Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
leo467
Topic Author
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2013 10:32 am

A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Wed May 15, 2013 4:42 pm

With the Dreamliner getting back into scheduled service, I wonder if anyone in this forum could enlight us on a real world comparison between the 330-200 and the 787-8: Qatar operates both types in quite similar configurations:

A 330-200 (Version 2) 24J 236Y = 260 Pax
B 787-800 22 J 232Y = 254 Pax

How much better is the 788 fuel burn wise on e.g., a 8h leg with similar payload? What about the famous reduction in operating cost?

Thanks for any insight 
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27045
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Wed May 15, 2013 4:49 pm

I do not believe QR nor AI have given any direct figures since putting the 787-8 into revenue service.

In 2010, AI Chairman Arvind Jadhav claimed that their own projections showed the 787-8 burned 17% less fuel than the A330-200 when both were compared for the "Medium Capacity Long Range" role.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5602
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Thu May 16, 2013 11:38 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):

In 2010, AI Chairman Arvind Jadhav claimed that their own projections showed the 787-8 burned 17% less fuel than the A330-200 when both were compared for the "Medium Capacity Long Range" role.

Is that per passenger or per flight? Doesn't the 788 carry more passengers than the A332?
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
Qatara340
Posts: 1686
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 2:07 am

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Thu May 16, 2013 11:53 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
787-8 burned 17% less fuel than the A330-200

But the 788 is overall smaller than the Airbus A330-200.

QR's configuration for the A332s is 24J but not fully flat (so somewhat more cramped than flat beds of the 788). The economy is a normal layout for a A330.

However for the 788, QR has somewhat generous J class reverse herringbone layout, and a cramped economy section 9-across. So, overall, the layout total passengers may be the same but the layout is differenent.
لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Thu May 16, 2013 12:10 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
I do not believe QR nor AI have given any direct figures since putting the 787-8 into revenue service.

In 2010, AI Chairman Arvind Jadhav claimed that their own projections showed the 787-8 burned 17% less fuel than the A330-200 when both were compared for the "Medium Capacity Long Range" role.

A 2010 number can only be a projection. Since than the B787-800 is overweight and fuel burn has been over spec.
The A330-200 has been getting better in its numbers at the same time..
So I expect the initial difference to be a bit lower.
 
Aviaponcho
Posts: 836
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 12:13 pm

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Thu May 16, 2013 12:11 pm

A valid comparison is
Etihad 2 cl A330-200 with Qatar 2 cl 787-8

Etihad : 22 biz /240 eco (2+4+2) + 8 WC
Qatar : 22 biz / 232 eco (3+3+3) rather low pitch + 8 WC

Both biz are lie flat, don't know for the galley count, but for sure, economy class in the etihad layout is generous

In this particular layout, with a nice biz section, A330-200 can pack more PAX than 787-8

[Edited 2013-05-16 05:15:52]
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9719
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Thu May 16, 2013 12:12 pm

What is the comparison in cargo capacity by weight/volume?
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Thu May 16, 2013 12:22 pm

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 6):
What is the comparison in cargo capacity by weight/volume?

about the same volume. The B787-800 28 LD3 or 2 LD3 + 8 pallets, The A330-200 27 LD3 or 3LD3 + 8 pallets.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27045
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Thu May 16, 2013 1:02 pm

The A330-200 does have a higher Maximum Structural Payload: 47t vs. 43t
 
incitatus
Posts: 3372
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Thu May 16, 2013 1:11 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 7):
The A330-200 27 LD3

Where does the 27th container go? I thought the A330 fitted 26 LD3s.

Quoting QatarA340 (Reply 3):
But the 788 is overall smaller than the Airbus A330-200.

The difference in floor area is very small. The A330 cabin is 2.3% larger. With a 9-abreast configuration the 787 Y passengers are more cramped, but the ability to fit the two airplanes with virtually the same cabin capacity and amenities (save the narrower seats on 787) is there.
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
rojo
Posts: 2308
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 6:08 am

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Thu May 16, 2013 1:19 pm

Quoting incitatus (Reply 9):
Where does the 27th container go? I thought the A330 fitted 26 LD3s.

Correct...

The A332 has 26 Positions = 26 LD3's
The 787 has 28 Positions = 28 LD3's
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Thu May 16, 2013 1:40 pm

Quoting rojo (Reply 10):
Correct...

The A332 has 26 Positions = 26 LD3's
The 787 has 28 Positions = 28 LD3's

You seem to be able to get the A330-200 for 27 LD3s and 13.76 m3 bulk or 26 LD3s and 19.7 m3 bulk.

http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamili...330family/a330-200/specifications/
 
leo467
Topic Author
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2013 10:32 am

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Thu May 16, 2013 2:06 pm

The facts you are mentioning are exactly my point. The two aircraft are for some airlines quite comparable when it comes to pax (qatar +/-6 seats, 2 classes; 787 with better J; 332 with better 2-4-2 eco so arguably a similar yield is possible on the same route) and cargo volume.

So is there anybody out there who could calculate the fuel consumption for a similar payload / range mission (e.g., 8 hours) with constant assumptions to give us a hint on whether we are talking about a 17-20% fuel burn difference (per flight, since we assume all being equal), less or even more - granted some data will not be super accurate and it might also be dependent on some of the parameters but the acutal specs (such as OEW in the above mentioned configuration), fuel burn rates, ... should be out now.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Thu May 16, 2013 2:36 pm

Well I think Boeing said that the 787 was designed to be 20% more efficient than the aircraft it was replacing (The 767). That sounds reasonable.As such 17% better than the 330-2 also sounds reasonable. No claculation will get closer - and those that know won't tell. But I would have thought that to most people it is in the right ball park.

It probably is not that with the early heavy versions and engines not up to spec - but anybody ordering today would not be receiving such an aircraft.

Airbus have (I believe) stated that they could shave off 3% off with blended winglets. Again a reasonable assumption. But their engines must be at least 10% less efficient and the rest airframe.

The real world difference is the fact that you could order a new 330 and get it in what 3/4 years.But unless something dranatic happens you will be waiting 9 or so for a 788. Of course 4/5 years of profitable operation would more than wipe out any frame economies. So I guess it depends when you need it really.

Question. I wonder why (with a 1,000 frames out there) Aviation partners don't design and sell a blended winglet for all existing 330 operators. Would have thought they would snap them up.
 
max999
Posts: 1213
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:05 am

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Thu May 16, 2013 2:38 pm

Quoting Leo467 (Reply 12):
So is there anybody out there who could calculate the fuel consumption for a similar payload / range mission (e.g., 8 hours) with constant assumptions to give us a hint on whether we are talking about a 17-20% fuel burn difference (per flight, since we assume all being equal), less or even more - granted some data will not be super accurate and it might also be dependent on some of the parameters but the acutal specs (such as OEW in the above mentioned configuration), fuel burn rates, ... should be out now.

If you want true comparison of the two aircraft, or any other two for that matter, you need to calculate the total cost of ownership. Your assumptions are based on the technical capabilities of the plane, but you need to look beyond the specs and factor in things such as capital costs of acquiring the aircraft, the cost of the maintenance contracts, cost of asset depreciation, the pilot salaries for flying the particular model, etc, etc.

Even if two airlines have the same model, it's never an apples to apples comparison. All the talk on A.net of which aircraft is better are just A & B fanboys screaming at each other because we don't have the data (some of which are airline company secrets) to see the full picture.

[Edited 2013-05-16 07:53:36]
All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening.
 
AngMoh
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:03 am

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Thu May 16, 2013 3:05 pm

Quoting max999 (Reply 14):
If you want true comparison of the two aircraft, or any other two for that matter, you need to calculate the total cost of ownership. Your assumptions are based on the technical capabilities of the plane, but you need to look beyond the specs and factor in things such as capital costs of acquiring the aircraft, the cost of the maintenance contracts, cost of asset depreciation, the pilot salaries for flying the particular model, etc, etc.

  

The big advantage of the A330 series is that you can get them now and you can get them cheap. Order and 789 today and you get delivery in 2018 or latter. Order a A333 and you get delivery in 2015 and start make money 3-4 years earlier. You make less money per year, but you make it 4 years earlier. And in NPV calculations, the time factor is very very important.

Look at DL: they happily buy 739s because they can get them cheap and fast and they don't want the MAX as their business model is based on low CAPEX.
727 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739/ER 742 743 744/M 752 753 762 772 77E 773 77W 788 A300 A310 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A345 A346 A359 A35K A388 DC-9 DC-10 MD11 MD81 MD82 MD87 F70 ERJ145 E170 E175 E190 E195 ATR72 Q400 CRJ200 CRJ700 CRJ900 BAE146 RJ85
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5602
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Thu May 16, 2013 3:33 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 13):

Question. I wonder why (with a 1,000 frames out there) Aviation partners don't design and sell a blended winglet for all existing 330 operators. Would have thought they would snap them up.

Probably for the same reason that there is no retrofit winglet available for the A320-the existing wing structure would require reinforcements that make it economically unfeasible.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Thu May 16, 2013 3:53 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 16):
Probably for the same reason that there is no retrofit winglet available for the A320-the existing wing structure would require reinforcements that make it economically unfeasible.

There will be a retrofit winglet available for the A320 including the reinforcements for the wing.
 
rojo
Posts: 2308
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 6:08 am

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Thu May 16, 2013 4:31 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 11):
You seem to be able to get the A330-200 for 27 LD3s and 13.76 m3 bulk or 26 LD3s and 19.7 m3 bulk.

That's wrong. The max number of LD3's you can load on a A330-200 is 26 (14 in the Forward section and 12 in the Aft)

If you want to get 27 Positions, you can't load 27 LD3's, you will have to load 5 LD7's + 12 LD3's.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Thu May 16, 2013 4:37 pm

Probably for the same reason that there is no retrofit winglet available for the A320-the existing wing structure would require reinforcements that make it economically unfeasible.


It already has a winglet. So is already stressed for one. It is a question of swapping for a blended one.Airbus have already shown illustrations of one they are considering on new build aircraft - looks like a larger Sharklet - so can be done. But they are not (as far as I am aware) talking about a retrofit.

Having said that I am sure there are many complexities. But from an Aviation Ptnrs POV they have done the 737/757/767 and all new aircraft have them "built in".Since A are handling the 320 (bar the legal case with AP) the 330 series looks like all there is left for their business model - but a big one!
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Thu May 16, 2013 5:00 pm

Quoting rojo (Reply 18):
That's wrong. The max number of LD3's you can load on a A330-200 is 26 (14 in the Forward section and 12 in the Aft)

If you want to get 27 Positions, you can't load 27 LD3's, you will have to load 5 LD7's + 12 LD3's.

If I have to believe you or the Airbus homepage, I chose the Airbus homepage.
 
ferpe
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Thu May 16, 2013 5:31 pm

Quoting Leo467 (Reply 12):
So is there anybody out there who could calculate the fuel consumption for a similar payload / range mission (e.g., 8 hours) with constant assumptions to give us a hint on whether we are talking about a 17-20% fuel burn difference (per flight, since we assume all being equal), less or even more

I ran both in my model at 242 seats, each over a 4500nm ESAD leg, i.e. a realistic 8 hour trip with a bit of wind and thus delay. The 788 has pipped engines and is a mature bird i.e. above MSN 100, the 332 has standard T700 engines. In such a case there is around a 14% block fuel burn diff. according to the model. Given it's accuracy it could be 12% or 16% but not 17-20% IMO. The 788 is pretty much up to snuff and the 332 could be improved more on the TSFC of those T700s (they are at TSFC 0.59 ) so it could dip to 13%. The numbers are 44t vs 51t fuel for the leg.
Non French in France
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Thu May 16, 2013 6:01 pm

Quoting Leo467 (Thread starter):
How much better is the 788 fuel burn wise on e.g., a 8h leg with similar payload?
Quoting ferpe (Reply 21):
In such a case there is around a 14% block fuel burn diff. according to the model.

Widebodyphotog did a comparison back in 2007 between a 789 and a 332 with an OEW and payload that favored the 789 by 479kg . He got ~ a 16.2% spread which with the weight variation fits Ferpes model.
 
AADC10
Posts: 1511
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:40 am

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Thu May 16, 2013 6:08 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 13):
Well I think Boeing said that the 787 was designed to be 20% more efficient than the aircraft it was replacing (The 767). That sounds reasonable.As such 17% better than the 330-2 also sounds reasonable.

The 20% figure has long thought to be the per seat improvement over the 767-200, one of the least efficient widebodies. In addition, some of the 20% was not actually in fuel efficiency, but rather in reduced maintenance costs for corrosion inspections and repairs. It also assumes passengers are wedged in at 9 abreast rather than the 8 that was originally promoted.

I suspect that the difference between the A332 and the early build 788 in fuel burn per seat is significantly less than 17%. Now even if the difference is say 9% and the seating is less comfortable, that is still enough to make it worthwhile for the airlines.

I fear that this will start a race to the bottom, wedging ever narrower seats in Y. AA is joining the 10Y 777 crowd and any widebody with seats currently wider than 17.5" could be examined for an extra seat abreast. 747s and DC-10s in the regulation era often had 9 and 8 abreast respectively but they both gained a seat by the 1980s. I wonder how 9 abreast 787s will compare to 10 abreast A350s?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19555
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Thu May 16, 2013 6:22 pm

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 23):
I fear that this will start a race to the bottom, wedging ever narrower seats in Y.

I'm certain that will happen. Those that want more comfort *and* are willing to spend money usually will go with J for long haul. Or... at least Y+. Since fewer seats results in a higher CASM...

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 23):
I wonder how 9 abreast 787s will compare to 10 abreast A350s?

IMHO the A350 is a bit too narrow for 10 abreast. I'll probably be proven wrong...


Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6593
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Thu May 16, 2013 7:00 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 13):
That sounds reasonable.As such 17% better than the 330-2 also sounds reasonable. No claculation will get closer - and those that know won't tell. But I would have thought that to most people it is in the right ball park.
Quoting ferpe (Reply 21):
In such a case there is around a 14% block fuel burn diff. according to the model. Given it's accuracy it could be 12% or 16% but not 17-20% IMO.

I did a run on the performance dispatch numbers, on a per ton payload, somewhere around a 15% block fuel difference... so yeah... those ballpark numbers are correct...
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
waly777
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Thu May 16, 2013 7:43 pm

Quoting max999 (Reply 14):
If you want true comparison of the two aircraft, or any other two for that matter, you need to calculate the total cost of ownership. Your assumptions are based on the technical capabilities of the plane, but you need to look beyond the specs and factor in things such as capital costs of acquiring the aircraft, the cost of the maintenance contracts, cost of asset depreciation, the pilot salaries for flying the particular model, etc, etc.

         Exactly!
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
timboflier215
Posts: 807
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 7:54 am

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Thu May 16, 2013 8:53 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 21):
standard T700 engines

Have RR said how much more efficient the T1000 is, compared to the T700? How much of the 12% - 16% difference is made up purely of having newer engines, do you think?
 
AADC10
Posts: 1511
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:40 am

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Thu May 16, 2013 9:09 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 24):
IMHO the A350 is a bit too narrow for 10 abreast. I'll probably be proven wrong...

It probably is but charter operators have been known to somehow get 8 seats across a 767, so it is certainly not unimaginable to squeeze 10 seats in an A350. That would give it a large per seat fuel advantage over the 787 but passengers would have to plan to sit up very straight.
 
trex8
Posts: 5542
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Thu May 16, 2013 10:34 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 22):
Widebodyphotog did a comparison back in 2007 between a 789 and a 332 with an OEW and payload that favored the 789 by 479kg . He got ~ a 16.2% spread which with the weight variation fits Ferpes model.

IIRC he also said for a 4000nm flight the A332 had significantly more payload and it was only beyond that range that the 787s increased efficiency became advantageous.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10080
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Fri May 17, 2013 11:41 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 24):
I'm certain that will happen. Those that want more comfort *and* are willing to spend money usually will go with J for long haul. Or... at least Y+. Since fewer seats results in a higher CASM...

I think that may be going too far and airlines will risk shooting themselves in the foot. Flying is already a very unpopular activity with the public. Make it even more so and people will think twice about taking that long trip and staying closer to home. I'm a fairly skinny 5'10" guy and I don't mind putting up with those "charter" conditions on a 3-4 hours flight. Any longer and I will reconsider my options. But 787's/A350's will be doing 8-15 hours flights and that would be just brutal. And it's not like the cost of flying is going down either when you factor in all the taxes and fees.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 12952
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Fri May 17, 2013 12:37 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 19):
It already has a winglet. So is already stressed for one. It is a question of swapping for a blended one.Airbus have already shown illustrations of one they are considering on new build aircraft - looks like a larger Sharklet - so can be done. But they are not (as far as I am aware) talking about a retrofit.

Having said that I am sure there are many complexities. But from an Aviation Ptnrs POV they have done the 737/757/767 and all new aircraft have them "built in"

I have no idea of the forces we're talking about but since going from a fence to a sharklet, the A320 needed reinforcements, then we can guess it would be the same for the A330/340.

I read here that up until the 787 (or 777 ?) Boeing usually had stronger/less optimized wings that allowed winglets to be installed without reinforcements, on top of being a more interesting proposition efficiency wise (more to gain).
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
ferpe
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Fri May 17, 2013 2:06 pm

Quoting timboflier215 (Reply 27):
Have RR said how much more efficient the T1000 is, compared to the T700? How much of the 12% - 16% difference is made up purely of having newer engines, do you think?

There is quite a difference, the T1000 should be at TSFC 0.53 ie there is a 10% difference nominally. In practice the T1000 is rumored to be about 1% short still so about 9% difference, ie the major part of the fuel gain. This lower consumption in turn means less fuel is taken on board for a certain leg which lowers TOW and cruise weights which then lowers drag due to lift and so on. So the engines are key.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 31):
I have no idea of the forces we're talking about but since going from a fence to a sharklet, the A320 needed reinforcements, then we can guess it would be the same for the A330/340.

I have calculated how much a 332 gains on going from winglets to sharklets, around 70nm on really long legs, almost nothing on legs around 4000nm as sharklets are heavier. The 332 has a very nice wing with a good aspect ratio as it is, sharklets then don't augment that as much as on e.g. A380.

[Edited 2013-05-17 07:08:47]
Non French in France
 
a380900
Posts: 805
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 11:26 pm

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Fri May 17, 2013 2:15 pm

Quoting max999 (Reply 14):
If you want true comparison of the two aircraft, or any other two for that matter, you need to calculate the total cost of ownership. Your assumptions are based on the technical capabilities of the plane, but you need to look beyond the specs and factor in things such as capital costs of acquiring the aircraft, the cost of the maintenance contracts, cost of asset depreciation, the pilot salaries for flying the particular model, etc, etc.

The point of this thread is to compare the technical qualities. It is quite obvious that depending on financing or acquisition costs, one airplaine can be better than the other. And if you pay the crew twice as much, you won't be as profitable. It seems reasonable to compare the egineering qualities on a fuel per trip basis.

Now I understand maintaining the 787 should be cheaper. But still. Aren't the figures discussed above (and I understand they may be far from accurate) showing that a A330 NEO could compete very well with the 787? Like the 737 has been able to compete with the A320 by the way. I remember Airbus totally panicking when Boeing announced the 787. With hindsights, did Airbus believe Boeing's hype too much?

And wouldn't Airbus be better off with lower priced but still salable A332 and A333 Neo and a brand new twin slightly larger than the 777? The largest twin available? Because now the 777X may well be a huge contender to the A350-1000 although its design is older. And the most efficient airplane below the A380 should be a huge hit as sales prospects for the 777X can suggest.

[Edited 2013-05-17 07:28:17]
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Fri May 17, 2013 2:33 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 32):
There is quite a difference, the T1000 should be at TSFC 0.53 ie there is a 10% difference nominally. In practice the T1000 is rumored to be about 1% short still so about 9% difference, ie the major part of the fuel gain. This lower consumption in turn means less fuel is taken on board for a certain leg which lowers TOW and cruise weights which then lowers drag due to lift and so on. So the engines are key.

I think stated differences are always a point in time. If at design (about 2004) the difference between a Trent 1000 and 700 was supposed to be 10% than today we will see a new 700 with reduced fuel burn compared to 2004 (a serious pip around 2007 and 2009 the 700EP) and the 1000 is still 1 % below design spec.
So the actual difference should be at the moment in the range of 7 to 8%.

In 2012 RR was working on further improvements on the 700 moving some technology down from the 1000 and XWB. I do not know if it is already a PIP.
Airbus has also smoothed out the aerodynamics on the A330 during the years.
The A 330 gets in small steps better from year to year and is a moving target.

I think altogether the difference between a B787 and the A330 is there but a bit less than many imagine.
 
Aircellist
Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 8:43 am

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Fri May 17, 2013 3:27 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 24):
IMHO the A350 is a bit too narrow for 10 abreast. I'll probably be proven wrong...

I dearly hope not!
"When I find out I was wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?" -attributed to John Maynard Keynes
 
wingman
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Fri May 17, 2013 3:50 pm

I think that race is already on. I did my first ride in a long time on a 340, an LH 346 from SF to Munich last month, in coach and I was excited about the ride. Not long prior I had done a UA 777 ride domestic and while I agree that sitting with one's wife in a 2 seat sideXside configuration is ideal, the seats themselves were more cramped and narrower than the UA 777.

I was left wondering why some people critique the 777 from a coach comfort perspective. If the 346 seats are what await us pleebs in the coach section of the 787 then I'll not be waiting with much anticipation. Have to say I did love those belly lavs (now that's a great idea!).
 
max999
Posts: 1213
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:05 am

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Fri May 17, 2013 4:23 pm

Quoting a380900 (Reply 33):
The point of this thread is to compare the technical qualities. It is quite obvious that depending on financing or acquisition costs, one airplaine can be better than the other. And if you pay the crew twice as much, you won't be as profitable. It seems reasonable to compare the egineering qualities on a fuel per trip basis.

The way I interpreted the thread title A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World was that the real world includes all ownership costs. There's nothing wrong with debating the specs of aircraft, but that's theoretical so I believe it doesn't fit with the thread's title.

Quoting a380900 (Reply 33):
And wouldn't Airbus be better off with lower priced but still salable A332 and A333 Neo and a brand new twin slightly larger than the 777? The largest twin available? Because now the 777X may well be a huge contender to the A350-1000 although its design is older. And the most efficient airplane below the A380 should be a huge hit as sales prospects for the 777X can suggest.

I'm sure A & B can find many buyers if they offered their older technology products at a discount. If I use a smartphone analogy, there are a lot of choices out there; the cheaper ones tend to have less RAM, no LTE, smaller screens, etc.
All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening.
 
timboflier215
Posts: 807
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 7:54 am

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Fri May 17, 2013 5:51 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 32):

Thanks ferpe!

[Edited 2013-05-17 10:51:44]
 
sv11
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 1999 6:26 am

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Fri May 17, 2013 11:02 pm

Hi,
Air India claims its 787s are 17% more fuel efficient, not 20% that BA promised:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...l-savings/articleshow/20110387.cms

Its not clear compared to what aircraft, but likely the A310.

Regards,
sv11
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27045
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Sat May 18, 2013 1:07 am

Quoting sv11 (Reply 39):
Its not clear compared to what aircraft, but likely the A310.

They are comparing the 787-8 and A330-200.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Sat May 18, 2013 1:29 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 24):
IMHO the A350 is a bit too narrow for 10 abreast. I'll probably be proven wrong...

The 777 is a bit too narrow for 10 abreast, The A350 is even narrower so 10Y will definitely be charter only
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Sat May 18, 2013 1:46 am

I believe Air Asia X is planning on 10 abreast Y with their 350's.
What the...?
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Sat May 18, 2013 2:07 am

Quoting sv11 (Reply 39):
Air India claims its 787s are 17% more fuel efficient, not 20% that BA promised

Is that written into the contract in that way? I doubt it. I think AI are interpolating the guarantee into a comparison against another aircraft. As AI get newer builds they may well achieve 20%. After all their "youngest " one #6 is something like LN 46 and they have something like 20 more to go.

[Edited 2013-05-17 19:18:13]
 
User avatar
9MMPQ
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 3:00 pm

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Sat May 18, 2013 8:09 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 7):
The A330-200 27 LD3 or 3LD3 + 8 pallets

I can only speak for the A332F but the configuration of 8 pallets + 3 LD3s is correct.

Quoting incitatus (Reply 9):
Where does the 27th container go? I thought the A330 fitted 26 LD3s.

Again on the A332F, we have a single LD3 position behind the last pallet in hold 4. This position takes it's space from what would normally be the bulk. This by the way fits perfectly with what Mjoelnir has found on the Airbus website.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 11):
You seem to be able to get the A330-200 for 27 LD3s and 13.76 m3 bulk or 26 LD3s and 19.7 m3 bulk.

I would thus assume this is an option which is also available on the passenger version of the A332. It would then just depend if the ordering airline would go for the additional LD3 or the bigger bulk hold.
I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences.
 
hawkercamm
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 4:15 pm

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Sat May 18, 2013 9:50 am

The B788 fuel burn advantage over the A332 is about 15% for both trip and seat for your nominal 8hr 4000nm flight.
The B788 fuel burn advantage grows towards 20% at the A332 max range.
Despite the hype, the majority of this improvement (A good 12% of the 15%) comes from the engines and not the CFRP. The A332 is also approximately on par with requires to L/D. (B788 has large Nacelles and Fuselage cross section!)

Now, since fuel accounts for roughly 1/3 of 'long haul' operation cost the 15% fuel burn advantage is reduced to 5% operation advantage. 5% however is quite significant!
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Sat May 18, 2013 10:44 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 40):
They are comparing the 787-8 and A330-200.

Is anyone else kind of impressed with a 17% fuel burn savings over an A332? As sunrisevalley alludes the most advanced 787 that they have flown for over a month is line number 46 and there are at least two weight improvements and one engine pip that will come after that. They certainly have worse ones coming (LN 25, 26, 28, 29) but most should be much better.

I would think Boeing would be happy to know that relatively early version 787s are flying faster, further, with more cargo, and 5klbs more in heavier engines while consuming 17% less fuel than an A332. Now they just have to keep them flying.

tortugamon
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Sat May 18, 2013 12:00 pm

Quoting hawkercamm (Reply 45):
5% however is quite significant!

If they could knock some weight off of the plane with Al-Li and sell it for a few million cheaper, then it might be able to sell. Couple that with early availability and that the line is probably paid for by now, a NEO treatment as opposed to completely ceding the segment to Boeing, might make the investment worthwhile.

I'm sure Airbus still has the 350MK1 plans kicking around somewhere.

[Edited 2013-05-18 05:06:53]
What the...?
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Sat May 18, 2013 12:23 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 46):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 40):
They are comparing the 787-8 and A330-200.

Is anyone else kind of impressed with a 17% fuel burn savings over an A332? As sunrisevalley alludes the most advanced 787 that they have flown for over a month is line number 46 and there are at least two weight improvements and one engine pip that will come after that. They certainly have worse ones coming (LN 25, 26, 28, 29) but most should be much better.

I would think Boeing would be happy to know that relatively early version 787s are flying faster, further, with more cargo, and 5klbs more in heavier engines while consuming 17% less fuel than an A332. Now they just have to keep them flying.

tortugamon

It is comparing apples with oranges, what one really needs to compare, is an out of the box new A330-200 with an out of the box new B787-800. You are talking about certain LN of the B787-800 and compare them with any old A330-200.
If we talk not about a brand new A330-200 it should at least be a Trent 700EP equiped one model 2010 or younger.
 
[email protected]
Posts: 16616
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2001 6:29 pm

RE: A 332 Vs. B 788 In The Real World

Sat May 18, 2013 12:31 pm

Quoting Leo467 (Thread starter):
How much better is the 788 fuel burn wise on e.g., a 8h leg with similar payload? What about the famous reduction in operating cost?

You don't expect real, accurate figures on A.net, do you?   
"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."

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