Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 13856 times:
The A330-300 is said to aircraft with the lowest seat/mile costs in its class. Although it has been selling well, the excellent 777-200ER with similar seat capacity but extended range steals away orders from many airlines that want to fly pacific routes and Europe - Far East routes.
The A340-500 can do this job as can the -600, but both are considerably larger and have 4 engines. They are directly competing with the new B777-300ER. Many airlines don´t need /want the 4 engines for all their routes. That´s why the B777-200ER is doing so well.
Specification could match but not exceed the B777-200ER capacity/range ; 300 passengers (3 class), range 14000km, about 4000 km more then the current A330-300 versions.
Modification would include increased fuel, MTOW, landing gear modifications (~A340-500) and significantly increased engine power. Probably no versions of the existing Pratts, CF6 or Trent 700s could do the job.
Versions of the state of the art GP7200 or Trent 900 used on A380 however would exactly meet the 75-80k trust requirements.
Modification to the wing & wingpylon and possibly a little higher landing gear would be required to benefit from the 110+ inch fan / high by-pass ratio efficiency.
Result would be a state of the art twin that can do 300 passenger & 32 LD3 MTOW flights highly efficient & unrestricted from Asia to USA and Europe.
Obviously the question is what would happen to A340-300 sales. This versions sales would probably suffer. But Airbus won´t mind since all frames come from the same production lines. If its a variant that sells better, they won´t object.
Goal would be to snoop off e.g. 20-30% of the B777-200ER sales. That would easily justify the investments.
Strategically : even if Airbus takes it´s time a A330-300ER could still fly a few years before a possible Boeing 7E7 stretch variant (2010-11). Not much new technology would be involved, a bit the existing types combined.
Basically it is the same process as Boeing went through with B777-300 > B777-300ER and is planning with the B737-900 > B737-900ERX...
FoxBravo From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 3083 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 13623 times:
Interesting idea. Of course it would undermine Airbus's whole marketing bit about the superiority of 4 engines. But if it would make money, I'm sure they'd come up with a new ad campaign in a heartbeat...and besides, it hasn't stopped them from selling the A330-200.
Mikkel777 From Norway, joined Oct 2002, 370 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 13571 times:
When did A333 and 772ER get similar seating capacity?
This is a clear indication from Airbus that they realize that in most cases 2 engines do better than 4, and this new 333ER would knock out the 343 hands down
Adria From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 13157 times:
For the very ultra long range flights the 4-engined A343 has an advantage over the 772. But if you compare the 772 sales to the A330/340 they are almost the same. So there is no real need for airbus to built the A330-300ER. The A330 is for medium and the A340 for long haul flights. Boeing covers these to segments with the 772 only. That 4 engines are better then two on ultra long haul flights is obvious just look at the A345 and A346 order book and compare it to the B773ER and 772LR.
Spaceman From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 534 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 13139 times:
I hardly see the point to reply to this thread, as it is nothing but pure speculation, but I hardly doubt that airbus would come up with something that will compete with its own A340 line. What airbus need is to improve the performance of the A343 to have it competetive, not another aircraft that will eat into its sales.
Dw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 13114 times:
The A340 was designed to share a common wing with the A330. As the A340NG have strengthened/redesigned wings for holding up non-hairdryer engines.... could the A330 use them as well?
The A340-500 and -600 wing is designed specifically for those aircraft, unlike the more general wing on the original 330/340. It could be modified to hold two engines instead of four, but it would be a lot more complicated than the relationship between the two and four engine versions of the original wing.
Marcus From Mexico, joined Apr 2001, 1842 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 12841 times:
Maybe we could also use development costs when doing the comparisons between the A330/340 and the B777......the way those costs are being amortized (sp?) and if there is technology trasnfered to other production lines.
Kids!....we are going to the happiest place on earth...TIJUANA! signed: Krusty the Clown
762er From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 542 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 12756 times:
I don't think people give the A330-300X variant enough credit. It has a significantly increased gross weight over the orignial 333 and has proven to be very efficient accross the pond, carrying huge loads of cargo as well as pax. Air Canada recently inaugurated 333X service on their CDG-YVR route. At just about 5,000 miles and often taking 11 hours of flying on the west bound leg, this has seemed to be no problem for her. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Leskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 67
Reply 17, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 12549 times:
ConcordeBoy, there is one point in your last post I don't quite get -
the 772ER has ... and faster fuel?
What are you trying to say? The 772 uses more fuel and that's an advantage? The 772 can pump fuel from one tank to another faster than an A330?
Take out the A332, which doesnt evenly compete with any 777 version... then what do you see?
Have you finally found a place where you can get the A330 orders split up between the -200 and -300? Out of interest - how many of each version were sold?
Thanks in advance for clarifying these two points...
Which results in about the following numbers for the A330-300:
A330-300 ordered: 279
A330-300 delivered: 236
This list is slightly "off", because Airbus has the numbers per 30 November on their website, while the speednews-website is still stuck in August - so the actual numbers between the -200 and -300 will most likely look a bit different: but this is at least somewhat of an approximation...
Smile - it confuses people!
: Why do we always have to turn this into a petulant pissing competition? Concerned MH
: ...get the A330 orders split up between the -200 and -300? Out of interest - how many of each version were sold? Don't have the time to check the act
: I wonder why Airbus is again looking at a higher gross weight (HGW) version of the A330-300. They actually studied that some years ago but decided aga
28 ATA L1011
: I think if they do this and it has similiar range to the 340 it could mean an eventual end to the 340, 2 engines are much easier adn less maintenance
: Um, Airbus did definitely pioneer the widebody twin, in case you were absent that day from school. I wasnt... ....the question at hand, had you paid c
: I wonder why Airbus is again looking at a higher gross weight (HGW) version of the A330-300. They aren't. This thread is total mental masturbation. Wh
: Are you attempting to imply that the world doesn't revolve around me as it is?!
: Hmm... while it seems like Boeing has completely run away with the 300 seater market, apparently Boeing and Airbus are absolutely neck-n'-neck. Who kn