Odds and Ends: Avoiding risk; Avoid 787 goofs with 777X; Anticipation for the 777X; CSeries expectations

Avoiding Risk: Jetmakers avoid risk by revamping existing models.

Avoid 787 goofs with 777X: This Reuters article reports how challenging the brand damage has become with the 787 issues, and it’s not the first time we’ve heard the link.

Looking forward to 777X: Akbar Al-Baker didn’t say much during the grounding of the 787, but he’s back in the news now. He looks forward to the 777X but couldn’t resist complaining about the GE90 on the current 777. That’s odd: the GE90 has only been in service since the creation of the 777-300ER and is well regarded in the industry. But Al-Baker being Al-Baker–need we say more?

CSeries Expectations: Bombardier says first flight will be next month. Expectations are beginning to increase, according to this article.

16 comments on “Odds and Ends: Avoiding risk; Avoid 787 goofs with 777X; Anticipation for the 777X; CSeries expectations

  1. Hmmj… As they prepare to buy Boeing’s (BA.N) new 777X jet, Gulf airline giants Emirates EMIRA.UL and Qatar Airways are warning that Boeing must avoid the mistakes of the 787 Dreamliner, which cost customers millions of dollars when its batteries failed..

    Since BA seems to be moving the same people responsible for the 787 fiasco into 737Max and 777X programs, offloading a lot of planning jobs on current program to russia, and pounding the cut costs no matter how much it costs- IMO the prognosis is NOT good.

    BA may well be the new poster child for INSANE methods of Management.

    Doing more of the same thing- and expecting different results.

  2. Interested but not committed, similar words to BA, now an a350 customer. Boeing expect a 21% improvement over the 773, but aren’t Airbus claiming something similar or better with the a350-1000, which will be easier to fill up? Boeing should have learn’t with the 748i, which has similar economies to the 773, that in a race like this the smaller plane will win. The big plain MUST have a lower real CASM.

    Start with a clean sheet, guys, if you can’t offer a 25+% improvement.

    I have had a number of 773 flights delayed by tech issues, and I don’t fly on them so often, so U-turns comments don’t surprise me.

    • BA presents the -9X gains by comparing the -300ER in 9 abreast with the -9x in 10 abreast seating. ~8% difference in Y seats plus 2 more rows in the plug probably leaves 12..14% to better engines and aero.

      IMU the GE90-115 initially traded more maintainance, more polutants and more noise for that higher efficiency that gets so much publicity. If this has not changed over the years I would go with Al Baker ;-)

      • I have flown 773 “Gulag” class twice (AF & KL) and nearly all pax were sailors or foreign workers, except for a few really angry Australians on QF tickets flying AF. None of these tickets will have had a decent margin, AF/KL and the ME carriers aren’t famous for making money, and Boeing will need to vastly improve the 10 wide cabin if these seats are to be worth anything.

      • The case for the 777-9X only stacks up if you put 10 across in economy, in my view. This gives you a larger plane with seat costs that I guess are similar to the A350-1000. Several operators – Emirates is the obvious one – will be happy with this. I agree that if you aren’t prepared to put 10 across on the 777, you are unlikely to do so for the -9X, or even be interested in that plane. Switching the seat counts from 9 across in one model to 10 across in the other makes a dubious comparison.

        Another thing struck me. The A350 was originally on 93 Klbs of thrust an was criticized for being woefully underpowered. Meanwhile the significantly heavier 777-9X is just fine on 95 Klbs of thrust.

        Once we strip away the “too good to be true” claims for the 777-9X I think we will end up with a decent plane. As long as Boeing carries out a disciplined upgrade, it’s likely to be a profitable one too. But niche. The 787-10 is the one that will sell like hotcakes.

        • ” .. . Meanwhile the significantly heavier 777-9X is just fine on 95 Klbs of thrust.”

          From what I’ve read the -9X engine specs seems to have crept back up to 100.. 105 klbs.
          ( but that is just rumors )

      • …if you aren’t prepared to put 10 across on the 777 300ER, you are unlikely to do so for the -9X, or even be interested in that plane

    • The BA “order for 18 + 18 A-350s is only an MOU. It is not a firm order. This could have just been BA’s “wake-up” call to Boeing to get the moving on the B-7810 and B-777X.

  3. FF :
    The case for the 777-9X only stacks up if you put 10 across in economy, in my view. This gives you a larger plane with seat costs that I guess are similar to the A350-1000. Several operators – Emirates is the obvious one – will be happy with this. I agree that if you aren’t prepared to put 10 across on the 777, you are unlikely to do so for the -9X, or even be interested in that plane. Switching the seat counts from 9 across in one model to 10 across in the other makes a dubious comparison.
    Another thing struck me. The A350 was originally on 93 Klbs of thrust an was criticized for being woefully underpowered. Meanwhile the significantly heavier 777-9X is just fine on 95 Klbs of thrust.
    Once we strip away the “too good to be true” claims for the 777-9X I think we will end up with a decent plane. As long as Boeing carries out a disciplined upgrade, it’s likely to be a profitable one too. But niche. The 787-10 is the one that will sell like hotcakes.

    I have a hard time seeing SQ going 10 across in a 777, hence SQ will in all likelihood go for the A350-1000 instead of the 777-9X as a 77W replacement aircraft. However, SQ would probably want to crack the North American market in the future with non-stop flights, and is IMO one of only a few airlines in real need of an “economical” ULR aircraft. Hence the 777-8LX at nine across in economy and 35″ pitch should be quite an attractive offering for SQ in addition to an ULR version of the A380.

    BTW, are you aware that you’ve got a song named after you? Or is it the other way around? ;-)

    -

    • Thanks for the song reference! As well as replacing the three ULH A340-500 that were sold (I exaggerate), I think the 777-8X will make a very good freighter. That could be a large part of the motivation for the program.

      • SQ should be able to open up the Singapore/North-American non-stop market with significantly more economical aircraft than the A345 and 77L. Using a 777-8LX and an A380-900R would enable SQ to open up all new non stop routes from Singapore to SFO, IAD, ORD and YYZ, in addition to multiple non-stop multiple frequencies daily to LAX and JFK. I agree though that a freighter based on the dash -8LX would be a better overall seller.

  4. Again, I have a hard time understanding why airlines have chosen a variety of seating charts in their 777-300ERs, ranging in counts of less than 300 to more than 350, if the a/c was not profitable in those configurations? I tend to think Boeing designed the -9X to meet customer demand and they did not make a move on the program until a broad set of customer expectations were addressed/met. Why on earth are you folks now saying that the airlines will view the -9X as a niche? Some will go 9 while others will go 10. Extra space enables the airlines the opportunity to develop their brand, and if they can do that cost effectively in either the -1000 or the -9X they will. The -8I has different issues that when brought in simply muddy the waters. I think customer motivation drives all business decisions and wo them we would be traveling in costly fun a/c. So when the orders finally start coming in all of you armchair fleet operators will know more. Remember when the -300ER was not selling well? Now do the math. What we may find is that once Boeing created the market for both the -200ER and the -300ER, the market will be moving again. If the A350 family is doing a me too, they might find that they are limiting their long term opportunity because of the airlines’ interest in brand expansion. We’ve seen it in other markets, so let’s watch and see what happens in the wide-body world. it’s no where near as vanilla as the narrow body world. Fun time to be had by all.

Leave a Reply: Note Reader Comment Rules

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s