Ezra From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 476 posts, RR: 2 Posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2777 times:
I was wondering whether there are any plans, or if it would even make sense, for Airbus to offer an aircraft in the A330 family that's smaller that the -200 variant. I ask because it seems there's quite a capacity gap between the B767-300ER and the A330-200. Would it make sense for Airbus to offer a version of the 330 that's closer to the capacity of the 767-300, since a lot of airlines (particularly U.S. airlines) find that to be an ideal size for trans-atlantic opps?
Ezra From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 476 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2641 times:
Airbus recently tried to launch a shrink, designated A330-500, with SQ and LH... both of whom rejected it.
I was thinking in terms of airlines like AA or DL who offer flights to European destinations from multiple hubs. For example, the DL finds the 763 to be the right size to offer flights to FRA from ATL, CVG and JFK and AA finds the 763 the right size to offer flights to CDG from DFW, ORD, JFK and BOS. I don't mean to suggest that these airlines should reconsider their fleet planning, I'm only asking whether Airbus would be wise to consider offering a variant that's comparable to the 763 in terms of size in light of the facts that 1) many airlines fine the 763 to be the right size aircraft to serve Europe from multiple hubs and 2) the 767 line may be the next line that Boeing discontinues. It might serve Airbus well to jump into this market with a competitor before Boeing can roll out the 7E7.
Ha763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3695 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2529 times:
As ConcordeBoy said, Airbus has already tried to offer a shrunken A330 called the A330-500. It was offered to SQ and LH to replace SQ's A310s and LH's A300s. Both rejected the shrunken A330 for the same reason airlines rejected the 777-100 proposal. It had too much weight and because of this, it most likely have operating costs close to the larger A330-200, but since it carried less, it would actually cost more to operate.
Tango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3811 posts, RR: 27
Reply 5, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2448 times:
The issue of why Airbus has not offered a "NG" ETOPS twin to succeed their A310-300 which competed with reasonable success against the 767 has also crossed my mind. Even before European airlines accepted the concept of trans-Atlantic twins, the A310-300 competed with reasonable success against the 767 at a time when, in contrast to their European competitors, U.S. airlines were putting 767s into service on their North Atlantic routes as fast as Boeing could deliver the ETOPS twins.
The reason must be as TransSwede notes in Reply 2 and/or it may also be a case of little or no market for an ETOPS twin in the 200-225 seat capacity range. Demand for new 767-200/-300/-400s is virtually non-existent as well. Perhaps the airlines have decided that the A330 and 777 will be the smallest types they will use on their longhaul services, especially as the proliferation of codeshares and alliances has meant increasing emphasis on hub-and-spoke operations on both sides of the Atlantic and less point-to-point service for which the 767 and A310 were ideal.
A look at the trans-Atlantic networks of AA, UA and DL, for example, clearly shows a declining number of points in Europe served non-stop from the U.S. and increased reliance on connections through the hubs of their European partners LX/SN, LH and AF, respectively. At the same time, I see fewer and fewer 767s traversing the Atlantic for the U.S. Big Three and more and more 777s.