There are quite a few routes in parts of the world like India where A320/321's are being used at very high-frequency. These routes would be perfect for a medium-Range widebody optimised for high-frequency operations. I think this might be perfect for an airline like Air India which is facing a shortage of A32S's for the Tier-2 routes.

This has been tried before. Indian Airlines (now merged into Air India) inducted A300's in the 70's for use on domestic metro routes and at one time had over 10 AB3's on domestic/SAARC routes.


Just before the merger, Indian Airlines did induct 2 A330-200's on lease to test out suitability for domestic routes just as the last AB3 (VT-EHD) left the fleet. But politics ensured that plan didnt take off. A fleet of Widebodies on metro routes would have enabled AI to maintain capacity on key metro sectors & redeploying the smaller A32S fleet to Tier-2 routes - many of which they have simply withdrawn from making way for 6E to take over. AI's share on domestic routes has shrunk to just around 14% while 6E has zoomed to 40%!

Is it time to revisit the widebody idea esp with the market booming? Like with the AB3, the idea would be to deploy them on peak hour flights on BOM-DEL-CCU-MAA quadrangle with select additional routes to stations with traffic like BLR-TRV-SXR-GAU.


Back of paper calculation shows a small fleet of 6 A330-300 "regional" could free up 13 A32S's for use on other domestic routes where AI/IC has withdrawn from.

Question: The AB3 was the perfect size for this operation but with that ruled out, how suitable is the A330-200 for short-range (2-3 hour) high-frequency flights? With 18J seats in 2-2-2 layout with 40" pitch, How many economy seats can we squeeze into an A332 with a 30" pitch and 2-4-2 layout vs 3-3-3 layout? What are the corresponding figures for the A330-300 Regional? The higher cycles will have an impact on maintenance costs, but overall I think they would a huge CASM advantage?

Personally think the A330-300 is too large with over 400 seats. Around 300 seats with a 24 seat regional-J cabin would have been perfect sized. Time for Airbus to NEO the A300?

757/767MAX.

A300neo.

What next? The 727NG for short-field ops?

Seriously, there was a reason these models were withdrawn from the market and it wasn't because they were fuel-inefficient for their size. So a new engine option isn't going to make them suddenly more desirable, especially since the models that superseded them in the market all have new engine options, as well.

Nah. In India and Asia, where these could really work, the A330 or 787/777 is not too much a/c, or can be mixed with A320/737s to achieve the same seat count.
I think IndiGo and pals are probably very happy with their single type ops as well...

Stitch wrote:

Seriously, there was a reason these models were withdrawn from the market and it wasn't because they were fuel-inefficient for their size.

Apples to Apples please!

A300's were superceded by A320/321 with newer engines. Back in the day, replacing 2 737-200 flights at peak hours with a single AB3 bought significant benefits.

An A300 with newer more fuel efficient engine options could do the same today.

One could argue that reducing frequency would make them less competitive. But I am not suggesting that- replace flights at peak hours with A330R and A32S on the other flights. On a route like BOM-DEL with 18 daily flights by AI, swapping 7 of these would bump capacity on route by 33% with reduction in CASM. It would also free up 321's for other tier-2 routes.

ahj2000 wrote:

I think IndiGo and pals are probably very happy with their single type ops as well...

6E is an LCC with a whole different model- single type works for them.

I personally don't see them lasting though - there are already signs of some Kingfisher type troubles looming. But that's a separate topic!

The A300 was built for that purpose and was used like that in Europe too. For example as a kid I flew from France to Germany on an A300. More recently I flew PAR-TUN on an A300-600.

Building a new plane for that task isn't going to happen, cue the cancellation of the 787-3. Airbus offers the A330 Regional, though.

I think a similar example can be drawn between QF and AI in this scenario. QF previously had 763ER operating extensively on the golden AU triangle between SYD, MEL, and BNE some times of day every 30-15mins. They then tried 332s under the CityFlyer brand, however I believe they struggled with utilisation due to turn time- pumping fuel onboard quick enough was a rumoured reason.

Now these routes are mostly 738 which have just been reconfigured to 12C/162Y with 330s (200s & 300s) during peak times. With no extra slots in Sydney and Melbourne increasingly facing congestion - more frequency isn't an option. QF are lucky as they can cycle their 330s through International flight and domestic HKG-MEL-SYD-SIN etc but I do think long term they need a 321 or more 330 options for these triangle routes. Further frequency is not possible, nor of benefit, and the market can't be further fragmented.

Does it however generate value in a new fleet type, or investment in a NEO? I'd doubt it, and same for AI. Smarter utilisation of international widebody assests would make better sense to me. Don't they have 744s sitting around only operating to KSA? Could their utilisation not be reviewed to incorporate peak hour domestic services?

There was an A300NEO. It was called the A330.

Seriously, every engine efficiency improvement stretches the optimal length of a configuration.

With the 787 now in service and the A321NEO soon in service, where is the market space? The A300 ruled when narrowbody hot/high was so-so. No A300NEO would beat A321NEO costs.

Lightsaber

smi0006 wrote:

With no extra slots in Sydney and Melbourne increasingly facing congestion - more frequency isn't an option. QF are lucky as they can cycle their 330s through International flight and domestic HKG-MEL-SYD-SIN etc but I do think long term they need a 321 or more 330 options for these triangle routes. Further frequency is not possible, nor of benefit, and the market can't be further fragmented.

With DEL & BOM especially getting congested especially at peak hours its a growing problem here too. AI too cycles its widebodies on DEL-BOM - atleast four flights every day are on 787/77W, and now one evening flight has switched to a 747 from a 321. DEL-BLR too sees a 77L twice a week (AI174). Earlier the morning & late evening flights on DEL-MAA & DEL-BLR also saw 787's or A330. Problem is that these ops are constrained by the nature of their regular use. The config is more suited to long haul etc.

smi0006 wrote:

Does it however generate value in a new fleet type, or investment in a NEO? I'd doubt it, and same for AI. Smarter utilisation of international widebody assests would make better sense to me.

A sub-fleet of 12 regional widebody aircraft (around the same number of AB3's they operated) is self-sustaining and worth it IMO. The issue here is that the AB3 was never really replaced in the AI/IC fleet. The A321's were subbed in as they arrived, which was a significant reduction in capacity (273 to 172). Many domestic routes were simply abandoned due to the shortage of A32S's. Major routes like BLR/MAA-CCU, BLR-PNQ, BOM-CCU (1/4 capacity they had in 2005!), BOM-BLR(1/3 capacity of 2005) and so on.

smi0006 wrote:

Don't they have 744s sitting around only operating to KSA? Could their utilisation not be reviewed to incorporate peak hour domestic services?

50% of the annual hours of 2/3 744's are blocked off for travel by PM/President. As such the 744 is kept as a VVIP travel aircraft subbing in for some routes.

lightsaber wrote:

There was an A300NEO. It was called the A330.

Yes. However I think Airbus is offering only the A330-300 as a regional variant? Is it available for the A330-200 variant?

lightsaber wrote:

With the 787 now in service and the A321NEO soon in service, where is the market space? The A300 ruled when narrowbody hot/high was so-so. No A300NEO would beat A321NEO costs.

The 787 is optimised for longer hauls and too much plane in terms of range. The A321 is too small for this specific role. The 787-3 would have been perfect.

It's a 40 year old frame and we have moved on, technologically. New engines won't make these old birds competitive.

jimatkins wrote:

It's a 40 year old frame and we have moved on, technologically. New engines won't make these old birds competitive.

What about a regional variant of the A330-800? Airbus is offering a regional variant of the A330-300/900 which would have over 365-400 seats which is too large for most operators.

A lower MTOW A330-200/800 regional variant with range of 3000nm and 2-class capacity between 300 & 335 would do well.

Good reasons why the 727, 757 and A300 are no longer on the shopping lists of airlines, and therefore not available.

There may be justification for a modern aircraft of similar configuration.

The ability to grandfather certification in respect to new models has significantly changed in the intervening period. And the insurance industry has woken up to a revenue opportunity, basing premiums on statistics to applying to all models from the first to the latest sharing grandfathering, a disadvantage for the latest, which is why all other factors being equal, including applying pro-rata hull values, 748 premiums are higher than A380.

BawliBooch wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

There was an A300NEO. It was called the A330.

Yes. However I think Airbus is offering only the A330-300 as a regional variant? Is it available for the A330-200 variant?

Yes, I wanna say the same thing too, A300neo is A330.
A330-300 is higher capacity variant, less airframe weight per pax compared to smaller A330-200, which I think will improve efficiency.

BawliBooch wrote:

A lower MTOW A330-200/800 regional variant with range of 3000nm and 2-class capacity between 300 & 335 would do well.

Airbus would happily sell a customer an A330-200 / A330-800 with significantly reduced operating weights if they wanted it. But the OEW penalty is significant for such a large frame (as it is for any modern widebody used in such a role), which is why no customer has asked.

???
Around Asia many airlines are using A330 and etc. in these short, high demand route even when there are no lower mtow version, what's the problem?

c933103 wrote:

???
Around Asia many airlines are using A330 and etc. in these short, high demand route even when there are no lower mtow version, what's the problem?

Maybe because it's highly used in the region so the support is widely available, the resale value is good, and it can be used for longer routes in almost no time, and it rooted in the fact that Asia was one of the early adopters of A300

c933103 wrote:

???
Around Asia many airlines are using A330 and etc. in these short, high demand route even when there are no lower mtow version, what's the problem?

Lower MTOW = better optimized for role?

Which airlines are using A330-200 in regional configuration? Keen to see their seating config.

When there are A380 flights on PEK-CAN, aren't A330s sufficient for this purpose? Nothing stops AI from operating their A330s on trunk routes.

Aesma wrote:

The A300 was built for that purpose and was used like that in Europe too. For example as a kid I flew from France to Germany on an A300. More recently I flew PAR-TUN on an A300-600.

Building a new plane for that task isn't going to happen, cue the cancellation of the 787-3. Airbus offers the A330 Regional, though.

Off topic but when and what airline did you fly PAR-TUN on?

Per seatguru:
UX 24C 275Y
TS 12C 333Y
AB 19C 44Y+ 227Y
AD 20C 100Y+ 151Y
EW 21Y+ 289Y
HA 18C 40Y+ 236Y
IB18C 269Y
QF 36C 268Y | 36C 265Y | 34C 265Y
UL 12C 24Y+ 251Y
MT 49Y+ 273Y | 321Y

benbeny wrote:

c933103 wrote:

???
Around Asia many airlines are using A330 and etc. in these short, high demand route even when there are no lower mtow version, what's the problem?

Maybe because it's highly used in the region so the support is widely available, the resale value is good, and it can be used for longer routes in almost no time, and it rooted in the fact that Asia was one of the early adopters of A300

"what is the problem", as in, what is the problen for India to use current A330 on these routes.

BawliBooch wrote:

c933103 wrote:

???
Around Asia many airlines are using A330 and etc. in these short, high demand route even when there are no lower mtow version, what's the problem?

Lower MTOW = better optimized for role?

Which airlines are using A330-200 in regional configuration? Keen to see their seating config.

Sure, but the cost difference is not detrimental.
And while there are surely some 332 being used for domestic operation , if you want optimization why don't go for 333? As in 333 would have lower CASM than 332

The A332 mainly exists for range, so if you don't need the range, you take the A333.

billywilt wrote:

Aesma wrote:

The A300 was built for that purpose and was used like that in Europe too. For example as a kid I flew from France to Germany on an A300. More recently I flew PAR-TUN on an A300-600.

Building a new plane for that task isn't going to happen, cue the cancellation of the 787-3. Airbus offers the A330 Regional, though.

Off topic but when and what airline did you fly PAR-TUN on?

Tunisair in 2006.

smi0006 wrote:

Smarter utilisation of international widebody assests would make better sense to me. Don't they have 744s sitting around only operating to KSA? Could their utilisation not be reviewed to incorporate peak hour domestic services?

This is already happening. AI have started a double daily DEL-BOM-DEL with these birds a couple of weeks ago.

BawliBooch wrote:

Which airlines are using A330-200 in regional configuration? Keen to see their seating config.

Few. EK was one of the last.

It generally doesn't make sense to use the A332 in regional configuration, when the A333 offers a significant seat increase at an almost negligible cost increase, while still being able to perform any regional route (or fit into any airfield) that an A332 can.

When the A330/A340 family was developed using the A300 fuselage, cockpit and tail, the big wingbox and wing were developed to carry the higher MTOW's, fuel, LDG's and engines. That is why the A330 has the OEW it has. It's made for 300 passengers and cargo doing long flights.

To get back to an efficient shorter range aircraft, the heavy wing, wingbox etc. would have to be replaced to create a light efficient aircraft for this segment.

Isn't the proposed Boeing Middle of the Market a/c aimed at this segment?

keesje wrote:

When the A330/A340 family was developed using the A300 fuselage, cockpit and tail, the big wingbox and wing were developed to carry the higher MTOW's, fuel, LDG's and engines. That is why the A330 has the OEW it has. It's made for 300 passengers and cargo doing long flights.

To get back to an efficient shorter range aircraft, the heavy wing, wingbox etc. would have to be replaced to create a light efficient aircraft for this segment.

That would result in a highly efficient aircraft as the new wing will most certainly be one made with CFRP, so the OEW will be greatly reduced.

Air India has lost domestic market share because they can't compete with more nimble, better run, lower cost, commercial carriers.

Dutchy wrote:

Isn't the proposed Boeing Middle of the Market a/c aimed at this segment?

Yes. It's the segment between the A321 and A330-900 for Airbus and in between the 737-8 and 787-9 for Boeing.
Assuming the 737-9, A350-800 and A330-800 and 787-8 won't be sold in large numbers.

It seems like the A321(neo) and the A332/338 leave very little room for such a plane in the Airbus product line.

What would be the feasibility of stretching the A321 into an A322? I know, it's always a theoretical in the neverending 757 replacement discussion, but maybe an A322 based on the A321LR with slightly less range (3,000-3500nmi) would be the perfect answer to the "modern A300."

intotheair wrote:

It seems like the A321(neo) and the A332/338 leave very little room for such a plane in the Airbus product line.

What would be the feasibility of stretching the A321 into an A322? I know, it's always a theoretical in the neverending 757 replacement discussion, but maybe an A322 based on the A321LR with slightly less range (3,000-3500nmi) would be the perfect answer to the "modern A300."

I think a simple stretch of A321 into an A322 would push wing loading / performance. The A338 is an intercontinental (7000NM) with LD3's machine.

As discussed in other threads, a new bigger wing creating a 20% more capable A322 would probably be more feasible / profitable than A300'ing the A330..

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1342155

keesje wrote:

intotheair wrote:

It seems like the A321(neo) and the A332/338 leave very little room for such a plane in the Airbus product line.

What would be the feasibility of stretching the A321 into an A322? I know, it's always a theoretical in the neverending 757 replacement discussion, but maybe an A322 based on the A321LR with slightly less range (3,000-3500nmi) would be the perfect answer to the "modern A300."

I think a simple stretch of A321 into an A322 would push wing loading / performance. The A338 is an intercontinental (7000NM) with LD3's machine.

As discussed in other threads, a new bigger wing creating a 20% more capable A322 would probably be more feasible / profitable than A300'ing the A330..

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1342155

Agree, unfortunately, as I don't like narrowbodies on flights more than two hours. But I don't see Airbus doing anything for a long time, I guess they will stick to A321 & A321 LR neos. But for the sake of argument, which powerplant would be available on the marketplace today should they decide for either an
a) A322 neo, or
b) A330-700 neo ?

A322 could probably use growth versions of LEAP and PW1100 that seem to hve growth margin on critical components up to 40k lbs.

Wouldn't an A330-700 be too heavy and/or require a massive investment, anywhere between the A330NEO and the 779? And would the end result be competitieve against the Boeing MOM? How large would the market be? 500? There is a reason why the B783 was rejected by airlines. I don't see the businesscase for Airbus. Perhaps the A322 would require less investment and the market is bigger, but does require a new wing, which they could reuse in the A321LR.

Spiderguy252 wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

Smarter utilisation of international widebody assests would make better sense to me. Don't they have 744s sitting around only operating to KSA? Could their utilisation not be reviewed to incorporate peak hour domestic services?

This is already happening. AI have started a double daily DEL-BOM-DEL with these birds a couple of weeks ago.

Does anybody else feel that this is more a 70-ish advert then a 2017 one?

keesje wrote:

A322 could probably use growth versions of LEAP and PW1100 that seem to hve growth margin on critical components up to 40k lbs.

And maybe knowledge from the A350-1000 might allow them to optimize the A321 wing even more.

BawliBooch wrote:

Personally think the A330-300 is too large with over 400 seats. Around 300 seats with a 24 seat regional-J cabin would have been perfect sized. Time for Airbus to NEO the A300?

Nope. As others have alluded to that size segment will probably be addressed in the next generation of aircraft family such as Boeing's MoM and Airbus's next narrowbody family, so likely quite a few years into the future. In the shorter term, we're much more likely to see a stretched A322. Boeing customers can still order 767's.

Dutchy wrote:

Does anybody else feel that this is more a 70-ish advert then a 2017 one?

Goes well with the 747 though!

airbazar wrote:

BawliBooch wrote:

Personally think the A330-300 is too large with over 400 seats. Around 300 seats with a 24 seat regional-J cabin would have been perfect sized. Time for Airbus to NEO the A300?

Nope. As others have alluded to that size segment will probably be addressed in the next generation of aircraft family such as Boeing's MoM and Airbus's next narrowbody family, so likely quite a few years into the future. In the shorter term, we're much more likely to see a stretched A322. Boeing customers can still order 767's.

I don't think the passenger version of 767 is still available. Just cargo.

Boeing actually offered the 787-3 which had a different wing and much lower weight but still with the high technology of the 787 family. There wasn't enough interest.

It wasn't brilliantly optimised though. It wasn't a completely different wing- it was basically just a -8's wing with blended winglets which allowed it to fit into more gate spaces as the wingspan was shorter than the raked tips the -8 has.

I think the main reason preventing Airbus from building anything is Boeing. As in the many (many, many, many...) comments about how Airbus kind of have the best options right now. If you were looking for something like this, your best option is either an A330 or an A321. The 787 is expensive and, like the A330, not optimised for shorter flights. It's also not really available, while the A330 is. On the lower end of the MoM range is the A321, which is more capable than the 737-9, especially in MaxLR configuration.

If Boeing decide to go for a MoM, then I can see Airbus countering with a new wing on either the A330 or the A321, making either an A300neo style aircraft (as in Keesje's renderings), or an A322neo sitting somewhere size-wise between the 757-200 and the 757-300. In the meantime, Airbus can sit pretty.

I´d go for option 3. Maybe there is no market for such plane. The "waiting for Boeing" argument makes no sense, if there is a market segment big enough to make it worthwhile to explore with the MoM in competition, it surely should be worth taking without the MoM launched.

seahawk wrote:

I´d go for option 3. Maybe there is no market for such plane. The "waiting for Boeing" argument makes no sense, if there is a market segment big enough to make it worthwhile to explore with the MoM in competition, it surely should be worth taking without the MoM launched.

Strangely enough, I agree. We've seen so many arguments in favor of 'non-replaceable' mighty B752 and B753, but seeing so many B752 and B753 being converted to freighter versions or being retired without direct replacement, has made me questioning: is it really non-replaceable, or do the airlines have better alternatives?
Surely if the demand is high enough, it's cheaper in a long term to draw a cleansheet design rather than build 737MAX, but apparently the demand for 757 replacement isn't there or the alternatives are good enough for airlines.

Everyone, lets not forget the 787-10.
Isn't that the 'short haul' widebody?

keesje wrote:

When the A330/A340 family was developed using the A300 fuselage, cockpit and tail, the big wingbox and wing were developed to carry the higher MTOW's, fuel, LDG's and engines. That is why the A330 has the OEW it has. It's made for 300 passengers and cargo doing long flights.

To get back to an efficient shorter range aircraft, the heavy wing, wingbox etc. would have to be replaced to create a light efficient aircraft for this segment.

Airbus has done proposals for a light widebody. The issue is with CFRP, it adds so little cost on short missions to optimize for more range, so the design grows.

I think Boeing is on the right path with a large narrowbody for the MoM. Turn times do not matter so much for longer missions and I personally do not believe large airframes will serve much on sub 2-hour missions. Not enough to pay for a truly optimized airframe.

Airbus went into a design study and kept finding a little more range helped sales and ended up with a 7,200nm+ plane! With a stretch for shorter routes.

IMHO it will take a change in configuration to re-optimize the size. For example, I've seen from Airbus lift body and BWB concepts that make *far* more sense for the discussion we're having.

Lightsaber

BawliBooch wrote:

Stitch wrote:

Seriously, there was a reason these models were withdrawn from the market and it wasn't because they were fuel-inefficient for their size.

Apples to Apples please!

A300's were superceded by A320/321 with newer engines. Back in the day, replacing 2 737-200 flights at peak hours with a single AB3 bought significant benefits.

An A300 with newer more fuel efficient engine options could do the same today.

One could argue that reducing frequency would make them less competitive. But I am not suggesting that- replace flights at peak hours with A330R and A32S on the other flights. On a route like BOM-DEL with 18 daily flights by AI, swapping 7 of these would bump capacity on route by 33% with reduction in CASM. It would also free up 321's for other tier-2 routes.

Basically there already is a 300NEO, it's called the 330NEO Regional version.

DFW789ER wrote:

Basically there already is a 300NEO, it's called the 330NEO Regional version.

Yet we're told the A330CEO has better performance on shorter routes due to lighter engines. Overall lower costs due to cheaper engines and no extra R&D to cover.

keesje wrote:

A322 could probably use growth versions of LEAP and PW1100 that seem to hve growth margin on critical components up to 40k lbs.

I think a new wing that is optimised for the A321/A322 with new GTF engines would be a lower investment than an A300neo. They might even take the opportunity to move the architecture to the A380/A350 with dual hydraulics, different servo actuators, new cockpit displays, and centralised avionics servers.

B787-10 is kind of medium range widebody, I guess.

Isn't the problem with a middle of the market plane that it is in a spot that makes it quite heavy per seat? Either you have a long body ala B753 which require more stiffness and thus weight, or you have a short widebody which makes it also inefficient.

Revelation wrote:

DFW789ER wrote:

Basically there already is a 300NEO, it's called the 330NEO Regional version.

Yet we're told the A330CEO has better performance on shorter routes due to lighter engines. Overall lower costs due to cheaper engines and no extra R&D to cover.

Either way it seems the right replacement. The 300 was revolutionary but it's time has passed.

BestWestern wrote:

Air India has lost domestic market share because they can't compete with more nimble, better run, lower cost, commercial carriers.

Ah yes. On any day, AI tickets are 20-30% more expensive than LCCs because people know the service is better and the tickets sell easily. But AI is losing on low capacity and expensive tickets. What no other airline offers in India:


https://m.facebook.com/AirIndia/photos/ ... &source=48

I won't mind if AI focusess more on international sector however.