787 vs A350

[zvezda]

It's seems that many participants here see the main difference between the 787 and the A350 as being the cabin width. From a passenger perspective, that is the salient difference. However, from SQ's perspective, I believe the main difference is that the A350 is optimized for longer-range operations and the 787 is optimized for shorter-range operations.

The 787 has a wing area of 347 sq meters, while the A350 has a wing area of 443 sq meters (28% greater). On a short flight, the lower weight of the smaller wing is an advantage. On a longer flight, the aerodynamic benefit of a larger wing is an advantage. Larger wings also provide more space to carry fuel.

I think the fact that the tighter seating in the 787 is more tolerable on short flights is secondary to SQ.

[crazycrab955]

It's seems that many participants here see the main difference between the 787 and the A350 as being the cabin width. From a passenger perspective, that is the salient difference.

Yet many of these same participants seem to favour the A330 over the B777, even though a significant difference in cabin width (and height) exists between these two aircraft.

My take is that there are those who prefer Airbus (any product) over Boeing (any product), regardless of a comparison on the individual metrics. Of course there are those with the opposite view (pro-Boeing, anti-Airbus) as well. These partisans will selectively cite areas where their favoured manufacturer comes out on top, while conveniently ignoring those where said manufacturer falls short.

From a passenger perspective, the A350 will represent a larger cabin than the B787, but smaller (narrower) cabin relative to the B777.

[zvezda]

Yet many of these same participants seem to favour the A330 over the B777, even though a significant difference in cabin width (and height) exists between these two aircraft.

That's a little different because the A330 is 8-abreast, while the 787, A350, and 777 will all be 9-abreast in SQ configuration.

My take is that there are those who prefer Airbus (any product) over Boeing (any product), regardless of a comparison on the individual metrics. Of course there are those with the opposite view (pro-Boeing, anti-Airbus) as well. These partisans will selectively cite areas where their favoured manufacturer comes out on top, while conveniently ignoring those where same manufacturer falls short.

There is certainly some of that. I hope this thread doesn't descend into such silliness.

From a passenger perspective, the A350 will represent a larger cabin than the B787, but smaller (narrower) cabin relative to the B777.

Yes, but I'm interested in SQ's perspective as that will determine which aircraft type they order next. Given the specifications, it's very likely that the A350 will have better operating economics on long-haul routes. It's much more difficult to predict which type will have the advantage on short-haul routes. If the 787 has been operating economics on short-haul routes, then SQ may order more of both. If the A350 has better operating economics on short-haul routes, then SQ might dump their 787s and consolidate their operations around the A350 -- possibly ordering A350-800s and A350-1000s in addition to more A350-900s.

[9V-SIA]

Is it fair to say that in the continuing battle for supremacy, the line up is:

Regional:

B787 v A330

Long Haul

(Long thin routes): B77W v A350

(Long intermediate routes): 748

(Long fat routes): A380

[zvezda]

Is it fair to say that in the continuing battle for supremacy, the line up is:

Regional:

B787 v A330

Long Haul

(Long thin routes): B77W v A350

(Long intermediate routes): 748

(Long fat routes): A380

Looking five to ten years into the future, I would say it's more like:

Regional: 787 vs A350
Long-haul thin-demand: 787 vs A350 (A350 seems to have the edge here)
Long-haul high-demand: A350 vs Y3 vs WhaleJet (depends on what Boeing build to replace the 777-300ER and 747-8I)

The next order (not counting freighters) will probably be for more 787s or more A350s, but more 777-300ERs cannot be ruled out if the right opportunity comes along due to a deferral.

[Nick C]

It will be interesting if SQ decides to order the 787-8. It will be the ideal aircraft to restart certain terminated European destinations & increase frequencies to daily with a 787-8 instead of a 3x/4x svc on a 772 to destinations like ATH & MAN. The 787-8 will certainly command higher yield over the 772s.

Didn't SQ consider the 787-3 initally?

[zvezda]

It will be interesting if SQ decides to order the 787-8. It will be the ideal aircraft to restart certain terminated European destinations & increase frequencies to daily with a 787-8 instead of a 3x/4x svc on a 772 to destinations like ATH & MAN. The 787-8 will certainly command higher yield over the 772s.

Yes, I suggested that possibility several years ago. I was surprised when SQ's initial 787 order did not include 787-8s. The problem is that, while RASM would be raised by going daily with a smaller aircraft, the 787-8 has higher CASM than the 787-9.

Another possibility would be a 787-8ER (787-9 wings, maingear, and MTOW) to replace the A340-500s. It's the perfect size for all-business class nonstop SIN-USA operations. 86-90 seats would fit.

[B727]

Another possibility would be a 787-8ER (787-9 wings, maingear, and MTOW) to replace the A340-500s. It's the perfect size for all-business class nonstop SIN-USA operations. 86-90 seats would fit.

That would be perfect. It could free up the A345 for some ultra-long range routes with a two-class cabin (I personally think it's a waste for a widebody aircraft the size of the 345 to be all-business class)

[B727]

Looking five to ten years into the future, I would say it's more like:

Regional: 787 vs A350
Long-haul thin-demand: 787 vs A350 (A350 seems to have the edge here)

I tend to champion the A350 precisely because it opens up the possibility for SIA to open up new long-range routes (such as South America ) and make money using the aircraft's efficiences.

For me, it's not simply a case of Airbus vs Boeing. I do love the 777 (though would have preferred Y seating perhaps to be in 2-4-3 config)

[zvezda]

That would be perfect. It could free up the A345 for some ultra-long range routes with a two-class cabin (I personally think it's a waste for a widebody aircraft the size of the 345 to be all-business class)

If SQ could get (currently hypothetical) 787-8ERs, then there would be no reason to keep the A340-500s. A 787-8ER would burn about 40% less fuel over the same mission while carrying only 10% less payload.

[Russ]

Cabin Widths

B767 186" (7-abr 18" seats, 8-abr 16" seats)
A330 208" (8-abr 17.5" seats, 9-abr 16.5" seats)
B787 216" (8-abr 18" seats, 9-abr 17" seats)
A350 220" (8-abr 19" seats, 9-abr 17.5" seats)
MD11 225" (9-abr 17.5" seats, 10-abr 16.5" seats)
B777 231" (9-abr 18" seats, 10-abr 17" seats)
B747 240" (10-abr 17.5" seats)

The A350 is a whopping 11 inches narrower than a 777
The B787 is a whopping 15 inches narrower than a 777
Both are narrower than even DC10 & MD11 and L1011

Having 9-abreast in a A350 is arguably OK but still a step back from the comfort of the B777 (incidentally, the B77W seats are narrower those of the other B777s in SQ's fleet - the aisles is correspondingly wider)

Having 9-abreast in a B787 is akin to 10-abreast in a B777, which TG did and EK still does.. rather narrow.

I will miss the B777s when they go if SQ are going 9-abreast in the B787...

[zvezda]

Are you measuring cabin width at floor level, max cabin width, or at seat level?

The actual seat width for 9-abreast in a 787 is 17.2 inches, the same as 10-abreast in a JumboJet. Also, I don't think anyone has squeezed 18" seats at 7-abreast into a 767.

[dcflyer]

Interesting stuff.

How will a world of $100 plus oil impact these fleet plans?

[zvezda]

How will a world of $100 plus oil impact these fleet plans?

The biggest impact for SQ, with respect to fleet planning, of $100 oil vs $50 oil is that the imperative to replace the A340-500s with something more fuel efficient becomes more urgent. I don't think SQ will order 777-200LRs now, but it's possible if Boeing were to offer SQ an attractive enough price due to another customer canceling or deferring an order. The more likely replacement will be either a future unannounced 787 variant or the A350-900R. If oil were to go up to something around $200 anytime soon, SQ might just drop the LAX/EWR nonstops and ground the A340-500s. These and the JumboJets (to be retired over the next six months) are the only gas-guzzlers in SQ's fleet.

One more improvement to the 777-300ER's range and LAX-SIN nonstop should be possible, which would put an end to A340-500 operations to LAX. If such an improvement were to be available in the next few years, I could easily imagine SQ flying nonstop to/from SFO and LAX with the 777-300ER as currently configured. It would not be too difficult to imagine SQ picking up a fleet of 5 777-200LRs (if the deal of the decade were to come along) to operate EWR and JFK nonstop. That would allow SQ to drop the FRA-JFK tag and upgauge SQ25/26 to WhaleJet service to FRA.

[Nick C]

Will SQ paper derate the 787-9 like what they did to the 772s for A-market routes?

With the liberalisation of the ASEAN skies, I would think that the 787-8 (derated) will be beneficial to SQ's regional routes when competing against other regional flag carriers and LCCs. Allows SQ to retain market presence instead of dumping routes to MI like what we are seeing now.