It would be CRAZY to cancel the 777X....Right?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 июн 2024
- Go to nordvpn.com/cobyexplanes to get the two year plan PLUS four month free. It’s risk free with NordVPN’s 30 day money back guarantee.
Support me on Patreon: / cobyexplanes
Thanks so much to my "First Class" patrons Sebastian Dimond, and Timothy Franklin!
Thanks so much to my videographer friends for generously providing excellent B-roll for this video. Go check out and subscribe to their channels for more A+ plane spotting content
@FRAproductions
@PlanesWeekly
@Bruno Levionnois
@MirAviation
________________________________________________________________________________
You might not know his name, but Steve Udvar-Hazy is one of the most important figures in aviation today. As the founder and former CEO of ILFC - and the current executive chairman of Air Lease - he’s spent decades shaping commercial aviation.
Safe to say, he knows what he’s talking about. So it raised some eyebrows after he made some outlandish comments about the 777X. In a recent interview, he insinuated that the future of the program was at risk. He even went as far as to suggest that - in the next couple of years - the program could be outright canceled.
Such a move would be truly unprecedented. The 777X is a full 9 years into development, and two full years into flight testing. So why, then, does Mr Hazy think the program could get axed, and is he right? Let me explain…
Intro - 0:00
NordVPN - 1:09
As Troubled History - 2:29
Historic Delays - 4:27
The Case for Cancelation - 5:17
Legal Hurdles - 6:10
Sales Upside - 7:07
Outro - 9:27
#777x #Boeing #Airbus #Emirates #Qatar 
Игры
Go to nordvpn.com/cobyexplanes to get the two year plan with an exclusive deal PLUS 4 bonus months free. It’s risk free with NordVPN’s 30 day money back guarantee
Yup Boeing 777X Delivery Delaying will be a problem for Boeing also Airbus is going to gain alot of Orders for the A321XLR's & A220-300's in the upcoming years!!!!
@@karlossargeant3872 Bruh the 777X delays are fine, just not for Qatar and Emirates. The -300ERs are not that old and they can keep flying until the X is delivered.
Imagine if the 777X was scrapped, Qatar would be royally screwed after Airbus just cancelled their A350 orders 😅
Qatar
Royally
....nicely done
They would probably move the order over to 777 or 787, rather than cancelling altogether
@@spelldaddy5386 the video was discussing the possibility of cancellation of the 777 program, they couldn’t order further 777’s to fill a gap that the cancelled 777 orders would be leaving their only option would be the 787 family (most likely the -9 variant). If you were referring to the A350 it’s not Qatar that cancelled it was airbus due to the ‘issues’ Qatar are having with their A350 fleet
@@reecefishburn9509 all I was saying is that they can get standard 777 instead of 777X. 1st generation isn't being cancelled. 787 is also an option
@@spelldaddy5386 Do note that GE90 is not compliant to the new ICAO emission standards, so 777NG production has to be stopped from 2028. Neither is A380's Trent 900 afaik. 747-8i's GENx is fine, but the frame isn't.
Moving forward 777X is the only realistic VLA for Qatar if they can't take 350s.
I think the 777X fits in far better than the 747 these days - the reduced payload/seating capacity is more than offset by the fuel efficiency and maintenance reductions. Eitehr way, wth the latter gone, Boeing NEEDS a larger widebody around. With the other blunders of the past few years, the last thing Boeing needs is for further reasons for airlines to lose faith in their abilities, and cancelling the program would just solidify them as inferior to Airbus in the minds of many.
I know im quite late but at 3:59 about the sudden pitch up event has also happened to a 777-200 operating for Malaysia Airlines. While the aircraft did the sudden pitch up motion, the AT reduced power which made the situation worse, the only way the pilots were able to overcome it was by disconnecting the autopilot. I hope Boeing has fixed this problem already
I love the professionalism and genuine interest that Coby shows in his videos, it’s incredibly inspiring watching his channel become successful. Keep it up!
Glad you're enjoying ◡̈
The 777x isn't just going to sell to airlines looking to replace older 777s but also to any airline looking for (either as new fleet capacity or as replacement for other older aircraft) an aircraft with more seats than a 787 or a350.
The A350 is the 777's main competitor, what do you mean? A350-900 replaces the 777-200ERs with the -1000 replacing the -300ER and competes with the 777-8 so I think it's best to exclude the A350 from that
There’s been an overall trend over the decades for long haul planes to get smaller. That being said, Boeing has the top end of the market locked with the 777 family. Not every lane needs the capacity, but enough do. The 787 will be the big winner in the wide body game, but the 777 has a place, especially as a freighter. The program isn’t going anywhere.
A350 - There's the big pink elephant in the room that the Boeing fanboy's are conveniently ignoring. 787-10 only goes head to head with the smallest A350, the A350-800. Boeing no longer has an answer for the -900 and -1000 other than the troublesome and extremely late 777-X.
The trend for smaller long hauls is illusion.
The 330 was bigger than 767.
The 777 was built to as replacement for L1011, DC-10 and MD11. This had always been a gap in Boeing's portfolio.
The 787 was meant to compete against the 330 with 8 across and didn't sell. So Boeing changed economics by densifying cabin and selling same fiuselage as 9 across and that sold like hotcakes.
Boeing then densified the 777 , designed as 9 across, to 10 across to increase its capacity to rival that of the 747 (allowing it to end the 747).
So even the US airlines religiously opposed to "jumbos" have been growing their long hail aircraft by densifying cabins. And consider the 787-9 sold far more than the 787-8. 777-300 better sales then the -200.
So the replacement for the 767 is a whole lot bigger (the 787-9). The replacement for the DC-10 is a whole lot bigger (the 777 in 10 across dense config).
What isn't clear is how capacity will be increased next. There is only desify cabin so much. Doing 15 hour flight on 10 across 777 with 30" seat pitch is already terrible enough.
@@smeary10 I am not a fanboy of Boeing or Airbus because stanning corporations is embarrassing, but your argument is riddled with errors. First, the A350-800 was cancelled in 2014. Only the -900 and -1000 went into production. Not sure why you mentioned it as a competitor when it doesn't even exist. Second, the 787-10 is much closer in size (67-68 meters long) and capacity (about 300-320 in a typical layout) to the A350-900 than the cancelled -800. The A350-900, however, has superior range to the 787-10, which is why most ultra-long haul flights these days are operated by A350-900 (both the standard -900 and ULR version).
The A350-900 is sort of an in between model -- slightly larger than the 787-9/10, slightly smaller than the 777-300ER (which is still very much relevant and in production), and quite a bit smaller than the upcoming 777X. While the 777X has been troublesome, I wouldn't say many airlines are choosing between the A350 and 777X. Most have both on orders because they both serve their purposes.
On another note, even the A350-1000 isn't big enough to replace 747 and A380. The 777X is the only one that rivals them in capacity. Would you say Airbus has no answer for the 777X since none of their models are nearly as big?
@@jfmezei I don't think it's an illusion, the 747 was the king of long haul for decades, then the 777 took over the role, now it's the 787 and A350, with the larger 777X not stacking up. And that's before bringing up the A380 as well. Even the largest 787 and A350 pale in comparison to the smaller sisters. The sweet spot which virtually every carrier is going for is where the 787-9 and A350-900 are. There are some that still want larger aircraft, but they are increasingly rare.
Also: a lot of 767 flying has been and will be taken up by narrowbody aircraft. Used to be king in the USA, now no.
Boeing can afford to be late with the 777x. why, because the majority of long haul wide body planes in the air are 777s. Why wouldn’t airlines buy it when they already have so many pilots maintenance personnel trained on it.
The 777 300ER is arguably the best wide body passenger plane of all time. There’s no reason why the 777 X won’t carry on the legacy
best, beautifullest and powerfullest
I think the Dreamliner is the best widebody, but the 777 is a strong second place.
as a airbus clucking fanboy i love the A350
yep 300ER is super soild, keep those rivet guns going. Honestly fuel prices need to go up quite a bit (above $100/barrel for crude oil) for 777X to be as attractive as it was originally intended. 300ER is also bird in hand
The 777X (along with larger A350 variants) is also going to replace the A380 in several airlines as it is the largest capacity airliner on the market.
Yes, it would be crazy!! This airplane, came together to add a new dimension into air travel. Despite it's size, some carriers might consider the 777-9X too long, but just alone, the cost of developing more gate space may skyrocket in some airports. I think though the airlines will benefit somehow after airport utilization. Usually international terminals have plenty of space, so they keep them parked there for turnarounds. Many passengers, and crew, will love this airplane. I look forward for it to come to service.
Awesome! Your analysis and your explain are perfect. You have very creative mind to see different aspects. I enjoy 👍
At the end of the day I think that plane will end up becoming the go to freighter if nothing else. I could see a version of that without folding wing tips for cost savings.
Very strong finish to your video. Well played sir.
I enjoy the hell of of your channel. Keep up the good work.
Glad you enjoy it!
I don’t think it’s fair to say it’s “quite similar” to the original 777 but for new engines and wings, it’s quite extensively new, avionics, systems, even construction is new to the X range, any one of these updates on its own could require lengthy testing and verification. That said I voiced my concerns about the 777X a year ago as being essentially a product of the ‘bad years’ at Boeing but I suspect the jet will find a sweet spot in timing and go on to be profitable for Boeing but likely be superseded by a shiny new thing at Boeing in the next few years.
The 777X will fly for many years, both freighter and passenger variants. United’s large 787 order allows for changes, and I bet they can even swap some of the 787s for 777s where needed. If more planes are needed sooner, it might make sense for some conversions just to get more capacity into the system more quickly or to replace older 777s.
I wouldn't expect the 777 to be around for an entire generation like the 747 before it. The 777 is a stopgap design until such time that it makes sense to build a carbon fiber replacement. The rumors that I've heard is that currently the 787 (and wings for the 777) is taking all of Boeings processing capability.
The wings are made by mitsubishi in japan and flown over on the modded 747s dreamlifters. Rejected carbon product has come from the east coast..
no IT WON"T BE CANCELLED. The only problems with certification is due to the recent 737 max issues, so the FAA is being super extra careful in certifying the 777X. These planes will replace 747s/A380s etc.
doesn't sound like it - sounds like its had real flight test issues
@@pilotpeter8850 777 was designed to be a heavylifter with significant structural margins. It's supposed to be easily stretched, unlike the more optimised designs like A330/A340.
I didn't expect 777X would fail the stress tests, and definitely not by a mere 1%. Really wonder what Boeing has done under the hood.
@@steinwaldmadchen what is ur take on if airbus cannot solve the issue on the a350 problem with qatar, what would airlines like qatar do instead?
@@jirehla-ab1671 Business as usual - Airbus repaints the aircraft for free, and the airlines fly the aircraft afterwards.
There is a reason why no authorities other than QCAA say anything regarding the aircraft - not EASA, not FAA, not UK CAA, CAA, or the 10+ authorities that foresee A350 operators, not even GCAA of UAE, which has exactly the same environment of Qatar, because that isn't a safety issue based on current signs. It's just annoying.
@@jirehla-ab1671 the 350 paint issue is fixed airbus is putting a new mesh under the paint and its fine now
I don’t believe that the 777X will be cancelled as the 777-9 is already doing flight testing and campaign tours and is set to enter service in 2025. However I do expect Boeing to cancel the ultra-long range 777-8 and focus on the 777-9 and 777-8F as there isn’t any customer demand for the 777-8 has declined over the years. The 777-8 was originally intended for Gulf carriers to fly nonstop routes to the US West Coast however it would permanently cancelled if customers find the 777-9 accessible for these routes. Furthermore the 777-8 was also contender for Qantas’s Project Sunrise however it lost competition to the A350-1000ULR. Most of the 777-8’s missions can/could be done by the 787-9/9LR/10ER and 777-9 and if Boeing creates a 777-9ER with higher MTOW then I can see the 777-8 becoming a freighter-only variant.
??? Uh, no the 787 with its tiny wing and poor field performance cannot do what a 778 could do. Unless a miracle happens and 787 has a giant increase in power with zero decrease in cruise performance(Yea right)... Now capacity, in the -10 model and with a higher Gross Weight... Yes on those medium routes making up the majority of routes... yes, I agree and so does Boeing and why they are increasing the 787 Gross Weight to go after this MUCH larger portion of the market instead of the Very FEW long haul random routes. (Cough Quantas/New Zealand at the ass end of nowhere making it a great place to live, but sucks to travel FROM)
🙏
I really hope this gorgeous plane gets into service sooner rather than later
As a European I do prefer Airbus although I would love to experience the Dreamliner , however flying on a standard 777 on the Dubai Cyprus Malta route was the best flying experience of my life .
Outstanding aircraft and I'm sure the 777X is even better so this makes no sense .
I feel that Boeing is to heavily invested in the 777X program to stop now. Perhaps not as much as the 787, but when they're already losing money, they're not going to scrap a potential money maker (which, IMHO, the 777X is, especially after the A-350 paint debacle and the cancellation of the A-380 program).
I liked that little morsel of humility you offered at the very end! 🤣
Haha thanks
So perplexing why a human being would belittle their own something so awesomely epic. I own a small motion picture pro grip and lighting operation at home in Orange County & I’m so very proud of my endeavors in my life…be very humble and proud in everything you do in life.
Coby you’re bang on with this one IMO 👍
Don't forget that in 2013, The Boeing Company held the Union mechanics/machinists at gunpoint to keep the 777X production in the Puget Sound region. They also received about $8.7B (over the course of 10 years) to keep the production in WA State.
They didn't get all that money as soon as the 787 left the money stopped as when the first 787 was built in sc.
You mean, the bastards in Washington State, stopped abusing Boeing with egregious taxes no other industry has to pay...
@Phillip Banes I think that is a figure of speech.
I doubt technical issues are as bad as they're making out to be. More likely regulatory fallout from the 737-max crisis that's been affecting all Boeing planes.
Bingo
What do you expect from FAA?
Boeing simply turned out to be a dishonest company. Boeing cannot be trusted. Boeing is prepared to endanger the lives of passengers for a lousy profit. That is why the FAA and every other aviation authority in the world take their good time and check everything coming out of Boeing two or three times.
Nobody from Boeing has gone to prison for the murder of 346 innocent passengers. They paid their way out of prison which is so typical in a country full of pathetic cowards.
Boeing deserves to incur huge losses on this program.
Exactly. The FAA can be real A.....
Boeing 777X is best aircraft
That doesn’t exist practically
@@DFWRob it flies every day, I see it over my house all the time.
@@stevegiboney4493 i was just kidding. Just meant no airline has it yet. Hope it survives
Would be Funny seeing Qatar crawl back to the a350 lmao
I Love watching these Videos on Airbus and Boeing Airplanes Coby Explains nuff respect to all your Videos on Aviation man Dream Big on Aviation my Friend 100% and keep going!!!!
Thanks Karlos!
having flown an 777-300 ER from dubai to durban before covid i can attest that some of emirates 777 need replacement, its just something about the cabin that yells 90s(!) at you, it feels super dated and that is very unusual of emirate machines from my arguably limited experience. but coming from a a380 flight it felt like going back in time when i stepped into the plane
I'm waiting on airbus to admit that an aircraft the size of a a380 was the correct move but wrong configuration. The goal of that program shouldn't have been to produce the high capacity passenger aircraft but the highest capacity air freighter.
Eventually all of Asia,Latin America, Africa, Middle East, and India will be demanding air freight because their living standards have caught up with the rest of the developed world.
Look it at this way, over time freighter ships didn't trend down in size with their highest capacity ships. The ships became bigger over time & continue to get bigger.
You have an excellent point. I’m still shocked a bit at the 747F and the whole line being finished up. I guess there will be enough-400 and -8 airframes for future cargo?
Yeah i totally agree with your points
Also as carrying goods across the ocean takes time
A truly massive jet can help reduce cost per kg down
But that begs the question is it really worth it ship all your cargo thru plane as it would be very costly
@@JAMESWUERTELE
By the time the current fleet of air-freighters get sent to the scrapper all of the 747 manufacturing employees will be drawing a pension.
It's like the f-22. Everyone wishes that we could manufacture an updated f-22 but all of manufacturing equipment & the workforce is long gone by now.
They can't mothball the 747 plant for potentially decades. So the design will have to fresh.
I doubt those who operate the 747s as their workhorse today will downsize when they decide to retire the 747s.
With the developing world improving itself I feel that those who use the 747s as their work horse will opt to size up.
What other configuarion could they have made? Just a super long boy?
@@pilotpeter8850 They could have done what Boeing did when they designed the original 747. Design a massive freighter, and then modify it to house 600-800 passengers. As Airbus has shown doing it the other way around just doesn't work well. An A380F was found to be expensive and difficult to create and the end product would be underpowered for everything but the very lightest freight if full, unless they fitted more powerful engines and redesigned the wings, but at that point you're getting pretty close to just developing a brand new aeroplane.
I agree with you Coby. Very well explaned.
Glad you think so ◡̈
I would have to say that you are right. The 777-X needs to go forward as planned and secure a place in the aviation community. I hope that US Carriers would over time order this beautiful jetliner . l stated earlier l want to be able to travel somewhere on it. Lee Crolley, lll
It seems like it'll be a dream to fly on - bigger windows, lower cabin altitude, super quiet, and wider seats than the 787. Could certainly become a passenger favorite
United have just placed an order with airbus for the rival a350
Airbus has one huge advantage over Boeing now: it's had enough different programs including the A380 to train and develop it's engineers in aerospace design, industrial design (of its production and factories) & in certification programme design and execution. And it's done this all in a fairly steady flow so that it's elder engineering and program workforce can mentor new graduates and it would have a good, sustainable age mix in its technical and scientific workforce. So it's not surprising that Airbus has experienced less technical program issues and that they've been less catastrophic.
But then Airbus didn't set out to attack it's workforce because they were unionised.
Thanks for the post! You are so wise.
I appreciate that!
And I think it’s long term versus short term view. He may be thinking from the point of view of a lease operator but in terms of what airlines will need starting a few years down the road and then growing several more years down the road I think the 777X will actually be a great success But slow growth for some time to come before it wraps up. Considering the tiny amount of money Boeing has invested into what could be one of the greatest large capacity airplanes for fleets in the future needing a new airplane I believe their return on investment will actually be really great, eventually. But it will come and everybody will be really happy with it one day
777x won’t be cancelled.
1. The -9 has greater passenger and cargo capacity than the 787-10 which even with a HGW version, won’t have the lift of the 777-9.
2. The 777-8F will continue the dominance in the air freight market that the 777F already has.
What the market is for the 777-8 will depend on HGW versions of the 787-9 and 787-10 and what maximum weight the FAA will certify and how much range / payload that results in.
If you take either plane to the maximum zero fuel weight of the 787-9 (400,000 lbs) and 787-10 (425,000 lbs), the current MTOW of 560,000 lbs leaves them with fuel tanks 30-40% empty.
I would like to see the 787-8 get an LR version with the HGW, but think the 787-8 will see new life in a Gen 2 model sized on the 787-8 fuselage but revised with a new wing with folding wing tips to fit code D gates and reduced fuel capacity to give a range of 6,000 nm to 6,200 nm with 200 to 250 seats depending on layout.
Another interesting program!
You know, you're very smart. I wouldn't be able to piece this together by myself😅
Seems to me as soon as Boeing attempt to modernise an existing airframe they have problems, look at the 737 Max and now 5 years delay on the 777X something not adding up here.
@Phillip Banes my point exactly, surely Boeing are a big enough company to deal with such issues.
@@r12004rewy Karma got them. I hope the go bankrupt soon.
The gains in efficiency are more than offset by development costs, increased purchase price and poor sales. This plane may never be in the green.
people need to quit looking at the current order book. this plane will be ordered a *lot* more down the road, years into the program once certified. hell, the original 777 only had around 200 orders at first flight, and look how many more it sold. 27 years since first delivery and the 777 is one of, if not the most liked and reliable aircraft ever made.
Have you you of things like freight demand and the fact that many 777-300ER's are still you g to be replaced. ?
Don't you think the 777XF could also be popular as airlines replace their 747 , MD 11 freighters?
You are right. It is not only Boeing… this would be a problem for too many companys if they would cancel the project. I think they would have done it earlier and not at the end of the project. The people in the Boeing Company are pretty smart and they would not calculate like this. 😃
A very smart analysis.
Thanks!
I think you are right coby👍
I agree with your analysis, Coby. 777X will continue, and ultimately thrive.
You are correct.
nice video man
The 777X is conflicted in having super long range objective and the aluminum fuselage. Either it should have targeted 6000nm range with aluminum fuselage or 8000nm with carbon fiber fuselage. Given that ultra long range is inherently a premium ticket that should be for the 787, and the bigger 777X should have been hub-to-hub oriented
The 777x keeps that aluminium fuselage because it is a structurally efficient design.
I think that Boeing went for a aluminium fuselage after the 787 had delamination problems
Our brilliant RUclipsr is of course correct !
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Only time will tell, which is already too much unpredictable b/c of frustrating COVID
Your right coby! Sooner the better for the 777x. But don’t be surprised if Airbus designs a new 380 for Emirates ,Qatar, Qantas. Still a demand Large capacity long haul luxury.
Shhh don't tell anyone but I'm covering that topic for my next video
I think airbus will not start the factory again
But
Maybe why not a refurbishment of old a380 to make them neo one by one like we could do for transform passenger to fret airplane
If u change engine for exemple ( maybe 2 of it and not 4) and some carbon part replacement or one or 2 section bigger
Mean maybe a good choice
And
This waiting another 2 decades to make one new with full new tech or design
antooher great episode
I want to see this beauty fly, it is just too beautifull to be cancelled
I have something to add to this and this is it. With the 777x have a 5 year delay which is big qantas has instead gone with the a350-1000 which will be ready around 2025 I think but the 777x will be ready by 2028 or 2029 or even longer if the 777x gets delayed again. What try to say is this qantas has chosen the a350-1000 because it is pretty much ready now has the 777x is not
The Qantas order although it had really big marketing for it doesn't even consist of 20 air frames so not that big of a loss.
Het Coby! Have A Good Shabbos!!
Thanks David!
Boeing spent a ton of money on their wing plant in Everett Wa…
And they've also been moving everything out of washington recently. What makes you think they'd do anything different for the 777?
@@pilotpeter8850 the fact that they just built a huge 777 wing factory there.
They sure did but they could always repurpose the space
If Boeing was half as competent company as it was when it created the original 777 program, there would not have been any testing delays. That was Boeing at its best. Current Boeing seems like a bumbling incompetent company that depends on US government cost + programs to make ends meet.
Look, we need to look at the bigger picture here and not just go pointing fingers on companies.... I do concur on your idea that Boeing was way better back then compared to what it is now, but that's just how it was always supposed to happen. No one's ideas and mindset remain constant. There is a gradual revolution in everything that is happening and Boeing had to catch up with it. Though it meant a turbulent future for them. A lot, really a LOT has changed since Boeing first rolled out and naturally, they couldn't stay where they were with the rest of the world moving forward. They had to revolutionize hand in hand with the rest of the world, debatably being a good thing or a bad thing
better tell us how regulations changed from 1990 to nowadays.
If government makes company rely on its money to exist, you will get the current situation, what manufacturer is supposed to do or even what it can do at all when even pilots are required to fly 1500 hour on a plane that has no similarities to commercial planes?
Imagine what Boeing has to do.
If you have a look at private jet/plane market you will see a strong competition, because regulations on such planes are much more simple. To enter in commercial aviation you have to do a ton of stuff in 10 years(because less than this is impossible with current regulations) spend at least 5 billion $ and then you can be blamed if your plane crashes because of MCAS that was required to avoid regulation to retrain pilots for the same aircraft like it is “all new” and carry all the risks on your own because the one that checks aircraft safety - FAA is not a certification agency and has no responsibility for neither safety nor their work, and it is a gvm monopoly, but it can kill your company.
However you have one plus if you are government bonded company like Boeing, you can make your government ban other competitors, but it doesn’t work as we figured out
@@polytekhat i don’t think Airbus, Boeing’s only credible peer, has the same problems as Boeing. At least not at the same level. I think Boeing’s tendency towards cost cutting in R&D and bad QC can’t be attributed solely to market forces and regulatory environment. I think Boeing’s corporate culture has shifted negatively in the last couple decades. Some people have blamed this shift on its merger with McDonell Douglas in the 90s.
not to mention it took them only 16 months to build the 747. Could you imagine them trying to do that today?
@@alphamalegold1 omg you f***ng read my comment how does it works?!
I think boeing should keep current 777-300er and new 777-900 offers both aircraft in a deal that airlines has to agree the new 777-900 should have two types of engine one that makes sound and the other one slient
Comments coming from someone who stated the a330 neo will sell in the thousands.!!!
The main reason for the 330 Neo is to have a cheaper widebody on market than the 350, and to limit the price Boeing can charge for the 787. It prevents Boeing from making much profit with the 787, while the complete 330 Neo program was just around 2 bn (787 nearly 30 billion).
So the 330 Neo is a success for Airbus, even if the production numbers aren't huge
There is also the fact that the 777X is now the only plane that could potentially replace the A380, another aging platform with no replacement. The A350 could never get that large without some serious performance sacrifices or a new wing amd engine, something Airbus doesn't want to invest in. The FAAs comments however are more a bit of revenge over the fallout of the MAX crisis, not really a design issue. It was an excuse for them to slow down and not meet certification goals for the aircraft. The GE9x engines have also been a pain. The engines are at the limits of everything, and aren't keeping up. But if they can get this thing to work, this will be the dominant large wide body and Airbus will not be able to compete for some time.
7:40
How many 300ER will enter second hand market?
Will (Can?) Boeing offer a midlife re-engine?
In theory yes, but I remember someone in a famous aviation forum estimated a GE9X powered 777-300ER is basically at the same ballpark as 777-9 in terms of per trip fuel burn. In other words 777-9 gains free capacity with its new wings and stretches.
@@steinwaldmadchen Got it. 👍
What do you mean by midlife re-engine?
@@cobyexplanes Remember DC-8-70 or KC-135R?
I guess he means similar programs but for 77W.
It will sale over the long haul
The guy is letting the fact that he has a building at the SASM named after him... get to his head. Boeing is not going to dump a billion dollars of dev money down the toilet.
Is it possible that Boeing has the capability to expedite the certification of the 777X but is making the strategic decision to take their time? Does Covid take the pressure off because Qatar and Emirates suffered cash flow issues that make them more inclined to have a positive view of the programs delays?
It certailny is - Boeing now claims that 2025 will be the ideal timing for the plane to enter service with how the covid recovery is coming along. But it's impossible to really tell if that's how they really feel or if they're just saying that for publicity sake
You're right. If Boeing cancel 777x, a bunch of Lawsuits will follow. So, they need to get it done by any means necessary.
Boeing should work harder on the 777-8, because of its range and not so high density of passengers, the 777-8 is perfect for many airlines.
Surprised they hadn't worked on that version first. It could've replaced a good number of 200s that weren't already replaced by A350s or 787s.
No it's not.
Sales figures tell a different story.
@@fighter5583 200s? bro the 777-8 is good enough to replace a -300er
@@sls12III yea, but if Boeing had worked simultaneously on both the programs, The sales of 777-8 would also have been higher
Hazy may have been making those comments to motivate Boeing to get their act together. Even though it is a smaller aircraft, isn't the 787 eating into potential 777X customers?
What is the intro music?
I just got my 777x model yesterday, I would be very sad to see it be cancelled. Then I would also have a model plane that’s not even real
Does your model have any "pitch up" issues?
yes, it would be crazy.
I hope you're right!
The 777X is just a refresh of the 777. It isn't a new plane. Back when programme started, such a refresh would have gotten rubben stamped approval for a new model within the 777 type rating with minimal documentation and testing.
Then the 737 MAX happened. The 777X now has to go through a far more rigorous certification campaign.
The first 777s rolled out in 1995 so there is a need to refresh the product line to cater to these replacements. the "X" might be a few years ahead of that need but that need will materialize.
With the religious opposition to the 747 in USA and Boeing having fostered densification of seating in the 777 to rival the 747 capacity (by making flying in coach as miserable as possible) the 777 remains the only option to cater to high demand routes, especially for airlines that don't care about coach comfort.
Suspect the suggestions about cancelling is more lobbying efforts to get political pressure on FAA to return to rubber stamping model updates instead of treating them almost like a new type rating for brand new aircraft. Cancelling the 777X means sales for replacement of older 777 and 747s will go to 330neo and 350 and that will pook bad on politicians for jobs moving frim USA to europe.
What could possibly happen would be for Boeing to drop the 777X and create the 777neo which would be essentially the 777X but dropping some of the features like folding wings which would make this more of a simple derivcative of the 777 with new engines and lighter structure which would make FAA approval faster and less costly.
But it's also true that 777X changes are quite substantial. At least no other refresh programs completely redesigned the wings (A310 has a different type certification from A300 although they share commonality).
@@steinwaldmadchen The A 330 Neo also has gotten a new wing, and for the A 321 there will be a new wing available in the mid 2020s.
The same with the 747-8, or the 737 NG (the classic had much smaller wings).
A new wing on existing fuselages is still a relatively inexpensive solution to improve efficiency, compared to a completely new aircraft (of course a completely new airliner will still be more efficient, but also more expensive due to development costs)
@@simonm1447 No actually.
A330NEO's wings are almost untouched except the winglets. A321XLR shares the same A321-100 wings (which are slightly enlarged A320 wings) , but with new winglets and flaps.
Changes on 747-8 or 737NG are more substantial, but their new wings still inherit the old geometry and structures despite being larger.
In comparison 777X has enlarged 787 wings. This is a significant departure from OG 777 wings. FAA has enough reason to raise their eyebrows even before the MAX crashes.
@@steinwaldmadchen Airbus is developing a completely new wing for the 321 (independently from the XLR which uses the old 320 series wing, at least for now). I assume they intend to increase size, since the 320 series wing is at the limit of wing loading with the new 321 series aircraft versions. To get a performance similar to the old 757 (range/payload) a slightly bigger wing would help to increase payload capacity on longer routes.
Regaring the 330 wing you are partially right since it's not a completely new wing, but beside the new winglets they did several changes (new slats for example) to optimize the wing for the 330, while the old wing version was used for the 340 too which demanded partially different aerodynamics.
According to Airbus the 330 Neo wing should be 4 % more efficient than the legacy 330 wing
@@simonm1447 Slats and winglets are tweaked, but the structure and geometry is largely untouched, so as the wing area. Except for the engine pylon and strengthening to fit Trent 7000 instead of Trent 700 etc of course. Not sure if the pipeline designed for 340's outer engines are removed.
Airbus does carring out a so-called Wing for the Tomorrow program, but no concrete action plans has been made yet.
Nevertheless EASA would look into it if they feel uncomfortable about what Airbus has done, and they've correctly done so on XLR's tank. A complicant FAA would do the same to Boeing, this time regarding 777X, and it's up to Boeing to response.
so does ER just stand for Early retirement then?
Though I have so much respect for Mr. Hazy, but I would rather side with you a RUclipsr this time😂. Simply put, you have compelling arguments about Boeing not axing the program! Long live #B777x
Haha thanks ◡̈
i think you are correct
I think it’s because of the fuselage is getting longer and longer and longer… in order to get more people in to drive up the greediness profits that companies can make…
If Boeing cancels the 77X project, is it possible that Boeing can use the new GE9X engines in its current 777-200 and 777-300 aircraft? Perhaps they can use a neo concept like Airbus did.
maybe on 737 max
Regarding 777X, my question has always been by how much it can differentiate itself from A350.
The so-called 777NG (77W, 77L and 77F that equipped with GE90-110/115 engines, ranked wing tips and a few tweaks) is no doubt a solid product, but it also enjoyed a near monopoly - A340NG not so efficient, while 747F and MD-11F were Boeing offerings.
Now there is a rival - the A350. I'm not arguing how good or bad it is against 777X this time, but no doubt it is a serious alternative. Some of the larger 777 operators would at least take some 350s alongside 777X, notably Cathay Pacific, or simply not taking any 777X at all, e.g. JAL. 777X for a fact just won't enjoy the samr market share and price premium.
Also among all modern widebodies, 777X has an older design (together with A330NEO), and is the heaviest. It's just not as future proof as 787 or A350. And the later 777X EIS, the more it's prone to competitions from next-gen aircraft, and hence bleaker outlook.
That said, I still think 777X was the right move. With an original EIS on 2020 and a cost of a few billion, it's more than adequate for Boeing to at least earn some pin-money, as opposed to costly cleansheets. Just that the execution is meh.........
Well i hope Boeing is moving along with the new metal/ lattice material, that may lighten the 777x up down the road
@@andrewlarson7895 Material is just part of the story. 777 has baked in a fair amount of heavylifting capability and potential for a stretch, and there's of course trade offs regarding that. A 772 is heavier than 343 and 333 by a fair bit, which the latter two were very optimised designs in the same era. On the other hand Boeing had few issues stretching into 77W, while Airbus struggled to make 346 work.
The only realistic lightweight material for a refresh program like 777X is Al-Li alloy, but even using that could mean extensive structural changes, because the characteristics is different the original aluminium alloys. It turns out Boeing dropped the idea later on, maybe it's too expensive to them? Component wise it's not unusual to replace the materials entirely, but it could only get you so far. 77W for example saved a little bit of weight and fuel burns in 2010s, but that won't make it a 35K. Neither can a lighter 320CEO overtake 738, despite they're even closer.
@@steinwaldmadchen they are looking into floor panels and overhead bins as possible use for there new material.if they can do that.that will shave tons of weight.as the metal and its structure is 99% air. So time will tell.
@@andrewlarson7895 The elephant in the room is that A350 is not only lighter because it's a composite frame, but also the fact that it isn't designed to support a MTOW of 350t+ - it doesn't have to.
35K and 35F can match 77W and 77F capabilities despite their engine thrust and wing area are more comparable to regional 773.
Who are you kidding? Yes, 77X is actually a new plane... 100% new cockpit and FBW systems(from 787). 100% new Wing/wing systems. New Engines. New Fuselage electrical/pressurization systems(from 787). New Fuselage, but exterior dimensions are kept the same for use of the same assembly jigs, the actual metal fuselage is nearly 100% new and with the higher pressurization of a350/787. The rudder is larger, and here I do not know if the systems are different, but here I doubt it. APU is 100% new. The horizontal stabilizer is 100% new.
Just what is the same again? Oh right... the landing gear. Great, they reused the 77W Landing gear.
While I am no fan of the FAA and their demand to be the certifier for aircraft, here I agree with the FAA in their DEMAND that Boeing treat this aircraft like a NEW plane... because it is 95% NEW.
Its quite a bit more than a new engine and a new wing.
The wing construction is a new type as well. Engine diameter have been increased with all the problem that result in. The plane have been lengthened. There is new insulation and inner walls. New windows. New interior (while most of the last 3 points is just copied from 787). While there is stuff that is not new. Its not like the NEO programs where Airbus literally just change the engines on the outside. And also had space to spare prior. And change nothing else that had to do with neither the outside or the skin (well apart from the windows on the A330Neo).
Max, i8 and the 777x programs all had the same issues. Boeing try to make it a small upgrade, but overstretched. While the failure of the 747-8 was more so a failure of the market. Where even the A380 outsold it every year until 2016 (with exception of the launch years)
It's the sensible thing to do
Some time old is better then new
This programme is such a poster child for MBA graduates demonstrating their superiority over engineers in making technical decisions and the virtues of attacking unionised labour, especially your highly skilled through experience technical labour force.
In writing this the parallels with sacking half the Twitter programmers comes to mind.
i'm here after more than a year later and i guess coby's right. After this video boeing announced 777X freighter and got dozens of order, then Air India become the next customer for 777X with 10 plane ordered and emirates increased their order with extra 95 777X.
Dozens? Boeing doesn’t even have 400 order and now in 2024 Boeing said they will delay it to 2028 😂
United have just announced they're going with the a350 instead.
True United ordered only 787 and a350
I give you far more credibility than an executive mired in the past.
He who doesn't know history is doomed to repeat it. So maybe you should give those historically minded executives the benefit of the doubt? Especially if you have never walked a mile in their shoes.
@@davidcole333 He is basing his analysis on a single premise: there aren’t enough orders for the 777x to sustain production.
Colby is basing his forecast on the future replacements for the 777x since many fleets are already over 20 yrs old. Since those airlines have already invested training and tooling specified towards the 777 already. Isn’t it more logical and economical to evolve to the 777x?
He made that statement without any historical basis or knowledge of the present circumstances.
maybe I should run boeing lol
Well Thai airways just got three brand new 777-300Er and just to mention does that mean those are the last or is it still in production
Yes the only last gen 777s still being built are freighters
@@alphamalegold1 The F is the only 777 built at the moment at all, the -X pre production has been stopped (because of the delays) and the 300ER is out of production
choo choo Im a train
Probably said that to get cheap prices if it puts people off.
The 777-8/9 will enter service because of the 777-8F factor.
You are correct. 777X is gonna be a huge hit in the up coming years
Have you factor in increasing geopolitical, health trade, economic, etc uncertainties and increasing effects of a warming the planet that could reduce future air travel.
Can you explain how the 77. 7 x can compete with the a350 x? On paper, it looks to me like the a350 is completely superior. The 777x seems to have a slight advantage in capacity, but not enough to compensate for the large difference in efficiency. I know Qatar Will choose Boeing, but isn't the a350 the best 777 -300 replacement? And why is the 777X so expensive if it is not fully composite like the a350x?
On marketing paper, everything looks way better than what you're selling against.
Maybe it's not that the A350 isn't a good aircraft or not, but that the 777-300ER is just a really great product.
Coby is right
There's no way Boeing is going to scrap a program that has 341 active orders before the thing has even entered service, with a long list of potential customers on top of the current order book. PARTICULARLY since they are only 2 billion in. That's loose change compared to launching a clean sheet design. Plus the fundamentals specs of the plane make it competitive against the competition (ie a350) in seat mile fuel burn. Not to mention, it has a true 18 inches of seat width unlike the 787, so it will be the more comfortable long haul plane. Finally, any flight control issues should be able to be fixed with software revisions (ie cheaply). The hardware has virtually already passed load testing, so Boeing is pretty much having to do a bunch of extra testing because the regulators are breathing down their necks (not that this is a bad thing).
Well, we all know what happened the last time Boeing cheeped out on software
Boeing could also cancel starliner. That and the 777 x would be a lot of money down the drain.
Boeing's big mistake was making the B779 bigger than the B773. The long haul sweet spot in terms of size has moved to the B789-A359 range and possibly up to A35K/B78K range. Everything (Except for the additional seats that nobody needs) that the 779 can do, the A35K can do better. Even worse: as soon as the 78K gets an MTOW bump and/or a new generation of power plants, the 777 has an in-house competitor.
Well, it's not like they can't shave off a few rows to make it work.
779 is an eventual 744/748/388/77W replacement, where as the HGW 781 is an 772 replacement. there is the difference i think
@@hibikismusic3103 Has a HGW 787 been announced officially though? There's plenty of speculation that Boeing could do it, but if so, when? Those 772s are getting closer to retirement as months go by.
@@fighter5583 I think the 35K has 20+% better trip cost and 18t lighter OEW than 77W to start with, at slightly smaller capacity at 9-abreast. Meanwhile GE9X and new wings can only catch up by 10ish%. 777X has to pack more passengers or cargo to push the unit cost down.
Not only 779 is larger than 35K, 777XF also has 9t more payload than 350F, even if Boeing has bumped up the MTOW to 365t.
@@fighter5583 they haven't announced it yet, and i dont know when they are gonna announce it tbh
if Boeing thinks their existing 777 customers will reorder 777x from them without doing much engineering on the plane then there's alternative those airlines can look into
The 777x is the product of much engineering just on the virtue of changes made on the wing, engine, fuselage and avionics.
This is a nitpick, but on second and later reference Steven Udvar-Hazy should be referenced as Mr. Udvar-Hazy, not just "Mr. Hazy." His last name is hyphenated. (And if we're getting REALLY nitpicky, his last name is Udvar-Házy in English, but Udvarházy in his native Hungarian - and don't even get me started on how he should be referenced in that language.) I also question the premise of this video, as Boeing is not going to cancel its only remaining large wide-body program. Airbus may be beating the pants off Boeing in the narrow-body category, but neither manufacturer makes a lot of profit there. Wide-bodies are where the profit is made - and Boeing has that category locked down for now. Canceling the 777X would open the door for Airbus to kill Boeing as a company.
I belive you are wright
wright...brothers?
agree: only for 7-8 years, they are developing 777x
The money Boeing has spent on the 777x could have been spent on a 757x.
The money Boeing didn't spend on the 757x was better spent on the 777x.
But, the additional monies spent on ill-disciplined developments of the 747-8, 787, MAX, KC-46, Starliner and the 777x would have been more than enough for a new MoM by now.