a380900
Posts: 797
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 11:26 pm

Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Mon Jul 19, 2004 4:48 pm

The 737 based on a very old airframe can obviously compete with the newer A320. On the other hand, it seems like the 767 is unable to match the A330-200 although the generation gap between the two is much smaller. Why is that?
 
leelaw
Posts: 4520
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Mon Jul 19, 2004 4:55 pm

IMO the 767's biggest competitive disadvantage, particularly the 764, to the A330 is the narrower freight compartment cross-section which doesn't allow it load 2 LD3 containers side by side.
Lex Ancilla Justitiae
 
HAL
Posts: 1740
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 1:38 am

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Mon Jul 19, 2004 5:09 pm

I'll strike the match on this one...


I'd like to ask what basis you are using for your question. Are you looking at sales statistics? Operational reliability? Direct operating cost? Passenger comfort? Relative current strength of Boeing vs. Airbus? Which one of these is the grounds for your assertion?


To get to the point, they are different airplanes! They serve different markets with different airlines! It's nice to try and lump aircraft together, but in reality each has its advantages and disadvantages.

To give just one example; in long range operations the Airbus may have the upper hand in efficiency, but if you have to combine short and long legs (i.e. Delta Airlines) the 767 is more robust and able to last longer - saving the company money.

There are dozens more reasons why one is better than the other in specific operations. Unless you can describe exactly what you are looking for, the question is meaningless.

Bombs away!  Smile

HAL
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
 
CRJ900
Posts: 1937
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Mon Jul 19, 2004 5:32 pm

Boeing has sold around 900 B767s, it that is not a decent marketshare, then what is? Orders have slowed down because there are so many 767s flying already, and being of excellent quality there is still plenty of life left in these birds, hence no need to replace them at the moment.

I love both the 767s and the 330s, may they fly forever.
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
trevd
Posts: 332
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 1:51 pm

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Mon Jul 19, 2004 6:03 pm

So if the 767 has outsold the A330 almost 2:1, which is the more succesful airplane? And to keep things in perspective, the 767 so thoroughly dominated the A300/A310 line that Airbus HAD to replace those a/c with the A330.

To their credit, Airbus recognized they needed a competitive advantage to compete with the 767 family and sized the A332 to compete with the more popular 763 and the A333 was sized to provide an incremental seat advantage and target the market between the 763 and the 772. That's been fertile territory the last few years and couple that with the huge discounts (50%) that Airbus has been offering to incentivize customers - they have sold a lot.

So credit to Airbus for making the A330 series popular, but is it a success? As an investor I am not very keen on the airplane as I'm alway worried what stupid deal Airbus will do (discounts greater than 50%) just to win another deal and dilute the value my aircraft and every other one previously sold. So if you judge success by the number of tails out there, then no question the A330 series is a success, but if you judge success by commercial terms - did Airbus make money or is the airplane a good investment, you would have to so NO.


 
na
Posts: 9129
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Mon Jul 19, 2004 6:55 pm

Being in production twice as long as the A330 the 767 has sold more than twice in numbers. I guess its a mix of different facts that makes the 767 fall behind now considerably. Economics aside that is:
1. It´s getting old.
2. The promising 7E7 as a replacement is on the horizon (hardly something that drives the masses towards the older type!)
3. Most customers have enough of still young 767-300s in their fleet. They only need replacement when the 7E7 is already out to fly (similar problem that the 747-400 has today).
4. the A330 is a perfect partner of the larger and longer-range A340s.
 
FinnWings
Posts: 633
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 6:03 am

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Mon Jul 19, 2004 7:16 pm

Actually B767 first flight was in 1982 and A330 in 1997...

So B767 is 22 years old and A330 7 years old. When comparing sales numbers please try to remember these facts...

That's been fertile territory the last few years and couple that with the huge discounts (50%) that Airbus has been offering to incentivize customers

Do you really think that only Airbus is doing this...? These discounts are as common with all manufacturers. Besides, airlines don't EVER order new aircraft and pay the list price... Buying an aircraft isn't like going to buy some food from grocery or not even like buying a car!! List prices are just some rough numbers... True prices are tightly kept secrets.

Best Regards,
FinnWings


[Edited 2004-07-19 12:17:59]
 
ZKSUJ
Posts: 6806
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 5:15 pm

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Mon Jul 19, 2004 7:21 pm

"I love both the 767s and the 330s, may they fly forever"
I hope so, I would also like the 744 to fly forever, but at this stage, it's looking shaky, but hey who knows?
 
na
Posts: 9129
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Mon Jul 19, 2004 8:50 pm

"Actually B767 first flight was in 1982 and A330 in 1997...

So B767 is 22 years old and A330 7 years old. When comparing sales numbers please try to remember these facts..."


Not true. The first A330-300 was delivered to Air Inter in 1993! The 767 is in production 22 years, the A330 11 years.
 
FinnWings
Posts: 633
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 6:03 am

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Mon Jul 19, 2004 8:55 pm

Na,

Thanks for correction... sorry, my mistake, I posted A330-200 numbers even -300 is older. I forgot that...

FinnWings
 
HlywdCatft
Posts: 5232
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:21 am

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Mon Jul 19, 2004 9:18 pm

What do you see more carriers flying across the Atlantic Ocean?

The 767 or the A330?

I would put my money on the 767.
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Mon Jul 19, 2004 11:15 pm

Oh, yet another A vs B discussion.......I was going to say something but I am too bored to respond. One question: how many times are we going to do this?

[Edited 2004-07-19 16:29:12]
 
willo
Posts: 1331
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 10:21 pm

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Mon Jul 19, 2004 11:25 pm

"I love both the 767s and the 330s, may they fly forever"

spare parts could become an issue by about 2045 Smile/happy/getting dizzy


[Edited 2004-07-19 16:26:41]
 
Thrust
Posts: 2584
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:17 pm

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Mon Jul 19, 2004 11:44 pm

Truly it is an undisputable fact the A330 is a superior aircraft to the 767. That is why Boeing is designing the 7E7  Big grin

The 7E7 is supposed to have equal to or greater range than the A330s, and will have more powerful and fuel-efficient engines....
Fly one thing; Fly it well
 
hz747300
Posts: 1906
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:38 pm

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Tue Jul 20, 2004 12:21 am

Plus the A330-200 is a cool looking aircraft!!!

However, I can't complain about my longhaul 767-300ER experiences.
Keep on truckin'...
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Tue Jul 20, 2004 12:28 am

So credit to Airbus for making the A330 series popular, but is it a success? As an investor I am not very keen on the airplane as I'm alway worried what stupid deal Airbus will do (discounts greater than 50%) just to win another deal and dilute the value my aircraft and every other one previously sold. So if you judge success by the number of tails out there, then no question the A330 series is a success, but if you judge success by commercial terms - did Airbus make money or is the airplane a good investment, you would have to so NO.


As an investor, you should know what you're talking about, yet you don't.

Airbus has made a large sum of money, and as EADS has said over and over, Airbus is one of their most profitable divisions, and the A330 one of their most profitable products.

No matter how much people may repeat it over and over, Airbus does not sell aircraft at a loss.

N
 
od-bwh
Posts: 308
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2002 6:25 pm

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Tue Jul 20, 2004 12:47 am

Never compare an A330-200 to a 767-300! It should be compared to the 767-400, which, so far, has two customers only... to the best of my knowledge: CO and DL. A332, is by far, more successful, and I blv has more capacity.

What do you see more carriers flying across the Atlantic Ocean?

The 767 or the A330?

I would put my money on the 767.


Carriers have been using the 767 since the 80's accross the Atlantic, a date when the A330 did not exist.

A fair comparison, again, is to put the A332 with B764. Almost all carriers interested in this capacity range are picking the A332, even those in the US. (NW and US). On the other hand, No one outside the US has ever thought about the 764.

P.S. I blv the 767 has a bigger range than the A330's.. Correct me if i'm mistaken.

Regards...
OD-BWH
A300, A319, A320, A321, A332, A333, A343, A346, A388, B734, B738, B744, B772, B773, B788, F70, MD11, CRJ700
 
B727-200
Posts: 1008
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 1999 11:28 am

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Tue Jul 20, 2004 12:56 am


It's all horses for courses. I think a lot of very valid points have been raised, such as the flexibility of the B767 to fly shorter routes economically, the economics of the A330 over medium-long range routes, and the freight capabilities of the A330.

The B767 is a real workhorse that has proven itself over time. Maybe one day the same comparison will be made between the B7E7 and the A330, when the latter has 15 years on its rival?

In these comparitive threads I always like to ask the question, are either of these aircraft bad aircraft? The answer is no, because I don't believe that Boeing or Airbus make bad aircraft - modern technology, manufacturing techniques and market research would not allow this to happen. So in the end it all comes back to best fit.
 
beachthing
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 1:32 am

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Tue Jul 20, 2004 1:01 am

To the original poster: isn't it simply obvious that the 767 is a child of 70s technology and an older product? That being said, it has still been plenty successful in terms of usage and sales over the years...
 
iowa744fan
Posts: 906
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 1:31 pm

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Tue Jul 20, 2004 1:03 am

comment from the very unbiased John Leahy

Ok, I hope that you were being sarcastic on this one. I am sure that every sales person for both Boeing and Airbus are completely unbiased and willing to promote the other company's aircraft.

4. the A330 is a perfect partner of the larger and longer-range A340s.

While I am not denying this as a selling point, how influential has this been for carriers in switching from the 767 family to the A330 family. How many airlines has switched and operate both the 330 and the 340? I can think of SAS and Air France.

Airbus has made a large sum of money, and as EADS has said over and over, Airbus is one of their most profitable divisions, and the A330 one of their most profitable products

Do they post their operating results anywhere? Can you give me a site or link so that I can check out their figures.

Also, as mentioned earlier, if we are going to have this discussion, why don't we also start the thread, "Why were the A300/A310 so far behind the 767?" Why not, because it is nothing byt A vs. B bashing!

Finally, to end on a humerous note, Willo:

spare parts could become an issue by about 2045

Just check with NW around that year!  Smile
 
yul332LX
Posts: 798
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 5:15 am

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Tue Jul 20, 2004 1:25 am

Do they post their operating results anywhere? Can you give me a site or link so that I can check out their figures.

The following site might help you.
http://www.finance.eads.net/ehomepag.php
E volavo, volavo felice più in alto del sole, e ancora più su mentre il mondo pian piano spariva lontano laggiù ...
 
User avatar
airportugal310
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 12:49 pm

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Tue Jul 20, 2004 1:33 am

Why do simple questions like the original turn into such dillemas?
I sell airplanes and airplane accessories
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Tue Jul 20, 2004 5:18 am

P.S. I blv the 767 has a bigger range than the A330's.. Correct me if i'm mistaken.

That is at least partially incorrect. The A330-200 has a greater range than each member of the 767 family.

The A330-300 has a comparable range.

N
 
jeckPDX
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2003 6:12 am

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Tue Jul 20, 2004 5:19 am

Strictly from a passengers point of view, I prefer the 767 for several reasons. One, the possibility of getting a middle seat is less than on the A330. Two, I find the cabin of the 767 more spacious and less claustrophobic. (OPINION) I understand the efficiency benefits of having two cargo containers side by side insteads of staggered, and on high profit cargo routes, this a/c would make economic sense over the 767. However, I'm sure there are times whn it is just the opposite! One more comment, and superficial as it may be, I cannot stand theway they passenger windows taper upward at the rear of Airbus wide bodied aircraft. IMHO, an egregious design flaw.

Long live both aircraft and may they serve their respective operators well!

JeckPDX
"Beer is proof that God Loves us and wanted People to be Happy" - Ben Franklin
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Tue Jul 20, 2004 6:19 am

Boeing claims that the 767 is more efficient than the A330 on a cost per passenger mile basis. The 330 evidently more than makes up for this with its indisputable freight hauling advantage, which it inherited from the A300/A310.

In the 1980s, the 767 pioneered ETOPS, and had the range to handle the transatlantic market, so it was bought for that role.

More recently, the A332 was built with longer range, and the 764 didn't get the once-expected range extensions after the 747x was cancelled and its engines with it. With longer range and higher productivity due to the cargo capacity, the 332 dominated the 767.

Ever since the first public Sonic Cruiser announcement in early 2001, the 767 has been seen as a lame duck in the Boeing stable -- and now, with the 7E7 launched, it certainly is. So some 767 sales may have been lost for this reason; no one wants to sign up for the last production slots of an outgoing product line.
 
antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Tue Jul 20, 2004 6:21 am

One thing that may have been overlooked was the fact that in the real world the 767s were even slower than A340-300s in flight, and we all know how laboriously slow they were/are.

So you can't really asses the impact of the A330 on 767 sales without taking into account the small number of early A340s that were also bought for routes that the 767 could fly, at least within Asia.

The 7E7 will of course redress the balance, provided Boeing answers all of technical questions satisfactorily as I hope, in order to turn the early provisional orders into firm orders.
 
boysteve
Posts: 885
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 7:02 am

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Tue Jul 20, 2004 7:53 am

Given the choice on an Atlantic crossing I would go for the A330 every time over the B767. I am qualified to state this as I have done so on both a BA767 and an EI332. Obviously the A330 is a newer aircraft and should be better in terms of customer comfort but the B767 is such an ordinary aircraft and how anyone could call it a 'luxury Liner' is beyond me! I would also like to say that the B777 is a fantastic aircraft, just so that no-one thinks I'm A vs B. For me people who can't recognise that both manufacturers make both very good and maybe not so good aircraft are not worth listening to!
 
modesto2
Posts: 2669
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2000 3:44 am

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Tue Jul 20, 2004 8:50 am

Someone compared the A332 and the 764...how? They have completely different purposes. The A332 has reduced capactiy (compared to the A333 and definitely to the 764). The 764 is a high-capacity medium range aircraft. These planes reflect very little similarity.
 
LVZXV
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 10:03 am

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:54 am

1. It's not.
2. It's older.

The B767-200 family is unlikely to secure any more orders (CO's order for 10 could have been the last) as the design dates from 1981, and hasn't received major upgrades in the form the 737 did with the Next Generation variants.
The B767-300 family is still selling albeit slowly although it has been on the line for over 15 years.
The B767-400 series is a niche aircraft built primarily to satisfy demand from CO and DL.
Finally, Boeing is switching attention to the 7E7 family, so asides from the anticipated military tanker orders, the 767 is in its final years of production. The generic type has sold in the region of 1,000, like the 757. Many which were retired post-9/11 by airlines like AA, TW and UA are being snapped-up by carriers throughout Africa and Latin America, where they no doubt have many years ahead of them (regions where the A330 is doing not so well...).

The A330 is both younger and larger. The -300 is more a competitor to the B777-200 family (and replacement for the A300) while the -200 is the main (albeit late) competitor to the B767-300 (the A310 was Airbus's answer to the B767-200). For 10 years the B767-300 had little competition, remember. Comparative orders and deliveries for the rival types are as follows:

A310-200/300: 260 / 255 (since 1982)
B767-200: 248 / 242 (since 1982)

A330-200: 260 / 157 (since 1998)
B767-300/400: 697 / 678 (since 1988)

A330-300: 212 / 144 (since 1993)
B777-200: 498 / 424 (since 1995)

A330 TOTAL: 472 / 301 (since 1993)
B767 TOTAL: 945 / 920 (since 1982)


Given that the A330 is half the age of the B767, at this rate, it is quite possible that a similar number will have been produced by the time production closes. You may disagree with my comparisons, but they are the closest you can find between Airbus and Boeing and there is no obvious bias towards one manufacturer or the other.

XV



[Edited 2004-07-20 02:56:15]
How do you say "12 months" in Estonian?
 
yukimizake
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 10:20 am

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Tue Jul 20, 2004 11:23 am

Although they are used by airlines on similar routes they are still very different planes, each with strengths and weaknesses relative to one another.

The matter of passenger comfort is more an issue of how an airline configures it's planes, not really a A vs B issue (Air Canada's 763's and 333's are just as comfortable).
'Opfer müssen gebracht werden (Sacrifices must be made)' - Otto Lilienthal
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24522
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Tue Jul 20, 2004 11:54 am

the A300/A310 line that Airbus HAD to replace those a/c with the A330.


The A330 did not replace the A300/A310 line, which is still in production.
a.
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2392
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Tue Jul 20, 2004 12:07 pm

I echo the above comment that the 767's smaller cross-section is a major factor in its losing ground to the A330 in recent years due to increasing importance of cargo revenue; the inability to handle tandem rows of LD-3 pallets is now a serious liability. In a recent thread, someone mentioned that in the late 1970's, after oil price shocks, Boeing decided to go with a smaller cross-section than the earlier A300 to minimize drag while still being a twin-aisle, albeit with only 7-abreast seating. It seemed like the right move then, but history has shown that Airbus made the better move with its wider fuselage. Also, the range deficiency of the 767-400ER further handicapped its changes against the more capable A330-200 due to too much 'minimum-change' philosophy employed to keep costs down for launch customer Delta. So, it's not hard to see why, as fine an airplane as it is, that the 767 has lost out to the newer A330, particularly the -200. Moving to the 7E7 is tantamount admission from Boeing that the 767 just can't cut it in the commercial market, anymore, though it should still make for a fine military tanker.
 
iowa744fan
Posts: 906
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 1:31 pm

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Tue Jul 20, 2004 12:08 pm

YUL,
Thanks again for the help. I need to just start sending you direct emails for all my questions!  Smile Thanks.
 
wdleiser
Posts: 865
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:32 am

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Tue Jul 20, 2004 2:18 pm

listen, the A330 has taken a great share of the 767's markets, boeings responce to the A330 is the 7e7.
 
transPac
Posts: 104
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 12:59 pm

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Tue Jul 20, 2004 2:54 pm

LVZXV....very well stated, couldn't have said it better myself (so I won't) Big grin
 
baw716
Posts: 1459
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 7:02 pm

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Tue Jul 20, 2004 5:30 pm

Greetings all,
I have read the many comments back and forth on the merits (or lack of them) of each of the arguments that attempt to answer the question: Why is the 767 so behind the A330?"

My two cents (and this is strictly an opinion from someone who has had route responsibility operating with both aircraft) is the following: Both are excellent aircraft. How excellent they perform (economically) is predicated on the route flown, passenger density, cargo potential and the penalties paid by stretching the range of the aircraft beyond its max payload range (which for some reason, airlines like to do).

The critical difference between these two aircraft is the width of the cross section and the inability of the 767 to load LD3 cans. This makes the 767 much less flexible operationally, as cans cannot be interchanged between the two aircraft (note: this is also a problem between the 747/777 and the 767). This is a huge problem as it relates to the handling of connecting baggage, as well as the fact that there is a very large restriction on the types of cargo that can be carried on the 767 v. the A330. The 767 tends to operate more efficiently on point-to-point routes as opposed to flying between large hubs. The A330 tends to operate better on hub and spoke because of its increased operational abilities in handling connecting baggage and cargo.

On the passenger side, the 767 and A330 are about the same in terms of comfort (I KNOW I am going to light a fire with this one). Both aircraft can (and do) operate with 18 inch wide economy seats, and the economy standard is returning to about 32 inches of pitch from the ungodly 30-31 inches we have seen in the late 90s. The -400 type interior design of the 767-200 (CO) and -300 (now placed on all new -300 a/c) has increased overhead bin capacity, which has always been more of a problem on the 767 than in the A330. While it can be argued that there are a higher percentage of aisle/window seats in the 767 v. the A330, the fact is that no passenger is more than one seat away from an aisle, even if you are in the two middle seats. There are some limitations on the 767 in premium seating due to cabin width; however, seat manufacturers are able to overcome this drawback.

The A330 wins on fuel burn per operating mile, because of the higher technology wing than on the 767-200/300. Against the A330-300, the 767-400 would have come very close, except for the fact that it did not get the higher thrust engines, so as a result, its range is restricted. However, as a few of you pointed out, in the right market, the -400 is an excellent operating aircraft. Delta has had excellent performance with their -400s in domestic service and especially in the Hawaii market, in which passenger aircraft carrying cargo is not a dominant factor in aircraft market selection. Continental uses the -400 interchangeably with the -200 based on seasonality and demand. Both have the new interiors and new glass cockpits, so cross training pilots to operate both aircraft is reasonably cost effective.

I could offer many more examples, but it really comes down to this: Boeing and Airbus make damn fine airplanes. As technology advances, we are going to see even more advances both in operational capability and passenger comfort. Who wins is not so important as the advances in airframes, engines, economics of operation and passenger comfort that have been achieved by the competition of these two aircraft makers.

How customers feel about their experiences on these two aircraft are really dictated by the how well an airline matches the aircraft to its mission profile. The 767 is not behind the A330. Yes it has been around longer, but if we remember that airlines (generally) match the aircraft to the mission and not the other way around, both aircraft will get you there in one piece in relative comfort. No one aircraft is 'better' than the other. They are just different.
That isn't a bad thing.

Just one mans opinion...
Happy reading!
David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
 
HAL
Posts: 1740
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 1:38 am

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Tue Jul 20, 2004 5:38 pm

Baw716, Thank you!!

A very well thought out explanation of what my little rant at the top of this thread was trying to say. Keep this up and I'll have to add you to my respected users list.

HAL
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
 
HlywdCatft
Posts: 5232
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:21 am

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Tue Jul 20, 2004 10:13 pm

***Carriers have been using the 767 since the 80's accross the Atlantic, a date when the A330 did not exist.

A fair comparison, again, is to put the A332 with B764. Almost all carriers interested in this capacity range are picking the A332, even those in the US. (NW and US). On the other hand, No one outside the US has ever thought about the 764.**

But obviously these carriers that use the 767-300 across the ocean haven't been replacing their 767s with A330s when the A330 did come out, other than US Airways and a couple European carriers.
 
beachthing
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 1:32 am

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Tue Jul 20, 2004 10:29 pm

"No one outside the US has ever thought about the 764."

Do your research before you put your foot in your mouth...


"One thing that may have been overlooked was the fact that in the real world the 767s were even slower than A340-300s in flight, and we all know how laboriously slow they were/are."

Laboriously? Bit dramatic aren't we? Both fly within the usual speeds. The 744 flies a tad faster than most of the rest of the pack but it's famous for that.

[Edited 2004-07-20 15:40:08]

[Edited 2004-07-20 15:40:50]
 
HlywdCatft
Posts: 5232
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:21 am

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Tue Jul 20, 2004 10:56 pm

Wasn't the 767-400 built specifically for Delta and Continental upon their requests for an L1011 and DC-10 replacement?

I liked the 764 when I flew it on Delta ATL-MCO, I would have preferred the 777 on that route, but I thought the plane was really nice on the inside
 
LVZXV
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 10:03 am

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Tue Jul 20, 2004 11:08 pm

Beachthing:

The 747's higher cruising speed may look marginal, but on a long sector my God you notice it. For example, here is how various Boeing models perform between Europe to Buenos Aires:

EZE-LHR B744: 11h55
EZE-LHR B772: 13h50
EZE-MAD B763: 11h45

The B744 shaves 2 hours of journey time off the B772, and in what it takes to fly from EZE-LHR, a B763 can only make MAD. 2 more hours on such a long sector pushes you much closer to insanity, believe you me!

XV

How do you say "12 months" in Estonian?
 
a380900
Posts: 797
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 11:26 pm

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Tue Jul 20, 2004 11:12 pm

Thanks to everybody with a special mention to Baw716!
 
keesje
Posts: 8608
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Tue Jul 20, 2004 11:21 pm

There are some limitations on the 767 in premium seating due to cabin width; however, seat manufacturers are able to overcome this drawback.


good analyses baw716.

however the premium cabin thing on the 767 is serious (I had come come up with a plan on this for klm a few yrs ago). It basically has a 5.5 abreast cabin. We concluded there weren´t good sleeper solutions for a 6 abreast cabin, too narrow, BA/AA/UA/DL concluded the same. 5 abreast (CO) is possible but not efficient, you basicly loose 20% of the seats & that is a lot of lost turn over to justify ..

So we decided to improve the current seats (pitch, cushions, fabric..) & other amenities, which worked pretty good cost/comfort wise ..

In economy class, as you might know, there is a lot of pressure on service, in terms of cost- and passenger appreciation. An uneven number of seats abreast forces creative solutions for serving the middle passengers, the right or left aisle crew has to take care of it, leaving room for errors compared to straight forward 6, 8 or 10 abreast cabins.

A cross section like used by Airbus seems optimum for First, Business and Economy class comfort/service, as well as cargo / aerodynamic drag / weight stiffness trade-off´s, as now confirmed by Boeings 7E7.

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
baw716
Posts: 1459
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 7:02 pm

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Wed Jul 21, 2004 5:23 pm

My thanks to those of you who have commented on my post.

With regard to Keesje's remarks about premium seating and cabin service aboard the 767, I am in total agreement with you. It is a problem. I was being kind both to my former employer(s) and the local plane manufacturer (yes, I live in Seattle). The existing bed products do not work in the 767. Continental put their bed product on their 777s, but not on their 767s. This has created a rather significant product difference, and since a good portion of their South America and Europe routes are flown with 767s, they are taking a lot of heat from their premium customers. To my knowledge, only Royal Brunei has put a bed product in the 767; the same space bed product SQ offers on their 777/A345, with one seat in the middle (2-1-2)..picture on their website. I think a more logical solution would be to take the VS herringbone approach. In the same cabin in which we had 30 sleeper seats at 55 in pitch five across seating, I imagine that an airline could achieve around the same number of seats using the seat product pioneered by Virgin.

Your comments regarding on board service issues are also quite correct; however, I believe (and please correct me if I am wrong), cabin crew assignments for that aircraft are set procedures, e.g. the 2 cabin attendants on the port side work the middle seat in the mid cabin, the 2 cabin attendants on the starboard side work the middle seat in the aft cabin or vice versa. Yes, I have seen the same confusion you have; however, my experience with cabin service delivery is that excellent service delivery calls for following the procedure to the letter. Otherwise the service is at best inconsistent and in some cases, it is just organized chaos.

To all of you who post comments and those who respond to them, we are indeed fortunate that we can have these kinds of conversations. One never knows who is reading and maybe, just maybe, there is an airline executive out there who will take what we are reading and come up with a brilliant idea that will make flying a much more enjoyable experience than it is today for most people. Who knows? After all, the idea of flight started as a dream...

My best to you all.
David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 7982
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Wed Jul 21, 2004 10:11 pm

In my humble opinion, Airbus really lucked out with the A330-200.

Remember, Airbus originally did not offer the A330-200, instead steering customers looking for long-range aircraft to the A340-200/300 series. Airbus envisioned the A333 as an airliner for primarily transatlantic routes and medium-range high-density routes such as those flown in Asia. It was only when several airline customers started clamoring that Airbus finally relented and built the A332, which has the seating capacity of the A342 but with the range of around 6,400 nautical miles (still air), enough to fly longer routes that don't demand a larger passenger load.

However, Airbus still has an issue in regards to a true A300B/A310 replacement. The A332 is far too heavy a plane for such a purpose, and Boeing's new 7E7-3 could take away a lot of Airbus sales, especially with sales to LH, SQ, the mainland Chinese airlines, and so on.
 
od-bwh
Posts: 308
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2002 6:25 pm

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:57 am

Bitchthing.. i think i've put my foot in your mouth... And yes, i did search. Can you give one airline name outside the US?
A300, A319, A320, A321, A332, A333, A343, A346, A388, B734, B738, B744, B772, B773, B788, F70, MD11, CRJ700
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Why Is The 767 So Behind The A330?

Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:28 am

I will give you two.

1) SQ
2) QF

Both have seriously considered the 764.

N

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AS512, Cointrin330, FLJ, goldorak, Google [Bot], JayJ, kriskim, MKEdude, mtnwest1979, PSAjet17, psychostang, sutrakhk, VAAengineer, VapourTrails, vhqpa, zstpe and 284 guests