Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Boeing dominates Dubai Air Show opening day (Updated with additional news)
By Scott Hamilton
Nov. 17, 2025, © Leeham News: Despite Boeing saying it was going to concentrate on outlining a path for certification of the 777X at the Dubai Air Show, the company dominated the opening day with new orders.
Embraer also announced a few orders at the show.
Airbus was a no-show for commercial deals on opening day.
Emirates Airline announced an order for 65 777-9s, with a list price value of $38bn. It has rights to change the order to the 777-8 or the stretch 777-10, should Boeing decide to proceed with this model. Emirates president Tim Clark has been urging Boeing to stretch the 777 into a larger capacity -10 model. Nominally the -9 seats 465 passengers, which would likely be much lower in Emirates’ premium configuration.
“Emirates’ latest agreement with Boeing also provides strong backing for Boeing’s feasibility study to develop the 777-10, a larger variant of its 777X family,” the airline said in a statement.
After Airbus discontinued the giant A380, Clark has been vocal that a plane larger than the 365-seat A350-1000 or the 465-seat 777-9 is needed. Airbus years ago evaluated stretching the -1000 into a “-2000” to match the size of the 777-9 but decided then the market couldn’t support the airplane.
GE Aerospace supplies the engines for the 777-9. It says there is enough reserve power to accommodate a 777-10. Rolls-Royce powers the A350-1000 with its 97,000 lb thrust Trent XWB 97. It’s unclear if this engine could power a -2000.
Regardless, if Boeing proceeds with a 777-10 and Airbus proceeds with an A350-2000, Boeing will still dominate the Very Large Aircraft sector (+400-seats). The -2000 would be significantly smaller than the 777-10.
Ethiopian Airlines committed to purchase 11 additional 737 MAX jets.
Emirates was expected in some quarters to finally be ready to place an order for the A350-1000.
Embraer
Embraer announced orders from the Swiss airline Helvetic Airways and Air Côte d’Ivoire of the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire.
Helvetic ordered three E195-E2s with purchase rights for five more. The first delivery will be at the end of 2026.
Air Côte d’Ivoire ordered four E175-E1s with purchase rights for eight more. Delivery begins in the first half of 2027.
AIN’s Air Show Daily
LNA’s parent company, AIN Media Group, is at the Dubai Air Show. The AIN Show Daily electronic magazine may be found here.
Pratt & Whitney Advances GTF Engine Improvements
By Matt Thurber • Editor-in-Chief
Nov. 17, 2025, © AIN: While engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney (P&W) continues the campaign to improve the reliability of its geared turbofan (GTF) engine series, the problems that airlines are having with their engines are not unusual in a historical context, according to Rick Deurloo, president of Commercial Engines. GTF engines power the Airbus A320neo family, Airbus A220, and Embraer E-Jets E2.
“When you look at the durability of the V2500 eight years into the program versus the GTF, it’s not significantly different,” he said. “The difference is that the ramp was so much higher. In effectively 10 years of delivering engines to our airframe customers, we’ve already basically met what the V2500 did in its 30-plus years. The difference this time would be that the ramp at the front end of this program was significantly higher than the V2500, but its time on-wing is effectively the same at this point.”
The full story may be found here.
CFM Modifications Ease Leap Engine Maintenance Burden
By Charles Alcock • Managing Editor
Nov. 17, 2025, © AIN: CFM International says it is achieving breakthroughs in ongoing efforts to reduce the maintenance burden for airliners powered by its Leap engines. On Monday, the manufacturer reported that it is increasing the availability of a reverse bleed system that is already on almost half of the Leap-1A turbofans.
The new system prevents carbon build-up on the fuel nozzles by circulating cooling air through the engine core after shutdown. CFM is awaiting imminent engine-level FAA certification of the technology for the Leap-1B model.
To boost what has been a disappointing time-on-wing performance for the engines, CFM has now shipped more than 1,200 durability kits for the Leap-1A’s high-pressure turbine (HPT), both on new-build engines and for fitting during overhauls.
The full story may be found here.
Late Breaking Update
At the very end of the Opening Day, Boeing announced another order: Air Senegal has committed to order nine 737-8 MAX airplanes.
“Emirates’ latest agreement with Boeing also provides strong backing for Boeing’s feasibility study to develop the 777-10, a larger variant of its 777X family,” the airline said in a statement.”
When will Boeing (777x) and Airbus (A380) learn you can’t launch a aircraft type/version with mainly one customer and be successful Reminder, the next 20 years 40% of commercial aircraft deliveries will be in Southeast Asia
I’d argue if that one customer agrees to fund it there’s not an issue. In earlier days many projects were one-offs per customer (QF sunrise aircraft). If EK had been willing to pay for an a380neo they’d have it as the only customer too. If they’re willing to pay enough to cover development costs for a 777-10x there’s no reason for Boeing not to even if no other customer buys it
ZOOM.
Respectfly, that’s what they said about the 767-400. They built maybe 60 for a single customer… Today there’s so much more thinking going nto aircraft second lives that narrow niche aircraft have many more hurdles.
@PNWgeek” 37 767-400s for Delta and Continental.
How do 767-400 and A321XLR compare as to deviation from the base type?
( IMU the 764 was a major changeover from the 763. )
@Scott
“365-seat A350-1000 or the 465-seat 777-9”
The 777-9 seats 100 more than the A35K ?
Are these real world Emirates configurations ? What would like for like 777-9 vs A35K seating look like ?
I was thinking Emirates A35K would be around 280 & 320-330 for 777-9 with a mix of classes.
Not EK configuration, of course not. General specifications.
We’ll be taking a deep dive look at this stuff next week.
I mean by that logic Airbus shouldn’t have built the 330-800NEO for its single digit customers. It would be better to develop and get the plane on offer while you’re still in certification phases. If EK already ordered 65 of them it’s already roughly matching other “niche” aircraft like 77Ls. IIRC the 764 was built directly for CO and DLs replacement needs so given both ordered it I am sure Boeing considers it a moderate success at its stated mission. Plus a 777-10 is unmatched by Airbus even if they did further 350 stretches. Minimal investment for a guaranteed EK order but also to claim dominance in the (small but still there) VLA market
Magnitude of the project Sunrise & a new VLA involved are not comparable.
PS Emirates obviously can’t afford to foot the bill of a new aircraft development. Otherwise, it would have told AB to continue building the A380 and pay whatever prices AB wants.
It’s reasonable to think that if a customer is willing to cover the development costs for a new product line that a company would likely accept the money and do the work. The reason this doesn’t happen often is that large airplane manufacturers are not in the custom product making business. If they develop a custom product they have to support a custom product. For a long time and those costs are usually much higher than any margin they may have enjoyed on the sale. Large airplane makers, like most large manufacturers, are basically in the “develop once and build many” business. Time and again we’ve seen that straying from this axiom leads to high costs and ultimately failed products. This doesn’t mean it can’t or even shouldn’t be done, but each case has to be very carefully considered before making the decision to proceed.
“project sunrise”
that is not a standalone type.
It is about customizing an existing frame.
Step back folks, take a breath.
Boeing has not said it will, it said it both is and will look at the possibility.
They then trial the -10 to other airlines, not just Emirates. They also ask Emirates how many they are commited to.
Ok, say no one ponys up and wants the -10. Ok Tim, this is a one off for you, are you willing to pay the costs because we can’t average it out over more air-frames than what you will take and that means you have to pay more.
Boeing is not doing fixed price contracts, I don’t see Ortberg changing that.
The A380 did not start with a single dominant customers.
the ME airlines were late comers to the A380.
But the traffic concentration provided by 2 back to back medium range connection hubs linked by “addidas network” really leveraged A380 size.
Go fully p2p and required size is nearer to A321XLR types.
How much longer can a 777-10 get? 777-9 is already 76,7 m long. How many airports can accommodate an aircraft larger than 80 m?
Roughly 150 inches longer, as reported.
Emirates thinks they can replicate the special and premium factor of an A380 with the 777X. You are thinking completely wrong. Nothing will be left of Premium with the 777X but only one tin can of many will be this one. Since every A350-1000 will offer the better flight experience, which is already evident in the competition in the reviews. With this, Emirates will fail and abolish itself.
Replicating the A380 capacity with a 777-10 is going to be quite an awful downgrade for the ease of boarding and deplaning. I can’t imagine a single decked superlong 3-4-3 economy tube with narrow aisles having the same sort of boarding efficiency as the double decker. No thanks, not for me.
You haven’t flown aboard the 777-9 to know. Your bias is clouding your judgment. No one ever said that the 777-9 would replicate the a380 experience. Really, the a380 is facing the end of its lifespan and needs replacing. IF, a stretch is to occur. The manufacturers haven’t decided yet.
“You haven’t flown aboard the 777-9 to know.”
Harumpf!
differences to 77W should be marginal.
Well, Emirates has to buy whatever aircraft it can get, and the bigger the better for their business model. It’s also a way of pressuring Airbus. Every order Emirates places with Airbus is Airbus letting the business go. If that keeps going on, Boeing might actually recover, and Airbus might start losing market share. The 777x might be an uncomfortable squeeze, but the reality is that the market cannot grow unless planes carry more passengers.
And Emirates in particular are looking at market share contraction when their A380s retire. That is a business reality that they absolutely must work to mitigate, even if that does mean buying a non-ideal aircraft. It’s also a way of preserving flight hours of their A380s for the routes where A380 is indispensable.
With the 777X getting closer to operation, Airbus will have to do something about it. Orders are orders, and they’re going to Boeing in part because Airbus hasn’t anything comparable for sale at present. It’s got better aircraft for sale – A350-1000 is a fine ride – but seat numbers are everything.
It’s tough to know what they should do. Warming up A380 is probably the quickest and easiest, just NEOise it, and wipe the 777x out. A more nuanced approach would be to do a new aircraft that clones the 777X but is just better (slightly wider, lighter, etc). But that’s a Whole New Aircraft for Airbus, and they’d have to be quite a long way down that path for it to be available for operations at the time when the A380s are retiring.
My own view is that they should look to the future. The 777x-10 is not going to be big enough either. The long term future is double deck aircraft, and Airbus has one of those.
Some good points but Airbus is not bringing back the A380.
If you can’t fly into Heathrow, you go into Stanwick. Plymouth (?) not much on UK cities but ……
Shoot, run some high speed rail around the Gulf States and shift people around to destinations that way.
New wing and turn the 777X into an A340!
@TW
Point to point versus hub and spoke is an interesting concept. We have LCC airlines that fly London to Paris, but it’s Paris Beauvais (BVA) some 45 miles NNW of Paris. Yes the point to point model is there and it works, but it’s not well liked, people use it here as it’s cheap (not that cheap when you factor in onward transportation from BVA to Paris itself.
Personally if you want to go to Paris from London, the train (Eurostar) is a far better option, central London to central Paris (2 hours 16 minutes, around 200mph when not in the channel tunnel itself) with far less checkin time & less stress than at the airport.
Stanwick is a village in Northamptonshire, population less than 2000 & no airport. Plymouth City Airport PLH/EGHD in Devon closed 23 rd December 2011. It’s roughly 185 miles as the crow flies from the centre of London.
Manchester is about 160 miles from London, slightly closer (Emirates operates multiple daily A380 flights into MAN/EGCC.
Birmingham is about 100 miles from London as the crow flies, Emirates also operate an A380 to BHX/EGBB.
London has 6 international airports (ordered by pax volume):
Heathrow (LHR/EGLL)
Gatwick (LGW/EGKK)
Stanstead (STN/EGSS)
Luton (LTN/EGGW)
City (LCY/EGLC)
Southend (SEN/EGMC)
There has been talk of adding a third runway to Heathrow, latest I think is that the government may be forced to make a decision by the end of this year & then who knows how long it will take to actually achieve the 3rd runway & new terminal (They have to move the M25 London orbital highway).
Gatwick appears to have had approval in October this year to move the current second (emergency) runway 12 metres (36 or so feet) North to allow for regular use, increasing capacity from around 64 million passengers a year to 75 million passengers a year.
High speed rail around the Gulf states won’t solve anything, it’s the destinations Emirates, Etihad, Qatar are serving that is the issue.
Six airlines fly A380’s into London.
Apart from Heathrow and Gatwick, Manchester & Birmingham, Emirates also fly the A380 to Amsterdam, Munich, Copenhagen, Milan, Paris, Zurich, and Vienna. Most of these places are slot constrained, this is the real issue.
There’s a reason the A380 works for Emirates. Ultimately, even a bigger 777-X isn’t going to cut it for the Emirates model, a 777-10 would help a little but without an A380 Emirates are up the creek.
Will we see another double decker like the 747 & A380, I doubt it, only a few airlines make it work, Emirates, British Airways – too few customers to justify anyone creating a new aircraft for. I wouldn’t bet against Emirates keeping their A380s going for as long as they possibly can though. TC is probably wishing he’d bough 100 A380 gliders with no interior & stored them somewhere.
There once was a time when influential airline like Pan Am pushed for (and got) aircraft that suited its needs IIRC. But that was before the onset of pushing return to shareholders by share buybacks above all else.
Yeah why doesn’t Emirates move to third and fourth-tier airports LMAO.
There was once a time when United and Boeing were…united as one entity, too.
Some airlines have a more ‘cozy’ relationship with a given mfg than others (SWA comes to mind), but ultimately airlines today evaluate what they can buy, but are not good at designing and building a profitable airplane program themselves. Of course, insert sarcastic witty comment about Boeing being unable to do that here.
“There once was a time when influential airline like Pan Am pushed for (and got) aircraft that suited its needs IIRC.”
Yes.
Caveat: Neither Pan Am nor Boeing fared well in the long run.
( linked or not ? )
Keep in mind Emirates knows it can’t replicate. Makiong a spurious self defined discussion out of thin air when none exists
Emirates does want more so it can setup better than current options.
Nothing wrong with that.
They may or may not get it and that is life as well. They never got their A380 stretch.
Sam.
People here aren’t taking notice of EKs recent A380 purchases. They are buying retired and end of lease aircraft. The A380 is supposedly set for fleet usage in EK until 2041
https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/news/emirates-airbus-a380-reactivation/
+1
Wonder what’s going on between Emirates and AB behind the scenes right about now.
Yes, there are A380’s with limited hrs on them available from many airlines/lessors. Even Emirates has some idle they do not plan to upgrade.
CLAES
In the back of my mind I see EK using the A380 as a boutique offering, sort of like the Concorde but more widespread. That keeps hours off the airframes and makes the fleet viable much longer than most think….. I expect it to fly a lot of premium people and they will keep fresh interiors in them to keep the revenue up.
“boutique offering”
~~ half their fleet is A380.
110 frames get retrofits/updates ( news from 2024 )
my guess is they will love their A380 to death.
Uwe.
My expectation witj EKs A380 fleet is this. As the new 777xs and A350s enter the fleet, EK will probably be the last airline standing using the A380 in any numbers and its mission will evolve intobthe Ultra Premium service. Just like Concorde was. The 380 willnbe marketed as thebflagship of luxury and flown on the highest value routes. They will conserve the aircraft to get every dlifht hour into thenmost profitable situations.
Emirates is a volume business, it carries almost 40% more passengers than SIA last year. Two A380 daily flights to BKK.
“luxury, concorde style?”
up the wrong alley afaics.
A380 is big enough to carry that kind of topping.
but bread and butter is “people moving”.
Their network concentration works so well that even a lesser place like Hamburg could be served with an A380.
With regular market growth not disrupted by upheaval needing XVLA is again not far away.
Things will depend on the US creating “Skyfall” or going away with a wimper.
Completely unexpected.
Considering almost no mention of any new 777X orders at the show.
Good call on yesterday’s report.
A bit surprised AB got shut out on day 1.
I’m sure the upcoming Flydubai order announcement with put a smile on the AB faithful.
“Completely unexpected.
Considering almost no mention of any new 777X orders at the show.”
Keeps the chatter going.
Any press is good press.
Airbus should have the money by now to do a stretch A350-1200 with new wing and RR Ultrafan engines. Some additional work on APU/landing gears and it should be lighter than a competing 777-10. To win over some additional customers by offer the GE9X-1A115 engines as an option.
“To win over some additional customers”
Like how many customers…is there really a market for A350-1200 muchless the cost of new wing and RR ultrafan for a limited production number?
Spend the R&D money on new mfg technologies for the A320 series replacement for mid 2030s
Dave
I agree that the 320 will. Need replacement
Sometime, but their engine maker is talking expansion to supply engine es at a higher sustained rate than today. I suspect Airbus will be content making a pile of money and not do a replacent until forced. I just don’t see why they would kill a cash cow. There may be a better case for focusing on the A350 vs the 787. They can close the gap there more easily
Agree on the Single Aisle, A350 is not a 787, it really spans between the 787 and the 777X.
No idea if a 777-10 has any real merrit, TC is well know for his nonsense. He was NOT willing to pay for the A380 stretch.
What he wants and what he can get are two different things.
I mean he was stupid enough to buy the last A380s with the RR engine when his whole fleet was GE.
As bad as that was from a maint standpoint, its worse because the Whiz Bang 900 was pushed and had issues (of which there have only been hints)
TC claimed a miraculous 7% increase in fuel efficiency, which was truly a crock.
He twisted RRs arm and they swore to it, they knew they could not do it.
I think there is a market for a bigger A350 with SYD-LHR range. The economics is there with a super efficient engine as you half the number of take-offs and landings. With better sfc you don’t need to carry as much fuel for almost 20hrs flight. Sending a GE9X engine for overhaul will set you back +$20M each. Avioding a refuelling stop in the ME3 saves money and time.
The 777-9 is not a full composite aircraft like the A350/787 hence heavy, Boeing bets its composite wing and GE engines will make up for that.
How many flights do you get for a Syd to LHR trip per week?
Quantas does not have deep pockets.
Emirates needs pax count not range (yes they need some range but not a Project Sunrise range)
777X is heavier, it still has more seats and a -10 would have even more with a simple stretch and same engines.
There are many long routes that would benefit alot with 10-15% reduced sfc besides the ones doing a fuel stop at the ME3 bases.
Airbus can calculate but might get stuck with RR price negotiations if they are exclusive engine onto the A350 family.
Hard to fathom a 777-10 coming anytime soon. I prefer to think of it not as much as whether there is a case for it but in terms of what that case is competing against. Besides all of the projects in development…737 replacement, 787 refresh, 787F all come time mind as higher value projects that will appeal to more than one operator.
Emirates will need to fully purchase any 777-10 as well as it is hard to imagine any lessor biting on a single-operator variant. They got burned on the A380 badly.
Agreed on any 777-10. Boeing have a bunch of planes to
get certified and EIS first; all are long-delayed.
Really has nothing to do with it.
The -10 is a (pun) long range project.
MAX needs no more development.
787 needs no more development
777X needs no more development
Its a matter of getting MAX rate up, 787 Rate up and Cert and producible of the 777X. All he air-frames are fixed.
A 777-10 is longer term, no less than 5 years.
The aircraft engineers don’t have anything going, put em to work. If a -10 makes more money than a single aisle, go with the -10.
As soon as you go to replace MAX Airbus makes its own move.
You got 5000 backlog in MAX, why replace it when its as good as an A320NEO?
Sure Boeing misses some of the A321 market, but then Airbus misses the 787 market as well.
Not often I see people think that the opponent gains 60% of market share is good and sustainable, but that’s the world today!
Adding 65 777-9 orders to Emirates’ 777X order of 205 airplanes, is IMO essentially meaningless. This is an aircraft that was supposed to enter into service in 2020 and which will now only EIS in 2027, at the earliest. Consequently, the 270th 777X for Emirates would not be delivered until the late 2030s or early 2040s. Boeing and Emirates are both acting as if Airbus will not respond in due course with an all new very large twin. Thanks to the ridiculously long time from launch to EIS of the 777X to EIS, Airbus will be able to launch such an aircraft at an opportune time.
Boeing has already lost 7 years of 777X production, or between 200 and 300 aircraft. These aircraft will never be delivered if Airbus would launch a superior all composite aircraft using engine and airframe technologies that are 10+ more years advanced (i.e. engine) and 35+ years (i.e. fuselage) than those on the 777X — and I am not talking about a stretch of the A350-1000.
Airbus could respond to a 80 metre long 777-10 with an all new airframe with either a 10 abreast or 11 abreast configuration in economy class (i.e. 18-inch wide seats, 2-inch wide armrests and 20-inch wide aisles). Compared to the 234-inch wide cabin of the 777X, the 10 abreast configuration would have an internal cabin width of 248 inches (same as the A380 on the main deck) and 268 inches for the 11 abreast configuration. Now, 268 inches would allow for three aisles and a 1-2-1-1 configuration with direct aisle access in business class, compared to the 1-2-1 configuration with direct aisle access in business class on the 777, 787, A330, A350 and A380. That means for each row in business class in a 268-inch wide cabin, there would be a 25 percent capacity increase, while for each row in economy class that number is 10 percent per row (i.e. 3-5-3 configuration).
In contrast, the 777X has no higher capacity in business class than the A350 when the middle seat is removed. Hence, the only advantage for the 777X over the A350 is in economy class. Premium economy is mostly 2-4-2 on the A350 and 777, apart from Emirates which has a 2-3-2- configuration on their A350s.
So, Airbus could either launch a 10 abreast or an 11 abreast VLA twin. A 10 abreast 80 metre long aircraft would offer no capacity increase over an 80 metre long 777-10. An 11 abreast aircraft, however, would offer a capacity increase over most of the length of the airframe.
However, as Keesje has pointed out, if you increase much the fuselage diameter over that of the 777, there will be a lot of wasted space in the “attic” area above the main deck cabin ceiling.
Now, a 268-inch wide cabin would imply that the outer diameter would be around 280 inches. Interestingly the maximum external width of the A380 fuselage is 281 inches. However, the maximum width of the A380 cabin is not at the usual armrest height but roughly at equidistance between the main deck floor and the upper deck floor.
Hence, an Airbus all composite VLA twin with a 268-inch wide cabin could use a fuselage that would be derived from the fuselage of the A380.
How?
By raising the floor of the main deck up to the same level as the cockpit floor of the A380, a lot of the wasted space in the “attic” would be turned in to profit-generating cargo volume in the lower deck which would have a significantly greater height than on current aircraft. The upper half of the fuselage would be nearly circular, which means that the height of the fuselage would be around 7.8 metres (i.e. A380 fuselage height is 8.4 metres)
This means that Airbus could develop an all composite VLA single deck twin and an all composite VLA double deck twin (derived from the A380) that would be using the same wing (i.e. 75 metre wingspan), engines, MLG etc. The lower fuselage would be identical on the outside, and both aircraft would share the same A380-derived cockpit.
Like the 777X, the Airbus VLA single deck twin and the VLA double deck twin would become a Category E aircraft when its folding wingtips are folded.
The double deck VLA twin would have about the same capacity as the current A380, but it would have significantly shorter range. A second version of the VLA twin would have a much larger wing (i.e. wingspan of 90 metres; 80 metres when folded) and a range of 9000nm. The fuselage would be stretched to 80 metres. Hence the smaller double deck VLA twin with the 65-metre wing (when folded) and the larger VLA twin with the 80-metre wing (when folded) would be similar in concept to the original A330-300/A340-300.
or
from Simply Flying
Why Airlines Are Betting Big On The Airbus A321XLR
“This is enough for missions like New York City to Rome or Delhi to London without the need for a technical refueling stop.”
Interesting graphic on the range of city pairings for A321XLR compared to A321LR and A321Neo
https://simpleflying.com/airlines-betting-big-airbus-a321xlr/
Thanks for that link re the A321XLR.
@OV-99:
Huge costs for what gain? I don’t see it.
15 billion for a niche market.
-10 makes more sense as its a simple stretch.
A350-1200, hmmm, new engines, wing work, …….
Hmm, including charges disclosed last month, Boeing has taken about $15 billion in charges related to the 777X program. The latest charge includes penalties owed to customers for late deliveries.
For the same amount of money, Airbus could launch a vastly superior aircraft that would also ensure that Boeing would never recoup their losses, since the 777X programme would have a much shorter production run than originally planned for. Kind of a win-win for Airbus, right?
As for a “niche” market; quite a few US citizens seems to believe that the (rest of the) world looks like the United States. That when it comes to air travel, frequency always trumps capacity (true for US domestic air travel, but not necessarily true for intercontinental air travel). So yes, the likelihood of US airlines buying single-deck VLA twins is quite low (but not zero). However,the largest airlines in Europe and Asia usually operate from only one or two major hubs. With global air traffic projected to grow at an annual rate of approximately 3.7 percent in 2025, and with international routes growing faster than domestic ones, the demand for larger, super efficient VLA twins will only increase as time goes by.
A simple 80 metre stretch of the A350-1000 (i.e. could be named the A350-800 XtraLongXtraWideBody) would squeeze the 777-10 from below while the larger Airbus single-deck VLA twin would squeeze the 777-10 from above.
probably no new China orders coming anytime soon
from South China Morning Post
491,000 Japan-bound air tickets cancelled as China warns people to avoid travel amid spat
“Lost ticket revenue could be in the billions of yuan, analyst says, as carriers brace for short-term capacity shifts if diplomatic tensions fail to ease”
Sky is falling, Trump rises Tariffs again and then cuts them to nothing.
China cutting its own throat and they will rethink.
Trans
“China cutting its own throat and they will rethink.”
You right about in regards to soybeans
Fortune magazine
“China has only bought 332,000 tons of U.S. soybeans since Trump made a deal with Xi Jinping that promised 12 million by year’s end”
And you think they will buying Boeing aircraft soon? if ever!
I’m still trying to figger out what happened to that “imminent, massive Boeing order from China” that
we were told about, months ago.
Trump: “Many of our allies are not our friends either. … Our allies have taken advantage of us more in trade than China has.”
Airbus’ Scherer is finally responding to Trumps remarkable Boeing sales campaign, that is becoming increasingly hard to ignore by mainstream media.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2025-11-17/trump-s-boeing-support-makes-airbus-work-harder-scherer-video
The EU has the option of revoking air traffic rights with the UAE and Qatar. Emirates, Etihad and Qatar Airways would then be able to massively increase the number of flights to Trumpland as their access to EU countries are cut off.
Well I see the OA rapidly retreating and I don’t see the EU cutting off those airlines.
Frankly I don’t think the EU can, state by state yes, but then you remove a huge Airbus market.
I may become a billionaire tomorrow but I sure don’t think so.
In 2024, Emirates’ European and US capacity were, respectively, 17.1 percent and 5.9 percent of its total global capacity. So, the European market is significantly more important to Emirates than the US market. For Qatar Airways, the numbers are similar.
Meanwhile, Emirates has now 305 Boeing widebodies on order and just 52 A350-900s on order; or 83.4 percent of Emirates outstanding orders are Boeing widebodies and only 14.6 percent are Airbus widebodies (A350-900).
For Qatar Airways, the number for outstanding widebody orders are 265 for Boeing and just 17 for Airbus (A350-1000); or 94 percent of Qatar Airways´outstanding orders are Boeing widebodies and just 6 percent are Airbus widebodies (A350-1000)
So yes, the UAE and Qatar used to be important markets for Airbus, but not any longer.
Both Emirates and Qatar even used to brag about how many jobs they supported in the EU in order to counter European airlines that wanted to restrict air traffic access to the EU from the UAE and Qatar.
Reuters
> Airbus to win bulk of major flydubai jet order, sources say
Oh everyone at BA is confident that xxx will be certified by [insert the date roughly a year away] even though BA hasn’t worked out the certification test plan with the FAA.
> Boeing is negotiating with the FAA to define a certification test plan for the redesigned engine anti-ice (EAI) system on the 737 MAX, marking a key step toward starting first deliveries of the long-delayed 737-7 and 737-10 programs
> Pope says: “There are some flight tests on the -10, separate to the engine anti-ice, that will be starting here soon.” Development aircraft IG001, the first 737-10, is expected to conduct FAA certification stability and control tests on Nov. 17. The aircraft has been flying consistently throughout 2025.
“… on the 737-10 we’ll start the second phase of flight test here later this month, and that’s beyond engine anti-ice,”
As usual nonsense. Boeing has the next step and the heaviest testing approved and they will have the other two in hand before that is done.
If one doesn’t read my posts, how can one post reply?
You can engage with what I posted or post your comments elsewhere if you aren’t responding to my post.
Speed reader, catches my eye, mostly atop ignore.
And I can make things up if I want, you of all people should be on board with that.
Pretty much confirms what i said previously: to certify the 737-7 & -10, EAI is not the only hurdle.
As reported by the AW, the news about the 777-10 appeared to catch senior BCA development executives by surprise:
> Emirates Chairman and CEO Sheikh Ahmed Bin Saeed Al Maktoum said on the opening day of the show that the airline supports a “feasibility study” to develop the 777-10 and has rights to convert the new order to either the 777-8 or a future -10, should Boeing go ahead with it.
Al Makhtoum’s comments appeared to catch senior Boeing officials by surprise.”
From a February 16, 2017 Leeham News and Analysis story titled “Singapore 777-9 Order Pressures but Does not Kill A380”.
“First, it’s necessary to put the Singapore Airlines (SQ) order into context. This is done through public information and through LNC’s own market intelligence.
SQ really wanted a larger version of the 777-9, one that doesn’t exist: the 777-10. This concept is a 450-passenger airplane, compared with the 777-9’s 407-425 passengers, each in standard three-class configuration.
Against this desire, Airbus could only offer its own “paper” airplane, also one that does not exist: the A350-2000 (or 1100 or 8000, depending on what name was used at any given time). This is a 400-passenger concept (vs the A350-1000’s 365 passengers) intended to give Airbus a plane on a par with the 777-9, which currently is a sole-contender in the 400-425 seat sector.
Airbus doesn’t have a conceptual airplane in the 450-seat size—the A380 is it. Although the A380 is best used with 600 or more seats, some airlines today have far fewer than 500 seats.
This, of course, disadvantages the seat-mile economics of the A380. We’ll come back to this in a moment.”
“Singapore hedged its bets: order the 777-9, for which a design is defined, against a paper airplane (the A350-2000) that hasn’t been launched, and maintain an option to up-gauge to the non-existent 777-10 should Boeing decide to proceed. And, oh, by the way, get a good deal on some more 787-10s to supplement those already ordered by SQ.”
https://leehamnews.com/2017/02/16/singapore-777-9-order-pressures-not-kill-a380/
I am not sure what the point is.
Boeing has an easy patch relatively speaking if there is a market for the -10.
There probably is. Is it enough to justify the program? I surely don’t know. BA would be a possible, Lufthansa one, Singapore or course and Emirates, Possibly Quantas.
The A380 was designed for a stretch but the existing was too much for others that dumped it early. Nothing technically wrong with it. It lacked belly cargo capacity so that was a negative in offsetting costs that 777/787/A350 were designed to achieve.
Arguably there is a lot more demand (not huge) for a -10 as it has a more manageable pax count and flexible.
Anyone that thinks Boeing does not have a 777-10 concept is wrong. Clearly they have that as a possible, not a given but a possible.
I am not predicting it will be. I don’t begin to have the marketing data. Boeing has some now and will develop more as the 777X gets going. They have a lot on the plate with the 777-9 and 777-8F. 5-10 years.
The contention that they have lost market, hmmm, no one has cancelled have they?
Not sure why the link back to 2027. The A380 is dead production wise and ticking gone unless a major revamp to keep flying past its expiration date.
A380 still clearly works for some ops but its not many.
> ITA Airways is preparing a lawsuit against engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney after ITA was forced to ground twice as many aircraft as expected this year
I am finding the C-390 facilitating.
I had doubts (as did many) but have gotten more in tune with how flexible it is. A stretchered, intersing though you have to understand some serious work would be needed to carry more weight. Volume yes, I don’t have that kind of data of course.
Navvy is replacing tgheir Com Aircraft with a C-130J. I can’t imagine a less benign aircraft for that.
I still think a C-130 is what you want for missions into rough strips on each run.
But the fast movement and quiet environment I can see that as a delight for a lot of other missions.
Sub Hunter, Radar Aircraft and ………………….
TRANS.
The Marines would love a KC390 to replace the aging KC130s
Reality check:
> Porter Airlines says continuing issues with its PW1900Gs have forced it to park some of its E195-E2s
Speaking of the B777-10 and VLA, I have a question for those in the forum with engineering knowhow.
Would it be possible to install the RISE engine (right sized and powered) on the outer engine pillions of an A380 while keeping ducted engines on the inner pillions to act as partial shields in the even of blade out on the RISE engine?
This thought comes about from past discussion about the RISE and it’s short-comings in term of safety, but its efficiency in terms of power output and fuel burn. My thinking is if possible then one keeps an updated ducted engine on the inner pillions for take-off and backup, but they get shut-off in the cruise stage. Voila! we then have an A30NEO (one can even have the stretched -900 too).
GE and Safran claim to have solved the noise issue so I am taking their word for it.
Would appreciate feedback.
@Branaboy
The RISE engine is enormous and that is for a single aisle. I have not seen a prop fan that is compatible with widebody installation.
Other issue is that propfsns and ducted fans are optimized around different cruise speed
Hard to see this as a viable setup
..then there’s also the massive drag from the inner, ducted engines being shut off during the cruise phase- much like unfeathered props hanging in
the breeze.
Seems like an increase in complexity and large net decrease in efficiency in this scenario.
BRANABOY.
A blade out event is quite difficult to model, and there are factors beyond mere centrifugal force on the blade from engine rpm to consider. There is a lift vector acting on the blade and the direcrion the blade goes is notneasily calculated. Its not asneasy as defining turbine disc burst zones. The SW 1380 blade accident showed us a lot about the phenomenon. Its not simple. That said, Youre engine shielding scheme may not meet current concerns
Thanks @PNweek and @Vincient for your feedback.
The thought came to me when I remembered the old B36 bomber with both jet and prop engines.
Engine shutdown thought was driven by fuel efficiency metrics needed to match the B777-9/10
If a RISE-engined aircraft ever enters service I’ll be interested to see how close it comes to the mfrs’ claimed cruising speed of Mach .80.
Not very, is my prediction. Ever-increasing complexity chasing diminishing returns is the present SOTA..
from the Dubai Air Show…A350 news
“Spanish airline Air Europa has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Airbus for up to 40 A350-900 aircraft. The agreement forms the backbone of Air Europa’s long haul fleet replacement and was announced during the Dubai Airshow. ”
“Airbus is studying a potential larger version of its A350 jet family, Christian Scherer, CEO of its commercial planemaking business, said on Monday as Dubai’s Emirates ignited a fresh debate about larger and more capable twin-engined jets.”
from Dubai Air Show-A321 news
“flydubai has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Airbus for 150 A321neo aircraft making the airline a new Airbus customer. The agreement underscores the carrier’s confidence in Dubai’s growth plans. “
Many years back (2017?) I estimated, dimensions etc. for a 777-10:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-C76V9CeGMP0/WmBwnFI-W_I/AAAAAAAADTA/VhW9H6-m4bM1LVuGFN_-9o3j_qMwmhDrACLcBGAs/s1600/Boeing777-10XConceptfeb14_zpsdf3d7445.jpg
In the same file I found a flow chart on aircraft certification, because in 2017 we were already discussing the remarkable 777X certification base.
These days I still see people pointing at various issues and details on 777-9 development, while IMO the 777x certification strategy approved by FAA in 2014, combined with 2018 FAA re-empowerment is the real reason for the 777-9 delays.. I guess it’s just easier pointing at an engine than discuss Boeing-Congress-FAA streamlining processes in the previous decade.
https://groups.google.com/group/aviation_innovation/attach/2d84b30595db3/FG%2096%20Flowchart%20TC.jpg?part=0.1&view=1
A stretched A350 will kill the 777-9?
mutual annihilation 🙂
bubbles rising in syrup.
plop, fin.
Strange,
I thought the A3501 was supposed to do the killing.
Can see the look dismay on the comments with all the hype about the massive EK order not coming to fruition.
Oh Henry there is a hole in the bucket ..
A350-1000 targeted the place on resp just below the 77W.
This forced Boeing to start the 777X programme.
New wing, new engines old wingbox! !!old cert!! and a stretched fuselage with now sculpted frames.
A bit similar to the 787 the 777X-9 shows a rich set of enhancements that integrate into a marginal advantage versus the A350-1000.
prominent: going from 9 (77W) to 10across.
Only downer (but ignored by “experts”): most 77W users had only taken that step. ups.
To go along with the hole in your head..
Our armchair expert suddenly claims the 3501 isn’t a true competitor to the 7779 .
Okay, go ahead and launch your stretched a350. Maybe you’ll get Sir Tim to bite ..☺️
It might be easier to stretch & certify a mature aircraft like the A350-1000 than to certify a version of an aircraft busy in a long certification process itself.
TAC
> Emirates buys itself a 777-10 feasibility study with airshow mega-order
https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_fullsize/plain/did:plc:epqdrgogcii7n2bxgrrxcqmx/bafkreihl2fitqysiw2qw7a5htp77eznndmgceccwz6cu2wxyxiq7c4qv7e@jpeg
I can’t see the logic why Boeing would go to 80 m (263′) and Airbus would stop at 78,5 m (257’6”)? I can see no reason why Airbus shouldn’t add 2 more rows and go 80 m.
Maybe the deal is, we keep our orders and you add the missing 3,3 m to your aircraft.
@all
I am sure Airbus will hold the door for Boeing to pursue the 777-10. There is a reason Airbus has not launched the -2000 or whatever is an extended version. If Boeing wants to distract itself with another variant that has little market demand beyond one operator, then the best thing Airbus can do is to encourage Boeing to go after this.
On top of that, Airbus has relatively little in the development queue right now (which I actually think is a problem as you would want to level-load your development if possible). Airbus could easily pursue this variant (if it had an engine). It chooses not to.
This is probably the best course of action on the part of Airbus. If the market (particularly from the pool of its existing customers) indicates a strong interest in an upsized version of the A350-1000, go for it. But otherwise, don’t chase Emirates’ appetite for ultralarge aircraft and nudge Boeing towards committing resources to it. Direct the resource advantage to develop and enhance other more lucrative sectors or develop technologies to facilitate the single aisle replacement project, something that Boeing needs more attention on.
I think free trade became a threat, after international logistics and e-commerce boomed and some countries are able to produce better, way cheaper products than others. Look at the parking lots of your local industries to get an idea on labor costs & productivity.
The annual average salaries in US are nearly twice as high as in China and a liter of milk costs twice less. And they can produce the same goods… forget the quality perceptions… Tariffs to save the day! In the old days it was called Protectionism.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-11-19/trump-s-economic-nationalism-is-perilous-history-tells-us
Interesting times. Boeing is getting badly needed orders from this this policies after slowly being cornered by Airbus during the last 25 years.
KEESJE
I suspect you are .ore correct than you think.
Some of the 777x certification delays are be auze the congressional Ir safety act gutted the old process of declaring changes to be major, minor or none. Fkr mi or and no change igems, the previous certification basis could be reused with minimal effort. The rules cha ged due to congressional action subsequent to the MCAS debacle. This forced a virtually complete reprosessing of the 777x data package as a new TCDS as opposed to an dded line on an existing one. The unstated schedule risk is that nobody has done a new derivatie of a new airplane post air safetÿ act. That process has not been codified, and wbo knows what that timeline stretches into.
Good Comment
Airbus would be a fool invest too much into a stretched A350-2000 just for EK, unless a true market really exists. By the time the 777x cones out and all teething problems with the airframe and engines are fixed, the XWB 97 engines issues would have been fixed, new PIP packages offered, moving the goal post even further since the A35K is lighter and and more efficient.
Only when all that is sorted out and if there is market outside the Middle East should airbus consider that.