s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,957
|
Post by s543 on Aug 20, 2016 8:43:54 GMT 1
More info on A330R. www.aircraftinvestor.com/articles/news/airbus-delivers-worlds-first-a330-300-regional-123/.... The A330-300 Regional is optimized for missions up to 2,700 nm (5-hour flight) covering short to medium haul routes and offers significant cost savings through a reduced operational weight of around 200 tons. The reduction in fuel burn per seat and maintenance costs will result in an overall cost reduction of around 20% compared with today’s long-range A330-300.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Aug 21, 2016 13:15:56 GMT 1
More info on A330R. www.aircraftinvestor.com/articles/news/airbus-delivers-worlds-first-a330-300-regional-123/.... The A330-300 Regional is optimized for missions up to 2,700 nm (5-hour flight) covering short to medium haul routes and offers significant cost savings through a reduced operational weight of around 200 tons. The reduction in fuel burn per seat and maintenance costs will result in an overall cost reduction of around 20% compared with today’s long-range A330-300. The above quote is 'copy and paste' from Airbus' press release. I wonder what exactly is new in the configuration chosen by Saudi. According to Airbus' earlier releases, the A330R allows airlines to seat up to 400 pax in an eight-abreast configuration, which in my opinion requires to locate restrooms and galleys (if any, you might not need them on regional flights) downstairs. Here, the configuration is less dense and is probably more traditional. So, is this version more than a paper derate (allowing lower airport and maintenance costs) ? If so, how do you get an overall 20 % cost cut compared to long-range A330s ? I doubt such a large cost cut is achieved in Saudi's configuration.
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,957
|
Post by s543 on Aug 21, 2016 13:51:35 GMT 1
If you compare it with the early A330 it might be possible. The saving could be from: -smaller and lighter tanks -decreased MTOW -engines with smaller trust i.e. more economical.... -smaller empty weight -no or smaller cargo capability - omitted the needed hardware ? PS I found about the original AB post later but thought... well
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Aug 21, 2016 14:28:45 GMT 1
If you compare it with the early A330 it might be possible. The saving could be from: -smaller and lighter tanks -decreased MTOW -engines with smaller trust i.e. more economical.... -smaller empty weight -no or smaller cargo capability - omitted the needed hardware ? PS I found about the original AB post later but thought... well I expect all new-built A333 versions to be structurally identical, to help with future resale. The only structural weight advantage I can see for the regional version is that the central tank is probably not activated (= 'plumbing' not done, some weight saving). Perhaps you are right to mention some more weight saving from a no-cargo option. If the touted 20% cost advantage is based on a comparison with early less capable A330 versions, then it is meaningless in my opinion. I hope we'll find out more about this regional version. EDIT : according to an Airbus slide posted on A.net, the purported 20% lower cost results from a total cost per seat comparison with the 789. As you all know, total cost includes capital cost.
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Aug 21, 2016 15:51:17 GMT 1
If you compare it with the early A330 it might be possible. The saving could be from: -smaller and lighter tanks -decreased MTOW -engines with smaller trust i.e. more economical.... -smaller empty weight -no or smaller cargo capability - omitted the needed hardware ? PS I found about the original AB post later but thought... well I expect all new-built A333 versions to be structurally identical, to help with future resale. The only structural weight advantage I can see for the regional version is that the central tank is probably not activated (= 'plumbing' not done, some weight saving). Perhaps you are right to mention some more weight saving from a no-cargo option. If the touted 20% cost advantage is based on a comparison with early less capable A330 versions, then it is meaningless in my opinion. I hope we'll find out more about this regional version. EDIT : according to an Airbus slide posted on A.net, the purported 20% lower cost results from a total cost per seat comparison with the 789. As you all know, total cost includes capital cost. The ones built with downstairs loos must be structurally different ?
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Aug 21, 2016 21:06:03 GMT 1
The ones built with downstairs loos must be structurally different ? No, you can imagine the downstairs loo like a container in the lower deck cargo area.
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Aug 21, 2016 22:36:39 GMT 1
The ones built with downstairs loos must be structurally different ? No, you can imagine the downstairs loo like a container in the lower deck cargo area. It's not that simple, passengers don't just fall down a tube into the cargo area for the loo, and then just jump up to the pax deck ! The stairway down means a different configuration of the passenger floor deck structure, then their needs to be a fire wall bulkhead separating the downstairs loos from the rest of the cargo deck.
|
|
|
Post by Jkkw on Aug 22, 2016 5:33:08 GMT 1
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,957
|
Post by s543 on Aug 22, 2016 20:08:11 GMT 1
All of those below 1000 nm
|
|
|
Post by savoyard74 on Aug 24, 2016 18:07:00 GMT 1
|
|