Airbus A300-900neo Vs 980neo.
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
From: N/A
Airbus A300-900neo Vs 980neo.
Two question I can not find an answer too.
Maybe you can help.
1/ What is the difference between an A330-900neo and a A300-980neo?
2/ Is the 980neo also refered to as the -1000?
OK, three questions.
3/ Is the RR Trent 7000 the only engine option likely?
Thank you.
Maybe you can help.
1/ What is the difference between an A330-900neo and a A300-980neo?
2/ Is the 980neo also refered to as the -1000?
OK, three questions.
3/ Is the RR Trent 7000 the only engine option likely?
Thank you.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 17,729
Likes: 2,095
From: Reading, UK
Two question I can not find an answer too.
Maybe you can help.
1/ What is the difference between an A330-900neo and a A300-980neo?
2/ Is the 980neo also refered to as the -1000?
OK, three questions.
3/ Is the RR Trent 7000 the only engine option likely?
Thank you.
Maybe you can help.
1/ What is the difference between an A330-900neo and a A300-980neo?
2/ Is the 980neo also refered to as the -1000?
OK, three questions.
3/ Is the RR Trent 7000 the only engine option likely?
Thank you.
"A330-900" (neo) is the generic designation for the initial variant of the A330neo (cf A330-300, 747-400, etc).
The aircraft built and delivered will have designations, as with other Airbus aircraft, that are specific to the engine type - cf A320-212 (CFM), A320-232 (IAE), etc - where the second digit of the series designation indicates the engine family.
In the case of the A330neo, there is only one engine involved, the Trent 7000, and so all deliveries will have the same digit, which may well be an "8", although I haven't seen that reported anywhere. If that's the case, the aircraft will likely be certificated as A330-981N, A330-982N, etc, where the third digit indicates different weight options and the "N" is for Neo.
There has been no announcment of an A330-1000neo, as far as I'm aware.
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
From: N/A
Deagle.com, lists a A330-980 as a proposed further stretch of a A300-900 to accommodate more cargo with less range, at the request of DHL, Amazon and UPS.
My guess is a 980 is the cargo version, and a 1000 a passenger variant.
We’ll see
Last edited by button push ignored; 24th May 2018 at 04:32.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 17,729
Likes: 2,095
From: Reading, UK
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
From: N/A
My primary source was company based.
The deagel.com and Seattle Times etc, was secondary.
I believe the problem would be production capacity.
If there were a combined order from three airlines.
The factory can only produce one a month.
Divided by three airlines, that would be one every three months.
You can not implement a transition with those numbers.
Last edited by button push ignored; 24th May 2018 at 17:19.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 17,729
Likes: 2,095
From: Reading, UK
Going back to the original question, while there is lots of enthusiastic debate about a potential A330-1000 among the amateur plane designers on !!!!!!!!!!!!!! and similar, there seems to be relatively little talk about it on the industry analyst forums like Leeham.
I suspect that, with both Airbus and RR having designed the wing, engine, etc around the -800 (which is now effectively dead in the water) and the -900, a further stretch may turn out to be rather more challenging than the similar exercise was with the A350.
As for whether there will ever be a non-RR A330neo, I think that's as unlikely as a non-GE 777-300ER.
I suspect that, with both Airbus and RR having designed the wing, engine, etc around the -800 (which is now effectively dead in the water) and the -900, a further stretch may turn out to be rather more challenging than the similar exercise was with the A350.
As for whether there will ever be a non-RR A330neo, I think that's as unlikely as a non-GE 777-300ER.
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 634
Likes: 15
From: Europe
A300-980? Reviving the A300 platform is about as likely as me growing a third arm. And the -980 suffix doesn't follow any Airbus logic what so ever.
You might be talking about a possible development of the A330-800neo into a freighter, to the benefit of DHL, FedEx and the rest of the integrators. And there might very well have been overtures made in that direction. It is worth noticing, however, that not a single integrator has bought the present day offering -the A330-200F. Not one. DHL is currently in the proces of bringing on line converted A330-300s, of which they've bought less than 10.
What the market seem to want, is something a bit smaller than the A330 for short/medium sectors, and something rather big and long legged for the long-haul jobs. Hence the rather healthy revival of the 767F and continued success of the 777F. I can understand why Airbus would like to muscle in on that piece of the pie, but, the combined A330, 767 and 777 freighter orders over the last 5-10 years is but a small fraction of total widebody orders in the same time frame.
All together, hardly what I'd call a bourgeoning market.
You might be talking about a possible development of the A330-800neo into a freighter, to the benefit of DHL, FedEx and the rest of the integrators. And there might very well have been overtures made in that direction. It is worth noticing, however, that not a single integrator has bought the present day offering -the A330-200F. Not one. DHL is currently in the proces of bringing on line converted A330-300s, of which they've bought less than 10.
What the market seem to want, is something a bit smaller than the A330 for short/medium sectors, and something rather big and long legged for the long-haul jobs. Hence the rather healthy revival of the 767F and continued success of the 777F. I can understand why Airbus would like to muscle in on that piece of the pie, but, the combined A330, 767 and 777 freighter orders over the last 5-10 years is but a small fraction of total widebody orders in the same time frame.
All together, hardly what I'd call a bourgeoning market.
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
From: N/A
In the Air Cargo World, I look at all the MD11s, 767-200s, A300-600s, A330P2Fs, B747-400 and B747-400BCFs that will need replacements in the next five to fifteen years.
That a lot of heavy metal.
The fly in the ointment ‘in my opinion’ is the Boeing KC76, that has tied up production of the excellent B767-300.
If only the USAF has not bowed to political pressure and ordered what they wanted in the better suited A330. Then airlines would be free the order the Boeing. But that line is tied up.
United has asked for a second production line to be opened as they are finding out that the best replacement for an old B767 is another B767-300 with 400 cockpit.
But unlike the A330, a super stretch 767-400 is not a good idea.
For the same reason the KC76 is no good.
200 fuselage, 300 Wings, 400 tail and cockpit.
What a junkyard dog.
A B767 sits too low to the ground.
It hits the tail with too long a stretch, or a tail boom.
The A330-800 and 900 is too small to make an excellent freighter.
Cargo planes need volume, not load or range.
A 330-1000F (980?) may be suitable.
Yes I know a 980 doesn’t sound like Airbus logic.
But does a A300-622F4R?
Between Amazon, DHL and UPS I could imagine a joint order in the 175-200 range.
I can’t imagine FedEx being interested as they already have the B777.
All airlines, talk to all manufactures, all the time.
So this is nothing new.
I just heard something, and wondered if anybody had anything more concrete to add.
Maybe it’s all a negotiating tactic to get Boeing to lower the price of a 777MAXF.
Yes, I know it doesn’t exist yet, nor does a A330-1000.
This is a rumor network after all.
That a lot of heavy metal.
The fly in the ointment ‘in my opinion’ is the Boeing KC76, that has tied up production of the excellent B767-300.
If only the USAF has not bowed to political pressure and ordered what they wanted in the better suited A330. Then airlines would be free the order the Boeing. But that line is tied up.
United has asked for a second production line to be opened as they are finding out that the best replacement for an old B767 is another B767-300 with 400 cockpit.
But unlike the A330, a super stretch 767-400 is not a good idea.
For the same reason the KC76 is no good.
200 fuselage, 300 Wings, 400 tail and cockpit.
What a junkyard dog.
A B767 sits too low to the ground.
It hits the tail with too long a stretch, or a tail boom.
The A330-800 and 900 is too small to make an excellent freighter.
Cargo planes need volume, not load or range.
A 330-1000F (980?) may be suitable.
Yes I know a 980 doesn’t sound like Airbus logic.
But does a A300-622F4R?
Between Amazon, DHL and UPS I could imagine a joint order in the 175-200 range.
I can’t imagine FedEx being interested as they already have the B777.
All airlines, talk to all manufactures, all the time.
So this is nothing new.
I just heard something, and wondered if anybody had anything more concrete to add.
Maybe it’s all a negotiating tactic to get Boeing to lower the price of a 777MAXF.
Yes, I know it doesn’t exist yet, nor does a A330-1000.
This is a rumor network after all.
Last edited by button push ignored; 25th May 2018 at 01:46.
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 5,681
Likes: 3,344
From: Everett, WA
The fly in the ointment ‘in my opinion’ is the Boeing KC76, that has tied up production of the excellent B767-300.
If only the USAF has not bowed to political pressure and ordered what they wanted in the better suited A330. Then airlines would be free the order the Boeing. But that line is tied up.
If only the USAF has not bowed to political pressure and ordered what they wanted in the better suited A330. Then airlines would be free the order the Boeing. But that line is tied up.
The 767-400 flight deck is a non-starter - it's been OOP for 15 years. The rest of your post is similarly uninformed...
