With Emirates planning on retiring the Airbus A380 in the 2030s, the Dubai-based carrier’s fleet is going to be undergoing major changes in the next decade. As Emirates renews its fleet, the Boeing 777X will be the single most important piece of that puzzle. In this post I wanted to recap everything we know about Emirates’ Boeing 777X order, delayed as it may be.
In this post:
Emirates has 115 Boeing 777Xs on order
Emirates ordered the Boeing 777X many years ago, initially with the goal of replacing its current 777 fleet. However, over the years, plans have changed a bit. The order was placed at a time when it didn’t seem like the Airbus A380 would be discontinued. However, with the A380 no longer in production, the 777X will eventually be the world’s largest passenger jet, meaning it will actually replace A380s.
For context, Emirates’ fleet currently consists of just over 250 aircraft, including A380s and 777s. The airline then has nearly 200 aircraft on order, spread across three types of aircraft:
- Emirates has 50 Airbus A350-900s on order, expected to be delivered as of 2024
- Emirates has 30 Boeing 787-9s on order, expected to be delivered as of 2025
- Emirates has 115 Boeing 777Xs (including the 777-8 and 777-9) on order, expected to be delivered as of 2025
The plan is now for the 777X to eventually be Emirates’ new flagship aircraft, once the A380 retires.
For those not familiar with the Boeing 777X, this is the next generation of the 777. The aircraft has two variants — the 777-8 and 777-9 — and these planes are longer range, larger, and more fuel efficient, than previous generation 777s (which Emirates currently flies).
Note that Emirates is expected to order an additional 100-150 wide body jets, and that’s anticipated to include more Boeing 777X aircraft.
Emirates should take delivery of 777Xs in 2025
This is where it gets tricky. Emirates was supposed to take delivery of its first Boeing 777X in 2020. Unfortunately the aircraft has had serious certification issues, and has been delayed by at least five years. It’s now expected to be delivered in 2025.
It’s anyone’s guess if that timeline gets pushed back even further. Suffice it to say that this has had serious impacts on Emirates’ fleet renewal plans. The airline had been relying on the 777X to refresh its fleet, but that just hasn’t materialized.
Arguably the whole reason Emirates ordered Airbus A350s and Boeing 787s was due to the Boeing 777X delivery delays. If these planes get delayed even further, Emirates is really going to be in a tough spot.
Emirates 777X interiors & passenger experience
Emirates’ 777Xs are expected to be in a four class configuration, featuring first class, business class, premium economy, and economy. Exact details remain to be seen (and for that matter, some plans may have changed due to the five year delivery delay), but let’s look at what we do know.
For one, Emirates’ new Boeing 777Xs will feature Emirates’ new “Game Changer” first class product, which is currently only available on nine 777-300ERs. This is an incredible first class (I rank it as the best in the world), and it was introduced all the way back in 2017. That wasn’t an issue when Emirates was planning on taking delivery of 777Xs in 2020, but with the five year delay, this will hardly be a new product anymore.
I think the big question is what product Emirates will offer in business class. Last we heard, Emirates was planning on introducing something along the lines of its A380 business class on 777Xs. With the major delays, I sure hope that Emirates introduces something more impressive than that, since that would be disappointing. So this is still a bit question mark, but expect it to be much better than Emirates’ current 777 business class.
You can also expect 777Xs to feature Emirates’ new premium economy cabin, which is currently being retrofitted on existing aircraft.
While this hasn’t been revealed, I’d also guess that Emirates will install high speed Wi-Fi, perhaps from Inmarsat’s GX Aviation system. Historically Emirates has had excruciatingly slow Wi-Fi, though starting with the A350s, the airline plans to improve this.
Emirates 777X routes & destinations
We’re still at least a couple of years off from the first 777X being delivered to Emirates, so there are no firm details as to which routes this plane will operate. That being said, it’s easy enough to make sense of Emirates’ plans here, since this will eventually be the carrier’s flagship aircraft.
Eventually you can expect the 777X to fly on Emirates’ most premium routes, going everywhere from London, to New York, to Singapore. After all, this will be Emirates’ largest and most premium aircraft.
In the interim, while A380s are still around, you can expect Emirates to use more of a mixed strategy. The airline will likely use the 777X in the most premium markets currently served by the 777. Maybe we’ll also see 777Xs put on some routes currently operated by A380s.
But unlike the A350 and 787, these planes will eventually serve the most premium and high demand Emirates routes.
Bottom line
Emirates has an order for 115 Boeing 777Xs, and the airline is expected to order even more of these planes in the near future. The 777X will eventually become Emirates’ flagship aircraft, as the airline retires its Airbus A380s.
You can expect Emirates to take delivery of its first 777Xs in 2025 (hopefully), and for deliveries to occur pretty quickly. The planes will be in a four cabin configuration, and will feature Emirates’ new first class. That’s exciting, since it was introduced over five years ago, and is still only available on nine planes.
The 777X will no doubt represent a significant improvement over the current 777s that Emirates flies, in terms of economics, passenger experience, etc. However, I still can’t picture what Emirates will be like without A380s. DXB just won’t look the same if it’s only 777Xs parked at Concourse A (though by then, perhaps Dubai World Central will be Emirates’ home?).
What are you expecting from Emirates’ Boeing 777Xs?
Lee, you are far too clever for the rest of us on this topic. I have flown on the A380 and it's the best commercial aircraft that has ever flown after the Concorde which I was also lucky enough to have been on. Please Emirates and the rest please, please keep the big bird going as long as you possibly can.
Just flew business class return from Kuala Lumpur/Rome layover Dubai. The cabin and inflight services are excellent.
For anyone who is interested here's what Tim wrote....
Why is the Airbus A380 so fuel inefficient? In short, sub-optimized wing aspect ratios. However, my below response will answer two questions, because they are both highly entwined leading to why the A380 seems to be falling out of favor with major aircarriers.
First, I approached this response from a view point of technical admiration for both the A380 and 787. Specifically, the A380 is an...
For anyone who is interested here's what Tim wrote....
Why is the Airbus A380 so fuel inefficient? In short, sub-optimized wing aspect ratios. However, my below response will answer two questions, because they are both highly entwined leading to why the A380 seems to be falling out of favor with major aircarriers.
First, I approached this response from a view point of technical admiration for both the A380 and 787. Specifically, the A380 is an enormous technological achievement. However, the A380 represents Airbus's calculated bet about the future of air travel, and they appear to have bet wrongly on a huge capacity aircraft flying long haul routes between major hub cities. The A380 has a maximum range of about 8200 nmi. By contrast, the Boeing 787 is a medium-large sized aircraft with a range of 7300 nmi (787-8 variant) to 6400 nmi (787-10 variant).
But, here's the enormous and critical difference: wingspan, specifically aspect ratio.
787 wingspan = 197 feet; aspect ratio ~10:1.
A380 wingspan = 262 feet; aspect ratio ~ 7.5:1
The A380 has a significant, intentionally-calculated design short-coming: the wing is shorter than necessary for optimal fuel efficiency. The A380 wing is relatively inefficient for the job it has to perform (lifting as much as 1.27 million pounds at take-off) and thus it's wing loading is relatively high. The penalty for this is increased fuel consumption per pound of aircraft and cargo that must be carried. And the A380 fuel inefficiency cannot remotely be assigned to the engines. The A380 uses state-of-the-art Rolls Royce or Engine Alliance engines, either of which provide superb cutting edge design technology for efficient specific fuel consumption.
I can hear the question: "why didn't the A380 engineers simply design longer (i.e. more efficient) wings for the A380?" The answer at least partially has to do with how such a huge aircraft can move around on the ground and reach a parking gate. The present A380 wings represent the maximum length wingspan that can be accommodated at enough airports to make the business case for production and use of the A380 economically viable. Make the A380 wings any longer, and the number of airports at which it could operate would be limited even further. Therefore, the Airbus design compromise for the A380 was a sub-optimal length wing design.
Which brings attention back to the 787. The maximum 787 take-off weight is approximately half that of the A380, but (and this is huge), the wings are highly optimized for the flight envelop in which it must perform, providing an excellent L/D of approximately 21:1, which is excellent for a commercial airliner. (I read in a 2002 Aviation Week article that the A380 glide ratio is 10.6:1, which seems FAR too low. An educated guess would put it around 15:1…but that is a guess based upon the revamped 747 aifoils). The high aspect ratio 787 wings reduce induced drag, but are not so long as to significantly increase parasitic drag at cruise speed. In short, the 787 is highly fuel efficient for the weight it carries and the passengers it transports. Most importantly though, the 787 - with at least 80% of the range of the A380, can be accommodated at far more domestic airports (i.e. regional airports) than the A380. This means there is a greater chance that you can fly on a 787 direct from your city to a city close to your ultimate destination.
And what is your rational for all this writing, which is inaccurate when it comes to the engines. The A380 engines are a generation older the 787 engines. There is an interesting article of John Leahy where he addresses this issue. Imagine an A380 with 10% lesser fuel burn. Exact that was Leahy's concern, when short after the A380 engine decision the engine manufacturers did announce a new, more efficient engine generation for the large...
And what is your rational for all this writing, which is inaccurate when it comes to the engines. The A380 engines are a generation older the 787 engines. There is an interesting article of John Leahy where he addresses this issue. Imagine an A380 with 10% lesser fuel burn. Exact that was Leahy's concern, when short after the A380 engine decision the engine manufacturers did announce a new, more efficient engine generation for the large twins.
Also, it's obvious to be in a smaller twin on a flight between secondary airports. Meanwhile it's well know, that the A380 is used for high demand airports only.
Tim Yarrow wrote a great little piece explaining why the A380 is so fuel inefficient. Airbus was bent of one upping Boeing. The obvious answer was to knock the 747 off its pedestal as the Queen of Sky by building a bigger airplane. It's to Boeing credit, whatever their other failings, that they walked away from that fight rather than respond. If the EU hadn't bailed out Airbus and if Boeing had executed on the...
Tim Yarrow wrote a great little piece explaining why the A380 is so fuel inefficient. Airbus was bent of one upping Boeing. The obvious answer was to knock the 747 off its pedestal as the Queen of Sky by building a bigger airplane. It's to Boeing credit, whatever their other failings, that they walked away from that fight rather than respond. If the EU hadn't bailed out Airbus and if Boeing had executed on the 787 and 777X Airbus would be in a tough spot or not even with us. Right now the focus in on execution but every new airplane (or a decision not to build one) is a bet the company decision. It will be interesting to see what happens next. People focus on fuel economy but the issue the airlines care about is overall cost. Maybe the next generation of single aisle airplanes is going to find a way to push those down in a way we haven't thought of but whatever Boeing and Airbus decide the consequences of getting it wrong are enormous.
Over its life cycle, the A380 program lost over $20 billion stemming from three disastrous technical decisions.
There were three progressively larger models: the 800, 1000, and 1200. Airbus wanted to save on design costs, so they designed a single undercarriage that was beefy enough to accommodate the largest model (the 1200). But, that beefiness meant significantly more weight than the 800 required and thus fuel efficiency suffered.
Airbus designed the A380 engine...
Over its life cycle, the A380 program lost over $20 billion stemming from three disastrous technical decisions.
There were three progressively larger models: the 800, 1000, and 1200. Airbus wanted to save on design costs, so they designed a single undercarriage that was beefy enough to accommodate the largest model (the 1200). But, that beefiness meant significantly more weight than the 800 required and thus fuel efficiency suffered.
Airbus designed the A380 engine mounts (specifically, the electronic interface) to ONLY be compatible with Trent engines. After all, this was an EU aircraft. No stinking US engines. The A380 was outfitted with Trent 900 series engines. So, when program delays pushed its schedule to afford use of the far more fuel-efficient GEnx, it couldn't. It was STUCK with Trent 900 series engines. And, the more fuel-efficient Trent 1000 series was not due until 2016. On the other hand, Boeing has designed its aircraft to be equipped with multiple engine types. The B787 engine mounts were designed to be compatible with GEnx and Trent engines. Moreover, the operator can hot-swap the two engine types and a specific aircraft can use both engine types mix-and-match. And, when the Trent 1000 series came along, easy peasy.
Aside from EU pride, there was a technical miscalculation in the decision regarding the engines. Generational improvements in engine fuel efficiency have historically been a "step" function, with a step every X years. The GEnx engines that the B787 would use were midway through X years and could not possibly achieve a fuel-efficiency step. After all, such a step was not expected until roughly 2016 . . . along with the Trent 1000 series. So, why design engine mounts to allow for the GEnx if it was no more fuel-efficient than the Trent 900 series? The Airbus engineers were wrong. GE surprised everyone with the mid-step GEnx. It has about 20 percent lower specific fuel consumption and it would have been deliverable on unit #1 to Singapore. Airbus hosed themselves.
By 2007, before the first A380 delivery, Airbus management KNEW the A380 was doomed. Management reports from this time frame reflect management's conclusions that the program would be a financial disaster.
What about the GP7000?
The 787 pylons were designed with the GEnX in mind. The Trent1000 was an after thought, after R&R approached Boeing and ask for being accepted as engine supplier for the the 787. Boeing agreed, as long as there are no changes on the pylons required. They ultimately reinforced the pylons for the Trent1000, but R&R agreed to Boeing's terms.
Airbus had considered the latest generation engines, but the engine makers assured Airbus no new...
The 787 pylons were designed with the GEnX in mind. The Trent1000 was an after thought, after R&R approached Boeing and ask for being accepted as engine supplier for the the 787. Boeing agreed, as long as there are no changes on the pylons required. They ultimately reinforced the pylons for the Trent1000, but R&R agreed to Boeing's terms.
Airbus had considered the latest generation engines, but the engine makers assured Airbus no new engines would arrive soon, what wasn't really true.
I'm wondering if emirates will keep the offering of an on-board bar and showers for the 777xs, and how would they implement on a single deck aircraft especially the bar, since the 777x are similar to the current 777-300ers, and as far as I know virgin Australia seems to be the only that offered an on board bar on those planes before they retired and it was not as impressive as the a380 yatch style bars.
out of curiosity - why, if they are so worried about not having backfill for their a380 fleet, are they already retiring a380's? Their average a380 aircraft age is only 8 years old.
Delta, for example, has multiple fleet types (767 and a320 come to mind) with average fleet age around 30 years.
I would think the a380's would have much more life in them and emirates supposedly is able to operate them...
out of curiosity - why, if they are so worried about not having backfill for their a380 fleet, are they already retiring a380's? Their average a380 aircraft age is only 8 years old.
Delta, for example, has multiple fleet types (767 and a320 come to mind) with average fleet age around 30 years.
I would think the a380's would have much more life in them and emirates supposedly is able to operate them profitably? so why the rush to retire? With interior revamps every 5-10 years, the general public would be none the wiser that the airframe theyre on isn't brand new IMO
Because they are costly to fly compared to other aircraft. On top of that two smaller planes allow passenger to fly from more places without changing planes twice.
If I can fly from Cleveland to Dubai then from there directly to where I want to go that's way better than having to first go to NY or Chicago. If the cost of flying the 787 is lower than the A380 then not only does...
Because they are costly to fly compared to other aircraft. On top of that two smaller planes allow passenger to fly from more places without changing planes twice.
If I can fly from Cleveland to Dubai then from there directly to where I want to go that's way better than having to first go to NY or Chicago. If the cost of flying the 787 is lower than the A380 then not only does the passenger benefit from a shorter travel time and less risk of disruption due to connections the airline can lower costs which makes them more competitive in that they can keep the difference resulting in higher profit, pass it along to the customer expanding the market due to lower costs or if they can segment their customers do both.
hmm interesting perspective. But, DXB currently is near capacity and has a slot program. In fact, it's IATA designated level 3 airport (their classification for most congested).
Thus, phasing out the A380's causes a serious problem at Emirates if they intend to maintain and or grow overall passenger volumes after replacing the 380's with lower-capacity aircraft. Emirates can't just offset the decreased seat capacity by adding more flights to each destination. I guess they...
hmm interesting perspective. But, DXB currently is near capacity and has a slot program. In fact, it's IATA designated level 3 airport (their classification for most congested).
Thus, phasing out the A380's causes a serious problem at Emirates if they intend to maintain and or grow overall passenger volumes after replacing the 380's with lower-capacity aircraft. Emirates can't just offset the decreased seat capacity by adding more flights to each destination. I guess they could move to DWC to unlock that option, but that would require tens of billions of dollars, many years of construction, and entire shift in their business model. The UAE government has indicated they are not willing to blindly throw money at projects like DWC these days, so I don't see that happening soon.
Yes - there are benefits of aircraft like 777 and 787 as compared to A380 (2 engines are cheaper to maintain than 4, those aircraft are more fuel efficient, and you have better shot at profitably operating long and thin routes). But, Emirates' whole business model is take advantage of economies of scale that arise from operating VLA fleet. They are really the only airline operating a mega hub at the scale where A380's are perfectly optimized economically and operationally.
If they really wanted to switch from VLA to smaller aircraft in order to open up more direct destinations, they could have introduced 787s at any point in the last decade.
It seems like they just have a weird fixation on not keeping aircraft for more than 10 years, even though well-maintained aircraft can be safe and profitable + provide high quality pax experience for much longer than that.
If Delta can keep a320's flying for 30 years (where they are doing upto 5-6 flights (ie pressurizations and depressurizations daily)), then certainly an A380 can be kept for just as long. Aircraft generally age every time they have a cycle (takeoff + landing) as opposed to just hours spent in the air, so i would think wide bodies would last much longer than narrow bodies.
Emirates already stated, that the A380 will be operated into the next decade. Your fixation with the 787 is leading to tunnel vision. You are missing the point.
Is there a concern as to the level of support the planes will receive after Airbus ceases production?
Hilton: DUH. And they already stopped producing the A380 years ago.
I think we can see more 778s than anticipated. The fuselage has been lengthened so it'll be basically a 777-300ER in terms of capacity with about the range give or take of the 200LR. I wouldn't be surprised if more carriers switch to the 778 if the 779 is deemed too big for their use. Then again, you have the A35K.
Has the air quality improved on the new models of 777? The A380 and other modern planes have far superior air, as I recall.
@ Levy Flight -- Indeed, the plane is more along the lines of the 787 in terms of air quality and improved humidity.