When configured in the standard seating arrangement, the most cost-efficient wide-body aircraft, as measured in terms of the lowest DOC per n mile-pax under the specific assumptions of this study, was found to be (A) Boeing 777-200ER for 290–312 passengers, (B) Airbus A350-900 for 313–325 passengers, (C) Boeing 777-300ER for 326–396. Operating Costs Per Hour; Fuel Cost Per Hour: $ 8,749.01 Oil Cost Per Hour: $ 4.00 Engine Reserve Per Hour: Updating Information - More info may be. Structural integrity of commercial transport aircraft. Presented herein are Boeing 777-200ER aircraft operational usage data collected from 10,047 flights, representing 67,000 flight hours, recorded by a single international operator. Data are presented that will provide the user with.

• Boeing 777 Operating Cost Per Hour Unit
• Boeing 777 Specification
• Boeing 777 Operating Cost Per Hour Cost

Hello All,

In a Seattle Timesarticle written by Dominic Gates, Boeing CFO Greg Smith stated that the manufacturer is “looking at the timing and demand for the -8 to see if that still makes sense and do we want to push that out?”. In this post we will analyze why Boeing is considering a delayed entry into service for the smallest 777X variant.

We start by outlining the basic Boeing 777-8 specifications. Its seating capacity is similar to the 777-300ER and Airbus A350-1000 at around 365 passengers in a 2 class cabin configuration. With increased fuel efficiency the range increases from 7370 to 8700 nautical miles. It is beyond the scope of this post to go into the details of how Boeing achieves the increased range but long story short it is a combination of more fuel efficient engines and wider wings (with folding wingtips) that give more lift. LeehamNews has an excellent series of posts that go into more details.

• By increasing the time between certain maintenance tasks, the new program reduces maintenance by more than 400 labor-hours per airplane per year and gives airlines one more day of service annually for each 777 in their fleet.
• This luxurious Boeing 777 private jet normally costs $50,000 per hour but is flying medical cargo in the COVID-19 airlift. Take a look inside Crystal Cruises' flying palace. Apr 15, 2020, 23:43 IST.

The 777-8’s main strength is a range second to none. Carrying 365 passengers for 8700 nm is no small feat. Boeing didn’t release the 777-8 maximum payload capacity yet but it will be higher than the benchmark setting 69.5 metric tons of the 777-300ER. It might equal or surpass the 747-8’s 76 metric tons. When the time comes for Boeing to stop the 747-8 freighter production line a 777 X freighter based on the -8 will be the natural successor (without the special 747 cargo front door though). The field performance is another strong point, especially with the wider wings.

However the increased range comes at the cost of materially lower fuel efficiency than the A350-1000. This is mainly due to the higher operating empty weight (158.8 for the A350-1000 vs 167.8 metric tons for the 777-300ER, which we assume weights around the same as the 777-8). During the climb the aircraft weight accounts for a bigger proportion of fuel burn. At cruise altitude the aerodynamic drag is a bigger factor. The 777-8’s wider wings narrow the fuel burn disadvantage vs the A350-1000 during cruise. As a the flight gets shorter the climb represents a bigger portion of the flight. Therefore the shorter the flight the bigger the 777-8’s disadvantage compared to the A350-1000.

If one looks at a flight from Dubai to Los Angeles, the A350-1000 can carry a full passenger payload (assuming a standard cabin configuration) but very little cargo. The 777-8 can carry meaningful amounts of cargo on such flight. However, as the flight gets longer the fuel burn increases. Carrying extra cargo becomes commensurately more expensive per nm. It is debatable whether any airline can generate high enough yields to profitably carry meaningful amounts of cargo on ultra long haul flights.

For which missions is the 777-8 relevant then? Effectively flights longer than 7500 nautical miles that aren’t within the range of the A350-1000 or 777-9. Given the fact the 777-9 and 777-8 share the same MTOW, the fuel burn difference per hour is minimal and most operating costs are the same. It does not make much sense for airlines to operate the 777-8 when the 777-9 can fly the mission. The 777-9 isn’t fuel limited at 7850 nm like the 777-300ER due to a lower hourly fuel burn. We do not know yet the 777-9 final specifications but the aircraft isn’t fuel limited until at least 8200 nm for sure.

Boeing markets the 777-8 as a 777-200 LR replacement. Which ultra long haul routes does the latter actually fly? Below is a list:

Of the above routes only ATL-JNB and DOH-AKL are not within the range of a 777-300ER. Delta Air Lines will wait for enhancements to the A350-900 field performance or an A350neo rather than ordering the 777-8. As discussed above Auckland might be reachable from Doha with the 777-9 in a premium configuration. It is usually cheaper for airlines to operate the few ultra long haul routes in their network with a lower cabin density or payload restrictions rather than introducing a new aircraft type. The A350 and 787, with increased range and fuel efficiency compared to earlier generation aircraft, can do the job most of the time. So will the 777-9. It is also reasonable to assume there isn’t demand to justify launching direct flights to Santiago de Chile from the Middle East (Qatar Airways announced the route but never launched it).

The airlines that ordered the 777-8 so far are Emirates (35), Qatar Airways (10) and Etihad Airways (8). However the Abu Dhabi carrier’s order is effectively cancelled. That leaves two customers for the 777-8. Does it makes sense for Boeing to develop and test an aircraft variant for two customers and less than 50 orders?

In my opinion it does not make sense unless Boeing lines up new customers. Which airlines might be interested in the 777-8?

The most obvious candidate is Qantas for Project Sunrise. This blog recently wrote a post on that topic. If Boeing does not win that order it would be a big blow for the 777-8. If an aircraft specifically designed for ultra long range flight does not win an order for the world’s longest envisioned route, what is the point of such aircraft?

The other candidate could be Ethiopian Airlines. The 777-8 has outstanding field performance, which is suitable for the high and hot conditions of Addis Abada airport. It might enable direct flights to the USA. However the prospects for an order are negatively impacted by the recent 737 MAX crash. Last but not least is there enough demand to fill an aircraft the size of the 777-300ER to fly direct to the USA?

Boeing 777 Operating Cost Per Hour Unit

Other than the above airlines it is hard to imagine ultra long haul routes that would make economic sense for other carriers. US carriers have stayed away from the 777 X because it is too large for their multi hub network. European carriers do not fly ultra long haul routes. So far Turkish Airlines and Chinese carriers have avoided ultra long haul flights. However they might decide to launch some routes, such as Istanbul – Sydney or Beijing – Havana, for political reasons.

Boeing 777 Specification

To summarize the market prospects for the 777-8 look grim. It isn’t a surprise Boeing officially acknowledged the entry into service could be delayed. For regular long haul flights it is more expensive to operate than the A350-1000. Other than Project Sunrise it is hard to find routes that could economically justify such aircraft. It is usually cheaper for airlines to operate the A350, 787 (and 777 X going forward) in low density configurations with payload restrictions rather than ordering a dedicated type. If Qantas does not order the 777-8 Boeing might just work with Emirates and Qatar Airways to tweak the 777-9 to make flights to Auckland possible and cancel the 777-8 altogether. In such scenario the American manufacturer would probably be better off focusing on a 777X freighter variant or improving the 787-10 range.

Boeing 777 Operating Cost Per Hour Cost

Credit: Boeing