Only on Anet is the 330NEO bad bad bad and some rumored 767 upgrade the best thing since sliced bread. smh
AA is retiring A330 (and 767 too) while still taking 787s ( ref: http://news.aa.com/news/news-details/20 ... fault.aspx
). I think fuel has been pretty low for the last several years yet old planes will still be aged out. I don't know that we'll see buyers for all the planes being sent to the desert, certainly not enough for new sales to stall. The concept in theory sounds good but haven't really seen it take off in practice. AC has taken in a few used A330s. People mention DL a lot but they haven't taken in a used wide body in a very long time.
That's something to think about.
Max Q wrote:
Never really understood the purpose of the NEO
Seems to overlap the 350 niche pointlessly
Thank you for this comment. Contradicting evidence is always a nice chance to look for something missing or mistakes in thinking.
A350-900 max thrust: 84,200 lbf / 374.5 kN
RR Trent 7000 (A330 Neo): Maximum thrust: 72,834 lbf / 324.0 kN.
That's 13,3 % less thrust. But why not fix the Trent 7000 on an A350 instead?
Thanks to your comment I now believe because the A330 is needed for later.
Old A330 max thrust: 64,500–71,100 lbf (287–316 kN)
Trent 7000 is a variant of Trent 1000 (B787) Maximum thrust: 265.3–360.4 kN (59,600–81,000 lbf)
As this engine core is able to extract a lot more power it was probably pointless to aim for less thrust with this engine.
GEnx also from B787: Max thrust: 69,800 lbf (310 kN) - 76,100 lbf (339 kN)
GEnx shrink for B747-8: 66,500 lbf (296 kN)
I believe for an A330 Neo the only engines available were B787 derivatives. The small GEnx of the B747-8 was maybe not good enough. Or Airbus thought the wing is overbuilt to keep it 60m long and making a new 60 m wing for the GEnx shrink was not worth it. After all, we speak of an engine that's a shrink. For a 52 m wing that engine is too strong.
So why to make so much effort? To keep B787 prices in check doesn't sound right to me, as this also means lower A350 prices. As the situation as it is doesn't make sense, I believe we have to look in the future.
I assume Airbus intends the A330 Neo as a means to bridge the gap till a new, smaller engine for a new 52 m wing becomes available.
Here three old models:
A300-600: length 54,08 m , OEW 88,6 t, MTOW 171,7t, range 7,500 km / 4,050 nmi
A330-200: length 58,82 m, OEW 120,6 t, MTOW 242 t, range 13,450 km / 7,250 nmi
B767-300ER: length 54,94 m, OEW 90 t, MTOW 186,9 t, range 11,070 km/ 5,980 nmi
I assume Airbus wants a 95 t OEW, 180 t MTOW, 52 m wing derivative of A330 with length as in A300-600 and A330-200. Airbus therefore mustn't stop production of A330.
When the A330Neo was started in 2014 Airbus may have expected engine makers to be able to attend to the new engine within a few years.
I don't think it's a problem if production remains low and cost per plane is high. Airbus doesn't need to make profits with the A330Neo if it's a life support program to be able to serve MOM in a few years.