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.
Wait what! Has there been a reduction in capacity 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
Lol, so you are saying the perfect replacement for a 77W is the lower capacity but still stretched version of an aircraft made by Boeing but if the aircraft is of a lower capacity and is over ranged then we cant stretch it and reduce its range because its made by airbus. This is priceless (Zeke: do you have salted or sweet?)
. 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.
The economics f the lower fuel burn of the A359...
When the 78X NG gets flying, they'll have reduced the frame weight to be more competitive against the A350.
Would this be when airbus are playing tiddlywinks again?
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.
In what sense is it overweight? or is every aircraft overweight?
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).
Are they? Its my understanding that they can be based on MTOW, MLW purely time based, based on wingspan, based on distance, based on icao code, based on ACI number based on number of passenger, based on cargo weight and any combination of the previous.
It's too capable for its own good moving forward, and that has real costs.
Except in this case it appears that the trip fuel of the A359 is about 2% lower than that of the B78X for a given mission (payload range)
If the wings can be thinned to reduce fuel requirements
Thinned in what sense? Material thickness, cord length, overall thickness?
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.
Meanwhile the reality of structural design takes over and what you think is true doesn't play out.
Playing out the three options one could mean by "thinner wing"
1. Reduced cord.
Pros: Reduced skin friction drag.
Cons: Slower cruise (Mach), Faster cruise (airspeed) -> lower altitudes attainable, heavier wing, longer takeoff/landing runs.
2. Reduced overall thickness
Pros: Faster Cruise (Mach)/Lower transonic drag divergence -> potential increase in attainable altitudes if wing limited.
Cons: Heavier wing, more flexible wing
3. Reduced Wing skin thickness
Pros: Reduced airframe weight (so can be the only one you reasonably mean)-> lower fuel burn, increased range, potential for lower fees.
Cons: Reduced payload
The big issue with number 3 is that you reduce payload BEFORE you impact MTOW and so you get a HIGHER maximum range whilst removing useful payload capability. You need to know that MZFW is the major weight parameter that drives wing weight, not MTOW. MZFW range drives the design Max typical pax range is more of a result and the biggest reason why ranges look to have been going up when MZFW (Real design range) has remained relatively static (5.5-6knm)
That's essentially a proof by construction.
Whatever, it's clear your knowledge has ended.
Boeing isn't infallible, and Airbus currently has the better plane,
They have a different plane, this will continue to be the case.
but the question was focused on the long-term outlook of the future generations of craft.
Which has many different potential scenarios and one can argue lots of ways. There is clearly an echo chamber effect between a few Boeing Fanboys going on and linking to each others posts in various threads as a form of pseudo referencing to gain credibility.