Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
B789 Versus A333 Analysis  
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4272 times:

Can A333(HGW) compete with B789 on short/medium haul routes? The answer seems to be no based on my estimates. The cabin area for both aircraft is nearly equal, and B789 in 9-abreast configuration should hold as many seats as A333 in 3-class configuration, if not more.

General Specifications:
....................................B789.......................A333HGW
Fuselage Length..............206..........................209 feet
Fuselage Width.................18.9........................18.5
Cabin Length...................159..........................165.25
Cabin Width......................18............................17.33
Wingspan........................197..........................198
Wingarea.......................3501.........................3892 sq. feet
Seats(3 class)..................280..........................280(@210 lbs. per passenger/baggage)


MTOW.......................553,000....................517940 lbs.
MZFW........................400,000...................388,453
OEW..........................260,000...................264,402 (OEW for B789 is my estimate)
MSP...........................140,000...................124,051
Design Range..................8,000.....................5,970 nm (passenger only, and zero cargo)
List Price..........................$218......................$222.5 million

For a 4,000nm trip(at MTOW),

B789 burns about 2,000 gallons less fuel than A333HGW--about $6,000 lower fuel bill.
B789 has the potential to carry 29,000 lbs. additional cargo relative to A333HGW if not volume constrained--about $10,000 additional cargo revenue at 50% load factor

The above savings amount to nearly $9 million per year assuming 1.5 trips per day on average.

For a 3,000nm trip(at MTOW),

B789 burns about 1,900 gallons less fuel than A333HGW--about $5,700 lower fuel bill.
B789 has the potential to carry 16,000 lbs. additional cargo relative to A333HGW if not volume constrained--about $5,500 additional cargo revenue at 50% load factor.

The above savings amount to nearly $6 million per year assuming 1.5 trips per day on average.

The operational benefits of B789 over A333HGW are nearly worth $40 to $50 million to an operator over the life of an aircraft. It is hard to see Airbus discounting the A333 that much to make it attractive to airlines, and still make a profit.

In another thread, I will compare the B789 to A359, and later on the hypothetical B787-10 to A359.

10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinewn700driver From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4245 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
later on the hypothetical B787-10 to A359.

Not sure how favorable the -10 will look there. Wasn't it meant to compete more with the 358, with idea being that it would snag some sales from airlines that already have bought into the 787 line infrastructure anyway? Don't get me wrong, I want to see it fly as it will no doubt the most attractive member of the 787 family, but I'm not sure how well it can stack up against a 359... That's probably more 77G territory...

I'm noting here that the fuselage widths are nearly the same, yet the 330 has more difficulty seating 9 across (and for the '87 the issue is a relative breeze...), and this config will likely never take hold for it on a large scale. Has Airbus considered narrowing the insulation? I know from experience that the 330 really is as quiet as advertised, but perhaps Airbus may be willing to sacrifice just a little of that to bump capacity...


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8879 posts, RR: 75
Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4224 times:

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 1):
and for the '87 the issue is a relative breeze...

The seat width for 9 across is narrow on the 787, it was one of the reasons why it was not selected by CX. It is approximately 1-2" less than the existing seats being used, passengers transferring between types at a hub will notice the difference.

The biggest advantage of the A333 today is that you can still buy and operate one, and you will be making lot of money for years until you can get your hands on a 787-9.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineCharlieNoble From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4170 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 2):
The biggest advantage of the A333 today is that you can still buy and operate one, and you will be making lot of money for years until you can get your hands on a 787-9.

Agree 100%...the aeronautical equivalent of "She might not be Miss Right...but she is Miss Right NOW"  

The airplane that will save you millions over its 20+ year life cycle isn't much good if you go out of business in the mean time.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30627 posts, RR: 84
Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4133 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zeke (Reply 2):
The seat width for 9 across is narrow on the 787, it was one of the reasons why it was not selected by CX. It is approximately 1-2" less than the existing seats being used, passengers transferring between types at a hub will notice the difference.

Is that armrest to armrest? Or is CX going with really narrow aisles?

I ask because Airbus' own PR material show seat cushion width of 17.5" on the A350 versus 17.2" on the 787 (per Boeing's PR) materials.


User currently offlineSchorschNG From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 4082 times:

Quoting CharlieNoble (Reply 3):
Agree 100%...the aeronautical equivalent of "She might not be Miss Right...but she is Miss Right NOW"

The airplane that will save you millions over its 20+ year life cycle isn't much good if you go out of business in the mean time.

And Airbus will tell their customers that it will be very attractive as second hand cargo aircraft.
So, when an operator looks 10-12 years ahead he might still get a good resale value.
I think Airbus intents to rain as many A330 on the markets as possible before the B787 has slots open again.



From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19419 posts, RR: 58
Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3901 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 2):

The biggest advantage of the A333 today is that you can still buy and operate one, and you will be making lot of money for years until you can get your hands on a 787-9.

Yup. The 789 is clearly the superior aircraft (and not surprisingly so, given that that A330 was introduced in 1993).

Except that it is still nothing but electrons floating around in Boeing's computers. And electrons do a poor job of making money for airlines.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6837 posts, RR: 46
Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3803 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6):
And electrons do a poor job of making money for airlines.

Well, without electrons you would have no aluminum, no plastic, no titanium, no steel, no rubber, no fuel, or anything else that goes into building an aircraft. Protons and neutrons by themselves tend not to hold together very well. 



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineMoltenRock From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3687 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):

Nope. Airbus' site says 18". I get so tired of a netters wanting to jam seats into aircraft at the expense of passenger comfort.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30627 posts, RR: 84
Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3682 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
I ask because Airbus' own PR material show seat cushion width of 17.5" on the A350 versus 17.2" on the 787 (per Boeing's PR) materials.
Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 8):
Nope. Airbus' site says 18".

So that would be with 17" aisles. So Airbus was likely using 19.5" aisles in their A350XWB Launch Presentation, which showed Economy at 17.5" seat width with 9-abreast.

The 777 at 229" cabin width offers 18.5" wide seats and 19.5" aisles when at 9-abreast and 17" aisles with 17" wide seats when at 10-abreast.


User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2314 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3536 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 7):
Protons and neutrons by themselves tend not to hold together very well.

Well, in small groups they hold together quite nicely!  
Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 8):
Nope. Airbus' site says 18". I get so tired of a netters wanting to jam seats into aircraft at the expense of passenger comfort.

I thought that was the airlines?   


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic B789 Versus A333 Analysis
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...
CS300 Versus B737-700 Updated Analysis posted Wed Apr 1 2009 14:32:09 by LAXDESI
A388 Versus B748 Economic Analysis posted Sat Jul 26 2008 20:30:16 by LAXDESI
C110 Versus E190 Economic Analysis posted Sat Jul 19 2008 01:53:00 by LAXDESI
C130ER Versus B737-700 Economic Analysis posted Fri Jul 18 2008 13:07:15 by LAXDESI
ULH Non-Stop Versus One-stop Economic Analysis posted Sat Jun 14 2008 22:29:46 by LAXDESI
A350-10 Versus B773 ER Economic Analysis posted Sun Jun 1 2008 19:29:12 by LAXDESI
A333 Versus B789 Economic Analysis posted Wed May 28 2008 14:46:13 by LAXDESI
A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis posted Tue May 27 2008 22:20:48 by LAXDESI
What's The Deal With Mtow Increase Of The A333? posted Fri Mar 25 2011 14:50:10 by a380900
777-200 Versus 777-200ER posted Thu Mar 10 2011 09:37:36 by AT

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format