Boeing 777-300ER vs Airbus A350-1000
Side-by-side specs and an editorial comparison — fleet roles, economics, and the passenger experience.
| Spec | Boeing 777-300ER | Airbus A350-1000 |
|---|---|---|
| ICAO type | B77W | A35K |
| Manufacturer | Boeing | Airbus |
| Engines | 2 × General Electric GE90-115B | 2 × Rolls-Royce Trent XWB-97 |
| Typical seating | 396 | 366 |
| Range | 7,370 nm | 8,700 nm |
| Cruise speed | Mach 0.84 | Mach 0.85 |
| MTOW | 351,530 kg | 319,000 kg |
| Length | 73.86 m | 73.79 m |
| Wingspan | 64.8 m | 64.75 m |
| First flight | 2003 | 2016 |
| Status | In production | In production |
How they compare
The Boeing 777-300ER and Airbus A350-1000 are both large, long-range twin-aisle jets built to anchor an airline's flagship routes. The 777-300ER became one of the most successful widebodies ever, spending two decades as the default choice for high-capacity long-haul, from Asian trunk routes to premium-heavy transatlantic and transpacific services. The A350-1000 is the newer challenger, developed as a more fuel-efficient large twin that lets carriers replace ageing 777s and four-engine jets while carrying broadly similar passenger loads over long distances.
The A350-1000's headline appeal is efficiency. As a newer design with a composite structure and current-generation engines, it generally burns less fuel per seat than the 777-300ER and can fly farther, which suits ultra-long-haul missions. The 777-300ER counters with sheer capacity and cargo capability, a mature global support network, and often lower ownership costs on the used market. For airlines with dense, cargo-rich routes and existing 777 infrastructure, the Boeing can still make strong economic sense; for those prioritizing fuel cost and reach, the Airbus is compelling.
In the cabin, the 777 has the wider fuselage of the two, but many operators use that width for ten-abreast economy, which narrows individual seats. The A350-1000 was designed around a nine-abreast economy standard on a slightly narrower cabin, so seat width can actually favor the Airbus unless an operator densifies it. The A350 also benefits from a composite airframe that allows a lower cabin altitude and higher humidity than the older 777, which many travelers find less fatiguing on long flights.
Choosing between them is less about which is newer and more about mission and fleet strategy. The A350-1000 rewards carriers chasing efficiency and long thin routes, while the 777-300ER remains formidable where capacity, cargo, and fleet commonality matter. Both can deliver an excellent long-haul product, and the experience a passenger actually gets depends heavily on how each airline configures the cabin.
Comparisons are editorial and based on public specifications. Not for operational use.