Is the A333 the best?

Hello,

I just looked to get start long haul operations with one of my airlines and I found out that the A330-300X (or E) is even more fuel efficient than the 787-8. It has the same capacity as a 787-9 but is much more economical in all categories. 

 Though the range might be a problem and the A333X starts getting un effective on a flight which is over 9000km but I think it will be better as soon as the 242 MTOW is added to the game.

To conclude this: it has been taking Boeing 15 years to come to the same point as Airbus and Airbus has already started making the next generation A330 so it will take an additional 15 years for boeing to get to that stage. Also why have the 787 when the A333X is better?

Christian

P.S I have attached an example explaining my point with a flight from LHR to JFK, note that the available seats is just how much it is certified for:

1808

Screen Shot 2015-09-12 at 14.45.02.png

I think you still need to consider the PAX each of them can carry. 787-8 carries less PAX. You can't just say which one is better. And at least from the picture you attached, 787 is still much better than 330 on cost per seat. Also, are you sure you can fill in the extra seats on 330? if it's not fill in, you have to look at the 90% part, that's much worse than a 100% filled 787.

Another thing is you need to compare are 777 and 330 because they came out at the same time. And when you compare that, you may say Boeing was doing a better job though the PAX capacity is still a factor. 

The A333 has almost the same cabin area as the 787-9 and it burns less fuel then the 787-8. The 777s are terrible compared to the A330s, but I did put in a 777-200ER in the comparator too.

Check the cabin sizes your self.

Okay. In the fuel consumption, 330 is better. But running aircraft is not only about fuel, you need to add the maintenance, handling and everything else. Also, you should compare 330-300X with 777-200 not 200ER because the ER version has much longer range with higher fuel consumption. More weight, more fuel. So if they have a large difference in range, i don't see any reason to compare them.

And 300X is more latest version than 772 or its ER version. Comparing 330-300 with 772, i don't see too much difference. 

This is how i will compare them, at least for London-JFK

A6w9XTH.png

Hello,

To conclude this: it has been taking Boeing 15 years to come to the same point as Airbus and Airbus has already started making the next generation A330 so it will take an additional 15 years for boeing to get to that stage. Also why have the 787 when the A333E is better?

Your conclusion is wrong.  We all know the performance numbers used in this game are far from the real world.  

Do some research not using this games performance models.  The 787 has better fuel burn than the A330, and analysts are saying that it will still be better than the A330NEO.  The area were the A330 does excel is cost of purchase, the program is mature, and most of the tooling has been paid for.  That permits Airbus to charge less per frame and still make a profit.  In an era of $50 oil, that could be a big deal for Airbus, and troubling for Boeing.

You have made comparison with default standard or slimline seats. Nobody flies those on long haul in AS. That means, your data is skewed right there. I was taught this lesson back in the day by AK.

You have to compare to the real config you will be using on long haul fleet.

788 is "better deal" with recliner short haul seats, A333X is "better deal" with comfort plus seats.

I think I read from somewhere concluded L1011 has less running cost than 777, 330, and 787. but from the game side, it's a horrible model.

I was talking about production aircraft. Still the 777-200 can not beat the A333E. The 777-200 and the A333 are both aircraft of the older generation than the A333E. I am comparing the 16 year old A333E with the 1 year old 787-9 and with a difference of 15 years the A333X can still beat the new new planes with what Boeing calls the "revolutionary technology". I know the A332 is complete rubbish and if that is that is the size you want then take the 787-8.

Personally I was doing this as I wanted to order new long haul aircraft for my airline in KUL and I was not sure which. First by instinct I thought about the 787 as everybody uses it, but later thought about the A330, I found out that I could fly all long haul routes I was planning except for the ones to north and south America. I will be getting a couple of cheap A340s for my very few routes to America (as the A330 and A340 are in the same maintenance category). I can also use the A340-600 for some of my high capacity routes. 

Basically the perfect fleet would be A320Es and A333Xs and A340s. Then you only need two maintenance categories.

Can you fill in all the seats on 330? If not, better still use 787

The A333 has almost the same cabin area as the 787-9 and it burns less fuel then the 787-8.

For in-game missions less than 6852.8km (.7 repeating), a 333X uses less fuel than a 788. However, for missions in that range, you can also use a 737-900ERHGW/A321H with/without winglets which beats them all in terms of fuel consumption. The only real reason to use a 333X is for increased capacity on medium missions where cargo is a factor or there are slot constraints at the origin or destination. All of this assumes that you have a free maintenance category available, otherwise the added maintenance costs may wipe out the meagre fuel savings of a 333X. The 787s have the advantage of range and greater flexibility over a 330, and with the cabin area of a 789 and 333 being similar, the choice is easy to go with a 787 fleet.

In real life, I love the 330s. Air Canada still uses a 2x4x2 config, which means a 1-in-4 change of a crappy seat. (Their 767s are still 2x3x2 and 1-in-9 change of the dreaded middle, but now that they’ve all been <<rouge’d>> and have a 29" seat pitch, any flight on those is misery.)

For in-game missions less than 6852.8km (.7 repeating), a 333X uses less fuel than a 788. However, for missions in that range, you can also use a 737-900ERHGW/A321H with/without winglets which beats them all in terms of fuel consumption. The only real reason to use a 333X is for increased capacity on medium missions where cargo is a factor or there are slot constraints at the origin or destination. All of this assumes that you have a free maintenance category available, otherwise the added maintenance costs may wipe out the meagre fuel savings of a 333X. The 787s have the advantage of range and greater flexibility over a 330, and with the cabin area of a 789 and 333 being similar, the choice is easy to go with a 787 fleet.

I still can not send an A321E heavy from KUL to LHR while I can send an A333X on the route with full cargo and full cabin (I have 198 seats in a 333). The A333X would burn 166AS$ less than the 787-8 (330AS$ less in high fuel price) and the 787-9 would burn fuel worth 4577AS$ at today's fuel prices (around 9100AS$ at high fuel prices) more than the A333X. So basically let the numbers talk for themselves.

You can not argue against facts ;). 

Maybe the ingame numbers are wrong but how they are at this moment the A333X still wins.

787s will take more PAX for you, so of course it burns more fuel.

I don't run too many long routes. It might be better if you use recliner seat. But you have to count more than just fuel cost

I still can not send an A321E heavy from KUL to LHR while I can send an A333X on the route with full cargo and full cabin (I have 198 seats in a 333). The A333X would burn 166AS$ less than the 787-8 (330AS$ less in high fuel price) and the 787-9 would burn fuel worth 4577AS$ at today's fuel prices (around 9100AS$ at high fuel prices) more than the A333X. So basically let the numbers talk for themselves.

 

You can not argue against facts ;). 

 

Maybe the ingame numbers are wrong but how they are at this moment the A333X still wins.

 

Using those facts, the 787 family is the cheaper option per seat.  The 747-8 is the best bet on that route using an unrealistic premium economy configuration, if you can fill it.  Stop being so hung up on fuel burn, as it is only part of the cost of a flight in this game

&nbsp;

Depends on what kind of seat you choose, you either choose 787 or 330. But if i'm choosing it, i would choose 787 because it can fly further distance with better seat

JVdU3lK.png

Mjzwz67.png

Now i can see rubiohiguey2000's point

Since I can't derive the fuel burn for an aircraft beyond the lower stated range limit, you'd have to play with airport combinations in the performance calculator until you found a distance where you face payload restrictions. Taking your KUL-LHR with no restrictions as a data point, then the shaded part of the world is your oyster with an A333X: [url=http://www.freemaptools.com/radius-around-point.htm?clat=2.75419&clng=101.70474000000002&r=10596&lc=FF0000&lw=1&fc=FF0000]Map[/url]

Edit: Boo. Can’t embed the map image into this post. Anyhow, the circle encompasses most of Europe/Africa, but leaves everything west of Algiers and all of the Americas including Hawai’i.

A300/310/330/340 have cabin widths favouring Comfort+, while a 747/787/A350 favours Recl.Short. seats.

As has been pointed out, do the comparison with the propper seats. Take into consideration the better rating for the Recliner and don’t ignore the speed advantage of a 787.

Finally, just don’t blindfoldetly trust the costs given in the evaluation tool - the number of flight’s per week rarely ever is correct.

That said, I still love the 333. Not only do I get a freighter for the same maint category, I also do get them cheap as everyone else loves 787s…

That said, I still love the 333. Not only do I get a freighter for the same maint category, I also do get them cheap as everyone else loves 787s...

True, you can always find cheap 333s.

Since I can't derive the fuel burn for an aircraft beyond the lower stated range limit, you'd have to play with airport combinations in the performance calculator until you found a distance where you face payload restrictions. Taking your KUL-LHR with no restrictions as a data point, then the shaded part of the world is your oyster with an A333X: Map

Edit: Boo. Can’t embed the map image into this post. Anyhow, the circle encompasses most of Europe/Africa, but leaves everything west of Algiers and all of the Americas including Hawai’i.

I can pretty much fly to MAD, ANC, HNL with just compromising a couple of tons of cargo, but I will not go longer than 11,100km. Though I can not fly to LIS or KEF but I can get a A343X for those flights and the VERY few flights which actually I can get good loads onto north and south America. I do not think I will need more than 5 A343Xs and and 5 345s. I can also have the A346 as it is in the same maintenance category to help me on flights with slot restrictions. Also the 242t MTOW 333 will hopefully soon come to AS and I can then fly to with a 333 a LIS :).

I will also have the best freighter the same maintenance category. I think category 10 is the most powerful with the most different aircraft.

P.S i do not even think there will be any demand on flights to LIS or KEF.