NYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5762 posts, RR: 47
Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3978 times:
Quoting RootsAir (Thread starter): First of all, is the A350 meant to be as fuel efficient as the 787 ? It depends on who you believe, Airbus or Boeing. IMO I don't think it'll be fuel efficient. as the 787
Second, an unidentified order of 20 787 has been announced though boeing refuses to reveal the identity! Who do you think this would be? PRess reports says it's ILFC.
Do youthink the amount of orders for the A350 will surpass the ever increasing amount for 787? No
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31006 posts, RR: 86
Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3950 times:
ILFS ordered the 20 787s. They announced their order earlier this week.
The 787 will be more fuel efficient then the A350 because it will be lighter and it uses engines that don't need to bleed air for environmental control, so they are more efficient. Airbus will have very similar engines, however, so they will benefit from a good deal of the other technologies being built into the engine.
As for how many Boeing needs to break even, probably a few hundred, which should not be any sort of issue.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3872 times:
Most observers expect the B787 to be slightly more fuel effecient than the A350, however, the proof is in the pudding and neither aircraft is flying yet. The A350 does have a few efficiency advantages (though they probably don't overcome the lighter weight of the B787): smaller cross-sectional area means less drag and development of the wing two years later means some additional progress in aerodynamics perhaps resulting in a higher lift/drag ratio.
I don't think the A350 will catch the B787 in sales.
Boeing probably need to sell about 400 or so B787s to break even on the program.
The A350 is meant to be a competitor against the 787, which would probably mean that the answer is yes. However I don't think any exact figures or even specific estimates have been announced comparing the planes. The A350 is way to early in the development stage to be able to get accurate very predictions on weight and fuel efficiency.
One advantage that the A350 will have as far as CASM goes is that it will seat more passengers. This will spread the cost to more seats and thus will be a more efficient design by default. With as much glory going to the 787 as is, I believe the 777 is still more fuel efficient on a per passsenger basis due to economies of scale. It will be a while before there can be an accurate measurement comparing the fuel efficiency of the 787 versus the A350.
Quoting RootsAir (Thread starter): Do youthink the amount of orders for the A350 will surpass the ever increasing amount for 787?
I personally think that the time advantage that the 787 has over the A350 will make it sell more planes overall. While this wasn't true in the MD-11/A340/777 competition as the last plane to the market sold the best, I have a feeling that unless the A350 is a far better performer than the 787, that airlines will have already moved towards the 787 and have established it in their fleets.
But when second generations of these planes come out in 20 years, that can change.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17044 posts, RR: 66
Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3748 times:
They're competitors, but they are in vaguely different segments. Sizewise, the 787 succeeds the 767, with offshoots upward if the 787-10 gets built. The 350 succeeds the 330 and the classic 340, which are larger than the 767/787.
So the planes range from smallest to largest: 767/787->330/classic 340->777/340NG.
Of course they compete, but they are not EXACTLY in the same segment.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."