Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?  
User currently offlineLPSHobby From Brazil, joined May 2007, 197 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 16178 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

wich are the advantages (economics) of the 787-800 over the old A330-200 and the current A330-200HGW ????

55 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31420 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 15849 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Fuel burn is the biggest. Leeham.net used the Piano X aircraft analysis tool and found that the 787-8, when it reaches spec weight and SFC, is projected to burn 22% less block fuel than the A330-200 on a 6000nm mission with a 51,000 pound payload (an A330-200 can lift more payload that distance, however).

User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8037 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 15772 times:

Another advantage of the 787-8 when it reaches its final form will be the ability to fly over 7,500 nautical miles still air range with a standard payload, which means non-stop transoceanic flights like LAX-SYD becomes possible on a year-round basis (the A330-200 can't fly LAX-SYD non-stop year-round).

User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9230 posts, RR: 76
Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 15697 times:

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 2):
Another advantage of the 787-8 when it reaches its final form will be the ability to fly over 7,500 nautical miles still air range with a standard payload,

The "standard payload" that Boeing quotes does not include passenger baggage. As long as the passengers are willing to wait until the next flight for their baggage, it is a wonderful step backwards. People fly on 747s/A380s/777s every day on that route and get their baggage arriving at the same time.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10243 posts, RR: 97
Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 15537 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
Fuel burn is the biggest.

I'd agree. Another is that it has greater flexibility to accommodate 9-across economy seating, thus raising revenue potential

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 2):
Another advantage of the 787-8 when it reaches its final form will be the ability to fly over 7,500 nautical miles still air range with a standard payload, which means non-stop transoceanic flights like LAX-SYD becomes possible on a year-round basis (the A330-200 can't fly LAX-SYD non-stop year-round).

The nominal range of the 787-8 should be about 7 650Nm in comparison to the 238t A330-200's 7 200Nm.
The extra 450Nm should undoubtedly be an advantage.
That said, most transoceanic flights should be within the capabilities of the 238t A330-200 - it has the same range as a 744...

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
Leeham.net used the Piano X aircraft analysis tool and found that the 787-8, when it reaches spec weight and SFC, is projected to burn 22% less block fuel than the A330-200 on a 6000nm mission with a 51,000 pound payload (an A330-200 can lift more payload that distance, however).

I must confess to struggling with this number.
On a very simplistic analysis, with that nominal 23t payload, a 227t 787 with an OEW of 114t will be tanking 90t of fuel to make its 7 650Nm range.
By comparison, the 238t A330-200 with the same 23t payload, and an OEW of 120t should tank 95t of fuel to make its 7 200Nm nominal range.
To make the same 7 200Nm range, the 787-8 should need to tank only about 83t of fuel, compared to the A330-200's 95t - a differrence of about 14%.

I wouldn't pretend to be more knowledgeable than either Leeham or Piano X, but from my seat, that 22% delta just doesn't stack up with the Spec. Range/Payload capabilities that are quoted.

I can also easily see where the 787-8 gets a 10%-12% fuel burn advantage from its engine SFC, but given that the 2 planes are remarkably similar in configuration, I completely fail to see where another 10% advantage is going to come from. I can see 3% or 4% coming from the 787's more advanced CFD analysis, and its slightly lower weight.

Finally, I'd suggest that A330-200 buyer behaviour doesn't support a fuel burn delta as large as 22%.

Having said all that, 14% is plenty big enough a fuel burn advantage to be going on with  

Rgds


User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 15295 times:

I'm having difficulty understanding the tone or inference of these posts.

I get that the 330 is a fine bird and doing very well, obviously.

My recollection is that Boeing announced the specs of the 787, and that airlines started ordering them in droves, to the point that it has the largest back order of any A/C in history prior to EIS.

When Airbus answered with a warmed-over 330 to compete, airlines screamed that it was grossly insufficient. Airbus had to come up with several attempts before its customers were satisfied with the projected 350 (even though they will not compete directly.)

NOW I'm hearing here, despite the plastic technology and bleedless engines and a 15 year jump in technology, etc. etc. that advantages of the 787 over the 330 are marginal, at best.

As a person with a lot less technical know-how than many on these threads, I try to listen more than I talk, or at least pose interesting questions rather than pontificate. But I find it frustrating that there can be so much conflicting information here from posters who have much more expertise and access to information than I, BUT, despite their expertise, they seem to post from very subjective positions.

It's amazing to me that an applied science so specific as airliner technology can so easily be distilled down to a matter of opinion.

As such, it is very difficult for me to believe anything I ever read here... Does anybody else experience this?



I come in peace
User currently offlinefrmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1743 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 15122 times:

I can easily believe a lot I read on line here (that is why I am here). But as with anything you need to learn to differentiate between fact and hopes. (there, wasn't that a polite way to say it?)


Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlinehawkercamm From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 405 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 15112 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 4):
Having said all that, 14% is plenty big enough a fuel burn advantage to be going on with

I'd go with that number. Also fuel still only accounts for 1/3 of an Airlines costs - 14% then becomes ~5%.

This 5% can then be offset against Fleet commonality, Cross Crew Qualification with A320, A340, A380, Aircraft acquisition costs, etc

[Edited 2010-05-29 10:15:06]

User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10243 posts, RR: 97
Reply 8, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 15076 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 5):
NOW I'm hearing here, despite the plastic technology and bleedless engines and a 15 year jump in technology, etc. etc. that advantages of the 787 over the 330 are marginal, at best.

Was there anything specific that prompted this comment?

For me, a plane that
a) burns (by my estimate) between 14% less fuel and (by Leeham's estimate) 22% less fuel,
b) has a greater flexibility to go 9-across,
c) provides 450Nm more range (despite being 11t lighter)
d) should be cheaper to maintain

has advantages that are a long, long way past marginal.
I'm struggling to see how those can in any way be described as "marginal" to be honest.

The only thing I would say is that this ..

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 5):
I get that the 330 is a fine bird and doing very well, obviously.

obviously shows that there is an upper limit to the scale of these advantages that might be somewhat lower than we might have been led to expect in the early days.
Given the sratospheric expectations that the early days brought, that still leaves us plenty of room to celebrate the advantages the 787 quite rightly brings to the party, without actually reaching those dizzy heights of those expectations.

That should in no way be construed as a criticism of the plane, rather of some of the inflated expectations.

And to be honest, in my view, the residue of those expectations still makes it really really difficult to have realistic discussions about the advantages of this quite superb aircraft without running the risk of being considered to be "damning with faint praise".

If you would like to see something further added to the list of considerable compliments above, I think it would be well worthwhile posting them.

Rgds


User currently offlinehawkercamm From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 405 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 15011 times:

The B787 will have from a passenger view point:
a more modern and better cabin, IFE, lighting, overhead bins, lavs, etc
lower cabin altitude
better window seat cabin shape
bigger windows, but in my view A330 are big enough!


On the negative side:
at 9-abreast tighter aisles and seats vs 8-abreast A330
a noisier cabin TBC (composite fuselage will transmit sound more than Al)
a rougher ride through turbulence since a stiffer airframe (CFRP) provides less damping
4 non-windowed window seats! (cabin layout dependent)


User currently onlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4871 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 14380 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

didn't wbp or someone post figures showing up to 4000nm the A332 would hold its own against the 787 and have higher payload but beyond that the 787s better fuel burn gives it the advantage

User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1351 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 14151 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 5):
As such, it is very difficult for me to believe anything I ever read here... Does anybody else experience this

Welcome to a.net   . It's kind of funny - but the 'other' forum (which as 'rumor' in the name, seems less prone to bias in many cases....



rcair1
User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 14073 times:

The advantages of a 787 over the A330-200 is probably not 22% lower fuel burn. Back when the 787 program was announced, it was claimed that it would be 20% more efficient than other planes in its class. It has been mentioned on previous postings that when pressed, Boeing said that the 20% number was over the least efficient widebody in the sky, the 767-200 and 40% of the savings was actually in decreased maintenance costs, not fuel. The CASM number was also with the 787 at 9 abreast.

It is quite likely that the 787 will yield a fuel savings of only 5 to 15% over the A330 depending on configuration. It will be definitely less comfortable with 17" 9 abreast seats to get closer to 15% and 10% is more realistic vs. the A330 with 18" 8 abreast seats. The seat count in CO's announced IAH-AKL flight suggests 9 abreast.

While the fuel savings is real and worthwhile, it will be nowhere near 20%.


User currently offlinebonusonus From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 12630 times:

Boeing has also promised significant savings for airlines due to the 787 requiring less frequent, and shorter maintenance checks compared to current a/c. How does this factor in to the overall operating cost, and how likely is it that these claims will end up being true?

User currently offlinepanais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 472 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 12468 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 4):
To make the same 7 200Nm range, the 787-8 should need to tank only about 83t of fuel, compared to the A330-200's 95t - a difference of about 14%.



14% only after the 787-8 will reach its specifications. This must hurt.   

If you take the statement made by A350 chief engineer Gordon McConnell, that the A350-800 burns around 23% less fuel [per seat] than an A330-200 over a 4,000nm mission , and I can only imagine that the A332 is less inefficient over a shorter distance, then the 787-8 is in trouble.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...dorse-a350-800-rethink-airbus.html


User currently offlineLonghornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3355 posts, RR: 45
Reply 15, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 12319 times:

Quoting hawkercamm (Reply 9):
a noisier cabin TBC (composite fuselage will transmit sound more than Al)

Boeing says that engine cabin noise will be reduced through a holistic approach, including changes in engine technology (nacelle chevrons, improved inlet/fan designs) and improved insulation.

Quoting hawkercamm (Reply 9):

a rougher ride through turbulence since a stiffer airframe (CFRP) provides less damping

Boeing tends to disagree with that statement. Apparently the 787 has a new "Smoother Ride Technology," which "senses turbulence and commands wing control surfaces to counter it, smoothing out the ride." (Boeing website) They advertise an 8-fold decrease in number of passengers who feel motion sickness.

Cheers,
Cameron


User currently offlineruscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1606 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 11815 times:

! agree with mostly what is being said, however:

The other major thinking for the airlines is the FUTURE.

The 330 series has probably near the end of its development potential

The 787 series is just at the beginning of its development future, and already (as one would expect), producing better figures.

Customers can expect the 787 to continue to improve, and a family of aircraft to appear.


The other major factor is PRICE.

List prices for the 330 are significantly higher than the 787, (191m v 171m), and although customers rarely pay list price, it probably gives a broad indication. (Either that or Airbus are inflating list prices to make their balance sheet look better by overvaluing aircraft on order).

Ruscoe


User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 738 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 11771 times:

Good points by all. Also, I wanted to add that the planes are optimized for slightly different missions. Fuel burn advantage is probably different - or could even be reversed - at different length missions.

Marketing 101: present your product in the best possible situation. Both manufacturers are doing that. Do not believe everything you hear.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (4 years 6 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 11579 times:

Quoting panais (Reply 14):

14% only after the 787-8 will reach its specifications. This must hurt.

If you take the statement made by A350 chief engineer Gordon McConnell, that the A350-800 burns around 23% less fuel [per seat] than an A330-200 over a 4,000nm mission , and I can only imagine that the A332 is less inefficient over a shorter distance, then the 787-8 is in trouble.

I suspect either people are comparing apples to tangerines, or thier math is bad. Part of it is the "per seat" issue, since of course larger aircraft of the same technology level burn less per seat or there wouldn't be a market at all for them. A 777 10Y in single or two class would ruin a A358 in fuel burn per seat, but that doesn't mean its better for any given airline. Regardless, people here saying the 787 isn't any better than the A330, yet the much heavier A350 will crush the A330 in fuel burn need to think it through some.



To get a clear picture we need to not only make sure we are comparing the same kind of fuel burn statistic, but compare them all. Trip fuel burn is just as important as fuel burn per seat. Doesn't matter if you have ultra low burn per seat if only 100 people ever fly that route. Trip fuel burn factors into Trip cost which tells you how little revenue you need to make a profit on a route. Fuel burn on a payload carried basis I would contend is also critical since many routes would be unprofitable without cargo support.


User currently offlinepanais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 472 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 11312 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 18):
people here saying the 787 isn't any better than the A330, yet the much heavier A350 will crush the A330 in fuel burn need to think it through some.

Nobody is saying that the 787 is not any better than the A330, it just that is not as better as it was advertised.
Maybe the 787 benchmark was the 767 afterall.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10243 posts, RR: 97
Reply 20, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 11275 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting panais (Reply 14):
14% only after the 787-8 will reach its specifications. This must hurt

I don't think so.
In operational terms, I would guess the weight of the early frames will have a more significant impact on range/payload than it does on fuel burn itself. IMO even the early frames will be a lot more efficient in terms of fuel burn than an A330-200....

Quoting panais (Reply 14):
If you take the statement made by A350 chief engineer Gordon McConnell, that the A350-800 burns around 23% less fuel [per seat] than an A330-200 over a 4,000nm mission

Personally I would take that figure with a pinch of salt. As always, it depends on the number of seats he implies in the calculation.
The A350-800 will almost certainly burn more fuel per trip than the 787-8

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 18):
To get a clear picture we need to not only make sure we are comparing the same kind of fuel burn statistic, but compare them all. Trip fuel burn is just as important as fuel burn per seat.

Agree. And there is no question in my mind that the A350-800 will be more expensive to operate than the 787-8

Rgds


User currently offlinepanais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 472 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 11262 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 20):
I would guess the weight of the early frames will have a more significant impact on range/payload than it does on fuel burn itself.


Still, there will be a fuel burn impact.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 20):
IMO even the early frames will be a lot more efficient in terms of fuel burn than an A330-200....


Of course they will be per frame and maybe per passenger. The A332 is bigger and heavier, carries more passengers and cargo and is older technology.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 20):
The A350-800 will almost certainly burn more fuel per trip than the 787-8


Of course the A350-800 will burn more fuel per frame since it is bigger and heavier, carries more passengers and cargo. Whether it will burn less fule per passenger, Airbus claims it will, I will wait until it flies.

The point to me is that the 787-8 is not turning into the game changer that it was meant to be. Additionally, Airbus's strategy of having a single family of widebody aircraft, the A350, compared to Boeing's 787-8 & 777NG, will pay more long term for them in terms of development money and resources and will be prefered by operators in terms of commonality. Just look at what the A320 family was able to do.


User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6966 posts, RR: 76
Reply 22, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 11159 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 4):
On a very simplistic analysis, with that nominal 23t payload, a 227t 787 with an OEW of 114t will be tanking 90t of fuel to make its 7 650Nm range.
By comparison, the 238t A330-200 with the same 23t payload, and an OEW of 120t should tank 95t of fuel to make its 7 200Nm nominal range.
To make the same 7 200Nm range, the 787-8 should need to tank only about 83t of fuel, compared to the A330-200's 95t - a differrence of about 14%.

Here's my take... I used the performance dispatch numbers on the 2007 version of the 787-8 AOM... vs the A332 FCOM2.

I did a similar calculation... RR 787 and RR A332... for several distances and no reserves (land on empty), Long Range cruise speeds, FL390, ISA zero wind.

Fuel Burns:
For 23.18tons payload (51,000lbs)
6000NM, 7878 = 54.9 tons, 332 = 65.6 tons, 7878 fuel savings 16.2%
4000NM, 7878 = 35.7 tons, 332 = 41.9 tons, 7878 fuel savings 14.7%
2000NM, 7878 = 17.9 tons, 332 = 20.7 tons, 7878 fuel savings 13.6%
800NM, 7878 = 11.2 tons, 332 = 12.9 tons, 7878 fuel savings 13.1%

For 35ton payload
6000NM, 7878 = 58.4 tons, 332 = 70.1 tons, 7878 fuel savings 16.7%
4000NM, 7878 = 37.4 tons, 332 = 44.6 tons, 7878 fuel savings 16.0%
2000NM, 7878 = 18.9 tons, 332 = 22.0 tons, 7878 fuel savings 13.9%
800NM, 7878 = 11.8 tons, 332 = 13.6 tons, 7878 fuel savings 13.2%

For 50ton payload
6000NM, 7878 = 63.1 tons, 332 = 76.0 tons, 7878 fuel savings 17.0%
4000NM, 7878 = 39.7 tons, 332 = 48.0 tons, 7878 fuel savings 17.4%
2000NM, 7878 = 20.1 tons, 332 = 23.5 tons, 7878 fuel savings 14.2%
800NM, 7878 = 12.5 tons, 332 = 14.5 tons, 7878 fuel savings 13.4%

The above is a rough idea on how the fuel burn compares... For the 7878, it's bloody good, but tt's not 22%...



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2858 posts, RR: 48
Reply 23, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 10943 times:

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 15):
Apparently the 787 has a new "Smoother Ride Technology," which "senses turbulence and commands wing control surfaces to counter it, smoothing out the ride." (Boeing website) They advertise an 8-fold decrease in number of passengers who feel motion sickness.

Oh, right...now that's optimistic.   


User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1610 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 10749 times:

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 5):
NOW I'm hearing here, despite the plastic technology and bleedless engines and a 15 year jump in technology, etc. etc. that advantages of the 787 over the 330 are marginal, at best.

I think that the advantages of the 787 over the A330 are everything then marginal, but it must be said that the A330 has turned to an amazing plane, sure one of the planes with most potential in history of aviation.

Noone ever thought Airbus could improve the A330 performance to that extent.



“Faliure is not an option.”
25 LPSHobby : how a new plane with new technology like the 787-800 can be cheaper (171M) than a A330-200(191M)?? of course these are the list prices, not the real p
26 Stitch : Awesome. I'll add this to my database.
27 LPSHobby : how a new plane with new technology like the 787-800 can be cheaper (171M) than a A330-200(191M)?? of course these are the list prices, not the real p
28 tdscanuck : It does unless you've got an incredibly fat passenger load. This isn't new...there's a certain segment of the aviation community that has never bough
29 A342 : So how can the A380 achieve its very quiet cabin despite the GLARE fuselage shells? Just tons of insulation material? (engine technology notwithstand
30 Post contains images KPDX : Well, according to the Airliners.net experts, it has no advantage over the A332, so it kinda makes one wonder why Boeing even developed the 787?
31 tdscanuck : Well, the GLARE is only on the upper skins, as far as I know, where comparatively little noise is transmitted anyway, but the density difference betw
32 Post contains images mandala499 : OK, the fuel burn in itself is "only" 13-18% or so for most part of the designed mission profiles... But then, less burn for faster is another advanta
33 Arniepie : I think I remember reading that besides it (787) being noticeably lighter than comparable aircraft and having the latest and most economical engines a
34 astuteman : I'll repeat the question I asked to SSTsomeday. Either point in the thread to where someone said the advantages were only marginal, or for the benefi
35 Qslinger : Why can't the 330 fly LAX-SYF non stop year around? (I read somewhere the engine performance/efficiency goes up when the temp is low or something sim
36 Starlionblue : Quite, and let's not forget the very quiet modern engines. Traditionally, engines have been "bled" of compressed air in order to pressurize hydraulic
37 DocLightning : Possibly, but remember that a quiet cabin is only good up to a point. Airplane cabins are very crowded and to some degree, the white noise from the e
38 A342 : I believe hydraulic pumps are directly attached to the accessory gearbox and are thus unrelated to bleed air. The main function of bleed air is cabin
39 Starlionblue : Oops. I stand corrected. Serves me right for posting when tipsy...
40 mandala499 : The 787 still uses bleed air for the anti-ice, but has 2 electric compressors for the bleed air pressure. So, not totally bleedless... but then, still
41 tdscanuck : OK: Re: noise: The A340-300 also has a lot less installed thrust, which is quieter by default, and has the inherent noise advantage of any quad that
42 Post contains images A342 : Thanks, I didn't know about air-driven backup pumps. I assume electric pumps and PTUs are more common? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought
43 tdscanuck : If you're withing about 5 miles of a 777 running the ADP's with the engines off, you'll know. They're incredibly loud. As far as I know, that's true.
44 rheinwaldner : Show me one quote from just one member that says that. If I say the 787 beats anything else by 20% the "787-critics"-alarm will not go off in the US.
45 Post contains images astuteman : Thanks for the replies, Tom. Let me first apologise for the implied sensitivity in the post. I've been labelled "anti 787" recently on a different th
46 OldAeroGuy : And a 10% or so op cost advantage enabled the 77W to outsell the A346 by a 4:1 ratio and dry up A346 new sales.
47 tdscanuck : No apologies necessary...I can't speak for others, but I'm under absolutely no impression that you're anti-787. Agreed. Advantage Astuteman...I saw "
48 Post contains images astuteman : A good reminder, Tom. Thanks That's one I've not seen higher up the thread Current A380 operators certainly seem to say so.. Is it like the "more pow
49 rheinwaldner : As stupid as it sounds: that is a great revelation! People often think the cost difference would have to be larger to gain a clear marketleadership.
50 XT6Wagon : I think it will be a huge game changer... but people forget things take time. It takes even longer if you have a 2+ year delay and slower ramp in pro
51 SEPilot : This remains to be seen. There is no price as of yet on used 787's; once they enter service in large enough numbers we will see how their prices fare
52 Stitch : Guestimates from aircraft valuation firms are that a new 787-8 delivery will be worth about $110 million on the open market. An A330-200 would be wor
53 SEPilot : Yes, but as you say, they are guesstimates. Nobody will really know until a few actually change hands. And the price will depend very much on how the
54 trex8 : in theory but to paraphrase what one lessor had to say about this capability in AWST - WTF am I going to do with the other engine? - I would have tho
55 Aesma : About the debate on the advantages of the 787 and the high expectations, don't forget Boeing was heavily touting the 787 versus the A380, so that skew
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
A330-200 Extra Weight Compared To The A300-600 posted Fri May 29 2009 01:18:02 by Panais
How Many FA Work In The A330-200? posted Thu Dec 4 2008 06:45:24 by Rouge
Dimensions Of The A340-200/ 300 Nacelle posted Fri Apr 7 2006 14:23:04 by Archischmidt
Actual Range Of The A321-200? posted Wed Dec 28 2005 18:01:36 by CRJ900
Advantages Of Having The Engines Under The Wings? posted Thu Mar 17 2005 20:22:11 by Aerlingus330
Need Info On The A330-200 posted Mon Aug 4 2003 23:12:04 by Cancidas
The Outer Diameter Of The C-17 posted Sat Apr 24 2010 12:08:55 by 747400sp
State-of-the-Art Flight Deck For 747-8 posted Tue Apr 20 2010 00:54:43 by propilot83
Lightning Surpression On The 787 posted Wed Mar 31 2010 13:27:07 by justloveplanes
What Are These Openings On The Belly Of The 757 posted Wed Mar 10 2010 09:27:35 by c5load

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format