American777
Topic Author
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:55 am

Why A330's And Not 777's!

Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:38 am

Why Do Most Airlines Now A Days Replace Their Boeing 767’s With A330’s?

For Example KLM, Asiana, Qantas, Air France, Eva Air, Air Europa, Aer Lingus, China Eastern, SAS, LTU, And Most Recently El Al Have All Ordered A330's.

Most Airbus A310 Operators Have Replaced Their A310's With A330's!
So Shouldn’t Of Qantas, Air Europa, China Eastern, SAS, and LTU All Ordered Boeing 777’s Instead?
 
olympicbis
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 6:32 pm

RE: Why A330's And Not 777's!

Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:45 am

Because the A330 currently IS the best replacement for the B767.
 
American777
Topic Author
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:55 am

RE: Why A330's And Not 777's!

Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:50 am

But The Boeing 777 Has Longer Range And It Saves More Fuel Than The A330.

[Edited 2006-04-22 20:51:20]
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Why A330's And Not 777's!

Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:51 am

The A330 is a great aircraft for many missions.
 
JRadier
Posts: 3943
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 11:36 pm

RE: Why A330's And Not 777's!

Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:51 am

Quoting American777 (Thread starter):
So Shouldn�t Of Qantas, Air Europa, China Eastern, SAS, and LTU All Ordered Boeing 777�s Instead?

the 777 is a fair bit larger then the A330, 767 and A310!
For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
 
Daleaholic
Posts: 2653
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 9:38 am

RE: Why A330's And Not 777's!

Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:55 am

with a 777 you would most likely have empty seats, which does not look good for the airline. These airlines do not need 777's. The A330 is a more than capable aircraft for what they need to do at the moment.
Religion is an illusion of childhood... Outgrown under proper education.
 
A319XFW
Posts: 1519
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:41 am

RE: Why A330's And Not 777's!

Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:00 am

Quoting Daleaholic (Reply 5):
with a 777 you would most likely have empty seats, which does not look good for the airline. These airlines do not need 777's. The A330 is a more than capable aircraft for what they need to do at the moment.

And the 777 is more expensive to buy in the first place.
And I doubt it is more efficient than the 330 per trip, as it's a much larger aircraft. Possibly per seat, but if you don't fill those seats, what's the point of getting the larger aircraft.
 
yul332LX
Posts: 798
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 5:15 am

RE: Why A330's And Not 777's!

Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:08 am

Quoting American777 (Reply 2):
But The Boeing 777 (...) Saves More Fuel Than The A330.

No, it does not.

The A333 is much more economical (about 17 to 19%) than the 772 (ER or not) for a 7-8 hours mission, even on a per seat basis.
E volavo, volavo felice più in alto del sole, e ancora più su mentre il mondo pian piano spariva lontano laggiù ...
 
azza40
Posts: 1032
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:18 am

RE: Why A330's And Not 777's!

Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:17 am

i would guess the 330 fits more into the airlines plans

Aaron  sly 
Not been on here for a good 2/3 years!
 
LeonB1985
Posts: 690
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 9:21 pm

RE: Why A330's And Not 777's!

Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:22 am

Both aircraft have their relative merits.

Your profile suggests that there may be a fair few future threads 'bashing' Delta and Airbus! (PS: It's care less, not careless - unless careless was just careless! )

[Edited 2006-04-22 21:23:11]
From the construction site that is better-known as London Heathrow Airport
 
BritPilot777
Posts: 998
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 10:05 am

RE: Why A330's And Not 777's!

Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:24 am

Simple, it comes down to efficiency, the A330 is much more fuel efficient than the Boeing 777 and in the current climate with oil prices etc it makes sense.

BP777
Forever Flight
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: Why A330's And Not 777's!

Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:31 am

Quoting American777 (Reply 2):
But The Boeing 777 Has Longer Range And It Saves More Fuel Than The A330.

It's a lot bigger, more expensive to buy, and not that many 767 routes could fill a 777. 777 was never meant to replace 767.

Quoting YUL332LX (Reply 7):
The A333 is much more economical (about 17 to 19%) than the 772 (ER or not) for a 7-8 hours mission, even on a per seat basis.

17%-19%......does airbus even claim numbers like that?

I'd need to see some real proof to believe those. I've heard A330 is more economical on shorter trips, and believe that, but never 20% more.

I think basically from now on, the A300/310/330/767 replacement aircraft of choice has become the 787.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
BritPilot777
Posts: 998
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 10:05 am

RE: Why A330's And Not 777's!

Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:33 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 11):

I think basically from now on, the A300/310/330/767 replacement aircraft of choice has become the 787.

Sorry buddy but I need to see some real proof to believe that!

BP777
Forever Flight
 
CanadianNorth
Posts: 3133
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 11:41 am

RE: Why A330's And Not 777's!

Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:33 am

The smallest member of the 777 family competes directly with the largest member of the A330 family. Boeing originally came up with the 777 for airlines that wanted a plane that was bigger than the 767 but not as big as the 747 (designed around the same time and in the same category as the MD-11 and A340). The A330-200 is a fair bit smaller than the 777-200, in the same area as the 767-400ER. So by replacing a 767-300ER with an A330-200 you are going up a size, where as replacing a 767-300ER with a 777 you are going up a full category.


CanadianNorth
What could possibly go wrong?
 
yul332LX
Posts: 798
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 5:15 am

RE: Why A330's And Not 777's!

Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:35 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 11):
17%-19%......does airbus even claim numbers like that?

I'd need to see some real proof to believe those. I've heard A330 is more economical on shorter trips, and believe that, but never 20% more.

I've given the sources/explanations before. It's just a widely known fact in the industry. The much lighter frame of the 333 explains most of the difference.

Just do a little search.

 Wink
E volavo, volavo felice più in alto del sole, e ancora più su mentre il mondo pian piano spariva lontano laggiù ...
 
bobnwa
Posts: 4471
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 12:10 am

RE: Why A330's And Not 777's!

Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:37 am

Quoting American777 (Reply 2):
But The Boeing 777 Has Longer Range And It Saves More Fuel Than The A330.

Please explain the "Saves more fuel " !!
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Why A330's And Not 777's!

Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:41 am

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 6):
And the 777 is more expensive to buy in the first place.

bingo. hugely more expensive, slots harder to get, too big as a 767 replacement, less efficient on shorter hops.

there are problems with the 330 though, like a 200 ft wingspan which is much bigger than a 767, making it difficult to fit in all the same gates. but the 777 has no advantage there, either. The A300 and 783 do, however.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: Why A330's And Not 777's!

Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:57 am

Quoting BritPilot777 (Reply 12):
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 11):

I think basically from now on, the A300/310/330/767 replacement aircraft of choice has become the 787.

Sorry buddy but I need to see some real proof to believe that!

Well, the A350 and 787 are the aircraft designed to replace these, and so far 787 is outselling A350 better than 3:1, and there have been calls by clients to throw out A350 and redesign it.

Quoting YUL332LX (Reply 14):
I've given the sources/explanations before. It's just a widely known fact in the industry. The much lighter frame of the 333 explains most of the difference.

Just do a little search.

No, its not common knowledge that its 20% more efficient. That it is more efficient on short trips, yes. Not that much more efficient.

The 777's aerodynamics allow it a faster cruise speed (by .04m) and it's MTOW is less than 30,000lbs heavier, under 10%. It also has a slightly higher passenger capacity. If you claimed it was 7-10% more efficient on shorter routes, I'd agree. 20% I don't believe.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
JetBlueAUS
Posts: 852
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 9:15 am

RE: Why A330's And Not 777's!

Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:39 am

Quoting American777 (Reply 2):
But The Boeing 777 Has Longer Range And It Saves More Fuel Than The A330.

Fist off, yes, the 777 does have longer range but having longer range doesn't necessarily mean that it is a fitting replacement for the 767. Most airlines see the A330 a perfect replacement for their older 767's, while other airlines just replace their older 767's with newer 767's. The Boeing 777 is larger, and the 777's size isn't necessarily what an airline wants on their former 762/763 routes.

For more info:

Airbus: http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/productcompare/
Boeing: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/pf/pf_200product.html

Quoting LeonB1985 (Reply 9):
Your profile suggests that there may be a fair few future threads 'bashing' Delta and Airbus!

Hmm, have you ever flown on Delta (which operates Boeing manufactured aircraft, besides MD-80's, but Boeing bought them too.  Wink) or have you ever been on an Airbus? I do like Boeing better, but that is because I have never been on an Airbus plane because I usually fly airlines that only fly Boeing, or an airline that has an Airbus/Boeing fleet, only has Boeing service from the airport I am flying out of. So you must keep an open mind, buddy. Also, DL is sorting out their problems, and I haven't flown on DL as well, but they used to be a great airline and I expect when they get out of bankruptcy they thrive again. I bet we'll see the "Spirit of Delta" again.

Oh, and welcome to Airliners.net!  Smile
Not all of us can be heroes, some of us can only stand on the sidewalk and clap as they go by.
 
SR 103
Posts: 1618
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 6:19 am

RE: Why A330's And Not 777's!

Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:35 am

Quoting American777 (Thread starter):
Why Do Most Airlines Now A Days Replace Their Boeing 767's With A330's?

As everyone has said above, the airlines replaced the 767 with the A330 because it was the best aircraft that fit their needs. If an airline needs to replace their planes with a larger aircraft which has more range, are you saying all 747 operators need to go out and buy the A380? By your logic that seems to be what you are suggesting.

After looking at your profile, I am certain that no matter what people tell you here on airliners.net, you will not accept the fact that the A330 was the logical choice for the airlines in question. Any particular reason you hate Airbus so much? AA does fly an Airbus product you know? While you may not see it in Texas it does quite a bit of flying on the East Coast. If anything you should love DL (an all Boeing airline) and "care less" about AA because they fly the "horrendous" Airbus.

SR 103

[Edited 2006-04-22 23:40:45]
 
warren747sp
Posts: 980
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 7:51 am

RE: Why A330's And Not 777's!

Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:44 am

looking at SR103 response above.
But the airbus is the worst plane that AA has in its' jet fleet. Airbus had to beg AA to keep flying those dreadful AB36. So you knocking of AA77 probably reflect more of your own personal bias.
747SP
 
Oykie
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: Why A330's And Not 777's!

Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:47 am

Quoting American777 (Reply 2):
But The Boeing 777 Has Longer Range And It Saves More Fuel Than The A330.

I think you have been spending too much time on Boeings web site.  Smile

By the way. The 777 is a bit larger than the A332 that has been selling like hotcakes. And of course it is more expencive. But for routes where you could fill up the T7 it generates allot of money. For thinner routes a A332 makes more sense. The 767 is even smaller than the A332 so it would be a huge step up to the T7. Now if one should take the Boeing propaganda even further why not buy a 767-400ER enstead of everything else. That to would save allot of money.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
bobnwa
Posts: 4471
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 12:10 am

RE: Why A330's And Not 777's!

Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:47 am

Quoting Warren747sp (Reply 20):
Airbus had to beg AA to keep flying those dreadful AB36.

Could you give us the source of that statement or is it just exagerating?
 
SR 103
Posts: 1618
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 6:19 am

RE: Why A330's And Not 777's!

Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:09 am

Quoting Warren747sp (Reply 20):
But the airbus is the worst plane that AA has in its' jet fleet. Airbus had to beg AA to keep flying those dreadful AB36.

Do you work for AA? I mean such a statement should not be stated without some evidence.

Quoting Warren747sp (Reply 20):
So you knocking of AA77 probably reflect more of your own personal bias.

I personally have no bias towards Boeing or Airbus. However after reading your statement above about AA A300's, you seem to have a few bias opinions of your own.

SR 103
 
UN_B732
Posts: 3529
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 12:57 am

RE: Why A330's And Not 777's!

Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:10 am

I may add that even though I have no *real* info; I've heard on this forum that the AB6 is exteremly profitable for AA, hauling tons of cargo & pax into the carribean.
-Mr. X
What now?
 
RIHNOSAUR
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:05 pm

RE: Why A330's And Not 777's!

Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:12 am

well,

I think there have been some excellent reply's here..so I won't repeat them,

but I think that the most obvious reason is that the A330 is just the coolest looking bird out there....so why pick anything else...

 sly 

the 777 is cool (no winglets though!)...but the A330 looks are just synonyms of class and style....

as a side note,
IMO, by the CG pics out there of the A350-800, it looks way cooler than the 787 .....

sorry ...just really like the looks of the A350!! I have high hopes Airbus will come through with this model eventually, I am sure they will come up with something to make it more competitive...
 yes   Big grin  Big grin
particles and waves are the same thing, but who knows what that thing is...
 
seanp11
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:16 am

RE: Why A330's And Not 777's!

Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:14 am

Quoting RIHNOSAUR (Reply 25):
MO, by the CG pics out there of the A350-800, it looks way cooler than the 787 .....

whatever you want to think, I guess..  Smile

[Edited 2006-04-23 00:15:30]
 
IHadAPheo
Posts: 5499
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 3:26 pm

RE: Why A330's And Not 777's!

Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:19 am

Sorry but I have to lock this one up as it is getting close to turning into another A vs B battle

Sorry
IHAP
Pray hard but pray with care For the tears that you are crying now Are just your answered prayers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bennett123, ChristopherS, GloomyDe, metaldirtnskin, OMP777X, RL777, RWA380, sassiciai, VCEflyboy and 158 guests