Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
macc
Topic Author
Posts: 928
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 8:11 pm

A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:01 am

I thought that might be intereting to some of you. Just had dinner with a friend of mine who is area manager for one of the bigger international airlines. Thinking about this foolish discussion going on here I asked him about a comparison of 777 and 330.

According to him, the 330 is more fuel efficient than 777. On the other hand, the 777 is preferred by pilots and cabin crew within his airline. Cabin crew prefer the cabin layout, which is more or less not an aircraft issue but determined by the airline. The pilots claim the 777 to be more "user friendly", whatever that means.

All in all, most of the station managers tried to get the 777 but now are happy to get the 330 due to significant lower "operating" costs. This however is not so much due to the fuel consumption but due to the fact that purchasing / leasing costs are partially included into the calculating. And obviously the 777 are at least for this airline more expensive than the 330. This however, isnt the aircraft either, but the contracts...

So, can we agree that both are great planes and that its neither Boeing nor Airbus but the airlines, which finally make the economics of a plane?

By the way, most likely that either CDG or AMS will see the 380 Big grin
 
A319XFW
Posts: 1519
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:41 am

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:05 am

Quoting Macc (Thread starter):
By the way, most likely that either CDG or AMS will see the 380

I should hope CDG will see the A380 seeing as AF have ordered 10 of them Big grin
 
macc
Topic Author
Posts: 928
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 8:11 pm

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:10 am

ok, one for you  Big grin

then they will probably see another one Big grin
 
YULWinterSkies
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:42 pm

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:27 am

Quoting Macc (Reply 2):
then they will probably see another one

Such as ... KE ? EK ? MH ?


Macc I understand you cannot tell such a thing but A.netters' favorite activity being speculation, I'm opening doors...

Quoting Macc (Thread starter):
So, can we agree that both are great planes and that its neither Boeing nor Airbus but the airlines, which finally make the economics of a plane?

i couldn't agree more with you, and it is the best thing to aviation to see the A330 (or A340) successfully operated side by side with the 777 inside one airline, in other words that (somehow) concurrent products can also complement each other... There is more than commonality!
 
macc
Topic Author
Posts: 928
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 8:11 pm

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:58 am

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 3):
Such as ... KE ? EK ? MH ?


Macc I understand you cannot tell such a thing but A.netters' favorite activity being speculation, I'm opening doors...

I am well aware, but without speculation this site would be dead Big grin
 
AA737-823
Posts: 5559
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2000 11:10 am

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Wed Apr 05, 2006 6:51 am

Quoting Macc (Thread starter):
So, can we agree that both are great planes and that its neither Boeing nor Airbus but the airlines, which finally make the economics of a plane?

Yes and no.
We can agree that they're both great planes (though I certainly have my preference!!  Smile ) but we cannot agree that the economics are only made up by the airlines. And, the information you've provided is somewhat vague. There's a difference between saying a Honda Civic is more economical than a Toyota Corolla VERSUS a 330 is more economical than a 777.

Airbus has never claimed that the 330 was more economical than a 777, to my knowledge. They have said it's more fuel efficient than a 767, which I believe is true in the cases they are referring to. But a 777 is a larger, more capable aircraft than a 330, and as a consequence, yeah, it burns more fuel. We've got 777-200 airframes doing 12000+ miles now- it takes a lot of structure to support the weight of the fuel and high thrust engines.

Anyhow, point is, yeah, they're both modern airplanes, and (while I have only flown on one of them, yet prefer the other one) they're pleasant to fly on, I think economics has to do with what the airplane was designed for, as well as how efficiently that design was carried out.

I hope that this entire thing I've written is unbiased and does not betray my preference for one manufacturer over the other.
 
tigerotor77w
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 11:35 am

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Wed Apr 05, 2006 9:41 am

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 5):
Airbus has never claimed that the 330 was more economical than a 777, to my knowledge.

They certainly do, in their A330 literature.

I don't have the literature with me now, but they do make the case that the A333 is far more economical to operate than the 777.

(And this post was also not meant to carry any bias.)
 
Jano
Posts: 760
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2004 1:48 am

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Wed Apr 05, 2006 10:53 am

I think this is a nice article comparing 330 and 777 takiking into account the typical mission flown by the airline....

copied form The Details Of NW's Selection Of The A330... (by XFSUgimpLB41X Jul 2 2001 in Civil Aviation)

retyped by XFSUgimpLB41X from

Perspective on NW's Recent Selection of the A330 of 777
By Tim Campbell, Managing Director- Performance Analysis

From On Course, Northwest Fligiht Operations Magazine May/June 2001

The January February issue of On Course contained an article by Capt. Jeff Carlson that outlined the details of Northwest's multibillion-dollar ivestment in new aircraft. A large component of this order includes 24 PW4168A-powered A330-300s. Numerous questions have arisen since the announcement of this order, specifically why the A330 was selected instead of the 777.

This article will address these questions by summarizing our assessment of the performance characteristics of the A330 relative to the 777 and how this onformation was used in the final evaluation of these two aircraft.

The competition between the 777 and A330 was for a new aircraft taht would replace our DC-10-30s on dedicated transatlantic missions.

Perhaps the most important performance-related aspect of this aircraft evaluation was finding the best match between aircraft payload-range capability and forcasted payload demand. We were seeking an aircraft that efficiently meets our projected requirements. As shown in the graphs, the A330 most optimally meets our payload requirements in the Atlantic. This payload capability, when coupleted with operating costs and projected market requirements (demand) for both passenger and cargo traffic, offers the highest earnings potential.

The match between capability and market requirements is important because it is inefficient to operate aicraft with excess capbality. Our evaluation clearly shows that the 777-200ER aircraft has significantly more payload-range capability than the A330-300.

The additional range capability could be helpful if the same aircraft were also flown across the Pacific. However this possible dual mission capability was determined to be impractical because Pacific aircraft require a much greater share of World Business Class seats than Atlantic aircraft. Furthermore, the Pratt powered 777-200ER could not fly many critical Pacific missions with full passenger load, and most missions required weight limits on cargo.

This is not necessarily apparent if one looks from the generic marketing material from Boeing because the range of the 777-200, evaluated with Northwest rules and interiors, is approximately 1,100 miles less than advertised.

The 777 can carry more seats than the A330 although the A330 already carries 29 more seats than our current DC-10-30s. The optimal 777-200 configuration we modeled had 27 more seats tahn the A330-300 (329-302) and 56 seats more than the DC-10-30 (329-273). However, these additional seats were economy seats taht typically would be filled with lower yielding passengers.

The 777 has the same empty weight for all available MTOW's (580,000-656,000 lbs). Northwest requires only the lowest weight for nearly all markets, roughly comparable to the A330. The net result to Northwest is that the 777 is more than 41,000 pounds heavier than the A330 yet provides minimal additional revenue capacity.

The heavier weight of the 777 translates directly into a fuel burn penalty. On a typical 3,500 nm mission, the A330 burns approximately 28% less fuel tahn a DC-10-30; accounting for its higher seating capacity, it burns 35% less on a per seat basis. The much heavier 777 burns approximately 16% more fuel than the A330 on a per trip basis, and 6% more on a per seat basis.

Questions have arisen about the cruise speed of the A330, largely due to issues surrounding the cruise speed of the A340. NW intends to operate the A330 at a cruise speed of Mach 0.82. This speed corresponds to the aircraft's LRC (long range cruise) Mach number for most gross weight/altitude combinations. While the published cruise speed of the A340 is Mach 0.82, our analysis substantiates the experience of line pilots taht certain operators fly slower to avoid excessive fuel burn. Airbus has implicitly recognized the cruise speed issue with the "first generation" A340's by redesigning the wing on the A340-500 and -600.

757/767 DC10-30 A330 777/747-200
Cruise speed .80 .82 .82 .84


As shown in the table, the A33's cruise speed is slower than the 777, but it is consisten with our DC-10-30 and faster than other aircraft operating accross the Atlantic. The cruise speed differences between the 777 and A330 equiates to a trip length difference of approximately 10 minutes on a typical Atlantic mission. It may be interesting to note that Northwest negotiated stringent, comprehensive contractual commitments from Airbus to ensure the A330 will meet our performance expectations both at the time of deliever and for several years thereafter. This is a requirement we make of airframe/engine manufacturers, including Boeing. The performance level of the new 757-300's has a similar level of protection. Our agreementwith Airbus also provides us with mission flexibility we could not achieve with Boeing. The Airbus agreement is structured to allow us to take delivery of other members of the A330 family if our requirements change over time. A shorter memeber of the A330 family, the A330-200, has 257 seats in the Northwest configuration. It has approximately 900 nm more range than the A330-300. This added flexibility to tailor capacity to market requirements not offered by the 777 since Boeing was unwilling to formally offer a smaller, lower priced version of the 777.

In summary, the excess capacity of the 777 leads to operating economics inferior to the A330. This situations is further degraded when the notably higher puchase price of the 777 is factored into the analysis. The marginal improvement in revenue the 777's size offers simply cannot overcome its increased operating and ownership costs. Our atlantic replacement decision does not mean that the 777 will be excluded from future aircraft competitions. The longer range version of hte 777-200 and 777-300 will be evaluated against the A340-500 and A340-600 when we begin the 747-200 replacement analysis.



Chart:


Atlantic Range requirements for NW

- The range capability of the A330 family is a better match for NW requirements than the 777-200ER
-Markets with capability to carry 302 pax, plus at least 20,000 lbs. cargo in both directions:

BOS-AMS, DTW-AMS, DTW-CDG, DTW-LGW, DTW-LHR, EWR-AWM, IAD-AMS, JFK-AMS, MSP-LGW, MSP-LHR
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6027
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:25 am

Quoting Jano (Reply 7):
I think this is a nice article comparing 330 and 777 takiking into account the typical mission flown by the airline....

Yes, and this article is old. It also does not reflect current...realities.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10194
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:03 pm

The NW effort in comparing the two planes is impressive, but it also shows the challenges that airlines face. They are making a 20 year decision (longer with the DC-9) and shortly thereafter the 787 hits the market, skewing all of their calculations.
 
macc
Topic Author
Posts: 928
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 8:11 pm

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Wed Apr 05, 2006 4:19 pm

Quoting N328KF (Reply 8):
Yes, and this article is old. It also does not reflect current...realities.

It does reflect the reality in assessments. Though needs may change, the process of evaluation will stay the same. Thanks for the article!

There is a place for all planes and for all of us ...  cloudnine 
 
Thorben
Posts: 2713
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 10:29 pm

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:24 pm

Quoting Jano (Reply 7):
This is not necessarily apparent if one looks from the generic marketing material from Boeing because the range of the 777-200, evaluated with Northwest rules and interiors, is approximately 1,100 miles less than advertised.

Ha.

Quoting Jano (Reply 7):
The much heavier 777 burns approximately 16% more fuel than the A330 on a per trip basis, and 6% more on a per seat basis.

And that with the T7 being "so fuel-efficient".

Quoting Jano (Reply 7):
The optimal 777-200 configuration we modeled had 27 more seats tahn the A330-300 (329-302) and 56 seats more than the DC-10-30 (329-273). However, these additional seats were economy seats taht typically would be filled with lower yielding passengers.

So much for the great cabin.

Quoting Jano (Reply 7):
The cruise speed differences between the 777 and A330 equiates to a trip length difference of approximately 10 minutes on a typical Atlantic mission.

10 minutes on an eight-hour journey? That's not much, I would say. Although, you can become a father in way less than ten minutes.

Quoting Jano (Reply 7):
The longer range version of hte 777-200 and 777-300 will be evaluated against the A340-500 and A340-600 when we begin the 747-200 replacement analysis.

There is the next surprise waitng for Boeing. NW seems to be able to evaluate airplanes the right way, same as LH and QR. When Boeing advertises the 772ER with 2,000 km more range than it really has, how exaggerated are their claims about the newer 777s?

Besides, all this talk about the 777 "outselling" the A340 seems to neglect that it also competes with the A330.
 
Aviator27
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:09 pm

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Wed Apr 05, 2006 6:00 pm

Wow that is a good article about why an airline would choose one airplane over the over. NW fully admitted the B777 was an awesome airplane, but it was more "airplane" than they needed. The A330 isn't really a direct competitor with the B777 in terms of size and payload (as oppose to how the A320 competes directly with the B737NG). The A330 is more of a direct competitor to the B767, which is why the B767 has long been dead.

Also the article gives good insights into manufacturers claims compared to actual airline configurations. I think this should give A-Nutters pause in their thoughts about believing "marketing claims" from either manufacturers.

As far as pilots calling the B777 more user friendly, that can be attributed to the conventional flight control systems of the airplane. The Airbus FBW system is unconventional and is more like the Space Shuttle. The inputs via the side-stick is evaluated by the flight control computers to see if it is within normal transport airplane parameters and then the flight controls respond. The Boeing FBW system is direct control yoke inputs equal direct flight control responses. Just complete different philosophy of flight control design. For pilots who learned to fly transport airplanes conventionally...then the B777 would be more user friendly to them.

Today, I suppose this would be my 100 liras contribution to A-NET.
 
Thorben
Posts: 2713
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 10:29 pm

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:50 pm

Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 12):
The A330 is more of a direct competitor to the B767, which is why the B767 has long been dead.

But the A330 is a size bigger than the 767.
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Wed Apr 05, 2006 9:30 pm

Quoting Thorben (Reply 11):
And that with the T7 being "so fuel-efficient".

The 772 is really meant to compete with the A343, since that is Airbus' long haul product in that seat range. The A333 is not a long haul product as it only has a 5,650 nm range. I think it made sense for NW to get the A330 family because they would have needed to buy the 767 and the 777 to do the job of the A332 and the A333. That seems like a waste when one aircraft family can do the job.

The 777 is a magnificent machine, but it is hard for it to be as fuel efficient with the same passenger load as an A332. That is called abusing an aircraft.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 11):
When Boeing advertises the 772ER with 2,000 km more range than it really has, how exaggerated are their claims about the newer 777s?

Airlines disagree with you
10:1 the 777 outsold the A340 last year.......numbers don't lie

Quoting Thorben (Reply 11):
Besides, all this talk about the 777 "outselling" the A340 seems to neglect that it also competes with the A330

It competes with the A333, if you are like NW and you don't need the 772 capacity all the time but rather A332 capacity, then you will order the A330 family.
 
Thorben
Posts: 2713
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 10:29 pm

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Wed Apr 05, 2006 10:21 pm

Quoting NorCal (Reply 15):
The A333 is not a long haul product as it only has a 5,650 nm range.

Or 10,170 km. What is that? A short-hop? How much range does the 772A have?

Quoting NorCal (Reply 15):
The 777 is a magnificent machine, but it is hard for it to be as fuel efficient with the same passenger load as an A332. That is called abusing an aircraft.

The A330 has a better fuel effieciency when both aircraft have the amount of seats that best fits to their size. Read it:

Quoting Jano (Reply 7):
The much heavier 777 burns approximately 16% more fuel than the A330 on a per trip basis, and 6% more on a per seat basis.



Quoting NorCal (Reply 15):
Airlines disagree with you
10:1 the 777 outsold the A340 last year.......numbers don't lie

Numbers don't lie?? If you only believe the numbers and can't see the facts behind them, then you can be fooled pretty easy. What was the alternative for EK? Why did AI go Boeing and why does the US have a nuclear agreement with India now? Besides, I say you have to include the A333, otherwise you're only craeting your own reality.
 
bmacleod
Posts: 2990
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Wed Apr 05, 2006 10:21 pm

If we're talking capacity here, the 332 belongs in the 763 category while the 333 can only fit in the limited production 764 area.

Really, it should be A340 vs 777 not A330 vs 777.
 
Thorben
Posts: 2713
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 10:29 pm

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Wed Apr 05, 2006 10:31 pm

Quoting Bmacleod (Reply 17):
If we're talking capacity here, the 332 belongs in the 763 category while the 333 can only fit in the limited production 764 area.

Really, it should be A340 vs 777 not A330 vs 777.

Except that the A343 and A333 have the same size.

The A332 and the 764 have around the same cabin length, but that of the Airbus is one seat wider. It can carry more passengers and have a higher payload.
 
krisyyz
Posts: 1313
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:04 pm

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Wed Apr 05, 2006 10:41 pm

I really think that the A330 and the B777 are two of the greatest modern commerical planes ever built. But its not fair to compare these two planes, both have they're weaknesses and strengths

I think the A330 is the ultimate medium range large capacity aircraft, its very efficient, comfortable and gives good performance when compared to its fuel burn.

The B777 is the best twin engine aircraft which fits into long and ultra long- haul operations. Its powerful, has great range and is one of the best designed planes ever.

KrisYYZ
 
macc
Topic Author
Posts: 928
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 8:11 pm

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:18 pm

hm. we should have a transatlantic user meeting with CNN Sports doing the coverage...



Go and play with other things, planes (and their figures) are not for kids!

 old 
 
pavlin
Posts: 391
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:34 am

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:37 pm

If you have fully loaded 777-300 with 550 pax it will beat fully loaden A330 with 330 pax in fuel effieciency. Something like 2,5 litter /pax/100km.
 
byronsterk
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 10:32 pm

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Thu Apr 06, 2006 1:40 am

Well i seriously doubt anyone will fully load the 773.... however somehow (really i don't know why) i think the a330 fuly loaded is better then a 773 fully loaded....
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Thu Apr 06, 2006 3:21 am

Quoting Tigerotor77W (Reply 6):
I don't have the literature with me now, but they do make the case that the A333 is far more economical to operate than the 777.

Of course they make that claim. At one point, Airbus claims A340 is more economical than 777 too. Literature.....

Quoting Jano (Reply 7):
the Pratt powered 777-200ER could not fly many critical Pacific missions with full passenger load, and most missions required weight limits on cargo.

Good old NW, they'll buy Pratt no matter what, even if it means inferior performance. It would kill them to buy GE90.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 11):

There is the next surprise waitng for Boeing. NW seems to be able to evaluate airplanes the right way, same as LH and QR. When Boeing advertises the 772ER with 2,000 km more range than it really has, how exaggerated are their claims about the newer 777s?

Maybe that's why they're bankrupt and have a fleet full of DC-9s? Where is your evidence Boeing advertises more range than actually exists?

777-200ER, from my understanding is slightly less economical than A333. It's designed to fly further, it has more structural weight to carry more fuel, payload, and larger more powerful engines. 777-300ER easily beats A333 in cost to fly. Also, if you read the original post, they found the A333 cheaper because the purchase price was included ...... Nice try. It's fair to compare 772ER to A343 - they both have the same range. More range means a heavier plane to support the added fuel and engines.
 
LukasMako
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 3:37 am

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Thu Apr 06, 2006 5:31 am

Quote:
777-300ER easily beats A333 in cost to fly. Also, if you read the original post, they found the A333 cheaper because the purchase price was included ...... Nice try. It's fair to compare 772ER to A343 - they both have the same range. More range means a heavier plane to support the added fuel and engines.

Thats pretty truth and keep in mind that the 777-200ER is more or less the basic model in the 777 line. So comparing the econoimcs of the streched A330-300X with the orginal sized 777-200 does not seems very fair. As Fly Dreamliners says the 777-300ER has better economics than the A330-300. It always the same: streched planes have better economics as they are lighter related to the payload they supposed to carry and shortened versions have worse economics as they get to heavy realated to the payload the supposed to carry.
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Thu Apr 06, 2006 5:41 am

I want to see hard data on the opperating cost differential, not including purchase price of 777-200ER and A330-300. Bear in mind, as a member of the A330/340 family, A330-300 is a stretch of the original A340-200 fuselage length and A330-200 fuselage length. I've heard numbers are comperable, between the two, though I'd believe if A330-300 is a couple percent cheaper, just by virtue of having inferior range capability. Also, is payload taken into considderation. CASM is a nice indicator, but airlines make money on cargo too, and I know for a fact 777 has a greater cargo capacity.
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Thu Apr 06, 2006 5:48 am

Quoting Thorben (Reply 15):
The A330 has a better fuel effieciency when both aircraft have the amount of seats that best fits to their size. Read it:

"The much heavier 777 burns approximately 16% more fuel than the A330 on a per trip basis, and 6% more on a per seat basis."

Yes Thorben, do please actually read it. "On a typical 3,500 nm mission, the A330 burns approximately 28% less fuel tahn a DC-10-30; accounting for its higher seating capacity, it burns 35% less on a per seat basis. The much heavier 777 burns approximately 16% more fuel than the A330 on a per trip basis, and 6% more on a per seat basis. "
 
Thorben
Posts: 2713
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 10:29 pm

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:37 pm

Quoting Khobar (Reply 25):
Yes Thorben, do please actually read it. "On a typical 3,500 nm mission, the A330 burns approximately 28% less fuel tahn a DC-10-30; accounting for its higher seating capacity, it burns 35% less on a per seat basis. The much heavier 777 burns approximately 16% more fuel than the A330 on a per trip basis, and 6% more on a per seat basis. "

I think it is better to compare typical missions than extreme scenarios. Boeing with its comparison of the 773ER and the A346 forgot to add: "under this and this and this and this and this and this condition". If you compare normal missions, things look a lot different.
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:47 pm

I think ultimately I agree with NW's choice. They will only every fly the A333's transatlantic - they don't need 777's range. They have no huge demand for the added space, and clearly they don't need its added cargo. Also, they wanted PW engines, and the PW4000s, in my opinion, as well as statistically, are not the best engines on the 777. If they wanted the versatility to serve transpacific routes, the 777 is vastly superior.

They bought the A333 because it fit a very specific niche. NW is cash strapped, the A333 was cheaper, and for them, did everything a 777 would have done - only for less money.

That said, given the range difference, A333 to 772ER is apples to oranges. A343 vs 772ER is fair.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6027
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:56 pm

Quoting Thorben (Reply 26):
I think it is better to compare typical missions than extreme scenarios. Boeing with its comparison of the 773ER and the A346 forgot to add: "under this and this and this and this and this and this condition". If you compare normal missions, things look a lot different.

Oh yeah? Give me one A346 mission that could not be handled better by the 773ER, even with ETOPS restrictions.
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Thu Apr 06, 2006 3:00 pm

Quoting N328KF (Reply 28):
Quoting Thorben (Reply 26):
I think it is better to compare typical missions than extreme scenarios. Boeing with its comparison of the 773ER and the A346 forgot to add: "under this and this and this and this and this and this condition". If you compare normal missions, things look a lot different.

I think you're the only one who knows this, apparently they airlines who fly and buy these aircraft must no know, because for their missions, they're buying 777....
 
qantas787
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:59 pm

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Thu Apr 06, 2006 3:16 pm

just joined a-net although have been following for awhile. our family travels alot on business and pleasure and having just come back from multileg world trip swapping from 330s to 777s i can add to this forum that purely from passenger perspective 777 is in a class above everything. the 60 pax on ba777 lhr-pek was very roomy!
 
LukasMako
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 3:37 am

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Thu Apr 06, 2006 4:11 pm

Quote:
The additional range capability could be helpful if the same aircraft were also flown across the Pacific. However this possible dual mission capability was determined to be impractical because Pacific aircraft require a much greater share of World Business Class seats than Atlantic aircraft. Furthermore, the Pratt powered 777-200ER could not fly many critical Pacific missions with full passenger load, and most missions required weight limits on cargo.

Well,
Then how is it possible that UA uses their 777-200non-ER on Transatlantic flights and their 777-200ER on Asian and Australian flights without any problems. They are all PW4000 powered.

Quote:
Oh yeah? Give me one A346 mission that could not be handled better by the 773ER, even with ETOPS restrictions.

There is non. The 777-300ER ist lighter, has higher payload, more pax, better performance and because it is a twin it has to be more economic in terms of fuel burn.

[Edited 2006-04-06 09:23:16]

[Edited 2006-04-06 09:29:05]
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:02 pm

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 27):
and I know for a fact 777 has a greater cargo capacity

Ohh dear, you appear to have lied.

Try again.
 
Aviator27
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:09 pm

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:12 pm

There us a stupid idea going around on A-NET that a twin is more fuel efficient than a quad engine airplane. ALL things being equal, given the same airplane and weight, four engines have a better thrust specific fuel consumption than two engines.

To break it down for all you 15 year old aircraft engineers and airline operations executives. Four engines is more fuel efficient than two engines. Period.

That being said, the B777 and A340 aren't the same airplanes. They have different weights and are different sizes. So its like compare apples and oranges.

This is fact. Period. If you're confused, go take a class on aerodynamics.
 
tigerotor77w
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 11:35 am

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:23 pm

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 24):
A330-300 is a stretch of the original A340-200 fuselage length and A330-200 fuselage length.

The A333 and A342 were introduced first, with the A332 coming afterwards.

I'm not sure which airframe whether the family was designed around, however.

Edit: If you meant that the A332 and A342 have the same length, and were just pointing that out, my apologies. I misinterpreted your statement if that's the case.

[Edited 2006-04-06 14:25:02]
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27683
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:53 pm

Quoting Thorben (Reply 26):
think it is better to compare typical missions than extreme scenarios. Boeing with its comparison of the 773ER and the A346 forgot to add: "under this and this and this and this and this and this condition". If you compare normal missions, things look a lot different.

Yes, but it depends on the mission you are comparing, doesn't it? NW's comparison was for a sub-4000nm trans-Atlantic run with a greater Economy to Business ratio. And even there, the 777 carried more folks, but NW felt that the fares they could get for those seats was too low. So flying less seats allows them to raise fares (demand vs. capacity).

NW notes that if the mission profile was 5000nm+ trans-Pacific with more Business Class seating, the 777 was better for them then the A333 because of the extra range and cabin floor area. But since they have the A332 and the 744, they have more flexability for those routes, which they didn't have for Atlantic, as the A332 is too small and the 744 is way too big.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 32):
Ohh dear, you appear to have lied (about the 777's greater cargo capability).

Per Widebodyphotog:

772ER Max Payload: 135,000lbs
A333 Max Payload: 49,000lbs

772ER Max Payload with Max Fuel: 112,000lbs
A333 Max Payload with Max Fuel: 66,000lbs

So the 772ER has a greater maximum payload, but since the 777 can carry more fuel (which eats into payload), at max range, the A333 can carry more stuff (though not as far as the 777). The unknown is how much payload a 777 can carry at an A333's max stage length, but I'd imagine the A333 still has the advantage, though probably only by a few thousand pounds.
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Thu Apr 06, 2006 10:03 pm

Whoever said anything about payload?  Wink
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3928
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Thu Apr 06, 2006 10:07 pm

Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 33):
ALL things being equal, given the same airplane and weight, four engines have a better thrust specific fuel consumption than two engines.

Engine TSFC is not dependent on the number of engines used on an airplane. Your statement above is not correct.

Please explain in more detail the point you are trying to make.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27683
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Thu Apr 06, 2006 10:10 pm

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 36):
Whoever said anything about payload?

Well you did refer to cargo capability, and cargo is payload.  Wink

That being said, the charts I have do not show the actual underfloor cargo capacity by cubic volume, though I am sure Widebodyphotog does have that information.  Smile
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16358
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Thu Apr 06, 2006 10:29 pm

According to this thread Operational Cost's Of Various Airliners (by Worldjet777 Dec 29 2005 in Tech Ops)

Its has some interesting data on various models operated in the USA

The data is based on US carriers Form 41 reports, the costs listed below are the average across all US carriers.

Cost per Block hour / Lease rental capital cost per month/Gal of fuel per hour/Seats
762 $4,132/$158,798/1,408/180
763 $4,901/$321,000/1,568/216
772 $6,331/$366,543/2,159/257
333 $4,891/$243,357/1,871/271

The above divided by the number of seats

762/$22.95/$882/7.82
763/$22.68/$1486/7.25
772/$24.63/$1426/8.40
333/$18.04/$897/6.90

The 333 does come out well compared to the 767/777
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:55 pm

Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 33):
There us a stupid idea going around on A-NET that a twin is more fuel efficient than a quad engine airplane. ALL things being equal, given the same airplane and weight, four engines have a better thrust specific fuel consumption than two engines.

So if you replace two GE90-115's on a 777-300ER with a quartet of PW JT9D-7's it going to give the aircraft better range performance??


Stupid ideas notwithstanding, all things are not equal and the reality it that among competing aircraft that currently exist twins burn less fuel on a payload/range specific basis than do four engined aircraft because they are lighter, in some cases much lighter...

Who cares about thrust specifc fuel consumption anyway? I don't ever recall a viewing presentation from Airbus or Boeing touting the TSFC of their aircraft regardless of the number of engines. The fact is that twins are generally lighter therefore they need less thrust for takeoff climb and cruise so if on a TSFC basis it would not matter if the specific burn is higher the total thrust requirement is less.

I may have some idea of where you're coming from but you've used it in a misguided sort of way. It has nothing to do with aerodynamics or the thermodynamics of turbomachinery, but more to do with the current and past engines that have been available and the aircraft types they are used on...

But I'm interested in a further explanation of your statements



-widebodyphotog
 
trex8
Posts: 5700
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:17 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 39):
762/$22.95/$882/7.82
763/$22.68/$1486/7.25
772/$24.63/$1426/8.40
333/$18.04/$897/6.90

The 333 does come out well compared to the 767/777

absolute heresy Zeke!! you will be burned at the stake, as surely as the sun will rise in the morning there is no way an Airbus product could beat a non Airbus product. those numbers undoubtedly include an operating subsidy Airbus gives to NW and US! Big grin
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6027
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:30 am

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 41):
absolute heresy Zeke!! you will be burned at the stake, as surely as the sun will rise in the morning there is no way an Airbus product could beat a non Airbus product. those numbers undoubtedly include an operating subsidy Airbus gives to NW and US!

Well, more properly, it reflects the fact that the A333 is not intended to cover the same sort of distances as the 772/772ER.
 
trex8
Posts: 5700
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:37 am

the 777 is obviously heavier which won't help its numbers but on a per flight hour basis for cost or fuel consumption per seat I'm amazed the differences are that large, It doesn't help that all the American 777 operators use a pretty low seating density while the A330 operators use seating more in line with many other non US carriers. That won't help the numbers for the 777 either. It would be nice to have such figures for the fleets worldwide or even better those who use both types.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6027
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:40 am

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 43):
the 777 is obviously heavier which won't help its numbers but on a per flight hour basis for cost or fuel consumption per seat I'm amazed the differences are that large, It doesn't help that all the American 777 operators use a pretty low seating density while the A330 operators use seating more in line with many other non US carriers. That won't help the numbers for the 777 either. It would be nice to have such figures for the fleets worldwide or even better those who use both types.

This just reflects the disparity of use between the two types. The 777 is used on longer trips, where it has a lower seat-mile cost as compared to the A330. Longer trips mean more comfort, hence lower density.
 
CptGermany
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:50 am

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:45 am

Quoting LukasMako (Reply 23):
keep in mind that the 777-200ER is more or less the basic model in the 777 line

A little correction: the 777-200A is the basic model of the 777 line. For the A330 line, that would be the -200. IMO, the A330 is closer to the B767 than the B777, but still not a perfect match.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 26):
I think it is better to compare typical missions than extreme scenarios.

 checkmark 

I believe that each aircraft has one specific mission on which it operates at unbeatable economics. That counts for all commercial aircraft which are currently in production. So, ideally from a mission point of view, an airline should operate as many aircraft types as possible. However, that is usually not the case because of costs related to operating a large number of different types.

All aircraft in production are great products. It is up to the airline and their typical mission profile to choose which aircraft serves them best. NW went for the A330. EK said that they will keep the A345 along with the B777LR because both aircraft fulfill their repsective mission better: A345 for the not-so-long ULR routes (upto 16 hrs) and B777LR for the very-long ULR routes (upto 20hrs).
 
trex8
Posts: 5700
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:47 am

thats true but I'd wager given UAs use of 777s on transcontinental flights domestically that the average stage length for their whole 777 fleet will be close to that of NW and USs almost exclusively transatlantic/pacific A330 operations.(do NW use A333 on any transpac or only A332?)
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:55 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 42):
Well, more properly, it reflects the fact that the A333 is not intended to cover the same sort of distances as the 772/772ER.

At least relative to the 777-200ER which is which is what aircraft those numbers are representative of. It's kind of an oranges to tangerines comparison. However the 777-200A operating segments for the US carriers are much shorter in comparison to the A330 examples so that's kind of a peaches to nectarines comparison if you will, but the fuel burns are lower, seat numbers are higher and capital costs about the same as the heavier 777-200ER.

But the raw information does not tell the complete story of why the 777-200 has proliferated so in the market surveyed, operating over a wide range of stage lengths. The answer is that the 777-200 is a more versitile airframe that can be used over a wider range of missions than can the A330. Even though when comared over a narrow range of operation the A330 looks better in some respects, it's legs only stretch so far. Beyond that the A340 must become a part of the analysis. To cover the spectrum of missions that the 777-200 can perform, the Airbus operating equivalent requires both the A330 and A340.



-widebodyphotog
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16358
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:58 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 42):
Well, more properly, it reflects the fact that the A333 is not intended to cover the same sort of distances as the 772/772ER.



Quoting N328KF (Reply 44):
This just reflects the disparity of use between the two types. The 777 is used on longer trips, where it has a lower seat-mile cost as compared to the A330. Longer trips mean more comfort, hence lower density.



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 46):
thats true but I'd wager given UAs use of 777s on transcontinental flights domestically that the average stage length for their whole 777 fleet will be close to that of NW and USs almost exclusively transatlantic/pacific A330 operations.(do NW use A333 on any transpac or only A332?)

The average stage length across the entire US 772 fleet was 3,812 nm for the 333 fleet 3,662 nm, 150 nm stage length does not explain the differance.

Next excuse  stirthepot 
 
kappel
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:48 pm

RE: A Contribution To 330 Vs 777

Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:00 am

Quoting CptGermany (Reply 45):
For the A330 line, that would be the -200

Well, the -300 came first, and Airbus than shrank it to the -200.
The a333 is IMHO only comparable to the 772 for medium range missions. It doesn't matter if your talking about the 772ER or 772A, for medium range missions the a333 will burn less fuel.

Oh, and weight isn't everything. The a343 is for example lighter than the 772, but still less economic. a343E OEW=287,000lb (max payload about 320,000lb)and the 772ER OEW=314,000 with GE90's (fyi 309,700 with Trents). (max payload about 342,000lb for the 656,000lb version)So I guess those CFM's must burn a whole lot of fuel compared to the 772 engines.

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