"So compared to the 777, the 787 is claimed to reduce fuel consumption by 20 percent…" It was perhaps worded poorly but that's not what the article said: "Drea

"So compared to the 777, the 787 is claimed to reduce fuel consumption by 20 percent…" It was perhaps worded poorly but that's not what the article said: "Dreamliner will use 20 percent less fuel than jets of similar size…" I would wager a lot that if a 777 was redesigned with composites it would likely have similar fuel savings (~20%) over an aluminum 777. If you take a look at the table in the link at the bottom you will see the 777 is primarily for long-range, high-capacity flights. The 787 was originally intended as a replacement for the 767 and as a competitor to the A330-200. The majority of flights are shorter and carry fewer passengers than the target of the 777. So fuel efficiency is just fuel efficiency and fewer passengers is just a different market segment. The 787 is simply aimed at a different and higher volume market than the 777. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_between_Airbus_and_Boeing#Passengers.2Frange_km_.28statute_miles.29_for_all_models http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_between_Airbus_and_...