[cwoodward]

Yes Rf2 I noticed that but the range of the B787 is not so great and the distance is basically too long – but its a competitive world particularly in the airline industry and I guess that you use what you have.
It is a cheap aircraft compared to the Airbus and I guess that you get what you pay for.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Bullfrog

[AlanOrton1]

787-9 and A350-900 are fairly similarly matched in size and indeed price.
787 – $292.5m
A350 – $308.1m
These are generic list prices but hardly any difference.

Personally I think Qantas should be applauded for their ambition.
There may be some fluff / spin in there but non-stop Mel/Syd – Lhr is no mean feat.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Bullfrog, Henryp1

[Bullfrog]

I’m sure London to Sydney and Melbourne will succeed.

Prior to 9/11, Air NZ used to fly LAX to SYD with the delightful 744. That was in addition to Air NZ operating LAX to AKL with the 744, in addition to 767 aircraft which would operate through Honolulu & or Rarotonga.

Qantas decision to operate SYD-AKL-NYC is a similar stroke of adding competition, assuming they have fifth freedom traffic rights.

(For reference, AKL – JFK is some 1100nm less than SYD – JFK)

[AMcWhirter]

Yes. QF has fifth-freedom rights AKL-JFK.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Bullfrog

[cwoodward]

Not exactly AO1

The Airbuses are cheaper to run and in fact rather larger than the B787

The 787-9 has an average total cost per seat mile of $0.1250. This places the total cost per seat mile for the 787-9 at 5.3% higher than the A350. On an aircraft mile basis, the 787-9 averaged a block hour cost of $16,899, or 8% lower than the A350-900.30 Mar 2023
Length 186 feet and rather a lot smaller than the smaller Airbus hence the higher cost per seat mile according to makers stats

i.e
Airbus’ flagship widebody, the A350-900, costs $317.4 million according to the list price (which few actually pay) . Its sibling, the A350-1000, sells for $366.5 million The Airbuses are respectively 219 and 242 feet in length.

[AlanOrton1]

Thank you for confirming that the B787 costs less than its Airbus counterpart because it is smaller. Makes perfect sense.

Thank you also for advising that the block hour cost of the Boeing is some 8% lower than the Airbus, which again explains why the 787 costs less.

You do indeed get what you pay for – smaller aircraft = lower list price.

I’m certain even you weren’t trying to make a spurious link between A350 being superior to B787, due to CX flying them over the 787!

[Rferguson2]

I think airline manufacturer ‘list’ prices are a bit like the ‘published’ first class fare. Hardly anyone is paying them.

It’s deals deals deals. Are you going to pay the same list price for a 787 if you order 31 as you would 1? Unlikely. Are you going to pay the same list price for an A350 if you also include 40 A320’s in your order? Unlikely.

Manufacturers will often undercut one another which is why we see so many airlines with both Boeing and Airbus equipment.

1 user thanked author for this post.

cwoodward

[Author]

Posts