As we see airlines continue to retire four engine planes, it’s pretty clear that the future of long haul aviation involves planes with two engines. In that sense, the two planes that are really revolutionizing long haul air travel are the Airbus A350 and Boeing 787 (maybe the Boeing 777X will also eventually do that, but it’s not yet certified).
What makes these planes so incredible is their fuel efficiency, range capabilities, low operating costs, and relatively low capacity (at least compared to planes like the Airbus A380 or Boeing 747), which is a great combination for airlines to maximize revenue.
This has made all kinds of routes economically feasible that may not have previously been. It has also opened all kinds of new ultra long haul flights.
While flying both the A350 and 787 is a joy, I do have a preference between the planes, and in this post wanted to go into a bit more detail as to why. I’d also love to hear from OMAAT readers as to which plane you prefer.
In this post:
Airbus A350 vs. Boeing 787: which plane is better?
Personally I prefer the Airbus A350 to the Boeing 787, so let me talk a bit about why. I’m coming at this mostly from a passenger experience and avgeek perspective, but will also talk a bit about the plane’s capabilities. Obviously I’m not approaching this from an engineering or finance perspective, in terms of which planes airlines should use for their fleet renewal.
Before discussing the differences, let me hit on a couple of key things that I love about both the Airbus A350 and Boeing 787, which are roughly comparable:
- Both jets are really quiet, which can make a big difference in terms of getting comfortable; Airbus claims that the A350 is five decibels quieter than the 787, but honestly, I can’t say that I notice a huge difference there
- Both planes have cabin pressure altitudes that are way lower than on other jets, meaning the air generally isn’t as dry; apparently the A350 has cabin pressure equivalent to an altitude of 5,500 feet, while the 787 has cabin pressure equivalent to 6,000 feet
As you can see, the differences there are very minor, and I think the biggest takeaway is that these are both areas where the two jets excel.
Why I prefer the Airbus A350
The Airbus A350 is superior to the Boeing 787, in my opinion. While the differences might be minor to the average consumer, these are things I notice as an avgeek.
For one, the A350 comes with the option of airlines installing a tail camera, so it’s common among A350 operators, while you won’t find that on any 787 operator. Tail cameras are literally my favorite inflight entertainment on any airline, period.
Also, I just find the A350 to be such a sexy plane, more so than the 787. I love the “raccoon” mask, plus the blended wingtips… swoon.
While the 787 has huge windows, I’m not a fan of the dimming technology used in them, in place of traditional window blinds. Instead, the windows just dim at the push of a button. That sounds great in theory, except in practice, these dimmers don’t do a great job blocking out the light, especially if the sun is on your side of the plane. I also don’t like when crews override this system, and choose the window shade setting for everyone.
Historically, A350s have had the standard window shades, which you can lower and raise. Personally I prefer that. However, the newest A350s, known as “new production standard,” do have the option of dimmable window shades. I find these to be higher quality than the 787 equivalents, and they also do a better job of blocking out light.
The A350 cabin is also marginally wider than the 787 cabin, especially the “new production standard” version of the aircraft. While the difference is marginal, you might feel it in economy, where every fraction of an inch counts.
Now, while the standard is for both jets to have nine seats per row in economy, a very limited number of operators have eight seats per row on the 787, and 10 seats per row on the A350.
Last but not least, you can’t help but respect what an incredible jet the A350-1000 is, in terms of its capabilities. It’s higher capacity than any version of the 787, and it also has the potential to be the longest range. Qantas is using the A350-1000 (with additional fuel tanks) for its Project Sunrise flights, which will connect Sydney and Melbourne to New York and London, in some cases operating 20+ hour journeys.
Where I see merit to the Boeing 787
To be balanced, there are also some areas where the Boeing 787 is superior to the Airbus A350. I do have to acknowledge that Boeing has a bigger product range, as it has three Dreamliner variants — the 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10. Meanwhile Airbus only has two variants — the A350-900 and A350-1000.
The 787-8 is unique in offering a fairly low capacity but an incredibly long range, and Airbus doesn’t have a direct competitor to that. In terms of size, the 787-8 is most comparable to the A330-900neo, except that jet doesn’t have the range of the 787.
One other potential advantage of the 787 over the A350 is that the former has a no-bleed air system, while the latter has a bleed air system. The engine bleed system is standard on most planes, and it essentially means that air in the cabin flows through the engines. From a passenger experience standpoint, it means you’re more likely to deal with fumes (like during deicing) on the A350.
Bottom line
Both the Airbus A350 and Boeing 787 are revolutionary in terms of the opportunities they’ve opened up for new routes to be economically viable. As we see airlines retire larger planes, it’s increasingly clear that these wide body jets represent the future of long haul travel.
While I’m always happy to fly either the A350 or 787, I do have a preference for the A350. As an avgeek, I love the plane’s tail camera, design, superior windows, and more comfortable cabin. Like I said, though, both planes are great…
Do you prefer the Airbus A350 or Boeing 787?
As an American citizen I hate to say it but even before Boeing’s problems of the last few years I have always preferred the Airbus product to the Boeing product.
I fly around 25 times a year and find the additional width even though it is small to be a difference maker. I also find the Airbus products quieter.
I go out of my way to avoid Boeing planes and not just the Max....
As an American citizen I hate to say it but even before Boeing’s problems of the last few years I have always preferred the Airbus product to the Boeing product.
I fly around 25 times a year and find the additional width even though it is small to be a difference maker. I also find the Airbus products quieter.
I go out of my way to avoid Boeing planes and not just the Max. In my mind any Boeing plane made in the last quarter century under the MD management team is subject to cost cutting safety issues.
Hated flying Heathrow to Dulles in a 787. Dimmable windows were a joke ...ours didn't work with bright sun streaming in on port side. Later cabin crew override ( that did work!) meant you couldn't see anything out of the window and it was "nighttime" by decree at a crazy early evening hour. Technically very clever...but also rather stupid.
Both planes are great in my opinion. My favourite is still the Airbus A380 with Emirates. The worst plane for long haul is the Boeing 777.
Excellent article. Both are superb aircraft and I love them both.
Most helpful - thanks.
If Airbus could engineer non bleed-air for the cabin it woul be the perfect plane.
What about reasons for Passengers preferring 787s more than A350?
Some people claim to prefer the lower cabin altitude and the fact that the 787 does not require bleed air from the engine for cabin pressurization.
Truth is that passengers are hard pressed to note the difference between a properly functioning bleed air system and the 787 air system.
What passengers in economy/coach do note is the difference between a 17” seat width on the 787 and a 18” seat width on an A330.
...
Some people claim to prefer the lower cabin altitude and the fact that the 787 does not require bleed air from the engine for cabin pressurization.
Truth is that passengers are hard pressed to note the difference between a properly functioning bleed air system and the 787 air system.
What passengers in economy/coach do note is the difference between a 17” seat width on the 787 and a 18” seat width on an A330.
The question is whether they would rather have an 18” seat on the A330 or an approx. 2000’ lower cabin altitude on a 787.
I believe you got something wrong here when comparing the range and the seat capacity of the B787-8 and the A330-900 Neo.
The B787-8 and the A330-900 have very similar ranges (around 7200-7300 nm), but the A330-900 fits more passengers than the B787-8. In size and seat capacity the B787-8 is actually closer to the A330-800 Neo, but the A330-800 has a much longer range compared to the B787-8... exceeding it by over 800 nm (B787-8: 7300 nm and A330-800: 8150 nm).
The 787-8 and A330-800 have one thing in common: they are currently the least popular versions of the 787 and A330Neo respectively with airlines.
This has most likely something to do with cost per available seat mile (CASM) that favours the larger variants of the 787 and A330Neo.
787-8 deliveries have dwindled from a high of 104 in 2014, the year the 787-9 entered service, to only 5 in 2020, while the 787-9 and -10...
The 787-8 and A330-800 have one thing in common: they are currently the least popular versions of the 787 and A330Neo respectively with airlines.
This has most likely something to do with cost per available seat mile (CASM) that favours the larger variants of the 787 and A330Neo.
787-8 deliveries have dwindled from a high of 104 in 2014, the year the 787-9 entered service, to only 5 in 2020, while the 787-9 and -10 had 48 combined deliveries.
Unfilled 787 orders are 35 for the -8, 591 for the -9, and 164 for the -10.
On the A330Neo side, total orders are 12 for the A330-800 and 344 for the A330-900.
While the A330-200 proved a popular aircraft, the current market prefers the A330-900 that give airlines for all practical purposes the range of the A330-200 with significant lower CASM.
In a nutshell, the 787-8 and A330-800 have become/are niche products that serve a limited market.
B.
All aniline bookkeepers should be made to fly in the last row of coach in the middle seat preferably one that doesn't decline.
Besides the narrower seats, some of the 787s still have the hideous IFE boxes under the seats.. in 2024! I have experienced it literally on 50% of my 787 flights. I go out of my way to avoid 787s! And out of my way to fly on A350s or A380s.
Agree on your preference of the A350, particularly in Economy/Tourist (Y) Class.
It’s not the windows or bleed air system to me, it’s the seat width and the 787 does a pretty bad job in Y class with 17” or less. Airbus sticks to the 18” seat width familiar from their other planes, at least until more operators select the optional 10 abreast configuration that a French holiday airline has adopted.
As long as...
Agree on your preference of the A350, particularly in Economy/Tourist (Y) Class.
It’s not the windows or bleed air system to me, it’s the seat width and the 787 does a pretty bad job in Y class with 17” or less. Airbus sticks to the 18” seat width familiar from their other planes, at least until more operators select the optional 10 abreast configuration that a French holiday airline has adopted.
As long as passenger ignore seat width and similar factors and opt for the cheapest ticket, the trend for the most cramped cabin will continue, but I do hope that the 9-abreast seating will remain standard on the A350.
In my experience, all Airbus planes better their Boeing equivalents for passenger comfort. My all-time favourite being the A380, my least favourite being any version of the 777....they're always noisy and cold.
I much prefer the A350 over any 787 variant.
350-1000
One significant advantage for Boeing, an entire composite plane. This technology was first developed by Boeing. Airbus is a partial composite plane, and in effect a copycat. My recent flights on 350 were fine, except the quality of the interiors. I found Singapore Airbuses, 350, were shoddy materials in several places. And finally, unquestionably 787 are less costly to operate, probably reducing fares in may routes, and passenger accessibility, which is part of overall experience....
One significant advantage for Boeing, an entire composite plane. This technology was first developed by Boeing. Airbus is a partial composite plane, and in effect a copycat. My recent flights on 350 were fine, except the quality of the interiors. I found Singapore Airbuses, 350, were shoddy materials in several places. And finally, unquestionably 787 are less costly to operate, probably reducing fares in may routes, and passenger accessibility, which is part of overall experience. Truthfully, I find 787 quieter than 350, no matter the specs.
The A350 has a slightly higher level of composite content but both are above 50%.
The A350 is constructed differently but both are very much new technology aircraft.
The A350 does cost less per trip to operate because it is lighter as a result of being smaller and having less range.
There are equally people that say they saw poor quality and quieter on the 787s so we will take all of the personal anecdotal...
The A350 has a slightly higher level of composite content but both are above 50%.
The A350 is constructed differently but both are very much new technology aircraft.
The A350 does cost less per trip to operate because it is lighter as a result of being smaller and having less range.
There are equally people that say they saw poor quality and quieter on the 787s so we will take all of the personal anecdotal observations with a grain of salt because it can all be measured.
Anyone with the actual comparison data is free to share it.
We should not forget that the cabin interior (including features like dimming windows) is largely up to the airline.
While the cabin width of an airplane model is a given, location of galleys, lavatories and rest areas (if any) are up to the airlines. Some opt for more basic interiors, some opt for more luxurious interiors and some opt for more rugged interiors while others like gimmicky interiors.
We should not forget that the cabin interior (including features like dimming windows) is largely up to the airline.
While the cabin width of an airplane model is a given, location of galleys, lavatories and rest areas (if any) are up to the airlines. Some opt for more basic interiors, some opt for more luxurious interiors and some opt for more rugged interiors while others like gimmicky interiors.
No, I disagree. A350 is put together aircraft using panels lined with metal edges. 787 is a continuous rolled body, which is mechanically stronger than A350. A350 is actually heavier if it is constructed for the same safety factor. Besides, Singapore Airlines’ A350 is dirty and filthy in every way comparing with ANA’s 787. I would avoid any A350 once they reach 10 years of age due to structural soundness.
Last time I flew on an A350 and then an A380 on the same journey, both had 19% humidity. Strangely, it was the same 19% on the 787 I took a couple of months later. I took my own measurement using a small hygrometer, but I'm not sure how accurate it is. It would be interesting to compare with a 777. Has anyone measured a similar level of humidity?
The B787 as implemented by most carriers, JAL being a good exception, is no longer a Dreamliner. A former skiing buddy had been an interior design engineer on the project and Boeing's 'dream' was to change the passenger experience from cramped to spacious. The design and Dreamliner tag revolved around this and in Economy they envisaged 2-4-2 seating with window or aisle seats for all but the middle two seats and no one more than...
The B787 as implemented by most carriers, JAL being a good exception, is no longer a Dreamliner. A former skiing buddy had been an interior design engineer on the project and Boeing's 'dream' was to change the passenger experience from cramped to spacious. The design and Dreamliner tag revolved around this and in Economy they envisaged 2-4-2 seating with window or aisle seats for all but the middle two seats and no one more than one seat from the aisle. Airline beancounters had other ideas and made it 3-3-3 down the back. Ok fine. But to still call them 'Dreamliner' is a lie. The A350 also has 3-3-3 as a rule but the cabin is wider. I once read by 5" or about 12cm. As a proportion of the total B787 width this might be marginal but as a proportion of that extra seat width squeezed into a B787 economy row it is substantial. If one's body is squished up against one's seat neighbour and extra cm or two is enough to make all the difference between that and not being squished at all. Mind you the B777 suffered even worse from densification from 3-3-3 to 3-4-3.
Dreamliner... more like Screamliner.
I know cabin configuration is the choice of the airline but I have found that the premium economy cabins of the 787 are much further from lavs than on the A350. Recent trips on KLM 787-9 and -10 as well as on United 786-8 and -9 the premium cabin share lavs with economy and are not connected to the premium cabin.
I too late the dimmable windows. It seems that lately the crews have...
I know cabin configuration is the choice of the airline but I have found that the premium economy cabins of the 787 are much further from lavs than on the A350. Recent trips on KLM 787-9 and -10 as well as on United 786-8 and -9 the premium cabin share lavs with economy and are not connected to the premium cabin.
I too late the dimmable windows. It seems that lately the crews have been less inclined to unilaterally take control of the dimming but it does still happen. On a recent American flight from Sydney to LAX that leaves at 10a, the crew dimmed the windows immediately after the 10,000 ft chime sounded and failed to un dim before we landed in LA, an obvious safety issue.
I also love the tail camera, it's the best!
Can someone expain for me why the air isn't so dry when you have a lower cabin altitude?
For me having a lower cabin altitude mean that the cabin differential pressure is higher and the A/C packs have to work harder lowering the humidity.
It's highschool science.
Basically the lower the pressure the less moisture the air can hold.
A/C, actually it's the humidifier, can only do so much.
The A321 is better than both.
I love how smooth the A350 is in the air and on pavement. Flew Delta a350-900 and it was amazing with the delta one suites then flew Vietnam Airways 787 prestige . The 787 was vibrating alot when taking off and landing and rattled a bit which was unnerving. Not sure if it's maintenance problem with Vietnam Airways but the Delta A350 was smooth as glass taking off and landing and super quiet .
The comfort on a plane has nothing to do with the manufacturer ( Airbus or Boeing ), number of seats per row is decided by the airline, the type of seat is also decided by the airline, the distance between the row is determined by the airline, basically most of the interior is the airline decision . An airline could decide to have only one passenger if the want lots of room IT IS THEIR...
The comfort on a plane has nothing to do with the manufacturer ( Airbus or Boeing ), number of seats per row is decided by the airline, the type of seat is also decided by the airline, the distance between the row is determined by the airline, basically most of the interior is the airline decision . An airline could decide to have only one passenger if the want lots of room IT IS THEIR DECISION........ turbulence is the same for an Airbus or a Boeing. As far as noise I flew both the 787 and the 350 , there is no difference in noise and if there is it is the engine manufacturer, Rolls Royce versus GE versus P&W not Airbus or Boeing it also depend where you sit front or back. Maintenance is another issue. Finally I like to fly both the 350 or 787. I believe that LOTS OF COMMENTS IN THIS CONVERSATION COME FROM AIRBUS EMPLOYEES NOT REGUALR TRAVELLER
The A350 is a beautiful aircraft. I don't fly on 787's. Not interested in a dodgy product from a dodgy manufacturer!
The interior layout of both aircraft is down to the individual airline - no matter the make of aircraft. Some cram as many seats in as they can get away with ( Cebu's A330 for example ) whilst others actually consider passenger comfort !!. I view both the 787 & 350 as good aircraft, though I will agree with the comment regarding the dimmable windows on the 787 - I always pay for a window...
The interior layout of both aircraft is down to the individual airline - no matter the make of aircraft. Some cram as many seats in as they can get away with ( Cebu's A330 for example ) whilst others actually consider passenger comfort !!. I view both the 787 & 350 as good aircraft, though I will agree with the comment regarding the dimmable windows on the 787 - I always pay for a window seat, as I want to look out of it - day or night ( you'd be amazed what you can see, even at night ). If the crew lock the blinds on the dim position, I'd be complaining strongly.
@ben, which airlines fly the 787 with 8-abreast in y?
I think that would be 788 in the international configuration for JL. No other airline comes to mind
I love the dimming windows on 787 and the fact the crew can control them. Stops those few annoying people leaving their window blind open when everyone else is trying to get some sleep! You want more light, use the reading light which is far less intrusive on the whole cabin.
It's unfortunate that people don't want to look out the window, b it has always been one of the most magical things about flying. Trust me sir, I don't have the window open because I want more light, it's because I want to see the earth from 6-7 miles in the sky, I'm not trying to annoy you. Airlines are happy to provide you with an eye mask to keep that annoying light out of your eyes.
The writer could have done a better job. Because a camera is on the tail of an airplane does that make the airplane a better aircraft? Because the wings are more sexy does that make the A350 a better aircraft? It just sounds to me like the article was biased without providing substantive proof for the assertations that were made. It almost sounded like the writer was being tipped to provide a better recommendation for...
The writer could have done a better job. Because a camera is on the tail of an airplane does that make the airplane a better aircraft? Because the wings are more sexy does that make the A350 a better aircraft? It just sounds to me like the article was biased without providing substantive proof for the assertations that were made. It almost sounded like the writer was being tipped to provide a better recommendation for a product, without really providing real evidence.
For me a major omission here is the PE cabin. PE on a 787 is almost always the best for space due to the math of how 2-3-2 seating fits into the 787 fuselage. Since we are a family of 3; if we aren't in J, I'll take a 787 all day long. On paper it doesn't look like much but I find a pretty large difference in perception when you are sitting there. PE on most A350s is pretty tight, IMO.
it is true that there are various combinations of cabins vs aircraft width that work better.
4 abreast J results in a wider seat in an A350
Premium economy is usually 7 abreast on a 787 but 8 abreast on an A350 so the 787 yields a wider seat.
economy on the A350 is wider esp. given that most airlines fly the 787 in 9 abreast economy and the 777 in 10...
it is true that there are various combinations of cabins vs aircraft width that work better.
4 abreast J results in a wider seat in an A350
Premium economy is usually 7 abreast on a 787 but 8 abreast on an A350 so the 787 yields a wider seat.
economy on the A350 is wider esp. given that most airlines fly the 787 in 9 abreast economy and the 777 in 10 abreast.
Depending on family size, you can always come up w/ different combinations of seat grouping that work best. For couples, the 2 seat outside grouping is ideal on the A330 and still results in fewer people to have to deal w/ if you are traveling alone.
It looks like there is a place for both the A350 and the B787 in many airlines fleets. A350 is the champion of the high margin, ultra long haul, prestige routes. The 787 is super economic on the medium haul, low margin milk runs.
The direct competitor of the 787-8 is the A330-800 and not the 900 variant. The 787-8 and the A330-800 are similar in size with the latter edging slightly in terms of passenger In-take. The range of the A330-800 is slightly over 1000 km more than that of 787-8 as it has a higher fuel capacity. The only possible advantage that the 787-8 has is probably the slightly wider cabin.
I too prefer Airbus, it's something to do with safety. There is no way I will ever fly in a Boeing aircraft to anywhere including to a space station either.
Your grammar needs improvement.
Your pertinency needs improvemeny.
cheap shot
to clarify: “cheap shot” was meant for Bill
Wonder how many languages Mr. Bill does speak?
The critical factor is that the A350 was not designed & built under the supervision of the people who bought you the DC-10 & MD-11. So you can be more confident that there will be no involuntary rolls due to inadequate wiring - like the Ethiopians repeatedly warned about the 737 Max - before it crashed.
Apparently the wiring played no part in the sensor failure. It was bird strike alone - & who...
The critical factor is that the A350 was not designed & built under the supervision of the people who bought you the DC-10 & MD-11. So you can be more confident that there will be no involuntary rolls due to inadequate wiring - like the Ethiopians repeatedly warned about the 737 Max - before it crashed.
Apparently the wiring played no part in the sensor failure. It was bird strike alone - & who would expect jets to overtake birds? Let us pray the 787 never does.
The DC10s undoing was the routing of hydraulic lines esp. around the 2nd engine which is mounted above the fuselage.
The L1011 was also a trijet but the 2nd engine was mounted in line with the fuselage rather than above it like the 727 so the design can work.
The A350 is also put together better; you don't hear repeated stories about Airbus saying they found manufacturing errors on A350s as Boeing repeatedly...
The DC10s undoing was the routing of hydraulic lines esp. around the 2nd engine which is mounted above the fuselage.
The L1011 was also a trijet but the 2nd engine was mounted in line with the fuselage rather than above it like the 727 so the design can work.
The A350 is also put together better; you don't hear repeated stories about Airbus saying they found manufacturing errors on A350s as Boeing repeatedly does with the 787.
And for those that are incapable of making the connection to how well a manufacturer designs and builds its products to the passengers that fly on aircraft, Airbus has succeeded at creating a much stronger image of quality around the company than Boeing that has repeated problems with nearly every product it has built.
hopefully we will figure out how to get the 2 astronauts home from Boeing's space ship problems even if on Musk's spaceship
Kissing Airbus butt like your idol and picture on your waifu pillow Ed Bastian. What a surprise.
you can't stand to admit that a company builds better products than the ones on your "toolbox"
Delta might be one of Airbus' most valuable customers but it is precisely because of how well Airbus widebodies have sold over the past year that this is hardly about Delta.
You do realize that American had an order for A350s but cancelled it?
You do realize that United has a current order for A350s which...
you can't stand to admit that a company builds better products than the ones on your "toolbox"
Delta might be one of Airbus' most valuable customers but it is precisely because of how well Airbus widebodies have sold over the past year that this is hardly about Delta.
You do realize that American had an order for A350s but cancelled it?
You do realize that United has a current order for A350s which it has been deferring for years?
Maybe when Delta launches 17.5 hour plus routes with its new A350s that AA and UA simply cannot do with any aircraft in their fleet will it become clear that DL simply made a better choice than AA and UA.
The world doesn't revolve around US airlines but the differences in strategies between them do provide a lot of insight for other airlines.
Airbus is justified in saying that the A350 is The Long Range Leader.
Boeing won't have a plane that can deliver competitive range at competitive seat mile costs for at least five years.
The bit of extra range the a 350 has over the 777X and 787 is almost useless. I seriously doubt many airlines make fleet purchasing decisions so they can fly a few very long, low margin routes. If the world is serious about climate change, ULH flights will eventually be banned. The carbon emissions per passenger on ULH routes is truly obscene.
You lost me at climate change.
Had a 14 hour flight from Santiago, Chile to Madrid in Spain on LATAM. I class it as one of the most comfortable flights I've ever had thanks to the 787 and a lovely LATAM crew. I even had a lap-child beside me.
Recent Latam 777 passengers from Milan to Sao Paulo may have a dimmer view after the crew fabricated a tail strike because of what appears to be incorrect takeoff calculations.
Some people prefer comfortable flights; I prefer safe ones - or ideally both.
Tail strike is a pilot error, not manufacturer’s responsibility. 777 is a quite good aircraft for airlines due to its high availability.
Mechanical window shades work correctly. eShades DO NOT. You are 100% correct. There's no IQ in IT.
I find the A350 noticeably quite than the B787
I am indifferent. Both are great jets and bot offer a superior experience to older planes. When I have a choice between the two, I simply pick the flight that best fits my travel needs. If I had not flown one or the other, then I would go out of my way to select the plane not flown for the experience. Tail cameras, dimmable windows, etc. are not really important at the end of the day as you spend most of your time trying to sleep or watching the screen.
DEFINITELY the no bleed air system on the 787 is a game changer. It certainly helps protect passengers if one breaks wind on a long haul flight to Sydeny.
If one breaks wind? In my case it's when and how often.
The A350 was developed in response to the 787 so Airbus had set standards to exceed Boeing's. Now in future compare the B777X with the A350/77W/787.
“… Now in future …”. Is that similar to “today next year compare …”? Or is it really just “in future compare”, considering that the B777X isn’t yet available for “now compare”? (American simplified English is sooo difficult for native English speakers).
There’s no way ♂️ anyone can take me away from Boeing end off.
"Airbus doesn't have a direct competitor to the 787-8"
"787-8 is most comparable to A330-900"
Look, I know it's not selling but you don't have to pretend the A330-800 doesn't exist.
Plus, the A330-800 has a significantly longer range than does the 787-8 and the A330-900 has just about the same range as the 787-8.
Cabin width is important in economy and in business class.
Felt shoulder constrained on TK 787 9 abreast economy and business class reverse herringbone seats.
Felt as if I was on a cloud on A350-900 on JL Y and AF J. That impression may change depending on aisle width of course
The 787 feels very profitable for airlines. The A350 feels just comfortable.
Won't beat the 380 though. There's a quietness that stays unbeat.
I too prefer the a350. But then I would expect to, given that it's a newer jet specifically designed in response to the 787.
Quoting Ben:
I love the “raccoon” mask
Also referred to as:
Zorro Mask
It’s nearly impossible to use a cell phone on the ground on a 787. So frustrating!
There is no way the A350 can compete with the A380 - which remains my fav plane. Super whisper quiet - the a350 is noisy by comparison. And the space and mile-high bar in Business....the A350 feels like a flying bus last I took it on long-haul SIA.
Forget Boeing. Never getting on those death machines ever! I pay more not to get on planes that are engineered to fall out of the sky.
A350 offers a very quiet ride IMHO. The noise levels feel pretty low.
Generally, it is more a question of the airline than the aircraft type for me.
But if I do airline specific comparisons, the Q Suites on the 777 is more spacious than on the A350 and for the JAL A350-1000 only first class gained, business class premium economy and economy are a negative on the A350 compared to 777. The simple fact is that the A350-1000 is just smaller and more constrained than the 777-300ER,...
Generally, it is more a question of the airline than the aircraft type for me.
But if I do airline specific comparisons, the Q Suites on the 777 is more spacious than on the A350 and for the JAL A350-1000 only first class gained, business class premium economy and economy are a negative on the A350 compared to 777. The simple fact is that the A350-1000 is just smaller and more constrained than the 777-300ER, and if airlines like JAL focus on the premium experience in all classes, they struggle to deliver with the A350
Hard to say. First of all comparing the a350 to the 787 is a fallacy as the a350 is larger and competes more directly with the 777. I love the 787 cabin pressure. The only time on the a350 was QSuites and upon takeoff those engines roared ; kinda like the time that lion roared in Pennsylvania after the devil tried to assassinate him.
350 I find better than the 787. Quieter and things just ...well.... work! 787 expeeience is noisey and things like the window shades, staff call button, reading lights, sound on entertainment, moving map display constantly faultyon 787. Also 350 is wider with more legroon.
I generally fly Air New Zealand. I found the 787 great flying to Papeete from AKL.
I do like their A 320/321Neo across the ditch from MEL. I generally get the emergency exit without the seat in front.
I have a bias for Air NZ. They have always looked after me well. Probably due to their striving to care.
Thank you for this post, which is bound to attract passionate responses from readers.
I am surprised nobody mentioned the numerous safety issues encountered in the past by the 787, with many of them being put of service for weeks before the issue was eventually resolved. Never heard the A350 presented any such safety hazard.
I have flown 787 many times but still never the a350. The wider cabin is a plus even if the seats are the same width (think most carriers have a wider seat though which is even better).
Where I disagree is in the looks. 787 looks like an artist drew out all the lines and then the engineers designed to fit them. A350 has a bunch of non-matching angles in the structure and that...
I have flown 787 many times but still never the a350. The wider cabin is a plus even if the seats are the same width (think most carriers have a wider seat though which is even better).
Where I disagree is in the looks. 787 looks like an artist drew out all the lines and then the engineers designed to fit them. A350 has a bunch of non-matching angles in the structure and that massive tail that just doesn't look sleek.
Additionally, the design language of the fuselage and vertical tail don't match well with the wingtip devices. I didn't like the raccoon effect on the cockpit windows either not the somewhere hard looking angles of the fuselage cross section.
Obviously nothing to do with performance and I really want to fly in an a350 soon, but 787 is far better looking.
Lastly, I really like the dimmable windows unless they are locked!
I too prefer the A350 over the 787, was on a flight that the crew kept the windows dimmed even though it was 2pm in the afternoon. If I pick a window seat which I always try and do it is to look out of it when I want.
I also love the cameras on the A350 and the A380 and I would have thought that cameras would now be on all new commercial aircraft...
I too prefer the A350 over the 787, was on a flight that the crew kept the windows dimmed even though it was 2pm in the afternoon. If I pick a window seat which I always try and do it is to look out of it when I want.
I also love the cameras on the A350 and the A380 and I would have thought that cameras would now be on all new commercial aircraft not for the entertainment of those flying in them but for safety. Multiple cameras aimed at key areas of the aircraft like engines, wheels and moveable surfaces would be of great benefit to pilots.
Reducing capacity in A350 and B787 increases revenue???
Small bathroom details that I appreciate about both:
The 787 toilet seat has a protruding tab that allow you to lift the seat without touching the underside. Much more hygienic. An incredibly simple and brilliant detail.
On the other hand, some toilets on the A350 (not sure how many) have windows, which I absolutely love.
I said half a day ago that showing a preference for Airbus over Boeing would set a lot of people off and I was right.
Nobody has yet to mention the best reason to prefer Airbus and that is because they are delivering more widebodies closer to on schedule.
Boeing is years behind schedule on the 777X which was the closest competitor to the A350-1000. Both versions of the A350 will outperform all versions of...
I said half a day ago that showing a preference for Airbus over Boeing would set a lot of people off and I was right.
Nobody has yet to mention the best reason to prefer Airbus and that is because they are delivering more widebodies closer to on schedule.
Boeing is years behind schedule on the 777X which was the closest competitor to the A350-1000. Both versions of the A350 will outperform all versions of the 787 and 777X on range until at least the 777-8 enters service and maybe even after that.
Airbus is doing not just a far better job of building a better product but getting it into the hands of their customers faster.
Nobody has yet to mention is because as a flying passenger, nobody cares.
Do you ever hear anyone complain, the plane I'm flying today is delivered 2.4 years late, this flight would totally suck.
How does the effect Delta?
I guess we’re just pretending the a350 was designed and delivered on time? Hint hint
It wasn’t
Not by a long long shot
once again, the A350 is being delivered MORE on-time than the B787 or 777X.
As for the comparison to Delta, which I did not make, Delta is receiving 14 Airbus widebodies this year, half of which are A350s; United hoped to have that many or more 787s and will get 4 or 5 at best.
If there is a US carrier edge to this story, it is that DL is getting the airplanes it is...
once again, the A350 is being delivered MORE on-time than the B787 or 777X.
As for the comparison to Delta, which I did not make, Delta is receiving 14 Airbus widebodies this year, half of which are A350s; United hoped to have that many or more 787s and will get 4 or 5 at best.
If there is a US carrier edge to this story, it is that DL is getting the airplanes it is supposed to receive from Airbus while Boeing is not delivering all of the 787s to either American or United it is supposed to deliver this year.
And the ability of manufacturers' ability to deliver on-time most certainly does matter to customers because most successful airlines want to grow and they can only do that as their fleet also grows.
Of course you do.
You forgot to mention those annoying metal boxes in the 787 that take up valuable foot space in economy and house electronics for the entertainment system, rather as if it was a retrofit rather than properly designed at the outset.
The placement of those boxes are not an air frame issue, it is based on the choices that the airline makes. The boxes are designed in a collaboration between the airline and the seat maker. Boeing and Airbus have limited influence.
350 over the 787, hands down. For the exact same reasons mentioned. Travelling north-south in the morning or the afternoon with those dimmable windows sucks. And the width difference is noticeable in economy. Would even choose an 330 over a 787 if I was flying in economy, just for the additional comfort.
What a silly article! Oh,”I like the camera”! Really, that makes a difference? And the window shade? I stopped reading at that point because I couldn’t take any more of what seems like it was written by a 15 year old,
But after you stopped reading, you decide to comment?
If you don’t like it feel free to not read it this site clearly isn’t meant for you
@John is it that time of month?
Really? Personally I love the tailcam, far more entertaining than most ICE movies, and the " dim" windows are just that, glitchy and pointless. BTW, I'm 55 and I appreciate these small things, never stop being a kid John, it takes the fun out of life otherwise
Nah. I prefer the 787. Very comfortable, great air on the plane and good 2x4x2 configuration. I do like the dimmable shades. For some reason, I feel better walking off a 787 than any other aircraft.
Me, too. After 15+ hours in the Etihad 787 service, fresh and relaxed from the beautiful scenery all along the route from Abu Dhabi. Sure, 1st class cabins are rather small, but still quite comfortable.
Very few airlines have maintained a 2x4x2 on the 787.
Correction, JAL is the *ONLY* airline that still has 8-across in Economy on their long haul 787s.
If you're flying JAL and only JAL. Every other major airline has configured the jet to 3-3-3 in economy.
So you only flying JAL (lucky you!), or maybe mixing up the A330 w the 787?
As mentioned before, You get that fabulous 2-4-2 configuration rarely ever, only on some of JAL’s 787-8 and -9 aircraft it seems.
This is a great post.
As a former aerospace engineer, I, too, swoon at the A350's wings.
And the comments. Wow. Such anger.
(And good comments, too, but ...)
I agree with basically everything about this post. The A350 might be my favorite aircraft ever! Beautiful inside and out, and a fantastic passenger experience as well. Ironically, I feel like the reality of the 350 is what Boeing said the Dreamliner would be.
I got tbh, having flown both frequently, the A350 offers a much smoother ride, it’s definitely more quiet and there’s less vibration felt from the engine. I find catching sleep on the A350 much easier.
Having flown both myself 787-8 vs A350-1000. Both were smooth and quiet, the bins on the A350 where a bit better and the bathrooms a bit larger. Other wise pretty equal. I do disagree about the window shades, love the dimming ones. It was nice to darken but still see out and not disrupt peoples sleep or TV watching. Also, I like the 787 more since it comes in a smaller size allowing for widebody...
Having flown both myself 787-8 vs A350-1000. Both were smooth and quiet, the bins on the A350 where a bit better and the bathrooms a bit larger. Other wise pretty equal. I do disagree about the window shades, love the dimming ones. It was nice to darken but still see out and not disrupt peoples sleep or TV watching. Also, I like the 787 more since it comes in a smaller size allowing for widebody flights from midium size cities. Boeing will add range to the 787-10 so that issue will be moot soon. Boeing out sells airbus 2 to 1 in widebodies and with some new innovations, will continue to do so. Once the "quality issue" is resolved, I see the 787 climbin higher.
Agreed with the window shades - so nice to still be able to see out without flooding the cabin with light. That said, I do wish they worked better when the sun is hitting them directly. Love the concept, just wish it was a bit more improved
My last 2 widebody flights included a 787-900 and an Airbus 330-900, and I will see I definitely noticed a difference in engine/in-cabin noise there. Win for the A330-9. I also really like upper deck of A380 and that was the first time, I ever thought "wow, it's pretty quiet in here".
I live in Sao Paulo (Brazil) and I always prefer to use the Air France flight that operates with the A350-900 instead of the B777-300 (Air France has two daily flights from Sao Paulo to Paris). Personally, I feel more comfortable in the A350 that has only 9 seats per row than in the B777 that has 10 seats per row. And I also believe that the noise level of the A350 is lower!!
Is it not more likely to find individual seat air nozzles (a favorite concern of Ben's) on the 787 than the 350?
I don’t think that is the manufacturer as much as it is the airline’s choice in configuration. Could be the airlines you frequent that value air nozzles primarily fly Boeing but I don’t think that is because it is Boeing.
A350-900 is a much closer run thing comparing to Boeing.
A350-1000 are simply amazing planes vs any Boeing model. Even mediocre airlines with A350-1000s make for an amazing passenger experience upfront
I am not a fan generally of the 787 bathrooms. They are very narrow and it seems like the seat has difficulty staying up. It speaks to the lower quality compared to the 350. Virgin flies both the 787 and 350, and I prefer the layout and feeling of the 350, including the seat and seat back screen. In economy class, I generally do not like the 787 seats on American. For very short trips...
I am not a fan generally of the 787 bathrooms. They are very narrow and it seems like the seat has difficulty staying up. It speaks to the lower quality compared to the 350. Virgin flies both the 787 and 350, and I prefer the layout and feeling of the 350, including the seat and seat back screen. In economy class, I generally do not like the 787 seats on American. For very short trips between the US and Europe either the 787 or 350 is the only way to go in order to feel refreshed. I spend the extra time and try to pick the 350 or the 787. Both are very nice airplanes, but my clear favorite is the 350 having flown it on at least 3 (ITA, Ethiad, Virgin) different carriers and soon a fourth next month with Air France. Perhaps it is the improved pressurization as I always seem to feel better after landing. I do also like how both planes can fly faster and higher. Never understood my people would fly a single aisle plane between Europe and the US.
Wow, that Starlux cabin looks like it came straight from 1981, with all that orange-brown!
Lol, first it's now Rust or Sienna and mocha or mushroom (lol) and earth tones are on trend. All the light grey is out.
Boeing planes tend to look more polished inside versus airbus. I used to be a “if it ain’t Boeing I’m not going guy”, but as a company Boeing has shown they care only about profits and nothing about safety.
I prefer the A350 purely for the wider cabin per passenger. In general Airbus products are wider per passenger than Boeing products. At least given how airlines configure them. Obviously an 8 across 787 would be better than a 9 across a350
Yeah, Airbus designed the 320 well after the 737. Sure, add a little bit. Ditto, the 350 after the 787. Airbus produces great planes that benefit from being the second mover.
As someone who hates fume, 787's no bleed air system is very underrated.
787 air just feels so refreshing.
I always choose the A350 over the 787 or 777
For an economy class passenger, the seat width is almost always better on the A350, regardless of airline. It's as simple as that.
Only thing I would say is that you aren't really comparing apples to apples.
Boeing has the 787 and the 777x. Airbus built the A350 purposefully to be a bridge between the two (after failing miserably with their first attempt to compete with the 787) so trying to compare the 787 and A350 directly on range/capacity (like you did in the previous article suggesting the 787-10 and A350-1000 are somehow competitors?...) just isn't particularly...
Only thing I would say is that you aren't really comparing apples to apples.
Boeing has the 787 and the 777x. Airbus built the A350 purposefully to be a bridge between the two (after failing miserably with their first attempt to compete with the 787) so trying to compare the 787 and A350 directly on range/capacity (like you did in the previous article suggesting the 787-10 and A350-1000 are somehow competitors?...) just isn't particularly accurate or correct. The A350 is a beautiful plane but it says a lot that two of the three biggest airlines on earth, AA and UA either canceled their A350 order or would love to (and keep postponing it). Delta bought it, sure, but Delta also just loves to buy planes to get engine deals (not saying they're wrong for doing it btw) or dead-end planes like the 330NEO. The a350 is the right plane for a lot of airlines, but it does say something when the two largest airlines don't want it anymore.
But that said... It's not like many non-ME3 carriers are looking at the 777x seriously but it's because the distance those planes can do isn't worth it for most carriers and the 787-10 doesn't really need the range to be used for nearly any route, especially TATL where the casm on it smokes the a350. I'm sure it's fun to fly ATL-CDG and tell your passengers "We could fly another 2000 miles!!" but it doesn't do much and is more expensive to have the capability that most airlines will never use, including delta despite the gate-absent mindless claims of some about the future DL SEA hub.
Both great planes and I've enjoyed my lone A350 ride in J (though I have A LOT more 787 time just given my US-based travel and since I'm not stuck at a delta hub like some...) but it isn't very correct to compare range/capacity between the two aircraft though most of this article is certainly more comparable differences like tail cameras, dimmers, width, etc
I've flown on the A350 no less than 10-15 times the past 24 months (all on QR), both in the front and back. To say the A350 is "quiet", especially in the back is pushing it quite a bit.
Great plane though and I don't have a real preference to either plane, the B787 or A350.
Fantastic article, likewise modest responses... however A350 anyday over 787... On a separate note miss a350 LHR-MNL... Without doubt best memories 400m.. The Blue Combi AMS-HKG
When flying J, either can be outfitted pretty much the same. To date, I've never cared if it was a 787 or 350. There are some 787s I wont fly (VS and NZ), and 350s (DL ex-LATAM), all because of hard product design choices. But, it's rarely an issue, as if I'm choosing 787 or 350, I'm also selecting between carriers anyway. ORD-CDG? I'm more choosing between AA, AF, and UA based on issues other than 787 vs. 350.
The only one I disagree with is I prefer the look of the 787 visually.
The A350 can look stunning in some angles, but a pure profile shot where it's in front of you nose to tail to me just looks a bit weird. From an angle it is beautiful.
The 787 to me looks great in every angle.
Anyway, appreciate the article. I do wonder as time goes on if more operators go 10-abreast in the A350 if this changes...
Umm... ok... As a passenger, my preference is always to choose based on what the outside of the plane looks like?
The original post referenced the look. A reply about that isn't appropriate? Of course, none of us book based on exterior appearance.
Clearly you still feel more German than truly American. Yet I bet you prefer living in America, even if you hate Boeing.
First thing Trump should do, is massive tariffs on EU companies who aren’t showing any decent respect or thanks to us.
what a stupid and ignorant response. You'll really enjoy learning about the benefits of global trade if you ever get to a junior college
It is my understanding that Boeing and Airbus use production on both sides of the Atlantic. Any evaluation of sourcing becomes moot.
Yes, let’s run the planet’s largest and most important economy like some 1980s outer-borough mob racket. That’s going to be awesome.
So, new name same BS.
Air France 787-9 vs 350-900 usually row 4 middle pair. Give me 787 every time.
Virgin Atlantic 787-9 vs A350-1000. Give me the A350 every day.
Virgin Atlantic's 787 Upper Class is so bad that they make me shudder in fear anytime I see that plane's name.
I love Virgin's 1st class lounge @ JFK, but flying Singapore A380 1st class suites. Does that count?
While I agree and prefer the A350, I think the 787 has one of the best product names of all times: Dreamliner. I was genuinely giddy when I was younger and flew in a *.~*Dreamliner*~.* for the first time. Such great imagery behind that branding.
It really was a stroke of branding brilliance. Airbus calling the A350 “XWB” and having it stand for exactly what you think is quite frankly… lazy.
I fly the better aircraft for the airline, period.
Thanks for this review.
While I also enjoy flying both aircraft I totally agree with your preference. My main or even sole reason is noise!
Not having really measured the dB flying the A350 feels much quieter to me. Maybe it's just the frequency, I don't know. When flying the B787 after a few hours I think, well this not as quiet as I'd like to have it and I never had this feeling when flying the A350
As a staunchly #TeamAirbus fan for the most part, the airline whose A350s I happen to fly the most often is SQ — no surprise since they are (as of now) its largest operator — but the one thing that bugs me is that SQ opted not to install a tail camera on its A350s, or indeed on any of its aircraft. All the other airlines’ A350s I’ve flown so far — AI, CX and TG — have the tail camera, making Singapore Airlines’ A350s stick out all the more like a sore thumb.
787 window shades suck out loud.
You didn't mention the fact that there's a very long delay between the time you push the button for the shades and the time it takes for the shades to dim or undim. Time consuming and frustrating.
how busy are you during a flight? lol. it takes like 5-10 seconds max
Not to speak for Willy but in my opinion, I think it’s less about how “busy” you may be versus the “expected” reaction time that the average consumer expects. I know even having flown on the 787 (all variants) multiple times I’m generally left wondering if my button press had any effect at all. If you’re new to flying the 787 and don’t expect this long delay, it can be quite a surprise.
Shouldn't the 787-8 be compared to the A330-800? They are closer in capacity, however the A330-800 has considerably more range.
But doesn't the 788 have much lower fuel consumption (per passenger km)? If you're not going to use the extra range of a 338, then maybecwe know why the 338 has sold so few. Seems like a parallel to the 778.
I agree. The best comparison probably would be:
B788 - A338
B789 - A339
B781 - A359
B778 - A35k
B779 - ????
"blocking out the flight" should be "blocking out the light". also "your" doesn't need quotes.
i find the window shading a mixed bag. when i'm trying to sleep i love that they can override the one selfish person who wants to keep their window open. but when *i'm* that person i hate that they can override me :)
I want to keep the window shade open because the flight departed at 8.00 AM and we've just had breakfast, so all the grownups are awake now. If you want to sleep, put on the eye mask they provided in your amenity kit.
@Jim, why are you spreading anti American content? Talking bad about US companies is an act of anti patriotism.
Next thing you know the DHS will be knocking on his door...
The comment had to come up sometime ;-)
Flew Houston-Manchester-Singapore on Singapore Air A350 business class. What an experience!
Form what was said, from an economy passenger standpoint, the fraction of an inch of extra width on the A350 makes a world of difference on a long haul flight. That small amount of space is not trivial.
I hate the dimmable windows on the 787 and now the A350. I want to control my windows and not anyone else. That takes away from the experience of traveling in these aircraft.
I think one area where the A350 has an edge over the B787 is the wider fuselage makes it feasible to have a J product where you have sliding doors. On the 787 if you want the suite product you have to...
I hate the dimmable windows on the 787 and now the A350. I want to control my windows and not anyone else. That takes away from the experience of traveling in these aircraft.
I think one area where the A350 has an edge over the B787 is the wider fuselage makes it feasible to have a J product where you have sliding doors. On the 787 if you want the suite product you have to shrink the space by at the very least a couple of inches, which may not sound much, but on a long haul flight can make a lot of difference in terms of comfort.
Another area where 787 is better than A350 is premium economy class.
The PE on 787 are all 2-3-2 abreast, but in A350 it's mostly 2-4-2 which is a lot narrower than in 787.
Only a limited number of airlines such as LH or CI have 2-3-2 PE in A350.
When flying EC, I prefer A350. In PE, 787 is far superior. And both are good enough in BC.
That's true! Lufthansa is probably the only airline which has a 2-3-2 configuration in Premium Economy on most of its A350s.
That's an airline decision; nothing to do with Boeing or Airbus
The same applies to the economy class. 2-4-2 config is also available on 787, but only JAL and ANA chose it, and all the other airlines went for narrower 3-3-3 config. Even ANA has retrofitted all their 787s with 3-3-3 config now. There's a general trend in seating configuration per each aircraft type.
@Lee ANA has scrapped the 2-4-2 years ago. Only JAL has the 2-4-2 by now.
If course it has something to do with the aircraft. The airlines choose their seating, but are limited with what will actually fit into the airframe. Given that the A350 is sider, it can more often then not fit an extra seat i PE.
I prefer it too, since I value my life.
With all due respect to Boeing(they don't deserve much respect) I think the 787's safety record speaks for itself. Zero hull losses in 13 years of commercial operation. Boeing is doing everything it can to ruin that but for now as far as new commercial jets go, it's a great record.
And with all due respect to Airbus, I prefer the A350 also and it's only hull loss in 9 years of commercial operation...
With all due respect to Boeing(they don't deserve much respect) I think the 787's safety record speaks for itself. Zero hull losses in 13 years of commercial operation. Boeing is doing everything it can to ruin that but for now as far as new commercial jets go, it's a great record.
And with all due respect to Airbus, I prefer the A350 also and it's only hull loss in 9 years of commercial operation was it rear ending at Dash-8 at 200mph. Took it like a champ.
Moral of the story is that these modern carbon fiber jets are really safe and reliable compared to all the jets that have come before.
But don’t they burn well, I thought the carbon fibre was supposed to be better than aluminium in the case of fire, but once the JAL 350 got going there was no extinguishing it, compare that to fires on aluminium hulls , whilst they have been total losses , the fires were able to be extinguished. The JAL hull stayed intact after the collision which enabled all passengers to exit without help, but I wonder...
But don’t they burn well, I thought the carbon fibre was supposed to be better than aluminium in the case of fire, but once the JAL 350 got going there was no extinguishing it, compare that to fires on aluminium hulls , whilst they have been total losses , the fires were able to be extinguished. The JAL hull stayed intact after the collision which enabled all passengers to exit without help, but I wonder in the event of severe hull damage to either a 787/350 and passengers needed to be recused, would fire prevent a rescue
I've flown only once on the B787, a Hawaiian 787-9, and haven't made it onto an A350 yet--but it's definitely on my list to fly. To me, both jets are very nice looking, but only the 787 has the brilliant (to me) name of "Dreamliner!" :)