x1234
Topic Author
Posts: 554
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 3:50 pm

Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!?

Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:38 am

Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!? I'm wondering why DL has a subfleet of the A330-900neo instead of more A350's. I think its because the A330-900neo is lighter than the A350. What about versus the 787? I'm trying to understand DL's decision making on the A330-900neo versus the A350.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17772
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!?

Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:46 am

x1234 wrote:
Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!? I'm wondering why DL has a subfleet of the A330-900neo instead of more A350's. I think its because the A330-900neo is lighter than the A350. What about versus the 787? I'm trying to understand DL's decision making on the A330-900neo versus the A350.


Despite the claims of some here, the two planes clearly cover different mission profiles. DL has just committed to taking 14 more A350s through their 20% stake in LATAM.

Both the A330neo and A350 seem to work very well for DL.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
DTVG
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:06 pm

Re: Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!?

Fri Nov 01, 2019 1:38 am

x1234 wrote:
Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!? I'm wondering why DL has a subfleet of the A330-900neo instead of more A350's. I think its because the A330-900neo is lighter than the A350. What about versus the 787? I'm trying to understand DL's decision making on the A330-900neo versus the A350.


We’ll probably because the A330neo is cheaper to buy/lease, cheaper to maintain, lighter (lower fees), has some commonality with the existing fleet, has enough range for most of Deltas missions and Airbus might have had better delivery slots (correct me if I am wrong).
 
UGA777
Posts: 189
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 3:40 am

Re: Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!?

Fri Nov 01, 2019 1:43 am

DTVG wrote:
x1234 wrote:
Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!? I'm wondering why DL has a subfleet of the A330-900neo instead of more A350's. I think its because the A330-900neo is lighter than the A350. What about versus the 787? I'm trying to understand DL's decision making on the A330-900neo versus the A350.


We’ll probably because the A330neo is cheaper to buy/lease, cheaper to maintain, lighter (lower fees), has some commonality with the existing fleet, has enough range for most of Deltas missions and Airbus might have had better delivery slots (correct me if I am wrong).


You are absolutely right. From what I’ve heard from all of my DL pilot friends, the neo can do “almost” every mission the 350 can do at a fraction of the cost.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11254
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!?

Fri Nov 01, 2019 2:25 am

UGA777 wrote:
DTVG wrote:
x1234 wrote:
Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!? I'm wondering why DL has a subfleet of the A330-900neo instead of more A350's. I think its because the A330-900neo is lighter than the A350. What about versus the 787? I'm trying to understand DL's decision making on the A330-900neo versus the A350.


We’ll probably because the A330neo is cheaper to buy/lease, cheaper to maintain, lighter (lower fees), has some commonality with the existing fleet, has enough range for most of Deltas missions and Airbus might have had better delivery slots (correct me if I am wrong).


You are absolutely right. From what I’ve heard from all of my DL pilot friends, the neo can do “almost” every mission the 350 can do at a fraction of the cost.


Hence probably the shift towards the A339 as it becomes more able with higher MTOW....
I seem to recall there was a thread a while back showing that cargo isn't really relevant to Delta's business, so the ability to lift structural payload out to -6000nm may not be relevant and lifting a full cabin that far just does it.

Between 787 and A339 its probably a wash as they have the same engine generation, the 787 having more advanced systems and being lighter and the revamped A330 wing probably being somewhat better due to increased span...

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
majano
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!?

Fri Nov 01, 2019 5:35 am

x1234 wrote:
Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!? I'm wondering why DL has a subfleet of the A330-900neo instead of more A350's. I think its because the A330-900neo is lighter than the A350. What about versus the 787? I'm trying to understand DL's decision making on the A330-900neo versus the A350.

There was a brief discussion of the a330-900 fuel burn in this thread viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1406387&start=350. From post 380. The bulking up of the Delta fleet, to me anyway, seems to support rather than refute these claims.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14134
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!?

Fri Nov 01, 2019 6:14 am

x1234 wrote:
Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!? I'm wondering why DL has a subfleet of the A330-900neo instead of more A350's. I think its because the A330-900neo is lighter than the A350. What about versus the 787? I'm trying to understand DL's decision making on the A330-900neo versus the A350.


This is like asking does a 787 burn less fuel than a 777.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!?

Fri Nov 01, 2019 6:16 am

From what I have gathered the A330-900 is very close to the 789 in fuel burn up to 4000nm missions. It is within 1-2% with the 789 having the small lead. Over 4000nm the advantage swings to the 789 where its advantage can go up to 4-5%

The fuel burn difference has been talked to death between the 789 and the A350. The consensus is the 789 has a slight advantage except at extreme range and payloads where the advantage swings to the A350.

DL will apparently deploy the A300-900 mostly on TATL flights where it should perform very well. Other than the 787-10 it is probably the best TATL in the air right now. DL rarely makes mistakes in plane acquisition.
Last edited by ElroyJetson on Fri Nov 01, 2019 6:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
thepinkmachine
Posts: 383
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:43 pm

Re: Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!?

Fri Nov 01, 2019 6:18 am

zeke wrote:
This is like asking does a 787 burn less fuel than a 777.


Wouldn’t necessarily say so - 339 and 787 (annd to lesser extent 359) are very comparable in terms of OEW, MTOW, payload etc. This is a valid question, would love to see some accurate data on the 339
"Tell my wife I am trawling Atlantis - and I still have my hands on the wheel…"
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!?

Fri Nov 01, 2019 6:35 am

thepinkmachine wrote:
zeke wrote:
This is like asking does a 787 burn less fuel than a 777.


Wouldn’t necessarily say so - 339 and 787 (annd to lesser extent 359) are very comparable in terms of OEW, MTOW, payload etc. This is a valid question, would love to see some accurate data on the 339


According to wiki the OEW of the A330-900 in 302,000 lbs while the 789 is 284,000 lbs. Pretty close as you said, which probably explains why anecdotal reports of fuel burn diferences between the 789 and A330-900 are so close. Particularly since they have essentially the same engine technology. I do not question DL's decision to acquire the A330-900, but like you I would like to see some real world FCOM data.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
pasen
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:03 pm

Re: Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!?

Fri Nov 01, 2019 6:41 am

thepinkmachine wrote:
zeke wrote:
This is like asking does a 787 burn less fuel than a 777.


Wouldn’t necessarily say so - 339 and 787 (annd to lesser extent 359) are very comparable in terms of OEW, MTOW, payload etc. This is a valid question, would love to see some accurate data on the 339


Comparing 787 to A330 is fine. But what I don't understand is why so many people keep comparing the A350 to A330 and 787. The original A350 was designed in response to the 787. But that design was replaced by the XWB which competes primarely with the 777 (especially since the A350-1000 got built instead of the -800). That's why Zeke's comment is perfectly valid IMHO.
 
ewt340
Posts: 859
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!?

Fri Nov 01, 2019 7:10 am

On Shorter missions yes. But up to the 4000nmi mark, B787 perform better than A330neo.

As for DL. Many of their international routes are actually quite short. East Coast to Europe. West Coast to East Asia. North America to South America. Most of these routes doesn't actually required aircrafts with tons of range on them.

Majority of the routes they operate are within range of A330neo. Again, as mentioned before, it's cheaper to run and cheaper to buy.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13308
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!?

Fri Nov 01, 2019 8:27 am

To be honest I was a little suprized Airbus bumped A330NEO MTOW, making it a real long haul aircraft, while it strenght over the last 15 years was mainly medium range. It probably has to do with the cargo hunger from Asia, the expected twin aisle demand spike in the next decade and the A350 being sold out for a long time. Production rate will probably be around 5-6 for the coming years.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
ewt340
Posts: 859
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!?

Sat Nov 02, 2019 1:54 pm

keesje wrote:
To be honest I was a little suprized Airbus bumped A330NEO MTOW, making it a real long haul aircraft, while it strenght over the last 15 years was mainly medium range. It probably has to do with the cargo hunger from Asia, the expected twin aisle demand spike in the next decade and the A350 being sold out for a long time. Production rate will probably be around 5-6 for the coming years.


I think back in the day, when Airbus started bumping up A330-300 mtow and increase their range, Airlines order hundreds of them. It became one of the most successful model that they produce. And almost all of the new orders goes to the Higher MTOW A330-300.

They also wanted to compete with B787-9. While it got less range and capability, they realized that the higher MTOW would be useful for slightly longer routes than A330-300, not by much, but enough to gave many airlines the options to open new market. Meanwhile, even with the Higher MTOW. A330-900neo still being used mainly for medium haul and short regional flights.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!?

Sat Nov 02, 2019 3:07 pm

keesje wrote:
To be honest I was a little suprized Airbus bumped A330NEO MTOW, making it a real long haul aircraft, while it strenght over the last 15 years was mainly medium range. It probably has to do with the cargo hunger from Asia, the expected twin aisle demand spike in the next decade and the A350 being sold out for a long time. Production rate will probably be around 5-6 for the coming years.



As someone mentioned, sales started to spike for the A330 when Airbus started increasing MTOW. I know initially Airbus did not want the A330 to directly compete with the A340. In hindsight a missed opportunity to kill the 767 a little earlier than it ultimately did.


As for the current A330-900, I see it as a great TATL aircraft that can do most of the 789 missions. The comparison is almost identical to the 789 and A359 competition. The 789 does not have quite the range or payload capability of the A359 but it is still can do 90% or more of the A359 missions.

The A330-900 is a very capable frame that can probably do 90% of 789 missions. A great alternative if deployed to its strengths. I am certain DL will utilize the A330-900 it's strengths.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1247
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!?

Sat Nov 02, 2019 3:30 pm

I would be very interested to know "real prices paid" for 330neo vs 787 and 350. The 330 has to be less, but by how much? Probably enough to pay for a lot of gas. My guess is that for flights under 8-9 hours, the 330n burns less block fuel than an A350, not as confident on the per seat basis.

And although this wasn't the question, and although Delta hasn't shown much interest in fleet commonality, the 330neo and 321ceo/neo orders are going to greatly ease their huge (some say unmanageable) pilot training footprint the next few years as thousands of pilots shift seats due to retirements. Moving from the 737 to the 330 is something like 6-8 weeks of training, moving from the 320series to the 330 is like a week. Multiply that by, oh say, 3,000 over the next 5 years to guesstimate the time/cost savings on pilot training. $Millions saved. Not to mention the time. Those numbers are just wild guesses. But the real ones will be large numbers.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8899
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!?

Sat Nov 02, 2019 3:37 pm

keesje wrote:
To be honest I was a little suprized Airbus bumped A330NEO MTOW, making it a real long haul aircraft, while it strenght over the last 15 years was mainly medium range. It probably has to do with the cargo hunger from Asia, the expected twin aisle demand spike in the next decade and the A350 being sold out for a long time. Production rate will probably be around 5-6 for the coming years.


I would say because they can and it is likely that airlines like AirAsia have asked for it. Even Delta will take some as 251 t MTOW.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18401
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!?

Sat Nov 02, 2019 4:16 pm

Has anyone put out estimates of fuel burn for all three air frames? Different models of 787? A350.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 6140
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!?

Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:40 pm

SteelChair wrote:
Moving from the 737 to the 330 is something like 6-8 weeks of training, moving from the 320series to the 330 is like a week. Multiply that by, oh say, 3,000 over the next 5 years to guesstimate the time/cost savings on pilot training. $Millions saved. Not to mention the time. Those numbers are just wild guesses. But the real ones will be large numbers.


DL isn't going to need 3,000 pilots to fly 37 A339s. 450 is more like it, and that takes them out to 2026.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1247
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!?

Sat Nov 02, 2019 6:13 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
Moving from the 737 to the 330 is something like 6-8 weeks of training, moving from the 320series to the 330 is like a week. Multiply that by, oh say, 3,000 over the next 5 years to guesstimate the time/cost savings on pilot training. $Millions saved. Not to mention the time. Those numbers are just wild guesses. But the real ones will be large numbers.


DL isn't going to need 3,000 pilots to fly 37 A339s. 450 is more like it, and that takes them out to 2026.


You missed the point completely.

Every widebody Captain that retires triggers something like 7 training events as the openings ripples down through the system. Do I have to draw a picture? An A350 Captain retires, an A330 Captain bids that, now an A330 Captain position is open, an A320 Captain bids it, now an A320 Captain is open, an A330 FO bids it, now an A330 FO position is open, an A320 FO bids it. These are the 3,000 (or more) seat swaps I was referring to over the next few years. The swaps listed above are all very easy. Throw a 737 guy in there that has never flown an Airbus and his transition training footprint is about 4-5 times longer, greatly clogging up the schoolhouse. With 6-700 retirements next year alone, thats a lot of seat swaps....just in the next 365 days. Think how easy it is for Southwest.

And traditionally, manning ratio has been 7 crews/plane, so those 37 would drive about 518 pilots. International needs more because of augmented crews. But, those 37 won't be here that soon, but there are 42 PW and GE powered ceos already in service now.

Clear enough?
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9700
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!?

Sat Nov 02, 2019 7:03 pm

SteelChair wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
Moving from the 737 to the 330 is something like 6-8 weeks of training, moving from the 320series to the 330 is like a week. Multiply that by, oh say, 3,000 over the next 5 years to guesstimate the time/cost savings on pilot training. $Millions saved. Not to mention the time. Those numbers are just wild guesses. But the real ones will be large numbers.


DL isn't going to need 3,000 pilots to fly 37 A339s. 450 is more like it, and that takes them out to 2026.


You missed the point completely.

Every widebody Captain that retires triggers something like 7 training events as the openings ripples down through the system. Do I have to draw a picture? An A350 Captain retires, an A330 Captain bids that, now an A330 Captain position is open, an A320 Captain bids it, now an A320 Captain is open, an A330 FO bids it, now an A330 FO position is open, an A320 FO bids it. These are the 3,000 (or more) seat swaps I was referring to over the next few years. The swaps listed above are all very easy. Throw a 737 guy in there that has never flown an Airbus and his transition training footprint is about 4-5 times longer, greatly clogging up the schoolhouse. With 6-700 retirements next year alone, thats a lot of seat swaps....just in the next 365 days. Think how easy it is for Southwest.

And traditionally, manning ratio has been 7 crews/plane, so those 37 would drive about 518 pilots. International needs more because of augmented crews. But, those 37 won't be here that soon, but there are 42 PW and GE powered ceos already in service now.

Clear enough?

Those are just the minimums which many airlines with large and diverse fleets (including Delta) often don’t follow. Anyone with enough seniority to hold the line can bid for an aircraft at Delta, no matter their current equipment. Training at Delta is usually more rigorous (ie longer) than what Airbus (or Boeing) advertise to ensure everyone on the fleet is at the same standard no matter their previous equipment. That is often cheaper/easier than having a ton of different training regiments depending on what you are moving from.

Even with all the new Airbuses coming in DL still has a huge non-Airbus (I’m including the A220 in this, since it wasn’t designed with Airbus compatibility) fleet.

The training savings for Delta with the Neo come from the fact that their current A330 qualified pilots can quickly get on the aircraft and operate both the Ceo and Neo.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1646
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!?

Sat Nov 02, 2019 8:00 pm

Polot wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:

DL isn't going to need 3,000 pilots to fly 37 A339s. 450 is more like it, and that takes them out to 2026.


You missed the point completely.

Every widebody Captain that retires triggers something like 7 training events as the openings ripples down through the system. Do I have to draw a picture? An A350 Captain retires, an A330 Captain bids that, now an A330 Captain position is open, an A320 Captain bids it, now an A320 Captain is open, an A330 FO bids it, now an A330 FO position is open, an A320 FO bids it. These are the 3,000 (or more) seat swaps I was referring to over the next few years. The swaps listed above are all very easy. Throw a 737 guy in there that has never flown an Airbus and his transition training footprint is about 4-5 times longer, greatly clogging up the schoolhouse. With 6-700 retirements next year alone, thats a lot of seat swaps....just in the next 365 days. Think how easy it is for Southwest.

And traditionally, manning ratio has been 7 crews/plane, so those 37 would drive about 518 pilots. International needs more because of augmented crews. But, those 37 won't be here that soon, but there are 42 PW and GE powered ceos already in service now.

Clear enough?

Those are just the minimums which many airlines with large and diverse fleets (including Delta) often don’t follow. Anyone with enough seniority to hold the line can bid for an aircraft at Delta, no matter their current equipment. Training at Delta is usually more rigorous (ie longer) than what Airbus (or Boeing) advertise to ensure everyone on the fleet is at the same standard no matter their previous equipment. That is often cheaper/easier than having a ton of different training regiments depending on what you are moving from.

Even with all the new Airbuses coming in DL still has a huge non-Airbus (I’m including the A220 in this, since it wasn’t designed with Airbus compatibility) fleet.

The training savings for Delta with the Neo come from the fact that their current A330 qualified pilots can quickly get on the aircraft and operate both the Ceo and Neo.


The 220, once 100 are in the fleet at the 7 crews ratio will require over 1,500 pilots - trained from what prior aircraft. Possibly the mad dog crews will learn the A220.

For decades, Airbus has touted the common cockpit, which is a truly great feature. Well Boeing has snuck in and pretty much has a common cockpit in all of its new widebodies, levelling the playing field to some extent. Yes the common cockpit saves tons of training time.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1646
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!?

Sat Nov 02, 2019 8:15 pm

To me one of the best ways to determine relative cost & profit is to actually look at where the current fleets are flying, because the airlines select all of these pieces to maximize profit.

Current 767's - paid for so just the variable costs. Still flying lots of routes where its lower capabilities are sufficient, but A330ceo / 788 are steadily taking route by route. It is phasing out.

A330ceo - probably paid for so just the variable costs. Its routes are steadily getting shorter or lower payload. Not phasing out yet, but it will be.

A330neo - an excellent plane, picking up a lot of medium range routes where it excels, taking over both 767 and 330ceo routes.

787 - probably on the sweet spot of the WB market, excellent costs on a wide range of routes from the medium to long range. Too much plane for trans Atlantic unless getting well to the center of the continents. On the longer TPAC its costs are better than the A330neo and the A350

350 - it is the best plane where more capability is needed, clearly on the home turf on the longest routes.
 
ewt340
Posts: 859
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!?

Sat Nov 02, 2019 8:51 pm

SteelChair wrote:
I would be very interested to know "real prices paid" for 330neo vs 787 and 350. The 330 has to be less, but by how much? Probably enough to pay for a lot of gas. My guess is that for flights under 8-9 hours, the 330n burns less block fuel than an A350, not as confident on the per seat basis.

And although this wasn't the question, and although Delta hasn't shown much interest in fleet commonality, the 330neo and 321ceo/neo orders are going to greatly ease their huge (some say unmanageable) pilot training footprint the next few years as thousands of pilots shift seats due to retirements. Moving from the 737 to the 330 is something like 6-8 weeks of training, moving from the 320series to the 330 is like a week. Multiply that by, oh say, 3,000 over the next 5 years to guesstimate the time/cost savings on pilot training. $Millions saved. Not to mention the time. Those numbers are just wild guesses. But the real ones will be large numbers.


To be fair, $3-$4 millions difference would probably be enough for them to sway to the other model. I don't think we would ever actually seen the actual numbers. Even airbus stop publically listing the prices these days.
 
LAOCA
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:18 pm

Re: Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!?

Sat Nov 02, 2019 9:38 pm

To answer why DL has 330/350s:

The 330neo is pretty much tied in efficiency for its size with the 789 for segments around 4000 - <5000 nm. Which is the bulk of DL's long haul flying is. Buying them for less than 789s made them an overall great choice.

Aside from being larger, the 359 also has more range than the 330neo. And at longer range segments that the 330 can still technically fly, it becomes less efficent to operate than a 350 (or 789). So Delta has three needs for 359s: Flights the 330 does not have the range for, flights that the 330 is less efficient flying, and flights where more capacity is desired.

The 300neo has proven itself to perform better than expected overall, including at stage lengths longer than it was originally planned to be used for. Hence DL's delay in 350 deliveries, and increase in 330neos. Most the delayed 350s will likely be replacements for aging 777ERs.

330neo v 789: if a larger portion of DL's flights had longer stage lengths, or if Boeing had matched the price for the 330s, it may have been a different story. And had it been a different story, 789s could have not just been the choice over 330-900s, but also have negated the need for 350s altogether. And in such a scenario, there could have been some 787-10s mixed in for higher capacity needs. That was probably the alternate combination DL was considering when evaluating the decision.

DLs decision seems very sound to me. The likely future of DL's mid to long haul fleet (post retirements) will probably look like 797s, A330s, A359s, with the possibility of a few A350-1000s.

. .

.
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1415
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!?

Sun Nov 03, 2019 1:33 pm

LAOCA wrote:
To answer why DL has 330/350s:

The 330neo is pretty much tied in efficiency for its size with the 789 for segments around 4000 - <5000 nm. Which is the bulk of DL's long haul flying is. Buying them for less than 789s made them an overall great choice.


if Boeing had matched the price for the 330s, it may have been a different story. And had it been a different story, 789s could have not just been the choice over 330-900s, but also have negated the need for 350s altogether. And in such a scenario, there could have been some 787-10s mixed in for higher capacity needs. That was probably the alternate combination DL was considering when evaluating the decision.


DLs decision seems very sound to me. The likely future of DL's mid to long haul fleet (post retirements) will probably look like 797s, A330s, A359s, with the possibility of a few A350-1000s. .


Consider also that Delta wants to provide a more "premium" flying experience than its competitors, which the A339 in 8-Y and the A359 in 9-Y facilitate. That is part of the equation also, and I suspect underpinned the recent order by its associate VS for A339s. DL had the opportunity to take the launch-priced B787s ordered by Northwest but cancelled them.

I agree with you about the future shape of DL's fleet, as long as Boeing proceeds with the 797. If not, there may be space for a down-rated "A" market version of the A338 (spoken of but not yet defined publicly by Airbus) for the more dense internal US routes.
 
Sokes
Posts: 438
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!?

Mon Nov 04, 2019 2:26 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:

As someone mentioned, sales started to spike for the A330 when Airbus started increasing MTOW. I know initially Airbus did not want the A330 to directly compete with the A340. In hindsight a missed opportunity to kill the 767 a little earlier than it ultimately did.
...


A330 entry into service 1994 with MTOW 212 t, from 1998 230 t.
A340-300 entry into service 1993 with CFM 56 engines,
A340-500/ 600 entry into service 2002 with RR trent 500.

As IAE didn't deliver the promised engines for the A340 and Airbus had to go with CFM-56, why would Airbus not try to focus on the A330 from the beginning?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11254
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!?

Tue Nov 05, 2019 7:04 am

Sokes wrote:
why would Airbus not try to focus on the A330 from the beginning?


Availability of sufficiently strong engines I would think....

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

Re: Does the A330-900neo burn less fuel than the A350 or 787!?

Wed Nov 06, 2019 5:36 am

SteelChair wrote:
I would be very interested to know "real prices paid" for 330neo vs 787 and 350. The 330 has to be less, but by how much? Probably enough to pay for a lot of gas. My guess is that for flights under 8-9 hours, the 330n burns less block fuel than an A350, not as confident on the per seat basis.

And although this wasn't the question, and although Delta hasn't shown much interest in fleet commonality, the 330neo and 321ceo/neo orders are going to greatly ease their huge (some say unmanageable) pilot training footprint the next few years as thousands of pilots shift seats due to retirements. Moving from the 737 to the 330 is something like 6-8 weeks of training, moving from the 320series to the 330 is like a week. Multiply that by, oh say, 3,000 over the next 5 years to guesstimate the time/cost savings on pilot training. $Millions saved. Not to mention the time. Those numbers are just wild guesses. But the real ones will be large numbers.


40-55% off list price I'd say. NW got A330s at a steal back when Airbus really wanted to break into the US...$75-80 million. Boeing was selling 77Ws for $135-145 million some years back. Now to find the Airbus list prices.....
oh boy, here we go!!!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 452QX, Google Adsense [Bot], SAAFNAV, tommy1808 and 35 guests

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