klm77 From Canada, joined Sep 2009, 170 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 years 8 hours ago) and read 6612 times:
I'm an Airbus A330 fan and I was thinking of how the A333 airframe is identical to the A343 frame (Correct me if I'm wrong). What I wanted to ask is, if it is truly the exact same body, what's the point in owning an A333 when you could just get the A343 and get almost 2000km extra range.
masi1157 From Germany, joined exactly 5 years ago today! , 139 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 7 hours ago) and read 6592 times:
"Airbus fan" sounds suspect to me, but well. I remember when the first A330 was assembled after a couple of A340s, there were lots of failure reports from production because half of the cables and installations were missing. Yes, the original designs were very similar.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 33652 posts, RR: 85
Reply 2, posted (5 years 6 hours ago) and read 6547 times:
Quoting klm77 (Thread starter): What I wanted to ask is, if it is truly the exact same body, what's the point in owning an A333 when you could just get the A343 and get almost 2000km extra range.
The extra engines and such add about five tons to the empty weight of the plane (using Airbus' OEM figures). That extra weight and those extra engines also result in overall higher fuel burn and can result in a lower dispatch reliability (twice as many engines means statistically more chances for things to go wrong). The higher MTOW of the A340-300 increases airport and navigation fees, as well.
So if you don't need the extra range (which is more like 1500nm at MZFW), you can save fuel and and fees without sacrificing passenger or payload capacity.
klm77 From Canada, joined Sep 2009, 170 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 5 hours ago) and read 6504 times:
The weight on the A343 makes sense to be more because of the extra engines and such but I never took into consideration because it is heavier and has a higher MTOW, the taxes would be higher. Thanks for sharing