Hello All,
The last post on Cathay Pacific’s fleet plans generated a lot of comments on the merits of the A350-1000 and 777-9. This blogger thought a number of comments were excellent but some showed either a pro-Airbus or pro-Boeing bias.
This post aims to assess the merits of each variant based on various criteria. It will show that the answer is (unsurprisingly) that it depends.
Fuel Burn per seat
The 777-9 has a metal fuselage, while the A350-1000 uses mostly composite materials. The latter is slightly lighter per seat, but not by much. The 777-9 has a marginally more fuel-efficient cross-section (wetted area per economy class seat) in a 10 vs. 9 abreast configuration.
However, the GE9X of the 777-9 is significantly more fuel efficient than the Trent XWB 97 of the A350-1000: 5%, or around half a generation. It means that overall the 777-9 is more fuel-efficient per seat than the A350-1000 by a few percentage points.
Engine Maintenance costs
It is hard to reach definitive conclusions until the 777-9 has several years in service but we can tell the following.
So far, the GE9X seems meaningfully more reliable than the Trent XWB 97. This is not surprising because Airbus significantly increased the A350-1000 payload-range capabilities midway through development (at the request of Cathay Pacific) in the early 2010s.
This change meant that Rolls Royce had to stretch the original Trent XWB design. In the process, the A350-900 and A350-1000 engines cannot be swapped between variants. The loss of engine commonality led Emirates to cancel its original A350-1000 order.
The Trent XWB has proved less reliable than desirable for airlines, especially in the challenging Gulf environment. The reliability challenges are not dissimilar to those of the Dreamliner’s Trent 1000, where Boeing significantly increased thrust requirements mid-way through the program.
So far, the 777-9’s GE9X wins, but it needs to be confirmed after entry into service. Rolls Royce is also working on a durability package for the Trent XWB 97, which should enter service in three years.
Airframe Maintenance costs
The other major maintenance cost component is the airframe. While a composite fuselage does not provide a drastic weight (and fuel savings) advantage, it lowers maintenance costs due to lower corrosion. This favors the A350-1000 against the 777-9.
However, composite fuselage commercial aircraft have been in service for only 12 years, so the savings still need to be confirmed over a full lifecycle of 25-30 years.
Other cash operating costs
The other major cash operating cost categories (crews, navigation fees, airport fees) usually grow less than linearly with aircraft size. It means they are lower on a per-seat basis for larger aircraft. The larger 777-9 wins.
Unit vs. trip cash operating costs
Summarizing all of the above, the 777-9 has a per-seat unit cost advantage in the low-to-mid single digits against the A350-1000. However, the trip cost of the smaller Airbus variant is lower.
Capital costs
This blog does not have enough market intelligence to know whether one is cheaper than the other. It read that Airbus has used the higher A321neo margins to subsidize A350-1000 pricing in last year’s campaigns.
Cargo volume vs. payload-range
The 777-9 has four extra LD3 containers (48 vs. 44) compared with the A350-1000. After accounting for passenger bags, the Boeing aircraft has more cargo volume.
However, the A350-1000 currently has significantly more payload-range capabilities. This blog estimates the A350-1000 can fly an extra 1.5 to 2 hours than the 777-9 in apples-to-apples cabin configurations. It is the result of Airbus improving the A350-1000 MTOW from 308 to 322 metric tons. Consequently, the A350-1000 can carry more cargo payload on longer missions than the 777-9.
How much does it matter? It depends on the mission length. The A350-1000’s higher payload-range capabilities start kicking in on missions with a flight time longer than 11 hours.
It does not matter for most trans-Atlantic or Europe-to-East Asia missions (except for those impacted by the Russian airspace closure). It does matter for several major world cargo flows: (South) East Asia to Europe (especially with Russian airspace closure) and North America beyond the US West Coast, or Australia to the Gulf (Gulf countries import large amounts of freight across their entire network).
The caveat is that Boeing has not yet announced increased MTOW variants for the 777-9. The 777-8F will have a higher MTOW (around 365 vs. 351.5 metric tons). This blog estimates that if Boeing increases the 777-9 MTOW to 365 metric tons, its nominal range should increase to at least 8,000 nautical miles, narrowing the range gap with the A350-1000.
Delivery slot availability
The 777-9 is not yet certified and will enter service not before 2025. The A350-1000 has been in service since 2018 and Airbus has 2027 delivery slots for the variant. The Airbus variant will win until the 777-9 is certified and enters service. An airline cannot know precise 777-9 delivery timelines until certification.
Market appeal
The A350-1000 is smaller, so it is easier to fill. It means it appeals to a larger number of potential customers. So far, the A350-1000 has had more airline customers than the 777-9 (19 vs. 10, including Ethiopian for the latter). Those orders have tended to be smaller.
The following pattern is emerging: airlines with many trunk routes usually order at least 18-20 777-9s that they can deploy profitably across their network. Airlines with fewer trunk routes, especially if A350-900 operators, prefer to order fewer A350-1000s.
Fleet commonality
All 777-9 customers except for All Nippon Airways are A350 operators. Most potential 777X or A350-1000 customers have ordered or operate the A350-900, which means that in most cases, the A350-1000 provides better fleet commonality for an airline.
Note that there are flight crew training commonalities between the Dreamliner and 777X. For most airlines, the A350-1000 has an advantage over the 777X. Having said that, most potential A350-1000 or 777X customers are large global carriers that can afford a fleet complexity with two (or even three) twin-aisle aircraft families of a given generation.
Field performance
The 777-9 has a higher aspect ratio and more modern wing design than the A350-1000. The 777-9 was designed to work well in the hot Dubai environment (the 777-300ER, with its undersized wing, has some operational limitations). The GE9X engines are also more robust and have a higher thrust potential. It means that the 777-9, with its wider wing, wins against the A350-1000.
Airport compatibility
The 777-9 wings fit into standard twin-aisle gates (747-400 compatibility is the standard) when folder. However, they are almost 72 meters when extended. It means that the 777-9 could run into taxiway limitations at some airports. A mitigating factor is that most airports where the 777-9 will likely operate have developed A380 compatibility.
The other potential limitation is pavement loading. The 777-9 is heavier than the A350-1000 (351.5 vs. 322 metric tons MTOW). Both have triple-bogey landing gears. It means pavement loadings are higher for the 777-9.
The two above factors mean that the A350-1000 has better airport compatibility.
Passenger comfort
In a standard nine-abreast economy class the A350-1000 seats are wider than the 10-abreast 777-9: 18 vs. 17.3 inches. In shoulder width talk (which is the space per passenger excluding the aisle area), the space is 53.9cm vs. 51cm. Business class seat comfort is too dependent on the product to draw a conclusion.
The A350-1000 composite fuselage allows higher cabin humidity than the 777-9. Both aircraft have a cabin pressure equivalent to around 6,000 feet, vs. the standard 8,000 feet of older generation aircraft.
The A350-1000 usually has better cabin comfort than the 777-9.
In-service reliability
It is too early to say since the 777-9 has not yet entered service. It will take years to draw conclusions. It will largely depend on how much Rolls Royce improves the Trent XWB 97 reliability and whether the GE9X meets its high expectations.
The 777-9 could also have teething issues at entry into service, which is common for new aircraft. Airlines hope the 5-year delayed certification will allow Boeing to iron out many of those issues.
It it not possible yet to draw a conclusion on this factor.
Long-term market potential
It is not possible to draw a conclusion on which variant will have more orders over the A350-1000 and 777-9 lifetime. So far the 777-9 has accumulated more orders.
Some factors favor the A350-1000: airlines might up-gauge from the A350-900 to A350-1000 as traffic grows. Lately, most airlines have preferred smaller aircraft that are easier to deploy profitably across a network.
Other factors favor the 777-9: more slot congestion as traffic grows, higher flight crew costs, and lower unit costs. Premium carriers have also increased the share of premium seats (First, Business, and Economy class) on their planes. It is fair to say that the 777-9 usually works better for airlines that have First Class cabins, while the A350-1000 is usually with Business Class and Premium Economy only at the aircraft front.
A plane with the same number of passengers but more premium seats can require a significantly larger aircraft. British Airways’ A350-1000 has 331 seats (112 premium ones, 56 Business, and Premium Economy each) while its 777-9 will have 325 seats (119 premium including Eight First, 65 Business, and 46 Premium Economy).
Only time will tell which factors dominate.
Conclusion
We have shown that the 777-9 and A350-1000 have comparative strengths and weaknesses. It means that airline specific circumstances determine whether one is better than the other.
Long-term factors that are outside our control or that we don’t know yet (notably engine reliability) will determine the commercial success of each variant.
The evidence so far is that the 777-9 has more nominal orders but the A350-1000 is better suited for more airlines. The 777-9 won’t likely be the astonishing commercial success of the 777-300ER but neither will it be a commercial failure like the A380.
Boeing could launch a 777-10 variant that would sell much better than the (still planned) 777-8. British Airways and Emirates are the carriers most interested in the 777-10, the closest possible A380 replacement capacity-wise. The 777X wing is wide enough to accommodate a longer variant that runs almost to 80 meters long.
EPSILON AVIATION 
… Very well balanced. Both planes are very good, no doubt.
… In PAX comfort. Both the A350 & 777X have added about four inches to the interior width. Are the measurements provided including those adjustments? This is a HUGE plus for new A350s that are 3×3.
… Payload Range. Does the Europe Asia pair require extra payload range? Europe North America does not, and neither does Asia North America, because freight flights all stop in Anchorage.
… Fleet Commonality is complicated. I suspect it is a hornet’s nest to avoid. The conclusion is correct, also, “most” airlines maybe don’t care. However, most airlines are small. Among the big North American carriers, UA’s 300ERs average age is 6 years. AA is 10 years, AC is 13.8 years. None are close to “replacement age”. Delta flies Airbus wide bodies. When looking at orders, North American carriers are focussed on smaller, more flexible twin aisle frames at this time (as you state in long term potential). It is an “average age” issue with several plane types. UA’s 767 300ERs have an average age of 27.8 years. However. The USA is the only market to have fully recovered from Covid, with Canada a little behind. And American carriers are VERY much facing capacity constraints. My point is NA carriers will be large 777X customers, just give them time.
… It is fair that you did not include a potential v10 for the 777. Of course, the first batches of 777Xs will be v9s. What about later batches for Emirates? I suspect Tim Clarke has discussed v10 already with Boeing. Boeing confirmed feasibility for v10 a while back.
… Again, your comparison of the 1000 vs. X9 is good. Pulling back, we see the v10 of the 787 has comparable capacity to the Airbus v900. We see UA and AC with all variants of the 787, time will tell with AA. These 300ER fleets have capacity constraints that will not be resolved with v10 of the 787.
… To be clear, the A350 program will be VERY successful. However in ten years Boeing will dominate the twin aisle market with their one two punch.
LikeLike
Thanks for the comments. See my updated text in the Passenger Comfort, Payload-range, Fleet Commonality, Long term market potential, and Conclusion for all the points you raised. I elaborated further.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Quite the contary, Asia – North America is one of the area where payload matters a lot, especially from the Asia side here. Because of the strong cargo demand, extra payload available for cargo on a widebody pax plane can be turn into additional revenue with ease. In fact, 77W still dominiates Transpacific for Asian carriers, despite 787 easily burns 20% less per seat and N. American carriers actively deploying it onto the very same routes.
Transpacific also was and still is one of the frontier of ULH aviation. While NRT-JFK and HKG-JFK are no longer challenging for modern widebodies, SIN-JFK is, while SYD-JFK is currently too challenging. Air NZ’s 789s struggled a lot on the AKL-JFK route as well.
Europe – Asia requires more payload-range since 2022 because of the closure of Russian airspace.
LikeLike
Why do Europe Asia freight flights require range because of Russia? Like the Asia North American freight flights, can they not stop halfway? In Abu Dhabi perhaps?
LikeLike
The shortest route between Asia and Europe is often via Russia. Nordic countries, Japan and Korea are among the most affected, but even routes like HKG-LHR take longer time. Southeast Asia bound routes seems fine, while some carriers, notably Chinese ones, don’t avoid Russia.
We know this has at least contributed to KLM’s decision on only taking A350s, and Finnair on certifying theirs for higher MTOWs.
Taiwanese carriers are not so affected by this closure, but they have to take a diverted route regardless, because of the blockade from China.
As we are comparing 35K vs 779, so I would only refer to passenger airliners taking cargo onto the belly, not dedicated freighters. Stopover is not very competitive for passenger flights in modern days, especially for time sensitive premium customers.
LikeLike
… something bugging me since reading your post, I don’t doubt your comment about A350 production slots available in 2027. Why? What is Delta Airlines doing? You would think DA would pick up any open slot that is available. Yes, they have some A330s & A350s on order…12 & 16. This is not close to being enough for their aging fleet.
LikeLike
DL’s A330-900 and A350-900 deliveries are until 2025. The 20 A350-1000s will arrive over 2026-2028. The 20 options are for 2028-2030. Agreed that they have not ordered anywhere near enough to replace their older twin-aisle metal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As I pointed out in the Cathay story , the new production standard for all A350 fuselages allows 10 abreast seating. They used the same techniques as Boeing to reduce ring frame thickness where the passengers sit. As well the rear bulkhead was moved back and adjustments to the cockpit bulkhead has given more cabin space- an extra seat rows worth ?
https://www.aircraftinteriorsinternational.com/features/the-wider-longer-airbus-a350-nps-cabin.htm
SO perhaps the conclusions can be adjusted in A350s favour ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello even after the NPS the 10-abreast A350 has a shoulder width of 48.5cm, a full 1.5cm worse that the 10-abreast 777-300ER and 2.5cm worse than the 777-9. While technically feasible, airlines might not want to do a 10-abreast A350 for marketing reason (not helped by the fact people are getting bulkier around the world). Remember also that on long-haul flights it is the front of the cabin that brings profitability. I don’t doubt some like Philippine Airlines will adopt the 10-abreast NPS A350.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Some considerations apply for the 777X, whos going to use the narrow 10 abreast seating.
Isnt the whole idea to show the maximum potential in the costings, not chose winners.
The extra width works even better for the premium seats , as it gives them more room, especially for the economy plus seats. A point of difference over the standard economy. And like it or not narrower seats are here to stay
I just checked Cathay 777-300ER , its seats are 17.2 in , the A350 NPS at 10 abreast will be 17in. I dont think most people can tell that sort of difference 0.2 in or 5 mm, its watch strap thickness ! if it was going from 18in to 17 in , now thats a noticeable difference
Remember too the A320 was wider than the 737, do passengers even notice that in the cabins
The very first 747-200s on long haul flights had 9 across seating as well, a few changed to 10…then they all did
For some reason my earlier link doesnt work, this is it
https://www.aircraftinteriorsinternational.com/features/the-wider-longer-airbus-a350-nps-cabin.html
LikeLike
We’ll agree to disagree on the more accurate metric to measure passenger comfort. You are using the seat width, which is I believe less comprehensive than the shoulder width (cabin width – aisle(s) width / # seats abreast). For most people the shoulder width is “widest” body point.
LikeLike
You dont see my point , the difference in each seat width is the thickness of a watch strap 0.2 in less compared to seating on the long haul king now B777-300ER
They definitely will be coming for A350 regional and trans continental. I see a whole lot of A350s routes on Flight aware under 5hrs flying time , go a bit over 5hrs thats Newark to Paris on Air France.
The airline finance guys will push for this in a heart beat – and the reason why Airbus has splashed a lot of development money on changing the existing A350 ring frames. Would they have done it if their main customers said ….count us out ?
The 787 was supposed to be a long haul with 8 abreast, hardly ever happened, as they too were soon at 9 across and less seat width than the standard 9x 777
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are right that at least one major airline is going to “take the plunge” to a 10-abreast A350 NPS and see whether it works. Time will tell whether it works or customers balk at this feature.
I do hope they balk because otherwise it will get tight to travel with my wife and son once the latter grows older if he big (for now it would be ok because both my wife and I are slim and relatively short :)). This is where tiktok/x/instagram could be useful for once … if customers complain on videos that go viral it could be a disaster for the carrier that does so.
LikeLike
… I just looked through the A350 customer list, and found only two airlines that would use the A350 for domestic service, Delta and JAL (the one that crashed was on a domestic flight). It might happen, but I cannot see the 10 abreasts becoming common in A350s for long haul flights. If that does happen, then the points would go to the 777, which continues to have 3x4x3 (like the 300ER) …and is about 4 inches wider, for the increased comfort.
LikeLike
https://www.flightglobal.com/airlines/philippine-airlines-to-fit-10-abreast-seating-on-a350-1000s/153828.article#:~:text=Philippine%20Airlines%20is%20to%20fit,cabin%20and%2042%20in%20business.
PAL as a FSC is intended to put 10 abreast onto their 35Ks, and flying routes as long as MNL-JFK. Though this is also the airline that had 9-abreast A330s, so…….
Emirates and Etihad are also rumored to put 10 abreast, and the former is also one of the first to have 10 abreast 777 flying longhaul.
LikeLike
@steinwaldmadchen … You might be correct in the end. Airlines might go for A350s with 10 abreast. It is interesting, because that would make the 777X economy seat the “lux” choice with 4 extra inches added on top of the 300ER space.
… lets us keep perspective that PAL has 49 frames, and will not be the “decider”.
… What Emirates does will be indicative of the direction of the market.
LikeLike
I think Emirates started putting 10-abreast on 777s since, like, 90s?
While them having 10-abreast A350 could prove the viability of the configuration in a premium airline, it would take some time for this to become popular because of
a. inconsistencies between NPS and non-NPS A350, especially if the thinner inner wall cannot be retrofitted.
b. payload constraints due to either length or cargo demand of the route, same reason why Delta and a few more keep their 777s 9 abreast.
c. retrofit takes time, obviously
For now 9 abreast A350 is adequately competitive, but 10 abreast could change the landscape significantly if it becomes mainstream, like 10 abreast 77W did. I guess French Bee and PAL’s fleet would have some of the lowest CASMs possible?
LikeLiked by 1 person
… I just looked at the seating plan for French Bee…wow…tight fit. They are an LCC though. There are some premium seats with 7 abreast. Most of the plane is a tight fit, and their destinations are long haul.
… I wish them good luck. There is a whole history of failure for long haul discount airlines. Difficult model.
LikeLike
Re: Chrisopherajared
French government subsidises routes between the mainland (Metropolitan France?) and oversea territories under Public Service Obligation, similar to Essential Air Service in US. Air Caraïbes and French Bee are service providers under the scheme, so at least on those routes demand and financial performance are somehow guaranteed. Perhaps that’s why they can afford to buy expensive new toys like A350.
Those routes are often significantly cheaper than international fights, but in return most are flown by high density configurations, maybe at the request of the government to keep the cost low. Air France deploys 10-abreast, 478-seat 77Ws to PSO routes as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
‘Lux seats ” with 4 extra inches spread over 10 seats ?
Please, some real world perspective is required as even economy “plus” gives more
LikeLiked by 1 person
… Yes, I would say a 777X with 3x4x3 will be the “lux” choice over an A350 with ten abreast. At the moment, I think the A350 with 9 abreast is the better choice, no?
… Of course, yes, it is still tight. But if you are going to spend 14 hours on a flight, and the choice is an X vs. A350 with 9 abreast… you make your own choices.
LikeLike
… regarding the freight question, I was taking our discussion to be the “programs”, not only the planes…and Boeing has delivered 264 “F” versions of the 777, an important part of the success of the 777. The “F” version was also part of the success of the 747.
… regarding ten abreast: ”At the height of the armrest, the 777X is 14 inches (35.6 cm) wider than the A350, according to statistics from Boeing. This increases to 15.6 inches (39.6 cm) wider than the A350 at “seated eye height”.
… thus of course the 777X is ten abreast. It is not a squeeze. The A350 is a squeeze, that PAL is fine with. Again, if ten abreast becomes the standard for the A350, then the 777X is the “lux” plane.
… or maybe it will not matter if there is a premium economy section with 2x4x2 (?).
LikeLike
… Delta is also going all Airbus. Their 777 200s were dumped from their fleet during covid. Are there other airlines with 777s 9 abreast? (other than Air India…those are the old Delta frames)
LikeLike
No airlines have released seating plans for 777X , all, bar one or two ,777 classics were 9 abreast in economy.
LikeLike
… well, I am sure this is true. But we can be pretty sure economy will be 10 abreast. The mock up cabin at the Paris Air Show had 3x4x3.
LikeLike
The airlines with 9-abreast 777s are Japan Airlines, Air China, China Southern Airlines, El Al, Air India
LikeLiked by 1 person
“TOKYO/SEOUL, March 21 (Reuters) – Airbus won orders for 65 planes from two of Boeing’s key Asian customers on Thursday, a major breakthrough for the European firm as its U.S. rival grapples with safety issues after a January mid-flight panel blowout on a 737 MAX 9 jet.
Japan Airlines said it would buy 21 wide-body A350-900 and 11 A321neo narrow-body jets from Airbus, which will provide single-aisle jets to the long-time Boeing customer for the first time.”
…. I understand and accept a media bias against Boeing right now. It is deserved for ignoring the MCAS crashes.
… As someone that sometimes follows the industry, I know that JAL was Japan’s international airline, ANA was domestic. The tables have turned, and ANA is now number one. And, ANA is a Boeing customer with all variants of the 787, plus orders for the 777Xs. Related to the JAL order for A350s, ANA has a large widebody fleet of 787s and more on order, including more v.10s which is comparable in capacity to the 900.
…Boeing kinda lost JAL a long time ago. But that does not mean Boeing “lost out”.
… Plus, ANA & United Airlines & Air Canada are all Star Alliance. All carriers on the rise.
LikeLike
Well, Korean one is a coup – for Boeing that means at best 20+ fewer 777X sales, and at worst one of the most promising customer is gone for good, if Korean is determined to streamline their fleet. No doubt Asiana merger significantly increase the chance for Team A, but still.
JAL’s new order suggests that they’re finally on the course to expand again. For years they have been in consolidation mode in the last decade, and growth are limited both by government-imposed restrictions as a condition for restructuring finances, and the mindset of prioritising profitability over size. That said, 359 is still modest compare to ANA, and chances for 777X is minimal if not zero.
LikeLiked by 1 person
btw I guess the host would have a busy weekend 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
oh yeah 2 big ones among the highlights of the year 🙂 … wish me luck to find the time to write with a sick son (he started going to daycare recently so he is getting hammered with illnesses). I already did the analysis for both I just need to find the time to write them :).
LikeLiked by 1 person