harty236
Outfitting in Hamburg
Posts: 974
|
Post by harty236 on May 6, 2013 20:45:44 GMT 1
This a very strange comment, which does not display much knowledge or competence, unless it is just inpired by brand loyalty to Boeing.
Not being privy to airlines' judgements, and not being a prophet, I do not know the answers to these questions, though I believe that there is more risk on Boeing's side.Hey, take it easy philidor, especially on the competence part. Actually i am very knowledgeable and informed about it. That is unlike others, who are not prophets (no truer words were written!) and retired (not so up to date.) I understand that and you have my best wishes. I wish i could share more, but, well, I am not retired, you see and i don't take this forum that seriously either. For your education, it is exactly with technology that this 777x will make the 350-1000 look like an obsolete aircraft, from exclusive engines and range to comfort and cabin and commonality. The end of the year will prove me right. Get out more, watch closely what technology will be introduced on the 777x and get better informed. Maybe the 350 will compete with the 777 on the market today. Just maybe. Also, i am not loyal to Boeing, but to free market, fair competition and awesome products. That stuff on the 350 is obsolete by 2020 standards and will make less money than a 777x. So why get all bothered? That's just solid info based on numbers. Don't get angry and don't take it personal, it's not like you work(ed) for Airbus...or is it ? So Saj, my question to you is did you find this thread by Googling your name?
|
|
|
Post by kevo350 on May 7, 2013 7:59:09 GMT 1
Every airline will way up the pros and cons of each aircraft. But the decision comes down to how many seats vs cost of a full tank of gas and how far that tank of jet fuel gets you, and also what kind of deal they get from either Boeing or Airbus.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on May 30, 2013 23:18:00 GMT 1
777-9X
The 777-9X is expected to be the bestselling version of the 777X. It is supposed to reign supreme on a new 400-seat market segment, without any direct competitor. I wonder however whether this is an adequate assessment, and what will be the size of that specific segment. I would like to start a general discussion on these issues.
The -9X is (or at least should be) heavier than recently launched widebodies (787, 350) and cannot match their cost per flight. It is however supposed to be attractive to airlines because of its high capacity (> 400 pax + a lot of freight), and resulting high RASK/RASM and low CASK/CASM.
Yet these favorable features are predicated on airlines being eager to offer a large capacity, and to go for high density seating (10 abreast) on long haul flights. If one of these conditions is missing, the aircraft becomes pointless.
Certainly, such a market exists, but I guess that it is much smaller than the market the 77W enjoyed (remember, long haul and low cost operations have been a difficult business). If I am right, then the -9X can secure Boeing hardly more than a sweet market niche, not the core target.
I welcome different opinions.
|
|
Taliesin
Final Assembly Line stage 1
In Thrust we trust
Posts: 228
|
Post by Taliesin on Nov 9, 2013 12:32:05 GMT 1
This is a frequently popping BS. The single biggest reason why the 77W/L succeeded in beating the A345/6 is because of the 4 engines vs. 2. At the time of its development, Airbus hadn't expected the changes to ETOPS/ LROPS that made the quads less necessary. This is a very popular urban legend. The real reason the A345 and A346 didn't sell well is because they were too heavy. The DOW of the 77W for Emirates is 178t. The DOW of the A345 for Emirates however is 184t. In a similar configuration, the DOW for the A346 would have been well over 190t. This makes the A346 some 15-18t heavier than the 77W in similar configurations, a very significant difference. The advantage of only having 2 engines versus 4 is also present, but in the order of 1%, whereas the weight difference comes out in the vicinity of 5-8% difference in fuel burn.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Nov 9, 2013 14:48:56 GMT 1
According to several press reports, Boeing/GE and EK have been discussing the 777-9X engine specs for weeks (if not months). EK is said to demand more thrust to make sure the aircraft is able to take off from Dubai in the hot season without a MTOW penalty (Aspire Aviation cited a 108 000 pounds engine).
In that context, Clark mentioned the possible use of liquid coolants. More recently, he said this approach had been dropped by GE, and that the engine would have a higher thrust than initially planned (102 000).
Taliesin, and others who know a lot about engines, what do you think of the issue and its implications for other potential customers ? Could GE end up making two engine versions ? Are the stakes high enough to delay the 777X launching ?
|
|
Taliesin
Final Assembly Line stage 1
In Thrust we trust
Posts: 228
|
Post by Taliesin on Nov 9, 2013 15:46:49 GMT 1
Honestly, I don't see what the drama is all about. They have another 4 or 5 years to come up with an engine that can do a little more than 100k lbs of thrust, grandfathered from an engine that can reliably put out 115k. I don't see what the big deal is supposed to be, but then again I'm on the outside looking in. Maybe the problem is that the engine was only ever supposed to put out 100k and now they find themselves forced to go to 108%. Still, the original GE90 grew from 90k lbs to 115k lbs, hence the name GE90. Maybe the problem isn't the overall thrust or reliability, but a drop in efficiency.
Then again, take-off thrust is only applied during some 10 minutes or so, cruise thrust should remain relatively unaffected, I fail to see how this should ruin overall efficiency, but again, I can only take guesses from where I am.
|
|
someone
in service - 1 year
Posts: 3,236
|
Post by someone on Nov 9, 2013 16:17:37 GMT 1
I do believe balancing the various airlines needs and desires in one engine will be a much harder task than to push it beyond 100k
BA has already started to complain about the "Emiritarization" of the aircraft
|
|
|
Post by FabienA380 on Nov 16, 2013 20:04:17 GMT 1
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Nov 16, 2013 23:38:29 GMT 1
Crikey is reacting to information from the Wall Street Journal that Boeing has agreed to increase the 777X engine thrust to 105 000 pounds to match EK's requirements, while LH is protected by contract again specs changes (though the contract is not firm yet). Crikey concludes that Boeing would offer a choice of two 777X power options. The WSJ story is behind a paywall, but as usual, it can be read via a Google query : WSJ Boeing's New 777X Is Tailored to Please Mideast Carriers
|
|
|
Post by limoncello on Nov 17, 2013 17:16:33 GMT 1
Intro the new triple seven
|
|