Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A330NEO officially launched

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A330NEO officially launched

    Airbus makes it official... A330-800 and A330-900

    HIGHLIGHTS:
    *400NM increased range
    *14% fuel consumption reduction
    *A350 style winglets
    *Trent7000 engines
    *2017 availability

    http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/new...s-the-a330neo/
    Us, lighting a living horse on fire:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH2_Q3oJPeU

    Check it out!

  • #2
    If they can pull off these specs, then those ships should be amazing!

    Interestingly enough, it'd also give the A330 more range than the original A343! ...and 744!

    Not bad, for something that was originally launched as a short/medium-haul people mover. Then again, same can be said for the 777.
    Us, lighting a living horse on fire:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH2_Q3oJPeU

    Check it out!

    Comment


    • #3
      So, the A330NEO will take on the 787 and go to the smaller end of capacity that the A350 did not reach? Why not just make a smaller A350?
      Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re:

        Originally posted by AA 1818 View Post
        So, the A330NEO will take on the 787 and go to the smaller end of capacity that the A350 did not reach? Why not just make a smaller A350?
        Saves the development cost of a variant of a new plane vs. just re-engining an existing airframe for which the supply chain already exists.

        Originally posted by ConcordeBoy View Post
        Not bad, for something that was originally launched as a short/medium-haul people mover. Then again, same can be said for the 777.
        Short/medium haul? Where did you hear that? Everything I've been reading says it was designed as a long-haul twin from the start, including the 777.

        [sarcasm]At any rate, I don't see Delta placing any order for this plane[/sarcasm]

        Comment


        • #5
          Hmmmmmmm... doesn't this move hurt the the A350 at the same time it is aiming at the 787?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by AA 1818 View Post
            Why not just make a smaller A350?
            Well, they tried that.... A358, and that aircraft only has 34 orders, despite having been available for years.

            Originally posted by Foxtrot View Post
            Short/medium haul? Where did you hear that?
            The A330 was first certified in 1993 at 212tons and 3,300nm range.

            That's less than today's 73Gs and A319s. Heck, it didn't hit 4000nm until the 217t boost, and that still put it at less range than today's 75Ws.

            So yeah, short-haul by abject definition.

            Originally posted by Foxtrot View Post
            Everything I've been reading says it was designed as a long-haul twin from the start, including the 777.
            Pay closer attention: I didn't say "designed as," I said "launched as."

            Yes, I'm aware it had the potential built into it, but much of that was artificially stifled (until recently really) due to desire to sell the (pathetic) A340.

            An A338 will now have as much range as QF's 744ERs, that were recently flying SYD-DFW!
            Us, lighting a living horse on fire:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH2_Q3oJPeU

            Check it out!

            Comment


            • #7
              ^Ahh, I got what you're saying now.

              And yeah, Airbus has been late to catch on to the twin engine trend. I clearly remember the former Randy (forgot his last name) from Boeing saying on his blog that twin engine long-haulers were the wave of the future while at the same time Airbus was still promoting the 340s and pitching them to airlines as a "fuel efficient" airliner.

              Good for Airbus though, with the 338/9 range it does open many new possibilities. But as Peter Kesternich pointed out above the big question is how this will affect sales of the 350, especially the -900 and -1000 whose seating capacity is roughly in the same range. And don't forget the -9 and the -10 variants of the 787 will be big competitors as well. One thing's for sure though, airlines will now have the benefit of choosing from a wide selection in the super-efficient long-haul twinjet market.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Foxtrot View Post
                Airbus has been late to catch on to the twin engine trend.
                Huh?? ...Airbus STARTED the big twin trend!

                If by chance you meant to say that Airbus was slow to catch on to the ETOPS movement, then again I caution you to pay closer attention to details:
                Airbus may have marketed in favor of the A340 (remember, it was them who started the "4Engines4Longhaul" campaign, not VS, as many people incorrectly recall).... but their actions tell a different story-- they had the A300, A310, A330, etc frames all approved for ETOPS basically as soon as it was available to them.

                They may have talked a lot of noise against ETOPS, but their actions show they knew where the trend would be.


                Originally posted by Foxtrot View Post
                Airbus was still promoting the 340s and pitching them to airlines as a "fuel efficient" airliner.
                The A343 did fine prior to 2008-esque fuel. It's still a fairly competitive aircraft with the 772ER, even now. It's just that the A330 kills them both, on routes within which it has the range to effectively compete.

                The A346, despite its low sales, is still a superior aircraft to the 747 in just about every parameter but floor space... it's just that the 77W was so much better than even that.

                The A345, on the other hand, was a complete and total piece of sh!t.
                It carries so much deadweight that basically: on ANY route it flies that another aircraft is capable of performing, its performance would be inferior to that other aircraft.

                Which is why most airlines couldn't get rid of them fast enough. Only problem is that the A345 is so devalued that it's practically unsellable as anything but parts or VIP aircraft.

                That's one reason so many people were suckered into believing SQ's nonsense about ULHs unable to work... as opposed to SQ just lacking the market/traffic to make them work, which was of course the actual reason.

                Originally posted by Foxtrot View Post
                how this will affect sales of the 350, especially the -900 and -1000 whose seating capacity is roughly in the same range.
                But their weight and performance ain't.

                Look at Delta: its A333s actually carry more pax than its larger 772s, but of course the latter can/do fly longer routes and with way more payload.

                A333 is more efficient on Atlanta-Europe, but you won't be seeing an A330 on ATL-JNB nor ATL-DXB nonstops any time soon; despite offering similar capacity.

                The same will be true of A338/A339 vs A359/A35J

                Boeing is essentially doing the same thing with the 778X and 779X. You often hear Euro airlines whining&farting about the "Emirates-ization" of longhaul aircraft... essentially building them to fly C-market operations from the start, with no lighter-weight and lower-performance option.

                Boeing's basically decided that if you want something 200-300 seats that's efficient for transATL flights.... then get a 789/78J. If you want something that can smash an 8000nm trip with similar capacity.... then get a 778/779.

                Airbus is basically throwing up its hands and doing the same thing.
                Us, lighting a living horse on fire:
                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH2_Q3oJPeU

                Check it out!

                Comment


                • #9
                  ^Well yeah I meant to actually say for a while it focused too much on the four-engine market, and even after Boeing had identified that twin-engines were the wave of the future; true that with the 300 and 310 it was a forerunner.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Would a military operator feel more comfortable choosing the proven technologies of an A330 over a newer A350? Would an A350F be available before, or as cheaply as an A330NEOF?

                    Maybe, like the 767, the A330 is being kept around to capture audiences that were enthused by the original A330 and are looking at a future with the aircraft that cannot be captured on the A350 for the foreseeable future?
                    Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X