Back to Squawk list

Most Advanced Airbus A330 Rolls Out of Paintshop in Delta Air Lines Livery

Just four months after entering the Final Assembly Line, and less than two months after its maiden flight, the first 242 tonne Maximum Take-Off Weight (MTOW) variant of the A330 rolled out of the paintshop in Toulouse, France in Delta Air Lines livery. ( Más...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

w1gba1 4
If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going!!!
themold 3
What a way to save weight and have a better useful ($$$$) load....Leave the engines off!
BUY BOEING! Come on Delta....
Doug Fehmel 3
Way to go Delta. Buy American.
honza nl 2
I reckon you write that on a China-made computer?
Doug Fehmel 1
Actually typed it on a Dell. Keyboard probably made in China, though.
Richard Rohrer 2
Sounds like the plane is done. Can it be complete without engines. Or did I miss something
mike SUT 2
Where does it mention anything about "complete"...why the hangup? The headline just says it rolled out of the paintshop in a new livery, the main body of the article just describes the aircraft...nowhere does it say it's "complete". No offense, but if you missed something it was that the article was saying it just rolled out of the paint shop in Delta livery.
mark cassidy cassidy 4
"Just four months after entering the Final Assembly Line, and less than two months after its maiden flight"

A Gimli Glider for Delta!?!?
SootBox 3
The most fuel efficient and quiet Scarebus ever.
Richard Rohrer 1
Like proper punctuations. Can it be complete with engines? Or did I miss something?
Engine-free design is where the increased economy comes from.
Richard Rohrer 2
Can it be complete without engines?
Doug Herman 3
Guys, we live in the digital age. Those are virtual, digital engines. They exist in software and exhaust ones and zeros.
joel wiley 1
It comes equipped with Emperor's new engines standard- only those qualified to do their jobs can see them.
Do I detect a distinct anti-Airbus community within this thread? If so, why is it that Airbus push Boeing to the limit in order to get sales?

How many Boeing airframes rely upon UK ( European origin ) Rolls Royce Engines for their new toys? How many European component builders supply Renton/Everett the plug ins, the windows and airframe essentials necessary to roll out a shiny new B787?

Frankly, it should never be a competition for sales and profit between the big two but co-operation in order to create the best possible aircraft for the job and for the comfort of and future bookings / sales revenue from passengers.

Embrear of Brasil, De Havilland of Canada, Sukhoi of Russia not to mention the newer builders from Asia, they create a segment aircraft for their specific needs.

Do Canadair build for China alone or for everyone with the ability to finance?

I am just curious why no US carrier has to date placed an order for the A380 whilst Emirates are 'Hoovering' up the production line and even planning to help produce a better aircraft to both add to and replace older models as and when necessary.

The big airports in the US receive the A380 willingly and I imagine they are sorry no US carrier is amongst them.

An A330 leaves a paint shop minus power plants, nothing unusual here in Europe, similar events occur in most if not all BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Mini, Maserati, Range Rover , Rolls Royce, Bentley, Skoda car plants, the cars are minus engines in order to prevent blemishes and offer a complete product for the customer.

Forgive me for being serious if you all were just being comedic but as a Brit, I feel irritated as much as you would if I were to trash Boeing in the same way!
Jakob Ludwig 3
None of the US airlines have purchased the A380 because they know there isn't a market for them. I mean come on, Airbus is thinking about cancelling the remaining A380s because of the lack of orders. They've been accepting orders since the mid to late 1990s, and they still haven't broke even on the project.
Now before I am accused of hating on Airbus, no US airline has ordered a 747-8i either. The US airlines know that there isn't a market for them. Boeing and Airbus have killed their own double-deckers with the 777 and A350, respectively. The double-decker is dead for all but cargo.
why not AD some graphics indicating this milestone !..just a thought .
It seems logical to remove engines for airframe painting, then reattach them for pre delivery work. Or am I incorrect?
skanks 1
JENNIFER: We're not trashing the "Bus", however when a designer depends on computers to fly the airplanes in lieu of teaching their pilots how precisely to fly the airplane, something is wrong here ! When the manufacturer makes it difficult for the pilot to take over when on auto pilot, something is wrong ! If you do not believe me, just look at the accident over the Atlantic - or how about the A-320 straight into the Med while on a test hop with 4 or 5 New Zealand flight engineers on board doing an acceptance flight. It took Airbus almost 5 years before it released the results of this major accident. There have been at least two more very similar incidents that did not result in accidents in the past 12 months when finally the crew was able to recover the aircraft. There are numerous other similar unreported incidents wherein the pilots had a difficult time regaining control from the computers? WHY . . . in a Boeing, the pilot always has control over the autopilot and thus retains full control of the aircraft. Incidentally, were you aware that at least 3 european nations are currently investigating going to "SINGLE PILOT" operations with the Airbus? How do you feel about that now, following the recent accident in the Alps? That's the day I will NOT get on any airliner, without two fully qualified crew members up front. Just think, 1-pilot in the cockpit - - and "That's all Folks!" Sure looks like they just proved the real reason for two pilots up front. NOW, all they need to do is provide a bathroom, or modify their rules when a pilot 'needs' to go to the "blue room"!

SK Skanks
I hear/understand your perspective but had you fully considered why Airbus or Boeing or even De Havilland or Embrear use all that computing capacity?

Airbus designed the wings so that the aircraft can tolerate forces that older fly by cable aircraft with modern wings cannot tolerate, they are just to heavy.

Carbon Fibre is lighter and thus are best served by computer assisted control surfaces that no pilot can manage, processing speeds have seen to it.

We shall see in good time whether the B787 keeps an impeccable record or God forbid it, another pilot goes 'native' and decides to trash many lives and a modern airliner even with all the technology safeguards that can be dreamt up.

One more, I respect your viewpoint, you have valid points to make.
skanks 2
THANKS JENNIFER, I too respect your viewpoint. I am quite familiar with carbon, it's benefits and it's failure modes. However, one incident comes to mind on the strength & design of the Airbus is the American Airlines catastrophic event coming out of KJFK many years ago,[A-300] wherein an almost full deflection of the rudder by the co-pilot resulted in a total vertical stabilizer failure and resulting major accident killing approximately 255 on board and 5 more on the ground. Although Airbus blamed American's training, it also was determined that the method of attaching the vertical stab should be modified/strengthened. It is only my opinion that since this was an early on Airbus [2001] that it should have had an "authority limiter" on the rudder, IF the plane was not able to sustain those loads at such a slow indicated airspeed [as all Boeings have had - even on the early 707's which went to reduced rudder authority at 250 KIAS!] All this being said, it is still confusing and difficult to understand why Airbus insists on taking the throttles and side stick out of the flying loop whence the aircraft is on autopilot.
I fully understand the light weight design philosophy of fly by wire,but removing the direct control input over-ride of the autopilot is dangerous! Ask the pilots of the Airbus that mowed the trees down All manufacturers have their problems of one sort or another . . just ask Lockheed! An outstanding explanation of Rudder Limiters is available on Pg 4, Table 1 of this web site:
or go to
Thanks, and hopefully the B787 will not have any more significant problems,
Thank you S.K, you mentioned the great 707 which reminds me of Patroni in the AIRPORT films, going beyond the limits because the aircraft was built like a tank. I just wonder if those new ultra modern jets can be treated in a similar way today. The 707 was on the runway stuck in you remember a couple of winters back at LHR a Virgin A340 got stuck ON the runway in snow and lamely sat there!

To be honest, I miss the great older types, solid and reliable even if modern engines made them expensive to operate today without engine retrofitting.
skanks 1
Guess that show's my age! I said I would never fly something that big and heavy [as the 707] but you learned to love it, and as history has shown, it was a GREAT plane....albeit a true TRUCK! Thanks - - let's all keep our fingers crossed for these "next" generation airliners...they've all had a rough start! sk
skanks 1
My apologies Jennifer, the web site I provided was in error for the IFALPA web site on rudder control - this should work:


¿No tienes cuenta? ¡Regístrate ahora (gratis) para acceder a prestaciones personalizadas, alertas de vuelos, y más!