Which aircraft family us the best between the B777 or the A330/340?

[Sacha350XWB]

As the number of fleet type are limited I have to make a choice. So can you help me to make this choice?

[Amelie090904]

This really depends on so many factors. Where are you based? how much competition do you have? How much cargo demand is there? What do distances look like? What year is it?

There is no definite answer. The A330/A340 will have the A330neos and the A332F which covers pretty much all you could potentially need why the 777 have larger planes overall in case demand is huge. But they are also more vulnerable to competition. I would say in most situations the A330 is more than enough for passenger services while the 777 tends to be a bit too huge.

[schro]

This really depends on so many factors. Where are you based? how much competition do you have? How much cargo demand is there? What do distances look like? What year is it?

There is no definite answer. The A330/A340 will have the A330neos and the A332F which covers pretty much all you could potentially need why the 777 have larger planes overall in case demand is huge. But they are also more vulnerable to competition. I would say in most situations the A330 is more than enough for passenger services while the 777 tends to be a bit too huge.

Don't forget to consider the capital cost of the planes. A330/340 pricing stays maxed for most of the game. 777's aren't as popular so you can often get them for pennies on the dollar.

Over in MT, new A330 neos are going for $300 million each, or about the same list price as 747-8's. Used market is barren for the 330's, but I can scoop up fairly new 747-8's in the low 100m range for days (and 747-8F's as low as 55m).

[gazzz0x2z]

I'd also say that 777s are very efficient in the 6000/8000NM range strip, while 330s (non neos) are efficient in a lower range. 340s are inferior. Later, thoug, 330 neos (or even 350s) cover more and more range, and the advantage of the 777 fades away (but still keep everything Schro said, so are not useless either).

My current game in Dubai makes 777s perfect for the Americas (everything between 5900 & 8000NM). But if I had a lot of destinations in the 4000/6000NM area, I'd probably have avoided them, they're vulnerable to smaller aircraft (like 767s) at those ranges. But as I don't have anything between 4100 & 5900NM, 767s are a no go to me in this game. Etc...

[tungstennedge]

Unpopular opinion, but unless your concerned with huge cargo volume, in which case the 777 is a no brainer, the 767 is probably even better. It comes earlier, so no need to transition, its small, so while not fuel efficient per passenger, it makes it very easy to get 100% LF in competitive environments. For example, when playing out of LHR, I ran the 767-200ER's, and while they only seated under 200 passengers, it allowed me to oversupply routes to 150% before I started loosing LF compared to my 777/md11 using competitors. The extra seats of the 777 are nice when there is no oversupply, but this is rarely the case until near the end of most game-worlds.

Also, the 777-200 passenger variants honestly kind of suck. Yes they have killer range, but drink way to much fuel/seat, in addition to other costs due to being a really huge aircraft, especially with default config. The 777-300 variants are actually excellent, but to big for most routes in Airway sim. Because of this, I think the a330 is rightly the more sought after and expensive aircraft, since it has great cargo and upgrade options, and the NEO's for example use 30% less fuel for 10% less seats compared to the 777-200 variants, where the 777x variants are too large and the extra capacity is often just empty seats.

[DanDan]

the 777 has two advantages to it:

- ultra long routes are easy! but be aware: ultra long routes usually dont have a very high margin
- the 777F is available sooner than the A332F, and, you can get so many cheap 777-200 on the used market and just convert them to F standard for basically nothing, since noone buys those -200s anyway

else, its the A330/340:

- great economics, saves lots on fuel.
- the initial 330-300 / 340-200/300 are rather good planes (compared to the initial 777-200), so you can get a good deal at the launch customer rate when the fleet type is introduced
- with everything between 340-500 and -600 as well as the 330-200/F/800/900... it kind of does anything you want in a very large aircraft-fleet type, but the prices never really drop, since it is very popular

[Sacha350XWB]

So if I am based at Seattle and I want to make transpacific fly to Asia and transoceanic fly to Europe should i go with the A330/A340 or the B777. In Seattle, the medium distance from Europe and Asia is 4000/5000 nm. Should I take both of them and go for the A320 family by removing the B757?

[groundbum2]

another consideration is fleet size. If you want to go big long on long-haul you'll need a lot of VL planes (330/777) and they typically get delivered from new at the rate of 1 per month. So if you need 100 it could take 10 years for them to arrive! So you either need people (alliance) to help you, hope there's lots on the used market, or if possible have 2 VL models as part of your 3 fleet limit. Then you'll need a hydrid SH/MH and forget any thought of a medium regional jet.

Also when choosing fleets be sure to consider freight, and when that fleet has a freighter arriving. If you look at the airlines with top scores they are all big in freight. Nobody will make big bucks just running pax.

Simon

[Amelie090904]

So if I am based at Seattle and I want to make transpacific fly to Asia and transoceanic fly to Europe should i go with the A330/A340 or the B777. In Seattle, the medium distance from Europe and Asia is 4000/5000 nm. Should I take both of them and go for the A320 family by removing the B757?

I think in that case it's either A330 or 767. Probably with preference towards A330-200.

[Sacha350XWB]

And for Newark or JFK?

[gazzz0x2z]

So if I am based at Seattle and I want to make transpacific fly to Asia and transoceanic fly to Europe should i go with the A330/A340 or the B777. In Seattle, the medium distance from Europe and Asia is 4000/5000 nm. Should I take both of them and go for the A320 family by removing the B757?

Places where the 757 pax shine are scarce. Most of them are in the middle east. Late 321s can replace them on 80% of routes, and the 20% of thick, far routes can be done by very larges (767, 777, 787, 330, 350). Seattle is definitively not one of them.

Unless you need the cargo version - in which case the question is very different. The 757PF is really a good plane when you don't need the very large freighters.

[groundbum2]

And for Newark or JFK?

you gotta do some analysis yourself, we've given you the data points.

Simon

[Turbine]

Concur with the rest here - remember, it all comes down to where you are based, you have to do the final analysis yourself 

My personal experience with 757-equivalent aircraft - in my case, its Soviet cousin, the Tu-204 - is that they're niche. They work best on medium-range and light density markets, like flying 1500 nm or more with no more than a few hundred pax/day, where a widebody is too much plane and an A320/737 starts to be less efficient. This is basically the Middle East as gaz said, or Russia. Otherwise, if most of your demand is in the 500-1000 nm band or less (like mainland Europe), then their high fuel consumption and longer turnaround times hurts a lot. And if you have a lot of mixed narrowbody demand, both over and under 1500 nm, then the A320 family wins since the A321 can do most of what the 757 can without having to create a separate fleet group.