[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/n/ - Transportation


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



Some of the world’s most prestigious airlines are on tenterhooks as the first flight of an aircraft that could change long-haul travel for decades looms ever closer.

Executives at Singapore Airlines, Emirates and Qatar Airways, among others, will have their eyes cast to the skies this spring when Boeing is expected to fly one of its new 777X planes for the first time.


The 777-9, the first of the X family to be developed, will have the biggest jet engines ever seen, attached to the longest wings of any aircraft ever made by the Seattle-based manufacturer.

The 777X has been said to be the result of the very best of the existing 777 plane, as favoured by the likes of British Airways et al, and the game-changing 787 Dreamliner, which has been praised as one of the most technologically advanced aircraft in history, garnishing plaudits from passengers on BA, Norwegian and Virgin Atlantic alike.
>>
What’s so good about the 777X?
It depends who’s asking. On the one hand, it promises a vast increase in fuel efficiency, working towards an operating cost reduction of up to 18 per cent, which in turn should lead to a fall in fares on long-haul flights. Boeing says it will be the largest and most efficient twin-engine plane on the planet.

On the other, it is another step in the evolution of passenger comfort, with the same benefits showcased on the Dreamliner expected on the 777X, including large, dimmable windows, higher ceilings and an anti-dry, jetlag-beating ventilation system.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/777x-gigantic-plane-could-change-080000250.html
>>
>>1276295
>>1276296
Why are aircraft manufacturers shilling their products on /n/? You know none of can afford to buy any of these, right? Most of us probably can't even afford a ticket to ride on one.
>>
>>1276295
It's not the same game changer that the 787 was. What it does do is further obsolete the A380 and 747 and make long haul hub-hub routes more efficient and comfortable. It's not going to open up new routes really though, like the 787 did.
>>
>>1276295
>knock-off A350XWB-1000
>doesn't even have a composite fuselage
Yaaaaaawwwwwnnnnnnnnn... I guess folding wingtips are kinda interesting, but wake me up when the whole wing is foldable...
>>
>>1276302
Oh, I'm sure that most of us can afford a ticket if we don't mind being relegated to the misery cabin with the rest of the poors.
>>
>>1276335
The A350 was built to compete with the 777, not the other way around.

>>doesn't even have a composite fuselage
And yet still has larger windows than the A350 and the better pressurization and humidty of composite planes. So...
>>
What the 787 did for Transatlantic this thing will do for Transpacific.
>>
>>1276296
i.e. New A380
>>
>>1276426
Except the A380 had none of those things.
>>
>>1276357
>muh windowz
We should be moving towards windowless airplanes with touchscreens and cameras to see outside, not bigger windows. Windows are a waste.
>>
File: 9x-1-1521147153.jpg (73 KB, 980x491)
73 KB
73 KB JPG
That's a big engine.
>>
>>1276466
Unless you plan on flying in a super or hypersonic passenger aircraft anytime soon, this is a fucking retarded idea.
>>
>>1276426
Actually, Boeing is trying to market the 777-X as an A380 replacement. I believe Boeing has conceived the 777-10 model, but has no plans to manufacture it, since airlines were not interested in it.
>>
File: united-airlines.jpg (93 KB, 1168x606)
93 KB
93 KB JPG
Honestly I'm just wondering if the 777x will be in a US fleet ever.
>>
>>1276509
It will once 773ERs start getting retired en masse.
>>
>>1276438
A380:

>it promises a vast increase in fuel efficiency
checked
>working towards an operating cost reduction of up to 18 per cent, which in turn should lead to a fall in fares on long-haul flights
checked
>it will be the largest and most efficient
checked
>On the other, it is another step in the evolution of passenger comfort
checked
>>
>>1276474
For you
>>
You know what thing about how if the calculated amount of insurance payouts costs less than the price to fix an engineering fault in these things en masse, they don't fix it at all? How true do you think that is?
>>
>>1276550
Are you sure they wouldn't just buy 787-10s?
>>
>>1276643
The 787-10s, for example, that United is using replaced 772s on domestic routes, like SFO-EWR. The 773ERs are exclusively long haul international as far as I know.
>>
>>1276621
It was never the most efficient on a seat mile basis.
>>
>>1276650
You should double check your numbers
>>
>>1276653
Airlines say it's cheaper to run 2 787s than an A380.
>>
>>1276655
And 2 787 carry less people than 1 A380.
>>
>>1276658
Sure, if the A380 had a high density configuration, but no airline would ever order that since they could never fill those seats nor would want to sacrifice lucrative premium seats.
>>
>>1276680
Plenty of airlines flying with a normal mix of classes already don't have great load factors on some of those flights. It's not like the 787 is flying long haul international routes in a cattle car configuration. They have business and premium economy too.
>>
>>1276680
That's the RASM problem of those airlines operating them, not the operating cost of the aircraft itself
>>
>>1276302
>>Most of us probably can't even afford a ticket to ride on one.

Some of us have real jobs and don't live in mums basement.
>>
>>1276658
Yea but it cant cover two routes simultaneously. l2business
>>
>>1276755
How is 777X any better in this aspect?
>>
>>1276758
Ok which aircraft are you trying to compare here the 787 or 777X?
>>
>>1276759
I was saying A380 have basically all of these advantages that OP was trying to point out, and then some anon claims it wasn't true because he thought 787 have lower per seat cost than A380, presumably it mean he believe 777X would cost have per seat cost lower than 787 and thus possess the advantage that A380 didn't have, then I pointed out it was untrue as his reference statement was dependent on configuration of each aircraft and there are no indication that 777X would be different and make it free from such problem.
>>
>>1276658
Uh, no. Most A380s carry between 475 and 525 passengers.

The largest Singapore A380 carries 471. One of their 787-10s carries 337.

Most airline configs of the 789/7810 carry more than half the passenger load of most A380 configs.
>>
>>1276763
Except it is true. Airlines are literally running 2 787s instead on 1 A380 over certain routes and saying it's more economical to do that.
>>
>>1276763
What problem? You're just saying things that aren't even factually accurate, and it seems like you really don't understand at all what is being compared
>>
>>1276763
The 777X will be cheaper to operate on a seat mile cost basis than the A380 on a 1:1 basis. It is unlikely to cost less in total to operate 2x 777Xs than 1 A380, but we don't know yet.
>>
>>1276763
>>
>>1276769
You see, it is mission-specific and seat count-specific
>>1276765
That depends on revenue management. No one say when an airlines change an A380 to two 787 they aren't also changing available seats on the route
>>1276764
That's because SQ, and basically all airlines in the world, doesn't have an aircraft larger than 77W/748. The ~500 seat configuration is used because of the lack of necessary route maturation process to support a higher seat count on most routes.
>>1276767
777X will be cheaper to operate than A380 on a per seat mile cost but any other new widebodies that are coming in the next decade will also get the advantage.
>>
>>1277023
What other new widebodies? There's not going to be another pure one from the duopoly before 2030.
>>
>>1277075
797, A330 replacement, A350neo, 787MAX
>pure one
why? That's not needed
>>
>>1277118
The 797 is believed to be a hybrid body at this point, not a pure widebody.

None of those others is coming. That's just baseless speculation until they start actually saying something.
>>
>>1277119
>hybrid body
The "semi-widebody" description was also applied to 767 before, see what we get
None of those other projects have started yet, but it won't take that long for manufacturers to get this project done once they started working on it, especially for Airbus that doesn't have much other things to do now.
And it would actually depends more on new generation engine availability anyway
>>
>>1276643
The 787-10 doesn't have the same range and capacity as a 777-200ER or 777-300ER. United is replacing their 777-200s and 200ERs with A350-900s for that reason. AA however is going for the 787-9 while I'm not sure when Delta is going to get rid of the 777-200LRs and their 200ERs Although I am betting that Delta will go for the A350-900ULR and more A350-900s in the future.
>in fact the 787 has 153 orders from UA and AA while the A350 has about 70 orders from UA and DL.
>DL canceled their 787 order while AA canceled their A350 order
>Honestly it amazes me to see UA, the launch customer of the 777, replace it with an Airbus wide body
>>
airBusriders on suicide watch
>>
It's 2019 and they still havent solved the air quality issue. Air quality inside these high flying planes is very unhealthy as the air is taken in from the engines. Neurotoxins from the oil are dispersed into the cabins of airplanes and many pilots suffer long them brain problems from this.
>>
>>1277176
Fuck your 777 heatgun driven noise machine, 340 hairdryer driven is much quieter.
>>
>>1277149
United is already using the 787-10 as a 772 replacement on domestic routes.
>>
>>1277178
This is total fucking nonsense.
>>
>>1277149
The ULR is never going to sell in volume because the entire thing is premised on flying with a drastically reduced passenger capacity compared to the standard model. You could literally count on your fingers (probably one hand) how many routes/airlines in makes sense for.
>>
>>1277149
Delta is moving to an all Airbus fleet. A mix of A320s, A220s, A330s and A350s. I do believe that Delta has, however, written a memorandum of understanding, that they will buy the 797. However, the MOU is non-binding, and basically says that Delta would buy it if it existed, but you can guess.... An MOU just enables Delta to buy 797s first, that is, if they end up buying.
>>
>>1277319
Nope, not even close. Delta is keeping a ton of 737s around and still has unfilled orders for them. They also have not announced an end of service date for their newer 763ERs, 717s, 764ERs, or 772ER/LRs.
>>
>>1277321
Also their 757s.
>>
>>1277321
IIRC, they also havent announced an end of service date for their MD-80s.
>>
>>1277378
But they have explicitly said that A321s and 739s are replacing them. Not the case with the others mentioned.
>>
Wonder what Delta's fleet would look like if the mergers hadn't happened. Think they would have had Airbus ac by now?
>>
>>1277321
717 will be replaced by A220 and 757 will mostly be replaced by A321LR. 767 probably 797 or 330
>>
You don't mind flying the new Titanic do you?
>>
>>1277477
Hey, Boeing doesn't have a facility in the Belfast harbour. Now Bombardier, they do. They actually manufacture the A220-100 (formerly CS 100) wings in the same area as the Titanic was built. They also manufacture parts for other Airbus aircraft.
Fun fact: the facility came under Bombardier control after Shorts went bankrupt after the Shorts 360 was a commercial failure.
>>
>>1277313
I'm just saying the ULR would make sense as a 777-200LR replacement
>>
File: POOTO.jpg (22 KB, 400x250)
22 KB
22 KB JPG
>>1276474
>>
File: 1544389389711.jpg (49 KB, 920x613)
49 KB
49 KB JPG
>>1276474
Imagine a twin 747...
>>
File: a737.jpg (224 KB, 1900x1069)
224 KB
224 KB JPG
>>1277602
Imagine.
>>
>>1277491
Let's look at an example.

Emirates' 772LRs have a minimum capacity of 266 passengers, going as high as 302. It has a range of 8,555 nmi. Singapore's A359ULRs only carry 161 passengers with a max range of 9,700 nmi, but they use it on a route that is 8,290 nmi.

Certainly more range potential, but again, only at drastically reduced capacity to the point where it makes no sense outside a handful of specific airlines and routes.

This is precisely the reason why Qantas has been having talks for years with both manufacturers about doing those ultra-long distances but with a full load of passengers.
>>
>>1277726
>Singapore's A359ULRs only carry 161 passengers with a max range of 9,700 nmi
Thats because the plane's seating configuration was changed to business and premium economy because the flight is pretty damn long and economy would be uncomfortable for any passenger. That has nothing to do with Capacity and I can assure you Delta would operate the operate an A359ULR the same way they do a 772LR
>>
File: Cathay Pacific A350.jpg (67 KB, 1200x674)
67 KB
67 KB JPG
>>1278005
>That has nothing to do with range
excuse me I'm tired
>>
>>1278005
If you have to reduce capacity to make it so that passengers even want to take the flight, then there's no real market for a modified aircraft like that.
>>
>>1278012
>>1278005
It is incorrect to say so, see for example PER-LHR, SIN-LAX, SIN-SFO



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.