zeke wrote:Airport fees are based upon MTOW not empty weight, we already operate A330 at multiple MTOWs, sure other airlines do as well.
Thanks for pointing out of the obvious.
Reducing the maximum takeoff weight does not improve efficiency.
If you reduce the empty weight by 5T or 4% and fill it with the same payload and fuel load the takeoff weight will be 5T lighter or 2-3%.
That allows for a lower maximum takeoff weight to be used which means less fees and enough to move it from parity with the 787 to giving it a slight advantage.
In addition to this, aircraft burn less fuel as they get lighter during the flight. That 5T empty weight reduction means it will not only take off 5T lighter but land 5T lighter. It will be flying 5T lighter at every point of the flight so it will be burning less fuel at every point of the flight. This 5T empty weight reduction could probably allow it to takeoff with 5% less fuel than the full weight A330NEO and still fly just as far.
So the takeoff weight would probably be a full 10T or 3-4% lower on a 4000nm flight.
Airbus took the 787 head on with the A330NEO and failed. They should have crushed the 787 from below with the A330NEO and from above with the A350.
Siddar wrote:RJMAZ wrote:The A330NEO is much more capable than the CEO it is replacing.
Let's say a hypothetical airline was operating routes that only used up to 80% of the range capability of the A330-300. That is 5080nm of the 6,350nm Wikipedia range. What will they replace it with?
The A330-900NEO is a direct replacement capacity wise but not range wise. The NEO is just carrying dead weight for this particular airline.
As engine technology improved we saw the A321 grow to match the larger and heavier 757-200. When carrying a particular payload over a certain distance the aircraft are getting lighter and burning less fuel.
With this hypothetical airline the long range version of Boeing NMA at 100% of its range capability would be able to do this route with higher frequency and yield. The larger capacity but shorter ranged NMA can then do the shorter routes. The mixed fleet would add negligible extra cost providing commonality is extremely high.
This is most likely one of the reasons why China is not ordering the A330NEO. The NEO offers no advantage on short domestic routes. As the CEO is slightly lighter and cheaper it should completely offset the improved fuel burn of the NEO on a 1 hour flight.
Airbus should have used the improved fuel burn of the new engines to reduce empty weight and reduce maximum takeoff weight not to add range. If it meant another billion in development knocking off even 5T of empty weight would have improved short haul performance.
I tried to say something like this awhile ago. Airbus fans weren't impressed with my argument. Maybe they will consider yours better.
I might convert a few of them but some are quite stubborn
I''m only talking a 5T or 4% weight reduction. Apparently I lack an understanding about how difficult that would be even though working with loads in primary aicraft structures is my day job.
To put this weight reduction into persepctice the A300 is a massive 37T or 30% lighter than the A330NEO it shares the same fuselage tube, tail and cockpit.
A300 - 54m 88T empty
A332 - 58m 120T empty
A333 - 63m 122T empty
The A330 shrunk to the same length of the A300 would weigh approximately 118T. 30T difference is a lot of capability. I'm suggesting only a 5T reduction, not reaching A300 weights.
But hindsight is a wonderful thing. I bet Airbus wished they built the A380 differently and they will soon wish they executed the A330NEO better.