Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5372476/

Topic: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-01-30 02:51:25 and read 45208 times.

NEW A330-300S
(S for planned improved version with sharklets and more, my addition  )

http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-...les-performances-de-son-a330-.html

According to the French business magazine La Tribune the Airbus enhancements plans for the 330 is only focusing on the A330-300, not the -200! It seems the planning is now more concrete, A has actively confirmed to the magazine that they want to add 400nm to the range by increasing MTOW to 240t + adding sharklets for the A330-300 only. They will also invest to try and keep the OEW to todays values by changing the portions of the airframe which were common between A340 and A330 to 330 parts only now that the 340 is out of the price-list. In this process they can save weight to compensate for the reinforcements to add the sharklets and increase the MTOW.


A330-300S FOR KILLING THE 787-10X
The article think the 300S is to replace the A340-300 and to compensate for delays to the 350-900 and -800. I don't think this is the primary aim, after the successful forcing of Boeing's hand with the A320neo this is the next brainchild of JL and now he wants to stop the 787-10X before its birth, he does not want the Airliners to catch on to the variant. A 6100nm A333 with an MSP of 51t will come pretty close to a projected 787-10X with a projected MSP of 54t (my estimate) and a spec range of 6850nm (B figure).

According to my back of the envelope sheet the 787-10X would burn 5.6t/hour and the 300S would reduce the 333 fuel burn of 6t/hr a bit by virtue of the new sharklets and perhaps another PIP from RR (don't be surprised to see RR announce this in the next months IMO    ). This is why they go to the bother of keeping the OEW at today's value, every kg the 300S has on the 10X will count in the argumentation.

If one compares the 787-10X with the 300S one can clearly seeing the killing pitch:

- available and you get what you see (for sure)

- lighter and therefore very competitive on the frequent midrange hops (under 10 hours)

- commonality with today's frame and therefore plenty of competition for the MX

- pilot and fleet commonality with today's range of Airbuses, not the least the 330


.....................................330-300S...........................787-10X
MTOW..............................340t...................................351t
OEW................................125t...................................131t
MSP...................................51t.....................................54t
Range nm@maxPax..........6100..................................6850



NOT FOCUSING LAUNCHED PROGRAMS
By not improving the A320-200 A is basically saying they don't go after frames which are launched (789) or in production with this move (788), it is all about influencing Bs 787-10X / 777-8/9 launch planning.

[Edited 2012-01-30 03:09:01]

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Ronaldo747
Posted 2012-01-30 03:04:42 and read 45141 times.

Well .... this is a confession of failure to the A350 XWB program and the big fear/panic of losing the A340.300 customers to the 787-10X.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: ba319-131
Posted 2012-01-30 03:09:40 and read 45062 times.

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 1):
this is a confession of failure to the A350 XWB program

- Given the current orders for the A350 I don't agree, however it is an interesting move by Airbus.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: par13del
Posted 2012-01-30 03:17:59 and read 44939 times.

So are we saying that a warmed over Airbus design can effectively kill a new clean sheet Boeing a/c but a warmed over Boeing a/c - 7778x / 9x has no chance against a clean sheet Airbus a/c - A350 -, unless I'm missing something, what exactly is the difference in principle between the two a/c other than the OEM?

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2012-01-30 03:25:22 and read 44812 times.

This is fun stuff. I think the days of being afraid of the plastic planes are over. The best of the current models are likely to be upgraded as far as possible...and there is definitely something to be said for the devil you know.

Sharklets, Al-li, engine PIP's, getting the 340 weight out...together can keep an already good plane competitive against future models.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: PM
Posted 2012-01-30 03:52:03 and read 44448 times.

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 1):
the big fear/panic of losing the A340.300 customers to the 787-10X.

One wonders how many A340s out there are yet to be replaced. They only built a little over a couple of hundred of them and many have already been 'replaced' on paper.

Looks like a rather smart move by Airbus, I'd say. Methinks we'll see the A333 flying and in production for a l-o-n-g time to come.   

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Daysleeper
Posted 2012-01-30 03:53:36 and read 44436 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 3):
So are we saying that a warmed over Airbus design can effectively kill a new clean sheet Boeing a/c but a warmed over Boeing a/c - 7778x / 9x has no chance against a clean sheet Airbus a/c - A350 -, unless I'm missing something, what exactly is the difference in principle between the two a/c other than the OEM?



Time is the difference. The A33S is going to be available years before the 787-10 so although it perhaps won’t be able to exactly match the 787’s performance those extra years of cost savings should make up for the short fall. The 77X EIS is estimated anywhere from 2017 to 2019, which doesn’t allow the same advantage, so it is going to have to match or better the A35J’s performance to effectively compete. Something that many of us doubt it will be able to do.

[Edited 2012-01-30 03:54:20]

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: columba
Posted 2012-01-30 04:19:23 and read 44095 times.

Uhmmm did not Airbus first try to fight the 787 with a "warmed" over A330 with new winglets and engines

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-01-30 04:20:22 and read 44063 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 3):
So are we saying that a warmed over Airbus design can effectively kill a new clean sheet Boeing a/c

Why must it always be kill here? It certainly isn't an requirement in the real world.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-01-30 04:41:48 and read 43817 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 8):
Why must it always be kill here? It certainly isn't an requirement in the real world.
JL has admitted that Airbus did not like the prospect of competing with a new Boeing SA frame around 2020 with the warmed over A320neo. Therefore their strategy was to force B into deciding for the MAX. Expect that the very aggressive deal that AA got was part of bringing B to that decision (and they succeeded    ).

As little as they wanted this to happen they do not want to have a light and optimized 787-10X acting alone in the midrange 300 pax market (if they do nothing for the 333 it will slowly die by then), they can not predict how much of the total 300-320 pax market it will get and thereby undermine the economics of the main part of 350 series.

It is very difficult to predict if the Airlines will stay put with a A350-900 fleet and use them for below and above 10 hours legs or if they will complement with a dedicated sub 10 hour frame like the -10X. Better try and force it not to be launched, thereby the word kill = not launched    .

It is like in matchracing, you just don't leave the other uncovered in any part of the game    .

[Edited 2012-01-30 04:42:19]

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-01-30 05:08:02 and read 43507 times.

The larger size of the 787-10X would still give it the CASM advantage. Also remember that by the time the 787-10X enters service both GE and RR will be better than planned SFC so even with another PiP, I don't see the Trent 700's / CF6-80's SFC being close to the Trent 1000's / GEnx's.

As with the A330-200 updates, this is Airbus being smart and selling what they can, while they can. As a long-term strategy, it will not prevent the 787 from eclipsing the A330.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2012-01-30 06:27:31 and read 42693 times.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 6):
The 77X EIS is estimated anywhere from 2017 to 2019, which doesn%u2019t allow the same advantage, so it is going to have to match or better the A35J%u2019s performance to effectively compete. Something that many of us doubt it will be able to do.

You may doubt it, but many others don't. How long do you think Airbus will take to bring this A-33S to EIS? They do have an awful lot on their engineering plate right now. It is taking Airbus 5 years just to bring in the A-320NEO, and the A-358 and A-3510 have been pushed back. Yhen there is still the engineers tied up with the A-380 and A-400 programs. Removing the common A-340 parts from the wing may not save much weight at all. It essentially saves the weight of a hard-point on the wing, that is about it. The A-333IGW is already a 240 tonne airplane, so that is, most likely, their starting point. It already has the RR Trent-772C-60 engines, GE CF-6-80E1/E2, or P&W PW-4170 engines. I just don't see any of the engine OEMs putting much more money into any of these engines, they all have better engines to offer.

RR has the B-787 engines developed and certified to the Trent-1000Z, with some 77,800 lbs of thrust, but these engines cannot be used on a new A-33S because they are not bleed air engines. Perhaps a clipped fan version of the Trent-977 is possible, or an upgraded, but clipped fan version of the GEnx-2B67 engine?

The B-7810 is aimed at the A-333 and B-772/E replacement market. The B-77X is aimed at the A-359 market. So this new A-33S will not compete with the B-77X, and Boeing has not fully defined or frozen the B-7810, yet. So the A-33S is aimed at a moving target.

Quoting columba (Reply 7):
Uhmmm did not Airbus first try to fight the 787 with a "warmed" over A330 with new winglets and engines

Yeap.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: JerseyFlyer
Posted 2012-01-30 06:46:01 and read 42465 times.

I think there is mileage in a low cost / low risk / early EIS upgrade like this. To protect short term revenue and to challenge Boeing in terms of competitor capability and of blocking (later) 7810 sales opportunities.

Although starting with the A333 there is no reason not to extend the changes to the A332 later if they sell well.

A333F anyone?

Article in English:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...ng-report/articleshow/11685137.cms

[Edited 2012-01-30 06:48:01]

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: BrianDromey
Posted 2012-01-30 06:52:30 and read 42357 times.

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 1):
Well .... this is a confession of failure to the A350 XWB program and the big fear/panic of losing the A340.300 customers to the 787-10X.

I don't think this is the case at all, for a number of reasons.

- The A350XWB is equivalent in seat count to the 777, kill the A330 and there is nothing to compete effectively with the 787. Sure the A358 will try, but it's too much aircraft for a lot of routes, particularly those 5-8 hour routes.
- Without some A330 sized aircraft there is a huge jump from the A321(±NEO) to the A358.
- The 333 is currently the aircraft to beat across the atlantic, for missions within it's range. Even the 787 does not have a clear advantage, certainly from Ireland/UK/France/Bennelux to the East Coast of the US, even the mid-west, florida and of course Canada. Obviously the 333 has significantly more volume to play with than the 788 and a smudge more than the -9.

There has long been speculation on this board that what was effectively the A350 Mk1 was still something Airbus could bring to market and I have certainly felt that there is a gap in the market for it. I think the 787 will be great across the pacific, but will see limited use over the Atlantic. I think an aircraft like this makes sense for carriers who already have large A330 fleets, particularly earlier, less capable -300s. Many of the big orders are still to be gained, LH, IAG and AF/KL, not to mention AA and UA 767 replacements are all to play for, I think an A333-S could certainly be competitive with the 787.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-01-30 07:05:03 and read 42183 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
How long do you think Airbus will take to bring this A-33S to EIS?

According to La Tribune Airbus says it will be available in 3-4 years.

IMO it can be introduced rather gradually, almost running improvements. Weight reductions are always welcome and the replacement of 340 parts can happen gradually, the biggest effort is the sharklets but there they now have the 320 experience and design to fall back on.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: airbazar
Posted 2012-01-30 07:07:23 and read 42155 times.

Quoting ferpe (Thread starter):
this is the next brainchild of JL and now he wants to stop the 787-10X before its birth, he does not want the Airliners to catch on to the variant.

If an airline already has a 788/789 fleet, It would be very difficult to see them order A330s not matter how good they may be.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: cosmofly
Posted 2012-01-30 07:29:11 and read 41919 times.

A333 production line can pump out 10 frames per month. How many 787-10 can Boeing produce while the -8 and -9 are selling like hot cakes? As long as Airbus can get close to the -10 performance, it will be very interesting. The A33S will sell very well and delay the migration to -10 much longer.

Can this be the signal to the end of the A358?

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: LHCVG
Posted 2012-01-30 07:42:51 and read 41589 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 8):
Why must it always be kill here? It certainly isn't an requirement in the real world.

In this case, I certainly don't think "kill" is a requirement for this new A330 variant. My take is that an attrition strategy is sufficient here - even if you don't kill the 787-10 outright, you can (if successful) siphon off enough orders that it makes the plane unprofitable for Boeing. So, Airbus can "win" if Boeing either a) decides to kill (or perhaps mothball, a la the above speculation about the ur-A350 version) the 787-10 altogether; or b) they still go forward with the 787-10, but it ends up being a boondoggle for them. I'm not saying Airbus has this in the bag, but it seems like a valid strategy, if the proposed modifications (how extensive will these new dedicated A330 parts mods be?) are simple and cost-effective enough for a quick EIS.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2012-01-30 07:51:49 and read 41349 times.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 17):
So, Airbus can "win" if Boeing either a) decides to kill (or perhaps mothball, a la the above speculation about the ur-A350 version) the 787-10 altogether; or b) they still go forward with the 787-10, but it ends up being a boondoggle for them.

I don't even see that as necessary. This is simply Airbus seeing that it will have nothing to compete with the 787-10 (or, for that matter, with the 787-9 on shorter missions). It won't be capable of "killing" any 787 variant, because the 787 products will still be superior. But it will compete much better than today's A333, and it's likely to prevent existing A330 operators from defecting to Boeing.

It may also be of interest to one or more of the remaining A350-800 customers, particularly those (like US and QR) who seem unlikely to use the aircraft on extremely long missions.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: LHCVG
Posted 2012-01-30 07:55:15 and read 41224 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 18):
and it's likely to prevent existing A330 operators from defecting to Boeing.

I think this is an underrated factor in these situations - as you say, stealing orders may not even be necessary.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-01-30 08:00:12 and read 41011 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 9):
It is like in matchracing, you just don't leave the other uncovered in any part of the game    .

There is support for saying neo killed NSA but I think pushed forward is more accurate. It is not as Airbus got the segment to themselves, just "easier" competition. Though I am on record that I think the NSA proposed for the 2020 time frame was not enough for Boeing to keep customers waiting and after EIS it would be a question about when Airbus could respond to settle who came out ahead.

I do not understand why Boeing should give up the segment just because Airbus upgrades the A330-300. If Airbus doesn't want to surrender that segment to Boeing then why should Boeing want to surrender it to Airbus?

I expect Boeing to look at this data and possibly tweak the 787-10X a bit again. But in the end we will have two models sharing the segment. How much for each will depend on profile and timing customers require.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: glideslope
Posted 2012-01-30 08:25:03 and read 40301 times.

Quoting columba (Reply 7):

Uhmmm did not Airbus first try to fight the 787 with a "warmed" over A330 with new winglets and engines

Umm, yes. This effort will have the same outcome.   

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: redflyer
Posted 2012-01-30 08:29:30 and read 40179 times.

Quoting columba (Reply 7):
Uhmmm did not Airbus first try to fight the 787 with a "warmed" over A330 with new winglets and engines

  
Sounds like the A350 Mk 1 reloaded.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 17):
My take is that an attrition strategy is sufficient here - even if you don't kill the 787-10 outright, you can (if successful) siphon off enough orders that it makes the plane unprofitable for Boeing. So, Airbus can "win" if Boeing either a) decides to kill

It doesn't have to necessarily be a 787-10 killer, it need only breath new life into the A330 to keep it going and turning a profit. A very smart business move by Airbus and I think it will eventually turn into their version of the 767 - long in the tooth (eventually) but still marching on.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: a380900
Posted 2012-01-30 08:35:13 and read 39979 times.

Why not put a new engine? Like the A380 engine? Isn't it in the right power range for such a big twin? They can even use the freighter higher nose gear for clearance!  

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: LHCVG
Posted 2012-01-30 08:53:08 and read 39439 times.

Quoting redflyer (Reply 22):
It doesn't have to necessarily be a 787-10 killer, it need only breath new life into the A330 to keep it going and turning a profit. A very smart business move by Airbus and I think it will eventually turn into their version of the 767 - long in the tooth (eventually) but still marching on.

I agree wholeheartedly - I was merely putting out there that Airbus has multiple "victory conditions" beyond the simple result of killing the Boeing plane. That said, I suspect this will turn into a new version of the 767-400 debate, but time will tell.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-01-30 10:23:11 and read 37501 times.

Quoting ferpe (Thread starter):
The article think the 300S is to replace the A340-300 and to compensate for delays to the 350-900 and -800. I don't think this is the primary aim

The aim is to squeeze some more life and revenue out of a quality but aging airframe with minimal investment.

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 1):
Well .... this is a confession of failure to the A350 XWB program and the big fear/panic of losing the A340.300 customers to the 787-10X.

It isn't anything like that. And Airbus knew fully that using one family to compete with two from Boeing means making some sacrifices on the extreme ends of the spectrum and improvements to the A330 are a very cheap way to mitigate some of that.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: neutronstar73
Posted 2012-01-30 10:33:29 and read 37337 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 3):

Because Airbus has very special magic science that Boeing doesn't know about.   Yeah I know, the logic on this board is curious....

I think JL is jumping the gun here..big time. He's effectively telling customers the A350-800 is dead on arrival, and he's caught without a product to compete with the 787. This A33S won't get very far and won't keep Boeing awake. I think Airbus may have gone a bridge too far, because this is a lot more to add to their strained resources, and people will ask the logical question: "isn't this the A350 you offered the first time?"

Don't think this will see a lot of traction.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: mariner
Posted 2012-01-30 10:39:17 and read 37594 times.

Quoting columba (Reply 7):
Uhmmm did not Airbus first try to fight the 787 with a "warmed" over A330 with new winglets and engines
Quoting redflyer (Reply 22):
Sounds like the A350 Mk 1 reloaded.

An aircraft that should have been built.  

mariner

[Edited 2012-01-30 10:48:37]

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2012-01-30 10:47:43 and read 37242 times.

Quoting ferpe (Thread starter):
A has actively confirmed to the magazine that they want to add 400nm to the range by increasing MTOW to 240t + adding sharklets for the A330-300 only.

Another question: what is the point of increasing MTOW on an A333?

The existing aircraft is fuel volume limited, not MTOW limited, on most intercontinental sectors. On shorter sectors, the aircraft is already capable of carrying a staggeringly heavy payload. Unless they're planning to put the A332/A343 center fuel tank onto the A333 -- something which would add empty weight -- then I'm not sure what increasing MTOW will accomplish.

My understanding is that this is why the last round of MTOW increases took the A332 to 238 t while only bringing the A333 to 235 t.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: EPA001
Posted 2012-01-30 10:53:34 and read 36947 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 25):
The aim is to squeeze some more life and revenue out of a quality but aging airframe with minimal investment.

If true, since this is all still quite speculative, I agree it is just that. How big the more revenue will be, and how much longer that life will be, only time will tell.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-01-30 10:55:29 and read 36897 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 28):
Unless they're planning to put the A332/A343 center fuel tank onto the A333 -- something which would add empty weight -- then I'm not sure what increasing MTOW will accomplish.

Good observation, might be just the thing they do given that they don't upgrade the -200. The tank is already there = center wingbox, what you need are the pumps and the piping/valving and the electronics that goes with it, but that might not weigh to much and gives the 300S a very high flexibility to fly many missions below what the 350 range can do. Fill it to 250 pax and you fly 6600nm, the range of the 787-10X practically.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-01-30 11:08:20 and read 36424 times.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 29):
. How big the more revenue will be, and how much longer that life will be, only time will tell.

It would be hard to ever know. If Airbus offers a slightly improved A330, all of the sudden the A350 becomes a better option for some airlines since they don't have to give up any efficiency on the lower end of the range spectrum. An A330/A350 combo could compete more effectively with a 787/777 combo than just the A350 alone.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: RoseFlyer
Posted 2012-01-30 11:15:06 and read 36185 times.

This is a very interesting proposal. I'd love to see more information on it. Personally I find it interesting how Airbus is working in the large twin category. They are taking on two Boeing models with a single airplane in the long term. There have been lots of threads on how the A350-1000 is measuring up to the 77W and now we are seeing threads on how the A330-300 is being marketed against the 787-10 instead of the A350-800.

In all honesty, I wonder what Airbus plans to get out of this. They likely think they can get a few more sales for the A333. Maybe there is a very vocal customer or few customers that might be interested in it and are proposing large enough orders for an enhanced A333 to be commercially viable. The fact that it is the A333 only and not A332 as well indicates that there might be a very specific customer they are targeting, because the A332 goes up well against the smaller 787s when measured on capacity alone.

If they have a customer interested and have a positive payback and enough resources to do this, I think it is a great idea. On the other hand, enhancing the A333 just so that they can kill off the 787-10 seems like odd gamesmanship and more an exercise in game theory than a legitimate attempt at a profitable airplane. I am guessing Airbus does not want the 787-10 launched, so they are trying to erode the market.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 28):
Another question: what is the point of increasing MTOW on an A333?

The existing aircraft is fuel volume limited, not MTOW limited, on most intercontinental sectors. On shorter sectors, the aircraft is already capable of carrying a staggeringly heavy payload. Unless they're planning to put the A332/A343 center fuel tank onto the A333 -- something which would add empty weight -- then I'm not sure what increasing MTOW will accomplish.

Any airplane that is fuel volume limited on most intercontinental sectors is a horrible design. Fuel volume is for all practical purposes far easier to add than MTOW. Add a bigger center tank, put fuel in the horizontal stabilizer, trade cargo volume for fuel etc for the customers that need the fuel. If they are going to spend money enhancing an airplane, adding fuel volume is low hanging fruit from a design perspective.

Also when I look at the airplane performance chart, the A330-300 does not hit fuel volume limited range until 5,500 nm, so unless I look at the charts wrong, it isn't fuel volume limited since no airline approaches that range. From what I understand of payload-range charts. The top line is Max Landing Weight/structural load Limit. The curve starts to go down and follows the MTOW as the plane trades fuel for payload. The second kink is where airplane hits max fuel capacity and any increases in range are from lowering takeoff weight.

MTOW however is huge for operators. It gives more range or cargo capability. While shorter routes operated within Asia where the A330-300 is very popular along with US-Europe don't approach those capabilities, higher MTOW can be very beneficial for long haul operations. That was the whole point of the A340. When the A330 and A340 were proposed, there were no engines available that gave a twin a high enough MTOW for long haul range. That's the reason for the A340. However with steady increases in MTOW, the A330-300 killed off what was left of the A340-300 market that had not been taken by the 777.

[Edited 2012-01-30 11:52:46]

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: motorhussy
Posted 2012-01-30 11:16:03 and read 36094 times.

Quoting redflyer (Reply 22):
Quoting columba (Reply 7):
Uhmmm did not Airbus first try to fight the 787 with a "warmed" over A330 with new winglets and engines


Sounds like the A350 Mk 1 reloaded.

Yes and hopefully Airbus will include some of the other advantages promised for the original A350 - like the increased internal cabin gauge and A380 style cabin enhancements.

Regards
MH

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: odwyerpw
Posted 2012-01-30 11:37:35 and read 35456 times.

It is an interesting development, because I thought that the A350-900 compared very favorably to the rumored 787-10X. The 900 variant is the first to be released, so it will enjoy many years of service before and PIP programs/improvements before EIS of the 787-10X.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-01-30 11:41:13 and read 35307 times.

Quoting odwyerpw (Reply 34):
It is an interesting development, because I thought that the A350-900 compared very favorably to the rumored 787-10X.

It would most likely give up some efficiency on shorter routes, but have a considerable payload-range advantage on the 787. It depends on the mission, but an improved A330 would allow Airbus to compete somewhat better for a bit more time on shorter flights than the A350 could in the near future.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Wsp
Posted 2012-01-30 11:53:52 and read 35015 times.

Quoting ferpe (Thread starter):
According to the French business magazine La Tribune the Airbus enhancements plans for the 330 is only focusing on the A330-300, not the -200!

...

By not improving the A320-200 A is basically saying they don't go after frames which are launched (789) or in production with this move (788), it is all about influencing Bs 787-10X / 777-8/9 launch planning.

This article
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...good-results-on-a320-tests-367002/

claims:

Quote:
and the airframer needed to analyse wing loading - particularly because it was also trying to raise the A330-200's maximum take-off weight to 240t.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2012-01-30 12:08:19 and read 34514 times.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 32):
Also when I look at the airplane performance chart, the A330-300 does not hit fuel volume limited range until 5,500 nm, so unless I look at the charts wrong, it isn't fuel volume limited since no airline approaches that range.

When you account for winds, reserves, etc., some A333 operators do approach that range. Asia-Oceania, U.S. West Coast-Japan, and Europe-U.S. West Coast routes come to mind.

But in any case, the fuel volume limitation is a major restriction on the A333's flexibility. It's the only widebody airliner I know of that is fuel volume limited, not weight limited, at a nominal passengers & bags payload. With a center tank, transpac and U.S. East Coast-Middle East routes could become an option. The question is whether operators would prefer to get that extra range, or would prefer not to add the empty weight of the tank and associated equipment.

[Edited 2012-01-30 12:10:17]

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-01-30 12:10:07 and read 34588 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 14):
According to La Tribune Airbus says it will be available in 3-4 years.

So will the 787-9. An aircraft with roughly identical passenger capacity to the A330-300, not insignificantly more cargo capacity, and the lift to move both anywhere an A330-300S can and a number of places an A330-300S cannot.

Boeing doesn't need the 787-10X to fight the A330-300(S). It just offers them even more competitive advantage.



Quoting mariner (Reply 27):
(The A350 Mk I is an) aircraft that should have been built.  

Alas, it should have been built four years ago, not four years hence. It's going to arrive just in time to be eclipsed by the 787-9, the 787-10X and A350-900. And the A350-800 itself will not be too far off.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2012-01-30 12:19:12 and read 34260 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 37):
But in any case, the fuel volume limitation is a major restriction on the A333's flexibility. It's the only widebody airliner I know of that is fuel volume limited, not weight limited, at a nominal passengers & bags payload.

I believe that the 789 will also be volume-limited.

It is interesting to me (and strains credulity a bit) that a 20yo design, with a few minor modifications, can compete effectively with a brand-new design made out of "magical" materials with a completely new systems architecture and brand-new engines.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 32):
However with steady increases in MTOW, the A330-300 killed off what was left of the A340-300 market that had not been taken by the 777.

And this is very true. As the A330 was continuously improved, it effectively replaced early-build 777-200ER models. It didn't have quite the oomph, but it did have better operating economics. SQ got rid of their old 772's and replaced them with A333's. I wonder that Boeing wasn't able to match these improvements with the 772.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Wsp
Posted 2012-01-30 12:20:45 and read 34163 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 38):
Alas, it should have been built four years ago, not four years hence. It's going to arrive just in time to be eclipsed by the 787-9, the 787-10X and A350-900. And the A350-800 itself will not be too far off.

This site has 7 years worth of speculation about the 787-10 and all the aircraft models it is going to eclipse. So far its primary way of destroying its competitors seems to be to wait for them to die of old age.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: tomcat
Posted 2012-01-30 12:30:52 and read 33796 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 38):
Quoting ferpe (Reply 14):
According to La Tribune Airbus says it will be available in 3-4 years.

So will the 787-9.

But what about comparing the earliest available delivery date if one places an order today? It could very well be that the A333S could be actually delivered a few years earlier than the 787-9, not to speak about the 787-10.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2012-01-30 12:37:59 and read 33594 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 39):
I believe that the 789 will also be volume-limited.

I you are referring to fuel or payload ?

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: ukoverlander
Posted 2012-01-30 12:40:53 and read 33542 times.

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 1):
Well .... this is a confession of failure to the A350 XWB program and the big fear/panic of losing the A340.300 customers to the 787-10X.

Is this really the most reasoned and deduced response that you can conjure up using the information available?   

They really should make pills for this stuff               

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: astuteman
Posted 2012-01-30 13:07:43 and read 32855 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 37):
But in any case, the fuel volume limitation is a major restriction on the A333's flexibility. It's the only widebody airliner I know of that is fuel volume limited, not weight limited, at a nominal passengers & bags payload

I think you'll find that both the 747-400 and (perhaps surprisingly), the 777-300ER fit into that category also, although at c. 7 200Nm and 7 800Nm for the fuel volume limited range respectively, they come very close to their nominal payload ranges.

Rgds

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2012-01-30 13:17:13 and read 32485 times.

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 1):
Well .... this is a confession of failure to the A350 XWB program and the big fear/panic of losing the A340.300 customers to the 787-10X.

No, just the A358, which looks like a dog. If you optimize for the A359, then do a simple shrink, not a reoptimized shrink, it's gonna be a dog.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2012-01-30 13:26:15 and read 32201 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 44):
I think you'll find that both the 747-400 and (perhaps surprisingly), the 777-300ER fit into that category also, although at c. 7 200Nm and 7 800Nm for the fuel volume limited range respectively, they come very close to their nominal payload ranges.

   Right you are, especially with the 747-400. I should have looked at it before making the claim.

But nothing else even comes close to being as hamstrung by lack of fuel capacity as the A333. Just how much empty weight would it add to give it the center tank? Airbus doesn't have to worry about kneecapping the A343 anymore.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: qfa787380
Posted 2012-01-30 13:40:39 and read 31782 times.

More problems/delays for the 350 and Airbus needs to get something out there with a satisfactory range/payload combination?
Some analysts, such as Bernstein, are estimating 2015 EIS for the 359. Then, if there are production ramp up issues, Airbus will neeed an alternative. Does anyone seriously think a 333S can "kill" the -10X??? Compete satisfactorily for a little while would be my estimation.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: redflyer
Posted 2012-01-30 13:49:59 and read 31550 times.

Quoting mariner (Reply 27):
Quoting redflyer (Reply 22):
Sounds like the A350 Mk 1 reloaded.

An aircraft that should have been built.

Indeed. I know some on this board (I think you were one of them) thought Airbus should have stuck to the A350 Mk 1 while everyone else (myself included) were saying Airbus would get creamed if they didn't go all-out with an all-plastic model. Amazing this thing has come full circle. If Airbus can pull it off they get the best of both.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: RoseFlyer
Posted 2012-01-30 13:58:32 and read 31333 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 44):
I think you'll find that both the 747-400 and (perhaps surprisingly), the 777-300ER fit into that category also, although at c. 7 200Nm and 7 800Nm for the fuel volume limited range respectively, they come very close to their nominal payload ranges.

Actually the ranges are identical to the nominal range that Boeing quotes. It's not a coincidence. The range that Boeing quotes is the full tanks & MTOW range (i.e. the second kink in the range payload chart). These ranges do not necessarily reflect typical operating conditions.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: ghifty
Posted 2012-01-30 13:59:56 and read 31413 times.

Quoting ferpe (Thread starter):
- available and you get what you see (for sure)

How is it available? It'll be at least 2-3 years before an A330-300"NG" will be rolling off the factory floors. The 787-10 doesn't have any orders (being not officially announced..) so it's just as "available."

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 1):

Well .... this is a confession of failure to the A350 XWB program and the big fear/panic of losing the A340.300 customers to the 787-10X.

How so? This is an interrim solution much like the 737MAX and A320NEO for Boeing and Airbus are temp. solutions until they can build better narrowbody aircraft.

Quoting columba (Reply 7):

Uhmmm did not Airbus first try to fight the 787 with a "warmed" over A330 with new winglets and engines

Yes and no? I think they intended to fight the 777... probably wrong.

Quoting cmf (Reply 8):
Why must it always be kill here? It certainly isn't an requirement in the real world.

+1,000,000

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 24):
I agree wholeheartedly - I was merely putting out there that Airbus has multiple "victory conditions" beyond the simple result of killing the Boeing plane. That said, I suspect this will turn into a new version of the 767-400 debate, but time will tell.

To be fair, the 767-400 faced much more radical changes than such an A330NG will.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: SSTeve
Posted 2012-01-30 14:01:47 and read 31322 times.

It is not getting re-engined, though, so how can you call it the A350 mk1?

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2012-01-30 14:02:28 and read 31283 times.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 42):

I you are referring to fuel or payload ?

Fuel, but I read that on this site, so don't take my post as gospel.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: mariner
Posted 2012-01-30 14:14:34 and read 30984 times.

Quoting redflyer (Reply 48):
I know some on this board (I think you were one of them) thought Airbus should have stuck to the A350 Mk 1 while everyone else (myself included) were saying Airbus would get creamed if they didn't go all-out with an all-plastic model.

Mostly, I thought the ferocious campaign against that aircraft was one of the more curious things I've seen in a long, long time and driven at least in part by what Richard Aboulafia now calls "the drug like rush of the 787."

Qantas admitted there was little to choose between the then A350 and the 787 and what the swung the deal was the sudden appearance of delivery slots (for the 787) in 2008. That didn't work out so well.

Airbus was culpable, of course. If then CEO Humbert had a decent pair of balls he might have given them all the finger, it had 200 orders at the time it was canned in favor of the XWB. But - I believe - he was out of his depth. Either that, or he was the Great Appeaser.

Still, not to dwell in the past:

Quoting redflyer (Reply 48):
Amazing this thing has come full circle. If Airbus can pull it off they get the best of both.

  

mariner

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: LAXDESI
Posted 2012-01-30 14:36:18 and read 30511 times.

The proposed A333S is more of a competitor to B789 than B787-10. One can expect B789 in 9-abreast to have 21-30 Y seats advantage over A333S.

General Specifications:
....................................B789.......................A333HGW
Fuselage Length..............206..........................209 feet
Fuselage Width.................18.9........................18.5
Cabin Length...................159..........................165.25
Cabin Width......................18............................17.33
Wingspan........................197..........................198
Wingarea.......................3501.........................3892 sq. feet
Seats(3 class)..................280....................280 (8-abreast Y),

List Price..........................$228......................$223 million

For a 4,000nm trip(at MTOW),

B789 burns about 2,000 gallons less fuel than A333HGW--about $6,000 lower fuel bill.
B789 has the potential to carry 29,000 lbs. additional cargo relative to A333HGW if not volume constrained--about $10,000 additional cargo revenue at 50% load factor

The above savings amount to nearly $9 million per year assuming 1.5 trips per day on average.

The operational benefits of B789 over A333HGW are worth more than $50 million to an operator over the life of an aircraft. It is hard to see Airbus discounting the A333 that much to make it attractive to airlines, and still make a profit.

The added capability of A33S is not going to change the analysis much. I don't see how A333S is going to compete with 787-10X, when it underperforms 789, an aircraft with more range and payload.

[Edited 2012-01-30 14:37:11]

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2012-01-30 14:39:55 and read 30398 times.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 54):
I don't see how A333S is going to compete with 787-10X, when it underperforms 789, an aircraft with more range and payload.

Earlier availability and discounts. As you say, that won't make the A333S into a better product than the 78J, all else equal. But it may be enough to tip the scales for operators who could integrate A333S into existing fleets without incurring any extra costs, particularly if those operators don't need the plane for long-haul over 6000 nm. LH and LX, I'm looking at you.

[Edited 2012-01-30 14:40:54]

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: bjorn14
Posted 2012-01-30 14:43:54 and read 30285 times.

Anybody know the status of the A359R?

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: aircellist
Posted 2012-01-30 14:56:49 and read 29979 times.

Quoting mariner (Reply 53):
the sudden appearance of delivery slots (for the 787) in 2008. That didn't work out so well.

This qualifies for the understatement of the season, at least...

Of course, hindsight... eh...

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: B6A322
Posted 2012-01-30 18:04:36 and read 27052 times.

What are we, selling cars now? I can see it now:
Well, Mr. Delta, you can buy the 2012 Boeing 787, or alternatively, you can get a 2013, thats right, two thousand thirteen A330 from us!

Nuts. Absolutely nuts.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-01-30 18:08:44 and read 27027 times.

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 56):
Anybody know the status of the A359R?

Just a conceptual model at the moment - and one I expect won't advance beyond that status.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: QF340500
Posted 2012-01-30 18:52:26 and read 26415 times.

The A330 keeps getting better and better!

Well, i think this plane will sell like hotcakes, given the problems B seems to have still with the 787 (which with no doubt is a great plane, but same as the A380, they cant deliver as fast as they would love to) and the more or less 1000 A330 which are sold today (as add on, replacement, enhancement etc.)

I love the A330, and especially the -300, it will make it easier for me to see more and more A340 leaving commercial flight.

Go on JL, sell as much of these beautiful birds (the A330-300S)!

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: PM
Posted 2012-01-30 20:25:47 and read 25283 times.

Quoting QF340500 (Reply 60):
the more or less 1000 A330 which are sold today

1,188!   

Interestingly, sales of the -300 have almost caught up with the -200: 554 compared to 572. Almost monthly (if you check the small print) a customer or two converts a -200 to a -300 and the larger orders in recent years have all been for the -300.

It seems highly likely that 2012 will be the year when sales of the -300 exceed those of the -200 (again).

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: thegeek
Posted 2012-01-30 21:35:45 and read 24451 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 28):

Another question: what is the point of increasing MTOW on an A333?

The existing aircraft is fuel volume limited,

Which does beg the question where the extra 400nm comes from. Extra tankage in the wings from remove A340 plumbing, centre tank, stab tank or just greater fuel efficiency. I don't think the extra range is what will sell the aircraft though, if it does indeed sell.

I note that the MSP goes from 45.9t to 51t. That's a huge increase if true. I don't doubt that the idea of this plan is to fly a lot of pax AND freight a relatively short distance (like SYD-PER) where its higher fuel burn won't matter quite as much.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 32):
The fact that it is the A333 only and not A332 as well

I think you will find these changes (if they happen) migrating to the A33F, without a doubt.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: rotating14
Posted 2012-01-30 21:56:57 and read 24229 times.

Quoting QF340500 (Reply 60):

To catch up to the 777 and 787 family of aircraft??    IMHO, the 330 looks great and does its job but the 787 is a much better aircraft on the merit of newer technology and better offerings(787-8,9 &10). Lest you forget that some of the orders that took place over the last 2 years for the 330-3 or 2 were PARTLY based on the fact that the 787 was still teething (kinda still is) and unavailable for airlines that needed them faster than the dreamliner could come to market.

This move by Airbus just proves the 350 is either not coming together as fast Airbus wants or customers are threatening to jump ship to the competitor.   

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-01-30 22:13:15 and read 24067 times.

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 63):
This move by Airbus just proves the 350 is either not coming together as fast Airbus wants or customers are threatening to jump ship to the competitor.

Jump ship to what? The 787 line is backed up for years basically as badly as the A350 line is. That's part of why we haven't seen a 787-10 launched already: Boeing already has orders for all of the 787s they'll be able to build for quite some time already.

The 777 shouldn't pose a threat the the A330 on the routes where they can compete either, since we've already seen A330s supplanting 777s on shorter routes.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: travelhound
Posted 2012-01-31 02:08:50 and read 21443 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 64):

Entry into service 2015 - 30 deliveries; 2016 - 60 deliveries; 2017 - 90 deliveries; 2018 - 120 deliveries; 2019 - 120 deliveries; 2020 - 120 deliveries.

With 550 sales the A350 is effectively sold out until 2020. For Airbus to consider the A333S you would have to think there would be at least 300 sales to justify the program. If I suppose such an aircraft would have a shelf life of fifteen years than it suggests Airbus won't have enough capacity to supply it's intended market over the next fifteen years.

But than again.......

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: farzan
Posted 2012-01-31 02:41:37 and read 21010 times.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 65):

Hard to understand why it would take orders for 300 frames to justify the program, if it is a relative "simple" upgrade why would that be the case?
A bit of topic, but how come that in the past most clean sheet planes never reached the 300 mark (except A+B) and were still profitable programs?

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: bjorn14
Posted 2012-01-31 02:52:35 and read 20835 times.

Pardon the ingnorance but does/will the 332 have sharklets?

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: travelhound
Posted 2012-01-31 02:57:14 and read 20794 times.

Quoting farzan (Reply 66):

Regardless if it is 300 sales or 100 sales, there has to be more to this than just the XWB isn't a proper replacement for the A330.

I suspect with the XWB having such a large spread and with the 900 & 1000 models targeting significant market segments, there might not be enough capacity in the XWB to meet demand!

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Daysleeper
Posted 2012-01-31 03:58:27 and read 20430 times.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 68):
Regardless if it is 300 sales or 100 sales, there has to be more to this than just the XWB isn't a proper replacement for the A330.

I've been giving some thought as to who will order the A33S, and as outlandish as it sounds I can see a fairly large order from Delta. They never ordered the 787 themselves and have as good as cancelled the NWA order they inherited by deferring it until the next decade. We also know that they are very happy with the A330s from Northwest and that they currently have over 20 767's that are over 20 years old. All this considered, I think it would make perfect sense for them.

Anyone else care to speculate who would order the A33S?

[Edited 2012-01-31 03:59:57]

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2012-01-31 04:02:02 and read 20466 times.

I've been enthusiastic about the A330. However, when the 789 hits production stride, It will face stiff competition. I see these improvements helping to keep the line open. I just do not see a long term line.

However, at 100+ frames per year, even a small extension of the A330 line is worth it. So I fail to see how the business case isn't in Airbus' favor *unless* they cannot start the engineering within 2 years. Others have proposed a phase in approach and that I agree with. With a small weight reduction, T700 PIP, and the sharklets, I see the extra 400nm of range.

Before I get beat up on my prediction of sales on somewhat short leases, realize the increase in payload will make these great freighter conversion frames.   

I also fail to see why the weight reductions won't make it into the A332/A332F. However, Airbus should focus on the sub 10 hour mission as the 787/A350 will be far more competitive on longer missions.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 54):
The added capability of A33S is not going to change the analysis much. I don't see how A333S is going to compete with 787-10X, when it underperforms 789, an aircraft with more range and payload.

It won't. But this could be a decent airframe for 5 to 7 year leases as 'placeholders' to customers as they wait for A359s or A350-10s. In particular, it would be attractive to the mid-east carriers. Specifically an excellent A332 and A345 replacement for EK. Could we finally see that order order for 30 A333s from them? But only as a placeholder on 5 to 7 year leases.

Quoting PM (Reply 61):
It seems highly likely that 2012 will be the year when sales of the -300 exceed those of the -200 (again).

Almost certain.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 54):
The above savings amount to nearly $9 million per year assuming 1.5 trips per day on average.

The operational benefits of B789 over A333HGW are worth more than $50 million to an operator over the life of an aircraft.

Almost certain this is a mid-term stopgap. However, it is a stopgap that should be extremely profitable.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: TaromA380
Posted 2012-01-31 04:31:32 and read 20307 times.

One day they will finally add new engines to the A330, I think this airframe will end it's life under the A350Mk.1 shape.
The R&D being basically already paid off with the A350Mk.1 proposal five years ago, it's too cheap not to be done.
It's not a coincidence that the A330 is slowly transforming in A350Mk.1.
The process is cheap for Airbus and of very low risk. They can stop the transformation at any moment they want, depending of evolution of things, without a whole program failure burden.
Airbus is going fishing on this specific market with free tools and unlimited time.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Chiad
Posted 2012-01-31 04:37:39 and read 20302 times.

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 1):
Well .... this is a confession of failure to the A350 XWB program and the big fear/panic of losing the A340.300 customers to the 787-10X.


Ridiculous!!! The A350 backlog is some 560 frames.
I suspect rather that Airbus has discovered so much more potential in the A330 that's easier reachable than first thought.

I think this Aircraft is exactly what Airbus needs at the moment.
It will be a reasonably good competitor against the B787 for a much cheaper cost and less development resources, while at the same time staying away from the A350 segment.

If launched (and later the A330-200S) Airbus will have a very competitive product line from 2017 covering everything above 100 seats.
Maybe there's a hole between the A350-1000 and A380-800.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2012-01-31 04:47:15 and read 20229 times.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 69):
They never ordered the 787 themselves and have as good as cancelled the NWA order they inherited by deferring it until the next decade.

Delta is actually quite bullish about the 787. They just have a strategy of limited capital expenditure, and so they are holding off on the 787 until the 767 fleet reaches the end of its useful life, which they believe is 30 years. (They are currently redoing the interiors of the entire 763ER fleet, and adding winglets.) If they felt the 787 was unlikely to succeed, they would have changed the order into one for 777s or 737s.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 69):
Anyone else care to speculate who would order the A33S?

I think it's a plane custom-made for LH, LX, and CX. If they had come out with this plan a few years ago, they also would have had a good shot at what became the SQ 787-9 order.

[Edited 2012-01-31 04:49:26]

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Daysleeper
Posted 2012-01-31 05:25:34 and read 20003 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 73):
Delta is actually quite bullish about the 787. They just have a strategy of limited capital expenditure, and so they are holding off on the 787 until the 767 fleet reaches the end of its useful life, which they believe is 30 years. (They are currently redoing the interiors of the entire 763ER fleet, and adding winglets.) If they felt the 787 was unlikely to succeed, they would have changed the order into one for 777s.

I’d say “bullish” is pushing it a little, but anyway most of the articles I’ve read are of the opinion that Delta considered it too small to be really of use to them so yeah, converting them to the 777 would be a logical choice. The problem with that however; is the same analysts speculate NWA paid less than 100m USD per frame for them, so there would be a very significant cost to converting them.

I just don’t see how they could predict their fleet requirements a decade in advance, I see the deferral as them keeping a “foot in the door” waiting perhaps for Boeing to release the 787-10 so they could convert the order and bring the delivery date forwards. But now the A33S has been announced, they have another option.

[Edited 2012-01-31 05:25:59]

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: JerseyFlyer
Posted 2012-01-31 05:30:20 and read 19953 times.

Quoting Chiad (Reply 72):
Maybe there's a hole between the A350-1000 and A380-800.

I think there will be potential for a further stretch of the 3510, given that the 3510-specific RR engines must have some capacity for growth, but maybe at the expense of some range.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: LHCVG
Posted 2012-01-31 07:34:42 and read 19573 times.

Quoting ghifty (Reply 50):
To be fair, the 767-400 faced much more radical changes than such an A330NG will.

True. I was simply referring to how the 764 debate is a flamefest between the "it was a shrewd business decision with low cost and potential upside" (and the potential for further orders from the USAF for the defunct E-10) and the "it was a failure/stupid idea since it sold so poorly" camps, with no real resolution.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: T8KE0FF
Posted 2012-01-31 08:17:52 and read 19454 times.

I love how Airbus are taking the Apple approach at naming their products! The iPhone 4S, the Airbus A330 S. Good stuff.

Anyway, I can't wait to see a A330 with sharklets!

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: neutronstar73
Posted 2012-01-31 08:27:17 and read 19388 times.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 69):

You are really pushing your luck into thinking that this miniscule upgrade to the A330 will get Delta to go all in and buy a bunch of them. That's quite ridiculous, as Delta won't saddle themselves with that aircraft when they can get much more capability and a better plane out of the 787. Plus, Delta is busy busy narrowbodies, and will comfortably wait for their time to buy in to the 787 or 777X or whatever the Boeing dudes call it.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: redflyer
Posted 2012-01-31 08:40:24 and read 19282 times.

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 78):
That's quite ridiculous, as Delta won't saddle themselves with that aircraft when they can get much more capability and a better plane out of the 787.

I don't think it's as ridiculous as it may sound. While I don't think it's probable, it certainly isn't far-fetched. If Airbus can roll the 33S out without delays then why wouldn't a carrier consider picking up a bunch of frames? The A330 should be a cash-cow for Airbus by now so they should have some pricing flexibility, which is to say they can sell the airplane cheap, still turn a profit, and make it more economical for a carrier like Delta to buy it rather than having to pay a premium for a state-of-the-art airframe and with a delivery slot far into the future.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2012-01-31 08:54:19 and read 19216 times.

Quoting redflyer (Reply 79):
If Airbus can roll the 33S out without delays then why wouldn't a carrier consider picking up a bunch of frames?

Because they would rather save capital and get more use out of their (soon) wingleted, re-interiored 763ER fleet. If they had wanted to replace those aircraft in the near term, they could easily have deferred Northwest's 787s to 2014 or 2016. Instead they chose to defer them to 2020, when the first 763ERs will be reaching the end of their useful service lives.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 74):
I’d say “bullish” is pushing it a little, but anyway most of the articles I’ve read are of the opinion that Delta considered it too small to be really of use to them so yeah, converting them to the 777 would be a logical choice.

On the contrary, what I've heard suggests that they are very excited about the 787 -- eventually -- as a 763 replacement. But they didn't need a 763 replacement in the short term in 2008 and 2009; they needed more large widebody capacity. So they ordered and received more 77Ls. They did not choose to convert their 787s to 77Ls, but to keep the 787s on order and defer them until the 763s started timing out.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 74):
I just don’t see how they could predict their fleet requirements a decade in advance

Around the edges, sure. But when you have 57 763ERs (possibly with a few more to come, if the price is right) timing out between 2020 and 2030, you know you will need a close replacement for at least some of them. An order for 18 787s, which could be converted to 787-9s if growth warrants it, is a good start.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-01-31 09:16:17 and read 19125 times.

If DL needs a plane larger than the 787-8, there is always the 787-9 and, eventually, the 787-10X. So while the A330-300S might be a very good fit for DL, DL does have other options around that general timeframe.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: motorhussy
Posted 2012-01-31 10:38:21 and read 18825 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 73):
Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 69):
Anyone else care to speculate who would order the A33S?

I think it's a plane custom-made for LH, LX, and CX. If they had come out with this plan a few years ago, they also would have had a good shot at what became the SQ 787-9 order.

Wish NZ would have the balls to dump their 789 orders. A fleet of 77W, A333s and A332HGW would be perfect for their longhaul fleet.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Daysleeper
Posted 2012-01-31 10:45:43 and read 18796 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 80):
On the contrary, what I've heard suggests that they are very excited about the 787

So excited they are willing to wait 10 years for them, it’s almost like being at a dinner party “wow, that was absolutely fantastic, the best thing I ever ate”, “well there’s some left, would you like some more” – “nah, well not right now. I wouldn’t want too much of a good thing” LOL.

Why does everyone have such a hard time accepting that Delta don’t like the 788 or 789 for that matter – they refused them. Yet they kept the NWA A330 fleet, something that a fair few on here said would never ever happen...

[Edited 2012-01-31 10:46:33]

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-01-31 10:54:15 and read 18731 times.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 65):
For Airbus to consider the A333S you would have to think there would be at least 300 sales to justify the program.

It would take far less than that. This program would be relatively cheap to the point that it would be worthwhile for only a few more sales.

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 78):
You are really pushing your luck into thinking that this miniscule upgrade to the A330 will get Delta to go all in and buy a bunch of them.

Taking a few improved A330-300s might not be such a bad idea for them. They could essentially remove the 777 from shorter routes entirely or add capacity on some A332 routes.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: iceberg210
Posted 2012-01-31 10:58:14 and read 18760 times.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 83):
Why does everyone have such a hard time accepting that Delta don’t like the 788 or 789 for that matter – they refused them. Yet they kept the NWA A330 fleet, something that a fair few on here said would never ever happen...

Because the A330's are paid for. Delta is BIG into keeping their capital investment under control. The reason they pushed out the 787 was cause they felt they could squeeze more out of their 767's. While I can see places where the A330S would work in people's fleets, I don't believe Delta is one of them. They are currently taking VERY long term looks at things, and I think that they'll slowly pick up 787's to replace the 767's as they find their way to the end of their useful life. The A330's in Delta's fleet will be around for sometime for the same reason. They aren't going to be replaced ASAP by any aircraft til much down the line, with the way Delta is fleet managing right now.

In terms of the A330S I'm very curious why they're saying this is a 78710 competitor, just like how Stitch pointed out, seems to me that its a 789 competitor. Having said that it'll probably do pretty well there against the 789 (at least in the short term) because after all when can you get a 789? Even the folks who have orders probably couldn't tell you exact dates still with the issues the 787 is facing, and even then, the backlog is huge. The A330S will find customers, a shrewd move by Airbus.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: LAXDESI
Posted 2012-01-31 11:00:47 and read 18754 times.

Quoting TaromA380 (Reply 71):
One day they will finally add new engines to the A330, I think this airframe will end it's life under the A350Mk.1 shape.
The R&D being basically already paid off with the A350Mk.1 proposal five years ago, it's too cheap not to be done.
It's not a coincidence that the A330 is slowly transforming in A350Mk.1.

Only the A332(MK.1 version) has a shot at competing against B788 over the long run as it sits at 240-250 seats(3 class marketing) efficiency dividing line between 8 and 9-abreast platform. Even then, the expected lower production and maintenance cost of B788 will put A332(MK.1) at a disadvantage.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2012-01-31 11:13:10 and read 18665 times.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 83):
Why does everyone have such a hard time accepting that Delta don’t like the 788 or 789 for that matter

Because it's not true.

NW needed the 788 immediately for widebody capacity expansion. With the DL merger, all of a sudden there were 57 763ERs and 21 764s to play with, and smaller widebodies weren't needed the same way.

If they didn't like the 787, then at merger time they could have converted the order to 777s (or to 737s for that matter). Then, later, they had another chance: they could have converted the order into part of the 737-900ER order. Instead, they kept the order throughout, and made separate orders for both 777s and 737s.

Quoting iceberg210 (Reply 85):
Because the A330's are paid for. Delta is BIG into keeping their capital investment under control. The reason they pushed out the 787 was cause they felt they could squeeze more out of their 767's.

   When the state of the widebody fleet justifies capital expenditure, DL will acquire more widebodies. It's overwhelmingly likely that most of those widebodies will be 787s; the only widebodies needing replacement in the near future are 763s and 744s, and the 787 is the best 763 replacement out there. The A333S will be a nice product. But it's not going to be so good that 787 customers will want to cancel for it.

[Edited 2012-01-31 11:14:17]

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2012-01-31 11:20:33 and read 18607 times.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 83):

Why does everyone have such a hard time accepting that Delta don’t like the 788 or 789 for that matter – they refused them. Yet they kept the NWA A330 fleet, something that a fair few on here said would never ever happen...

It doesn't surprise me at all. NW ordered the 787 as they were trying to expand nonstop service beyond just NRT from the US. Their only airplane that could reach Asia from their hubs was the 747-400, which is not ideal for flying to Asia from DTW since it is so large. The 787 would have been a perfect fit. The A330s were great for the direct routes from the US west coast where NW didn't have the feed of its main hubs.

When DL comes in, they have a fleet of 777s which is the perfect plane for many of the NW routes. The need for the 787 went away almost overnight. DL on the other hand was able to take good use of A330s on routes where they didn't need the 777 range.

As far as ordering the A330 S, I don't see it as any more likely than more 777 orders. It all depends on what DL wants to do with capacity. The A330 is a great plane, but DL's 767s aren't necessarily in need of replacement right now. Some are over 20 years old, but the vast majority were delivered between 1997 and 2002 and have more life left in them. From their current fleet purchases it appears that DL is far more interested in its narrowbody fleet. DL operates the oldest 757s with many over 20 years old compared to its competition and also quite a McDonnell Douglas narrowbodies that are getting high in cycles. Their large narrowbody order seems to be where their capital is going now. By the time they get back to widebodies, I'd expect it to be the 787, A350 or 777x.

Where I see the A330S going is to an airline that is looking for expansion or is an airline that has a lot of capital and maintains new fleets like CX, SQ, EK, LH, etc.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2012-01-31 13:25:57 and read 18198 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 52):
Fuel, but I read that on this site, so don't take my post as gospel.

I have been playing around in PIANO X to get some idea of the fuel useage difference between the 788, 789 and 7810 on the assumption that each variant is 10t heavier than the other, the aerodynamic characteristics are the same and engine SFC is the same. Probably unlikely but ...based on a 5500nm sector, each hauling the same payload , max. fuel load was 57.643t.; 61.458t and 64.949t respectively . Cruise fuel burn per hour was 4357.4t; 4669.9t and 4941.4t respectively.
The 788 in the worst case scenario only requires a load equal to 80% of the tankerage available so it would seem to me that the extra 20% or just over 20t that is available should work fine for the 789 assuming the 7% spread between the two is consistent up the payload/ range curve.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Glareskin
Posted 2012-01-31 16:33:52 and read 17684 times.

I think it is a really good idea. We are talking about an interim competitor for the 787 until the A358 (if ever) will become available. Don't forget that the A350XWB line is not competing with the 787 but is bigger. It will probably keep most A330 operators on board and will be available in a short time. What would be the effect of new engines? Will it be really competitive with the 789 or even be better?
It would be great if one of the expert could give some insights here. Let's take the available A380 engine as an example.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-01-31 16:46:07 and read 17706 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 3):
So are we saying that a warmed over Airbus design can effectively kill a new clean sheet Boeing a/c but a warmed over Boeing a/c - 7778x / 9x has no chance against a clean sheet Airbus a/c - A350 -, unless I'm missing something, what exactly is the difference in principle between the two a/c other than the OEM?

This upgrade is nothing about "killing" anything from Boeing, it is about getting follow on orders from the existing A330/A340 customer base.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
The larger size of the 787-10X would still give it the CASM advantage.

True

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
Also remember that by the time the 787-10X enters service both GE and RR will be better than planned SFC so even with another PiP, I don't see the Trent 700's / CF6-80's SFC being close to the Trent 1000's / GEnx's.

I would expect engine upgrades being available for the A330, the number of engines in the pool makes it worthwhile for the engine manufacturers. For example RR has already sold a number of the EP retrofit kits to industry.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):

As with the A330-200 updates, this is Airbus being smart and selling what they can, while they can. As a long-term strategy, it will not prevent the 787 from eclipsing the A330.

That is true, the more A330s Airbus is able to sell, increases its pool of aircraft it sells its long term spares to, this is one of the big cash flow streams for manufacturers.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
They do have an awful lot on their engineering plate right now. It is taking Airbus 5 years just to bring in the A-320NEO, and the A-358 and A-3510 have been pushed back

The big push is over on most things except for the A358. And it maybe the A358 engineering that is leading to this development. Need to keep in mind that Airbus already did a fair bit of development work for the original A350, the fuselage work they did would still be there.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
Yhen there is still the engineers tied up with the A-380 and A-400 programs.

Different engineers.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
The A-333IGW is already a 240 tonne airplane,

Incorrect

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
So the A-33S is aimed at a moving target.

No, it is aimed at the existing customer base offering them a known airframe, with a known delivery timeframe.

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 26):
He's effectively telling customers the A350-800 is dead on arrival, and he's caught without a product to compete with the 787.

The A358 is a ultra long haul aircraft, it is not designed for routes of 2-4000 nm, it is designed for longer sectors. If this upgrade of the A330 can improve on its efficiency on sectors below 10 hours, it would allow Airbus to optimise the A358 as being the choice aircraft for long thin routes.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 28):
The existing aircraft is fuel volume limited, not MTOW limited, on most intercontinental sectors.

No true in my experience, need to start doing sectors in excess of 10 hours for that to be a factor. We have operated the A333 HKG-AKL-HKG before. That sector was MTOW limited.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 59):

Just a conceptual model at the moment - and one I expect won't advance beyond that status.

I disagree, the A359R and A359F will be very similar in many ways.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 70):

I also fail to see why the weight reductions won't make it into the A332/A332F. However, Airbus should focus on the sub 10 hour mission as the 787/A350 will be far more competitive on longer missions.

They will make its way onto the A332/A332F IMHO.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: PM
Posted 2012-01-31 17:43:07 and read 17550 times.

Quoting T8KE0FF (Reply 77):
I love how Airbus are taking the Apple approach at naming their products! The iPhone 4S, the Airbus A330 S.

Just to be clear, The 'S' is not from Airbus but from our friend, ferpe:

Quoting ferpe (Thread starter):
(S for planned improved version with sharklets and more, my addition   )
Quoting zeke (Reply 91):
This upgrade is nothing about "killing" anything from Boeing, it is about getting follow on orders from the existing A330/A340 customer base.

Correct. Please note that the article quoted by the OP makes no mention of the 787-10X. Again, that was speculation by ferpe.

(Not that there's anything we can do now to stop "Airbus are launching the 'S' to kill the 787-10" becoming an A.Net "fact"...     )

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-01-31 17:48:28 and read 17518 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 91):
I disagree, the A359R and A359F will be very similar in many ways.

True. And the cost to develop the freighter will effectively cover the R model, as well, so Airbus might as well offer it.

I am inclined to think, however, that the 259t TOW "A350-800R" will be the model of choice for ULR operations, which seem to work only for premium travel. SQ, for example, should comfortably be able to fit about 80 Business Class seats in an A350-800R. TG could also move to an ~80-seat all-Business premium cabin on the A350-800R for their LAX and OSL flights (and bring back JFK? Or EWR?).

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2012-01-31 22:02:51 and read 17044 times.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 54):
General Specifications:
....................................B789.......................A333HGW
Fuselage Length..............206..........................209 feet
Fuselage Width.................18.9........................18.5
Cabin Length...................159..........................165.25
Cabin Width......................18............................17.33
Wingspan........................197..........................198
Wingarea.......................3501.........................3892 sq. feet
Seats(3 class)..................280....................280 (8-abreast Y),

List Price..........................$228......................$223 million
Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 54):
For a 4,000nm trip(at MTOW),

B789 burns about 2,000 gallons less fuel than A333HGW--about $6,000 lower fuel bill.
B789 has the potential to carry 29,000 lbs. additional cargo relative to A333HGW if not volume constrained--about $10,000 additional cargo revenue at 50% load factor

The above savings amount to nearly $9 million per year assuming 1.5 trips per day on average.

The operational benefits of B789 over A333HGW are worth more than $50 million to an operator over the life of an aircraft. It is hard to see Airbus discounting the A333 that much to make it attractive to airlines, and still make a profit.



Nice summary Laxdesi. No problem with the technical stuff (accepting different operators will have varying missions) but the acquisition price of the 333S relative to the 789 could easily eclipse the savings you have outlined. Boeing have publicly indicated that (given the appalling state of 787 program finances) they will not be offering significant discounts on any future 787 frames - they have to get their ROI somehow. If you want to place a 788/9 order now you will not only have to wait a long time for a delivery slot you will be paying much more than the launch customers paid. Airbus on the other hand is in a superb position to offer significant discounts on any 330S, the R&D will be minimal (some already covered by 350 mk1). Airbus have been doing this with the existing 330's for some time now. Given the reduced finance costs along with the time value of money I think the 330S could be very appealing - particularly for existing 330 and 767 operators who dont hold 787 orders.

Price can be just as formidable a weapon as the technical specs to beat the competition. If airlines want an aircraft with 789 capabilities or they already operate the 788 then the 330S probably wont appeal. That still leaves a massive market amongst existing 330/767 operators. Neither will the 330S "kill" the 787-10 but it certainly would provide healthy competition where airlines operate 330's and no 787's .

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 86):
Even then, the expected lower production and maintenance cost of B788 will put A332(MK.1) at a disadvantage.



The current cost of producing a 788 is around $200M so there is a long way to go to get to those low frame costs promised in the original hype when the type was launched. If Boeing cant reach 10 frames per month then they (low costs) may never be realised. The 330 is a mature production line - don't know the cost of producing a 330 but previous deep discounting suggests it is way below the list price.

Given all the problems Boeing has in reaching planned production rates along with the likelihood that the 350 program may also have some issues then later this decade there could easily be a similar situation to the narrow body market where manufacturers will struggle to meet the demand. This will work well for any upgraded 330.


Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: LAXDESI
Posted 2012-01-31 22:45:02 and read 16979 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 94):
The current cost of producing a 788 is around $200M so there is a long way to go to get to those low frame costs promised in the original hype when the type was launched. If Boeing cant reach 10 frames per month then they (low costs) may never be realised. The 330 is a mature production line - don't know the cost of producing a 330 but previous deep discounting suggests it is way below the list price.

I don't have any idea as to the variable cost of building a 789 in the future, but I suspect it will be less than A333S. I am ignoring all R&D costs of 787 program as they are sunk costs at this point. What matters is the cost of manufacturing B789 versus A333S in a few years(ignoring R&D sunk costs).

Availability and fleet commonality will be a factor for few years, but not for long.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-02-01 00:07:30 and read 16753 times.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 95):

One cannot look at either airframe ignoring overheads. For the A330 they will still need to pay royalties on each airframe, and on the 787 the development partners will be looking at recouping their costs.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-02-01 00:18:41 and read 16690 times.

Quoting PM (Reply 92):
Just to be clear, The 'S' is not from Airbus but from our friend, ferpe:

Quoting ferpe (Thread starter):
(S for planned improved version with sharklets and more, my addition )

Thanks PM, thought I had to step in and clarify this, however as a working name at A.net community I think it has some charm  .

Quoting PM (Reply 92):

Quoting zeke (Reply 91):
This upgrade is nothing about "killing" anything from Boeing, it is about getting follow on orders from the existing A330/A340 customer base.

Correct. Please note that the article quoted by the OP makes no mention of the 787-10X. Again, that was speculation by ferpe.

Absolutely, this was based on that the article positively stated that the 332 was not part of the upgrade program. As IMO Boeing is not 100% convinced they should go for the 787-10X in its sub 7000nm config (in such a case they would have launched it by now) me think A wants to help them in this thinking.

Of course it is about selling more to the installed base and complement the 350 series but I also think this closes the niche for the 787-10X substantially for many carriers.


The key question strategically will be:

- will the market allow for variants of sub and more then 10 hour DA frames in the future?

This is the key question for B and A in the DA segment IMO (every true subtype (ER and non ER) bring many problems in fleetplanning, ref 77W killing of all other variants of the 777).

[Edited 2012-02-01 00:20:49]

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2012-02-01 00:27:19 and read 16662 times.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 95):
I am ignoring all R&D costs of 787 program as they are sunk costs at this point.

The R&D costs of the 787 program ($15-20B) may be sunk but they need to be recouped and until that occurs they will have a significant bearing on the sale price of any 787.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 95):
Availability and fleet commonality will be a factor for few years, but not for long.

Fleet commonality should be an issue for as long as there are airlines out there with large fleets of 330's. Availability will depend on just how quick B and A can clear their backlogs.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 95):
I don't have any idea as to the variable cost of building a 789 in the future, but I suspect it will be less than A333S.

Can you give any reasons for your optimism given the current poor state of the 787 program.
The 330 uses established and proven production processes - not appropriate descriptors for the 787.


Regards,
StickShaker

[Edited 2012-02-01 01:26:52]

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Daysleeper
Posted 2012-02-01 02:44:38 and read 16285 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 94):
I think the 330S could be very appealing - particularly for existing 330 and 767 operators who dont hold 787 orders.

I thought the same.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 95):
I don't have any idea as to the variable cost of building a 789 in the future, but I suspect it will be less than A333S

I seriously doubt that, the first few frames have cost an estimated 400 million each to produce and the average cost for the first 45 frames made is going to be a staggering $310 million, that’s going to result in around a $200 million loss per frame! This figure is obviously going to come down significantly and the latest frames in production are estimated to have cost $250 million each - still significantly more than they have been sold for.

The A330 is always going to be both cheaper to buy, and cheaper to produce as Boeing simply cannot afford to discount the 787, if anything it’s going to require price increases to try and recoup the $26 billion over spend ($32b spent, on a program supposed to cost $5.7b). It’s going to be years and hundreds more orders before Boeing will come anywhere close to breaking even – if indeed they ever do.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2012-02-01 03:28:54 and read 16113 times.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 99):
The A330 is always going to be both cheaper to buy, and cheaper to produce as Boeing simply cannot afford to discount the 787

  

The key driver of aircraft purchases in recent years has been fuel efficiency, driven by the massive rise in oil prices which peaked at $147/barrel in 2008. These high oil prices were accompanied by cheap and abundant credit which led to a frenzy of replacing older aircraft with newer fuel efficient frames no matter what the cost - it didn't matter when the cost of capital (credit) was cheap.

Today we have a credit constrained environment where the cost of capital is much higher (and still increasing) and much harder to obtain. Fuel prices are relatively static at around $100/barrel.
This effectively changes the equation in relation to fleet renewal strategies where the cost and availability of capital could be the key driver rather than the cost of fuel (or at least as significant as fuel costs). The widebody market is quite different to the narrowbody market where LCC's will roll over their fleets every few years to obtain better fuel efficiencies - the massive sales success of the 320Neo and 737Max are testament to this.

For the sub 4000nm widebody market there are no real game-changers out there - just marginal improvements in SFC which come at a considerable cost. All of the new programs from A and B (788/9 350) are optimised for long haul rather than medium haul. Even the 787-10 (which is not yet fully defined as Boeing seems unsure as to which role it should fill) will probably have very compelling CASM but that might not be sufficient to woe an existing 330 operator away from any 330S or equivalent which will come at a much cheaper price.

The 330S wont "kill" the 787-10 but neither will the 787-10 (or 789) "kill' the 330S.
The scarcity and cost of capital in coming years combined with the lack of any real game changer in the sub 4000nm widebody market would have to work strongly in favor of any 330S or equivalent. This is before one considers all the benefits and savings of fleet commonality.

I think the 330 is going to be around for a quite a while.


Regards,
StickShaker

[Edited 2012-02-01 03:44:07]

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-02-01 04:27:48 and read 15917 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 98):
The R&D costs of the 787 program ($15-20B) may be sunk but they need to be recouped and until that occurs they will have a significant bearing on the sale price of any 787.

Why?

You charge as much as you can and as long as it is more than production cost and more than you can make by switching customers to a different model you keep going. Hopefully it will be enough to pay for upgrades and new models.

The idea that sunk cost must be recouped by the models where the money was spent is counterproductive. Some projects will fail and you need to be able to handle it.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-02-01 05:03:15 and read 15872 times.

We should not forget that the income stream for Boeing from a 787 does not stop when the airframe is delivered to the customer. They don't need to make it up just on the initial sale. (And for the record, this applies to the other OEMs, as well.)



And as to the 787's and A350's suitability to regional missions, those new, big wings and new, low-SFC engines are going to bring benefits on those stage lengths, as well. And let us nor forget that airlines were the ones who pushed those customers to develop those models around an 8000nm nominal range. They're greater size, along with better aerodynamics and engines, will almost assuredly make them the option with the lowest CASM not just in the current environment, but the future environment, as well.




And as to credit, airlines don't seem to be having issues securing access to it considering 2011's orders and delivery total for al the OEMs.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: JerseyFlyer
Posted 2012-02-01 05:04:50 and read 15852 times.

The A330S proposal is enabled at least in part by the closing of A340 production, as the common wing can now be better-optimised for 2 engines only. Hence the withdrawal of the A340 from the market should be seen as a necessary precursor to offering the A330S.

There is a well-thought through business strategy behind the A330S proposal, it is more than merely opportunistic - I think it has legs.

[Edited 2012-02-01 05:06:49]

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-02-01 05:40:56 and read 15704 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 102):
And as to the 787's and A350's suitability to regional missions, those new, big wings and new, low-SFC engines are going to bring benefits on those stage lengths, as well.

That is exactly what I mean with the 787-10X being such a hard decision for Boeing, is there a true sub 10 hour frame DA market any longer? Will to many who has this need buy a A350-900 instead that also can cover the long hauls?

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2012-02-01 05:53:02 and read 15639 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 104):
That is exactly what I mean with the 787-10X being such a hard decision for Boeing, is there a true sub 10 hour frame DA market any longer? Will to many who has this need buy a A350-900 instead that also can cover the long hauls?

The 787-10 should be useful up to about 12 hours, albeit with reduced cargo capacity above 9-10 hours. That is a huge market. The enormous US and European TATL operations, all Middle East flights except the Americas and Oceania, nearly all Asian regional flights, and a few of the shorter TPAC routes will fit. It would surprise me if everyone with operations in those categories buys only heavier long-haul aircraft, because there are far more 8-12 hour flights than 12+ hour flights.

The A330-300 is a profit machine for almost everyone who operates it because of its super-low CASM. The 787-10 should have the same advantage, with a little bit more range flexibility. I will be shocked if Boeing doesn't build it; I think they just have to get production settled and the 787-9 out the door first.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Daysleeper
Posted 2012-02-01 05:53:56 and read 15651 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 101):
The idea that sunk cost must be recouped by the models where the money was spent is counterproductive. Some projects will fail and you need to be able to handle it.

Do you realise the figures involved? Its not millions they are going to lose, or even billions. It’s 10’s of billions.

From this excellent flight global article we can learn that between 2004 and 2006 Boeing charged anywhere from $65.7 million to $85.5 million per 788 (frame only) meaning that there will be at least 300 frames in the backlog at this price. As I posted above, the first 45 frames are going to cost on average $310 million to produce and the current frames going through production that won’t require expensive re-work are still going to cost $250 million to make.

Even if we look at this in the most positive way and assume they will be able to reduce the production cost by half. At $125 million per frame they still stand to loose between $12 and $18 billion dollars!   

What has to be abundantly clear from this, is to stand any chance of making money from the 787 Boeing has to keep the sales price high – And that’s what will make the A330 a very attractive alternative for many airlines.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2012-02-01 06:39:18 and read 15425 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 102):
And as to the 787's and A350's suitability to regional missions, those new, big wings and new, low-SFC engines are going to bring benefits on those stage lengths, as well

But they are not optimised for those stage lengths and the relative benefits are not game changing over the 330. They also come at considerable cost - as to be expected for technology that is some 20 years newer.

Any long haul airliner is carrying a lot of unnecessary structure & weight when performing regional missions - they (350 & 787) may still exceed the specs of the current 330 (and future 330S) due to newer technology but the question is if the performance delta justifies the extra cost. Its a performance vs cost equation where the equilibrium will move according to several parameters such as SFC, cost of capital and a host of others.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 102):
And as to credit, airlines don't seem to be having issues securing access to it considering 2011's orders and delivery total for al the OEMs.

Lets re-visit that one in 6 or 12 months in light of how well the EU has handled their current financial crisis. I'm not suggesting that Armageddon is just around the corner but it is well reported in the current financial media that the cost of capital is increasing. That said I do admire your optimism Stitch - I hope your right on this one.


Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2012-02-01 06:40:56 and read 15408 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 100):
Fuel prices are relatively static at around $100/barrel.
This effectively changes the equation in relation to fleet renewal strategies where the cost and availability of capital could be the key driver rather than the cost of fuel (or at least as significant as fuel costs). T

The price of crude does not reflect the cost of jet fuel . Essentially in recent times the crack spread appears to have no firm relationship to the price of crude. The IATA Fuel price thread for Jan. 20th 2012 shows Jet A at $US1018 t. up 15.4 % in one year and 4.9% in one month. It is forecasting that fuel cost for 2012 will be $32bn more than 2011.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Wsp
Posted 2012-02-01 06:56:32 and read 15366 times.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 106):
As I posted above, the first 45 frames are going to cost on average $310 million to produce and the current frames going through production that won’t require expensive re-work are still going to cost $250 million to make.

What is the source for these numbers? They sound like someone took the cost overruns and penalty payments i.e. money that Boeing already spent and added it as cost to these first copies.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Daysleeper
Posted 2012-02-01 07:05:35 and read 15329 times.

Quoting Wsp (Reply 109):

What is the source for these numbers? They sound like someone took the cost overruns and penalty payments i.e. money that Boeing already spent and added it as cost to these first copies.

I got that figure from The Seattle Times which does tend to show most things Boeing in a positive light, however they state their source was Barclays Capital and there are a fair few other publications with the same figures so I see no reason to doubt them.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-02-01 07:16:35 and read 15255 times.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 106):
Do you realise the figures involved? Its not millions they are going to lose, or even billions. It’s 10’s of billions.

Yes I do. Do you realize that the amounts do not matter? The problem is the same if it is one million, 1 billion or any other amount.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 106):
What has to be abundantly clear from this, is to stand any chance of making money from the 787 Boeing has to keep the sales price high

No. To make money Boeing need customers to buy them. How many depends on how much they spent, how much over production cost they can charge and time.

Customers do not care how much Boeing spent. They only care about how much it is worth to them. If customers think it is worth 100 then Boeing will lose the sale if they insist on 120. They will also lose the millions in aftermarket sale each frame generates.

So if Boeing's production cost is 90 and the maximum the customer will pay is 100 then it is better for Boeing to take the 100 plus the aftermarket profits than lose the sale and stand with the full original R&D plus all the overage.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: LHCVG
Posted 2012-02-01 07:47:43 and read 15150 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 107):
Any long haul airliner is carrying a lot of unnecessary structure & weight when performing regional missions - they (350 & 787) may still exceed the specs of the current 330 (and future 330S) due to newer technology but the question is if the performance delta justifies the extra cost. Its a performance vs cost equation where the equilibrium will move according to several parameters such as SFC, cost of capital and a host of others.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this exactly what made the A330-300 a success in the first place? Something along the lines of the 777 (especially the 77W) essentially killing the A340, but the improved A330-300 eventually made itself a better alternative to a 77A or 77E on similar routes due to lighter weight and lower CASM.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Daysleeper
Posted 2012-02-01 08:13:20 and read 15052 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 111):
No. To make money Boeing need customers to buy them. How many depends on how much they spent, how much over production cost they can charge and time.

Customers do not care how much Boeing spent. They only care about how much it is worth to them. If customers think it is worth 100 then Boeing will lose the sale if they insist on 120. They will also lose the millions in aftermarket sale each frame generates.

So if Boeing's production cost is 90 and the maximum the customer will pay is 100 then it is better for Boeing to take the 100 plus the aftermarket profits than lose the sale and stand with the full original R&D plus all the overage.

So your essentially saying Boeing should just accept the fact the 787 is a failure and make the best of a bad situation. Fair enough.

But still, even if you do that, there is no getting away from the fact the production cost is significantly higher than that of the A330. Airbus can afford to offer big discounts to offset any extra fuel costs and still make a healthy profit.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2012-02-01 08:44:28 and read 15014 times.

Quoting PM (Reply 92):
Not that there's anything we can do now to stop "Airbus are launching the 'S' to kill the 787-10" becoming an A.Net "fact"...

   So true.  
Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 95):
Availability and fleet commonality will be a factor for few years, but not for long.

Agreed. But the more that Airbus is able to make the A333S competitive, the greater the number of examples they'll sell. And thus the larger the freighter fleet they can support.   

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 99):
The A330 is always going to be both cheaper to buy, and cheaper to produce

That I agree with.

Quoting cmf (Reply 101):
The idea that sunk cost must be recouped by the models where the money was spent is counterproductive. Some projects will fail and you need to be able to handle it.

   It doesn't matter if it is $1 or a trillion dollars... the money is spent. Demanding it back is counterproductive. The product is priced based on the cost of production and demand. Sunk costs have nothing to do with the equation.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 102):
We should not forget that the income stream for Boeing from a 787 does not stop when the airframe is delivered to the customer. They don't need to make it up just on the initial sale. (And for the record, this applies to the other OEMs, as well.)

That is key. Boeing isn't going to make up $200million USD per frame. But it is a nice economy of scale thing:
1. The more frames in services, the more support revenue for Boeing.
2. The more frames in service, the lower the cost per frame to support each frame...

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 106):
Do you realise the figures involved? Its not millions they are going to lose, or even billions. It’s 10’s of billions.

It could be a trillion dollars and it wouldn't matter. Sunk costs should be called 'lost money.' That cash is already gone. For example, I sold my last car for 8% of what I bought it for. That car also consumed a large amount of cash to keep it maintained in excellent condition. That doesn't matter, when I required a larger vehicle, the market set the resale value.

If Boeing is silly enough to try and price in the sunk costs, they'll find the competition is:
1. The 777, which has paid off its sunk costs. This includes used 77Es.
2. The A359, which Airbus will have to price to sell.
3. The large fleet of existing A332/A333 aircraft.
4. New build A333S (or even improved A332 models, which will happen).

Airbus is trying to make option #4 attractive to more airlines by improving the performance of the A333.
A 789 is only worth, per post 54, only $50 million more than an A333S for sales price. If the current list price of a 789 is $228Million, Boeing will still discount to $180 million. Perhaps they'll discount all the way to $160 million. They have no choice as last I looked (I'm going from memory), it costs airbus less than $130 million to produce an A330. Airbus makes a profit supporting airframes in service, so for volume customers, it is worth selling A333S at cost or at a small profit. This means Boeing will never receive more than $200 million for a 789 (from a volume customer, which most will be).

The more Boeing tries to raise 789 prices, the better competing aircraft look (including 77Ws, 748Is, A388s, A359s, A333Ss, etc.)

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 113):
But still, even if you do that, there is no getting away from the fact the production cost is significantly higher than that of the A330. Airbus can afford to offer big discounts to offset any extra fuel costs and still make a healthy profit.

I agree with your statement, but you also have to include discounting for lower payload in the A333. However, the conclusion is the same. Airbus is still able to sell A330s at a profit. The more Airbus is able to improve the A333, the better that model will sell.

Note: I exclude the A332 from this discussion as the even lower payload will make it tough for that aircraft to compete with the the 789 at range. IMHO, the A330 still has a niche, but is going to loose the above 6000nm segments to the A359/789. With sharklets, a small weight reduction, and another T700 PIP, that means A333S model A330s will be the only passenger variant to sell in volume. Oh, there will still be some A332 sales... But we're talking about an airframe that ships 100+ units per year and needs to keep that volume to drive down the cost per airframe. I doubt there will be a hundred A332s sold in the future. Between the A333S and A332F, Airbus should be able to sell 500 to a thousand more examples.   

Now if Pratt would only improve their engine... Sigh...

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: InsideMan
Posted 2012-02-01 08:54:41 and read 14916 times.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 95):
I don't have any idea as to the variable cost of building a 789 in the future, but I suspect it will be less than A333S.

if you no idea, how to you come to this suspicion?
I highly doubt this, since the A350 will cost more in production than the A330 simply because of the cost of carbonfiber. Why should it be different for the 787?

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Wsp
Posted 2012-02-01 09:50:54 and read 14664 times.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 110):
I got that figure from The Seattle Times which does tend to show most things Boeing in a positive light, however they state their source was Barclays Capital and there are a fair few other publications with the same figures so I see no reason to doubt them.

The question is not whether the numbers are in doubt but rather what they mean. You believe they give the production cost for future aircraft. In reality they were derived from expenses that Boeing has already paid for and then extrapolated to future aircraft.

These are the actual numbers:
http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/financial/balsheet.html

This is what they mean (p.59):
http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices...nualreport/57_NCFS_BOEING_04AR.pdf

Quote:
The excess or actual costs over the amount reported as cost of sales is presented as “deferred production costs,” which are included in inventory along with unamortized tooling costs.

This is the analyst in question asking for details on this subject:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3024...arnings-call-transcript?part=qanda

Quote:
Carter Copeland - Barclays Capital, Research Division

So the $9.7 billion in deferred, you said it covered 40-some-odd airplanes. If you were to look at the early units in that block of airplanes versus the later units in terms of, like, which -- where they were produced, what sort of differential in terms of the contribution to that $9.7 billion is there if I were to compare unit 3 to unit 45? Is it double, is it 1/2? How much more cost is in those early ones than the late ones?

James A. Bell

Clearly, the earlier airplanes were more costly because they were built more outside of the production process. And as we move through time and the assembly completes and some supply chain and the process starts to work as it was designed to work, the cost will go down. I don't know if it's 2x or 3x. But clearly, the earlier planes are a lot more expensive. Now the deferred production cost also is not just for the airplanes that are in there. It's was -- all the airplanes are -- well, not just the ones that were completed, but the one that was delivered also was in there as well. But obviously more expensive early on, get better over time.

Emphasis mine. I read that to mean that you can not actually do what the analyst did and extrapolate the future figures from these quarterly cost overruns. It also contradicts his figures, if $310m is the actual cost and is 3x the originally planned production cost as Bell implies then Boeing would have planned to manufacture for $100m per piece while at the same time selling hundreds of copies far below that price.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: LAXDESI
Posted 2012-02-01 10:28:41 and read 14571 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 114):
It could be a trillion dollars and it wouldn't matter. Sunk costs should be called 'lost money.'

  

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 114):
If the current list price of a 789 is $228Million, Boeing will still discount to $180 million. Perhaps they'll discount all the way to $160 million. They have no choice as last I looked (I'm going from memory), it costs airbus less than $130 million to produce an A330. Airbus makes a profit supporting airframes in service, so for volume customers, it is worth selling A333S at cost or at a small profit.

Thanks for A330 production cost numbers. Ignoring sunk R&D costs, how much would it cost to produce B789? Doesn't CFRP cut down on overall production cost?

Didn't Boeing sell B788 so cheap at launch because it expected it to cost less to manufacture than A332?

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Daysleeper
Posted 2012-02-01 10:34:34 and read 14518 times.

Quoting Wsp (Reply 116):
The question is not whether the numbers are in doubt but rather what they mean. You believe they give the production cost for future aircraft. In reality they were derived from expenses that Boeing has already paid for and then extrapolated to future aircraft.

So simply put your saying that the figures for the first 45 frames includes a 9.7 billion “deferred” cost?

Quoting Wsp (Reply 116):
Clearly, the earlier airplanes were more costly because they were built more outside of the production process. And as we move through time and the assembly completes and some supply chain and the process starts to work as it was designed to work, the cost will go down. I don't know if it's 2x or 3x. But clearly, the earlier planes are a lot more expensive.

This is to be expected and makes perfect sense.

Quoting Wsp (Reply 116):
Now the deferred production cost also is not just for the airplanes that are in there. It's was -- all the airplanes are -- well, not just the ones that were completed, but the one that was delivered also was in there as well. But obviously more expensive early on, get better over time.

I can't make no sense of this. Other than the 9.7 billion defered cost is included in the figures for the first 45 frames as I stated above. Is that the case?

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: LAXDESI
Posted 2012-02-01 10:49:02 and read 14470 times.

Quoting Wsp (Reply 116):
So the $9.7 billion in deferred, you said it covered 40-some-odd airplanes. If you were to look at the early units in that block of airplanes versus the later units in terms of, like, which -- where they were produced, what sort of differential in terms of the contribution to that $9.7 billion is there if I were to compare unit 3 to unit 45? Is it double, is it 1/2? How much more cost is in those early ones than the late ones?

Thanks for these links. Going by the numbers above, the first 45 planes have a charge of about $215 million ($9,700 mil/ 45).

Quoting Wsp (Reply 116):
if $310m is the actual cost and is 3x the originally planned production cost as Bell implies then Boeing would have planned to manufacture for $100m per piece while at the same time selling hundreds of copies far below that price.

IMO, the $310 recognised charge for B788 includes both the $215 million deferred charge and additional actual production costs due to tons of rework on early planes.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: LHCVG
Posted 2012-02-01 10:54:17 and read 14423 times.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 118):
Quoting Wsp (Reply 116):
Clearly, the earlier airplanes were more costly because they were built more outside of the production process. And as we move through time and the assembly completes and some supply chain and the process starts to work as it was designed to work, the cost will go down. I don't know if it's 2x or 3x. But clearly, the earlier planes are a lot more expensive.

This is to be expected and makes perfect sense.

So which ends up being the larger savings - ramping up production to an economical level, or the actual number of frames produced by the end of production for that aircraft?

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: iceberg210
Posted 2012-02-01 11:53:01 and read 14231 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 114):
Now if Pratt would only improve their engine... Sigh...

IF the A330S does come to fruition I'd think Pratt would be by far and away the engine manufacture with the most to gain out of making improvements. With GE and RR, you're already on the 787, 77W, A350, so for the widebodies you're pretty well covered, while Pratt's only toehold is in the A330, and the 767. (Yes technically on the 777, but I don't expect any 772ER's or 773's sold anytime soon). It'd be interesting if Pratt took their A330 offering and tailored it to the shorter (relatively) mission profiles that the A330S will partake in. If so Pratt could carve themselves a niche with the A330S that will keep them in the widebody segment with not a whole lot of investment (I would imagine refining and targeting a current engine would be less capital intensive than a clean sheet design).

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: LHCVG
Posted 2012-02-01 12:14:26 and read 14116 times.

Quoting iceberg210 (Reply 121):
IF the A330S does come to fruition I'd think Pratt would be by far and away the engine manufacture with the most to gain out of making improvements. With GE and RR, you're already on the 787, 77W, A350, so for the widebodies you're pretty well covered, while Pratt's only toehold is in the A330, and the 767. (Yes technically on the 777, but I don't expect any 772ER's or 773's sold anytime soon). It'd be interesting if Pratt took their A330 offering and tailored it to the shorter (relatively) mission profiles that the A330S will partake in. If so Pratt could carve themselves a niche with the A330S that will keep them in the widebody segment with not a whole lot of investment (I would imagine refining and targeting a current engine would be less capital intensive than a clean sheet design).

Is there any chance of P&W having a 1st-gen large GTF working in time for the 33S?

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Daysleeper
Posted 2012-02-01 12:30:51 and read 14054 times.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 119):
IMO, the $310 recognised charge for B788 includes both the $215 million deferred charge and additional actual production costs due to tons of rework on early planes.

Boeing have also said that the cost of the early frames is at least double, what they will cost once production is upto speed. So that will bring the per frame cost down to 45M per frame..... Almost 100M less than an A330 costs to produce. - Yeah, Right.

Either the 9.7 billion is not included in the estimated costs, or its been divided up amongst all future deliveries. Otherwise it just simply does not make sense. My bet is that "deferred costs" means exactly that. its been deferred and isn't included at all.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Wsp
Posted 2012-02-01 13:22:22 and read 13814 times.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 118):
So simply put your saying that the figures for the first 45 frames includes a 9.7 billion “deferred” cost?

I understand their description to mean that this is money they already spent. So my point is that we don't need to worry if they can pay for that in the future.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 118):
I can't make no sense of this. Other than the 9.7 billion defered cost is included in the figures for the first 45 frames as I stated above. Is that the case?
Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 119):
Thanks for these links. Going by the numbers above, the first 45 planes have a charge of about $215 million ($9,700 mil/ 45).

I don't see that this is specifically tied to 45 frames.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 119):
IMO, the $310 recognised charge for B788 includes both the $215 million deferred charge and additional actual production costs due to tons of rework on early planes.

The definition of the "deferred charge" from their report seems to include all production cost overruns, including rework.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2012-02-01 14:23:31 and read 13627 times.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 123):
My bet is that "deferred costs" means exactly that. its been deferred and isn't included at all.

And will likely be written off over time thus reducing future earnings.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: LAXDESI
Posted 2012-02-01 15:20:08 and read 13526 times.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 123):
Either the 9.7 billion is not included in the estimated costs, or its been divided up amongst all future deliveries.
Quoting Wsp (Reply 116):
Quote:Carter Copeland - Barclays Capital, Research Division

So the $9.7 billion in deferred, you said it covered 40-some-odd airplanes. If you were to look at the early units in that block of airplanes versus the later units in terms of, like, which -- where they were produced, what sort of differential in terms of the contribution to that $9.7 billion is there if I were to compare unit 3 to unit 45? Is it double, is it 1/2? How much more cost is in those early ones than the late ones?

James A. Bell

Clearly, the earlier airplanes were more costly because they were built more outside of the production process. And as we move through time and the assembly completes and some supply chain and the process starts to work as it was designed to work, the cost will go down. I don't know if it's 2x or 3x. But clearly, the earlier planes are a lot more expensive. Now the deferred production cost also is not just for the airplanes that are in there. It's was -- all the airplanes are -- well, not just the ones that were completed, but the one that was delivered also was in there as well. But obviously more expensive early on, get better over time.
Quoting Wsp (Reply 124):
I don't see that this is specifically tied to 45 frames.

Reading the exchange between the analyst and James Bell, I get the sense that it is for 45 units. The analyst is trying to ascertain if the costs are getting smaller going from unit 3 to unit 45.

Here is another exchange where it is suggested that Boeing will be at normal production costs when they ramp up to 10 or more units. The comment about cost being $400 million for unit 8 or 9 suggests to me that the $9.7 billion deferred cost figure is for the first 45 units, at an average cost of $215 million.

The analyst comment about a drop of $0.75 million in average production cost per unit over the first 400 aircraft suggests that the cost per unit will fall to about $100 million on the 401st unit.

Robert Spingarn - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division

James, going back to the unit margin comment before and to primarily 787 based, I would think that suggests the delivery of aircraft had a cost of roughly $400 million. It was unit 8 or 9, I believe. And if you're going to be at about the 400 aircraft at the point you're talking about for breakeven on average cost versus actual cost, does this suggest then it's about -- is it linear? Is it about, I don't know, $0.75 million per aircraft in reduction as we go?

James A. Bell

Well, I don't think this is normal as you would normally see on a normal learning curve. Because of the fact that we've had a lot of -- we have a lot of airplanes that were in production as we were still in the development process, we have -- and we had the issues on the front end of building those airplanes, I think you're going to see a steeper, drop down to a normal learning curve after we get to those initial problems. And we're basically getting through those now. And that's what you're going to see. So I think learning curve-wise, it'll be pretty normal and pretty consistent with what we saw in 777, we'll just get down it faster. And that's why we believe we will be around where we need to be cost-wise on the units that we produce starting out at 10 -- as we get to 10 and stabilize after 2013.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2012-02-01 15:39:24 and read 13554 times.

Pardon my ignorance as I failed accounting in college (never understood double-entry book keeping). Why is it that the sale price for the A330S would be less than the 787-9? I understand the high development costs of the 787, but why do those factor in a new order? Wouldn't Boeing be interested in the sale at price + margin? If the alternative is no sale, I'd think they'd go for the sale even if it does not "payback developmental costs". Those are already spent and if another airplane can be sold with a suitable margin over production costs, why wouldn't they sell it? I don't understand the mentality of, well because it cost so much to build, we have to charge a higher price, and we are willing to give up orders to the competitor because of it despite the fact that the additional plane would have been a profitable endeavour compared to not building a plane.

Airbus on the other hand is doing a net present value analysis of if it is financially viable to spend money upgrading the A330. Will they get additional orders if they do it or will they get additional margin for doing it that will pay back the development costs? If building the plane would net additional orders over not doing it that would not have gone to the A350, then it has a business case.

Numbers and accounting are being thrown out for costs of single airframes, but it is all quite confusing to me. I have never understood how development charges are done and how that accounting works. Maybe it is because I'm just an engineer, but if an airplane can be sold for more than it costs to build + realistic overhead costs associated with production, why wouldn't they sell it? Boeing does not break down profit over a program for general accounting after it has been launched. They use the launch numbers to decide if it is a good investment and then from then on they only care about quarterly and annual profits.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: vaus77w
Posted 2012-02-01 17:02:33 and read 13347 times.

Just on another note, does anyone know if it would be possible/feasible to remove the existing winglets on A333's and retrofit sharklets?

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2012-02-01 17:17:42 and read 13328 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 127):
I don't understand the mentality of, well because it cost so much to build, we have to charge a higher price

You are right, that is the mentality of someone who wants their business to fail. Bad decisions or problems of the past cloud the judgment of the present rather than inform it.

Now, you have to make sure the new sales cover the cost and margin, as you said, but you don't have to recover the investment if you can't. Unless of course you have a loan to repay. At that point, you might be screwed. You can't sell enough product or charge enough to pay back the loans and stay afloat. But I don't think the 787 is in that position.

So you just accept that the program lost money. You can't defend it and claim it made money because you wrote something off already. Doesn't mean the product isn't good. Doesn't mean that going forward it will continue to provide income. Does mean that your stock price should drop because the company is worth less ($15 billion for Boeing). So the new price reflects that. Then, over time, the price goes back up because the value of the 787 to the company is eventually positive, and 777s continue to sell, and 737s, and 767Fs which are profitable.

The 787 may eventually pay Boeing back for all the money invested. The A380 may not. But the A380 has reached enough orders that as each is delivered, it will bring in positive money (either already or soon). The 787 seems to have enough orders for that, too. And because both companies are still in business now, they will not be damaged any further by either program (other than reputation, inability to launch 737RS, etc.)

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2012-02-01 17:51:43 and read 13271 times.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 126):
The analyst comment about a drop of $0.75 million in average production cost per unit over the first 400 aircraft suggests that the cost per unit will fall to about $100 million on the 401st unit.

That sounds reasonable. I recall about an $80 million/frame estimated original build cost. With all of the modifications and also the misses in production efficiency, $100 million per airframe is reasonable.

However, that requires multiple years of 100+ 787 deliveries/year.

Thus the window for Airbus isn't infinite. Also, Boeing will try to recover some of the sunk costs. I doubt Boeing will drop below $160 million per 787. Airbus is working to cut costs on the A330. So are the engine vendors. The reality is that the T1000 costs quite a bit more than a T700 to build. (I don't have the numbers on hand...) Pratt is working to remove costs from their engine too as well as GE. But this does mean Airbus has a while to sell new A333S airframes. How long? That is the a.net question.   

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 122):
Is there any chance of P&W having a 1st-gen large GTF working in time for the 33S?

No. It would have to be an evolved PW4170A... which was supposed to be the PW4175A!   

Quoting iceberg210 (Reply 121):
It'd be interesting if Pratt took their A330 offering and tailored it to the shorter (relatively) mission profiles that the A330S will partake in.

Too late. Pratt has an engine out there and has contractural obligations to pay airlines to replace engines if they offer an engine incompatible with the nacelle on the A330. (Don't ask me why the contract is written that way... it just is.)

What Pratt can do:
1. New turbine coatings. (Perhaps a 1% reduction in fuel burn)
2. Blisk low pressure compressor. (Needed to up the thrust of the engine. It is the compressors limiting the thrust due to the exit temperature from a vent being beyond the nacelle's metal capabilities and changing the nacelle would require Pratt to pay for a large number of nacelle modifications...) Also should cut fuel burn about 1%
3. New fan (Perhaps a 1% reduction in fuel burn)

If pratt does all of the above, I see up to a 3% or 3.5% reduction in fuel burn. Changing the low compressor would also gain back thrust!    However, I expect the T700 to maintain the hot/high advantage.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: LAXDESI
Posted 2012-02-01 20:39:05 and read 12977 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 130):
That sounds reasonable. I recall about an $80 million/frame estimated original build cost. With all of the modifications and also the misses in production efficiency, $100 million per airframe is reasonable.

However, that requires multiple years of 100+ 787 deliveries/year.

Reading through the exchange with analysts, I get the impression that Boeing should reach 400 units somewhere in 2016 if it is able to get to 10 plus rate by the end of 2013.



Quoting lightsaber (Reply 130):
Thus the window for Airbus isn't infinite. Also, Boeing will try to recover some of the sunk costs. I doubt Boeing will drop below $160 million per 787. Airbus is working to cut costs on the A330.

I agree that Boeing is unlikely to discount B787 all that much against A330 in future except to win over some existing customers of A330 with a large fleet.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2012-02-01 20:55:39 and read 12948 times.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 131):
I get the impression that Boeing should reach 400 units somewhere in 2016 if it is able to get to 10 plus rate by the end of 2013.

That would meet my requirement of multiple years of 100+ 787 produced per year.  

Fast paced production lines become efficient as they ramp up and work out the kinks.   

It will be interesting to see how Airbus manages production costs on the A330.


Personally, I'm floored how well the type has sold since 2007.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: PM
Posted 2012-02-01 21:08:47 and read 12917 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 132):
Personally, I'm floored how well the type has sold since 2007.

They'd sold 674 A330s by the end of 2006.

That number is now up to 1,188. Call it 500 in five years!   

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2012-02-01 21:40:27 and read 12832 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 129):
Unless of course you have a loan to repay. At that point, you might be screwed. You can't sell enough product or charge enough to pay back the loans and stay afloat.

That's what its all about. You have to pay back any debt and your shareholders expect you to make a profit - even if that occurs a long way down the road.

Many aircraft programs fail to pay back their R&D or fail to make a profit - but that doesn't mean you don't attempt to do so.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 127):
Wouldn't Boeing be interested in the sale at price + margin?

Once the program is fully amortised yes - that is where Airbus is now with the 330 and if gives lots of pricing flexibility. To do it early in a program life (such as the 787) would be a formula for bankruptcy. Your financiers expect you to either repay the debt or roll it over. Your pricing structure need to provide cash to service your debt. Even if a program is financed internally with existing cash flows (as some derivative programs are) you are still expected to provide a return on the funds invested to offset the lost opportunity cost of using those funds elsewhere.
Its a very cavalier approach to suggest that you don't need to repay your development costs and retire any debt associated with it.


Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2012-02-01 22:39:29 and read 12709 times.

In some instances, r&d can be spread over not only time, but across different programs. The CFRP fuse was originally a Sonic Cruiser attribute, and probably was researched prior to that.

Companies like Boeing or Airbus will have a separate R&D budget which will always be a cost, and since that department doesn't actually produce product, it won't ever be expected to produce revenue.

It doesn't take a lot of nifty accounting to put research cost for a particular program into general R&D expenses.

How much of the 787 program costs will be deemed to be cross program, or even theoretical R&D will probably never be worked out to the penny. If a 777x uses carbon wings, hundreds of millions of 787 development cost will automatically be either spread across both platforms, or not included on the 777x program...whichever is the most fiscally advantageous at the time.

The 320 program is being used to test the sharklets concept, which will be added to the 330. XWB engine technology may be included in 330 engine PIP's. The fly by wire in the 330 was derived from the R&D that went into the 320.

Development cost manipulation is one way a company can, on paper, reduce the overall cost of a program.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2012-02-01 23:58:46 and read 12523 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 135):
In some instances, r&d can be spread over not only time, but across different programs.
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 135):
Development cost manipulation is one way a company can, on paper, reduce the overall cost of a program.

We probably should have mentioned that amortising R&D and servicing/retiring debt on a given program are two separate issues. Might have caused some confusion.


Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Wsp
Posted 2012-02-02 01:35:02 and read 12288 times.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 126):
Reading the exchange between the analyst and James Bell, I get the sense that it is for 45 units. The analyst is trying to ascertain if the costs are getting smaller going from unit 3 to unit 45.

The money is the sum of all production cost overruns that have accumulated until Dec 31st, by the time #45 is delivered it will be even more (minus what they write off in the meantime). So I don't think it can conceivably be the right number.

And you are averaging out huge costs that happened long before #45 was started which creates the picture that this is per-frame cost going forward or close to that. Which was what Daysleeper was implying when he was extrapolating to tens of billions $.

I think it is plausible that they burnt huge amounts of money on the first test frames, but don't find it plausible (and I think the Boeing comment you quoted on the unusually steep cost curve supports that) that Boeing is spending as much on rework for each frame at least until #45 as it costs to buy a factory fresh A380.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 129):
Unless of course you have a loan to repay. At that point, you might be screwed. You can't sell enough product or charge enough to pay back the loans and stay afloat. But I don't think the 787 is in that position.

This could very well be the case for some risk-sharing partner and might, depending on contractual guarantees, be difficult to resolve. But Airbus would probably not base the 330S business case on that.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Daysleeper
Posted 2012-02-02 04:17:09 and read 12004 times.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 126):
Here is another exchange where it is suggested that Boeing will be at normal production costs when they ramp up to 10 or more units. The comment about cost being $400 million for unit 8 or 9 suggests to me that the $9.7 billion deferred cost figure is for the first 45 units, at an average cost of $215 million

I’m sorry but this is incorrect. You can read here that these costs are to be shared over the entire program not just the first 45 frames. This would account for around $10 million per frame, which if deducted would mean the first 45 frames have cost an average of $300 million each to produce.

I still believe however that it is wrong to deduct these costs as they have nothing at all to do with development and is the actual cost of producing the first 50 or so frames. Boeing themselves admit that this figure is likely to increase and peak at over $20 billion when they have to deliver the frames that were sold between 2004 and 2006 for as little as $65 million.

Regardless, the point that was originally being made still stands. Boeing are along way off getting the production cost low enough to be able to discount and compete on price with the A330. This and a much shorter backlog gives them a big advantage, if this is enough to overcome the better economics of the 787 remains to be seen. My feeling is that it should be enough to extend the life of the A330 for another 6-7 years taking the A330 from being a very successful and profitable program, to being outstandingly successful and profitable – I really can’t see how they can lose.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: LAXDESI
Posted 2012-02-02 08:55:18 and read 11519 times.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 138):
I’m sorry but this is incorrect. You can read here that these costs are to be shared over the entire program not just the first 45 frames. This would account for around $10 million per frame, which if deducted would mean the first 45 frames have cost an average of $300 million each to produce.

Thanks for the link. It does indicate that $9.7 billion deferred cost figure will be amortized over the entire program. The link below shows that deferred costs and unamortized tooling costs went up to $12.6 billion in 4Q 2011 from $11.5 billion in 3Q 2011. These are consolidated figures for all programs and must include 748 as well as 787.
http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/financial/balsheet.html

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 138):
Regardless, the point that was originally being made still stands. Boeing are along way off getting the production cost low enough to be able to discount and compete on price with the A330.

By my rough calculations, B789 has a substantial lifecycle operating advantage($45 million) over A333S. If Lightsaber's figure of $130 million production cost of A333 is correct, then B789 should fetch about $175 million--assuming Airbus won't sell below cost..

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 138):
Boeing are along way off getting the production cost low enough to be able to discount and compete on price with the A330. This and a much shorter backlog gives them a big advantage, if this is enough to overcome the better economics of the 787 remains to be seen. My feeling is that it should be enough to extend the life of the A330 for another 6-7 years

Your assessment of an additional 6-7 years life for A333 makes sense given the large 787 backlog.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: iceberg210
Posted 2012-02-02 09:03:14 and read 11483 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 130):
What Pratt can do:

That was more along the lines of what I figured Pratt could do on this engine, after all IF the A330S is really fairly competitive due to price and other considerations, it'll sell, the key then just is to be a better engine choice than the GE and RR choices, which probably wouldn't take a whole ton. Therefore improvements like you've pointed out, might make a difference in market share, especially if GE and RR are a tad timid on the project, not wanting to divert resources onto a 'old' engine, when they have the GENX and T1000 to sell instead (granted on a different frame but still).

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Daysleeper
Posted 2012-02-02 09:16:49 and read 11417 times.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 139):
By my rough calculations, B789 has a substantial lifecycle operating advantage($45 million) over A333S.

I've been meaning to ask about those figures. Could you share how you have calculated them please?

Things such as what the burn rate per hour would be for each jet etc..As every time I try and calculate it, it shows that if the 789 burned 2000 gallons or 6132kg less then it would have to be at least 15 to 16% more efficient than the A33S, which I don't buy at all. Boeing are only quoting a 20% improvement over the current 767...

[Edited 2012-02-02 09:19:21]

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: LAXDESI
Posted 2012-02-02 09:27:40 and read 11369 times.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 141):
I've been meaning to ask about those figures. Could you share how you have calculated them please?

I don't know if the following thread will fully answer your question, my numbers are based on a model which takes into account all available data(A333) and some estimates(for not in service B789). You can PM me if you need more details.
B789 Versus A333 Analysis (by LAXDESI May 20 2011 in Tech Ops)

In my example for a 4,000 nm trip(at MTOW), B789 burns 16,093 gallons and A333 burns 18,044 gallons as per my model.
B789 has about 11% lower trip fuel burn than A333.

[Edited 2012-02-02 09:34:12]

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Daysleeper
Posted 2012-02-02 09:33:34 and read 11335 times.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 142):
I don't know if the following thread will fully answer your question, my numbers are based on a model which takes into account all available data(A333) and some estimates(for not in service B789). You can PM me if you need more details.

Thankyou. I'll have a look at it a bit later on. In the mean time I'd be interested in what assumptions you have made, post or PM them, either is good.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2012-02-02 09:41:44 and read 11309 times.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 141):
Things such as what the burn rate per hour would be for each jet etc..As every time I try and calculate it, it shows that if the 789 burned 2000 gallons or 6132kg less then it would have to be at least 15 to 16% more efficient than the A33S, which I don't buy at all. Boeing are only quoting a 20% improvement over the current 767...

Did you look at Post 89 . I would appreciate feedback.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: r2rho
Posted 2012-02-03 03:05:31 and read 10642 times.

Quoting PM (Reply 92):
(Not that there's anything we can do now to stop "Airbus are launching the 'S' to kill the 787-10" becoming an A.Net "fact"... )
Quoting zeke (Reply 91):
This upgrade is nothing about "killing" anything from Boeing, it is about getting follow on orders from the existing A330/A340 customer base.

Sorry guys, you came 90 posts too late to the thread. The A333S as 787-10 killer is now an established a-net fact, as PM says...  

Anyway... these improvements make a lot of sense. As Zeke says there is a huge (and still growing) A330 customer base, and the A333 is the most modern a/c in production to have been optimized for mid-haul routes. The upgrades will require minimal investment, have low risk, the winglet design (ooops sorry, sharklet) can be contracted out to API to not divert too many engineering resources. The engine manufacturers could come with a PIP too. And Airbus can offer an attractive price, and a reliable delivery schedule.

The A320 sharklets were launched in nov 2009, the first serial a/c will be rolling out in may. So... we could imagine an A330S with sharklets around 2015-16, if the A350 flight tests don't get too much in the way.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Daysleeper
Posted 2012-02-03 03:09:54 and read 10621 times.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 144):
Did you look at Post 89 . I would appreciate feedback.

I've just downloaded piano-x and intend to have a play around with the figures a little later today. I'll post my results for us all to compare/dispute  


OT: But does anyone know how much it costs to get more Aircraft Data files for Piano-X? And is it accurate enough to be worth paying for them?

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: garpd
Posted 2012-02-03 05:17:03 and read 10385 times.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 146):
OT: But does anyone know how much it costs to get more Aircraft Data files for Piano-X? And is it accurate enough to be worth paying for them?

Until both aircraft are flying and producing real world numbers, files for either of them will continue to be speculative and may not reflect reality.


I'm not sold on this so-called A333 "S".
It will essentially be a warmed over, 20 odd year old product.
A.net mantra has it, airlines would prefer an all new aircraft design over a warmed over one.
This argument has been used against the 747X, 767X and projected 777X since time began. (X standing for the various ideas Boeing have announced over the years)

So, lets for a moment take that as gospel. The truth. Reality.

Why is this argument not applied to the A333 "S"?
Why would airlines suddenly accept an old design with modifications over the brand new state-of-the-art 787-10/ A350abcdefghijlkmnopqrstuvwxyz?

I'll accept current A330 operators might take it up, that's quite obvious. But non customers selecting it over the 787-10 goes against the grain. (availability might be the overriding factor. But I don't think fuel burn, range, etc, are in the A330's favour)

I put it to anyone flying the A333 "S" flag, that non customer airlines (anyone not operating A330s) will prefer the all new 787-10 over a warmed over 1980's design.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: captainmeeerkat
Posted 2012-02-03 05:26:59 and read 10364 times.

Quoting garpd (Reply 147):
It will essentially be a warmed over, 20 odd year old product.
A.net mantra has it, airlines would prefer an all new aircraft design over a warmed over one.

Which explains why Airbus and Boeing are both upgrading their narrowbody fleet. The 737 is around 40 years old (changes or no changes, it's the same), the A320 is over 25 years old yet both maunfacturers are undertaking an NGX or NEO version. Combined thus far, they have well over 1,500 orders between them.

A-net mantra might be one thing but customer demands dictates another.

The A330 sold so well because of delays in the 787 program and because it is a capable airliner in its' own market. The 'A330S' will also sell because of delays in 787 deliveries and because it is a capable airliner in its' own market.

Quoting garpd (Reply 147):
But non customers selecting it over the 787-10 goes against the grain.

If you need a/c in the near future, where is the 787-10? The 'A330S' can surely be brought into service before the 787-10. The same logic applies - we need something now and Boeing can't deliver, Airbus can.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2012-02-03 06:07:43 and read 10247 times.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 146):
T: But does anyone know how much it costs to get more Aircraft Data files for Piano-X? And is it accurate enough to be worth paying for them?

About GBP2000.00

Quoting garpd (Reply 147):
Until both aircraft are flying and producing real world numbers, files for either of them will continue to be speculative and may not reflect reality.

Probably true, but reading the PIANO-X fine print suggests that it may not truly replicate in service aircraft. Given the A.Net
penchant for being all over the map on these type of matters PIANO-X applies discipline to the process.

[quote=Daysleeper,reply=146]I've just downloaded piano-x and intend to have a play around with the figures a little later today. I'll post my results for us all to compare/dispute

You will need to decide which version of the 789 you will use. For the record I use the MTOW of ~227 t , for post LN 90 calculations I use a OEW of 110500 plus 6000kg for a 116500kg DOW. For a pre- LN90 calculation I add 8000kg for a 124500kg DOW

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-02-03 06:22:11 and read 10227 times.

Quoting captainmeeerkat (Reply 148):
If you need a/c in the near future, where is the 787-10? The 'A330S' can surely be brought into service before the 787-10.

The original article implies an EIS of around 3 to 4 years after Airbus commits to making it happen. If they did that this year, that would be 2015 to 2016 which is right around when Boeing is talking of having the 787-10X in service.

Quoting captainmeeerkat (Reply 148):
The 'A330S' will also sell because of delays in 787 deliveries...

By 2015-2016, Boeing could be at ~15 deliveries a month for the 787 between PAE's two lines and the line at CHS. And I would not be surprised if CHS could support two assembly lines.


If an airline chooses an A330-300S, it very probably will not be because they can't get a 787-10X.   

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: garpd
Posted 2012-02-03 06:54:42 and read 10127 times.

Quoting captainmeeerkat (Reply 148):
The 'A330S' will also sell because of delays in 787 deliveries

Delays that will have been caught up on and history by the time either the A333 S or 787-10 are in service.
I do not see todays delivery delays affecting the 787-10.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Daysleeper
Posted 2012-02-03 07:13:37 and read 10259 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 150):
The original article implies an EIS of around 3 to 4 years after Airbus commits to making it happen. If they did that this year, that would be 2015 to 2016 which is right around when Boeing is talking of having the 787-10X in service.

It appears that the 3-4 year EIS is speculation on the part of latribune. Other articles I've read state that Airbus will only confirm that they are investigating the changes and hope to reach a decision in a few months.

What is also interesting is they want to be able to retro-fit them to existing frames...

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-02-03 07:33:39 and read 10202 times.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 152):
What is also interesting is they want to be able to retro-fit them to existing frames...

A good move to extend the revenue stream from in-service frames as it makes the planes more economic, extending passenger service life and would make them better candidates for the eventual Airbus P2F conversion kit.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Daysleeper
Posted 2012-02-03 08:59:01 and read 10006 times.

Quoting garpd (Reply 147):

I'm not sold on this so-called A333 "S".
It will essentially be a warmed over, 20 odd year old product.
A.net mantra has it, airlines would prefer an all new aircraft design over a warmed over one.
This argument has been used against the 747X, 767X and projected 777X since time began. (X standing for the various ideas Boeing have announced over the years)

So, lets for a moment take that as gospel. The truth. Reality.

Why is this argument not applied to the A333 "S"?

Why would airlines suddenly accept an old design with modifications over the brand new state-of-the-art 787-10/ A350abcdefghijlkmnopqrstuvwxyz?

I'll accept current A330 operators might take it up, that's quite obvious. But non customers selecting it over the 787-10 goes against the grain. (availability might be the overriding factor. But I don't think fuel burn, range, etc, are in the A330's favour)

I put it to anyone flying the A333 "S" flag, that non customer airlines (anyone not operating A330s) will prefer the all new 787-10 over a warmed over 1980's design.

No one has said that an A330s is going to be “better” than the 787, as it simply wouldn’t be true. What has been said however is that an Airline could conceivably make more money by purchasing the A330 for two very good reasons; Initial purchase price, and availability.

I agree that it would be unlikely that an Airline that doesn’t already operate the A330 would order an updated version, but considering how many existing operators there are for the A330 its not going to make a difference.

It’s also worth remembering that this is just an update, it is not a new variant– all they are doing is increasing the MTOW a little and fitting sharklets. It doesn’t compare at all to projects like the 77X or 737-max which are far more complex and expensive.


Quoting garpd (Reply 147):
Until both aircraft are flying and producing real world numbers, files for either of them will continue to be speculative and may not reflect reality.

This I agree 100% with. I’ve spent a couple of hours trying to generate my own figures using various formulas I have gathered from the web and a couple of applications. The results are no better than guesswork. You have to make so many assumptions because there are so many unknowns you could very easily manipulate it one way or another.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: captainmeeerkat
Posted 2012-02-03 09:47:49 and read 9871 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 150):
If an airline chooses an A330-300S, it very probably will not be because they can't get a 787-10X.

Absolutely, there is every chance that Boeing will have caught up on the backlog. Yet Airbus are not in the habit of offering an a/c that won't sell, there has to be demand and only they know how much for sure.

As pointed out on this thread, the 'A330S' is not meant to KILL KILL KILL the 787-10.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-02-03 09:55:34 and read 9878 times.

I just think the A330-300S is going to run into the same problem a 777-200X would - there will be a better option for the long term available and therefore I don't see it fundamentally changing the long-term outcome for the model (either deletion from the lineup or primarily sold as a factory-built freighter).

That being said, I do think it is worth Airbus' time to develop the sharklets if they can be retrofitted to the existing fleet.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-02-03 10:12:37 and read 9802 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 156):
I just think the A330-300S is going to run into the same problem a 777-200X would - there will be a better option for the long term available and therefore I don't see it fundamentally changing the long-term outcome for the model (either deletion from the lineup or primarily sold as a factory-built freighter).

Unlike the 777X, an improved A330 would be developed at very little cost.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-02-03 12:36:30 and read 9587 times.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 149):
You will need to decide which version of the 789 you will use. For the record I use the MTOW of ~227 t , for post LN 90 calculations I use a OEW of 110500 plus 6000kg for a 116500kg DOW. For a pre- LN90 calculation I add 8000kg for a 124500kg DOW

Those are the figures for the 788, reasonable figures for the 789 would be:

MTOW 251t
MZFW 181t
OEW/DOW 126t

You also need to open up engine thrust from 70klbf to 78klbf, by the 789 time you can leave SFC at nominal, should be Boeing spec IMO.

You can't change some of those values from within the app (eg the MTOW from 228t to 251t), make a copy of the variant configuration file i the folder "Piano adjustments", rename it with eg 789.txt and edit it with the text editor, then save and run. You get the hang of what to edit by changing inside the app and then checking what number in the text string belongs to what value.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-02-03 13:41:58 and read 9443 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 157):
Unlike the 777X, an improved A330 would be developed at very little cost.

Which is why I think they should do it, especially if they can retrofit the sharpest and the TOW increase to in-service frames.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: LAXDESI
Posted 2012-02-03 15:38:05 and read 9271 times.

If the expected lower production and maintenance cost of CFRP airframe come true, then both the A330 and B777 programs face long term challenges.

A332 has a better shot at competing against 788 then does A333S against B789. A332 is at the operational efficiency dividing line of 240--250 seats(3 class marketing) between 8 and 9 abreast platform.

B77W(X) has a better shot at competing against A350-10 then does B77E(X) against A359. B77W(385 seats 10-abreast marketing) is at the operational efficiency dividing line of 370-380 seats(3 class marketing) between 9 and 10 abreast platform. Boeing has a good shot at competing against A350-1000 with a re-engined/re-winged B77W for operators who are not averse to 10-abreast Y and 7-abreast J.

IMO, Boeing is in a much better position to challenge A350 with a likely 777X program, then is Airbus with its A333S against B789 as it is too far away from the efficiency dividing line between 8 and 9 abreast platform..

Airbus does not have clear options to take on B788. A358 is too heavy, and A332 efficient reengine option is constrained somewhat by limited clearance under the current wings.

I expect B789 to outsell B788, and perhaps A359 to outsell A350-10 over the long run.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: rotating14
Posted 2012-02-03 20:44:52 and read 8981 times.

Quoting captainmeeerkat (Reply 148):

Aircraft in the near future?? I'm sure you are suggesting the A330 which is sold out for the next couple of years I believe . The 789 (the direct competitor to the propsed A330S) is scheduled to make is maiden flight in the first half of 2014. By the time 788 frame #65 rolls off the line this summer they wont need reworking/rewiring thus perhaps moving the EIS sooner than the 2014. Boeing can deliver in time, mind you this whole equation depends partly on how soon airlines need the lift they are looking for. EK couldn't wait hence ordering 50 T7's but the next airliner that orders the next batch of 787's or 330's CAN afford to wait. That Simple

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: captainmeeerkat
Posted 2012-02-03 23:19:08 and read 8816 times.

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 161):
I'm sure you are suggesting the A330 which is sold out for the next couple of years I believe

The A330 has less than 350 orders in the backlog, while the whole 787 program as it is has ~865

I still think that there is room in the market for both, And I'll repeat, Airbus (and Boeing) don't offer a/c that don't and won't sell

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: astuteman
Posted 2012-02-04 00:14:52 and read 8743 times.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 160):
Airbus does not have clear options to take on B788. A358 is too heavy, and A332 efficient reengine option is constrained somewhat by limited clearance under the current wings.

Really?

The original A330 based A350 was to have had exactly the same engines as the 787 (with the exception of their bleed configuration)......

The re-engine is constrained by changes needed to be made to the wing spar, not ground clearance

Rgds

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-02-04 02:34:12 and read 8528 times.

Would it be possible to enlarge the 787-10 wing and reuse it for 777X later? Is it possible to use the same designs but at different dimensions with wings?

Also wouldnt the Genx2b be a good engine for A333ng? Or does it lack the thrust? With PIP2 it should be pretty close to target SFC? As T1000 and genx1b demands a greater effort to turn into a bleed engine?

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2012-02-04 03:03:06 and read 8463 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 164):

There's no doubt that a 777X wing would have its roots in the 787 wing...either making what is essentially a larger version of the same thing or using tech lessons learned.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-02-04 03:30:07 and read 8423 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 163):

The original A330 based A350 was to have had exactly the same engines as the 787 (with the exception of their bleed configuration)......

GE was also offering the GEnx for the A330 and A330F.

""If they want to use it in the A330 for the freighter or tanker it's a great engine. It is still available to them." GE says the study is "very preliminary". Brisken adds: "There's no intent for Airbus to do that, but it does offer significant advantages, and if 13% fuel burn means anything to the customers, I'm sure there could be interest.""

from http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...x-offered-for-future-a330s-208087/

Also have a number of aerodynamic changes that were planned....



from http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus fears a350 demand will outstrip supply chain-202078/

Also we are creaking up towards the original A350 MTOW of 245t.

Looking more and more like the original A350 by stealth.

Question is, is this a serious attempt to deliver a real airframe to the market ?

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: AngMoh
Posted 2012-02-04 04:05:04 and read 8341 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 166):
Looking more and more like the original A350 by stealth.

That is the same impression I had - almost a "revenge of the engineers" to show that the original A350mk1 was not such a stupid design after all. It is probably driven by the A330 program team rather than corporate strategy: they probably came up with a business case which was so good that it could not be rejected. And in the end, it is probably a lot cheaper than the original A350Mk1.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: Daysleeper
Posted 2012-02-04 04:56:35 and read 8265 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 166):
""If they want to use it in the A330 for the freighter or tanker it's a great engine. It is still available to them." GE says the study is "very preliminary". Brisken adds: "There's no intent for Airbus to do that, but it does offer significant advantages, and if 13% fuel burn means anything to the customers, I'm sure there could be interest.""

I know the A330NG is just pipe dream amongst a few Anetters but the more I read what Airbus is saying regards the A330 the more I believe it’s a distinct possibility. I’d initially thought announcing the Shark-lets and MTOW bump would put an end to a possible re-engine, but given that they haven’t confirmed that they are doing it yet, just that they are looking into the possibility of it leads me to believe they are keeping their options open.

If they did decide to go the NG route, could anyone estimate how long it would take? I know the A320 is going to take 5 years, but I think most of that is down to them having to wait for the engines to be available, but as the GenEx2b is already in service that shouldn’t be an issue. IMHO if they could get something ready for 2015 - 2016 to take full advantage of the 787’s delays.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: LAXDESI
Posted 2012-02-04 10:26:45 and read 7929 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 163):
The original A330 based A350 was to have had exactly the same engines as the 787 (with the exception of their bleed configuration)......

The re-engine is constrained by changes needed to be made to the wing spar, not ground clearance

Thanks. As per wiki, GEnx-1B has a 14" larger fan dia than the Tent 700, which I assume is not a problem.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 168):
If they did decide to go the NG route, could anyone estimate how long it would take? I know the A320 is going to take 5 years, but I think most of that is down to them having to wait for the engines to be available, but as the GenEx2b is already in service that shouldn’t be an issue.

As per wiki, the current GEnx2b thrust is about 4,000-5,000 lbf less than current engine options for A330. Assuming this shortfall can be overcome, A333S(NEO) may end up with similar trip fuel burn as B789 but will have lower payload, range, and seats relative to 9-abreast B789.

A333S(NEO) at a steep discount of around $25 million net relative to B789 in 8-abreast may be competitive on medium haul routes. A332S(NEO) with its payload and seat advantage over B788(in 8-abreast) on medium haul routes need not be discounted much relative to B788.

For some current operators of A330 who do not plan to go 9-abreast Y on 787, A330S(NEO) at the right price may turn out to be attractive.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: astuteman
Posted 2012-02-04 10:48:02 and read 7882 times.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 169):
As per wiki, the current GEnx2b thrust is about 4,000-5,000 lbf less than current engine options for A330. Assuming this shortfall can be overcome, A333S(NEO) may end up with similar trip fuel burn as B789

The B789 will actually need a higher thrust rating than the A330S....

Rgds

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-02-04 11:01:59 and read 7824 times.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 169):
As per wiki, the current GEnx2b thrust is about 4,000-5,000 lbf less than current engine options for A330. Assuming this shortfall can be overcome, A333S(NEO) may end up with similar trip fuel burn as B789 but will have lower payload, range, and seats relative to 9-abreast B789.

With PIP1+2 they raised the thrust on genx1b by more than 4000 lbf, as it is the same engine core but smaller fan I think you could raise the thrust on the 2b for the 333ng.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2012-02-04 11:53:59 and read 7683 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 158):
Those are the figures for the 788, reasonable figures for the 789 would be:

MTOW 251t
MZFW 181t
OEW/DOW 126t

Do you have an opinion on what the 787-10 MZFW might be assuming it fits within the MTOW of about 254t ? allowed by the existing landing gear.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-02-04 12:42:04 and read 7580 times.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 172):
Do you have an opinion on what the 787-10 MZFW might be assuming it fits within the MTOW of about 254t ? allowed by the existing landing gear.

In the OP (Opening Post) I put it at 131+54=185t, you also have the other values there.

BTW I forgot to mention you need to increase the drag of the 789 and 7810 as they have 6 and 12 meter more fuselage length then the PianoX 787 model, this increases the parasitic drag (drag not due to lift which is an important part of overall drag, something like 45-55% on average, expect parasitic drag to increase several percentage points). How much I will come back to in a later post, need to research a bit   .

There is this post at TechOps where we discussed a bit what you can get out of Piano (a lot, take your time to play with it all ), check it out:

787-8 Latest From Piano-X (by mercure1 Nov 25 2011 in Tech Ops)

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: mariner
Posted 2012-02-04 13:06:29 and read 7509 times.

Quoting ferpe (Thread starter):
. I don't think this is the primary aim, after the successful forcing of Boeing's hand with the A320neo this is the next brainchild of JL and now he wants to stop the 787-10X before its birth, he does not want the Airliners to catch on to the variant.

I know it is a blood sport here, but I wonder why this improvement is supposed to "kill" anything. The CW here was that the 787 would kill the A330 years ago - it didn't happen.

The 787 certainly killed the original A350 concept and for me, that is one of the sorriest and most misguided events in recent aircraft manufacturing history. It surely put a number of airlines behind the eight ball.

Airbus has made continuous improvements to the A330 and the question becomes whether these improvements will result in a better aircraft and prolong it's already remarkable life.

The effect on Boeing seems - to me - to be entirely secondary to that.

mariner

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-02-04 13:58:23 and read 7352 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 173):
BTW I forgot to mention you need to increase the drag of the 789 and 7810 as they have 6 and 12 meter more fuselage length then the PianoX 787 model, this increases the parasitic drag (drag not due to lift which is an important part of overall drag, something like 45-55% on average, expect parasitic drag to increase several percentage points)

I have looked at this, if you use the old model V08 put in 4 and 8% more zero-lift drag under "Thrust. Drag. Fuel flow" (ie factors 1.04 and 1.08) I think you should be OK   .

I have checked a bit with the V11 model, can't get things to fit with that one, use V08 with my given weights and the results you get are the same as those Boeing advertises. I also realize I might have written 131t OEW, should be 132t for the 787-10X.

[Edited 2012-02-04 14:33:49]

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: packsonflight
Posted 2012-02-04 14:17:20 and read 7314 times.

Quoting mariner (Reply 174):
The 787 certainly killed the original A350 concept and for me, that is one of the sorriest and most misguided events in recent aircraft manufacturing history. It surely put a number of airlines behind the eight ball.

I think that the 350 mk1 was a casualty of Boeings promises with the 787 but since it is becoming apparent that Boeing is not going to deliver on its original promises for quite a few years a revised 330 suddenly seams like a good idea - again.

Topic: RE: Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S
Username: india1
Posted 2012-02-09 04:23:20 and read 6260 times.

more from Flight -

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ent-in-second-half-of-2012-367981/


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/