Page 1 of 4

LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2015 10:15 pm
by YouGeeElWhy
Is this supposition true? It seems so, but I wonder why.

Also does anyone know the exact breakdown of LCC orders by each respective model.

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2015 10:51 pm
by Joost
Well, for either airplane, only few LCCs have ordered them.

787: Norwegian, Scoot, TUI (are they low-cost?)
350: Air Asia X

A prime reason for ordering the 787 here is likely availability. There was no A350 when DY started operations.

When looking at the airplane, LCC and Holiday operators often opt for the smaller variants of a type. The 788 isn't a big long-haul aircraft, but because of high-density seating they are still attractive. For Low Cost and Holiday operators, the 332 is also more popular than the 333.

Network carriers with a big premium class usually need more floor space and opt for larger aircraft. LCCs can fill a 788 or 332 with 300+ passengers and still have 12h range.

I do expect the 338 to pick up some future orders here. In Europe, DE with an aging fleet of 13 767-300s, is interesting to watch.

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2015 11:14 pm
by enilria
Quoting Joost (Reply 1):
350: Air Asia X

Air Asia X isn't doing too well. How do you lose money with fuel prices like this? Wouldn't feel super-confident about their future A350 fleet. That would make the 787 a clear winner.

http://atwonline.com/finance-data/airasia-x-posts-64-million-loss-3q

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2015 11:21 pm
by BoeingVista
The 787 smaller, more cramped and uncomfortable when compared to the A350, this is the LCC wheelhouse so yes they would probably prefer it.

By which I mean you can pack more people into a smaller space and keep your seat mile costs down  

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2015 11:24 pm
by jetblue1965
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 3):

The 787 smaller, more cramped and uncomfortable when compared to the A350, this is the LCC wheelhouse so yes they would probably prefer it.

The true ULCCs would do the absolutely unthinkable by stuffing 10-abreast on the 350s. That's a CASM killer right there.

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2015 11:24 pm
by YouGeeElWhy
Quoting Joost (Reply 1):
787: Norwegian, Scoot, TUI (are they low-cost?)

JQ too, right?

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2015 11:26 pm
by ytz
787 at 9 abreast is sellable for an LCC. A350 at 10 abreast is much less sellable for an LCC.

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2015 11:38 pm
by tortugamon
The A359 in ULCC format would be pushing 400 seats. That is a lot of seats to fill. The 788 and 789 are both smaller yet still have the ULH range and similar cargo capabilities while being the cheaper aircraft.

I expect LCCs to prefer the A330/A330neo over the A350.

tortugamon

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2015 11:44 pm
by 777Jet
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 3):
The 787 smaller, more cramped and uncomfortable when compared to the A350, this is the LCC wheelhouse so yes they would probably prefer it.

They go for the 787s because the are better planes for their bottom line.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 4):
The true ULCCs would do the absolutely unthinkable by stuffing 10-abreast on the 350s. That's a CASM killer right there.

  

If Air Asia X actually go ahead with the A350s then I wouldn't be surprised if they become the first 10 abreast A350 operator.

Quoting YouGeeElWhy (Reply 5):
Quoting Joost (Reply 1):
787: Norwegian, Scoot, TUI (are they low-cost?)

JQ too, right?

  

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 12:03 am
by boeing773er
The A350 is suitable for carriers who have more of a premium cabin rather then an all economy cabin. Also the 787 had an earlier introduction rather than the A350.

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 12:14 am
by gatibosgru
A330/A330NEO make so much more sense for a LCC than the A350.

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 12:19 am
by seabosdca
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 3):
The 787 smaller, more cramped and uncomfortable

Another way of putting this: the 787 is lighter for a given number of seats.

It also has a smaller-capacity version (the 787-8) than is available with the A350, which is the version at least a couple of LCCs are using. Also, at one time, it was available for a cheaper price -- although I'm not sure if that's true anymore.

The A350's most compelling advantages are for premium configurations and ULH, two things that LCCs just don't care about.

Quoting gatibosgru (Reply 10):
A330/A330NEO make so much more sense for a LCC than the A350.

This is especially true for those LCCs who are willing to go 9-across. For those operators, the A330NEO probably makes more sense than the 787, too.

[Edited 2015-12-14 16:20:32]

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 12:19 am
by IslandRob
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 3):
The 787 smaller, more cramped and uncomfortable when compared to the A350

Not if you configure the A350 in LCC (i.e., 10 across) mode. For this reason, I think the 787 will have an edge with LCCs. Regards. -ir

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 12:26 am
by Erebus
The A350 is a bit too big for LCCs . Think of its seating capacity as being the equivalent of a 777-200, of which not too many are used by LCCs.

The 787-8/9 are more like the A330 equivalents, which have also been quite popular among LCCs. I expect the A330neo to continue to be of more interest than the A350 to the LCCs over the next few years.

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 12:33 am
by gatibosgru
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 3):
The 787 smaller, more cramped and uncomfortable when compared to the A350, this is the LCC wheelhouse so yes they would probably prefer it.

I'm sure those 3-3-3 A330s & 3-4-3 777s aren't the most pleasant ride either, but this is the nature of their business, I highly doubt their goal is to make the most cramped and uncomfortable ride ever for you.

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 12:46 am
by ua900
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 7):
I expect LCCs to prefer the A330/A330neo over the A350.

   A330neo > B787 > A350

Saw a Norwegian 787 going from SJU to STX the other day. Beautiful plane, filled to the gills with EU tourists, sat right next to a couple Cape Air Cessna 402s.

I could see operators like that switch to the A330neo if it were available today.

Quoting Erebus (Reply 13):
I expect the A330neo to continue to be of more interest than the A350 to the LCCs over the next few years.

   The A350 is more like 777x territory while the A330neo more closely matches what a B787 brings to the table.

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 2:11 am
by tortugamon
Quoting ua900 (Reply 15):
A330neo > B787 > A350

I think that depends. The A339 is more expensive than the A330 and it isn't as good as the A333 on missions that are shorter than 2knm. It depends on the route structure and then it will depend on price of the aircraft and training/commonality. 787 Should have better fuel burn than all of the A330s. At eventually 14/month I imagine the costs for the 787 will drop as well. Availability and price are big advantages for the A330 (ceo and neo) but I am not sure how long that will last. Certainly for some the A330 makes more sense than the 787.

tortugamon

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 2:30 am
by Siren
The A350 is just too much airplane for the ULCC carriers. They don't need the range, payload capability, or passenger capacity. Ultimately it's just too heavy an airframe for their needs. It would be like DY operating a fleet of A340-600s instead of 787-8s. True, the 350 would get better fuel burn than the 346, but it doesn't make sense for the type of operation they're running. They just don't need the capability.

Furthermore, Airbus seems to have designed the cabin width so as to make accommodating a 10 abreast configuration unfeasible for most carriers. They might be able to certify it, but I doubt that anyone who travels in a 10 abreast A350 will ever fly that carrier again. I do wonder if that was intentional, on the part of Airbus? To make the width such that adding another would pose some very significant issues? See, Boeing on the other hand always has room for another Y seat. I just wonder if this is a conscious design decision, and/or what other factors influenced the fuselage width in the design stage?

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 2:43 am
by Ruscoe
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 11):
The A350's most compelling advantages are for premium configurations and ULH,
Quoting boeing773ER (Reply 9):
The A350 is suitable for carriers who have more of a premium cabin rather then an all economy cabin.

I often hear this from different sources so it is probably true, but I don't understand!! (so what's new)

The much vaunted extra inches of fuselage diameter in the 350 might make economy more comfortable, but it would not seem to be important anymore with 4 to 6 abreast.
Is there another reason?

Ruscoe

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 2:44 am
by RickNRoll
The 787 and A350 are different planes for different markets. The 787 is the 767 upgrade, the A350 is intended to cover the 777 sized markets. (with some overlap, of course).

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 2:49 am
by roseflyer
Quoting ua900 (Reply 15):

   A330neo > B787 > A350

I can see low cost airlines preferring the A330neo over the A350 due to its potential smaller size and lower acquisition costs. The A350 may be too big. I don't know why the A330neo is better than the 787. The only way that I see the A330neo being better is that Airbus is willing to sell it for a very low price. If an airline can get a 787 for a decent price, I think the airplane is more efficient with lower maintenance costs.

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 8:40 am
by Richard28
Quoting roseflyer (Reply 20):
If an airline can get a 787 for a decent price, I think the airplane is more efficient with lower maintenance costs.

genuine question, has the 787 got lower maintenance costs than an A330neo?

I would have thought that with similar engine's, an established frame with plenty of spares available, plenty of type rated pilots and crew, the A330 would be pretty cheap to maintain with little or no differential compared to the 787?

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 8:52 am
by seahawk
It is bit distorted, because you would need to add the A330CEO and even the 767 to the picture.

Then you would see that neither the 787 nor the A350 are doing well with those airlines.

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 9:05 am
by r2rho
Quoting Siren (Reply 17):
I do wonder if that was intentional, on the part of Airbus? To make the width such that adding another would pose some very significant issues? See, Boeing on the other hand always has room for another Y seat. I just wonder if this is a conscious design decision, and/or what other factors influenced the fuselage width in the design stage?

IMO yes, it was a conscious decision, and seems to be a design philosophy difference between the two. Boeing designed a 9.5 abreast aircraft (the 777), which started as 9-abreast and has moved to 10 abreast as the race to the bottom advanced. They liked that, and went on to design the 787 as an 8.5 abreast aircraft. IMO Boeing had 9-abreast in mind from the very start, even though they initially marketed it as an ultra-comforable 8-abreast Y class towards the outside world.
Airbus designed the A330-A340 as a pure 8-abreast, with 9-abreast only acceptable for the most extreme LCC's, and the A350 as a pure 9-abreast.
Needless to say, from a passenger Point of view, I prefer the Airbus philosophy, as it does not provide Airlines with an easy excuse to cramp more People in.

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 1:36 pm
by CRJ900
Norwegian will eventually have twice as many 789 than 788, as the 788 is already too small for many routes. Their 789 will have 340 seats (Y+/Y).

I don't think any A350 operator will have 10-abreast seating, it will be too tight even for Asians. However, I think many will go for 3+3+3 @ 29-30 inch pitch, as that will allow quite a few additional seats. Most Airbus seatmaps show Y seats @ 32 inch pitch.

The A359 will be a great aircraft for Thomas Cock Airlines when their A333s are worn out. 400-425 pax and nonstop range for Thailand - Scandinavia - Caribbean.

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 2:10 pm
by Polot
Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 18):

I often hear this from different sources so it is probably true, but I don't understand!! (so what's new)

The much vaunted extra inches of fuselage diameter in the 350 might make economy more comfortable, but it would not seem to be important anymore with 4 to 6 abreast.
Is there another reason?

The overall floorspace of the A350 is what makes it attractive to premium carriers. It allows them to offer larger premium cabins, both in terms of space per seat and number of seats, while still offering a large amount of Y seats. Its why, for example, most 772s seat about as much as old DC-10s/L-1011s were configured at despite being larger- today's premium cabins take up more space than First/Business class did decades ago. That large floorspace makes it a detriment to less premium carriers that need fewer seats though, as the A350 (and 777) packs in quite a lot of people in Y heavy layouts.

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 2:25 pm
by Stitch
Quoting YTZ (Reply 6):
787 at 9 abreast is sellable for an LCC. A350 at 10 abreast is much less sellable for an LCC.

Tell that to Air Asia X, who have stated they will operate their A350 at 10-abreast.

Quoting Siren (Reply 17):
Furthermore, Airbus seems to have designed the cabin width so as to make accommodating a 10 abreast configuration unfeasible for most carriers.

They supposedly designed it to offer similar (dis)comfort at 10-abreast to the 787 at 9-abreast and the 777 at 10-abreast. In other words, a seat cushion width of around 17 inches.

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 2:42 pm
by roseflyer
Quoting Richard28 (Reply 21):
genuine question, has the 787 got lower maintenance costs than an A330neo?

I would have thought that with similar engine's, an established frame with plenty of spares available, plenty of type rated pilots and crew, the A330 would be pretty cheap to maintain with little or no differential compared to the 787?

With regards to spares, there are already 350 787s in service. The spare parts inventory is very high. There won't be as much after market equipment on the market yet, but eventually it will come.

With regards to type rating, pilot costs are relatively low. A 777 to 787 differences course for the pilots is less than a week. Mechanics is where more training is needed and is expensive. The mechanics need to go through a two month course and even after that there is some learning curve with the software controlled plane.

Structurally the 787 maintenance costs will be lower than the A330. I've read that the composite structure maintenance is about 30% less since corrosion is not like it is on aluminum planes. That will save a lot of money. On the systems side, it is arguable what the difference will be.

[Edited 2015-12-15 07:29:30]

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 2:53 pm
by frigatebird
Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 4):
The true ULCCs would do the absolutely unthinkable by stuffing 10-abreast on the 350s. That's a CASM killer right there.

Air Caraibes seem to go for this option.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 23):
Airbus designed the A330-A340 as a pure 8-abreast, with 9-abreast only acceptable for the most extreme LCC's, and the A350 as a pure 9-abreast.
Needless to say, from a passenger Point of view, I prefer the Airbus philosophy, as it does not provide Airlines with an easy excuse to cramp more People in.

Airbus has already announced some airlines which have the A350 on order will go for the 10 abreast option. There goes your philosophy.

Quoting Richard28 (Reply 21):
genuine question, has the 787 got lower maintenance costs than an A330neo?

I would have thought that with similar engine's, an established frame with plenty of spares available, plenty of type rated pilots and crew, the A330 would be pretty cheap to maintain with little or no differential compared to the 787?

Apparently, CFRP planes are a lot lower on maintenance. How this turns out in reality I don't know. Whether it is still signifant in the TCO is certainly the question.

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 2:55 pm
by tortugamon
Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
Tell that to Air Asia X, who have stated they will operate their A350 at 10-abreast.

Now that the A330neo exists and the fact that Air Asia X is a mess financially I am not entirely bullish on them operating a large fleet of A350s.

tortugamon

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 3:27 pm
by KarelXWB
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 28):
Air Caraibes seem to go for this option.

Yup, except Air Caraïbes is a not a LCC. SunLine will be the LCC platform of Groupe Dubreuil.

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 3:29 pm
by Stitch
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 29):
Now that the A330neo exists and the fact that Air Asia X is a mess financially I am not entirely bullish on them operating a large fleet of A350s.

I agree - the A330-900 and A350-900 both have the same maximum passenger capability (440) so unless they want to start services to Europe or the Americas, the A330-900 should be plenty fine for them.

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 3:55 pm
by AVFCdownunder
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 3):
The 787 smaller, more cramped and uncomfortable

I just returned from a return trip to Singapore on a 9 abreast 787. Slept like a baby on the overnight return leg and my 6'4" son had adequate leg room. I wouldn't hesitate to use Scoot again for the product they offer v price.

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 4:59 pm
by 747400sp
The A350, is more of a high end aircraft, the 787 has a slighly smaller cabin, but this is good for the 787, because LLC are growing.

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 5:57 pm
by frigatebird
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 30):
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 28):
Air Caraibes seem to go for this option.

Yup, except Air Caraïbes is a not a LCC. SunLine will be the LCC platform of Groupe Dubreuil.

Thank you, very interesting. Sunline will be deploying an A333, perhaps close in capacity to the 440 seat A330s Cebu Pacific and Lion Air* operate.

Will be interesting to see what Air Caraibes will do with their A350s. While not a LCC avant la lettre, the routes they operate are generally low yielding and it's all about cramming as much pax in the cabin possible. Like AF does in their COI 77W, about 467 pax or so. But as you say, no LCC, Ion my flight on this aircraft to FDF and PTP I had one of the best meals ever on an aircraft - for free   

* regarding Lion - they cancelled their 787 order and opted for the A333 instead. So this indicates the A333 is indeed better for LCC operations than the 787...

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 6:04 pm
by Stitch
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 34):
* regarding Lion - they cancelled their 787 order and opted for the A333 instead. So this indicates the A333 is indeed better for LCC operations than the 787...


While in general I agree the A330 is probably the better platform (especially for regional LCCs), in Lion's particular case availability might have played a role, as well. Lion just took delivery of their third A330 whereas the 787s they had intended to take up are still awaiting change modification at PAE (and likely would not have been ready by now even if Lion had gone forward with them).

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 8:55 pm
by ytz
Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
Tell that to Air Asia X, who have stated they will operate their A350 at 10-abreast.

Didn't say nobody would do it. Just that it's less desirable. You'll see far more LCC 787s than LCC A350.

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 9:33 pm
by Stitch
Quoting YTZ (Reply 36):
Didn't say nobody would do it. Just that it's less desirable. You'll see far more LCC 787s than LCC A350.

Considering the global growth of LCCs, that's good news for Boeing.

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 1:05 am
by 777Jet
Quoting 747400sp (Reply 33):
The A350, is more of a high end aircraft, the 787 has a slighly smaller cabin, but this is good for the 787, because LLC are growing.

  

The Boeing cabin width can more easily accommodate that extra seat per row which was a very smart design IMHO. Sure, the pax don't like being crammed in, but that's not the only thing the airlines care about and Boeing knows that. Boeing can sell the same planes to premium carriers or LCCs knowing that they can be configured accordingly. Both 9 and 10 abreast 777s get the job done for airlines as well as 8 and 9 abreast 787s (despite very few 8 abreast 787s in service - it is workable). On the other hand, very few airlines have gone above the typical 8 abreast A330 and made them 9 abreast, and, whilst I think we will see more 10 abreast A350 operators than 9 abreast A330 in the future, the cabin width dimensions make that extra seat squeeze per row more unlikely in Airbus planes and therefore less attractive to LCCs.

Boeing seem to have hit the nail on the head when it comes to designing planes with cabin widths that are a bit more flexible to the different seating arrangements that airlines want.

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 7:12 am
by Aither
Are you talking about LCCs targeting charter markets or FSC markets ?

If it's for targeting charter markets: A330 neo (optimum range capabilities & easier for everything to operate to lousy destinations)

If it's for targeting FSC markets : A350 (don't believe that LCCs are not chasing premium travelers - in particular when the revenue/sqm of a premium product > revenue/sqm of the eco product & considering all the ancillary revenues)

LCCs 787 can work on transcon migrants kind of markets where there is no premium demand and it's only price sensitive. The problem here is that on this type of market the 787 should often be too small or you have already Emirates there...

[Edited 2015-12-15 23:19:07]

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 8:57 am
by KarelXWB
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 34):
Thank you, very interesting. Sunline will be deploying an A333, perhaps close in capacity to the 440 seat A330s Cebu Pacific and Lion Air* operate.

A bit more information can be found here:

http://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/ne...pe-dubreuil-to-set-up-longhaul-lcc

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 34):
Will be interesting to see what Air Caraibes will do with their A350s.

The A350s will be configured in the same 3-class configuration as the current A330 fleet. The A350-900 will feature 387 seats, the A350-1000 will be configured with 439 seats.

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 9:10 am
by dare100em
Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
Quoting Siren (Reply 17):
Furthermore, Airbus seems to have designed the cabin width so as to make accommodating a 10 abreast configuration unfeasible for most carriers.

They supposedly designed it to offer similar (dis)comfort at 10-abreast to the 787 at 9-abreast and the 777 at 10-abreast. In other words, a seat cushion width of around 17 inches

The cabin width of the A350 is 5.61 m while the cabin width of the 787 is 5.49 m. (The cabin width of the 777 is 5.86 m.)

So as 9-abreast either every pax in the A350 has about 0.5 inch more seat width or the aisles are each about 2.5 ich wider or a combination of both (OFC each only to some proportion, e.g. each passenger 0.3 inch and about 1 inch per aisle).

With 10-abreast, and equal seat width to the 787 for the first 9 pax, the 10st passenger would have only 12 cm or just below 5 inch! That shows clearly that a 10-abreast A350 is a very different thing than a 9-abreast 787. The cabin width of the 777 is 5.86 m which is 37 cm or 14.5 inch more than the 787. That is a whole different thing than the 5 inch between the 787 and the A350! The 777X will bring the 10 abreast width to 787 levels. All things (aisles) equal the 787 is slightly more compfortable at 9-abreast than a 777 at 10-abreast. The A350 is about twice that difference at 9-abreast.

But at 10-abreast the A350 would bring passenger comfort to a whole new level   

As long as oil stays low I don't think 10-abreast on a A350 will be more than a extreme niche product. OFC one day with higer oil prices and a dwindling economy it may get an option. even with very tight aisles that means about 18'' per passenger including armrests (!) or 16'' seat width with (former standard) 2" armrests.

[Edited 2015-12-16 01:32:17]

[Edited 2015-12-16 01:33:07]

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 1:20 pm
by roseflyer
Quoting Aither (Reply 39):
If it's for targeting charter markets: A330 neo (optimum range capabilities & easier for everything to operate to lousy destinations)

If it's for targeting FSC markets : A350 (don't believe that LCCs are not chasing premium travelers - in particular when the revenue/sqm of a premium product > revenue/sqm of the eco product & considering all the ancillary revenues)

LCCs 787 can work on transcon migrants kind of markets where there is no premium demand and it's only price sensitive. The problem here is that on this type of market the 787 should often be too small or you have already Emirates there...

I am confused on why you think the A330neo works for charter markets and not the 787. Maybe I misunderstood you, but the 787-8 and A330-200 have very similar capacity (about 10-15 seats difference) with the 787-8 having more range and better fuel burn. I don't see a single reason why an A338 would be better than a 787-8 unless the purchase price was rock bottom to make up for 4-5% fuel burn difference. The A339 is a bit larger than the 787-9. It is smaller than the 787-10. It has fuel burn closer to the 787-9, but still not matching it as far as what I have seen unless there are some unusual flight parameters regards to range/payload/density.

If an airline wants bigger planes that are optimized for long haul flying then the A350-900 is a great plane. I don't know of many LCC airlines in that segment of the market, but it could work very well.

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 2:09 pm
by dare100em
Quoting roseflyer (Reply 42):
The A339 is a bit larger than the 787-9.

The A330-900 is only 0.9 m longer than the 787-9 (63.69 m vs. 62.8 m). Given the fact that the 787-9 is typically 9-abreast and the A330 8-abreast in economy the A330-900 shoul have less, not more capacity than the 787-9. The 787-9 comes with 36 LD3's where the A330-300 has 33. The A330-900 may manage 34 (?) but won't beat the 787-9 anyway.

In reality the 787-9 more often comes with a large business class while being the more "long range" plane. But if configured the same the 787-9 should have slightly more seats than the A330-900. They are really close.

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 3:18 pm
by frmrCapCadet
The particular niche (largish) that the 330* fills is in part as large because of availability. It will be smaller as the backlog of 787s is reduced.

What is of interest is that a-netters long and correctly believed that an updated 330 would continue to be competitive with the 787s in significant areas.

*edited, I first mistakenly wrote 350. grrrrrr.

[Edited 2015-12-16 07:40:13]

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 3:21 pm
by neutrino
Quoting dare100em (Reply 41):
With 10-abreast, and equal seat width to the 787 for the first 9 pax, the 10st passenger would have only 12 cm or just below 5 inch! That shows clearly that a 10-abreast A350 is a very different thing than a 9-abreast 787. The cabin width of the 777 is 5.86 m which is 37 cm or 14.5 inch more than the 787. That is a whole different thing than the 5 inch between the 787 and the A350! The 777X will bring the 10 abreast width to 787 levels. All things (aisles) equal the 787 is slightly more compfortable at 9-abreast than a 777 at 10-abreast. The A350 is about twice that difference at 9-abreast.

Thanks for the comparison numbers. How does the A330 at 9-abreast fare against the above? Should be better than the A350?
I have been on the sardine configurations of the CebuPacific A330, Emirates T7 and Scoot 787. Yes, the last is the most comfortable of the three and Cebu's is still bearable (for my 5'6", 155lbs frame). Looks like the A350 is plumping new tights, so that's where I draw the line.

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:54 pm
by dare100em
Quoting neutrino (Reply 45):
Thanks for the comparison numbers. How does the A330 at 9-abreast fare against the above? Should be better than the A350?

The cabin width of the A330 is 5.28 m at max (floor level is slightly less). This is 21 cm or 8 inches less than the 787. Making it 9-abreast brings

So for comparison purposses let's fix the aisles at 50 cm or about 19.7 inch. That gives:

- A330 at 8-abreast (11 armrests) --> 21 inch (53.5 cm) including armrest or nearly 18 inch (45.5 cm) without
- A330 at 9-abreast (12 armrests) --> 18.7 inch (47.5 cm) including armrest or 16 inch (40.8 cm) without
- 787 at 8-abreast (11 armrests) --> 22 inch (56.1 cm) including armrest or more than 19 inch (49.1 cm) without
- 787 at 9-abreast (12 armrests) --> 19.6 inch (49.9 cm) including armrest or 17 inch (43.1 cm) without
- A350 at 9-abreast (12 armrests) --> 20.2 inch (51.2 cm) including armrest or 17.5 inch (44.4 cm) without
- A350 at 10-abreast (13 armrests) --> 18.1 inch (46.1 cm) including armrest or 15.6 inch (39.5 cm) without
- 777W at 9-abreast (12 armrests) --> 21.2 inch (54 cm) including armrest or 18.6 inch (47.2 cm) without
- 777W at 10-abreast (13 armrests) --> 19.1 inch (48.6 cm) including armrest or 16.5 inch (42 cm) without

In reality airlines would play with the aisles, e.g. a 9-abreast A330 will get less than 19.7 inch aisles as will a A350 at 10-abreast or a 10-abreast 777W.

But what is clear from my numbers is that a 10-abreast A350 is even worse than a 9-abreast A330 and is nothing close to a 9-abreast 787. Furthermore the figures show that a 9-abreast 787 is better than a 10-abreast 77W about the same 0.5 inch as it is worse to a A350. The A350 isn't THAT wide as one will expect. In fact there are only 5 inch more than the 787 and 6 inch less than a 777W.

An 10-abreast A350 will be really a fun to ride ... if you like your girl and she sits next to you   Otherwise ... not so much   

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 5:35 pm
by Stitch
Quoting dare100em (Reply 41):
With 10-abreast, and equal seat width to the 787 for the first 9 pax, the 10th (A350) passenger would have only 12 cm or just below 5 inch!

At 3+4+3 on the A350, the seat cushion width should be 16.5” with 16.1” aisles. That being said, Airbus executive VP, strategy and marketing Dr. Kiran Rao has confirmed they are working on a way to make the seats closer to 17 inches in such a configuration (depending on who you speak to at Airbus, the seat cushion width at 3+3+3 is between 17.7 and 18 inches).


Quoting neutrino (Reply 45):
How does the A330 at 9-abreast fare against the (A350 at 10-abreast)?

16.5 inch seat cushion widths with 16.5 inch aisles per the Airbus ACAP.

[Edited 2015-12-16 09:38:20]

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 1:15 am
by Viscount724
Quoting roseflyer (Reply 42):
am confused on why you think the A330neo works for charter markets and not the 787.

Few charter/leisure carriers need the 787's range.

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 1:58 am
by Aither
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 48):
Few charter/leisure carriers need the 787's range.

Yes. Very few (if any?)charter flights do very long flights. I think there are 2 main reasons:

-> When you fly very long routes, you exponentially need more premium traffic to cover the cost of carrying more fuel - but you could argue that the 787 has a better fuel burn than current mid size aircraft (which is a valid argument nowadays while 18 months ago the better fuel burn was just to catch up with the increase of oil price). Still the cost between 6000nm and 8000nm remains quite different and there are many "white beaches" you can find within 6000nm from home. This charter demand is more fare driven than specific destination driven so 6000nm remains the primary target range.

-> Most charter type of demand is still from/to Europe and Europe is geographically "not so far" from Asia or the Americas. China to US could change the picture but the traffic rights are still limited and Chinese tourist destinations in the US are still the same as the business destinations. But let's see how HU is performing.