Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus 332HGW And Boeing 787 - Comparable?  
User currently offlineTupolev160 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 13983 times:

Airbus states that its new version of the 332 is a competition that outmaches the first series of the 787 yet we've heard almost nothing about that aircraft. It was supposed to start being delivered in 2010. Any info on the real performance and whether it is a real match for the B787 or not? Thanks.

46 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 835 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 13661 times:

Quoting Tupolev160 (Thread starter):
Airbus states that its new version of the 332 is a competition that outmaches the first series of the 787 yet we've heard almost nothing about that aircraft. It was supposed to start being delivered in 2010. Any info on the real performance and whether it is a real match for the B787 or not? Thanks.

Where have you seen Airbus saying that?

I'd imagine that on the early frames there isn't the double digit percentage improvement that was expected, but given the 787 is 20 years newer then it should still have better fuel consumption despite being slightly over-weight.


User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 13619 times:

Well that's Airbus for you...

Korean Air was the first airline that took delivery of the A330HGW when the 787 was falling way behing schedule (they took delivery in 2010). A few month after, they renegotiated their commitment with Boeing for the 787 and as recently as last week they converted to the B789. According to Korean, the A330HGW (6 of them) are a stop-gap measure and will in term be replaced by the "more fuel efficient" B787-900.


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 835 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 13566 times:

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 2):
Well that's Airbus for you...

Is it? As I asked the OP where is the press release or statement where Airbus say the A330 HGW beats the 787?


User currently offlineTupolev160 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 13317 times:

Right - it contained no data => therefore i asked your opinon/knowledge on it, not to be asked as by children "where is the link, where is the link, where is the link" you can put it in your neck the link...oh God.   

User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 835 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 13198 times:

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 7):
Right - it contained no data => therefore i asked your opinon/knowledge on it, not to be asked as by children "where is the link, where is the link, where is the link" you can put it in your neck the link...oh God.

All I have done is point out that you were incorrect in your initial post. Airbus has NOT stated the A330HGW out-matches the early 787 therefore the entire basis of the thread is flawed.

If you just want comparative data for the 787 and A330 HGW, fair enough. Ask for that. There is no need to make false statements to encourage responses such “well that’s Airbus for you” As no, it isn’t Airbus at all.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9378 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 13070 times:

This thread is a bit vaguely worded. I believe the premise is that the A332 in its highest takeoff weight form will have more range than the first new build 787s. I don't think that the term outmatches is very appropriate. The low MTOW early build 787s have less range than the competitor they are trying to surpass.

This isn't surprising at all. It's relatively normal. The first 777 had less range than the DC10 that it was intended to replace. The 777 will have more range than the early build A350s.

The word outmatch implies some other criteria, which I don't think are applicable in this case, so I think that is what set off the confusion.

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 7):
Right - it contained no data => therefore i asked your opinon/knowledge on it, not to be asked as by children "where is the link, where is the link, where is the link" you can put it in your neck the link...oh God.

The forum rules require a link as it helps the discussion and reduces confusion. Next time you post, I'd suggest you include a reference when when stating facts, statistics or newsworthy bulletins,.

Quoting Tupolev160 (Thread starter):
Airbus states that its new version of the 332 is a competition that outmaches the first series of the 787 yet we've heard almost nothing about that aircraft. It was supposed to start being delivered in 2010. Any info on the real performance

The 238T A330-200s are being used regularly on transpacific routes. They open up smaller long haul routes and allow the A330 to operate routes that were previously the territory of the A340, 777 and 747.

A 5ton weight increase is great for airlines that need it, but isn't going to get a lot of press since it is impossible for the customer to know about it.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 13069 times:

Quoting Tupolev160 (Thread starter):
Airbus states that its new version of the 332 is a competition that outmaches the first series of the 787

Both Boeing and Airbus list the ranges capability of their passenger aircraft at "full passenger payload". This means every seat full, including passenger baggage, but with no revenue cargo. Also included will be assumptions about winds, reserve fuel, etc. There can be a little bit of gamesmanship on the part of both manufacturers in the analysis. Both manufacturers use a seat count is unrealistically high (which actually penalizes airplane range), but a passenger weight and baggage allowance which is unrealistically low (boosting range). The interior weights, winds, reserve fuel etc, also tend to be unrealistically favorable to the airplane for range.

For the reasons above, a simple statement of "our airplane flies 6,840nm and theirs 6,720nm" is really meaningless, unless they are also providing you with all the assumptions which are behind the numbers.

As for the airbus claim of more range, I would suspect the 238t A330-200 has more range than the first 20 787s produced. All other things being equal, those first 20 787s will carry 18,500 lbs less fuel than 787s built at line 21 or later. That's quite a bit of range the early 787s leave in the fuel truck.

The real fallacy of the Airbus statement is not in the range numbers, it is in the fact Airbus wants to compare the A330 they are offering for sale against the earliest of 787s, which is hardly what Boeing is out in the marketplace offering to airlines.

[Edited 2012-02-20 09:37:01]

[Edited 2012-02-20 09:37:40]

User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 542 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 13041 times:

Tupolev160, I guess we can fairly say that the A332 HGW and the current B787 have no comparison as the B787 continues to garner orders and the A332HGW is...(cooked). You could probably say that you answered your own question by knowing of the fact A is trying to extend the longevity of the A330 by offering the A330S to buffer the competition from the B787.

http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-...les-performances-de-son-a330-.html

Hello Fpetrutui, do you know how many other airlines ordered this version of A330 and how many were delivered?


User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 12825 times:

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 8):
Hello Fpetrutui, do you know how many other airlines ordered this version of A330 and how many were delivered?

I only know of Korean, but some of the features are also found in the F version. I do not think the HGW was a particular successful one when it comes to sales, its fuel burn is nowhere near where the 787 promised to be, especially the 787-900. In my opinion it was a stop-loss attempt to buy more time for the A350 (same as it is the A330S now). They are trying to keep Boeing to add more to the 800+ planes backlog for the 787.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9378 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 12771 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 7):
Both Boeing and Airbus list the ranges capability of their passenger aircraft at "full passenger payload". This means every seat full, including passenger baggage, but with no revenue cargo. Also included will be assumptions about winds, reserve fuel, etc.

That's not actually true. The maximum range quoted by Boeing is the range with full standard tanks at MTOW. This is not the same as range with full passenger payload. With full passenger payload, that's maximum operating range. The range quoted for exampe for the 777-300ER is 7930 nautical miles. If you look at the range vs payload charts, this is the second kink in the range payload curve which corresponds to full tanks and not a useful operating payload as the payload useable payload is far less than full passengers.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2654 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 12472 times:

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 9):
They are trying to keep Boeing to add more to the 800+ planes backlog for the 787.

And so far being pretty successful at it! Net orders for 330 / 787 in 2009: 45 / -59; in 2010: 60 / -4; in 2011: 81 / 13. Total for the last three years: 330: 186; 787: -50, for a difference of 236 units.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 12322 times:

The range of the 787 that Boeing has shared, what is it really? LN90?LN20? 8000nm is that with very few passengers?

8000nm seems to be the distance every modern widebody aims for? Why is this?


User currently offlineFlying Belgian From Belgium, joined Jun 2001, 2389 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 12271 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

One thing is sure, the 787 should have been serviceable since 2008, up to now only 3 frames have been delivered.

Meanwhile, the A330 soars. MSN 1300 is due to be delivered soon. And it remains by very far the best in its category.

Looking at the orders backlog, the A330 has still some arguments for a 20 years old lady...  



Life is great at 41.000 feet...
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9378 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 12255 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 12):


The range of the 787 that Boeing has shared, what is it really? LN90?LN20? 8000nm is that with very few passengers?

It is full tanks at MTOW, so the amount of payload differs drastically based on fuel quantity. In reality airplanes almost never dispatch with full tanks, so it is more of a theoretical limit. That is why outside a few outliers (like Copa long haul 737 flights), you never see an airline operating at maximum range. On the A330-200 the maximum range if calculated by Boeing's method would have no passengers at all on it since the airplane can't dispatch at full tanks because of the huge center tank. So comparing manufacturer numbers is hard. The A330-200IGW has 9,200nm if calculated like Boeing does for the 787.

[Edited 2012-02-20 12:31:59]


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineBEG2IAH From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 892 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 11834 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Flying Belgian (Reply 13):
One thing is sure, the 787 should have been serviceable since 2008, up to now only 3 frames have been delivered.

I bet you meant to say that 5 were delivered. I borrow the list from another thread: 787..only Three Deliveries Thus Far? (by HNL-Jack Feb 18 2012 in Civil Aviation)

L/N 8 - JA801A - 9/25/2011 - NH (ANA)
L/N 24 - JA802A - 10/13/2011 - NH (ANA)
L/N 31 - JA805A - 12/30/2011 - NH (ANA)
L/N 41 - JA807A - 1/12/2012 - NH (ANA)
L/N 9 - JA804A - 1/13/2012 - NH (ANA)


BEG2IAH

[Edited 2012-02-20 13:40:39]

[Edited 2012-02-20 14:30:34]


FAA killed the purpose of my old signature: Use of approved electronic devices is now permitted.
User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 542 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 11154 times:

Quoting Flying Belgian (Reply 13):

Upon further review... ANA has 5 in service. 787..only Three Deliveries Thus Far? (by HNL-Jack Feb 18 2012 in Civil Aviation) Also, do you agree in part that the success of the A330 was due to the nonavailability of the 787?   


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 835 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 10809 times:

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 16):
Also, do you agree in part that the success of the A330 was due to the nonavailability of the 787?

How can that be possible as the A330 existed before the 787? If we assume that Airlines actually needed a 787 sized aircraft and didn’t just order them because Boeing were selling them at narrow body prices then had the 787 not existed they would have bought the A330… So no, they bought the A330 because they needed them.


User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 542 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 10535 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 17):

I beg to differ on the basis of the obvious, nonavailability. Suppose I run a fleet of cargo ships and my fleet can handle my current volume. I anticipate more contracts for freight and my current vessels are good but there is a better newer styled vessel that I ordered a few years ago that is not on the market yet and my volume is increasing thus stretching my capacity. Do I wait and wait and wait on something that is uncertain?? Or do I accept what is available (Boeing or Airbus) to stop gap the delays with newer, delayed yet better overall vessel??   


User currently offlineHeeseokKoo From South Korea, joined Jan 2005, 612 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 10410 times:

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 2):
According to Korean, the A330HGW (6 of them) are a stop-gap measure and will in term be replaced by the "more fuel efficient" B787-900.

KE ordered first 6 HGW at early 2009, added 5 more at early 2010 (total 11) and started delivery from July 2010. After KE got 4 of them, in March 2011, KE converted 10 788 orders to 789 and deferred delivery from 2012/2013 to 2016. Yes, KE chose 332HGW as an alternative to the delaying 788, but it seems to me that KE satisfied with it and sort of replacing 788. For KE, 788 and 332HGW do similar mission with similar size, and 789 is little bit bigger than both (correct me if I'm wrong). 332HGW is doing what 788 would do - thin long hauls such as LAS, MEL, and soon NBO.

I don't recall Korean ever mentioned that 789 will replace 332HGW, although 789 may replace some of older 332s. There should be some reason behind the fact that only KE operates this type, though.


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4494 posts, RR: 14
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 9315 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting HeeseokKoo (Reply 19):
There should be some reason behind the fact that only KE operates this type, though.

Because most operators of a 233K A332 find it more than adequate already?? Lets face it, Japan to most of N America west coast can be done comfortably by a 233K A332 vis DL etc, Korea is just a little further making a few more tons TOW just that more useful. You need more than 5000nm and 250 pax against strong headwinds you'd better find something else.

I see on their acaps Airbus A332F still does not have a higher than 233K WV. You'd think thats where it would be really useful.


User currently offlineFlying Belgian From Belgium, joined Jun 2001, 2389 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 7466 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 16):
Also, do you agree in part that the success of the A330 was due to the nonavailability of the 787?

Of course I do, at least for the orders concerning the last five years.

And I do say the 787 is a superb airplane.



Life is great at 41.000 feet...
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9838 posts, RR: 96
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7130 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Tupolev160 (Thread starter):
Airbus states that its new version of the 332 is a competition that outmaches the first series of the 787 yet we've heard almost nothing about that aircraft

Please be careful about statements like this.
The only thing Airbus ever said about the 238t A330 was that it would match, or beat, the range/payload of the first 787's off the line. They never even compared the operating costs, much less claimed that the A330 would be better. And rightly so.
But it's entirelty possible that the 238t A330 is at least the equal of the first 20 or so 787's in terms of range/payload, for the reasons given by others above. So Airbus's comments could well be entirely plausible. Because of course..

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 2):
that's Airbus for you...

  

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 2):
Korean Air was the first airline that took delivery of the A330HGW when the 787 was falling way behing schedule (they took delivery in 2010). A few month after, they renegotiated their commitment with Boeing for the 787 and as recently as last week they converted to the B789.

Presumably because the 238t A330 has now filled the gap that the 787's would have occupied, thus removing the need for the 787-8's ...

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 9):
In my opinion it was a stop-loss attempt to buy more time for the A350

In the same way that continuous upgrades to the Boeing 747, 767, and 777 have been, and are, "stop-loss attempt to buy more time", presumably ...   

Quoting HeeseokKoo (Reply 19):
KE ordered first 6 HGW at early 2009, added 5 more at early 2010 (total 11) and started delivery from July 2010. After KE got 4 of them, in March 2011, KE converted 10 788 orders to 789

For obvious reasons. See above

Quoting HeeseokKoo (Reply 19):
There should be some reason behind the fact that only KE operates this type, though.

Are you sure about this?
I'm fairly sure that QF also ordered 238t A330's to stand in for their early 787-8's.
Whilst on the subject, I'm also pretty sure that the 238t upgrade is "retro-fittable" to in-service A330's anyway. In which case I suspect you'd be hard pressed to compile a list of who uses the capability and who doesn't.

Rgds


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12040 posts, RR: 47
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6907 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 16):
Also, do you agree in part that the success of the A330 was due to the nonavailability of the 787?

Boeing certainly made a significant contribution to the continued success of the A330. But, what is somewhat shocking, is how little the 767 gained in comparison.



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlineimiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6678 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 22):
I'm fairly sure that QF also ordered 238t A330's to stand in for their early 787-8's.

Correctamundo:

Qantas's Jetstar opts for higher gross weight A330s

The option provides an extra 3.4t of payload or 610km (330nm) in range compared with the traditional 233t A330-200. Airbus began offering the heavier A330 in 2008, aiming to take advantage of 787 delivery delays, and Buchanan confirms its availability was a key factor in Qantas's decision earlier this year to defer its Boeing 787 deliveries.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 22):
Whilst on the subject, I'm also pretty sure that the 238t upgrade is "retro-fittable" to in-service A330's anyway.

I was not aware of a retro-fit for the HGW. Do you have a link?

Cheers


25 Post contains images EPA001 : And with that statement this thread could be closed imho. Because it has a high risk of fierce debating which easily could go off-topic. . The A330-H
26 Tupolev160 : Thank you all for your answers despite the approximate description of the topic, special thanks to Roseflyer whose answer was the most clarifying.
27 Daysleeper : Okay, sticking with your example and assuming that Boeing had never produced the 787 then when the shipping company anticipated the new contracts the
28 SEPilot : Why does the A330 have such a huge center tank? I would think that it would have been more valuable to make it smaller and use the space for cargo. D
29 Post contains links seabosdca : http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-boeing-777-remain-popular-333971/ A332s built after sometime in 2004 can be upfitted to 238 t.
30 Roseflyer : The center tank is the wing box, so the space can't be used for cargo. I don't have detailed access to the A330 system description, so I can't add mo
31 packsonflight : The center tank is normally inside the center wing box which is a gigantic torque box and otherwise unusable since the front and rear wing spar goes
32 trex8 : Every production list I have seen shows Jetstar and Qantas A332s in recent years being -202 models which would indicate they have the 80E1--A4 engine
33 CM : It may not be odd, particularly if they are using the airplane at airports near sea level and without a requirement for immediate climb. For example
34 gigneil : Lets see that source, please. I believe you to be making it up. Also, show me that breakdown for the 238t sales vs the others? I bet you don't have t
35 redflyer : What's really shocking is that the 767 is getting any orders at all on the commercial side, 50 in just the last 25 months.
36 SASMD82 : I agree with you. With the 787 and the 332 available I do not understand any new 767order. Although the ANA and LAN orders may be plausible owing to
37 flyglobal : Shouldn't we assume that the 767 orders are to a high degree (except fed ex of course) part of the compensation settlements Boeing negotiates with it
38 thegeek : I also don't believe this is correct. 77W is fuel volume limited at MTOW with a full passenger load. Your formula would require some revenue cargo to
39 SEPilot : But the implication is that the A330 center tank is much larger than in other, comparable airliners. Is that because the A330 uses all of the availab
40 Daysleeper : ANA and JAL both received 9 767’s each as compensation for the 787 delays, but the majority of these were added to the order book more than 2 years
41 Roseflyer : With full tanks, the 77W has only 45,000lbs of available payload left with 320,000lbs of fuel. With the current FAA regulation of 225 pounds per pass
42 thegeek : How do you figure? I get (sorry, metric): 181283L fuel tank density @ 15 degrees C (ISA) = .8086 kg/L Fuel weight = 146.4t OEW = 167.8t MTOW = 351.5t
43 thegeek : 225lbs? You have weighed the luggage, you know how much it is. I believe lifts work on 68kg (150lbs) average per pax, but perhaps that is somewhat to
44 Roseflyer : That's the number in the AC that the FAA instructs US airlines to use for weight and balance. 195lbs for the passenger and personal belongings and 30
45 thegeek : Furnishings should be included in OEW, and min reserves (assuming fuel) would be included in the full fuel tank.
46 trex8 : Over 2/3 the US adult population are overweight (Body mass index >25) and 1/3 are obese - have a BMI >30
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...
What Investors Think Of Airbus (EADS) And Boeing posted Thu Jan 19 2006 16:42:25 by BestWestern
Airbus UHCA, Boeing7J7, Boeing 787 Pics. posted Tue Jun 20 2000 21:51:13 by Granite
Airbus And Boeing Orders 2012 Part 1 posted Tue Jan 24 2012 23:45:35 by someone83
Airbus And Boeing Orders 2011 Part 3 posted Sun Dec 11 2011 07:09:16 by PanAm_DC10
Airbus And Boeing Backlog Information posted Tue Jan 11 2011 03:12:55 by panais
SIA To Order New Airbus And Boeing Aircrafts posted Wed Oct 27 2010 23:27:23 by 328JET
RBS Commits To 95 Airbus And Boeing Jets posted Wed Jul 21 2010 00:17:22 by Chiad
Boeing Model 40 And The 787 posted Fri May 14 2010 12:39:51 by OldAeroGuy
Delta Will Buy From Both Airbus And Boeing posted Mon Nov 17 2008 19:49:51 by CokePopper
Boeing 787 And Rolls Royce posted Wed Jun 25 2008 16:07:49 by Dano1977