I thought it was worth starting a discussion instead of derailing the A330neo is doomed thread, how would a stretched A330neo have fared? With the 251T weight variant a potential 'A330-1000' could have had the same range as the A333 but with more capacity. I know the A340 struggled with its weight increase, but could a slight stretch of the A333 worked? The A333 is 63.67m long, a stretch to 66/67m would have allowed 2-3 rows more of economy.

So, the main competitor of your A33K would be... A359?
A stretch would be nice, but it will directly slap the lowered-MTOW (a.k.a the "regional") A359, and we don't know if this stretch version would be a worthy opponent of the B78X, which has gained reputation with its superior efficiency on medium-haul routes with high-density config.

A stretch would have hurt the A330neo’s best feature: low sales price. It would more closely match A350 capacity and cost more to build and design. I believe stretching it would have made sales even worse.

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

A stretch would have hurt the A330neo’s best feature: low sales price. It would more closely match A350 capacity and cost more to build and design. I believe stretching it would have made sales even worse.

It's not exactly a huge investment to stretch it though, and the payoff is much increased efficiency and capacity, whilst still having A333 capability (which is sufficient for many traffic-heavy routes, eg TATL, intra-Asia, some Asia-Europe).

Antaras wrote:

So, the main competitor of your A33K would be... A359?
A stretch would be nice, but it will directly slap the lowered-MTOW (a.k.a the "regional") A359, and we don't know if this stretch version would be a worthy opponent of the B78X, which has gained reputation with its superior efficiency on medium-haul routes with high-density config.

The A339 has more range than the 78X (with the 251T variant), a simple stretch would take the range down to a similar level, but with more capacity delivered for a small fuel efficiency penalty. I think it could have been a very good match for the 78X with 8ab seating in economy, but an A33K with 9ab seating could have passed 500 seats while having a similar fuel burn to the A333 and little to no penalty in range.

Antaras wrote:

So, the main competitor of your A33K would be... A359?

That and the 787-10.

Antaras wrote:

A stretch would be nice, but it will directly slap the lowered-MTOW (a.k.a the "regional") A359, and we don't know if this stretch version would be a worthy opponent of the B78X, which has gained reputation with its superior efficiency on medium-haul routes with high-density config.

It was originally brought up due to interest from UPS and Amazon as a freighter. In that role it would have been more like a regional/medium-haul 777-200F.

Pre-corona I would say that a passenger variant would have had a chance in a niche role. Post-corona, not at all. If they launch it as a cargo plane, that would be a different matter, but it would all depend on the viability and launch orders for that variant. With loads of cheap A330 P2F candidates hitting the market, I wouldn't bet on that either. One of the most recent A330-300s to go into conversion was a just 10-year old ex-Singapore frame.

MrHMSH wrote:

I thought it was worth starting a discussion instead of derailing the A330neo is doomed thread, how would a stretched A330neo have fared? With the 251T weight variant a potential 'A330-1000' could have had the same range as the A333 but with more capacity. I know the A340 struggled with its weight increase, but could a slight stretch of the A333 worked? The A333 is 63.67m long, a stretch to 66/67m would have allowed 2-3 rows more of economy.

Well, we cannot rewrite the history, but I sincerely think a stretched A330neo would have been more successful than the current version.

As other posters mentioned above, a stretched A330neo would be an issue for the A350-900.

VV wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

I thought it was worth starting a discussion instead of derailing the A330neo is doomed thread, how would a stretched A330neo have fared? With the 251T weight variant a potential 'A330-1000' could have had the same range as the A333 but with more capacity. I know the A340 struggled with its weight increase, but could a slight stretch of the A333 worked? The A333 is 63.67m long, a stretch to 66/67m would have allowed 2-3 rows more of economy.

Well, we cannot rewrite the history, but I sincerely think a stretched A330neo would have been more successful than the current version.

As other posters mentioned above, a stretched A330neo would be an issue for the A350-900.

I don't think it would have trod on the A359's toes too much, there would be more of a capacity overlap, but less of a range one. There's no shortage of airlines that fly the A330 and A359 alongside each other, an A33K would provide superb economics on shorter routes, leaving the long hauls to the A359, which is what happens now with the A333.

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

A stretch would have hurt the A330neo’s best feature: low sales price. It would more closely match A350 capacity and cost more to build and design. I believe stretching it would have made sales even worse.

Or it could eat severely into A350-900 market share.

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

A stretch would have hurt the A330neo’s best feature: low sales price. It would more closely match A350 capacity and cost more to build and design. I believe stretching it would have made sales even worse.

I think it would have got more orders because the economics expressed on per seat basis would have been much better.

VV wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

A stretch would have hurt the A330neo’s best feature: low sales price. It would more closely match A350 capacity and cost more to build and design. I believe stretching it would have made sales even worse.

I think it would have got more orders because the economics expressed on per seat basis would have been much better.

If that were the definitive criterion carriers would never order anything but the highest-seat count, lightest weight per seat variant of every type: 753, 764, 773(not ER), 787-10, 35K... Remind us how well that has played out, please.

MrHMSH wrote:

VV wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

I thought it was worth starting a discussion instead of derailing the A330neo is doomed thread, how would a stretched A330neo have fared? With the 251T weight variant a potential 'A330-1000' could have had the same range as the A333 but with more capacity. I know the A340 struggled with its weight increase, but could a slight stretch of the A333 worked? The A333 is 63.67m long, a stretch to 66/67m would have allowed 2-3 rows more of economy.

Well, we cannot rewrite the history, but I sincerely think a stretched A330neo would have been more successful than the current version.

As other posters mentioned above, a stretched A330neo would be an issue for the A350-900.

I don't think it would have trod on the A359's toes too much, there would be more of a capacity overlap, but less of a range one. There's no shortage of airlines that fly the A330 and A359 alongside each other, an A33K would provide superb economics on shorter routes, leaving the long hauls to the A359, which is what happens now with the A333.

the real question? Did Airbus propose the model TO either FEDEX, UPS, or Amazon?

A stretched A330 is called A340-500 and A340-600.

And the result, look into the history books. That may provide clue on your question about stretching A330neo.

chonetsao wrote:

A stretched A330 is called A340-500 and A340-600.

And the result, look into the history books. That may provide clue on your question about stretching A330neo.

Those aircraft had an MTOW of 380T, the A339 (and a potential A33K) are/would be 251T. That is a pretty hefty difference. The A345/A346 were optimised for longer missions, and to accomplish this a lot of weight was added, the A339's only extra weight would be the extra fuselage. You're looking at a potential aircraft that would have better economics per seat than the A339, approaching the 78X.

I suppose from a certain length 9 abreast becomes better.
Then there are questions like landing gear.

In isolation a stretched A330neo looks very good and tempting, but in reality where it has to sit along other products from Airbus there is no sense in stretching it. If you stretch it you are hitting the A359 capacity dead on, then you are looking at empty weight of each aircraft against each other. So the question becomes will a stretched A330neo weigh so much less than the A359 to make it a viable competitor with the new composite frame? My guess is no, otherwise why did the A350 go composite if not to save on weight? You could have a situation where you have 2 models at almost the same OEW, but one is able to fly further due to extra fuel space and higher MTOW and the other not bringing any advantage in terms of capacity.

It would be a waste surely.

It would be a strong trans Atlantic competitor, much like the 787-10.

320 seats in a reasonable 3 class config would have been a strong sell.

The 330 didn't need a stretch, it needed a new light wing optimized for the -200 size instead of that half-assed thing they added to the wingtips. The 330-800 (or whatever it would be called) should have been the main variant, light, with good take-off performance, versatile and complementing well the 359. Now it's too late.

It is what it is.

Today the A330neo is what it is.

Would it have done better if it was differently? Who knows.

It is clear LeehamNews said the aircraft's future is bleak. If LeehamNews says so ...

VV wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

A stretch would have hurt the A330neo’s best feature: low sales price. It would more closely match A350 capacity and cost more to build and design. I believe stretching it would have made sales even worse.

Or it could eat severely into A350-900 market share.

Yup. It would have sold well and eaten into the a350 too. Given the a350 doesn't have a direct 1:1 competitor (the 787 is smaller and the 777 is older), it's margins are far better than a a330neo.

Airbus made the right call. Profit for market share can be dangerous.

Actually I think a smaller true A300 5500nm range replacement would have fared much better. The difference with the A350 would have been much bigger. A true Middle of the market plane...

workhorse wrote:

The 330 didn't need a stretch, it needed a new light wing optimized for the -200 size instead of that half-assed thing they added to the wingtips. The 330-800 (or whatever it would be called) should have been the main variant, light, with good take-off performance, versatile and complementing well the 359. Now it's too late.

You are completely right. Airbus once planned an A330-500, which is about what you suggest. An A330-200 that - If I remember correctly - would have adapted the A300 wing or a modified version of it. And of course new engines. Also a shorter variant was planned. These were to replace A310 and A300 primary but with more range, an airplane like that would be a real MOM.

I think Delta would have bought a ton of them. They love super stretched, somewhat underpowered, very efficient airplanes!

VV wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

I thought it was worth starting a discussion instead of derailing the A330neo is doomed thread, how would a stretched A330neo have fared? With the 251T weight variant a potential 'A330-1000' could have had the same range as the A333 but with more capacity. I know the A340 struggled with its weight increase, but could a slight stretch of the A333 worked? The A333 is 63.67m long, a stretch to 66/67m would have allowed 2-3 rows more of economy.

Well, we cannot rewrite the history, but I sincerely think a stretched A330neo would have been more successful than the current version.

As other posters mentioned above, a stretched A330neo would be an issue for the A350-900.

But? The A330's range might well Not affect the A350 at all. Or did you think the A350 was All there was ever going to BE?
It would be like telling Boeing don't build the 787-9 because it would crimp the 787-8. Or to not build the 777-300 because it would cut into the 777-200 sales.
It doesn't make sense! If there's a business case FOR the airplane? Then that's what you Pitch?
None of you know whether any airline might find a case to even Buy the Airplane! So Airbus should Pitch their airplane and SEE if it makes sense for the marketplace! If nobody want's it or needs it? Then that's an entirely different Story. To have the designs ready? Is completely different from Not being able to build it.
And you don't have to build it until somebody want's it. What are you or they afraid OF? Tell you what? Give the designs to Tupolev and see if they won't build it!!

The A330-500 (alias A330-100) was a shorter fuselage A330-200. The A330-400 was mooted and market tested back in the 1990s as a stretch of the A330-300. Despite some interest, Airbus concluded there to be too small a market due to its limited range. The 777-300, although higher capacity (recall that it was 9 abreast in the back in those days) filled the gap but sold poorly, somewhat vindicating the Airbus decision. An A330-400neo would still be range limited and risk becoming another 767-400. With COVID airline fleet planners may well decide that in future they need (longer) range-capable machines to allow capacity to be switched between any city pairs as lockdowns and quarantines ebb and flow. This plus the probability that 787s would be priced to keep it from gaining traction make it a non starter.

DLHAM wrote:

Airbus once planned an A330-500, which is about what you suggest. An A330-200 that - If I remember correctly - would have adapted the A300 wing or a modified version of it. And of course new engines.

The A300 wing is old tech: too thick, too short. See how the most efficient modern wings look (the MC-21, the A350, the 787): huge wingspan, microscopic chord. The A330 needed something like that, but right sized to its weight and range. It would be a great airplane that would kill quite a bit of 787 sales (especially at airlines with big Airbus fleets) and would be a very good thing for passengers.

But now it's too late. The A321XLR and its future stretches will fill that gap.

JonesNL wrote:

Actually I think a smaller true A300 5500nm range replacement would have fared much better. The difference with the A350 would have been much bigger. A true Middle of the market plane...

A300 NEO!! Especially now with aging 767-300s galore and the lower demand environment. But would have cannibalized the A321XLR sales, as noted above.

Wildlander wrote:

The A330-500 (alias A330-100) was a shorter fuselage A330-200. The A330-400 was mooted and market tested back in the 1990s as a stretch of the A330-300. Despite some interest, Airbus concluded there to be too small a market due to its limited range. The 777-300, although higher capacity (recall that it was 9 abreast in the back in those days) filled the gap but sold poorly, somewhat vindicating the Airbus decision. An A330-400neo would still be range limited and risk becoming another 767-400. With COVID airline fleet planners may well decide that in future they need (longer) range-capable machines to allow capacity to be switched between any city pairs as lockdowns and quarantines ebb and flow. This plus the probability that 787s would be priced to keep it from gaining traction make it a non starter.

With an MTOW of 251T, an A33K could have the same range as a 242T A333, which is sufficient for quite a lot of routes.

MrHMSH wrote:

chonetsao wrote:

A stretched A330 is called A340-500 and A340-600.

Those aircraft had an MTOW of 380T, the A339 (and a potential A33K) are/would be 251T. That is a pretty hefty difference. The A345/A346 were optimised for longer missions, and to accomplish this a lot of weight was added, the A339's only extra weight would be the extra fuselage.

You're looking a the wrong weight for comparison; though your last sentence is getting warmer.

MTOW wouldn't mean much here, but OEW might be a killer.
Yes, the A345/346 had higher MTOWs, but a big reason for that, is because their OEW went up significantly.

Why? Because stretching the thinner (than most widebodies' of the time) fuselage required reinforcement, and that reinforcement added detrimental amounts of weight. Along with the aforementioned encroachment into A350 territory, that's the likely reason Airbus didn't stretch the A330NEO.

LAX772LR wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

chonetsao wrote:

A stretched A330 is called A340-500 and A340-600.

Those aircraft had an MTOW of 380T, the A339 (and a potential A33K) are/would be 251T. That is a pretty hefty difference. The A345/A346 were optimised for longer missions, and to accomplish this a lot of weight was added, the A339's only extra weight would be the extra fuselage.

You're looking a the wrong weight for comparison; though your last sentence is getting warmer.

MTOW wouldn't mean much here, but OEW might be a killer.
Yes, the A345/346 had higher MTOWs, but a big reason for that, is because their OEW went up significantly.

Why? Because stretching the thinner (than most widebodies' of the time) fuselage required reinforcement, and that reinforcement added detrimental amounts of weight. Along with the aforementioned encroachment into A350 territory, that's the likely reason Airbus didn't stretch the A330NEO.

The A345 is about 4m longer than the A343/A333, would a stretch of 3m (to 66.69m) require as much strengthening? The A345 and A346 had to have a degree of commonality as they were developed together, same wing and such, but an A33K wouldn't need to be compromised for a sibling's requirements. A 67% increase in MTOW can't all be down to strengthening. I take the point that there would be more overlap with the A359, but the capability gap would still be there, and with a relatively easy development it could have been a good competitor to the 78X.

We have been looking at a330 variants for decades, and so has Airbus. https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/313411- ... study.html. Also an A330-1000 NEo seems technical possible, but indeed, portfolio overlap could be any issue. viewtopic.php?t=1351255


keesje

My favourite option was to have a "767 like" much lighter, re-winged A330 with an OEW of 100t. To make the A330 lighter, it would need an entirely new wingbox, wing, landing, certification, boosting development costs. The A330/A340 structure is what it is, designed for high MTOW operations.


keesje

Times have changed and such a light, medium range platform could be attractive from a market perspective. But as long as hundreds of new, efficient aircraft are parked in deserts, airlines are in survival mode, time doesn't help any further A330 developments, maybe a NEO MRTT.

There was talk a couple of years ago about a stretch to the 330neo for package freight operations. That may have resulted in a pax offering also (think the Asian LCC market) but it never happened.

AIRC the extra length of the A345 was dictated primarily by CoG requirements arising from the new engines being heavier, and I think further forward.

MrHMSH wrote:

A 67% increase in MTOW can't all be down to strengthening.

*again* you're looking at the wrong weight.

MTOW weights vary depending on the whims of the manufacturer/operator and are often optional: both the A345 and A346 were given subsequent MTOW raises that many customers (including SQ, who flew them further/harder than anyone else) didn't even opt to take.

An individual aircraft can have vastly different MTOWs during its service life; or heck, if it's for CX, it can have different MTOWs per day!

OEW is the weight you should be looking at, not MTOW. And obviously, OEW didn't go up anywhere near 67%.

VV wrote:

As other posters mentioned above, a stretched A330neo would be an issue for the A350-900.

I'm not convinced of that. There are enough airlines out there planning to use the 78-10 and A359 side by side, most notably SQ.
There are also a few customers planning to operate the A350-1000 alongside the 78-10 instead of the A359. So while in some cases a stretched A330neo might eat up some A359 orders, IMO it could eat up more 78-10 orders. Whether it would be enough to justify the investment, we'll never know.

keesje wrote:

My favourite option was to have a "767 like" much lighter, re-winged A330 with an OEW of 100t. To make the A330 lighter, it would need an entirely new wingbox, wing, landing, certification, boosting development costs.

So, an A300NEO?

airbazar wrote:

VV wrote:

As other posters mentioned above, a stretched A330neo would be an issue for the A350-900.

I'm not convinced of that. There are enough airlines out there planning to use the 78-10 and A359 side by side, most notably SQ.
There are also a few customers planning to operate the A350-1000 alongside the 78-10 instead of the A359. So while in some cases a stretched A330neo might eat up some A359 orders, IMO it could eat up more 78-10 orders. Whether it would be enough to justify the investment, we'll never know.

keesje wrote:

My favourite option was to have a "767 like" much lighter, re-winged A330 with an OEW of 100t. To make the A330 lighter, it would need an entirely new wingbox, wing, landing, certification, boosting development costs.

So, an A300NEO?

The A300 wing and wingbox, as well controls technology represents state of the art technology and efficiency, from a 1972 standpoint. Fokker-VFW and Hawker Siddely are there to dig up the blue prints and assist the efforts I can hear the drill hammers, smell the oil and see dozens of drawing tables again.


https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/AIRBUS-A300B ... Sw3YZcm7ji

LAX772LR wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

A 67% increase in MTOW can't all be down to strengthening.

*again* you're looking at the wrong weight.

MTOW weights vary depending on the whims of the manufacturer/operator and are often optional: both the A345 and A346 were given subsequent MTOW raises that many customers (including SQ, who flew them further/harder than anyone else) didn't even opt to take.

An individual aircraft can have vastly different MTOWs during its service life; or heck, if it's for CX, it can have different MTOWs per day!

OEW is the weight you should be looking at, not MTOW. And obviously, OEW didn't go up anywhere near 67%.

What do you think the OEW would need to be at for an A33K to be competitive? An A333 is roughly 130T, an A345 is roughly 168T. I can't believe a 3m stretch would take the A33K anywhere near that, the 4.85m from the A332 to A333 is under 10T, and the A338 to A339 is 132T to 137T.

MrHMSH wrote:

the 4.85m from the A332 to A333 is under 10T, and the A338 to A339 is 132T to 137T.

Weren't both longer variants the base models for OEW and Airbus just lopped off a few fuselage frames from those to make their shorter siblings? Much harder to go down to optimal weight that way.

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

A stretch would have hurt the A330neo’s best feature: low sales price. It would more closely match A350 capacity and cost more to build and design. I believe stretching it would have made sales even worse.

And could have impacted time to market, although RR did that with T7000 delays. Airbus is probably glad it got the product out the door and into the hands of customers before COVID19 caused massive aircraft deferments. Airbus only delivered five A330s in 1H-2020 ( ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transp ... 48.article ).

MrHMSH wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

A stretch would have hurt the A330neo’s best feature: low sales price. It would more closely match A350 capacity and cost more to build and design. I believe stretching it would have made sales even worse.

It's not exactly a huge investment to stretch it though, and the payoff is much increased efficiency and capacity, whilst still having A333 capability (which is sufficient for many traffic-heavy routes, eg TATL, intra-Asia, some Asia-Europe).

"Not huge" relative to what? It would have added a lot of structural analysis, manufacturing changes and extra flight tests. It also may have become the long pole in the tent so could have delayed the program even more.

MrHMSH wrote:

What do you think the OEW would need to be at for an A33K to be competitive?

I understand the spirit that you're asking that in, but the (boring) answer is:
there's unfortunately many additional factors, few of which play in the stretch's favor; such that even if you're able to keep the empty weight down, those other issues will just continue to pile-on, sufficiently to make such a simple-stretch not worthwhile.

If that weren't the case, then Airbus would've done it.

MrHMSH wrote:

An A333 is roughly 130T, an A345 is roughly 168T. I can't believe a 3m stretch would take the A33K anywhere near that, the 4.85m from the A332 to A333 is under 10T

the problem with the A333-to-A332 comparison, which I believe someone else also alluded to above, is that the A332 is a SHRINK of the A333. Airbus essentially hacked out a few frames, gave it larger stabilizers, and activated the center take. With a few minor exceptions, they didn't change the integral structure all that much at all, and some of those changes were to actually reduce unneeded weight.

That's a pretty different concept than stretching a design length that's already pencil-thin compared to most widebodies, even those preceding it.

MrHMSH wrote:

What do you think the OEW would need to be at for an A33K to be competitive? An A333 is roughly 130T, an A345 is roughly 168T. I can't believe a 3m stretch would take the A33K anywhere near that, the 4.85m from the A332 to A333 is under 10T, and the A338 to A339 is 132T to 137T.

I would be curious about the increase in OEW too.

The increase in OEW for the A345/A346 was very high indeed, and I remember reading the strengthening for the stretch was a major reason. If I use wikipedia's figures (probably not exact), the difference between an A343 and an A345 is 37T.
Part of this difference was due to the larger engines, but it does not seem to be as much as I expected: as per wikipedia, the difference is just 1T per engine (5T vs 4T for a CFM-56), so the difference is 4T for the engines. I guess that does not include the nacelles.
Another part of difference should come from the wings and landing gear, but I cannot see how to figure it out.

When comparing pairs of "similar" (in terms of engines) versions, I see:
- A342 to A343: 13T, for a 4.3m stretch (it seems very high to me, I suspect the numbers are incorrect)
- A345 to A346: 6T for a 7.4m stretch (it seems low to me, but maybe the A346 has a smaller tail due to the increased length)

Keep in mind, when you are looking at the OEW between the the A333 and A345/346. The jump is also higher due to having higher number and heavier engines mounted. But in order for a a stretch to be viable, you would need to keep the OEW down as much as possible.

That’s what the A350 has going for it, it’s really light in the OEW department which makes it already versatile and decrease the need for a A330 stretch.

MrHMSH wrote:

VV wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

I thought it was worth starting a discussion instead of derailing the A330neo is doomed thread, how would a stretched A330neo have fared? With the 251T weight variant a potential 'A330-1000' could have had the same range as the A333 but with more capacity. I know the A340 struggled with its weight increase, but could a slight stretch of the A333 worked? The A333 is 63.67m long, a stretch to 66/67m would have allowed 2-3 rows more of economy.

Well, we cannot rewrite the history, but I sincerely think a stretched A330neo would have been more successful than the current version.

As other posters mentioned above, a stretched A330neo would be an issue for the A350-900.

I don't think it would have trod on the A359's toes too much, there would be more of a capacity overlap, but less of a range one. There's no shortage of airlines that fly the A330 and A359 alongside each other, an A33K would provide superb economics on shorter routes, leaving the long hauls to the A359, which is what happens now with the A333.

It's atypical for airlines to buy two different widebody models with same capacity but different range. Usually airlines just use the longer range machine on shorter routes too to enhance aircraft utilization rate.

c933103 wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

VV wrote:

Well, we cannot rewrite the history, but I sincerely think a stretched A330neo would have been more successful than the current version.

As other posters mentioned above, a stretched A330neo would be an issue for the A350-900.

I don't think it would have trod on the A359's toes too much, there would be more of a capacity overlap, but less of a range one. There's no shortage of airlines that fly the A330 and A359 alongside each other, an A33K would provide superb economics on shorter routes, leaving the long hauls to the A359, which is what happens now with the A333.

It's atypical for airlines to buy two different widebody models with same capacity but different range. Usually airlines just use the longer range machine on shorter routes too to enhance aircraft utilization rate.

The science of costing operating profiles has become extremely refined. For leasing, traditionally there are wide bands for cycles and hours. Go above the floor limit on one and incur a penalty. Go above both and incur a larger penalty. The reverse for going below the floor limit and receive a reward, but smaller than the equivalent penalty in the other direction. So lessees play the balancing game, resting high hours / high cycle aircraft, and deploying high hours / low cycle aircraft on short routes, and high cycles / low hours on longer routes.

Now you see same aircraft models, and especially the same engines, used differently, based on hours, cycles and weight (engine de-rates). Not relevant presently, but an example was how EK deployed EA and RR powered A380's differently, although for a period they were making a point to RR.

The holy grail are flight specific leases based on weight, packaged with aircraft and engines by the hour (and part thereof). The remaining undelivered EK A380's could be funded this way, conditional with a A33 / A35 orders.

Streching an aircraft -4-5 rows is usually easier and more succesfull than shrinking. Otherwise e.g. the 737, 767, 777 and 787 series wouldn't be a good idea.

You could even ask; if an A330-1000 isn't a good idea, is the 787-10? Does it overlap with the 777s? It's much lighter and cheaper, but less capable so probably yes. So much, nobody wants the 777-8.

Market demand for a A330 stretch seems limited, but technically I see no problems..

keesje wrote:

You could even ask; if an A330-1000 isn't a good idea, is the 787-10? Does it overlap with the 777s? It's much lighter and cheaper, but less capable so probably yes. So much, nobody wants the 777-8.

With all due respect, I think there is a difference between (hypothetical) 330-1000 vs 350-900 and 787-10 vs 777-8 battles. The 777-8 is heavy as hell and very expensive. The 359 is relatively cheap, very light for its size, with great take-off and payload performance and very versatile. See how Chinese airlines are using it alternatively on long haul and intra-China short haul flights, can you imagine anyone doing that with a 777-8?

That's why I think the 330-1000 wouldn't work: airlines would still prefer the versatility of the 359. As much as I love the 330 (and even prefer it over the 350), I am afraid its time is over. An all-new wing (optimized for the 332 size) 5 years ago would maybe have saved it, but...

workhorse wrote:

keesje wrote:

You could even ask; if an A330-1000 isn't a good idea, is the 787-10? Does it overlap with the 777s? It's much lighter and cheaper, but less capable so probably yes. So much, nobody wants the 777-8.

With all due respect, I think there is a difference between (hypothetical) 330-1000 vs 350-900 and 787-10 vs 777-8 battles. The 777-8 is heavy as hell and very expensive. The 359 is relatively cheap, very light for its size, with great take-off and payload performance and very versatile. See how Chinese airlines are using it alternatively on long haul and intra-China short haul flights, can you imagine anyone doing that with a 777-8?

That's why I think the 330-1000 wouldn't work: airlines would still prefer the versatility of the 359. As much as I love the 330 (and even prefer it over the 350), I am afraid its time is over. An all-new wing (optimized for the 332 size) 5 years ago would maybe have saved it, but...

The 350's big problem is that it is not so cheap. It is a Hot Rod that is very expensive to manufacture. They pushed the limits in terms of materials to make it as light as it is - hence why it performs so well.

Boeing had this issue when the 787 first came into service - before they invested more into it to make it cheaper to manufacture (process and materials).

Airbus would have to pump a bunch more into the 350 to do the same (which won't happen in this environment) - until then they have the 339 as the low cost alternative - there really isn't a massive difference in size.

morrisond wrote:

The 350's big problem is that it is not so cheap. It is a Hot Rod that is very expensive to manufacture. They pushed the limits in terms of materials to make it as light as it is - hence why it performs so well.

OK, I should have said "compared to the 777-8".

Do you have some details of the reasons why it is so expensive to manufacture?

workhorse wrote:

But now it's too late. The A321XLR and its future stretches will fill that gap.

There is no more room for further stretches, the wings are too small. Of course you could still stretch and loose range, but I doubt that it would be ordered very often. It would be sth like a 757-300.

LAX772LR wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

What do you think the OEW would need to be at for an A33K to be competitive?

I understand the spirit that you're asking that in, but the (boring) answer is:
there's unfortunately many additional factors, few of which play in the stretch's favor; such that even if you're able to keep the empty weight down, those other issues will just continue to pile-on, sufficiently to make such a simple-stretch not worthwhile.

If that weren't the case, then Airbus would've done it.

Yes but pre-Covid they had lots of orders for the A330 assembly line. Now a lot of customers cancelled orders and/or are close to bankruptcy. Furthermore, there is a bigger demand for freighters, so I see a small chance that Airbus might finally talk again with Amazon, UPS etc. how much A330-1000 they would order.

OEW seems to be a risk, as u stated, but Airbus now has more experience with CFRP ... maybe they could lower the weight-penalty with new, lighter CFRP parts. Of course that would also be more expensive, but either this or a program shut-down in the medium term.

A300neo wrote:

workhorse wrote:

But now it's too late. The A321XLR and its future stretches will fill that gap.

There is no more room for further stretches, the wings are too small. Of course you could still stretch and loose range, but I doubt that it would be ordered very often. It would be sth like a 757-300.

As many other a-netters, I am expecting, within a few years, a stretch of the A321 with new composite wing, taller landing gear and new engines.