777 actually burns less fuel per seat mile than A333, despite posts to the contrary

[robbedagain]

wonder why the 764s were not a big seller   

 

[WorldTraveler]

because the 333 was more capable and had a lower CASM. The 332 (similar size to the 764 but wiht more range) does not sell in anywhere near the numbers the 333 does because newest versions of the 333 can now do 13 hour flights

The reason why Airbus is able to discount them as aggressively as they have is because it is one of the world's best selling widebody jetliners.

 

[BigMac]

It's too bad that thread locking seems to be the only way that the discussion can stay on track. On their forums I moderate, we just put the troublemakers & pot stirrers on moderation, instead of constantly shutting down actual discussion. It's actually less work for the admins -- we approve the occasional post that has content, and leave out the diatribes, dissertations and flaming... Everyone else just has a normal conversation.


I've always viewed the 787 as a long-thin aircraft, so why anyone is shocked that it would be used as such is downright comical.

There's a ~30,000 difference in payload capability between the 333 and 772ER, and the 333HGW doesn't close that cap by very much.

There are 4 options on this board of ridding ourselves with this teachers pet. Ignore all the false posts, put this user on IGNORE, stop using this board and fourth..start up our own board. This individual gets more replies than anyone on here. Advertising is how some boards survive financially. It's hard to get rid of someone who brings in more posters and everytime you click past the advertisenents brings in $. There you have it and the truth shall set you free.

 

[metopower]

wonder why the 764s were not a big seller

Because Boeing didn't want to build it in the first place. They tried to get them to which out for either 777 or 787 but DL and CO were determined to get the aircraft. 333 had nothing to do with it. Co and DL were all Boeing at that time.

 

[topDawg]

United talking about going to 364 seats on their 772s. The seating density would lower CASM just by the number of seats.
 
http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/united-considering-10-abreast-777-retrofits

FWIW UA is converting the 10 777s into domestic configs. They wont see international flying. Not apples to apples. 
 

Before I could respond to yet another post by WT full of made-up "statistics" and fantasy, the thread was shut down.

Nevertheless, WT continues to post false and misleading info in a desperate attempt to paint AA's fleet as somehow "sub-optimal" to the perfect Delta fleet.

WT posted:


Unfortunately for WT, the first paragraph is completely false.

AA's 772s have an empty operating weight about 30,000 pounds more than A333s, not the 50,000 pounds that WT continually posts (dating back years now). The 772 has 12% more floor area for seating than the A333, and can seat 8% more passengers due to its wider seats and aisles than the typical A333 configuration.

Lastly, the 772 does not burn 20% more fuel than an A333; to the contrary, the 772 actually burns less fuel per seat mile than an A333:

http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2011/03/the_games_people_play.html

http://www.aspireaviation.com/2010/12/08/boeing-777-way-much-better-than-a330/

When you post made-up bullshit, don't be surprised if someone actually points it out.

The second paragraph is nothing more than WT-fantasy.

Okay, not that i want to jump into this pissing contest 
 
but you are a little bit off. So is Boeing. 
 
Boeing is comparing a 400 seat 772 to a 300 seat 333. Give me one, just a single one, 77E AA or any airline has that has 400 seats that isn't flying domestic/regional missions.  
 
It is very well known that in like configurations the 333 burns less fuel than the 77E and is simply the better plane for 4,000nm missions or less. It holds more (for AA it holds about 30 more people) and has lower weights. Simple math points to it burning less fuel. That is why you are seeing airlines like SQ replacing its short(er) haul 777s with 333s.  
When you compare apples to apples, the 333 does it a little bit better on shorter flying. On the 4,0001nm missions the 77E starts to get better because of the lack of legs on the 333. (even the 242t model). I have seen the numbers for our fleet(DL) and I can tell you, unless the company is straight up lying to the DOT, the 333 does the shorter flying a little better. Is it 15%? ehhh might be a little bit of a stretch, but both airplanes for DL seat 290 people. 
 
having said that, it does NOT do it good enough that AA, UA, BA or who ever has a real reason to run out and replace its 777s with 333 unless, like in the case of SQ, the 777 is getting ready to cycle out. Fact is, AA is making billions upon billions and the fuel burn number differences are not going to make or break the airline. If fuel burn was the ultimate factor you would see international flying go the way of NK.
    
IMHO all this it is is one more stat to get into a pissing contest over. Its smaller enough that it really doesn't matter that much, but it gives airline XX a way of winning the internet war. 
 
 
Oh, doesn't trust OEM numbers. They are all off. For example, the 242t 333 isn't going to fly routes well over 6,000nms like Airbus says it will. Boeing is probably worse than Airbus at fudging numbers. Example the posted ranges for Boeing airplanes are normally off 1,000nm or so. Airbus at least takes winds into the numbers, but none of them use real configurations or factors like diversion requirements or cargo.  
 
Okay, back the regularly scheduled pissing contest.......     

It's too bad that thread locking seems to be the only way that the discussion can stay on track. On the forums I moderate, we just put the troublemakers & pot stirrers on moderation, instead of constantly shutting down actual discussion. It's actually less work for the admins -- we approve the occasional post that has content, and leave out the diatribes, dissertations and flaming... Everyone else just has a normal conversation.


I've always viewed the 787 as a long-thin aircraft, so why anyone is shocked that it would be used as such is downright comical.

There's a ~30,000 difference in payload capability between the 333 and 772ER, and the 333HGW doesn't close that cap by very much.

That is exactly what it is. Perfect airplane for an airline like AA who is a little bit weak in a market like china to build frequency with low cost and long legs.
 
It is funny that someone talks bad about it, when it is simply what the 767 was/is to Atlantic market. The same airplane that gave Delta a chance at becoming so large to Europe from the US. The 777 started the push but the 787 will be the game changer for an airline like AA who needs to go up against the power house that is United. 

 

[jimntx]

TopDawg, thanks for pointing out that the fuel burn difference between the B777 and the A333 is negligible, and certainly does not justify a wholesale switchout from one a/c to the other.  It's like the time a tightfisted friend of mine tried to get me to change my telephone carrier (to the one he used).  He kept saying that it would save me "up to $5/month."  $5/month!  At last, Mother can have that operation.  

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

Surprised that no one has yet mentioned that the 777 is the preferred choice of aircraft among travelers as well. Some may write this off as being insignificant, but I doubt it when you consider how many travelers name equipment as a factor in their flight booking...

 

[robbedagain]

thanks meto

 

[jimntx]

Surprised that no one has yet mentioned that the 777 is the preferred choice of aircraft among travelers as well. Some may write this off as being insignificant, but I doubt it when you consider how many travelers name equipment as a factor in their flight booking...

Amen, I was hoping to non-rev on the 787 when it was flying DFW-ORD on its "exercise runs."  That puppy was booked solid on all the days I had free.  EVERYBODY going to ORD wanted to fly on it regardless of how long they might have to wait for a connection there.  Same is true of the 777 on International flights.  I'm certain that a 777 to a particular destination will fill up before a 767 on the same route.

 

[topDawg]

TopDawg, thanks for pointing out that the fuel burn difference between the B777 and the A333 is negligible, and certainly does not justify a wholesale switchout from one a/c to the other.  It's like the time a tightfisted friend of mine tried to get me to change my telephone carrier (to the one he used).  He kept saying that it would save me "up to $5/month."  $5/month!  At last, Mother can have that operation.  

exactly. Low OEW aircraft should (at least if they are the same generation) burn less fuel. However, while you get a lower fuel burn with the the 330 it is not going to be enough to justify parking 40ish 777s to replace them with 330s. Also, if that is the factor that makes or breaks a route then the margins on said route are complete garbage anyways. 
 
Also, one thing that is easy to forget, when AA passed on the 333 for its Europe flying a simple fleet was the cool thing to do. I do not believe adding yet another engine type, another aircraft type etc. would have been worth it for AA. Having said that, I would not be shocked at all to see AA add A330s (be it low priced end of the line CEOs or NEOs) at some point now that they have 20+ in the fleet. IMO it might make more sense than the higher priced 787 and A350XWB. JMO though. 
 

Surprised that no one has yet mentioned that the 777 is the preferred choice of aircraft among travelers as well. Some may write this off as being insignificant, but I doubt it when you consider how many travelers name equipment as a factor in their flight booking...

if you fly Y, then the 767 is by far the best wide body to fly. After that, I'll take a 330 over a 3-4-3 777 any day of the week. 

 

[eolesen]

Seating configs are arbitrary measures (especially for nonrevs, who have less of a real choice except to aim for more empty seats...)

GDS displays aren't.

When the 777/787 show shorter flying times, they rank higher in the GDS displays, and tend to get sold first.

 

[topDawg]

Seating configs are arbitrary measures (especially for nonrevs, who have less of a real choice except to aim for more empty seats...)

GDS displays aren't.

When the 777/787 show shorter flying times, they rank higher in the GDS displays, and tend to get sold first.

errr. 
 
if you call getting a smaller seat and "arbitrary" then okay. I like as much room as I can get though. 

 

[eolesen]

if you call getting a smaller seat and "arbitrary" then okay. I like as much room as I can get though.

Unless you have a really wide ass, most people don't notice the extra half inch of width on an Airbus. What is noticeable is seat pitch, and that's entirely arbitrary. Airlines can (and do) change that.

 

[Kev3188]

errr. 
 
if you call getting a smaller seat and "arbitrary" then okay. I like as much room as I can get though.

This is when it pays to not be a man of height...

 

[WorldTraveler]

Meto,
Your point is valid that only CO and DL wanted the 767-400 but that precisely answers the question as to why it was a commercial failure compared to the 330.

I still have the packet that Airbus distributed to DL employees when they came to pitch the 332 as an L1011 replacement. Given that DL’s primary use of the L10 by the time they were ready to order the 764 or 330 was domestic, the advantage the 764 had over the 332 was lighter weight.

Further, one of DL’s requirements was that the 764 be able to land at LGA, the same requirement that was made by multiple airlines of the L10 and D10 at the time those aircraft were designed. Remember that DL is still petitioning the PANYNJ to lift the perimeter restriction but even if that does not happen, it is still very likely that the 767 in either the 763ER or 764ER variant will be back at LGA given that DL added a lot of capacity to LGA with the slot transfer and has been able to make it work. NYC will continue to grow but airport capacity likely will not. Eventually, slot value will dictate larger aircraft and that could trickle UP to the 767s. Remember that DL is planning to convert int’l 763ERs to domestic configuration in the next few years to replace some of the non-ER 763s that will be retired. The 764s have enough life left in them that they could do the same thing years after the 763s are gone. I don’t believe there is any other widebody or any other aircraft that can seat as many passengers as a 763 or 764 can in a typical domestic first/coach configuration.

Dawg,
Thank you for confirming what I said regarding the 333’s fuel economy on a similar configuration basis for TATL routes. That is the basis I said had to be used for comparison.
However, I never suggested that AA replace their 777s before the end of their usable life. I have said that AA appears to be pushing their 777s onto their TATL network while putting their newer technology aircraft on TPAC routes.

Remember also that AA chose to buy BOTH the 763ER and the A300 and the reason was as much because of the low cost of acquiring the 333s; the two weren’t comparable aircraft in terms of performance.
AA chose to order 737s and A320 family aircraft for much of the same reason.
AA chose to order ONLY the 787 family for its new generation widebodies – other than the 773ERs.
IN contrast, DL has intentionally chosen to segment its Atlantic and Pacific fleets with different aircraft for new models– the 330 and 350.
So, both strategies have been used by both AA and DL and none of us here have enough information to be able to say if either was valid or not.
Still, my point was that the 333 in comparable configurations burns less fuel on typical 4000 mile segments.

E,
On TATL sectors, the difference in speed between the 330 and 777 is negligible. Even on LAX-HND, the roundtrip difference between the 763ER and the 787 is only 20 minutes. The only real difference in speed is on direct, local routes which is pretty much just JFK. For connections, it all has to do with how well set up hub schedules are.