The two product lines with the biggest portfolios face off.
The Boeing 787 completely altered the landscape for low-cost airlines by providing outstanding trip economics and enabling affordable long-haul travel. Airbus, on the other hand, followed up with the A350 family, and now the two are vying to be the chart-topper. Let’s examine the A350-1000 and 787-10 in high-density layouts, the largest models available from both families.
Examining the two
In order to be as objective as possible, we shall compare the Boeing 787-10 and Airbus A350-1000 in their densest configurations. Instead of focusing on passenger comforts, we’ll see how much it will cost to fly these planes and how many people we can fit inside. Regrettably, this is also not too distant from the airplane’s perspective.
On the surface, the following table compares the airframe hardware:
A maximum of 440 passengers can disembark a Boeing 787-10 at a distance of 11,910 kilometers (6,430 nautical miles)
Maximum exit capacity for the Airbus A350-1000 is 480 passengers, with a 16,100 km range (8,700 nautical miles)
Passengers
When we look at the passenger numbers, we see:
440 seats on a Boeing 787-10 with a seat pitch of 32 inches
480 seats on an Airbus A350-1000, each with a seat pitch of 31 inches.
The Boeing 787-10 could probably accommodate a few more passengers, but since its evacuation maximum is 440, carrying any more than 440 passengers could jeopardize everyone’s safety. The A350 is the clear winner in this comparison because it offers the highest exit limitations and still has capacity for plush seats; however, we’ll get to that in a moment.
per-seat fuel use
How much will it cost us in fuel now that we know how many passengers are seated in cramped quarters with their knees buckling and other passengers breathing down their necks?
A trip of around 5,000 nautical miles would need each airplane to expend about this much gasoline every kilometer:
Boeing 787: 20 lb/mile (5.63 kg/km)
6.03 kg/km (21.4 lb/mi) Airbus A350
Calculating for our enormous aircraft, assuming that each passenger and their luggage weighs, we arrive at the following result:
102 US mpg for the Boeing 787 at 2.31 L/100 km.
2.39 L/100 km (98 mpg) for the Airbus A350
We can therefore assume that the Boeing 787-10 will be more effective than the A350-1000.
Which will ultimately generate more revenue?
Will the Boeing 787 advance as a result of increased fuel efficiency? Or will the A350 be superior if there are 40 extra passengers?
Given that fuel prices fluctuate on a daily basis as well, this is the section of the summary where things get the most complicated. The A350 does, however, have one advantage: range. It’s interesting that no cheap airlines and only a small number of airlines have chosen to use the 787-10 in their fleets. With the exception of French Bee’s all-economy cabin,
the A350-1000 has likewise received little low-cost attention. Yet, the Airbus offering has a better chance of drawing clients in the future because to its vast range. Given its bigger capacity and provided fuel prices are within normal limits, calculations done in the back of the book suggest that the A350 would be somewhat more efficient per mile. The maximum 480 seats, 40 of which are premium recliner seats, are currently only expected to be available on the French Bee A350-1000. Yet Boeing hasn’t yet succeeded in luring any low-cost customers to its enlarged 787-10.
