Boeing 767 More Fuel Efficient than Airbus 330, Analysis

[Snowgoose]

Interesting, How they can spin a 70's designed airplane to be 24% more fuel efficient than a 90's designed airplane. Was the 330 at max gross and 767 empty?

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/200 ... 4a_nr.html

ST. LOUIS, Jan. 14, 2008 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] today released a 53-page study prepared by Conklin & de Decker Aviation Information showing that a commercial 767 airplane is substantially more fuel efficient than the larger Airbus 330.

The study conducted by the independent aviation research company, and funded by Boeing, used published data to calculate the fuel consumption of flying a fleet of 179 767-200ER and Airbus 330-200 airplanes over a 40-year service life. The purpose of the analysis was to provide a clear comparison between the KC-767 Advanced Tanker (AT), based on the 767, and its major competitor in the U.S. Air Force's KC-135 Tanker Replacement Program. The winner of the KC-X competition will begin recapitalizing the service's aging refueling inventory by building 179 next-generation tankers.

The study showed that the 767 fleet burned 24 percent less fuel than the A-330s and would save approximately $14.6 billion in fuel costs. That number is significant since the Air Force spent approximately $6.6 billion on aviation fuel costs in 2006.

"Senior Air Force leaders have said that when a barrel of oil increases by $10, it costs them about $600 million a year," said Mark McGraw, vice president, Boeing Tanker Programs. "So it is critical, especially with rising fuel prices, that the Air Force's next refueling tanker meet or exceed their requirements and be as efficient as possible. That aircraft is the right-sized KC-767 Advanced Tanker."

Boeing recently submitted its Final Proposal Revision and is offering an advanced derivative of the future 767-200 Long Range Freighter. The modern aircraft will have a 767-200ER fuselage; 767-300F freighter wing, landing gear, cargo door and floor; and a 767-400ER flight deck and flaps.

The KC-767AT will provide critical fuel to receiver aircraft closer to the fight while requiring fewer bases to support tanker operations. It also will carry three times more cargo and passengers than the KC-135 without sacrificing the operational flexibility delivered by a medium-sized aircraft.

Boeing has been designing, building, modifying and supporting tankers for nearly 75 years, and is flying KC-767s today with more than 330 flights and nearly 1,000 hours on the tanker platform. The team producing the KC-767AT includes Honeywell, Rockwell Collins, Vought Aircraft Industries, Pratt & Whitney, Smiths Aerospace, Spirit AeroSystems and Delta TechOps. Nationwide, the program will support 44,000 American jobs and 300 suppliers.

Boeing will produce the KC-767 Advanced Tanker at its facilities in Everett, Wash., on the existing commercial line where more than 950 highly reliable and maintainable 767s have been built. Installation of military refueling systems and flight test activities will take place at the company's finishing center in Wichita, Kan.

For a copy of the Conklin & de Decker fuel study, visit http://www.globaltanker.com.

[rd1331]

New Engines, New lighter weight flaps. Sounds to me like its not a 70's aircraft if you look into the details. They took an airplane and matched up all the parts for the mission needed. Hense 767-300 body, 767-300F wings, 767-400 flaps (lighter)......

[Boss Hawg]

What else would you expect from a study funded by Boeing? They are trying to win a major contract. They probably used the same "independent analysists" that tobacco companies use when they need to produce a report showing that smoking doesn't cause cancer.

[the_professor]

...Or the same ones Greenpeace and David Suzuki use when trying to prove the existence of human-induced global warming...

[THEICEMAN]

Pure propaganda! I can agree with the fact that a KC767 would probably do better then the A330.
But for airline operations, the A330 is a better machine then a 762.

When comparing the aircraft, we must determine how much of a profit the aircraft can earn for every passenger it flies.
(Given at max seating) The 762 can fit 290 pax while the A330 can fit around 360pax (at least Transat does). Around 20+ first class or 70+ economy revenue seats it can sell vs a 762. On top of that, the A332 can carry more cargo on long range flights.
So on a cost per available seat mile basis, the A332 is a better a/c.

For example: AC did YUL-FCO last summer & used a 762. Flights were always full, but they couldn't carry cargo! Lost $$$
Living proof......the A332 is still selling well while the 767 production line is slowly dying. Maybe Boeing is trying to concentrate some of their efforts on keeping the program alive?

According to ATW, the average price for a 1983 762 is only 3.3$mil. Very cheap despite being 25 years old. Though the 763 is still a hot commodity on the leasing market.

commercial 767 airplane is substantially more fuel efficient than the larger Airbus 330.

For the sake of the KC767 vs A330 argument, maybe they are right. But that statement is false! Empty, the A332 is almost 70,000lbs heavier then the 762! It's almost like saying that the 777 is more efficient then an A380.....you can't compare them!

The A332 outsold the 764 by a lot...what makes hem think that a 762 is any better??

[Steve Baker]

Iceman, you do understand that this in not a passenger plane competition? The reasoning behind the design is as follows. The prime mission load for the KC767 will be fuel, carried in the wings and special belly tanks, this is a very dense cargo, allowing for a max gross take-off with no load on the main deck. By using the -200 fuselage, structure weight is saved allowing for a lower empty weight. The -300 wings and undercarriage allows for a high MGTOW and MLW. The -400 cockpit allows for the most advanced FMS and lower pilot fatigue, as well as, most importantly, allowing for components that will be supported by original equipment manufacturers for the longest period.

By no means does this mean that the A332 is a bad plane, or a superior airliner. I don’t know if the study in question was skewed by Boeing, and neither do any Avcanada posters. It does mean that the Boeing proposal combines some very logical components of the 767 family and shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.

[MichaelP]

How can a plane with a poorer glide ratio, the 767, compare with the A330 with a demonstrated better glide ratio?
I always thought better gliders have lower fuel consumption should fuel be in the tanks...

[WJflyer]

Iceman, you do understand that this in not a passenger plane competition? The reasoning behind the design is as follows. The prime mission load for the KC767 will be fuel, carried in the wings and special belly tanks, this is a very dense cargo, allowing for a max gross take-off with no load on the main deck. By using the -200 fuselage, structure weight is saved allowing for a lower empty weight. The -300 wings and undercarriage allows for a high MGTOW and MLW. The -400 cockpit allows for the most advanced FMS and lower pilot fatigue, as well as, most importantly, allowing for components that will be supported by original equipment manufacturers for the longest period.

By no means does this mean that the A332 is a bad plane, or a superior airliner. I don’t know if the study in question was skewed by Boeing, and neither do any Avcanada posters. It does mean that the Boeing proposal combines some very logical components of the 767 family and shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.

From quickly glancing over the study, it contains many fatal flaws which skew the results towards the 767. A quick check of fact sheets will reveal these flaws, and it can be said that the study's design and information were biased from the start.

[THEICEMAN]

Hey Steve, like I said before.....

For the sake of the KC767 vs A330 argument, maybe they are right.

But concerning the airlines, the 762 is over. The A332 is that much better.........the 763 is still a hot commodity on the leasing market, but it still doesn't give you the A332 economics. Same with the 764. Proof? The A332 outsold the 764 by almost 450+ aircraft & still going strong.

[Dockjock]

The purpose of the analysis was to provide a clear comparison between the KC-767 Advanced Tanker (AT), based on the 767, and its major competitor in the U.S. Air Force's KC-135 Tanker Replacement Program.

For the purpose of airline operations, the 767 is to apples as the 330 is to oranges. But for the purpose of the US military's advanced tanker competition KC-767 is Boeing's entry into the contest and a modified 330 is Airbus' entry, therefore a direct comparison between their fuel burns is necessary. Boeing's spin is that the 767 is more fuel efficient because it is engineered better and so forth. But the reality is it is just smaller, and therefore, lighter.

[THEICEMAN]

But the reality is it is just smaller, and therefore, lighter.

Right on!

[rd1331]

They probably have certain load that the USAF has given them. The 330 may be over kill and the 767 with all the different components maybe right on the mark. This would make the 767 more fuel efficient for the given contract. If you read it, they said they used the contracts numbers to figure it out, and said the 767 is more efficient. The 330 is a great airplane but if you only need a 737 load why would you use a 380. Of course even the old 732 would be more efficient for the given load in that comparison.

[Mile High Guy]

I think there is one other factor in the 767's favour. Being lighter it can operate on smaller and therefore more airstrips than the larger A330. Airbus argues that the A330 can stay on station longer. That arguement can't hold up when the 767 can operate from strips closer to the action.

[EI-EIO]

The A330K/KC-30 is selling and the KC-767 is not. The last few tanker sales (most recent being the Saudis) were 330s. The first RAAF one is being fitted out with the UAE and Saudis to follow and the RAF in double figures whenever they figure out that Private Finance won't get it done.

If it were me, I'd get both - there's an awful lot of 135s to replace and some fields won't be able to take a 330 but might take a 767. On the other hand a single 330 will loiter longer and offload more fuel doing so, plus provide a whole lot of cargo lift to backstop the stretched C-17/C-5 fleets.

The problem for Boeing would be that if it was a split order with Airbus taking the high end taskings, it would be difficult for them to win a KC-10 replacement competition down the road unless they offered a 777K too, with the USAF as first customer competing against an A330K years in service.

[Dockjock]

This is not a commercial order that a company splits to maintain cost pressure on both manufacturers. It is a military competition and winner takes all.

[EI-EIO]

dockjock - I didn't say "this is what would happen", I said, this is how I would do it. Being godlike as I am and all.

[chubbee]

The fuselage diameter is less on the 767 which is partly why it seats less passengers. This might lead to less cruise drag and fuel burn. Cruise is likely where a tanker spends most of its time. A tanker is a fuel freighter not a passenger "bus" so maybe on this application the Air-bus loses the contest.They do not need the internal volume.

[THEICEMAN]

If there is one thing for certain....a KC767 would have a cheaper price tag then the A330. If the air force is going to buy in bulk, I think they are going to go with Boeing on this one.
Also, since when would they choose a European product over an American product?

[EI-EIO]

iceman - they probably wouldn't - which is why it is so surprising that Boeing would bother attempting to stack the deck via Darleen Druyun. That said, a KC-30 win for Airbus would mean ALL future A332Fs would be built in Alabama... which is another guarantee it wouldn't happen as the French unions would spontaneously combust, they probably don't even like the Germans and other Europeans building Airbus bits.