220389 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4255 times:
While looking at the information at http://fly.to/rorders i stumbled on a 767-400 ER VS A330-200. It seems to me that the Airbus A330-200 is a better choice for airlines out there than the 767-400 ER. The takeoff weight is more that means that it can carry more stuff. The takeoff space needed is less than the 767 and the cubic cargo space is more than the 767-400 ER. There are alot more factors that shows that the Airbus A330-200 is far more advanced and economical than the Boeing 767-400-ER. BWIA happens to be looking at these to aircraft at the present time for replacing their L-1011 500's. They are also looking at the Airbus A340-300. I think that they will be making the right chioce by buying 4 A330-200. I know all of you out there say that BWIA is not getting Airbus aircraft, but they are getting Boeing aircraft. They probably will regrete getting the 767 if they do decide to purchase it.
Flyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4063 times:
Using the idea that bigger and longer range is better, are you telling me the 747 would be a much much much better purchase than the 737? I mean, it has 4x the range and 4x the capacity, so its 4x better, right? Ha. Aren't there are lots of other things to think about, such as... purchase price and actual need or range and capacity?
Hamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2687 posts, RR: 59 Reply 2, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4049 times:
Currently, the A330-200 is a better aircraft than the 767-400ER. Of that, there can be little debate. I would go so far as to say the A330-200 is the best aircraft Airbus has ever produced. However, I believe that the major shortcoming of the new '67 is not its size, but its range. That problem should be fixed with the introduction of the -400ERX, which will cut the range deficit in half. Remember, you must pay for the extra weight the Airbus carries, both in operational costs and airport fees. Smaller carriers (such as your example, BWIA) are more susceptible to these costs, and the 767-400ER becomes much more appealing. Also, the commonality with the rest of the 767 fleet (800+) adds another bonus.
Mlsrar From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1417 posts, RR: 9 Reply 3, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4033 times:
Without sounding like I'm entering on a tirade, as someone who tends to lean towards Boeing on most issues, I'm at a loss with this. Hamlet, I commend you for being large-minded enough to see the light in an alternative viewpoint. You're right, the 332 is a great aircraft. I'm aboard EI-ORD (330-300) practically weekly (ORD-DUB-ORD), and enjoy it. It's rather quiet, suited to it's operator and its route. That's the key in the schematics of choosing an aircraft.
Airbussians will flaunt the 330/340's tremendous cargo advantage over the 764. Well, in case those who have a noxious hatred for the truth, look at the figures. The 764, designed for intercontinental routes is a complementary aircraft. Its target market, and Mually's whole goal is to use it asa supplement to markets in demand for more pax capacity, not more cargo capacity. Charter carriers would be especially wise to its operating efficiency (4.22% advantage over A330s). A carrier, say ATA, operating their L1011-250s with 360 seats in 3-4-3 configs. Those gen.1 RB211s, three of them, a three-person crew, difficulty in maintenance, fuel consumption, MTOW in correlation to range. A 764, which, with a 32" pitch, far better than the cattle-car 30" 3-4-3 on their lockheeds currently could carry the same no. of pax, over a further distance for far less money in greater comfort! The Airbus, which is a fine aircraft, offers greater cargo capacity, longer range, and a higher price tag. A charter/sched. carrier such as ATA would be wiser for the miser to purchse a 764. The ATA case study is actually one of the hottest debates currently in the fleet=renewal arena. Along with NW. I hope to see a 777 roll on to MSP, but think a 340 donning the red-and-grey...love at 1st sight.
I mean, for the right price I’ll fight a lion. - Mike Tyson
Ruscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1474 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3999 times:
Something that all those people who said that the A340 is better than the 777 because it is narrower and doesn't have the extra seat, will now have to agree that the 767 is better than the A330 for the same reason.
I don't agree with this, but it is still the same argument.
Purdue Arrow From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1574 posts, RR: 8 Reply 5, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4001 times:
Actually, it's not the same argument... To those who say that the A-340 is better than the 777 because of the seating layout, the superiority comes from the fact that the A-30/340 has no "double-excuse me" seats - those that are two seats away from the aisle. Even though the A-330 has one more seat abreast than the 767, it doesn't have the double excuse me that is so despised by passengers.
UAL747-600 From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 564 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3978 times:
Seating layout is dictated by the airline. Some 777 operators have a 3-3-3 coach layout, some have 2-5-2. It depends on the airline.
With regards to the 2-3-2 business seating which Airbus makes such a fuss about, I would not mind being the middle seat there. It's really no different than having a window seat because you're 1 seat from the aisle.
TULLAMARINE From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1252 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3938 times:
That's funny UAL747-600. I've never had to fight for armrest space with a window before.
Regardless of whether the layout is 2-5-2 or 3-3-3, you are still stuck with a double excuse me layout. It just varies whether it is the window seat passengers doing it or the poor might stuck in the middle seat.
FlyBoeing From United States of America, joined May 2000, 866 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3925 times:
Don't forget that the 764 has a 777-like interior. I like it better than the one on A340s. It's got lots of overhead space and seems roomy. Passengers prefer it. It wins awards.
It also cuts down on cargo space (20% more on an A330-300) But the A330 is a generally larger airplane with a larger cross section (17' 4" vs 15' 4") carrying the same number of pax (253 vs. 245).
So of course the A333 will have longer range. And the effective range of both aircraft is limited by ETOPS limitations anyway, so the range difference is minor. I compare the range maps on both sites and they are the same.
So you've got one plane that hauls cargo better than another over essentially the same distance and with the same # of pax. It's cargo vs. pax. Plus, MIsrar noted an efficiency benefit and the parts commonality benefit. Heck, the planes use the same engines! Can anyone give a cost figure on 764 vs. A333?
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12166 posts, RR: 35 Reply 12, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3867 times:
Well, I have to say I've always been a 767 fan, but having flown on a Swissair 332 from Zurich to LHR, I have to say it's a very appealing aircraft. I know the 764 has the 777 style cabin, which I will admit is superb and very nicely crafted - and will make a major difference, so from a passenger viewpoint, there will be very little between them.
However, numbers speak for themselves; three 764 customers (and the third not being a very big one) and just remind me, how many 332 customers? I wish the 764 well, I really do, but it sure has its work cut out.
C172sb From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3864 times:
Both of these airplanes have there advantages and disadvantages. In the US market the A330 is not the choice of airlines, USAirways is the only US carrier flying the thing. If it wasn't for the unions, I bet you would see a few more airlines flying the A330. The unions will not allow cross qualification between the single aisle and widebody Airbus aircraft.
B777-200LR From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3848 times:
Hi , I have agreed that A330-200 is the better aircraft then the Boeing 767-400ER . AS BWIA operates mainly Boeing aircrafts , it is hard to tell whether they want to buy product from Boeing'rivals . But i love to see BWIA ordering the A330-200 . Good luck to Airbus , Hope to see the aircraft in BWIA new livery
UAL747-600 From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 564 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3829 times:
Well, I guess you don't fly on Airbus narrow-bodies which feature 3-3 and you probably won't like the future A3xx either, as I'm sure you know about the 3-4-3 seating downstairs. It must be very limiting to where you travel!!!! What will the Pro-Airbus spin be that week for those aircraft???
I guess we'll just see what happens this week at the FIA2000.
220389 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (13 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3796 times:
I really hope that BWIA will replace the L-1011's with Airbus A330-200's or A340-300's. The latest I heard is that they are in discussion with Celtic Airways and they are seriously considering the Airbus A340-300 as the replacement Aircraft.