Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant  
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12654 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...


47 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFoxBravo From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2997 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12421 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.


Common sense is not so common. -Voltaire
User currently offlineMikkel777 From Norway, joined Oct 2002, 370 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12369 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  Smile

[Edited 2003-12-09 22:47:56]

User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12323 times:

This is a clear indication from Airbus realizes that in most cases 2 engines do better than 4

Bingo!

***********
Something I've always wondered is:

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?

Be an easy way to create an A330-600, thereby attacking the 777 family on both the twin and quad fronts


User currently offlineCodeshare From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 12258 times:

Interesting indeed. Right you are, ConcordeBoy. They could also do well with an A330-200ER directly competing with 7E7's range.

Well 2 engines over land is ok. So you don't need 4.
But compare 2 engines and 4 engines over sea. And 4 is still better.



How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?
User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 5, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 12253 times:

Now if we could only convince Airbus to build the damn thing...


Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 84
Reply 6, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 12232 times:

The aircraft you're describing is the A340-300 in Airbus' lineup.

The Trent 900 and GP7200 are too physically large to fit under the wings of such an A330, although a Trent 700

This also isn't an indication of anything. This is a speculative topic. Airbus, and many customers, like four engines.

I don't disagree that an A330-600 would be an awesome addition. It'd probably be of limited range compared to the A340-600 for transatlantic and regional hops, but so be it.

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?

I don't see why not, the problem is hanging an engine under the wing that's powerful enough to move all that aircraft.

I dunno about the Trent 772, but I think the CF6-80E and the PW4168A are tapped out. There were plans for a PW4173 but still you'd need a bit more I'd think.

N

[Edited 2003-12-09 23:09:01]

User currently offlineAdria From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 11955 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.

User currently offlineSpaceman From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 534 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 11937 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.

User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1260 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 11912 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.



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 11873 times:

For the very ultra long range flights the 4-engined A343 has an advantage over the 772.

um, how exactly do you come to that conclusion... particularly since the 772ER has longer range, higher payload ability, faster climb, and faster fuel?


But if you compare the 772 sales to the A330/340 they are almost the same

Take out the A332, which doesnt evenly compete with any 777 version... then what do you see?  Big grin


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.

Yes, look at them:

The A345 has only managed to secure a single new customer since the 772LR was launched.

The 773ER is almost neck-and-neck, in terms of orders, with the A346... a plane which has been for sale twice as long as the 773ER has.

...oh well, there goes your theory  Laugh out loud


User currently offlineMarcus From Mexico, joined Apr 2001, 1796 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 11639 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
User currently offlineRjpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 11591 times:

But.....When the 7E7 stretch DOES come out it will still be 20% more efficient than a modified A330. Airbus can't match that efficiency gain with a modified 330.

User currently offline762er From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 542 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 11554 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.

User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 84
Reply 14, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 11548 times:

Heh except that Airbus has piled up, what, 25ish more orders for the 346 this year?

Your numbers are a bit stale PunkyBoy.

N


User currently offline762er From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 542 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 11518 times:

Correction, make that YVR-LHR. Still a good ways.

User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 84
Reply 16, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 11497 times:

YVR-LHR is a very respectable distance, as is DTW-FCO, PHL-FCO, and SEA-AMS.

The 333X is a versatile plane... and it was never intended to compete in the market of the 772ER but rather the 772A - a job it does handily I might add.

N

[Edited 2003-12-10 01:24:55]

User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 17, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 11347 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...  Big grin



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 11248 times:

should read: faster cruise



..and no! Lord, you'd think it wouldn't be that difficult. No wonder Airbus has such a reputation as a shady operation  Big grin


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 84
Reply 19, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 11218 times:

Hahahah whatEVER. Just because Airbus doesn't make every detail available to every crackhead enthusiast in pretty block numbers.

He knows full well how to figure out how many have been sold, he'd just rather be ornery.

N


User currently offlineKEESJE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 11097 times:

This is a clear indication from Airbus realizes that in most cases 2 engines do better than 4

Bingo!


Please correct me, wasn't it Airbus that pioneered Twin Engine wide body's of the pond in the Seventy's ? Does the concept A300 ring any bells ?

As stated in the original post : "Many airlines don´t need / want the 4 engines for all their routes."

But I don't see many twins doing US-Australia/NZ. A smart mix of 330/340's as used by SQ, CX, SAS, AF and LH seems to take the best of both worlds.



User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 11073 times:

Please correct me, wasn't it Airbus that pioneered Twin Engine wide body's of the pond in the Seventy's ?

Allow me to correct you...... no!  Laugh out loud


But I don't see many twins doing US-Australia/NZ.

You prolly missed UA's LAX-AKL?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Matthew Willmott-Sharp
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Matthew Willmott-Sharp







[Edited 2003-12-10 09:31:08]

User currently offlineEi a330-200 From Sweden, joined Apr 2001, 409 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 10936 times:

Concorde Boy,

If you read what he said, it was "You don't see MANY twins US-Aus/NZ. You are correct, there are a few. But the vast majority of crossings are done by Quads. Just to be gramatically correct and all.

Brian
Aer Lingus Rules!



Long live Aer Lingus, the Flying Shamrock!
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 84
Reply 23, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 10767 times:

Allow me to correct you...... no!

Um, Airbus did definitely pioneer the widebody twin, in case you were absent that day from school.

The 767 may have been the first to have transatlantic range, but A300s crossed by way of Gander and Reykjavic until the A310 became available.

N


User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 24, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 10727 times:

According to Airbus, the A330 orders/deliveries look like this:
A330 ordered: 467
A330 delivered: 279

According to http://www.speednews.com/lists/AirbusA330.html, the A330-200 looks like this:
A330-200 ordered: 188
A330-200 delivered: 43

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!
25 Motorhussy : Why do we always have to turn this into a petulant pissing competition? Concerned MH
26 Dynkrisolo : ...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
27 RayChuang : 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
29 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : 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
30 Gigneil : 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
31 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : Are you attempting to imply that the world doesn't revolve around me as it is?!
32 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : 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
33 Post contains images Gigneil : Heh apparently everybody but you. N
34 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : touche'!
35 Leskova : I was actually a bit surprised that the -300 still has a lead of 90 orders over the -200 - somehow I was expecting a much closer picture, or even the
36 ConcordeBoy : Keep in mind that the A333 has been available almost twice as long as the A332... and has experienced a good number of orders from major airlines even
37 Dynkrisolo : Leskova's 332/333 numbers are incorrect. For example, he apparently included all ILFC's 40 330s on order as 333s. The fact is most of ILFC's 330 order
38 Gigneil : I think Conky's numbers are from a different source. N
39 Post contains images Leskova : Dynkrisolo, have a look at the link I included - I took that into Excel and used the "AutoFilter"-Function to only have the -200s or -300s displayed -
40 Post contains images Mas777 : Well Malaysia Airlines operated the A330 to Madrid from Kuala Lumpur (with refuelling at Dubai) during the late 90s just shortly before MAS left Spain
41 ConcordeBoy : was this the longest scheduled A330-300 route flown by any chance? As a direct flight, maybe. Neither of the segments are even close to matching the c
42 Dynkrisolo : Leskova: these were NOT INCLUDED AT ALL in the numbers that I posted... The way you arrived at the number of 333 ordered was to subtract what you thin
43 Post contains images Leskova : ... and to think that I was actually once quite good in math... Dynkrisolo, you are right - in fact, I should have listed those numbers as -200, -300
44 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : so that's currently 527 confirmed A333/A340 against 622 777s*? ..not bad *not counting KE's order
45 Post contains images Leskova : Comparing comfirmed 333/34x - yes, you're right... If we, as I think you yourself once suggested (or was that Neil?), include the 332 and the 764 into
46 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : that's for damn sure...
47 Dynkrisolo : Concordeboy: No. It's not 527 vs 622. Of the 99 330s that Leskova couldn't determine if they were 332s or 333s, most are 332s, but some are 333s. As I
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas posted Thu Oct 27 2005 06:43:09 by Sq212
777-300er Vs Airbus A330 posted Thu Sep 22 2005 10:35:32 by Chrisjdurber
Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets posted Wed Feb 4 2004 12:20:33 by United777
Airbus 321 Long Range posted Mon Jan 26 2004 17:37:15 by Flyboyaz
Why No Long Range Airbus For BA? posted Sun Nov 9 2003 13:45:40 by EGFFbmi
Airbus A330 Question posted Fri Sep 22 2006 11:53:53 by AeroplaneFreak
Airbus A330 It's Future? posted Wed Sep 20 2006 11:16:15 by WINGS
UA 757s Long Range International Flights? posted Tue Sep 5 2006 05:59:40 by MIAUA777
Why Airbus Can't Offer The Same Range On A321? posted Wed Aug 30 2006 03:25:40 by AirCanada014
Long Range, Comfortable RJ posted Mon Aug 28 2006 18:29:14 by Boston92
Why No Long Range Airbus For BA? posted Sun Nov 9 2003 13:45:40 by EGFFbmi
Lufthansa's New Low Cost Division On Long Range? posted Thu May 10 2012 11:02:43 by CiC
Airbus A330 Family: The Right Aircraft, Right Now! posted Wed Apr 4 2012 06:31:51 by chuchoteur
Could Airbus Eliminate All Its Long-range A/Cs? posted Mon May 21 2007 17:20:23 by B777A340Fan
Airbus Could Be Asked To Ground All Long Range Jets posted Wed Jul 1 2009 07:40:52 by Yellowtail
Could Airbus Remodify A320s, 321s For Long Range? posted Wed Aug 20 2008 22:59:59 by Aircanada014
Airbus Pitches Long-range A340 To Qantas posted Thu Oct 27 2005 06:43:09 by Sq212
777-300er Vs Airbus A330 posted Thu Sep 22 2005 10:35:32 by Chrisjdurber
Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets posted Wed Feb 4 2004 12:20:33 by United777
Airbus 321 Long Range posted Mon Jan 26 2004 17:37:15 by Flyboyaz
Why No Long Range Airbus For BA? posted Sun Nov 9 2003 13:45:40 by EGFFbmi
Lufthansa's New Low Cost Division On Long Range? posted Thu May 10 2012 11:02:43 by CiC
Airbus A330 Family: The Right Aircraft, Right Now! posted Wed Apr 4 2012 06:31:51 by chuchoteur