Except the A350-900 and 787-9 are hardly "inefficient" on those missions compared to the 787-10 and A330-900. Arguably they are just as efficient as the 787-10 and A330-900 based on real-world data posted by 787 and A350 pilots and fleet planning people. And EK can save a significant amount of money by choosing not to add the A330-900 ..
I've never claimed either was inefficient; they're state of the art as it is right now.
However, I tend to be a tad sceptical of "real-world data posted by .. pilots and fleet planning people", as there's no method available for you, me, or the overwhelming majority of people here, to verify what "they" post on these pages. And it flies in the face of logic, that a -10 or -1000 won't be more efficient (or, ultimately, lucrative) provided you can fill them up and operate them within their limits. Besides the added seats, both also offer huge increases in cargo carrying capacity, particularly for EK between Asia/India/Europe, where the 6-8 hours of flight time allow for a full house upstairs, and a ridiculous (40 tons?) amount of boxes downstairs.
I seem to recall that was one of, if not the, main reasons KLM went for the -10 to replace their 744Ms, and for hauling not-too-big boxes and SLF across the Atlantic at the same time, it beats ten tons of snot out of anything else on the market.
As for ordering the A339 I'm in full agreement; it that would seem daft once they've settled for the 787-9.
Last edited by B777LRF
on Wed Nov 20, 2019 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Signature. You just read one.