Lightsaber those numbers are just wrong and you referring to them repeatedly makes no sense. Zeke has a table up on the ge engine certification thread which literally lays out the performance figures as they are. The real world data is consistently 20% or better for the a35k vs 77w. The aircraft in fact performs better than promised. That article you quote is just unfounded data to be honest. Real world data-a35k on a 15hr 45min flight with 42t payload the fuel burn is 6.9/hr. The 77w for a similar profile is 8.6-7t per hour.
We're going to have to agree to disagree. I very much respect Zeke's contributions, but everyone has a bias and if Zeke's numbers were correct, RR wouldn't be facing bankruptcy and 787 sales wouldn't be where they are. Oh, the A350 has a huge advantage at lower payloads, the link you don't like is at maxed out payload only, which does benefit the 77W comparison. I look at real world, if the A350 advantage was that much, sales would have accelerated more despite the backlog.
if 789 is 127t
and A359 is 135t
that makes the 787-10 133t (6t heavier than 789) which is unsellable as the far better engines add about 2.5t. I've gone through that analysis and the GE powered aircraft wouldn't be selling what so ever if the data was accurate. Since GE was doing really well, in fact RR was getting into trouble pre-Covid19, I will have to agree to disagree.
I gave a summary on the 787 in real world performance doing better than that analysis. I could do the 77W too, e.g. EK DXB to LAX where we've discussed cargo and the 27 blocked seats that are unblocked weather permitting.
So that begs the question, if the A350 is that good, where is the backlog, why only 5% better than the 787 whose sales were constrained by options? If inaccurate and RR beats on takeoff and climb (where the triple spool will defeat all other architectures) and matches cruise, why would ANZ defect.
You are allowed to disagree and I learn off that. I took the time to go through the link's issues/assumptions. We must agree to disagree.
For the record, the Txwb is an amazing engine that makes the A350. I do not believe any other engine vendor could have done a better engine at that time.
I also believe the 779 will end A35K sales. There are 168 A35K sales vs. 309 777x (which will drop, I'm a realist). But that means more competition for RR.
IMHO, if GE does a significant GEnX PiP, I believe they will lock RR off the 787 (all models), that hurts RR. That also really hurts T7000 and Txwb sales.
Is the A359 good? Yes, there is a reason its backlog exceeds the 789.
Is the A35K good, yes, with caviats. Everything I've read outside of a.net is it barely has a lower cost per passenger than the A359. The backlog reflects that
Undelivered (yea lagging, so off by a trivial number)
788: 48 (best frame for RR)
787-10: 145 (Airlines defecting in mass to GE)
I excluded the A330NEO as between the disproportionate Leasing orders and AirAsiaX downsizing to 21 widebodies, I'm not sure of the real backlog.
Assertions of performance have to match real world data. I an assertion states the 77W burns so much fuel it couldn't do DXB-LAX, I know there is an issue. If an assertion says UA could not fly the 787-10 SFO-PEK with the payloads we've seen, I ignore it. The same with PER-LHR (that we can estimate closely due to impacts of closed Iranian airspace requiring a fuel stop and prior known payloads).
And tes, I look at Singapore's payloads on SIN-LAX to adjust my A350 models.
I have reasons to be confident in my assumptions.
I see a market where RR continues to sell on the A359, the A35K becomes a niche aircraft, where GE needs to PiP the GEnX to keep selling, and the 779 has a good market, but much smaller than the 77W.
I see no widebody dominating the market.
Feel free to disagree, but if I plug in that links numbers for a QF PER-LHR flight, I miss unless I lighten the 787 just a little, about 1.5 tons So that is dang good! Same with UA SFO-PEK. But no more as we know how quickly these routes become payload restricted.
If I take the 280t MTOW SQ SIN-LAX, I need to take iff more weight. About 3.5 tons, but otherwise the link works to match in service data.
So overall, that link is the best I've found, I just will subtract 2 more tons from the A350.
This just doesn't bode well for RR az the 779 will compete. Some airlines, if my performance assumptions are accurate, who currently opperate the 77W will buy the type and even the 778 for hit high (e.g., Ethiopian cannot buy the A35K). I even expect Qantas to revisit project Sunrise, but that needs to be its own thread (LOI was not confirmed timely and GE9x data is so far indicating that GE will once again slightly beat promise as they did on their last 4 engines).
My assertions do not have either the 787 or 777x taking over the market. They do reduce future RR engine sales, almost exclusively the A35K has except for a few more 787-10 GEnX sales to all 787 opperators. I see nothing out of trend with the last 3 to 5 years of engine sales for RR.
I do acknowledge the 777x has not one Leasing company order. Then again, I only see 12 A35K leasing company orders and I do not believe those were speculative. Only one of those two airframes, in my opinion, will win and we will know when the speculative leasing company orders roll in. That will determine if RR or GE wins due to the exclusive engines.
For RR's sake, I hope you are right on the A350 and I am wrong. But with that, please explain the ANA and ANZ 787-10 orders with GEnX engines. Seriously, if the A350/787 was as bad as the thread you linked to, I cannot explain either airline not going A359.
I cannot wait to get vaccinated to live again! Warning: I simulated that it takes 50%+ vaccinated to protect the vaccinated and 75%+ vaccinated to protect the vac-hesitant.