The Boeing 777X... why?
Discussion
I am just reading about this aircraft and just wondering why it came into being?
is the 787 too expensive? Did they try change too much at once and disappointed people?
With the 777X they seem to have taken the original 777 and seriously re-worked it... its getting large windows and lower cabin pressure like the 787, its also getting composite wings with folding tips and new engines from GE promising very large fans and step change in fuel economy (actually the new breed of turbo-fans from GE, PW, RR is another rabbit hole). They quote the whole aircraft having something like 15% improvement over the older 777 ER.
Its also getting a 7 ft stretch in the body and an extra 4 inches in width to enable 10-abreast seating. The biggest version could seat 425 people in economy seating.
All good stuff, but why not do all those improvements to the newer 787? Why have they decided to modify an old aircraft instead? They got a f
k-ton of orders for the 777X as well.
The 787 doesn't seem to be that popular in comparison.
is the 787 too expensive? Did they try change too much at once and disappointed people?
With the 777X they seem to have taken the original 777 and seriously re-worked it... its getting large windows and lower cabin pressure like the 787, its also getting composite wings with folding tips and new engines from GE promising very large fans and step change in fuel economy (actually the new breed of turbo-fans from GE, PW, RR is another rabbit hole). They quote the whole aircraft having something like 15% improvement over the older 777 ER.
Its also getting a 7 ft stretch in the body and an extra 4 inches in width to enable 10-abreast seating. The biggest version could seat 425 people in economy seating.
All good stuff, but why not do all those improvements to the newer 787? Why have they decided to modify an old aircraft instead? They got a f
k-ton of orders for the 777X as well. The 787 doesn't seem to be that popular in comparison.
Otispunkmeyer said:
I am just reading about this aircraft and just wondering why it came into being?
is the 787 too expensive? Did they try change too much at once and disappointed people?
With the 777X they seem to have taken the original 777 and seriously re-worked it... its getting large windows and lower cabin pressure like the 787, its also getting composite wings with folding tips and new engines from GE promising very large fans and step change in fuel economy (actually the new breed of turbo-fans from GE, PW, RR is another rabbit hole). They quote the whole aircraft having something like 15% improvement over the older 777 ER.
Its also getting a 7 ft stretch in the body and an extra 4 inches in width to enable 10-abreast seating. The biggest version could seat 425 people in economy seating.
All good stuff, but why not do all those improvements to the newer 787? Why have they decided to modify an old aircraft instead? They got a fk-ton of orders for the 777X as well.
The 787 doesn't seem to be that popular in comparison.
I believe boeing won't be releasing any all new planes and instead just continuously refining their existing range.is the 787 too expensive? Did they try change too much at once and disappointed people?
With the 777X they seem to have taken the original 777 and seriously re-worked it... its getting large windows and lower cabin pressure like the 787, its also getting composite wings with folding tips and new engines from GE promising very large fans and step change in fuel economy (actually the new breed of turbo-fans from GE, PW, RR is another rabbit hole). They quote the whole aircraft having something like 15% improvement over the older 777 ER.
Its also getting a 7 ft stretch in the body and an extra 4 inches in width to enable 10-abreast seating. The biggest version could seat 425 people in economy seating.
All good stuff, but why not do all those improvements to the newer 787? Why have they decided to modify an old aircraft instead? They got a f
k-ton of orders for the 777X as well. The 787 doesn't seem to be that popular in comparison.
This is part of that.
djc206 said:
Capacity?
Take BA, their 787's carry ~215 passengers, their 777-300's carry ~300.
That's my guess but I don't know tbh
Oh I see, thats quite a bit less then and the 777X will carry more than the existing 300ERs... so per seat they are probably seeing some very attractive numbers.Take BA, their 787's carry ~215 passengers, their 777-300's carry ~300.
That's my guess but I don't know tbh
I think the range on the 9X will be not too far short of 10,000 nm too.
And they'll be exclusively fitted out with the GE 9X.... so I guess chance there for engine and aircraft to be better optimised.
Otispunkmeyer said:
Its also getting a 7 ft stretch in the body and an extra 4 inches in width to enable 10-abreast seating.
Swiss already squeeze 10 abreast into the 777, and it's really unpleasant on a 11 hour flight when you have so sit sideways because the buy 2 seats across from you is of above-average girth.jamiebae said:
Swiss already squeeze 10 abreast into the 777, and it's really unpleasant on a 11 hour flight when you have so sit sideways because the buy 2 seats across from you is of above-average girth.
Most airlines do and 9 abreast on a 787Whose willing to bet airlines will make 11 abreast on the new 777
size... as mentioned the 787 is a class (or two?) smaller than the 777x. So run the 777x on routes that are slot limited (LHR-JFK). Also possibly the 777x will have same/lower cost per seat/mile than 787 due to economy of scale (if full).
the 777x is boeings alternative to the A380. (alternative not competitor as not quite as big/expensive/white elephanty)
the 777x is boeings alternative to the A380. (alternative not competitor as not quite as big/expensive/white elephanty)
Aircraft development from Airbus and Boeing is on hold, we will just see continuos improvements on the existing platform with refinement mainly in the wing / engine area to improve efficiency and range.
The 777 will offer the customer a 'cheaper' 747-8 but with less capacity.
A big problem with the 380 is the density of routes in the majority of cases are not supporting the capacity of the A/C.
We have recently postponed (indefinitely) the A380 NEO programme.
The 777 will offer the customer a 'cheaper' 747-8 but with less capacity.
A big problem with the 380 is the density of routes in the majority of cases are not supporting the capacity of the A/C.
We have recently postponed (indefinitely) the A380 NEO programme.
I have been reading about engine development. I think RR have diverted away from open rotors and more to looking geared fans (ultrafan) like P&W to make larger fans and to stop fan blade tips hitting super sonic speeds. GE are betting on large fans too.
Also reading about boundary layer ingestion.... but I think that would necessitate a new airframe.
Have to say, I did not realise the size difference in the 787 and 777. I thought they were similar.
Also reading about boundary layer ingestion.... but I think that would necessitate a new airframe.
Have to say, I did not realise the size difference in the 787 and 777. I thought they were similar.
Otispunkmeyer said:
I have been reading about engine development. I think RR have diverted away from open rotors and more to looking geared fans (ultrafan) like P&W to make larger fans and to stop fan blade tips hitting super sonic speeds. GE are betting on large fans too.
Also reading about boundary layer ingestion.... but I think that would necessitate a new airframe.
Have to say, I did not realise the size difference in the 787 and 777. I thought they were similar.
The 787 targets a different market, it's generally on routes with less demand, its fuel efficiency means it can be operated cheaply too. It is giving way to long haul low cost airlines, such savings were only available through economies of scale previously.Also reading about boundary layer ingestion.... but I think that would necessitate a new airframe.
Have to say, I did not realise the size difference in the 787 and 777. I thought they were similar.
The 777 is a plane for use in a hub and spoke system.
jamoor said:
The 787 targets a different market, it's generally on routes with less demand, its fuel efficiency means it can be operated cheaply too. It is giving way to long haul low cost airlines, such savings were only available through economies of scale previously.
The 777 is a plane for use in a hub and spoke system.
^ thisThe 777 is a plane for use in a hub and spoke system.
I'm flying to New Orleans and back from Austin with BA on their 787's next year. These more niche destinations are perfect for the 787, great for travellers.
djc206 said:
^ this
I'm flying to New Orleans and back from Austin with BA on their 787's next year. These more niche destinations are perfect for the 787, great for travellers.
Shame the 787 is always a horrific experience unless you're in business/first or on one of JAL/ANAs 8 abreast versions (which is what it's meant to be)I'm flying to New Orleans and back from Austin with BA on their 787's next year. These more niche destinations are perfect for the 787, great for travellers.
jamoor said:
Shame the 787 is always a horrific experience unless you're in business/first or on one of JAL/ANAs 8 abreast versions (which is what it's meant to be)
I don't know I've flown on the ANZ 787 in cattle which is 9 abreast and it was fine. We'll be in club on both the BA flights so not concerned about that.I flew BA 787 Business / Club and found it to be quite poor, like most BA 'Business' flights the layout is comprised to maximise seating capacity at the expense of the customer.
The entertainment system screen was small, the footrest had to be asjusted manually from out of your seat, no massage option, the bed was too short.
Food was good and cabin space / headroom feels greater with the new style cabin overhead configuration.
The entertainment system screen was small, the footrest had to be asjusted manually from out of your seat, no massage option, the bed was too short.
Food was good and cabin space / headroom feels greater with the new style cabin overhead configuration.
uncinqsix said:
Really? I thought it was rubbish. As are their 10 abreast 777s.
Singapore's 9 abreast 777s and the A380s are much better. I resent getting squeezed more and more every time I fly.
I was enormously tired as I'd gone London-Reykjavik-London-Tokyo-Auckland so maybe my memory isn't great but compared to most cattle classes it felt fine. My worst economy experiences have all been with BA so I just avoid it now.Singapore's 9 abreast 777s and the A380s are much better. I resent getting squeezed more and more every time I fly.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff