The Airbus A350-900 Vs. The Boeing 787-10 (2024)

While the Boeing 787 Dreamliner was launched before Airbus' A350 program, the A350-900 would enter service before the 787-10. While the dimensions of these two widebodies is quite similar, their performance specifications ultimately result in slightly different mission profiles. Today, let's compare the two aircraft from rival manufacturers.

Timeline of development

Spoiler alert: The Airbus A350-900 is far ahead of the Boeing 787-10, despite their similar capacities. While their performance characteristics may have some part to play in this, it's also important to understand the different timelines of the two aircraft, since the A350-900 came out years before the 787-10. While the following timeline won't be exhaustive and cover every key milestone for both programs, let's look at the important dates for how the aircraft relate to one another.

• January 2003: Boeing officially announces a new aircraft project, naming the aircraft program the Boeing 7E7 in the interim.
• April 2004: 787 program launches with Japan's All Nippon Airways (ANA) as its launch customer.
• July 2005: The A350 program is launched, but this initial offering would be derived from the existing A330.
• July 2006: Having gone back to the drawing board after getting input from key customers, Airbus announces a revised A350 design, this time offering a clean-sheet with a wider fuselage comprised of composite materials (hence the XWB designation for extra-wide body).
• September 2011: The first 787, a 787-8, is delivered to ANA, three years later than the target entry into service.
• June 2013: Boeing announces the launch of the 787-10. The jet is a stretch of the 787-9 but has an identical fuel capacity and MTOW.
• January 2015: The A350-900 enters service with Qatar Airways.
• March 2018: The first 787-10 is delivered to Singapore Airlines.

From this simplified timeline, you can see that the carbon-composite A350 was a response to the 787, coming out several years after the first Dreamliner enters service. However, the 787-10 was launched some seven years after the launch of the A350 program. Indeed, the stretched Dreamliner entered service three years after the A350-900 began commercial operations. When we look at sales, this is likely one factor that explains the difference in order numbers.

Photo: Airbus

Comparing technical specifications

Let's now examine our two featured aircraft side by side to get a basic understanding of their size and capabilities.

From the information above, we can see the two aircraft are similarly sized to one another. The Dreamliner is slightly longer while the A350 is slightly wider, although both jets have identical maximum passenger capacities. In terms of performance, the A350 is ultimately a heavier aircraft with more fuel capacity and more powerful engines. The aircraft's increased fuel capacity also allows the aircraft to fly 2000 nm further than its Boeing rival.

Photo: ANA/JAL

On the other side, the 787-10's lower weight and lower fuel capacity will likely allow it to have a more efficient fuel burn, although specific manufacturer-published figures on this metric are unavailable. Ultimately, however, the aircraft and its reduced MTOW should incur lower airport fees and operating costs, even if the result is a reduction in range. Additionally, as a result of its slightly longer fuselage with smaller bulk compartment, the aircraft is able to accommodate an additional four LD3 containers - a feature that should be useful for cargo operations.

Comparing sales and order performance

Using official sales data from both manufacturers, we can see that Boeing has collected orders for 215 787-10s as of January 2023. The largest customers to date include Etihad which placed a single order for 30 in 2013, and Singapore Airlines, which placed two separate orders in 2013 and 2017 for 27 and 15, respectively. While United Airlines is listed in official Boeing data as having ordered 26 across four orders - the airline recently committed to 100 Dreamliners (with options for another 100). The airline's order leaves variants unspecified. Thus, the carrier might increase its 787-10 fleet in the future.

On the Airbus side, order data accurate as of December 31st, 2022 indicates that the European planemaker has amassed orders for an impressive 750 airframes. Singapore Airlines appears to be the largest customer of the variant, having ordered 65. Emirates has committed to a significant number of these (50), with other major customers being Lufthansa (45) and Qatar Airways (34). United Airlines is still listed for 45 A350s, but this order has been left outstanding for about a decade at this point, with many skeptical of the airline's willingness to follow through.

The most recent development that will change these figures slightly is the massive order from Air India. But when it comes to our two variants being compared, the carrier will operate just six A350-900s and 20 787-9s. Including this latest news would obviously change numbers in favor of Airbus, but not by much considering the extensive lead it already has.

Photo: Airbus777 via Wikimedia Commons

The passenger experience

As we've noted in previous articles, comparisons of passenger comfort can be challenging in their own ways - especially when so much of this experience is determined by the airline. Seat spacing, seat comfort, and inflight entertainment - all of these are selected by the operator, and not the airframe manufacturer. However, there are a few general things we can look at for these two aircraft. It should also be noted that many of these points will also apply to the general debate between the A350 and 787.

Window differences

The Boeing 787's windows are a notable difference when it comes to the passenger experience set by the planemaker. Measuring approximately 27 x 47 cm (10.63 inches x 18.5 inches), these 'dimmable windows' are among the largest in the sky and can be adjusted to various levels of brightness. The advantage for passengers is that they can still comfortably look at the world outside despite extreme brightness from the sun. The disadvantage for passengers (at least those seated at the window) is that cabin crew can remotely control them and even lock them from passenger adjustments. Thus, this feature isn't a clear advantage over the A350 as some passengers prefer conventional window shades.

Speaking of the competition, the A350 windows (and their plastic shades) are smaller than those on the Dreamliner: 24.1 x 34.3 cm (9.5 inches x 13.5 inches).

Cabin width and its impact on seat layout

While Boeing doesn't really have a say in how airlines configure the passenger cabins of their aircraft, the cabin width ultimately constrains airlines on the number of seats per row. While this is less of a discussion point when it comes to premium cabins, it can certainly be an issue in economy class cabins.

When it comes to economy class configurations aboard 787-10s, essentially all carriers install their seats in a 3-3-3 layout. As per data from SeatGuru, this usually results in a seat-width that is between 17 and 17.5 inches. Aboard the A350-900, economy class seating configuration also tends to be 3-3-3. However, due to the slightly wider cabin, most carriers are listed as having 18 inch-wide seats. This slightly wider cabin has also (unfortunately) enabled some airlines to cram in a 10th seat at each row. In this case, seat width will be an ultra-cozy 16-16.5 inches. French Bee and Air Caraibes are two airlines that employ this layout (see photo below).

Photo: French Bee

Going the distance

Range seems to be the main point of discussion when it comes to the 787-10. Having an identical fuel capacity as the 787-9, the -10 is unable to fly as far as its shorter Dreamliner siblings. This has led some to label the jet as "more of a regional aircraft than its predecessors," as Brian Sumers of Skift said in 2018. Sharing his thoughts on the 787-10's capabilities (or lack thereof), Sumers began his article by saying:

Sumers is entirely correct in pointing out that the 787-10 won't be a game changer when it comes to ultra-long-haul travel - particularly when compared to the -8 and -9 Dreamliner variants. However, as is also noted, the -10 will be a cost-effective aircraft that has the potential to turn marginal routes into more profitable ones.

Photo: Adam Moreira via Wikimedia Commons

At the same time, the aircraft can fly far enough that it's not really limiting what most airlines can offer. Indeed, just take a look at some of the 787-10 routes currently scheduled by airlines:

• British Airways, from its London Heathrow hub, serves destinations like Denver, Doha, Seattle, and Washington Dulles.
• All Nippon Airways, from Tokyo, takes the 787-10 to cities within the Asia Pacific region like Bangkok, Ho Chi Minh, and Shanghai.
• Etihad from Abu Dhabi serves cities as far away as Jakarta, Manila, Kuala Lumpur, and Seoul.
• Among its longer 787-10 routes, United Airlines connects Los Angeles to Tokyo, and New York to Tel Aviv.
• From its home at Amsterdam Schiphol, Dutch carrier KLM flies the 787-10 to cities like Atlanta, Cancun, Los Angeles, Mumbai, and Panama City.
• And finally, on the far-opposite end of this range debate, it's interesting to note that Vietnam Airlines deploys its 787-10s mainly on domestic routes that are only a couple of hours in duration. The incredibly busy Hanoi-Ho Chi Minh route, which is less than two hours, appears to be the most common use for the carrier's 787-10s.

Photo: GCMap.com

So, as you can see, the longest 787 variant is capable of performing on some fairly long routes. The image above shows the difference in maximum range from London Heathrow.

So while the 787-10's published maximum range is 2000 nm below that of the A350, it can be argued that it will still be able to serve most of the same routes as its Airbus rival, all with a lower operating cost due to its lower MTOW.

Current and recent issues

In trying to provide as comprehensive of a comparison as possible, it's worth looking at issues that each aircraft has faced, or is currently facing.

At this moment in time, both aircraft are more or less in the clear - particularly with Airbus recently settling its dispute with Qatar Airways. The A350's metaphorical 'monkey on its back' over the last two years has been its bitter dispute with Qatar Airways over surface degradation. The European planemaker had to defend itself in UK court, insisting that its A350s are safe to fly, despite degradation of surfaces with subsequent exposure to the aircraft's lightning protection system.

As for Boeing, its 787 isn't immune to paint issues either. However, these have certainly been lower profile - without an airline taking the company to court. Delivery issues have been the larger issue for the 787 and August 2022 saw the US planemaker finally resume deliveries after nearly two years of delivery-stoppage. This delivery-halt was due to quality-control issues and manufacturing flaws flagged by the FAA. This resulted in many airlines waiting extended periods of time for their new Dreamliners - including numerous 787-10 operators. Of course, Boeing now seems to be back on its feet in terms of Dreamliner output, and has been working hard to clear its backlog.

Conclusion: Similar sizes, different advantages

To wrap up this comparison, it would appear that the A350-900 is a more capable aircraft, particularly when it comes to flying longer routes. To achieve this range, the A350 is equipped with larger fuel tanks, which results in a higher operating weight. On the other side, the lighter 787-10, with its smaller fuel tanks, won't be able to fly as far as the A350-900, but is still able to fly considerable distances with a similar number of passengers (and slightly more cargo).

Boeing is rumored to be addressing its 787-10 range situation with a possible extended range or "high gross weight" variant. But, at the time of this article's publication, we've yet to see anything officially on offer.

So which aircraft do you think is better? Or does it ultimately come down to how each aircraft will be used? Let us know your thoughts by leaving a comment!

Sources: HeraldNet, SeatGuru, Modern Airliners, Leeham News, Skift