Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A350s To Replace A340s, How About A330s?  
User currently offlineBrightCedars From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 1289 posts, RR: 2
Posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5340 times:

It seems that the A350 has now become a design that will replace one-for-one any kind of A340 there is out there, except perhaps for the A340-500 where I don't see a variant offering the range yet, guess that needs an A350-900R which will be developed thanks to the larger A350-1000's adaptations. And with market demand allowing which is nothing sure of concerning ULH operations, at least under current aircraft performance / energy price conditions.

So Airbus goes the twin-engine way all the way, except for the massive A380s.

However I'm wondering about the A330s currently on offer. They seem to be so well suited to operations that would fall - capacity wise - in the A350-800's market, and they are cheaper to acquire, but probably more expensive to fly and maintain.

I'm seeing Airbus pulling the plug on the A340s once orders dry up (that's close) and deliveries do as well (how long of a backlog is there?), even if they are assembled on the same chain as the A330s there must be some penalty for keeping orders opened. Will the A350-800 availability mean Airbus pulls the plug on the A330s as well?

In the not too distant future, will the Airbus product line revolve around A320s (or something new), A350s and A380s?


I want the European Union flag on airliners.net!
27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCV990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5307 times:

Hi!

I sincerely would like to see the A330 being built for some more years, but if Airbus can group with the A350 all the A340 + A330's I guess this will bring an end to these airplanes in the future. Talking about TP for example, their project is to have right now the A330-200's to replace the A310-300's and also the growth they are having and keep the A340-300 until the A350 arrives, then all the A330-200's and A340's will be out and TP will have only one long-haul model!
I also think of the A330 has a "transition" airliner, we see that both the 787 and the A350 are a bit delayed, so airlines are ordering the A330 has a transition and that's why I think the A330 have a tremendous niche in the aviation market right now!
Regards


User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7063 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5298 times:

Airbus just has launched the A332F so I believe they intend to build it for some time. The A330 is also better suited for medium routes than the A350 which is a true long haul aircraft.
It will be similar as it was with the A300 it was continued to be build even after the A330 came out.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21529 posts, RR: 59
Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5248 times:

A330 sales will dry up as the A350-800 enters service, though with the backlog of A350s already, the A330 will still deliver until 2016-2017 in some quantities, and beyond that in limited Freighter production.

The argument that the A350 is heavier leaving a place for the A330 doesn't really work, because if that were the case, the A300 would still be sold now even with the heavier, more capable A330 on offer, yet the A300 sales dried up.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5151 times:

I think the A330-200 is significant smaller then the A350-800 and the A330-300 suited for medium haul high capasity flights.

If GE and RR offer their new engines who knows. They weigh about the same as 787's, are proven and share commonality with existing 330/340/320 fleets. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...genx-offered-for-future-a330s.html


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5127 times:

Once the A350 enters service, there will be a number of fairly new A330s available on the secondhand market, I imagine these will canibalise new sales.


it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21529 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5061 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 4):
I think the A330-200 is significant smaller then the A350-800 and the A330-300 suited for medium haul high capasity flights.

If GE and RR offer their new engines who knows.

They won't offer new engines, as the return on investment is low.

Further, though the A332 is smaller than the A358, the same can be said for the A300/310 vs. the A332, and yet that didn't save the A300/310.

And the A358 is marketed as 270 seats, only marginally larger than the 253 seats of the A332. Not enough of a difference.

[Edited 2007-11-13 02:26:21]


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineParapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1583 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5024 times:

Whilst it may not be good news for Rolls I would have thought that the obvious engine choice would be the 66,500 lbf thrust version (GEnx-2B67) .

This is of course a bleed engine. It is lighter as it has a smaller fan diameter. It would therefore also have less instalation problems and lower fuel consumption. As previously stated ,the future market for the 330-200 would only be in the medium range market where this engine would IMHO be perfectly suited.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4983 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
They won't offer new engines, as the return on investment is low.

I think the investment would be low. maybe the engine & market are there.

What if the French Air Force orders 12 KC30 tankers with GenX engines?

What would A330F customers do? order previous generation Trent, PW4000 and CF6 engines?

We are at $95 / barrel, that reopens old business cases.

[Edited 2007-11-13 02:59:43]

User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4764 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 4):
I think the A330-200 is significant smaller then the A350-800 and the A330-300 suited for medium haul high capasity flights.

If GE and RR offer their new engines who knows. They weigh about the same as 787's, are proven and share commonality with existing 330/340/320 fleets.

Airbus already pitched the warmed over A330 with the GEnx engines on it, the market rejected it. Even the first version of the A350, which was better than an A330 with GEnx engines, was publicly rejected by ILFC, GECAS, and others when it was offered against the 787. There is not reason why it would be accepted this time.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4721 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The reason airlines want the 787 and A350 goes beyond just their efficiency gains over the A330/A340/777. As such, hanging GEnx or Trent 1000 engines off an A330 or A340, or adapting GEnx technology to the 777, isn't going to materially improve their sales in the face of the new kids on the tarmac.

The A350-800 will likely replace the A330-300 for those who wish to stay with Airbus. Airlines want a flexible airframe, which is why both Boeing and Airbus are not offering "mid-range" models, but instead are going for ~8000nm range in the base model. Thanks to CFRP, the MEW penalties are low enough to make this possible.

The most logical choice to replace the A330-200 is the 787-8, but the operating economics of the A350-800 will likely be low enough to make it an acceptable replacement for airlines that wish to remain with Airbus.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4711 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Parapente (Reply 7):
Whilst it may not be good news for Rolls I would have thought that the obvious engine choice would be the 66,500 lbf thrust version (GEnx-2B67) .

They would need to shed close to a foot off the fan diameter for clearance issues. I am told the GEnx draws much of it's benefits from it's very high bypass ratio, so I am not sure cutting the fan down even more would affect that...


User currently offlineObserver From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 78 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4506 times:

Airbus' theory is that the A330 complements the A350 because the A330 has a range of 5000-6000 miles vs. the 8000 miles for the A350. This makes the A330 particularly well suited for intra-Asia markets, Airbus believes. Airbus also claims that although the A330 is more expensive to operate than the 787, it has more seats and therefore can produce more revenue.

As for the previous comparisons about the A300/A310 not succeeding with the introduction of the A330, and therefore the A330 won't succeed with the introduction of the A350, the comparison (if not the conclusion) isn't really valid. The A300/A310 were nowhere near as capable airplanes as the A330. The A300B4 was a medium range aircraft and was first-generation Airbus. The A300-600R and A310-300 could barely make it across the Atlantic (range of ~4000nm, I think, marginal in certain headwind situations on certain routes). The A310-200 was worse on range, and the A310 series wasn't an efficient shrink. The A330-300 and particularly the A330-200 are great performing airplanes. Certainly the A330-200F will be around a long time; whether new production A330Ps stick around as validation to Airbus' theory is debatable.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21529 posts, RR: 59
Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4377 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
What if the French Air Force orders 12 KC30 tankers with GenX engines?

That's an interesting case. I have no idea if it will happen, but if such a thing were to happen, it would change the economics of the A330.

I've always thought Airbus should have offered the A330 with new engines anyway once they offered the A350X. The A330 fits a real niche, even in the future, but not with the old engines.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
They would need to shed close to a foot off the fan diameter for clearance issues. I am told the GEnx draws much of it's benefits from it's very high bypass ratio, so I am not sure cutting the fan down even more would affect that...

the bleed air version for the 748 has a smaller fan and fewer stages to fit in a smaller space. I think the A330 could fit it with some minor modifications to the pylon. I just don't know if it will happen. But Keesje is right, if there is a military order, maybe that will change things.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 14, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4327 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13):
the bleed air version for the 748 has a smaller fan and fewer stages to fit in a smaller space. I think the A330 could fit it with some minor modifications to the pylon.

The GENx2B-67 has a fan diameter of 104". The GE CG6-80E1-Ax the A330 have a fan diameter of 96". The Trent 700's are at 97". So I am hazarding a guess the GEnx2B would need to lose up to 7-8"...


User currently offlineR2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2630 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4274 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13):
I've always thought Airbus should have offered the A330 with new engines anyway once they offered the A350X. The A330 fits a real niche, even in the future, but not with the old engines.

Totally agree. Even with the A350 around, there could still be some customers interested in getting GEnx-fitted A330s at a relatively low cost and still offering a decent performance. And the numerous cargo operators in the future as well as possible tanker customers would be happy to operate them on new engines as well.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4202 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
The GENx2B-67 has a fan diameter of 104". The GE CG6-80E1-Ax the A330 have a fan diameter of 96". The Trent 700's are at 97". So I am hazarding a guess the GEnx2B would need to lose up to 7-8"...

I think 8 inch diameter means 4 inch less ground clearance, the engine attachements needs to be adjusted to the different engine anyways. For the tanker / freighter groundclearance wouldn't be much of an issue anyway. It has a longer noise gear levelling the aircraft for cargo & adding ground clearance in front of the mean gear..


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 17, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4156 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
The most logical choice to replace the A330-200 is the 787-8, but the operating economics of the A350-800 will likely be low enough to make it an acceptable replacement for airlines that wish to remain with Airbus.

A332 with newer engines will add range and/or provide competitive fuel economy relative to 787-800; the price difference may make it competitive enough relative to 787-800 for Airbus operators not to consider B787 as a replacement option.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 18, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4064 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Keesje (Reply 16):
For the tanker / freighter groundclearance wouldn't be much of an issue anyway. It has a longer noise gear levelling the aircraft for cargo & adding ground clearance in front of the mean gear...

That just gets the nose up off the ground. It doesn't help clearance at the wings. But they might just jack the entire undercarriage up on the A332F/A332MRT/KC-30, though that would involve additional cost.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 17):
A332 with newer engines will add range and/or provide competitive fuel economy relative to 787-800; the price difference may make it competitive enough relative to 787-800 for Airbus operators not to consider B787 as a replacement option.

A 787-8 will likely cost less then an A330-200 thanks to lower production costs. Also, a 787-8 will last longer and have lower maintenance costs then an A330-200. That alone should keep airlines away from a re-engined A332. The additional fuel savings - even diminished - would just be icing on the 787-8's cake.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3951 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
That just gets the nose up off the ground. It doesn't help clearance at the wings. But they might just jack the entire undercarriage up on the A332F/A332MRT/KC-30, though that would involve additional cost.

I think it will..


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2213 posts, RR: 56
Reply 20, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3167 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
The A350-800 will likely replace the A330-300



Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
The most logical choice to replace the A330-200 is the 787-8

While these scenarios are reasonable from the standpoint of passenger capacity, the CFRP airplanes have much higher capability. For example, consider that a 787-8, in terms of payload - range performance, is much closer to an A340-200 than an A330-200.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
Thanks to CFRP, the MEW penalties are low enough to make this possible.

 checkmark  a 788 weighs almost exactly the same, per unit of cabin area, as a 332.... not only that, but where CFRP really shines is making long, slender wings that provide a better cruise L/D ratio. That's probably why "abusing" the CFRP airplanes on shorter range missions (3000-5000 nm) will not cost the airlines very much, compared to a hypothetical all-new CFRP airplane specifically tailored for those missions.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21529 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2871 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
The GENx2B-67 has a fan diameter of 104". The GE CG6-80E1-Ax the A330 have a fan diameter of 96". The Trent 700's are at 97". So I am hazarding a guess the GEnx2B would need to lose up to 7-8"...

The fan could be pushed forward and up, or the bottom of the engine could be flattened a la the CFM on the 737. It involves relocating some of the mechanisms, but otherwise it's doable. We are literally talking 4" to work with, and that's not much considering the overall size of the airframe.

But the point is, they aren't going to do it. It would cut down on A358 sales, and current A330 customers may want to delay delivery for the new engined version, which defeats the purpose of selling them at discount to keep the line moving and take away 787 sales...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineCV990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2512 times:

Hi!

Looking to the market of the A300/A310 in the cargo role, I could clearly see the airlines that fly these two models to replace them with reconverted A330's in a few years. Taking again the example of my national airline, TP, I remember when the A350 was chosed last year the plan at that time was to start to replace first the A330-200's with GE engines that TP is starting to receive this November....maybe we can be surprised with that...but I can understand it....if TP was going to receive the first A350's from 2013 on these A330-200's will be quite young and will eventually have still a good market. The other A330-200's and the A340-300's would go latter. If we look closely the ex: Austrian and ex: Swissair A330's will be at that time almost 15 years old....so maybe a good freighter convertion will be an option. Regarding the A340-300's...well these I'm sure would be scrapped, at that time they will be 19 years old!
Regards


User currently offlineParapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1583 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2366 times:

Final new thought on "new" A330 engines.

I recall about a year ago Rolls suggested putting the Trent1000 core into the Trent 500 to try and improve the fuel consumption of the A340-600. Why not develop that thought for the Trent 700? The "1000" core being narrower than the 700 (aka 500 core) would fit and indeed increase the bypass ratio. No new work on wing instalation would be required what so ever.
The A330-200 is a light aircraft and better suited to 5000 miles than either of the V long range new aircraft (787/350).

I bet it would do quite well


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 24, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2331 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It could, but if it did, would do so at the expense of the A350-1000...

Boeing could hang GEnx's off the 767 (GE has mumbled about just such an application), but Boeing would prefer to sell 787s, me thinks.

No different with Airbus and the A350 vis-a-vis the A330/A340.


25 Burkhard : Given the good sales of the Trent for 787 against the GeNX shows that there is no myth in that engine. RR can make an improved version of the Trent700
26 Flipdewaf : The triple spool trents would also be better for normally shorter range missions of the 330's as well. Fred
27 R2rho : I see A330s flying around for a long time, like the A300/310. Eventually, they'll all be freighters. And well, with fuel prices rising and enviromenta
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...
GA To Operate 763s? What About The A330s? posted Fri Sep 29 2006 20:51:25 by Mandala499
How Much Is It To Replace A Slide! posted Tue Mar 28 2006 16:20:06 by Delta777jet
How About UA Restarting Flights To India? posted Fri May 6 2005 07:36:58 by JoyA380B747
SQ/TG Direct To East Coast US How About MH? posted Fri Mar 18 2005 02:27:58 by KL808
NW Orders More A330s To Replace D10 On Atlantic posted Wed Jan 26 2005 21:06:31 by Boeing757/767
Virgin To OZ, How About Via LAX? posted Tue Aug 12 2003 19:17:30 by Intheknow
How About UEX To The Bears Game? posted Sat Sep 7 2002 04:59:57 by CcrlR
How To Replace A300, A310 And 767? posted Sat Apr 28 2001 00:23:07 by GodBless
How About A JetBlue And Spirit Merger? posted Thu Oct 18 2007 20:05:36 by RW717
How About Hands On Ground Control At Airport posted Fri Sep 7 2007 16:04:38 by KarlB737