BA 777-9 deliveries now 2026-2028

Old Jul 29, 22, 8:14 am
  #16  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Programs: DL, OZ, AC, AS, AA, BA, Hilton, Hyatt, Marriott, IHG
Posts: 13,225
Originally Posted by NA-Flyer View Post
Funny that during covid-19 spike airlines were trying to dispose of future deliveries and delay them as much as they can. Now that travel has peaked they are doing the opposite and trying to grab any available airplane available in the market.
I don't think anyone really anticipated travel would rebound this quickly.
lsquare is offline  
Old Jul 29, 22, 8:53 am
  #17  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC*SE 2MM, WS Gold
Posts: 15,324
Originally Posted by 13901 View Post
One thing is for sure: I'd hate to be an airline with a large number of 77Ws nearing retirement.
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
The Lev is online now  
Old Jul 29, 22, 8:58 am
  #18  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Programs: DL, OZ, AC, AS, AA, BA, Hilton, Hyatt, Marriott, IHG
Posts: 13,225
Originally Posted by The Lev View Post
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
I think it's been proven that customers care a lot about schedule and frequency.
lsquare is offline  
Old Jul 29, 22, 9:10 am
  #19  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 6,396
Originally Posted by The Lev View Post
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
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 Im 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 its 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 hasnt, 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? Thats what I meant.
lsquare and Ghoulish like this.
13901 is offline  
Old Jul 29, 22, 9:14 am
  #20  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Cambridge
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 1,550
Originally Posted by 13901 View Post
True, they're wholly new 'birds'. However - and I should caveat that I'm not an engineer here, so what I'm about to write needs to be fact-checked - in my understanding of things the big increments in what matters to a modern airliner (fuel consumption, lift performance, range, etc) comes from wings and engines. The 77X will have newer wings and engines than both 787 and 350.
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.
TedToToe is offline  
Old Jul 29, 22, 10:42 am
  #21  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,468
Originally Posted by TedToToe View Post
Yes, the 779 is larger but, the 351 undoubtedly deliver lower seat-mile costs for many missions.
Hence perhaps why BA have chosen the mix they have (and others eg LH)
TedToToe and Ghoulish like this.
gw76 is offline  
Old Jul 29, 22, 10:45 am
  #22  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 6,396
Originally Posted by TedToToe View Post
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.
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!
Ghoulish likes this.

Last edited by 13901; Jul 29, 22 at 10:58 am
13901 is offline  
Old Jul 29, 22, 10:47 am
  #23  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Programs: BA Blue, EI Silver, Honours Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,130
Originally Posted by TedToToe View Post
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.
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.
TedToToe and Ghoulish like this.
BrianDromey is offline  
Old Jul 29, 22, 11:03 am
  #24  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: EZE
Programs: UA Gold,Delta Gold Bonvoy Titanium Elite, HH Diamond , AA Platinum, EENational, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 1,302
Originally Posted by DYKWIA View Post
yeah- they hinted at going 11 across on the A380 a few years back... fortunately that never happened!
Before you know it we will be sitting on the wings.
lsquare likes this.
Brandinho1 is offline  
Old Jul 29, 22, 12:02 pm
  #25  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by lsquare View Post
I don't think anyone really anticipated travel would rebound this quickly.
Trying to predict air travel trends is fraught with difficulties as Warren Buffett can no doubt testify.
lsquare likes this.
mguinness is offline  
Old Jul 29, 22, 3:33 pm
  #26  
 
Join Date: Feb 2022
Posts: 563
Originally Posted by gw76 View Post
the 777X by then will almost be 7 years+ in technology out of date not a great start especially when a lot of the airframe based on the 90s original 777. At least the engines will be more fuel efficient.
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.
Ghoulish is online now  
Old Jul 29, 22, 3:38 pm
  #27  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SE1, London
Posts: 22,599
From a passenger perspective we need more Airbus and less Boeing. The 777 and various iterations might be an operators dream but they arent nice to fly, the 787 is really poor. A330 and A350 are really so much better.
Swanhunter is offline  
Old Jul 29, 22, 3:43 pm
  #28  
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: London
Programs: BA Silver (for now)
Posts: 886
Originally Posted by lsquare View Post
I don't think anyone really anticipated travel would rebound this quickly.
Really?

I think its madness that people were suggesting travel was over. People want to go, was never in doubt.
pennineuk likes this.
Will100 is offline  
Old Jul 29, 22, 3:44 pm
  #29  
Ambassador: Emirates Airlines
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 17,365
Originally Posted by Swanhunter View Post
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.
As is the A380
justin_krusty likes this.
DYKWIA is offline  
Old Jul 29, 22, 6:29 pm
  #30  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,284
Originally Posted by BJ787 View Post
I bet a number of the 77X customers are quietly glad of the delays in the current climate, last thing most of them need is a new massive and expensive asset joining the fleet.
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?).
lsquare likes this.
djsflynn is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread