B767 vs A330

[DeltaSix]

Ppruners,

Just wanted to get your opinion on a selection that could possibly shape someone's future career in aviation.

The question is: If you were given the option to pick between the 767 or the bus330, which one would you pick to train on if this will be the only job for you in the next 15-20 years and why ? Taking into account that since age might be a factor in the airline's point of view in giving you further endorsement in the other aircraft (A330) if say you picked the Boeing initially.

I guess you have to consider which one will be more in demand in the future but then how can anyone tell ?

Example: The US Navy. Their F-14s are being phased out and will be totally replaced by the F-18 in the near future. Some F-14 jocks will not get the training they need in the F-18 so they can still be assigned to a battle group instead of a desk because of their age.

What option do you have if the aircraft you trained on becomes less favourable operation wise in the future ?


D6

[Beer Can Dreaming]

Well, if you are flying an aircraft in an airline as a full time employee (rather than on contract) then you would go onto the aircraft it replaces typically.

[DeltaSix]

What if the airline wont train you on the new ones and still keep the old ones ?

[donpizmeov]

Well if they do that does it make any difference?

Perhaps you should see which one does the better routes, has the better pay has the more days off? Where can you live for the basings of each etc? And then understand that all this can and will change.
An airplane is an airplane is an airplane. The view out the window is pretty much the same from all of them, and they basically fly with the same number of button pushes.
Take the one that is offered, and if you have a choice, the one that suits your lifestyle best.

Don

[Big Kahuna]

Go on the Bus a much more useful type rating should you want to leave.

And on the other hand the 330 is a lot more modern than the 767. And its bigger, and bigger is always better. Trust me I have flown both.

[DeltaSix]

Thanks for the replies everyone - appreciate your serious inputs. Big Kahuna, I think you might have answered my question.

A330 or 340 then. If anyone knows where I can get some study materials so I can do some studying in advance, I would appreciate it very much. And please don't suggest microsoft flight simulator... ....... my wife already did that.

Any one defending the Boeing side, I would still appreciate your point of view.

Cheers

D6

[Big Kahuna]

DeltaSix,

Don't get me wrong. Boeing's are great planes. Much better made in many respects.

But the fact is Airbus are selling lots of planes and this creats lots of job opportunities.

You ask about the 340. Personally I much prefer flying the 340 to the 330. It is a bit more stable and not as affected by thrust changes. Mainly due to the fact it has 4 baby engine instead of 2 big ones. And you can forget about ETOPS.

Cheers

[DeltaSix]

ETOPS

Big Kahuna,

I agree, Boeings are great planes. There was a proposal by FAA that ETOPS would be extended to three or four engined jet aeroplanes as well because of B777.

In defense of Boeings ..I've heard that the B777 which is a twin-engine aeroplane has less engine failures and diversions on record than the A340 which has 4 engines. Therefore prompting the review.

B777 has ETOPS of 208 minutes and I think has 1 IFSD ( In-flight shut down ) every 1000 hours. Making it more reliable than the Airbus.

Then again, as you said I might have more opportunities in the bus than the boeings since it's popularity rising if I had to leave.
I just hope Boeing will be successful with their 787 dreamliner.

D6

[RaTa]

DeltaSix

I don't know the extact numbers but I think you will find that the 777 or any other ETOPS aircraft for that matter, has a lot, lot, lot less than 1 in flight shutdown per 1000 hours.
I probably didn't say "lot" enough!

[swh]

DeltaSix,

I would expect the 340 to have a lower IFSD rate than the 777 on engine hours, but higher on airframe as it has more mature engines, and more of them. Engine failures per airfame hour, and engine failure per engine hour, A340 - 4 engine hours per airframe hour, 777 half that.

Have you got a link for your stats...it would interesting to see as the same comparison would should valid for 777 and 747.

[DeltaSix]

ETOPS aircraft for that matter, has a lot, lot, lot less than 1 in flight shutdown per 1000 hours.

The stats might not be just for one type of aircraft or one country RaTa, could be world-wide - but apparently that was the average. I guess if you think about it, it's a bit worrying to have 1 IFSD every 1000 hrs on one particular aircraft. I hope not.

swh - I can't remember if it was a link or a paper material that I read it on - but I'll try to find it and PM you. I can only wish I wrote down the link where I saw it or kept the material if it was in paper.
It was only comparing the B777 and A340 although the 747 was mentioned as being included on the proposal to have the same safety requirements for ETOPS as the twin-engined planes like redundancy on hydraulics, electricals, fire suppression capability and etc.

Engine failures per airfame hour, and engine failure per engine hour, A340 - 4 engine hours per airframe hour, 777 half that.

that's very true. more engines more chances or percentage of it failing compared to 2 engines.
Also, you lose one engine on a twin, you've lost 50% of your power already, while compared to 4 engines, you lose 1 you only lose 25% power.

Was just wondering though if the TAC (Thrust Assymetric Compensator) in the B777 would be capable of handling the problem of an engine being torn out of its mountings like what one A300 suffered in the past.

I think I have strayed from my original question....


D6

[RaTa]

DeltaSix

I just checked the UK's CAA requirements for ETOPS. Basically they use World Fleet data to work out their Etops requirements.
Bearing in mind that an engine is just one critical system of which ETOPS takes into consideration, for an aircraft to be certified 180mins in the UK, it has to be able to have a Target IFSD Rate per 1000 Engine Hours of .022. That is approx. an engine shut down of 1 in 45450hrs.
If an aircraft's IFSD was as high as 1 per 1000hrs, then I doubt it would retain its ETOPS qualification.

Back to your original post .........Unless you are in your late 50s, then I doubt any worthwhile Airline will take your age into consideration for type conversion. BTW I'm not having a go at the older generation.
The 767 is a great aircraft but getting a little long in the tooth avionics wise. Having said that I still prefer Boeing but if its the ability to get up and go elsewhere, then the Bus may be the better option these days.

[DeltaSix]

IFSD

Thanks for checking that RaTa. It's good to know that it's only 0.022 not 1. I wonder what they were referring to when they said 1/1000. Anyway......

So, what's with the 767 avionics ?


D6

[RaTa]

DeltaSix

The 767s avionics work very well, it is just that they are 1st generation "glass" designed back in about 1980. Having said that if you had flown the Boeing classics (72, 73, 74 etc) then you would find the 767 avionics fantastic.
As each new type has come a long so have the improvements to the avionics.

[DeltaSix]

I'm not in my 50's yet RaTa. Although I'll be in that in about 15 years or so that's the reason why i am getting feed back on the best pick of aeroplane just in case I am still with just one type in 15 - 20 years.

And yes, I have seen the instrument panel of the 767-300ER. It never ceases to amaze me these heavies. I read about the different systems from what I can squeeze in into my little brain but still a bit struggling on the Vnav part although maybe I am just over-thinking and going outside it's scope.

Also, still have a few more questions on the TRP ( Thrust Rating Panel) when to use full TO power to a D-TO power or when to use CLB, or CLB1 or 2. But, now I might have to start reading on A330 or 340s.


Cheers

[swh]

D6,

Also, still have a few more questions on the TRP ( Thrust Rating Panel) when to use full TO power to a D-TO power or when to use CLB, or CLB1 or 2. But, now I might have to start reading on A330 or 340s.

From TOGA or FLEX to CLB is just fine..."CLB1 or 2" no idea

[RaTa]

DeltaSix

The use of derated To thrust is to reduce the wear and tear of the engines as they will be operating at a lower temperature.
On the 767 and other jet A/C the performance is calculated for A/C weight and runway length / wind and temp. / obstacles etc. If you can get off with reduced thrust you do so otherwise full thrust is used.
More often than not a light A/C at max derate will out perform a heavy A/C at full thrust. Again de-rateded climb thrust is used for the same reason.
Just think of Vnav as the most economical way of doing a descent for a certain set of parameters. Like a variable glide slope which is adjusted for weight, wind, company performance requirements and ATC requirements.

[Borneo Wild Man]

Big K-"bigger is always better"
Ive told you not to listen to those chicks down Wanchai.
With only 3500hrs+ 767 and 1/2 hr A330 sim.The bus did impress the hell out of me.

[Beer Can Dreaming]

Cant talk too much about the A330 never having flown it myself, but friends that have experience on both types say the same thing.
That is that the A330 is a good ship, but it just isnt as satisfying to fly as the B767.

Having some time on the B767 though, the glass was great when compared to the mechanical "classic" type cockpit, but the good old 767 suffered from having a schizoid autopilot coupled with a geriatric autothrottle I found.

Overall though it was a great and capable/flexible machine to operate.
For its day it was amazing because you could do SYD-MEL then gas her up and fly MEL-JAPAN or go SYD-Hawaii.

On a SYD-AKL trip its fuel burn was the equivalent of the B747's fuel to top of climb.
She's had her day though and it looks like Boeing has a great replacement in the B777.

[tinpis]

Geezaz !..... a 767 is OLD?