DOT: "A330 [...] burns an average 12% less fuel per passenger than the 767"So a A330 can't "guzzle 24% more fuel per mission" as you repeat false claims by Boeing . There are about 25 % lees seats on a 767. Where did the 12 % less fuel come from?
I'm unpersuaded by your reasoning. Fuel burn is affected by many factors. Total aircraft weight is one primary factor. Passengers and seats take up a small percentage of the cabin volume, as there is much empty space. A given volume filled with fuel will weigh much more than that volume containing passengers/seats. The A330 is a bigger plane, and Airbus claims it carries significantly more fuel. Therefore it burns more fuel per mission.
Although an A330 burns less fuel per passenger than a 767, since the A330 has more seats, so which aircraft burns more fuel per same length flight: The fully-loaded 767 or a fully-loaded A330?
I think you have to admit, it's in point of fact, the A330.
Let me emphasize this point with factual comparisons of orange to orange, not oranges to apples as the EADs apologists constantly seek:
Real World Example: If the mission is to fly 1,500 miles and off-load 69,500 lbs, a typical offload and in-line with the required range/offload curve, the KC-767 would burn 89,000 lbs of fuel to do the mission versus 110,000 lbs for the KC-30. The KC-767’s refueling efficiency is 43.9% versus 38.7% (fuel offloaded / (fuel burned+fuel offloaded)).
As another comparison: the A380F has no customers, while the 747-8F does. One reason why: although the A380F has more total payload volume, the 747-8F can carry more total payload weight.
You are lost in statistics.
Again, you are hoist by your petard.
Let me ask you point blank...would you still support the EADs bid even if you had to admit that their fuel claims were completely wrong?
Thanks for making the arguement Paul. It makes sense to me.