B777 versus A330?

[Bmused55]

Well, I just had the most bizzare debate.

Firstly it started off with a bunch of "know-it-alls" trying to tell me 4 engines is far more economic and overall much cheaper than two. (777 vs A340)
After I proved them wrong they then switched tactics, stating that the B777 does not compete with the A340, rather the A330.
Their justification, the A330-300 seats more or less the same as a B772ER, therefore they must be competitors.

I told them that OEW,MTOW,MZFW etc are the defining factors of what market an aircraft competes in, but they then stated as the numbers were "in the same ball park" the B777 was still an A330 competitor.


So my question to you all here.

Would you consider the B777 and A330 direct competitors as these folks believe?

I'd rather listen to Boeings statement that says the mighty triple seven is their answer to the A340.



edited to correct my bad spelling

[WHBM]

Believe the A340-300 (the established one, same size as the A330-300) is out of production now, so that race is over. Only the much-stretched A340-500/600 of the 4-engined ones remain in production.

[Bmused55]

The a340-300 is very much still in production, but only has a few orders. Its not getting any orders from new customers, just add on orders. But it doesn't matter, as it is built on the same line as the A330 and other a340s

Here's how I match up the competitors:

777-200ER - A340 200/300
777-200LR - A340-500
777-300ER - A340-600

The 777-300basic is more or less on its own, a longer version of the 200ER more or less for those who need the extra capacity.

So far, the 777 combined sales are almost double that of the A340. This is the reason I think why the members on another forum are arguing that the 777 is an A330 competitor. :{


edited to correct my bad spelling

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

Well, I think it's reasonable to see all three aeroplanes competing for the same segment of the big twin market. The A330 (especially the A330-300), A340 and 777 all more or less overlap each other from different directions, so you can't really draw sharp black and white lines in the capabilities of these airliners, despite the clever dots and lines on a manufacturer's graph. The 777 was introduced in response to Airbus's earlier initiative with the combined A330/340. I would have thought the 777 competed with the A330 in the slightly smaller and medium range segment of the medium-size wide body market, and with the A340 in the slightly larger and longer. This at least shows the 777's flexibility, which is increasing with the 777-300ER, and to a lesser extent with the -200LR. On the other hand, some A330s are flying long haul on very slightly thinner routes. Certainly, 777s and A330s compete directly on the north Atlantic and on routes from Western Europe to the Gulf, which is what I mean by overlap. In some sectors like these the A340 is ‘too much aircraft’ compared with the A330, which is a good 777 competitor.

Besides, there are a lot of similarities between the A330 and A340. So an airline can get two types for the cost of introducing one with a slightly better overall route range than optimally served just by 777s. Flightcrew licensing/flightdeck commonality, plus lease/finance costs, engine choice versus existing engines in a fleet, the manufacturer’s overall sales package and fleet commonality may all be important factors in fleet acquisition decisions, as much as the precise position of a plane in the market.

[Jetavia]

What about the B777 vs. the B747-classics/400, I believe some airlines have turned to the 777 as a replacement for older 747's?

[WHBM]

The a340-300 is very much still in production
Think you'll find the last A340-300 was airframe number 668 for Air Tahiti, which is built now. The last A340-200 was done years ago.

[404 Titan]

I agree that the A340-200 is no longer in production. If you want a -300 you can still get it though. The -500 and -600 may now get the sales but if you want to get a -300 they will build it. This is from the Airbus web sight:
Benefiting from the latest innovations introduced on the A340-500 and A340-600, the A340-300 now also features an enhanced new interior styling with new LED lighting and LCD screens in the cockpit.

&

With the further development of the range capability of the larger A340-300 and the ultra long range A340-500, the A340-200 is now only available through Airbus Asset Management.

[MarkD]

Three 343E more for Air Mauritius with an option for two more recently announced (http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre/pressreleases/06_27_05_Air_Mauritius.html). I guess they don't worry so much about slower and lower so much as about ETOPS compliance.

There are two orders on LAN's books but I doubt they will ever be built and may have been traded in in the recent A32x order.

Meanwhile 343 owning airlines like AC are adding a few used ones because they can't get their act together on industrial relations.

The real disaster is A345 - ETOPS is killing this one and not slowly either.

[Bmused55]

Air Canada publicly stated that by ditching their A340s for 777s, they can save $300 Million a year, speaks for itself.

I agree that the 777 and A330 overlap somewhat. But the 777 was never designed as direct answer to the A330, which these other folks seem to think.

I've never heard of an airline looking for fleet expansion/renewal and trying to decide between the both.

But one thing is for certain, the 777 is heavier and carries more payload a greater distance.
Ok, you can fly it on short routes. But the point I was making is it was designed for long range ops.

To put it simply, I beleive the 777 was meant for a different range of missions than the A330.

Interesting comment about the A345. I can't help but wonder if that is correct. A345 orders are at a stand still with the advent of the 772LR, which it is widely known is being watched very closely by most of the big airlines across the globe.

Another nail in the coffin of the 4 engines 4 long haul idea.

[MarkD]

bmused

I think the AC savings would partially come from replacing 343s per se due to the increase in load capacity but also in collapsing the number of types and variations in the long haul fleet with consequent savings in training and spares.

AC operates 343/345/333 (all 777 replacement under the aborted order) and 762/763 (787 replacement) and within some of those types are mark variants arising from second hand acquisitions (343) and engine variations remaining from the AC/CP merger (762/3).

[woodpecker]

Jetavia,

All be it a few years ago, but to give you an example, I was operating PHL-LHR on the 777 with our 747 classic an hour behind us with very simular payload.

The 777 fuel requirement was 49,000 kgs and the 747 classic 76,000 kgs.

Hope that answers your question.

[Clipper7]

I thought the A330/A340/A350 was all the same happy family ;-)

[El lute]

Bmused
The A330s and 777s certainly were direct competitiors when the 777 was launched. Most of the posts on this thread talk about 777 ERs and LRs, but these are developments and not the original versions.
Quote:
'I've never heard of an airline looking for fleet expansion/renewal and trying to decide between the both.'
One example is CAL a few years ago, there are more.

MarkD:
Quote:
'The real disaster is A345 - ETOPS is killing this one and not slowly either.'
Ccare to enlighten us how ETOPS can kill a four-engine aircraft?

[Bmused55]

Care to enlighten us how ETOPS can kill a four-engine aircraft?

Its a very very simple concept that is proving correct.
In a nutshell the largest advantage quads had over twins is diminishing. ETOPS is at a point that there is almost no where an Quad can fly that a Twin can't.

If you look at the routes long haul twins are flying today, a lot of them were once strictly a quad preserve, due to ETOPS limitations.

As I tried to explain on the forum.... quads are no longer a necessity for long haul.
Twins are the new kids on the block and they're here to stay.

And the fabulously stupid idea that quads are cheaper to run that twin is very wrong. There are a few advantages with a quad...
But as this article highlights (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/228668_airshow16.html) Twins are now the prefered long hauler for their superior economics

[404 Titan]

Bmused55

Another example is CX. In the end we bought both, though we have gone for considerably more A330’s than B777 over time. This I would put down to price, not any perceived weaknesses of the Tripler which from our experience are few and far indeed.

El lute

I think he is referring to the economics of the A340-500 to say a B777-200/300LR. The -500 isn’t selling that well compared to its -600 brother mainly because the numbers with it don’t add up. It’s got the range but just can’t carry the payload. The -600 though isn’t much better from our experience. When the HGW -600 is released in a few years maybe this will help it.

[Bmused55]

404 Titan

Agreed totaly, at the end of the day the A330 is much cheaper, and with the prices Airbus throw around for them, its hard not to say yes I guess.

woodpecker: Jetavia,

All be it a few years ago, but to give you an example, I was operating PHL-LHR on the 777 with our 747 classic an hour behind us with very simular payload.

The 777 fuel requirement was 49,000 kgs and the 747 classic 76,000 kgs.

Hope that answers your question.

You\'re company wouldn\'t happen to have the initials N, W and A painted on the side of their aircraft would it?

[dingduck2]

Speaking of Air Mauritius & it's A343E I think they made a real poo poo by buying" closing down sales "A343Es , even Airbus admitted it was a relief for them getting rid of those last few examples .
They are so obsessed by ETOPS that they cant see more than a few years ahead . If the buy is just bridging the gap till the 787 it's expensive, otherwise it's just plain stupid !
Air Mauritius ETOPS problem arises on the Africa - Australia sector where it is critical . Also with Diego Garcia touchy about their airspace at the moment life is not easy. In southern winter jetstreams of up to 200kts HW are common when flying westwards. we have been known to fly as low as FL250 to avoid it.

[Re-Heat]

You're company wouldn't happen to have the initials N, W and A painted on the side of their aircraft would it?
Eh? Operating into LHR, and operating a 777? Shame on you posting in a spotters' forum, let alone on PPruNe!!

Try B...... A......

[Bmused55]

Re-Heat.
It was late and the end of a long day for me.. lol, NWA don't fly 777s... I know

BUT!.... since when has BA been operating 747 Classics recently?
They retired them all in 2001/2

So we are both wrong :p

Unless of course our learned friend is actualy refering to a 744. In that case he ought read a book on the 747 to learn to distinguish the differences between the classics (741,742,743) and the 744. :ok: all in good humour.

[Re-Heat]

He said a few years ago...retired them in 2001 is a few years ago...get some more sleep mate!

[Bmused55]

Yes, I think I shall.

[El lute]

Bmused,
I hear you, but seeing where the article comes from. . .
Anyway, isn't there a new ruling in the making concerning LROPS (Long range. . .)? I guess that would bring new advantages to the quads, especially on high-terrain routes like across the Himalayas.

One thing is sure: you won't find me in a twin on a route with a potential diversion time of 180 min or more.

[Bmused55]

So the 777/a350/787 and future long haul twins won't be allowed to the fly over the Himalayas. Not such a big deal when that'll cover maybe 2 to 5% of all long haul routes if that much at all.
Not that this seems to concern the airlines, more and more are ditching quads for twins. The Big twins are here to stay, regardless of your personal opinions, this is just cold hard fact.

And if you're trying to discredit the source of the article.... Seattle PI are no friend of Boeing's and have been quick to be critical of them.

Personaly I'll board any plane that gets me to where I want to go. And if that happens to be a twin, then I'll know why my ticket was cheaper :ok:
.

[worsmasjien]

777 Debate

The 777 was never designed to be in competition with 330-300. It was designed to replace the md 11and Tristar. I am a 330 driver but I believe the new 777 will kill the 340, all variants. Carries more, burns less(remember 60$ to the barrell) and saves time. The 340-500,600 engines are:yuk: . Ask SAA, Cathay and Emirates, lots of engine changes!! And then it is only a matter of time before they get 240min Etops certification on the 777. Bye bye Bus.:E

[Bmused55]

Heh, most of this adds up with some data I have.