Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

Topic Author
Posts: 534
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 6:07 pm


Fri Apr 14, 2000 2:44 am

First of all I would like to say I hope this message won't be the start of yet another Boeing vs Airbus argument!

After rereading the article about the A330-100 lauch in FI I wondered whether who of you, aviation enthousiasts and specialists, think this aircraft will fly? Which airlines will order it and will pilots flying the other A330's be able to fly this aircraft under the same rating?
Thank you
Posts: 386
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 1999 4:38 am

RE: A330-100

Fri Apr 14, 2000 2:48 am

I think the airlines will replace their A300 and A310 in A330-100. This Aircraft is needed, especially Lufthansa wants to have this model.
Posts: 900
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 5:59 am

RE: A330-100

Fri Apr 14, 2000 2:56 am

Watch out Boeing!
A single type rating and commonality for the A330 family that spans the size and range of the 767-200/200ER/300ER/400, 777-200/300, A300/310 and B757-300. Hmm, seems like a very versatile a/c when you look at it this way. Imagine having a total A-330 fleet, one type rating and the capability to operate short/medium and long haul routes with medium, large and jumbo sized passenger loads all of the same aircraft!
Posts: 2126
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:28 am

RE: A330-100

Fri Apr 14, 2000 2:57 am

I thought that Airbus wanted to do a A300NG with a new wing and new interiors. The aircraft would have improved range would consume less fuel.



PS: Did you know that the 332s wingspan is greater than the length of the fuselage.

RE: A330-100

Fri Apr 14, 2000 4:28 am

Avion, the 330-100 sounds to me like a 300/310 with a new wing and systems. A 300/310 series with the 330/340 wing and avionics would be the best thing for Airbus to offer.

RE: A330-100

Fri Apr 14, 2000 4:44 am

I think airlines that are flying aging A300s & A310s and 767s will order this advanced FBW model to replace them. I know that some airlines are replacing their 767s for some A330s (Air France).

RE: A330-100

Fri Apr 14, 2000 4:50 am

The 332 is an acceptable replacement for 310/300/76X. What is the 332 anyway but an updated A300 with huge wings, bigger engines, and much better range? Why put the 330 wing on a 300...its already there. Doubt any airline would touch a 300NG...strictly speaking, it wasn't the best aircraft ever produced.

Airbus will not be able to afford an all new airframe at the moment. Either they shrink the 330 frame (unlikely) or they leave it alone.
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 1999 6:26 am

RE: A330-100

Fri Apr 14, 2000 12:25 pm

If they replace A300/A310 with the A330-100, then all their aircraft in production would have a common pilot rating? Then they can say "Buy all your aircraft from us. A pilot trained on one can fly them all." That may be quite an advantage. The A300/A310 need to be replaced-they aren't selling. And lot of the A300/A310 fleet look suitable for replacement. Is this thing planned to be a 250 seater in two classes? Are they shortening the A330 or what?

Posts: 389
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 8:23 am

RE: A330-100

Fri Apr 14, 2000 1:14 pm

I think that by the time Airbus decides to go ahead and design and produce this plane, most airlines would have already replaced the ageing A300/310 fleet, which are small to begin with already.
If this Bus were to be released now. At the start of economic regrowth in Asia it might have a chance.
But by the time it gets out, all Asian carriers would already have replaced them with either the A332 or the B764.
And I don't think any airline will buy both the A332 AND A331. With new wing and engines there would be no much difference anyway.

But hey, Airbus still beleive in the A3XX, so you never know !!!!!!!


Xander Koote
Posts: 4371
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 1999 11:32 pm

RE: A330-100

Fri Apr 14, 2000 6:41 pm

I am not a ingenieur but I am not sure if this a/c would not be to heavy to operate it economically, because the fuselage would be stortened twice (from 330-300). If not, it would be a great aircraft and I think many airline would be intrested.
User avatar
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 1999 6:04 am

RE: A330-100

Fri Apr 14, 2000 10:15 pm

I agree with the above post by ZRH- as you shorten an aircraft's fuselagle, the performance tends to drop a little- and the A330/A340 family has already been criticised for poor performance. Just look what SIA did. I doubt that this aircraft will be a big seller.
Kittens Give Morbo Gas
Posts: 4371
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 1999 11:32 pm


Fri Apr 14, 2000 10:36 pm

A think your statement about the poor performence of the A-330/340 family is not quite right. As I know, at least the A-330-200 has an excellent performance, the airlines are very satisfied with it. The A-340 is perhaps a little slow but has very good range.
Posts: 389
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 8:23 am

Shorter Derivatives

Sat Apr 15, 2000 1:33 am

There should be no reason for any shortened derivative to have less performance.......I really don't see why.
Look at the 767-300 and the -200.
Also the 767-300 to the -400. The 777-200 to the -300.
In all these cases, the shorter fuselage had the best performance.
So there shouldn't be any excuse there. It's all in what the manufacturer makes of it.

I just think that there wouldn't be a market for it anymore by the time it's released.


Posts: 2541
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: A330-100

Sat Apr 15, 2000 1:50 am

The problem with shortened derivitives is not range performance, but operating economics. Actually, the range goes up because you are carrying the same fuel load with less weight. However, the aircraft is still a smaller version of a larger aircraft, therefore it carries some unnecessary structural support that decreases its efficiency compared to a stretched model. In this case, that extra range is what actaully hurts the aircraft. If you look at say, the very-short haul market, the A318 has a greater payload and greater range than the 717. However, the 717 is more effecient at operating short hops (500 miles) because it doesn't carry all that extra wieght designed to support a larger aircraft (A320).

My thoughts

All gave some. Some gave all.

RE: A330-100

Sat Apr 15, 2000 2:04 am

The 762 and 772 are NOT shortened derivitives, they are the base model upon which subsequent stretches are built. It is not the same concept as chopping an A320 in half and rebranding it the A318.

An A330-200 is already a 250 seater in 2 class configuration.

IMHO, Airbus will be unable to produce a true 757 style (~180-200 seater) with the current airframes. I doubt any airline would accept either a shortened A330-200 or a lengthened A321. Either they will have to come up with a new airframe (unlikely) or just focus on other products.

Who is online

Popular Searches On

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