In contrast to recent widespread media reports over the A350-900 stealing a march on the 777-200ER which has seen sluggish sales in recent years and Airbus’ latest advertisement that declared the Cash Operating Cost (COC) per seat of an A330 is “up to 15% lower than the 777-200ER”, Chicago-based airframer Boeing refutes that Airbus’ claim is anything but misconstrued and “is not backed up by actual data”, according to a Boeing document obtained by Aspire Aviation.
Specifically, Boeing reiterated that the 777 remains as the “established market leader of the 300 to 400 seat market” and said there is a 1% improvement to the 777-200ER’s fuel burn through an existing Performance Improvement Package (PIP).
“There is a 1% fuel improvement that can be achieved by any -200ER/-200/-300 in operation today, via a retrofit Performance Improvement Package (PIP) that is based on some of the improvements that went into the -300ER design. With the high fuel prices in recent years, this PIP has been quite popular, having been ordered by 17 airlines for 290 of their airplanes,” Boeing spokeswoman Debbie Heathers said.
Image Courtesy of Bruce K
Meanwhile, Boeing says the direct comparison between the 777-200ER and A330 made by Airbus in its latest series of A330 advertisements is unfair as it is not a “apples-to-apples” comparison.
“The closest competitor to the 777-200ER in operation today is the A340-300 – it has a range capability of 7485 nmi (nautical miles) when carrying a full load of 262 passengers, compared to the 777-200ER’s 7725 nmi with 301 passengers. When comparing these two long-range airplanes, the 777-200ER has significantly better fuel efficiency, with the A340-300 block fuel per seat being 13% higher on a typical 6,000-nmi trip. Its cash operating costs per seat on the same mission are 17% higher,” the Boeing document reads.
Indeed, in a 3,000 nm mission profile, the A340-300 burns 3.25 L of fuel per passenger per 100 kilometers, whereas the 777-200ER burns 2.89L, a 11% reduction. In a 6,000 nm mission profile, meanwhile, the 777-200ER burns 3.08L of fuel per passenger per 100 km, also 11% less than the A340-300′s 3.49L fuel burn figure.
In the meantime, Boeing says the 777-200ER compares favorably to both the A330-200 and -300 variants, albeit that they are not being compared on an “apple-to-apple” basis.
“Now, if one wants to compare a medium-range A330 with the long-range 777, the 777 still holds its own even in this apples-to-oranges comparison. Among the two A330 models, the A330-300 (262 pax) is closer in size to the 777 than the A330-200 (241 pax), which competes more directly with the 767-300ER and 787-8 (242 pax). So let’s compare the A330-300 with the 777-200ER, for a 3000-nmi mission (because the A330-300 does not have 6000-nmi range capability). The A330-300 block fuel per seat is 3% higher, and its cash operating costs per seat are 6% higher. Not as bad as the four-engine A340-300, but still not as efficient as the 777-200ER. And keep in mind, the A330-300 has around 2000-nmi less range capability than the 777-200ER, so it’s not even in the same class of airplanes,” the Boeing document continues.
In the case of an A330-200 versus the 777-200ER, the former burns 3.11 L of fuel per passenger per 100 km whereas the latter only burns 2.89L, the difference between them being even bigger than the A330-300′s 2.98 L and the 777-200ER’s 2.89L figure in a 3,000 nm mission profile, Boeing data shows.
In a 6,000 nm mission profile, the A330-200 burns 3.32 L of fuel per passenger per 100 km, whereas the 777-200ER’s figure stands at 3.08 L, a 7% reduction.
Moreover, the relative Cash Operating Cost (COC) per seat-km of a 777-200ER is 11% and 13% lower than those of an A330-200 on 3,000 and 6,000 nm missions, respectively.
Ironically enough to Airbus’ claim in its advertisement that its misleading “15% lower Cash Operating Cost (COC) per seat” translates to an “annual saving of at least $4.4 million per plane, per year”, operating an A330, regardless of its variant, is much costlier than operating than a 777-200ER, not to mention that the 777-200ER has a significantly larger revenue cargo volume which can be utilized to carry additional amounts of revenue and hence profit-generating cargoes after the passengers luggage has been fully loaded.
“In summary, there is no basis or logic to defend the ’15% lower than the 777-200ER’ claim seen in recent Airbus advertising. The only way to achieve this type of number would be to cherry-pick inconsistent assumptions and use dissimilar seating configurations to dramatically skew the results in favor of the A330,” the Boeing document concludes.
3,000 nmi Mission (5,556 km)
| Model | Passengers (long-range tri-class) |
Block Fuel per Seat-Km (L/seat/100 km) |
Relative Block Fuel per Seat-Km |
Relative Cash Operating Cost per Seat-Km |
| 777-200ER | 301 | 2.89 | Baseline | Baseline |
| A340-300 | 262 | 3.25 | +12% | +16% |
| A330-300 | 262 | 2.98 | +3% | +6% |
| A330-200 | 241 | 3.11 | +8% | +11% |
6,000 nmi Mission (11,112 km)
| Model | Passengers (long-range tri-class) |
Block Fuel per Seat-Km (L/seat/100 km) |
Relative Block Fuel per Seat-Km |
Relative Cash Operating Cost per Seat-Km |
| 777-200ER | 301 | 3.08 | Baseline | Baseline |
| A340-300 | 262 | 3.49 | +13% | +17% |
| A330-300 | 262 | n/a1 | n/a1 | n/a1 |
| A330-200 | 241 | 3.32 | +8% | +13% |
Assumptions:
- European long-range rules
- Long-range three-class seating configurations
- 2009 U.S. dollars
- Fuel price, $3.00 per U.S. gal
1 A330-300 does not have 6,000-nmi range capability
Data provided by The Boeing Company
“The 777 is the established market leader in the 300 to 400 seat market with almost 1,200 orders from 61 customers around the world. With a dominant 100% market share vs. the A340 over the last five years, the 777 passenger airplanes continue to perform well in the market matching A350-900 and -1000 orders since the A350′s program launch in November 2005. Its demonstrated long range and large payload capabilities give operators access to the world’s fastest growing passenger markets,” Boeing spokeswoman Debbie Heathers emphasized.
“The 777′s success is attributable to Boeing’s strategy of continuously improving and evolving the airplane to offer more value to our customers. In the last six years alone, Boeing has brought three 777 models to market – the -300ER, the -200LR and the Freighter. Customers continue to be amazed that these aircraft are performing better than specification with high reliability, lower operating costs, and excellent revenue generation. High customer satisfaction with these new airplanes has resulted in more than 500 orders in the short time they have been in service,” Heathers lamented.
Notwithstanding the tremendous success enjoyed by the 777 family since its launch, particularly the long-range 777-300ER and 777-200LR, whose airframes carry the liveries of virtually every large international carrier with a few exceptions, it nevertheless can be further improved to further strengthen its already unrivalled business proposition to not only fend off the potential threats arising from the A350 XWB family aircraft, but to continue to be the market leader in decades to come.
Should Boeing be able to utilize its engineering resources which will gradually be freed up over the next several years following the 787′s perennially-delayed Entry Into Service (EIS) and the EIS of 747-8I Intercontinental and -8F freighter, as well as the 787′s production ramp-up, further orders unquestionably look promising.
The chief executive of the largest 777 operator in the world, Dubai-based Emirates Airline, Tim Clark, has made clear that should Boeing further improve the 777-300ER and enable it to fly the Dubai-Los Angeles sector with full payload, he is undoubtedly going to order it (“A350 risks further delay if A320 NEO launched“, 1st Dec 10).
“It is true that the fuel efficiency of the 777-300ER has improved by 3.6% since program launch. On a 3,000-nmi mission its fuel burn is 2.7 L/pax/100km, and on a 6,000-nmi mission it’s 2.9 L/pax/100km.
“Meanwhile, we’re doing a lot of analysis to determine what we need to do to make the 777 even more valuable to our customers for the next two decades or longer.
We are committed to maintaining our leadership in this segment, and providing customers a product offering to do that for another twenty years or longer – whether it is a 777 derivative or possible new airplane. Finally, because of the strong market position of the 777 family, we have time to make the right product decisions and we will make sure that those decisions are aligned with the right technologies and the right timing for our customers. We are targeting a decision before the end of 2011, but as always it is our customers and the market forces that will drive the timing,” Boeing spokeswoman Debbie Heathers stressed.
Last but not least, the latest series of Airbus advertisement seems like to be yet another smoke-and-mirrors show (“Airbus’ smoke-and-mirrors show on the A350 XWB“, 11th Nov 09), only to have it refuted by the glamorous performance of the 777 which makes it almost perfect from an operator’s perspective.
Image Courtesy of Airbus
December 22, 2010 - 1:08 am
Daniel, the fuel consumption figures don’t make sense – particularly the A330-300 versus 777-200ER comparison, which is supposedly built around an A330-300 capable mission. The 777 has a much higher thrust rating so it can get the heavier plane further, while carrying a bigger payload. The A330-300 is optimized for the trip you have selected.
So while the 777-200ER may be desirable to certain airlines for the extra payload and range, it cannot win on fuel consumption comparisons. Having said that, the A330-300 has a very healthy backlog while the 777-200ER is effectively dead as a product.
December 23, 2010 - 1:22 pm
The fuel consumption figures don’t make sense – particularly the A330-300 versus 777-200ER comparison… So while the 777-200ER may be desirable to certain airlines for the extra payload and range, it cannot win on fuel consumption comparisons.
Despite the A330-300 is “optimized” for certain routes, it won’t cause the A330-300′s fuel burning to drop below those of the 777-200ER, of which the former stands at 3.0 L and the latter at 2.9 L.
Why can’t the 777-200ER win on fuel consumption comparison? Could you please provide more solid evidence?
December 23, 2010 - 8:11 pm
Daniel, I do have some data here: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/EMEPCORINAIR5/page017.html which gives the fuel burn for a 777 3000 mile trip as 43 143l and the A330 as 38 043l. Unfortunately it doesn’t tell us which 777 and A330 they are comparing. Given the publication date, it’s most likely the 777-200ER. The Boeing figures above suggest the trip costs of the A330-300 and A330-200 are very close. Accepting that and Boeing’s seat count figures, this data implies Boeing’s fuel figures flatter the 777 by 2-3%.
I would also say Boeing’s seat count figures flatter their own model, adding about 10 extra seats to the 777 on a like for like basis. I accept there is some judgment in this, but it wouldn’t be cynical of Boeing to pick valid figures that help its case.
Putting all this together, I suggest the block fuel per seat/km figures should fall by about 5% relative to the baseline. This would make the A330-300 slightly better than the 777-200ER and the A330-200 slightly worse on a per seat basis. On a trip basis the A330 is significantly cheaper. Generally, you expect larger planes to be more efficient, if you can fill the extra seats.
I do agree with Boeing’s main point that the Airbus claim of “upto 15% better cash operating cost” is a nonsense. (they use the weasel words “up to”, though). I am afraid I can’t agree with your headline “777 way much better than the A330″.
December 23, 2010 - 9:54 pm
FF,
I see the problem or the fatal error lying in the European Environment Agency’s report, which didn’t specify which variant the 777 and A330 its report is referring to, as you mentioned. Noteworthy is that the report even doesn’t distinguish between the 777-200 and 777-200ER.
However, I doubt that the report is referring to the 777-200ER variant, based on two principal reasons: 1.) The fuel burning data was derived from a 1998 & 1999 calculation model, when the 777-200ER has just entered service with British Airways (BA) in 1997 and data may not be reliable as different 777-200ER with different configurations at different airlines, burn a varying amount of fuel.
2.) As aforementioned, the report even didn’t distinguish between the 777-200A and 777-200ER variants, thus making the report “not very meaningful” from an aviation perspective, as the fuel burn and the trip cost of the 777-200A, is the only variant that is slightly worse than an A330.
Furthermore, the profitability of a flight is also determined by the aircraft’s revenue-generating capability, not the trip cost or seat-mile cost only.
The 777-200ER has a significantly larger revenue cargo volume than the A330 does…
Regarding my headline “Boeing: 777 way much better than A330″, well, I do apologize for the confusion but the headline should only reflect Boeing’s opinions on the 777 versus A330 competition, not my opinion.
Meanwhile, I admit that Boeing has lost orders to the A350-900 since the 787-9 is smaller than the -200ER. Though with the mid-size aircraft market being so large & lucrative, and Boeing is looking at the 787-10 option once again, I think the jury is still out.
December 28, 2010 - 4:53 am
Daniel, further to our conversation, I have since come across this old article from North West Airlines explaining why they chose the A330-300 over the 777-200ER: http://qa.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/510560.
At the time, the 777-200ER burnt 16% more fuel per trip and 6% more per seat compared with the A330-300 for a North West 3500 mile mission. The article also backs up my suggestion above that Boeing overstates the relative seat count by about 10 seats. The main problem with the 777-200ER for North West was that the additional capability and cost of operation would only result in a small increase in revenue. The article concludes:
“In summary, the excess capacity of the 777 leads to operating economics inferior to the A330. This situation is further degraded when the notably higher purchase price of the 777 is factored into the analysis. The marginal improvement in revenue the 777′s size offers simply cannot overcome its increased operating and ownership costs. “
December 28, 2010 - 8:20 am
“Perhaps the most important performance-related aspect of this aircraft evaluation was finding the best match between aircraft payload-range capability and forcasted payload demand. We were seeking an aircraft that efficiently meets our projected requirements. As shown in the graphs, the A330 most optimally meets our payload requirements in the Atlantic. This payload capability, when coupleted with operating costs and projected market requirements (demand) for both passenger and cargo traffic, offers the highest earnings potential.
The match between capability and market requirements is important because it is inefficient to operate aicraft with excess capbality. Our evaluation clearly shows that the 777-200ER aircraft has significantly more payload-range capability than the A330-300.
The additional range capability could be helpful if the same aircraft were also flown across the Pacific. However this possible dual mission capability was determined to be impractical because Pacific aircraft require a much greater share of World Business Class seats than Atlantic aircraft. Furthermore, the Pratt powered 777-200ER could not fly many critical Pacific missions with full passenger load, and most missions required weight limits on cargo.”
I dispute NW’s claim that the 777-200ER carries “excess capacity which directly translates into fuel burn penalty and that an A330 burns 16% less fuel than the 777-200ER on a trip basis”.
First, the 777-200ER does not carry excess capacity. Admittedly, however, it carries “excess capacity” for Northwest because NW demands a smaller but cheaper 777.
I think this situation is unique to Northwest and not representative on all mission profiles.
Meanwhile, I doubt NW’s claim that the 777-200ER cannot fly transpacific routes with a full payload. After all, American Airlines (AA) and United Airlines routinely fly to Tokyo Narita and Haneda (planned) from US West Coast on a daily basis.
Furthermore, Continental Airlines flies the 777-200ER even from Newark Liberty to Hong Kong nonstop for 16 hours with full payload.
If CO was able to do so from the US East Coast, why NW couldn’t?
NW reasoned by saying the additional seats offered by the 777-200ER only carry “low-yielding economy class passengers”, then it was solely Northwest’s choice to put additional coach seats.
After all, no one but NW themselves asks for additional coach seats, the additional seats may very well be used to enlarge the lucrative Business Class and the “excess” cargo space could very well be used to carry high-yielding cargo from Asia to US.
In doing so, however, Boeing’s seat count can no longer stand… though all airframers, including Airbus, can favorably tilt the seat count to its own advantages.
If the same claim was made by Continental Airlines, British Airways (BA) or Air France and KLM (both of which operate the A330-200 and 777-200ER at the same time), I would have very different responses and perceptions.
December 29, 2010 - 12:35 am
Sorry to interrupt, but Boeing seems to be exaggerating the 777-200ER’s seat count and that the 777-200ER is all but a dead product.
In the meantime, the A330-300/200 has been selling very well, although part of this was owing to the 787 delay.
But make no mistake, I think the 777-300ER is a hot pancake and the 777 is generally more capable in generating profits for airlines.
March 5, 2011 - 12:36 pm
Daniel,
The A330-300 is capable of a 6000 nm flight, Cathay Pacific has flown the A330-300 on the HKG-AKL route and still holding the significant reserves that are needed for that destination.
The A330-300s available for purchase today have a 51,000 kg (yes fifty one thousand 184 vs 235) higher MTOW than the earlier weight variants. The engines are also more efficient, the Trent 700EP as found on the Singapore Airlines A330-300 has a 4% lower fuel burn compared to the previous Trent 700 available. People can “fiddle” the results if you use a “light weight” A330 variant and compare it to the highest gross weight 777-200ER.
“I doubt NW’s claim that the 777-200ER cannot fly transpacific routes with a full payload. After all, American Airlines (AA) and United Airlines routinely fly to Tokyo Narita and Haneda (planned) from US West Coast on a daily basis.”
Depends on the origin and destination and time of year and 777 you are comparing. During winter head winds up to 300 kt are not uncommon in the seasonal strong jet streams. The highest gross weight 777-200ER is “only” capably of around 5,800 nm (that is air nautical miles, i.e. ground miles adjusted for head/tail wind) with maximum structural payload.
To get the highest maximum structural payload and takeoff weight on the 777-200, Boeing charges a significant premium, it is not considered to be the baseline ER model. NW may have been looking at its overall network, and looked at the 777 that suited the majority of its route, rather than fleet plan around their worst route and pay that extra premium when it is not required.
US carriers in general are not seen as leaders in fleet planning, they have managed to successfully run numerous airlines into bankruptcy, and in some cases, the same airline more than once. They have chapter 11 protection which is not available in the rest of the world.
“Furthermore, Continental Airlines flies the 777-200ER even from Newark Liberty to Hong Kong nonstop for 16 hours with full payload.”
Continental Airlines does fly their 777-200ER EWR-HKG however it is always MTOW limited on departure. The maximum payload that they are able to carry over that route is around 30,000 kg, i.e. 50% maximum advertised by Boeing. Cathay Pacific also operates the 777-300ER over the JFK-HKG route. They are also MTOW limited, and also unable to take maximum payload. No aircraft in production can take maximum payload over that stage length.
Most of the carriers serving Australia from the greater China area and South East Asia are now operating A330s over the routes as they are more efficient than 777-200ERs. Singapore Airlines is in the process of replacing their 777-200ERs on sub 5000 nm sectors with A330s particularly on intra Asia and Australian flights.
The market tells you the truth, the A330 is more economical than the 777-200ER, it has voted with their feet.
“In the meantime, the A330-300/200 has been selling very well, although part of this was owing to the 787 delay.”
It is amazing that the A330 is outselling the 777 and 787 combined in the past few years.
March 5, 2011 - 11:53 pm
Dear Fragrant:
Cathay Pacific does not fly its A330-300 to Auckland. Cathay Pacific flies A340-300s and 747-400s there. Cathay’s A330-300s can only reach as far as all Australian destinations.
Regarding whether Boeing’s figures are comparing the 777-200ER to the A330-300E which features Rolls-Royce Trent 700EP such as those on Singapore Airlines’ and Cathay Pacific’s newly-delivered examples, I do not know.
Regarding the NW fleet evaluation, I think your argument is strong in the sense that the 777-200ER commands a premium for several of its routes. Now that Delta Air Lines has acquired Northwest Airlines, it operates both the A330-200/-300 and 777-200ER, perhaps a media enquiry to Delta Air Lines (or similarly Air France) would reveal more.
In fact, I enquired Singapore Airlines (SIA) over the reason for replacing 777-200ERs with A330-300Es and their respective payload/range performances but it declined to comment, citing the sensitivity that this involves.
Yes, the New United operates its 777-200ER from Newark to Hong Kong with payload restrictions.
But you (conveniently) ignored the fact that if the 777-200ER which carries significantly larger payload (significantly more cargo + more passengers) also has payload restrictions, how about the A330-200 HGW (High Gross Weight) or even the A330-300E (Enhanced) versions?
I think the 777-200ER isn’t selling because of the superb 777-300ER which offers significantly superior payload/range performance. This trend has been apparent: British Airways (BA), American Airlines (AA) and there are swathe of more 777-300ER orders coming, including additional 777-300ER orders from AA as the original Boeing/AA negotiation was for 20 examples.
Lastly, the 787 lack of orders is undoubtedly due to its lengthy delays which push potential buyers such as IAG waiting longer to see if Boeing is successful in delivering the 787 on-time or not.
If you look at the A330/A340 family as a whole with specific conditions: namely 777-200ER versus A330-200/300 and the A340 family aircraft versus the 777-300ER, it is obvious that the A340 family is dead while the 777-300ER triumphs as a monopoly in that specific seat segment.
Furthermore, why airlines have to order the 777-200ER if the significantly more fuel efficient 787-9 can be delivered by 2015, etc? This doesn’t make sense at all. Further taking into account airlines have to hedge its risk against potential further 787-9 delivery delay, you can see why the A330 sells better than the -200ER.
May 14, 2011 - 2:37 am
Thanks to whoever linked me to this post. I’ve been thinking about whether or not to stop taking the blogger seriously as any voice of reason and reading this article is definitely reason to stop.
If your current job doesn’t work out, you could work as a Boeing PR spokeperson, you’d be perfect. You’ve got the bias aspect down already.
May 26, 2011 - 11:02 am
[...] [...]
May 30, 2011 - 12:07 pm
[...] efficient as the 777-200ER burns 2.9 litres (L) of fuel per passenger per 100 kilometres (“Boeing: 777 way much better than A330“, 8th Dec, 10), transferring further aircraft from the mainline SIA unit, including its [...]
August 31, 2011 - 5:40 pm
Dear Bryan,
I have been looking for something interesting to read and coming accross this site has been a great discovery for me. My opinion is that this blog is not a PR for Boeing.
This is by far the best aviation blog I have read, and I like the way the blogger presented the facts that are the basis of his blog. Thank you Daniel for putting together this great article. As a longtime aviation enthusiast, I have come to the conclusion that Boeing is the leading aircraft maker and will forever be. Boeing has beeen the company of so many “First in aviation history” and as for airbus the only aircraft I credit them for is the A380 but unfortunaltely it will never enjoy the success of any of the aircraft built by boeing.
Boeing has built so many legendary aircrafts in history and that is something that has to be recognised.
Every aircraft built by Boeing has enjoyed legendary success starting with the 717 and 727.
The legendary status of the 737 familly is undisputed. 5000+ deliveries.
From the 747 -200 to 747-400 we have an Icon that changed the history of aviation.
In the 757 we have another legend with no match in history of aviation.
In the 767 we have a brilliant aircraft that has racked 1000+ orders and its direct competitor A330 is still far fromo reaching that number.
In the 777 family we have aircrafts in their own class. IF THE A330 IS A BETTER PLANE THAN THE 777-200ER, WHICH OF THESE 2 PLANES IS THE PREFERED CARGO PLANE? IN CARGO WORLD THE NUMBER OF SEATS DOES NOT APPLY. Bryan, please check the number of orders of the cargo version you will find that the 777 still lead the way.
I do however have a lot of respect for Airbus for building the A380 but unfortunately this aircraft will never enjoy the success of any of the Boeing aircrafts aforementioned.
The history of Airbus aircrafts pale into insignificance compared to that of Boeing aircrafts,
The A320 family is doing a great job for airbus and with customers around the world but will never unseat the 737 in terms of everything these 2 models have to offer and let alone the legendary status of the 737.
The A330 family are great aircraft but their success is rather largely due to the nightmares of the the Dreamliner. Had the 787 entered service 2 years ago, the A330 orders would be dead and buried. Still inspite of its success the A330 has a mountain to climb if it has to match the orders and success of the 767.
The A340 family was a poor attempt to take a shot at the 747 and we all know that, that programme failed.
As for the Airbus XWB programme, its is clear that the A350-800 is already in trouble from the drawing board. The A350-1000 cannot satisfy customers and still not good enough to topple the 777-300ER. The number of orders for the XWB programme is a far cry from that of the 787 programme.
The verdict: Boeing builds legendary aircrafts and Airbus is playing catchup but can’t match them.
July 10, 2012 - 11:13 pm
[...] (L) of fuel per passenger per 100km, versus the latter’s 2.98l on a 3,000nm mission (“Boeing: 777 way much better than A330“, 8th Dec, [...]
November 22, 2012 - 12:15 pm
It was an old article, but i find it interesting that people put confusing “typical 3-class seat counts” into calculation. That’s why per-seat mile cost only make sense when you use one airline’s case.
In this case, SIA has 285-seater 330-300 (30/255) and 285-seater 777-200ER (30/255). On a typical regional route (e.g. Australia, ME, Japan and China, although 777-200ER mostly fly longer route to secondary European destinations due to better payload range), it is reasonable that per trip cost, 777-200ER is higher (heavier), with more cargo revenue (also higher equipment purchase cost). Without knowing much about cargo demand, it makes all sense to use A330-300 to replace 777-200ER on regional trunk route.
The trend these days, is airlines using narrower wide-body jets to accommodate more passengers. For example, Emirates use 10-abreast for its 777 (which is typical for 380 and 747) where typical airlines use 9 (now you get AA to follow with 10 on its new 77W). new 787′s seat counts increase when airlines use 9-abreast for economy where the cabin width is less than 777. Again, A350 has smaller cabin width than 777 but its standard economy is 9-abreast and max 10. Not to mention smaller seat pitch.
This is where airlines gain efficiency in addition to more capable aircrafts. So let’s stop using Manufacturer seat counts and get down to the real world.
April 12, 2013 - 12:21 pm
[...] http://www.aspireaviation.com/2010/1…ter-than-a330/ [...]