LAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48 Posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3954 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.
OEW..........................260,000...................264,402 (OEW for B789 is my estimate)
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.
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...
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
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29423 posts, RR: 84
Reply 4, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3815 times:
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.
SchorschNG From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3764 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]
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