First of all, thanks for the new planes, the A321LR is finally here after years of 737-900ER dominance of the long and thin routes. Airbus operators finally have a plane that put them on par with competitors flying the -900ER. Thanks a lot!!!
However, I'm sorry to say that I'm a bit disappointed by its bigger brother, as I was eagerly awaiting the A330neo in order to finally have a valid alternative to the 787 without adding additional maintenance categories (I operate a large fleet of A330, A33F and A340, so the 330neo represents the most logical candidate) but it seems that its MTOW of 230 tons is not on par with the current Airbus offering, since the current A330-900 is offered as standard at 242 tons MTOW.
We've lost 12 tons of useful payload. It might not seem a lot, but it makes a substantial difference.
The A330-200 has been losing out to the A330-300 in recent years as the larger model received the 242t MTOW upgrade (which is represented in AS by the A330-300E) increasing its range to reach a wider profile of missions. The larger frame's efficiency advantage over its smaller brother carries onto the A330neo line, so it is not surprising at all to see the A330-900 perform full payload missions that once were A330-200's territory. That's Airbus' purpose of launching the A330neo: increased profitability when compared to A330ceo.
Unfortunately, it is currently performing worse than the A330-300E on which the A330-900 is based.
Example route: SCL-LIS
A330-300E
Calculated payload
37,442 kg
Maximum payload
56,000 kg
% of maximum
66.9%
Fuel consumption
100,260 l
A330-900
Calculated payload
32,678 kg
Maximum payload
53,500 kg
% of maximum
61.1%
Fuel consumption
88,621 l
The 230t version released resembles the basic -900 variant which was then based on AS' "A330-300".
Airbus has yet to come along with detailed payload/range data for the Neos.
Though you are right about the 242t variant. This could indeed be added with a next patch.
That's exactly the point, it's a baseline -300 with new engines under the wing, although the fuel consumption is lower, all the improvements of the neo over the ceo are not yet fullfilled with this version. I'll search around for some manuals and provide them to AS team as soon as I get them.
That's exactly the point, it's a baseline -300 with new engines under the wing, although the fuel consumption is lower, all the improvements of the neo over the ceo are not yet fullfilled with this version.
Yeah well... Somehow the team missed the MTOW discrepancy. But hey, the Neo isn't in service yet. Still better than to wait for the next patch. Just assume that this version is a de-rated one until then ;)
Which "all the improvements" do you mean? The -900 has a lower fuel burn and lower maintenance costs... What did you expect?
It is in regular revenue service with TAP. As for "all the improvements", as I stated in my first post "The larger frame's efficiency advantage over its smaller brother carries onto the A330neo line, so it is not surprising at all to see the A330-900 perform full payload missions that once were A330-200's territory."
3408
3409
The fuel consumption is pretty much spot on with Airbus' brochures, if you use the performance test tool and check the three areas where the neo should perform better than an A330-300E, we only have an edge in the fuel burn, while the payload and range are lower than the latter. There currently is no advantage at all in ordering a neo over a -300E. Not a rant or anything against the work of AS Team, I'm looking to retrieve some more detailed infos in order to forward them to the team and hopefully have a patch to finally bring some diversity to the 787 monopoly for those operators who would like to mantain some sort of fleet commonality, also for ultra long and thin routes with the upcoming A330-800 which will be the only real competitor to the 787-8. No problem at all in waiting some more time, I'd just like to make sure that the team is aware of this glitch and if they'll look to fix it in future.
The main reason why the B788 will always be the best small widebody is its short turn around time. For any reason it is much quicker than any A330 version. Additionally AS sticks to mistakes done in the past where cruising speed M.78 equals 830 km/h with E-Jets, A220... while it equals 840km/h with A320 and most of the B737NG/MAX (some even 850km/h).
The A330 has a cruising speed of M.82 which is 0,04 more and is implemented in AS which a cruising speed of 860km/h. So something between 10 to 30 km/h more than jets cruising at M.78 what makes us suggest that M.01 makes a difference of somewhat between 2,5 and 7,5 km/h. Anyways the B787 cruises with M.85 which is 910km/h, so a difference of M.03 all of a sudden makes 50km/h which is 17km/h per M.01. So if you wanted to make it correctly A220, E-Jets, A320, B737 all needed to have the same cruising speed. And if this speed was 840km/h, with the B787 cruising at 910km/h the correct speed for the A330 would be 880km/h.
All this leads to the effect, that the B787 can, depending on maintenance, fly routes like AMS-MIA daily while the A330 does not. So there must have been serious dreamliner fans in charge while implementing the B787 or some serious mistakes have been made and are not yet corrected, but comparing objectively combined with the fact that in AS it is much more difficult to fill larger aircraft there is no widebody that can compete with the B788. Why operating a B777, B747, A380 if even the costs per seat are higher than on a dreamliner?
To make it even more complicated, for other aircraft like the Tu204 the max speed is taken as cruise speed. :)
