Odds and End: ExIm fight, again; A350 interior; C-17 production ending early; 787’s longest routes; That’s no bull; MH370

ExIm fight, again: Republicans and the conservative Heritage Foundation are once again attempting to kill the US ExIm Bank, which providing financing support for Boeing airplanes.

This isn’t a sexy topic for our readers, but it’s an important issue we’ve written about many times. While the Republicans and Heritage call this corporate welfare (of which we’re generally disdainful), we disagree in this instance. It’s a matter of competitiveness.

Loren Thompson, with whom we’ve often disagreed, and whose institute is partly funded by Boeing, takes on the effort to kill ExIm in this column. His underlying facts are valid, though his tiresome shot at Airbus subsidies and Boeing’s innocence is laughable once more. The WTO found Boeing received illegal subsidies, too, and of course we just witnessed Boeing getting the largest subsidy in corporate history from Washington (State, that is)–all of which Thompson ignores.

But this National Review magazine (a conservative one) fails in its taking Thompson to task to even mention Airbus, the principal thrust of Thompson’s piece. This is as silly as Thompson’s continued Airbus bashing.

The reason we support ExIm’s continued existence has nothing to do with who gets what subsidies; it has everything to do with the fact that Europe’s export credit agencies fund Airbus airplanes and Boeing needs to have ExIm to compete. (We’d be less harsh about Thompson if he would stick to this topic rather than beating the subsidy drum with highly selective facts on an issue for which he was paid by Boeing to issue a study during the WTO dispute.)

National Review’s critique of Thompson totally ignores the Airbus export credit support challenge. There may be merit to many practices about ExIm to criticize, but these critics need to focus on the ECA competitive advantage for Airbus should ExIm go away. Boeing’s right on this one.

A350 interior: The big Interiors Show is underway this week at Hamburg and the world gets its first look at the Airbus A350 XWB interior. USA Today has a series of photos. So does CNN.

Airbus also talked about the prospect of jamming in (our term, not Airbus’) 10 abreast in the A350. This is, of course, ironic because Airbus is in the midst of a campaign about the 18-inch seating for its nine abreast configuration. While we certainly agree that 18 inches are far more comfortable than the 17+ inch seat bottom in the Boeing 777 (at 10 abreast), we note the economic advantage Boeing has at 10 abreast to the nine abreast A350 and think this has as much to do with Airbus’ campaign as any passenger comfort.

What’s the economic difference? Our colleague in Europe did the analysis. He writes:

The -1000 and -300ER both have the same length cabin so both seat about 360 pax in 2 class: 54 business class seats at 60” and 306 economy seats at 32” =360 seats. Make them 10 abreast and you add 35 seats for both as they have about 35 rows of Y. Therefore 10 abreast lowers the per seat cost by 8.6%.

The 779 has 62m cabin, so you get 54*60” and 38 rows of 9 abreast = 342 for 396 9 abreast 2 class and 38*10=380 + 54 = 434 seats in 10 abreast. 396/434=91.2%, thereby 8.8% lower seat costs.

You gain 8% with 10 abreast as you burn a little more fuel with the heavier cabin.

C-17 production ending early: It’s the last of the McDonnell Douglas/Douglas Aircraft Co. heritage: the MDC-designed C-17 production will end next summer, about three months earlier than previously announced. This also will end aircraft production at the former MDC plant in Long Beach (CA), where the then-Douglas Aircraft Co. first produced the DC-8 through the MD-95 and the C-17. Boeing ended production of the MD-88, MD-90 and MD-11 after the two companies merged. It kept the MD-95 alive for a time as the Boeing 717, ending this production with just 156 built. There had been a prospect of building the 777X there, but Seattle won when IAM 751 ratified a new contract. There were those who always thought Long Beach, and other locations, were nothing more than a stalking horse to beat 751 into submission.

787’s longest routes: Forbes lists the longest routes for the Boeing 787, once you get past all the advertising pages.

That’s no bull: For those who still think there was a fire on Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 that occurred so quickly no distress call could be made, consider this story.

MH370: The Wall Street Journal published a rendering that illustrates what tracking and recording systems may be turned off in flight.

106 Comments on “Odds and End: ExIm fight, again; A350 interior; C-17 production ending early; 787’s longest routes; That’s no bull; MH370

  1. What we need to know is where the circuit breakers for the CVR and FDR are located exactly: inside or outside the cockpit?

    If the CVR circuit breaker is accessible from the cockpit it means that if it was pulled at any given time during the flight it would stop recording the sounds, but what was already recorded would not be erased. Same thing for the FDR, if the circuit breaker can be accessed from the cockpit it would mean that if the breaker was manually switched off no new data would be recorded, but the existing data would be saved.

  2. If you do 10 abreast on a 777, market dynamics will force you to put in some form of economy plus, not to scare away your frequent flyers and people that sit in economy but still paid USD 2629. Ecpnomy plys costs seats too. Ignore and you not seeing the real dynamics. I’ll discuss with Airbus and Boeing tommorow in Hamburg & let you know.

      • I was looking at that post and wondering where it went wrong with the spelling!

    • Keesje, would it not be more appropriate or informative to discuss this with the arilines? Despite Airbus and Boeing mentioning these seating arrangements, it is the airlines who really decide the layouts.

    • Keesje, seat width has to be seen in conjunction with seat pitch. Anything under 34 inches is painful, even with a, 18 inch seat.

      • Absolutely, and Airbus is conveniently not mentioning pitch in any of these “campaigns.” I think people, when given the choice of wider seat or having more legroom (which coincidentally means not having a seat tray in your neck when eating) would choose legroom. Wider seat is nice but what’s 1 inch wider seat going to do for you when you can’t leave your seat when the passenger in front of you reclines in your face?

        • So airlines should offer a bigger pitch on the 777x and 787? Boeing should include that then, it would lower seatcounts compared to 18 inch wide seats.

        • Neutron’s point, I think, is that a 1/2″ increase in seat bottom width, while better than nothing, is not nearly as big a deal as Airbus is trying to make it out to be. Especially since they are trying to pass off their marketing as some kind of scientific research.

        • “I think people, when given the choice of wider seat or having more legroom…would choose legroom.”

          Certainly not me. I’d take ACs 777s over EKs any day, despite the lower pitch. I don’t mind making contact with the front seat, but I will never appreciate rubbing shoulders with the guy seated next to me.

      • “Anything under 34 inches is painful”

        Very simplistic. Consider the seat thickness, for instance.

    • The number of seats abreast depends mostly on interior cabin width – see below.

      Seat bottom and armrest widths are constrained by:
      • Sidewall contour
      • FAA-minimum aisle width (at least 15 inches wide below the armrests)
      • Aisle access – the FAA does not allow any seat to be more than two seats from either aisle [no outboard quads or center sixes].
      • Floor loading – some airplanes have may structural limits restricting minimum seat pitch or prohibiting center quints

      Here are some inside cabin widths, in inches, from Wikipedia.
      • Boeing 767 = 186″
      • Airbus A300, 310, 330 and 340 = 208″
      • Boeing 787 = 215″
      • Airbus A350 = 221″
      • Boeing 777 and 777X = 231″
      • Boeing 747, all models = 240″
      • Airbus A380, main deck = 259″; upper deck = 233″

  3. Keep in mind the CVR has limited duration, won’t reveal all that my be desired.
    FDR doesn’t necessarily have info needed for some scenarios.

  4. In regards to a 777 electrical system, can the pilot command a remote CB to open from the cockpit? I would call that the $64 question. ‘

    Or maybe more accurately, depending on the type of device uses, a separate co located switch in-line with the CB (or a combo switch/cb).

    Regardless, if the pilot can do so then it makes no difference where its located physically, it could be turned off. So can it?

    And that of course gets into a tracking device being useless if it can be turned off.

    Ergo, battery backed up (no Li-ion please).

    The ELB is stand alone (though its passive until impact so can be) but it would also have been ugly if the Ethiopian 787 was in the air when it shorted (and for the crowd that holds ot the fire theory another stark example that fires are short term event in an aircraft, either you get it down in minutes or the planes comes down in all to short a period of time.

    Interesting challenge to design a safe tracking device.

    It does not need to transmit anything more than location. Some rant for full data stream, we just need to know where it is, you can recover lots of data from the on broad maint devices as well as the FDR.

    Cockpit camera is whats needed above and beyond data. That tells you what they did (direct feedback) not trying to interpret it from what happened. To many air disasters resulted in we aren’t really sure despite reams of data.

    • If not for the cockpit camera, I would completely agree with you. It is not that I find it unnecessary although I question justhow useful it would be, especially for the cost involved. I also understand that the flight crews would be a bit bothered by the constant monitoring and the potential for abuse from the airlines that such surveillance could entail.

      On the other hand, the cabin crew of some airlines, not to mention the passengers, are also unknowingly (the pax at least) subjected to this surveillance, and they have no say in the matter whatsoever!

      • I find the “privacy” argument for not having better cockpit monitoring obscene.

        if you are directly responsible for the lives of somewhere between 100 and 600 people during your workday, then your right to privacy is forfeit. Hell, assembly line workers at factories don’t have that level of privacy and all they are doing is putting a battery in a cell phone. The notion that Pilots are “Knights of the Sky” is ludicrous. As was made clear by Edward Snowden, none of us have this level of privacy even in our personal lives, why should Pilots get special treatment during their professional activities?

        The safety of your passengers and the safety of future passengers trumps your right to get a little nook nook from the stewardess at 35,000 feet.

        we should have a full audio/video record of everything that occurs in the cockpit on even the longest flight. don’t try to argue cost, the total cost of 2 webcams, a microphone and a hard drive capable of storing 24 hrs of streaming 1080p video is under $1k and weighs under 3 lbs.

        on a flight that lands safely without incident, the CVR and FDR data should be held in escrow by the FAA/equivalent authority for 30 days then wiped (in case something happened that wasn’t immediately obvious)

        • For what purpose a cockpit camera? I can’t remember a case where such a video would have helped the investigations. It would be more interesting to see the pilots view.

        • A cockpit camera system can be disabled just as easily as any other system, even if the power to it was not controlled by a relay accessible during flight. Covering it would not take much effort at all.

        • @mhalblaub – remember the incident reported on a week ago about the pilot’s SLR camera getting stuck between the seat and the sidestick nearly taking down an a330 and all onboard? if the plane had crashed likely it would have been blamed on a suicidal pilot rather than just a stupid one. a camera focused on the pilot would have shown the jammed camera.

          remember the egypt air, silk air and other probable suicides where all we have is what sounds like the pilot saying a prayer as the plane nosedives? a camera on the pilot would remove all controversy.

          and finally, why the heck not? seriously. what possible objection can you have other than you don’t want video evidence of pilot indiscretions that shouldn’t be occurring in the cockpit anyway.

        • In the case of the two 737s that crashed due to the (likely now) rudder reversal problem, they could not make sense of the situation.

          If you work with controls and this type of assessment (and I do in the Building Automation end) you can spend hours trying to capture data to find out why something is not working.

          You get a picture and you can see what is happening and compare it to the commands issued and see if they correlate.

          Its not a privacy issue, its a need issue. They can put in all sorts of cutouts to keep it from becoming a management tool and use it for what its intended.

          If you see what a crew did, you can understand the accident, input vs outputs and what were the results. Most of the time its a mistaken input.

          Nicki Laudas 767 crash would have been solved much sooner.

          I too do not buy the pilots are “Gods of the Sky”. They are technicians doing a job a huge number of people can be trained to do (WWII made that clear in spades).

  5. Re: the Independent story, and I can’t believe I will be the first to get to write it, “Now that’s what I call cattle class!!”.

      • A load of vealers maybe? ( calv/young bovine below 330kg * 400 ~= 132t ( metric ))

  6. 400 flying cows? You could say it was “The herd shot round the world.” 🙂

  7. With regard to the EXIM bank… .

    Neither writer took note of the fact that the Exim bank subsidizes low cost loans exclusively for already well financed foreign carriers who in turn use these subsidies to drive US based carriers out of the marketplace, costing many more non subsidized US jobs than the subsidized positions at Boeing which are gained. The Europeans share these concerns for their workforce. If the United Stated would draw down the EXIM financing, the Europeans would be happy to pull theirs down also.

    Airbus is moving this direction already with the purchase of Salzburg Muenchen Bank.

    Open markets demand level playing fields. The US taxpayer is subsidizing well funded Middle Eastern carriers, resulting in the loss of American jobs. Don’t believe me? When Atlanta based cargo operator World Airlines ceased operations last week, guess who announced new Atlanta cargo service the following day using EXIM subsidized aircraft … Emirates.

  8. I don’t understand why Boeing alone needs a special bank such as this. Tom is probably right, though I’m dubious the Euro’s will be so happy. Given budgetary realities on both sides of the pond maybe I am wrong though. I don’t see how exim in the long run helps the flying (American) public much today.

    Without generous launch aid at zero interest the A350 development program was laid out to be every bit as long as the (3 year extended) 787 one. Similar fairness would result from both using commercial lenders. Airlines, in fact, would perhaps be motivated to purchase what they can rather than what they want, another plus.

    • From what I’ve learned about the launch aid that Airbus uses, it is not a zero interest loan. I would characterize it more as a deferred payment loan. It’s all about the cash flow.

      Airbus pays back the principal with interest in the form of royalties tacked on to each aircraft that is sold. The interest rate and the number of aircraft over which the royalties are spread are just two of the items that are negotiated up front. Additionally, if sales for the program turn out to be much slower than anticipated, there is a drop dead date where Airbus is on the hook to pay back the entire remainder of the principal and interest. I’m not sure about the start date or the duration of the timer for the drop dead date relative to the loan date (7 years rattles around in my head, but relative to what?), but regardless of success, Airbus has to pay back the entire principal and interest.

      The kicker for Airbus is that they do not need to start paying back the loan until aircraft are actually sold. Now, I’m a bit fuzzy on when an aircraft sale actually happens according to the deal with the lender. Most of the money changes hands when the aircraft is delivered, but the customer has to pay some up front money to establish their place in the cue. Perhaps Airbus pays some of the royalty for a particular aircraft whenever they get a customer payment, or perhaps the royalty is paid as a lump sum at delivery, I’m not sure. Either way, the benefit of this arrangement is that Airbus does not have to pay back the lender until they receive money from their customers. I assume that a commercial lender would require repayment to start immediately.

      • You are wrong in the details, the spin is what you stated.

        Airbus has stated that they will sell 1600 A380s. Until they reach a never revealed threshold, they do not have to pay a penny to the governments.

        If they never reach the threshold, they never pay. If they hit threshold and make one more aircraft over it, they pay such a tiny amount as to be ludicrous.

        The only aircraft so far that Airbus makes that is paying back is the A320.

        the A300 series is not paying anything as far as I can remember either.

        Boeing has its own trough it feeds at, but its all corporate welfare.

        • “Airbus has stated that they will sell 1600 A380s. Until they reach a never revealed threshold”

          You are incorrect, TW. Airbus predicted the total VLA market to be 1,600, including VLA freighters. It has never said it will sell 1,600 A380s. It assumed 50% of the VLA-P market, or 650 A380s, in its calculations (over 20 years). We know this from our discussions with Airbus officials and in the RR-PW lawsuit over A380 engine patents we’ve written about in the past. This figure was part of the lawsuit.

        • TW,
          After rereading the links I posted, it turns out that I did have some of the details wrong, but that does not change the overall point I made.

          Airbus pays the advance back by means of a levy on the sale of each aircraft. The levy is set so that the entire advance is paid back plus a return on investment over an agreed upon sales target (number of aircraft). There is a repayment deadline that is 17 years after Airbus gets the advance, thus Airbus must pay back the entire advance plus the return on investment at the deadline regardless of sales success. In addition, if sales exceed the target, the lenders will continue to collect royalty payments beyond the original advance plus return on investment. There is no mention of a sales threshold below which Airbus would not have to repay.

          Thus, my point still stands, which is that the primary benefit of this arrangement to Airbus is one of controlling cash flow. They can repay their creditors as they receive money from their customers, not starting before, like a commercial loan would require.

          Granted, this is what the US and the EU had agreed to in 1992. I have no idea under what deals Airbus obtained Launch aid prior to 1992.

  9. Keesje

    Since the last 24 hours, I was expecting a response like that!

    You seemed so nervous yesterday about 8.8% lower seat costs of the 777-9X.

    No wonder you do this type of comment for the simple reason that it is not helping the aircraft manufacturer that you cherish …

    And that does not help you either. Airbus, made a hypocritical campaign against Boeing when they are dying to put more seats in their model (A330/A350 & A380).

    You can still be nervous, because the market has chosen the 17″ seat of the 777X & 787, which totals to them 1.300 orders & Commitments!

    There are just out your handkerchief You lost and it feels in your comments!

    • One would think there would be a demand for premium economy on the 787 at 8 abreast. That, plus 35″ pitch would be a 25% increase in space and price over economy. It seems like that has the potential to be a popular product on the 787. Customers love 2-4-2, all those A330 sales must mean something.

      • 2-4-2 is and has been the standard economy arrangement on twin-aisle Airbuses ever since 1972’s medium-range A300. The A330 is a best seller not because of its cross section, but because, until the A350, the A330 is the only long-range Airbus with the performance and economic advantages of a twin vs the four-engine A340’s. It has outsold the A300-600, A310 and A340 combined.

      • 2-4-2 seating had ZERO to do with the A330 being a successful product.

        • 2-4-2 is the ONLY reason the A330neo even has a chance at being launched.

        • Disagree 100%. As a very frequent flyer who has seen all this evolve, I will tell you that the ONLY reason the 777 is successful is because of economics. Passengers in coach who have flown A330 and A340 absolutely hate the 777 and have been very vocal about it. We for example, have a group of about 20 people who have been flying Etihad A340 several time per year and for years from JFK to AUH. We would fly to AUH and then continue on to SE Asia. Everyone was always impressed as the aircraft was comfortable and the Etihad service is truly excellent. The A340 (and A330) feels like a big private jet. Last year, the JFK-AUH service switched to 777-300 ER. It was immediately noticed that it was cramped with narrower aisle. The center galley and lavatory units look like cheap “plug and play” units. Those modular elements do not even fit next to each other or with the ceiling. The plane is cramped with people. The crew was overwhelmed and overworked. The bathrooms got nasty quickly. This simple switch from the A340 to the 777-300ER made such an outstanding airline like Etihad feel completely ordinary and at times like a “charter tour operator with masses of cramped passengers”. For our next trips, those who were flying Business stayed with Etihad. Others changed departure city to Dulles to catch the Etihad A340 flight, Others switched to Turkish. A report was written describing similar sentiments in an Australian publication when Etihad also added 777-300ER to Australia.

          Rumors have it that Qatar will be flying A350 to JFK while others will be flying 10 abreast larger planes carrying masses of people. Simply brilliant and consistent with an emphasis on quality and passenger experience.

          IMHO the A350 and A330 Neo’s will continue to attract premium airlines and passengers.

    • With all respect, the 777x is not something to be really nervous about I think. I told an A350 guy this afternoon. I was at Boeing too yesterday, but bumped into some old friends & we didn’t discuss aircraft.

      Boeing is telling every one 17 inch is perfectly ok for long flights, but what else can they say? The 777x/787 need 10/9 abreast to look competitive, don’t they?

      • “With all respect, the 777x is not something to be really nervous about I think. ”

        Whith all respect, an Airbus cheer leader like you peit only be nervous, Keesje!

        • Checklist, I think you are being short-sided. The A350 strategy and marketing strategy is a much clever one. Look at this way. If the market does not care, then sell some A350’s with 10 abreast.. bingo. For those airlines who do care about the seat comfort issue and those who can’t fill up a 777-9 every day (most airlines outside Asia and middle east) the 9 abreast A350 would still be the most comfortable and economical plane. Boeing. however, can not do the same with the 777-9. Take seats away to make it as comfortable as the A350 and you can kiss good bye that single digit percentile advantage. Go to the 787 instead, you are back with the 17 inch seats in a comparably smaller airplane. Like previously stated, the A350 is in the sweet spot. You need 5 Boeing models to compete with it.

      • Keesje, I really don’t know how you can still take this guy seriously. All this provoking ad hominem and name calling is really getting into my face.

  10. It seems to me that Boeing may be seriously worried about an A330neo. If not, https://twitter.com/StratAero would not be busy writing an absurd amount of tweets about how bad Airbus supposedly is doing.

    Dual 787/A330 operator says A330neo weight gain would wipe fuel burn efficiency http://t.co/YgohuwyNHu— StratAero (@StratAero) April 7, 2014

    Airlines not interested in old airplane tech with “me too” engines http://t.co/YgohuwyNHu— StratAero (@StratAero) April 7, 2014

    A330neo never going to be profitable, no engine makers enthused, @GEAviation focus is on 787, #777X http://t.co/YgohuwyNHu— StratAero (@StratAero) April 7, 2014

    Yes, GEAviation is not interested in an A330neo due to the likelihood of them not being seriously considered for the job. As for a dual 787/A330 operator saying supposedly saying that “A330neo weight gain would wipe fuel burn efficiency”, is so far removed from reality that it just goes to show the level of cluelessness of the tweeter.

  11. No one answered the key question on the 777 FDR, does the pilot have a relay that he can control from the cockpit that turns the FDR off?

    Where the CB is located is irrelevant if he can remove power from that system from the cockpit.

    They continue to get pings in the area, recover the FDR and not data and then what? Try to pull up the whole fuselage as its a crime scene and you might get something form that, gruesome as it would be.


    • The “Deliberate Act” theory – extended – leads to (read : is not incompatible with) controlled ditching/integer hull (= zero debris !), which again would accept the “preset co-ordinates rendez-vous/submarine pick-up” variant (as a motivation for the long flight until dawning daylight/VFR ditching conditions), a sub-theory where the pilot = forfait perpetrator is whisked away from the crime scene … if we accept such a theory as plausible, immediately it occurs that cvr + dfdr may have been removed from the aircraft whilst still floating, whereupon the two ultrasonic pinger units may have been extracted/separated + intentionally dispersed apart in 4,500 m deep waters, why not a couple of thousand nm away from where the aircraft itself lies (RIP MH-370), this cruel irony meant as a dummy rabbit to mislead international SAR greyhounds far away from 9N-MRO, to preserve forever the mystery of its fate ?

      The foregoing to imply : let’s keep fingers crossed, but let’s not expect too much ?

  12. About seat with, in my opinion we should stop trying to confuse people into believing it is far more complicated, depending on addition factors etc.

    Wider seat are more comfortable at the same pitch. Unfortunately cabin widths are fixed / a given. So if you have to put in 9-10 abreast / 17 inch wide seats to make an aircraft economical, don’t suggest it is rational, up to the airline, efficient, modern or far more complicated. It just about supporting and selling your 17 inch seats’ aircraft. And don’t ask the passengers/ play down what they say.


    • Well, they seems to complain about the aisle width. To be fair, please do note that the 777X will have 18″ wide aisles and 17.2″ seat bottom widths; just like the 787. The current 777 at 10 abreast has 17″ wide aisles and 17″ seat bottom widths. The A350 at 9 abreast will have 18″ seat bottom widths but only 17″ wide aisles. At 11 abreast, Airbus claims that the seat bottom Widths on the A380 will be 18″ on the main deck when the floor is slightly raised. However, the aisle width at 11 abreast will probably only be around 17″. Of course, a wider seat means less “intrusion” into the aisle space

      • Here are some inside cabin widths, in inches, from Wikipedia.
        • Boeing 767 = 186″
        • Airbus A300, 310, 330 and 340 = 208″
        • Boeing 787 = 215″
        • Airbus A350 = 221″
        • Boeing 777 and 777X = 231″
        • Boeing 747, all models = 240″
        • Airbus A380, main deck = 259″; upper deck = 233″

        Thnx Oviver, I’m a numbers guy.

        Now lets not overcomplicate/ confuse, but distract 40 inch (twin aisles) of each and divide the remaining space with the numbers of seats used in the OEMs CASM comparisons. (Without a calculator, I might be a tenth off) this gives:
        767: 146/7= 20.8
        A330: 168/8=21
        787: 175/9=17,5
        A350: 181/9=20,1
        777X: 191/10= 19,1
        747: 200/10=20
        A380: 209/10=20.9

        An armrest is typically 1 inch. Now choose the one for your old parents on their next 14 hour flight. It aint far more complicated, unless you want it to be.

        • Keesje, Wiki should be used with caution. The only authoritative data are from the OEMs themselves.



          For example, the main deck configuration in the Aircraft Characteristics – Airport and Maintenance Planning for the A380 has the main deck in the following lay out at 10 abreast in economy: 10 seats with a seat bottom width of 18 inches each, 14 armrests with a width of 2 inches each and two 20 inch-wide aisles. That’s an effective width of 248 inches and not 259 inches as you say. For the upper deck, you’ve got 8 abreast in economy between the side bins: 8 seats with a seat bottom width of 18 inches each, 12 armrests with a width of 2 inches each and two 20 inch-wide aisles. That’s an effective width of 208 inches and not 233 inches as you say (i.e 233″ is the width at the cabin floor level of the upper deck on the A380).

          As for the numbers given in my previous post, I do believe they are correct. 🙂

        • 4″ gain on the 777x. How much will the A380 gain by raising the floor 2″? I would estimate an inch on each side for a total of 2″ overall. Manufacturers should provide an interior width at 20″ or .5m above the floor, for better comparisons.

        • Well, maintaining an 18″ wide seat bottom, 2″ wide armrests and 17″ wide aisles require an effective width of 260″. Therefore, an increase of 6″ on both sides is required. It’s going to be interesting to see how that’s going to be done. Raising the floor by at least 2″ and in addition to some sort of re-contouring of the lower part of the thick side wall panels, might just do the trick. In fact, there’s plenty of room between the outer seats and the side wall.

        • Come on Keesje, the Aircraft Characteristics and Airport and Maintenance Planning manuals are objective.

          “Armrests overlap with seat bottoms and e.g. A330s have 6 armrests for the middle 4 seats.”

          Already accounted for. Why don’t you just look at the Aircraft Characteristics – Airport and Maintenance Planning for the A380 (i.e. section for the interior configuration)? In that manual, you’ve got 2 x 42 inches for the 4 middle seats (i.e. seat bottom and armrests) on both the upper deck and main decks; 2 x 20 inch-wide aisles on both decks, and 2 x 42 inches for the 2 outboard seats on the upper deck and 2 x 62 inches for the 3 outboard seats on the main deck; for a total of 248 inches.

          “By raising the floor a few inch, the available width raises too.”

          Yes , that point has already been raised several times already.

        • Addendum

          …for a total effective width of 248 inches on the main deck and 208 inches on the upper deck.

  13. Is it a good investment in the A330neo, 777x, GE9x, or is it better to wait for all new CFRP GTF platforms of the future?

    • The 787-10 frame is only 5% better than the A330-300 (disregarding engines). Add sharklets and other aerodymic improvements plus some weight savings by reskinning parts of the frame with advanced aluminium alloys and you can narrow that gap, or maybe even close it (as some posters think here).
      So 1st gen composites are not the promised game changer yet, it’s still all about the engines. I don’t think a clean sheet replacement with a 1st gen composite frame currently provides enough ecomic advances to be worth the cost, risk and lead time.

      How much better in economics would a second gen composites frame be? And when will that technology be mature enough ? Most importantly, how long can you afford to wait?

      • The 787 and A350 can be re-engined in 10 to 15 years from EIS, if better GTF engines become the norm.

      • “The 787-10 frame is only 5% better than the A330-300 (disregarding engines)…”

        Where are your sources? …

        • We don’t know the source referred to but we can tell you that Boeing long ago assigned only a 5% advantage to the airframe alone for the 788, with the balance coming from the engines and other things.

  14. OV-099

    Saj (Strataero) is “Boeing cheer leader”, however, it is given credibility by the fact that it is the side of the aircraft manufacturer benefited in the widebody.

    In fact Saj, just eyes open on the situation.

    I understand that there are airlines who do not want an old technology “me too” engine!

    • In the first paragraph, what are you trying to say?

      If you look at the photograph of Saj in the link below, it looks as if might be more than just a plain cheerleader. In fact, he seems to have easy access in and around Boeing.

      “Privatisation is not the smartest move to make”
      — Saj Ahmad, a London-based aviation expert and chief analyst at Strategic Aero Research


      The A330 is no more old technology than the 777. As for a “me too” engine, would that be the Rolls Royce Advance-type engine that is likely to be at least 8-9 percent more efficient than the GEnx-1B and the Trent-1000 engines on the 787.

      • I stopped taking Saj seriously ever since the day I found out that a site dedicated to fact-checking him beat all other search results for “Saj Ahmad” on google. Hilarious. 😀

        • Reading that “fact-checking” site is a joke in itself. They don’t post who they are, but are surely all over Strat Aero Research. So I take their “fact-checking” with about a strip-mine’s amount of salt…

          • Yeah, strange site that. But with Randy, VV, Saj and consorts around you won’t have
            much salt left over 😉

  15. OV-099,

    An advance RR will not be available until 2022-2023!

    A new engine is not a value, it is not sufficient, because the engine can go for the 787 too. There ‘s nothing that prevents (RR adv, GeAdv or PWadv. for example).

    However, if Airbus launches a new program with a RR Advance, there would probably value here. The old A330/A340/A300 cross section is not large enough to include the Flight Crew Attendant like the 777-X (you compare), lanched for the first time by Boeing for the 777LR program!), the 787 competitor too, and the other new technology carbon-plastic A350-XWB (XWB, to break with old cross section of the A330-A340 & A300 70’s concept!

    I’re already say and I say, the A330 has no value for airlines that qualifies for old technology “me too engine”!


    • I’m sorry, but a RR Advance engine should be available in the same time period as that of the GE9X engine.

      “A new engine is not a value”


      So, an engine that would have a 20 percent lower thrust specific fuel consumption than the Trent-700 engine, would have no added value? Do you really believe that, or is it “true” just because Saj says so.

      As for putting the same type of engine on the 787, it’s not as straight forward as you might think. For example, If RR is granted exclusivity on an A330neo RR might do as GE did with the A350-1000 and choose to not want to offer an engine that competes with themselves, and the Trent-1000-TEN engine on the 787 should already be more than competitive with any GEnx-upgraded engine. Also, making a non-bleed version of an Advance engine slated for an A330neo would still be a substantial undertaking. However, if PW is invited by Airbus to offer an engine, things would be different since PW doesn’t have an engine on the 787. For that reason alone, Airbus might want to go with an exclusivity agreement with RR. As for GE coming in to help, well they would have to develop an engine from scratch. How will that look to GE’s board when they’re already looking at recouping the massive investment already sunk into the GEnx programme.

      Anyway, if the 787 would get the same type of engine8s) as an A330neo — assuming that Airbus goes for Advance-type engine(s) — the difference from today’s situation would be that an A330neo wouldn’t be using engines with a TSFC deficit of some 12 percent.

      True, the 222-inch wide cross-section of the A330 does not have enough space in the attic for an overhead crew rest compartment. However, the A330 can have a crew rest areas in the lower deck bulk cargo compartment and right behind the cockpit for the pilots, which seems to work fine. Furthermore, most operators of an A330-300neo or even an A330-400neo would probably still not use the aircraft on route sectors where crew rest facilities are required. In contrast to the A330, however, the 777-200ER/-200LR/-300ER/-8X/-9X are all optimised for long range routes where crew rest facilities must be accommodated.

      ” I’re already say and I say, the A330 has no value for airlines that qualifies for old technology “me too engine”! ”

      Again, I wouldn’t necessarily trust Saj on this. Perhaps some independent thinking on your part is warranted.

      • If on two different airframes generationally similar engines provide for similar performance I would deem the airframe to be of similar capability.
        Interesting that a well cared for 1990 era Airbus design matches a brand new Boeing design 😉
        Obviously, accomplished construction is to a significant part about design in of future potential releasable from expectable detail improvements ( i.e. here : engines ).

        • The 222-inch A330 circular cross-section is structurally very efficient. As the 787 has a larger cross-section, it’s no surprise really that the OWE of the former is much closer to the 787 than what’s the case with the 777 vs. the A350.

          Low-hanging fruits for an A330neo — in addition to the engine upgrade would be a composite centre wing box, a composite empennage section, new wing tip devices, modifications to the flight control surfaces and the usage of a the aluminium-magnesium-scandium alloy for the fuselage. This would negate the increase in airframe weight due to the larger and heavier engines. I fact, if all of the above mentioned upgrades were to be implemented, I’m quite sure the OEW of an A332neo/A333neo should just about match the OWE of the 788/799.

        • Thank you TC!

          Actually we have one of the reasons that the 777 (777-X) is made to last!

          This is also why Boeing had to do for the 787 in 2004 and the reason for abandoning the Airbus A350 MK1 (A330 base) in favor of the XWB/ extra-wide body two years later out with the 222 in section 70’s A300 concept!

          Thank you again!

      • OV-099,

        You have more imagination than knowledge. And then you go in any direction with your Advance RR engine and then not have to be stupid to realize that if the A330neo would (should!) more “efficient” (“efficient”!) Than the 787!
        (the idea makes me laugh).

        Do you not think that Boeing could not have a more efficient engine? Do you not have a doubt that the 787 keeps the advantage in reality? Do you think I’ll wait until Sir Saj to talk? You do not think I can have my opinion of my own? I will not long tolerate your attitude OV-099, has always kindly let me past a peroquet!

        I say it again! Your A330 has no value against the 787! Now, my turn to laugh!

        You think can integrate the Flight Crew Rest Attendant in the lower hold a sacrifice of belly cargo? LoL!

        This is where we see that you have the imagination to see are times when the loss of value of the A330! Under the cockpit? Lost ! Is an idea ever thought by Airbus in 2005 during the development of the A350 MK1 based on the A330! You drout to express your opinion. But with regard to the value of the RR advance A330neo! I simply said again,…No, if not it incorporates lightweight materials!…

        • Yes, perhaps you should wait until Saj talks. At least, he writes coherently.

          Now, what’s the actual fuel burn penalty per seat of the A330-200 vs. the 787-8?

          AFAIK, it’s between 12 and 18 percent depending on the aircraft stage length. So, what would an engine burning 20 percent less fuel do to the A330-200? One doesn’t have to be very good in math to figure out that it would have a profound influence on its current fuel burn deficit vs. the 787.

          Now, the dry weight of the Trent 700 is 10,500 lbs (i.e. without the RR provided nacelle) while the dry weight for the Trent 1000 11,924 lbs. I’d reckon that an Advance engine in the same thrust class would not weigh more than the Trent-1000. Adding heavier nacelles and pylons for the larger diameter Advance engine, an extra weight penalty of around 1500lb per engine seems reasonable. Hence, the total weight deficit for the larger engines, nacelles and heavier pylons would be in the neighbourhood of 6000 lbs; or some 2700 kg. That doesn’t include the weight penalty for the required strengthening of the wing and centre wing box. Add local strengthening for new more efficient wing tip devices, and we’re probably talking about a total increase in the manufacturer’s empty weight (MEW) of about 4 metric tonnes.

          What then can Airbus do to decrease MEW of an A330neo?

          Well, the aluminium-magnesium-scandium** alloy is 5 percent less dense than the current aluminium alloys used on the A330. By how much can the use of this material save weight on the fuselage?

          ** http://www.technology-licensing.com/etl/int/en/What-we-offer/Technologies-for-licensing/Metallics-and-related-manufacturing-technologies/Scalmalloy.html

          The MEW of the A330-200 is around 108 metric tonnes.*** The total fuselage weight of an aircraft (i.e structure only) typically accounts for between 40 – 45 percent of MEW; or somewhere between 43.3 and 48.6 metric tonnes for the A330-200. If only half of the fuselage were to be constructed using the new alloy, then you’d save at least 2 tonnes overall. (i.e. fuselage skin, bulkheads and frames, minor frames, covering stiffeners, and stringers etc.).

          *** https://fenix.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/downloadFile/395142223996/extended_abstract_JoaoVascoLopes.PDF

          Since an A330-200 would need structural strengthening to the centre wing box, it’s not too far fetched IMO to assume that Airbus could take advantage of their acquired know-how from the A380, A400M and A350 programmes and use a significant amount of composite materials on the centre wing box on an A330neo in order to achieve a weight saving of at least 750 kg, instead of increasing weight due to the extra structure required. They wouldn’t change the shape or size of the centre wing box, hence it would be a relatively straight forward undertaking. After all, I’m not talking about an all new wing here. A new one piece composite empennage section would be more expensive to design and develop though (i.e somewhere around €500 million), but the cost of manufacturing would be less than for the current empennage section. It could even use the same manufacturing facilities as those being used for the A350 and A380.

          So, therefore, if the A330-200neo would be flying around with an engine that’s more than 8 percent efficient than the ones used on the 787; using new wing tip devices that would increase aerodynamic efficiency by some 3 percent; and not gaining much weight — if anything at all — over that of the A330-200ceo, then it looks like the aircraft would indeed have a lower fuel burn per passenger than that of the 787-8.

        • An educated guess published here some time ago tagged the difference at about 12% afair? Relating the assayed to be larger engine improvements with this does not leave much for airframe improvements ( actually more like a negative ).

          Concerning “if Boeing has it it must be the better solution” one should keep in mind
          that belly space on a _long_ route is of limited utility. The removable crew rest container is a rather sensible solution. The dead space solution on the 777 looks “duh obvious” good but is unremovable dead weight on any shorter route.

  16. “Low-hanging fruits for an A330neo — in addition to the engine upgrade would be a composite centre wing box, a composite empennage section, new wing tip devices, modifications to the flight control surfaces and the usage of a the aluminium-magnesium-scandium alloy for the fuselage. This would negate the increase in airframe weight due to the larger and heavier engines. I fact, if all of the above mentioned upgrades were to be implemented, I’m quite sure the OEW of an A332neo/A333neo should just about match the OWE of the 788/799.”

    But I also like you expect such a reaction from Airbus. We are all waiting!

    Then the program will cost USD 6-8 billion from 2021 to 2022 EIS!

    I’m fine!


    • I’d guess that we’re rather talking about something in the order of €2 billion. What you seem to suggest would be closer the costs associated with an all new wing.

  17. OV-099,

    An investment of 2 billion USD will not be enough to qualify to compete with the 787! It’s strange and funny at the same time! Alice in Wonderland!

    And if we admit that your exclusive Airbus / RR Advance reengined 330neo could be such a good idea likely resulting to a strategic error that could be dangerous for Airbus & RR for several reasons.

    Develop a new engine could kill their investments. Trent1000 & TrentXWB and cannibalize the A350-900XWB! Worst Fall, if Boeing & GE reengine the composite-plastic 787 with 8% efficiency too.

    It proves that the value added is not sufficient! Then we go back to square one! I think Airbus RR & think twice before opening Pandora’s box for Boeing & GE …

    • Yes, this is what Saj says. Well done checklist. Parroting him seems to work very well for you. 😀

      Now, the A350-900 is significantly larger than the A330-300 (i.e 30 – 40 more seats), and will still have around 1000nm more range than that of an >Advance-powered A330-300neo. Sure, some sales might go to an A330-300neo instead of the A359, but from the point of view of Airbus, it’s much better for the A359 to lose a sale to an A333neo than to the 787-9.

      The Advanced engine would work very well on an A380neo as well, which means, of course, it would be able to deliver a very good ROI (return of investment) for RR. For instance, another 100 frames for Emirates (i.e. all powered by the Advance engine), would garner an additional 400 sales. In contrast, RR “only” sold some 450 plus Trent-800 engines for the 777-200/-200ER.

      Of course, the 787 will still be able to compete nicely with an A330neo. That’s why GE, in particular, wouldn’t have to rush things and offer a scaled down GE9X engine. If RR would choose not to offer a non-bleed version of the Advanced engine, GE would likely still maintain their lead on the 787.

      At some point in the future the 787 will, in all likelihood, be re-engined as well. However, I wouldn’t bet on that occurring until well into the next decade. It’s mainly about ROI and market share. Of course, if GE would substantially lose market share in the 250-300 seat market, then they would probably have to act sooner rather than later.

  18. Imo any significant better engine (e.g. Advance) from GE, RR or PW would be available for both aircaft families in no time, neutralizing advantages. The A330 getting GENX like engines took some longer because Airbus was occupied with other projects and the aircraft sold at record numbers anyway. Smartest and most likely scenario is Airbus will go for 2018 EIS, using long hanging fruit like engines, Sharklets, cabins, cockpits.

    E.g a carbon wingbox is high hanging fruit and RR Advance would lead to a very unwelcome 2 yrs later EIS and immature component to the Proven Aviable & Affordable A330 NEO businesscase.

    Airbus all but announced the A330 NEO for May/June and Leahy never does so without launching customers. So who? AirAsiaX, Delta, China airlines, Cathay, Lufthansa?

    • From the point of view of Rolls Royce, why should they offer a bleedless derivative af an Advance engine for the 787 if they are offered a sole source contract on an A330neo programme. Just like GE that wouldn’t want to provide an engine for the A350-1000. If the 787 and an A330neo were to roughly split the market post 2020, then RR would have a dominant position anyway in the 250 – 300 seat market place.

      For sure, Airbus might still go with 787-derived engines, but in the grand scheme of things, delaying EIS by a couple of years would not be the wisest course of action if the market share would be substantially increased with 8 percent more efficient engines. It partly depends, of course, on how they close the business deal with the Chinese. Perhaps adding a FAL in addition to a completion center in Tianjin for the A330 would garner a large order of both A330ceos and A330neos.

      Finally, I was not talking about an all new wing, but rather an upgrade to the centre wing box.


      • I don’t think RR follows the same path as GE in terms of exclusivity deals and I believe they prefer to hang better engines on as many airframes as possible. RR was willing to build the Advanced based engine for the 777X despite having exclusivity on the A351. They have also used XWB technologies to improve the the competing Trent 1000 engines for the 787-10 against the A359 despite have sole supplier status. There’s no reason to believe that they will not carry the Advance technologies over to the Trent 1000 to improve their competitive position against the GE engines. After all, GE will too improve the Genx with the GE9x technologies. If they are going to go the whole hog and put a brand new Advance engine on the A330, it would be a wasted opportunity if they don’t offer a bleedless version on the 787 as well as it would handily beat the Genx for sales. A lot more to be won this way than depending on just the A330 (and the A380neo if you want to throw that in as well).

        • Well, I mostly agree with what you’re saying. Thanks to the easier scalability of the three spool design over that of a two spool design, RR has had IMJ an advantage over Pratt an GE in their ability to offer custom built engines more easily to both Airbus and Boeing, and on as many platforms as possible. Hence, RR could very well offer a bleedless version of the Advanced engine for the 787 a decade hence. However, developing such an engine does not come for free and RR has already sunk a lot of resources into the Trent-1000 engine. Also, if they proceeded to offer such an engine for the 787 as a first mover, GE would be forced to respond in order to protect their market share on the 787. Hence, RR wouldn’t necessarily be in a better position than if they didn’t act first. Of course, if GE would go ahead and offer a GE9X-derivative engine for the 787, RR would follow. Now, the fact of the matter is that an A330neo using an Advance engine should still be able to compete quite nicely with a re-engined 787 using the same type of engine.

    • Keesje,

      I finally agree with you on this principle!

      And LHA, DL and other airlines will not wait at the risk toward the Boeing 787! …

  19. By delaying A330 NEO EIS a few year they halt the A330 line. If they have 300 A330s in the backlog, that is 2.5 years, early 2017. EIS 2020 requires selling another 300-350 A330 CEO’s at low/no margins or cutting production/ surrendering marketshare. Looking at the RR Advantage it is a highly ambitious/risky approach. I want to see that engine doing thrust reverse with its carbon fan on a dirty runway first. Where is the air for the fan coming from? And for the core engine powering the reversed fan? I hope from no place close to that runway. EIS 2023?

    Upgrading the center wingbox is no low hanging fruit IMO. Even tail structures and slight stretches are questionable in the time frame envisioned. They didn’t do it for the A320 NEO, which is a few years older then the A330.

    • Well, Boeing has seemingly the same problem with the transition from the 77W/77F to the 777X and nobody seems to think that’s a showstopper.

      Also, the various versions of the A330-300 should IMJ quite ably sell for the next few years. The market is there and Airbus great pricing flexibility on the product.

      As for the Advance engine, its composite fan blades will incorporate titanium-bonded leading and trailing edges.


      Airbus will have to strengthen the centre wing box for an A330neo. That means that the new loadings caused by the larger engine, nacelle and pylon require verification, modification, confirmation and certification of the conducted changes. Hence, the engineers have to take into account systems, preliminary and final design development, stress analysis of static loads fatigue and damage tolerances up to production support and certification. Since they will have to all this work anyway, it seems to me that it wouldn’t require too much extra effort to significantly increase the use of composites on the centre wing box. As for a composite empennage; we’re 6 years away from a possible EIS of an Advanced-powered A330neo. That’s two more years than the originally scheduled 4-year 787 development programme. So, time-wise, it should certainly be doable. It’s the ROI that would determine whether or not to go for such an upgrade. Furthermore, I’m not talking about doing anything to the vertical and horizontal stabilizers, only section 19 which is the empennage section.

      Sure, Airbus didn’t do it for the A320neo, but on single-aisle, short range aircraft extra structural weight incur less of a penalty on fuel consumption than what’s the case for longer ranged widebodies.

  20. OV-099,

    you fall in pathetic! This is not because Saj and I just saw it as necessarily mean that I read it. Actually my readings are limited on Airliners.net, Vero Venia and Leeham! But it seems that Saj say some very interesting things! it will do more reading for me …

    Unfortunately my schedule and my plans do not allow me not to open a blog, I was already done before in a Airbus Cheer Leader Forum in 2008-2010.

    I have the same opinions as Saj, well it’s going to voice anymore! Airbus will not launch the A330neo with RR Advance without being sure that Boeing and GE will move forward to the reengined 787! Airbus will play very big and too risky if the investment is little or no successful!

    • Yes, you and Saj make a great team.

      Perhaps though, you should limit your readings on the VV blog and use the time wasted there on other more fruitful things.

      As for an an A330neo being risky; well, it would probably cost Airbus an order of magnitude less than what was the case for Boeing with the very high risk, very late and budget-busting 787 programme.

      • VV & Saj have credibility. Nobody agrees with you on the A330neo!

        Anyway it will not change the situation is that the A330neo is not competitive and will have no value against the 787! …


        • I disagree. The A330 is way ahead of its time in technology. Boeing has just caught-up with the 787 of which much of it’s new technology does not work or is purely for show. A 2-4-2 configurated A330-200 Neo or A330-300 Neo would be economically competitive and would be much more comfortable aircrafts.
          IMHO, the secret should be rather the opposite of Boeing’s strategy to stretch economics by packing seats in larger aircrafts. As a passenger, I would rather fly in a 2-4-2 wide body than a 9 or 10 abreast aircraft. I’ve flown both airbus 2-4-2 wide bodies and the 777-300ER and can tell you that the airbus 2-4-2 planes are in a different stratosphere when it comes to comfort, interior craftsmanship, and feel.

          Whichever company provides an economical 8 abreast wide body plane for long haul flights will win the crown. In the end, passengers will dictate what feels best.

          It is also possible that an A330-200 Neo may make an 757 (I must admit an excellent and clever aircraft) replacement not very useful.

    • Well checklist’s posts don’t evaporate on VeroVenia. That doesn’t make anyone a Sancho Panza, but gives people the opportunity to tap into the realities of Airbus’ continuous deep troubles, that so many fail to recognize. Info and insights many here can benefit from.

      OV-099, I mostly agree on what is possible on a A330NEO. We just have a different opinion om what could become feasible and the importance of a 2018 time to market.

      I am not very worried about the A330NEO engine integration. Airbus integrated the Trent700, PW4000, CF6-80E1, CFM56-5, Trent500, PW1400 and even Trent900 on that spot, during the last 25 years. It’s a well known place from a FEM / Aerodynamic point of view. The A330/340 centerwingbox still has significant reserves left from the A330/340 FAL period. FEM calculations and shaving off metal on the right places IMO seems the low risk approach for the NEO.


      • Yes, we seem to mostly agree on this. 🙂

        As for the centre wing box, please do note the outboard engines on the A340 provide bending relief to the wing, wing-body join and centre wing box in such a way as to allow for a higher MTOW on the quad. Hence, the A333/A343 was originally designed with the A343 having 20 percent greater MTOW than the A333 and with the common wing not requiring extra strengthening for the A343 wing over that of the A333 wing. In fact, it was a pretty neat design, really!

        • The bending moment the center wingbox gets would be a function of the a/c’s weight+payload, minus wing+engine weight, irrespective of the number of engines. The centerwingbox “feels” the weight it passes on to the wing, without “knowing” if there’s 1 or 2 engines down the wingbox..

          The A340 also has a payload/runway advantage; 1 engine out at V1 vs the A330, 100 klbs vs 71k lbs left, less asymetric, which makes a payload (cargo) difference on long flights. Ask LH, VS, AF.

          • Center Wingbox sees moment_arm_
            i.e. L1 * 1 A330 engine weight
            ~ 1.20 cfm56-c equiv.
            or L1 * 1 A340 engine weight + L2 * 1 L340 engine weight
            ~ 3 cfm56-c equiv

            A340 CFM56-5C ~4,000kg ( surprised so heavy in relation to:)
            A330 Trent700 ~ 4,785kg

        • Wing bending relief for the original A340 is explained nicely here:

          The multi-role wing’s secret lies in the neat balance of bending moments (exerted on the fuselage by the wing) between the twin and four-engined versions. The A330 and A340 wing bending moments are within 1.5% of each other, allowing the two structures to be assembled in the same jigs.

          Because of bending relief from the weight of its outboard engines, the bending mo- ment of a four-engined aircraft is substantially lower than it is for a twin at the same maximum take-off weight. For the same fuselage weight, therefore, a twin needs a stronger, heavier wing than a quad.

          It follows that, for the same wing, the payload carried in the fuselage must be less for a twin than a four, which is exactly what has happened with the A330/A340: the latter carries about 20% more payload. This translates to about 30t of extra fuel, giving the A340 its long-range capability and requiring the addition of a centre-fuselage undercarriage leg. Design strength required was “only 1% higher than the A330”, says Jeff Jupp, BAe chief engineer, Airbus.


  21. Everybody:

    It’s time to stop the back-and-forth of the blogs of VV and Saj. This doesn’t nothing to contribute to the issues. Let’s move on.


  22. Here’s a news bit:
    According to aero.de (german only) American Airlines has cancelled 30 A321neo for delivery in 2021 und 2022 and changed those orders into options.
    According to wikipedia their original order was for 130 A321Neo + 280 options.

    That’s an amazing number of options.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *