patrickjp93
Topic Author
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Thu Sep 19, 2019 4:46 pm

As we're well-aware at this point, the world's airlines are mostly steering toward smaller craft to replace their aging 747s, 777s, and A330s. This isn't particularly surprising with new TATL and intercontinental routes opening up to singe-aisle craft like the A320 NEO and 737 MAX, and we can really only assume this trend will continue.

In terms of raw #s, so far, the 787 has taken the lion's share of wide body orders for the last decade, but now we're entering a new arc. Neither the A350 nor B787 has been selling particularly well recently, which means Boeing will have to reduce its production in 2022 if they can't secure more orders. For Airbus, already producing at a lesser capacity, they are relatively secure through 2025.

On paper, the 787-10 at 330 passenger capacity can only fly 10,000km, but it has been used on longer routes with full seating and fairly significant payload, suggesting Boeing has understated its range capability at least slightly. On the other hand, the A350-900 at 360 passenger capacity can fly 15,700km. On paper, this is the same capacity as the 777-300ER's original 3-3-3 seating and basically the same range. Today, it's 77% the 2-class capacity(350/450) and roughly 4% more range than any 10-abreast 777-300ER route I can find flying today. The 787-10 is ~72% the capacity at anywhere from 62 to 130% the range used by the incumbent, and that's before we get range-payload charts and yields involved.

Neither frame is a drop-in replacement as we all know; that's essentially the 777-9's job. However, both frames can serve large portions of the 77W's market where the same high capacity isn't needed in 10-15 years, which is when we expect the replacement cycle to be in full swing. By then, it's reasonable we'll see re-engined versions of the 787 and A350 on the order books.

For the A330-900 NEO, we saw a 14% uplift in range over the -300 (from Airbus' own specs). If we were to see this same jump manifest in the 787-10 NG, giving it a range of 11,400km to possibly 12,000km, and again in the A350 with a jump up to a staggering 17,200+km, which frame do we think takes the lion's share of 77W replacement orders in the evolving era of P2P flying and diminishing hub significance?

Further, which frame do we see dominating up-and-coming trunk domestic routes in China and India (barring Comac's C929 having a stunning success)?
I don't see the 777X winning over those fields personally.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:44 pm

The answer: Both.

The 787-10 is smaller, but cheaper costs and right-sizing will make it a popular replacement on shorter routes for airlines where the 777-300ER was just a tad too big.

The A350-1000 is the direct replacement for airlines in need of all the performance and/or capacity.

IMHO, I don't think the next iterations of these 2 jets will feature as much of a performance improvement as with past generations.

As for the domestic trunk market of China and India? Easy, the 787-10 is tailormade for that sort of work. Politics could turn that 180 degrees, but thats more unpredictable.
 
patrickjp93
Topic Author
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:59 pm

VSMUT wrote:
The answer: Both.

The 787-10 is smaller, but cheaper costs and right-sizing will make it a popular replacement on shorter routes for airlines where the 777-300ER was just a tad too big.

The A350-1000 is the direct replacement for airlines in need of all the performance and/or capacity.

IMHO, I don't think the next iterations of these 2 jets will feature as much of a performance improvement as with past generations.

As for the domestic trunk market of China and India? Easy, the 787-10 is tailormade for that sort of work. Politics could turn that 180 degrees, but thats more unpredictable.

Heheh, I know both planes will end up being used. The question was which one do the experts think will be the long-term front runner? No matter how many iterations of the 787-10 there are, it'll most likely never have the range the A350-900 enjoys now, so it can never have the whole market. On the flip side, do we foresee NEEDING to carry 400+ passengers 15,000km in a single shot 15 years from now, 25 from now? The end of the A380 says the 500+pax at 15,000km market is gone for the time being. If the 400+ segment also dies off, the A35K and A350-1100 as they are/are envisioned serve little purpose.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:22 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
The question was which one do the experts think will be the long-term front runner?


Both are long term investments. Neither the 787 or A350 are going away any time soon. They will likely still be in production in 30 years time. Saying that "one will come out on top" is nonsense.

The A350 is sized as a 777 and A340 replacement. The 787 is sized as a 767 and A330 replacement. For comparison, the 777 and A340 sold roughly 2400 aircraft combined, while the A330 and 767 sold around 2900.
To muddle things up even more, many of these sales ended up being replacements for aircraft of the same type. 767-200s were replaced with 767-300s, 777-300ERs replaced 777-200ERs and so on. This will also be the case for the 787 and A350. Some airlines are already about to phase out older 787s and replace them with newer 787s or A350s.


patrickjp93 wrote:
On the flip side, do we foresee NEEDING to carry 400+ passengers 15,000km in a single shot 15 years from now, 25 from now? The end of the A380 says the 500+pax at 15,000km market is gone for the time being. If the 400+ segment also dies off, the A35K and A350-1100 as they are/are envisioned serve little purpose.


Yes? There is no indication that the market for larger planes is dying out. The A380 and 777X definitely proved too big for the market, but 777-300ERs are still selling in small numbers, and nobody is in a rush to phase them out. Don't forget that the stretches also get a lower CASM, something that lured many operators to upsize to the 777-300ER.
If recent rumours prove true, Qantas is also going for the A350-1000ULR variant, not the -900ULR.
 
patrickjp93
Topic Author
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:34 pm

VSMUT wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
The question was which one do the experts think will be the long-term front runner?


Both are long term investments. Neither the 787 or A350 are going away any time soon. They will likely still be in production in 30 years time. Saying that "one will come out on top" is nonsense.

The A350 is sized as a 777 and A340 replacement. The 787 is sized as a 767 and A330 replacement. For comparison, the 777 and A340 sold roughly 2400 aircraft combined, while the A330 and 767 sold around 2900.
To muddle things up even more, many of these sales ended up being replacements for aircraft of the same type. 767-200s were replaced with 767-300s, 777-300ERs replaced 777-200ERs and so on. This will also be the case for the 787 and A350. Some airlines are already about to phase out older 787s and replace them with newer 787s or A350s.


Neither frame will die off. That wasn't what I implied. Which do we think will get the lion's share of sales over the long term.

patrickjp93 wrote:
On the flip side, do we foresee NEEDING to carry 400+ passengers 15,000km in a single shot 15 years from now, 25 from now? The end of the A380 says the 500+pax at 15,000km market is gone for the time being. If the 400+ segment also dies off, the A35K and A350-1100 as they are/are envisioned serve little purpose.


Yes? There is no indication that the market for larger planes is dying out. The A380 and 777X definitely proved too big for the market, but 777-300ERs are still selling in small numbers, and nobody is in a rush to phase them out. Don't forget that the stretches also get a lower CASM, something that lured many operators to upsize to the 777-300ER.
If recent rumours prove true, Qantas is also going for the A350-1000ULR variant, not the -900ULR.


The 777X is really no bigger than the 777-300ER. Air Canada flies 450 people in 3 classes on their 77Ws. At 414 pax in 2 classes it's essentially the same-sized frame with new wings with the potential to stretch to the -10 and have a base pax stat of 450.

Some of the 787 sales are replacing RR with GE too, skewing numbers further. Mind you deferred C and D checks on composite frames will make the longer lifecycles more profitable than before.

The -1000 ULR, if it's actually the stretched -1000 frame, is a dumb idea I must say. Put the larger wings and central tank on the 900 body with the XWB 97. Better fuel economy with less frame weight and lower MTOW for essentially the same 300 (probably 270 in the end) pax Joyce is after. Yes, commonality takes a hit, but let's be serious here. Not that many frames ill ever fly anyway.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:02 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
The 777X is really no bigger than the 777-300ER. Air Canada flies 450 people in 3 classes on their 77Ws. At 414 pax in 2 classes it's essentially the same-sized frame with new wings with the potential to stretch to the -10 and have a base pax stat of 450.


It was stretched by almost 3 meters and has a wing that is 80 square meters bigger. It is definitely bigger, and sales reflect that.


patrickjp93 wrote:
Better fuel economy with less frame weight and lower MTOW for essentially the same 300 (probably 270 in the end) pax Joyce is after.


Only total costs would be lower. The CASK would likely be higher. The cockpit crew required would be the same. The seats would be worse. In effect, you would get less revenue and higher costs. Or if Qantas believes they can actually fill it completely, miss out on revenue.

It isn't just Qantas or the A350 either. Loads of airlines ended up upgauging from (or entirely skipping) 777-200s and A340-300s to the 777-300ER for the same reasons. Note that many airlines also ended up putting 787 delay compensations towards the much more different 777-300ER, rather than the more proportionally sized 777-200.
 
patrickjp93
Topic Author
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:48 pm

VSMUT wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
The 777X is really no bigger than the 777-300ER. Air Canada flies 450 people in 3 classes on their 77Ws. At 414 pax in 2 classes it's essentially the same-sized frame with new wings with the potential to stretch to the -10 and have a base pax stat of 450.


It was stretched by almost 3 meters and has a wing that is 80 square meters bigger. It is definitely bigger, and sales reflect that.


patrickjp93 wrote:
Better fuel economy with less frame weight and lower MTOW for essentially the same 300 (probably 270 in the end) pax Joyce is after.


Only total costs would be lower. The CASK would likely be higher. The cockpit crew required would be the same. The seats would be worse. In effect, you would get less revenue and higher costs. Or if Qantas believes they can actually fill it completely, miss out on revenue.

It isn't just Qantas or the A350 either. Loads of airlines ended up upgauging from (or entirely skipping) 777-200s and A340-300s to the 777-300ER for the same reasons. Note that many airlines also ended up putting 787 delay compensations towards the much more different 777-300ER, rather than the more proportionally sized 777-200.


It's bigger in the sense that you CAN fill it with more seats in the future if you want, but taking Air Canada as the example of convenience, there'll be plenty of airlines who don't push the envelope up front. Maybe in the future when everyone comfortably fits into 16.0" wide seats with 74cm of pitch they can invest in refurbishment of that kind, but I think most airlines would go with similar sizing to their current birds to start, maybe redo their 2-2-2 business class cabins to 1-2-1 or 1-3-1 if the cabin is wide enough.

In terms of the wing, yes, bigger, but the 777X is not intended to be a freighter for a good long while and still fits at E gates, so that's a bit superfluous.

Anyway, I'm going to try not to derail my own thread :lol:
 
VSMUT
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Thu Sep 19, 2019 8:08 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
In terms of the wing, yes, bigger, but the 777X is not intended to be a freighter for a good long while and still fits at E gates, so that's a bit superfluous.


It isn't the wingspan I am referring to. It is the weight of that extra wing. Landing and handling fees are based on weight.
 
patrickjp93
Topic Author
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Thu Sep 19, 2019 8:23 pm

VSMUT wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
In terms of the wing, yes, bigger, but the 777X is not intended to be a freighter for a good long while and still fits at E gates, so that's a bit superfluous.


It isn't the wingspan I am referring to. It is the weight of that extra wing. Landing and handling fees are based on weight.


Uh, except it being made out of CFRP gave the 777-9 and 777-300ER the same MTOW... 351,534 kg
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10872
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:03 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
In terms of the wing, yes, bigger, but the 777X is not intended to be a freighter for a good long while and still fits at E gates, so that's a bit superfluous.


It isn't the wingspan I am referring to. It is the weight of that extra wing. Landing and handling fees are based on weight.


Uh, except it being made out of CFRP gave the 777-9 and 777-300ER the same MTOW... 351,534 kg


If you use it for size and not payload range, there will be a point where you can derate the 77W more than the 779 for the same mission, in those cases you would safe money with the older type. But that won´t be much of a difference. Although i would assume airlines having both will make use of that when they shit the less efficient frame on shorter routes and paper downrate the MOTW.

patrickjp93 wrote:
Neither frame will die off. That wasn't what I implied. Which do we think will get the lion's share of sales over the long term.


789 and A359 will. The 77W and A346 where pretty much where the 747 used to be: You may need it for range, or accept quite a bit higher cost per seat, flying 767-200ER for example.

With the current generation of jets costs seem to be fairly homogeneous, so little point in buying bigger than you absolutely positively need.


Yes? There is no indication that the market for larger planes is dying out..


Aside of order numbers you mean? The 747 sold more units than the similar range 767-200ER, DC10-30ER, MD11 and A332 combined. The 77W/A346 class sold almost 1000 units combined, 50% more than the similar ranged, smaller A332.

The A351 gets outsolde by the A359 1:4, the 787-10 gets outsold by the -9 by 1:4, the 777x gets outsold by either one 1:4.

If recent rumours prove true, Qantas is also going for the A350-1000ULR variant, not the -900ULR.


The A351 is the longer ranged of the two by quite a bit and is the obvious choice to start a ULR from if you want more than a super premium cabin.

The -1000 ULR, if it's actually the stretched -1000 frame, is a dumb idea I must say. Put the larger wings and central tank on the 900 body with the XWB 97. Better fuel economy with less frame weight and lower MTOW for essentially the same 300 (probably 270 in the end) pax Joyce is after. Yes, commonality takes a hit, but let's be serious here. Not that many frames ill ever fly anyway.


That doesn´t even really make much sense even now, where the -1000 frame seems able to do LHR-SYD. So why would you want to put a smaller cabin on that same wing, gear and engines and drive up seat costs, to gain some extra range that no one is ever going to use? Your title is about an A350neo. An A351neo will happily connect any two airports on this planet nonstop if the runway is long enough at both ends.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1634
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:04 am

I think the 787 will have a 4:1 sales advantage over the A350 in 20 years for this very reason

I believe there is a widebody sweetspot. The A330-300 with 6,350nm range and 265m2 cabin area represented the low end of the widebody sweetspot. The 777-300ER with 7,370nm and 343m2 cabin area represents the upper limit of the sweetspot.

The A350 is already at the edge of the sweet spot. It currently has payload range similar to the 777-300ER which sold in massive numbers. The A350NEO will offer 777LR and A350-500 level of range which sold in small quantities. They have too much range for transpacific and an aircraft with lighter weight per seat can get the job done.

The 787-10 currently sits exactly half way between the A330-300 and 777-300ER cabin areas and range. Even with the new engines it's range will remain within the sweetspot and will be perfect for transpacific.

I also think the widebody sweet spot will only get smaller in cabin area in the coming decades which will work in favour of the 787 over the larger A350. The 797 will then sit in the bottom of the sweetspot and have it's market all to itself.

So bad news for the 777X in the long run. Not great news for the A350. Airbus will need to develop an A330NEO replacement to sit inside the sweetspot.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:27 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
It isn't the wingspan I am referring to. It is the weight of that extra wing. Landing and handling fees are based on weight.


Uh, except it being made out of CFRP gave the 777-9 and 777-300ER the same MTOW... 351,534 kg


The ~350t MTOW is a rather hard limit without going to a center MLG. pavement loading maxed out.

The CFRP wing gave the 779X quite the boost in OEW though. on first blush compensated by lower fuel burn.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Armadillo1
Posts: 518
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:56 am

WIederling wrote:
The ~350t MTOW is a rather hard limit without going to a center MLG. pavement loading maxed out.

lets do four-axle gear
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:03 pm

Armadillo1 wrote:
WIederling wrote:
The ~350t MTOW is a rather hard limit without going to a center MLG. pavement loading maxed out.

lets do four-axle gear

you'd have to leave it hanging outside. :-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
patrickjp93
Topic Author
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:55 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
I think the 787 will have a 4:1 sales advantage over the A350 in 20 years for this very reason

I believe there is a widebody sweetspot. The A330-300 with 6,350nm range and 265m2 cabin area represented the low end of the widebody sweetspot. The 777-300ER with 7,370nm and 343m2 cabin area represents the upper limit of the sweetspot.

The A350 is already at the edge of the sweet spot. It currently has payload range similar to the 777-300ER which sold in massive numbers. The A350NEO will offer 777LR and A350-500 level of range which sold in small quantities. They have too much range for transpacific and an aircraft with lighter weight per seat can get the job done.

The 787-10 currently sits exactly half way between the A330-300 and 777-300ER cabin areas and range. Even with the new engines it's range will remain within the sweetspot and will be perfect for transpacific.

I also think the widebody sweet spot will only get smaller in cabin area in the coming decades which will work in favour of the 787 over the larger A350. The 797 will then sit in the bottom of the sweetspot and have it's market all to itself.

So bad news for the 777X in the long run. Not great news for the A350. Airbus will need to develop an A330NEO replacement to sit inside the sweetspot.


This was along my thinking, because the re-engined successors of these frames will only push the range up, not down, which makes more and more MTOW useless, especially for the A350. The 789 has the benefit of being small enough you can go very premium heavy on ULH routes like SYD-ORD, SYD-JFK, LAX/SFO-SIN, and KUL-YVR, so premium in fact like SIN-EWR you could go beyond the rated range fairly easily with an all-premium cabin or close to it. The 787-10 can rise UP through the sweet spot over the next 40 years and probably find itself just shy of where the 789 is now.

Over the ultra long term with populations rising, even after the dust has settled from current trunk routes being re-sized from the new P2P flying, larger planes will take back over, but I believe that will be taken over by something the size of the 777-8.

It's tough to say if it's bad news entirely for the 777X at this point. The A380 trunk routes have to down-gauge to something as the bottom falls out beneath the superjumbo, and there are only two real options: 747-8I and 777X. Airbus got burned on their last VLA and won't try to touch that market for several decades, so it's a market where Boeing has no competition and has a captive audience. Maybe an A350-1100 NEO could steal some of the 777-8's audience where the 17,200km range isn't required, but the 777-9 is peerless.

My personal money would go to the 787-10's successors evolving into the primary workhorse of transoceanic flying.
 
patrickjp93
Topic Author
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:59 pm

WIederling wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
It isn't the wingspan I am referring to. It is the weight of that extra wing. Landing and handling fees are based on weight.


Uh, except it being made out of CFRP gave the 777-9 and 777-300ER the same MTOW... 351,534 kg


The ~350t MTOW is a rather hard limit without going to a center MLG. pavement loading maxed out.

The CFRP wing gave the 779X quite the boost in OEW though. on first blush compensated by lower fuel burn.


The fuselage is also 3 meters longer, the engines are a fair bit heavier, the tail is larger, and the new cockpit's got quite a bit more wiring to go into it, so I don't think we have nearly the figures we'd need to blame much if any OEW increase on the composite wing itself.
 
426Shadow
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:13 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:05 am

Most simple answer? Nobody knows. Many predictions have been made on this website over the last 15+ years and almost all of them were wrong. "Expert" does not mean "can predict the future"?
Do it on three, One.....THREEEEEEE! Just got the nuts hangin out.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1687
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Sun Sep 22, 2019 7:46 am

RJMAZ wrote:
I think the 787 will have a 4:1 sales advantage over the A350 in 20 years for this very reason

I believe there is a widebody sweetspot. The A330-300 with 6,350nm range and 265m2 cabin area represented the low end of the widebody sweetspot. The 777-300ER with 7,370nm and 343m2 cabin area represents the upper limit of the sweetspot.

The A350 is already at the edge of the sweet spot. It currently has payload range similar to the 777-300ER which sold in massive numbers. The A350NEO will offer 777LR and A350-500 level of range which sold in small quantities. They have too much range for transpacific and an aircraft with lighter weight per seat can get the job done.

The 787-10 currently sits exactly half way between the A330-300 and 777-300ER cabin areas and range. Even with the new engines it's range will remain within the sweetspot and will be perfect for transpacific.

I also think the widebody sweet spot will only get smaller in cabin area in the coming decades which will work in favour of the 787 over the larger A350. The 797 will then sit in the bottom of the sweetspot and have it's market all to itself.

So bad news for the 777X in the long run. Not great news for the A350. Airbus will need to develop an A330NEO replacement to sit inside the sweetspot.



How do you work out the 4:1 advantage for the 787? How many orders do you expect the A350 to get in the next 20 years?
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Sun Sep 22, 2019 9:01 am

enzo011 wrote:
How do you work out the 4:1 advantage for the 787? How many orders do you expect the A350 to get in the next 20 years?


Dogma. He works his arguments from there back ...

Fuel economy for ULR craft has changed quite a bit.
Look at payload vs fuel fraction moved over range.
easy access is via
looking at payload derate to allow for more fuel
per range delta in the payload range charts.
( MZFW to fuel limit slope.)
Murphy is an optimist
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1634
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:10 am

enzo011 wrote:
How do you work out the 4:1 advantage for the 787? How many orders do you expect the A350 to get in the next 20 years?

We saw a 12:1 sales difference between the 777LR and 777-300ER. This was purely because the 777-300ER was lighter per square metre of cabin area. 7000nm range seems to be a magic number to connect the continents. Airlines would clearly take a stretch of a design providing the range still exceeds 7000nm.

The A330-200 was the biggest seller in the family as it had range close to 7000nm and the A330-300 was below 6000nm. Once the MTOW bumps and engine improvements came the A330-300 became the biggest seller as it could now easily fly over 6000nm. There is a clear trend for sales. Once the NEO came the 900 is the only model selling as its range has passed the 7000nm threshold. Airlines do not want the extra range of the A330-800 they would rather take the cabin area.

Now if the A350-1000 was a simply stretch like the 787-10 it would have sold very well. Keeping the A350-900's 280t MTOW it would probably have still stayed above the 7000nm threshold unlike the 787-10. This model would have had a lighter empty weight and be more fuel efficient on typical 5000-6000nm flights.

If the 787NEO and A350NEO were built by the one manufacturer I would expect sales to be even worse around 10:1. The empty weight per cabin area of the 787-10 vs A350-900 is similar to the 777LR and 777-300ER example. Once the the 787-10NEO hits the 7000nm thereshold it will outsell the 787-9. Many airlines will want diversity or to purchase European then that is why I have decided it will be only 4:1.

WIederling wrote:
Fuel economy for ULR craft has changed quite a bit.
Look at payload vs fuel fraction moved over range.
easy access is via
looking at payload derate to allow for more fuel
per range delta in the payload range charts.
( MZFW to fuel limit slope.)

Not really. Look at the ACAPs for the 777LR versus the A350-1000. The 777LR only requires a takeoff weight of 320-325t to match the A350-1000. With similar empty weight and the same payload that means the 777LR only burns around 10% more fuel. Not as big of an improvement as you think. Wing size is very similar. Fuselage drag is very similar with the slightly wider but short 777LR. Lift to drag ratios would be near equal. The 10% fuel burn reduction is pretty much entirely from the newer engines.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13989
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Sun Sep 22, 2019 11:29 am

RJMAZ wrote:
With similar empty weight and the same payload that means the 777LR only burns around 10% more fuel. Not as big of an improvement as you think. Wing size is very similar. Fuselage drag is very similar with the slightly wider but short 777LR. Lift to drag ratios would be near equal. The 10% fuel burn reduction is pretty much entirely from the newer engines.


This is highly amusing and yet very predictable.

When people on this site were saying how the 77W was everything and could not be beaten, they pointed to the small advantage in fuel burn (around 5% on ULH flights the 77W had over the A346) even though the 346 could carry more payload. The A350-1000 can do all roles that the current 77W can do, and more. It carries more payload, it has more range, it burns way less fuel, flies higher and faster more comfortably, and has significantly lower direct and indirect operating costs.

The current list price on a new "old generation" 77W is 375.5 million, the A350-1000 list price is cheaper than the old 777 technology at 366.5 million. You want to look at replacing a 77W with a 777-8 that is 410.2 million, or a 777-9 that will be 442.2 million. What is the business case that an airline could justify a 75.7 million higher sticker price ? The 777-9 sticker price is almost exactly the same as a new A380 with a much lower passenger capacity. If airlines could not work out how to finance the cost of an A380 that carried over 500 passengers, how are they going to justify a much smaller aircraft for the same price only capable of "400" passengers and much less range.

If you think the A350-1000 is just a twin engine A346, you have to be dreaming. The whole aircraft was clean sheet, systems were simplified (electrical, hydraulic, fuel, flight controls, avionics), structure made more efficient, aerodynamics much more efficient with the use of a variable camber wing, and excellent low speed aerodynamics leading to excellent takeoff and landing performance.

Now the tables have turned, and despite the 777OG or 777NG being heavier and burning more fuel, the a.net prize this week goes to "only burns around 10% more fuel".

What will succeed the 77W in todays fleets will be driven by the market in 5 to 10 years, not by what Boeing or Airbus think would best suit the market 10 years ago when planning their aircraft.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1634
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:07 pm

zeke wrote:
When people on this site were saying how the 77W was everything and could not be beaten, they pointed to the small advantage in fuel burn (around 5% on ULH flights the 77W had over the A346) even though the 346 could carry more payload.

The 787-10NEO vs A350-900NEO will be very similar to the 777-300ER vs A340-600. More cabin area yet lower weights in both examples. A low single digit fuel burn advantage due to a lighter weight per cabin area.

zeke wrote:
The A350-1000 can do all roles that the current 77W can do, and more. It carries more payload, it has more range, it burns way less fuel, flies higher and faster more comfortably, and has significantly lower direct and indirect operating costs.

The 777-200LR can also carry more payload, has more range, burns less fuel and flies higher than the 777-300ER. The 777-200LR did not sell.

With similar seating density the 777-300ER could fit 20% more seats for only 10% extra fuel burn compared to the 777-200LR. That is a 10% fuel burn saving per seat. That 10% advantage resulted in a massive 12:1 sales advantage.

The A340-500/600 vs 777LR/W 5% fuel burn difference resulted in 6:1 sales advantage.

I am detecting a trend here.

The 787-10 also has slightly greater cabin area yet burns slightly less fuel than the A350-900. This will give a fuel saving per seat of a couple percent. Based on the previous sales advantages even a 2% per seat fuel difference could result in a 2:1 sales advantage to the 787-10NEO.

The 787-10NEO might even have a 3-4% per seat fuel burn advantage over the A350-900NEO if they have equal engine tech. That would result in a big sales advantage.
 
patrickjp93
Topic Author
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Sun Sep 22, 2019 1:48 pm

enzo011 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
I think the 787 will have a 4:1 sales advantage over the A350 in 20 years for this very reason
...


How do you work out the 4:1 advantage for the 787? How many orders do you expect the A350 to get in the next 20 years?

I think he'll be a bit off on that. My money's more 2:1-3:1, and a lot of that goes into the discussions above. The A350 is way too capable and is very high capacity. With each new iteration of engines, the range will just keep increasing without any benefit for the A350 family. That's wasted frame weight and lower yield at a higher airframe cost. For the 787, the -10 especially, it can rise into greater range capability and become denser over time. As more P2P flying takes over, it's not clear just how many markets and routes will really require a 340-seat+ craft. So the 787 will be pulling the rug out from under the A350 over time. If Boeing can rack up another couple hundred orders, its logbook can sustain 14 frames per month up to at least 2025 if not 2027, just in time for GE to bring its CMC-based PIPs or even re-engine the 787 with a GE9X derivative or the Trent Ultrafan.

And on the other side of the A350 family, the 777-9 exists to replace all of the standing 747s still in service today for the trunk routes we know are going nowhere. CASM-wise, it's in a league of its own and will also benefit from re-engining programs over time. The -9 also isn't overly capable with a range of 13,900km. While we COULD one day conceive of flying 430 people directly from Chicago or New York to Sydney or Auckland, or 380 people from Singapore or Kael to Vancouver, Toronto, Chicago, Seattle, or New York, that capability's been reserved for a future iteration.

So in short, The A350 has a range-payload capability in a league of its own right now, but it's going to enter a zone no one really cares for when so much of its fuel and payload weight goes unused in the future and frame weight just costs operational efficiency vs. the competitor, when the competitor is also selling for a much lower sticker price.

4:1 is probably a bit much. 2:1 long-term I think is a safe bet.
 
patrickjp93
Topic Author
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Sun Sep 22, 2019 2:17 pm

zeke wrote:
This is highly amusing and yet very predictable.

When people on this site were saying how the 77W was everything and could not be beaten, they pointed to the small advantage in fuel burn (around 5% on ULH flights the 77W had over the A346) even though the 346 could carry more payload. The A350-1000 can do all roles that the current 77W can do, and more. It carries more payload, it has more range, it burns way less fuel, flies higher and faster more comfortably, and has significantly lower direct and indirect operating costs.

The current list price on a new "old generation" 77W is 375.5 million, the A350-1000 list price is cheaper than the old 777 technology at 366.5 million. You want to look at replacing a 77W with a 777-8 that is 410.2 million, or a 777-9 that will be 442.2 million. What is the business case that an airline could justify a 75.7 million higher sticker price ? The 777-9 sticker price is almost exactly the same as a new A380 with a much lower passenger capacity. If airlines could not work out how to finance the cost of an A380 that carried over 500 passengers, how are they going to justify a much smaller aircraft for the same price only capable of "400" passengers and much less range.

If you think the A350-1000 is just a twin engine A346, you have to be dreaming. The whole aircraft was clean sheet, systems were simplified (electrical, hydraulic, fuel, flight controls, avionics), structure made more efficient, aerodynamics much more efficient with the use of a variable camber wing, and excellent low speed aerodynamics leading to excellent takeoff and landing performance.

Now the tables have turned, and despite the 777OG or 777NG being heavier and burning more fuel, the a.net prize this week goes to "only burns around 10% more fuel".

What will succeed the 77W in todays fleets will be driven by the market in 5 to 10 years, not by what Boeing or Airbus think would best suit the market 10 years ago when planning their aircraft.


The bottom has fallen out from under the A380 for quite a few routes already, and that trend is going to continue as more P2P routes appear thanks to the A321XLR, 737 MAX, and the eventual NMA. Even the ME3 are having load factor problems, and it's not looking good for Qantas, Malaysian, or Singapore either. Airlines will accept the 777X at its high price because it simply is the only plane in its league with capacity close enough to step down to without ceding steady-state traffic to competitors. Much as I'd personally love to see Boeing pull off a 2-engined 747 with 112,000lb thrust per side, that's not an option currently, though the 747-8I would be the better capacity downgauge imho. Now, depending on the given markets, maybe capacity needs will fall even faster than that and the A350-1000 or 1100 becomes the sweet spot for the ME3, but for long-haul P2P, it's pretty clear the 789 is the kingpin. For long-haul trunk routes, it's clear the 787-10 will grow into them in the next generation in ways the A350 is already over-capable (say Brisbane to LAX, Australia to Singapore (for cases where the SQ A359 isn't getting filled), Australia to Malaysia, Auckland to SFO/IAH and Chicago, Japan and Shang Hai to California or Vancouver, and quite a few others in the 8-13 hour area.

As for range, there are very, very few A380 routes actually flying beyond 14,000km, so it doesn't make sense to overbuild a new frame for that target when, truth is, by 2035 when Emirates kills off its last A380, the 777X will have another new engine, a 10-12% bump on range, and the capability will be met right when it's needed.

The A350 has a full logbook and can be put up for a lower list price because of that expectation. The 77W was operating and selling with no real competitor, so Boeing never needed to lower the list price, just negotiate individual discounts for big orders. And now it's phasing the 77W out.

The 777X also has one big advantage over the A380 few people ever think about: refurbishment costs. Refurbishing a 1-deck craft is much, much cheaper than a 2-deck. And based on the projections from GE, the longevity of some of the hot section components on the GE9X is much higher than on the GEnx, so lower parts & maintenance costs is a distinct likelihood. You pay a little more up front to save long-term. And the secondhand market for the 777X will be pretty strong when the 747-8Is get ready for retirement.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1687
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Sun Sep 22, 2019 7:21 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
We saw a 12:1 sales difference between the 777LR and 777-300ER. This was purely because the 777-300ER was lighter per square metre of cabin area. 7000nm range seems to be a magic number to connect the continents. Airlines would clearly take a stretch of a design providing the range still exceeds 7000nm.

The A330-200 was the biggest seller in the family as it had range close to 7000nm and the A330-300 was below 6000nm. Once the MTOW bumps and engine improvements came the A330-300 became the biggest seller as it could now easily fly over 6000nm. There is a clear trend for sales. Once the NEO came the 900 is the only model selling as its range has passed the 7000nm threshold. Airlines do not want the extra range of the A330-800 they would rather take the cabin area.

Now if the A350-1000 was a simply stretch like the 787-10 it would have sold very well. Keeping the A350-900's 280t MTOW it would probably have still stayed above the 7000nm threshold unlike the 787-10. This model would have had a lighter empty weight and be more fuel efficient on typical 5000-6000nm flights.

If the 787NEO and A350NEO were built by the one manufacturer I would expect sales to be even worse around 10:1. The empty weight per cabin area of the 787-10 vs A350-900 is similar to the 777LR and 777-300ER example. Once the the 787-10NEO hits the 7000nm thereshold it will outsell the 787-9. Many airlines will want diversity or to purchase European then that is why I have decided it will be only 4:1.


Okay, but that doesn't answer my question though. If you think it will sell at 4:1, how many do you think the A350 will sell in the next 20 years? I would like to see how many aircraft you think will be sold in the next 20 years, seeing as you have nailed your colours to the mast on the 787 vs A350 battle.

patrickjp93 wrote:
I think he'll be a bit off on that. My money's more 2:1-3:1, and a lot of that goes into the discussions above. The A350 is way too capable and is very high capacity. With each new iteration of engines, the range will just keep increasing without any benefit for the A350 family. That's wasted frame weight and lower yield at a higher airframe cost. For the 787, the -10 especially, it can rise into greater range capability and become denser over time. As more P2P flying takes over, it's not clear just how many markets and routes will really require a 340-seat+ craft. So the 787 will be pulling the rug out from under the A350 over time. If Boeing can rack up another couple hundred orders, its logbook can sustain 14 frames per month up to at least 2025 if not 2027, just in time for GE to bring its CMC-based PIPs or even re-engine the 787 with a GE9X derivative or the Trent Ultrafan.

And on the other side of the A350 family, the 777-9 exists to replace all of the standing 747s still in service today for the trunk routes we know are going nowhere. CASM-wise, it's in a league of its own and will also benefit from re-engining programs over time. The -9 also isn't overly capable with a range of 13,900km. While we COULD one day conceive of flying 430 people directly from Chicago or New York to Sydney or Auckland, or 380 people from Singapore or Kael to Vancouver, Toronto, Chicago, Seattle, or New York, that capability's been reserved for a future iteration.

So in short, The A350 has a range-payload capability in a league of its own right now, but it's going to enter a zone no one really cares for when so much of its fuel and payload weight goes unused in the future and frame weight just costs operational efficiency vs. the competitor, when the competitor is also selling for a much lower sticker price.

4:1 is probably a bit much. 2:1 long-term I think is a safe bet.



So the A350 will be too capable in the future. That is a new one on me. If the A350 is too capable, what does it make the 777X which was made more capable than the A35K? Nope, that doesn't count because Boeing I guess. And the 787 will be just the right side of capable all of the time as well. For a company that has it all figured out according to a few posters, Boeing sure does screw up a lot that seems to keep them on a somewhat equal footing to the competitor. It is just lucky for Airbus that Boeing has been giving it time to come up with inferior products to make it interesting for us.

Back in the real world, one model has sold 900 or so and the other 1500, the difference could just be the superiority of each model. Me, I live in the real world and realize that current sales has a lot to do with EIS time and I remember when the 787 was supposed to have an EIS in 2008, which turned into 2011, and the A350 EIS was in 2014. Now accounting for other factors as well, like the delays to get the 787 certified meaning more models were being built and stored when they were supposed to be delivered but busy getting certified, meant that even comparing a EIS to a certain date is not a fair comparison. That is not adding the fact that the lower model of each program is in different segments which means each will have different sales potentials, it all means that trying to compare the 787 to A350 sales it just silly willy waving.

Both programs will sell well as they are excellent aircraft. It is fun debating stuff on here but when we start going off in cloud la la land it just gets silly.
 
Eyad89
Posts: 635
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:27 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
The 787-10NEO vs A350-900NEO will be very similar to the 777-300ER vs A340-600. More cabin area yet lower weights in both examples. A low single digit fuel burn advantage due to a lighter weight per cabin area.


There's really no use in bringing in 77W vs A346 here, this comparison simply is irrelevant.

A359 is 1-4 tons heavier even though it has significantly heavier wings and engines. The heavier wing in A359 brings a longer span, and that's one of the reasons why A359 has a higher L/D ratio than 787-10. This heavier weight in A359 ends up saving fuel by improving aerodynamics.

Give A359 a span of 60m and see its weight per cabin area drops significantly. Or. give those 64m wings to 787-10 and we will see how its weight per cabin area stands against A359. You cannot say that about 77W vs A346.


RJMAZ wrote:
The 777-200LR can also carry more payload, has more range, burns less fuel and flies higher than the 777-300ER. The 777-200LR did not sell.


Another irrelevant example.

The 77L didn't sell because airlines who wouldn't want to fly ULH routes would simply order 777-200ER or A333. On the other hand, 77W had pretty much all that 350-400 seats market for itself whether that was for medium haul, long haul, or ultra long haul flights. This example really does not resemble A359 vs 78X in a anyway.


RJMAZ wrote:
The 787-10NEO might even have a 3-4% per seat fuel burn advantage over the A350-900NEO if they have equal engine tech. That would result in a big sales advantage.


Let's assume your 3-4% percent per seat figure is accurate for the sake of argument (even though I think it is exaggerated), even then A359NEO is still a plane that:

1) consumes less fuel per flight, so it will be the preferred choice for airlines that don't want the extra seating capacity in 787-10
2) carries more payload significantly further. It could be doing SIN-LAX with 45t payload for example, or it could do 14-15 hour flights flying at MZFW.

It still brings to the table what 787-10NG could not. It will still have its own market.

This not A346 vs 77W all over again.
Last edited by Eyad89 on Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
patrickjp93
Topic Author
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:34 pm

enzo011 wrote:
So the A350 will be too capable in the future. That is a new one on me. If the A350 is too capable, what does it make the 777X which was made more capable than the A35K? Nope, that doesn't count because Boeing I guess. And the 787 will be just the right side of capable all of the time as well. For a company that has it all figured out according to a few posters, Boeing sure does screw up a lot that seems to keep them on a somewhat equal footing to the competitor. It is just lucky for Airbus that Boeing has been giving it time to come up with inferior products to make it interesting for us.


Reread, very slowly. Right now the A350 has probably the best ULH CASM and has very good cargo capability to go with it; and good for Airbus, great product, but look at the range and think not just 1, but 2+ iterations down the line. 15/16,000km is already close to the top 5% of viable routes for its pax capacity, save for the Project Sunrises of the world which demand a plane capable of 18,000km range. The A350 as it is iterated starts becoming weighed down by unused frame weight. The 787 doesn't have that problem. Or, if you want to be excruciatingly precise, even in the ludicrous world where we eventually get a 40% range improvement, at the very least the 787-10 never can become TOO range-capable. If you make the A350-900 35% more range-capable (5% difference between Trent 1000 and Trent XWB), you have 20-21,500km range. What on Earth is that good for? Perth to New York? Really? With 300+ souls onboard? It'll be so capable that a significant portion of its structure is actually WASTED capability, wasted MTOW, higher landing fees, higher fuel consumption than needed under all circumstances, etc..

The 777-8, going off its stated ~17,000km range, is going to be utterly ridiculous down the line, no doubt. With "just" 25% improvement, it's in the same position as the A350-1000 with 35% improvement, a range so high no one could ever want it except for a private jet. The 777-9, having a more modest 13,500km range, when improved by 25%, tops off where the A350-900 ULR does now. SQ would probably never BUY it for SIN-EWR, but I guess if you WANTED a really premium-heavy but economy-friendly configuration for that sort of route, you COULD justify the 777-9's successor.

Qantas, assuming they go with the 777-8 for PS now, would doubtlessly take on the 777-9 and its successors because that effectively handles their current A380 missions now and lets them up-gauge direct flights to New York and London from Sydney and Melbourne if needed later.

The 787-9 with 40% improvement does climb into a ridiculous range as well, but being a smaller frame with lower thrust requirements and lower pax gives it less overall inefficiency, and it can work for those routes where an A350 is just too much capacity. Suddenly Auckland-London and Perth-New York are potentially viable, though even they might need to gauge down to the 788 even 30 years from now. If SQ can't fill 300+ seats on the A350 NEO/2 to fly SIN-EWR, they might be able to fill 230 on the 787-9 MAX.

Back in the real world, one model has sold 900 or so and the other 1500, the difference could just be the superiority of each model. Me, I live in the real world and realize that current sales has a lot to do with EIS time and I remember when the 787 was supposed to have an EIS in 2008, which turned into 2011, and the A350 EIS was in 2014. Now accounting for other factors as well, like the delays to get the 787 certified meaning more models were being built and stored when they were supposed to be delivered but busy getting certified, meant that even comparing a EIS to a certain date is not a fair comparison. That is not adding the fact that the lower model of each program is in different segments which means each will have different sales potentials, it all means that trying to compare the 787 to A350 sales it just silly willy waving.

Both programs will sell well as they are excellent aircraft. It is fun debating stuff on here but when we start going off in cloud la la land it just gets silly.


Sure, the A350 RIGHT NOW can take 340-380 people as far as most would ever want to fly in one sitting and fly farther than anything Boeing has currently selling, but once its successors exceed the range of the longest route a commercial plane that big would ever be needed for, it's officially more frame and more weight than is needed for the job. That's just fact. That turns into inefficiency.

And why do you think I specified long-term and the 787-10 NG vs the A350 NEO specifically? The A350 NEO rises well out of the 777-300ER's capability, and a NEO 2 would be so far beyond that capability as to be rudely inefficient for it vs. a 787-10 MAX that finally matches the 777-300ER's range in a purpose-built frame for the mission.

Tell me what you as a plane and route planner would do with a plane whose range exceeds 19,000km when the longest mission you have is only 13,000km, someone like ANA or Cathay Pacific. Sure, CX has the A350 now, but what does it do when Hong Kong Airlines is selling tickets to New York 10% cheaper because they decided to deploy the 787-10 MAX that has all the needed capability and no more with pretty much the same matured engine tech? Does it roll over and accept the lost business? Does it lose profits on the route by undercutting its own prices? Does it get Airbus to re-design the plane and reduce the fuel volume in the wings or wing box, reduce the MTOW, reduce the thrust, etc. to make the plane more efficient for the given route requirements Cathay has? Or, does it just bite the bullet and order the more efficient planes for its network, even if that means lots of retraining costs?
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1634
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Sun Sep 22, 2019 11:34 pm

enzo011 wrote:

Okay, but that doesn't answer my question though. If you think it will sell at 4:1, how many do you think the A350 will sell in the next 20 years?

In the next 20 years
1500 additional A350 orders
3500 additional 787 orders

I didn't say the 787 will outsell the A350 4:1 for the next 20 years. I said that in the long term say 20 years time the 787 will outsell the A350 4:1 year on year.

In 10 years time the 787 might be outselling 2:1
In 15 years time the 787 might be outselling 3:1

In 20 years time I expect Boeing to still be at 14 aircraft a month with about 4000 787's built.

Airbus originally planned to increase A350 production from 10 to 13 per month this year. This was cancelled due to poor sales in the last 3 years. 95 sales vs 264. The 787 is already outselling 2.77:1 in the last 3 years.

I expect Airbus to keep the A350 at rate 10 until they launch the A350NEO. The backlog at that point will be really small and there will be massive pressure on the A350NEO launch to get big orders. The pressure to push customers towards the A350 will come to the detriment of the A330NEO. The surge of A350NEO orders will be enough to keep rate 10 for a few additional years but we will then get rate cuts to 8 and then 6 around 2030. This is the point where the A350NEO is too capable for most long haul routes as many members agree.

The 787NEO launch will be huge by comparison. I do not expect a single passenger 777X order after the 787NEO launch. We've had 300 777-300ER's that have entered service in the last 5 years that would most likely get replaced by the 787-10NEO. Once all the first lot of 777X's and A350's come up for replacement I expect the 787NEO to capture most of the orders.
 
patrickjp93
Topic Author
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:05 am

RJMAZ wrote:
enzo011 wrote:

The 787NEO launch will be huge by comparison. I do not expect a single passenger 777X order after the 787NEO launch. We've had 300 777-300ER's that have entered service in the last 5 years that would most likely get replaced by the 787-10NEO. Once all the first lot of 777X's and A350's come up for replacement I expect the 787NEO to capture most of the orders.


I wouldn't go THAT far. A380 and 747 operators need something to downgauge or side grade to that isn't relatively puny. The 777-9 and -8 are all they've got as options realistically. Heck Air Canada operates their 777-300ER at 450 passengers. They could probably fit nearly 500 on the 777-9.

Other than Sydney-Dallas and Los Angeles-Dubai, I can't think of any currently flying A380 routes that couldn't be handled by the 777-9. And surely there are 777-300ER routes that could use some slight up-gauging as well. I see 200 additional orders in the next 10 years
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1634
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:14 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
I wouldn't go THAT far. A380 and 747 operators need something to downgauge or side grade to that isn't relatively puny. The 777-9 and -8 are all they've got as options realistically.

The bulk of the A380's will be retired between 2025 and 2030. Replacements will need to be ordered between 2020-2025 and most will go to the 777-9 as it is the largest aircraft available.

The 787NEO will not be available yet to replace the A380 as it will be approx 5 years too late. It will be in the next replacement cycle. The 787NEO will be replacing A350's, 787's and 777W's coming off the line today. Then a few years later the 787-10NEO and potential 787-11 will begin to replace the 777X's that replaced the A380.

So the A380 routes will eventually be 787NEO but with the 777X inbetween. But once the 787NEO launch in the late 2020's there will be no more passenger 777x's. I could be wrong and trunk routes could see growth. Boeing could launch the 777-10 with excellent CASM. The VLA market is hard to predict but one thing is certain the 787's market will be huge for the next 30 years.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1634
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:40 am

Lets look at all the frames that had 8000nm range or higher with a standard cabin.

777LR - 59 built
A350-500 - 34 built
747-8 - 47 built
A380 - 239 built

You could say 4 engines killed the last three but I would say it was because they had too much range and were too heavy per square metre of cabin area. When you optimise for shorter range you reduce the MTOW which saves on empty weight and improves fuel efficiency across the board.

The A350-900 at 8100nm and the A350-1000 at 8700nm it is not surprising to see why the 900 has 80% of the sales in the family. The lighter 787-9 with 7635nm is selling well.

The A350-900NEO will have 9000nm range and the A350-1000ULRNEO will have 10,000nm range. That does not look good based on history.

Airbus will need a cleansheet A330 replacement to start at the smaller end of the sweetspot and grow into the middle of the sweetspot. Sized between the 797 and 787 in range and capacity would be perfect.

Today the A350-900 is probably the best all round widebody model on the market with the best blend of fuel efficiency, size and capability. I would rank the 787-9 second and the 787-10 third. It is only when you combine the attributes of the members of their respective families that the 787 comes out on top.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13989
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:31 am

Eyad89 wrote:
A359 is 1-4 tons heavier even though it has significantly heavier wings and engines. The heavier wing in A359 brings a longer span, and that's one of the reasons why A359 has a higher L/D ratio than 787-10. This heavier weight in A359 ends up saving fuel by improving aerodynamics.


Another a.net user "jayunited" has posted the UA 787-10 empty weight on a number of threads, eg "the OEW is 300,563 lb" in viewtopic.php?t=1422657

The 787-10 fuselage is 2.59 m longer between door 1 and 4 than the A359, that should mean around 3.2 tonnes more fuselage mass.

The UA empty weight stated by "jayunited" is higher the earliest A359 where I work.

On another thread flipdewaf (Fred) posted his excel model of the 787-10 vs A359, the A359 had lower fuel burn for the same payload over the same stage length.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1687
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:55 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
Reread, very slowly. Right now the A350 has probably the best ULH CASM and has very good cargo capability to go with it; and good for Airbus, great product, but look at the range and think not just 1, but 2+ iterations down the line. 15/16,000km is already close to the top 5% of viable routes for its pax capacity, save for the Project Sunrises of the world which demand a plane capable of 18,000km range. The A350 as it is iterated starts becoming weighed down by unused frame weight. The 787 doesn't have that problem. Or, if you want to be excruciatingly precise, even in the ludicrous world where we eventually get a 40% range improvement, at the very least the 787-10 never can become TOO range-capable. If you make the A350-900 35% more range-capable (5% difference between Trent 1000 and Trent XWB), you have 20-21,500km range. What on Earth is that good for? Perth to New York? Really? With 300+ souls onboard? It'll be so capable that a significant portion of its structure is actually WASTED capability, wasted MTOW, higher landing fees, higher fuel consumption than needed under all circumstances, etc..

The 777-8, going off its stated ~17,000km range, is going to be utterly ridiculous down the line, no doubt. With "just" 25% improvement, it's in the same position as the A350-1000 with 35% improvement, a range so high no one could ever want it except for a private jet. The 777-9, having a more modest 13,500km range, when improved by 25%, tops off where the A350-900 ULR does now. SQ would probably never BUY it for SIN-EWR, but I guess if you WANTED a really premium-heavy but economy-friendly configuration for that sort of route, you COULD justify the 777-9's successor.

Qantas, assuming they go with the 777-8 for PS now, would doubtlessly take on the 777-9 and its successors because that effectively handles their current A380 missions now and lets them up-gauge direct flights to New York and London from Sydney and Melbourne if needed later.

The 787-9 with 40% improvement does climb into a ridiculous range as well, but being a smaller frame with lower thrust requirements and lower pax gives it less overall inefficiency, and it can work for those routes where an A350 is just too much capacity. Suddenly Auckland-London and Perth-New York are potentially viable, though even they might need to gauge down to the 788 even 30 years from now. If SQ can't fill 300+ seats on the A350 NEO/2 to fly SIN-EWR, they might be able to fill 230 on the 787-9 MAX.

Sure, the A350 RIGHT NOW can take 340-380 people as far as most would ever want to fly in one sitting and fly farther than anything Boeing has currently selling, but once its successors exceed the range of the longest route a commercial plane that big would ever be needed for, it's officially more frame and more weight than is needed for the job. That's just fact. That turns into inefficiency.

And why do you think I specified long-term and the 787-10 NG vs the A350 NEO specifically? The A350 NEO rises well out of the 777-300ER's capability, and a NEO 2 would be so far beyond that capability as to be rudely inefficient for it vs. a 787-10 MAX that finally matches the 777-300ER's range in a purpose-built frame for the mission.

Tell me what you as a plane and route planner would do with a plane whose range exceeds 19,000km when the longest mission you have is only 13,000km, someone like ANA or Cathay Pacific. Sure, CX has the A350 now, but what does it do when Hong Kong Airlines is selling tickets to New York 10% cheaper because they decided to deploy the 787-10 MAX that has all the needed capability and no more with pretty much the same matured engine tech? Does it roll over and accept the lost business? Does it lose profits on the route by undercutting its own prices? Does it get Airbus to re-design the plane and reduce the fuel volume in the wings or wing box, reduce the MTOW, reduce the thrust, etc. to make the plane more efficient for the given route requirements Cathay has? Or, does it just bite the bullet and order the more efficient planes for its network, even if that means lots of retraining costs?



So you think the 78X-NG will be the perfect 77W replacement, that is basically what you are thinking. This is due to, taking the frames as we see them now and not adding any capability to them but better engines and extrapolating extra range from there and if you make that calculation, then the 78X-NG will be the perfect 77W replacement aircraft. That seem about right?

Now to the question you asked, which frame succeeds the 77W, the answer surely is a combination of the A35K, 779, and the 78X, but the 78X only if airlines reduce capacity compared to their 77W fleets. It doesn't really matter how magnificent the 78X is on paper, if you have 350 potential passengers that you can transport per day, why would you put a aircraft that can only fly 300 per day on the route? Take your CX example, you have your 77W right now and replace it with the super duper 78X, you are leaving passengers behind for another airline. So from a capacity side the choices seem to be the 779 or A35K on what replaces the 77W.

As for capability, well then you can talk about what new engines would bring to the 78X and how it would mean the A350 could become too capable when it has too much payload, but I don't think that is how it works. I will give you your argument, but I don't think it is relevant to the real world at all. So brownie points for proving that the 787 is better than the A350 in your limited example, but I don't know what it means other than you get a warm feeling that Boeing is better than Airbus at making aircraft (just not single aisle...because you know...).
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10872
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:13 am

enzo011 wrote:
how it would mean the A350 could become too capable when it has too much payload, but I don't think that is how it works.


:checkmark:
"too capable" only matters when you pay for that in fuel, which in this case you don´t....

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1634
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Mon Sep 23, 2019 10:49 am

Lets compare the sales history of the 787 vs A350

In the last 4 years
322 vs 136. The 787 sold 2.36 times more.

In the last 5 years:
393 vs 133. The 787 sold 2.95 times more.

In the last 6 years:
434 vs 101. The 787 sold 4.29 times more.

In the last 7 years:
615 vs 331. The 787 sold 1.85 times more.

The 4:1 sales difference that I predict in 20 years is reasonable once the A350NEO puts range above 9000nm. It is already above 2:1.

It is extremely obvious to me why the 787 is outselling A350. The 787 family covers a larger spectrum of roles than the A350 family.

With the A350 family you get two ultra long haul aircraft both with range well beyond most routes. With the 787 family you get one long haul aircraft for thin routes (787-8), one ultra long haul aircraft (787-9) and one highly efficient medium/long haul aircraft (787-10).

Now if an airline wanted to keep one pilot rating but have an aircraft family that can cover more roles then the 787 wins.

The A320NEO has the same family advantage over the 737.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13989
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Mon Sep 23, 2019 10:53 am

So why did the A330 outsell the 787 some years ?

Give me a minute to get the popcorn......
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1634
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Mon Sep 23, 2019 11:33 am

zeke wrote:
So why did the A330 outsell the 787 some years ?

Give me a minute to get the popcorn......


In September 2007, Boeing announced a three-month delay. On October 10, 2007, a second three-month delay to the first flight and a six-month delay to first deliveries was announced. Less than a week later, Mike Bair, the 787 program manager was replaced. On January 16, 2008, Boeing announced a third three-month delay to the first flight of the 787.

On April 9, 2008, a fourth delay was announced, shifting the maiden flight to the fourth quarter of 2008, and delaying initial deliveries by around 15 months to the third quarter of 2009. The 787-9 variant was postponed to 2012. On November 4, 2008, a fifth delay was announced, stating that the first test flight would not occur in the fourth quarter of 2008. After assessing the program schedule with suppliers, in December 2008, Boeing stated that the first flight was delayed until the second quarter of 2009.

These delays resulted in many order cancelations starting in 2009. The delivery schedule was pushed out more than 2 years. Many airlines that needed 787's delivered ASAP had no choice but to buy A330's that could be delivered quicker.

The 787 was also grounded due to battery fires. This has nothing to do with the future sales potential of the 787 and A350.

The A350 had no delays, groundings or problems that would cause the slow sales.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13989
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Mon Sep 23, 2019 11:47 am

So if customer airlines chose the A330 over the 787, why do you only compare the 787 sales to the A350 ? when the 787 market segment is actually be covered by the A321LR/A330/A350.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1687
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:15 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
In September 2007, Boeing announced a three-month delay. On October 10, 2007, a second three-month delay to the first flight and a six-month delay to first deliveries was announced. Less than a week later, Mike Bair, the 787 program manager was replaced. On January 16, 2008, Boeing announced a third three-month delay to the first flight of the 787.

On April 9, 2008, a fourth delay was announced, shifting the maiden flight to the fourth quarter of 2008, and delaying initial deliveries by around 15 months to the third quarter of 2009. The 787-9 variant was postponed to 2012. On November 4, 2008, a fifth delay was announced, stating that the first test flight would not occur in the fourth quarter of 2008. After assessing the program schedule with suppliers, in December 2008, Boeing stated that the first flight was delayed until the second quarter of 2009.

These delays resulted in many order cancelations starting in 2009. The delivery schedule was pushed out more than 2 years. Many airlines that needed 787's delivered ASAP had no choice but to buy A330's that could be delivered quicker.

The 787 was also grounded due to battery fires. This has nothing to do with the future sales potential of the 787 and A350.

The A350 had no delays, groundings or problems that would cause the slow sales.



And 787 and A350 sales has nothing to do with the OP, it is about the 77W successor. I have no problem discussing the 787 and A350 sales by the way, but it is dishonest to exclude the direct competitor to the 788 and 789 when you compare sales of the 787 in the A330 and the neo during the same timeframe.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2893
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:22 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
Reread, very slowly. Right now the A350 has probably the best ULH CASM and has very good cargo capability to go with it;
"I cant be homophobic, some of my best friends are gay"

patrickjp93 wrote:
and good for Airbus, great product, but look at the range and think not just 1, but 2+ iterations down the line.
I mean you are absolutely right, just look at what happened with multiple iterations of the 737 frame with improving engines and the range got completely monstrous, the should have stretched the thing to take account of the increased payload range, shame no one thought of that before.........Just imagine if a company had the foresight :banghead:

patrickjp93 wrote:
15/16,000km is already close to the top 5% of viable routes for its pax capacity,
Does an aircraft open a route or does a route enable the aircraft.....who's to say that number is static? Where the SP trail blazed the 744 made the norm, where the A340 trail blazed the A350 could be the norm.
patrickjp93 wrote:
save for the Project Sunrises of the world which demand a plane capable of 18,000km range. The A350 as it is iterated starts becoming weighed down by unused frame weight.
18,000km pure pax range translates to what in terms of payload range? The enormous pax only ranges are partly enabled by the lower slope after the first kink on the payload range chart (second kink is important in some cases) which is driven by the aero/engine/max payload requirements. The A350series have the huge ranges because they are payload monsters. Its great if that extra capability comes at very little extra cost.

patrickjp93 wrote:
Or, if you want to be excruciatingly precise, even in the ludicrous world where we eventually get a 40% range improvement, at the very least the 787-10 never can become TOO range-capable. If you make the A350-900 35% more range-capable (5% difference between Trent 1000 and Trent XWB), you have 20-21,500km range. What on Earth is that good for? Perth to New York? Really? With 300+ souls onboard? It'll be so capable that a significant portion of its structure is actually WASTED capability, wasted MTOW, higher landing fees, higher fuel consumption than needed under all circumstances, etc..
You are literally picking numbers to suit your argument. 40% improvements are likely not to be seen for 50+years. Why not pick 90% improvement? 12%? 23%? I can pick any number that makes the argument I want. I think I'll pick the number that makes the C-series the perfect TPAC bird then the 787 only has sunrise remaining and may as well stop production. What a load of sh1t!

Makes very little difference as no matter what fuel burn improvement you pick the payload range curve of the A359 shows it to be more capable than the B78X, the 78X will always have a slight pax capacity advantage and the A359 will burn 2% less fuel for a realistic like for like mission.

The B78X probably is a fair chunk cheaper to buy so if you are looking to have a relatively low utilization then the cheaper frame wins out, if you get high utilization then the ever so slightly more efficient one with higher capital costs.

patrickjp93 wrote:
The 787 doesn't have that problem.
Of course it does! Just pick different ranges.

patrickjp93 wrote:
The 777-8, going off its stated ~17,000km range
Except that it isn't... Excruciatingly precise?

patrickjp93 wrote:
, no doubt. With "just" 25% improvement, it's in the same position as the A350-1000 with 35% improvement
I'm going to go back to my manuals and let you know how my PA38 fares on this one. Give me a few days and we'll give that one a number too if you like?

patrickjp93 wrote:
Sure, the A350 RIGHT NOW can take 340-380 people as far as most would ever want to fly in one sitting and fly farther than anything Boeing has currently selling, but once its successors exceed the range of the longest route a commercial plane that big would ever be needed for, it's officially more frame and more weight than is needed for the job. That's just fact. That turns into inefficiency.

1. Does it come at additional cost compared to the competition?
2. is there other uses for the additional capability? remember the first kink on the payload range chart.

patrickjp93 wrote:
And why do you think I specified long-term and the 787-10 NG vs the A350 NEO specifically?
Because you've found an extra niche to argue fanboy isms?

patrickjp93 wrote:
The A350 NEO rises well out of the 777-300ER's capability, and a NEO 2 would be so far beyond that capability as to be rudely inefficient for it vs. a 787-10 MAX that finally matches the 777-300ER's range in a purpose-built frame for the mission.
Again, if we ignore capacity its all gravy!!!!!

patrickjp93 wrote:
Tell me what you as a plane and route planner would do with a plane whose range exceeds 19,000km when the longest mission you have is only 13,000km
Put more cargo in it.

patrickjp93 wrote:
Sure, CX has the A350 now, but what does it do when Hong Kong Airlines is selling tickets to New York 10% cheaper because they decided to deploy the 787-10 MAX
Well seeing as only about 1/3 of the cost is fuel to get to your 10% figure you'd need a ~30% improvement in fuel burn, as you say... Ludicrous!

patrickjp93 wrote:
Does it get Airbus to re-design the plane
I guess so, I assume that once they have designed a plane the just go and play tiddlywinks until an airline taps them on the shoulder.

RJMAZ wrote:
You could say 4 engines killed the last three but I would say it was because they had too much range and were too heavy per square metre of cabin area. When you optimise for shorter range you reduce the MTOW which saves on empty weight and improves fuel efficiency across the board.
Technically not wrong, but there are a multitude of factors that 'could' have lead to the failure (subjective) of those models. What is the weight per seat of the models of relevance in this thread?

RJMAZ wrote:
The A350-900NEO will have 9000nm range and the A350-1000ULRNEO will have 10,000nm range. That does not look good based on history.
What About MZFW ranges, that seems more important to me.

RJMAZ wrote:
Airbus will need a cleansheet A330 replacement to start at the smaller end of the sweetspot and grow into the middle of the sweetspot. Sized between the 797 and 787 in range and capacity would be perfect.


RJMAZ wrote:
I would rank the 787-9 second and the 787-10 third. It is only when you combine the attributes of the members of their respective families that the 787 comes out on top.


zeke wrote:
On another thread flipdewaf (Fred) posted his excel model of the 787-10 vs A359, the A359 had lower fuel burn for the same payload over the same stage length.
I'd like to clarify that it was 'an' excel model, build from 'the' excel model. But yes, the A359 appears to pay no cost for its extra capability. Go figure!

tommy1808 wrote:
"too capable" only matters when you pay for that in fuel, which in this case you don´t....
That really seems to have been lost somewhere on some folks.

RJMAZ wrote:
How many years does the 787 have to continue to outsell the A350 2:1 before people will start to question why? Or will Airbus fans continue to deny the evidence?
Depends if market share is your goal...

zeke wrote:
So why did the A330 outsell the 787 some years ?

Give me a minute to get the popcorn......
Careful, laughing and eating popcorn is a serious choking hazard.

Fred
Image
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1634
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:32 pm

zeke wrote:
So if customer airlines chose the A330 over the 787, why do you only compare the 787 sales to the A350 ? when the 787 market segment is actually be covered by the A321LR/A330/A350.

In the last 5 years the 787 has had more orders than the A330NEO and A350 combined.

You can keep saying how the A350 is superior, lighter, better fuel burn, bigger wing etc. Airlines actually have access to performance data of both aircraft and the 787 has outsold the A350 2:1 since its the first flight.

Are the airlines wrong? No Zeke, you are wrong.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2893
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:45 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
zeke wrote:
So if customer airlines chose the A330 over the 787, why do you only compare the 787 sales to the A350 ? when the 787 market segment is actually be covered by the A321LR/A330/A350.

In the last 5 years the 787 has had more orders than the A330NEO and A350 combined.

You can keep saying how the A350 is superior, lighter, better fuel burn, bigger wing etc. Airlines actually have access to performance data of both aircraft and the 787 has outsold the A350 2:1 since its the first flight.

Are the airlines wrong? No Zeke, you are wrong.

Of course the airlines are not wrong at all, would you say that the customers of Thomas Cook were wrong to book their cheap holidays either? I'm sure there was a lot of those sold too... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49796827

Fred
Image
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10872
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Mon Sep 23, 2019 1:01 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
You can keep saying how the A350 is superior, lighter, better fuel burn, bigger wing etc.


Or Airbus turns the lighter, lower fuel burn aircraft into higher margins. I don´t know that, you don´t know that either. ... In an Interview with the TAP CEO in the German Flug Revue he mentioned that the A359 came with a 50% premium over the A339. And a.net tells us that the 787 doesn´t have a price disadvantage compared to the A330 anymore...... same airline and all that would be quite the premium per pound of aircraft.

. Airlines actually have access to performance data of both aircraft and the 787 has outsold the A350 2:1 since its the first flight.


Now that argument is as desperate as they come condiering that Airlines having bought the 787 then went to buy the A350 as well, and the other way round. Apparently Airlines actually having access to performance data of both aircraft seem to think they are pretty darn close... and there is still plenty of head room for MZFW ranged to exploit and long haul distances still seem to increase when capable planes become available, and airlines seem to soak that up as they come available as long they don´t pay in fuel for that extra headroom.

best regards
Thomas.
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1380
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Mon Sep 23, 2019 1:08 pm

If a NG A359 and A3510 become "too capable" at their present capacity, surely the answer is to increase capacity. Add length to both models, put lavs downstairs, and the "excess" capability becomes mopped up by additional passenger-carrying capacity without impinging on cargo space.

Also creates more space between A339 and A359, helping Airbus define their A330 succession plan. Maybe also room for the original "optimised" A358.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13989
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Mon Sep 23, 2019 1:10 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
In the last 5 years the 787 has had more orders than the A330NEO and A350 combined.


Wasn't there two years in a row that the A330 alone outsold the 787 ?

tommy1808 wrote:
Now that argument is as desperate as they come condiering that Airlines having bought the 787 then went to buy the A350 as well, and the other way round.


I have often noticed that with airlines that have both, their A350s tend to get deployed on longer routes

JerseyFlyer wrote:
If a NG A359 and A3510 become "too capable" at their present capacity, surely the answer is to increase capacity. Add length to both models, put lavs downstairs, and the "excess" capability becomes mopped up by additional passenger-carrying capacity without impinging on cargo space.


Yes, thats the open secret with the A350-1100 or whatever you want to call it, longer than the -1000 but with more range and payload than a simple stretch could achieve today using todays MTOW.
Last edited by zeke on Mon Sep 23, 2019 1:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
patrickjp93
Topic Author
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Mon Sep 23, 2019 1:12 pm

enzo011 wrote:
So you think the 78X-NG will be the perfect 77W replacement, that is basically what you are thinking. This is due to, taking the frames as we see them now and not adding any capability to them but better engines and extrapolating extra range from there and if you make that calculation, then the 78X-NG will be the perfect 77W replacement aircraft. That seem about right?

Now to the question you asked, which frame succeeds the 77W, the answer surely is a combination of the A35K, 779, and the 78X, but the 78X only if airlines reduce capacity compared to their 77W fleets. It doesn't really matter how magnificent the 78X is on paper, if you have 350 potential passengers that you can transport per day, why would you put a aircraft that can only fly 300 per day on the route? Take your CX example, you have your 77W right now and replace it with the super duper 78X, you are leaving passengers behind for another airline. So from a capacity side the choices seem to be the 779 or A35K on what replaces the 77W.

As for capability, well then you can talk about what new engines would bring to the 78X and how it would mean the A350 could become too capable when it has too much payload, but I don't think that is how it works. I will give you your argument, but I don't think it is relevant to the real world at all. So brownie points for proving that the 787 is better than the A350 in your limited example, but I don't know what it means other than you get a warm feeling that Boeing is better than Airbus at making aircraft (just not single aisle...because you know...).


Successor, not replacement, and not perfect by any stretch since we're not going to get a 40% range bump in a single generation. Remember I keep bringing up the rise of P2P flying and the reduction of capacity needs on trunk routes. It will come down individually to the routes themselves on whether down gauging will be required or not as we start making our network graphs denser. Hong Kong to New York will likely always need an A350+ sized plane. Japan too LAX? Maybe, but that depends in part on whether or not they can efficiently fly a 788/9 to Chicago or Seattle and therefore reduce their PAX requirements for the given route. You CAN, in a brutal LCC config, fit 400+ people on the 78X, and in a basic 3-class config it fits over 320. The 777-300ER fits 450 people into a 3-class config (see Air Canada on Seatguru). And truth is the A350-1000 is even a capacity reduction from the 777-300ER for everyone operating the 77Ws with 10-abreast Y. For operators like Virgin Australia and anyone else still running with 9, well, then we're back to the economics of each frame for the required range. When the 78X NG gets flying, they'll have reduced the frame weight to be more competitive against the A350. Being overweight pretty much is the only reason that above the 9000km mark, the 78X works out to be the worse bird at max payload.

How is it not relevant to the real world? Part of flight economics is your landing/takeoff fees. The A350 will be heavier than needed without significant redesign of the wing or central wing box to reduce fuel space. Airlines will pay for that weight capability with every single cycle (fees are based on MTOW, not individual flight takeoff weights). It's too capable for its own good moving forward, and that has real costs. If the wings can be thinned to reduce fuel requirements and weight at the same range (and simply reduce MTOW by the same amount), you've just made the A350 more efficient for all of its viable missions.

That's essentially a proof by construction.

Boeing isn't infallible, and Airbus currently has the better plane, but the question was focused on the long-term outlook of the future generations of craft.
 
patrickjp93
Topic Author
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Mon Sep 23, 2019 1:15 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
how it would mean the A350 could become too capable when it has too much payload, but I don't think that is how it works.


:checkmark:
"too capable" only matters when you pay for that in fuel, which in this case you don´t....

best regards
Thomas


Yes you do. That's extra frame weight you have to propel, and there's also your landing/takeoff fees to watch too.
 
patrickjp93
Topic Author
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Mon Sep 23, 2019 1:21 pm

zeke wrote:
So why did the A330 outsell the 787 some years ?

Give me a minute to get the popcorn......

So if customer airlines chose the A330 over the 787, why do you only compare the 787 sales to the A350 ? when the 787 market segment is actually be covered by the A321LR/A330/A350.

The A330 outsold entirely because it was available and the 787 order book was completely full for years.

The A330 NEO is the last of its family. Airbus has made that abundantly clear, and the lack of sales for the 800 is pretty much the only nail in the coffin you need. The A350's composite body and geometry simply ARE superior for economics and passenger comfort flying long haul. Airbus is not about to invest in redoing the A330's exact frame in composites. They'll clean-sheet the A330-800's replacement, or possibly a somewhat smaller primary variant to tackle the routes the 788 is currently best for.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10872
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Mon Sep 23, 2019 1:21 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
how it would mean the A350 could become too capable when it has too much payload, but I don't think that is how it works.


:checkmark:
"too capable" only matters when you pay for that in fuel, which in this case you don´t....

best regards
Thomas


Yes you do. That's extra frame weight you have to propel, and there's also your landing/takeoff fees to watch too.


No you don´t. The A359 does not burn more fuel, but rather a touch less it would seem, and you don´t need your A359 to have a 280t Paper MTOW if you don´t need it, and hence you don´t pay fees for that either. Well, for a few tons, but that is easily offset by even the smallest fuel burn advantage.

The extra weight to propel is just fantasy as we know from the weights given by people piloting them, and if it is invested in a longer wing, as is the case on the A359, you get lower fuelburn to offset that.
Keep in mind that Boeing plans to offset some 20t of weight with the long wing on the 777x, and no one is calling that dead over all that extra weight to propel.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13989
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 787-10 NG vs. A350 NEO, Which Succeeds the 777-300ER?

Mon Sep 23, 2019 1:27 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Keep in mind that Boeing plans to offset some 20t of weight with the long wing on the 777x, and no one is calling that dead over all that extra weight to propel.


And the 788 is 30 tonnes heavier empty weight than the 763ER.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DALMD80 and 24 guests

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