lsquare

I don't think anyone really anticipated travel would rebound this quickly.

The Lev

Why?

The oldest 77W is less than 20 years old and those aircraft typically have a 30+ year lifespan. The operators have plenty of options available to them for now:

• Keep flying your current fleet
• Order A350-1000 if you want/need a similar sized replacement with improved economics and passenger comfort
• Order 777-9 for delivery later in the decade if you want to moderately upgauge and minimize pilot retraining
• Go smaller/more frequent with A350 or B787 if you no longer need the size of the 77W

lsquare

I think it's been proven that customers care a lot about schedule and frequency.

13901

Well, because the 77W is an awesome (in the sense of instilling awe) plane for what it does. It carries as much as a 744, as far as a 744, but costs a lot less to run. I heard 20/25% less on the SIN-SYD runs, though I never saw the data. When it came on the market, the 77W was a step change, a quantum leap. It gobbled up most of the 747 replacements and totally eclipsed the A340z And I’m not seeing a plane that is so head and shoulder above the cut right now.

If you have it in your fleet, chances are that it’s smack-bang in the sweet spot in terms of sizes, so downsizing might be good on some routes but, in the longer run, will hurt your cost base. So you need a 77W-like plane.

But then, what do you do? 35K? Is it that much better than the 77W? It hasn’t, so far, replaced a lot of them. And what if you order it and Airbus announces a neo version? The 77X then. But… when is it arriving? And is it as much an improvement as the old 77W was? That’s what I meant.

TedToToe

Whilst this is true, the composite fuselage of the A350 delivers an empty weight in comparison with 77X as follows:

• Airbus A350-1000: 284,000 lb (129,000 kg)
• Boeing 777-9: 400,000 lb (181,400 kg)

Yes, the 779 is larger but, the 351 undoubtedly deliver lower seat-mile costs for many missions.

gw76

Hence perhaps why BA have chosen the mix they have (and others eg LH)

13901

Does it? We can speculate, but the truth is that right now we don't know. As always, the proof will be in how it's used; it surely 'smells' like a machine optimised for serious long haul, flying heavy stuff over long distances, but until it's there "in the flesh".. who knows!

BrianDromey

There is a very close correlation between 779 customers and A380 customers. Both aircraft offer airlines based in Alpha cities or huge hubs the ability to carry large amounts of passengers, huge premium cabins or both. The A350, being a little smaller, is more attractive to airlines looking to replace the A380s and 77Ws they never needed in the first place.
There is heated debate on various forums about the payload/range of the A35K Vs 779. The reality is that outside of the ME3 flying to the US West Coast the payload/range of these aircraft is overkill for most routes. LON-LAX, even with a full PAX load will barely make these things run a sweat.
You see a similar debate about the larger 737MAX variants - an apparently completely hopeless aircraft because it cant take a transcon load out of short runways that are completely irrelevant for 99% of the potential routes it could be used on.

Brandinho1

Before you know it we will be sitting on the wings.

mguinness

Trying to predict air travel trends is fraught with difficulties as Warren Buffett can no doubt testify.

Ghoulish

A commercial aircraft is not a passenger vehicle or a cell phone, which is what the "outdated" technology comment suggests.

An unending series of updates and upgrades both during and after manufacturing, along with the very different values prioritized in aircraft design make the comparison invalid.

Swanhunter

From a passenger perspective we need more Airbus and less Boeing. The 777 and various iterations might be an operators dream but they aren’t nice to fly, the 787 is really poor. A330 and A350 are really so much better.

Will100

Really?

I think it’s madness that people were suggesting travel was over. People want to go, was never in doubt.

DYKWIA

As is the A380

djsflynn

That's true, and some airlines (eg CX) previously announced they were pushing back 777-9 deliveries anyway for similar cost/revenue-based reasons.

Some airlines are also using this delay to revisit and potentially revise their 777-9 first class and business class product, based on it being nearly locked in several years back but now risking being no better than (and for some, potentially behind the pace of) the 'state of the industry' products by the time their 777-9s finally arrive. Nothing major, just small touches to ensure they're putting but foot forward.

However, this is also leading some 777-9 customers to look at an unexpected refresh of their current business class, which based on original Boeing estimates they'd figured would by now be superseded by the new 777-9s. As that's not the case and those current business class products now have several more years as the 'flagship' product, several seatmakers and design firms tell me airlines have contacted them regarding a mid-life refresh (or maybe a 'later-in-life' refresh?).