Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Environment Where The A300 Is More Efficient Than The A330?  
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17335 posts, RR: 46
Posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4607 times:

Is there any operating environment where the A300 is more efficient (lower trip cost, lower CASM, or other) than the A330-300? For instance are the UNIT COSTS cheaper when LH operates, say, FRA-LHR with an A330-300 or an A300-600R?


E pur si muove -Galileo
10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4499 times:

I would imagine that on short haul the A300 is more efficient, just because it weighs so much less. Even though the 330 is newer and spiffier, still, it has to lift tens of thousands of pounds more airframe into the air...

Steve


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4680 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4368 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Thread starter):

The LH example is not the best one as the A330 is configured for longhaul here, while the A300 is more for shorthaul. Also the A333 is much bigger than the A330, maximum high density config is 440 vs. 360. Maybe we should compare it to the A332 which is around 380.
As for trip costs, the A300 should always win as it is lighter (less landing and handling fees etc.), but its (overall) fuel burn fuel burn shouldn´t be much different from the A330.

I can remember reading an article about the A333 and its first operator, Air Inter. They used it on French domestic routes. They said the A333 burns the same amount of fuel as the A300, but at the same time carries more payload over a higher range.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineJHSfan From Denmark, joined Apr 2004, 469 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3981 times:

Using an old A300 as a Cafe is a good idea. The A330 is way to expensive. Bon appetit  Smile

- JHSfan



Look at me, I´m riding high, I´m the airbornmaster of the sky...
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3943 times:

The A300 is a real lightweight, it'll be at least 2,000lbs lighter than the 783.  Cool

Obviously not as efficient though.


User currently offlineYULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2176 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3905 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 2):
Maybe we should compare it to the A332 which is around 380.

Yes, and nobody (to my modest knowledge) uses it as a shorthaul plane, so I assume that the A300 does better on shorthaul routes than the 332. But is there actually an airline that operates both 332 and 300-600?

On a side note, the A300 is one of the greatest planes of all times anyway: the invention of the 2-4-2 economy seating plan (the most convenient IMO), the first twin widebody ever made, and a super good cargo plane that just got new orders from (was this UPS or FedEx?). And, guess what: I've never flown on it!!!!!!  Sad  Sad



When I doubt... go running!
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17335 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3808 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 2):
Maybe we should compare it to the A332 which is around 380.

That's clearly built for medium to long haul flights and therefore has the accompanying weight. I picked the -300 since several airlines use it on shorter hops, especially its initial use in the domestic French market with Air Inter. Is there a mileage range under which the A300 has cheaper operating costs (either overall or per seat) than the A330-300?



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3780 times:

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 5):
But is there actually an airline that operates both 332 and 300-600?

LH did, only A300's and A333's now
China Southern
Monarch
KE
QR


User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3764 times:

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 5):
was this UPS or FedEx?).

It was FedEx... There are still a few UPS ones to be built, then one or two for a Japanese cargo operator (possibly also a few for Air HK still?), then the rest are for FedEx.....


User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4692 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3694 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

CI said last year that on its initial routes tpe-HKG,BKK, TYO, the A333 was burning less fuel than the A306

User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4680 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3623 times:

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 5):
Yes, and nobody (to my modest knowledge) uses it as a shorthaul plane, so I assume that the A300 does better on shorthaul routes than the 332.



Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 6):
That's clearly built for medium to long haul flights and therefore has the accompanying weight. I picked the -300 since several airlines use it on shorter hops, especially its initial use in the domestic French market with Air Inter. Is there a mileage range under which the A300 has cheaper operating costs (either overall or per seat) than the A330-300?

Of course, this is right, but some carriers use it for shorthaul hops in between longhaul flights (QF and Malaysian Airlines for example) and Air Algerie as well as MS use it for relatively short flights. To my knowledge, these 2 carriers don´t even use it on longhaul flights. IIRC, Air Algerie has the 217-ton MTOW version (in comparison to the 233-ton one used by most airlines).

And there isn´tmore additional weight the A332 carries around because it´s a longhaul aircraft. Just some additional fuel tanks and the systems related with those. If you have a route which will fill the A332 but not the A333 (pax and cargo), then it´s more economic to use the A332 compared to the A333.

As I said before, I expect the A300 to have a lower overall cost in any case, but for CASM on short routes, I have no clue.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
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...
The 772LR 3% More Efficient Than The 772ER For LH posted Fri Aug 6 2004 21:37:44 by YUL332LX
Which Manufacture Is More Efficient? -Seattle Time posted Thu Apr 11 2002 16:20:26 by Cruising
Which Is The More Efficient: F50, DH3 Or AT4? posted Thu Feb 19 2004 16:02:48 by Pe@rson
Is The A300 Fleet Of SV Or AA Older? posted Fri Oct 6 2006 14:44:43 by ConcordeLoss
Where In The World Is John Leahy? posted Wed May 3 2006 14:04:47 by Leelaw
The Order Of TAP Is Going To Be 11 X A330-300! posted Mon Sep 19 2005 15:39:27 by CV990
Cabotage: Where In The World Is It Allowed? posted Tue Jun 21 2005 13:38:33 by Luisde8cd
Is The A300 Is Still In Production posted Wed Apr 27 2005 22:58:34 by Flydc10
Where In The World Is Wizz Air's A320 HA-LPD? posted Mon Apr 25 2005 04:50:50 by Misbeehavin
Where In The World Is - N994Z posted Thu Jan 20 2005 05:51:15 by NWADC9