Connect with us

World

Boeing 777-300ER vs. Airbus A350: A Size Comparison

editorial

Published

on

The Boeing 777-300ER and Airbus A350 are two prominent widebody aircraft that dominate long-haul air travel. While both jets share similar dimensions, a closer look reveals significant differences in size, capacity, and operational capabilities.

Boeing 777-300ER Overview

The Boeing 777-300ER is a flagship twin-engine aircraft that has been a cornerstone of global aviation since its introduction in 2004. Measuring 242 feet 4 inches (74 meters) in length, it boasts a wingspan of 212 feet 7 inches (64.8 meters) and a tail height of approximately 60 feet 8 inches (18.5 meters). The aircraft is powered by two General Electric GE90-115B engines, each producing around 115,000 pounds (13,650 kg) of thrust, making it one of the most powerful commercial engines ever built.

With a maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of around 775,000 pounds (351 tonnes), the 777-300ER has a range of approximately 7,370 nautical miles (13,650 km). It typically accommodates between 360 and 400 passengers in a two-class configuration. The aircraft’s wide fuselage allows for a ten-abreast seating layout in economy class, accommodating a significant number of passengers while still providing space for premium cabins and cargo.

Airbus A350 Overview

In contrast, the Airbus A350 represents a newer generation of aircraft designed for fuel efficiency and passenger comfort. The baseline A350-900 measures about 220 feet (66.8 meters) in length, while the stretched A350-1000 reaches 242 feet 1 inch (73.8 meters). Both variants feature a wingspan of around 212 feet (64.75 meters) and a cabin height of approximately 55 feet 11 inches (17.05 meters).

The A350-1000 has a maximum takeoff weight of 679,000 pounds (308 tonnes) and a range of approximately 8,000 to 8,700 nautical miles (14,800 to 16,100 km), depending on configuration. It typically seats between 350 and 410 passengers in a three-class layout, designed for maximum comfort with wide seats and spacious interiors.

While the A350-1000 is slightly shorter than the Boeing 777-300ER, its use of advanced materials and aerodynamics allows it to compete effectively in terms of efficiency and operational costs.

Comparative analysis reveals that despite similar lengths, the Boeing 777-300ER is notably heavier, allowing for a greater payload capacity. The aircraft’s structure supports a maximum takeoff weight difference of nearly 100,000 pounds (45 tonnes) compared to the A350-1000. This capacity advantage makes the 777-300ER a preferred choice for airlines operating high-density routes.

Operational Context

The Boeing 777-300ER has been widely adopted by major airlines, with more than 800 units delivered globally. Emirates leads as the largest operator, with over 120 aircraft in service, while other notable operators include Qatar Airways, Air France, and British Airways. The aircraft is favored for its ability to serve high-demand routes, such as transatlantic and transpacific flights, where passenger capacity and cargo yield are crucial.

Conversely, the Airbus A350 has gained traction since its debut in 2015, with over 630 units in operation across approximately 33 airlines. Major operators include Singapore Airlines and Cathay Pacific, with some airlines, such as Delta Air Lines, opting for the A350 over the 777-300ER for long-haul operations.

The A350’s design emphasizes flexibility and fuel efficiency, making it suitable for both long-haul and thinner markets, where operating costs are critical. This adaptability places the A350 as a viable successor in the evolving aviation landscape.

In summary, while the Boeing 777-300ER stands out as the larger aircraft with superior capacity, the Airbus A350 offers a modern approach to fuel efficiency and passenger comfort. Both aircraft play significant roles in the international aviation market, catering to different operational needs and priorities.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © All rights reserved. This website offers general news and educational content for informational purposes only. While we strive for accuracy, we do not guarantee the completeness or reliability of the information provided. The content should not be considered professional advice of any kind. Readers are encouraged to verify facts and consult relevant experts when necessary. We are not responsible for any loss or inconvenience resulting from the use of the information on this site.