Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Sokes
Topic Author
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Fri Oct 16, 2020 1:54 am

Spinoff from the "RR losses" topic. I believe that deserves an own topic.

What are typical missions for both planes and how much payload on these missions?
What are the limits for both planes?
Any particular strengths or weaknesses?
Future outlook, e. g. what will be the -300 ERs' missions five years from today?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27681
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Fri Oct 16, 2020 3:02 am

The A350-1000 will carry more real-world payload farther burning a fair bit less fuel. So eventually, it (and the 777X) will replace the 777-300ER, though it will take a fair bit longer than five years.

As for the 777-300ER, I expect a fair number of them will end up as freighter conversions if the conversion program IAI and GECAS are preparing for them is as good as it looks to be.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20810
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:16 am

Bear in mind the 777 is a quarter-century older basic design. The A350 has superior performance.
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 1090
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Fri Oct 16, 2020 9:19 am

Stitch wrote:
The A350-1000 will carry more real-world payload farther burning a fair bit less fuel. So eventually, it (and the 777X) will replace the 777-300ER, though it will take a fair bit longer than five years.

As for the 777-300ER, I expect a fair number of them will end up as freighter conversions if the conversion program IAI and GECAS are preparing for them is as good as it looks to be.


Fully agree with your take on both planes. Additionally I believe the 300ER will become somewhat a larger A330 situation in the future as in being an extremely versatile and capable plane for very reasonable acquisition cost.
 
Sokes
Topic Author
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Fri Oct 16, 2020 12:52 pm

We had a discussion recently which covered quite a bit of the topic. I already forgot about it.

posting.php?mode=quote&f=5&p=22355639

DylanHarvey wrote:
Sokes wrote:
What are the ranges of the different B777, B787 and A350 variants at MZFW?
What are the initial cruise altitudes and fuel burns at MTOW?

The A359 at 280t and 197.2t MZFW is probably around 6200-6300nm, the
A35K is probably around 6000-6200nm,
77W is around 5700 I think. and the
787-9 is close to 5300,
787-10 is like 4200nm IIRC,
788 is around 5500nm I think, and the
77E is around 5900.

Fuel burns I'd have no idea, cruise altitudes depend on so many things.
77E is probably 300-340,
77W, 280-3100,
359, 340-380, the
35K is around 300-330 IIRC.
788 is probably 350-370,
789 330-350,
78X around the same as the 9 I think. That’s the best I can give from an av-geek perspective lol.


What followed was a discussion between Dylan and Zeke about DOWs:
359: around 135t,
35K: around 152 t
77W: below 175 t
779: above 180t

Also interesting:
tommy1808 wrote:
DLHAM wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
The 77W has an extra door pair with the extra space for cross cabin movement during evacuation you can´t place seats in, and the Cabin is only 15 m2 bigger than the A351. The extra ~15 seats are pretty much exclusively due to 10ab seating.

best regards
Thomas


Thats an interesting point I never thought about. While the 777-300ER still seats more (yes definitely due to the 10ab alone) its wasted space. But the 777X will not have that problem as Door 3 is removed and the "new 5th door" is optional.


yup, that is how the 779 gets its extra capacity despite the puny stretch..

best regards
Thomas


There was a discussion about fuel saving of A350 versus B777-300ER. One opinion was 1 t/ hour, another 1,7-2 t/ hour. But I'm not sure which A350, therefore I don't want to quote.

With lot of cargo demand and lots of flights below 10 hours, wouldn't 12 years old B777-300ER be good for Lufthansa?
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 1009
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Fri Oct 16, 2020 3:13 pm

Sokes wrote:
Spinoff from the "RR losses" topic. I believe that deserves an own topic.

What are typical missions for both planes and how much payload on these missions?
What are the limits for both planes?
Any particular strengths or weaknesses?
Future outlook, e. g. what will be the -300 ERs' missions five years from today?



As a poster mentioned, the A351 is 20 year newer tech and it was specifically designed to replace the 77W. A rough rule of thumb would suggest the A351 is at least 20% more efficient than a 77W.

The 788 was designed as a replacement for the 763. Boeing claimed it would achieve 20% fuel savings over the 763. Shortly after the 788 was introduced ANA said the 788 burned 21% less fuel on their NRT-FRA flight and they were pleased with its performance.

Airlines need to be enticed to make massive capital investment on newer tech aircraft only if the performance justifies the expenditure. I would say based on sales alone the A350 family achieved that objective.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Fri Oct 16, 2020 6:48 pm

If you take the spec missions the fuel use per pax.nm is ~ 19% Lower for the A35k. If the mission is set to 7370nm for both then the difference is 22%.

Do we have any data available for these 2 aircraft fram a single mission so that we can establish a range factor figure? I.e. TOW, LW and SAR or flight time from a single flight. We can use this to check the validity of the spec/marketing data.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 455
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:19 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
If you take the spec missions the fuel use per pax.nm is ~ 19% Lower for the A35k. If the mission is set to 7370nm for both then the difference is 22%.

Do we have any data available for these 2 aircraft fram a single mission so that we can establish a range factor figure? I.e. TOW, LW and SAR or flight time from a single flight. We can use this to check the validity of the spec/marketing data.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I would love to see a comparison between the 77W and 35K on Sydney to Doha. I remember someone posted the ramp fuel was always between 108 to 115 for the 35K at around MTOW. It seems like on hot days the 35K around 7t/hr And on normal days it is around 6.7-6.8. Seems like on that route the 350 is around 53 to 60t of payload, 77W around 50 if we think 8.1t an hour for the 77W. Obviously not exactly what you’re looking for Fred but I am just thinking off the top of my head.
 
Sokes
Topic Author
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Sun Oct 18, 2020 4:17 pm

Sorry for the faulty link.
The old discussion:
viewtopic.php?t=1436299

What are typical B777-300ER missions today, 10h, 12h?
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22259
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Sun Oct 18, 2020 4:31 pm

Starlionblue wrote:
Bear in mind the 777 is a quarter-century older basic design.


:checkmark: 777 was launched in 1990. The XWB (as opposed to the first A350, which was basically an A330NEO) was launched in 2006.

AND the 77W is a derivative. The 777-300 platform was never intended to fly 7,000+ nm back in the late 1980s/early 1990s when the 777 program was still on the drawing board. Boeing strapped on more powerful engines, made some aerodynamic improvements, and managed to put out a truly capable airplane that quickly replaced the 744 as the long-haul large airliner of the world. But the 77W's wing is relatively small for its size, having really been optimized for the 777-200. That means that the 77W needs enormous engines (to date the most powerful gas turbine ever produced) and has an initial cruising altitude in the low FL300s on longer flights. For 20 years ago, that was enough improvement over the 744 and the A346 to dominate the market, but there were some compromises. The 77X addresses those compromises by providing a more optimal wing, which allows for less powerful engines and higher cruise altitudes.

The XWB is a clean-sheet design.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20810
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Mon Oct 19, 2020 12:12 am

DocLightning wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
Bear in mind the 777 is a quarter-century older basic design.


:checkmark: 777 was launched in 1990. The XWB (as opposed to the first A350, which was basically an A330NEO) was launched in 2006.

AND the 77W is a derivative. The 777-300 platform was never intended to fly 7,000+ nm back in the late 1980s/early 1990s when the 777 program was still on the drawing board. Boeing strapped on more powerful engines, made some aerodynamic improvements, and managed to put out a truly capable airplane that quickly replaced the 744 as the long-haul large airliner of the world. But the 77W's wing is relatively small for its size, having really been optimized for the 777-200. That means that the 77W needs enormous engines (to date the most powerful gas turbine ever produced) and has an initial cruising altitude in the low FL300s on longer flights. For 20 years ago, that was enough improvement over the 744 and the A346 to dominate the market, but there were some compromises. The 77X addresses those compromises by providing a more optimal wing, which allows for less powerful engines and higher cruise altitudes.

The XWB is a clean-sheet design.


Good points.

IMHO launch date is not as indicative as first flight and EIS.

777: 1994, 1995.
A350: 2013, 2015.

So not a quarter-century. My bad. But still 19-20 year difference.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22259
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Mon Oct 19, 2020 3:44 am

Starlionblue wrote:
IMHO launch date is not as indicative as first flight and EIS.


I like launch because it tells you more about the technology involved. Of course, perhaps design freeze is a better measure in that respect.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16358
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Mon Oct 19, 2020 1:59 pm

Sokes wrote:
What followed was a discussion between Dylan and Zeke about DOWs:
359: around 135t,
35K: around 152 t
77W: below 175 t
779: above 180t


35k should not be above 150 t
77W should not be above 170 t
779 I expect to be at least 15 t heavier than the 77W just on the fuselage length if you look at the difference between the 77L and 77W, we also now know since the GE9X is certified the pair of GE9X engines are 1730 kg heavier than the GE90-115.

Sokes wrote:
With lot of cargo demand and lots of flights below 10 hours, wouldn't 12 years old B777-300ER be good for Lufthansa?


Dont think so, they would be better off using their own aircraft, make no sense to have their own aircraft parked with their crews not working and get someone elses aircraft and train new crews.

DylanHarvey wrote:
I would love to see a comparison between the 77W and 35K on Sydney to Doha. I remember someone posted the ramp fuel was always between 108 to 115 for the 35K at around MTOW. It seems like on hot days the 35K around 7t/hr And on normal days it is around 6.7-6.8. Seems like on that route the 350 is around 53 to 60t of payload, 77W around 50 if we think 8.1t an hour for the 77W. Obviously not exactly what you’re looking for Fred but I am just thinking off the top of my head.


Problem with SYD DOH I think the 77W was pre airspace closure the other post, QR now have extra miles they were flying

Sokes wrote:
What are typical B777-300ER missions today, 10h, 12h?


All of our passenger 77Ws are parked, except for around half dozen that have had some seats removed and carry some cargo on the main deck in special cargo nets (photos in this article https://www.freightwaves.com/news/catha ... -for-cargo . They are typically only being used sub 10 hrs. The A350s are still flying long haul passenger flights.
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 455
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Mon Oct 19, 2020 2:29 pm

zeke wrote:
Sokes wrote:
What followed was a discussion between Dylan and Zeke about DOWs:
359: around 135t,
35K: around 152 t
77W: below 175 t
779: above 180t


35k should not be above 150 t
77W should not be above 170 t
779 I expect to be at least 15 t heavier than the 77W just on the fuselage length if you look at the difference between the 77L and 77W, we also now know since the GE9X is certified the pair of GE9X engines are 1730 kg heavier than the GE90-115.

Sokes wrote:
With lot of cargo demand and lots of flights below 10 hours, wouldn't 12 years old B777-300ER be good for Lufthansa?


Dont think so, they would be better off using their own aircraft, make no sense to have their own aircraft parked with their crews not working and get someone elses aircraft and train new crews.

DylanHarvey wrote:
I would love to see a comparison between the 77W and 35K on Sydney to Doha. I remember someone posted the ramp fuel was always between 108 to 115 for the 35K at around MTOW. It seems like on hot days the 35K around 7t/hr And on normal days it is around 6.7-6.8. Seems like on that route the 350 is around 53 to 60t of payload, 77W around 50 if we think 8.1t an hour for the 77W. Obviously not exactly what you’re looking for Fred but I am just thinking off the top of my head.


Problem with SYD DOH I think the 77W was pre airspace closure the other post, QR now have extra miles they were flying

Sokes wrote:
What are typical B777-300ER missions today, 10h, 12h?


All of our passenger 77Ws are parked, except for around half dozen that have had some seats removed and carry some cargo on the main deck in special cargo nets (photos in this article https://www.freightwaves.com/news/catha ... -for-cargo . They are typically only being used sub 10 hrs. The A350s are still flying long haul passenger flights.

Zeke would 148-149t be more reasonable for the 35K? And good to know about the 77W, I was assuming that it could end up in the 170s with some extremely premium heavy configurations. And yeah I think if we use 15t heavier for the 777X 182-184t seems about right. With airspace closures the 77W payload drops to around 46t maybe even less would that also be a fair guess?
 
Sokes
Topic Author
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Mon Oct 19, 2020 3:43 pm

zeke wrote:
Sokes wrote:
With lot of cargo demand and lots of flights below 10 hours, wouldn't 12 years old B777-300ER be good for Lufthansa?


Dont think so, they would be better off using their own aircraft, make no sense to have their own aircraft parked with their crews not working and get someone elses aircraft and train new crews.

I bow my head before your genius.
 
Sokes
Topic Author
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Mon Oct 19, 2020 3:49 pm

What were typical B777-300ER missions just before Covid19 hit?
 
moyangmm
Posts: 230
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Mon Oct 19, 2020 8:43 pm

Qatar Airways group chief executive Akbar Al Baker originally hinted the increase to 319t during the 2018 show and stated the upgrade would make the aircraft “a very huge competitor for the [Boeing 777] -300ER”.


Source: https://samchui.com/2019/06/15/airbus-a ... ange-boost

Interestingly, A350-1000 becomes capable of competing with 777-300ER after the 319t MTOW boost, said by the CEO of the largest A350-1000 operator. Prior to 319t, does this mean A350-1000 is less capable than 777-300ER?
 
moyangmm
Posts: 230
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Mon Oct 19, 2020 8:45 pm

Sokes wrote:
What were typical B777-300ER missions just before Covid19 hit?


Pretty much dominates all trunk routes from 8 hrs - 15 hrs. For example, HKG-JFK.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27681
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Mon Oct 19, 2020 8:51 pm

moyangmm wrote:
Interestingly, A350-1000 becomes capable of competing with 777-300ER after the 319t MTOW boost, said by the CEO of the largest A350-1000 operator. Prior to 319t, does this mean A350-1000 is less capable than 777-300ER?


It was always very capable. The 319,000kg MTOW made it even more so.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:18 pm

moyangmm wrote:
Qatar Airways group chief executive Akbar Al Baker originally hinted the increase to 319t during the 2018 show and stated the upgrade would make the aircraft “a very huge competitor for the [Boeing 777] -300ER”.


Source: https://samchui.com/2019/06/15/airbus-a ... ange-boost

Interestingly, A350-1000 becomes capable of competing with 777-300ER after the 319t MTOW boost, said by the CEO of the largest A350-1000 operator. Prior to 319t, does this mean A350-1000 is less capable than 777-300ER?

Or maybe it meant that it was useful to purchase a A35k over an already owned 77W. I.e. the fuel savings outweighed the capital.

Who knows...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 455
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:04 am

moyangmm wrote:
Qatar Airways group chief executive Akbar Al Baker originally hinted the increase to 319t during the 2018 show and stated the upgrade would make the aircraft “a very huge competitor for the [Boeing 777] -300ER”.


Source: https://samchui.com/2019/06/15/airbus-a ... ange-boost

Interestingly, A350-1000 becomes capable of competing with 777-300ER after the 319t MTOW boost, said by the CEO of the largest A350-1000 operator. Prior to 319t, does this mean A350-1000 is less capable than 777-300ER?

I would say it was already more capable, the 35K went to these 77W long haul routes, LAX, IAH, DFW, SYD, and the -900 is doing SFO. QR show 26.5t of cargo capacity for the A35K and around 22t for the 77W. Max payload should be around 73-74t for the 35K, and 67-69t for the 77W. IIRC QR may have had some 308t 35K which are closer to the 77W, the 316t essentially beats the 77W in performance in every aspect, the 35K has exceeded expectations from what we have seen. 6.7t/hr at 308t on a 16hr flight with 33-35t payload, also landed with 14t of fuel, and had 8t of MTOW headroom.
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 455
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:06 am

moyangmm wrote:
Sokes wrote:
What were typical B777-300ER missions just before Covid19 hit?


Pretty much dominates all trunk routes from 8 hrs - 15 hrs. For example, HKG-JFK.

Basically high capacity long haul and cargo heavy routes, AA have carried 40 something tons of cargo from LAX-LHR. In the 11-14hr range its a beast and the CASM is better compared to the 77E or 77L.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Tue Oct 20, 2020 8:22 am

moyangmm wrote:
Qatar Airways group chief executive Akbar Al Baker originally hinted the increase to 319t during the 2018 show and stated the upgrade would make the aircraft “a very huge competitor for the [Boeing 777] -300ER”.


Source: https://samchui.com/2019/06/15/airbus-a ... ange-boost

Interestingly, A350-1000 becomes capable of competing with 777-300ER after the 319t MTOW boost, said by the CEO of the largest A350-1000 operator. Prior to 319t, does this mean A350-1000 is less capable than 777-300ER?


AFAIR:
the design changes that brought a further ~2 year delay ( and in repercussion a bunch of orders for the 77W )
stepped the A35k into covering the full payload range of the 77W.
https://www.flightglobal.com/paris-a350 ... 96.article
( more thrust, MTOW raise from 298 to 308 )

Any MTOW boost after that was pure bonus.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Tue Oct 20, 2020 8:57 am

moyangmm wrote:
Sokes wrote:
What were typical B777-300ER missions just before Covid19 hit?


Pretty much dominates all trunk routes from 8 hrs - 15 hrs. For example, HKG-JFK.


My shortest 777-300ER flight (excluding KLM flights that continue to another destination, like KL-Jakarta) was 5 hours, but the vast majority have been around 12-13 hours. It is pretty well suited for the Europe to Asia runs, although even before the crisis struck the A350 was becoming more and more prevalent on those routes.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20810
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Tue Oct 20, 2020 10:58 am

VSMUT wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
Sokes wrote:
What were typical B777-300ER missions just before Covid19 hit?


Pretty much dominates all trunk routes from 8 hrs - 15 hrs. For example, HKG-JFK.


My shortest 777-300ER flight (excluding KLM flights that continue to another destination, like KL-Jakarta) was 5 hours, but the vast majority have been around 12-13 hours. It is pretty well suited for the Europe to Asia runs, although even before the crisis struck the A350 was becoming more and more prevalent on those routes.


In Asia, 77Ws are regularly used for regional flights, e.g. TPE-HKG which is only around an hour flight time. A lot of this is just filling gaps between long hauls, though.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:37 am

Starlionblue wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
moyangmm wrote:

Pretty much dominates all trunk routes from 8 hrs - 15 hrs. For example, HKG-JFK.


My shortest 777-300ER flight (excluding KLM flights that continue to another destination, like KL-Jakarta) was 5 hours, but the vast majority have been around 12-13 hours. It is pretty well suited for the Europe to Asia runs, although even before the crisis struck the A350 was becoming more and more prevalent on those routes.


In Asia, 77Ws are regularly used for regional flights, e.g. TPE-HKG which is only around an hour flight time. A lot of this is just filling gaps between long hauls, though.


You also have the ME3 who use them for 2-3 hour flights to India and Pakistan and 6-hour flights to Europe.
 
AC320tech
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 6:32 am

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Wed Oct 21, 2020 12:04 pm

Starlionblue wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
moyangmm wrote:

Pretty much dominates all trunk routes from 8 hrs - 15 hrs. For example, HKG-JFK.


My shortest 777-300ER flight (excluding KLM flights that continue to another destination, like KL-Jakarta) was 5 hours, but the vast majority have been around 12-13 hours. It is pretty well suited for the Europe to Asia runs, although even before the crisis struck the A350 was becoming more and more prevalent on those routes.


In Asia, 77Ws are regularly used for regional flights, e.g. TPE-HKG which is only around an hour flight time. A lot of this is just filling gaps between long hauls, though.


Would some of those Asia routes be 773s and not 77Ws?

Air Canada used the 77W on the YVR-YYZ and YYZ-YUL routes, this was pre covid.
 
User avatar
AirKevin
Posts: 843
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:18 am

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Wed Oct 21, 2020 6:09 pm

AC320tech wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
My shortest 777-300ER flight (excluding KLM flights that continue to another destination, like KL-Jakarta) was 5 hours, but the vast majority have been around 12-13 hours. It is pretty well suited for the Europe to Asia runs, although even before the crisis struck the A350 was becoming more and more prevalent on those routes.

In Asia, 77Ws are regularly used for regional flights, e.g. TPE-HKG which is only around an hour flight time. A lot of this is just filling gaps between long hauls, though.

Would some of those Asia routes be 773s and not 77Ws?

Depends on the airline. The only Asian carriers that had them are All Nippon, Cathay Pacific, Japan Airlines, Korean Air, Singapore Airlines, and Thai.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20810
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Thu Oct 22, 2020 8:40 am

AC320tech wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
VSMUT wrote:

My shortest 777-300ER flight (excluding KLM flights that continue to another destination, like KL-Jakarta) was 5 hours, but the vast majority have been around 12-13 hours. It is pretty well suited for the Europe to Asia runs, although even before the crisis struck the A350 was becoming more and more prevalent on those routes.


In Asia, 77Ws are regularly used for regional flights, e.g. TPE-HKG which is only around an hour flight time. A lot of this is just filling gaps between long hauls, though.


Would some of those Asia routes be 773s and not 77Ws?

Air Canada used the 77W on the YVR-YYZ and YYZ-YUL routes, this was pre covid.


Some are 773 of course. In regional seating config.

International flights tend to go in waves. E.g. in HKG or TPE, Europe flights almost all arrive early morning and depart around midnight. So your 77Ws are all deboarded and cleaned by 0900, and you can't launch them again until midnight. Might as well send them off to Seoul, Tokyo, Hanoi, Singapore and so on. They'll be back in time for the Europe sector. And put them on more premium routes like Haneda where business travelers are more likely to pay for the lie-flat seat. They might not be the perfect tool for the job, but they're a tool you already own.

Of course, there are various waves depending on destination region, so the reality is much more complex, but you'll always have gaps in usage for long haul aircraft. Those same 77Ws will be sitting in Europe from early morning on arrival until departure in the mid-afternoon, for example.
 
Opus99
Posts: 2434
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Sun Jan 17, 2021 8:24 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
Qatar Airways group chief executive Akbar Al Baker originally hinted the increase to 319t during the 2018 show and stated the upgrade would make the aircraft “a very huge competitor for the [Boeing 777] -300ER”.


Source: https://samchui.com/2019/06/15/airbus-a ... ange-boost

Interestingly, A350-1000 becomes capable of competing with 777-300ER after the 319t MTOW boost, said by the CEO of the largest A350-1000 operator. Prior to 319t, does this mean A350-1000 is less capable than 777-300ER?

Or maybe it meant that it was useful to purchase a A35k over an already owned 77W. I.e. the fuel savings outweighed the capital.

Who knows...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Clearly not at the price airbus seems to be charging if an old generation aircraft can bounce it out based on price. i.e. United

The end of line 300ERs that Boeing sold to BA via Novus went for just over 100 million a pop

A brand new 350-1000 is valued at 170 million
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Sat Jun 26, 2021 8:27 am

Opus99 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
moyangmm wrote:

Source: https://samchui.com/2019/06/15/airbus-a ... ange-boost

Interestingly, A350-1000 becomes capable of competing with 777-300ER after the 319t MTOW boost, said by the CEO of the largest A350-1000 operator. Prior to 319t, does this mean A350-1000 is less capable than 777-300ER?

Or maybe it meant that it was useful to purchase a A35k over an already owned 77W. I.e. the fuel savings outweighed the capital.

Who knows...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Clearly not at the price airbus seems to be charging if an old generation aircraft can bounce it out based on price. i.e. United

The end of line 300ERs that Boeing sold to BA via Novus went for just over 100 million a pop

A brand new 350-1000 is valued at 170 million

Using your number the difference is $70m. At an assumed utilisation of 13hrs per day an aircraft linearly depreciated over over 12 years would be $1230 per hr. At current fuel prices this equates to around 2t/hr to make up for this.

Whilst I don’t think the fuel burn difference is that high between the value of a 12 year old A350 would be higher than a 12year old 77W.

There was an estimate of a 22year useful lifespan of an aircraft (I forget where from) which would put the value change in the aircraft at about $670/hr which is lower than the fuel burn difference in your example. Given the inherent value of cash over an asset I would say that 100 vs 170 for the value of the respective aircraft seems reasonable. Particularly for airlines like BA and UA where the raw performance increase (payload/range) that the A350 brings isn’t as useful.

70million seems like good wiggle room for airbus I feel.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
texl1649
Posts: 1898
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Mon Jul 05, 2021 1:13 am

Starlionblue wrote:
Bear in mind the 777 is a quarter-century older basic design. The A350 has superior performance.

The same is true of the 737, yet it also has something like 5,000 frames on order vs. the newer A320.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20810
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:24 am

texl1649 wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
Bear in mind the 777 is a quarter-century older basic design. The A350 has superior performance.

The same is true of the 737, yet it also has something like 5,000 frames on order vs. the newer A320.


The 737MAX has new engines and a bunch of other improvements. The 777 does not, until the 777X enters service.
 
Niloko
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:43 am

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:56 am

Starlionblue wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
Bear in mind the 777 is a quarter-century older basic design. The A350 has superior performance.

The same is true of the 737, yet it also has something like 5,000 frames on order vs. the newer A320.


The 737MAX has new engines and a bunch of other improvements. The 777 does not, until the 777X enters service.


The 777-300ER/200LR did feature new generation GE90, bigger wing with raked wing tips and many more improvements allowing for extra range, mtow and efficiency. It's called the second generation of the 777 for a reason.
Because of these all improvements, the 777-9 and A350-1000 only give around 10-13% less fuel burn from 777-300ER compared to something like 20-25% less fuel burn of 787-10 and A350-900 vs 777-200.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1898
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Mon Jul 19, 2021 10:20 am

Niloko wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
The same is true of the 737, yet it also has something like 5,000 frames on order vs. the newer A320.


The 737MAX has new engines and a bunch of other improvements. The 777 does not, until the 777X enters service.


The 777-300ER/200LR did feature new generation GE90, bigger wing with raked wing tips and many more improvements allowing for extra range, mtow and efficiency. It's called the second generation of the 777 for a reason.
Because of these all improvements, the 777-9 and A350-1000 only give around 10-13% less fuel burn from 777-300ER compared to something like 20-25% less fuel burn of 787-10 and A350-900 vs 777-200.


Ok, but it did all of that 20+ years ago. It’s not really an apt comparator to the A350-1000 as it…is basically the older generation now (779 being functionally a half generation newer based on the engines alone). I guess it could be said that the A350-1000 was also launched in 2006...15 years ago, yet only about 56 are in service/delivered. It is odd how poorly this model has sold.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Mon Jul 19, 2021 10:55 am

Niloko wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
The same is true of the 737, yet it also has something like 5,000 frames on order vs. the newer A320.


The 737MAX has new engines and a bunch of other improvements. The 777 does not, until the 777X enters service.


The 777-300ER/200LR did feature new generation GE90, bigger wing with raked wing tips and many more improvements allowing for extra range, mtow and efficiency. It's called the second generation of the 777 for a reason.
Because of these all improvements, the 777-9 and A350-1000 only give around 10-13% less fuel burn from 777-300ER compared to something like 20-25% less fuel burn of 787-10 and A350-900 vs 777-200.

The A35K is around 22% lower fuel burn on a like for like basis compared to the 77W so fits in entirely with the 20-25% assessment of the A359/787 over the 777-200.

Fred
 
Niloko
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:43 am

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Mon Jul 19, 2021 1:05 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Niloko wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:

The 737MAX has new engines and a bunch of other improvements. The 777 does not, until the 777X enters service.


The 777-300ER/200LR did feature new generation GE90, bigger wing with raked wing tips and many more improvements allowing for extra range, mtow and efficiency. It's called the second generation of the 777 for a reason.
Because of these all improvements, the 777-9 and A350-1000 only give around 10-13% less fuel burn from 777-300ER compared to something like 20-25% less fuel burn of 787-10 and A350-900 vs 777-200.

The A35K is around 22% lower fuel burn on a like for like basis compared to the 77W so fits in entirely with the 20-25% assessment of the A359/787 over the 777-200.

Fred

So the 777-9 according to Boeing burns 13% less fuel per seat than 777W but the A35K burns 22% less? Or did you mean the fuel burn on a trip without considering the seats.
22% less per seat seems way too big of a difference considering the 777W was the most efficient thing out there in the early 2000s.
 
Niloko
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:43 am

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Mon Jul 19, 2021 1:25 pm

texl1649 wrote:
Niloko wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:

The 737MAX has new engines and a bunch of other improvements. The 777 does not, until the 777X enters service.


The 777-300ER/200LR did feature new generation GE90, bigger wing with raked wing tips and many more improvements allowing for extra range, mtow and efficiency. It's called the second generation of the 777 for a reason.
Because of these all improvements, the 777-9 and A350-1000 only give around 10-13% less fuel burn from 777-300ER compared to something like 20-25% less fuel burn of 787-10 and A350-900 vs 777-200.


Ok, but it did all of that 20+ years ago. It’s not really an apt comparator to the A350-1000 as it…is basically the older generation now (779 being functionally a half generation newer based on the engines alone). I guess it could be said that the A350-1000 was also launched in 2006...15 years ago, yet only about 56 are in service/delivered. It is odd how poorly this model has sold.

Well I think the 777-300ER did hurt the A350-1000 a little bit considering it got dozens of orders in the mid to late 2010s from airlines who wanted a large sized airplane faster and for cheaper.

The 35K is selling poorly probably because the 77W is still very capable and fairly new. Majority of the airlines who have a place for large aircraft in their fleet have the 777-300ER and haven't planned it's retirement/replacement yet. And out of the few airlines that have planned retirements for 777-300ER almost all have ordered the 777-9 to do so. The current largest A350 operators have also chosen 777-9 to replace their 77W over A350-1000.

I think the A350-1000 and 777-9's main attraction for airlines is being a replacement of the very successful 777-300ER and it looks like the 777-9 does a better job at it. Only very few airlines will be there who will order the A350-1000 or 777-9 without the purpose of replacing the 77W/ 346/744.But you can expect a boost of sales for both A350-1000 and 777-9 in around mid - late 2020s when most full service carriers will start to think about retirements of 77W.
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 858
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Mon Jul 19, 2021 2:35 pm

Niloko wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
Niloko wrote:

The 777-300ER/200LR did feature new generation GE90, bigger wing with raked wing tips and many more improvements allowing for extra range, mtow and efficiency. It's called the second generation of the 777 for a reason.
Because of these all improvements, the 777-9 and A350-1000 only give around 10-13% less fuel burn from 777-300ER compared to something like 20-25% less fuel burn of 787-10 and A350-900 vs 777-200.


Ok, but it did all of that 20+ years ago. It’s not really an apt comparator to the A350-1000 as it…is basically the older generation now (779 being functionally a half generation newer based on the engines alone). I guess it could be said that the A350-1000 was also launched in 2006...15 years ago, yet only about 56 are in service/delivered. It is odd how poorly this model has sold.

Well I think the 777-300ER did hurt the A350-1000 a little bit considering it got dozens of orders in the mid to late 2010s from airlines who wanted a large sized airplane faster and for cheaper.

The 35K is selling poorly probably because the 77W is still very capable and fairly new. Majority of the airlines who have a place for large aircraft in their fleet have the 777-300ER and haven't planned it's retirement/replacement yet. And out of the few airlines that have planned retirements for 777-300ER almost all have ordered the 777-9 to do so. The current largest A350 operators have also chosen 777-9 to replace their 77W over A350-1000.

I think the A350-1000 and 777-9's main attraction for airlines is being a replacement of the very successful 777-300ER and it looks like the 777-9 does a better job at it. Only very few airlines will be there who will order the A350-1000 or 777-9 without the purpose of replacing the 77W/ 346/744.But you can expect a boost of sales for both A350-1000 and 777-9 in around mid - late 2020s when most full service carriers will start to think about retirements of 77W.


The A350-1000 isn't selling as its per-seat economics are not materially better than the A350-900's. Multiple analysts have claimed the -1000 yields a 2-3% operating cost advantage per seat. That is simply not enough of a advantage. For most airlines/networks, it's better to take the 10 A359's rather than 8 A35K's for the same $1.5B USD investment.
 
Niloko
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:43 am

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Mon Jul 19, 2021 3:12 pm

Okcflyer wrote:
Niloko wrote:
texl1649 wrote:

Ok, but it did all of that 20+ years ago. It’s not really an apt comparator to the A350-1000 as it…is basically the older generation now (779 being functionally a half generation newer based on the engines alone). I guess it could be said that the A350-1000 was also launched in 2006...15 years ago, yet only about 56 are in service/delivered. It is odd how poorly this model has sold.

Well I think the 777-300ER did hurt the A350-1000 a little bit considering it got dozens of orders in the mid to late 2010s from airlines who wanted a large sized airplane faster and for cheaper.

The 35K is selling poorly probably because the 77W is still very capable and fairly new. Majority of the airlines who have a place for large aircraft in their fleet have the 777-300ER and haven't planned it's retirement/replacement yet. And out of the few airlines that have planned retirements for 777-300ER almost all have ordered the 777-9 to do so. The current largest A350 operators have also chosen 777-9 to replace their 77W over A350-1000.

I think the A350-1000 and 777-9's main attraction for airlines is being a replacement of the very successful 777-300ER and it looks like the 777-9 does a better job at it. Only very few airlines will be there who will order the A350-1000 or 777-9 without the purpose of replacing the 77W/ 346/744.But you can expect a boost of sales for both A350-1000 and 777-9 in around mid - late 2020s when most full service carriers will start to think about retirements of 77W.


The A350-1000 isn't selling as its per-seat economics are not materially better than the A350-900's. Multiple analysts have claimed the -1000 yields a 2-3% operating cost advantage per seat. That is simply not enough of a advantage. For most airlines/networks, it's better to take the 10 A359's rather than 8 A35K's for the same $1.5B USD investment.

Sure it might be one of the reasons but it definitely isn't the main reason. The main attraction of bigger planes isn't necessarily having a crazy difference in per seat economics in the first place. These 2 planes also target different requirements of the airlines. And yes, for most airlines it's better to take the smaller plane but that doesn't mean bigger planes have a lack of market. The 777-300ER proved there is a massive market for large jets even after planes like 787 were released less than 10 years after it.

An example of large planes vs small plane is flying a filled 777-300ER will earn the airline significantly greater profits than flying a filled A350-900 in the same route even tho the 359 has around 10% operating cost advantage per seat. Now just imagine when you replace the 777-300ER with the A350-1000 which is similar to 77W but newer and even lower operating cost per seat.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:00 pm

Okcflyer wrote:
Niloko wrote:
texl1649 wrote:

Ok, but it did all of that 20+ years ago. It’s not really an apt comparator to the A350-1000 as it…is basically the older generation now (779 being functionally a half generation newer based on the engines alone). I guess it could be said that the A350-1000 was also launched in 2006...15 years ago, yet only about 56 are in service/delivered. It is odd how poorly this model has sold.

Well I think the 777-300ER did hurt the A350-1000 a little bit considering it got dozens of orders in the mid to late 2010s from airlines who wanted a large sized airplane faster and for cheaper.

The 35K is selling poorly probably because the 77W is still very capable and fairly new. Majority of the airlines who have a place for large aircraft in their fleet have the 777-300ER and haven't planned it's retirement/replacement yet. And out of the few airlines that have planned retirements for 777-300ER almost all have ordered the 777-9 to do so. The current largest A350 operators have also chosen 777-9 to replace their 77W over A350-1000.

I think the A350-1000 and 777-9's main attraction for airlines is being a replacement of the very successful 777-300ER and it looks like the 777-9 does a better job at it. Only very few airlines will be there who will order the A350-1000 or 777-9 without the purpose of replacing the 77W/ 346/744.But you can expect a boost of sales for both A350-1000 and 777-9 in around mid - late 2020s when most full service carriers will start to think about retirements of 77W.


The A350-1000 isn't selling as its per-seat economics are not materially better than the A350-900's. Multiple analysts have claimed the -1000 yields a 2-3% operating cost advantage per seat. That is simply not enough of a advantage. For most airlines/networks, it's better to take the 10 A359's rather than 8 A35K's for the same $1.5B USD investment.


When I first read this I whole heartedly agreed with it but then I decided to dig a bit into some of the numbers (before I start I most certainly am not disagreeing with you, I just thought I'd explore further). I had initially looked I was reminded of some analysis I had done on the relative commonality and learning curve attributes of the A35k vs the A359 and established that the lack of sales for what is ostensibly a more capable aircraft does come from its lack of CASM advantage but that the low rate of production drives that Lack of CASM advantage over the fuel burn CASM advantage, i.e. the CASM is weighted more toward the cost of ownership per seat than it is to cost of fuel per seat. I had initially attributed this to the increased cost of production because of the increased complexity in the build. I decided to look at the 781 as a comparison as to the dynamic of a "simple" stretch only to realise that that model actually has a lower share of the respective family but yet is considered the "CASM king" by many. I think the CASM king may well be driven by the network and those with inherently higher utilisation will favour that with the lower fuel burn per seat but higher perseat non cash costs (A35k) and those less able to realise high utilisation but higher fuel burn per seat would favor the 781. The 781 has lower risk but lower capability but order books go with the low risk still high capability A359 and B789.

Fred
 
texl1649
Posts: 1898
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Mon Jul 19, 2021 8:13 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:
Niloko wrote:
Well I think the 777-300ER did hurt the A350-1000 a little bit considering it got dozens of orders in the mid to late 2010s from airlines who wanted a large sized airplane faster and for cheaper.

The 35K is selling poorly probably because the 77W is still very capable and fairly new. Majority of the airlines who have a place for large aircraft in their fleet have the 777-300ER and haven't planned it's retirement/replacement yet. And out of the few airlines that have planned retirements for 777-300ER almost all have ordered the 777-9 to do so. The current largest A350 operators have also chosen 777-9 to replace their 77W over A350-1000.

I think the A350-1000 and 777-9's main attraction for airlines is being a replacement of the very successful 777-300ER and it looks like the 777-9 does a better job at it. Only very few airlines will be there who will order the A350-1000 or 777-9 without the purpose of replacing the 77W/ 346/744.But you can expect a boost of sales for both A350-1000 and 777-9 in around mid - late 2020s when most full service carriers will start to think about retirements of 77W.


The A350-1000 isn't selling as its per-seat economics are not materially better than the A350-900's. Multiple analysts have claimed the -1000 yields a 2-3% operating cost advantage per seat. That is simply not enough of a advantage. For most airlines/networks, it's better to take the 10 A359's rather than 8 A35K's for the same $1.5B USD investment.


When I first read this I whole heartedly agreed with it but then I decided to dig a bit into some of the numbers (before I start I most certainly am not disagreeing with you, I just thought I'd explore further). I had initially looked I was reminded of some analysis I had done on the relative commonality and learning curve attributes of the A35k vs the A359 and established that the lack of sales for what is ostensibly a more capable aircraft does come from its lack of CASM advantage but that the low rate of production drives that Lack of CASM advantage over the fuel burn CASM advantage, i.e. the CASM is weighted more toward the cost of ownership per seat than it is to cost of fuel per seat. I had initially attributed this to the increased cost of production because of the increased complexity in the build. I decided to look at the 781 as a comparison as to the dynamic of a "simple" stretch only to realise that that model actually has a lower share of the respective family but yet is considered the "CASM king" by many. I think the CASM king may well be driven by the network and those with inherently higher utilisation will favour that with the lower fuel burn per seat but higher perseat non cash costs (A35k) and those less able to realise high utilisation but higher fuel burn per seat would favor the 781. The 781 has lower risk but lower capability but order books go with the low risk still high capability A359 and B789.

Fred


Sorry for going down this rabbit hole again, but I think the A35K is, any way you split it, a victim of timing and market conditions thus far at least. Part of what is missed in the above too is that a lot of 77W customers…are also invested in GE as an engine partner, so the replacement cycle for them also has to time to when they might move away from that to RR, and RR has had…not a great past 12 years, frankly (if much more so on the 787 vs. the A350).

As for the 781 share vs. the 787 family, well, I think that is a very short-handed analysis/comparison. The 787 was very weighted to the 788 initially (only the 788, 783, and 789 were on offer at the time), but the -9 and -10 are clearly the future of the program, for now. The A350 industrial launch (which included the 35K, right?) was again in 2006, and the 35K was type certificated finally in Nov 2017. The 787 was ‘launched’ in 2004 (insert many snarky opinions about this process/development). But, the 787-10 derivative was really only launched in 2013 (not offered/spec’d prior to this), and wasn’t rolled out until 2017, then certified in Jan 2018.

Of the unfilled orders for the 787, something like 125 of 300 are for the -10 (41.7%). It’s true, again just based on Wikipedia as I am lazy, that of 787-10/787-9 total orders only 21.1% are for the -10, but I don’t think that’s quite a logical comparison given the gap in when they were/have been on offer/produced).

There’s no real point in including the -8 part of the program as it is essentially barely offered now, yet was the launch model, as per norm for Boeing (smallest first). The A35K however has something like 168 orders, out of 747 for the program (22.5%), 15+ years from launch, with only again something like 50 flying today in service. Right, wrong or indifferent, it has not been ordered in the numbers/proportion many expected.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Mon Jul 19, 2021 10:22 pm

texl1649 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:

The A350-1000 isn't selling as its per-seat economics are not materially better than the A350-900's. Multiple analysts have claimed the -1000 yields a 2-3% operating cost advantage per seat. That is simply not enough of a advantage. For most airlines/networks, it's better to take the 10 A359's rather than 8 A35K's for the same $1.5B USD investment.


When I first read this I whole heartedly agreed with it but then I decided to dig a bit into some of the numbers (before I start I most certainly am not disagreeing with you, I just thought I'd explore further). I had initially looked I was reminded of some analysis I had done on the relative commonality and learning curve attributes of the A35k vs the A359 and established that the lack of sales for what is ostensibly a more capable aircraft does come from its lack of CASM advantage but that the low rate of production drives that Lack of CASM advantage over the fuel burn CASM advantage, i.e. the CASM is weighted more toward the cost of ownership per seat than it is to cost of fuel per seat. I had initially attributed this to the increased cost of production because of the increased complexity in the build. I decided to look at the 781 as a comparison as to the dynamic of a "simple" stretch only to realise that that model actually has a lower share of the respective family but yet is considered the "CASM king" by many. I think the CASM king may well be driven by the network and those with inherently higher utilisation will favour that with the lower fuel burn per seat but higher perseat non cash costs (A35k) and those less able to realise high utilisation but higher fuel burn per seat would favor the 781. The 781 has lower risk but lower capability but order books go with the low risk still high capability A359 and B789.

Fred


Sorry for going down this rabbit hole again, but I think the A35K is, any way you split it, a victim of timing and market conditions thus far at least. Part of what is missed in the above too is that a lot of 77W customers…are also invested in GE as an engine partner, so the replacement cycle for them also has to time to when they might move away from that to RR, and RR has had…not a great past 12 years, frankly (if much more so on the 787 vs. the A350).

As for the 781 share vs. the 787 family, well, I think that is a very short-handed analysis/comparison. The 787 was very weighted to the 788 initially (only the 788, 783, and 789 were on offer at the time), but the -9 and -10 are clearly the future of the program, for now. The A350 industrial launch (which included the 35K, right?) was again in 2006, and the 35K was type certificated finally in Nov 2017. The 787 was ‘launched’ in 2004 (insert many snarky opinions about this process/development). But, the 787-10 derivative was really only launched in 2013 (not offered/spec’d prior to this), and wasn’t rolled out until 2017, then certified in Jan 2018.

Of the unfilled orders for the 787, something like 125 of 300 are for the -10 (41.7%). It’s true, again just based on Wikipedia as I am lazy, that of 787-10/787-9 total orders only 21.1% are for the -10, but I don’t think that’s quite a logical comparison given the gap in when they were/have been on offer/produced).

There’s no real point in including the -8 part of the program as it is essentially barely offered now, yet was the launch model, as per norm for Boeing (smallest first). The A35K however has something like 168 orders, out of 747 for the program (22.5%), 15+ years from launch, with only again something like 50 flying today in service. Right, wrong or indifferent, it has not been ordered in the numbers/proportion many expected.


A35k underwent major redesign in 2011.
781 represents 28% of unfilled orders of 789+781
A35k represents 23% of unfilled orders for A350.

Indeed many thought he A35k would have more orders but the B781 is often talked about as if it has those orders but it is in a broadly similar position sales wise

IMO the issue for the A351 is;
1. as you said, timing, the 77W replacement cycle isn’t really here yet. (If it comes at all).
2. Unless you really can make good use of the bigly payload range performance with high utilisation the price that airbus needs to sell it’s at with its low(er) commonality with the A359 mean that it cannot compete with its smaller sibling on price per seat as one would expect a stretch to.


In comparison to the 779x the A35k has competition from its own sibling and as such will not sell for less than a price that gets more profit for selling an a359 if Boeing wants to sell a 779x then they can price it right down to where it’s just cash positive and it be a useful order. I don’t think a comparison of 779X vs A35k orders is a useful one.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
744SPX
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:00 am

flipdewaf wrote:
Niloko wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:

The 737MAX has new engines and a bunch of other improvements. The 777 does not, until the 777X enters service.


The 777-300ER/200LR did feature new generation GE90, bigger wing with raked wing tips and many more improvements allowing for extra range, mtow and efficiency. It's called the second generation of the 777 for a reason.
Because of these all improvements, the 777-9 and A350-1000 only give around 10-13% less fuel burn from 777-300ER compared to something like 20-25% less fuel burn of 787-10 and A350-900 vs 777-200.

The A35K is around 22% lower fuel burn on a like for like basis compared to the 77W so fits in entirely with the 20-25% assessment of the A359/787 over the 777-200.

Fred


You guys are selling the 777-200/200ER short by a significant margin. The A359/787 has a 20-25% over the 762/3 and 744; the 772 is a solid 7-10% better than those aircraft -minimum- especially with the GE90 123" fan. There is no way the A359/787 is 20-25% more efficient than the 772.

Remember, the 773ER is only 9 years newer than the 772, and only 6 years newer than the 200ER.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Wed Jul 21, 2021 9:55 am

744SPX wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Niloko wrote:

The 777-300ER/200LR did feature new generation GE90, bigger wing with raked wing tips and many more improvements allowing for extra range, mtow and efficiency. It's called the second generation of the 777 for a reason.
Because of these all improvements, the 777-9 and A350-1000 only give around 10-13% less fuel burn from 777-300ER compared to something like 20-25% less fuel burn of 787-10 and A350-900 vs 777-200.

The A35K is around 22% lower fuel burn on a like for like basis compared to the 77W so fits in entirely with the 20-25% assessment of the A359/787 over the 777-200.

Fred


You guys are selling the 777-200/200ER short by a significant margin. The A359/787 has a 20-25% over the 762/3 and 744; the 772 is a solid 7-10% better than those aircraft -minimum- especially with the GE90 123" fan. There is no way the A359/787 is 20-25% more efficient than the 772.

Remember, the 773ER is only 9 years newer than the 772, and only 6 years newer than the 200ER.


The 77E uses ~119t to transport 313pax 7065nm. The A359 can transport 313pax 7065nm using ~84t of fuel. The B789 can transport 290 pax (don't want to put more in than it can take) 7065nm using ~80t of fuel.

Fred
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27681
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Wed Jul 21, 2021 2:03 pm

In addition to what flipdewaf noted, the A330-300 burns significantly less trip fuel than the 777-200ER so it is no surprise that the A330-900, 787-9 and A350-900 are even better in terms of lower fuel burn.
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 858
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:08 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
744SPX wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
The A35K is around 22% lower fuel burn on a like for like basis compared to the 77W so fits in entirely with the 20-25% assessment of the A359/787 over the 777-200.

Fred


You guys are selling the 777-200/200ER short by a significant margin. The A359/787 has a 20-25% over the 762/3 and 744; the 772 is a solid 7-10% better than those aircraft -minimum- especially with the GE90 123" fan. There is no way the A359/787 is 20-25% more efficient than the 772.

Remember, the 773ER is only 9 years newer than the 772, and only 6 years newer than the 200ER.


The 77E uses ~119t to transport 313pax 7065nm. The A359 can transport 313pax 7065nm using ~84t of fuel. The B789 can transport 290 pax (don't want to put more in than it can take) 7065nm using ~80t of fuel.

Fred


7000nm trips are rare. Should use 5000nm for comparison purposes. Although unrealistic in real world, assume no cargo. The difference narrows considerably when you get away from the fringe long-range cases.

That said, the 77E is not steller in any category. It barely beat the A343 on fuel per pax. The A330 is nearly 10% per efficient per seat on any route it can cover (which improved significantly in the mid-2000's).

The 77W got seat cost down to A333 level but with significantly more range / capability. It became the defacto standard to compete ... until the 789 and A359 started to deliver. Now the playing field is much more level, and crowded.
 
User avatar
SQ22
Moderator
Posts: 2371
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:29 am

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:26 pm

May I remind you to provide links to your sources when stating facts? Thanks.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Wed Jul 21, 2021 5:47 pm

Okcflyer wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
744SPX wrote:

You guys are selling the 777-200/200ER short by a significant margin. The A359/787 has a 20-25% over the 762/3 and 744; the 772 is a solid 7-10% better than those aircraft -minimum- especially with the GE90 123" fan. There is no way the A359/787 is 20-25% more efficient than the 772.

Remember, the 773ER is only 9 years newer than the 772, and only 6 years newer than the 200ER.


The 77E uses ~119t to transport 313pax 7065nm. The A359 can transport 313pax 7065nm using ~84t of fuel. The B789 can transport 290 pax (don't want to put more in than it can take) 7065nm using ~80t of fuel.

Fred


7000nm trips are rare. Should use 5000nm for comparison purposes. Although unrealistic in real world, assume no cargo. The difference narrows considerably when you get away from the fringe long-range cases.

That said, the 77E is not steller in any category. It barely beat the A343 on fuel per pax. The A330 is nearly 10% per efficient per seat on any route it can cover (which improved significantly in the mid-2000's).

The 77W got seat cost down to A333 level but with significantly more range / capability. It became the defacto standard to compete ... until the 789 and A359 started to deliver. Now the playing field is much more level, and crowded.


On a 5000nm mission the 77E uses 78t of fuel, the A359 uses 56t.
On a 4000nm mission with 10t of cargo the 77E uses 64t of fuel, the A359 uses 46t.

Data taken from Boeing and Airbus specifications and interpolated through the breguet range equation.

Fred
 
User avatar
SQ22
Moderator
Posts: 2371
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:29 am

Re: A350-1000 versus B777-300ER

Wed Jul 21, 2021 6:05 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
On a 5000nm mission the 77E uses 78t of fuel, the A359 uses 56t.
On a 4000nm mission with 10t of cargo the 77E uses 64t of fuel, the A359 uses 46t.

Data taken from Boeing and Airbus specifications and interpolated through the breguet range equation.

Fred


Thanks.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BWIAirport and 18 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