User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14396
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sun Jan 29, 2017 9:55 am

sf260 wrote:
. 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.


I am not sure about that, on our A350s when operated regionally we use a 35t lower MTOW and it annotated on the flight plan.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
StTim
Posts: 3512
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

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

Sun Jan 29, 2017 10:10 am

zeke wrote:
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.



Correct sir, If NPV was limited as described would microsoft have built an NPV calculation function into Excel, would it be covered in basic accounting courses everywhere?
 
sf260
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:59 pm

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

Sun Jan 29, 2017 1:13 pm

zeke wrote:
I am not sure about that, on our A350s when operated regionally we use a 35t lower MTOW and it annotated on the flight plan.

I am sure ;)
If multiple MTOW are approved in the AFM, CoA,... the highest will be used to calculate MTOW-based fees (landing, navigation, ATC,...).
 
thepinkmachine
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:43 pm

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

Sun Jan 29, 2017 3:25 pm

@OAG and @Cu_hum (btw, you must be a glider pilot, judging by your nickname) - great info, thanks gentlemen.

It's really a pity you can't comment on the 789vs339 fuel burn predictions. Can't you drop any hint at least? :bouncy:


I've got one more question regarding historical fuel burn analysis. How is it adjusted for stuff like weights, winds, ATC, routings, non-optimum levels etc?
"Tell my wife I am trawling Atlantis - and I still have my hands on the wheel…"
 
WIederling
Posts: 8925
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Sun Jan 29, 2017 11:13 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.


Nice try at detraction. Should I rate you on the Schopenhauer scale?

I fixed the basic errors in a data presentation that you handed in here
in a first order simple estimation. ( And I did not offer anything beyond that.)

If you can not point out some relevant errors I made you should be able to live with the outcome.
( And I don't think that "but Boeing ..." is sufficient in that context.)
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14396
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 12:03 am

sf260 wrote:
zeke wrote:
I am not sure about that, on our A350s when operated regionally we use a 35t lower MTOW and it annotated on the flight plan.

I am sure ;)
If multiple MTOW are approved in the AFM, CoA,... the highest will be used to calculate MTOW-based fees (landing, navigation, ATC,...).


I know where I work we have to give different airports 4 months notice in writing of a operational weight change for a tail number.
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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:06 am

WIederling 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.


Nice try at detraction. Should I rate you on the Schopenhauer scale?

I fixed the basic errors in a data presentation that you handed in here
in a first order simple estimation. ( And I did not offer anything beyond that.)

If you can not point out some relevant errors I made you should be able to live with the outcome.
( And I don't think that "but Boeing ..." is sufficient in that context.)


Your "fix the basic errors" were not for the chart that I posted. It was for a chart that Keesje had posted dating back to sep 2014, and not the one I posted from March 2015 which had been corrected with better assumptions.

Image
Source: http://seekingalpha.com/article/2991946 ... -version-2

These are the numbers for the chart for posted
787-9 seat count 325
A339 seat count 310

You can disagree with seat counts, but you said in post 363 that it was off by 14%. That is not true. You can argue 5%, but 14% is a 50 seat diffence, which is for a different analysis.

You also make some OEW assumptions regarding 10tons and 6.5%. I don't see how your numbers are derived. I also know that the OEW numbers and seat counts in the chart I was looking at can be debated. I don't claim it is perfect, but it does support my statement that there are sources with the 789 having 2.5% better fuel burn per seat than the A339 and also that there are some sources indicating less.

I asked what your opinion was because I didn't understand your logic. You said the A333 and 7810 fuel burn differences per seat would be a wash. I assume you meant A339, but you have not corrected that so maybe you do think the A333 is that good. When someone is entrenched in an opinion like that and posts falsehoods repeatedly like "they changed nearly everything" between the 787-8 and 787-9, I don't find the point in debating. The 7810 is a simple stretch and conventionally simple stretches like that have very low CASM and fuel burn per seat. Based on how the 789 and A339 compare, I don't think many will agree with you about how the A333 and 7810 fuel burn numbers compare, and I doubt you would agree with what I post in this A vs B thread. I'll agree to disagree.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14396
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:06 am

You have been told many times seeking alpha is trash, why do you persist on using them as you ONLY source ?

Arguments with trash as a foundation are very week.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
sf260
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:59 pm

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:48 am

zeke wrote:
I know where I work we have to give different airports 4 months notice in writing of a operational weight change for a tail number.

So, basically, you agree with me that it is a lot of work (and expensive*) to change weights, and that this will not be done on a per flight basis

The basis for weight-based fees is the CoA and OEM documentation, not necessarily the flight plan. The flight plan changes per flight or sector, the other documents do not.

Changing MTOW -through an SB issued by Airbus- will set you back around €300k for an A330, this is just for a SB and documentation changes, without additional labor expenses.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8925
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:58 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
Image
Source: http://seekingalpha.com/article/2991946 ... -version-2

These are the numbers for the chart for posted
787-9 seat count 325
A339 seat count 310

Oh, another set of seatcount numbers. How entertaining.
And the "corresponding" graph is not the one given as reference in post #131.
If you look/ask around 287 || 290 pax would be a reasonable capacity for the one and the other frames.
( then ~340 for the A7810 )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right
Will you walk us through all 38 items before you've come to a end?
Murphy is an optimist
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:06 am

Wlederling, if you look at the last chart in post 130, it is the same one that I posted. I know we will disagree on A vs B, but if you are going to post a Wikipedia article about the art of being right, please stop lying.

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
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:29 am

zeke wrote:
You have been told many times seeking alpha is trash, why do you persist on using them as you ONLY source ?

Arguments with trash as a foundation are very week.


Ok, then how about Aspire's comment that 787-10 fuel burn will be 25% less than the A333? Granted the article is from 2014 and came out before the aero tweaks on the A330neo were provided. Still trash?

Make no mistake, while the A330neo will be optimised for 2,000nm missions and have a 12% lower block fuel burn, according to Aspire Aviation‘s sources at the world’s second-largest aircraft manufacturer, it is believed that an A330-300neo will still be 10-12% behind the 787-10 which will have a 25% lower block fuel burn than the A330-300 on a 3,000nm mission with 85% annual winds.

http://www.aspireaviation.com/2014/02/2 ... s-a330neo/
 
StTim
Posts: 3512
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:45 am

Aspire in so far into Boeings pocket they cannot see the light of day.


Mind you they did have a couple of half decently researched articles recently. That wasn't in one of them.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13477
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:53 am

.
:point: Leahy claims the A330-900 beats 787 on trip cost and seat cost

https://www.ausbt.com.au/files/A330neo%20Launch%20Presentation.pdf

:checkmark: More seats than the 787
:checkmark: Equal fuel burn to the 787
:checkmark: Lower Engine thrust 72k vs 74k: Lower EMC
:checkmark: Proven Airframe maintenance cost
:checkmark: 1% Lower cash operating costs than the 787-9
:checkmark: 7% Lower total cost than 787-9
:checkmark: 18in economy seat width, wider than 16.9in 787 seat

:arrow: Newbiepilot, I would be careful adopting this info as evidence and base all your future comparisons on it.
Just like Aspire & Dhierin Bechai, John Leahy might have selected favorable assumptions & conditions to push his case. :scratchchin:
"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 30, 2017 11:55 am

StTim wrote:
Aspire in so far into Boeings pocket they cannot see the light of day.


Mind you they did have a couple of half decently researched articles recently. That wasn't in one of them.


I will agree with you some. So who else has done a comparison? I know Leeham has some posts, but Scott Hamilton's pontification tend to discuss a few more positive things about Airbus in comparison to Boeing, so I can't say they are truly neutral either.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 12:05 pm

keesje wrote:
.
:point: Leahy claims the A330-900 beats 787 on trip cost and seat cost

https://www.ausbt.com.au/files/A330neo%20Launch%20Presentation.pdf

:checkmark: More seats than the 787
:checkmark: Equal fuel burn to the 787
:checkmark: Lower Engine thrust 72k vs 74k: Lower EMC
:checkmark: Proven Airframe maintenance cost
:checkmark: 1% Lower cash operating costs than the 787-9
:checkmark: 7% Lower total cost than 787-9
:checkmark: 18in economy seat width, wider than 16.9in 787 seat

:arrow: Newbiepilot, I would be careful adopting this info as evidence and base all your future comparisons on it.
Just like Aspire & Dhierin Bechai, John Leahy might have selected favorable assumptions & conditions to push his case. :scratchchin:


I think Leahy is sufficiently worried about the CASM and fuel burn per seat of the 787-10 and how it compares to both the A339 and A359 that he has gone on a smear campaign about it. Despite A330-900 and 787-10 range being so close to each other, he is broadcasting that the 787-10 is out of the mainstream. He (along possibly with you in an earlier post) doesn't want airlines comparing the 787-10 and A339 because there is a 50 seat capacity difference even though trip costs aren't way different. It's funny that when we talk about narrowbodies, marketing always wants to convince airlines that for only a small increase in trip costs they can upgrade to the lower CASM planes (A319/73G to A320neo/738 etc), yet Leahy wants to block that in the widebody market since he probably has a good idea of the CASM, trip costs and fuel burn on the 787-10.

Look at slide 17 in this Airbus presentation. I can only laugh at the marketing spin. I know both manufacturers do it, but this birds in a wire chart is as humorous as the A350 dart board.

http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/press ... D%5D=96272
 
WIederling
Posts: 8925
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 12:10 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Ok, then how about Aspire's comment that 787-10 fuel burn will be 25% less than the A333? Granted the article is from 2014 and came out before the aero tweaks on the A330neo were provided. Still trash?

Make no mistake, while the A330neo will be optimised for 2,000nm missions and have a 12% lower block fuel burn, according to Aspire Aviation‘s sources at the world’s second-largest aircraft manufacturer, it is believed that an A330-300neo will still be 10-12% behind the 787-10 which will have a 25% lower block fuel burn than the A330-300 on a 3,000nm mission with 85% annual winds.


After all is said and done you will have the delta from A339 to the significantly bigger 7810 in the single digits domain.
Which is about where my guestimate landed from fixing Bechai's data. not bad, eh?

Then you probably should not work yourself up to calling me a liar when you round robin change the foundations of your arguments on a vim.
Murphy is an optimist
 
thepinkmachine
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:43 pm

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 12:17 pm

sf260 wrote:
Changing MTOW -through an SB issued by Airbus- will set you back around €300k for an A330, this is just for a SB and docum[threeid][threeid][threeid][threeid][threeid][threeid][/threeid][/threeid][/threeid][/threeid][/threeid][/threeid]entation changes, without additional labor expenses.


Where I fly, we have two MTOWs for each aircraft simultaneously. The same airframe can do a regional flight with MTOW 205 Ton and on the same day fly a long haul flight with MTOW of 230 T. No changes or modifications are done, we have a list of airports with applicable MTOWs. The landing fees are charged according to the list. Wat we are not allowed to do is to take off with higher TOW out of the "regional" airport.
"Tell my wife I am trawling Atlantis - and I still have my hands on the wheel…"
 
astuteman
Posts: 7012
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 12:42 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
zeke wrote:
You have been told many times seeking alpha is trash, why do you persist on using them as you ONLY source ?

Arguments with trash as a foundation are very week.


Ok, then how about Aspire's comment that 787-10 fuel burn will be 25% less than the A333? Granted the article is from 2014 and came out before the aero tweaks on the A330neo were provided. Still trash?

Make no mistake, while the A330neo will be optimised for 2,000nm missions and have a 12% lower block fuel burn, according to Aspire Aviation‘s sources at the world’s second-largest aircraft manufacturer, it is believed that an A330-300neo will still be 10-12% behind the 787-10 which will have a 25% lower block fuel burn than the A330-300 on a 3,000nm mission with 85% annual winds.

http://www.aspireaviation.com/2014/02/2 ... s-a330neo/


Yes. It is still trash
This is really easy.
Most of this thread has acknowledged that, at lower ranges at least (such as the 3000Nm reference mission in the Aspire document), you won't get a cigarette paper between the block fuel burn of the 787-9 and the A330-900. you have yourself posted charts, and quoted, a 0.5% fuel burn difference.
And the planes are near-identical in size, hence fuel burn per seat will typically, in similar configurations, be the same, at low-medium ranges at least.

If the 787-9 burns the same as an A330-900, the 787-10 is only ever going to have a higher block fuel burn than the A330-900, as it will inevitably have a higher block fuel burn than the 787-9.

Rudimentary drag physics will back that up.
The 787-10 will have higher surface area, thus higher parasitic drag.
It will have a higher OEW, thus higher induced drag, and a smaller wingspan with which to offset that higher induced drag, making the A330-900 induced drag advantage that much greater.

Earlier on in the thread you were happy to call me out to defend your right to challenge any data/evidence that contradicts an increasingly obvious "pro-Boeing" stance.
To the extent that you don't seem prepared to run even a cursory thumb over the Aspire article, before ramming it down people's throats.
So much for the right to challenge

Personally, I would expect the 787-10 to have about 10%-12% more capacity than the 787-9 or A330-900, and burn about 5% more fuel than either of those planes.
Hence it may sport a c. 5%-7% fuel burn per seat delta over the A330-900 to go right alongside it's dramatically higher acquisition or lease costs.
(Trex8, I think your numbers were spot on :) )
And the extra 10%-12% seats need to be filled of course

What does that do for its desirability in the market?
Polot advises us not to pay too much attention to sales figures because they don't tell the whole story.
Logically though, that is exactly what they do, because they portray the balance of all the various factors that play into the market's purchasing decisions.

since July 2013 - the launch of the A330NEO through to end of 2016

A330-900 - 204 sales
787-9 - 194 sales
787-10 - 21 sales

It does not really matter what advantages for the 787-10 you might be inclined to drag across our bows, the reality is that it has not gained much traction against either the 787-9 or A330-900 in the last 3 1/2 years, despite almost certainly having a fuel burn per seat advantage over both.
That may change of course, but for now I'm sure why we need to look much further.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8925
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 12:49 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
StTim wrote:
Aspire in so far into Boeings pocket they cannot see the light of day.


Mind you they did have a couple of half decently researched articles recently. That wasn't in one of them.


I will agree with you some. So who else has done a comparison? I know Leeham has some posts, but Scott Hamilton's pontification tend to discuss a few more positive things about Airbus in comparison to Boeing, so I can't say they are truly neutral either.


You misunderstand "neutral".

negatives and positives are not about splitting the cookie equally
but giving the same kind of perusal to both sides.
i.e. individual goodness, badness and uglyness will reflect to the same degree into a neutral assay.
( ok, an art lost to a growing "some" :-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 12:56 pm

Astuteman, I am sorry if you feel quoting an article is the same thing as ramming it down people's throats. I am just sharing that there are multiple sources out there. If Keesje is going to post John Leahy comments, i see no reason to compare and contrast with Other sources that tend to have a different set of assumptions or bias. Like I said earlier, I think marketing on both sides don't truly reflect reality. A vs B threads are fun since airplane economics is such a complex inexact science that anyone can pretty much come up with any conclusion they want based on assumptions.

Airbus says the A339 has 7% lower total costs than the 787-9 and Boeing says 787-10 has 25% lower fuel burn per seat than the A339. The Airbus narrative is that the A339 has equal fuel burn but much lower total costs due to lower lease prices (Airbus in Keesje's chart shows an assumption of 19% lower lease rates) while The Boeing narrative is that the 787-10 has much lower fuel burn but they don't seem to want to talk about total costs and price. There are no apples to apples "neutral" comparisons.
 
sf260
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:59 pm

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:35 pm

thepinkmachine wrote:
Where I fly, we have two MTOWs for each aircraft simultaneously. The same airframe can do a regional flight with MTOW 205 Ton and on the same day fly a long haul flight with MTOW of 230 T. No changes or modifications are done, we have a list of airports with applicable MTOWs. The landing fees are charged according to the list. Wat we are not allowed to do is to take off with higher TOW out of the "regional" airport.

What part of the world are you in? Where we fly (mainly Europe), this is not possible. You always get charged for the highest MTOW mentioned in the CoA/AFM.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8925
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:40 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Astuteman, I am sorry if you feel quoting an article is the same thing as ramming it down people's throats. I am just sharing that there are multiple sources out there. If Keesje is going to post John Leahy comments, i see no reason to compare and contrast with Other sources that tend to have a different set of assumptions or bias. Like I said earlier, I think marketing on both sides don't truly reflect reality.


the Source, Luke, the Source.

If you had posted the URL to Bechais (the graph's author) articles which
show the assumptions behind the graphs you referenced
"things" would have been more out in the open.

More of an accident that I had seen that graph in its original context.

(keesje forex properly cites Leahy when he uses info from him.
or cite or image reference carry an indentification on their own.)

My personal impression is that US marketing in general shows a more "creative" approach to presenting information
in an advantageous way. Often very interesting to research the convoluted paths created for leveraging.

Additionally the fanscape tends to more intensely use complete PR phrases inclusive their emotive adverbs verbatim.
To assume on occasion that such content might be paid for is not far off.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:40 pm

So after reading many posts, there is lots of good discussion. We have some different assumptions regarding what the true values and what the impact of the following are:

Seat count
OEW Comparison
Systems Architecture differences
Purchase price and leasing costs
Maintenance costs
Training costs and similarity to other planes
Impact of speed and crew costs / utilization
Usefulness of higher MTOW and payload
Whether the A339 competes with just the 789 or also with the 7810
Fuel burn comparisons depend on range

It appears that pro Airbus analysis like using a set of conditions for the A339 where the A339 is earning more revenue. They do this by putting more seats on the A339 than 789. They then choose a range where the plane is operating below MTOW and not including cargo. Sometimes maintenance similarity to the A330ceo are included. Then they focus on price and for reference in Airbus' presentation assume 19% lower lease rates. There is nothing wrong about these assumptions. They are perfectly realistic for some operators.

Conversely pro Boeing analysis is going to use assumptions that have more seats in the 787. They also pick a range where the 787 payload advantage is a factor and add the higher cargo volume of the 789 vs A339 to get higher revenue for the 787. They also add in crew costs to take advantage of the 787's faster cruise. Most of these comparisons ignore purchase price and focus on operating cost comparisons. Again there is nothing wrong with these assumptions either since they are perfectly realistic for some operators.

So we will get two very different conclusions possible from different sets of assumptions. I suspect this is why different airlines are ordering the 787 and A330neo. No one plane is necessarily better than the other. It depends on the operating conditions of the airline wanting to buy the plane for which works best.
 
StTim
Posts: 3512
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:08 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
So after reading many posts, there is lots of good discussion. We have some different assumptions regarding what the true values and what the impact of the following are:

Seat count
OEW Comparison
Systems Architecture differences
Purchase price and leasing costs
Maintenance costs
Training costs and similarity to other planes
Impact of speed and crew costs / utilization
Usefulness of higher MTOW and payload
Whether the A339 competes with just the 789 or also with the 7810
Fuel burn comparisons depend on range

It appears that pro Airbus analysis like using a set of conditions for the A339 where the A339 is earning more revenue. They do this by putting more seats on the A339 than 789. They then choose a range where the plane is operating below MTOW and not including cargo. Sometimes maintenance similarity to the A330ceo are included. Then they focus on price and for reference in Airbus' presentation assume 19% lower lease rates. There is nothing wrong about these assumptions. They are perfectly realistic for some operators.

Conversely pro Boeing analysis is going to use assumptions that have more seats in the 787. They also pick a range where the 787 payload advantage is a factor and add the higher cargo volume of the 789 vs A339 to get higher revenue for the 787. They also add in crew costs to take advantage of the 787's faster cruise. Most of these comparisons ignore purchase price and focus on operating cost comparisons. Again there is nothing wrong with these assumptions either since they are perfectly realistic for some operators.

So we will get two very different conclusions possible from different sets of assumptions. I suspect this is why different airlines are ordering the 787 and A330neo. No one plane is necessarily better than the other. It depends on the operating conditions of the airline wanting to buy the plane for which works best.


I think you have got in Newbie. In addition for some airlines the cost of capital will be cheaper than it is for others - meaning the more expensive plane might end up relatively cheaper. Perverse that one isn't it.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8925
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:26 pm

Newbie: "It appears that pro Airbus analysis like using a set of conditions for the A339 where the A339 is earning more revenue. They do this by putting more seats on the A339 than 789. They then choose a range where the plane is operating below MTOW and not including cargo."

You are not there yet ( leaving out select details to "equalize" the sides )
What I've seen here is about equal seats for 789 and A339 for comparable real estate use.
Then we see estimations that the 339 inside its payload range capability will about match the 789 on efficiency.

i.e. it is not unrealistic A339 superiority versus unrealistic 789 superiority.
But a reasonably estimated A339/789 equality inside certain limits
versus an unreasonable overall superiority of the 789 based on comparing different use cases.
i.e. a tightly stuffed 789 versus much more accomodating A339 seating.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13477
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:45 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
So after reading many posts, there is lots of good discussion. We have some different assumptions regarding what the true values and what the impact of the following are:

Seat count
OEW Comparison
Systems Architecture differences
Purchase price and leasing costs
Maintenance costs
Training costs and similarity to other planes
Impact of speed and crew costs / utilization
Usefulness of higher MTOW and payload
Whether the A339 competes with just the 789 or also with the 7810
Fuel burn comparisons depend on range

It appears that pro Airbus analysis like using a set of conditions for the A339 where the A339 is earning more revenue. They do this by putting more seats on the A339 than 789. They then choose a range where the plane is operating below MTOW and not including cargo. Sometimes maintenance similarity to the A330ceo are included. Then they focus on price and for reference in Airbus' presentation assume 19% lower lease rates. There is nothing wrong about these assumptions. They are perfectly realistic for some operators.

Conversely pro Boeing analysis is going to use assumptions that have more seats in the 787. They also pick a range where the 787 payload advantage is a factor and add the higher cargo volume of the 789 vs A339 to get higher revenue for the 787. They also add in crew costs to take advantage of the 787's faster cruise. Most of these comparisons ignore purchase price and focus on operating cost comparisons. Again there is nothing wrong with these assumptions either since they are perfectly realistic for some operators.

So we will get two very different conclusions possible from different sets of assumptions. I suspect this is why different airlines are ordering the 787 and A330neo. No one plane is necessarily better than the other. It depends on the operating conditions of the airline wanting to buy the plane for which works best.


Sounds reasonable!

One thing though this week-end I did a 11 hour night flight on a 777 10 abreast (17 inch seat). Because I couldn't avoid. I had an aisle seat. While I had a nice FA sitting next to me, I didn't sleep much. The occasional unintended elbow, people moving through the aisle prevent me from taking a nap. And no, it wasn't a cheap flight. Nor did I get any compensation for the shrink seat.. Maybe I'm alone but on a 4-11 hour flights I totally select a 18 inch 2-4-2 over 17 inch 3-3-3 or 3-4-3. I flew an 321 aisle seat too a few hours later. It was clear people are much leaning into the aisle. As I said before I've active sought 2-4-2 A330, 3-3-3 777 and 3-4-3 A380 over narrow seats over the last 2 yrs. Even accepting transfers. The cabins might look nice empty in adds, IFE might be great, the new narrow seats are to narrow for me and my neighboring passengers.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2936
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:56 pm

Astuteman wrote:
Personally, I would expect the 787-10 to have about 10%-12% more capacity than the 787-9 or A330-900, and burn about 5% more fuel than either of those planes.
Hence it may sport a c. 5%-7% fuel burn per seat delta over the A330-900 to go right alongside it's dramatically higher acquisition or lease costs.


I think this is right in the outlines, but maybe a bit miserly re the 78X's capacity delta.
789 is 140ft between doors, 78X will be 158ft: ~13% delta.
But the number of exit doors is the same and the added cabin length is all parallel, so maybe more like 14-15% delta.
Small potatoes but I expect these sales campaigns to come down to a percentage here or there.
...which is why I see a lot of risk to Boeing in the tight 9ab seating.

Re capital cost, Boeing will likely have to budge there. We've seen airlines complain about pricing for the -10.
78X lists at ~16% more than 789. Its actual production cost delta is probably on the order of 5%.
Boeing management may be holding firm on 78X pricing as a last gasp effort to avoid a charge on the 787 program, which most serious analysts consider inevitable. That behavior would be economically irrational but management irrationality is the raison d'etre of billions in corporate law firm billings.
With more rational pricing, a ~5% trip fuel delta for ~14% more capacity looks like a good deal.
Considering that mx, crew, and fees should be about equal to A339, total cash operating cost (COC) delta may be on the order of ~3%.
COC per seat could be ~10% lower (1.03/1.14).
For an airline with good credit, ownership cost should be only ~20% of direct operating cost, meaning Boeing can still charge a decent premium for the -10 while offering an attractive capacity/efficiency tradeoff vs. the A339. Probably not the current asking price, especially if Boeing wants to go to 14/mo eventually, but a decent premium nonetheless.

Let me repeat a constant plea: A.net would be a much better place if nobody spent a second on OEM marketing claims. We all know they are BS, why does anyone argue about them?
 
WIederling
Posts: 8925
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 3:57 pm

"Let me repeat a constant plea: A.net would be a much better place if nobody spent a second on OEM marketing claims. We all know they are BS, why does anyone argue about them?"

People heed that already. ( in reposte that forbidden stuff is laundered though the "fool", "seekingalpha", ... ecologies. :-)

Apropos: who ate Saj Ahmads tongue :-?
Murphy is an optimist
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 4:03 pm

Keesje, I am sorry you had an uncomfortable long haul flight in economy. You had been telling us about this trip and your trepidation regarding economy comfort. Fortunately you didn't have to fly on an Air Asia A330 with their 9 abreast configuration.

You bring up cabin comfort, which is another area where the pro Airbus and pro Boeing analysts look at it from different angles. The pro Airbus analysis heavily emphasizes seat width in economy and sometimes noise. The pro Boeing analysis emphasizes bigger windows and higher cabin pressure (lower altitude) and focuses more on increased comfort for those in premium economy and business class along with overhead crew rests offering crew more comfort or the airplane more seats and/or cargo since crew rests aren't in the cabin or cargo hold.

Since the majority of a.net seems to fly economy most 787 related threads discuss economy seat width at some point, so at least on this forum, economy seat width is very important.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26589
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 4:45 pm

astuteman wrote:
since July 2013 - the launch of the A330NEO through to end of 2016

A330-900 - 204 sales
787-9 - 194 sales
787-10 - 21 sales

It does not really matter what advantages for the 787-10 you might be inclined to drag across our bows, the reality is that it has not gained much traction against either the 787-9 or A330-900 in the last 3 1/2 years, despite almost certainly having a fuel burn per seat advantage over both. That may change of course, but for now I'm (not) sure why we need to look much further.


Well if we don't, we have to assume the market has rejected the 787-10. If that was the case, I expect Boeing would not be moving forward with it.

I imagine the real reasons are a mix of lack of near-term availability compared to the A330-900 and 787-9, Boeing refusing to extend launch discounts on the 787-10 beyond the first tranche of orders, and Boeing's refusal to allow current 787 order and option holders to switch to the -10 at little to no extra cost. Many airlines also seem to be reconsidering their CAPEX on new airframes and the 787-10 is (relatively) expensive.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 5:32 pm

Stitch wrote:
astuteman wrote:
since July 2013 - the launch of the A330NEO through to end of 2016

A330-900 - 204 sales
787-9 - 194 sales
787-10 - 21 sales

It does not really matter what advantages for the 787-10 you might be inclined to drag across our bows, the reality is that it has not gained much traction against either the 787-9 or A330-900 in the last 3 1/2 years, despite almost certainly having a fuel burn per seat advantage over both. That may change of course, but for now I'm (not) sure why we need to look much further.


Well if we don't, we have to assume the market has rejected the 787-10. If that was the case, I expect Boeing would not be moving forward with it.

I imagine the real reasons are a mix of lack of near-term availability compared to the A330-900 and 787-9, Boeing refusing to extend launch discounts on the 787-10 beyond the first tranche of orders, and Boeing's refusal to allow current 787 order and option holders to switch to the -10 at little to no extra cost. Many airlines also seem to be reconsidering their CAPEX on new airframes and the 787-10 is (relatively) expensive.


Stitch, did you also notice that astuteman included A330-900 orders in his count of 204 that were conversions from A330-300s or A350s, but excluded 787-10 orders that were conversions from 787-8s and 787-9s? While I can see some logic in that decision, it does support why he mentioned Polot's post about not paying too much attention to sales figures. Breaking orders down to the minor model can get a bit muddled since with the big backlogs, market conditions change from when the original orders were made and airlines have done many order adjustments.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 499
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:34 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
787-9 seat count 325
A339 seat count 310

You can disagree with seat counts, but

[...]

it does support my statement that there are sources with the 789 having 2.5% better fuel burn per seat than the A339 and also that there are some sources indicating less.

[...]

You said the A333 and 7810 fuel burn differences per seat would be a wash. I assume you meant A339,

[...]

The 7810 is a simple stretch and conventionally simple stretches like that have very low CASM and fuel burn per seat.


I don't think the Seeking Alfa chart is based on must else than the opinion of an "financial expert" that afternoon he wrote the article. He thought the graphics looked good.

That there generally can be a slight fuel efficiently advantage to the 787 compared to the A339 is likely, at least on some routes. I think that goes without saying. The longer the distance flown, the higher advantage. I also think at the actual fuel difference is much lower than anyone anticipated when the 787 program was launched. The sales figures of the A330 is indication of just that, so we could say that the 787 has not delivered on some of its promises.

With the metric 'fuel burn per seat' you can get almost any answer you like, dependent on the selected seating layout. 325 seats in the 787-9, compared to 310 seats in the A339, is an artificially chosen configuration, without basis in the real world. If you look at seatguru, you will find that airlines generally configure the A333 with more seats than the 787-9. If we say that the A333 has, on average, a 15 seat advantage (since the cabin is longer), the difference from the Seeking Alfa chart will be 30 seats (about 10%). Your fuel-efficiency advantage has not only disappeared, but has been turned upside down.

If we compare the fuel-efficiency of both aircraft in a LCC configuration, where the A330 has a nine abreast seating in Y, there is absolutely no doubt that the A330 is most fuel-efficient of the two. (375 seats Scoot, 789 / 436 seats Cebu Pacific, A333).

The 787-10 is a significantly larger plane than the 787-9, but it can't actually take any more payload than the 787-9. Even when loaded fuel is much lower, it doesn't have the other capabilities and flexibility of the 787-9. The 787-10 is therefore not suitable for, for example, high density seating configurations. It is very much a medium haul aircraft, best suited for high premium layouts. E.g. British Airways LHR - JFK. Fuel burn per seat is a metric that should be used with care.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26589
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:57 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Stitch, did you also notice that astuteman included A330-900 orders in his count of 204 that were conversions from A330-300s or A350s, but excluded 787-10 orders that were conversions from 787-8s and 787-9s?


If he did, it was almost certain an oversight on his part and very much not a direct omission.



Newbiepilot wrote:
While I can see some logic in that decision, it does support why he mentioned Polot's post about not paying too much attention to sales figures. Breaking orders down to the minor model can get a bit muddled since with the big backlogs, market conditions change from when the original orders were made and airlines have done many order adjustments.


I think it's a valuable metric, but it needs to be examined beyond just the "raw numbers". People like astuteman do this, which is why I value their contributions to this forum whereas I tend to ignore those who use them solely as a "measuring stick" to showcase their preferred OEM or downplay their unpreferred OEM.

Airbus is almost assuredly offering A330ceo customers the option to move to the A330neo without much penalty, just as Boeing did for the 787-8 to the 787-9 (and likely still is). Hence more conversions for those models. Boeing isn't offering such generosity to 787-8 and 787-9 customers wishing to move to the 787-10, so a customer wishing to make that move needs to weight the higher CAPEX cost of doing so.
 
Theseus
Posts: 254
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:35 pm

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 7:59 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Keesje, I am sorry you had an uncomfortable long haul flight in economy. You had been telling us about this trip and your trepidation regarding economy comfort. Fortunately you didn't have to fly on an Air Asia A330 with their 9 abreast configuration.

You bring up cabin comfort, which is another area where the pro Airbus and pro Boeing analysts look at it from different angles. The pro Airbus analysis heavily emphasizes seat width in economy and sometimes noise. The pro Boeing analysis emphasizes bigger windows and higher cabin pressure (lower altitude) and focuses more on increased comfort for those in premium economy and business class along with overhead crew rests offering crew more comfort or the airplane more seats and/or cargo since crew rests aren't in the cabin or cargo hold.

Since the majority of a.net seems to fly economy most 787 related threads discuss economy seat width at some point, so at least on this forum, economy seat width is very important.


Well, there are more people who fly in Y than in J, so not surprising, right ?

Also, not sure I see the point on premium economy or business being better on one family of aircraft than on the other. I flew in Y+ on A330, A340 and B777 and saw no difference. Could you please explain ?
Same question for business.
Same question fro crew rests; last time I flew on a 777, the crew seemed to have their crew rest under the floor (AF).

Last, you bring up 9Y A330s, but they are mainly used by low cost long haul. On B777, the majority of airlines are using 10Y now.

In any case, I do not think the goal of the initial post was to compare the comfort merits of each family.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:11 pm

Thesus, great questions. There are three different layers when it comes to comparing comfort. Economy passengers, premium economy, and crew.

The airplane cabin width is usually very important in economy, but less so in premium economy or business. A few inches less in cabin width can result in smaller economy seats. In premium economy, business and first where seats are wider, passengers are less likely to notice the airplane width and more likely to see other differences like noise, lavatories, bigger windows and higher cabin pressure. I suspect in passenger surveys, economy passengers may complain more when their airplane has a narrower seat. In premium economy or business where seat width isn't much of a factor compared to overall seat design, passengers are more likely to notice bigger windows, cabin pressure and noise.

And finally crew comfort matters when it comes to crew rests. If pilots have to use a business class seat instead of a dedicated crew rest, an airline will lose revenue from those seats. Additionally depending on contracts and regulations, pilots using a business class seat may not have as long of a duty time as those that get a full flat bunk. Similarly flight attendant contracts sometimes require an augmented crew if their crew rest is blocked off economy seats instead of a bunk above or below deck. A bunk below deck on an A330 is in the cargo hold, which then reduces cargo volume, which make airlines more hesitant to install it. In the 787 both flight deck and cabin crew rests are above the cabin. Older 777s have crew rests below deck as do A330s and A340s. Crew comfort can affect the bottom line as well as passenger comfort.
Last edited by Newbiepilot on Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7012
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:12 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Stitch, did you also notice that astuteman included A330-900 orders in his count of 204 that were conversions from A330-300s or A350s, but excluded 787-10 orders that were conversions from 787-8s and 787-9s? While I can see some logic in that decision, it does support why he mentioned Polot's post about not paying too much attention to sales figures. Breaking orders down to the minor model can get a bit muddled since with the big backlogs, market conditions change from when the original orders were made and airlines have done many order adjustments.


If it weren't for the fact that I'm generally easy going, you would be pi**ing me off grandly here, my friend.
Fortunately for you .... :)
A couple of observations....
Firstly, if you really want to call me out for some imagined sleight of hand, I'd appreciate it if you did it directly rather than via a 3rd party.
I'll happily justify my own posting.

Secondly, I know you are pretty new here, so I'll offer an observation in mentoring mode..
Stitch and I have engaged in what I believe to be mutually respected interchanges on here for more than a decade.
I suspect he would not qualify in most long-term civil Aviation poster's minds as the obvious first port of call for a bit of discreet "Astuteman" character assassination.
Stitch knows me better than that.

For the record, you assign a sophistry to my posting that just isn't there.
I lifted the numbers from the OEM's websites. I included nothing and excluded nothing that wasn't already there.
Tell me what 787-10 conversions you think are missing since July 2013 on their user defined searches, and I will take it up personally with Boeing media on your behalf.
Seriously. Want to take me up on that?
Secondly, whatever adjustments might have been made, such conversions surely also contribute to the picture of the desirability of said model. No?

If airlines have converted A350 orders to A330NEO, it suggests that the A330NEO was in fact desirable. doesn't it?

Without question, the reality is that every model operates in a complex environment affected by models either side of it in both OEM's line-ups.
However, the brief for this thread was in fact A330-900 vs 787-9.
Not even certain how the 787-10 ended up in the discussion to be honest.
If it was to identify the plane that was "really going to stick it to the A330-900", I'd suggest the tactic has not been all that successful :)

Rgds
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:23 pm

Astuteman, I posted that I knew why your numbers didn't include 787-10 conversions but apologize for not saying why. The reason is that Airbus books A330neo conversions from A330ceos and A350s as new orders for the A330neo whereas 787-10 conversions from 787-8s and 787-9s are not new orders. Simple answer, but it does confuse the story of just comparing minor model sales figures. I didn't think it was a slight of hand and I was not assasinating your character. I was agreeing with you when you posted that sales figures don't tell the whole story. There is no need to be so personal. I thought stitch had a great point about conversions and I thought it was worth pointing out that the numbers he quoted (which is your post) only told half the story. Since you are trying to mentor me, I will mentor you back. If you read posts thinking that there is a sinister intent behind every comment by certain users, emotions like "getting pi**ed off" and thinking people are trying to "ram ideas down people's throat" are normal. Try just reading the words without trying to find sinister and manipulative intent behind everything and you probably will keep that easy going nature that you claim to have.

Keesje is the one who brought up the 787-10 in post 323 and shared a marketing slide about it. Since it is his thread and he brought it up, it is reasonable to discuss.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13477
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:54 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Keesje, I am sorry you had an uncomfortable long haul flight in economy. You had been telling us about this trip and your trepidation regarding economy comfort. Fortunately you didn't have to fly on an Air Asia A330 with their 9 abreast configuration.
....


I've never encountered a A330 9 abreast over the last 20 years. Very few carriers use them It seems. Just like 8 abreast 767s. In the linked presentation I saw the NEO will have more comfortable sidepanels. I pray it doesn't give anyone bad ideas..
"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 30, 2017 10:02 pm

How do you make a side panel more comfortable?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26589
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 10:12 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
How do you make a side panel more comfortable?


Carve it out to offer more shoulder room.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 10:21 pm

Stitch wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
How do you make a side panel more comfortable?


Carve it out to offer more shoulder room.


Does anyone have a photo or image of the changes? Usually the frames and stringers are within a few inches of the window on the sides, but there is a little more space between stringers above and below.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 10:34 pm

Theseus wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
Keesje, I am sorry you had an uncomfortable long haul flight in economy. You had been telling us about this trip and your trepidation regarding economy comfort. Fortunately you didn't have to fly on an Air Asia A330 with their 9 abreast configuration.

You bring up cabin comfort, which is another area where the pro Airbus and pro Boeing analysts look at it from different angles. The pro Airbus analysis heavily emphasizes seat width in economy and sometimes noise. The pro Boeing analysis emphasizes bigger windows and higher cabin pressure (lower altitude) and focuses more on increased comfort for those in premium economy and business class along with overhead crew rests offering crew more comfort or the airplane more seats and/or cargo since crew rests aren't in the cabin or cargo hold.

Since the majority of a.net seems to fly economy most 787 related threads discuss economy seat width at some point, so at least on this forum, economy seat width is very important.


Well, there are more people who fly in Y than in J, so not surprising, right ?

Also, not sure I see the point on premium economy or business being better on one family of aircraft than on the other. I flew in Y+ on A330, A340 and B777 and saw no difference. Could you please explain ?
Same question for business.
Same question fro crew rests; last time I flew on a 777, the crew seemed to have their crew rest under the floor (AF).

Last, you bring up 9Y A330s, but they are mainly used by low cost long haul. On B777, the majority of airlines are using 10Y now.

In any case, I do not think the goal of the initial post was to compare the comfort merits of each family.


Keesje is the OP. So far he has added a terrible trip on the 777 and the upcoming model 787-10 to the thread. I've lost track of what his initial post's goal was.....or have I?
-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
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13477
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:01 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
Theseus wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
Keesje, I am sorry you had an uncomfortable long haul flight in economy. You had been telling us about this trip and your trepidation regarding economy comfort. Fortunately you didn't have to fly on an Air Asia A330 with their 9 abreast configuration.

You bring up cabin comfort, which is another area where the pro Airbus and pro Boeing analysts look at it from different angles. The pro Airbus analysis heavily emphasizes seat width in economy and sometimes noise. The pro Boeing analysis emphasizes bigger windows and higher cabin pressure (lower altitude) and focuses more on increased comfort for those in premium economy and business class along with overhead crew rests offering crew more comfort or the airplane more seats and/or cargo since crew rests aren't in the cabin or cargo hold.

Since the majority of a.net seems to fly economy most 787 related threads discuss economy seat width at some point, so at least on this forum, economy seat width is very important.


Well, there are more people who fly in Y than in J, so not surprising, right ?

Also, not sure I see the point on premium economy or business being better on one family of aircraft than on the other. I flew in Y+ on A330, A340 and B777 and saw no difference. Could you please explain ?
Same question for business.
Same question fro crew rests; last time I flew on a 777, the crew seemed to have their crew rest under the floor (AF).

Last, you bring up 9Y A330s, but they are mainly used by low cost long haul. On B777, the majority of airlines are using 10Y now.

In any case, I do not think the goal of the initial post was to compare the comfort merits of each family.


Keesje is the OP. So far he has added a terrible trip on the 777 and the upcoming model 787-10 to the thread. I've lost track of what his initial post's goal was.....or have I?


I agree, you seem to often seem to loose track. The 777 trip was about narrow seats (17 inch) and aisles, a measurable difference between 787-9 and A339. The 787-10 was about it often being used iso 787-9 to compare to A339.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
astuteman
Posts: 7012
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

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

Tue Jan 31, 2017 6:14 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
Astuteman, I posted that I knew why your numbers didn't include 787-10 conversions but apologize for not saying why. The reason is that Airbus books A330neo conversions from A330ceos and A350s as new orders for the A330neo whereas 787-10 conversions from 787-8s and 787-9s are not new orders. Simple answer, but it does confuse the story of just comparing minor model sales figures. I didn't think it was a slight of hand and I was not assasinating your character. I was agreeing with you when you posted that sales figures don't tell the whole story. There is no need to be so personal. I thought stitch had a great point about conversions and I thought it was worth pointing out that the numbers he quoted (which is your post) only told half the story. Since you are trying to mentor me, I will mentor you back. If you read posts thinking that there is a sinister intent behind every comment by certain users, emotions like "getting pi**ed off" and thinking people are trying to "ram ideas down people's throat" are normal. Try just reading the words without trying to find sinister and manipulative intent behind everything and you probably will keep that easy going nature that you claim to have.

Keesje is the one who brought up the 787-10 in post 323 and shared a marketing slide about it. Since it is his thread and he brought it up, it is reasonable to discuss.


Newbiepilot, trust comes with understanding and honesty.
So to be honest..

I don't understand why you tried to make out that I made a conscious decision to leave out 787-10 conversions, but include A330-900 conversions.
I don't understand why you felt it necessary to bring this to Stitch's notice instead of mine. I have asked you but received no reply.
I don't understand why you think there is a difference between Airbus and Boeing in accounting for conversions when there clearly isn't, and I've been watching them for about 12 years now. The number of 787-10's on order must be the number on order, with conversions added.
I don't understand which 787-10 conversions you think I decided to miss off the list. I have asked you but received no reply. I will happily, gladly, add them into the analysis
I don't understand why you avoid answering my questions, and choose to go defensive instead.

Finally, I still don't understand why it seemed a good idea to answer an analysis you thought was biased showing seat-mile fuel burn to be "a wash" between the 787-10 and A330-900 with an analysis that is at least 3 times as inaccurate showing the 787-10 having a 25% better seat-mile fuel burn.
And then challenge us to dare to say it's a trash analysis, when a little bit of the questioning that you profess to champion would have shown it to be exactly that.

When I understand these things, and when I finally get answers to what I think are reasonable questions, then perhaps we'll build a better basis with which to move forward.

Rgds
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

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

Tue Jan 31, 2017 6:31 am

keesje wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
Theseus wrote:

Well, there are more people who fly in Y than in J, so not surprising, right ?

Also, not sure I see the point on premium economy or business being better on one family of aircraft than on the other. I flew in Y+ on A330, A340 and B777 and saw no difference. Could you please explain ?
Same question for business.
Same question fro crew rests; last time I flew on a 777, the crew seemed to have their crew rest under the floor (AF).

Last, you bring up 9Y A330s, but they are mainly used by low cost long haul. On B777, the majority of airlines are using 10Y now.

In any case, I do not think the goal of the initial post was to compare the comfort merits of each family.


Keesje is the OP. So far he has added a terrible trip on the 777 and the upcoming model 787-10 to the thread. I've lost track of what his initial post's goal was.....or have I?


I agree, you seem to often seem to loose track. The 777 trip was about narrow seats (17 inch) and aisles, a measurable difference between 787-9 and A339. The 787-10 was about it often being used iso 787-9 to compare to A339.


In your opening post you specifically aligned the conversation to the 339.789. How you can go into essentially a trip report on a 777 and imply that it is relevant is laughable, but hey, it's your thread.
-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
seahawk
Posts: 9056
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:10 am

Passenger comfort is of no importance for the airframe performance.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 499
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

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

Tue Jan 31, 2017 8:22 am

seahawk wrote:
Passenger comfort is of no importance for the airframe performance.


Denser cabin, more weight? More weight effects airframe performance?

I would say passenger comfort is important, and at least indirectly effects airframe performance.

Passenger comfort is very important when comparing CASM. Are the seats at a comparable comfort level?
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9056
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:45 am

Does the passenger comfort make a difference in revenue? So far nobody has proven this for economy class.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1846
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

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

Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:45 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
How you can go into essentially a trip report on a 777 and imply that it is relevant is laughable, but hey, it's your thread.

Because this 777 had the same comfort disadvantage that the 789 has. The same point could be made with a DC-3 trip report if the DC-3 seats width would be comparable with the 789...
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!

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