Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A330NEO - Would It Make Sense?  
User currently offlinembj2000 From Germany, joined Dec 2005, 426 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 12940 times:

Maybe this has been discussed before. I think it's common a.net wisdome that Boeing will improve the 777 in order to attack the A350 "from above".
Then in my opinion it would make sense for Airbus to apply similar improvements (just new engines? and small tweaks) to the A330 with the intention to keep in check the 787 "from below".

So to say an A350 Mk1 resurrected... Do you think Airbus is evaluating this option, or is the A330 wing so maxed-out that it could not handle let's say a GEnx engine?


Like most of life's problems, this one can be solved with bending -- Bender Unit 22
89 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinearniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 12874 times:

Not that I'm in any way shape or form an expert but knowing that the wing is also for the 340 I think it would be a fair guess that it has a more than enough strength to be able to deal with heavier and more powerfull engines, also the landing gear doesn't seem to be too much of an issue.
Maybe with some minor mods like newer, wider and more modern wingtips , a lighter hydraulics system ,5000 psi iso 3000, 2 hydraulic circuits iso 3 and EHA's like on the 380 and the use of lighter materials on easy(er) to change places (like the fuselage itself) the A332/3 NG would become a fact and a strong contender in the next 2 decades for the smaller 787 models.

All 100% speculation.



[edit post]
User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1613 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 12834 times:

Quoting arniepie (Reply 1):
Not that I'm in any way shape or form an expert but knowing that the wing is also for the 340 I think it would be a fair guess that it has a more than enough strength to be able to deal with heavier and more powerfull engines,

Nor am I an expert, but IIRC having 4 engines actually has lower strength/load requirements than 2 engines. Apparantly spreading the load means the wing can take a lot more weight. But somebody with actual knowledge of this subject please correct me if I'm wrong.

Quoting mbj2000 (Thread starter):
Do you think Airbus is evaluating this option

I think they evaluated it (I mean, seeing the designs they "evaluated" in the past it's almost a given   ). But seeing as a 330NEO would probably be a direct competitor to some versions of the 350 and the fact that there are quite a few programs (A320NEO, A350, A400M, A388/389(?!)) needing a lot of resources I would make the un-educated guess on the chance of a A330NEO happening at slim to none  

[Edited 2011-04-27 02:28:33]

[Edited 2011-04-27 02:28:44]


Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlinembj2000 From Germany, joined Dec 2005, 426 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 12805 times:

Quoting arniepie (Reply 1):
All 100% speculation.

But a very interesting speculation!  
Would a A330NEO eventually piss off loyal customers (e.g. US) who initially ordered the A350 Mk1?



Like most of life's problems, this one can be solved with bending -- Bender Unit 22
User currently offlinembj2000 From Germany, joined Dec 2005, 426 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 12770 times:

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 3):
But seeing as a 330NEO would probably be a direct competitor to some versions of the 350 and

That's the big question, an A333NEO could come quite close to the A358 (except for range), isn't it...

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 3):
the fact that there are quite a few programs (A320NEO, A350, A400M, A388/389(?!)) needing a lot of resources

If they started the program around 2014-2015, there should be enough resources I guess...



Like most of life's problems, this one can be solved with bending -- Bender Unit 22
User currently offlinearniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 12630 times:

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 2):
Quoting arniepie (Reply 1):
Not that I'm in any way shape or form an expert but knowing that the wing is also for the 340 I think it would be a fair guess that it has a more than enough strength to be able to deal with heavier and more powerfull engines,

Nor am I an expert, but IIRC having 4 engines actually has lower strength/load requirements than 2 engines. Apparantly spreading the load means the wing can take a lot more weight. But somebody with actual knowledge of this subject please correct me if I'm wrong.

Probably true but I was also referring to the acual wheight the wings are certified for , IIRC the 330 MTOW is about 235T while the 340's go up to 276T, maybe it could also mean that the wing is also strong enough to carry heavier, more powerful engines than the 330 currently has.



[edit post]
User currently offlinepanais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 463 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 12615 times:

An A330NEO would not make any sense at all.

A year ago, ...."The A350-800 has got about 1,400nm [2,590km] more range with 30 more passengers, but it's burning less fuel too - over a 4,000nm [7,400km] mission the A350-800 burns around 23% less fuel [per seat] than an A330-200," McConnell says.

Anything below 4,000nm is soon becoming A320NEO domain.


User currently offlinembj2000 From Germany, joined Dec 2005, 426 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 12380 times:

Quoting panais (Reply 6):
A year ago, ...."The A350-800 has got about 1,400nm [2,590km] more range with 30 more passengers, but it's burning less fuel too - over a 4,000nm [7,400km] mission the A350-800 burns around 23% less fuel [per seat] than an A330-200," McConnell says.

Well then imagine your market cannot support those 30 extra passengers and the A332 having the newest engines. That advantage would melt down quite heavily, but maybe that's the reason for Airbus to not offer an A330NEO, too much of a risk for the A358...



Like most of life's problems, this one can be solved with bending -- Bender Unit 22
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4397 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 12320 times:

If you hang the A358 engine below an A333 wing, you get an aircraft that still is heavier, uses more fuel and has less capacity than the A358. Even if you invest billions into the A330 - the A350 will just be the better aircraft - or Airbus has made a very big mistake.

I expect Airbus will hang engines with lower trust=higher BPR below A358 and A359, maybe even shorten its wing and save a pound here and there not needed to create a pair of aircraft fully replacing the A332/A333 range wise - such an aircraft will be cheaper to create than a significant update to the A330, and beat its economy by a large margin.

So unfortunatly my verdict on the A330 is that, as successful as it is, its time is over once A350 production is in full swing and the first 300 needed as urgent A340/772ER replacements are delivered.


User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1613 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 12304 times:

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 8):
So unfortunatly my verdict on the A330 is that, as successful as it is, its time is over once A350 production is in full swing



Although I love the 330, it doesn't strike me as something negative. The 350 will be a great airplane and hopefully a worthy successor to the 330  



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlinembj2000 From Germany, joined Dec 2005, 426 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 12226 times:

What I don't get: is the 777 efficiency wise so much closer to the upper end A350 than the A330 is to the lower end 787? How comes (according to a.net) that Boeing will close the gap easily with the 777NG while the A330 seems to be so far behind?


Like most of life's problems, this one can be solved with bending -- Bender Unit 22
User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 381 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 12014 times:

I would think it would make more sense to adapt the technology and the lessons learned from the A350 program and make a brand new family with a sweet spot a bit below the 330-200 and787-800

The lower end of such a family could be the 797 segment Boeing has bin flirting with


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8379 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 11940 times:

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 8):
I expect Airbus will hang engines with lower trust=higher BPR below A358 and A359, maybe even shorten its wing and save a pound here and there not needed to create a pair of aircraft fully replacing the A332/A333 range wise - such an aircraft will be cheaper to create than a significant update to the A330, and beat its economy by a large margin.

  
I think there's a better chance of us seeing an A350-700 rather than an A330NEO. Especially since the there's such significant gap between A320/1NEO and A358.


User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2752 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 11853 times:

Quoting mbj2000 (Thread starter):
So to say an A350 Mk1 resurrected...

I believe that Airbus could lend much of the A350XWB systems for the A330 that would cover some of the development cost. When the A350XWB enters service I am sure that the A330NEO could be at least as advanced as the A350, but probably cheaper as it could enjoy lessons learned from the A350XWB.

Quoting mbj2000 (Reply 4):
That's the big question, an A333NEO could come quite close to the A358 (except for range), isn't it...

It is already becoming clear that the A358 has a weight penalty since it is basically a shorter A359. The A333 is better optimized in its segment than the A358 is.

Quoting arniepie (Reply 5):
Probably true but I was also referring to the acual wheight the wings are certified for , IIRC the 330 MTOW is about 235T while the 340's go up to 276T, maybe it could also mean that the wing is also strong enough to carry heavier, more powerful engines than the 330 currently has.

One important thing to remember is that the A340 has an extra set of landing gear.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 8):
If you hang the A358 engine below an A333 wing, you get an aircraft that still is heavier, uses more fuel and has less capacity than the A358. Even if you invest billions into the A330 - the A350 will just be the better aircraft - or Airbus has made a very big mistake.

I would believ that the GEnx offered for the 747-8i and a similar bleed air Trent 1000 would be a better option for the A330.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineworldliner From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 275 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 11780 times:

Personally I would think that an A330 NEO is needed as alot of airlines that currently have the 330 will want to be replacing something that has similar size and range but is alot more fuel efficient.
Similar to the 787 which has seen alot of orders because it is replacing a previous product but massively improving it, and making that most efficient and technologically advanced aircraft of the current day.

I think Airbus rushed the A350 a little, I am surprised they have received so many orders. It seems to me that they just threw some figures together maybe becoming over ambitious in an attempt to make an aircraft which can match the 777W in every way.

Back to the A330 NEO, Airbus is making a similar aircraft in the A350, except bulking it up a little, but I think they have left a niche in the market for the 787 the thrive. For example, a lot of carriers in the far east choose the A330 for medium haul flights that require a lighter aircraft that can carry alot of pax. I think this is why Qantas opted for the A330 instead of the T7, because it was more efficient for the domestic and relatively short haul flights they needed the aircraft for.



@777Worldliner
User currently offlineScipio From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 897 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 11773 times:

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 11):
I would think it would make more sense to adapt the technology and the lessons learned from the A350 program and make a brand new family with a sweet spot a bit below the 330-200 and787-800

The lower end of such a family could be the 797 segment Boeing has bin flirting with

  

That would much more effectively squeeze the B787 into a narrow niche (long, thin routes) and indeed provide a possible answer to the 797.

It would also provide much more value added than an A330NEO, for airlines as well as for Airbus. As others have pointed out, the A330 is too close to the A350 in capacity and capabilities to warrant much further investment.

[Edited 2011-04-27 07:21:14]

User currently onlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10036 posts, RR: 96
Reply 16, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 11601 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting airbazar (Reply 12):
I think there's a better chance of us seeing an A350-700 rather than an A330NEO

Agree.
And that approach would have the advantage of a much more standardised production system - something that Airbus leveraged with huge success with the 8-across cross section.

I think the A350 cross section will be the future Airbus widebody staple.

I could be wrong though  

Rgds


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8379 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 11590 times:

Quoting worldliner (Reply 14):
Back to the A330 NEO, Airbus is making a similar aircraft in the A350, except bulking it up a little

The A358 is lighter and consumes less fuel, for about the same amount of seats as an A333. How is that "bulking it up"? As posted above, an A333NEO would still be more expensive to operate than an A358. As far as I can tell, there will be no market for an A330NEO. I do agree however that there will be a huge gap in Airbus' portfolio between the A320/1 and the 758 which is why I'm thinking that a shortened A358 (A357?), put through a weight loss program could have a future.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 18, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 11581 times:

Quoting panais (Reply 6):
A year ago, ...."The A350-800 has got about 1,400nm [2,590km] more range with 30 more passengers, but it's burning less fuel too - over a 4,000nm [7,400km] mission the A350-800 burns around 23% less fuel [per seat] than an A330-200," McConnell says.

Going by the above numbers, and using official Airbus 3 class seats of 253 for A332, would suggest that the trip fuel burn for an A358 will be about 11% lower than that of A332 for a 4,000 nm mission. A332NEO may end up having trip fuel burn parity with A358 for a 4,000 nm mission, but with fewer seats(17 as per official Airbus estimate) and less range/payload.

A332, at list, is $36 million cheaper than A358. A332NEO at $30 million lower( at list) than A358 may be attractive, but a B788 at $185 million(at list) should be even more attractive. It is hard to see a business case for A332NEO.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 8):
I expect Airbus will hang engines with lower trust=higher BPR below A358 and A359, maybe even shorten its wing and save a pound here and there not needed to create a pair of aircraft fully replacing the A332/A333 range wise - such an aircraft will be cheaper to create than a significant update to the A330, and beat its economy by a large margin.

Reducing the wingspan of A358 down to the size of B788 may save around 10,000 lbs, but it is unlikely to make it competitive against B788 for most missions.


User currently offlinezvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 19, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 11449 times:

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 8):
If you hang the A358 engine below an A333 wing, you get an aircraft that still is heavier, uses more fuel and has less capacity than the A358.

 
 

I'm sure you're right. On the other hand, bolting the A350's wing (with Trent XWB engines) onto the A330 fuselage might be more interesting. Obviously, a new wing box, wing-body fairing, and maingear would need to be developed. I expect considerable work would need to be done on the flight control software.


User currently offlinewsp From Germany, joined May 2007, 458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 11373 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 18):
Going by the above numbers, and using official Airbus 3 class seats of 253 for A332, would suggest that the trip fuel burn for an A358 will be about 11% lower than that of A332 for a 4,000 nm mission. A332NEO may end up having trip fuel burn parity with A358 for a 4,000 nm mission, but with fewer seats(17 as per official Airbus estimate) and less range/payload.

A332, at list, is $36 million cheaper than A358. A332NEO at $30 million lower( at list) than A358 may be attractive, but a B788 at $185 million(at list) should be even more attractive. It is hard to see a business case for A332NEO.

What I don't understand here is how Airbus ever sold any A350 Mk1 competing against the specs of the 787, is it all just the soothing voice of John Leahy that sold these copies?


User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 381 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 11325 times:

Quoting zvezda (Reply 19):
I'm sure you're right. On the other hand, bolting the A350's wing (with Trent XWB engines) onto the A330 fuselage might be more interesting. Obviously, a new wing box, wing-body fairing, and maingear would need to be developed. I expect considerable work would need to be done on the flight control software.



You must be joking! That is a way to big wing for the 330.


User currently offlinezvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 22, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 11175 times:

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 21):
You must be joking! That is a way to big wing for the 330.

That depends on what you want to do. An A330-300 with the wing and engines of the A350-800, in an all-premium configuration, would be perfect for routes like LHR-SYD/MEL.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 23, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 10917 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 16):
I think the A350 cross section will be the future Airbus widebody staple.
Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 18):

Reducing the wingspan of A358 down to the size of B788 may save around 10,000 lbs, but it is unlikely to make it competitive against B788 for most missions.

You may well be correct about the fuse standard Astuteman, but as Laxdexi comments you can get some weight down with a smaller wing, but then again, how much of that will be lost with a larger rudder to compensate for what I assume is a shorter fuse? Is it likely that panels can scale down in as much as a shorter version would presumably not need as much strength?

So standardization is all very well, but a double shrink is not likely to be all that easy.

Going the other way, a 330 NEO would still need a new wing not least because the old one is a bit "slow" by recent standards. If it is going to have a 6000nm range, higher cruising speeds start to count. I suspect one mistake Airbus did make at the time of the A330 design was to think that the trend would be to wings of about the "speed" of the A330 and A340 Mark I but clearly the A380 shows (and the A350 will show) they have revised that opinion. There might still be advantage of using the old fuse design with new wings and engines compared with a double shrink even if the double shrink was rewinged. Not unless they can work some magic with the fuse??   


User currently offlinegoblin211 From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 1209 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 10743 times:

As yet another non-expert, in my opinion they'll probably come out with the 330NEO at some point but not unless the demand is fit.


From the airport with love
25 Post contains images astuteman : On the basis that an A330NEO would need significant wing work to get a GEnx sized engine under it, Airbus, in my opinion, are as well to develop a "s
26 zvezda : No. Shrinks need larger, not smaller, tail surfaces. The weight (really mass) factor is negligible compared to the reduced lever effect of a shorter
27 packsonflight : I fail to See what you gain by mating the 330-300 fuse with the 350-800 wing? I would think that the 350-800 would fly further than this proposed bas
28 gigneil : Or the A318. Or the A330-200 vs the original A330-300. NS
29 astuteman : I'm well aware of this. My point was really that a tail designed for a 245t 58m long A350 is unlikely to be larger than a tail made of a potentially
30 Stitch : I don't see the need for an A330NG because the A350 covers that segment of the market quite nicely. The A350-800 offers the same number of rows of sea
31 zvezda : A 58m A350 has just as much potential for MTOW to be increased to 268t as does a 61m A350, just as the A318 has the same MTOW as the A319. Tail surfa
32 brilondon : . Why would they spend money on an aircraft that would most likly rendered obsolete with the introductiion of the A358? Airbus should not waste resou
33 Post contains images astuteman : The whole point of an A350 "lite" is to be, er "lite"? Whatever. Rgds
34 Baroque : I find myself with Z!!!!! Let us take this the other way. If the beloved A389 appears, might it not sport a smaller tail, thus saving a spot of weigh
35 Post contains images astuteman : My understanding is that the moment of the rudder has to compensate for the moment of the asymmetric thrust of one engine in an engine-out situation.
36 zvezda : It's important to keep track of and be clear about which weights you mean. Just as the A318 has a lower MEW and OEW than the A319, but both have the
37 mbj2000 : Weren't improved wings almost ready developed when Airbus decided to do the all new A350XWB? Then they just might pull them out of the drawer...
38 JerseyFlyer : Agreed. The interesting question is what is the appetite for something "lite"? The smaller wing could be attached to a 350-800 sized fuselage (optimi
39 airbazar : The economics would have to beat the 788, but with slightly fewer seats, IMHO. In my view this so called A350 lite would be an aircraft for similar m
40 Wisdom : The A330 NEO can work for the following reasons: 1. The 787 and A350 order books are full through 2020, 2. The A330 would be cheaper to acquire, partl
41 Stitch : And Airbus wants to ensure that the A350 order book remains full past 2020, so they want customers to wait. Depending on how much more fuel the A330
42 flyglobal : But how about a Pratt Option with a GTF, a 'light wing' adopted to a A330NEO small wing'. Then 4 of those engines could fuel an 80m A250XWB -1100. re
43 Wisdom : It's safe to say that in terms of seating capacity, the A330-200 can be compared directly with the B787-8 and the A330-300 with the B787-9/A350-800.
44 Stitch : In the end, I have to go with the airlines, since they're the ones who buy and operate these things. Boeing offered airlines a "767NG" with the 7E7 an
45 airbazar : Those are great facts and I agree entirely but they applied to launching a brand new airplane. Both B and A had to go with what would sell the most r
46 astuteman : Agreed That's a no-brainer. I'd much rather have the industrial process which delivers 200 aircraft of one model range, from one supply process, than
47 Stitch : But it would end up hurting the return on the investment in the 787 and A350. Every 767NG or A330neo that is sold is one less 787 or A350 and both of
48 panais : Same applies for the 767 and the A330 as they are today. Many seem to forget that because of the delays in delivering the 787s and the A350s, there w
49 Wisdom : To produce 200 A350's instead of 100 A350's and 100 A330's, you need to have a vast supply chain that can support such a high rate of production and
50 Burkhard : Come on, we know that those, if at all, 787 delivered this year will have big problems to compete against of the stock A332. An A332 NEO/A350Mk1 coul
51 Post contains images astuteman : ???? The supply chain neccesary to produce 100 A350's and 100 A330's will be every bit as big as the supply chain needed to produce 200 A350's a year
52 Baroque : But how does the full range of A350s rate against the A350 + A330 NEO. ..........................A350 Full range .............A330NEO Wing sets......
53 Wisdom : That is obvious, only that the investment for the A330 supply chain and production line has already been paid for while the additional investment for
54 Post contains images astuteman : The list you quote covers about 5% of the activities at least (well, at most, actually). When you get down to:- The standardisation of countless thou
55 Baroque : All this (and more) is true, but are you not missing out that the A330 line will stay open to produce the A330Fs will it not? So a A330NEO would just
56 Wisdom : The A350-800 has the exact same seating capacity as an A330-300, so it's EXACTLY not, and I quote myself, 2 different markets, eg sweet spots. There
57 Post contains links LAXDESI : In US Airways 2 class long haul configuration, A358 is much closer to A333 than A332 in capacity. Here's what I came up with in another thread: A358
58 Wisdom : Yes essentially an A330 NEO can easily paddle on for as long as the B787 is going. The A330 NEO can easily offset any operating cost advantage the B7
59 panais : What engine should Airbus use? An off the shelf (which one?), a derivative (which one?) or a new engine?
60 Post contains images astuteman : ??? I don't think so. I suspect you'll find the airlines don't either Of course that's true. But I suspect Airbus would want to trend towards a more
61 Post contains images Stitch : Very true, and to add onto your comment, once Boeing and Airbus can start delivering 787s and A350s, why would they want to keep pushing out 767NGs a
62 airbazar : If history repeats we will see an A357 (i.e. A350 lite), no doubt about it. It just makes too much sense not to. A300 -> A310 A320 -> A319 A333
63 Post contains images Stitch : But the A350-800 is the shrink of the A350-900 already. An A350-700 would be the "A318" of the family, and we know how well that worked out. The A310
64 zvezda : This is probably the best point made so far in this thread. Business schools teach that, in the typical case, costs would be about 20% lower. I think
65 Post contains images trex8 : None unless you are EK But I think the shrink, if there is a market, is to get a lower range, smaller member of the family for regional routes rather
66 Post contains links Wisdom : Lower sales prices doesn't necessarily translate into a lower margin for the OEM. As a production process matures, less engineering resources are req
67 panais : Clearly this is not an Airbus problem. Their problem is getting more planes out to airlines. If they have to manage two supplier chains they are not
68 LAXDESI : B788(186 ft.) is nearly 12 feet shorter than A358(198.6 ft), and 7 feet shorter than A332(193 ft). Assuming the same cabin length to total length rati
69 AADC10 : I do not understand why anyone would think that there should be an A330NEO or the similar thread about a re-engined 767. There are clear replacements
70 Post contains images Stitch : EK needs payload over range more than raw range. Even with the payload hit, their 777-300ERs will lift more passengers between DXB and LAX than the 7
71 trex8 : Which most people in the industry seem to say can only come about with a step change in engine efficiency and the engine OEMs feel won't be happening
72 Stitch : There is nothing, absolutely nothing, preventing an A330-300 operator from buying a 787-9 or an A350-800 and certifying it for a much lower MTOW if t
73 Wisdom : I wish it would, however it doesn't work like that in the OEM and maintenance parts industry. If you are a manufacturer of frozen burgers, you can be
74 trex8 : But can the airline really ask for "any" MTOW or are they simply able to ask for a plane built to allow a higher certifiable weight be paper certifie
75 Stitch : The latter, of course, but as we saw with the 787-3, aerodynamics means more than empty weight. Even with 10-15t more empty weight, the 787-8's signi
76 Stitch : Sorry, Wisdom. That last reply came off a lot more snarkier than I should have allowed it to be. As an airliner enthusiast, it would be cool to see a
77 Post contains images astuteman : [ I'm sorry, my friend, but that's BS. There is no manufacturing process in the world where the costs are absolutely linear with scale In just about e
78 LAXDESI : Not that it is ever going to happen, but how would an all composite A332RS(XWB engines) with current dimensions fare against B788? I would expect it
79 Stitch : Considering GE muffed both the GEnx1B and GEnx2B, it stands to reason they would have muffed the GEnx1A, which would have been the exclusive engine fo
80 astuteman : Where did 5% come from? I've not heard of either the GEnx or T1000 missing by that much...... Rgds
81 Stitch : Aviation Week & Space Technology (11 December 2009) noted the baseline Trent 1000 was 4-5% above promised SFC. Package A addressed part of the sho
82 Burkhard : Yes, it is, and the 100 A330 orders will come mainly from existing costumors who want just more of the same. C. Airbus continues to sell the A330 as
83 LAXDESI : Here are some numbers from my updated model comparing A332NEO to B788: For a 5,000 nm trip, B788 burns 16,665 gallons, with cargo capability of nearly
84 Wisdom : I've done the math using the Airbus FCOM flight planning data for the A330 family. If I didn't get it wrong, the A330-200 clocks in at 11 hours , 605
85 LAXDESI : I am assuming both aircraft at MTOW for a 5,000 nm mission. My numbers for A332NEO assume a total payload of 110,000 lbs.(53,130 passengers and 56,87
86 Wisdom : I can run those numbers but my numbers were already at MTOW, (not MZFW, sorry) At 5000nm, the A330's payload is MTOW restricted to around 96.000lbs. M
87 parapente : Clearly if Airbus were considering this route they would not even whisper a word about it to anyone.As stated they are racking up "low hanging fruit"
88 328JET : The question really is: How much lighter than the A358 is a A332NEO? Or will the A358 be lighter?
89 Stitch : That information has not yet been made public, to my knowledge. The Airbus-provided number for the Operational Empty Weight (OEW) of an A330-200 is 1
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...
Would It Make Sense For WN To Move To A At Cle? posted Sat Feb 9 2002 21:53:41 by N766UA
Does It Make Sense To Add A Runway To EWR? posted Thu Aug 3 2006 01:29:01 by JEdward
US To PTY On February, Does It Make Sense? posted Fri Jan 14 2005 15:26:59 by CM767
Would A Fuel-BUYING Cartel Make Sense? posted Mon Jan 21 2008 15:16:08 by EA CO AS
Would A Boeing Y3 With A 'Hump' Make Sense? posted Fri Oct 13 2006 01:55:31 by JAM747
Would EWR(+IAH)-HNL-SYD On CO Make Sense? posted Sat Dec 10 2005 05:13:04 by Ikramerica
It Does Not Make Sense For Airlines To Lose Money posted Fri Mar 18 2005 06:24:08 by Tonytifao
Wouldn't it make more sense for BA to fly DFW - ORD - LHR? posted Fri Feb 20 2004 04:38:07 by ORDnDFW777
Would A CLE-AMS Flight Make Sense? posted Sat Dec 1 2001 04:27:41 by Ahlfors
B767-400F: Would It Be Popular? posted Wed Sep 29 2010 07:01:37 by MadDogJT8D
Would A B6-F9 Merger Make Sense? posted Fri Mar 30 2012 13:43:52 by dlramp4life
Would A Fuel-BUYING Cartel Make Sense? posted Mon Jan 21 2008 15:16:08 by EA CO AS
Would A Boeing Y3 With A 'Hump' Make Sense? posted Fri Oct 13 2006 01:55:31 by JAM747
Would EWR(+IAH)-HNL-SYD On CO Make Sense? posted Sat Dec 10 2005 05:13:04 by Ikramerica
It Does Not Make Sense For Airlines To Lose Money posted Fri Mar 18 2005 06:24:08 by Tonytifao
Wouldn't it make more sense for BA to fly DFW - ORD - LHR? posted Fri Feb 20 2004 04:38:07 by ORDnDFW777
Would A CLE-AMS Flight Make Sense? posted Sat Dec 1 2001 04:27:41 by Ahlfors
Does It Make Sense To Add A Runway To EWR? posted Thu Aug 3 2006 01:29:01 by JEdward
US To PTY On February, Does It Make Sense? posted Fri Jan 14 2005 15:26:59 by CM767
Would A B6-F9 Merger Make Sense? posted Fri Mar 30 2012 13:43:52 by dlramp4life
Would A Fuel-BUYING Cartel Make Sense? posted Mon Jan 21 2008 15:16:08 by EA CO AS
Would A Boeing Y3 With A 'Hump' Make Sense? posted Fri Oct 13 2006 01:55:31 by JAM747
Would EWR(+IAH)-HNL-SYD On CO Make Sense? posted Sat Dec 10 2005 05:13:04 by Ikramerica
It Does Not Make Sense For Airlines To Lose Money posted Fri Mar 18 2005 06:24:08 by Tonytifao
Wouldn't it make more sense for BA to fly DFW - ORD - LHR? posted Fri Feb 20 2004 04:38:07 by ORDnDFW777
Would A CLE-AMS Flight Make Sense? posted Sat Dec 1 2001 04:27:41 by Ahlfors