Boeing 767 More Fuel Efficient than Airbus 330, Analysis Finds
Thread Starter
Boeing 767 More Fuel Efficient than Airbus 330, Analysis Finds
(St. Louis, January 14, 2008) -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] today released a 53-page study prepared by Conklin & de Decker Aviation Information showing that a commercial 767 airplane is substantially more fuel efficient than the larger Airbus 330.
The study conducted by the independent aviation research company, and funded by Boeing, used published data to calculate the fuel consumption of flying a fleet of 179 767-200ER and Airbus 330-200 airplanes over a 40-year service life. The purpose of the analysis was to provide a clear comparison between the KC-767 Advanced Tanker (AT), based on the 767, and its major competitor in the U.S. Air Force's KC-135 Tanker Replacement Program. The winner of the KC-X competition will begin recapitalizing the service's aging refueling inventory by building 179 next-generation tankers.
The study showed that the 767 fleet burned 24 percent less fuel than the A-330s and would save approximately $14.6 billion in fuel costs. That number is significant since the Air Force spent approximately $6.6 billion on aviation fuel costs in 2006.
"Senior Air Force leaders have said that when a barrel of oil increases by $10, it costs them about $600 million a year," said Mark McGraw, vice president, Boeing Tanker Programs. "So it is critical, especially with rising fuel prices, that the Air Force's next refueling tanker meet or exceed their requirements and be as efficient as possible. That aircraft is the right-sized KC-767 Advanced Tanker."
Source : Boeing
The study conducted by the independent aviation research company, and funded by Boeing, used published data to calculate the fuel consumption of flying a fleet of 179 767-200ER and Airbus 330-200 airplanes over a 40-year service life. The purpose of the analysis was to provide a clear comparison between the KC-767 Advanced Tanker (AT), based on the 767, and its major competitor in the U.S. Air Force's KC-135 Tanker Replacement Program. The winner of the KC-X competition will begin recapitalizing the service's aging refueling inventory by building 179 next-generation tankers.
The study showed that the 767 fleet burned 24 percent less fuel than the A-330s and would save approximately $14.6 billion in fuel costs. That number is significant since the Air Force spent approximately $6.6 billion on aviation fuel costs in 2006.
"Senior Air Force leaders have said that when a barrel of oil increases by $10, it costs them about $600 million a year," said Mark McGraw, vice president, Boeing Tanker Programs. "So it is critical, especially with rising fuel prices, that the Air Force's next refueling tanker meet or exceed their requirements and be as efficient as possible. That aircraft is the right-sized KC-767 Advanced Tanker."
Source : Boeing
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I presume it burns 24% less because it has a lower MTOW and thus lower capacity than the A330-200?
It's a bit misleading... it would have been more representative to compare it to a 767-300er (even though that is still smaller than the 332)
It's a bit misleading... it would have been more representative to compare it to a 767-300er (even though that is still smaller than the 332)
Amazing the lengths the Yanks will go to, in order to NOT buy Airbus for their Defence Forces.
Like the suggestion the next Air Force One will be an A380 - not bloody likely!!!
Like the suggestion the next Air Force One will be an A380 - not bloody likely!!!
I'm a Boeing supporter from way back but....................
Surely you'd have to compare fuel burn per kg of payload?
What is the payload difference between the 76 and 330?
Surely you'd have to compare fuel burn per kg of payload?
What is the payload difference between the 76 and 330?
The study conducted by the independent aviation research company, and funded by Airbus, used published data to calculate the fuel consumption of flying a fleet of 179 Airbus 330-200 and 767-200ER airplanes over a 40-year service life. The purpose of the analysis was to provide a clear comparison between the A330 tanker and its major competitor in the U.S. Air Force's KC-135 Tanker Replacement Program. The winner of the KC-X competition will begin recapitalizing the service's aging refuelling inventory by building 179 next-generation tankers.
The study showed that the A-330s fleet burned 24 percent less fuel than the 767 and would save approximately $14.6 billion in fuel costs. That number is significant since the Air Force spent approximately $6.6 billion on aviation fuel costs in 2006.
"Senior Air Force leaders have said that when a barrel of oil increases by $10, it costs them about $600 million a year," said Mark McGraw, vice president, Airbus Tanker Programs. "So it is critical, especially with rising fuel prices, that the Air Force's next refuelling tanker meet or exceed their requirements and be as efficient as possible. That aircraft is the right-sized A330 Tanker."
Source : Airbus
The study showed that the A-330s fleet burned 24 percent less fuel than the 767 and would save approximately $14.6 billion in fuel costs. That number is significant since the Air Force spent approximately $6.6 billion on aviation fuel costs in 2006.
"Senior Air Force leaders have said that when a barrel of oil increases by $10, it costs them about $600 million a year," said Mark McGraw, vice president, Airbus Tanker Programs. "So it is critical, especially with rising fuel prices, that the Air Force's next refuelling tanker meet or exceed their requirements and be as efficient as possible. That aircraft is the right-sized A330 Tanker."
Source : Airbus
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote......Information showing that a commercial 767 airplane is substantially more fuel efficient than the larger Airbus 330.
Hmmm ....a larger A/C using more fuel.....
SinceI,m not paying for the petrol,,,,,...which is more comfortable.....the one with the yoke....of the one that has a tucker table ........a tucker table on long flights is always a bonus.....
seems like this report was manifested to save somebodys job,rather than being an accurate comparison of similar A/C types...maybe
Hmmm ....a larger A/C using more fuel.....
SinceI,m not paying for the petrol,,,,,...which is more comfortable.....the one with the yoke....of the one that has a tucker table ........a tucker table on long flights is always a bonus.....
seems like this report was manifested to save somebodys job,rather than being an accurate comparison of similar A/C types...maybe
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia.
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really hope that it is a mess up in that first paragraph.... "a commercial 767 airplane is substantially more fuel efficient than the larger Airbus 330."
This is either a Homer Simpson "DOH" moment or just someone waiting for a big "Duh". They are trying to tell us it took millions of dollars for Boeing to notice that an acft with larger MTOW is going to burn more dosh
. it's almost as bad as wanting to build a lighter aircraft out of plastic... did I say lighter?? 
Lets do the sums - 230k/t for the 332. 143k/t for the 762....
Bloody idiots.
Steve.
PS: Still can't believe what im reading.
PPS: Just seen the above reply, apologies!
This is either a Homer Simpson "DOH" moment or just someone waiting for a big "Duh". They are trying to tell us it took millions of dollars for Boeing to notice that an acft with larger MTOW is going to burn more dosh
. it's almost as bad as wanting to build a lighter aircraft out of plastic... did I say lighter?? Lets do the sums - 230k/t for the 332. 143k/t for the 762....
Bloody idiots.
Steve.
PS: Still can't believe what im reading.
PPS: Just seen the above reply, apologies!
40 years out of a 330? CX's needed a fleet wide "get well progam" after 6 or 7 years. The accountants do reckon they make the most money though. I'm pretty sure if we had 767-2's, they'd be close to the other end of the pile. I think in this case the makers of the bmw of the skys are full of sh1t.
