Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Ishrion
Topic Author
Posts: 3623
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:17 am

Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Tue Mar 09, 2021 9:55 pm

Kind of surprised to see this. Garuda Indonesia placed an order for four Airbus A330-800neos, which appears to be the undisclosed order from 2019, so it's not exactly a pandemic order. I don't think there's been any formal announcement or coverage on this order?

Could this be how they manage to launch nonstop Bali to LAX/SFO from those recent reports?

https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/garuda- ... 30-800neo/
 
TC957
Posts: 4055
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:12 pm

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Tue Mar 09, 2021 10:24 pm

Nice....hopefully they'll restore the DPS - LHR service as well.
 
TeamLH
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2021 3:38 pm

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Tue Mar 09, 2021 11:01 pm

Long live the dead!
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7368
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Tue Mar 09, 2021 11:07 pm

Ishrion wrote:
Could this be how they manage to launch nonstop Bali to LAX/SFO from those recent reports?

I'm probably the staunchest champion of the A338 here but even for me, a ~500nm difference in brochure distance from actual is too little allowance across the Pacific unless it's flown very lightly loaded. GA might be better off using their A339 and stopping at HNL enroute. Even flying the A338 on MNL-LAX would be cutting it very closely (assuming normal loads and typical winds). :airplane:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=DPS-LAX/SF ... /SFO&DU=nm


TeamLH wrote:
Long live the dead!

Couldn't have put it much better! :bigthumbsup:
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
Antarius
Posts: 3436
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Tue Mar 09, 2021 11:13 pm

TC957 wrote:
Nice....hopefully they'll restore the DPS - LHR service as well.


If they want to light money on fire, there are easier ways to do it.
Militant Centrist
Let's all just use some common sense
 
filipinoavgeek
Posts: 656
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:18 am

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 1:02 am

Ishrion wrote:
Kind of surprised to see this. Garuda Indonesia placed an order for four Airbus A330-800neos, which appears to be the undisclosed order from 2019, so it's not exactly a pandemic order. I don't think there's been any formal announcement or coverage on this order?

Could this be how they manage to launch nonstop Bali to LAX/SFO from those recent reports?

https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/garuda- ... 30-800neo/


Can it even fly that far? Our resident A338 fan previously it could (perhaps barely) fly MNL-LAX, but that's a shorter distance than DPS-LAX by about 1,000 nmis and other people here have suggested that the A338 (and the A330neo as a whole) is a poor fit for transpacific flights compared to the 787 and A350.

Devilfish wrote:
TeamLH wrote:
Long live the dead!

Couldn't have put it much better! :bigthumbsup:

Given how much you stan for the A338 on A.net I do wonder how you'd react if the whole project was shut down and if you'd continue to post here.
RIP 9V-SKA
2007 - 2019
 
Ishrion
Topic Author
Posts: 3623
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:17 am

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 2:47 am

filipinoavgeek wrote:
Ishrion wrote:
Kind of surprised to see this. Garuda Indonesia placed an order for four Airbus A330-800neos, which appears to be the undisclosed order from 2019, so it's not exactly a pandemic order. I don't think there's been any formal announcement or coverage on this order?

Could this be how they manage to launch nonstop Bali to LAX/SFO from those recent reports?

https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/garuda- ... 30-800neo/


Can it even fly that far? Our resident A338 fan previously it could (perhaps barely) fly MNL-LAX, but that's a shorter distance than DPS-LAX by about 1,000 nmis and other people here have suggested that the A338 (and the A330neo as a whole) is a poor fit for transpacific flights compared to the 787 and A350.


Airbus says the standard range of the A338 is 15,094 kilometers. DPS-LAX is 13,893 kilometers and DPS-SFO is 13,446 kilometers. Both routes are within the range, but that isn't taking into account what Devilfish mentioned, such as configuration and winds.
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 3:31 am

Congratulations to Garuda - the A338 will integrate seamlessly into their A330 fleet. Now, lets see what routes they would fly.
 
sfojvjets
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2020 6:00 am

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 3:32 am

Ishrion wrote:
Airbus says the standard range of the A338 is 15,094 kilometers. DPS-LAX is 13,893 kilometers and DPS-SFO is 13,446 kilometers. Both routes are within the range, but that isn't taking into account what Devilfish mentioned, such as configuration and winds.


I see this order happening to fulfill one of two possible scenarios:

1. Garuda is simply planning accordingly for the lower passenger volumes it expects on DPS long haul routes (especially SFO/LAX) and does not care about the range that comes with the aircraft since they plan to stopover at an intermediary point anyway (most likely scenario IMO)

2. Garuda wants to squeeze as much range as it can out of the A330neo family while maintaining commonality with their existing -900 fleet, so they plan to fly DPS-SFO-LAX and vice versa (likely not 5th Freedom)*

*As has been stated in this thread already though, it remains to be seen whether the -800 can even make it to the US West Coast from DPS when taking into account headwinds, possibly a more leisure-oriented config, etc. so this is why I believe the first option to be the more likely of the two.

Thoughts?
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7368
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 5:02 am

filipinoavgeek wrote:
Can it even fly that far? Our resident A338 fan previously it could (perhaps barely) fly MNL-LAX, but that's a shorter distance than DPS-LAX by about 1,000 nmis and other people here have suggested that the A338 (and the A330neo as a whole) is a poor fit for transpacific flights compared to the 787 and A350.

I even wished PR had ordered the 747SP instead of the DC-10 to avoid the GUM tech stop! But couldn't you man up and put forth your own convictions instead of hiding behind others' opinions all the time?

filipinoavgeek wrote:
Given how much you stan for the A338 on A.net I do wonder how you'd react if the whole project was shut down and if you'd continue to post here.

This is the second time (or third?) you had asked that. Considering my favorites (-SP, 764, A318) have gone or very nearly did and I'm still here after 15 years - barring any life changing event - I most probably would still be pestering you with A338 posts. OTOH, I worry that you would lose your sense of purpose if I stopped contributing here as largely everyone else ignores you and you'd no longer have someone to stalk! In just a bit over two years at that. :old:
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2785
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 6:21 am

I thought the 251T A338 had comparable range to the 787? Surely MNL-LAX is well within its capabilities?
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7802
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 6:55 am

How many A338s have been ordered? And how many built?
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 988
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 7:00 am

MrHMSH wrote:
I thought the 251T A338 had comparable range to the 787? Surely MNL-LAX is well within its capabilities?


Boeing gives the range for the 787-9 at 7,530 nmi (13,950 km) (https://www.boeing.com/commercial/787/)

Airbus gives the range of the A338 at 8150 nmi (15'094km) (https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passenger-aircraft/a330-family/a330-800.html)

So given that DPS-LAX is roughly 13'900km the 787-9 might be a bit short legged if the conditions (wind and weather) are not favourable. The A338 on the other hand should have more than enough range. And also the 787-9 might be too much aircraft for such a route most of the time (load wise).
 
HB-IWC
Posts: 4113
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2000 1:09 am

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 7:43 am

flee wrote:
Congratulations to Garuda - the A338 will integrate seamlessly into their A330 fleet. Now, lets see what routes they would fly.


I have no doubt about the seamless integration but I wonder what Garuda will actually do with all of these widebodies. Even before the pandemic struck, the A330 fleet was terribly underused. Garuda still operates the 6 original 24+ year old A333 in a mono class layout (they used to be mainly deployed for Jeddah services from secondary destinations and for Hajj purposes as well as between Bali and secondary China destinations), and then has 7 A332s, 11 A333s and 3 A339s in operation with another 3 A339s being prepared for delivery at Airbus. Then there is the 10-strong fleet of B77Ws. There is simply not enough long- and medium-haul potential to keep such a large widebody fleet busy with acceptable utilization rates.
 
raylee67
Posts: 981
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:06 pm

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 7:46 am

FluidFlow wrote:

Boeing gives the range for the 787-9 at 7,530 nmi (13,950 km) (https://www.boeing.com/commercial/787/)

Airbus gives the range of the A338 at 8150 nmi (15'094km) (https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passenger-aircraft/a330-family/a330-800.html)

So given that DPS-LAX is roughly 13'900km the 787-9 might be a bit short legged if the conditions (wind and weather) are not favourable. The A338 on the other hand should have more than enough range. And also the 787-9 might be too much aircraft for such a route most of the time (load wise).



Despite what is said by Boeing on 789's range, it's definitely not 13,950km. Notice that QANTAS is flying 789 on PER-LHR with full load both direction all-year. The GC distance is 14,499km. The actual flight distance is for sure longer than that, and you need to factor in wind and extra fuel for holding, etc. So 789's effective range is probably at least 1,000km more than the stated range.

Airbus also has a tendency to overstate the range of its aircraft. May be it's using the most favorable weather condition to state the range? Or it doesn't include the extra fuel requirement? e.g. A330-300 has a stated range of 11,300km. HKG-AKL has a distance of 9,155km and CX was not able to use its A330-300 to fly to AKL all the time. It has been used once or twice but CX needed to use A340-300 before and then switched to A350-900 immediately when those are delivered.

So while A330-800 definitely has a range higher than A330-200, I am a bit skeptical that it can fly a route that is really over 15,000km both-direction year-round full-load.

For GA, may be A330-800 would be more optimal than 777-300ER to fly CGK-AMS or CGK-LHR/LGW. They don't need the capacity of a 77W on those routes. They also have difficulties with the runway at CGK given the weight of the 77W. If they switches to the lighter and smaller A338 for European flights, they may be able to fly to Europe non-stop from CGK without any improvement on runway condition. The 77W can then be used primarily on Asia routes when hopefully tourists can return to Bali.
319/20/21 332/33 342/43/45 359/51 388 707 717 732/36/3G/38/39 74R/42/43/44/4E/48 757 762/63 772/7L/73/7W 788/89 D10 M80 135/40/45 175/90 DH1/4 CRJ/R7 L10
AY LH OU SR BA FI LX
AA DL UA NW AC CP WS FL NK PD
CI NH SQ KA CX JL BR OZ TG KE CA CZ NZ JQ RS
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 988
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 8:05 am

raylee67 wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:

Boeing gives the range for the 787-9 at 7,530 nmi (13,950 km) (https://www.boeing.com/commercial/787/)

Airbus gives the range of the A338 at 8150 nmi (15'094km) (https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passenger-aircraft/a330-family/a330-800.html)

So given that DPS-LAX is roughly 13'900km the 787-9 might be a bit short legged if the conditions (wind and weather) are not favourable. The A338 on the other hand should have more than enough range. And also the 787-9 might be too much aircraft for such a route most of the time (load wise).



Despite what is said by Boeing on 789's range, it's definitely not 13,950km. Notice that QANTAS is flying 789 on PER-LHR with full load both direction all-year. The GC distance is 14,499km. The actual flight distance is for sure longer than that, and you need to factor in wind and extra fuel for holding, etc. So 789's effective range is probably at least 1,000km more than the stated range.

Airbus also has a tendency to overstate the range of its aircraft. May be it's using the most favorable weather condition to state the range? Or it doesn't include the extra fuel requirement? e.g. A330-300 has a stated range of 11,300km. HKG-AKL has a distance of 9,155km and CX was not able to use its A330-300 to fly to AKL all the time. It has been used once or twice but CX needed to use A340-300 before and then switched to A350-900 immediately when those are delivered.

So while A330-800 definitely has a range higher than A330-200, I am a bit skeptical that it can fly a route that is really over 15,000km both-direction year-round full-load.

For GA, may be A330-800 would be more optimal than 777-300ER to fly CGK-AMS or CGK-LHR/LGW. They don't need the capacity of a 77W on those routes. They also have difficulties with the runway at CGK given the weight of the 77W. If they switches to the lighter and smaller A338 for European flights, they may be able to fly to Europe non-stop from CGK without any improvement on runway condition. The 77W can then be used primarily on Asia routes when hopefully tourists can return to Bali.


Thank you for the info. Do you know which A333 CX used? I do not think all the A333 CX has are 251t. Some are relatively old and the lower MTOW variants definitely are not able to make HGK-AKL but the 251t should be.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7802
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 8:51 am

FluidFlow wrote:
raylee67 wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:

Boeing gives the range for the 787-9 at 7,530 nmi (13,950 km) (https://www.boeing.com/commercial/787/)

Airbus gives the range of the A338 at 8150 nmi (15'094km) (https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passenger-aircraft/a330-family/a330-800.html)

So given that DPS-LAX is roughly 13'900km the 787-9 might be a bit short legged if the conditions (wind and weather) are not favourable. The A338 on the other hand should have more than enough range. And also the 787-9 might be too much aircraft for such a route most of the time (load wise).



Despite what is said by Boeing on 789's range, it's definitely not 13,950km. Notice that QANTAS is flying 789 on PER-LHR with full load both direction all-year. The GC distance is 14,499km. The actual flight distance is for sure longer than that, and you need to factor in wind and extra fuel for holding, etc. So 789's effective range is probably at least 1,000km more than the stated range.

Airbus also has a tendency to overstate the range of its aircraft. May be it's using the most favorable weather condition to state the range? Or it doesn't include the extra fuel requirement? e.g. A330-300 has a stated range of 11,300km. HKG-AKL has a distance of 9,155km and CX was not able to use its A330-300 to fly to AKL all the time. It has been used once or twice but CX needed to use A340-300 before and then switched to A350-900 immediately when those are delivered.

So while A330-800 definitely has a range higher than A330-200, I am a bit skeptical that it can fly a route that is really over 15,000km both-direction year-round full-load.

For GA, may be A330-800 would be more optimal than 777-300ER to fly CGK-AMS or CGK-LHR/LGW. They don't need the capacity of a 77W on those routes. They also have difficulties with the runway at CGK given the weight of the 77W. If they switches to the lighter and smaller A338 for European flights, they may be able to fly to Europe non-stop from CGK without any improvement on runway condition. The 77W can then be used primarily on Asia routes when hopefully tourists can return to Bali.


Thank you for the info. Do you know which A333 CX used? I do not think all the A333 CX has are 251t. Some are relatively old and the lower MTOW variants definitely are not able to make HGK-AKL but the 251t should be.


It was a years ago in NZ winter on a day with low loads IIRC. Some of the newest versions now could probably make it, CZ did use A333s CAN-AKL at one point.
 
MrBryan86
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:58 am

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 9:01 am

FluidFlow wrote:
raylee67 wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:

Boeing gives the range for the 787-9 at 7,530 nmi (13,950 km) (https://www.boeing.com/commercial/787/)

Airbus gives the range of the A338 at 8150 nmi (15'094km) (https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passenger-aircraft/a330-family/a330-800.html)

So given that DPS-LAX is roughly 13'900km the 787-9 might be a bit short legged if the conditions (wind and weather) are not favourable. The A338 on the other hand should have more than enough range. And also the 787-9 might be too much aircraft for such a route most of the time (load wise).



Despite what is said by Boeing on 789's range, it's definitely not 13,950km. Notice that QANTAS is flying 789 on PER-LHR with full load both direction all-year. The GC distance is 14,499km. The actual flight distance is for sure longer than that, and you need to factor in wind and extra fuel for holding, etc. So 789's effective range is probably at least 1,000km more than the stated range.

Airbus also has a tendency to overstate the range of its aircraft. May be it's using the most favorable weather condition to state the range? Or it doesn't include the extra fuel requirement? e.g. A330-300 has a stated range of 11,300km. HKG-AKL has a distance of 9,155km and CX was not able to use its A330-300 to fly to AKL all the time. It has been used once or twice but CX needed to use A340-300 before and then switched to A350-900 immediately when those are delivered.

So while A330-800 definitely has a range higher than A330-200, I am a bit skeptical that it can fly a route that is really over 15,000km both-direction year-round full-load.

For GA, may be A330-800 would be more optimal than 777-300ER to fly CGK-AMS or CGK-LHR/LGW. They don't need the capacity of a 77W on those routes. They also have difficulties with the runway at CGK given the weight of the 77W. If they switches to the lighter and smaller A338 for European flights, they may be able to fly to Europe non-stop from CGK without any improvement on runway condition. The 77W can then be used primarily on Asia routes when hopefully tourists can return to Bali.


Thank you for the info. Do you know which A333 CX used? I do not think all the A333 CX has are 251t. Some are relatively old and the lower MTOW variants definitely are not able to make HGK-AKL but the 251t should be.


The 251t MTOW is only available on the Neo. Considering the Cathay examples are some of the earliest built, I’m guessing they are 217t variants.
 
TC957
Posts: 4055
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:12 pm

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 9:17 am

Antarius wrote:
TC957 wrote:
Nice....hopefully they'll restore the DPS - LHR service as well.


If they want to light money on fire, there are easier ways to do it.

Why do you say that ? A high-end leisure route like this would do well 2 or 3 times a week. Only negative I can foresee is GA's recent history of stop-starting London which may put some tour operators off using them. Bali has always been a favourite for UK holiday makers seeking long-haul luxury.
 
emre787
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2019 7:59 pm

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 9:18 am

raylee67 wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:

Boeing gives the range for the 787-9 at 7,530 nmi (13,950 km) (https://www.boeing.com/commercial/787/)

Airbus gives the range of the A338 at 8150 nmi (15'094km) (https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passenger-aircraft/a330-family/a330-800.html)

So given that DPS-LAX is roughly 13'900km the 787-9 might be a bit short legged if the conditions (wind and weather) are not favourable. The A338 on the other hand should have more than enough range. And also the 787-9 might be too much aircraft for such a route most of the time (load wise).


Despite what is said by Boeing on 789's range, it's definitely not 13,950km. Notice that QANTAS is flying 789 on PER-LHR with full load both direction all-year. The GC distance is 14,499km. The actual flight distance is for sure longer than that, and you need to factor in wind and extra fuel for holding, etc. So 789's effective range is probably at least 1,000km more than the stated range.


787-9s range is 8,300nm / 15,400km https://www.flightglobal.com/boeing-add ... 53.article
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1959
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 9:56 am

raylee67 wrote:
Despite what is said by Boeing on 789's range, it's definitely not 13,950km. Notice that QANTAS is flying 789 on PER-LHR with full load both direction all-year. The GC distance is 14,499km. The actual flight distance is for sure longer than that, and you need to factor in wind and extra fuel for holding, etc. So 789's effective range is probably at least 1,000km more than the stated range.

Airbus also has a tendency to overstate the range of its aircraft. May be it's using the most favorable weather condition to state the range? Or it doesn't include the extra fuel requirement? e.g. A330-300 has a stated range of 11,300km. HKG-AKL has a distance of 9,155km and CX was not able to use its A330-300 to fly to AKL all the time. It has been used once or twice but CX needed to use A340-300 before and then switched to A350-900 immediately when those are delivered.

So while A330-800 definitely has a range higher than A330-200, I am a bit skeptical that it can fly a route that is really over 15,000km both-direction year-round full-load.

For GA, may be A330-800 would be more optimal than 777-300ER to fly CGK-AMS or CGK-LHR/LGW. They don't need the capacity of a 77W on those routes. They also have difficulties with the runway at CGK given the weight of the 77W. If they switches to the lighter and smaller A338 for European flights, they may be able to fly to Europe non-stop from CGK without any improvement on runway condition. The 77W can then be used primarily on Asia routes when hopefully tourists can return to Bali.



Ah, yes, Boeing is realistic with its assumptions but Airbus isn't. Another a-net myth. Both are optimistic when they publish their data for their aircraft by using optimal flight conditions. There is no way the 789 gets anywhere near PER-LHR at its full load. If you take out seats then you can make it and fanboys can claim that this is proof that Boeing underestimates its range. Qatar has 232 Y seat in its 788, QF has 236 total seats in its 789. That is the longer 789 that has 4 more total seats than the 788.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14506
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 9:57 am

filipinoavgeek wrote:
A338 (and the A330neo as a whole) is a poor fit for transpacific flights compared to the 787 and A350..


The A338 in its 251t incarnation flies just as far as the 787-9 and a lot further than the 787-8.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2785
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:11 am

raylee67 wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:

Boeing gives the range for the 787-9 at 7,530 nmi (13,950 km) (https://www.boeing.com/commercial/787/)

Airbus gives the range of the A338 at 8150 nmi (15'094km) (https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passenger-aircraft/a330-family/a330-800.html)

So given that DPS-LAX is roughly 13'900km the 787-9 might be a bit short legged if the conditions (wind and weather) are not favourable. The A338 on the other hand should have more than enough range. And also the 787-9 might be too much aircraft for such a route most of the time (load wise).



Despite what is said by Boeing on 789's range, it's definitely not 13,950km. Notice that QANTAS is flying 789 on PER-LHR with full load both direction all-year. The GC distance is 14,499km. The actual flight distance is for sure longer than that, and you need to factor in wind and extra fuel for holding, etc. So 789's effective range is probably at least 1,000km more than the stated range.

Airbus also has a tendency to overstate the range of its aircraft. May be it's using the most favorable weather condition to state the range? Or it doesn't include the extra fuel requirement? e.g. A330-300 has a stated range of 11,300km. HKG-AKL has a distance of 9,155km and CX was not able to use its A330-300 to fly to AKL all the time. It has been used once or twice but CX needed to use A340-300 before and then switched to A350-900 immediately when those are delivered.

So while A330-800 definitely has a range higher than A330-200, I am a bit skeptical that it can fly a route that is really over 15,000km both-direction year-round full-load.

For GA, may be A330-800 would be more optimal than 777-300ER to fly CGK-AMS or CGK-LHR/LGW. They don't need the capacity of a 77W on those routes. They also have difficulties with the runway at CGK given the weight of the 77W. If they switches to the lighter and smaller A338 for European flights, they may be able to fly to Europe non-stop from CGK without any improvement on runway condition. The 77W can then be used primarily on Asia routes when hopefully tourists can return to Bali.


If you gave an A338 the same cabin density as QF's 789 I suspect it would make 15,000km without too much difficulty or restrictions. QF's configuration is an outlier amongst 787 operators as being able to make that nonstop significantly improves the premium QF can charge, enough to overcome the lower passenger numbers.

Seen many times how Airbus overstates the range of its aircraft, but very little in the way of substantial evidence. One airline using aircraft on one route can't tell us that the entire catalogue overpromises on range.

If GA (for some reason) used a low density cabin the aircraft could make LAX from DPS, economics aside. Europe should be no problem for a more high density A338.
 
User avatar
eta unknown
Posts: 3006
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 5:03 am

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:44 am

I'd bet the A338 is a full or partial 77W replacement for Europe. LAX wont happen in the near future- and no way via MNL- impossible to get traffic rights.
 
Opus99
Posts: 2193
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:05 am

eta unknown wrote:
I'd bet the A338 is a full or partial 77W replacement for Europe. LAX wont happen in the near future- and no way via MNL- impossible to get traffic rights.

Or the a330-200s that they have?
 
User avatar
eta unknown
Posts: 3006
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 5:03 am

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:15 am

Could be... or also some of the -300's that are getting old.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 5498
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:23 am

Opus99 wrote:
eta unknown wrote:
I'd bet the A338 is a full or partial 77W replacement for Europe. LAX wont happen in the near future- and no way via MNL- impossible to get traffic rights.

Or the a330-200s that they have?


Although possible, Garuda has notably had issues with its 777-300ER fleet. Initially too heavy for Jakarta, they are also too big for the airline, they seem to have problems filling them profitably. Indonesia might have a massive population and a big economy, but other airlines have struggled to fill big aircraft to Indonesia as well. KLM runs a mix of 777-200ER and 777-300ER to Jakarta and Bali, but with stops in Kuala Lumpur and Singapore on the way. Qatar Airways uses the 787-8. Emirates ran the 777-300ER, but continued on to Australia or New Zealand on the Bali route.
 
Opus99
Posts: 2193
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:29 am

VSMUT wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
eta unknown wrote:
I'd bet the A338 is a full or partial 77W replacement for Europe. LAX wont happen in the near future- and no way via MNL- impossible to get traffic rights.

Or the a330-200s that they have?


Although possible, Garuda has notably had issues with its 777-300ER fleet. Initially too heavy for Jakarta, they are also too big for the airline, they seem to have problems filling them profitably. Indonesia might have a massive population and a big economy, but other airlines have struggled to fill big aircraft to Indonesia as well. KLM runs a mix of 777-200ER and 777-300ER to Jakarta and Bali, but with stops in Kuala Lumpur and Singapore on the way. Qatar Airways uses the 787-8. Emirates ran the 777-300ER, but continued on to Australia or New Zealand on the Bali route.

Very true. You have a good pony there
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:30 am

eta unknown wrote:
Could be... or also some of the -300's that are getting old.

They have six A333s that are over 20 years old. The rest of the A332/A333 fleet is relatively young.
 
BrianWilkes
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 12:03 pm

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:45 am

Interesting they could even use their 777's to their full potential even though some problems where out of their hands!
 
CRJ900
Posts: 2407
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 12:30 pm

Great news that GA goes for the A338, the aircraft needs to prove what it can do in airline service and GA is an experienced A330 operator. The engines on the A338 will burn 15-20% less fuel than the engines on the A332/A333 so it is a good investment for the future even if they operate flights shorter than 7,000nm every now and then.
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
trent768
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 5:32 pm

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 2:29 pm

HB-IWC wrote:
flee wrote:
Congratulations to Garuda - the A338 will integrate seamlessly into their A330 fleet. Now, lets see what routes they would fly.


I have no doubt about the seamless integration but I wonder what Garuda will actually do with all of these widebodies. Even before the pandemic struck, the A330 fleet was terribly underused. Garuda still operates the 6 original 24+ year old A333 in a mono class layout (they used to be mainly deployed for Jeddah services from secondary destinations and for Hajj purposes as well as between Bali and secondary China destinations), and then has 7 A332s, 11 A333s and 3 A339s in operation with another 3 A339s being prepared for delivery at Airbus. Then there is the 10-strong fleet of B77Ws. There is simply not enough long- and medium-haul potential to keep such a large widebody fleet busy with acceptable utilization rates.

Rumors on the local forum said that the A332s are on their way out. They still have the original HU IFE system and cmiiw, they didn't even care to change the UI to GA's standard. Still red and yellow with GA's logo slapped on top. Some even said that they also considered to return some of the overpriced newer 333 and replace it with the 339.

But I agree with you, GA's wide body utilization is not very good. Most days, you could see 10-12 330s/77Ws chilling around GMF's ramp and that's even before covid.
 
Antarius
Posts: 3436
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 2:35 pm

TC957 wrote:
Antarius wrote:
TC957 wrote:
Nice....hopefully they'll restore the DPS - LHR service as well.


If they want to light money on fire, there are easier ways to do it.

Why do you say that ? A high-end leisure route like this would do well 2 or 3 times a week. Only negative I can foresee is GA's recent history of stop-starting London which may put some tour operators off using them. Bali has always been a favourite for UK holiday makers seeking long-haul luxury.


Their stop starting is a result of their eyes being bigger than their wallets - they have delusions of grandeur, launch the flight, take a beating and stop. Then someone wakes up with the same idea and starts all over again.

Bali is certainly a top vacation destination, but between GA's execution and the fact that a lot of vacation travelers (including premium flyers) don't require non-stops and aren't willing to pay the premium, I do not see how this goes differently than the last set of times.
Militant Centrist
Let's all just use some common sense
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 2209
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 2:38 pm

emre787 wrote:
raylee67 wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:

Boeing gives the range for the 787-9 at 7,530 nmi (13,950 km) (https://www.boeing.com/commercial/787/)

Airbus gives the range of the A338 at 8150 nmi (15'094km) (https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passenger-aircraft/a330-family/a330-800.html)

So given that DPS-LAX is roughly 13'900km the 787-9 might be a bit short legged if the conditions (wind and weather) are not favourable. The A338 on the other hand should have more than enough range. And also the 787-9 might be too much aircraft for such a route most of the time (load wise).


Despite what is said by Boeing on 789's range, it's definitely not 13,950km. Notice that QANTAS is flying 789 on PER-LHR with full load both direction all-year. The GC distance is 14,499km. The actual flight distance is for sure longer than that, and you need to factor in wind and extra fuel for holding, etc. So 789's effective range is probably at least 1,000km more than the stated range.


787-9s range is 8,300nm / 15,400km https://www.flightglobal.com/boeing-add ... 53.article

Well, maybe most people trust the manufacturer's specs listed today on its website rather than those found in an article that's almost 7 years old?
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 2209
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 2:46 pm

enzo011 wrote:
raylee67 wrote:
Despite what is said by Boeing on 789's range, it's definitely not 13,950km. Notice that QANTAS is flying 789 on PER-LHR with full load both direction all-year. The GC distance is 14,499km. The actual flight distance is for sure longer than that, and you need to factor in wind and extra fuel for holding, etc. So 789's effective range is probably at least 1,000km more than the stated range.

Airbus also has a tendency to overstate the range of its aircraft. May be it's using the most favorable weather condition to state the range? Or it doesn't include the extra fuel requirement? e.g. A330-300 has a stated range of 11,300km. HKG-AKL has a distance of 9,155km and CX was not able to use its A330-300 to fly to AKL all the time. It has been used once or twice but CX needed to use A340-300 before and then switched to A350-900 immediately when those are delivered.

So while A330-800 definitely has a range higher than A330-200, I am a bit skeptical that it can fly a route that is really over 15,000km both-direction year-round full-load.

For GA, may be A330-800 would be more optimal than 777-300ER to fly CGK-AMS or CGK-LHR/LGW. They don't need the capacity of a 77W on those routes. They also have difficulties with the runway at CGK given the weight of the 77W. If they switches to the lighter and smaller A338 for European flights, they may be able to fly to Europe non-stop from CGK without any improvement on runway condition. The 77W can then be used primarily on Asia routes when hopefully tourists can return to Bali.



Ah, yes, Boeing is realistic with its assumptions but Airbus isn't. Another a-net myth. Both are optimistic when they publish their data for their aircraft by using optimal flight conditions. There is no way the 789 gets anywhere near PER-LHR at its full load. If you take out seats then you can make it and fanboys can claim that this is proof that Boeing underestimates its range. Qatar has 232 Y seat in its 788, QF has 236 total seats in its 789. That is the longer 789 that has 4 more total seats than the 788.

Didn't QF fly non-stop LHR-SYD in a 787-9 a little over a year ago? That was a 19+-hour, 10,500-NM flight; way past the published range. Oh yeah, it was a test with a handful of journalists and "passengers", tanks filled to the rim and no cargo...
In special conditions, some planes can exceed their manufacturer's stated range; but those special conditions are unrealistic of the real operating conditions and would be bleeding cash if operated as such.
 
filipinoavgeek
Posts: 656
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:18 am

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 3:19 pm

Anyway, I'd take this opportunity to apologize to Devilfish over my bothering of him and his A338 fandom, and I'll try to avoid it from now on.

As for CGK's runway issues, is there a reason why they were built that way and why the runways weren't strengthened? And how come the airport has had troubles with the 777W when Garuda used to operate 747s in the past and to my knowledge didn't have issues with them?
RIP 9V-SKA
2007 - 2019
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 11672
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 3:23 pm

filipinoavgeek wrote:
As for CGK's runway issues, is there a reason why they were built that way and why the runways weren't strengthened? And how come the airport has had troubles with the 777W when Garuda used to operate 747s in the past and to my knowledge didn't have issues with them?

Iirc the issue is with pavement load. The 747 may be heavier but it has more tires spread across a larger area to distribute the weight around.
 
NZ321
Posts: 1380
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 3:51 pm

sfojvjets wrote:
Ishrion wrote:
Airbus says the standard range of the A338 is 15,094 kilometers. DPS-LAX is 13,893 kilometers and DPS-SFO is 13,446 kilometers. Both routes are within the range, but that isn't taking into account what Devilfish mentioned, such as configuration and winds.


I see this order happening to fulfill one of two possible scenarios:

1. Garuda is simply planning accordingly for the lower passenger volumes it expects on DPS long haul routes (especially SFO/LAX) and does not care about the range that comes with the aircraft since they plan to stopover at an intermediary point anyway (most likely scenario IMO)

2. Garuda wants to squeeze as much range as it can out of the A330neo family while maintaining commonality with their existing -900 fleet, so they plan to fly DPS-SFO-LAX and vice versa (likely not 5th Freedom)*

*As has been stated in this thread already though, it remains to be seen whether the -800 can even make it to the US West Coast from DPS when taking into account headwinds, possibly a more leisure-oriented config, etc. so this is why I believe the first option to be the more likely of the two.

Thoughts?


Well,for one, GA don't fly passenger service to SFO or LAX or any other point in the greater Americas - North, Central or South. This is not a new situation. And the A338 or A339 would certainly not have the payload/range combo to deliver a consistent solution in both directions even if they were mad enough to commence this soon. Just not happening. Perhaps the 77W are history.... and the A339 will standardise the medium-long haul wide body offering.
Plane mad!
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1180
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 4:07 pm

filipinoavgeek wrote:
Anyway, I'd take this opportunity to apologize to Devilfish over my bothering of him and his A338 fandom, and I'll try to avoid it from now on.

As for CGK's runway issues, is there a reason why they were built that way and why the runways weren't strengthened? And how come the airport has had troubles with the 777W when Garuda used to operate 747s in the past and to my knowledge didn't have issues with them?


Probably built that way due to corruption and lack of funds. Most airport infrastructure in Indonesia is sub-standard.

The 77W has fewer tyres to spread the weight which means potentially more damage to airport surfaces.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7368
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 4:30 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
I thought the 251T A338 had comparable range to the 787?

We only assumed GA ordered the 251T version because of the OP's question about its usefulness on DPS-LAX/SFO. I hadn't seen it categorically stated that GA actually did.

MrHMSH wrote:
Surely MNL-LAX is well within its capabilities?

The issue is on the westbound LAX-MNL where it could take 15 hours doglegging across the puddle. Additionally, the trip costs on this very long oceanic flying could only be spread among a fewer number of passengers. Raising fares would not sit well with price-sensitive VFRs and would drive customers towards the competition - thus impacting yields. A potential route for the A338 is CEB-LAX-CEB should it resume after the pandemic...as traffic wouldn't be higher than MNL and the passengers might be swayed into paying a little premium for the nonstop flight to CEB. Of course, this is predicated on the A359s going back to the lessors.


filipinoavgeek wrote:
Anyway, I'd take this opportunity to apologize to Devilfish over my bothering of him and his A338 fandom, and I'll try to avoid it from now on.

No apologies necessary...just keep it about the aircraft and not make it personal.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
sfojvjets
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2020 6:00 am

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 6:48 pm

NZ321 wrote:
sfojvjets wrote:

I see this order happening to fulfill one of two possible scenarios:

1. Garuda is simply planning accordingly for the lower passenger volumes it expects on DPS long haul routes (especially SFO/LAX) and does not care about the range that comes with the aircraft since they plan to stopover at an intermediary point anyway (most likely scenario IMO)

2. Garuda wants to squeeze as much range as it can out of the A330neo family while maintaining commonality with their existing -900 fleet, so they plan to fly DPS-SFO-LAX and vice versa (likely not 5th Freedom)*

*As has been stated in this thread already though, it remains to be seen whether the -800 can even make it to the US West Coast from DPS when taking into account headwinds, possibly a more leisure-oriented config, etc. so this is why I believe the first option to be the more likely of the two.

Thoughts?


Well,for one, GA don't fly passenger service to SFO or LAX or any other point in the greater Americas - North, Central or South. This is not a new situation. And the A338 or A339 would certainly not have the payload/range combo to deliver a consistent solution in both directions even if they were mad enough to commence this soon. Just not happening. Perhaps the 77W are history.... and the A339 will standardise the medium-long haul wide body offering.


Of course they do not fly to any point in the Americas yet. I think maybe you've forgotten the long-haul aspirations they've announced for DPS. This is in fact a new situation - they announced last year (during COVID) that they had plans to launch DPS-SFO/LAX/CDG/BOM/DEL to increase tourist expenditure in the Bali region. They have acknowledged that the flights will be loss-making. I do agree with you, maybe the 77w indeed are history despite their youth since they are leased but at the same time, the A338 would not make any sense to be the replacement for them. Considering the long-haul aspirations they have had for Bali, the 4 A338s are probably for this. And yes, as I said earlier, I do not believe they can consistently expect the range to be enough to reach LAX/SFO, so what's probably likely is that they have got these -800s since they know that the DPS routes will be lower capacity.

The only obstacle would be that as Garuda management keeps changing, the airline often falls prey to whims of its new management. But the reason that I think that these are long-term plans is the fact that they are now introducing a whole new type to their fleet - and moreover, they have only ordered 4 of them - too much to only replace larger equipment on current service from CGK to AMS/LHR and too little to replace the entire 77w fleet (of 10 I think). But this number is perfect for flying low-frequency DPS long-haul. Of course... whether this actually comes to fruition will be interesting.

https://airlinegeeks.com/2020/07/08/gar ... and-india/
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 11672
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 7:45 pm

sfojvjets wrote:
The only obstacle would be that as Garuda management keeps changing, the airline often falls prey to whims of its new management. But the reason that I think that these are long-term plans is the fact that they are now introducing a whole new type to their fleet - and moreover, they have only ordered 4 of them - too much to only replace larger equipment on current service from CGK to AMS/LHR and too little to replace the entire 77w fleet (of 10 I think). But this number is perfect for flying low-frequency DPS long-haul. Of course... whether this actually comes to fruition will be interesting.

They are not introducing a whole new type to their fleet. The A338s will have full commonality with their A339s...they are just shorter.
 
TC957
Posts: 4055
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:12 pm

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 8:50 pm

Antarius wrote:
TC957 wrote:
Antarius wrote:

If they want to light money on fire, there are easier ways to do it.

Why do you say that ? A high-end leisure route like this would do well 2 or 3 times a week. Only negative I can foresee is GA's recent history of stop-starting London which may put some tour operators off using them. Bali has always been a favourite for UK holiday makers seeking long-haul luxury.


Their stop starting is a result of their eyes being bigger than their wallets - they have delusions of grandeur, launch the flight, take a beating and stop. Then someone wakes up with the same idea and starts all over again.

Bali is certainly a top vacation destination, but between GA's execution and the fact that a lot of vacation travelers (including premium flyers) don't require non-stops and aren't willing to pay the premium, I do not see how this goes differently than the last set of times.

I feel that with good marketing Bali will become a favourite future stop-over point for Brits going to / from Australia in addition being a dream destination of it's own. The A338 should be far more suited to an LHR service than a 77W. And trust me, the cabin will fill from the front first - It's a 14 -15 hr flight and people will go for the premium cabin. Look at BA's Male Maldives flight - done with a 4-class 77W due to premium demand, when there's loads of TK and ME3 one-stop alternatives.
 
Antarius
Posts: 3436
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 9:28 pm

TC957 wrote:
Antarius wrote:
TC957 wrote:
Why do you say that ? A high-end leisure route like this would do well 2 or 3 times a week. Only negative I can foresee is GA's recent history of stop-starting London which may put some tour operators off using them. Bali has always been a favourite for UK holiday makers seeking long-haul luxury.


Their stop starting is a result of their eyes being bigger than their wallets - they have delusions of grandeur, launch the flight, take a beating and stop. Then someone wakes up with the same idea and starts all over again.

Bali is certainly a top vacation destination, but between GA's execution and the fact that a lot of vacation travelers (including premium flyers) don't require non-stops and aren't willing to pay the premium, I do not see how this goes differently than the last set of times.

I feel that with good marketing Bali will become a favourite future stop-over point for Brits going to / from Australia in addition being a dream destination of it's own. The A338 should be far more suited to an LHR service than a 77W. And trust me, the cabin will fill from the front first - It's a 14 -15 hr flight and people will go for the premium cabin. Look at BA's Male Maldives flight - done with a 4-class 77W due to premium demand, when there's loads of TK and ME3 one-stop alternatives.


LHR-MLE is 2200 nm less than LHR-DPS. And BA has much stronger point of sale presence in the UK than GA.

Both are significant differences.
Militant Centrist
Let's all just use some common sense
 
VSMUT
Posts: 5498
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:53 pm

Chaostheory wrote:
filipinoavgeek wrote:
Anyway, I'd take this opportunity to apologize to Devilfish over my bothering of him and his A338 fandom, and I'll try to avoid it from now on.

As for CGK's runway issues, is there a reason why they were built that way and why the runways weren't strengthened? And how come the airport has had troubles with the 777W when Garuda used to operate 747s in the past and to my knowledge didn't have issues with them?


Probably built that way due to corruption and lack of funds. Most airport infrastructure in Indonesia is sub-standard.

The 77W has fewer tyres to spread the weight which means potentially more damage to airport surfaces.


The airport is from 1985. Big twins that could go halfway around the world weren't envisaged at the time. At the same time it was so new that it hadn't had major refurb and rework done yet.
 
User avatar
Rajahdhani
Posts: 685
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 3:13 pm

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Thu Mar 11, 2021 12:18 am

TC957 wrote:
Antarius wrote:
TC957 wrote:
Why do you say that ? A high-end leisure route like this would do well 2 or 3 times a week. Only negative I can foresee is GA's recent history of stop-starting London which may put some tour operators off using them. Bali has always been a favourite for UK holiday makers seeking long-haul luxury.


Their stop starting is a result of their eyes being bigger than their wallets - they have delusions of grandeur, launch the flight, take a beating and stop. Then someone wakes up with the same idea and starts all over again.

Bali is certainly a top vacation destination, but between GA's execution and the fact that a lot of vacation travelers (including premium flyers) don't require non-stops and aren't willing to pay the premium, I do not see how this goes differently than the last set of times.

I feel that with good marketing Bali will become a favourite future stop-over point for Brits going to / from Australia in addition being a dream destination of it's own. The A338 should be far more suited to an LHR service than a 77W. And trust me, the cabin will fill from the front first - It's a 14 -15 hr flight and people will go for the premium cabin. Look at BA's Male Maldives flight - done with a 4-class 77W due to premium demand, when there's loads of TK and ME3 one-stop alternatives.


To add to the logic here, is that if GA can command local O/D from Bali, or take advantage of the airport (as prescribed, as a connector point), it could flourish quite well.

If so - adding a decent premium cabin would not only increase the performance of the A338, but also said premium (less dense) cabin, may allow some breathing room for cargo, potentially. Additionally, there need not necessarily be a need to support the small A338 fleet with further A338 replacements right away. Basing 738s there could put a lot of destinations at the upper ranges of the aircraft, however in the same vein as with the A338, premium cabins can increase performance. Similarly, upgrading to the MAX 8 (and/or discussing discounts with Boeing, and/or perhaps shopping for potential A321NEO/LRs, for spicy measure) - would give them comfort to operate year round, and with greater densities. So, start small and work up if/when able.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=DPS-BOM,+DPS-DEL,+DPS-SYD,+DPS-SYD,+DPS-ICN,+DPS-PEK,+DPS-NRT&R=3112nm%40DPS
 
x1234
Posts: 1073
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 3:50 pm

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Thu Mar 11, 2021 1:00 am

I was told GA was losing money flying 77W's to Europe. They should replace it with the A330neo (smallest wide-body).
 
User avatar
AECM
Posts: 357
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Thu Mar 11, 2021 1:17 am

Garuda widebodies fleet seat count

B77W C26Y367
A332 C36Y186 or C18Y242
A333 C36Y215 or C24Y263 or Y360
A339 C24Y277

In wich routes did Garuda get money with their 10 B77W before the Pandemic?
 
HB-IWC
Posts: 4113
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2000 1:09 am

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:46 am

AECM wrote:
Garuda widebodies fleet seat count

B77W C26Y367
A332 C36Y186 or C18Y242
A333 C36Y215 or C24Y263 or Y360
A339 C24Y277

In wich routes did Garuda get money with their 10 B77W before the Pandemic?


There are still 2 B77W aircraft that have the initial 8F/38C layout. These were last deployed on the CGK HND and DPS NRT routes. I think the high density 26C/367Y layout only ever worked on the JED and MED routes, and then only seasonally. The aircraft was otherwise too large for the network and the initial premium heavy configuration obviously failed miserably.

I would expect that the B77W fleet will be disposed off as they come up for lease renewal, but if these aircraft are on a typical 12-year lease, then we are still 4 years away from the first aircraft due for renewal.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1693
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Garuda Indonesia Orders Four A330-800neos

Thu Mar 11, 2021 5:09 am

MrHMSH wrote:
Seen many times how Airbus overstates the range of its aircraft, but very little in the way of substantial evidence. One airline using aircraft on one route can't tell us that the entire catalogue overpromises on range.

This may come as a surprise, but OEM's and customers DO NOT contract on the basis of catalogues.

The customer provides say the last 12 months actual route data, including turnaways if a larger aircraft is being considered, weather, and other factors. The OEM models various aircraft configurations and LF's, including interiors, which form part of the sale / purchase contract, together with an agreed performance erosion / decay formula, and penalties if more than X% of flights don't conform.

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