Regarding 787 Fuel Burn Claims...

DfwRevolution · Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:25 am

Soon after the 7E7 was revealed, Boeing made the famous claim that the new aircraft would burn 20% less fuel than its competitors. This led to subsequent discussions of whether Boeing meant the 787-8 would burn 20% less than the slightly-larger A330-200 or the slightly-smaller 767-300ER. I'm sure this was discussed at the time, but the topic has returned lately, and I came across the following:

Quote:
The 7E7 will have about 17 percent less fuel burn per passenger seat than the 767-300 and about 20 percent less than the A330-200, Gillette said.

There you have it. That was the claim Boeing made in 2003 more than a year before the aircraft was launched. Since the 787-8 grew slightly from the base 7E7 variant, I would strongly suspect that these expectations were maintained.

BTW, very interesting read for all:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/111188_newplane06.shtml

mrcomet · Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:03 am

What is interesting was the article was done in 2003 but the 7E7/787 schedule hasn't slipped at all four years later.

Stitch · Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:12 am

The last thing I read from Boeing was that the 20% was versus the 767-300ER. I think it was in one of Randy's recent blogs.

I could see the 787 burning less fuel then an A332 then a 763ER since the A332 is larger then a 763ER, I suppose...

kc135topboom · Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:32 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
The last thing I read from Boeing was that the 20% was versus the 767-300ER. I think it was in one of Randy's recent blogs.

I could see the 787 burning less fuel then an A332 then a 763ER since the A332 is larger then a 763ER, I suppose...

That is true. Also the A-330-200 has a slightly higher gross weight over the B-767-300ER, using essentially the same engines. So, the B-767 should burn slightly less fuel per hour than the A-330. IIRC, the A-330-200 does have longer legs than the B-767-300ER.

Randy has said the B-787-800 will burn 20% less than the B-767-300ER, so it is reasonable to assume it will burn 22%-25% less than the A-330-200.

BrianDromey · Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:36 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
Randy has said the B-787-800 will burn 20% less than the B-767-300ER, so it is reasonable to assume it will burn 22%-25% less than the A-330-200.

The ting here, being that the A330-200 can also seat more passengers than the 767-300ER. Apparently the 332 has a lower CASM than the 763. And much lower than the L1011/DC10 it was designed to replace.

Brian.

Tugger · Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:41 am

There can be many semantics involved here:
Fuel burn per aircraft (which type compared to which type)
Fuel burn per passenger for like sized aircraft (how many, which size)
Fuel burn per mission (which route, what LF)

I am sure there are more but it has been a key point of contention between a lot of people in this forum. I am sure it will be so again.

Just wait till they they add the solar panels on the wings THEN we see some REAL fuel efficiency.......

Tug

dank · Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:46 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
Randy has said the B-787-800 will burn 20% less than the B-767-300ER, so it is reasonable to assume it will burn 22%-25% less than the A-330-200.

What about per seat? That's what the Gillette quote states.

cheers.

worldtraveler · Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:52 am

quoted directly from the article cited above

"The 7E7 will have about 17 percent less fuel burn per passenger seat than the 767-300 and about 20 percent less than the A330-200, Gillette said."

dank · Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:03 am

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 7):
quoted directly from the article cited above

"The 7E7 will have about 17 percent less fuel burn per passenger seat than the 767-300 and about 20 percent less than the A330-200, Gillette said."

The question is, if the following is true, based on fuel burn per seat, the above statement may not be true (i.e., it would look like the 788 should have less of a performance edge against the 332 than the 763 per seat.)

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
That is true. Also the A-330-200 has a slightly higher gross weight over the B-767-300ER, using essentially the same engines. So, the B-767 should burn slightly less fuel per hour than the A-330. IIRC, the A-330-200 does have longer legs than the B-767-300ER.

Randy has said the B-787-800 will burn 20% less than the B-767-300ER, so it is reasonable to assume it will burn 22%-25% less than the A-330-200.

cheers.

kc135topboom · Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:09 am

Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 4):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
Randy has said the B-787-800 will burn 20% less than the B-767-300ER, so it is reasonable to assume it will burn 22%-25% less than the A-330-200.

The ting here, being that the A330-200 can also seat more passengers than the 767-300ER. Apparently the 332 has a lower CASM than the 763. And much lower than the L1011/DC10 it was designed to replace.

Quoting Dank (Reply 6):
What about per seat? That's what the Gillette quote states.

Yes, both the B-767 and A-330 were designed to replace the DC-10s and L-1011s, as well as the A-300-B2/4s.

CASM is only an interesting number that really only has importance when the load factor is 100%. How many pounds/kilos burned per hour of flight time is how the airplane is loaded with fuel (distance, required reserves, weight, weather, and winds aloft also play in here).

For example, if an A-330-200 flying from FRA to DFW takes 11 hours to fly that mission, and the average fuel burn is 22,000lbs per hour, plus two additional hours of fuel for diversion or weather hold, the airline will load 260,000lbs of fuel. If it takes 1,000lbs of fuel to fly each seat (and pax) on the same mission, and the airplane is configuered for 250 seats, that is only 250,000lbs of fuel.

So, CASM/PASM does not take into account other required fuel for weather, diversion, island holding, etc.

AADC10 · Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:27 am

The 17% claim was probably based on 8 abreast seating, which was expected to be the standard configuration when the 7E7 was announced. However, most airlines (at least 2/3rds of the orders) actually ordered 9 abreast seating which could account for the push to 20% per seat over the 767 that Randy mentioned. Damn airlines. 17% was not enough for them.

I have read the fuel burn per seat on the 787 in 9 abreast supposed to be about the same as the 744 and higher than the 9 abreast 777 and the standard configuration A380. Does anyone know if that is correct?

DfwRevolution · Thu Apr 19, 2007 12:31 pm

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 10):
I have read the fuel burn per seat on the 787 in 9 abreast supposed to be about the same as the 744 and higher than the 9 abreast 777 and the standard configuration A380. Does anyone know if that is correct?

The 787-8 with 8-abreast seating would have likely had CASM lower than the 777 and 744 and 9-abreast would only magnify that advantage. And while the 787-8 won't trump the A380 in CASM, there is a very very good chance that the 787-10 will do just that.

Quoting MrComet (Reply 1):
What is interesting was the article was done in 2003 but the 7E7/787 schedule hasn't slipped at all four years later.

It's friggin incredible when you think about it. Boeing estimated a Q3 2007 first flight and mid-2008 EIS more than 9 months before the board authorized the 787 for sale and more than 12 months before industrial launch took place, yet they are still on course to nail that target four years later.

MD-90 · Thu Apr 19, 2007 12:38 pm

Quoting MrComet (Reply 1):
What is interesting was the article was done in 2003 but the 7E7/787 schedule hasn't slipped at all four years later.

Amazing.

Curmudgeon · Thu Apr 19, 2007 1:14 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
CASM is only an interesting number that really only has importance when the load factor is 100%

Actually, this is true, or nearly so. CASM only paints a relative picture of an airplane's efficiency over routes that it is capable of flying. If the demand or price on the route is too low, the lowest CASM in the world won't make a profit.

An old rule of thumb on any route was that 80ish % was the maximum sustainable load factor before a bigger airplane or more frequency was required. (because over 80% meant that you were turning away as many customers as you accommodated, given uneven demand)

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
For example, if an A-330-200 flying from FRA to DFW takes 11 hours to fly that mission, and the average fuel burn is 22,000lbs per hour, plus two additional hours of fuel for diversion or weather hold, the airline will load 260,000lbs of fuel. If it takes 1,000lbs of fuel to fly each seat (and pax) on the same mission, and the airplane is configuered for 250 seats, that is only 250,000lbs of fuel.

So, CASM/PASM does not take into account other required fuel for weather, diversion, island holding, etc.

I think I know where you are going here, but you aren't comparing the same airplane, are you? ( Because that logic dictates that you could fly a single seat A330 to Europe for 1000 lbs.)

Maybe it does, since CASM is more useful as a relative measure than an absolute, and those factors affect every airplane the same.

I think that it was understood that the comparison was of fuel burned per seat per mile. Anything else is meaningless.

mrcomet · Thu Apr 19, 2007 1:53 pm

There is a nice analysis here. The conclusion is that the 787 is more efficient in almost every range but the finance cost trumps all. Thus bring on new 787s, airlines won't see a significant savings until they pay for the planes.

http://www.aircraft-commerce.com/sto...Fleet%20Planning,%20Sample%201.pdf

Curmudgeon · Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:23 pm

Quoting MrComet (Reply 14):
There is a nice analysis here. The conclusion is that the 787 is more efficient in almost every range but the finance cost trumps all. Thus bring on new 787s, airlines won't see a significant savings until they pay for the planes.

This article is over two years old, and the numbers for fuel costs, salaries, and other estimates look quaint already. The fuel cost spike alone skews the data heavily in favor of the new airplane and negates the effect of finance charges. (Also, without dwelling too much on the point, the A350 mentioned in the study has been replaced by a later iteration or two.)

keesje · Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:31 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Thread starter):
Quote:
The 7E7 will have about 17 percent less fuel burn per passenger seat than the 767-300 and about 20 percent less than the A330-200, Gillette said.

Wath about range, cargo capasity & maintenance costs? smart selection of variables again.

Apart from that IMO we should avoid the CASM comparisions, to much room for creativity..

Curmudgeon · Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:58 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 16):
Wath about range, cargo capasity & maintenance costs?

Best not go there, either. Or delivery dates, for that matter.

art · Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:35 pm

Quoting Tugger (Reply 5):
Just wait till they they add the solar panels on the wings THEN we see some REAL fuel efficiency.......

I'm not so sure that 787 solar panels would burn any less fuel than 767/A330 solar panels. Smile

Curmudgeon · Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:42 pm

Quoting Art (Reply 18):
I'm not so sure that 787 solar panels would burn any less fuel than 767/A330 solar panels.

How about the wind turbine? Will that be better than the 767 version? Wink

Revelation · Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:03 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
CASM is only an interesting number that really only has importance when the load factor is 100%. How many pounds/kilos burned per hour of flight time is how the airplane is loaded with fuel (distance, required reserves, weight, weather, and winds aloft also play in here).

Yes, and I don't use the miles per gallon rating issued by the US EPA to compute my weekly fuel budget, but I do use it when I'm looking at new cars to buy. CASM isn't a great metric (it's less well specified that EPA MPG) but there doesn't seem to be a better metric available.

DfwRevolution · Fri Apr 20, 2007 12:49 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 16):
Wath about range, cargo capasity & maintenance costs?

What about them? That's a totally different topic. The question has often been raised: does Boeing's "20% claim" relate to the A330 or the 767. Straight out of the horses mouth, the 20% per seat target is in comparison to the A330-200.

N1120A · Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:07 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
IIRC, the A-330-200 does have longer legs than the B-767-300ER.

Yes, because it has a higher MTOW and carries more fuel.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
Also the A-330-200 has a slightly higher gross weight over the B-767-300ER, using essentially the same engines.

Slightly? The A332 is a full aircraft size larger than the 763ER. The direct competitor of the A332 is, and has been since it came out, the 767-400ER. The 764ER's CASM is lower than that of the A332 within its range band. The main issue with the aircraft is that its range is more than 1000nm shorter.

Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 4):
The ting here, being that the A330-200 can also seat more passengers than the 767-300ER. Apparently the 332 has a lower CASM than the 763.

Of course it does, it is a significantly larger aircraft. The 764ER, which is the same size as the A332, has a lower CASM.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
CASM is only an interesting number that really only has importance when the load factor is 100%.

Not really. CASM is an interesting number at any level of load factor. 80% in a 772 still costs more per seat than 80% in a 744. CASM takes a back seat when you can't fill an equivilant load factor in the larger aircraft with the higher trip costs.

Poitin · Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:22 am

Quoting Curmudgeon (Reply 13):
Actually, this is true, or nearly so. CASM only paints a relative picture of an airplane's efficiency over routes that it is capable of flying. If the demand or price on the route is too low, the lowest CASM in the world won't make a profit.

An old rule of thumb on any route was that 80ish % was the maximum sustainable load factor before a bigger airplane or more frequency was required. (because over 80% meant that you were turning away as many customers as you accommodated, given uneven demand)

Well, yes and no. True, both CASM and RASM are based on all the seats filled. Yield, the only important number, is based on the actual cost of the flight (there is a slight difference in fuel burn if the aircraft is lighter) and actual revenues for that flight (how many paying customers, what discounts, what secondary sales such as seat selection, baggage checking, etc). However, taking both CASM and RASM and scaling both according to the average load factor gives a rough idea what the yield will be.

You can also take the cost and revenue numbers of an airline from their financial reports and get a good idea of what their break-even load factor is. I have done this a year ago with both EI and FR and found FR had a break-even load factor of about 60% while EI was closer to 75%. These numbers are no longer valid as there have been very substantial changes to fuel costs as well as secondary charges such as baggage fees. But if you have the annual reports, you can get a rough idea..

As for the 80% rule, it would be far better to increase frequency as the flying public is more likely to pay more for a flight scheduled when they want to go than not. And if you see a drop in volume, you can reduce the frequency. This of course assumes that the smaller aircraft has a CASM similar to the large one, much as the 787 and 350 are about the same CASM as the 380 and 748, and better than the 777,

The economics of airline travel are very complex, and ever changing. Glad I don't own airline stock.

widebodyphotog · Fri Apr 20, 2007 2:46 am

The fact is that the older aircraft in this segment are supremely outclassed by the promise of 787 performance. It's not even close. To top everything off the 787 has a lower list price than the old generation aircraft of similar size. To my mind it's not even a debate as carriers are not adding 767-300ER's and A330-200's to their fleets instead of ordering new Dreamliners. The clear choice of operators with need of airplanes in this size range has been the 787 hands down...

In any case here is some current info to chew on more or less along the lines of what Mr Walt determined four years ago...

787-8/9 vs 767-300ER And A330-200

-widebodyphotog

Stitch · Fri Apr 20, 2007 2:49 am

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 24):
In any case here is some current info to chew on more or less along the lines of what Mr Walt determined four years ago...

Thank you!

BoomBoom · Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:11 am

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 24):
In any case here is some current info to chew on more or less along the lines of what Mr Walt determined four years ago...

787-8/9 vs 767-300ER And A330-200

A'm I the only one who cannot read this table?
The GIF opens but the type is so small and broken up that it's unreadable.

Stitch · Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:13 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 26):
The GIF opens but the type is so small and broken up that it's unreadable.

In IE, put your mouse over it and look for the icon in the lower right corner that will expand it.

In FF, put your mouse over it and it should change to a magnifying glass icon. Click it and it will expand.

BoomBoom · Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:23 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 27):
In FF, put your mouse over it and it should change to a magnifying glass icon. Click it and it will expand.

Ahhh....thanks!

WingedMigrator · Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:55 am

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 24):
In any case here is some current info to chew on

Those particular numbers indicate that the 787-8 will have about 24 percent less fuel burn per passenger seat than the 767-300ER and about 11 percent less than the A330-200. (Take burn-off fuel, divide by pax and mission distance)

Quoting DfwRevolution (Thread starter):
The 7E7 will have about 17 percent less fuel burn per passenger seat than the 767-300 and about 20 percent less than the A330-200, Gillette said.

Not quite the same story, is it... Anyone care to interpret?

Stitch · Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:59 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 29):
Not quite the same story, is it... Anyone care to interpret?

The original 7E7 was smaller then what became the 787. Also, like Airbus' current claims for the A350XWB vs. the 777, they were "design goals". Once they actually firmed the plane and "ran the numbers" with real numbers, things panned out the way they did. Just as Boeing's latest range numbers are lower then the original goals.

And later Airbus presentations now show the range of one of the A350XWB models (the -900 or -1000) is now 8200nm instead of the original 8500nm and that may shrink more as the design is firmed up.

Lemurs · Fri Apr 20, 2007 4:04 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 30):
Once they actually firmed the plane and "ran the numbers" with real numbers, things panned out the way they did. Just as Boeing's latest range numbers are lower then the original goals.

One thing to factor in here is the change in how airlines plan to operate the airframe. The majority of carriers who have announced their floor plans are going with 3-3-3, which changes these equations for the 787-8 and 787-9 around fairly dramatically, both in terms of range, cargo, and cost per seat mile...

Widebodyphotog, do you have tables that show 3-3-3 numbers in the back cabin for the 787?

SANChaser · Fri Apr 20, 2007 4:27 am

Great succinct chart - widebodyphotog !
(have looked for one like this for some time)

I guess, its easy to see why A was going for the A350 v.1 as a warmed-over A330. The MZFW difference between the 789 and the A332 is a measly 1056 lbs (333,556 vs 332,500) - same distance, almost the same # of people, and burning 3549 gallons more of gas. They thought they could counter the 787 family with new engines only.. Silly

So, in a 3-3-3 Y how do these numbers change for the 789?

widebodyphotog · Fri Apr 20, 2007 5:33 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 29):
Those particular numbers indicate that the 787-8 will have about 24 percent less fuel burn per passenger seat than the 767-300ER and about 11 percent less than the A330-200. (Take burn-off fuel, divide by pax and mission distance)

787-8 is not the airplane to be compared to the A330-200 in eight abreast economy cabin seating...787-9 will have ~19% better burn per seat than the slightly smaller A330-200 in a medium density eight abreast configuration. However if you want to do the comparison 787-8 to A330-200 with the former at 9 abreast at same payload and range, the numbers come out much different than your 11% conclusion...787-8 vs A330-200 payload for payload seat for seat, mile for mile, is not even a respectable contest...

787-8 Vs A330-200

-widebodyphotog

[Edited 2007-04-19 23:04:26]

widebodyphotog · Fri Apr 20, 2007 5:59 am

Quoting Lemurs (Reply 31):
Widebodyphotog, do you have tables that show 3-3-3 numbers in the back cabin for the 787?

For this particular analysis basically the abreast seating is irrelevant as each aircraft is carrying payload in excess of the passenger load to some substantial degree. In the case of adding seats to the analysis you'd have to add something like 40 or more seats and passengers before you'd run out of ACL and have to start adding more fuel to make the mission distance...

The point of doing this was to illustrate generic examples at near commercial payloads over somewhat practical flight distances. The two older generation aircraft are at highest allowable ZFW to still have enough fuel for the distance and the two 787's are at equal payload to them respectively. What this shows is that not only is the 787 much more fuel efficient, not to mention dramatically faster, but that over the specified distances there is still vast headroom in the airplane performance to carry more payload be it passengers or cargo, or fly much longer distances.

To my mind it's there is nothing real that compares to the promised performance of the 787-8/9, it's just so much better all around than anything in it's size class that is flying today.

-widebodyphotog

Corrected link for my previous post: 787-8 Vs A330-200

[Edited 2007-04-19 23:09:17]

Rj111 · Fri Apr 20, 2007 6:10 am

Are the cabin lengths for the various aircraft available yet?

dank · Fri Apr 20, 2007 6:36 am

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 34):
To my mind it's there is nothing real that compares to the promised performance of the 787-8/9, it's just so much better all around than anything in it's size class that is flying today.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. I think the question that is coming up is that Boeing claims that the fuel burn per passenger is better on the 763ER than the 332, whereas the numbers that wingedmigrator pull out shows that the 332 is better than the 763ER. Although, the question of how much better is the 787 than the current range of planes is really hard to get a handle on since it would be mission specific (since each plane can't do the same missions as the others; different capacities, ranges, etc.). And of course each manufacturer will take the numbers that make their plane look the best vs. the competition.

cheers.

sunrisevalley · Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:55 am

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 35):
Are the cabin lengths for the various aircraft available yet?

Go to http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/787.html and look through the Airport compatability brochure.

WingedMigrator · Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:50 am

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 33):

I can't disagree with anything you've said.

I am (only slightly) suspicious of the engine SFC figures you have previously used for the 787. Too bad Boeing won't reveal an actual payload range curve... section 3 of the ACAP document is perpetually "under revision".

The curious thing is that Gillette incidentally claimed that the A332 burned 3% more per seat than the 763ER, when your figures indicate it burns 15% less per seat. Given the quality of your information, I'll take that as additional evidence that you can never trust whatever one manufacturer says about the other's product.

(by the way, your conversion from nautical miles to km is ever so slightly off...)

XT6Wagon · Fri Apr 20, 2007 4:23 pm

Its always been my understanding that in comparable situations the 767 IS more fuel efficient than the A330. What the 767 lacked that made many acquire the A330 instead is the revenue from underfloor cargo. So while they spend more to fly the same load places, they can pile on alot more income to more than offset the cost.

In the freighter market the 767 is astounding in its efficiency. The % of MTOW that is payload compared to the A330F which isn't even flying yet... is higher. The A330F of course has more total payload, and the possibility of flying longer routes with the same payload, but it remains the 767 is still the king of low ton-mile costs in that size class.

baroque · Fri Apr 20, 2007 4:48 pm

Quoting Poitin (Reply 23):
The economics of airline travel are very complex, and ever changing. Glad I don't own airline stock.

Come to Aus, invest in Qantas, and that nice Mr Mansfield will take your shares from you - no bother at all!!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 27):
In IE, put your mouse over it and look for the icon in the lower right corner that will expand it.

In FF, put your mouse over it and it should change to a magnifying glass icon. Click it and it will expand.

Boomboom, as the comedians might say. It is little exchanges like that one that give me heart in this mysterious world of computers!

In all this discussion about fuel burn of the more elderly planes, the think that sticks out to me is that if airline really get worried about their fuel bills, as opposed to all their other costs, it would be possible to re-engine either or both the 767 and the 330 to get close a large part of the gap to the 787. If that does not happen, I can only assume that this increment in fuel consumption is not considered to be all that important?????

Poitin · Sat Apr 21, 2007 12:32 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 40):
Quoting Poitin (Reply 23):
The economics of airline travel are very complex, and ever changing. Glad I don't own airline stock.

Come to Aus, invest in Qantas, and that nice Mr Mansfield will take your shares from you - no bother at all!!

At least you aren't trying to sell me a bridge in Sydney -- Big grin

brons2 · Sat Apr 21, 2007 1:21 am

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 24):
In any case here is some current info to chew on more or less along the lines of what Mr Walt determined four years ago...

787-8/9 vs 767-300ER And A330-200

-widebodyphotog

Although I like your chart, I think some of your assumptions are off.

For example, you say:

(2) Adult Passenger Weight 155 lbs
(3) 1.25 bags/pax @ 40 lbs each
(4) ULD tare 220 lbs/LD3.

I'm not sure those are realistic figures.

Try:

2. Adult pax 190 lbs
3. 2 bags per pax at 30 lbs each
4. ULD tare: 500 lbs/LD3.

Not that any of this would change the outcomes that 787 is more efficient, but it might give you a more realistic mission profile.

widebodyphotog · Sat Apr 21, 2007 1:59 am

Quoting Brons2 (Reply 42):
Although I like your chart, I think some of your assumptions are off.

These are standard international assumptions used by many airlines and both Boeing and Airbus. Boeing uses 210Lb per passenger and Airbus uses 95KG including baggage. Both do not use ULD tare in the generic performance data, I do for the purpose of being accurate about weights... Many carriers use 155/160lb per pax and add in a varying baggage factor from 1.3-3 at 40lbs each based on their traffic observations. Some carriers actually weigh every bag...

I'll give you $1,000,000 if you find me an standard LD-3 container with a tare weight of 225KG normally used for passenger bags... Most LD-3's used by the airlines weigh 75-120KG depending on their construction/material. 100KG is the standard used by many operators with a mixed inventory of standard LD-3's. The only LD-3's that are heavier than that are "D" type LD-3's that are forklift-able, insulated/refrigerated, or other special purpose LD-3... No airline would countenance 225KG as tare for a standard LD3 and there are many LD7 base containers that are not that heavy!

My assumptions are very accurate and based on what is generally accepted in international flight planning practice.

-widebodyphotog

Poitin · Sat Apr 21, 2007 2:06 am

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 24):
n any case here is some current info to chew on more or less along the lines of what Mr Walt determined four years ago...

787-8/9 vs 767-300ER And A330-200

It would be MUCH more interesting to see the numbers for the various 350's instead of the 330-200. Any idea when you might get that sort of data?

baroque · Sat Apr 21, 2007 2:50 am

Quoting Poitin (Reply 41):
At least you aren't trying to sell me a bridge in Sydney --

In a non-av thread I was offered waterfront land in Kansas, but I think I would like some of the waterfront land in Douglas county, the lake frontages were pretty valuable last time I was there. The bridge has just had its 75th birthday. Big grin

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net