AN aviation expert I am not, nor obviously am I privy to the “deal” that was struck with Airbus, but one of the main selling points of the A330 was its alleged superior fuel economy against similar aircraft.
Some interesting points on fuel economy come up with the A330 versus a competitor, the Boeing 767-400ER.
With exactly the same seating configurations and similar numbers of passengers, the 767-400ER has much better fuel economy.
It burns 4.25gallons/ mile at cruise, 0.0173 gallons/ passenger mile compared to 5.44 gallons/ mile, .0215 gallons/ passenger mile for the A330.
Considering the distances that Fiji Airways intends to fly its aircraft, this will make a significant cost difference.
If the 767 had been chosen this would have left Fiji Airways with an all-Boeing fleet, another major costing advantage.
Perhaps the lower range of the 767 was the determining factor.
ALLAN LOOSLEY
Tavua
Fiji Pensioners 
DR said:
So why not a Boeing 777 aircraft? Fuel efficiency is predominantly dependent on engine specification and to a smaller degree on airframe and aircraft size. And the B777 would carry more passengers and cargo than the measly capacity offered by the Airbus A330.
Rumours of a commission abound.
DR
Sadly you may be correct, Airbus has been infamous in the past for its slush fund, in fact one North American Prime Minister was a beneficiary some years ago. One should also ask why an airline with very limited capital does not lease these aircraft if we really NEED them. Clearly our exports of produce will suffer and the airline will need to fly two aircraft to LAX to cater for the number of passengers they currently seat on a Boeing 747. We think the administration has been sucked in by a fast talking high flying, make a fast buck individual.
Greybeard