787 and A350

[XSBaggage]

I think this is the most appropriate forum for this question, but apologies if I have got that wrong.

I have been curious lately; I believed the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350 were pitted against each other in the "long thin" route market. But it seems that many airlines have placed orders for both types. Can somebody please enlighten me on why this would be? Surely the types more or less replicate each other - if you need a mix of seats you just buy the 787-8 and 787-9 for example.

Looking forward to some enlightening responses,

XSB

[rog747]

the 787-8 is almost out of production already as most operators head for the 787-9

the 787-8 will end up an orphan fleet and I can see them moving on from legacy operators - maybe as a 767 replacement - maybe not

[XSBaggage]

But then why do they still insist on mixing their fleets? For example BA have both 787-8s and 787-9s, but they have an A350 order coming soon too? I always thought the sensible thing was to have as few types to allow crew commonality.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by XSBaggage

But then why do they still insist on mixing their fleets? For example BA have both 787-8s and 787-9s, but they have an A350 order coming soon too? I always thought the sensible thing was to have as few types to allow crew commonality.

Fleet commonality is a cost driver, that's true.

But so are lots of other things, including the ability to put a squeeze on manufacturers' prices by also ordering some of the competition's product.

[Denti]

The 787 and A350 are actually not in the same market. The 787 is a surprisingly small aircraft, even in its stretched variants. The -8 has a typical seat count of 245 (range 7350NM), the -9 280 (7635NM) and the -10 up to 310 (6430NM).

The A350 on the other hand starts with the -900 with 325 passenger (8100NM), and the -1000 around 365 (8000NM). The -900ULR usually has a somewhat lower seat count to achieve the proposed range, current operators have them configured with 170 to 250 seats (up to 9700NM). All seat numbers except for the ULR are typical three class layouts, the ULR often has mostly business seats and not much else.

[El Bunto]

An old slde but still useful:



The A350-800 has pretty much been abandoned so now the A350 range starts where the 787 ends.

[Denti]

Indeed, Airbus tries to plug the hole somewhat by introducing the A330-900NEO which has the size of the A330-300 with the longer range of the -200.

[XSBaggage]

Thank you for the information! I just never realised how large the A350 was, I assumed they were in direct competition with each other. Now I have to try and fly on them both.....I seem to always end up with A330s!

XSB

[TURIN]

Much of this was down to the press. Comparing the two as competitors when really the 787 was a replacement for the 767 and the A350 a competitor for the 777.

[rog747]

Virgin Atlantic have ordered the A350 (the big version) to replace their 747-400's on the sun/beach routes

The 747's were supposed to have gone by now but have been retained due to the
787 RR engine problems - along with some A340-600's reactivated from storage/scrapman
plus 4 ex LTU A330-200's were obtained this year, and are being refurbed with new seats etc

I am not sure if VAA still have an order to roll over the current A330 fleet for new 330Neo's ?
The A380 order from 2000 was eventually cancelled

Puzzlingly BA also have an order for A350's despite being a 777 and a 787 customer

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by rog747

Puzzlingly BA also have an order for A350's despite being a 777 and a 787 customer

Air China, Ethiopian, Qatar, Singapore and Thai operate all 3 types, so it's not that unusual.

[pax britanica]

I think fleet commonality takes second place to operational suitability, optimal commercial aspects for large airlines . They have quite number of all the types they operate and can afford to absorb the crew commonality penalty relatively easily, despite size difference I suspect systems and fd layout between 380 and 350 are not that different being airbus types so there is probably a fair degree of overlap in the training area. Also in BA they now purchase as IAG so that has to be taken into account as well

[Denti]

Fleet commonality is an issue. But as the margins are much higher in the longhaul market compared to the by now barebone shorthaul market, it is still possible to disregard it for many decisions. If the longhaul low cost model actually works out, it will become an issue again. However, so far it hasn't really made much of a dent into that market and due to the much higher setup and upfront cost, as primera recently has discovered even on narrowbody aircraft, i doubt it will happen anytime soon. And of course, the crew/aircraft ratio on longhaul flights is by its very nature completely different. Where one can get away with 4 to 4,5 crews per aircraft on shorthaul, one will be hardpressed to use less than 7,5 (MFF) to 10 crews per aircraft on shorter-sector longhaul flights and well above that for ultra longhaul. Therefore the training cost per aircraft has to be higher per aircraft anyway, and more crews needed creating less of a pressure for common fleets and training cost savings across several fleets. Although an all-airbus fleet for example really cuts down on cross-fleet transition cost.