|Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 5):|
Yes, and nobody (to my modest knowledge) uses it as a shorthaul plane, so I assume that the A300 does better on shorthaul routes than the 332.
|Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 6):|
That's clearly built for medium to long haul flights and therefore has the accompanying weight. I picked the -300 since several airlines use it on shorter hops, especially its initial use in the domestic French market with Air Inter. Is there a mileage range under which the A300 has cheaper operating costs (either overall or per seat) than the A330-300?
Of course, this is right, but some carriers use it for shorthaul hops in between longhaul flights (QF and Malaysian Airlines for example) and Air Algerie as well as MS
use it for relatively short flights. To my knowledge, these 2 carriers don´t even use it on longhaul flights. IIRC, Air Algerie has the 217-ton MTOW version (in comparison to the 233-ton one used by most airlines).
And there isn´tmore additional weight the A332 carries around because it´s a longhaul aircraft. Just some additional fuel tanks and the systems related with those. If you have a route which will fill the A332 but not the A333 (pax and cargo), then it´s more economic to use the A332 compared to the A333.
As I said before, I expect the A300 to have a lower overall cost in any case, but for CASM on short routes, I have no clue.
Exceptions confirm the rule.