Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

### A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

B788 has been in the news lately with delays and weight problems. It has been argued by some that A332 will hold its own against B788 for short/medium haul routes. I thought it will be interesting to analyze these two aircrafts for similar mission profiles.

To get around assumptions about no. of seats in similar configuration for each aircraft, I have chosen to use AF A332 2 class configuration as the standard and apply the same seat configuration to B788.

Airbus provides the following for A332 cabin dimensions:
Length 147.67 feet
Width 17.33 feet
which gives a cabin area of 2,559 sq. feet, or 243 sq. meter.

Boeing does not provide cabin dimensions for B788 yet. From Wikipedia, 788 cabin width is 18 feet, and extrapolating from A332's cabin length/fuselage length ratio, I get 788 cabin length at 145.58 feet.
Length 145.58 feet
Width 18 feet
which gives a cabin area of 2,620 sq. feet, or 249 sq. meter. My numbers show that 788 has 6 sq. meter more cabin area under the assumption of similar cabin length/fuselage length ratio for A332/B788.

AF A332 2 Class Example # Seats
J Class 61" Lie Flat 21.5" Wide 7 rows 40 seats
Y class 32" Pitch 18" Wide 8-abreast 24 rows 179 seats
Total Seats 219

AF B788 2 Class Example # Seats
J Class 61" Lie Flat 21.5" Wide 7 rows 40 seats
Y class 32" Pitch 18" Wide 8-abreast 23 rows 171 seats
Total Seats 211
B788 will have approximately 8 less Y seats as it will have one less row in Y due to its shorter length. However, it will have wider aisles and/or wider seats.

Note below a summary of technical specifications for B788 and A332.
B788 A332
OEW 252,500 263,700
MTOW 484,000 513,700
MLW 370,000 401,200
MZFW 345,000 374,800
MSP 92,500 111,100 (Max. Structural Payload)
Range 7,400 6,750 (Max. Design Range in nm)
Max.Fuel33,528 36,750 (Max Fuel in Gallons)

I realize that Boeing lists 7,650 nm as the max. range for 2 class configuration, but I felt that a 7,400 nm range was more likely given the higher expected OEW of B788.

Let me start by presenting fuel burn numbers at each aircraft's design range for the above configurations, using an excel spread sheet that I have set up.
A332 0.0186 gallon/seat mile
B788 0.0161 gallon/seat mile

Next, let me present each aircraft under the assumption of a 4,000 nm mission:
A332 0.0192 gallon/seat mile, cargo payload 65,510 lbs, trip fuel burned 16,823 gallons
B788 0.0169 gallon/seat mile, cargo payload 48,190 lbs, trip fuel burned 14,239 gallons
B788's fuel burn per seat mile is 88% of A332's, and trip fuel burn is 84%. A332 can generate additional cargo payload of about 17,000 lbs but also burns 2,584 gallons more. The additional fuel burned will cost around \$10,000 more, but can be potentially offset by additional cargo revenue, and the additional 8 Y seats.

Next, let me present each aircraft under the assumption of a 5,000 nm mission:
A332 0.0189 gallon/seat mile cargo payload 50,298 lbs trip fuel burned 20,692 gallons
B788 0.0166 gallon/seat mile cargo payload 48,190 lbs trip fuel burned 17,462 gallons

At 5,000 nm mission, A332 nearly loses all of its cargo payload advantage, and burns 3,230 gallons more at an approximate additional cost of \$13,000. Going by the list prices, B788 will cost around \$20 million more than A332, which translates to around \$2 million more in capital/financing charges per year. That is roughly around \$5,500 per day. It can be argued that some of this financing cost advantage of A332 will be offset by expected lower maintenance costs of B788.

It seems to me that A332 will hold its own against B788 for missions less than 4,700 nm where cargo yield is decent. Beyond that, B788 will dominate A332. Even for routes under 4,700 nm, if an airline is looking for a people mover and cargo yields are low, B788 may be a better choice due to lower fuel burn. Airlines also have to keep in mind impact of even higher fuel prices.

B788 is even more attractive if configured with 9-abreast in Y as it will hold 15 more Y seats than A332. For a 5,000 nm mission its fuel burn is 0.0147 which is about 78% of A332's fuel burn per seat mile. SQ's decision to go 9-abreast in Y on B789 makes a lot of sense given the above analysis. I suspect B789 will have similar fuel burn advantages over A333. I will work on the B789 versus A333 analysis over the next few days.

Assumptions
Jet Fuel Weight 6.76 lb/gallon
Passenger w/baggage weight @210 lb
Fuel Reserve(Diversion,Holding,and Contingency) is 9.1% of Fuel Carried for mission
No wind condition

astuteman
Posts: 7404
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

 Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):It seems to me that A332 will hold its own against B788 for missions less than 4,700 nm where cargo yield is decent. Beyond that, B788 will dominate A332. Even for routes under 4,700 nm, if an airline is looking for a people mover and cargo yields are low, B788 may be a better choice due to lower fuel burn.

Seems a fair summary, LAXDESI.

Thanks for the effort.

Where do the fuel burn numbers come from?

Rgds

LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

 Quoting Astuteman (Reply 1):Where do the fuel burn numbers come from?

They are partly based on the following link for B788, adjusted for weight creep.
http://www.lissys.demon.co.uk/samp1/index.html

WunalaYann
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:55 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

I concur! Even I think I understood most of it...

astuteman
Posts: 7404
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

 Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 2):They are partly based on the following link for B788, adjusted for weight creep.

Thanks. Shame the April 2008 pianoX update isn't avaiable (free of charge).

Rgds

LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

 Quoting Astuteman (Reply 4):Thanks. Shame the April 2008 pianoX update isn't avaiable (free of charge).

It seems like a very robust model. I wonder if many airlines are using it to evaluate competing aircrafts for their specific route profiles.

wowpeter
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:15 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

That's a lot of assumptions...

LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

 Quoting Wowpeter (Reply 6):That's a lot of assumptions...

Sometimes that's how one can model a problem. Jet fuel weight is not an assumption though, and reserve requirements are standard.

"No wind condition" assumption can be relaxed, and it will impact both aircrafts without changing the relative advantage of one over the other for different mission profile. Same logic applies to weight at 210 lb per passenger, including baggage. I agree that given rampant obesity this number should be higher. Again, the relative performance of each aircraft will not change much if I were to make the weight 250 lbs per passenger.

sabenapilot
Posts: 3700
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

 Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):It has been argued by some that A332 will hold its own against B788 for short/medium haul routes

That really was an interesting discussion, wasn't it?
One of the best here on A.net in a long time and apparently quite an eye-opener to many...
The conclusion of it should be that it is a correct argument to make indeed, as you have basically come to hint at yourself by your best gestimations...

 Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):An A332 can generate additional cargo payload of about 17,000 lbs but also burns 2,584 gallons more. The additional fuel burned will cost around \$10,000 more, but can be potentially offset by additional cargo revenue, and the additional 8 Y seats.

Some modest corrections from my part:

Your numbers are based on in-service A332s: new-built A332 ordered today will burn less than 2,500 gallons more than a 787-8 on this kind of medium to long haul trips... The plane is not standing still you know, it is a moving target. For Boeing to catch it with their 787 is getting pretty difficult for them to do now thanks to some technological tweaks and an improved maintenance program as well as other wider commercial aspects.

 Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):Going by the list prices, B788 will cost around \$20 million more than A332, which translates to around \$2 million more in capital/financing charges per year. That is roughly around \$5,500 per day. It can be argued that some of this financing cost advantage of A332 will be offset by expected lower maintenance costs of B788.

Ah, the most difficult part: how much does a plane really cost?
Now, you won't get any figures from me, but isn't the common A.net logic that Airbus is dumping cheap A332s on the market, whereas Boeing can charge very high prices for their 787s?
If that were to be true, the gap in list price widens as we consider contract price, doesn't it?

Also, may I point out that you're rather simplistically looking at the capital cost of just one plane now: no airline is going to order just one plane, it needs a whole fleet and financing an entire fleet of planes will cost more than just multiplying the cost times the number of planes, as the airline signing for a same number of more expensive planes exposes itself to more depths/liabilities and the financiers will want to see a compensation for that. And there are other incremental costs which you seem to be forgetting here too but okay, I think you've got the idea by now.

Finally, the maintenance cost difference of the 787-8 and A332 is going to be virtually non-existant, first because the much commented high targets set by Boeing aren't going to be met right away, as well as our intervals are steadily increasing. By the end of this year, the A330 will be certified for a maintenance program which is very close to what the 787 is aiming for (at best) and we're going to take ours a step further still in the future.
One of the advantages of using more commonly used technology, is that there are more solid grounds available to base improvements and extensions on, not to mention that the cost of commonly spread maintenance practices is also lower than that of newer technology, thus lowering the man/hour/cost. Not every airline has its own in house maintenance department working at cost price, you know? If you need to outsource your maintenance, you'll be pleased to learn there are much more places you can turn to with your A330 than with your 787. Now, doesn't competition lower the price?

Going by your numbers, the gap to be made good with extra revenue between the A330 and 787-8 is still around \$4,500. Factor in some more perspective (see above) and it melts to under \$3500 even... And that is still on the high side of what it can be.

Now, ask yourself the question: do you think a well run airline can generate that with at least 8 extra economy seats and min. 15,000 pounds of cargo???

rheinwaldner
Posts: 1875
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

Interesting and valid! SLZ396's (and others) fight bears fruits.

How is the comparison between 789 and A333? On medium ranges IMHO the A333 looks even better against 789 than the A332 against 788.

It becomes clear more and more that the A330 is really placed under the A350. Lust like the 767 after Boeing introduced the 777.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!

ikramerica
Posts: 15148
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

This is a nice start, but there are some flaws in the reasoning.

The thing is, in a regional configuration, there is no doubt that airlines will go 9Y in the 787, even if it means less comfort. AF especially, considering their move to 10Y in the 777. So while the analysis is interesting, it should be undertaken with 9Y by default. The 8Y analysis is nice, but it's wasted energy. If an airline is buying the 787 for missions of 5000nm and under only, it's going to choose 9Y no matter what.

The mistake many people make when doing these comparisons is assuming we must compare apples to apples when it comes to the Y cabin. (one particular poster kept trying to make this argument with the A380 vs. 747 and put 9Y in the 747 to prove the 744 only holds 350 seats, something nobody is going to do, and can be disproven by carriers who have 390 seats in theirs).

The point of Boeing going to 9Y for the 787 was that it would allow for more pax in a regional/mid-range configuration even if it was with less comfort, because that's what airlines were asking for rather than "wide and comfortable" Y seats. And unfortunately, some carriers will be using 9Y in long-range configured aircraft.

The point being, if AF could put 17.2" seats in an A332 at 9Y, they would in a heartbeat. They'd even put 17" seats in. but they can't, so the A332 is actually "hampered" from the airline's POV with 8Y seats. Customer wins, airline loses, and economics take a hit.

This gives the 787 an advantage by carrying more pax per row, and more pax overall.

(As was pointed out, SQ will put 9Y in the 787 because it's regional (at least as SQ defines it). They put 9Y at 19" width in the 77W because it's long-haul, though for USA carriers, we'd define many of their regional routes as long-haul.)

Next, one must factor in the severe taper of the A330 family at the rear, that narrows the cabin significantly. The 788 has a design that avoids this by design. And this difference alone can wipe out the 8 seat advantage the A330 has even in 8Y, because even in 8Y the 787 will go 8Y all the way to the last row. That means 7-8 more seats right there.

Now, here's the other kicker...

You may see airlines put 7J into a regional 787. Is it the same comfort level as 6J at 21.5" or 22"? Of course not. But you can put 20" width seats (25" shoulder width) at 7J in a 2-3-2 configuration, a configuration and seat width popular around the world in 777s and 747s in J class. (Airlines put sleeper seats at 2-2-2 in the 767 at 18.5" or 19" wide, narrower than the seats you'd get at 2-3-2 in a 787.) 2-3-2 J is going to happen whether we like it or not on some carriers. But again, the A332 can't really fit 2-3-2 sleeper seats. They can fit 2-3-2 regional J seats in the charter style, but not "true" business products that mainline travelers expect. So again, the A330 width is good for the customer, not so much for the airline.

In the AF config LAXDESI creates, that means that the 788 could have 6 rows of 7J with 42 seats, and also 25 rows of 9Y. That's 267 seats vs. the 211 he comes up with based on the "apples to apples" assumptions. Even with 47J seats (7 rows), and 23 rows of 9Y, that's 254 seats, including 7 more J and 36 more Y than his configuration. Even if there was one fewer Y row in the 788 than estimated, that's 245 seats (47/198) at a similar premium ratio to the A332 AF flies.

Cargo payload of course decreases. At 245 seats, let's assume 300 pounds per pax (max) including the seat and the baggage. That means 10k pounds less cargo payload.

So that means the 788 in this scenario would have:
7 more J seats.
27 more Y seats.
Less cargo payload on routes under 5300nm.

As for factoring in pricing of the planes and the maintenance, that's something we can't know and would only be guessing at. It also involves engines and their replacement cycles, something we don't yet know. And then there's the landing fees based on weight, which vary from route to route.

 Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):I realize that Boeing lists 7,650 nm as the max. range for 2 class configuration, but I felt that a 7,400 nm range was more likely given the higher expected OEW of B788.

You can't make this assumption for a few reasons.

1. the 7650 nm range is the latest corrected figure based on assumptions, not based on testing, but based on the revised weight of the aircraft. Boeing has already done this correction for you, so no need to do it twice, especially before flight testing begins.
2. it might depend on which engine we are talking about, and we won't know that until flight testing. the GE may have more range than the RR from what I understand, but the RR may be more efficient on shorter routes. and of course, the engine choice for the A332 is also a factor.
3. the A332 is a mature aircraft, that has already gone through testing and tweaking over the years, including the E version we are talking about. the 788, however, has yet to fly. so at best, we are comparing a mature aircraft to the FIRST aircraft to fly. When comparing whether someone should buy an A332 today or a 788, you would be comparing the A332 to the 788 delivered in 2011 or later, which will very likely have improved 2-3% if history tells us anything. Which would indicate a range of 7800nm, not 7400nm. The A332 may have improved by then too, but not likely by as much because it is mature.

So, there is a lot to adjust to get a true picture.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.

keesje
Posts: 14435
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

Laxdesi, good shot!

I think the 787 wins also on shorter routes because it practise it will use its additional cabin width to have 9 abreast. That is also possible on A330 but proved hardly acceptable for mainline airlines.

The new GENX / Trent1000 makes the difference I guess.

Things could become interesting if Airbus / GE / RR ever decide to reengine the A330 & maybe stretch it a few frames. Range is compromised but for medium range appliances it could offer amazing CASM I guess and stay out of the way of the A350's in term of payload range.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...cs/Airbusa330-400.jpg?t=1211960046
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway

Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

Very good analysis!

@Sabenapilot

The advantage of more shops able to work on A330 to 787 will not last forever, once 500 787 are delivered. But this does not falsify any of your other arguments.

If Boeing does not come with a 787-450, there is enough space for the A332 to survive even with current engines and current technology, something that is almost surprising.
Frankfurt - Chicago or Frankfurt New-Dehli are both below 4000 miles, so it could well be that the 787 will dominate the Pacific and the A330 the Atlantic.

So basically the A330s are viable if you can fill them with Pax and Cargo until the range where you have to trade cargo for fuel. Where is this for the A333? Somebody from SAS wrote here that the amount of cargo they can take from Sweden to NYC is limited by the max landing weight most of the times. This also is 3850 miles.

If you are a tourist airline and have no cargo on your routes, the 787 is your choice.

LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

 Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 8):Finally, the maintenance cost difference of the 787-8 and A332 is going to be virtually non-existant, first because the much commented high targets set by Boeing aren't going to be met right away, as well as our intervals are steadily increasing. By the end of this year, the A330 will be certified for a maintenance program which is very close to what the 787 is aiming for (at best) and we're going to take ours a step further still in the future.

 Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 8):Going by your numbers, the gap to be made good with extra revenue between the A330 and 787-8 is still around \$4,500. Factor in some more perspective (see above) and it melts to under \$3500 even... And that is still on the high side of what it can be.

OK, if I concede that maintenance cost differences will be close to zero, then I agree that a well run airline should be able to generate additional revenues of \$3,500-\$4,500 from 17,000 lbs of additional cargo and 8 additional Y seats.

 Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 8):Now, ask yourself the question: do you think a well run airline can generate that with at least 8 extra economy seats and min. 15,000 pounds of cargo???

Well, the only counter point I have is that it is possible to configure B788 in 9-abreast Y giving it al 15 Y seat advantage over A332, which yields a 22% reduction in fuel burn per seat mile. B788 then should handily beat A332 for most mission lengths.

trex8
Posts: 5678
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

 Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):Next, one must factor in the severe taper of the A330 family at the rear, that narrows the cabin significantly

wasn't that done away with with the XWB

slz396
Posts: 1883
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 7:01 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

 Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 9):Interesting and valid! SLZ396's (and others) fight bears fruits.

Indeed, a very interesting and valid discussion and the second time I've shown the 787 to be far less of an overall leapfrog than some though it to be.

The first time was when we demonstrated the 787-3 to be hardly a better short ranger than the 20 year old A306, if it wasn't for its next generation engines! We got widely flamed for daring to suggest anything like it, yet history has proved us right in the mean time: after failing to win a single open market order for it and announcing that they would not seek certification of the 783 under EASA, Boeing actually came to the same conclusion as we did and made use of the first opportunity to cancel the program all together.

 Quoting Keesje (Reply 11):The new GENX / Trent1000 makes the difference, I guess.

That is actually the bottom line of the entire 787 program.
It is not so much the plane, it is the engines which make the difference...
Boeing should not celebrate their self proclaimed superiority so publicly, as they just came up with an modern widebody frame (some 15 years after Airbus first did) which on itself is to be seen as just average really, if it wouldn't be for its engines!

 Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 9):How is the comparison between 789 and A333? On medium ranges IMHO the A333 looks even better against 789 than the A332 against 788.

Indeed...

 Quoting Keesje (Reply 11):Things could become interesting if Airbus / GE / RR ever decide to re-engine the A330.

Modest engine improvements will keep the A330 is business deep into next decade and beyond.
Re-engine it, and it may very well outdo the 787 on medium haul routes in a far greater way than the 787 now does to the A330 on longer routes.
But the question is, would it help Airbus win any sales? Probably not enough to justify any such move in the short term. In he long term however, who knows...

Given the fact that the A350 has moved up into an entirely different (larger) market segment and evolved into an XWB, I feel it is time for Airbus to dust off the initial A330NG program: most of the research costs have been sunk anyway and as such paid by the tax-payer! I'd take as much from the original A350 (apart from the engines) as possible, if I were them.  .

sabenapilot
Posts: 3700
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

 Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 13):Well, the only counter point I have is that it is possible to configure B788 in 9-abreast Y giving it a 15 Y seat advantage over A332, which yields a 22% reduction in fuel burn per seat mile. B788 then should handily beat A332 for most mission lengths.

Some points to consider then:

-) going form 8 to 9 abreast on a 787-8 gives a pretty serious capacity increase. You need to be able to fill those extra seats then, otherwise you are just increasing the ZFW of your plane (and thus its fuel consumption) WITHOUT additional revenue. Not a good thing to do...

-) 9 abreast on a 787 is less confortable than 8 abreast on an A330: This will have to be reflected in your ticket prices and thus your revenue per seat/kilometer too. On some routes you may get away with it, on others you won't. Linear assumptions are thus not correct in this case.

-) If you are after the absolute lowest cost medium range wide body regardless all of the above (and thus seek a sort of a new A300 to say), you can step over the 787-8 in 9 abreast and go for a 9 abreast A332. Range will be cut short, but if you don't need it and comfort is obvious of no issue to you, then the choice should be obvious.

LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

 Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter): I realize that Boeing lists 7,650 nm as the max. range for 2 class configuration, but I felt that a 7,400 nm range was more likely given the higher expected OEW of B788. You can't make this assumption for a few reasons.

As I understand, Boeing's range of 7,650 is based on an OEW of 242,000 lbs. However, multiple sources are estimating the most likely OEW weight for B788 to be around 252,200 lbs--that is also the weight used in my spread sheet. This additional increase of 10,200 lbs in OEW is likely to reduce range by about 250 nm. I hope it all makes sense now.

I do see your point that Boeing would be able to reduce the weight creep substantially over the next few years.

PlaneHunter
Posts: 6538
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:17 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

 Quoting Slz396 (Reply 15): after failing to win a single open market order for it

I didn't know Japan is not an open market...

 Quoting Slz396 (Reply 15): That is actually the bottom line of the entire 787 program. It is not so much the plane, it is the engines which make the difference...

Whatever - what's more important is the fact that airlines have ordered it like hot cakes while Airbus lost important sales and rushed from one re-designed (and significantly larger) A350 to another...

 Quoting Slz396 (Reply 15): Boeing should not celebrate their self proclaimed superiority so publicly

Ever heard about aggressive marketing? Remember the "chinese copy"? I can only laugh when I see some people who take all that marketing talk serious and even use it for the never-ending "mine's-bigger-than-yours"-A vs B-contests...get real or try to get onto a manufacturer's paylist.

PH

[Edited 2008-05-28 01:35:50]
Nothing's worse than flying the same reg twice!

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

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

The real bottom line is what sells and Boeing has lots of firm 787 orders from lots of established, successful airlines. If the 330 was seen to be more profitable in the chosen roll, then these companies would have ordered it instead of the 787. The 330 will sell where customers deem it to be the most profitable.

While speculation can be interesting, I suspect that the customers, (who I imagine have access to much more information than we do), aren't going to invest billions on anything else but the best plane for the job.
What the...?

LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

 Quoting Keesje (Reply 11): The new GENX / Trent1000 makes the difference I guess.

IIRC, an academic paper stated that, over time, 60% of improvement in fuel-burn is generated by a new aerodynamic airframe, 35% from a more efficient engine, and only 5% from better material. I am not sure how far the 5% number for materials is correct, but new airframe design and engines make intuitive sense.

It is not clear to me where the approximately 16-20% better fuel burn of B788 comes from--better airframe, materials, or engines.

If it is the airframe, then slapping new engines on A332 won't help much.
If it is the engines, then it won't help immediately as the A332 can not accommodate the newer engines under its wings without major modification.

[Edited 2008-05-28 01:43:57]

LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

 Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 9):How is the comparison between 789 and A333? On medium ranges IMHO the A333 looks even better against 789 than the A332 against 788.

I am working on the comparisons and will post it as a separate thread. I plan to compare A333, B789, and A358.

Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

Isn't the official saga from Boeing that the 20% improvement against the 767 can be broken down to
3% from new materials
2% from aerodynamics
12% from the engines
3% from the synergy of the three above?

It's a good publicity trick that Boeing compares the 787 to the 767 and implies the A332 to be the same as the 767...
We know that the A332 wing is superior to the 767 wing, and we know that the A332 currently is the wide body with the highest fraction of composites in service.

LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

 Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 16):Some points to consider then: -) going form 8 to 9 abreast on a 787-8 gives a pretty serious capacity increase. You need to be able to fill those extra seats then, otherwise you are just increasing the ZFW of your plane (and thus its fuel consumption) WITHOUT additional revenue. Not a good thing to do... -) 9 abreast on a 787 is less confortable than 8 abreast on an A330: This will have to be reflected in your ticket prices and thus your revenue per seat/kilometer too. On some routes you may get away with it, on others you won't. Linear assumptions are thus not correct in this case.

All good points. However, there will be routes where going 9-abreast Y with B788 will make economic sense--SQ's decision for short/medium haul is one such example.

My gut feeling is that with higher fuel prices, most airlines are likely to choose 9-abreast in an effort to bring down the fuel burn, and by extension CASM. Time will tell.

Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

 Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 19):The real bottom line is what sells and Boeing has lots of firm 787 orders from lots of established, successful airlines. If the 330 was seen to be more profitable in the chosen roll, then these companies would have ordered it instead of the 787. The 330 will sell where customers deem it to be the most profitable. While speculation can be interesting, I suspect that the customers, (who I imagine have access to much more information than we do), aren't going to invest billions on anything else but the best plane for the job.

Up to now this year, correct me if I'm wrong, the 787 has seen 79 orders, and the A330 57 orders.

slz396
Posts: 1883
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 7:01 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

 Quoting PlaneHunter (Reply 18): didn't know Japan is not an open market...

Given the fact they never even asked for quotations from Airbus on competing models (notably in relation to the less than optimal 783), should give you an indication as to how open that market was...

 Quoting PlaneHunter (Reply 18):what's more important is the fact that airlines have ordered it like hot cakes while Airbus lost important sales and rushed from one re-designed (and significantly larger) A350 to another...

I don't think the sales figures of the 787 are that spectacular really. They are where they should be for a plane of its size, aimed at the future... Looking at sales numbers with yesterday's glasses on, is not the way to look at things really. 5 years ago, 300 total sales per year were seen as a good year. If either A or B dares to post figures less than double that today, it will take just 2 seconds before somebody posts the question 'What is wrong with A or B'? The 787 sales are no exception to that, neither are those of the A350 BTW: they are nothing extra-ordinary really.

Airbus was caught off guard by Boeing as contrary to its habit, the US manufacturer had actually come up with a viable proposal (the Sonic Cruiser fiasco was still fresh in the mind) and so they had to figure out the weaknesses in Boeing's new product line up, which took them some time, notably because much of the facts about the 787 were blurred by loud PR talk which wasn't even half true in the end. Add to that that some airlines saw the opportunity to push through their own agenda (a 787 style 777) and you got all the ingredients for a nice recepy for disaster. I must say though that the menu offered by Airbus today looks pretty appetizing though: A330/A350XWB combo seems to me like having the edge over an 787/777 combo in many domains...

 Quoting PlaneHunter (Reply 18):Remember the "chinese copy"?

In hindsight, it was spot on... it is a Japanese copy of the A330, with new engines and as the cards have now come to be played, the original A350 would have stood a far better change against the 787 than thought at some point.
However, Airbus has moved on: the A350XWB is a much better program, putting a time-bomb under the 777, and the A330 needn't even fall victim to the 787. I'd say that is quite a remarkable turn of events.

slz396
Posts: 1883
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 7:01 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

 Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 23): My gut feeling is that with higher fuel prices, most airlines are likely to choose 9-abreast in an effort to bring down the fuel burn, and by extension CASM. Time will tell.

Euh, 9 abreast increases your fuel burn actually, I reckon you mean to say 'on a per seat basis'.

Sure, if fuel hits \$200 or more per barrel, the seating standards in aviation will change... If it hits \$300, aviation as a whole will change even more.

Question is: is changing from 8-abreast to a 9-abreast on A330/787 style planes enough of a change? Is a relatively small WB plane like the 787-8 still the ideal plane then? Remember the days of the A310/762 sized WB planes are over for good as well and for a reason. Why not go the path of higher volume (and thus even lower CASM) all the way and simply opt for even bigger planes... The 787-9 comes in sight then... but so does the A350XWB and it shines pretty brightly.

[Edited 2008-05-28 02:19:04]

LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

 Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):In the AF config LAXDESI creates, that means that the 788 could have 6 rows of 7J with 42 seats, and also 25 rows of 9Y. That's 267 seats vs. the 211 he comes up with based on the "apples to apples" assumptions. Even with 47J seats (7 rows), and 23 rows of 9Y, that's 254 seats, including 7 more J and 36 more Y than his configuration. Even if there was one fewer Y row in the 788 than estimated, that's 245 seats (47/198) at a similar premium ratio to the A332 AF flies. Cargo payload of course decreases. At 245 seats, let's assume 300 pounds per pax (max) including the seat and the baggage. That means 10k pounds less cargo payload. So that means the 788 in this scenario would have: 7 more J seats. 27 more Y seats. Less cargo payload on routes under 5300nm.

With the numbers you suggest, for a 5,300 nm mission, B788's fuel burn is 0.0138 gallon/seat mile, which is about 75% of A332's fuel burn. B788 will burn about 4,000 gallons less fuel, and carry around 5,000 lbs less in cargo payload.

A332's daily capital cost advantage is around \$5,500, and adding \$7,500(5,000 lbs X \$1.50) for additional cargo yields \$13,000. A332 will burn additional fuel of about \$16,000(4,000 X \$4), and B788 will have much higher revenue from the additional seats that you suggest. The advantage is clearly with B788 under your seat configuration.

LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

 Quoting Slz396 (Reply 26):Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 23): My gut feeling is that with higher fuel prices, most airlines are likely to choose 9-abreast in an effort to bring down the fuel burn, and by extension CASM. Time will tell. Euh, 9 abreast increases your fuel burn actually, I reckon you mean to say 'on a per seat basis'.

Yes, I meant to say fuel burn per seat mile.

slz396
Posts: 1883
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 7:01 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

For reference: A 5,300NM mission, that's a mission of more than 11 hours, or a mission you shouldn't ideally be deploying an A330 on in the first place although I admit it is done today because airlines struggle to fill more seats, making the argument of the extra seats the 787-8 offers a bit mute then...

PlaneHunter
Posts: 6538
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:17 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

 Quoting Slz396 (Reply 25):Given the fact they never even asked for quotations from Airbus on competing models (notably in relation to the less than optimal 783), should give you an indication as to how open that market was...

So which light widebody specified for frequent short haul ops Airbus had to offer?

 Quoting Slz396 (Reply 25):I don't think the sales figures of the 787 are that spectacular really.

Interesting way to judge the type's massive order sheet...

 Quoting Slz396 (Reply 25):notably because much of the facts about the 787 were blurred by loud PR talk which wasn't even half true in the end.

"Much"? Examples?

And apart from that - who believes in all the manufacturers' PR in general?

 Quoting Slz396 (Reply 25):I must say though that the menu offered by Airbus today looks pretty appetizing though: A330/A350XWB combo seems to me like having the edge over an 787/777 combo in many domains...

Now all Airbus needs for its "appetizing combo" is some more orders to prove superiority...

 Quoting Slz396 (Reply 25):the A350XWB is a much better program, putting a time-bomb under the 777

Wouldn't it be quite a shame if a new design weren't superior to a 20-year-old model (at the time of EIS)?

 Quoting Slz396 (Reply 25):and the A330 needn't even fall victim to the 787.

Who knows? Maybe masses of 787 customers will switch to A330 orders soon...

 Quoting Slz396 (Reply 25):In hindsight, it was spot on... it is a Japanese copy of the A330, with new engines and as the cards

I see - it was Airbus PR, so it was ok.

Well, you could call any new tube with updated engines under its wings a copy of another model. So the A320 could also be called a "European copy" of the 737 - it just depends on the viewpoint and a certain bias.
As for being just a "copy", the 787 has done a quite good job in becoming one of the fastest selling widebodies ever and in sending Airbus into a period of re-designs which resulted in a design very similar to the 787...

PH
Nothing's worse than flying the same reg twice!

slz396
Posts: 1883
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 7:01 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

 Quoting PlaneHunter (Reply 30):Interesting way to judge the type's massive order sheet...

Forward looking (and taking into account the boom in aviation) rather than backwards looking, comparing to last century..

 Quoting PlaneHunter (Reply 30):Now all Airbus needs for its "appetizing combo" is some more orders to prove superiority...

Farnborough could be quite a shock to you then... Hope you still have some of those pills left from last year?

 Quoting PlaneHunter (Reply 30):Wouldn't it be quite a shame if a new design weren't superior to a 20-year-old model (at the time of EIS)?

Isn't this what we are discussing here as happening? Shame indeed.

 Quoting PlaneHunter (Reply 30):Well, you could call any new tube with updated engines under its wings a copy of another model.

You clearly fail to understand the importance aerodynamics... Hence I won't bother to comment any further on this aspect.

 Quoting PlaneHunter (Reply 30):the 787 has done a quite good job in becoming one of the fastest selling widebodies ever and in sending Airbus into a period of re-designs which resulted in a design very similar to the 787...

FWIW: Airbus' design similar to the 787 is the A330 and it came out 15 years ahead of the 787.

You really live in the past, don't you, enjoying your pointless PR one-liners?
It will be a long way down from that cloud of yours, once you wake up..

PlaneHunter
Posts: 6538
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:17 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

 Quoting Slz396 (Reply 31):Forward looking (and taking into account the boom in aviation) rather than backwards looking, comparing to last century..

We are talking about CURRENT order sheets. But you are free to base your judgements of EXISTING orders on comparisons with POSSIBLE future orders.

 Quoting Slz396 (Reply 31):Farnborough could be quite a shock to you then... Hope you still have some of those pills left from last year?

Why should it be a shock? There's no personal benefit for me if manufacturer X or manufacturer Y gets more orders. Unlike other people, I don't belong to an obsessed fan group cheering for A or B like cheering for a football team.

But back to topic after a try to switch to personal issues: The market will prove whether the A330/A350 combo is the preferred one. Currently, Boeing is clearly ahead.

 Quoting Slz396 (Reply 31):Isn't this what we are discussing here as happening? Shame indeed.

Currently, the talk about the 787's alleged lacking superiority over existing models is not supported by the current market situation. Once 787 orders are cancelled and being replaced by A330 orders we can talk again.

Btw - you haven't explained yet which "much of the facts about the 787 were blurred by loud PR talk".

 Quoting Slz396 (Reply 31):You clearly fail to understand the importance aerodynamics... Hence I won't bother to comment any further on this aspect.

The "copy" argument can be used for any new aircraft design - no wonder you leave the discussion here. If you were able to disprove the point, you'd return with an explanation...

 Quoting Slz396 (Reply 31):FWIW: Airbus' design similar to the 787 is the A330 and it came out 15 years ahead of the 787.

Yes, and the A330 is just a copy of the 767 which is just a copy of the A300 which is an oversized copy of the 737 etc...

 Quoting Slz396 (Reply 31):You really live in the past, don't you, enjoying your pointless PR one-liners?

I simply referred to some facts, e.g. existing 787 orders and Airbus A350 re-designs - so what about it is PR?

 Quoting Slz396 (Reply 31):It will be a long way down from that cloud of yours, once you wake up..

Again: I don't live on a Boeing cloud and don't belong to another fan group. So stop trying to put me into a category like others have tried before (and failed).

PH
Nothing's worse than flying the same reg twice!

Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

 Quoting PlaneHunter (Reply 32):But back to topic after a try to switch to personal issues: The market will prove whether the A330/A350 combo is the preferred one. Currently, Boeing is clearly ahead.

When I look at this year orders, 1 count 115 787+777 versus 127 330+350, from which I wouldn't deduce a clear lead of one side.

PlaneHunter
Posts: 6538
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:17 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

 Quoting Burkhard (Reply 33):When I look at this year orders, 1 count 115 787+777 versus 127 330+350, from which I wouldn't deduce a clear lead of one side.

Aircraft programs aren't developped for a one-year sales period. What counts is the total number of orders.

PH
Nothing's worse than flying the same reg twice!

Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

The success of the 787 can be in a large part attibuted to the good reputation that Boeing built up with recent programmes, In particular the 777LR models which excelled all promises. Boeing promised a lot with the 787 and Airlines believed them. It appears that the plane that will fly will not be so hot as the plane that was offered to NH way back then but the orders are now in the bag.

Alternatively, Airbus was at a period where they had a pretty poor reputation for missing targets, and this, combined with the lessor ambition of the two, was bad news.

With hindsight it seems that a re-engined A330 or even the original A350 would have been a decent shout. At least now for Airbus, they are pushing themselves for an excellent aircraft which may pay dividends in the long term.

Scipio
Posts: 929
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:38 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

This debate started so nicely, yet...

I think a few things are clear:

- the performance gap between A330s and B788s delivered in the early-2010s will not be as large as was expected a few years ago. This reflects ongoing improvements in the A330, the difficulties that the 787 program is facing, and the simple fact that initial comparisons put an existing model (with an established performance record) against a state-of-the art future model (with unverifiable performance targets presented by marketing people).
- similarly, one should expect that the performance gap between 2016-spec B777s and A350s will not be as large as it seems now.
- however, being an all-new program inspired in part by the A330, the 787 is an inherently better design. It incorporates advantages that the A330 will probably never be able to match (cabin shape and comfort, engine noise, ...) and has greater development potential. As the 787 program matures and the A330 reaches the limits of economically viable improvements, the performance gap should be expected to widen.
- nonetheless, the 787's focus on range will keep the A330 a viable alternative on short-to-medium range segments for a long time to come.
- there are only a limited number of B787s and A350s that will be produced between now and 2020, and many of the available production slots have already been reserved in one way or another. The 787's certification and (perhaps more importantly) production ramp-up delays have put a further major dent into 787 availability. For many airlines, waiting for "the best" is simply not an option, especially not given the continuing uncertainty as to when exactly "the best" will be available. Getting an A330 for sure in 2012 is in many cases the better option to getting a B787 "probably" or "perhaps" in 2018.
- all this is reflected in the order numbers. After the initial and undeniable massive sales success of the 787, the paces of 787 and A330 orders seem to have, by and large, converged.
- predictions of the imminent death of the A330 have been proven wrong (including in part as a result of the repositioning of the A350 as an A340-replacement/777-competitor). The same fate probably awaits predictions of the imminent death of the 777. Both programs probably have at least another prosperous decade ahead of them.

Now, would anyone be able to compare the economics of the A330 and B787 over a 2,000NM or 3,000 NM segment?

Scipio.

codeshare
Posts: 1689
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2002 2:23 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

Interesting analysis, but somehow comparing something which is flying with something which is not is a little unreal. We'll see how it goes when the 787 enters service. Good try

KS/codeshare
How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?

zeke
Posts: 16136
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

Thanks for putting that together, I have been thinking along those lines for some time now.

To do a realistic analysis, you would need to assume an average load factor of 70% for passengers, and 50% for freight, and need to adjust fuel burns to reflect that.

OEW between the two in their 3 class marketing configurations is about 5,000 lb, the A332 number using is a typical customer configuration, and the 788 is the 9 abreast Boeing marketing config.

Obviously the cost of the aircraft is also a factor you have touched on, 40% reduction on the list price I think would be reasonable for either model. If you are comparing an existing fleet of A330s to a new fleet of 787s, I think the analysis is somewhat more complicated.

Something to keep in mind, from Lufthansa

"According to Buchholz, the 30 A340-300s are economically viable in Lufthansa's case, as many of them are now fully written off and are now even cheaper than a 787 would be from a total cost perspective. Lufthansa writes off its aircraft in 12 years and has no plans to change that policy."

I think if this is valid for a the A340 over long haul routes, in my view similar would hold true for the A330 in medium haul routes.

from http://www.mcgraw-hillaerospacedefen...20Rush%20For%20Aircraft%20Decision

 Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):If an airline is buying the 787 for missions of 5000nm and under only, it's going to choose 9Y no matter what.

Doubt that, airlines need to be consistent with products across fleets.

 Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):The mistake many people make when doing these comparisons is assuming we must compare apples to apples when it comes to the Y cabin.

Airlines with a number of aircraft types will have a similar product across types so that aircraft substitution can be done.

 Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):(As was pointed out, SQ will put 9Y in the 787 because it's regional (at least as SQ defines it). They put 9Y at 19" width in the 77W because it's long-haul, though for USA carriers, we'd define many of their regional routes as long-haul.)

Since when did SQ say they will do that ?

They have 9 across in their "regional" 777s, and long haul 772ER/773ERs, while they have 10 across in the 744/A380. I suspect SQ will have the same product standard on their A330s and 787s.

 Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):a configuration and seat width popular around the world in 777s and 747s in J class

You must be about the only person I have heard say that, I hate the middle J seat on the 747/777.

I would also question is any airline would run F class 6 abreast like Boeing has in mind, I think it would be likely they would have 3-4 across in F, and 4-6 across in J. The 787 also has taper over the last couple of rows, and I doubt the front of the aircraft with customer configurations will be shaped they way they have their F product in their marketing products.
“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

Stitch
Posts: 27615
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

It is clear from sales figures that an advantage is still an advantage.

The A330-200 has outsold the 767-300ER. The A330-300 has outsold the 777-200. The 777-200ER has outsold the A340-300. The 777-200LR has outsold the A340-500. The 777-300ER has outsold the A340-600.

Now some advantages are large (the A333 crushes the 772 and the 77L does the same to the A345), but most are much more closely-matched when you take a hard look at the numbers. Yet, one model ends up being overall "better" and enjoys more sales because of it.

Airbus has sold 533 A330-200s in over 22 years. Boeing has sold 645 787s in under four years.

So even if the 787-8's advantage is not great, it's still an advantage and the sales figures show it...

Qb001
Posts: 1923
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 12:42 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

Very interesting indeed.

I will write a very brief comment.

I used to be a somewhat active member of a.net a few years ago. And although I'm still a regular visitor, I don't post anymore.

Why?

Well, there's a saying that states "Those who talk don't know, those who know don't talk".

I've changed job in may 2005. With that new job, I went from those who talk to those who know. So I can't talk anymore.

This long and tortuous introduction is meant to explain why I can now say, with 100% certainty, that all those very nice calculations about the economics of plane A vs plane B don't count for much when comes the time to buy a plane.

Price tag and services (pretty much like when you buy a car) are much more important factors.

Hard to believe maybe, but the process of selecting a plane is so much more down to earth than you'd think...

Edited for spelling ;-(

[Edited 2008-05-28 05:34:20]
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.

worldrider
Posts: 216
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 11:26 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

has Gulf ordered any 787s? because the have just ordered 20 333s today.

PlaneHunter
Posts: 6538
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:17 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

 Quoting Worldrider (Reply 41):has Gulf ordered any 787s? because the have just ordered 20 333s today.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2008/q1/080121a_nr.html

PH
Nothing's worse than flying the same reg twice!

worldrider
Posts: 216
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 11:26 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

thanks, sorry for wasting your time, are they 788s or 789s? when is first delivery suposed to be?

Stitch
Posts: 27615
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

 Quoting Worldrider (Reply 43):thanks, sorry for wasting your time, are they 788s or 789s? when is first delivery suposed to be?

787-8s. Original delivery was supposed to be 2016, but I believe that took into account all the delays.

Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

 Quoting Stitch (Reply 39):Airbus has sold 533 A330-200s in over 22 years.

12 years. I assume that's a typo.

astuteman
Posts: 7404
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

 Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 17):This additional increase of 10,200 lbs in OEW is likely to reduce range by about 250 nm

It will reduce range a lot more than that, my friend. 5 tonnes of fuel should take a 788 about 450+ Nm..

 Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 20):IIRC, an academic paper stated that, over time, 60% of improvement in fuel-burn is generated by a new aerodynamic airframe, 35% from a more efficient engine, and only 5% from better material. I am not sure how far the 5% number for materials is correct, but new airframe design and engines make intuitive sense. It is not clear to me where the approximately 16-20% better fuel burn of B788 comes from--better airframe, materials, or engines.

I understand your first numbers to be AFTER SERVICE ENTRY - i.e. in-service improvements.
The 788's "initial" better fuel burn comes from the design of the plane and the engines.
The fuel burn difference will be of the order of 10%-12% (certainly against a 2009 model year example), most of which is engine driven, and the balance a result of the lower drag.

 Quoting PlaneHunter (Reply 32):Currently, the talk about the 787's alleged lacking superiority over existing models is not supported by the current market situation.

Indeed, and nobody should doubt the 788's overall superiority. That would be crazy
But planes like the 767, the A340 and the A340NG have withered on the vine, whilst the A330 continues to sell, despite the 788's superiority.
It doesn't hurt for us to understand why that is, and if part of that is that the 788's superiority isn't as "crushing" as we have been led to believe, and part is earlier availability, then I for one am interested in understanding that.

Sales of A330's have been pretty much rock steady at 60% of the sales of 787's for 3 years now. That does indeed illustrate the 787's superiority, but also illustrates that the A330 must still bring something to the table....

We should also welcome this same analysis vis-a-vis the 773ER and A350-1000 in due course.
I suspect the similarities to the A330-200/787-8 situation will be remarkable (possibly even more so..)

 Quoting PlaneHunter (Reply 32):Yes, and the A330 is just a copy of the 767

The A330 is obviously nothing remotely like the 767 - the wingspan especially is dramatically different.
The 787-8 and A330-200 are so close in size it's remarkable.

 Quoting Stitch (Reply 39):Airbus has sold 533 A330-200s in over 22 years. Boeing has sold 645 787s in under four years.

22 years??????
The A330-200 went into service almost EXACTLY 10 years ago, in April 1998.
In the last 2 1/2 years, it has sold 2 times as many examples as in the previous 7 1/2 years - a 6-fold selling rate increase.
There's no question that the 787's timing to market has been absolutely superb in this respect.

Rgds

Stitch
Posts: 27615
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

 Quoting RJ111 (Reply 45):12 years. I assume that's a typo.

Yeah.

Which is nothing to be ashamed about, to be sure... But the lack of...objectivity...as of late on the forum is why I am posting less and less.

I just find it rather incredulous to see people state with one breath that the 787 offers absolutely nothing over an A330 and yet with the next breath (effectively) claim the A350XWB will so comprehensively out-class the 777 that Boeing might as well start closing the line now to save them the embarrassment of watching sales drop to zero by 2012. The A350XWB-900 is having a great start with 224 sales+commitments in two years, which is half of what the A343 and 77E were able to gain during their sales life to date and shows that airlines feel this model certainly has a place in making their airlines successful.

But the A350-1000, for example, is still well-behind the A340-600, to say nothing of the 777-300ER. Sure, those two models are much younger then the 77E and A343, but if the A350XWB is as awesome as claimed, you'd think airlines would be locking in slots now by the score so they'll be first in line. Instead, only QR has made the move, with EK and TG taking them to replace their 777-300s - planes they still view good enough to hold onto for close to another decade until the A350-1000 is ready.

And to listen to some once the A320E gets the GTF, you'd be inclined to think that Airbus will need to raise production to 40 a week, not a month, to keep up with the demand and 737NGs will become as prevalent in the future world's fleets as the 737-100 is in current.

Of course, it's not just Airbus fans guilty of this. Many Boeing fans took the 747-8I's fuel burn advantage as incontrovertible proof that the A380 couldn't compete, and yet the 747-8I has 20 orders from one airline and the A380-800 has 191 from 15 airlines (I'm not counting VIP sales). And until recently, it was taken as gospel truth by many of them that the 787 would comprehensively outclass the A330 across the board, anywhere, anytime. And the 737RS would do to the A320 what the A320E is supposed to do to the 737NG and it would be Boeing moving to a 30 a week production rate.

True, the community as a whole is much more balanced, but the "faithful" for both side have certainly shown themselves more actively and forcefully as of late and, for me at least, it has dampened my enthusiasm to enter discussions... Thankfully, there are still private messages to "feed the need".

I imagine I'm just becoming more of a curmudgeon in my old age.  I am sure there are many who felt airliners.net was a "better place" before the A380 launched or, especially, started to encounter production issues and the primary focus narrowed on it. I expect there was always "Airbus vs. Boeing" going on, but the A380 seems to have really polarized it and now the 787 and A350XWB are exacerbating it even more. And with Airbus now going back to the Central Banks for RLA, that issue will likely rear it's head, especially as the A350XWB eats into the 777 marketshare.

PlaneHunter
Posts: 6538
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:17 am

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

 Quoting Astuteman (Reply 46): The A330 is obviously nothing remotely like the 767 - the wingspan especially is dramatically different. The 787-8 and A330-200 are so close in size it's remarkable.

My point is that the talk about "Chinese copy" is ridiculous. You could call many things a "copy", it depends on your viewpoint.

PH

[Edited 2008-05-28 07:32:00]
Nothing's worse than flying the same reg twice!

Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

### RE: A332 Versus B788 Economic Analysis

I have the impression that compared to the A vs B wars one to two years ago, the tone of the discussions has improved, and they are based much more on facts, numbers and calculations.

This analysis as it is shows is a very good example of this rather high level a.net has reached. I read in this
- we all agree that the 787 will be an excellent plane, without competition for missions on thin routes or high frequency above 5000 miles range.
- we all agree the A330 is an excellent plane now, and can remain competitive on missions below 4000 miles range.
- both aircraft still have the potential to improve over time, with the A330 most likely running into the end of viable improvements earlier than the 787. These improvements will just set the x in the 4x00 miles range where the A330 falls strongly behind the 787.

We agree that there will be many more orders for the 787, and there wíll be many more orders for the A330. If there will be more 787 or more 330 built in 2020, we will see. I would not wonder if both of them are at 1500 to 2000 than.

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: acmx, Google Adsense [Bot], Web500sjc and 34 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