777 Fuel Burn

[xyeahtony]

I know the 787 is actually technically more efficient than the 767 here, but what about the 777?

We all know the 777 is more fuel efficient vs the A340, in fact that's why the A340 production line was shut down while the 777 line still flourishes? But a 777-200ER uses more fuel than an A340-300E? Don't understand this one. In fact it looks like all the A340s have better fuel burns than the 777s when you compare similar ranges/capacities.

[mtnlion]

I'm not so sure about the fuel burns but I believe that in real life the fuel burn was not the only issue with A343. Remember that it has two extra engines when compared to A330 and B777 and that costs a lot of money in maintenance costs.

[JaredCohen]

I believe the maintenance issue is true: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/401598/

"
From what I've heard, the A340 is more fuel efficient than the 777, but the increased maintenance costs of 4 engines negate this. From what I've observed, this may well be true.

According to AI's figures, with the 343 as the datum, the 772ER has a 3.75% higher direct operating cost per seat & a 7.5% higher trip cost. The 772LR has a 11% higher seat cost & 14.5% higher trip cost. Bear in mind, these are AI figures.

I suppose it depends on the airline's operations, ETOPS affected routes could potentially favour the A340 in the sense it can fly a more direct route.

I would conclude that the A340 is cheaper to operate, purely from a trip cost perspective. It is a smaller aircraft.

Cheers,

Justin"

[xyeahtony]

Cheaper to operate in this game maybe, but we know that's not the reality. Most airlines run the 777 as opposed the the A340 simply because the 777 is cheaper to operate overall in terms of fuel, maintenance, etc.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/144692/

In fact, apparently in real life, the 777-200LR has a 20% fuel burn advantage vs the A340-500, claimed by Boeing with an equal payload...etc.

777-300ER: 8,100kg per hour
A340-600: 8,900kg per hour

from http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/294282/ provided by CX, which used both planes.

Indeed, in a 3,000 nm mission profile, the A340-300 burns 3.25 L of fuel per passenger per 100 kilometers, whereas the 777-200ER burns 2.89L, a 11% reduction. In a 6,000 nm mission profile, meanwhile, the 777-200ER burns 3.08L of fuel per passenger per 100 km, also 11% less than the A340-300′s 3.49L fuel burn figure
http://www.aspireaviation.com/2010/12/08/boeing-777-way-much-better-than-a330/

Also, the 777 apparently beats the A330 on similar profiles.

In a 6,000 nm mission profile, the A330-200 burns 3.32 L of fuel per passenger per 100 km, whereas the 777-200ER's figure stands at 3.08 L, a 7% reduction.

Moreover, the relative Cash Operating Cost (COC) per seat-km of a 777-200ER is 11% and 13% lower than those of an A330-200 on 3,000 and 6,000 nm missions, respectively

[mtnlion]

In fact, apparently in real life, the 777-200LR has a 20% fuel burn advantage vs the A340-500, claimed by Boeing with an equal payload...etc.

777-300ER: 8,100kg per hour
A340-600: 8,900kg per hour

.....
Also, the 777 apparently beats the A330 on similar profiles.

Yet here you are comparing apples with oranges. A340-600 and -500 have their own mission profiles where they can beat B777s because they have 4 engines. Obviously they burn more fuel but it's no coincidence that airlines like SAA and Iberia use them. 4 engines beat 2 engines on long-hauls which operate from hot & high airports. I believe A346 was meant to compete with B744, and B 77W was not even available at the time. And A333 while is not as good on longer long hauls as B777, beats them on mid-long haul flights.

Ultra long hauls don't seem to be too profitable for airlines whether they use B77LR or A345.

But yeah, I'm not Airbus or Boeing fan, I respect both manufacturers. It's just good to show that each of those planes have their own missions where they succeed (or used to succeed).

[xyeahtony]

Yet here you are comparing apples with oranges. A340-600 and -500 have their own mission profiles where they can beat B777s because they have 4 engines. Obviously they burn more fuel but it's no coincidence that airlines like SAA and Iberia use them. 4 engines beat 2 engines on long-hauls which operate from hot & high airports. I believe A346 was meant to compete with B744, and B 77W was not even available at the time. And A333 while is not as good on longer long hauls as B777, beats them on mid-long haul flights.

Ultra long hauls don't seem to be too profitable for airlines whether they use B77LR or A345.

But yeah, I'm not Airbus or Boeing fan, I respect both manufacturers. It's just good to show that each of those planes have their own missions where they succeed (or used to succeed).

Yes the A340 was designed as an early 747 replacement, but most international airlines today operate 777s long haul versus the A340. Most airlines operate an A340 for long-haul international, same thing as 777. Difference being 777 is more fuel efficient and cheaper to maintain (2vs4 engines) This is a well known fact in the aviation community that isn't reflect here. In fact, i think it was China Southern that gave up 18 of its A340s and sold them to Boeing to get some new 777s? Everyone wants to dump the A340, which is why the production line ended while the 777 is still going strong.

But then again, i guess this is just a game.

[mtnlion]

Yes the A340 was designed as an early 747 replacement, but most international airlines today operate 777s long haul versus the A340. Most airlines operate an A340 for long-haul international, same thing as 777. Difference being 777 is more fuel efficient and cheaper to maintain (2vs4 engines) This is a well known fact in the aviation community that isn't reflect here. In fact, i think it was China Southern that gave up 18 of its A340s and sold them to Boeing to get some new 777s? Everyone wants to dump the A340, which is why the production line ended while the 777 is still going strong.

Lufthansa seems to be quite happy with it's A343s. But the point in my previous post was that even if B777 is more efficient than A340 in many routes, it doesn't mean that it is the best option. Hot&High long-haul for example. Also let's assume airline owns 10 years old A343s and looks into possible replacements, they might find that even if B777 is more efficient and cheap to maintain, the A343s might still make more sense if you take into account all the costs new fleet brings; crew training, finances etc. KLM with their MD11s and AA with its MD80s fleet are both good examples. Heck, look into  Allegiant who are buying MD80s in this day and age.

[Infinity]

AA with its MD80s fleet are both good examples.

Actually, it is the worst example that you could ever chose. One of the main reasons why AA is bankrupt now is that they stopped ordering more 737-800s to replace those crapheaps at one point.

[mtnlion]

Actually, it is the worst example that you could ever chose. One of the main reasons why AA is bankrupt now is that they stopped ordering more 737-800s to replace those crapheaps at one point.

Any proof? Those MD80s have no finance costs when compared to new B738s. Delta was operating 40 years old DC9s year-two ago.

[Infinity]

Well Delta are Delta and AA are not, huh?
Currently, of 192 MD-80s left with AA, 85 are leased. So much for no financing required. Also, they need a ton of maintenance and have a much higher rate of technical problems.

American also has absolutely no CapEx for their new 738 and A320 orders now (how this liability will affect their future, we will see), meaning that the added cost is minimal while the savings are enormous.

Total cost per block hour (all in) for a 738 is USD 3,098 while for the MD-80, it's USD 3,226. This is a calculation coming from Delta, not AA,  btw.
Also, Deltas MD-88s have slightly more effective engines compared to AAs 82/83s.
And, while AA has the last MD-80 ever built from the TWA acquisition, most of their MDs are ancient mid-80s-builds, hence having a very large spectrum of effectivity.
Enter total cost per block hour (all in) for AA: 738 is USD 2,628 (new deliveries will be even cheaper due to lower lease rates) while MD-80 is USD 3,093.
Now there's your argument for getting rid of them asap.

Deltas MD-80s all have the tail modification, AAs oldest don't, making them much more prone to drag and adding a ton of money to their fuel bill.