Third time is the charm: 777X takes to the sky today

By Scott Hamilton

Jan. 25, 2020, © Leeham News: The third time was the charm.

Boeing 777-9 on the way to what was hoped to be its first flight Jan. 24. As an experimental flight, the airplane had to take off north with a tailwind. The wind throughout the day exceeded the safe level. The flight was scrubbed. The airplane instead took to the sky the following day. Photo by Scott Hamilton.

After being rained out Thursday and scrubbing the first flight Friday due to high winds, Boeing successfully launched the 777X into the air Saturday for its first flight.

The flight left Everett (WA) Paine Field, where the 777 has been produced since the program began in the early 1990s.

After an uneventful couple of hours circling over central Washington State, the 777-9 landed at Boeing Field south of downtown Seattle. Test pilots reported solid controls and flying characteristics.

Boeing’s new queen

The 777-9 becomes Boeing’s largest in-production airliner now that the 747-8I is no longer produced. The 747-8 lives on, for the time being, as a freighter aircraft. But its days are number, with production likely to end in 2022. There are just 17 747-8Fs in backlog; Boeing is assembling these are the rate of six per year.

Related article

The 777X comes in two family members: the -8 Ultra Long Range model seating nominally 384 passengers; and the -9, seating nominally 426 passengers. The advertised range for the -8 is up to 8,730nm. The range for the -9 is 7,295 nm.

The -8 development has been put on hold for at least two years. The -9 is already a year behind planned entry into service, now slated for 2021. The new certification process, acknowledge by Boeing CEO David Calhoun last week, threatens to delay EIS for an undetermined period.

Improving on the 777 Classic

Boeing says the 777X is 13% more efficient than the 777-300ER. The newly designed GE Aviation GE9X engines provide 12% better fuel economy, Boeing says. The 777-9 carriers about 50 more passengers in standard configuration. It is equipped with a new, composite wing that have commercial aviation’s first folding wing tips.

The cockpit design for the 787 migrates to the X, providing greater pilot commonality between the two airplanes.

Larger windows and a slightly wider cabin are aimed for better passenger experience. Boeing also designed the airplane to have higher humidity and maintain a lower cabin altitude than on the -300ER, all for greater passenger comfort.

117 Comments on “Third time is the charm: 777X takes to the sky today

  1. Very good to see first flight done and safely.

    Clearly minimal issues as they were out for 3 hours.

    Be interesting to watch any regulatory changes.

    Also what the response is to the hull split.

    • Good that finally tbey moved with 777x to the next phase.

      But unfortunately @TransWorld it’s none of close to response to the hull split – beautiful photo won’t change engeneering.

      Problem of 777x is huge assumed advantage of grandfathering (same flaw FAA oversight process applied as forMAX). I hope that after MAX debacle this assumption will be changed and 777x will be tested well due to all changes. If not, original 777 will be the last well designed and built Boeing aircraft.

      • And the Sour grapes hours begins, I think its good to see it in the air and did well.

        Grandfather showed the youngsters.

        • Aside from attack on Boeing, there is no consistency to the logic (or more arguably a total lack of logic)

          737 is one area of this and the issue is with the MAX and MCAS, it has nothign to do with grandfater or age (diecly). If it did you would be aruging that all 737s should be taken out of hte air.

          The A300 in fact is the most granfaterhede chamipio of all time. It did not even start out as FBW. Its been lenghted, two different wings, I have lost trakc of how many different fuselage lenghts betwen the A300 and the A340 and it has been re-engined vis an NEO and sinfnain changes to the A330CEO wing.

          And no one lays out any issues, its just a phrase.

          The 777 is a modern desing FBW aircraft.

          And is in fact all tht tsing mean much if anyting? All they do after a poin tis bore holes in the sky to build hours. Route rpvoing? Hmm, all those routes have been flown a million times by lots of different aircraft from the 30s on. What are you going to find new.

          Passenger cabin work? Ins’t that an issue with the Airlines?

          When you can build something as massive as an A380 wing and predict failure within a few percentage points, you have the structures well understood. Not to mention they are tested to death which is in fact the real test, you never get enough hours in the air to do that.

          Boeing never did get the 787 wing to fail. 155% as I recall and they decided it hazard to explode it and wreck the test facility.

          The wing join? They had it right the first time, actually the failure was good as it told them something important about their modeling, it was spot on.

          We alwyas learn more form our failures than our success.

          So other than just being anti Boeing/US and thumping the EU on the chest is this anything other than an exercise in Trans Atlantic Partisanship?

          On the 727 Aux tank situation the EASA says, we can’t make a decision, we don’t have any data!

          Sure they do, they have the FAA saying its not safe and disable it.

          No, the much vaunted and hyped EASA says, we can’t do anything .

          Where have I heard that before?

          • I’m not an aerospace professional but as an interested bystander I have taken “grandfathering to mean the allowance to continue using design features that would not be allowed under current regulations, Please explain how this would apply to the A330, can’t see, for example, how going from cables to fbw would be allowed.

          • Features like manual backup, two computers are part of it.

            The other is amount of flight testings required.

            Not nearly as much on a rev or a grandfathered.

        • @TransWorld

          You never heard about self-certification by Boeing or weak oversight by FAA in during MAX design & testing, didn’t you?

          Well Tim Clark is more aware of 777x safety & regulatory challenges.

          • Never said there were not issues.

            But there is zero logic in the statements.

            Is this a grandfather issue or is this an FAA issue?

            If its a grandfather clearly lay out what your criteria is.

            The FAA issues have been discussed and outcome is still unknown.

            ODA inspectors need to report to FAA not Boeing clearly.

            Otherwise the wisdom is the FAA can’t staff up or retain the expertise in the areas let alone the developing ones.

            That is an EASA issue as well.

            All I see is a scatter gun approach to the questions with an intent to simply beat up on Boeing and the US for beatings sake and not correcting.

          • @TransWorld

            Grandfathering vs new ribs, new wings, new engines, new interiors, new windows.

            Want to read something that has zero logic (your wording)? Read your own words from above: “Also what the response is to the hull split.” Pure hype.

          • Pablo:

            Certainly your view, not the view of all.

            It would be vastly better done comment wise to have specific rather than generalities.

        • “”And the Sour grapes hours begins, I think its good””

          rest in peace TW

  2. That will make the headlines for the newest financial reports due out this week.

    I bet they wished they had some of those tail winds for the Max re certification!

    • Just having the plane on the threshhold on Friday already brought $10 markup to the share ( 2:30 pm EST 11:30 Seattle time. 🙂

      • Some people just hate to see Boeing succeed.

        Sticks in their craw that despite the issue they can still a accomplish amazing things and came up with a beautiful and it looks to be a successful aircraft.

        Compare it to an A380 that looks like a Gooney Bird (Airbus redeemed themselves somewhat on the A350 which is a good looking aircraft even if its a 787 knock off)

        • Some people just are just so hyped about Boeing to not see even simple facts, only Boeing’s supernatural powers.

  3. What a huge plane. I wonder if the freighter version will eventually be built off the 777-8 platform? It will be interesting to see its acceptance over time in the industry. We knock Boeing over it’s decisions making the last couple decades, especially regarding the B737, but if they get the right leadership that favors engineering over accounting, they’ll be quite an amazing operation again.

    • Supposedly Qatar wants a B77X freighter and I can’t remember where I read it, however Boeing might eventually build a freighter based on the B778X.

      • The long term plan is to build an F on the 777-8 frame. Qatar is NOT going to be a driver of this. If anyone it will be FedEx/UPS maybe DHL (if at all)

        How viable that is I do not know. They could have done a 777-300F as it were and elected to do it on the 200 frame and its been very successful. The natural replacement (and in FedEx case supplement) to0 the MD-11F.

        So why the 300 sized -8 would work?

        In the meantime they will keep building the 777F

        Having worked around FedEx for a lot of years I can say they loved the 777F. Plans for various BCF. They thought they had a deal with Singapore for feed stock of the old 200s at one time but those went to scoot.

        Unlike an A380, they did not scrap early 777s, they just kept re-purposing them.

        • Maybe second hand A380s will end up as freighter conversions. The got volume. I also thought someone could buy them really cheap second hand and use them on the 10 most traveled routes in the World with 800 seats and wreck havoc with everyone else.

          • To be a fregihter you have to come up with a desing and run it through aproval. STC.

            That cost a lot of money desing wise and a conversion for something the size of the A380 boggles the mind (door, floor reinforcement, cargo floor movement system)

            And the only interest was FedEx and UPS in the F variant. FedEx has gone with 777F and UPS has put its future in the 747-8F.

            Hy Fly has not flown there A380 in a money earning operation since last October. How many can afford to have it sitting around for 5 months with no revenue?

  4. So they made the fuse 10 inches wider, added a carbon wing, with all this work, why is it 35T more then the A350-1000? Is it made of steel?

    I know it seats 50 more but that is only 5 rows.

    • The plane is still made from aluminum.The fuselage itself isn’t 10 inches wider. They made the interior “wider” by removing some of the insulation, etc.

      The B779 is also larger than the B777-300ER.

      The new GE engines are heavier than than the ones on the B777-300ER and the wings are probably heavier as well.

      The plane is more efficient than the B777-300ER however.

      • Looks good on videos of first flight, but its big, yes 747 and 380 replacement but is it an ideal B777-300(ER) replacement for the future?

        • That is the question, if it is as drable and flexible as the 777-300ER.
          Many look at max range with MTOW but many routes are shorter and at lower take off mass hence it needs to handle that cycling and exceed engine time on wing of the GE90 too meet its expetations. We will see after a few years after certification. Lots of things can ruin its economics like engine if blade vibrations and hot section design misstake like T2 blades internal corrosion, oil tube coking, LPT vibrations, HPT shroud wear, HPC disk knife edge seal vibrations and cracking, HPT rotating air seals rubbing induced vibrations and cracking, fan blade atteachment galling or premature ceramics wear and no repair for these, like burner liners or burner nozzle splash plates.

          • Trent 1000 and its ilk come to mind.

            777 current is having GE engine issues that are extremely serious

          • RR has a habit of repeating old P&W design misstakes. But sometimes RR get it pretty perfect right from a reliability standpoint, hard to predict when it will happen.

          • Could you embellish on that?

            P&W has never had a three spool and until the Ultra, RR has stacked its life on it.

            If RR was following P&W how come P&W has been left out of the modern large engine offering? They would have to be on some stuff to be copied.

      • They didnt remove insulation either , the fuselage ring frames are about 2 in less depth on each side where the seats are. The frames return to the same depth or web all around the rest of the fuselage, from memory its a circular shape.

    • Maybe someone can help out, Wikipedia has the cabin width for the 777-(200/300) as 5.86m (231″) and that of the 777X as 5.96m (19.6ft=235.2″). That looks like 10cm wider or around 5.2″according to Wiki, something doesn’t balance out. At best this will give economy seat widths of ~17.3″ give or take that of the 787.

    • The increased width from sculpting the interior walls is 4 inches, not 10 inches.

      • @ Thanks all. Just wanted to confirm before saying that the 777X won’t have the 18″ wide seats in 3-4-3 as some claim. Not sure if that 1cm/seat will make it much better that the current 777 which for those who flew it will know what its like.

  5. Duplicate of my post in other thread- this is a better place

    First flight data in 3d- altitude numbers a bit flaky

    Mostly around 220 to 280 its highest speed seems to be most southward side of circle around mountain. For those not familiar- the mountain is Rainer- and it is almost a prime directive to get photos of Boeing planes with Mt In background- Used a T33 chase plane I think.

    • 180 to 305, most around 15k

      Most of the time spend was 40 miles West of Spokane.

  6. This is an impressive rewing. The 707 got a new wing root section added to become the 707-320. The A340 wing has an insert to become the A340-5/600. This has got to top both of those, by replacing an aluminum wing with a larger CFRP wing, and the folding wingtips to boot.
    I liked the look of the 777F when it first flew with the tapered wingtips, large engines, and triple axle gear juxtaposed against the windowless fuselage. The 777-9 is a scale up from that. The four canoes on the outboard wing give it a unique look as well.

    • The 747 got parts of the wing new ( the structural wing box remained), A300 got a new wing to become the A330, but the one that should have had ‘more than just a new 25% more area wing’ the 737 NG , didnt.

      A330:…” There were more composite assemblies than on the A300, and the wings were of new configuration, designed by BAE and featuring proper winglets, not wing fences, from the outset. They had a steeper sweep than the A300, of 30 degrees at quarter-chord. Wing control surfaces were also rearranged: while the A330 wing still had full-span leading-edge slats plus a Krueger flap forward and dual double slotted flaps in the rear, both ailerons were outboard and there was only one spoiler ahead of the inboard flap, not two.
      Another visible recognition feature that distinguished it from the A300 was that the wing center section in the fuselage was “bulged”. Exactly why is unclear; possibly it was done to accommodate the heavier landing gear, possibly to add fuel stowage; maybe both?”

      I have a feeling the NMA , because of the timescale and development costs will be more of a re-wing -re-engine and FBW added to the 767. With all the new structures engines and systems adaptations of Boeings ( and GE) existing models.

        • Interesting the 60’s era design has the A300 wingbox mimic the profile of the underfloor luggage area / containers — so no saddle outside the circular profile of the fuselage.

          25 years later and the ,”saddle” concept is common place and the wingbox bulks up to allow for a higher MTOW.

          Interesting to see what happens when AB pushes the A32* platform up the MTOW range?

          110T = New big wing A321?
          130T = A323
          150T = A325 aka the “Super Duper Sixty”.

          5K NM nominal range for all?

          • compare pictures of A300 center wing box and A330 center wing box ( and the A350 too )

            airbus presented a CFRP center wing box design
            year or two ago.

          • The A330 added a noticeable twist to the wing profile near the wing root, that may have meant in some photos there ‘seemed’ to be a bulge.
            The under wing body fairings are in a different area .

          • The more I read the more changes to the A330NEO – hmm,

            I now declare it unstable aircraft.

      • That will depend on how the 777X fares in leveraging grandfathering for a certification.
        If they can pass it off as intended “anything” goes for rewamps of old frames. just one single screw has to carry over stay the same 🙂

      • Duke:

        When you re-wing, re-engine and FBW you have a new aircraft on an old structure.

        Why would you do that?

        • Because it works…A330.
          And most of the features in 737NG, 747-8 and 777X.
          The bucket of money and time isn’t bottomless.

          • A 330CEO was a FBW design from the start, piggybacking off the same era A320.

            The 767 has never been FBW and big bucks to do that and you have to adapt a FBW system from a non similar era aircraft.

            Big bucks for a wing.

            Serious money for NEO and the various mods.

            By the time you are done you have a dated hull and all those critics of grandfathering at the same cost as an all new aircraft.

            The 767 was designed to whip the A300, not the A330.

            Boeing may have issues but they are not that stupid.

    • A340NG wing was new but retained the HighLift stuff from the base model. IMU no structure parts are common. “Inserts” is how to visualize it.

    • Duke:

      I gather you never flew a classic vs an NG.

      The NG had a dramatically improved wing, not just larger. Much cleaner.

      • Can’t have changed too much else , as the wing box still had the too short under carriage bay for those little boys pants ‘legs’.

        • the wing box gear recesses have _nothing_ to do with gear length, it is where the mounts are placed on the wing.

          the primary reason for the short landing gear is weight: shorter gear weighs less and they get to keep the “no slides for overwing exits” certification so they save weight there too.

          additionally, major changes to the MLG would impose some costs on the airports also, as they would have to repaint many markings at gates and train their ground crews to deal with the different MLG variations and jetway heights

  7. >Boeing says the 777X is 13% more
    >efficient than the 777-300ER. The
    >newly designed GE Aviation GE9X
    >engines provide 12% better fuel
    >economy, Boeing says.

    Being an engine make is a thankless job. Responsible for most of aviation’s efficiency improvements but lauded for them!

  8. I would have thought that “solid controls” are the worst thing possible.

    • Only if you are not a pilot. You want a good solid airplane and feel to it.

      These are not fighter jets nor hot rods.

  9. I like the new B-777X
    Beautiful engines and wings!
    It is common, for complex engineering RD, to be delayed

    • Spot On

      And it was the engine and amazingly late in development they found the problems.

      Unlike the Trent 1000 they are still finding problems with.

  10. Kudo to Boeing
    This will be a great airplane
    Just a question what does a great first flight mean? Has anyone ever heard of a bad first flight?
    Less than 20 warning lights?

    • Yes there have been bad first flights. Read the history of they 747 and they had huge issue with the wing.

      All computer controlling anything are pre programed with alarm points.

      Usually they are too picky. And keep in mind while they call them alarms, they often are just warnings of parameters that may or may not be relevant.

      All my fans had what they called filter alarms. There was nothign alarm about it, all it meant was the filter had reached a pre-determined restriction limit (getting dirty, not failing)

      MAX was 1.0 inches of water column. Usually it affected flow at .6 to .8. Filter would not fail until 1.5.

      You had to get experience with the particular fan to know what point you set the warming at and it was weeks if not months before it became a performance issue. Not an alarm.

      They have to review the alert and see if its an issue or not and if its really an alarm or a warning.

  11. “”Boeing says the 777X is 13% more efficient than the 777-300ER.””

    More efficient in what? Per seat?

      • 13% more efficient is still a “?” to me.

        So I checked, it says the 777-300ER has 396 seats and the 777-9 has 426 seats (both in 2 class).
        The 777-9 has 30 seats more which are 3 rows at 10-abreast, the 777-300ER use 10-abreast too.

        The 777-9 can carry 30 pax more which is +7.6%,
        but the range for the 777-9 with 7285nm is -1.2% less than the 777-300ER.
        The 3000kg advantage (30 pax) for the 777-300ER is 2% of the max fuel.
        Hard to imagine 13% better efficiency.
        Might be boeingitis (jedi mind tricking) within Boeing’s numbers, sure they are computed numbers and not flight results.

  12. I have no doubt about the Boeing’s ability to make this plane fly and fly well. The point is how Boeing will make money (“it’s the economy, stupid !”). At this stage, it’s a niche airplane and whatever some people say (the same who were sure that the A380 will be a business failure, and they were right) it’s the same bet as the A380 at launch time. The bet is “big is beautiful”. Boeing is forced to make bigger to compete with the A350. The 777X is not intrinsically better than the A350, it could better (at least with maximum of pax) just because it’s bigger. That’s why the -8 is in jeopardy.
    Moreover, once again Boeing counter attacks to a more recent Airbus design with a renewed older design. I don’t mean that the 777X will have technical issues like the MAX but Boeing exposes itself to an “easy” Airbus retaliation (the A350-1000 and/or -2000 Neo). The 777X is a 777 design at its maximum, the A350 is far from its maximum. That’s the issue and it’s clearly measurable with the OEW, the weight gap is huge.
    When Airbus proposed the A350 Mk1 (actually a revamped A330), it was not a huge success. Why ? Because it was a “me too” airplane towards the brand new 787. Same cause, same effects about the 777X IMHO.
    Apart from that, I don’t think that the 777X number of engines will make it more attractive for airlines than the A380. That’s not the biggest factor : the point is how to make a VLA profitable all year for airlines. It’s all about riskiness. To make the A380 profitable it’s necessary to fill them up daily. It will be the same for the 777X, 2 engines or not. Emirates is able to do it, who else ? The current trend seems to be “small is beautiful” according to Steven Udvar Hazy. The big business is around the A321 size or something between the A321/737 and the A330/787. For widebodies : the A350-900 and the 787-9/-10.
    Airlines are more and more reluctant to take risk, that’s why an A321 almost 2 times less costly than an A330/787 is such a success. The A321XLR is the real game changer that Boeing promised with the 787. Small airplanes making point-to-point flights against big airplanes between large hubs. Airbus is going to keep the Boeing’s promise, it’s amazing.
    With the current Coronavirus crisis in China (and maybe worldwide) and all the global economy uncertainties, the risk aversion is the trend and I don’t see any reason for a change.

    • How many seats will Emirates put in thier 779?

      How many do they have in their A380?

      • The number of seats is not relevant (anyway several different configurations for each airplane). The A380 and the 777-9 are in the same niche : VLA with a catalog price around 440 M$. It’s the second time that an airplane manufacturer is trying to make a VLA bigger than the 747. At this stage it’s very risky to say that the second time is the charm.

        • A lot of error going around, the 777X is LONGER and WIDER its not BIGGER than a 747-8 (which is still the biggest aircraft in production despite Scotts statement)

          At this point it merely matches a 747 seat wise in same to same class seating setups.

          Is there a market for it?

          Its a mistake to compare it to an A380 because its not even close.

          It also does not compare well to a 747, its got two engines not 4 and its got a CRFP wing.

          I don’t claim to know, its a stay tuned. Its a question to ask but not pre load or judge. Its not like anything out there (the closest being the A350-1000)

          • Size doesn’t matter. The wing or the number of engines either. The A380 and the 777X share roughly the same price then the same level of risk for airlines. Time will tell if they will share the same fate, but let’s remember that A380 failed although there was no competitor (same size). In case there’s really a market for airplanes that big, the 777X won’t be alone for a long time (we know that Airbus is already working on the 350Neo).

          • Yes size matters, the larger the aircraft the more passengers it can carry. You arn’t going to fly an A350 on routes suited to Single Aisle.

            No question it has to fit routes and suite operations. The 747-8I was not a success.

            List price does not matter. Its what you can get for it and what it costs to build.

            The A350-1000, the 777-9 and the 747-8 are all in the same general category.

            A350NEO? Speculation so far, RR won’t have an engine until 2025.

            When does Airbus make money? You keep changing engines and you never will.

            Is the 777-9 and the A350-1000 too large pax wise and not flexible enough? Its a more limited market than the 787/A330/A350-900

          • Business model matters, marketing matters, so price matters and risk matters for airlines. 777-9 and A380 are in the same category : VLA with roughly the same price and the same level of risk. Airbus lost its bet and drew the necessary conclusions. In Toulouse, the ressources (FAL, people, etc…) are now redirected to much more lucrative markets, that’s the right thing to do.
            The A350 can replace some 777-300ER without the need of adding 50 more seats, then adding the risk to go a bridge too far. With the A350-900, Airbus can maintain a high level of production (now 10/month), Boeing can’t do that with the 777X, the market is not here and the 777-8 is not competitive. That means that there’s not a lot of margin to lower the 777X production cost.
            About the A350 Neo, I can tell you that it is not a speculation in Toulouse. There’s a team dedicated to that, some people have been hired at this purpose. And even it doesn’t exist yet, Airbus has much more cards in its hand than Boeing for the future due to the much more recent technology. That means for airlines more risk to buy the 777X which can be obsolete in about 5 to 10 years.
            Boeing should focus on the core of the market, the 777X is a distraction and the MAX a huge loss of time and money. They should make a 787-10ER or -11 maybe. And of course a brand new single-aisle. It’s never easy to give up dreams. The 747 era is over, the seventies and eighties are over. The 400+ seats market still exists but it’s a niche for happy few (airlines like Emirates). Current times need flexibility and agility, not gigantism.

          • “”You arn’t going to fly an A350 on routes suited to Single Aisle.””

            It depends on the fleet of the airline.
            It’s not seldom that the 777 or 787 are flown transatlantic when a A321 could do the same.
            In single class 200 pax on a A321 equals to 436 pax 9-abreast on a A350-900. A true comparison with all costs would be interesting.

          • Leon:

            Typical single aisle, Trans Atlantic is still the norm with a wide body.

            Single Aisle is a lot cheaper, that is why it can work as huge offset, but you need it pilot wise as two pilots in a 777-300 carry 4 times the pax an A321 does (or a 737-800)

            The point is that comparison wise a 777 is no where near the same class as A380.

            The artificial labels have been going around, but they are just that, artificial.

            Airbus classes the A330 as a VLA now to.

            The 777-300 sold and sold well the way it did because it was a vastly different aircraft than the A380.

            In my world a Caribou is not a Moose. Just try packing a moose out sometime! Yep, its a VLA (very large animal).

            The Bou? Not so much

  13. Interesting design but still a bit of a dog — the changes highlight the weaknesses of the current 350T model — engines designed for power and not economy plus the crush-a-pleb economics needed up the back to make it any credible against the A350.

    Selling the original B7double7 as 9ab up the back in the 90’s looks such a luxury in comparison to the current re-furbs putting in 16.8″ wide seats to get 10ab.

    So shame on UK-BA / Emirates for doing this.

    With the 7double7 “MAX” — huge engineering effort to go against the grain of fuselage design to wring out another 4″ of local cabin width to make the 10ab seating close to the 9ab seating in the B787.

    A very low bar indeed but at least someone at BA has a heart and some self respect.

    However in the round — 8 / 9 — seem a lot of effort to put lipstick on a dinosaur. Too big and too in-efficient to take the industry to the next level.

    The wing will help, the right sized engines will help but it is too big to generate the rate of returns that other planes can deliver — what revenue does the last 30 seats in economy deliver.

    To the airline vs google adverts?

    TA future: 8ab on a 180 / 240T platform built at 20 per month.

    BA has had a good go with the B787 but when all the hype evaporated and the dust settled it is still 125T plus of OEW to be financed and kept in the air rather 90T.

    Close but no cigar.

    Finally Wiki is letting itself down with the 18″ wide seat chat @ 10ab — interesting that it is allowed to stand for so long against reality.

      • I think the evaluation has already started — the market is unsure and the engineering looks very forced and partial.

        The OEW figures will be interesting when they arrive.

        Consequently the whole project looks a bit too much Moscow Metro to be a sure fire winner.

        Point to point looks like the future not mega-hub to mega-hub.

        AB have or had the patter but not the product to make this happen.

        • I don’t see anything forced in the 777X.

          Can you point out any specifics or is this just the scatter gun approach? Empty statements without support.

          • Fuselage barrels — moving away from the norm of a constant circular form of reinforcement to a non consistent sculpted design to gain some cabin width.

            Then there is the folding wings — they must be trying to flog it to the USN.

            Adding complexity, cost and weight to the aircraft to gain aero benefits and the use of a smaller engine to lift the same amount of weight.

            All very forced to me.

            It will never have the nickname of “The Natural”.

          • What is forced about the folding wing? It was part of the original 777 (different wing of course)

            The USN has been doing that since WWII. Shoot at times the whole wing has folded not just the end.

            The wing is CRFP so yes you can change the engines (its not smaller, its bigger.)

            Fine tuning the frames does not sound forced to me.

            Seems anything Boeing does is not to your approval.

            You don’t like the highly successful 787 either. Likely to go onto 2000-2500 air frames.

  14. 50 more passengers in the “9” — how come?

    An extra 3 rows due to the extra length plus another 25/30 in economy due to the “new” crush-a-pleb 10ab layout in economy?

    Not very inspiring is it?

    • MTOW were kept the same, stretched 2.84m (+3.8%) but with much more empty weight (+8.1%).

      • Few will have a chance to lament that from experience 🙂

        In a similar fashion the A330 9across pax are a minority.

        increase the pain:
        people are narrower at knee level.
        can’t you sit them in alternate forward/rear facing columns? like so: AVA_AVAVAV_AVA ? 15 inches?
        (12 across with roomy 22 inch aisles fits the 777X) who offers more?

        • Great laugh to start Monday off.

          787 was 8 abreast until the Airlines figured out they could pack in 9 and make more money.

          The A330 too will follow that. You have not figured out its not about Uwe have you.

          Welcome to Hell.

          • “The A330 too will follow that. ”

            You can keep dreaming, of course. But, let’s look at the situation as it stands today.

            The 787 was in service for barely an year before all the airlines started cramming in the extra 9th seat to make their investment worth it.

            The A330 fuselage width was in service for 3 decades before that and almost another decade later, there has been no shift in the 8x vs. 9x airline fleet configuration proportions, with the former still being the most dominant. No blue-chip carrier has it at 9x either.

  15. 777X will not suffer the faith of the A380 becuse it is 40% smaller and also better design. No floor space is wasted. It is a twin engine and is 18% bigger than the A350-1000 in floor space. In half the time on the market it has 160 % the order of the A350-1000. Airbus should watch their back because B787 new engine will make the A350 also run because they both seat nine across. Airlines could care less about half inch more comfort.

    • It is a much different bird than both 747 and A380.

      Will have to see long term how it fares (pun)

    • A350-10 vs B7double7 maX 9 in cabin floor area?

      You suggest that the BA product is 18% bigger than the AB product.

      Struggling to work the numbers to get this figure — the B7double7 cabin is at best 6% wider and possibly 6% longer.

      Not sure how this will generate the 18% figure you are pushing.

    • The pertinent statistic, imho is that the 9X OEW is 26.4 tons heavier than the A350-1000 OEW (I.e. more than 2 London double decker buses) with only very marginal payload advantage (73.5t max payload for the 9X compared with 71t when A350-1000mtow is increased to 319t in 2021). Therefore, the 9X needs those huge engines to carry its own structural weight rather than additional payload. Btw, that’s one big reason why Airbus won project sunrise, the 8X didn’t have a significant payload advantage to compensate for its heavier weight.

      • Why does the B777-9 have more orders than A350-1000? I can think of 3 explanations. 1 The massive Existing B777 customer base want compatibility with the previous fleet, 2 slot constraints are still a big problem (Dubai), 3 B777 is more economical.

    • “”No floor space is wasted.””

      777-300ER // 777X-9 // A350-1000
      MTOW kg 351533 // 351534 // 316000
      OEW kg 167829 // 181400 // 155000
      fuel L=kg 181283=145026 // 197977=158382 // 158790=127032

      Fully fueled the 777-300ER can carry 386 pax, 117 pax for the 777X-9, 339 pax for the A350-1000.
      Seems something went wrong on the 777X.

  16. Fat bloke do the math. Airbus A350 is 219.5 inch and 777x is 235.1 inch. interior space. Now you know why they have the same comfort. Fan boy petulant is not going to stop fleet managers .

  17. It is now an airplane.

    (Isn’t until it flies.
    Sucessfully that is, unlike the subsidized perfessor from the DC area, beat by a couple of bicycle mechanics from Ohio or some place DC types would sneer at.)

    • Keith:

      That took me a bit. Yea Langley was a shyster as was his (and all the other shysters that want to get the glory but never did what the Wright bothers did)

      Wright brothers stand up there with Einstein and Tesla in my book.

  18. Off topic :/

    Kobe Bryant with doughter died in helicopter crash today. Dammit.

  19. Fleet managers and their crush-a-pleb fetishes — at some point the pips will stop squeaking.

    B7double7 @ 10ab = 16.8″ seat widths.
    NeoCon economics at its worst as it goes hand in hand with a business class land grab up the front with the move to lie flat seats.

    The B7double7 MAX move to a complex fuselage barrels suggests that someone at BA has a heart and a conscience — huge effort in both engineering time and structural weight to achieve the square root of very little.

    As for the A350 — AB have squeezed the 9ab layout to its wimpy EU worst. Not quite as bad as the red in tooth and claw US worst but not good all the same.

    However @ 9ab the A350 is a better environment than the B787 @ 9ab and consequently better than the B7double7 MAX 10ab set up when it arrives.

    The historical angle shows that things are getting worse for everyone — A300 / B767 vs A350 / B787 is the proof.

    • What are you going on about?
      The 747 for decades, and still with the 747-8, had 17 in wide seats like the A320 has.,No different for the 777X
      Buy economy plus if you don’t like it, we don’t need more ‘sad fishing’ here.

      • The B747 was 50 years ago.

        The world has moved on and so had BA — B767 a 7ab was a great step forward.

        Now we are going backwards.

        And the you have the A320 cabin over the B737 whete the extra width is very noticeable and very useful.

        17″ wide seats — you can put up with them for an hour or two but not 8 or 10.

  20. I don’t see the 777X as the new Queen of the skies. The A380 tried to preempt that from the 747 and failed.

    There is and always will only be one Queen of the Skies and that is the 747.

    The rest just have to stand in awe.

  21. AAAAAA mazing- thread about first flight of 777x and majority of posters are busy redesigning almost every plane from Orv and wilbur, thru 727,737,747,airbus 300 series, wings, wing boxes, seat pitch and width ( not a boeing responsibility BTW ) engines, etc and hardly a word about 777 flight.

    • Perhaps you didnt notice but the 777X is a ‘re-designed in production plane’ .

      • 777 started as a frankenplane.
        scaled up 757 with microcephalic 767 cockpit :-))))

        dash80 was done for avoiding to get skimmed off for war profiteering.
        747 was a customers defined wish project ( Juan Trippe )
        737 was a customer defined wish project ( LH )

        Lots of synthetic folklore around to boost Boeing.

  22. Boeing has got its cabin widths spot on. Having finally had a ride in a 9 abreast 787, I can report that it’s not that bad. Not that good either, but I’m not a wealthy man. Airbus is forcing airlines to either cram passengers or give away free width.
    I wonder how the 777X would have cost and how it would have worked out if Boeing had gone for a carbon fuselage. The king of the skys.

    • If an airline buys A330 that’s for 8 abreast. Only few LCCs made them 9 abreast.

      B789 is 8,5 abreast so almost every carrier went for 9 abreast.

      • Mainline carriers use 8 abreast on the A330 while the 9 abreast offered is usually taken up by low cost airlines. Both layouts capture the targeted travelers’ comfort vs. price nicely.

        787 now only delivers as hard 9 abreast for both mainline and low cost carriers save for a couple of airlines, one of which changed to 9 later. The 8 abreast 787 advertised isn’t an economical offering, anymore than if you offered the availability of a 7 abreast layout.

        • seat pitch and width and comfort levels are up to the airline or purchaser. As long as they meet certain strength and g load and related safety requirements.

          IMHO- the airlines could probably come up with a overhead hanging harness so that people would be upright and pack em in even better than cattle car class

          It would cause a major design issue for the overhead hooks- but . . .

  23. TransWorld has been suspended for 30 days following totally inappropriate remarks about the death of Kobe Bryan and eight others.

    LNA will not tolerate this kind of behavior. Anyone else who goes down this path will also be suspended.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *