A330 vs. B777

[RocketRob]

I talked to a Cathay Pacific crew over China on the way home from Hong Kong a few months ago. They were in a 340, and were burning 20K lbs. an hour compared to our 15K. Now we were a few thousand feet (meters ops) above them, but on a 16 hour leg = $$$$. As we passed them doing .85 they mentioned that they were excited to be trained on the triple soon. FWIW

 

[fareview]

We fly both although I have flown neither. They are used for two different missions. Typically the 777 is compared to the 340 and evidenced by the orderbook - the 777 is v. strong.

The 330 is a more modern design than the 762/763, so perhaps a 764/330 dual qualified guy/gal would like to comment - anyone?

fv

 

[DOVPILOT]

330 = good a/c
777 = great a/c

:smash::smash::smash::smash::smash:

330 = Sh!tbox

 

[shroomwell]

What's the fuel burn (pph) on one of those 777 engines at takeoff thrust?

 

[Quimby]

330 = Sh!tbox

I was trying to be PC about it.....

 

[C-150ETOPS]

What's the fuel burn (pph) on one of those 777 engines at takeoff thrust?

I forget.

I do remember one takeoff out of London on a transatlantic flight. 9.5+ hour flight, full pax load, ground roll was 3000'.

Usually that leg was flown with a 1/2 tank gas

 

[regionaltard]

A330 vs. B777

It sucked. Pales in comparison to Mothra vs. Godzilla. Not even worth renting IMO.

 

[pgcfii2002]

Pedro favors the 777.

 

[Schwanker]

Here's the NWA analysis of the 330 vs 777

NWA chose the A330 over the B777 for the Atlantic Operation. Here's the rational. Enjoy!

[FONT=&quot]Perspective on NW's Recent Selection of the A330 over
the 777

By Tim Campbell, Managing Director- Performance
Analysis

From On Course, Northwest Fligiht Operations Magazine
May/June 2001

The January February issue of On Course contained an
article by Capt. Jeff Carlson that outlined the
details of Northwest's multibillion-dollar ivestment
in new aircraft. A large component of this order
includes 24 PW4168A-powered A330-300s. Numerous
questions have arisen since the announcement of this
order, specifically why the A330 was selected instead
of the 777.

This article will address these questions by
summarizing our assessment of the performance
characteristics of the A330 relative to the 777 and
how this information was used in the final evaluation
of these two aircraft.

The competition between the 777 and A330 was for a new
aircraft that would replace our DC-10-30s on dedicated
transatlantic missions.

Perhaps the most important performance-related aspect
of this aircraft evaluation was finding the best match
between aircraft payload-range capability and
forecasted payload demand. We were seeking an aircraft
that efficiently meets our projected requirements. As
shown in the graphs, the A330 most optimally meets our
payload requirements in the Atlantic. This payload
capability, when coupled with operating costs and
projected market requirements (demand) for both
passenger and cargo traffic, offers the highest
earnings potential.

The match between capability and market requirements
is important because it is inefficient to operate
aircraft with excess capability. Our evaluation clearly
shows that the 777-200ER aircraft has significantly
more payload-range capability than the A330-300.

The additional range capability could be helpful if
the same aircraft were also flown across the Pacific.
However this possible dual mission capability was
determined to be impractical because Pacific aircraft
require a much greater share of World Business Class
seats than Atlantic aircraft. Furthermore, the Pratt
powered 777-200ER could not fly many critical Pacific
missions with full passenger load, and most missions
required weight limits on cargo.

This is not necessarily apparent if one looks from the
generic marketing material from Boeing because the
range of the 777-200, evaluated with Northwest rules
and interiors, is approximately 1,100 miles less than
advertised.

The 777 can carry more seats than the A330 although
the A330 already carries 29 more seats than our
current DC-10-30s. The optimal 777-200 configuration
we modeled had 27 more seats than the A330-300
(329-302) and 56 seats more than the DC-10-30
(329-273). However, these additional seats were
economy seats that typically would be filled with
lower yielding passengers.

The 777 has the same empty weight for all available
MTOW's (580,000-656,000 lbs). Northwest requires only
the lowest weight for nearly all markets, roughly
comparable to the A330. The net result to Northwest is
that the 777 is more than 41,000 pounds heavier than
the A330 yet provides minimal additional revenue
capacity.

The heavier weight of the 777 translates directly into
a fuel burn penalty. On a typical 3,500 nm mission,
the A330 burns approximately 28% less fuel than a
DC-10-30; accounting for its higher seating capacity,
it burns 35% less on a per seat basis. The much
heavier 777 burns approximately 16% more fuel than the
A330 on a per trip basis, and 6% more on a per seat
basis.

Questions have arisen about the cruise speed of the
A330, largely due to issues surrounding the cruise
speed of the A340. NW intends to operate the A330 at a
cruise speed of Mach 0.82. This speed corresponds to
the aircraft's LRC (long range cruise) Mach number for
most gross weight/altitude combinations. While the
published cruise speed of the A340 is Mach 0.82, our
analysis substantiates the experience of line pilots
taht certain operators fly slower to avoid excessive
fuel burn. Airbus has implicitly recognized the cruise
speed issue with the "first generation" A340's by
redesigning the wing on the A340-500 and -600.

757/767 DC10-30 A330 777/747-200
Cruise speed .80 .82 .82 .84


As shown in the table, the A33's cruise speed is
slower than the 777, but it is consistent with our
DC-10-30 and faster than other aircraft operating
across the Atlantic. The cruise speed differences
between the 777 and A330 equates to a trip length
difference of approximately 10 minutes on a typical
Atlantic mission. It may be interesting to note that
Northwest negotiated stringent, comprehensive
contractual commitments from Airbus to ensure the A330
will meet our performance expectations both at the
time of deliver and for several years thereafter.
This is a requirement we make of airframe/engine
manufacturers, including Boeing. The performance level
of the new 757-300's has a similar level of
protection. Our agreement with Airbus also provides us
with mission flexibility we could not achieve with
Boeing. The Airbus agreement is structured to allow us
to take delivery of other members of the A330 family
if our requirements change over time. A shorter
member of the A330 family, the A330-200, has 257
seats in the Northwest configuration. It has
approximately 900 nm more range than the A330-300.
This added flexibility to tailor capacity to market
requirements not offered by the 777 since Boeing was
unwilling to formally offer a smaller, lower priced
version of the 777.

In summary, the excess capacity of the 777 leads to
operating economics inferior to the A330. This
situation is further degraded when the notably higher
puchase price of the 777 is factored into the
analysis. The marginal improvement in revenue the
777's size offers simply cannot overcome its increased
operating and ownership costs. Our Atlantic
replacement decision does not mean that the 777 will
be excluded from future aircraft competitions. The
longer range version of the 777-200 and 777-300 will
be evaluated against the A340-500 and A340-600 when we
begin the 747-200 replacement analysis.

[/FONT]

 

[B1900FO]

Schwanker,

Thanks for that information! That's a great analysis.

Interestingly enough, you'd think that Northwest would have went with the 767-400, which was designed for Delta and Continental to replace the DC-10/MD-11.

As far as the 777 is concerned, United seems to operate their 777's very well on the Far East routes out of ORD, which is only 120 miles or so short of DTW and further away than MSP. Maybe the 777 would have been a more flexible aircraft, being able to operate on both Atlantic and Pacific routes.