LiftnDrag commentary for one paragraph before reading "The Seeking Alpha Homework Assignment".
After going through this article, the author has come to the same conclusions I have when reading Airbus data. It's hard to clear-up facts using Airbus-Boeing comparisons! One may quote the A350 is 25% more efficient than its competitor without qualifying where they got that "number". The Boeing company firmly stated, that it compared the 767 model with its own 787 model, arriving at 20% better efficiency with fuel. However, after much research, I came across this nugget. Airbus plays loose with statistics, and they are not held accountable for its statements. Everyone is left to assume the A350 is 25% more efficient than the 787 when they say "The A350 is 25% more efficient than its competitor!" The digging-up of information comes later with this baseline note. Airbus was comparing an old or first built 777-200 with its base line A350-900. I don't know what version of the 777-200 configuration other than it must of been a 1990's model, Maybe extracting a comparison before all those engine changes and upgrades come later to the 777-200. On the other hand, Boeing was talking about its latest 767 as compared with the 787. There were no A350's flying at the time, Boeing made the 20% fuel improvement for the 787 over its own modeled wide-body.
Without further ado here is the the Seeking Alpha article by:
Without further ado here is the the Seeking Alpha article by:
Please Link Above on "Seeking Alpha" for the full article, and gratiously give a web impression for its advertisers, Thank you.
· "Boeing 777-9X is more fuel efficient even in a conservative comparison.
· Airbus claim of 5% lower costs per seat seem to be based on nothing.
· Boeing 777 concept is proving itself once again.
In this analysis I will compare the Boeing (NYSE:) 777-9X that will enter service in 2020 with the Airbus (OTCPK:/OTCPK:) A350-1000. It has to be noted though that this is not the most logical comparison to make since the Boeing 777-9X is bigger, but since Airbus made this comparison to show how 'light weight' their Airbus A350-100 is I will go ahead and make this comparison as well.
In the second part of this small study I will compare the Boeing 777-8X with the Airbus A350-1000.
The Boeing 777X is the successor of the Boeing 777 and features:
· Wing made out of CFRP which reduced the weight of the wing component
· Slightly wider cabin, which allows for wider seats in dense configuration
· Bigger wings that increase aerodynamic efficiency by compared to the Boeing 777-300ER
During Airbus' investors days last year Airbus showed the following chart:
Airbus made the comparison between the A350-1000 and 777-9X to show they have the lighter air frame. Another reason is because the A350-1000 and Boeing 777-9X have similar range capability. Below I will outline why the comparison between an Airbus A350-1000 and Boeing 777-9X is not a reasonable one to make, I will do so by going ahead and make the comparison anyways. This will show that Airbus merely made the comparison to compare weights, rather than efficiencies.
It has to be noted that the figures used for the SFC are making the difference in the comparisons. Rolls Royce is not clearly specifying the SFC advantage the Trent XWB has. For now I calculated a value close to GE claimed the GE9X engine one the Boeing 777X to be 8% more efficient, which gives a figure similar to that of the Trent XWB engines. At the same time GE claims their engine will be 5% more efficient than any competing engines in 2020. For now I will be using the 8% figure provided for the calculations, which might be seen as a conservative estimate.
Using the numbers available gives the following results:
Looking at the general characteristics it becomes immediately clear that Airbus is comparing a far larger aircraft with the Airbus A350-1000. The Boeing 777-9X has a higher weight, due to the fact that is has a far higher capacity and therefore needs a heavier structure. The Boeing 777-9X has better aerodynamics and seems to be having similar propulsive efficiency.
For a 4000 nautical mile trip this yields the following results:
The figure shows that profit is mainly driven by the increased capacity. Fuel costs per seat-mile are for the Airbus A350-1000 and for the Boeing 777-9X.
As can be seen Airbus claims 15% lower costs per trip and 5% lower costs per seat, but does this by comparing a bigger aircraft in 3-class configuration, with an aircraft in 2-class configuration.
The total operating costs might indeed be 15% better, my analysis showed a 16% higher fuel burn for the Boeing 777-9X. Translating this to a per seat figure the fuel costs per seat are marginally lower for the Boeing 777-9X.
Comparing both aircraft on a wider range shows that differences are minimal:
Figure 5 quite clearly shows differences are small, but that the Boeing 777-9X has the advantage (even when using a conservative estimate on the specific fuel consumption of the aircraft).
As I pointed out earlier it is not quite clear how much fuel the Trent XWB engines consume, therefore estimated a value that came pretty close to the SFC of the GE9X engine.
Using the claim that the GE90X engine will be 5% more efficient, which is not weird to assume since the engine is slightly bigger (for every inch that is added in fan size the fuel consumption drops by 0.5%) the figure change a bit:
For a 4000 nm trip this translates to:
In terms of fuel costs per nautical seat-mile this translates to: for the Airbus A350-1000 and for the Boeing 777-9X.
So in both comparisons the Boeing 777-9X ends up on top. I think that the second analysis, assuming a higher fuel consumption for the Trent XWB, is more credible. This quite clearly shows that the bigger and heavier Boeing 777-9X is still more efficient, although Airbus tries to convince customers as well as investors this is not the case.
In my next article I will compare the Boeing 777-8X and the Airbus A350-1000, since both aircraft transport equal numbers of passengers. I will also draw conclusions for the comparisons made and look which aircraft family will eventually be the winner.
Editor's Note: This article discusses one or more securities that do not trade on a major exchange. Please be aware of the risks associated with these stocks.