Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus To Launch ''New'' HGW A330-300 (235T)  
User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 27877 times:

I'm very pleased to see Airbus steadily continue to improve the A330 family. While it represents a small improvement it will no doubt place additional pressure on the 787-9 and 77E series.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...launch-higher-weight-a330-300.html


Airbus poised to launch higher-weight A330-300

Airbus is set to reveal plans for a maximum gross weight increase of its Airbus A330-300 widebody.

The 2t increase, to 235t, will allow the aircraft to operate an additional 120nm (220km) or carry an extra 1.2t payload.


Regards,
Wings


Aviation Is A Passion.
84 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 27764 times:

Why did they increase the weight of the -200 to 238t and now the -300 to only 235t?

Nevertheless a useful boost in payload/range.


Looks like a perfect A343 (257t) replacement without risk for the 8 Lufthansa birds...

[Edited 2010-11-25 04:21:47]

User currently offlineFlying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4161 posts, RR: 36
Reply 2, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 27534 times:

From what I understand there are additional, quite interesting changes in the pipeline which should boost the performance even further.

Anyone able to give a good idea where this A330-300 model now stands in comparision to the B787-8/9? The performance could should have closed even further.



Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
User currently offlinesolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 852 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 27484 times:

Didnt KE order the -200 HGW, if so how many?

//Mike     



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week ago) and read 27353 times:

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 2):

Pls provide us with more details!


 

[Edited 2010-11-25 04:49:09]

User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2611 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week ago) and read 27209 times:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 1):
Why did they increase the weight of the -200 to 238t and now the -300 to only 235t?

I assume the -200 weight increase had priority because the plane is used on longer routes, and there was a lot of performance to be gained, as we have seen. The -300 on the other hand is used on mid-haul routes, so the range increase was less important, as the A333 was already very competitive as it was.


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1563 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week ago) and read 27071 times:

"From what I understand there are additional, quite interesting changes in the pipeline which should boost the performance even further."

What do you "understand" (even if unsubstantiated)?

It struck me recently with all the333 orders rolling in that this variant could well end up outseling the 332. It quite simply has no direct compeditor in its medium sector market.

If they are going to make further changes it does indicate (quite rightly IMHO) that the 333 will sit alongside the long range 350's in the future.

If it does clearly( as a weak example) the A350 interior could be easily "lifted" and "dropped" into the 330 with only very minor modifications.

Whether there is much to be gained or not I don't know.But since the 330 has "fixed" wingtip extensions clearly the wing is already stressed for them.As such replacing them with 350 style B. Winglets would not require wing strengthening.What performance increases would be available is of course another matter.


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4395 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week ago) and read 26861 times:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 1):
Why did they increase the weight of the -200 to 238t and now the -300 to only 235t?

Any MTOW increase that is not software only uses to have a small OEW increase only. Since the A333 often is limited by max landing weight, this is a real fine tuning. Larger range does not help if you can load less payload.


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1563 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week ago) and read 26864 times:

The 333 never competed with the 772er and never will. Or really the 789.Now the 783 or the much postulated 785 perhaps.But they never came so the A333 has the market to itself as sales are showing.

BTW I think it's more to do with the additiona 1.2T of weight/cargo it can lift rather than the 150 distance.

Also (having flown on one).I think the 9 abreast config (on a 333) matters less on a shorter flight (mine was 5.5 hours).Not great mind you but it's not for long after all. When one does the 9 hour flights (for me) every millimeter begins to count . My favourite aircraft for longer journeys is the 777 for just that reason.

Moving "masses"- like in China? You can see why this plane rules at present.


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4760 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week ago) and read 26858 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Someone had said on previous threads that since the A333 has lower fuel capacity than the A332, increasing MTOW would not be useful for increasing range. So what has A done here to provide the little extra range?

User currently offlinebreiz From France, joined Mar 2005, 1917 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (3 years 9 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 26692 times:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 10):
Someone had said on previous threads that since the A333 has lower fuel capacity than the A332, increasing MTOW would not be useful for increasing range. So what has A done here to provide the little extra range?

To increase fuel capacity hence increasing MTOW?


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (3 years 9 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 26528 times:

Quoting parapente (Reply 9):

The 333 never competed with the 772er and never will.

There is overlap. E.g. UA flies 772ER on the Atlantic, Delta A333's. They compete.

There was an A330 NEO thread a few months ago. I still wonder how the market would have looked like if Airbus and GE hadn't listened to anyone and just "slammed" the GENX under the A330 winged, the old plan EIS 2007-8, production rate 7-8 a month.. http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...eneral_aviation/read.main/4898412/


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4760 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (3 years 9 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 26484 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting breiz (Reply 11):
Quoting trex8 (Reply 10):
Someone had said on previous threads that since the A333 has lower fuel capacity than the A332, increasing MTOW would not be useful for increasing range. So what has A done here to provide the little extra range?

To increase fuel capacity hence increasing MTOW?

My understanding, and I'm not a technical type so I may be off base, is that the A333 is already fuel volume limited at the previous MTOW of 233K and the limiting factor for range is the size of the tanks, increasing MTOW will allow an increase in payload but you can't fit more fuel into the tanks which are already maxed out volume wise. Have they somehow increased fuel tankage or made it more efficient?


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9027 posts, RR: 75
Reply 13, posted (3 years 9 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 26418 times:

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 2):
From what I understand there are additional, quite interesting changes in the pipeline which should boost the performance even further.

Yes

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 2):
Anyone able to give a good idea where this A330-300 model now stands in comparision to the B787-8/9? The performance could should have closed even further.

This has been covered on a number of threads before, essentially the A330 models should be lifting more payload, however they do so over shorter distances and with higher fuel burns.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 1):
Why did they increase the weight of the -200 to 238t and now the -300 to only 235t?

The A330-200F

Quoting parapente (Reply 9):
The 333 never competed with the 772er and never will.

They do on a daily basis. Not all 777-200/777-200ER flights are 10+ hour sectors, the A330 is very competitive on 5-10 hour sectors compared to the 777-200/777-200ER, the two aircraft have the same size containerised under floor cargo holds.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 10):
Someone had said on previous threads that since the A333 has lower fuel capacity than the A332, increasing MTOW would not be useful for increasing range. So what has A done here to provide the little extra range?

Like most aircraft, A330-300 is MTOW limited on its range.

The takeoff weight is equal to the operating weight + payload+fuel, increasing the MTOW moves the MTOW limit on the range payload graph to the right.



The distance it move to the right at the same payload is the range increase (120 nm in this case), and the vertical difference between the lines at the same range is the payload increase (1.2 t in this case).



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineGarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2647 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (3 years 9 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 26376 times:

Quoting WINGS (Thread starter):

The 2t increase, to 235t, will allow the aircraft to operate an additional 120nm (220km) or carry an extra 1.2t payload.

Seeing as the 777 series has a far greater range/ payload advantage than what is being clawed back by this new A333.
So I fail to see how it will increase pressure. If it added another 1000 nm to the range, then Boeing would be right to get worried. But 120nm? That's not realy of any use at all. On a Cessna 172 perhaps, but not long haulers like the A333 and 777

As for the 787, it doesn't touch the proposed figures for the 900. The 300 is within range however.



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 15, posted (3 years 9 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 26343 times:

Quoting lucky777 (Reply 7):
??? But not the A350? Come on man, i get that you're an Airbus fanboy, but you can't simply cherrypick what sounds good to you and not have somebody call you out on it. I think the 77E has done pretty damn good against ANY version of the A330 thus far based on sales numbers.

I can not identify any A350 variant that would compete with the A333 series on short - medium routes. Maybe you would like to elaborate which A350 varient would fill that role?

While the 77E has done extremely well, it is no longer the case. I suggest you take sometime to research the subject before making wild and incorrect assumptions. You might be surprised to know that the 77E, 77L and 77F only have a backlog of 66 frames. If we Analise this even further you will also note that the 77E has a backlog of only 14 frames, while the 77L a further 11 frames to be delivered

The 777 -200 family has seen the following orders as of October 2010.

777-200 - 88 orders (88 delivered)
777-200ER - 429 orders (415 delivered)
777-200LR - 56 orders (45 delivered)
777-200F - 78 orders (41 delivered)


Airbus on the other hand have the following numbers for the A330 family.

A330-200 - 568 orders (398 delivered)
A330-200F - 66 orders (4 delivered)
A330-300 - 474 orders (332 delivered.


This give Airbus a rather healthy and strong backlog for all members of the A330 family. The A330-300 series has in recent times taken over many roles of what used to be dominated by the 777-200/ER.

BTW. I do admit that I'm a die-hard A330/A340 fan-boy.

 
Quoting parapente (Reply 9):
The 333 never competed with the 772er and never will. Or really the 789.Now the 783 or the much postulated 785 perhaps.But they never came so the A333 has the market to itself as sales are showing.

You sure about that mate? Singapore Airlines will surely not agree with you on this point.

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 16, posted (3 years 9 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 26252 times:

Quoting Garpd (Reply 15):
Seeing as the 777 series has a far greater range/ payload advantage than what is being clawed back by this new A333.
So I fail to see how it will increase pressure.

The A330-300 has killed the 777-200/ER on missions of up to 10 hours. No other wide-body aircraft currently in service comes close to it, in regards to economics.

Boeing currently only has a total of 25 passenger 777-200 series to be delivered. 11 of those going to the 77L.

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineGarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2647 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (3 years 9 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 26246 times:

Quoting WINGS (Reply 16):
I suggest you take sometime to research the subject before making wild and incorrect assumptions

And I respectfully suggest you look at the roles the A333 and 77E perform.
You'll see the 77E is generally tasked with longer ranged missions than the A333 because it has the longer range of the two, 14,305 km versus the A333's 10,800 km.

Different airlines use different aicraft for similar missions due to availabilty or load factors.

To say the A333 is overtaking the 77E because Delta uses them on the same mission (near enough) as United is simply daft. A trans-pond flight barely even pushes either aircrafts capabilities. Perhaps United need more seats than Delta?
Or maybes it's because UA have no A333s?

As it stands, the 77E has an almost 4,000 km range advantage over the A333. This extra 120nm will not mean anything.
The added MTOW might prove usefull for airlines that do not need the 14K km range. But its hardly a cause for concern for Boeing.

[Edited 2010-11-25 06:57:36]


arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2606 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (3 years 9 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 26224 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting WINGS (Reply 16):
Singapore Airlines will surely not agree with you on this point.
SQ are not replacing all their 77Es with A333s. Only 19 A333s are ordered, and at last count they still have 35 77Es in service. SQ uses some 77Es on long haul routes to Europe, which is quite beyond the A333's capability.

Yes, there is an overlap, and on shorter routes, the A333 might well have an advantage, but it is not quite a direct competitor in that long haul routes will still be 77E's domain. While it's great to see Airbus improve their A330 family, I'm not sure what an extra 120nm will accomplish. I can't think of an airline that currently uses the A333 on routes that would stretch its payload/range capabilities, so is a small increment to range/payload going to increase its prospects of selling to an airline that wouldn't otherwise consider the A333?

[Edited 2010-11-25 06:49:51]


Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5434 posts, RR: 30
Reply 19, posted (3 years 9 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 25954 times:

I think the 2 tonnes will be taken advantage of more often than the 120miles. Will this upgrade be able to be applied retroactively to current -300's?


What the...?
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (3 years 9 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 25808 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 19):
I can't think of an airline that currently uses the A333 on routes that would stretch its payload/range capabilities, so is a small increment to range/payload going to increase its prospects of selling to an airline that wouldn't otherwise consider the A333?
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 20):

I think the 2 tonnes will be taken advantage of more often than the 120miles

  

E.G. Delta (NWAC) uses the A333 to fly to AMS from the US. Average loadfactor > 85% and a full cargo belly. Often payload critical on flights further then the north east.

Zeke's graph shows you start off loading payload above 4000NM (under ideal condition)

http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=&R=4000NM%40AMS%0d%0a&MS=wls&MR=1800&MX=720x360&PM=*
4000NM from AMS

For many carriers it means leaving behind 2t of cargo less.


User currently offlinelucky777 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 552 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 9 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 25801 times:

Quoting WINGS (Reply 17):
The A330-300 has killed the 777-200/ER on missions of up to 10 hours. No other wide-body aircraft currently in service comes close to it, in regards to economics.

Oh Lord of the Facts....care to provide ANY with regards to that statement??? Simply you saying it doesn't make it true.

And honestly, why are we even comparing a slightly improved A330-300 to the mighty 777? The 777 is more plane than the A330 could ever hope to be. It flies further, longer, is bigger, and capable of carrying more cargo tonnage than the -330.

You're actually trying to compare a 5800nm plane to a 7700nm plane, get real. The 767-400ER might be a more evenly matched competitor.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4951 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (3 years 9 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 25773 times:

Quoting WINGS (Reply 16):
You might be surprised to know that the 77E, 77L and 77F only have a backlog of 66 frames.

Yet apparently Boeing have plans to increase the production from 5.5 per month which does not suggest they are that concerned. Sorry I can't quote the link but it is very recent.


User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 23, posted (3 years 9 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 25626 times:

Quoting Garpd (Reply 18):
And I respectfully suggest you look at the roles the A333 and 77E perform.
You'll see the 77E is generally tasked with longer ranged missions than the A333 because it has the longer range of the two, 14,305 km versus the A333's 10,800 km.

I'm fully aware of both mission profiles for these frames. The A330-300 has killed the 777-200/ER on missions of up to 10 hours. No other wide-body aircraft currently in service comes close to it, in regards to economics.

Considering that the 787-9/A358/A359 are still years away from hitting the market, don't you think that it is odd that airlines continue to order the A330 in large batches, while the 777-200 passenger versions only have a total backlog of just 25 frames?

Quoting Garpd (Reply 18):
As it stands, the 77E has an almost 4,000 km range advantage over the A333. This extra 120nm will not mean anything.

It is also interesting to note that both the A343 and 77E are just about dead. With the A343 already 7 feet under since last year.

Quoting Garpd (Reply 18):
The added MTOW might prove usefull for airlines that do not need the 14K km range. But its hardly a cause for concern for Boeing.

With a likely delayed EIS for the 789, and extremely low backlog for the the 777-200 passenger series, I'm sure that Boeing is starting to get worried. Thankfully for them, the 77W is a runaway success.

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineGarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2647 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (3 years 9 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 25627 times:

Those rose tinted Airbus glasses you're wearing must be nigh on opaque.

[Edited 2010-11-25 07:53:10]


arpdesign.wordpress.com
25 zvezda : There is one simple generally accepted test to determine whether or not two products compete: Do the customers consider both of them when deciding whe
26 brilondon : Can someone give me the statistics on the difference between the A330-300 and the A350WXB and why would they give a little more MTOW to an aircraft th
27 lucky777 : And still not a shred of evidence to back any of your claims up. Simply repeating a statement time and again won't turn it into fact. Considering the
28 clickhappy : Does that mean the 757 competes against the 772ER also?
29 HUYfan : The airbus website says the 333 can do the likes of Paris to Bangkok and LAX. I thought the range was way more than 4000nm as it is? Look at the route
30 Stitch : And SQ's 777-200ERs were lower-MTOW models with less than maximum performance because they were used on NOT free). If the A380 had entered service on
31 WINGS : The 777 is a fantastic plane. It just happens that for missions of up to 10 hours the A333 is superior economically. I'm simply referring to Short-Me
32 WINGS : Yet you miss the single most important fact. The A340-200/300/500 and 600 needs to be included in that total. This gives the A330/A340 family a total
33 Garpd : But you only compare the A330 to the 777 when you need to? One or the other Wings, one or the other.
34 dennys : Sorry but i hav been hearing about an HGW A333 since 1998 by Airbus . I am a little tired about this aging copy of thé A300 .
35 Post contains images astuteman : I suspect the range increase is quoted for ranges that are beyond maximum payload range...... Airframers do a lot to generate an efficiency improveme
36 LH506 : General Question: Would the following be kind of the most accuarte comparison, even though timewise they are not 100% comparable: 762 vs 312 762ER vs
37 BuyantUkhaa : Interesting that in this thread, the key indicator hasn't been mentioned yet: cost. If for your typical mission one aircraft is cheaper than another
38 Post contains images airbazar : You should rephrase it to, the 77E has been relegated to longer range missions. How many airlines fly TATL with 77E's and how many fly with A333's? H
39 OyKIE : The A332 has an AUX tank. I am sure this would fit inside The A333. However because of its larger size it would propably affect The payload. Not sure
40 kaitak : There was some talk about the RR engines being the only ones that could power the higher gross weight versions of the 333; will this apply in this cas
41 BuyantUkhaa : Apologies: Although... what about the A380? On a CASM-basis that should be the best performer for now, i think. Or is the A330 still better?
42 Stitch : The A330-300's success on sub-10 hour missions does provide validation for what appears to be Boeing's positioning of the 787-9 as the 777-200ER's rep
43 sunrisevalley : Yet I believe I read that the most recently ordered lot for QF will be GE powered . Perhaps someone can confirm that .. Genmuser ?
44 Post contains images Stitch : The CF6 should be able to power it, provided the ambient is nice and cool...
45 Post contains images lightsaber : I wondered about that too... I had falsely assumed that was to be the case. Ok, you two are killing me! With the launch of the A350XWB, any rumors I
46 Post contains images SonomaFlyer : The hysterical ranting of fanbois on both sides of this debate continue to amuse and impress Look at Boeing's order book and you will see virtually al
47 gemuser : Certainly they will be GEs (QF will not change engine types at this late stage!), but I don't know if they will have the weight increase. QF are not
48 Post contains images EPA001 : To each his or her own. The 777 is mighty, but also mighty expensive on the shorter routes, especially compared to the A330. I submit that the A330 t
49 SonomaFlyer : Now that I think about it, most of the TATL routes between Europe and the U.S. would fit the 333 profile. So airports such as ORD, JFK, BOS, EWR, MIA,
50 Stitch : I don't believe GE is planning any improvements for the CF6 unless the USAF puts the KC-30A into production as the replacement for the KC-135 fleet a
51 Post contains links thenoflyzone : I would like to know that answer to this question as well. Also, bearing in mind that the inital A333s started off with a MTOW of around 212-214 t, c
52 thenoflyzone : BTW, who operates the longest route with a A333 ? QF with their SYD-PVG must be a contender, at over 7,800km. Quite an exploit if you ask me, consider
53 airbazar : I think another point not yet made is that the US-Europe market is a lot more fragmented therefore the 77W is too big of a plane for most routes, and
54 dash500 : Air Luxor did some direct Lisboa-Maputo flights (~8400Km) with A330-300 (215t) equipment. Of course they had significant payload limitations.[Edited
55 zeke : Airbus has over the years produced many weight variations of the A330-300, the lightest MTOW on the A330-300 is 184t, with a payload of 44t. Most of
56 Viscount724 : The fact that there have only been 10 777-200ER orders in the last 3 years should be enough evidence. At least two A333 routes are longer than SYD-PV
57 CFBFrame : What I've come to understand is that people will comment about their favorite company when there is nothing they can add about the thread topic. For t
58 zeke : The website information is not correct. The A330-201s that QF operate have a MTOW of 202t (VH-EBA-EBD), as does their A330-203s (VH-EBJ-EBK). The A33
59 BMI727 : For the airlines that bought it, it seems to do a fine job. I've never heard anything bad about it. Just as the 777 is sometimes too much plane compa
60 SonomaFlyer : That's a great point. Another issue is airlines in the U.S. tend to go with frequencies over size of a/c. So UA goes 2x 77E flights on the SFO-LHR ru
61 CXB77L : Ordinarily, I would agree, but this was started as a comparison topic in the first place: I don't agree with that because the 77E and A333 are differ
62 Stitch : I don't see anybody disputing that. But it also does not mean that a 777-200ER is only used for long-range missions. Plenty of customers fly them on
63 zeke : The 777-200ER is the ER version of the 777-200, that aircraft was designed as a medium haul wide body. The improvements to the A330-300 put an end to
64 thegeek : Are we to assume, then, that the latest MTOW increase is accompanied by a 1.2t MZFW increase? Are you sure that chart is for the -300 variant? I'd exp
65 Post contains images lightsaber : That is my understanding too... alas, I'm not aware of the KC-30A moving forward quickly. As you noted, engines and airframes are being bid separatel
66 OyKIE : Thank you for clarifying. I always presumed that the reason the A333 did not have the extra tank was because it would make the cargo space smaller. L
67 ka : ...and in summer 2011 EDW is planning to use their new A333 nonstop HKT-ZRH (5039nm GC). That will be quite a stretch. KA.
68 zeke : Not at all, depends on what the customers want, at the moment there are a number of MZFWs for the 233t MTOW. It is the -200F, the 64t payload gives t
69 thenoflyzone : That can't be legal. When you are writing up papers to start a new route, and declare that the aircraft you will operate has a MTOW of 212 t, but in
70 thenoflyzone : Pretty impressive. With the increase in MTOW to 233 t, the newer A333s have a 5850nm range. Like i was saying, in my opinion, it is even more impress
71 Pihero : It is, and very much so a very common solution to high fees. The idea is to register a new airplane as if it was certified to a much lower weight to
72 zeke : It is perfectly legal, and many airlines do it. QF for example, may have an aircraft which they purchased from Airbus with a MTOW of 233t, however QF
73 lightsaber : I'm still not aware of the engine upgrades moving forward. Until GE does the engine upgrades, the higher MTOW is of less value to their customers due
74 zeke : The TCDS indicates 86°F(30°C), is this in error ? The KC-30A I think have CF6-80E1A4, however some airlines like Qatar have the additional thrust b
75 Pihero : I remember when that airline wanted to re-upgrade their 744 to the manufacturer's specs, as traffic had changed by then, the DGCA asked for 500,000 $
76 sunrisevalley : So is it likely that QF would be using this engine since hot operations are a fact of life for them , especially out of SYD ?
77 trex8 : the only customer for the 238K A332 I am aware of is KE and they have definitely opted for Pratt. Given GE would not offer an engine for the A332F it
78 328JET : Nobody picked up my idea from the second reply. For conservative airlines like Lufthansa or maybe Air France, i could see this new A330-300 version re
79 JoeCanuck : I think the 330 in many forms will sell for some time to come. Its performance will suit many operators and since tooling has long been paid for, Air
80 cloudyapple : That's not your idea. They have been doing it already. Lufthansa, Finnair, Virgin, Cathay, Air China to name a few. All flying A340s and ordering ton
81 328JET : Lufthansa has not replaced a single low weight A343 so far. And none of your mentioned airlines have ordered the new 235tons version up to know. Also
82 AirNZ : But are you then suggesting that airlines fly the 777 on missions which don't need an additional 4000 km of range? Do you honestly think an extra 120
83 Post contains links and images lightsaber : Which thrust? For 68k, sure! For 72k? If we look at MTOW at the extreme at ISA+15 and 8,000ft (yes... very extreme) starting on page 132: MTOW Pratt:
84 Post contains links keesje : The Tech program was also for the -E1. July 14, 2008 Technology programs: GE launched the Tech CF6 program to incorporate advanced technology into th
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...
AirTransat To Launch New YVR-Europe Routes In S09 posted Thu Oct 9 2008 05:11:55 by LIPZ
Airbus To Offer Higher-performance A330-200 posted Tue Sep 9 2008 12:48:07 by A342
UAX To Launch New Seasonal Service posted Sun Aug 19 2007 19:20:31 by UnitedNRT
Mesa Group To Launch New Airline - In China posted Fri Dec 22 2006 06:23:02 by Jimyvr
Iceland Express To Launch 6 New Flights posted Tue Oct 24 2006 10:17:08 by Joost
Airbus To Announce New A340 Deal Soon posted Thu Mar 9 2006 15:43:00 by Flying-Tiger
Airbus To Announce New A380 Customer In Paris posted Mon Jun 13 2005 15:04:06 by Keesje
AW Express To Launch New Daily FAT-LAS posted Wed Apr 7 2004 07:53:31 by Copaair737
Qantas To Launch New Asian Low Cost Carrier posted Tue Apr 6 2004 06:05:48 by Sydscott
Copa To Launch New Route To JFK?.. posted Mon Apr 5 2004 22:54:05 by STT757