Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A330 NEO Becoming More Likely Part 6  
User currently offlineSA7700 From South Africa, joined Dec 2003, 3431 posts, RR: 25
Posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 40419 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

As part 5 became quite long, part 6 has been created and is now open for discussion.

Part 1 is available here:

A330 NEO Becoming More Likely (Part 1) (by StickShaker Dec 30 2013 in Civil Aviation)

Part 2 is available here:

A330 NEO Becoming More Likely (Part 2) (by SA7700 Jan 4 2014 in Civil Aviation)

Part 3 is available here:

A330 NEO Becoming More Likely Part 3 (by SA7700 Jan 11 2014 in Civil Aviation)

Part 4 is available here:

A330 NEO Becoming More Likely Part 4 (by SA7700 Jan 31 2014 in Civil Aviation)

Part 5 is available here:

A330 NEO Becoming More Likely Part 5 (by SA7700 Feb 23 2014 in Civil Aviation)


Please ensure to post according to the rules-and regulations of airliners.net. Enjoy the forums!

Thanks and regards,

SA7700


When you are doing stuff that nobody has done before, there is no manual – Kevin McCloud (Grand Designs)
327 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 755 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 40329 times:

Quoting Revelation post 248:
The whole reason the 777-9X has massive orders before EIS is due to the shortcomings of the A350-1000...

Enough?


We seem to have wandered a bit off topic here, maybe we can have the 35J/777X debate in another thread (suffice to say we disagree).

The 330Neo position seems to be firstly whether to do it or not and secondly the degree of updated engine technology required to make the aircraft sufficiently competitive. The (highly knowledgeable) consensus of A.net suggests a modified existing engine for a 2018 EIS and a 2020 EIS for a new engine.
2 years can be a long time in terms of market opportunities (CIT article) for an airframe approaching the end of its sales life. The benefits of waiting until 2020 would be significant in terms of remaining competitive for much longer into the late 2020's.
It is essentially a balancing act between engine technology, time to market, longevity into the 2020's, remaining competitive on short sectors and no doubt many others that I can't think of at the moment.

There are now quite a few airlines pushing Airbus to proceed with the A330Neo - are there any airlines who are firmly resisting the push for the A330Neo (ie the "don't change a thing" brigade) ?
No doubt the performance improvement of any A330Neo on regional sectors would not be sacrificed for any long range capabilities.


Cheers,
StickShaker

[Edited 2014-03-20 01:44:42]

User currently offlineseahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 1044 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 40254 times:

RR claims the advance engine line will be ready by the end of the decade - so EIS 2019 could be possible.

User currently offlineStTim From UK - England, joined Aug 2013, 767 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 40103 times:

Agree don't want to go too far off topic but Boeing only did the 777X due to the success of the A350-1000

User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10023 posts, RR: 96
Reply 4, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 39868 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting StickShaker, reply=1:
There are now quite a few airlines pushing Airbus to proceed with the A330Neo - are there any airlines who are firmly resisting the push for the A330Neo (ie the "don't change a thing" brigade) ?

I think the point that needs to be brought out here is that, whether the airlines/lessors are really interested in the A330NEO, or are looking for some airbus leverage vs the 787, the fact is that they now seem to see the A330NEO as the answer in both cases.

I don't hear a growing clamour for an optimisation of the A350-800 and I hear no customer at all saying "Please don't change it"

It is seems very clear that the customers, from their perspective, see the A330NEO as Airbus's most appropriate response.
Airbus need to see the same thing though (and I can't really see any reason why they shouldn't)

Quoting StTim, reply=4:
Agree don't want to go too far off topic but Boeing only did the 777X due to the success of the A350-1000

I'd venture to suggest that it would be more accurate to say that Boeing did the 777X because of the very real THREAT posed by the A350-1000 (i.e. the potential success)

Suffice to say, that pointing at the huge MOU's from those ME airlines that were always going to place mega orders for the 777X as being in some way reflective of the A350-1000's long term prospects, or lack of, is, frankly, infantile.
(As is dismissing the 777X as an "ME3 special" on the flip side).

Rgds


User currently onlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 39850 times:

It is quite enlightening that we are now into the 6th thread debating this topic three and a half years after nearly the same question was posed, perhaps not for the first time.....

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/AirbusA330NEO.jpg

Airbus A330 NEO, Will It Stand A Chance? (by keesje Aug 13 2010 in Civil Aviation)#1


.....due in large part IMHO to Airbus practically consigning the A358 to the "recycle later" bin...and for very good reasons too, I would say.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12537 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 39735 times:

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 1):
We seem to have wandered a bit off topic here, maybe we can have the 35J/777X debate in another thread (suffice to say we disagree).

Yes, and yes... Sorry for a bit of excess exuberance...



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 755 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 39708 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 7):
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 1):We seem to have wandered a bit off topic here, maybe we can have the 35J/777X debate in another thread (suffice to say we disagree).
Yes, and yes... Sorry for a bit of excess exuberance...

That's OK - all good fun.  


Cheers,
StickShaker


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 39621 times:

Quoting seahawk (Reply 2):

Technically the end of the decade is December 31, 2020.

tortugamon


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4736 posts, RR: 39
Reply 9, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 39519 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 9):
Technically the end of the decade is December 31, 2020.

A sharp and correct observation. Many people think this decade ends on 31.12.2019, but that is not true. 31.12.2020 is the correct date.  Wink.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 2):
RR claims the advance engine line will be ready by the end of the decade - so EIS 2019 could be possible.

Well, but you need quite a long flight test program before the EIS. So there is still a lot unclear about this possible engine. No doubt it will come, but when and how exactly are still open questions.

[Edited 2014-03-20 06:54:18]

User currently offlineseahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 1044 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 39479 times:

As they talk about advance by 2020 and the next step by 2025, I think they will be probably quite advanced in the design phase. The next issue of the German Aero International magazine promises are lager feature about the future RR engine. So maybe it will gives us some clues.

User currently offlinedeltaflyertoo From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1650 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 39302 times:

Will this potential new A330NEO have range to do solid west coast of US to Asia flights? Would LH be potential customer to replace A346 on Munich to Los Angeles/San Francisco?

User currently onlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5457 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 39289 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 5):
I think the point that needs to be brought out here is that, whether the airlines/lessors are really interested in the A330NEO, or are looking for some airbus leverage vs the 787, the fact is that they now seem to see the A330NEO as the answer in both cases.

I don't hear a growing clamour for an optimisation of the A350-800 and I hear no customer at all saying "Please don't change it"

   The A330neo would be optimized for a whole lot of real-world flights. The A350-800 as it stands today is optimized for a tiny handful of them. And after seeing the 787-3 and Airbus's A350-900 Regional proposal I think buyers are convinced that it's Really Hard to re-optimize a ULH aircraft to do well on short missions.

Quoting deltaflyertoo (Reply 14):
Will this potential new A330NEO have range to do solid west coast of US to Asia flights? Would LH be potential customer to replace A346 on Munich to Los Angeles/San Francisco?

The existing A330 can already do US west coast to Tokyo or Seoul solidly. If the A330neo is a minimum change derivative, its better fuel burn would likely allow it to pick up a few more East Asian destinations. But I think Airbus might trade some of that range for a bit lower OEW if it had the choice, to further separate the A330neo from the A350-900.


User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 381 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 39225 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 5):
It is seems very clear that the customers, from their perspective, see the A330NEO as Airbus's most appropriate response.
Airbus need to see the same thing though (and I can't really see any reason why they shouldn't)

If Airbus elects to keep the door open for the 350-1100, dropping the 800 is a smart move in order not to max out the capability of the whole 350 production line, which is around 13 items per month. Specially if they can develop the 330NEO for the same amount of money they would spend developing the 800.

The cherry on top is the leverage they would gain over the three engine makers when they start bidding for exclusivity on the 330NEO


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30976 posts, RR: 86
Reply 14, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 39050 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 1):
The 330Neo position seems to be firstly whether to do it or not and secondly the degree of updated engine technology required to make the aircraft sufficiently competitive.

I also think each engine OEM has different criteria since I am sure this will be a sole-source contract.

I don't see GE being interested in an all-new engine. I expect they're proposal is based on the GEnx2B (essentially resurrecting the GEnx1A for the original A350) that they can bring to market with "minimal" risk and cost.

RR, om the other hand, has to develop a new engine because they don't have a bleed-air version of the Trent 1000 family and the Trent XWB is too large for the role. They're also the dominant supplier on the current program so they have an incentive to do more to maintain that position (they also can draw on financial support from the UK to develop that new engine).

I don't see P&W being in this fight. They're still working on the PW1000 series of GTFs and I don't see them having the resources (financial and practical) to launch a new engine family with over twice the thrust. I see them more concentrating on ensuring a smooth EIS for the PW1000 series and scale it to support the largest models of NSA/NRA (the "757 replacement").


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12537 posts, RR: 25
Reply 15, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 38894 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
They're still working on the PW1000 series of GTFs and I don't see them having the resources (financial and practical) to launch a new engine family with over twice the thrust.

The bulk of the engineering is done for the PW1000 series. The C series is up and running and the A320neo variant is in final build according to an article I read a few weeks ago. The main issue for Pratt is that there is no other new platform being considered till the NSA so its A330neo or nothing. I think they are making a serious run to get onto the A330neo but I'm not sure if Airbus likes the risk that comes with their proposal.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30976 posts, RR: 86
Reply 16, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 38797 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 15):
I think they are making a serious run to get onto the A330neo but I'm not sure if Airbus likes the risk that comes with their proposal.

Then again, the A330 might be the program to "risk". If P&W can develop a "PW2000" in the 70-80,000 pound thrust range, they not only get a great engine for the A330, they could also get one for the A380. And the easiest way for Airbus to deal with choosing RR or EA on the A380neo could be to kick both to the curb and move forward with PW.

And if PW fails and the "PW2000" becomes another PW8000 (SuperFan), then the A330 is already going the way of the A340, so they soldier forward with what they have (stands to reason RR would develop a Trent 700EP3 PiP).


User currently offlineseahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 1044 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 38784 times:

Pratt wil be in the running, as by 2025 they won´t have the only GTF in the market, as the UltraFan concept by RR is designed as a GTF and aimed for a EIS of 2025.

The RR Advance concept is aiming for the end of the decade and aiming to be 20% more efficient as 1st gen. Trent engines. UltraFan would add another 5%.


User currently offlineProst From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1034 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 38744 times:

Would it be prudent for Airbus to optimise a wing/engine combo for the A350-800/(possible)700 so that the 'family' can stretch from 250 seats up to ~375 in the A350-1000?

From my perspective the investment in the A350 line would be more beneficial than in extending the life of a previous generation aircraft, good though she may be.


User currently offlineIslandRob From US Virgin Islands, joined Apr 2011, 142 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 38704 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 4):
Suffice to say, that pointing at the huge MOU's from those ME airlines that were always going to place mega orders for the 777X as being in some way reflective of the A350-1000's long term prospects, or lack of, is, frankly, infantile.
(As is dismissing the 777X as an "ME3 special" on the flip side).

A refreshingly (and surprisingly) fair observation, although I don't think the second sentence should be parenthesized as it is equally valid and applicable.

Wish this type of objective analysis of the A v. B lineups was more pervasive on anet. Thanks and regards. -ir



If you wrote me off I'd understand it, Because I've been on some other planet, So come pick me up... I've landed
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11636 posts, RR: 33
Reply 20, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 38692 times:

Quoting Prost (Reply 18):
From my perspective the investment in the A350 line would be more beneficial than in extending the life of a previous generation aircraft, good though she may be.

On the flip side, the A330neo and A350 together could produce 20+ jets per month while one program alone will never be able to achieve such production rate.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineMayohoo From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 26 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 38598 times:

We can speculate all we want, but I am guessing that the total Business case for a 330NEO may not be as solid as Airbus would like. The 350-800 is not popular, so it seems to be 330NEO versus doing nothing (at least according to Anet wisdom). I am not sure if the Resource outlay (engineering etc) makes sense for them as the 350 program is the main target followed by production ramp up. A 330 NEO may buy 8-10 years? but the 787 will eventually blow through its back log and be offered in a timely fashion by 2020 or so (presuming Boeing gets its act together?). So why not keep selling the 330 as is as long as it lasts (2020?) and place your chips on a 320 replacement by 2027 (8 year lead time) or a fresh 330 CFRP?

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11636 posts, RR: 33
Reply 22, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 38511 times:

Quoting Mayohoo (Reply 21):
A 330 NEO may buy 8-10 years?

Something like that.

Quoting Mayohoo (Reply 21):
but the 787 will eventually blow through its back log and be offered in a timely fashion by 2020 or so

In the last 10 years, about 1800 787 and A330 jets have been sold in the 250-300 seat market (around 900 each). The forecast for the next 20 years is 4000+ jets, i.e. another 2000 per decade.

Unless Boeing ramps 787-8 and 787-9 production up to 200 jets annually (-10 not included), they will never be able to meet demand. This market segment is big enough for both manufactures.

Quoting Mayohoo (Reply 21):
or a fresh 330 CFRP

Although Airbus managed to sell about the same numbers of A330s as 787-8/9s in the last 10 years, they will have nothing to offer in the next decade when the A330 replacement market kicks in. The A350-800 will be dead by then, and many customers are seeing the -900 and -1000 as A340/777 replacement.

Without new or updated product offering from 2020, all sales in the 250-300 seat market between 2020 and 2030 will go to Boeing. And Airbus can never have a clean-sheet A330 replacement ready by 2020.

Quoting Mayohoo (Reply 21):
320 replacement

The A320 replacement will be developed simultaneously with the wide-body programs.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10023 posts, RR: 96
Reply 23, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 38393 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting IslandRob (Reply 19):
A refreshingly (and surprisingly) fair observation, although I don't think the second sentence should be parenthesized as it is equally valid and applicable.

A fair comment ...

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 20):
On the flip side, the A330neo and A350 together could produce 20 jets per month while one program alone will never be able to achieve such production rate.

The prime reason for doing the NEO in my opinion, whilst also freeing up the entire A350 range and production line to focus on the bigger, more valuable jets.

rgds


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30976 posts, RR: 86
Reply 24, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 38295 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 20):
On the flip side, the A330neo and A350 together could produce 20+ jets per month while one program alone will never be able to achieve such production rate.

I'm with CIT in that I don't see the A330neo being able to maintain a 10-unit per month delivery rate. I expect it will be more along the lines of 4-5.

Still, that's 4-5 planes a month on a fully amortized production line...


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 824 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (5 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 38237 times:

Quoting Revelation post 248:
The whole reason the 777-9X has massive orders before EIS is due to the shortcomings of the A350-1000...


The A350-1000 and 777-9X are two different market segments.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11636 posts, RR: 33
Reply 26, posted (5 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 37312 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 24):
I'm with CIT in that I don't see the A330neo being able to maintain a 10-unit per month delivery rate. I expect it will be more along the lines of 4-5.

Still, that's 4-5 planes a month on a fully amortized production line...

Running the A350 at 14 per month and the A330neo at 6 per month is what I had in mind (20 together).



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinefraport From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 144 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (5 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 37875 times:

Maybe we have to rename the thread into "A330 NEO bekoming LESS likely".
German aero.de reports that Airbus seems less bullish than anticipated by the aviation world.
"There's a lot of talking about an A330 NEO - just not in Toulouse", Airbus Manager Andy Shankland is quoted.
Also a Lufthansa insider is quoted that they are not very confident a re-engining would make sense.
Source in German: http://www.aero.de/news-19253/Airbus-A330neo.html


User currently offlineseahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 1044 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (5 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 37793 times:

the best argument for the NEO is that they could go without the A358, which could allow them to add a A350-1100 if they want or see a place for it.

User currently offlinepanais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 463 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (5 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 37598 times:

Quoting seahawk (Reply 28):
the best argument for the NEO is that they could go without the A358, which could allow them to add a A350-1100 if they want or see a place for it.

The A350-900 with the A350-800 engines might be the new A333.


User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 641 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (5 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 37423 times:

Quoting panais (Reply 29):
The A350-900 with the A350-800 engines might be the new A333.

It will be the already-announced A350 Regional which will sit above the A333 neo, especially if fitted with 10x Y as Air Asia intend to do.


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1581 posts, RR: 10
Reply 31, posted (5 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 37269 times:

reply 26
Running the A350 at 14 per month and the A330neo at 6 per month is what I had in mind (20 together).

Which is what it's all about.
1.Can the existing aircraft (with or without blended winglets) sell 80 copies a year after 2018?

If they think it can then they will not develop the NEO - obviously.

2.If they think that they can (sell 80 a year) but only with a NEO package then they will develop it- obviously

If they don't think it (NEO) will work - well then they are stuck!

So they will have had intense discussions with their huge range of 330 clients and by now will have an answer of some sort.

As for which engine (assuming the answer is NEO) it will all depend on costs/ timing IMHO. If they ahve to go at the earliest opportunity (2018) - and lowest cost then I would have thought it must be the existing Genx2B. If they can hang on to 2020 then the RR Select has to be the best bet ( and will pair up with the RR A380 NEO offering).

Of course they may surprise us all. They may go for a 2 stage solution. Offering Blended Winglets and a 'thinner wall' 9 abreast offering in 2018 to be followed by the NEO option in 2020 . Guess we will hear at Farnbrough.


User currently offlineMayohoo From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 26 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (5 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 36952 times:

Well, maybe a dumb question but would it be possible for Airbus to 777-x the A330? Keep the fuselage and change the wing and engines? Would that plus the cost advantage be enough to be competitive with the 787?

I still think the best long term solution for Airbus would be to optimize a 350-800 with entry delayed to 2020...that would be competitive for decades rather than working from behind.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 33, posted (5 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 36981 times:

Quoting parapente (Reply 31):
If they can hang on to 2020 then the RR Select has to be the best bet ( and will pair up with the RR A380 NEO offering).

Tom (head engineer) said that the same engine should not be used for both the A330neo and the A380neo. I still do not understand why.

Quoting parapente (Reply 31):
Offering Blended Winglets and a 'thinner wall' 9 abreast offering in 2018 to be followed by the NEO option in 2020

Now that would violate their 18" seat policy unless these widebodies would only be fore short-haul.

tortugamon


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30976 posts, RR: 86
Reply 34, posted (5 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 36954 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Mayohoo (Reply 32):
Well, maybe a dumb question but would it be possible for Airbus to 777-x the A330? Keep the fuselage and change the wing and engines?

Yes they could.



Quoting Mayohoo (Reply 32):
Would that plus the cost advantage be enough to be competitive with the 787?

It would improve it's competitive position against the 787...

...but would also improve it's competitive position against the A350...


User currently offlineMayohoo From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 26 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (5 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 36893 times:

Good point.

What the heck, optimize the 350-800, rewing and rengine the 330. There, I have infinite power and resources. Good plan   


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 824 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (5 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 36749 times:

Quoting Mayohoo (Reply 32):
Well, maybe a dumb question but would it be possible for Airbus to 777-x the A330? Keep the fuselage and change the wing and engines? Would that plus the cost advantage be enough to be competitive with the 787?

The 777X didn't do that and stay competitive with the A350, it did that and it moved up to a new market segment. They didn't try to take on the A350 directly. Which is often what this game is all about, finding a gap or a segment that you can fill better than the other guy.


User currently onlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5457 posts, RR: 6
Reply 37, posted (5 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 36730 times:

Quoting Mayohoo (Reply 32):
would it be possible for Airbus to 777-x the A330? Keep the fuselage and change the wing and engines? Would that plus the cost advantage be enough to be competitive with the 787?

That worked for the 777 for two reasons: 1) the extra capacity Boeing was able to add, and 2) the wing extension, which made up for the fact that the current 777's wings are just too short. The 777X is still substantially heavier than the A350, and without the extra capacity it wouldn't be competitive on a seat-mile basis. (See the 777-8X -- similar capacity to the A350-1000 but heavier, and widely acknowledged to be at a disadvantage except on ULH.)

Especially now that the 787-10 is official, I don't think you can stretch an A330 enough to give it enough extra capacity to make up for its weight disadvantage, and there certainly isn't as much advantage to be had in re-winging the A330 as there was for the 777. The only hope for the A330neo other than raw pricing power (which Airbus already enjoys with the A330ceo) is an engine that is substantially better than those on the 787. And this is why Airbus is hesitant.

[Edited 2014-03-21 14:19:56]

User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12537 posts, RR: 25
Reply 38, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 36249 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 37):
The only hope for the A330neo other than raw pricing power (which Airbus already enjoys with the A330ceo) is an engine that is substantially better than those on the 787. And this is why Airbus is hesitant.

As they should be, because Advances (pardon the pun) in engine technology will certainly migrate to the 787 either by PIPs or re-engining, so 787 won't be standing still over the time needed to pay back the A330neo investment. It's a really tricky market to capture without exposing yourself to a lot of risk.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 641 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 36076 times:

Quoting Mayohoo (Reply 32):
would it be possible for Airbus to 777-x the A330? Keep the fuselage and change the wing and engines?

Possible - yes. But why? If they are prepared to invest in a new wing, they would be better mating it to a shortened A350 fuselage.


User currently offlinebrindabella From Australia, joined Apr 2010, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 35609 times:

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 39):
Quoting Mayohoo (Reply 32):
would it be possible for Airbus to 777-x the A330? Keep the fuselage and change the wing and engines?

Possible - yes. But why? If they are prepared to invest in a new wing, they would be better mating it to a shortened A350 fuselage.

 

Hmm, a firm "maybe" to that.
Better product?   
Better for long term?   
But loses advantage of existing industrialisation as well as competing for (already precious) A350 production slots.
 
Such a fascinating conundrum; now, if only they had said "damn it", and launched it back in 2004 or whatever ...

cheers Bill



Billy
User currently offlinencfc99 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 740 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 35505 times:

Quoting brindabella (Reply 40):
But loses advantage of existing industrialisation as well as competing for (already precious) A350 production slots.

Would it be cost effective to convert part of the 330 FAL to 350 FAL to ramp up production of the 350 to 20-25 units per month. I understand other suppliers would also need to increase production of their parts of the process, but how much of a hurdle would any of this be?


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 42, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 35510 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 38):
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 37):The only hope for the A330neo other than raw pricing power (which Airbus already enjoys with the A330ceo) is an engine that is substantially better than those on the 787. And this is why Airbus is hesitant.
As they should be, because Advances (pardon the pun) in engine technology will certainly migrate to the 787 either by PIPs or re-engining, so 787 won't be standing still over the time needed to pay back the A330neo investment.

Others are very convinced that this won't happen with 777X engine technology...


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 43, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 35345 times:

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 41):

I believe one of the primary bottle knocks is the UK wing fabrication facility that is based upon 14/month. I understand further expansion may be very expensive.

tortugamon


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11636 posts, RR: 33
Reply 44, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 35341 times:

Quoting Mayohoo (Reply 32):
Keep the fuselage and change the wing and engines?

The 777X needs a bigger wing than the A350. Not only increased wing span, wing area will be larger as well. The A330 wing however is already larger than the 787, the only benefit would be weight reduction and a few aerodynamic tweaks. I don't think it's worth the investment.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 45, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 35286 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 44):

I am surprised to read the a330 wing is larger than the 787. 787 has more of a swept back angle (faster aircraft) but it does have a higher aspect ratio. Interesting.

tortugamon


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30976 posts, RR: 86
Reply 46, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 34943 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 41):
Would it be cost effective to convert part of the 330 FAL to 350 FAL to ramp up production of the 350 to 20-25 units per month. I understand other suppliers would also need to increase production of their parts of the process, but how much of a hurdle would any of this be?

Probably significant.

And Airbus would not want to ramp that high because I doubt there is a market for that many A350s a month and if there was, it would be due to a massive aircraft bubble and as soon as it crashes, Airbus and their suppliers would have massive unused capacity that would be a serious financial anchor.


User currently offlinebrindabella From Australia, joined Apr 2010, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 34364 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 46):
Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 41):
Would it be cost effective to convert part of the 330 FAL to 350 FAL to ramp up production of the 350 to 20-25 units per month. I understand other suppliers would also need to increase production of their parts of the process, but how much of a hurdle would any of this be?

Probably significant.

And Airbus would not want to ramp that high because I doubt there is a market for that many A350s a month and if there was, it would be due to a massive aircraft bubble and as soon as it crashes, Airbus and their suppliers would have massive unused capacity that would be a serious financial anchor.




Two out of three?
Fail mark where the usual standard of analyses by Stitch is concerned!

  

But a bit more seriously, the 3 main reasons:
1. Will the market absorb so much product?   
2. Can the supply-chain perform?   
3. But also the other (main) point is that Airbus' strategy must include leveraging their current assets as far as they can be exploited. The existing A330 is a testament to the superb judgement of the original A300 designers
It is imperative that Airbus squeeze every little bit from this asset.   
++

cheers Bill

++ the other (lesser) point us that it is better for Airbus that it's own products for an harmonious range. & do not compete against each other



Billy
User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 48, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 34095 times:

Quoting Mayohoo (Reply 32):
Well, maybe a dumb question but would it be possible for Airbus to 777-x the A330?

What about 777-x the A350?

Keep the cross section and the technology, spend a new, smaller wing and create an optimized medium range 220 to 420 seat aircraft family.

Would certainly be more future proof.


User currently offlinencfc99 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 740 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 33980 times:

Quoting brindabella (Reply 47):
1. Will the market absorb so much product?   

The common consensus is that it will absorb 14 x A350 plus 8-10 x A330neo per month. I am suggesting 20-25 A350 plus 4-5 A330 per month as orders for it dry up. I am thinking of a long term option with no A330neo and an optimised 358 and a launched 3511. I am thinking in terms total wide bodies, not programs.

Quoting brindabella (Reply 47):
2. Can the supply-chain perform?   

Why can't it perform? If it needs some more expenditure to increase capacity, fair enough. The biggest question is weather the business case will take further expenditure. I also believe that if Airbus had not allowed for some easy increase in monthly rate in their planning, it would be poor forward planning.


User currently offlineanfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 450 posts, RR: 11
Reply 50, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 33872 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 33):
Tom (head engineer) said that the same engine should not be used for both the A330neo and the A380neo. I still do not understand why.

I don't remember reading that, but two points I can think of are:
1) Size/Weight: An A330neo engine would be way heavier/larger and deliver more thrust than required from one of the four engines you'd want to put under the wing of an A380.
2) Timeline: Airbus isn't in as much of a rush to re-engine the A380. Its engines are a generation newer than the A330's, so they won't seriously be looking at an A380neo with an EIS before ~2022. For that EIS, new widebody engines from P&W and RR are likely going to be available. By contrast, an A330neo would need a decision some time in 2014, with an EIS ~2018. To me, it wouldn't make sense to tie yourself to a generation of engines available in ~2018 for an A380neo that you're not planning on introducing for at least another 4 years from then.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 48):
What about 777-x the A350?

Keep the cross section and the technology, spend a new, smaller wing and create an optimized medium range 220 to 420 seat aircraft family.

Would certainly be more future proof.

In one very important aspect, this is the exact opposite of 777X-ing the A350, though: Size.
A key part of the 777X programme is that Boeing is upsizing the 777 quite a bit to get the 777X, in order to make up for the extra weight it carries compared to the A350 frame. That helps in keeping it competitive with regard to CASM.
You're suggesting downsizing the A350 base frame.

Having said that - if Airbus don't do an A330neo, an optimised A350-800 may just be the way to go, with a pushed-back EIS of 2019, just in time for the A330ceo to probably start slowing down.
One big challenge - beyond getting the -800 right to begin with - would be supporting production rates around 20/month for the A350.


Personally, I'm curious to see which way Airbus is going to go. Contrary to what many - myself included - thought, the A330neo doesn't seem to be a foregone conclusion; after their A350 Mk. I experience, they seem very reluctant about making far-reaching resource commitments based on "public sentiment".

Airbus may just be playing their cards very close to the chest, so I would take every public statement with a grain of salt. Boeing, right up until the AA announcement, said they're very unlikely to do a 737 re-engine.
It'll be interesting to see what Airbus are going to do if they don't re-engine the A330, because it would potentially leave them vulnerable in a pretty big market segment - and I don't think the current A330 (even with PIPs and other gradual improvements) is going to be quite good enough to sustain production into the early 2020s.



Flown on: A300B4, A310-200/-300, A319, A320-100/-200, A321-200, A330-200, A340-500/-600, A380-800, An-24, An-26, ATR42,
User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1581 posts, RR: 10
Reply 51, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 33775 times:

Reply 50

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 33):
Tom (head engineer) said that the same engine should not be used for both the A330neo and the A380neo. I still do not understand why.

I don't remember reading that, but two points I can think of are:
1) Size/Weight: An A330neo engine would be way heavier/larger and deliver more thrust than required from one of the four engines you'd want to put under the wing of an A380.

ARE YOU SURE? It's the other way round if anything.

Wiki
Trent 772C 71,100lbf 10,550lb A330
Trent 970B 78,304lbf 13,842lb A380


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 52, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 33687 times:

Quoting anfromme (Reply 50):
In one very important aspect, this is the exact opposite of 777X-ing the A350, though: Size.
A key part of the 777X programme is that Boeing is upsizing the 777 quite a bit to get the 777X, in order to make up for the extra weight it carries compared to the A350 frame. That helps in keeping it competitive with regard to CASM.
You're suggesting downsizing the A350 base frame.

Sure. I thought more about the 777X efforts and not the exact solution.

The A350 based solution would look like an A300, but with the A350 cross section.

What would it have?
- New, much smaller wings
- New gears, new vertical tail, horizontal stab
- 50% to 70% of the today A350's MTOW

What would airlines get?
- The most efficient North Atlantic and intra continental people transportation ever

Advantage?
High commonalty with the A350. The A350 family in essence would be good enough to cover anything what has been offered by 763ER, 772ER, 773ER, 788, 789, 7810,A332, A333, A342, A343 and A346 in the past. Quite compelling.

I say, it would not cost more than the 777X.


User currently offlineanfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 450 posts, RR: 11
Reply 53, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 33463 times:

Quoting parapente (Reply 51):
1) Size/Weight: An A330neo engine would be way heavier/larger and deliver more thrust than required from one of the four engines you'd want to put under the wing of an A380.

ARE YOU SURE? It's the other way round if anything.

Wiki
Trent 772C 71,100lbf 10,550lb A330
Trent 970B 78,304lbf 13,842lb A380

Sorry, got everything the wrong way round there  



Flown on: A300B4, A310-200/-300, A319, A320-100/-200, A321-200, A330-200, A340-500/-600, A380-800, An-24, An-26, ATR42,
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30976 posts, RR: 86
Reply 54, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 33200 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 49):
The common consensus is that it will absorb 14 x A350 plus 8-10 x A330neo per month.

That may be the common Airbus Aficionado consensus, but the market consensus is not that high as there is also those 14-16 787s a month that need to be absorbed.

The reality is that Airbus will probably deliver 4-5 A330neo per month provided the aircraft market overall remains strong. Still a production number making it worth the effort (since Airbus doesn't need the A330 FAL space for something more profitable), but the amount and cost of that effort will be smaller for that number of deliveries per month compared to 8-10.


User currently onlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5457 posts, RR: 6
Reply 55, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 33127 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 52):
The A350 based solution would look like an A300, but with the A350 cross section.

What would it have?
- New, much smaller wings
- New gears, new vertical tail, horizontal stab
- 50% to 70% of the today A350's MTOW

I don't think there are enough potential sales of such a concept to make it worth the investment. What you are proposing is an all-new airplane except for the fuselage and some of the electronic systems. It's a much bigger change than 777 -> 777X. It would be fairly expensive. Boeing has sold about 500 787-8s, and once those are delivered I'm not sure there are even 250 sales left in this market segment over the next 20 or so years. That is doubly true if one of the manufacturers makes a top-end narrowbody (whether NSA or A321neo"+") that can serve as a true 757 replacement.

By contrast, if the A330neo were to increase sales by 250 over what Airbus could sell with the A330ceo, it would almost certainly be worth the investment.

[Edited 2014-03-25 07:50:44]

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 56, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 33067 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 48):
Keep the cross section and the technology, spend a new, smaller wing and create an optimized medium range 220 to 420 seat aircraft family.

The 787-10 is in between the two A350 models (I assume the A358 will be dropped when A330neo is launched) and it has the smaller wing and the regional mission. I am not sure if there is room for a me-too here as well. Now maybe a regional smaller wing A350-1100 makes sense and would be in a unique position.

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 49):
The common consensus is that it will absorb 14 x A350 plus 8-10 x A330neo per month.

I see the A330neo at ~6 per month.

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 49):
I am suggesting 20-25 A350 plus 4-5 A330 per month as orders for it dry up.

20-25 A350s would be roughly the entire market. The market opportunity is in the sub 300 seat market and the A350 strength is in the 315-369 seat market.

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 49):
I also believe that if Airbus had not allowed for some easy increase in monthly rate in their planning, it would be poor forward planning.

The current plan is for 10 per month which is the highest production rate for a wide body commercial airliner in history. Suggesting that they should have a plan to more than double that rate seems unrealistic to me. Vendors would have to double their capabilities and then as soon as the demand was filled would have to wind down which is extremely expensive and wasteful.

Quoting anfromme (Reply 50):
I don't remember reading that, but two points I can think of are:

Here is the quote from Tom Williams:

Quote:
Williams does not see a common new engine for the A330 and A380 as the optimal solution. Concerns include the sizing of the core and overall architecture, as well as weight. “It really does not make much sense,” he believes.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/awx_02_14_2014_p0-664251.xml&p=1

He seems to think it isn't about timing or technology but weight and architecture.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 55):
By contrast, if the A330neo were to increase sales by 250 over what Airbus could sell with the A330ceo, it would almost certainly be worth the investment

I agree. The market opportunity is in the sub-300 seat market. Doubling down on the 315-369 seat market doesn't solve the problem. As far as I see it they either launch the A330neo or they spend heavily on the A358 and increase its production capability. Making a regional version of the existing aircraft doesn't meet the demand.

tortugamon


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 57, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 32930 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 55):
What you are proposing is an all-new airplane except for the fuselage and some of the electronic systems.

aka 77X.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 55):
It's a much bigger change than 777 -> 777X.

Why? IMO it is not at all bigger. Actually mating a 20 year old alu fuselage to a new cfrp wing seems to be the larger task.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 56):
I am not sure if there is room for a me-too here as well. Now maybe a regional smaller wing A350-1100 makes sense and would be in a unique position.

I suggest new smaller wings for the A358, A359, A3510 and why not A3511.

The new aircraft explained by some fictive examples:
- Imagine an A310 going 8000nm,
- an A300 going 7500nm
- an A332 going 6000nm
- an A333 going 5500nm
- an 77W going 5000nm

All these roles would be covered by a new A350 with smaller wings.

Rewinged the A350 would beat the 787 on the Atlantic and intra Asian routes.

So the business case would be huge. And not to be challenged beyond parity by any thinkable Boeing product in that segment...


User currently onlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5457 posts, RR: 6
Reply 58, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 32868 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 57):
Why? IMO it is not at all bigger.

You are proposing new landing gear, horizontal and vertical stabs, and a wing that's so much smaller that systems will need substantial change. The 777X is a new wing, engine, and interior, but to my knowledge the gear and stabs are remaining the same (or, in the case of the vertical stab, close to the same). Also, you're proposing a bigger size delta. I think your proposal looks more like the change from the A300-600R to the A330-300.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 57):
The new aircraft explained by some fictive examples:
- Imagine an A310 going 8000nm,
- an A300 going 7500nm
- an A332 going 6000nm
- an A333 going 5500nm
- an 77W going 5000nm

The problem is that airlines don't appear to want any of these aircraft.

They have been reluctant to stretch smaller long-range aircraft out to their maximum range. There have been no regular flights that have challenged the range of the 767-200ER and very few that challenged the range of the 767-300ER. Even for the 787-8 such very long routes are a small minority, and I predict that when the 787-9 and A350-900 come into service the average 787-8 route will get shorter. Boeing could easily have designed the 787-8 for true 8000+ nm range or even 8500 nm range and chose not to.

Yet larger aircraft are being asked to fly further. The 777-300 had ~5500 nm range and sold very few copies; when Boeing found 3000+ extra nm of range the airplane was suddenly far more appealing to operators. A380 operators have been chomping at the bit to stretch the aircraft's legs and have happily gobbled up every bit of MTOW Airbus can provide. Operators complained (to an irrational degree, from my vantage point) about a perceived payload/range shortfall with the first A350-1000.

I think the only mission where a small-wing A350 derivative would have an undeniable advantage is high-density transatlantic routes. This is not a huge niche.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 59, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 32879 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 57):
I suggest new smaller wings for the A358, A359, A3510 and why not A3511

Because the current ~65m wing is already a small wing for an 80m long A350-1100?

I like the smaller wing idea for the A358 but that would negate the need for an A330neo. Its one or the other in my opinion.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 57):
Rewinged the A350 would beat the 787 on the Atlantic and intra Asian routes.

I think the 781 will be an excellent aircraft but I don't think it would be that great that re-winging the A359 and A351 in order to reduce the 781 market share is worth the ~$5B it would take to rewing it.

tortugamon


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11636 posts, RR: 33
Reply 60, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 32844 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 54):
That may be the common Airbus Aficionado consensus, but the market consensus is not that high as there is also those 14-16 787s a month that need to be absorbed.

That figure includes the 787-10 as well. The A330neo would be sitting in the 200-300 seat market; Boeing puts the 787-10 in the 300-400 seat market. See below.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 55):
Boeing has sold about 500 787-8s, and once those are delivered I'm not sure there are even 250 sales left in this market segment over the next 20 or so years.

Both Boeing and Airbus forecast a market demand for another 4,000+ wide-body airplanes in the 200-300 seat market for the next 20 years. That's 200 jets per year / 16 per month. The 787 will be at 14 per month, including the 787-10. If we take the -10 at 5 per month away, that leaves 9 per month for the -8 and -9 in the 200-300 seat market. It would leave the door open for another 6-7 A330s per month.

I do not think these figures are unrealistic, given that Boeing and Airbus together sold about 1,700-1,800 of those jets in the last 10 years.

Most of those future orders would be for the larger 787-9 and A330-300, I agree.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 59):
Because the current ~65m wing is already a small wing for an 80m long A350-1100?

I think people forget how big the A350 wing already is.

[Edited 2014-03-25 10:24:13]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 61, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 32770 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 60):
I think people forget how big the A350 wing already is.

Sure but it still needed leading edge extensions on the A351. Adding another stretch with the same wing would result in wing proportions not seen in current aircraft.

tortugamon


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1581 posts, RR: 10
Reply 62, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 32727 times:

Much of this discussion revolves around the fact that the 350 production line will be maxed out producing (very profitable) -9-10 even -11's. So there is no point in discussing a 350 derivative. The whole point is that the 330 prod line is where they can get the extra sales. It would also be cheaper (amortisation) and it would have the key commonality with the 1,000 other planes out there.

So it has to be a 330. As (above) engine (core) size - he is right really. The 330 does not need a core size for an engine above 70,000 lbs thrust. Which really takes you to the 2 787 engines. They also give you the correct lead times.
I feel Rolls is in a tough position here as there engine is non bleed.

Roll on Farnbrough!


User currently offlineseahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 1044 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 32607 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 61):
Sure but it still needed leading edge extensions on the A351. Adding another stretch with the same wing would result in wing proportions not seen in current aircraft.

tortugamon

That depends on the performance you are aiming for. A simple stretch seems possible to me. Stretching and keeping performance (range) up, would probably need a new wing.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 64, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 32513 times:

Quoting parapente (Reply 62):

Agreed

Quoting seahawk (Reply 63):
That depends on the performance you are aiming for. A simple stretch seems possible to me. Stretching and keeping performance (range) up, would probably need a new wing.

I believe that to be true as well.

tortugamon


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30976 posts, RR: 86
Reply 65, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 32307 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 56):
Now maybe a regional smaller wing A350-1100 makes sense and would be in a unique position.

I expect such a plane might fare about as well as the 777-300A...   



Quoting Stitch (Reply 54):
That may be the common Airbus Aficionado consensus, but the market consensus is not that high as there is also those 14-16 787s a month that need to be absorbed.
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 60):
That figure includes the 787-10 as well. The A330neo would be sitting in the 200-300 seat market; Boeing puts the 787-10 in the 300-400 seat market.

In terms of usable range at usable payloads, the 787-10 and A330-300neo are going to be pretty close.

The A330-300neo will have the edge for single-class operators as they can already pack in the Exit Limit so the 787-10's extra space is wasted on extra comfort (that comes with extra weight) that doesn't generate extra revenue. The 787-10 will have the edge for mixed-class operators as it has extra space.


User currently onlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5457 posts, RR: 6
Reply 66, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 32134 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 60):
Both Boeing and Airbus forecast a market demand for another 4,000+ wide-body airplanes in the 200-300 seat market for the next 20 years. That's 200 jets per year / 16 per month. The 787 will be at 14 per month, including the 787-10. If we take the -10 at 5 per month away, that leaves 9 per month for the -8 and -9 in the 200-300 seat market. It would leave the door open for another 6-7 A330s per month.

I was unclear -- my comment was directed toward the sub-250-seat market in particular, which the short-winged, stubby A350-based "A300" proposed by Rheinwaldner would presumably occupy. I don't think that is a big market and I think Boeing has taken it for the foreseeable future with the 787-8, except for a few top-up A330-200 sales.

I think the 250-300 seat market has a lot of potential, and will attract plenty of sales of the 787-9, A330-300, and A350-900.


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 67, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 31884 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 58):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 57):The new aircraft explained by some fictive examples:
- Imagine an A310 going 8000nm,
- an A300 going 7500nm
- an A332 going 6000nm
- an A333 going 5500nm
- an 77W going 5000nm
The problem is that airlines don't appear to want any of these aircraft.

- I forgot to add "imagine these aircraft ... being the most efficient planes around".
- I also don't agree that the 77W is not wanted by anybody.
Notice: the new, rewinged A350 would match quite closely the today A333 in size and range. But with much better economics than the A330NEO ever could offer.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 58):
You are proposing new landing gear, horizontal and vertical stabs, and a wing that's so much smaller that systems will need substantial change. The 777X is a new wing, engine, and interior, but to my knowledge the gear and stabs are remaining the same (or, in the case of the vertical stab, close to the same).

Maybe I add some points, where the rewinged A350 project would have a smaller scope:

- Actually the systems. The 77X will either use 20 year old systems or have a large change scope in that area. The A350 systems are up-to-date. So we might be talking about changing the dimensions of the systems. But most can be reused (e.g. cockpit).

- The wing. A smaller wing means a smaller scope (e.g. no Beluga discussions). For the 77X the wing technology changes 100%. The systems used for the wing are integral part also. Folding wing tips might be worth the effort but they are not for free.

- The engine. The 77X heavily relies on a world-wonder-engine. The rewinged A350 would beat anything over 5000nm just taking current 787 engines.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 58):
There have been no regular flights that have challenged the range of the 767-200ER and very few that challenged the range of the 767-300ER. Even for the 787-8 such very long routes are a small minority

Agreed, the smallest family member with very long range should not be the main focus of such an attempt.

On the other hand the 767 would exactly be the role model of a rewinged A350.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 58):
Yet larger aircraft are being asked to fly further.

Correct, therefore the market is offering plenty of 8000nm types. And because of that customers increasingly started to complain that demand for 5000nm is not sufficiently covered by the today range-monsters.

For any given aircraft family typically range increases by maybe 30%..50% over the years. Just look how the range of e.g. the A330 has grown over the years even without new engines and large upgrades. Where will the A380, the 787 and the A350 go in this regard? They are all new designs that have the 8000nm range from the start. Other than new larger versions there will simply be no other upgrade opportunities for these aircraft families. In 20 years new technology (e.g. an A359NEO) would allow to reduce fuel burn by 30% and increase range by 30% (or so). This aircraft would have excessive range capabilities which would be nothing than waste.

Most widebody families did start as medium range aircraft, that later allowed expansion in size and range. This kind of model strategy was even demonstrated by the 777.

This means, that we today have very potent 8000nm fleets, which are today also top-notch regarding fuel burn. The penalty might be small when they are used on shorter routes. But in 10..20 years technology advances will push these basic airframes maybe to 11000..12000nm (which nobody uses). At that time they will all be far too much plane for an 8000nm aircraft (which everybody uses).

So the rewinged A350 would be an attempt to have a second line of the family, which is very optimized for the 5000nm (or so) ranges...

It would not only fix the remote market position, where the A358 today sits, but also give Airbus a very compelling aircraft familiy, that basically offers leading economics for any range/size combination between 250...380 seats 5000nm...8000nm by one single aircraft family (while keeping high commonality).

And when I say leading I do really mean leading. We simply can't think of a more efficient aircraft, than e.g. the A351 optimized for just TATL range. It potentially could undercut the operating cost per seat of today TATL aircraft by 30..40%? These widebodies would have to clearly beat even the CASM of the today NB's. So for trunk routes widebodies suddenly would be compelling also over 2000nm...3000nm.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 58):
This is not a huge niche.

I am not aware of any other place where widebodies cruise as frequently as over the North Atlantic.
http://www.mpg.de/373209/zoom.jpeg

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 59):
I like the smaller wing idea for the A358 but that would negate the need for an A330neo. Its one or the other in my opinion.

I agree. It would be a solution, that would avoid the A330NEO.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 61):
Sure but it still needed leading edge extensions on the A351. Adding another stretch with the same wing would result in wing proportions not seen in current aircraft.

Maybe the MD-90? For the same ratio between wingarea and length the A3511 could become longer than 200m....


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 68, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 31683 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 67):

I would take another look at parapente's post in #62. The A350 is spoken for. Maybe 10 years from now they will be looking to add something but for the foreseeable future the line is fully committed. The unfilled Airbus demand is in the sub-300 seat range.

tortugamon


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13110 posts, RR: 100
Reply 69, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 31688 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Rumor mill alert.

One of my contacts at one of the Nacelle vendors has informed me that Airbus is seeking bids for an A330NEO nacelle. The individual was very specific (I verified we weren't talking A320NEO nacelle.) I do not know which engine. All I know is Airbus is looking for a nacelle quite a bit more efficient than current nacelles (e.g., variable nozzle fan, further weight reduction, laminar flow aerodynamics, as well as noise reduction features).

Take this for what its worth (just a rumor from *one* individual, but this individual was certain).

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineaviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 619 posts, RR: 8
Reply 70, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 31548 times:

Hello Lightsaber

Just one question
Who has already VFAN ?

PW (developped but not used) and GE (on leap ?)

So no RR ?


User currently offlineseahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 1044 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 31519 times:

Sounds like PW. GEnx 2B hardly fits the bill, if not up-dated compared to the 748.
A RR engine of the Advanced line could also be an option.


User currently onlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5457 posts, RR: 6
Reply 72, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 31382 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 67):
And because of that customers increasingly started to complain that demand for 5000nm is not sufficiently covered by the today range-monsters.

And yet somehow they won't put their money where their mouths are. The 787-10 has done OK thus far, but has not yet attracted the huge orders some were expecting. The 777-300A, a large 5500 nm aircraft, was a flop. The 747-400 sold bajillions of copies based primarily on a large range increase from any predecessor. Looking back even further, once the RB211 mess was sorted, the key reason the DC-10-30 defeated the L-1011 was 6000 nm range (very high at the time). The A330-300 has been the exception to this rule, but even now (when the thing has broken 6000 nm range) customers continue to ask Airbus for more.

My thesis is that the airlines don't particularly love abusing 8000 nm aircraft on 4000 nm routes, but that once they actually analyze in depth the impact of owning a separate fleet of 5000 nm aircraft, many of them balk. This may be because of economies of scale, utilization/scheduling factors, or other reasons I'm not thinking of at the moment.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11636 posts, RR: 33
Reply 73, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 31368 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 66):
I was unclear -- my comment was directed toward the sub-250-seat market in particular, which the short-winged, stubby A350-based "A300" proposed by Rheinwaldner would presumably occupy. I don't think that is a big market and I think Boeing has taken it for the foreseeable future with the 787-8, except for a few top-up A330-200 sales.

I think the 250-300 seat market has a lot of potential, and will attract plenty of sales of the 787-9, A330-300, and A350-900.

Aha I see. Yes I agree on that; I also expect the real 737/A320/757 successors (whatever they may be) to be tailor made for that 200-250 seat market.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 72):
The 787-10 has done OK thus far, but has not yet attracted the huge orders some were expecting.

I'd argue that 100 orders in less than a year is extremely good. Other aircraft have been launched with less orders. Besides, I think we can only judge once the aircraft is closing on EIS.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 72):
customers continue to ask Airbus for more

Some ask for more indeed, I do not believe everyone is asking for more range though.

[Edited 2014-03-26 08:11:31]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30976 posts, RR: 86
Reply 74, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 31254 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seahawk (Reply 71):
Sounds like PW. GEnx 2B hardly fits the bill...

Other than already being in service and available years before an RR or PW option in an environment where time to market is probably one of, if not the, most important factors to the program's success.   


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1581 posts, RR: 10
Reply 75, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 31178 times:

Reply 69 One of my contacts at one of the Nacelle vendors has informed me that Airbus is seeking bids for an A330NEO

Hmm if true is exciting.For which engine? Gotta be the (748) Genx - but tweeked.So fits the bill.Performance/Timing (and I bet) costs (V important).

Re above talk of a smaller re-winged 350. Not now or in the near future as will have their hands very full with developing and making -9's -10's and prob -11's.But after that? in 10 years time? Why not?
I know its horrible to contemplate but a 10 across seating (we might think thats luxury by then the way its going   mid range rewinged/re engined A358 would be very economical

Although it might clash with a A320 replacement programme I guess.


User currently onlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 76, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 31191 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 74):
Quoting seahawk (Reply 71):
Sounds like PW. GEnx 2B hardly fits the bill...

Other than already being in service and available years before an RR or PW option in an environment where time to market is probably one of, if not the, most important factors to the program's success.

Could actually be a tight fit.....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Lars Hentschel


Might be the reason for the request for bids. Wonder if an RFP for landing gears would follow?

[Edited 2014-03-26 10:59:51]


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4768 posts, RR: 14
Reply 77, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 31203 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 69):
One of my contacts at one of the Nacelle vendors has informed me that Airbus is seeking bids for an A330NEO nacelle. The individual was very specific (I verified we weren't talking A320NEO nacelle.) I do not know which engine. All I know is Airbus is looking for a nacelle quite a bit more efficient than current nacelles (e.g., variable nozzle fan, further weight reduction, laminar flow aerodynamics, as well as noise reduction features).

Don't RR supply their own nacelles? GE trying to find a supplier for the GEnx2?


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 78, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 31188 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 69):
Rumor mill alert.


Great info, thanks buddy. Recently it sounded like they were slow-playing it but this sounds otherwise.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 72):
The 777-300A, a large 5500 nm aircraft, was a flop.

How many years was it on offer before the 77W was? I seem to remember the 77W being offered within two years of the 773 EIS.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 72):
The 787-10 has done OK thus far, but has not yet attracted the huge orders some were expecting.

I think they will come. I think Boeing is planning on only producing them in CHS so the number of slots that are available are limited before 2021. EY ordered a bunch of A359R right after ordering the 781 and I think that has a lot to do with not having delivery slots.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 72):
My thesis is that the airlines don't particularly love abusing 8000 nm aircraft on 4000 nm routes, but that once they actually analyze in depth the impact of owning a separate fleet of 5000 nm aircraft, many of them balk.

I think you are right. The LH A359 order and 781 comment are very telling IMO.

tortugamon


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30976 posts, RR: 86
Reply 79, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 31194 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 78):
How many years was (the 773) on offer before the 77W was?

The 777-300 predates the 777-300ER by about five years in terms of ATO and six years in term of EIS.

To be fair, the 777-300 was aimed at the 747-200 replacement market whereas the 777-300ER was more a 747-400 replacement.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11636 posts, RR: 33
Reply 80, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 31131 times:

Small updates from an analyst:

Quote:
.@Delta a potential launch customer of the proposed A330neo, writes Morgan Stanley analyst Godyn
Quote:
The A330neo "might not move forward without a large anchor customer like Delta", adds Godyn. 2/2
Quote:
An A330neo order from @Delta would be part of an order to replace the majority of its 744 and 763 fleets.
http://twitter.com/e_russell



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineseahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 1044 posts, RR: 0
Reply 81, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 30699 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 74):
Other than already being in service and available years before an RR or PW option in an environment where time to market is probably one of, if not the, most important factors to the program's success.

I think today that is not that much of a problem. I think studies will be going on for years now, so any "new" engine for the NEO could already be quite advanced on the drawing board. I am guessing PW because the NEO is the only chance to get a GTF on a widebody for quite a long time. (at least till 787MAX or A380NEO) RR is owning so much of the A330CEO engine market, that i would also be surprised if they would not have a Trent version ready for use in the NEO, maybe with some Advanced program parts.

And while the GEnx is probably the engine that is the easiest solution it unfortunately comes with no advantages compared to the 787 engine, advantages the NEO imho needs.


User currently offlineEnviableOne From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 112 posts, RR: 0
Reply 82, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 30407 times:

OK, just for my sanity, after 5 and a half threads

The story so far:-
there seem to be three options
Option A) A quick version EIS 2018 with some derivative of the GenX from GE rapid time to market with limited cost partly footed by GE

Option B) wait for next Gen engine tech EIS 2020, with either the RR Advance or a larger GTF from PW.

Option C) optimise the 358 to cover the 330 and below, optimised for TATL

the favourite seems to be Option B which will make the 330NEO competitive with the 788

[Edited 2014-03-27 03:37:48]


A wise man speaks because has something to say, a fool speaks because he has to say something - Plato
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30976 posts, RR: 86
Reply 83, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 30265 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seahawk (Reply 81):
I think today that is not that much of a problem.

It is not provided annual widebody demand is strong enough that Airbus and Boeing cannot meet it with the A350 and 787, as that leaves room for an A330neo.



Quoting seahawk (Reply 81):
I think studies will be going on for years now, so any "new" engine for the NEO could already be quite advanced on the drawing board.

I really think this whole process has been driven by GE (with the GEnx2B) knowing that the 747-8 program's future is not looking strong.



Quoting seahawk (Reply 81):
I am guessing PW because the NEO is the only chance to get a GTF on a widebody for quite a long time. (at least till 787MAX or A380NEO)

Indeed it is. So I can see them being very motivated to get on the A330 as both a new-build and a retrofit option (ala the CFM56 on the DC-8).

But they are the most riskiest option, IMO. That being said, they're going to get a fair bit of experience with the number of models the PW1100G family will be on so if the market can wait, that may play into their hands.



Quoting seahawk (Reply 81):
RR is owning so much of the A330CEO engine market, that i would also be surprised if they would not have a Trent version ready for use in the NEO, maybe with some Advanced program parts.

RR is the company I see least interested in the A330neo because of their current dominant position on the program. They will launch a new engine only to protect that position.



Quoting seahawk (Reply 81):
And while the GEnx is probably the engine that is the easiest solution it unfortunately comes with no advantages compared to the 787 engine, advantages the NEO imho needs.

The A330neo has to be as good or better than the 787 to take significant orders from it, but that is not the only option available to Airbus. They have two A330 models now that do not have real competition from either the 787 or A350 and could benefit with improved sales from more efficient engines than are what currently hang off the plane.

The first is the freighter model. The A330-200 freighter offers better payload lift and range than the 767-300, but it's actually not that much bigger in terms of volume. Hanging even GEnx engines off it will significantly improve it's operating economics compared to the 767-300F just based on what 767 operators are reporting the 787 is doing. Airbus also wants to launch an A330-300 new-build freighter and I believe new engines will significantly improve the market interest. And considering how expensive the 777BCF program looks to be, I don't think it would be competitive against a new-build A330-300Fneo.

The second is the A330-300 Regional. Again, even the GEnx2B would significantly improve the operating economics of the type and for single-class operators, it is the absolute perfect choice because whether it's an A330-300Rneo, a 787-10 or an A350-1000, all of them can only legally fit 440 passengers.

I honestly believe Airbus could reliably deliver 4-6 A330 freighters and regionals a month with GEnx2B power for a decade or more. They might possibly be able to do another 1-2 a month with a better RR or PW engine, but if they can start pushing those planes out 24-36 months earlier with the GEnx2B...


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11636 posts, RR: 33
Reply 84, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 29998 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 83):
I honestly believe Airbus could reliably deliver 4-6 A330 freighters and regionals a month with GEnx2B power for a decade or more.

Somehow I doubt an A330neo with GEnx2B engine will last long. The RR Advance on the other hand might have a much better chance of extending the A330 lifetime for another decade.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30976 posts, RR: 86
Reply 85, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 29883 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 84):
Somehow I doubt an A330neo with GEnx2B engine will last long. The RR Advance on the other hand might have a much better chance of extending the A330 lifetime for another decade.

Assuming GE's offer is based on the GEnx2B, if Airbus rebuffs it, would Rolls even bother spending the money on making an Advance engine for the A330? They're still going to dominate with the Trent 700 and since they own the A350 market and are strong on the 787...


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11636 posts, RR: 33
Reply 86, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 29825 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 85):
would Rolls even bother spending the money on making an Advance engine for the A330?

Because Rolls Royce will develop the Advance anyway, with or without A330. And last month, RR said "if Airbus would ask us to power an A330neo, we will be ready". So they are interested in such a development.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1449 posts, RR: 2
Reply 87, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 29768 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 85):
Assuming GE's offer is based on the GEnx2B, if Airbus rebuffs it, would Rolls even bother spending the money on making an Advance engine for the A330? They're still going to dominate with the Trent 700 and since they own the A350 market and are strong on the 787...

Producers want to sell their product. For RR the question would be how many more engines does on sell with moving the A330 to neo and the advanced engine. If RR sells 400 more T700 and than GEnx-2B takes the market or RR sells first 500 more T700 and than perhaps 500+ advanced, additional having done the design and an easy way to make an upgrade, perhaps not the same but a similar engine, for the A380neo too.

One should also not forget that the Trent is a common engine design and RR has done mixing and matching and moving design elements from one Trent to another, so I would not see to many difficulties making a bleed version of the T1000.

But the main advantage of the advanced would be the lighter composite fan, with a higher pressure smaller core, together yielding perhaps a rather light engine making the move to the A330neo easier.

There is also the question how far the fuel burn advantage against the T700 should be pushed, if not going all the way leads to a light engine not much heavier than the T700.

The design cost can also be overdrawn here in the discussion. If making the neo yields 300 additional sales above not making the neo, and we calculate 10 Mill EUR development cost return per frame, than the additional sales would allow easily development cost of 3 bill EUR.

[Edited 2014-03-27 16:25:12]

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 88, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 29618 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 87):
The design cost can also be overdrawn here in the discussion. If making the neo yields 300 additional sales above not making the neo, and we calculate 10 Mill EUR development cost return per frame, than the additional sales would allow easily development cost of 3 bill EUR.

I suspect their cost of capital and their internal return on investment would preclude such an investment. I imagine the dynamics would have to be much more pronounced for the neo to come into existence.

tortugamon


User currently onlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 89, posted (5 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 29527 times:

Quoting EnviableOne (Reply 82):
the favourite seems to be Option B which will make the 330NEO competitive with the 788

By which time the 781 will have hit its stride.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 83):
as that leaves room for an A330neo

What leaves room for an A330neo by default does the same for a potential 767neo.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 83):
I really think this whole process has been driven by GE (with the GEnx2B) knowing that the 747-8 program's future is not looking strong.

Which could make them approach Boeing if Airbus were not interested.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 84):
Somehow I doubt an A330neo with GEnx2B engine will last long.

IMHO, the premise for an A330/GEnx2B pairing is just to catch as many sales as it can while it can...not particularly focused on much longevity...though that would be a welcome bonus. If the desired ROI is not there, they won't proceed.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 85):
Assuming GE's offer is based on the GEnx2B, if Airbus rebuffs it, would Rolls even bother spending the money on making an Advance engine for the A330? They're still going to dominate with the Trent 700 and since they own the A350 market and are strong on the 787...

They may have to, as Boeing could pick up the GE offer for use on their 767-400.....

.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer.../aero_03/ps/ps01/art/sidebar02.gif

.....a quick and cheap way to offset the A330HGW's lead in the medium/long range sectors, while still fitting 767/787 gate slots. Unless RR don't consider the combination a threat.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 87):
One should also not forget that the Trent is a common engine design and RR has done mixing and matching and moving design elements from one Trent to another,

One should also remember that the GEnx2B is basically a plug and play option which could plausibly start earning money almost immediately while RR would still be working on the Advance development.



[Edited 2014-03-27 22:34:41]


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30976 posts, RR: 86
Reply 90, posted (5 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 29480 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 86):
Rolls Royce will develop the Advance anyway, with or without A330.

I agree they will be willing to build it for the A380 because they're not on the 777X (which looks to be popular in more of the world than just the Middle East) and I am skeptical Airbus is going to build an A350-1100.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 86):
And last month, RR said "if Airbus would ask us to power an A330neo, we will be ready". So they are interested in such a development.

But are they interested only if it keeps GE or PW off the platform?   


User currently offlineseahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 1044 posts, RR: 0
Reply 91, posted (5 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 29452 times:

Would GE be interested if the 748 would sell better? I think the A330NEO will interest all 3 engine makers. It is (A380NEO apart) the only major aircraft program for the end of the decade. And I think who will be on the A330NEO will have a good chance to be on the A380NEO as well. With GE having the 777X secure, I think they are the ones who need the NEOs the least. RR has the A350 but the Trent700 was selling well for them and they surely want to be on a A380NEO, for PW NEO is the only chance to built a modern engine for wide bodies at least for the next 10 years.

User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10023 posts, RR: 96
Reply 92, posted (5 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 29470 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

[

Quoting Stitch (Reply 85):
Assuming GE's offer is based on the GEnx2B, if Airbus rebuffs it, would Rolls even bother spending the money on making an Advance engine for the A330?

I'm pretty sure RR have explicitly said they are in talks with Airbus to produce an Advance engine for the A330.
They are developing the Advance whatever happens.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/0...oyce-engines-idUKBREA1P1TN20140226

Quote:
"If Airbus decides to go for a re-engine of the A330 or A380 (passenger jets), we will be here to support,"
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 84):
Somehow I doubt an A330neo with GEnx2B engine will last long.

I don't see why not.
I'm pretty sure that with a few tweaks, (of the sort the 737 MAX has experienced), Airbus can cut the fuel burn gap to the 787 to 2-3% which IMO is plenty small enough to be offset by other cost considerations.

The debate Airbus must have IMO is which offers the best ROI - GEnx/T1000 or Advance

Rgds


User currently offlineaviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 619 posts, RR: 8
Reply 93, posted (5 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 29237 times:

Opening a new Leap Plant GE boss has basically said that he already has handfull and no interest/ time for A330 - A380 new engines (Flightglobal PRO)
So A330NEO will be RR and / or PW

RR has virtually no new commercial engine on order after the XWB-97 (certification 2016...)
GE GE90X
PW has E2 Purepower and nothing more after 2016

so?


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11636 posts, RR: 33
Reply 94, posted (5 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 29222 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 90):
I agree they will be willing to build it for the A380 because they're not on the 777X (which looks to be popular in more of the world than just the Middle East) and I am skeptical Airbus is going to build an A350-1100.

If the -1100 materializes, it will be with the Trent XWB engine. I doubt Airbus will re-engine the A350 that soon.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 90):
But are they interested only if it keeps GE or PW off the platform?

Whatever they are saying, RR will have to power the NEO if they want to keep GE and PW off the platform. Words alone will not do it.

Quoting aviaponcho (Reply 93):
Opening a new Leap Plant GE boss has basically said that he already has handfull and no interest/ time for A330 - A380 new engines (Flightglobal PRO)

Which is quite funny, it was the Leeham article suggesting GE was pushing Airbus to re-engine the A330.

Quoting aviaponcho (Reply 93):
So A330NEO will be RR and / or PW

I think PW will be too much risk. The A330neo has to be a low risk program.

Rolls Royce has a very realistic shot to exclusively power the whole Airbus wide-body fleet from A330neo to A380neo post 2020.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineflyglobal From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 581 posts, RR: 3
Reply 95, posted (5 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 29052 times:

My impression is that GE and Airbus have a problem- and this is probably about the leaders in the first and the second hirachy.

I have heard that Airbus feels that they are always treated as a second important partner compared to Boeing from GE.

Need to find the link from 2-3 years ago where (Leahy?) said that GE is never offering the best what they have for us but rather the things which they need to sell to make a profit.
This could be the case here again (from Airbus view) - GE offering the Genx2b from the 748 not making a profit for a A330 NEO, but refusing to provide the best they have (777x engine technology) to repower the A330 and the A380.

On the other side Airbus is refusing exclusive contracts as Boeing is more obviously willing to do which makes GE decisions more understandable

I am not in any of this camps - probably the truth is somewhere in the middle as usual- just the leaderships of GE and Airbus have less then needed trust in each other.

Regards

Flyglobal


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1449 posts, RR: 2
Reply 96, posted (5 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 28935 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 88):
I suspect their cost of capital and their internal return on investment would preclude such an investment. I imagine the dynamics would have to be much more pronounced for the neo to come into existence.

tortugamon

That is how you calculate additional sales. The normal sales, that what you calculate to be able to sell without additional investment, should in any calculation take care of the return of investment you have done. In the case of the A330, the sales number are already past the point of returning the original and other already made additional investments in development and production equipment.
So if you now look at additional sales, sales you do not expect to get without additional investment, you distribute the return of that investment on the expected additional sales. Doing this in already fully depreciated production facilities you do not need to take account of already paid of investments.
You put additional sales in relation to additional investment.


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1581 posts, RR: 10
Reply 97, posted (5 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 28944 times:

Whilst the 'unblocked' Chinese order for the A330 is good news ,it is the potential additional order for 150 which is the one they need to take them to 2020 I feel. Clearly this 'order' is being hard fought over (no surprise).The Chinese have some real leverage here and are clearly using it!

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13110 posts, RR: 100
Reply 98, posted (5 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 28741 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

First, I know no new information other than the nacelle bid.

Quoting aviaponcho (Reply 70):
Just one question
Who has already VFAN ?

One (possibly two) of the nacelle vendors and Pratt.    Note I didn't say GE...

Quoting trex8 (Reply 77):
Don't RR supply their own nacelles?

RR has been willing to partner with nacelle vendors in the past.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 94):
I think PW will be too much risk. The A330neo has to be a low risk program.

Sadly, as a Pratt fan, I agree with you. Pratt is simply too busy with all the PW1000Gs and PW800 to take on another major engine at this time.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 94):
Rolls Royce has a very realistic shot to exclusively power the whole Airbus wide-body fleet from A330neo to A380neo post 2020.

Not if the GTFs deliver. The A380NEO will be open to a 2nd engine. But close...

Quoting astuteman (Reply 92):
The debate Airbus must have IMO is which offers the best ROI - GEnx/T1000 or Advance

Concur. And that ROI is based on timeline with GE having the 'out the gate' advantage, but RR has a more efficient

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12537 posts, RR: 25
Reply 99, posted (5 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 28627 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 72):
The 777-300A, a large 5500 nm aircraft, was a flop. The 747-400 sold bajillions of copies based primarily on a large range increase from any predecessor. Looking back even further, once the RB211 mess was sorted, the key reason the DC-10-30 defeated the L-1011 was 6000 nm range (very high at the time). The A330-300 has been the exception to this rule, but even now (when the thing has broken 6000 nm range) customers continue to ask Airbus for more.

In Flightglobal: What does Boeing's 777X mean for airlines and Airbus?, Boeing’s marketing VP Randy Tinseth says pretty much the same thing:

Quote:
Sales of the 777-300ER have outpaced even Boeing’s most optimistic forecasts, with total sales standing at 721 aircraft – including 263 on backlog. Tinseth attributes the -300ER’s surprise success to two main factors: “It crushed the competition – the A340-600 just wasn’t a viable competitor, which helped us, and we recognised that a lot of airlines bought the 747 for its range. But frankly we got that percentage wrong, and more bought it for this capability than for its size.”

Despite the article's title, it is really more about the big gap in Airbus's product line.

Boeing's slide shows it as:



Whereas Airbus draws things 'slightly' differently:



Note Airbus drew the a/c in a sequence that would imply scaling, but didn't include a scale, well, for the obvious reason.

Ahh, ain't marketing great?

One can see that Leahy is a better sales person than Tinseth:

Quote:

Leahy argues that airlines want simplicity, and that Boeing's multifaceted line-up is "not reasonable" in the current age: "My competitor has eight different models competing with four of ours. Those eight different models represent four aircraft families within them: different cockpits, different engines, different support.".

JL's playing the cards he's been dealt, but they aren't great cards...

Randy is not as slick but is playing better cards:

Quote:

However, Boeing highlights its sales success in the widebody sector as evidence that it has called the strategy right. The market is currently voting slightly in favour of Seattle, with Boeing holding a 55% share of the widebody twinjet backlog.

“We’re very pleased with how we’re positioned with our widebody product offering – from 200-400 seats we have a complete line of 787s and 777s in the marketplace. From orders to deliveries to backlog, we lead the competition,” says Tinseth. “Airbus has a lot of questions it has to answer – what does it do about the A330, about the A350-800 – I think the writing is on the wall already – and about the A350-1000.

"They signed up a great customer in Cathay Pacific for the -1000, and now all of a sudden it is also a 777X customer, so it really limits what the -1000 can do.".
Quoting astuteman (Reply 92):

Quoting Stitch (Reply 85):
Assuming GE's offer is based on the GEnx2B, if Airbus rebuffs it, would Rolls even bother spending the money on making an Advance engine for the A330?

I'm pretty sure RR have explicitly said they are in talks with Airbus to produce an Advance engine for the A330.

And since we're doing a roll call:

Airbus Reveals P&W A330neo, A380 Reengining Involvement

Everyone wants in.

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 95):
This could be the case here again (from Airbus view) - GE offering the Genx2b from the 748 not making a profit for a A330 NEO, but refusing to provide the best they have (777x engine technology) to repower the A330 and the A380.

I doubt it. Airbus made GE the lead engine on the A350 Mk. I aircraft so they were in sync at that point in time. Once the market told Airbus that the Mk I was a non-starter, the a/c got redefined as something that could compete with 777. That made GE less interested (because they dominate the 777) and RR more interested (since they only were on the 777-200/-200ER/300 and not on 777-200LR/300ER/F). Leahy's comments are uncalled for. GE will do what is best for GE, and when that means offering their top shelf stuff on an Airbus a/c, that's what they will do.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11636 posts, RR: 33
Reply 100, posted (5 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 28593 times:

Marketing at its best. Tinseth of course loves to say the A340 was killed by its own 777 while others will argue ETOPS and high fuel prices killed it. Whoever is right remains a personal opinion I guess.

Regarding the gap, it can theoretically be filled with the A330neo below and the A350-1100 above. But if Airbus decides to do non of them (which I doubt) and feels comfortable with their current position, would that be a problem?

[Edited 2014-03-28 09:14:21]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12537 posts, RR: 25
Reply 101, posted (5 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 28448 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 100):
But if Airbus decides to do non of them (which I doubt) and feels comfortable with their current position, would that be a problem?

By definition if they are comfortable with the current position, then they don't feel they have a problem. I could see how they'll be quite comfortable: A350-900 and A350-1000 are incredibly successful already. The road map they drew for themselves a few years ago is filling in incredibly well, except the part that showed the A350-8, but on balance, it's going extremely well. However I could see how they'd be even more comfortable if they had a more direct competitor for both 787-8 and 777-9.

To put the shoe on the other foot, I feel Boeing can feel quite comfortable too, but would be more comfortable if they had a better competitor for A321neo and if the 747-8 was doing better than it is.

No one is going to cover all the gaps. The competitor is always going to aim for gaps when the market supports that gap well. This is good, it gives us things to talk about here on a.net.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently onlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 102, posted (5 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 28738 times:

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 95):
GE offering the Genx2b from the 748 not making a profit for a A330 NEO

GE might also very well think that the 764 is a dog thereby not bothering to offer Boeing the GEnx2B for it.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 100):
Regarding the gap, it can theoretically be filled with the A330neo below and the A350-1100 above. But if Airbus decides to do non of them

I wish there would be a 767MAX to fill it...    ...

http://www.aviationexplorer.com/Various_Aircraft/Maxjet_Boeing_767-238.jpg
http://www.aviationexplorer.com/Vari...Aircraft/Maxjet_Boeing_767-238.jpg

.....with AA's business class at least !!!   .....

http://www.airlinesanddestinations.c...4/03/140306-American767biz1-01.jpg


Quoting Revelation (Reply 101):
This is good, it gives us things to talk about here on a.net.

Agree wholeheartedly!   



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10023 posts, RR: 96
Reply 103, posted (5 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 28684 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 99):
Boeing's slide shows it as:

If we've convinced ourselves that the VLA market doesn't exist (and God knows we've spent enough effort on this site trying to do just that), then surely doesn't that just show that both companies have a product range that goes up to the 350-400 seat range.
Makes the A380 and 748i irrelevant as is the correct order of things.
The only debate then becomes how much demand there is for a 400 seater, and I don't think we're really called that yet (outside of the ME3)
For what it's worth I think there is, and that Airbus will "grow" the A350-1000 at some point.
I'm not sure I'd call the Boeing slide "as it is" by the way.
They've clearly supressed the number of seats in the A350-1000 to emphasize the gap - it's shown as being smaller than the 777-8X which is clearly twaddle when it is in fact about 7%-8% bigger

Quoting Revelation (Reply 99):
Note Airbus drew the a/c in a sequence that would imply scaling, but didn't include a scale, well, for the obvious reason.

Perhaps. But their size order is a tad more representative, whatever the scale is

Quoting Revelation (Reply 101):
However I could see how they'd be even more comfortable if they had a more direct competitor for both 787-8 and 777-9

Agree

Rgds


User currently offlineneutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 506 posts, RR: 0
Reply 104, posted (5 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 28646 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 102):

That is a gorgeous plane and paint scheme. I wish the 767 can be reborn as a 767NG. Such a comfortable plane to fly. Perhaps it can be used as a basis to replace the 757 in that size range, but it would probably be overkill.

Still would like to see it, though!


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3523 posts, RR: 66
Reply 105, posted (5 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 28623 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 100):
Marketing at its best. Tinseth of course loves to say the A340 was killed by its own 777 while others will argue ETOPS and high fuel prices killed it. Whoever is right remains a personal opinion I guess.

But ETOPS and higher fuel prices were what made the 773ER a winner compared to the A346. The contest would have been more hard fought if Airbus had had an A336 in the competition.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30976 posts, RR: 86
Reply 106, posted (5 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 28576 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 99):
And since we're doing a roll call...Airbus Reveals P&W A330neo, A380 Reengining Involvement...

Everyone wants in.

P&W wants in because they're at risk of being frozen out of the widebody market for decades and once they have been out that long, they're going to have a hard time coming back in.

In the article Revelation linked to, Airbus VP Tom Williams brings up some points I have in this forum about how many missions an A330neo would lend itself to performing well at, how an A330neo could impact A350 model sales and engine exclusivity.

I agree with Mr. Williams that for long-haul missions, the fuel burn disadvantage will remain large enough that the 787 and A350 will be the better choice and therefore I remain of the opinion that the plane will be most competitive as a new-build freighter and in "Regional" form.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12537 posts, RR: 25
Reply 107, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 28501 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 106):
I agree with Mr. Williams that for long-haul missions, the fuel burn disadvantage will remain large enough that the 787 and A350 will be the better choice and therefore I remain of the opinion that the plane will be most competitive as a new-build freighter and in "Regional" form.

It must be said the article cold water on the shorter range part of the spectrum too:

Quote:

On the other end of the spectrum, as with the A320neo or Boeing 737 MAX, the benefit of more efficiency below a certain threshold becomes more limited because the cruise portion of the flight is so short. The proposed A330neo would be a heavier aircraft and that would potentially penalize short-haul operations—the market segment Airbus has been pushing into recently to capture a larger share of Chinese domestic services.

Yet there really is no other a/c that fills the regional wide body role better.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 108, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 28464 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 106):
I agree with Mr. Williams that for long-haul missions, the fuel burn disadvantage will remain large enough that the 787 and A350 will be the better choice and therefore I remain of the opinion that the plane will be most competitive as a new-build freighter and in "Regional" form.

If the neo uses the 787 engines it should be a heavier aircraft than the 787. I don't buy the argument that it would be better on short missions than the 787 if that is the case.

tortugamon


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 109, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 28398 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 108):
I don't buy the argument that it would be better on short missions than the 787 if that is the case.

Does it not lift a fair bit more payload?



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30976 posts, RR: 86
Reply 110, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 28349 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 108):
If the neo uses the 787 engines it should be a heavier aircraft than the 787. I don't buy the argument that it would be better on short missions than the 787 if that is the case.
Quoting scbriml (Reply 109):
Does it not lift a fair bit more payload?

That is the case for the A330-200, which looks to be around 53,000kg with the highest Weight Variant compared to 43,000kg for the 787-8. However, the ACAPs show the A330-300 has a lower payload than her smaller sister - around 48,000kg. The preliminary 787-9 numbers from 2005 were for a 58,000kg payload and considering the 787-9 is below spec empty weight and has had an MTOW boost...

So looks like the 787-9 will lift more than an A330-300neo, but an A320-200neo will lift more than a 787-8.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11636 posts, RR: 33
Reply 111, posted (5 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 27679 times:

Brazilian airline Azul is in talks with Airbus, Boeing and lessors about a wide-body order. The 787-8 is one of the models under review. Airbus’s current A330-200 and an upgraded version still on the drawing board are also part of the discussion, the people said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...e-bodies-to-fly-beyond-brazil.html

This is probably the 5th airline publicly talking about a new A330 version. This still doesn't guarantee anything, expect that Airbus is talking a lot about it with (potential) customers.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 101):
This is good, it gives us things to talk about here on a.net.

  



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30976 posts, RR: 86
Reply 112, posted (5 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 27364 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

As I expected, Air Purchase Lease has cancelled their order for 12 A350-800s. This leaves only 34 customers for the type, of which 10 I am sure are also going to be cancelled (Yemenia) and 2 I believe have already been converted to the A350-900 via MoU (AWAS).

So that leaves effectively 22 frames - 8 each for Asiana and Aeroflot and 6 for Hawaiian. As both already have the A350-900 on order, I am very confident Asiana and Aeroflot will convert the rest to larger A350 models and Hawaiian now has no choice but to do the same or cancel and pick something else.

So with the A350-800 now (in)formally cancelled, that probably improves the position of the A330neo in Airbus' RoI calculations.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11636 posts, RR: 33
Reply 113, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 27157 times:

Airbus is talking about the NEO again:

Quote:
"A330NEO changes could include aerodynamic tweaks and sharklets, not only new engines - @Airbus Ecclestone says at #PHX2014"
Quote:
A330neo wud likely include new engines like those on 787 and aerodynamic tweaks, says @AirbusInTheUS pres Eccleston. #PHX2014
Quote:
A330neo decision depends on biz case and whether it wud be competitive against the 787 and A350, says @AirbusInTheUS Eccleston. #PHX2014
Quote:
"We will make a relatively quick decision, before the middle of the year." @Airbus Ecclestone on potential A330NEO at #PHX2014

http://twitter.com/e_russell
http://twitter.com/AvWeekFlottau

[Edited 2014-04-04 11:30:21]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30976 posts, RR: 86
Reply 114, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 27018 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 113):
Airbus is talking about the NEO again:

So launch at Farnborough, I imagine.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11636 posts, RR: 33
Reply 115, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 27009 times:

Perhaps. We don't know if ATO launch has yet to happen. If the ATO launch happens at Farnborough, the public launch will most likely have to wait until 2015.


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2485 posts, RR: 11
Reply 116, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 26944 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 113):
Quote:A330neo decision depends on biz case and whether it wud be competitive against the 787 and A350, says @AirbusInTheUS Eccleston. #PHX2014

Well, considering the recent trend of the A358 orderbook, should we still be debating if it is competitive against the 350 . . . ?      



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11636 posts, RR: 33
Reply 117, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 26905 times:

It has to be competitive against the A350, otherwise everyone will buy the A350 instead. I think we should read this as "the A330neo will have (almost) the same seat per mile as the A350 on routes up to 6000 nm" (assuming Airbus will not increase range).


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30976 posts, RR: 86
Reply 118, posted (5 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 26675 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 117):
It has to be competitive against the A350, otherwise everyone will buy the A350 instead. I think we should read this as "the A330neo will have (almost) the same seat per mile as the A350 on routes up to 6000 nm" (assuming Airbus will not increase range).

Four years ago, Airbus was saying that even as a straight shrink, the A350-800 would offer 23% better fuel burn per seat on a 4000nm mission compared to the A330-200 so I'm thinking the A330-200neo won't be quite that good.  Wink

I think the real issue with the A350-800 was the A350-900 - along with the 787-8 and 787-9 - offered better revenue and/or economics so it just was an undesirable platform in comparison.

[Edited 2014-04-04 15:03:59]

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11636 posts, RR: 33
Reply 119, posted (5 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 26637 times:

I'm sure it could eat into A359 sales, but it will not take all sales. The difference between the A330-300neo and A350-900 would be about the same as the 787-9 versus 787-10. On leeham.net, someone posted:

Quote:
The A350-900 is wider and has a slightly longer cabin, which accounts for a 12-13 percent greater floor area than that of the A330-300. In comparison, the 787-10 has about 15 percent greater floor area than that of the 787-9. In a typical two or three class configuration, and in a like for like, apple to apple comparison, the A333 and the A359 would have around 30 rows of economy class seats each. On the A359, you’d have one extra seat per row and and an additional 4 seats extra in the back over that of the A330 due to the latter’s aft fuselage tapering (i.e. 7 abreast in the last 4 rows).

This SAS configuration for example shows a difference of 44 seats between the two aircraft:

http://oi60.tinypic.com/2yu0yev.jpg

In the end, I believe Airbus could sell more wide-body jets with the A330neo and A350 together than the A350 alone.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineTheredbaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2215 posts, RR: 8
Reply 120, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 25956 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
If P&W can develop a "PW2000" in the 70-80,000 pound thrust range, they not only get a great engine for the A330, they could also get one for the A380. And the easiest way for Airbus to deal with choosing RR or EA on the A380neo could be to kick both to the curb and move forward with PW.

100% agree, the engine will be a better proposition if used on this platform (high sales) and the A380NEO (low sales but 4 engines per frame)

Quoting parapente (Reply 31):
Of course they may surprise us all. They may go for a 2 stage solution. Offering Blended Winglets and a 'thinner wall' 9 abreast offering in 2018 to be followed by the NEO option in 2020 . Guess we will hear at Farnbrough.

US Airlines will need sometimes in the future to change a lot of 757 and 767, and if the NEO is cheap, they might lure one or 2 of the big legacies (also if they assemble them in the USA- Yep I know its wishful thinking but what the heck!)

Quoting Mayohoo (Reply 32):
I still think the best long term solution for Airbus would be to optimize a 350-800 with entry delayed to 2020...that would be competitive for decades rather than working from behind.

While I agree, never underestimate the power of availability ...so maybe they will go for a compromise, and offer and older product sooner, than a new airframe very late in the game .

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 69):
Rumor mill alert.

That would be great, hope your rumor is true !

TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlinetexl1649 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 296 posts, RR: 0
Reply 121, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 25923 times:

It will be unprecedented if true. A new wb derivative that is slightly less efficient than the current competitor thanks to getting a new wing and half generation newer engine. (But cheaper.). And a will play some of the regular games showing on some routes and densities it is the same seat cost.

It is starting to sound like the md-11 program at this point, circa 92 or so. As the 772 rolled into life.


User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 641 posts, RR: 0
Reply 122, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 25467 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 119):
Quote:The A350-900 is wider and has a slightly longer cabin, which accounts for a 12-13 percent greater floor area than that of the A330-300. In comparison, the 787-10 has about 15 percent greater floor area than that of the 787-9.

There has been speculation (and John Leahy thinking aloud) that the A358 will eventually be be re-born with a small stretch. Assuming that will be some time down the road, Airbus could apply the same stretch to the 359 at the same time. If the range and fuel specs could still be met at that time, given weight savings and engine PIPs, why not? That would leave space for 330neo as a permanent feature in Airbus' offer, not just a stop gap.


User currently offlineSQ22 From Germany, joined Feb 2012, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 123, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 24858 times:

Some news:

Quote:

Airbus is likely to make a decision on whether to move forward with a re-engined A330 by the middle of 2014, says Airbus Americas president Barry Eccleston.

Unquote

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...30neo-decision-by-mid-2014-397899/


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 124, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 24486 times:

I am sure Airlines have orders of magnitude more information then the general public has but Airbus' strategy in this space is very inconsistent. The A350 Mk 1, the A358 optimized, the A358 shrink, the A358 stretch, the A330neo. It was just a couple months ago that JL was talking about stretching the A358 and the A330neo is going from imminent to 'this year' to 'mid year'. Its really hard to see what exactly they are going to do and I have to believe that is because they, themselves, are not entirely sure. Hopefully their customers are giving them consistent feedback and the need materializes soon.

Obviously I think the neo is the way to go but it becomes less obvious the more they wait and the more weight that needs to be added to the frame to support the engines. It could be they are elbows deep and the plan is set internally per rumors above and ATO is coming soon.

Regardless, this is a band aid solution. I see Airbus launching a new A300/A330 dimension-based-fuse come ~2025 with the best RR engines available to shut the 787 lifecycle down. Another 'regional' aircraft with one of the best dimensioned aircraft in the business.

tortugamon


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4768 posts, RR: 14
Reply 125, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 24403 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

When they were designing the A350 Mk 1 with the GEnx wasn't the wing just a modified A330 wing?? In which case wouldn't a significant amount of the work needed to hang a GEnx on an A330neo have already been done (or at least A will be quite far ahead in knowing what issues especially weight/clearance ones they may have with any new engine interface with the wing)??

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 124):
It was just a couple months ago that JL was talking about stretching the A358

Did he ever say that or was that just anet discussion?

Quoting SQ22 (Reply 123):
Airbus is likely to make a decision on whether to move forward with a re-engined A330 by the middle of 2014, says Airbus Americas president Barry Eccleston.

Unquote

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...30neo-decision-by-mid-2014-397899/

Airbus is likely to make a decision on whether to move forward with a re-engined A330 by the middle of 2014, says Airbus Americas president Barry Eccleston.

A decision on the aircraft, dubbed the A330neo, is needed in order to ensure that it is competitive with the Boeing 787 but does not erode sales of the European airframer’s own A350 when it enters service, he says at the Phoenix International Aviation Symposium on 4 April.

That entry-into-service window is widely understood to be in the 2017 or 2018 timeframe when there is limited availability of A350s and 787s, based on comments from various lessors and lenders at the International Society of Transport Aircraft Trading (ISTAT) Americas conference in March.

2017-18??
sounds like its GE or can RR get a bleed variant of the 1000 out that soon??


User currently onlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5457 posts, RR: 6
Reply 126, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 24387 times:

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 122):
There has been speculation (and John Leahy thinking aloud) that the A358 will eventually be be re-born with a small stretch.

I fail to see how this will generate a single sale that the 359 wouldn't. I think that's why it apparently proved to be a flight of fancy.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 124):
Airbus' strategy in this space is very inconsistent.

I think that's just because the potential returns are limited for the time being. A heavy investment won't be worth it. And none of the various light investments are quite satisfying. The A350 is too much airplane to compete in this space. A reengined A330 won't be quite competitive with the 787 unless the engine is a game-changer, but that would delay the aircraft too far. And the existing A330 will have to use deep, deep discounts to continue selling once 787 availability is normalized.

In the long run you may well be right that Airbus will succeed with an all-new widebody attacking the 787 from the lower end, but that's not an option today, and what Airbus should do today is a genuinely difficult question.


User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 755 posts, RR: 5
Reply 127, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 24504 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 124):
Regardless, this is a band aid solution. I see Airbus launching a new A300/A330 dimension-based-fuse come ~2025 with the best RR engines available to shut the 787 lifecycle down.

Are the 320Neo and 737Max programs "band aid solutions" ?
The 330Neo represents a late life derivative which balances availability, performance, technology and R&D costs to provide a healthy ROI within a significant market niche that cannot be satisfied by competitors.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 126):
In the long run you may well be right that Airbus will succeed with an all-new widebody attacking the 787 from the lower end, but that's not an option today, and what Airbus should do today is a genuinely difficult question.

That's right. If we lived in a perfect world then Airbus could immediately launch a clean sheet to replace the 330 - but the world is far from perfect and its a case of making the best use of whatever will be available within a relatively tight timeframe.


Regards,
StickShaker


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30976 posts, RR: 86
Reply 128, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 24514 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 124):
Its really hard to see what exactly they are going to do and I have to believe that is because they, themselves, are not entirely sure. Hopefully their customers are giving them consistent feedback and the need materializes soon.

As an outsider, to me the issues facing Airbus in this space is that the A350-800 - optimized or not - just isn't competitive against the 787-8 and 787-9, which they were not expecting. As to why it's not competitive, I expect it's a mixture of things.

1) The frame is positioned between the 787-8/A330-200 and 787-9/A330-300, however it's dimensioned towards the larger models in terms of cabin area, but the smaller models in terms of cargo volume. The A350-800 offering 9% more floor area than the 787-8, 6% more than the A330-200, 5% less than the 787-9 and 6% less than the A330-300. On the cargo front, it offers 8% more volume than the A330-200, the same volume as the 787-8, 13% less volume than the A330-300 and 25% less than the 787-9.

2) As a shrink, it looks to be as heavy or heavier than both A330 and 787 models. It offers a very high MTOW to compensate, but that comes with it's own costs - literally in the form of purchase price and airport / navigation fees.

So with the A350-800 so uncompetitive, and with the A330 production system already in place, as you say, putting new engines on the A330 seems to be the logical choice.

However, that has issues as well:

1) The A330-200 is about 3.5% larger than the 787-8 in terms of passenger area, but it's 7% smaller in cargo volume. It's also as heavy or heavier in current form, and the neo modifications will only add to that weight. The A330-200 does have a significant payload weight advantage (closing on 25%), but I'm not sure how close A330-200 operators routinely get to that, especially on long haul missions. The A330-200 also has higher operating weights, which means increased operating fees.

2) The A330-300 is best employed as a regional frame, but the 787-10 is going to offer significantly more capacity (14% more cabin area, ~25% more payload weight and 25% more cargo volume) so it's going to have a CASM and RASM advantage. And since regional missions are by their nature shorter, even with a significantly efficient engine (like the RR Advance), the fuel burn advantage in terms of actual fuel weight consumed is going to be lower.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13110 posts, RR: 100
Reply 129, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 24454 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 124):
Its really hard to see what exactly they are going to do and I have to believe that is because they, themselves, are not entirely sure. Hopefully their customers are giving them consistent feedback and the need materializes soon.

I concur. There seem to be mixed messages.

So the question is the request for nacelle quotes just 'keeping options open' or more? I suspect no one yet knows.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 128):
1) The frame is positioned between the 787-8/A330-200 and 787-9/A330-300, however it's dimensioned towards the larger models in terms of cabin area, but the smaller models in terms of cargo volume. The A350-800 offering 9% more floor area than the 787-8, 6% more than the A330-200, 5% less than the 787-9 and 6% less than the A330-300. On the cargo front, it offers 8% more volume than the A330-200, the same volume as the 787-8, 13% less volume than the A330-300 and 25% less than the 787-9.

Very informative. Thank you.

I personally do not think the A358 will see service, but that is just my opinion (based on the superior economics of the A359 and today's high fuel prices).

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 130, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 24022 times:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 125):
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 124):
It was just a couple months ago that JL was talking about stretching the A358

Did he ever say that or was that just anet discussion?

Here is the quote from January:

Quote:
It is a “distinct possibility” that Airbus might design the smallest of the three A350 versions to be bigger than planned today, according to Chief Operating Officer for Customers John Leahy, meaning that it would “sit right on top of the [Boeing] 787-9” as a 300-seater.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/AW_01_20_2014_p34-654795.xml

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 126):
In the long run you may well be right that Airbus will succeed with an all-new widebody attacking the 787 from the lower end, but that's not an option today, and what Airbus should do today is a genuinely difficult question.

Completely agree.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 127):
Are the 320Neo and 737Max programs "band aid solutions" ?

The A320neo definitely isn't. As currently envisioned I don't think many see the A330neo as extending the profitable life of the program nearly as long as the A320neo is for the A320 family. The MAX on the other hand...

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 127):
That's right. If we lived in a perfect world then Airbus could immediately launch a clean sheet to replace the 330

No, I don't think that in the ideal world Airbus would immediately launch a clean sheet. I think you were right the first time. I think Airbus needs to really focus on the value equation and availability here and adding this new engine adds $15 Million to the A330 purchase price and anything more and the 787 starts looking better and better (the 777x is in a similar position in my opinion). Besides, Boeing just launched a clean sheet and its 787 isn't that much lighter/better so why does Airbus need to do the same thing or even think that they can do anything significantly better in the first place? I would suggest that Airbus shouldn't launch a new aircraft until it can beat the 787 by 15% on fuel burn and even more if they want to charge significantly more than the 787. If they offer 15% but the 787 is being produced at 14+ per month why wouldn't it be the 787 vs the A330 all over again at least for a few years? That doesn't bode well for the new guy.

Rather, I think Airbus launches this neo with the hope that it holds them over at 5+ per month until the engine technology advances and they can execute a major step forward like they are with the A350 only at the smaller size.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 129):
So the question is the request for nacelle quotes just 'keeping options open' or more? I suspect no one yet knows.

My best guess is that it is part of the ROI calculation that they need to estimate before ATO/launch but 'no one knows' is probably the best answer. I put a decent amount of faith in that rumor mill of yours lightsaber.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 128):

As good of a synopsis as I've seen on the subject. Well said.

Now the next question is the merits of (1) a GEnx/Trent Ten solution ~2018 vs (2) the RR Advance ~2020. Are customers and Airbus willing to wait the extra years and spend the extra $ and is RR willing to pay for it and which has a higher ROI for Airbus. Of course the (3) third option is to stay the course and continue to improve the aircraft and extend the life as long as possible. My personal view is in that order of likelihood.

tortugamon


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1449 posts, RR: 2
Reply 131, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 23883 times:

A main difference between the A330 and B787 will be purchase price, you will get less range, higher fuel burn for a significantly lower price. And that does not mean that the A330 will be unhealthily discounted, but that it will be far less costly for Airbus to produce one A330 than Boeing to produce one B787.
The production facilities of the A330 are written off, no deferred cost adding to the production cost, development cost paid back a long time ago. The only investment a A330neo would have to pull in would be the re-engine cost.

A less modern, shorter ranged, less economical, less comfortable utility transport for significantly lower investment cost.


User currently offlineStTim From UK - England, joined Aug 2013, 767 posts, RR: 0
Reply 132, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 23834 times:

Correct - the key question is can Airbus with a neo make that trade off attractive to buyers - together with the earlier availability.

If they can then the NEO is an attractive option.

If they just cannot then it will be a waste of capital.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11636 posts, RR: 33
Reply 133, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 23742 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 124):
It was just a couple months ago that JL was talking about stretching the A358 and the A330neo is going from imminent to 'this year' to 'mid year'.

During the early talks of a new project, all options are on the table.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 124):
Regardless, this is a band aid solution. I see Airbus launching a new A300/A330 dimension-based-fuse come ~2025 with the best RR engines available to shut the 787 lifecycle down. Another 'regional' aircraft with one of the best dimensioned aircraft in the business.

Launching an A330neo for such a short time period seems a bit pointless. The business case must extend the A330 lifetime a bit longer.

The timeframe 2025 is also unrealistic for a new clean-sheet A330 replacement. Airbus will be working on the A320 successor, and probably other A350/A380 related projects as well.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 126):
And the existing A330 will have to use deep, deep discounts to continue selling once 787 availability is normalized.

It was mentioned earlier: based on forecasts of both Boeing and Airbus market demand for the 200-300 seat segment should be able to support a production rate of 16 jets per month / 200 per year.

The 787 will be running at 14 per month, probably 9-10 per month will be going to the 787-8 and 787-9. That leaves room for 5-6 A330s per month.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 126):
A reengined A330 won't be quite competitive with the 787 unless the engine is a game-changer, but that would delay the aircraft too far.

The RR Advance engine should be available in 2020, only two years behind an A330neo with 787 engines.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineaviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 619 posts, RR: 8
Reply 134, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 23691 times:

And if it's all about price, GenX and T1000 can go under the wings of the A330 with minimal cost for engine manufacturer, and so with minimal premium ...

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 135, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 23510 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 133):
During the early talks of a new project, all options are on the table.

I don't believe that this perceived indecision just a couple months before launch is all that common. The A358 hasn't sold in nearly six years and the company line is that it is still scheduled to enter service in about two years; how this can be 'early talk' and having all options being on the table at this point is very odd in my opinion.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 133):
Launching an A330neo for such a short time period seems a bit pointless. The business case must extend the A330 lifetime a bit longer.

The 777x was launched nine years after the 77W EIS. If the A330neo enters service in 2017 I don't see why its replacement being launched just nine years later in 2026 is that out of line. Most likely the 787 line will have produced approximately 2000 aircraft at that point at production could be above 14 per month making the line fully amortized and Boeing could be very aggressive on pricing and the availability advantage would no longer be significant, if even evident leaving the A330neo with little advantage if launched with Trent Ten/GEnx Engines. Its not to say that it wouldn't live on but I would suspect the A330neo replacement would certainly be in the works.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 133):
The timeframhttp://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/rules.main?confirm=noe 2025 is also unrealistic for a new clean-sheet A330 replacement. Airbus will be working on the A320 successor, and probably other A350/A380 related projects as well.

I believe the MAX will have a short life cycle but I think the A320neo will have more legs for multiple reasons. I believe the A380neo will come in the early 2020s before the A330neo replacement. Any A350 variant should be low risk variants in my opinion and shouldn't tie up too many resources. The A330 would be next in line in my opinion.

Quoting aviaponcho (Reply 134):
And if it's all about price, GenX and T1000 can go under the wings of the A330 with minimal cost for engine manufacturer, and so with minimal premium ...

JL ballparked it at $15 Million per frame. Others say it could be as much as $20 million. I don't know what the price difference is now but the added weight and the added dollars isn't especially appealing. I imagine that is a lot of the reason it has not been launched sooner  

tortugamon


User currently offlineseahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 1044 posts, RR: 0
Reply 136, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 23454 times:

Regarding the engine, RR says an RR advance demonstrator will be running 2015. A Trent 1000 with a fan made from carbon fibre will be flying this year. And they also said that the Advanced engine will be ready for any new projects by 2020. What if the NEO is not a new project...

In the current aero I found it remarkable that they compared the Advance engine to the Trent 700.

By-pass going from 5.1:1 to 11:1 and fuel consumption down by 20%.

[Edited 2014-04-08 08:24:22]

User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7063 posts, RR: 4
Reply 137, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 23416 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 114):
So launch at Farnborough, I imagine.

Or Berlin Air Show  



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11636 posts, RR: 33
Reply 138, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 23428 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 135):
I don't believe that this perceived indecision just a couple months before launch is all that common. The A358 hasn't sold in nearly six years and the company line is that it is still scheduled to enter service in about two years; how this can be 'early talk' and having all options being on the table at this point is very odd in my opinion.

Not odd at all. They just started A330neo studies in 2013. Addressing the A350-800 became a priority after the A350-1000 design was frozen.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 135):
If the A330neo enters service in 2017 I don't see why its replacement being launched just nine years later in 2026 is that out of line.

Airbus will also have their hands full on other projects in 2026. Two clean-sheet programs at the same time is not realistic.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 135):
The A330 would be next in line in my opinion.

Perhaps it will be next but not around 2025 IMO.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently onlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5457 posts, RR: 6
Reply 139, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 23421 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 133):
Launching an A330neo for such a short time period seems a bit pointless. The business case must extend the A330 lifetime a bit longer.

  

Quoting seahawk (Reply 136):
Regarding the engine, RR says an RR advance demonstrator will be running 2015. A Trent 1000 with a fan made from carbon fibre will be flying this year. And they also said that the Advanced engine will be ready for any new projects by 2020. What if the NEO is not a new project...

I think Airbus has to consider the possibility of a "mutually assured destruction" scenario here... if the A330neo has enough of an engine advantage to beat the 787, Boeing may be compelled to do a 787neo for service entry in 2022 or 2023, once the backlog of the current 787 (plus orders that will arrive in the next few years) is cleared out. That would be a big bite out of 787 profits for Boeing but would spell the end of the A330 for good. It's not an outcome either manufacturer would want.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30976 posts, RR: 86
Reply 140, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 23256 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 139):
That would be a big bite out of 787 profits for Boeing but would spell the end of the A330 for good. It's not an outcome either manufacturer would want.

It would also improve the competitiveness of the 787-9 and 787-10 against the A350-900 and A350-1000.   


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10023 posts, RR: 96
Reply 141, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 23092 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 135):
I don't believe that this perceived indecision just a couple months before launch is all that common

You did follow the 737/NSA saga I presume ....  

In all seriousness, I think there is a slight irony at play here ....
From "the 787 is a Chinese copy of the A330", I think Airbus then went on a journey which saw the 787 secure huge quantities of orders in the first 3 years, and in my mind caused airbus to think the A330's future was a short one.
I genuinely think they've been surprised at how resilient the A330 has been in the marketplace relative to the 787 (hence the "slight" irony)
I don't think Airbus ever saw an A330NEO as a real option after the A350 mk1, and are now surprised that it actually still is a real option.

I think the indecision is driven by a) the A330 faring better than planned, b) the A350-800 in it's sub-optimal form not being what Airbus or the market really want and c) strong demand for the A350-900 and A350-1000 able to tie up all of the A350's production for the foreseeable future.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 135):
I believe the MAX will have a short life cycle but I think the A320neo will have more legs for multiple reasons. I believe the A380neo will come in the early 2020s before the A330neo replacement. Any A350 variant should be low risk variants in my opinion and shouldn't tie up too many resources. The A330 would be next in line in my opinion.

I think the MAX as you (and Stitch) describe it is a good analogy for the A330NEO.

In the same way that Boeing are having to go that extra yard to make sure the 737MAX is competitive (successfully it would appear), I think Airbus will be considering the same sort of things for the A330NEO to recover a good portion of the gap an A330NEO would have to the 787 with selective implementation of a) sharklets, b) other aerodynamic cleansing, c) targeted weight reduction.
The almost unanswerable question being at which point the additional investment doesn't justify.
I'll go on record as saying that I think an A330NEO, if launched, will sport at worst a 3%-4% fuel burn disadvantage to the 787 (with equivalent) engines based on the "tweaks" above

We'll see.

rgds


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13110 posts, RR: 100
Reply 142, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 23086 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 135):
I don't believe that this perceived indecision just a couple months before launch is all that common.

You weren't around for the 747-5/6... When it is a matter of making sales or not, programs swing widely. The same indecision was there for the exclusive on the 77W/77L engine.

I've yet to meet a great engineering salesman that wasn't both brilliant and an alcoholic. So they swing around their decisions when they realize they are on the wrong course...

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 135):
JL ballparked it at $15 Million per frame. Others say it could be as much as $20 million. I don't know what the price difference is now but the added weight and the added dollars isn't especially appealing. I imagine that is a lot of the reason it has not been launched sooner

I love the A330... so I'm sad to agree with you on the weight. I suspect Boeing is increasing 787 prices, so the pricing isn't so much the issue. But the weight shall be.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 135):
I believe the MAX will have a short life cycle but I think the A320neo will have more legs for multiple reasons.

I believe the -8 MAX will have 'legs.' The other variants... not as much.   But the -8 MAX, having to as noted by Astuteman do a bit more, will find a good market thanks to the extra seats and good short field performance.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 141):
I think Airbus will be considering the same sort of things for the A330NEO to recover a good portion of the gap an A330NEO would have to the 787 with selective implementation of a) sharklets, b) other aerodynamic cleansing, c) targeted weight reduction.

   I think a generation beyond the current Sharklets is required.


Lightsaber

[Edited 2014-04-08 11:33:16]


Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 143, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 22819 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 138):

Do you really see the A320 going clean sheet by 2025? I don't think they will need to make a move until later in the decade. The A330neo engine is going to be much older than the A320 GTF.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 138):
Perhaps it will be next but not around 2025 IMO.

If they aim this to be in place by 2017 and presume a launch of its replacement in 2025 and clean sheets are taking at least 6 years now so that takes us to 2031 which is a 15 year life cycle for an aircraft that the most optimistic estimates will be trailing on fuel burn vs the 787 when it enters service. Unless Airbus launches an optimized A358 I can't see how a replacement for the A330neo isn't launched by around then assuming we are getting this 'off the shelf' version of the A330neo with the existing engine technology.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 141):
You did follow the 737/NSA saga I presume ....

Certainly indecision isn't monopolized on one side of the Atlantic I am just surprised that in a manner of weeks we can have such varied approaches to the problem still presenting themselves.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 141):
I think the indecision is driven by a) the A330 faring better than planned, b) the A350-800 in it's sub-optimal form not being what Airbus or the market really want and c) strong demand for the A350-900 and A350-1000 able to tie up all of the A350's production for the foreseeable future.

First, I think you're right buddy. But were any of these things not known 6-months ago? A year? Two? It could be that as Karel mentioned, the engineering resources have been dedicated to the A351 (and the A320neo and the 242t A330 is no small project from the sounds of it) and they didn't have resources to dedicate to whatever the project is anyway. It could also be some internal politics where JL was testing the water on the A358 stretch and wanted some public feedback on it.

I think the reason why the A330neo is possible is precisely for the reasons you mentioned. I would add engine OEM excess capacity to that list as well even if it kinda surprises me that they do. Without that it won't get done.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 141):
I'll go on record as saying that I think an A330NEO, if launched, will sport at worst a 3%-4% fuel burn disadvantage to the 787 (with equivalent) engines based on the "tweaks" above

I imagine its possible. I am not quite as optimistic but I also don't think it will get launched if they don't think they can get to that ballpark with it because every percentage of shortfall is a larger discount that they will need to offer up front lowering the ROI.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 142):
I believe the -8 MAX will have 'legs.' The other variants... not as much.   But the -8 MAX, having to as noted by Astuteman do a bit more, will find a good market thanks to the extra seats and good short field performance.

There clearly is tremendous value in the -8 Max. But I think we are in agreement that it is the other family members (and more precisely the lack of even competition with the A321neo) that will spur the NSA investment. If I am an Airbus exec I don't feel the same pressure.

tortugamon


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11636 posts, RR: 33
Reply 144, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 22709 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 143):
Do you really see the A320 going clean sheet by 2025? I don't think they will need to make a move until later in the decade.

Well, somewhere between 2025 and 2030, i.e. some 10 years after the A320neo. Development and production will have to start earlier. Anyway, whether it's 2025 or 2027, I don't see them doing two clean-sheet programs around that time.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 143):
The A330neo engine is going to be much older than the A320 GTF.

Well yes, but that would apply to the A350 and 787 as well. I don't see it as an issue as long as the NEO remains competitive with its competitor..

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 143):
But were any of these things not known 6-months ago? A year?

I'm sure first A330neo studies/talks started in early 2013, if not earlier.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30976 posts, RR: 86
Reply 145, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 22566 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 143):
Do (folks) really see the A320 going clean sheet by 2025?

Depends on when and what model Boeing launches NSA with. I'm inclined to believe it will be the 737-900ER / 737-9 / 757-200 replacement and that will give Airbus a bit of breathing room (especially if they can counter with an A322neo). But once Boeing commits to making NSA happen, I expect Airbus will be forced to follow, just as Boeing was with the MAX vs. neo.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 146, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 22550 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 144):
Well, somewhere between 2025 and 2030, i.e. some 10 years after the A320neo. Development and production will have to start earlier. Anyway, whether it's 2025 or 2027, I don't see them doing two clean-sheet programs around that time.

If you are right and then they will need this A330neo to sell well into the mid 2030s and I think they may want to forget about 2017 and start thinking about 2020 with a more substantial upgrade that they know can last that long. I don't see a Trent Ten Engined A330 selling that long. Heck, I think the 787 will need a refresh before then.

One problem with neo'ing is that you do kick the can down the road a little possibly requiring another revisit sooner than you would a clean sheet.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 144):
I don't see it as an issue as long as the NEO remains competitive with its competitor..

I think you're right. It may be a competitive move by Boeing to launch sooner than they normally would because they know Airbus will most likely need to respond which could expose Airbus at this A330neo segment if itsn't substantially competitive. There is a lot riding here.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 145):
But once Boeing commits to making NSA happen, I expect Airbus will be forced to follow, just as Boeing was with the MAX vs. neo.

Its interesting how the narrow body market place is such that one OEM having an advantage even for a short while is unpalatable to the other. For airlines with mixed fleets it would be appealing to have them launch advancements off cycle with each other so there is a more steady rate of continuous improvements.


tortugamon


User currently onlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5457 posts, RR: 6
Reply 147, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 22561 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 146):
Its interesting how the narrow body market place is such that one OEM having an advantage even for a short while is unpalatable to the other.

Both OEMs remember well just how much Boeing's (and MD's, for that matter) lackadaisical response to the A320 ended up costing. Either one will do just about anything, as we saw with the MAX, to avoid being in that position again.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 145):
But once Boeing commits to making NSA happen, I expect Airbus will be forced to follow, just as Boeing was with the MAX vs. neo.

Is the A320 far enough behind that substantial revisions to it won't be enough? I'm sort of inclined to think an "A320NG" just like the 737NG would be a pretty good response. All-new wing (which is the A320's biggest weakness these days), major systems revisions, a new interior, and a new set of lengths might be enough to present NSA with a credible competitor.


User currently offlineseahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 1044 posts, RR: 0
Reply 148, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 22370 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 139):
I think Airbus has to consider the possibility of a "mutually assured destruction" scenario here... if the A330neo has enough of an engine advantage to beat the 787, Boeing may be compelled to do a 787neo for service entry in 2022 or 2023, once the backlog of the current 787 (plus orders that will arrive in the next few years) is cleared out. That would be a big bite out of 787 profits for Boeing but would spell the end of the A330 for good. It's not an outcome either manufacturer would want.

That is indeed true, but I wonder why RR gave the mentioned data to the press, when they are not looking at a Trent 700 replacement with the Advanced series - and for a Trent 700 replacement the only sensible option is the A330NEO. 20% compared to the Trent 700 (latest PiP or older?) will be a few percent compared to the Trent 1000 or Trent XWB at best.

Fact is RR would not be working on such an engine, if there would be no plane to use it. Especially with the Ultrafan series being ready by 2025. This sounds like NSA territory. But they must see a an opening for a new engine around ~2020, but I see no other project than the A330NEO. 2020 would be too early for the rumoured 757 replacement, too early for NSA, too early for 787MAX or A350NEO and too late for all current new designs.


User currently offlineleo467 From Switzerland, joined Jan 2013, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 149, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 22213 times:

Quoting seahawk (Reply 148):
Fact is RR would not be working on such an engine, if there would be no plane to use it. Especially with the Ultrafan series being ready by 2025. This sounds like NSA territory. But they must see a an opening for a new engine around ~2020, but I see no other project than the A330NEO. 2020 would be too early for the rumoured 757 replacement, too early for NSA, too early for 787MAX or A350NEO and too late for all current new designs

... with the one exception being the A380... granted, it might not be a high volume play, which could pay off its R&D expenses easily, but it could be a first move towards a new generation of engines.


User currently offlineseahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 1044 posts, RR: 0
Reply 150, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 22008 times:

But then why would you compare your Advance engine to the Trent 700 when talking to the press.

User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 641 posts, RR: 0
Reply 151, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 21731 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 146):
they may want to forget about 2017 and start thinking about 2020 with a more substantial upgrade that they know can last that long. I don't see a Trent Ten Engined A330 selling that long.

Is there a way that a forward plan to integrate T1000ten into the 330 by 2017 followed by Advance later can be engineered to make the eventual swap to Advance relatively trivial engineering-wise?


User currently offlineseahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 1044 posts, RR: 0
Reply 152, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 21641 times:

Given a similar fan diameter - probably. But would a bleed air version of the 1000 make sense for such a short period of use?

How about: A330NEO with GEnx by 2018, with RR Advance by 2020.


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1449 posts, RR: 2
Reply 153, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 21609 times:

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 151):
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 146):
they may want to forget about 2017 and start thinking about 2020 with a more substantial upgrade that they know can last that long. I don't see a Trent Ten Engined A330 selling that long.

Is there a way that a forward plan to integrate T1000ten into the 330 by 2017 followed by Advance later can be engineered to make the eventual swap to Advance relatively trivial engineering-wise?

It did not use to be such a big deal to hang a new engine from a new supplier or a new engine from the old supplier under the wings of a frame. But mostly that were more advanced engines of similar size.

The big deal in this case seems to be the weight of the proposed engines.If it should be possible to build the advanced Trent lighter, at the same thrust range, than either the Trent 1000 or the GEnx, than that would be a valid reason to wait for the advanced Trent. Less weight change of the engine less work on the wing.
We really do not know the time line RR is working after, but a demonstrator for the advanced is expected to run next year. They should have finished the Trent 1000-ten and soon after finishing the XWB 97 they should have time on their hands.

Airbus can do all the other stuff meanwhile, redone winglets, weight reductions, aerodynamic tweaks and prepare the wing for the expected weight of the engine, through out the adaptions for the A340, like structures in the wing or perhaps the well for the extra main landing gear.

The state of indecision of Airbus regarding a A330neo can have been driven by market considerations only. Designing the A350 Mk1 should have given Airbus a bucket load of information regarding any changes to the A330, what would make sense and what not and how to do it. A lot of what Airbus has to do regarding a neo should they be able to pull out of the drawer. I expect were short development times if Airbus decides to go ahead.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 154, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 21512 times:

Quoting seahawk (Reply 148):
Fact is RR would not be working on such an engine, if there would be no plane to use it.

I think they would be working on it regardless. They know that GE is working on the GE9x which will end up in the GEnx and they could lose out on future 787 orders if they did not make improvements. If they waited for a program to clearly present itself they would then have to jump two generations (ok maybe 1.5) in one program production cycle. Truth is for the foreseeable future there is going to be a need for the most efficient ~30klbf and a ~70klbf engines. If not in 2020, soon after and I don't think anyone can predict that long into the future to take their foot off of R&D spending.

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 151):
Is there a way that a forward plan to integrate T1000ten into the 330 by 2017 followed by Advance later can be engineered to make the eventual swap to Advance relatively trivial engineering-wise?

As others have said I don't see them going through the work just to change it a couple years later especially if the weight, diameter, and/or pylon is different. Certification isn't cheap.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 147):
Both OEMs remember well just how much Boeing's (and MD's, for that matter) lackadaisical response to the A320 ended up costing. Either one will do just about anything, as we saw with the MAX, to avoid being in that position again.

I don't doubt it. No doubt there is a lot on the line and just a small difference can have a significant impact.

tortugamon


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30976 posts, RR: 86
Reply 155, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 21451 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 147):
Both OEMs remember well just how much Boeing's (and MD's, for that matter) lackadaisical response to the A320 ended up costing.

I find it a bit disingenuous to claim Boeing's response was "lackadaisical" considering Airbus launched the A320-100 one month after the 737-300 had her first flight.

You might as well accuse Airbus of being equally "lackadaisical" for not canceling the A340 development program and re-dimensioning the A330 design on 29 October 1990.



Quoting seabosdca (Reply 147):
Is the A320 far enough behind that substantial revisions to it won't be enough? I'm sort of inclined to think an "A320NG" just like the 737NG would be a pretty good response. All-new wing (which is the A320's biggest weakness these days), major systems revisions, a new interior, and a new set of lengths might be enough to present NSA with a credible competitor.

Well Boeing won't be able to meet the demand, so that alone will mean Airbus does not have to respond with NSR to Boeing's NSA.

So we could see a replay of the A320neo / MAX scenario in reverse. Boeing launches NSA and secures thousands of orders very quickly and wins over some Airbus-exclusive customers, with Airbus responding with an "A320neoNG" that starts off well behind, but is strong enough to win plenty of RFPs with existing customers and also split orders with the NSA for customers who need hundreds of airframes in a short time period and quickly starts building it's own order book.

[Edited 2014-04-09 08:32:50]

User currently offlineseahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 1044 posts, RR: 0
Reply 156, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 21300 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 154):
I think they would be working on it regardless. They know that GE is working on the GE9x which will end up in the GEnx and they could lose out on future 787 orders if they did not make improvements. If they waited for a program to clearly present itself they would then have to jump two generations (ok maybe 1.5) in one program production cycle. Truth is for the foreseeable future there is going to be a need for the most efficient ~30klbf and a ~70klbf engines. If not in 2020, soon after and I don't think anyone can predict that long into the future to take their foot off of R&D spending.

True, but the interesting points from the Aero article:

1. RR compares the Advance to the Trent 700
2. they confirm Advance is based on their bid for the 777X (fits as pressure ratio and by-pass ratio are similar to GE9X)
3. they say it will be ready by 2020 for new plane designs
4. they say Ultrafan will be ready by 2025

They say a Advance demonstrator will be running 2015. That fits the timetable of the GE9X and GE9X is to be ready by 2018. http://www.geaviation.com/newengine/schedule.html


User currently offlineStTim From UK - England, joined Aug 2013, 767 posts, RR: 0
Reply 157, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 21243 times:

You also have to remember how long Boeing continued to dismiss the idea of a MAX right up until the point they announced it and the preformance of it and how wonderful it will be etc etc.

There is a lot of work that goes on to get to that position.

I suspect that Airbus are working intensively behind the scenes on what an A330 neo would look like and how it will perform.

The sales team will be actively talking to airlines on what is coming out of those studies and what the