Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
OA940 wrote:Sorry, but did I miss something? I've seen many claim this, but where's the proof? Sure, it may be cheaper than the 787, but the latter offers better range and its seating layout is more convenient for airlines. If the A330neo was better than the 787 wouldn't the airlines have ordered it instead?
ElroyJetson wrote:I have not seen the claims that you state. This is what I know, The 789 has a 1%-2% fuel burn advantage over the A339 on missions around 3000nm. On missions beyond 4000nm the 789 has a 4-5% fuel burn advantage.
The claims that the capital acquisition costs of the A330 Neo are lower than the 789 is not based on any factual information I have seen. In fact Leeham and others including Airbus have implied they could not match Boeing on costs in the HA deal.
The A330 Neo is basically a a 25 year old technology with 787 engines. It is fine as an updated derivative, but it is not cutting edge technology like the 787 or A350. I don't think anyone was expecting it to surpass the 787 in fuel burn or maintenance costs. The selling points were supposed to be lower capital acquisition costs and close enough in terms of fuel burn.
The problem, Boeing has drastically redued its production costs on the 787 program and Airbus has not brought their costs down at this point in time.
OA940 wrote:Sorry, but did I miss something? I've seen many claim this, but where's the proof? Sure, it may be cheaper than the 787, but the latter offers better range and its seating layout is more convenient for airlines. If the A330neo was better than the 787 wouldn't the airlines have ordered it instead?
LTCM wrote:Why people think an a330 is cheaper to build than a 787 is beyond me. The 787 is built with a design that was created specifically to bring construction cost down. There's no reason to think a 330 is cheaper to build.
trex8 wrote:Someone who works for VS posted on another thread a year or more ago that their relatively new 233K A333ceos costs less to operate when including capital costs than their 787-9s. Except for a few routes, like LHR-HKG, they could run the A333 rather than the 789 and be ahead cost wise .
When the 788s were first out and overweight it was said up to 4000nm a A330 was burning no more fuel and hauling more payload.
The 787 has been getting 20% lower fuel burn than an early 767 as Boeing rightly predicted but late operators with newer wingletted 767s like LAN were finding they were only seeing the improvement from the new engines, ie low teens. As the neo has essentially the same engines as the 787 now we should see close to similar SFC, the 787 may still be ahead a little but likely low single digits if that and only at longer ranges.
787 lease costs are undoubtedly going to be higher than a neo, this could be one, two , hundred thousand $ a month. That could allow near parity in operating costs.
Revelation wrote:trex8 wrote:Someone who works for VS posted on another thread a year or more ago that their relatively new 233K A333ceos costs less to operate when including capital costs than their 787-9s. Except for a few routes, like LHR-HKG, they could run the A333 rather than the 789 and be ahead cost wise .
When the 788s were first out and overweight it was said up to 4000nm a A330 was burning no more fuel and hauling more payload.
The 787 has been getting 20% lower fuel burn than an early 767 as Boeing rightly predicted but late operators with newer wingletted 767s like LAN were finding they were only seeing the improvement from the new engines, ie low teens. As the neo has essentially the same engines as the 787 now we should see close to similar SFC, the 787 may still be ahead a little but likely low single digits if that and only at longer ranges.
787 lease costs are undoubtedly going to be higher than a neo, this could be one, two , hundred thousand $ a month. That could allow near parity in operating costs.
There's clearly a cross-over point. For instance DL was able to justify both A330neo and A350 in its fleet. We were told that A330neo pencilled out better for the TATL routes that DL flies from ATL but on longer range routes A350-900 made more sense.
OA940 wrote:If the A330neo was better than the 787 wouldn't the airlines have ordered it instead?
trex8 wrote:787 lease costs are undoubtedly going to be higher than a neo, this could be one, two , hundred thousand $ a month. That could allow near parity in operating costs.
MrHMSH wrote:ElroyJetson wrote:I have not seen the claims that you state. This is what I know, The 789 has a 1%-2% fuel burn advantage over the A339 on missions around 3000nm. On missions beyond 4000nm the 789 has a 4-5% fuel burn advantage.
The claims that the capital acquisition costs of the A330 Neo are lower than the 789 is not based on any factual information I have seen. In fact Leeham and others including Airbus have implied they could not match Boeing on costs in the HA deal.
The A330 Neo is basically a a 25 year old technology with 787 engines. It is fine as an updated derivative, but it is not cutting edge technology like the 787 or A350. I don't think anyone was expecting it to surpass the 787 in fuel burn or maintenance costs. The selling points were supposed to be lower capital acquisition costs and close enough in terms of fuel burn.
The problem, Boeing has drastically redued its production costs on the 787 program and Airbus has not brought their costs down at this point in time.
We know that Airbus wasn't willing to match the price on these 2 specific deals, but we've equally had no other indication that the same will apply to every other deal Boeing make, because they are after all only 2 deals. When the customer is an A330 operator but not a 787 operator the picture may be different. You've also missed the selling points of commonality and availability, even if the 787 will eat into that availability advantage.
Chaostheory wrote:When fuel was still $700/ton, my employer did the sums and figured the life cycle cost of an a330-300 would be lower than the 787-900 on sectors upto about 6 hours.
The only major difference between the ceo and neo are engines. We know the A330neo is being priced significantly lower than the 789. Rolls-Royce is on record stating they've been selling the Trent 7000 at a loss as a result.
A little critical thinking isn't difficult folks. Take off the rose tinted glasses and grow the heck up.
trex8 wrote:LTCM wrote:Why people think an a330 is cheaper to build than a 787 is beyond me. The 787 is built with a design that was created specifically to bring construction cost down. There's no reason to think a 330 is cheaper to build.
Thats why Boeing has taken charges of 25 billion + building it to date? Airbus has been printing money with the A330 for a decade +, adding new engines and some wing changes and other system changes doesn't negate the fact that they have already paid off the cost of the manufacturing and have the supply chain running well, unlike Boeing which is just starting to break even on building a 787 (if you believe they really are) but there are other threads discussing that for years.
The development costs of the neo is peanuts, someone said it may be 2 billion, even if its double its probably going to be profitable. The carbon fiber construction, bleedless engines was supposed to make a big difference too in operating costs. LAN has said they see only that improvement to be expected from the new generation engines. There was very little advantage from bleedless engine or CFRP compared to their latest build wingletted 767s. Except for maybe potential lower longterm maintenance cost, is the 787 so much more lower cost than other airframes to run or build?? The jury is still out and given the debacle in building up 787 production it will likely never show that its more cost effective than any other way of manufacturing for this particular program. At some point they may find it will be cheaper but having burned 25 billion plus to get there its a heavy weight to get off your accounting ledger. Going forward if they learnt from before they may get it right on the 797.
neomax wrote:You guys are overcomplicating this.
787 has better performance.
A330neo is cheaper.
trex8 wrote:The carbon fiber construction, bleedless engines was supposed to make a big difference too in operating costs. LAN has said they see only that improvement to be expected from the new generation engines. There was very little advantage from bleedless engine or CFRP compared to their latest build wingletted 767s. Except for maybe potential lower longterm maintenance cost, is the 787 so much more lower cost than other airframes to run or build??
Newbiepilot wrote:trex8 wrote:The carbon fiber construction, bleedless engines was supposed to make a big difference too in operating costs. LAN has said they see only that improvement to be expected from the new generation engines. There was very little advantage from bleedless engine or CFRP compared to their latest build wingletted 767s. Except for maybe potential lower longterm maintenance cost, is the 787 so much more lower cost than other airframes to run or build??
Do you mind supplying some quotes, links, articles or sources to share how you came to the conclusions that:
THere is very little advantage from bleedless engines
There is very little advantage to CFRP
I haven’t seen any reliable OEW figures for the A330neo. Empty weight is key to operating efficiency and that is the advantage of the CFRP. Compared to the 767-300, I have heard that 787-8 trip costs are relatively close. The 787-8 has more than 10% higher capacity and can carry much more payload, which for airlines that can take advantage of it has the ability to bring in more revenue. For short regional flights with lower load factors, this is where the 767 costs are equivalent since trip costs are close and the airline can’t take advantage of the higher payload and capacity
MrHMSH wrote:When the customer is an A330 operator but not a 787 operator the picture may be different.
hOMSaR wrote:MrHMSH wrote:When the customer is an A330 operator but not a 787 operator the picture may be different.
You mean like HA?
That order was literally Airbus’s to lose, and they lost it.
trex8 wrote:Someone who works for VS posted on another thread a year or more ago that their relatively new 233K A333ceos costs less to operate when including capital costs than their 787-9s. Except for a few routes, like LHR-HKG, they could run the A333 rather than the 789 and be ahead cost wise .
When the 788s were first out and overweight it was said up to 4000nm a A330 was burning no more fuel and hauling more payload.
The 787 has been getting 20% lower fuel burn than an early 767 as Boeing rightly predicted but late operators with newer wingletted 767s like LAN were finding they were only seeing the improvement from the new engines, ie low teens. As the neo has essentially the same engines as the 787 now we should see close to similar SFC, the 787 may still be ahead a little but likely low single digits if that and only at longer ranges.
787 lease costs are undoubtedly going to be higher than a neo, this could be one, two , hundred thousand $ a month. That could allow near parity in operating costs.
hOMSaR wrote:MrHMSH wrote:When the customer is an A330 operator but not a 787 operator the picture may be different.
You mean like HA?
That order was literally Airbus’s to lose, and they lost it.
par13del wrote:hOMSaR wrote:MrHMSH wrote:When the customer is an A330 operator but not a 787 operator the picture may be different.
You mean like HA?
That order was literally Airbus’s to lose, and they lost it.
AA was also an operator of the A330 and the 787, so commonality should have been a wash. Now they said they wanted to streamline their fleet, the question then is why not make the 787 a smaller fleet and go with the A330 / A350 combination, is it because it is newer tech to the A330?
cougar15 wrote:I always wonder where the OPs on these threads disappear to? He/she may/will surely have very valid grounds for these question, which - all of us would like to understand & comment upon, if only they would react to the replies in the post, 16 hrs after starting the thread......
VV wrote:cougar15 wrote:I always wonder where the OPs on these threads disappear to? He/she may/will surely have very valid grounds for these question, which - all of us would like to understand & comment upon, if only they would react to the replies in the post, 16 hrs after starting the thread......
What is "OPs"? Thanks.
RJMAZ wrote:So the wins on performance, comfort and on cost.
RJMAZ wrote:Increasing maximum takeoff weight of the A330NEO doesn't improve fuel burn it makes it worse.
RJMAZ wrote:Increasing maximum takeoff weight of the A330NEO doesn't improve fuel burn it makes it worse. Lots of people get this wrong.
rheinwaldner wrote:RJMAZ wrote:So the wins on performance, comfort and on cost.
Not true about comfort. The 787 cross section enables one of the worst average comfort levels on the market. Only matched by 2 other Boeing cross sections (3 if the 797 turns out as recommended by you).
speedbored wrote:An increase in MTOW only affects fuel burn if you use the extra capacity. All else being equal, it makes no difference at all to fuel burn, unless you have had to increase OEW to achieve it.
LTCM wrote:The 787 is built with a design that was created specifically to bring construction cost down.
RJMAZ wrote:The 787-9 could be fitted with a 8ab cabin and with the same number of seats as the A338. The 787-9 will burn the same amount of fuel and have the same trip cost. That's definitely more comfortable.
If an airline decides to fits 9ab into the 787 all that means is it will have a greater percentage area left for premium economy and business class seating. So once averaged out the 787 will have a more comfortable cabin while burning the same amount of fuel.
RJMAZ wrote:rheinwaldner wrote:RJMAZ wrote:So the wins on performance, comfort and on cost.
Not true about comfort. The 787 cross section enables one of the worst average comfort levels on the market. Only matched by 2 other Boeing cross sections (3 if the 797 turns out as recommended by you).
That is not correct at all.
This reminds me of post where a A330 is more comfortable and more efficient than the 787. But the secret to that is it's more comfortable only in 8ab and more efficient only in 9ab. It can't do both at once.
You are thinking of it as a 787-8 vs A338 and 787-9 Vs A339. That would be true if you look only in cabin area.
Cabin area
787-8 - 232.2m2
A330-800 - 237.6m2
787-9 - 265.7m2
A330-900 - 265.8m2
The 787's fuel burn advantage and lighter structure means the 787-9 on a 6000nm route actually burns the same fuel with the same payload as the smaller A330-800.
So what does that mean?
The 787-9 could be fitted with a 8ab cabin and with the same number of seats as the A338. The 787-9 will burn the same amount of fuel and have the same trip cost. That's definitely more comfortable.
If an airline decides to fits 9ab into the 787 all that means is it will have a greater percentage area left for premium economy and business class seating. So once averaged out the 787 will have a more comfortable cabin while burning the same amount of fuel.speedbored wrote:An increase in MTOW only affects fuel burn if you use the extra capacity. All else being equal, it makes no difference at all to fuel burn, unless you have had to increase OEW to achieve it.
The extra strengthening increased empty weight, so the fuel burn would increase by a very small amount.
WIederling wrote:LTCM wrote:The 787 is built with a design that was created specifically to bring construction cost down.
Which never materialized. no snap together LEGO thing. ... and the .9 didn't fix some basic errors
like that "duh, obvious barrels!" stuff.
par13del wrote:WIederling wrote:LTCM wrote:The 787 is built with a design that was created specifically to bring construction cost down.
Which never materialized. no snap together LEGO thing. ... and the .9 didn't fix some basic errors
like that "duh, obvious barrels!" stuff.
Well if you think the only way construction cost would be lowered is by LEGO then they must have done something special with the a/c because they are lowering construction cost enough to allow them to overcome billions in deferred cost and sell the a/c at prices that Airbus is unwilling to beat, so what does that mean, that they are selling at a loss to get market share?
Hmmmm.....
MrHMSH wrote:A strange way to compare it, the 'average' comfort.
RJMAZ wrote:But the secret to that is it's more comfortable only in 8ab and more efficient only in 9ab.