Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Sokes
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:11 pm

The -300 ER is known to cruise low at high weights. Very long flights are better done by newer models.

So what to do with all the planes? Will they be used strongly for eight hour or so flights? Can an A330 Neo compete once one considers capital cost?
Or is the capacity gap too big to use a B777-300ER instead of an A330-900?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 9598
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:38 pm

Sokes wrote:
The -300 ER is known to cruise low at high weights. Very long flights are better done by newer models.

So what to do with all the planes? Will they be used strongly for eight hour or so flights? Can an A330 Neo compete once one considers capital cost?
Or is the capacity gap too big to use a B777-300ER instead of an A330-900?


The A330-900neo wouldn't be one of the better/newer models for very long flights - it doesn't have 77W-equivalent range. It wouldn't be the A380, either - the market has spoken on that. What fraction of carriers with big fleets of 77Ws has rushed to replace them with A350-1000s? (Not a big fraction!)

The availability of something new and marginally better doesn't immediately obsolete hundred of $Billions of aircraft. The existence of a resale market for NGs, A320ceos and 77Ws confirms this. See lightsaber's posts on used market offerings impeding sales of new. (I don't agree with him 100% on the topic but his views have merit.) Look at a 12% fuel savings vs. acquisition cost for a new frame with avg utilization of 10-12 hours a day. Add in some maintenance savings. Plenty of market-tested big carriers (BA, SQ, WN, AS) happily fly 15-18 year old aircraft even if their fleet average may be down around ten-12 years.
 
Antarius
Posts: 3436
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:43 pm

The market has thus far not taken too well to the a330neo either. Couple of hundred orders out of which a bunch are unlikely to be filled ever. (AAX for example).

The a359 is the natural upgrade to a 77W at this time. And it's sales figures reflect that.
Militant Centrist
Let's all just use some common sense
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2505
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:57 pm

The presence of the large 77W fleet in this COVID world will price out before any new order, besides the availability is basically now verses several years away. Refurb of a 12 year old lease return have far lower total cost than a new build, even factoring in fuel costs etc.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13974
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sat Jan 02, 2021 7:00 pm

Antarius wrote:
The a359 is the natural upgrade to a 77W at this time. And it's sales figures reflect that.

I'd say that the A35K better fulfills that role of "natural upgrade," and its (low) sales figures also reflect something else:
that (1) the replacement cycle for the 77W hasn't really begun in earnest, and (2) airlines are still quite satisfied with them (77Ws) as longhaul workhorses.

Keep in mind that the eldest 773ERs out there are still less than 17yrs in service, with the median in the 10-11ish year range.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 957
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sat Jan 02, 2021 7:12 pm

Sokes wrote:
The -300 ER is known to cruise low at high weights. Very long flights are better done by newer models.

So what to do with all the planes? Will they be used strongly for eight hour or so flights? Can an A330 Neo compete once one considers capital cost?
Or is the capacity gap too big to use a B777-300ER instead of an A330-900?


The A339 basically works well up to about 4000nm. Fuel burn is in line with the 789 within 1-2%. Beyond this it is not as competitive. It would be interesting to see CASM for a 5000nm flight with a 77W versus an A339. My guess is it would be very close.

As others have said, the A350 family is the natural replacement for the 77W. The 787-10 would also be a good choice if you don't need all the range. It is too early in the 777 replacement cycle to see who the ultimate winners and losers will be. My guess is the bulk go to the 787 and A350.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13974
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sat Jan 02, 2021 8:36 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
It would be interesting to see CASM for a 5000nm flight with a 77W versus an A339. My guess is it would be very close.

That's too variable of a metric to have any meaningful use on its own though; as it all depends on an carrier's chosen configuration, which can vary significantly even within the same airline, depending on the intended mission/purpose of the aircraft.

As an example, an airline could have a 77W as its 4class premium flagship, with more than half of it filled by spacious F, C, and even W arrangements. That's going to kill CASM, despite likely raising RASM. The same airline could have an A339 as its leisure-route cattle hauler with a small J class, no W, and packed to the gills with Y.

Heck, ya don't even have to change the aircraft models in order to have the same effect:
witness AF with its high-premium 77Ws versus COI 77Ws, which would have significantly different CASM numbers despite being the same airline and same aircraft.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
Opus99
Posts: 2217
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sat Jan 02, 2021 8:39 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Antarius wrote:
The a359 is the natural upgrade to a 77W at this time. And it's sales figures reflect that.

I'd say that the A35K better fulfills that role of "natural upgrade," and its (low) sales figures also reflect something else:
that (1) the replacement cycle for the 77W hasn't really begun in earnest, and (2) airlines are still quite satisfied with them (77Ws) as longhaul workhorses.

Keep in mind that the eldest 773ERs out there are still less than 17yrs in service, with the median in the 10-11ish year range.

But of course when one tries to apply this argument to the 777X it is shut down in a heartbeat....pass
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13974
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sat Jan 02, 2021 8:40 pm

Opus99 wrote:
But of course when one tries to apply this argument to the 777X it is shut down in a heartbeat....pass

Why bother getting upset over irrational conclusions?

Same concept applies, though the 779's numbers would be even further impacted due to its larger size + lesser flexibility + and lack of tangible service numbers at all yet.

Only thing that's going to fix any of the above, is time and market growth, and the unknown factor is "to what extent" for either.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
Antarius
Posts: 3436
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:01 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Antarius wrote:
The a359 is the natural upgrade to a 77W at this time. And it's sales figures reflect that.

I'd say that the A35K better fulfills that role of "natural upgrade," and its (low) sales figures also reflect something else:
that (1) the replacement cycle for the 77W hasn't really begun in earnest, and (2) airlines are still quite satisfied with them (77Ws) as longhaul workhorses.

Keep in mind that the eldest 773ERs out there are still less than 17yrs in service, with the median in the 10-11ish year range.


Fair point. One thing to consider though is whether airlines will downgauge as replacements as well. The 77W was essentially unmatched in it's class for a long time (options were the a346, a380 and 748i, all which combined sold less than the 77W) so it ended up being the de facto aircraft for large sized long haul aircraft.

Now there are more options. There is certainly some market for the a35K and 779 for LHR type routes, but do airlines always need the capacity? The a359 could be a replacement for airlines who bought the 77W due to its range, load and economics, but didn't quite need the extra cabin space that the 77W offers vs the a359.
Militant Centrist
Let's all just use some common sense
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13974
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:23 pm

Antarius wrote:
Now there are more options. There is certainly some market for the a35K and 779 for LHR type routes, but do airlines always need the capacity? The a359 could be a replacement for airlines who bought the 77W due to its range, load and economics, but didn't quite need the extra cabin space that the 77W offers vs the a359.

Only thing that's going to tell us that is time.

It's highly plausible though, as airlines like BA and LH have shown that longhaul from the likes of AUS/MSY/BNA/etc can be significant moneymakers; furthered by the fact that, with few exceptions ([email protected], [email protected], [email protected]) we really haven't seen the second level of TPAC fragmentation yet. Meaning there's a sizeable potential market there that the smaller 788/789 and A359 would likely be the largest beneficiaries thereof. Maybe the 778 too, if we get more clarity on what Boeing actually plans to aim it at.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
BAorAB
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun May 05, 2019 10:11 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:52 pm

A330Neo isn't in the same league as the 77W, it's not even really worth a comparison given the range and payload differences being significantly lower for the 330neo. A339 has racked up 332 orders, 2/3rds of them are almost certainty going to be cancelled post covid, and several of the carriers that ordered won't even survive. AAX has 78 of those orders and have already pivoted on their strategy to try and survive.
I don't expect more than 100 to ever be delivered before the program dies. To date 51 have been delivered.

I think 777W operators who want to scale down to 300 seats have much better options than A339. Note that of all the airlines that have placed orders for the A339 only ONE (Garuda Indonesia - 10 77W) has any fleet of 77W. They also have 24 A332/3 in the fleet so that's likely what the A339's are replacing. Given this it's clear airlines aren't considering A339 as a 777W replacement.

The natural true 77W replacements would be the A35K and 777X. However given how well the A359 has performed for airlines as their 772 replacement, coupled with the trend towards smaller aircraft and point to point routes, we can expect the 359 to be used as the replacement aircraft for 77W more than we would usually expect, particularly with the introduction of ULH routes. (Right now the 789 is winning that trade down battle). So far the excellent sales history of the 359 has been due to it's timing inline with the 772 and A340 replacement cycle boom, we should expect it to benefit from the 77W replacement cycle too. We shouldn't take too much into account with the A35K slow sales start, as it's perfect legacy predecessor is the 77W and it's replacement cycle has barely begun if at all.

The 777X will have a significant role to play as well in the 777W replacement cycle. Firstly because it'll likely be the largest aircraft on the market for most our lifetimes. It's a great aircraft and the fact the worlds 5 top regarded airlines for innovation and stability have ordered it tells its story of a successful future. Cathay, Singapore, Lufthansa, Emirates & BA. I expect the 777W replacement cycle to go 40% (777X) 35% (A35K) 20% (A359) 10% (787-10). Many 77W's operate with 400 seat configuration today, to keep that capacity on busy routes the 777X will be the only game in town for replacement.

The 777X should reach 1000 orders in it's lifetime it not more. It's the ONLY true replacement for the 747 & A380 (currently approx. 350 in service) plus expect 40% of 777W replacements currently (821 active 848) ordered. so 700 likely orders plus market growth potential.

The 787X has been the true star of 2020. It's performed much better than even Boeing anticipated. Today it's the most efficient aircraft on flights up to 10.5hrs (covers 90% of long haul routes). It flies 12hrs with full payload on regular scheduled routes. Therefore it too has a place to fill some 777W replacements however not it's target market. I do expect greater than 50% of the A330-300 replacement cycle to go to the 787X. Early examples being SQ, Etihad, KLM, EVA, Vietnam. So many more will follow.

78X will eat A330's cake like A359 ate 772's cake. The 77W replacement cycle is everyone's game to play in. (except the 330neo. LOL!)
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 1075
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sat Jan 02, 2021 10:00 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
The presence of the large 77W fleet in this COVID world will price out before any new order, besides the availability is basically now verses several years away. Refurb of a 12 year old lease return have far lower total cost than a new build, even factoring in fuel costs etc.


Sigh. Neither is going to be clearly more expensive or cheaper than the other. That is exactly how the market price of the used 77W and the new A350 are defined, respectively. They are defined by net present value add in the same world.
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 853
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sat Jan 02, 2021 10:06 pm

Sokes wrote:
The -300 ER is known to cruise low at high weights. Very long flights are better done by newer models.

So what to do with all the planes? Will they be used strongly for eight hour or so flights? Can an A330 Neo compete once one considers capital cost?
Or is the capacity gap too big to use a B777-300ER instead of an A330-900?


I’m rather confused by the proposition. Between the A359 and A339, the A350 is probably a better long haul replacement. The A339 is filling a niche for operators with smaller long haul fleets looking to minimize capital costs (with the exception of Delta). I believe Garuda is the only A339 operator that also flies the 777-300ER. To date the A339 hasn’t been particularly popular with 777-300ER operators.

With that said, initial cruising altitude is not the only factor when choosing what routes each airplane is best for. I’d be surprised to see 777-300ERs relegated to shorter routes. Engine maintenance costs would skyrocket.
 
User avatar
Lighthouse
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2021 11:38 am

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sat Jan 02, 2021 10:35 pm

Different planes for different purposes. The A339 is a relatively low cost stop gap to fill a niche and steal a handful of Dreamliner orders. If you can negotiate a low enough price for a big enough fleet, like TAP and VIR, it’ll work. If airlines like TCX and MON were still around, it’d probably work for them too. AUI would probably be another good fit, if they had the cash to replace their ancient 767/777s. Any airline where used 77Ws are too much airplane.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 22379
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sat Jan 02, 2021 11:26 pm

If one is talking cruise altitude, for the most part that is wing loading (tons per m^2).
The A330NEO has a much larger wing than the A330CEO
Plane, Empty weight (metric tons), MTOW (metric tons), Wing area (m^2), Wing aspect ratio (helps determine 2nd order efficiency at cruise), wing loading (tons/m^2 at empty then MTOW)
A333CEO 129.4 tons, 242 tons MTOW , 317 m^2, 10.06 AR (very well done), .41 ton/m^2, .76 ton/m^2
A339NEO 135 tons, 251 tons MTOW, 328 m^2 (wow!), but 8.8 AR (a bit draggy, but gets into thin air), .41 ton/m^2, .77 ton/ m^2
A359 142.4 tons, 280 tons, 443 m^2 280 tons, 9.49 AR, .32 ton/m^2, .63 ton/m^2
A35K 155 tons, 316 tons, 461 m^2 9.03 AR, .34 ton/m^2, .69 ton/m^2
789 128.85 tons, 254 tons, 377 m^2, 9.59 aspect ratio, .34 ton/m^2, .67 ton/m^2
787-10 135.5 tons, 254 tons (yes, same as 789), 377 m^2, 9.59 aspect ratio .36 ton/m^2, .67 ton/m^2
77W 135.85 tons, 297.55 tons, 436.8 m^2, AR 9.04, .31 ton m^2, .68 ton/m^2
779 176.9 tons (seems high, but best # I found), 351.5, 516.7 m^2, 9.96 AR (allows underside laminar flow, Airbus calls this "wing twist" to avoid a patent.) .34 ton/m^2, .68 ton/m^2

Just for reference, as know to have low wing loading
A380 277.15 tons, 575 tons, 845 m^2, 7.53 AR (bad... really bad), .33 tons/m^2, .68 tons/m^2

Note, many bad sources on A350-1000, used:
https://leehamnews.com/2017/06/27/airbu ... apability/

Typo in A330NEO wing area, cleared up here, I found more errors on A330NEO real wing area than factual area. I use 306 m^2+22*2 m^2.
viewtopic.php?t=1444239#:~:text=The%20A330NEO%20wing%20area%20is%20given%20as%205010,square%20feet%20of%20wing%20area%20from%20those%20winglets.

So talking numbers, the A330 actually has high wing loading at MTOW vs. any aircraft, with the A359 the best optimized for long range missions, in a leaque of its own. Complaints about the a350-1000 not saving enough money per passenger is probably due to the higher wing loading. It just has to go through thicker air. (The A350-1000 needs a weight loss PiP I suspect is already in work.)

The 77W was good, but at high loads is a bit high, but not as bad as the A330.

Be careful on A330 wing area sources, most of them out there are based of a typo. The A339 had a small wingtip extension, Plausible to add 22 m^2 for just under 4 m of wing extension.

The A339 is well optimized for the 10 hour mission. When flying further, the "in the crown" crew rests of the 77W would need to be considered as either the A339 gives up cargo volume for a crew rest or seats.

If you are flying far, the A359 and 789 are the clear winners. Pick one and go with it, although the 779 I think the empty weight is too high (far too high). With the given weight it is competitive, but I see a plane that gained some weight over the 77W, but not 41 tons... I'm looking for a good 779 empty weight.

Lightsaber
7 months without TV. The best decision of my life.
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 455
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sat Jan 02, 2021 11:42 pm

lightsaber wrote:
If one is talking cruise altitude, for the most part that is wing loading (tons per m^2).
The A330NEO has a much larger wing than the A330CEO
Plane, Empty weight (metric tons), MTOW (metric tons), Wing area (m^2), Wing aspect ratio (helps determine 2nd order efficiency at cruise), wing loading (tons/m^2 at empty then MTOW)
A333CEO 129.4 tons, 242 tons MTOW , 317 m^2, 10.06 AR (very well done), .41 ton/m^2, .76 ton/m^2
A339NEO 135 tons, 251 tons MTOW, 328 m^2 (wow!), but 8.8 AR (a bit draggy, but gets into thin air), .41 ton/m^2, .77 ton/ m^2
A359 142.4 tons, 280 tons, 443 m^2 280 tons, 9.49 AR, .32 ton/m^2, .63 ton/m^2
A35K 155 tons, 316 tons, 461 m^2 9.03 AR, .34 ton/m^2, .69 ton/m^2
789 128.85 tons, 254 tons, 377 m^2, 9.59 aspect ratio, .34 ton/m^2, .67 ton/m^2
787-10 135.5 tons, 254 tons (yes, same as 789), 377 m^2, 9.59 aspect ratio .36 ton/m^2, .67 ton/m^2
77W 135.85 tons, 297.55 tons, 436.8 m^2, AR 9.04, .31 ton m^2, .68 ton/m^2
779 176.9 tons (seems high, but best # I found), 351.5, 516.7 m^2, 9.96 AR (allows underside laminar flow, Airbus calls this "wing twist" to avoid a patent.) .34 ton/m^2, .68 ton/m^2

Just for reference, as know to have low wing loading
A380 277.15 tons, 575 tons, 845 m^2, 7.53 AR (bad... really bad), .33 tons/m^2, .68 tons/m^2

Note, many bad sources on A350-1000, used:
https://leehamnews.com/2017/06/27/airbu ... apability/

Typo in A330NEO wing area, cleared up here, I found more errors on A330NEO real wing area than factual area. I use 306 m^2+22*2 m^2.
viewtopic.php?t=1444239#:~:text=The%20A330NEO%20wing%20area%20is%20given%20as%205010,square%20feet%20of%20wing%20area%20from%20those%20winglets.

So talking numbers, the A330 actually has high wing loading at MTOW vs. any aircraft, with the A359 the best optimized for long range missions, in a leaque of its own. Complaints about the a350-1000 not saving enough money per passenger is probably due to the higher wing loading. It just has to go through thicker air. (The A350-1000 needs a weight loss PiP I suspect is already in work.)

The 77W was good, but at high loads is a bit high, but not as bad as the A330.

Be careful on A330 wing area sources, most of them out there are based of a typo. The A339 had a small wingtip extension, Plausible to add 22 m^2 for just under 4 m of wing extension.

The A339 is well optimized for the 10 hour mission. When flying further, the "in the crown" crew rests of the 77W would need to be considered as either the A339 gives up cargo volume for a crew rest or seats.

If you are flying far, the A359 and 789 are the clear winners. Pick one and go with it, although the 779 I think the empty weight is too high (far too high). With the given weight it is competitive, but I see a plane that gained some weight over the 77W, but not 41 tons... I'm looking for a good 779 empty weight.

Lightsaber

Your weights are way off. The A359 is around 135t. The A35K is around 148t-150. The A339neo in a premium heavy configuration is around 131t. The 78X and 359 are about the same weight. I think you got the 77W quite wrong, I think you will find most 333CEO to be around 124-5. The 77W is around 168-170t. The 779 is going to end around 180 I would guess. You will seldom find a 35K heavier than 152 DOW.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13974
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sat Jan 02, 2021 11:53 pm

BAorAB wrote:
the worlds 5 top regarded airlines for innovation and stability

That's marketing jargon that doesn't actually mean anything.


BAorAB wrote:
Many 77W's operate with 400 seat configuration today, to keep that capacity on busy routes the 777X will be the only game in town for replacement.

400+ seat 77Ws are a comparative rarity.


BAorAB wrote:
It's the ONLY true replacement for the 747 & A380 (currently approx. 350 in service)

Define "true replacement," and how you figure that it applies to the pax aviation industry (spoiler: it doesn't).


BAorAB wrote:
Today it's the most efficient aircraft on flights up to 10.5hrs (covers 90% of long haul routes).

That is.... not an objectively factual statement.


BAorAB wrote:
like A359 ate 772's cake.

Huh :confused:

As incredible as the A359 is, it didn't do squat to the 772, other than launch as it was retiring.
The last-built passenger 772 had already been delivered, before the first A359 revenue flight even took to the skies-- there's almost no causative effect between the two.

If you want an example of "eating cake," then look to the 77W versus A346, the former outselling the latter nearly 9-to-1, in concurrent production time.
Last edited by LAX772LR on Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2801
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:11 am

BAorAB wrote:
The 777X will have a significant role to play as well in the 777W replacement cycle. Firstly because it'll likely be the largest aircraft on the market for most our lifetimes. It's a great aircraft and the fact the worlds 5 top regarded airlines for innovation and stability have ordered it tells its story of a successful future. Cathay, Singapore, Lufthansa, Emirates & BA. I expect the 777W replacement cycle to go 40% (777X) 35% (A35K) 20% (A359) 10% (787-10). Many 77W's operate with 400 seat configuration today, to keep that capacity on busy routes the 777X will be the only game in town for replacement.


I'm not confident about the 777X being a runaway success at all, worth noting that the A380 had a stable of customers who were regarded, stable and 'innovative', but that is near enough a complete failure but for EK, BA and SQ being enthusiastic about it. Even now there are worrying noises about downsizing and/or converting 777X orders. It's not really gained huge traction, and I don't see why airlines that haven't ordered it would go for it when they can get more flexible A350s and 787s (save maybe a few like AF, TK, TG, UA, AA).

The 777X should reach 1000 orders in it's lifetime it not more. It's the ONLY true replacement for the 747 & A380 (currently approx. 350 in service) plus expect 40% of 777W replacements currently (821 active 848) ordered. so 700 likely orders plus market growth potential.


The 747 and A380s have effectively been replaced or had their replacements designated at most airlines, save EK, KE, OZ, QF, BA, SQ, but we'll have to see whether the latter 3 keep it (I expect they will post-pandemic). 1000 orders is extremely optimistic, not even the 77W reached that despite being the best aircraft available by far and having no effective competition. With the 787 and A350 around, that's not true now. I suspect most 77Ws will be replaced by A350s or 787s.

The 787X has been the true star of 2020. It's performed much better than even Boeing anticipated. Today it's the most efficient aircraft on flights up to 10.5hrs (covers 90% of long haul routes). It flies 12hrs with full payload on regular scheduled routes. Therefore it too has a place to fill some 777W replacements however not it's target market. I do expect greater than 50% of the A330-300 replacement cycle to go to the 787X. Early examples being SQ, Etihad, KLM, EVA, Vietnam. So many more will follow.


I kind of hope the A339 makes a comeback, but I do agree that the 78X will be the big player here.

78X will eat A330's cake like A359 ate 772's cake. The 77W replacement cycle is everyone's game to play in. (except the 330neo. LOL!)


The 777X will get its share, but at the moment with the delays, the production rate being so low (worse economies of scale) and the competition from smaller and more flexible aircraft I find it difficult to see it achieving the success Boeing wants and needs it to have.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 22379
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:26 am

DylanHarvey wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
If one is talking cruise altitude, for the most part that is wing loading (tons per m^2).
The A330NEO has a much larger wing than the A330CEO
Plane, Empty weight (metric tons), MTOW (metric tons), Wing area (m^2), Wing aspect ratio (helps determine 2nd order efficiency at cruise), wing loading (tons/m^2 at empty then MTOW)
A333CEO 129.4 tons, 242 tons MTOW , 317 m^2, 10.06 AR (very well done), .41 ton/m^2, .76 ton/m^2
A339NEO 135 tons, 251 tons MTOW, 328 m^2 (wow!), but 8.8 AR (a bit draggy, but gets into thin air), .41 ton/m^2, .77 ton/ m^2
A359 142.4 tons, 280 tons, 443 m^2 280 tons, 9.49 AR, .32 ton/m^2, .63 ton/m^2
A35K 155 tons, 316 tons, 461 m^2 9.03 AR, .34 ton/m^2, .69 ton/m^2
789 128.85 tons, 254 tons, 377 m^2, 9.59 aspect ratio, .34 ton/m^2, .67 ton/m^2
787-10 135.5 tons, 254 tons (yes, same as 789), 377 m^2, 9.59 aspect ratio .36 ton/m^2, .67 ton/m^2
77W 135.85 tons, 297.55 tons, 436.8 m^2, AR 9.04, .31 ton m^2, .68 ton/m^2
779 176.9 tons (seems high, but best # I found), 351.5, 516.7 m^2, 9.96 AR (allows underside laminar flow, Airbus calls this "wing twist" to avoid a patent.) .34 ton/m^2, .68 ton/m^2

Just for reference, as know to have low wing loading
A380 277.15 tons, 575 tons, 845 m^2, 7.53 AR (bad... really bad), .33 tons/m^2, .68 tons/m^2

Note, many bad sources on A350-1000, used:
https://leehamnews.com/2017/06/27/airbu ... apability/

Typo in A330NEO wing area, cleared up here, I found more errors on A330NEO real wing area than factual area. I use 306 m^2+22*2 m^2.
viewtopic.php?t=1444239#:~:text=The%20A330NEO%20wing%20area%20is%20given%20as%205010,square%20feet%20of%20wing%20area%20from%20those%20winglets.

So talking numbers, the A330 actually has high wing loading at MTOW vs. any aircraft, with the A359 the best optimized for long range missions, in a leaque of its own. Complaints about the a350-1000 not saving enough money per passenger is probably due to the higher wing loading. It just has to go through thicker air. (The A350-1000 needs a weight loss PiP I suspect is already in work.)

The 77W was good, but at high loads is a bit high, but not as bad as the A330.

Be careful on A330 wing area sources, most of them out there are based of a typo. The A339 had a small wingtip extension, Plausible to add 22 m^2 for just under 4 m of wing extension.

The A339 is well optimized for the 10 hour mission. When flying further, the "in the crown" crew rests of the 77W would need to be considered as either the A339 gives up cargo volume for a crew rest or seats.

If you are flying far, the A359 and 789 are the clear winners. Pick one and go with it, although the 779 I think the empty weight is too high (far too high). With the given weight it is competitive, but I see a plane that gained some weight over the 77W, but not 41 tons... I'm looking for a good 779 empty weight.

Lightsaber

Your weights are way off. The A359 is around 135t. The A35K is around 148t-150. The A339neo in a premium heavy configuration is around 131t. The 78X and 359 are about the same weight. I think you got the 77W quite wrong, I think you will find most 333CEO to be around 124-5. The 77W is around 168-170t. The 779 is going to end around 180 I would guess. You will seldom find a 35K heavier than 152 DOW.

Do you have sources? I see many claims, usually one side inflating the others to a degree that would mean that the market history couldn't have happened as it did. So I would appreciate sources, I used Wikipedia, which has faults, but at least has references.

I agree the 77W is low, but how much? Yes, I should have looked at that more, it is low. If you don't like those weights, just do MTOW over wing area. That tells you the altitude of initial cruise pretty well.
Feel free to compare and put together your own numbers. But numbers eventually are reflected in sales history as airlines are sophisticated customers.
Numbers I've seen on the 787-10 indicate it is lighter than the A359. If not, quite simply a smaller winged plane would never sell. UA could never have flown it SFO to PEK.

This old analysis goes into why the 787-10 will be lighter:
https://leehamnews.com/2017/11/15/emira ... gs-787-10/

Since the 787-10 has sold, it couldn't be the same weight as the A359, in particular the smaller wing and less optimal engines mean a cruise fuel burn penalty that grows with range. The cost on shorter missions between these two is going to be dependent upon weight on shorter missions and then tilt in favor the A359 thanks to the larger wing and higher pressure ratio and greater bypass ratio (but significantly heavier) engines. T1000 weighs 6033kg per engine, Txwb weighs 7277 kg for the A359 version (A350-1000 is heavier, naturally).
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... %20XWB.pdf
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... 191105.pdf

So while the engines are a good optimization, that is 2.5 tons there alone. Then we're talking a smaller wing and smaller diameter body on the 787-10. With the strength of CFRP, that should be a lighter body on the 787-10 as so much of the weight, as per the Leeham analysis, should be surface area as ribs and skin thickness aren't that different between the two airframers and as noted, the construction techniques do not produce a significant weight difference.

So I will happily change weights, but if the A359 were as light as the 787-10, UA would have taken then, EK would have never considered the 787-10 (yes, order changed) and most of all, SQ, an A359 operator, would never have bought the type, nor Etihad, nor AirFrance, nor BA (they would have bought A359 with their A350-1000), and Air NewZealand's order was certainly in contention when they switched engines instead of taking more compensation on the Txwb.

This brings up back to A339 vs. 789, the real competition. While I can accept my numbers need to be adjusted, I believe their empty weight ratios are appropriate.

So if you have sources for better numbers, please share.

Lightsaber
7 months without TV. The best decision of my life.
 
ShadowLaw
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2018 6:34 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:27 am

DylanHarvey wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
If one is talking cruise altitude, for the most part that is wing loading (tons per m^2).
The A330NEO has a much larger wing than the A330CEO
Plane, Empty weight (metric tons), MTOW (metric tons), Wing area (m^2), Wing aspect ratio (helps determine 2nd order efficiency at cruise), wing loading (tons/m^2 at empty then MTOW)
A333CEO 129.4 tons, 242 tons MTOW , 317 m^2, 10.06 AR (very well done), .41 ton/m^2, .76 ton/m^2
A339NEO 135 tons, 251 tons MTOW, 328 m^2 (wow!), but 8.8 AR (a bit draggy, but gets into thin air), .41 ton/m^2, .77 ton/ m^2
A359 142.4 tons, 280 tons, 443 m^2 280 tons, 9.49 AR, .32 ton/m^2, .63 ton/m^2
A35K 155 tons, 316 tons, 461 m^2 9.03 AR, .34 ton/m^2, .69 ton/m^2
789 128.85 tons, 254 tons, 377 m^2, 9.59 aspect ratio, .34 ton/m^2, .67 ton/m^2
787-10 135.5 tons, 254 tons (yes, same as 789), 377 m^2, 9.59 aspect ratio .36 ton/m^2, .67 ton/m^2
77W 135.85 tons, 297.55 tons, 436.8 m^2, AR 9.04, .31 ton m^2, .68 ton/m^2
779 176.9 tons (seems high, but best # I found), 351.5, 516.7 m^2, 9.96 AR (allows underside laminar flow, Airbus calls this "wing twist" to avoid a patent.) .34 ton/m^2, .68 ton/m^2

Just for reference, as know to have low wing loading
A380 277.15 tons, 575 tons, 845 m^2, 7.53 AR (bad... really bad), .33 tons/m^2, .68 tons/m^2

Note, many bad sources on A350-1000, used:
https://leehamnews.com/2017/06/27/airbu ... apability/

Typo in A330NEO wing area, cleared up here, I found more errors on A330NEO real wing area than factual area. I use 306 m^2+22*2 m^2.
viewtopic.php?t=1444239#:~:text=The%20A330NEO%20wing%20area%20is%20given%20as%205010,square%20feet%20of%20wing%20area%20from%20those%20winglets.

So talking numbers, the A330 actually has high wing loading at MTOW vs. any aircraft, with the A359 the best optimized for long range missions, in a leaque of its own. Complaints about the a350-1000 not saving enough money per passenger is probably due to the higher wing loading. It just has to go through thicker air. (The A350-1000 needs a weight loss PiP I suspect is already in work.)

The 77W was good, but at high loads is a bit high, but not as bad as the A330.

Be careful on A330 wing area sources, most of them out there are based of a typo. The A339 had a small wingtip extension, Plausible to add 22 m^2 for just under 4 m of wing extension.

The A339 is well optimized for the 10 hour mission. When flying further, the "in the crown" crew rests of the 77W would need to be considered as either the A339 gives up cargo volume for a crew rest or seats.

If you are flying far, the A359 and 789 are the clear winners. Pick one and go with it, although the 779 I think the empty weight is too high (far too high). With the given weight it is competitive, but I see a plane that gained some weight over the 77W, but not 41 tons... I'm looking for a good 779 empty weight.

Lightsaber

Your weights are way off. The A359 is around 135t. The A35K is around 148t-150. The A339neo in a premium heavy configuration is around 131t. The 78X and 359 are about the same weight. I think you got the 77W quite wrong, I think you will find most 333CEO to be around 124-5. The 77W is around 168-170t. The 779 is going to end around 180 I would guess. You will seldom find a 35K heavier than 152 DOW.


Exactly. How can the 77W and 787-10 have near identical empty weight ? The figures look way off.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5728
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sun Jan 03, 2021 1:00 am

The 77W was the outstanding long range airliner from its introduction in 2004 unti the A359 arrived on the scene. While the A350s have better economics, it is not by a huge margin and they are very expensive. The 789 can also fly as far but with lower capacity. With COVID playing havoc with passenger traffic for at least a few years airlines will be fighting for survival. And that means that they will be taking as few new planes as they can, probably by deferments rather than cancellations. In this environment older, less efficient planes are going to be cut, most never to fly again. But used planes that are not bad on efficiency and still have a lot of life in them and can be had cheaply will still be in demand. The 77W will definitely be in this category, the only question is how many of them the market can absorb, as a large number will be coming off lease in the next few years.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 22379
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sun Jan 03, 2021 1:03 am

ShadowLaw wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
If one is talking cruise altitude, for the most part that is wing loading (tons per m^2).
The A330NEO has a much larger wing than the A330CEO
Plane, Empty weight (metric tons), MTOW (metric tons), Wing area (m^2), Wing aspect ratio (helps determine 2nd order efficiency at cruise), wing loading (tons/m^2 at empty then MTOW)
A333CEO 129.4 tons, 242 tons MTOW , 317 m^2, 10.06 AR (very well done), .41 ton/m^2, .76 ton/m^2
A339NEO 135 tons, 251 tons MTOW, 328 m^2 (wow!), but 8.8 AR (a bit draggy, but gets into thin air), .41 ton/m^2, .77 ton/ m^2
A359 142.4 tons, 280 tons, 443 m^2 280 tons, 9.49 AR, .32 ton/m^2, .63 ton/m^2
A35K 155 tons, 316 tons, 461 m^2 9.03 AR, .34 ton/m^2, .69 ton/m^2
789 128.85 tons, 254 tons, 377 m^2, 9.59 aspect ratio, .34 ton/m^2, .67 ton/m^2
787-10 135.5 tons, 254 tons (yes, same as 789), 377 m^2, 9.59 aspect ratio .36 ton/m^2, .67 ton/m^2
77W 135.85 tons, 297.55 tons, 436.8 m^2, AR 9.04, .31 ton m^2, .68 ton/m^2
779 176.9 tons (seems high, but best # I found), 351.5, 516.7 m^2, 9.96 AR (allows underside laminar flow, Airbus calls this "wing twist" to avoid a patent.) .34 ton/m^2, .68 ton/m^2

Just for reference, as know to have low wing loading
A380 277.15 tons, 575 tons, 845 m^2, 7.53 AR (bad... really bad), .33 tons/m^2, .68 tons/m^2

Note, many bad sources on A350-1000, used:
https://leehamnews.com/2017/06/27/airbu ... apability/

Typo in A330NEO wing area, cleared up here, I found more errors on A330NEO real wing area than factual area. I use 306 m^2+22*2 m^2.
viewtopic.php?t=1444239#:~:text=The%20A330NEO%20wing%20area%20is%20given%20as%205010,square%20feet%20of%20wing%20area%20from%20those%20winglets.

So talking numbers, the A330 actually has high wing loading at MTOW vs. any aircraft, with the A359 the best optimized for long range missions, in a leaque of its own. Complaints about the a350-1000 not saving enough money per passenger is probably due to the higher wing loading. It just has to go through thicker air. (The A350-1000 needs a weight loss PiP I suspect is already in work.)

The 77W was good, but at high loads is a bit high, but not as bad as the A330.

Be careful on A330 wing area sources, most of them out there are based of a typo. The A339 had a small wingtip extension, Plausible to add 22 m^2 for just under 4 m of wing extension.

The A339 is well optimized for the 10 hour mission. When flying further, the "in the crown" crew rests of the 77W would need to be considered as either the A339 gives up cargo volume for a crew rest or seats.

If you are flying far, the A359 and 789 are the clear winners. Pick one and go with it, although the 779 I think the empty weight is too high (far too high). With the given weight it is competitive, but I see a plane that gained some weight over the 77W, but not 41 tons... I'm looking for a good 779 empty weight.

Lightsaber

Your weights are way off. The A359 is around 135t. The A35K is around 148t-150. The A339neo in a premium heavy configuration is around 131t. The 78X and 359 are about the same weight. I think you got the 77W quite wrong, I think you will find most 333CEO to be around 124-5. The 77W is around 168-170t. The 779 is going to end around 180 I would guess. You will seldom find a 35K heavier than 152 DOW.


Exactly. How can the 77W and 787-10 have near identical empty weight ? The figures look way off.

I agree I had a bad 77W value. But does someone else have better ones?
The 787 has a good backlog, 515 aircraft including 142 of the 787-10. Only by weight has the 787-10 competed (it certainly isn't range or payload at range).
Now the A350 has a good backlog of 532, perhaps one order ahead of the 787.
The 777 has a backlog of 363, it wouldn't have a backlog if it wasn't competitive
The a330 (total) has a backlog of 312.

The assertion the 787-10 weights the same as A359, when the A359 has "good weight" in the wings and engines that reduces the cruise fuel burn and allows the carrying of fuel for longer missions.

I would like better numbers. I need plausible numbers that explain why each has sold why it has. I have personally participated in sales campaigns and cannot share those numbers, so I use Wikipedia. But if someone has true numbers, I am interested. Numbers that explain why the 777-300ER sold 838 aircraft versus the A330-300s 785, despite the A330 receiving 1st orders in 1987 and the 777 started in 1990 (77W much later). Numbers that explain why quite a number of airlines ordered the 787-10 when the A359 was the logical order (as they either have A350s, or there is a differed order in the case of UA).

The A339 is a really good plane, but sales are struggling, in particular with the largest buyer effectively bankrupt. The wind is out of the 777-300ER's sails. Many sit idle, many are being scrapped and quite a few will be converted. But give a better online source if you will (obviously the Wiki 777-300ER weight is off). But the weights given as counter would mean the 777-300ER wouldn't have sold as well as the 787-10 would have failed (no sales what so ever as the only advantages the 787-10 has over the A350-900 is weight as sales price, from everything I hear, seems to be very similar).

Lightsaber
7 months without TV. The best decision of my life.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 22379
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sun Jan 03, 2021 1:35 am

SEPilot wrote:
The 77W was the outstanding long range airliner from its introduction in 2004 unti the A359 arrived on the scene. While the A350s have better economics, it is not by a huge margin and they are very expensive. The 789 can also fly as far but with lower capacity. With COVID playing havoc with passenger traffic for at least a few years airlines will be fighting for survival. And that means that they will be taking as few new planes as they can, probably by deferments rather than cancellations. In this environment older, less efficient planes are going to be cut, most never to fly again. But used planes that are not bad on efficiency and still have a lot of life in them and can be had cheaply will still be in demand. The 77W will definitely be in this category, the only question is how many of them the market can absorb, as a large number will be coming off lease in the next few years.

I would go further, the A330 (both A332 and A333) and 777-300ER will both find new homes. Many will be converted to freighters.
Unfortunately, the market is a cruel mistress:

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... 191105.pdf

Used value of a 15 year old A332 is only $17 million, the 777-300ER only $24.5 million. That implies freighter stock (agin, the limit of validity of A330 is 60,000 flight cycles (FC) and 180,000 Flight hours (FH), same cycles for 77W, just 160,000 FH, but no widebody at 15 years is even close (maximum is under half that in flight hours), so they aren't worn out).

Here are A350 rates (newer aircraft):
https://leehamnews.com/2020/09/22/hotr- ... ase-rates/

The 789 and A359 are holding really similar values. That wouldn't be if the 789 was too heavy.

Now fully on topic, the 77W values have plummeted (there is no nice way to put how badly the values have dropped), but they dropped to where the present value has a usable asset. A 5-year old aircraft losing a third of its value in a year is brutal.

But what is the A339 value? Well, no 5-year old aircraft. But I sincerely doubt it dropped less than the A359, or at least 20%.

A330s have done well, but I suspect that is due to already suppressed values making them great freight stock for an active conversion that is absorbing airframes.

Lightsaber
7 months without TV. The best decision of my life.
 
xwb565
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sun Jan 03, 2021 2:38 am

lightsaber wrote:


So if you have sources for better numbers, please share.

Lightsaber


Many including an a350 captain and those of us in the know have shared facts yet you stick to wrong numbers. But thanks to some kind souls on a.net, I will try again.
A359: Gross weight at 142.2 ton with 6.7t of fuel remaining.

https://twitter.com/MikaHissa/status/12 ... 2562265089

Image

A35k: Documentation on pilots desk shows basic weight of 147.9 ton

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EYCw5NzXYAA ... name=large

Image
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 22379
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sun Jan 03, 2021 2:52 am

xwb565 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:


So if you have sources for better numbers, please share.

Lightsaber


Many including an a350 captain and those of us in the know have shared facts yet you stick to wrong numbers. But thanks to some kind souls on a.net, I will try again.
A359: Gross weight at 142.2 ton with 6.7t of fuel remaining.

https://twitter.com/MikaHissa/status/12 ... 2562265089

Image

A35k: Documentation on pilots desk shows basic weight of 147.9 ton

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EYCw5NzXYAA ... name=large

Image

Thank you. What configuration? (High Y, premium?)

They shared numbers, but also that the 787-10 and A350-900 weighed about the same. If they did, I guarantee not one 787-10 would have sold (less wing area, lower pressure ratio engines, lower bypass). The engines, as I noted above by showing certification documents, weight about 2.5 tons more on the A350-900. I'll accept my numbers are wrong, I wish to correct. What matters most is the relatives weights (e.g., A339NEO vs. 77W as for this thread title).

I work on the other side of the industry. The weight of the aircraft as it leaves the factory. I respect those weights are lighter than in service, but that is what we work to maintain as that is the guarantee.

Lightsaber
7 months without TV. The best decision of my life.
 
xwb565
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sun Jan 03, 2021 3:04 am

lightsaber wrote:
They shared numbers, but also that the 787-10 and A350-900 weighed about the same. If they did, I guarantee not one 787-10 would have sold (less wing area, lower pressure ratio engines, lower bypass). The engines, as I noted above by showing certification documents, weight about 2.5 tons more on the A350-900. I'll accept my numbers are wrong, I wish to correct. What matters most is the relatives weights (e.g., A339NEO vs. 77W as for this thread title).

I work on the other side of the industry. The weight of the aircraft as it leaves the factory. I respect those weights are lighter than in service, but that is what we work to maintain as that is the guarantee.

Lightsaber


You are off the mark on this again. I refer you to user jayunited's post in this thread: viewtopic.php?t=1422657 By inference UA's 787-10 has an empty weight of 136t. Granted there are configuration differences but the a350-900 and the 787-10 do weigh about the same.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16076
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sun Jan 03, 2021 3:18 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
The A330-900neo wouldn't be one of the better/newer models for very long flights - it doesn't have 77W-equivalent range.


According to
Boeing 77W range 7370 nm https://www.boeing.com/commercial/777/
Airbus A339 range 7200 nm https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passeng ... ml#details

The design range of the two aircraft is very similar.

lightsaber wrote:
The A330NEO has a much larger wing than the A330CEO


The wing areas are the same, winglets are not included in wing area, the aircraft can be flown without them under the CDL.

lightsaber wrote:
So if you have sources for better numbers, please share.


The original poster should be the one providing the sources.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16076
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sun Jan 03, 2021 3:29 am

xwb565 wrote:
You are off the mark on this again. I refer you to user jayunited's post in this thread: viewtopic.php?t=1422657 By inference UA's 787-10 has an empty weight of 136t. Granted there are configuration differences but the a350-900 and the 787-10 do weigh about the same.


Yes, Jayunited numbers would indicated that the UA 787-10 has a higher empty weight than a CX A359. But you need to compare the configuration of the two aircraft, UA have 318 seats in the 787-10 and CX has 280 seats on the A350-900.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 22379
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sun Jan 03, 2021 5:12 am

zeke wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
The A330-900neo wouldn't be one of the better/newer models for very long flights - it doesn't have 77W-equivalent range.


According to
Boeing 77W range 7370 nm https://www.boeing.com/commercial/777/
Airbus A339 range 7200 nm https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passeng ... ml#details

The design range of the two aircraft is very similar.

lightsaber wrote:
The A330NEO has a much larger wing than the A330CEO


The wing areas are the same, winglets are not included in wing area, the aircraft can be flown without them under the CDL.

lightsaber wrote:
So if you have sources for better numbers, please share.


The original poster should be the one providing the sources.

Agreed, my bad, I took from Wikipedia except for the numbers I listed at the end. But I've already noted that upthread when replying to another poster. I was asking as I want better sources not under NDA.
Per your links, the 77W is with 396 passengers at that range.
The A330-900 is for 260 to 300 passengers (I'm unable to determine how many Airbus used, I couldn't find it on the page).
So yes, the A339 could do most 77W missions (probably not DXB-LAX, but most), naturally less available payload (all ranges).

Which brings us to the 77W competes with the A350-1000 which nicely thumps the older aircraft on fuel burn for basically the same payload capability, we already know how that's going (advantage A350-1000). I believe the 77W really sold as a combi and thus the A350-1000 is one of the two options for a successor (other being 777x, 778 or 779 depending on the mission).

The 789 really competes with the A339. Range of 7,530 with 296 passengers.
https://www.boeing.com/commercial/787/

There is no doubt the A350 is a great aircraft for payload at range (both models). That is not in dispute.
What I was disputing is weight assumptions for equivalent 787-10s as the 787-10 is far less capable than the A350-900 and will be less efficient otherwise; weight is really its only saving grace as the Txwb is a half generation newer engine adding 2.5 tons of weight and the better/larger/heavier wing of the A350-900 is a marked advantage. Market says the 787-10 will sell (and since sales price is only about 15% of total operating costs, you cannot discount away even a few percent difference in fuel burn, there are reasons every plane sells and often not what is said here).

I work a lot on PiPs to make aircraft sell better. If the 787-10 really weighed as much as the A350-900 for the same sort of cabin, we wouldn't bother to PiP as it wouldn't sell and UA certainly wouldn't have differed A359 to take 787-10.

While trying to find out more, I found the Txwb has a 99.91% dispatch reliability. Awesome!
https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/our-s ... -ways.aspx

FWIW, design side always uses shadow area for wing area. It prevents cheating. (Military contracts get taken into a hanger and photographed with high definition to calculate the actual wing area to prevent cheating in competitions, since most designers swap civilian and military, that convention remains.) I respect both jargons are used in commercial aircraft for wing area, shadow area of wingtips is always used (at least in the USA). Not sure how to be more clear... :scratchchin:

Lightsaber
7 months without TV. The best decision of my life.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16076
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sun Jan 03, 2021 5:39 am

lightsaber wrote:
Agreed, my bad, I took from Wikipedia except for the numbers I listed at the end.


Wiki is a very poor source, I will provide an example with relation to the A330-900,
Wiki OEW 135 tonnes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330neo
Hifly CS-TKY DOW 126 tonnes https://hifly.aero/public/uploads/2019/ ... -TKY-1.pdf

How can the wiki entry be 9 tonnes heavier then an airline is actually operating it ?

There is a poster on this thread who I will not identify (I know who it is) so it will not be construed as a personal attack that consistently increases the weights on Airbus aircraft and reduces the weights on Boeing aircraft entires on wiki. The edit history on wiki is full of this.

Not so long ago Boeing used to include the spec OEW in the ACAPS, you will find many empty weight numbers on wiki 5-10 tonnes below what Boeing had previously included in the ACAPS.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16076
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sun Jan 03, 2021 6:09 am

lightsaber wrote:
I work a lot on PiPs to make aircraft sell better. If the 787-10 really weighed as much as the A350-900 for the same sort of cabin, we wouldn't bother to PiP as it wouldn't sell and UA certainly wouldn't have differed A359 to take 787-10.


As UA don’t have the A350 in the fleet, the choice of one or the other has a lot more to do with what it will cost add the new type (simulators, spares, training, GSE etc) rather than the finer points of the individual aircraft performance. The PIPs don’t need to make the 787-10 better than the A359, just better than the cost if adding a new type.

lightsaber wrote:
FWIW, design side always uses shadow area for wing area.


That is incorrect, Boeing and Airbus use different definitions of wing area. Frepe did a good thread about this some time back in tech ops viewtopic.php?t=769539
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 22379
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sun Jan 03, 2021 6:51 am

xwb565 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
They shared numbers, but also that the 787-10 and A350-900 weighed about the same. If they did, I guarantee not one 787-10 would have sold (less wing area, lower pressure ratio engines, lower bypass). The engines, as I noted above by showing certification documents, weight about 2.5 tons more on the A350-900. I'll accept my numbers are wrong, I wish to correct. What matters most is the relatives weights (e.g., A339NEO vs. 77W as for this thread title).

I work on the other side of the industry. The weight of the aircraft as it leaves the factory. I respect those weights are lighter than in service, but that is what we work to maintain as that is the guarantee.

Lightsaber


You are off the mark on this again. I refer you to user jayunited's post in this thread: viewtopic.php?t=1422657 By inference UA's 787-10 has an empty weight of 136t. Granted there are configuration differences but the a350-900 and the 787-10 do weigh about the same.


Now I pulled the Boeing airport compatibility diagram, and it is 136 tons. So you are probably right.
http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingd ... ps/787.pdf

So I need to go figure out why the 787-10 sells.

The A350-900 has more efficient engines. That 2.5 tons of added weight is good weight (I posted links to the EASA certification documents up thread). As someone who has designed engines, this is the tradeoff I would make.

The A350-900 has a better wing loading. A larger wing, more fuel storage. All good things.

The A350-900 has a larger barrel for the body (more passenger comfort).

The 787 has advanced electrical subsystems, which do add some weight, but not enough to bridge the above. They save a little fuel, but not enough to overcome the engines and wing.

But the 787-10 shouldn't sell what so ever with the A350-900 advantages if the weight is the same. Yet, 203 have sold and that is up since the initial orders. UA even differed A350-900 for 787-10... :scratchchin:

This is a scenario like the A340-600 vs. 777-300ER. The 787-10 weighing the same as the A350-900 is, by my back of the envelope calculations, is a plane 6 to 7 tons overweight compared to the A350-900 (that is how much the advantages the A350-900 should weigh, in my estimation, e.g., I posted EASA certification data upthread showing the Txwb adds 2.5 tons to the A350-900 weight, plus nacelles).

Oh, I went out to prove you wrong, instead I question my numbers...
But as the 787 has 515 in the backlog and the A350 has 532, something isn't adding up. The market is always rational (we here might not be, but the overall airline market has been). Airlines order what works. e.g., we can look at the A330 and 777 backlogs of 279 and 363 respectively and note... That isn't good (for both, not for airframes that used to produce a hundred per year). When looking at the 787 recent orders using wikipedia
Orders by Year, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020
A350 36, 40, 32, 4
787 94, 109, 82, 22
A330NEO: 6, 12, 40, 1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_B ... deliveries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A350_XWB
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A3 ... deliveries

Nothing in the above order stream tells me the 787 is selling worse (2017 and 2018, IMHO, were lower for the A350 as airlines waiting for Airbus to reduce the backlog on the A350).
1st delivery of the 787-10 was in 2018, so not a surprise airlines are evaluating it. The ANZ order was in May 2019, so with in service data for both types (believed late 2022 or early 2023 delivery for ANZ):
https://smoothflightsupport.lk/air-new- ... d-to-know/

So I am confused. For the mission, ANZ should have ordered A350-900s if the 787-10 has the same empty weight. Even for a small subfleet (heck, they switched to GEnX engines).

But with new information, I change my mind. Now I'm completely confused as to the order history. Something else is driving the 307 sales of the 787 over the last 4 years. I've done fleet commonality sales campaigns (to have airlines switch types) and that isn't enough. Not today. Not when the 787 was Boeing's money printing machine for a few years (cash flow, I get the program sunk costs).

It also doesn't explain the relatively poor A330NEO sales (a mere 59 in 4 years) when slots were available near term and deliveries started in 2018. Normally I can model sales on airplane characteristics where empty weight is an important variable.

Ok, I'm rambling, I had in my sales model a lower weight and that *just* explained to myself how the 787-10 was performing (and why I thought it needed a weight reduction to sell better). Adding another 7 tons to my model, I cannot explain the sales... Hmmmm.... Sales are rational. What did I miss? For on those weights, the A339 should have sold just as well as the 787-10 the last few years and... it hasn't. It is a durable airframe (extremely durable with 60,000 flight cycles (FC)/180,000 flight hours (FH) vs. 787 66,000 FC/200,000FH, no one needs 200,000 FH as the present value is near zero):
A330 extension limit of validity: https://www.aviationbusinessnews.com/mr ... intenance/
Boeing limits of validity: https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aerom ... 2012_q4/2/

So what is off? The market doesn't lie, aircraft purchases are overall very rational today. A350 vs. 787, the market likes them about equally. The market has not embraced the A330NEO nor 777x. I don't favor A. vs. B widebodies (none have Pratt engines). I look to understand the sales and sales price has rather little to do with it... (and the A330 production line is amortized and only $2 billion in development or so (going from memory), so neither should be able to lock the other out like this on pricing... why have sales continued to play out like this is the 787-10 weight isn't competitive? That is why I was sure of my prior weight for it as sales make no sense to me if the two weights are equal and having a backlog of 142 of a new lower range variant isn't out of historical precedent for a widebody (but it does SFO to PEK and I found links noting SFO-Auckland, but competing sites on t). Heck, it flew IAD to PEK (one off, against the winds, a 100 empty seats): Note: I put an article below on United ordering 7 more 787-10 in 2019, but it looks like that didn't make it into the official order book (probably Covid19). UA would know A350-900 costs by now (they did order 45).
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1415561
Top off order: https://simpleflying.com/united-787-10-order/

I'm confused, for every other aircraft sales history follows economics and for the 787-10, empty weight is critical. But as I am repeating myself, I'm off to search for more information. In particular with UA looking to top off after buying (they would know exactly how the 787-10 performs and could have had the A350-900 earlier...).

Lightsaber
7 months without TV. The best decision of my life.
 
xwb565
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sun Jan 03, 2021 8:04 am

IMHO Airbus ramped up smoothly but slowly. That had a consequence- many customers who had both the 350 and 787 on order got the 787 earlier. The market then started going south for many of these carriers well before corona and the virtues of fleet commonality re dawned on many of them. Hence the situation at AA,UA,Etihad etc. Any advantages the a350 may or may not have pale in comparison to the fleet commonality and the advantages it brings in financing, discounts, maintenance and operational uniformity.
 
User avatar
Chipmunk1973
Posts: 403
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 10:23 am

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sun Jan 03, 2021 8:47 am

I know this is a discussion about the A330Neo Vs the 777W and most if it has been discussed around the economics of each plane. That’s fine and I’m interested in most of the posts about it.

What I am a bit curious about is the inside of the plane, specifically noise. Subjectively I can say the A339 is a much quieter experience. Earlier this year I did a flight on SB from SYD to NOU on an A339. A few weeks later I flew EK from BNE to SYD on a 777W. In both instances I was in the last row of J in a left hand window seat; just before the wing and the engine.

Yes the T1000 made a bit of noise during take off, in cruise it was a mild hum. The GE115 was loud at take off but I didn’t find it much quieter in cruise, just more a lowering of noise pitch. Yes I am aware there is quite a few years between the launch of each engine and I expect advancements are made.

Is there any data out there, db(A) I think the measurement is, of both of them for a comparison?

Thanks.
Cheers,
C1973


B707, B717, B727, B734, B737, B738, B743, B762, B763, B77W, A300, A320, A332, A333, A339, A388, BAe146, Cessna 206.
AN, EK, MI, QF, SB.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7887
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sun Jan 03, 2021 9:08 am

lightsaber wrote:
xwb565 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
They shared numbers, but also that the 787-10 and A350-900 weighed about the same. If they did, I guarantee not one 787-10 would have sold (less wing area, lower pressure ratio engines, lower bypass). The engines, as I noted above by showing certification documents, weight about 2.5 tons more on the A350-900. I'll accept my numbers are wrong, I wish to correct. What matters most is the relatives weights (e.g., A339NEO vs. 77W as for this thread title).

I work on the other side of the industry. The weight of the aircraft as it leaves the factory. I respect those weights are lighter than in service, but that is what we work to maintain as that is the guarantee.

Lightsaber


You are off the mark on this again. I refer you to user jayunited's post in this thread: viewtopic.php?t=1422657 By inference UA's 787-10 has an empty weight of 136t. Granted there are configuration differences but the a350-900 and the 787-10 do weigh about the same.


Now I pulled the Boeing airport compatibility diagram, and it is 136 tons. So you are probably right.
http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingd ... ps/787.pdf

So I need to go figure out why the 787-10 sells.

The A350-900 has more efficient engines. That 2.5 tons of added weight is good weight (I posted links to the EASA certification documents up thread). As someone who has designed engines, this is the tradeoff I would make.

The A350-900 has a better wing loading. A larger wing, more fuel storage. All good things.

The A350-900 has a larger barrel for the body (more passenger comfort).

The 787 has advanced electrical subsystems, which do add some weight, but not enough to bridge the above. They save a little fuel, but not enough to overcome the engines and wing.

But the 787-10 shouldn't sell what so ever with the A350-900 advantages if the weight is the same. Yet, 203 have sold and that is up since the initial orders. UA even differed A350-900 for 787-10... :scratchchin:

This is a scenario like the A340-600 vs. 777-300ER. The 787-10 weighing the same as the A350-900 is, by my back of the envelope calculations, is a plane 6 to 7 tons overweight compared to the A350-900 (that is how much the advantages the A350-900 should weigh, in my estimation, e.g., I posted EASA certification data upthread showing the Txwb adds 2.5 tons to the A350-900 weight, plus nacelles).

Oh, I went out to prove you wrong, instead I question my numbers...
But as the 787 has 515 in the backlog and the A350 has 532, something isn't adding up. The market is always rational (we here might not be, but the overall airline market has been). Airlines order what works. e.g., we can look at the A330 and 777 backlogs of 279 and 363 respectively and note... That isn't good (for both, not for airframes that used to produce a hundred per year). When looking at the 787 recent orders using wikipedia
Orders by Year, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020
A350 36, 40, 32, 4
787 94, 109, 82, 22
A330NEO: 6, 12, 40, 1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_B ... deliveries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A350_XWB
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A3 ... deliveries

Nothing in the above order stream tells me the 787 is selling worse (2017 and 2018, IMHO, were lower for the A350 as airlines waiting for Airbus to reduce the backlog on the A350).
1st delivery of the 787-10 was in 2018, so not a surprise airlines are evaluating it. The ANZ order was in May 2019, so with in service data for both types (believed late 2022 or early 2023 delivery for ANZ):
https://smoothflightsupport.lk/air-new- ... d-to-know/

So I am confused. For the mission, ANZ should have ordered A350-900s if the 787-10 has the same empty weight. Even for a small subfleet (heck, they switched to GEnX engines).

But with new information, I change my mind. Now I'm completely confused as to the order history. Something else is driving the 307 sales of the 787 over the last 4 years. I've done fleet commonality sales campaigns (to have airlines switch types) and that isn't enough. Not today. Not when the 787 was Boeing's money printing machine for a few years (cash flow, I get the program sunk costs).

It also doesn't explain the relatively poor A330NEO sales (a mere 59 in 4 years) when slots were available near term and deliveries started in 2018. Normally I can model sales on airplane characteristics where empty weight is an important variable.

Ok, I'm rambling, I had in my sales model a lower weight and that *just* explained to myself how the 787-10 was performing (and why I thought it needed a weight reduction to sell better). Adding another 7 tons to my model, I cannot explain the sales... Hmmmm.... Sales are rational. What did I miss? For on those weights, the A339 should have sold just as well as the 787-10 the last few years and... it hasn't. It is a durable airframe (extremely durable with 60,000 flight cycles (FC)/180,000 flight hours (FH) vs. 787 66,000 FC/200,000FH, no one needs 200,000 FH as the present value is near zero):
A330 extension limit of validity: https://www.aviationbusinessnews.com/mr ... intenance/
Boeing limits of validity: https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aerom ... 2012_q4/2/

So what is off? The market doesn't lie, aircraft purchases are overall very rational today. A350 vs. 787, the market likes them about equally. The market has not embraced the A330NEO nor 777x. I don't favor A. vs. B widebodies (none have Pratt engines). I look to understand the sales and sales price has rather little to do with it... (and the A330 production line is amortized and only $2 billion in development or so (going from memory), so neither should be able to lock the other out like this on pricing... why have sales continued to play out like this is the 787-10 weight isn't competitive? That is why I was sure of my prior weight for it as sales make no sense to me if the two weights are equal and having a backlog of 142 of a new lower range variant isn't out of historical precedent for a widebody (but it does SFO to PEK and I found links noting SFO-Auckland, but competing sites on t). Heck, it flew IAD to PEK (one off, against the winds, a 100 empty seats): Note: I put an article below on United ordering 7 more 787-10 in 2019, but it looks like that didn't make it into the official order book (probably Covid19). UA would know A350-900 costs by now (they did order 45).
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1415561
Top off order: https://simpleflying.com/united-787-10-order/

I'm confused, for every other aircraft sales history follows economics and for the 787-10, empty weight is critical. But as I am repeating myself, I'm off to search for more information. In particular with UA looking to top off after buying (they would know exactly how the 787-10 performs and could have had the A350-900 earlier...).

Lightsaber


Long post, I enjoy your posts.

Re NZ, they were always IMO going to go for the 787-10, despite what some said here, given NZ’s relatively small fleet size adding another type didn’t make sense to me, particularly given the 789 can do ULH like EWR-AKL, carries less than the 359 sure but an additional type for 2-3 routes wasn’t on the cards IMO, they will be looking at partner UA’s numbers on SFO-AKL, UA have 318 seats, I would imagine NZ will be similar, and LAX/SFO will be frequent destinations for the NZ 787-10, anything longer YVR/IAH/ORD/EWR will be 789s.
 
filipinoavgeek
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:18 am

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sun Jan 03, 2021 9:51 am

Given that a certain user on this forum has been a huge advocate of the A330-800 and given that this discussion has mainly focused on the A339, what exactly are the reasons why the A338 has been an even bigger sales disappointment than the A338? A grand total of three airlines (possibly four if Garuda's rumored order of it is included) have ordered it, of which all but one are also A332 operators. In theory, the A338 has an apparently long range and a small capacity, which in theory should make it attractive to airlines (particularly existing A330 operators), but even most A330 operators have turned their backs on the A338 (and really the A339 as a whole) and have gone with the 787 instead. So what exactly are the disadvantages of the A338 compared to its competitors?
RIP 9V-SKA
2007 - 2019
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16076
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sun Jan 03, 2021 10:29 am

Chipmunk1973 wrote:
What I am a bit curious about is the inside of the plane, specifically noise. Subjectively I can say the A339 is a much quieter experience. Earlier this year I did a flight on SB from SYD to NOU on an A339. A few weeks later I flew EK from BNE to SYD on a 777W. In both instances I was in the last row of J in a left hand window seat; just before the wing and the engine.


I find the GE90 start noise very distinctive that I can tell even inside the terminal, the Trent 1000/7000 engines on the 787/A330 I find much quieter. On the aircraft the noise levels I find vary significantly if you are seated ahead or behind the engine in the cabin.

filipinoavgeek wrote:
Given that a certain user on this forum has been a huge advocate of the A330-800 and given that this discussion has mainly focused on the A339, what exactly are the reasons why the A338 has been an even bigger sales disappointment than the A338?


I think it’s all a little early in the replacement cycle, and in terms fleet expansion no one is really expanding wide body fleets at the moment.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
Lighthouse
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2021 11:38 am

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sun Jan 03, 2021 10:30 am

filipinoavgeek wrote:
Given that a certain user on this forum has been a huge advocate of the A330-800 and given that this discussion has mainly focused on the A339, what exactly are the reasons why the A338 has been an even bigger sales disappointment than the A338? A grand total of three airlines (possibly four if Garuda's rumored order of it is included) have ordered it, of which all but one are also A332 operators. In theory, the A338 has an apparently long range and a small capacity, which in theory should make it attractive to airlines (particularly existing A330 operators), but even most A330 operators have turned their backs on the A338 (and really the A339 as a whole) and have gone with the 787 instead. So what exactly are the disadvantages of the A338 compared to its competitors?


The same reason nobody wants/wanted the Max7, A319neo, A350-800, A340-500 and a few others. It’s still 99% the same as it’s big sister, you’re only really removing the bits that actually make money, I.e. seats. You basically have an overweight, over engineered aircraft than the one which is optimised. You might as well buy the larger version and try to fill it.

Somebody who needs the range of a 338 but a 339 won’t do is a niche within a niche.
 
djpearman
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2020 9:02 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sun Jan 03, 2021 10:52 am

lightsaber wrote:
But with new information, I change my mind. Now I'm completely confused as to the order history. Something else is driving the 307 sales of the 787 over the last 4 years. I've done fleet commonality sales campaigns (to have airlines switch types) and that isn't enough. Not today. Not when the 787 was Boeing's money printing machine for a few years (cash flow, I get the program sunk costs).


I think you have the answer right in front of your nose - price. Despite selling over 1.5k 787s, Boeing has warned of a forward loss on the 787 program, as you allude to with the program costs. Together with reports on the FAA investigating 787 manufacturing flaws, FOD and shoddy workmanship as well as removal of lightning protections without FAA consent IMO strongly indicates that Boeing has been making and selling 787s at very low prices.

Only time will tell whether this approach comes back to haunt Boeing in the future. I, mainly for the sake of people involved but also for Boeing's competitive position in the future and as such the aviation industry as a whole, very much hope it doesn't.
 
User avatar
SQ22
Moderator
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:29 am

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sun Jan 03, 2021 11:20 am

May I kindly remind you to keep this thread on topic, thanks.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20692
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sun Jan 03, 2021 11:55 am

BAorAB wrote:
The natural true 77W replacements would be the A35K and 777X. However given how well the A359 has performed for airlines as their 772 replacement, coupled with the trend towards smaller aircraft and point to point routes, we can expect the 359 to be used as the replacement aircraft for 77W more than we would usually expect, particularly with the introduction of ULH routes. (Right now the 789 is winning that trade down battle). So far the excellent sales history of the 359 has been due to it's timing inline with the 772 and A340 replacement cycle boom, we should expect it to benefit from the 77W replacement cycle too. We shouldn't take too much into account with the A35K slow sales start, as it's perfect legacy predecessor is the 77W and it's replacement cycle has barely begun if at all.

The 777X will have a significant role to play as well in the 777W replacement cycle. Firstly because it'll likely be the largest aircraft on the market for most our lifetimes. It's a great aircraft and the fact the worlds 5 top regarded airlines for innovation and stability have ordered it tells its story of a successful future. Cathay, Singapore, Lufthansa, Emirates & BA. I expect the 777W replacement cycle to go 40% (777X) 35% (A35K) 20% (A359) 10% (787-10). Many 77W's operate with 400 seat configuration today, to keep that capacity on busy routes the 777X will be the only game in town for replacement.

The 777X should reach 1000 orders in it's lifetime it not more. It's the ONLY true replacement for the 747 & A380 (currently approx. 350 in service) plus expect 40% of 777W replacements currently (821 active 848) ordered. so 700 likely orders plus market growth potential.


Probably not realistic given the current market, but if Airbus went ahead with its very tentative plans for the A350-1100 (AKA A350-1000 Stretch, AKA A350-8000), that aircraft would be in the same capacity range as the 777-9.

Image

lightsaber wrote:
xwb565 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:


So if you have sources for better numbers, please share.

Lightsaber


Many including an a350 captain and those of us in the know have shared facts yet you stick to wrong numbers. But thanks to some kind souls on a.net, I will try again.
A359: Gross weight at 142.2 ton with 6.7t of fuel remaining.

https://twitter.com/MikaHissa/status/12 ... 2562265089

Image

A35k: Documentation on pilots desk shows basic weight of 147.9 ton

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EYCw5NzXYAA ... name=large

Image

Thank you. What configuration? (High Y, premium?)

They shared numbers, but also that the 787-10 and A350-900 weighed about the same. If they did, I guarantee not one 787-10 would have sold (less wing area, lower pressure ratio engines, lower bypass). The engines, as I noted above by showing certification documents, weight about 2.5 tons more on the A350-900. I'll accept my numbers are wrong, I wish to correct. What matters most is the relatives weights (e.g., A339NEO vs. 77W as for this thread title).

I work on the other side of the industry. The weight of the aircraft as it leaves the factory. I respect those weights are lighter than in service, but that is what we work to maintain as that is the guarantee.

Lightsaber


The aircraft in the pictures are a Finnair A359 and a Virgin Atlantic A35K. Both are three class with lie-flat reverse herringbone business. Looks like the Zodiac seats.

Those Wikipedia numbers are way off.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sun Jan 03, 2021 1:01 pm

lightsaber wrote:
A333CEO 129.4 tons, 242 tons MTOW , 317 m^2, 10.06 AR (very well done), .41 ton/m^2, .76 ton/m^2
A339NEO 135 tons, 251 tons MTOW, 328 m^2 (wow!), but 8.8 AR (a bit draggy, but gets into thin air), .41 ton/m^2, .77 ton/ m^2

This irritates me to no end every time I see it.
same basic wing. the NEO got those large wingtip thingies _BUT_ no trailing edge extensions that would cut into AR.

What do I overlook?
lead me!
Murphy is an optimist
 
NZ321
Posts: 1400
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sun Jan 03, 2021 3:47 pm

lightsaber wrote:
xwb565 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:

So I am confused. For the mission, ANZ should have ordered A350-900s if the 787-10 has the same empty weight. Even for a small subfleet (heck, they switched to GEnX engines).

Lightsaber


You are not the only one confused lightsaber. Quite a number in the NZ forum were too. The obvious choice to many was the A359 except.... that NZ seems pretty disappointed in the whole RR 787 debacle and they are a very loyal customer of Boeing in their widebody fleet acquisitions. However, the much touted range payload boost to the 787-10 and possibly 787-9 that was publicised at the time of this order has not been spoken about in print since the order, and it is clear from the data on this site and others that the current model 787-10 is not really suited to take over the 77W and 772ER missions between NZ and the North America, especially considering the cargo uplift NZ needs. Recent comments from NZ suggest the 787-10 hasn't been purchased for that purpose and will more likely focus on Asia (SIN, HKG, NRT) and rumours that NZ have reduced the number of 787-10 in the overall order. So - assuming we get back to pre-covid levels in the next 2-3 years - it is indeed anticipated that a new order would emerge to replace the 77W - perhaps 35K or 77X. So, for now we need to see the 789 as the main NZ-North America aircraft at NZ, until the 77W returns to service or a larger longer range aircraft is acquired.
Plane mad!
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16076
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sun Jan 03, 2021 4:03 pm

NZ321 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
xwb565 wrote:


You are not the only one confused lightsaber. Quite a number in the NZ forum were too. The obvious choice to many was the A359 except.... that NZ seems pretty disappointed in the whole RR 787 debacle and they are a very loyal customer of Boeing in their widebody fleet acquisitions. However, the much touted range payload boost to the 787-10 and possibly 787-9 that was publicised at the time of this order has not been spoken about in print since the order, and it is clear from the data on this site and others that the current model 787-10 is not really suited to take over the 77W and 772ER missions between NZ and the North America, especially considering the cargo uplift NZ needs. Recent comments from NZ suggest the 787-10 hasn't been purchased for that purpose and will more likely focus on Asia (SIN, HKG, NRT) and rumours that NZ have reduced the number of 787-10 in the overall order. So - assuming we get back to pre-covid levels in the next 2-3 years - it is indeed anticipated that a new order would emerge to replace the 77W - perhaps 35K or 77X. So, for now we need to see the 789 as the main NZ-North America aircraft at NZ, until the 77W returns to service or a larger longer range aircraft is acquired.


A lot of that was covered in this article

https://australianaviation.com.au/2019/ ... 787-order/

787-10s for Asia Pacific
Flexible order to swap between 787-9/10
A350/77X order in the future
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
Sokes
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sun Jan 03, 2021 5:22 pm

Very interesting about A350-900 versus B787-10. Anybody has sources about sale price?
It may also be a political thing or something with engines.

My OP was mainly about what to do with all the old planes and specially the huge number of quite young B777-300ER. Naturally the newest planes are most attractive on the longest flights.
I thought maybe the A330-900 doesn't sell as there are enough planes for 8 hours or so flights.

Anybody has examples of specific planes and their use just before Covid and five years back?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
LH707330
Posts: 2460
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sun Jan 03, 2021 9:19 pm

lightsaber wrote:
So I need to go figure out why the 787-10 sells.

The A350-900 has more efficient engines. That 2.5 tons of added weight is good weight (I posted links to the EASA certification documents up thread). As someone who has designed engines, this is the tradeoff I would make.

The A350-900 has a better wing loading. A larger wing, more fuel storage. All good things.

The A350-900 has a larger barrel for the body (more passenger comfort).

The 787 has advanced electrical subsystems, which do add some weight, but not enough to bridge the above. They save a little fuel, but not enough to overcome the engines and wing.

But the 787-10 shouldn't sell what so ever with the A350-900 advantages if the weight is the same. Yet, 203 have sold and that is up since the initial orders. UA even differed A350-900 for 787-10... :scratchchin:

...

I'm confused, for every other aircraft sales history follows economics and for the 787-10, empty weight is critical. But as I am repeating myself, I'm off to search for more information. In particular with UA looking to top off after buying (they would know exactly how the 787-10 performs and could have had the A350-900 earlier...).

Lightsaber

They may be the same weight, but doesn't the 787-10 have more usable cabin length? If yes, then OEW/pax would be better on the 787-10, and hence explain its ability to sell.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7887
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sun Jan 03, 2021 11:21 pm

NZ321 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
xwb565 wrote:


You are not the only one confused lightsaber. Quite a number in the NZ forum were too. The obvious choice to many was the A359 except.... that NZ seems pretty disappointed in the whole RR 787 debacle and they are a very loyal customer of Boeing in their widebody fleet acquisitions. However, the much touted range payload boost to the 787-10 and possibly 787-9 that was publicised at the time of this order has not been spoken about in print since the order, and it is clear from the data on this site and others that the current model 787-10 is not really suited to take over the 77W and 772ER missions between NZ and the North America, especially considering the cargo uplift NZ needs. Recent comments from NZ suggest the 787-10 hasn't been purchased for that purpose and will more likely focus on Asia (SIN, HKG, NRT) and rumours that NZ have reduced the number of 787-10 in the overall order. So - assuming we get back to pre-covid levels in the next 2-3 years - it is indeed anticipated that a new order would emerge to replace the 77W - perhaps 35K or 77X. So, for now we need to see the 789 as the main NZ-North America aircraft at NZ, until the 77W returns to service or a larger longer range aircraft is acquired.


Confused by what though? The opportunity to have a single type long haul fleet? I would guess NZ would be quite happy now to not be having to introduce a new type anytime soon, not that anyone saw COVID coming. The 787-10 was purchased as a 772 replacement and will most likely see it used into Asia initially with the 789s moved to North America and reconfigured. The plan was for the 77W to remain whic can serve LAX/SFO/IAH.

According to the article Zeke posted the RR issues had nothing to do with the selection of the 787-10 or the move to GE. However they did say GE was slightly more efficient and helped them get where they wanted.
 
BAorAB
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun May 05, 2019 10:11 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Sun Jan 03, 2021 11:55 pm

BAorAB wrote:
like A359 ate 772's cake.

Huh :confused: As incredible as the A359 is, it didn't do squat to the 772, other than launch as it was retiring.
The last-built passenger 772 had already been delivered, before the first A359 revenue flight even took to the skies-- there's almost no causative effect between the two.

If you want an example of "eating cake," then look to the 77W versus A346, the former outselling the latter nearly 9-to-1, in concurrent production time.[/quote]
Last edited by BAorAB on Mon Jan 04, 2021 12:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
BAorAB
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun May 05, 2019 10:11 pm

Re: A330Neo versus old B777-300ERs

Mon Jan 04, 2021 12:02 am

LAX772LR wrote:
That's marketing jargon that doesn't actually mean anything.

Perspective

BAorAB wrote:
Many 77W's operate with 400 seat configuration today, to keep that capacity on busy routes the 777X will be the only game in town for replacement.

400+ seat 77Ws are a comparative rarity.

Need to do your homework bud! AC, EK, EVA, China. I'd say 200 aircraft is hardly a rarity!

BAorAB wrote:
It's the ONLY true replacement for the 747 & A380 (currently approx. 350 in service)

Define "true replacement," and how you figure that it applies to the pax aviation industry (spoiler: it doesn't).

Okay smiler...Just because you say so! Lol. Have another model in mind to seat 450?

BAorAB wrote:
Today it's the most efficient aircraft on flights up to 10.5hrs (covers 90% of long haul routes).


Love to hear your facts and rebuke. @ 10hrs plus....Let's hear it?

BAorAB wrote:
like A359 ate 772's cake.

Huh :confused:

As incredible as the A359 is, it didn't do squat to the 772, other than launch as it was retiring.
The last-built passenger 772 had already been delivered, before the first A359 revenue flight even took to the skies-- there's almost no causative effect between the two.

If you want an example of "eating cake," then look to the 77W versus A346, the former outselling the latter nearly 9-to-1, in concurrent production time.


Cathay, SQ, JAL, Air China, Air France, Malaysia, Delta, Thai, Asiana and United placed order for 45. All to replace sizeable 772 fleets. Enough to straighten out your confusion bud?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 747classic, ARN and 21 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