Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A350-900 Vs. B787-10  
User currently offlineeaa3 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 980 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 34119 times:

It seems likely that Boeing will launch the B787-10X at the Paris airshow next week. From what I've been reading on other threads Boeing is saying that the B787-10X will be have a CASM that is more than 10% lower than the A350-900. They are similar in size but the B787-10X will have a shorter range.

It seems unlikely to me that the B787-10X can really be so incredibly more efficient compared to the A350-900. After all the A350 is brand new. I realize that the A350 is designed to be "more aircraft" i.e. more range and heavier. However, I wonder if Boeing is not being honest with us in much the same way that they claim the B737 is much more efficient than the A320 (Which is BS).

When Boeing says that the B787-10X has a way lower CASM is it actually comparing apples and oranges by using different configurations and so forth?

92 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 542 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (10 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 34067 times:

Boeing will give a scenario that benefits them, as would Airbus. It is too early to tell what the -10 will offer compared to something that has only flown one time. I'm not sure but I dont really think the -10 is a competitor to -900. The -9 is its rival right?? I may be wrong?

User currently offlinewjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4970 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (10 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 33958 times:

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 1):
I'm not sure but I dont really think the -10 is a competitor to -900.

The 787-10 will have a similar (320) number of pax in a 3-class layout to the A300-900 (314).

Quoting eaa3 (Thread starter):
It seems unlikely to me that the B787-10X can really be so incredibly more efficient compared to the A350-900. After all the A350 is brand new.

Well, remember that the A350 wasn't intended to advance the technology as much as Boeing was trying to do; it was supposed to be more-conservative, and a little bit of a bet that Boeing would fall on its face.

For example, it doesn't have bleedless engines, and it doesn't use full CFRP barrels.

Remember that, first, Leahy said that the 787 would just be catching up with the A330, so no changes at all were necessary. Then he said that, well, the A330 could just be reengined with whatever advanced engine technology (short of bleedless) was coming along. Then, there was the A350 design that was basically an Al-Li A330. Then there were the new wings and tail and stuff, but with the A330 body. Finally, there was the so-called XWB body, which is 5" wider than the 787 (enough to shoehorn an extra coach seat into), but 11" narrower than the 777. (Gotta love Leahy; he knows how the dimwits will report his marketing spin to the public: I still remember seeing CBS News reporting at launch time that this aircraft would be unique because of its "extra-wide body". ) Of course, the public doesn't buy airplanes, airlines do, and they know the fuselage width of their aircraft. The public, poor things, wouldn't realize that the extra fuselage width will actually result in producing less shoulder width per passenger.)

[Edited 2013-06-15 16:51:45]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29684 posts, RR: 84
Reply 3, posted (10 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 33913 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 787-10 should be many tons lighter in empty weight than the A350-900 and should have engines with similar SFC. It will also seat about 18 more passengers as the cabin looks to be about two meters longer. Both will help it's CASM vis--a-vis the A350-900.

User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6729 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (10 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 33861 times:

Quoting eaa3 (Thread starter):
After all the A350 is brand new.

So since the 787-10 has not yet been designed nor built that makes it what, old....  
Quoting eaa3 (Thread starter):
I realize that the A350 is designed to be "more aircraft" i.e. more range and heavier.

So does that mean that the 77E is more efficient that the lighter A330?

Too early for this thread, let's wait and see the final specifications of the 787-10 then we can do comparisons to the A350 prototype which should have some flight time under its belt.


User currently offlinemotorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3038 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (10 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 33788 times:

Looks to me the 78J will really be a perfect A333 replacement and the A359 the same for the 77E/L.

I'm liking that Boeing and airbus are not directly competing with their 787 and A350 offerings thus giving airlines more options.



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2016 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (10 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 33506 times:

Does anyone know what the difference in range is supposed to be? The 787-10 is supposed to have less range than the A359.

The 10% number has to be distorted, perhaps in some scenario that favors the 787-10. That seems like a big number considering that the 788 has a 20% advantage over the 767 (presumably the 762, a not particularly efficient aircraft).


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2135 posts, RR: 56
Reply 7, posted (10 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 33433 times:

Quoting eaa3 (Thread starter):
Boeing is saying that the B787-10X will be have a CASM that is more than 10% lower than the A350-900. They are similar in size but the B787-10X will have a shorter range.

This is not unlike saying that the A330-300 has more than 10% lower CASM than the 777-200LR. The same tricky assumptions apply, and the resulting conclusions have the same (dubious) validity.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29684 posts, RR: 84
Reply 8, posted (10 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 33317 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 6):
Does anyone know what the difference in range is supposed to be?

Going by published brochure ranges with just passengers and baggage aboard, the A350-900 will fly about 1000nm farther than the 787-10 (8100nm vs. 7100nm).


User currently onlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4614 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (10 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 33204 times:

Quoting eaa3 (Thread starter):
From what I've been reading on other threads Boeing is saying that the B787-10X will be have a CASM that is more than 10% lower than the A350-900. They are similar in size but the B787-10X will have a shorter range.

For what it is worth the A359 has a MTOW some 13t more than the 7100nm 787-10 yet its max fuel load is only 9t more . On the face of it , this suggests a somewhat higher OEW for the A359.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9378 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (10 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 33061 times:

The A333 has similar efficiency benefits over the 772LR on flights under 4000 miles, so I don't see a reason why the 787-10 can't be more efficient on shorter routes due to its lower weight. They fill somewhat different needs. I think a 777x and a350-1000 could have similar differences. It is all about the wing and weight of the plane. Different airplanes are optimized for different missions. The A320 and 737 are unique in that the are so close to parity. The wide body market is a bit different so it is genuinely possible to show one wide body as significantly better than the other for the purpose of marketing.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineexFWAOONW From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 383 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (10 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 33029 times:

I guess the engineers and designers can go home. Arguing over paper airplanes.   


Is just me, or is flying not as much fun anymore?
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3209 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (10 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 32873 times:

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 5):
Looks to me the 78J will really be a perfect A333 replacement and the A359 the same for the 77E

I think this is a good characterization.

The 787-10 should be lighter while carrying more passengers (in most configurations) and more cargo. The 359 should have a distinct range advantage and cabin comfort while having similar SFC but its hard to say one frame is this % better than another especially this far in advance.

I think the more important question is which aircraft is ideal for which route structure and an airline's cabin preferences. For example the A350 could have a cost advantage on a medium length route if the airline chooses to fit the 787 with 8 abreast like JAL and ANA do (and probably SQ/CX would).

tortugamon


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29684 posts, RR: 84
Reply 13, posted (10 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 32574 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting exFWAOONW (Reply 11):
I guess the engineers and designers can go home. Arguing over paper airplanes.  

If the A350-900 is a paper airplane, she just set a world record for length of flight from a toss yesterday.  


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9836 posts, RR: 96
Reply 14, posted (10 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 32440 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting eaa3 (Thread starter):
When Boeing says that the B787-10X has a way lower CASM is it actually comparing apples and oranges by using different configurations and so forth?

It will almost certainly be an apples to oranges comparison because there are so many variables for the marketeers to play with

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 9):
For what it is worth the A359 has a MTOW some 13t more than the 7100nm 787-10 yet its max fuel load is only 9t more . On the face of it , this suggests a somewhat higher OEW for the A359.

As you say, the 787-10 is almost certainly lighter than the A350-900. However, it's the fuel burn that counts, and if the A359's extra weight has gone into a) lower SFC engines, and b) larger span, lower drag wings, that doesn't tell us what we need to know.
Those mere 9 tonnes of fuel extra take the A350-900 a good 1000Nm further ...   

Boeing Vs. Airbus Wing Design Philosophies (by ferpe Apr 16 2012 in Tech Ops)

This interesting thread by Ferpe has some decent aero modelling to support a comparison of wing philosophies.
Slide 65 shows his last model.

He calculate fuel flows (based on the Breguet range equation) to be:-

5781 kg/hr for the 787-10
5643 kg/hr for the A350-900

ferpe would be the first to ask me not to take his modelling as gospel, so I won't offer it as such.
It is though the most thorough modelling I've ever seen on A-net.

That indicates that the fuel burns are very close with the 787-10 having maybe a slightly higher fuel burn.

What THAT tells me is that airline configuration will have a key role to play in CASM.
The cabin areas are remarkably similar, the 787-10's being longer and narrower. As Stitch points out, that should allow the 787-10 to fit 2 extra rows of (narrower) seats

At anything beyond about 4 500Nm-5000Nm, though, the A350-900 is likely to start showing a payload advantage, conferred by its greater range.

What does that mean for sales?
Who knows?
I think both planes will do very well  

Rgds


User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3505 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (10 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 32293 times:

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 2):
For example, it doesn't have bleedless engines, and it doesn't use full CFRP barrels.

It does not have them not because Airbus didn't want to do them but because Airbus engineers concluded that there is no clear benefit in either of those solutions while complications / risks go up. Recent 787 battery fiasco seems to have proven them right.

[Edited 2013-06-15 22:16:56]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29684 posts, RR: 84
Reply 16, posted (10 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 31909 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Danny (Reply 15):
Recent 787 battery fiasco seems to have proven them right.

Airbus was going to use Li-Ion batteries, as well, so they must have agreed with Boeing about the benefits of them.  


User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1834 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (10 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 31862 times:

Quoting eaa3 (Thread starter):
From what I've been reading on other threads Boeing is saying that the B787-10X will be have a CASM that is more than 10% lower than the A350-900

Boeing is well known to use less dense seating configuration to increase CASM of its competitor, so I wouldn't pay any attention to its PR talk.



All Hail Mighty Triple Seven, The MURDERER of the so-called "Queen"!!!!
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (10 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 31818 times:

A said that the A350-1000 would be 25% more efficient than the 77W, I have not seen anyone put this in question..

Both OEMs make these absurd comparisons to show their product in a better light.


User currently offlinewjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4970 posts, RR: 18
Reply 19, posted (10 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 31761 times:

Quoting Danny (Reply 15):
It does not have them not because Airbus didn't want to do them but because Airbus engineers concluded that there is no clear benefit in either of those solutions while complications / risks go up.

You mean the same people who initially said that the 787 was only going to catch up to the A330?

And if you don't have the technology (say to do the barrels), it's very easy to say that there's "no clear benefit" to doing it that way.

But maybe that is in fact the case. We shall see.

In short, the reality is that we won't see which solution is "better" until the A350 actually gets some time on the line. And then we will still probably have a debate about it.


User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1834 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (10 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 31731 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 18):
A said that the A350-1000 would be 25% more efficient than the 77W, I have not seen anyone put this in question..

I have done it a while ago and still stand by it.
The Airbus plane will be more efficient per CASM for sure, but far from 25%. 15 - 20% is what I realistically expect.
Same goes for the 777-8X.



All Hail Mighty Triple Seven, The MURDERER of the so-called "Queen"!!!!
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9836 posts, RR: 96
Reply 21, posted (10 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 30894 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sweair (Reply 18):
A said that the A350-1000 would be 25% more efficient than the 77W, I have not seen anyone put this in question..

If efficiency = fuel burn, then airlines such as EK have broadly supported that the A350-1000 does indeed burn that much less fuel.
But fuel is only one part of the "efficiency" equation.
The A350-1000's CASM cannot be better than 15-16% lower than the 773ER's.
I for one am on record as saying so

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 19):
And if you don't have the technology (say to do the barrels), it's very easy to say that there's "no clear benefit" to doing it that way

It's even easier to say when its true.

What they have done is made trade-offs which is absolutely appropriate.
No matter how much the 787 trail-blazed by the way, it is one thing to watch someone else execute a new technology and quite a different matter to have a go yourself.

Boeing insiders on here have suggested the all-electric architecture hasn't delivered a major benefit over the bleed architecture - yet.
Will it in future? maybe. Enough to justify the risk to the programme that they caused?
That will be forever in debate.
As for the panels, they are very big panels, and I'm pushed really to find anything about them that is less risk than the barrels.
They're just a different shape. They DO have an advantage of being smaller in one axis, and thus more handleable and manageable whilst being constructed. The trade-off is more joints.
That's a trade-off.
But pretty much all of the things that actually ended up screwing the 787 programme could have screwed the A350 as well. (like side-of-body joins, like unfinished travelling work etc).

Rgds


User currently offlinegf777 From Bahrain, joined Jan 2009, 40 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (10 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 30492 times:

Quoting eaa3 (Thread starter):
I wonder if Boeing is not being honest with us in much the same way that they claim the B737 is much more efficient than the A320 (Which is BS).

I am not saying that the 737 is more efficient in every thing, but having worked on both of them as an engineer, you would spend as much as double on maintenance on the 320 comparing to what you would on the 7373, which means more flying time, thus more money. in the long run of course.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8754 posts, RR: 29
Reply 23, posted (10 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 29804 times:

Quoting eaa3 (Thread starter):
When Boeing says that the B787-10X has a way lower CASM is it actually comparing apples and oranges by using different configurations and so forth?

Both are different aircraft.

Short note: if you look at all the numbers, the 787-10 is a perfect A333-300 replacement while the A350-900 is an A340-300 and 777-200ER replacement. The 78J should be a no-brainer for the 9 hours sectors while the A359 will serve 13-14 hours sectors. Additionally the A359 can also serve those 9 hours sectors with more payload. Both airplanes will also be used to open new routes.

Long note: read reply #14 by astuteman.

So what does this mean in the real world? I think the answer is simple: both aircraft will sell very well.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 14):
I think both planes will do very well

  



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 701 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (10 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 28809 times:

Quoting gf777 (Reply 22):
So what does this mean in the real world? I think the answer is simple: both aircraft will sell very well.

  

Looking at the wide body model spread, Boeing will have a better coverage, since it will have the 787 and 777, while Airbus will only have the A350. Does this mean Airbus will need to bring out a smaller widebody at some time in the future?


25 JerseyFlyer : e.g. freight - I can see a lot of CX 359s flying regional routes with bellyfuls of freight. There is a theoretical capacity gap in Airbus' line-up be
26 B777LRF : Keep one thing in mind when reading the published passenger numbers. Boeing have based them on squeezing 9-abreast into what really is an 8-abreast ca
27 Sinlock : Sounds like an 737-600 or an A318 but with the added cost of a new wing and a re certified type certificate. Nitch aircraft never seem to sell in the
28 sweair : My idea would be to skip the A358 and doing the 787-10 version of the A350-1000, 1100 model. 380 seats 6500nm range.. Then go for a 230 seat medium r
29 DTW2HYD : Next generation of long range aircraft should have 200 PAX in 3 Class configuration. Hope technology will allow manufacturers to achieve better CASM t
30 Polot : Except airlines are the ones putting 9-abreast seating into that "8-abreast cabin". Whether you think that is a "level playing field" or not is compl
31 Post contains images YYZAMS : Oh geez. I was wondering how long before this thread would start up. As a passenger I would like to fly on both to feel the difference, but for techni
32 eaa3 : That of course isn't the point of this thread. This is a very legit question. The B787-8 is about 20-25% more efficient than aircraft such as the B76
33 Roseflyer : Huh? The A350 cabin is only about 5 inches wider than the 787 so I am not sure how you come up with your seat width comparisons. The 787 might not ha
34 KarelXWB : There is no demand for such an airplane and I have a completely different view on this. Boeing and Airbus asked their customers what they really want
35 sweair : Hence my idea of doing an A350-1100 and an A325 instead of the A358. One model combats the 777-9 and one combats the 788. 360-380 seats on the 1100 a
36 YTZ : I wonder if there is an actual business case for airbus in this.... Sure, they could do it. But will it sell.
37 dlphoenix : Most airlines chose to configure their 787s with 9 abreast Y. Several hundred 787-8s orders are hardly an indication for "no-demand". Boeing designed
38 KarelXWB : I'm talking about the future, over 10 years. Shifting to larger models has always been the trend. Why would you order an 787-8 if 1) There is an 787-
39 astuteman : I think that's where the longer term is at. Hence I can't see Airbus doing anything other than "optimising" the A358. I don't think we'll see another
40 Post contains links tortugamon : Most 787s currently in service are in two class configuration and the average seating is about 215. Some of these are in J/Y /Y configuration but if
41 astuteman : For me, the question is (especially for Airbus - Boeing already have the 787-8), is there enough market at, or below 787-8 size, to invest in a new a
42 tortugamon : Here in the States 'crossover' vehicles were really popular for a while and still kinda are. For those that are unaware its an SUV but made on a car
43 Stitch : At 9-abreast, the A350 has a 17.7" seat cushion width / 18" armrest-to-armrest width. And as much as a.netter's whine about 17" wide seats, the fact
44 Post contains links planesntrains : Wrong, and wrong. The majority of 787 buyers are doing 9 abreast with seat widths similar to other products out there. From Wiki: "In the nine-abreas
45 Post contains images astuteman : I think the widebody market is moving upwards in size. That's why I think the 787-9 and 787-10, A359 and A3510 will sell like hot cakes, and the 777X
46 tortugamon : In terms of wide bodies I think you are probably right. Limited slots, higher gas prices, and more traffic can clearly only lead to one eventuality.
47 Post contains images KarelXWB : It is too late to launch an A330neo and it's also not worth investing in a new 250-class seater. Optimizing the A358 a bit further is a low-risk inve
48 XT6Wagon : people complain endlessly here about the 17" seats in a 10Y 777, and yet you insist that 16.4" seats are the correct way to configure a A350. Also th
49 astuteman : I'm not sure that this comment is consistent with this one, though... It is technically correct to point out that the A350XWB can, and will see 10-ac
50 Post contains images EPA001 : I can only agree with your vision. The upward trend is of course also logical considering the fact that more and more people can afford to fly world
51 Post contains images NAV20 : Agree with that, astuteman - and share your implied regret! tortugamon, how do you conclude (as most of the rest of us have) that the 748 is likely t
52 Post contains images EPA001 : Maybe you have missed the MoU for 20 new A380's released today?
53 NAV20 : Oh dear, EPA001. 'MoU' stands for 'Memorandum of Understanding.' Which, as I said, is not legally binding..........
54 Post contains images KarelXWB : MoUs are very common and will usually be firmed up at a later stage. Let's have this chat again in a few months
55 travelavnut : Because of the simple fact that the 747 is at the end of her 40 year program life and the A380 is just starting hers. The A380 is already quite a bit
56 NAV20 : Fair enough, KarelXWB mate. Provided that we can agree that, in the meantime, neither the 748 NOR the A380 are getting any orders?
57 KarelXWB : Sorry, but I don't agree. I evaluate the VLA market on sales from year to year, not from day to day. So in January 2014 we can draw a conclusion base
58 sunrisevalley : But only when it uses some part of the better than 65t MZFW advantage that it has over the 8i. Otherwise, generally, why would LH be operating both t
59 SEPilot : I take it you consider "all" to be a large part...the 77W has already taken "a large part" of the 748i market, and I expect the 779X to take the rest
60 Post contains images astuteman : FWIW I for one haven’t marked the 748i as “DOA” yet, just identified that it’s like just got even harder. Why is the A380 different? a) the A
61 NAV20 : Agree entirely, KarelXWB. As for being 'off-topic,' please bear in mind that I was responding to this post:- I agree with astuteman's view that the r
62 SEPilot : If they provide better fuel burn (per seat), less maintenance, less purchase cost, less infrastructure requirements, and sufficient passenger capacit
63 travelavnut : I'm not saying age is the end of all, what I was implying (and what astuteman worded much better than me) was;
64 NAV20 : What form, travelavnut (or astuteman), in your opinion, would any such 'upgrade' take?
65 Post contains images travelavnut : Not remotely an expert on this subject But looking at other projects like the A330, B777 and well, almost all modern airliners, I think we can expect
66 Post contains links and images tortugamon : I'd like to respond but I agree this is off topic. If there is follow up Nav20 lets take it to another thread (I suggest this one: A380 Markets, So F
67 SEPilot : But any upgrade of the A380 must withstand economic analysis. Tweaks of the engine and airframe, like has happened on pretty much every airliner, are
68 travelavnut : Agree with everything you say, however; Is that true though? We still have slot restrictions on major airports, I really believe there will be a plac
69 SEPilot : Yes, and that will be the main impetus for the A380. But unless air travel increases substantially, the number of airports with slot restrictions wil
70 abba : This is exactly what is happening - perhaps not in the Western part of the EU and perhaps not in the US. But in Asia there are extremely high populat
71 Stitch : I believe Trip Costs are what have stalled the 747-8's sales. With similar trip costs to the 747-400, the 747-8 has significantly higher trip costs t
72 Post contains links and images N328KF : Here's one difference between the A350 and 787. Courtesy of Jon Ostrower. And now the real comparison: 787 v. A350 under the skin. #PAS13 by Jon Ostro
73 Post contains images Flighty : Many true statements there. But there is only one problem: Trip costs are inflexible. You have to fill that airplane even on Tuesdays in winter. It i
74 Post contains images tortugamon : I do not believe that anything I said contradicts Stitch's comment but I agree that his reasoning is very sound and more concise. Anytime you want to
75 SEPilot : And if that continues, it will give the A380 a much needed boost. But I am not sure it will continue.
76 astuteman : What happened to the A350-900 and 787-10? Isn't it time to put the soap boxes away on this thread? Rgds
77 SEPilot : I forgot; what the heck are they?
78 Klaus : Airbus had "oversized" the A380-800 wing from the start so it will carry a stretched version as well. Basically the -800 could have been even more ef
79 Post contains images lightsaber : Nitpick: Thanks to the 2nd intermediate turbine stage, the Trent XWB should have 4% lower fuel burn than the T1000. Most of the other improvements to
80 tortugamon : Has anyone seen a sample seat map for the 314-seat 350-900 or a 323-seat 787-10x? I know they do not mean much but when I try to figure out the seatin
81 Atlflyer : The A350 will actually not have much wider seats at all. Because it is only 5 inches wider, if you add that extra width to each seat (at 9 abreast) i
82 Stitch : Closest I have is one done by widebodyphotog back in 2006 which had 301 seats: 13 First Class at 61-inch pitch and 2+1+2 configuration 54 Business Cl
83 Post contains images tortugamon : Boeing's seat maps seam to do 2-2-2 in F so if you make that adjustment you hit my number of 333. Again, not that it matters because these premium cl
84 Post contains images Flighty : Provisional This is less than the A320 / 737 difference. It is _inconsequential_. Not sure; just leaping to conclusions. That's what I do. Compare ou
85 wjcandee : One is messier-looking?
86 Post contains links and images tortugamon : I posted this in the 787-10x launch thread as well but it may be more fodder for better arguments over here (they tend to be nicer in the other thread
87 astuteman : And what do you think RR will do then? They HAVE to stay competitive on the 787 Any such advantage is going to be short lived - or stillborn rgds
88 sweair : RR has the Trent1000-TEN, should be about 3% better on SFC than package C.
89 tortugamon : RR will have to step up and at least match any improvement, absolutely. However, GE will have the benefit of being able to dedicate more resources to
90 sweair : GE is researching some new thrust tech for the military, variable thrust, this tech will probably trickle down to civilian engines with time, it might
91 planesntrains : Word. I'm not sure what you're going on about? Someone stated that the A350 CANNOT do 10 abreast - I was just pointing out that Airbus is offering th
92 Post contains links tortugamon : (18/58/254) They must be taking 3 middle row seats from the first row of Y to make two seats of J and it must be some aft fuse that is responsible fo
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
VN Considering B787-900, A350-900 posted Wed Apr 11 2007 08:32:58 by Flying-Tiger
FI: 787-10 To Face A350-900 Challenge posted Mon Jan 29 2007 11:26:06 by RichardPrice
Airline Alliances A350 Vs B787 posted Tue Aug 22 2006 12:44:10 by WINGS
CASM: B787-10 Vs. B748 Vs. A388 posted Thu May 18 2006 06:55:50 by WingedMigrator
Interesting A350 Vs B787 Statement posted Fri Apr 28 2006 10:17:56 by Flying-Tiger
Efficiencies Claim: A350 Vs B787 posted Thu Jun 16 2005 08:14:24 by Sq212
772NG Or 787-10 To Compete With A350-900? posted Fri May 20 2005 00:53:18 by NorCal
What Is The A350-900 R? And Is There A Freighter? posted Fri Jun 14 2013 18:08:32 by QatarA340
EVA Air Considering B787-10 And B777X posted Sat May 11 2013 13:10:25 by LAXintl
Finnair Pays 90M Eur For A350-900 posted Wed Feb 20 2013 03:04:21 by iksu