Quoting Zvezda (Reply 91): If Boeing were to do all that the result would cost more than and be inferior to a B787-11X.

Do we have any "guestimates" on things like dimensions, performance (range), floorspace, and capacity for a 787-11? I don't believe the A350-1000 will have as much floor space as the 777-300ER, but she'll win on being much more efficient then the 773ER at the same passenger load, even if it's not quite as high. I am guessing the same will apply for the 787-11 (won't carry quite as many folks as the A35G, but at the same load, will be more efficient), but I'd be interested to know how all three planes slot into each other in terms of capacity and range.

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 92): Perhaps, or Boeing wasn't motivated to provide a costly "loss leader"/sweetener because the 787 program was already firmly established. It's possible Boeing learned from its earlier experience unloading SQ's A343s that chasing future orders with costly "loss leaders"/sweeteners isn't necessarily a profitable enterprise in the long run. Who knows, the only thing for certain is that the boys from Changi will drive a hard bargain with each and every deal.

Yes they will, but by absorbing whatever costs it took to get SQ to choose the 777 over the A340 (did Boeing take all 17?), Boeing went on to land 77 orders for the 777 family, and I am sure every one of them was sold at a profit, even after the costs of reselling the A343 fleet was calculated in.

Right now, SQ has identical MoUs for both the 787 and A350 families. SQ might very well buy both models, or they may cancel one of the MoUs. If SQ does end up cancelling the 787 MoU and stops ordering 777s and moves forward solely with A350s (and assuming they're all profitable sales), you can be sure that not offering "loss leaders"/sweeteners was not a profitable enterprise in the long run...  

Quoting EbbUK (Reply 99): It may be less than ideal but if it means minimising running costs then these operators will be at the negotiating table with one thing at the top of their agenda, take these planes off us and we will buy your new jets.

While I am going to be seen immediately contradicting myself to my reply above to Leelaw, the deal needs to be financially sensible for the manufacturer. Using AF and the 773ER as an example, AF is going to say "make us a deal that includes taking 19 773ERs all less then a decade old that we're still paying for, plus make the new deal no worse then what we're paying now for those 19 frames".

I just don't see Airbus being able to do so without them bleeding red ink by the barrel. It would be like financing a 2006 vehicle with no money down and then going back to the dealership 12 months later and wanting a 2007 model with no money down at the same monthly payment. You're still "upside down" on the 2006, so when you factor in those monies into the 2007, the only way the payment is going to be the same is if the dealer discounts the 2007 to well below his cost. And as I have stated many times, I don't believe Airbus does deliberately negative deals just to win orders.

I find it much more likely that if AF feels the A350 family - including the A35G - is the better option for them then the 787 family, they will indeed "stagger" replacements, buying A358s and A359s to replace their oldest 772s and A343s and then, sometime in the very late 2010s to early 2020s, start to replace their 773ERs with A35Gs.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 100): Do we have any "guestimates" on things like dimensions, performance (range), floorspace, and capacity for a 787-11?

If Boeing ever build a B787-11X (big IF), it's a good guess that she'll be 20 feet (6 meters) longer than the B787-10, which is expected to be 20 feet longer than the B787-9, which is 20 feet longer than the B787-3/8. If so, cabin floor area would be 324.6 sq meters. This compares with 314.2 for the A340-600 and 330.4 for the B777-300ER. Range will depend on MTOW which is unpredictable, other than to say it's unlikely to be greater than about 640,000 lbs because that's about the limit for the wing.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 100): I don't believe the A350-1000 will have as much floor space as the 777-300ER, but she'll win on being much more efficient then the 773ER at the same passenger load, even if it's not quite as high.

Correct.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 100): I am guessing the same will apply for the 787-11 (won't carry quite as many folks as the A35G, but at the same load, will be more efficient), but I'd be interested to know how all three planes slot into each other in terms of capacity and range.

Not clear. A B787-11X might or might not have better payload/range performance than the A350-1000.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 89): That's fanciful. I don't see any reasonable way any B777 could compete with any A350. A B787-11X would cost less and be more competitive than a major B777 redesign.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 91): If Boeing were to do all that the result would cost more than and be inferior to a B787-11X.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 94): Call it roughly $3B. Given that Boeing will need to develop uprated landing gear for a B787-9ER, B787-10ER, and B787F anyway, a B787-11X would probably cost less than $1B to develop. It would also be much lighter than a B777.

with due respect, we don't know the costs associated with developing a B787-11X....and this point in time, we dont' know if the B787-11X is possible with the current 787 platform...not to mention, a lot of efficiency of the 787 is due to the engines...and right now, GE is balking at building a higher thrust version for the A350-100 so who's to say it might build something for the 787-11X, and that would once again, lead it to a one-engine choice.....carriers such as AF might not go for it.....

-Baron95 hit the nail on the head....though it might be less efficient, the ROI with improving the 777-300ER might be better than that of building the 787-11X....only time will tell however

-also, I've read a few places where Boeing management have stated they will make the 777-300ER much more competitive to the A350-1000 (by EIS time) than what it is right now...


-finally, the move to crowding seats per row is increasing...EK is already doing 10-abreast on its 777's......the A350-1000 cannot do 10-abreast...

I actually prefer EK's narrower seats but more seat pitch...........

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 101): If Boeing ever build a B787-11X (big IF), it's a good guess that she'll be...

Great. Thanks much!

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 101): Not clear. A B787-11X might or might not have better payload/range performance than the A350-1000.

Aye. So a 787-11X should be able to pretty much match the 773ER in "standard Boeing" configuration (at the same six/seven/nine abreast) which should put her above the A350-1000. So range will most likely be determined on how much fuel volume they can get into her and how the weight of that fuel affects MTOW, correct?

Just for the heck of it, I looked at Widebodyphotog's charts on the hypothetical "787-10ER". It would have ~38,500 gallons of fuel vs. ~47,000 gallons on the 773ER but he notes with that fuel, the "787-10ER" could do 8500nm. At 600,000lbs MTOW she'd be within the wing's limits, but would need additional undercarriage changes as that's 60,000lbs (?) over the current design limit (plus the added length would necessitate modification even if weight wasn't a factor, I would imagine). And he notes you'd need engines in the 88,000lb thrust range to get her into the air.

So it looks like an 8000nm 787-11 should be possible with some improvements in engine thrust and undercarriage configuration. Not quite as good as the A350-1000's claimed 8500nm, but even if the A35G can hit that mark, 8000nm strikes me as being "good enough" plus you'll be carrying more payload.  

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 102): we don't know the costs associated with developing a B787-11X....and this point in time, we dont' know if the B787-11X is possible with the current 787 platform.

Of course a B787-11X is possible. That doesn't necessarily mean it will happen. The two major problems are landing gear and thrust.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 102): a lot of efficiency of the 787 is due to the engines...and right now, GE is balking at building a higher thrust version for the A350-100 so who's to say it might build something for the 787-11X, and that would once again, lead it to a one-engine choice.....carriers such as AF might not go for it.....

Whatever engines are developed for the A350-1000 would have enough thrust for a B787-11X.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 102): though it might be less efficient, the ROI with improving the 777-300ER might be better than that of building the 787-11X.

Maybe a derivative of the Model T Ford could be made to outperform a Toyota Prius on the racetrack and get better gas mileage while doing so. Maybe, but I doubt it. I do know the development cost would be greater than just buying the Prius.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 102): I've read a few places where Boeing management have stated they will make the 777-300ER much more competitive to the A350-1000 (by EIS time) than what it is right now...

Of course the B777 will improve. Will it improve enough to be competitive with the A350? Not for a justifiable development cost, in my opinion.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 102): the move to crowding seats per row is increasing...EK is already doing 10-abreast on its 777's......the A350-1000 cannot do 10-abreast...

Obviously, going to 10 abreast seating with the B777 and keeping the current pitch would improve CASM by about 10%. That combined with some of the easier possible improvements would bring a 10 abreast B777 to about competitive with the 9 abreast A350 in CASM, however, it is possible to go 10 abreast with an A350 in a charter configuration.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 103): So a 787-11X should be able to pretty much match the 773ER in "standard Boeing" configuration (at the same six/seven/nine abreast) which should put her above the A350-1000.

More or less.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 103): So range will most likely be determined on how much fuel volume they can get into her and how the weight of that fuel affects MTOW, correct?

Correct.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 103): I looked at Widebodyphotog's charts on the hypothetical "787-10ER". It would have ~38,500 gallons of fuel vs. ~47,000 gallons on the 773ER but he notes with that fuel, the "787-10ER" could do 8500nm. At 600,000lbs MTOW she'd be within the wing's limits, but would need additional undercarriage changes as that's 60,000lbs (?) over the current design limit (plus the added length would necessitate modification even if weight wasn't a factor, I would imagine).

The limit of the current undercarriage is about 560,000 lbs, so that would be 40,000 lbs over, not 60,000 lbs. Either way, the B787 needs a new two-wheel center bogey to get anywhere near 600,000 lbs.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 103): And he notes you'd need engines in the 88,000lb thrust range to get her into the air.

As above, any engines with enough thrust for the A350-1000 will have enough thrust for a B787-11X.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 103): So it looks like an 8000nm 787-11 should be possible with some improvements in engine thrust and undercarriage configuration. Not quite as good as the A350-1000's claimed 8500nm, but even if the A35G can hit that mark, 8000nm strikes me as being "good enough" plus you'll be carrying more payload.

That's at a 600,000 lbs MTOW. Consider a B787-11X with 640,000 lbs MTOW. 8500nm range would be easy with a commercially viable payload. CASM would be much lower than for a B777-300ER for the simple reason that carrying the same payload the same distance involves carrying about 80,000 lbs less structure and 55,000 lbs less fuel.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 104): Whatever engines are developed for the A350-1000 would have enough thrust for a B787-11X.

as I stated previously regarding AF....GE is balking right now......

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 104): Maybe a derivative of the Model T Ford could be made to outperform a Toyota Prius on the racetrack and get better gas mileage while doing so. Maybe, but I doubt it. I do know the development cost would be greater than just buying the Prius.

urealistic comparison......as you know there is no comparison between the Model T Ford and Toyata Prius...the residual value of the Model T Ford blows the Toyota Prius out of the water.... 

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 104): Of course the B777 will improve. Will it improve enough to be competitive with the A350? Not for a justifiable development cost, in my opinion.

That's where we differ....only time will tell.. 

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 104): Obviously, going to 10 abreast seating with the B777 and keeping the current pitch would improve CASM by about 10%. That combined with some of the easier possible improvements would bring a 10 abreast B777 to about competitive with the 9 abreast A350 in CASM, however, it is possible to go 10 abreast with an A350 in a charter configuration.

key word:charter......EK is a top-notch world-class carrier..and they might be an industry leader in 10-abreast...

10% here, 5% there, a few %ages (cargo, etc) and the CASM for the 777-300ER gets very close to that of the A350-1000..and with the platform being paid off a few times over....discounts on the 777-300ER might be very good...

regards

Quoting 2wingtips (Thread starter): Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?

Neither aircraft has even flown so hard to compare anything.

Airbus, GE, RR and other OEM´s will have some time to evaluate operational feed-back from the Boeing 787 and take some lessons learned / put them in the A350.

Quite simply it's way to early to speculate. We don't even know the A350's OEW. Based on the only stats i'e seen though the A359 and 789 appear to be a lot similarly sized than a most of people think. There's a meter in the fuselage length and many 787s operators are choosing 9 abreast anyway. It's impossible to confirm without the cabin length, but i get the impression the 789 and the A359 are competing more closely than the A358 and 789. The A358's length still remains a mystery.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 106): Neither aircraft has even flown so hard to compare anything.

This line is getting really old. How do you explain airlines purchasing roughly 500 copies of these 2 families when "so little is known because they haven't flown yet". Certainly the decision makers have the data!!

UAL747-600

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 104): As above, any engines with enough thrust for the A350-1000 will have enough thrust for a B787-11X.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 105): GE is balking right now......

I wonder if GE is balking at it because the GEnx design might not be able to scale to ~90,000+ lbs of thrust without significant re-work? I believe LightSaber [sic] noted that the triple-spool design of the RR Trent 1000 series would make higher thrust levels more easily achievable. I have heard RR will probably need to increase the core size of the Trent XWB beyond the 1000 to meet the required thrust levels. Does that mean the fan diameter will have to be larger? And if so, I wonder if the XWB will fit on a 787-10/787-11 without the undercarriage being raised...

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 104): That's at a 600,000 lbs MTOW. Consider a B787-11X with 640,000 lbs MTOW. 8500nm range would be easy with a commercially viable payload. CASM would be much lower than for a B777-300ER for the simple reason that carrying the same payload the same distance involves carrying about 80,000 lbs less structure and 55,000 lbs less fuel.

Got it. Thanks!

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 102): -finally, the move to crowding seats per row is increasing...EK is already doing 10-abreast on its 777's......the A350-1000 cannot do 10-abreast...

As I remarked above flying the 773ER in 10 abreast config. involves a range trade-off...

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 89): Quoting Thebry (Reply 87):When did Boeing ship the B777-900ER. How'd I miss that? With the 300ER being 242ft long, this one has to be over 300ft! That's an American Football field! That was a typo! Sorry! I meant B737-900ER. Mea culpa

Just a little good-natured ribbing. These comparative discussions can sometimes get pretty heated. I do enjoy your informative and unbiased posts and have learned a great deal about civil aviation from you Zvezda.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 107): Based on the only stats i'e seen though the A359 and 789 appear to be a lot similarly sized than a most of people think. There's a meter in the fuselage length and many 787s operators are choosing 9 abreast anyway. It's impossible to confirm without the cabin length, but i get the impression the 789 and the A359 are competing more closely than the A358 and 789. The A358's length still remains a mystery.

Frankly, the length of an airplane doesn't determine which airplane it competes against. The market that it targets does. The A350XWB's actual length is still up in the air. The initial numbers published by Airbus only show a 1m difference between the A359XWB and 787-9, but the passenger capacities are quite different. Maybe the extra fuselage width allows A to fit an extra seat across in business and/or first? The 787-9 is designed to be a 250-290 pax airplane and the A358XWB is a 270 pax airplane. The 787-10 will probably cover the 290-330 pax range and the A359XWB also fits in the middle of that at 314 pax. Even with 9Y the 787-8 only holds 237 (per the airport compatability brochure) in a "typical" 3 class arrangement, this makes it a size smaller than the 270 pax A358XWB.

Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 49): Airbus marketing. The 350XWB was promoted at Farnborough as being a step above the 787 and a leap above the 777. This slogan has been very commonly used by Leahy and his henchmen. From what I have seen I would still believe the 787 doesn't look technically inferior in comparison, but the 777 is definitely compromised. Airbus have the big problem of gaining enough of the 777 market before Y3 EIS, which is estimated in the 2016-18 timeframe. Cycle times may prove to be the biggest handicap for the 350XWB, particularly the -1000. Y3 is the Boeing planned 777/747 replacement. You can bank on the fact it will be a leap above the A350.

So let me get this straight. In your opinion, Airbus is a blatant purveyor of marketing bulls**t when it states the A350XWB will be a step above the 787 but you feel qualified to assure us that the Y3 will be a leap above the A350?

Yeah right then. Whatever you think.

Quoting 787engineer (Reply 112): Frankly, the length of an airplane doesn't determine which airplane it competes against.

Especially if they aren't giving cabin length. I'm guessing that engine thrust will be the best indicators of what this aircraft will be economically competitive with.

Anyway, either Airbus is trying to address the 200-300 pax market, or they are trying to address the 250-350 pax market. In either case they are leaving one end of 200-350 pax market covered by 4 Boeing models unaddressed. It frankly makes more sense for them to target the 773ER because they have no competitive aircraft model for that market.

Quoting 787engineer (Reply 112): Frankly, the length of an airplane doesn't determine which airplane it competes against. The market that it targets does. The A350XWB's actual length is still up in the air. The initial numbers published by Airbus only show a 1m difference between the A359XWB and 787-9, but the passenger capacities are quite different. Maybe the extra fuselage width allows A to fit an extra seat across in business and/or first? The 787-9 is designed to be a 250-290 pax airplane and the A358XWB is a 270 pax airplane. The 787-10 will probably cover the 290-330 pax range and the A359XWB also fits in the middle of that at 314 pax. Even with 9Y the 787-8 only holds 237 (per the airport compatability brochure) in a "typical" 3 class arrangement, this makes it a size smaller than the 270 pax A358XWB.

We all know better than to trust manufacturer's seating figures. For example Airbus claims 380 in the A346 and Boeing 365 in the 773ER. IB reckoned they could get about 20 (from memory) more seats in the 773ER (in 2 class). The fact is that the A350 is only marginally wider than the 787, both aircraft are in the 8-9 abreast seating capacity in Y. I suspect the two figures for the seating come by Airbus assuming 9 and Boeing assuming 8 across. In reality, both will be predominantly 9 in Y 6 in J, and the cabin length will dictate capacity. F will largely be dependant on the airline's seats and may not feature on the A350/787 in many airline.

Also note i'm not saying the -8s compete. More-so, both -9s. We don't know the lengths of the A358 yet. And also note this could all be bogus if they have drastically different cabin length compared to their overall lengths. Which support my claim that we know way too little to judge at the minute. Maybe Airbus have targetted the A358 at the 9 but i hope they don't kid themselves over capacity.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 100): Right now, SQ has identical MoUs for both the 787 and A350 families.

Actually, there is a slight difference in the letters of intent (SQ likes to use this term of art) issued by SQ earlier this summer regarding the 789 and A359X: 20 options for the A359, 20 purchase rights for the 787.

http://www.singaporeair.com/saa/en_U...any_info/press_release/NE_3406.jsp

Quoting Stitch (Reply 100): SQ might very well buy both models, or they may cancel one of the MoUs. If SQ does end up cancelling the 787 MoU and stops ordering 777s and moves forward solely with A350s (and assuming they're all profitable sales), you can be sure that not offering "loss leaders"/sweeteners was not a profitable enterprise in the long run...

How would you characterize the result if I change your hypo to SQ dumping the A350 in favor of the 787 since you acknowledge this scenario is possible as well?

I do not recall who posted these original speculative numbers on the A350XWB family, but I did copy them for reference:

• The A350X-800 is a 270-seat 8500Nm aircraft of c. 540 000lb MTOW (75 000lb thrust engines)
  
• The A350X-900 is a 314-seat 8500Nm aircraft of c. 625 000 lb MTOW (87 000lb thrust engines)
  
• The A350X-1000 is a 350-seat 8500Nm aircraft of c 690 000 lb MTOW (95 000 lb thrust engines).
  

I read the first twenty posts and am laughing at the idiots that argue for one against the other.
I work on the retial side of the industry where we are interested in CASM and RASM. Until the A3xyz is in the air then the comparison is useless.

I really thing that Holland will win the world cup in Football in eighty years because there training methods are far superior on paper. Afterall the Germans just won't be ready in 80 years!
Do you get the point, stop this silly argument.

Americans are for Boeing
Europeans are for Airbus
Brazillians are for Embraer
Canadians are for Canadair
Germans are for bying any of these and then mismanaging the company until bankruptcy ---Fokker, DASA, fairchild, etc. etc.

So lets stop this stupid rooting!!!

Quoting BillReid (Reply 118): I work on the retial side of the industry where we are interested in CASM and RASM. Until the A3xyz is in the air then the comparison is useless.

Some of us here are able to draw reasonable conclusions about relative CASM from specifications such as OEW, SFC, etc.

Quoting Wah64d (Reply 113): So let me get this straight. In your opinion, Airbus is a blatant purveyor of marketing bulls**t when it states the A350XWB will be a step above the 787 but you feel qualified to assure us that the Y3 will be a leap above the A350? Yeah right then. Whatever you think.

Without your paranoid emotion, here is what I think:

The 350XWB will struggle to be a technological step ahead of the 787. It is clear this is a rushed program so that Airbus doesn't cede the entire 250-350 seat business to Boeing. The history of this is clear and only 2 years ago Leahy was content that a re-engined 330 would effectively compete with the 787. Since then they have had to re-evaluate. The initial A350 wasn't good enough. The 340 market is dead. So, in a matter of months they came out with the 350XWB, to tackle the high-end 787 market and much of the 777/340 market. They were forced to do this by SQ(who now appear happy), ILFC(I'm not sure how they feel), EK(same as for ILFC) and others.
I would hope that Y3 would be a step ahead of the 350XWB, and I would fully expect it to be so. With technology advancing at a rapid rate and with Y3 probably not officiallly announced until around 2012-2014, Boeing would have to do very badly not to make Y3 superior to the 350XWB. That is chronological common-sense.
My big questions on the 350XWB, relate to it's "rushed to market" status and lack of vital public information on the program. Very easy to state that it's a leap ahead of the 777, but in the end the numbers have to justify that statement.
That being said, I still feel the 350XWB program is potentially a very successful one for Airbus.

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 116): How would you characterize the result if I change your hypo to SQ dumping the A350 in favor of the 787 since you acknowledge this scenario is possible as well?

A valid question.

If SQ does indeed choose the 787 solely, I am going to guess they would do so because the 787-9 better met their intra-Asian operations (as many have hypothesized to support the dual MoUs) and Boeing hit it out of the park with the 787-10, offering a solid replacement platform for the 772ER in terms of capacity and performance with significantly better efficiency. They probably would also have interest in the 787-11, possibly in an "A" variant, as well, to replace their 773As in addition to the "B" variant to eventually replace their 773ERs.

At that point, and as long as you served it with honey mustard, I'd be willing to have serving of either crow or humble pie, as appropriate. 

Quoting TP313 (Reply 110): As I remarked above flying the 773ER in 10 abreast config. involves a range trade-off...

sure....but the range is good enough for most of the carriers needing that kind of plane....

Quoting BillReid (Reply 118): Until the A3xyz is in the air then the comparison is useless.

You are right. No one is able to evaluate a plane before it flies. No one orders them. No one buys a house on spec-plans, no one pre-orders a new model car before it is on the road.

The airline industry, like any industry, has early adopters, fast followers and laggards. Early adopters take bigger risks on new technology/new products/new methods to reap bigger rewards - they'll buy mostly on spec backed up by clever contracts with performance guarantees.

TWA hit it out of the ball-park with the Connie, Panam with the 747, etc, etc. All bought on spec, sometimes on a back of the envelope design.

If you believe you can't intelligently comment on a new airplane design before EIS, you are in the wrong place. It is certainly your right to take that position, but don't try to impose it on others.

We live in an era of highly sophisticated design tools, computer simmulations, wind tunnel testing, etc. It would be unimaginable for any of these planes being discussed here to be more than 2-3% off from their target design parameters when they EIS. If you think that 2-3% uncertainty is too much to even contemplate discussion, please let the rest of us discuss it anyway.