Hello All,
Korean Air announced that it would order 27 A350-1000s and six A350-900s, another potential order listed earlier this year. This blog is surprised the carrier did not wait for the merger with Asiana to be completed. The Korean flag carrier committed to becoming the second largest A350-1000 operator after Qatar Airways.
This post analyzes how the A350 order will likely fit into the merged carrier’s future fleet plans. This post assumes the USA, the last holdout, will approve the merger between Asiana Airlines and Korean Air.
A large combined fleet needs simplification
The table below shows the combined Asiana and Korean Air passenger fleets, and future orders:
| Family/Variant | Asiana | Korean Air | Total In Service | On Order |
| A220 | 10 | 10 | ||
| A320ceo | 14 | 14 | ||
| A321neo | 9 | 9 | 18 | 57 |
| 737 NG | 17 | 17 | ||
| 737-8 | 5 | 5 | 23 | |
| A330ceo | 15 | 25 | 40 | |
| A350-900 | 15 | 15 | 21 | |
| A350-1000 | 0 | 27 | ||
| A380 | 6 | 10 | 16 | |
| 747 | 1 | 9 | 10 | |
| 767 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 777 ex -300ER | 9 | 12 | 21 | |
| 777-300ER | 25 | 25 | ||
| 787-9 | 13 | 13 | 7 | |
| 787-10 | 0 | 20 | ||
| Total | 70 | 135 | 205 | 155 |
Among the 205 aircraft operated, 144 are older-generation. Of those, 50 (16 A380s, 9 747-8s, and 25 777-300ERs) are for long-haul operations. Depending on how one counts the remaining seven 787-9s, there are between 48 (21 A350-900s and A350-1000s) and 55 outstanding orders for long-haul aircraft.
There are 100 aircraft (23 737-8s, 57 A321neos, and 20 787-10s) for Domestic and intra-Asia operations, vs. 94 aircraft to replace (14 A320ceos, 17 737-NGs, 40 A330ceos, 1 747-400, 1 767-300, 17 777-200(ER)s, and 4 777-300s). Some of the A321neo or 737-8 orders will likely go to low-cost carriers within the newly merged group.
There are rumors that Korean Air might retire its A220-300 fleet to simplify the combined carrier’s fleet.
Covering Basic needs
This blog thinks the latest order covers the basic fleet replacement needs the carrier will have no matter the traffic growth scenario. The carrier does not want to be haunted by operating excessively large A380s.
The carrier did not announce which aircraft will be retired first. However, an earlier announcement mentioned that the A380s would leave the carrier’s fleet before the 747s. Korean Air and Asiana also operate a combined 21 747 freighters (14 747-400Fs and 7 747-8Fs). It wouldn’t be surprising if the Superjumbo leaves the fleet first, along with the two Asiana 767s.
The outstanding payload-range capabilities of the A350-1000 are the major reason the carrier thinks it will be able to deploy it profitably within the network. Korean Air has large long-haul cargo operations that require highly capable aircraft, especially in the context of the Russian airspace closure.
Korean Air must have also been impressed by the A350-900’s performance when looking at Asiana Airlines’ data room. Combined with aggressive A350-1000 pricing from Airbus and earlier (and more certain) delivery slots, the decision to favor the A350 is not a surprise.
A future 777X order cannot be ruled out
The uncertain timing of the 777X certification and entry into service probably led the Korean flag carrier not to order the aircraft yet. It does not mean that such an order will not materialize.
The 777-9 has less payload-range capabilities than the A350-1000 but more cargo volume. The carrier also operates long-haul trunk routes, notably from Seoul to Los Angeles, where profitably filling a 777-9 is not a problem. As long-haul traffic recovers, this blog believes the Korean flag carrier’s network can justify 777-9 operations.
Once the 777-9 certification materializes and Boeing increases the MTOW, Korean Air might consider a combined 777-9/777-8F order. Whether a 777X order materializes will also depend on how the combined carrier envisions replacing its 34-strong freighter fleet.
Other factors could affect a potential 777-9 order. Korean Air will likely need to provide remedies to US regulators to gain merger approval. The most likely outcome is giving numerous slots to US carriers, notably on the Seoul to Los Angeles routes. Not committing to the 777-9 gives Korean Air options to assess the required concessions.
Lastly, demography will have a drastic impact on future traffic growth in South Korea. The country is not a major inbound tourism destination like Japan. The 15-64 population is projected to shrink from 36.6 to 24.5m by 2050, or one-third, over the likely operational life of the A350-1000. This is around 3x more than the capacity difference between the A350-1000 and 777-9.
Conclusion
Korean Air firmed a large share of its future fleet replacement needs. But unlike Japan Airlines, there are still quite a few more orders to place, notably for freighters. While Boeing sorts out its production and certification issues and long-term passenger demand stabilizes, Airbus increases its twin-aisle market share.
This blog believes the American OEM still has a good chance to receive a 777X order from the most promising customer for the new aircraft.
EPSILON AVIATION 
… Very interesing post. Thoughts:
… The expectation is the merged Korean Airlines will remain part of SkyTeam. The US partner in SkyTeam is Delta. Asiana is Star Alliance, thus partnered with United.
… Currently there are four flights a day from Seoul to LA. Two A380s from each Korean carrier. Seems like, with that volume of seats, both Delta and United roll over. They sell tickets on their respective alliance partner flights. If the merger goes through, United will certainly start direct flights, Seoul LAX, having lost Asiana as a partner. United will not let Delta take over.
… With four daily A380s between this city pair, this is clearly an important route. Now the economics will be between A380s and United 300ERs? Or United 787 tens? Either way, competitive options are not good for the merged Korean on this route, but does confirm the potential indicated above for a purchase of 777Xs by Korean Airlines.
… Currently there are two daily flights between Seoul & Toronto, Korean Airlines and Air Canada. Both using 787s. Air Canada PAXs use the flight to both go to Korea, but also connect using Asiana to South East Asia. AC PAX going on to BKK can take Thai Airlines, their Star Alliance partner. Connecting AC and UA PAXs to BKK will be good for Thai Airlines. I think (?) the only direct flight to BKK from North America is AC from Vancouver. UA and AC mostly connect to SE Asia via both airports in Tokyo using ANA, another 787 customer, and Star Alliance member.
… If Korean Airlines decides not to take delivery of 787 tens, and go pure Airbus, then it is 900 economics vs. tens… and 787 wins by 8%. see quote below. This is good for Star Alliance members, United Airlines, Air Canada, ANA, and Thai Airlines.
… Recently UA has been announcing a bunch of new services to Asia. I think Australia too (?). UA has clearly set its eyes on the Asia North American routes.
… These Star Alliance routes are all backed up by 787 economics, and scheduled orders for new frames. Perhaps the most important word is “scheduled”. As mentioned before, I expect AC & UA to order Xs, ANA already has.
… btw, I have no familiarity with the Asia Europe flights. I must leave it to others. Forgive me. On the Pacific side, things will not be easy for Korean Airlines, especially with their decision to merge, unleashing United, and then Airbus economics vs. 787s?
“Previous analysis by Airfinance Journal has indicated that the 787-10 has about an 8% advantage over the A350-900 in terms of cash operating cost per seat. This result remains broadly the same at current fuel prices ($2.70 per US gallon).”Aug 1, 2023
LikeLike
hello I added two paragraphs in the “A future 777X order cannot be ruled out” section. One on the slot concessions and the other on demographics. The numbers will speak for themselves on the latter.
The 8% gap is a misleading claim. It could be that much on a Seoul-Singapore route if you account for the extra freight payload/volume of the 787-10 vs. A350-900. But not over a 12+h mission. The difference is low single digits between the two on longer missions, and that’s without accounting for the lower payload potential of the 787-10.
I doubt Korean will ditch its 787-10 order. They work better than A350-900s on intra-Asia routes and have more cargo volume, which is crucial for Korean Air. And given the lack of near-term delivery slots. Unless Korean is somehow really pissed at Boeing.
LikeLiked by 3 people
… Interesting your comment about the efficiency of the 787 vs. A350 being about the same on long haul.
… A while back, when the A350 was new, I read a report on this topic. Good source. And the conclusion was simple. If you put the same, newer, engine tech on both planes, the 787 for long haul will always be more efficient, the narrower fuselage simply needs to push less air. This does not matter for a six hour flight, but really shows at 12 hours plus. However, it often really depends on the generation of engine tech.
… Seoul Vancouver is 10:41, San Francisco 11:45, and LAX 12:26…. to note.
LikeLike
The 787 has a smaller cross section and wing that make it more efficient from a “friction drag” standpoint. There is though a flip side in having a smaller wing. The 777-300ER, with an undersized (high wingloading) wing has the same limitation.
Because of the smaller and narrower wing the 787-10 needs to fly lower than the A350-900 on longer flights during early cruise. During this cruise part the aircraft is less efficient than the A350-900 because it has much higher friction drag at lower altitudes. The 787-10 then recovers once it can fly at the same flight level as the A350-900.
On shorter missions with lower MTOWs the 787-10 and A350-900 can fly at the same altitude, and the 787-10 is better.
The analysis you read might not have accounted for the fact the A350-900 would fly a different profile than the 787-10 on the same mission.
The Trent XWB 84 is roughly 2% more efficient than the Trent 1000/GEnx.
LikeLiked by 2 people
… What I read was written before variant 10 was even announced.
… When I think about these features, wing length in particular, the X will have extraordinarily long wings. Is this to remedy the 300ER problem? Have you read anything on this topic comparing the 1000 with potential 777 10s? Same issue v.10 of the 787?
LikeLike
You can think of the 777-300ER as an highly efficient aircraft for its generation. The downside is an undersized wing compensated by the exceptionally powerful GE90-115B. An undersized wing gives better fuel burn towards the end of cruise, but the downside is less field performance and high cruise fuel burn early on ultra long haul missions (the 777-300ERs initially cruises below 30k feet on 13+h missions). However the 777-300ER works very well in practice because airlines usually have few very ultra long missions. The 777-300ER is much more efficient on 7h to 12h missions than 13+h.
The 777-9 will have around 10% more pax capacity than the 777-300ER and the GE9X is rated with less max thrust than the GE90. The extra lift comes from the wider and larger wing. The 777X has a much wider wing because its biggest customer base (middle eastern carriers, notably Emirates) want better field performance. There are some performance limitations when taking off from the middle east on the 777-300ER due to the undersized wing.
The potential 777-10 improvement, I don’t know. I can give you a “guerilla physics” rule of thumb on fuel burn improvement between variants within a family. It works as long as you don’t need a big structural aircraft change that increases the weight materially. If a variant B has x% more passenger capacity than variant A within the family, B will be around 0.5x% more fuel efficient. For example, the 787-9 has around 20% more passenger capacity than the 787-8 and is around 10% more fuel efficient per passenger.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I had a look at the 777-9 to guestimate the fuel burn improvement of the 777-10 vs. 777-9. The 777-10 cabin would be at most 3 meters longer (there is an 80m limit otherwise it won’t fit at airports). The maximum cabin length improvement is 6%, so assume a 3% fuel burn per pax improvement. The 777-10 would have around mid single-digit fuel burn per pax advantage against the A350-1000.
There is one major caveat in my analysis: the 777-9 has an optional door that can be deactivated if the cabin configuration is “premium enough”. If the extra 3 meters of cabin trigger the requirement to use the deactivated door, then you barely have any benefit (you lose around 1.5-2 meters of area to put seats). The 777-10 only works for airlines that don’t require the activation of the fifth door vs. their 777-9 configuration.
LikeLiked by 1 person
… just some context:
… Korean Airlines 4th quarter sales, as a percentage of total sales, by route: Americas 51%, Europe 22%, SEA 10%, China 12%, Japan 3%, Oceana & Domestic 1% each. Source 4th quarter investor relations report.
LikeLike
I am unaware of investor relations reports, but traffic statistics at ICN strongly suggest otherwise. Their busiest international route for 2022 was BKK with 1,270k pax/year, next 4 are intra Asian, and LAX comes in 6th with 675k/yr, and JFK is 10th with 439k/yr, with 7-9th destinations with more intra Asian. Then 777-9 operates best on routes up to 6,000NM with a 61 ton payload. I agree with the author that a purchase of same is not to be precluded yet, although today’s news is a bitter blow indeed to Boeing. Tailor-made for Korean’s intra Asian network. ICN-LAX is 5,200NM great circle in still air, 5,800NM WB. But ICN-JFK ditto 6,000 and 6,600NM is a bit iffy. Here 777-9 will only carry 54 tons payload, vs 62,5 tons for A350-1000 HGW, not to mention a relatively more modest traffic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Luis…. look on the Korean Airlines website under investor relations. The reports are there. I am sorry to say, but more than 50% of the Korean Airlines business is with North America. It is similar with Asiana…although a little less focus on NA. South East Asia is only 10%.
LikeLike
… look on page 8.
https://www.koreanair.com/content/dam/koreanair/en/footer/about-us/inverstor-relations/ir-report/2023_4Q.pdf
LikeLike
It’s misleading, but for some reasons “Korea” in sales by region used the same colour as “Americas” in sales by route…….
Also N American routes should generate revenue given the longer route length. But that doesn’t necessary means higher passenger count.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Regret to contradict Christopher, but you are misinterpreting your quoted info. The measure unit is ASK mln km, not dols or won. As I mentioned ICN-JFK is 6,000NM. ICN-NRT is 700NM, so in this example you need 8.5 Tokyo trips to add the same ASK as NY, but you positively need more planes for the same amount of ASK to Japan than to USA. In the former case you need 2 plane days to cover the return trip, and in the latter 2.66 plane days. Long range planes on average fly a couple of hours more per day than single aisles, because they make far less frequent stops and frequently use all the night hours. Further, and because of this the selling price per seat km is substantially higher for the shorter route per day, for it is more plane intensive. The list of the 10 busiest international routes is in the public domain, and you may check it under the ICN airport listing of Wikipedia.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No problem Luis. Where are you seeing ASK? The chart on page eight says “Sales”. Is it explained as ASK somewhere else in the PDF?
Does ICN breakdown the numbers by airline? I would be surprised if they did. How many airlines fly BKK ICN? 9? Thus your “busiest international routes” would be all airlines combined.
My point with the chart is to show where Korean Airlines derives their income from. I believe Asiana is the same, first North America, then Europe, and then Asia.
LikeLike
Shouldn’t they first review their cabin product before deciding whether 35K or 779 is the better fit as their flagship? It’s dated to say it politely.
I mean, look at their 77Ws. Their newer business class would put them in the same league of LATAM and Lufthansa, not Qatar or even Cathay Pacific. The older one, well is 7-abreast. They’re also some of the few carriers that still sticking with 9-abreast economy, but I can’t really tell if it’s a legacy of old cabin, or a deliberate decision to keep as-is. Their A380s has arguably lowest seat count in the world, but with more of the similar seats found on 77Ws. Ironically, it’s Asiana which has a more up-to-date premium seats, despite their dire financial situations. There’s a lot to be desired for a Skytrax 5* carrier.
I’m sure they would look at them once the merger is done, and would put them back into where other premium carriers in the region are. But that would also mean a significant change in layout. It’s still too early to say how big their next flagship should be.
LikeLike
Boeing just released March O&D Numbers, an unidentified customer ordered 20 777Xs, will love to read your thoughts on who it could be
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello I know it but I can’t disclose it yet. I don’t think it will be long before the carrier discloses it (1st quarter earnings is my guess). It is a new customer and one of the potential carriers discussed in another post. https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/2023/07/20/what-will-be-the-next-major-777-9-vs-a350-1000-sales-campaigns/
LikeLike
oh wow. My guess is Turkish Airlines?
LikeLike
no comment 🙂
LikeLike