Boeing’s 777-8 & 9 models are considerably bigger than the 200/ 300 versions

In fact it seems as if the most efficient one for one replacements in the same size range are the A350-9 and -1000 and this
is no accident but strategic planning on
the part of Airbus.


Granted there is a higher capacity market
out there, not sure if it will be nearly as big
as the classic triple seven market has been
though



So what is Boeing thinking or can a 787-9
be a decent replacement for a 777-200 size range aircraft, and what about the -300 ?

787-9 works for 772 replacement

The real question you are asking is what does Boeing offer in the 250-350 seat long haul market, those aircraft are the 787-9 and 777-8. The A350-900/1000 are also aimed at the same market.

To start, is there really even a huge need to replace 773 (at least 77W) right now? Not really.

And 779 is not THAT much larger than a 77W. 789 along with 78X is more than adequate to replaced 772/77E.

And I tend to find replacement between A & B going in a cycle anyway. 767 and also older 772 replaced by A330, then 787 came out and is better than A330, then Airbus create A350 as a A330/340 replacement (not counting A330neo that's more of a stopgap). And really nobody (other than maybe a few Boeing engineers) know how good or bad 797/NMA will be.

zakuivcustom wrote:

To start, is there really even a huge need to replace 773 (at least 77W) right now? Not really.

And 779 is not THAT much larger than a 77W. 789 along with 78X is more than adequate to replaced 772/77E.

And I tend to find replacement between A & B going in a cycle anyway. 767 and also older 772 replaced by A330, then 787 came out and is better than A330, then Airbus create A350 as a A330/340 replacement (not counting A330neo that's more of a stopgap). And really nobody (other than maybe a few Boeing engineers) know how good or bad 797/NMA will be.

Of course the 797/NMA will be an excellent airplane. When is the last time that Boeing designed a poor airplane? I'm not talking about poor selling, as the 767-400 and 747-8s are pretty good airplanes in many aspects.

I'm a little perplexed at the OP's original question. Boeing will have the 787-8, 787-9, 787-10, 777-8, and 777-9 going forward. How exactly is that ceding the 777-200/-300 replacement market to the competitor?

The 787-10 replaces the 777-200 for most missions. Heck, how many 772s (ER and non-ER) were replaced with A333s with less range or 789s with only slightly less capacity.
The 778 is a great 77W replacement, but that market is far off.
The 779 is an ideal 744 replacement (for gauge), but will more be for airlines outgrowing the A350-1000 and 77W.

I think the 777X will sell, but not was well as the 77W/77L/777F. Cest la vie. I think the freight market is looking forward to a 778 based freighter.

In general, planes within 20% of each others' capacity are considered to be in competition.

You do realize the 779 has outsold the A350-1000?

Lightsaber

Can we please cede the discussion that the 777-9 is much larger than the 77W when in reality it's not much larger. Whether it'll be competitive in that market is a fair discussion though.

lightsaber wrote:

The 778 is a great 77W replacement, but that market is far off.

I'm surprised you think it's a 'great' replacement, it's a decent size but pays for its capability with a hit in efficiency, and how many airlines realistically need that extra range? The market for ULH aircraft has never been large. I don't think it will sell much more than 100 units, if it was Boeing's only solution for 77W replacement they would be in a bad position.

The 779 is an ideal 744 replacement (for gauge), but will more be for airlines outgrowing the A350-1000 and 77W.

A touch problematic when most 744s already have designated replacements and there is a general trend for aircraft in the 789-A35K size to be more popular.

You do realize the 779 has outsold the A350-1000?

Boeing is a touch lucky that the ME3 order in very large numbers very often, they don't have that many customers yet with 8 (1 undisclosed), the A35K has 10 but there are murmurs about A359 orders/options being upgauged. Until the 77W replacement cycle kicks in in force we don't really know what will happen, but I think the A35K will be successful.


Lightsaber[/quote]

Same reason they ceded the 757 replacement to the A321...Boeing's greatest flaw is not taking any of Airbus' products seriously.

Seems like a trolling thread to me, but I could be wrong. Certainly both Boeing and Airbus will compete to replace the 777. To assume Boeing will not compete for 777 replacement sales when they have dominated the upper end of the market for decades seems kinda foolish.

The A350 is a fine plane, but then so is the 787, and by all accounts the 777x will be very strong. I think Boeing is positioned just fine.

I agree with Jetson. Boeing has a very strong lineup going forward.

The 777-200 and to a degree the 777-300 can all be replaced by the 787-10 (the 787-10 is a little bit bigger than a 777-200 and can fit about an extra row of economy seating in it than an A350-900).

Airbus have the the 777-200ER/300ER/200LR replacement market (and also the A340-500/600 replacement market) with the A350-900/1000/ULR. Boeing's 777X targets the top-end of this market performance/size-wise, overlapping with the 747 replacement market.

DarthLobster wrote:

Same reason they ceded the 757 replacement to the A321...Boeing's greatest flaw is not taking any of Airbus' products seriously.

Except you have no idea what you are talking about. Boeing takes all of the Airbus products very seriously. Boeing is fully aware of the A321NEO capability, and how well the A330 did in the market place. Where do some people make up stuff like this?

Like I said, this is a completely bogus thread based on inaccuracies. Boeing has three versions of 787 and two upcoming versions of 777. Plus, we'll see what happens with the proposed NMA.

What exactly do you boys think Boeing is ceding or not taking seriously?

I always thought that the B789 was a replacement for the B772/ER and also the A359 competes there as well. The B777-8X would compete with the A35K.

RJMAZ wrote:

Boeings has split the 777's original market between the 787 and 777X.

If you operated 777's ultra long haul with low density cabins you would go 777-8's.
If you operated 777's for medium haul you would go 787-10's.
If you operated 777 routes that you were struggling to fill you would downgauge to a 787-9.
If you had had natural growth and wanted to upgauge slightly you would go with a 777-9.

Airbus A350 is nearly half way between the 787 and 777X. Jack of all trades master of none. Pretty much like the 737, it is sold because it is available and the competition has a big back log.

So If you have a mix of all these routes and not want to operate X different types of twins aisles then the A350 is the best...
Less aircraft types in a fleet has often more value than using exactly the best fit a for a given route as long as the cost per seat are in the same ballpark. You can adapt to the demand with your revenue management team. We are not talking about 100+ seats difference between all these aircraft.

Aither wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

Boeings has split the 777's original market between the 787 and 777X.

If you operated 777's ultra long haul with low density cabins you would go 777-8's.
If you operated 777's for medium haul you would go 787-10's.
If you operated 777 routes that you were struggling to fill you would downgauge to a 787-9.
If you had had natural growth and wanted to upgauge slightly you would go with a 777-9.

Airbus A350 is nearly half way between the 787 and 777X. Jack of all trades master of none. Pretty much like the 737, it is sold because it is available and the competition has a big back log.

So If you have a mix of all these routes and not want to operate X different types of twins aisles then the A350 is the best...
Less aircraft types in a fleet has often more value than using exactly the best fit a for a given route as long as the cost per seat are in the same ballpark. You can adapt to the demand with your revenue management team. We are not talking about 100+ seats difference between all these aircraft.

The 787 is flying farther than the A350 is today, at similar (if not the same) capacities and 55,000lbs less weight.

There's a large amount of happenstance in the positioning of both makers today.

Boeing initially planned the 787 to be more or less a straight 767 replacement, and then was convinced by customers to upsize to the point where the 787-8 and -9 are straight A330/A340 replacements. Then Boeing realized that it could stretch the 787-9 into the 787-10 at relatively little expense.

Airbus initially planned the A350 as a comprehensive update of the A330. Then it was convinced by customers to upsize into a straight 777 replacement.

The presence of the A350 forced Boeing to upsize the 777 to keep it in production. Boeing could not take out all of the 777's weight penalty, and the answer was to use that extra weight to carry more seats in the 777X.

So both OEMs are a bit at the mercy of size trends in the market.

My view is that the 787-9 and A350-900 are the future of long-haul, and the A350-1000 and 777X will be niche products operated mostly by big airlines with hub-hub routes. The 787-10 has a nice niche that no one can really compete with as a low-CASM TATL and intra-Asia shovel. I'd expect upward of 2500 787 sales and nearly 2000 A350-900 sales when all is said and done. I think both the A350-1000 and the 777X will be lucky to break 600 sales apiece.

My post addresses primarily the replacement that closest fills the
777-200ER space



The 787 is a great aircraft but the -10 version does not have the range of a 77E
and the 787-9 does not have the capacity


The product that fits that space best seems to be the A359, it’s size and capacity plus improved efficiency and range seem to be the reason why several
airlines have chosen it for that role


UA for one stated the Airbus was
the type chosen for the beginning of the
777-200ER replacement with the 777W
remaining as the highest capacity, long range aircraft in the fleet

Varsity1 wrote:

The 787 is flying farther than the A350 is today, at similar (if not the same) capacities and 55,000lbs less weight.

Probably the airlines having ordered A350s did not know that...

Obviously it depends of each airline but typically I'd rather choose one type of aircraft and eventually different versions of it to be as close as possible of a "best fit' than X different aircraft types.

Please stick to the topic and keep the Airbus vs Boeing banter and flamebait out of the discussion

In my understanding it was like 5 classes with 7810 referring to 772 and 789 referring to 764:
338-332, 342, 763, 788
339-333, 764, 789
359: 772, 7810
3510: 77E, 778
380: 748, 779
Am I correct?

Varsity1 wrote:

The 787 is flying farther than the A350 is today, at similar (if not the same) capacities and 55,000lbs less weight.

Calling B/S on that, what 787 is 25 tonnes lighter than an A350 ?

Max Q wrote:

My post addresses primarily the replacement that closest fills the
777-200ER space



The 787 is a great aircraft but the -10 version does not have the range of a 77E
and the 787-9 does not have the capacity


The product that fits that space best seems to be the A359, it’s size and capacity plus improved efficiency and range seem to be the reason why several
airlines have chosen it for that role


UA for one stated the Airbus was
the type chosen for the beginning of the
777-200ER replacement with the 777W
remaining as the highest capacity, long range aircraft in the fleet

When purchasing the 77E they looked at their network and saw what fits best for them, for all we know the 77E was too big for many routes and they ordered it as it offered the best compromise on range payload cost for their routes at the time.

There is far more choice available now for long haul aircraft.

This thread's topic is misses the point -- 1995-2000 era 772/773 is OBE. They don't need replacement, any more than the A332 or A340 does....the market has fragmented. Now, aircraft of the same range with smaller capacity are available...Look what Jetstar, Scoot, Norwegian, Qatar are doing with densely packed 787's.

The A350-900 does very well at 300 passengers long-range, 787-10 for 300 passenger mid-range. A350-1000 a bit larger, but that and the 777X is not what the world needs in large numbers yet...Wait for the 77W replacement cycle after 2025. The 778 will barely sell 100 passenger frames and will likely be the freighter platform (if it's built at all? Same for A330-800).

A and B never go directly head to head with wide- body aircraft of exactly the same variants and weights. We are moving into a 787 and A350 world...over 3000 sales for each are likely. Once that kind of backlog is secured, it becomes inexpensive for all carriers to obtain these aircraft, taking advantage of the low cost due to economy of scale. Everything else becomes second fiddle, Sorry A330Neo and 777X !!

MrHMSH wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

The 778 is a great 77W replacement, but that market is far off.

I'm surprised you think it's a 'great' replacement, it's a decent size but pays for its capability with a hit in efficiency, and how many airlines realistically need that extra range? The market for ULH aircraft has never been large. I don't think it will sell much more than 100 units, if it was Boeing's only solution for 77W replacement they would be in a bad position.

The 779 is an ideal 744 replacement (for gauge), but will more be for airlines outgrowing the A350-1000 and 77W.

A touch problematic when most 744s already have designated replacements and there is a general trend for aircraft in the 789-A35K size to be more popular.

You do realize the 779 has outsold the A350-1000?

Boeing is a touch lucky that the ME3 order in very large numbers very often, they don't have that many customers yet with 8 (1 undisclosed), the A35K has 10 but there are murmurs about A359 orders/options being upgauged. Until the 77W replacement cycle kicks in in force we don't really know what will happen, but I think the A35K will be successful.


Lightsaber

[/quote]

The 778 will likely be the aircraft that allows SYD-LON/JFK. There will be a few top off orders for the 773 before the line switches over to the 77X aircraft.

How would a 78JER perform in the market place? Is an increased MTOW doable on the 78J or would the extra range have to come from lighter/ more efficient engine tech? I have a feeling that if it’s doable, when the 787 is reengined, a family of 789M, 78JM, and possibly 78J-ER could be a killer A330/777 replacement for markets that don’t require VLA due to slot constraints.

QXAS wrote:

How would a 78JER perform in the market place? Is an increased MTOW doable on the 78J or would the extra range have to come from lighter/ more efficient engine tech?

It would have to be new engines. Boeing can't increase maximum weights on the 78X without new main gear, which would presumably necessitate a new center wing box.

A 78X with the originally planned longer wingtips and an A350-900 style gear would be a pretty compelling competitor to the A350-900 for long haul, but would have enough added weight to lose the 78X's compelling advantage on regional missions.

seabosdca wrote:

QXAS wrote:

How would a 78JER perform in the market place? Is an increased MTOW doable on the 78J or would the extra range have to come from lighter/ more efficient engine tech?

It would have to be new engines. Boeing can't increase maximum weights on the 78X without new main gear, which would presumably necessitate a new center wing box.

A 78X with the originally planned longer wingtips and an A350-900 style gear would be a pretty compelling competitor to the A350-900 for long haul, but would have enough added weight to lose the 78X's compelling advantage on regional missions.

It’s always a trade off. So until there is an engine that has considerable advantage over the current generation 787 engines without adding much weight, the 78J will be limited to where it is now unless they want to scrap commonality with 789.

I was thinking about this today or the day before. Even if two types aren't exactly similar (a bit under or over in size), they may still serve as adequate replacements, as we're seeing the supposed 797 replace the 757 (though I like to say it's a 767 replacement/upper end of 757 routes replacement). The 787-9 seems like a sufficient replacement.

As later stated by Max, the 78X (I mean X as in -10) doesn't have the range, while the 789 lacks capacity, but are both always needed though? The 78X should be able to fly most 77E missions if capacity is desired, and if more range is needed, the 789 would come into play. Rather than having one aircraft perform all missions, you have two aircraft which specialize in one area while trading off the other.

American did a similar thing with their 757s actually; a321s replaced them where capacity was desired (domestic routes), but on routes where range or hot and high performance is needed (EGE, South America such as SEQU), the a319 was launched (particularly the a319S I think).

I guess it's a bit like killing one bird with two stones though.

Max Q wrote:

Boeing’s 777-8 & 9 models are considerably bigger than the 200/ 300 versions

In fact it seems as if the most efficient one for one replacements in the same size range are the A350-9 and -1000 and this
is no accident but strategic planning on
the part of Airbus.

Granted there is a higher capacity market
out there, not sure if it will be nearly as big
as the classic triple seven market has been
though

So what is Boeing thinking or can a 787-9
be a decent replacement for a 777-200 size range aircraft, and what about the -300 ?

I do agree with MaxQ Boeing has a gap in probably the center of the twin segment.

There are aircraft there, but they are aimed at slightly different segments.

- 787-9 : significant smaller. did payload range comparison with 772ER & A359 (can't find it) and you are giving in.
- 777-8 i a payload rang champ, better then the 777-200LR, but at a hefty price. It's ~15t heavier than a A350-900.
- 787-10 excellent CASM, but the typical heavy flight from Asia to Europe and America's aren't part of the deal.
- 777-300ER still in production, selling with "bridging" discounts, but the fleet starts aging in the coming 5 years.



We have had several threads over the years on this topic, IMO Boeing will at one point launch a bigger wing for a 350 seat 8000NM 787 to compete with the XWB's head to head. Originally a bigger wing was planned for the -9 and -10, but this was skipped during the height of the Dreamliner troubles in 2009/10. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-ups-787-weights-shrinks-9-wing-336055/

A bigger wing for the 787-10 and maybe a stretch (-11) would create an aircraft with a ~15t lower OEW then the 777-8. A 787-10 capacity with 787-9 capability. RR would have an engine for it. GE not sure..

B787-10 is basically a B777-200 Replacement

zeke wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

The 787 is flying farther than the A350 is today, at similar (if not the same) capacities and 55,000lbs less weight.

Calling B/S on that, what 787 is 25 tonnes lighter than an A350 ?

Let's look at the payload range charts

787-9:


A350-900:

At 8000nm ultra long haul both aircraft can carry equal 60,000lb payload.

787-9 is 254T for that chart.
A350-900 is 275T for that chart.

Amazing I know. 21T of extra weight to carry the same payload the same distance. That extra inch of width per seat in the A350 comes at a price in fuselage wetted area, structural weight and drag.

I look on it slightly differently. I think the airlines must be incredibly happy that they now have a good choice of frames for operations that were once the preserve of the 777W. It means that they can get good prices as there is no longer a monopoly supplier.

RJMAZ wrote:

zeke wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

The 787 is flying farther than the A350 is today, at similar (if not the same) capacities and 55,000lbs less weight.

Calling B/S on that, what 787 is 25 tonnes lighter than an A350 ?

Let's look at the payload range charts

787-9:


A350-900:

At 8000nm ultra long haul both aircraft can carry equal 60,000lb payload.

787-9 is 254T for that chart.
A350-900 is 275T for that chart.

Amazing I know. 21T of extra weight to carry the same payload the same distance. That extra inch of width per seat in the A350 comes at a price in fuselage wetted area, structural weight and drag.

Am I totally wrong in reading those charts?

To me they show that a 787-10 can carry 60,000lb payload out to a range of 6,000nm whereas an A350-900 can carry the same payload out to 8,000 miles.

Alternatively the A350-900 could carry an additional 45,000lb of payload out to 6,000nm

RJMAZ wrote:

I'm sure you realise the A350 payload/range chart you used is from before the plane had even flown. I'm sure you also know that payload/range has been increased multiple times since 2012 and is still improving. Good try though!

StTim wrote:

To me they show that a 787-10 can carry 60,000lb payload out to a range of 6,000nm whereas an A350-900 can carry the same payload out to 8,000 miles.

Alternatively the A350-900 could carry an additional 45,000lb of payload out to 6,000nm

The A350-900 would look even better using an up to date chart!

I was just going from the chart shown and was trying to point out the very wrong interpretation of it as presented.

Agree we know also the A350-900 has improved several times during development and early service life.

StTim wrote:

I look on it slightly differently. I think the airlines must be incredibly happy that they now have a good choice of frames for operations that were once the preserve of the 777W. It means that they can get good prices as there is no longer a monopoly supplier.

These were my thoughts, all the bases being covered by much more efficient aircraft from competing companies in
& around the B777-200 sector......a win-win for the airlines I`d suggest.

I think that 777s previous success give wrong information about market sweet spot. 777 was successful, because in that time there wasn't other versatile and capable twin on the market. Now there is many capable aircrafts on offer, which moves sweet spot to larger range.

ElroyJetson wrote:

Seems like a trolling thread to me, but I could be wrong. Certainly both Boeing and Airbus will compete to replace the 777. To assume Boeing will not compete for 777 replacement sales when they have dominated the upper end of the market for decades seems kinda foolish.

The A350 is a fine plane, but then so is the 787, and by all accounts the 777x will be very strong. I think Boeing is positioned just fine.

Agree. As much as I love Airbus jets, I think Boeing is doing just fine!

A bit of a trolling thread this is...

StTim wrote:

I was just going from the chart shown and was trying to point out the very wrong interpretation of it as presented.

Agree we know also the A350-900 has improved several times during development and early service life.

Actually scbriml and yourself clearly dont understand the charts.

The improvements in the A350's service life are maximum takeoff weight increases. They are not improving the efficiency at all.

The change at the far right of the graphs represent 100% fuel capacity. The 787-10 in that chart at maximum payload for instance is only carrying 55% of its maximum fuel capacity or approx 55T of fuel. It has hit its maximum takeoff weight. So a maximum takeoff weight increase of 10T would allow 10T of fuel to go straight into the tanks giving a direct boost in range. This is what has happened with the A350-900's maximum takeoff weight increases, they have not improved fuel efficiency one bit.

The A350-900 at maximum payload can carry 70% of its maximum fuel capacity or 78T of fuel. This is 40% more fuel than what the 787-10 can carry, yet the A350 only flies 1600nm or 25-30% further. That is the efficiency advantage the 787-10. You would expect the 787-10 to be a fair bit smaller be be able to fly only 1600nm less with that little fuel. Yet the 787-10 has more cabin area and more seats than the A350-900.

But as originally mentioned the A350-900 is 20+ ton heavier than the 787-9 while carrying the same payload the same distance.

The 787-10 can carry about 35,000lb of payload to 8,000nm not 60,000. The highlighted area is the extra capability of the 350 over the 787.

Of course this says nothing about fuel cost to do so.

Max Q wrote:

Boeing’s 777-8 & 9 models are considerably bigger than the 200/ 300 versions

In fact it seems as if the most efficient one for one replacements in the same size range are the A350-9 and -1000 and this
is no accident but strategic planning on
the part of Airbus.

Of course. Airbus was second to market with A350 and could position it wherever they saw the best market opportunity. Initially the A350 MkI was a straight A330 rewing and neo. Then after seeing 787's market acceptance they realized they couldn't win with the eight across cabin and so they made it Xtra Wide to go nine across and made it a full clean sheet design.

They got a lot of this right, but in hindsight it looks like the A350-800 has no future, and their choice to make the A350-1000 a 77W competitor cost them and RR extra time and money, and EK's big order to boot, and in the end the 777X will be used ten across so it'll always be extra wider than the A350.

Overall Airbus aimed right at the existing 77E/77W and scored a direct hit, and they're selling like hotcakes and will be for many years to come.

Granted there is a higher capacity market
out there, not sure if it will be nearly as big
as the classic triple seven market has been
though

Given that Boeing didn't want to invest in a clean sheet, it's really the only thing they could do.

So what is Boeing thinking or can a 787-9
be a decent replacement for a 777-200 size range aircraft, and what about the -300 ?

I think Boeing would be asking how much better a 777-200ER replacement could you make without cannibalizing the 787-9?

RJMAZ wrote:

StTim wrote:

I was just going from the chart shown and was trying to point out the very wrong interpretation of it as presented.

Agree we know also the A350-900 has improved several times during development and early service life.

Actually scbriml and yourself clearly dont understand the charts.

The improvements in the A350's service life are maximum takeoff weight increases. They are not improving the efficiency at all.

The change at the far right of the graphs represent 100% fuel capacity. The 787-10 in that chart at maximum payload for instance is only carrying 55% of its maximum fuel capacity or approx 55T of fuel. It has hit its maximum takeoff weight. So a maximum takeoff weight increase of 10T would allow 10T of fuel to go straight into the tanks giving a direct boost in range. This is what has happened with the A350-900's maximum takeoff weight increases, they have not improved fuel efficiency one bit.

The A350-900 at maximum payload can carry 70% of its maximum fuel capacity or 78T of fuel. This is 40% more fuel than what the 787-10 can carry, yet the A350 only flies 1600nm or 25-30% further. That is the efficiency advantage the 787-10. You would expect the 787-10 to be a fair bit smaller be be able to fly only 1600nm less with that little fuel. Yet the 787-10 has more cabin area and more seats than the A350-900.

But as originally mentioned the A350-900 is 20+ ton heavier than the 787-9 while carrying the same payload the same distance.

Your graphs are little bit out dated and also A350 graph is for 268t vatiant! In 2012 there wasnt any other weight variant and it has been even before A350 flown. 40% more fuel doesnt mean 40% more range! More weight more fuel consoption! Thats is why are your assumption completly wrong:-)

A350-900 has 20t more MTOW empty weight is around 135-140t and for 787-9 is around 127t as far as I know. So the A350-900 can carry more payload at same distance at least.

I seem to recall astuteman in a thread last year showing that the OEW difference was even smaller - around 11t. And that at 8000nm the 789 burned the same amount of fuel as a 359 while carrying less than 80% of the payload...

In the real world, if we're talking about 77E replacement, you're stuck with the fact that airlines wanting 77E capacity and payload at longer ranges aren't going for the 789. Take NZ: they're happy with the 789 on their Asian and Australian routes but they haven't included it in their 77E replacement competition this year. Doesn't have the payload range...

There are more 787-9s on order or delivered than 777-200s built.

There are more A350-900s on order than 777-200s built.

Who cares what replaces what? The market has grown significantly in the twenty years since most 777-200s were ordered.

Those charts though are just payload range charts. They do not show the frame weight or the fuel burned - although from the slope after the first kink you can see the range you get as payload is swapped for fuel.

Total new model widebody twin orders in the past 3 years:
Airbus:
A330neo: 31 + 44 + 10 = 93
A350: -3 + 41 + 36 = 74
Total: 167

Boeing:
787: 71 + 58+ 94 = 223
777X: 10 + 0 + 20 = 30
Total: 253

Of which the closest 777-200ER replacements are:
339: 93
359: 47
Sub-Total Airbus: 140

787 (-9 and -10): 168
Sub-Total Boeing: 168

So Boeing clearly dominates the widebody market over the past few years, Airbus is now on the right side of the narrowbody cycle but on the wrong side of the widebody cycle after a decade of spectacular A330 sales.

Max Q wrote:

Boeing’s 777-8 & 9 models are considerably bigger than the 200/ 300 versions

This is simply WRONG.
They are actually pretty close. Same MTOW, Higher OEW, Lower exit limit. It's a difference of roughly 3 rows.

zeke wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

The 787 is flying farther than the A350 is today, at similar (if not the same) capacities and 55,000lbs less weight.

Calling B/S on that, what 787 is 25 tonnes lighter than an A350 ?

253 vs 280t MTOW ?

obviously OEW is more interesting in that context ~~3t??

Max Q wrote:

My post addresses primarily the replacement that closest fills the 777-200ER space. The 787 is a great aircraft but the -10 version does not have the range of a 77E and the 787-9 does not have the capacity.

The significant majority of 777-200ER flights do not operate anywhere near their maximum design range. This is why the A330-300 has become a very popular replacement even though it's design range is a fair bit less. And the 787-10 has an equal or better design range than the A330-300.

The 777-200ER and 787-9 have cabins almost identical in length. The difference is cabin width, but even that is not much of a differentiator in favor of the 777 considering most modern business class products are now 1+2+1 or 2+2+2 compared to the old 2+3+2 of the 777. And most 777s went 10-abreast in Economy to improve their economics - a 787 at 9-abreast offers not-insignificantly better economics than a 10-abreast 777-200ER.

Max Q wrote:

The product that fits that space best seems to be the A359, it’s size and capacity plus improved efficiency and range seem to be the reason why several
airlines have chosen it for that role.

Again, most A350-900s will not be used at their design range. Where the A350-900 definitely pencils out better than the 787-9 would be a 777-200ER operator with 10-abreast Economy where the Economy Class load factors are near 100% year round as the A350-900 can seat another 27 people beyond what a 787-9 can. But that is likely a rare scenario so the choice of A350-900 or 787-9 is probably more influenced by other factors (OEM preference, existing pilot and maintenance base, financing, etc.).

Max Q wrote:

UA for one stated the Airbus was the type chosen for the beginning of the 777-200ER replacement with the 777W remaining as the highest capacity, long range aircraft in the fleet

And yet UA is using the 787-9 to launch and/or operate routes that in the past would have been launched and/or operated with the 777-200ER. So UA seems to feel that the 787-9 (and 787-10) as well as the A350-900 make a logical 777-200ER replacement depending on the mission.