Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5823429/

Topic: Why No "X" Designation On GE-powered A330s?
Username: LurveBus
Posted 2013-07-19 21:45:06 and read 5310 times.

I've noticed that with all the MTOW upgrades available, A330s with GE engines are still not labeled with an "X" (Unlike, say, RR-powered A330s today like CX's A330-343x)

I understand that they started to add "X" as a means to distinguish the MTOW from the original 215/217t A330. That being said, why isn't this applied on GE-powered A330s? Are the new MTOWs not available with GE engines? Anyone care to shed light on this?

Topic: RE: Why No "X" Designation On GE-powered A330s?
Username: clydenairways
Posted 2013-07-20 02:12:12 and read 4959 times.

As i understand it, the X designation was used 10 years ago to distinguish the upgrades at the time from the original version. Since then there have neen a number of further upgrages from that X model to the version we see today which is 235t.
Another upgraded version is available from 2015 with a MTOW of 242t.
These 235t and 242t new versions don't have any special letter anymore.

Topic: RE: Why No "X" Designation On GE-powered A330s?
Username: skipness1E
Posted 2013-07-20 03:34:55 and read 4789 times.

Aren't they given E rather than X nowadays?

Topic: RE: Why No "X" Designation On GE-powered A330s?
Username: trex8
Posted 2013-07-20 06:17:07 and read 4531 times.

Per some tech threads in past the X refers to certain structural changes which is not directly related to higher MTOW IIRC it had to do with the cargo system. The E to A345/6 enhancements in avionics and other systems which migrated to the A330. But it is strange you never see the X or E on G E planes

Who has the largest G E fleet now? CI??

[Edited 2013-07-20 06:20:49]

Topic: RE: Why No "X" Designation On GE-powered A330s?
Username: BasilFawlty
Posted 2013-07-20 06:42:54 and read 4464 times.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 3):
Who has the largest G E fleet now? CI??

It depends, if we only count -300's the answer is yes, if we count both -200's and -300's the answer is no.

Top 5
QR: 29 (16x A332 + 13x A333)
CI: 22 (22x A333)
QF: 20 (10x A332 + 10x A333)
KL: 16 (12x A332 + 4x A333)
AF: 15 (15x A332)

Topic: RE: Why No "X" Designation On GE-powered A330s?
Username: trex8
Posted 2013-07-20 07:11:39 and read 4412 times.

Why has everyone changed from -A3 to -A4 or 4 B except AF/KLM even while getting heavier planes?

Topic: RE: Why No "X" Designation On GE-powered A330s?
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-07-20 09:46:22 and read 4165 times.

Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 4):
Top 5
QR: 29 (16x A332 + 13x A333)

I never understood why they bought GE due to the poor hot performance prior to 2012 (or was it 2011 for that PIP?). All of the other major GE A330 operators had cool low altitude hub airports.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Why No "X" Designation On GE-powered A330s?
Username: Faro
Posted 2013-07-20 10:58:33 and read 3961 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 6):
I never understood why they bought GE due to the poor hot performance prior to 2012 (or was it 2011 for that PIP?). All of the other major GE A330 operators had cool low altitude hub airports.

An illogical investment choice? Hundreds of millions of USD expenditures? A cast of influential courtiers and their commercial clients?

I wonder indeed what could ever have happened...


Faro


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/