keesje
Posts: 8754
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Wed Dec 10, 2003 6:15 am

The A330-300 is said to aircraft with the lowest seat/mile costs in its class. Although it has been selling well, the excellent 777-200ER with similar seat capacity but extended range steals away orders from many airlines that want to fly pacific routes and Europe - Far East routes.

The A340-500 can do this job as can the -600, but both are considerably larger and have 4 engines. They are directly competing with the new B777-300ER. Many airlines don´t need /want the 4 engines for all their routes. That´s why the B777-200ER is doing so well.



Specification could match but not exceed the B777-200ER capacity/range ; 300 passengers (3 class), range 14000km, about 4000 km more then the current A330-300 versions.

Modification would include increased fuel, MTOW, landing gear modifications (~A340-500) and significantly increased engine power. Probably no versions of the existing Pratts, CF6 or Trent 700s could do the job.

Versions of the state of the art GP7200 or Trent 900 used on A380 however would exactly meet the 75-80k trust requirements.



Modification to the wing & wingpylon and possibly a little higher landing gear would be required to benefit from the 110+ inch fan / high by-pass ratio efficiency.

Result would be a state of the art twin that can do 300 passenger & 32 LD3 MTOW flights highly efficient & unrestricted from Asia to USA and Europe.

Obviously the question is what would happen to A340-300 sales. This versions sales would probably suffer. But Airbus won´t mind since all frames come from the same production lines. If its a variant that sells better, they won´t object.

Goal would be to snoop off e.g. 20-30% of the B777-200ER sales. That would easily justify the investments.

Strategically : even if Airbus takes it´s time a A330-300ER could still fly a few years before a possible Boeing 7E7 stretch variant (2010-11). Not much new technology would be involved, a bit the existing types combined.

Basically it is the same process as Boeing went through with B777-300 > B777-300ER and is planning with the B737-900 > B737-900ERX...
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
FoxBravo
Posts: 2769
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 1:34 pm

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Wed Dec 10, 2003 6:19 am

Interesting idea. Of course it would undermine Airbus's whole marketing bit about the superiority of 4 engines. But if it would make money, I'm sure they'd come up with a new ad campaign in a heartbeat...and besides, it hasn't stopped them from selling the A330-200.
Common sense is not so common. -Voltaire
 
mikkel777
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 1:15 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Wed Dec 10, 2003 6:30 am

When did A333 and 772ER get similar seating capacity?
This is a clear indication from Airbus that they realize that in most cases 2 engines do better than 4, and this new 333ER would knock out the 343 hands down  Smile

[Edited 2003-12-09 22:47:56]
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Wed Dec 10, 2003 6:40 am

This is a clear indication from Airbus realizes that in most cases 2 engines do better than 4

Bingo!

***********
Something I've always wondered is:

The A340 was designed to share a common wing with the A330. As the A340NG have strengthened/redesigned wings for holding up non-hairdryer engines.... could the A330 use them as well?

Be an easy way to create an A330-600, thereby attacking the 777 family on both the twin and quad fronts
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
codeshare
Posts: 1689
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2002 2:23 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Wed Dec 10, 2003 6:57 am

Interesting indeed. Right you are, ConcordeBoy. They could also do well with an A330-200ER directly competing with 7E7's range.

Well 2 engines over land is ok. So you don't need 4.
But compare 2 engines and 4 engines over sea. And 4 is still better.
How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?
 
Leskova
Posts: 5547
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:39 pm

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Wed Dec 10, 2003 6:59 am

Now if we could only convince Airbus to build the damn thing...
Smile - it confuses people!
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Wed Dec 10, 2003 7:02 am

The aircraft you're describing is the A340-300 in Airbus' lineup.

The Trent 900 and GP7200 are too physically large to fit under the wings of such an A330, although a Trent 700

This also isn't an indication of anything. This is a speculative topic. Airbus, and many customers, like four engines.

I don't disagree that an A330-600 would be an awesome addition. It'd probably be of limited range compared to the A340-600 for transatlantic and regional hops, but so be it.

The A340 was designed to share a common wing with the A330. As the A340NG have strengthened/redesigned wings for holding up non-hairdryer engines.... could the A330 use them as well?

I don't see why not, the problem is hanging an engine under the wing that's powerful enough to move all that aircraft.

I dunno about the Trent 772, but I think the CF6-80E and the PW4168A are tapped out. There were plans for a PW4173 but still you'd need a bit more I'd think.

N

[Edited 2003-12-09 23:09:01]
 
Adria
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 7:53 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Wed Dec 10, 2003 7:41 am

For the very ultra long range flights the 4-engined A343 has an advantage over the 772. But if you compare the 772 sales to the A330/340 they are almost the same. So there is no real need for airbus to built the A330-300ER. The A330 is for medium and the A340 for long haul flights. Boeing covers these to segments with the 772 only. That 4 engines are better then two on ultra long haul flights is obvious just look at the A345 and A346 order book and compare it to the B773ER and 772LR.
 
Spaceman
Posts: 525
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2000 3:28 pm

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Wed Dec 10, 2003 7:47 am

I hardly see the point to reply to this thread, as it is nothing but pure speculation, but I hardly doubt that airbus would come up with something that will compete with its own A340 line. What airbus need is to improve the performance of the A343 to have it competetive, not another aircraft that will eat into its sales.
 
dw747400
Posts: 1091
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Wed Dec 10, 2003 7:53 am

The A340 was designed to share a common wing with the A330. As the A340NG have strengthened/redesigned wings for holding up non-hairdryer engines.... could the A330 use them as well?

The A340-500 and -600 wing is designed specifically for those aircraft, unlike the more general wing on the original 330/340. It could be modified to hold two engines instead of four, but it would be a lot more complicated than the relationship between the two and four engine versions of the original wing.
CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Wed Dec 10, 2003 8:02 am

For the very ultra long range flights the 4-engined A343 has an advantage over the 772.

um, how exactly do you come to that conclusion... particularly since the 772ER has longer range, higher payload ability, faster climb, and faster fuel?


But if you compare the 772 sales to the A330/340 they are almost the same

Take out the A332, which doesnt evenly compete with any 777 version... then what do you see?  Big grin


That 4 engines are better then two on ultra long haul flights is obvious just look at the A345 and A346 order book and compare it to the B773ER and 772LR.

Yes, look at them:

The A345 has only managed to secure a single new customer since the 772LR was launched.

The 773ER is almost neck-and-neck, in terms of orders, with the A346... a plane which has been for sale twice as long as the 773ER has.

...oh well, there goes your theory  Laugh out loud
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
Marcus
Posts: 1666
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2001 5:08 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Wed Dec 10, 2003 8:57 am

Maybe we could also use development costs when doing the comparisons between the A330/340 and the B777......the way those costs are being amortized (sp?) and if there is technology trasnfered to other production lines.
Kids!....we are going to the happiest place on earth...TIJUANA! signed: Krusty the Clown
 
rjpieces
Posts: 6849
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:58 am

EK 345

Wed Dec 10, 2003 9:07 am

But.....When the 7E7 stretch DOES come out it will still be 20% more efficient than a modified A330. Airbus can't match that efficiency gain with a modified 330.
"Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon"
 
762er
Posts: 522
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2001 8:18 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Wed Dec 10, 2003 9:14 am

I don't think people give the A330-300X variant enough credit. It has a significantly increased gross weight over the orignial 333 and has proven to be very efficient accross the pond, carrying huge loads of cargo as well as pax. Air Canada recently inaugurated 333X service on their CDG-YVR route. At just about 5,000 miles and often taking 11 hours of flying on the west bound leg, this has seemed to be no problem for her. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Wed Dec 10, 2003 9:15 am

Heh except that Airbus has piled up, what, 25ish more orders for the 346 this year?

Your numbers are a bit stale PunkyBoy.

N
 
762er
Posts: 522
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2001 8:18 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Wed Dec 10, 2003 9:20 am

Correction, make that YVR-LHR. Still a good ways.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Wed Dec 10, 2003 9:24 am

YVR-LHR is a very respectable distance, as is DTW-FCO, PHL-FCO, and SEA-AMS.

The 333X is a versatile plane... and it was never intended to compete in the market of the 772ER but rather the 772A - a job it does handily I might add.

N

[Edited 2003-12-10 01:24:55]
 
Leskova
Posts: 5547
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:39 pm

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Wed Dec 10, 2003 3:48 pm

ConcordeBoy, there is one point in your last post I don't quite get -

the 772ER has ... and faster fuel?
What are you trying to say? The 772 uses more fuel and that's an advantage? The 772 can pump fuel from one tank to another faster than an A330?

Take out the A332, which doesnt evenly compete with any 777 version... then what do you see?
Have you finally found a place where you can get the A330 orders split up between the -200 and -300? Out of interest - how many of each version were sold?

Thanks in advance for clarifying these two points...  Big grin
Smile - it confuses people!
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Wed Dec 10, 2003 4:28 pm

should read: faster cruise



..and no! Lord, you'd think it wouldn't be that difficult. No wonder Airbus has such a reputation as a shady operation  Big grin
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Wed Dec 10, 2003 4:33 pm

Hahahah whatEVER. Just because Airbus doesn't make every detail available to every crackhead enthusiast in pretty block numbers.

He knows full well how to figure out how many have been sold, he'd just rather be ornery.

N
 
keesje
Posts: 8754
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Wed Dec 10, 2003 5:18 pm

This is a clear indication from Airbus realizes that in most cases 2 engines do better than 4

Bingo!


Please correct me, wasn't it Airbus that pioneered Twin Engine wide body's of the pond in the Seventy's ? Does the concept A300 ring any bells ?

As stated in the original post : "Many airlines don´t need / want the 4 engines for all their routes."

But I don't see many twins doing US-Australia/NZ. A smart mix of 330/340's as used by SQ, CX, SAS, AF and LH seems to take the best of both worlds.

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Wed Dec 10, 2003 5:27 pm

Please correct me, wasn't it Airbus that pioneered Twin Engine wide body's of the pond in the Seventy's ?

Allow me to correct you...... no!  Laugh out loud


But I don't see many twins doing US-Australia/NZ.

You prolly missed UA's LAX-AKL?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Matthew Willmott-Sharp
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Matthew Willmott-Sharp







[Edited 2003-12-10 09:31:08]
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
ei a330-200
Posts: 336
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2001 8:22 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Wed Dec 10, 2003 6:08 pm

Concorde Boy,

If you read what he said, it was "You don't see MANY twins US-Aus/NZ. You are correct, there are a few. But the vast majority of crossings are done by Quads. Just to be gramatically correct and all.

Brian
Aer Lingus Rules!
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Wed Dec 10, 2003 8:36 pm

Allow me to correct you...... no!

Um, Airbus did definitely pioneer the widebody twin, in case you were absent that day from school.

The 767 may have been the first to have transatlantic range, but A300s crossed by way of Gander and Reykjavic until the A310 became available.

N
 
Leskova
Posts: 5547
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:39 pm

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Wed Dec 10, 2003 9:02 pm

According to Airbus, the A330 orders/deliveries look like this:
A330 ordered: 467
A330 delivered: 279

According to http://www.speednews.com/lists/AirbusA330.html, the A330-200 looks like this:
A330-200 ordered: 188
A330-200 delivered: 43

Which results in about the following numbers for the A330-300:
A330-300 ordered: 279
A330-300 delivered: 236


This list is slightly "off", because Airbus has the numbers per 30 November on their website, while the speednews-website is still stuck in August - so the actual numbers between the -200 and -300 will most likely look a bit different: but this is at least somewhat of an approximation...
Smile - it confuses people!
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3223
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Wed Dec 10, 2003 9:11 pm

Why do we always have to turn this into a petulant pissing competition?

Concerned
MH
come visit the south pacific
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Wed Dec 10, 2003 9:15 pm


...get the A330 orders split up between the -200 and -300? Out of interest - how many of each version were sold?


Don't have the time to check the actual numbers, but roughly ~200 333s, ~250 332s, ~30 342s, ~200 343s, ~100 345/6s.

Since 772 launch: < 100 333s, ~150 343s vs. <100 772A and ~400 772ER.

Since 772LR/3ER launch: ~40 345/6s vs. ~70 772LR/3ER.


Um, Airbus did definitely pioneer the widebody twin


I'm not sure what exactly KEESJE meant when he said:


Airbus that pioneered Twin Engine wide body's of the pond


But the mentioning of the word "pond" would suggest that he meant trans Atlantic. Then I think ConcordeBoy's answer was correct.
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8005
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Wed Dec 10, 2003 11:48 pm

I wonder why Airbus is again looking at a higher gross weight (HGW) version of the A330-300. They actually studied that some years ago but decided against it for cutting into A340-300 sales, and also the fact the HGW A333 would have required the center wheel bogie from the A340, which imposes fairly substantial pax/cargo load penalties.

But here's the question: are there any airlines interested in such a plane now? I don't think airlines want a plane with A340-300 seating capacity with a range of around 6,200 nautical miles when they could get one with the range of around 7,300 nautical miles with the A343.
 
User avatar
ATA L1011
Posts: 1275
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 6:47 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Thu Dec 11, 2003 12:20 am

I think if they do this and it has similiar range to the 340 it could mean an eventual end to the 340, 2 engines are much easier adn less maintenance than 4!
Treat others as you expect to be treated!
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Thu Dec 11, 2003 6:30 am

Um, Airbus did definitely pioneer the widebody twin, in case you were absent that day from school.

I wasnt...

....the question at hand, had you paid closer attention dear Giggy, was whom pioneered the widebody twin over "the pond"  Big grin


Why do we always have to turn this into a petulant pissing competition?

uh, because there exists a legion of posters who enjoy doing it... otherwise it wouldn't happen every 3.018 seconds  Laugh out loud



[Edited 2003-12-10 22:35:55]
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Thu Dec 11, 2003 6:40 am

I wonder why Airbus is again looking at a higher gross weight (HGW) version of the A330-300.

They aren't. This thread is total mental masturbation.

Why do we always have to turn this into a petulant pissing competition?

Because otherwise people like ConcordeGirl will end up with a head the size of a moon or other small planetary body, and we can't have that can we?

N
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Thu Dec 11, 2003 6:49 am

Are you attempting to imply that the world doesn't revolve around me as it is?!  Wow!
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Thu Dec 11, 2003 6:52 am

Hmm... while it seems like Boeing has completely run away with the 300 seater market, apparently Boeing and Airbus are absolutely neck-n'-neck. Who knew?  Nuts



A330 - 279 (A333)
A340 - 347 (A342* + A343* + A345 + A346 + custom)
__________
Total - 626


777 - 622 (772A + 772ER + 772LR + 773A + 773ER + custom)
__________
Total - 622


*all variants



[Edited 2003-12-10 23:17:26]
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Thu Dec 11, 2003 7:00 am

Heh apparently everybody but you.  Laugh out loud

N
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Thu Dec 11, 2003 7:18 am

touche'!  Innocent
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
Leskova
Posts: 5547
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:39 pm

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Thu Dec 11, 2003 7:31 am

I was actually a bit surprised that the -300 still has a lead of 90 orders over the -200 - somehow I was expecting a much closer picture, or even the -200 to be ahead...
Smile - it confuses people!
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Thu Dec 11, 2003 7:41 am

Keep in mind that the A333 has been available almost twice as long as the A332... and has experienced a good number of orders from major airlines even in the recent depressed-market years.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Thu Dec 11, 2003 10:30 am

Leskova's 332/333 numbers are incorrect. For example, he apparently included all ILFC's 40 330s on order as 333s. The fact is most of ILFC's 330 orders are 332s. The breakdowns are approximately 200 for the 333 and 270 for the 332. So the 333/343/345/346 vs all 777 variants comparison is roughly 550 vs 620. Before the 777 was launched, Airbus had close to 200 333/342/343s on order. So the post-777-launch, head-to-head competition is roughly 370 vs 620, excluding the 342 from the comparison.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Thu Dec 11, 2003 11:48 am

I think Conky's numbers are from a different source.

N
 
Leskova
Posts: 5547
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:39 pm

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Thu Dec 11, 2003 3:57 pm

Dynkrisolo, have a look at the link I included - I took that into Excel and used the "AutoFilter"-Function to only have the -200s or -300s displayed - there are some, including the 14 330s for CIT, 11 for GECAS and 40 for ILFC that are not identified by version numbers - these were NOT INCLUDED AT ALL in the numbers that I posted...

That makes a total of 10 aircraft already delivered and 89 aircraft ordered - so if all of these 99 aircraft are 332s then the 332 would indeed have an 8 aircraft lead over the 333... somewhat away from the 70 aircraft that you've listed...

And, after all - that is also why I wrote "This list is slightly 'off'" and "so the actual numbers between the -200 and -300 will most likely look a bit different" - I know I only mentioned the different dates of last updates on both websites... but is it really necessary to put a long disclaimer in posts like this now???  Sad
Smile - it confuses people!
 
MAS777
Posts: 2757
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 1999 7:40 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Thu Dec 11, 2003 11:38 pm

Well Malaysia Airlines operated the A330 to Madrid from Kuala Lumpur (with refuelling at Dubai) during the late 90s just shortly before MAS left Spain - was this the longest scheduled A330-300 route flown by any chance?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andrew Hunt
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © B. Amratisha

 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Thu Dec 11, 2003 11:41 pm

was this the longest scheduled A330-300 route flown by any chance?

As a direct flight, maybe.

Neither of the segments are even close to matching the current YVR-LHR nonstop though.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Fri Dec 12, 2003 8:21 am

Leskova:


these were NOT INCLUDED AT ALL in the numbers that I posted...


The way you arrived at the number of 333 ordered was to subtract what you think were 332 orders from Airbus's total. Because you didn't include some of the 332 orders as 332 orders, then you automatically inflated 333 orders. So, you indirectly included those orders as 333 orders.


is it really necessary to put a long disclaimer in posts like this now???


I had no intent to pick on you. It's only when another poster used your 332 figure that I felt there was a need for me to point out your numbers were wrong. Everyone makes mistakes. Not a big deal. I don't believe I slammed you, right?
 
Leskova
Posts: 5547
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:39 pm

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Fri Dec 12, 2003 4:21 pm

... and to think that I was actually once quite good in math...

Dynkrisolo, you are right - in fact, I should have listed those numbers as -200, -300 and something like "undecided" - which would then look like this:

According to Airbus, the A330 orders/deliveries look like this:
A330 ordered: 467
A330-200 ordered: 188
A330-300 ordered: 180
A330-xxx ordered: 99

I take back my outburst (although I sometimes do have the feeling that some posts would be better off with a disclaimer - there's quite a lot of "purposeful not understanding what someone else is saying" going around a.net...).

 Smile
Smile - it confuses people!
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Sat Dec 13, 2003 2:12 am

so that's currently 527 confirmed A333/A340 against 622 777s*?

..not bad  Big thumbs up


*not counting KE's order
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
Leskova
Posts: 5547
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:39 pm

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Sat Dec 13, 2003 2:21 am

Comparing comfirmed 333/34x - yes, you're right...  Sad

If we, as I think you yourself once suggested (or was that Neil?), include the 332 and the 764 into the equation, then we're at 812 confirmed 330/340s and at 667 confirmed 764/777s, putting Airbus back in front...  Big grin

Isn't it wonderful that you can prove just about anything with statistics, as long as you simply adjust what you're including until you get what you want? Big grin
Smile - it confuses people!
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Sat Dec 13, 2003 2:26 am

that's for damn sure...  Big thumbs up
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Airbus A330-300ER Powerfull Long Range Variant

Sat Dec 13, 2003 3:32 am

Concordeboy:

No. It's not 527 vs 622. Of the 99 330s that Leskova couldn't determine if they were 332s or 333s, most are 332s, but some are 333s. As I stated before, 550 vs 620 would be a better estimate. And post-777 launch, it should be around 370 vs 620 excluding the 342, as I have stated before.


...you can prove just about anything with statistics...


that's for damn sure



But the conclusion doesn't change: the 332 is a notable strength for the 330/340 family, but the 333 and 343 aren't. Similarly, the 764ER is no question a big flop in Boeing's family. That's why the 7E7 will partly address this weakness.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 767333ER, admanager, Alexdk, alggag, Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], Boeing778X, BreninTW, dk44, FLJ, Google [Bot], intotheair, itisi, jeffh747, jmmadrid, Lindegaard, mical, mmo, QuarkFly, SCQ83, sirtoby, trex8, WDHFlyBoy, YYJTurk and 271 guests