Re: 30-year-old technology

Date:         30 Mar 97 03:54:28 
From: (H Andrew Chuang)
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
References:   1 2 3 4
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1997.816@ohare.Chicago.COM>,
Karl Swartz <kls@ohare.Chicago.COM> wrote:
>>The A330-200 had a good year last year.  The new plane helped to revive
>>the stagnant A330 program.  It'll be interesting to see if Airbus can
>>sustain the potent A330-200 sales with Boeing launching the B767-400ER
>>with Delta's new order.
>While about the same size, the A330-200 has significantly greater range
>than the 767-400ERX:
>  Model        A330-300  A330-200  767-400  767-300
>  Seats        295-335   253-293   245-303  218-269
>  Range (nm)   4,800     6,400     5,650    6,125
>I also thought the A330-200 was bigger than the 767-400ERX, but they
>obviously are about the same size in terms of seats.

In terms of seats, the difference is minimal.  In terms of cargo
capacity, I think the difference is probably bigger.

>Still, I think
>the range of the A330-200 gives it a healthy advantage over the 767.

I wouldn't give the edge to the A330-200 that quickly.  When I first
learned about the 767-400 range, I made the same conclusion.
However, the B767-200/300 have a similar range advantage over the
A300/310, but neither Boeing nor Airbus has been able to dominate this
particular market sector.

I have read that Ansett, which is rumored to order a significant
number of A330-200, is re-evaluating its need.  The reason is the
A330-200 is not suitable for domestic operations.  (Shortened models
usually do not have attractive unit cost.)  Airbus has previously
suggested offering an A330-200 Lite for regional operations, but I
have yet to see any airlines show an interest.  Thus, the B767-400
may not be in a disadvantage.  Furthermore, if the range is that
important, I would think Boeing could offer a re-winged -400 (I
believe an earlier proposal, the B767-400ERY, was with a larger wing).