As the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner faced a perennial string of delivery delays since its roll-out in July 2007, the competing Airbus product, A330-200 high gross weight (HGW) version gained traction as airlines sought to cut their fuel costs amid skyrocketing oil prices. Early parts which are heavier, in addition to the discovery of a delamination issue prompting the side-of-body modifications and the addition of fasteners, coupled with a 2%-4% higher than anticipated engine specific fuel consumption (SFC) Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 Package A engine, contributed to weight growth of the mid-sized aircraft and hence led to performance shortfall of the aircraft.
However, a new Aspire Aviation report, titled “Hot Air: The Mid-sized Widebody Race In Early This Decade“, authored by its analyst and editor Vinay Bhaskara finds the cost per seat mile and cost per aircraft mile figures of the 787-8 Dreamliner to be considerably lower than the A330-200 HGW, assuming General Electric GEnx-1B engine-powered 787-8 against Pratt & Whitney PW4000-powered A330-200 HGW. The Aspire Aviation report assumes 787-8 examples from line number LN90 onwards, the first -8 production example meeting Boeing’s original airline-specific operating empty weight (OEW) and manufacturer’s empty weight (MEW) (“Boeing eyes 787 improvements along with production ramp-up“, 11th January, 12).
Utilising US Department of Transportation (DOT) Form 41 data, the cost per seat mile of a 787-8 is 10.4% lower than a Boeing 767-300ER (extended range) equipped with winglets whereas an A330-200 HGW’s is 5.8% lower than the 767-300ER on a 2,100 nautical miles (nm) mission. In cost per aircraft mile, the 787-8′s figure is 5.17% lower than a winglet-equipped 767-300ER whereas an A330-200 HGW’s is 7.13% higher than the 767-300ER aircraft.
The report features graphics comparing the payload/range capability of the A330-200, A330-200 high gross weight (HGW), winglet-equipped 767-300ER and the 787-8 from London Heathrow International Airport, Tokyo Narita International Airport and New York John F. Kennedy International Airport.
In addition, the new report features tables comparing the respective specifications of A330-200, A330-200 HGW, winglet-equipped 767-300ER, 787-8 as well as exclusive figures comparing the seat-mile and aircraft-mile cost of the aforementioned aircraft on a 2,100 nautical miles (nm) and 4,850 nm mission.
Moreover, a table detailing fuel cost, maintenance cost, crew cost, landing fees, trip costs as well as trip costs per seat of the A330-200, 767-300ER and 787-8 Dreamliner is also featured.
The “Hot Air: The Mid-sized Widebody Race In Early This Decade” is on sale at Aspire Aviation‘s online store for US$49 a copy.
“Hot Air: The Mid-sized Widebody Race In Early This Decade” | Aspire Aviation Online Store >>
January 17, 2012 - 11:31 pm
Lets summ this up:
The Dreamliner was advertised as 20% better across the board than the then current generation.
This was later limited by Boeing to the 767.
This analysis seems to state that a 2014 787-8 will have <5% better CASM than a 2008 A330.
Man, that's just marvelous!
The question remains: are 5% improvement in cost worth a 6 year wait void of revenue?
January 18, 2012 - 1:28 am
Uwe,
Firstly, the difference in the article is 5.7%. Not <5%. Secondly, that analysis is for a 2100nm segment, during which the 787′s cost advantage is partly negated due to the higher proportion of climb and descent; on a 4850 nautical mile segment the picture is very different, as it would be on an even longer segment.
I suggest you read the report in full before making any conclusions.
January 18, 2012 - 4:16 pm
Good Morning Vinay,
you make a couple of relative statements in this posting.
your statement a:
the cost per seat mile of a 787-8 is 10.4% lower than a Boeing 767-300ER
i.e. 767 – 10.4% ~= 787
your statement b:
whereas an A330-200 HGW’s is 5.8% lower than the 767-300ER
767 – 5.8% ~= A330 ( numbers published during the tanker wars were well into the two digit range afair ~12%)
Do the substitution:
787 + 4.6% ~= A330
This doesn’t even touch on your numbers being right or wrong.
The 787 isn’t all that much “longer range” and thus hindered by extra
structure than the A330. Prinicipally, having less efficient engines the A330 actually
has to carry more structure for more fuel.
My conclusion:
after all the colorfull PR evaporates the 787 isn’t much more than a reengined A330
slightly shrunk.
January 18, 2012 - 5:34 am
Well I won’t buy the report, athough its probably an interesting read.
Today Airbus said they are studyig winglets for the A330. Maybe 2% better sfc. Ten yrs ago Airbus was discussuing GP7000 for a more efficient HGW A330 variant, in 2005 the A350 mk1 was basicly a reengined A330. In 2006 GE was testing the market for a GenX option on the A330.
Let’s not limit ourselves to the A330-200, the airlines do neither. I did several post on the Topic in recent years.
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4898412/1/#1
The A350-800 seems heavy for 250 seat medium range (trans atlantic) operations. Airbus has been helpfull recently converting -800 orders into -900, after putting the -800 back..
There seems to be enough room under the A330 wings to introduce a new Trent/GenX or GP7000 engine, without high additional costs. Same for the sharklets. Ge probably is interested in getting the GenX on Airbus A330 passenger aircraft, cargo aircaft and tanker transports..
A minor stretch of the A330 (400?) to take on the 787-10 seem also possible, done on the A340s. Center gear is also on the shelf.. If composites aren’t all to everyone, some airlines might take a look.
Al-Li, new cabins, quick wins on weight & drag..
January 18, 2012 - 7:43 am
When Douglas built the DC-8, they figured out the right cross section. It was the right answer because Boeing had to copy it plus a few inches, and then Airbus did the same with the A320. The A300 is a tough one to beat. Since they have one of the best cross section solutions already developed, they should leverage it as far as possible with updates of the A330.
January 18, 2012 - 8:14 am
I question the vilidity regarding your assertion that -200HGW is gaining traction? Just released Airbus 2011 orders totals listed 24 net for -200 and 66 for -300 or -300 is 75%. 787-10 will address this.
January 18, 2012 - 4:25 pm
.. 787-10 will address this.
When would a -10 be available to customers? 2018..19? earlier?
( when will the -9 realistically have EIS ? )
IMHO the recent rush of 777 sales shows that having a future “killer type” will not subdue older available types.
Not again after customers thought this a good idea during the Dreamliner sales campaign.
January 19, 2012 - 1:23 am
If it is cost effective to re-engine the non fly by wire 737, to re-wing and re-engine the 777, I would think there is a pretty good case to re-wing and re-engine the A330. Eight across is preferable and thus a competitive advantage against a nine across 787, 777, or A350, and much better than a ten across 747 or A380.
January 19, 2012 - 3:04 am
A’s top priority, almost to the point that nothing else matters, is to deliver the A359 more or less on time, ramp up production as quickly as possible, and resolve the problems with the -1000′s specs so that customers will want them. Enders has made clear that A will not follow B’s minefield route, and build before the plane is mature. This is wise but will require tremendous effort and resources. This means that A, like B with the 787, must husband resources so they have enough to meet any unexpected negative developments. There will be very little left to gin up the 330, whether with new engines, or just to do the plans for converting 330s to freighters.
January 19, 2012 - 3:54 am
The A330ng, A350 started out as a response to the 787. Over the years it has evolved that the A350-1000 must challenge the capability of the 777-300ER. Talk about mission creep.
January 19, 2012 - 4:36 am
Not really, IMHO.
Airbus decided to let the A330 soldier on and turned to a different “slot”.. This was a cesation even though they carried over some customers.
My understanding is that A350Mk1 and A350XWB were pushed by different factions inside Airbus.
It would be interesting to know at what moment in time Airbus had knowledge of the Dreamliner project going into belly up mode.
In restrospect the Mk1 would have been at least equal in meeting the 787 specwise as offered let alone as produced in the near future.
August 24, 2012 - 9:44 pm
[...] The article is a bit weak sauce on actual numbers. Here's a bit better one: http://www.aspireaviation.com/2012/0…-report-finds/ [...]