mafi29 From Germany, joined Nov 2010, 43 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 628 times:
I'm wondering why Emirates never had the A330-300 in its fleet. As far as I can tell, it would be a great plane for their shorter long haul routes up to 9 hours (all of Europe, intra-Asia (excluding Japan) and most of Africa). At the same size as the A340-300, it could fill the capacity gap between the A330-200 and the 777-300ER while being more efficient than the A343.
By now, I am aware that it doesn't make sense to order it, as they have the A350-900 on order. But 10 years ago?
Let me know your thoughts.
kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11950 posts, RR: 37 Reply 1, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 631 times:
They actually had an order in place at one stage (or possibly an MoU), so it certainly was on the cards at one stage. I certainly agree that it would have been a very good vehicle for them, particularly the later -343X models, which could have served a very wide range from DXB - certainly more efficiently than their older 777s and A340s. They got the A340-300s for a songm which was why they took them on.
Its time, as you indicate, has now past in the EK fleet, and I'm not quite sure why the order was dropped. Possibly because although it was a very good aircraft, Airbus decided that a common 777 fleet and the savings arising from not having another fleet would outweigh the advantages of the A333 (although the fact that they have 332s nixes that a bit!). Also, it has to be said that the 773/77W - being larger than the 333, may have better costs - and EK is very much a volume driven airline.
What´s the use of a 8000NM range plane to fly to NBO, ADD, CAI, KRT, BOM, MCT, DOH, KHI....
I´m sure they could have done a good use of that plane like for example SQ does with a regional configuration, but maybe they decide in favor of the B773ER to maximize cargo uplift as well as more pax should it be needed.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26686 posts, RR: 83 Reply 5, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 633 times:
As clydenairways noted, EK is moving to a minimum fleet size of 300 seats. The A330-200, A340-300 and A340-500 fleets are being phased out due to their smaller size in favor of the A350-900 and the 777-200, 777-200ER and 777-300 fleets will be replaced later with the A350-1000.
For regional missions, EK EK might select the 787-10 as it offers substantial passenger and cargo capacity. Or they may just add more A350-1000s.
I think you're partly right here in that, when they were considering new aircraft at this time it made sense to get ones with longer range which could fulfill a wider range of missions. Then the 77W came along and blew it out the water so some 333s might have been a better choice in hindsight.
ncfc99 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 643 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 631 times:
IIRC, an LoI or MoU for 30 A333' was signed when they purchased their last batch of 32 A380's, but they let the order expire. I remember at the time it was speculated that the 333's where slated to replace the 332's around now, and we are seeing 332's leave the fleet.
I agree it would have been a great frame for EK routes up to 10 hours. Although I believe EK is a well managed airline, I've often wondered why they abuse their high capacity long range frames on routes that need neither, when surely a substantial fleet of 333's and 77W's would offer some worthwhile savings. A fleet of 50 333's and 100 77W's looks to me a good way to go, but I guess that is why I don't work for EK.
ncfc99 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 643 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 632 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 9): Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 8):
I agree it would have been a great frame for EK routes up to 10 hours.
EK has a number of 772s (both non-ER and ER). I don't think it would be logical to operate both the 772 and 772ER plus the A333.
The 772 & 77E fleet number 9 in total, but they do have comonality with the 773's to give a combined fleet of 21 which gives them some ecconomies. However the 333 would do the jobs of the 772 & 77E alot cheaper, they carry alot of redundent weight for the missions flown, so to me, it seems perfectly logical to have a fleet of 50ish 333's for the sub 10 hours flights(which also have comonality with th 332's, so not a new fleet type), and top the rest of the fleet up with 77W's for the longer range flights.
carpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2769 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 629 times:
A lot of airlines east of the UAE constantly abuse A330s, 777s and even 744s on short routes less than four hours.
So what's the point. If capacity requires it, so let it be. Better than the boring march of RJs or 737/A320s.
We have a few of 737/A320s, mostly in the name of LCCs outside of PRC.
For EK, it is about volume. EK is a defacto LCC in economy with its ten-abreast 77Ws on regional flights. They just happen to fly premium passengers and long-haul flying too. EK crunched the numbers and found the A333 just too small. Also, there are very few airlines that fly A330s in nine-abreast. Those that do are mostly charter and LCCs. I am not sure that factors into their decision making but there are a lot more airlines operating ten-abreast 777s these days.