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.