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

[FWAAA]

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:

Of course AA's CASM on the 772s will go down but since the 772 weighs 50K pounds more than the 333 which seats about the same amount of passengers and uses about 20% more fuel, the 777 is a suboptimal aircraft. Since AA now operates 333s, it knows that and it also knows the 777 is too much airplane for many of these routes in the winter.

So, no, AA's supposed intent was to replace 767s with 787s and it is now turning out that the 787s are being used to make the Pacific work - and pushing the 777s to markets where the long-term success rate there isn't any better than it was on the Pacific.

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.

 

[eolesen]

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.

 

[WorldTraveler]

the DOT has statistics on fuel burn per aircraft.

The 333 burns less fuel per mission than the 772.

and feel free to post the OEW of US' 333s vs. AA's 772s if you want to make a direct comparison.

floor space doesn't mean anything if there aren't comparable numbers of seats - which AA's 772s haven't had. Even with the reconfiguration, AA's 772s will seat no more than the 333 in both DL and US' configurations.

Yes, the 333 does burn less fuel than the 772 and higher seat counts on DL and US' 333s make it even harder for the AA math to work.

If you have info to prove otherwise, not Boeing's advertising propaganda but actual usage data, plz share it.

 

[dfw gen]

the DOT has statistics on fuel burn per aircraft.

The 333 burns less fuel per mission than the 772.

and feel free to post the OEW of US' 333s vs. AA's 772s if you want to make a direct comparison.

floor space doesn't mean anything if there aren't comparable numbers of seats - which AA's 772s haven't had. Even with the reconfiguration, AA's 772s will seat no more than the 333 in both DL and US' configurations.

Yes, the 333 does burn less fuel than the 772 and higher seat counts on DL and US' 333s make it even harder for the AA math to work.

If you have info to prove otherwise, not Boeing's advertising propaganda but actual usage data, plz share it.

Boeing's advertising propaganda? what an idiot.

 

[Kev3188]

I've always viewed the 787 as a long-thin aircraft...

Pretty sure that's exactly what Boeing had in mind as well...

 

[commavia]

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.

 

Pretty sure that's exactly what Boeing had in mind as well...

 
No, no, no.  What you guys fail to understand is that when AA uses next-generation, fuel-efficient aircraft to optimize capacity and improve financials, it's an obvious sign of disastrous failure, but when Delta defers delivery of said aircraft and exits longhaul routes altogether, we're all "missing the whole picture" and haven't fully appreciated the ingenious strategy in ATL.  Rookie mistake, guys - just wait - all will be revealed in Delta's grand plan in time.  Remember, at all times and in all things - Delta has everyone right where they want them.  We're just not smart enough to comprehend it yet.

 

[dfw gen]

Pretty sure that's exactly what Boeing had in mind as well...

would that be by boeing's propaganda?

 

[Kev3188]

Given some of the routes JL, NH, and even UA have placed them on I'm not the only one that fell for it...

 

[700UW]

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

 

[WorldTraveler]

No one is arguing against the economics of the 787. I have noted that AA's aggressive fleet replacement strategy makes it harder to find a place for the 772 which is less fuel-efficient both on a trip and per seat basis than the 333 and the 787 in any size

That reality should be clear from sales of each model. 772s don't hardly sell anymore

 

[700UW]

Doesnt seem like they have had any problems placing them.
 
And the facts are a 772 burns less fuel per passenger than the 333.

Facts.

 

[kirkpatrick]

The 787-8 seats 28/198 for 226, or 34 fewer seats than the reconfigured 772.  FAs being trained on the 787 are being trained on both the -8 and -9 versions and it's already in our manuals, which leads me to think -9 deliveries must be coming up very soon.  The -9 seats 28/261 for 289, or 63 more than the -8 and 29 more than the 772.
 
Any idea where those might be used?
 
MK

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

If you have info to prove otherwise, not Boeing's advertising propaganda but actual usage data, plz share it.

 
Who to believe?  WT vs Boeing
Tough one!
 

Given some of the routes JL, NH, and even UA have placed them on I'm not the only one that fell for it...

 
Isn't it obvious that JL, NH and even UA do not know how to utilize properly aircraft on the routes they fly.
 
 

That reality should be clear from sales of each model. 772s don't hardly sell anymore

 
I'll take WT Fabricated Facts for $1000 Alex please:
 
From when it was introduced in 1997 to 2013 there were >400 777-200er sold.  Works out to about 25-30 per year.  Just for the 772 alone that is more-or-less to how many A330s are sold per year (200 and 300).  Ofcourse the numbers for the 77W blow both out of the water (over 570 delivered over 11 years).
 
Try again.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

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.

 
IIRC, there were several A330 vs B777 threads where WT was proved to be posting incorrect numbers. 
His standard response was that you cannot believe the specifications Airbus or Boeing provide for the products they manufacture.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

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,

 
I am sure having WT on ignore makes the threads more user friendly.  However the temptation to highlight the double standards in his narratives and point of the fabricated facts he posts is just too easy.  And can be done repeatedly on a daily basis.