of the world (the Middle East and Asia)- feel they needed a larger aircraft and have found their answer in the 777-9. And five other A350 family customers, the significant majority also in the Middle East and Asia, seem to feel at the moment that the A350-1000 is not large enough for their needs and have ordered the 777-9.

We have to be realistic here, probably this is not what GE, Boeing and Washington State hoped for in 2013.

The 777-9 has secured one-third as many orders as the 777-300ER has in one-fourth of the time. And the 777-8 has almost matched the 777-200LR's order book in one-fourth the time. So yeah, they must all be really disappointed. :sarcastic:

81819 · Thu Jul 06, 2017 6:05 pm

Out of the 45 customers who have ordered the A350, 21 of them are current 777 operators.

So that means in the ten years the aeroplane has been in the market, only twenty one of the fifty five 777 airline operators have seen the A350 as an alternative. Not a glowing endorsement in my book.

If we consider airlines Like United Airlines and Delta have deferred deliveries of the A350 and either placed new orders for previous generation 777-300ER's or added second hand 777-200ER's to their fleets, we have to ask ourselves where does the value equation for the A350 (or other new aircraft) actually sit.

The A350 has a relatively broad customer base with airlines using the aircraft to replace A330's, A340's and 777's (more airlines are using the A350 to replace another Airbus aircraft than they are to replace a Boeing aircraft).

In reality, all this means is the market for new aircraft has fragmented. There are eleven airlines that once had a A330 and 777 combo fleet, planning to have the A330, 787, A350 and 777 in their fleets.

As such the market is changing.

sxf24 · Thu Jul 06, 2017 6:06 pm

keesje wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
Keesje,

I would be worried if the 777 was losing sales campaigns to the A350-1000 Or other planes, but is It? If there aren't any airlines ordering 300+ seat planes right now then that is more of a reflection on the market rather than plane. The market probably will recover one day. How many net sales has the A350 had in the last 4 years, maybe like 40 right? If no one wants to order big twins right now, I don't think the 777x not getting orders reflects much on the actual airframe.

The A350 took 15 new customers (5 A350-1000) in the last 4 years, half of them 777 operators. Many will have -1000 conversions rights that they will actually activate. An entirely different situation than the 777X. It seems many see / understand this, but prefer to ignore. Which is not a problem, just not a a realistic impression of the 777-/-9 situation at this stage.

It is fairly unheard of for conversion rights to exist when airplanes are equipped with different engines. I doubt that Rolls-Royce would be excited, or willing, to introduce this type of volatility into their business outlook.

Conversion rights for models with the same engine, albeit with different thrust ratings, is quite common.

neutronstar73 · Thu Jul 06, 2017 6:18 pm

Stitch wrote:
Bricktop wrote:
keesje wrote:
So probably half the -900 backlog will leave the FAL as -1000. An usual upgrade like happened before to e.g. the 787, A321 and 767.

Hold on a sec. I am having difficulty keeping up with the spin. Weren't upgauges/conversions a terrible thing just last week with the 737-10?

ILNFlyer wrote:
I suppose Boeing should just

keesje is becoming the new Halibut, except it's now Boeing that's always "in a pickle".

keesje wrote:
The market situation changed significantly over the last 15 years, as sales show.

Yes, towards larger models. Many 777-200ER ULH operators first moved to the 777-300ER and later added in more seats to those frames. That trend should flatter the larger 777-9 in some RFPs.

The A350-1000 is a hell of a plane, but three customers of the type - all of them in two of the fastest-growing airline traffic areas of the world (the Middle East and Asia)- feel they needed a larger aircraft and have found their answer in the 777-9. And five other A350 family customers, the significant majority also in the Middle East and Asia, seem to feel at the moment that the A350-1000 is not large enough for their needs and have ordered the 777-9.

We have to be realistic here, probably this is not what GE, Boeing and Washington State hoped for in 2013.

The 777-9 has secured one-third as many orders as the 777-300ER has in one-fourth of the time. And the 777-8 has almost matched the 777-200LR's order book in one-fourth the time. So yeah, they must all be really disappointed.

I've been away from A.net for a while but Stitch you always have great comments and make me laugh. Not laughing at you, but your canny wit and ability to break these arguments down. Thanks!

neutronstar73 · Thu Jul 06, 2017 6:20 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
ILNFlyer wrote:
keesje wrote:

The A350 took 15 new customers (5 A350-1000) in the last 4 years, half of them 777 operators. Many will have -1000 conversions rights that they will actually activate. An entirely different situation than the 777X. It seems many see / understand this, but prefer to ignore. Which is not a problem, just not a a realistic impression of the 777-/-9 situation at this stage.

I suppose Boeing should just

If I had a dollar for every condescending comment like this that Keesje had made on A.net, I'd be rich.

The outcome of the 777X sales success is still to be written. Having a different point of view on it is fine. Telling others that they "prefer to ignore" the reality that is Keesje POV is really what takes these conversations from healthy to unproductive.

Aww, Man...that's funny! I don't know why, but the "if I had a dollar" comment has me all bent up!

enzo011 · Thu Jul 06, 2017 6:54 pm

Bricktop wrote:
keesje wrote:
So probably half the -900 backlog will leave the FAL as -1000. An usual upgrade like happened before to e.g. the 787, A321 and 767.

Hold on a sec. I am having difficulty keeping up with the spin. Weren't upgauges/conversions a terrible thing just last week with the 737-10?

Depends if you count the conversions as new orders or just acknowledge them as conversions. Conversions aren't a bad thing at all, especially as Stitch has posted before they are sold for a higher margin, but they shouldn't be confused for new orders which seemed to happen last week.

Polot · Thu Jul 06, 2017 7:00 pm

enzo011 wrote:
Bricktop wrote:
keesje wrote:
So probably half the -900 backlog will leave the FAL as -1000. An usual upgrade like happened before to e.g. the 787, A321 and 767.

Hold on a sec. I am having difficulty keeping up with the spin. Weren't upgauges/conversions a terrible thing just last week with the 737-10?

Depends if you count the conversions as new orders or just acknowledge them as conversions. Conversions aren't a bad thing at all, especially as Stitch has posted before they are sold for a higher margin, but they shouldn't be confused for new orders which seemed to happen last week.

Nobody two weeks ago was confusing the conversions as new orders, unless initial PR wasn't clear.

Some people had opinions on whether the conversions were a proper indication of the 737-10 success at launch however.

Momo1435 · Thu Jul 06, 2017 7:49 pm

I believe that Boeing must have been very happy with the Singapore Airlines order, the 777X program really needed that one. Even if it was just to reassure the market that the program is not just alive, but still very much kicking.

As for the competition, the main problem of the A350-1000 is the success of the -900. I don't see too much upwards movement there, just a couple of upward conversion. If everyone wanted to go to the -1000 the fast majority of the new orders wouldn't still be for the -900. The main difference with the 787 is that the -1000 doesn't have the clear advantage over the -900 like the -9 had over the -8 for both the manufacturer and the airlines. Airlines having young 777 fleets + relative low fuel prices mean that the -1000 best year are still to come. But those best years will only come after many many A350-900 deliveries.

Stitch · Thu Jul 06, 2017 8:33 pm

I agree that we're still too early into the 777-300ER replacement cycle to really be worried about either the 777-9's and A350-1000's (and even the 787-10's) long-term sales prospects. The A350-900 and 787-9 are both delivering into the current sweet-spot of the market which is why they're both generating the orders at the moment.

The A350-1000 and 777-9 are also fighting against top-up orders of the 777-300ER by the carriers currently seeing growth. Yes, the 779 and A35K will handily beat a 77W on fuel-efficiency, but fuel is cheap at the moment and 77Ws are available soon, they're available cheap and if you already have them in your fleet, they directly leverage your existing crew training and MRO environments.

IslandRob · Thu Jul 06, 2017 8:56 pm

Stitch wrote:
The A350-1000 and 777-9 are also fighting against top-up orders of the 777-300ER by the carriers currently seeing growth. Yes, the 779 and A35K will handily beat a 77W on fuel-efficiency, but fuel is cheap at the moment and 77Ws are available soon, they're available cheap and if you already have them in your fleet, they directly leverage your existing crew training and MRO environments.

Furthermore, the 77W is a low risk/ high reward option. Any 77W production kinks have long since been ironed out, and the airplane has a well-proven record for service and reliability. Airlines can buy it and press it into service with confidence. -ir

PlanesNTrains · Thu Jul 06, 2017 9:18 pm

Essentially, with lower fuel prices and full production lines, the A330ceo/77W duo live on. They are both being neo'd/max'd so will eventually fade away, but it's taking longer than expected. And yes, I know there's more to the coming makeovers, particularly with the 777X, but I'm just trying to keep it simple. :-)

frmrCapCadet · Thu Jul 06, 2017 9:43 pm

A summary I think accurate:
Against the 350, the 777X is about as good but more capable
Against the current 380, A little better and not as capable
Against the 330neo, 787, 350 - it will do OK, but not anything like the 777W did against the competition

And another rule of thumb: Small planes are getting bigger and more capable (the mighty 373s and 320s competing across the Atlantic is astounding)
and big planes are getting fewer, but not all that more capable than smaller planes. Interesting.

mjoelnir · Thu Jul 06, 2017 10:06 pm

Momo1435 wrote:
I believe that Boeing must have been very happy with the Singapore Airlines order, the 777X program really needed that one. Even if it was just to reassure the market that the program is not just alive, but still very much kicking.

As for the competition, the main problem of the A350-1000 is the success of the -900. I don't see too much upwards movement there, just a couple of upward conversion. If everyone wanted to go to the -1000 the fast majority of the new orders wouldn't still be for the -900. The main difference with the 787 is that the -1000 doesn't have the clear advantage over the -900 like the -9 had over the -8 for both the manufacturer and the airlines. Airlines having young 777 fleets + relative low fuel prices mean that the -1000 best year are still to come. But those best years will only come after many many A350-900 deliveries.

How does the A350-1000 do badly with currently 211 orders? What is it that you measure it against? The 787-10 does worse with 149. The 777-9 does better with 273, but is hardly in another dimension. Quite a lot of the conversions from 787-8 to 787-9 happened after the EIS of the 787-9. Let us see what happens next spring.

c933103 · Thu Jul 06, 2017 11:45 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
A summary I think accurate:
Against the 350, the 777X is about as good but more capable
Against the current 380, A little better and not as capable
Against the 330neo, 787, 350 - it will do OK, but not anything like the 777W did against the competition

And another rule of thumb: Small planes are getting bigger and more capable (the mighty 373s and 320s competing across the Atlantic is astounding)
and big planes are getting fewer, but not all that more capable than smaller planes. Interesting.

...777X is about as good as 350 in the same sense that 727 is about as good as 737-Original which doesn't mean much as they aren't targeting the same market
Not sure what do you mean 777X being a little better and not as capable when comparing against A380... I think 777X have more range?
And not sure why 350 is mentioned twice here and not sure why 330neo and 787 are even mentioned when they are clearly competing in a different market segment

SEPilot · Fri Jul 07, 2017 1:05 am

To put the 778/779 in perspective, the 77W essentially had no serious competition. The only plane that beat its per seat economics was the A380, but not by much and with many more seats to fill. Nearly every airline flying long haul bought it, and those that didn't wished they had. Now there are several other planes with nearly the same economics from both manufacturers with a wide range of sizes; the 788, 789, 7810, A359, A3510, 778 and 779 all have very close economics, with quite a range of capacities and ranges. To expect the 779 to match the 77W's sales performance is wishful thinking at best. It does offer the greatest capacity and ultimately the best per seat economics (providing those seats are full) of any of them, and it beats the current A380 and 748. If the world economy and air travel do well, it will be in demand. If air travel falls off for any reason, it will be the most likely of the new crop to suffer. If the world economy tanks then all of them will suffer.

seabosdca · Fri Jul 07, 2017 1:11 am

SEPilot's analysis is good. The 777-9 is still in a nice place, though, as the frame with the greatest capacity at competitive per-seat economics (assuming the A380 doesn't get updated). I certainly wouldn't expect 800 total orders, but 400 seems reasonable, almost all with big blue-chip operators.

The bulk of the widebody market in fast-growing areas, though, will go to the 787-9 and A350-900, with the 787-10 having a nice niche in regional service. The economics of those aircraft are just excellent at their lower capacity level. Lower capacity = less risk.

SEPilot · Fri Jul 07, 2017 1:20 am

Boeing is actually well positioned in the new market of very efficient long-range widebodies, as they have the smallest one (788) and the largest one (779). They also have the only one without 8,000 NM range (the 7810) which offers probably the best economics for customers who don't need the extreme range. Airbus does have the A330NEO, which will appeal to some airlines on the basis of low acquisition cost and probably much quicker delivery than the 787s; but it is a step behind in the efficiency race. The A350 should continue to do very well, but it is sandwiched between the 787 and the 777, and therefore will lose out to them where their capabilities better meet the customer's needs.

frmrCapCadet · Fri Jul 07, 2017 1:38 am

There has not been a previous era in which so many planes could compete against each other in so many routes. Which means airlines can look for planes optimized for the range and passenger size they want. Also noteworthy, in the US it is rare that you can fly anywhere in any of the wide body planes. The 737-320 have pretty well conquered all as main line.

Momo1435 · Fri Jul 07, 2017 5:17 am

mjoelnir wrote:
Momo1435 wrote:
I believe that Boeing must have been very happy with the Singapore Airlines order, the 777X program really needed that one. Even if it was just to reassure the market that the program is not just alive, but still very much kicking.

As for the competition, the main problem of the A350-1000 is the success of the -900. I don't see too much upwards movement there, just a couple of upward conversion. If everyone wanted to go to the -1000 the fast majority of the new orders wouldn't still be for the -900. The main difference with the 787 is that the -1000 doesn't have the clear advantage over the -900 like the -9 had over the -8 for both the manufacturer and the airlines. Airlines having young 777 fleets + relative low fuel prices mean that the -1000 best year are still to come. But those best years will only come after many many A350-900 deliveries.

How does the A350-1000 do badly with currently 211 orders? What is it that you measure it against? The 787-10 does worse with 149. The 777-9 does better with 273, but is hardly in another dimension. Quite a lot of the conversions from 787-8 to 787-9 happened after the EIS of the 787-9. Let us see what happens next spring.

??

Where do you conclude that I think the A350-1000 is doing badly? I'm only saying that the A350-900 is doing better right now and that it's not going to change anytime soon because of the success of the -900. If you compare the sales of the -1000 I would compare it to the sales of the -900, a version that Keesje doesn't seem to like judging from his remarks that most airlines with -900 orders will convert to the -1000 instead. I think that is nonsense.

btw, the 787-10 has the same issue, just with the 787-9 which is also the most popular version of it's family and eats up all the available production slots.

WIederling · Fri Jul 07, 2017 7:05 am

rotating14 wrote:
But, if return on investment is your aim, the A350-1000 has much less return so far vs the 779, 273 vs 211. = )

Near 100% of the 777X order book was filled in the initial selling campaign at no doubt rather "attractive" pricing.
That is a larger percentage of overall orders than we saw with the 787 : 400..450 frames gifted away to show
strong customer interest early. The 787 gained follow up orders ( still with in hind sight too low pricing levels.
777X could up to now not gain much interest beyond the loss leader sales.

mjoelnir · Fri Jul 07, 2017 9:29 am

The 777-8/9 has a good order book looking only at the numbers of sold frames. But all in all it is 8 customers only, with the ME3 being responsible for 72% and Emirates alone 46% of the orders. For the 777-9 there are 5 customers outside the ME and for the 777-8 there are non.
That is not a broad based customer base. But it is still 2 to 3 years to EIS and a successful EIS with real performance numbers for the frame, can have the effect of increasing sales, especially as one does not look at an overwhelming backlog with no near time slots available than.

Revelation · Fri Jul 07, 2017 11:31 am

WIederling wrote:
rotating14 wrote:
But, if return on investment is your aim, the A350-1000 has much less return so far vs the 779, 273 vs 211. = )

Near 100% of the 777X order book was filled in the initial selling campaign at no doubt rather "attractive" pricing.
That is a larger percentage of overall orders than we saw with the 787 : 400..450 frames gifted away to show
strong customer interest early. The 787 gained follow up orders ( still with in hind sight too low pricing levels.
777X could up to now not gain much interest beyond the loss leader sales.

Pretty much every program starts with a burst of launch orders then things quiet down till the plane is in service at least for a few months so people can see real data. The 787 program had the good fortune of excellent market timing (marred by terrible program execution) whereas the 77X was introduced into what was widely called a "widebody glut". We won't know if the 77X is a success until the early/mid 2020s. The A350-1000 is also having unfortunate market timing but the real data should be arriving soon, and I bet it will look great.

texl1649 · Fri Jul 07, 2017 12:00 pm

The 779 has lost precisely one significant sales campaign, to my knowledge. The 2013 JAL decision was a disappointment to Boeing I'm sure. But whatever, it's tough to panic in 2017 about that single order.

seabosdca · Fri Jul 07, 2017 4:14 pm

WIederling wrote:
Near 100% of the 777X order book was filled in the initial selling campaign at no doubt rather "attractive" pricing.
That is a larger percentage of overall orders than we saw with the 787 : 400..450 frames gifted away to show
strong customer interest early. The 787 gained follow up orders ( still with in hind sight too low pricing levels.
777X could up to now not gain much interest beyond the loss leader sales.

I can only imagine the names you would call me if I characterized A350 launch orders as aircraft "gifted away." (We won't talk about Delta's A330neo order.)

The 777X is not a brand-new frame with enormous risk for operators, and at the time of the 777X launch Boeing was still trying to support 777-300ER premium pricing (which is no longer true today). I'm sure the 777X launch pricing was attractive. I'm also sure it wasn't loss-making, assuming the program accounting block is the right size.

The 787 was a different animal. Boeing sold the launch orders with far too much optimism about the efficiencies its MBA-approved, supplier-proof new production system would bring to the table, and did indeed lose a lot of money on them.

Stitch · Fri Jul 07, 2017 5:10 pm

seabosdca wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Near 100% of the 777X order book was filled in the initial selling campaign at no doubt rather "attractive" pricing. That is a larger percentage of overall orders than we saw with the 787 : 400..450 frames gifted away to show strong customer interest early.

I can only imagine the names you would call me if I characterized A350 launch orders as aircraft "gifted away."

Airbus matched 787 pricing in early A350 RFPs to better improve their chances of a win. So during that time, A350s that won were sold at the same "give away" price as the 787's that won. :angel:

KarelXWB · Fri Jul 07, 2017 5:19 pm

Just to show how cheap the early A350s were: earlier this year Finnair arranged a sale-and-leaseback for one of their A350s and it resulted in a € 50 million positive impact on their Q2 results.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net