A330-300 242t

Recently Airbus delivered the new version of the A330-300 with MOTW of 242t to Delta Airlines. Should be seeing this in AS soon? Also the model AS has marked as A330-300X is designated by Airbus as "...-300E". Maybe a correction ?

Out of curiosity why would you buy an A330 (other than the A330F) now that we have the 787-8, 787-9 (on the small side), and A350-900 on the large side?

Oil prices are creeping back up...

http://community.airlinesim.aero/topic/7854-new-mtow-for-a330-family/

You can run 3 different passenger types plus 1 freighter for a single maintenance cost. You cannot do that with 787 or 350. Plus, in a few years, there will be a NEO which will expand the aircraft options and will also allow you to stay under the single maintenance category.

Strange is that the A330 always takes more fuel than the A330X. The difference between both of them is only that the A330X has a higher take of weight. So it should take even a little more because of an extra fuel tank.

You can run 3 different passenger types plus 1 freighter for a single maintenance cost. You cannot do that with 787 or 350. Plus, in a few years, there will be a NEO which will expand the aircraft options and will also allow you to stay under the single maintenance category.

Soon also the A330 Regional the most important and needed of them all.

Out of curiosity why would you buy an A330 (other than the A330F) now that we have the 787-8, 787-9 (on the small side), and A350-900 on the large side?

Oil prices are creeping back up...

Pick any reasonable route (non ultra long range ones) on the aircraft evaluation tool and You'll see that the A330-300X has the lowest cost per seat and fuel burn when compared to any 787 or 350. The 242t MTOW version will give the -300 the same range of the -200 and an higher capacity, thus lower cost per seat, pretty much a no brainer :)

Add to the above the points highlighted by rubiohiguey

You can run 3 different passenger types plus 1 freighter for a single maintenance cost. You cannot do that with 787 or 350. Plus, in a few years, there will be a NEO which will expand the aircraft options and will also allow you to stay under the single maintenance category.

Strange is that the A330 always takes more fuel than the A330X. The difference between both of them is only that the A330X has a higher take of weight. So it should take even a little more because of an extra fuel tank.

The -300X is not just an higher take off weight version, it also benefits from some engine and aerodynamic improvements which reduce its fuel burn ;)

Pick any reasonable route (non ultra long range ones) on the aircraft evaluation tool and You'll see that the A330-300X has the lowest cost per seat and fuel burn when compared to any 787 or 350. The 242t MTOW version will give the -300 the same range of the -200 and an higher capacity, thus lower cost per seat, pretty much a no brainer :)

Add to the above the points highlighted by rubiohiguey

I guess it depends on your seat configuration. But it's interesting to see A330 burn less fuel compared to B788 and A350. However in my preferred seating config for widebody, A350-900XWB give the lower per seat cost compared to A330 and B788. Even lower per seat cost is B748 actually, even compared with A388. When A339 available in this simulation, I guess the economic will be even more fantastic, can't wait for that..

Well, to do the correct comparison, you need to do comparison per available revenue units.

Yeah I know strange words.

Let's say an Economy pax has AS$100 revenue (I always use that, so this would be 100 revenue units).

Now if you play on legacy servers, your C class tariff would be AS$300, and F class would be AS$400 if I am not mistaken (I do not use F almost at all).

So let's assume my markup because of seats and service is 50% in Y and 100% in C.

revenue unit = (C seats x 300 x markup) + (Y seats x 100 x markup)

It is a version of a calculation of revenue seat miles, without the need to actually calculate the stage length, and adjusting for revenue variation among economy, business and first class.

So a 787-800 with my proper seating configuration would give me 42450 revenue units.

A 350-900 would give me 52050 revenue units.

A 330-300 would give me 45600 revenue units.

With this, it is easy to calculate aircraft viability, I just divide total per trip cost with the revenue units, and I get a cost to generate one revenue unit.

With current fuel prices, 788 has 2.20 CRU (cost per revenue unit), 789 has 2.18 CRU, 33X has 2.27 CRU, and 359 has 2.17 CRU.

Well, to do the correct comparison, you need to do comparison per available revenue units.

Yeah I know strange words.

 

Let’s say an Economy pax has AS$100 revenue (I always use that, so this would be 100 revenue units).

Now if you play on legacy servers, your C class tariff would be AS$300, and F class would be AS$400 if I am not mistaken (I do not use F almost at all).

So let’s assume my markup because of seats and service is 50% in Y and 100% in C.

revenue unit = (C seats x 300 x markup) + (Y seats x 100 x markup)

It is a version of a calculation of revenue seat miles, without the need to actually calculate the stage length, and adjusting for revenue variation among economy, business and first class.

 

So a 787-800 with my proper seating configuration would give me 42450 revenue units.

A 350-900 would give me 52050 revenue units.

A 330-300 would give me 45600 revenue units.

 

With this, it is easy to calculate aircraft viability, I just divide total per trip cost with the revenue units, and I get a cost to generate one revenue unit.

With current fuel prices, 788 has 2.20 CRU (cost per revenue unit), 789 has 2.18 CRU, 33X has 2.27 CRU, and 359 has 2.17 CRU.

Certainly the most compliacated approach I’ve seen so far.

I’m not quite able to see whether this really is a correct comparison though.

Could you please post the data and numbers used in your calculation?

The -300X is not just an higher take off weight version, it also benefits from some engine and aerodynamic improvements which reduce its fuel burn ;)

But are u sure the aerodynamic improvments didnt get all A330? As for as I know they only builit one Version of A330-300 and only the take off weights are different.

Certainly the most compliacated approach I've seen so far.

I’m not quite able to see whether this really is a correct comparison though.

Could you please post the data and numbers used in your calculation?

Indeed, as soon as I encountered the strange word, I stop reading. Aircraft Evaluation Tools already give you a good picture of the economic comparison between aircraft type. 

Indeed, as soon as I encountered the strange word, I stop reading. Aircraft Evaluation Tools already give you a good picture of the economic comparison between aircraft type. 

Well I  PMed AK as the formula I use is part of my business model. ATE is one thing and it is well known to be just a very basic comparison, because you cannot combine classes and seats.

Would you compare and measure how big the two or three houses are by the square footage or by the number of rooms? In this analogy, ATE is measuring by the number of rooms, my equation measures by the square footage.

Rpandugita, you of all should know that my models usually make quite a lot of sense, and are not just made out of thin air. :)

I don't really wanna debate anything, I have to admit this one being to complex as I really get lost on what you are saying.

Your sophisticated formula and my simple aircraft type evaluation reach same conclusion that A350 is the type with best economic.

To make my fleet planning easier (as well as my life :) ), at least for me, it's enough for me to decide which aircraft I should order.

Well I  PMed AK as the formula I use is part of my business model. ATE is one thing and it is well known to be just a very basic comparison, because you cannot combine classes and seats.

I understand what you are doing, but not why - unless you really try to find the most laborious approach to a simple task.

I mean, calculating revenue units is mathmatically pointless for such comparison - at least as long as you set them const. throughout the types which you do.

Why not simply devide total trip costs by the number of seats? All you do is multiplying Y-seats by 150 and C by 600, just to devide them by total costs.

The result is the very same for both, though the math doesn’t look as academic and important on the usual approach which at least gives you the actual costs per seat. In the end it’s the same unprecise (=incorrect) approach.

Naturally, if you want to seperate classes as you say, you should also get the results per class. Because as soon as you change seat type or Y/C ratio on one type, your comparison via one “CRU” is thrown out of whack. Where goes your “CRU” if you decide to remove six Y-rows in favour of three additional C-rows on the 333?

You need to get your class-dependent costs per unit into correct relation to each other, to get something usefull if you want to have it seperated into classes as you say. Where is cargo in your comparison, btw?

As far as your calculation’s result is concerned - ignoring cargo - it’s only representative for your preset cabin config of Recl.Short and FullBed seats.

What are your results with Comfort+ in Y?

Now that Saudia has entered the Regional , there is another version that will become reality

I don’t use comfort plus in Y at all because it has a very bad space/rating/price ratio compared to leisure, recliner short haul and recliner long haul. You are worse off using comfort plus than any of the three other mentioned seat types from perspective of maximizing the revenue with factors being occupied space and achievable maximum rating at the maximum possible price for that rating to occur.

I don't use comfort plus in Y at all because it has a very bad space/rating/price ratio compared to leisure, recliner short haul and recliner long haul. You are worse off using comfort plus than any of the three other mentioned seat types from perspective of maximizing the revenue with factors being occupied space and achievable maximum rating at the maximum possible price for that rating to occur.

Did you at least try to understand what I was telling you?

I don’t care about your opinion on the seat. You came in offering “the correct comparison”, presenting the result (“CRU”) as the generally true one - yet what you do is in no way different to what AET does.

Did you at least try to understand what I was telling you?

I don’t care about your opinion on the seat. You came in offering “the correct comparison”, presenting the result (“CRU”) as the generally true one - yet what you do is in no way different to what AET does.

Yes it does and no it does not.

ATE does allow you to run analysis for single class configuration, my model does allow you to run analysis with multiple class configuration, and approximate seating of one aircraft model to another (using a roughly same % of seat split among classes) and because no two models are identical, you can analyze better. Example, 359 vs 772, both technically can seat 440 people but they will never have same configs in AS because of different cabin width. Once you approximate seat configs you can find out that the cost difference is 3.2% with my formula vs multiple % values ranging form 1.5 to 6% depending on the single seat type selected in ATE.

But this is getting silly and I am off this thread.