Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Quoting ndhair37 (Reply 200): An order for 100 aircraft after Emirates nigh-on humiliated Airbus with the A350 order cancellation and Boeing won't undertake to "Heat-ernise" the 787-10 family? |
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 197): You left out the most important piece of information: according to Hazy, the difference between the 78X and A359 in terms of fuel burn is only 1-2%. Not that much to discuss about. |
Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 203): when the 7810 engine tech catches up to the 359 (and is should soon |
Quoting Ab345 (Reply 201): While business class passengers praised the comfort, the economy passengers complained. Emirates know full well what a rumor of a comfortable aircraft can do for their load-factors. Their Airbus A380 passengers vote with their money. |
Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 203): This is true, however, when the 7810 engine tech catches up to the 359 (and is should soon, Trent TEN and GE PIP4 are coming), the difference will be from 2-4% which is more significant. |
Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 203): This is true, however, when the 7810 engine tech catches up to the 359 (and is should soon, Trent TEN and GE PIP4 are coming), the difference will be from 2-4% which is more significant. Those engines should be in place by the time the 7810 is delivered, so a bigger difference can be expected. |
Quoting astuteman (Reply 206): I'm not sure I understand why the GEnx and T1000 are improvable, but the TXWB isn't ...... |
Quoting scbriml (Reply 207): Aside from tortugamon's reply, that only holds true if there are no improvements to the TXWB or A350. Which is very unlikely. |
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 204): I doubt the Trent engine tech will ever match the XWB engine tech. Sure the TEN is a big step up but that improvement is based on the XWB improvments being implemented - in my opinion it will always be 1-2 percent behind. With the lighter weight it doesn't need to match it to have an advantage overall though. |
Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 208): So with continuous improvement over time, an offset will remain over the two architectures, but I am guessing it will not be big as the one that is there is now. |
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 190): Interestingly this article also says that the engine is spec'd at 70-72,000lbs yet we know there is a 77,800lbs RR Trent 1000 engine already certified let alone the yet to be certified Trent TEN. |
Quoting astuteman (Reply 193): A 787-10 burning about the same fuel as an A350-900 will unquestionably have better fuel burn per seat by dint of it's 3 extra rows. |
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 197): You left out the most important piece of information: according to Hazy, the difference between the 78X and A359 in terms of fuel burn is only 1-2%. Not that much to discuss about. |
Quoting rbavfan (Reply 183): LLC has already released notice of 10x in an A350 |
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 204): The Leeham article is suggesting that the lavatories on the A359 were redesigned allowing for more seats in the A359 nearly matching the 78X seating which has a harder time applying the same lavatory changes. I think there is a lot of merit to this being the reason EK has delayed its decision to see if there really is a seating advantage on the 78X. Interesting development. |