LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

B789 Versus A333 Analysis

Fri May 20, 2011 7:10 am

Can A333(HGW) compete with B789 on short/medium haul routes? The answer seems to be no based on my estimates. The cabin area for both aircraft is nearly equal, and B789 in 9-abreast configuration should hold as many seats as A333 in 3-class configuration, if not more.

General Specifications:
....................................B789.......................A333HGW
Fuselage Length..............206..........................209 feet
Fuselage Width.................18.9........................18.5
Cabin Length...................159..........................165.25
Cabin Width......................18............................17.33
Wingspan........................197..........................198
Wingarea.......................3501.........................3892 sq. feet
Seats(3 class)..................280..........................280(@210 lbs. per passenger/baggage)


MTOW.......................553,000....................517940 lbs.
MZFW........................400,000...................388,453
OEW..........................260,000...................264,402 (OEW for B789 is my estimate)
MSP...........................140,000...................124,051
Design Range..................8,000.....................5,970 nm (passenger only, and zero cargo)
List Price..........................$218......................$222.5 million

For a 4,000nm trip(at MTOW),

B789 burns about 2,000 gallons less fuel than A333HGW--about $6,000 lower fuel bill.
B789 has the potential to carry 29,000 lbs. additional cargo relative to A333HGW if not volume constrained--about $10,000 additional cargo revenue at 50% load factor

The above savings amount to nearly $9 million per year assuming 1.5 trips per day on average.

For a 3,000nm trip(at MTOW),

B789 burns about 1,900 gallons less fuel than A333HGW--about $5,700 lower fuel bill.
B789 has the potential to carry 16,000 lbs. additional cargo relative to A333HGW if not volume constrained--about $5,500 additional cargo revenue at 50% load factor.

The above savings amount to nearly $6 million per year assuming 1.5 trips per day on average.

The operational benefits of B789 over A333HGW are nearly worth $40 to $50 million to an operator over the life of an aircraft. It is hard to see Airbus discounting the A333 that much to make it attractive to airlines, and still make a profit.

In another thread, I will compare the B789 to A359, and later on the hypothetical B787-10 to A359.
 
wn700driver
Posts: 1475
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 10:55 pm

RE: B789 Versus A333 Analysis

Fri May 20, 2011 8:15 am

Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
later on the hypothetical B787-10 to A359.

Not sure how favorable the -10 will look there. Wasn't it meant to compete more with the 358, with idea being that it would snag some sales from airlines that already have bought into the 787 line infrastructure anyway? Don't get me wrong, I want to see it fly as it will no doubt the most attractive member of the 787 family, but I'm not sure how well it can stack up against a 359... That's probably more 77G territory...

I'm noting here that the fuselage widths are nearly the same, yet the 330 has more difficulty seating 9 across (and for the '87 the issue is a relative breeze...), and this config will likely never take hold for it on a large scale. Has Airbus considered narrowing the insulation? I know from experience that the 330 really is as quiet as advertised, but perhaps Airbus may be willing to sacrifice just a little of that to bump capacity...
Base not your happiness on the deeds of others, for what is given can be taken away. No Hope = No Fear
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9728
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: B789 Versus A333 Analysis

Fri May 20, 2011 9:04 am

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 1):
and for the '87 the issue is a relative breeze...

The seat width for 9 across is narrow on the 787, it was one of the reasons why it was not selected by CX. It is approximately 1-2" less than the existing seats being used, passengers transferring between types at a hub will notice the difference.

The biggest advantage of the A333 today is that you can still buy and operate one, and you will be making lot of money for years until you can get your hands on a 787-9.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
Charlienoble
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:37 pm

RE: B789 Versus A333 Analysis

Fri May 20, 2011 12:12 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 2):
The biggest advantage of the A333 today is that you can still buy and operate one, and you will be making lot of money for years until you can get your hands on a 787-9.

Agree 100%...the aeronautical equivalent of "She might not be Miss Right...but she is Miss Right NOW"  

The airplane that will save you millions over its 20+ year life cycle isn't much good if you go out of business in the mean time.
"When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True Story."- Barney Stinson
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22920
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: B789 Versus A333 Analysis

Fri May 20, 2011 2:23 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 2):
The seat width for 9 across is narrow on the 787, it was one of the reasons why it was not selected by CX. It is approximately 1-2" less than the existing seats being used, passengers transferring between types at a hub will notice the difference.

Is that armrest to armrest? Or is CX going with really narrow aisles?

I ask because Airbus' own PR material show seat cushion width of 17.5" on the A350 versus 17.2" on the 787 (per Boeing's PR) materials.
 
SchorschNG
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:40 am

RE: B789 Versus A333 Analysis

Fri May 20, 2011 5:26 pm

Quoting CharlieNoble (Reply 3):
Agree 100%...the aeronautical equivalent of "She might not be Miss Right...but she is Miss Right NOW"

The airplane that will save you millions over its 20+ year life cycle isn't much good if you go out of business in the mean time.

And Airbus will tell their customers that it will be very attractive as second hand cargo aircraft.
So, when an operator looks 10-12 years ahead he might still get a good resale value.
I think Airbus intents to rain as many A330 on the markets as possible before the B787 has slots open again.
From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19576
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: B789 Versus A333 Analysis

Sat May 21, 2011 4:10 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 2):

The biggest advantage of the A333 today is that you can still buy and operate one, and you will be making lot of money for years until you can get your hands on a 787-9.

Yup. The 789 is clearly the superior aircraft (and not surprisingly so, given that that A330 was introduced in 1993).

Except that it is still nothing but electrons floating around in Boeing's computers. And electrons do a poor job of making money for airlines.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
SEPilot
Posts: 4913
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: B789 Versus A333 Analysis

Sun May 22, 2011 1:37 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6):
And electrons do a poor job of making money for airlines.

Well, without electrons you would have no aluminum, no plastic, no titanium, no steel, no rubber, no fuel, or anything else that goes into building an aircraft. Protons and neutrons by themselves tend not to hold together very well. 
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
MoltenRock
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:35 pm

RE: B789 Versus A333 Analysis

Sun May 22, 2011 8:47 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):

Nope. Airbus' site says 18". I get so tired of a netters wanting to jam seats into aircraft at the expense of passenger comfort.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22920
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: B789 Versus A333 Analysis

Sun May 22, 2011 9:01 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
I ask because Airbus' own PR material show seat cushion width of 17.5" on the A350 versus 17.2" on the 787 (per Boeing's PR) materials.
Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 8):
Nope. Airbus' site says 18".

So that would be with 17" aisles. So Airbus was likely using 19.5" aisles in their A350XWB Launch Presentation, which showed Economy at 17.5" seat width with 9-abreast.

The 777 at 229" cabin width offers 18.5" wide seats and 19.5" aisles when at 9-abreast and 17" aisles with 17" wide seats when at 10-abreast.
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: B789 Versus A333 Analysis

Tue May 24, 2011 3:37 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 7):
Protons and neutrons by themselves tend not to hold together very well.

Well, in small groups they hold together quite nicely!  
Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 8):
Nope. Airbus' site says 18". I get so tired of a netters wanting to jam seats into aircraft at the expense of passenger comfort.

I thought that was the airlines?   

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests