Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Future Of The A330  
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10127 posts, RR: 97
Posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 9578 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

A couple of things prompt this thread as a follow up to:-

A330 Improvements? (by A520 Jul 20 2006 in Civil Aviation)

1. The launch of the A350X (and 787)
2. The quantity of A330 orders at Farnborough
3. A small article published in this weeks FI (that I cannot find in FlightGlobal.com)

I thought the article in particular was pertinent additional information.

So far , to end June 2006, some 575 A330's had been ordered, with 420 delivered, for a backlog of 155.
In the 1st 6 months of this year, 35 were delivered, meaning the current backlog is 2 years worth at current rate (70/year)

This month, however, IIRC, Airbus received commitments for 40 A330's and 30 A330F's, (i.e. another year's production). If confirmed, these will take total orders to 645 and backlog to 225

IIRC, last year, some 50 A330's were ordered.

"New" A330 derivatives currently in the pipeline are the A330F (and the MRTT).

To my untrained eye, it appears that the long backlog of 787's, and delayed EIS of the new A350X has created a window of opportunity for the A330, which, along with the "new" derivatives, might yet still see significant quantites of A330's ordered in future.

1st Question - what are the possibilities for the number of future orders for A330/A330F? Could the A330 reach 1000 frames? E.G., if Airbus shift another 50/year more for the next 3 years, and 200 A330F's, the A330 could yet reach 1000 frames. Possible? Likely?

Now to the FI Article.
It was entitled "GEnx offered for future A330's".

Fair use excerpts:-

"GE is floating the idea of offering the GEnx to power future derivatives of the A330, including the -200F freighter, and tanker variants"

Tom Brisken, GEnx programme manager says " It offers significant advantages, and if 13% fuel burn means anything to customers, I'm sure there could be an interest".

Dr Kiran Rao, Airbus exec VP says "the GE offer could be of interest"...."it is our duty to look at it".



My initial thoughts had been that any developments to the A330 would be a waste of money, but, having thought a bit, and seen the article, I'm now not so sure.

For me there are a couple of key points.

1. I'm guessing that a straight engine certification (and the Fwd landing gear lengthening to give the GEnx space) would cost c. $500m
2. The A330F and MRTT are still under development and could be used as the mechanism for the certification.
3. Both models, I believe, would benefit significantly from a 13% reduction in fuel burn.
4. The development costs could probably be buried in these 2 programmes, and built into their costs (possibly the most important point).
5. On the back of that, the 6750Nm A330-200 could quite easily be turned into a 7750Nm 250 pax aircraft with the GEnx engines: The 5600Nm A330-300 could quite easily be turned into a 6500Nm 300 pax aircraft with the GEnx engines (and both with 13% lower fuel burn for a given mission).
6. Although on its own, this would not make the A330 competitive with the 787, it might make it far more attractive as an interim buy, or even as a longer-term mixed fleet purchase with the A350X
7. (opinion) - I could quite easily see (as said above) another 150 pax A330's and 200 A330F's being ordered yet (other views anyone). The improvement could stretch that number. It may also be advantageous to Airbus for the US tanker contract (winning which would add a lot more frames to the backlog).
8. GE seem keen to push this, as it could relatively cheaply provide them with economies of scale.

Realistically, I can't see Airbus pushing a lot of money at the A330, particularly at this time, but in future either.

But after some consideration, I think the points above could make a very strong case for the certification of the A330 with GEnx, particularly if the costs can be recovered through the pricing of the A330F and MRTT.
Daft as it may sound, it might even push future A330 sales beyond the 350 that I (finger in the air  Smile ) suggest, maybe even to 500, particularly if the US tanker deal falls to the MRTT.

Summary:-
Even without the GEnx there may be a fair bit of life left in the A330.
With it, there might be quite a bit more.
The case for the GEnx may be stronger than I originally thought.

Apologies for my inability to find an electronic link
(Leelaw, can you help at all?)

Regards

82 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineChiad From Norway, joined May 2006, 1160 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 9492 times:

Very good post Astuteman. Thank you.
You should apply for a job in FI.
 Smile

The A330, especially the the -200, will be produced for a long time it seems.
If Airbus does everything right they should be able to keep the A330/A340 line open until the A350's start rolling in.


User currently offlineTL925 From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 68 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 9389 times:

I would argue that in the long-term the A330-300 will be affected less than the A330-200 with the introduction of the 787/A350XWB in the future. The A330-300 has found a unique niche as a regional widebody (especially in Asia), and will be less susceptible to replacement from the next generation of long-range widebodies.

The A330-200 has become a popular aircraft over the past decade for intercontinental routes, but that is the exact market of the 787-800/900. The reason I have excluded the A350XWB is because it is more effectively a 777-200ER killer due to its larger size.


User currently offlineA5XX From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 245 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 9361 times:

Quoting Astuteman (Thread starter):
"GE is floating the idea of offering the GEnx to power future derivatives of the A330, including the -200F freighter, and tanker variants"

Forget the tankers..... It's not because the U.S bought a handful of european choppers lately, that they're ready to buy the KC330... Even if it means keeping the gas guzzling, pollution making, KC135 flying for 34 more years...

Perhaps, in 2040, they will transfer them to Cuba! Big grin

Gees, i'll be 78 years old, when they finally retire the KC135 !  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005/06/06/AR2005060601715_pf.html


( tongue in cheek... just to tease you a bit, you Boeing guys)      

Besides... who still fly the 707's nowadays... let alone John Travolta!  

Yves.  

[Edited 2006-07-25 06:18:14]


we are the boeing... resistance is futile...You will be assimilated
User currently offlineMa66 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 9329 times:

Quoting Astuteman (Thread starter):

When you are talking about production and backlog I think you should add the 340 series, since they use the same production-line. This will increase the number of deliveries to about 85/year, and the backlog will be increased with 69 (48 without EK and AC).
(backlog is about 2,5 years for the 33x/34x production-line)


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2225 posts, RR: 56
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 9254 times:

Quoting Astuteman (Thread starter):
and the Fwd landing gear lengthening to give the GEnx space

I'm not sure the landing gear would have to change at all.

This (GE CF6) has a 2.79 meter fan diameter.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Grahame Hutchison



The GenX for the 787 has a 2.82 m fan (just 3 cm more), while the variant on the B748I has a smaller fan measuring 2.64 m. That one might do nicely seeing as it has bleed air, although I'm not sure what the thrust situation would be.

Great post as always, A!


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10127 posts, RR: 97
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 9213 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 5):
I'm not sure the landing gear would have to change at all.

Thanks, WM. I picked that one out from an article on the "old" A350 (which I can't find now).
If you're right, it makes a re-engine prospect just that little bit cheaper.

Regards


User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 9140 times:

If GE is so keen on seeing their GEnx on the A330 (which looks like it has a big market ahead of it), maybe they'd be willing to cover some/most/all off the cost of the certification of the A330 with GEnx engines.

It would almost certainly secure them an overwhelming market share on the remaining A330s to be sold and delivered. I don't know what their current market share on the type is, but if anybody knows, we could easily find out how many more engines GE could sell if the A330 would be re-certified with the GEnx engine and from that derive if they'd be willing to put their own money in this project.


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10127 posts, RR: 97
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 9121 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 7):

Very valid points, Slz396. GE may at least offer to "share" the burden.

However, I'm guessing that RR could quite easily counter-offer the "Trent 1700", which I'm assuming will still go ahead for the 245t A350X-800.
What's your thoughts?
Wouldn't be good news for Pratt  no 

Regards


User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 9089 times:

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 8):
I'm guessing that RR could quite easily counter-offer the "Trent 1700", which I'm assuming will still go ahead for the 245t A350X-800.

Isn't RR going to design an entirely new engine for ALL A350XWBs, rather than power the smallest with one engine and the bigger with another engine?

Anyway, if you're right and RR still has the Trent 1700 planned for the A350XWB, then Airbus could offer exclusivity to re-certify the A330 with new less fuel consuming engines from the one manufacturer willing to pay the bill for them! An even better position to be in really.

[Edited 2006-07-25 09:49:49]

User currently offlineA520 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 122 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 9066 times:

IMO, the major point here is EIS. What could be a reasonnable first fight and certification date for the upgrade as you defined here?

User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10127 posts, RR: 97
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 9066 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 9):
Isn't RR going to design an entirely new engine for ALL A350XWBs,

I'd understood that the "new" engine was to cover the 85000lb - 95000lb range, i.e. the A350X-900 and A350X-1000.
By inference, therefore, I understood the A350X-800 would "sport" the same engines as the "old" A350.

I'll certainly happily be corrected  Smile

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 9):
Anyway, if you're right and RR still has the Trent 1700 planned for the A350XWB, then Airbus could offer exclusivity to re-certify the A330 with new less fuel consuming engines from the one manufacturer willing to pay the bill for them! An even better position to be in really

True indeed  Smile

Regards


User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 9056 times:

Has Airbus sold any A330-300s in 2006?

User currently offlineMaersk737 From Denmark, joined Feb 2004, 711 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 9031 times:

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 12):
Has Airbus sold any A330-300s in 2006?

Why do you ask that question?

Cheers

Peter



I'm not proud to be a Viking, just thankfull
User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 9031 times:

This year, Airbus following orders for the -300 version:

Air Caraibes 1 A330-300
Aer Lingus 1 A330-300
ILFC (for Cathay Pacific) 3 A330-300
and of course 19 A330-300 which will be leased to SQ through Airbus own leasing firm


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10127 posts, RR: 97
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 8997 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting A520 (Reply 10):
IMO, the major point here is EIS. What could be a reasonnable first fight and certification date for the upgrade as you defined here?

Good question - I'm not an expert.

I'd guess availability of the "bleed-air" engines would be the critical path.

It's certainly a relevant question, especially if you assume A330 sales are limited to the next 3-4 years.

If you believe that
a) the freighters
b) the tankers
c) the "upgraded" A330

all have a future beyond being an A350X stop-gap, then the upgrade might well have merit, particularly if the engine manufacturers "help", or the development costs can be sunk in the freighter/tanker costs/pricing.

Regards


User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 8985 times:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 14):
19 A330-300 which will be leased to SQ through Airbus own leasing firm

That Airbus must act as the "lessor of last resort" for any A330-300 "interim lift" deals indicates to me that there probably isn't much profit potential in such transactions, at least not for third-party lessors which means the longer-term residual value prospects aren't too rosey as well.


User currently offlineMaersk737 From Denmark, joined Feb 2004, 711 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 8977 times:

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 15):
all have a future beyond being an A350X stop-gap, then the upgrade might well have merit, particularly if the engine manufacturers "help", or the development costs can be sunk in the freighter/tanker costs/pricing.

Has anyone shown interest for the freigter version?

Cheers

Peter



I'm not proud to be a Viking, just thankfull
User currently offlineFlying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4166 posts, RR: 36
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 8948 times:

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 16):
That Airbus must act as the "lessor of last resort" for any A330-300 "interim lift" deals indicates to me that there probably isn't much profit potential in such transactions, at least not for third-party lessors which means the longer-term residual value prospects aren't too rosey as well.

Or it may boil down to the fact that no lessor has enough A330-300s available to cover SQ's requirement. Besides, I am not so sure if those A333s will be a stop-gap only, or if SQ will actually use them as SEA people movers for many years to come, as neither the 787 nor the 350 will really adress this issue properly. Thus I wouldn't rule out additional A333 add-on orders from SEA in the next couple of months. And that would be very welcome news for the residual value of the A333s.



Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10127 posts, RR: 97
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 8880 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Maersk737 (Reply 17):
Has anyone shown interest for the freigter version?

Airbus Sells 30(!) A330-200F! (by Scorpio Jul 21 2006 in Civil Aviation)

Yes indeed!
Where've you been?  Smile

Regards


User currently offlineNudelhirsch From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 1438 posts, RR: 19
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 8859 times:

With the 330 Airbus is in a good position. The big airlines look at large fleet replacements, mainly looking at the 350 for that, but Airbus has a lot of small-order-customers, airlines with low numbers in their fleet. They might need additional frames or replacements, and for them, commonality is crucial.
With the 787 line sold out for a while it's availability is probably roughly on par with the EIS of the 350, so there could also be additional need for more frames with the big airlines, as there are many of them in good shape, or recovery.
Some airlines should not rush into big growth right now, and if they already operate the 330 this is a good fleet addition.
The 350 might do some missions better, but that does not mean that the 330 is bad on those missions. It still is a good way to go.

The freighter IMO has a long life ahead, there are plenty A300 freighters, and also 757/67 ones that will need replacement at some point and the alternative, a 777F is a different kind of animal.

Even the 340 will see additional orders, no question there. The 330/340 line will be open for a while, mostly for the 330, but it's not over for a while.



Putana da Seatbeltz!
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 8844 times:

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 18):
Or it may boil down to the fact that no lessor has enough A330-300s available to cover SQ's requiremen

Certainly not at the lease rates/terms that Airbus is likely offering to SQ. Generally, when the OEMs get involved in leasing new-build aircraft to customers, it means the transaction isn't commercially viable for third-party lessors.


User currently offlineNudelhirsch From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 1438 posts, RR: 19
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 8818 times:

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 21):
Certainly not at the lease rates/terms that Airbus is likely offering to SQ. Generally, when the OEMs get involved in leasing new-build aircraft to customers, it means the transaction isn't commercially viable for third-party lessors.

Or more interesting for first and fourth hand parties...
Airbus cuts a deal, still makes profit, and after a certain period, SQ is either happy and orders a family-size pack of them, or Airbus either sells/leases them out to a fourth party. No need for a third party to minimize profit margins for all involved...
SQ is an airline with a very good reputation, their planes are taken care off, they still have quite a value on the 2nd hand market.
Even if Airbus does not make profit on that leasing deal, that's how sales work. In order to cut a good deal, sometimes you have to pour out some perks. The 380 add-on-order and the 350 order was a nice deal, airbus has many years left to make profit on the frames they lease out. No need for bashing there either. In the industry sales people do a lot to get the good accounts signed up...



Putana da Seatbeltz!
User currently offlineCV990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 8799 times:

Hi!

I see the A330 still with a bright future. I don't know how many where produced so far but taking the example of TP, they will have the A330-200 has transitional model to the awesome A350...the first 3 that we are using right now will stay until the last A350 arrives, so that will be at least by 2015, but the 5 new ones that will start to arrive next year will just stay until the first A350 come, by 2012 or latter, so these 5 band new ones will only stay for about 6 to 7 years, then there's still a 2nd. hand market for them! I think the A330-200 will eventually replace the A310/767 market for airlines that cannot afford to buy new airplanes.
Regards


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6941 posts, RR: 63
Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 8773 times:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 7):
I don't know what their current market share on the type is, but if anybody knows, we could easily find out how many more engines GE could sell if the A330 would be re-certified with the GEnx engine and from that derive if they'd be willing to put their own money in this project.

The CF6 has always been the least popular engine on the A330. That may be one reason why GE are pushing the GEnx. GE have 25% of the A330, PW 28%, RR 40% and 7% is still undecided.

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 16):
That Airbus must act as the "lessor of last resort" for any A330-300 "interim lift" deals...

I don't know why you assume that Airbus are the "lessor of last resort" here. This is part of a large and complex deal between Airbus and SQ. And as for residual values, used A330s cannot be had for love nor money right now. They may be somewhat less attractive once 787s start appearing but my guess is they will still be in great demand.


25 A520 : Please forgive my ignorance here, but I have read somewhere that, should such new engine be certified, it could be retrofitted on existing A330. Is th
26 Post contains images PM : 188 A330-300s and 232 A330-200s = 420 A330s built and flown. Four A330s have so far been written off.
27 Post contains images Astuteman : Nothing to forgive - one of the purposes of this thread is to debate possible answers to your question Regards
28 Slz396 : With a deal announced out of the blue, who says Airbus is the 'lessor of last resort'? Airbus has guaranteed SQ they would lease them the planes, if
29 Leelaw : Who's "bashing?" There's no doubt Airbus is acting out of necessity, not choice in this scenario. In order to induce the critical sale of the A350X t
30 Leelaw : Airbus may indeed be able to downstream this deal to a third-party lessor, but IMO it's unlikely to be a profitable transaction for Airbus. This type
31 Slz396 : I am looking forward to study in depth your financial analysis, based on a set of acceptable cost estimations on one side and estimated revenues for
32 Post contains images PM : I'm still puzzling over this gnomic remark...
33 CV990 : Hi PM! I guess what Leelaw wanted to say is because USA uses more and more transgenic fruits it might be possible to make lemonades out of peaches or
34 EI321 : Its not exactly a niche, the 772A fills the same role with numerous asian carriers. Every aircraft seems to be officialy a niche aircraft on a.net.
35 Baroque : If you believe the RR website, there is only one geometry for the 1000 and the 1700 and no mention of a "new" engine over and above the 1700. Perhaps
36 Lumberton : Good point. If one assumes that the backlog is indeed 294, taking into consideration the A340s, then is the production rate 70/yr or 85? Makes a big
37 Baroque : That would depend on what sort of a mouse trap Airbus was offering near the EIS of the new A/C. The 32x ethos might just rub off on Airbus, you never
38 Post contains images AutoThrust : ROFL Good one CV990 !! Yes i think also the A330 has a bright future and if they get new engines it will be much more attractive. The A330 is fantast
39 Revelation : Too bad GE, unlike RR, can't get launch aid. Ditto. It's an Americanism: if you are given something sour (lemons) you try to make something sweet (le
40 Leelaw : I assume the recipe is the same in Singapore as it is in Chicago, and it doesn't include investing in a fleet of 19 A330-300s circa 2009. I'd suggest
41 Post contains images Lumberton : Are you referring to an "enhanced" version, similar to the planned A320 upgrade? If so, would Airbus want to "enhance" it to the point where it might
42 Slz396 : I don't know if I'd call it financial alchemy, but I think you'd be surprised to see how much positive cash flow Airbus can generate from this lease
43 Lumberton : I'm sorry if this was discussed before, but is Airbus leasing the aircraft to SQ, not a leasing outfit?
44 FlyDreamliner : I was sort of amazed they've sold only around 600 A330s, for some reason I thought it was more than that. I guess the fact the A330 came out after the
45 Lumberton : Agreed. That was kind of the point I was trying to make below. You just did it better!
46 Baroque : Yes and no, in that order. They could do an E version, but presumably might think that would not be attractive enough to cannibalize XWB sales. After
47 Post contains images KC135TopBoom : Gas guzzling, pollution making KC-135? Which model is that? The KC-135R burns about 7500lbs of fuel per hour, in cruise, about 25%-28% less than the
48 Zvezda : A reengine programme for the A330 makes a lot of sense to me. Boeing don't have anything that competes closely with the A330F and I think any B787F wi
49 FlyDreamliner : If Airbus were smart, instead of lengthening and enhancing the A340 for long range, the -500 and -600, they would have done it to the A330, and we'd
50 Post contains links Leelaw : Here you go Astuteman, the article is finally available online: Farnborough: GEnx offered for future A330s http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...GEnx
51 KC135TopBoom : What would you call the B-767-300ERF, then? There is also a B-777-200LRF.
52 Baroque : Interesting phrase, "If someone wants to offer" although it might or might not be significant. But it does leave matters open.
53 Astuteman : I personally don't think this would be the case, for a product as described, with no other major upgrade than the engines. Such an A330E would have a
54 KC135TopBoom : A 13% reduction in fuel comsumption does not directly translate into a 13% increase in range. It may be closer to a 8% range increase, as you are car
55 Zvezda : The B767-300F doesn't have the payload/range performance of the A330F and, if the latter has GEnx engines, won't come close to matching the A330F's o
56 CXA330300 : For Airbus and customers the re-engine programme seems to make more sense, as it produces less cost for the airlines and Airbus. Don't they have the 7
57 Leelaw : I probably would be, as would my clients who are primarily aircraft lessors who have been chattering amount the merits of this deal since Mr. Seng of
58 Post contains images Astuteman : Fair comment. Regards
59 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : I have not scene the proposed preformance and capability of the A0330-200F. Do you have a link, as it is not on the www.airbus.com site. But the B-76
60 ContnlEliteCMH : But what if the 787 line isn't sold out to A350XWB EIS? Boeing is mulling an increase in the production rate. Might a more competitive A330 might for
61 Slz396 : Break even on what? On the pure lease itself, or rather on the production, short term lease and finally the sale of the planes to a third party as a
62 Leelaw : Both scenarios. I assume the development and most of the fixed manufacturing costs (plant, equipment, and tooling) of the A330/340 program (excluding
63 Slz396 : Allow me to disagree with you on this, because it either means we will see the current resale value of relatively new A330s be more than halved over
64 Post contains images Maersk737 : Yes indeed! Where've you been? [/quote] Vacation. Thanks for the update Cheers Peter
65 Nudelhirsch : Someone has never been in sales before... that's how attract accounts. Yo pour out perks, they sign up, all you have to do is keep a decent bottomlin
66 Zvezda : No, that is not a given. It might or might not turn out to be true. Not even Airbus have enough information to know now what the resale value of an A
67 Post contains images Johnny : I think if there will be an update of the Trent700 engine, then we will also see an updated Trent500,800 and 900 engine. What do you think?
68 Maersk737 : I have to agree, it's very difficult to figure out were the money is earned, in packet, like the one Airbus has offered SQ. Cheers Peter
69 Slz396 : Well apparently you seem to be knowing what the production cost is of an A333, excluding amortization of investements? Can you share it with us? Is $
70 Baroque : We need a Lightsaber contribution on how much these could be improved by updates. Presumably contra-rotation could not be included (already there on
71 Astuteman : For me, that's the primary reason for believing this is a good idea. The A330F has probably the most "secure" chance of recovering the investment on
72 Centrair : I'm am lost on technicalities but I can see an "enhanced" A330 having a rebirth in the transpac market. Its small, efficient, modern and has the range
73 KC135TopBoom : Does anyone have any quesses as to how much the new engines proposed will add to the cost of an A-330? I'm thinking the new A-330 will get its own des
74 Zvezda : Do I know exactly what it currently costs to build an A330-300? No. Have I been to Airbus and spoken with senior management about how much it costs t
75 Lumberton : This isn't a hi-jack attempt but isn't this what the 767 BCF program is for? Are the A330Fs all going to be "new builds", or will there be a conversi
76 Leelaw : If I ever require financial analysis which is consistently hallmarked by an artful combination of uniformly embracing very best case scenarios, obser
77 Baroque : And how heavy will a 75K engine be? I am pleased that Astuteman could not find another engine lurking there either! There are so many links, I worrie
78 Trex8 : could the "withdrawal" of the A332F announcement be due to a delay while potential buyers look at a GEnX (or Trent 1000) version?
79 YULYMX : The A330 is a excellent plane and his futur is bright... It's not a 777 but is still a pretty efficient plane both the 300 and 200 series... long rang
80 Zvezda : It is not unusual for aircraft orders to be announced (if not signed) before the engine choice is made.
81 Slz396 : Which is normal, since these kind of things are not easily shared with outsiders, no matter how close you are with the inner circle dealing with thes
82 Trex8 : would a reengined A330 have to wait till 2010+ for availability of the new engines? could they be retrofitted eventually to older A330s?
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The Future Of The A330 posted Mon Jul 24 2006 23:03:15 by Astuteman
ADS-B The Future Of Radar? posted Mon Nov 20 2006 19:58:42 by Mpdpilot
The Future Of Alliances (post Merger Frenzy) posted Fri Nov 17 2006 12:09:40 by B777A340Fan
Regional Airlines RFPs And The Future Of Them posted Wed Nov 15 2006 07:39:34 by Apodino
The Future Of CWL-BRU? posted Thu Oct 12 2006 01:31:41 by Cwldude
Braniff's View Of The Future Of Air Travel posted Tue Oct 10 2006 15:52:30 by OPNLguy
AA: The Future Of American Airlines posted Sun Oct 1 2006 19:52:50 by CHIFLYGUY
The "Hijack-Proof Aircraft" Of The Future posted Wed Sep 20 2006 23:01:04 by Vio
The Future Of Travel: Fascinating Article posted Fri Aug 18 2006 18:03:59 by Cedarjet
The Future Of IFE Post-8/11 posted Sun Aug 13 2006 03:25:52 by Airbear