Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1454
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

777X vs A350 CASM

Mon Feb 17, 2020 6:16 am

Anyone have any data on the cost per seat per mile(CASM) for the 777X and the A350? Searching the internet does not reveal much, and it does not seem to have been discussed on airliners.net since 2017!!?

The 777X is heavier per seat, but has more efficient engines. Anyone know how this balances out?
 
oschkosch
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Mon Feb 17, 2020 6:33 am

I guess we will only know upon EIS of the 777x?
:stirthepot: :airplane: "This airplane is designed by clowns, who in turn are supervised by monkeys" :airplane: :stirthepot:
 
VV
Posts: 1702
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Mon Feb 17, 2020 6:47 am

Airbus claims the A350-1000 has a seat cost advantage of a double digits percentage vs 777-9.
Boeing says the 777-9 has 10% better cost on per seat basis over the A350-1000.

The reality is probably somewhere in between.

I would say the two are in the same ball park from cost on per seat basis perspective.

Obviously neither aircraft manufacturer mentions whether the ownership cost is included. Not do they specify the engine maintenance cost.
 
evanb
Posts: 908
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:22 am

kitplane01 wrote:
Anyone have any data on the cost per seat per mile(CASM) for the 777X and the A350? Searching the internet does not reveal much, and it does not seem to have been discussed on airliners.net since 2017!!?

The 777X is heavier per seat, but has more efficient engines. Anyone know how this balances out?


It's impossible to determine without knowing seat counts. Assuming the same seating density (and mission), you'd expect the B77X to have a CASM advantage over a A351 because it's bigger, but that would also some at the cost of higher trip cost.
 
Opus99
Posts: 834
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:27 am

This is an interesting question and has some insightful answers because for example take BA they have a seat count on the A35K of 331 (without first class) but on the 779 the seat count will be 325 (with first class of course)
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13841
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:39 am

The "S" in CASM is marketings favourite tool for playing with half truths, bending realities.
You start comparing seat comfort options (10 abreast A350) class set ups (7 abreast 777 buiness class) & never get out.
I wouldn't start off endless discussions. Maybe try find more objective numbers

E.g. fuel burn/ costs at 40t payload over 6000 NM, standard conditions.
Less seats (A350) can e.g. be compensated by cargo on longer flights..


By the way, nice site I stumbled over, with some 777 numbers: Anna.aero: https://www.anna.aero/2020/01/29/x-rate ... the-skies/

Image
Last edited by keesje on Mon Feb 17, 2020 9:06 am, edited 3 times in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:47 am

evanb wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
Anyone have any data on the cost per seat per mile(CASM) for the 777X and the A350? Searching the internet does not reveal much, and it does not seem to have been discussed on airliners.net since 2017!!?

The 777X is heavier per seat, but has more efficient engines. Anyone know how this balances out?


It's impossible to determine without knowing seat counts. Assuming the same seating density (and mission), you'd expect the B77X to have a CASM advantage over a A351 because it's bigger, but that would also some at the cost of higher trip cost.


I seem to remember something from Ferpe / Björn Ferm. ( either posted on a.net or leehamnews )
outcome was 777-9 1..2% better than A350K working brochure numbers for the 777-9.
A range of A350 improvements ( wingtwist, stuff ) happened post this assay.

So today probably a wash. Smaller plane meeting bigger plane would indicate that the smaller one is intrinsically better ?
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
SQ32
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:18 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:47 am

OP deserves more respect as if pundits here are not aware that airlines and industries uses normalized cabin for calculating CASM.

What a shame!
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Mon Feb 17, 2020 9:04 am

SQ32 wrote:
OP deserves more respect as if pundits here are not aware that airlines and industries uses normalized cabin for calculating CASM.

What a shame!


Do they ____.

Airbus and Boeing both pull all sorts of shenanigans when it comes to comparing performance per "seat".


There is no single figure that can be used to reliably compare aircraft - particularly long ranged widebodies. [Single aisles the bulk of missions are around or under 1000nm in stage length and can be fit as single-class economy for easy comparison]
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13841
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Mon Feb 17, 2020 9:18 am

Amiga500 wrote:
SQ32 wrote:
OP deserves more respect as if pundits here are not aware that airlines and industries uses normalized cabin for calculating CASM.

What a shame!


Do they ____.

Airbus and Boeing both pull all sorts of shenanigans when it comes to comparing performance per "seat".


There is no single figure that can be used to reliably compare aircraft - particularly long ranged widebodies. [Single aisles the bulk of missions are around or under 1000nm in stage length and can be fit as single-class economy for easy comparison]


Correct. There's a reason airlines don't put 400 seats in every A350/77W, while it creates awesome CASM.
Airbus and Boeing have less rerstrictions creating perceptions for docile stake holders..
Airlines don't even look at the "typical" "normalized", "standard" cabin plans, they draw / analyse their own.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
SQ32
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:18 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Mon Feb 17, 2020 9:25 am

Industrial experts are able to arrive a ball park figure, especially airlines planners, having proxy to confidential data points provided by AB. Reason why SQ chosen chosen 787-10 despite having ordered A359R, both playing the same regional role.

Planners are convinced that 787-10 have better economics over A359 derated, on regional mission.

This is comparing 2 different aircraft in terms of spatial dimension.

The scenario never officially confirmed but widely speculated. People in industries aware that such information are deliberately kept confidential, as it could be potentially scandalous, when aircraft purchases are never 100% based on economics, but also factoring geopolitical influences.
 
NonTechAvLover
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2019 5:09 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Mon Feb 17, 2020 9:35 am

SQ32 wrote:
Industrial experts are able to arrive a ball park figure, especially airlines planners, having proxy to confidential data points provided by AB. Reason why SQ chosen chosen 787-10 despite having ordered A359R, both playing the same regional role.

Planners are convinced that 787-10 have better economics over A359 derated, on regional mission.

This is comparing 2 different aircraft in terms of spatial dimension.

The scenario never officially confirmed but widely speculated. People in industries aware that such information are deliberately kept confidential, as it could be potentially scandalous, when aircraft purchases are never 100% based on economics, but also factoring geopolitical influences.


Interesting. Is SQ subject to geopolitical influences as well or does that only work for some airlines?
 
User avatar
SQ32
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:18 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Mon Feb 17, 2020 9:41 am

As if nobody pays attention to China massive aircraft purchase and cited its purpose on reducing trade surplus.
 
NonTechAvLover
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2019 5:09 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Mon Feb 17, 2020 9:53 am

SQ32 wrote:
As if nobody pays attention to China massive aircraft purchase and cited its purpose on reducing trade surplus.


So China influenced SQ to order Boeing or the objective numbers in favor of the 787-10? I am trying to understand.
 
majano
Posts: 272
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:07 am

SQ32 wrote:
Industrial experts are able to arrive a ball park figure, especially airlines planners, having proxy to confidential data points provided by AB. Reason why SQ chosen chosen 787-10 despite having ordered A359R, both playing the same regional role.

Planners are convinced that 787-10 have better economics over A359 derated, on regional mission.

This is comparing 2 different aircraft in terms of spatial dimension.

The scenario never officially confirmed but widely speculated. People in industries aware that such information are deliberately kept confidential, as it could be potentially scandalous, when aircraft purchases are never 100% based on economics, but also factoring geopolitical influences.

I am with Zeke on this. There is no reliable measure of the Seats. Somebody just above introduces another complication to the number of seats - i.e. the number of premium versus economy seats. Even if you were to resolve that, somebody else will introduce yield into the discussion.

In the example above, SQ, after ordering the 787-10 and getting them in service, went on to remove a few of the type from its orderbook, convert the order to the 9 variant and hand them down to their wholly owned subsidiary Scoot. All of these are noise, data points which one cannot use as a proxy for CASM.

What I prefer to look at is the fuel burn for a particular sector based on data-sets such as Take Off weight, landing weight, Reserves etc. One could estimate the payload and come to some sort of conclusion. An all-sweeping statement that Plane A has a CASM of x% better than Plane B is inherently wrong.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:20 am

Amiga500 wrote:
Airbus and Boeing both pull all sorts of shenanigans when it comes to comparing performance per "seat".


It is not both, by far not.

There was a time when Boeing really screwed the pooch with their numbers and assumed seating densities and
especially overcome monument weight assumptions.

Even aerospace publications started to strongly question their "competitive" comparisons openly.

Couple of years back Boeing finally had to adjust their published maps and resultant performance. Significantly.
Just to recoup a bit of credibility in public.

"Everyone does it" is a rather popular line with some
but beyond "quality" the excess of applied "quantity" visible is rather one sided.

( this actually has much wider application in a global context today as it tries to legitimate
one sided over the top political behavior.)
Murphy is an optimist
 
Strato2
Posts: 542
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:46 am

There's a reason Boeing needlessly enlarged the 777X and made it a VLA even after protesting against such planes.
 
planecane
Posts: 1559
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:52 am

Strato2 wrote:
There's a reason Boeing needlessly enlarged the 777X and made it a VLA even after protesting against such planes.


Your statement contains a bit of a contradiction. If there was a reason they enlarged the 777X, then it wasn't done needlessly!
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:12 am

planecane wrote:
Strato2 wrote:
There's a reason Boeing needlessly enlarged the 777X and made it a VLA even after protesting against such planes.


Your statement contains a bit of a contradiction. If there was a reason they enlarged the 777X, then it wasn't done needlessly!


Nobody said life is simple. :-)))
Murphy is an optimist
 
StTim
Posts: 3693
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:21 am

They had to go bigger to get the economics of scale. This means that for the same payload/range that the A350K will have lower trip fuel figures. The 779 will however be able to take more further so to make it viable the airline has to know they will have sufficient revenue opportunities to require that additional lift.

This was effectively the A380 problem. Fill them and they have great economics (and passengers love them) but not enough airline routes seem to support that capacity. At lower load factors they A380's were eaten by the 777 and later 787. It all depends on what loads the airlines expect to be able to realise on their route network.
 
NonTechAvLover
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2019 5:09 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:41 am

StTim wrote:
This was effectively the A380 problem. Fill them and they have great economics (and passengers love them) but not enough airline routes seem to support that capacity. At lower load factors they A380's were eaten by the 777 and later 787. It all depends on what loads the airlines expect to be able to realise on their route network.


Being one of those passengers who loves the A380, I never understood this. Even on Lufthansa, one of the two Fra-JFK flights switches (I think seasonally) from A380 to a 747. I am not bothered in that particular instance as I love the 747 as well, but I cannot believe Fra-JFK would not have enough numbers to fill a 380 on one of its two flights (three NY-Fra flights if you include the Fra-Newark flight). These are two very busy airports and you would think they should be able to fill 10 380s per day. Is TATL traffic less than one tends to think maybe?
 
Noshow
Posts: 1514
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:48 am

They certainly can fill them anytime but only at lower prices off season. There is a point where airlines prefer the smaller aicraft at higher load year around. The old times of huge economy compartments marketed at low prices seem to be gone. Now all the legacies aim for business travellers with business class at least twice daily and high paying economy passengers with eco plus.
 
NonTechAvLover
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2019 5:09 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Mon Feb 17, 2020 12:01 pm

Noshow wrote:
They certainly can fill them anytime but only at lower prices off season. There is a point where airlines prefer the smaller aicraft at higher load year around. The old times of huge economy compartments marketed at low prices seem to be gone. Now all the legacies aim for business travellers with business class at least twice daily and high paying economy passengers with eco plus.


So LH prefers to send the lowest paying 100 customers (just assuming the difference between the 380 and 747 capacities, I do not know the actual number) out of that flight, even out of the LH group or the Star Alliance say to Norwegian to do a one-stop, rather than operate the 380, because those now excluded customers do not justify the difference between the A380 and 747 operating costs? Sad, as D. J. Trump would say. Again, I love the 747, but if all airlines behave this way those beautiful planes will disappear.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Mon Feb 17, 2020 12:23 pm

NonTechAvLover wrote:
So LH prefers to send the lowest paying 100 customers (just assuming the difference between the 380 and 747 capacities,.


Afaics:
LH prefers "best fit" for hardware assigned to a route. And they seem to be willing to do this on reasonably short notice.
What is known as "flexible". :-) They seem to have reasonably good system to work this.

Beyond that you can always run into unexpected contingency issues.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14989
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Mon Feb 17, 2020 12:32 pm

NonTechAvLover wrote:
So LH prefers to send the lowest paying 100 customers (just assuming the difference between the 380 and 747 capacities, I do not know the actual number) out of that flight, even out of the LH group or the Star Alliance say to Norwegian to do a one-stop, rather than operate the 380, because those now excluded customers do not justify the difference between the A380 and 747 operating costs?


Don’t think of it in terms of cost, think of it in terms of return on investment.

Say you have $100,000 of your own money to invest, and you have a choice of 50 different investment funds to invest your money in. You don’t select the fund with the lowest joining fee, monthly variable fee, annual fee, or final distribution fee (costs). As some of the costs are variable, you would do Monte Carlo simulations with different levels of variable rates to see what the impact will be on the return on investment. Nor would you just select the fund with the highest interest rate (revenue) and not take into account the costs.

You need to have a way to compare the funds with how much money each fund would earn you at the end of the term (return on investment) in today’s dollar value. Then you might say, what does it look like if I use $25000 of my own money, and borrow $75000, what will the return on investment be after the cost of borrowing is added to the mix. Is 25% the optimum ratio to borrow to maximize the return on investment.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
travelhound
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Mon Feb 17, 2020 12:47 pm

StTim wrote:
They had to go bigger to get the economics of scale. This means that for the same payload/range that the A350K will have lower trip fuel figures. The 779 will however be able to take more further so to make it viable the airline has to know they will have sufficient revenue opportunities to require that additional lift.

This was effectively the A380 problem. Fill them and they have great economics (and passengers love them) but not enough airline routes seem to support that capacity. At lower load factors they A380's were eaten by the 777 and later 787. It all depends on what loads the airlines expect to be able to realise on their route network.


The question becomes what else would you expect Boeing to do?

Boeing themselves (and many analysts) are predicting demand for about 1300 777X aircraft over twenty years. As such, I am not too sure Boeing could make the business case work for an all new composite aircraft to fill this segment of the market.

I think we have to remember, with the introduction of the 787 and A350 the optimal size for a wide body dropped by about 30 seats. There were two aspects to this. Firstly, the new generation aircraft had superior economics to the aircraft they were replacing and secondly, point to point route fragmenting resulted in a decrease in the natural size for an aircraft.

Where the 777X may be seen as being too large for today’s market, in five or ten years’ time “growth in market” could be at a level where the aircraft is right sized for many routes.

If/with the 777X CAZM/RAZM equaling or being better than today’s A350 (let’s assume they are equal), airlines that purchase the 777X for it being the right size for a market will do so because it will be the higher yielding aircraft. This is pure business economics rather than assumed aircraft economics.

The aircraft has a legitimate place in the market place!
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 7790
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Mon Feb 17, 2020 1:00 pm

NonTechAvLover wrote:
Is there a meaningful metric then, one that gives an apples to apples comparison, just to show which plane is more efficient controlling for engine type and trip length?


There is, and carriers use it every day - it's just a disappointment to pedants here who want to be dismissive without conveying useful information.

Set a standard seat count. Carriers do that, anyway, to speak to seating capacities. You'll find something like 'Seats 280 passengers in a typical 3-cabin arrangement.' Manufacturers have prospective cabin layouts with seat counts and seat pitch identified. There are standard passenger weights.

Set a flight distance typical of the type. If you want to promote 787-10s as the best option for shortish intercontinental flights you might chart a flight distance of 4,500 statute miles. ORD-FRA is 4,344; MIA-EZE is 4,406; SYD-HKG is 4,581, all according to Great Circle Mapper.

Calculate fuel burn. Show a reasonable cost per liter/gallon. There's your marketing claim on fuel burn per seat. Manufacturers promote it. Carriers use it - AS liked to brag about fuel burn of its 739s vs. older/smaller types. Leeham uses it.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2664
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Mon Feb 17, 2020 1:24 pm

WIederling wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
Airbus and Boeing both pull all sorts of shenanigans when it comes to comparing performance per "seat".


It is not both, by far not.

There was a time when Boeing really screwed the pooch with their numbers and assumed seating densities and
especially overcome monument weight assumptions.

Even aerospace publications started to strongly question their "competitive" comparisons openly.

Couple of years back Boeing finally had to adjust their published maps and resultant performance. Significantly.
Just to recoup a bit of credibility in public.

"Everyone does it" is a rather popular line with some
but beyond "quality" the excess of applied "quantity" visible is rather one sided.

( this actually has much wider application in a global context today as it tries to legitimate
one sided over the top political behavior.)


Yes Airbus never plays games either like using 90KG per seat on the A321XLR when quoting maximum range for TATL missions when most others use 95-105kg.

Just think what an extra 10 kg times 200 seats can do an Aircraft that can only lift 17-18T.

"Airbus assumes a weight of 90kg per passenger when calculating the A321LR range. This assumption is reasonable on short haul flights for low cost airlines but unrealistic on a trans-Atlantic flight. In practice airlines use around 100kg per passenger including luggage. This means TAP’s A321LR carries a payload of 16.8 metric tons."

https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/2 ... 321xlr-do/
 
morrisond
Posts: 2664
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Mon Feb 17, 2020 1:32 pm

travelhound wrote:
StTim wrote:
They had to go bigger to get the economics of scale. This means that for the same payload/range that the A350K will have lower trip fuel figures. The 779 will however be able to take more further so to make it viable the airline has to know they will have sufficient revenue opportunities to require that additional lift.

This was effectively the A380 problem. Fill them and they have great economics (and passengers love them) but not enough airline routes seem to support that capacity. At lower load factors they A380's were eaten by the 777 and later 787. It all depends on what loads the airlines expect to be able to realise on their route network.


The question becomes what else would you expect Boeing to do?

Boeing themselves (and many analysts) are predicting demand for about 1300 777X aircraft over twenty years. As such, I am not too sure Boeing could make the business case work for an all new composite aircraft to fill this segment of the market.

I think we have to remember, with the introduction of the 787 and A350 the optimal size for a wide body dropped by about 30 seats. There were two aspects to this. Firstly, the new generation aircraft had superior economics to the aircraft they were replacing and secondly, point to point route fragmenting resulted in a decrease in the natural size for an aircraft.

Where the 777X may be seen as being too large for today’s market, in five or ten years’ time “growth in market” could be at a level where the aircraft is right sized for many routes.

If/with the 777X CAZM/RAZM equaling or being better than today’s A350 (let’s assume they are equal), airlines that purchase the 777X for it being the right size for a market will do so because it will be the higher yielding aircraft. This is pure business economics rather than assumed aircraft economics.

The aircraft has a legitimate place in the market place!


What Boeing should have done was to just lengthen and Upwing the 787 , making an 787-11 (74M) and -12(80M). It would have been a lot lighter per seat. It would have been less work as they would not have had to redo all the systems like they did on 777X. They could have applied the 777X cabin widening Rib technique as well.

As it turns out they would have more than enough capacity on the 787 lines to build them and I think the two lines can go to a combined 20 per month if needed.

Then shut down 747 and reenginne the 777f when needed (no new wing).
 
btfarrwm
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:50 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Mon Feb 17, 2020 1:41 pm

SQ32 wrote:
OP deserves more respect as if pundits here are not aware that airlines and industries uses normalized cabin for calculating CASM.

What a shame!


Also, the comment shaming someone for using CASM over CASK is just silly. AFAIK, the nautical mile is still the standard unit of distance used across aviation...ICAO recommentations aside.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3511
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Mon Feb 17, 2020 1:54 pm

morrisond wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
Airbus and Boeing both pull all sorts of shenanigans when it comes to comparing performance per "seat".


It is not both, by far not.

There was a time when Boeing really screwed the pooch with their numbers and assumed seating densities and
especially overcome monument weight assumptions.

Even aerospace publications started to strongly question their "competitive" comparisons openly.

Couple of years back Boeing finally had to adjust their published maps and resultant performance. Significantly.
Just to recoup a bit of credibility in public.

"Everyone does it" is a rather popular line with some
but beyond "quality" the excess of applied "quantity" visible is rather one sided.

( this actually has much wider application in a global context today as it tries to legitimate
one sided over the top political behavior.)


Yes Airbus never plays games either like using 90KG per seat on the A321XLR when quoting maximum range for TATL missions when most others use 95-105kg.

Just think what an extra 10 kg times 200 seats can do an Aircraft that can only lift 17-18T.

"Airbus assumes a weight of 90kg per passenger when calculating the A321LR range. This assumption is reasonable on short haul flights for low cost airlines but unrealistic on a trans-Atlantic flight. In practice airlines use around 100kg per passenger including luggage. This means TAP’s A321LR carries a payload of 16.8 metric tons."

https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/2 ... 321xlr-do/


from what I understand airbus use 95kg for their WB jets and Boeing use 210lb which is basically about a 1/4 of a good morning movement different (256g). It does seem that airbus has continued to use the standard for NB of 90kg which does seem a bit naughty as I would expect that the change would be in terms of range not size of plane. Does Boeing keep 210lb all through their marketing? I tried to find some info on the ACAPS but struggled.

The guy from Epsilon aviation (can't find his name), looks to know some things about business side (finance) but his technical knowledge/ability seem a bit lacking, shame really because other than that it seems a nice little blog.

Fred
Image
 
THS214
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:01 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Mon Feb 17, 2020 3:37 pm

btfarrwm wrote:
SQ32 wrote:
OP deserves more respect as if pundits here are not aware that airlines and industries uses normalized cabin for calculating CASM.

What a shame!


Also, the comment shaming someone for using CASM over CASK is just silly. AFAIK, the nautical mile is still the standard unit of distance used across aviation...ICAO recommentations aside.


??? Visibility is measured as statute miles in the USA and as meters in most of the world. Problem with miles is that a lot of times its hard to know if its statute or nautical miles. About CASM, is it statute or nautical miles? Try to Google it and all you find fast is just miles so hard to tell.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Mon Feb 17, 2020 4:03 pm

I think to answer the OP's question you need to look at a sample of real world data at very similar payloads and distances ideally using FCOM information.

Since no one has that yet because the 779 has not entered commercial service you can only speculate.

I agree with the many posters who belittle CASK numbers. Nothing is manipulated and fudged more by A & B than CASK. It is almost meaningless to get a true apples to apples comparison.

Since one can only speculate my guess is both aircraft will be very similar in fuel burn per seat. Otherwise Boeing will have made a very big mistake, and I do not think that has happened. Usually, the actual performance is slightly better than initially promised. Sometimes it is much better as in the case of the 77W and later interations of the A330.

Bottom line: right now we just don't know.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14989
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Mon Feb 17, 2020 5:15 pm

THS214 wrote:
??? Visibility is measured as statute miles in the USA and as meters in most of the world. Problem with miles is that a lot of times its hard to know if its statute or nautical miles. About CASM, is it statute or nautical miles? Try to Google it and all you find fast is just miles so hard to tell.


CASM is statute miles, not nautical miles.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Mon Feb 17, 2020 5:29 pm

morrisond wrote:
https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/2019/06/29/what-can-and-cant-the-a321xlr-do/


Ah the guy with the strange looking diagrams :-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1454
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:28 am

majano wrote:
SQ32 wrote:
Industrial experts are able to arrive a ball park figure, especially airlines planners, having proxy to confidential data points provided by AB. Reason why SQ chosen chosen 787-10 despite having ordered A359R, both playing the same regional role.

Planners are convinced that 787-10 have better economics over A359 derated, on regional mission.

This is comparing 2 different aircraft in terms of spatial dimension.

The scenario never officially confirmed but widely speculated. People in industries aware that such information are deliberately kept confidential, as it could be potentially scandalous, when aircraft purchases are never 100% based on economics, but also factoring geopolitical influences.

I am with Zeke on this. There is no reliable measure of the Seats. Somebody just above introduces another complication to the number of seats - i.e. the number of premium versus economy seats. Even if you were to resolve that, somebody else will introduce yield into the discussion.

In the example above, SQ, after ordering the 787-10 and getting them in service, went on to remove a few of the type from its orderbook, convert the order to the 9 variant and hand them down to their wholly owned subsidiary Scoot. All of these are noise, data points which one cannot use as a proxy for CASM.

What I prefer to look at is the fuel burn for a particular sector based on data-sets such as Take Off weight, landing weight, Reserves etc. One could estimate the payload and come to some sort of conclusion. An all-sweeping statement that Plane A has a CASM of x% better than Plane B is inherently wrong.


Of course it's complicated by route length, seat density, and freight load. Everyone agrees with that. And yet the EPA is able to produce a mpg rating for cars, and they have some meaning.

But if you have the data you describe, I'm totally interested.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1454
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:35 am

Does anyone have any data on relative costs, fuel burn, etc between the two planes? On a per seat basis, on a per trip basis, any data at all would be great.

I wasn't really asking for a debate on CASM. And if you hate CASM, offering any data in any format beyond "all comparisons of any type are impossible" would be great. Per trip could be fine.

I understand the 777X weighs more, but has more efficient engines. Is this true, and if so by how much?
 
trex8
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Tue Feb 18, 2020 2:44 am

kitplane01 wrote:
Does anyone have any data on relative costs, fuel burn, etc between the two planes? On a per seat basis, on a per trip basis, any data at all would be great.

I wasn't really asking for a debate on CASM. And if you hate CASM, offering any data in any format beyond "all comparisons of any type are impossible" would be great. Per trip could be fine.

I understand the 777X weighs more, but has more efficient engines. Is this true, and if so by how much?

The 777X has only just started test flying, there will be no real data available for many months.

There have been various discussions in the tech section re A35K fuel burn, here's one

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1436299

GE9X is supposed to have 5% less fuel burn than "other twins" and 10% less than the 77W
https://www.geaviation.com/commercial/e ... aft-engine
 
DenverTed
Posts: 468
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Tue Feb 18, 2020 3:16 am

travelhound wrote:
Boeing themselves (and many analysts) are predicting demand for about 1300 777X aircraft over twenty years.

Where the 777X may be seen as being too large for today’s market, in five or ten years’ time “growth in market” could be at a level where the aircraft is right sized for many routes.

If/with the 777X CAZM/RAZM equaling or being better than today’s A350 (let’s assume they are equal), airlines that purchase the 777X for it being the right size for a market will do so because it will be the higher yielding aircraft. This is pure business economics rather than assumed aircraft economics.

The aircraft has a legitimate place in the market place!

1300 would be nice. I would estimate 600 777-9. Looking at the A380 which had about 200 orders at first delivery and ended production at 250, the 777-9 might only get to 400 if it follows a similar path. But they'll probably make a freighter and sell 300 of those, so by 2040 I could see 900 777x aircraft before production ends if things go moderately well.
 
Vladex
Posts: 468
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:44 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Tue Feb 18, 2020 3:20 am

planecane wrote:
Strato2 wrote:
There's a reason Boeing needlessly enlarged the 777X and made it a VLA even after protesting against such planes.


Your statement contains a bit of a contradiction. If there was a reason they enlarged the 777X, then it wasn't done needlessly!


It was done desperately since A350 and 777x can't be compared by size since 777x is demonstrably bigger.
 
AngMoh
Posts: 1042
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:03 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:03 am

majano wrote:
SQ32 wrote:
Industrial experts are able to arrive a ball park figure, especially airlines planners, having proxy to confidential data points provided by AB. Reason why SQ chosen chosen 787-10 despite having ordered A359R, both playing the same regional role.

Planners are convinced that 787-10 have better economics over A359 derated, on regional mission.

This is comparing 2 different aircraft in terms of spatial dimension.

The scenario never officially confirmed but widely speculated. People in industries aware that such information are deliberately kept confidential, as it could be potentially scandalous, when aircraft purchases are never 100% based on economics, but also factoring geopolitical influences.

I am with Zeke on this. There is no reliable measure of the Seats. Somebody just above introduces another complication to the number of seats - i.e. the number of premium versus economy seats. Even if you were to resolve that, somebody else will introduce yield into the discussion.

In the example above, SQ, after ordering the 787-10 and getting them in service, went on to remove a few of the type from its orderbook, convert the order to the 9 variant and hand them down to their wholly owned subsidiary Scoot. All of these are noise, data points which one cannot use as a proxy for CASM.

What I prefer to look at is the fuel burn for a particular sector based on data-sets such as Take Off weight, landing weight, Reserves etc. One could estimate the payload and come to some sort of conclusion. An all-sweeping statement that Plane A has a CASM of x% better than Plane B is inherently wrong.


It is much more complicated than that: SQ ordered the 787-9 stating that the A350Mk1 was not good enogh. Then worked with Airbus to define the A350-XWB, made the launch order on that, and then ordered a boatload more. The 787 order went to Scoot, originally to be 787-9 only and later to be split in 10 787-8 and 10 787-9. These numbers were further adjusted later. Then the 787-10 was ordered. SQ converted some A350 to XLR, then reduced their order when other airlines were offering cash for early slots but then ordered these dropped orders back again later. If the A350-regional would not do what they needed they would have converted them to XLR and not reordered the aircraft which they dropped earlier, but they kept the regionals and topped up the order back to the original.. Some SQ 787-10s were converted back to Scoot 787-8/9 because that probably made more sense for the group as a whole (and the Scoot CASM on the 787-9 is way better than the SQ CASM on the 787-10 as scoot has 375 seats on 787-9 and SQ has 337 seats on the 787-10 . Somewhere in between 20 777-9s were ordered too but no A350-1000. And the combined group final WB fleet is back to 50% Airbus, 50% Boeing. And btw SQ is consistently profitable so they know what they do.
727 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739/ER 742 743 744/M 752 753 762 772 77E 773 77W 788 A300 A310 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A345 A346 A359 A35K A388 DC-9 DC-10 MD11 MD81 MD82 MD87 F70 ERJ145 E170 E175 E190 E195 ATR72 Q400 CRJ200 CRJ700 CRJ900 BAE146 RJ85
 
majano
Posts: 272
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:49 am

kitplane01 wrote:
majano wrote:
SQ32 wrote:
Industrial experts are able to arrive a ball park figure, especially airlines planners, having proxy to confidential data points provided by AB. Reason why SQ chosen chosen 787-10 despite having ordered A359R, both playing the same regional role.

Planners are convinced that 787-10 have better economics over A359 derated, on regional mission.

This is comparing 2 different aircraft in terms of spatial dimension.

The scenario never officially confirmed but widely speculated. People in industries aware that such information are deliberately kept confidential, as it could be potentially scandalous, when aircraft purchases are never 100% based on economics, but also factoring geopolitical influences.

I am with Zeke on this. There is no reliable measure of the Seats. Somebody just above introduces another complication to the number of seats - i.e. the number of premium versus economy seats. Even if you were to resolve that, somebody else will introduce yield into the discussion.

In the example above, SQ, after ordering the 787-10 and getting them in service, went on to remove a few of the type from its orderbook, convert the order to the 9 variant and hand them down to their wholly owned subsidiary Scoot. All of these are noise, data points which one cannot use as a proxy for CASM.

What I prefer to look at is the fuel burn for a particular sector based on data-sets such as Take Off weight, landing weight, Reserves etc. One could estimate the payload and come to some sort of conclusion. An all-sweeping statement that Plane A has a CASM of x% better than Plane B is inherently wrong.


Of course it's complicated by route length, seat density, and freight load. Everyone agrees with that. And yet the EPA is able to produce a mpg rating for cars, and they have some meaning.

But if you have the data you describe, I'm totally interested.

At the moment there is no data for the Triple 7X. It is still undergoing testing which commenced recently. Some Tech-Ops threads have some data on the A350-1000.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2956
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Tue Feb 18, 2020 7:05 am

Bjorn Fehrme at Leeham posted analysis a few years ago behind the Leeham paywall. 777-9 was more efficient than A35K on both fuel and direct operating cost. He used a standard seating layout to make it an apples-apples comparison.

IIRC the fuel difference was such that it would disappear absent the GE9X's SFC edge over the TXWB - 4% or so per seat. The overall economic (DOC) edge would still have resided with the 777-9 per seat, however, due to economies of scale on flight crew, en route fees, acquisition cost, and engine mx.
 
User avatar
SQ32
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:18 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Tue Feb 18, 2020 8:24 am

Unfortunately many in Airliners are fools pretend to be expert. I read Leeham news on this, before positing the concept of cabin normalization -- techniques Leeham is using.

I get abuses by respected members here.

Get a life.

Matt6461 wrote:
Bjorn Fehrme at Leeham posted analysis a few years ago behind the Leeham paywall. 777-9 was more efficient than A35K on both fuel and direct operating cost. He used a standard seating layout to make it an apples-apples comparison.

IIRC the fuel difference was such that it would disappear absent the GE9X's SFC edge over the TXWB - 4% or so per seat. The overall economic (DOC) edge would still have resided with the 777-9 per seat, however, due to economies of scale on flight crew, en route fees, acquisition cost, and engine mx.
 
VV
Posts: 1702
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Tue Feb 18, 2020 9:05 am

Matt6461 wrote:
Bjorn Fehrme at Leeham posted analysis a few years ago behind the Leeham paywall. 777-9 was more efficient than A35K on both fuel and direct operating cost. He used a standard seating layout to make it an apples-apples comparison.

IIRC the fuel difference was such that it would disappear absent the GE9X's SFC edge over the TXWB - 4% or so per seat. The overall economic (DOC) edge would still have resided with the 777-9 per seat, however, due to economies of scale on flight crew, en route fees, acquisition cost, and engine mx.


When expressed on per seat basis the two aircraft seems to be in the same ballpark.

Obviously the 777-9 costs more on per trip basis.

Like many people back then who defended the A380, the 777-9 most interesting feature is it's capacity.

If you don't need the capacity then A350-1000 is more interesting.

If you need the capacity or/and cargo then perhaps you need to think a little bit differently.
 
Opus99
Posts: 834
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Tue Feb 18, 2020 9:39 am

I believe it’s hard to compare these aircrafts because so many factors go into fleet decision making as Zeke has pointed out. It takes many months for airliners to decide between two particular aircraft. But from what I’ve noticed the 777x doesn’t necessarily have to cancel out the A35K (except for ULR reasons) Cathay, BA & Qatar all operate the A35K. And in a lot of ways it’s also return on investment that determines which aircraft to pick. The 747 has done tremendously well for BA over the past 30 years especially because of its size and reliability and they were simply looking for an aircraft to Replicate that and the 777x was the perfect fit but in terms of fuel burn? The A35K actually burns 38% less fuel but Boeing expects the 777x to burn 33% less than the 747. I mean it’s still an estimation which they could very well beat but it’s never really down to fuel burn or CASK.
 
AIRT0M
Posts: 103
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 8:54 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Tue Feb 18, 2020 10:43 am

NonTechAvLover wrote:
StTim wrote:
This was effectively the A380 problem. Fill them and they have great economics (and passengers love them) but not enough airline routes seem to support that capacity. At lower load factors they A380's were eaten by the 777 and later 787. It all depends on what loads the airlines expect to be able to realise on their route network.


Being one of those passengers who loves the A380, I never understood this. Even on Lufthansa, one of the two Fra-JFK flights switches (I think seasonally) from A380 to a 747. I am not bothered in that particular instance as I love the 747 as well, but I cannot believe Fra-JFK would not have enough numbers to fill a 380 on one of its two flights (three NY-Fra flights if you include the Fra-Newark flight). These are two very busy airports and you would think they should be able to fill 10 380s per day. Is TATL traffic less than one tends to think maybe?


You forgot SQ's A380 from FRA to JFK and UA's EWR flights.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Tue Feb 18, 2020 3:49 pm

trex8 wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
Does anyone have any data on relative costs, fuel burn, etc between the two planes? On a per seat basis, on a per trip basis, any data at all would be great.

I wasn't really asking for a debate on CASM. And if you hate CASM, offering any data in any format beyond "all comparisons of any type are impossible" would be great. Per trip could be fine.

I understand the 777X weighs more, but has more efficient engines. Is this true, and if so by how much?

The 777X has only just started test flying, there will be no real data available for many months.

There have been various discussions in the tech section re A35K fuel burn, here's one

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1436299

GE9X is supposed to have 5% less fuel burn than "other twins" and 10% less than the 77W
https://www.geaviation.com/commercial/e ... aft-engine


metric must be tsfc?
or is this another fib like the 20% better than current generation twins ( narrowed down to 767 later on.) offered for the 787?

The tsfc delta between GE90-115 and TXWB97 is just 5% ?
Murphy is an optimist
 
StTim
Posts: 3693
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Tue Feb 18, 2020 3:56 pm

To be honest I would be surprised if it is that much.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3511
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: 777X vs A350 CASM

Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:23 pm

What I don't get is if the 779X has a spec pax load of 426 pax @ 7285nm then its MZFW range must be somewhere in the order of 5knm whereas the A350-1000 seems up at 6knm? What am I missing?

Fred
Image

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos