The latest Airbus 330 is the Airbus 330-800neo and Airbus 330-900neo

Will there be any further developments ? Where can the program go ?


I love the Airbus 330

The next big project will probably the A330NEO-F...... In the meantime, there will be some new weight settings. Recently there was a new derated, regional version.

The big picture is that the NEO will probably be the end. Sad but true (hopefully wrong because it is a beauty).

Id suggest nada, zilch, zero. The A330 is in the ‘old news’ category going forward. Anything even around freighters, will be about A350

I’d doubt we will see anything. The two current models aren’t exactly smashing sales successes, I don’t see a market it can address that isn’t covered better by another plane.

by738 wrote:

Id suggest nada, zilch, zero. The A330 is in the ‘old news’ category going forward. Anything even around freighters, will be about A350

That is not the way Airbus works, they do constant R&D, they have a team looking at the A350 now, tye just finished the A321F, they will be back looking at the another project once the A350 is done. There is a lot of incentive to have the A330neo freighter to be available before 2028.

What about a MMRT based on the A330NEO?

Is anyone aware of if Starlux is still on track to receive their first A339 by the end of Q4 2021?

Speedy752 wrote:

I’d doubt we will see anything. The two current models aren’t exactly smashing sales successes,

Remind us what widebody, especially in the last 2-3yrs, is?

....the A350 can somewhat say that, but even then, that's only for a single variant.

A33N isn't going anywhere any time soon. Like the A35K and 779, its introduction has been plagued by the combination of mid-cycle replacement and an overall market downturn.

I still think the A338F could be very successful.. The first A330F flopped because the weights were too low.. An A338F at 251T would be an outstanding midsized freighter. The ship has probably sailed on Fed Ex but UPS has a bunch of older A300s and 767s that could be ripe for replacement later in the decade..

G'day

How about a shortened A330 like the original A300 sized version with maybe even the good old smaller A300 wing with maybe updated winglets and with even the original landing gear may turn out to be a winner. Great people mover over shorter ranges with good freight capabilities. With common features with the present A330 like FBW, electrical actuation, cockpit etc. and thus commonality however with a much lighter structure it may just be what people expect to be the fabulous mid market aircraft. The missing thing the way I see it is an appropriately sized engine. Well, just a bit of speculation on my part I guess.

Likely having this developed and certified would not be worthwhile for the number of potential sales. Though some considered this to be a huge market. I guess we will have to live with the A330, 321LR/XLR series and B787's to cover this space.

Cheers

Peter

Heavierthanair wrote:

G'day

How about a shortened A330 like the original A300 sized version with maybe even the good old smaller A300 wing with maybe updated winglets and with even the original landing gear may turn out to be a winner. Great people mover over shorter ranges with good freight capabilities. With common features with the present A330 like FBW, electrical actuation, cockpit etc. and thus commonality however with a much lighter structure it may just be what people expect to be the fabulous mid market aircraft. The missing thing the way I see it is an appropriately sized engine. Well, just a bit of speculation on my part I guess.

Likely having this developed and certified would not be worthwhile for the number of potential sales. Though some considered this to be a huge market. I guess we will have to live with the A330, 321LR/XLR series and B787's to cover this space.

Cheers

Peter

Or an Airbus 300neo

by738 wrote:

Id suggest nada, zilch, zero. The A330 is in the ‘old news’ category going forward. Anything even around freighters, will be about A350

Member smartplane has suggested in a few threads that Airbus has held back adding improvements to A330neo to protect A350. No idea if it's true.

Personally I'd think Airbus would focus on A350. In theory they should have made manufacturing improvements that make it less labor intensive to build one than A330, and of course it's much more efficient. I'm not sure it makes sense to try to sell both A330neoF and A350F at the same time, and if you're going to pick one, clearly it's the A350F.

Revelation wrote:

by738 wrote:

Id suggest nada, zilch, zero. The A330 is in the ‘old news’ category going forward. Anything even around freighters, will be about A350

Member smartplane has suggested in a few threads that Airbus has held back adding improvements to A330neo to protect A350. No idea if it's true.

Personally I'd think Airbus would focus on A350. In theory they should have made manufacturing improvements that make it less labor intensive to build one than A330, and of course it's much more efficient. I'm not sure it makes sense to try to sell both A330neoF and A350F at the same time, and if you're going to pick one, clearly it's the A350F.

Depends on what are the final specs for the A350F.. But it's aimed squarely at the 777F, so I don't see why an A338F would cannibalize sales in the same way Boeing has sold the 777F and 767F together..

LAX772LR wrote:

Speedy752 wrote:

I’d doubt we will see anything. The two current models aren’t exactly smashing sales successes,

Remind us what widebody, especially in the last 2-3yrs, is?

....the A350 can somewhat say that, but even then, that's only for a single variant.

A33N isn't going anywhere any time soon. Like the A35K and 779, its introduction has been plagued by the combination of mid-cycle replacement and an overall market downturn.

787 and a350. To garner orders you’d have to do something those two Cant. Airbus’ efforts and money are better spent on perfecting the a350. A330neo may win some small campaigns on price but unless there’s some unique sales proposition a la 767-400 I don’t see why Airbus would spend further on it.

DCA350 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

by738 wrote:

Id suggest nada, zilch, zero. The A330 is in the ‘old news’ category going forward. Anything even around freighters, will be about A350

Member smartplane has suggested in a few threads that Airbus has held back adding improvements to A330neo to protect A350. No idea if it's true.

Personally I'd think Airbus would focus on A350. In theory they should have made manufacturing improvements that make it less labor intensive to build one than A330, and of course it's much more efficient. I'm not sure it makes sense to try to sell both A330neoF and A350F at the same time, and if you're going to pick one, clearly it's the A350F.

Depends on what are the final specs on the A350F.. But it's aimed squarely at the 777F, so I don't see why an A338F would cannibalize sales in the same way Boeing has sold the 777F and 767F together..

I think A330neo and A350F are a lot closer in capability than 767F and 777F, and A330neo doesn't have a strong installed base to sell into so it's business case will be harder to close.

It seems strange that Airbus would launch an A330neo freighter right after the A350 freighter. The airplanes would be competing with each other for developmental resources as well as sales.

DCA350 wrote:

I still think the A338F could be very successful.. The first A330F flopped because the weights were too low.. An A338F at 251T would be an outstanding midsized freighter. The ship has probably sailed on Fed Ex but UPS has a bunch of older A300s and 767s that could be ripe for replacement later in the decade..

Depends if the A330s larger span can fit in MEM and SDF. UPS and FedEx don't fly their planes as hard as the APX carriers do and Fedexs 767s are literally brand new. Never say never but a neoF has a slim chance at those 2.

DCA350 wrote:

I still think the A338F could be very successful.. The first A330F flopped because the weights were too low.. An A338F at 251T would be an outstanding midsized freighter. The ship has probably sailed on Fed Ex but UPS has a bunch of older A300s and 767s that could be ripe for replacement later in the decade..

Increase in MTOW has little impact on the amount of payload that can be carried.

Speedy752 wrote:

Airbus’ efforts and money are better spent on perfecting the a350. A330neo may win some small campaigns on price but unless there’s some unique sales proposition a la 767-400 I don’t see why Airbus would spend further on it.

Depends on how much more effort and money Airbus will still have to spend compared to the projected ROI. And considering the 764's USP nor the many 763 derivative stories floated since did not exactly translate to a new production program, it's oversimplified to limit any future A33N sale as small or won solely on price and not capability.

Revelation wrote:

I think A330neo and A350F are a lot closer in capability than 767F and 777F, and A330neo doesn't have a strong installed base to sell into so it's business case will be harder to close.

I believe an A338F and the putative A350F are well enough separated as not to cause damaging in-house competition. As to having a strong installed base, the A330N hasn't been on the market a very long time, came at the middle of the replacement cycle of its size class, and met with a pandemic storm just as sales campaigns were going in earnest. There may be good opportunities for it yet.

TWA772LR wrote:

UPS and FedEx don't fly their planes as hard as the APX carriers do and Fedexs 767s are literally brand new. Never say never but a neoF has a slim chance at those 2.

I asked in another thread the likely design, modification, testing and certification costs for a new A338F wingtip treatment in case other potential buyers have the same ramp space constraints. There was no reply, so apparently their operations do not warrant such a radical surgery.

zeke wrote:

DCA350 wrote:

I still think the A338F could be very successful.. The first A330F flopped because the weights were too low.. An A338F at 251T would be an outstanding midsized freighter. The ship has probably sailed on Fed Ex but UPS has a bunch of older A300s and 767s that could be ripe for replacement later in the decade..

Increase in MTOW has little impact on the amount of payload that can be carried.

Yes, but I read that the original A330F had poor payload range for its size.. Barely transatlantic from MEM or SDF. With the higher MTOW and more efficient engines, I would think the NEO version would greatly increase its flexibility.. I'm sure Airbus wouldn't launch it without firm commitments but I believe there's a puncher chance it could work.. What if Amazon really takes over the world.. The A350F and 778F would probably be too large.. That would be a perfect slot for the A338F, in addition to small orders from general carriers.

LAX772LR wrote:

Speedy752 wrote:

I’d doubt we will see anything. The two current models aren’t exactly smashing sales successes,

Remind us what widebody, especially in the last 2-3yrs, is?

....the A350 can somewhat say that, but even then, that's only for a single variant.

A33N isn't going anywhere any time soon. Like the A35K and 779, its introduction has been plagued by the combination of mid-cycle replacement and an overall market downturn.

The A35K and 779 don't have any direct competition, just overlaps. The A330NEO has superior in every way direct competition in the 787. As stated many times on Anet, the A330NEO only made sense when 787's weren't readily available, now you can get a 787 (and any other wide body) as soon as you want one. In the current competitive environment the A330NEO will struggle to be cash flow positive. The A330NEO will be a test to determine if Airbus is really a for profit capitalist corporation, or still an EU consortium. For profit companies don't continue to manufacture unprofitable products just to maintain employment levels or to reduce a competitors profits.

There will be no more development of the A330 if Airbus behaves like a rational capitalist corporation.

I think futher improvement still possible with re-engining - There exists an unique oppurtunity with PW1100G geared turbofan

T7000/T1000 is more expensive than PW1100G on per pound of thrust basis, largely due to the economies of scale PW1100G enjoys with high volume A320 family. Re-engine A330neo with four PW1100Gs should lower purchase cost quite a bit. PW1100G is likely more fuel efficient than T7000 due to 10 years gap in engine EIS. So total life cycle cost should be lower still. Finally, PW1100G is also used on A321XLR, Pratt may be willing to further optimize PW1100G variant for long haul operation for even further fuel savings, such as higher reduction gear box.

LDRA wrote:

I think futher improvement still possible with re-engining - There exists an unique oppurtunity with PW1100G geared turbofan

T7000/T1000 is more expensive than PW1100G on per pound of thrust basis, largely due to the economies of scale PW1100G enjoys with high volume A320 family. Re-engine A330neo with four PW1100Gs should lower purchase cost quite a bit. PW1100G is likely more fuel efficient than T7000 due to 10 years gap in engine EIS. So total life cycle cost should be lower still. Finally, PW1100G is also used on A321XLR, Pratt may be willing to further optimize PW1100G variant for long haul operation for even further fuel savings, such as higher reduction gear box.

Introducing a new A330 version with 4 smaller engines, - 4 engines 4 the long haul.

A launch order for 50 with $ 20M each R&D cost gets a development budget of $ 1B together. A lot can be done with that amount LOL.

LDRA wrote:

I think futher improvement still possible with re-engining - There exists an unique oppurtunity with PW1100G geared turbofan

T7000/T1000 is more expensive than PW1100G on per pound of thrust basis, largely due to the economies of scale PW1100G enjoys with high volume A320 family. Re-engine A330neo with four PW1100Gs should lower purchase cost quite a bit. PW1100G is likely more fuel efficient than T7000 due to 10 years gap in engine EIS. So total life cycle cost should be lower still. Finally, PW1100G is also used on A321XLR, Pratt may be willing to further optimize PW1100G variant for long haul operation for even further fuel savings, such as higher reduction gear box.

This is more of A340 Neo. probably going to be competing with the a350 too much and will probably fail.

Perhaps a A340-200 Neo would be interesting with 4 PW1100 engines but might eat into the a330 as it is now.

DCA350 wrote:

Yes, but I read that the original A330F had poor payload range for its size.. Barely transatlantic from MEM or SDF. With the higher MTOW and more efficient engines, I would think the NEO version would greatly increase its flexibility.. I'm sure Airbus wouldn't launch it without firm commitments but I believe there's a puncher chance it could work.. What if Amazon really takes over the world.. The A350F and 778F would probably be too large.. That would be a perfect slot for the A338F, in addition to small orders from general carriers.

What you read is incorrect. The A332F at package freighter densities would have no issue operating from MEM or SDF to the top 5 cargo hubs in Europe (LUX, AMS, FRA, LHR, CDG). It has more range than a 763F and that does not seem to be a problem.

by738 wrote:

Id suggest nada, zilch, zero. The A330 is in the ‘old news’ category going forward. Anything even around freighters, will be about A350

Is it the end of the road?

People say it about the 767 that was supposed to be "killed" by the A330 and yet it is still being produced for freighter and tanker.

Speedy752 wrote:

787 and a350. To garner orders you’d have to do something those two Cant.

That's not necessarily true, but even if we were to take that as gospel, then compare the A339 and 78X (neither of which have been great sellers to date, but have potential):

A339 has the same approx OEW (~135T) as 78X and carries similar payload; but can fly it significantly farther (7200 vs 6500nm), at a lower MTOW (251T vs 254T), while certified for higher max seating (460 vs 440); and using a modification of the same engine.

The two are highly competitive with each other, both weighing significantly less than the A350; and there are still plenty of airlines with sizeable A330 fleets (e.g. CX, CI, CA, MU, etc) that have not yet chosen a replacement, regardless as to what AvGeeks presume they'll do, who could potentially order either/both/neither.

Speedy752 wrote:

Airbus’ efforts and money are better spent on perfecting the a350.

Airbus is capable of walking and chewing gum, quite effectively.

Speedy752 wrote:

A330neo may win some small campaigns on price but unless there’s some unique sales proposition a la 767-400 I don’t see why Airbus would spend further on it.

Take care to realize that that's an assumption, not a fact.

[threeid][/threeid]

zeke wrote:

by738 wrote:

Id suggest nada, zilch, zero. The A330 is in the ‘old news’ category going forward. Anything even around freighters, will be about A350

That is not the way Airbus works, they do constant R&D, they have a team looking at the A350 now, tye just finished the A321F, they will be back looking at the another project once the A350 is done. There is a lot of incentive to have the A330neo freighter to be available before 2028.

2028? Surely an A330NEO F is long hanging fruit and relatively easy to do? Fuselage is the same as the CEO and therefore all the freighter changes are already developed. What am I missing?

Freighter, MRRT, regional versions - especially with the end of new 767s coming, the A330NEO will find its market.

T54A wrote:

2028? Surely an A330NEO F is long hanging fruit and relatively easy to do? Fuselage is the same as the CEO and therefore all the freighter changes are already developed. What am I missing?

I also see it as low hanging fruit and am surprised it was not offered as a neo version all along. There was talk about a custom length a few years ago which may have diverted attention from a simple 338neo concept.

A MRTT neo is more complex due to the changed aerodynamics and lack of A340 outboard attachment points in the wings, requiring reworking of the refueling system.

T54A wrote:

2028? Surely an A330NEO F is long hanging fruit and relatively easy to do? Fuselage is the same as the CEO and therefore all the freighter changes are already developed. What am I missing?

2028 is when the new emission standards come in. The freighter STC can be applied to any A330, they just need to update it for the additional engine type

I am curious if the iterations of the A330 come to an end would it make sense to produce another aircraft of the same cross section designed to fit the LD3 and 8 across seating or will it only make sense to build a different, presumably large cross section for as the basis of ongoing designs. Often these discussions become a debate of whether an old model can be remade rather than if the characteristics of that model should be perpetuated rather the model itself.

Could theer be an other strech for shorter range high capacity. a 5 meter strech with 251 MTOW would still have more range than the first A330-330's.

Airbus a330 new new engine option

tvh wrote:

Could theer be an other strech for shorter range high capacity. a 5 meter strech with 251 MTOW would still have more range than the first A330-330's.

Then you start running into the issue of competing with the A359. Yes the A350 would have more range…but many customers don’t need it.

The original A300 was, as its name (Airbus) suggested, designed as a "peoplemover" for short hops, and most of its early sales were to European operators for use on heavy trunk routes within europe and asia. With that market now being the domain of LCCs and having grown enormously since the A300 came on the scene, might they be interested in an "A300neo" as a highly efficient shorter range tool, given that there isn't a lot of scope to further stretch the A321 even though the market seems to be demanding larger planes for economy of scale. It would have to be more or less entirely new but A300-ish size with A330 systems. Range would be capped at 4000-4500nm maximum to allow comfortable transatlatic range without excess weight but a baseline model for routes of 2500nm would cover most of europe, north america and southeast asia. If designed specifically for shorter range maximum efficiency it would not impinge on A359 even if stretched.

DartHerald wrote:

The original A300 was, as its name (Airbus) suggested, designed as a "peoplemover" for short hops, and most of its early sales were to European operators for use on heavy trunk routes within europe and asia. With that market now being the domain of LCCs and having grown enormously since the A300 came on the scene, might they be interested in an "A300neo" as a highly efficient shorter range tool, given that there isn't a lot of scope to further stretch the A321 even though the market seems to be demanding larger planes for economy of scale. It would have to be more or less entirely new but A300-ish size with A330 systems. Range would be capped at 4000-4500nm maximum to allow comfortable transatlatic range without excess weight but a baseline model for routes of 2500nm would cover most of europe, north america and southeast asia. If designed specifically for shorter range maximum efficiency it would not impinge on A359 even if stretched.

This seems promising, but outside of Asia pre Pandemic No other region was regularly using WBs on domestic routes heavily.. There could come a day when US and Europe reach that saturation point but I don't think we are there yet.. They would rather just add more frequency.

Asia is a broad term but if we focus on east/southeast asia, japan, taiwan, indonesia, the philipines and "in reality" south korea are basiclly island nations. The only other way is by ship which impacts travel times not only international but sometimes even domestically. So I find it hard to prospect this image on other regions.

I just saw this:
Airbus Works on New “Low weight” A330neo

ro1960 wrote:

I just saw this:
Airbus Works on New “Low weight” A330neo

But it sounds, just like a paper downgrade, Nothing about lightening the structure or downsizing the wings or engines.

tvh wrote:

ro1960 wrote:

I just saw this:
Airbus Works on New “Low weight” A330neo

But it sounds, just like a paper downgrade, Nothing about lightening the structure or downsizing the wings or engines.

It could still give the A330neo some sales and a longer life, no?

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

It seems strange that Airbus would launch an A330neo freighter right after the A350 freighter. The airplanes would be competing with each other for developmental resources as well as sales.

I kind of agree with your logic, but you could turn the argument on the flip side:

Develop two different solutions, toss them at the wall and see what sticks.

The A330 is in the unfortunate place of competing directly with the 787. The NEO was launched with the belief that Boeing would be unable to 1) ramp up production sufficiently to meet demand and 2) bring manufacturing costs down to the level of the A330. Unfortunately for Airbus, in between Airbus launching the NEO and getting it certified Boeing managed to do both, which makes the A330NEO with no real advantage in any way over the 787. The 787 is lighter, more efficient, lower maintenance, and longer range than the A330NEO (although not by large margins). It is also about the same price, I understand. And while I expect an A330NEO can be had quicker at this point than a 787, the 787 line is no longer booked for years out, and if someone needed one in a hurry I believe Boeing can make that happen. So what it comes down to is the most compelling reason to buy an A330NEO is that you really, really don’t like Boeing.

SEPilot wrote:

The A330 is in the unfortunate place of competing directly with the 787. The NEO was launched with the belief that Boeing would be unable to 1) ramp up production sufficiently to meet demand and 2) bring manufacturing costs down to the level of the A330. Unfortunately for Airbus, in between Airbus launching the NEO and getting it certified Boeing managed to do both, which makes the A330NEO with no real advantage in any way over the 787. The 787 is lighter, more efficient, lower maintenance, and longer range than the A330NEO (although not by large margins). It is also about the same price, I understand. And while I expect an A330NEO can be had quicker at this point than a 787, the 787 line is no longer booked for years out, and if someone needed one in a hurry I believe Boeing can make that happen. So what it comes down to is the most compelling reason to buy an A330NEO is that you really, really don’t like Boeing.

A330NEO sale point is cockpit similiarity to A320, enables mixed fleet flying. It's a huge factor for smaller operators

Revelation wrote:

by738 wrote:

Id suggest nada, zilch, zero. The A330 is in the ‘old news’ category going forward. Anything even around freighters, will be about A350

Member smartplane has suggested in a few threads that Airbus has held back adding improvements to A330neo to protect A350. No idea if it's true.

Personally I'd think Airbus would focus on A350. In theory they should have made manufacturing improvements that make it less labor intensive to build one than A330, and of course it's much more efficient. I'm not sure it makes sense to try to sell both A330neoF and A350F at the same time, and if you're going to pick one, clearly it's the A350F.

Unlike Boeing (787 and 777), the A330/A350 family is 'owned' by the same team.

Although there are A330NEO (and A330) upgrades in the bank, they may never see the light of day, unless a strategic customer insists, or in response Boeing initiatives. It's suspected such negotiations are underway, which will see a range of A330 upgrades, tied to a new order for more capable A330NEO's.

The A330 going light runs the risk of infringing A320 v A330 family demarcations revised in 2018 and re-confirmed in 2019. Airbus need to keep enough NB exclusive segment to justify continued development of a 2nd wing option. However, as the market segment grows, a light WB AND a more capable NB may both make sense.

SEPilot wrote:

The 787 is lighter, more efficient, lower maintenance, and longer range than the A330NEO (although not by large margins). It is also about the same price, I understand. And while I expect an A330NEO can be had quicker at this point than a 787, the 787 line is no longer booked for years out, and if someone needed one in a hurry I believe Boeing can make that happen. So what it comes down to is the most compelling reason to buy an A330NEO is that you really, really don’t like Boeing.

I don’t think that is entirely accurate, we know from real operators the A339 appears to be a few tonnes lighter empty weight ( eg https://hifly.aero/public/uploads/2019/ ... -TKY-1.pdf ), and MTOW is slightly lower.

Price wise I understand the A330neo is now available at a slightly lower purchase price, along with the slightly lower weights should give it lower navigation, landing, and gate charges (only small). The fuel burns DL had been reporting in my view were comparable to the 787-9. Don’t see a lot of difference between the Trent 1000 and Trent 7000, if anything the Trent 7000 might be a little more efficient than the early Trent 1000s.

On the heavy maintenance side of things, the schedule time frames between A/B/C checks I thought was the same between the A330 and 787. The A330 was already 15% composite.


from “A Review of the Flammability Factors of Kenaf and Allied Fibre Reinforced Polymer Composites” on ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The ... _286266759 [accessed 30 Aug, 2021]

The 787 does fly further, carriers more payload, and has lower trip times (higher cruise speed), this gives it an advantage over longer routes. Over 4-8 hr sectors where the majority of city pairs are for this class of airframes are I don’t think there would be much difference in real life given the realistic load factors and delays that are present in real life operations.

What is very clear is both airframes provide operators a lot of flexibility.

DCA350 wrote:

DartHerald wrote:

The original A300 was, as its name (Airbus) suggested, designed as a "peoplemover" for short hops, and most of its early sales were to European operators for use on heavy trunk routes within europe and asia. With that market now being the domain of LCCs and having grown enormously since the A300 came on the scene, might they be interested in an "A300neo" as a highly efficient shorter range tool, given that there isn't a lot of scope to further stretch the A321 even though the market seems to be demanding larger planes for economy of scale. It would have to be more or less entirely new but A300-ish size with A330 systems. Range would be capped at 4000-4500nm maximum to allow comfortable transatlatic range without excess weight but a baseline model for routes of 2500nm would cover most of europe, north america and southeast asia. If designed specifically for shorter range maximum efficiency it would not impinge on A359 even if stretched.

This seems promising, but outside of Asia pre Pandemic No other region was regularly using WBs on domestic routes heavily.. There could come a day when US and Europe reach that saturation point but I don't think we are there yet.. They would rather just add more frequency.

But, might slot limitations and environmental considerations play a part too?

DartHerald wrote:

DCA350 wrote:

DartHerald wrote:

The original A300 was, as its name (Airbus) suggested, designed as a "peoplemover" for short hops, and most of its early sales were to European operators for use on heavy trunk routes within europe and asia. With that market now being the domain of LCCs and having grown enormously since the A300 came on the scene, might they be interested in an "A300neo" as a highly efficient shorter range tool, given that there isn't a lot of scope to further stretch the A321 even though the market seems to be demanding larger planes for economy of scale. It would have to be more or less entirely new but A300-ish size with A330 systems. Range would be capped at 4000-4500nm maximum to allow comfortable transatlatic range without excess weight but a baseline model for routes of 2500nm would cover most of europe, north america and southeast asia. If designed specifically for shorter range maximum efficiency it would not impinge on A359 even if stretched.

This seems promising, but outside of Asia pre Pandemic No other region was regularly using WBs on domestic routes heavily.. There could come a day when US and Europe reach that saturation point but I don't think we are there yet.. They would rather just add more frequency.

But, might slot limitations and environmental considerations play a part too?

Yes but how far are we away from that moment? We are already seeing an upgauge.. None of the US3 has the A320NEO on order for instance, they all chose the A321NEO.. However that's still a big gap to flying Domestic widebodies on the regular.. Although interestingly enough Delta is using all 767s on its JFK-LAX routes..Not sure if thats because they don't have anywhere else to put them or that's the plan going forward.

DartHerald wrote:

But, might slot limitations and environmental considerations play a part too?

I think population density, geography, and intermodal transport plays a bigger part. You can drive freight from NYC to SFO or put it on a train, and have established logistics networks of FedEx, and UPS. Over the same sort of distance in Asia for example NRT to SGN or HKG to BOM, there is no option to drive freight, no trains, UPS/Fedex networks are small. So underfloor freight on wide bodies plays a bigger part.

I like to imagine that there is a market for a lengthened A330-900Neo to the -500 fuselage length and somewhat shortened range based around the current highest gross weight A330-900Neo version. I suppose that a -600 fuselage length could technically work, but, I don't think the drastic range reduction that amount of extra structural weight would leave the plane useful for many airlines. Sometimes, you need to move a whole heap of people just a couple thousand miles and not half way around the world...