Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
330-200 Expensive To Operate?  
User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4286 times:

Why have so many posts (at least five in the last week) stated that the 330-200 is more expensive to operate than the 340-300?
Certainly in seat-mile cost it can be more....
But are we talking trip cost as well?

I'm just confused because I thought with its popularitiy--it must be fairly efficient (despite the oversized wing....)...

Can someone with knowledge please clarify.

Thank you.
Brgds.

41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSwissgabe From Switzerland, joined Jan 2000, 5266 posts, RR: 33
Reply 1, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4079 times:

Well Greg
You can't just say an A332 is more expensive to operate than a A340.
There are plenty of factors involved to say which aircraft will be more expensive to operate.

One good example is SriLankan Airlines which thinks about replacing it's A330 with A340. Keep in mind, that leasing costs for older aircrafts are lower than for new aircraft, but this is not the only thing. If an aircraft can carry around 10 passengers more with a similar fuel burn (or even same) it already could be cheaper to operate an A340. N79969 also pointed out, that the maintenance of 4 engine could be higher than 2 engines.

There could be a lot of other reasons why a A330 would be cheaper or more expensive to operate. As you see there are a lot of different reasons which can be different for every Airline.



Smooth as silk - Royal Orchid Service /// Suid-Afrikaanse Lugdiens - Springbok
User currently offlineRUSCOE From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1590 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4043 times:

The 764 is 10% cheaper to operate than the 332 or 3( not taking cost of ownership into account)but has been remarkebly unsuccessful. Having a more capable aircraft gives more flexibility, so direct operating costs are not everything.
On the income side you also need to consider the extra seats and freight capacity.
But, If you do not need the capability then it is just costing you money!

Ruscoe


User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4002 times:

I was under the impression that the 332 was extremely economically from 3000-6500 miles.
And since cost of ownership is the largest factor in block operating cost (depreciation), I imagine that 10% could easily be overcome....
Thanks for the reply.


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3928 times:

Greg,

I am under the same impression as you. I have not read the same posts that you have. My semi-educated guess is that the 332 is uneconomical on routes shorter than 332 was optimized for. I think it is on those shorter routes that the airplane takes an economic penalty for the extra weight. I would also venture a guess and say the 343 also takes a weight penalty on shorter runs but it may be offset by a larger number of seats to amortize the costs relative to the 332. That is my best guess of what is being described.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 5, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3903 times:

While I agree on an intellectual level that the 330 should be a little expensive to operate on short segments, all signs indicate that Qantas has been amazed with the efficiency on their shorter segments.

N


User currently offlineSkymileman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3885 times:

It is an airbus, of course it is.

User currently offlineBWIA 772 From Barbados, joined May 2002, 2200 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3831 times:


An interesting post. I know that BWIA got their 340s due to the fact the Cat2 status ruled out twin operations on the UK route but they were plans to switch to the 330 once Cat 1 was regained thus the 340 being on lease for 5 years.

But as Swissgabe said alot of factors come into play. An airline might take the 340 due to the fact that it can perform routes the 330 can along with their ultra long haul routes.

i would really like to know the cost of maintaing the engines on the 777 as compared to that of the 340.



Eagles Soar!
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3819 times:

BWIA772,

Are you talking about FAA safety categories?


User currently offlineTrintocan From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2000, 3254 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3790 times:

N79969, indeed those are the ICAO and FAA categories. T&T were downgraded to category 2 in 2001 for several reasons. As a result of that ETOPS certification would not be granted de novo to any carrier in the country (namely BWIA) and so any long over-water flights would require a craft with 3 or 4 engines. Hence BW kept the TriStars going so long and also the introduction of the A340 to replace them.

Hopefully they sort out matters soon - it would help BWee a lot.

TrintoCan.



Hop to it, fly for life!
User currently offlineJupiter2 From Australia, joined Jan 2001, 909 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (11 years 8 months 3 days ago) and read 3692 times:

Gigneil, while I am not going to argue with you whether QF are happy with theIr 332's performance, I am curious as to where you get your information from ???
I asked the question about 332's when they ordered them, especially when they are being used for purely domestic runs, as opposed to the 333's to be used for regional services. This question I think should be asked again, since QF have changed the order for the last 332's to 333's, are they truely economical on the short runs ???
RL


User currently offlineQatarAirways From Qatar, joined Sep 2008, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (11 years 8 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3603 times:

With Qatar Airways the A330-200 is more fuel efficient than the A300-600R on all but the short intra-Gulf runs. The only reason they are kept is that they are very cheap to lease.

User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (11 years 8 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3368 times:

"The A340 is more economical than the gas guzzling B777."

This is simply not true. Sounds like you are trying to provoke the debate here. The 772ER costs more than the 343 and has outsold it by a lot. I would say the 772ER is the more efficient aircraft.


User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (11 years 8 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3360 times:

Any chance we can stick to the topic..
Oh...
Well..
Ooops...
Guess not...


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (11 years 8 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3357 times:

Sorry...I took the bait on that one. Probably should not have.

User currently offlineMD-11 forever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (11 years 8 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3350 times:

@N79969
"I would say the 772ER is the more efficient aircraft. "

....I would say it depends on the mission!  Smile/happy/getting dizzy Just by the basic efficency, just considering the available thrust (let's assume 4*34000 pounds for the 343 and 2*77000 pounds for the 777) you end up in a very similar range. Also, the thermodynamic efficiency coefficent of all engines is around the same. So, this leads to a conclusion, that just by their respective engines, the planes must be similar when it comes to basic efficiency. So, the real parameters that matter when it comes to operational costs of a plane are configuration (available seats), cargo requirements and availability as well as the desired missions to fly the plane. This is not a coplete and comprehensive list, but fair enough to show you that such a statement is not based on any facts, but instead just reflecting your preferred aircraft.

Cheers, Thomas


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (11 years 8 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3206 times:

Greg,

I think the definitive answer to your question is in the $575 publication below:

http://avitas.com/pubs/block.jsp

MD-11,

I am no engineer but given the 777s lead in order backlog, cancellations for 343s, the 777's later entry into market, and superior sales of 777 despite higher price, the 772ER is the more efficient airplane.


User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (11 years 8 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3170 times:

Yes...I'll run right out and buy that!
 Smile


User currently offlineBHXviscount From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2002, 166 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (11 years 8 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3171 times:

Another factor could be the seating arrangements- high density 330-200's that EK use have 40 more seats than the low density variants they use, this airline operates plenty of both and also the 777, they must have worked out all the costings for all the routes they use and to each route which is best suited?!?
Anyway the UK based charter airlines pack 'em in like sardines on 330's to Orlando so I guess that you can make them pay their worth if you get enough pax on board!- BHXviscount



No officer, its NOT a surface to air missile its a camera..for taking photographs.
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (11 years 8 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3112 times:

If you do, make copies and scan then in. I am sure Avitas would appreciate it. Kidding aside, every now and then some of the aviation consulting firms will put some of their aircraft type evaluations on their website as a sample. Maybe the 330-200 will pop up someday.

User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (11 years 8 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2987 times:

I didnt' mean to start a controversy here. By the sales numbers, the 330-200 appears to be a very efficiencent aircraft over a series of rangers--25000-6500 miles.
I was primarily concerned with it being a 300-600 replacement since it's likely not optimized for lower (under 2000nm) stage lengths.

Since Qantas..and to an extent Emirates use the bird for shorter trips I will assume that it is as least as cost effective as the 330-600 it replaces (I believe that Egypt Air said this in a press release--?).

The counter argument would appear that Boeing feels that the 7E7 would be far more efficient--although without any radical technology I'm not aware of--it would seem a bit difficult. I would assume that the same 'super efficient' engines can be hung on any airframe within the thrust range....

Thank you all for your replies and for basically staying on topic.
Brgds.


User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (11 years 8 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2986 times:

OK...typo.....clearly I meant 2,500-6,500+ miles in the first sentence.
Sorry.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 22, posted (11 years 8 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2940 times:

I get my information from a variety of forums.

All signs indicate that the 330-300s that QF is swapping for 332s will also be operated on the short routes. They are not simply getting new international craft.

This is getting to be an exhaustive thread. Nobody on this forum is qualified to analyze the efficiency of either the 777 or the A340. And nobody ever bothers to compare the 777 vs the whole A330/A340 family, which has outsold the 777 by a small amount. So this conversation is, as usual, pointless.

N


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2848 times:

Greg,

Still not cheap but the study is available for far less than $575.

http://www.aircraft-commerce.com/arts/AnalysisListing.pdf


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2826 times:

What do you know: it's free.

http://www.aircraft-commerce.com/arts/AS2001/AugSept2001Analysis456.pdf

Enjoy.


25 Greg : Ok...interesting. The 332 is more expensive to operate than the 763. But the 332 and 764 are virtually identical. Good reference you guys. Brgds.
26 N79969 : What struck me as weird is how the 767 has such comparable economics but the 767 has been outsold by a lot since the 332 became available.
27 Gigneil : The 764 is a poor performer compared to the A332. This comparison gets made all the time... it shouldn't confuse anyone by this point. The A332 has su
28 N79969 : I understand that the 332 outperforms the 764 in terms of payload and range. However that article really does not illustrate the point well. Airlines
29 Greg : Actually, it was more complimentary of the 763/764 than the 332. I think their primary issue was that the 332 does not have a smaller stablemate. It w
30 Jupiter2 : More likely the airlines are prepared to wear any additional operating costs after taking into consideration the generous deal they get from the manuf
31 N79969 : I also thought the article was very complimentary of the Boeing products. Judging by the merits discussed in the article. the 763 and 764 are the bett
32 Gigneil : Oh whatever. There is no way Boeing is pricing the 764 for more than a 332. The 332 has over double the cargo capacity and much more range. Also, nobo
33 Yyz717 : The success of the 332 suggests that airlines are very happy with its combination of capacity, range & economics. Timing is also a factor. Had the 764
34 N79969 : The point is that unless you use that range and cargo capacity, the 332 is not a great deal. Further, I think Airbus has some pretty generous financi
35 Jupiter2 : Gigneil, do you have some figures as to the cargo capacity of the 332 vs the 764, I am sure I could find them, but i don't have the time and you seem
36 Gigneil : The total cargo volume of the 332 is 4800 ft(3). The 764's total cargo volume is 4580 ft(3). This isn't completely instructive... The A332 can carry 2
37 Racko : Jupiter, the key point is that the A330 can carry 2 LD3 containers side-by-side, while the B767 can't. Boeing will fix this key issue with the 7E7.
38 Jupiter2 : Gigneil, I understand aircraft pallets, I work in the airfreight industry. What I don't understand are the figures you gave for the 2 aircraft. You ha
39 Jupiter2 : Racko, I understand that, the point no one whats to make though is that if you use the correct equipment while there still may be a deficeiency it is
40 Greg : I'm actually a huge fan of the 330-200---but I would never make the mistake of calling it 'vastly better' than the 767-400. Superlatives are the hallm
41 N79969 : I grudgingly admit that the 330-200 is a really cool looking airplane. I don't pretend to be objective in the A v. B debate. The 332 is best looking p
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
DFW's Terminal D - Too Expensive To Operate posted Mon Sep 5 2005 06:10:26 by N839MH
Why Are Commuters So Expensive To Operate posted Mon Jan 7 2002 04:55:30 by Saab340
Cost To Operate A 737-800 Or 757-200 posted Wed Jan 21 2004 05:51:54 by ATA767
EK To Start Brisbane With A 330-200 Not B 773 posted Fri Oct 10 2003 07:14:12 by Behramjee
Aero Lloyd To Add A 330-200 Into Their Fleet posted Tue Nov 13 2001 13:53:47 by Sabena332
CX To Operate Korean A330-200? posted Fri May 5 2000 10:32:27 by Pandora
Saudi Arabian To Operate A330! posted Thu Nov 2 2006 13:21:45 by HiJazzey
GA To Operate 763s? What About The A330s? posted Fri Sep 29 2006 20:51:25 by Mandala499
Eurofly To Operate Scheduled FCO-DEL Flights posted Wed Sep 27 2006 21:40:07 by Airdolomiti
NW Gets Ready To Operate Compass Airlines posted Fri Sep 15 2006 14:02:19 by Af773atmsp