Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A333 V B772ER On Mediumhaul Routes  
User currently offlineRjpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5291 times:

How does the A333 compare to the 772 and 772ER on mediumhaul routes, like JFK-AMS or JFK-TLV? Would it be more economical to operate the A333 to it's almost max range or to operate a 772ER on a flight that is only about half it's max range? If the latter was the case, you could have more payload right?

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5162 times:

The A333's Boeing counterpart is the 772A... and while they're an even match, the former is more efficient on shorter mediumhauls; whereas the latter tends to excel in mid-mediumhauls or shorter hauls with more cargo.

Cathay uses them together in exactly that manner.


User currently offlineAM772 From Mexico, joined Mar 2004, 135 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5126 times:

The Boeing 777 is more effircient that their competitors
300-seater Medium Range:
777-200A vs. A330-300:
Boeing. The 777 has advanatges in range, cargo capacity, fuel burn, and technological advancement.

300-seater Long Range:
777-200ER vs. A340-300 Enhanced:
Boeing. More range, more cargo capacity, more fuel efficiant, more technologically advanced, a better climber

300-seater Ultra Long Range:
777-200LR vs. A340-500:
Boeing. (when it arrives) The Boeing will have a huge range advantage, as well as more cargo, more efficiency, better technology.

This info was posted by someone else weeks ago, I hope this to be useful for this topic.
Cheers!!
AM772


User currently offlineMotorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3345 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5095 times:

Rjpieces

Your sign-off makes you sound like a teenage boy... oh I just looked at your profile, sorry.

MH



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5079 times:

777-200A vs. A330-300:
Boeing. The 777 has advanatges in range, cargo capacity, fuel burn,


Yes, but that's assuming it's operated near the limits of its capacity.


For a 3000mi(-) intra-Asian hop at 75%(-) capacity, the lighter A333 often proves more efficient.

Again, CX being the prime example:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © K.H. Ng
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © K.H. Ng





User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5017 times:

I believe the seat mile costs of the A330-300 are significant lower then the B777 and I'm not talking a few percent.. However range limits it's flexibility in a network. (it can still do a decent 4500nm)

E.g NWA operates it with at very satisfactory fuel cost & lots of cargo on the North Atlantic but cannot use it to NRT, which is a disadvantage. The DC10 could do both (but burned a lot more).

UA can use their 772s on both the Atlantic and the Pacific.




User currently offlineRjpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5004 times:

Then, I guess my question is: If an airline is operating a 772ER on a transatlantic flight, since the plane won't be flying the max range, the airline is able to carry more payload right? And how great could that difference in extra payload be when compared to an A333 flying it's almost full range? I hope I asked this clearly.

Motorhussy, it is a joke mr 45 year old. I fly A32X more often than I do Boeing aircraft. If I read a funny Airbus joke knocking Boeing I'd be more than happy to put it in my profile.


User currently offlineCrosswind From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 2603 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4989 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I have trawled back through the airliners.net archives to find a Northwest article on their selection of the A330.

All in all it's a very interesting article....

It does much to dispel the misguided "always go for the biggest, heaviest, longest-range" sentiment that pervades airliners.net discussions about fleet choice.

-----

Perspective on NW's Recent Selection of the A330 of 777
By Tim Campbell, Managing Director- Performance Analysis

From On Course, Northwest Flight Operations Magazine May/June 2001

The January February issue of On Course contained an article by Capt. Jeff Carlson that outlined the details of Northwest's multibillion-dollar investment in new aircraft. A large component of this order includes 24 PW4168A-powered A330-300s. Numerous questions have arisen since the announcement of this order, specifically why the A330 was selected instead of the 777.

This article will address these questions by summarising our assessment of the performance characteristics of the A330 relative to the 777 and how this information was used in the final evaluation of these two aircraft.

The competition between the 777 and A330 was for a new aircraft that would replace our DC-10-30s on dedicated transatlantic missions.

Perhaps the most important performance-related aspect of this aircraft evaluation was finding the best match between aircraft payload-range capability and forecasted payload demand. We were seeking an aircraft that efficiently meets our projected requirements. As shown in the graphs, the A330 most optimally meets our payload requirements in the Atlantic. This payload capability, when coupled with operating costs and projected market requirements (demand) for both passenger and cargo traffic, offers the highest earnings potential.

The match between capability and market requirements is important because it is inefficient to operate aircraft with excess capability. Our evaluation clearly shows that the 777-200ER aircraft has significantly more payload-range capability than the A330-300.

The additional range capability could be helpful if the same aircraft were also flown across the Pacific. However this possible dual mission capability was determined to be impractical because Pacific aircraft require a much greater share of World Business Class seats than Atlantic aircraft. Furthermore, the Pratt powered 777-200ER could not fly many critical Pacific missions with full passenger load, and most missions required weight limits on cargo.

This is not necessarily apparent if one looks from the generic marketing material from Boeing because the range of the 777-200, evaluated with Northwest rules and interiors, is approximately 1,100 miles less than advertised.

The 777 can carry more seats than the A330 although the A330 already carries 29 more seats than our current DC-10-30s. The optimal 777-200 configuration we modelled had 27 more seats than the A330-300 (329-302) and 56 seats more than the DC-10-30 (329-273). However, these additional seats were economy seats that typically would be filled with lower yielding passengers.

The 777 has the same empty weight for all available MTOW's (580,000-656,000 lbs). Northwest requires only the lowest weight for nearly all markets, roughly comparable to the A330. The net result to Northwest is that the 777 is more than 41,000 pounds heavier than the A330 yet provides minimal additional revenue capacity.

The heavier weight of the 777 translates directly into a fuel burn penalty. On a typical 3,500 nm mission, the A330 burns approximately 28% less fuel than a DC-10-30; accounting for its higher seating capacity, it burns 35% less on a per seat basis. The much heavier 777 burns approximately 16% more fuel than the A330 on a per trip basis, and 6% more on a per seat basis.

Questions have arisen about the cruise speed of the A330, largely due to issues surrounding the cruise speed of the A340. NW intends to operate the A330 at a cruise speed of Mach 0.82. This speed corresponds to the aircraft's LRC (long range cruise) Mach number for most gross weight/altitude combinations. While the published cruise speed of the A340 is Mach 0.82, our analysis substantiates the experience of line pilots that certain operators fly slower to avoid excessive fuel burn. Airbus has implicitly recognised the cruise speed issue with the "first generation" A340's by redesigning the wing on the A340-500 and -600.

757/767 DC10-30 A330 777/747-200
Cruise speed .80 .82 .82 .84

As shown in the table, the A33's cruise speed is slower than the 777, but it is consistent with our DC-10-30 and faster than other aircraft operating across the Atlantic. The cruise speed differences between the 777 and A330 equates to a trip length difference of approximately 10 minutes on a typical Atlantic mission. It may be interesting to note that Northwest negotiated stringent, comprehensive contractual commitments from Airbus to ensure the A330 will meet our performance expectations both at the time of deliver and for several years thereafter. This is a requirement we make of airframe/engine manufacturers, including Boeing. The performance level of the new 757-300's has a similar level of protection. Our agreement with Airbus also provides us with mission flexibility we could not achieve with Boeing. The Airbus agreement is structured to allow us to take delivery of other members of the A330 family if our requirements change over time. A shorter member of the A330 family, the A330-200, has 257 seats in the Northwest configuration. It has approximately 900 nm more range than the A330-300. This added flexibility to tailor capacity to market requirements not offered by the 777 since Boeing was unwilling to formally offer a smaller, lower priced version of the 777.

In summary, the excess capacity of the 777 leads to operating economics inferior to the A330. This situation is further degraded when the notably higher purchase price of the 777 is factored into the analysis. The marginal improvement in revenue the 777's size offers simply cannot overcome its increased operating and ownership costs. Our Atlantic replacement decision does not mean that the 777 will be excluded from future aircraft competitions. The longer-range version of the 777-200 and 777-300 will be evaluated against the A340-500 and A340-600 when we begin the 747-200-replacement analysis.

Atlantic Range requirements for NW
- The range capability of the A330 family is a better match for NW requirements than the 777-200ER
-Markets with capability to carry 302 pax, plus at least 20,000 lbs. cargo in both directions: BOS-AMS, DTW-AMS, DTW-CDG, DTW-LGW, DTW-LHR, EWR-AWM, IAD-AMS, JFK-AMS, MSP-LGW, MSP-LHR

Pacific Range Requirements for NW
- The range capability of the PW4090 powered 777-20ER is insufficient to be considered as a suitable replacement for the Pacific

-----

Original thread (Credit to XFSUgimpLB41X for posting this originally)
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/510560/4/


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Marinus Bergsma
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Willem Honders



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Carsten Blümel
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Marinus Bergsma



Regards
CROSSWIND


User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13745 posts, RR: 19
Reply 8, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4931 times:

Did ConcordeBoy just champion the Airbus Industrie A330 aircraft?!  Wow! I'm shocked.


Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineRoberta From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4927 times:

This info was posted by someone else weeks ago, I hope this to be useful for this topic.
Cheers!!


you might have noticed he was being totally baised. the 333 has a longer range than the 777a.

The Boeing will have a huge range advantage 3.5% difference, huge!!!!!



User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4906 times:

Did ConcordeBoy just champion the Airbus Industrie A330 aircraft?! I'm shocked.

Um, why?

[Edited 2004-03-21 21:27:39]

User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4884 times:

Wow, great article Crosswind. It really proves how different Northwest route network is from the other North American majors. They operated the 747 when United put theirs in storage, and they chose the A330 over the 777 for their medium/heavy long haul when nearly every other carrier in North America went with the Triple-7. Not that the 777 isn't an amazing aircraft, Northwest just doesn't have the typical network that the 777 was built for.

If an airline is operating a 772ER on a transatlantic flight, since the plane won't be flying the max range, the airline is able to carry more payload right? And how great could that difference in extra payload be when compared to an A333 flying it's almost full range? I hope I asked this clearly.

I think the reason the A330 was a better fit for Northwest was the fact that their hubs are further north (Minneapolis and Detroit) than say DFW, ORD, DEN, LAX, MIA, or JFK. When an American Airlines 777 leaves DFW for LHR, it must cross a good part of the U.S. before going transatlantic. Thus, the 2000nm of extra range 777s have are necessary. Northwest does not need this range, so the lighter A330 was more economical. I'm not a 100% sure of this, can anyone verify this?

And yes, the 777's larger cross-section and heavier MTOW allow more cargo to be carried on shorter flights. I think I'm the 3rd person to say this, but look at CX.  Big grin

Your sign-off makes you sound like a teenage boy... oh I just looked at your profile, sorry.

What does it matter if he sounds like an 8 year old boy? All he did was ask a question, so I'm not going to be the one who stops him from learning something new. He didn't start a NWA DC-9 replacement thread, so cool it....

Regards,
DRevolution


User currently offlinePhollingsworth From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 825 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4817 times:

Crosswind:

Thanks for reposting the article, it lends a good incite into NW's decision making criteria. It seems to me that the primary reason that the A333 won out, on performance criteria, at NW was that:
1. They had pre-decided that Pratt would supply the powerplants. PWs on B772ERs are a relatively poor choice, but they are still within their sweat spot for the A333.
2. They didn't think they could fill the 777s in a manner to make them truly usable.

The second criteria is a good one, but the first one almost guarantees that a less optimal and potentially less robust choice will be made. Overall I think the A333 is a good aircraft, works well in its niche.

Back to Pilling it higher and Deeper


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4780 times:

About cargo capasity two LD3 fit in smoothly side by side, on the 777 : the same with a lot a space left. Lenght is more import the cross section ...

User currently offlineQantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 25
Reply 14, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4747 times:

AM772,

I'm sorry, but the info you provided (via whoever else it was) is quite un-objective. The 777 is this, the 777 is that...where are the hard facts? At the very least, I've read in QF press releases and "Australian Aviation" articles that the 330/340 family is overall actually much more efficient (fuel-burn-wise) than 777s...
At any rate, they're both fine! They've sold fairly equal amounts, and are both great aircraft IMHO. Some airlines prefer 330s/340s, some prefer 777s...

If I read a funny Airbus joke knocking Boeing I'd be more than happy to put it in my profile.

Alright, how about "If you plan to end up rowing, go take a Boeing. For absolutely no fuss, go take a 'bus." Okay okay, it's corny, I know...

Cheers,
QantasA332


User currently offlineRjpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4732 times:

Thanks for posting the great article Crosswind. It clears up all my questions about that topic.

And somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but that article seems to imply that cargo isn't a huge issue for NW across the Atlantic. They seem to care more about the pax configs and lowest operating costs, rather than the additional revenue cargo could bring.

I do resent the implication that I sound like an 8 year old boy. And I'm only a few years younger than you DFWRevolution  Smile If you are going to judge every person on A.net on the basis of some of the things they say............


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 16, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4622 times:

And somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but that article seems to imply that cargo isn't a huge issue for NW across the Atlantic. They seem to care more about the pax configs and lowest operating costs, rather than the additional revenue cargo could bring.

They want to carry 20t of cargo, that's a LARGE uplift for transatlantic routes.

N


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...
Could AA Use A 777-300 On Any Routes? posted Fri Oct 13 2006 02:23:33 by JAM747
SQ's 773ER's On Which Routes? posted Sat Aug 19 2006 11:41:44 by Deaphen
Air Canada-new planes on which routes posted Mon Aug 14 2006 01:55:40 by B752OS
How Do They Fill Up Widebodies On Domestic Routes? posted Tue Aug 1 2006 04:57:12 by BizJet
Wide Body Jets On Short Routes In The 1980's posted Thu Jun 29 2006 03:54:20 by Eastern1985
QR & LH On US-routes posted Mon Jun 5 2006 00:41:15 by Stylo777
AA A300's On Transatlantic Routes posted Sun Apr 30 2006 02:39:27 by WorldTraveler
BY/TOM757's On L-Haul Routes! posted Thu Apr 20 2006 13:20:48 by Timetable
On What Routes Does AirTran Use Their 737's? posted Thu Jan 19 2006 01:44:04 by MainRunway
Exorbitant Air Fares On Some Routes! Too Much! posted Thu Dec 22 2005 20:45:31 by RootsAir