Moderators: richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Topic Author
Posts: 2593
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

A339 performance for AirAsia X on KUL-Europe

Sun May 24, 2020 12:18 pm

While the survival of AirAsia X is not guaranteed, let alone them launching flights to Europe, I thought I'd ask the question: how much payload could they carry from KUL to, say, LGW? They'd most likely use 251T versions, but their configuration is very dense. Does anyone know whether they carry much cargo to Australia, China, South Korea and Japan as well?

AirAsia X's current A330s seat 377 or 367 people, but if they really wanted to they could go for 460 like Cebu Pacific will. Would that be able to make LGW with all seats full?
 
trex8
Posts: 5541
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

Re: A339 performance for AirAsia X on KUL-Europe

Sun Jun 07, 2020 11:58 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
While the survival of AirAsia X is not guaranteed, let alone them launching flights to Europe, I thought I'd ask the question: how much payload could they carry from KUL to, say, LGW? They'd most likely use 251T versions, but their configuration is very dense. Does anyone know whether they carry much cargo to Australia, China, South Korea and Japan as well?

AirAsia X's current A330s seat 377 or 367 people, but if they really wanted to they could go for 460 like Cebu Pacific will. Would that be able to make LGW with all seats full?


Back of envelope calculation from totally untechnical avgeek.
Per latest Airbus acaps for April 2020, the max payload for a 242t MTOW A330ceo is only 45 tonnes, lets assume they want to fly @400 people including crew at 100kg/person, per payload range graph on pg 255 you can fly 40 tonnes just short of 5000nm with a center tank, Lets assume the neo is 10% more fuel-efficient as advertised, so now you're at @5500nm. gc distance KUL-LGW is 5700nm, Not sure what reserves they are using in those graphs (?? none) but youre probably not going to quite make it at 242 t in a ceo with real airline reserves.
At 35t payload and 251 t MTOW in a neo you probably will make it, you lose a few tons from higher OEW in the neo but may be able to carry @ extra 5 tonnes fuel.
https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/support ... stics.html
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 301
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: A339 performance for AirAsia X on KUL-Europe

Mon Jun 08, 2020 3:07 am

trex8 wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
While the survival of AirAsia X is not guaranteed, let alone them launching flights to Europe, I thought I'd ask the question: how much payload could they carry from KUL to, say, LGW? They'd most likely use 251T versions, but their configuration is very dense. Does anyone know whether they carry much cargo to Australia, China, South Korea and Japan as well?

AirAsia X's current A330s seat 377 or 367 people, but if they really wanted to they could go for 460 like Cebu Pacific will. Would that be able to make LGW with all seats full?


Back of envelope calculation from totally untechnical avgeek.
Per latest Airbus acaps for April 2020, the max payload for a 242t MTOW A330ceo is only 45 tonnes, lets assume they want to fly @400 people including crew at 100kg/person, per payload range graph on pg 255 you can fly 40 tonnes just short of 5000nm with a center tank, Lets assume the neo is 10% more fuel-efficient as advertised, so now you're at @5500nm. gc distance KUL-LGW is 5700nm, Not sure what reserves they are using in those graphs (?? none) but youre probably not going to quite make it at 242 t in a ceo with real airline reserves.
At 35t payload and 251 t MTOW in a neo you probably will make it, you lose a few tons from higher OEW in the neo but may be able to carry @ extra 5 tonnes fuel.
https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/support ... stics.html

Most 333's that ive seen are under 130t, From a high density HiFly 339 the empty weight was 126 IIRC. which at 181t MZFW would give 55t, and the higher J version was 132 which gives it 49t. for the CEO ive seen quite a few under 125-127 and at 175t MZFW it's 48-50t of payload.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Topic Author
Posts: 2593
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: A339 performance for AirAsia X on KUL-Europe

Mon Jun 08, 2020 6:01 am

DylanHarvey wrote:
trex8 wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
While the survival of AirAsia X is not guaranteed, let alone them launching flights to Europe, I thought I'd ask the question: how much payload could they carry from KUL to, say, LGW? They'd most likely use 251T versions, but their configuration is very dense. Does anyone know whether they carry much cargo to Australia, China, South Korea and Japan as well?

AirAsia X's current A330s seat 377 or 367 people, but if they really wanted to they could go for 460 like Cebu Pacific will. Would that be able to make LGW with all seats full?


Back of envelope calculation from totally untechnical avgeek.
Per latest Airbus acaps for April 2020, the max payload for a 242t MTOW A330ceo is only 45 tonnes, lets assume they want to fly @400 people including crew at 100kg/person, per payload range graph on pg 255 you can fly 40 tonnes just short of 5000nm with a center tank, Lets assume the neo is 10% more fuel-efficient as advertised, so now you're at @5500nm. gc distance KUL-LGW is 5700nm, Not sure what reserves they are using in those graphs (?? none) but youre probably not going to quite make it at 242 t in a ceo with real airline reserves.
At 35t payload and 251 t MTOW in a neo you probably will make it, you lose a few tons from higher OEW in the neo but may be able to carry @ extra 5 tonnes fuel.
https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/support ... stics.html

Most 333's that ive seen are under 130t, From a high density HiFly 339 the empty weight was 126 IIRC. which at 181t MZFW would give 55t, and the higher J version was 132 which gives it 49t. for the CEO ive seen quite a few under 125-127 and at 175t MZFW it's 48-50t of payload.


Thank you both. I guess the next question to ask is (roughly) how much OEW is gained or lost by using a more dense configuration, I'm sure I've read that more premium aircraft have heavier cabins (due to the seat design of J seats). Seems that it would be plausible in AirAsia X's configuration to make LGW.
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 301
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: A339 performance for AirAsia X on KUL-Europe

Mon Jun 08, 2020 1:53 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
trex8 wrote:

Back of envelope calculation from totally untechnical avgeek.
Per latest Airbus acaps for April 2020, the max payload for a 242t MTOW A330ceo is only 45 tonnes, lets assume they want to fly @400 people including crew at 100kg/person, per payload range graph on pg 255 you can fly 40 tonnes just short of 5000nm with a center tank, Lets assume the neo is 10% more fuel-efficient as advertised, so now you're at @5500nm. gc distance KUL-LGW is 5700nm, Not sure what reserves they are using in those graphs (?? none) but youre probably not going to quite make it at 242 t in a ceo with real airline reserves.
At 35t payload and 251 t MTOW in a neo you probably will make it, you lose a few tons from higher OEW in the neo but may be able to carry @ extra 5 tonnes fuel.
https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/support ... stics.html

Most 333's that ive seen are under 130t, From a high density HiFly 339 the empty weight was 126 IIRC. which at 181t MZFW would give 55t, and the higher J version was 132 which gives it 49t. for the CEO ive seen quite a few under 125-127 and at 175t MZFW it's 48-50t of payload.


Thank you both. I guess the next question to ask is (roughly) how much OEW is gained or lost by using a more dense configuration, I'm sure I've read that more premium aircraft have heavier cabins (due to the seat design of J seats). Seems that it would be plausible in AirAsia X's configuration to make LGW.

Depends on what J seats but probably 3-5t is a good estimate. Another thing with this route is the actual flying time is gonna be closer to 13-14hrs in a .82 aircraft. So it becomes a 6500nm route time was, which should be comfortable in a light low J configuration for the 251t. The 242 might be marginal.
 
gloom
Posts: 447
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: A339 performance for AirAsia X on KUL-Europe

Mon Jun 08, 2020 8:17 pm

DylanHarvey wrote:
Another thing with this route is the actual flying time is gonna be closer to 13-14hrs in a .82 aircraft. So it becomes a 6500nm route time


Sure? .82 is roughly 470kts at F360. 13hrs is then around 6100nm. 14hrs checks 6500 (and even goes beyond) though.

But overall, direct is 5723nm, add 100nm for procedures, 100nm for non-direct routing, and probably something like +25 wind component on westbound leg. My maths says 6250nm air distance as guesstimate, around 13h20 flight time at .82 (probably more like 13:45 taking acceleration/deceleration into account, block time around 14hrs).

Cheers,
Adam
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 301
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: A339 performance for AirAsia X on KUL-Europe

Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:04 am

gloom wrote:
DylanHarvey wrote:
Another thing with this route is the actual flying time is gonna be closer to 13-14hrs in a .82 aircraft. So it becomes a 6500nm route time


Sure? .82 is roughly 470kts at F360. 13hrs is then around 6100nm. 14hrs checks 6500 (and even goes beyond) though.

But overall, direct is 5723nm, add 100nm for procedures, 100nm for non-direct routing, and probably something like +25 wind component on westbound leg. My maths says 6250nm air distance as guesstimate, around 13h20 flight time at .82 (probably more like 13:45 taking acceleration/deceleration into account, block time around 14hrs).

Cheers,
Adam

Yea that is much better, Thanks Adam. Mine was a sleepy barely awake guesstimate. Thank for you the more accurate one. So yes the 251t should be close to 40ish tons at that range.
 
User avatar
AECM
Posts: 306
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:52 am

Re: A339 performance for AirAsia X on KUL-Europe

Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:34 pm

The A330 Aircraft Characteristics document was updated this month and now there is a Payload x Range graph for the A339


Image
 
trex8
Posts: 5541
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

Re: A339 performance for AirAsia X on KUL-Europe

Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:42 pm

AECM wrote:
The A330 Aircraft Characteristics document was updated this month and now there is a Payload x Range graph for the A339


Image

missed that, thanks

interesting that for the 242t ceo with optional center tanks and 242 t neo variant (I'm assuming that has a standard center tank , (it says * OPTION: WV08X and A330-900 (all WV) on pg 42 for the higher capacity tanks ) you are not seeing a big difference in range
payload xx, 000 lb/range nm
pg 258-261

ceo neo
100/4250. 100/4250
80/5300. 80/5400
60/6200 60/6300
50/6600. 50/6700

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: battlegroup62 and 27 guests

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