flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:44 am

A346 vs 748 and 773ER

Airbus A340-600

Fuel Capacity: 54,023 US Gallons
Range: 7,900 Nautical Miles
3 Class PAX Capacity: 380

Gallons/Mile = 6.84
Gallons/PassengerMile = .01798

Boeing 747-8

Fuel Capacity: 60,125 US Gallons
Range: 8,000 Nautical Miles
3 Class PAX Capacity: 450

Gallons/Mile: 7.52
Gallons/PassengerMile: .0167

Boeing 777-300ER

Fuel Capacity: 47,890 US Gallons
Range: 7,880 Nautical Miles
3 Class PAX Capacity: 365

Gallons/Mile: 6.077
Gallons/Passenger Mile: .01665

Both 747-8 and 777-300 get nearly 10 percent better fuel consumption per passenger mile than A340-600. Why is this?


Airbus A330-200 vs. Boeing 767-400ER

A330-200
Fuel Capacity: 36,750 Gallons
Range: 6,750 Nautical Miles
3 Class Pax capacity: 253

Gallons/Mile = 5.44
Gallons/PassengerMile: .0215

B767-400ER
Fuel Capacity: 23,980 US Gallons
Range: 5,645 Nautical Miles
3 Class Pax Capacity: 245

Gallons/Mile 4.25
Gallons/PassengerMile: .0173

767-400ER is almost 20% more fuel efficient than Airbus A330-200

Airbus A320 vs. Boeing 737-800

A320
Fuel Capacity: 7,835 US Gallons
Range: 3,050 Nautical Miles
2 Class Pax Capacity: 150

Gallons/Mile: 2.569
Gallons/PassengerMile: .0171

B737-800
Fuel Capacity; 6,875 US Gallons
Range: 3,060 Nautical Miles
2 Class Pax Capacity: 162

Gallons/Mile: 2.246
Gallons/PassengerMile: .01387

Boeing's 737-800 is almost 20% more fuel efficient per passenger/mile than airbus' A320.

Anyone have an idea why Airbus' aircraft are less efficient?
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:55 am

The A320 is not 20% less efficient than a 737-800. Period. AVITAS rates them too close to call last time I checked.

The 767-400ER is more fuel efficient than an A330-200 because they're not even in the same league in terms of payload/range capability. Much like the 737-900ER and A321 will be much more efficient than a 757, but doesn't do much good if you're leaving people and cargo on the ramp.

The 747-8 doesn't even exist yet. Arguably, a plane to fly in 2009 should be much more efficient.

N
 
Glom
Posts: 2051
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Mon Feb 27, 2006 5:01 am

How have you chosen those numbers? Have you consulted the payload-range charts?
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Mon Feb 27, 2006 5:04 am

The 738 might, hence the *might*, be slightly more fuel efficient than the A320, but this has to do with the fact that it is lighter (smaller cross-section=less weight). However it is no where even close to 20% more efficient than the A320, Airbus wouldn't sell very many A320s if they were 20% less efficient. The order book speaks for itself on this issue. That difference that you have is like a 787 vs. a 767.
 
A319XFW
Posts: 1519
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:41 am

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Mon Feb 27, 2006 5:12 am

Poitin linked a fuel consumption comparison by LH in an other thread.

I can't find it now, but perhaps he would be so kind to re-post the link  Smile

But those are just for LH used aircraft, so not the A320 vs. 737-8 for instance.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8650
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Mon Feb 27, 2006 5:23 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Thread starter):
Both 747-8 and 777-300 get nearly 10 percent better fuel consumption per passenger mile than A340-600. Why is this?

In response to the A346 re: 748 and 773ER, the main culprit is structural weight. The A340 (-500/600) are much heavier than their respective 777LR counterparts.

This has less to do with engine configuration than design philosophy. Boeing optimized the 777-200A for heavier MTOW while Airbus optimized the A333/A343 for mid-range opperations. When Airbus developed the A340 "NG," they had to reinforce more structures than Boeing, and had to stretch the narrower fuselage longer than the wider 777. Boeing reached their desired MTOW with less dramatic re-engineering.

Note that: (1) the A333 is much lighter than the 772A, (2) Airbus was able to develop a shrink variant (A332) while Boeing was unable to shrink the 777, but (3) the A340NG is much heavier than the 777LR.

Also, the 747-800 is arguably the most structurally efficent 747 ever. Boeing internal studies from the 747-X (late 90s) showed that a 1-2 meter stretch would result in the most volume/capacity per structural lb than any other length. This is the exact amount taken by Boeing with the 748 stretch.
 
sstsomeday
Posts: 821
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:32 pm

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Mon Feb 27, 2006 5:32 am

Oh boy - I have a feeling that this thread is going to be a bloodbath...

Thank you, DFWevolution and FLYdreamliner for such comprehensive information.

Math is not my forte. Perhaps you can elaborate, FLY, on how the statistics indicate a 20% difference in fuel consumption between the 737 and 320. The 320's success would indicate that such a huge difference seems unlikely.

But I know I will follow this thread with interest...

Quoting Glom (Reply 2):
How have you chosen those numbers? Have you consulted the payload-range charts?



Quoting Gigneil (Reply 1):
The A320 is not 20% less efficient than a 737-800. Period. AVITAS rates them too close to call last time I checked.

What is AVITAS?
I come in peace
 
MarcoT
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 9:55 pm

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Mon Feb 27, 2006 5:41 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Thread starter):

B737-800
Fuel Capacity; 6,875 US Gallons
Range: 3,060 Nautical Miles
2 Class Pax Capacity: 162

Gallons/Mile: 2.246
Gallons/PassengerMile: .01387

Boeing's 737-800 is almost 20% more fuel efficient per passenger/mile than airbus' A320.

Anyone have an idea why Airbus' aircraft are less efficient?

No, because it is simply not true.

Instead we have an idea why you think so...
CLUE: fuel consumption IS NOT given by the ratio of maximum fuel capacity to max range...

Marco
Too short space for my favorite hopelessly long winded one liner
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8650
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Mon Feb 27, 2006 5:42 am

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 6):
What is AVITAS?

http://www.avitas.com/

Aviation firm specializing in aircraft valuation, consulting, inspection, etc.

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 6):
Perhaps you can elaborate, FLY, on how the statistics indicate a 20% difference in fuel consumption between the 737 and 320.

20% delta in SFC between the A320 and 738 is just not possible. If anything, it's probably single digit (2-3%) favor of the 737NG on account of lighter OEW/Seat and AVP Blended Winglets package. It really is close.

Gigneil is right, in many cases, the 737NG and A320 are so closely matched that the deciding factor can come down to a non-performance datum like finance terms and delivery slots.

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 6):
The 320's success would indicate that such a huge difference seems unlikely.

The A320's recent order surge (2003-2005) is due in large part to a highly aggressive sales team and a speculative decision to boost production in 2001-2002. That has paid off big time, giving Airbus the ability to offer all sorts of delivery schedules and financing terms that knocked Boeing on their rear a few years in a row.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23453
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Mon Feb 27, 2006 5:45 am

Of course those figures calculate maximum fuel volume being carried and the plane flying it's maximum distance with maximum passenger load (as defined by Airbus and Boeing, and not the customer). Essentially, they're just hypotheticals based on numbers that don't translate to how these planes are used by customers in "real" configurations and operations.
 
art
Posts: 2696
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:11 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Thread starter):
Boeing's 737-800 is almost 20% more fuel efficient per passenger/mile than airbus' A320.

You didn't give the source of this information. Could you point me to the right page on the Boeing website, please?
 
sstsomeday
Posts: 821
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:32 pm

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:27 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 8):
The A320's recent order surge (2003-2005) is due in large part to a highly aggressive sales team and a speculative decision to boost production in 2001-2002. That has paid off big time, giving Airbus the ability to offer all sorts of delivery schedules and financing terms that knocked Boeing on their rear a few years in a row.

That's very interesting. It's facinating to me that Boeing would fall behind for these reasons, as opposed to having an inferior aircraft. How can they let this happen?
I come in peace
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:58 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 5):
In response to the A346 re: 748 and 773ER, the main culprit is structural weight. The A340 (-500/600) are much heavier than their respective 777LR counterparts.

It has been suggested that there is a much greater drag penalty that is reflected in cruise thrust requirements than would be expected due to just increased OEW.

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 11):
That's very interesting. It's facinating to me that Boeing would fall behind for these reasons, as opposed to having an inferior aircraft. How can they let this happen?

Perhaps you have heard of 9/11, an event that more severely impacted Boeing's customers and caused Boeing to retrench a great deal.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:01 am

I'm using data from www.boeing.com and www.airbus.com. You can say whatever you'd like, I never talked about payload, i simply showed what the per mile consumption for each aircraft was, and what the per seat mile consumption was, assuming every seat was full.

A320 came out years before 73G. The A320 is way better than 737 Classic. Their continued sales show that a lot of people like fleet commonality.

I was just posting numbers I found strange, not making any statements, I just wanted to know if people had explanations for these numbers. I wasn't trying to start an A vs. B debate.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:17 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 13):
I'm using data from www.boeing.com and www.airbus.com. You can say whatever you'd like, I never talked about payload, i simply showed what the per mile consumption for each aircraft was, and what the per seat mile consumption was, assuming every seat was full.

Quoted range does not equal range with a maxed out fuel capacity. Trade offs between revenue payload weight and fuel weight to stay under maximum take off weight limits usually mean for a weight limited aircraft that the fuel tanks won't be filled at the design payload, thus less fuel will be used than maximum fuel capacity. The ranges you provide are for design payloads, not payload after fuel capacity is maxed out.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1586
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:21 am

I think the fundamental problem with comparing fuel consumption this way is that it does not take into account each companies philosophy with regard to payload range.

Airbus generally have more tankage than Boeing. This often gives them a greater range, but at a payload no-one would want to operate at on a regular basis. Boeing on the other hand limit tankage to the lowest likely payload that a customer is likely to want to use on a regular basis.

Put another way, with a typical payload if you fill the tanks on an Airbus you will probably go overweight, but on a Boeing you will probably be at about MTOW.

Thr Airbus philosophy probably gives more flexibility because you can sacrifice more payload for range, but in normal day to day ops I doubt it makes much difference.

This is a generalisation from memory, but I beleive it is the underlying reason why you can't compare fuel consumption the way the original poster has done.

Ruscoe
 
MarcoT
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 9:55 pm

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:54 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 13):

I'm using data from www.boeing.com and www.airbus.com. You can say whatever you'd like, I never talked about payload, i simply showed what the per mile consumption for each aircraft was, and what the per seat mile consumption was, assuming every seat was full.

The problem is that, when you divide _max fuel capacity_ by _max range with full pax_ for obtaining 'mile consumption' for each aircraft, you are also assuming (without realizing it) that max range with full pax is achieved taking off with the fuel tanks completely full, which is simply not true. In most cases doing so you'll end above MTOW ...

Instead you _should_ talk about payload.

Usually manufacturers claims something like 'max range with a payload of X tonnes -corresponding to a full load of N passengers and baggages- is Y nm'.
So, if you know the MTOW and the OEW (Operating Empty Weight) you can then calculate the _weight_ of the fuel used as MTOW - (OEW + X), and dividing by the (average) fuel density you obtain the quantity in litres/gallons whatever.

A couple of warnings:

First, the figures given are usually assuming standard fuel reserves. So if you use this data for calculating 'liters/km' you'll end up with an higher value than in reality, and short range aircraft are penalized proportionally more...
Also, for doing accurate comparison, you should investigate how much 'standard' reserves are standard...

Second, the OEW used by the manufacturers are the lightest they can get by. In airline service it really depends on the cabin furnitures and the various amenities installed. This should be kept in mind when doing comparison between different arlines and/or the manufacturers figures...
Too short space for my favorite hopelessly long winded one liner
 
Glom
Posts: 2051
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:33 am

Your best bet, if you really want to go down this road, is to consult a bunch of payload-charts, picking the point with max fuel payload and work from there.

For example, going for the answer we already knew, looking at the 777 (source).

777-200LR
At maximum payload for full fuel, the ZFW will be ~408klb for a range of ~9350NM. The figures they used to reach these values are OEW of 320klb and max fuel capacity of 320.9lkb. Due to this, we may assume that the payload carried by 408lkb, is 88klb. It is carrying 88lkb over a distance of 9350NM using 321klb (yeah okay this includes reserves and stuff but what are you going to do?).

So, the fuel burn is 0.00039 lb fuel per lb payload per mile.

Now I can't find the charts for the A345. They used to be on the Airbus website, but they've taken them away (too embarassing probably).
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1586
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:38 am

Quoting Glom (Reply 17):
Now I can't find the charts for the A345

I've found the same problem. Have got current Payloqad/Range Charts for the 380, can you provide a link to any others.

Like yourself I found charts for 345/6 on the Airbus site probably 2 years ago now but they have since disappeared.

Ruscoe
 
sstsomeday
Posts: 821
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:32 pm

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:07 am

Quoting Glom (Reply 17):Now I can't find the charts for the A345


Ruscoe[/quote] I've found the same problem. Have got current Payloqad/Range Charts for the 380, can you provide a link to any others.

Like yourself I found charts for 345/6 on the Airbus site probably 2 years ago now but they have since disappeared.

Hmmm. Something is rotton in Denmark (um, ok, France)
I come in peace
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5065
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:58 am

Widebodyphotog has provided the data need to answer questions on this topic in numerous charts on mission comparison analysis over the past 6-months.
Do a search under username for Widebodyphotog and you will find reams of material. You will probably have to go to the archives .Select the appropriate ones and bookmark them for reference.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9057
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:23 pm

Andrew Miller, chief executive of the Center for Asia Pacific Aviation, a consultancy based in Sydney:

the A320 was slightly more fuel efficient than the 737 - by less than 5 percent.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...420AP_AS_FIN_Airbus_vs_Boeing.html

About the 747-8 - A380 comparisons : the trick is in the far fetched seatcount assumptions: just pick out two extreme configurations and everything works out as desired. Seems Boeing takes some truly amazing assumptions here, a delta of just 92 seats.. http://www.airliners.net/discussions...general_aviation/read.main/2622571
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Kangar
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 8:11 pm

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:29 pm

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 13):
I'm using data from www.boeing.com and www.airbus.com. You can say whatever you'd like, I never talked about payload, i simply showed what the per mile consumption for each aircraft was, and what the per seat mile consumption was, assuming every seat was full.

The trouble with these numbers is that you have to factor in overall payload to get a clear picture of what's what. Also, bear in mind that the carrier's stated seat counts may not be necessarily be what is used in practice. Just calculating the fuel consumption based off the seat count and the max fuel capacity doesn't give you an accurate figure, simply because, 1. it doesn't reflect real world operation, and 2, the manufacturers stated ranges are not based off carrying just a planeload of people with no luggage/cargo.
 
Glom
Posts: 2051
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:32 pm

Quoting Kangar (Reply 22):
Just calculating the fuel consumption based off the seat count and the max fuel capacity doesn't give you an accurate figure, simply because, 1. it doesn't reflect real world operation, and 2, the manufacturers stated ranges are not based off carrying just a planeload of people with no luggage/cargo.

Not to mention that, for example, the A345 at max fuel can carry all but a boy and his dog. When loaded with the stated passenger count, it won't be carrying nearly as much fuel.
 
MarcoT
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 9:55 pm

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 18):

Like yourself I found charts for 345/6 on the Airbus site probably 2 years ago now but they have since disappeared.

They were still there, for all models, as late as last summer. They get lost in the process when they later completely redesigned the interface of the section.

Some nice detailed technical info, though not payload range charts, could be found on Airbus professional portal, here:

http://www.content.airbusworld.com/S...ication_Register/html/home_cr.html

Unfortunately free access to full detailed technical documents, including Airplane Characteristics, Maintenance Facility Planning , Aircraft Recovery Manual, Aircraft Rescue & Firefighting Charts and Commercial Aircraft Design Characteristics, is available only to legitimate aviation professionals upon (free) registration.

http://www.airbusworld.com/portal/co...unity.asp?UserID=2&CommunityID=203

Since in the login page they use the adverb 'Currently', maybe with enough feedback they would consider making some of these documents available to the general public.
A good tactic could be mentioning that Boeing does so for the Airport Planning guides.
It should be noted though that this Boeing move is fairly recent (I think that the airport planning guides got available since somewhere in 2005) and for sure keeping them current is not a top priority for Boeing. For instance the currently available guides for the 777 still gives the highest MTOW of the 200ER at 286900 tonnes, and the maximum thrust engine options at 84700 lbs...
Too short space for my favorite hopelessly long winded one liner
 
Thorben
Posts: 2713
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 10:29 pm

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:47 pm

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Thread starter):

What a lame comparison. If you just take some passenger numbers, you won't get very far. I suggest you take max payload and then the max range with that and do your calculations again. I did that once for the A346HGW and the 773ER and found out that the difference is about 1%.
France 1789; Eastern Germany 1989; Tunisia 2011; Egypt 2011
 
Aviator27
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:09 pm

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:48 pm

This post is so grossly incorrect, I suggest it gets deleted. OMG you have to be kidding me. How did Flydreamliner come up with his numbers?
 
Glom
Posts: 2051
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:52 pm

Quoting Thorben (Reply 25):
I suggest you take max payload and then the max range with that and do your calculations again.

Actually, that's not a particularly good way of doing it either. You want to use max fuel payload and the range you get with that.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17205
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Mon Feb 27, 2006 10:31 pm

Quoting Glom (Reply 27):
You want to use max fuel payload and the range you get with that.

No, because fuel is not payload. Also if you fill the tanks "to the filling caps" and take max pax you won't be able to take off because of MTOW restrictions.

Fuel consumption probably differs (but not by 20%), but airlines don't choose aircraft purely because of fuel consumption. A multitude of factors have to be calculated to reach the actual Net Present Value of the investment:
- Price of purchase/lease.
- Delivery date.
- Fuel consumption.
- Pax and cargo capacity.
- Commonality.
- Availability of service facilities.
- Price of service.
- Length of service with airline.
- Cost of training.
- Cost of ancillary equipment such as loaders and tugs.
- Route structure effect on all of the above.
- and so forth..
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Glom
Posts: 2051
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:31 pm

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 28):
No, because fuel is not payload. Also if you fill the tanks "to the filling caps" and take max pax you won't be able to take off because of MTOW restrictions.

No, you miss understood me. By max fuel payload, I meant the maximum payload you can carry with max fuel, which is obviously much less than the maximum structural payload.
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:47 pm

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 13):
I'm using data from www.boeing.com and www.airbus.com. You can say whatever you'd like, I never talked about payload, i simply showed what the per mile consumption for each aircraft was, and what the per seat mile consumption was, assuming every seat was full.

My comment here, and this buttreses some others, is that your assumptions of fuel burn are absolutely, fundamentally wrong. Fuel capacity has nothing to do with fuel burn and while one of the aircraft you site is fuel limited, the other aircraft load substantially less than maximum fuel for a design payload/range mission.

Furthermore payload has everything to do with the equation. Occupied seats is weight and that weight is payload. The aircraft manufactures quote range with design payload which is generally their typical 100% 2 or 3 class passenger arrangement.

I think in your zeal to produce this thread you have overlooked the basics, possibly you did not mean to start a conflict, but basing your argument on flawed assumptions you've started the ball rolling in that direction.



-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17205
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Tue Feb 28, 2006 12:15 am

Quoting Glom (Reply 29):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 28):
No, because fuel is not payload. Also if you fill the tanks "to the filling caps" and take max pax you won't be able to take off because of MTOW restrictions.

No, you miss understood me. By max fuel payload, I meant the maximum payload you can carry with max fuel, which is obviously much less than the maximum structural payload.

Ok I see now. And of course you are correct. As you say one of the fundamentals is that if you fill the tanks to the brim you're compromising on something else, normally payload.

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 30):
I think in your zeal to produce this thread you have overlooked the basics, possibly you did not mean to start a conflict, but basing your argument on flawed assumptions you've started the ball rolling in that direction.

An A vs. B war on A.nut? Surely not! Big grin
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Johnny
Posts: 812
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:38 am

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Tue Feb 28, 2006 12:56 am

@ FlyDreamliner

What a bullshit! Sorry for that word, but WHO really needs such a discussion?!?
Answer : NOBODY!!!

My GOLF needs less fuel than the PASSAT... Oh,Really?! Hmm, could the reason be that they are both not comparable..?!?

The B777 burns more fuel than the A330 on shorter routes. Yes!
The B777NG burns less fuel than the A340NG. Yes!
The B764 burns less fuel than the A332 ? Not always - if you operate both with the same cruise speed,than it is the same.
The B738 burns less fuel/seat than the A320. Yes,because it has some more seats...
The B748i burns less fuel/seat than the A346. Probably yes, because its entry into service is 2009, not 2004 when the A346 entered service.And it is bigger as well...

And so on...


This is really one of the most un-needed threads of the last month.

Nearly nobody from us knows the exact figures of fuel-consumption in the daily airline ops. ( not the promises from both Boeing and Airbus...)

It is nothing more than a new A vs. B war.Let us stop that.They are both producing great airplanes.Probably some Airbusses are better than their Boeing competitors and probably some Boeing are better than their Airbus competitors.

[Edited 2006-02-27 17:04:11]
 
PlaneDane
Posts: 347
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:08 am

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Tue Feb 28, 2006 1:22 am

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 30):
I think in your zeal to produce this thread you have overlooked the basics, possibly you did not mean to start a conflict, but basing your argument on flawed assumptions you've started the ball rolling in that direction.



Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 26):
This post is so grossly incorrect, I suggest it gets deleted. OMG you have to be kidding me. How did Flydreamliner come up with his numbers?



Quoting Johnny (Reply 32):
@ FlyDreamliner

What a bullshit! Sorry for that word, but WHO really needs such a discussion?!?
Answer : NOBODY!!!

Why don't we all lighten up a bit here?

Why not provide facts and data to show FlyDreamliner how these numbers should be calculated? Where is the information that can be used to show the real fuel consumption numbers?

Even a discussion like this can remain interesting, civil and courteous, if used to provide factual information. So provide it instead of just ranting.
 
MarcoT
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 9:55 pm

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Tue Feb 28, 2006 1:34 am

Quoting PlaneDane (Reply 33):

Why not provide facts and data to show FlyDreamliner how these numbers should be calculated? Where is the information that can be used to show the real fuel consumption numbers?

But it has been provided, and since the beginning.

Look at the reply 3,7,14,16 for starting...
Too short space for my favorite hopelessly long winded one liner
 
Kangar
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 8:11 pm

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Tue Feb 28, 2006 1:37 am

Quoting PlaneDane (Reply 33):
Why not provide facts and data to show FlyDreamliner how these numbers should be calculated? Where is the information that can be used to show the real fuel consumption numbers?

It's a fair point, but I think a number of good pointers have been made as regards to what additional factors need to be considered. Getting your hands on up to the minute, accurate fuel burn data on the other hand might be a bit trickier.....
 
Johnny
Posts: 812
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:38 am

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Tue Feb 28, 2006 1:40 am

@ Planedate

No, i do not agree with you.The point is not to appologize our posts, the point is that airliners.net users should NOT start a threads which ends in an A vs. B war obviously!

We all can discuss very interesting questions here ( the main reason for this forum! ) But we should avoid those threads whenever possible.

 Smile
 
sstsomeday
Posts: 821
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:32 pm

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:49 am

Quoting PlaneDane (Reply 33):
Why don't we all lighten up a bit here?

Why not provide facts and data to show FlyDreamliner how these numbers should be calculated? Where is the information that can be used to show the real fuel consumption numbers?

Even a discussion like this can remain interesting, civil and courteous, if used to provide factual information. So provide it instead of just ranting.



Quoting Johnny (Reply 36):
the point is that airliners.net users should NOT start a threads which ends in an A vs. B war obviously!



Quoting Johnny (Reply 36):
We all can discuss very interesting questions here ( the main reason for this forum! ) But we should avoid those threads whenever possible.

I think healthy discourse about A vs B can be very interesting and informative, so long as it is done with respect and courtesy. After all, a competition does exist between those two companies, which most of us find interesting.

I can respect someone who leads with his perspective, his analysis of the facts, his perceptions. I listen and am often educated, and sometimes I change my mind about a preconception I had!

I tend to not respect (therefore, not give much credit to) people who lead with bravado and condescension. Those individuals tend to be less rational, less factual, and so what they say tends to be less interesting to me. I'm talking about the ones who take mindless jabs at A or B, or the ones who are wounded when their favorite manufacturer is criticized. They are ever amusing, sometimes offensive, but seldom informative.
I come in peace
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Tue Feb 28, 2006 12:00 pm

I'm actually for the most part impressed by the civility of this thread.

N
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10094
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Tue Feb 28, 2006 12:35 pm

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Thread starter):
Boeing's 737-800 is almost 20% more fuel efficient per passenger/mile than airbus' A320.

Anyone have an idea why Airbus' aircraft are less efficient?

All you have shown is that any Boeing aircraft that was introduced after the Airbus competitor is more fiel efficent.

Could I suggest you rerun you comparison.

747-200/300 vs A346
B7732/B733/734 vs A320
B762/B752 vs A332

All this would show is that airbus aircraft with an EIS after the Boeing is more fuel efficent.

A lot of this is being driven by engine technology, as time goes on, engine technology reduces fuel burn for a given thrust output with a lighter engine.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Tue Feb 28, 2006 1:01 pm

Quoting Johnny (Reply 32):
@ FlyDreamliner

What a bullshit! Sorry for that word, but WHO really needs such a discussion?!?
Answer : NOBODY!!!

My GOLF needs less fuel than the PASSAT... Oh,Really?! Hmm, could the reason be that they are both not comparable..?!?

The B777 burns more fuel than the A330 on shorter routes. Yes!
The B777NG burns less fuel than the A340NG. Yes!
The B764 burns less fuel than the A332 ? Not always - if you operate both with the same cruise speed,than it is the same.
The B738 burns less fuel/seat than the A320. Yes,because it has some more seats...
The B748i burns less fuel/seat than the A346. Probably yes, because its entry into service is 2009, not 2004 when the A346 entered service.And it is bigger as well...

And so on...


This is really one of the most un-needed threads of the last month.

Nearly nobody from us knows the exact figures of fuel-consumption in the daily airline ops. ( not the promises from both Boeing and Airbus...)

It is nothing more than a new A vs. B war.Let us stop that.They are both producing great airplanes.Probably some Airbusses are better than their Boeing competitors and probably some Boeing are better than their Airbus competitors.

Wow. You're really sort of unpleasant.


Like I said in a previous post here, I didn't want to start some war between A and B. I myself am of the opinion Airbus does better mainline aircraft, Boeing does slightly better long haul, but neither are much better than the other. The purpose of this post was that in looking over the data, I found stuff that didn't make sense. I couldn't imagine a 748 getting better economy than A346. Also, I couldn't believer 73G got economy that much better, so I posted it, and asked if anyone could shed more light on this, both why my numbers looked that way (and I never claimed my numbers to be truth, I just said I found numbers, they look strange, can someone explain why), but also, I wanted to know if people had more information on fuel consumption. I've read extensively on the differences between 777 and A340, and I read B764 and A332 are the same, but I didn't know. I just wanted to start a discussion to get some data.

That's all.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Tue Feb 28, 2006 1:29 pm

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 1):
The A320 is not 20% less efficient than a 737-800. Period. AVITAS rates them too close to call last time I checked

The 738 has a noticably lower raw CASM and it becomes lower as fuel prices go up

Quoting NorCal (Reply 3):
The 738 might, hence the *might*, be slightly more fuel efficient than the A320, but this has to do with the fact that it is lighter (smaller cross-section=less weight).

Actually, the 738 is heavier, as it is the larger airplane.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 8):
20% delta in SFC between the A320 and 738 is just not possible. If anything, it's probably single digit (2-3%) favor of the 737NG on account of lighter OEW/Seat and AVP Blended Winglets package. It really is close.

The 738 already had a lower CASM pre-winglets, the winglets increase the delta

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 13):
A320 came out years before 73G. The A320 is way better than 737 Classic.

Actually, the 737Classic has lower CASM and lower fuel burn on missions within its range band (lower than the 737NG too).

Quoting Keesje (Reply 21):
Seems Boeing takes some truly amazing assumptions here, a delta of just 92 seats..

Because that is the realistic delta, not some Airbus 800 seat fantasy

Quoting Thorben (Reply 25):
I did that once for the A346HGW and the 773ER and found out that the difference is about 1%.

You need to go over than one again

Quoting Johnny (Reply 32):
The B764 burns less fuel than the A332 ? Not always - if you operate both with the same cruise speed,than it is the same.

Complete hogwash. The 764 is lighter and burns less fuel, period. It has a lower CASM but it's range/payload is absolute crap

Quoting Johnny (Reply 32):
The B748i burns less fuel/seat than the A346. Probably yes, because its entry into service is 2009, not 2004 when the A346 entered service.And it is bigger as well...

The 744 already has a lower CASM, so the 748 most definately will

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 38):
I'm actually for the most part impressed by the civility of this thread.

Me too

Quoting Zeke (Reply 39):
747-200/300 vs A346

How about you compare things less than 30 years apart in age? The 744 has a lower CASM than the A346, a much better comparisson

Quoting Zeke (Reply 39):
B7732/B733/734 vs A320

Actually, the 733 and 734 burn less fuel and have a lower CASM within their range band than the A319 and A320

Quoting Zeke (Reply 39):
B762/B752 vs A332

Um, how about comparing something of similar size/mission?
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:08 pm

Personally I think it’s just a matter of evolution.

Phase One:- In its early days, Airbus competed very successfully by identifying and filling gaps in Boeing’s product range, and also using more modern engines and construction techniques to produce lighter aircraft that carried more people than the Boeing alternatives, model by model, at no extra cost. They achieved two major successes – a winning widebody fuselage/wing combination in the A300, and a ‘clean sheet’ design (the A320) which matched, or even outclassed, Boeing’s best-seller, the 737.

Boeing was complacent and slow to react; and indulged in short-term thinking. It stuck to its existing range for too long, no doubt hoping and expecting that it would be able to hold on to its monopoly share of the US market, and thus ‘weather the storm’ of Airbus competition.

Phase Two:- Boeing woke up and realised that it was in a fight. It up-graded the 737 and looked hard for opportunities to use better engines and construction techniques (particularly innovative wing design from the Sonic Cruiser project, and increased use of composites) to beat Airbus at its own game. In addition, it identified an emerging market that neither manufacturer was serving properly; direct ‘thinner’ routes linking smaller cities with other smaller cities, and even hubs, with ‘sub-jumbo’ aircraft. In particular, it decided to make full use of ETOPS to develop long-range twins (even though such aircraft would compete with its own flagship, the 747).

This time it was Airbus’ turn to be complacent. It expected its existing range to be capable of holding its own indefinitely, and concentrated on the logical next step in its ‘model by model’ strategy – producing a ‘bigger and better’ competitor to the 747. This left it short of resources and motivation to take advantage of the emerging ETOPS market; so it compromised by producing only a four-engine version of its basic widebody design.

Phase Three:- This phase is just beginning. Mainly by judgment (the decision to develop innovative new models to serve a new market) but also partly by luck (rising fuel prices) Boeing has an emerging range of twin-engined widebodies optimised for long ranges with large payloads.

Airbus currently appears to have no convincing answer in that market sector. In particular, a four-engined type (Airbus’ only truly long-range large-capacity offering at the moment) cannot compete with twins in terms of operating costs. And I’m afraid that it is difficult to put any of that down to bad luck; the failure to exploit the potential of ETOPS, the concentration of resources on the A380, and above all the decision to continue to rely on models featuring the ‘same old’ 30-year-old A300 fuselage, show all the signs of management complacency.

The same sort of management complacency that Boeing suffered from, way back in ‘Phase One.’
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
sstsomeday
Posts: 821
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:32 pm

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:36 pm

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 40):
he B777 burns more fuel than the A330 on shorter routes. Yes!
The B777NG burns less fuel than the A340NG. Yes!
The B764 burns less fuel than the A332 ? Not always - if you operate both with the same cruise speed,than it is the same.
The B738 burns less fuel/seat than the A320. Yes,because it has some more seats...
The B748i burns less fuel/seat than the A346. Probably yes, because its entry into service is 2009, not 2004 when the A346 entered service.And it is bigger as well...

And so on...

This is really one of the most un-needed threads of the last month.

On the contrary. I find that information very interesting, especially considering fuel prices these days. It sheds light on one reason why airlines make their specific type choices.
I come in peace
 
PlaneDane
Posts: 347
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:08 am

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:46 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 42):
Personally I think it’s just a matter of evolution.

Very well written and thought out, NAV20. Thanks.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:46 pm

SSTSomeday, you're quoting 'Johnny' in Post 32, not 'Flydreamliner' in 40! Hope there's still time to edit!  

PS - Thanks, PlaneDane, you're welcome!

[Edited 2006-02-28 07:00:57]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
sstsomeday
Posts: 821
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:32 pm

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:23 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 45):
SSTSomeday, you're quoting 'Johnny' in Post 32, not 'Flydreamliner' in 40! Hope there's still time to edit!  

Thanks Nav20. And yes, excellent post. I'm about to write one myself about Boeing and Airbusk, a historical perspective which have led to present sales projections.
I come in peace
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:23 pm

NAV20, I agree completely. I've been myself curious, because Airbus made their name with bold an innovative clean sheet designs, why they have been so reluctant to let go of the old A300 cross section, which has served them well, but is now outdated, and why they are sticking to their current A340, which is less competitive than the 777. I'm sure A350 will be a very good aircraft, but I have to wonder how well it can compete against the clean sheet Boeing design. Likewise, with the Y1, Boeing is replacing the 737 with a clean sheet design, and Airbus just wants to warm over the A320. Unless I'm wrong, Airbus doesn't have any money issues, so why are they so reluctant to spend on new aircraft, which could compete very well, rather than skimping and just making improvements to older models. Let's be honest, A350 shares a lot with A330 in terms of design. Yes, A350 is vastly improved, but no more so than 737-700 is over 737-300. It's a new airplane, but only to a degree.

I've been very impressed with Airbus' boldness and willingness to innovate in the past, but their current leadership confuses me. While I think the A380 is an interesting design, I don't know if there is a large a market for that aircraft as there is for, say, something in the A350/A340 range and in the A320 range. They could be building more competitive aircraft. That said, they have the market for their A380 cornered, and I hope they sell the 400 and some of those they have to for the project to break even. I know they have a lot riding on its success.


My question is, if the figures are correct, if the A340 truly is as I've read in some places, as much as close to 20% less fuel efficient than the 777, why? It's a huge difference. I know the 777 has very impressive aerodynamics and the fact it's a twin jet contributes, but is that all?

I was also impressed by the 767 competing so well against the newer A330. I know 767 isn't as impressive for payload, but i was happy to see it compete so well against a newer bird. I have faith it compares atleast as well to A300, which is closer to the same era, but I never checked.

The data seems conflicting on 737NG and A320.

PS: Thanks for all your information N1120A
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
monteycarlos
Posts: 2018
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:16 pm

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Tue Feb 28, 2006 6:28 pm

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 13):
I wasn't trying to start an A vs. B debate.

Hmm, counsult the thread title and re-think that one.
It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
 
astuteman
Posts: 6406
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Airbus Vs. Boeing - Fuel Consumption

Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:50 pm

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 47):
why they have been so reluctant to let go of the old A300 cross section, which has served them well, but is now outdated,

The answer to that one is simple, FlyDreamliner - it means that a a large amount of the tooling, and in fact a lot of the interior components, are common across the whole of the widebody range, and many enhancements to one model immediately read across to all of the others.
The strategy has served Airbus well, and for those that still can't quite figure out why Airbus currently sports better operating margins, this is one of the key reasons - their planes are cheap to build.

Production engineering is a constant battle of trade-offs between product specification and product cost. The difficulty is that the baseline never stands still. As fuel prices increase, the trade-off point migrates towards product specification and away from product cost. Hence airbus at some time has to decide if its existing widebody trade-off strategy is still valid.
FWIW, I think they need to change, and the A350 was the perfect opportunity.......

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 47):
if the A340 truly is as I've read in some places, as much as close to 20% less fuel efficient than the 777,

If that were really true, every single A345/6 would be being taken out of service and being replaced, but most of the major operators are continuing to use them. Recent order trends indicate an obvious A340 shortcoming, but I suspect the "industry concensus" of 7% - 9% is more accurate in most applications. Don't listen to the rhetoric - watch the actions of the users. Wink

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 47):
Thanks for all your information N1120A

What information? N1120A has expressed opinions that have been countered by others with differing opinions. I've seen no authoritative data, nor would i expect to (I certainly haven't got any).

As many have said earlier, your original fuel burn premise was predicated on an assumption that the manufacturers stated range-payload figures assumed maximum fuel. this is not the case. At the given payload, many aircraft may only be physically capable of carrying 80% - 90% of their maximum fuel capacity whilst staying within the MTOW.
If you hear people on here using the expression "weight-limited", this is what they mean .
A

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos