parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:20 am

Well that's bye bye to the -800 then (IMHO).
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8909
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:28 am

ZEDZAG wrote:
Revelation wrote:
I think the A330neo is the right thing to do, but the logic is the kind that led Boeing to do the 747-8...

There still is some risk in A330neo having a trajectory more like 747-8 than A320neo or 737NG or 737MAX...



Last 744 pax was delivered in 2005, the same year boeing announced 748, as 380 made its FF as 77W EISd along with 346 a year earlier. 7 years later boeing deliverd first 748i. Last 744 deliverd of the line was in 2009 with some deliveris of NTUs in 2010, while first 748f was delivered late 2011.There was a gap bettwen the two. The logic from boeing when launchin was strong freighter sales, not pax


When will this myth disappear about the 787-8 was launch because of the freighter version. This myth has been invented here on a.net when the expected sales numbers for the 787-8i did not materialise. The planing was for selling significantly more 747-8i than 747-8F.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17781
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:41 am

mjoelnir wrote:
The planing was for selling significantly more 747-8i than 747-8F.


Indeed. Boeing's expectation at launch was for a sales ratio of 3:1 in favour of the passenger model.
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.
 
behramjee
Posts: 4986
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 4:56 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:11 am

If Airbus Sales Chief says 7000nm then realistically you have to take out 20% to be safe so 5600nm.

This means the 251T A330NEO from DXB can fly westwards up to YUL and eastwards till PER maximum.

From LHR, it can fly up to HKG nonstop eastbound, it can cover the U.S. West Coast easily and southbound it can do till GRU only nonstop.

From SEA, it can operate eastbound till TUN nonstop and westbound till PVG only.

From JFK, it can operate up to BGW eastbound, EZE southbound but westbound it cannot reach even NRT !
 
WIederling
Posts: 8887
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:13 am

kitplane01 wrote:
Can you think of any similar situation where people have pulled weight from a mature design? Offer us an example of where this has worked in the past?


Percent-wise Airbus has done that.
Look at MTOW increases and the commensurate OEW increases over time for the A330.

How much structure OEW did the A330 gain over the years. ( IMU not much )
( don't mix in with the cabin outfitting getting heavier over time ( IFE, non Y seats turning into weighty monuments ..)
Murphy is an optimist
 
ap305
Topic Author
Posts: 1501
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2000 4:03 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:24 am

behramjee wrote:
If Airbus Sales Chief says 7000nm then realistically you have to take out 20% to be safe so 5600nm.

This means the 251T A330NEO from DXB can fly westwards up to YUL and eastwards till PER maximum.

From LHR, it can fly up to HKG nonstop eastbound, it can cover the U.S. West Coast easily and southbound it can do till GRU only nonstop.

From SEA, it can operate eastbound till TUN nonstop and westbound till PVG only.

From JFK, it can operate up to BGW eastbound, EZE southbound but westbound it cannot reach even NRT !


Leahy said “up over 7,000nm.”

http://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/8 ... 2849993731

Even if you account for one ton from the 9ton increase towards structural strengthening and the fuel burn penalty for carrying the additional fuel, you still get 8 tons of additional fuel. This will result in a still air marketing range of around 13500km with 280 pax. This should be sufficient for jfk-nrt.
Racing, competing, is in my blood. It's part of me, it's part of my life; I've been doing it all my life. And it stands up before anything else- Ayrton Senna
 
ap305
Topic Author
Posts: 1501
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2000 4:03 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:28 am

Btw another job site has posted the ad....

http://en.wizbii.com/company/airbus/job ... internship
Racing, competing, is in my blood. It's part of me, it's part of my life; I've been doing it all my life. And it stands up before anything else- Ayrton Senna
 
ZEDZAG
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:13 am

scbriml wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
The planing was for selling significantly more 747-8i than 747-8F.


Indeed. Boeing's expectation at launch was for a sales ratio of 3:1 in favour of the passenger model.


Airbus expected to sell 1200 A380...

AT launch of 748, what were the launch orders, pax vs freight??

I did not say that 748 was launched beacuse of F, only that F was a bailout certainty.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8887
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:04 am

ZEDZAG wrote:
Airbus expected to sell 1200 A380...


that never dies, does it?

about half of that.
Murphy is an optimist
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:29 am

But the question still remains (7knm or not).
Why buy the 330-9 NEO?-than the 789
Because you can get it earlier?
Well v few airlines are buying right now.Indeed many are pushing their existing orders back.Boeing is upping production too to eliminate any potential weakness there.
Because it's better?
It isn't.Well we don't actually 'know' for sure but logic would suggest that it is (a little) inferior .
Because it's cheaper?
Who says? (bods here say but that is meaningless).Cheaper than a clip together plastic plane -I am not so sure.
Because it gives commonality with your existing fleet?
Perhaps.Certainly with crew and maintenance.But many have already been prepared to make the long term change over.

It has and will sell some,but how many I am not so sure.If the 797 gets launched next year it will have a war on both fronts....
 
User avatar
Jayafe
Posts: 1215
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:12 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:37 am

parapente wrote:
But the question still remains (7knm or not).
Why buy the 330-9 NEO?-than the 789
Because you can get it earlier?
Well v few airlines are buying right now.Indeed many are pushing their existing orders back.Boeing is upping production too to eliminate any potential weakness there.
Because it's better?
It isn't.Well we don't actually 'know' for sure but logic would suggest that it is (a little) inferior .
Because it's cheaper?
Who says? (bods here say but that is meaningless).Cheaper than a clip together plastic plane -I am not so sure.
Because it gives commonality with your existing fleet?
Perhaps.Certainly with crew and maintenance.But many have already been prepared to make the long term change over.

It has and will sell some,but how many I am not so sure.If the 797 gets launched next year it will have a war on both fronts....


Calendar, price, commonality, proved of previous model, reliability, matching routes' needs.... You are right, there is no reason. The whole model (or company) should be shut down. Maths and economics, as you say are "meaningless").
Have a good rest.
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:39 am

parapente wrote:
But the question still remains (7knm or not).
Why buy the 330-9 NEO?-than the 789
Because you can get it earlier?
Well v few airlines are buying right now.Indeed many are pushing their existing orders back.Boeing is upping production too to eliminate any potential weakness there.
Because it's better?
It isn't.Well we don't actually 'know' for sure but logic would suggest that it is (a little) inferior .
Because it's cheaper?
Who says? (bods here say but that is meaningless).Cheaper than a clip together plastic plane -I am not so sure.
Because it gives commonality with your existing fleet?
Perhaps.Certainly with crew and maintenance.But many have already been prepared to make the long term change over.

It has and will sell some,but how many I am not so sure.If the 797 gets launched next year it will have a war on both fronts....


:checkmark: Exactly

The A330neo will turn out to be a classic example of "to little". Airbus thought a new engine will be enough and nearly everyone here agreed more-or-less. The argument was that the CASM might be 2-3% worse but anything else would be a wash plus cheaper and faster. But that is not the case, there are much more factors than just the CASM and it seems that Airlines choose the 787-9 in nearly every case.

Some even said this "neo" (A350 MKI) would have been enough instead of the A350XWB. Airbus would really have a problem in that space now if they proceeded with this half attemp.

And it is abolutely correct, if Boeing launches the MOM Airbus have to do something in that space too. The A330neo will be a very short-term "solution". A A322X will only adress this partly, they need something in the 787-8 space below the A350-900.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2469
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 28, 2017 12:27 pm

dare100em wrote:
parapente wrote:
But the question still remains (7knm or not).
Why buy the 330-9 NEO?-than the 789
Because you can get it earlier?
Well v few airlines are buying right now.Indeed many are pushing their existing orders back.Boeing is upping production too to eliminate any potential weakness there.
Because it's better?
It isn't.Well we don't actually 'know' for sure but logic would suggest that it is (a little) inferior .
Because it's cheaper?
Who says? (bods here say but that is meaningless).Cheaper than a clip together plastic plane -I am not so sure.
Because it gives commonality with your existing fleet?
Perhaps.Certainly with crew and maintenance.But many have already been prepared to make the long term change over.

It has and will sell some,but how many I am not so sure.If the 797 gets launched next year it will have a war on both fronts....


:checkmark: Exactly

The A330neo will turn out to be a classic example of "to little". Airbus thought a new engine will be enough and nearly everyone here agreed more-or-less. The argument was that the CASM might be 2-3% worse but anything else would be a wash plus cheaper and faster. But that is not the case, there are much more factors than just the CASM and it seems that Airlines choose the 787-9 in nearly every case.

Some even said this "neo" (A350 MKI) would have been enough instead of the A350XWB. Airbus would really have a problem in that space now if they proceeded with this half attemp.

And it is abolutely correct, if Boeing launches the MOM Airbus have to do something in that space too. The A330neo will be a very short-term "solution". A A322X will only adress this partly, they need something in the 787-8 space below the A350-900.


Do they need something in the 787-8 space? The 787-8 has seen its orders slow in recent years, and the A332 slowed before as well.

Choosing the 787-9 in nearly every case? The 787 has sold similar numbers to the A330 since launch, and also since the A330neo's launch. Airbus has been gaining lots of small deals through lessors, as there is still a big market for cheaper but less efficient aircraft. We've already seen indications that the very strong A330 lease market will transition to the neo to at least some extent. It's less efficient than the 787, but it's close enough that it will compete, being less efficient never stopped the A320 selling against the 738, did it?
 
airbazar
Posts: 9819
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 28, 2017 12:52 pm

IMO I think this increase is needed to support high density A333's with 400+ seats. This should make the A339 more attractive to LCC and charter operators.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11259
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:02 pm

parapente wrote:
Because it's cheaper?
Who says? (bods here say but that is meaningless).Cheaper than a clip together plastic plane -I am not so sure.


if Boeing wants to recover all those deferred cost the A338/9 will be cheaper. The moment Boeing starts selling cheap enough to compete with the A330, even if it is millions more expensive to build, they can kiss that good bye. And a 3% fuel burn difference has currently a value of what, 4 Million USD or so if you ride your aircraft hard? How much cheaper is an A330neo in a 12 year lease at the moment? About 15 Million or so?

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
Jayafe
Posts: 1215
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:12 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:06 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
...if Boeing wants to recover all those deferred cost the A338/9 will be cheaper. The moment Boeing starts selling cheap enough to compete with the A330, even if it is millions more expensive to build, they can kiss that good bye. And a 3% fuel burn difference has currently a value of what, 4 Million USD or so if you ride your aircraft hard? How much cheaper is an A330neo in a 12 year lease at the moment? About 15 Million or so?


Are you suggesting a Bombardier case 2.0? I thought dumpling planes financed with publc money/tax breaks was not decent. Oh well, maybe it does only if Boeing goes with it...
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11259
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:23 pm

Jayafe wrote:
Are you suggesting a Bombardier case 2.0? I thought dumpling planes financed with publc money/tax breaks was not decent. Oh well, maybe it does only if Boeing goes with it...


Dumping is selling below price. Airbus had a much, much cheaper R&D, and there are no deferred production costs they have to recover. Even if an A330neo was a couple of millions more expensive to build, they can still sell it 30 million cheaper per frame or so before they get into the dumping zone. And they only need 4 million to make up the fuel burn difference.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
ap305
Topic Author
Posts: 1501
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2000 4:03 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:25 pm

This cached version of a job opportunity on the Airbus website mentions the 251t variant... They appear to have since removed it.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=in
Racing, competing, is in my blood. It's part of me, it's part of my life; I've been doing it all my life. And it stands up before anything else- Ayrton Senna
 
User avatar
MoKa777
Posts: 982
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:47 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:53 pm

airbazar wrote:
IMO I think this increase is needed to support high density A333's with 400+ seats. This should make the A339 more attractive to LCC and charter operators.


That is a very interesting idea which I had not thought about until now.
Never be proud. Always be grateful.
 
godsbeloved
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 11:32 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:01 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Jayafe wrote:
Are you suggesting a Bombardier case 2.0? I thought dumpling planes financed with publc money/tax breaks was not decent. Oh well, maybe it does only if Boeing goes with it...


Dumping is selling below price. Airbus had a much, much cheaper R&D, and there are no deferred production costs they have to recover. Even if an A330neo was a couple of millions more expensive to build, they can still sell it 30 million cheaper per frame or so before they get into the dumping zone. And they only need 4 million to make up the fuel burn difference.

Best regards
Thomas


He meant the plastic plane was being dumped...
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1368
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:42 am

WIederling wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
Can you think of any similar situation where people have pulled weight from a mature design? Offer us an example of where this has worked in the past?


Percent-wise Airbus has done that.
Look at MTOW increases and the commensurate OEW increases over time for the A330.

How much structure OEW did the A330 gain over the years. ( IMU not much )
( don't mix in with the cabin outfitting getting heavier over time ( IFE, non Y seats turning into weighty monuments ..)


That's not the same thing at all. The original poster suggested pulling significant weight so as to reduce the cost of shorter routes. I don't think that's been done.
 
Pacific
Posts: 1145
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 2:46 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:25 pm

Anyone remember this? :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TbRyhLJqT0

tommy1808 wrote:
if Boeing wants to recover all those deferred cost the A338/9 will be cheaper. The moment Boeing starts selling cheap enough to compete with the A330, even if it is millions more expensive to build, they can kiss that good bye. And a 3% fuel burn difference has currently a value of what, 4 Million USD or so if you ride your aircraft hard? How much cheaper is an A330neo in a 12 year lease at the moment? About 15 Million or so?

best regards
Thomas


If they can make the A330-900 within 3% fuel burn of the 787, it's a remarkable achievement considering the tremendous R&D involved with the 787. The current A330NEO is arguably a far "worse" aircraft without the lighter fuselage and new wings compared to the original A350mk1 which was blasted with criticism.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11259
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:25 pm

Pacific wrote:
If they can make the A330-900 within 3% fuel burn of the 787, it's a remarkable achievement considering the tremendous R&D involved with the 787. The current A330NEO is arguably a far "worse" aircraft without the lighter fuselage and new wings compared to the original A350mk1 which was blasted with criticism.


But maybe they found other tweaks they didn´t have in store for the MK1. Leeham says: "Fuel costs. Rolls Royce and Airbus will lower these with 12% for long haul operations. For short to medium haul the improvement will range from none to the full 12% depending on stage length. The difference in fuel consumption between a 787 and a A330ceo is in the 11%-15% range so this difference all but disappears depending on model, range and payloads."

from: https://leehamnews.com/2014/07/15/airbu ... nce-costs/

So, it would appear like they managed just that.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26503
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:31 pm

Pacific wrote:
If they can make the A330-900 within 3% fuel burn of the 787, it's a remarkable achievement considering the tremendous R&D involved with the 787.


The A330neo has similar weight, the same engines and a larger wing area than the 787 so that their trip fuel burn is close is not all that surprising. The 787 still has the passenger and cargo revenue advantage, however (more seats and more LD3 positions).
 
godsbeloved
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 11:32 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:35 pm

Stitch wrote:
Pacific wrote:
If they can make the A330-900 within 3% fuel burn of the 787, it's a remarkable achievement considering the tremendous R&D involved with the 787.


The A330neo has similar weight, the same engines and a larger wing area than the 787 so that their trip fuel burn is close is not all that surprising. The 787 still has the passenger and cargo revenue advantage, however (more seats and more LD3 positions).


Depending on stage length that is...and 339 has more seats
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26503
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Fri Sep 29, 2017 5:17 pm

godsbeloved wrote:
Depending on stage length that is...and 339 has more seats


The 787-9 and A330-300/A330-900 have effectively identical cabin floor area. The A330 fuselage is two meters longer, but the 787 is wider and can therefore fit an additional seat per row. VS, for example, has 264 seats in their 787-9s and 266 in their A330-300s and EY is 235 on the 789 vs. 231 on the A333.
 
Theseus
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:35 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Fri Sep 29, 2017 5:43 pm

Stitch wrote:
godsbeloved wrote:
The 787-9 and A330-300/A330-900 have effectively identical cabin floor area. The A330 fuselage is two meters longer, but the 787 is wider and can therefore fit an additional seat per row. VS, for example, has 264 seats in their 787-9s and 266 in their A330-300s and EY is 235 on the 789 vs. 231 on the A333.


For VS, I see:
- A333: 31J or 33J (two configs); 48W; 185Y
- B789: 31J; 35W; 198Y

So we see a slightly higher number of premium seats on the 333. It seems to be about the same for EY (-4Y, +4J).
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26503
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Fri Sep 29, 2017 5:58 pm

Theseus wrote:
So we see a slightly higher number of premium seats on the 333. It seems to be about the same for EY (-4Y, +4J).


Individual airline configurations will vary, of course, but you can effectively get the same number of seats on a 787-9 as an A330-300/-900 if you chose. So that an airline may have more seats on an A330 than a 787 (and vice-versa) is a matter of choice, not necessity.
 
sf260
Posts: 280
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:59 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:00 pm

Stitch wrote:
So that an airline may have more seats on an A330 than a 787 (and vice-versa) is a matter of choice, not necessity.

The only necessity is that you equip the 787 with a 9-abreast economy. I think it is a real shame for Boeing that the 787 only in a 9-abreast lay-out can be competitive against an A330neo.
 
godsbeloved
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 11:32 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:28 pm

sf260 wrote:
Stitch wrote:
So that an airline may have more seats on an A330 than a 787 (and vice-versa) is a matter of choice, not necessity.

The only necessity is that you equip the 787 with a 9-abreast economy. I think it is a real shame for Boeing that the 787 only in a 9-abreast lay-out can be competitive against an A330neo.


I have to agree with you on that
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14140
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Sat Sep 30, 2017 1:59 am

Stitch wrote:
The 787-9 and A330-300/A330-900 have effectively identical cabin floor area. The A330 fuselage is two meters longer, but the 787 is wider and can therefore fit an additional seat per row. VS, for example, has 264 seats in their 787-9s and 266 in their A330-300s and EY is 235 on the 789 vs. 231 on the A333.


The distance between door 1 and door 4 is 1.75 m longer on the A330 compared to the 787-9, between door 1 and door 2 (typical premium zone) the distance is 3.22 meters longer on the 787-9, the distance between door 2 and door 4 (typical economy zone) is 4.97 meters longer on the A330-300.

The 3.22 meters (126") length in the premium zone would only allow 1 additional 80" premium row on the 787-9 (4 seats), the 4.97 m (195") would allow 6x32" rows of economy (32 seats). The 797-9'woukd typically have 29 rows in economy, that is 29 additional seats at 9 across.

In summary, the 787-9 would have a 4 seat advantage in the premium cabin, the A330-300 a 3 seat advantage in economy (32-29). The main difference will be in the location of the galley and toilets, and the 787-9 can have more of the cabin space between door 1 and 4 taken up with this. Airbus tends to have more storage space around door 1 and 4.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1368
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:27 am

dare100em wrote:
The A330neo will turn out to be a classic example of "to little". Airbus thought a new engine will be enough and nearly everyone here agreed more-or-less. The argument was that the CASM might be 2-3% worse but anything else would be a wash plus cheaper and faster. But that is not the case, there are much more factors than just the CASM and it seems that Airlines choose the 787-9 in nearly every case.


What are these much more factors?

Extra range would favor the 787, but everything except range and casm would seem to favor the A330. Standard technology already known to your staff. Commonality with the existing fleet. Lower price. Earlier delivery (less so now, more so then).

I would have thought that everything except CASM and range favored the A330.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8887
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:07 am

Stitch wrote:
godsbeloved wrote:
Depending on stage length that is...and 339 has more seats


The 787-9 and A330-300/A330-900 have effectively identical cabin floor area. The A330 fuselage is two meters longer, but the 787 is wider and can therefore fit an additional seat per row. VS, for example, has 264 seats in their 787-9s and 266 in their A330-300s and EY is 235 on the 789 vs. 231 on the A333.


787 must use 9 across to show the advertised difference to the A330 @8 across.
Beyond some luxury arrangements @8 across like JAL uses a rather crampted
9 across is offered for the full range from "middle of the market" through to LCC.

But the 330 can also go 9 across for "real" LCC ops. ( like Transat uses today.)

No way can you fit 10 across in a 787 :-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
olle
Posts: 1238
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:55 am

I still have the sensation that the A330 will suprise us again in the future... ;-)
 
User avatar
MoKa777
Posts: 982
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:47 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Sun Oct 01, 2017 1:23 pm

I could see this higher MTOW version of the A330neo doing well with SAA.

After allowances from the 9t MTOW increase for structure, I assume another hours worth of flying endurance could be had from these aircraft.

The A330 already has a large wing that helps with field performance. The A332 especially, I believe. The A338 should be even better.

SAA has been struggling for a while and their market share has shrunk. It makes sense to replace the current fleet of 28 A330ceo/A340 with between 25-30 A338/9neos.

At the moment, the A338 is advertised with a 7500nm range. An hour extra endurance would make it an 8000nm plane. It will be able to do almost any destination in the SAA network with the right capacity for long/thin routes. I am not entirely sure of a 251t A338's capabilities on JNB-JFK/IAD nonstop. The other wild card would be JNB-PER which may still have 2 engine restrictions...

The 251t A339 should be able to do JNB-Europe comfortably.

The A330neo would be cheaper to acquire and operate given SAA's large, only A330/A340 widebody fleet and the large lessor customer base for the A330neo. Pilot, cabin crew and technician migration to A330neo should as seamless as it could ever possibly be.

What do you peeps think?
Never be proud. Always be grateful.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8909
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:00 pm

MoKa777 wrote:
I could see this higher MTOW version of the A330neo doing well with SAA.

After allowances from the 9t MTOW increase for structure, I assume another hours worth of flying endurance could be had from these aircraft.

The A330 already has a large wing that helps with field performance. The A332 especially, I believe. The A338 should be even better.

SAA has been struggling for a while and their market share has shrunk. It makes sense to replace the current fleet of 28 A330ceo/A340 with between 25-30 A338/9neos.

At the moment, the A338 is advertised with a 7500nm range. An hour extra endurance would make it an 8000nm plane. It will be able to do almost any destination in the SAA network with the right capacity for long/thin routes. I am not entirely sure of a 251t A338's capabilities on JNB-JFK/IAD nonstop. The other wild card would be JNB-PER which may still have 2 engine restrictions...

The 251t A339 should be able to do JNB-Europe comfortably.

The A330neo would be cheaper to acquire and operate given SAA's large, only A330/A340 widebody fleet and the large lessor customer base for the A330neo. Pilot, cabin crew and technician migration to A330neo should as seamless as it could ever possibly be.

What do you peeps think?


I do not expect any additional structural weight The same frame reached a MTOW of 276.5 t in the A340-300 version.

The main question is, will the MZFW grow.
 
User avatar
MoKa777
Posts: 982
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:47 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:46 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
I do not expect any additional structural weight The same frame reached a MTOW of 276.5 t in the A340-300 version.

The main question is, will the MZFW grow.


That first part is true, as well. However, I do believe that the A343 OEW is ~7t heavier than the A333. I do not know how much of that amount is due to the extra MLG, extra engines and associated wing weight.

The second part about the MZFW, may I ask you to please expand on that. I am being a bit dim hahaha. Would I be wrong in assuming that an increase in MZFW allows for higher payload at a slight increase in range or just more payload at the current range. While not changing the MZFW would result in an aircraft that just carries its current payload further, sometimes further than most airlines would need resulting in a redundant capability increase..?
Never be proud. Always be grateful.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8909
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Sun Oct 01, 2017 4:17 pm

MoKa777 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
I do not expect any additional structural weight The same frame reached a MTOW of 276.5 t in the A340-300 version.

The main question is, will the MZFW grow.


That first part is true, as well. However, I do believe that the A343 OEW is ~7t heavier than the A333. I do not know how much of that amount is due to the extra MLG, extra engines and associated wing weight.

The second part about the MZFW, may I ask you to please expand on that. I am being a bit dim hahaha. Would I be wrong in assuming that an increase in MZFW allows for higher payload at a slight increase in range or just more payload at the current range. While not changing the MZFW would result in an aircraft that just carries its current payload further, sometimes further than most airlines would need resulting in a redundant capability increase..?


I would assume the 2 T700 at 12.4 t and the 4 CFM56 at about 16 t. That would be 3.6 t. Than there is the third MLG, perhaps 2 t, additional fuel tank and the stuff in the wings, including an extra spar and extra pylon, 7 t seems to cover that, but not a lot of other changes.

Exactly a higher MZFW would allow a higher payload. With the same MZFW it would only add range. The A330-800/900 offers already a higher MZFW than the A330-200730, about 6 t more, could compensate for the difference in engine weight.
 
Egerton
Posts: 864
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Sun Oct 01, 2017 4:52 pm

Presumably at this stage in the decline of SAA, any purchase of assets such as new aeroplanes if just a route for corrupt transfers of cash to various parties?
 
User avatar
MoKa777
Posts: 982
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:47 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:25 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
I would assume the 2 T700 at 12.4 t and the 4 CFM56 at about 16 t. That would be 3.6 t. Than there is the third MLG, perhaps 2 t, additional fuel tank and the stuff in the wings, including an extra spar and extra pylon, 7 t seems to cover that, but not a lot of other changes.

Exactly a higher MZFW would allow a higher payload. With the same MZFW it would only add range. The A330-800/900 offers already a higher MZFW than the A330-200730, about 6 t more, could compensate for the difference in engine weight.


The reasons for the weight difference between the A343 and A333 is plausible.

So the current higher MZFW on the neo likely compensates for and accommodates the additional weight of the engines. Makes sense.

Egerton wrote:
Presumably at this stage in the decline of SAA, any purchase of assets such as new aeroplanes if just a route for corrupt transfers of cash to various parties?


That is the unfortunate reality for us S.Africans...

It was more wishful thinking and hypothetical on my part especially since the A330neo (and potential subsequent weight increases of this aircraft) could be perfect for SAA.
Never be proud. Always be grateful.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:50 am

parapente wrote:
Well that's bye bye to the -800 then (IMHO).


aemoreira1981 wrote:
If true, this means that there is no way that the A330-800 ever gets built as this takes over virtually all of its missions. It would likely kill off the 787-8 Dreamliner as well.


Newbiepilot wrote:
Yes I see this killing off the A330-800.


Stitch wrote:
I expect Airbus is committed to the A330-800 regardless since the work is so basic compared the A350-800 <-> A350-900. If Airbus does cancel the A330-800, it would be for competitive reasons to support the A330-900 by keeping slots open for future RFPs.


Slash787 wrote:
I don't think so they would cancel the A330-800, but well maybe they could, you never know.


FYI Airbus today released a few photos of MSN 1888, the first A330-800. It shows pre-assembly is already well advanced:

Image

Image

Image

Image

http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/photo-gallery.html
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2269
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Fri Oct 06, 2017 4:49 pm

Thanks for the pictures KarelXWB. I always thought the A330-800 would get built. With the upcoming MTOW bump, it will gain some serious range increase as well.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9703
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:33 pm

MTOW bumps are primarily for the A339. Unless Airbus secures more orders you are likely not going to see those bumps on passenger A338s anytime soon (which really doesn't need it anyways- it already has more range the 788 and its not like you see airlines flocking to the A338 or begging Boeing to bump the 788's MTOW up closer to the 789's).
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8909
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:39 pm

Polot wrote:
MTOW bumps are primarily for the A339. Unless Airbus secures more orders you are likely not going to see those bumps on passenger A338s anytime soon (which really doesn't need it anyways- it already has more range the 788 and its not like you see airlines flocking to the A338 or begging Boeing to bump the 788's MTOW up closer to the 789's).


If it is done for the A330-900, it will be done for the A330-800. No reason not to do it, would expand the capabilities of a future MRTT. Would give the A330-800 more range than both the 787-8 and -9. No reason for HA to switch to the 787-9 for range.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:49 pm

Polot wrote:
Unless Airbus secures more orders you are likely not going to see those bumps on passenger A338s anytime soon


That may be true.

In recent history however, MTOW bumps on the A330-300 were directly added to the smaller -200, even when only 1 customer signed up initially (Iberia was the sole customer for the latest 242t version).
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
trex8
Posts: 5349
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:12 pm

Whats the cost to the manufacturer to certify a new weight variant? I'm assuming there aren't really any actual hardware changes. And even if there were how much additional cost would there be if these have been already certified on the A339?

(OT but when CI wanted the A333 with GE Cf6-80E1A4 engines and not the A3 which had already been certified on the A333- the A4 was certified on the -200 but not-300 at that point, the penalty for GE and A not getting them certified on time for delivery was $1 million/frame. This suggest to me the cost of the engine certification couldnt be a whole lot more than the cost of the potential penalty for the whole 14 frame order. I would think certifying a new engine subtype was a lot more than a simple weight variant. )
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1134
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:41 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
Polot wrote:
Unless Airbus secures more orders you are likely not going to see those bumps on passenger A338s anytime soon


That may be true.

In the past however, MTOW bumps on the A330-300 were always added to the smaller -200, even when only 1 customer signed up initially (Iberia was the sole customer for the latest 242t version).


Funny how things work out.

The first airlines to order the most significant 230/233t mtow bump were -200 airlines: TAM, Korean and perhaps swissair. It took a few years before US and AC purchased the HGW options for their -300s.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:50 pm

Chaostheory wrote:
Funny how things work out.

The first airlines to order the most significant 230/233t mtow bump were -200 airlines: TAM, Korean and perhaps swissair. It took a few years before US and AC purchased the HGW options for their -300s.


Indeed.

At some point the -300 gained momentum, overtook the -200 in sales & deliveries and never looked back.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8887
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:23 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
If it is done for the A330-900, it will be done for the A330-800. No reason not to do it, would expand the capabilities of a future MRTT. Would give the A330-800 more range than both the 787-8 and -9. No reason for HA to switch to the 787-9 for range.


On occasion the A330 family had different MTOW's.
The MRTT doesn't really gain from MTOW increases beyond ~235t. ( OEW + 110t fuel + some ancillaries. )
apropos: would the 155kl/121t tankage of the A340-200 be available on the A330-200? then that limit would increase to 245t
Murphy is an optimist
 
WIederling
Posts: 8887
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A330neo MTOW increase

Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:27 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
At some point the -300 gained momentum, overtook the -200 in sales & deliveries and never looked back.


there is this magic range bump. When the longer airframe surpasses that the shorter frame loses customer interest.
( same for A320 / A319 and for A321 / A320 long time ago the A319 presented half of the A320 family deliveries.)

This is less pronounced on the 737 side?
Murphy is an optimist

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