Gonzalo
Topic Author
Posts: 1529
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:43 am

AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Wed Jan 23, 2013 9:39 pm

Tony Fernandes has made the following ( almost inflammatory ) statements in Twitter :


" The A330neo would be “a great plane” and a “perfect combination” with the A350-900. “I want that plane. Airbus don’t get it ." “I honestly don’t think the A350-800 is a good plane"

http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engine.../air-asia-chief-calls-a330neo-0123

Anyone with him on this one ????

G.
Gear Up!!: DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20-21 / B732 / B763 / B789
 
Wingtips56
Posts: 762
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:26 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Wed Jan 23, 2013 9:44 pm

His airline is too successful for me to second-guess him.
Worked for WestAir, Apollo Airways, Desert Pacific, Western, AirCal and American Airlines
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13808
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Wed Jan 23, 2013 9:51 pm

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
Anyone with him on this one ????

Many of us had said the same. Canceling the original A350 in favor of a new A350 that only addressed the A330 as an afterthought didn't make a lot of sense. But Airbus didn't want to go up directly against the 787, instead hoping to attack the 777 from below and the 787 from above.

But had Airbus instead canceled the original A350 in favor of an A330NEO + A359/10 it would have made more sense. The A330NEO would be in service already with GEnx bleed and likely T1000 bleed versions and 7000-7500nm range, hurting the 787 badly considering all the problems and delays, and the A350 could be squarely focused on the the 777 rather than trying to also worry about the 789.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Wed Jan 23, 2013 9:55 pm

The A350-800 has a 15% higher payload than the A330. Airbus was looking at targeting the 777 rather than the 787 capacity with the airplane. In order to get the A350-1000 to come close to the 77W, they had to push up the weights from where the A330 is at. The result is that the A350-800 will not have that good of fuel burn numbers compared to an A330-300 or a 787. I think Airbus consciously made the decision to do this since the 787 had captured so many orders and taken such a large section of the market. By going higher in MTOW, they separated themselves from being a direct 767 & A330 replacement. If an airline wants higher payload, more range and more capacity, then the A350 is great.

If Air Asia is interested in an ideal A330 replacement without going up in size and performance, then they could always order the 787. However we know that Air Asia is interested in Airbus, so I’m not surprised to see them pushing for an efficient 787 competitor.

The problem is, I think Airbus has little interest in the A330 NEO since all it would do is take orders away from the A350 or compete heavily on price with the 787 which is likely a better airplane. The revenue potential from an A330 NEO is low. It would steal orders from the A350 which doesn’t help the bottom line and not be a particularly effective competitor to Boeing. The CEO can ask for what he wants, but I doubt he’ll get it.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23475
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Wed Jan 23, 2013 9:56 pm

Air Asia X doesn't need the 15,000 to 16,000km nominal range of the A350-800. The A350-800 also slots between the A330-200 and A330-300 in terms of available cabin floor area, yet offers only 2 more LD3 positions than the A332 and 4 less than the A333.

I do not believe the A350-800 OEW has been confirmed, but I've seen credible estimates of ~130t. That is 10t more than the A330-300 and 13t more than the A330-200 (all figures using Airbus OEM OEW). That being said, Airbus claims it will burn 23% less fuel per seat (at 270 seats) than the A330-200 will (at 240 seats). Considering Air Asia X seats 268 in their A330-200, I would expect their A350-800 to be well over 300 seats.

If he's carping about he A350-800, I would think he'd also be carping about the A350-900 (which he has on order). He does not need that plane's range, either, and it's some 20t heavier than the A330-300 with about 7% more cabin area (allowing one extra seat per row in Economy) and 4 additional LD3 positions.

[Edited 2013-01-23 13:58:37]
 
col
Posts: 1695
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 2:11 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:25 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
Considering Air Asia X seats 268 in their A330-200

They don't have any 330-200. The 333 seats about 377 from memory.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 5260
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:34 pm

Quoting col (Reply 5):
They don't have any 330-200. The 333 seats about 377 from memory.

At least not yet, they have several on order. Wikipedia says they will seat 288, but I don't know how accurate that is.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13694
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:38 pm

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 2):
The A330NEO would be in service already with GEnx bleed and likely T1000 bleed versions and 7000-7500nm range, hurting the 787 badly considering all the problems and delays

And yet, without spending a penny on the mythical A330neo, Airbus has somehow managed to sell 600 A330s since the 787 was launched.   
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
col
Posts: 1695
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 2:11 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:45 pm

Quoting Polot (Reply 6):
At least not yet, they have several on order. Wikipedia says they will seat 288, but I don't know how accurate that is.

They ordered 3, two were canx from memory and one is becoming a VIP A/C? They have since ordered more 333's. They were initially ordered to do Europe, but that program was canx. They also had GE engines.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13808
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:45 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 7):
And yet, without spending a penny on the mythical A330neo, Airbus has somehow managed to sell 600 A330s since the 787 was launched.

I'm sure Boeing was saying the same thing in the 90s about the A330...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
Flighty
Posts: 7872
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:48 pm

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 3):
The problem is, I think Airbus has little interest in the A330 NEO since all it would do is take orders away from the A350 or compete heavily on price with the 787 which is likely a better airplane.

Articulate statement. The A330 has been so good for Airbus. So much volume in that segment. Do they really want to give it all up? It would be great to see them spend a little money and dial in hard against the 787. Hasn't the A330 earned that courtesy? Maybe not...
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23475
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:53 pm

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 3):
I think Airbus has little interest in the A330 NEO...

In addition to Airbus, I see little interest from the engine manufacturers.

The Trent 700 is already the powerplant of choice on the A330, so why would RR spend money resurrecting the Trent 1700?

GE demands a strong RoI before they will build an engine, so they'd demand exclusivity before they resurrected the GEnx-1A72.

Pratt can only offer the GTF and after the PW6000 (A318) and PW8000 (A340 Superfan) issues, I expect Airbus would not be comfortable with choosing an engine that needs to scale by a factor of three in terms of power above what it's currently planned to operate at.
 
AirbusA322
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 6:38 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:46 am

Quoting Polot (Reply 6):
At least not yet, they have several on order. Wikipedia says they will seat 288, but I don't know how accurate that is.

Looks like it needs to be updated. They cancelled the A332 small order.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6406
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:53 pm

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 3):
The result is that the A350-800 will not have that good of fuel burn numbers compared to an A330-300 or a 787

I don't know how this continues to quietly become A-net fact,when it is eminently possible that it will have a pretty competitive fuel burn.

Whilst accepting that he is absolutely not the gospel, in this thread

Boeing Vs. Airbus Wing Design Philosophies (by ferpe Apr 16 2012 in Tech Ops)

at the bottom in post # 65, Ferpe calculates specific Breguet air ranges in nm/tonne of fuel of

95.9 Nm/tonne for the 787-8
90.9 Nm/tonne for the A350-800
88.6 Nm/tonne for the 787-9

Again, he's not a gospel, but his model is pretty well thought out and critiqued in the thread.

The numbers indicate the 787-8 having a 5% fuel burn advantage over the A350-800 and the A350-800 having a 2% fuel burn advantage over the 787-9

As the A350-800 sits neatly in-between the 787-8 and 787-9 in terms of capacity, then it shouldn't be too far away from being competitive.
Is it over-engineered in its current form, and therefore not optimised?
Almost certainly.

My view is
a) The A350-800's biggest problem in its current form is the A350-900
b) that should Airbus ever get round to "optimising" the A350-800 as it was originally intended, it should be eminently competitive.
I could be wrong though ..  

Rgds
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:50 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
GE demands a strong RoI before they will build an engine

Everyone does, not just GE.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
they'd demand exclusivity before they resurrected the GEnx-1A72.

Why not a slight thrust bump on the existing GEnx-2B67? Or does that also degenerate into a nine-figure engineering effort?

Quoting astuteman (Reply 13):
The numbers indicate the 787-8 having a 5% fuel burn advantage over the A350-800 and the A350-800 having a 2% fuel burn advantage over the 787-9

These numbers must be adjusted by the seating capacity to obtain an apples-to-apples comparison of fuel burn per seat mile. The A358 and 789 are significantly larger than the 788. In the end it's basically a wash, so your point stands that the A358 is a fine player at least on paper.
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:02 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 13):
Whilst accepting that he is absolutely not the gospel

absolutely not, but as OldAeroGuy would say "it is better then handwaving"  . As I can make an A330neo in 5 minutes I made one       and pitted against the A350-800 and the others on a 5500nm ESAD leg:





The fuel flow is the average fuel flow on the leg, the fuel per pax or more correct per m2 take it per 1000nm and you have 41 vs 45kg in the -800 favor over a 333neo. For those that think I have a to heavy A333 realize that the 120t OEW was a long time ago, it is more like 125t today and that 2 GEnx-2B67 ads 4t to the OEW. I added the sharklets as well (did not increase the OEW for them). The 242t spec range goes to 6500nm for a 333neo.

So there you have it within say 3-5%, now your comments if it will be worth it.
Non French in France
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3802
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:16 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 15):
As I can make an A330neo in 5 minutes I made one

You are too kind!   

Quoting ferpe (Reply 15):
So there you have it within say 3-5%, now your comments if it will be worth it.

A very compelling overview which to me is close enough to discuss about. So the A330-NEO is quite good, but at this range of your example, can not beat the A350-800. Of course on shorter routes the picture might look slightly different again, but this is highly informative.  .
 
Aviaponcho
Posts: 796
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 12:13 pm

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Fri Jan 25, 2013 9:53 pm

Thank you Ferpe
I think that the Genx2b are not so heavy

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...hnical-description-cutaway-378866/

4% more that is : 70100 lbs et 60840 lbs resp for take off and maximum continuous

For comparison

T772C-60: 71 100 / 63 560 / poids 11653 lbs (without reverse : 1800 lbs)
PW4170 : 70 000 / 59 357 / poids 12 888 lbs (without reverse : 1716 lbs)
CF6-80E1: 68 530 / 60 400 / poids 12 337 lbs (without reverse: 1550 lbs)

On the EASA TCDS, the GenX is 12400 lbs
So how 2 GenX2b can be 4t heavier ?
The GenX as a larger fan, a smaller core, a composite fan and fan belt....low stage count vs the Gen1B... so I think it's not that heavy.
I might totally wrong indeed... just tell me

And the Genx2b is not going to sell by thousands... and it will be a slow seller... 2 747-8 per month...is 4 A330 per month engine wise... and i'm pretty sure that an A330NEO will sell more than 4 per month et for the next 8-10 years...

Can you give us the A330-300 figures in its 242 t current engine form ? and 787-10 figures also ?
What about sharklets only ? A330 ?

Thank you
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:58 am

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 17):
So how 2 GenX2b can be 4t heavier ?

It is not, I found the wrong figures, the GEnx-2B67 weighs 5626kg and the T700 4785kg. So that diff + a larger nacelle and a longer pylon (fan is 105'' instead of 97'', you need to hang the engine higher/longer forward) + sharlets and wing reinforcement makes for some 2.9t extra. For the 333sl I have assumed 2*300 kg extra as we now compare with 333 classic  as well, for the neo the sharklets only load with 200kg as they can share the reinforcements with the engines. Voila:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/330neovs3583597887897810_zps90e6f775.jpg

You gain some 1.5-2 % by going to sharklets.

[Edited 2013-01-26 00:12:29]
Non French in France
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Sat Jan 26, 2013 8:06 am

The GEnx2 is about 12% more efficient than the comparable CF6-80 engine..low hanging fruit IMO, it will get PIPed soon and get a thrust boost for the freighter.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 20147
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Sat Jan 26, 2013 8:26 am

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 3):
I think Airbus consciously made the decision to do this since the 787 had captured so many orders and taken such a large section of the market.

If they had done it, I bet that a good half of 787 customers would have canceled their 787 orders by now and ordered A330NEO models.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
india1
Posts: 242
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 8:06 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:57 pm

Wonder if a protracted grounding of the 787 will tip the balance either ways - 330 neo vs optimised 358? Your thoughts?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23475
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Sat Jan 26, 2013 4:41 pm

Quoting india1 (Reply 21):
Wonder if a protracted grounding of the 787 will tip the balance either ways - 330 neo vs optimised 358? Your thoughts?

Such a grounding would have to go years and even then, the EIS delay of both the A330neo and optimized A350-800 would be such that the majority of customers who did cancel and seek replacement lift would have chosen A330s, 767s and 777s.
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Sat Jan 26, 2013 6:03 pm

So what is the verdict, can a 333neo replace a A350-800? To answer that one should perhaps also need the A330-200neo, I therefore did another 5 min design job    and here it is (click on the table to see better):

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/333neo332neovs3583597887897810_zps7e4af6b8.jpg


As can be seen the A350-800 in a 130t empty weight version is almost on the 789 level of fuel burn per pax/cabin area, the 333neo is 15% worse and the 332neo 20% worse. Calculate the normal way and the 358 is 13 and 16% better then the 330neos. The OEW of the 350-800 I have put at 130t ie a 1t per cut meter of fuselage length. This is plausible for a DA frame which is a "cut and shut" shrink, ie nothing else gets reduced except for the fuselage length and some of the affected panels. Drive the optimization further to the typical 1.5t per changed meter and you are equal to the 789 in efficiency, more one can not ask for as the 358 flies 1 hour longer.


The A350-800 has become the present discussions ugly duckling, to a minor extent it deserves it but I venture that 95% of those who rhyme in have not done the numbers, they all assume someone else have and go along. I think people like HAL have done their numbers and for their needs a 350-800 that hits the spec and runs the long legs is a very good choice. The problem of the 358 is that the 359 is even better and come earlier, that is why people change if they have the loadfactors.

edit: did include the payload in the new table, it is the spec one I use ie nominal full mixed cabin with bags.

[Edited 2013-01-26 10:08:39]
Non French in France
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Sat Jan 26, 2013 6:07 pm

What engine does your A330neo have Ferpe?
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:44 pm

Quoting sweair (Reply 24):
What engine does your A330neo have Ferpe?


The GEnx-2B67, it is a modern bleed engine with a reasonable size fan (105'' or 0.12m larger radius then the 97'' fans the 330 has today) weighs "only" 5626kg and is close to the right thrust bracket, 70klbf.
Non French in France
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3802
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:57 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 25):
105'' or 0.12m larger radius then the 97'' fans the 330 has today)

If the difference is 8 inches in diameter, then in metrics that should be 0.23 meters.  
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13808
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:59 pm

Something is amiss with your method. The numbers just don't seem right. The A330 looks like a dog by these numbers but in service it is not.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
trex8
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Sat Jan 26, 2013 8:16 pm

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 27):
Something is amiss with your method. The numbers just don't seem right. The A330 looks like a dog by these numbers but in service it is not.

I would hope the 787 and A350 are more efficient than the A330!!

A has said the A358 is @20% more efficient than the A332 and that seems in the ballpark for the numbers ferpe crunched
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Sat Jan 26, 2013 9:05 pm

A A330 with 12% more efficient engines... Yeah I buy those numbers..
 
Aviaponcho
Posts: 796
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 12:13 pm

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Sat Jan 26, 2013 10:05 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 18):
It is not, I found the wrong figures, the GEnx-2B67 weighs 5626kg and the T700 4785kg. So that diff + a larger nacelle and a longer pylon (fan is 105'' instead of 97'', you need to hang the engine higher/longer forward) + sharlets and wing reinforcement makes for some 2.9t extra. For the 333sl I have assumed 2*300 kg extra as we now compare with 333 classic as well, for the neo the sharklets only load with 200kg as they can share the reinforcements with the engines. Voila:

Thank you Ferpe
I was just pointing that the GenX is not that heavier than the heaviest of the 3 engine that are currently powering the A330... there's a 2 t gap between the lightest and the heaviest i think.
So GenX might not be so hard to mount under the A330 wing.

Don't you think that sharklets can help with a higher initial FL on A330 ?

A330NEO won't replace A350-800 based on fuel burn analysis only...
What the A330 is becoming a bargain... and what the A330NEO must be is also a bargain

One difficult task for airbus will be the transition from A330 to A350 on the current A330 FAL. How many A330 FAL's are there ? One I think... And this one was planned to become the 2nd A350 line as you mentioned... Considering the differences in assembling the A330 and the A350 ... I think it's not possible to jump from one model to the other at short notice...
I guess i need to dig in the Airbus GMF in order to have widebodies throughput estimates...
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Sat Jan 26, 2013 11:22 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 26):
If the difference is 8 inches in diameter, then in metrics that should be 0.23 meters.


Sure , half stick up in front of the wing and half reduces ground clearance, the latter was my point.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 27):
Something is amiss with your method. The numbers just don't seem right. The A330 looks like a dog by these numbers but in service it is not.

The numbers are in the ballpark. GE has engines on the 330 ( CF6-80C2E ) and also makes the GEnx, they state the GEnx1 (787 111'') is 15% better, the 108'' GEnx2 looses you 2%, net 13% improvement but the larger nacelle drag looses you 1% more, net 12% gain from new engines. Finally the higher weight steals you about 0.5% per tonne and about 0.5 hour flight time.

There is a reason JL says they will not neo the 330.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 30):
Don't you think that sharklets can help with a higher initial FL on A330 ?

Don*t think so, initial FL is a wingloading issue, therefore the longer effective wingspan does not help really. Further the 7t increase in MTOW drives in the other direction if anything  Silly .

[Edited 2013-01-26 15:28:19]
Non French in France
 
flightsimer
Posts: 911
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:34 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:45 am

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 2):
The A330NEO would be in service already with GEnx bleed and likely T1000 bleed versions and 7000-7500nm range, hurting the 787 badly considering all the problems and delays, and the A350 could be squarely focused on the the 777 rather than trying to also worry about the 789.



You and everyone else seem to forget one very important thing when you make comments about an A330NEO. The engines weren't really ready at the time.

Had Airbus launched the A330NEO then, it would not have been as competitive as an A330NEO launched today due to the amount of improvements both RR and GE have been able to make to their engines due to the delays in the 787 program. And even with the 3.5 years extra they got from intended EIS to actual EIS (2008-Late 2011), both engine were still missing their targets by multiple percentages. Rolls Royce will be sending out Package C engines in the near future and GEnx -1b's are on PiP 2 as well, and only then will they be meeting/exceeding original targets.

I just cant see an A330NEO launched in the same time frame as the A350 Mk I being that much better than an old A330 to cause a big shift to happen away from the 787. The RR Trent 1000 wasn't even certified until 7-8-07 so at the very earliest they wouldn't have been able to start delivering until the same year 787's were. Also considering, nobody knew the 787 was going to be delayed like it was, why would they order a plane that might get you 5-10% fuel savings when you could order a plane giving 20% fuel savings in the same time frame?
Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Sun Jan 27, 2013 6:49 am

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 30):

Thank you Ferpe
I was just pointing that the GenX is not that heavier than the heaviest of the 3 engine that are currently powering the A330... there's a 2 t gap between the lightest and the heaviest i think.
So GenX might not be so hard to mount under the A330 wing.

Thanks Poncho, I initially did not check the weights other then the most popular T700 as that is the one model being by far the most popular engine on the 330. As said it is at 4785kg, the CF6-80E at 5063kg and the PW4168 at 5625kg. The engine weight for the PW and the GEnx-2B is thereby about the same, you still have a larger nacelle and a higher more forward position however.

As my OEW is for the T700 (I checked TK for the DOW and put down my OEW based on that and they use T700, I can imagine the lower OEW being one big reason as the T700 is not the lowest TSFC) I would still have to increase it for the GEnx-2 with the amount I did. You are right re the reinforcements for increased weight but the new position and sharklets reinforcements remains. If you want to improve the fuel burn you get around 0,5% for each 1t change in OEW for this class of DA frames, it is a good rule of thumb to remember, I just verified it once again.
Non French in France
 
Aviaponcho
Posts: 796
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 12:13 pm

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Sun Jan 27, 2013 8:39 am

Thank
Last batch off A330 at THY due to be delivered this yeat are CF6 powered
http://www.geaviation.com/press/cf6/cf6_20121119.html
SO we will see the weight delta.

But current one are T700

http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engine...-begins-taking-delivery-a330s-0929
 
astuteman
Posts: 6406
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Sun Jan 27, 2013 8:52 am

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 32):
You and everyone else seem to forget one very important thing when you make comments about an A330NEO. The engines weren't really ready at the time. Had Airbus launched the A330NEO then, it would not have been as competitive as an A330NEO launched today due to the amount of improvements both RR and GE have been able to make to their engines due to the delays in the 787 program

Even with the SFC miss, the 787's engines were a step change in SFC. That would have held equally true for the old A350.
It would still have been dramatically better than the current A330 and proper competitor to the 787

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 32):
Also considering, nobody knew the 787 was going to be delayed like it was, why would they order a plane that might get you 5-10% fuel savings when you could order a plane giving 20% fuel savings in the same time frame?

The old A350 should have provided about a 12% improvement in fuel burn over the A330. The fuel burn delta between the 787-8 and the A330-200 is about 16%.
The fuel burn delta between the 787 and old A350 would have been small enough to bring other factors into play.
The old A350 is undersold on here by about the same amount as the a350-800XWB is....

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 30):
One difficult task for airbus will be the transition from A330 to A350 on the current A330 FAL. How many A330 FAL's are there ?

I suspect there is an output volume advantage for Airbus in delivering A330's and A350XWB's side by side. certainly for the next 4 or 5 years.
Not something we expected back in 2005  

Rgds
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Sun Jan 27, 2013 8:56 am

Maybe it really needs a new lighter wing to carry those GEnx2bs? IMO the A358 is too much airplane compared to the A332, how good is the A358 with 220-230 seats as that would be more normal for the current A332?
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18413
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Sun Jan 27, 2013 8:59 am

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 2):
But had Airbus instead canceled the original A350 in favor of an A330NEO + A359/10 it would have made more sense.

The great complaint at the time was that the original A350 was "just" a souped up A330 - and most everyone here and elsewhere crapped all over it.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
astuteman
Posts: 6406
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Sun Jan 27, 2013 8:59 am

Quoting ferpe (Reply 31):
The numbers are in the ballpark

Something doesn't scan right though.
You have the block fuel burn difference between the 787-8 and a330-200 as 25% (67.2t vs 54.1t).
It is nowhere remotely near that. IMO it should be nearer 16%
Unless I've read your figures wrongly.

Rgds
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 20147
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Sun Jan 27, 2013 9:08 am

Ferpe, I always appreciate your charts when such questions come up.

I wonder why the A330 performs so poorly in comparison. What other changes would be needed to make it competitive with the 787? A new, CFRP wing, perhaps? Al-Li panels?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Sun Jan 27, 2013 9:12 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 39):

As the A330 is lighter than the A350 it must mostly be aerodynamics and fuel burn. Maybe the old wing of alu is not ideal compared to the cfrp wing of the latest design on the A350?

Another benefit of the GEnx2b would be noise, having compared the 744 with the 748 it is clear how much better the GEnx is compared to CF60-80 on noise.
 
Wingtips56
Posts: 762
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:26 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Sun Jan 27, 2013 9:43 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 37):

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 2):
But had Airbus instead canceled the original A350 in favor of an A330NEO + A359/10 it would have made more sense.

The great complaint at the time was that the original A350 was "just" a souped up A330 - and most everyone here and elsewhere crapped all over it.

Yes, and as I recall, the airlines actually buying airplanes, not us sit-at-home-speculators, complained that it was just a 330 redux, and they wanted a larger capacity frame, hence the 350XWB..extra wide body.
Worked for WestAir, Apollo Airways, Desert Pacific, Western, AirCal and American Airlines
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18413
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Sun Jan 27, 2013 9:50 am

Quoting Wingtips56 (Reply 41):
Yes, and as I recall, the airlines actually buying airplanes, not us sit-at-home-speculators, complained that it was just a 330 redux, and they wanted a larger capacity frame, hence the 350XWB..extra wide body.

200 of the original were sold, which ain't a bad start.

The ferocity of the campaign against the original A350 had more to do with "the drug like rush of the 787" than anything else.

I don't recall Stephen Udvar-Hazy wanting a wider body in his denunciation of the aircraft (the original A350) at Istat. He may have done so, but he didn't seem thrilled - originally - by the wider body of the XWB.

mariner

[Edited 2013-01-27 02:19:10]
aeternum nauta
 
Aviaponcho
Posts: 796
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 12:13 pm

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Sun Jan 27, 2013 11:33 am

The original A350, with its new wing, it Al-li fuse and its GenX would have been, according to airbus, 8 t lighter than the corresponding A330 and with the very same footprint (Wings counted for 4.5 t weight gain)

That's what is missing for the A330NEO to be a true 787 competitor... i think... 8 t is 4% fuel burn gain according to Ferpe

The more I think, the more the A350XWB appears as a very ahrd to beat allrounder airplane
 
packsonflight
Posts: 329
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:55 pm

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:44 pm

Possibly Airbus is planning on launching all new aircraft bridging the gap between the 321 and the 330-200 after they finish with the 350.
This would be scaled down A350 (not a shrink down) or a 350 lite pitched at the 5000nm market, kind of a low cost, low risk recycling of the 350 concept. What else are they doing with the army of engineers they have after the A400 and the A350-10 is finished?
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 21096
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Sun Jan 27, 2013 1:07 pm

Quote:
What else are they doing with the army of engineers they have after the A400 and the A350-10 is finished?

There is plenty of potential work left after the A350-1000 EIS in 2017. For example:

- studying the A350-900R (if ultra long haul still makes sense by then)
- launching and building the A380-900
- studying an A320 successor
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
Scipio
Posts: 854
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:38 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Sun Jan 27, 2013 3:32 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 45):
Quote:
What else are they doing with the army of engineers they have after the A400 and the A350-10 is finished?

There is plenty of potential work left after the A350-1000 EIS in 2017. For example:

- studying the A350-900R (if ultra long haul still makes sense by then)
- launching and building the A380-900
- studying an A320 successor

The A330 will become a hard sell once the B787 and A350 programs are fully up to speed, i.e., sometime in the latter half of this decade. It is too late to launch an A330NEO -- too much investment to produce an aircraft that will not have any durable competitive edge and will be too close to the A350 in terms of performance.

I have long held the view that Airbus should consider an all-new proper A300/A310/A330 successor to complement the A350 in its product range, aiming at competitive advantages that are clearly differentiated from those of the A350. I see this as a light-weight wide-body, seating 250-300 passengers, that is uncompromisingly optimized for short-to-medium haul routes. I would also engineer it for good field performance, to allow it to fly into airports that don't usually see widebody service.

Such an aircraft could be derived from the A350, but may not need the XWB cross-section. A cross-section similar to, or slightly wider than, the current A330 may be more optimal (in particular considering cargo space), with 8-abreast standard and 9-abreast high-density seating. The 9-abreast configuration should be a bit more comfortable than on the current A330, though.

2015 would be a good time to launch such a product, given the projected availability of engineering resources at Airbus. This would allow EIS in the early-2020's, when production of the A330 will probably be winding down and many airlines will be looking to replace their A330 fleets (as well as some early-built B787s).

Such an aircraft may appeal to Mr. Fernandes, as it would be optimal for a lot of intra-Asian routes (including Chinese and Indian domestic routes).
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Sun Jan 27, 2013 5:20 pm

Quoting Scipio (Reply 46):

It would have to be a gap up to the A358, a slightly smaller A332 made out of Al-Li, cfrp wing, state of the art engines, upgrade what is feasable on the current A330, make it a 230-240 seater and give it the maximum range of 10-11 hours. That way the A358 would not have to cover the lower part of the market which it is ill suited to do. Even if the A358 would be a poor seller, it might be good as a freighter and ULR plane, sort of like the 77L/F.
 
fruitbat
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 9:34 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Sun Jan 27, 2013 5:36 pm

Quoting Scipio (Reply 46):

Finally the voice of sanity in this thread!! 

I firmly believe that an A330neo won't happen because its too late, too expensive, won't make money for A or the engine company (logic says it has to be sole source). Making a bleedless engine into a bleed engine is a touch more complex than drilling a few holes in the casing, the GEnX on the 747-8 hasn't got the capability (subtle hint: look at the Trent 700 hot high performance and explain to me how the GEnX gets there?)

It's Fernandez adopting the Ryanair / Qatar / Emirates negotiaton tactics: moan publicly then behind closed doors do a big deal at low OE cost.

Airbus believe the A358 is the right aeroplane for the "small" wide body (A330, 767, A340) replacement market, assuming that the global economy grows over the next decade rather than shrinks. Boeing believe the answer is the 788 / 789. The market will tell us who is right; the big A330 replacement battles are yet to be fought.

A good question is what will Airbus do next? An optimised 250 seater as described by Scipio above or a 400 seater to fill the gap between the A350-1000 and the A388? But IMO it won't be an A330neo.
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 20147
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane

Sun Jan 27, 2013 6:15 pm

Quoting Scipio (Reply 46):
I have long held the view that Airbus should consider an all-new proper A300/A310/A330 successor to complement the A350 in its product range, aiming at competitive advantages that are clearly differentiated from those of the A350. I see this as a light-weight wide-body, seating 250-300 passengers, that is uncompromisingly optimized for short-to-medium haul routes. I would also engineer it for good field performance, to allow it to fly into airports that don't usually see widebody service.

Everyone keeps on bringing up the idea of a new medium-haul optimized widebody and yet nobody seems to be doing it. Even the 787-3 never made it off the drawing board.

Could it be that airlines are willing to pay a weight penalty to have more flexibility in their aircraft?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos