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

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

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

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

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.

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.

I love aeroplanes!!!!

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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