astuteman
Topic Author
Posts: 7059
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

FI - MAS Ponders Longer-range A330

Wed Jul 04, 2012 5:57 pm

Curious one this, posted on Flightglobal....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...roposal-as-777-replacement-373732/

Seems MAS is in discussion with Airbus about the possibility of a longer range A330 to replace their 772ER's.
Which begs a number of interesting questions.....  
Quote:
"The A330 is a good 11h aircraft, and the question we are asking Airbus is whether it can be used on longer missions. We'd like hear what Airbus is going to say at Farnborough about this."

MAS currently operates 21 A330-200/300s and 17 777-200ERs. Yahya says that if Airbus says "something positive" about the creation of a longer-range A330 "there's no reason why we couldn't order more aircraft to replace the 777s".

Rgds
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26690
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: FI - MAS Ponders Longer-range A330

Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:03 pm

Well they added a new Weight Variant to the A330-300, WV54, raising MTOW to 235t and reducing MZFW to 173t to increase range by 135nm. They've also been mulling another WV taking MTOW to 240t.

[Edited 2012-07-04 11:05:24]
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14598
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: FI - MAS Ponders Longer-range A330

Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:04 pm

I would not call the -300 as an 11 hr aircraft.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
behramjee
Posts: 5019
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 4:56 am

RE: FI - MAS Ponders Longer-range A330

Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:19 pm

A332IGW is operated by Korean Air on ultra long haul flights from ICN to NBO (14.5 hour block time) + trans-atlantic services to LAS (13.25 block time) hence this aircraft variant could easily operate from KUL nonstop to Germany (FRA 12.5 hours block time) + Italy, Cairo, Moscow and Switzerland.
 
SSPhoenix
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:53 pm

RE: FI - MAS Ponders Longer-range A330

Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:02 pm

Okay ... so I'm going to be the one to ask:

Why not buy the 789 or A359? ....
and the most obvious answer is that these machines will be super expensive to Finance - so maybe they are taking a safe route here by ordering a product that is already established and relatively inexpensive to acquire.

Now - I need to check the range difference between a 772 vs A359 & A332 vs 788

(Also, isn't going from a 772 to 332 downsizing???)

Furthermore, the chief executive is complaining about fleet commonality - but they want to have a short-haul/regional operation using 738s and ATRs & Long Haul Operations ideally using A332 & A388 ... hmmm ...
We are made of Stars ...
 
astuteman
Topic Author
Posts: 7059
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: FI - MAS Ponders Longer-range A330

Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:36 pm

Quoting SSPhoenix (Reply 4):
Okay ... so I'm going to be the one to ask:

  

I thought those were some of the more obvious questions...  

Rgds
 
SASMD82
Posts: 616
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:44 am

RE: FI - MAS Ponders Longer-range A330

Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:59 pm

Quoting behramjee (Reply 3):
332IGW is operated by Korean Air on ultra long haul flights from ICN to NBO (14.5 hour block time) + trans-atlantic services to LAS (13.25 block time) hence this aircraft variant could easily operate from KUL nonstop to Germany (FRA 12.5 hours block time) + Italy, Cairo, Moscow and Switzerland.

Why does the A333 miss the mid central fuel tank? Adding this (with of course less pay load) would mean a tremendous increase of range. BTW, isn't it time to offer some GEnx or RR1000 engines for the A330? Or are these engines patentised (is this English?) for the B787/748 only?
 
ferpe
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: FI - MAS Ponders Longer-range A330

Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:01 pm

The modern 777-200ER is a 7700nm frame at spec load of 29t and has a 288m2 cabin in my book. MSP at the 10 hour flight is 57t.

I checked what different measures on the 330 series would give in extra range using my frame model:

A333, a 6000nm frame at a spec load of 28t and 266m2 cabin, MSP 51t:
- raise MTOW from 235 to 240t (with no significant increase in OEW) = + 350nm
- change to sharklets (with no significant increase in OEW) = + 70nm
- PIP the engines 1.5% = + 100nm
Spec range goes from 6000nm to some 6500nm.

A332, a 7200nm frame at a spec load of 24t and 238m2 cabin,. MSP 48t:
- raise MTOW from 238 to 240t (with no significant increase in OEW) = + 140nm
- change to sharklets (with no significant increase in OEW) = + 80nm
- PIP the engines 1.5% = + 110nm
Spec range goes from 7250nm to some 7600nm.


As can be seen an extra hour or 500nm is within the possible without larger measures. The 332 would run the legs of the 777-200ER albeit with some 5t less on the max range and some 9t less on 10h flights, it lacks 50m2 of cabin area to the 200ER. The 333 runs 1200nm shorter, lacks some 6t payload weight on those distances as well at MZFW, it also lacks 20m2 cabin area to the 200ER. Fuel burn would be some 10t lower on the 6500nm legs for the 333. As always add a grain of salt   .

So why these differences, well the -200ER is a bigger frame, it weighs some 10-15t more empty and it creates more drag when cruising, some 26000lbf instead of 21000lbf for the 330.

[Edited 2012-07-04 13:26:41]
Non French in France
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: FI - MAS Ponders Longer-range A330

Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:04 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 7):
A320:

I guess you mean the A332 here.  
 
ferpe
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: FI - MAS Ponders Longer-range A330

Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:08 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 8):
I guess you mean the A332 here.

Hell no  Wow! (fixed)  .
Non French in France
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5025
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: FI - MAS Ponders Longer-range A330

Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:11 pm

I got it!   

Wht not put two Trent 1000 on the A345?

//Mike   
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
astuteman
Topic Author
Posts: 7059
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: FI - MAS Ponders Longer-range A330

Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:21 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 7):
A333, a 6000nm frame at a spec load of 28t and 266m2 cabin:
- raise MTOW from 235 to 240t (with no significant increase in OEW) = + 350nm
- change to sharklets (with no significant increase in OEW) = + 70nm
- PIP the engines 1.5% = + 100nm
Spec range goes from 6000nm to some 6500nm.

If you check the range-payload chart, think you'll find the A330-300 becomes fuel limited at about 5 500Nm. So increases in MTOW aren't going to change the spec range any.
The sharklets and PIP will, of course.

In the real world, though, that extra MTOW will manifest itself in a substantial payload boost between 4 000Nm and 5 500Nm ESAD's

Rgds
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: FI - MAS Ponders Longer-range A330

Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:21 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 7):
I checked what different measures on the 330 series would give in extra range using my frame model:

Those are quite nice numbers. Though I doubt if they will cover what MAS is asking Airbus now. I feel they would in the be better served by buying either B787-8/9's or A350-800/900.  

[Edited 2012-07-04 13:22:18]
 
ferpe
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: FI - MAS Ponders Longer-range A330

Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:30 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 12):
If you check the range-payload chart, think you'll find the A330-300 becomes fuel limited at about 5 500Nm. So increases in MTOW aren't going to change the spec range any.

Thanks, forgot that. I could see the 333 getting the center tank gear installed from the 332, shouldn't weigh that much should it? You don't have to fill it unless you need to, but the bird would effectively encroach the 332, might be the right thing to do, just make one 333 that can run all the legs albeit with payload tradeoffs.
Non French in France
 
747400sp
Posts: 3900
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: FI - MAS Ponders Longer-range A330

Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:33 pm

Quoting behramjee (Reply 3):
A332IGW is operated by Korean Air on ultra long haul flights from ICN to NBO (14.5 hour block time) + trans-atlantic services to LAS (13.25 block time) hence this aircraft variant could easily operate from KUL nonstop to Germany (FRA 12.5 hours block time) + Italy, Cairo, Moscow and Switzerland.






Let us not forget, that QF operated LAX-AKL, with A332s. Even though I did not like the ideal at first, and I was badly grilled on A-net, for starting a topic, about my dislike of the ideal. Now almost 5 years later, I will admit that the A332, was good to that route.

Now back to the subject, I think it would be a good ideal, for MAS to pursue Airbus, to build the A330 NEO. Let's face it, the 777 is in a totally new market now, and the 777 200ER, is not the a/c that's holding the 777 project together, it is the 77L and 77W.

Well, it looks like Airbus will have four a/c types, for a little while longer.


PS: MAS said their 77Es, are getting long in the tooth, but seeing that all T-7s, are under 20 years old, by US standers, they just getting warmed up.
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: FI - MAS Ponders Longer-range A330

Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:35 pm

Would Airbus spend the money for just one customer? I don't see RR doing a bleed T1000..
 
jfk777
Posts: 7198
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: FI - MAS Ponders Longer-range A330

Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:43 pm

MAS needs to do what Singapore Airlines did a long time ago, order 777-300ER's. They should NOT have done one thing SIA did, order A380's.
 
astuteman
Topic Author
Posts: 7059
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: FI - MAS Ponders Longer-range A330

Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:48 pm

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 15):
MAS said their 77Es, are getting long in the tooth, but seeing that all T-7s, are under 20 years old, by US standers, they just getting warmed up.

That was ANOTHER of those good questions. The 77E didn't go into service until 1997, so the very oldes ones will only be 15 years old. I don't know, but I suspect MAS's examples will be younger than that

rgds
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: FI - MAS Ponders Longer-range A330

Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:52 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 18):
I don't know, but I suspect MAS's examples will be younger than that

Basically I think MAS is looking for more economic planes in relative short time. Again I state that the new big(ger) twins on the market (B787 and A350) are the better choices for them imho. Unless Airbus can pull some bigger improvements on the A330 off in a very short time and without spending a lot of money, I would favor the new products!  

[Edited 2012-07-04 13:53:07]
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: FI - MAS Ponders Longer-range A330

Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:21 pm

Boeing would be sad to see a A333 with the same range as their coming 787-10  
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26690
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: FI - MAS Ponders Longer-range A330

Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:43 pm

Quoting sweair (Reply 19):
Boeing would be sad to see a A333 with the same range as their coming 787-10.    

The 787-10 would still carry more passengers and significantly more cargo (by volume).
 
Triple Seven
Posts: 518
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2000 10:04 pm

RE: FI - MAS Ponders Longer-range A330

Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:30 am

It is really not practical for MH to go for any long-range A330 development. This will leave MH with capacity gap between A330 and A380. If MH want something fast and 'cheap' they ought to go after 77W. It will probably arrive sooner than Airbus could on an improve A330.

Even the thought of 748i might not be so ridiculous either. We have both parties with mutual needs: Boeing need to sell 748i and they could probably discount significantly (plus favorable terms) and provide quicker delivery option to a needy and cash strap carrier like MH. I really see 748 as true 744 replacement in terms of capacity, not one that is a step higher. With today's FCY configuration, the total passenger uplift per flight is really identical to 744 (and today's 77W) in the late 80s and much of the 90s. Today's business class seat is yesterday's first class!

Far fetch for but not entirely impractical. Anyway, what do I know, I'm just an arm-chair dude.

[Edited 2012-07-04 17:40:13]
 
User avatar
9MMPQ
Posts: 448
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 3:00 pm

RE: FI - MAS Ponders Longer-range A330

Thu Jul 05, 2012 6:11 am

A newer, longer range A330 would suit MH. By the time it actually flies & gets delivered it won't be long before they'll be lagging behind the competition again in terms of equipment.

Their future is in either the B787 or A350. Whether anyone in MH is brave enough to realize that & move forward with it is a whole different story.

[Edited 2012-07-04 23:13:19]
I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences.
 
r2rho
Posts: 3096
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

RE: FI - MAS Ponders Longer-range A330

Thu Jul 05, 2012 7:27 am

A MTOW increase is being rumored for a while now and pretty much expected by everybody at Farnborough, I take it as a given. What I'm more excited about is whether they decide to go for sharklets, although FAB is probably still too early to announce that.
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: FI - MAS Ponders Longer-range A330

Thu Jul 05, 2012 7:37 am

GE has the 748 engines done and in the market, but there is no easy way to just install them on an old frame people here keep telling me. A 767 with GEnx engines would be a serious party pooper for the 788 IMO.

How far off is the 787-10 anyway? It seems like the closest competitor to the A333?!
 
Morvious
Posts: 656
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 8:36 pm

RE: FI - MAS Ponders Longer-range A330

Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:55 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
The 787-10 would still carry more passengers and significantly more cargo (by volume).

True but that is not always what a customer is looking for.
If someone needs the range but not the capacity and maybe the A333 favors the customer also fleet wise it can mean it is an order less for the 787-10. See for the A343 and B772ER or the B763ER and A332.
have a good day,

HereThen
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7161
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

RE: FI - MAS Ponders Longer-range A330

Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:25 am

Quoting Triple Seven (Reply 21):
Even the thought of 748i might not be so ridiculous either. We have both parties with mutual needs: Boeing need to sell 748i and they could probably discount significantly (plus favorable terms) and provide quicker delivery option to a needy and cash strap carrier like MH. I really see 748 as true 744 replacement in terms of capacity, not one that is a step higher

MH don't need a plane that large let alone the A380s they have ordered, IMO they should have ordered the 77W in the first place to replace the 744s. A FJY 77W could seat 310-320 which would be good for MH. Other than LHR and even then its an if as to weather they need A380s for that where do they really need them? SYD will get them but could easily use a 77W IMO MEL may get A380s but doesn't even get 744s so a big capacity increase, they would be better off with additional frequency to Australia.

Why would they go for a new A330? When the 787 and A350 are on the market. They won't get a new A330 any sooner than a 787 or A350 I wouldn't think.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 17):
That was ANOTHER of those good questions. The 77E didn't go into service until 1997, so the very oldes ones will only be 15 years old. I don't know, but I suspect MAS's examples will be younger than that

MH received their first 77Es in 1997, most of them are 13-15 years old with the last 2 from 2006. Still not that old though.
 
User avatar
frigatebird
Posts: 1736
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:02 pm

RE: FI - MAS Ponders Longer-range A330

Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:33 am

Quoting sweair (Reply 15):
Would Airbus spend the money for just one customer? I don't see RR doing a bleed T1000..

Well, AirAsiaX were also interested in an A330NEO. And RR was (like GE) developing a bleed air engine for the A350XNB. But although there were rumors about Airbus looking at the feasability of an A333 with new engines and sharklets to compete with the 787-10X, I very much doubt they will put resources in developing something that will also compete with their own products (A358/A359).

As for increasing the range of the A333 to 77E levels, won't it run into the same complications the 787-10 will have? The airframe should have its limits as far as MTOW is concerned methinks...

I can see why MH would like to simplify their WB fleet to only Airbus A330 and A380. But for longer missions, the only realistic airplane to fill the gap between A332 and A388, should be the A359.... Airbus knows this, and therefore won't have to discount it that steeply.
146,318/19/20/21, AB6,332,333,343,345,346,359,388, 722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9, 742,74E,744,752,762,763, 772,77E,773,77W,788 AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E75/90,F50/70
 
SSPhoenix
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:53 pm

RE: FI - MAS Ponders Longer-range A330

Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:37 pm

Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 26):

Quoting astuteman (Reply 17):
That was ANOTHER of those good questions. The 77E didn't go into service until 1997, so the very oldes ones will only be 15 years old. I don't know, but I suspect MAS's examples will be younger than that

MH received their first 77Es in 1997, most of them are 13-15 years old with the last 2 from 2006. Still not that old though.

I could be terribly wrong about this, but maybe the perceptions within the Asia Pacific region are moving more towards being aligned with those of the carriers in the Gulf Region: Fleet size average of 5-8 years, a mix of long haul aircraft to allow for flexibility in connecting traffic (I mean c'mon ... A330 & A380 Alongside each other).

Granted the 77W could do some wonderful things for them, but maybe their model shows that they don't need that much of 'intermediate' (by no means I am calling the 77W small! :P) lift.

.... and just to add to this - I will not be surprised one bit if suddenly they 'see the light' and buy the A359 or B78J

As many others have state here: A330 NEO sounds good, but I think it will be a killer for A358(?)

On a side note .... can't wait to see a MAS aircraft in OneWorld Colours
We are made of Stars ...
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10623
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: FI - MAS Ponders Longer-range A330

Thu Jul 05, 2012 6:15 pm

Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 6):
Why does the A333 miss the mid central fuel tank? Adding this (with of course less pay load) would mean a tremendous increase of range.

I'm not 100% sure on this, but IIRC it is because of the near identical commonality with the A340-300, which has an additional centre main gear which occupies this space.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14598
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: FI - MAS Ponders Longer-range A330

Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:22 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 11):
If you check the range-payload chart, think you'll find the A330-300 becomes fuel limited at about 5 500Nm. So increases in MTOW aren't going to change the spec range any.
The sharklets and PIP will, of course.

In the real world, though, that extra MTOW will manifest itself in a substantial payload boost between 4 000Nm and 5 500Nm ESAD's

MH only operate one route greater than 5500 nm with the 777, that is CDG, it s about 5650 nm great circle. Other longer routes they do with the 777 include AMS, AKL, FRA, and NRT-LAX. Most of the rest are 8 hrs or less flight time.

None of the routes they use 777s on would be impossible to use an A330 on, and if they did a similar two stage upgrade like the A320NEO it would be interesting.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 29):

The A343 does have the centre tank, they just did not put he centre tank on the A333 as that is not the range they were anticipating to operate the aircraft over, you need to offload payload to load the fuel, and you may as well fly the A332 then. The A332F does not have the centre tank either.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
trex8
Posts: 5378
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: FI - MAS Ponders Longer-range A330

Fri Jul 06, 2012 3:34 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 30):
The A332F does not have the centre tank either.

Zeke, the acaps shows 139K liters for both A332 and A332F http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi...h_data/AC/Airbus-AC_A330_Dec11.pdf
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26690
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: FI - MAS Ponders Longer-range A330

Fri Jul 06, 2012 3:50 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 30):
The A332F does not have the centre tank either.
Quoting trex8 (Reply 31):
Zeke, the acaps shows 139K liters for both A332 and A332F

The A330-200F does have a center fuel tank. The standard configuration is for the center tank to be deactivated, but it can be enabled as an option.

Quote:
The A330-200's centre tank is deactivated on the -200F to save the weight of the inerting system, reducing fuel capacity by 41,560 litres. However it is offered as an option.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...200f-technical-description-342231/
 
panais
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 1:50 pm

RE: FI - MAS Ponders Longer-range A330

Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:09 pm

Quoting SSPhoenix (Reply 28):
As many others have state here: A330 NEO sounds good, but I think it will be a killer for A358(?)

I think the issue here is whether an A350-800 will be more efficient per trip that the A330-200NEO and the A330-300NEO. Only then Airbus would make the decision to go with the NEO on the A330s, both or one of them.

Also, somebody needs to answer the question of how much lower is the B787-8 trip cost compared to an A350-800, an A350-700 and an A330-200NEO.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26690
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: FI - MAS Ponders Longer-range A330

Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:47 pm

Quoting panais (Reply 33):
I think the issue here is whether an A350-800 will be more efficient per trip that the A330-200NEO and the A330-300NEO. Only then Airbus would make the decision to go with the NEO on the A330s, both or one of them.

Also, somebody needs to answer the question of how much lower is the B787-8 trip cost compared to an A350-800, an A350-700 and an A330-200NEO.

Aircraft Commerce Magazine in March of 2005 performed an analysis of the 787-9 and the original A350-800 compared to existing airframes (A310, A330 and 767), but that data is not really relevant as it is both 7 years old and refers to the "A330+" version of the A350-800.

When interviewed after the decision to make the A350-800 a straight shrink of the A350-900, A350 Chief Engineer Gordon McConnell stated that over a 4,000nm mission, a 276-seat A350-800 will burn 23% less fuel per seat than a 246-seat A330-200.

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