Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Bjorn’s Corner: Air Transport’s route to 2050. Part 24. May 30, 2025
- Does an A220-500 need a new wing and engines? Part 3. May 29, 2025
- Boeing’s future depends on FAA approvals May 26, 2025
- Updated, May 29, 2025: Department of Justice, Boeing OK to Non-Prosecution Agreement May 23, 2025
- Bjorn’s Corner: Air Transport’s route to 2050. Part 23. May 23, 2025
In focus: the 777 Classic
This week we take a look at the Boeing 777 Classic primary and secondary markets as a follow-on to our report last week in advance of the A340 Summit hosted by Airbus, Rolls-Royce and CFM International with additional presentations by Lufthansa Airlines and HiFly. We have a follow-up of this meeting on Leeham News and Comment.
The 777 Classic presents a very different picture compared with the A340. As a reminder, here is the current status of the A340 program, which is now out of production:
|
Status |
A340-200 |
A340-300 |
A340-500 |
A340-600 |
|
In Service |
19 |
175 |
20 |
90 |
|
Stored |
6 |
27 |
14 |
7 |
Source: Ascend Leeham Co Chart
On the other hand, Boeing has delivered 1,156 777 Classics and has a current backlog of 318. There are 259 orders and commitments for the 777X, officially launched last month at the Dubai Air Show, for a total of 1,415.
The Ascend data base, which tallies Letters of Intent, Options and Option LOIs, (and calculates orders and commitments somewhat differently than Boeing), has 2,059 units listed.
|
|
777-200 (All) |
777-300 (All) |
777 Classic TBD |
777-8 |
777-9 |
777X TBD |
|
In Service |
637 |
504 |
|
|
|
|
|
Orders |
43 |
272 |
|
8 |
45 |
|
|
Options |
35 |
68 |
1 |
|
|
62 |
|
Option LOIs |
20 |
5 |
15 |
|
|
|
|
LOIs |
42 |
75 |
6 |
35 |
179 |
|
|
Stored |
6 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
783 |
925 |
22 |
43 |
224 |
62 |
|
Source: Ascend |
|
|
|
|
Leeham Co. Chart |
|
The 777 program has been more successful than Boeing’s wildest dreams, and the 777X is off to a promising start.
While Airbus faces challenges with the A340 family on the secondary market, Boeing doesn’t have any similar issues today. There are just seven Classics stored, according to Ascend: six 200s and one 300, compared with 54 A340s of all sub-types, or 15% of the total fleet compared with 0.6% for the 777 Classics.
Most of the Classics remain with the original operators. Only a few -200ERs and five -200LRs have traded, the latter a special case because the original operator, Air India, was in financial distress and elected to dispose of the airplanes at a distressed price to raise cash.
What is the secondary market potential for the Classics? Market Intelligence suggest very little-to-no market for the 86 777-200 “standards,” the light-weight, 545,000 lb, 5,240nm initial version of the Classic family. The heavier weight 777-200ER at 656,000 lbs and 7,725nm range is a secondary passenger market and a freighter conversion candidate. Boeing has been studying a P2F conversion for the 200ER, but this potentially is a costly option, according to the Market.
The -200ER was optimized for passenger service and includes composite floor beams that will have to be replaced with steel beams, according to a 2012 Boeing briefing. Major structures and component work will be required. Then, Boeing assumed early -200ERs would be priced in the high $20m range, and the conversion would cost in the low $30m, for an out-the-door price of the low $60m.
Kostya Zolotusky, managing director for Capital Market Leasing at Boeing Capital Corp., tells us that nothing has changed in P2F timing. Feedstock values, however, are too high and a weak cargo market means there are plenty of Boeing 747-400s and MD-11s surplus today. Boeing does not expect the freighter market being strong at least for a couple years.
He believes there is a potential market for the 777-200 standard for package carriers outside the mature USA market. A 777-200ER P2F would be a different airplane vs the new-build 777-200LRF: an 80 tonne airplane vs 100T.
Zolotusky notes that the 777 “has one of the lowest movements out of the original operators out of all the wide-bodies. There is nothing that is parked or in distress.” All 777s are within 90 percentile of original operator, he tells us and compared the Airbus A330s in 80s and the A340s in 70s.
One of the issues with the A340s are the Power By Hour arrangements with Rolls-Royce for the A340-500/600 engines. “We are talking to engine makers to be sure we don’t have A340 situation that limits the liquidity with PBH situation,” Zolotusky tells us.
While this is a follow-on to the A340 report of last week, Zolotusky urged that we “decouple the conversation from A340. The A340 became economically unviable.”
Airbus, engine OEMs make the case for A340 future
Airbus held a summit December 4 for stakeholders in the A340 to explain how there continues to be life after production ended and despite being a four-engined airplane in a two-engine world.
Key to the future of this out-of-production airliner is increasing the capacity of the A340-600 to an exit-limited 475 seats and for Rolls-Royce to alter its Total Care engine maintenance Power-by-the-Hour terms and conditions to reduce costs.
Airlines, financiers, appraisers and the engine makers were invited by John Leahy, chief operating officer-Customers of Airbus. Engine providers CFM International, Rolls-Royce, Lufthansa Airlines and Hi Fly, a small European airline, made presentations in addition to Airbus.
Airbus produced 246 A340-200/300s and 131 A340-500/600s; 227 and 131 respectively are in operation or parked.
|
Status |
A340-200 |
A340-300 |
A340-500 |
A340-600 |
|
In Service |
19 |
175 |
20 |
90 |
|
Stored |
6 |
27 |
14 |
7 |
Airbus guaranteed the residual value on an unknown number, and has strong motivation to see these airplanes continue in service, according to one person familiar with the situation.
Odds and Ends: AirAsia on A330neo, A380; 777X specificiations; A380 engine PIPs
AirAsia on Airbus: AirAsia Group is one of Airbus’ largest customers, and its CEO Tony Fernandes is increasingly influential in the Asian sector. He’s also into car racing, often betting Virgin Group’s Richard Branson. This short interview details Fernandes’ view on the prospective A330neo–something Fernandes has been pushing for some time–and what he thinks Airbus should do with the A380.
Looking at the 777X: Aviation Week has a detailed look at the Boeing 777X “under the skin.” Fuel burn, engine thrust and general specifications are in the article. Aviation Week also has a series of videos from the Dubai Air Show here. Topics: 777X, Qatar Airways and A380 engines. On the latter, Emirates CEO Tim Clark suggests putting the new GE9X or Rolls-Royce Trent on the A380 to reduce fuel burn by 10%.
Airbus’ A350-800 dilemma
Last week we discussed Airbus’ A350-1000 dilemma. The -1000 will be a fine airplane, but we concluded the company needs to go forward with a larger capacity “A350-1100” to match the size of the Boeing 777-9X, but take the Boeing 787-10 approach and be content with sacrificing range in lieu of designing a new wing and engines.
Airbus’ A350 dilemma doesn’t end there. What’s it to do with the A350-800? One fleet planner told us a year or more ago that the “-800 is an expensive A330-300” with the same operating costs as the larger capacity A350-900.
Airbus has been encouraging customers to move up to the larger A350-900, with Hawaiian Airlines and US Airways the key hold outs. Conventional wisdom says US Airways will swap its order once the merger with American Airlines goes through (which is looking more and more likely, given settlement talks with the Department of Justice). American has a large order for the Boeing 787-9, making the -800 unnecessary in a combined carrier fleet plan.
There are now around 80 -800s in Airbus’ backlog, and even officials at Airbus have been ambiguous about green-lighting production of the -800, which is supposed to enter service in 2016 (after the -900 but before the -1000). We have written several posts in which we concluded the -800 would be re-sequenced to 2018, after the 2017 EIS of the -1000.
We believe there is a very good chance the A350-800 will be dropped in favor of proceeding with an A350-1100.
So what’s Airbus to do in the 250-300 seat space now occupied by the -800 and the aging A330 family?
Airbus’ A350-1000 dilemma
Airbus has a dilemma with what to do about the A350-1000.
.
Does the OEM stick with the -1000 as it is, ceding the 400 seat segment to Boeing with its new 777-9X? Or does it stretch the -1000 (we’ll call it the “1100” for a placeholder) for what appears to be a very limited market segment?
.
If Airbus does stretch the -1000, what does this stretch look like? One that will match the 9X range and capacity? Or one that matches the capacity but not the range?
Here are the implications of the dilemma facing Airbus.
.
Stay the Course
For a long time, Airbus officials said they were satisfied with the design, once tweaked, of the -1000 and they didn’t need to respond to a “paper” airplane. The characterization had a ring to it, for that’s what Boeing officials often said about the -1000: it wasn’t a “real” airplane, they didn’t know what it was, it was a “paper” airplane or some variation thereto.
.
Of course, this was rhetoric by both parties. Lufthansa Airlines ordered 34 777-9s. A huge order+option commitment is anticipated at the Dubai Air Show from Emriates Airlines for the -9 and the smaller, ultra-long range (ULR) -8 that is sized directly across from the -1000. Airbus is now faced with the prospect of Boeing once more having a monopoly position with the 777-9 as it did for many years with the 777-300ER.
.
Does Airbus want to cede the 400-seat segment to a Boeing monopoly? The question is, how big is this segment? Is there a business case to build the airplane, or one that’s big enough for two airplanes?
.
Boeing’s current 20 year forecast indicated there is a need for 4,530 “small” twin aisle, 200-300 seat jets and 3,300 for “medium” twin aisle jets, 300-400 seats, for a total 7,830. Airbus forecasts a need for 4,694 250-300 seat jets and 2,085 350-400 seaters, for 6,779 jets, a difference of nearly 1,100-but, then, Airbus doesn’t have a competitor to the 787-8 at the lower end of the small jet sector.
.
Airbus further breaks out its forecast: 2,438 250-seat and 2,256 300-seat jets within the “small” twin; and 1,306 350-seat and 779 400-seat jets within the “medium” twin category. Boeing doesn’t subdivide its forecast.
.
The 777-9 will kill the near-dormant 747-8 Intercontinental and will likely eat into sales of the Airbus A380. Does Airbus avoid cannibalizing its own product or does it allow Boeing the monopoly to do so?
Source: Great Circle Mapper
Match the 777-9
Airbus could decide that, despite a its own narrow forecast for a 400 seat segment, it would be better to play in this sandbox, whatever the impact on the A380, than to cede this segment to Boeing. The question then arises, does an A350-1100 match the 777-9 in seats (or come close to it) and range, around 8,100nm-8,400nm?
To match means a major undertaking for a small number of airlines that need a plane with this range. It means a new wing–typically a $3bn project, more or less–and new engines in the 104,000-105,000 lb thrust range. The Rolls-Royce Trent XWB on the A350-1000 is 97,000 lbs and it can’t be pushed any farther, our information tells us. The cost of developing an entirely new engine for such a narrow market doesn’t have a business case. One might exist on the presumption that engines have to get bigger, and a new engine design would provide the basis for an entirely new generation of engines. After all, the Trent fundamentally has been around since the A330. It may well be time, but is an A350-1100 the product from which to develop it? Furthermore, it takes at least seven years to develop a new engine and probably a lot longer. The engine is the pacing item, far more than the airframe. Even if the go-ahead were given this minute, Airbus and RR would be hard-pressed to come up with an A350-1100 by 2020, when the 777-9 EIS is anticipated. So…
The 787-10 Approach
The most viable option for stretching the A350-1000 appears to be following the approach Boeing took with the 787-10: a couple of simple fuselage plugs, some enhancements to the existing engines, the same wing and reduced range that covers 90% of the markets required by the airlines–foregoing the miniscule need by Emirates Airlines for that last 5%-10%.
Source: Great Circle Mapper
An A350-1100 with reduced range of 7,000nm-7,500nm and a 400 seat capacity would have highly favorable cost per available seat miles. It wouldn’t get you from Paris to Tahiti, but how big is this market? It wouldn’t get you from Dubai to Los Angeles, but are billions of dollars worth of R&D to do so going to get the return on investment to make sense for this airplane?
The clear choice, the financially responsible choice, and the expeditious choice appears to follow the Boeing approach and develop an A350-1100 (or, perhaps, the “A350-1000-10”).
Odds and Ends: Repairing the Ethiopian 787; more on A350-1000 stretch; new RR engine study
Ethiopian 787: Dominic Gates at The Seattle Times has a detailed story about how Boeing is repairing the Ethiopian Airlines 787 damaged by a fire at London Heathrow Airport earlier this year. Boeing doesn’t comment for the story–nor for any others–but Gates’ detail in his piece makes for quite interesting reading.
Stretching the A350-1000: More on this topic from Aviation Week. Aside from the technical considerations for the airframe, Rolls-Royce would need to bump up the thrust of the engine to around 104,000 lbs, we’re told. Also: there is the matter of production. Airbus is considering a second production line for the A350, but no decision has been made.
Rolls-Royce studies new engines: Rolls-Royce is studying a new line of engines, according to this Bloomberg article.
Asiana 777 crashes in SFO
An Asiana Airlines Boeing 777 crash-landed at San Francisco Airport Saturday, killing at least two. This is the first fatal crash involving a 777.
Investigators will certainly look at whether fuel line icing may be a factor, which was traced to be the cause of the only other 777 accident, British Airways at London several years ago, also a crash-landing situation. Early news reports seem to reflect a similarity in the flight profile between the two flights. As readers know, we’re traveling and we don’t have access to our files to determine if Asiana uses Rolls-Royce engines, which are those used on BA and which were susceptible to icing.
GE engines on the 777-300ER have more recently come under some scrutiny for issues, and we’d expect investigators to consider whether there is any connection if Asiana uses GE on its 777-200s. This would be a natural course of considering all possible factors.
Other factors that will be looked at: human error, mechanical problems and controlled flight into terrain (CFIT).
Update, 5pm GMT: With the knowledge now that the engines are PW, fuel icing as a cause seems pretty unlikely, but CVR and FDR readouts will indicate engine performance parameters. Although weather doesn’t appear to be a factor, it will be evaluated for the prospect of any clear air windshear or other conditions that could be a contributing cause.
Statements by the airline officials at this point that there wasn’t any pilot error or mechanical issues are entirely premature, given when the statements were made the data recorders hadn’t been recovered much less read.
Closely looking at a photo seems to indicate the aft pressure bulkhead in place, meaning the tail severed aft it it.