Date: 30 Mar 97 03:54:28 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Organization: Concentric Internet Services References: 1 2 3 4
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).