Originally Posted by
Admiral Ackbar
As a passenger, it is not even close between those planes, 350 is superior in all aspects. More comfortable, modern, better air, lavs. Not one thing I prefer as a pax on the 777.
That really comes down to how they're equipped. Seats, lavs, air vents, many of these things are choices for the airline. An A350 might have a more modern AC system, but if the airline keeps it to hot and didn't give you an air vent, would you want to fly that or a 777 where you have some control over the temperature at your seat?
Originally Posted by
Deathray
There are plenty of carriers that operate both the 777 family and the A350 family in volume (SQ, QR, AF, TG, CX to name a few - LH is the launch customer for the 777X and operates plenty of 350's). Fleet commonality doesn't seem to be the driving factor for a lot of airlines these days. After some of the fallout from the Boeing issues, it wouldn't surprise me if more large carriers actively look to diversify to both manufacturers. AC itself operates the 737 Max, A220 and just placed an order for the 321XLR (not to mention the legacy fleet).
The huge AA order that effectively launched the MAX was a watershed moment in terms of fleet commonality. Airlines have realized that economies of scale have limits, and at a certain point they're outweighed by having an aircraft that's more optimized for the mission.
I suspect part of it is that AC already runs pretty dense configurations. Im not sure that any other carriers in *A run their 77W configured for so many passengers with such a small premium loadout (even the 40J is quite dense). I would much rather see AC move to a higher premium load model with fleet updates but I'm not holding my breath. I suspect premium yields are pretty good right now but Canadian businesses aren't known for taking very much risk.
Why are only *A carriers relevant? I'm flying AF YUL-CDG next week on a 77W with only 14 seats in J and 430 in Y (although they also have a config with 42 J seats and another with 8 in F and 58 in J). KLM has roomier Y seating than AC, but only 35 J seats and 24 PY in the new config that they're just rolling out. CX has a In *A, NZ's 77Ws have 44J, CA has a 36J config, OS's 77Ws only have 32J... AC's definitely not a high number of premium seats when BA has one that's F8 J76 and AF has F4 J58, but the J cabins aren't tiny. Where AC is really dense is back in Y with such tight pitch and a negligible number of extra seats.
Another consideration is most of the airlines that own both 787 and 350 are single hub carriers with larger wide body fleet than AC, whereas AC has 3 hubs, so the operational complexity of having multiple aircraft types is more challenging for AC.
This is a good point that I think is underappreciated in this type of discussion.
Originally Posted by
The Lev
And yet plenty of airlines chose the EMB175 over the CRJ705 despite the latter's better operating economics and speed (albeit at a higher price charged by BBD). They bought the E-jet because it feels more like a "mainline" aircraft whereas the CRJ always felt like an RJ despite BBD's attempts to dress it up a bit.
I assume you mean CRJ-900 since the -705 was only ever sold to AC to comply with its own esoteric scope clause issues.
Your post sent me down a rabbit hole, and I've found no serious evidence to support the CR9 having better economics than the E75 on any consistent basis. A number of people in various places on the Internet have claimed it does, but I've seen no really solid evidence, and the more credible posts that I read suggested there was very little in it. Given airlines' willingness to subject passengers to discomfort to lower their operating costs though, I doubt that the airlines would have kept buying the E75 if it had worse economics. Maybe the bigger bins mean quicker turnarounds that offset some slightly higher fuel burn. Maybe the long-wing version of the E75 eliminated whatever cost advantage the CR9 had. Maybe the answer depends on the mission in question, but the places on the curve where the E75 is better make up more of the routes where it's needed. AC seems to see value in having both in the fleet, since they added some of each a couple of years ago.