B767-400ER From Hong Kong, joined Apr 2000, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (16 years 6 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 6309 times:
The A330 is a more cost effective then the 777 in shorter routes. Thats where the A340 comes along. Its strange, but in a way, the A340-300 is a more competiter to the 777 then the A330. Bacause of the range that the A340-300 has that is similer to the 777.
MD-11 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (16 years 6 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 6307 times:
Cathay uses A330s as freighters in the night time buy having the passenger deck empty, and just carrying cargo in the cargo deck of the A330. If they can make a profit doing that, I bet the A330 must be a pretty efficient plane.
BryanG From United States of America, joined May 1999, 440 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (16 years 6 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6309 times:
As we all know, the cockpits on the A330 and A340 are the same, and any pilot that flies one can fly the other. Although the 777 cockpit is different than the other Boeing planes, I noticed that most of the secondary switches and displays, like the layout of the overhead panel and center pedestal, is very close to the layout of the 757/767 series. A pilot at home in one would probably also feel at home in the other.
The 777 is like both the A330 and A340 at the same time, so I wouldn't compare it to just one or the other of the Airbus planes. It ultra-long haul range like the A340 but is also used just as much on the shorter domestic and trans-Atlantic routes. United, who has the most, uses their 777s on domestic flights more than international ones, even the very "short hops" between Washington and Chicago, for example.
ERAU From Canada, joined May 1999, 39 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (16 years 6 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6311 times:
United uses a 767-300ER on a daily flight between Chicago and Indianapolis. They have an agreement with the united states postal service. I could not believe it until I saw it with my own eyes and actually watched the plane land in indianapolis.
by the way American Airlines uses a EMB-145 on the same route. HUGE DIFFERENCE!!!
Udo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (16 years 6 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6309 times:
I think it is just not possible to say one aircraft is more efficient than the other. It always depends on the mixture of many aspects to decide whether an aircraft is efficient or not.
It is a fact that the B777 offer just much more capacity than A330 or A340 and many airlines just don't need that capacity. Usually on longhaul routes B777-(200) are seated between 260 and 320 (two/three class conf.) seats, while most A340(-300) are seated between 230 and 270 seats. For many airlines the use of a B777 would mean between 30-40 empty seats, so they decide to use an A340. The A330-300 offers the same capacity as the A340-300 but doesn't fly as far, so it is definitely not a B777 competitor. And the new star of Airbus, the A330-200, is a strong competitor to the B767-300/400ER, with seating of around 240 (two/three class).
Some airlines use mainly Airbus planes (Swissair in the coming years), some just use Boeings (Delta/American/Continental), methods to save costs. Mixtures of Boeings, Airbus, MDDs and others cost much money!
In reality many airlines use both, B777 and A330/340 in their fleets, such as Malaysia, Singapore, Thai, Korean, Asiana (to come), Air France, Cathay Pacific and Emirates.
As I can remember some of these airlines are highly profitable, so the use of both B777 and A330/340 can't be wrong. Of course it's logical to use both of them, because they are no real competitors.
Airbus enjoyed an unexpected growth in the last years and the reason was: They know how to create highly economical aircraft.
cv990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (16 years 6 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6307 times:
To follow up on the comments regarding CX's use of the A330 as a freighter:
to my amazement I believe the underfloor cargo capacity of the A330-300 is
some significant fraction larger that that of a **747**.
jz From United States of America, joined May 1999, 252 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (16 years 6 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6307 times:
I agree with Udo that 777 and A330 are not comparible. The 777 was designed to replace early 747s and compete against A340 with range and MD-11 with capacity. Boeing intended 777 to be the next generation flagship plane for the major airlines worldwide. Achieving ETOPS from day 1 was a main goal for 777.
On the other hand, A330 was aimed more as a people hualer to operate over short to medium range efficiently; and it didn't achieve ETOPS until 1 year after entering service. Today, it is fullfiling this role -- most Asian A3330 operators use it regionally; and most European and American operators are charter airlines.
Airbus defined 767-300/400 as a new competitor for A330-200. This makes it even harder to compare it to 777.
CX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4491 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (16 years 6 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 6307 times:
MD-11, that is interesting information. May I ask where you heard it? It sounds so cool. Udo, why when airlines buy all Airbus is it due to efficiency and when they buy all Boeing it is just to save cost? cv990 you are in a way correct, but can you please look at the comparisons made in the post especially for me and look at the weight difference?
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower