The contest for long-haul supremacy between Boeing and Airbus has long hinged on a single, decisive metric: range. For airlines operating at the margins of global networks, range is far more than a marketing figure. It determines which city pairs are viable, how much payload can be carried on ultra-long sectors, and whether a route can remain profitable year-round. In that context, the arrival of Boeing 777X family and Airbus A350-1000 represents a critical inflection point for the widebody market.

Both aircraft are positioned as the next-generation flagships of their respective manufacturers, intended to anchor long-haul fleets well into the 2040s. They sit at the upper end of the twin-engine widebody spectrum, promising airlines lower fuel burn, reduced emissions, and greater operational flexibility compared to the four-engine aircraft they are gradually replacing. Routes once dominated by the Boeing 747-400 and Airbus A380 are now firmly the domain of large, highly efficient twinjets.

Which Aircraft Has The Longer Range?

The short answer is that the Boeing 777-8 has a longer maximum range than the base Airbus A350-1000 variant, while the Boeing 777-9 does not. Based on manufacturer-published specifications, Boeing lists the 777-8 with a range of up to 8,745 nautical miles (16,196 kilometers). Airbus, meanwhile, advertises the A350-1000 with a range of approximately 9,000 nautical miles (16,668 kilometers), placing the two aircraft remarkably close in theoretical capability.

By contrast, the larger Boeing 777-9 is optimized for capacity rather than outright distance. Boeing gives the aircraft a maximum range of around 7,285 nautical miles (13,492 kilometers), which is substantially shorter than both the A350-1000 and its smaller 777-8 sibling. The Airbus A350-1000 occupies an unusual middle ground in the widebody market. It comes within a few dozen nautical miles of the 777-8’s headline range figure, while offering notably greater passenger capacity than the 777-8 and a much longer reach than the 777-9. For airlines seeking a balance between ultra-long-haul capability and seat count, this positioning has proven particularly compelling.

But there is one exception. If we take into consideration another aircraft that is currently not in service, like the 777X, but will become operational in a couple of years, the Airbus A350-1000ULR might turn the tables and beat the Boeing 777-8 in range. This aircraft is capable of flying 9,700 nm (17,964 km) and allows nonstop flights of up to 22 hours. With this configuration, the A350‑1000ULR comfortably surpasses the 777‑9 and even challenges the 777‑8 on extreme long-haul missions.

What Design Factors Affect Range Performance?

Several technical and operational factors explain why the Boeing 777X family and the Airbus A350-1000 differ so noticeably in range, despite targeting broadly similar long-haul missions. The leading factor among these is aircraft size, particularly when comparing the Airbus A350-1000 with the larger of the two 777X variants, the 777-9.

The Boeing 777-9 is an exceptionally large aircraft, stretching 251 feet and 9 inches (76.7 meters) in length.

By comparison, the Airbus A350-1000 measures approximately 241 feet (73.8 meters). That additional fuselage length allows the 777-9 to carry significantly more passengers, with Boeing typically quoting a two-class capacity of around 426 seats, versus roughly 350 to 370 seats for the A350-1000.

Another critical factor is wing design. The 777X features the largest composite wing ever installed on a commercial aircraft, a defining characteristic of the program. With the wingtips extended, the wing spans 235 feet and 5 inches (71.8 meters).

On the ground, the tips fold upward, reducing the span to 212 feet and 9 inches (64.9 meters) to maintain compatibility with existing airport gates. This immense wing delivers exceptional aerodynamic efficiency at cruise, helping offset the aircraft’s size and improving fuel burn over long distances.

The Airbus A350-1000, meanwhile, benefits from a lighter airframe thanks to extensive use of carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic. Airbus has consistently emphasized structural efficiency over sheer size, which helps the A350-1000 maintain long range despite its relatively high passenger capacity. Combined with Rolls-RoyceTrent XWBengines, currently among the most efficient large turbofans in service, the A350-1000 is optimized for long routes where range matters more than raw seat count.

How Are Airlines Using The 777X And A350-1000?

Airlines have tended to select each aircraft based on very specific network requirements, and those choices help explain why range matters differently depending on the carrier. Emirates, the largest customer for the 777X program, provides the clearest example of this divergence. The Dubai-based carrier has placed very large orders for the 777-9 that are likely to replace the A380 on some routes, while committing to only a few 777-8s. This aligns closely with Emirates’ hub-and-spoke strategy, which prioritizes moving large volumes of passengers between major global hubs. In this context, the 777-9’s shorter range is not a weakness but a conscious trade-off in favor of capacity and unit cost efficiency.

By contrast, airlines with more geographically dispersed networks have placed a greater emphasis on range flexibility. Qatar Airways, for example, operates the Airbus A350-1000 extensively and has also ordered the Boeing 777-8. Rather than viewing the two aircraft as direct substitutes, Qatar Airways appears to see them as complementary tools. The A350-1000 is already deployed on some of the world’s longest commercial routes, including Doha–Auckland, which regularly exceeds 15 hours in the air, demonstrating that its advertised range translates into real operational capability.

Cathay Pacific’s fleet strategy further underscores the A350-1000’s positioning. While the airline continues to operate the Boeing 777-300ER, the A350-1000 has increasingly taken on missions that demand both long range and strong payload capability, particularly on routes where filling a much larger aircraft would be challenging. Industry analysts frequently note that this balance makes the A350-1000 a more natural successor to the 777-300ER in certain markets than the 777-9. Although the 777-9 offers a clear advantage in seat count, not every airline—or every route—can consistently support that level of capacity. For carriers operating long, thinner routes, the A350-1000’s combination of range, efficiency, and right-sized capacity remains a compelling proposition.

Where Do The 777X And A350-1000 Sit In The Long-Haul Market?

Looking beyond the headline comparison, it is important to consider how these aircraft stack up against other long-haul widebodies. The Airbus A350-900, for example, actually offers slightly more range than the A350-1000, albeit with fewer seats. Similarly, Boeing’s 787-9 and 787-10 cover different parts of the long-haul spectrum, trading capacity for range and efficiency.

The key distinction is that the 777X family spans a wider range of missions than the A350-1000 alone. The 777-8 competes directly with the longest-range aircraft ever built, while the 777-9 competes more with high-capacity aircraft like the A380, albeit with far better fuel efficiency.

This highlights why asking “which aircraft has more range?” only tells part of the story. The A350-1000 sits at a sweet spot that appeals to many airlines, but Boeing’s two-pronged 777X strategy allows carriers to choose between maximum range or maximum capacity.

What Are The Key Risks And Limitations?

One major caveat is that the Boeing 777X has yet to enter commercial service. Repeated certification delays mean that real-world performance data is not yet available, whereas the A350-1000 has been flying revenue missions for several years. Until the 777-8 and 777-9 accumulate significant flight hours, their true operational range under varying conditions remains theoretical. Another risk lies in airport compatibility. While the folding wingtips of the 777X are an engineering marvel, they introduce complexity and potential operational limitations. Any restrictions on folding tip operations could impact gate availability or dispatch reliability, indirectly affecting route planning.

Meanwhile, the Airbus A350-1000ULR (Ultra Long Range) is a specially configured variant of the A350-1000 developed for Qantas’s Project Sunrise to fly some of the longest commercial routes ever attempted — such as nonstop services from Australia’s east coast to London and New York, with up to ~22 hours of flight time enabled by an additional ~20,000 liter rear center fuel tank and enhanced systems. This bespoke configuration carries fewer seats (about 238 in Qantas’s layout) to maximize comfort and range, and is currently being assembled and prepared for flight testing ahead of its expected delivery in late 2026 and service start in 2027.

In terms of pure range performance, the A350-1000ULR is better suited to the ultra longest nonstop missions Qantas is pursuing, while the 777X family offers advantages in passenger capacity and payload on slightly shorter long haul sectors. Airlines must also consider future regulatory and environmental pressures. As emission standards tighten, range alone may become less important than efficiency per seat. In that context, the A350-1000’s lighter airframe could prove advantageous over time.

Which Aircraft Makes More Sense For Airlines?

So, which aircraft has more range? Technically, the Boeing 777 8 holds the crown over the standard A350-1000 by a narrow margin. However, the more commonly discussed 777-9 does not, and cannot, match the A350-1000’s long-haul reach. That picture changes with the A350-1000ULR, Airbus’s ultra-long-range variant developed for Qantas’s Project Sunrise, which extends the aircraft’s range to around 9,700 nm (17,964 km) and allows nonstop flights of up to 22 hours. With this configuration, the A350-1000ULR comfortably surpasses the 777-9 and even challenges the 777-8 on extreme long-haul missions.

For airlines, the decision is less about raw numbers and more about mission profile. Those needing ultra-long-haul capability with moderate capacity, especially routes where nonstop endurance is critical, will find the A350-1000ULR exceptionally compelling. Airlines focused on moving as many passengers as possible between major hubs may still gravitate toward the 777-9, accepting its reduced range as a necessary compromise in favor of higher seating capacity.

Looking ahead, the real test will come once the 777X finally enters service. Only then will the aviation industry see whether Boeing’s promised performance figures translate into day-to-day operational reality, and whether the A350-1000ULR can maintain its reputation as one of the most versatile and far-reaching long-haul aircraft ever built.