MarinerOne

ST. LOUIS, Jan. 14 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The Boeing Company 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.

Boeing 767 More Fuel Efficient than Airbus 330, Analysis Finds

This is all about proving to the Air Force that they should buy 767 tankers as opposed to Airbus/Northrop A330s ... if this is "accurate", that is a WHOPPING number percentage-wise ... 24%???

Even I find that rather hard to believe ...

D-AIHC

Oh darn! If only Boeing came up with this new version of the B767 earlier:

"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."

...and I'm sure we wouldn't have seen so many A330 orders during the last two years by various airlines!

__________________

Lufthansa - Star Alliance member since 1997

B-16707

hah "boeing funded." immediately i question the validity of this study.

correct me if im wrong but using logic, the a330/a340 was developed a bit after the 767 making the 767 a dated tech by the time the airbus went into service. would airbus really create a product that underperformed its main competition, especially if it created it after the competition went into service?

__________________
The Completed Customs The Airport

want 1:200 B773ER details decals? for info check this out
http://www.diecastaircraftforum.com/...tml#post601882

DLmd11

Now all we have to do is wait to see how Airbus will counter these statements.

B-16707

they will do an "airbus funded" study and we will get biased info again. lol

__________________
The Completed Customs The Airport

want 1:200 B773ER details decals? for info check this out
http://www.diecastaircraftforum.com/...tml#post601882

MarinerOne

...

For sure!!!

pgmerle

Without offending anybody, I am dissapointed to read such a post here. When you compare potatoes and carrots, you find differences, always.
Just think for one minute (if this is not too hard): Would you think that a Dodge Grand Caravan V6 3.6L use more gas than a smaller Caravan with a 2.4L engine?
The answer is obviously yes, about 20% more (but it is also heavier, more powerful and carry more people and freight).

And that's in fact the main problem of the KC30 compared to the other one: it is not at all the same category of plane: it is longer, bigger and more powerfull.

corby78

Just use the Buff, we only burn about 20 thousand pounds an hour at cruise......it may not be as comfortable as a 767 but you have the safety of ejection seats. I can see it now....ABA (American Buff Airlines)

Prestwick Pioneer

Given that the 330 has about triple the volume of the 762, I would plump for the 330 every time. The 332 is a corking aircraft. This is a silly comparison. There is no comparison, as pgmerle said above. It would take less A330s to do the job of 179 767s making the comparison flawed.

__________________
The Prestwick Pioneer

D-AIHC

No, the report was not flawed at all...not when it's funded by Boeing.

__________________

Lufthansa - Star Alliance member since 1997

DLmd11

So why doesn't Boeing use the 767-300 or 767-400 to be more competitive?

MarinerOne

..............

Ummmm ... maybe because there would be NO difference in fuel economy?

Seriously, isn't Boeing pitchin' the -300 as the tanker, not the -400? The -400 is just the long passenger version, right?

Can someone corroborate this?

Prestwick Pioneer

Its the 200ER they are offering, with improvements.

__________________
The Prestwick Pioneer