787 vs A330

English Boards General
1

As I am just starting my "long long haul" (meaning LH that cannot be done with 739ER) I have been doing extensive comparison between two more likely plane types to be used, A330 and 788.

My question is the following:

On large portion of the routes (let's say a majority) I checked, A330 version (-200 or -300X) has better per-seat economics than 787-800, if anything better than Leisure plus seat is sued for economy(e.g. comfort or comfort plus). In the number of deliveries, 787 however, predominates multiple times over all A330 versions combined.

Unless we are talking ultra-long-haul routes, A330 comes in better than 787-800 (and the new 787-900 has worse economics than A330 on all routes that are within A330 payload range) (using comfort or comfort plus seats as a base seat in economy)

For example:

FRA - MIA, A330-300X comes first, and 787-900 comes last (per seat economics).

LAX - HND, 787-800 and A330-300X are in a tie for the first in economics, 787-900 is the last one.

LAX - HNL, A330-300X and A330-300 are in a tie as first 787-900 is the last one.

YYZ - EZE, A330-300X against first, 787-900 again the last one.

As I see it, on A330-300X payload range routes, 787-900 always comes more expensive to operate not only on per-seat basis, but also in terms of total cost. 787-900 is always more expensive to operate than A330-300X.

I want to ask the operators of long haul airplanes, why so much preference for 787 (-800 version) and not so much for A330?

I understand that one point of view may be that 787-800 is the nearest thing to one-size-suits-all, whereas with A330 one has to see if -300, -300x or -200 would have the best economics for the specific route and seating. Is it because of this "boxing" of all routes under one scale that 787-800 is being used? But even with A330, the A330-300X version comes ahead of all the versions as very economic one (on payload range routed).

And with the 787-900 I do not think this version has any use other than ultra long haul routes (routes outside of A330-300X range) as for higher capacity planes A330-300X comes out ahead with very favorable economics compared to 787-900, unless one operates the long haul planes with just leisure seats in economy (which I guess nobody does).

2

For me it’s speed. The 787 is a little quicker than the 330 meaning I can operate more (or longer) flights with the same airframe.

3

The 787 also has a significantly shorter turn around. That makes it more interesting to me even on midhaul. Combined with the longer range and the more manageable capacity, it’s my choice - this time.

I used to run a total of about 250 A332 through A33X on another server. It all depends on the market you are in, I guess.

4

@ yukawa 

when the 788 was introduced in AS there was a significant advantage with the turn around time. But be careful there was an update when the turn around time was adjusted so the advantage is gone  ;) .

5

Just rechecked. Damn, when did that happen?

6

Well the turn around time make the 787-9 worthless as a replacement for 787-8. Also on ULH the 787-8 has better payload than the better ranged 787-9. I'm disappointed on the stats of the 787-9, not really an upgrade in my eyes.

7

The turn-arround times of the 787-8 have been changed too - but this is not effecting the existing game worlds.

You may be disappointed, but if we haven't made any mistake, this should be somehow realistic ;)

8

The turn-arround times of the 787-8 have been changed too - but this is not effecting the existing game worlds.

You may be disappointed, but if we haven’t made any mistake, this should be somehow realistic :wink:

I highly doubt that’s true.

Mainly because of fuel burn rates being totally out of scale.

Real operators (ANA) report the 788 to be >20% more fuel efficient compared to the 767. In AS there is almost no difference.

So, if we consider in-game fuel burn for 763 or 333 correct (within the limits of AS’ very simplified performance model) the 788 is way too thirsty. And while we don’t have operational data on the -9 yet, I’d guess it’s way over the top, too. Add to that costs for maint.

9

Ok - may be I should have told that again. the fuel burn is still a big problem in AirlineSim.

10

Ok - may be I should have told that again. the fuel burn is still a big problem in AirlineSim.

No doubt about it and I know that you’re aware of the problem.

As for the 788/789 I suggest a reduction of direct costs (fuel burn) and in return a slight increase of capital costs.

11

Ok - may be I should have told that again. the fuel burn is still a big problem in AirlineSim.

 Out of interest, why is it such a big problem to adjust fuel burn to normal standards? I assume Is it to easy to adjust some data and the problem is solved?

12

Right now there is a very simplistic performance algorithm in place. By what I can tell, all it does is calculate fuel burn based on way travelled. However, the fuel burning rate depends on the weight of the aircraft. And the weight changes during flight with the starting weight depending on the distance to be travelled. The current system can not depict that, the new one will eventually (or quite certainly, question is when :wink: )

Simply reducing the factors would not make it any more realistic, just easier.

Personally, I’d say we take things the way they are and build our business strategy around that rather than the other way around. Aircraft performance will change in the future and become way more like in real life - with the new performance algorithym.

13

No doubt about it and I know that you're aware of the problem.

As for the 788/789 I suggest a reduction of direct costs (fuel burn) and in return a slight increase of capital costs.

This is a good point. While the fuel burn may be wrong in AS and the exact figure is not precisely known there should be a nominal say 10% improvement over its competitors/replacements. After all this is why the aircraft has been built in the first place.

14

This is a good point. While the fuel burn may be wrong in AS and the exact figure is not precisely known there should be a nominal say 10% improvement over its ...replacements. After all this is why the aircraft has been built in the first place.

Yes fuel burn with some newer/replacement aircraft is a problem, and I have been communicating with AS about a similar problem with 737-800 (and now I am hijacking my own thread). The 737-800 is a replacement (NG) for 737-400, yet it has substantially higher fuel burn than 737-400. Match that with a substantially higher acquisition cost compared to 737-400, and you get one of the reasons why 737-800 is quite unpopular in AS.

15

The fuel issue needs to be addressed. I have been playing for years and am still waiting for some kind improvement.

Honestly team- I think it is time that you create the numbers yourself. I understand that you want to make it accurate- but at the moment the fuel issue makes it very difficult yo operate lh flights.

Everyone would be far more satisfied if the fuel burn was relatively accurate and fit the game. It doesn’t matter to me if it is not 100% correct- but at the moment it us refuculous.

16

BTW under current conditions the 787-900 is a lemon

17

So let’s make lemonade… :wink:

18

Mmmm. Lemonade.

19

BTW under current conditions the 787-900 is a lemon

It is not a lemon. It is good for routes that can use a small bump in seats or a higher quality seat over the 788 while not introducing a new frame type.

I have 3 families.

SSJ, 737NG (all types except 73W), 788/9…though in hindsight, I wish I went A148/158 instead of SSJ…unles the SSJ 130 comes out sooner!

20

It is not a lemon. It is good for routes that can use a small bump in seats or a higher quality seat over the 788 while not introducing a new frame type.

I have 3 families.

SSJ, 737NG (all types except 73W), 788/9…though in hindsight, I wish I went A148/158 instead of SSJ…unles the SSJ 130 comes out sooner!

  

It really is a lemon.  The increase in seats on the 789 over the 788 does not offset the increase in costs of flying the 789 over the 788.  I put my 1st one in service on a route that I was making around 60k a flight on with the 788.  I used the same seat configuration, just increasing the total amount of seats.  The flight on the 789 was still full, however I went from a nice profit to a loss with the switch.  Needless to say, there will be 15 789's hitting the used market in Gatow over the next couple of weeks. :angry: