LPSHobby
Topic Author
Posts: 216
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 9:14 pm

Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Sat May 29, 2010 1:13 pm

wich are the advantages (economics) of the 787-800 over the old A330-200 and the current A330-200HGW ????
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23203
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Sat May 29, 2010 3:18 pm

Fuel burn is the biggest. Leeham.net used the Piano X aircraft analysis tool and found that the 787-8, when it reaches spec weight and SFC, is projected to burn 22% less block fuel than the A330-200 on a 6000nm mission with a 51,000 pound payload (an A330-200 can lift more payload that distance, however).
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8007
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Sat May 29, 2010 3:30 pm

Another advantage of the 787-8 when it reaches its final form will be the ability to fly over 7,500 nautical miles still air range with a standard payload, which means non-stop transoceanic flights like LAX-SYD becomes possible on a year-round basis (the A330-200 can't fly LAX-SYD non-stop year-round).
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9922
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Sat May 29, 2010 3:38 pm

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 2):
Another advantage of the 787-8 when it reaches its final form will be the ability to fly over 7,500 nautical miles still air range with a standard payload,

The "standard payload" that Boeing quotes does not include passenger baggage. As long as the passengers are willing to wait until the next flight for their baggage, it is a wonderful step backwards. People fly on 747s/A380s/777s every day on that route and get their baggage arriving at the same time.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
astuteman
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Sat May 29, 2010 3:59 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
Fuel burn is the biggest.

I'd agree. Another is that it has greater flexibility to accommodate 9-across economy seating, thus raising revenue potential

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 2):
Another advantage of the 787-8 when it reaches its final form will be the ability to fly over 7,500 nautical miles still air range with a standard payload, which means non-stop transoceanic flights like LAX-SYD becomes possible on a year-round basis (the A330-200 can't fly LAX-SYD non-stop year-round).

The nominal range of the 787-8 should be about 7 650Nm in comparison to the 238t A330-200's 7 200Nm.
The extra 450Nm should undoubtedly be an advantage.
That said, most transoceanic flights should be within the capabilities of the 238t A330-200 - it has the same range as a 744...

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
Leeham.net used the Piano X aircraft analysis tool and found that the 787-8, when it reaches spec weight and SFC, is projected to burn 22% less block fuel than the A330-200 on a 6000nm mission with a 51,000 pound payload (an A330-200 can lift more payload that distance, however).

I must confess to struggling with this number.
On a very simplistic analysis, with that nominal 23t payload, a 227t 787 with an OEW of 114t will be tanking 90t of fuel to make its 7 650Nm range.
By comparison, the 238t A330-200 with the same 23t payload, and an OEW of 120t should tank 95t of fuel to make its 7 200Nm nominal range.
To make the same 7 200Nm range, the 787-8 should need to tank only about 83t of fuel, compared to the A330-200's 95t - a differrence of about 14%.

I wouldn't pretend to be more knowledgeable than either Leeham or Piano X, but from my seat, that 22% delta just doesn't stack up with the Spec. Range/Payload capabilities that are quoted.

I can also easily see where the 787-8 gets a 10%-12% fuel burn advantage from its engine SFC, but given that the 2 planes are remarkably similar in configuration, I completely fail to see where another 10% advantage is going to come from. I can see 3% or 4% coming from the 787's more advanced CFD analysis, and its slightly lower weight.

Finally, I'd suggest that A330-200 buyer behaviour doesn't support a fuel burn delta as large as 22%.

Having said all that, 14% is plenty big enough a fuel burn advantage to be going on with  

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

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Sat May 29, 2010 4:38 pm

I'm having difficulty understanding the tone or inference of these posts.

I get that the 330 is a fine bird and doing very well, obviously.

My recollection is that Boeing announced the specs of the 787, and that airlines started ordering them in droves, to the point that it has the largest back order of any A/C in history prior to EIS.

When Airbus answered with a warmed-over 330 to compete, airlines screamed that it was grossly insufficient. Airbus had to come up with several attempts before its customers were satisfied with the projected 350 (even though they will not compete directly.)

NOW I'm hearing here, despite the plastic technology and bleedless engines and a 15 year jump in technology, etc. etc. that advantages of the 787 over the 330 are marginal, at best.

As a person with a lot less technical know-how than many on these threads, I try to listen more than I talk, or at least pose interesting questions rather than pontificate. But I find it frustrating that there can be so much conflicting information here from posters who have much more expertise and access to information than I, BUT, despite their expertise, they seem to post from very subjective positions.

It's amazing to me that an applied science so specific as airliner technology can so easily be distilled down to a matter of opinion.

As such, it is very difficult for me to believe anything I ever read here... Does anybody else experience this?
I come in peace
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 1039
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Sat May 29, 2010 5:08 pm

I can easily believe a lot I read on line here (that is why I am here). But as with anything you need to learn to differentiate between fact and hopes. (there, wasn't that a polite way to say it?)
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
hawkercamm
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 4:15 pm

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Sat May 29, 2010 5:10 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 4):
Having said all that, 14% is plenty big enough a fuel burn advantage to be going on with

I'd go with that number. Also fuel still only accounts for 1/3 of an Airlines costs - 14% then becomes ~5%.

This 5% can then be offset against Fleet commonality, Cross Crew Qualification with A320, A340, A380, Aircraft acquisition costs, etc

[Edited 2010-05-29 10:15:06]
 
astuteman
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Sat May 29, 2010 5:18 pm

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 5):
NOW I'm hearing here, despite the plastic technology and bleedless engines and a 15 year jump in technology, etc. etc. that advantages of the 787 over the 330 are marginal, at best.

Was there anything specific that prompted this comment?

For me, a plane that
a) burns (by my estimate) between 14% less fuel and (by Leeham's estimate) 22% less fuel,
b) has a greater flexibility to go 9-across,
c) provides 450Nm more range (despite being 11t lighter)
d) should be cheaper to maintain

has advantages that are a long, long way past marginal.
I'm struggling to see how those can in any way be described as "marginal" to be honest.

The only thing I would say is that this ..

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 5):
I get that the 330 is a fine bird and doing very well, obviously.

obviously shows that there is an upper limit to the scale of these advantages that might be somewhat lower than we might have been led to expect in the early days.
Given the sratospheric expectations that the early days brought, that still leaves us plenty of room to celebrate the advantages the 787 quite rightly brings to the party, without actually reaching those dizzy heights of those expectations.

That should in no way be construed as a criticism of the plane, rather of some of the inflated expectations.

And to be honest, in my view, the residue of those expectations still makes it really really difficult to have realistic discussions about the advantages of this quite superb aircraft without running the risk of being considered to be "damning with faint praise".

If you would like to see something further added to the list of considerable compliments above, I think it would be well worthwhile posting them.

Rgds
 
hawkercamm
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 4:15 pm

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Sat May 29, 2010 5:27 pm

The B787 will have from a passenger view point:
a more modern and better cabin, IFE, lighting, overhead bins, lavs, etc
lower cabin altitude
better window seat cabin shape
bigger windows, but in my view A330 are big enough!


On the negative side:
at 9-abreast tighter aisles and seats vs 8-abreast A330
a noisier cabin TBC (composite fuselage will transmit sound more than Al)
a rougher ride through turbulence since a stiffer airframe (CFRP) provides less damping
4 non-windowed window seats! (cabin layout dependent)
 
trex8
Posts: 4618
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Sat May 29, 2010 7:00 pm

didn't wbp or someone post figures showing up to 4000nm the A332 would hold its own against the 787 and have higher payload but beyond that the 787s better fuel burn gives it the advantage
 
rcair1
Crew
Posts: 1138
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:39 pm

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Sat May 29, 2010 7:16 pm

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 5):
As such, it is very difficult for me to believe anything I ever read here... Does anybody else experience this

Welcome to a.net   . It's kind of funny - but the 'other' forum (which as 'rumor' in the name, seems less prone to bias in many cases....
rcair1
 
AADC10
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:40 am

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Sat May 29, 2010 7:20 pm

The advantages of a 787 over the A330-200 is probably not 22% lower fuel burn. Back when the 787 program was announced, it was claimed that it would be 20% more efficient than other planes in its class. It has been mentioned on previous postings that when pressed, Boeing said that the 20% number was over the least efficient widebody in the sky, the 767-200 and 40% of the savings was actually in decreased maintenance costs, not fuel. The CASM number was also with the 787 at 9 abreast.

It is quite likely that the 787 will yield a fuel savings of only 5 to 15% over the A330 depending on configuration. It will be definitely less comfortable with 17" 9 abreast seats to get closer to 15% and 10% is more realistic vs. the A330 with 18" 8 abreast seats. The seat count in CO's announced IAH-AKL flight suggests 9 abreast.

While the fuel savings is real and worthwhile, it will be nowhere near 20%.
 
bonusonus
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:49 pm

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Sat May 29, 2010 9:37 pm

Boeing has also promised significant savings for airlines due to the 787 requiring less frequent, and shorter maintenance checks compared to current a/c. How does this factor in to the overall operating cost, and how likely is it that these claims will end up being true?
 
panais
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 1:50 pm

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Sat May 29, 2010 9:50 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 4):
To make the same 7 200Nm range, the 787-8 should need to tank only about 83t of fuel, compared to the A330-200's 95t - a difference of about 14%.



14% only after the 787-8 will reach its specifications. This must hurt.   

If you take the statement made by A350 chief engineer Gordon McConnell, that the A350-800 burns around 23% less fuel [per seat] than an A330-200 over a 4,000nm mission , and I can only imagine that the A332 is less inefficient over a shorter distance, then the 787-8 is in trouble.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...dorse-a350-800-rethink-airbus.html
 
Longhornmaniac
Posts: 2967
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 2:33 pm

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Sat May 29, 2010 10:02 pm

Quoting hawkercamm (Reply 9):
a noisier cabin TBC (composite fuselage will transmit sound more than Al)

Boeing says that engine cabin noise will be reduced through a holistic approach, including changes in engine technology (nacelle chevrons, improved inlet/fan designs) and improved insulation.

Quoting hawkercamm (Reply 9):

a rougher ride through turbulence since a stiffer airframe (CFRP) provides less damping

Boeing tends to disagree with that statement. Apparently the 787 has a new "Smoother Ride Technology," which "senses turbulence and commands wing control surfaces to counter it, smoothing out the ride." (Boeing website) They advertise an 8-fold decrease in number of passengers who feel motion sickness.

Cheers,
Cameron
Cheers,
Cameron
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Sat May 29, 2010 10:41 pm

! agree with mostly what is being said, however:

The other major thinking for the airlines is the FUTURE.

The 330 series has probably near the end of its development potential

The 787 series is just at the beginning of its development future, and already (as one would expect), producing better figures.

Customers can expect the 787 to continue to improve, and a family of aircraft to appear.


The other major factor is PRICE.

List prices for the 330 are significantly higher than the 787, (191m v 171m), and although customers rarely pay list price, it probably gives a broad indication. (Either that or Airbus are inflating list prices to make their balance sheet look better by overvaluing aircraft on order).

Ruscoe
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1008
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Sat May 29, 2010 10:44 pm

Good points by all. Also, I wanted to add that the planes are optimized for slightly different missions. Fuel burn advantage is probably different - or could even be reversed - at different length missions.

Marketing 101: present your product in the best possible situation. Both manufacturers are doing that. Do not believe everything you hear.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2639
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Sat May 29, 2010 11:00 pm

Quoting panais (Reply 14):

14% only after the 787-8 will reach its specifications. This must hurt.

If you take the statement made by A350 chief engineer Gordon McConnell, that the A350-800 burns around 23% less fuel [per seat] than an A330-200 over a 4,000nm mission , and I can only imagine that the A332 is less inefficient over a shorter distance, then the 787-8 is in trouble.

I suspect either people are comparing apples to tangerines, or thier math is bad. Part of it is the "per seat" issue, since of course larger aircraft of the same technology level burn less per seat or there wouldn't be a market at all for them. A 777 10Y in single or two class would ruin a A358 in fuel burn per seat, but that doesn't mean its better for any given airline. Regardless, people here saying the 787 isn't any better than the A330, yet the much heavier A350 will crush the A330 in fuel burn need to think it through some.



To get a clear picture we need to not only make sure we are comparing the same kind of fuel burn statistic, but compare them all. Trip fuel burn is just as important as fuel burn per seat. Doesn't matter if you have ultra low burn per seat if only 100 people ever fly that route. Trip fuel burn factors into Trip cost which tells you how little revenue you need to make a profit on a route. Fuel burn on a payload carried basis I would contend is also critical since many routes would be unprofitable without cargo support.
 
panais
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 1:50 pm

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Sun May 30, 2010 5:28 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 18):
people here saying the 787 isn't any better than the A330, yet the much heavier A350 will crush the A330 in fuel burn need to think it through some.

Nobody is saying that the 787 is not any better than the A330, it just that is not as better as it was advertised.
Maybe the 787 benchmark was the 767 afterall.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Sun May 30, 2010 7:05 am

Quoting panais (Reply 14):
14% only after the 787-8 will reach its specifications. This must hurt

I don't think so.
In operational terms, I would guess the weight of the early frames will have a more significant impact on range/payload than it does on fuel burn itself. IMO even the early frames will be a lot more efficient in terms of fuel burn than an A330-200....

Quoting panais (Reply 14):
If you take the statement made by A350 chief engineer Gordon McConnell, that the A350-800 burns around 23% less fuel [per seat] than an A330-200 over a 4,000nm mission

Personally I would take that figure with a pinch of salt. As always, it depends on the number of seats he implies in the calculation.
The A350-800 will almost certainly burn more fuel per trip than the 787-8

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 18):
To get a clear picture we need to not only make sure we are comparing the same kind of fuel burn statistic, but compare them all. Trip fuel burn is just as important as fuel burn per seat.

Agree. And there is no question in my mind that the A350-800 will be more expensive to operate than the 787-8

Rgds
 
panais
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 1:50 pm

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Sun May 30, 2010 7:49 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 20):
I would guess the weight of the early frames will have a more significant impact on range/payload than it does on fuel burn itself.


Still, there will be a fuel burn impact.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 20):
IMO even the early frames will be a lot more efficient in terms of fuel burn than an A330-200....


Of course they will be per frame and maybe per passenger. The A332 is bigger and heavier, carries more passengers and cargo and is older technology.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 20):
The A350-800 will almost certainly burn more fuel per trip than the 787-8


Of course the A350-800 will burn more fuel per frame since it is bigger and heavier, carries more passengers and cargo. Whether it will burn less fule per passenger, Airbus claims it will, I will wait until it flies.

The point to me is that the 787-8 is not turning into the game changer that it was meant to be. Additionally, Airbus's strategy of having a single family of widebody aircraft, the A350, compared to Boeing's 787-8 & 777NG, will pay more long term for them in terms of development money and resources and will be prefered by operators in terms of commonality. Just look at what the A320 family was able to do.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6459
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Sun May 30, 2010 2:59 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 4):
On a very simplistic analysis, with that nominal 23t payload, a 227t 787 with an OEW of 114t will be tanking 90t of fuel to make its 7 650Nm range.
By comparison, the 238t A330-200 with the same 23t payload, and an OEW of 120t should tank 95t of fuel to make its 7 200Nm nominal range.
To make the same 7 200Nm range, the 787-8 should need to tank only about 83t of fuel, compared to the A330-200's 95t - a differrence of about 14%.

Here's my take... I used the performance dispatch numbers on the 2007 version of the 787-8 AOM... vs the A332 FCOM2.

I did a similar calculation... RR 787 and RR A332... for several distances and no reserves (land on empty), Long Range cruise speeds, FL390, ISA zero wind.

Fuel Burns:
For 23.18tons payload (51,000lbs)
6000NM, 7878 = 54.9 tons, 332 = 65.6 tons, 7878 fuel savings 16.2%
4000NM, 7878 = 35.7 tons, 332 = 41.9 tons, 7878 fuel savings 14.7%
2000NM, 7878 = 17.9 tons, 332 = 20.7 tons, 7878 fuel savings 13.6%
800NM, 7878 = 11.2 tons, 332 = 12.9 tons, 7878 fuel savings 13.1%

For 35ton payload
6000NM, 7878 = 58.4 tons, 332 = 70.1 tons, 7878 fuel savings 16.7%
4000NM, 7878 = 37.4 tons, 332 = 44.6 tons, 7878 fuel savings 16.0%
2000NM, 7878 = 18.9 tons, 332 = 22.0 tons, 7878 fuel savings 13.9%
800NM, 7878 = 11.8 tons, 332 = 13.6 tons, 7878 fuel savings 13.2%

For 50ton payload
6000NM, 7878 = 63.1 tons, 332 = 76.0 tons, 7878 fuel savings 17.0%
4000NM, 7878 = 39.7 tons, 332 = 48.0 tons, 7878 fuel savings 17.4%
2000NM, 7878 = 20.1 tons, 332 = 23.5 tons, 7878 fuel savings 14.2%
800NM, 7878 = 12.5 tons, 332 = 14.5 tons, 7878 fuel savings 13.4%

The above is a rough idea on how the fuel burn compares... For the 7878, it's bloody good, but tt's not 22%...
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
PGNCS
Posts: 2249
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:07 am

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Sun May 30, 2010 10:30 pm

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 15):
Apparently the 787 has a new "Smoother Ride Technology," which "senses turbulence and commands wing control surfaces to counter it, smoothing out the ride." (Boeing website) They advertise an 8-fold decrease in number of passengers who feel motion sickness.

Oh, right...now that's optimistic.   
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1459
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Mon May 31, 2010 10:44 am

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 5):
NOW I'm hearing here, despite the plastic technology and bleedless engines and a 15 year jump in technology, etc. etc. that advantages of the 787 over the 330 are marginal, at best.

I think that the advantages of the 787 over the A330 are everything then marginal, but it must be said that the A330 has turned to an amazing plane, sure one of the planes with most potential in history of aviation.

Noone ever thought Airbus could improve the A330 performance to that extent.
“Faliure is not an option.”
 
LPSHobby
Topic Author
Posts: 216
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 9:14 pm

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Mon May 31, 2010 1:02 pm

how a new plane with new technology like the 787-800 can be cheaper (171M) than a A330-200(191M)?? of course these are the list prices, not the real prices airlines pay. By the way, does anyone have an idea of the actual price airlines would pay for these 2 planes??? let´s consider a small order, 5 of each plane, to have a standard
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23203
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Mon May 31, 2010 2:04 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 22):
Here's my take... I used the performance dispatch numbers on the 2007 version of the 787-8 AOM... vs the A332 FCOM2.

Awesome. I'll add this to my database.
 
LPSHobby
Topic Author
Posts: 216
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 9:14 pm

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Mon May 31, 2010 5:45 pm

how a new plane with new technology like the 787-800 can be cheaper (171M) than a A330-200(191M)?? of course these are the list prices, not the real prices airlines pay. By the way, does anyone have an idea of the actual price airlines would pay for these 2 planes??? let´s consider a small order, 5 of each plane, to have a standard
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Mon May 31, 2010 10:38 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 3):
The "standard payload" that Boeing quotes does not include passenger baggage.

It does unless you've got an incredibly fat passenger load.

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 5):
NOW I'm hearing here, despite the plastic technology and bleedless engines and a 15 year jump in technology, etc. etc. that advantages of the 787 over the 330 are marginal, at best.

This isn't new...there's a certain segment of the aviation community that has never bought into the idea that the 787 is any significant jump over the A330. They reach this conclusion, typically, through blinders by only looking at very specific subsets of performance parameters.

Quoting hawkercamm (Reply 9):
On the negative side:
at 9-abreast tighter aisles and seats vs 8-abreast A330

787 comes as both 8- and 9-abreast, customer option.

Quoting hawkercamm (Reply 9):
a noisier cabin TBC (composite fuselage will transmit sound more than Al)

This isn't actually a composites vs. metals issues, it's just mass (more mass provides more sound damping). AlLi has the same problem over Al.

Quoting hawkercamm (Reply 9):
a rougher ride through turbulence since a stiffer airframe (CFRP) provides less damping

Stiffness is, by definition, the amount of deflection per unit load. One look at a 787 in flight will tell you that the wings are far less stiff, not more, than conventional jets. Stiffness is both a material (E) and structural (I) property, and the 787 has very obviously flexible (non-stiff) wings.

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 12):
While the fuel savings is real and worthwhile, it will be nowhere near 20%.

I'm not sure it was ever supposed to be...wasn't the claim 20% lower operating cost?

Quoting LPSHobby (Reply 25):
how a new plane with new technology like the 787-800 can be cheaper (171M) than a A330-200(191M)??

Faster assembly, integrated systems, lower buy-to-fly ratio...lots of reasons.

Tom.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Mon May 31, 2010 10:44 pm

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 28):
This isn't actually a composites vs. metals issues, it's just mass (more mass provides more sound damping). AlLi has the same problem over Al.

So how can the A380 achieve its very quiet cabin despite the GLARE fuselage shells? Just tons of insulation material? (engine technology notwithstanding)
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
KPDX
Posts: 2373
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 10:04 am

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:33 am

Well, according to the Airliners.net experts, it has no advantage over the A332, so it kinda makes one wonder why Boeing even developed the 787?     
View my aviation videos on Youtube by searching for zildjiandrummr12
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:56 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 29):
So how can the A380 achieve its very quiet cabin despite the GLARE fuselage shells?

Well, the GLARE is only on the upper skins, as far as I know, where comparatively little noise is transmitted anyway, but the density difference between AlLi, GLARE, and Al isn't that large so that's not the major driver. The A380 chiefly gets its interior noise benefits from proximity (the engines are physically very far from the fuselage), mass...there is a *huge* wing structure between the engines and the cabin, and thickness (the frames on an aircraft that size are necessarily thick, so you end up with thicker walls).

Quoting A342 (Reply 29):
Just tons of insulation material? (engine technology notwithstanding)

In a sense...I suspect the A380 doesn't need much dedicated sound insulation for the simple reason that it's so large...the airplane itself provides a huge amount of sound deadening.

Tom.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6459
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Tue Jun 01, 2010 6:41 am

OK, the fuel burn in itself is "only" 13-18% or so for most part of the designed mission profiles...

But then, less burn for faster is another advantage.

For Long Range Cruise FL390...
6000NM 7878 = 12H36, A332 = 13H03, 3.5% time saving.
4000NM 7878 = 8H30, A332 = 8H53, 4.3% time saving.
2000NM 7878 = 4H25, A332 = 4H34, 3.3% time saving.
1200NM 7878 = 2H43, A332 = 2H50, 4.1% time saving.
800NM 7878 = 1H52, A332 = 1H58, 5.1% time saving.

So, if the maintenance cost per block hour equivalent is the same, then the shorter block times leads to savings too.

So, slap 1/2 to 3/4 of the above savings to the fuel savings, then all we need to do is get the aircraft ownership and insurance cost components and we could have a DOC comparison!   
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
Arniepie
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:00 pm

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Tue Jun 01, 2010 8:26 am

I think I remember reading that besides it (787) being noticeably lighter than comparable aircraft and having the latest and most economical engines available , it also can go up to favorable cruising altitudes much faster (FL350 and higher), making it able to fly at it most economical cruising altitude from the beginning of its flight.

Adding everything, the cheaper price because of better/cheaper assembly lines, the lower maintenance costs , the overall technological performance improvements over older airliners, it might very well be more than 20% cheaper to operate on a lot of flights it's gonna do.

Personally I'm heavily rooting for this new plane , hoping it will be even better in the future , like a lot of airplanes evolve over their lifespan.
The way the industry has been hemorrhaging money the last decade ,we better all hope that whatever Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier or Embraer come out with, will be to the direct benefit of their customers so that they finally can return to profitability once again making life a bit better and give more stability (and eventually better pay) to all those that have to live from these planes.
[edit post]
 
astuteman
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Tue Jun 01, 2010 9:22 am

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 28):
This isn't new...there's a certain segment of the aviation community that has never bought into the idea that the 787 is any significant jump over the A330.

I'll repeat the question I asked to SSTsomeday. Either point in the thread to where someone said the advantages were only marginal, or for the benefit of our education, point out to us what has been missed out.

I'll also repeat what I said earlier.
If we want to talk about "blinders", there are also those for whom no amount of "talking up" is going to be enough for the 787.
And unfortunately, that means that, for example, countering a claim that the 787 burns 22% less fuel than the A330 immediately opens one up to ridicule, or dismissal ("blinders" even), even though the proposed alternative 14%-16% delta is still a MASSIVE advantage.
If that's not good enough to match the hype, is that a fault of the aircraft, or those that believe the hype?

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 28):
I'm not sure it was ever supposed to be...wasn't the claim 20% lower operating cost?

I don't see any way you'll get 20% lower operating costs without the fuel burn delta being significantly greater, which it isn't.

Using the operating cost breakdown contained in Airbus's 2007 GMF, fuel burn is typically 35% of operating costs. Even if the fuel burn delta is 20%, that translates into 7% better operating costs.

Landing and navigation fees are typically 15% of total costs. The 787 may experience a small advantage in landing fees due to its slightly lower weight - I'm not knowledgeable enough, but I can't see where the navigation fees will be any different.
Even a 10% delta translates into 1.5% operating cost difference

Crew costs are typically 18% of total costs. I can't see why these would be any other than a wash..

Maintenance is typically 15% of total operating costs. The 787 is bound to have an advantage, but the question is "how big"?
From what I can see, most of the maintenance an aircraft experiences result from the major moving parts - engines, landing gear, control surfaces, and on-board systems, and then from cabin-wear and tear.
A 20% maintenance advantage to the 787 will result in a 3% difference in total operating costs.
Of course, we can debate ad-nauseam what the actual advantage is.....

Depreciation is about 10% of total operating costs. As far as I can see, the 787 has commanded prices at least as high as the A330-200, so that will be a wash, too.

The above assumptions get us to an 11.5% overall operating cost delta. Again a very significant difference amounting to near-on a step change.

But not 20%. To get that, both fuel burn and maintenance would need to be about 40% lower, and they're patently obviously not.

It's always going to be difficult to hit those overall cost percentages quoted when crew costs, landing and navigation fees, and depreciation, which account for some 43% of overall cost, are going to be near enough a wash....

But I'm open to be educated.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 31):
In a sense...I suspect the A380 doesn't need much dedicated sound insulation for the simple reason that it's so large...the airplane itself provides a huge amount of sound deadening.

The A340-300 is a much lighter aircraft that the 777-300ER, but is by any measure significantly quieter.
I'm not convinced by the argument that Airbus "lucked out" on the A380 because it's so big....

Rgds
 
qslinger
Posts: 230
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:14 pm

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:19 am

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 2):
which means non-stop transoceanic flights like LAX-SYD becomes possible on a year-round basis (the A330-200 can't fly LAX-SYD non-stop year-round).

Why can't the 330 fly LAX-SYF non stop year around? (I read somewhere the engine performance/efficiency goes up when the temp is low or something similar. Could this be reason?)

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 5):
bleedless engines

What is a bleedless engine?
Raj Koona
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17117
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:29 am

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 31):
Quoting A342 (Reply 29):
Just tons of insulation material? (engine technology notwithstanding)

In a sense...I suspect the A380 doesn't need much dedicated sound insulation for the simple reason that it's so large...the airplane itself provides a huge amount of sound deadening.

Quite, and let's not forget the very quiet modern engines.

Quoting Qslinger (Reply 35):
Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 5):
bleedless engines

What is a bleedless engine?

Traditionally, engines have been "bled" of compressed air in order to pressurize hydraulic systems. These hydraulics have then powered flight surfaces and other stuff. This has thus required more power from the engines than just for thrust. On the 787, the engines are "bleedless", meaning power for systems is drawn electrically from the engine generators.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19820
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Tue Jun 01, 2010 4:15 pm

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 31):

In a sense...I suspect the A380 doesn't need much dedicated sound insulation for the simple reason that it's so large...the airplane itself provides a huge amount of sound deadening.

Possibly, but remember that a quiet cabin is only good up to a point. Airplane cabins are very crowded and to some degree, the white noise from the engines and slipstream drowns out the snoring of the 280-lb gentleman behind you, the screaming of the twins in front of you, and the ceaseless yammering of the batty old lady next to you!
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Tue Jun 01, 2010 8:17 pm

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 36):
Traditionally, engines have been "bled" of compressed air in order to pressurize hydraulic systems. These hydraulics have then powered flight surfaces and other stuff. This has thus required more power from the engines than just for thrust. On the 787, the engines are "bleedless", meaning power for systems is drawn electrically from the engine generators.

I believe hydraulic pumps are directly attached to the accessory gearbox and are thus unrelated to bleed air.

The main function of bleed air is cabin pressurization. Additionally, it is also often used for anti-ice systems.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17117
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:40 pm

Oops. I stand corrected. Serves me right for posting when tipsy...
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
mandala499
Posts: 6459
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Wed Jun 02, 2010 3:58 am

The 787 still uses bleed air for the anti-ice, but has 2 electric compressors for the bleed air pressure.

So, not totally bleedless... but then, still a major change!
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Wed Jun 02, 2010 5:15 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 34):
Either point in the thread to where someone said the advantages were only marginal, or for the benefit of our education, point out to us what has been missed out.

OK:

Quoting hawkercamm (Reply 7):
This 5% can then be offset against Fleet commonality, Cross Crew Qualification with A320, A340, A380, Aircraft acquisition costs, etc
Quoting trex8 (Reply 10):
didn't wbp or someone post figures showing up to 4000nm the A332 would hold its own against the 787 and have higher payload
Quoting panais (Reply 21):
The point to me is that the 787-8 is not turning into the game changer that it was meant to be.
Quoting panais (Reply 21):
Airbus's strategy of having a single family of widebody aircraft, the A350, compared to Boeing's 787-8 & 777NG, will pay more long term for them in terms of development money and resources and will be prefered by operators in terms of commonality.

Re: noise:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 34):
The A340-300 is a much lighter aircraft that the 777-300ER, but is by any measure significantly quieter.
I'm not convinced by the argument that Airbus "lucked out" on the A380 because it's so big...

The A340-300 also has a lot less installed thrust, which is quieter by default, and has the inherent noise advantage of any quad that several of the noise sources are considerably farther from the cabin. If you want to compare apples-to-apples on cabin noise, you have to start with equal inputs (engine volume and proximity). If you strapped 777 engines to an A340-300 wing/fuselage (just for noise testing purposes) you may find that the A340 is louder inside.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 36):
Traditionally, engines have been "bled" of compressed air in order to pressurize hydraulic systems.

Although this happens on some designs, it's no the most common use of bleed air.

Quoting A342 (Reply 38):
I believe hydraulic pumps are directly attached to the accessory gearbox and are thus unrelated to bleed air.

This is often true, but you always want a hydraulic power source that doesn't depend on the engine gearbox. This is usually implemented as an air-driven pump (powered by the bleed system), and electric pump (powered by the generators), or a power-transfer-unit (powered by the opposite hydraulic system).

Quoting A342 (Reply 38):
The main function of bleed air is cabin pressurization. Additionally, it is also often used for anti-ice systems.

I'm not sure it's fair to say the main function is pressurization...on most aircraft, it's used for pressurization, air conditioning, anti-ice, and starting. They're all integral functions.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 40):
The 787 still uses bleed air for the anti-ice, but has 2 electric compressors for the bleed air pressure.

The 787 uses bleed air for nacelle anti-ice only (it's all on the engine, the aircraft does not take bleed air from the engine). It does not use electronic air compressors for bleed air pressure. Wing anti-ice is electric. Cabin air compression is via 4 electronic compressors.

Tom.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:49 pm

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 41):
This is usually implemented as an air-driven pump (powered by the bleed system), and electric pump (powered by the generators), or a power-transfer-unit (powered by the opposite hydraulic system).

Thanks, I didn't know about air-driven backup pumps. I assume electric pumps and PTUs are more common?

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 41):
I'm not sure it's fair to say the main function is pressurization...on most aircraft, it's used for pressurization, air conditioning, anti-ice, and starting. They're all integral functions.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought pressurization and air conditioning are closely connected. I regard it as a single system respectively function (environmental control).

I would say that it is the main function of bleed air because aside from electric systems, there are other alternatives for anti-ice and engine starting (pneumatic boots respectively air supplied by the APU). Not very convincing, I know.   
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Wed Jun 02, 2010 2:14 pm

Quoting A342 (Reply 42):
Thanks, I didn't know about air-driven backup pumps.

If you're withing about 5 miles of a 777 running the ADP's with the engines off, you'll know. They're incredibly loud.

Quoting A342 (Reply 42):
I assume electric pumps and PTUs are more common?

As far as I know, that's true.

Quoting A342 (Reply 42):
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought pressurization and air conditioning are closely connected. I regard it as a single system respectively function (environmental control).

They are closely connected, but they're not really the same system. Air conditioning is the specific task of setting the temperature of incoming air (usually implemented by an air-cycle machine, trim air, and various mixers), while pressurization uses outflow valves to modulate cabin pressure against the air coming from the air conditioning system. On some aircraft, these are implemented as two totally separate functions, others have one controller handling both even though the hardware isn't connected at all. You can pressurize without conditioning the air (in theory...I'm not aware of anyone doing this in practice, except possibly in extreme cold), and you can air condition without pressurizing (e.g. on the ground). They do both fall under the general umbrella of the ECS system.

Tom.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1261
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Thu Jun 03, 2010 8:24 am

Quoting KPDX (Reply 30):
Well, according to the Airliners.net experts, it has no advantage over the A332, so it kinda makes one wonder why Boeing even developed the 787?

Show me one quote from just one member that says that.

If I say the 787 beats anything else by 20% the "787-critics"-alarm will not go off in the US.

But if I would say it is 10% better, people somehow "decode" that into me saying "the 787 has no advantage over the A332". The 787 accomplished enough to be that touchy (in other words: the advantages are there). The only thing is it accomplished not everything in all areas. And the advantage in many places is gradually instead of revolutionary.

Those 10% op cost advantage is about the same like between A346 and 77W. If the op cost gap between A346 and 77W is about as large as between A332 and 788 the question must be allowed whether the much larger investment for a new-technology clean-sheet design should not have returned a larger gap between. The same applies likely to the A350.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:22 am

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 41):

Thanks for the replies, Tom.
Let me first apologise for the implied sensitivity in the post. I've been labelled "anti 787" recently on a different thread. I'll guarantee that I'm not.
Both questions I asked were genuine, so thanks for answering the first one at least.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 41):
Quoting hawkercamm (Reply 7):
This 5% can then be offset against Fleet commonality, Cross Crew Qualification with A320, A340, A380, Aircraft acquisition costs, etc

I'll grant you this one. As I calculated based on assumptions above, I fail to see how the 787-8 doesn't entertain a double-digit percentage overall operating cost delta to the A330-200.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 41):
Quoting trex8 (Reply 10):
didn't wbp or someone post figures showing up to 4000nm the A332 would hold its own against the 787 and have higher payload

To be honest, I'd be astonished if either WBP or Trex8 were amongst the 787's detractors.
Trex8 was only quoting WBP.
WBP has in the past been held up as the paragon of robust information whenever it came to looking for information that could readiy show that either the 787 and/or the 748i were absolutely going to blow the A380 away, in any which form you desire, but certainly in CASM   
But then the A380 IS an Airbus,   

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 41):
Quoting panais (Reply 21):
The point to me is that the 787-8 is not turning into the game changer that it was meant to be.

As for this one, I'll reiterate my view that there is also a substantial peer group on here that intended, or claimed, that the 787 was going to be far more of a game-changer than even it was capable of being.
Personally I think they have done neither us, nor the aircraft no favours, as they have virtually guaranteed that it is impossible to have objective conversation about the aircraft.   

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 41):
Quoting panais (Reply 21):
Airbus's strategy of having a single family of widebody aircraft, the A350, compared to Boeing's 787-8 & 777NG, will pay more long term for them in terms of development money and resources and will be prefered by operators in terms of commonality.

I'm not sure where this comment either says, or implies, that "the advantages of the 787 over the A330 are marginal at best", which WAS the exam question. Panais's comments make no reference to the A330 at all.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 41):
Re: noise:

I'll reiterate, that I have no qualms whatsoever in placing the "Airbus lucked out in having the A380 be extremely quiet" comments directly, and rapidly, in the trash bin. Sorry.
No doubt its size, as you say, helps. But there is no way on earth that is the whole story   
The A380 is PACKED with sound-deadening/reducing technology

I intend no offence here, and trust none is taken. These are only my views. And in no way do I intend any dilution of the 787's "advantages".

Finally, and genuinely, are there any other advantages that you, with your knowledge, can offer that we have overlooked?

We haven't perhaps adequately described the simplification of the fuselage assembly process, and "modularisation" of the installation process, both near to my heart. And going some way to answering..

Quoting LPSHobby (Reply 25):
how a new plane with new technology like the 787-800 can be cheaper (171M) than a A330-200(191M)??

Rgds
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:13 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 44):
Those 10% op cost advantage is about the same like between A346 and 77W.

And a 10% or so op cost advantage enabled the 77W to outsell the A346 by a 4:1 ratio and dry up A346 new sales.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Fri Jun 04, 2010 4:14 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 45):
Let me first apologise for the implied sensitivity in the post. I've been labelled "anti 787" recently on a different thread. I'll guarantee that I'm not.

No apologies necessary...I can't speak for others, but I'm under absolutely no impression that you're anti-787.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 45):
I'll reiterate my view that there is also a substantial peer group on here that intended, or claimed, that the 787 was going to be far more of a game-changer than even it was capable of being.

Agreed.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 45):
I'm not sure where this comment either says, or implies, that "the advantages of the 787 over the A330 are marginal at best", which WAS the exam question. Panais's comments make no reference to the A330 at all.

Advantage Astuteman...I saw "A350" and read "A330".

Quoting astuteman (Reply 45):
I'll reiterate, that I have no qualms whatsoever in placing the "Airbus lucked out in having the A380 be extremely quiet" comments directly, and rapidly, in the trash bin. Sorry.

No apologies necessary here either, I completely agree with you. The A380 isn't quiet by luck, and Airbus is generally better at cabin sound level than Boeing (my personal impression, not based on hard data). I never implied, or at least never meant to imply, it was luck or an accident...this tangent started with the assertion that the 787 is necessarily louder because it's CFRP and my counter that it's not CFRP that's the issue, it's just mass of material. AlLi and GLARE aren't as good at sound deadening as Al either, for the same reasons (although they're better than CFRP). That was never meant to imply that the only thing Airbus is using is mass...they're very very good at making quiet cabins.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 45):
Finally, and genuinely, are there any other advantages that you, with your knowledge, can offer that we have overlooked?

Beyond what's already been stated, I think there are several advantages whose benefit *may* have been understated, though it will be really hard to tell until the thing is in service for a while:
-the maintenance cost advantage of CFRP will climb with time as the lack of fatigue issues comes to the fore
-the ability to swap engines easily may crank up the value to leassors (actual $$$ value to be determined)
-nobody has been able to quantify the benefit of a better passenger experience, but it's real
-the highly software-driven (especially the power distribution) and integrated nature of the architecture means that a lot of future modifications/upgrades/SB's may be just a SW revision, which is far easier/cheaper/faster to deploy
-the maintenance system is a lot more powerful and flexible, so doing the maintenance that needs doing (which should be less in the first place) should also be faster and easier

Tom.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Fri Jun 04, 2010 5:01 am

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 47):
I never implied, or at least never meant to imply, it was luck or an accident...this tangent started with the assertion that the 787 is necessarily louder because it's CFRP and my counter that it's not CFRP that's the issue, it's just mass of material. AlLi and GLARE aren't as good at sound deadening as Al either, for the same reasons (although they're better than CFRP)

A good reminder, Tom. Thanks

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 47):
the ability to swap engines easily may crank up the value to leassors (actual $$$ value to be determined)

That's one I've not seen higher up the thread   

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 47):
nobody has been able to quantify the benefit of a better passenger experience, but it's real

Current A380 operators certainly seem to say so..   

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 47):
the maintenance system is a lot more powerful and flexible, so doing the maintenance that needs doing (which should be less in the first place) should also be faster and easier

Is it like the "more powerful and flexible" maintenance system that has been known to cause the A380 to go tech all on its own?   

Rgds
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1261
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Advantages Of The 787 Over A330-200?

Fri Jun 04, 2010 6:30 am

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 46):
And a 10% or so op cost advantage enabled the 77W to outsell the A346 by a 4:1 ratio and dry up A346 new sales.

As stupid as it sounds: that is a great revelation!

People often think the cost difference would have to be larger to gain a clear marketleadership. But 10% is enough!

Now, do you want to tell the people what that means for the 777 or shall I do it? It means that:

- The A350 terminates eventually the 777 (with every free slot) (because 10% cost advantage is a realistic goal)

- A new NB clean sheet design would own the market (because 10% cost advantage is a realistic goal). Airlines might wish 20% but the vendor that can offer 10% cost reduction rules the market. For the vendor 10% is enough. In the NB market both A&B know however that the other would not allow a situation of disparity.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Budgie099, Cubsrule, hoons90, seat1a and 16 guests