Is the 777-9 really more economical and fuel efficient than the A350-1000
Posted by furryfelinefan_@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 20 comments
There appears to be some consensus that the upcoming Boeing 777-9 has a number of significant advantages over the Airbus A350-1000.
Despite retaining a metal fuselage, the new composite wings on the 777-9, derived from the 787, are more aerodynamic than the A350-1000’s wing.
Then there’s the new generation GE9X powerplants on the 777-9 that are a generation more advanced than the A350-1000’s Trent XWB-97.
Lastly, the 777-9’s higher MTOW enables greater cargo carrying capacity at full pax load than the A350-1000, despite the latter having longer range performance.
Put together, these advantages make the 777-9 highly competitive against the lighter, composite-fuselage A350-1000.
Just how close are these two models in fuel efficiency and economics?
thphnts@reddit
Everything in OP’s post before their question feels AI generated.
747ER@reddit
They’ve asked a few other questions along the lines of A350 vs 777X in this sub over the past couple of days, so I think they’re just summarising what people have said in response to their other questions.
McKanisterNaBenzin@reddit
At the moment the only thing that 777-9 blows away are cargo doors.
Ndawson96@reddit
I thought that was the 737 /s
McKanisterNaBenzin@reddit
777-9 had some problems with the cargo door during stress tests. Hope they solved it. Better safe than sorry. McDonald Douglas's, ummm sorry, Boeing's leadership has already seen this one in the past. Cargo door on DC-10 killed a lot of people
747ER@reddit
You don’t “hope” they solved it, you know they already did. Why are you trying to imply this aircraft is unsafe when it is not?
747ER@reddit
You mean six years ago, when they successfully tested the cargo door to its maximum strength and found that it could withstand 148% of the pressure it would ever encounter in service?
McKanisterNaBenzin@reddit
Yes that time. Still didn't pass the test. I'm not saying, that it is dangerous, but it was designed to resist a certain pressure set by the regulations and for whatever reasons it didn't. Things should perform up to the specs, this one didn't and they had to repeat the test, which was successful, so I'm certain that they solved it.
There are other issues with the plane and the program (Boeing is not responsible for all of them, for example Engines or COVID delays). There is a reason that by now its introduction is delayed by years.
BrtFrkwr@reddit
Manufacturers' performance numbers for a new product are notoriously optimistic. It's the seat/mile cost when the airplane is in service that counts.
PotentialMidnight325@reddit
At the moment it’s extremely efficient. It does not burn any fuel at all.
haasisgreat@reddit
Sadly it’s untrue, N779XY WH003 has just taken flight yesterday as BOE3 and according to Matt cawby N779XW is preparing to take flight this weekend
thphnts@reddit
Most fuel efficient aircraft ever built.
pursuer_of_simurg@reddit
The money Boeing setting on fire is quite high for finance emissions though.
Long_Pomegranate2469@reddit
Since there's no real data I'd say this is Astroturfing by Boing in the hopes of making airlines hold off purchases of Airbus until it's out.
Adjutant_Reflex_@reddit
You’re right, Boeing is the only one that puts our glowing marketing stats. Airbus would never…
upbeatelk2622@reddit
Like krishnaae says, we won't know until the plane's actually flying.. the final tests, if not entering service.
Remember MD-11, A340-500 and A340-600 (and I strongly suspect 787-8 and 787-9) were all types that dramatically underperformed when they entered service.
IIRC, the 777-9X is also playing some sleight of hand with larger passenger numbers to make itself look more efficient. I still remember Airbus made a set of A380 slides that said the plane only used 3L of fuel per pax per 100km or something, because in the car world back then 3L/100KM was a trending benchmark.
With any discussion of fuel economy, I want to give you some perspective by recalling this: Willie Walsh himself personally said to reporters once, that on an 11-hour BCN-SFO flight, the difference between A330-200 and B787-9 was a mere 9 tons. This was their simulation result for each type configured for LEVEL use (longhaul low-cost). It's very easy for avgeeks (and car guys, etc) to get caught up and swept away in manufacturer narratives.
PakozdyP@reddit
A350 is still newer generation plane than 777X which is a big facelift of a 30 years old plane. I love the 777-300ER, my favourite jet for long time. However when flying with A350, it feels much better, 30 years difference shows. The main issue with 777x is that it still did no enter the regular service, therefore we don’t have any real world data available. A350 is providing such data since exactly 10 years ago, time flies fast 😀
notaballitsjustblue@reddit
Rolls Royce are still improving the 350 engines.
Curious_Ave@reddit
In this comparisson the A350 seems less efficient as you say, but the A350 is on its 1st iteration if you will whereas the 777-9 is the 2nd iteration of an existing aircraft. If the A350 would be re-engined with a newer wing it could be just as or even more efficient if the needs is there
krishnaae@reddit
Noone can say exactly until the plane has entered line service.