Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S  
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 45411 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]


Non French in France
177 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRonaldo747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 395 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 45344 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.

User currently offlineba319-131 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 8596 posts, RR: 54
Reply 2, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 45265 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.



111,732,3,4,5,7,8,BBJ,741,742,743,744,752,762,763,764,772,77L,773,77W,L15,D10,30,40,AB3,AB6,A312.313,319,320,321,332,333
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7735 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 45142 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?

User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 4, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 45015 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.



What the...?
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 7007 posts, RR: 63
Reply 5, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 44651 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.   


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 873 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 44639 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]

User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 44298 times:

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


It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 44266 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.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 44020 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]


Non French in France
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31444 posts, RR: 85
Reply 10, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 43710 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12185 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 42896 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.


User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 677 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 42668 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]

User currently offlineBrianDromey From Ireland, joined Dec 2006, 3931 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 42560 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.



Next flights: MAN-ORK-LHR(EI)-MAN(BD); MAN-LHR(BD)-ORK (EI); DUB-ZRH-LAX (LX) LAX-YYZ (AC) YYZ-YHZ-LHR(AC)-DUB(BD)
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 14, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 42386 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.



Non French in France
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8670 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 42358 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.


User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 42122 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?


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 41792 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.


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5856 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 41552 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.


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 41427 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.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 41214 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.


User currently offlineglideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1630 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 40504 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.   



To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 27
Reply 22, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 40382 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.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlinea380900 From France, joined Dec 2003, 1118 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 40182 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!  

User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 39642 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.


25 BMI727 : The aim is to squeeze some more life and revenue out of a quality but aging airframe with minimal investment. It isn't anything like that. And Airbus
26 Post contains images neutronstar73 : 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 jumpi
27 Post contains images mariner : An aircraft that should have been built. mariner[Edited 2012-01-30 10:48:37]
28 seabosdca : Another question: what is the point of increasing MTOW on an A333? The existing aircraft is fuel volume limited, not MTOW limited, on most interconti
29 EPA001 : 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,
30 ferpe : 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 a
31 BMI727 : 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
32 RoseFlyer : 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
33 motorhussy : Yes and hopefully Airbus will include some of the other advantages promised for the original A350 - like the increased internal cabin gauge and A380
34 odwyerpw : 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
35 BMI727 : 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
36 Post contains links Wsp : This article http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...good-results-on-a320-tests-367002/ claims:
37 seabosdca : 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 Coa
38 Post contains images Stitch : 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 mo
39 DocLightning : 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 modifi
40 Wsp : 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
41 tomcat : 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 de
42 sunrisevalley : I you are referring to fuel or payload ?
43 Post contains images ukoverlander : 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
44 astuteman : 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 f
45 ikramerica : 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.
46 Post contains images seabosdca : 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 hamstru
47 qfa787380 : More problems/delays for the 350 and Airbus needs to get something out there with a satisfactory range/payload combination? Some analysts, such as Ber
48 redflyer : 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 includ
49 RoseFlyer : 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 &am
50 ghifty : 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 (b
51 SSTeve : It is not getting re-engined, though, so how can you call it the A350 mk1?
52 DocLightning : Fuel, but I read that on this site, so don't take my post as gospel.
53 Post contains images mariner : 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
54 LAXDESI : 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
55 seabosdca : 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
56 bjorn14 : Anybody know the status of the A359R?
57 aircellist : This qualifies for the understatement of the season, at least... Of course, hindsight... eh...
58 B6A322 : 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,
59 Stitch : Just a conceptual model at the moment - and one I expect won't advance beyond that status.
60 QF340500 : 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 (whi
61 Post contains images PM : 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 cus
62 thegeek : 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 gr
63 Post contains images rotating14 : 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
64 BMI727 : 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 a
65 travelhound : Entry into service 2015 - 30 deliveries; 2016 - 60 deliveries; 2017 - 90 deliveries; 2018 - 120 deliveries; 2019 - 120 deliveries; 2020 - 120 deliver
66 farzan : 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
67 bjorn14 : Pardon the ingnorance but does/will the 332 have sharklets?
68 travelhound : 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 th
69 Daysleeper : 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 ord
70 Post contains images lightsaber : I've been enthusiastic about the A330. However, when the 789 hits production stride, It will face stiff competition. I see these improvements helping
71 TaromA380 : 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
72 Chiad : 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 reach
73 seabosdca : 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
74 Daysleeper : 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
75 JerseyFlyer : 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 ma
76 LHCVG : 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"
77 T8KE0FF : 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
78 neutronstar73 : 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 qu
79 redflyer : 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 w
80 seabosdca : 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
81 Stitch : 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
82 motorhussy : 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.
83 Daysleeper : 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 thi
84 BMI727 : 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. Taking a
85 iceberg210 : 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
86 LAXDESI : 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
87 Post contains images seabosdca : 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
88 Roseflyer : 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
89 sunrisevalley : 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 varian
90 Glareskin : 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
91 zeke : This upgrade is nothing about "killing" anything from Boeing, it is about getting follow on orders from the existing A330/A340 customer base. True I
92 Post contains images PM : Just to be clear, The 'S' is not from Airbus but from our friend, ferpe: Correct. Please note that the article quoted by the OP makes no mention of t
93 Stitch : 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, ho
94 StickShaker : Nice summary Laxdesi. No problem with the technical stuff (accepting different operators will have varying missions) but the acquisition price of the
95 LAXDESI : 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 co
96 zeke : 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 develo
97 Post contains images ferpe : 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 . Absolutely, this was b
98 StickShaker : 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
99 Daysleeper : I thought the same. I seriously doubt that, the first few frames have cost an estimated 400 million each to produce and the average cost for the firs
100 Post contains images StickShaker : 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 i
101 cmf : 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 mo
102 Stitch : 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 mak
103 JerseyFlyer : 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. H
104 ferpe : 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 m
105 seabosdca : 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 Eur
106 Post contains links and images Daysleeper : 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
107 StickShaker : 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
108 sunrisevalley : 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 p
109 Wsp : 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 ad
110 Post contains links Daysleeper : 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
111 cmf : 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. No. To make mon
112 LHCVG : 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
113 Daysleeper : 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
114 Post contains images lightsaber : So true. 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
115 InsideMan : 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 t
116 Post contains links Wsp : 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 rea
117 Post contains images LAXDESI : 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 produc
118 Daysleeper : So simply put your saying that the figures for the first 45 frames includes a 9.7 billion “deferred” cost? This is to be expected and makes perfe
119 LAXDESI : Thanks for these links. Going by the numbers above, the first 45 planes have a charge of about $215 million ($9,700 mil/ 45). IMO, the $310 recognise
120 LHCVG : 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 produ
121 iceberg210 : 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.
122 LHCVG : Is there any chance of P&W having a 1st-gen large GTF working in time for the 33S?
123 Daysleeper : 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
124 Wsp : 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
125 sunrisevalley : And will likely be written off over time thus reducing future earnings.
126 LAXDESI : 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
127 Roseflyer : 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
128 vaus77w : Just on another note, does anyone know if it would be possible/feasible to remove the existing winglets on A333's and retrofit sharklets?
129 ikramerica : 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 pre
130 Post contains images lightsaber : That sounds reasonable. I recall about an $80 million/frame estimated original build cost. With all of the modifications and also the misses in produ
131 LAXDESI : 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
132 Post contains images lightsaber : 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
133 Post contains images PM : They'd sold 674 A330s by the end of 2006. That number is now up to 1,188. Call it 500 in five years!
134 StickShaker : 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
135 JoeCanuck : 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, an
136 StickShaker : We probably should have mentioned that amortising R&D and servicing/retiring debt on a given program are two separate issues. Might have caused s
137 Wsp : 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 w
138 Post contains links Daysleeper : 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 wou
139 Post contains links LAXDESI : 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 def
140 iceberg210 : 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 o
141 Daysleeper : 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 b
142 Post contains links LAXDESI : 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(A33
143 Daysleeper : 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 goo
144 sunrisevalley : Did you look at Post 89 . I would appreciate feedback.
145 Post contains images r2rho : 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 impr
146 Post contains images Daysleeper : 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/dispu
147 garpd : 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
148 captainmeeerkat : 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)
149 sunrisevalley : About GBP2000.00 Probably true, but reading the PIANO-X fine print suggests that it may not truly replicate in service aircraft. Given the A.Net penc
150 Post contains images Stitch : 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 t
151 garpd : 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 affec
152 Daysleeper : 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
153 Stitch : 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
154 Daysleeper : 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 Airlin
155 captainmeeerkat : 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,
156 Stitch : 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 ther
157 BMI727 : Unlike the 777X, an improved A330 would be developed at very little cost.
158 ferpe : 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 f
159 Stitch : Which is why I think they should do it, especially if they can retrofit the sharpest and the TOW increase to in-service frames.
160 LAXDESI : 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
161 rotating14 : 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 com
162 captainmeeerkat : 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 bo
163 astuteman : 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
164 sweair : 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 w
165 JoeCanuck : 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 usin
166 Post contains links and images zeke : 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 sti
167 AngMoh : 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
168 Daysleeper : 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 di
169 LAXDESI : Thanks. As per wiki, GEnx-1B has a 14" larger fan dia than the Tent 700, which I assume is not a problem. As per wiki, the current GEnx2b thrust is a
170 astuteman : The B789 will actually need a higher thrust rating than the A330S.... Rgds
171 sweair : 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
172 sunrisevalley : 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.
173 Post contains links and images ferpe : 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
174 mariner : 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 y
175 Post contains images ferpe : 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
176 packsonflight : 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
177 Post contains links india1 : more from Flight - http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ent-in-second-half-of-2012-367981/
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...
Will Boeing Replace The 787-9/777 With A New Line? posted Mon Aug 16 2010 22:43:11 by panais
Why Didn't Boeing Launch The 787-10 With Others.? posted Wed Jun 4 2008 09:43:54 by EA772LR
Airbus To Counter 787 Stretch With Heavier A350 posted Mon Mar 20 2006 18:56:10 by Leelaw
Airbus To Fill Freighter Void With A330 Derivative posted Mon Mar 13 2006 19:32:49 by Leelaw
Should Airbus Compete Directly With The 787-3&8? posted Thu Aug 3 2006 13:34:13 by MotorHussy
Is ANA Happy With The 787 So Far? posted Tue Dec 13 2011 21:50:46 by tonytifao
EgyptAir Receives Its First Of 5 Airbus A330-300s posted Tue Aug 31 2010 06:29:29 by egyptair269
What's The Update With The 787 At Farnborough? posted Wed Jun 30 2010 10:09:50 by virginblue4
787 Issue With The Composite Materials In Wings posted Fri Nov 13 2009 05:53:08 by PlaneAdmirer
Virgin Atlantic Orders 10x A330-300s posted Mon Jun 22 2009 03:35:51 by Pellegrine
What's The Update With The 787 At Farnborough? posted Wed Jun 30 2010 10:09:50 by virginblue4
787 Issue With The Composite Materials In Wings posted Fri Nov 13 2009 05:53:08 by PlaneAdmirer
EgyptAir Receives Its First Of 5 Airbus A330-300s posted Tue Aug 31 2010 06:29:29 by egyptair269
What's The Update With The 787 At Farnborough? posted Wed Jun 30 2010 10:09:50 by virginblue4
787 Issue With The Composite Materials In Wings posted Fri Nov 13 2009 05:53:08 by PlaneAdmirer
Airbus Challenges The Norwegian Airlines posted Tue Sep 21 2010 13:10:57 by Mortyman
Airbus Challenges The Norwegian Airlines posted Tue Sep 21 2010 13:10:57 by Mortyman
Will Boeing Replace The 787-9/777 With A New Line? posted Mon Aug 16 2010 22:43:11 by panais
Will Boeing Replace The 787-9/777 With A New Line? posted Mon Aug 16 2010 22:43:11 by panais
Why Didn't Boeing Launch The 787-10 With Others.? posted Wed Jun 4 2008 09:43:54 by EA772LR
Why Didn't Boeing Launch The 787-10 With Others.? posted Wed Jun 4 2008 09:43:54 by EA772LR
Airbus To Counter 787 Stretch With Heavier A350 posted Mon Mar 20 2006 18:56:10 by Leelaw
Airbus To Counter 787 Stretch With Heavier A350 posted Mon Mar 20 2006 18:56:10 by Leelaw
Airbus To Fill Freighter Void With A330 Derivative posted Mon Mar 13 2006 19:32:49 by Leelaw
Airbus To Fill Freighter Void With A330 Derivative posted Mon Mar 13 2006 19:32:49 by Leelaw
Should Airbus Compete Directly With The 787-3&8? posted Thu Aug 3 2006 13:34:13 by MotorHussy
Should Airbus Compete Directly With The 787-3&8? posted Thu Aug 3 2006 13:34:13 by MotorHussy
Is ANA Happy With The 787 So Far? posted Tue Dec 13 2011 21:50:46 by tonytifao
Is ANA Happy With The 787 So Far? posted Tue Dec 13 2011 21:50:46 by tonytifao
EgyptAir Receives Its First Of 5 Airbus A330-300s posted Tue Aug 31 2010 06:29:29 by egyptair269
EgyptAir Receives Its First Of 5 Airbus A330-300s posted Tue Aug 31 2010 06:29:29 by egyptair269
What's The Update With The 787 At Farnborough? posted Wed Jun 30 2010 10:09:50 by virginblue4
What's The Update With The 787 At Farnborough? posted Wed Jun 30 2010 10:09:50 by virginblue4
787 Issue With The Composite Materials In Wings posted Fri Nov 13 2009 05:53:08 by PlaneAdmirer
787 Issue With The Composite Materials In Wings posted Fri Nov 13 2009 05:53:08 by PlaneAdmirer