Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A350-10 Versus B777-9X Economic Analysis  
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 13084 times:

My motivation for this thread is based on the following article in Flightglobal. B777-9X(and A350-10 to a lesser extent) is in early conceptual stage, and the inferences drawn based on my model will change as new data becomes available.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...neration-777-comes-into-focus.html

Summary of changes to B77W to create B777-9X from the above link:

CFRP wings with 234 ft wingspan
MTOW of 753,000 while preserving current payload/range capability of 77W
Engine thrust at 99,500 lbf. with higher bypass and ceramic matrix
larger wing with its increased lift to drag ratio, coupled with the a 10% improvement in specific fuel consumption for the GE9X engine, along with material improvements across the aircraft would aim to improve fuel burn by 15% on a per seat basis.

The 777-9X will be of the same length as the current 77W, and will have a slightly wider cabin for more comfortable 10Y. The OEW of 777-9X is an estimate that reflects the higher wingarea, lighter engines, and additional furnishings for the 23 seats
General Specifications:
....................................A3510.......................B777-9X
Fuselage Length..............242..........................242.5 feet
Fuselage Width.................19.6........................20.33
Wingspan.......................213..........................234
Wingarea......................4767.........................5050 sq. feet(my estimate)
Seats(3 class).................350..........................388 (210 lbs. per passenger/baggage)


MTOW.....................679,000....................753,000 lbs.
MZFW......................485,000...................524,000
OEW........................335,000...................375,000 (my estimates)
MSP.........................150,000...................154,000
Design Range................8,400.....................8,200 nm (passenger only, and zero cargo)
List Price........................$309......................$320(?) million
Engine Thrust..............97,000...................99,500 lbf

Ratois
OEW/MTOW.....................0.49...........................0.50
OEW/MZFW......................0.69...........................0.71
MTOW/Wingarea............143............................149 (777 has higher wingloading)
MTOW/Thrust....................3.50...........................3.78 (A350-10 has more powerful engines normalised for MTOW)

Under the assumption of a 6,300 nm (HKG-LAX) mission at MTOW:
B777-9X burns about 4,500 gallons more at a current cost of $13,500.
A350-10 has the potential to carry about 7,000 lbs. additional cargo, and earn about $5,000 at 50% load factor.
B777-9X has the potential to earn about $19,000 in additional 38 Y seat revenues at 70% load factor.

Overall, it is a wash between the two for a 6,300nm mission with SQ or CX like F and J configuration with 10 abreast Y.

However, an operator like EK with 7-abreast in J will come out ahead with 777-9X. Furthermore, an operator with SQ or CX like F and J configuration with 9 abreast Y will come out ahead with A350-10. It seems to me that the selection between the two critically depends on the expected cabin layout of the airline.

Under the assumption of a 4,800 nm (NRT-LAX or LAX-LHR) mission at MTOW:
B777-9X burns about 3,400 gallons more at a current cost of $10,000.
A350-10 has the potential to carry about 4,000 lbs. additional cargo, and earn about $3,000 at 50% load factor.
B777-9X has the potential to earn about $13,000 in additional 38 Y seat revenues at 70% load factor.

Overall, it is a wash between the two for a 4,800nm mission with SQ or CX like F and J configuration with 10 abreast Y.

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 12961 times:

Do you have a comparison with a theoretical 787-11 which has the same length of the A350-1000? It will be interesting to understand the choice of the doing 777x vs 787-11/12.

I assume you can use the 777x MTOW/wingarea ratio for the 787-11 as a start.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 2, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 12902 times:

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 1):
Do you have a comparison with a theoretical 787-11 which has the same length of the A350-1000? It will be interesting to understand the choice of the doing 777x vs 787-11/12.

I don't have the estimates for 787-11/12, but A350-10/11 should serve as good proxy. A350-11(260 feet length, 380 seats) ends up with a lower GSM(gallon seat mile) and GTM(gallon ton mile) than the 777-9X described in the OP.

The only way for Boeing to beat the GSM of A350-10 is to make the 777-9X longer than the current 77W. A longer 777-9X, with 408 seats, should come close to matching the GSM of A350-1000.,


User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days ago) and read 12886 times:

I would expect a 787-11 to have slightly less weight than the A350 due to smaller fuse and may be its barrel constructions.

One possible 787 weakness is that it barely fits 9 abreast and as CX has stated, they chose A350 to have more consistent comfort level across their fleet.

So we have a dilemma where 777x may eventually lose to a A350-1100 with which a 787-12 can compete neck to neck.


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 11415 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):

I wonder how these numbers look with your updated OEW for the A350-1000 (153t). And the possible weight reduction of the 777-9X (as opposed to the increase in oew in your example above?)...

This might have some bearing on why the sales are as they are so far?   

http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engine...against-a350-delays-urges-a380-str



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlinesf260 From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 11399 times:

I think your assumption of 15% better fuel consumption on a per seat basis, is on the optimistic side for a same-length 777-9X. How realistic do you think it is?
Is it correct the current 777 wing is basically the same is the early 90's one, fitted with raked wingtips? I can see where gains are made (updated wing and engines), but 15% still seems a lot to me.

I guess Boeing will create a 777-8X, which will be somewhere in the middle between the -200 and -300 lengthwise, and the -9X to be a couple of meters longer than the current 300(ER). The seat gap left by the -200E/LR in Boeings line up can be filled with the 787-10.
If Boeing goes ahead like this, the is no need for a 787-11, which I've never thought Boeing would do anyway.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 6, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 11334 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 4):
I wonder how these numbers look with your updated OEW for the A350-1000 (153t). And the possible weight reduction of the 777-9X (as opposed to the increase in oew in your example above?)...

My estimated OEW of 335,000 lbs. is about 2,000 lbs. less than 153t that you are quoting from the link. Btw, access is denied when I try to open the link.

How much reduction in weight in 777-9X is there from the link? I will run the numbers again if you can provide me a better link or the numbers. Thanks.

Quoting sf260 (Reply 5):
I think your assumption of 15% better fuel consumption on a per seat basis, is on the optimistic side for a same-length 777-9X. How realistic do you think it is?

Nearly 6% of this 15% reduction is driven by increased seat count. A larger wing and better tsfc should be able to provide the remaining 9%.


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 11321 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 6):
My estimated OEW of 335,000 lbs. is about 2,000 lbs. less than 153t that you are quoting from the link. Btw, access is denied when I try to open the link.

Sorry LAXDESI.... It was ferpe who stated 153t, not you... my bad.

I don't know what happened to the link? Let me see if I can find it... or another.



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 11314 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 6):
Btw, access is denied when I try to open the link.


I checked another site that had the same link and it did not work either?


http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2011...16/dubai-air-show-review/#comments

Might be a problem with ATW website... I'll check again later.

Regards...



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 10552 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 2):
The only way for Boeing to beat the GSM of A350-10 is to make the 777-9X longer than the current 77W. A longer 777-9X, with 408 seats, should come close to matching the GSM of A350-1000.,
Quoting mffoda (Reply 4):
Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):

I wonder how these numbers look with your updated OEW for the A350-1000 (153t). And the possible weight reduction of the 777-9X (as opposed to the increase in oew in your example above?)...

This might have some bearing on why the sales are as they are so far?   
Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 6):
My estimated OEW of 335,000 lbs. is about 2,000 lbs. less than 153t that you are quoting from the link. Btw, access is denied when I try to open the link.

How much reduction in weight in 777-9X is there from the link? I will run the numbers again if you can provide me a better link or the numbers. Thanks.

Just back from holiday...

LAXDESI, I just saw this article from Aspire Aviation and they give some new info regarding what these two A/C could look like??

http://www.aspireaviation.com/2011/1...enges-business-case-remains-sound/

Regards,



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 10506 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 9):
LAXDESI, I just saw this article from Aspire Aviation and they give some new info regarding what these two A/C could look like??

http://www.aspireaviation.com/2011/1...ound/

The article suggests that A350-1000 is expected to be 7.5 tons heavier than the spec.(5 ton frame and 2.5 ton engines). If I plug this increased weight of 16,500 lbs in my model, the advantage shifts to B777-9X by about $12,000 on a 6,300nm mission with A350-1000 at 9-abreast Y and B777-9X at 10-abreast Y. The overweight A350-1000 loses its cargo advantage and only burns 3,800 gallons less than B777-9X. Previously it was a wash as laid out in OP:

Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
Under the assumption of a 6,300 nm (HKG-LAX) mission at MTOW:
B777-9X burns about 4,500 gallons more at a current cost of $13,500.
A350-10 has the potential to carry about 7,000 lbs. additional cargo, and earn about $5,000 at 50% load factor.
B777-9X has the potential to earn about $19,000 in additional 38 Y seat revenues at 70% load factor.

Overall, it is a wash between the two for a 6,300nm mission with SQ or CX like F and J configuration with 10 abreast Y.

If Boeing can achieve the specs laid out in OP, B777-9X in EK configuration of 7J and 10Y will have better operating economics than A350-1000 on a 6,300nm mission. The aspire article suggests an advantage to 777-9X on pricing which remains to be seen. It is too soon to tell if A350-1000 will have a significant advantage in maintenance costs.


User currently offlineMoltenRock From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 10383 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 10):

Although, that's making a massive assumption that Boeing will not also miss the projected weights of a 777x. If Boeing is missing it's weight target by tons on the 787, and Airbus is on it's 350, then someone is smoking crack thinking Boeing will magically make weight on a new, composite-heavy, 777x. Let's be real.


User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1568 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 10316 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 11):
Although, that's making a massive assumption that Boeing will not also miss the projected weights of a 777x. If Boeing is missing it's weight target by tons on the 787, and Airbus is on it's 350, then someone is smoking crack thinking Boeing will magically make weight on a new, composite-heavy, 777x. Let's be real.

Champion!

Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
B777-9X has the potential to earn about $19,000 in additional 38 Y seat revenues at 70% load factor.

Do we need to apply the same characteristics o the 77W vs A350 analysis as we do to the 77W vs A380 analysis on here?

Just because its a Boeing doesn't mean that 38 people all of a sudden want to fly somewhere, there should be no extra potential revenue untill the A350 fills up.

Fred


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1557 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 10288 times:

Reply 12


Just because its a Boeing doesn't mean that 38 people all of a sudden want to fly somewhere.

Yes and indeed more if they go for a proper stretch. It's a (the) key question really. Where is the sweet spot?

Flying "air and weight" does not a business case make. But if they are right then Airbus are wrong - simple as.

There were no takers for the smaller 748i origonally propoed was there? And clearly not much for the bigger one chosen either. So it's got to be a fine judgement either way.

At least the 2 manufacturers will be offering two different products,so perhaps it will be a case of horses for courses.As long as Reply 11. (and I would also include the 748i) they really can make the projected weights. Perhaps with AlLi fuse they might?

Anyway until then (when) Boeing will be cranking out 733er's as fast as they can - in the same way as Airbus is cranking out 332's and 333's. "Make Hay"


User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1568 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 10256 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting parapente (Reply 13):

I totally agree, I think the question may be better put in some respects (no disrespects LAXDESI, you bring these debates back to facts rather than fanboyism).

Instead of (or as well as) asking how much extra money does one A/C make over another we could be asking how many PAX/cargo does one or other of the aircraft require to attract to make the same projected profits. If that makes sense?

Fred


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30861 posts, RR: 86
Reply 15, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 10242 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 12):
Do we need to apply the same characteristics o the 77W vs A350 analysis as we do to the 77W vs A380 analysis on here?

Just because its a Boeing doesn't mean that 38 people all of a sudden want to fly somewhere, there should be no extra potential revenue untill the A350 fills up.

Airlines that operate the A380-800 do so with more seats than their next-sized airframe (with a similar cabin layout), so clearly they have found that more people not only suddenly, but consistently, want to fly somewhere than did when they had the smaller plane.

It therefore stands to reason that customers interested in a higher-capacity 777 would express such interest because their traffic models show similar increases.

After all, if it was just about bragging rights - "mine's longer than your's" - they'd choose the 747-8 since it is the longest commercial airliner available.  
Quoting parapente (Reply 13):
There were no takers for the smaller 748i originally propoed was there?

EK claims they were very interested in it, but I am convinced they were not.


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1557 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 10222 times:

reply 15


It therefore stands to reason that customers interested in a higher-capacity 777 would express such interest because their traffic models show similar increases.


Absolutly. It's all a question of sweet spot or perhaps "sweetspots" which I think more likley. Probably room for both I imagine.Without wishing to sound negative I don't believe the 748i will be able to live with these 2 super economis planes (any more that the 356 could in it's marketplace).So nice big marketplace to work with.

I also wonder whether the major upgrade of the Trent XWB1000 was to give themselves some headroom if (a stretch) is required.I am aware that the fabled 1100 model is only in the imagination of this forum (well I have not seen it anywhere else) but at least it would make such a plane possible if the market goes that way.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30861 posts, RR: 86
Reply 17, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 10219 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting parapente (Reply 16):
Without wishing to sound negative I don't believe the 748i will be able to live with (the A380-800 and 777-9)...

I imagine it depends on the range and payload a 777-9 offers.

In terms of range at MZFW, the 747-8 (once on spec) is projected to fly about 400nm less than the A380-800 and 500nm more than the 777-300ER.

In terms of payload, the 747-8 is projected to lift 15.5t less than the A380-800 and 7 tons more than the 777-300ER.

(Numbers are for the A380-800 with a 573t MTOW.)


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 18, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 10183 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 12):
Just because its a Boeing doesn't mean that 38 people all of a sudden want to fly somewhere, there should be no extra potential revenue untill the A350 fills up.

That is exactly what I do in the analysis. I assume 100% LF for A350 when I estimate the additional(marginal) passenger revenue for the additional 38 seats of B777-9X at 70% LF.


User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1568 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 10138 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 18):

Ah ok, I misinterpreted that. Sorry.

Fred


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 10129 times:

Plane Talking is weighing in on the MAX and A350 as well...

Here are some of their thoughts regarding the A351...

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...2Fplanetalking+%28Plane+Talking%29

"There is an impressive analysis of the A350 challenges in this article in Aspire Aviation. While it concludes that the business case for the A350 remains strong, I think that can be negated by a 777-X program, especially in the case of the A350-1000.

The nagging question remains. If the composite equations means a decade of pain for Airbus as they have for Boeing, will it revert to more advanced alloys as a way out? Boeing didn’t have such an alternative because of the way it assembles what are in effect woven and glued composite tapes to create carbon barrels for the 787, but the A350 is much more conventional in its use of large panels attached to a sub frame. "



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineFlyingCello From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 151 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 10020 times:

The Plane Talking blog doesn't offer any substantive comment, simply a regurgitation of information already in the public domain. The possibility of Airbus reverting to alloy for the A350 seems naive. I find it hard to believe that such a change at this point in the program would be anything other than a (time consuming and expensive) fundamental redesign. I've always thought that Airbus missed a chance with the A350...sticking with carbon panels on a conventional fuse means that Boeing have gained a real advantage with the 787 spun barrels. Boeing will clearly refine this approach going forward to make it even more effective, while Airbus really have nowhere to take the A350 approach...I think they played safe to get the A350 to market, but Boeing have already taken the pain of developing the 787 spun barrels, and will now be looking to see where to take it next. They are probably looking at location specific thicknesses, and maybe even stringers and frames formed integrally with the skin. Airbus cannot replicate this with the A350.

On the MAX, Boeing will deliver an improved 737...maybe not as much as the NEO, but enough to retain significant market. An existing 737 operator will happily take a MAX, even if it is only a single digit efficiency improvement over the NG. 5% is still a worthwhile improvement. I believe that the NSA project is alive and well within Boeing, and will come into play as soon as Boeing can find the non-autoclave means to form carbon.

The latest alloys offer an interesting alternative to carbon...we may see them on 777-8X / -9X, and a 748 with these newer alloys would have been interesting. But these alloys are probably the pinnacle of alloy development, whereas carbon has much more development potential...nanotubes being the most obvious. So Boeing has probably made the right strategic call in going spun barrels on 787...


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5416 posts, RR: 30
Reply 22, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 9897 times:

If there is room for 30 seat steps for the 787 and 350 series, why is 30 or so seats extra above the -1000 seem like such a stretch?

What these differently sized planes do is give the customers options. Eventually, like with ever other aircraft model line, some will prove more successful than others. The market will decide.

Every EK flight I have been on has been jam packed...so I have no trouble believing that they can continue to fill a plane with more seats than a -1000.

Not ever airline needs that many seats...and the -1000 may be an excellent choice for them...or the -900.

Any 'sweet spot' will only be known in retrospect...once the markets decide.



What the...?
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic A350-10 Versus B777-9X Economic Analysis
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
A350-10 Versus B773ER Updated Analysis posted Sat May 21 2011 16:49:57 by LAXDESI
C130ER Versus B737-700 Economic Analysis posted Fri Jul 18 2008 13:07:15 by LAXDESI
ULH Non-Stop Versus One-stop Economic Analysis posted Sat Jun 14 2008 22:29:46 by LAXDESI
B787-10 Versus A359 Economic Analysis posted Tue Sep 13 2011 14:49:42 by LAXDESI
SSJ-100 Versus E-190 Economic Analysis posted Sat Sep 17 2011 12:57:55 by LAXDESI
B787-10 Versus A359 Analysis posted Fri May 20 2011 03:16:23 by LAXDESI
A388 Versus B748 Economic Analysis posted Sat Jul 26 2008 20:30:16 by LAXDESI
C110 Versus E190 Economic Analysis posted Sat Jul 19 2008 01:53:00 by LAXDESI
A358 Versus B789 Economic Analysis posted Fri May 30 2008 00:07:09 by LAXDESI
A333 Versus B789 Economic Analysis posted Wed May 28 2008 14:46:13 by LAXDESI

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format