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.