UPDATE: Thank you for the comment! Of course I picked a wrong MTOW for the 777-300ER. I corrected it and the values coming out of it. The basic conclusion keeps the same, especially as the announced SFC reduction of the GE9X will be 10% rather than 7%.
Of course, even with the small increase in inner diameter of the B777-X a ten-abreast seating will be less comfortable than a 9 abreast-seating in the A350. And more capacity is always higher risk (for revenue vs. costs), but for all current B747-400 routes the B777-9 would be the ideal replacement. The A350-1000 will fly with lower costs per flight, so if you can fill the A350-1000 it will be a profit maker as well.
***
The proposed B777-X models, the larger B777-9 holding about 405 passengers and the B777-8 with about 350 seats, should slash fuel burn per seat by 15% (B777-9 vs. B777-300ER) and about 10% (B777-8 vs. B777-200LR).
Is that possible? Let's have a look by taking a very simple approach and concentrate on the comparison
between the B777-9 and the B777-300ER:
First of all, the B777-9 will hold about 11% more passengers. This leads to a total fuel burn reduction of 5.7%, as 85%*(403/365)= 94.3%
Fuel burn in one given point can be defined as:
Fuel Burn = SFC * M *(1(L/D)), where
SFC is the specific fuel burn (installed) at that point (defined by thrust, altitude and temperature)
M is the Mass (Mass Force to be correct) of the aircraft
L/D is the ratio between lift force of the wing (or the whole aircraft to be precise) and the drag of the aircraft
If we label the values for the B777-300ER aircraft with ER and the values for the B777-9 with X, this leads to
SFCX= 94.3%*SFCER * (MER/MX) * ((L/D)X)/(L/D)ER)
What does that mean?
First of all, this equation is valid for the same flight points in a given flight mission. Take a 4000nm mission of both aircraft and compare the values after half of the distance is flown. The aircraft are in cruise condition then and let's say there are at the same height.
Now let's have a look at the weight ratio: the lower the weight of the B777-9 will be, the higher is the ratio of the weights. MTOW for the B777-300ER is 351.5t and Flightglobal reported a MTOW target of the B777-9 of 344t, giving a ration of 1.02. But this ratio is only true for the beginning of the respective MTOW missions; for a shorter 4000nm mission the ratio of the weights will be lower at the start of the mission. And as the B777-9 should (by definition) burn approx. 5.7% less fuel, the weight ratio gets smaller the longer the flight lasts. The ration should nevertheless always be larger than 1.
Next is lift-to-drag ratio: the B777-9 will get a wing that is approximately 10% larger and will have a significantly larger wingspan than the wing of the B777-300ER. This will increase the lift-to-drag ratio, leading also to a ratio of larger than 1.
Conclusion: the 15% reduction in fuel burn per seat does not mean any magic SFC number for the engine, as in the worst case, when both the weight ratio and the L/D ratio should be "just" 1, the engine SFC has to be just 94.3% of the GE90-115B or about 5.7% better. GE already announced that their GE9X engine will be about 7% better than the GE90-115B, so the 15% fuel burn reduction target looks conservative as of now.
What does it mean for the A350-1000? This aircraft is heavily challenged, as it's capacity is significantly smaller and thus fuel burn per seat cannot meet the performance of the B777-9, even if the SFC of the Trent XWB would be the same as that of the GE9X (or another engine that might find it's way onto the B777-9 wing). The Trent XWB might have the best SFC when it enters service, but the GE9X and respective engines will have a technology advantage of at least two years. Weight per passenger of the A350-1000 is also a disadvantage (308t./350pax=0.88t./pax vs. 344t./405pax=0.85t./pax).
Is there any growth potential left in the A350-1000? As it looks now, a final stretch (-1100) would be the only solution for Airbus to make the largest A350 variant look attractive again...
777-300ER MTOW is 351,530 kg and not 365,000 kg. Hence the MTOW ratio that you're talking about is 1.02 and not 1.06.
ReplyDeleteFor a larger aircraft to be competitive, it has to have lower costs per seat than the smaller one. Nothing surprising, therefore, that the 777-9X would have slighly lower costs per seat than the A350-1000. That doesn't mean that the A350-1000 won't be highly competitive for carriers who can't fill all the seats on the 777-9X or for those who feel that 3-4-3 in Y on the 777-9X is too uncomfortable.
Also, if I were Boeing, I would be wary of developing a larger composite A360X, re-using most of the A380 cockpit section and having the same lower lobe dimensions as that of the A380 fuselage.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/a360.htm
Addendum:
Delete"Also, I were Boeing, I would be wary of AIRBUS developing a larger composite A360X, re-using most of the A380 cockpit section and having the same lower lobe dimensions as that of the A380 fuselage."
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteJust an observation.
ReplyDelete777-9X = 407 seats (from Boeing)
MTOW = 753,000 lbs. = (341,555kg.)
GE9X = 10% improvement in SFC (from GE & FG)
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/ge-plans-10-fuel-burn-improvement-for-ge9x-engine-369242/
GE9X = 10% improvement in SFC (from GE & FG)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/ge-plans-10-fuel-burn-improvement-for-ge9x-engine-369242/
That is most likely mixing Apples and Oranges, the GE90 is at some 0.545, a 10% improvement would mean 0.490 way above the typical 1% per year TSFC improvement, that value is for the frame in total ie including the new wing (GE never told John "TSFC" is 10% better). The probable TSFC is about 6.5% down to 0.510 where the new RR engine will be as well, a 2% improvment of the 0.520 TXWB (all at optimal FL >360 ).
Ferpe
Ferpe, my numbers are indeed pointing more towards 0.49. And that would be in line with 1% per year (or even less) as the GE90-115B went into service in 2004, EIS of the B777-X should be 2019 or so.
ReplyDeleteYou base your predictions on a reporter that can't even say what efficiency that was 10% better (TSFC static, TSFC cruise and if curise what FL?. Perhaps it was average over cruise FLs or was it Frame efficiency or......).
DeleteBetter read what GEs head of the Engine division said in a straight quote this spring: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...r-engines-on-new-737-aircraft.html
"The company has been working on the design for almost three years and aims to make it 6 percent to 8 percent more efficient than the power plants used on the 777-300ER, which is the most fuel-efficient airliner flying today, he said.
This fits also with what RR head of the Trent development has said: The TXWB is 2% better then the T1000 (spec not actual) and the new Trent for the 777X will gain another 2%.
This all makes for 0.51 level engines at cruise conditions at best FL (390)which takes the new 777X beyond 8500nm with the 71m wing.
Ferpe
Ferpe,
DeleteI do not base my predictions on a reporter. My SFC numbers are coming from a competitive analysis comparing all widebody engines that are in the field as well as the ones that are projected. On some of these engines I have "first hand" information...
Are you saying David Joyce is deliberately mis-crediting his own products? or that Bloomberg did not quote him correctly?
DeleteFerpe
No, but isn't overachieving better than underperforming? Depending on what Boeing asked for and what one believes the competitors can do it could be better to have some margin left...
DeleteIf we rely heavily on projections from the manufacturers, why not on the 25% fuel burn per seat reduction of the A351 vs the 77W?
ReplyDeleteWhich does not contradict the 15% claim from Boeing's side, but at least the conlusion that the two would be on par...
Well I don't believe in miracles. The 777 is a heavy platform, it has a high OEW. The new ones will still be relatively heavy. Boeing is reducing engine power. Fuel or payload will have to go.
ReplyDeleteOn top of that the GE90-155 isn't a bad engine, it has the same fan as the GENX. Improving it 10% is an ambitious goal. Now lets see how it turns out.
For the new 7777 a lower wing loading is great, but the wedded surface is bigger too and the 777s wing wasn't developed in 1976 either..
Way to much ambitious assumptions for me to state the A350-1000 will be heavily challenged. I think you are biased ;) ;)
I expect some A350-1000 orders within 18 months (and not Arik or Lionair) that will silence the doubts pushed around the industry about the A350-1000. Nobody knows better then Boeing. That's why they rewinging/engining the 777 in the first place.
Keesje, with a composite wing and maybe a AlLi fuselage OEW will come down significantly. And 10% better SFC would result in lower fuel which has to be carried, thus making room for payload. I am not sure about new (and signifcant) orders right now- last years changes did not went far enough to fulfill the demands from Emirates and the likes but hurt costs on the other side as weight and therefore thrust demand went up. Maybe we will see another iteration or (my preferred solution)a further -1100 stretch.
ReplyDeleteEverybody forgets to mention all 777 orders are for before 2017, all A350-1000s for after 2017. Small detail I guess..
ReplyDeleteI wish I had more time to comment, so 3 quick points:
DeleteKeesje,
1. The whole point of the -8/9X is to be deliverable some time shortly after 2017, likely at substantially higher production rates than the -1000's because A will be focusing on meeting demand for the A359, and in any case the -1000 will be a member of the A350 family, while the 8/9X will have it's own line totally separate from the 787.
2. You may be right that the-1000 we do well. Tim Clark seems to think so even tho he is not buying. To me, A's position with the -1000 is similar to B's with the 737 MAX. In each case, each OEM is trying to wring the final drop of performance from an airframe/engine combination, one 40 years old and the other new but a stretch perhaps too far. Thus, in each case the planes are not selling now because their final specs are not yet clear, particulary whether there will be an engine that meets the needs of the design, nand each faces a skillful opponent which is soaking up market share with current orders for a plane whose performance is much better known.
3. I don't understand why people are still talking about the -1000's being in competition with the -300ER and the 8/9X, when the buyers (Clark and others) have been clear that the -1000 does not compete and even Leahy now says the plane will be in a class of its own, something Tim Clark agrees with. And the fact that the -1000 does not compete is the very reason it is likely to do well, because the 777s really are not in competition with it.
Christopher Dye aka Cub J3
"substantially higher production rates than the -1000's"
ReplyDeleteYou have a point there. However the totally new wing / wing box / engine might have similar supply chain risks as the -1000.
I think the A350-1000 will be in full competition with the 777-8, capasity and range differences will be marginal.
"To me, A's position with the -1000 is similar to B's with the 737 MAX. In each case, each OEM is trying to wring the final drop of performance from an airframe/engine combination"
In which case the MAX is comparable to the reengined, tweeked 777-8/9, more then the all new, optimized -1000..
As far as I can see the A350-1000 will be a lighter leaner, state of the art machine, landing in the middle of Boeing 787-777 segment.
Boeing is working on a solution to prevent a repeat of the last 10-12 yrs; when the A330 pushed out both the smaller 767-300ER/400ER and larger 777-200/200ER..
What I take from this is that it all comes down to seat density. If you're happy to fly in relatively dense configurations then the 777 in a 10 across Y, 7 across J configuration is likely to have cheaper seat miles than a 9Y 6J A350, which in turn could be cheaper than a 9Y 7J 777. A 9Y 7J A350 might also be cheaper than a 10Y 7J 777. It depends on the proportion of business class seats.
ReplyDelete"However the totally new wing / wing box / engine might have similar supply chain risks as the -1000."
ReplyDeleteAlso the Ali/Lith fuselage. It would be the largest thing built of that material and would likely have a some sort of learning curve.
New wing box is interesting. My guess is that if B launches the 8/9X, Spirit will design/produce the wing box in Kansas in the plant B just abandoned, or at their new plant in N. Carolina, building on their experience with the A350's wing box. B will design/build the wing in the Seattle area.
"I think the A350-1000 will be in full competition with the 777-8, capasity and range differences will be marginal."
Maybe, but Tim Clark, and perhaps Qatar and Eithad, are either rejecting the -1000 or watching and waiting to see what the 8X really is. Essentially, I think B will make the -8X the plane that Clark and others say they want, which will be just enough better than the -1000 to make it really competitive, especially when B markets the -8/9X as a family; eg. Those who need the -9X's 400 plus seats will also buy the -8X for commonality and lots of other ease-of-operation reasons rather than the -1000. My sense is that the -1000 will sell well for airlines, including many US airlines, which do not need planes the size of the -9X, and can live with or want the -1000's lesser performance than the -8X. Thus, those wanting the A359 may buy the -1000 for the same reasons those wanting the -9X will buy the -8X. To me, the key is that with the 8/9X B appears to have preserved it's near monopoly in that segment, while competing credibly with the A359/-1000 with the 7810 (if they launch it) and the -8X.
The sudden arrival of the -8X is explained I think by the following chain of events: Airlines tell A that the -1000 is not -300ER competitor. A improves the -1000, but airlines again reject it as a -300ER replacement. A then further changes the -1000 without telling its customers. This annoys the customers, who in any case say that the -1000 remains not good enough. Emirates drives the point home with their order for 50 -300ERs. A refuses to make further changes to meet customer demand. Et voila! B completely changes the -8X in a way I certainly did not anticipate, from a 330 to 353 seater, and all those -300ER users take quick notice. B pays a price for this change, however. It means that to compete with the A359, a very well conceived plane with lots of orders, B must launch the 7810, which as good as it may turn out to be will not have the A359's 8500 mile range. AS always, we shall see.
"In which case the MAX is comparable to the reengined, tweeked 777-8/9, more then the all new, optimized -1000."
Not so. Just the opposite. The MAX is a minimum effort, lowest cost tweek. The 8/9X will be nearly all new, 80% or more, and cost huge bucks.
Chris, Spirit does not build the A350's centre wing box and the keel beem. That's done in house. Spirit builds the centre section's large fuselage panels (crown panel and two side panels).
Deletehttp://www.flightstory.net/20110812/photos-airbus-a350-xwb-first-components-delivered-to-saint-nazaire-site
"Not so. Just the opposite. The MAX is a minimum effort, lowest cost tweek. The 8/9X will be nearly all new, 80% or more, and cost huge bucks.
80 percent "new" while retaining the 777 fuselage is IMO not the wisest course of action, but who cares what I think, right? ;-)
Engineering intensive platform upgrades, while retaining the basic platform setup, seems to have become a typical Boeing trait (737-200 to 737-300, 737 classic to 737NG, 737NG to 737MAX, 747-400 to 747-8). IMO, they are in risk of setting themselves up for failure yet again (747-8I:
New type derivative with only 30 percent parts commonality with its predecessor. Hence it's been a very expensive undertaking. The intercontinental has been having a very poor sales record. Only the freighter is keeping the programme somewhat afloat.).
The Airbus response to the 777-9X should not be further stretch of the A350-1000. The triple bogey main landing gear is nearly "maxed out". That's why Boeing is only stretching the 777-9X by some 2.5 meters over that of the 77W. A longer fuselage would (80m +) need MLG 4 bogeys (2 wing gear bogeys and 2 body gear bogeys). Since the body gear bogeys are positioned further aft, a longer fuselage is possible. For example, the conceptual 747-600 design of the late 1990s had a total length of around 85m.
A circular fuselage with an internal width of 254 inches happens to have the exact same lower lobe dimensions as that of the A380. 254 inches will give you an 11 abreast 3-5-3 configuration with a 17,2 inch seat width (same as 747-8i and 0.2 inches more than Emirates' current Y-seats in their 77Ws), 2 inch wide armrests (times 14) and two 18.4 inch wide aisles (same as the aisle width of that of the A350 and 1.4 inches more than the 17 inch aisle width in Emirates' 77Ws). As a comparison the usable internal width of the A380 is 250 inches. However, the A380 uses thick extruded fuselage frames from just below the lower deck floor all the way up past the floor of the upper deck. Hence a circular fuselage based on the lower lobe of the A380 will have a slight increase in width at both the floor level and elbow height level. As a side note, the same Emirates 77W economy seating (17 inch wide seats) and aisle (17 inch wide aisles) set-up on the A380 with 11 abreast will have a width of 249 inches; one inch less than maximum internal width.
What does this mean?
It means that Airbus, in all likelihood, will respond to the 777-9X with a superior all new aircraft with an EIS in the early 2020s. The exterior diameter would be around 268 inches as compared to 244 inches on the 777. A freighter version with an elevated A400M cockpit derived design with a full nose loading capability would make for a very competitive large freighter design.
The wing and engine configuration, centre wing and main landing gear set-up developed for this aircraft could be used on an A380 fuselage as well (same 25 inch fuselage frame spacing) thus creating a twin, medium ranged full double decker as well.
In a trade-of scenario, I could see Airbus going all composite for both the 11 abreast Y-class single deck 777-9X competitor (73m-74m), a stretch model (80m long), and on the double deck (A380 derived fuselage) medium ranged aircraft as well. If that would be the case, the A380 itself could be "re-skinned" in the middle of the next decade, with most of the engineering and new composite manufacturing facilities having been paid for by the medium range double decker model and the single deck 777-9X competitor.
rgds
OV-099
Just a small correction: A circular fuselage based on the lower lobe of the A380 will have a slight increase in width at the floor level which means that the usable cabin width can be increased at the elbow height level by about 4 inches.
DeleteAddendum:
DeleteAn all new single decker with a cross section of 268 inches would have enough internal space available in the upper lobe (crown) to allow for installation of some galley facilities above doors 2,3 and 4. The crew rest areas would be located above doors 1 and 5. Hence there would be extra space for additional seat rows on the main deck, which means, of course, that the 73m to 74m long model would, at the very least, be more than competitive with the 777-9X.
rgds
OV-099
Dear Anonimous OV-099
DeleteYou seem to assume that AIRBUS is capable to design within any reasonable time frame a really new aircraft. Look at the last 25 years.
A380 Has become nearly obsolete whilst developping! Still with serious problems and only merely alive because of its size. TheEMIRATES "order of 50 is order was only a consolation price Tim Clark issued it only for optical effect to compensate the fact that this great Airbus paradehorse is today a virtual BOEING's one. It was only issed under a clause that it can be nullified anytime and that any payment made would in such case refunded! The Aircraft ycommunity is well aware of this fact and there are virtually no significant reaction to such seemingly enormous order!!
A340; Dead
A350: need no comment.
A400: only still between us because untold Billions thrown in by the Europeans
The last succesful aircraft, the A330 and the A310/320 seryes , many, many yeras ago!!
My immediately preceding comment is directed to Keesje.
ReplyDeleteChristopher Dye aka CubJ3
"and can live with or want the -1000's lesser performance than the -8X."
ReplyDeleteI have a hard time IDing this lesser performance.. looking at OEW (delta 20t !?), SFC and the reality major long haul airlines won't do 10 abreast. The quality jump from 9 abreast 777, 10 abreast A380 is to large for airline type product consistency. High frequency / fare passenger will notice/ avoid on long scheduled flights. Not all flight float on leisure passengers.
On higher capacity circular cross sections, some time ago I took a look, bringing in the assumption passenger and cargo networks would further seperate based on costs and logistic cargo hubs/ networks / airlines being different form passenger hubs. Rising scale leads to optimization.
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/extrawide10abreasttwindeckWB80mlongcrosssection.jpg
Nice pics. :-)
DeleteHowever, IMO what you want to do on a larger circular or double bubble fuselage is to move most of the galleys for economy class, in particular, upstairs. As demonstrated on Lufthansa's A340-600s, removing galley facilities from the main deck provides for at least an extra couple of rows of seats.
http://theaviationspecialist.com/overhead_galley_01.JPG
On the conceptual aircraft mentioned earlier, with a possible 268 inch cross-sectional diameter (i.e. 256 inch cross-sectional diameter for the 747 for which the overhead galley study was performed), overhead galleys could be located between doors 2 and 3 and between doors 3 and 4.
rgds
OV-099
OV-099 thnx. The shape of a circular fuselage limits the use above the ceiling. Hence dubble bubbles.. http://www.airliners.net/photo/Northwest-Airlines/Boeing-747-151/1281454/L/
ReplyDeleteThe use of an area above the ceiling has always been an issue for most applications. Trolleys are deep and angular posing limitations. Having everything close/same level to the passengers has advantages too. I guess the major issues are that a lot of load carrying structure has to be added an if people are there, evacuation / safety regulations come in too. So far that seems to have prevented extensive use.
Putting in 50 sleepers might adds a revenue potential into the equation. I've been both in overhead crew rests (747) and lower deck galleys (DC10s). Not really places for paying passengers, without windows and personal comfort. A design suitable from the outset could change that.
Reply to OV 99 and Kessje:
ReplyDelete“Chris, Spirit does not build the A350's centre wing box and the keel beem. That's done in house. Spirit builds the centre section's large fuselage panels (crown panel and two side panel.
I stand corrected. Is the assembly at St. Nazaire done by Spirit alone or with A?
http://www.kinston.com/articles/a350-79151-airbus-marching.htmlhttp://www.kinston.com/articles/a350-79151-airbus-marching.html
In any case, I think my point, the Spirit may do the composite center section of the 8/9X center section, remains valid, and likely their experience with the A350 will contribute to their ability to do this. And for B, putting that work in N. Carolina has all of the advantages of putting work in S. C.
OV 99, I see the 8/9X and a new A plane between the 340 pax -1000 and the 555 pax A380 a little differently from you. To me each OEM will be designing their planes to meet their portfolio needs, not necessarily to compete with the other OEM. A’s well recognized problem is to decide the size plane(s) they should build between the -1000 and the 380, not whether or not they should compete with the 8/9X. A won’t start on such a plane for years because they cannot put at any risk the resources they need to deliver all members of the A350 family on time. In addition, there is the NEO and I think an 333 refreshment to A350 Mk 1.
A will have to be very clear about what the mkt will be for such a plane. As successful as the -300ER has been, its total orders are 607 (http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm?content=displaystandardreport.cfm&pageid=m25062&RequestTimeout=100000), plus 96 A346s, makes about 700 to date for that class. Is that enough to justify A’s competing in that mkt with a very expensive, all new plane for about 350 planes? Perhaps A should put the plane at 440 pax, midway between the -1000 and A380, where there is no direct B competitor, and get the whole mkt for that segment. But how large will that mkt be?
In any case, I think the point is moot. A won’t start on such a plane for years because they cannot put at any risk the resources they need to deliver all members of the A350 family on time, and my view will place a much higher priority on the NEO and I think an 333 refreshment to A350 Mk 1which will give them some of the 250-300 pax mkt which will be more profitable than any 440 pax plane.
OV 99 Re bogey undercarriage, hasn’t B patented an 8 wheel mlg?
“80 percent "new" while retaining the 777 fuselage is IMO not the wisest course of action, but who cares what I think, right? ;-)”
What is the wisest course? Doesn’t that depend largely on whether A will compete in the 350-400 pax segment? If B can maintain its monopoly in that segment with the 8/9X as planned, why do more.?
Keesje – All your analysis may be right that on paper the -1000 and the -8X will be about the same, and yet users to date apparently see it differently. As preavioulsly noted, if -8X is mkted as a part of the 8/9X family, it ought to do well.
"OV 99 Re bogey undercarriage, hasn’t B patented an 8 wheel mlg?"
DeleteChristopher, the current 777 wheel well design and the aft aft wing spar MLG attachment points won't be able to accommodate the Boeing patented eight wheel truck assembly, which BTW was designed to be used on the conceptual Boeing High Speed Civil Transport (HCST) aircraft.
1) http://www.google.com/patents/US5743491
2) 8-wheel HCST MLG bogie; table 7, page 24.
-- http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/ar97-26.pdf
-
"What is the wisest course? Doesn’t that depend largely on whether A will compete in the 350-400 pax segment? If B can maintain its monopoly in that segment with the 8/9X as planned, why do more.?"
As I indicated, an "80 percent new" aircraft, in my book, deserves to be an all new aircraft. If the 777-9X would EIS in 2019, that's 20 years after the Y1, Y2 and Y3 concept studies were initiated. Surely, Boeing can do better, can't they?
IMO, and as I've already indicated in my previous comment, the fuselage diameter constrained 777-9X will have a hard time competing with both the 9-abreast A350-1000 XWB and an all new 11-abreast Airbus XXWB aircraft having an internal fuselage diameter of 254 inches (at the elbow height level) that would be heavily re-using part of the A380 design (cockpit position and hardware, MLG-design etc.); and especially so if Airbus would be put to use the same very large composite wing on an A380-derived twin as well.
Due to the fact that Airbus don't have to do the New Single Aisle (NSA) for a decade, at least, I see few if any strains on Airbus' engineering resources post 2016. Hence an XXWB launch at that time with an EIS in 2022, should be doable.
rgds
OV-099
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do not understand why the author insists to compare the A350-1000 350 seater with the larger B777-9. 400 s. It is obvious that if an airline is able to fill reasonably a 777-9, its adavantage is enormous
ReplyDeleteBut if the airline need only a 350 seater, the B777-9 looses nearly all its seat mile advantage
So why, in Caesar's name, the comparison is not made with the 777-8 ???? !!
Why you do not show a side to side comparison table beteen the B777-8 and A350-1000?
Really, it makes no sense for any airline to buy the latter, more so it its already fly conventional non-composite wing B777s
The ones as the Japanese which did so because they did not believe in the B777X (or wished to teach Booeing a lesson related with the B787 problems?) and they would be well advised to cancel such orders, even at the cost of penaltyif needed!
Of course, the biggest nonsense is order BOTH, as QATAR did!! The could argue that maintenance-wise the A350-1000 is similar to the - 900, but factually by now they are quite different!!
otontischB@yahoo.com
ReplyDelete