There are some things not to forget when making comparisons. If you just compare OEW and engine technology, you are short changing some of the other 787-9 advances. For example not taking bleed air off the engine is going to reduce fuel burn. It is more efficient to power the airplane electrically than bleed air in cruise although the technical difficulty of the bleed less design may not have it return in the future. The 787-9 has a shorter wing, but has a more advanced variable camber wing. The 787 has dropping spoilers and flaps to adjust curvature of the sign as fuel is burned in cruise compared to the longer A330 wing. The 787-9 also has hybrid laminar flow in places where the A330 does not. The 787-9 cruises faster. 15-20 minute less block hours reduces costs. The 787-9 has overhead flight crew and cabin crew rests which can allow it to fit more seats and/or more cargo (note A330 seat maps and cargo volume from Airbus almost never include a crew rest). Conversely a 787-9 may have higher landing costs due to higher payload. While usually more payload means more revenue this isn't always the case for shorter flights where the A330 is more competitive.
I am not worried that Boeing has an airplane that many airlines consider more efficient than the competing Airbus product. There are plenty of sources misleading in Boeing's favor and many misleading in Airbus' favor. I have seen plenty of posts (including many by you) with misleading information. The A350 dartboard that Airbus created implying that the A359 has the perfect capacity comes to mind. I also think of the 787 vs A350/A330 lineup where Airbus crossed out the 787-8 with a comment that it is not a selling compared to the A338/A332 is pretty deceptive given that the A338 has only 6 orders and the claim that the A332 MRTT sales somehow represented a comparison to the 788 (while ignoring that the 767 has been outselling the A332 including Tanker versions). I also think of how some Airbus biased charts use A320 vs 738 trip cost comparisons sometimes instead seat costs, which is exactly what you are commenting on in this comparison.
So I totally agree that various sources aren't accurate comparisons. I do believe that te fuel burn difference per seat for the 789 is about 0.5% to 4% over the A339 depending on configuration and range while simulataneously the 789 offers more payload if an airline needs it. Have you seen any Airbus analysis charts disproving this? From what I have seen, Airbus marketing material minimizes the difference to imply it is essentially zero over what might be 4000 miles. I haven't seen a fuel burn difference over various distances shown by Airbus. I would love to see it.
It may be that you are not worried about the efficiency of the A330neo compared to the 787-9. But Boeing should be.
It seems you try to muddy the waters with blending the A350 into this comparison, it is in this case only between the 787-9 and A330-900.
All the talk about other frames is other frames. So lets start
- Same generations of engines. The A330 extracts more bleed air, the 787 more mechanical power. It can be that the 787 is part of a pro cent more efficient there
- The A330-900 is the lighter frame with a bigger wing span. I would assume no fuel burn difference before the trip gets to above 5.000 nm. On short distances the A330 could be with less fuel burn. If you have charts showing the fuel burn advantage of the 787 over various distances, please refer to.
- Both frames are mainly MTOW restricted rather than fuel volume restricted regarding range. The 787 has a higher MTOW therefore more range at the same load. Any increase of MTOW on the A330-900 will decrease the difference.
- The A330-900 is a lower investment than the 787-9.
- The variable camber, is not a function of the wing, but rather a function of the FBW and as Airbus has variable camber both on the A380 and A350,
it would be wrong to assume it not being applied to the A330neo. The A330-200 Airbus test frames has been doing a lot of hours testflying.
- I assume that the 787 will keep the distinction of cruising faster than the A330, I have not heard of any change to the wing sweep on the A330neo.