777 actually burns less fuel per seat mile than A333, despite posts to the contrary
- Thread starter FWAAA
- Start date
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #17
funny that 700 cites an artile that says the article is provided by Boeing and where they list the seating capacity of the 772ER at over 300 passengers - which is way more than any US carrier has their 772s configured - but lists the 333 has having barely over 260 passengers despite the fact that the 333 for both DL and US have over 290 seats.
And then article goes on to say that comparing the 777 to the 333 isn't an apples to apples comparison because the 777 can fly a couple thousand miles further and yet Boeing compares the 772 to the smaller 332 in order to come up with decent CASM statistics - and only when Boeing vastly overstates the seating configuration of the 772 and understates the 333
yes, the 333 burns less fuel not only per block hour but also per seat and the 333 is not only ideally suited for u to 10 hour flights that are the backbone of TATL operations while the 777 originally was at its sweet spot for 12-14 hour flights.
Now that the 333 is doing 12 to 13 hour flights and still generating superior CASM, it is even easier to see why Boeing isn't selling 772s while Airbus is selling 330s.
this isn't an A vs. B discussion or anything else... it is simply about the 333 having evolved as a lighter, longer range aircraft while the 772 no longer sells in comparison.
And then article goes on to say that comparing the 777 to the 333 isn't an apples to apples comparison because the 777 can fly a couple thousand miles further and yet Boeing compares the 772 to the smaller 332 in order to come up with decent CASM statistics - and only when Boeing vastly overstates the seating configuration of the 772 and understates the 333
yes, the 333 burns less fuel not only per block hour but also per seat and the 333 is not only ideally suited for u to 10 hour flights that are the backbone of TATL operations while the 777 originally was at its sweet spot for 12-14 hour flights.
Now that the 333 is doing 12 to 13 hour flights and still generating superior CASM, it is even easier to see why Boeing isn't selling 772s while Airbus is selling 330s.
this isn't an A vs. B discussion or anything else... it is simply about the 333 having evolved as a lighter, longer range aircraft while the 772 no longer sells in comparison.
Overspeed
Veteran
- Jun 27, 2011
- 3,245
- 1,065
Kirkpatrick,
First 787-9 is scheduled for delivery on 9/15/16. UA flies them now to Australia so maybe AA will do the same once they arrive. Read an article recently that said AA was thinking of Auckland out of LAX as well. Another 787-9 possibility. I believe that long thin routes was what the 787 was supposed to make profitable at lower fares thus increasing traffic.
May have to check with DL to see if the economics make sense first before launching service.
First 787-9 is scheduled for delivery on 9/15/16. UA flies them now to Australia so maybe AA will do the same once they arrive. Read an article recently that said AA was thinking of Auckland out of LAX as well. Another 787-9 possibility. I believe that long thin routes was what the 787 was supposed to make profitable at lower fares thus increasing traffic.
May have to check with DL to see if the economics make sense first before launching service.
Overspeed
Veteran
- Jun 27, 2011
- 3,245
- 1,065
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
http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/united-considering-10-abreast-777-retrofits
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #20
that level of seating on a 772 would be with a mini-business class cabin so they can push the CASM down but also the revenue generating capability of the forward cabin.
It also would require 10 abreast seating, something that AA has or will have on its entire 777 fleet but UA does not have on its 772s (perhaps yet) and DL has not said it will do - and probably won't. Has UA moved forward with that high density 772 mod?
further, there is no doubt that the economics of the 787 will be favorable, esp. with the stretched -9, relative to the 777 and perhaps the 330.
But one airline believes that when the cost of ownership is factored in, including the discounts that Airbus can give on an aircraft for which they have sold 1000 copies, the 330neo is a more economical alternative but the economics of the 359 vs. the 787-9 are about the same.
Comparing aircraft doing similar mission with similar configurations is necesary in order to get reliable data.
the 777 is a great airplane... but it is heavy and not as efficient as newer aircraft including the 330, 787, and 350 and on TATL flights where the range and extra weight or technology to reduce the weight of a long-range aircraft are not needed, the 330 and even the 764 compare per seat more favorably than the 777.
that is probably why DL and UA - who both have the 764 and DL and US - who both have the 333 - rely heavily on those models instead of the 777.
Ownership costs dramatically rise if a fleet has to be early retired because there aren't enough routes that justify their operation. and if a carrier flies a heavy aircraft on a mission relative to other aircraft used by competitors, the costs will be higher.
and DL and UA are not ordering new technology aircraft faster than they need to do to replace retiring aircraft instead of shuffling older technology aircraft medium global regions.
It also would require 10 abreast seating, something that AA has or will have on its entire 777 fleet but UA does not have on its 772s (perhaps yet) and DL has not said it will do - and probably won't. Has UA moved forward with that high density 772 mod?
further, there is no doubt that the economics of the 787 will be favorable, esp. with the stretched -9, relative to the 777 and perhaps the 330.
But one airline believes that when the cost of ownership is factored in, including the discounts that Airbus can give on an aircraft for which they have sold 1000 copies, the 330neo is a more economical alternative but the economics of the 359 vs. the 787-9 are about the same.
Comparing aircraft doing similar mission with similar configurations is necesary in order to get reliable data.
the 777 is a great airplane... but it is heavy and not as efficient as newer aircraft including the 330, 787, and 350 and on TATL flights where the range and extra weight or technology to reduce the weight of a long-range aircraft are not needed, the 330 and even the 764 compare per seat more favorably than the 777.
that is probably why DL and UA - who both have the 764 and DL and US - who both have the 333 - rely heavily on those models instead of the 777.
Ownership costs dramatically rise if a fleet has to be early retired because there aren't enough routes that justify their operation. and if a carrier flies a heavy aircraft on a mission relative to other aircraft used by competitors, the costs will be higher.
and DL and UA are not ordering new technology aircraft faster than they need to do to replace retiring aircraft instead of shuffling older technology aircraft medium global regions.
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
+1Overspeed said:
WorldTraveler said:
Given that DLs knowledge about Airbus was about as intimate as a lingerie shop with no windows, you must be describing NW, right?
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #22
DL has placed a larger order with Airbus than any order NW placed. I wouldn't be surprised if the value of DL's 50 aircraft 350/339 order is larger than any other US carrier Airbus widebody order. and that was on top of a separate order for 10 other 330s.
So, DL does undoubtedly know what they are dealing with.
and again, new aircraft aren't the focus of this aircraft. Existing aircraft are. The 333 is in service as is the 772ER.
When comparing similar or identical configurations for Atlantic routes, the 330 is a lower cost option.
So, DL does undoubtedly know what they are dealing with.
and again, new aircraft aren't the focus of this aircraft. Existing aircraft are. The 333 is in service as is the 772ER.
When comparing similar or identical configurations for Atlantic routes, the 330 is a lower cost option.
Glenn Quagmire
Veteran
- Apr 30, 2012
- 4,809
- 4,343
Yet another thread turned into a Delta is better than anything in the universe no matter what the reality is.
I really wish the moderators would put and end to this bullshat. This will never end until the troll is banished. Let his other alias' see if they can restrain themselves.
I really wish the moderators would put and end to this bullshat. This will never end until the troll is banished. Let his other alias' see if they can restrain themselves.
Glenn Quagmire
Veteran
- Apr 30, 2012
- 4,809
- 4,343
I am sure he has/will threaten the moderators of this forum with legal action if he is banned or even limited to posting his garbage.dfw gen said:
That is his m.o.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #26
Meanwhile we await any valid evidence that the 772 is as fuel-efficient as the 333 on 10 hour flights
And the moderators do a pretty good job of managing the ongoing cat fights on this site
And the moderators do a pretty good job of managing the ongoing cat fights on this site
- Banned
- #27
I agree 1000% he just started a flamebait retaliatory thread over at AA about a DFW-ICN flight diverting, and questions AA's maintenance practices.Glenn Quagmire said:
He needs to be banned like A.Net did, or at least a month off from the boards.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #28
excuse me but I didn't start this thread.
we're waiting for you or one of your little buds to find the evidence that the 772 is actually more fuel-efficient than the 333 while actually using realistic seat counts on both aircraft and not stuffing a score more on the 777 than US airlines do or calculating fuel burn per seat on the 333 with a score less seats.
Just the stats, please.
we're waiting for you or one of your little buds to find the evidence that the 772 is actually more fuel-efficient than the 333 while actually using realistic seat counts on both aircraft and not stuffing a score more on the 777 than US airlines do or calculating fuel burn per seat on the 333 with a score less seats.
Just the stats, please.
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
Glenn Quagmire said:
+1
Glenn Quagmire said:
Maybe he can log off for a day and then try to claim the new poster / new entrant argument ... ... ...
700UW said:
FULL STOP.
He needs to be banned. Period.
Also, I urge everyone to see his 'best in commercial aviation' post on the AA DFWICN diversion. I think that will reveal the Whole Truth about WT.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #30
just the facts that someone thinks they have to show that the 772 than the 333. Given that the 772 is an aircraft that weighs more than the 333 and has more powerful engines, it is hard to believe that it burns less fuel.
oh, and don't forget to use comparable configurations.
that's all.
oh, and don't forget to use comparable configurations.
that's all.
