Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption  
User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Posted (8 years 10 months 1 week ago) and read 118585 times:

A346 vs 748 and 773ER

Airbus A340-600

Fuel Capacity: 54,023 US Gallons
Range: 7,900 Nautical Miles
3 Class PAX Capacity: 380

Gallons/Mile = 6.84
Gallons/PassengerMile = .01798

Boeing 747-8

Fuel Capacity: 60,125 US Gallons
Range: 8,000 Nautical Miles
3 Class PAX Capacity: 450

Gallons/Mile: 7.52
Gallons/PassengerMile: .0167

Boeing 777-300ER

Fuel Capacity: 47,890 US Gallons
Range: 7,880 Nautical Miles
3 Class PAX Capacity: 365

Gallons/Mile: 6.077
Gallons/Passenger Mile: .01665

Both 747-8 and 777-300 get nearly 10 percent better fuel consumption per passenger mile than A340-600. Why is this?


Airbus A330-200 vs. Boeing 767-400ER

A330-200
Fuel Capacity: 36,750 Gallons
Range: 6,750 Nautical Miles
3 Class Pax capacity: 253

Gallons/Mile = 5.44
Gallons/PassengerMile: .0215

B767-400ER
Fuel Capacity: 23,980 US Gallons
Range: 5,645 Nautical Miles
3 Class Pax Capacity: 245

Gallons/Mile 4.25
Gallons/PassengerMile: .0173

767-400ER is almost 20% more fuel efficient than Airbus A330-200

Airbus A320 vs. Boeing 737-800

A320
Fuel Capacity: 7,835 US Gallons
Range: 3,050 Nautical Miles
2 Class Pax Capacity: 150

Gallons/Mile: 2.569
Gallons/PassengerMile: .0171

B737-800
Fuel Capacity; 6,875 US Gallons
Range: 3,060 Nautical Miles
2 Class Pax Capacity: 162

Gallons/Mile: 2.246
Gallons/PassengerMile: .01387

Boeing's 737-800 is almost 20% more fuel efficient per passenger/mile than airbus' A320.

Anyone have an idea why Airbus' aircraft are less efficient?


"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
69 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week ago) and read 118562 times:

The A320 is not 20% less efficient than a 737-800. Period. AVITAS rates them too close to call last time I checked.

The 767-400ER is more fuel efficient than an A330-200 because they're not even in the same league in terms of payload/range capability. Much like the 737-900ER and A321 will be much more efficient than a 757, but doesn't do much good if you're leaving people and cargo on the ramp.

The 747-8 doesn't even exist yet. Arguably, a plane to fly in 2009 should be much more efficient.

N


User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2821 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 118547 times:

How have you chosen those numbers? Have you consulted the payload-range charts?

User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 118535 times:

The 738 might, hence the *might*, be slightly more fuel efficient than the A320, but this has to do with the fact that it is lighter (smaller cross-section=less weight). However it is no where even close to 20% more efficient than the A320, Airbus wouldn't sell very many A320s if they were 20% less efficient. The order book speaks for itself on this issue. That difference that you have is like a 787 vs. a 767.

User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 118501 times:

Poitin linked a fuel consumption comparison by LH in an other thread.

I can't find it now, but perhaps he would be so kind to re-post the link  Smile

But those are just for LH used aircraft, so not the A320 vs. 737-8 for instance.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 118467 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Thread starter):
Both 747-8 and 777-300 get nearly 10 percent better fuel consumption per passenger mile than A340-600. Why is this?

In response to the A346 re: 748 and 773ER, the main culprit is structural weight. The A340 (-500/600) are much heavier than their respective 777LR counterparts.

This has less to do with engine configuration than design philosophy. Boeing optimized the 777-200A for heavier MTOW while Airbus optimized the A333/A343 for mid-range opperations. When Airbus developed the A340 "NG," they had to reinforce more structures than Boeing, and had to stretch the narrower fuselage longer than the wider 777. Boeing reached their desired MTOW with less dramatic re-engineering.

Note that: (1) the A333 is much lighter than the 772A, (2) Airbus was able to develop a shrink variant (A332) while Boeing was unable to shrink the 777, but (3) the A340NG is much heavier than the 777LR.

Also, the 747-800 is arguably the most structurally efficent 747 ever. Boeing internal studies from the 747-X (late 90s) showed that a 1-2 meter stretch would result in the most volume/capacity per structural lb than any other length. This is the exact amount taken by Boeing with the 748 stretch.


User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 118437 times:

Oh boy - I have a feeling that this thread is going to be a bloodbath...

Thank you, DFWevolution and FLYdreamliner for such comprehensive information.

Math is not my forte. Perhaps you can elaborate, FLY, on how the statistics indicate a 20% difference in fuel consumption between the 737 and 320. The 320's success would indicate that such a huge difference seems unlikely.

But I know I will follow this thread with interest...

Quoting Glom (Reply 2):
How have you chosen those numbers? Have you consulted the payload-range charts?



Quoting Gigneil (Reply 1):
The A320 is not 20% less efficient than a 737-800. Period. AVITAS rates them too close to call last time I checked.

What is AVITAS?



I come in peace
User currently offlineMarcoT From Italy, joined May 2005, 253 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 118408 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Thread starter):

B737-800
Fuel Capacity; 6,875 US Gallons
Range: 3,060 Nautical Miles
2 Class Pax Capacity: 162

Gallons/Mile: 2.246
Gallons/PassengerMile: .01387

Boeing's 737-800 is almost 20% more fuel efficient per passenger/mile than airbus' A320.

Anyone have an idea why Airbus' aircraft are less efficient?

No, because it is simply not true.

Instead we have an idea why you think so...
CLUE: fuel consumption IS NOT given by the ratio of maximum fuel capacity to max range...

Marco



Too short space for my favorite hopelessly long winded one liner
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 118392 times:

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 6):
What is AVITAS?

http://www.avitas.com/

Aviation firm specializing in aircraft valuation, consulting, inspection, etc.

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 6):
Perhaps you can elaborate, FLY, on how the statistics indicate a 20% difference in fuel consumption between the 737 and 320.

20% delta in SFC between the A320 and 738 is just not possible. If anything, it's probably single digit (2-3%) favor of the 737NG on account of lighter OEW/Seat and AVP Blended Winglets package. It really is close.

Gigneil is right, in many cases, the 737NG and A320 are so closely matched that the deciding factor can come down to a non-performance datum like finance terms and delivery slots.

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 6):
The 320's success would indicate that such a huge difference seems unlikely.

The A320's recent order surge (2003-2005) is due in large part to a highly aggressive sales team and a speculative decision to boost production in 2001-2002. That has paid off big time, giving Airbus the ability to offer all sorts of delivery schedules and financing terms that knocked Boeing on their rear a few years in a row.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31440 posts, RR: 85
Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 118392 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Of course those figures calculate maximum fuel volume being carried and the plane flying it's maximum distance with maximum passenger load (as defined by Airbus and Boeing, and not the customer). Essentially, they're just hypotheticals based on numbers that don't translate to how these planes are used by customers in "real" configurations and operations.

User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3398 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 118318 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Thread starter):
Boeing's 737-800 is almost 20% more fuel efficient per passenger/mile than airbus' A320.

You didn't give the source of this information. Could you point me to the right page on the Boeing website, please?


User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 118253 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 8):
The A320's recent order surge (2003-2005) is due in large part to a highly aggressive sales team and a speculative decision to boost production in 2001-2002. That has paid off big time, giving Airbus the ability to offer all sorts of delivery schedules and financing terms that knocked Boeing on their rear a few years in a row.

That's very interesting. It's facinating to me that Boeing would fall behind for these reasons, as opposed to having an inferior aircraft. How can they let this happen?



I come in peace
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 118173 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 5):
In response to the A346 re: 748 and 773ER, the main culprit is structural weight. The A340 (-500/600) are much heavier than their respective 777LR counterparts.

It has been suggested that there is a much greater drag penalty that is reflected in cruise thrust requirements than would be expected due to just increased OEW.

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 11):
That's very interesting. It's facinating to me that Boeing would fall behind for these reasons, as opposed to having an inferior aircraft. How can they let this happen?

Perhaps you have heard of 9/11, an event that more severely impacted Boeing's customers and caused Boeing to retrench a great deal.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 118161 times:

I'm using data from www.boeing.com and www.airbus.com. You can say whatever you'd like, I never talked about payload, i simply showed what the per mile consumption for each aircraft was, and what the per seat mile consumption was, assuming every seat was full.

A320 came out years before 73G. The A320 is way better than 737 Classic. Their continued sales show that a lot of people like fleet commonality.

I was just posting numbers I found strange, not making any statements, I just wanted to know if people had explanations for these numbers. I wasn't trying to start an A vs. B debate.



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 118116 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 13):
I'm using data from www.boeing.com and www.airbus.com. You can say whatever you'd like, I never talked about payload, i simply showed what the per mile consumption for each aircraft was, and what the per seat mile consumption was, assuming every seat was full.

Quoted range does not equal range with a maxed out fuel capacity. Trade offs between revenue payload weight and fuel weight to stay under maximum take off weight limits usually mean for a weight limited aircraft that the fuel tanks won't be filled at the design payload, thus less fuel will be used than maximum fuel capacity. The ranges you provide are for design payloads, not payload after fuel capacity is maxed out.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1607 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 118105 times:

I think the fundamental problem with comparing fuel consumption this way is that it does not take into account each companies philosophy with regard to payload range.

Airbus generally have more tankage than Boeing. This often gives them a greater range, but at a payload no-one would want to operate at on a regular basis. Boeing on the other hand limit tankage to the lowest likely payload that a customer is likely to want to use on a regular basis.

Put another way, with a typical payload if you fill the tanks on an Airbus you will probably go overweight, but on a Boeing you will probably be at about MTOW.

Thr Airbus philosophy probably gives more flexibility because you can sacrifice more payload for range, but in normal day to day ops I doubt it makes much difference.

This is a generalisation from memory, but I beleive it is the underlying reason why you can't compare fuel consumption the way the original poster has done.

Ruscoe


User currently offlineMarcoT From Italy, joined May 2005, 253 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 118015 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 13):

I'm using data from www.boeing.com and www.airbus.com. You can say whatever you'd like, I never talked about payload, i simply showed what the per mile consumption for each aircraft was, and what the per seat mile consumption was, assuming every seat was full.

The problem is that, when you divide _max fuel capacity_ by _max range with full pax_ for obtaining 'mile consumption' for each aircraft, you are also assuming (without realizing it) that max range with full pax is achieved taking off with the fuel tanks completely full, which is simply not true. In most cases doing so you'll end above MTOW ...

Instead you _should_ talk about payload.

Usually manufacturers claims something like 'max range with a payload of X tonnes -corresponding to a full load of N passengers and baggages- is Y nm'.
So, if you know the MTOW and the OEW (Operating Empty Weight) you can then calculate the _weight_ of the fuel used as MTOW - (OEW + X), and dividing by the (average) fuel density you obtain the quantity in litres/gallons whatever.

A couple of warnings:

First, the figures given are usually assuming standard fuel reserves. So if you use this data for calculating 'liters/km' you'll end up with an higher value than in reality, and short range aircraft are penalized proportionally more...
Also, for doing accurate comparison, you should investigate how much 'standard' reserves are standard...

Second, the OEW used by the manufacturers are the lightest they can get by. In airline service it really depends on the cabin furnitures and the various amenities installed. This should be kept in mind when doing comparison between different arlines and/or the manufacturers figures...



Too short space for my favorite hopelessly long winded one liner
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2821 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 117953 times:

Your best bet, if you really want to go down this road, is to consult a bunch of payload-charts, picking the point with max fuel payload and work from there.

For example, going for the answer we already knew, looking at the 777 (source).

777-200LR
At maximum payload for full fuel, the ZFW will be ~408klb for a range of ~9350NM. The figures they used to reach these values are OEW of 320klb and max fuel capacity of 320.9lkb. Due to this, we may assume that the payload carried by 408lkb, is 88klb. It is carrying 88lkb over a distance of 9350NM using 321klb (yeah okay this includes reserves and stuff but what are you going to do?).

So, the fuel burn is 0.00039 lb fuel per lb payload per mile.

Now I can't find the charts for the A345. They used to be on the Airbus website, but they've taken them away (too embarassing probably).


User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1607 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 117932 times:

Quoting Glom (Reply 17):
Now I can't find the charts for the A345

I've found the same problem. Have got current Payloqad/Range Charts for the 380, can you provide a link to any others.

Like yourself I found charts for 345/6 on the Airbus site probably 2 years ago now but they have since disappeared.

Ruscoe


User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 117883 times:

Quoting Glom (Reply 17):Now I can't find the charts for the A345


Ruscoe[/quote] I've found the same problem. Have got current Payloqad/Range Charts for the 380, can you provide a link to any others.

Like yourself I found charts for 345/6 on the Airbus site probably 2 years ago now but they have since disappeared.

Hmmm. Something is rotton in Denmark (um, ok, France)



I come in peace
User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 117231 times:

Widebodyphotog has provided the data need to answer questions on this topic in numerous charts on mission comparison analysis over the past 6-months.
Do a search under username for Widebodyphotog and you will find reams of material. You will probably have to go to the archives .Select the appropriate ones and bookmark them for reference.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 116627 times:

Andrew Miller, chief executive of the Center for Asia Pacific Aviation, a consultancy based in Sydney:

the A320 was slightly more fuel efficient than the 737 - by less than 5 percent.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...420AP_AS_FIN_Airbus_vs_Boeing.html

About the 747-8 - A380 comparisons : the trick is in the far fetched seatcount assumptions: just pick out two extreme configurations and everything works out as desired. Seems Boeing takes some truly amazing assumptions here, a delta of just 92 seats.. http://www.airliners.net/discussions...general_aviation/read.main/2622571


User currently offlineKangar From Ireland, joined Feb 2000, 395 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 116593 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 13):
I'm using data from www.boeing.com and www.airbus.com. You can say whatever you'd like, I never talked about payload, i simply showed what the per mile consumption for each aircraft was, and what the per seat mile consumption was, assuming every seat was full.

The trouble with these numbers is that you have to factor in overall payload to get a clear picture of what's what. Also, bear in mind that the carrier's stated seat counts may not be necessarily be what is used in practice. Just calculating the fuel consumption based off the seat count and the max fuel capacity doesn't give you an accurate figure, simply because, 1. it doesn't reflect real world operation, and 2, the manufacturers stated ranges are not based off carrying just a planeload of people with no luggage/cargo.


User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2821 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 116572 times:

Quoting Kangar (Reply 22):
Just calculating the fuel consumption based off the seat count and the max fuel capacity doesn't give you an accurate figure, simply because, 1. it doesn't reflect real world operation, and 2, the manufacturers stated ranges are not based off carrying just a planeload of people with no luggage/cargo.

Not to mention that, for example, the A345 at max fuel can carry all but a boy and his dog. When loaded with the stated passenger count, it won't be carrying nearly as much fuel.


User currently offlineMarcoT From Italy, joined May 2005, 253 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 10 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 116503 times:

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 18):

Like yourself I found charts for 345/6 on the Airbus site probably 2 years ago now but they have since disappeared.

They were still there, for all models, as late as last summer. They get lost in the process when they later completely redesigned the interface of the section.

Some nice detailed technical info, though not payload range charts, could be found on Airbus professional portal, here:

http://www.content.airbusworld.com/S...ication_Register/html/home_cr.html

Unfortunately free access to full detailed technical documents, including Airplane Characteristics, Maintenance Facility Planning , Aircraft Recovery Manual, Aircraft Rescue & Firefighting Charts and Commercial Aircraft Design Characteristics, is available only to legitimate aviation professionals upon (free) registration.

http://www.airbusworld.com/portal/co...unity.asp?UserID=2&CommunityID=203

Since in the login page they use the adverb 'Currently', maybe with enough feedback they would consider making some of these documents available to the general public.
A good tactic could be mentioning that Boeing does so for the Airport Planning guides.
It should be noted though that this Boeing move is fairly recent (I think that the airport planning guides got available since somewhere in 2005) and for sure keeping them current is not a top priority for Boeing. For instance the currently available guides for the 777 still gives the highest MTOW of the 200ER at 286900 tonnes, and the maximum thrust engine options at 84700 lbs...



Too short space for my favorite hopelessly long winded one liner
25 Thorben : What a lame comparison. If you just take some passenger numbers, you won't get very far. I suggest you take max payload and then the max range with t
26 Aviator27 : This post is so grossly incorrect, I suggest it gets deleted. OMG you have to be kidding me. How did Flydreamliner come up with his numbers?
27 Glom : Actually, that's not a particularly good way of doing it either. You want to use max fuel payload and the range you get with that.
28 Starlionblue : No, because fuel is not payload. Also if you fill the tanks "to the filling caps" and take max pax you won't be able to take off because of MTOW rest
29 Glom : No, you miss understood me. By max fuel payload, I meant the maximum payload you can carry with max fuel, which is obviously much less than the maxim
30 Widebodyphotog : My comment here, and this buttreses some others, is that your assumptions of fuel burn are absolutely, fundamentally wrong. Fuel capacity has nothing
31 Post contains images Starlionblue : Ok I see now. And of course you are correct. As you say one of the fundamentals is that if you fill the tanks to the brim you're compromising on some
32 Johnny : @ FlyDreamliner What a bullshit! Sorry for that word, but WHO really needs such a discussion?!? Answer : NOBODY!!! My GOLF needs less fuel than the PA
33 PlaneDane : Why don't we all lighten up a bit here? Why not provide facts and data to show FlyDreamliner how these numbers should be calculated? Where is the inf
34 MarcoT : But it has been provided, and since the beginning. Look at the reply 3,7,14,16 for starting...
35 Kangar : It's a fair point, but I think a number of good pointers have been made as regards to what additional factors need to be considered. Getting your han
36 Post contains images Johnny : @ Planedate No, i do not agree with you.The point is not to appologize our posts, the point is that airliners.net users should NOT start a threads whi
37 SSTsomeday : I think healthy discourse about A vs B can be very interesting and informative, so long as it is done with respect and courtesy. After all, a competi
38 Gigneil : I'm actually for the most part impressed by the civility of this thread. N
39 Zeke : All you have shown is that any Boeing aircraft that was introduced after the Airbus competitor is more fiel efficent. Could I suggest you rerun you c
40 FlyDreamliner : Wow. You're really sort of unpleasant. Like I said in a previous post here, I didn't want to start some war between A and B. I myself am of the opini
41 N1120A : The 738 has a noticably lower raw CASM and it becomes lower as fuel prices go up Actually, the 738 is heavier, as it is the larger airplane. The 738
42 NAV20 : Personally I think it’s just a matter of evolution. Phase One:- In its early days, Airbus competed very successfully by identifying and filling gaps
43 SSTsomeday : On the contrary. I find that information very interesting, especially considering fuel prices these days. It sheds light on one reason why airlines m
44 PlaneDane : Very well written and thought out, NAV20. Thanks.
45 Post contains images NAV20 : SSTSomeday, you're quoting 'Johnny' in Post 32, not 'Flydreamliner' in 40! Hope there's still time to edit!   PS - Thanks, PlaneDane, you're welcome!
46 SSTsomeday : Thanks Nav20. And yes, excellent post. I'm about to write one myself about Boeing and Airbusk, a historical perspective which have led to present sal
47 FlyDreamliner : NAV20, I agree completely. I've been myself curious, because Airbus made their name with bold an innovative clean sheet designs, why they have been so
48 Monteycarlos : Hmm, counsult the thread title and re-think that one.
49 Post contains images Astuteman : The answer to that one is simple, FlyDreamliner - it means that a a large amount of the tooling, and in fact a lot of the interior components, are co
50 NorCal : Good post, I don't understand why so many people get defensive when someone suggests that Airbus cuts below Boeing's price. The fact of the matter is
51 Post contains links NAV20 : My feeling exactly, FlyDreamliner - except that I'd have said 'should', rather than 'could', in the last sentence. You may find this article interest
52 Astuteman : Many thanks, NorCal. I'll reiterate my concern that the trade-off balance may well be shifting, and what has been successful (and profitable) for Air
53 NorCal : Times change and so do companies, Personally I think Airbus could keep the A300 fues for the smaller planes like the A350, but when it comes time to
54 FlyDreamliner : They need to clean sheet re-design the A340. They'll have a competitive A330 replacement in A350, even if it is marginally behind 787 in terms of fuel
55 Starlionblue : First of all, please consider using paragraphs. That was very hard to read. �f the A340 weren't competitive, it wouldn't sell. So what if it's le
56 SSTsomeday : Great analysis, FlyDreamliner Based on fuel consumption and operating costs, with SIMILAR performance characteristics and serving similar markets, th
57 DAYflyer : Unfortunate, but true. Additionally the performance of said aircrafts in this thread should be rated more accurately on mission performance, which is
58 Starlionblue : The primary reason is not the number of engines. Airlines don't care about that per se apart from ETOPS costs. The primary reason is the cost of grea
59 Pavlin : I think the figures for 747-8 or too high and for A340-600(well known guzzler) to low. In this article they are almost the same. Expect at aleast 25%
60 Moparman : Based on the above data, and things like quality being equal - Why would anyone want to have Airbus aircraft? or yet even, God forbid, an Airbus fleet
61 Sebring : Rubbish. The above data is meaningless drivel. Comparing the seat/mile cost of a 320 to a 737-800 is flat out dumb. Comparing a 321 to a -800 might h
62 Post contains links A319XFW : There is one thread in Tech/Ops about A319/737-700 fuel burn without going into a A vs. B war.......... 737-700W Vs A319 Fuel Burn Differences (by Rsb
63 Areopagus : If so, is it really necessary to do it all in one go? Suppose they design an all-new black fuselage intended to hold them for the next 50 years, and
64 Prebennorholm : Right Johnny. But add to that two facts: 1. The 748i is based on a new engine technology which hasn't even turned one full circle yet. How many times
65 Moparman : Umm - NO!! You are completely wrong. Both of them are very similar - both of them have figures given in the same measurements. They not only CAN but
66 Moparman : And what exactly is your point? This is meaningless speculation. I do agree that it is not only possible, but likely infact. However, the same could
67 Andessmf : Umm - somewhat! I've seen very similar products that are very hard to compare because they are essentially similar but not equal. So the customer say
68 Post contains images MarcoT : Which 'data' are you speaking about? The 'figures' provided by the thread starters? Those figures are simply completely FALSE. The guy simply divided
69 Post contains images Johnny : @Prebennorholm "1. The 748i is based on a new engine technology which hasn't even turned one full circle yet. How many times have new engine technolog
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...
Airbus Vs Boeing: Fuel Efficiency posted Sat Nov 3 2001 07:54:12 by JU101
Airbus Vs Boeing Window Placement posted Wed May 19 2010 16:01:17 by GALLEYSTEW
Airbus Vs. Boeing Flaps posted Sat May 12 2007 02:59:05 by B777A340Fan
Airbus To Cut Fuel Consumption 50% By 2020 posted Wed Mar 28 2007 19:49:44 by BoomBoom
Airbus Vs Boeing Throttle Levers posted Tue Dec 5 2006 19:03:59 by Treeny
Forbes Airbus Vs Boeing posted Thu May 25 2006 19:59:50 by DAYflyer
Airbus Vs. Boeing Aircraft Cost posted Sat Oct 29 2005 19:10:01 by 737DAB320
Airbus Vs. Boeing At Farnborough: Seattle PI posted Wed Jul 14 2004 10:14:02 by United777
Airbus Vs. Boeing (WINDOWS) posted Tue Apr 27 2004 20:42:56 by Benjamin
Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets posted Wed Feb 4 2004 12:20:33 by United777
Airbus Vs Boeing Window Placement posted Wed May 19 2010 16:01:17 by GALLEYSTEW
Airbus Vs. Boeing Flaps posted Sat May 12 2007 02:59:05 by B777A340Fan
Airbus To Cut Fuel Consumption 50% By 2020 posted Wed Mar 28 2007 19:49:44 by BoomBoom
Airbus Vs Boeing Throttle Levers posted Tue Dec 5 2006 19:03:59 by Treeny
Forbes Airbus Vs Boeing posted Thu May 25 2006 19:59:50 by DAYflyer
Airbus Vs. Boeing Aircraft Cost posted Sat Oct 29 2005 19:10:01 by 737DAB320
Airbus Vs. Boeing At Farnborough: Seattle PI posted Wed Jul 14 2004 10:14:02 by United777
Airbus Vs. Boeing (WINDOWS) posted Tue Apr 27 2004 20:42:56 by Benjamin
Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets posted Wed Feb 4 2004 12:20:33 by United777
Airbus Vs Boeing: Fuel Efficiency posted Sat Nov 3 2001 07:54:12 by JU101
Airbus Vs Boeing Window Placement posted Wed May 19 2010 16:01:17 by GALLEYSTEW
Airbus Vs. Boeing Flaps posted Sat May 12 2007 02:59:05 by B777A340Fan
Airbus To Cut Fuel Consumption 50% By 2020 posted Wed Mar 28 2007 19:49:44 by BoomBoom
Airbus Vs Boeing Throttle Levers posted Tue Dec 5 2006 19:03:59 by Treeny
Forbes Airbus Vs Boeing posted Thu May 25 2006 19:59:50 by DAYflyer
Airbus Vs. Boeing Aircraft Cost posted Sat Oct 29 2005 19:10:01 by 737DAB320
Airbus Vs. Boeing At Farnborough: Seattle PI posted Wed Jul 14 2004 10:14:02 by United777
Airbus Vs. Boeing (WINDOWS) posted Tue Apr 27 2004 20:42:56 by Benjamin
Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets posted Wed Feb 4 2004 12:20:33 by United777
Airbus Vs Boeing: Fuel Efficiency posted Sat Nov 3 2001 07:54:12 by JU101
Airbus Vs Boeing Window Placement posted Wed May 19 2010 16:01:17 by GALLEYSTEW
Airbus Vs. Boeing Flaps posted Sat May 12 2007 02:59:05 by B777A340Fan
Airbus To Cut Fuel Consumption 50% By 2020 posted Wed Mar 28 2007 19:49:44 by BoomBoom
Airbus Vs Boeing Throttle Levers posted Tue Dec 5 2006 19:03:59 by Treeny
Forbes Airbus Vs Boeing posted Thu May 25 2006 19:59:50 by DAYflyer
Airbus Vs. Boeing Aircraft Cost posted Sat Oct 29 2005 19:10:01 by 737DAB320
Airbus Vs. Boeing At Farnborough: Seattle PI posted Wed Jul 14 2004 10:14:02 by United777
Airbus Vs. Boeing (WINDOWS) posted Tue Apr 27 2004 20:42:56 by Benjamin
Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets posted Wed Feb 4 2004 12:20:33 by United777