Originally Posted by OneDayCloser

The 330, especially the 900, is a good medium haul international aircraft with great economics when used properly. The 200 has great range, but poor economics, like the short versions of most airframes. It's a niche machine.

The 900 issues are somewhat overblown in my opinion. Based on my experience in the aircraft (4 years and 3k hours) the issues most often come down to the following:

1) Using the aircraft on routes it's really not designed to do, although I've done TLV - JFK and BOS several times at max gross weight, full pax when very hot and been just fine. That route is probably around the expected limit of the airframe with full pax and any alternate fuel anyhow. I don't think Airbus engineered the A330 for US - Asia markets.
2) SLC - The limitation there was due to takeoffs with abnormal bleed configuration (bleeds not on engines for max performance) which created some downrange issues. This was removed over a year ago and no longer nearly as limiting in most cases, as far as I've seen.
3) Tailwind / high crosswind takeoffs - This is by far the most limiting factor I've seen that comes up most often and the one I will agree is a bit of a black eye on the airframe...even though its actually and engine limitation. The Rolls engines have a procedure that must be applied with tailwind takeoff or crosswind over 20 Knots. You must accelerate to 30 kts ground speed at 50% N1 before applying takeoff power with ANY tailwind, which can be an issue with some runways, especially hot and high, short, or contamination. Some airports we frequent routinely use runway configurations where tailwind takeoffs are the norm and these will be an issue for the 900, especially on long range routes / heavy weight departures. That said, SOME of this can be mitigated by the next;
4) Some of it is pilot induced - not understanding the WDR, specifically the ***Overweight*** indication for a runway doesn't mean the aircraft is actually overweight.......good numbers can be received via TOPR. I have witnessed this on multiple occasions, most often runway 25 in LIRF when pilots defer to using 16R with a delay when numbers for 25 are available via TOPR.

I understand others may have experiences where the 330 has been more limited, but that overwhelmingly hasn't been my experience when the aircraft is operated as designed, using all tools available on routes it is designed for.

Originally Posted by InThrustMeTrust

“@xJonNYC

So if you look at @onemileatatime.com piece on this, I believe he’s closest to what I would speculate.

A pretty sizable new order for -900 series aircraft.”

speculates we’re not done with WB orders. Additional 359 or 339 in the works? This guy spoke confidently about the 787-10 order months ago.

Originally Posted by Ripinpeace

As I said a week ago to “Friendly”pilot.. Delta isn’t done ordering WB’s and to fully expect another one. x60 787’s and x40 A350 order + another large Airbus order + the 80 new 359’s/330’s delivered between 2020-2025. Will be the largest the WB-paying fleet has ever been and be on par with UA’s and surpass them in WBA positions.. They will continue to greatly lag domestically and in revenue diversification.

Can’t wait to see 220+ 350/330/787 at Delta and the global expansion it brings. Can’t wait to hear more old guys to call the orders a carrot or that we’ll grow through “our partners”.

Originally Posted by Ripinpeace

As I said a week ago to “Friendly”pilot.. Delta isn’t done ordering WB’s and to fully expect another one. x60 787’s and x40 A350 order + another large Airbus order + the 80 new 359’s/330’s delivered between 2020-2025. Will be the largest the WB-paying fleet has ever been and be on par with UA’s and surpass them in WBA positions.. They will continue to greatly lag domestically and in revenue diversification.

Can’t wait to see 220+ 350/330/787 at Delta and the global expansion it brings. Can’t wait to hear more old guys to call the orders a carrot or that we’ll grow through “our partners”.

Originally Posted by Ripinpeace

As I said a week ago to “Friendly”pilot.. Delta isn’t done ordering WB’s and to fully expect another one. x60 787’s and x40 A350 order + another large Airbus order + the 80 new 359’s/330’s delivered between 2020-2025. Will be the largest the WB-paying fleet has ever been and be on par with UA’s and surpass them in WBA positions.. They will continue to greatly lag domestically and in revenue diversification.

Can’t wait to see 220+ 350/330/787 at Delta and the global expansion it brings. Can’t wait to hear more old guys to call the orders a carrot or that we’ll grow through “our partners”.

Originally Posted by OneDayCloser

The 330, especially the 900, is a good medium haul international aircraft with great economics when used properly. The 200 has great range, but poor economics, like the short versions of most airframes. It's a niche machine.

The 900 issues are somewhat overblown in my opinion. Based on my experience in the aircraft (4 years and 3k hours) the issues most often come down to the following:

1) Using the aircraft on routes it's really not designed to do, although I've done TLV - JFK and BOS several times at max gross weight, full pax when very hot and been just fine. That route is probably around the expected limit of the airframe with full pax and any alternate fuel anyhow. I don't think Airbus engineered the A330 for US - Asia markets.
2) SLC - The limitation there was due to takeoffs with abnormal bleed configuration (bleeds not on engines for max performance) which created some downrange issues. This was removed over a year ago and no longer nearly as limiting in most cases, as far as I've seen.
3) Tailwind / high crosswind takeoffs - This is by far the most limiting factor I've seen that comes up most often and the one I will agree is a bit of a black eye on the airframe...even though its actually and engine limitation. The Rolls engines have a procedure that must be applied with tailwind takeoff or crosswind over 20 Knots. You must accelerate to 30 kts ground speed at 50% N1 before applying takeoff power with ANY tailwind, which can be an issue with some runways, especially hot and high, short, or contamination. Some airports we frequent routinely use runway configurations where tailwind takeoffs are the norm and these will be an issue for the 900, especially on long range routes / heavy weight departures. That said, SOME of this can be mitigated by the next;
4) Some of it is pilot induced - not understanding the WDR, specifically the ***Overweight*** indication for a runway doesn't mean the aircraft is actually overweight.......good numbers can be received via TOPR. I have witnessed this on multiple occasions, most often runway 25 in LIRF when pilots defer to using 16R with a delay when numbers for 25 are available via TOPR.

I understand others may have experiences where the 330 has been more limited, but that overwhelmingly hasn't been my experience when the aircraft is operated as designed, using all tools available on routes it is designed for.

Originally Posted by m3113n1a1

Thanks for this. Interesting to read as someone who has never flown it. That 30kt at 50% limitation must increase takeoff distance quite a lot. What an unfortunate limitation!

Originally Posted by OneDayCloser

The 330, especially the 900, is a good medium haul international aircraft with great economics when used properly. The 200 has great range, but poor economics, like the short versions of most airframes. It's a niche machine.

The 900 issues are somewhat overblown in my opinion. Based on my experience in the aircraft (4 years and 3k hours) the issues most often come down to the following:

1) Using the aircraft on routes it's really not designed to do, although I've done TLV - JFK and BOS several times at max gross weight, full pax when very hot and been just fine. That route is probably around the expected limit of the airframe with full pax and any alternate fuel anyhow. I don't think Airbus engineered the A330 for US - Asia markets.
2) SLC - The limitation there was due to takeoffs with abnormal bleed configuration (bleeds not on engines for max performance) which created some downrange issues. This was removed over a year ago and no longer nearly as limiting in most cases, as far as I've seen.
3) Tailwind / high crosswind takeoffs - This is by far the most limiting factor I've seen that comes up most often and the one I will agree is a bit of a black eye on the airframe...even though its actually and engine limitation. The Rolls engines have a procedure that must be applied with tailwind takeoff or crosswind over 20 Knots. You must accelerate to 30 kts ground speed at 50% N1 before applying takeoff power with ANY tailwind, which can be an issue with some runways, especially hot and high, short, or contamination. Some airports we frequent routinely use runway configurations where tailwind takeoffs are the norm and these will be an issue for the 900, especially on long range routes / heavy weight departures. That said, SOME of this can be mitigated by the next;
4) Some of it is pilot induced - not understanding the WDR, specifically the ***Overweight*** indication for a runway doesn't mean the aircraft is actually overweight.......good numbers can be received via TOPR. I have witnessed this on multiple occasions, most often runway 25 in LIRF when pilots defer to using 16R with a delay when numbers for 25 are available via TOPR.

I understand others may have experiences where the 330 has been more limited, but that overwhelmingly hasn't been my experience when the aircraft is operated as designed, using all tools available on routes it is designed for.

Originally Posted by Hotel Kilo

Cool post. But irrelevant.

That's why we are ordering more 350s. We'll have to deal with the short comings of this airframe until we retire it. It will be limited to short range European destinations and maybe some SA. The good news is we got 'em pretty cheap.

Originally Posted by notEnuf

This sounds like the 350 has more universal usability. Is a 350 on a shorter route as costly as a 330 on a longer route?