Airbus A330-900neo and Boeing 787-900. The former is almost identical in capacity to the latter. So it should be same 9 abreast seating equivalent up to 440 passengers. Note that exit limit of B789 is 420. B78k is however 440. This should be interesting competition.
Comparison 789 7810
Airbus Boeing Boeing
Length 63.7m 62.8m 68.3m
OEW 127t 129t 135t
MZFW 181t 181t 192t
MTOW 251t 253t 253t
Max Pax 440 410 440
Range 7500nm 8300nm 7100nm
Payload 56t 52t (ANA data) 57t
Loadrange 5400nm 5400nm (ANA data) 4000nm
While B789 wins hands down on range it has problem carrying similar payload. B78K has similar payload of A339 but has 4000nm range at max payload. Boeing however is the more comfortable plane being wider than Airbus. It seems the ceiling is 52t and 5000nm from MNL. That is 3 more hours on holding pattern which is enough for the destination they flew.
Boeing does not provide figure if the fully loaded B789 is indeed efficient as no airline propose to configure this dense setup. What we have are speculations. Educated guesswork if you will. It remains to be seen if the B789 is more fuel efficient per seat than the A339 when both are configured with 9 abreast seating in Y. CEB decision would likely confirm which one is the most efficient in their line of business.
Personally, I think they should just take B77W for growth in slot-constrained markets which can accommodate 550 passengers. But I guess it is too much as they only have few destination with that problem. For what they need the A339 fits the bill perfectly.
Making Sense