Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787-9 Vs. A330-300  
User currently offlineea772lr From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Posted (4 years 7 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 26355 times:

Everyone knows that Boeing has decided to stick with the 60m (197ft) wingspan that the -8 has. And dimensionally the -9 is very similar to the A330-300. The 789 is less than a meter shorter. I've been reading some posts here that the -9 will now be more of a A333 competitor. But I don't believe this to be so. For starters, the 789 has an additional 32,000lbs of MTOW capability, and combined with the more efficient engines has an additional 2400-2900nm of range. Though the 789 can nicely replace the A333, it will offer more payload and more range. I have seen no downgrade in payload or range for the 789 even with the reduction in wingspan. The 789 with current specs should pack much more performance than the A333. I am wondering however if Boeing will offer a 789 with an increased MTOW, perhaps around 260,000kg, with an increase in wingspan back out to 63m (~206ft) to better compete with the A358.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/787-9prod.html
http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfam.../a330a340/a330-300/specifications/


We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
110 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15745 posts, RR: 27
Reply 1, posted (4 years 7 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 26319 times:

Quoting ea772lr (Thread starter):
But I don't believe this to be so.

And you would be right.

Quoting ea772lr (Thread starter):
I am wondering however if Boeing will offer a 789 with an increased MTOW, perhaps around 260,000kg, with an increase in wingspan back out to 63m (~206ft) to better compete with the A358.

Maybe, well down the road. As I was mentioning in the other thread, I am a proponent of a 787-10, even though it would probably involve a lot of effort. It could replace the 772 and allow either the Y3 or 777NG to be focused more towards the upper end of the size spectrum. I also like the idea of trying to get the most out of development costs by using some of the new 787-10 bits (like the wing) to make a 787-9LR, much like what happened with the 777. But I would expect this ~2020 at the earliest.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (4 years 7 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 26301 times:

it's a bit shorter, but when most airlines stuff theirs to 3-3-3, the seating capacity isn't that far off from each other.

User currently onlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10045 posts, RR: 96
Reply 3, posted (4 years 7 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 25636 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ea772lr (Thread starter):
For starters, the 789 has an additional 32,000lbs of MTOW capability

It does indeed, and will be a far more capable aircraft.
Ironically, though, the extra weight and capability means the operating cost difference between an A330-300 and a 787-9 will be a fair bit less than the cost difference between an A330-200 and the 787-8 (the 787-8 being lighter than the A330-200), on routes of a length of which the A330-300 IS capable.

Bear in mind that only about 30% to 40% of operating costs are fuel based.

Rgds


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31011 posts, RR: 86
Reply 4, posted (4 years 7 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 25510 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The closest Airbus competitor in terms of performance and capability (sans airports with "extreme" ambient temperatures and/or altitudes) when the 787-9 was launched was the A340-300.

That being said, I expect the 787-9 will become a legitimate A330-300 replacement option since it can comfortably perform all those missions plus fly farther, if desired.


User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1361 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (4 years 7 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 25393 times:

The -9 will undoubtedly soundly beat the current -300 on long routes. However, as mentioned by another poster, on shorter (6-10 hour) routes, due to its lower weight the -300 might have a slight edge.

With the majority of long-haul routes being more in the 6-10 than 11-15 hour bracket, it would be foolish to write off the -300 just yet. Besides, Airbus might still be able to wring a bit more out of the -300, even with the present version delivering stellar performance; it has effectively put the 777-200 A model out of business. It wasn't always so, the -300 has come a long way since original EIS.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31011 posts, RR: 86
Reply 6, posted (4 years 7 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 25231 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 5):
However, as mentioned by another poster, on shorter (6-10 hour) routes, due to its lower weight the -300 might have a slight edge.

It might not end up being appreciably lighter - perhaps by only a few tons at "OEM OEW".


User currently onlinejrfspa320 From Australia, joined Sep 2005, 245 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 7 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 25188 times:

The premium airlines will surely only fit 8 abreast in Y?
And then they have less of a payload advantage over the 333.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31011 posts, RR: 86
Reply 8, posted (4 years 7 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 25035 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jrfspa320 (Reply 7):
The premium airlines will surely only fit 8 abreast in Y?

I would not be surprised if most carriers planning 8-abreast in 2004-2007 are now planning 9-abreast and using 8-abreast in a premium Economy cabin.

Though, if Premium Economy is the new Business Class, then perhaps we will see seven-abreast in PE and eight in Economy, with Business at six-abreast.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (4 years 7 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 23128 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 5):
The -9 will undoubtedly soundly beat the current -300 on long routes. However, as mentioned by another poster, on shorter (6-10 hour) routes, due to its lower weight the -300 might have a slight edge.

With the majority of long-haul routes being more in the 6-10 than 11-15 hour bracket, it would be foolish to write off the -300 just yet

I tend to notice that the people saying the 787 will be uncompetitive on 6-10 hour routes are the same ones who make grand predictions of a clean-sheet "mid-ranged" widebody. IMO, they are choosing to see what they want to see in order to justify said fantasy.

Every indication tells me the 787 will excel on mid-ranged routes. Namely, we know that airlines have ordered the 787 specifically for use on their short/medium-haul networks. Why would they wait longer for a more technologically risky aircraft if they felt it would be less competitive than an A333?

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 5):
Besides, Airbus might still be able to wring a bit more out of the -300, even with the present version delivering stellar performance; it has effectively put the 777-200 A model out of business.

The 772ER did that 10+ years ago.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
It might not end up being appreciably lighter - perhaps by only a few tons at "OEM
OEW".

And if everyone thinks the lightest aircraft is more fuel efficient on shorter routes, how short would you have to fly a DC-10-30 to burn less fuel than an A330-300? It seems counter-intuitive, but new-generation aircraft are often a bit heavier than the gas guzzlers they replace.


User currently onlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10045 posts, RR: 96
Reply 10, posted (4 years 7 months 2 days ago) and read 22677 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
It might not end up being appreciably lighter - perhaps by only a few tons at "OEM OEW".

Agreed. My thought process ran more along the lines that the rated MTOW as n impact on Landing Fees and Navigation fees, which, according to the cost breakdown contained in Airbus's 2007 GMF, cost at least as much as the maintenance of the aircraft throughout its life..

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 9):
I tend to notice that the people saying the 787 will be uncompetitive on 6-10 hour rou

Note that I was careful to say "the gap will be closer". For me the 787-9 will always be more competitive. However, a combination of lead times and real acquisition costs make still make an A330-300 a feasible purchase for some airlines for quite some time.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 9):
but new-generation aircraft are often a bit heavier than the gas guzzlers they replace.

Absolutely!   

Rgds


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19732 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (4 years 7 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 21782 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 5):
The -9 will undoubtedly soundly beat the current -300 on long routes. However, as mentioned by another poster, on shorter (6-10 hour) routes, due to its lower weight the -300 might have a slight edge.

It shouldn't. The -300 may have lower weight, but lower cargo capacity.


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4397 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (4 years 7 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 21725 times:

Quoting ea772lr (Thread starter):
I am wondering however if Boeing will offer a 789 with an increased MTOW, perhaps around 260,000kg, with an increase in wingspan back out to 63m (~206ft) to better compete with the A358.

Which would kill the 772ER and the 772LR, leaving the 77W alone on the production lines - enough to keep these alive?

So such a decision only makes sense if Boeing acknowledges the 772 to be dead - or it kills it.

On 789 vs A333, no need for an A vs B war - airlines who want an aircraft in 2017 will do a clean sheet calculation of the costs over the time they plan to use it, including all costs, and some will come out with A and others with B and for some the difference will be so small that the purchase price will decide ( they all will claim this to be the decisive factor, for sure ). So they are good competitors with different application profiles, I expect the A330 to remain the queen over the Atlantic and the 789 will be the queen over the Pacific.


User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 13, posted (4 years 7 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 21649 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 9):
The 772ER did that 10+ years ago.

That's debateble. For example, NW specifically ordered the a333 instead of the 772ER because of the lower fuel consumption and lower weight of the a333 vs the 772ER. If the range of the 772ER is not needed, the a333 is a better choice, again one of the reasons is the far lower weight. Sales wise, the a333 has also sold about as much as the 772ER (426 for the a333 and 435 for the 772ER) and as we have seen, the a333 is still selling pretty well. That will probably change when the 789 enters service IMHO. For the record, the 772 has sold 88 and the 772LR has sold 56 (but that's more of a competitor to the a345 with 35 units sold).

Quoting astuteman (Reply 10):
Note that I was careful to say "the gap will be closer". For me the 787-9 will always be more competitive.

No doubt, or else the 789 will be a massive failure. And it won't be. As others mentioned, I also expect the 789 to be the best seller of the 787 family in the end, due to it's advantage in CASM and structural efficiency vs the 788 (and a358).

Quoting astuteman (Reply 10):
However, a combination of lead times and real acquisition costs make still make an A330-300 a feasible purchase for some airlines for quite some time.

Indeed, the a330 is paid for, so Airbus will be more inclined to offer big discounts from the list price.



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlinewouwout From Netherlands, joined Dec 2007, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 7 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 20966 times:

Generally speaking a newer aircraft (or other type of machinery, car, computer, cell phone) is better than the older competitor. So yes I suppose the 787-9 should be better.

More interesting, in my opinion, is that it's not that much better as it could have been, if you consider the age difference.


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1587 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (4 years 7 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 20648 times:

There is no debate (I believe) that the 789 will proove to be a better plane than the 333 long term.The stellar 332 and 333 sales at present have much to do withthe huge delays in the 787 project as a whole.

Those buying the latest and best 333's with increased range and better engines etc will no doubt be happy with their purchases as they will be earning revenue from them earlier than they could a 789.

When it comes down to a straight decision (ie you can get 2 aircraft at the same time) isn't a fairer comparison the 358? (or 9?). I have no idea how this stacks up but sales of both aircraft suggest that this is the big decision for future orders. (ie delivery 5 plus years out from now).


User currently offlineFrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1615 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (4 years 7 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 20389 times:

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 12):
Quoting ea772lr (Thread starter):
I am wondering however if Boeing will offer a 789 with an increased MTOW, perhaps around 260,000kg, with an increase in wingspan back out to 63m (~206ft) to better compete with the A358.

Which would kill the 772ER and the 772LR, leaving the 77W alone on the production lines - enough to keep these alive?

The 772ER is already close to being dead and buried. The last airlines to order it were BA and NH, but these could very well be the last delivered of that type. The 77L was a niche plane and will remain so, even with a higher MTOW 789. But as Stich mentioned in another thread, there is not much more than about 5t to play with since the current 789 is pretty close to its limits. I don't think there soon will be another 772 sized airplane that can carry a maximum load 7500NM, maybe a rumoured A359R, but we'll have to see what the A350-1000 can do first (since the A359R would apparently be a A350-1000 shrink).

Quoting Kappel (Reply 13):
Quoting astuteman (Reply 10):
However, a combination of lead times and real acquisition costs make still make an A330-300 a feasible purchase for some airlines for quite some time.

Indeed, the a330 is paid for, so Airbus will be more inclined to offer big discounts from the list price.

Even bigger than they already do?   
Still, the 789 may be cheaper to manufacture, so that could offset some of the higher development costs of the 789.



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 17, posted (4 years 7 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 20191 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
I would not be surprised if most carriers planning 8-abreast in 2004-2007 are now planning 9-abreast and using 8-abreast in a premium Economy cabin.

Though, if Premium Economy is the new Business Class, then perhaps we will see seven-abreast in PE and eight in Economy, with Business at six-abreast.

Sounds a bit like the constant revaluation/devaluation of university degrees!!! The original business class concept from about when, 1984 or 85 seemed a bit more realistic than the present overelaborate "performances".

Quoting astuteman (Reply 10):
For me the 787-9 will always be more competitive. However, a combination of lead times and real acquisition costs make still make an A330-300 a feasible purchase for some airlines for quite some time.
Quoting Kappel (Reply 13):
Indeed, the a330 is paid for, so Airbus will be more inclined to offer big discounts from the list price.

Naughty Frigatebird!!

Probably more like paid for twice than just paid for. The interesting thing will be how ongoing construction costs on an old style Al plane end up comparing with those for the plastic fantastics.

Both A and B are probably hoping quite well as they admire their backlogs on the NBs that keep them afloat.

Along the same lines, one fixed cost that the A33x have and that will NOT be amortised is the royalty, it would be highly amusing if one result of the WTO complaints were to be that this payment were to be deemed illegal. Airbus would laugh all the way to the bank. Their parent governments probably would not although they would see the joke.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 12):
I expect the A330 to remain the queen over the Atlantic and the 789 will be the queen over the Pacific.

Probably about right, except do not forget that there is probably more around the edge of the Pacific than across it, and there too the A330 might have less of a disadvantage or even a plain advantage, esp if A decide to excavate some of their older plans. The A350 has less to fear from an improved A333 than does the 787???

[Edited 2010-02-24 03:16:16]

User currently onlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10045 posts, RR: 96
Reply 18, posted (4 years 7 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 19888 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting wouwout (Reply 14):
More interesting, in my opinion, is that it's not that much better as it could have been, if you consider the age difference.

I'm not convinced that that is necessarily correct.

I think the "shortfall" you describe is driven more by "expectation" than actual fundamental engineering principles.

In other words, the 787 is, or at least will be, (pretty much) every bit as good as it should be. But in the process, it is also showing that the A330 was in fact a far better competitor than the hype would have had us believe.

Subtle perhaps, but it's the difference between "applauding the A330" and "criticising the 787". My inclination is to the former.

The 787 will almost certainly be the great plane it's supposed to be IMO.

Rgds


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4739 posts, RR: 39
Reply 19, posted (4 years 7 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 19666 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 9):
It seems counter-intuitive, but new-generation aircraft are often a bit heavier than the gas guzzlers they replace.

But the term "gas guzzler" is relative to the technological standard of today, and tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow,..... To call the A330 a gas guzzler now is a bit unfair. And 10 years ago it was (and to an extend still is) state of the art, also when it comes to the point of relative fuel consumption.  

Quoting astuteman (Reply 10):
For me the 787-9 will always be more competitive. However, a combination of lead times and real acquisition costs make still make an A330-300 a feasible purchase for some airlines for quite some time.

I think the current backlog of the A330 documents this quite well. No doubt over time the B787 and the A350 will take more new orders (and both have already so many  ), but the A330 will continue to sell quite well for quite a number of years imho.  
Quoting Kappel (Reply 13):
o doubt, or else the 789 will be a massive failure. And it won't be. As others mentioned, I also expect the 789 to be the best seller of the 787 family in the end, due to it's advantage in CASM and structural efficiency vs the 788 (and a358).

Totally agree, also I expect the B789 will be the bestseller of the family.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 17):
long the same lines, one fixed cost that the A33x have and that will NOT be amortised is the royalty, it would be highly amusing if one result of the WTO complaints were to be that this payment were to be deemed illegal. Airbus would laugh all the way to the bank. Their parent governments probably would not although they would see the joke.

Now wouldn't that be something? But I do not expect this result to come out of the two WTO cases which are going on at present (US vs. EU and EU vs. US).

Quoting astuteman (Reply 18):
I think the "shortfall" you describe is driven more by "expectation" than actual fundamental engineering principles.

The thought of shortfall might be driven by the marketing hype from 2005-2008 or so. Engineering wise the B787 is the plane it should be, and was intended to be. The marketeers envisioned probably something else, but they do not have to develop and build the plane. So they have a much easier task imho.  
Quoting astuteman (Reply 18):
Subtle perhaps, but it's the difference between "applauding the A330" and "criticising the 787". My inclination is to the former.

The 787 will almost certainly be the great plane it's supposed to be IMO.

For sure it will be. Not the real game changer, but a very healthy step in the ongoing evolution of airplanes, just as the A350-XWB will proof to be.  


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 20, posted (4 years 7 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 18947 times:

Quoting parapente (Reply 15):
Those buying the latest and best 333's with increased range and better engines etc will no doubt be happy with their purchases as they will be earning revenue from them earlier than they could a 789.

  

Quoting astuteman (Reply 18):

In other words, the 787 is, or at least will be, (pretty much) every bit as good as it should be. But in the process, it is also showing that the A330 was in fact a far better competitor than the hype would have had us believe.

  


..that is what I think we'll be seeing with the B77W versus the A350-1000XWB..where acquisition costs, availability, etc. will give the B77W the edge-but eventually that edge will simply go away..and I think Boeing knows that and will address it.

While everyone has their choice for carriers, manufactures, etc, I'm often    as to how one's personal views and bias clouds their judgment, especially here on A.net.



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8384 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (4 years 7 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 18691 times:

Quoting ea772lr (Thread starter):
For starters, the 789 has an additional 32,000lbs of MTOW capability, and combined with the more efficient engines has an additional 2400-2900nm of range.

So what if you don't need the range? You'd be carrying all that extra weight for something you don't need and you still have to wait a few long years for it. For a lot of airlines, mainly those who don't need the extra range of the 789, the A333 and 789 are very much competitors which is why the A333 has soundly outsold the 789 since its introduction.


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8374 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (4 years 7 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 18321 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ea772lr (Thread starter):
For starters, the 789 has an additional 32,000lbs of MTOW capability, and combined with the more efficient engines has an additional 2400-2900nm of range.

The major difference in the 787-9 and A330 is range, at its purist. Other differences are the 787 is new, the A330 is coming up on its 20th birthday. The A330 has progressed as we would expect it to and effectively killed the 763ER for Boeing. A comparison between te 787-9 and an A340-300 would be more "apples to apples" since the range then is closer but the A340-300 is not as efficient as the A330-300. Its a generational thing.


User currently onlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10045 posts, RR: 96
Reply 23, posted (4 years 7 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 18005 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 20):
..that is what I think we'll be seeing with the B77W versus the A350-1000XWB..where acquisition costs, availability, etc. will give the B77W the edge-but eventually that edge will simply go away..and I think Boeing knows that and will address it.

  

I see no reason why the experience should be any different  

Rgds


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (4 years 7 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 17788 times:

Quoting Kappel (Reply 13):
That's debateble. For example, NW specifically ordered the a333 instead of the 772ER because of the lower fuel consumption and lower weight of the a333 vs the 772ER.

It's not debatable that the 772A stopped selling before the A333's performance grew into the aircraft we know today. The 772A stopped selling the moment airlines could pay 5,000 lbs more in empty weight and get 97,000 lbs more take-off weight. Even carriers like SQ who would fly their 777 on regional routes went ahead and bought the 772ER and then paper de-rated them to 772A weights.


25 brilondon : 787-anything would soundly beat the A330-anything due to its advanced features and really is not a valid comparison. You would really have to compare
26 Post contains images ea772lr : Not hardly. The 789 will carry more payload than the A333 all day. It's a bigger plane with a heavier MTOW. It should. Then stuff it full of more car
27 RJ111 : That's certainly a change of tune from "The A333 doesn't compete with the 772ER only the A343 and the 772ER is pwning the A343 2 to 1" from back in t
28 Stitch : "Back in the day", it was probably more true. But as the A330-300 has added MTOW and reduced SFC, it's been able to eat into the 777-200ER's market j
29 jfk777 : 6-14 hours cover 99% of the 3-class mid to long haul routes in the world. A 789 is a long haul planes for even 16-18 hour flights, the A330 is clearl
30 airbazar : Then why has the A330-anything outsold the 787-anything over the last couple of years? The 787 although an improvement, is not the radical leap that
31 astuteman : Well, one out of two ain't bad. It's got a heavier MTOW but it's not bigger than the A330-300. Based on cabin area, the A333 is actually a fraction b
32 EPA001 : This is only half true I suppose. The A340-300 was quite competitive against the original B777, although in the end lost out in sales to it. The A330
33 Post contains images ea772lr : For a variety of reasons, but I honestly doubt that it is due to how the 789 will perform. If that is the case, then Boeing needs to pack up and forg
34 N328KF : This defies logic. The 787 sold by leaps and bounds, and only faced a small number (relative to its order book) of cancelations. Many of the A330 sal
35 Stitch : And you feel that availability has not played any role in that? The 787-9 will not enter service for another three years and has an order backlog of
36 brilondon : Well I suggest that the 787 is not in production yet, and the A330 is. Some airlines have used the A330 as a stopgap until their backlogged order for
37 PolymerPlane : Which poster? as of current, the OEW between the -9 and A330-300 is very similar, depending on which numbers you believe. originally the -9 would've
38 jfk777 : There many reasons why 787-9 airlines, Virgin Atlantic, have ordered A333's, those reasons have nothing to do with 787's. VA's reason is they have A3
39 astuteman : Agree. Agree again. I was referring really to the point that the 787-9's Nav/landing fees are likely to be higher than the A333's whereas the 787-8's
40 Stitch : We should also remember that an airline would always have the option of certifying their 787-9s at an MTOW below 247 tons if they intend to operate it
41 Post contains images airbazar : I wouldn't say they fudged it. Now don't twist my words by generalizing such a statement towards the entire 787 line. I mean it is essentially a stre
42 N328KF : This statement here shows how little you know about the product you're discussing. The 787-9 has some major changes from the 787-8. Just look at the
43 BMI727 : I'm pretty sure that in the other thread a Boeing employee said the exact opposite. No, but it will be the longest range member of the family. Unless
44 ea772lr : Obviously you haven't read BoeEngr's (who works on the 787 program) comments on that...in his words: It's not just a 'stretch' with more weight and m
45 Post contains images EPA001 : If you only need the capacity, and not the full range, this question is not important when it comes to sold copies of the A333 or the B789. In the en
46 Post contains images JamBrain : Wiki had these -8 to -9 changes as 20 t more MTOW for only 5 t OEW, it's interesting to note that the A330 has 5 t OEW increase between 332 and 333 w
47 Stitch : It's unfortunate Airbus does not break out historical orders to find out just how many A330-300s Airbus has sold between 2004 and 2009. They have sol
48 Post contains images BMI727 : In which case the airlines will probably be more than happy to either "misuse" their 787s or more likely just soldier on with their 767s or A330s for
49 BoeEngr : Thanks for the shout out. And I still stand by the comment. I am a little uncertain as to how much of this information is public knowledge, so I don'
50 BMI727 : This is pretty much in line with my expectations. Hopefully now we can put the "-9 has a range shortfall" rumors to rest. Considering that we are tal
51 Post contains images PW100 : Maybe, that because they really really fudged the 788 . . .
52 BoeEngr : Or maybe because we can make a great plane even better? If we can fudge up the 788 and sell them by the hundreds, well, then I'm hoping we can fudge
53 Post contains images ea772lr : Cheers to that. I really think the 789 has the potential to become a very popular plane. Able to replace the A333/A343/772/77E. I think the 789 is in
54 PW100 : Well, mostly they [788] were sold before the fudgy things popped up. Anyway, just poking around. I have no doubt whatsoever that the 788 and 789 will
55 Stitch : And that most of them are still on the books might be a sign that the fudge is not so distasteful...
56 Post contains links LAXDESI : A while back I had compared the A333 to B789 in a thread on the technical forum. My numbers are a little outdated as B789 has undergone some change in
57 Baroque : no doubt the 789 will be a great plane when it arrives, but presumably it will arrive at about its present specs. By that time, the A333 might have i
58 astuteman : I get fairly near that. At that figure, operating cost difference should be in the 5% - 6% range in favour of the 789 Rgds
59 Baroque : ???And a smidge the other way if the comparison is with the 788? But then again, that is current 333 against the projected 789 which is when 2014?? H
60 LAXDESI : The one thing I would like to point out is that A333(8-abreast) does not compare as well to a 9-abreast B789. I think A358 will eventually replace th
61 Post contains images Asiaflyer : Great comment. More people here should do so, myself included. Looking forward to more of your input BoeEngr.
62 Post contains images astuteman : If my own experience on A-net is anything to go by, people like yourself, who have a close involvement in the business, and understand the intense co
63 Post contains images EPA001 : Well we know there are even now still some improvements on their way for the A330. But to be fair, I expect the B789 also to improve over time. The f
64 Packsonflight : I always saw the 783 as a bit of a problem child for Boeing. Initially it was planned because the early launch customers wanted it, the big Japanease
65 BoeEngr : Thanks Asiaflyer. Thanks astuteman. So far I'm really enjoying this!
66 OldAeroGuy : Are you forgetting the 777F? Correct. Re-rating MTOW/MLW to minimize takeoff/landing fees has become a fine art, particulary with the low cost carrie
67 nomadd22 : Originally, one of the 787s greatest advantages was suppose to be production costs. I'd really like to see a comparison of capital outlays for equipme
68 Post contains images Jacobin777 : I agree... .....and I meant "manufacturers" not "manufactures"....
69 Post contains images Hamlet69 : 2004 - 23 2005 - 15 2006 - 26 2007 - 38 2008 - 47 2009 - 18 It should be noted that these orders are the original, gross orders of the model per year
70 olle : While the biggest difference of A330 vs B789 will be range how do B789 vs A358 becomes in range and usage of fuel? As I understand it A358 will get lp
71 astuteman : Increasing the weights of the A350-800 will have had a small impact on fuel burn, as has the decision to equip the 787-9 with a smaller wing. Their f
72 Post contains images Stitch : I'll take it. So A330-300 gross sales: 2004 - 23 2005 - 15 2006 - 26 2007 - 38 2008 - 47 2009 - 18 Cumulative Total: 167 Compared to 787-9 gross sale
73 Post contains images EPA001 : A very well balanced view Stitch and it is exactly the way how I see it as well. More and more the next generation of planes (B787 & A350) will t
74 Post contains images astuteman : I don't think we should take those figures as 100% representative of the ultimate quality of the aircraft. An A333 is available to a client airline a
75 JoeCanuck : What is the backlog for the 333?
76 Stitch : It stands at 132 at the moment. They delivered 28 in 2008 and 18 last year, so figure with an average of say 3 a month (since A332s and A340s also ro
77 JoeCanuck : So there really isn't that much of a difference in the wait time for a 333 and a 789 anymore. It'll be interesting to see how sales go this year.
78 JerseyFlyer : Also the A340-NG took a VERY long time from initial design (1996?) to EIS (2003?) considering it was a derivative. Had it reached EIS 2 or 3 years ea
79 Post contains images EPA001 : True, but the EIS of the -600 version was in August 2002 with VS. The -500 version entered service (or was delivered to) Emirates in December 2002. T
80 aircellist : Ignorant I am, so please no unneeded flak, but I have a question: You say that, from the 772A to the 772ER, there are 5,000 lbs more empty weight, bu
81 Stitch : Both.
82 astuteman : Er, hang on a minute. 2013 is the MAXIMUM wait for an A333. I bet you could get one next year if you really wanted. 787-9's don't even START to be de
83 Daysleeper : Although I don’t think I have seen any official Boeing figures breaking down the 20% running cost reduction, many have reported that the engines al
84 EPA001 : I believe in the Boeing campaigns the 20% number referred to the comparison of the B787 with the larger versions of the B767. That is very likely to
85 astuteman : I don't think so. Having based my numbers on the typical operating cost breakdown that is in the Airbus 2007 GMF (so there's the first assumtion buil
86 aircellist : Impressing! I believe someone in another thread already stated that this is somehow a testament to the design of the original A300. I concour. (Ten l
87 tdscanuck : No. This was the whole basis of the original A350 concept, was which soundly rejected by the market. Tom.
88 Post contains images EPA001 : Well, they sold almost 200 copies of that initial A350 and that was before the surge in A330 sales we have seen lately, so it was not rejectly so sou
89 Post contains images astuteman : I have to say, that had Airbus persevered with the A330-based A350, I suspect that it would have proved to be far from "rejected". That appelation (v
90 JoeCanuck : Still, I reckon that customers might be more inclined to wait for the 789 now that testing and production seems to be moving along. I'm not suggestin
91 trex8 : its a 20% reduction in fuel burn, just over a half is due to engines themselves, the rest split equally between better aerodynamics, lower weight fro
92 Stitch : It is true the A350 secured close to 200 orders, but it is also true that a number of "major" customers like QF and SQ selected the 787 over the A350
93 EA772LR : This is certainly true, but: and Airbus would have completely left the 77L/77W market to Boeing. It was smart for Airbus to go for the 300-350 seat m
94 Stitch : Well A350XWB-800 customers do have an advantage that 787-8 customers do not in that the larger A350XWB-900 model will be released beforehand. So wors
95 parapente : Re the above 3 posts.I agree.Once Boeing had committed to an extensive overhaul of the 744 to the 748 clearly Y3 was dead and a rewinged 777 would be
96 Post contains images Jacobin777 : To sum it up: The A330's are fantastic planes and the B787 and A350XWB [i]will[/b] be fantastic planes.. I agree here, but I do think the A30XWB is th
97 Post contains images lightsaber : Interesting how the original A350 concept always crops up on 789 vs. A333 threads. I would have loved to have seen an improved A333, but the drastic i
98 Post contains images WAH64D : It will certainly excel on mid-ranged routes, the question is whether the price/performance gap will be big enough for airlines whose sole long-haul
99 LAXDESI : It will be interesting to see if the production costs(variable costs) of B788 turn out to be substantially lower, say 20%, than that of A332. Does an
100 Stitch : I'd think the beancounters would like the idea of a plane that burned less fuel and maintained a higher residual value thanks to being a strong perfo
101 Post contains images astuteman : Well you'll get no argument from me on that point, as I agree wholeheartedly. On A-net of course, one naturally excludes the A380 from being similarl
102 Baroque : There is a bright side to that (no doubt correct) maths and that is even if it turns out to be much more expensive to build barrels (or panels come t
103 LAXDESI : Do the composites yield at least 5% reduction in production cost? It has been said that the assembly for composites will be significantly faster?
104 Post contains images mandala499 : I do find it funny to find a relatively heated discussion on planes whose operating figures (and structural weight limitations) have not come out yet!
105 Daysleeper : Might be going a little of topic here; but a few have said that as soon as the 787 delivery’s start then A330 orders will dry up. I was browsing Air
106 Stitch : The A380 is only the latest knife in the heart of the 747-400. The A340-600 hobbled it to allow the 777-300ER to catch it and slit it's throat. In th
107 Post contains images Daysleeper : Makes sense, thanks. I know the A340 was designed to take on early 747s, but the way the 600 is talked about on here you wouldnt credit it with anyth
108 Stitch : If the 777-300ER has not come to market, A340-600 sales would be at least two to three times they are now. Pretty much across the board, a new A340-6
109 Post contains images astuteman : I don't know. But I'm a manufacturing engineer of long standing, and the overall cost of a production system can behave in peculiar fashion. We were
110 JerseyFlyer : Agreed - basically an acknowledgement that the A340NG could not compete with the B777NG. When Airbus proposed their original A350 they expected to tr
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...
AirAsia X Boeing 777-300ER Vs A330-300 Selection posted Sat Jan 6 2007 00:39:18 by Keesje
Airbus 330-200 VS A330-300 posted Mon Jun 5 2006 21:11:02 by YULYMX
Lufthansa A340-300 Vs A330-300 posted Sun Dec 4 2005 15:44:17 by Columba
A330-300 Vs A340-300? posted Fri Apr 9 2004 16:41:21 by Mindscape
RR Powered A330-300 Vs A340-300 posted Tue Jan 6 2004 10:23:30 by Asianguy767
A330-300 vs. 767-400 posted Fri Dec 4 1998 08:22:53 by United777
767-200/300 Vs A330-200/300 posted Sat Nov 21 1998 21:26:03 by jr
Swiss New A330-300: When Are The Remaining Due? posted Sun Feb 7 2010 09:27:01 by Airlineanorak
Why Is AB Using A330-300 On TXL-NUE? posted Thu Jan 21 2010 01:00:07 by Tobias2702
DL A330-300 Routes posted Sat Jan 16 2010 01:05:51 by Jackbr
Updated 767 400 VS A330-300 posted Fri Feb 16 2007 15:45:13 by Africawings
AirAsia X Boeing 777-300ER Vs A330-300 Selection posted Sat Jan 6 2007 00:39:18 by Keesje
Airbus 330-200 VS A330-300 posted Mon Jun 5 2006 21:11:02 by YULYMX
Lufthansa A340-300 Vs A330-300 posted Sun Dec 4 2005 15:44:17 by Columba
787-10 Back On The Table As Answer To A330-300 posted Mon Dec 20 2010 11:45:03 by dtw9
A330-300 Vs A340-300? posted Fri Apr 9 2004 16:41:21 by Mindscape
RR Powered A330-300 Vs A340-300 posted Tue Jan 6 2004 10:23:30 by Asianguy767
A330-300 vs. 767-400 posted Fri Dec 4 1998 08:22:53 by United777