Comparing Small Widebodies: The Airbus A330-800 vs. Boeing 787-8

[@LongHaulbySimpleFlying]

Correction at 4:32 - The Airbus A330 has an MTOW of 251 tonnes, not 533.4 tonnes, as shown in the chart.

[@noob.168]

understandable. i hate it when i transfer the wrong amount to my client as a tech support technician.

[@Furudal]

Yeah that number looked a little A380ish

[@glassy69]

It was mentioned that Qantas does not operate the 787-8 in relation to unfulfilled orders. It should me noted that Jetstar which is a part of the Qantas group does fly the -8. It would be pretty safe to say that the order would be for them

[@rtbrtb_dutchy4183]

Those were ordered in 2006. I would say it’s pretty safe to say that after 17 years, they don’t want them. I also don’t think that Qantas orders aircraft for Jetstar.

[@schalitz1]

​​@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 The -8s were in fact transferred to Jetstar, as the original comment mentioned Qantas owns Jetstar and airlines frequently do this. For example all of Air France's 787 orders are being given to KLM from now on, while all KLM'S A350 orders are being given to Air France.

[@rtbrtb_dutchy4183]

@@schalitz1 right, but all your examples is due to a change of plans and not the intend from the start. AF and KLM are swapping to become more streamlined overall. But those A350’s we’re initially intended for KLM and those B787’s were intended for AF. The Qantas orders were from 2006. They were not intended for Jetstar in my opinion. It seems they had a change of plans in 2011. Now, having said all that, I think you are correct and I’m wrong in regards to Qantas ordering for Jetstar. It does seem that Qantas orders airplanes for them both. I did not know this.

[@dmcr9525]

@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 QF definitely orders aircraft for Jetstar, as Jetstar is a wholly owned subsidiary of Qantas.

[@bonknessmonster]

The Boeing 787-8 is my favourite plane because it reflects what the 787 was originally designed for... Long haul routes with low demand.

[@Imperial_stroopwafel]

With the airbus a321 XLR entering the market soon, that function will be taken to new heights by airbus.

[@is500fsport5]

@@Imperial_stroopwafel not really since the B787 has a major advantage over the A321XLR. The 787 can obviously haul much more cargo since it’s a wide body. Some routes have so much cargo to haul that airlines make more profit out of hauling freight than passenger revenue.

[@gteixeira]

@@is500fsport5 Realistically, it is cheaper to have separate cargo and passenger flights, unless if there are other factors, like limited airport slots.

[@odzergaming]

A330 seats are 3 inches wider and engines are quieter

[@captcav767]

It'd a stunning plane!!

[@lostcarpark]

I like the A330, but I feel Airbus should have gone for a more expensive revision with the NEO version. Giving it composite wings would have made it a lot more competitive.

[@wadehiggins1114]

I agree

[@theflyingmikey]

It's a fine line because the more changes they make, the increase in training costs to convert A330-200/300 crew. Low training costs and ease of integration into an old A330 fleet is the NEOs main selling point for airlines like Virgin Atlantic, TAP and Delta.

[@gogamich]

I like 2 4 2 row seats in A330. seems to be underestimated because they rely on A350?

[@GrantMcWilliams]

As I posted in my other comment the A330-neo has a lower fuel burn at maximum distance than the 787-8 even with it's metal fuselage and wings. I'm sure Airbus calculated this before deciding to change too much.

[@ivanviera4773]

Initially before Airbus decided to build the A350 they were proposing an improve A330 with a carbon composite wing. So they should made it in the Neo a la 777X.

[@elpiloto100]

Ca you do a video explaining how Airbus and Boeing come up with their variant names (ie -800, -900). The ones that makes the most sense is 737, where there exist -100 all the way to -900, with the newest replacement being -8 Max and -9 Max. But why does A330 start with -200, and then skip to -800, likewise with 787 starting with -8?

[@logistaovis7766]

I love aeroplanes!!!!

[@rpcombats2283]

Me too!

[@jeffayoe7468]

same :D

[@wadehiggins1114]

Same here

[@karlossargeant3872]

Me All The way!!!!!

[@frozenuruguayball6436]

Same!

[@GintaPPE1000]

Another consideration is that the same width that makes the A330neo more appealing in economy also makes it less suitable for premium products. The Delta One cabin in the A330-900 versus their A350-900s is a prime example: to fit the same 1-2-1 layout, the seats and aisles are noticeably narrower, and the overhead bins a bit smaller.

[@davidsavage6227]

I’ve always thought that the original A300 hull design, while shrewd at the time, focused more on freight volume and less on passenger comfort, actually moving the cabin floor and windows upwards. The walls are not flat, as the windows and fuselage narrow shoulder space as the walls squeeze in. Great, roomy belly cargo areas that accommodate the same cargo (LD3/11/7) containers that other in-production widebodies had back in the 70s. Airbus was trying to save weight wherever possible during their A300 program, trying to be all things to all people. Still one of my all-time favorite airplanes, I think Airbus pretty much nailed it with the A300, gave four of them to Eastern Airlines to try for a while, and got Airbus their tiny foot in the door in North America. What an amazing company they became. It is going to be ten or more years for Boeing to become a serious competitor again. In the mean time, Airbus is offered a lot more flexibility to further develop its products at its own pace. It is the ultimate plane manufacturer’s sweet spot, and so hope Airbus takes the ball and runs with it.

[@elpiloto100]

2:57 Video idea: What are the reasons for launch delays, stats on typically delay length by manufacturers or aircraft types, and what aircraft, if any, are launched on schedule without delays, or even ahead of schedule.

[@christianwood7516]

The A330neo also has a significantly slower cruising speed than the 787, Mach 0.82 compared to 0.85. You can see on FlightRadar24 that A330neos often take at least 30 mins longer than a 787 to fly the same route.

[@trenton.tchannel1810]

It seems as though the 330 always seemed under powered or just over weight for the thrust the engines have

[@incediery]

this is less of an issue today because the industry for the past two decades has been flying slower than the dawn of the jet age to save fuel

[@heidirabenau511]

​@@trenton.tchannel1810 TAP CEO has said that they are unsatisfied with the performance with the Rolls Royce engines and that they aren't performing at full potential.

[@trenton.tchannel1810]

@@heidirabenau511 I’m not surprised honestly. We seen what happened with the 340 using the CFM-56 engines. Airbus really should’ve looked into it. With the cruise speed being lower I’m not surprised when I worked at Delta the Amsterdam flight was always delayed arriving

[@filledwithvariousknowledge2747]

Even the much bigger 777 has a higher cruise speed

[@sainnt]

The 787 is a more modern aircraft. This also explains why the A350 is more successful than the A330. Airbus tried to do with the A330 what it did with the A320, but the mission of a widebody aircraft far differs from that of a narrowbody, and so are the economies of scale. The 787 was a well thought out aircraft, and will continue to be the gold standard in this class for the foreseeable future.

[@ramyfares9099]

That’s what I thought, I believe the 787 would be an ideal aircraft for those who want to get the most of future of aviation, but if you are a 90’s kid or 2000’s kid, grew up in the 90’s and 2000’s, and prefer the classics, the nostalgia, the A330neo is your aircraft.

[@sainnt]

@@ramyfares9099 That would be the 767 and 777. 😂

[@ramyfares9099]

@@sainnt 767 dives you even further to the 80’s 😉

[@sainnt]

@@ramyfares9099 The last passenger 767 was delivered to Air Astana in 2014. That bird will be flying for a while.

[@ramyfares9099]

@@sainnt I think the 787 was meant to replace the 767 just like the A350 meant to replace the A340. The 777 and the A330 on the other hand both continue their legacy with enhanced engines and redesigned wings, despite being out gaining popularity since 1995, with the best selling variants the A330-343 being succeeded by A330-941neo and the 777-300ER being succeeded by the 777-9X.

[@madmanthan21]

4:32 The a330 has an MTOW of 251 tonnes, not 533.4 tonnes as shown. NVM, this was corrected at 6:40

[@ivanviera4773]

The A330 Neo its a great plane but the 787 being a clean sheet design its better. I think Airbus could have made the A330 more competitive with a Carbon Fiber wing and reducing the weight there its fat to cut in other areas. Despite using a metal fuselage they could strenghten the fuselage to withstand the 6,000 feet higher pressure. 777X and now the upcoming A321 XLR despite using a metal fuselage will pressurize at 6,000 feet.

[@sainnt]

Correct. If Airbus did with the A330neo what Boeing did with the 777X, it would have been a more successful aircraft. Taking shortcuts doesn't always pay.

[@ramyfares9099]

I agree, I mean at least they could have added another engine option for the A330neo either a GE or PW engine option, just to keep up with the 787, but honestly if you prefer to fly in a brand new spacious futuristic aircraft, the 787 is the right plane for you to fly, otherwise if you prefer old school nostalgia reminding you of your childhood being a 90’s kid, or 2000’s kid, the A330neo is your aircraft to fly onboard.

[@sainnt]

@@ramyfares9099 The A350 also has only one engine option, the Trent XWB.

[@morh8762]

What about noise and the price for each aircraft? I think it would be nice if you compare that too

[@SCOlogy648]

Pretty sure a330 ceo is louder than 787, neo is quieter

[@raflyadelia7610]

I think airbus made a mistake in a330neo program Maybe if airbus install new composite wing and stabilizer (maybe the slightly smaller a350wing and stabilizer) that have less weight and better aerodynamic and scrapp some cabin wall to make it wider at least could accommodate 9 abreast 17inch what like Boeing did with 777x with just not a new engine boeing instal new composite wing and re adjusted the cabin so it could take closer to A350 efficiency , the efficiency of A330neo efficiency would likely come close to the 787, if it happen the A330neo would have better sales than today Plus The trent 7000 is 3% better efficiency than the trent 1000 TEN and the XWB, but with heavy almost entire metal fuselage the 787 still far ahead in efficiency

[@morh8762]

no they didn't make a mistake. The development cost for the A330 neo is really low. Airbus is already making profits. I agree that 330-800 might be a mistake, but not the A330 neo program as a whole

[@GrantMcWilliams]

The a330-800 can fly 15,094 km using 139,090 L of fuel which is equal to 9.2 liters of fuel per km. The 787-8 can fly 13,530 km using 126,206 liters of fuel which 9.3 liters of fuel per km.

[@maxsaviation9512]

Even though the A330 fuselage is slimmer the seats are typically wider than the 787. I find the A330 more comfortable because the seats are wider and in a 2-4-2 configuration. (Before anyone gets mad and says the airline chooses the seats, the airlines don’t choose how wide a plane is.)

[@stephenfienberg8765]

Wouldn't write-off the A330-800 just yet. Large A330-200 operators like Hawaiian and Qantas will most likely consider the -800 as their -200s age. It costs a fortune to retrain the pilots and crew for a different type. the B787-8 would have to be a lot cheaper to operate to justify the retraining.

[@ludwigtails]

As much as I want to agree with what you said. Yes they should’ve got a A330-800, but then NAH guess what. Qantas has B787s to cover the ground so dunno what fate will their a330-200s have probably they don’t care. Hawaiian is more stupid and said that they decide to with the B787 just cuz it’s engine is good to the environment. It’s such a massive disappointment that none of the A330-200 operators most didn’t even consider get the neo and just go with the B787.

[@mxttyzw]

These two carriers already chose the 787-9 to replace their A330s.

[@schalitz1]

It was a really big deal and all over the place that Hawaiian canceled their order and switched to the 787-9.

[@stephenfienberg8765]

@@mxttyzw Qantas is not using the 787-9 on the A330-200 routes. 787-9 are being used on their longest routes like PER-LHR, SYD-DFW, SYD-JNB. Your 7-11 hour flights with lower passenger occupancy like SYD-KUL, PER-JNB, SYD-CAN are still being flown by A330-200s with no designated replacements. There is a possibility that when their A350s arrive, they'll be deployed on the longest routes while the 787-9s will be delegated to the shorter lower density A330-200. Boeing is also woefully behind schedule on their deliveries of everything that some 787 orders will be cancelled causing some airlines to reconsider.

[@stephenfienberg8765]

@@ludwigtails The other reason not to write off the Airbus is Boeing's delivery schedule. They're so far behind on everything, there will likely be a few cancellations. The other carriers to watch are the ones with large aging 767-300ER fleets (United and Delta). United has made it clear they're going all in on the 787 as a replacement but Delta is likely to consider the A330-800 with their many pilots rated for the type.

[@GrantMcWilliams]

The a330-800 can fly 15,094 km using 139,090 L of fuel which is equal to 9.2 liters of fuel per km. The 787-8 can fly 13,530 km using 126,206 liters of fuel which 9.3 liters of fuel per km. At least for maximum lengths the a330-800 is more fuel efficient. Calculating in the additional 5% passenger capacity makes the a330-800 the winner by quiet a lot - at least in long flights. Maybe with shorter flights the 787-8 gets back that margin. Still, it's very interesting that Airbus was able to take an old plane, clean up it's aerodynamics and add new engines and best or at least match Boeing's clean sheet design. This video is interesting to me as my two best flight experiences on any aircraft type has been the a330-neo and the 787. I preferred the former flown by TAP over the latter but only marginally. As for those 787 dimmable windows though, I'd still like to have a plastic pull down screen. Even when you get the 787's windows at their darkest you're not going to sleep during the day if you're flying west over the Atlantic. The dimmable window is cute but I'm not sure what it's purpose is - make the clouds darker? As for the pressurization, I enjoyed both planes and maybe the 787 feels nicer inside? I think the biggest change with both of these planes is noise - loud engines tire me more than higher altitude air pressurization. Both planes are very quiet.

[@DJAYPAZ]

Passenger comfort is extremely important. The 787 offers a better passenger environment. The larger windows are a bonus for anyone wanting to taking photos. As for seating that is problematic for both companies. The 10 abreast configuration is a nightmare on long flights. I fly JAL because their seating arrangement is less cramped than other operators of the 787.

[@luisdestefano6056]

Sorry, A330s usually fly 8 abreast in economy, very exceptionally 9. 787s normally offer 9 abreast, just JAL flies with 8, there is no way you can fit 10 seats in economy on these cabins.

[@broddsaviation5471]

@@luisdestefano6056 seating arrangements are being handled by the airline’s not the manufacturers

[@luisdestefano6056]

@@broddsaviation5471 agreed, but possible dispositions are as I indicated.

[@DJAYPAZ]

@@luisdestefano6056 Yes, 10 abreast sounds extremely tight. Surprisingly, I found a reference to United flying a 10 abreast service. Don’t know if they are still doing it.

[@luisdestefano6056]

@@DJAYPAZ sure, United has 10 abreast layouts in economy (as does every other airline). But in their 777-200 and 300ERs. Which, if you care to check have considerably wider cabins than the planes being discussed here. Not too difficult to understand, you see. And 747s and A380s are even wider.

[@tt5570]

we are waiting for a 787-9 and 330-900 comparison

[@heidirabenau511]

And for A220-100 VS E195-E2

[@Leo-uj1ei]

@@heidirabenau511cheesecake VS chocolate cake

[@jamesmasters4255]

A330-800 is being overlooked….airbus marketing and sales should have positioned it better in the market

[@JNK1337]

How about the list price and OPEX and unexpected disruptions in operations related to groundings, late deliveries etc. I believe when both of the planes were launched at the same time, the distribution would be more equal. The gap between a330-200 and 787-8 was simply too big, even for conservative customers.

[@davidsavage6227]

I just can’t see how Boeing’s delivery capabilities, quality control and ethics will not help Airbus. If Airbus gets aggressive with pricing, sets forth a retrofitting plan to convert these A330neo airplanes to freighters after their passenger service, I think these airplanes will gain a decent portfolio of orders. Minimum for an urgent plane order to delivery runs about one year IF the design engineering is frozen. If airlines and Airbus get a move on, the A330neos will be a great boost to airlines and manufacturers.

[@nurrizadjatmiko21]

Hopefully, some airlines who wants to replace the A330-200 will ordered the -800NEO in the future

[@christoohunders5316]

flew twice on b787 didn't notice better cabin comfort, on the contrary

[@wdm1000]

I’m curious to see whether or not Delta will buy the A330-800neo to replace is B767 fleet. It already has 11 A300-200’s.

[@777swed3]

The a330-900neo should be more competitive compared to the 787-8 tho, right?

[@sergiolaurencio7534]

Nope since the 900neo have more passenger capacity than the -8. The 787-9 is the real competitor to it at it offers almost the same capacity a higher range.

[@incediery]

Both airframes are awesome in their own right... Airbus is playing the long game here as it spent pennies on the Neos development and it wasn't designed to compete directly with the Dreamliner...its more about offering a more diverse catalogue as Airbus has TWO widebody programs on offer NOW while Boeing is still struggling to deliver on ONE airframe... Airbus can also afford to wait until the next upgrade cycle for the remaining A330-200s left on the market

[@sainnt]

That ONE airframe is outselling all variants of the two airframes from Airbus... COMBINED!

[@incediery]

@@sainnt yeah it's selling like hotcakes while Boeing makes zero profit like not ONE PENNY 🤣🤣 analyst think Boeing 787 program might break even in ten years....meanwhile for every A330 neo and A350 Airbus turns a profit

[@sainnt]

@@incediery It all depends on the way people choose to see it. Boeing went on a limb by designing an all new aircraft, one unlike anything before it, so it was a huge gamble, but it is paying off because it will be profitable based on the orders they already have, which is increasing regularly. Most importantly, it will always be recognized as the aircraft that changed widebody aircraft in the modern era, much as the A321XLR is about to change the game for narrowbody aircraft. Airbus can turn a profit on the A350 because they're benefitting from the 787 design. If you're enough of an av geek, you'd know that the A330neo was all Airbus was going to do for a 'new' widebody. They can make a profit on that aircraft because it's basically the old aircraft with a new engine, wing and interior. While Airbus fans may see it as a success, Boeing continues to be the airline that has a hand on the pulse of longhaul travel, balancing their aircraft to be well capable of moving people and cargo. If you also have a sharp eye, you'll notice that the A350-1000 is beginning to sell more units. This is because there's a demand for capacity, and the 777x hasn't arrived yet. Watch what happens to A350 sales when the 777-9 goes into service. I can guarantee you that Boeing won't be losing much money on that.

[@incediery]

@@sainnt I seem to have struck a nerve a whole paragraph...this deserves a response lol yes boeing took a huge gamble with the 787 30+ billion over budget...so much so that for the 777x boeing decided not to use composites as liberally to cut costs and Airbus refined the process effectively killing the current gen 777 then A330neo being old and all with just a wing and engine upgrade matches the 787s efficiency on missions less than 4000nm while being spacious and preferred by passengers... airbus spent a poultry 2 billion on the NEOs development after the first 25-30 airframes Airbus was in the green meanwhile with more than 1000+ airframes built 787 earned Boeing ZERO DOLLARS just who's the loser here whenever the 777x and for that matter the 737 max 7 and 10 get certified then we can talk but Airbus already had MTOW increases stretches and NEO options ready for the A350 Lastly Boeing single handedly cause a complete revamp on how aircraft are certified thanks to greedy coporate practices..hell the FAA has to inspect and clear every individual max and dreamliner before delivers... hand on the pulse more like trying to regain its former glory

[@sainnt]

@@incediery I can tell that you're all about sound bytes and not facts, so I'll share some facts with you. After all, numbers never lie. 1. You need to find me these passengers that love the A330neo more than a 787. That's flat out ridiculous. 2. Airbus built an aircraft in 2018 to kill an aircraft that was built in 1992. Go figure. By the way, there are still more of those current gen 777 flying than the A350! 3. Boeing already gambled big on the 787, and while not yet profitable, is highly successful nonetheless. With the 777X Boeing figured out how to make the aircraft lighter, and combined with the new engine, they managed to make the aircraft 15% more fuel efficient while carrying more passengers and cargo. This a a perfect way to make a profit that offsets what's been lost with the Dreamliner. Airbus, on the other hand took a shortcut first before going to build a proper widebody aircraft. That's why they're lagging behind in sales no matter how profitable they may be. 4. Since we're dumping on the 787 as a money loser, I'll remind you that Airbus has a giant money loser of its own. It's called A380! Finally, an Airbus fanboy never misses a chance to bring up the Max, which is most definitely profitable. However, the fact is, Airbus has pretty much eaten Boeing's lunch in the narrowbody sector, but Boeing rules the widebody sector, and have pretty much done so since the 747 went into service in 1970. If Airbus is to surpass Boeing in the widebody sector, it will take them at least another 20 years, and I doubt it will ever happen. Men lie, women lie, numbers don't.

[@TheJakeUtube]

I'm surprised they aren't launching an A330Neo Freighter.

[@isthatso5616]

When your competition has 95% of the market ..is it really a worthwhile comparison.. The Boeing Orders are worth a grain of salt...... I beg to differ.. The Qantas order for the -8 was converted years ago to the - 9 variant... Jetstar took the -8..model.. Also ,the Aeroflot order has been removed for quite some time from the backlog!!! Like AB has 330n orders not worth a grain of salt in their backlog... Look no further than the Iran Air order for 36 a330's still showing in the books.. Obviously, should have removed years ago as well.!!!. And yes, Garuda is restructuring, and stated many times they have no intention of going thru with the neo order..!!

[@Sporty12boy]

Definitely a lover of the 330

[@Normalaatsra]

For Garuda, the A338 is in theory the winner for them. Indonesia is a hard market for international travel as it's an inflexible O&D market with glaring factors such as weak passport power, price sensitive customers with awareness of their weak currency, and a very small overseas migrant population. Bad enough that any intercontinental foreign carrier cannot keep a Jakarta route profitable without using a 5th freedom route for loading, but they're the perfect conditions to fill a -800 to full. Having had an A330 fleet also means they can bypass the need for pilots to earn a new type rating for an all new aircraft, which is cost effective and good timing as they've just come back from restructuring. The theoretical range offered by the Neo gives opportunities to open long haul destinations that Garuda had never opened service before, targeting more of Europe and west coast USA for services to Denpasar.

[@SaqeebKhan910]

When is the next fleet deep dive video guys? It's been a long time now

[@iankariithi2042]

yes KENYA AIRWAYS always happy to see companies from my country being showcased by people from diaspora

[@paulshields2220]

I find it sad than the 787-8 and A330-800 are not used much many orders for -8 are being upgraded to -9 if they haven’t already done that and the A330-800 is overshadowed by the clean sheet A350-900. I see trip videos of people getting on them and they are like 1/2 to 3/4 full and the -800/-8 are designed for those routes. So in the end the routes either get cut or airlines run them not making as much as they could with the correct planes.

[@simplymrklmYT]

Make a video about klm these days with the included cityhopper and Transavia fleet

[@miraphycs7377]

B787-8 doesn't have to worry about the A330-800 due to the latter's lackluster sales. However, the fact that A330-800/900 or A350-900 (and even A350-1000) having longer range than the B787 counterpart cannot be denied. Thus Boeing needs to hurry up and offer that longer range more capable 787-9. Like 787-9ER. 787-9ER with like 15,500km range would be a nice replacement of the B777-200LR (and even the 777-8 as that program looks bleak just like A330-800) and will be competitive against the A350 and the A330-800 in capability. Meanwhile 787-10ER with a range of 13,000km+ at least the same as old 777-200ER, 787-8 and the latest A330-900neo would be especially good for Being loyal customers who feel 777x is too large. It would be a cargo/payload carrying monster and an excellent replacement to the venerable 77W

[@brakinglate8828]

Boeing would always make the initial plane worse just to make it better down the line for more money 🤑

[@edsontransports9400]

Are you just underestimating the 777-8X ? It's future doesn't look as bad as the A338's future!

[@trenton.tchannel1810]

Did you miss the part about fuel capacity? It may have more Range but the 787 burns less fuel per compared to the 330. Boeing already said it’s interested in making a higher mtow version of the 787. Most routes are flying these planes to their range capacity so if a 787-8 flies 4000miles the A330-8 will likely burn more fuel in that time as well as the 787 higher cruise speed. I love the 330 but I freaking love the 787

[@heidirabenau511]

​@@edsontransports9400 As a freighter, the 777-8 has a bright future, as a passenger aircraft, not so much.

[@alessandroaraujo9286]

MTOW 533 tons??

[@AmtrakFan6905]

3:31 A380-800?

[@_DecaturDan]

There’s a few misstatements in the video, I think it was compiled in a hurried manner.

[@alicelund147]

But 787-8 has few orders now.

[@fredericmarohn-bh4qr]

GO AIRBUS A330-800 MY CHOISE

[@stevenholt1867]

The 787 has advantages with larger cabin windows and composites. The smaller cabin windows for the A330neo could be a disadvantage. Thank goodness for the A350XWB.

[@maxsaviation9512]

And yet with its larger cabin the seats are typically slimmer

[@tornadoxt]

Virgin Atlantic and Air India have 17inch seats,,,,,ha ving flown once on each airline ;;; I avoid them now

[@thomassharp2719]

The Airbus A330neo-800 is safer then any Boeing Aircrafts.

[@SrimathiDassanayake]

A330 is very old plane design 90 s old systems but 787 Boeing design 2010 has new advanced design systems

[@Drew-do9wx]

2 of my favorite planes

[@tt5570]

330-800 mtow is 251t(553000lb) source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330neo#Increased_takeoff_weight ps at time 4:48 the table states 533 tonnes for airbus

[@tt5570]

The 330 -800 should have a range of 7500 nmi (13,900 km)

[@dosdeyamaguchi9675]

can't stand the 3-3-3, 2-4-2 is far better

[@luisdestefano6056]

This very nice video contains a couple of material errors, namely it lists MTOW of A330-800 at 533.4 t, whereas it should have read 251 t. Secondly, it lists 656 sales for 787-8. Actually the real number to March 2023 is 399. This does not change the overall picture: both are clearly unloved versions. 787-9 show sales of 1,183 and A330-900 of 279 (vs 11 for A330-800). It is interesting to explain the reason for this huge gap. Both ugly ducklings have very similar costs per trip to their larger siblings. The only tangible difference is a somewhat lower fuel consumption. Say 0.5 tons per hour, which on a 10 hour mission amounts to 5 tons or 6,000 liters. That amounts for $6,000 per trip on such a route. Pilot costs are the same, just 1 extra flight attendant is to be added, maintenance costs are about the same (the bulk of this item is the engines, which are identical), and overflight and airport fees are essentially very similar (they are calculated on the cube root of MTOW). The bigger planes can carry 40-50 more pax, and at a nominal ticket price of $500 that means $20-25,000 extra revenue. Plus an extra 5 tons of cargo, which at a nominal $5 per kg adds $25,000 to revenue. Airlines have to be very, very pessimistic to buy these smaller types. They have to envisage such long and thin routes that do not have more traffic today, and will not have it either in future. Assuming a traffic growth of 2-3-4% per year, in 10 years a 787-8 becomes a 787-9, and planes have a lifespan of 20 years. This is the real reason why these planes don't sell. Most 787-8 sales were registered at the time of launch, before 787-9 became available. Since then they have virtually dried up. Not that Boeing cares much. They are essentially uninterested in the subtype for since it has a much lower parts commonality with 9 & 10 fabrication costs are materially higher, so no big discounts are offered. Airbus' situation is different: unlike Boeing that incurred in $25 bln development costs they just spent a couple of bln dols to develop the NEO program, since all of their costs had already been fully paid by the hugely successful CEO versions. This allows them to put a lid on Dreamliner's selling prices.

[@marlibread]

I thought Airbus bumped THE MTOW for the A330 up to 254Tonnes, to match the 787.

[@mmm0404]

*251T. Anyways Boeing is Bumping up the MTOW of the 787 to 260T+

[@wadehiggins1114]

I love Airbus! I'm looking forward to increased sales for the A330NEO.

[@edsontransports9400]

You are right, sad the -800 doesn't have much orders.

[@widget787]

You can wait a long time until you see increased orders for the A330neo. Apart from a few more smaller orders there will not be much more than already sold today.

[@Maddack]

Funny that small japanese get 8 abreast while obese americans get 9 abreast 787s

[@cabottaxi]

Japanese quality over US quantity.

[@stradivarioushardhiantz5179]

A330-800neo capacities are more suitable to be a private jet ( #ACJ330-800neo )

[@rtbrtb_dutchy4183]

More suitable to be a private jet? More suitable than what? Airline config? I don’t think so.

[@anthonydecastro6938]

The time of the 330-neo 800 will definitely come... Asia is largely Airbus territory.

[@leo200389]

A330 Neo❤❤

[@thyip6167]

I think that existing A330-200 customers should order the A330-800 to renew, upgrade, replace, and/or expand their existing fleet.

[@Hahlen]

The only segment where Boeing has a more modern product lol

[@Ttui89.]

How are they small wide bodies, they are actually large in size. Small wide body is 767-200 and a310

[@MasterofBlitz]

Maybe they meant in production?

[@rosslarkin6742]

At 3:33 he says A380-800 instead of A330-800

[@lv5272]

3:31 A380-800? Oops haha. You mean the A330-800

[@kevintang7632]

the range is incorrect with 787-8

[@12tof34]

Maybe is the range from the earlier frames ? Think the older ones are heavier.

[@AviaZou7A]

I just made it shorter in comparison Airbus A330-800 Fuel Efficiency ❌ Range ✅ Passengers (One Class) ✅ Cargo Capacity ❌ MTOW ❌ Max Payload ✅ Operating Empty Weight ❌ Fuel Capacity ✅ Maximum Speed ❌ Ceiling ❌ Thrust ✅ Boeing 787-8 Fuel Efficiency ✅ Range ❌ Passengers (One Class) ✅ Cargo Capacity ✅ MTOW ✅ Max Payload ❌ Operating Empty Weight ✅ Fuel Capacity ❌ Maximum Speed ✅ Ceiling ✅ Thrust ❌ "Boeing 787 is a Clean sheet design for the future of Air Travel, Airbus A330neo is just an update from A330ceo, both of them have access fly by wire technology, it depends on the Airlines on what plane they should buy on their fleet." :3

[@aviationspotter04]

500+ tons MTOW 😅😅A338 that would be funny

[@abelincoln8885]

But the A350 ... was developed ... because of the lack of interest in the upgraded A330 when Boeing announced the 787. The A330 was designed alongside the A340 in the early 90s .. and .. .competed with the 767. The 777 was developed by the late 90 to fill the gap between the 767 & 747. And Boeing stupidly developed the 757 along with the 767 ... to fulfill the medium jet market ... when the 757 should have been developed as a small jet to replace 737 because it was a narrow body with the same size fuselage as the 737, 727 & 707. The 787 was essentially a NG 767. The A350 was essentially a NG A330. And the 787 was developed ... because Boeing failed to get any interest in an new variant of the 747 ... with the coming A380 .. & ..deciding not to build the sonic-cruiser. Boeing should have built a NG 737 ... with a larger fuselage than the A320 ... tall landing gear .. composite wing .. & ... flybywire stick controls, to replace the 757 which should have been developed in the early 80's as a 737 replacement. And using the tech to develop a 767 & 777 X with composite wing, new engines, weight savings & the latest glass cockpit. Again. Airbus developed the A350 to compete with the 787 ... because there was no major interest in an upgraded A330. And the 787 was developed because there was no interest in an upgraded 747 to compete with the A380. Boeing needed to at least offer a 777 X to compete with A380 ... as it was developing the 737 replacement, ... not the replacement of the 767 wich competed with the A330.

[@randomscb-40charger78]

I'm sorry but designing the 757 to replace the 737 makes no sense when they designed it to replace the 727, which even then was nonsensical.

[@abelincoln8885]

@@randomscb-40charger78 The 757 ... has the same size fuselage ..... as the 737 .... 707, & 727. The 757 .. was essentially a twin engine 707 & 727 ... with tall landing gear to accommodate the larger hi-bypass turbofans. The 737 was designed in the 60s ... as a regional jet with 60's engines ... and essentially just a smaller twin 707.with twin engines. The A320 was designed in the 80's after Airbus had made the A300 with the new larger high bypass engines ...as a wide body twin for continental travel. Only tri-jets & quad-jets could travel transatlantic and Boeing had the 707 & 727 which had the same size fuselage as the 737 .... and is smaller than the A320. The 767 was built in response to the success of the A300 and will twin jets clearly about to replace tri & quad Jets for transatlantic travel. Boeing new twin Jets were the future ... with increasingly larger hi bypass turbo jet engines requiring tall landing gears ... and their best selling aircraft was the 737 ... & ...747. C'mon. Do the maths. It is obvious that Boeing should have developed THREE new aircraft for the early 80's ... and moved to only twin Jets. Boeing need to build the 757, 767, & 777 for the small, medium & large Jet markets .. future proofed for the next 40 plus years & with common pilot certifications due to flybywire controls and common glass cockpit. And the 737 should have refined purely as a regional jet. Again. The 727, 737, 757 & 707 ... have the same size fuselage. Airbus design the A320 ... to compete with & beat ... the 737 designed in the late 60's ... and gave it a wider fuselage and tall landing gear ... for the larger high bypass turbojet engines. The 787 is simply a 767 with built with composites, and the latest tech & engines. The A330 Neo is simply what the 767 NG or Max should have been. And because Boeing stupidly built the 787 ... instead of making NG, Max or X versions of the 757, 767 & 777 ... Airbus built the A350 which is bigger & better than the 787 ... and the A320 family is now dominating the market .. because Airbus designed the A320 to be better than the 737 and future proof for at least 40 years. See. The 757 should have been designed to replace the 737, with a bigger fuselage and future proofed ... for the small Jet Market .. and the 737 should have been optimized as a cheap, reliable, efficient workhorse as a regional jet. And Beoing should have developed NG, Max & X versions of the 757, 767, 777 ... and eventually replace the 747 with the 777 X or Max. The 757 entered service in the early 80's ... and had it been the replacement for the 737 ... with a larger fusielage, tall landing gear, flybywire controls & glass cockpit, and with the first high bypass turbo fan engine for a small passenger jet ... it would have got huge sales, and would not be threatend at all when the A320 arrived in the late 80's. It's all water under the bridge. But is screw up started with the idiotic decision ... to build the 757 & 767 ... for the medium jet market.

[@thyip6167]

I think that existing Boeing 767-200/ER customers should order the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner to renew, upgrade, replace, and/or expand their existing fleet.

[@AvionHFDG]

Can you do a Boeing 747-sp?

[@ulysseslee9541]

I think Airbus user would choose A350 for A330-300 fleet/long haul fleet replacement, current 787-8 replacement is for 767/757

[@mmm0404]

Very few airlines replace their a330s with a350s. It's either 787 or a330neo most of the time

[@chrismv102]

Rehash of everything everyone who know anything knows.

[@evergrandebestrealestate4854]

787 is the clear winner. No competition.

[@maxsaviation9512]

😂

[@evergrandebestrealestate4854]

@@maxsaviation9512 keep crying

[@SRT-fv6wr]

​@@evergrandebestrealestate4854 sometimes it's better to laugh in the face of disaster....😂😂😂.keep liking your own comments max..

[@muhammadraza9163]

Boeing 787-8

[@valluvanthillairajah]

But the Qantas owned low-cost carrier Jetstar operates 11 787-8 aircrafts.

[@mhrkhan40]

A330-800 is better

[@ZiggyStardust-pk5wt]

This is a totally irrelevant comparison. It's like comparing apples and oranges. A better comparison would be between the 787 9/10 and the A350 900. The A330-800 and 900 are merely re engined 200 and 300's respectively. Also, it would have been better to include cost of acquisition and the list prices of both aircraft. The much vaunted cabin comfort improvement supposedly introduced by the 787 in terms of humidity is not in practice much to talk about. My own experience on a 787 9 was nothing to be excited about. One big problem with airlines acquiring either the A330 800/900 is the single engine type available. Take Aer Lingus, a long time A330 operator as an example, they fly GE CF6 powered A330's. If they were to take on a new engine type, it would make more sense for them to go for an A350 instead of the NEO versions of the A330. In doing this they would also acquire an aircraft that has had an almost unblemished development and EIS than the very problematic 787.

[@12tof34]

EI will only go for the A350 if they're guaranteed to fill it or if they start a new route where the A330 hasn't got the range. -900 is definitely the safer option for them as EI are quite a conservative airline compared to any of the other main European carriers.

[@thailandrose2603]

When your comparing the 787 NightMare Liner to any other aircraft, it should be kept in a category of it's own - The Junk Yard.

[@chandrachurniyogi8394]

the B787-8 supersedes the A330-800 Neo by leaps & bounds . . . a cabin configuration of 268 - 293 seats in a typical 3-class layout is best suited for the B787-8 wide body jet . . . as for the A330-800 Neo it's apt cabin configuration should be anywhere between 285 paxs - 306 in a typical three-class layout . . . A330-800 Neo & A330-200 operated by low cost budget carriers could do with a cabin configuration of no more than 338 seats in a typical one-class & two-class layout . . . without compromising on profitability . . . by the way, Greenland's new full service carrier could do with an additional two brand new A330-900 Neo wide body jets . . . instead of the A330-800 Neo . . .

[@A2-C-w8l]

こういう比較が正しいのかどうか根底から考えるべきだ。我々には何の決定権もないのだし、意味のないことだ！

[@alirezajaleh6558]

If Airbus was not so rigid about the engine and cooperated with other company like GE. It could have been more successful.

[@maxsaviation9512]

Sorry but GE is taken up by Boeing

[@alirezajaleh6558]

@@maxsaviation9512 your meaning is He can't use GE? Why? Because Politics or have a another reason ?

[@FCOLAXCDG]

❤🇱🇨!!!

[@beeniijoo7372]

격노 하고 책상 치고 이따위로 일을 쳐 하니 밑에 사람들이 벌벌 떨며 법 제도 체계 무시하며 일을 이따위로 끌고 가고 그리고 직권 남용을 해서 법에서 정한 정당한 과정을 무시하고 수사외압한게 문제지. . 자기들도 잘못한거 아니 이종섭이 홎 대새 내보내고 박대령 고발하고 이런 무리수를 계속 두다가 이지경까지 온거 아니냐 . . 대통령의 말 한마디가 얼마나 정치적 파괴력을 지니지 모른다면 그냥 대통령 그만 해 . . 평범한 남편이 격노하면 가정이 시끄럽고 회사에서 부장이 격노하면 그 부처가 분위시 안좋고 사장이 격노하면 회사 전체가 흔들리지. . 대통령이 격노하면 나라가 시끄러워지는데 이걸 모르는게 국회의원 당선자란 사실이 참으로 한심하다 . .

[@anels9]

I believe the 787 is just as revolutionary for its time, as the 707 was back in the 1950s. Boeing absolutely nailed it with the 787 and will be the top of the class for decades to come.

[@javierortizsolari]

Inaccurate conclusion stating, ‘the Dreamliner offers some passenger comfort advantages’ vs. A330-800. No, the Dreamliner’s 9-across Y-class fuselage format is simply INFERIOR, less comfortable, more crowded, vs. the Airbus. Any attempt to counter balance this objective conclusion with the Dreamliner’s enhanced humidity and oxygen environment is futile. Long haul passengers want SPACE over anything else. Finally, Airbus will absolutely book many, many, many A330ceo replacements with the A330-800, the narrator is mistaken claiming carriers ‘should have already placed orders’. Airbus only lost Hawaiian to Boeings Dreamliner Lufthansa does not operate the A330-200, so it did not consider A330-800. Its A330-300 will be replaced by the A350-900 order, not the Dreamliners it recently ordered. KLM never ‘formally’ rejected the A330-800 to replace its A330-200. The Dreamliners it ordered are merely ‘add ons’ to prior Dreamliner orders. It’s entirely inaccurate to claim the A330-800 is some sort of ‘commercial failure’ when it has been marketed for less than 9 years vs. 20 years for the Dreamliner. The A330-800 will prove its efficiency with existing A330-200 operators WHEN they ultimately place replacement orders.

[@alanstevens1296]

9-across vs 8-across is an airline decision. It is not inherent to the type.

[@VaibavRaja]

i am thanos

[@mnnm9500]

You are a sharmouta

[@justfIy]

Lmaoooo you dare to compare the Dreamliner to this 11 units sold airbusflop

[@tinykingdom4494]

just don't like black eye of A330.

[@antoniosteede1242]

U can't compare a330 and 800 vs 787 8

[@dyncraft490]

why?

[@anggergalih3414]

whyyyyyyyyyyyy?

[@amirulhaziq4679]

Its a fair comparison honestly except the a338 came out late

[@antoniosteede1242]

What plane selling more

[@antoniosteede1242]

787 vs a350

[@armandoserrano3508]

Exactly the trip on 777 you guys can comper with the 330 but no with the beautiful and best air craft and safest plane in the world the beautiful 350 1000 and 900 with one of the oglys planes in history and sefest let's no talk about that because how many boinghas kill in 3l2 crashed and how many are on jail and if is some one in for how many years super 380 and beautiful 350 1000and that's it

[@is500fsport5]

Dude… you should learn how to speak English properly first. Your comment makes no sense at all.