Full Credit goes to Seeking Alpha Please visit its web site linked below:

**Boeing: How The 777X Will Beat The Brand New Airbus A350 (Part 1)**

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.**

**Summary**

· "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:BA) 777-9X that will
enter service in 2020 with the Airbus (OTCPK:OTCPK:EADSF/OTCPK:OTCPK:EADSY) 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

**12%**compared to the Boeing 777-300ER
During Airbus' investors days last
year Airbus showed the following chart:

*(click to enlarge)*

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

**0.49 lb/lbf/hr.**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:

*Figure 2: Comparison general characteristics Boeing 777-9X and Airbus A350-1000 (Source: Dhierin-Perkash Bechai)*

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:

*Figure 3: Results for a 4000 nm trip for Boeing 777-9X compared to the Airbus A350-1000 (Source: Dhierin-Perkash Bechai)*

The figure shows that profit is
mainly driven by the increased capacity. Fuel costs per seat-mile are

**$0.040**for the Airbus A350-1000 and**$0.039**for the Boeing 777-9X.*Figure 4: Advantage of the Airbus A350-1000 as presented by Airbus (Source:airbus.com)*

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: Comparing the Boeing 777-9X and Airbus A350-1000 on a wider range (Source: Dhierin-Perkash Bechai)*

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:

*Figure 6: Comparing the Boeing 777-9X and Airbus A350-1000 on a wider range (Source: Dhierin-Perkash Bechai)*

For a 4000 nm trip this translates to:

*Figure 7: Results for a 4000 nm trip for Boeing 777-9X compared to the Airbus A350-1000 (Source: Dhierin-Perkash Bechai)*

In terms of fuel costs per nautical
seat-mile this translates to:

**$0.042**for the Airbus A350-1000 and**$0.040**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.