JustSomeDood wrote:

Oliver2020 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... nsion.html says:

The article doesn't mention "we ordered the aircraft years ago and were looking for a customer and have finally found a customer to place them with".
These are LEASED AC just like any other airline that leases aircraft. Therefore Virgin Atlantic ordered 14 AC and have options for another 6 AC.

Air lease corp's own press release disagrees:
https://airleasecorp.com/press/air-lease-corporation-announces-lease-placement-of-six-new-airbus-a330-900neos-with-virgin-atlantic-airways

PARIS, France, June 18, 2019 – Today Air Lease Corporation (NYSE: AL; “ALC”) announced long-term lease placements for six new Airbus A330-900neo aircraft with Virgin Atlantic Airways. The six new A330-900neos are scheduled to deliver to the airline starting in 2021 through 2022 from ALC’s order book with Airbus.

ITS THE SAME THING that article is states the same as the others
14 orders 6 options another example
Delta ordered 37 2 of those are from a leasing company, still means Delta ordered 37 A339's.

Oliver2020 wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

Oliver2020 wrote:

The article doesn't mention "we ordered the aircraft years ago and were looking for a customer and have finally found a customer to place them with".
These are LEASED AC just like any other airline that leases aircraft. Therefore Virgin Atlantic ordered 14 AC and have options for another 6 AC.

Air lease corp's own press release disagrees:
https://airleasecorp.com/press/air-lease-corporation-announces-lease-placement-of-six-new-airbus-a330-900neos-with-virgin-atlantic-airways

PARIS, France, June 18, 2019 – Today Air Lease Corporation (NYSE: AL; “ALC”) announced long-term lease placements for six new Airbus A330-900neo aircraft with Virgin Atlantic Airways. The six new A330-900neos are scheduled to deliver to the airline starting in 2021 through 2022 from ALC’s order book with Airbus.

ITS THE SAME THING that article is states the same as the others
14 orders 6 options another example
Delta ordered 37 2 of those are from a leasing company, still means Delta ordered 37 A339's.

No it doesn't, you are implying that Virgin Atlantic ordered 14 new A330neos with Airbus directly, when IRL they ordered 8 A330neos and leased 6 from ALC's existing orderbook of A330neos. Similarly, Delta ordered 35 A330neos (some of which may go on SLBs with lessors) and agreed to lease two additional A/Cs directly from ALC's existing orderbook.

JustSomeDood wrote:

Oliver2020 wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

Air lease corp's own press release disagrees:
https://airleasecorp.com/press/air-lease-corporation-announces-lease-placement-of-six-new-airbus-a330-900neos-with-virgin-atlantic-airways

ITS THE SAME THING that article is states the same as the others
14 orders 6 options another example
Delta ordered 37 2 of those are from a leasing company, still means Delta ordered 37 A339's.

No it doesn't, you are implying that Virgin Atlantic ordered 14 new A330neos with Airbus directly, when IRL they ordered 8 A330neos and leased 6 from ALC's existing orderbook of A330neos. Similarly, Delta ordered 35 A330neos (some of which may go on SLBs with lessors) and agreed to lease two additional A/Cs directly from ALC's existing orderbook.

In January when Delta s SEC filings are listed we'll see if they are listed as orders or not.

Whether the AC are ordered from the manufacturer or leaser doesn't change the fact that they are AC orders.

VS 14 orders 8 owned 6 leased with 6 additional options
DL 37 orders 35 owned (at this time some of those may end up being leased as well) and 2 leased.

Oliver2020 wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

Oliver2020 wrote:

ITS THE SAME THING that article is states the same as the others
14 orders 6 options another example
Delta ordered 37 2 of those are from a leasing company, still means Delta ordered 37 A339's.

No it doesn't, you are implying that Virgin Atlantic ordered 14 new A330neos with Airbus directly, when IRL they ordered 8 A330neos and leased 6 from ALC's existing orderbook of A330neos. Similarly, Delta ordered 35 A330neos (some of which may go on SLBs with lessors) and agreed to lease two additional A/Cs directly from ALC's existing orderbook.

In January when Delta s SEC filings are listed we'll see if they are listed as orders or not.

Whether the AC are ordered from the manufacturer or leaser doesn't change the fact that they are AC orders.

VS 14 orders 8 owned 6 leased with 6 additional options
DL 37 orders 35 owned (at this time some of those may end up being leased as well) and 2 leased.

But the aircraft in question is already on the order book under the lessor's name. You can't add the add it twice once under lessor, then again for the airline.

Revelation wrote:

VV wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

This year up to now net orders 787 38 and A330 45. A330neo 50 and A330-200 -5.

I have just checked the orders and deliveries spreadsheet as of end of October 2019. There only 34 orders for A330neo. Where do you get 50?

Post above says:

16 CEBU 4-Nov (not included in October report)

I suppose we'll see EK's order mentioned by Astuteman some time not too far in the future as well.

I thought you had read the thread.

astuteman wrote:

This excludes the EK "order" for 40 frames which is not secured yet, and is rumoured NOT to be declared at DAS

Post #7

Rgds

chiad wrote:

VV wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

This year up to now net orders 787 38 and A330 45. A330neo 50 and A330-200 -5.

I have just checked the orders and deliveries spreadsheet as of end of October 2019. There only 34 orders for A330neo. Where do you get 50?

Cebu Pacific firms 16 A330neo (november 4th)
https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... 30neo.html

Okay. So basically A330neo has 50 orders until 4 November and 787 has 38 orders until end of September. I do not think there have been a lot of 787 orders recently, but comparing the two at different points in time does not sound very right, in my opinion.

In addition, unless there is a big order between now and the end of the year, it is difficult to say it has been a "great year" for A330neo. It has been doing fine so far, but it is not an especially "great" year.

VV wrote:

chiad wrote:

VV wrote:

I have just checked the orders and deliveries spreadsheet as of end of October 2019. There only 34 orders for A330neo. Where do you get 50?

Cebu Pacific firms 16 A330neo (november 4th)
https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... 30neo.html

Okay. So basically A330neo has 50 orders until 4 November and 787 has 38 orders until end of September. I do not think there have been a lot of 787 orders recently, but comparing the two at different points in time does not sound very right, in my opinion.

In addition, unless there is a big order between now and the end of the year, it is difficult to say it has been a "great year" for A330neo. It has been doing fine so far, but it is not an especially "great" year.

This I can agree with. A better assessment can be done at the end of the year after all orders and cancellations have been announced. Up to so far, 2019 has been a better year for the a330neo than 2017 and 2018. In my opinion, the use of superlatives such as "great"; "game-changer" is non-sensical anyway.

Late edit: In defence of the OP, there was no reference in the opening remarks about the year to date sales of the 787 vs a330. The only comment was that "the a330 might outsell the 787 in 2019.

majano wrote:

[Up to so far, 2019 has been a better year for the a330neo than 2017 and 2018. In my opinion, the use of superlatives such as "great"; "game-changer" is non-sensical anyway.

At the expense of the A350.

A350 orders drop dramatically and A330NEO sales increase dramatically.

It is pretty obvious that Airbus is simply directing potential A350 customers towards the A330NEO to maintain the current producton rates. Spreading customer demand between both lines to keep both lines flowing smoothly. It would make more sense to just have one family, increase production rate, reduce costs and increase profit.

RJMAZ wrote:

majano wrote:

[Up to so far, 2019 has been a better year for the a330neo than 2017 and 2018. In my opinion, the use of superlatives such as "great"; "game-changer" is non-sensical anyway.

At the expense of the A350.

A350 orders drop dramatically and A330NEO sales increase dramatically.

As above, it makes more sense to assess at year end for 2019. Your statement seems to be more sweeping than just 2019 sales, in which case we would have to wait even longer for a proper assessment.

It is pretty obvious that Airbus is simply directing potential A350 customers towards the A330NEO to maintain the current producton rates. Spreading customer demand between both lines to keep both lines flowing smoothly.

Not sure whether this is your opinion or whether you are passing it off as fact. Either way, it is difficult to verify or refute.

It would make more sense to just have one family, increase production rate, reduce costs and increase profit.

This is going well beyond the scope of this particular discussion, but I think your view is too simplistic and ignores the historical context of development of both the a350 and a330neo. There were many ups and downs, change of minds, favourable and unfavourable customer feedback along the way to end up where Airbus is. Just wishing for a single aircraft family to cover the gap between the a320 series and the a380 is wrong.

That is the point, if they want to, Boeing is able to minimize the price advantage of the A330 or even force Airbus to accept very little to no margin.

RJMAZ wrote:

Talk about rose coloured glasses and cherry picking data.
...

The A330NEO and A350 are unbelievably close in size and capability. MTOW is the best indicator of this as it combines range and size. This is the core problem they have a 11% MTOW difference between families. The 787/777X has a 40% MTOW difference. The market no longer decides what aircraft is suitable based on size and range. The Airbus aircraft are close enough together that most orders can be decided by which model Airbus does a good deal on.

And yet you do the same mistake of cherry picking as well. You seem to have forgotten A350-1000 in the MTOW comparison.

Anyway, MTOW alone is not the right parameter, payload-range is also very important. The people at Airbus and Boeing are not stupid, they place their models quite carefully not to directly overlap. The 787-9 and A330-900 are the only exception. The meat of the widebody market is between 260-330 pax 4000-6500nm so the fight for the orders is most fierce there. We are also a bit of spoiled to expect every new wide body frame to make 1000+ sales. The market is incredibly fragmented right now and oil price is stagnated for a while not to mention the economy slowdown.

RJMAZ wrote:

Airbus is selling a similar quantity of aircraft but makes just over half of the profit of Boeing in FY18

You do need to be a bit careful with statements like this.

On an average exchange rate in 2018 of 1.18$/E the 2018 results for the Commercial sectors of each company were:-

Boeing Commercial :- $60,700M revenue, $7,900M profit, margin 13%
Airbus Commercial :- $56,600M revenue, $5,670M profit, margin 10%

(or in Euros) Airbus Commercial :- E48,000M revenue, E4,800M profit, margin 10%

In 2018 Boeing Commercial generated 39% more profit on 7% more revenue - not surprising given the larger number of aircraft delivered, and in particular the larger number of widebodys delivered (226 vs 154)
But Airbus profits in 2019 are substantially higher than in 2018 (up by 52% in the first 3/4 of the year)

Any view on the profitability or otherwise of the A330NEO can be nothing more than speculation really.

Rgds

Looking from an Airbus perspective they'll probably balance A330's pricing over time to create a sustainable 5-7 aircraft per month cash cow, for as long as possible, make sure A350 sales are supported and the NEO is a smooth, low risk option to replace the 1500 or so A330/A340s currently in operation.

The A330NEO was given green light, when A350-800 orders / sales were moved over/ dis encouraged. The A350-900 is substantially bigger and more capable, focussed on long haul, cargo heavy markets.

Further improved versions will probably keep coming in like we have seen on the A330 over the last 20 years. New A330NEO Cargo and MRTT versions seem likely, when A330CEO production winds down.

If Airbus can achieve stabile production rate 5-7 frames per month until 2030 it is a great achievement.

It means that replacement of A330 will become a few years later then most ad least here at A.net, me incuded, has considered.

It also means that the market share of wb will not be to terrible with A350 10 per month and 330 5 per month.

I consider that b787 will be around 10 per month over time 777 around 5 per month and 767 3-4 per month giving airbus 15 per month and boeing 18-19 per month.

The future of the 787 will be just fine, many airlines replacing older planes will be ordering replacements soon. Others need to expand their meager 787 fleets. Air France needs to replace to replace older 777-200ER and only has 10 787-9. United has a 767 fleet whose average is 25 years, as an already large 787 operator more are logical. Qantas soon will have 14 787-9, they have options for dozens more many which are likely to be ordered. British Airways will almost certainly buy more 787 as will AA. AA has already placed a large second order, they still need more.

olle wrote:

It also means that the market share of wb will not be to terrible with A350 10 per month and 330 5 per month.
I consider that b787 will be around 10 per month over time 777 around 5 per month and 767 3-4 per month giving airbus 15 per month and boeing 18-19 per month.

Boeing had 179 deliveries in the first 9 months of 2019 (20 per month).
767-2C 18
767-300F 14
777-300ER 12
777F 22
787-8 4
787-9 86
787-10 23

So the B787 was 12.56 per month, 777 was 3.78 per month and 767 3.56 per month.

Isn't 10 per month kind of pessimistic?

jfk777 wrote:

The future of the 787 will be just fine, many airlines replacing older planes will be ordering replacements soon. Others need to expand their meager 787 fleets. Air France needs to replace to replace older 777-200ER and only has 10 787-9. United has a 767 fleet whose average is 25 years, as an already large 787 operator more are logical. Qantas soon will have 14 787-9, they have options for dozens more many which are likely to be ordered. British Airways will almost certainly buy more 787 as will AA. AA has already placed a large second order, they still need more.

For AF's specific case the future may be more A350-oriented (with regards to 77E replacement), they've already swapped their remaining 789's on order with KL's A350 order. BA may well go this path as well, the A359 is a more natural fit as a 77E replacement.

astuteman wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

Airbus is selling a similar quantity of aircraft but makes just over half of the profit of Boeing in FY18

You do need to be a bit careful with statements like this.

On an average exchange rate in 2018 of 1.18$/E the 2018 results for the Commercial sectors of each company were:-

Boeing Commercial :- $60,700M revenue, $7,900M profit, margin 13%
Airbus Commercial :- $56,600M revenue, $5,670M profit, margin 10%

(or in Euros) Airbus Commercial :- E48,000M revenue, E4,800M profit, margin 10%

In 2018 Boeing Commercial generated 39% more profit on 7% more revenue - not surprising given the larger number of aircraft delivered, and in particular the larger number of widebodys delivered (226 vs 154)
But Airbus profits in 2019 are substantially higher than in 2018 (up by 52% in the first 3/4 of the year)

Any view on the profitability or otherwise of the A330NEO can be nothing more than speculation really.

Rgds

Thank you for the facts which should inform the discussion going forward. But I am afraid one of either two tings will happen:
1. The facts will be ignored and the same mantra peddled.
2. The use of imprecise phrases such as "makes just over half of the profit" and selling a "similar quantity of aircraft" will be used to defend the uninformed position. It is generally agreed that aircraft OEMs make their money (the bulk of it) on delivery and not sale of an aircraft.

sabby wrote:

Anyway, MTOW alone is not the right parameter, payload-range is also very important.

I disagree, MTOW is by far the best comparison and the A330NEO is directly competing with the A350. This is unprecedented.

The A300 vs A330-800 the cabin area is within 10% but the true gap between them is huge. The A300 has less than half of the range which is explained by the A330-800 having a MTOW 35% higher.

A330-900 vs A350-900
Cabin area: 9% difference. 265/290
MTOW: 11% difference. 251/280
Range: 12.5% difference. 7200/8100

What is interesting is there is a greater difference between the A350-900 and A350-1000 than between the A330NEO.
Cabin area: 14% difference. 290/330
MTOW: 14% difference. 280/319
Range: 7.5% difference. 8100/8700

The same applies with the 787-8 and 787-9.
Cabin area: 14% difference. 232/265
MTOW: 12.5% difference. 227/254
Range: 4% difference. 7355/7635

Now look at the gap between the Boeing family.
787-10 vs 777-8.
Cabin area: 7% difference. 299/319
MTOW: 38% difference. 254/351
Range: 35% difference. 6430/8690

The 787 and 777 has massive market seperation. Between the most population models which have equal range the 787-9 and 777-9 the cabin area difference is a massive 37%.

In my opinion the A330-900NEO is a poor mans A350-900 as it is cheaper but very close in size and capability. It is devaluing the A350 program and hurting company profits. In hindsight Airbus should just have sold discounted A330CEO's to combat 787 availability. It would have done the same job. They should have concentrated on A350 ramp up and around now they should be launching the proper A330 replacement. It should have had a 20+% MTOW and range difference to create market seperation between it and the A350 family. They could have kept the A330 fuselage lengths but used a smaller carbon wing, with reduced empty weight and MTOW. Range could have remained in the original A330-300 sweet spot of 6430nm.

RJMAZ wrote:

The A300 vs A330-800 the cabin area is within 10% but the true gap between them is huge. The A300 has less than half of the range which is explained by the A330-800 having a MTOW 35% higher.

A330-900 vs A350-900
Cabin area: 9% difference. 265/290
MTOW: 11% difference. 251/280
Range: 12.5% difference. 7200/8100

What is interesting is there is a greater difference between the A350-900 and A350-1000 than between the A330NEO.
Cabin area: 14% difference. 290/330
MTOW: 14% difference. 280/319
Range: 7.5% difference. 8100/8700

The same applies with the 787-8 and 787-9.
Cabin area: 14% difference. 232/265
MTOW: 12.5% difference. 227/254
Range: 4% difference. 7355/7635

Now look at the gap between the Boeing family.
787-10 vs 777-9. (changed error in original)
Cabin area: 7% difference. 299/319
MTOW: 38% difference. 254/351
Range: 35% difference. 6430/8690

The 787 and 777 has massive market seperation. Between the most population models which have equal range the 787-9 and 777-9 the cabin area difference is a massive 37%.

I think you need to add fuel economy
B787-8 test performed 2011 243 passengers 8,610 km burn 5.38 kg/km or 2.77 L/100 km per seat
B787-9 test performed 2013 294 passengers 8,610 km burn 5.85 kg/km or 2.49 L/100 km per seat
The larger jet is carrying 21% more passengers but burning only 8.7% more fuel.
The B787-800 (425 orders) lists for 15.1% less money than the B787-900 (829 orders)

A350-900 test performed 2013 315 passengers 9,208 km 6.03 kg/km or 2.39 L/100 km per seat
A330-900 test performed 2017 300 passengers 8,610 km 5.94 kg/km or 2.48 L/100 km per seat
The larger jet is carrying 5% more passengers but burning only 1.5% more fuel.
The A330-900 (254 orders) lists for 6.6% less money than the A350-900 (737 orders)

RJMAZ wrote:

In my opinion the A330-900NEO is a poor man's A350-900 as it is cheaper but very close in size and capability. It is devaluing the A350 program and hurting company profits.

I am not sure where your insight into "poor man" comes from because the retail prices are very close. But it does seem like the sensible thing would be simply to stop taking orders for the A330neo, and once the backlog is filled just produce the A350 as there is almost no market separation in price or performance.

strfyr51 wrote:

I haven't seen nor read where they even offered an A330F to anyone in the CEO or the NEO versions.

What?

Some absolutely vintage AvsB straw man posing on this thread.

I think the A330 NEO has indeed a great year in 2019 compared to what most on this site were predicting this time last year for the 2019 prospects - ie: that the cheaper, better, lighter, more efficient, prettier, more modern etc 787 would finish the A330N and that sales would happen solely at the A350's expense and for any sensible competition at sensible prices (IE: Airbus not giving them away free) airlines would go 787.

Clearly that hasn't happened and the A330N has had a far better year than most were expecting.

But as usual it degrades into a sad AvsB slug fest exactly as these conversations did when I left A-net the first time in 2006. The arguments are the same, in fact some of the posters are the same.

The sensible discussion of a reasoned examination as to why the A330N has exceeded expectations in 2019 gets lost in the flag waving daftness. Fact is there is value to be had in that discussion - the A330N is a great plane and I'm looking forward to getting on one soon I hope.

Does anyone see any potential for the A338N to gain any more traction off the back of a better than expected (outside of Airbus no doubt) traction for the larger 900N?

It has been a good year for the A330.

The program is stabilizing, the product is better than predicted and renewed confidence in its long term existence will make operators less scared of running orphans.

I suppose, looking ahead - future outlook will depend on what Boeing does with 797/NMA/MoM and what Airbus does beyond A321XLR. An A322? Or an A310 replacement?

CHRISBA35X wrote:

Does anyone see any potential for the A338N to gain any more traction off the back of a better than expected (outside of Airbus no doubt) traction for the larger 900N?

I could imagine some 338 orders within a large 339 fleet. Such as Air Asia X taking a few 338s for long haul where 339s, of which it will have the largest global fleet, may come up a bit short. Some time ago they ordered a few 332s for this reason, but did not take them up.

It is interesting that the 2 airlines which have 338s on order so far, Kuwait and Uganda, have not ordered any 339s, so will have stand-alone fleets of 338s.

Amiga500 wrote:

It has been a good year for the A330.

The program is stabilizing, the product is better than predicted and renewed confidence in its long term existence will make operators less scared of running orphans.

I suppose, looking ahead - future outlook will depend on what Boeing does with 797/NMA/MoM and what Airbus does beyond A321XLR. An A322? Or an A310 replacement?

Uh?

I think the comment above is interesting because it is not necessarily correct.

keesje wrote:

Looking from an Airbus perspective they'll probably balance A330's pricing over time to create a sustainable 5-7 aircraft per month cash cow, for as long as possible, make sure A350 sales are supported and the NEO is a smooth, low risk option to replace the 1500 or so A330/A340s currently in operation.

Whatever...I'll hold off declaring 2019 as a great year for the A330neo until the above is certified and ordered in batches beyond the 10 frames currently on the books.

CHRISBA35X wrote:

Does anyone see any potential for the A338N to gain any more traction off the back of a better than expected (outside of Airbus no doubt) traction for the larger 900N?

Amiga500 wrote:

The program is stabilizing, the product is better than predicted and renewed confidence in its long term existence will make operators less scared of running orphans.

Perhaps Airbus would announce the A338's certification and the firming up of LOI's at DAS 2019...and maybe add a few more commitments after next week

JerseyFlyer wrote:

I could imagine some 338 orders within a large 339 fleet. Such as Air Asia X taking a few 338s for long haul where 339s, of which it will have the largest global fleet, may come up a bit short.

This is where it could be said that the A330neo is the poor man's A359.

PacoMartin wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

In my opinion the A330-900NEO is a poor man's A350-900 as it is cheaper but very close in size and capability. It is devaluing the A350 program and hurting company profits.

I am not sure where your insight into "poor man" comes from because the retail prices are very close. But it does seem like the sensible thing would be simply to stop taking orders for the A330neo, and once the backlog is filled just produce the A350 as there is almost no market separation in price or performance.

The A350 so far has been very successful. 300 A350s have been delivered, 700 on order and is sold out for many years, The A350 backlog contains almost all big 777 operators, and if the A350-1000 performance indicators are only half truth, I know where EK, LH and United are going. I foresee a carefull A350 production rate increase from 10 to 12 in 2021 or 2022.

CHRISBA35X wrote:

Does anyone see any potential for the A338N to gain any more traction off the back of a better than expected (outside of Airbus no doubt) traction for the larger 900N?

I'm not sure even Airbus is pushing for the A330-800, after the recent A330-900 range bump and the more capable A350-900 being produced at 8-9 a month. It might go the way of the A350-800, 777-8, 787-3. Even the 787-8 got only 4 ordered this year. Removing a type from the portfolio only benefits the maker if the requirement is filled in by its other types and production can be simplified.

VV wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

It has been a good year for the A330.

The program is stabilizing, the product is better than predicted and renewed confidence in its long term existence will make operators less scared of running orphans.

I suppose, looking ahead - future outlook will depend on what Boeing does with 797/NMA/MoM and what Airbus does beyond A321XLR. An A322? Or an A310 replacement?

Uh?

I think the comment above is interesting because it is not necessarily correct.

That is right Nostradamus. Not necessarily correct, but not necessarily wrong either.

Of the 3 statements made...
- the program is stabilizing. Yes - undoubtedly it is in a better position now than it was 12 months ago.
- the product is better than expected. Yes - this is absolutely true. The numbers returned from flight test brook no argument.
- confidence in long term existence. Much more subjective than objective. Can be argued either way. Another 3 or 4 years like 2019 and its long term existence will be secure. However if Boeing were to launch a NMA into the market tomorrow, then the long term confidence would undoubtedly erode.

2/3 is definitely correct and the third is very much open to interpretation. Unless you have a crystal ball then anything you state on point 3 is also very much open to interpretation.

astuteman wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I suppose we'll see EK's order mentioned by Astuteman some time not too far in the future as well.

I thought you had read the thread.

astuteman wrote:

This excludes the EK "order" for 40 frames which is not secured yet, and is rumoured NOT to be declared at DAS

Sure, I was pointing back to that post and the Cebu order to show the A330neo program has more staying power than some were suggesting.

I don't think EK will "wiggle out" of the A330neo order, it's the price being paid for "wiggling out" of the A380 orders, so it will show up in the near future.

For now STC is using the RR engine issue to give himself some breathing space, but sooner or later he'll have to get on with it.

olle wrote:

If Airbus can achieve stabile production rate 5-7 frames per month until 2030 it is a great achievement.

Thing is, Airbus targets 50/year for 2019 ( ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... at-448102/ ) which is 4.5/month if you use Airbus 11 month years or 4.2/month if you use 12 month years. It's going to take some customers being very interested in the product to go above 5/month IMO. As above, more orders from EU mainline carriers or an indication from CN that they will be using it to fill the role A330ceo fills could be the trigger points, yet Macron just came back from CN empty handed.

Boeing 767 is at 2.5/year now and 3/year in 2020 and probably not going to go up from that point, only down.

It seems Boeing is using cheap 77F as gap fillers till 77X is going full tilt along with all the 763F sales so it could be the freighter market ends up saturated for quite a while.

tommy1808 wrote:

At 315 passengers the A359 is quite a bit less dense than a 300 seat A339, 0.88 vs. 0.92m2/pax. Should be 300 vs 329 seats or 288 vs. 315.
So its 10% more pax for ~2% more fuel.

Quite possibly you are correct, but I was just quoting the actual fuel economy tests (not theoretical calculations). With a different loading it might use more than 2% more fuel.

For instance, these two tests were done with the same number of passengers, but test 2 was an additional 3000 km, so you had to burn fuel to carry fuel.
Airbus A350-900 with 315 passengers in 2013
Test 1) 9,208 km 6.03 kg/km
Test 2) 12,116 km 7.07 kg/km

===========================================
It seems remarkable that performance specs for the A330-900 and the A350-900 are so similar given the program cost was 5X as much.
A330neo program cost ($2 billion )
A350 program cost (€11 billion)
===========================================

Older models A330-200/300
Price $238.5 / $264.2
Length 58.82 / 63.67 m
MTOW 242 t
OEW 120.6 / 129.4 tonnes
Fuel capacity 139,090 L
Range 13,450 km / 11,750 km

Neo models A330-800/900
Price $259.9 / $296.4
Length 58.82 / 63.66 m
MTOW 251 tonnes
OEW 132 / 137 tonnes
Fuel capacity 139,090 L
Range 15,094 / 13,334 km

The OEW went up considerably, as much more than the MTOW.

PacoMartin wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

The A300 vs A330-800 the cabin area is within 10% but the true gap between them is huge.
I think you need to add fuel economy
B787-8 test performed 2011 243 passengers 8,610 km burn 5.38 kg/km or 2.77 L/100 km per seat
B787-9 test performed 2013 294 passengers 8,610 km burn 5.85 kg/km or 2.49 L/100 km per seat
The larger jet is carrying 21% more passengers but burning only 8.7% more fuel.
The B787-800 (425 orders) lists for 15.1% less money than the B787-900 (829 orders)

A350-900 test performed 2013 315 passengers 9,208 km 6.03 kg/km or 2.39 L/100 km per seat
A330-900 test performed 2017 300 passengers 8,610 km 5.94 kg/km or 2.48 L/100 km per seat
The larger jet is carrying 5% more passengers but burning only 1.5% more fuel.
The A330-900 (254 orders) lists for 6.6% less money than the A350-900 (737 orders)
.

Can you please provide a source or sources for these tests?

Revelation wrote:

astuteman wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I suppose we'll see EK's order mentioned by Astuteman some time not too far in the future as well.

I thought you had read the thread.

astuteman wrote:

This excludes the EK "order" for 40 frames which is not secured yet, and is rumoured NOT to be declared at DAS

Sure, I was pointing back to that post and the Cebu order to show the A330neo program has more staying power than some were suggesting..

Apologies - I completely misread your sentence - as in
"I'm sure we'll see the EK order GET mentioned by Astuteman sometime not too far in the future",
as opposed to
"I'm sure we'll see the EK order THAT Astuteman mentioned sometime not too far future...."

optical illusion ..

Rgds

DELTA seems to love their A339neos, having recently announced that they are adding 2 new leased frames and taking earlier delivery on 3 other previous orders. This brings their total to 37.

https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/new ... lanes.html

DL747400 wrote:

DELTA seems to love their A339neos, having recently announced that they are adding 2 new leased frames and taking earlier delivery on 3 other previous orders. This brings their total to 37.

https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/new ... lanes.html

Yes, DL is known as an opportunistic buyer with the opposite of "shiny jet syndrome", they are happy to use low acquisition cost and their own MX outfit to get excellent life cycle costs across their fleet.

It's noteworthy that DL held the ex-NW 787 rights for quite a while before deciding that A35x/A33x was a better way forward for them, a great boost to the program.

It's also noteworthy that CN and no airline in EU other than VS have jumped on the A338/9 bandwagon, seeing that change will be a nice boost to the program.

One has to think given current US-CN trade tensions that a CN A330neo order is inevitable, and at least one of the big EU airline groups will jump on board too.

Add that to EK's looming order, and we can see a steady volume in the future if things go well.

A330neo offers great value for money with quick delivery as a bonus, yet as above, so does used A330ceo.

Amiga500 wrote:

...


That is right Nostradamus. Not necessarily correct, but not necessarily wrong either.

Of the 3 statements made...
- the program is stabilizing. Yes - undoubtedly it is in a better position now than it was 12 months ago.
- the product is better than expected. Yes - this is absolutely true. The numbers returned from flight test brook no argument.
- confidence in long term existence. Much more subjective than objective. Can be argued either way. Another 3 or 4 years like 2019 and its long term existence will be secure. However if Boeing were to launch a NMA into the market tomorrow, then the long term confidence would undoubtedly erode.

2/3 is definitely correct and the third is very much open to interpretation. Unless you have a crystal ball then anything you state on point 3 is also very much open to interpretation.

Nope.

Point 1. The program is not stabilizing. THe only thing you can say is that it entered into service in 2018. There is nothing that indicates it has "stabilized" whatever it means.

Point 2. THere is no evidence the product is better than expected. Let's see what happens with Emirates orders.

COnfidence in long term existence is not guaranteed either.

There is absolutely nothing that supports you opinion. Nothing, nada.

VV wrote:

Point 1. The program is not stabilizing. THe only thing you can say is that it entered into service in 2018. There is nothing that indicates it has "stabilized" whatever it means.

Right. EIS and accruing a decent order book are not stabilizing. Note - I did not say "stabilized". I said stabilizing.

VV wrote:

Point 2. THere is no evidence the product is better than expected. Let's see what happens with Emirates orders.

Got a mate working on flight testing the thing. It is quite a bit better than expected.

Genuine question, how many of the original 75 odd lessor orders have been allocated operator's?

So far no customer has complained that performance promises were missed.

Revelation wrote:

It's also noteworthy that ... no airline in EU other than VS have jumped on the A338/9 bandwagon, seeing that change will be a nice boost to the program.

I'm not sure I understand you correctly. Are you perhaps forgetting TAP?

seahawk wrote:

So far no customer has complained that performance promises were missed.

Have you heard a lot of customers complaining about performance that is worse than they exêcted? It rarely happens.

When an airline publicly whine about a bad performance, usually it is bad, really bad for the program.

VV wrote:

seahawk wrote:

So far no customer has complained that performance promises were missed.

Have you heard a lot of customers complaining about performance that is worse than they exêcted? It rarely happens.

When an airline publicly whine about a bad performance, usually it is bad, really bad for the program.

One did hear pretty soon that the first 787, both GE and RR engines, did not match specs. Engine PIPs did take care of that, but it was hardly a secret.

So according to your argument it was really bad. I would have said slightly off.

Indeed, as some have mentioned, too much A vs B tripe.

The reality is that the 330neo is doing fairly well. The engine delay cost them but that is history. No one knows "real" prices paid, but development must have been relatively inexpensive. Compared to the massive A380 and 748 mistakes, A330neo seems like a prudent use of company resources to me, a solid gamble. It is unfortunate that it is competing against Boeing's only good product.

Imho, the lever around which this program turns is the freighter. If they could get 200ish neo freighter orders, that really makes the neo program a winner. And Boeing offers no 787 freighter.

PM wrote:

Revelation wrote:

It's also noteworthy that ... no airline in EU other than VS have jumped on the A338/9 bandwagon, seeing that change will be a nice boost to the program.

I'm not sure I understand you correctly. Are you perhaps forgetting TAP?

Orders
35 North America (Delta)
18 Europe (TAP and VS)
96 Asia
4 Africa
42 Middle East
77 Lease companies and undisclosed
272 total A330neo orders both variants

fcogafa wrote:

Genuine question, how many of the original 75 odd lessor orders have been allocated operator's?

The 18 deliveries to leasing companies so far have been distributed as follows
9 TAP AIR PORTUGAL
1 HI FLY PORTUGAL (none on order to purchase)
2 AZUL BRAZIL (none on order to purchase)
2 AIR MAURITIUS (none on order to purchase)
2 AIRASIA X MALAYSIA
2 LION AIR INDONESIA
18

mjoelnir wrote:

VV wrote:

seahawk wrote:

So far no customer has complained that performance promises were missed.

Have you heard a lot of customers complaining about performance that is worse than they exêcted? It rarely happens.

When an airline publicly whine about a bad performance, usually it is bad, really bad for the program.

One did hear pretty soon that the first 787, both GE and RR engines, did not match specs. Engine PIPs did take care of that, but it was hardly a secret.

So according to your argument it was really bad. I would have said slightly off.

Perhap the early 787 indeed missed the spec, most probably it was "slightly" off and then there has been some kind of improvement on the engines.

On the A330neo, if it is badly off the spec then it has to be on the airframe side because the engine is just a derivative of the Trent 1000.

I cannot be 100% sure that the aircraft is "better than expected" as affirmed by a poster earlier. I do not believe one second it can be the case. At best it is at spec. It is the best thing that can happen for this derivative aircraft.

So you would easily believe it is worse than spec, but think it is impossible it could be better?

SteelChair wrote:

Indeed, as some have mentioned, too much A vs B tripe.

The reality is that the 330neo is doing fairly well. The engine delay cost them but that is history. No one knows "real" prices paid, but development must have been relatively inexpensive. Compared to the massive A380 and 748 mistakes, A330neo seems like a prudent use of company resources to me, a solid gamble. It is unfortunate that it is competing against Boeing's only good product.

Imho, the lever around which this program turns is the freighter. If they could get 200ish neo freighter orders, that really makes the neo program a winner. And Boeing offers no 787 freighter.

Let see it this way. I fully agree the A330 is a good aircraft and A330neo is an even better aircraft. It is doing about right with 272 orders until end of October 2019 of which 33 have been delivered.

However, from that point it is quite a stretch to state firmly than A330neo will do great in the future. It is not because suddenly the aircraft becomes bad, but because its competitive environment becomes extremely difficult with the effort to sell more A350 and also Boeing's extra effort to sell 787-9 and 787-10.

It will even be more difficult for the A330-800 because of the arrival of A330-200, A330-300 and 787-8 at the end of their lease term and/or resale.

That's life.

seahawk wrote:

So you would easily believe it is worse than spec, but think it is impossible it could be better?

Absolutely.

And it is not because it is A330neo.