eaa3
Topic Author
Posts: 808
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:49 am

A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:53 pm

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?
 
User avatar
rotating14
Posts: 1124
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:54 pm

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sat Jun 15, 2013 11:13 pm

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?
 
wjcandee
Posts: 5187
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sat Jun 15, 2013 11:33 pm

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 avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23198
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sat Jun 15, 2013 11:41 pm

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 avatar
par13del
Posts: 6688
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sat Jun 15, 2013 11:45 pm

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.
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3243
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sat Jun 15, 2013 11:51 pm

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
 
AADC10
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:40 am

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 1:00 am

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).
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1769
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 1:14 am

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 avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23198
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 1:42 am

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).
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5006
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:05 am

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.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:31 am

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 avatar
exFWAOONW
Posts: 376
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:32 pm

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:35 am

I guess the engineers and designers can go home. Arguing over paper airplanes.   
Is just me, or is flying not as much fun anymore?
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6674
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 3:04 am

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 avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23198
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:17 am

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.  
 
astuteman
Posts: 6344
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:44 am

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
 
Danny
Posts: 3714
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:44 am

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:14 am

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 avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23198
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 7:07 am

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.  
 
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1605
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 7:12 am

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.
POLAND IS UNDER DICTATORSHIP. PLEASE SUPPORT COMMITTEE FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACY, K.O.D.
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 7:20 am

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.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 5187
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 7:28 am

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.
 
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1605
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 7:34 am

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.
POLAND IS UNDER DICTATORSHIP. PLEASE SUPPORT COMMITTEE FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACY, K.O.D.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6344
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 8:35 am

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
 
gf777
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:17 pm

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 9:05 am

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 avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 20153
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:07 am

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

  
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1217
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 11:38 am

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?
 
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 1:03 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 23):
the A359 can also serve those 9 hours sectors with more payload.

e.g. freight - I can see a lot of CX 359s flying regional routes with bellyfuls of freight.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 24):
Does this mean Airbus will need to bring out a smaller widebody at some time in the future?

There is a theoretical capacity gap in Airbus' line-up between 321 neo and 358. But is there a demand gap - given that the (largely Americas-based) 762/763 replacement market is really the 788's to lose? If so Airbus need a new smaller wing to attach to a shortened xwb body, and optimised engines - as the 358 engines are non-optimised de-rated 359 engines. Do-able, but at a cost.

Much more likely in my view, and less costly, and with a more obvious demand gap to fill, is a 3510-length fuse with 359 engine, MLG and wing - the same "regional specialist" concept as the 7810 but bigger.
 
B777LRF
Posts: 1447
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:15 pm

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 cabin. The Airbus offering is a natural 9-abreast aircraft, but won't accomodate 10.

So to compare numbers based on a level playing field, you should be using an 8-abreast Boeing cabin. Unless, that is, you think a 16.8 inch seat is exactly the same as a 18.5 ditto. I, for one, don't and that's why I'm having a hard time taking the Boeing numbers seriously.
From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
 
Sinlock
Posts: 1631
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 12:55 am

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:34 pm

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 25):
If so Airbus need a new smaller wing to attach to a shortened xwb body, and optimised engines....Do-able, but at a cost.

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 numbers the marketing poeple forcast, i.e. 747SP, A340-500, 777-200LR.
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:54 pm

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 25):

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 range NB built out of the A320. About the size of the 752. Do a 777-X sort of update and base it on the A320 fuselage. This would handle the 788 on the lower end very fine, it would eat it for lunch.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 2980
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 3:19 pm

Next generation of long range aircraft should have 200 PAX in 3 Class configuration. Hope technology will allow manufacturers to achieve better CASM than current generation long range models.

If they keep building big planes, pretty much they are limiting their customer base to ME3 and few other European carriers and ultimately forcing other airlines to quit international market. Even ME3 cannot fill 380 seats on every flight.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 4924
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 3:39 pm

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 26):
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 cabin. The Airbus offering is a natural 9-abreast aircraft, but won't accomodate 10.

So to compare numbers based on a level playing field, you should be using an 8-abreast Boeing cabin. Unless, that is, you think a 16.8 inch seat is exactly the same as a 18.5 ditto. I, for one, don't and that's why I'm having a hard time taking the Boeing numbers seriously.

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 completely irrelevant, Boeing is reflecting what the airlines are doing. I would have a hard time taking Boeing's numbers seriously if they used 8-abreast seating for their calculations.

Besides, if Boeing continued to use 8-abreast seating everyone would be up in arms about how they are artificially lowering the number of passengers to give the plane longer range etc.
 
YYZAMS
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 4:54 pm

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 3:42 pm

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 technical aspects I will read the wiki and the posts here while weeding through the "Boeing is Best! Let's hear it for the hometeam!" or "Airbus is Awesome!" posts. Hopefully the discussion doesn't go awry.

                                
 
eaa3
Topic Author
Posts: 808
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:49 am

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 3:55 pm

Quoting YYZAMS (Reply 31):
"Boeing is Best! Let's hear it for the hometeam!" or "Airbus is Awesome!" posts.

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 B767, an aircraft that is over 20 years older. If the B787-10 is over 10% more efficient than the A350-900 then Airbus has made a big mistake. 10%+ lower CASM just isn't a number that I believe can be true.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 3:57 pm

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 26):
So to compare numbers based on a level playing field, you should be using an 8-abreast Boeing cabin. Unless, that is, you think a 16.8 inch seat is exactly the same as a 18.5 ditto. I, for one, don't and that's why I'm having a hard time taking the Boeing numbers seriously.

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 have as wide of an economy seat but 5 inches across 9 seats is hardly reason to say that they should not be compared as both 9 abreast cabins for the purpose if CASM. Only 2 airlines have chosen 8 abreast so it is more of a unique configuration with 9 being standard. I think Boeing marketing made a dumb decision showing off the plane early on with 8 abreast since now when people get in the 9 abreast plane they have the preconception that the airline has put unusually slim seats in.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 20153
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:08 pm

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 25):
There is a theoretical capacity gap in Airbus' line-up between 321 neo and 358. But is there a demand gap

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 and the answer was bigger planes. The 787 is bigger than the 767, the A350 is bigger than the A330. Airlines also accepted the gap between A321/739 and 788 sized airplanes. And this will only grow in the future; I do believe the 787-8 will eventually end up like the 767-200 did.

So I ask myself: why should Airbus invest in an 250-class seater if that market will be dead in 10 years from now? Besides, the 737 and A320 successors will probably be a bit bigger anyway.

[Edited 2013-06-16 09:12:53]
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:09 pm

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 29):

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 and 220-240 on the larger NB.

The A350-900 could cover the small A358 niche IMO, many seem to go this route anyway. Only one would need a bigger investment the A325, the 1100 would be a simple stretch of the 1000. This way Airbus could cover 150-380 seats with twins and the VLA with the A380.

That gap between the A321 and the A358 would go away and the gap between the A350-1000 and the A380 would shrink.

Do it in time of the A330 going the 767 way.
 
ytz
Posts: 3036
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 6:07 pm

Quoting sweair (Reply 35):
360-380 seats on the 1100

I wonder if there is an actual business case for airbus in this....

Sure, they could do it. But will it sell.
 
dlphoenix
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 7:30 am

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 6:27 pm

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 26):
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 cabin. The Airbus offering is a natural 9-abreast aircraft, but won't accomodate 10.

So to compare numbers based on a level playing field, you should be using an 8-abreast Boeing cabin. Unless, that is, you think a 16.8 inch seat is exactly the same as a 18.5 ditto. I, for one, don't and that's why I'm having a hard time taking the Boeing numbers seriously.

Most airlines chose to configure their 787s with 9 abreast Y.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 34):
here 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 and the answer was bigger planes. The 787 is bigger than the 767, the A350 is bigger than the A330. Airlines also accepted the gap between A321/739 and 788 sized airplanes. And this will only grow in the future; I do believe the 787-8 will eventually end up like the 767-200 did.

So I ask myself: why should Airbus invest in an 250-class seater if that market will be dead in 10 years from now? Besides, the 737 and A320 successors will probably be a bit bigger anyway.

Several hundred 787-8s orders are hardly an indication for "no-demand". Boeing designed the 787 as a lower CASM A330 it was well received; When the A350 was launched airlines already had a roadmap for A330 replacement, they needed a model to substitute the 777 hence the pressure on Airbus to develop a larger model.

Regarding the TATL 200-250 seater - apparently there is not enough demand to justify development;
====
One thing we can learn from History is that the airplane that has the lowest CASM for a certain mission type will sell better, and that A and B both improve performance to the point where the "Stretch-low performance variant" of a platform eats into (devours will be more precise) the market share of the "Smaller high performance variant". The latest example would be the A330 eliminating the market for B77E/L.
Assuming there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the 787 design it has a potential to take over market from the A359. The same should happen with the A35x and the 778x.

Happy Travels
DLP
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 20153
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 6:42 pm

Quoting dlphoenix (Reply 37):
Several hundred 787-8s orders are hardly an indication for "no-demand".

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 787-9 available within 2 years (assuming a healthy backlog after 2020)
2) Trip cost of an 787-9 with equal filled seats as the 787-8 is only a bit higher
3) The extra seats will generate more revenue (remember: traffic will only grow in the future)
4) The economics of the 787-9 will simply be better

We've seen this in the past and are seeing it today:

> 767-200: dead
> A330-200: slowly dying
> 777-200ER: almost dead

Why would this not happen to the 787-8?

[Edited 2013-06-16 11:49:18]
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
astuteman
Posts: 6344
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 7:29 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 34):
So I ask myself: why should Airbus invest in an 250-class seater if that market will be dead in 10 years from now? Besides, the 737 and A320 successors will probably be a bit bigger anyway.

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 250 seat widebody.

I can see the A321NEO and 737-9MAX having their range pushed as far as it will go in the short term.
I'm betting that in 15-20 years time an NSA for either OEM will contain a 200-seater with c. 5 000Nm range

Quoting dlphoenix (Reply 37):
Several hundred 787-8s orders are hardly an indication for "no-demand".

How many orders has the 787 had in the last 5 years?
How many orders has the A330-200 had in the last 5 years?

I accept the 787 has mitigating circumstances. But how many conversions from 787-8 to 787-9 are we seeing?
There is still a market out there clearly, but I don't think it's going to get bigger, only smaller.
At the other end however, we're now seeing conversions from A350-900 to A350-1000.
I think we'll see more money invested in the top end in the long term.

Rgds
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6674
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 7:50 pm

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 29):
Next generation of long range aircraft should have 200 PAX in 3 Class configuration.

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 you added a true F class these configurations would be less than 200.
http://cruisinaltitude.com/2012/11/2...r-seating-configurations-seat-map/

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 26):
you think a 16.8 inch seat

To be fair I believe only LAN has a 16.8 inch seat. Most airlines are opting for 17.2 and 17.3 (United) inch seat. Certainly A350 18.5" seats is a differentiating factor for airlines.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 34):
I do believe the 787-8 will eventually end up like the 767-200 did.

At 250 deliveries and the basis for the KC-767 Tanker the -200 was definitely a successful program. The -300ER definitely helped end that program but so did the 737 NG which could complete US transcon flights undermining the 200's business case. I understand your point that the -9's extra seats may come for free but there is still a large gap between the MAX/NEO and the 787 so I don't see them really attacking the 787 from the bottom too much (at least for 15 years) and the -8 may be as large as some airlines can fill. Over 70% of 787-8 customers do not currently have orders for -9s. Once the -9's less learned backflow to the -8 it could definitely have some lasting roll on long thin routes. Overall I think you are right and the -9 will be the better selling program but I just do not think the situation is as analogous as we might think.

tortugamon
 
astuteman
Posts: 6344
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 8:58 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 40):
Once the -9's less learned backflow to the -8 it could definitely have some lasting roll on long thin routes. Overall I think you are right and the -9 will be the better selling program but I just do not think the situation is as analogous as we might think

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 airframe going forward?
I can't see any more than ongoing optimisations of the A358 personally.
IMO these optimised A358's, plus the 787-8 will cover off this segment until it dwindles, sometime in the future.

Rgds
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6674
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 9:15 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 41):
For me, the question is (especially for Airbus - Boeing already have the 787-8), is there enough market at, or below 787-8 size

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 chassis. So it gets car-like gas mileage but has the capacity of an SUV. I really thought there should be an equivalent in aircraft: A bigger aircraft (twin aisle) that could get nearly single aisle gas mileage. After understanding the Billions that needs to get invested for a new frame certified and realizing that using an efficient frame on short distances is not terrible I have slowly let go of the idea.

In the end, I agree with you. I think there might be a need and could sell some frames but it will be a better use of resources to concentrate on optimizing the -800 and try your best to squeeze as much range as you can out of the 321 NEO.

If the airlines had the need for anything different, the airlines would be working on it and I don't think they are.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23198
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 9:20 pm

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 26):
Unless, that is, you think a 16.8 inch seat is exactly the same as a 18.5 ditto.
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 40):
Certainly A350 18.5" seats is a differentiating factor for airlines.

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 is that airlines put them in because it earns them more money (less weight per seat and/or more seats per row) because passengers continue to accept them.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 5487
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Sun Jun 16, 2013 11:39 pm

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 26):
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 cabin. The Airbus offering is a natural 9-abreast aircraft, but won't accomodate 10.

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-abreast, 3–3–3 standard layout, the XWB's seat width will be 45 cm (18 in) which will be 1.78 cm (0.7 in) wider than the equivalent seat layout for the 787." So a 9 abreast 787 features a 17.3" +/- seat width. Not unusual at all.

The A350 can - and likely will - "accommodate" 10 abreast. From Wiki:

"For high density configurations, 10 abreast seating is available on the A350. This will be used mostly with charter and low cost carriers such as AirAsiaX which has specified a 10 abreast cabin, where seating is similar to a 9 abreast A330, 41.7 cm (16.4 in) seat width."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A350_XWB#Specifications

-Dave
-Dave
 
astuteman
Posts: 6344
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Mon Jun 17, 2013 5:31 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 42):
In the end, I agree with you. I think there might be a need and could sell some frames but it will be a better use of resources to concentrate on optimizing the -800 and try your best to squeeze as much range as you can out of the 321 NEO.

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 is going to be an extremely successful.
it's also why I agree with the comments of Doric's CEO that the A380 is going to be around for a VERY long time, and be a lot more successful than anyone on here is prepared to credit today (which gives us a LOT of room to play with    ), although I accept it will still be in a "niche" compared to the twins.

As you said, I think airlines are going to a) abuse 787-8's or A330's and b) push for ever more capability from the largest narrowbodys.
As a dead repeat of a earlier comment, my opinion puts the A359 and 787-10 right in the sweet spot.
I'm willing to bet in a decade's time that sweet spot will be moving from 300 seats to 350  

Rgds
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6674
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Mon Jun 17, 2013 6:09 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 45):
As a dead repeat of a earlier comment, my opinion puts the A359 and 787-10 right in the sweet spot.
I'm willing to bet in a decade's time that sweet spot will be moving from 300 seats to 350  

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. Clearly with the sheer number of 772, 77E, A333, A343s sold in the last 20 years is a testament to that being the place to be. With all of the sales of the 77W and A380 and airlines choosing high density configurations it could be argued that the transition above 300 is underway.

One thing working against this movement is that there will clearly be a lot fewer 744s out there then there was just 15 years ago (Didn't JAL have 100?) and for the most part those have been traded down. The A380 counterbalanced that to a limited extent and will certainly have more of an effect going forward.

If the A359/781 is the sweet spot then one standard deviation to either side should be pretty solid too. Thats why IMO an optimized A358 is still kinda important.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 20153
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Mon Jun 17, 2013 7:51 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 41):
I can't see any more than ongoing optimisations of the A358 personally.

  

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 investment.
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2639
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Mon Jun 17, 2013 10:09 am

Quoting planesntrains (Reply 44):
"For high density configurations, 10 abreast seating is available on the A350. This will be used mostly with charter and low cost carriers such as AirAsiaX which has specified a 10 abreast cabin, where seating is similar to a 9 abreast A330, 41.7 cm (16.4 in) seat width."

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 the 787 9Y is no worse than a 737 6Y...
 
astuteman
Posts: 6344
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: A350-900 Vs. B787-10

Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:27 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 48):
yet you insist that 16.4" seats are the correct way to configure a A350.

I'm not sure that this comment is consistent with this one, though...

Quoting planesntrains (Reply 44):
This will be used mostly with charter and low cost carriers such as AirAsiaX which has specified a 10 abreast cabin

It is technically correct to point out that the A350XWB can, and will see 10-across configuration.
It's equally sensible to suggest that this is an LCC configuration and thus unlikely to be used by mainstream carriers

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 46):
One thing working against this movement is that there will clearly be a lot fewer 744s out there then there was just 15 years ago (Didn't JAL have 100?) and for the most part those have been traded down. The A380 counterbalanced that to a limited extent and will certainly have more of an effect going forward.

For what its worth I think this has to do with economics as much as size.

The 773ER was the closest in size to a 774 (just happens to be smaller) and has far better economics.
I'm pretty sure that if the 773ER has been the same size as the 777-9X (retaining the range) it would have sold just as well.

The role of the 748i is the curious one here. It should have done pretty well IMO, but I think the 777-9X is about to take a large part of its market away.

Rgds

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 11725Flyer, 737tanker, akebkk, Baidu [Spider], bigb, Boeing778X, Exabot [Bot], EY460, flyby519, HALtheAI, IslandRob, kasimir, lostsound, Oilman, qcpilotxf, retiredmx, Stitch, SyeaphanR, Tdan, Topguncanada, wncmh and 230 guests