I think the specification numbers on the A350-1000 look fantastic. More range with 10-15% lower OEW and MTOW than the 77W. It should have significantly lower operating costs than the 77W.

I don't look too much into the sales charts comparing the A35K and 77W. The 787 and A330 charts look the same. Purchase price and availability of the 77W compared to the A35K can explain why the mature program kept getting orders.

Now, will the A350 own the space? I don't think the A35K will match the 77W in sales. For airlines looking for a plane to fly 5000+ mile routes, in the 2000s they could choose the 777, A340, 747 or A380. The 747 and A380 are too big for most and when it comes to CASM, the similar sized A340 didn't compete well against the 777. Today there are more viable choices. The 787, A350 and 777x can all fill that role and the A330neo almost gets there too. Airlines have more choice and can co up or down in capacity. I don't think the 77W hit the sweet spot in capacity. It hit the sweet spot in efficiency. The A35K has more competition as the flagship of an airlines long haul fleet. I think it will be harder to own that space, but it will be a solid contender and for many airlines be the right choice.

I think it can, and I believe it's an aircraft ahead of the curve!

Once the first wave of the 77W replacement cycle hits, a lot of those customers will go for it, if not the 777X.

Sales will absolutely be pegged to replacement cycles. The sales of the A35K so far have been relatively modest because the 744 cycles are just about finished and the 773ER is still a little too new to be replaced in large numbers as the initial leased examples become due for changing.

In a way that's no bad thing. As it comes down the same line as the A359 it isn't like the line would be stuttering or idle, and as the 773ER operators start looking round as aircraft come off leases the A35K should be mature in-service and the backlog reduced. Boeing's timing on the 777X seems to take this into account as well.

Channex757 wrote:

Sales will absolutely be pegged to replacement cycles. The sales of the A35K so far have been relatively modest because the 744 cycles are just about finished and the 773ER is still a little too new to be replaced in large numbers as the initial leased examples become due for changing.

In a way that's no bad thing. As it comes down the same line as the A359 it isn't like the line would be stuttering or idle, and as the 773ER operators start looking round as aircraft come off leases the A35K should be mature in-service and the backlog reduced. Boeing's timing on the 777X seems to take this into account as well.

I agree. Replacement cycles probably favor the A359 in the near future. 777-200ERs, A340-300s, A330-300 s are being replaced now. It will be a few years before the 77W replacement cycle starts. A plane is usually out of production for a few years before the replacement cycle hits. Fortunately the A350 has two family members to hit two different markets so everything should work out fine.

Beating an aircraft that's about to go out of production.To be replaced by a shiny new one (Ok carbon isn't shiny) would hardly be called a triumph,it jolly well should!Right now its timing isn't so great as the vast majority of 773er's are hardly old,furthermore with oil at $50 a barrel they won't be going anywhere anytime soon.
I wonder whether they should have stuck to plan A and started with a simple stretch and come back later with the enhanced version when the timing was more appropriate.

The there is the damp little streak running down the inside of Leahy's leg.If he is soooo confident,why is he muttering about a stretched version even before the 1000 has finished testing?
Just where is that sweet spot I wonder.Should have waited perhaps.

Something about the 1000 seems off. On paper and in pictures it looks excellent. But there is that gnawing feeling that is will go down as a great plane that never really took off. I hope I am wrong, but I think this gut feeling will end up being right. A buddy of mine who will be flying the 350 for AA shares this concern. He can't put his finger on it either. I guess we will know in 10 years.

25% fuel burn advantage vs 77W is truly insane. Plus with Airbus' competitive pricing, the 35J should be a runaway winner. This will be fun to watch!

dochawk2 wrote:

Something about the 1000 seems off. On paper and in pictures it looks excellent. But there is that gnawing feeling that is will go down as a great plane that never really took off. I hope I am wrong, but I think this gut feeling will end up being right. A buddy of mine who will be flying the 350 for AA shares this concern. He can't put his finger on it either. I guess we will know in 10 years.

there is a slow down in widebody orders. I feel the -1000 time will come. 200 orders are ok and such be enough to cover the cost of developing it. Let's see how it will perform in real live.

I think the A35K's future ties in with the current slowdown of widebodies in general and the 77W's replacement cycle, as said above. Most 77Ws are less than 10 years old, some airlines like EK cycle through aircraft quickly, but most don't really. It has enough to be going on with, 200 is a respectable number for a widebody before EIS. But unless something pops up, I see nothing that would mark it out as failing to live up to expectations. And with a very large A359 customer base, conversions to the A35K are always a possibility.

It will do just fine and the stretch is simply another option to cover more of the market with the A350 family. However the whole widebody market will have hard years ahead, with the industry facing a turn down with overcapacity becoming a problem and cheap fuel keeping old planes viable for much longer. Imho the 777-8/9 will not have much of an impact (they are facing similar problems) what could hurt the A350-1000 though is the large number of 777Ws coming off lease contracts in the next years. There is no guarantee that airlines will replace those with new planes and not simply renew the 777W lease at adjusted rates.

Is the 25% comparing against 9-ab or 10-ab? If that's for 9-ab then you can take 11% off from the 25%

I think UA will still commit to buying 35 A35K's--they are perfect replacements for the rapidly-retiring 747-400 on long transpacific routes. It has the same pax/cargo capacity as the 77W, almost the same range, but at much lower CASM. I expect UA to base most of its A35K fleet at SFO, UA's transpacific gateway.

RayChuang wrote:

I think UA will still commit to buying 35 A35K's--they are perfect replacements for the rapidly-retiring 747-400 on long transpacific routes. It has the same pax/cargo capacity as the 77W, almost the same range, but at much lower CASM. I expect UA to base most of its A35K fleet at SFO, UA's transpacific gateway.

SFO again??? I mean, the 77W is based there, and it's not the only UA hub that had transpacific flights. I'm thinking maybe the bulk of the a350 fleet will be split between SFO and ORD, along with a few thrown around. SFO is getting UA's shiny new 77W, and that's probably what will replace most of the 744's retiring (as they are now based solely at SFO). Then, as the a350 comes in, it will probably be flown to Asia, maybe a little Europe (in premium markets). That's how I see it, the 77W mostly if not completely at SFO and the a350 spread out but with concentrated operations at ORD and SFO

RayChuang wrote:

I think UA will still commit to buying 35 A35K's--they are perfect replacements for the rapidly-retiring 747-400 on long transpacific routes. It has the same pax/cargo capacity as the 77W, almost the same range, but at much lower CASM. I expect UA to base most of its A35K fleet at SFO, UA's transpacific gateway.

The 747-400s will be long retired before UA receives their first 35K. They also have nowhere near 35 of them left at present (and, I don't know how many years it has been since they've had 35 747s).

The UA 744 replacement has already been chosen. Yes, it was originally supposed to be the A350, but UA changed their mind and went with the 77W.

It's still possible they may get the A350 in their fleet in the future, but its role won't be as a 744 replacement. It will either be for replacement of older 777s (though supposedly the 787-10 is to take on this role), or network expansion.

We're very focused on replacement on this thread. But as the opening quotes note, widebodies are fungible. If a larger plane has much better economics, it is easy to expand transfer traffic (not very profitable, but there is a market). The reality is the A359, 789, 787-10, and 779 will compete for every sale.

We compare individual aircraft. Airlines should be doing system simulation. For example, the 777-300ER mostly was growth, not replacement. Only later was it 744 replacement.

parapente wrote:

Beating an aircraft that's about to go out of production.To be replaced by a shiny new one (Ok carbon isn't shiny) would hardly be called a triumph,it jolly well should!Right now its timing isn't so great as the vast majority of 773er's are hardly old,furthermore with oil at $50 a barrel they won't be going anywhere anytime soon.
I wonder whether they should have stuck to plan A and started with a simple stretch and come back later with the enhanced version when the timing was more appropriate.

I think the A35K will do well, but demand doesn't seem high. Unless... We start seeing A359 to A35K order conversions. It could be the next A321. Too much of a stretch at first until PIPs shift the order book. I personally am expecting that. The A359 is that good. But a few weight reduction and engine PIPs and suddenly the cost difference per flight drops.. making that added revenue of the A35K more attractive.

Lightsaber

From where I sit the A350-1000 will be a niche aircraft within the A350 range. This has nothing to do with the aircraft itself, but the competition it faces from the existing installed 777-300ER fleet and the numerous other aircraft vying for future orders.

For instance, with most of the A350-1000 candidate airlines already operate the 777-3000ER. As such, the opportunity to replace these aircraft would be limited. On the same point airlines who purchased the 777-300ER for its base economics may decide other factors (size) are more compelling in deciding the makeup of future fleets.

Where in the past we directly compared the 777-300ER with the A340-600, in today's world the comparison would have to include the A350-1000, A350-900, 787-9, 787-10, 777-8X and 777-9X.

As such, I probably should hurry up and finish off my MBA. I am starting to feel that I am a little under qualified to continue fulfilling my role as an Armchair Airline CEO.

The airlines that will desire the A35K might be those for whom the Boeing 787-9 isn't big enough, but for whom the Boeing 777-300ER (to which the Airbus A350-1000 is the exact same length) has too much fuel burn. This fits Japan Airlines to a T...as they have the oldest 777-300ER in service right now and generally don't have dense cabin configurations. They have 18 359s and 13 35Ks on order---I suspect that the 35Ks will replace the 77Ws. Other airlines that may desire this model could be those needing bigger planes into congested airports (such as British Airways to replace 747s and Finnair into Asian airports).

Remember, Airbus is starting to ramp up A35K production as the oldest 77W's are starting to hit 15 years in age. It will end up replacing the 77W's starting with the oldest planes.

(By the way, UA will only get 14 77W's. That's not enough planes for the type of long over-water routes UA intends to fly, unless UA ups the 77W order to as many as 25 planes. One possibility is that UA converts the 35-plane A35K order back to the A359, which will be used to replace the 772ER's bought in the late 1990's).

With significantly lower OEW, MTOW and thrust requirement to transport a like number of passengers, the A35K is the natural replacement for the 77W.

And with a roughly 10% lower price indication vs 8% less seating, it should also do very well versus the 779 too (and of course Leahy will make that price difference more attractive as and when...)...the 778, IMHO is not serious competition for the A35K...

As Lightsaber says, the Trent XWB PIP's will do a lot to boost sales from, say, 2020/21 onwards...from what I understand, these should eventually substantially close the gap in fuel consumption with the GE9X...among other things, RR is planning to acheive a 60:1 overall compression ratio with these PIP's, pretty much what the GE9X is predicated on...


Faro

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Other airlines that may desire this model could be those needing bigger planes into congested airports (such as British Airways to replace 747s and Finnair into Asian airports).

Since British Airways have 18 A350-1000s on order specifically to replace 747s you've hit the mark there. Deliveries start next year, phased over the period up to 2022.

I agree on most observations above. I think pepple are maybe a bit overfocussed on the backlog.

There are still 750 A350's in the backlog, mostly likely significant more than half will leave the fall as A350-1000's.

Airbus has announced that the goal is to manufacture the A350 @ 10/month. An Airbus year is 11 months, so that is up to 110 aircraft per year. They are struggling with the production ramp up, but they might reach that goal in late 2018 or in 2019.

With a backlog of 751 aircraft as of 1th March 2017, the A350 line is fully booked until 2025. That is Airbus' largest problem. Airbus will try to convince A350-900 customers to take the A330-900 instead, and that way open up for A350-1000 production slots. Customers converting A350-900 to A350-1000 is an other way we might see more of the latter.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned in this tread is that the A350-1000 is being compared with a 77W @ 10 abreast. Remember that most 77W were delivered in a 9 abreast configuration, and most 77W operators still fly the aircraft in this configuration. When it is time for cabin refurbishment nearly all airlines install seats @ 10 abreast in the 77W. I think this is done in order to keep the CASM reasonable, not necessary because the airlines wants to increase capacity.

My point is that the A350-900 might also be considered as a 9 abreast 77W replacement. For 77W used on shorter routes, and where additional cargo requirements are low, the 787-10 might also be a good 77W replacement.

Is the A350 and especially the A350-1000 a success? I would say yes. For Airbus these aircraft are a direct A340-500 and A340-600 replacement. With the A350 they are eating market share in this segment, and they have forced Boeing to do a costly upgrade of the 777 family.

By the way, the 777-9 is the shortest stretch of a widebody ever. In Boeing's marketing the difference between the 77W and 777-9 is exaggerated. The 777-9 is also good 77W replacement for airlines that wants another capacity increase. (They had a capacity increase of about 30 seats (plus/minus) when they changed from 9 abreast to 10 abreast seating in Y-class.)

The A350 is Airbus way to replace what Boeing was offering with the 777. The A35K targeting the 77W. In that regards, it meets Airbus expectations since the 77W is now outmatched on the new jet market. And even Boeing's response with the 779 is more an A388 competitor / killer than an A35K one's.

Now will the A350-1000 effectively replace 77W or latest 747 around the word is another thing. Like pointed out, there is an arch competition between him and his little brother the A359 and also with the 787 -9 & -10 depending of the actual needs of airlines.

Wait and see what happens when it will be in service alongside the others.

mig17 wrote:

The A350 is Airbus way to replace what Boeing was offering with the 777. The A35K targeting the 77W. In that regards, it meets Airbus expectations since the 77W is now outmatched on the new jet market. And even Boeing's response with the 779 is more an A388 competitor / killer than an A35K one's.

Now will the A350-1000 effectively replace 77W or latest 747 around the word is another thing. Like pointed out, there is an arch competition between him and his little brother the A359 and also with the 787 -9 & -10 depending of the actual needs of airlines.

Wait and see what happens when it will be in service alongside the others.

This is what Boeing marketing wants you to believe. Look at the technical documentation and you will see that the A380 has 50 % more cabin floor space than the 777-9. The 777-9s strengths lies it is ability to haul larger amounts of additional revenue cargo than its closest competitors.

The 777-9 is a 2.9 meters (9.4 Ft) stretch of the 77W. If everything else is equal (no cabin optimization marketing magic), the difference is one row of lie flat business seats and one row of Y seats. If we use the entire stretch for Y+ and Y-class, we can have three extra rows. But that is not an equal comparison as the ratio between the classes changes, and the number of passengers per lavatory increases, and there will be less galley space per passenger etc. The 777-9 is very much a 77W replacement. The size difference is exaggerated.

The 787-9 is A330 size. Most airlines configure the A330-300 with slightly more seats than the 787-9. Both are significantly smaller than the 77W (around a 100 seats smaller).

.
A350-1000 potentials could be AF, DL, SQ, IB, LH, QF, and Korean.

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1352853

keesje wrote:

I agree on most observations above. I think pepple are maybe a bit overfocussed on the backlog.

There are still 750 A350's in the backlog, mostly likely significant more than half will leave the fall as A350-1000's.

I am glad that we agree that we shouldn't be too over focused on backlogs, but where are you getting the idea that more than half of A350s will be A350-1000s? I haven't seen anything indicating that may be what the market wants other than the rumor thread you started two months ago.

Newbiepilot wrote:

keesje wrote:

I agree on most observations above. I think pepple are maybe a bit overfocussed on the backlog.

There are still 750 A350's in the backlog, mostly likely significant more than half will leave the fall as A350-1000's.

I am glad that we agree that we shouldn't be too over focused on backlogs, but where are you getting the idea that more than half of A350s will be A350-1000s? I haven't seen anything indicating that may be what the market wants other than the rumor thread you started two months ago.

Because we saw the same development on the 767, 777, 787, A330, A340. That's why.

reidar76 wrote:

mig17 wrote:

The A350 is Airbus way to replace what Boeing was offering with the 777. The A35K targeting the 77W. In that regards, it meets Airbus expectations since the 77W is now outmatched on the new jet market. And even Boeing's response with the 779 is more an A388 competitor / killer than an A35K one's.

Now will the A350-1000 effectively replace 77W or latest 747 around the word is another thing. Like pointed out, there is an arch competition between him and his little brother the A359 and also with the 787 -9 & -10 depending of the actual needs of airlines.

Wait and see what happens when it will be in service alongside the others.

This is what Boeing marketing wants you to believe. Look at the technical documentation and you will see that the A380 has 50 % more cabin floor space than the 777-9. The 777-9s strengths lies it is ability to haul larger amounts of additional revenue cargo than its closest competitors.

The 777-9 is a 2.9 meters (9.4 Ft) stretch of the 77W. If everything else is equal (no cabin optimization marketing magic), the difference is one row of lie flat business seats and one row of Y seats. If we use the entire stretch for Y+ and Y-class, we can have three extra rows. But that is not an equal comparison as the ratio between the classes changes, and the number of passengers per lavatory increases, and there will be less galley space per passenger etc. The 777-9 is very much a 77W replacement. The size difference is exaggerated.

The 787-9 is A330 size. Most airlines configure the A330-300 with slightly more seats than the 787-9. Both are significantly smaller than the 77W (around a 100 seats smaller).

And I agree, I don't think the 779 will "live up to Boeing's expectations". But that is another subject. A350 and 787 are going to be fine, event the -1000.

On paper it does look good....
Am curious how it will really be, as 350-900 basically wasn't much of an improvement over the 330, at least very early models.
25% less fuel than 773 is impressive if turns out to be true, however would like to know about payload....777 is liked cause you can fill it up with pax and lots of freight in lower holds and go almost anywhere.

IMHO, I don't think Airbus should be worried about how the A350-1000 performs in the market at the moment. It is part of a family that includes the currently hot -900, so as long as that one can keep the line running then Airbus can keep the -1000 alive until the market matures enough again.

VSMUT wrote:

IMHO, I don't think Airbus should be worried about how the A350-1000 performs in the market at the moment. It is part of a family that includes the currently hot -900, so as long as that one can keep the line running then Airbus can keep the -1000 alive until the market matures enough again.

The wide body market is not hot right now and I don't think we can agree that the A359 market is currently hot. The A350 orders minus cancellations have been flat over the past 4 years. There haven't really been any net sales. That is not something that probably worries many. The A350 has a big backlog, so I don't see any concern with that, especially with Airbus emphasizing the A330 recently.

What will be interesting is what the A350 orders look like when sales start up again. The 787 had a similar period of 5 years with basically no net orders. Eventually 787 orders started coming in again once the backlog started shrinking and we saw them shift from smaller to larger planes like 787-9s and 787-10s. Like Keesje was saying, I think when A350 orders start coming in again, they might be for the bigger A350-1000.

I think Airbus will likely push the A359 a lot more as the 772ER replacement over the next 3-5 years. Remember, there are a large number of 772/772ER planes built between 1994 and 2001, and many of those planes will reach 20 years service between now and 2021. As such, Airbus will target large 772/772ER operators to replace them with the A359. Airbus won't emphasize A35K sales until after 2020, when a large number of 77W's may be reaching the point of being retired.

In fact, I can see Airbus making a big push to sell the A359 to airlines that need to replace the 772ER and A343 over the next 4-5 years.

For airlines looking to replace their 10-abreast 77E fleets, and which may investigating incremental capacity growth, the A35K will be the best option available. Fore premium airlines in the future who will be replacing their 9-abreast 77W fleets, the A35K will be a perfect option.

For airlines with 10-abreast 77W fleets there will be two replacement options, 779 and A35K. Neither perfect but both great options depending on the airline's needs.

With the current slump in orders due to overcapacity being experienced there will be fewer orders in the short term but this will change as replacement cycles start properly.

-25% fuel burn actuality too optimistic promise, in real life it will be about 20%. If we calculate fuel consumption from known weight characteristics and range, then for max range & payload it is about 6500 kg / h for A35K and 8100 kg / h for 77W, so this is about 20%. It makes sense to talk about 27% when compared with the A346.

keesje wrote:

.
A350-1000 potentials could be AF, DL, SQ, IB, LH, QF, and Korean.

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1352853

AF - Sure.
DL - Maybe, depends on A359 performance
SQ - Depends, with the 777X MoU now signed
IB - Not sure, maybe
LH - Not sure, maybe
QF - No, 777X operator
KE - Tilt towards no. I also see KE as a heavy 777X operator

I can also see AA perhaps adding the type along with the 777-9.

I can see airlines operating both types.
I would not be surprised to see QF use their deposits on deferred 380's to go for 351, along with 778 for the ULH and 779 to replace 747.
I can also see an ER 787-10 applying pressure from below in the future.
The 351 has 2 problems as I see it.
1. The engine. It is basically maxed out, and whilst I admit to knowing nothing bout engines, it obtains some of it's extra thrust by spinning faster and running hotter. It will take time to establish confidence in reliability.
2. The 779 is bigger and heavier and uses more fuel than the 351. So did the 330, but it killed the 764 as a dominator in that pax size. The 330 was more versatile and gave airlines more options in future planning. I think the 779 offers that.
I think the 351 will be successful in that it will make money for Airbus, but I don't think it will ever dominate the space.

Ruscoe

Worth watching NZ too. 789 doesn't really have the payload/range (even to do west coast North America NZ will have to slash seat numbers or block seats, and it doesn't have the legs for inland/east coast USA, which has to be part of NZ's strategic plan). Technically the 359 looks the most obvious option. And if they go 359 to replace the 77E it's hard to see them going with 778/779 as eventual replacement for 77W. A35K would be fine for current NZ route structure. Qantas is a different story: they're one of the few airlines that might really have a need for the range/payload of a 778.

I think that there is a misunderstanding that the A350-1000 is restricted against the 777-8/9 in her ability to lift a heavy payload. The 777-300ER out lifts the A350-1000 on short distances, but the A350-1000 lifts 65 t out to about 5,500 nm and 30 t to nearly 8,500 nm that is a hefty load a long way. And I do not think the story will stop there, the A350-900 got a MTOW bump shortly after EIS, 268 t up to first 275 and than 280 t, and I expect something similar for the -1000.
Regarding the lifting capabilities of the 777-8/9 we can only guess starting with the 777-300ER and 777-200LR, but it can easily mean a reduction compared to those birds, as OEW will go up and we do not know if MZFW will go up as well, MTOW at least will stay the same.

tealnz wrote:

Worth watching NZ too. 789 doesn't really have the payload/range (even to do west coast North America NZ will have to slash seat numbers or block seats, and it doesn't have the legs for inland/east coast USA, which has to be part of NZ's strategic plan). Technically the 359 looks the most obvious option. And if they go 359 to replace the 77E it's hard to see them going with 778/779 as eventual replacement for 77W. A35K would be fine for current NZ route structure. Qantas is a different story: they're one of the few airlines that might really have a need for the range/payload of a 778.

Honestly I would be shocked if NZ went A350, sure it seems like the best fit size wise but NZ are adding more destinations in the US meaning relying less on LAX/SFO for connections and sending them more via IAH and I'd say ORD will be added at some point. The current 302 seat 789 they have said wouldn't carry enough payload ex LAX/SFO but a less dense 275 seater coming later this year will likely go to YVR first, UA use 252 seat 789's on LAX-MEL and SFO-SIN which are pretty long particularly SFO-SIN. In short NZ have now got down to their desired 777/787 long haul fleet which they hope to have as a single type rating, just can't see them adding a long haul airbus. The 78-10 will be an interesting watch if Boeing can add a bit of range to make it a good LAX/SFO aircraft.

QF I can't see the A350 either tbh, a smallish long haul fleet where 744's will be replaced by 2023ish by 789's and it seems 778's are most likely, I think as they need more aircraft to replace A330's they will add more 789's and some 78-10's with 779's to replace A380's when the time comes unless QF take the remaining A380's on order to replace the current fleet.

ZK-NBT wrote:

tealnz wrote:

Worth watching NZ too. 789 doesn't really have the payload/range (even to do west coast North America NZ will have to slash seat numbers or block seats, and it doesn't have the legs for inland/east coast USA, which has to be part of NZ's strategic plan). Technically the 359 looks the most obvious option. And if they go 359 to replace the 77E it's hard to see them going with 778/779 as eventual replacement for 77W. A35K would be fine for current NZ route structure. Qantas is a different story: they're one of the few airlines that might really have a need for the range/payload of a 778.

Honestly I would be shocked if NZ went A350, sure it seems like the best fit size wise but NZ are adding more destinations in the US meaning relying less on LAX/SFO for connections and sending them more via IAH and I'd say ORD will be added at some point. The current 302 seat 789 they have said wouldn't carry enough payload ex LAX/SFO but a less dense 275 seater coming later this year will likely go to YVR first, UA use 252 seat 789's on LAX-MEL and SFO-SIN which are pretty long particularly SFO-SIN. In short NZ have now got down to their desired 777/787 long haul fleet which they hope to have as a single type rating, just can't see them adding a long haul airbus. The 78-10 will be an interesting watch if Boeing can add a bit of range to make it a good LAX/SFO aircraft.

QF I can't see the A350 either tbh, a smallish long haul fleet where 744's will be replaced by 2023ish by 789's and it seems 778's are most likely, I think as they need more aircraft to replace A330's they will add more 789's and some 78-10's with 779's to replace A380's when the time comes unless QF take the remaining A380's on order to replace the current fleet.

I don't see the 787-10 anywhere near AKL-LAX. This would need not a bit more range, but more like adding 6 hours of fuel, some 25-30 tons. Totally not happening anytime soon.
So there is some room for the 350, but it is still unlikely. 787-9 seems to be tailor-made for NZ, this will be the backbone. 35K and 779 would fill a small niche in this fleet only, don't see room for more than 10. I think they will choose the one better suited to the volumes they need, as I expect both to be effectively on par performance-wise. Big heavy lifters with consumptions below 3l per Pax/100km.

Agree mostly on the QF front. I just see them taking the last A380s they have on order down the road to replace early builds. Who knows if there will be anything to replace the A380 with in 2025.

AF - Sure.
DL - Maybe, depends on A359 performance
SQ - Depends, with the 777X MoU now signed
IB - Not sure, maybe
LH - Not sure, maybe
QF - No, 777X operator
KE - Tilt towards no. I also see KE as a heavy 777X operator

I don't see a strong preference for 777X translating into orders.
It's a big, heavy & expensive machine, without a efficient shrink version.

Boeing778X wrote:

KE - Tilt towards no. I also see KE as a heavy 777X operator

Considering how many 777s and how many VLAs KE has I could see them having both 777x and A350s (KE has already proven having many different types isn't a problem)

ZK-NBT wrote:

Honestly I would be shocked if NZ went A350, sure it seems like the best fit size wise but NZ are adding more destinations in the US meaning relying less on LAX/SFO for connections and sending them more via IAH and I'd say ORD will be added at some point. The current 302 seat 789 they have said wouldn't carry enough payload ex LAX/SFO but a less dense 275 seater coming later this year will likely go to YVR first, UA use 252 seat 789's on LAX-MEL and SFO-SIN which are pretty long particularly SFO-SIN. In short NZ have now got down to their desired 777/787 long haul fleet which they hope to have as a single type rating, just can't see them adding a long haul airbus.

The point is that NZ can't afford multiple types in their wide body fleet. A 789/78J combination for North America is fantasy. So do they go 778/779 for their heavy metal or do they go A359/A35K? The 359 would work fine for AKL-NYK/ORD as well as nearer North American destinations. And the 35K would be an easy eventual replacement for the 77Ws. It's just hard to se why NZ would commit to the much bigger investment in the 77X when, on the numbers, the 359/35K combination is such natural fit.

keesje wrote:

AF - Sure.
DL - Maybe, depends on A359 performance
SQ - Depends, with the 777X MoU now signed
IB - Not sure, maybe
LH - Not sure, maybe
QF - No, 777X operator
KE - Tilt towards no. I also see KE as a heavy 777X operator

I don't see a strong preference for 777X translating into orders.
It's a big, heavy & expensive machine, without a efficient shrink version.

Of course you don't.

Despite those things, the 777X will be, and is, fine.

Boeing778X wrote:

keesje wrote:

AF - Sure.
DL - Maybe, depends on A359 performance
SQ - Depends, with the 777X MoU now signed
IB - Not sure, maybe
LH - Not sure, maybe
QF - No, 777X operator
KE - Tilt towards no. I also see KE as a heavy 777X operator

I don't see a strong preference for 777X translating into orders.
It's a big, heavy & expensive machine, without a efficient shrink version.

Of course you don't.

Despite those things, the 777X will be, and is, fine.

The Singapore Airlines sales competition between the A350-1000 and 777-9 showed us that just because an airline operates the A350-900 doesn't mean that they will prefer the A350-1000 over the 777-8/9. Other airlines like Lufthansa and Qatar are also willing to pick to order both. It looks like airlines are willing to operate the 787, A350 and 777x. Even if Keesje describes the 777-9 as big, heavy and expensive, it is a formidable competitor to the A350-1000.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

keesje wrote:

I don't see a strong preference for 777X translating into orders.
It's a big, heavy & expensive machine, without a efficient shrink version.

Of course you don't.

Despite those things, the 777X will be, and is, fine.

The Singapore Airlines sales competition between the A350-1000 and 777-9 showed us that just because an airline operates the A350-900 doesn't mean that they will prefer the A350-1000 over the 777-8/9. Other airlines like Lufthansa and Qatar are also willing to pick to order both. It looks like airlines are willing to operate the 787, A350 and 777x. Even if Keesje describes the 777-9 as big, heavy and expensive, it is a formidable competitor to the A350-1000.

Indeed. Unfortunately, keesje doesn't seem to realize that. He likes to make the argument that the 777X is big and heavy and expensive, and that it doesn't have an "effective" shrink. Enough of that BS. Both 777X models have some form of superior capability to the A350-1000 in their own respects (the 778 has a range and payload advantage, whilst the 779, a capacity advantage), and for some airlines, that will attract, especially if they are current 777/787 operators. Heck, even 747 operators will take a good look at it. z

The 778 will also make a good freighter when the time comes, so I wouldn't be as so vain to call it "ineffective" then.

That being said, the A350-1000 is a good airplane, and the airlines who have it on order most likely won't be disappointed in it, but to toss the 777X, a type that will be backed up with over 25 years of experience when it enters service, aside as needlessly as keesje does is just plain silliness.

I think it will do just fine. It takes time for an airline to be impressed with a plane. The question is will the A350-1100 be successful. I think it will be.

I think it will do just fine. It takes time for an airline to be impressed with a plane. The question is will the A350-1100 be successful. I think it will be.