SAS's Aircraft Procurement Dilemma: Boeing 787-9 vs. Airbus A350 – A Deep Dive into Operational Efficiency and Cost-of-Capital

When evaluating SAS's aircraft procurement strategy for 2025, the choice between the Boeing 787-9 and Airbus A350-900 hinges on a delicate balance of operational efficiency and capital expenditure. Both aircraft represent cutting-edge technology, but their distinct advantages and trade-offs demand a granular analysis.

Fuel Efficiency: A 5% Divide with Long-Term Implications

The Airbus A350-900 edges out the Boeing 787-9 in fuel efficiency, achieving a 25% improvement over older models compared to the 787-9's 20%, according to a MyAircraftCost comparison. This 5% gap may seem modest, but for a carrier like SAS operating transatlantic routes, it translates into millions in annual savings. A WebFlite analysis highlights that the A350's Rolls-Royce Trent XWB engines and aerodynamic design give it a clear edge in this metric. However, the 787-9's composite materials reduce weight and maintenance costs, which could offset its slight fuel disadvantage over time; MyAircraftCost also discusses those trade-offs.

Maintenance Costs: Composites vs. Long-Term Stability

The Boeing 787-9's use of advanced composite materials reduces maintenance expenses, a critical factor for operators prioritizing short-term cash flow, as noted in the MyAircraftCost comparison. In contrast, the A350-900's aluminum-lithium alloy fuselage requires more frequent inspections, though its modular design allows for quicker repairs. Data from MyAircraftCost suggests that while the A350 has higher initial purchase costs, its lower operational expenses over a 10-year horizon make it a compelling option for capital-light strategies.

Passenger Capacity: Scaling for Growth

For SAS, which is expanding its long-haul network, the A350-900's 440-passenger capacity in a two-class configuration dwarfs the 787-9's 296-passenger limit, per the MyAircraftCost comparison. This roughly 50% advantage in seating allows SAS to maximize revenue per flight, particularly on high-demand routes like Copenhagen to New York. However, the 787-9's smaller size could be a strategic fit for routes requiring tighter scheduling or lower slot fees.

Cost-of-Capital: Tariffs and Negotiation Leverage

The 2025 list price for the 787-9 is $292 million, while the A350-900 commands $308 million, based on an AirLive estimate. But tariffs complicate the math. New U.S. import duties on the 787-9's 60% foreign-sourced components could add $9–15 million per unit, depending on configuration, according to the same AirLive analysis. Meanwhile, U.S. airlines like Delta have circumvented A350 tariffs by routing aircraft through third countries, a tactic reported in a Forbes report, and SAS might replicate that approach if it procures the A350. Additionally, bulk-order discounts for the A350 could reduce its effective price by 20–50%, depending on customization levels, as discussed in an A350 price analysis.

Strategic Recommendations

SAS must weigh these factors against its operational priorities:
1. Short-Term Efficiency: The 787-9's lower maintenance costs and tariff flexibility make it ideal for cash-constrained scenarios.
2. Long-Term Growth: The A350-900's superior fuel efficiency, passenger capacity, and lower cost-per-seat-mile align with SAS's expansion goals, a position reinforced by an AviationA2Z article.
3. Tariff Mitigation: Procuring the A350 via third-party routing or leveraging bulk discounts could neutralize its higher list price.

In the end, the A350-900 appears to be the more future-proof choice for SAS, assuming it can navigate the tariff landscape. However, the 787-9 remains a viable alternative for routes where flexibility and lower upfront costs are paramount.