Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus Discussing A330 Improvements With RR & GE  
User currently offlineChiad From Norway, joined May 2006, 1148 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 20051 times:

Bloomberg reports that Airbus is talking with Rolls-Royce Plc (RR/), General Electric Co. (GE) and Pratt & Whitney about incremental improvements to engines and is considering other improvements including measures to reduce drag on the wing and boost fuel efficiency

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...t-range-or-passengers-carried.html

85 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2618 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 19953 times:

This is not about a NEO, but about incremental improvements (more PIPs) and a MTOW boost to 240t. It only slightly mentions that AirAsia's CEO would like to have GEnx on the A330. Airbus had also stated in the past that they were studying the possibility of sharklets.

To me the MTOW boost is all but a given (let's wait for Farnborough). PIPs are always welcome if the engine manufacturers see they can get a good ROI. Sharklets... I think Airbus engineering resources are busy enough already, I don't expect a decision on that before next year. What is clear though is that Airbus is not giving up on the A330 despite 787 EIS, they still want to introduce incremental improvements. This IMO casts further doubt on the A350-800...


User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 19808 times:

Quoting Chiad (Thread starter):
Bloomberg reports that Airbus is talking with Rolls-Royce Plc (RR/), General Electric Co. (GE) and Pratt & Whitney about incremental improvements to engines and is considering other improvements including measures to reduce drag on the wing and boost fuel efficiency


IMO

Incremental aerodynamic, engine, MTW improvements   

Half-baked A350 Mk1   

"Airbus has won 1,199 orders so far for the A330, and delivered 871. The planemaker had originally expected the plane to be slowly phased out as the competing Boeing 787 and Airbus’s own A350 came into service. A three-year delay in 787 production has boosted demand for the A330, with the plane winning 758 orders alone since the 787 first went on offer."

Interesting to see that the A330 has secured almost as many orders as the 787 since the 787 was launched!


User currently offlinepanais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 463 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 19454 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 1):
What is clear though is that Airbus is not giving up on the A330 despite 787 EIS, they still want to introduce incremental improvements. This IMO casts further doubt on the A350-800

A NEO might cast doubt on the A350-800. An A330 PIP casts doubt on the 787-8's ability to capture more than 50% of the 230-250 seater widebody market.


User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined exactly 3 years ago today! , 1189 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 19438 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 1):
To me the MTOW boost is all but a given (let's wait for Farnborough). PIPs are always welcome if the engine manufacturers see they can get a good ROI.

   Every couple of years they seem to slightly increase the MTOW (for airlines who want the extra range). I don't see why this shouldn't happen once more.



Air New Zealand; first to commercially fly the Boeing 787-9. ZK-NZE, NZ103 AKL-SYD, 2014/08/09. I was 83rd to board.
User currently offlineRubberJungle From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 19420 times:

Suggestions of an A330neo are misleading - during the Airbus briefing in Toulouse last week, Leahy said the engine discussions are about improvements "in the 1%, 2%, 3% category" and "not a new engine". The sharklets idea is still being tossed around, but not everyone at the top of Airbus is convinced there's a business case.

User currently offlineebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 19199 times:

I don't see the A330 improvements as casting doubt on either the 787 or the A350. What I do see is Airbus getting all it can out of an already very successful program. It makes good business sense. The A330 has its place in the airline world, as does the A350 and the 787. Each will succeed or fail based on its merits or problems.

Frankly it's way too soon to be judging the A350 and the 787 is still very new in service. Time will tell whether these airplanes will truly make a name for themselves. As is clear, the A330 has already made a name for itself and Airbus has good reason to be very proud.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6897 posts, RR: 46
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 19069 times:

Until 787 production can catch up with demand (i.e. an airline can get one in the same time frame as an A330) there will be demand for the A330. The more Airbus can improve the A330 the more attractive it will be, as it will retain more value once 787's become plentiful. But doing a full NEO would only be economically feasible if the resultant plane was fully competitive with the 787, and I do not believe it will be. That is why it won't happen. Don't forget the 787 will not be standing still, either.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently onlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8343 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 18972 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 6):
I don't see the A330 improvements as casting doubt on either the 787 or the A350. What I do see is Airbus getting all it can out of an already very successful program. It makes good business sense. The A330 has its place in the airline world, as does the A350 and the 787. Each will succeed or fail based on its merits or problems.

Why can't the A330 and A350 co-exist ? The A330 is lighter and better for short and medium haul flights, the A350 is a better long haul plane. The A330 program is one of those planes that was in the shadow of its more capable twin, the A340, now it has grown to become a long haul plane making the A340 obsolete. The A330-300 is great for 12 hour flights, the A350-900 will go until about 16 hours. Now Airnus has two decent twin programs.


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4763 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 18748 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 8):
The A330-300 is great for 12 hour flights, the A350-900 will go until about 16 hours. Now Airnus has two decent twin programs.

Does anyone fly a A333 12 hours routinely?? Maybe an A332. A333 is more a 5000nm/10 hr beast for real world operations.


User currently offlineZKCIF From Lithuania, joined Oct 2010, 296 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 18373 times:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 9):
Does anyone fly a A333 12 hours routinely?? Maybe an A332. A333 is more a 5000nm/10 hr beast for real world operations.

per great circle mapper,
SVO (55°58'22"N 37°24'53"E) LAX (33°56'33"N 118°24'29"W) 340° (N) 5281 nm

but the actual route SU fly with a 333 is something like 5700-5900nm, i believe. of course, their 333 are mostly brand new, older ones don't have this range.

as the majority of 333s don't have the range, their operators do not consider 12-hour routes.
when more so capable 333s are around, there might be more operators doing such long flights.


User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6897 posts, RR: 46
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 18207 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 8):
Why can't the A330 and A350 co-exist ?

They can, but the fuel burn per seat of the A330 is what will push it out.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinepanais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 463 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 18007 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 8):
Why can't the A330 and A350 co-exist ? The A330 is lighter and better for short and medium haul flights, the A350 is a better long haul plane.

Airbus said, a couple of years ago, that the A350-800 will be 20% more fuel efficient per passenger that the A330-200 on 4,000nm flights. Anything below 4,000nm is becoming A320NEO teritorry.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30914 posts, RR: 87
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 16912 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

With Boeing improving the 787-8 with every block-point, Airbus has to keep pushing the A330-200 as far as they can to secure sales while Boeing is only capable of delivering 787s in fits and spurts. Boeing has already stated they intend to go beyond 10 deliveries per month and once they can open up delivery slots again, interest in the A330-200 will weaken.

A stronger A330-200 and 787-8 don't help the A350-800's case, unfortunately. The A350-800 is suffering a bit from the same issues the A350-1000 is: the A330-200 and 777-300ER are so good that operators continue to take them, which pushes back the need for the A350. Airbus pushed back the A350-800 to 2016 because none of their customers want one before then and a better A330-200 and 787-8 are likely not going to encourage operators to clamor for an A350-800.

That being said, I am positive the A350-800 will make it into service. As panais noted, the A350-800 will offer a double-digit fuel burn advantage over the A330-200 and will haul more payload farther. Once Airbus gets A350 production to 10+ a month, the A350-800 will become the natural choice for A330-200 operators who are not going to the 787-8.

And at that point, the A330-200 becomes a freighter and an MTOW boost and engine PiPs will be very welcome there.   


User currently offlinecol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2107 posts, RR: 22
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 16599 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
With Boeing improving the 787-8 with every block-point, Airbus has to keep pushing the A330-200 as far as they can to secure sales while Boeing is only capable of delivering 787s in fits and spurts. Boeing has already stated they intend to go beyond 10 deliveries per month and once they can open up delivery slots again, interest in the A330-200 will weaken.

A stronger A330-200 and 787-8 don't help the A350-800's case, unfortunately. The A350-800 is suffering a bit from the same issues the A350-1000 is: the A330-200 and 777-300ER are so good that operators continue to take them, which pushes back the need for the A350. Airbus pushed back the A350-800 to 2016 because none of their customers want one before then and a better A330-200 and 787-8 are likely not going to encourage operators to clamor for an A350-800.

That being said, I am positive the A350-800 will make it into service. As panais noted, the A350-800 will offer a double-digit fuel burn advantage over the A330-200 and will haul more payload farther. Once Airbus gets A350 production to 10+ a month, the A350-800 will become the natural choice for A330-200 operators who are not going to the 787-8.

And at that point, the A330-200 becomes a freighter and an MTOW boost and engine PiPs will be very welcome there.

Think that sums it up nicely Stitch. Take Sunday off.  


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13023 posts, RR: 100
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 15656 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I do not see the business case anymore for a re-engined A330. I just do not see the ROI for customers to wait the years or the engine vendors to invest the billions. (For there is no 'plug and play' engine.)

I agree with Stitch. The A332 eventually becomes a freighter and we see how well winglets, weight reduction and other features keep the A330 selling in PAX duty.

Quoting panais (Reply 12):
Airbus said, a couple of years ago, that the A350-800 will be 20% more fuel efficient per passenger that the A330-200 on 4,000nm flights. Anything below 4,000nm is becoming A320NEO teritorry.

That is an important item to note. Anything below 4,000nm is heading towards 737MAX/A320NEO competition. As much as we love widebodies, economics rules the market.

WN, FR, and others are unlikely to buy widebodies. But with longer range narrowbodies, they *will* enter new markets enabled by the greater range. The A350 will be *far* more efficient than the A330 for 5000nm+. The A330 won't compete once there are 500+ A350s in the fleet and a similar, if not greater, number of 787s. Even with a re-engine. The A330 was *really* strong on the short-TATL market. I see that market going to narrowbodies. So there is less market to capture for a re-engine.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
A stronger A330-200 and 787-8 don't help the A350-800's case, unfortunately.

Agreed. I enjoyed your post, but I am a bit more pessimistic on the A358 as the cost per flight of the A359 will be barely anything more. In particular if the A359 hits targets. I see a market up-gauging a la WN from the 73G to 738.


Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 15420 times:

For a 5,000 nm trip:

A358 burns about 2,500 gallons less fuel for a saving of $7,500 over a hypothetical A332NEO
A358 may earn additional $15,000 in revenue for the 28 extra seats at 70% load factor.

So even if the extra seats are not needed on a route, A358 saves around $2.6 million in annual fuel cost. If the extra seats can be filled at 70% load factor, then the total annual operating benefits for A358 are higher by about $8 million per year.

The above savings at a cost of capital of 10% is worth about $60 million to an airline assuming a 15 year life for the aircraft. I don't think Airbus would sell A332NEO at a net price that is $60 million lower than A358 to make it competitive.

If one assumes that the extra seats of A358 will go unused on some routes, then the PV of fuel advantage of A358 over 15 years is about $20 million. So for some routes, an A332NEO priced $20 million less than A358 may be preferred.

Currently, A358 is priced about $45 million more than A332 at list. One would expect this spread to shrink between A358 and A332NEO to $30 million.

Comparing the A358 to the current A332HGW for a 5,000 nm trip:
A358 burns about 3,800 gallons less fuel for a saving of $11,500 over A332.

If one assumes that the extra seats of A358 will go unused on some routes, then the PV of fuel advantage of A358 over 15 years is about $30 million. So for some routes, an A332 priced $30 million less(net) than A358 may be preferred.

In summary, A332NEO is unlikely to be competitive against both A358 and B788 unless heavily discounted.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30914 posts, RR: 87
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 15219 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 15):
I enjoyed your post, but I am a bit more pessimistic on the A358 as the cost per flight of the A359 will be barely anything more.

I do agree the A350-800 is in a weak position in the market.

The 787-8's lighter weight (both empty and full) should result in lower fuel burn and it looks to only come up a few tons short on payload (and then only against the A350-800HGW, which will weigh even more empty and full).

The 787-9 should have a not-insubstantial payload advantage in terms of weight and a substantial one in terms of volume while being similar in weight full (and probably lighter in weight empty). The A350-800HGW will have a range advantage, but ULH is not a niche that makes money anymore with fuel prices the way they are.

And then, as you noted, her big sister offers more payload weight, more payload volume and likely very similar trip and operating costs.

Because it is a straight shrink, there is no reason for Airbus not to offer it. But I do not see Airbus using the time gained by pushing back the EIS to spend any money or effort on optimizing the frame as I don't believe it would result in substantial new sales.


User currently offlineairboe From San Marino, joined Jan 2011, 45 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 14925 times:

Quoting Chiad (Thread starter):
Bloomberg reports that Airbus is talking with Rolls-Royce Plc (RR/), General Electric Co. (GE) and Pratt & Whitney about incremental improvements to engines and is considering other improvements including measures to reduce drag on the wing and boost fuel efficiency

According to Leeham's reporting from "Airbus Innovation Days", this is how they see it:

"A330neo: Forget about it. Not any time in the foreseeable future."

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2012...opsis-of-a-lot-of-stuff/#more-6101

I guess their hands are full with A359 and A351, - and of course the NEO.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
I do agree the A350-800 is in a weak position in the market.

I agree. Really can't see who it is appealing to.

+++



keep it free of the propellers
User currently offlinepanais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 463 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 14314 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
I do agree the A350-800 is in a weak position in the market.

Think of the A350-800 as the A319 of the family.
Airbus is creating families. They have the A320, which is working very well for them, and they want to repeat this with the A350. Does it make sense for them to design the A350 for a segment, the 220-240 seat widebody, that is already sold out with 787-8, which by the way many were mostly sold at a loss?

Airbus has probably designed the A358-800 for the next size of the segment which might be what airlines will be asking for in 2025.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30914 posts, RR: 87
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 13751 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting panais (Reply 19):
Airbus is creating families.

Indeed. Which is why I believe there is no reason for Airbus not to offer it since it's a straight shrink. I just don't think Airbus would gain much from investing any serious time or money in it. Like the A319 and 737-700, the bigger sisters in the family tend to be close enough on trip costs that their greater size doesn't impose any real penalty if not used, but does offer benefits if you can.

I expect to see more conversions of the 787-8 to the 787-9, as well.


User currently offlineliftsifter From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 13633 times:

Why is Airbus trying to re-engine the A330 when the A358 is supposed to be the replacement?


A300 A310 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A342 A343 A346 A380 B738 B744 B763 B772 B77W B787 Q400 E190
User currently offlinepoLot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2160 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 13616 times:

Quoting liftsifter (Reply 21):
Why is Airbus trying to re-engine the A330 when the A358 is supposed to be the replacement?

They are not. They are pushing for RR, GE, & PW to make slight improvements to their existing A330 engines to make them even better.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13023 posts, RR: 100
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 13595 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 16):
So even if the extra seats are not needed on a route, A358 saves around $2.6 million in annual fuel cost. If the extra seats can be filled at 70% load factor, then the total annual operating benefits for A358 are higher by about $8 million per year.

Thank you for the numbers. Always appreciated.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
Because it is a straight shrink, there is no reason for Airbus not to offer it. But I do not see Airbus using the time gained by pushing back the EIS to spend any money or effort on optimizing the frame as I don't believe it would result in substantial new sales.

That we can agree upon. Between the 788/789 and the A359, I'm just not seeing much of a niche for the A358. Then again, as a 'straight shrink,' there isn't much cost either (besides the flight testing, in particular the rudder). Then again, I'm trying to find what market niche it would excel in.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30914 posts, RR: 87
Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 13418 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 23):
Then again, I'm trying to find what market niche it would excel in.

A340-500 replacement.   

Actually, I am kind of serious as I could see it being employed like the Middle Eastern carriers are using the 777-200LR - to open new long-haul routes with no payload hit and then growing them to larger aircraft.

I could also see it being used to open routes where there is significant competition, but enough of a loyal O&D demand to fill a smaller plane. Much like AS has done in the United States, launching select services out of SEA to destinations their partners already have significant capacity on but utilizing the loyalty of customers to AS (and the AS Mileage Plan) to fill those single flights.


User currently offlinepanais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 463 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 13289 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 23):
I'm just not seeing much of a niche for the A358.

If you have a number of A359 and there are some routes where because of traffic or seasonality, you cannot fill them, then you order a small number of A358's to some some money on fuel, landing rights and capital costs.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 26, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 12700 times:

Quoting panais (Reply 3):
An A330 PIP casts doubt on the 787-8's ability to capture more than 50% of the 230-250 seater widebody market.

Why? Do you think Boeing will never have PIPs for the B-787?

Quoting airboe (Reply 18):

"A330neo: Forget about it. Not any time in the foreseeable future."

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2012...opsis-of-a-lot-of-stuff/#more-6101

I guess their hands are full with A359 and A351, - and of course the NEO.

Not to mention the A-380, the sharklet A-320 (non-NEO), and the A-400M.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13023 posts, RR: 100
Reply 27, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 11743 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 24):
A340-500 replacement.   

Actually, I am kind of serious as I could see it being employed like the Middle Eastern carriers are using the 777-200LR - to open new long-haul routes with no payload hit and then growing them to larger aircraft.

I could see that. But only with a carrier who had other A350s in their fleet.

Quoting panais (Reply 25):
If you have a number of A359 and there are some routes where because of traffic or seasonality, you cannot fill them, then you order a small number of A358's to some some money on fuel, landing rights and capital costs.

Ok. That makes sense. But what would the market be. 60 to 100 airframes? A market a wee bit vulnerable to a 788 MTOW increase (with fuel volume). I'm hearing a few rumors about that (but only rumors).

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19592 posts, RR: 58
Reply 28, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 11513 times:

Quoting RubberJungle (Reply 5):
The sharklets idea is still being tossed around, but not everyone at the top of Airbus is convinced there's a business case.

Especially if available as a retrofit, I can't see why it wouldn't be a reasonably safe bet. They might not do that well, but surely there's not THAT much to lose if they don't.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1821 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 10715 times:

The 748 engines should fit like a glove? Would it be much rework to re engine a A330? Heavier engines I am sure. Some 10% more efficient than the CF6?

User currently offlineRubberJungle From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 30, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 10443 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 28):
Especially if available as a retrofit, I can't see why it wouldn't be a reasonably safe bet. They might not do that well, but surely there's not THAT much to lose if they don't.

The issue is whether an A330 sharklet would produce effects significant enough to make the retrofit modification economical for the airlines. It already has large winglets, so the extra benefit is not as clear as with the A320.

Not only that but an A320 sharklet retrofit is a fringe benefit of a solid new-build aircraft programme with long-term prospects. The sharklet for the A320 is already designed, and Airbus is already committed to building sharklet-compatible wings as standard.

That's not the case for the A330 for which, given the prospects for long-term production, a sharklet development would have to be primarily viewed as a retrofit programme. Which doesn't mean it can't be done, or shouldn't be done, but it does mean Airbus has to decide whether it's a priority.


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6895 posts, RR: 63
Reply 31, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week ago) and read 10036 times:

Pace the thread title, Airbus are talking to all three engine manufacturers. Which of the three is in a better position to improve their current A330 engine?

User currently offlineimiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 32, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 9896 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 31):
Which of the three is in a better position to improve their current A330 engine?

You would think, given RR's healthy market position on the A330 and their very large customer base, they would require the least incentive. Where they are on the technology front, and how much more could be squeezed out of the Trent 700, I do not know.

PW has been very busy in the past 12 months preparing engine upgrades for the PW 4090 on the B777 with new thermal barrier coatings. I believe KE is currently retrofitting their engines with the upgrades at the moment. Granted the main benefit is maintenance savings, but if PW is willing to put the money into a dead frame like the 772/773, I can not see them shying away from upgrading the 4000-94 for Airbus.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30914 posts, RR: 87
Reply 33, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 9659 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PM (Reply 31):
Which of the three is in a better position to improve their current A330 engine?

I would have said GE, but they evidently sneaked a PiP in that addressed their woeful performance in high ambient temperatures.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13023 posts, RR: 100
Reply 34, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 9597 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Here is my 'game theory' test if this will happen.

Neither Pratt nor GE has an engine, yet, for the A350. Would it be better for either of these two to develop an A350 engine or a new A330 engine? IMHO an A350 engine would have a better ROI.

For RR, why would they spend money to dilute their Trent XWB? They need to focus on thrust growth and not a distraction.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 33):
I would have said GE, but they evidently sneaked a PiP in that addressed their woeful performance in high ambient temperatures.

I'm impressed how much their PIP helped. A 'hot takeoff' performance to 59F wasn't impressive. Now that they have thrust to 86F, they're doing fine.

Quoting imiakhtar (Reply 32):
but if PW is willing to put the money into a dead frame like the 772/773, I can not see them shying away from upgrading the 4000-94 for Airbus.

Pratt will. Pratt's issue is temperatures at the high compressor bleed valves (needed to prevent compressor stall). To go to higher thrust requires nacelle changes. IMHO, a workable problem. I could see new TBC's on the PW4170A making it a PW4173A.    I've also heard rumors of a new fan. But that takes a launch customer. The PW4090 improvements are to appease KE after the PW4098 debacle...

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinegoosebayguy From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2009, 398 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 9486 times:

Tweaking engines is all very well but why not change the wings to all composite? Surely the weight saving would give a huge boost at a relatively low cost say to an all composite fuselage etc? Gradual change to the aircraft but at each stage improving the aircraft for the future to keep ahead of competitors?

User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 36, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 9448 times:

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 35):
Tweaking engines is all very well but why not change the wings to all composite?

Because that's the complete opposite of "tweaking"...changing the wing is about the biggest single possible upgrade while still having the same basic type.

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 35):
Surely the weight saving would give a huge boost at a relatively low cost say to an all composite fuselage etc?

The weight savings in the wing is less clear than in the fuselage; it would be a *huge* expense in tooling and capital infrastructure with no realistic hope of recovering that cost in the remaining life of the aircraft. If they could revise the aerodynamics at the same time that might do it (that's what Boeing is talking about with the 777-X) but now you're talking about something far far beyond a simple engine tweak.

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 35):
Gradual change to the aircraft but at each stage improving the aircraft for the future to keep ahead of competitors?

The only thing that has the A330 ahead of its competitors is production schedule; both A & B have products coming that beat it and the A330 can't beat them without becoming one of them. Airbus has to carefully balance investment against their opportunity to recover cost before the A350 and 787 come on full production rate.

Tom.


User currently offlinepanais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 463 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 9228 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 26):
Why? Do you think Boeing will never have PIPs for the B-787?

Of course they will have PIPs. I am simply questioning whether the airline industry needs the 787-8. I am of the opinion that the 787-8 will barely sell more than an additional 100 units of the 519 units ordered so far. The B787-9 seems to be a far more superior product at probably zero to very small additional operating cost.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 27):
But what would the market be. 60 to 100 airframes?

They already sold more than that so it has to be more. The A350 is Airbus's next widebody frame (A300 first flight was in 1972) so expect them to develop products on the A350 frame for the next 40 years.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13023 posts, RR: 100
Reply 38, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 9209 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting panais (Reply 37):
They already sold more than that so it has to be more.

I disagree. I suspect as the A358/A359 definition has matured that more than a few airlines will upgauge due to A358 delivery delays. Financing an A358 will be more expensive than an A359 unless Airbus steps in to guarantee residual values. IMHO, it would be better to sell the A359.

However, I see a bright future for the A358 as a freighter. But why worry about that today?

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30914 posts, RR: 87
Reply 39, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 9192 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 38):
I suspect as the A358/A359 definition has matured that more than a few airlines will upgauge due to A358 delivery delays.

The A350-800 delivery delays are customer-driven, not production driven. With no customers wanting the plane before 2016, I wonder how many of those current A350-800 orders will actually be delivered as A350-800s.


User currently offlineWisdom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 40, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 9029 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 16):
A358 burns about 2,500 gallons less fuel for a saving of $7,500 over a hypothetical A332NEO
A358 may earn additional $15,000 in revenue for the 28 extra seats at 70% load factor.

So even if the extra seats are not needed on a route, A358 saves around $2.6 million in annual fuel cost. If the extra seats can be filled at 70% load factor, then the total annual operating benefits for A358 are higher by about $8 million per year.

The above savings at a cost of capital of 10% is worth about $60 million to an airline assuming a 15 year life for the aircraft. I don't think Airbus would sell A332NEO at a net price that is $60 million lower than A358 to make it competitive.

I must disagree with your assessment.

First of all because of your comparison between the A358 and A332NEO.
To compare like for like, I find it more appropriate to compare aircraft with similar max. seating capacity.
The max seating for A333 and A358 are the same at 440 seats despite the A358 being shorter, as the A358 is a nine abreast cabin, the whole point of its XWB campaign.

If you compare a A330NEO with a A358, I don't think that you will see any fuel burn difference.
The weight targets will likely be missed and the A358 will end up weighing about the same as an A333 NEO.
Aerodynamically, the wing probably doesn't achieve much of an improvement, especially if the A330 NEO is fitted with some kind of improved wing edge devices.
The fuselage of the A358 will be wider, meaning more drag.

If the XWB's or better even, lighter GEnx's are fitted, I don't see the A358 achieving the 7% fuel burn advantage you suggest. 2500 gallons or 8 tons of fuel over 9 hour flights, twice a day, 280 days a year, given 7 ton fuel burn of the A333, equates to 7%.

I suggest to consider a 2% fuel burn advantage more feasible.

This will paint a totally different picture on the viability of the A330 NEO program.
The savings will be reduced to 750.000$ a year, which means that over a 20 year period, the savings will only be 15 million dollars.
John Leahy can easily sell an A330 NEO 15 million cheaper to compensate for that difference and will happily do so if he can sell an extra A333.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 15):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
A stronger A330-200 and 787-8 don't help the A350-800's case, unfortunately.

Agreed. I enjoyed your post, but I am a bit more pessimistic on the A358 as the cost per flight of the A359 will be barely anything more. In particular if the A359 hits targets. I see a market up-gauging a la WN from the 73G to 738.

I also think that many customers will shift to the A359. The A358 will still be a feasible instrument in a fleet composed of other A350XWB family aircraft.

In my opinion, Leahy should give its customer airlines the option to go for a A332NEO/A333NEO or A358XWB/A359XWB/A3510XWB longhaul fleet.
This way he won't have to force the A358 onto airlines that need something bigger to operate alongside A332's.

The A332 NEO/A33NEO combo will be particularily well-suited for U.S. airlines who like to build their widebody fleets around this aircraft size and don't particularily need the B772ER range, as long as they can do longer transoceanic services for which 6300NM range of a A330NEO is sufficient.
DL, AA seem to be great opportunities for this kind of aircraft, given long lead times for deliveries of 787's and their long list of aging aircraft.

This will enable these airlines to replace old B767's and B772ER's by one single type of aircraft by the end of this decade, which is sooner than Boeing will be able to offer them a B787.

[Edited 2012-05-27 10:55:46]

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13023 posts, RR: 100
Reply 41, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 8864 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 39):
The A350-800 delivery delays are customer-driven, not production driven. With no customers wanting the plane before 2016, I wonder how many of those current A350-800 orders will actually be delivered as A350-800s.

Fair enough. The same point happens, very few A358 deliveries. However, I see the A359 out-prioritizing the A358 rather than A358 customers wishing for a delay... Either way, this is like the 762ER vs. the 763ER, the extra seats in the later more than pay for the small incremental cost per flight. I see that being true of the A358 vs. the A359.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 40):
Aerodynamically, the wing probably doesn't achieve much of an improvement

New cross sections should be a little more efficient. Also, the A350 has substantially more wing area (443m^2 vs. 363.1m^2). The A358, on longer missions, will be able to take advantage of a higher cruise altitude to conserve some fuel. I do not see making competitive with the A358 for missions over 5,000nm.   Since so many of the shorter missions will go narrowbody, I just do not see the ROI for an A330 re-engine.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineWisdom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 42, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 8705 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 41):
New cross sections should be a little more efficient. Also, the A350 has substantially more wing area (443m^2 vs. 363.1m^2). The A358, on longer missions, will be able to take advantage of a higher cruise altitude to conserve some fuel. I do not see making competitive with the A358 for missions over 5,000nm.   Since so many of the shorter missions will go narrowbody, I just do not see the ROI for an A330 re-engine.

I think that it's fair to say that anything up to 7000km will, at least in the Western hemisphere, progressively be operated by narrowbodies.
I think however, that this leaves a big gap there between 7000km and 12000km, a market that is today flooded by B767's, B772, early B772ER's, A343 and early A332/A333's.

The way I see it, the A330 sales will start to see a strong decline around this year, as the 787 deliveries begin to pick up pace. At some point in the near future, the sales will decline to a level where a PIP won't be sufficient to convince the airlines.

I think that Leahy and his team are well aware of this but are waiting for a marked decline of new orders and the backlog to reduce to a certain level to make a decision and announce it. I think that the A350XWB EIS would be the perfect timing to announce this.
Right now they need the A350XWB to be delivered and the A330 to support any delays in deliveries. Why else would Airbus increase production rates 18 months prior to planned EIS of a type that is supposed to cannibalise its sales?


User currently offlineHamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2744 posts, RR: 58
Reply 43, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 8413 times:

Quoting panais (Reply 37):
They already sold more than that so it has to be more.

  

By no means does it "have" to be more, tho it certainly could. Looking at the orderbook today, yes. They have 118 orders for the A358. BUT, look at the orderbook 24 months ago, and that number was 182. In the mean time, a few have been cancelled, but most have been converted to the -900. In other words, exactly what Stitch and lightsaber have been saying. Project that rate out to the A358's EIS in 2016, and the orderbook will stand at exactly 0.  

Seriously, tho, I'm in complete agreement with those two. There is no reason for Airbus to not develop the -800 as a straight shrink. Costs are minimal. However, it's sales future looks to be the same as the 772LR and A345. Great aircraft, but definitively niche.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 38):
However, I see a bright future for the A358 as a freighter.

Here I have to disagree with you. I think the payload/volume combination of the -900 will be better suited to the freighter role than the -800. I seriously doubt we'll ever see a A358F, unless maybe as a P2F (so yes, we are talking a LONG way off. . . ).


Regards,

Hamlet69



Honor the warriors, not the war.
User currently offlineAngMoh From Singapore, joined Nov 2011, 485 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 8387 times:

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 42):
I think that it's fair to say that anything up to 7000km will, at least in the Western hemisphere, progressively be operated by narrowbodies.
I think however, that this leaves a big gap there between 7000km and 12000km, a market that is today flooded by B767's, B772, early B772ER's, A343 and early A332/A333's.

I think you are off by a couple of thousand km.

7000 km is solid A330/767/777 territory. Early A333s and non-ER 767s will struggle with such a distance, while a 757 can do it on paper only. 12000 km is the 30th longest flight (ORD-DEL), which is solid 77W/77L/A345/A346/A380/747ER territory. Very few airlines have routes over 12000 km.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3399 posts, RR: 4
Reply 45, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 8346 times:

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 43):
Seriously, tho, I'm in complete agreement with those two. There is no reason for Airbus to not develop the -800 as a straight shrink. Costs are minimal

Using that logic there was no reason not to develop the 736 since it was a straight shrink of the 73G. However history has proven it was pretty much a pants on head stupid decision. At this point if I was airbus I'd have to be questioning if I should offer a "free" upgrade to the A359 for current A358 orders to dodge the development and certification costs. 100 Planes justifies the A358 but its sure getting close to where the program isn't justified. The A358F can allways come on the back of whatever the current generation of A359 is when the market is ready for it, nothing is saved or gained by having the passenger version of the frame on the market early.


User currently offlinepoLot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2160 posts, RR: 1
Reply 46, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8144 times:

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 44):
7000 km is solid A330/767/777 territory. Early A333s and non-ER 767s will struggle with such a distance, while a 757 can do it on paper only. 12000 km is the 30th longest flight (ORD-DEL), which is solid 77W/77L/A345/A346/A380/747ER territory. Very few airlines have routes over 12000 km.

7000km is only about 3780nm. It might be a struggle for non-ER 767, early A333s, and 757s, but not by much. It is not solid A330/767/777 territory (I would say that is more 5000-6000nm, especially for the 777), it is in the lower end of the their range, and future narrowbodies will probably have no problem getting up to 4000nm when properly equipped.

And Wisdom wasn't suggesting that airlines had many routes over 12000km, rather he was suggesting that the 5000km gap between 7000km and 12000km is where the market is for this aircraft (and he is right). But right now it is saturated with too many aircraft that airlines aren't interested in replacing yet, and that in the later part of the decade airlines will be ready to replace these older aircraft and that is when Airbus should announce an A330neo.


User currently offlineAngMoh From Singapore, joined Nov 2011, 485 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8055 times:

Quoting poLot (Reply 46):
And Wisdom wasn't suggesting that airlines had many routes over 12000km, rather he was suggesting that the 5000km gap between 7000km and 12000km is where the market is for this aircraft (and he is right). But right now it is saturated with too many aircraft that airlines aren't interested in replacing yet, and that in the later part of the decade airlines will be ready to replace these older aircraft and that is when Airbus should announce an A330neo.

Here I don't agree. The A333 is perfect for 4-8 hours (which is less than 7000km) high volume flights and there are lots of these. There is no need to extend the range of if the A330 because then it starts competing directly with the 777 and A350 and will not be able to compete. There is a need to have intra-Asia flights, across the Atlantic and middle-east to Europe, India and Asia at an as low as possible cost and that could use an optimized A330 instead of a downgraded 777X or A350.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13023 posts, RR: 100
Reply 48, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8020 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 42):
I think that it's fair to say that anything up to 7000km will, at least in the Western hemisphere, progressively be operated by narrowbodies.

I think we agree. Oh, maybe we could debate a little on the exact range, but in concept we agree.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 42):
The way I see it, the A330 sales will start to see a strong decline around this year, as the 787 deliveries begin to pick up pace. At some point in the near future, the sales will decline to a level where a PIP won't be sufficient to convince the airlines.

Agreed there will be a decline, but I think Airbus has time before the end. Hence the weight loss, sharklets, and ???. I see being able to keep the A330 sell-able for a few more years for PAX duty. In particular the A333. But there will be a decline.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3399 posts, RR: 4
Reply 49, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 7983 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 48):
Agreed there will be a decline, but I think Airbus has time before the end. Hence the weight loss, sharklets, and ???. I see being able to keep the A330 sell-able for a few more years for PAX duty. In particular the A333. But there will be a decline.

Sure, Cheap upgrades will pay thier way onto the frame all the way till Airbus has the time and money for an all new frame way down the road. People seem to ignore that cheap upgrades have been paying thier way onto the A330 every year since it first flew till today. The A330 someone recieves is a whole different plane performance wise than the one that was 1st delivered all those years ago. That said a comprehensive upgrade program like a "neo" is silly idea at this time. That ship sailed with the death of the A350 that was merely a A330NEO.

The A330F program has largely been waiting on slots so even if the 787 steals the A330P's lunch in the next decade, Airbus shouldn't have anything to worry about.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10008 posts, RR: 96
Reply 50, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7969 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 41):
Since so many of the shorter missions will go narrowbody, I just do not see the ROI for an A330 re-engine.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 23):
Between the 788/789 and the A359, I'm just not seeing much of a niche for the A358

Mmmm

Airbus ultimately HAS to have a widebody "something" in the 225 - 250 seat/225-250 m2 size range.

Today, it has the A330-200, A330-300 and A350-800.

But the A330 series is not worth investing in.
And the A350-800 is not worth investing in ...   

You'll have to pardon me, but, standing back, something has to give.   
And as I personally don't see Airbus investing in an all-new airframe just for this niche, then in my view, one of the above HAS to happen.

Given the newness of the airframe, my money is definitely on the A350 XWB airframe and cross-section as the model which will get invested in. The biggest question is "when"
Airbus have said that they are going to re-do the A350-800 at some point to restore it to it's original configuration.
Whether they do or not is a different matter.
But I find it inconceivable that it's "impossible" to make a highly effective, and competitive, airframe based on the A350-XWB in the 225m2 - 250m2 size range. It just needs engineering. And how much engineering.
Which brings us back to "when"  

Rgds


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13023 posts, RR: 100
Reply 51, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7932 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 43):
I think the payload/volume combination of the -900 will be better suited to the freighter role than the -800. I seriously doubt we'll ever see a A358F, unless maybe as a P2F (so yes, we are talking a LONG way off. . . ).

I'm curious as to your thoughts as to why the A358F is unlikely to become a freighter.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 49):
People seem to ignore that cheap upgrades have been paying thier way onto the A330 every year since it first flew till today. The A330 someone recieves is a whole different plane performance wise than the one that was 1st delivered all those years ago.

Not me. The planned weight removal, engine pips, sharklets?, and other improvements will keep the A330 selling. We do have a core here that was highly impressed that bringing the A333 to 5700nm range dramatically improved the sales.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 50):
But the A330 series is not worth investing in.

The lower cost upgrades are worth investing in. It is the new engine I do not see a business case. I see the range being extended by ~400nm, maintenance reduced, and efficiency improved ~6% (range dependent). Not as dramatic as an A330NEO, but still a nice improvement.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 50):
But I find it inconceivable that it's "impossible" to make a highly effective, and competitive, airframe based on the A350-XWB in the 225m2 - 250m2 size range. It just needs engineering. And how much engineering.

If you're talking a substantial weight savings or other modification, ok. I agree Airbus should do something more in that size range. However, the current A358 proposal?    It makes as much sense to me as the 783. There is weight in there that shouldn't be.

I personally do not see a need for Airbus to be in the fractionally smaller market. This has to do with my 'back of the envelope accounting' in regards to 'abusing' with lower loads airframes on the same mission as would currently employ the A332. While an A359 is a large gauge increase, fleet commonality will outweigh having multiple frames.

Perhaps I'm drawing too much from the 77W displacing the 77E and the 763ER displacing the 762ER. I'm just seeing a role for the A359 as a fleet workhorse willing most of the long haul needs for many an airline.

Will Airbus eventually have something in the 225m2 to 250m2 size? Yes. Short term the A330 will continue to ply that role with substantial improvement.

I hope to be proven wrong with the A358. Airbus should offer the type. But if I was the Airline's CEO, I would upgauge to an all A359 fleet.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 49):
The A330F program has largely been waiting on slots so even if the 787 steals the A330P's lunch in the next decade, Airbus shouldn't have anything to worry about.

  

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6895 posts, RR: 63
Reply 52, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 7920 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 51):
I'm curious as to your thoughts as to why the A358F is unlikely to become a freighter.

If the A358F isn't going to be a freighter ... what is it?!    


User currently onlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2803 posts, RR: 59
Reply 53, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 7880 times:

If one put sharklets on the 330, PIP the engines 1% and raise the MTOW from 235t to 240t it goes from a 6000nm frame to a 6500nm frame. It also comes down in fuel burn per pax to the area of the 788, the 788 does fly 1000nm more if needed though.

The sharlets vs the present winglets gives you about 75nm in range but more importantly they are worth about 900lb of thrust in the engine out case. Thus the 333 can keep it's start performance despite taking of 5t heavier, this is probably the more important gain.

When I do a full apples to apples 6000nm trip with exactly 1 Pax per m2 of cabin space (to even out marketing spec configs, 788 232 and 333 266 pax) the fuel burn per pax ends up at identical 40 grams/pax/nm. So if you typically need less the 6500nm still air range and can load those extra 35 pax the 330 is a good tool, well known, short delivery and a bit higher in capacity then the 788. The 788 is cheaper (194m$ vs 231m$) but you have to wait for it, to get equal in capacity and price (but not range) you can compare 333 and 789.

If you can wait for the 789 you get a frame that loads the same pax (266), cost the same (228m$ vs 231) but burns 4% less fuel at 38 gram/pax/nm on this 6000nm trip.

Given the figures above I think the 330S (for hotted sharklet equipped model  ) should be an interesting alternative if you only need 6500nm range and you need it in the next years.



Non French in France
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10008 posts, RR: 96
Reply 54, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7623 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 51):
I personally do not see a need for Airbus to be in the fractionally smaller market.

And yet Boeing have a backlog of 850 frames in this very segment....
I'd suggest that Airbus need to be in it.
As you say the A330-200 and -300 put them there now. But that won't last forever.
My own view is that they will unquestionably need a fully competitive A350-XWB variant of some sort below the A350-900 in the longer term.
Progressive improvements to the A330 merely give them more time to get their heads round this.
Just my   

Rgds


User currently offlineWisdom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 55, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6939 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 53):
If one put sharklets on the 330, PIP the engines 1% and raise the MTOW from 235t to 240t it goes from a 6000nm frame to a 6500nm frame. It also comes down in fuel burn per pax to the area of the 788, the 788 does fly 1000nm more if needed though.

I have to ask what software you use to make these calculations.
The B788 is the direct competitor of the A332 and in real life terms, burns approximately 10% less in the current configuration, a configuration that is several percentage points off design spec (extra weight, higher SFC than target).

I don't see how a 1% PIP and a MTOW raise which adversely affects fuel economy, would make up for these 10%.
The range of the A332 is well above 7000NM, which IMO and as someone tried to remind me higher up in the thread  , is sufficient for most aircraft in this category.

To match the 787-8, the A332 needs a GEnx fitted to its wings.
To beat it, it needs a GEnx fitted to its wings, a lower price, an earlier delivery date and maybe a pair of winglets, though I'm skeptic that the latter would achieve savings comparable to the A320 (in %tage terms), given greater wingspan and wing chord, and considering the currently fitted wingtip device is already at least partly playing that role.

Airbus needs to NEO these aircraft because of the potential market they have in front of them in this category for the next 20 years. If Airbus don't NEO the A330, in the long term they will find themselves with a gap in this category as the B787 takes up all the sales, unless they go with a brand new design. Why should they invest in a brand new aircraft that would achieve only small marginal efficiency gains over a NEO?
There are also prospects of the KC-Y contest. A A332NEO would make a much better aerial refuelling platform, IMO.

Now isn't yet the time to go for it, but the sooner they do it, the more likely they are to grab some of the easy orders of the B767 replacement market from the B787.

As 787's and A350 deliveries start to gather pace, the market will be flooded with cheap B767's and A330's from airlines who replace them. The economic outlook makes of these airframes attractive short-term gap-fillers and they will surely tighten the belt on new A330 orders in the near future.

[Edited 2012-05-28 16:40:22]

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13023 posts, RR: 100
Reply 56, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6775 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 54):
And yet Boeing have a backlog of 850 frames in this very segment....

Agreed. But that doesn't mean the A350 cross section/wing/engine has the best economics.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 54):
My own view is that they will unquestionably need a fully competitive A350-XWB variant of some sort below the A350-900 in the longer term.

In my opinion it must be more like the original Boeing 720, a lightened 707. Weight must be taken out. That will help shorter missions and the overall economics. Due to the construction of the A350, its 'natural sweet spot' is larger than the 787. While the A358 could spoil orders for Boeing (or keep their prices honest), I still see more growth for the A359.

My best analogy is the 77W. It wasn't a 'natural size,' based on previous widebody sales, to be the dominant long haul. I propose the A359 will compete with the 789 by having slightly better economics. (e.g., the Trent XWB is going to be a more efficient engine thanks to the 2nd intermediate turbine stage and the resulting higher pressure ratio). Its just going to compete being slightly larger. On some routes that will be a disadvantage, but on some it will be an advantage.

You know from prior discussions I was really in favor of the A330NEO. I just believe its 'window of opportunity' has come and gone. There will be enough improvements to the A330 to keep it selling for 5 or so more years. I'm not worried about Airbus selling. It will. I just see a better ROI in:
1. Developing the A350-1000
2. Developing the A380-900
3. Putting everything into the A320NEO

Airbus should wait for technology to improve and then come out with the A305 for the market we are discussing. That was the project I personally had the most fun working that never saw the light of day. It was a 787 concept before anyone discussed the 787, just with mostly aluminum.


Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10008 posts, RR: 96
Reply 57, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6712 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 56):
But that doesn't mean the A350 cross section/wing/engine has the best economics

As the cross section is within 5" of that of the 787, I don't see it as a major issue.

I agree that the wing makes it somewhat heavy, and yet Ferpe's model in this thread

Boeing Vs. Airbus Wing Design Philosophies (by ferpe Apr 16 2012 in Tech Ops)

still shows the A350-800 as it stands today with a lower cruise fuel burn than the 787-9,and lower fuel burn per m2 than the 787-8, and the best cruise L/D of any of the aircraft modelled. And that on an OEW of 130.5 t compared to 125.4t for the 787-9.
Airbus opting to make it a "simple shrink" added about 5t to the OEW from its original spec.
If that's engineered out to make the OEW more comparable to the 787-9, it will have pretty impressive economics - somewhere in-between the 787-8 and 787-9, as befits its size.

If that's still too heavy for its capacity, then a much lighter A350-800 sized aircraft with a smaller wing, say 62m wing and about 5%-10% larger area than the 787's wing, optimised for its weight (245t) could be well worth considering.

Obviously that's more engineering. But that was my original point.
The current A350-800 might not have "the best economics", but I find it implausible that the A350 fuselage can't be engineered into a damned fine 225m2 - 250m2 airfame.
At some point.

Rgds


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13023 posts, RR: 100
Reply 58, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6576 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 57):
Airbus opting to make it a "simple shrink" added about 5t to the OEW from its original spec.
If that's engineered out to make the OEW more comparable to the 787-9, it will have pretty impressive economics - somewhere in-between the 787-8 and 787-9, as befits its size.

That would be impressive economics. As Ferpe noted in your link:
"Also look at the 358 vs 789, they haul 270 vs. 280 Pax but the 358 who has a shorter fuselage with a lower wetted area (line 34) has the same SAR as the 789 despite 2% more efficient engines."

The A358 will be a very good airframe. I just would always buy the A359 vs. the A358 as the added seats will pay for the increased costs. Ferpe's analysis is very interesting and I thank you for the link.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 57):
Obviously that's more engineering. But that was my original point.

We can agree on that. It could be engineered for 'damned fine' performance for its size at some point. I just see higher priorities for Airbus (e.g., A389 with Trent XWB's)   So the A358 will not receive its optimization.

There is one solution for Airbus. Increase the cruise altitude of the A358...    Why not, the wing is oversized and it is always good to fly in less dense air.  

Again, my main point doesn't seem to come across. The A359 is so well optimized that that will be the plane customers will buy just as the 77W displaced the 77E. It wasn't that Boeing stopped offering competition to the A333, its that the 77W was a much better purchase. Airbus will offer the A358, but for most airlines the A359 will be the better purchase.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6897 posts, RR: 46
Reply 59, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6264 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 58):
Again, my main point doesn't seem to come across. The A359 is so well optimized that that will be the plane customers will buy just as the 77W displaced the 77E. It wasn't that Boeing stopped offering competition to the A333, its that the 77W was a much better purchase. Airbus will offer the A358, but for most airlines the A359 will be the better purchase.

The underlying truth of this is that every airframe has an optimum size; and as efficiency becomes more and more critical it will become more and more apparent, and that optimum size that gets the bulk of the orders. This, I expect, will become especially true in widebodies, as narrowbodies are used so much on missions which do not challenge their range. For both the 787 and A350 it appears that the -9 variant will be the optimum, and will get the most orders. For the 777 it is clearly the 77W, and I would expect that the longer variant of the 777X will also predominate. What it comes down to is that shrinking from the optimum gives few benefits; the weight does not go down enough without redesigning the basic structure to make enough difference to lower costs significantly. And since the baseline "optimum" models feature 8,000nm range, there is little need for more since then you are in ULH territory.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25169 posts, RR: 85
Reply 60, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6225 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting art (Reply 2):
Half-baked A350 Mk1

IMO - the A350 Mk 1 was always a great idea.  

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13023 posts, RR: 100
Reply 61, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5914 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mariner (Reply 60):
IMO - the A350 Mk 1 was always a great idea.

At the time I agreed. Once Airbus committed to the A350, the market changed.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25169 posts, RR: 85
Reply 62, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5541 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 61):
At the time I agreed. Once Airbus committed to the A350, the market changed.

I think perceptions changed. I'm not sure that the actual market changed.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1576 posts, RR: 3
Reply 63, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 5415 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 60):
IMO - the A350 Mk 1 was always a great idea.

It was a good idea but it wouldn't have addressed the A340 replacement / 777 2nd gen competition issue, in hindsight looking at A340 sales it was a good idea to go the A350XWB route



BV
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25169 posts, RR: 85
Reply 64, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 5395 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 63):
It was a good idea but it wouldn't have addressed the A340 replacement / 777 2nd gen competition issue, in hindsight looking at A340 sales it was a good idea to go the A350XWB route

It's been thrashed out endlessly here.

I'm one of the (very small) number that believes Airbus should have stuck to its guns rather than being spooked by what Richard Aboulafia now calls "the drug like rush of the 787."

Dr. Humbert panicked, it didn't happen and it doesn't amount to a hill of beans now.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineAircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1718 posts, RR: 8
Reply 65, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5323 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 48):
Quoting Wisdom (Reply 42):
I think that it's fair to say that anything up to 7000km will, at least in the Western hemisphere, progressively be operated by narrowbodies.

I think we agree. Oh, maybe we could debate a little on the exact range, but in concept we agree.

Well... Most of Montreal to Europe, and a fair share of Boston and New York to Europe are shorter than that. I'd be surprised to see most of it becoming NB...


User currently offlineWisdom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 66, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5214 times:

Quoting Aircellist (Reply 65):
Well... Most of Montreal to Europe, and a fair share of Boston and New York to Europe are shorter than that. I'd be surprised to see most of it becoming NB...

It will become a narrowbody market.
Once the transatlantic gets partial radar coverage, which with modern day technologies is becoming more and more possible and likely, the flight movements will increase and be spread over the entire day in both directions. At that point, carriers will start offering frequencies with narrowbodies instead of using widebodies in a suboptimal way.

Those days aren't far away, I think that it will become like that within the next 10 years.

I also think that the "wing strengthening" on the A320 NEO family hides more than just added margins for the additional weight of the NEO engines, if you see what I mean (if not, I'm hinting at a plausible MTOW raise to attack the 757 replacement market). The A321 won't need all that cargo space in a 2-class TATL configuration, this would make room for a couple of extra fuel tanks, making even ORD accessible without a major payload hit.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8491 posts, RR: 2
Reply 67, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5095 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 16):
If the extra seats can be filled at 70% load factor, then the total annual operating benefits for A358 are higher by about $8 million per year.

Minor point but: a more realistic assumption for the final 2 dozen seats would be 30% load factor.


User currently offlineAircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1718 posts, RR: 8
Reply 68, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4809 times:

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 66):


Quote:
Quoting Aircellist (Reply 65):
Well... Most of Montreal to Europe, and a fair share of Boston and New York to Europe are shorter than that. I'd be surprised to see most of it becoming NB...

It will become a narrowbody market.
Once the transatlantic gets partial radar coverage, which with modern day technologies is becoming more and more possible and likely, the flight movements will increase and be spread over the entire day in both directions. At that point, carriers will start offering frequencies with narrowbodies instead of using widebodies in a suboptimal way.

Those days aren't far away, I think that it will become like that within the next 10 years.

"sigh"... So, after loosing Concorde, somehow, we'll be back to 707-ish planes...

.... And since most of the flights are at night, I still do not get it that WBs would be suboptimal... Has there gotten to be a flight every hour during the night as well, to please the frequency-seeking gods?

I guess it shows I'm not a businessman.

Edit: thanks for the information, though...

Second edit: you really see the flights becoming all-day, over the North Atlantic? There seems to be very little demand for daylight eastward flights, today.

[Edited 2012-05-30 05:19:04]

[Edited 2012-05-30 05:20:32]

User currently onlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8322 posts, RR: 10
Reply 69, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4774 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 15):
Even with a re-engine. The A330 was *really* strong on the short-TATL market. I see that market going to narrowbodies. So there is less market to capture for a re-engine.

 
Quoting Wisdom (Reply 42):
I think that it's fair to say that anything up to 7000km will, at least in the Western hemisphere, progressively be operated by narrowbodies.

You guys have got to be kidding! So you see demand shrink so much and airport slots increase so much that narrowbodies will take over this market? Unless A and B come up with a narrowbody capable of carrying 250 pax and significantly greater cargo revenue than today's narrowbodies, it won't happen.
There simply is notnarrowbody in the foreseable future that can replace a widebody on 95% of TATL routes. Even the A321NEO will strugle to make it over 3000nm. Throw in heavier long haul cabin amenities like flat bed premium cabins and AVOD, and you can forget about it.


User currently offlineflyingAY From Finland, joined Jun 2007, 701 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4564 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 69):
You guys have got to be kidding! So you see demand shrink so much and airport slots increase so much that narrowbodies will take over this market?

There's a huge demand inside US, yet you see narrowbody planes to same destinations taking off with 30-60 minute intervals. Why not replace them with fewer WB planes?

What makes it different if there's a bit of ocean under the plane for the duration of the flight?


User currently onlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12507 posts, RR: 46
Reply 71, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4521 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flyingAY (Reply 70):
What makes it different if there's a bit of ocean under the plane for the duration of the flight?

Little things like the fact that the No1 European destination from the US is totally slot constrained. You think the likes of AA, UA, US and DL replacing their multiple widebodies with the same number of narrowbodies? Not to mention that the concept of daytime flights east-bound will run into curfews at a number of airports.

Sorry, but I don't see it happening.   



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offline76er From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 522 posts, RR: 1
Reply 72, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4445 times:

Quoting flyingAY (Reply 70):
There's a huge demand inside US, yet you see narrowbody planes to same destinations taking off with 30-60 minute intervals. Why not replace them with fewer WB planes?

Bring on the A305..  

On the freighter side, AFAIK Airbus has so far only considered the A359F (mainly as a direct MD11F replacement) but has been very quiet on that subject after initial launch of the XWB. Too bad, since certification of new built F's would more or less coincide with many MD's reaching the end of their useful lives.


User currently onlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8322 posts, RR: 10
Reply 73, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4403 times:

Quoting flyingAY (Reply 70):
There's a huge demand inside US, yet you see narrowbody planes to same destinations taking off with 30-60 minute intervals. Why not replace them with fewer WB planes?

Like what? Give me an example of a single domestic route that is as long as the shortest TATL route (BOS-DUB). There isn't one. Yes, I know that US-KEF and US-PDL and YYT-LHR are considered TATL routes. Equally important, airports in the US are not slot restricted and do not have night time curfews, and ETS taxes, and a bunch of other things that make frequencies more expensive. There is no cheaper way to transport a large number of people than to do it with a large plane and that's simply not about to change any time soon. Airplanes have increase in size over time, not the other way around , mostly to account for greater demand and cheaper more efficient operations, and I don't see that changing.

[Edited 2012-05-30 07:56:10]

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13023 posts, RR: 100
Reply 74, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4255 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting airbazar (Reply 69):
So you see demand shrink so much and airport slots increase so much that narrowbodies will take over this market?

I see the market fragmenting that much. There are plenty of slots at IAD, CLT, BER (eventually), MUC, and other potential hubs to fragment the market. UA/CO should replace rjets at EWR with longer haul flights too.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 69):
Unless A and B come up with a narrowbody capable of carrying 250 pax

Huh? The goal is a lower cost per flight to fragment the market such as EWR-TXL.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 69):
There simply is notnarrowbody in the foreseable future that can replace a widebody on 95% of TATL routes.

It won't be replacing. Exising routes will mostly stay widebody. It is a superior economics 752 in the 738MAX and A321NEO. This won't be at EIS, but after the types receive some development. The issues for the widebodies are the high cost per flight.

If Boeing or Airbus doesn't do it, they they already have the CS100 to compete against.   

Quoting scbriml (Reply 71):
Little things like the fact that the No1 European destination from the US is totally slot constrained.

Those congested hubs will stay widebodies. But look at how low a fraction of the seats connect today at LHR (IIRC, 30%) versus in the past. Due to those constraints, the hubbing must happen elsewhere. Also look at the connections:
Airports With Greatest Number Of Connected Cities (by lightsaber May 14 2012 in Aviation Polls)

(please look at the last list, my initial efforts skipped too many airports). LHR has dropped to 155 connected cities. If any LHR city pair does poorly, its slots are quickly allocated to the 'trunk routes' (e.g., JFK, PEK, etc.) Thus many European cities must find alternate paths across the Atlantic.

But also look at FRA. It is expanding. FRA will add slots (near term). As high speed rail reduces European demand, why wouldn't LH transfer aircraft to TATL to open new markets? The beauty of a TATL narrowbody is that the planes, with a likely cabin refit, may be cycled in and out of regional and long haul service. Short haul economics for widebodies are the root cause of their declining market share of regional traffic (EK excluded, but they are discussed here for that and other reasons.).

Does anyone really think that if B6, WN (once they have new contracts), WS, U2, or others would avoid entering the TATL market? They won't be buying widebodies, but they would fly a long range version of their current types TATL. The 738MAX is going to gain 500nm range. 3400nm+500nm=3900nm which is TATL range! Right now, the A321NEO is planned with 3700nm range. Do you really think that Pratt and Airbus are not working to gain a few hundred more miles of range?

Its not a question of if we'll see narrowbodies on TATL but when and who. The European LCCs have proven how to open up 'secondary airports.' Why wouldn't we see that on longer routes? Errr... we already are, they are just waiting for a TATL range aircraft...

Today's featured map on the Great circle mapper is Allergiant to Hawaii. Do you really think one day it won't be a TATL airline expansion?

http://www.gcmap.com/

I worked on a proposal to help make the A320 family TATL capable in 2000. The numbers make sense. Unless someone wants to deny the 752 expanded the TATL market. Dropping down to A320/737 costs per flight will do far more for market fragmentation.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently onlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8322 posts, RR: 10
Reply 75, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4095 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 74):
I see the market fragmenting that much. There are plenty of slots at IAD, CLT, BER (eventually), MUC, and other potential hubs to fragment the market. UA/CO should replace rjets at EWR with longer haul flights too.

I see anything but fragmentation. It looks to me like we're heading towards consolidation. In a few years you'll have only 3 or 4 intercontinental carries in Europe. In the US looks like we'll be down to only 3 carriers.
And you need available airports on the other side of the pond and those don't exist. Even MUC is "slot restricted" already at the most convenient times for TATL arrivals, although they are building a new runway. So is FRA, LHR, and I suspect CDG is pretty close to it as well.
But there's another problem that is not as relevant in the domestic market and that is schedules that fit the connecting banks. Connections to Asia are at night, connections to Europe are in the morning. Hence why most carriers usually have at least 2x daily on thei TATL routes. There's no point in adding a frequencies that doesn't fit into the connecting banks unless there is a very strong O&D market. But when we're talking intercontinental routes and airlines with global reach, their entire business strategy revolves around their connecting banks.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 74):
It won't be replacing. Exising routes will mostly stay widebody

But that's not what you said, or at least that not what I understood from your statement.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 15):
Even with a re-engine. The A330 was *really* strong on the short-TATL market. I see that market going to narrowbodies.

It sounds like you're saying that the TATL market will go to narrowbodies.
If you're saying that new narrowbodies will result in new routes, then I agree,


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13023 posts, RR: 100
Reply 76, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3996 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting airbazar (Reply 75):
I see anything but fragmentation. It looks to me like we're heading towards consolidation. In a few years you'll have only 3 or 4 intercontinental carries in Europe. In the US looks like we'll be down to only 3 carriers.

Why wouldn't B6, WN, AB, or others enter the market? The legacies will consolidate. But B6 will have gates at BOS, could prioritize JFK, and perhaps expand elsewhere. Or maybe DUB finally becomes a major TATL hub.

Picking another market, I see the mid-east carriers opening all of Europe with the MAX/NEO except for possibly a few of the most distant city pairs.

I'm sure the consolidated carriers will upgauge.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 75):
And you need available airports on the other side of the pond and those don't exist.

There are plenty of European secondary airports as destinations. I do not understand this assertion. The ability to open US secondary airports will depend on the exact range of the narrowbodies as the 'obvious examples,' excluding hubs such as IAD and CLT, are in Florida which are too distant for the narrowbody TATL. (At least per my assumptions.)

Quoting airbazar (Reply 75):
Even MUC is "slot restricted" already at the most convenient times for TATL arrivals

Then it is time for the 3rd runway.    Or transfer loyalty from LH to AB and connect in BER if they become more convenient.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 75):
But that's not what you said, or at least that not what I understood from your statement.

My statement is I do not see the ROI for the A330NEO due to market fragmentation. If I stated it poorly before, mea culpa. If we ignore Boeing products (to avoid A vs. B, despite their competitiveness), than we are talking a product for the size range between the A321 and A359. I see Airbus having a better ROI focusing on:
1. The A350 development they are already committed to.
2. The A320NEO, in particular on range improvements I keep hearing rumors about.
3. A380 improvements eventually leading to the A389   
4. Continued distraction of the A400.

Then Airbus has the resources to devote to either a more optimal A358 (a better solution for the size segment, IMHO than an A330NEO) or a new 8 across Y airframe (my choice). But that is a much later solution.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 75):
It sounds like you're saying that the TATL market will go to narrowbodies.
If you're saying that new narrowbodies will result in new routes, then I agree,

Then we agree.    I'm saying new range in the narrowbodies will open new routes. The congested airports will up-gauge. There is not one answer. For those congested airports, I see A333s being replaced with A359s, 777x, or even larger. But I also see 'congested hub bypass.' There will also be slots opened up thanks to high speed rail (in Europe).

There will be a market for the size segment. I'm just having trouble seeing the A358, a shrink, being optimal or a fine aircraft such as the A330 having a good ROI once the delays into other Airbus projects are counted for.

I might be biased as prior projects I worked on had to be cut to open up resources to support the major new projects. I do not see Airbus being able to take on a 4th project. IMHO, the A380 improvements would have a better ROI than an A330NEO. I do not believe airbus has the resources nor the will to take on added debt for another development.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 77, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3701 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 76):
IMHO, the A380 improvements would have a better ROI than an A330NEO.

  

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 76):
Then Airbus has the resources to devote to either a more optimal A358 (a better solution for the size segment, IMHO than an A330NEO) or a new 8 across Y airframe (my choice). But that is a much later solution.

My calculations suggest that an all new 8-across Y airframe competes well against B788( 9-across) upto 240-250 seats(3 class marketing). Beyond that capacity, 9-across airframe is more efficient(for similar payload/range capability).

IMO, Airbus is better off optimising the A358(lighter wings?) than investing in an all new 8-frame at a later date.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10008 posts, RR: 96
Reply 78, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3592 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 77):
IMO, Airbus is better off optimising the A358(lighter wings?) than investing in an all new 8-frame at a later date.

There are operational advantages to Airbus in sticking with the XWB fuselage, too

Rgds


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1821 posts, RR: 0
Reply 79, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3404 times:

I think Airbus more than Boeing could reap more benefits doing a true 752 replacement model. They have a larger gap than Boeing in the future.

It wont have to be an all new airplane, use the A330 as the base, sure new smaller wings and engines are needed. A perfectly placed and sized model between A321 and A358 will be a good seller. The A310 in a modern form maybe, range would be true TATL and 230 seats, it wont have to have more than 4500nm range. Smaller than the A332 and larger than the A310.. 35-40K thrust GTF, systems from the A350 in a A330 frame.

Hit Boeing where it will hurt the 788 from below. I cant Imagine a warmed over 739ER has a Chance against this.


User currently offlinepanais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 463 posts, RR: 0
Reply 80, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3298 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 79):
Smaller than the A332 and larger than the A310.. 35-40K thrust GTF, systems from the A350 in a A330 frame.

You are referring to the A300 which can carry about 260 passengers in 2 class configuration. There are some benefits to maintaining the A330 line to produce freighters and tankers, so your suggestion makes sense. They will have to put the A330 on a major weight reducing exercise though.


User currently offlinepoLot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2160 posts, RR: 1
Reply 81, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3108 times:

I thought they already tried to market a smaller A330 once (or maybe it was a slightly larger A300) but there was little interest. The problem is that any new widebody in this market has to be extremely efficient, enough to convince airlines that it is better to order a new type for its fleet than it is to "abuse" a longer range A350 or 787 that they already have in their fleet and which also provides flexibility benefits.

Quoting sweair (Reply 79):

It wont have to be an all new airplane, use the A330 as the base, sure new smaller wings and engines are needed

If you are making new wings you might has well make an all new aircraft, especially if you are completely changing all the systems in the airframe anyways.

Quoting sweair (Reply 79):
Hit Boeing where it will hurt the 788 from below. I cant Imagine a warmed over 739ER has a Chance against this.

While it might have some effect on 787 sales, the 787 will still benefit from being part of a complete family, so airlines might be willing to forgo the extra efficiency for complete commonality with the 789/787-10 (if the latter is ever built). This h


User currently onlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8322 posts, RR: 10
Reply 82, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2996 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 76):
Why wouldn't B6, WN, AB, or others enter the market? The legacies will consolidate. But B6 will have gates at BOS, could prioritize JFK, and perhaps expand elsewhere. Or maybe DUB finally becomes a major TATL hub.

Not gonna happen any time soon, even if there was a capable narrowbody. The long haul low cost model has not proven to be a profitable one for reasons that have been discussed multiple times on this forum. If US LCC's really want to expand internationally, Central and S.America would happen way before TATL IMHO.
There's 1 TATL route that could be started right now with an A320 by B6 if the airline wanted to, and I'm pretty sure it would do well and that is BOS-PDL. I'm amazed that B6 hasn't done that yet but to me it's a clear sign that they are not interested in that kind of market.

[Edited 2012-05-31 08:05:45]

User currently offlineaerlingusa330 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 357 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2921 times:

I'll go ahead and put in my request to Airbus & GE...

GE-90s for the A330!!!


     



Shamrock 136 heavy cleared for takeoff runway niner.
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1821 posts, RR: 0
Reply 84, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2826 times:

Airbus will leave a huge gap when the last A330 gets delivered, that's what I see. The A358 is too big to be a good medium haul frame. Either grow the A321 or shrink the current 330 I say.

The reaper has taken many frames 10 years from now, 757, 767,A330.. Smallest WB will be the 788 and next step up 789/A358. Lets all hope fuel is very cheap by then..Or the NSA etc have to be really good to cover short haul and medium haul in one frame.


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4763 posts, RR: 14
Reply 85, posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2753 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting airbazar (Reply 82):
There's 1 TATL route that could be started right now with an A320 by B6 if the airline wanted to, and I'm pretty sure it would do well and that is BOS-PDL

How much traffic can there be to PDL?


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...
Qantas 767 With RR,PW,GE posted Fri Sep 1 2000 14:09:11 by Oxygen
Flightglobal: Airbus Not Concerned With NEO Impact posted Mon Jan 10 2011 11:13:22 by Renfro747
500 A330/A340 With RR posted Wed Dec 22 2010 21:05:48 by PM
What Will The "New UA" Do With CO's GE-fleet? posted Mon Nov 22 2010 14:26:10 by Northwest727
FI-Airbus To Continue With Tianjin Ramp-up posted Tue Jan 20 2009 10:47:06 by Astuteman
Should Airbus Tweek A320 With A P&W GTF? posted Fri Feb 22 2008 07:14:33 by Tangowhisky
A330 Operators With RR Engines posted Wed Dec 12 2007 04:17:47 by Don
B707-400s With RR Conways - Lifespan? posted Thu Sep 20 2007 15:38:48 by Irobertson
Airbus NOT Going With Full Composite Barrels posted Thu Feb 1 2007 00:51:32 by EvilForce
767 With RR Engines - Why The Lack Of Orders? posted Mon Sep 25 2006 00:06:13 by 1337Delta764