LurveBus
Topic Author
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:21 pm

Why No "X" Designation On GE-powered A330s?

Sat Jul 20, 2013 4:45 am

I've noticed that with all the MTOW upgrades available, A330s with GE engines are still not labeled with an "X" (Unlike, say, RR-powered A330s today like CX's A330-343x)

I understand that they started to add "X" as a means to distinguish the MTOW from the original 215/217t A330. That being said, why isn't this applied on GE-powered A330s? Are the new MTOWs not available with GE engines? Anyone care to shed light on this?
 
Clydenairways
Posts: 1102
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:27 am

RE: Why No "X" Designation On GE-powered A330s?

Sat Jul 20, 2013 9:12 am

As i understand it, the X designation was used 10 years ago to distinguish the upgrades at the time from the original version. Since then there have neen a number of further upgrages from that X model to the version we see today which is 235t.
Another upgraded version is available from 2015 with a MTOW of 242t.
These 235t and 242t new versions don't have any special letter anymore.
 
skipness1E
Posts: 3394
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

RE: Why No "X" Designation On GE-powered A330s?

Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:34 am

Aren't they given E rather than X nowadays?
 
trex8
Posts: 4618
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Why No "X" Designation On GE-powered A330s?

Sat Jul 20, 2013 1:17 pm

Per some tech threads in past the X refers to certain structural changes which is not directly related to higher MTOW IIRC it had to do with the cargo system. The E to A345/6 enhancements in avionics and other systems which migrated to the A330. But it is strange you never see the X or E on G E planes

Who has the largest G E fleet now? CI??

[Edited 2013-07-20 06:20:49]
 
User avatar
BasilFawlty
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 11:23 am

RE: Why No "X" Designation On GE-powered A330s?

Sat Jul 20, 2013 1:42 pm

Quoting trex8 (Reply 3):
Who has the largest G E fleet now? CI??

It depends, if we only count -300's the answer is yes, if we count both -200's and -300's the answer is no.

Top 5
QR: 29 (16x A332 + 13x A333)
CI: 22 (22x A333)
QF: 20 (10x A332 + 10x A333)
KL: 16 (12x A332 + 4x A333)
AF: 15 (15x A332)
'Every year donkeys and mules kill more people than plane crashes'
 
trex8
Posts: 4618
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Why No "X" Designation On GE-powered A330s?

Sat Jul 20, 2013 2:11 pm

Why has everyone changed from -A3 to -A4 or 4 B except AF/KLM even while getting heavier planes?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11855
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Why No "X" Designation On GE-powered A330s?

Sat Jul 20, 2013 4:46 pm

Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 4):
Top 5
QR: 29 (16x A332 + 13x A333)

I never understood why they bought GE due to the poor hot performance prior to 2012 (or was it 2011 for that PIP?). All of the other major GE A330 operators had cool low altitude hub airports.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
User avatar
Faro
Posts: 1494
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

RE: Why No "X" Designation On GE-powered A330s?

Sat Jul 20, 2013 5:58 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 6):
I never understood why they bought GE due to the poor hot performance prior to 2012 (or was it 2011 for that PIP?). All of the other major GE A330 operators had cool low altitude hub airports.

An illogical investment choice? Hundreds of millions of USD expenditures? A cast of influential courtiers and their commercial clients?

I wonder indeed what could ever have happened...


Faro
The chalice not my son