The Boeing 777X and the Airbus A350 represent the forefront of long-range aircraft technology, and the debate over which is the long-range aircraft of the future is a topic of great interest in the aviation industry.
By: Gareth Published On: 3 November 2023, 9.00pm (GMT +8)
A Boeing 777-9 on display. Photo: Business Traveller (www.businesstraveller.com)
With the Airbus-Boeing duopoly in the commercial aircraft industry, development of products for the airline market seems to have become a game of ping-pong between the two giants, with every new product seen as a response to the other.
Take, for example, the introduction of a glass cockpit and fly-by-wire technology when the Airbus A320-200 was first introduced in 1988. This design swept even loyal Boeing customers such as Air France and Ansett Australia off their feet, ordering 25 and 10 A320 family aircraft respectively. Boeing’s response to this? The 737NG.
And what did Airbus do? Go into the mid-haul market with the A330 and A340. And now the ball was in Boeing’s court again, which they hit back with the development of the original 777-200 and 777-300 series in 1994. At the time, the 777 was ahead of its time, with fly-by-wire technology seen for the first time in Boeing aircraft.
Ping! They followed up with the 787 Dreamliner. Pong! The A350 XWB came along in 2006 after initial protests that a completely new fuselage was required.
Today, the relatively new A350, with its futuristic cockpit featuring touchscreen-enabled controls and Airbus’ iconic side stick design, is widely regarded to be at the forefront of technological innovation. The 777, on the other hand, is well into its twenties and aging rapidly. Boeing’s solution, as it did to replace the 737 NG, was to recreate the 777 with a new name. That new name in question was the 777X, comprising the -8, -9, and -10 models. It was developed with competition with the A350 in mind, the move that Boeing hoped would checkmate Airbus or at least force them to upgrade the A350, if not develop a new clean-sheet design altogether.
Here Airbus has fallen into a trap - is there anything about the A350 to improve at all?
The Perfect Aircraft Problem
The Airbus A350 XWB series, comprising the -900 and -1000, was the most technologically advanced aircraft when it was first delivered to Qatar Airways in December 2014, as it is still regarded today. The A350’s glass cockpit was in a league of its own, with 6 15-inch liquid crystal display screens. Similar to the A380, it featured an on-board information system screen adjacent to the Primary Flight/Navigation display (which put an end to the days where pilots would mount i-Pads with charts to the windowsill), as well as two central displays mounted one above the other. The lower central display was slanted and placed right in front of the thrust levers, a huge improvement from the square ECAM displays of the A320, A330, and A340.
The Cockpit of an A350. Photo: Airbus (www.airbus.com)
The cockpit of the A350 is designed with integrated modular avionics software, a concept borrowed from the A380. IMA architecture is used in numerous fourth-generation fighter aircraft such as the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. More recently, A350-1000s operated by Etihad Airways have even been upgraded to allow the lower central display and the information system screens to be touch-operated, allowing pilots to interact with the displays more easily. The innovations of the A350 go beyond the cockpit. The aircraft features a blended sharklet which curves up over the last 4.4m of the wing. Wing sweep angle has been carefully selected at 31.9° for maximum aerodynamics and fuel efficiency. Each main undercarriage leg is attached to the rear wing spar forward and to a gear beam aft, which itself is attached to the wing and the fuselage. To help reduce the loads further into the wing, a double side-stay configuration is used. With all these innovations, it certainly does seem that the A350 is too perfect to further adapt. But let’s consider some possible upgrades first.
Upgrade 1
A NEO version? The A350 is currently propelled by twin Rolls Royce Trent 1000 engines, which seem to work just fine for the world’s longest-range passenger aircraft. Possible improvements to engine technology to further reduce fuel consumption may be feasible to further improve the range of the A350. However, the simple fact is that there isn’t very much demand for ultra-long-haul routes. The A350-900 ULR, with its 18000 km range operating the world’s longest flight between Singapore Changi Airport (SIN) and New York John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), is also set to be used by Qantas come 2025 for a non-stop Sydney to London flight that is estimated to take 20 hours. There simply isn’t much use for any more fuel efficiency because any routes longer than that do not exist between major cities, or are not profitable to fly.
Upgrade 2
Bigger, wider, longer? The A350 XWB project is, as its name suggests, already as wide as can be. The A350-1000 is 74m long, exactly the same as the Boeing 777-300ER but short of the expected 76m of the 777-9. So it appears that length is not an issue, and there is certainly room for an even larger A350-1100. While theoretically possible, such a project simply would never be implemented because there is no need for it - the 777’s plus size is not enough of a threat to Airbus to warrant a new redesign to keep up with it. In conclusion, the A350’s engineering is already as perfect as can be (for the needs of today’s airlines, at least), but therein lies its weakness - it’s not future-proof. So while the A350 is certainly a remarkable long-range aircraft today, it may not necessarily be one for the future. Then again, what we think is perfect now may have very much potential for improvement. Glass cockpits were thought to be the end of avionics development when they were invented in the 1980s, and look where we are at now - 18-inch displays that make old square-shaped screens look ancient.
The Case for the B777X
Now, allow us to explore the features of the Boeing 777X. The Boeing 777X is almost like a replica of the A350, but bigger (all 777s, after all, are giants) and with technology that goes beyond the cockpit. While Airbus’ design philosophy places more emphasis on pilot comfort, a major selling point for their side stick design, Boeing’s new product considers passengers more. Here are just some of the many technologies the X boasts over the A350:
Foldable Wingtips
Instead of a blended winglet, the wingtips of the X can be folded at the gate to reduce wingspan and operate out of smaller gates, but open in flight to improve lift and reduce fuel burn.
New Engines
Boeing has traditionally never been big on Rolls Royce, and uses the General Electric GE9X engines for the 777X. The GE9X engine incorporates advanced technology, including a new fan design and lightweight materials, to improve fuel efficiency and reduce emissions, significantly improving fuel efficiency. The 777-8, in particular, boasts an impressive range of 16190 km, almost on par with the A350-900ULR (18000 km). Any Extended Range (ER) upgrade may very well allow this aircraft to serve ultra long-haul routes and end Airbus’ monopoly in the long-haul market.
Revamped Cabins
A quieter cabin with reduced pressure makes the passenger experience more comfortable during ultra long-haul flights. Of course, the definition of “comfortable” is subjective, and whether the 777-8 does make flying for 20 hours more bearable than the A350-900ULR is yet to be seen.
In Conclusion
With these technologies, it may indeed seem that the 777X series is here to stay and eventually replace the first generation of 777s. However, the expansion into the ultra-long-haul market is both tricky and dangerous. For one, there simply aren’t enough routes longer than 15000-16000 km that are worth serving. The vast majority of profitable airline routes can be served with existing aircraft with their limited range. Where opportunities for ranges longer than what the A350 and 773ER can handle have come about, all are major city pairs such as Singapore - New York and Sydney - London. And both these routes can be comfortably served by the A350-900 and -1000 ULR. The only other pair of major cities further apart than 18000 km (in great circle distance) are London and Auckland, 18354 km apart. While it is theoretically possible for Boeing to make a 777-8ER with a range that can handle such a distance, it is doubtful whether any airline other than British Airways and Air New Zealand would ever need a range that long. Of course, there are antipodal or nearly antipodal airport pairs where a 777-8ER may come in handy to fly between other than London Heathrow and Auckland. Jakarta’s Soekarno-Hatta International Airport and Bogota’s El Dorado International Airport are even further apart, at 19831 km in great circle distance. Here, one may argue, surely we do need the 777X to use its ultra-long-range capabilities to save the day. However, the problem is that no Indonesian wants to fly to Columbia, and no Columbian has any need to travel to Indonesia. Or at least, the proportion of people who do is too miniscule for airlines to justify buying such a long-ranged aircraft to operate the route. In short, while the 777X’s technologies are indeed on par with, if not better than the A350, it’s long range is perfectly useless, at least in today’s world where all flights can be handled with the A350’s range. Never say never, though, for the day may very well come that Garuda Indonesia asks for a 777-8ER with a 20000 km range to fly to Bogota. And when that day comes that demand opens for routes longer than 18000 km that the A350 -900ULR cannot reach, well, jokes on Airbus.
Comments