A330neo MTOW increase

ap305 · Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:24 pm

This job description probably reveals more than what Airbus intended

http://targetjobs.co.uk/employer-hubs/a ... internship

MTOW increase to 251t(was spoken about earlier this year). First flight target 2019.

This should put the aircraft firmly in the long haul segment.

JetBuddy · Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:25 pm

Interesting! What kind of range could we expect from a 251tn MTOW A330-900neo?

ap305 · Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:32 pm

Assuming they somehow manage to stay weight neutral... It could mean another 90mins flying time.

thepinkmachine · Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:34 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
Interesting! What kind of range could we expect from a 251tn MTOW A330-900neo?

Leahy mentioned up to 7000Nm

KarelXWB · Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:36 pm

First of all, nice find.

Secondly I'm not familiar targetjobs.co.uk. Are we sure it's not fake? I'm surprised Airbus would put so much detailed information in the job offer.

Anyway I'll make a screenshot just in case the page gets deleted, like they did on the A350-2000.

ap305 · Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:39 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
First of all, nice find.

Secondly I'm not familiar targetjobs.co.uk. Are we sure it's not fake? I'm surprised Airbus would put so much detailed information in the job offer.

Anyway I'll make a screenshot just in case the page gets deleted, like they did on the A350-2000.

Even I had my doubts but the work description seems too detailed to be fake..... Thanks for saving it. Even if it is genuine I suspect it will get removed since it seems to reveal too much of sensitive info at this time.

Stitch · Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:41 pm

Well we know they're looking into per a Tweet from Leahey and it stands to reason they would need additional resources since it's a significant boost over the current 242,000kg.

ap305 · Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:46 pm

This is a brave move if it happens.... this has the potential to marginally hurt a359 sales though it is smaller. This aircraft in a normal config could have sufficient range even for U.S east coast-Asia.

KarelXWB · Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:51 pm

Stitch wrote:
Well we know they're looking into per a Tweet from Leahey and it stands to reason they would need additional resources since it's a significant boost over the current 242,000kg.

Indeed, the job offers says:

This new variant requires a significant increase in resources

Why going through the effort? If you need more capabilities the A350 is right around the corner.

448205 · Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:52 pm

HR is completely oblivious lol.

Stitch · Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:58 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
Why going through the effort? If you need more capabilities the A350 is right around the corner.

Try and pincer the 787-9 on price-performance, I imagine, as well as improve the A330-900's competitiveness against the 787-10.

aemoreira1981 · Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:11 pm

If true, this means that there is no way that the A330-800 ever gets built as this takes over virtually all of its missions. It would likely kill off the 787-8 Dreamliner as well.

Newbiepilot · Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:30 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
If true, this means that there is no way that the A330-800 ever gets built as this takes over virtually all of its missions. It would likely kill off the 787-8 Dreamliner as well.

Yes I see this killing off the A330-800.

Swadian · Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:32 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
If true, this means that there is no way that the A330-800 ever gets built as this takes over virtually all of its missions. It would likely kill off the 787-8 Dreamliner as well.

AFAIK, the only A338 customer, HA, wants a smaller aircraft, not necessarily the range. If Boeing does a PIP on the 788, it could easily stay competitive.

Stitch · Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:34 pm

I expect Airbus is committed to the A330-800 regardless since the work is so basic compared the A350-800 <-> A350-900. If Airbus does cancel the A330-800, it would be for competitive reasons to support the A330-900 by keeping slots open for future RFPs.

Slash787 · Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:41 pm

I don't think so they would cancel the A330-800, but well maybe they could, you never know.

keesje · Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:42 pm

Maybe a stretch of the A330 NEO by 5m to add 40-50 seats could become feasible. It would take around 5t. Around A340-500 fuselage lenght.

Also the new MTOW could create opportunties for a -900F, or a real capable NEO MRTT. BTW I saw the MEO prototype a few hrs ago at TLS, still at same location.

airbazar · Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:55 pm

I see it the other way around, regarding the A338 at HA. Why wouldn't this MTOW not apply to the A338 as well?
A 251t A338 is exactly what HA needs/wants. They could server ALL of the Pacific rim and Western Europe, non-stop from HNL: SCL, LIM, SIN, LON.

Newbiepilot · Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:57 pm

keesje wrote:
Maybe a stretch of the A330 NEO by 5m to add 40-50 seats could become feasible. It would take around 5t. Around A340-500 fuselage lenght.

Also the new MTOW could create opportunties for a -900F, or a real capable NEO MRTT. BTW I saw the MEO prototype a few hrs ago at TLS, still at same location.

Even at 251tons, the A330-900 would have a lot of volume compared to the amount of weight the airplane could carry.

JetBuddy · Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:28 pm

airbazar wrote:
I see it the other way around, regarding the A338 at HA. Why wouldn't this MTOW not apply to the A338 as well?
A 251t A338 is exactly what HA needs/wants. They could server ALL of the Pacific rim and Western Europe, non-stop from HNL: SCL, LIM, SIN, LON.

That's what I'm thinking too. If they go for 251tn MTOW, it should be possible to make both A330-800 and A330-900 with that option. Would give the -800 really great range.

A350 · Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:50 pm

So this would approximately match both the MTOW and the OEW of the 787-9

bzcat · Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:20 pm

Swadian wrote:
aemoreira1981 wrote:
If true, this means that there is no way that the A330-800 ever gets built as this takes over virtually all of its missions. It would likely kill off the 787-8 Dreamliner as well.

AFAIK, the only A338 customer, HA, wants a smaller aircraft, not necessarily the range. If Boeing does a PIP on the 788, it could easily stay competitive.

HA wouldn't need a PIP to make 788 work for what they need it to do. The original HA order in 2007 came down to A332+A358 or 788 and Airbus won basically because it could provide interim delivery of A332 for HA that Boeing couldn't match (788 delivery slots were hot item back then and HA wasn't interested in more 767-300ER). Of course in 2014, the order was switched to A338 after A358 was canceled.

Ironically, had HA split the order back in 2007 (e.g. A332 now and 788 later), it would be receiving the 788 right about now. But that would have made no sense from a fleet renewal standpoint (not to mention really messy negotiations with maintenance and engine suppliers). But sometimes the best laid plans goes sideways and things don't work out.

pugman211 · Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:37 pm

That looks like an internal job offering, minus the Airbus logo's. So it could well be a real prospect.

Planesmart · Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:55 pm

Stitch wrote:
Well we know they're looking into per a Tweet from Leahey and it stands to reason they would need additional resources since it's a significant boost over the current 242,000kg.

Airbus are already sitting on increases, withheld to protect A350 sales and margins, and preserve order status quo (discourage customers from model hopping and/or demanding upgrades to aircraft already in production).

If a genuine ad, it's HR incompetence, in which case expect removal very soon, or disclosure is a deliberate spoiler for A v B order, and/or A is playing mind games with the Boeing Board in respect to the viable market gap for MOM.

SCAT15F · Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:55 pm

It won't kill off the -800 if they do the same MTOW increase for it as well.

evanb · Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:12 pm

I don't think this increase is really about range since it also doesn't come with any increase in fuel capacity. The A330-300 and B777-200ER/LR both carry 28 LD3s (or 11 and 11 pallets, respectively), but when coming up to 8 to 10 hours endurance with the 242t A330-300 one isn't going to come anywhere near to filling the volumetric cargo capacity. What this increase in MTOW will do it really increase the ability to compete with the B777-200ER on cargo capacity within the current route structure.

ap305 · Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:16 pm

evanb wrote:
I don't think this increase is really about range since it also doesn't come with any increase in fuel capacity. The A330-300 and B777-200ER/LR both carry 28 LD3s (or 11 and 11 pallets, respectively), but when coming up to 8 to 10 hours endurance with the 242t A330-300 one isn't going to come anywhere near to filling the volumetric cargo capacity. What this increase in MTOW will do it really increase the ability to compete with the B777-200ER on cargo capacity within the current route structure.

The a330 afaik has all the extra fuel capacity it will ever need.... this increase if it happens will be as much about outright range at normal loads as it will be about payload....

Polot · Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:26 pm

SCAT15F wrote:
It won't kill off the -800 if they do the same MTOW increase for it as well.

But it increases the range of the A339 making it even more capable thus even more attractive against the A338. The A338 already has more range than the 788, and Boeing could easily increase the 788's MTOW 27t to match the 789's (effectively make a 789 shrink) but has not done so. The fact that the A338 is currently sitting only on 6 orders and customers are apparently not pressuring Boeing to increase the 788's MTOW suggests that most airlines are not interested in something A338/788 sized with 8000+ nm range.

Airbus will likely offer it on the A338 because it easy to do so (although it will likely need more orders for a 251t A338 to be a reality) but make no mistake MTOW improvements are targeted for the A339 model.

Flighty · Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:36 pm

Given our talk in the AA widebody thread, I see the A330 neo as an essential Airbus offering. The A350 gets all the publicity, because it is a more groundbreaking airplane. But the A330 neo will be superior over a wide range of possible assignments. In fact it is astonishing how good the A330 neo will be when you consider the tens of billions spent on 787/A350 development. A lot of that money was spent chasing extremes of capability that aren't needed all THAT often. That is a narrow range of superiority. A lot of the time, A330 neo will be superior.

ikolkyo · Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:40 pm

Flighty wrote:
Given our talk in the AA widebody thread, I see the A330 neo as an essential Airbus offering. The A350 gets all the publicity, because it is a more groundbreaking airplane. But the A330 neo will be superior over a wide range of possible assignments. In fact it is astonishing how good the A330 neo will be when you consider the tens of billions spent on 787/A350 development. A lot of that money was spent chasing extremes of capability that aren't needed all THAT often. That is a narrow range of superiority. A lot of the time, A330 neo will be superior.

We’ll see if the A330neo succeeds in that role, the order book currrnty suggest airlines want a more versitile aircraft for their fleet.

kurtverbose · Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:11 pm

keesje wrote:
BTW I saw the MEO prototype a few hrs ago at TLS

Massive Engine Option?

gatibosgru · Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:18 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
Flighty wrote:
Given our talk in the AA widebody thread, I see the A330 neo as an essential Airbus offering. The A350 gets all the publicity, because it is a more groundbreaking airplane. But the A330 neo will be superior over a wide range of possible assignments. In fact it is astonishing how good the A330 neo will be when you consider the tens of billions spent on 787/A350 development. A lot of that money was spent chasing extremes of capability that aren't needed all THAT often. That is a narrow range of superiority. A lot of the time, A330 neo will be superior.

We’ll see if the A330neo succeeds in that role, the order book currrnty suggest airlines want a more versitile aircraft for their fleet.

With the CEO still selling like hot cakes, I don't see it as too surprising that the order book is slim.

astuteman · Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:25 pm

airbazar wrote:
I see it the other way around, regarding the A338 at HA. Why wouldn't this MTOW not apply to the A338 as well?
A 251t A338 is exactly what HA needs/wants. They could server ALL of the Pacific rim and Western Europe, non-stop from HNL: SCL, LIM, SIN, LON.

The A330NEO carries 139 000l fuel (vs 135 000l for the long-legged A350-900).
I calculate that as good enough to give an A330-800 a max fuel range well into 5 figures (10 000nm+)
A 251t A330-800 will carry a decent payload a bloody long way.

I'm not sure that even a 250t 787-8 would beat it on ultimate range as a 787 will only tank 126 000l - 10% less than the A330-800.

Nice idea

Rgds

JerseyFlyer · Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:27 pm

Intrigued that the ad is specifically for WING engineering, not, for example, MLG.

This is more than an incremental increase, we may see something like a 245T option first.

keesje · Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:28 pm

kurtverbose wrote:
keesje wrote:
BTW I saw the MEO prototype a few hrs ago at TLS

Massive Engine Option?

I was amazed by the corner full of the A320 ZEO's, Zero EO. I was too late to take a picture..

Joost · Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:33 pm

astuteman wrote:
The A330NEO carries 139 000l fuel (vs 135 000l for the long-legged A350-900)

The regular A359 carries 141 000 litres. The A359 ULR carries 165 000.

Still, 251t would make the 339 a more attractive competitor against the 789 and opens quite some additional markets.

rbavfan · Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:39 pm

9 tonne based on the fuel burn improvement Airbus quotes should allow around 7346nm range for the A330-900 with the weight increase. Allowing close to the 7500nm range of the 242t A330-800. Would allow carriers with both models to more easily be swapped out if needed.

evanb · Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:43 pm

rbavfan wrote:
9 tonne based on the fuel burn improvement Airbus quotes should allow around 7346nm range for the A330-900 with the weight increase. Allowing close to the 7500nm range of the 242t A330-800. Would allow carriers with both models to more easily be swapped out if needed.

What would a 251t A330-800 be able to do? It could be absolutely mind boggling?

Andre3K · Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:15 pm

Kind of off topic maybe but why does the consensus here think the A330Neo is a good idea/plane but say the 777-8/9 is fodder and garbage? They are both re-engines.

ZEDZAG · Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:21 pm

All the talk about a330/NEO MTOW makes me wonder the following:
as a sibling to A340, in this case 343, witch had the same box/wing/thrust, only center MLG was the difference, are these resources mentioned in first post related to MLG and/or something else???

Joost · Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:28 pm

evanb wrote:
rbavfan wrote:
9 tonne based on the fuel burn improvement Airbus quotes should allow around 7346nm range for the A330-900 with the weight increase. Allowing close to the 7500nm range of the 242t A330-800. Would allow carriers with both models to more easily be swapped out if needed.

What would a 251t A330-800 be able to do? It could be absolutely mind boggling?

Roughly comparable to the 787-9. Probably slightly higher trip costs while carrying fewer passengers than the 787.

It would be very much a niche aircraft, only suitable for carriers who really want to fly ULH but have little possibilities to sell more seats. Or carriers that don't fly the aircraft ULH very frequently, but want it just in case they need it. (The HiFly scenario - they ordered two new 242t A330-200's for this very reason).

I don't see much market for it.

A 251t A330-900 on the other hand, will be a very capable aircraft and completely close the range gap with the 777-200ER.

scbriml · Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:33 pm

If this increase does get produced, it will make the A330neo quite the machine. I disagree that it will challenge the A350 however, because the A350 is also improving and getting higher weights.

Andre3K wrote:
why does the consensus here think the A330Neo is a good idea/plane but say the 777-8/9 is fodder and garbage?

I seem to read a lot of posts that tell us how wonderful the 777-9 is and how every airline in the World needs to buy it. :spin:

Channex757 · Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:36 pm

The MTOW increase for the A330NEO would also benefit any future frames built as tankers and freighters. Both use the A332/338 fuselage.

kelvin933 · Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:40 pm

Channex757 wrote:
The MTOW increase for the A330NEO would also benefit any future frames built as tankers and freighters. Both use the A332/338 fuselage.

The current freighter and MRTT use the A332 as the base, one would assume that going forward the A338 would be the fuselage used for a future freighter and MRTT variants.

Newbiepilot · Thu Sep 21, 2017 12:13 am

Andre3K wrote:
Kind of off topic maybe but why does the consensus here think the A330Neo is a good idea/plane but say the 777-8/9 is fodder and garbage? They are both re-engines.

It is just the typical fanboy partisanship. It is easier to notice outlandish statements that are against your favored manufacturer. The A330neo has received plenty of criticism on this website and so has the 777-8/9.

Cutting into the payload advantage that the 787-9 has will be a helpful boost for the A330-900.

Newbiepilot · Thu Sep 21, 2017 12:22 am

scbriml wrote:
If this increase does get produced, it will make the A330neo quite the machine. I disagree that it will challenge the A350 however, because the A350 is also improving and getting higher weights.:

I could see a more capable A330neo taking away A350 orders. The A350 is already a long range machine and may have more range than needed by many airlines. For example I am struggling to think of any routes that a European airline would operate that is outside the range of the A330-900 other than Chile/Argentina.

kmz · Thu Sep 21, 2017 1:39 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
scbriml wrote:
If this increase does get produced, it will make the A330neo quite the machine. I disagree that it will challenge the A350 however, because the A350 is also improving and getting higher weights.:

I could see a more capable A330neo taking away A350 orders. The A350 is already a long range machine and may have more range than needed by many airlines. For example I am struggling to think of any routes that a European airline would operate that is outside the range of the A330-900 other than Chile/Argentina.

I think we should not underestimate the advantages an A350 or B787 bring to the customer concerning comfort. Higher cabin pressure, bigger windows and more space for the outboard PAX (curvature of side wall lining) is something passengers appreciate...

lightsaber · Thu Sep 21, 2017 1:58 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
aemoreira1981 wrote:
If true, this means that there is no way that the A330-800 ever gets built as this takes over virtually all of its missions. It would likely kill off the 787-8 Dreamliner as well.

Yes I see this killing off the A330-800.

I've read all the replies and this is the pair I agree with.

The most viable part would be an A338 freighter at 252t MTOW. Finally enough MTOW to really use the centerline tank in a freighter.

This would allow more flexibility for the A339.

So only because of freighters and tankers, I see the A338 continuing.

It also hurts the 788. After the 787 line rate increase, I was ready to write the obituary on the A330NEO. If Airbus invests in this, there will be sales. This takes the A339 out of range purgatory. Not necessarily for range, but payload at range. Same with the A330F.

Lightsaber

mffoda · Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:39 am

kurtverbose wrote:
keesje wrote:
BTW I saw the MEO prototype a few hrs ago at TLS

Massive Engine Option?

This is how you can tell that this is Fake news...

"This new variant requires a significant increase in resources to achieve the programme targets of first Flight in 2019."

https://targetjobs.co.uk/employer-hubs/ ... internship

Has anyone told RR that they are going to need a new thrust bump certified in the next 18-24 mouths?? :white:

Perhaps they forgot to mention this in their financials... Easy to overlook?? Not!

The whole article speaks of major changes for this a/c... That certainly does Not equate to a first flight in 2019 bye a long shot! :shakehead:

zeke · Thu Sep 21, 2017 4:38 am

kmz wrote:
I think we should not underestimate the advantages an A350 or B787 bring to the customer concerning comfort. Higher cabin pressure, bigger windows and more space for the outboard PAX (curvature of side wall lining) is something passengers appreciate...

Its hard to believe sometimes, we keep being told that passenger's don't know what they are flying in, that they don't notice 1" of seat width difference, and then you mention these items that passengers will notice ? The A330 rarely gets above 6000 ft cabin altitude on long flights already.

mffoda wrote:
Has anyone told RR that they are going to need a new thrust bump certified in the next 18-24 mouths??

The stock standard A330 with Trent 700s can already do a 251 tonne takeoff, I just plugged in 30 deg, QNH 1013, nil wind and it comes back with 251.5 tonnes is the performance limit (with packs on). ISA conditions you are looking at 254 tonnes with packs on.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net