Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
B767-400 Vs. A330-200  
User currently offlineARN From Sweden, joined Feb 2001, 270 posts, RR: 0
Posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4798 times:

Of course many premises are considered when airlines make their choices about types of aircraft.
Here are some questions about 764s and 332s:

1. Is the A332 better than the B764 when it comes to cargo? I know that the 332 could hold more cargo but on the other hand - isn??t the turnaroundtime longer as well? That makes the equation more complex, doesn??t it?

2. Is the 764 more economical than the 332 on shorter routes (3 - 5 hrs.)? Many airlines use their 764s on really short routes, but it also has the capacity to fly transatlantic. 332s could fly really long routes but is seldom used on shorter routes.

If one of you out there have the time, please enlighten me on this subject.

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineGodbless From Sweden, joined Apr 2000, 2753 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4772 times:

Many airlines use their 764s on really short routes

Well actually there are two airlines using the 764...

It is probably hard to say whether the A332 or 764 is better since it always depends on the network it is supposed to be used on.
Cargo is for sure an advantagde of the A332 and since they fill it up with containers I don't see any major delay compared to the 764. Relativly the larger the cargohold the faster it goes per container...

But overall it seems that only the A332 can be called a success.


User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1862 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4746 times:

For what it is worth, there is a feature on the Boeing Commercial site, which compares fuel burn amongst other things of the 764 and the 332.

If it is correct, it would certainly make airlines be very carefull to ensure that the extra 5000lbs of fuel used by the 332 on a 3000nm mission is worth it.

If you can fill the 332, then it should be, or if you need the additional payload range of the 332 then the choice is easy.

However, I think this article (if Boeings own figures are accurate) raises questions about the choice of 330's by Qantas, rather than a 764/777 combination.


User currently offlineAirblue From San Marino, joined May 2001, 1828 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4748 times:

A332 has a better success than B764, so if we look only the number A332 seems better.

But in fact both planes are good, so if you are an airline you choose the one which fill better in your fleet and network.
So if you have an all Boeing fleet with also B763 and B757 the B764 is better for you.
If you fly the A330/300 or A340 the A332 is a more logical option.

I have only a big doubt about A330/200 operated by European charter airlines.
In the winter when they fly many long-haul flights A332 is better than B764 cause it has more range to fly non-stop to holiday destinations. But in the summer when they fly in the Mediterranean for 3/4 hours flights, is economical to use A332??

User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5297 posts, RR: 43
Reply 4, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4730 times:

However, I think this article (if Boeings own figures are accurate) ...

If there's one thing I've learned it's this: never believe anything either of the two manufacturers states in a comparison between its product and that of the competition Big grin

User currently offlineBR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4695 times:

What if Boeing Shut down the 767-400ER production line?

User currently offline2cn From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 648 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4610 times:

They wouldnt gain anything by shutting it down- correct me if I am wrong, but it uses the current 767 line. They would, how ever, loose something.. another model for their customers. I don't see them closing the 764 line untill they decide to close the entire 767 line, or come up with newer versions of all 767s and phase it out that way.

User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4748 posts, RR: 32
Reply 7, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4564 times:

5 years from now, you will all be laughing at the suggestion of shutting down the 764 line. Orders have certainly been slow, but wait until replacement time comes around for a lot of the fleets and you will see orders. I have flown the 764 a lot, and it is a great plane and CO seem to love it.


User currently offlineNWA742 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4563 times:

I agree with Artsyman, just wait. Some 767s and 757s are nearing 20 years of age, and we will probably see some replacements starting within 5 years or so. The 764 orders will take a big jump most likely.

And remember, we oughta compare order #s starting when the 764 came out. The A330 has been for sale a a few years longer than the 764.

User currently offlineGerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 27
Reply 9, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4525 times:

Even if we only compare the time, since the B764 has been offered, the A332 outsold it by all means.


dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1862 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4485 times:

If the Boeing figures are correct, then the differences are not insignifigant. 5000 lbs of fuel for 3000nm equates to around 800lbs an hour.

If the aircraft does 4000 hrs a year, then that is 1.200,00 lbs of extra fuel per year, for each aircraft. If a pound of fuel costs $0.25 a pound, that is $300,000 a year, and at 5% it means the 330 must be purchased for $6million less than the 764 to cover the fuel cost.

I know it is not this simple because if you need all the seats, and or the range of the 330 then there is really no choice but to look beyond the 767 to 777 or 330.

On the other hand if your load factors are only 75% and you don't need the long legs, the 764 looks very good.


User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 20
Reply 11, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4477 times:

Take the figures on the Boeing and Airbus sites with a pinch of salt.The 332 carries a good bit more cargo than the 764 I think but it will depend on external factors to some extent.

User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 12, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4457 times:

Airbus has had much success with the A332 - its the surprise "star" of the A330-A340 series since it is the right size, offers good range and is very versatile; the A330 did not attract many orders until first the A332 arrived and then the improved A330-300X. I am sure that Boeing has noticed Airbus' success in the important 200-250 pax long haul market, a market previously owned by Boeing.

As a Boeing fan, I find it disappointing that the 764 has, to date, been of little interest to most airlines. Its a good plane, no doubt, but its market niche is quite small trying to fill the void between the 763 and 772.........I always thought that Boeing might have been better off building a 771 instead of the 764, but that is just my opinion. Also, the 764 has had very bad timing, coming on to the market just as many of the major airlines bought additional 763s, as the world economy started to falter, and of course, 9/11.

I think that the 764 will have some success in a few years time, Boeing has had many products that struggled and then gained popularity a few years after introduction. The 764 is an ideal replacement for AA's A300s, for example, in a few years time when AA is considering renewing its fleet;DL and CO may follow up with additional orders when traffic numbers improve, etc. Also as mentioned above, in a few years time, airlines will only start to think about replacing early build 762s and 763s, and only then will the 764 attract more interest.

Also, remember that when airline traffic starts growing again and when the economy is back on track, airlines (especially those in the USA) will need larger medium haul airliners to operate between their hubs and major destinations. Airports will become too crowded to simply keep adding frequency, and aircraft like the 764 (and the 753) will increase in popularity.

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...
767-400 Vs A330-200: Speed? posted Mon Jul 19 1999 16:46:36 by CV880
767-400 ER VS A330-200 posted Sat Jul 22 2000 03:55:38 by 220389
DC-10 Vs A330-200 posted Mon May 3 2004 04:43:47 by FLY777UAL
The A300-600 Vs. A330-200 posted Tue Apr 27 2004 21:30:19 by Cancidas
Who Anyone Did Flew On B767-400 Or B777-200/300?!? posted Sat Oct 19 2002 22:36:37 by ScottysAir
767-400 & A330-200 posted Sun Aug 26 2001 17:33:37 by DeanBNE
B767-400 VS B767-300 posted Mon Feb 7 2000 18:55:32 by DELTA
767-400 Vs 777-200 posted Mon Dec 13 1999 20:39:14 by Chris
767-400 vs A330 - range/capacity qn posted Tue Feb 16 1999 18:16:30 by jr
767-200/300 Vs A330-200/300 posted Sat Nov 21 1998 21:26:03 by jr