Newbiepilot
Posts: 3638
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Feb 03, 2017 2:08 pm

WIederling wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
... the ability to carry 11 tons more of payload is not negligible for many operators. ...

Newbiepilot wrote:
I took that number from Wlederling's post in reply 15.
.


You are starting to get obnoxious.
To help your memory along content of post #15 :
W.Iederling wrote:
My understanding is that the A333NEO is 8 across and the 789 is 9 across for comparable capacity offered ?
Afaics the 789 all else being about equal offers 11t more fuel (253t - 242t) representing just short of 2 hours more endurance?


Look at it this way, on a 5000 mile route like Seattle to Toulouse, the 787-9 and A330-900 would be carrying the same amount of fuel at takeoff (assuming according to posts like yours, fuel burn differences are negligible or a wash). The 787-9 can have an additional 11 tons of revenue generating payload such as cargo or passengers on this flight that the A339 can't according to your logic from post 15. On our hypothetical flight, the A339 won't be able to lift its MAX structural payload. The 787-9 would be able to. That is potentially 11 tons of revenue. This is where all else equal (which is not true) the 787 has the potential to earn more money for its operator and will justify a higher purchase price.

There are two ways to look at the 787-9 vs A330-900 payload advantage. Either the 787-9 can carry the same payload about 1000 miles farther or it can fly more payload the same distance as an A339. The 787-9 can also carry more cargo containers than the A330-900 to take advantage of the payload. Both of these offer value to airlines interested in flying routes over 4000 miles. This is not negligible to any operator who has any routes that the airplane may fly which are over 4000 miles. If an airline's route network is all under 4000 miles or they tend not to fly much cargo, then the 787-9 value proposition is not as strong and may not justify a higher sales price over the A330neo.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Feb 03, 2017 2:40 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
.


Due to limited MZFW the payload advantage of the 789 starts with zero at MZFW range of the A330
and reaches 11t at the MZFW range of the 789 ( for the same distance covered.)

are the addiional belly positions useable ? depends very much on freight density.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3638
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Feb 03, 2017 3:02 pm

Regarding cargo capacity, the 787-9 can carry 36 LD3s. That is 3-5 more than an A330-900 depending on crew rest configuration. The 787-9 has roughly the same cargo capacity as the larger A350-900. Whether the higher payload and larger cargo hold is useful or not depends on the airline. It probably has little impact on regional flying, low cost carriers or for charter airlines. For airlines that carry a lot of cargo and have dedicated freighters like Emirates, Singapore, Cathay Pacific, Qatar, Korean, Lufthansa etc cargo capacity on passenger airplanes certainly can be a factor in deciding what airplane to purchase.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3857
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Feb 03, 2017 3:06 pm

[quote="jagraham"]When we get wrapped around the axle, we need to remember that the 77E was killed off by 235t and 238t A330s..............It's not always about performance for the airlines (as much as we would like to think it is)[/quote
The 772ER was killed more by the 773ER than the A333. The additional payload range (i.e. revenue potential) for a small operating cost increase made the larger airplane much more attractive.

Performance that adds revenue capability does sell.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 12923
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Feb 03, 2017 3:35 pm

An LD3 generally weighs about 1.5T . If you carry 20, that's 30T payload. Of course you need space for luggage too.

If we take e.g. an 31T passengerload on a 5000NM flight and include reserves, temperatures, winds etc. I don't think more then 20 additional LD3's is a real option.

Unless they're empty :wink2:

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8356
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Feb 03, 2017 3:36 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Regarding cargo capacity, the 787-9 can carry 36 LD3s. That is 3-5 more than an A330-900 depending on crew rest configuration. The 787-9 has roughly the same cargo capacity as the larger A350-900. Whether the higher payload and larger cargo hold is useful or not depends on the airline. It probably has little impact on regional flying, low cost carriers or for charter airlines. For airlines that carry a lot of cargo and have dedicated freighters like Emirates, Singapore, Cathay Pacific, Qatar, Korean, Lufthansa etc cargo capacity on passenger airplanes certainly can be a factor in deciding what airplane to purchase.


Well that is quite easy to answer. Transporting more pax will be hard, as I see no option to squeeze in 11t worth of pax into a 789. So pax capacity is limited by floor space.

On the cargo side max. gross weight for a LD3 is ~1.5t. So even if you carry 5 extra, you will using at best 6t of the potential extra 11t.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Feb 03, 2017 3:39 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_77 ... deliveries

777-200ER deliveries started to contract 2002
777-200LR had its best in 2007/8
777-300ER came online 2004 doubling in 2005 and 2006
A330-300 doubled production from 200 ( ~25) to 2010 (~50)

not a clear picture afaics.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3638
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Feb 03, 2017 3:42 pm

keesje wrote:
An LD3 generally weighs about 1.5T . If you carry 20, that's 30T payload. Of course you need space for luggage too.

If we take e.g. an 31T passengerload on a 5000NM flight and include reserves, temperatures, winds etc. I don't think more then 20 additional LD3's is a real option.

Unless they're empty :wink2:

Image


Keesje, while I enjoy analyzing payload range charts, the one you posted is missing the airplane most relevant to the discussion. Without the A330-900 payload range figures, what is the point of posting this chart? If there is enough information publicized on the A350-1000 for a payload/range chart, why not the A330-900? It would answer a lot of questions in this thread. Has anyone seen one?
 
WIederling
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Feb 03, 2017 4:01 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Keesje, while I enjoy analyzing payload range charts, the one you posted is missing the airplane most relevant to the discussion. Without the A330-900 payload range figures, what is the point of posting this chart?


You were expounding on the vast additional capacity for lower deck storage available on the 789.

The image keesje posted says "think again" :-)
no need for the A333/9 in that context.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20592
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Feb 03, 2017 4:09 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
The 737NG vs A320 clearly showed that upgraded designs can compete with new designs although the 737CL to 737NG was a much bigger design change than the A330ceo to A330neo. I didn't expect the A330neo to be as competitive as it is. The delta order changed my mind on that.


Something of an understatement, no? I can imagine some young bright spark at Boeing doing some math early on in the lifetime of the 787 and realizing that Airbus could merely hang the same engines being developed for the 787 onto the A330 and get a truly competitive offering, and being told to go back to doing what he was supposed to be doing instead of bringing up inconvenient truths. That truth became more inconvenient as the 787 program had huge schedule and budget overruns amidst some absolute engineering screw ups. The link Kessje posted ( http://www.planebusiness.com/buzz/airbus2.pdf ) is probably one of the most ugly things Boeing has ever had to deal with. Not only had they screwed up, their competitors knew exactly how, and due to the leak, so did the entire aviation world.

Losing the DL order has to have been the "perfect storm" of losses for Boeing. They were caught in a place where Airbus had huge incentive to get the A330neo launch book filled, and had no slots in the 787 production line to offer, and no fiscal margin to spare even if they had. The result is losing a major 767 and 777 customer probably for a generation if not more. DL is probably a rare case because they could use both A330neo and A350 on a big enough scale to order two fleets, but losing two fleets worth of orders is what makes the loss hurt more.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3638
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Feb 03, 2017 4:12 pm

WIederling wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
Keesje, while I enjoy analyzing payload range charts, the one you posted is missing the airplane most relevant to the discussion. Without the A330-900 payload range figures, what is the point of posting this chart?


You were expounding on the vast additional capacity for lower deck storage available on the 789.

The image keesje posted says "think again" :-)
no need for the A333/9 in that context.


Transpacific air freight rates have averaged about $3 per Kg over the past few years (I can provide sources if you want). So if I think again, when flying a transpacific route, the 787-9 can carry $30000 in revenue per flight. That is more than negligible in my opinion.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Feb 03, 2017 4:43 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
Keesje, while I enjoy analyzing payload range charts, the one you posted is missing the airplane most relevant to the discussion. Without the A330-900 payload range figures, what is the point of posting this chart?


You were expounding on the vast additional capacity for lower deck storage available on the 789.

The image keesje posted says "think again" :-)
no need for the A333/9 in that context.


Transpacific air freight rates have averaged about $3 per Kg over the past few years (I can provide sources if you want). So if I think again, when flying a transpacific route, the 787-9 can carry $30000 in revenue per flight. That is more than negligible in my opinion.

don't distract.
you were talking about more available LD3 positions ( which are less (zero?) useable than you made it out to be).
Murphy is an optimist
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3638
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Feb 03, 2017 4:50 pm

WIederling wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
WIederling wrote:

You were expounding on the vast additional capacity for lower deck storage available on the 789.

The image keesje posted says "think again" :-)
no need for the A333/9 in that context.


Transpacific air freight rates have averaged about $3 per Kg over the past few years (I can provide sources if you want). So if I think again, when flying a transpacific route, the 787-9 can carry $30000 in revenue per flight. That is more than negligible in my opinion.

don't distract.
you were talking about more available LD3 positions ( which are less (zero?) useable than you made it out to be).


What is the distraction? The 787-9 can carry more weight and more cargo volume than the A330-900. That means more potential revenue, which could be $30,000 more on a transpacific flight. Under some conditions that is a 10% revenue increase. Obviously that is not going to be the case for all airlines and all flights since it is a limited segment of the market, but it is possible. This will be a factor in purchasing decisions by some airlines. You seem very dismissive of this. I don't know why you feel the need to call me distracting and obnoxious for talking about the 787-9 cargo and payload capability in a thread comparing the 789 and A339.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:01 pm

Previously you wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
Regarding cargo capacity, the 787-9 can carry 36 LD3s. That is 3-5 more than an A330-900 depending on crew rest configuration. The 787-9 has roughly the same cargo capacity as the larger A350-900. Whether the higher payload and larger cargo hold is useful or not depends on the airline.


Those 3..5 LD3 positions are useless ( except you want to carry styro foam or fly freight only :-)
The payload advantage can be of use.
More dependent on a small window use case than what airline own the plane.
A350-900 actually seems to actually have the capability to fill its hold further out rangewise.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9270
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:07 pm

WIederling wrote:
Those 3..5 LD3 positions are useless ( except you want to carry styro foam or fly freight only :-)
The payload advantage can be of use.

How can the payload advantage be of use other than for additional cargo for two very similarly sized passenger aircraft? Having extra LD3 positions certainly doesn't hurt the 787.

WIederling wrote:
A350-900 actually seems to actually have the capability to fill its hold further out rangewise.

I don't think anyone has ever really disputed that the A359 can fly more further than the 789...we are comparing the 787 to the A330neo here.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8356
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:17 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:

Transpacific air freight rates have averaged about $3 per Kg over the past few years (I can provide sources if you want). So if I think again, when flying a transpacific route, the 787-9 can carry $30000 in revenue per flight. That is more than negligible in my opinion.

don't distract.
you were talking about more available LD3 positions ( which are less (zero?) useable than you made it out to be).


What is the distraction? The 787-9 can carry more weight and more cargo volume than the A330-900. That means more potential revenue, which could be $30,000 more on a transpacific flight. Under some conditions that is a 10% revenue increase. Obviously that is not going to be the case for all airlines and all flights since it is a limited segment of the market, but it is possible. This will be a factor in purchasing decisions by some airlines. You seem very dismissive of this. I don't know why you feel the need to call me distracting and obnoxious for talking about the 787-9 cargo and payload capability in a thread comparing the 789 and A339.


Once the A330 becomes payload restricted and the 787 still is not, it is logical that the 787 has an advantage.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3638
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:25 pm

Polot wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Those 3..5 LD3 positions are useless ( except you want to carry styro foam or fly freight only :-)
The payload advantage can be of use.

How can the payload advantage be of use other than for additional cargo for two very similarly sized passenger aircraft? Having extra LD3 positions certainly doesn't hurt the 787.

WIederling wrote:
A350-900 actually seems to actually have the capability to fill its hold further out rangewise.

I don't think anyone has ever really disputed that the A359 can fly more further than the 789...we are comparing the 787 to the A330neo here.


American Airlines is talking publicly about the cargo capacity with the 787-9. Now granted they are comparing it with the 767 in some cases, but still it looks like American Airlines sees value in the payload capabilities of the 787-9 on the DFW-MAD and DFW-ICN routes. DFW-MAD at 5000 miles appears long enough where hypothetically the 787-9 could carry more cargo than the A339.


This month, American Airlines launched its international Boeing 787-9 service between Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) and Madrid Barajas (MAD) in Spain, offering cargo customers up to 36 LD3 positions, or 11 pallets, depending on the market.

The 787-9 is also currently operating from DFW to Sao Paulo (GRU) and, in January, will be added to the DFW-Paris (CDG) route. Similarly, in February of 2017, Cargo customers will also benefit from the use of the new 787-9 between DFW and Incheon (ICN).

"The introduction of the 787-9 brings another more fuel efficient aircraft type with even greater cargo capacity into the American Airlines fleet,” states David Vance, American's vice president of Cargo Operations. “On routes where we operate the aircraft, our Cargo customers will see notable capacity improvements. We are especially pleased that DFW to MAD is one of the first routes to benefit from the use of this aircraft, as there has been long-term demand for increased space."

Although the exact aircraft equipment for each route is subject to change, American plans to have four of the new 787-9s flying within its network by the end of 2017.


https://www.aacargo.com/about/update_30Nov2016.html
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9270
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Feb 03, 2017 6:55 pm

sf260 wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
... the ability to carry 11 tons more of payload is not negligible for many operators. ...

How do you get that number? OEW and MZFW are similar for the 787-9 and A330-900, hence max payload will be approximately the same. I agree that 787-9 can carry it further (about 1000nm). It is only in the favorable assumption of max range at MZFW for the 787-9, that this frame has a distinct advantage over the A330-900.

Yes, the 787-9 has more LD3 positions available, however, most of the time you will hit weight restrictions before cargo space restrictions.

(Since I just notice this)

One little thing you have to be careful about when talking about the A330 though is that the max MZFW is not available for the max MTOW. Yes, the A339's max MZFW of 181t is basically identical to the 789's, but in that case you are also limited to a max MTOW of 238t. If you want the 242t A339 then your MZFW drops 4t (2.67 LD3s :duck: ) to 177t. As far as I can tell the 789's 181t MZFW is with the 254t MTOW. For those interested with the A333 it is 175/238 (MZFW/MTOW) or 171/242. Initial speculation at A330neo launch was the MZFW increase was to cover OEW increase and to keep max payload largely the same, but who knows at this point. All the payload/range charts for the A333 in Airbus's ACAP is for 233t MTOW (175t MZFW), I don't know if anyone has an official 242t version somewhere. Boeing gives a max structural payload of ~52.5t for the 789, Airbus's A333 payload/range chart gives a max structural payload of ~45t. Make of that what you will.

Well it make a dramatic difference for most missions? I don't know but it is still something operators must consider.
Last edited by Polot on Fri Feb 03, 2017 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
sf260
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:59 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Feb 03, 2017 7:09 pm

@Polot: thank you for reminding me of something I already explained 2 times in this topic. ;)
I have already provided a 242t payload-range chart 2 months ago for the A330-300.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9270
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Feb 03, 2017 7:19 pm

sf260 wrote:
@Polot: thank you for reminding me of something I already explained 2 times in this topic. ;)
I have already provided a 242t payload-range chart 2 months ago for the A330-300.

Oh I'm aware you know that (although with so many 787/A330/A350 threads with tons of replies and active for weeks at a time it get difficult to remember who said what where exactly), I just figured it was something important to remind people when we start going down the whole MZFW/MTOW/payload/range/whose-dad-can-beat-up-whose rabbit hole.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3638
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Feb 03, 2017 7:24 pm

Polot wrote:
sf260 wrote:
@Polot: thank you for reminding me of something I already explained 2 times in this topic. ;)
I have already provided a 242t payload-range chart 2 months ago for the A330-300.

Oh I'm aware you know that (although with so many 787/A330/A350 threads with tons of replies and active for weeks at a time it get difficult to remember who said what where exactly), I just figured it was something important to remind people when we start going down the whole MZFW/MTOW/payload/range rabbit hole.


I appreciate the reminder. I had not realized that the higher MTOW A330s have a lower MZFW. It is a bit counterintuitive. This is why it would be really nice to see a 242t payload range chart for the A339. I wonder why we have not seen any yet. There were fairly accurate A359 payload range charts circulating more than 2 years before that plane entered service. The A339 is only a year away.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1642
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Feb 03, 2017 7:46 pm

Polot wrote:
I don't think anyone has ever really disputed that the A359 can fly more further than the 789...we are comparing the 787 to the A330neo here.



Once the 78X was brought into the discussion it would be logical that the A359 would have to be discussed as well. The discussion then becomes almost similar to the 789 vs A339 where one design is more capable of flying payload further (although the 787 will have a capacity advantage). I guess it suits the argument that the comparison is only 787 vs A330neo and not the A350. :confused: :stirthepot:
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9270
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:28 pm

enzo011 wrote:
Polot wrote:
I don't think anyone has ever really disputed that the A359 can fly more further than the 789...we are comparing the 787 to the A330neo here.



Once the 78X was brought into the discussion it would be logical that the A359 would have to be discussed as well. The discussion then becomes almost similar to the 789 vs A339 where one design is more capable of flying payload further (although the 787 will have a capacity advantage). I guess it suits the argument that the comparison is only 787 vs A330neo and not the A350. :confused: :stirthepot:

I mean the title of the thread is "Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition", so I assume how the 789 compares with the A339 would be the center of the discussion.

To be honest I am not 100% sure what points Keesje/WIederling were trying to make/derived with the payload range chart in this thread, as the chart posted didn't even include any A330 (ceo or neo) period. It is not entirely clear what information it adds to this discussion. Is he trying to say the 789's advantage isn't large enough to be worthwhile over the A330 for most operators, but the A350 is? It seems that they are suggesting that the extra LD3 positions of the 789 over the A330 are useless (according to WIederling the payload advantage of the 789 is 0 at A330 MZFW range, but I'm not sure I 100% agree with that statement), but again that payload/range chart has absolutely no A330 data on it so kind of hard to draw any A330 vs 787 conclusions from it.

The 789 can fly more further than the A330, the A359 can fly more further than the 789, and the A359 can fly more a lot further than the 78X. We all know this, so yay?
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8361
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Fri Feb 03, 2017 10:41 pm

I am baffled by the statement that the 787-9 lifts 11 t more payload than the A333-900.

MZFW of the 787-9 is about 181.5 t. MZFW of the A330-900 is 177 t. That difference is 4.5 t.
Furthermore the A330-900 has a slightly lower OEW. If we assume that the A330-900 is 2 t lighter, the possible payload difference would be about 2.5 t.

Edit, the A330-900 can have a MZFW of 181 t. That would bring the difference on MFZW down to 0.5 t. So max payload of those birds is practical the same.
If the OEW comes out lower for the A330-900 than many expect the A330-900 could have a few t advantage in max payload.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1642
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sat Feb 04, 2017 12:01 am

Polot wrote:
I mean the title of the thread is "Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition", so I assume how the 789 compares with the A339 would be the center of the discussion.

To be honest I am not 100% sure what points Keesje/WIederling were trying to make/derived with the payload range chart in this thread, as the chart posted didn't even include any A330 (ceo or neo) period. It is not entirely clear what information it adds to this discussion. Is he trying to say the 789's advantage isn't large enough to be worthwhile over the A330 for most operators, but the A350 is? It seems that they are suggesting that the extra LD3 positions of the 789 over the A330 are useless (according to WIederling the payload advantage of the 789 is 0 at A330 MZFW range, but I'm not sure I 100% agree with that statement), but again that payload/range chart has absolutely no A330 data on it so kind of hard to draw any A330 vs 787 conclusions from it.

The 789 can fly more further than the A330, the A359 can fly more further than the 789, and the A359 can fly more a lot further than the 78X. We all know this, so yay?



I agree with your post, the thread started off as a comparison between two aircraft that are very close in efficiency. A Boeing marketing slide was brought in (I believe by Keesje himself for some reason :confused: ) and the discussion moved on to the 78X from there. I have no problem if there is some leeway on threads so it would make sense to me that once some discussion was focused on the 78X it would be appropriate to discuss the A359 against the 78X as well in relation to this thread. If we wanted to take it further and have a more detailed thread I am sure anyone can open a new thread if they so desire.

Not much wrong with your last sentence either. Airlines will choose whichever model suits their routes and markets the best and whoever gets the best deal for their airline.
 
Pacific
Posts: 1138
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 2:46 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sat Feb 04, 2017 12:37 am

mjoelnir wrote:
I am baffled by the statement that the 787-9 lifts 11 t more payload than the A333-900.

The A330-300 can only fly at MZFW up to 3,700nm before it starts trading off payload for range. Granted, the A330-900 will better this slightly, it still gives an idea.
The 787-9 will fly at MZFW for 4,950nm.

Therefore on a 4,950nm flight, the 787-9 has the potential to lift significantly more payload. This really backs up the original assumptions, that the A339 will be competitive on shorter sectors (up to 4,000nm) while the 787-9 will have increasing advantages over longer sectors. I can't wait for what airlines will choose as I hope there will be enough room for both aircraft.

Polot wrote:
Boeing gives a max structural payload of ~52.5t for the 789, Airbus's A333 payload/range chart gives a max structural payload of ~45t. Make of that what you will.

Also, this. While there may be discrepancies in calculation methods, this is all enthusiasts have access to and it seems the 787-9 can carry 7.5t more valuable cargo, such as fish compared to the A330-900.
Last edited by Pacific on Sat Feb 04, 2017 12:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3638
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sat Feb 04, 2017 12:42 am

mjoelnir wrote:
I am baffled by the statement that the 787-9 lifts 11 t more payload than the A333-900.

MZFW of the 787-9 is about 181.5 t. MZFW of the A330-900 is 177 t. That difference is 4.5 t.
Furthermore the A330-900 has a slightly lower OEW. If we assume that the A330-900 is 2 t lighter, the possible payload difference would be about 2.5 t.

Edit, the A330-900 can have a MZFW of 181 t. That would bring the difference on MFZW down to 0.5 t. So max payload of those birds is practical the same.
If the OEW comes out lower for the A330-900 than many expect the A330-900 could have a few t advantage in max payload.


Mjoelnir, your logic is only applicable when an airplane is limited by its maximum structural payload (MZFW)and not limited by maximum takeoff weight. For an A330-300, this is only true for flights under around 3000-4000 miles depending on MTOW where the payload range curve is flat. I assume the A330-900 will be closer to 4000 miles before the airplane is MTOW limited.

As soon as the airplane range hits the first kink on the payload range chart, the plane is limited by maximum takeoff weight. For the A330-900, this first kink should be around 1000 miles of less range than the 787-9. That means between between 4000 miles and 5000 miles, the A330-900 is sacrificing payload to get more range since there is not more available takeoff weight for fuel. Payload is being reduced to carry more fuel. The 787-9 is at maximum structural weight all the way to 5000 miles. So at 5000 miles, the 787-9 will have more tons of useable payload. It may be 9-11 tons depending on OEW differences and fuel burn.

The A330-300 has the first kink further to the left than the 787-9 chart above, meaning airplane hits MTOW with less fuel on board. The A330-900 should have a similar profile up to the first kink to the A333, but with the first kink moved to the right by 14% due to better fuel burn. Depending on OEW, the flat MZFW limited line may be a few tons lower since the A339 is expected to have a higher OEW but same MZFW. After the first kink, the A330 will have payload weight restrictions before the 787-9 hits the kink of payload weight restrictions.

Image

Image

This is 233t A330-300 chart just for analysis sake to understand conditions where the 787-9 has a higher payload. It is not meant to be representative of the A330-900, but since we have no A330-900 chart it is worth looking at.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8361
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sat Feb 04, 2017 1:13 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
I am baffled by the statement that the 787-9 lifts 11 t more payload than the A333-900.

MZFW of the 787-9 is about 181.5 t. MZFW of the A330-900 is 177 t. That difference is 4.5 t.
Furthermore the A330-900 has a slightly lower OEW. If we assume that the A330-900 is 2 t lighter, the possible payload difference would be about 2.5 t.

Edit, the A330-900 can have a MZFW of 181 t. That would bring the difference on MFZW down to 0.5 t. So max payload of those birds is practical the same.
If the OEW comes out lower for the A330-900 than many expect the A330-900 could have a few t advantage in max payload.


Mjoelnir, your logic is only applicable when an airplane is limited by its maximum structural payload (MZFW)and not limited by maximum takeoff weight. For an A330-300, this is only true for flights under around 3000-4000 miles depending on MTOW where the payload range curve is flat. I assume the A330-900 will be closer to 4000 miles before the airplane is MTOW limited.

As soon as the airplane range hits the first kink on the payload range chart, the plane is limited by maximum takeoff weight. For the A330-900, this first kink should be around 1000 miles of less range than the 787-9. That means between between 4000 miles and 5000 miles, the A330-900 is sacrificing payload to get more range since there is not more available takeoff weight for fuel. Payload is being reduced to carry more fuel. The 787-9 is at maximum structural weight all the way to 5000 miles. So at 5000 miles, the 787-9 will have more tons of useable payload. It may be 9-11 tons depending on OEW differences and fuel burn.


There is no disagreement that the 787-9 has more range. And there is no disagreement that if the Airline goes for range the 787-9 is the better frame. But to take the difference in MTOW and declare that is the difference in payload, is an unacceptable simplification. First you will find that a high percentage of flights will be operated below 4,000 miles than over 4,000 miles, second the difference will be not the MTOW difference the moment the A330-900 hits its MTOW limit but slowly increasing over the distance.
The A330-900 will be lighter than the 787-9 with near identical MZFW. The A330-900 will start out with providing slightly more payload, 1 to 2 t. Than it will use this slight advantage to increase range while moving down to the 787 max payload, first than the 787-9 can use its higher MTOW to fly the same payload longer than the A330-900, or increase payload over the same range. But that increases only slowly with extending range. And the next point is, that airplanes do a lot of their flights while not touching their MTOW.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sat Feb 04, 2017 1:35 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
Regarding cargo capacity, the 787-9 can carry 36 LD3s. That is 3-5 more than an A330-900 depending on crew rest configuration. The 787-9 has roughly the same cargo capacity as the larger A350-900.


With 290 passengers baggage needs 10 LD3's ( 290*1.3/37) This leaves 2-LD3 and 7- pallet spaces plus bulk for ~ 99 m^3 . Using weight or measurement of 160 kg/m^3 total cargo is ~16.8 t. This gives a payload somewhat less than MZFW.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9527
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sat Feb 04, 2017 3:05 am

enzo011 wrote:
Polot wrote:
I don't think anyone has ever really disputed that the A359 can fly more further than the 789...we are comparing the 787 to the A330neo here.



Once the 78X was brought into the discussion it would be logical that the A359 would have to be discussed as well. The discussion then becomes almost similar to the 789 vs A339 where one design is more capable of flying payload further (although the 787 will have a capacity advantage). I guess it suits the argument that the comparison is only 787 vs A330neo and not the A350. :confused: :stirthepot:


Uh, ya. In a thread titled "Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition" that would kinda make sense, no?
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8361
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sat Feb 04, 2017 4:34 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
I am baffled by the statement that the 787-9 lifts 11 t more payload than the A333-900.

MZFW of the 787-9 is about 181.5 t. MZFW of the A330-900 is 177 t. That difference is 4.5 t.
Furthermore the A330-900 has a slightly lower OEW. If we assume that the A330-900 is 2 t lighter, the possible payload difference would be about 2.5 t.

Edit, the A330-900 can have a MZFW of 181 t. That would bring the difference on MFZW down to 0.5 t. So max payload of those birds is practical the same.
If the OEW comes out lower for the A330-900 than many expect the A330-900 could have a few t advantage in max payload.


Mjoelnir, your logic is only applicable when an airplane is limited by its maximum structural payload (MZFW)and not limited by maximum takeoff weight. For an A330-300, this is only true for flights under around 3000-4000 miles depending on MTOW where the payload range curve is flat. I assume the A330-900 will be closer to 4000 miles before the airplane is MTOW limited.

As soon as the airplane range hits the first kink on the payload range chart, the plane is limited by maximum takeoff weight. For the A330-900, this first kink should be around 1000 miles of less range than the 787-9. That means between between 4000 miles and 5000 miles, the A330-900 is sacrificing payload to get more range since there is not more available takeoff weight for fuel. Payload is being reduced to carry more fuel. The 787-9 is at maximum structural weight all the way to 5000 miles. So at 5000 miles, the 787-9 will have more tons of useable payload. It may be 9-11 tons depending on OEW differences and fuel burn.

The A330-300 has the first kink further to the left than the 787-9 chart above, meaning airplane hits MTOW with less fuel on board. The A330-900 should have a similar profile up to the first kink to the A333, but with the first kink moved to the right by 14% due to better fuel burn. Depending on OEW, the flat MZFW limited line may be a few tons lower since the A339 is expected to have a higher OEW but same MZFW. After the first kink, the A330 will have payload weight restrictions before the 787-9 hits the kink of payload weight restrictions.

Image

Image

This is 233t A330-300 chart just for analysis sake to understand conditions where the 787-9 has a higher payload. It is not meant to be representative of the A330-900, but since we have no A330-900 chart it is worth looking at.


You come with an old diagram for a 233 t A330-300. That diagram does not apply. That A330-300 diagram is for a frame with the center tank not enabled.
The A330-900 as well as the A330-300 242 t have a different diagram, no second kink as they are never fuel volume limited. But also the first kink moves to the right compared to this diagram. First added fuel through 242 t MTOW, 9 t, adds about 1.5 hours flight, that adds about 700nm to your diagram. 3,700 + 700 are 4,400 nm. Now add the 15 % fuel burn reduction, so we should expect the first kink, the point max payload at MTOW to be already quite near to 5.000 nm for the A330-900. So the A330-900 will cover quite a good range at full payload.
Now give the 787 10 t advantage regarding more full than the A330-900, resulting from 2 t heavier OEW (my guess) and 12 t higher MTOW. That will give around 1.7 hours flight and about 800 nm more range. Above 5,000 nm the 787-9 builds up a payload advantage and it will reach about 10 t at about 5,800 nm. Up to perhaps 4,800nm the A330-900 will have a payload advantage of 2 t.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 445
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sat Feb 04, 2017 7:29 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
Transpacific air freight rates have averaged about $3 per Kg over the past few years (I can provide sources if you want).

[...]

The 787-9 can carry more weight and more cargo volume than the A330-900. That means more potential revenue, which could be $30,000 more on a transpacific flight.


1. On long transpacific flights, there won't be many A339 flying. This is where the 789 uses its range advantage over the A339. When the 789 operates at transpacific/ long to ultra-long haul, the aircraft will be weight limited, and as a consequence many LD3 positions will be left open.

2. On an transatlantic flight, let's say LHR-JFK, both the A339 and 789 can fill all LD3 positions. The 789 can take three more LD3 containers. One LD3 can weigh up to a maximum of 1.5 t. On average the weight is closer to 1 t. 1000 kg = 1 t, so the math is: 3 containers = 3000 kg * $3 = $9,000. The actual transatlantic price will be lower than the transpacific price. And of course there are cost associated with carrying extra cargo, for example, handling and higher fuel consumption do to more weight carried.

3. The reason the A339 can take fewer LD3, is because of the tapering of the fuselage towards the back of the aircraft. Remember the A339 is longer, so the difference is less than three LD3s. The remaining part just needs to be bulk loaded (because of the tapering of the fuselage). In other words, load some of the passengers bags in the large bulk cargo bay, in order to free up additional LD3 positions for extra revenue cargo.

In the real world, these to aircraft are quite similar. In the real world, there are a lot of belly cargo space available. It is nothing like airlines easily can fill up the aircraft bellies.

The major difference between the A339 and the 789 is the range capabilities. There is about 1000 nm range difference @ same payload. If you add more revenue cargo on the 789, the range difference will drop. The OEMs "catalog-range" is always without cargo.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6838
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sat Feb 04, 2017 7:46 am

Polot wrote:
I don't know if anyone has an official 242t version somewhere. Boeing gives a max structural payload of ~52.5t for the 789, Airbus's A333 payload/range chart gives a max structural payload of ~45t. Make of that what you will.

Well it make a dramatic difference for most missions? I don't know but it is still something operators must consider.


One caution I would offer is that, when Airbus used to publish the OEW's in section 2 of the ACAPs, the max payload shown in section 2 (calculated by MZFW-OEW) was always a fair bit higher than the actual payload shown in the R/P chart.
My inference from that was that their R/P charts showed a more realistic payload, based on a DOW, rather than an OEW.
The difference could be quite high

Boeing tend to use the ZFW in its totality for the Y axis on their R/P charts, thus you can't see what DOW is assumed, thus you can't actually see what payload is being carried. As the DOW will invariably be a fair bit higher than the brochure OEW on which the max payload is calculated, I'm not sure it is necessarily a safe act to assume that the Max Payload embedded in the Boeing R/P charts in section 3 of the ACAP will be the same as the number quoted in section 2 of the ACAP.

Just a thought.

Rgds
 
WIederling
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sat Feb 04, 2017 8:23 am

mjoelnir wrote:
I am baffled by the statement that the 787-9 lifts 11 t more payload than the A333-900.

So max payload of those birds is practical the same.


A:
You can describe the performance delta as "for all payloads 1.8 hours more range."
B:
But you can also describe the advantage as more payload for the same range for select ranges.
i.e. beginning at the MZFW corner of the A330 and starting at zero t payload advantage
rises until the MZFW corner of the 789 is reached ( 11t ). from there on further out
the payload advantage stays constant.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3638
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sat Feb 04, 2017 2:44 pm

astuteman wrote:
Polot wrote:
I don't know if anyone has an official 242t version somewhere. Boeing gives a max structural payload of ~52.5t for the 789, Airbus's A333 payload/range chart gives a max structural payload of ~45t. Make of that what you will.

Well it make a dramatic difference for most missions? I don't know but it is still something operators must consider.


One caution I would offer is that, when Airbus used to publish the OEW's in section 2 of the ACAPs, the max payload shown in section 2 (calculated by MZFW-OEW) was always a fair bit higher than the actual payload shown in the R/P chart.
My inference from that was that their R/P charts showed a more realistic payload, based on a DOW, rather than an OEW.
The difference could be quite high

Boeing tend to use the ZFW in its totality for the Y axis on their R/P charts, thus you can't see what DOW is assumed, thus you can't actually see what payload is being carried. As the DOW will invariably be a fair bit higher than the brochure OEW on which the max payload is calculated, I'm not sure it is necessarily a safe act to assume that the Max Payload embedded in the Boeing R/P charts in section 3 of the ACAP will be the same as the number quoted in section 2 of the ACAP.

Just a thought.

Rgds


I see your point. It can be really difficult to accurately compare payload and ranges (and fuel burn too) when we don't know the empty weights of the A330-900 and the ACAPS not necessarily using OEW adds another layer. I must admit that I am guessing with some of the numbers I discussed. I still wonder why we haven't had a payload range chart or empty weights yet for the A330neo. Back in 2011, Airbus was sharing OEWs for both the A350-900 and A350-1000. Maybe they are still working on reducing the OEW/DOW as a part of the weight reduction program discussed back in 2014.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13692
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sat Feb 04, 2017 4:42 pm

astuteman wrote:
One caution I would offer is that, when Airbus used to publish the OEW's in section 2 of the ACAPs, the max payload shown in section 2 (calculated by MZFW-OEW) was always a fair bit higher than the actual payload shown in the R/P chart.
My inference from that was that their R/P charts showed a more realistic payload, based on a DOW, rather than an OEW.
The difference could be quite high

Boeing tend to use the ZFW in its totality for the Y axis on their R/P charts, thus you can't see what DOW is assumed, thus you can't actually see what payload is being carried. As the DOW will invariably be a fair bit higher than the brochure OEW on which the max payload is calculated, I'm not sure it is necessarily a safe act to assume that the Max Payload embedded in the Boeing R/P charts in section 3 of the ACAP will be the same as the number quoted in section 2 of the ACAP.


This is correct, each company uses different "rules" in their marketing campaigns, generally speaking Airbus "rules" result in ranges less than Boeing one. This is illustrated on the slide below from the A330neo launch.

Image

I terms of weights, if you are looking at short/medium range, aircraft will be MZFW/MLW limited, hence the reason you will see the MZFW higher on Airbus products in that area, MTOW does not come into play. If you are looking at how far you can take a load of passengers away from the max structural payload range aircraft will be MTOW/MLW limited hence MZFW is not longer of a concern.

The range disadvantage for the A330-900 comes down to the 10 tonnes lower MTOW limit, if they had similar MTOWs the A330-900 range would only around 350 nm less for maximum passengers applying the Boeing "marketing rules" for range. The A330-900 fuel volume capacity is greater than the 787-8/9 in a standard configuration (ie without additional tanks).

In terms of cargo, the 787-9 and A330-900 both carry 11 pallets.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 12923
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sat Feb 04, 2017 5:08 pm

Usually very long threads have a shrinking number fact based posts. I see a positive upturn here, Thnx! :thumbsup:
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8361
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sat Feb 04, 2017 5:55 pm

It is possible to order the A330-300/900 for 33 LD3 instead of 32. That moves one LD3 into the area where the fuselage starts to narrow, but reducing the space for bulk loading.

We have also to look at the airlines, like a lot of the LCC, that do not do cargo. Than the range calculation involves only passenger and bags. Than the 787-9 needs over 6,500 nm to start to show its superiority.

Last not least, I do not find the quote, the lead engineer on the A330neo talked about the aim being to do the move from the ceo to the neo weight neutral. It could mean regarding the structure, than only the engines would be the difference, or it could mean that weight reductions would compensate for the heavier engines.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6838
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sat Feb 04, 2017 6:54 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
astuteman wrote:
Polot wrote:
I don't know if anyone has an official 242t version somewhere. Boeing gives a max structural payload of ~52.5t for the 789, Airbus's A333 payload/range chart gives a max structural payload of ~45t. Make of that what you will.

Well it make a dramatic difference for most missions? I don't know but it is still something operators must consider.


One caution I would offer is that, when Airbus used to publish the OEW's in section 2 of the ACAPs, the max payload shown in section 2 (calculated by MZFW-OEW) was always a fair bit higher than the actual payload shown in the R/P chart.
My inference from that was that their R/P charts showed a more realistic payload, based on a DOW, rather than an OEW.
The difference could be quite high

Boeing tend to use the ZFW in its totality for the Y axis on their R/P charts, thus you can't see what DOW is assumed, thus you can't actually see what payload is being carried. As the DOW will invariably be a fair bit higher than the brochure OEW on which the max payload is calculated, I'm not sure it is necessarily a safe act to assume that the Max Payload embedded in the Boeing R/P charts in section 3 of the ACAP will be the same as the number quoted in section 2 of the ACAP.

Just a thought.

Rgds


I see your point. It can be really difficult to accurately compare payload and ranges (and fuel burn too) when we don't know the empty weights of the A330-900 and the ACAPS not necessarily using OEW adds another layer. I must admit that I am guessing with some of the numbers I discussed. I still wonder why we haven't had a payload range chart or empty weights yet for the A330neo. Back in 2011, Airbus was sharing OEWs for both the A350-900 and A350-1000. Maybe they are still working on reducing the OEW/DOW as a part of the weight reduction program discussed back in 2014.


There are some things you can do.

In the Airbus ACAP you can work back from the MZFW, subtracting the max payload to derive an implied DOW.

It's a bit harder on the Boeing R/P chart. I usually try to research some typical DOW's for some airlines operating the type - not so easy for a plane yet to EIS.
Failing that, I ask Sunrisevalley who usually has a raft of this sort of data to hand. :)
The only thing then is picking the "comparable", as there will be a spread of DOW's for different airlines.

You can of course also compare the "derived" Airbus DOW with some real world examples.

Rgds
 
trex8
Posts: 5308
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sat Feb 04, 2017 9:14 pm

Isn't most cargo actually carried on pallets??
 
kurtverbose
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sat Feb 04, 2017 11:31 pm

zeke wrote:
This is correct, each company uses different "rules" in their marketing campaigns, generally speaking Airbus "rules" result in ranges less than Boeing one. This is illustrated on the slide below from the A330neo launch.

Image


Haven't Boeing revised their approach since then to be more realistic (I realise it may still not be realistic)?
 
kurtverbose
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sat Feb 04, 2017 11:33 pm

keesje wrote:
Usually very long threads have a shrinking number fact based posts. I see a positive upturn here, Thnx! :thumbsup:


And after 12 pages, do we have an answer yet....? :D
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 12923
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Sun Feb 05, 2017 12:52 am

kurtverbose wrote:
keesje wrote:
Usually very long threads have a shrinking number fact based posts. I see a positive upturn here, Thnx! :thumbsup:


And after 12 pages, do we have an answer yet....? :D


I have seen some pretty good summarizes that explain differences in different conditions with different assumptions. Hidden in the many replies.

Image

Differences in performance on the bulk of flights seem very small, not supported by data. On the very long flights, I see bigger aircraft with lower CASM and more revenue potential most of the time. On Price, I have not seen sources, they may not be available and/or transparent.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 12923
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Mar 07, 2017 2:22 am

Leahy: Looking at 251t A330neo, range “up over 7,000nm.”

https://mobile.twitter.com/jonostrower/status/838818272849993731

Surprize..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
rotating14
Posts: 1390
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:54 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Mar 07, 2017 4:30 am

keesje wrote:
Leahy: Looking at 251t A330neo, range “up over 7,000nm.”

https://mobile.twitter.com/jonostrower/status/838818272849993731

Surprize..


Haha, so basically he wants to cloak the A330-900 in a 787-8 tuxedo. Good one. :spin:
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 480
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Mar 07, 2017 5:04 am

A332 is already over 7250 and the 333 is at 6350 (wikipedia). I'm assuming that he is referring to the 339. That looks like a 10%+ range improvement which is in line with the original estimates of a 14% fuel burn improvement. I'm guessing that he's trying to indicate that the 339 can haul another 9t and still achieve 7K+ nm range.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8356
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Mar 07, 2017 5:52 am

If they can do it without needing to make the frame heavier, it is an obvious option.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3638
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Mar 07, 2017 11:56 am

keesje wrote:
Leahy: Looking at 251t A330neo, range “up over 7,000nm.”

https://mobile.twitter.com/jonostrower/status/838818272849993731

Surprize..


A higher MTOW on the A339 will give it enough range that Hawaiian will no longer need the smaller A338. This could be the end of the A330-800. I suspect investing in an MTOW increase makes more sense than only building 6 A338s.
 
Pacific
Posts: 1138
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 2:46 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:49 pm

Airbus is advertising a 6,550nm brochure range for the 242t A339. For the A338, it is 7,500nm @ 242t which is already above Boeing's brochure range for the 788. If the extra 9t can boost range by over 500nm, then the A338 will have a brochure range of over 8,000nm, allowing the rumoured Europe-HNL nonstop flights for HA.
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 480
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: Boeing 787-9 <-> Airbus A330-900 Competition

Tue Mar 07, 2017 2:51 pm

If the 252t version of the 338 really has that kind of range, I can't really see much of a market demand for the 788 unless it is sold at a lower price. At best, it has a minor fuel burn advantage over the 338, but the 338 will be able to carry more mass/volume farther, allowing greater flexibility in operations all around. It even makes a strong case against the 789. Having that weight increase on the 339 vs. the 78K also makes a strong case. As long as fuel stays cheap, there isn't a big reason to spend the extra money on the 787 over the 330neo. This is the argument for the stretch though, with the 9t increase in mtow, it indicates that it is possible to do a 33K that still has a usable range (likely very close to the 242t 339).

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