Garuda Indonesia signed a LOI for 4 A330-800neos back in June which until now was unannounced. Once firmed all 4 aircraft will be delivered between Q3 2021 and Q2 2022

Garuda Indonesia signed a letter of intent to acquire four Airbus A330-800s in June in a deal that went unannounced.
The carrier disclosed the tentative agreement, which was signed on 17 June, in its second quarter financial statements. The timing suggests that the deal was made just before the Paris air show, however it was not publicly announced by the airline or Airbus.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 0s-460418/

qf789 wrote:

Garuda Indonesia signed a LOI for 4 A330-800neos back in June which until now was unannounced. Once firmed all 4 aircraft will be delivered between Q3 2021 and Q2 2022

Garuda Indonesia signed a letter of intent to acquire four Airbus A330-800s in June in a deal that went unannounced.
The carrier disclosed the tentative agreement, which was signed on 17 June, in its second quarter financial statements. The timing suggests that the deal was made just before the Paris air show, however it was not publicly announced by the airline or Airbus.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 0s-460418/

Well this is interesting considering they are supposed to be moving away from Airbus products.

DCA350 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Garuda Indonesia signed a LOI for 4 A330-800neos back in June which until now was unannounced. Once firmed all 4 aircraft will be delivered between Q3 2021 and Q2 2022
Well this is interesting considering they are supposed to be moving away from Airbus products.

Any A338 sale is surprising I would say, but this one is especially so because of the very recent developments discussed in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1429771

DCA350 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Garuda Indonesia signed a LOI for 4 A330-800neos back in June which until now was unannounced. Once firmed all 4 aircraft will be delivered between Q3 2021 and Q2 2022

Garuda Indonesia signed a letter of intent to acquire four Airbus A330-800s in June in a deal that went unannounced.
The carrier disclosed the tentative agreement, which was signed on 17 June, in its second quarter financial statements. The timing suggests that the deal was made just before the Paris air show, however it was not publicly announced by the airline or Airbus.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 0s-460418/

Well this is interesting considering they are supposed to be moving away from Airbus products.

Indeed, which IMO means this LoI will most likely end up as most of Garuda's Letters of Intent: quietly expiring....

Or they just hope, that Boeing will come and will try to give them a deal like to Hawaiian Airlines, just to take care again, the A330-800 will never get on the market.

Isn't that supposed to be a negotiation tactic? I thought they had a similar deal with Boeing about some new Dreamliners.

If not, it can be a minor yet helpful boost for the A330neo program, notably the A338.

Oh dear, they have 14 A339neo, 30 A350, 49 B737MAX 10 and 30 B787 on order. Now another 4 more A338neo?

Won't it be too much? Their 10 B77W and 27 A330-200/300ceo are pretty young, except for first six A333 PK-GPA to PK-GPG.

I sure hope those four A338neo are from the 14 A339neo order. In addition, I am also not sure if those two ex-WW A339neo Citilink is taking will be deducted from the 14 A339neo as well. I couldn't find any firm answer yet from reliable source.

juliuswong wrote:

Their 10 B77W and 27 A330-200/300ceo are pretty young, except for first six A333 PK-GPA to PK-GPG.

I think they are struggling to get the 77W to work for them from CGK to AMS/LHR with the yields they attract. Something of a 787/A330 size is better suited to run long thin routes to Europe from Bali.

juliuswong wrote:

Oh dear, they have 14 A339neo, 30 A350, 49 B737MAX 10 and 30 B787 on order. Now another 4 more A338neo?

Won't it be too much? Their 10 B77W and 27 A330-200/300ceo are pretty young, except for first six A333 PK-GPA to PK-GPG.

I sure hope those four A338neo are from the 14 A339neo order. In addition, I am also not sure if those two ex-WW A339neo Citilink is taking will be deducted from the 14 A339neo as well. I couldn't find any firm answer yet from reliable source.

Pretty sure the A350 LOI has expired by now. The MAX 10s are ok for expansion, but I'm not sure nearly 50 extra widebodies will be helpful.

Also I call bull on the whole Indonesia vs Airbus thing. I don't see how Indonesia thinks it can work out in their favor. Besides, aircraft like the ATR provide air service to the remote communities of the country.

Out of curiosity, when do the leases on their 777’s expire?

OMAA

LHR is now an A332 from Medan(!) the B77W was too big by some way.

In theory, if Garuda actually go through with this, they could replace their entire fleet with A330neos and do reasonably well.

They could even serve the USA (although would probably be limited to Seattle) with A330-800s.

They could also actually have a viable First Class product if they go for Thompson Vantage First suites, with Vantage XL positioned behind.

8 abreast economy, 7 abreast premium (if they decide to introduce it), 1-2-1 Business and First... it could work. Only issue is how inefficient the A330-800s would be.

But smaller jets, more direct flights, skimming off the highest yields... in theory that will work well. In theory.

OMAAbound wrote:

Out of curiosity, when do the leases on their 777’s expire?

OMAA

PK-GIA and PK-GIC are from ALAFCO- 12 years financial lease.
PK-GID and PK-GIE are from Altavair AirFinance- No information available.
PK-GIF to PK-GIK are from ICBC- 18 years operating lease.

StudiodeKadent wrote:

In theory, if Garuda actually go through with this, they could replace their entire fleet with A330neos and do reasonably well.

They could even serve the USA (although would probably be limited to Seattle) with A330-800s.

They could also actually have a viable First Class product if they go for Thompson Vantage First suites, with Vantage XL positioned behind.

8 abreast economy, 7 abreast premium (if they decide to introduce it), 1-2-1 Business and First... it could work. Only issue is how inefficient the A330-800s would be.

But smaller jets, more direct flights, skimming off the highest yields... in theory that will work well. In theory.

Agreed for the most part, for GA the A338 could make sense, for (developing) long thin routes. As for your claim regarding the inefficiency of the A338, remember it is still a huge improvement over the A332 and 77W GA uses now. But, the 787-9 would be even more efficient. So I wonder why GA would want these A338 when they are already have a Loi with Boeing for 787-9s! The only reason I can think of is if GA wants to profile itself as a more premium airline, offering more comfortable 2-4-2 seating over the 3-3-3 Y experience of the 787. But a lot more is required than just adding a new aircraft of course...

frigatebird wrote:

StudiodeKadent wrote:

In theory, if Garuda actually go through with this, they could replace their entire fleet with A330neos and do reasonably well.

They could even serve the USA (although would probably be limited to Seattle) with A330-800s.

They could also actually have a viable First Class product if they go for Thompson Vantage First suites, with Vantage XL positioned behind.

8 abreast economy, 7 abreast premium (if they decide to introduce it), 1-2-1 Business and First... it could work. Only issue is how inefficient the A330-800s would be.

But smaller jets, more direct flights, skimming off the highest yields... in theory that will work well. In theory.

Agreed for the most part, for GA the A338 could make sense, for (developing) long thin routes. As for your claim regarding the inefficiency of the A338, remember it is still a huge improvement over the A332 and 77W GA uses now. But, the 787-9 would be even more efficient. So I wonder why GA would want these A338 when they are already have a Loi with Boeing for 787-9s! The only reason I can think of is if GA wants to profile itself as a more premium airline, offering more comfortable 2-4-2 seating over the 3-3-3 Y experience of the 787. But a lot more is required than just adding a new aircraft of course...

The actual reason is GA’s LOI and order history is littered with politics and bribes, rather than rational thought.

With the Indonesian government’s current anger towards the EU who knows of this will be ever firmed.

juliuswong wrote:

Oh dear, they have 14 A339neo, 30 A350 and 30 B787 on order. Now another 4 more A338neo?
Won't it be too much? Their 10 B77W and 27 A330-200/300ceo are pretty young, except for first six A333 PK-GPA to PK-GPG..

It looks like they want a 30ish widebody fleet. They have LOIed both Boeing with the 789 and Airbus with the A359 to "negociate" and have finally settled with the A330neo. They have 14 A339 on firm order and are going to add more to replace A332/3 and 77W when needed.
A359 and 789 LOI should both be expired.

T4thH wrote:

Or they just hope, that Boeing will come and will try to give them a deal like to Hawaiian Airlines, just to take care again, the A330-800 will never get on the market.

Kuwait will more than likely be taking their A330-800s. The first one is due Q1 2020.

frigatebird wrote:

Agreed for the most part, for GA the A338 could make sense, for (developing) long thin routes. As for your claim regarding the inefficiency of the A338, remember it is still a huge improvement over the A332 and 77W GA uses now. But, the 787-9 would be even more efficient. So I wonder why GA would want these A338 when they are already have a Loi with Boeing for 787-9s! The only reason I can think of is if GA wants to profile itself as a more premium airline, offering more comfortable 2-4-2 seating over the 3-3-3 Y experience of the 787. But a lot more is required than just adding a new aircraft of course...

I'm trying to figure out why any carrier would want 338s vs. 339s, or 338s versus A350s for long/thin routes, or versus 787-9s since they already have some on order? This a few of these, a few of those buying strategy is going to cripple them in operational and purchasing inefficiencies.

OA940 wrote:

Also I call bull on the whole Indonesia vs Airbus thing. I don't see how Indonesia thinks it can work out in their favor. Besides, aircraft like the ATR provide air service to the remote communities of the country.

I do think Indonesia is as serious about not buying Airbus as the EU is as serious about not buying Indonesian palm oil. If Indonesia is not allowed to earn money from its exports, how can it afford to pay for its imports?

MIflyer12 wrote:

I'm trying to figure out why any carrier would want 338s vs. 339s, or 338s versus A350s for long/thin routes, or versus 787-9s since they already have some on order? This a few of these, a few of those buying strategy is going to cripple them in operational and purchasing inefficiencies.

They already have lots of A330 in use. A330 CEO to NEO probably is less difference than 788 vs 789.

And my guess is that the LOI Boeing interests were a move to get out of being pressured by Trump.
( God knows what kind of tort implements he has shown to Indonesia at the time.)
No idea if this "no Airbus for politics reason" isn't just a crafted for leverage rumor.

juliuswong wrote:

Oh dear, they have 14 A339neo, 30 A350, 49 B737MAX 10 and 30 B787 on order. Now another 4 more A338neo?

Won't it be too much? Their 10 B77W and 27 A330-200/300ceo are pretty young, except for first six A333 PK-GPA to PK-GPG.

I sure hope those four A338neo are from the 14 A339neo order. In addition, I am also not sure if those two ex-WW A339neo Citilink is taking will be deducted from the 14 A339neo as well. I couldn't find any firm answer yet from reliable source.

Garuda is embracing their inner TG.

StudiodeKadent wrote:

Only issue is how inefficient the A330-800s would be.

Is it a solid fact that the A330-800 is inefficient ?
(first flight was last year, but I do not remember reading much about the specific data of this variant and its performance in actual use).

so this is what, the 3rd carrier to get the a338? we're at like 15 frames now. that's honestly not too bad, considering a year ago it had nothing

MIflyer12 wrote:

frigatebird wrote:

Agreed for the most part, for GA the A338 could make sense, for (developing) long thin routes. As for your claim regarding the inefficiency of the A338, remember it is still a huge improvement over the A332 and 77W GA uses now. But, the 787-9 would be even more efficient. So I wonder why GA would want these A338 when they are already have a Loi with Boeing for 787-9s! The only reason I can think of is if GA wants to profile itself as a more premium airline, offering more comfortable 2-4-2 seating over the 3-3-3 Y experience of the 787. But a lot more is required than just adding a new aircraft of course...

I'm trying to figure out why any carrier would want 338s vs. 339s, or 338s versus A350s for long/thin routes, or versus 787-9s since they already have some on order? This a few of these, a few of those buying strategy is going to cripple them in operational and purchasing inefficiencies.

Thing is with GA's 787 order, it doesn't exist. They had a LoI for 787s but as mentioned upthread this may very well have lapsed like so many other of GA's LoI/MoU or whatever non binding agreement. And if indeed neither the 787 nor the A350 is figuring in GA's plans short term, they may well have their WB fleet simple with just A330(neo) and 77W. So short term the A338 may be an interesting idea, long term thinking less so IMO.

Polot wrote:

The actual reason is GA’s LOI and order history is littered with politics and bribes, rather than rational thought.

With the Indonesian government’s current anger towards the EU who knows of this will be ever firmed.

Indeed.

MIflyer12 wrote:

frigatebird wrote:

Agreed for the most part, for GA the A338 could make sense, for (developing) long thin routes. As for your claim regarding the inefficiency of the A338, remember it is still a huge improvement over the A332 and 77W GA uses now. But, the 787-9 would be even more efficient. So I wonder why GA would want these A338 when they are already have a Loi with Boeing for 787-9s! The only reason I can think of is if GA wants to profile itself as a more premium airline, offering more comfortable 2-4-2 seating over the 3-3-3 Y experience of the 787. But a lot more is required than just adding a new aircraft of course...

I'm trying to figure out why any carrier would want 338s vs. 339s, or 338s versus A350s for long/thin routes, or versus 787-9s since they already have some on order? This a few of these, a few of those buying strategy is going to cripple them in operational and purchasing inefficiencies.

Nope, they don't

flee wrote:

OA940 wrote:

Also I call bull on the whole Indonesia vs Airbus thing. I don't see how Indonesia thinks it can work out in their favor. Besides, aircraft like the ATR provide air service to the remote communities of the country.

I do think Indonesia is as serious about not buying Airbus as the EU is as serious about not buying Indonesian palm oil. If Indonesia is not allowed to earn money from its exports, how can it afford to pay for its imports?

Yeah I agree for sure, but I think they made a pretty rash decision. Because if the Indonesian government does what they say they wanna do then you can bet the EU will retaliate with a full on trade war. And I'm pretty sure that would hurt Indonesia more than the EU. And once again there aren't many options to serve the remote communities in Indonesia and I don't see Boeing rushing out with an alternative. I may be thinking a little too much into the aviation aspect of it though.

zeke wrote:

I think they are struggling to get the 77W to work for them from CGK to AMS/LHR with the yields they attract. Something of a 787/A330 size is better suited to run long thin routes to Europe from Bali.

skipness1E wrote:

LHR is now an A332 from Medan(!) the B77W was too big by some way.

Are above 12 hours flights always business/ premium economy heavy? If yes, I think A330 is a good plane.
The fuselage is good enough for 1-2-1 in business, 2-3-2 premium economy. I assume this. Anybody disagrees?
The main point is of course capacity. CASM of B787 may be better, but what's the point if one can't fill it?

Seems obvious to me that the intention behind this is a subfleet of 4x A338s, alongside the 14x A339s, to rightsize the Europe operation and get CGK-AMS and CGK-LHR on a solid footing. The 787 and A350 LOIs will lapse if they haven't already, so on that basis the only widebodies on order are A330neos

StudiodeKadent wrote:

In theory, if Garuda actually go through with this, they could replace their entire fleet with A330neos and do reasonably well.

They could even serve the USA (although would probably be limited to Seattle) with A330-800s.

They could also actually have a viable First Class product if they go for Thompson Vantage First suites, with Vantage XL positioned behind.

8 abreast economy, 7 abreast premium (if they decide to introduce it), 1-2-1 Business and First... it could work. Only issue is how inefficient the A330-800s would be.

But smaller jets, more direct flights, skimming off the highest yields... in theory that will work well. In theory.

Garuda markets are not now and never will be towards the USA .

They move hundreds of thousands between their myriad and dispersed isles , plus migrant workers into the Middle East Japanese and Australian tourists to and from Bali.

Their connection to Amsterdam is VFR freight and low yield .

Whilst Heathrow is a slot sitter that they want to drop - its a sink hole for cash . The Indonesian Government keep preventing them from making the commercially appropriate action

As for slot value it’s probably marginal they have a very late evening arrival and turn round three days a week which isn’t much use to any one other than another sink hole route to some obscure Chinese tier three city by CZ or HNA group carrier imho.

The Mecca Jeddah pilgrimage charter flights operate almost all year and with heavy reliance on chartered in frames at major festivals times such as Hajj and Eid .
Crammed to the gills the B744 and A333 are popular for these

Just a general question not concerning GA but the city of Surabaya (country's 2nd largest).

Being Indonesia's second largest city with 10 million people and also the country's second richest, how come there are no medium/long haul nonstop flights from the city to mega hub airports? Isnt there any demand to warrant flights to DXB, JED, NRT, SYD, MEL, ICN, PEK and PVG?

Surely the entire Indonesian international market cannot just be revolving around CGK and DPS !

behramjee wrote:

Just a general question not concerning GA but the city of Surabaya (country's 2nd largest).

Being Indonesia's second largest city with 10 million people and also the country's second richest, how come there are no medium/long haul nonstop flights from the city to mega hub airports? Isnt there any demand to warrant flights to DXB, JED, NRT, SYD, MEL, ICN, PEK and PVG?

Surely the entire Indonesian international market cannot just be revolving around CGK and DPS !

Japanese aren’t to fond of visiting former battle sites they lost .

Saudia fly umpteen charters to Jeddah on an almost daily basis.

The Chinese will turn up soon as they have an upper hand on trade !

Aussies really like the beach and to drink a smiggin - A mainly dry Islamic town less so

Dubai is the odd one I would have also expected Emirates to be there by now .Migrants , Pilgrims and European expats most surely fill a daily 77w one would think .

behramjee wrote:

Just a general question not concerning GA but the city of Surabaya (country's 2nd largest).

Being Indonesia's second largest city with 10 million people and also the country's second richest, how come there are no medium/long haul nonstop flights from the city to mega hub airports? Isnt there any demand to warrant flights to DXB, JED, NRT, SYD, MEL, ICN, PEK and PVG?

Surely the entire Indonesian international market cannot just be revolving around CGK and DPS !

It doesn't, but I'd imagine Garuda would rather consolidate all of those passengers onto long-haul international flights out of Jakarta taking feed from Surabaya along with all of the other Indonesian cities and some international connections. Maybe Tokyo and other large Asian cities could support service, but the market is very competitive.

You also have to consider that out of Surabaya there are plenty of options via Singapore, Jakarta or Kuala Lumpur to reach faraway places like Europe. To Australia it is easy to connect to any city there via Bali or Jakarta and fares are pretty low. I see that there is already a flight on Saudi Arabian to Medina, with onward connections available. Dubai maybe could work, I guess Emirates could analyze it but Turkish and Qatar Airways chose to fly to Jakarta and Bali, so maybe that's close enough.

Given that you can fly from Surabaya to Singapore, KL, Jakarta or Bali for under 50$ and those cities have cheap long-haul flights, I think a lot of the traffic is going to go that way. The good news is that perhaps with new aircraft like the A320neo, longer routes might become viable from places like Surabaya.

In the Airline Business, what is the difference between LOI (Letter of intent) and MOU (Memorandum of understandin) ??

(I'm an amateur at this)

behramjee wrote:

Just a general question not concerning GA but the city of Surabaya (country's 2nd largest).

Being Indonesia's second largest city with 10 million people and also the country's second richest, how come there are no medium/long haul nonstop flights from the city to mega hub airports? Isnt there any demand to warrant flights to DXB, JED, NRT, SYD, MEL, ICN, PEK and PVG?

Surely the entire Indonesian international market cannot just be revolving around CGK and DPS !

SUB is currently served by SQ, MI, MH, CX, CI, SV, and BI. We can fly from Surabaya to many large cities around the world with only one stop.

SueD wrote:

Dubai is the odd one I would have also expected Emirates to be there by now .Migrants , Pilgrims and European expats most surely fill a daily 77w one would think .

What's the difference between "Migrants" and "European expats"

Breathe wrote:

SueD wrote:

Dubai is the odd one I would have also expected Emirates to be there by now .Migrants , Pilgrims and European expats most surely fill a daily 77w one would think .

What's the difference between "Migrants" and "European expats"

I think what he means is Indonesian migrant workers working in the Middle East.

Migrants would be Indonesians Travelling to the UAE/ Saudi in search of work or education, whilst European expats might be Dutch descendants that could also be migrants true enough.

The right wing racist connotations of the word migrants being associated with scum are not mine .