Re: A330 vs. B767

Date:         17 Dec 99 01:57:55 
From:         "Robert Wright" <kdol97@home.com>
References:   1 2
Followups:    1 2 3
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

>But
>who knows, it all depends how desperate Boeing is in selling some more
>767-400's, and may be the 767-400 is cheaper on the shorter flights then
>A330 ?.

    I think the 767-400 is pretty much always cheaper to operate at a given
distance than the A330.  It's a smaller airplane overall, with smaller
engine (in terms of weight and frontal area=drag).  Of course, the A330 has
a lot more room for cargo and fuel, so it will always have a capacity and
range adcantage.  The 767 is about as stretched as it's going to get, and
there's not much extra range to be had either.  So, as usual, the choice
comes down to the specifics of the airline's needs.  If you want very tight
control of seat/mile costs and don't need extreme range you go with the 767.
If, however, you are looking for the same size (passenger count) airplane
but need every bit of range you can get, you go for the A330.

>BA going for A330 would reduce their pilot training costs by a factor of
>80% if the pilots would come from the A320 fleet, so that would be one
>reason.

    I'm not sure where this figure comes from.  80% compared to what?  Do
you mean BA could spend 80% less training pilots next year if they bought
A330s, or that they could spend 80% less training A330 pilots than they
would training 767 pilots?  Will the 767-400 not have commonality with the
other 767s in this regard, or have so little commonality than transition
from 767-300 to 767-400 would cost fives times as much as transitioning from
A320 to A330?  That doesn't make sense to me.  Of course, you can't get a
767-400 with RR engines right now....