|
Post by kevin5345179 on Mar 5, 2020 0:47:29 GMT 1
ouch after a good 2019 order
|
|
kronus
in service - 1 year
Posts: 3,144
|
Post by kronus on Mar 5, 2020 11:13:13 GMT 1
251 t MTOW a330-900neo is true alternative for a350-900 on TPAC routes: full version of article: "Airbus gave an update on their new 251t variant of the A330-900 in the week. With a 251t Maximum TakeOff Weight (MTOW), the former midranger is mutating to an able long-hauler. The true long-haul aircraft in the Airbus lineup is the A350, the go-to aircraft from Airbus for Pacific-Ocean crossings. But with a nominal 7,200nm range, the A330-900 is no longer the trans-Atlantic aircraft it was. It will be an alternative to the A350 for many trans-Pacific routes. Summary: The A330 started as a mid-range aircraft with less than 4,000nm range. At the time, the A340-300 was positioned as the long-ranger. 1/4 With the A340 out of the way and to compete with Boeing’s 787 the A330 grew its range 85%. Is it now an alternative to the A350? Discussion What’s the practical range of the A330-900? The A330-300 started as a 212t mid-range companion to the Airbus four-engine longhauler, the A340-300. As the aircraft shared systems and structures to the extent possible, the A330-300 got the wide and capable wing of the A340-300 with a fuel capacity of 139,000l. To fly it’s 3,900nm design mission, the A330-300 didn’t need all this fuel, so the mid wingbox of 41,000 liters wasn’t used. The maximum load on the wing of 277t from the A340 was also not used. As the wings were structurally similar, the A330 had a lot of potential for MTOW increases. The A330 MTOW gradually increased over the years to give it more range as the sales of the A340-300 dwindled. A smaller 250 seat A330 model with a shorter fuselage, the A330- 200, was introduced in 1998. As the shorter fuselage had less drag and weight, the model got a longer range than the larger A330-300 (they shared the MTOW and engines). The longer-range A330-200 also used the large fuel tank from the A340 from the beginning. The trail of A330 MTOW increase over the years is an interesting read. It’s clear the A330 was not used to its capability from the start. We have added the nominal range of the models in parenthesis (this is an approximate number, dependent on the seating and by it, the nominal payload, which has changed over the years): 1994 A330-300 EIS 212t (3,900nm) 1997 A330-300 217t (4,300nm) 1998 A330-200 EIS 230t (6,300nm) 1999 A330-300 230t (5,200nm) 2003 A330-300 233t (5,400nm) 2004 A330-200 233t (6,500nm) 2010 A330-200 238t (6,800nm) 2012 A330-300 235t (5,600nm) 2015 A330-300 242t (6,100nm) 2015 A330-200 242t (7,200nm) 2017 A330-900 242t (6,400nm) 2020 A330-800 242t (7,500nm) 2020 A330-900 251t (7,200nm) 2021 A330-800 251t (8,150nm) The first MTOW for the A330-300 at 212t and later 217t was artificially low to keep the A330 from competing with the A340-300 of 277t MTOW and a 7,150nm range. Once the MTOW increased to 230t, the A330 got a second life. The jump in MTOW from 217t to 230t was 2003, when Boeing’s 787 was introduced. 2/4 Now the A340 had moved on to the larger A340-500/600, and the A330 could realize the range potential it had all along, badly needed in the fight with the 787. Enter the A330neo With the 2014 decision to re-engine the A330 and add larger winglets, the 242t version of the A330-900 was now in A330-200 and A340-300 range territory. The sales of the A330neo variant of the A330-200, the A330-800, suffered as a result. Its 7,500nm range at 242t was only marginally more useful than the 6,400nm of the A330- 900, and the rumor of a future 251t A330-900 circulated soon after -900 EIS. It would bring the 290 passenger A330-900 past 7,000nm. Delta is a good example of what a 251t A330-900 means for an airline. It originally ordered A350-900 for trans-Pacific flights and A330-900 for trans-Atlantic flights. This was later changed to more A330-900s and fewer A35-900 as the 251t A330-900 was announced. Figure 1 tells the story. The routes over the Pacific are from 4,200nm Great Circle to 7,600nm. Figure 1. Trans-Pacific routes from the US West Coast to Asia. Source: Great Circle Mapper. But the figure shows an idealized scenario. The prevailing winds over the Pacific add needed range when going west as the aircraft then has strong winds to fight with. To understand how much, we take an example of flying Los Angeles to Shanghai. The Great Circle distance is 5,635nm. Airway wise it’s 6,000nm if we fly a northerly route to avoid headwind. Figure 2. A typical route during winter for LAX to Shanghai (PVG). Source: ForeFlight. We have an average headwind of 25kts when using this route, prolonging it from a 13.7 hour trip to 14.5 hours in the air. This is the equivalent of 6,400nm air distance. Had we flown a more direct route over the Pacific of 5,850nm (Figure 3) our headwind would have been 65kts. Now we are flying 15.5 hours, and the air distance is 6,800nm. Figure 3. LAX-PVG (Shanghai) route going more direct. Source: ForeFlight. So a route that has an ideal distance of 5,625nm can require a range of the aircraft of 6,800nm on a windy day if our routing is not the best. Given the 251t A330-900 has a range of 7,200nm, this should be fine, shouldn’t it? Not quite. Airlines use tougher route planning rules than Airbus does. A typical long-range passenger with bags no longer weigh in at 95kgs as Airbus assumes. Airlines count with at least 100kg. 3/4 The Captain on the flight also calculates with a 5% enroute reserve, instead of Airbus 3%, to cater to uncertainties in wind forecast and fuel burn spread between in-service aircraft. Airlines don’t track and schedule aircraft on an individual basis (so-called Tail number tracking). The planned aircraft individual for the trip might be new or fresh out of overhaul with a close to nominal fuel efficiency, but it could also be an aircraft that has flown longer in the fleet and by it, has a larger fuel consumption deterioration. Many times the Captain’s alternate airport is not 200nm from the destination as assumed for nominal range calculations. If we plan the route with a 251t A330-900 using typical airline rules, we get an operational still air range of 6,900nm with a 200nm alternate. Summary To summarize, to plan year-round trans-Pacific routes, we schedule with the A330-900 in its 251t version on routes of 5,600nm Great Circle Distance or shorter. It’s is a rough figure. A detailed analysis looks at the winds and weather over the year in combination with fluctuations of load factors. At an 80% load factor, our nominal range increases from 7,200nm to 7,600nm. In addition, we need to look at airline-specific weight additions over the typical empty weight Airbus uses in its calculations. What is clear, however, is the A330 is no longer a trans-Atlantic aircraft. It can fly the frequent Pacific routes from US West Coast to Japan, Korea, and East China, which is not bad for an aircraft that started as a West-Europe to East-US mid-ranger."
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Mar 5, 2020 14:50:08 GMT 1
I thought Delta would anyway take some of their A330-900 as the 251 t version. AFAIK Delta also took the A330-300 242 t frame used for those test flights.
Regarding Air Asia I assume the deferral connects directly to the corona virus situation. I believe their frames are only deferred not to be canceled.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Mar 5, 2020 16:20:01 GMT 1
Regarding Air Asia I assume the deferral connects directly to the corona virus situation. I believe their frames are only deferred not to be canceled. Well, they are deferred, but it's hard to predict what's in store for AirAsia in the longer term. I wouldn't bet they will take all the A330neo they ordered, but I may be too pessimistic ...
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Mar 5, 2020 16:25:41 GMT 1
This is extremely confusing news ! The group, unable to fully pay its staff - let alone its creditors - and teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, suddenly commits to taking 40 widebodies ... Obviously, we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. This must be a government-backed deal, with plans that will unfold progressively.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Mar 5, 2020 16:40:51 GMT 1
General Electric (NYSE:GE) is looking for new business from Airbus (OTCPK:EADSY) as Boeing (NYSE:BA) retrenches, and currently is in talks with the European plane maker to design and sell an engine variant for the A330neo widebody, WSJ reports. These rumours already surfaced months ago, and there appears to be nothing new. I don't know whether or not Rolls-Royce has exclusive rights as regards the A330neo, but anyhow I don't see a sound business potential for GE there : the programme isn't a runaway success, while Rolls-Royce is now entranched. What must be true is that GE is seeing the drawbacks of too close ties with Boeing, and would like to mend its relationship with Airbus. A lot of time may lapse, however, before a good opportunity arises.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Mar 5, 2020 16:45:15 GMT 1
Air Canada negiotates order deal for a mix of 25 A330neo and a321LR/XLR to replace 767-300(ER) of Air Canada Rouge. Very interesting prospects ... Air Canada might end up with mixed Airbus and Boeing narrowbody and widebody fleets ...
|
|
kronus
in service - 1 year
Posts: 3,144
|
Post by kronus on Mar 6, 2020 17:29:54 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Mar 6, 2020 18:19:29 GMT 1
Not sure they will want that many while the tariffs are still on 😉
|
|
|
Post by FabienA380 on Mar 6, 2020 23:26:45 GMT 1
Air Canada negiotates order deal for a mix of 25 A330neo and a321LR/XLR to replace 767-300(ER) of Air Canada Rouge. Very interesting prospects ... Air Canada might end up with mixed Airbus and Boeing narrowbody and widebody fleets ... It's already the case I think.....
|
|