Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
New "Regional" A330 Version In The Works  
User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 641 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 41163 times:

Is this likely to be any more than a de-rated A330?

"Leahy said Airbus was working on a regional version of the A330 designed for shorter trips in high-density markets like Southeast Asia, mirroring plans for a similar regional version for the A350 first reported by Reuters last month.

A decision on whether to develop the new A330 version is expected before the end of the year, Leahy said."

http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/...3-order-target-to-over-1-000-jets/

159 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinehotplane From UK - England, joined Jul 2006, 1058 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 40780 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Similar roll to the A300/A310, presumably?


?
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11691 posts, RR: 33
Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 40709 times:

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Thread starter):
Is this likely to be any more than a de-rated A330?

De-rated engine options are already available, it must be something else.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 40646 times:

Talk about burying the lede. Interesting news. I wonder if this will be a derated version like the A350 regional. I have a hard time seeing how a regional A330 could be more efficient than an A350 on the same route though.

tortugamon


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11691 posts, RR: 33
Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 40446 times:

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Thread starter):
regional version for the A350 first reported by Reuters last month

First? Reuters should better check their facts.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...for-medium-haul-operations-224656/

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 3):
I wonder if this will be a derated version like the A350 regional.

De-rated A330 engine options are already available.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 3):
I have a hard time seeing how a regional A330 could be more efficient than an A350 on the same route though.

It cant't. Besides, the A330 is already optimized for those regional routes. The article says "designed for shorter trips in high-density markets", that sounds more like an A350-800 optimized for 6000nm routes in a high-density configuration. But why calling it a "regional A330"?



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 891 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 40410 times:

This sounds a lot like the now-cancelled 787-3?


Fly Delta Jets
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 40134 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 4):
But why calling it a "regional A330"?

Maybe a smaller wing and removal of fuel tanks. Undo many of the MTOW improvements of the past 15 years... I would think that they could not change the MLG too much because even if it is less weight it will have more cycles. Maybe he was talking about the regional A350 and the reporter got it wrong but it just does not fit.

tortugamon


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10031 posts, RR: 96
Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 40069 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 6):
Maybe a smaller wing and removal of fuel tanks

IMO the smaller wing is what killed the 787-3

Rgds


User currently offlinesolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 852 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 40080 times:

Found this on A´s website:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvaN17HJLSo

Cheers   



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11691 posts, RR: 33
Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 39913 times:

Quoting ghifty (Reply 5):
This sounds a lot like the now-cancelled 787-3?

It sounds more like a new A330 family member.

Quoting solnabo (Reply 8):
Found this on A´s website:

I'm surprised to see how many investments they make annually for the A330 program:



[Edited 2013-07-19 11:06:04]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 39787 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 7):
IMO the smaller wing is what killed the 787-3

Little doubt about it but some Asian customers did want it. It didn't pencil out but it does not mean that there is not a concept there. Anyway, I am grasping at straws because I really do not see how they are going to do this successfully. You have any ideas on how it could work? Wish them luck.

tortugamon


User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2188 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 39111 times:

I don't really see how they could make the wing smaller. Boeing did it with the 783 by removing the raked wingtips and using blended winglets instead. I don't really see Airbus removing the winglets (which wouldn't make a dramtic difference in the wing size anyways) and can't imagine them spending money to give the A330 a new smaller wing; wings are expensive.



[Edited 2013-07-19 13:40:54]

User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1566 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 39069 times:

IMO the 350 has too much structure and to be a good regional aircraft. My impression is that Airbus would be looking at a much shorter range, than would make the 350 clearly the preferred option.

The 330 has grown in MTOW, payload and range over the years.

Airbus could keep all the aerodynamic, engine, software and all the other improvements, but limit range, and remove a lot of weight.

I have not studied the actual figures, but for an existing 330 operator it may be attractive,

Ruscoe


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10031 posts, RR: 96
Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 38979 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 10):
Anyway, I am grasping at straws because I really do not see how they are going to do this successfully. You have any ideas on how it could work? Wish them luck

aside from a paper de-rate? no, I don't really know what they might do.

I can think of some things they could do perhaps, like lightening the wing to take out the "A340 weight" supposedly in there. They could perhaps look at an improved winglet/sharklet.
But they're things that would apply across the range anyway, bringing us back to a paper de-rate.

Rgds

[Edited 2013-07-19 13:58:54]

User currently offline747megatop From United States of America, joined May 2007, 716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 38876 times:

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Thread starter):
"Leahy said Airbus was working on a regional version of the A330 designed for shorter trips in high-density markets like Southeast Asia, mirroring plans for a similar regional version for the A350 first reported by Reuters last month.

If flights lasting between 1.5 hours and 2.5 hours also qualify as "shorter trips" then the Regional version of the A-330 will probably make sense in the high density domestic segments like BOM - DEL; BOM - BLR; DEL - BLR; DEL - MAA and be very successful. Question is how many airlines will in India though will jump at this and opt for lower frequency larger planes (regional A 330) VERSUS higher frequency with smaller planes for these shorter regional/domestic routes.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 38699 times:

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 12):
but limit range, and remove a lot of weight.

How? Where specifically?

Quoting astuteman (Reply 13):
like lightening the wing to take out the "A340 weight" supposedly in there.

I thought they already did that. Guess not, that could be it.

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 14):
f flights lasting between 1.5 hours and 2.5 hours

I think these type of flights would still be cheaper to operate on narrow body aircraft and its not like these routes are heavily slot restricted.

tortugamon


User currently offline747megatop From United States of America, joined May 2007, 716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 38226 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 15):
its not like these routes are heavily slot restricted

According to these, the airports seem to be slot restricted -

1) http://civilaviation.gov.in/cs/group...nts/newsandupdates/moca_001396.pdf (search for "Slot Allocation Policy")

2) http://www.acukwik.com/AirportInfo/VIDP ; in that web page it has -> Slots Required: Yes

Aren't they? And, there is a lot of congestion in BOM; with BOM - DEL figuring in the top 10 or 15 busiest routes in the world. Hence the question.


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1449 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 37813 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 6):
Maybe a smaller wing and removal of fuel tanks. Undo many of the MTOW improvements of the past 15 years... I would think that they could not change the MLG too much because even if it is less weight it will have more cycles. Maybe he was talking about the regional A350 and the reporter got it wrong but it just does not fit.

tortugamon

Maybe a new wing, lighter not smaller. New wing box ( how do you remove the tank without redesigning the wing box ), removal of excessive weight due to common structures with the A 340 like the middle LG bay.

I do not see the sense in making the wing smaller, the next gate size down is code D with 52 m or less and that would be a 8 m reduction in wing span.

[Edited 2013-07-19 14:55:32]

User currently offlineBD338 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 709 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 36911 times:

Now this is the sort of regional jet I could get used to flying on  

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 36802 times:

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 16):
Aren't they? And, there is a lot of congestion in BOM; with BOM - DEL figuring in the top 10 or 15 busiest routes in the world. Hence the question.

Terminal 3 should be able to handle all traffic by itself (let alone the other Domestic terminal) and the three long run ways that allow for simultaneous landings since last year should be enough for an airport that does not handle more passengers than LGW. I thought BOM had an expansion in place that would alleviate the problems in a year or two.

I once took a 747 with about 15 people on board from ATQ to DEL so I know they are open to using widebody aircraft on short domestic roues.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 17):
Maybe a new wing, lighter not smaller. New wing box ( how do you remove the tank without redesigning the wing box ), removal of excessive weight due to common structures with the A 340 like the middle LG bay.

Sounds like an A330X   Expensive.


tortugamon


User currently offlineredzeppelin From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 591 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 36458 times:

Can the A330 be stretched?

Perhaps this is an A330-400, lengthened but without increasing MTOW. Would that be competetive on short intra-asia markets as a 773 replacement?



Flown: DL,OS,NZ,UN,VV,NW,AA,UA,HP,TZ,AS,AF,KL,SK,WS,AZ,OK; op by OO,MQ,XJ,9E,G7,EV,QX,RP
User currently offlineoykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2751 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 35631 times:

Interesting comment from Leahy. Since we Are only speculating at this time, could this be an oportunity for PW to get the GTF on a widebody airplane?  


Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1449 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 35267 times:

Quoting redzeppelin (Reply 20):
Can the A330 be stretched?

Perhaps this is an A330-400, lengthened but without increasing MTOW. Would that be competetive on short intra-asia markets as a 773 replacement?

I thing there are enough frames battling to replace the B 777-300, I was rather thinking about downsizing, A 330-200 size or smaller with a reduced OEF and MTOW.


User currently offlineSelseyBill From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 174 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 34849 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 22):
I was rather thinking about downsizing, A 330-200 size or smaller with a reduced OEF and MTOW

Me too. How about a nice cheap lightened Tianjin built A330-100NEO nicely sitting between the A321 and A358 ?

Could potentially chew away at some B788 business in Asia.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30992 posts, RR: 86
Reply 24, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 34802 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well the 787-10 is going to put some serious hurt on the A330-300, so this could be an attempt to make it more appealing (ala Boeing with the 777X against the A350).

User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21531 posts, RR: 59
Reply 25, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 36023 times:

Quoting BD338 (Reply 18):
Now this is the sort of regional jet I could get used to flying on  

So true. Only been on a few regional widebody flights, but they are fun. MEL-SYD on 767, ZRH-GVA on MD11, ITM-NRT on 744D.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 26, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 35549 times:

Quoting redzeppelin (Reply 20):
Perhaps this is an A330-400, lengthened but without increasing MTOW. Would that be competetive on short intra-asia markets as a 773 replacement?

It would take more than a simple stretch to get into 773 territory.

I don't think Airbus will want to launch something that competes with 359/351. Its under 300 seats that currently needs attention IMO. Next decade, the 300-400 seat market will already have twice as many aircraft as it did last decade.

tortugamon


User currently offlineroseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9642 posts, RR: 52
Reply 27, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days ago) and read 35807 times:

I seem to remember a thread about this right after the 787-10 was launched. Such a plane makes sense since I am sure a few airlines use A330s on short regional routes and don't need the high gross weights. Additionally some systems that are cycle dependent can be strengthened to accommodate the high cycle ratio that typically only narrowbodies need. If it is a small change then I see no reason for airbus to not offer a plane to airlines like CX EL SQ etc


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 891 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days ago) and read 35675 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 9):
It sounds more like a new A330 family member.

Indeed. I meant to put something along the lines of this sounds like what the 787-3 was to the 787 family, but realise that what I put reads considerably different.



Fly Delta Jets
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 29, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 34198 times:

It is an interesting comment by Lehay and quite challangning to ponder what they can do. Looking from the airlines perspective they would like to have:

- better CASM

- less maintenace

- longer frame and engine life


Looking at them in order and trying to do minimal changes (which I am convinced we are talking about for a 330) it could be:

CASM
Pack more pax into the existing frame. The present cabin options are arranged for mid to long haul. A short haul cabin could reduce galley space and increase density to accommodate more pax to come closer to a 787-10. What could be done I leave to the experts......but could ideas be taken from the A320 like spaceflex?

Less maintenace
Very much what Roseflyer discussed, are there systems that could be improved when doing higher cycles so that turnarounds goes faster with less required work and less maintenance actions?

Longer frame and engine life
A short haul version certainly will have a MTOW derate, this should enable higher cycles before checks/rebuilds and also longer fatigue life. Could the FBW software be further tuned for better load alleviation given the shorter hops at lower weights?

I guess there are a number of things one can do before touching things like wings etc that require major re-certification.



Non French in France
User currently offlinepanais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 463 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 32584 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 9):

There is an issue with the investment in the A330 so far and is that it was to make it as attractive to potential B787 customers with more range, higher MTOW, etc. Now, the investment needs to go the other way.
The only way to really go Regional is to take the A300 components such as wings, landing gear, etc and apply them to the A330. But this is a new plane. Unless there is something new in engine performance of the existing engines with a massive weight reduction.


User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 84
Reply 31, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 32080 times:

The word on the street is an A350 regional. Not an A330.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 9):
I'm surprised to see how many investments they make annually for the A330 program:

150 million euros on a 10 billion airplane ain't much.


NS


User currently offlinesassiciai From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2013, 346 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 32058 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 29):
Looking from the airlines perspective they would like to have:

- better CASM

- less maintenace

- longer frame and engine life

I think you are right.

Recently, Airbus delivered to Cebu Pacific its first A330, seating 439 pax in an all-Y 9-across seating. Perhaps this triggered Airbus into thinking about "regional".

I wonder what can be done (if anything is required) to shorten turn-around times, and to speed up boarding of 400+ pax

There are lots of sectors flown by SQ (to name but one of many Asian carriers) using wide-body equipment on sub 3 hour routes. But SQ and 439 pax? Don't think so


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10031 posts, RR: 96
Reply 33, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 31257 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 32):
Recently, Airbus delivered to Cebu Pacific its first A330, seating 439 pax in an all-Y 9-across seating. Perhaps this triggered Airbus into thinking about "regional".

It's interesting to speculate at which point the drive for ever greater numbers of seats in airframes will eventually see 16.5" seats being used in standard airline configuration.
The trend for an ever increasing percentage of 777's to be 10-across 17" seats suggests it might be with us one day...

Rgds


User currently offlinektachiya From Japan, joined Sep 2004, 1794 posts, RR: 2
Reply 34, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 30016 times:

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 14):

If flights lasting between 1.5 hours and 2.5 hours also qualify as "shorter trips" then the Regional version of the A-330

Skymark might want these variants for their domestic A333 which will be delivered early next year!!! Sounds perfect for routings such as HND-FUK or HND-CTS.



Flown on: DC-10-30, B747-200B, B747-300, B747-300SR, B747-400, B747-400D, B767-300, B777-200, B777-200ER, B777-300
User currently offlineAAMDanny From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2008, 357 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 29305 times:

I think it would sell really well for the intra-Asia carriers, and maybe a couple of other hot spots around the world.

cleaver re-configuration of Galleys, Lavatories and 9-abreast seating arrangement can create a lot of extra revenue seats.

I wonder if the Lower Deck Lavatory (LDL) option (which AFAIK has only been taken up by AIH (which then became MYT then to TCX) could help free up some extra space for more seats up on the main deck?


User currently offlineoykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2751 posts, RR: 4
Reply 36, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 29163 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 29):
better CASM

How can an A330 get better CASM that will only benefit regional flights? I remember redning that the Thomas Cook A321 and their A321 offers the same fuelburn pr passenger on trips from Scandinavia to Canary Islands. The A330 entering the A321 territory will need to have a huge improvement me think. At least engines, frame and number of cycles needs to be optimized for short haul.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 31):
The word on the street is an A350 regional. Not an A330.

This would be in line with what have been reported in press earlier. But I see several newspapers are reporting this. Also ATWonline. They usually know the difference between an A330 and A350. Did they misquote Leahy or is he sending this to the rumormill intentionally?

[Edited 2013-07-20 02:53:06]


Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineGeo772 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 519 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 28447 times:

The changes will certainly extend beyond a derate of the engines. The MTOW will be reduced significantly, however the MZFW will stay roughly the same. Enroute charges are based on MTOW so there will be a saving made there.
As far as other modifications I'd expect there to be a simplification of the fuel system and possibly some changes to the wing to compensate for the reduced fuel load (thinking wing load alleviation). The THS tank would almost certainly go with the removal of all the associated pipework and electrics.
The gear might well be slightly strengthened to cope with the higher number of cycles (think 747-400D).
There would most likely be a reduction in water and toilet tank sizes (more weight reduction).
There would be no provision made for crew rest (not required due short sectors).
As previously mentioned a cabin optimised for 9 abreast seating along with a simplified galley architecture.
Modification of the Flight Management and Flight Control systems to be optimised for lower TOW.
And the list could go on...
Obviously these are all hypothetical.



Flown on A300B4/600,A319/20/21,A332/3,A343,B727,B732/3/4/5/6/7/8,B741/2/4,B752/3,B762/3,B772/3,DC10,L1011-200,VC10,MD80,
User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1449 posts, RR: 2
Reply 38, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 28470 times:

The A 330 is a iteration of the A 300/310.

Airbus could go for downsizing, fuselage A 300 size, MLG A 300 size, new wing, derated A 330 engines.
OEW ca. 90 t, MTOW ca 175 t, range ca 5,000 nm.

An A 330-100, perhaps good for 300 sales.

We can talk about low CASM, but I would think about a reduced price of the frame compared to A 330, B 787, A 350.

In this range airlines could look for low investment cost rather than lowest fuel burn


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4768 posts, RR: 14
Reply 39, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 26696 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

IIRC from previous tech threads the center tank is only present on 332 and 340s not the present 333s. Only the 242 ton A333 for delivery in 2015 will have the tank. Not sure how much weight you will save there.

User currently offlineSFOJFK From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 84 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 26710 times:

Would the new AA get some to bring back the old A300 lift to the Caribbean and Central America?

User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1449 posts, RR: 2
Reply 41, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 26493 times:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 39):
IIRC from previous tech threads the center tank is only present on 332 and 340s not the present 333s. Only the 242 ton A333 for delivery in 2015 will have the tank. Not sure how much weight you will save there.

The tank is there on all A 330, it is part of the wing box, it was just not used or enabled for the older A 330-300 as she could not use it anyway due to weight restrictions.

I do not know how much or if there is weight to save with a new wing box and a redesign around it, but an A 330 "light" would neither need the tank nor the space for the extra middle main landing gear of the A 340.


User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 641 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 26435 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 29):
Pack more pax into the existing frame.

There are a few 9Y A330s flying, but seats are tight.

I seem to recall that the Mk 1 A350 concept included thinner sidewalls to make 9Y more comfortable. Similar to what Boeing are doing for their 777X. This may represent "low hanging fruit" for a regional A330 given the short sector lengths envisaged.


User currently offlineCiC From Germany, joined Jun 2010, 53 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 26142 times:

Maybe Lufthansa has some stake in the discussion?

They definitively miss the A300 capacity, even the cramped A321 with the 200seat-config is not enaugh in peak hours on FRA-TXL, FRA-LHR, FRA-HAM, FRA-MUC etc.
And the AB3 was much much more comfortable than the crampy 321...

Maybe they'll be launch customer for a A300-like 330, incl. same cockpit design as the 319/320/321 to have the option Pilots can fly all these types???
Would work!


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10031 posts, RR: 96
Reply 44, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 26235 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting oykie (Reply 36):
How can an A330 get better CASM that will only benefit regional flights?

A 400 - 440 seat 9-abreast A333 would have pretty impressive CASM, plus the ability to reach WAY further than an A321 ever will, even a NEO.

The more I think about it, sculpting the linings like the 777X is going to do for that extra couple of inches that might make the seat width slightly more palatable, reducing galley sizes, removing redundant fuel tanking systems for those shorter ranges, etc would produce a plane with a lot of capacity/revenue generation over sectors up to about 4 500Nm

Limiting it to about 225t MTOW (say) will still give you the current MSP out to 4 000Nm ESAD, and 440 pax capability out to about 5 000Nm, and the neck end of 27t lower MTOW than the 787-9, with at least payload parity, if not advantage, over those ranges.

Throw in a percent or so SFC and percent or so aero (both promised for 2015)
It could work, I guess.
And wouldn't threaten the A350 so much either

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 38):
An A 330-100

I don't see the concept really working well on any other than the A333 to be honest.

I think anything smaller gives up too much capacity advantage relative to say an A321NEO for little gain in CASM

Would be cool to see the concept applied to an A330-400 "simple stretch"  

Rgds


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4768 posts, RR: 14
Reply 45, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 25376 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Per their tech description on their website A offers today 184 or 212 tonne MTOW variants with 164 MZFW and 205/209 MTOW with 172 t MZFW or 217 MTOW with 169/17MZFW

Change the inner cabin walls as some say and reduce galley space and maybe beef up some systems for higher cycles and you are done!


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10031 posts, RR: 96
Reply 46, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 23537 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting trex8 (Reply 45):
Per their tech description on their website A offers today 184 or 212 tonne MTOW variants with 164 MZFW and 205/209 MTOW with 172 t MZFW or 217 MTOW with 169/17MZFW

Change the inner cabin walls as some say and reduce galley space and maybe beef up some systems for higher cycles and you are done!

I still like the idea of an A330 some 1-2 rows longer than the 787-10 but as a simple stretch of the A330-300 - no other change unless it absolutely needs it, besides the simplification of any systems not required for the range it would have, and the cabin wall scalloping we discussed.

I think that would be pretty cool  

Rgds


User currently offlinesomeone83 From Norway, joined Sep 2006, 3388 posts, RR: 3
Reply 47, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 23449 times:

While not impossible, I'm still struggling to se what Airbus can do which is cheap and fast enough to offer enough differencies from the current A330s to offer this as a regional version with low enough cost. As just, just the small incremental MTOW increases takes a few years to implement

User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4768 posts, RR: 14
Reply 48, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 23397 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Would it be more expensive to recertify a simple stretch or a new cabin interior?

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 49, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 23348 times:

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 32):
Recently, Airbus delivered to Cebu Pacific its first A330, seating 439 pax in an all-Y 9-across seating.

ANA puts 335 on their 787-8s but if it was converted to all economy it should easily fit 15 more seats (1 more row of Y and 6 more seats from two rows of converted J with 20" of pitch to spare). Adding 6m to the -9 should get you to approximately 422 seats or 14 seats less than Cebu (I think it had 436 seats not 439?). The 788 max seating is 381 so that would need to change for the 789. The A342/A346 had the lower deck option for lavatories so I see no reason why the A330 could not do the same thing and I suspect the 789 won't go that direction so that could add to the seat advantage. Slimming galleys on the like should be parity. 3%-6% capacity difference with both at 9Y which makes sense as there is only 1m difference in the cabin length.

16.5" seat vs 17.3" but that difference could shrink if they do the sculpting. Boeing says they are getting 4" on the 777X and if Airbus could do something similar that would get them very close to a very respectable 17" seat.

The A330 burns approximately 18% more fuel than the 789 on the same mission. If all of the changes noted in posts above are incorporated how much trip fuel can the A330 be reduced by? There is about $21 Million in list price differences and availability would also give the A330 a real advantage.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 46):
I still like the idea of an A330 some 1-2 rows longer than the 787-10 but as a simple stretch of the A330-300

That would mean that the 789, A359, 787-10, A351, 778, 779 all new frames and all within 20% capacity difference from a hypothetical A334. I personally don't see it even if it would be the best thing for A330 economics.

edit: I recognize that the stated fuel burn difference should be less on the shorter missions that are relevant to this hypothetical regional model.


tortugamon

[Edited 2013-07-20 11:00:21]

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11691 posts, RR: 33
Reply 50, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 22918 times:

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 32):
Recently, Airbus delivered to Cebu Pacific its first A330, seating 439 pax in an all-Y 9-across seating. Perhaps this triggered Airbus into thinking about "regional".

Maybe. Not only Cebu Pacific but also Philippine Airlines is going to install 400+ seats on their new A330s. Skymark will also use the A330 on domestic routes. Such an "regional" jet might work for Asian carriers.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 15):
How? Where specifically?

Removing some fuel tanks for example. Those are heavier than people might think.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 31):
The word on the street is an A350 regional. Not an A330.

I still think Airbus will do something with the A350-800.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 31):
150 million euros on a 10 billion airplane ain't much.

Sure but it's still a large amount of money and they would not spent just because they can.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinesassiciai From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2013, 346 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 22821 times:

It would be useful if we had a more or less common definition of the term "regional". In all the above posts, it seems to be anything out to 4500nm or more, and down to 1.5 - 2.5 hours flying time!

For me, regional is, er, regional - that's not trans-Atlantic, certainly not trans- Pacific, etc. Current regional aircraft tend to be small, single-isle, sub 2000nm. So a big regional should be +/-2000nm, double-isle, +350 seats (to debate!)

Such a plane doesn't need all the infrastructure for 4500nm! Make it a 5 hour (max) plane - that's good for a high %age of routes. Too many aircraft are over-engineered for the jobs they do day in, day out! Rip out all that tankage and weight!

I postulated above as to the requirements for such a regional 400+ seater and asked how its boarding could be accelerated, and if such an A333 with +400 passengers could be turned around in anything close to the LSS's 30 minutes! What are the constraints? What to do to be LCC-compliant with such a plane?


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25332 posts, RR: 22
Reply 52, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 22775 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 50):
Quoting sassiciai (Reply 32):
Recently, Airbus delivered to Cebu Pacific its first A330, seating 439 pax in an all-Y 9-across seating. Perhaps this triggered Airbus into thinking about "regional".

Maybe. Not only Cebu Pacific but also Philippine Airlines is going to install 400+ seats on their new A330s.

Air Inter, the first A330 operator, had 412 seats, 9-abreast, on their A333s, but few of their French domestic routes were as long as 2 hours.


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4397 posts, RR: 2
Reply 53, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 22565 times:

Am I the only one who takes an A332/3 and puts the GENX-2 to its wing - this would make an aircraft that beats the 788/9 on short routes, and clearly misses the long range.

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 54, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day ago) and read 22024 times:

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 51):
Current regional aircraft tend to be small, single-isle, sub 2000nm.

Depends on how you classify regional as you mention. I took it to mean "not intercontinental". It will be difficult for a small wide body to compete with the economics of a single aisle aircraft and a lot of the shorter routes are covered by repositioning larger aircraft. I think the sweet spot is between 3-4,000nm.

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 51):
So a big regional should be /-2000nm, double-isle, 350 seats (to debate!)

It is hard for me to see what you would have to do to a 6,500nm A330 to make it optimized for such a short distance.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 53):
Am I the only one who takes an A332/3 and puts the GENX-2 to its wing - this would make an aircraft that beats the 788/9 on short routes, and clearly misses the long range.

Those engines would add 4,600 lbs just by themselves causing the A330 to lose its advantage of having such light engines. I assume the wing would need to be strengthened as well and the A330 is already (slightly) heavier than the 787 anyway. Definitely not minimal changes as the certification would be substantial as well.. I strongly suspect that the aircraft would not have an advantage on short routes.

The last 8 rows of Air Asia's 9 abreast A330 are actually 7 abreast so redoing the aft body contour potentially could add as much as 16 seats.

tortugamon


User currently offlineflyingclrs727 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 733 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (1 year 2 months 23 hours ago) and read 22000 times:

What if Airbus used the structure of the A300 wing and updated the aerodynamics, but used A330 systems. Wouldn't that result in a smaller, lighter wing?

[Edited 2013-07-20 19:22:03]

User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19708 posts, RR: 58
Reply 56, posted (1 year 2 months 22 hours ago) and read 21887 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 26):
It would take more than a simple stretch to get into 773 territory

The A346 was a 77W competitor. So do an A336. Same fuselage, same wing, one less engine. Would have 4,000 or so NM range and that's all they need.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30992 posts, RR: 86
Reply 57, posted (1 year 2 months 22 hours ago) and read 21826 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

With 8 Type I Exit Doors, the A330-300 is limited to 440 passengers, so Cebu Pacific's configuration is as high as you are going to get (interestingly enough, the Exit Limit per the FAA TCDS is 379). So a stretch A330-400 would have to have overwing exits, which is going to add weight.

As such, I don't see how a 440-seat A330-300 Regional is going to be competitive against a 440-seat 787-10. The 787 has a better wing and better engines and is going to be more comfortable for passengers thanks to a wider seat, better pitch (the 787-10 cabin is longer than the A330-300's) and better cabin environment from the higher humidity and lower cabin pressure (though Airbus could probably retrofit this in).


User currently offlinemigair54 From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 1726 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (1 year 2 months 17 hours ago) and read 21275 times:

To make the plane better for short trips they must increase the MZFW (maximum zero fuel weight) in order to uplift more pay load in short sectors with low fuel uplifts.

Obviously a smaller wing could be a huge advantage if that allows the plane to use a small gate (narrow body size) instead of a widebody one, that was one of the best parts of A300&A310, but I am not sure if that is possible or economically viable and certifications will be an issue.

Another issue must be the life cycles, specially the life of it, widebody planes for short regional hops like the japanese B747 has a special arrangements or conditions for landing gears, pressurization cycles and engine cycles as well, this components were not initially designed for short hops so the life spam was adjusted to the mission they were suppose to perform.

I can see market for this planes, airlines more often they use big planes for high density routes so it could be another life extension for the A330 program life.


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 59, posted (1 year 2 months 17 hours ago) and read 21205 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 44):
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 38):An A 330-100
I don't see the concept really working well on any other than the A333 to be honest.

As the A330 nowadays is a long range plane that offers very good performance, there are two approaches:

- Maximizing capacity as suggested by you. This might work without many changes. Problem: there might be a limited amount of regional trunk routes, that warrant the excessive capacity.

- Stripping off the features, that support the long ranges the A330 has today. This would be mjoelnir's approach. Much more invasive changes, but probably also better market chances. Something like mating A300-sized wings to the A332 (or even A333 to get about 3000nm range). Such an aircraft would easily be the CASM king among all existing aircrafts ever.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10031 posts, RR: 96
Reply 60, posted (1 year 2 months 15 hours ago) and read 20904 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 59):
Something like mating A300-sized wings to the A332 (or even A333 to get about 3000nm range). Such an aircraft would easily be the CASM king among all existing aircrafts ever.

the trouble is that putting a short span wing on the plane will kill the fuel burn, despite the weight savings - one of the lessons from the 787-3 (that and I actually think 3 000Nm "nominal" is actually not enough.
3000Nm at MZFW might work out ok

Quoting Stitch (Reply 57):
The 787 has a better wing

It should be a bit better, but basic physics suggests the difference won't be that great

Quoting Stitch (Reply 57):
and better engines

unquestionably

Quoting Stitch (Reply 57):
and is going to be more comfortable for passengers thanks to a wider seat

who cares?  
Quoting Stitch (Reply 57):
better pitch (the 787-10 cabin is longer than the A330-300's)

hence my suggestion of a plane 1 - 2 m longer than the 787-10

Quoting Stitch (Reply 57):
and better cabin environment from the higher humidity and lower cabin pressure

who cares?  

Rgds


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8375 posts, RR: 10
Reply 61, posted (1 year 2 months 13 hours ago) and read 20434 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 46):
I still like the idea of an A330 some 1-2 rows longer than the 787-10 but as a simple stretch of the A330-300 - no other change unless it absolutely needs it, besides the simplification of any systems not required for the range it would have, and the cabin wall scalloping we discussed.

But how big is the market for a short haul 400+ seat airplane? I can't imagine it being that big.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 57):
As such, I don't see how a 440-seat A330-300 Regional is going to be competitive against a 440-seat 787-10.

About the only advantage is the time to market. I suspect this A330 regional will be available many years ahead of the 787-10, and making money for the airline long before its competitor enters service.


User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2188 posts, RR: 1
Reply 62, posted (1 year 2 months 12 hours ago) and read 20183 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 56):
The A346 was a 77W competitor. So do an A336. Same fuselage, same wing, one less engine. Would have 4,000 or so NM range and that's all they need.

It would also be very heavy and likely need larger more powerful engines.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 60):
hence my suggestion of a plane 1 - 2 m longer than the 787-10

The question is whether Airbus is willing to encroach upon the A350's size. The 787-10 will no doubt likely be a better regional aircraft than the A359, but some airlines will probably still rather pick and 'abuse' the A350 for a variety of reasons. Does Airbus want to divert potential A350 sales to a new A330 variant? Why not spend the money to make the A350 better and more competitive?


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10031 posts, RR: 96
Reply 63, posted (1 year 2 months 12 hours ago) and read 20139 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting airbazar (Reply 61):
But how big is the market for a short haul 400+ seat airplane? I can't imagine it being that big.
Quoting Polot (Reply 62):
The question is whether Airbus is willing to encroach upon the A350's size. The 787-10 will no doubt likely be a better regional aircraft than the A359, but some airlines will probably still rather pick and 'abuse' the A350 for a variety of reasons

don't disagree with either of you. Just speculating on what might be done to support the headline

Rgds


User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2188 posts, RR: 1
Reply 64, posted (1 year 2 months 12 hours ago) and read 20055 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 63):
don't disagree with either of you. Just speculating on what might be done to support the headline

It will probably be additional paper derates and maybe a few minor changes (removing things like the center fuel tank on the A332 etc). All this talk of things such as new wings (and acting like it will debut in a year or two) is just fantasy. That is expensive and Airbus has far more important things to focus on at the moment. Besides, if Airbus was thinking something truly radical you would likely see Leahy make a bigger deal out of it rather than a side comment at the end of a article about Airbus' sales projections.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 65, posted (1 year 2 months 11 hours ago) and read 19832 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 56):
The A346 was a 77W competitor. So do an A336. Same fuselage, same wing, one less engine. Would have 4,000 or so NM range and that's all they need.

Sounds expensive and they would be competing against the 351 which should already mop up the regional routes at that size.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 61):
I suspect this A330 regional will be available many years ahead of the 787-10, and making money for the airline long before its competitor enters service.

The HGW A330 was announced mid 2012 and is due to enter service by mid 2015. If Airbus launches another minimal change version by the end of 2013 EIS could be late 2016 or about 1.5 years ahead of 787-10.

Quoting Polot (Reply 62):
The question is whether Airbus is willing to encroach upon the A350's size.

IMO, they will not. A regional A330 combined with the range of the A350-900 would be great combo.

Quoting Polot (Reply 64):
Besides, if Airbus was thinking something truly radical you would likely see Leahy make a bigger deal out of it rather than a side comment at the end of a article about Airbus' sales projections.

I agree. It probably would have came out when he was talking about the A359 regional or when he was talking down the 781. Solid point.

tortugamon


User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 611 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (1 year 2 months 11 hours ago) and read 19860 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 17):
I do not see the sense in making the wing smaller, the next gate size down is code D with 52 m or less and that would be a 8 m reduction in wing span.

How about JL eating his words and doing the "silly" folding wingtip?   



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8375 posts, RR: 10
Reply 67, posted (1 year 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 19688 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 65):

The HGW A330 was announced mid 2012 and is due to enter service by mid 2015. If Airbus launches another minimal change version by the end of 2013 EIS could be late 2016 or about 1.5 years ahead of 787-10.
[/quote]
Not quite. You're forgetting delivery slots for the 787-10. Boeing is expecting first delivery in mid-2018. With 100+ orders you can't get a 787-10 before 2020. That's a good 3-4 years later than if you were to order this regional A330, assuming EIS in late 2016.


User currently offlineplanewasted From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 522 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (1 year 2 months 9 hours ago) and read 19525 times:

I like the idea of the A330-600.  

[Edited 2013-07-21 09:22:54]

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 69, posted (1 year 2 months 9 hours ago) and read 19366 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 67):
With 100 orders you can't get a 787-10 before 2020.

We will see what happens (way too early to tell) but I am confident you could buy delivery slots for before 2020. They delivered 46 787-8s the year after a very late 2011 EIS and delivered frames to 8 customers. I would suspect approximately ~5/year/customer seems to be the trend.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 67):
You're forgetting delivery slots for the 787-10.

But you weren't referring to delivery slots though, I was responding to this:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 61):
making money for the airline long before its competitor enters service.

Overall, I agree that availability along with lower landing fees would be an advantage.

I think a very high density 789 would be just as relevant as a 78J in the discussion of competition around an A330 regional.

tortugamon


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11691 posts, RR: 33
Reply 70, posted (1 year 2 months 4 hours ago) and read 18757 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 64):
Besides, if Airbus was thinking something truly radical you would likely see Leahy make a bigger deal out of it rather than a side comment at the end of a article about Airbus' sales projections.
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 65):
I agree. It probably would have came out when he was talking about the A359 regional or when he was talking down the 781. Solid point.

The only difference is, the de-rated A350 is available from the beginning while the 'new/upgraded' A330 (or whatever it will be) is pending board approval. Sounds logical to me to not talk too much about it when you're not sure yet if it will be launched.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 65):
A regional A330 combined with the range of the A350-900 would be great combo.

Range of the A359?

[Edited 2013-07-21 14:22:42]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 71, posted (1 year 2 months 4 hours ago) and read 18653 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 70):
Range of the A359?

Not the clearest sentence I have written. I was suggesting that in combination with each other they could sell well. A regional A330 optimizes for short missions and an A350-900 to handle long haul with a couple dozen more passengers.

tortugamon


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30992 posts, RR: 86
Reply 72, posted (1 year 2 months 3 hours ago) and read 18547 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 60):
hence my suggestion of a plane 1 - 2 m longer than the 787-10

That would get you ~57m of cabin length, which is within 2m of the A350-1000. Might as well just buy the A350-1000 and paper derate the MTOW.

Plus it gets you...


Quoting migair54 (Reply 58):
To make the plane better for short trips they must increase the MZFW (maximum zero fuel weight) in order to uplift more pay load in short sectors with low fuel uplifts.

The A350-1000 has an MZFW of 220t compared to 175t for the A330-300. I don't see an A330-400 having an MZFW anywhere close to 220t.



Quoting Stitch (Reply 57):
As such, I don't see how a 440-seat A330-300 Regional is going to be competitive against a 440-seat 787-10.
Quoting airbazar (Reply 61):
About the only advantage is the time to market. I suspect this A330 regional will be available many years ahead of the 787-10, and making money for the airline long before its competitor enters service.

Not too many, perhaps. The 787-10 is due to EIS in 2018 while the 240t/242t A330-300 is due in 2015. Even mild structural updates to the A330-300 would push EIS back a couple of years beyond that and a major stretch would take even longer. So they could arrive pretty much simultaneously.

The only real advantage I see is price - an A330-300 is currently $60 million USD cheaper at list.



Honestly, if you want a heavy-lift short-haul A330-300, buy one today and specify WV024 with the 206t MTOW and 173t MZFW.

And hang Trent 700s off it.  


User currently offlineaviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 620 posts, RR: 8
Reply 73, posted (1 year 2 months 3 hours ago) and read 18494 times:

All right...
Baseline "regional A330" can be A330-200
Go somewhere between 200 and 210t MTOW
Take back the A310 Aft galley with 4 toilets ... and you free some cabin space.
Remove the center wing tank (worth 500 kg at least)
Plug new winglets (with a decrease in wing bending moments)
Remove some weight from the wing

Some stupid question, why not Trent500 under A330 wing ? with a lower MTOW it can be a solution thrust wise. It's the same fan diameter, the same weight, but lower SFC and lowe noise


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 74, posted (1 year 2 months 2 hours ago) and read 18342 times:

Quoting aviaponcho (Reply 73):
Some stupid question, why not Trent500 under A330 wing ?

I like this idea. The 500 is 4-5 years newer with a higher bypass ratio and pressure ratio and nearly identical dimensions. The 700 has a couple improvements from the 1000 that I assume were not made to the 500 but I don't see a reason why they could not be (if RR is up for it aka they can sell enough frames to make them interested). 60klbf could just be enough but I assume it will take more than a reduction in MTOW to make that work even on the A332. I think the goal would have to be to make it work on the A333 though. Interesting idea.

tortugamon


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4768 posts, RR: 14
Reply 75, posted (1 year 2 months 2 hours ago) and read 18254 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Trent 500 only rated to 56k. Thrust though rolls says it was designed for up to 60k. Trent 700 lowest thrust rating is 66k presumably this is the lowest certifiable thrust for single engine out TO. I don't see RR spending more money on the 500. It would be easier for an operator to de rate a 700.

Another thought what about cruise thrust between the two? 500s may be considerably less than a 700.

[Edited 2013-07-21 16:19:15]

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 76, posted (1 year 2 months 2 hours ago) and read 18157 times:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 75):

I could be wrong but I think a 60k version was certified for the A346 HGW.

tortugamon


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4768 posts, RR: 14
Reply 77, posted (1 year 2 months 1 hour ago) and read 18121 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

You are quite right per EASA TcDS it's rated to 61900!
I like this Trent 500 idea!


User currently offlineB747400ERF From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2013, 455 posts, RR: 1
Reply 78, posted (1 year 2 months ago) and read 18083 times:

I don't see how a regional, or domestic A330 would be much different than the regular A330. Take the 747-400D for example, the only difference here is no winglets and I believe less fuel tanks. All so you can cram more seats. Sounds like nothing more than marketing speak where Airbus is trying to attract new buyers for their planes. The 747-400D was not very successful and is out of service now. Is there really a market for this? Besides, western customers have pilot scopes that limit the amount of seats a regional airplane can fly unless they are in the pilot seats. So you now have high cost pilots instead of low balling them with very cheap regional pilots.

[Edited 2013-07-21 18:05:51]

User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19708 posts, RR: 58
Reply 79, posted (1 year 2 months ago) and read 18064 times:

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 78):
I don't see how a regional, or domestic A330 would be much different than the regular A330. Take the 747-400D for example, the only difference here is no winglets and I believe less fuel tanks. All so you can cram more seats. Sounds like nothing more than marketing speak where Airbus is trying to attract new buyers for their planes. The 747-400D was not very successful and is out of service now.

The -400D was mostly a paper de-rate. The winglets were removed because they give most benefit on longer sectors. It didn't sell very many, but it didn't have to because its development was so inexpensive that it probably paid for itself in five frames.

Airbus could do that to the A330. Lop off the winglets and a few meters of wingspan. Leave everything else alone.

But why not do that with the A358 then?


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4768 posts, RR: 14
Reply 80, posted (1 year 2 months ago) and read 18005 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Because the A358 MTOW is higher than the latest A333s you can order today and if the A330 wing is too optimized for long range the A350 is going to be overkill of the highest order?

Does removing the winglets on the A330 actually save you any length on the wingspan? Actually taking off some wing length would seem to be a big hassle certification wise?


User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2188 posts, RR: 1
Reply 81, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 17855 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 79):
Airbus could do that to the A330. Lop off the winglets and a few meters of wingspan. Leave everything else alone.

Hacking off a few meters of wingspan is not an easy task. Boeing didn't do that with the 744D, they just didn't give the wing the wingtip extensions that the other 744s got (so it has the 747 Classic wing). As far as I am aware the A340/A330 wing was designed to be its current size from the start, with no easy extensions that you can just lob off.

[Edited 2013-07-21 19:28:41]

User currently offlinejetsetter1969 From Australia, joined Jul 2013, 49 posts, RR: 0
Reply 82, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 17792 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Would the design and certification of a shortened a330 with a new wing be cost prohibitive?

What would the potential sales be?

Once the a350 is established would they look at a new gen a330 with similar technologies to the a350 which would provide weight and aerodynamic advantages and fill the gap between the a321 and a350 without cannibalising one or the other models?

cheers


User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2188 posts, RR: 1
Reply 83, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 17814 times:

Quoting jetsetter1969 (Reply 82):
Would the design and certification of a shortened a330 with a new wing be cost prohibitive?

When you consider that they also have the A350-1000/-800 and A320Neo to work on, and a regional A330 will likely have its best shot if its EIS is before the 787-10...probably. New wings are not cheap.

Quoting jetsetter1969 (Reply 82):
Once the a350 is established would they look at a new gen a330 with similar technologies to the a350 which would provide weight and aerodynamic advantages and fill the gap between the a321 and a350 without cannibalising one or the other models?

That is basically what the original non XWB A350 was.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 84, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 17564 times:

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 78):
747-400D for example, the only difference here is no winglets and I believe less fuel tanks.

Due to the high cycles the -400D models faces, I believe Boeing reinforced the landing gear to have a higher cycle useful life rather than a life based on flight hours. Also Boeing added windows the entire length of the top deck as the galley was removed making the top deck appear to be much longer than previous models. I believe there were other changes as well but I think with the change to the MTOW and the wingtips, we have the significant ones.

tortugamon


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10031 posts, RR: 96
Reply 85, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 17552 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 72):
That would get you ~57m of cabin length, which is within 2m of the A350-1000. Might as well just buy the A350-1000 and paper derate the MTOW.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 72):
The A350-1000 has an MZFW of 220t compared to 175t for the A330-300. I don't see an A330-400 having an MZFW anywhere close to 220t.

Does it need to though?
What's the OEW of an A350-1000? 155t? 160t?
What's the OEW of an A333? 125t?
What would the OEW of an A334 be? 130t? 135t?
You'll get between 25t and 30t of the difference for free from the lower OEW.
I'm pretty sure Airbus could eke a bit more out of the MZFW to close the rest of the gap.

A 220t MZFW would give that bird an 85t payload   
190t should be plenty

And the only reason to do such an A330-400 is that 30t OEW gap, which it would need in order to make up for the engine SFC difference.

For what it's worth by the way, I'm pretty sure we won't see an A330-400 simple stretch.
it was just a thought  

Rgds


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 829 posts, RR: 0
Reply 86, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 16903 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 57):
As such, I don't see how a 440-seat A330-300 Regional is going to be competitive against a 440-seat 787-10. The 787 has a better wing and better engines and is going to be more comfortable for passengers thanks to a wider seat, better pitch (the 787-10 cabin is longer than the A330-300's) and better cabin environment from the higher humidity and lower cabin pressure (though Airbus could probably retrofit this in).

Isn't the A330 going to be cheaper?


User currently offlineaviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 620 posts, RR: 8
Reply 87, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 16580 times:

Does anybody knows if the CFRP rear bulkhead of the A340-600 had been used on A330E ?

User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8375 posts, RR: 10
Reply 88, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 16404 times:

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 78):
Besides, western customers have pilot scopes that limit the amount of seats a regional airplane can fly unless they are in the pilot seats. So you now have high cost pilots instead of low balling them with very cheap regional pilots.

I don't believe this "regional" A330 is aimed at the "western" airlines. I can't think of any airline in Europe or N.America that would need it, except for charter carriers. At best, a future TATL LCC like FR  
Quoting jetsetter1969 (Reply 82):
Would the design and certification of a shortened a330 with a new wing be cost prohibitive?

A new wing is indeed cost prohibitive but IIRC, the A330 wing has reinforcements that are needed for the A340. With the A340 being phased out, it might be possible to make the wing lighter by taking those out which is a modification that would benefit all A330's. That could very well be the aim of this exercise in order to extend the life of the A330-300.


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 89, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 16381 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 60):
the trouble is that putting a short span wing on the plane will kill the fuel burn, despite the weight savings - one of the lessons from the 787-3

The lesson learnt from the A300 is that a short wing is not the problem.

Assume for a moment the wing, the gear and the engines are tailormade to support just the MTOW needed for regional ranges. In that case you would get a somewhat larger A300 with very compelling economics...

Obviously that aircraft would require 77X-kind of efforts. A big no-go for such an unclear market. But maybe there is an approach, where many A300 components could be reanimated again. E.g. basic wing planform and design, gears...

My proposal would look like that:
- A332 or A333 fuselage, systems.
- A300 wings, gears, wing-body-join, high lift devices, empennage.
- Trent 500 engines.

Of course the name would not have to start with anything like A300-....

There is a tremendous amount of blends possible by making use of A300, A310, A332, A333, A342, A343, A345 or A346 components...


User currently offlineaviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 620 posts, RR: 8
Reply 90, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 16186 times:

Just one remainder

The 787-10 exit limit will be 440 seats if it stays with four doors...the same as A330-300 (and CEBU A330-300 is indeed 436 PAX)
So for all econ layout, additionnal floor space from the 787-10 won't be useful (or to say it in another positive way : can only be useful for Pax Ex)

Hunting google ont he subject I found AIrbus reference LOPA

A330-200 8 abreast High density layout (@31/32 in, 6WC, 21 full trolley, 8 Half trolley) : 343 PAX
A330-200 9 abreast Ultra high density layout (@29/30 in, 7WC, 21 full trolley, 1 Half trolley) : 380 PAX !!!
Sounds crazy !


User currently offlinepanais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 463 posts, RR: 0
Reply 91, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 16130 times:

Nobody gets closer to airlines and their needs than Leahy. If there was a need for a Regional widebody, he would know how it looks like and how it performs. If the market is big, he will offer a new product or a redesigned A330 like the 777-X.
If the market is small he would try and take advantage of the already paid for investment in infrastructure and technology of the A330 by offering a modification for a couple more percentage points of whatever clients are asking for.

IMO there is no market for a new Regional widebody. The need to move people around in Asia, will be served by the likes of the A330, B777 (excl B777-X) for the next 20 years. The more A330s Leahy sells to this segment, the more revenue Airbus gets from spare parts and services.


User currently offlineaviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 620 posts, RR: 8
Reply 92, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 16120 times:

So the A330 regional is already here ?
Any one as some clues on the Cebu's A330 LOPA ?
I've only find that : http://blog.apex.aero/cabin-interior...ensity-configuration-airbus-a330s/
436 PAX @ 9 abreast with @31in pitch ? is that it ?
Thanks


User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2630 posts, RR: 1
Reply 93, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 15919 times:

Quoting Geo772 (Reply 37):
The changes will certainly extend beyond a derate of the engines.[...]
As far as other modifications I'd expect there to be a simplification of the fuel system and possibly some changes to the wing to compensate for the reduced fuel load (thinking wing load alleviation). The THS tank would almost certainly go with the removal of all the associated pipework and electrics.
The gear might well be slightly strengthened to cope with the higher number of cycles (think 747-400D).
There would most likely be a reduction in water and toilet tank sizes (more weight reduction).
There would be no provision made for crew rest (not required due short sectors).
As previously mentioned a cabin optimised for 9 abreast seating along with a simplified galley architecture.
Modification of the Flight Management and Flight Control systems to be optimised for lower TOW.
And the list could go on...

A good list, to which I would add things like reduced oxygen and fire extinction systems, and other things you need for long ETOPS diversions that you wouldn't have to carry to such an extent. I'd give the A330 regional a basic ETOPS capability, just enough for TATL and that's it. You'd need even less ETOPS for intra-Asia.

And while all these improvements will help shed weight and improve CASM, they will also help reduce the price of the airframe - giving it an even larger advantage over the 787 in that aspect. So while it may never compete in fuel consumption, it would certainly compete in much lower financing costs.

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 51):
It would be useful if we had a more or less common definition of the term "regional".

Hard to fix a number, but IMO it should be definitely more than the A300 or 783, which fell too short. 4000nm or so, maybe 5000nm max by trading payload. It should comfortably do TATL to US Midwest or Central Europe, but not full US West Coast or Eastern Europe capability. It should comfortably do all "short" Asian routes with full cargo.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 94, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 15610 times:

Quoting aviaponcho (Reply 90):
So for all econ layout, additionnal floor space from the 787-10 won't be useful (or to say it in another positive way : can only be useful for Pax Ex)

Very true but if we are talking about an A332 or A333 regional then I think its best to compare that to 788 and 789s anyway.

Quoting aviaponcho (Reply 90):
A330-200 8 abreast High density layout (@31/32 in, 6WC, 21 full trolley, 8 Half trolley) : 343 PAX
A330-200 9 abreast Ultra high density layout (@29/30 in, 7WC, 21 full trolley, 1 Half trolley) : 380 PAX !!!

Just for reference: ANA's domestic 788s fit 335 with 4WC in two class: ~350 in one class. At 2.1m longer, at 9 abreast the A332 would indeed have a capacity advantage.

tortugamon


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19708 posts, RR: 58
Reply 95, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 15192 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 81):
Hacking off a few meters of wingspan is not an easy task. Boeing didn't do that with the 744D, they just didn't give the wing the wingtip extensions that the other 744s got (so it has the 747 Classic wing).

You're correct. That's what I meant. The winglets were both a span extension and a winglet. So the 744D had the Classic wing minus the two radio masts at the wingtips.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 84):
Due to the high cycles the -400D models faces, I believe Boeing reinforced the landing gear to have a higher cycle useful life rather than a life based on flight hours. Also Boeing added windows the entire length of the top deck as the galley was removed making the top deck appear to be much longer than previous models. I believe there were other changes as well but I think with the change to the MTOW and the wingtips, we have the significant ones.

I think they did upgrade the gear a bit. Most of the changes were internal configuration, though (like eliminating the upper galley).


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11691 posts, RR: 33
Reply 96, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 15079 times:

Here is some more info:

Quote:
Accordingly, Airbus now is considering a new variant—possibly to operate at a maximum takeoff weight of about 207 metric tons—to provide a “network solution” for operators by providing higher capacity “at their cost base.” Airbus would seek certification at lower weight and engine thrust, thereby generating lower acquisition, engine, maintenance and en route navigation costs, said Leahy.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...-07-22/airbus-maps-out-future-a330

Also from the same article, Airbus will try to bring the 242t aircraft forward, which currently is due for 2015.

[Edited 2013-07-22 14:25:48]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4768 posts, RR: 14
Reply 97, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 14998 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 96):

Here is some more info:

Quote:
Accordingly, Airbus now is considering a new variant—possibly to operate at a maximum takeoff weight of about 207 metric tons—to provide a “network solution” for operators by providing higher capacity “at their cost base.” Airbus would seek certification at lower weight and engine thrust, thereby generating lower acquisition, engine, maintenance and en route navigation costs, said Leahy.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...-07-22/airbus-maps-out-future-a330

Darn, so no Trent 500s!


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 98, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 14951 times:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 97):
207 metric tons


Just a simple derate from the sounds of it which I thought already existed.

tortugamon

[Edited 2013-07-22 14:51:00]

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11691 posts, RR: 33
Reply 99, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 14953 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 98):
I thought they already had a derated 206 metric ton MTOW A333?

http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi...data/AC/Airbus-AC-A330-Apr2013.pdf

Page 50 and 51, there even is a 184t A333. But the article mention weight reductions for the "regional" A330, which means it will have a lower MZFW too. So it's more than just a de-rated A330. I guess this 207t A330 will also see de-rated versions with the same MZFW, so we must see this version as an A330-100 or so.

[Edited 2013-07-22 14:55:55]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4768 posts, RR: 14
Reply 100, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 14930 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 98):
Quoting trex8 (Reply 97):
207 metric tons

I thought they already had a derated 206 metric ton MTOW A333?

per http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi...data/AC/Airbus-AC-A330-Apr2013.pdf
section 2-1-1
A333
WV01 184 MTOW 165 MZFW
WV04 209-215 MTOW 172-165 MZFW
WV14 205 MTOW 172 MZFW
WV24 205MTOW 173 MZFW
WV56 205MTOW 175MZFW

A332
WV55 190MTOW 172 MZFW

maybe they haven't made a lower WV model (01, 04) for years and this would be a "WV56+"


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30992 posts, RR: 86
Reply 101, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 14786 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 72):
Honestly, if you want a heavy-lift short-haul A330-300, buy one today and specify WV024 with the 206t MTOW and 173t MZFW...And hang Trent 700s off it.  
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 96):
Here is some more info:

Called it.  

Seriously, moving from 233t to 235t was said to give the A330-300 an extra 135nm of range with 300 passengers or an increase of 1.4 tons of payload beyond 4200nm. That upgrade - WV054 - has a 2t reduction in MZFW to 173t.

If for this new WV (026?) they keep the MZFW at 173t, the extra 1.5t of MTOW would probably increase the range ~100nm. Not much, but every bit helps since range at MZFW would probably be a fair bit under 3000nm since the 233t model's range at 173t MZFW is ~3500nm.

[Edited 2013-07-22 16:15:20]

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 102, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 14893 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 101):

Yes you did. Wish it was not the boring option but it usually is.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 99):
Quoting trex8 (Reply 100):

Thank you guys

tortugamon


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4768 posts, RR: 14
Reply 103, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 14852 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 101):
Called it.  

Are you sure you aren't related to JL??   


User currently offlineaviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 620 posts, RR: 8
Reply 104, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 14161 times:

So no big news indeed

Did any one knows if MOD48980 FUSELAGE - GENERAL - REAR FUSELAGE INTRODUCE CFRP PRESSURE
BULKHEAD FRAME induce use of a full CFRP bulkhead on A330's? (what' precisely "pressure bulkhead frame ?"

Thanks


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9102 posts, RR: 75
Reply 105, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 13939 times:

Quoting aviaponcho (Reply 104):
Did any one knows if MOD48980 FUSELAGE - GENERAL - REAR FUSELAGE INTRODUCE CFRP PRESSURE
BULKHEAD FRAME induce use of a full CFRP bulkhead on A330's? (what' precisely "pressure bulkhead frame ?"

Yes, a flow on from the A340NG. The main way to tell the difference is the 3 safety valves located on the top of the aft pressure bulkhead, the original one has 2.




We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineaviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 620 posts, RR: 8
Reply 106, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 13864 times:

Fine ! thanks Zeke
A lot of A340NG flow in the A330 indeed !


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 829 posts, RR: 0
Reply 107, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 13820 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 102):
Yes you did. Wish it was not the boring option but it usually is.

Leahy has already pretty well shut the door on any big changes to the A330, everything from now on will just be tweaking different aspects of it's performance. Boring, but it keeps the price down, which will be one of it's advantages.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30992 posts, RR: 86
Reply 108, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 13503 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 107):
Boring, but it keeps the price down, which will be one of it's advantages.

It also requires no changes to the production chain, which maintains availability, which is another one of it's advantages.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11691 posts, RR: 33
Reply 109, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 13408 times:

Here is what Leahy said during the delivery ceremony of the first AA A319:

Quote:
Its a de-rated engine, lower takeoff rate on the airplane, and higher cycles obviously, and its going back full circle to when the airplane began; it was a regional airplane and then we built it up into a different airplane. Now we are bringing it back to a regional version for a lot of people; lower engine thrust, lower engine maintenance costs, lower price, lower take off weight. So it will be a regional airplane.

I think it will be very good for Asia, I think it will be ideal for China. They have a lot of trips of 4 or 5 hours so this is a widebody plane optimized for 4 to 5 hours to really reduce congestion at some of the airports in China and around Asia.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4737 posts, RR: 39
Reply 110, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13013 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 99):
So it's more than just a de-rated A330. I guess this 207t A330 will also see de-rated versions with the same MZFW, so we must see this version as an A330-100 or so.

I like that. The A330-100 describes very well what type of the A330 we might see introduced to the market soon.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 96):
Also from the same article, Airbus will try to bring the 242t aircraft forward, which currently is due for 2015.

So Airbus are working on both sides of the spectrum when it comes to the further development of the A330. What a phenomenal airplane that has become over the years.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 109):
Here is what Leahy said during the delivery ceremony of the first AA A319:

That makes sense to me.  


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11691 posts, RR: 33
Reply 111, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 12945 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 69):
We will see what happens (way too early to tell) but I am confident you could buy delivery slots for before 2020. They delivered 46 787-8s the year after a very late 2011 EIS and delivered frames to 8 customers. I would suspect approximately ~5/year/customer seems to be the trend.

The 787 is sold out until 2018 and the delivery slots in 2019 will be gone soon because more sales will come in. Secondly the 787-10 won't hit full production until mid-2019 or so, I won't be surprised if all those slots will be gone within the next 2 years. The A330 family has the potential to sell until both 787 and A350 backlogs are down to ~ 2 years, but that won't happen before the end of the decade.

[Edited 2013-07-24 14:47:14]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 112, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 12789 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 111):
the 787-10 won't hit full production until mid-2019 or so, I won't be surprised if all those slots will be gone within the next 2 years.

I do not disagree with anything you mentioned. My statement was that you could buy pre-2020 787-10 delivery slots and it sounds like you agree as well.

tortugamon


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 113, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 12075 times:

Aviation Week has an article about the A350/A330 regional being launched to combat the 787-10. A couple highlights:

-Although Airbus has been talking with individual airlines about what it is calling the A350-900 regional, and it says some have firmed up commitments already, it plans to formally offer the aircraft toward the end of this year.

-The -900 regional is going to be structurally identical to the baseline aircraft, but its engines will be derated to 75,000 lb. thrust, the same as those powering the smaller -800. The regional variant will also be limited to a maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of 250 tons, compared to 268 tons for the long-haul version.

-Airbus says the A350-900 regional “proves to be a very strong competitor to the newly launched 787-10,” arguing that it offers the same payload/range characteristics and “comparable economics.” In other words, it is acknowledging that the A350-900 does not.

- It [the A330 regional] will also feature lower engine thrust and “slightly improved aerodynamics,” and will be optimized “to fly four to six hours around the region.”

This is two regional aircraft that Airbus is 'launching' within about 7% seating capacity of each other.

Edit: forgot to post the link:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/AW_07_29_2013_p31-600094.xml&p=2

tortugamon

[Edited 2013-07-26 21:56:27]

User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 114, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 11965 times:

The spec range of a 250t A350-900 should be around 6800nm ie identical to the 787-10 (in it's 323 pax version). They would also be very similar in consumed fuel per transported m2 of cabin. The block fuel consumption would be within a tonne or so of each other with the 350 a tad lower. The 787-10 has a 2 meter longer cabin, it should thus have a slightly lower fuel burn per pax as it could seat something like 2 more rows everything else being equal (toilets, galleys etc). It also has 10% higher LD3 capacity (40 vs 36) and a 3t higher max payload. The 350 would have a wider cabin (18'' seats when 9 abrest) and the potential to go long haul (at a price). Most likely it's engines would be lower on maintenance, the GEnx and T1000 are at their max stretch to haul a full 787-10 off the ground.

The aerodynamic improvements for the 333 regional are probably the improved flap fairings which will also go on the 242t variant, might as well include them when you certify the regional version. The spec range of a 206t 333 is around 3700nm.

[Edited 2013-07-26 23:53:08]


Non French in France
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4768 posts, RR: 14
Reply 115, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 11488 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I know this will vary a lot between airports and routes but does anyone know how much an airline might save by having a MTOW 40K less than another plane? Are we talking landing charges of just low several thousand US$ or could it be 10K plus etc?

User currently offlineB-HOP From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2000, 634 posts, RR: 1
Reply 116, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 11473 times:

What about taking the winglet off, strengthen the landing gear/wing spar, a derate engine from CURRENT engine, reduce fuel capacity and reducing on gallery equipment, give them a 4 hour range and Chinese carrier could put it on Guangzhou-Shanghai/Beijing (around 3 hours), currently, CZ abuse those long haul 330 on trunk domestic routes.

Kev



Live life to max!!!
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11691 posts, RR: 33
Reply 117, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 11218 times:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 115):
I know this will vary a lot between airports and routes but does anyone know how much an airline might save by having a MTOW 40K less than another plane? Are we talking landing charges of just low several thousand US$ or could it be 10K plus etc?

In aviation, several thousand dollars is just lunch money. For that small amount you might buy the 787-10 instead. No, on a yearly basis, it could save an airline anything between 10K and 100K. Just picture it: less landing fees, less engine maintenance cost (not cheap), less downtime because less maintenance (more revenue).



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 118, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 11077 times:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 115):
I know this will vary a lot between airports and routes but does anyone know how much an airline might save by having a MTOW 40K less than another plane? Are we talking landing charges of just low several thousand US$ or could it be 10K plus etc?

My very rough calculation is the following: I think it costs slightly less the $2k to land at JFK with a 767 and slightly less than $3k with a 777 so that is about $1k for 100k in MTOW. Say 40k in MTOW is therefore about $400 in difference and at 2 flights a day its about $800/day and with 350 days +/- a year and you can easily see how this could mean $250k per year of operation.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 114):
The spec range of a 206t 333 is around 3700nm.

Wow, an A330 that may not be able to reliably cross the pond. Interesting. Did you add anything to the OEW? I would have thought they would want to toughen up the MLG due to the increase in cycles. JL did say there would not be structural changes though so maybe they are not planning on making those changes.

Does anyone know if there is a derate option on the 787 yet? I know it is in the cards but I am not sure it has been instituted. I assume ANA's domestic 787s would have been a likely target.

tortugamon


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30992 posts, RR: 86
Reply 119, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 10981 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 118):
I would have thought they would want to toughen up the MLG due to the increase in cycles. JL did say there would not be structural changes though so maybe they are not planning on making those changes.

If Airbus have strengthened the landing gear as they upped the MTOWs, could they not just use the gear designed for the higher TOWs to handle the additional cycle stresses?


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 120, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 10920 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 119):

Very possible. Is there a correlation between compression/tensile strength and metal fatigue? This is not my area of expertise but I would think they would design a MTOW increase to focus on tensile strength and cycles would be based on metal fatigue factors and I am not sure those characteristics are perfectly related. Maybe they are, I really don't know.

tortugamon


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 121, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10759 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 118):
Wow, an A330 that may not be able to reliably cross the pond. Interesting. Did you add anything to the OEW? I would have thought they would want to toughen up the MLG due to the increase in cycles. JL did say there would not be structural changes though so maybe they are not planning on making those changes.

Does anyone know if there is a derate option on the 787 yet? I know it is in the cards but I am not sure it has been instituted. I assume ANA's domestic 787s would have been a likely target.

Well you shave of some 30+ tonnes of fuel, can't have range without fuel  . I did not change the OEW, it was at 125t which is realistic for a modern 333. I would think they can leave the gear as it is, the stresses are lower due to the lower MTOW. The MLW would also be an important parameter for any gear beefing up discussions and we don't know it that changes.

Re the 788, the present engines are available in several different thrust ratings, all the way from 64klbf to 72 klbf. They are all the same engines, just different rating plugs and therefore higher prices and time on wing reductions for the higher thrust variants. I think ANA uses the lower rating plugs for their domestic 788s.



Non French in France
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 122, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10714 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 121):

Thanks ferpe. Smart guy. Appreciate it.

tortugamon


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4768 posts, RR: 14
Reply 123, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 10291 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 114):
The spec range of a 250t A350-900 should be around 6800nm ie identical to the 787-10 (in it's 323 pax version). They would also be very similar in consumed fuel per transported m2 of cabin.

So a regional A359 has as much range as the latest A333 offered!!
Wonder who the carriers are who are interested in the regional version? CX ( or more likely for K A) and some mainland Chinese carriers? Could LH be one too?


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 124, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 10093 times:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 123):
So a regional A359 has as much range as the latest A333 offered!!

I think you miss about 1000nm somewhere, the one which is delivered right now is somewhere around 5800nm spec range and is fuel limited, when you go to the 242t version and order the center fuel tank equipped you get up to some 6100nm or so, the 359R is at 6800.



Non French in France
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4768 posts, RR: 14
Reply 125, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 9707 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 124):
Quoting trex8 (Reply 123):
So a regional A359 has as much range as the latest A333 offered!!

I think you miss about 1000nm somewhere, the one which is delivered right now is somewhere around 5800nm spec range and is fuel limited, when you go to the 242t version and order the center fuel tank equipped you get up to some 6100nm or so, the 359R is at 6800.

Poor choice of words on my part but as you point out the A359regional has far longer legs than most A333s and matching A343s!!


User currently offlineAsiaflyer From Singapore, joined May 2007, 1136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 126, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 9512 times:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 123):
Wonder who the carriers are who are interested in the regional version?


With 70 A350 on order, a part of that future A350 fleet being a derated version should suit SQ well in the same way as the detrated 772's has beens serving them well for intra-asia routes over the past decade.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 113):
-Although Airbus has been talking with individual airlines about what it is calling the A350-900 regional, and it says some have firmed up commitments already, it plans to formally offer the aircraft toward the end of this year.


I am wondering if that was behind SQs latest top up of 30 A350?



SQ,MI,MH,CX,KA,CA,CZ,MU,KE,OZ,QF,NZ,FD,JQ,3K,5J,IT,AI,IC,QR,SK,LF,KL,AF,LH,LX,OS,SR,BA,SN,FR,WF,1I,5T,VZ,VX,AC,NW,UA,US,
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 127, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 9516 times:

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 126):
With 70 A350 on order, a part of that future A350 fleet being a derated version should suit SQ well in the same way as the detrated 772's has beens serving them well for intra-asia routes over the past decade.

This might very well be the case, in such case one can deduce the use from the given MTOW of the variant. It is 6800nm in spec config, that is forgetting a lot of adders for a practical flying regional frame. Typically it can shave another 10-15% of the range of the spec figures as one has to add a real cabin + IFE, real operational items, company reserves, catering, tares for cargo etc. Lets say that the real regional 350-900 with a 350t MTOW would have a practical max range of 5500-6000nm.

Now how far does that take you in the Asian realm?



Non French in France
User currently offlineIndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2979 posts, RR: 0
Reply 128, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 9473 times:

The issue really becomes that these aircraft have a niche role especially when they end their useful life at the carrier and they are looking to possibly sell them.

Carriers have seemed to be inclined to purposely use aircraft that may not be ideal for a route but have other operational benefits in the broader network.

In saying all that, I see a role for the regional variants as they do allow an airline to serve some routes with an aircraft better placed to make a profit, especially for airlines that have a sizeable need for a fleet for these higher capacity, shorter haul missions. It all just depends on how an airline wants to deploy and use its fleet I guess.


User currently onlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4839 posts, RR: 1
Reply 129, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 9329 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 127):
Lets say that the real regional 350-900 with a 350t MTOW would have a practical max range of 5500-6000nm.

Now how far does that take you in the Asian realm?

Say from MNL for a true 5500NM range...very far.....

http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=&R=5500nm%40mnl&MS=wls&MR=1800&MX=720x360&PM=*
http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=&R=5500nm...mnl&MS=wls&MR=1800&MX=720x360&PM=*

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 128):
I see a role for the regional variants as they do allow an airline to serve some routes with an aircraft better placed to make a profit, especially for airlines that have a sizeable need for a fleet for these higher capacity, shorter haul missions.

Agreed...though it may not be "sizeable" for some.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently onlinecerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 729 posts, RR: 0
Reply 130, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 9164 times:

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 126):
I am wondering if that was behind SQs latest top up of 30 A350

Possibly, with the extra 20 options this could mean SQ can eventually simplify its mainline fleet to just two types.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 123):
some mainland Chinese carriers

The big three are still ordering A330s and 77Ws. Not any time soon I think.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 123):
Wonder who the carriers are who are interested in the regional version

Apart from LH that you suggested, I would imagine many Asian including middle eastern carriers (EK, CI, MH for example) as well as BA and VS may also be interested, although not all of them are in great shape financially.


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8375 posts, RR: 10
Reply 131, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 9086 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 127):
Lets say that the real regional 350-900 with a 350t MTOW would have a practical max range of 5500-6000nm.

Now how far does that take you in the Asian realm?

With that kind of range I would be asking which airlines would be interested in the baseline A359, not which airlines are interested in the regional. The only routes it can't fly are TPAC and the ones at the very far edge of most airlines's route network (i.e. FRA-EZE, SIN-LHR, HKG-MAD, etc). Look at a 5000nm range map out of FRA, and only S.America is out.


User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2630 posts, RR: 1
Reply 132, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 8932 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 113):
-The -900 regional is going to be structurally identical to the baseline aircraft, but its engines will be derated to 75,000 lb. thrust, the same as those powering the smaller -800. The regional variant will also be limited to a maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of 250 tons, compared to 268 tons for the long-haul version

So a basic paper derate without any optimization. Seems that Airbus is hesitant to custom-optimize the A350 for shorter missions (see also A358). Honestly I see more potential in an A333regional than an A359regional at this point.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30992 posts, RR: 86
Reply 133, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 8848 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 126):
With 70 A350 on order, a part of that future A350 fleet being a derated version should suit SQ well in the same way as the detrated 772's has beens serving them well for intra-asia routes over the past decade.

Such a scenario does make sense, with Scoot getting the 787-10s.

[Edited 2013-07-29 07:11:56]

User currently offlineytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 2006 posts, RR: 24
Reply 134, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8456 times:

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 14):
If flights lasting between 1.5 hours and 2.5 hours also qualify as "shorter trips" then the Regional version of the A-330 will probably make sense in the high density domestic segments like BOM - DEL; BOM - BLR; DEL - BLR; DEL - MAA and be very successful. Question is how many airlines will in India though will jump at this and opt for lower frequency larger planes (regional A 330) VERSUS higher frequency with smaller planes for these shorter regional/domestic routes.

They don't even all use 739/A321s regularly yet.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11691 posts, RR: 33
Reply 135, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 8015 times:

Singapore Airlines will be the launch customer of the regional version of the A350-900?

http://www.bloga350.blogspot.nl/2013...0r-singapore-airlines-will-be.html



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 641 posts, RR: 0
Reply 136, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7869 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 132):


Seems that Airbus is hesitant to custom-optimize the A350 for shorter missions (see also A358).

Because:

"The variant can be reinstated to full range capability through changes in software and some paperwork (plus a fee to Airbus, as the lighter aircraft has a lower price). That could be an important asset for leasing companies, because it broadens the base of potential customers. It would also offer airlines the flexibility to switch from regional to long-haul flying as their networks evolve"

http://www.bloga350.blogspot.nl/2013...0r-singapore-airlines-will-be.html

[Edited 2013-07-30 01:45:14]

[Edited 2013-07-30 01:46:45]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30992 posts, RR: 86
Reply 137, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 7578 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 135):
Singapore Airlines will be the launch customer of the regional version of the A350-900?

Looks like AsiaFlyer called it.  


User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 84
Reply 138, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 7313 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 113):
-Airbus says the A350-900 regional “proves to be a very strong competitor to the newly launched 787-10,” arguing that it offers the same payload/range characteristics and “comparable economics.” In other words, it is acknowledging that the A350-900 does not.

If its structurally identical then it means that it does.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 124):
I think you miss about 1000nm somewhere, the one which is delivered right now is somewhere around 5800nm spec range and is fuel limited, when you go to the 242t version and order the center fuel tank equipped you get up to some 6100nm or so, the 359R is at 6800.

Lets be careful about calling this the A359R. There is an A350-900R on the roadmap already, and it aint a regional plane.

NS


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11691 posts, RR: 33
Reply 139, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 7295 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 138):
Lets be careful about calling this the A359R. There is an A350-900R on the roadmap already, and it aint a regional plane.

Indeed.

This de-rated A359 won't have a name, it will just be one of the many different MTOW models in the spec sheet.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4397 posts, RR: 2
Reply 140, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 7251 times:

What am I missing, thei thread is about the A330, not the A350...

User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 141, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 6971 times:

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 140):
What am I missing, thei thread is about the A330, not the A350...

I have not followed it all but I also wonder about all the references to the A350. As for the "regional" A330, up to what range would it provide better economics than 787/A350?


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4768 posts, RR: 14
Reply 142, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks ago) and read 6883 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Unless you need something in the next 3-4 years why even bother with a regional A330 if you can get the regional A359? The A359 should be more fuel efficient and actually provide more payload range than even the latest A333.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30992 posts, RR: 86
Reply 143, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks ago) and read 6900 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 140):
What am I missing, thei thread is about the A330, not the A350...
Quoting art (Reply 141):
I have not followed it all but I also wonder about all the references to the A350.

Based on reports quoted up-thread, the "regional" A330 is just a modification to the current WV024 model with a slightly higher MTOW and MZFW. Such a plane, IMO, is not competitive with the 787-10, which will offer significantly better CASM due to both being larger (more seats) and higher levels of technology.

The A350-900 is the only platform Airbus has that can seriously compete with the 787-10 on regional missions and Airbus themselves seem to admit that with JL recently talking the A350-900 up in such a role. Hence the shift in the discussion from the A330 to the A350.


User currently offlinesolarflyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 1086 posts, RR: 3
Reply 144, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6848 times:

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 16):
Aren't they? And, there is a lot of congestion in BOM; with BOM - DEL figuring in the top 10 or 15 busiest routes in the world. Hence the question.

BOM is definitely congested and I've circled just waiting for a slot.

Quoting redzeppelin (Reply 20):

Can the A330 be stretched?

Perhaps this is an A330-400, lengthened but without increasing MTOW. Would that be competetive on short intra-asia markets as a 773 replacement?

I was thinking the same thing. By regional, I figured it would be longer with more people and less gas. Not necessarily all coach but you could in theory stretch it a little and put 340 people in there.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 143):
Based on reports quoted up-thread, the "regional" A330 is just a modification to the current WV024 model with a slightly higher MTOW and MZFW. Such a plane, IMO, is not competitive with the 787-10, which will offer significantly better CASM due to both being larger (more seats) and higher levels of technology.

I think the 787-10 is probably 10 years away before getting into carrier's hands. If they can get this in two years and retain fleet commonality it might win 30 orders. That pays for the mod for sure.


User currently offlineScipio From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 896 posts, RR: 10
Reply 145, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6700 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 143):
Based on reports quoted up-thread, the "regional" A330 is just a modification to the current WV024 model with a slightly higher MTOW and MZFW. Such a plane, IMO, is not competitive with the 787-10, which will offer significantly better CASM due to both being larger (more seats) and higher levels of technology.

In this regard, Air Asia X's CEO Azran Osman-Rani recently made some interesting comments:

- the A330 will remain at the core of Air Asia X's fleet "because of the economics the aircraft provides, which it believes, based on its internal numbers, "trumps" the Boeing 787 in terms of per seat economics."
- based on the current market price of the B787, the A330 gives it "a run for its money, without the reliability issues"
- "the A330 also has a global fleet scale that makes sourcing for parts easier and cheaper"

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ief-details-fleet-strategy-388873/


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11691 posts, RR: 33
Reply 146, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6659 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 143):
Based on reports quoted up-thread, the "regional" A330 is just a modification to the current WV024 model with a slightly higher MTOW and MZFW. Such a plane, IMO, is not competitive with the 787-10, which will offer significantly better CASM due to both being larger (more seats) and higher levels of technology.

It won't, but as solarflyer22 pointed out, the 787-10 won't be in service until 2018, and won't be largely available until 2020. Everyone who needs such an "regional" airplane before that time can buy the A330 instead, and Airbus can keep the assembly line open for just a bit longer.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 147, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 6610 times:

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 144):
I think the 787-10 is probably 10 years away before getting into carrier's hands.

It should be closer to five years.

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 144):
That pays for the mod for sure.

No mod necessary.

tortugamon


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7063 posts, RR: 4
Reply 148, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 6465 times:

A350 with less range....seems that Airbus still has a shot winning LH´s widebody order this fall


It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlinelh526 From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 2369 posts, RR: 14
Reply 149, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 6353 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting columba (Reply 148):

A350 with less range....seems that Airbus still has a shot winning LH´s widebody order this fall

It also has to be llightweight and compact in size (wingspan, etc)



Trittst im Morgenrot daher, seh ich dich im Strahlenmeer ...
User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7063 posts, RR: 4
Reply 150, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6176 times:

Quoting lh526 (Reply 149):
It also has to be llightweight and compact in size (wingspan, etc)

No I meant instead of the 787-10 as an A340-300 replacement. LH complained that the A350 is designed for the Gulf carriers and that LH does not really need the extra range of the A350. Despite being named A350 regio, this version of the A350 will still be a longhaul aircraft being able to fly most of LH transatlantic routes



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8375 posts, RR: 10
Reply 151, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6077 times:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 142):
Unless you need something in the next 3-4 years why even bother with a regional A330 if you can get the regional A359? The A359 should be more fuel efficient and actually provide more payload range than even the latest A333.

Payload and range are irrelevant for most airlines on short/medium haul missions. More fuel efficient? I'm not sure how much more on short/medium haul missions. The regional A359 will be heavier, much more expensive to aquire than a regional A330. The A359 is optimized for long haul so even the regional will be overkill on sub-4,000nm routes. The A333 however was always a regional widebody that was made heavier over time in order to be able to fly long haul missions so it's already inherently optimized for those sub-4,000nm routes, it just has to go through a diet.
The way I see it is like this: If the A333 has managed to stay competitive (still selling), with the 787 for shorter missions, then there's no reason that an improved A333 would be even more competitive with both the A350 and 787.


User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1566 posts, RR: 2
Reply 152, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5978 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 151):
The way I see it is like this: If the A333 has managed to stay competitive (still selling),

I agree with your reasoning but the unknown (to me anyway) is selling price

When better competition arrives the manufacturers use price to continue selling.

Ruscoe


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30992 posts, RR: 86
Reply 153, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5907 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Scipio (Reply 145):
In this regard, Air Asia X's CEO Azran Osman-Rani recently made some interesting comments:..

As Air Asia X flies their A330s with 9-abreast in Economy, I would expect the numbers to be closer to a 9-abreast 787.

For those carriers that operate the A330 in an 8-abreast Economy configuration, comparing that to a 9-abreast 787 configuration should tilt the results more towards the 787.



Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 146):
Everyone who needs such an "regional" airplane before that time can buy the A330 instead, and Airbus can keep the assembly line open for just a bit longer.

True, just as Boeing keeps selling 777-300ERs even though the A350-1000 should club it like a harp seal when it comes to economics. But eventually, the 787-10 will be available with delivery positions close enough to those of an A330-300LGW that airlines will likely be willing to wait a bit longer and pay a fair bit more for the 787 (just as other operators will for the A350-1000).


User currently offlineRubberJungle From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 154, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5743 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 135):
Singapore Airlines will be the launch customer of the regional version of the A350-900?
Quoting Stitch (Reply 137):
Looks like AsiaFlyer called it.


Flightglobal broke the story a week before, on 22 July, although reading it needed a subscription:

Singapore launches lower-weight 'regional' A350



[Edited 2013-07-31 10:17:50]

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11691 posts, RR: 33
Reply 155, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5062 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 147):
It should be closer to five years.

You both are correct, 5 years until EIS but there will only be a handful deliveries in 2018, ramp-up in 2019 but the first 100 delivery slots are sold already and more sales will follow in the coming years. It won't be until 2020-2021 before the 787-10 becomes largely available, and that should give the A330 another 7-8 years to gather new sales.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 153):
But eventually, the 787-10 will be available with delivery positions close enough to those of an A330-300LGW that airlines will likely be willing to wait a bit longer and pay a fair bit more for the 787

I'm sure no one doubts this  



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 156, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4880 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 155):
It won't be until 2020-2021 before the 787-10 becomes largely available, and that should give the A330 another 7-8 years to gather new sales.

I think we have seen sales for the A332 decline partially due to 787-8s coming into the market. I think we will see the same to the A333 when the 787-9 (and A359 for that matter) start becoming more available. I don't think it will take until the 787-10 to enter the market before the A333 sales start slowing down. But I agree that deliveries up to 2020 is very likely.

tortugamon


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11691 posts, RR: 33
Reply 157, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4815 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 156):
I think we have seen sales for the A332 decline partially due to 787-8s coming into the market.

For airlines taking 788s in the coming years yes, but that can't be the main reason because the 788 is sold out for a long period and there are enough other operators who need an airplane in the coming years. The range increase of the A330-300 is the key driver behind the slower A332 sales.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 156):
I think we will see the same to the A333 when the 787-9 (and A359 for that matter) start becoming more available.

The A359 and 787-9 are not really a direct A330-300 replacement; even if they do both too are sold out for a long period. Which brings our back to my original point, which you seems to agree with:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 156):
But I agree that deliveries up to 2020 is very likely.


[Edited 2013-08-04 08:10:24]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKD5MDK From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 337 posts, RR: 0
Reply 158, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4612 times:

If only we had a chart of city-pairs and their passenger demand and distance so we could quickly discuss what markets are between 4000nm and 5000nm and see what difference such a range makes.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30992 posts, RR: 86
Reply 159, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4545 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 156):
I think we have seen sales for the A332 decline partially due to 787-8s coming into the market.

I think it is more due to improvements to the A330-300. As Airbus cranks up the MTOW of the A330-300, it can do more and more of the missions formally only able to be done with the A330-200, but with the CASM advantage of it's greater capacity.



Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 157):
The A359 and 787-9 are not really a direct A330-300 replacement...

They are, however, effective, even "natural", replacements for the A330-300 (and A340-300) just as the 787-8 is a natural replacement for the 767-300ER and 767-400ER and the A350-800 is an effective / natural replacement for the A330-200.

[Edited 2013-08-04 10:27:23]

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...
New 767F Upgrades In The Works posted Fri Mar 2 2007 20:56:58 by Terryb99
New Airline In The Works! posted Sun Feb 25 2007 05:43:17 by Continental123
New Airline In The Works In The UAE 's..! posted Mon Feb 20 2006 09:21:16 by Beaucaire
Any Brand New U.S. Airports In The Works? posted Thu Jun 15 2000 16:58:57 by ZRB2
New Service To BDL In The Near Future? posted Wed May 30 2012 15:55:17 by boeing71234567
New Airlines To YYC In The Near Future? posted Fri Feb 3 2012 00:01:50 by Boeingorbust
Are There Any Domestic A330 Routes In The US? posted Mon Nov 3 2008 19:18:52 by 747400sp
WN Masterplan In The Works? posted Mon May 19 2008 17:02:42 by Surfrider1978
AA + Jet Airways - Something In The Works? posted Fri Nov 16 2007 08:33:03 by AABB777
NWA Is The Largest A330 Operator In The World posted Tue Sep 25 2007 05:26:55 by Nwab787techops