Airbus A330neo production and delivery thread - 2016-2017

Polot · Mon Dec 26, 2016 5:34 pm

trex8 wrote:
johnwest wrote:
Why is Hawaiian chowing for the a330 (neo )above the a350? Anybody?

They dont need the range and since the A350-800 is pretty much dead, they dont need the -900s capacity

Actually they do need (or rather want; need is debatable) the range. The problem, as you say, is they do not want the A359's capacity especially with their rather passenger heavy seating configuration.

VirginFlyer · Mon Dec 26, 2016 5:53 pm

rbrunner wrote:
Francoflier wrote:
The racoon mask just irks me. There's absolutely no point to it, other than a stupid marketing gimmick. And it looks even worse than on the A350... I hope the airlines don't keep it.

Not really true. There are technical aspects related: The reflections are limited to a minimum and they provide regular temperature and tension around the cockpit windows. Also, in case they need to be replaced, the "standard color" reduces the cost of replacement.

Do you have a source for that, or is it just an impression? I'm not sure much (any) of the black paint is in an area that is capable of reflecting light into the flight deck. If that was genuinely a consideration, they would want to extend it further along the top of the nose that what it is. I'm also not sure how often the frames of windows get replaced - I was under the impression they were an integral part of the structure, and so it would be a bigger job than a simple swap out and in.

V/F

gatibosgru · Mon Dec 26, 2016 6:25 pm

coolian2 wrote:
The A330 has been my favourite fanboy plane for a very long time.

I uh...need a moment.

Completely agree! I'm happy to know we have a few decades left of this design, especially with the NEOs coming in.

Stitch · Mon Dec 26, 2016 6:32 pm

bjorn14 wrote:
Does anyone know the standard 2-class configs for both the 338 & 339? TIA

Should be the same as the A332 and A333 at 247 [36J | 211Y] and 259 [48J | 211Y], respectively.

gatibosgru · Mon Dec 26, 2016 6:33 pm

crimsonchin wrote:
AirPacific747 wrote:
I don't like those winglets. It's like they looked at a picture of the 787s winglets and tried to imitate them as closely as they could without being arsed to come up with a new plane design. The black paint around the windows does not do it any favor. But the 787 wings and winglets have a much nicer and more natural shape to them I think.

So true.

I'm sure it had nothing to do with efficiency, or finding what works best for the plane. The Airbus guys just thought "yeah why don't we add those winglets and extra weight for nothing, and oh yeah we need something that won't look like the 787 too, get on it". Makes sense actually.

I heard they almost installed a third engine just to make it stand out more.

trex8 · Mon Dec 26, 2016 6:48 pm

Stitch wrote:
bjorn14 wrote:
Does anyone know the standard 2-class configs for both the 338 & 339? TIA

Should be the same as the A332 and A333 at 247 [36J | 211Y] and 259 [48J | 211Y], respectively.

Almost, with spaceflex toilets and the smartlav ones, the A339 can carry 10 more and the A338 6.
https://leehamnews.com/2014/09/06/final ... days-a330/

gatibosgru · Mon Dec 26, 2016 7:00 pm

I hope we get more A330 customers slowly replacing their aging fleets with NEOs. How many current CEO operators have NEO orders?

AirPacific747 · Mon Dec 26, 2016 7:16 pm

gatibosgru wrote:

I heard they almost installed a third engine just to make it stand out more.

They should have. Now it's too obvious that it's a cheap 787 copy style upgrade

ElliottM · Mon Dec 26, 2016 7:40 pm

coolian2 wrote:
The A330 has been my favourite fanboy plane for a very long time.

I uh...need a moment.

Is that a good moment or a bad moment?

gatibosgru wrote:
Completely agree! I'm happy to know we have a few decades left of this design, especially with the NEOs coming in.

Me too! The A330 is my favorite aircraft (along with the 777) and I hope the neos are around for a long time to come.

I think this A339neo is stunning, if anything nicer than the current A333ceo. Can't wait for the A338neo though as the A332 is my current favorite airplane on looks alone.

ACATROYAL wrote:
I agree the 330-900 is one of my favorite looking planes. In my opinion its much prettier than the 350, I still can't get over the weird looking noise of the 350, perhaps in time I'll get used to it

I agree, I never got used to the A350's weird nose, much prefer the A330's nose (ceo and neo both).

rbrunner · Mon Dec 26, 2016 7:59 pm

VirginFlyer wrote:
rbrunner wrote:
Francoflier wrote:
The racoon mask just irks me. There's absolutely no point to it, other than a stupid marketing gimmick. And it looks even worse than on the A350... I hope the airlines don't keep it.

Not really true. There are technical aspects related: The reflections are limited to a minimum and they provide regular temperature and tension around the cockpit windows. Also, in case they need to be replaced, the "standard color" reduces the cost of replacement.

Do you have a source for that, or is it just an impression? I'm not sure much (any) of the black paint is in an area that is capable of reflecting light into the flight deck. If that was genuinely a consideration, they would want to extend it further along the top of the nose that what it is. I'm also not sure how often the frames of windows get replaced - I was under the impression they were an integral part of the structure, and so it would be a bigger job than a simple swap out and in.

V/F

In German only, sorry! (www.aero.de)

trex8 · Mon Dec 26, 2016 8:56 pm

gatibosgru wrote:
I hope we get more A330 customers slowly replacing their aging fleets with NEOs. How many current CEO operators have NEO orders?

Actually leaving the lessors out the only neo customer without ceos is Arkia. Otherwise TAP, Delta, Air Asia, Hawaiian, Garuda all have ceos and have neo on order. Transasia is bankrupt and just shut down so their neo order (and their ceos) may end up elsewhere.

Newbiepilot · Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:08 pm

trex8 wrote:
gatibosgru wrote:
I hope we get more A330 customers slowly replacing their aging fleets with NEOs. How many current CEO operators have NEO orders?

Actually leaving the lessors out the only neo customer without ceos is Arkia. Otherwise TAP, Delta, Air Asia, Hawaiian, Garuda all have ceos and have neo on order. Transasia is bankrupt and just shut down so their neo order (and their ceos) may end up elsewhere.

So far there are only 7 airlines who have ordered the A330neo. I have to assume that some of the leased planes are headed to china. The A330-900 is a great plane for high density short hops. I think it is likely that some will replace CEOs, but given how new many of the CEOs are, I think many will be for expansion.

rufusmi · Tue Dec 27, 2016 12:26 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
trex8 wrote:
gatibosgru wrote:
I hope we get more A330 customers slowly replacing their aging fleets with NEOs. How many current CEO operators have NEO orders?

Actually leaving the lessors out the only neo customer without ceos is Arkia. Otherwise TAP, Delta, Air Asia, Hawaiian, Garuda all have ceos and have neo on order. Transasia is bankrupt and just shut down so their neo order (and their ceos) may end up elsewhere.

So far there are only 7 airlines who have ordered the A330neo. I have to assume that some of the leased planes are headed to china. The A330-900 is a great plane for high density short hops. I think it is likely that some will replace CEOs, but given how new many of the CEOs are, I think many will be for expansion.

Wasn't it reported somewhere earlier that on short hops the A339 will cost more to operate than an A333? I think it's due to the heavier engine.

Revelation · Tue Dec 27, 2016 2:18 am

AirPacific747 wrote:
Lol sorry for hurting your feelings!

The winglets on the 330 neo looks like a mix of the 350 and the 787, but imo they don't look good. Btw I'm not pro airbus or pro boeing. I like many aircraft including the 330 'classic'. But the above criticism for the 330neo is well deserved. The new engines will probably look better than the classic engines so that's a little positive. I realize there's more to a plane design than aesthetics, but aesthetics is always important for plane enthusiasts

Deserved? Nope, it's just an opinion. Totally subjective. Others feel the opposite of you, with just as much justification as you have.

I've always liked the A330's looks, and am looking forward to seeing it with the Trents attached.

trex8 · Tue Dec 27, 2016 2:19 am

http://m.aviationweek.com/commercial-av ... h-decision
One strategy issue is still to be discussed. While there are significant efficiency improvements to be harnessed on longer stage lengths, Airbus has been marketing the current aircraft extensively for airlines that need a large capacity jet for shorter routes such as Chinese domestic services. But: “for 2-3 hour missions the A330ceos are still more efficient than a neo,” Rao pointed out. To him the launch is therefore ”not a slam-dunk decision.”

AirPacific747 · Tue Dec 27, 2016 7:59 am

Revelation wrote:

Deserved? Nope, it's just an opinion. Totally subjective. Others feel the opposite of you, with just as much justification as you have.

I've always liked the A330's looks, and am looking forward to seeing it with the Trents attached.

Yes of course it's my opinion. Just like you have an opinion on matters many other people would probably disagree with you on. Well actually they do disagree with you on many things that you write here on a.net ;-)

thepinkmachine · Tue Dec 27, 2016 9:06 am

trex8 wrote:
“for 2-3 hour missions the A330ceos are still more efficient than a neo,”

What are the reasons for that? Higher OEW, which offsets the increased efficiency of the new engines? Higher burn in climb?

tvh · Tue Dec 27, 2016 9:24 am

thepinkmachine wrote:
trex8 wrote:
“for 2-3 hour missions the A330ceos are still more efficient than a neo,”

What are the reasons for that? Higher OEW, which offsets the increased efficiency of the new engines? Higher burn in climb?

Must be higher price for the neo as the weight difference is minimal. One's the neo development has been paid for and it becomes more efficient for airbus to have just one version in the production line it will change. At least, that is what I believe.

AirCal737 · Tue Dec 27, 2016 9:28 am

The winglet is surprisingly small!!

Theseus · Tue Dec 27, 2016 9:51 am

AirCal737 wrote:
The winglet is surprisingly small!!

I noticed that too, but thought that it might be due to the angle of view (when taking a picture from above, winglets are always going to look smaller).

keesje · Tue Dec 27, 2016 10:01 am

The winglets are remarkably large, they are flat but add a lot of span.

gatibosgru · Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:35 am

Can't wait to see the wingflex on this beaut

WIederling · Tue Dec 27, 2016 12:19 pm

ElliottM wrote:
Is that a good moment or a bad moment?

A moment as such is like Schroedingers Cat without UP or DOWN
You only know how it is after you take the lid off so to speak.

:-)

mjoelnir · Tue Dec 27, 2016 12:40 pm

thepinkmachine wrote:
trex8 wrote:
“for 2-3 hour missions the A330ceos are still more efficient than a neo,”

What are the reasons for that? Higher OEW, which offsets the increased efficiency of the new engines? Higher burn in climb?

It is estimated that the neo has a higher OEW than the ceo. Therefor less fuel burn on short routes. That is an estimate, not confirmed numbers. Airbus does a weight reduction program for the neo. I assume that the OEW difference will be smaller than estimated at first and therefore the advantage of the ceo on shorter routes smaller or even non existing.

benbeny · Tue Dec 27, 2016 1:25 pm

No need to retrain pilots or FAs (maybe mechanics needs training though), no need to stock spareparts of brand new types (I believe many of A330ceo spare parts are compatible), maybe they can get it earlier than A359, and maybe Airbus has some deals they cannot refuse.

Revelation · Tue Dec 27, 2016 2:00 pm

AirPacific747 wrote:
Revelation wrote:

Deserved? Nope, it's just an opinion. Totally subjective. Others feel the opposite of you, with just as much justification as you have.

I've always liked the A330's looks, and am looking forward to seeing it with the Trents attached.

Yes of course it's my opinion. Just like you have an opinion on matters many other people would probably disagree with you on. Well actually they do disagree with you on many things that you write here on a.net

Absolutely, and that's the way it should be. If we all agreed on everything this would be a boring site. However it seems to me to be a bit much to say the A330neo deserves criticism when said criticism is nothing more than a subjective opinion.

Sooner787 · Tue Dec 27, 2016 4:01 pm

Francoflier wrote:
The racoon mask just irks me. There's absolutely no point to it, other than a stupid marketing gimmick. And it looks even worse than on the A350... I hope the airlines don't keep it.

I'm surprised they didn't do the racoon eye treatment on
the new A32x NEO family as well

gatibosgru · Wed Dec 28, 2016 7:06 pm

I honestly don't mind the raccoon eyes at all.

KarelXWB · Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:59 am

Airbus today revealed that they are working on improving the A330neo range capabilities.

flee · Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:10 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
Airbus today revealed that they are working on improving the A330neo range capabilities.

I think that they are working on a 245t MTOW capability so that they can carry more fuel without sacrificing payload.

Stitch · Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:09 pm

flee wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
Airbus today revealed that they are working on improving the A330neo range capabilities.

I think that they are working on a 245t MTOW capability so that they can carry more fuel without sacrificing payload.

They have to be closing in on the limits of the gear. The A340-300 started at 257,000kg and required a center bogie to support that weight.

SQ22 · Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:07 pm

This has been discussed before and as far as I remember some credible members mentioned that 245t should be possible with the current gear configuration.

I am just lacking a link, maybe someone remembers in what thread this was discussed.

Stitch · Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:27 pm

SQ22 wrote:
This has been discussed before and as far as I remember some credible members mentioned that 245t should be possible with the current gear configuration.

I am just lacking a link, maybe someone remembers in what thread this was discussed.

I don't doubt Airbus can get to 245,000kg on the current gear. Just not sure if they can go much farther.

Slug71 · Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:52 pm

Have to wonder how likely the A338 is at this point with only 10 orders compared to 204 for the A339.

kelvin933 · Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:10 pm

SQ22 wrote:
This has been discussed before and as far as I remember some credible members mentioned that 245t should be possible with the current gear configuration.

I am just lacking a link, maybe someone remembers in what thread this was discussed.

John Leahy on the 245t A339
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ht-425868/

flee · Thu Jan 12, 2017 7:29 am

kelvin933 wrote:
SQ22 wrote:
This has been discussed before and as far as I remember some credible members mentioned that 245t should be possible with the current gear configuration.
I am just lacking a link, maybe someone remembers in what thread this was discussed.

John Leahy on the 245t A339
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ht-425868/

Yes, it has been mentioned often enough by the top Airbus execs (I remember JL mentioning it again at Farnborough 2016). I would expect the engineers to be working on this to enhance the marketability of the A330neo.

Airasia X wants the A339 to have sufficient range to fly their KUL-LGW route as there is a good chance that their A359 order will be converted to the A339.

flee · Thu Jan 12, 2017 7:36 am

Slug71 wrote:
Have to wonder how likely the A338 is at this point with only 10 orders compared to 204 for the A339.

I think they will build this as there are freighter, VIP, MRTT and other possible military applications for this aircraft.

It will not cost too much to develop and certify it. Production wise, the same lines will build all the A330 frames - so there won't be any problems as A338s can be churned out as and when there are orders for them.

Channex757 · Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:00 am

Stitch wrote:
SQ22 wrote:
This has been discussed before and as far as I remember some credible members mentioned that 245t should be possible with the current gear configuration.

I am just lacking a link, maybe someone remembers in what thread this was discussed.

I don't doubt Airbus can get to 245,000kg on the current gear. Just not sure if they can go much farther.

The existing specs would relate to things like tyres and brakes, I would expect. Times change and there may be upgrades to undercarriage components and also the tyres that Airbus can add in to eke out a few more tons.

Passing that maximum energy RTO is probably the most difficult hurdle to pass as weights go north.

benbeny · Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:06 pm

245 tons? That's nice. After 242 tons now, A330neo will have 245 tons option. I bet it will steal some orders from 789, especially for airlines who currently owns A330.
A side question: can we retrofit A330ceo with neo engines and systems to make A330ceo >> A330neo, especially the 242 tons version which is practically brand new A330ceo?

ikolkyo · Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:52 pm

benbeny wrote:
245 tons? That's nice. After 242 tons now, A330neo will have 245 tons option. I bet it will steal some orders from 789, especially for airlines who currently owns A330.
A side question: can we retrofit A330ceo with neo engines and systems to make A330ceo >> A330neo, especially the 242 tons version which is practically brand new A330ceo?

It's more then just an engine change, there are aerodynamic improvements around the wing-body join and some changes to the wing.

Newbiepilot · Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:08 pm

FlightGlobal is reporting that the TAP entry into service is now in the first half of 2018. Previously engine delays pushed first delivery to 1sr quarter. Now it looks like it will be first half, which could represent another delay. The wording being used is careful. It seems to imply that TAP doesn't need it in 1st quarter, so the delay isn't a big deal. Apparently other airlines may not be interested in getting A330neos in 1st quarter 2018 or Rolls Royce may not be ready. I am not sure. Airbus is implying that a 6 month delay for the A330neo is no big deal.

Rolls-Royce is “a little bit late” with developing the Trent 7000 engine for the aircraft, he says, but stresses that this is “not due to [engine] performance”.

He says the engine manufacturer has been facing a “cumulative effect” of production of powerplants for the A350-900 and -1000 as well as the Boeing 787.

But Bregier also notes that Airbus has the flexibility to push the A330neo entry into service – originally set for the end of this year – into the first half of 2018.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ne-433057/

KarelXWB · Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:27 pm

It doesn't have to be "another" delay, just different wording. A delivery in H1 2018 might as well happen in Q1 2018. Airbus tend to be conservative.

Aviaphile · Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:41 pm

Francoflier wrote:
The racoon mask just irks me. There's absolutely no point to it, other than a stupid marketing gimmick. And it looks even worse than on the A350... I hope the airlines don't keep it.

Quite agree. I saw a rendition as to what the 350 would look like without the racoon eyes and I think it looked great. I don't believe that the racoon eyes are unavoidable as has been stated due to the paint being applied during installation of the windshields. I also think the 330 NEO looks even worse with the back paint.

Thunderboltdrgn · Sun Jan 15, 2017 9:48 am

First A330neo painting; "This video shows the first A330neo undergoing its painting process."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyPy2g3NwUM

sf260 · Sun Jan 15, 2017 5:48 pm

benbeny wrote:
A side question: can we retrofit A330ceo with neo engines and systems to make A330ceo >> A330neo, especially the 242 tons version which is practically brand new A330ceo?

I don't see that happening, the pylon changed as well. It is also not going to happen to A320ceo vs A320neo. While airbus could make a modification, it is only going the cannibalise their new product. I also don't see such a major configuration change being provided by a 3rd party without OEM-support.

mjoelnir · Sun Jan 15, 2017 7:39 pm

sf260 wrote:
benbeny wrote:
A side question: can we retrofit A330ceo with neo engines and systems to make A330ceo >> A330neo, especially the 242 tons version which is practically brand new A330ceo?

I don't see that happening, the pylon changed as well. It is also not going to happen to A320ceo vs A320neo. While airbus could make a modification, it is only going the cannibalise their new product. I also don't see such a major configuration change being provided by a 3rd party without OEM-support.

There is quite a bit more done than just changing the engine between the A330ceo and neo. The wing span is extended by 3.7 m to 64m with new winglets. There are aerodynamic changes, as for example new body wing fairings and the wing twist changed. I expect a weight reduction program.
The new engines are quite a bit heavier and that will result in changes to the wing structure.

wolfsburg · Mon Jan 16, 2017 3:28 pm

flee wrote:
kelvin933 wrote:
SQ22 wrote:
This has been discussed before and as far as I remember some credible members mentioned that 245t should be possible with the current gear configuration.
I am just lacking a link, maybe someone remembers in what thread this was discussed.

John Leahy on the 245t A339
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ht-425868/

Yes, it has been mentioned often enough by the top Airbus execs (I remember JL mentioning it again at Farnborough 2016). I would expect the engineers to be working on this to enhance the marketability of the A330neo.

Airasia X wants the A339 to have sufficient range to fly their KUL-LGW route as there is a good chance that their A359 order will be converted to the A339.

Not sure if Airbus has committed the range to AAX, previously AAX was worrying that the neo couln't make it...

Devilfish · Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:28 am

wolfsburg wrote:
Not sure if Airbus has committed the range to AAX, previously AAX was worrying that the neo couln't make it...

If Airbus did make this commitment to AAX and eventually makes good on it, 5J's choice for a new, long range aircraft has just become simpler. Notwithstanding 5J's stated intent of serving traffic-heavy SFO and LAX where the A339 would be seriously handicapped and the A359 too expensive for their model, there's no nonstop competition to MNL at SEA, and just PR at YVR. Of course, it'd just be for a handful of frames at most.

kmz · Tue Jan 17, 2017 5:11 am

mjoelnir wrote:
sf260 wrote:
benbeny wrote:
A side question: can we retrofit A330ceo with neo engines and systems to make A330ceo >> A330neo, especially the 242 tons version which is practically brand new A330ceo?

I don't see that happening, the pylon changed as well. It is also not going to happen to A320ceo vs A320neo. While airbus could make a modification, it is only going the cannibalise their new product. I also don't see such a major configuration change being provided by a 3rd party without OEM-support.

There is quite a bit more done than just changing the engine between the A330ceo and neo. The wing span is extended by 3.7 m to 64m with new winglets. There are aerodynamic changes, as for example new body wing fairings and the wing twist changed. I expect a weight reduction program.
The new engines are quite a bit heavier and that will result in changes to the wing structure.

Changing the wing twist sounds like a new wing to me. New psneld, ribs etc. Id this really the case?

aerolimani · Tue Jan 17, 2017 5:24 am

kmz wrote:
Changing the wing twist sounds like a new wing to me. New psneld, ribs etc. Id this really the case?

Yes, it really is the case. There's lots out there to be read. I suggest a quick googling. If you think of how much a wing flexes and moves in flight, and how a wing is always under tension (under its own weight, the engines, and aerodynamic forces), you can imagine how a few small changes can be made in the right places to give the wing some new shape. A wing is very much not a solid object.

*edited to fix quoting/coding error

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net