Originally Posted by
winnipegrev
There are different A330 weights. The latest ones to come out of the factory are now 242T, Cathay's most capable are 235T. That is an hour's worth of fuel difference.
It seems like improvements can be made to improve MTOW.
Originally Posted by
KrazyTrain18
You lost your credibility when you stated you tend to avoid Airbus aircraft for overwater flights and that Airbus is misleading its customers.
It is never about my credibility, as Airbus is the one advertising it.
I simply pointed out that, which no one denied that.
Originally Posted by
KrazyTrain18
Besides the point however, the A330-300 simply cannot operate HKG-SEA or HKG-YVR with any shred of a payload, DL struggles on certain days with the A330-200 and has to block seats/hold cargo westbound.
When you add the "reality" element, everything can be read in anyone's favor as they see it.
When I could agree that A333 can't make the trip without payload reduction, the reality could be read as no payload reduction as there is not enough payload.
Originally Posted by
winnipegrev
CX also doesn't have centre tanks on their A333's which mean at maximum tank capacity + payload to bring it up to MTOW the aircraft would have an endurance to flame out of around 13 hours. Payload would likely need to be reduced to just above pax only to achieve that range at the 233 MTOW most of the fleet has, even the 235s.
Originally Posted by
KrazyTrain18
If an aircraft with more payload/distance capability is being pushed to its limits then you can be certain the A330-300 of which CXs don't have center tanks will not make it on any day minus a ludicrous tailwind both directions.
The center tank space is always there. The problem is if CX is willing to use it or not. If so, some modifications will have to be made.