Greg
Topic Author
Posts: 5539
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 1:11 am

330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Tue Apr 01, 2003 12:57 am

Why have so many posts (at least five in the last week) stated that the 330-200 is more expensive to operate than the 340-300?
Certainly in seat-mile cost it can be more....
But are we talking trip cost as well?

I'm just confused because I thought with its popularitiy--it must be fairly efficient (despite the oversized wing....)...

Can someone with knowledge please clarify.

Thank you.
Brgds.
 
swissgabe
Posts: 5147
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2000 4:57 am

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Tue Apr 01, 2003 7:01 am

Well Greg
You can't just say an A332 is more expensive to operate than a A340.
There are plenty of factors involved to say which aircraft will be more expensive to operate.

One good example is SriLankan Airlines which thinks about replacing it's A330 with A340. Keep in mind, that leasing costs for older aircrafts are lower than for new aircraft, but this is not the only thing. If an aircraft can carry around 10 passengers more with a similar fuel burn (or even same) it already could be cheaper to operate an A340. N79969 also pointed out, that the maintenance of 4 engine could be higher than 2 engines.

There could be a lot of other reasons why a A330 would be cheaper or more expensive to operate. As you see there are a lot of different reasons which can be different for every Airline.
Smooth as silk - Royal Orchid Service /// Suid-Afrikaanse Lugdiens - Springbok
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Tue Apr 01, 2003 7:13 am

The 764 is 10% cheaper to operate than the 332 or 3( not taking cost of ownership into account)but has been remarkebly unsuccessful. Having a more capable aircraft gives more flexibility, so direct operating costs are not everything.
On the income side you also need to consider the extra seats and freight capacity.
But, If you do not need the capability then it is just costing you money!

Ruscoe
 
Greg
Topic Author
Posts: 5539
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 1:11 am

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Tue Apr 01, 2003 7:31 am

I was under the impression that the 332 was extremely economically from 3000-6500 miles.
And since cost of ownership is the largest factor in block operating cost (depreciation), I imagine that 10% could easily be overcome....
Thanks for the reply.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Tue Apr 01, 2003 8:28 am

Greg,

I am under the same impression as you. I have not read the same posts that you have. My semi-educated guess is that the 332 is uneconomical on routes shorter than 332 was optimized for. I think it is on those shorter routes that the airplane takes an economic penalty for the extra weight. I would also venture a guess and say the 343 also takes a weight penalty on shorter runs but it may be offset by a larger number of seats to amortize the costs relative to the 332. That is my best guess of what is being described.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Tue Apr 01, 2003 8:48 am

While I agree on an intellectual level that the 330 should be a little expensive to operate on short segments, all signs indicate that Qantas has been amazed with the efficiency on their shorter segments.

N
 
skymileman
Posts: 577
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2001 2:32 am

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Tue Apr 01, 2003 9:01 am

It is an airbus, of course it is.
 
BWIA 772
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:33 am

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Tue Apr 01, 2003 10:02 am


An interesting post. I know that BWIA got their 340s due to the fact the Cat2 status ruled out twin operations on the UK route but they were plans to switch to the 330 once Cat 1 was regained thus the 340 being on lease for 5 years.

But as Swissgabe said alot of factors come into play. An airline might take the 340 due to the fact that it can perform routes the 330 can along with their ultra long haul routes.

i would really like to know the cost of maintaing the engines on the 777 as compared to that of the 340.
Eagles Soar!
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Tue Apr 01, 2003 10:06 am

BWIA772,

Are you talking about FAA safety categories?
 
trintocan
Posts: 2728
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2000 6:02 pm

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Tue Apr 01, 2003 10:32 am

N79969, indeed those are the ICAO and FAA categories. T&T were downgraded to category 2 in 2001 for several reasons. As a result of that ETOPS certification would not be granted de novo to any carrier in the country (namely BWIA) and so any long over-water flights would require a craft with 3 or 4 engines. Hence BW kept the TriStars going so long and also the introduction of the A340 to replace them.

Hopefully they sort out matters soon - it would help BWee a lot.

TrintoCan.
Hop to it, fly for life!
 
jupiter2
Posts: 961
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Tue Apr 01, 2003 12:49 pm

Gigneil, while I am not going to argue with you whether QF are happy with theIr 332's performance, I am curious as to where you get your information from ???
I asked the question about 332's when they ordered them, especially when they are being used for purely domestic runs, as opposed to the 333's to be used for regional services. This question I think should be asked again, since QF have changed the order for the last 332's to 333's, are they truely economical on the short runs ???
RL
 
qatarairways
Posts: 864
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 6:02 pm

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Tue Apr 01, 2003 5:59 pm

With Qatar Airways the A330-200 is more fuel efficient than the A300-600R on all but the short intra-Gulf runs. The only reason they are kept is that they are very cheap to lease.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Wed Apr 02, 2003 12:01 am

"The A340 is more economical than the gas guzzling B777."

This is simply not true. Sounds like you are trying to provoke the debate here. The 772ER costs more than the 343 and has outsold it by a lot. I would say the 772ER is the more efficient aircraft.
 
Greg
Topic Author
Posts: 5539
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 1:11 am

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Wed Apr 02, 2003 12:04 am

Any chance we can stick to the topic..
Oh...
Well..
Ooops...
Guess not...
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Wed Apr 02, 2003 12:05 am

Sorry...I took the bait on that one. Probably should not have.
 
MD-11 forever
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:15 am

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Wed Apr 02, 2003 12:12 am

@N79969
"I would say the 772ER is the more efficient aircraft. "

....I would say it depends on the mission!  Smile/happy/getting dizzy Just by the basic efficency, just considering the available thrust (let's assume 4*34000 pounds for the 343 and 2*77000 pounds for the 777) you end up in a very similar range. Also, the thermodynamic efficiency coefficent of all engines is around the same. So, this leads to a conclusion, that just by their respective engines, the planes must be similar when it comes to basic efficiency. So, the real parameters that matter when it comes to operational costs of a plane are configuration (available seats), cargo requirements and availability as well as the desired missions to fly the plane. This is not a coplete and comprehensive list, but fair enough to show you that such a statement is not based on any facts, but instead just reflecting your preferred aircraft.

Cheers, Thomas
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Wed Apr 02, 2003 7:18 am

Greg,

I think the definitive answer to your question is in the $575 publication below:

http://avitas.com/pubs/block.jsp

MD-11,

I am no engineer but given the 777s lead in order backlog, cancellations for 343s, the 777's later entry into market, and superior sales of 777 despite higher price, the 772ER is the more efficient airplane.
 
Greg
Topic Author
Posts: 5539
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 1:11 am

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Wed Apr 02, 2003 8:08 am

Yes...I'll run right out and buy that!
 Smile
 
BHXviscount
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2002 8:45 am

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Wed Apr 02, 2003 8:15 am

Another factor could be the seating arrangements- high density 330-200's that EK use have 40 more seats than the low density variants they use, this airline operates plenty of both and also the 777, they must have worked out all the costings for all the routes they use and to each route which is best suited?!?
Anyway the UK based charter airlines pack 'em in like sardines on 330's to Orlando so I guess that you can make them pay their worth if you get enough pax on board!- BHXviscount
No officer, its NOT a surface to air missile its a camera..for taking photographs.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:19 am

If you do, make copies and scan then in. I am sure Avitas would appreciate it. Kidding aside, every now and then some of the aviation consulting firms will put some of their aircraft type evaluations on their website as a sample. Maybe the 330-200 will pop up someday.
 
Greg
Topic Author
Posts: 5539
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 1:11 am

330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Thu Apr 03, 2003 4:36 am

I didnt' mean to start a controversy here. By the sales numbers, the 330-200 appears to be a very efficiencent aircraft over a series of rangers--25000-6500 miles.
I was primarily concerned with it being a 300-600 replacement since it's likely not optimized for lower (under 2000nm) stage lengths.

Since Qantas..and to an extent Emirates use the bird for shorter trips I will assume that it is as least as cost effective as the 330-600 it replaces (I believe that Egypt Air said this in a press release--?).

The counter argument would appear that Boeing feels that the 7E7 would be far more efficient--although without any radical technology I'm not aware of--it would seem a bit difficult. I would assume that the same 'super efficient' engines can be hung on any airframe within the thrust range....

Thank you all for your replies and for basically staying on topic.
Brgds.
 
Greg
Topic Author
Posts: 5539
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 1:11 am

330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Thu Apr 03, 2003 4:37 am

OK...typo.....clearly I meant 2,500-6,500+ miles in the first sentence.
Sorry.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Thu Apr 03, 2003 6:16 am

I get my information from a variety of forums.

All signs indicate that the 330-300s that QF is swapping for 332s will also be operated on the short routes. They are not simply getting new international craft.

This is getting to be an exhaustive thread. Nobody on this forum is qualified to analyze the efficiency of either the 777 or the A340. And nobody ever bothers to compare the 777 vs the whole A330/A340 family, which has outsold the 777 by a small amount. So this conversation is, as usual, pointless.

N
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 10:34 pm

Greg,

Still not cheap but the study is available for far less than $575.

http://www.aircraft-commerce.com/arts/AnalysisListing.pdf
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 10:48 pm

 
Greg
Topic Author
Posts: 5539
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 1:11 am

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Mon Apr 07, 2003 11:45 pm

Ok...interesting.
The 332 is more expensive to operate than the 763.
But the 332 and 764 are virtually identical.

Good reference you guys.

Brgds.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Tue Apr 08, 2003 8:22 am

What struck me as weird is how the 767 has such comparable economics but the 767 has been outsold by a lot since the 332 became available.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Tue Apr 08, 2003 9:09 am

The 764 is a poor performer compared to the A332.

This comparison gets made all the time... it shouldn't confuse anyone by this point. The A332 has superior range, vastly superior cargo capacity, and commonality with its larger sisters... and it does carry more passengers on top of that.

The 764 was designed to replace widebody trimotors on US routes... and it is doing so.

Unlike the 777 vs. the A330/A340, the 764 and the 332 target different markets - therefore a comparison based on empirical evidence is difficult to make.

N
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Tue Apr 08, 2003 9:58 am

I understand that the 332 outperforms the 764 in terms of payload and range. However that article really does not illustrate the point well. Airlines have voted with their dollars for the 332 overwhelmingly. That article was pretty darn good as far as providing objective evidence. But it left me a little unsatisfied as far as good explanations for the 332's sales performance.
 
Greg
Topic Author
Posts: 5539
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 1:11 am

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Wed Apr 09, 2003 4:10 am

Actually, it was more complimentary of the 763/764 than the 332.
I think their primary issue was that the 332 does not have a smaller stablemate. It was odd...since there is definite commonality with the -300 and the 340 series (and yes, the smaller buses too.....to an extent).

As they said, the 764 and 332 are equal in trip mile cost so it's hard to call it a 'poor performer' unless you need all 7,500 miles.

As Nxxxxxxx pointed out, the airlines are making their preferences known with $$$ which is what it's all about.
 
jupiter2
Posts: 961
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Wed Apr 09, 2003 8:06 am

More likely the airlines are prepared to wear any additional operating costs after taking into consideration the generous deal they get from the manufacturer.
RL
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Wed Apr 09, 2003 8:17 am

I also thought the article was very complimentary of the Boeing products. Judging by the merits discussed in the article. the 763 and 764 are the better choice. They should have attempted to explain why the 332 was kicking the 764s butt. They left it open.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Wed Apr 09, 2003 8:18 am

Oh whatever. There is no way Boeing is pricing the 764 for more than a 332.

The 332 has over double the cargo capacity and much more range. Also, nobody is really using the 764 against the 332...

There is no smaller sibling because it targets the next market up... just like the 777 has no smaller sibling with any commonality or similarity.

I don't know why this baffles people... the 332 is a vastly better plane than the 767, and its showing in sales. People use the exact same argument without any additional analysis or evidence about the 777.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Wed Apr 09, 2003 8:22 am

The success of the 332 suggests that airlines are very happy with its combination of capacity, range & economics.

Timing is also a factor. Had the 764 been introduced in the early 1990's (as opposed to 2000), it could have choked off alot of the 332 market ahead of time. Similar, a 764LR could also have taken more 332 sales.

So in addition to good capacity, range & economics, the 332 was timed well for the market. Of course, the 7E7 could kill the 332 later this decade.

Neil.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Wed Apr 09, 2003 8:24 am



The point is that unless you use that range and cargo capacity, the 332 is not a great deal. Further, I think Airbus has some pretty generous financing deals. At least on 340s. I don't know if they are giving out deals on the 332...they probably do not have to.
 
jupiter2
Posts: 961
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Wed Apr 09, 2003 8:28 am

Gigneil, do you have some figures as to the cargo capacity of the 332 vs the 764, I am sure I could find them, but i don't have the time and you seem to be the Airbus expert. I find it hard to believe that an aircraft of similar length would have twice as much underfloor freight capacity as its competitor.
RL
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Wed Apr 09, 2003 8:48 am

The total cargo volume of the 332 is 4800 ft(3). The 764's total cargo volume is 4580 ft(3). This isn't completely instructive...

The A332 can carry 27 LD3s or 8 pallets + 2 LD3s. The 764 can carry 5 pallets full up. The 764's lower hold cannot accomodate LD3 containers, but it holds about 38 LD2s with no pallets.

Its easy to understand.

Many containers and most pallets have to be aligned single file in the 764.

LD3s can fit side by side in the A330. The A330 can also uplift a _much_ heavier payload.

The similar argument made about the A346 and 773ER are true. The A346 has a total cargo volume bigger than the 773. It can uplift a larger payload weight than the 773 as well, but smaller than the 773ER.

N
 
racko
Posts: 4548
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 12:06 am

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Wed Apr 09, 2003 8:59 am

Jupiter, the key point is that the A330 can carry 2 LD3 containers side-by-side, while the B767 can't. Boeing will fix this key issue with the 7E7.
 
jupiter2
Posts: 961
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Wed Apr 09, 2003 9:34 am

Gigneil,
I understand aircraft pallets, I work in the airfreight industry. What I don't understand are the figures you gave for the 2 aircraft.
You have the 332 at 27 LD 3 (I'll assume 28) but even that figure doesn't seem right at the base of 140cm's, at 14 (side by side 28) length ways gives a total of 1960 cms, or with 8 LD 9 pallets at 224 cm's plus an LD 3 at 140 a total of 1932 cm's.
By your figures the 764 takes 38 LD 2's (we use LD 8's much more efficient use of space) at the same base of 140 cms gives 19 length ways at a total of 2660 cm's, you then say you can only put 5 pallets on, which admittedly have to go length ways which is 318 cm's for the same LD 9's gives a total of 1590 cm's, what has happened to the extra 1070 cm's.
According to your figures I could put another 3 pallets on the 764 giving at a total of 8, not quite enough room for another row of LD 2's though, or I could put 7 pallets plus 3 rows of LD 2's or as we would use 3 LD8's.
If the figures you give are correct then the 764 has the capacity to carry almost the same amount of freight as the 332, admittedly probably not as far, but to say it carries twice as much as you did previously shows that you should really check your figures before making such statements. I am not saying my calculations are correct, I am just going off the figures you provided.
I will say this though, the 767 is an excellent aircraft when it comes to carrying freight, the sole drawback is the inability to carry LD 3's side by side.
RL
 
jupiter2
Posts: 961
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Wed Apr 09, 2003 10:01 am

Racko, I understand that, the point no one whats to make though is that if you use the correct equipment while there still may be a deficeiency it is not as great as what everyone else makes it out to be.
RL
 
Greg
Topic Author
Posts: 5539
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 1:11 am

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Wed Apr 09, 2003 11:37 am

I'm actually a huge fan of the 330-200---but I would never make the mistake of calling it 'vastly better' than the 767-400. Superlatives are the hallmark of ignorance when discussing facts. According to the article, they are equal in all but sales...

Oddly, they consider the 767-300 to be the winner of the mid-size category....which leads me to believe this may be the next war ground for A vs. B.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: 330-200 Expensive To Operate?

Wed Apr 09, 2003 11:47 am

I grudgingly admit that the 330-200 is a really cool looking airplane. I don't pretend to be objective in the A v. B debate. The 332 is best looking product Tolouse has put out. Judging by it's sale sucess, it is also a very solid performer.

Speaking of the 763, I read somewhere a long time ago (I don't think I could ever find a link) that the 763 was, at some point, Boeing's single most profitable airplane.