EgyptAir Rumored To Be Ordering 6 Boeing 787s

@Lucky

Do you know of any reason why the 787 seems to be doing so well recently?

I know that the capacity is a bit lower, and that fleet makeup and price negotiations add complexity to decisions over orders, but I can’t think of any concrete advantage it has over the A350

@SC - I am trying to find the source, but I have read that operational history (let's not discuss initial problems) from many airlines have shown it to outperform in terms of efficiency and cost of maintenance, especially due to the use of servo electronics which are highly efficient and and reduce maintenance costs significantly. In terms of technology, it is the most advanced aircraft out there.

I enjoy the atmosphere on the A350 slightly more (the roominess perhaps?), but the 787 leaves me in awe due to all of the technical advancements. Another reason is the GenX engine, which is reputedly the most fuel-efficient and meets the most stringent emissions. If I can retrace that report I will provide a link.

As a paying punter I much prefer the A350 over the B787.

Doesn't Airbus have a massive order book compounded with delivery delays (Qatar's CEO threw a hissy at them a few weeks back for late deliveries of A350s)?

Just some sources to add to my previous statements (yes - I love reading about aircraft).

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-21/it-s-a-bad-time-to-be-a-big-jet

787 just fits a more diverse market as well due to a good balance of seating (< 300) and range. It also offers a preference of engines and lower capital costs and maintenance costs.

http://www.traveller.com.au/airbus-a350-xwb-vs-boeing-787-dreamliner-which-new-longhaul-carrier-is-best-gr9mfj

like Turkish and Malaysia, Egyptair is another government-controlled carrier in a semi authoritarian state that wants to curry favor with Trump. I would not be surprised if political considerations are again playing a role here if it ends up happening.

@cc you are definitely right here, Turkey ordered from Boeing because they have a closer relationship with the United States at the moment than with Europe. And why wouldn't they? Turkey wants an EU membership since the beginning of time, or at least Visa free travel for its citizens, but Europe is holding back for ages, why place a billion dollar deal with Europe for 40 airplanes if you can choose a different (better?) option.

Just like Air India, this is a very low quality airline with poor customer service.

789 costs less per trip than 359 and has an actual family of 3 aircraft. Bus has nothing in the lower end of the market after the disastrous 358 was cancelled. There have also been significant cancellations of the 350-100 and the 350 is rapidly becoming a point airplane centred on the 359. Lastly the 787 is a 100% composite fuselage whereas the 350 is composite panels hung on a metal frame. One byproduct is the significantly larger windows on the 787 which I appreciate as a passenger. I think the only order since the 77X was launched has been VS who (even though they deny it) "swapped out" their 388 order for the 350-1000.
Interesting comment cc as Boeing always said the government owned carriers were skewed towards the Bus people while private carriers bought Boeing.

@skedguy -- the 789 only costs less per trip assuming one uses a 3-3-3 configuration. This benefit grows smaller when one finds that the 359 has both A) longer usable payload range (meaning it can carry a higher amount of people over longer distances without facing payload restrictions), B) that it has a larger cargo capacity (important for something like a 77W/330 replacement), C) type commonality with a larger sibling (the A350-1000).

Although there were "significant" cancellations on the A350-1000, there are still over 200 orders for it (compared to 175 for the 787-10). Although they may be without the A350-800 in the family, the 359 and 3510 can cover the same market as the 777-200(ER/LR) and the 777-300(ER), with near identical seating capacities.

This also fails to account for the fact that the 787-10 (a potential 77W replacement) is less capable of flying the 777-300ER routes that MS currently flies. As Tim Clark noted when talking to the Seattle Times, the 787-10 is underpowered when it comes to operating in the hot (hot!) conditions of DXB (and a similar issue occurs with CAI). Because of the A350 (both -900 and -1000)'s higher MTOW, it means that both aircraft can take off with fewer payload restrictions compared to the 787.

This also doesn't account for the fact that there is some (minor) similarity between the A350 and the A330 that are already operated. Despite the fact that the A350 has different cockpits, fuselage, engines, and wings, the internals (fuel pumps, hydraulics, APU, wiring, etc.) is mostly borrowed from the A330. This also means that the aircraft operates "conventionally," making it easier to repair compared to the uncharted territory that the all-electric 787 offers.

So yes, the 787 may have more technological innovation. Yes, it may offer superb engine efficiency and more composites. But when it comes to choosing an aircraft, both seem to be relatively equal. The 787 is better when it comes to overall innovation and efficiency, whereas the A350 pulls ahead when it comes to physical capability and, to a lesser extent, innovation over current types. Both can use what's roughly the same engine (Trent 1000 versus Trent 1000XWB), and both are capable of taking over MS' current route structure. So, really, it comes down to which aircraft will be offered for less.