Inoculating The Fuel Market From Invasive Competitors

Looking at the fuel market there are certain vulnerabilities for price on a barrel of oil. One is the difficulty of getting it out of the ground and running it to a refinery. That is the American flu for the Saudi counter parts. Second is the mass quantity of lower grade petroleum coming out of Russia. Third is the market slump symptom from China's economic down turn. The Saudi Arabian Oil cartels have decided to inoculate the whole mess with a free fall in per barrel price of Arabian Light Crude. As gleeful as I am about filling up my  car at 1.99 a gallon, I know pay day will come soon for the Arabian peninsula region.

It will have capped shale oil wells in North America and reduced the need for a Keystone Pipeline. It will collapse the Russian economy and demolished the oil backed Ruble. China, a large customer will reap the benefit of this oil free fall during its own recession. The Saudis will have inoculated the oil market from upstart threats to its supremacy. They will ride an oil per barrel price increase without pesky bugs infecting the schemes, it has for the world. Unfortunately American production is one of those bugs infecting its plans. Hence "the Great Oil Shot" infects America. Cheap oil for everyone which will starve out Russia to the East and cap wells to the west.

Mean while back at the airport, the ripple effect is felt. $2.00  a gallon Jet-A, reduces the need for super efficient airplanes until later, when fuel price gauging returns to normal. The risk of pricing abates for a season. Airlines can get by with what they have paid for in older equipment. Boeing's sales pitch gets a cold customer response with a indifferent comment, "and your point is?" The scheme of things ripples through the oil dependent markets until stability is reached through a Saudi price inoculation. The current flu bug will only last until after the election of 2016 when per barrel oil prices will magically rise again to a traditional level of over $100 per barrel.

That will mark the end of the oil price influenza. Most of the flu bugs will have been killed by then. The oil production will go back once more, with uncapping wells and building pipeline, but only five years further down the road. In which time the oil peninsula will have pumped out more oil at higher prices before taking another oil flu shot.

What hasn't gone away is the need for long term planing for buying supper efficient super airplanes in spite of the Arab Oil Inoculation. Only the order book will pause until airline sees how the oil play is installed. Jet A fuel is tied to demand and supply. Travel remains on a constant slope line ever increasing as the world's population continues its growth. The sub-line is the world's wealth continues to grow on the same slope. Even the Saudi's has a bottom to its oil pit.

Whoa! Slow Down Buckoo, Give It to Me In Bullet Points

Aspire Aviation summary talking points on the wide body market.

• Boeing stretches 777-9X fuselage from 76.5m to 76.7m: exclusive
• Airlines, most likely Emirates, asking for more seats on 777X: sources
• Boeing to announce more seats on 777-9X in Q2 2015: sources
• 777X de-icing can only take place at Code F stands with FWT down
• 787-9 OEW 277,000lbs is 11,000lbs lighter than A330-900neo’s 288,000lbs
• 787-8 OEW 260,000lbs versus A330-800neo’s 280,000lbs
• 787-8 is 9% more fuel efficient per seat than -800neo on 6,000nm missions
• Using 253t 787-9 in A330neo comparison pushes up -9’s landing & overflight fee, DMC
• 787-9 carries 13 tonnes more revenue cargo than A330-900neo
• A330neo Mach 0.81 means 25 mins longer flying time on 6,000nm missions
• Virgin Atlantic 787-9 has 9-abreast economy seats at 18.9-inch width
• Boeing sees A330neo 9-10% more fuel efficient than A330: sources
• 777-300ER carries 23t of cargo, A380 only 8t: Emirates

An Aspire Aviation Must Read

***Warning-reprint from December 15***

Once you have read this article then you will know Airbus has been had in its Knight errant quest on wide bodies. The sourced article lays it out for all those of at Toulouse, France. I suspect Boeing has developed a wry smile just like Randy Tinseth in Marketing. Airbus Bravado has been undressed by Aspire Aviation. It's homework time again for me, as I study the Aspire report a second time and take notes.

Boeing Numbers From 2014 Shows A Dynamic Presence.

Boeing has once again made a statement without an Airshow as a back drop. In 2014 they delivered or where paid for 723 Aircraft. These numbers out pace Airbus by a substantial margin. The second trend number is orders taken by Boeing during 2014 at 1,432 order for all types. Inside the order number are the layers of gross billions ordered. Having more wide bodies ordered than its competitors is a significant. In that profits are wider on wide bodies such as the 777 family,  than say a 737 family aircraft. The devil is in the details when reaching for a bottom line future profit. In total Boeing's back-log is rising even though production has increased during 2014. The back log number has reached 5,789.

 Score Card for Boeing During 2014

Chart Credit: Product Design & Development (see link below this credit) 

Boeing Achieves Milestone Year

The almost six thousand unit number gives Boeing flexibility for making a production transition during model changes, such as changing from the 737 NG to the Max, and changing from the 777-300-ER to the 777X family. You could say Boeing needed this year more than one could predict as it keeps its nose to the grind stone selling and building at a feverish pace. The 747-8i becomes less critical for Boeing as no orders were taken by Airbus in 2014 for its A380. The Airbus giant aircraft has hit the order wall hard as they gobble up A380 Backlog in production.

Boeing has another shot at fitting the 747-8i into a order niche from its customers in 2015. However the 777-9X looms over both as a more strategic aircraft fitting into a window that neither the A380 or 747-8i can fit in. The High density airport compliant niche exist where Airbus has overbuilt with its A380 behemoth. The 747-8i is relegated as an excellent freight partner. Passenger service will evolve to the the 777X family and loyal Airbus customers choosing the A350-1000 customers.

Boeing established the 787 as a Boeing standard reaching stability it promised in 2014. It no longer is plague with teething woes and continuous refinements which are making this model exemplary. 787 Orders started to trickle back in 2014 for the Dreamliner with Boeing netting 41-787's in 2014. A good year shows signs, Boeing has turned a corner for the 787, which will propel it in 2015 with an even higher order number than 41. It could obtain 100 787 orders in 2015 as my own prediction is based upon the rapid deployment from Boeing's factory.

What this means is that Boeing increased 787 production, where it has demonstrated four things for the customer:

• The 787 back-log will soon slide under the A350 back-log.
• Boeing has dialed in the 787 on the production floor 
• There will be no surprises resulting in work stoppage.
• Customers will get a 787 sooner rather than later   

Those talking points mean that Boeing can align the delivery window to a customers five year plan better than Airbus can. It can delivery within a customers most opportunistic time frame. Last year Boeing could not promise this as too many plates were spinning in Boeing's air. It had not yet assured customers from battery issues and work stoppage. The glitching chain events were not stopped yet, and the wait in line was closer to 1,000 back than under 700 back at the beginning of 2014. 

2014 proved to eliminate the aforementioned obstacles for Boeing as they gather another 41-787 orders.  In 2013 Boeing received 183-787 orders. This year was a bottom period. It will move upward in 2015 somewhere between the range of 2013-2014 order totals. The second wave of orders is coming for the 787 in 2015. The first wave was the initial book order until it dipped to 41 in 2014, citing all its troubles and backlog. Boeing needs a manageable order book for its customers as they need alignment to airline customer planning over a broad spectrum. An airline has cycles and expansion plans. It has money sources that are limited to profitability and financing windows. These opportunity are squeezed into frame of time. The window often shuts where a Boeing customer is caught in line on a seven year backlog. In the mean time, an airline  competitor may expand its routes or its plans devouring the airline company waiting in line for its 787.

Boeing must level its over-all backlog for all models at around 60 months. This will fall into a customers planning mode of five years. A customer's desirable time frame for fleet renewal, fleet expansion and financial sourcing from operations. Once they have achieve back-log management they can resume aggressive marketing from the "we can deliver when you need it", perspective. Boeing is emerging from taking orders for 2021 time frame to taking orders for the 2020 delivery cycle. This in itself, is driven by production efficiency. Boeing needs a five year backlog as world economics can flatten, leaving the major aircraft builders gasping for sales. Money is made on consistent optimal production driving the bottom line.   

KC-46 Tanker How Did It Do?

On December 28th, 2014 the KC-46 air frame (767-2C) first took flight for 3 hours and 32 minutes with wire bundles and all. The first important thing I learned was it came back and landed successfully. A flight I never doubted. It was old school with some twists.

• It has a 787 like flight deck.
• It was constructed with combat survivor-ability in mind. 
• It is configured for receiving military appliances. (i.e.) Radar, booms fuel tanks and freight area to name a few.

This 767-2C version will have a sibling before the next two actual test copies (KC-46) are loaded with Stuff for your military eyes only. Those two test KC-46's "finals" will implement the full array of the KC capability.

The Boeing group ran past the Government financial constraint by 1.6 billion. Oops, this is on Boeing. Part of the cost over-run was from Boeing's run-up program costs, taking on more millions than what they supposed. Plus they misread the wiring  standards by lumping its wire bundles into one pot which is an idiotic attempt for wire pulling a fast one, by the military. Every engineer knows the aircraft must be designed for survivor-ability with redundancy separation as a safety margin under combat conditions. Somebody forgot the memo and got fired for that one oversight when wadding all redundant wires into one bundle going forward to the command center; Where one silver bullet could take all systems out in one shot with no recovery.

The sunk cost phase is over for Boeing as the program is taking off (literally), passing a Keystone hurdle placed on its shoulders. It is the military standards for war machines standard. Boeing cannot play fast and lose with engineering ideas. If they are uncertain about a military requirement, they must have its own military mitigation team for tackling problems like the wiring problem. Somebody seriously dropped the ball on that one, and it should of gained approval before running the single bundle wiring phase past the Air Force. Boeing attempted the wire install before it  passed the Air Force smell test first. Boeing needs an Air Force subject matter expert with the engineers at all times. Eliminate any engineering surprises given the Air Force. They are not an independent engineering division for commercial airplane building. They are the Military's boys on this mission, and will act accordingly.

First flight is mission accomplished as Boeing got it s initial avionics systems installed. The remaining tasks should have flow and continuity for the remainder of the project. Everyone agrees and are certain all goals and objectives are obtainable without mishap within the program time-line. That take-away is an investors hint of things to come for Boeing. The military mindset is on Boeing, and  is now in it to win it. A robust effort will come from Boeing but without sacrifice from the Air Force who will command the project for its result. Even though the Air Force is running thin on old equipment it wants its KC now, but keeping a tight reign in on its contractor is the key for success. 

It's 2015 For Boeing The World's Largest Airplane Maker

The year is off to a great start closing its 2014 books for both sales and production. These are the two external metrics that matter before going inside the company and tweaking an operating departments wing-nuts for a tighter profitability margin. Here is my clumsy end of the year charting of raw numbers which will foretell what Boeing is capable of in 2015.

Before adding any 2014 "held back" numbers as Airbus does, in order to steal a march on the other, Boeing shows 1317 net orders for 2014 at this time. It will adjust upwards some as they also wait for Airbus bragging points committed to close off 2014.

The fourth Quarter looks like this for the 787 production numbers.

Goal +/-                          *10/2014    **11/2014         Projecting    December  (actual) Delta 

Month Deliveries              11            **6              10              18.0                     +8

3 M-M-avg                      11.33          9.0              10              11.67                   +1.67

Production Goal               10              10              10              10                          0

Delivery Trend (+/- )       + 1.33           -1.33                  . 0           +1.67      /Target       >                

                                       *PM-Start      **M.A.P.                         PM-End

*Progression Months

**Moving Average Progression

Other Notes on the 787 Production analysis.

Total Year To Date 787:   114 

2014 Goal                         110

One Month Goal                14 (18 actual deliveries)

+- Margin Delivery Goal    +4       

Fourth Quarter 787 conclusions:

35-787's delivered at a rate of 11.67 per month during the fourth quarter. Obviously showing a sustained plus 10 a month production. Boeing can deliver 12 a month in 2015 for the possibility of 144 Boeing 787's during 2015 ,but Boeing won't go there using a more sensible plan. It will easily reach 120-787's during 2015.

The other Boeing positioning is for its's 737 family. They are producing 42 -737's a month. This will equal 504-737's in 2015. If they can reach 52-737's a month by 2018, it will be with a blend of 737 NG and Max's. By then equipment, production lines, and workforce will be in place for both processes; while both the contemporary NG, and its newest Max are delivered.

With the 777 and 747 not factored in, Boeing should exceed 700 hundred units in 2015. I would assume 18 747-8's and another 90-100 777's for 2015 equaling about:

737 = 504

787= 108

747=  18

777 = 90

Total= 734 during....              2015 for a LiftnDrag Boeing Guidance prediction.

Happey New Year Zumwalt

Its time to appreciate 2014 and the Navy in Pictures with:

Zumwalt

X-46 Carrier Operations

Happy New Year and Welcome 2015

Missing Air Asia Flight Reminds Us of The AF 447 From 2009.

Air France Flight 447: 'Damn it, we’re going to crash’

The Telegraph:

"In the early hours of June 1 2009, Air France Flight 447 from Rio de Janeiro to Paris went missing, along with 216 passengers and 12 crew. The Airbus A330-200 disappeared mid-ocean, beyond radar coverage and in darkness. It took a shocked and bewildered Air France six hours to concede its loss and for several agonising days there was no trace. It was an utter mystery. No other airliner had vanished so completely in modern times. Even when wreckage was discovered the tragedy was no less perplexing. The aircraft had flown through a thunderstorm, but there was no distress signal, and the jet was state-of-the-art, a type that had never before been involved in a fatal accident. What had caused it to fall out of the sky?"

Opening lead on AF flight # 447 reported on April 28, 2012 after much of the information had been gathered since the June 1, 2009,  A330-200 tragedy. Something went terribly wrong and it took years to get its arms around the fatal crash.

Missing AirAsia plane QZ8501: Experts compare disappearance to vanished Malaysia Airlines flight MH370

Mirror:

Hours after the disappearance of missing AirAsia flight QZ8501 aviation experts began comparing the incident with still-missing Malaysia Airlines MH370.

The Indonesia AirAsia jet, an Airbus 320-200 carrying 155 passengers and seven crew, lost contact with Jakarta air traffic control at 2317pm GMT on Saturday.

No distress signal had been sent, said Joko Muryo Atmodjo, an Indonesian transport ministry official.

On board were 155 Indonesians, three South Koreans and one each from Singapore, Malaysia, plus a French pilot, the airline said in a statement, correcting earlier information.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Could the same combination of weather and equipment information lead to a second crash with the A320 types? Its worth comparing both occurrences. Airbus has corrected the pitot tubes for speed indication. This is an assumption Airbus has provided for the AF 447 crash where its pilots were untrained for this occurance, and reacted poorly to the misinformation fed into the aircraft's systems. The plane eventually stalled into the ocean in a rapid descent and perished during its slam into a storm front over the Atlantic . 

Could this be a similar occurrence? Where flight, Air Asia's QZ8501 fell from some weather mishap as it was dodging storms by climbing another 6,000 feet in altitude to avoid a multi front weather anomaly. It may have succumb to systems overload and inexperienced flight crew who had not trained relating to the AF 447 incident. Did this Air Asia A320-200 have updated parts, and systems from what Airbus determined should change in a safety bulletin after the 2009 crash? Many questions are on the table as the search has not even began or ended for the missing.

I would want all scenarios on the table from the past for this equipment type. In addition, it would be important to bring in the missing Malaysia MH370 incident into the picture as well as it may have been a man made event. I believe that weather and a combination of internal issues could of made this aircraft, flight QZ8501 disappear.  

What's Under The Boeing Tree Christmas 2014

Air China  gifted Boeing a $6B order for 737. Sneeking open a look:

WSJ Link below for further details:

Air China to Buy 60 Boeing 737 Jets

"In June, China Eastern Airlines Corp. said it would buy 80 of Boeing’s single-aisle jets. Boeing this year has also won a 50-plane commitment from Guangzhou-based discount carrier 9 Air for its 737 single-aisle airliner."

Boeing isn't bragging so much as it gathers  more China orders. The end of year China Region will be an impressive statement for the analyst.

The Boeing 787-10 vs A350-9 Holiday Jello Shot

I have been featuring Seeking Alpha in some kind of symbiotic relationship where I go "All-In" with Dhierin Bechai articles on the Boeing and Airbus newest and brightest stars of each other’s offerings.  It seems Dhierin is in the tank with Boeing as he tries and makes an objective summary on each other’s competition. Rather than beat the key board with my own similar sounding outputs concerning the Boeing is Better rant, I'll pass-on the holiday meat and potatoes bowl to the Seeking Alpha Articles as a Holiday present. After January 1, 2015 it's back to throwing wrenches at Airbus and seeking cups of sugar for its engines of aviation progress, poured on our collective thoughts. Without further White Paper Doodling, here's... 

My Holiday Jello Shot Tree

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seeking Alpha. 

Wide Body Battle: Boeing 787-10 Or Airbus A350-900?

Summary

• Boeing 787-10 seems to be more efficient than the Airbus A350-900.
• Fuel efficiency of the Boeing 787-10 mainly depends on the empty mass of the airframe.
• Figures provided by Boeing seem to yield a higher advantage for the biggest Dreamliner.

In one of my previous articles, I compared the Airbus (OTCPK:EADSF/OTCPK:EADSY) A350-900 with the Boeing (NYSE:BA) 747-400 and a reader pointed out that I should be comparing the Airbus A350-900 with the Boeing 787 instead of comparing it with a 50-year-old 747 concept. Although the comparison was a valid one since I was addressing the upcoming Delta Air Lines (NYSE:DAL) fleet renewal, I will make the comparison between the Airbus A350-900 and the Boeing 787.

This comparison is an interesting one to make for airlines that are looking to replace the Boeing 777-200ER.

In this analysis (which estimates the empty weights for the Airbus A350-900 to be 145 and 131 tonnes for the Boeing 787-10), I will consider a 6,000 nm mission in maximum configuration. For this comparison, I will use the maximum configuration in 3-class since a lot of airlines adopted a denser configuration for the Boeing 777-200ER.

Table 1: Configuration used for the analysis

Approximating the empty mass for the Boeing 787-10

It is useful to actually look at the effects of stretching the aircraft, instead of guessing the empty weight of the Boeing 787-10.

On the aluminum Boeing 767, a stretch of the airframe meant an addition of 930 kg per meter. For the CFRP fuselage of the Boeing 787, this will be less and is approximated to be somewhere in the region of 750 kg per meter. Taking into account the increase in fuel capacity, another 1,000 kg is added to hold the additional fuel, I approximated an empty weight for the Boeing 787-10 that is around 128 tonnes. Adding margin of 3 tonnes (2.5%) to account for the rough scaling method used gives an empty weight of 131 tonnes.

Analysis

The general characteristics look as shown in Figure 1:

Figure 1: General characteristics Boeing 787-10 versus Airbus A350-900 (Source: Dhierin-Perkash Bechai)

Implementing this into the model gives the following result for a 7,000 nm mission:

Figure 2: Comparison Boeing 787-10 versus Airbus A350-900 (Source: Dhierin-Perkash Bechai)

As can be seen for a 6,000 nm trip, the Boeing 787-10 seems to be performing better. The lower aerodynamic and propulsive efficiency are compensated by the increased capacity and the lower weight of the Boeing 787-10.

The fuel costs per seat-mile are $0.042 for the A350-900 and $0.039 for the Boeing 787-10.

On a wider range, the fuel consumption numbers for both aircraft are as follows:

Figure 3: Comparison Boeing 787-10 versus Airbus A350-900 on a wider range (Source: Dhierin-Perkash Bechai)

Boeing claimed 8% lower seat-mile costs and 4% lower trip fuel compared to the A350-900. Boeing also seemed to be claiming to have 10% lower fuel costs per seat. My analysis shows that the trip fuel is 4.5% lower but the seat-mile costs are only 7% lower.

Udvar-Hazy, CEO of Air Lease Corp. (NYSE:AL), also stated that the Boeing 787-10 is better than the A350-900, but advantages are not as big as portrayed by Boeing.

Passenger comfort

In the end, it is not all about fuel burn figures and estimates, but also about passenger comfort and that is where Airbus seems to be having a huge advantage with its aircraft.

Airbus seems to be offering a higher level of passenger comfort, especially in economy class. This can make a big difference. The Airbus A350-900 in 9 seat abreast configuration has a seat width of 18 inches versus 17.5 inches for the Boeing 787-10.

So airlines have to make a decision:

Either they go for an airplane with bigger range and better passenger comfort, the Airbus A350-900, or they choose the Boeing 787-10.

In the end that remains a trade off airlines have to make.

Conclusion

• Due to its lower weight, the Boeing 787-10 is more fuel efficient than the Airbus A350-900
• However, advantages are not as big as claimed by Boeing
• Airbus offers better passenger comfort, which might be a reason to choose the Airbus A350-900 over the Boeing 787-10
• Airlines looking for efficiency will buy the Boeing 787-10; airlines that need range rather than the few % in efficiency and capacity will buy the Airbus A350-900

Before Confusion-Seeking Alpha Part II

Boeing: How The 777X Will Beat The Brand New Airbus A350 (Part 2)

Opening with Seeking Alpha 777X vs the A350-1000 report part II. The article whether it is speculative from Airbus development claims or actual supported data, demonstrates that Boeing wouldn't put out billions of $dollars  on an aircraft, after going second in the design mode when Airbus freezes the A350 design. It is a correct conclusion taking current information as presented by what is known on the 777-8 and 777-9. 

It will fall into a conservative estimate, and even in fact, as both the A350 and777X "paper" starting points will acheive significant improvements over the evolution of its individual development. Whatever Airbus acheives with its Aircraft proposal, Boeing has set itself to not only match but exceed the Airbus proposal with improved effciency, sieze, and scope that may even impede the survival of the A380 and 747-8i. 

In order for Boeing making a program killing stamp on Airbus, they must narrow the 747-8F as the only super Boeing Jumbo, and replace passenger service with th 777-9 in that class. It just fits where the 777-300-ER fits.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By:

Dhierin Bechai, LinkedIn (71 clicks)

Long only, airlines, industrials, aerospace

Summary

• Boeing 777X concept seems to be slightly better than the A350.
• To compete with the lower segment of the 777-9X market, Airbus has to stretch the A350.
• In the end both aircraft are good fleet members.

In my previous article, I compared the Airbus (OTCPK:OTCPK:EADSF/OTCPK:OTCPK:EADSY) A350-1000 and Boeing (NYSE:BA) 777-9X and concluded that although the Boeing 777-9X is more fuel efficient, the difference in capacity does not justify the 2 aircraft to be compared to each other.

In this article, I will compare the Boeing 777-8X that can transport similar passenger numbers as the Airbus A350-1000, but has a far bigger range.

The Boeing 777-8X features the same optimizations as lined out in part 1 of this series.

The empty weight for the Boeing 777-8X is not yet known, so has been estimated. I expect the empty weight to decrease due to the use of lighter engines and wings. The folding wing tip system probably will add some weight. With the wings being considerably bigger, but lighter overall, I expect that the weight of the Boeing 777-8X will be close to that of the Airbus A350-1000.

Figure 8: Comparison general characteristics Boeing 777-8X and Airbus A350-1000 (Source: Dhierin-Perkash Bechai)

Figure 8 shows that the general characteristics are similar to that of the Boeing 777-9X, with the only differences being that the Boeing 777-8X transports about 1% more passengers compared to the Airbus A350-1000 and has about equal weight.

For a 4000 nm trip, this gives the following results:

Figure 8: Results for a 4000 nm trip for Boeing 777-8X compared to the Airbus A350-1000 (Source: Dhierin-Perkash Bechai)

The figure quite clearly shows that also the Boeing 777-8X has an advantage over the Airbus A350-1000. The fuel costs per seat-mile are $0.042 for the Airbus A350-1000 and $0.038 for the Boeing 777-8X, both in 3-class maximum configuration.

Looking at the performance over a wider range also shows superiority of the Boeing 777-8X:

Figure 9: Comparing the Boeing 777-8X and Airbus A350-1000 on a wider range (Source: Dhierin-Perkash Bechai)

Boeing claimed 12% lower fuel consumption than the competition. Although the Boeing 777-8X has a significant advantage, it does not get anywhere near the 12% in my analysis. On the longer routes, the advantage tends to be about 10%, which still is significant when comparing an all new aircraft family with an optimized airframe.

Since part of my analysis is based on an assumed weight I will also include numbers for a higher empty weight for the Boeing 777-8X:

165 tonnes gives an advantage between 1 and 6%.

When more accurate numbers become available, this analysis will be enhanced or an update will be published. This article features a very preliminary and should be treated as such.

Conclusions

• Both members of the 777X Family beat the Airbus A350-1000 in terms of efficiency
• The Boeing 777X offers airlines the highest efficiency from 2020, obsoleting the all-new Airbus A350-1000
• Boeing squeezed the Airbus A350-1000 in a difficult position, making a stretched A350 necessary
• This stretched version will have lower range, but can compete with the Boeing 777-9X on the shorter routes
• The Boeing 777-8X is superior while the Boeing 777-9X does not have any competitor at all

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.