They have 'formally' listed the variants to their airport planning documentation, illustrating the higher-weight versions will be found on tarmacs soon:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ar-450991/

The 251t A330-900 can do 7,200 nautical miles (circa 13,300 km), according to Airbus, while the A330-800 will do a whopping 8,150 nautical miles (circa 15,100 km)! Clearly, this higher-weight 251t A330-900 was a big factor in AirAsiaX's decision to select the A330neo and INCREASE its order by 34 frames to reach 100 total. Believe first deliveries will be in a couple of years when the 251t variant will be available, so wondering what routes D7 has in mind for its new flagship.

Tony Fernandes was, apparently, very focused on ensuring KUL-LHR could be done 'easily', without any penalties, etc. That route is 10,610 km, so should not be an issue. What about DPS-LHR? AirAsia has a big-ish hub in Bali, could a 251t A330-900 do this 12,500+ km route without penalties?

What other 'long-and-thin' routes make sense for this variant? Who else is ordering the 251t variant, other than AirAsiaX? What benefits (cost, comfort, efficiency, etc.) would the A330neo offer compared to its arch-nemesis, the B787-9. The Dreamliner does offer a bit more range compared to the 251t variant, and a higher production rate with associated greater production economies of scale (which all posters appear transfixed by).

Airbus is marketing the A330-900 as a A333/332 AND B772/77E replacement. Thoughts on more potential customers and orders?

Can the experts here please explain to us laypeople how extra weight variants are produced? Are there and structural alterations involved or do they boost the engine thrust or both?

The way extra MTOW weight varriants are done is a more detailed stress analysis is performed. There are always specific areas (joints) that are the limits.

Smart aerospace engineering figure out how to make a structure more flexible to reduce stress in a critical region. Sometimes beefing up a part is the only solution.

With 3D printing, one great solution is to eliminate joints (rivits and welds are not as good as monolithic parts, joints are heavier too).

The T7000 has thrust left over from the 787-10, so that is a non-issue. Work was done on the pylon for growth, so it is simply identifying high stress areas and mitigating.

Many components will have to be re-designed. Cest la vie. This isn't cheap affing so much more in a mature design.

I believe more is needed for the A338F. That plane will sell will full payload and centerline fuel tank fuel (the current A330F cannot use the center tank in normal operations, killing to much potential market demand).

Lightsaber

A330 and A350 models are under common Airbus management.

There is at least one more A330 performance step in the bank. Unfortunately, an equivalent A350 step is still WIP.

The goal is to release A350 improvements ahead of A330. This one was only released to firm a volume sale, following an A350 announcement.

Airbus don't want customers to switch from the A350 to A330, or encourage delivery delays while waiting for a more accomplished version. At the same time, they don't want to lose new sales.

How about the future of A330-1000? That should still have enough range for many airlines while being cheaper than 787 although it might compete against 359

PDPsol wrote:

Clearly, this higher-weight 251t A330-900 was a big factor in AirAsiaX's decision to select the A330neo and INCREASE its order by 34 frames to reach 100 total.

Eh, I think the key driving factor was Airbus's willingness to sharpen their pencils and give Air Asia X a fantastic deal on the order.

PDPsol wrote:

Tony Fernandes was, apparently, very focused on ensuring KUL-LHR could be done 'easily', without any penalties, etc. That route is 10,610 km, so should not be an issue. What about DPS-LHR? AirAsia has a big-ish hub in Bali, could a 251t A330-900 do this 12,500+ km route without penalties?

IMO for routes like KUL-LHR or DPS-LHR, D7 would be better-off having kept the A350 order. The A350 is better-optimized and more efficient on those longer-hauls and I expect its long-term retention of value to be a better trade off versus low acquisition cost for A330neo once the fuel savings are also factored in.

The A340-300 had 275T MTOW, so why has it been so difficult to transfer that to the A330-900? Is it mostly due to the A343 having four smaller engines while the A339 has two big ones?

CRJ900 wrote:

The A340-300 had 275T MTOW, so why has it been so difficult to transfer that to the A330-900? Is it mostly due to the A343 having four smaller engines while the A339 has two big ones?

Basically, yes. The outboards gave them better bending moment relief for a 1% load delta between the original 257t A343 and the 212t A333. What's interesting about the 251t 339 and the 275t 343 comparison is that they're very similar in spec range, and the only major difference is engine tech and the wingtips.

CRJ900 wrote:

The A340-300 had 275T MTOW, so why has it been so difficult to transfer that to the A330-900? Is it mostly due to the A343 having four smaller engines while the A339 has two big ones?

Don't forget that the A340 has a central landing gear, which will reduce pavement loading etc.

CRJ900 wrote:

The A340-300 had 275T MTOW, so why has it been so difficult to transfer that to the A330-900? Is it mostly due to the A343 having four smaller engines while the A339 has two big ones?

The 340 had the middle landing gear leg. Also, while looking identical from the outside (the obvious difference notwithstanding), it was a heavier frame. For the 339, the point was to get MTOW up while keeping MEW down.

Identifying those 'critical areas', developing strengthened engineering solutions, testing those solutions and having everything certified by relevant aviation authorities is no small feat! The variant development work is certainly impressive and speaks to this airframer's engineering prowess.

The inspiration and purpose for the developed variant is entirely COMMERCIAL in nature; designed for making more $$MONEY$$. We imagine Airbus is well-advanced in developing engineering solutions to a challenge like increasing the A330neo by nine tons. The question now is: will the commercial response to the new variant give the program the sales success it needs, or not?

If AirAsiaX is any indicator, the answer would be, 'YES!' Will other carriers jump on board, or not? Obviously capital acquisition cost plays a role in any order so running the 330 FAL at 5 per month, rather than 14 per month like the Dreamliner FALs in Washington and Carolina, surely plays a role in pricing. Will the 330neo win orders from the 'big current operators', like:

- CA, with whopping 56-strong A330ceo fleet, but 15 B787-9 newly arrived. Will they go all-Boeing, like AA?
- CX, with 34 A330-300's and 4 B772's, but loading up on A350. Will they bring in the A330neo?
- MU, with 57-strong A330ceo fleet, but 15 already B787-9 on order
- CZ, with 42 'ceo's and 10 787-8's on property and 20 787-9's on property and on order
- MH, large ceo fleet, NO selected replacement. They are certainly following the AirAsiaX decision very carefully

Lots of other potential neo customers, including IB, LH/LX. However, existing A330ceo operators like AV, QR, 9W, KE, or even TK, with stated replacement programs involving the Dreamliner very likely NOT potential customers.

DL may decide to increase their existing A330-900 order for 25 frames to replace existing ceo's and 767s

LH707330 wrote:

CRJ900 wrote:

The A340-300 had 275T MTOW, so why has it been so difficult to transfer that to the A330-900? Is it mostly due to the A343 having four smaller engines while the A339 has two big ones?

Basically, yes. The outboards gave them better bending moment relief for a 1% load delta between the original 257t A343 and the 212t A333. What's interesting about the 251t 339 and the 275t 343 comparison is that they're very similar in spec range, and the only major difference is engine tech and the wingtips.

While I think that the A340 central landing gear could be easily added to the A330, the engine thrust might be the limiting factor. Let's note that the A350 with its 268t MTOW requires 84k pounds engines while the most powerful version of the Trent 7000 offers only 72k pounds at the moment. And if more thrust could be made available, the VTP might not like it without modification. This being said, let's dream for a moment: what would be the range of a 275t A338? Taking into account some extra weight for the central landing gear and some structural reinforcement, it could probably load 20t of extra fuel compared to the 251t A338. This would provide at least 3 extra hours of range which could exceed 9500nm with a full pax load. This would be an aircraft worth showing to Qantas .

PDPsol wrote:

Identifying those 'critical areas', developing strengthened engineering solutions, testing those solutions and having everything certified by relevant aviation authorities is no small feat! The variant development work is certainly impressive and speaks to this airframer's engineering prowess.

The inspiration and purpose for the developed variant is entirely COMMERCIAL in nature; designed for making more $$MONEY$$. We imagine Airbus is well-advanced in developing engineering solutions to a challenge like increasing the A330neo by nine tons. The question now is: will the commercial response to the new variant give the program the sales success it needs, or not?

Lots of other potential neo customers, including IB, LH/LX. However, existing A330ceo operators like AV, QR, 9W, KE, or even TK, with stated replacement programs involving the Dreamliner very likely NOT potential customers.

DL may decide to increase their existing A330-900 order for 25 frames to replace existing ceo's and 767s

The A330neo may likely be a stronger candidate to replace the A330ceos in many Chinese airlines (although not all, since some of them have also 787s).
About Delta, I think they may increase the order (including with 251t airplanes), to replace their older A330ceos. For the 767s, they may likely go for the A330-800neo. Malaysian Airlines is also another strong contender for the purchase of A330neos, since their A330ceos do not have a direct replacement. LH Group maybe, although in case of Austrian (OS), the Boeing 787-9 would be better for replacing their Boeing 777-200ERs.
I really don't see either QR, TK, AV or KE ordering the A330neo to replace their A330ceos. These have the 787 or the A350XWB as either replacements for their A330ceos.

PDPsol wrote:

Identifying those 'critical areas', developing strengthened engineering solutions, testing those solutions and having everything certified by relevant aviation authorities is no small feat! The variant development work is certainly impressive and speaks to this airframer's engineering prowess.

The inspiration and purpose for the developed variant is entirely COMMERCIAL in nature; designed for making more $$MONEY$$. We imagine Airbus is well-advanced in developing engineering solutions to a challenge like increasing the A330neo by nine tons. The question now is: will the commercial response to the new variant give the program the sales success it needs, or not?

If AirAsiaX is any indicator, the answer would be, 'YES!' Will other carriers jump on board, or not? Obviously capital acquisition cost plays a role in any order so running the 330 FAL at 5 per month, rather than 14 per month like the Dreamliner FALs in Washington and Carolina, surely plays a role in pricing. Will the 330neo win orders from the 'big current operators', like:

- CA, with whopping 56-strong A330ceo fleet, but 15 B787-9 newly arrived. Will they go all-Boeing, like AA?
- CX, with 34 A330-300's and 4 B772's, but loading up on A350. Will they bring in the A330neo?
- MU, with 57-strong A330ceo fleet, but 15 already B787-9 on order
- CZ, with 42 'ceo's and 10 787-8's on property and 20 787-9's on property and on order
- MH, large ceo fleet, NO selected replacement. They are certainly following the AirAsiaX decision very carefully

Lots of other potential neo customers, including IB, LH/LX. However, existing A330ceo operators like AV, QR, 9W, KE, or even TK, with stated replacement programs involving the Dreamliner very likely NOT potential customers.

DL may decide to increase their existing A330-900 order for 25 frames to replace existing ceo's and 767s

What about AR? I know we aren't "big" but an improved A339 can be the next widebody (decision was to be made by mid next year). I still hope the 787-9 or A350-900 (my choice) are picked instead. Can this 251t each SYD or at least AKL like the on-the-way-out CEO said some months ago? at the very least it should be able to reach FCO comfortably. An A333 sized plane with at least the range of the -200 is what we need if we have some growth in mind.

O530CarrisPT wrote:

About Delta, I think they may increase the order (including with 251t airplanes), to replace their older A330ceos. For the 767s, they may likely go for the A330-800neo.

DL ordering the A330-800neo makes no sense, either to replace the 767 fleet or otherwise. It is looking more and more as if the market has spoken and it seems the market does not want the A330-800neo. Like many people on this board, I am fully expecting DL to place a very large 797 order as replacements for the 767 fleet as well as growth. It will truly be Boeing's deal to lose.

AtomicGarden wrote:

PDPsol wrote:

Identifying those 'critical areas', developing strengthened engineering solutions, testing those solutions and having everything certified by relevant aviation authorities is no small feat! The variant development work is certainly impressive and speaks to this airframer's engineering prowess.

The inspiration and purpose for the developed variant is entirely COMMERCIAL in nature; designed for making more $$MONEY$$. We imagine Airbus is well-advanced in developing engineering solutions to a challenge like increasing the A330neo by nine tons. The question now is: will the commercial response to the new variant give the program the sales success it needs, or not?

If AirAsiaX is any indicator, the answer would be, 'YES!' Will other carriers jump on board, or not? Obviously capital acquisition cost plays a role in any order so running the 330 FAL at 5 per month, rather than 14 per month like the Dreamliner FALs in Washington and Carolina, surely plays a role in pricing. Will the 330neo win orders from the 'big current operators', like:

- CA, with whopping 56-strong A330ceo fleet, but 15 B787-9 newly arrived. Will they go all-Boeing, like AA?
- CX, with 34 A330-300's and 4 B772's, but loading up on A350. Will they bring in the A330neo?
- MU, with 57-strong A330ceo fleet, but 15 already B787-9 on order
- CZ, with 42 'ceo's and 10 787-8's on property and 20 787-9's on property and on order
- MH, large ceo fleet, NO selected replacement. They are certainly following the AirAsiaX decision very carefully

Lots of other potential neo customers, including IB, LH/LX. However, existing A330ceo operators like AV, QR, 9W, KE, or even TK, with stated replacement programs involving the Dreamliner very likely NOT potential customers.

DL may decide to increase their existing A330-900 order for 25 frames to replace existing ceo's and 767s

What about AR? I know we aren't "big" but an improved A339 can be the next widebody (decision was to be made by mid next year). I still hope the 787-9 or A350-900 (my choice) are picked instead. Can this 251t each SYD or at least AKL like the on-the-way-out CEO said some months ago? at the very least it should be able to reach FCO comfortably. An A333 sized plane with at least the range of the -200 is what we need if we have some growth in mind.

I have been posting about AR acquiring the A330neo for ages, as they have finally announced plans to replace their wide body fleet. However, I read a local blogger stating the model was not being formally considered. Of course, we read recently AR’s CEO was being replaced, so who knows what their intentions actually are.

I agree the A330neo would be great for them, offering a ‘growth and service’ platform at good acquisition values. The 251t A330-900 should be able to do EZE-FCO, and even EZE-SYD, at circa 11,800 km. They could re establish the EZE-LAX route, and even add LHR, or FRA.

Now could please someone explain, in non-fanboyish terms if possible, why isn't the A330neo selling well? The classic A330 has been a huge success, and the Neo costs considerably less than a 787 while, as I understand it, the latter is not always more profitable on medium-haul routes. What is the fundamental reasons airlines don't seem to want it?

rigo wrote:

Now could please someone explain, in non-fanboyish terms if possible, why isn't the A330neo selling well? The classic A330 has been a huge success, and the Neo costs considerably less than a 787 while, as I understand it, the latter is not always more profitable on medium-haul routes. What is the fundamental reasons airlines don't seem to want it?

okay, I'll take a crack at this.

for starters, you are assuming that the A330-900 costs "considerably less" than a 787 (I presume you mean the 797-9)... this is probably not the case any more, as Boeing appears to have significantly reduced production costs by various means. In contrast, the A330neo, of both types, probably suffer from higher than desired financing costs due to its low sales and production; a vicious circle. (disclaimer: nobody here on a.net can authoritatively speak to the prices paid in most transactions, and certainly not prove it)

secondly, the increased capabilities of A330neo (increased MTOW/range) really just puts it in competition with big brother A350. This is probably a strategic mistake by Airbus. In hindsight, a lighter, less capable A330 would probably have been a better choice - something to better bridge the A321 to A350, or in Boeing parlance - the "MOM". One only has to look at Air Asia X's switch from A350 to A330 as evidence of this.

the historical success of the A330ceo really isn't based on long haul flying as it is/was on mid-haul routes; lets be honest: the A330 didn't take sales from the 777 or 747 - it did so from the 767. For most carriers today, various combinations of B787/A350 (of all variants) makes more sense - they get more size, range, or both - often at similar operating costs.

the hope of mass orders from the Chinese carriers is probably the neo's only chance for sustained long term sucess.

I hate to think of old A330s (although a great plane) cannibalizing A350 sales. Ugh.

PDPsol wrote:

- CA, with whopping 56-strong A330ceo fleet, but 15 B787-9 newly arrived. Will they go all-Boeing, like AA?
- MU, with 57-strong A330ceo fleet, but 15 already B787-9 on order
- CZ, with 42 'ceo's and 10 787-8's on property and 20 787-9's on property and on order

These three will never be all-Boeing, ever. In fact all of them have already ordered A350, 10 for CA and 20 each for CZ and MU, with CA just took delivery of their first yesterday. I'm not saying if they'll ever have A330neos, but certainly never all-Boeing.

Ps. MU is replacing older leased A330ceos (those with rego starting B-611 and B-612) with newer 242t version A330ceos.

Michael

rigo wrote:

Now could please someone explain, in non-fanboyish terms if possible, why isn't the A330neo selling well? The classic A330 has been a huge success, and the Neo costs considerably less than a 787 while, as I understand it, the latter is not always more profitable on medium-haul routes. What is the fundamental reasons airlines don't seem to want it?

In addition to FlyHappy's response, I'll add this - the A330 classic was a huge success because it was a light efficient aircraft with payload-range capabilities that satisfied the large chunks of most airlines' requirements. The classic A330 was chosen as 767 replacement and won most of the new RFPs as well against 767 and 777-200. Fast Forward to 2005-2009 and we have another light efficient aircraft which has the capabilities to do majority of the routes airlines wanted - only in this case, it is from Boeing, the 787. And it started to take a lot of the sales away from the A330 forcing AirBus to come up with a replacement - A350 based on A330 fuselage but new engines and wings and other modifications. But various airlines executives wanted a brand new design with larger fuselage and newer tech, and that's how we got the A350XWB as it is today. Later, when AirBus launched the A320neo program, Tony Fernandes suggested Airbus to do a A330neo to keep commonality and cost down and the A330neo was launched 4 years back.

So, the entire history is kinda funny and ironic. A330 classic kills 767, Boeing launches 787 as a replacement to 767 but made it bigger so it ended up as A330 replacement in practice. Then Airbus launched A350 as A330 replacement and 787 competitor but ended up bigger and as 77E/77W replacement. Eventually, AirBus launched A330neo as the classic replacement and now Boeing is mulling 797 as a replacement to 767/757. So, Boeing and AirBus kind of cannibalized their own products due to Airlines demand and made the differences between products lesser and lesser. There's also the 77E and 77W which were launched to compete better on payload-range vs A330 but it also ended up much more capable and killed the 747 instead

Thanks both FlyHappy and sabby for your input. I agree it's an ironic story, the A330 neo is basically what the original A350 was supposed to be, and when clients made it clear they weren't interested and wanted an all-new design, Airbus dragged their feet for a couple of years before finally doing the A350 as we know it... and then they went on with the A330 NEO anyway. It's like they really really want to sell this particular model for some reason.

I think it fair to say that Airbus misinterpreted the intent of Boeing with the Dreamliner, while Boeing did an excellent job in selling the Dream, not least its amazingly comfortable 8-abreast seating! Airbus had other programme issues that needed both cash and resources. The outcome was the A350 Mk.1, of which c 180 were sold before Mr Udvar-Hazy openly questioned its qualities. The time it took to get the A350 XWB up and running was no more than a reflection of the logistics needed to do so.

To get back on topic, while certain airlines crave more range, this may end up being largely unused as route aspirations change or real world ops turn out to be less demanding the paper evaluation rules predict. Hence the 251t MTOW for the A330neo models. Useful on a small percentage of routes flown by potential operators and to placate the route planners who protest a lack of capability. True Long-haul airlines will opt for the A350 or 787. The market for the A330neo is mostly A330ceo replacement, plus the few remaining 767s

Will AirAsia really fly to Europe. How many times has this plan ebbed and flowed over the years??

A330NEO sales are sluggish because the A330ceo is still such a great aircraft, and 20-year-old frames are being refurbished so they can fly for a few more years (Air Canada, Thomas Cook etc).

DL747400 wrote:

DL ordering the A330-800neo makes no sense, either to replace the 767 fleet or otherwise. It is looking more and more as if the market has spoken and it seems the market does not want the A330-800neo. Like many people on this board, I am fully expecting DL to place a very large 797 order as replacements for the 767 fleet as well as growth. It will truly be Boeing's deal to lose.

I also expect Delta to order the 797 to replace most of their 767s, but their 767-400s will need to be replaced with something. Therefore, the A330-800neo could be a good option for them. But, I think they will replace the 767-400 with the A330-900neo either way.

DL747400 wrote:

DL ordering the A330-800neo makes no sense, either to replace the 767 fleet or otherwise. It is looking more and more as if the market has spoken and it seems the market does not want the A330-800neo. Like many people on this board, I am fully expecting DL to place a very large 797 order as replacements for the 767 fleet as well as growth. It will truly be Boeing's deal to lose.

I also expect Delta to order the 797 to replace most of their 767s, but their 767-400s will need to be replaced with something. Therefore, the A330-800neo could be a good option for them. But, I think they will replace the 767-400 with the A330-900neo either way.

People are talking very short term here. Yes the 787 has outsold the A330 last year and this year. But the A330 outsold the 787 in 2014, 2015 and 2016.

Sales 787, 2014 41, 2015, 71, 2016 58, 2017 94, 2018 83
Sales A330, 2014 69, 2015 136, 2016 83, 2017 21 and this year 8 firm booked net orders.

But some orders, both 787 and A330 are not yet booked this year, for example 34 A330neo for AirAsia X and I think for the 787 the Emirates order.

I do not predict that the A330 will outsell the 787 in the future years, but I would disagree with it being dead. There have been altogether 1715 frames sold and there are still 302 in backlog end of July.

Regarding the 251 t version, we do not know if it will sell some more frames, but I assume that Airbus has talked with some airlines.

I would see that it is more impressive the increase in range at MZFW than the maximum range.
The A330-800 will be able to tank 72 t fuel at the MZFW of 175t and 79 t fuel at an MZFW of 172 t.
The A330-900 will be able to tank 66 t fuel at the MZFW of 181t and 74 t fuel at an MZFW of 177 t.

that compares to the A330neo 242 t
The A330-800 will be able to tank 63 t fuel at the MZFW of 175t and 79 t fuel at an MZFW of 172 t.
The A330-900 will be able to tank 57 t fuel at the MZFW of 181t and 65 t fuel at an MZFW of 177 t.

9 t fuel more means 1.5 hours more range, 11 hours for the A330-800 and 10 hours for the A330-900 at max payload of about 43t and 44t respectively.

O530CarrisPT wrote:

DL747400 wrote:

DL ordering the A330-800neo makes no sense, either to replace the 767 fleet or otherwise. It is looking more and more as if the market has spoken and it seems the market does not want the A330-800neo. Like many people on this board, I am fully expecting DL to place a very large 797 order as replacements for the 767 fleet as well as growth. It will truly be Boeing's deal to lose.

I also expect Delta to order the 797 to replace most of their 767s, but their 767-400s will need to be replaced with something. Therefore, the A330-800neo could be a good option for them. But, I think they will replace the 767-400 with the A330-900neo either way.

The 797 is the preferred Option I guess- when Boeing finally comes to conclusion- and especially when the first planes run down the line.
Not each Launch customer will hit the 31.Dec 2025 I guess. Will the 767s last so Long?

Flyglobal.

rigo wrote:

Thanks both FlyHappy and sabby for your input. I agree it's an ironic story, the A330 neo is basically what the original A350 was supposed to be, and when clients made it clear they weren't interested and wanted an all-new design, Airbus dragged their feet for a couple of years before finally doing the A350 as we know it... and then they went on with the A330 NEO anyway. It's like they really really want to sell this particular model for some reason.

They need the NEO to keep 787 margins and volume in check so it doesn’t swamp the A350. If the 787 wins substantially all RFPs for airlines that don’t need something bigger it can be built at significantly higher volume than the A350 and will cost it both margin and sales.

The 787 seems to sit in the highest volume widebody space at the moment.

I am of the opinion that the notion, that the 787 is available for the same price is overdrawn.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ia-450571/ here they talk about a 30 million USD higher price for the 787.

I assume that on the USA airlines, where the 787 won out, Boeing went for the effect and offered the frames at cost or below cost.

Talking about 100 frames at AirAsia X, the A330neo seems to have won on price.

Flyglobal wrote:

O530CarrisPT wrote:

DL747400 wrote:

DL ordering the A330-800neo makes no sense, either to replace the 767 fleet or otherwise. It is looking more and more as if the market has spoken and it seems the market does not want the A330-800neo. Like many people on this board, I am fully expecting DL to place a very large 797 order as replacements for the 767 fleet as well as growth. It will truly be Boeing's deal to lose.

I also expect Delta to order the 797 to replace most of their 767s, but their 767-400s will need to be replaced with something. Therefore, the A330-800neo could be a good option for them. But, I think they will replace the 767-400 with the A330-900neo either way.

The 797 is the preferred Option I guess- when Boeing finally comes to conclusion- and especially when the first planes run down the line.
Not each Launch customer will hit the 31.Dec 2025 I guess. Will the 767s last so Long?

Flyglobal.

Consider the 25 339s on order as a bridge to MOM. The 764s were delivered 8/2000-4/2002. There are 33 763s delivered 1997 or later.

Wildlander wrote:

Will AirAsia really fly to Europe. How many times has this plan ebbed and flowed over the years??

Air Asia did fly to Europe. A couple of years back they had flights between KUL and LHR or ORY, but IIRC they scrapped it pretty quickly. I'm not sure what the aircraft were, A330 classic I think.

Revelation wrote:

CRJ900 wrote:

A330NEO sales are sluggish because the A330ceo is still such a great aircraft, and 20-year-old frames are being refurbished so they can fly for a few more years (Air Canada, Thomas Cook etc).

And for some customers A330ceo is a better choice than A330neo. Plane is lighter because engines are lighter and because the various mtow increases come with mew increases too. An added bonus is that you have a choice of engines and these engines have huge installed bases and cheaper spare parts.

A330neo engine is expensive and single sourced. 787 has the advantage of two engine suppliers and the fact that the "other" vendor, GE, has a huge market presence and can be aggressive on pricing, whereas RR is working through difficult times.

The MTOW increases have been MEW neutral.

There is no evidence that the A330neo engines are more expensive than 787 engines. New A330ceo have been overwhelmingly delivered in the last years with the T700, about 90% market share.

mjoelnir wrote:

I am of the opinion that the notion, that the 787 is available for the same price is overdrawn.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ia-450571/ here they talk about a 30 million USD higher price for the 787.

I assume that on the USA airlines, where the 787 won out, Boeing went for the effect and offered the frames at cost or below cost.

Talking about 100 frames at AirAsia X, the A330neo seems to have won on price.

This debate may involve program accounting for 787. If we include development cost, the 787 certainly has to be more expensive in order for Boeing to make a return on its capital.

Now, we may be in a world where Boeing does not need to make a return on the capital it invested in 787. But just because flyaway cost may be a little cheaper (very arguably) does not in any way mean the 787 ought to sell for a cheaper price. The 787 ought to be more expensive, not only because Boeing needs to earn a return on its business but because it has better performance than competitors. That makes it more expensive!

Can Airbus sell A330 NEO at a profit? If Boeing doesn't care about profit, should Airbus? I am not bound by GAAP rules in my comments and I prefer the overall truth, and that is the 787 program has been very expensive.

rigo wrote:

Wildlander wrote:

Will AirAsia really fly to Europe. How many times has this plan ebbed and flowed over the years??

Air Asia did fly to Europe. A couple of years back they had flights between KUL and LHR or ORY, but IIRC they scrapped it pretty quickly. I'm not sure what the aircraft were, A330 classic I think.

They were using A343s.

The assumption has been the A330neo would be cheaper because it is based on an established design, but as has been noted, Boeing has significantly reduced the production cost of the 787 and it has generally been a more capable airframe for most of their respective RFPs. So even if it costs Boeing more money to produce, the performance advantage and other factors that may be in the airframe's favor over a multi-decade operating life could very well have allowed Boeing to command a higher price and still win the RFP.

After all, purchase cost is just one of many factors an airline evaluates when determining what frame will best work for the role they intend to operate it.

Stitch wrote:

A decade ago, it was Airbus who was accused by some of selling frames at or below cost to win marketshare when they were having sales success and now it is Boeing being accused of the same.

Does not mean that there is or was some truth in it. If Boeing goes really low on some USA customers, it is still no dumping by definition. Only a foreign producer can be accused of dumping in the USA.

mjoelnir wrote:

Stitch wrote:

A decade ago, it was Airbus who was accused by some of selling frames at or below cost to win marketshare when they were having sales success and now it is Boeing being accused of the same.

Does not mean that there is or was some truth in it. If Boeing goes really low on some USA customers, it is still no dumping by definition. Only a foreign producer can be accused of dumping in the USA.

Maybe that is why Airbus built an A320 FAL in the US after securing all those A320 orders with US carriers...

bigjku wrote:

rigo wrote:

Thanks both FlyHappy and sabby for your input. I agree it's an ironic story, the A330 neo is basically what the original A350 was supposed to be, and when clients made it clear they weren't interested and wanted an all-new design, Airbus dragged their feet for a couple of years before finally doing the A350 as we know it... and then they went on with the A330 NEO anyway. It's like they really really want to sell this particular model for some reason.

They need the NEO to keep 787 margins and volume in check so it doesn’t swamp the A350. If the 787 wins substantially all RFPs for airlines that don’t need something bigger it can be built at significantly higher volume than the A350 and will cost it both margin and sales.

The 787 seems to sit in the highest volume widebody space at the moment.

It is not JUST the Dreamliner that 'seems to sit in the highest volume wide body space'. The A330neo is a direct competitor and also was designed for, and is being marketed for, the same missions and requirements.The Dreamliner was hailed as a revolutionary 'long and thin' route opener and low-cost expansion platform; the A330neo can perform the same role. Airbus decided to launch the A330neo because its A350XWB competes against the B777-300ER, NOT the Dreamliner. The Dreamliner and the A330neo are, indeed, competing in the 250-300 passenger segment, the most active, most prolific wide body market.

Posters claiming the A330neo 'cannibalizes' A350XWB sales should recognize these are very different aircraft, with very different weights and sizes. The A350XWB is a larger frame, with greater capabilities; it competes with the 77W, arguably the current gold standard in large-frame intercontinental operations. Even the larger B787-10 is not a true A350XWB competitor.

The 'some reason' they 'really want to sell this particular model' relates directly to the above. Airbus competes with Boeing in ALL wide body market segments and needs the right product to win orders. The A330neo was designed to do precisely that. What it needs now is more orders!

Stitch wrote:

The assumption has been the A330neo would be cheaper because it is based on an established design, but as has been noted, Boeing has significantly reduced the production cost of the 787 and it has generally been a more capable airframe for most of their respective RFPs. So even if it costs Boeing more money to produce, the performance advantage and other factors that may be in the airframe's favor over a multi-decade operating life could very well have allowed Boeing to command a higher price and still win the RFP.

Were this questions come up, are three RFP two in The USA and now Air Asia X. perhaps a trend, but hardly an established trend.

How much more capable the 787 is compared to the A330neo has not been shown yet and we will perhaps get some numbers when the A330neo is in operation at some airlines.

I have still grave doubts, that the 787 is being able to be produced at a similar cost to the A330neo, if Boeing is thinking of ROI.
The main points are, the production facilities for the A330 are already fully depreciated, low fixed cost, and the investment into the neo change was low. That is also why the A330 is not very badly hit by low production numbers due to the low fixed cost. Furthermore the production facilities, not least the pre FAL operation, are already highly automated with for example riveting robots, something that Boeing is now introducing to the 777 line.

So, have we reached a point where we think that an A330Neo-1000 stretch would be a cost effective regional/medium range hauler for Asian markets? Since it seems that all the interest is going towards the -900, perhaps it means that customers are craving larger frames with regional and extra-regional capabilities? A 251t base is a decent place to start for such a stretch I would think?

Stitch wrote:

The assumption has been the A330neo would be cheaper because it is based on an established design, but as has been noted, Boeing has significantly reduced the production cost of the 787 and it has generally been a more capable airframe for most of their respective RFPs. So even if it costs Boeing more money to produce, the performance advantage and other factors that may be in the airframe's favor over a multi-decade operating life could very well have allowed Boeing to command a higher price and still win the RFP.

After all, purchase cost is just one of many factors an airline evaluates when determining what frame will best work for the role they intend to operate it.

Exactly what 'performance advantage' does the Dreamliner hold over the A330neo? Does the Dreamliner operate with greater efficiency at lower CASM relative to the A330neo? Does the Dreamliner operate more efficiently on long-haul routes compared to the A330neo? Does the Dreamliner offer superior passenger experiences and amenities compared to the A330neo? Does Boeing fabricate Dreamliners at a lower cost compared to the A330neo?

The final question relating to marginal fabrication cost per example (excluding amortization of Boeing's enormous multi-USD billion capitalized development costs) has been debated here ad nauseam. Even IF Boeing's FALs in Washington and Carolina pump out 14 Dreamliners per month with a lower direct marginal cost (meaning just the cash labor and component costs), there is still the matter of $20+ billion in capitalized costs Boeing needs to make up for. Investors know these were indeed paid out in cash years ago, they want a RETURN on those investments, not just some nominal profit per example over marginal production costs. It is unclear whether Boeing can consistently offer competitive Dreamliner capital acquisition pricing v. A330neo. It is unclear whether selling AA 22 B788 and 25 B789 will actually make Boeing enough money to cover a sufficient margin and return with all-in costs.

PDPsol wrote:

Even IF Boeing's FALs in Washington and Carolina pump out 14 Dreamliners per month with a lower direct marginal cost (meaning just the cash labor and component costs), there is still the matter of $20+ billion in capitalized costs Boeing needs to make up for. Investors know these were indeed paid out in cash years ago, they want a RETURN on those investments, not just some nominal profit per example over marginal production costs. It is unclear whether Boeing can consistently offer competitive Dreamliner capital acquisition pricing v. A330neo. It is unclear whether selling AA 22 B788 and 25 B789 will actually make Boeing enough money to cover a sufficient margin and return with all-in costs.

Additional 787 sales are also additional frames against which deferred production costs can be written off. Failing to make a sale because they can't write off quite enough deferred production cost probably puts them in a worse financial situation unless it's obvious they can sell those aircraft/production slots to another customer for a higher price (and thus write off more deferred production cost).

mjoelnir wrote:

The main points are, the production facilities for the A330 are already fully depreciated, low fixed cost, and the investment into the neo change was low. That is also why the A330 is not very badly hit by low production numbers due to the low fixed cost. Furthermore the production facilities, not least the pre FAL operation, are already highly automated with for example riveting robots, something that Boeing is now introducing to the 777 line.

But that says nothing as to whether marginal production cost for the A330 is higher or lower than the 787, especially considering that 787 fuselage construction is highly automated given the use of automated tape layup for composite structures.

mjoelnir wrote:

There is no evidence that the A330neo engines are more expensive than 787 engines.

Maybe yes, maybe no, but RR has somewhat less incentive to be flexible on the price of engines & maintenance for A330neo when they're the sole supplier. They're not going to accept lower margins on a contract for T7000 vs. T1000 just to make a sale for Airbus.

ScottB wrote:

Maybe yes, maybe no, but RR has somewhat less incentive to be flexible on the price of engines & maintenance for A330neo when they're the sole supplier. They're not going to accept lower margins on a contract for T7000 vs. T1000 just to make a sale for Airbus.

Like CFM & 737? Like GE & 777? This is a red herring if anything. There is no proof that being a sole supplier is any hindrance. If anything since RR is in bed with Airbus with two aircraft programs they will do their utmost to be a good partner. RR's exposure with Boeing is miniscule in comparison.

Strato2 wrote:

ScottB wrote:

Maybe yes, maybe no, but RR has somewhat less incentive to be flexible on the price of engines & maintenance for A330neo when they're the sole supplier. They're not going to accept lower margins on a contract for T7000 vs. T1000 just to make a sale for Airbus.

Like CFM & 737? Like GE & 777?

Yes, absolutely! Well, except that in the case of the 777W, GE was a risk-sharing partner so they had additional interest in the success of the program, and a sale that didn't go to them would have gone to RR on the A340-600. Maybe they'd cut a deal with the customer if the choice is between A330neo and GEnX-powered 787, but they're less likely to undercut themselves if the choice is between T1000 & T7000.

And FWIW, at least on the A350XWB, Airbus pushed very hard to have two engine suppliers. GE balked at the requirement of offering a powerful enough engine for the -1000.

ScottB wrote:

PDPsol wrote:

Even IF Boeing's FALs in Washington and Carolina pump out 14 Dreamliners per month with a lower direct marginal cost (meaning just the cash labor and component costs), there is still the matter of $20+ billion in capitalized costs Boeing needs to make up for. Investors know these were indeed paid out in cash years ago, they want a RETURN on those investments, not just some nominal profit per example over marginal production costs. It is unclear whether Boeing can consistently offer competitive Dreamliner capital acquisition pricing v. A330neo. It is unclear whether selling AA 22 B788 and 25 B789 will actually make Boeing enough money to cover a sufficient margin and return with all-in costs.

Additional 787 sales are also additional frames against which deferred production costs can be written off. Failing to make a sale because they can't write off quite enough deferred production cost probably puts them in a worse financial situation unless it's obvious they can sell those aircraft/production slots to another customer for a higher price (and thus write off more deferred production cost).

No doubt failing to make a sale because it does not produce enough profit after covering capitalized developed costs would indeed put Boeing in a worse financial state. HOWEVER, that 'just enough' profit may imply a too-low investment return to satisfy Boeing's equity holders; that is the point. If Dreamliners are sold at prices just covering marginal 'cash' production costs (labor + component systems + power/IT + rent) , without ALSO covering the assigned capitalized cost amortization AND producing a sufficient profit return on those investments, then Boeing is burning, not creating, value for its investors.

Perhaps Boeing can produce Dreamliners with an equivalent, or even lower, marginal cash cost compared to Airbus and its A330neo. However, that in itself does not mean it can simply undercut Airbus on price with every RFP. Boeing needs to earn a sufficient profit OVER AND ABOVE whatever it covers after marginal costs to justify a return on PRIOR investments. Airbus does not have $20+ billion capitalized development costs for its A330neo program. Boeing does have that balance to work through over its entire Dreamliner program.

Boeing reported covering circa $23 MM in capitalized costs per Dreamliner frame sale in Q1 2018. I cannot imagine Airbus needs to amortize $20 MM+ against every A330neo sale. That in itself may place Airbus in a more flexible pricing situation relative to Boeing. The Dreamliner's marginal per-frame production costs would need to be substantially lower than the A330neo's to be truly competitive.

I would like to know why a logical investor should give a damn about Boeings past investments when finance 101 states that any financial valuations should be based on its projected FUTURE cash flows and earnings, and they've been way better at the former than Airbus over the last couple of years, that's indisputable.

PDPsol wrote:

HOWEVER, that 'just enough' profit may imply a too-low investment return to satisfy Boeing's equity holders; that is the point. If Dreamliners are sold at prices just covering marginal 'cash' production costs (labor + component systems + power/IT + rent) , without ALSO covering the assigned capitalized cost amortization AND producing a sufficient profit return on those investments, then Boeing is burning, not creating, value for its investors.

Well Boeing has been consistently raising their per-frame "recovery rate" on that deferred production cost, so that implies they are have not been actively selling frames at a minimal or negative profit. There was a dip in the most recent quarter, but it is believed this corresponds to the 787-10 EIS and the lower delivery rate due to RR issues.

PDPsol wrote:

Perhaps Boeing can produce Dreamliners with an equivalent, or even lower, marginal cash cost compared to Airbus and its A330neo. However, that in itself does not mean it can simply undercut Airbus on price with every RFP. Boeing needs to earn a sufficient profit OVER AND ABOVE whatever it covers after marginal costs to justify a return on PRIOR investments. Airbus does not have $20+ billion capitalized development costs for its A330neo program. Boeing does have that balance to work through over its entire Dreamliner program.

And not every RFP for the 787 competes with the A330neo. But here's the relevant statement from Boeing's most recent quarterly earnings report:

At June 30, 2018, $20,903 of 787 deferred production costs, unamortized tooling and other non-recurring costs are expected to be recovered from units included in the program accounting quantity that have firm orders and $6,237 is expected to be recovered from units included in the program accounting quantity that represent expected future orders.

So basically, existing firm orders are expected to cover all but $6.2 billion of the deferred costs (those numbers are in millions). Given that the program is exceedingly likely to see several hundred future orders, the deferred production cost burden is nowhere near as heavy as you make it out to be. Keep in mind that the 787 production cost efficiencies which have been reported apply not only to future orders, but also to the current backlog which may have been sold without anticipating those efficiencies. But if we assume another 500 sales beyond the existing backlog, we're talking about ~$12 million per frame

PDPsol wrote:

I cannot imagine Airbus needs to amortize $20 MM+ against every A330neo sale. That in itself may place Airbus in a more flexible pricing situation relative to Boeing. The Dreamliner's marginal per-frame production costs would need to be substantially lower than the A330neo's to be truly competitive.

No, but given that the development cost was predicted to be between 1 and 2 billion euro, and the delays probably mean the cost is at the upper end of the range, if we assume 500 sales (more than double the backlog at present), Airbus still needs to allow around $5 million per frame to cover its own development costs, even if they have already been expended.