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 ) suggest, maybe even to 500, particularly if the US tanker deal falls to the MRTT.
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?)
TL925 From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 65 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7485 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.
A5XX From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 243 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7457 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!
Gees, i'll be 78 years old, when they finally retire the KC135 !
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)
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.
Slz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7236 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.
Slz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7185 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.
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9136 posts, RR: 96 Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7162 times:
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
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
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9136 posts, RR: 96 Reply 15, posted (6 years 10 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7093 times:
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.
Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (6 years 10 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7081 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.
Maersk737 From Denmark, joined Feb 2004, 632 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (6 years 10 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7073 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?
Flying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4111 posts, RR: 39 Reply 18, posted (6 years 10 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7044 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.
Nudelhirsch From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 1438 posts, RR: 20 Reply 20, posted (6 years 10 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6955 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.
Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (6 years 10 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6940 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.
Nudelhirsch From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 1438 posts, RR: 20 Reply 22, posted (6 years 10 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6914 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...
CV990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (6 years 10 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6895 times:
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.
PM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6715 posts, RR: 65 Reply 24, posted (6 years 10 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6869 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 PM: 188 A330-300s and 232 A330-200s = 420 A330s built and flown. Four A330s have so far been written off.
27 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 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 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 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 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 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