Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:14 From: Brute! <firstname.lastname@example.org> Organization: MediaOne-Road Runner, Western Region References: 1 2 3 Followups: 1 2
View raw article or MIME structure
On 17 Dec 99 01:57:55 , "Robert Wright" <email@example.com> wrotd: >>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. The A330 is almost the exact same size as the 777-200, whereas the 767, even the -400, is notably smaller. So I think the comparison isn't very fair. We should be comparing the A330 to the 777.