Industry trends show that mid-sized variants tend to be more popular within widebody families. For example, the Boeing 787-9 outsells other versions in its family by a large margin; similarly, the Boeing 777-300ER is favored over its smaller counterpart.
Several factors influence airline choices between these two Airbus models:
Range versus Capacity: The -900 offers greater range than the -1000 unless airlines opt for the ultra-long-range (ULR) variant of the -900.
Fuel Efficiency: The -900 uses Rolls-Royce Trent XWB-84 engines optimized for lower thrust and better efficiency on thinner routes. The -1000 requires more powerful XWB-97 engines that consume more fuel per trip.
Fleet Economics: Filling over 350 seats daily is challenging except at mega-hubs like Doha Hamad International Airport or London Heathrow Airport.
Airport Compatibility: The lighter weight and shorter fuselage of the -900 make it easier to operate at secondary airports or on long thin routes.
Qatar Airways uses its fleet of A350-1000s primarily from its Doha hub to maximize revenue under slot constraints. Singapore Airlines operates many A350-900s—including ULR variants—on ultra-long-haul flights such as Singapore–Newark or Singapore–San Francisco.
British Airways deploys its A350-1000s mainly on transatlantic and Asia services from Heathrow where slot scarcity favors larger aircraft. Delta Air Lines prefers the flexibility of the -900 across various US–Asia and US–Europe markets without needing to fill over 350 seats each flight.
Recent orders reinforce these patterns. Korean Air ordered both variants—27 A350‑1000s and six A350‑900s—to expand its intercontinental network. Riyadh Air committed to up to fifty A350‑1000s as part of its global hub ambitions.
Comparisons with Boeing's widebody jets further illustrate market dynamics:
The A350‑900 competes most directly with the Boeing 787‑9; while offering longer range (~8,100 nm vs ~7,565 nm), it comes at a roughly ten percent higher list price but can improve seat-mile economics on longer premium-heavy routes.
The A350‑1000 outperforms older rivals like Boeing’s 777‑300ER in fuel efficiency per seat due to modern aerodynamics and engine technology.
Future competition may come from Boeing’s yet-to-enter-service 777X series.
Technical challenges have emerged too. The Rolls-Royce Trent XWB‑97 engines used by the -1000 faced scrutiny after an incident during ground testing in Frankfurt in 2019 involving Cathay Pacific; however, no systemic flaws were found according to regulators.
For most carriers—especially those not operating from mega-hubs—the smaller size and versatility of the -900 are more attractive than risking consistently filling a much larger jet like the -1000.
Overall delivery figures highlight this trend: by mid‑2025 Airbus had delivered nearly six times as many A350‑900s as ‑1000s worldwide.
Looking ahead, developments such as Boeing’s upcoming entry into service with new high-capacity models could affect demand for both Airbus variants. There is also industry speculation about an “A350neo” refresh that could improve performance further for either model.
Despite these potential changes, current patterns suggest airlines will continue favoring mid-size flexible widebodies like the Airbus A350‑900 while reserving larger models such as the ‑1000 for specific high-density markets where their capacity justifies higher operating costs.
Alerts Sign-up
