• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 14
 
airbazar
Posts: 9894
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:35 pm

Swadian wrote:
I could only find one airline (not a leasing company) that ordered both the 787-9 and A339 - IZ.

I don't expect many 789/A339 combinations at the same airlines, in the future for the reasons already stated in this thread. They are way too similar.
DL had early'ish 787 slots. They could have easily changed to the 789 but instead chose the A339. That right there is clear evidence that not only are these 2 aircraft incredibly alike, but also that the A339 can hold its ground against the 789.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9193
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:09 pm

Boeing 787 net orders in 2016, 58 frames. Airbus A330 net orders in 2016, 83 frames. Third year in a row that the A330 outsells the 787.

Regarding the 787-9 that model had gross orders of 77 frames in 2016. The A330-900 had 42 gross orders in 2016 and added to that the A330-300 had 34 gross orders, together 78.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:27 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Boeing 787 net orders in 2016, 58 frames. Airbus A330 net orders in 2016, 83 frames. Third year in a row that the A330 outsells the 787.

Regarding the 787-9 that model had gross orders of 77 frames in 2016. The A330-900 had 42 gross orders in 2016 and added to that the A330-300 had 34 gross orders, together 78.


Thank you for your in-depth sales analysis of the 787 and A330. :-)
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9886
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:54 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Regarding the 787-9 that model had gross orders of 77 frames in 2016. The A330-900 had 42 gross orders in 2016 and added to that the A330-300 had 34 gross orders, together 78.

34+42 = 76.
Net orders was 69. 787-9 net was 75. I feel like in this comparison net is especially important as the only order reduction for the A333/A339 this year was actually a conversion from 7 A333s to 7 A339s (Garuda).
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:17 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
Zeke wrote:
catering adds between 3-4.5 tonnes depending on the sector.


Is that the weight of food/drinks plus carts and dishes? Or just food/drinks?


Typically this is known as DOW and covers all catering items plus crew and crew bags. A 260 seat 789 is right around 4t.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9193
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:13 pm

Polot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Regarding the 787-9 that model had gross orders of 77 frames in 2016. The A330-900 had 42 gross orders in 2016 and added to that the A330-300 had 34 gross orders, together 78.

34+42 = 76.
Net orders was 69. 787-9 net was 75. I feel like in this comparison net is especially important as the only order reduction for the A333/A339 this year was actually a conversion from 7 A333s to 7 A339s (Garuda).


But you leave out the important part of the net orders and only partially quote me. Net orders all 787 58 and net orders all A330 83 frames.

Even with 75 net against 69 net, the 787-9 outsells the A330-300/900 by a small margin. The 787-8 and 787-10 were net negative. Even the A330-200 added 14 to the backlog, with 30 new orders and 16 cancellations.
 
lutfi
Posts: 887
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 6:33 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:13 am

keesje wrote:
A clear advandtage of the 78-9 over the A330-900 seems to be, airlines / leasing companies have engine choice.

Image
source: https://airinsight.com/

Specially: GE/GECAS choice.

Image


For leasing companies that's actually a negative. Makes transfering aircraft at end of leases more problematic as the pool of potential operators is smaller than if "vanilla" engines across all airlines
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26588
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:30 am

lutfi wrote:
keesje wrote:
A clear advandtage of the 78-9 over the A330-900 seems to be, airlines / leasing companies have engine choice.

For leasing companies that's actually a negative. Makes transfering aircraft at end of leases more problematic as the pool of potential operators is smaller than if "vanilla" engines across all airlines


You can change engine makes on a 787. It's not as easy as originally planned, but it's still a fair bit easier than any other airframe.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9886
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:43 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
But you leave out the important part of the net orders and only partially quote me. Net orders all 787 58 and net orders all A330 83 frames.

Even with 75 net against 69 net, the 787-9 outsells the A330-300/900 by a small margin. The 787-8 and 787-10 were net negative. Even the A330-200 added 14 to the backlog, with 30 new orders and 16 cancellations.

I was just correcting your math and pointing out net orders for the 789/A339/A333 comparison. It seemed a bit weird to use net orders for one comparison (all 787 vs A330) and gross for the other (which under different circumstances might suggest you are trying to hide something). I wasn't trying to make any comment about your (unstated) conclusions.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3419
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:40 pm

Dutchy wrote:
The NEO already has 186 orders, so it is doing fine.

What surprises me is that the empty weight of the A339 is 2 tons less then the 789 and it has more range. The A339 seats 287 passengers in a standard lay-out and the 789 290 (2 class lay out).

The A339 seems to be quite attractie to airlines.


Sorry the 789 is 7635nm range the A339 is 6550nm range. where do you get the A339 is greater range. It's 1085nm shorter range. The A338 is only 7500nm range, still shorter.
Last edited by rbavfan on Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3419
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:43 pm

keesje wrote:
A clear advandtage of the 78-9 over the A330-900 seems to be, airlines / leasing companies have engine choice.

Image
source: https://airinsight.com/

Specially: GE/GECAS choice.

Image


That chart is off on A330 range.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13468
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:44 pm

lutfi wrote:
keesje wrote:
A clear advandtage of the 78-9 over the A330-900 seems to be, airlines / leasing companies have engine choice.

Image
source: https://airinsight.com/

Specially: GE/GECAS choice.

Image


For leasing companies that's actually a negative. Makes transfering aircraft at end of leases more problematic as the pool of potential operators is smaller than if "vanilla" engines across all airlines


Well, GECAS will probably prefer 789's over A330-900s :eyebrow:

Stitch wrote:
lutfi wrote:
keesje wrote:
A clear advantage of the 78-9 over the A330-900 seems to be, airlines / leasing companies have engine choice.

For leasing companies that's actually a negative. Makes transfering aircraft at end of leases more problematic as the pool of potential operators is smaller than if "vanilla" engines across all airlines


You can change engine makes on a 787. It's not as easy as originally planned, but it's still a fair bit easier than any other airframe.


It would be interesting to know how that pans out. If it's worth the effort. I've haven't seen anything on this for.. 10 years?
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26588
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:09 pm

keesje wrote:
Stitch wrote:
lutfi wrote:
For leasing companies that's actually a negative. Makes transfering aircraft at end of leases more problematic as the pool of potential operators is smaller than if "vanilla" engines across all airlines


You can change engine makes on a 787. It's not as easy as originally planned, but it's still a fair bit easier than any other airframe.


It would be interesting to know how that pans out. If it's worth the effort. I've haven't seen anything on this for.. 10 years?


Considering widebody leases are usually ten years at a minimum, we have yet to reach the point where a leased 787 has been returned and is being marketed to a new customer. :)

And did Boeing swap engine makes on one of the "Teens" between initial production and final delivery? I don't think they did, and yet I have an inkling that maybe they did...
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13468
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sun Jan 15, 2017 2:34 pm

rbavfan wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
The NEO already has 186 orders, so it is doing fine.

What surprises me is that the empty weight of the A339 is 2 tons less then the 789 and it has more range. The A339 seats 287 passengers in a standard lay-out and the 789 290 (2 class lay out).

The A339 seems to be quite attractie to airlines.


Sorry the 789 is 7635nm range the A339 is 6550nm range. where do you get the A339 is greater range. It's 1085nm shorter range. The A338 is only 7500nm range, still shorter.


I took 31T payload and normal reserves , temps etc as basis for both, and looked at payload range diagrams.
It seems Airbus is looking to increase payload range. For the same load that would mean a range improvement of 200-300NM for the A330-900.
http://aviationweek.com/awincommercial/airbus-considers-more-range-higher-weights-a330neo

There are extensive comparisions on the internet. E.g. Dhierin Bechai. He did a quick assumption the 787-9 has 360 seats and the A330-900 310 seats, and took off from there. Calculating every efficiency per seat :bored: Kind of funny, except that many people read it, it creates perceptions / strengthens pre occupations and he gets away with. Kind of scary..
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2483505-boeing-the-airbus-a330neo-a-real-competitor-for-the-boeing-787-part-2

And yes, he goes in much too deep detail to assume he selected his all determining strange seatcounts objectively, for two ~ identical sized aircraft.
It looks like he's taking his public for ride. But as most love it, and there's disclaimers at the bottom, it's a smooth ride.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3057
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sun Jan 15, 2017 2:59 pm

keesje wrote:
I think the two aircraft are close in seating capacity.

For First and Business capacity is the same, for economy the 787-9 is equipped predominatly 17 inch 9 abreast and A330 18 inch 8 abreast.

Both options are open / on order(ed) for the 787-9 and A330-900.

Image


The BA 787 9-abreast is with a 17.5 inch seat width...the same as the other long-haul planes in fleet (OpenSkies 757/767, BA 777, BA A321 Cairo/Tel Aviv, and BA A380). It would be 17 inches max with an A330-900neo

Now, as for the range, the 789 is only 9 metric tons heavier than the 339, but can fly 7,635 nautical miles. The A330-900neo still can't do missions like China to New York, but the 787-9 can do the proposed Chengdu to New York service (6537 nmi) and upcoming Fuzhou to New York service (6748 nmi), and it already does San Francisco to Singapore with a 252-seat plane (7341 nmi). On landing fees, there is barely any difference, but one is limited to 17.5 inch seat width (9 abreast) on a Dreamliner while one can go to 18 on an A330neo.

I wonder if Airbus could somehow get to 7,100 nmi on an A330-900 to truly compete with the 787-9 by adding center-line gear. China to New York still might not be possible (west of Beijing), but it would open up a possibility of Japan or Korea to the east coast of the USA.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9886
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sun Jan 15, 2017 3:10 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
I wonder if Airbus could somehow get to 7,100 nmi on an A330-900 to truly compete with the 787-9 by adding center-line gear. China to New York still might not be possible (west of Beijing), but it would open up a possibility of Japan or Korea to the east coast of the USA.

They probably could, but probably never will. Remember, Airbus needs to protect the A359 and give it reasons to justify its pricing premium. Just because Airbus didn't screw up the A350XWB program doesn't mean it didn't cost them a lot of money they would eventually like to see back.

Adding the center gear would also likely wipe out any OEW advantage that the A330neo may have over the 787.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7009
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sun Jan 15, 2017 3:51 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
keesje wrote:
I think the two aircraft are close in seating capacity.

For First and Business capacity is the same, for economy the 787-9 is equipped predominatly 17 inch 9 abreast and A330 18 inch 8 abreast.

Both options are open / on order(ed) for the 787-9 and A330-900.

Image


The BA 787 9-abreast is with a 17.5 inch seat width...the same as the other long-haul planes in fleet (OpenSkies 757/767, BA 777, BA A321 Cairo/Tel Aviv, and BA A380). It would be 17 inches max with an A330-900neo

Now, as for the range, the 789 is only 9 metric tons heavier than the 339, but can fly 7,635 nautical miles. The A330-900neo still can't do missions like China to New York, but the 787-9 can do the proposed Chengdu to New York service (6537 nmi) and upcoming Fuzhou to New York service (6748 nmi), and it already does San Francisco to Singapore with a 252-seat plane (7341 nmi). On landing fees, there is barely any difference, but one is limited to 17.5 inch seat width (9 abreast) on a Dreamliner while one can go to 18 on an A330neo.

I wonder if Airbus could somehow get to 7,100 nmi on an A330-900 to truly compete with the 787-9 by adding center-line gear. China to New York still might not be possible (west of Beijing), but it would open up a possibility of Japan or Korea to the east coast of the USA.


As a point of order, the A330-900 is a 242t MTOW aircraft, and the 787-9 is a 254t MTOW aircraft, so the difference is about 12 tonnes

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commer ... ps/787.pdf

section 2.1.2

http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_g ... -Dec16.pdf

section 2..1.1 page 4

The 7 635 Nm to 6 550Nm range difference seems reasonably representative of the weight difference.
The 787-9 flies 7 635Nm on about 96t of fuel at MTOW according to the R/P chart, so figure on about 80nm or so per tonne.

Increasing the A330-900 MTOW to 245 tonnes should bring that 6 550Nm up to about 6 800nm

Rgds
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9193
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sun Jan 15, 2017 4:54 pm

Polot wrote:
Adding the center gear would also likely wipe out any OEW advantage that the A330neo may have over the 787.


But adding the centre gear would wipe out the range advantage the 787-9 has.

But I personally think that Airbus is quite satisfied with the status of the A330-900, especially if it is possible to raise the MTOW to 245t. Airbus will sell the A330-900 at a lower price instead of trying to match up a 100%. I still believe we will see weight reductions on the fuselage and wings on the -900 compared to the -300, compensating partly for the heavier engines.
 
bucky707
Posts: 955
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2000 2:01 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sun Jan 15, 2017 5:05 pm

I wish Airbus hadn't ruined the looks of the 330NEO with that black raccoon look.
 
incitatus
Posts: 3331
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sun Jan 15, 2017 5:37 pm

This thread put very little relevance into the difference in range. The 339 is attractive to airlines flying regional routes. For long-haul fleets the range handicap of the 339 is considerable compared to the 789. 1000+ miles is a huge capability difference - one that cannot be just tolerated with weight restrictions. Consider the MD11 and the 77E. The MD11 was less attractive, and part of that was the shorter range leading many airlines not to consider it.

Bring range into the equation and the 789 competes with the 359.
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
olle
Posts: 1368
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sun Jan 15, 2017 5:59 pm

But as I understand it the 245 metric ton A330 Neo will have less disadvantage then 1000 miles compared to 787. mentioned above is more like 800+ miles and fly same distances like a 747-400 more or less.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7009
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sun Jan 15, 2017 6:20 pm

incitatus wrote:
This thread put very little relevance into the difference in range. The 339 is attractive to airlines flying regional routes. For long-haul fleets the range handicap of the 339 is considerable compared to the 789. 1000+ miles is a huge capability difference - one that cannot be just tolerated with weight restrictions. Consider the MD11 and the 77E. The MD11 was less attractive, and part of that was the shorter range leading many airlines not to consider it.

Bring range into the equation and the 789 competes with the 359.


I think that characterising the A330-900 as "regional" is as unfair as characterising the 787-10 as "regional".
Both of these planes will fly pretty close to the range that A330-200's do now.

We have a thread going now about an A330 flying Buenos Aires to Rome.
A 6 013 Nm sector which I would hardly class as "regional"

I won't argue for one moment against 1000 Nm being a significant capability difference.
The relevance of this difference surely manifests itself in the market share both aircraft have, no?
That is an indicator of how much the 1000nm difference is "significant"

If this has already been posted I apologise
Since it's launch in July 2014 the A330-900 has sold 204 examples.
In the same timeframe the 787-9 has sold 192 examples
(Per Boeing user-defined report July 2014 to Dec 2016)

I know that reality is more complex than the raw numbers suggest, but if nothing else this seems to illustrate that the 1000nm difference isn't seriously holding the A330-900 back in the marketplace.

Rgds
 
Swadian
Posts: 554
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 4:56 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sun Jan 15, 2017 7:03 pm

But how many of those A339 orders come from major international airlines? Many of the orders come from leasing companies. Yeah, there's DL, TP, GA, and IR, but TP and IR aren't exactly big airlines.

The fact is, A339 has less range than 789 and none of the current customers will likely be using the top end of its range. DL, GA, and IR will all have other longer-range planes and TP doesn't need the range. Compare that to 789 which is used on some of the world's longest flights.

One would think A339 would be popular with Asian airlines, but so far it has not garnered any orders from big medium-range A333 users like SQ, CX, CA, CZ, MU, TK, KE, CI, etc..

A339 won't have the real-life range of a 744 or A346. Try putting an A339 on SFO-SYD.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26588
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sun Jan 15, 2017 7:54 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Polot wrote:
Adding the center gear would also likely wipe out any OEW advantage that the A330neo may have over the 787.


But adding the centre gear would wipe out the range advantage the 787-9 has..


As well as much of the range advantage the A350-900 has. And considering how much lighter an A330-900 is compared to an A350-900...


mjoelnir wrote:
But I personally think that Airbus is quite satisfied with the status of the A330-900, especially if it is possible to raise the MTOW to 245t.


Agreed. Anymore and they start to put the A350-900 at risk as much as the 787-9.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 10600
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sun Jan 15, 2017 8:37 pm

keesje wrote:
Image


This is indeed quite meaningless, Take a different assumption the 787-9 (360 seats) and the A330-900 (310 seats) and then compare the two fuel per seat. So 14% less seats, they should be quite comparable in fuel burn, if the seat count is the same, probably within 2% a 4%.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
astuteman
Posts: 7009
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sun Jan 15, 2017 8:46 pm

Swadian wrote:
The fact is, A339 has less range than 789 and none of the current customers will likely be using the top end of its range. DL, GA, and IR will all have other longer-range planes and TP doesn't need the range. Compare that to 789 which is used on some of the world's longest flights.


This feels like it actually contradicts the point you are trying to make.

"Most users are unlikely to use the A330-900 at the top end of its range" implies that more range is actually superfluous.

In other news, a handful of the hundreds of 787-9's delivered are used on very long flights......

Swadian wrote:
One would think A339 would be popular with Asian airlines, but so far it has not garnered any orders from big medium-range A333 users like SQ, CX, CA, CZ, MU, TK, KE, CI, etc..


Good shout pointing out the potential market for this plane too ... :thumbsup:
Rgds
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13468
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sun Jan 15, 2017 9:14 pm

Stitch wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Polot wrote:
Adding the center gear would also likely wipe out any OEW advantage that the A330neo may have over the 787.


But adding the centre gear would wipe out the range advantage the 787-9 has..


As well as much of the range advantage the A350-900 has. And considering how much lighter an A330-900 is compared to an A350-900...


mjoelnir wrote:
But I personally think that Airbus is quite satisfied with the status of the A330-900, especially if it is possible to raise the MTOW to 245t.


Agreed. Anymore and they start to put the A350-900 at risk as much as the 787-9.


There's a reason Delta ordered both. http://oi59.tinypic.com/izw4gh.jpg
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
incitatus
Posts: 3331
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sun Jan 15, 2017 9:45 pm

astuteman wrote:

I think that characterising the A330-900 as "regional" is as unfair as characterising the 787-10 as "regional".
Both of these planes will fly pretty close to the range that A330-200's do now.

We have a thread going now about an A330 flying Buenos Aires to Rome.
A 6 013 Nm sector which I would hardly class as "regional"
(...)



I did not mean to box the 339 into a regional aircraft, so in broad terms I agree with you. But for longer range, the 789 is a more attractive aircraft, not only for the range, but also fuel efficiency in 9h+ missions.

The 1000 mile difference in range is big. For some airlines that do not need the additional range, the 330-neos ended up eating into the 350 sales, for example, TAP Air Portugal.
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13468
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Mon Jan 16, 2017 7:37 am

incitatus wrote:
astuteman wrote:

I think that characterising the A330-900 as "regional" is as unfair as characterising the 787-10 as "regional".
Both of these planes will fly pretty close to the range that A330-200's do now.

We have a thread going now about an A330 flying Buenos Aires to Rome.
A 6 013 Nm sector which I would hardly class as "regional"
(...)



I did not mean to box the 339 into a regional aircraft, so in broad terms I agree with you. But for longer range, the 789 is a more attractive aircraft, not only for the range, but also fuel efficiency in 9h+ missions.

The 1000 mile difference in range is big. For some airlines that do not need the additional range, the 330-neos ended up eating into the 350 sales, for example, TAP Air Portugal.



I don't have any data showing the 787-9 is more fuel efficient then a A339. I saw a table showing the T7000 will have slightly higher BPR, temps and OPR then the T1000, its wing is a bit leaner and frontal area smaller. The 787 can not be more eficient because it's the 787. The extra range the 787-9 offers is because it can carry more payload/fuel, it has a MTOW advantage.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Mon Jan 16, 2017 3:24 pm

There are some things not to forget when making comparisons. If you just compare OEW and engine technology, you are short changing some of the other 787-9 advances. For example not taking bleed air off the engine is going to reduce fuel burn. It is more efficient to power the airplane electrically than bleed air in cruise although the technical difficulty of the bleed less design may not have it return in the future. The 787-9 has a shorter wing, but has a more advanced variable camber wing. The 787 has dropping spoilers and flaps to adjust curvature of the sign as fuel is burned in cruise compared to the longer A330 wing. The 787-9 also has hybrid laminar flow in places where the A330 does not. The 787-9 cruises faster. 15-20 minute less block hours reduces costs. The 787-9 has overhead flight crew and cabin crew rests which can allow it to fit more seats and/or more cargo (note A330 seat maps and cargo volume from Airbus almost never include a crew rest). Conversely a 787-9 may have higher landing costs due to higher payload. While usually more payload means more revenue this isn't always the case for shorter flights where the A330 is more competitive.

keesje wrote:
rbavfan wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
The NEO already has 186 orders, so it is doing fine.

What surprises me is that the empty weight of the A339 is 2 tons less then the 789 and it has more range. The A339 seats 287 passengers in a standard lay-out and the 789 290 (2 class lay out).

The A339 seems to be quite attractie to airlines.


Sorry the 789 is 7635nm range the A339 is 6550nm range. where do you get the A339 is greater range. It's 1085nm shorter range. The A338 is only 7500nm range, still shorter.


I took 31T payload and normal reserves , temps etc as basis for both, and looked at payload range diagrams.
It seems Airbus is looking to increase payload range. For the same load that would mean a range improvement of 200-300NM for the A330-900.
http://aviationweek.com/awincommercial/airbus-considers-more-range-higher-weights-a330neo

There are extensive comparisions on the internet. E.g. Dhierin Bechai. He did a quick assumption the 787-9 has 360 seats and the A330-900 310 seats, and took off from there. Calculating every efficiency per seat :bored: Kind of funny, except that many people read it, it creates perceptions / strengthens pre occupations and he gets away with. Kind of scary..
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2483505-boeing-the-airbus-a330neo-a-real-competitor-for-the-boeing-787-part-2

And yes, he goes in much too deep detail to assume he selected his all determining strange seatcounts objectively, for two ~ identical sized aircraft.
It looks like he's taking his public for ride. But as most love it, and there's disclaimers at the bottom, it's a smooth ride.

Image


Don't worry about those incorrect assumptions. Bechai published an updated analysis six months after the one that had some corrected assumptions in it. As with any analysis, the assumptions can be questioned. It probably doesn't match the marketing chart from Airbus, so I am certain you can question this chart's assumptions too. The numbers that I have seen indicate the 787-9 burning between 0.5% and 4% less fuel per seat depending on configuration and operating conditions. The longer the flight, the better the 787-9 fuel burn.

Image
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 22243
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Mon Jan 16, 2017 4:00 pm

keesje wrote:
Stitch wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

But adding the centre gear would wipe out the range advantage the 787-9 has..


As well as much of the range advantage the A350-900 has. And considering how much lighter an A330-900 is compared to an A350-900...


mjoelnir wrote:
But I personally think that Airbus is quite satisfied with the status of the A330-900, especially if it is possible to raise the MTOW to 245t.


Agreed. Anymore and they start to put the A350-900 at risk as much as the 787-9.


There's a reason Delta ordered both. http://oi59.tinypic.com/izw4gh.jpg


Indeed it's a great lineup for DL and a formidable pair of competitors for Boeing:

Image

Some idea on ranges: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=6000nm%40A ... aded&DU=mi
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Swadian
Posts: 554
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 4:56 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Mon Jan 16, 2017 10:42 pm

astuteman wrote:
Swadian wrote:
The fact is, A339 has less range than 789 and none of the current customers will likely be using the top end of its range. DL, GA, and IR will all have other longer-range planes and TP doesn't need the range. Compare that to 789 which is used on some of the world's longest flights.


This feels like it actually contradicts the point you are trying to make.

"Most users are unlikely to use the A330-900 at the top end of its range" implies that more range is actually superfluous.

In other news, a handful of the hundreds of 787-9's delivered are used on very long flights......

Swadian wrote:
One would think A339 would be popular with Asian airlines, but so far it has not garnered any orders from big medium-range A333 users like SQ, CX, CA, CZ, MU, TK, KE, CI, etc..


Good shout pointing out the potential market for this plane too ... :thumbsup:
Rgds


Actually, I'm not contradicting myself. You may have misunderstood the point I was trying to make. My point is simply that (1) the 789 is a better airplane than the A339 and (2) if any airline needs range, they'll use the 789, thus, the A339 might as well be a medium-range frame, because most airlines will not use it for flights longer than 5500nm. Any range the A339 has over 5500nm is superfluous for most customers. It doesn't matter if the A339 has 1000nm or 800nm less range than the 789.

And if the potential market for the A339 is so huge, why aren't any of those airlines I listed ordering it? Because A339 isn't a very good airplane. A350 and 787 are better airplanes and the extra cost, for most major international airlines, is worth it. 55/204 A339 orders are from leasing companies and 66/204 A339 orders are from D7. Even for medium-range flights, the A339 isn't so successful, since big medium-range A333 users have not ordered the A339.

By the way, I am not a Boeing fan.
 
jfk777
Posts: 7161
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Mon Jan 16, 2017 10:54 pm

On the United A350 thread there are many calls for an A330 order but try flying from SFO to Singapore with an A330-900. AN A350-900, no problem and a 787-9 which UA currently flies the route with can do it too. The A330-900 is the Airbus MD-11.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2487
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Mon Jan 16, 2017 11:06 pm

Swadian wrote:

And if the potential market for the A339 is so huge, why aren't any of those airlines I listed ordering it? Because A339 isn't a very good airplane. A350 and 787 are better airplanes and the extra cost, for most major international airlines, is worth it. 55/204 A339 orders are from leasing companies and 66/204 A339 orders are from D7. Even for medium-range flights, the A339 isn't so successful, since big medium-range A333 users have not ordered the A339.


The A339 is a good aeroplane, it's a better version of what is a popular aircraft.

Why isn't it selling?

- No widebodies are selling quickly right now. There's been a slowdown in the time it's been on the market.
- A lot of A330s are new. Around 600 A330-300s are 13 years old or less. The A330's best delivery years span 2009 to 2015 (this is also similar for the 77W replacement cycle).
- The 787 has nabbed a fair few of the airlines that may have gone for an A339 if the replacement cycle started now.

The airlines that use the A330 on longer routes will have newer ones: the A333 was only beefed up for the more recent deliveries. No need to replace them when they've been paid off already in a lower fuel price environment (77W parallel again).

But also, the A359 and 789 may be better aircraft, but they're expensive, and some airlines may be paying for range/payload capability that they aren't using, so if you're not flying much about 10-11hrs the A339 may be more cost-efficient. The A333 sold well on this and its availability, an advantage the A339 will still have. We'll see airlines get A339s from leasing companies in the future, the leasing companies that already use A330s successfully will transition over without much fuss.

jfk777 wrote:
On the United A350 thread there are many calls for an A330 order but try flying from SFO to Singapore with an A330-900. AN A350-900, no problem and a 787-9 which UA currently flies the route with can do it too. The A330-900 is the Airbus MD-11.


Unless all of UA's flights are SFO-SIN I don't see the issue. There are plenty of important routes that the A339 would fit on. The A339 has a similar number of orders to the MD-11 and it hasn't even flown yet. How about we wait and see, eh?
 
jfk777
Posts: 7161
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:56 am

MrHMSH wrote:
Swadian wrote:

And if the potential market for the A339 is so huge, why aren't any of those airlines I listed ordering it? Because A339 isn't a very good airplane. A350 and 787 are better airplanes and the extra cost, for most major international airlines, is worth it. 55/204 A339 orders are from leasing companies and 66/204 A339 orders are from D7. Even for medium-range flights, the A339 isn't so successful, since big medium-range A333 users have not ordered the A339.


The A339 is a good aeroplane, it's a better version of what is a popular aircraft.

Why isn't it selling?

- No widebodies are selling quickly right now. There's been a slowdown in the time it's been on the market.
- A lot of A330s are new. Around 600 A330-300s are 13 years old or less. The A330's best delivery years span 2009 to 2015 (this is also similar for the 77W replacement cycle).
- The 787 has nabbed a fair few of the airlines that may have gone for an A339 if the replacement cycle started now.

The airlines that use the A330 on longer routes will have newer ones: the A333 was only beefed up for the more recent deliveries. No need to replace them when they've been paid off already in a lower fuel price environment (77W parallel again).

But also, the A359 and 789 may be better aircraft, but they're expensive, and some airlines may be paying for range/payload capability that they aren't using, so if you're not flying much about 10-11hrs the A339 may be more cost-efficient. The A333 sold well on this and its availability, an advantage the A339 will still have. We'll see airlines get A339s from leasing companies in the future, the leasing companies that already use A330s successfully will transition over without much fuss.

jfk777 wrote:
On the United A350 thread there are many calls for an A330 order but try flying from SFO to Singapore with an A330-900. AN A350-900, no problem and a 787-9 which UA currently flies the route with can do it too. The A330-900 is the Airbus MD-11.


Unless all of UA's flights are SFO-SIN I don't see the issue. There are plenty of important routes that the A339 would fit on. The A339 has a similar number of orders to the MD-11 and it hasn't even flown yet. How about we wait and see, eh?


United will have a future long haul fleet of 777, 787 and A350's, the 787-10 can do all the A330-900 can. Why would adding an A330 help United it adds an extra airplane type that brings no unique mission capability. IF it could fly say nonstop to and from Newark to Johannesburg then it would be worth it but United already has such an airplane the 787-9. Planes capable of flying from EWR, ORD and IAH to Europe or Brazil are a dime a dozen, that is every long haul plane UA has.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2487
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Jan 17, 2017 2:11 am

jfk777 wrote:
United will have a future long haul fleet of 777, 787 and A350's, the 787-10 can do all the A330-900 can. Why would adding an A330 help United it adds an extra airplane type that brings no unique mission capability. IF it could fly say nonstop to and from Newark to Johannesburg then it would be worth it but United already has such an airplane the 787-9. Planes capable of flying from EWR, ORD and IAH to Europe or Brazil are a dime a dozen, that is every long haul plane UA has.


I didn't say it was the best choice for UA, only that it's pointless to say that an aircraft is unsuitable because it can't fly exceptionally long flights. Not every flight is that long.

A new aircraft type doesn't have to 'bring unique mission capability'. If the A339 is more cost efficient than aircraft flying in the UA fleet today, then it makes sense to buy it for the routes it can fly. It probably doesn't, but that's not the point. The 78X can do all the A339 can do? Fair enough. But then by your logic, the 78X shouldn't be in the fleet either because it doesn't bring 'unique mission capability'.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Jan 17, 2017 5:24 am

This thread reminds me of the 737-10 thread, in regards to the question of why would they bother with a plane that may not be the best seller in the category? For one thing, I think there is way too much emphasis in here on current sales on programs that will last for decades.

Basically, why not offer the 338/9? There will be huge commonality with the current 330 models, the engines are basically the same as engines currently on offer so their development cost isn't huge, and without it, Airbus doesn't have an aircraft offering between the 321 and the 359.

It won't have to sell very many copies to start turning a profit...the current orders alone are probably enough for that. There are a bunch of 330's flying out there that will need replacing and many airlines will eventually basically want to go for more of what they already have...only better.

Most airline flights aren't at max range, so that issue is moot, to a large degree, in my opinion. For routes that require that range, and airline can get a few aircraft with longer range to fill in the gaps.
What the...?
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Jan 17, 2017 5:41 am

I think there are many legitimate applications for the A330-900. DL's approach with the dual 339/359 combo is a great example. Another would be Air Asia X and their Long Haul/Low Cost aspirations. HA and their mainland-Hawaii-Asia flights seem like a good fit as well.

I can't think of a reason not to have done it. Of course, I like the 787 family as well.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9193
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Jan 17, 2017 8:52 am

JoeCanuck wrote:
This thread reminds me of the 737-10 thread, in regards to the question of why would they bother with a plane that may not be the best seller in the category? For one thing, I think there is way too much emphasis in here on current sales on programs that will last for decades.


The main difference is that current sales of the A330 match or surpass 787 sales, whereas A321 sales is a multiple of 737-900/900ER/9 sales.
The A330-200/800 does not sell, but neither the 787-8. At least the A330-200/800 sales numbers are positive during 2016
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13468
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:52 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
There are some things not to forget when making comparisons. If you just compare OEW and engine technology, you are short changing some of the other 787-9 advances. For example not taking bleed air off the engine is going to reduce fuel burn. It is more efficient to power the airplane electrically than bleed air in cruise although the technical difficulty of the bleed less design may not have it return in the future. The 787-9 has a shorter wing, but has a more advanced variable camber wing. The 787 has dropping spoilers and flaps to adjust curvature of the sign as fuel is burned in cruise compared to the longer A330 wing. The 787-9 also has hybrid laminar flow in places where the A330 does not. The 787-9 cruises faster. 15-20 minute less block hours reduces costs. The 787-9 has overhead flight crew and cabin crew rests which can allow it to fit more seats and/or more cargo (note A330 seat maps and cargo volume from Airbus almost never include a crew rest). Conversely a 787-9 may have higher landing costs due to higher payload. While usually more payload means more revenue this isn't always the case for shorter flights where the A330 is more competitive.

keesje wrote:
rbavfan wrote:

Sorry the 789 is 7635nm range the A339 is 6550nm range. where do you get the A339 is greater range. It's 1085nm shorter range. The A338 is only 7500nm range, still shorter.


I took 31T payload and normal reserves , temps etc as basis for both, and looked at payload range diagrams.
It seems Airbus is looking to increase payload range. For the same load that would mean a range improvement of 200-300NM for the A330-900.
http://aviationweek.com/awincommercial/airbus-considers-more-range-higher-weights-a330neo

There are extensive comparisions on the internet. E.g. Dhierin Bechai. He did a quick assumption the 787-9 has 360 seats and the A330-900 310 seats, and took off from there. Calculating every efficiency per seat :bored: Kind of funny, except that many people read it, it creates perceptions / strengthens pre occupations and he gets away with. Kind of scary..
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2483505-boeing-the-airbus-a330neo-a-real-competitor-for-the-boeing-787-part-2

And yes, he goes in much too deep detail to assume he selected his all determining strange seatcounts objectively, for two ~ identical sized aircraft.
It looks like he's taking his public for ride. But as most love it, and there's disclaimers at the bottom, it's a smooth ride.

Image


Don't worry about those incorrect assumptions. Bechai published an updated analysis six months after the one that had some corrected assumptions in it. As with any analysis, the assumptions can be questioned. It probably doesn't match the marketing chart from Airbus, so I am certain you can question this chart's assumptions too. The numbers that I have seen indicate the 787-9 burning between 0.5% and 4% less fuel per seat depending on configuration and operating conditions. The longer the flight, the better the 787-9 fuel burn.

Image


OK, but what were the seatcount assumptions? Selecting seatcounts and doing per seat efficiency comparisons have become Marketings favourite misinformation tools. Not mentioning/ playing down those is dishonest. Yes, worry.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Jan 17, 2017 11:20 am

keesje wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
There are some things not to forget when making comparisons. If you just compare OEW and engine technology, you are short changing some of the other 787-9 advances. For example not taking bleed air off the engine is going to reduce fuel burn. It is more efficient to power the airplane electrically than bleed air in cruise although the technical difficulty of the bleed less design may not have it return in the future. The 787-9 has a shorter wing, but has a more advanced variable camber wing. The 787 has dropping spoilers and flaps to adjust curvature of the sign as fuel is burned in cruise compared to the longer A330 wing. The 787-9 also has hybrid laminar flow in places where the A330 does not. The 787-9 cruises faster. 15-20 minute less block hours reduces costs. The 787-9 has overhead flight crew and cabin crew rests which can allow it to fit more seats and/or more cargo (note A330 seat maps and cargo volume from Airbus almost never include a crew rest). Conversely a 787-9 may have higher landing costs due to higher payload. While usually more payload means more revenue this isn't always the case for shorter flights where the A330 is more competitive.

keesje wrote:

I took 31T payload and normal reserves , temps etc as basis for both, and looked at payload range diagrams.
It seems Airbus is looking to increase payload range. For the same load that would mean a range improvement of 200-300NM for the A330-900.
http://aviationweek.com/awincommercial/airbus-considers-more-range-higher-weights-a330neo

There are extensive comparisions on the internet. E.g. Dhierin Bechai. He did a quick assumption the 787-9 has 360 seats and the A330-900 310 seats, and took off from there. Calculating every efficiency per seat :bored: Kind of funny, except that many people read it, it creates perceptions / strengthens pre occupations and he gets away with. Kind of scary..
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2483505-boeing-the-airbus-a330neo-a-real-competitor-for-the-boeing-787-part-2

And yes, he goes in much too deep detail to assume he selected his all determining strange seatcounts objectively, for two ~ identical sized aircraft.
It looks like he's taking his public for ride. But as most love it, and there's disclaimers at the bottom, it's a smooth ride.

Image


Don't worry about those incorrect assumptions. Bechai published an updated analysis six months after the one that had some corrected assumptions in it. As with any analysis, the assumptions can be questioned. It probably doesn't match the marketing chart from Airbus, so I am certain you can question this chart's assumptions too. The numbers that I have seen indicate the 787-9 burning between 0.5% and 4% less fuel per seat depending on configuration and operating conditions. The longer the flight, the better the 787-9 fuel burn.

Image


OK, but what were the seatcount assumptions? Selecting seatcounts and doing per seat efficiency comparisons have become Marketings favourite misinformation tools. Not mentioning/ playing down those is dishonest. Yes, worry.


I am not worried that Boeing has an airplane that many airlines consider more efficient than the competing Airbus product. There are plenty of sources misleading in Boeing's favor and many misleading in Airbus' favor. I have seen plenty of posts (including many by you) with misleading information. The A350 dartboard that Airbus created implying that the A359 has the perfect capacity comes to mind. I also think of the 787 vs A350/A330 lineup where Airbus crossed out the 787-8 with a comment that it is not a selling compared to the A338/A332 is pretty deceptive given that the A338 has only 6 orders and the claim that the A332 MRTT sales somehow represented a comparison to the 788 (while ignoring that the 767 has been outselling the A332 including Tanker versions). I also think of how some Airbus biased charts use A320 vs 738 trip cost comparisons sometimes instead seat costs, which is exactly what you are commenting on in this comparison.

So I totally agree that various sources aren't accurate comparisons. I do believe that te fuel burn difference per seat for the 789 is about 0.5% to 4% over the A339 depending on configuration and range while simulataneously the 789 offers more payload if an airline needs it. Have you seen any Airbus analysis charts disproving this? From what I have seen, Airbus marketing material minimizes the difference to imply it is essentially zero over what might be 4000 miles. I haven't seen a fuel burn difference over various distances shown by Airbus. I would love to see it.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8919
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Jan 17, 2017 11:52 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
There are some things not to forget when making comparisons. If you just compare OEW and engine technology, you are short changing some of the other 787-9 advances. For example not taking bleed air off the engine is going to reduce fuel burn. It is more efficient to power the airplane electrically than bleed air in cruise although the technical difficulty of the bleed less design may not have it return in the future. The 787-9 has a shorter wing, but has a more advanced variable camber wing. The 787 has dropping spoilers and flaps to adjust curvature of the sign as fuel is burned in cruise compared to the longer A330 wing. The 787-9 also has hybrid laminar flow in places where the A330 does not.


You have a copy paste archive from Boeing PR. Congratilations. :-)
There is so much "not quite correct" in your screed.
Murphy is an optimist
 
airbazar
Posts: 9894
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:38 pm

Swadian wrote:
But how many of those A339 orders come from major international airlines? Many of the orders come from leasing companies. Yeah, there's DL, TP, GA, and IR, but TP and IR aren't exactly big airlines.
[...]
One would think A339 would be popular with Asian airlines, but so far it has not garnered any orders from big medium-range A333 users like SQ, CX, CA, CZ, MU, TK, KE, CI, etc..

I don't think Airbus cares where the money comes from. The 787 was launched 10 years earlier to replace the aging 772/A340/A330/767 fleets of the world so logically it gathered a lot of the early orders. Likewise for the A350. The A330neo is a more niche aircraft and it will find more orders when the much newer fleets of the A330's come up for replacement. I have no doubt that the Lufthansas, Iberias and Air China's of the world will be ordering A339's. But those airlines in some cases are still taking deliveries of A330ceo's so it will be a long time until they are ready to replace them.
 
Carmitage
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:24 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:39 pm

As far as I've read, this thread seems to be missing one critical factor - price. I'd argue that "better" means "offers better economics to the airline" (on a risk adjusted basis)
According to John Leahy, the A330neo will be $20-25m cheaper than the equivalent 787, or roughly 20% (and my feeling is that it could actually be closer to $30m, or 25-30%)
Capital cost is roughly 10% of an airliners operating costs, so the A330 has a 2-3% operating cost advantage from that.
Fuel is roughly 30% of operating costs, so a 0.5-4% fuel burn is a 0.2-1.3% operating cost advantage to the 787

Therefore, it would seem to me that the A330neo is a better aircraft if you don't need the uber-long range, while the 787 is better if you do.

(As an aside, I heard a Virgin executive say that "fuel burn lines of the A330neo and the 787 were on top of each other")
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9193
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Jan 17, 2017 4:19 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
There are some things not to forget when making comparisons. If you just compare OEW and engine technology, you are short changing some of the other 787-9 advances. For example not taking bleed air off the engine is going to reduce fuel burn. It is more efficient to power the airplane electrically than bleed air in cruise although the technical difficulty of the bleed less design may not have it return in the future. The 787-9 has a shorter wing, but has a more advanced variable camber wing. The 787 has dropping spoilers and flaps to adjust curvature of the sign as fuel is burned in cruise compared to the longer A330 wing. The 787-9 also has hybrid laminar flow in places where the A330 does not. The 787-9 cruises faster. 15-20 minute less block hours reduces costs. The 787-9 has overhead flight crew and cabin crew rests which can allow it to fit more seats and/or more cargo (note A330 seat maps and cargo volume from Airbus almost never include a crew rest). Conversely a 787-9 may have higher landing costs due to higher payload. While usually more payload means more revenue this isn't always the case for shorter flights where the A330 is more competitive.


I am not worried that Boeing has an airplane that many airlines consider more efficient than the competing Airbus product. There are plenty of sources misleading in Boeing's favor and many misleading in Airbus' favor. I have seen plenty of posts (including many by you) with misleading information. The A350 dartboard that Airbus created implying that the A359 has the perfect capacity comes to mind. I also think of the 787 vs A350/A330 lineup where Airbus crossed out the 787-8 with a comment that it is not a selling compared to the A338/A332 is pretty deceptive given that the A338 has only 6 orders and the claim that the A332 MRTT sales somehow represented a comparison to the 788 (while ignoring that the 767 has been outselling the A332 including Tanker versions). I also think of how some Airbus biased charts use A320 vs 738 trip cost comparisons sometimes instead seat costs, which is exactly what you are commenting on in this comparison.

So I totally agree that various sources aren't accurate comparisons. I do believe that te fuel burn difference per seat for the 789 is about 0.5% to 4% over the A339 depending on configuration and range while simulataneously the 789 offers more payload if an airline needs it. Have you seen any Airbus analysis charts disproving this? From what I have seen, Airbus marketing material minimizes the difference to imply it is essentially zero over what might be 4000 miles. I haven't seen a fuel burn difference over various distances shown by Airbus. I would love to see it.


It may be that you are not worried about the efficiency of the A330neo compared to the 787-9. But Boeing should be.

It seems you try to muddy the waters with blending the A350 into this comparison, it is in this case only between the 787-9 and A330-900.
All the talk about other frames is other frames. So lets start

- Same generations of engines. The A330 extracts more bleed air, the 787 more mechanical power. It can be that the 787 is part of a pro cent more efficient there
- The A330-900 is the lighter frame with a bigger wing span. I would assume no fuel burn difference before the trip gets to above 5.000 nm. On short distances the A330 could be with less fuel burn. If you have charts showing the fuel burn advantage of the 787 over various distances, please refer to.
- Both frames are mainly MTOW restricted rather than fuel volume restricted regarding range. The 787 has a higher MTOW therefore more range at the same load. Any increase of MTOW on the A330-900 will decrease the difference.
- The A330-900 is a lower investment than the 787-9.
- The variable camber, is not a function of the wing, but rather a function of the FBW and as Airbus has variable camber both on the A380 and A350,
it would be wrong to assume it not being applied to the A330neo. The A330-200 Airbus test frames has been doing a lot of hours testflying.
- I assume that the 787 will keep the distinction of cruising faster than the A330, I have not heard of any change to the wing sweep on the A330neo.
 
sf260
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:59 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Jan 17, 2017 6:13 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
- The A330-900 is the lighter frame with a bigger wing span

What is your source for the OEW advantage? What's the difference?
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9193
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Jan 17, 2017 6:45 pm

sf260 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
- The A330-900 is the lighter frame with a bigger wing span

What is your source for the OEW advantage? What's the difference?


Start reading this thread, information should not be needed to be posted several times.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9886
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Jan 17, 2017 6:54 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
sf260 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
- The A330-900 is the lighter frame with a bigger wing span

What is your source for the OEW advantage? What's the difference?


Start reading this thread, information should not be needed to be posted several times.

There has never been a clear OEW advantage with the A330neo. A lot of information (from posters who are reporting information their airline have heard about the A330neo from Airbus) suggesting that the A330neo/789 will have almost identical OEWs with differences basically amounting to individual airline configuration choices, and a lot of "I think/believe the neo will have a weight reduction program resulting in little weight gain over ceo" [paraphrase] from you, but nothing actually confirming that is occurring.

For example, in reply 84 of this very thread sf260 said:

sf260 wrote:
Ours [A333s] range from 126t to 130t (later sn's being the heavier. this includes, catering, standard spare parts kit, etc). Airbus gave us a 6t increase for the neo. We have based our future fleet decision on 136t empty weight for the A330neo.


Chaostheory said in Dec 2015:

Chaostheory wrote:
Also, the 789 is certainly not lighter than the A333. In our configs, the A333 averages 124.5t and our 789 128t empty. The 339neo is expected to gain 4-5t over the 333.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=599479&p=9447505#p9447505 (this is not the first time I have pointed out this quote to you).
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Wed Jan 18, 2017 9:30 am

Carmitage wrote:
As far as I've read, this thread seems to be missing one critical factor - price. I'd argue that "better" means "offers better economics to the airline" (on a risk adjusted basis)
According to John Leahy, the A330neo will be $20-25m cheaper than the equivalent 787, or roughly 20% (and my feeling is that it could actually be closer to $30m, or 25-30%)
Capital cost is roughly 10% of an airliners operating costs, so the A330 has a 2-3% operating cost advantage from that.
Fuel is roughly 30% of operating costs, so a 0.5-4% fuel burn is a 0.2-1.3% operating cost advantage to the 787

Therefore, it would seem to me that the A330neo is a better aircraft if you don't need the uber-long range, while the 787 is better if you do.

(As an aside, I heard a Virgin executive say that "fuel burn lines of the A330neo and the 787 were on top of each other")


I suspect that the price difference is why A339 sales have been pretty good over the past few years. I do think that the $20-25 million is likely overinflated for current sales campaigns. My opinion is that 20-25 million was likely the price difference between A330 ceo and 789 sales recently or with fire sale pricing offered to A330neo launch customers like Delta or compensatory pricing to airlines switching from the A358. When one airplane is vastly more efficient than the other, it commands a higher price. The same is true with 777 vs A350 sales.

Boeing has had a strong cost reduction program in the past year in both manufacturing and engineering / corporate. I think Boeing knows they need to close the price gap to under $10 million or so if they want to win sales campaigns. Getting production costs down with the higher rates and efficiency, reducing engineering support by finishing design improvements and reducing warranty coverage will dramatically close that gap. The A330neo also has to pay for itself. Airbus is unlikely to sell it for CEO prices if they want to earn back the $5 million or so per plane development costs. Boeing has a lot more opportunity to cut 787 costs while Airbus has less opportunity with a mature production system. In the long run, I see the price gap between the A330 and 787 shrinking. I'd love to see a comparison in costs between carbon fiber and aluminum. I suspect the price gap is closing as composite manufacturing matures.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9193
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Wed Jan 18, 2017 11:33 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
I suspect that the price difference is why A339 sales have been pretty good over the past few years. I do think that the $20-25 million is likely overinflated for current sales campaigns. My opinion is that 20-25 million was likely the price difference between A330 ceo and 789 sales recently or with fire sale pricing offered to A330neo launch customers like Delta or compensatory pricing to airlines switching from the A358. When one airplane is vastly more efficient than the other, it commands a higher price. The same is true with 777 vs A350 sales.

Boeing has had a strong cost reduction program in the past year in both manufacturing and engineering / corporate. I think Boeing knows they need to close the price gap to under $10 million or so if they want to win sales campaigns. Getting production costs down with the higher rates and efficiency, reducing engineering support by finishing design improvements and reducing warranty coverage will dramatically close that gap. The A330neo also has to pay for itself. Airbus is unlikely to sell it for CEO prices if they want to earn back the $5 million or so per plane development costs. Boeing has a lot more opportunity to cut 787 costs while Airbus has less opportunity with a mature production system. In the long run, I see the price gap between the A330 and 787 shrinking. I'd love to see a comparison in costs between carbon fiber and aluminum. I suspect the price gap is closing as composite manufacturing matures.


With the strong cost reduction program Boeing has managed to reach the point last year, where they do not loose money on every 787 delivered. It took them over 450 frames to reach that point. So I am quite sure, even though Airbus sells the A330 below the price of a corresponding 787, that Airbus has a higher margin on the A330, than Boeing on the 787.
Even when we add now the neo development cost and more expensive engines, T7000 instead of T700, pushing the cost up, lets guess 10 million USD per frame, Airbus will be able to keep up the margins while keeping the price below The 787.
Let us not forget, that each 787 delivered in the near future, has not only to bring in the current production cost, but also about 30 million USD to clean out the mountain of deferred cost.

Boeing has absolutely no opportunity to fight Airbus on price regarding the 787 versus the A330, without running the risk to have to declare a forward loss sometime in the near future.on the 787 program.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 14

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