OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 7:34 pm

thepinkmachine wrote:
@Cumulus,

Where does the data for such simulations/analysis come from, especially for new A/C types that haven't flown yet? OEM's? What scope of performance data is providing?


The airlines ask the OEM's to provide guaranteed performance with airline specified interiors and catering levels for specific routes in their systems. Guaranteed performance items can include fuel burn, mission payload, mission flight times, takeoff and landing field lengths, interior/exterior noise levels etc.

The OEM applied guarantee factors/tolerances are where the game gets interesting. If the factors/tolerances are set too high, the OEM will be confident of meeting the guarantees but may lose the order. With low factors/tolerances, the OEM may win the order but have to pay the airline for performance misses, eroding the value of the sales contract.

Naturally, a lot of historical experience, judgement and strategy is used to select the guarantee factors and tolerances. New types without performance data bases have larger factors/tolerances than inservice types.

It's all part of the Sporty Game.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
thepinkmachine
Posts: 396
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:43 pm

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 8:09 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
thepinkmachine wrote:
@Cumulus,

Where does the data for such simulations/analysis come from, especially for new A/C types that haven't flown yet? OEM's? What scope of performance data is providing?


The airlines ask the OEM's to provide guaranteed performance with airline specified interiors and catering levels for specific routes in their systems. Guaranteed performance items can include fuel burn, mission payload, mission flight times, takeoff and landing field lengths, interior/exterior noise levels etc.

The OEM applied guarantee factors/tolerances are where the game gets interesting. If the factors/tolerances are set too high, the OEM will be confident of meeting the guarantees but may lose the order. With low factors/tolerances, the OEM may win the order but have to pay the airline for performance misses, eroding the value of the sales contract.

Naturally, a lot of historical experience, judgement and strategy is used to select the guarantee factors and tolerances. New types without performance data bases have larger factors/tolerances than inservice types.

It's all part of the Sporty Game.


Thanks OAG, interesting stuff...

So, do airlines get 'raw data' from OEM's and calculate their own performance figures, or rather forward their mission profiles to the OEMs and the manufacturers provide guaranteed performance tailored to the missions?

How does it work for existing aircraft obtained from the second-hand market? How do airlines obtain performance data and from where?
"Tell my wife I am trawling Atlantis - and I still have my hands on the wheel…"
 
WIederling
Posts: 9028
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 8:23 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
chart in post 130 that is one source.

this chart was apparently created by Dhierin Bechai posted in article on seeking alpha:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2483505 ... 787-part-2

An interesting configuration selection to put it mildly. No idea how he stuffs 50 more pax into the 789
in a "comparable" density seating arrangement.
Going from there the outcome is rather obvious, isn't it.

Then Mr Bechai has a rather straightforward history on how things look in his timeline.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 8:48 pm

WIederling wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
chart in post 130 that is one source.

this chart was apparently created by Dhierin Bechai posted in article on seeking alpha:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2483505 ... 787-part-2

An interesting configuration selection to put it mildly. No idea how he stuffs 50 more pax into the 789
in a "comparable" density seating arrangement.
Going from there the outcome is rather obvious, isn't it.

Then Mr Bechai has a rather straightforward history on how things look in his timeline.


So then in your opinion, what is the difference in fuel burn per seat between a 787-10 and A330-900? I assume we agree on some basic assumptions like the 787-10 has 30-50 more seats over a reasonable range of about 4000 miles. My guess is 10-12%. Mjoelnir seemed to imply it was closer to 2.5%. What do you think?
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1726
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 8:51 pm

Polot wrote:
You are right, an airline chooses an aircraft for the market they serve, not the range. But the range dictates what markets the aircraft can serve ;) Which impacts what other aircraft the airline is comparing it to. Things get complicated because an airline may not be "losing money by flying empty seats on the 78X" versus the A339 (or 789). It depends on the total trip costs. If the trip costs are close enough you can fly a majority of those extra seats essentially for free with no penalty over the A339/789 while bringing in more potential revenue (that is what has killed the A318/A319/736/73G vs the A320/738). For an airline that has mostly short ranged markets they may love that. Another airline may have a lot of longer range markets that the 787-10 can't serve, and may decide that just having a single A339 or 789 fleet is more ideal for aircraft flexibility reasons.



But if the trip costs of the 78X was similar to the A339 it would be similar to the 789 and you would surely have seen more 78X orders and less 789 orders, right? So I think we can assume that the trip cost will not be similar as I think the 78X would have had more sales if this was the case.

If you follow your argument that about airlines looking for more range from the 78X, surely their option would be the A359, more capacity and range than either the 789 and A339. If you are looking at 78X capacity but need range you don't go to the 789 automatically (unless you only want to operate and all Boeing fleet) as there is another very capable aircraft that has almost the same capacity and range that you are looking for.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 503
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 9:15 pm

WIederling wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
chart in post 130 that is one source.

this chart was apparently created by Dhierin Bechai posted in article on seeking alpha:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2483505 ... 787-part-2

An interesting configuration selection to put it mildly. No idea how he stuffs 50 more pax into the 789
in a "comparable" density seating arrangement.
Going from there the outcome is rather obvious, isn't it.

Then Mr Bechai has a rather straightforward history on how things look in his timeline.


That must be close to a 787-9 with 27 pitch/17 inch Y-seats, compared to a A339 with 32 pitch/18 inch wide Y-seats. That is close to a 30% difference in space per Y-passenger.

If we look at actual seat configurations at seatguru, we would see that airlines usually have on average slightly more seats in the A333.

Nobody should be quoting Seeking Alfa. They have no idea what they are writing about!
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 9:26 pm

reidar76 wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
chart in post 130 that is one source.

this chart was apparently created by Dhierin Bechai posted in article on seeking alpha:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2483505 ... 787-part-2

An interesting configuration selection to put it mildly. No idea how he stuffs 50 more pax into the 789
in a "comparable" density seating arrangement.
Going from there the outcome is rather obvious, isn't it.

Then Mr Bechai has a rather straightforward history on how things look in his timeline.


That must be close to a 787-9 with 27 pitch/17 inch Y-seats, compared to a A339 with 32 pitch/18 inch wide Y-seats. That is close to a 30% difference in space per Y-passenger.

If we look at actual seat configurations at seatguru, we would see that airlines usually have on average slightly more seats in the A333.

Nobody should be quoting Seeking Alfa. They have no idea what they are writing about!


The chart I posted in comment 130 was adjusted for more accurate seat counts and brought the differences down. I didn't quote the specific airticle that Wlederling shared. The 50 seat difference should be more of a 787-10 vs A339 comparison.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 503
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 9:47 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
reidar76 wrote:
WIederling wrote:
this chart was apparently created by Dhierin Bechai posted in article on seeking alpha:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2483505 ... 787-part-2

An interesting configuration selection to put it mildly. No idea how he stuffs 50 more pax into the 789
in a "comparable" density seating arrangement.
Going from there the outcome is rather obvious, isn't it.

Then Mr Bechai has a rather straightforward history on how things look in his timeline.


That must be close to a 787-9 with 27 pitch/17 inch Y-seats, compared to a A339 with 32 pitch/18 inch wide Y-seats. That is close to a 30% difference in space per Y-passenger.

If we look at actual seat configurations at seatguru, we would see that airlines usually have on average slightly more seats in the A333.

Nobody should be quoting Seeking Alfa. They have no idea what they are writing about!


The chart I posted in comment 130 was adjusted for more accurate seat counts and brought the differences down. I didn't quote the specific airticle that Wlederling shared.


Correct, you didn't quote the article, but the chart/picture in #130 is linked directly to the Seeking Alfa article. It's the same (URL) chart/picture. Seeking Alfa is a website for feeding false information to novice share traders.
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 9:53 pm

seahawk wrote:
keesje wrote:
Before this topic, people were comparing A330-900 to 787-10 on cost per seat, for unclear reasons. That seems fixed now

Image


A nice and clear statement. Which should end the debate.

When was the slide most recently shown, and to whom?

If 787-10 customers have incorporated the promises (together with the A330-900 data on which they are based), with appropriate, enforceable penalties in their purchase contracts, then not marketing spin.

Or could be yet another reason why the Board now has Finance in the driving seat, not Marketing and Engineering.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9028
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 10:58 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
chart in post 130 that is one source.

this chart was apparently created by Dhierin Bechai posted in article on seeking alpha:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2483505 ... 787-part-2

An interesting configuration selection to put it mildly. No idea how he stuffs 50 more pax into the 789
in a "comparable" density seating arrangement.
Going from there the outcome is rather obvious, isn't it.

Then Mr Bechai has a rather straightforward history on how things look in his timeline.


So then in your opinion, what is the difference in fuel burn per seat between a 787-10 and A330-900? I assume we agree on some basic assumptions like the 787-10 has 30-50 more seats over a reasonable range of about 4000 miles. My guess is 10-12%. Mjoelnir seemed to imply it was closer to 2.5%. What do you think?


by my limited reading comprehension we are all talking about the 789 vs A333. ( Same as Mr Bechai.)
Don't touch the goal posts.
Murphy is an optimist
 
WIederling
Posts: 9028
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:13 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
reidar76 wrote:
WIederling wrote:
this chart was apparently created by Dhierin Bechai posted in article on seeking alpha:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2483505 ... 787-part-2

An interesting configuration selection to put it mildly. No idea how he stuffs 50 more pax into the 789
in a "comparable" density seating arrangement.
Going from there the outcome is rather obvious, isn't it.

Then Mr Bechai has a rather straightforward history on how things look in his timeline.


That must be close to a 787-9 with 27 pitch/17 inch Y-seats, compared to a A339 with 32 pitch/18 inch wide Y-seats. That is close to a 30% difference in space per Y-passenger.

If we look at actual seat configurations at seatguru, we would see that airlines usually have on average slightly more seats in the A333.

Nobody should be quoting Seeking Alfa. They have no idea what they are writing about!


The chart I posted in comment 130 was adjusted for more accurate seat counts and brought the differences down. I didn't quote the specific airticle that Wlederling shared. The 50 seat difference should be more of a 787-10 vs A339 comparison.
#
Afaics the chart is not changed and relates to an article posted by Mr Bechai on Seeking Alpha.
There seems to be no other primary reference to this image beyond the seeking alpha link.

Mr Bechai creates an artifical capacity delta ~50 pax. He might have lost orientation and interchanged 789 for 7810.
That would fit in with my asumption that he either does not know what he is writing about pandering to an audience that
knows even less about the topic than the author or more probable his financial dependence on a bit of wine and dine from Boeing.

You quite obviously seem to know what you want to talk about ...

to change or not to change:
http://static.cdn-seekingalpha.com/uplo ... origin.png
Murphy is an optimist
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:27 pm

WIederling wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
WIederling wrote:
this chart was apparently created by Dhierin Bechai posted in article on seeking alpha:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2483505 ... 787-part-2

An interesting configuration selection to put it mildly. No idea how he stuffs 50 more pax into the 789
in a "comparable" density seating arrangement.
Going from there the outcome is rather obvious, isn't it.

Then Mr Bechai has a rather straightforward history on how things look in his timeline.


So then in your opinion, what is the difference in fuel burn per seat between a 787-10 and A330-900? I assume we agree on some basic assumptions like the 787-10 has 30-50 more seats over a reasonable range of about 4000 miles. My guess is 10-12%. Mjoelnir seemed to imply it was closer to 2.5%. What do you think?


by my limited reading comprehension we are all talking about the 789 vs A333. ( Same as Mr Bechai.)
Don't touch the goal posts.


So how do you think the 787-10 and A330-900 compare in fuel burn? It is easy to criticize pretty much any comparison since there are so many variables. How do you think the two planes compare in fuel burn per seat?
 
WIederling
Posts: 9028
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:30 pm

OK, for the fun of it lets look a the errors and correct them ( absolutely simplistic, I know. I'm assuming the author at least got his RRR right.)
The graphic shows center ~.2 l delta for ~3l average. That is ~6,5% advantage for the 789
Adjust for the wrong seating delta (14%)and you have ~7.5% advantage for the A333.
Now the 7810 actually has 50 seats more versus the 789 while also having an assumed 10t OEW markup.
So again in absolutely simplistic terms the 7810 should show the advantage over the A333 that the 789 was said to have but has not. :: +6.5% But the OEW (6.5%) delta will shrink that significantly down to slightly better or more probably a wash.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14432
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:37 pm

cumulushumilis wrote:
Fuel burn is very much a metric that is used for selecting aircraft and is part of a weighted scale when it comes to selecting the appropriate size and type.


Airlines like most large businesses use NPV analysis when investigating new investments in equipment. Fuel is only a part of the factors, every airline network is different. Finance (lease terms on the airframe, engines, apu) and maintenance can very well be the determining factor. Flleet commonality and maintenance planning are large costs to an airline over 10-20 years they are plan to operate them.

If an airline already operates A330s adding A330-900s will have different level of investment for training and maintenance than adding a new type like the 787. None of that is related to fuel.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14432
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:52 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
You just didn't notice the source apparently. If you read back in this thread, there is a chart in post 130 that is one source.


Your claim was "Plenty of sources have the 787-9 fuel burn per seat at 2.5% better than the A339. "

You did not provided any sources (plural). As I pointed out the A350-900 is yet to have its first flight, so the claim being asserted is baseless.

As best all people can do is model the difference to get an approximation for all aspects of operating the 787 and A330-900. Future maintenance costs for both types need to be guessed as we don't have the in service experience.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26638
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:52 pm

zeke wrote:
Now that Boeing marketing has stated that the 787-10 is 25% per seat better than the A330-900 and 10% better than the A350-900 Airbus will never sell another A330-900 or A350-900 again. That PowerPoint slide will be all airlines will need to see to make a purchasing decision. :roll: :spit: :white:


The Paris 2006 Launch Presentation for the A350XWB claimed the A350-1000 would offer 25% lower cash operating costs and block fuel per seat than the 777-300ER and yet Boeing still managed to dupe airlines into ordering 583 of them over the following decade so I have faith John L. can still shift some A330neos and A350s. :angel:
 
WIederling
Posts: 9028
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Sat Jan 28, 2017 12:01 am

Stitch wrote:
The Paris 2006 Launch Presentation for the A350XWB claimed the A350-1000 would offer 25% lower cash operating costs and block fuel per seat than the 777-300ER and yet Boeing still managed to dupe airlines into ordering 583 of them over the following decade so I have faith John L. can still shift some A330neos and A350s. :angel:


The announcement of 2 years delay in delivering A35k ( in sync with beefing it up and loosing a bit of 77W performance delta
directly resulted in a sales jump for the 77W. Gap Filler.
Has Boeing filled the available production slots before the rise of the 77X? ( don't think so.)
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14432
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sat Jan 28, 2017 12:15 am

Stitch wrote:
The Paris 2006 Launch Presentation for the A350XWB claimed the A350-1000 would offer 25% lower cash operating costs and block fuel per seat than the 777-300ER and yet Boeing still managed to dupe airlines into ordering 583 of them over the following decade so I have faith John L. can still shift some A330neos and A350s. :angel:


What is the reason Boeing has announced they will stop building them ?
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Sat Jan 28, 2017 12:23 am

WIederling wrote:
OK, for the fun of it lets look a the errors and correct them ( absolutely simplistic, I know. I'm assuming the author at least got his RRR right.)
The graphic shows center ~.2 l delta for ~3l average. That is ~6,5% advantage for the 789
Adjust for the wrong seating delta (14%)and you have ~7.5% advantage for the A333.
Now the 7810 actually has 50 seats more versus the 789 while also having an assumed 10t OEW markup.
So again in absolutely simplistic terms the 7810 should show the advantage over the A333 that the 789 was said to have but has not. :: +6.5% But the OEW (6.5%) delta will shrink that significantly down to slightly better or more probably a wash.


Interesting. Boeing publishes a chart claiming 25% less burn per seat with the 7810 vs A339. I find it quite interesting that you think the 7810 will have slightly better or more probably a wash in fuel burn per seat compared with the A333.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

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

Sat Jan 28, 2017 12:37 am

thepinkmachine wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
thepinkmachine wrote:
@Cumulus,

Where does the data for such simulations/analysis come from, especially for new A/C types that haven't flown yet? OEM's? What scope of performance data is providing?


The airlines ask the OEM's to provide guaranteed performance with airline specified interiors and catering levels for specific routes in their systems. Guaranteed performance items can include fuel burn, mission payload, mission flight times, takeoff and landing field lengths, interior/exterior noise levels etc.

The OEM applied guarantee factors/tolerances are where the game gets interesting. If the factors/tolerances are set too high, the OEM will be confident of meeting the guarantees but may lose the order. With low factors/tolerances, the OEM may win the order but have to pay the airline for performance misses, eroding the value of the sales contract.

Naturally, a lot of historical experience, judgement and strategy is used to select the guarantee factors and tolerances. New types without performance data bases have larger factors/tolerances than inservice types.

It's all part of the Sporty Game.


Thanks OAG, interesting stuff...

So, do airlines get 'raw data' from OEM's and calculate their own performance figures, or rather forward their mission profiles to the OEMs and the manufacturers provide guaranteed performance tailored to the missions?

How does it work for existing aircraft obtained from the second-hand market? How do airlines obtain performance data and from where?


The later. The OEM's typically don't release performance databases to airlines that haven't bought the product in question, especially if it's a newly certified airplane.

For second hand airplanes, it depends who the seller is. If it's an OEM, then full guarantees may be written using the performance data bases.

If it's another airline or a leasing company, it could be as little as turning over the performance databases and saying "Buyer, beware".

There's no one size fits all.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1726
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

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

Sat Jan 28, 2017 9:04 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
So how do you think the 787-10 and A330-900 compare in fuel burn? It is easy to criticize pretty much any comparison since there are so many variables. How do you think the two planes compare in fuel burn per seat?



Why do you want to compare the 78X with the A339? What do they have in common other than being more optomised for regional flights due to their shorter range? Why do you think Boeing wanted to compare these 2 models with each other?
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2939
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

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

Sat Jan 28, 2017 9:33 am

enzo011 wrote:
Why do you want to compare the 78X with the A339? What do they have in common other than being more optomised for regional flights due to their shorter range?


Actually the 78X is probably the better comparison to the A339.
I hope you're not committing the very basic error of supposing that size is the primary basis for comparing vehicles - that vehicle customers (transportation companies) compare only two vehicles of identical size.
As I've said elsewhere on this board, the example of the 707/DC-8 and the Queen Mary illustrate my point perfectly.
The Queen Mary was a little bigger than the 707 and DC-8, but there was clear competition between them all the same.

The proper analytical frame is "what is the best way to get from A to B?" Airline customers have preferences across this line of inquiry; the business of airlines is to anticipate those preferences.

The 78X and A339 offer a similar set of A's and B's that can be connected (i.e. similar range). Given their different size, the airline's decision point will be something like, "Are there enough people willing to go from A to C via B, and willing to pay a sufficient fare, to justify the 78X's larger size over the A339?" or "If I keep total capacity level the same, will the cost savings from using 78X outweigh the revenue hit from lower frequencies?" and also, "Whether or not I would favor a smaller plane, ceteris paribus, will my competitor force my hand by using 78X's efficiency to draw away a significant portion of those going A to C, rerouting them via D?"

Sorry for the long reply but the mistake of comparing only at identical sizes drives me crazy.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9028
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Sat Jan 28, 2017 9:39 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
Interesting. Boeing publishes a chart claiming 25% less burn per seat with the 7810 vs A339. I find it quite interesting that you think the 7810 will have slightly better or more probably a wash in fuel burn per seat compared with the A333.


Boeing has a long history of presenting "interesting" data.
IMHO the point of highest entertainment often is garnering what special conditions
and table leveling fact wringing assumptions they used to get there.

787 is 20++% better than current generation aircraft ( but don't tell we only mean the annuated 767 here.)
777 production will not be reduced. We just fire dummies ( this one was a real hoot imho.)

Other posters here may find entertainment in presenting more of these.

Still I have a feeling that you understand all these things quite well.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Cerecl
Posts: 597
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:22 am

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

Sat Jan 28, 2017 10:24 am

Matt6461 wrote:
The proper analytical frame is "what is the best way to get from A to B?" Airline customers have preferences across this line of inquiry; the business of airlines is to anticipate those preferences.

The 78X and A339 offer a similar set of A's and B's that can be connected (i.e. similar range). Given their different size, the airline's decision point will be something like, "Are there enough people willing to go from A to C via B, and willing to pay a sufficient fare, to justify the 78X's larger size over the A339?" or "If I keep total capacity level the same, will the cost savings from using 78X outweigh the revenue hit from lower frequencies?" and also, "Whether or not I would favor a smaller plane, ceteris paribus, will my competitor force my hand by using 78X's efficiency to draw away a significant portion of those going A to C, rerouting them via D?"


I think you simultaneously over-simplifies the question and unnecessarily complicates the answer. In my mind the questions is "What is the best plane to get from A to B given the amount of customers we have and likely to have in the future on these routes". You are right that A330-900 and 787-10 has the essentially same range so the city pairs suitable to be flown by them from a pure distance point of view are similar therefore I don't understand why you needed to bring City C or D into your reasoning. A330-900 is almost certainly significantly cheaper to acquire than 787-10. The trip cost of A339 is likely to be less than that of 787-10. So the consideration becomes "do we have enough customers/cargo on enough of these routes that can be bring in extra revenue to to offset the delta in acquisition cost and absolute trip cost"? Of course other considerations such as commonality come into play as well.

Should we compare A330-900 and 787-10? Of course we CAN. However, considering one parameter (fuel burn per seat) in isolation is of little value. Finally I think the 25% figure belongs in the same place with the "320neo is just catching up to 737-800"
Fokker-100 SAAB 340 Q400 E190 717 737 738 763ER 787-8 772 77E 773 77W 747-400 747-400ER A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A346 A359 A380
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1726
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

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

Sat Jan 28, 2017 10:31 am

Matt6461 wrote:
Actually the 78X is probably the better comparison to the A339.
I hope you're not committing the very basic error of supposing that size is the primary basis for comparing vehicles - that vehicle customers (transportation companies) compare only two vehicles of identical size.
As I've said elsewhere on this board, the example of the 707/DC-8 and the Queen Mary illustrate my point perfectly.
The Queen Mary was a little bigger than the 707 and DC-8, but there was clear competition between them all the same.

The proper analytical frame is "what is the best way to get from A to B?" Airline customers have preferences across this line of inquiry; the business of airlines is to anticipate those preferences.

The 78X and A339 offer a similar set of A's and B's that can be connected (i.e. similar range). Given their different size, the airline's decision point will be something like, "Are there enough people willing to go from A to C via B, and willing to pay a sufficient fare, to justify the 78X's larger size over the A339?" or "If I keep total capacity level the same, will the cost savings from using 78X outweigh the revenue hit from lower frequencies?" and also, "Whether or not I would favor a smaller plane, ceteris paribus, will my competitor force my hand by using 78X's efficiency to draw away a significant portion of those going A to C, rerouting them via D?"

Sorry for the long reply but the mistake of comparing only at identical sizes drives me crazy.



I agree that comparing only according to size alone would be a mistake when comparing aircraft. When you have the A380 and the next biggest competition is the 779 you have no option but compare 2 aircraft of different sizes. But the A339 is almost 5m shorter than the 78X and it only operates at 8-abreast where the 78X has 9-abreast. In a comparable seating the 78X will comfortably seat 40-50 more seats than the A339.

So when an airline looks at a market I would guess that they will know on average how many seats could reasonably be sold per day. If the spread is 275 to 330 seats then there is the A359 to fit in there as well, which is a better comparison to make with the 78X.

It should be obvious why Boeing chose those 2 models to compare, even when there is another competing model that will be a better comparison to the 78X, its because they would be able to show the bigger difference for their slides. If the comparison was between the 78X and the A359 I am sure on a per seat cost the 78X would be better, but not by 25% which is a number that has obviously caught some posters attention.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14432
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sat Jan 28, 2017 11:30 am

OldAeroGuy wrote:
The later. The OEM's typically don't release performance databases to airlines that haven't bought the product in question, especially if it's a newly certified airplane.


Airbus has stopped supplying "blue book" data to airlines since the A350, copies of that information on previous types was being handed to Boeing reps despite NDAs being signed.

These days Airbus performance data is licences on a per seat basis, and requires a licence to access it. If Boring claims to beat the A350, A320neo, or A330-800/900 my first question will be which software licence they have to gain access to the data to make such claims.

Even simulator providers and flight planning providers (including the Boring subsidiary Jeppesen) are not licensed for the data, all they get is a database on disk which is locked for a specific purpose. If Boeing is silly enough to publicly acknowledge they are in breach of their licence agreements with their subsidiary that will just be yet another income stream for Airbus.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9215
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

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

Sat Jan 28, 2017 11:56 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
Interesting. Boeing publishes a chart claiming 25% less burn per seat with the 7810 vs A339. I find it quite interesting that you think the 7810 will have slightly better or more probably a wash in fuel burn per seat compared with the A333.


Interesting, Boeing must thing that the audience reading its charts are very stupid and hope that they will believe this stuff.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Sat Jan 28, 2017 12:00 pm

And I think it is kind of pointless debating with people who think the A333 is so good that fuel burn per seat will be the same as the 7810.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Sat Jan 28, 2017 12:26 pm

enzo011 wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
So how do you think the 787-10 and A330-900 compare in fuel burn? It is easy to criticize pretty much any comparison since there are so many variables. How do you think the two planes compare in fuel burn per seat?



Why do you want to compare the 78X with the A339? What do they have in common other than being more optomised for regional flights due to their shorter range? Why do you think Boeing wanted to compare these 2 models with each other?


Some airlines have high capacity regional to medium haul flights and want the best airplane they can get. Let's start with Europe. Airlines like BA, AF & LH have some high demand routes that are around 4000 miles to the East Coast of the United States like New York. All have multiple daily frequencies and a lot of capacity. There is no one perfect airplane size for such a route. Larger planes offer less flexibility to adjust capacity and bigger planes tend to lower RASM since the airline has to sell more seats. This is where trip costs matter. If the 7810 trip costs are reasonably close, airlines might be willing to drop revenue some to steal market from competitors to get lower per seat costs. I could see them comparing the A339 and 7810 rather than A339 and 789 for these routes. A split 789 and 7810 order could also make sense allowing some flexibility.

Similarly let's think about the Middle East airlines flying regionally. There is no perfect capacity plane for service between the Middle East and India. Dropping prices and taking advantage of a lower cost plane could be attractive since there is a lot of demand to many cities. The same is true for an airline like CX or NH flying high capacity routes with lots of competition in Asia. Where markets are elastic, some airlines will be more focused on per seat costs than capacity. Revenue management and seat mile costs are intertwined. Now we can't get too high in trip costs chasing per seat costs. If trip costs get too high, then it is going to be hard to offset that higher costs with revenue management. That is why we don't see lots of A380s everywhere.

Flipping it around the other way, there are some inelastic markets where airlines are less inclined to buy bigger planes with lower seat mile costs. Airlines with a smaller home market or those trying to expand into new markets will be less enticed by lower seat mile costs. This is where the low price of the A330neo and efficiency of it will be a strength. An airline like TAP, Aer Lingus, SAS, LOT, Austrian, etc isn't going to have a big enough market with enough elasticity to take on a bigger plane and use pricing to stimulate the market. Lower costs works well to steal market share from direct competitors on the same route (for example a plane with lower seat mile costs would allow more lower priced fares to steal market share on JFK-LHR), but when there is only one direct competitor and a market is much smaller (like LIS/WAW/VIE-JFK) dropping prices may not be as effective. Those airlines would have to drop fares and attract connecting passengers. Usually it is not financially wise to do this. Similarly an airline opening new routes is not going to want a bigger plane. They are going to want the lowest trip costs possible while they establish a market. The A339 makes a whole lot more sense for Air Asia X who is trying to open new markets.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14432
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:03 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
And I think it is kind of pointless debating with people who think the A333 is so good that fuel burn per seat will be the same as the 7810.


Why would an airline care "only" about fuel burn per seat when they have to pay the all the costs associated with a flight not just fuel burn ?
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9215
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

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

Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:10 pm

I think absolutely not strange to compare the A330-900 to the 787-10. It will compete for similar routes. A fuel burn difference of 25% is in the realm of fantasy not reality.
There are quite a few numbers that we do not know and can only guess to judge the performance of those two frames. But there is one thing we do know, and that is that both frames have engines of the same generation. Two wide bodies with the same generation of engines have never shown a fuel burn difference of 25%.
The most interesting number for fuel burn is, besides the engines, the OEW. And the OEW divided by square meters cabin floor, would give a good indication of possible fuel burn per passenger comparison. To be 25% more efficient on fuel burn per passenger the 787-10 should have 25% more floor space than the A330-900 at a similar OEW. We know that the 787-9 is about the same OEW or heavier than the A330-900. We know that the 787-10 will be heavier than the 787-10.
I would guess an reasonable OEW about 130 t on the A330-900 and 140 t on the 787-10. That gives us an additional 7% floor space needed over and above the 25%. So the 787-10 should offer 32% more floor space than the A330-900.
The difference in floor space between a 787-10 and a 330-900 is in reality rather in the range of 10%, a bit more than the difference I assumed for the difference in OEW. That shrinks the advantage of the 787-10 to somewhere around 3%. It can be 2% it can be 6%, we will know that if we have real world numbers.
But the chart shown by Boeing is a joke, and a decimal point off.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9215
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

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

Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:16 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
And I think it is kind of pointless debating with people who think the A333 is so good that fuel burn per seat will be the same as the 7810.


And it is rather pointless debating with people who believe a chart from Boeing that the 787-10 is 25% better than the A330-900. And one point, if you believe the A330-900 is competing mainly with the 787-10 because of range, than think about that up to now and both frames did not have their EIS yet, the A330-900 has outsold the 787-10
Last edited by mjoelnir on Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9916
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

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

Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:18 pm

zeke wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
And I think it is kind of pointless debating with people who think the A333 is so good that fuel burn per seat will be the same as the 7810.


Why would an airline care "only" about fuel burn per seat when they have to pay the all the costs associated with a flight not just fuel burn ?

He never said that was the only thing airlines care about. He was referencing WIederling in post 363 who basically said the A333 is a wash with the 78X when it comes to fuel burn per seat. Which is a statement that should leave you scratching your head. Granted, I assumed when reading the post that the entire time WIederling was talking about the A339 and not the A333 and was just not thinking when typing.

Doesn't excuse his other odd assumptions though, such as his assumption that the 78X will have a OEW 10t greater than the 789. Which is about the same as the 788->789 OEW delta, despite the fact that the 789->78X is a slightly shorter stretch and doesn't involve a 30t increase in MTOW as well. He also loves to point out/pretend that the 789 is a entirely different aircraft than the 788, so maybe he thinks the 78X simple stretch will also be an entirely different aircraft than the 789? But hey, make your plane artificially heavy enough and you can make the DC-10 have a better fuel burn per a seat in a comparison.

mjoelnir wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
And I think it is kind of pointless debating with people who think the A333 is so good that fuel burn per seat will be the same as the 7810.


And it is rather pointless debating with people how believe a chart from Boeing that the 787-10 is 25% better than the A330-900. And one point, if you believe the A330-900 is competing mainly with the 787-10 because of range, than think about that up to now and both frames did not have their EIS yet, the A330-900 has outsold the 787-10

Comparing the sales can be tricky, because IIRC airlines have been complaining about Boeing being inflexible when it comes to pricing the 78X.
Last edited by Polot on Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:24 pm

zeke wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
And I think it is kind of pointless debating with people who think the A333 is so good that fuel burn per seat will be the same as the 7810.


Why would an airline care "only" about fuel burn per seat when they have to pay the all the costs associated with a flight not just fuel burn ?


Airlines don't only care about fuel burn per seat, but fuel is the biggest cost for an airline. Fuel is somewhere between 35 and 50%. Maintenance is somewhere around 7-17% (the chart below lumps in procurement, parts. management and engineering with maintenance, which not all airlines do). Ownership costs are somewhere around 15-25%. Crew and management costs are somewhere between 10-25%.

Maintenance can make a difference but usually small differences when comparing Airbus and Boeing (similar planes to to existing fleet help a little). Insurance, navigation and crew tend not to change much either (although faster planes will have a slight advantage as do similar fleets). When comparing Airbus and Boeing purchase price and fuel are the two biggest selling points in fleet decisions.

Image

Image
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9215
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

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

Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:50 pm

Polot wrote:
Comparing the sales can be tricky, because IIRC airlines have been complaining about Boeing being inflexible when it comes to pricing the 78X.


Exactly, Airbus has a huge pricing advantage with the A330, but if the 25% disadvantage in fuel burn for the A330 would be anything else than fiction, no pricing advantage would sell one A330neo.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2939
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

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

Sat Jan 28, 2017 2:44 pm

Cerecl wrote:
Should we compare A330-900 and 787-10? Of course we CAN. However, considering one parameter (fuel burn per seat) in isolation is of little value. Finally I think the 25% figure belongs in the same place with the "320neo is just catching up to 737-800"


I didn't say anything about only comparing fuel burn or about the 25% figure. That's marketing slop served up on both sides of the Atlantic including Russia and Brazil. I try to ignore debates about that crap.

Cerecl wrote:
In my mind the questions is "What is the best plane to get from A to B given the amount of customers we have and likely to have in the future on these routes". You are right that A330-900 and 787-10 has the essentially same range so the city pairs suitable to be flown by them from a pure distance point of view are similar therefore I don't understand why you needed to bring City C or D into your reasoning.


C and D are hubs between A and B. A plane with sufficient efficiency can enable an airline shucking from A to B via C to steal those pax shucked via D by another airline. Doing so takes a very compelling efficiency proposition - thus the A380's failure and the downward size trend where even the 77W is bigger than optimal now, while the 777X is less popular than was 77W.

The point is that hub airlines are always capable, within reasonable limits, of upgauging routes and filling the seats. The A380 doesn't show lower load factors, for instance. As the 78X is ~12-13% bigger than 789/A339 (158ft cabin vs. 140ft for 789), it's entirely feasible for airlines to opt for the bigger 78X as an A333 replacement IF the efficiency gains are on the order of expectations (which doesn't mean 25% lower costs - again that's crap for the credulous).

To illustrate - take my 12% figure as the capacity delta for argument's sake. If the 78X had 7% lower total unit costs than the A339, then its trip cost would be only ~4% greater. Thus the marginal capacity cost (delta trip cost / delta capacity) would be only ~33%. An airline would need only somewhat more than one-third the average revenue from envisioned A339 tickets to break even. Modern revenue management systems should be able to come up with 4% more trip revenue given 12% more seats to sell. The RMS could just leave lower-yielding classes open for longer instead of blocking off seats for higher fare buckets. Or the airline could trade nominal seat counts for space and comfort. And plow the unit cost savings into non-flight amenities (chauffeur, for example). Or some combination thereof.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 503
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

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

Sat Jan 28, 2017 4:37 pm

I agree with newbiepilot, that under certain circumstances the A339 will be competing with the 787-10, even though the latter is significantly larger. The 787-10 is a short to medium haul aircraft, with low MTOW and low trust for its size. Don't let the 787-10 catalog range foul you. This aircraft can hit MTOW before hardly any significant amount of fuel is loaded.

We know the A330 OEW is slightly lower than the 787-9. We know the difference from the 787-8 to 787-9 is about 10 t. If we assume the OEW difference between the A339 and 787-10 is about 10 t, we won't be totally wrong.

If we assume the OEW of the A339 is close to 130 t, and that the 245 t MTOW variant will be ready some time after 787-10 EIS, we can make some calculations:

A330
MTOW 245 t - OEW 130 t
= 115 t (available for payload + fuel)

Payload, fully loaded:
310 passengers (2 class) @ 100 kg per passenger, 31 t
(including weight of passenger, carry on luggage, catering, seat, excluding check-in bags)
32 LD3 containers with passengers checked-in luggage and additional revenue cargo @ 1.2 t each = 38 t
Nothing loaded in the bulk cargo bay.
= 69 t of payload

115 t - 69 = 46 t left for fuel
(about 55200 liters of fuel)

787-10
MTOW 254 t - OEW 140 t
= 114 t (available for payload + fuel)
(MTOW drops significantly if airport is hot and/or high.)

Payload, fully loaded:
360 passengers (2 class) @ 100 kg per passenger, 36 t
(including weight of passenger, carry on luggage, catering, seat, excluding checked-in bags)
40 LD3 containers with passengers checked-in luggage and additional revenue cargo @ 1.2 t each = 48 t
Nothing loaded in the bulk cargo bay.
= 84 t of payload

114 t - 84 = 30 t left for fuel
(about 36000 liters of fuel]

It is easy to criticize these basic calculations, but the point is to show that the 787-10 has even shorter range than the "catalog" would suggest, and shorter than the A339 with a realistic payload for both aircraft. It is a niche aircraft, but good for airlines that also have the 787-9. The 787-10 will take off at MTOW all the time, and be payload restricted on all but the absolute shortest widebody routes. This is not an aircraft for LCC operations, and not good for cargo operations. Not good for the Middle East, as MTOW drops significantly at those temperature as the 787-10 doesn't have the extra trust/ to compensate.

I think the 787-10 will compete best with the A339 when cabins are very premium heavy (below 300 passengers in the 787-10), flight time is 7 hours or below, and when airports at both ends is near sea level and not located on one of the hottest places on earth. The 787-10 will be excellent flying from LHR to JFK or AMS to YYZ. 787-10 won't be flying from DEN to Europe. Many opportunities for short haul in East Asia, an A330 stronghold.
Last edited by reidar76 on Sat Jan 28, 2017 4:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Sat Jan 28, 2017 4:55 pm

According to the 787-10 production thread, 787-10 OEW is estimated to be 135-138t, so I think you are underestimating the 787-10 payload a bit

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1348939

Also the 245t A339 is not available yet, so it is a bit misleading to use 245t figures when airplanes are being built to 242t, but I get your point. A339 and 787-10 ranges are pretty similar. It depends on exact configuration on which one will have more real world range. The 787-10 can fit a whole lot more cargo, so if filling up the 787-10 with high passenger counts and cargo, 7-8 hours might be the limit. On the other hand according to Boeing numbers I think the 787-10 has more range than the 764 and United has used that plane on 10-11 hour EWR-HNL flights.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14432
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sat Jan 28, 2017 5:09 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Airlines don't only care about fuel burn per seat, but fuel is the biggest cost for an airline. Fuel is somewhere between 35 and 50%. Maintenance is somewhere around 7-17% (the chart below lumps in procurement, parts. management and engineering with maintenance, which not all airlines do). Ownership costs are somewhere around 15-25%. Crew and management costs are somewhere between 10-25%.


There is a big difference between direct operating costs, total operating costs, and NPV analysis.When looking at new investments large companies use NPV analysis, so when looking at an aircraft purchase ancillary items like spares, tooling, simulators, and existing investments come into play. For example if a company already operates A330s and is comparing a A330-800/900 to a 787 for a fleet upgrade. The training costs, spares, tooling, and simulators on a NPV basis can make a NEO a lot more attractive than a total new type (and we have seen this already with the 737 and A320 engine upgrades). That is what I think resulted in DL cancelling their 787 order, they decided to leverage on their existing A330 investment..
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Sat Jan 28, 2017 5:17 pm

Zeke, I totally agree that the other factors are involved. A330 to 787 involves quite a bit of cost. There are about 50 current 787 operators so airlines using 787-8s and 787-9s already may be less interested in the A330neo. Current A330 operators without the 787 might be more interested in the A330neo.

The cost of maintenance, spares and tooling is changing some as more maintenance is done at huge mega MROs like HAECO. With heavy maintenance being outsourced, it is becoming less of a burden to take on a new type. Still costly but the market is evolving.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14432
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sat Jan 28, 2017 5:53 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
The cost of maintenance, spares and tooling is changing some as more maintenance is done at huge mega MROs like HAECO. With heavy maintenance being outsourced, it is becoming less of a burden to take on a new type. Still costly but the market is evolving.


There is a lot of investment in line maintenance tooling, spares, and staff. If you are going to install two simulators of the A330/787 size, you will not get much change out of US$60-70 to get a building and two simulators in it (assuming of course you have the vacant land already). Those large capital costs come into play with the NPV analysis.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13500
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Sat Jan 28, 2017 6:04 pm

zeke wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
Plenty of sources have the 787-9 fuel burn per seat at 2.5% better than the A339.


It was not unnoticed that you did not provide any of these so called sources.

We know these sources don't exist, a the simple statement of fact is the A330-900 has yet to have its first flight let alone the performance flights.

We also know that fuel burn per set on marketing configurations is not a metric airlines use for selecting aircraft, that is a marketing gimmick.

Airlines are concerned with what they can earn and what it will cost them to make that revenue. Fuel is just one component of that equation.


Fully agree
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

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

Sat Jan 28, 2017 6:37 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
The airlines ask the OEM's to provide guaranteed performance with airline specified interiors and catering levels for specific routes in their systems. Guaranteed performance items can include fuel burn, mission payload, mission flight times, takeoff and landing field lengths, interior/exterior noise levels etc.

The OEM applied guarantee factors/tolerances are where the game gets interesting. If the factors/tolerances are set too high, the OEM will be confident of meeting the guarantees but may lose the order. With low factors/tolerances, the OEM may win the order but have to pay the airline for performance misses, eroding the value of the sales contract.

There are more guarantees than performance related. Guarantees also include maintenance times & MTBF of specific components, spares pricing (including permitted annual increases) and delivery. Following the A380 and especially 788 issues, consequential damages and calculation thereof may now be included.

Some airlines are guarantee market leaders, with a list as long as, or longer than the OEM's, while others are at the other end of the spectrum.

For new aircraft leases, there are generally two sets of guarantees. One set between the leasor and OEM, and a second set, between the leasee and OEM, the latter more detailed and demanding.

For used, the aircraft's previous operator will usually furnish generic, real world performance data. Where previously leased, the leasor can, and will request data from the previous leasee, which can be shared in a generic format with prospective new leasees.

Where an aircraft has been involved in a significant re-build, prospective new owners / operators will usually request and expect far more detailed information on pre and post-rebuild performance.

Unusual for guarantees to transfer to subsequent owners, as performance diminishes with age. If the OEM is selling used aircraft, the result of trade or buyback, there may be guarantees sought / offered, but not necessarily performance related.
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

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

Sat Jan 28, 2017 7:03 pm

Polot wrote:
Comparing the sales can be tricky, because IIRC airlines have been complaining about Boeing being inflexible when it comes to pricing the 78X.

Boeing isn't being inflexible about pricing, they are being firm, and enforcing contract terms, which have historically been waived.

On one hand, airlines are inflexible with their customers when it comes to extracting fees for changing a $100 ticket, yet expect the exact opposite when it comes to changing / delaying a $100m plus aircraft, even though the penalties are in the contract.

This relates to the 78X at two levels:
One. Boeing is trying to extract better margins on all aircraft, but especially the 78X, which it's pricing A321 style at a premium.
Two. Many 789 orders were 'model hops' from the 788, and carried the discount and terms forward from the original order. Boeing has stopped that now (a few that got through). There are now 789 customers (formerly 788), who would like to 'model hop' again to the X at no penalty.

Will they pay the penalty and premium price? Yes, if the X delivers or compensates (guarantees). Maybe yes unless Airbus offers an A33X. No, if airline management are unhappy with Boeing (but Airbus becoming 'firm' too).
 
User avatar
817Dreamliiner
Posts: 3552
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 4:12 pm

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

Sat Jan 28, 2017 7:11 pm

reidar76 wrote:
I agree with newbiepilot, that under certain circumstances the A339 will be competing with the 787-10, even though the latter is significantly larger. The 787-10 is a short to medium haul aircraft, with low MTOW and low trust for its size. Don't let the 787-10 catalog range foul you. This aircraft can hit MTOW before hardly any significant amount of fuel is loaded.

We know the A330 OEW is slightly lower than the 787-9. We know the difference from the 787-8 to 787-9 is about 10 t. If we assume the OEW difference between the A339 and 787-10 is about 10 t, we won't be totally wrong.

If we assume the OEW of the A339 is close to 130 t, and that the 245 t MTOW variant will be ready some time after 787-10 EIS, we can make some calculations:

A330
MTOW 245 t - OEW 130 t
= 115 t (available for payload + fuel)

Payload, fully loaded:
310 passengers (2 class) @ 100 kg per passenger, 31 t
(including weight of passenger, carry on luggage, catering, seat, excluding check-in bags)
32 LD3 containers with passengers checked-in luggage and additional revenue cargo @ 1.2 t each = 38 t
Nothing loaded in the bulk cargo bay.
= 69 t of payload

115 t - 69 = 46 t left for fuel
(about 55200 liters of fuel)

787-10
MTOW 254 t - OEW 140 t
= 114 t (available for payload + fuel)
(MTOW drops significantly if airport is hot and/or high.)

Payload, fully loaded:
360 passengers (2 class) @ 100 kg per passenger, 36 t
(including weight of passenger, carry on luggage, catering, seat, excluding checked-in bags)
40 LD3 containers with passengers checked-in luggage and additional revenue cargo @ 1.2 t each = 48 t
Nothing loaded in the bulk cargo bay.
= 84 t of payload

114 t - 84 = 30 t left for fuel
(about 36000 liters of fuel]

It is easy to criticize these basic calculations, but the point is to show that the 787-10 has even shorter range than the "catalog" would suggest, and shorter than the A339 with a realistic payload for both aircraft. It is a niche aircraft, but good for airlines that also have the 787-9. The 787-10 will take off at MTOW all the time, and be payload restricted on all but the absolute shortest widebody routes. This is not an aircraft for LCC operations, and not good for cargo operations. Not good for the Middle East, as MTOW drops significantly at those temperature as the 787-10 doesn't have the extra trust/ to compensate.

I think the 787-10 will compete best with the A339 when cabins are very premium heavy (below 300 passengers in the 787-10), flight time is 7 hours or below, and when airports at both ends is near sea level and not located on one of the hottest places on earth. The 787-10 will be excellent flying from LHR to JFK or AMS to YYZ. 787-10 won't be flying from DEN to Europe. Many opportunities for short haul in East Asia, an A330 stronghold.


I have a hard time believing your numbers are correct, especially when you've exceeded Max Zero Fuel Weight and Max Landing Weight for both aircraft and by a significant amount.
I'll wake from the dream, To keep and relive, Now life it is a dream, And dream's on a... BREAK!
 
trex8
Posts: 5365
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

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

Sat Jan 28, 2017 7:58 pm

817Dreamliiner wrote:
[

I have a hard time believing your numbers are correct, especially when you've exceeded Max Zero Fuel Weight and Max Landing Weight for both aircraft and by a significant amount.


Im not in the industry or technical just an av geek so correct me if I'm off base.

A339 MZFW is 177-181t (WV900), http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_g ... eb2016.pdf
IIRC from previous threads the 100kg/passenger usually includes checked luggage also.
OEW @130t, MZFW 181t, still gives you @51t for @300 pax and bags including some cargo ? maybe 10t+, and still allows you 61t for fuel (MTOW 242), lots of sources here in anet suggest A333 fuel burn is @6t/hr, so at least 9-10 hr minimum, neo engines add 10%, so maybe 10-11hr, get those few extra t to MTOW 245 and you get maybe another 1/2 hr.

78J MZFW 193t, OEW assume 140t as reidar76 did, so @53t payload again, 350 pax, so maybe less cargo (5t= 50 pax in ) than the A339. Leaves you with 62t fuel to MTOW 255 http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commer ... ps/787.pdf
788/9 fuel burn in other threads @5 -5.5t/hr, I assume a heavier plane will burn more than a lighter one, so lets take the higher number, so just over 11 hrs.

Looks to me like its a wash in trip costs, though minimally more due higher weight/fuel with 78J, in per seat maybe @11% advantage to 78J
 
trex8
Posts: 5365
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

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

Sat Jan 28, 2017 8:35 pm

Slight corrections, Boeing uses 330 pax layout in their acaps for 78J, Airbus 300 for the A333 and with the new galleys/toilets/crew rest 310 for A339 so the difference actually goes down to 6% per seat assuming identical trip costs (which are probably actually slightly higher for 78J due slightly more fuel and higher landing/nav costs.)
 
cumulushumilis
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:49 pm

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

Sat Jan 28, 2017 9:37 pm

zeke wrote:
cumulushumilis wrote:
Fuel burn is very much a metric that is used for selecting aircraft and is part of a weighted scale when it comes to selecting the appropriate size and type.


Airlines like most large businesses use NPV analysis when investigating new investments in equipment. Fuel is only a part of the factors, every airline network is different. Finance (lease terms on the airframe, engines, apu) and maintenance can very well be the determining factor. Flleet commonality and maintenance planning are large costs to an airline over 10-20 years they are plan to operate them.

If an airline already operates A330s adding A330-900s will have different level of investment for training and maintenance than adding a new type like the 787. None of that is related to fuel.


NPV only is applicable to capital financing and not related to operational costing. Predictive fuel models are used all the time when making procurement decisions and you don't have to go into the details to make good models.

When we do fleet planning analysis we do NPV but also apply a methodology of fuel forecasting fuel costs on the proposed fleet. This is also in conjunction with crewing models.

For Fleet Replacement
Based on historical
1) On a flight by flight basis determine obtain fuel from ACARS uplift and fuel burn data
2) Normalize fuel actual burn data to ASMs by flight
3) Build historical fuel burn data distributions per ASM by fleet type
4) Apply ARIMA (autoregressive integrated moving average) analysis based on previous data to future schedule.
-Determine fleet burn numbers (by time series, total monthly amount)
5) Error check with existing fuel burn numbers by fleet type on previous flown schedule.
-total amount of fuel uplifted by fleet on total monthly basis
-On a good fuel forecast a standard error of +/- 3 percent is considered within tolerance.
6) If new fleet type normalize estimated fuel burn performance numbers to ASM analysis and apply the ARIMA forecast to the numbers and future schedule.
7) The delta between current fleet fuel burn and predicated fuel burn of the revised fleet.
8) Include that analysis in conjunction with NPV, revenue management, crewing models.

For Fleet /Schedule Expansion,
1) Same as above except modify the future schedule and run fuel burns for proposed fleet types.

Operationally fuel forecasting is done on a regular basis and consistently error checked. Fuel forecasts are done with a new aircraft type, monthly for budgeting, fuel purchasing, fleet acquisition and as an as needed basis. The forecasts are highly reliable and a critical component to strategic and operational decision making. It is surprising but fuel data/asm from historical data is all you need to build a high quality forecast. It sounds counter intuitive but these forecasts are just as effective as getting into the details. The only unknown when applying it to operational evaluations is the estimated fuel burns from the suppliers for a new type but again that data is usually fairly conservative. I wish I could comment on the A330-900 versus 787-900 analysis specifically. Only thing I can say is that its been done. The above is a fairly brief version of how fuel burn is included in an aircraft evaluation process.
 
sf260
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:59 pm

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

Sun Jan 29, 2017 8:01 am

trex8 wrote:
A339 MZFW is 177-181t (WV900), http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_g ... eb2016.pdf
IIRC from previous threads the 100kg/passenger usually includes checked luggage also.
OEW @130t, MZFW 181t, still gives you @51t for @300 pax and bags including some cargo ? maybe 10t+, and still allows you 61t for fuel (MTOW 242),

Like I have already said numerous times, you cannot just use the MZFW/MTOW combination that fits your purpose.
In WV900 the combination MZFW/MTOW is variable, but dependant on each other. If it is loaded up to 181t MZFW, MTOW is limited to 238t. Likewise, if 177t MZFW is used, corresponding MTOW is 242t. In WV900, any MZFW/MTOW combination can be used in between as well, like 178t/241t, 179t/240t, 180t/239t,... but you will always pay fees based on the MTOW of 242t. This weight variant will only be useful on some very specific routes, where you will be MLW limited as well most of the time.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14432
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sun Jan 29, 2017 9:52 am

cumulushumilis wrote:
NPV only is applicable to capital financing and not related to operational costing. Predictive fuel models are used all the time when making procurement decisions and you don't have to go into the details to make good models.


Respectfully I disagree with your comments. NPV analysis is used across various industries and looks at all cash inflows and outflow and compares them to the companies target internal rate of return. NPV analysis is used as the timing of the cash inflows and outflows is just as important as the magnitude of them. The analysis includes acquisition, operating costs, depreciation, and the cost of capital, amortization, interest, depreciation, and taxes. Without proper NPV analysis I fail to see how any airline can make an objective purchase, sale and lease back, or lease comparison of the life cycle of an aircraft.
In terms of your fuel calculations to determine part of your outgoing cash flows, that is rather simplistic method being described, but every airline is constrained by the resources available to them other airlines use more comprehensive methods.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News

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