Leeham
News and Comment has a story today that both Jet Airways and Kenya Airways
want to get rid of their B777-300ER. Jet Airways has ten of the type while Kenya
Airways has three. Scott Hamilton notes that this could build up to the
pressure for Boeing to sell the last B777-300ER until the B777X will go into
service in late 2019 the earliest. So let us have a look how many B777-300ER
(and B777F) Boeing needs to sell to bridge production without any cut. Also,
have a look how Airbus
Showing posts with label B777-300ER. Show all posts
Showing posts with label B777-300ER. Show all posts
2/18/2015
Widebody Order Gaps
A lot has been written in the past about the orders that Airbus and Boeing need for the A330ceo and the B777 (non-X) to fill the production lines until the A330neo and the B777X will take over full production.
I started to collect the backlogs for both aircraft every month to see how the backlog will change over time. With the current or announced future production rates I can then calculate how many orders both aircraft will need.
Of course there are some open questions that will influence the number orders needed to fill the so-called gap:
I started to collect the backlogs for both aircraft every month to see how the backlog will change over time. With the current or announced future production rates I can then calculate how many orders both aircraft will need.
Of course there are some open questions that will influence the number orders needed to fill the so-called gap:
- How will production rates change until the new aircraft will enter service
5/03/2012
B777-9 will (more than) challenge the A350-1000
UPDATE: Thank you for the comment! Of course I picked a wrong MTOW for the 777-300ER. I corrected it and the values coming out of it. The basic conclusion keeps the same, especially as the announced SFC reduction of the GE9X will be 10% rather than 7%.
Of course, even with the small increase in inner diameter of the B777-X a ten-abreast seating will be less comfortable than a 9 abreast-seating in the A350. And more capacity is always higher risk (for revenue vs. costs), but for all current B747-400 routes the B777-9 would be the ideal replacement. The A350-1000 will fly with lower costs per flight, so if you can fill the A350-1000 it will be a profit maker as well.
***
The proposed B777-X models, the larger B777-9 holding about 405 passengers and the B777-8 with about 350 seats, should slash fuel burn per seat by 15% (B777-9 vs. B777-300ER) and about 10% (B777-8 vs. B777-200LR).
Is that possible? Let's have a look by taking a very simple approach and concentrate on the comparison
Of course, even with the small increase in inner diameter of the B777-X a ten-abreast seating will be less comfortable than a 9 abreast-seating in the A350. And more capacity is always higher risk (for revenue vs. costs), but for all current B747-400 routes the B777-9 would be the ideal replacement. The A350-1000 will fly with lower costs per flight, so if you can fill the A350-1000 it will be a profit maker as well.
***
The proposed B777-X models, the larger B777-9 holding about 405 passengers and the B777-8 with about 350 seats, should slash fuel burn per seat by 15% (B777-9 vs. B777-300ER) and about 10% (B777-8 vs. B777-200LR).
Is that possible? Let's have a look by taking a very simple approach and concentrate on the comparison
11/11/2011
Dubai Air Show
If an article published by Reuters is correct, we will see a major order for more B777-300ER's from Emirates at the Dubai Air Show, which opens on Sunday. Rumors are, that Emirates will order another 30-50 of the long-range twin. They still have 41 B777-300ER on order. At the recent order pace that would be good for another 3.5 years. By then the first A350-900 aircraft should arrive. Ordering more B777-300ER could have the following rationalities then:
- Just more growth...well, it is Emirates!
- Dumping the A350-900/-1000 order altogether - unlikely!
- These will in fact be orders for a B777-8 or B777-9 - not too likely at this point, but not completely impossible!
9/14/2011
GE Widebody engine SFC comparison
There is a great article at Asprire Aviation about how the B777 could evolve. There is one part which could cause misunderstandings: the fuel burn comparison between the GE90-115B on the B777-330ER/777-200ER/B777F and the GEnx that is on the B787 (GEnx-1B) and the B748-8I/F (GEnx-2B).
Daniel Tsang suggests that the GE90-115B is more efficient than the GEnx and gives SFC numbers. Now, first of all, these numbers are for Seal Level Static (MN=0) Takoff. The relevant number for long-range
Daniel Tsang suggests that the GE90-115B is more efficient than the GEnx and gives SFC numbers. Now, first of all, these numbers are for Seal Level Static (MN=0) Takoff. The relevant number for long-range
9/01/2011
Dreamliner ready to fly and "kill"
After getting FAA and EASA approval last week, yesterday also the Japanese Civil Aviation Bureau gave it's "thumbs up" for the B787-8. Launch customer All Nippon Airways can now go forward with it's plan to place the B787 into service.
After more than three long years of delays, the Dreamliner now becomes reality. And despite the first batch of aircraft will be overweight (one heard many different numbers) and the two competing engines obviously are in terms of SFC not where they should be, we can expect there now is an aircraft available that will bring economics never seen before.
The first international route ANA will fly with the B787 is Tokyo-Frankfurt.
After more than three long years of delays, the Dreamliner now becomes reality. And despite the first batch of aircraft will be overweight (one heard many different numbers) and the two competing engines obviously are in terms of SFC not where they should be, we can expect there now is an aircraft available that will bring economics never seen before.
The first international route ANA will fly with the B787 is Tokyo-Frankfurt.
6/28/2011
Paris Air Show 2011
That was quite an event! I will focus on just some of the most important topics here, the most important of course being
A320NEO
1029 order and commitments! (plus a few more options) - Never ever in history there was an aircraft selling so fast. Of course, a comparison to the B737NG is unfair, as 15 years ago we did not have such big and emerging markets in China , India and all over Asia (more than 460 A320neos are ordered by Asian airlines so far). Also I am sure that a reengined B737NG or a NSA/B797 would sell as good as the A320NEO (or in the case of the – hypothetical – B797 even better). But let us roll back one year: there were many skeptics of the A320neo, saying that demand for such a “warmed-up” aircraft would just not be there. Others said that Airbus might be forced to convert many of the orders for the current A320 to the –neo model. Both are proved wrong today. Even Air Asia boss Tony Fernandes did not manage to convince John Leahy to convert some of the old orders to the –neo.
Now if American Airlines would really decide to order 100 A320neo (probably they are most interested in the A321neo) this summer, there would be lots of activities starting in Chicago and Seattle.
The A320neo brings us right away to the next big topic at this year’s Airshow.
LEAP-1A vs. PW1100G
Before I get started, please read what Addison Schonland wrote in his piece on AirInsight. As I laid out before I have my doubts about the performance claims of the LEAP-1A. And as I heard, CFM did more PW1100G-bashing at his media briefing just ahead of the Airshow than talking about their own product and it’s merits. A rock solid confidence looks different…
Nevertheless, CFM managed to get large deals at the Airshow. The largest, of course, was the order for 400+ engines for the 200 aircraft deal of AirAsia. But this was CFM’s to loose, as they are providing the CFM56 for the current 175 aircraft order from AirAsia, GE won with the CF6-80 for AirAsia’s A330-200 just recently and GE became a sponsor of Tony Fernandes F1 Lotus Team.
I did a prediction about A320neo orders and the respective engine choices just a week before the Airshow opened. I was wrong at SAS and Republic – both choose the LEAP-1A over the PW1100G. As it appears, I underestimated the market power of CFM, GE and GECAS.
I also expressed before that I think there could be an alliance between Airbus and CFM to keep potential CSeries customers away from ordering the Bombardier aircraft by giving them deals they cannot deny. This strategy can work with airlines which have business with CFM, GE and/or GECAS today.
Look at Republic: the whole Frontier fleet is powered by the CFM56 today - about half of the A319 fleet from Frontier is leased through GECAS.
Republic has the largest Embraer EJet fleet in the world, all powered by the CF34-8/-10. Most of the E170 in the fleet of Republic Airlines, one of Republics subsidiaries, is leased from GECAS.
So GECAS, CFM and GE have all possibilities to sweeten the LEAP-1A deal with discounts on spare parts and leasing rates – one thing that Pratt&Whitney can not do.
SAS on the other hand is a large B737NG customer and they also have a CRJ900 fleet powered by the CF34-8. They choose 2nd hand B737-700 over the CSeries earlier this year. This decision was probably more cash driven, as leasing rates for used aircraft are of course cheaper than for new ones and SAS is going through a tough time right now. SAS has also A319 and A321’s in their fleet, powered by the IAE V2500. But firstly the V2500 powered fleet is much smaller than the B737NG fleet, and secondly, PW always has to deal with Rolls Royce on the V2500 business. And as RR has no stakes at all in the –neo business, they have no interest in building a bridge for PW at all.
One A320neo deal that did not materialize in Paris was the anticipated order for 50 aircraft from Qatar Qatar just ordered 6 more of them in Paris ) and CFM powers 4 A340-300 in Qatar ’s fleet, the A320 fleet is powered by the V2500 and PW might to persuade Qatar
CSeries
John Leahy still thinks that Bombardier should scrap the CSeries program. As an Airbus employee he has to say that, regardless of what he thinks.
But as in the weeks before and at the Airshow there were five new customers announced (three of them unnamed so far), I think it became clear that a growing number of airlines got convinced that in this market segment an optimized aircraft is better suited than, say an A319neo. Surprisingly, the CS100 got the biggest chunk of the new orders – maybe something to think about at Embraer…
I guess we will see a few other orders for the CSeries until the end of the year:
- Delta Air Lines
- Qatar
- GoAir, which just ordered 72 A320neo, hinted for a “raft” of CSeries soon to order
Boeing
Boeing did not raise the bar very high in the run-up of the Airshow, but did extremely well with orders, especially on the widebody front. It remains to be seen, if the revised A350-1000 can break the monopoly the B777-300ER enjoys in their segment. A stretched A350-1100X was denied by Airbus officials, but we will see…if the Rolls Royce managers are wise, they build in another 5% thrust margin above the 97klbf in their revised Trent XWB nacelle lines to cover for growth.
Scott Hamilton further explains Boeing’s success – I suggest to read his entry for more.
Other stuff
There was lots of other stuff to talk about – but I won’t, at least for today…
6/17/2011
Boeing 737 successor Part V
I swear that this is the last piece in that series - before the Paris Air Show!
A recent piece in Flightglobal as well as a blog entry from Scott Hamilton this week shows that inside Boeing there are diverging blocks: one wants a new airplane, the other wants to reengine the B737NG and it seems like a "put them all in one boat"-solution to do it both. With a A320neo family arriving from 2015 onwards and a hypothetic new model from Boeing arriving in 2019 or 2020, with the CSeries entering the market in late 2013 and probably another 5 abreast aircraft from Embraer arriving at the end of the decade, who then needs a reengined B737NG? And if the backlog is so big that there are filled delivery positions even in 2018 today with todays B737NG, a reengined B737NG would only get a handful of orders from customers which did not get a delivery slot from Airbus, Bombardier or Embraer before the Boeing NSA is available.
So doing both makes no sense if the NSA is really slated for around 2020 - but a later arrival, around 2025 could make sense, as the differentiation against the A320neo in terms of engine and aircraft technology and thus operating costs could be larger then. That thinking should behind when Albaugh (quote Flightglobal) "questioned whether such an aircraft would be "good enough with rising fuel costs and emerging environmental regulations" and whether it could stay in service for 50 years." (quote end)
In the meantime, a reengining would make sense and would give that reengined B737NG a life expectation of at least ten years. At last years european ISTAT conference I spoke with some appraisers about the (the not yet launched) A320neo and they said that it would need a production run of at least ten years - the same should be true for a 737NGneo.
A "mild" reengining, maybe even avoiding changes to the front landing gear, should not bind too many engineering resources and should put Boeing in the position to counter Airbus if they should announce any changes to the A350-1000 that would make that aircraft to a better competitor to the B777-300ER than before.
A recent piece in Flightglobal as well as a blog entry from Scott Hamilton this week shows that inside Boeing there are diverging blocks: one wants a new airplane, the other wants to reengine the B737NG and it seems like a "put them all in one boat"-solution to do it both. With a A320neo family arriving from 2015 onwards and a hypothetic new model from Boeing arriving in 2019 or 2020, with the CSeries entering the market in late 2013 and probably another 5 abreast aircraft from Embraer arriving at the end of the decade, who then needs a reengined B737NG? And if the backlog is so big that there are filled delivery positions even in 2018 today with todays B737NG, a reengined B737NG would only get a handful of orders from customers which did not get a delivery slot from Airbus, Bombardier or Embraer before the Boeing NSA is available.
So doing both makes no sense if the NSA is really slated for around 2020 - but a later arrival, around 2025 could make sense, as the differentiation against the A320neo in terms of engine and aircraft technology and thus operating costs could be larger then. That thinking should behind when Albaugh (quote Flightglobal) "questioned whether such an aircraft would be "good enough with rising fuel costs and emerging environmental regulations" and whether it could stay in service for 50 years." (quote end)
In the meantime, a reengining would make sense and would give that reengined B737NG a life expectation of at least ten years. At last years european ISTAT conference I spoke with some appraisers about the (the not yet launched) A320neo and they said that it would need a production run of at least ten years - the same should be true for a 737NGneo.
A "mild" reengining, maybe even avoiding changes to the front landing gear, should not bind too many engineering resources and should put Boeing in the position to counter Airbus if they should announce any changes to the A350-1000 that would make that aircraft to a better competitor to the B777-300ER than before.
6/08/2011
A350-1000 with more range - Update
Flightglobal has a new take on what is going on with the A350-1000. Contrary to Scott Hamilton, Max Kingsley-Jones thinks that the wing would be part of the design change, thus getting larger. This could indicate two things:
1. The Thrust/Weight-Ratio could get down without sacrificing runway performance as the larger wing would provide more lift. In other words, the MTOW could be lifted more than the ~5% gain in takeoff thrust, enabling the aircraft to carry more payload (especially cargo) over the reportedly new design range of 8500nm.
2. The investment for a larger wing and a "new" engine would make more sense, if another type would be added to the A350 family - call it the A350-1100 for now. With a further stretch of 4m it would have a fuselage length of roughly 80m, representing the ultimate stretch and would be a real B777-300ER competitor in terms of passenger capacity. The question then only is, if the range of the -1100 would be limited to 8000nm, comparable to the B777-300ER range, or if the -1100 would also get a range suitable for LAX-DXB (I now think that the 8500nm should work in >90% of the time for that route). If so, the "new" engine should really be a "new" engine - not just with an enlarged core, but also with a larger fan, as the thrust requirement would be more in the range of 105klbf. That would have implications to the basic design of the aircraft, especially the length of the undercarriage.
So Airbus could end up with the sub-families fo the A350 - the -900 and the -800 on the lower end and the -1000 and the -1100 on the upper end, very much comparable with the A340.
But again - until June 18 all is about speculation! But that's the fun with it...
1. The Thrust/Weight-Ratio could get down without sacrificing runway performance as the larger wing would provide more lift. In other words, the MTOW could be lifted more than the ~5% gain in takeoff thrust, enabling the aircraft to carry more payload (especially cargo) over the reportedly new design range of 8500nm.
2. The investment for a larger wing and a "new" engine would make more sense, if another type would be added to the A350 family - call it the A350-1100 for now. With a further stretch of 4m it would have a fuselage length of roughly 80m, representing the ultimate stretch and would be a real B777-300ER competitor in terms of passenger capacity. The question then only is, if the range of the -1100 would be limited to 8000nm, comparable to the B777-300ER range, or if the -1100 would also get a range suitable for LAX-DXB (I now think that the 8500nm should work in >90% of the time for that route). If so, the "new" engine should really be a "new" engine - not just with an enlarged core, but also with a larger fan, as the thrust requirement would be more in the range of 105klbf. That would have implications to the basic design of the aircraft, especially the length of the undercarriage.
So Airbus could end up with the sub-families fo the A350 - the -900 and the -800 on the lower end and the -1000 and the -1100 on the upper end, very much comparable with the A340.
But again - until June 18 all is about speculation! But that's the fun with it...
6/06/2011
A350-1000 with more range - implications for B737 successor?
Scott Hamilton just came out with this story: the A350-1000 will get more range (500nm) and a more powerful Trent XWB engine (+5000lbf).
A quick calculation revealed that 500nm more range need about 12.3t more MTOW. About 10 tonnes are for the extra fuel burned to cover the extra 500nm, about 2 tonnes needs the structure to carry the heavier aircraft, the balance goes for fuel reserves, as these are calculated in dependence of the actual flown range.
Thrust-to-weight ratio thus will be largely unchanged, runway performance probably a little bit worse, if the wing is unchanged. Compared to the B777-300ER, the wing is not heavily loaded, so I do not believe Airbus will enlarge the wing.
Scott writes that even the 8500nm will not meet Emirates desire of being able to fly Dubai - Los Angeles nonstop. The great circle distance for DXB-LAX is about 7250nm, so there is a 17% range margin. But is this enough to counter strong headwinds. A quick calculation shows that 17% of Ma0.85 (cruising speed of the A350) are equal to about 83nm/hr, meaning that if the average headwind on the route is higher than 83 knots, a technical stop would be necessary. I do not the average wind speed on the route over the north pole, but I could imagine that average wind speeds of 83knots and more ar possible.
The calculation also confirms that Emirates second desire - to add more pax - cannot be part of the change in the A350-1000 specification. So I wonder what is the rationality behind these changes? The 777-300ER has slightly less than the 8000nm of the "old" -1000 configuration, the 500 extra miles is good for a couple of extra city pairs, but does that justify the pain? The pain is probably bigger for RR than for Airbus, as these 5000lbf more of thrust will very likely mean that the whole core has to be changed, which means a lot of investment.
The main reason for that change might be to prevent Boeing from concentrating on the B737 successor. Airbus might hope that Boeing now feels more pressure on the B777-300ER and to concentrate R&D resources here and "only" to re-engine to B737 as Airbus always predicted.
And Airbus is apparently not alone: the recent Bernstein Research Note also suggests that Boeing should re-engine. Richard Aboulafia, VP of Teal Group, also thinks that a B737RE is the best answer to the A32XNEO, as one can reread in the AirInsight Paris Airshow Discussion transcript.
I guess we can expect the official Airbus announcement on Saturday, June 18th at the press briefing.
One is for sure - this years Paris Air Show is getting more and more interesting.
A quick calculation revealed that 500nm more range need about 12.3t more MTOW. About 10 tonnes are for the extra fuel burned to cover the extra 500nm, about 2 tonnes needs the structure to carry the heavier aircraft, the balance goes for fuel reserves, as these are calculated in dependence of the actual flown range.
Thrust-to-weight ratio thus will be largely unchanged, runway performance probably a little bit worse, if the wing is unchanged. Compared to the B777-300ER, the wing is not heavily loaded, so I do not believe Airbus will enlarge the wing.
Scott writes that even the 8500nm will not meet Emirates desire of being able to fly Dubai - Los Angeles nonstop. The great circle distance for DXB-LAX is about 7250nm, so there is a 17% range margin. But is this enough to counter strong headwinds. A quick calculation shows that 17% of Ma0.85 (cruising speed of the A350) are equal to about 83nm/hr, meaning that if the average headwind on the route is higher than 83 knots, a technical stop would be necessary. I do not the average wind speed on the route over the north pole, but I could imagine that average wind speeds of 83knots and more ar possible.
The calculation also confirms that Emirates second desire - to add more pax - cannot be part of the change in the A350-1000 specification. So I wonder what is the rationality behind these changes? The 777-300ER has slightly less than the 8000nm of the "old" -1000 configuration, the 500 extra miles is good for a couple of extra city pairs, but does that justify the pain? The pain is probably bigger for RR than for Airbus, as these 5000lbf more of thrust will very likely mean that the whole core has to be changed, which means a lot of investment.
The main reason for that change might be to prevent Boeing from concentrating on the B737 successor. Airbus might hope that Boeing now feels more pressure on the B777-300ER and to concentrate R&D resources here and "only" to re-engine to B737 as Airbus always predicted.
And Airbus is apparently not alone: the recent Bernstein Research Note also suggests that Boeing should re-engine. Richard Aboulafia, VP of Teal Group, also thinks that a B737RE is the best answer to the A32XNEO, as one can reread in the AirInsight Paris Airshow Discussion transcript.
I guess we can expect the official Airbus announcement on Saturday, June 18th at the press briefing.
One is for sure - this years Paris Air Show is getting more and more interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)