Crosswind From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 2592 posts, RR: 59 Posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2639 times:
Airbus is making a new offer to Kenya Airways for 3 A330-200 aircraft for the airline's future long-haul, high-capacity requirements. This represents a serious threat to the future of the longer range B767-400ERX, as Kenya Airways is the only customer for the aircraft.
Kenya Airways officials have in the last few weeks visited Toulouse for discussions with Airbus about the offer, but say they remain committed to the B767-400ERX, and are not actively looking for new offers.
Kenya Airways is believed to have been offered each B767-400ERX at $85 million (against list price of $120-132 million)
Airbus is now believed to be offering the A330-200 at $79 million (against list price of $120-125 million)
Obviously there may be some counter-offers here. For Airbus, they stand to retain Kenya Airways as a customer (already operating A310-300) and also severely set back the competing B767-400ERX programme, by taking the only orders for the plane.
Boeing will be working hard to keep Kenya Airways' order, to secure the future of a the B767-400ERX, and move Kenya Airways from a mixed Boeing/Airbus fleet to all Boeing.
There is a March 30 deadline that Kenya Airways must meet by informing Boeing of their engine choice, in order to avoid delays to the B767-400ERX. The airline will apparently go with the Rolls Royce Trent 600, because they don't want to lauch a new aircraft and a new engine (GP7172) into service at the same time.
While the future of the Kenya Airways B767 order looks fairly secure, I'm sure this will be causing some people in Seattle to be slightly uncomfortable. I think in the interests of retaining the Kenya Airways deal, Boeing will do almost anything to get them to stay with the B767-400ERX, which of course is only a good thing for Kenya Airways!
Just goes to demonstrate how competitive the commercial aircraft market is, and the lengths both Boeing and Airbus will go to, with deep discounts to get order, and to keep them...
BA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11150 posts, RR: 60 Reply 1, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2333 times:
Personnally I think the A330-200 is a better plane than the 767-400ER. I was somewhat disappointed in the 767-400ER's performance, although I still think its a glamorous aircraft. Either way, both are great. But I think the A330-200 is a better aircraft overall.
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
Travelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3379 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2316 times:
Exactly which aspect of the 767-400ER's performance were you disappointed with? In what way is the A330-200 a better aircraft? Do you know the specs of the 767-400ERX? How would you rate the 767-400ERX vs. the 767-400ER?
Since you seem to have this opinion, I am just wondering what you are basing it on.
Cwapilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1166 posts, RR: 18 Reply 3, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2310 times:
Note that we are talking about the 767-400ERX...not the 767-400ER. The 767-400ER is what is flying now, designed specifically according to airline (i.e. North American airlines replacing DC10/L1011 aircraft) requirements. It performs according to their requirements perfectly. The new 767-400ERX is built to fullfill longer range requirements. It has yet to fly.
Southside Irish...our two teams are the White Sox and whoever plays the Cubs!
King767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2163 times:
Man, you must know alot about Kenya Airways to make such a decision like that. You must be CEO of Kenya. QFA3XX, you say the same thing every time, "the Airbus suits them better than the Boeing". So, being the CEO, why don't you tell us why your company thinks the A332 suits them better?
-Tom(The King of the 767)
Notarzt From Germany, joined Dec 2000, 642 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2147 times:
I agree to you.
QantasA3XX & All,
Here's some info on the Longer-Range B767-400ER characteristics in comparison to the basic model B767-400ER:
- Seating for 245 passengers in three classes -- the same as the 767-400ER. A typical layout accommodates 20 first-class, 50 business-class and 175 economy-class seats.
- Maximum takeoff weight of 465,000 pounds (210,920 kg) -- an increase of 15,000 pounds (6,800 kg) more than the 767-400ER.
- Range of about 6,115 nautical miles (11,310 km). This represents an increase of 500 nautical (950 km) more than the 767-400ER.
- Improved takeoff field length. The longer-range 767-400ER needs just 9,650 feet (2,940 m) of runway.
- Higher thrust engines -- maximum thrust levels of 72,000 pounds (32,659 kg).
- Increased fuel volume without compromising cargo capacity. The longer-range 767-400ER has a total fuel capacity of 26,165 gallons (99,890 l) -- 2,185 gallons (8,269 l) more than the 767-400ER. The additional fuel is carried in the airplane's horizontal tail.
- Strengthened wing, fuselage and landing gear.
In addition to these capabilities, the longer-range 767-400ER joins the 767-400ER in offering superior economics. When compared to the Airbus A330-200, the longer-range 767-400ER carries the same number of passengers, but is estimated to provide three percent lower seat-mile costs, three percent lower trip costs and 8.4 percent lower fuel requirements. The longer-range 767-400ER also weighs an average of 36,000 pounds (16,300 kg) less than the A330-200. These economic and efficiency benefits provide operators with less risk than the competition.
The longer-range 767-400ER's capabilities make it the ideal airplane for many of the more mature 767-300ER routes on the North Atlantic and other high-density routes. With the longer-range 767-400ER, airlines gain 12 to 15 percent more capacity on established 767-300ER routes.
The longer-range 767-400ER also includes the new interior architecture first developed for the 767-400ER, which features the modern, award winning style of the 777 passenger cabin. In an independent survey, approximately 60 percent of passengers preferred flying the 767 versus the A330 on six-hour-plus flights.
The longer-range 767-400ER joins the 767-400ER in having greater cargo-revenue potential than competing A330-200s. Both 767-400 models have one more cargo pallet or 9.4 percent more unitized cargo volume than A330-200s.
Hope this helps to answer some of your questions (and also some of the wrong claims by the all-Airbus-freaks).
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13722 posts, RR: 20 Reply 9, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2126 times:
I don't think the A332 is a threat to the 767X. It just depends on which one's better of course. If the A332 is better then so be it and v.v. I think it's just comeptition. Of course Airbus would make an offfer to Kenya Airways. Why would they want to lose out on prospective orders? Same with Boeing. They wouldn't have just stood by when Airbus pitched their A380 to SIA would they?
WorldTraveller From Germany, joined Jun 1999, 624 posts, RR: 5 Reply 10, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2076 times:
"Hope this helps to answer some of your questions (and also some of the wrong claims by the all-Airbus-freaks)."
Sorry, but by just quoting exactly what the Boeing website says (claiming that the B767-400ERX is way better than A330-200) you don't contribute to a neutral discussion! It also implies you're not very neutral either...
Quoting manufacturers statements won't bring us very far...
Notarzt From Germany, joined Dec 2000, 642 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2046 times:
Hahaha, that's a good one! I am sure you hit someone's nerves!
Correct, I quoted the Boeing's current info on the Longer-Range Boeing 767-400ER. In fact (and in opposite to the ever-saying "I love Airbus" and "I love Boeing" people) I provided some up-to-date information currently available for this type of aircraft.
In opposite to Airbus, Boeing keeps quite "objective" on the comparison issue (note the inverted comma). It's my impression that Boeing just quotes the facts. On the other hand, Airbus prefers to attack the Boeing product by comparing their Airbus model in specific characteristics (of which they know they appear to be better than Boeing). No problem at all, but a slightly different way of "heading up" with the competition. Anyway, I prefer the "Boeing way" (which does not mean that I prefer the Boeing product generally). BTW, the Boeing info does not say "the Longer-Range Boeing 767-400ER is way better than the A330-200".
Someone asked about the Longer-Range B767-400ER's characteristics. I tried to provide something. Any problems?
Cwapilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1166 posts, RR: 18 Reply 13, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2047 times:
Where do you suggest we obtain performance specifications if not at the manufacturer's website? I am interested to find this resource...or does Airbus know more about Boeing's new 767 than Boeing itself...or, flipside, does Boeing know more about Airbus's new A380 than Airbus itself? I have not seen Airbus dispute any of the 764ERX performance claims. I have not seen Boeing dispute any of the A380's performance claims...they merely state that Airbus always compares their new products' performance to the older, non-competing Boeing product. And we should all know by now that cost comparisons are useless in that the manufacturers always compare on the basis of the type of operation and route that makes their product look better.
Southside Irish...our two teams are the White Sox and whoever plays the Cubs!
JumboClassic From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 315 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1959 times:
Do you really think Boeing is going to spend hundreds of millions to develop an aircraft (764ERX) for only ONE customer so far (Kenyan) and 3 (THREE) airplanes sold for $85M each???
And how come the 764 is more efficient and it has only one new customer (Kenyan for 3 A/C) since the launch of the A332?? Is the 332 not a real treat to the 767? I don't think so. In fact, it's actually killing it.
IMHO it's very wise for Kenyan to reconsider their commitment for long-haul aircraft since the chances of the 764ERX to be built are slim to none.
Magyar From Hungary, joined Feb 2000, 598 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1951 times:
Guys, the B767ERX maybe a magnificent aircraft but nobody
buys it (at least not yet). And it is a sort of the point of making
aircraft to be able to sell them.
Apart from this, I don't think it is a good sign if you have to
X your plane up before it basically enters into service. I mean
Boeing had to come up with the B767-400ERX almost
before the first B767-400 rolled out.
Eg777er From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 1834 posts, RR: 15 Reply 19, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1955 times:
Just a few words about Boeing's figures:
Thier capacity figures are based on the following - and I'll put Gulf Air's A332 spec next door -
a 60 inch pitch in F/class - Gulf Air has 85inches.
a 38 inch pitch in J/class - GF has 50.
So saying the 764 can carry the same is a lie - it carries significantly less. Putting 245 pax in an A332 is super luxurious - it's not in a 764.
And about 'that' survey - I've seen it myself - it was done in 1996 and only surveyed North Atlantic routes. So in 96, how many airlines were operating 763s over the pond (loads - AA, UA, BA, US, TW) and how many were operating A330s (1? 2?). Survey's bound to be biased against the A330 by sheer weight of numbers.
An example of the folly of placing your faith in any manufacturer's claims. To do so shows your stupidity.
CXA330-342 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 398 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1923 times:
With how many passengers can the A330-200 fly 6400 nautical miles? I read somewhere that it can fly 6650 nautical miles, although it will naturally carry a lesser load. If it can fly 6650 nautical miles with 245 or more passengers, it will fulfill the range requirements better. However, the financial state of the airline also affects choice, and the lower operating costs of the 767 come into play. I don't think I'm going to fly Kenya Airways in the future, so it doesn't matter to me what they choose. However, if I had my own airline, I would go for the A330 because it is my personal preference and due to other things not easily categorized. By the way Notarzt, the 8.4% lower fuel requirement, was that measured with both planes going their maximum range or with both planes going the same range. How much of that is due to the lower drag of the 767 because of its narrower fuselage? Thanks.
Notarzt From Germany, joined Dec 2000, 642 posts, RR: 1 Reply 22, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1889 times:
>By the way Notarzt, the 8.4% lower fuel requirement,
>was that measured with both planes going their maximum
>range or with both planes going the same range. How
>much of that is due to the lower drag of the 767 because
>of its narrower fuselage? Thanks.
Still, I am not a clairvoyant. The Longer-Range B767-400ER didn't take off so far, right?! So please feel free to contact Boeing for your questions. BTW, if the B767's (better) performance results from its fuselage's lower drag... well then, there its goes. The "how much comes from the drag" is of little interest, I assume.
WorldTraveller From Germany, joined Jun 1999, 624 posts, RR: 5 Reply 23, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1869 times:
"Airbus prefers to attack the Boeing product by comparing their Airbus model in specific characteristics (of which they know they appear to be better than Boeing)."
Sorry, but the Boeing info on the longer-range B764ER you quoted also only compares the B764 in certain characteristics to the A332.....and in a very biased way that makes it look like facts. If you apply the same seat pitch for both models, for example, the A332 carries more passengers. It can also hold more cargo overall, which the Boeing website doesn't mention either.
If I where an Boeing-basher I could also point out that the A332 is faster and that it is very important for me to arrive 15 minutes earlier at my destination (which of course is absolute bulls***, but Airbus-bashers always exploit on the fact that the A340 is sooooooo slow, if you know what I mean).
As you see, Boeing's website is far from objective either (same as Airbus').
"Someone asked about the Longer-Range B767-400ER's characteristics. I tried to provide something. Any problems?"
Not at all, but you could at least have mentioned that it's from Boeing.com and I would also only quote the bare facts (like range, cargo volume etc.) and not all the biased "interpretations" of the manufacturer.
DatamanA340 From South Korea, joined Dec 2000, 547 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1864 times:
Who will believe a 7 column seating airplane with 61m fuselage can carry same as 332, 8 columns and 59m fuselage? I don't know what airline operate 332 with 3-class configuration, but 332 MUST be bigger and so carry more.
According to 'Airliners Almanac' from Japan, 332 can fly 6400nm with 253 seats on 3 class. It's so little, but difinitely longer than 764 or 764X.
Well, Is C with 38-inch pitch really a C class?
25 Notarzt: WorldTraveller, Boeing definitely adopted the Airbus “I compare my product to yours and claim mine is better all the way” policy in some w
26 Eg777er: I didn't say the A332 in Y class had anything other than 32-inch pitch - I didn't mention Y class at all, only F & J! Gulf Air's A330-200s seat 12 in
27 Notarzt: Eg777er, The "greater success" of the A330-200 (to date)appears to be based on the Airbus' relatively long existence on the market. The Longer-Range B
28 F4N: To all: A few quick comments about website definitions of a product line(especially lines as complex and extensive as Airbus/Boeing). I've read some o
29 WorldTraveller: Dear all, I really have a problem saying that one aircraft is "better" than another one. I would never claim that the A340 for example is better than
30 BA: This is an interesting discussion.................
31 F4N: WorldTraveller: I agree with you wholeheartedly. In my limited experience with face to face negotiations for product/equipment purchases, I've often
32 WorldTraveller: F4N, I actually forgot many potential future B764 customers in my list, that's why I decided to look at all non-US-airlines which could be interested
33 Notarzt: WorldTraveller, Agree to you on ANA, JAL, and Britannia as potential B767-400 customers. I'd also vote for American and United in the US as well as Va
34 WorldTraveller: Notarzt, I have mixed feelings about Varig and LanChile and I'm really not sure if they will go for the B764. Varig is rumored to be looking at the A3
35 Eg777er: The size of the 767-400 is the plane's achillies heel. I am willing to bet that British Airways (among others) WILL NOT order the 764. Why? The 767-30
36 King767: Eg777er, Do you know how old it is to say: "Perhaps now people realise that the 332 is gaining orders and the 764 is actually loosing them...oh sorry,
37 King767: I could not help but notice you statement: "764 is actually loosing them", as in orders. How could the 764ER be loosing orders if no airline that has
38 RayChuang: I think people really forget that the 767-400ER was developed very cheaply, since the 767-400ER is primarily a 767-300ER with extra fuselage plugs, up
39 Eg777er: "Mabye if you took to thought that the A332 was introduced a few years ago, while the 764 is only months old! Can't you wait just a little bit, and gi
40 ILUV767: RayChuang Wrote: I think AA and UA may order the 764ER, configured in the "two class" configuration for use on USA transcon routes and flights to Hawa
41 Ap305: The a330-200 and the 767-400 are both superb all purpose airplanes.Imho they are more versatile than the 772 and a343.The 767-400 is at home on very s
42 Cruising: You said,"The other advantage the a332 has over the 764 is field-performence.By any calculation a mtow climbout on an a332 is going to be significantl
43 Tullamarine: World Traveller wrote that Boeing did not pitch 764 at AN/NZ on World Tour. This is partly correct. Whilst the fancy painted 764 didn't come to MEL or
44 Ap305: Cruising,I took two things into consideration when I said that the a332 has a better field performance than a 764.They are power to weight ratio and t
45 Cruising: Thanks, Ap305. I will also ask my friend who is working at Boeing. One of his resposibilities is competitive analysis. I don't know if he is busy or n
46 Raggi: Of the potential B 764ER and LR customers, I would also include Alitalia. Shifting to a long haul made up of 777s and 767s, they are in my opinion lik