PacoMartin wrote:

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

I counted 14 more lease placements that are still have to be delivered.

TAP - 4
Delta - 2
Hi Fly - 1
Corsair - 5
Azul - 2

There are probably more, but this is already 32 out of the 59 on order by leasing companies excluding the new GECAS order. So at least half of the existing leasing orders have already been placed.

VV wrote:

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.

1. Do you realise that the first and second sentence quoted above are almost self-contradictory?
2. How can you be so sure the aircraft can't beat spec? It happens fairly commonly in aircraft development.
3. Derivative aircraft can be very successful-cases in point 77W and A321neo.

We don't know if operators are happy with the A330NEO. We know orders are coming in and Delta is speeding up deliveries, after flying them for some time. Delta claims Trent 7000 engines produce 25% lower fuel burn than previous generation aircraft. That is not a bad sign IMO. https://simpleflying.com/delta-a330-neo/

Remarkably (or not) Delta intensivey uses their A330NEO's to Asia destinations, not replacing existing A330 CEO's & 767's Transatlantic, but complementing A350s and 777s on the Pacific.

Cerecl wrote:

VV wrote:

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.

1. Do you realise that the first and second sentence quoted above are almost self-contradictory?
2. How can you be so sure the aircraft can't beat spec? It happens fairly commonly in aircraft development.
3. Derivative aircraft can be very successful-cases in point 77W and A321neo.

Point 1: it really depends on the case.
Point 2: LOL
Point 3: it does not mean those aircraft met the spec

VV wrote:

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.

The tell of a fanboy always sounds too much like "But some of my best friends are gay"

VV wrote:

It is doing about right with 272 orders until end of October 2019 of which 33 have been delivered.

Which aircraft are not doing about right?

VV wrote:

However, from that point it is quite a stretch to state firmly than A330neo will do great in the future.

It is a stretch to say it will do great in the future, without suitable evidence, it is also a stretch to say it will do badly (without suitable evidence), it is also a stretch to say it will do about OK in the future (without suitable evidence). Do you see the pattern and see what you are missing?

VV wrote:

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.

Airbus are not capable of extra effort?

VV wrote:

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.

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

Fred

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?

PacoMartin wrote:

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

My mistake, thanks for the corrections.

keesje wrote:

Delta claims Trent 7000 engines produce 25% lower fuel burn than previous generation aircraft. That is not a bad sign IMO. https://simpleflying.com/delta-a330-neo/

It should be clarified that 25% improvement is per seat, and versus the 767 and 77E (almost certainly at 9Y) and not the A333 (although Airbus wouldn’t mind if you thought that) where it is closer to 15% with the airspace cabin (that allows for slightly more seats).

VV wrote:

Point 1: it really depends on the case.
Point 2: LOL
Point 3: it does not mean those aircraft met the spec

1. No it doesn't really. Not to turn it into an argument about accuracy of expression, but first sentence means you are not sure, second sentence means you are sure not. They can't be both right.
2. Most useful contribution I saw a member making on this forum for some time.
3. Not meeting spec must be why Airbus only sold more than 3000 of the A321neo. Also are we really questioning 77W beating spec??

VV wrote:

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.

Thanks for letting people know why it isn't, it would be enlightening if you could elaborate on why you think it to be the case with suitable evidence. Of course you'll realise that an argument without evidence can be dismissed without evidence and will likely be treated as dogma until such time as evidence is forthcoming.

Fred

flipdewaf wrote:

...Fred

Well, I really like your optimism on the A330neo.

I repeat that A330 is a good aircraft and A330neo is better.
However, the reality is that it is not alone in the market place. One of the difficulties is obviously the presence of the A350-900.

The second difficulty is the A330-300 because some of them will come to the end of the lease term and some are being remarketed for sale.
THe version that will suffer most because of the second hand A330-300 is obviously A330-800.

The third difficulty is the arrival of some early 787-8 and 787-9 into the second hand market during the next four years. Those aircraft have GEnx or Trent 1000 engines that are more or less the same generation as the Trent 7000. There is a reason why Boeing is pushing the sales of 787-10.

The next difficulty is the 787 in general. The GEnx with PIP and the Trent 1000 TEN are being delivered today.

I am just sayin that A330neo as an aircraft is doing alright, but in the market place it will face a very strong headwind, due to both Airbus product(s) and Boeing's.

All of you can keep your optimism on the program. That's fine for me, but I think there is nothing that guarantee a bright future for the program.

PacoMartin wrote:

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

Just a small correction - AirAsia X Thailand received two from Avolon. These are direct leases by them and not via AirAsia X Malaysia.

VV wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

...Fred

Well, I really like your optimism on the A330neo.

Another tell of the fanboy is the assumption that because I challenge your assertions that I must disagree with your premise.

VV wrote:

I repeat that A330 is a good aircraft and A330neo is better.
However, the reality is that it is not alone in the market place.

So why are you singling out the A330NEO? I would surely be a logical inconsistency for it to be the only one not alone?

VV wrote:

One of the difficulties is obviously the presence of the A350-900.

As it is to all the other incumbents.

VV wrote:

The second difficulty is the A330-300 because some of them will come to the end of the lease term and some are being remarketed for sale.
THe version that will suffer most because of the second hand A330-300 is obviously A330-800.

Obviously? I'm not so sure its obvious. Can you enlighten?

VV wrote:

The third difficulty is the arrival of some early 787-8 and 787-9 into the second hand market during the next four years. Those aircraft have GEnx or Trent 1000 engines that are more or less the same generation as the Trent 7000. There is a reason why Boeing is pushing the sales of 787-10.

Why is this the difficulty for the A330NEO but not the 787 program?

VV wrote:

The next difficulty is the 787 in general. The GEnx with PIP and the Trent 1000 TEN are being delivered today.

So is the A330NEO

VV wrote:

I am just sayin that A330neo as an aircraft is doing alright, but in the market place it will face a very strong headwind, due to both Airbus product(s) and Boeing's.

So you are saying that the market that the A330NEO finds itself in is a difficult one? Sounds like its doing a stellar job then seeing as its orders increased no?

VV wrote:

All of you can keep your optimism on the program. That's fine for me, but I think there is nothing that guarantee a bright future for the program.

Nor is there for any program...

VV wrote:

All of you can keep your optimism on the program. That's fine for me, but I think there is nothing that guarantee a bright future for the program.

That's fine, nothing guarantees a bright future for any program. A330 is moving along at 4.5/month now and there is a good enough backlog to see the program forward several more years even with no new orders. Decisions will have to be made by many players in the near future. Sure, cheap A330ceo is good for some carriers but others only buy new. As mentioned CN and EU Big 3 groups are on the sidelines, any one of them coming in is a potential big win, EK deal is looming. DL is happily buying when the price is right, IMO others will join over time.

flipdewaf wrote:

VV wrote:

The second difficulty is the A330-300 because some of them will come to the end of the lease term and some are being remarketed for sale.
THe version that will suffer most because of the second hand A330-300 is obviously A330-800.

Obviously? I'm not so sure its obvious. Can you enlighten

Makes me wonder what stage lenght the A332 are being deployed on these days? When they where bought they where clearly bought for range, but today?
All cheap used A333 coming of their 10 to 12 year leases will be 233t or less MTOW and hardly a match for old A332 on range, not even close. Those that come close won't be available used before 2025....

Best regards
Thomas

Revelation wrote:

VV wrote:

All of you can keep your optimism on the program. That's fine for me, but I think there is nothing that guarantee a bright future for the program.

That's fine, nothing guarantees a bright future for any program. A330 is moving along at 4.5/month now and there is a good enough backlog to see the program forward several more years even with no new orders. Decisions will have to be made by many players in the near future. Sure, cheap A330ceo is good for some carriers but others only buy new. As mentioned CN and EU Big 3 groups are on the sidelines, any one of them coming in is a potential big win, EK deal is looming. DL is happily buying when the price is right, IMO others will join over time.

Your statement is based on current situation and perhaps past orders since A330neo launch in 2014. It is true that things look to be okay so far and the delivery rate is at 4.5 per month or whatever it is.

I repeat again that A330-300 (and A330-200) were selling like crazy during the delays of the 787. Keep this fact in mind.
A lot of those aircraft were sold to leasing companies or are now owned by leasing companies. Many of those aircraft are coming to the end of the first term of lease and will enter into the second lease or even second hand sales market.

The flow of A330-300 that are getting into placement is just impressive. There are a lot of A330 offered in the market. I already mentioned that in some cases you can lease a relatively young A330-300 at as low as 250,000 US dollars per month when it should have been at about 500,000 US dollars per month. It is crazy.

The situation is exacerbated by the fact fuel price remains low.

The reality is that the A330neo's range capability is nice, but most of those A330ceo do not fly long distances and they are largely enough. When you compare the efficiency on PER SEAT basis of an A330-300 and an A330-800, the numbers are relatively close. Obviously the A330-300 cannot fly as far as A330-800 can do, but many airlines do not care.

In other words, in my opinion A330-800 will not have great success. It is curious why Airbus is still putting so much effort on this version because its future is uncertain.

On the A330-900, the situation is slightly different. It is somehow quite close to the A350-900 and the 787-9. There are possibilities the choice has to be made by Airbus to favor the A350-900 against the A330-900. It is not so obvious to understand, but the pricing of the A330-900 has to be quite compelling to attract airlines. How low can Airbus go? I do not know.

It really is not about the aircraft, but about the market in general. There are simply too many offers in that segment.

Obviously, you will say the threat of A330-300 applies to 787 too. Well, yes in some sort, but an A330 operator may be more interested to grow using other A330, albeit a young second hand one instead of taking a new aircraft be it A330neo or 787.

Think about this again calmly. We will hear a lot about the A330 in the next two years.

VV wrote:

The second difficulty is the A330-300 because some of them will come to the end of the lease term and some are being remarketed for sale.
THe version that will suffer most because of the second hand A330-300 is obviously A330-800.

The A330-800 should actually be the least effected frame in regards to availability of used A330ceo. The main advantage to the A330-800 is range, outranging the 787-9.
If you need range in the smallest least expensive wide body on sale, the A330-800 251t is your animal.

If you do not need range, but still want a rather inexpensive wide body, you can take a A330-800 with reduced MTOW or exactly any used A330ceo.

mjoelnir wrote:

VV wrote:

The second difficulty is the A330-300 because some of them will come to the end of the lease term and some are being remarketed for sale.
THe version that will suffer most because of the second hand A330-300 is obviously A330-800.

The A330-800 should actually be the least effected frame in regards to availability of used A330ceo. The main advantage to the A330-800 is range, outranging the 787-9.
If you need range in the smallest least expensive wide body on sale, the A330-800 251t is your animal.

If you do not need range, but still want a rather inexpensive wide body, you can take a A330-800 with reduced MTOW or exactly any used A330ceo.

The interesting thing is that if you need the range usually you also want a little bit more passengers. It means the A350-900 becomes a valid answer for your need.

I understand the situation is very dynamic and it may not be very simple, but in my opinion the huge sales success of the A330-300 can become an issue for the A330neo.

I know it is not very obvious, but I am quite certain we will hear more and more about A330-300 and also about A330neo during the next two years, that's when the tsunami of second lease A330-300 will begin.

VV wrote:

In other words, in my opinion A330-800 will not have great success. It is curious why Airbus is still putting so much effort on this version because its future is uncertain.

They are looking ahead to KC-Y.

Probably won't win it due to internal US politics (especially given the current WTO legals), but that doesn't stop internal budgets being committed "in case".

Amiga500 wrote:

VV wrote:

In other words, in my opinion A330-800 will not have great success. It is curious why Airbus is still putting so much effort on this version because its future is uncertain.

They are looking ahead to KC-Y.

Probably won't win it due to internal US politics (especially given the current WTO legals), but that doesn't stop internal budgets being committed "in case".

I thought they already decided to go with autonomous refueling vehicles.

In reqlity they do not need the personnel transport capability anymore.

It's so much cheaper to wet lease commercial aircraft instead of having a fleet of transport aircraft

VV wrote:

I thought they already decided to go with autonomous refueling vehicles.

In reqlity they do not need the personnel transport capability anymore.

It's so much cheaper to wet lease commercial aircraft instead of having a fleet of transport aircraft

This is the USAF you are talking about.

Dreamers and deluded generals are par for the course.

KC-Z won't happen within the next 50 years, if ever. It is total pie in the sky stuff. When they are struggling to fund LRS-B to replace all 20 of their B-2s, a stealthy missile firing tanker that will never be let near a hostile environment as it would be so hideously expensive will never get funding from Congress.

In reality you do not need to believe me nor do you need to understand what I write because I am only trying to describe things that would happen in the coming years from my personal view.

It is an option about the near future. There is not any "right or wrong" as yet.

The reality will unfold before our eyes year after year.

As for qualifying 2019 as a "great year" for any aircraft is a dumb thing in my opinion.

VV wrote:

In reality you do not need to believe me nor do you need to understand what I write because I am only trying to describe things that would happen in the coming years from my personal view.

It is an option about the near future. There is not any "right or wrong" as yet.

The reality will unfold before our eyes year after year.

As for qualifying 2019 as a "great year" for any aircraft is a dumb thing in my opinion.

900 net orders for the A321NEO might suggest otherwise .....

Rgds

astuteman wrote:

VV wrote:

In reality you do not need to believe me nor do you need to understand what I write because I am only trying to describe things that would happen in the coming years from my personal view.

It is an option about the near future. There is not any "right or wrong" as yet.

The reality will unfold before our eyes year after year.

As for qualifying 2019 as a "great year" for any aircraft is a dumb thing in my opinion.

900 net orders for the A321NEO might suggest otherwise .....

Rgds

No

Not until they are actually delivered.

VV wrote:

astuteman wrote:

VV wrote:

In reality you do not need to believe me nor do you need to understand what I write because I am only trying to describe things that would happen in the coming years from my personal view.

It is an option about the near future. There is not any "right or wrong" as yet.

The reality will unfold before our eyes year after year.

As for qualifying 2019 as a "great year" for any aircraft is a dumb thing in my opinion.

900 net orders for the A321NEO might suggest otherwise .....

Rgds

No

Not until they are actually delivered.

Well that is an opinion, I guess. And you are welcome to it ….

Rgds

keesje wrote:

We don't know if operators are happy with the A330NEO. We know orders are coming in and Delta is speeding up deliveries, after flying them for some time. Delta claims Trent 7000 engines produce 25% lower fuel burn than previous generation aircraft. That is not a bad sign IMO. https://simpleflying.com/delta-a330-neo/

Remarkably (or not) Delta intensivey uses their A330NEO's to Asia destinations, not replacing existing A330 CEO's & 767's Transatlantic, but complementing A350s and 777s on the Pacific.

I used to fly a lot SEA to Guam vis NRT, also to NRT for Japan, Hong Kong, and Shanghai on Delta 2008 to 2015. Nearly every flight was an A330, occasional 767 sub.

The 330 seems perfect for Delta, the only issue was their video system was just crap back then, a 1/3 of the flights mine with inop.

I expect the 330 to keep the line going for a decade or more, 50 to 60 per year.

majano wrote:

MountainFlyer wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Where was there any mention or even speculation that this trend would affect A330neo sales and not 787 sales?

Look at the 4th paragraph of the post mjoelnir responded to. That particular paragraph clearly isolates the a330neo in relation to second hand a330ceos and 787-8.

How so? We're discussing the A330neo, the subject of this thread, hence no mention of the 787 sales in the comment. The comparison is only imagined by some.

MountainFlyer wrote:

majano wrote:

MountainFlyer wrote:

Where was there any mention or even speculation that this trend would affect A330neo sales and not 787 sales?

Look at the 4th paragraph of the post mjoelnir responded to. That particular paragraph clearly isolates the a330neo in relation to second hand a330ceos and 787-8.

How so? We're discussing the A330neo, the subject of this thread, hence no mention of the 787 sales in the comment. The comparison is only imagined by some.

I answered your original question and VV affirmed that position clearly in subsequent posts. If you are now arguing that the 787 should not be discussed at all because the thread title doesn't mention the type, I am afraid that ship has long since sailed.

majano wrote:

MountainFlyer wrote:

majano wrote:

Look at the 4th paragraph of the post mjoelnir responded to. That particular paragraph clearly isolates the a330neo in relation to second hand a330ceos and 787-8.

How so? We're discussing the A330neo, the subject of this thread, hence no mention of the 787 sales in the comment. The comparison is only imagined by some.

I answered your original question and VV affirmed that position clearly in subsequent posts. If you are now arguing that the 787 should not be discussed at all because the thread title doesn't mention the type, I am afraid that ship has long since sailed.

It seems that the low priced 787, 333, 777w etc comes to an end. Therefore the low sales 2019. For me the big exceptions is 321 and the coming back from death experience of the 330 neo.

It seems like finally Airbus has got its house in order with 220, 320, 330 and 350 series. The weak spot in this setup is the 330 series and I can imagine that Airbus has put a lot of effort to get this back on track.

If 350 get a bigger version in a few years it actually has a nice product line.

olle wrote:

...
It seems that the low priced 787, 333, 777w etc comes to an end. Therefore the low sales 2019. For me the big exceptions is 321 and the coming back from death experience of the 330 neo.
...

As far as "low priced" 787, A330-300 or 777-300ER are concerned, the issue today is the young second hand aircraft.

You may have noticed the A330-300 sold very well during the last tent years. There is a wave of end-of-lease aircraft that are entering the second lease term and:or being offered in the market.
There are also relatively young 777-300ER in the same case as well as the first 787.

Unfortunately fuel prices are still relatively low. If crude oil price does not go up to 80 dollars per barrel or more there is not any incentive for airlines to order more efficient aircraft, unless it is significantly more efficient.

Let us take the case of A330-800. The overall DOC on per seat basis of a used A330-300 against the A330-800 may not be good for the latter. In other words, only the A330-900 will be able to compete against second-hand A330-300. Not everyone needs the range capability of the A330-800.

So, people need to think about this a little bit more in depth. It is a quite complex situation.

Net 7 new order from Avolon

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... re-462250/

VV wrote:

olle wrote:

...
It seems that the low priced 787, 333, 777w etc comes to an end. Therefore the low sales 2019. For me the big exceptions is 321 and the coming back from death experience of the 330 neo.
...

As far as "low priced" 787, A330-300 or 777-300ER are concerned, the issue today is the young second hand aircraft.

You may have noticed the A330-300 sold very well during the last tent years.

Most of it being 233 and 235t MTOW types...not really what fills the roll of a 251t A339.

Best regards
Thomas

[quote="VV”]

It's so much cheaper to wet lease commercial aircraft instead of having a fleet of transport aircraft[/quote]

AirTanker have a funny workaround for that, when their RAF A330’s aren’t needed as transports they are wet leased to bucket and spade airlines as commercial airliners.

[*]

tommy1808 wrote:

VV wrote:

As far as "low priced" 787, A330-300 or 777-300ER are concerned, the issue today is the young second hand aircraft.

You may have noticed the A330-300 sold very well during the last tent years.

Most of it being 233 and 235t MTOW types...not really what fills the roll of a 251t A339.

That is exactly the issue. The A330-900 are pushed into roles that was initially intended for A350-900. It concerns the longer routes.

The vast majority of airlines are very happy with the 230 tonne or even 233 tonne version of the A330-300 and it is exactly why it was selling well.

So, many airlines are interested by the young second hand A330-300 instead of taking the step to by new and more expensive A330-900 neo. The situation is even worse for the A330-800 as previously discussed.

I have absolutely no doubt there is a very strong pressure in term of pricing or lease rate for the A330-900 due to the presence ofyoung second hand A330-300.

I am just telling what I think or my opinion. You are not obliged to believe me because I expect the situation to happen next year and the three following years.

VV wrote:

olle wrote:

...
It seems that the low priced 787, 333, 777w etc comes to an end. Therefore the low sales 2019. For me the big exceptions is 321 and the coming back from death experience of the 330 neo.
...

As far as "low priced" 787, A330-300 or 777-300ER are concerned, the issue today is the young second hand aircraft.

You may have noticed the A330-300 sold very well during the last tent years. There is a wave of end-of-lease aircraft that are entering the second lease term and:or being offered in the market.
There are also relatively young 777-300ER in the same case as well as the first 787.

Unfortunately fuel prices are still relatively low. If crude oil price does not go up to 80 dollars per barrel or more there is not any incentive for airlines to order more efficient aircraft, unless it is significantly more efficient.

Let us take the case of A330-800. The overall DOC on per seat basis of a used A330-300 against the A330-800 may not be good for the latter. In other words, only the A330-900 will be able to compete against second-hand A330-300. Not everyone needs the range capability of the A330-800.

So, people need to think about this a little bit more in depth. It is a quite complex situation.

It is just that against all your negativity, the A330neo is on a roll this year. Yes we can not expect order numbers for the A330 like many expect for the 787, but a year were we see an increase in backlog, more orders than deliveries, while holding the production rate is a good year.
31 A330neo have been delivered so far this year and the orders for this year stand at 50. And now Avolon increases it's orders by 7, they are sold out with their earlier orders. We are still waiting for Emirates to confirm 40, but even without that the order to delivery rate for the A330neo will be better than 1 to 1.

We still have to see a year, apart from the first order rush, where the 787 gets more orders than frames are delivered. This year the 787 has 43 orders so far against 130 deliveries. Even a 40 frame order from Emirates will not bring the order delivery rate for the 787 to 1 against 1.

So the production rate for the A330neo does match the order rate, the production rate for the 787 does not.

tommy1808 wrote:

VV wrote:

olle wrote:

...
It seems that the low priced 787, 333, 777w etc comes to an end. Therefore the low sales 2019. For me the big exceptions is 321 and the coming back from death experience of the 330 neo.
...

As far as "low priced" 787, A330-300 or 777-300ER are concerned, the issue today is the young second hand aircraft.

You may have noticed the A330-300 sold very well during the last tent years.

Most of it being 233 and 235t MTOW types...not really what fills the roll of a 251t A339.

Best regards
Thomas

Of course many routes do not need the 251t. The 300 is fine for the atlantic, inter asia routes and many other. What remains is that is is more flexable if you have an aircraft that can do them all.

tvh wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

VV wrote:

As far as "low priced" 787, A330-300 or 777-300ER are concerned, the issue today is the young second hand aircraft.

You may have noticed the A330-300 sold very well during the last tent years.

Most of it being 233 and 235t MTOW types...not really what fills the roll of a 251t A339.

Best regards
Thomas

Of course many routes do not need the 251t. The 300 is fine for the atlantic, inter asia routes and many other. What remains is that is is more flexable if you have an aircraft that can do them all.

There are some 600+ A330-200 in use out there. Most of them bought for range. The A330-900 251t could be a good replacement.

mjoelnir wrote:

...

It is just that against all your negativity, the A330neo is on a roll this year. Yes we can not expect order numbers for the A330 like many expect for the 787, but a year were we see an increase in backlog, more orders than deliveries, while holding the production rate is a good year.
31 A330neo have been delivered so far this year and the orders for this year stand at 50. And now Avolon increases it's orders by 7, they are sold out with their earlier orders. We are still waiting for Emirates to confirm 40, but even without that the order to delivery rate for the A330neo will be better than 1 to 1.

We still have to see a year, apart from the first order rush, where the 787 gets more orders than frames are delivered. This year the 787 has 43 orders so far against 130 deliveries. Even a 40 frame order from Emirates will not bring the order delivery rate for the 787 to 1 against 1.

So the production rate for the A330neo does match the order rate, the production rate for the 787 does not.

No, it is not a negativity. It is just the reality. I am trying to tell the situation as I perceive it.

I have been labeled as an Airbus basher. I am NOT. I just tell the story with a different angle. I was considered as "bad guy" about the A380, but was only telling my worries about the aircraft. Not because it was a bad one, but because the market is not big enough.

Now, on the A330neo, the situation is different, but I see a huge threat that many people do not want to consider.

Is there a threat for Boeing's aircraft? May be so, but I do not see an obvious one so far. Not even on the 737 MAX because it will return into service next year and things will go back to normal. People have short memory. In two years nothing of the brouhaha of today will be remembered by the general public.

However, long term trend of the market is real. The trend is that there will be a lot of young second hand A330-300 coming into the market.

Again, I do not expect you to believe, but please follow the news in the next three years on A330.

tvh wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

VV wrote:

As far as "low priced" 787, A330-300 or 777-300ER are concerned, the issue today is the young second hand aircraft.

You may have noticed the A330-300 sold very well during the last tent years.

Most of it being 233 and 235t MTOW types...not really what fills the roll of a 251t A339.

Best regards
Thomas

Of course many routes do not need the 251t. The 300 is fine for the atlantic, inter asia routes and many other. What remains is that is is more flexable if you have an aircraft that can do them all.

Correct, and that is what we see with A330NEO operators today.

Additionally higher MTOW over a A330CEO
- improves rest value (cargo conversions) in 20 yrs
- creates additional payload opportunity during its life time.

Delta: https://asiacargobuzz.com/2018/11/19/de ... 900-order/
Virgin: https://asiacargobuzz.com/2019/06/18/vi ... sts-cargo/

VV wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

...

It is just that against all your negativity, the A330neo is on a roll this year. Yes we can not expect order numbers for the A330 like many expect for the 787, but a year were we see an increase in backlog, more orders than deliveries, while holding the production rate is a good year.
31 A330neo have been delivered so far this year and the orders for this year stand at 50. And now Avolon increases it's orders by 7, they are sold out with their earlier orders. We are still waiting for Emirates to confirm 40, but even without that the order to delivery rate for the A330neo will be better than 1 to 1.

We still have to see a year, apart from the first order rush, where the 787 gets more orders than frames are delivered. This year the 787 has 43 orders so far against 130 deliveries. Even a 40 frame order from Emirates will not bring the order delivery rate for the 787 to 1 against 1.

So the production rate for the A330neo does match the order rate, the production rate for the 787 does not.

No, it is not a negativity. It is just the reality. I am trying to tell the situation as I perceive it.

I have been labeled as an Airbus basher. I am NOT. I just tell the story with a different angle. I was considered as "bad guy" about the A380, but was only telling my worries about the aircraft. Not because it was a bad one, but because the market is not big enough.

Now, on the A330neo, the situation is different, but I see a huge threat that many people do not want to consider.

Is there a threat for Boeing's aircraft? May be so, but I do not see an obvious one so far. Not even on the 737 MAX because it will return into service next year and things will go back to normal. People have short memory. In two years nothing of the brouhaha of today will be remembered by the general public.

However, long term trend of the market is real. The trend is that there will be a lot of young second hand A330-300 coming into the market.

Again, I do not expect you to believe, but please follow the news in the next three years on A330.

The long term trend for the A330 family is, that it sells pretty well. It was a short term trend, 2017 and 2018, posters were pointing to when talking about the A330 being in trouble.

The long term trend for the 787, the last 10 years, is that it sells hardly better than the A330 and the excuse of long delivery times do not apply any longer. The backlog for the 787 covers at next year's lowered production rate not even 4 years.

There should be no need for any comparisons with the 787. The A330 neo was developed at a fraction of the cost and there are no deferred production costs to carry with the program.

The A330 Neo will be a steady seller - just like its predecessor in the past decade. Airbus just has to decide if it should raise the production rate if more sales mean longer delivery lead times.

flee wrote:

There should be no need for any comparisons with the 787. The A330 neo was developed at a fraction of the cost and there are no deferred production costs to carry with the program.

The A330 Neo will be a steady seller - just like its predecessor in the past decade. Airbus just has to decide if it should raise the production rate if more sales mean longer delivery lead times.

The challenge is that for the majority of airlines who are in the market for A330s, is that there are two choices:
1. Lease/finance an A330neo, which is a 10-15+ year commitment for (~800k/month for leasing/equivalent for financing), with fairly stringent return conditions, as well as deal with potential delivery delays and engine issues that inevitably come with a new aircraft.
2. Put out an RFP saying they want (or will extend existing) A330s , and get bombarded with emails and calls from lessors and banks desperately offering good condition 2012-14 manufactured A330ceos for:
- 400k/month (if that high)
- 6Y lease/commitment (if that high)
- generous options and return conditions.

For smaller/ start-up airlines with limited finances and track records, the latter option is a very tempting offer against coughing up cash for brand new widebodies.

VV wrote:

So, people need to think about this a little bit more in depth. It is a quite complex situation.

cogito, ergo sum!

"While other knowledge could be a figment of imagination, deception, or mistake, Descartes asserted that the very act of doubting one's own existence served—at minimum—as proof of the reality of one's own mind; there must be a thinking entity—in this case the self—for there to be a thought."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum

Really deep stuff, isn't it?

The most interesting point about the A330neo is the fact it's biggest threat does not come from any other aircraft manufacturer but from relatively young fleet of A330-300 with MTOW of 230 tonnes and above.

Those aircraft will come out from the first lease term and are entering the second hand market soon.

There are more and more relatively young A330-300 on offer in the market. It's lease rate is undergoing significant pressure..

When an airline compares the overall cost, including the ownership cost, on per seat basis the A330-800 is worse than a relatively young A330-300.

The only way to show better cost on per seat basis of the A330-800 compared to a young second hand A330-300 is to show much higher seat count on the A330-800. This solution is obvious, but would airlines accept it?

There's nothing wrong with the A330neo, but the A330-300 is a good aircraft even as second hand one.

I know you guys don't want to believe me. That's find for me because I do not have the intention nor the mean to buy an A330neo and this is just my opinion.

I am just trying to say what I think would be the greatest threat to the A330neo and more specifically on the A330-800.

VV wrote:

The most interesting point about the A330neo is the fact it's biggest threat does not come from any other aircraft manufacturer but from relatively young fleet of A330-300 with MTOW of 230 tonnes and above.

Those aircraft will come out from the first lease term and are entering the second hand market soon.

There are more and more relatively young A330-300 on offer in the market. It's lease rate is undergoing significant pressure..

When an airline compares the overall cost, including the ownership cost, on per seat basis the A330-800 is worse than a relatively young A330-300.

The only way to show better cost on per seat basis of the A330-800 compared to a young second hand A330-300 is to show much higher seat count on the A330-800. This solution is obvious, but would airlines accept it?

There's nothing wrong with the A330neo, but the A330-300 is a good aircraft even as second hand one.

I know you guys don't want to believe me. That's find for me because I do not have the intention nor the mean to buy an A330neo and this is just my opinion.

I am just trying to say what I think would be the greatest threat to the A330neo and more specifically on the A330-800.

Those second hand A330s is similar "threat" to widebody market overall, it's not just A330neo. Similarly you can ask why pay 1 million$ for 787 if you can get second hand A330 for 300 000$? I think most people understand why some Airlines rent or buy new and others rent or buy second hand.

armchairceonr1 wrote:

VV wrote:

The most interesting point about the A330neo is the fact it's biggest threat does not come from any other aircraft manufacturer but from relatively young fleet of A330-300 with MTOW of 230 tonnes and above.

Those aircraft will come out from the first lease term and are entering the second hand market soon.

There are more and more relatively young A330-300 on offer in the market. It's lease rate is undergoing significant pressure..

When an airline compares the overall cost, including the ownership cost, on per seat basis the A330-800 is worse than a relatively young A330-300.

The only way to show better cost on per seat basis of the A330-800 compared to a young second hand A330-300 is to show much higher seat count on the A330-800. This solution is obvious, but would airlines accept it?

There's nothing wrong with the A330neo, but the A330-300 is a good aircraft even as second hand one.

I know you guys don't want to believe me. That's find for me because I do not have the intention nor the mean to buy an A330neo and this is just my opinion.

I am just trying to say what I think would be the greatest threat to the A330neo and more specifically on the A330-800.

Those second hand A330s is similar "threat" to widebody market overall, it's not just A330neo. Similarly you can ask why pay 1 million$ for 787 if you can get second hand A330 for 300 000$? I think most people understand why some airlines buy new and others uy second hand.

Bizarrely it is more a threat to A330neo than to any other aircraft just because the young second hand A330-300 and A330neo are very similar.. Any A330 operator would consider taking a young second hand A330-300 for its growth.

Obviously, an A330 operator would not evaluate a 787 unless the benefit is compelling enough like 787-10. Even then, it would be too expensive.

Basically, A330neo is competing against its own older sibling. This is a very interesting situation.

So what is replacing those a330s coming off lease? Either these airlines are shrinking, either they get new airplanes.

Dupli wrote:

So what is replacing those a330s coming off lease? Either these airlines are shrinking, either they get new airplanes.

Guess what?

Airlines like Qatar or Singapore airlines are taking a lot of A350, 787-9/-10 because they are growing too.


So, what was your question?

JustSomeDood wrote:

flee wrote:

There should be no need for any comparisons with the 787. The A330 neo was developed at a fraction of the cost and there are no deferred production costs to carry with the program.

The A330 Neo will be a steady seller - just like its predecessor in the past decade. Airbus just has to decide if it should raise the production rate if more sales mean longer delivery lead times.

The challenge is that for the majority of airlines who are in the market for A330s, is that there are two choices:
1. Lease/finance an A330neo, which is a 10-15+ year commitment for (~800k/month for leasing/equivalent for financing), with fairly stringent return conditions, as well as deal with potential delivery delays and engine issues that inevitably come with a new aircraft.
2. Put out an RFP saying they want (or will extend existing) A330s , and get bombarded with emails and calls from lessors and banks desperately offering good condition 2012-14 manufactured A330ceos for:
- 400k/month (if that high)
- 6Y lease/commitment (if that high)
- generous options and return conditions.

For smaller/ start-up airlines with limited finances and track records, the latter option is a very tempting offer against coughing up cash for brand new widebodies.

That situation you detail is no different to other aircraft that have new generations available.

The A330neo has its advantages and disadvantages, but if airlines want the capability and efficiency, along with the likelihood of lower maintenance costs, they will look at newer planes. If they take into consideration that older aircraft may not be as efficient on the missions they fly but have lower costs of purchase/lease, then that opens up other avenues.

[quote="VV"][/quote]
Surely by your argument if there is merit in an operator keeping the same type of aircraft then those A330s coming off lease would preferably be replaced by A330neos than 787s for those that favour lower variable costs suggesting that because of the huge amount of ceos sold 12 years ago is a bigger threat to the 787 because of the need to remove the incumbent.

Imagine if there were more than one possible outcome like you describe?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

VV wrote:

That is exactly the issue. The A330-900 are pushed into roles that was initially intended for A350-900. It concerns the longer routes.

The vast majority of airlines are very happy with the 230 tonne or even 233 tonne version of the A330-300 and it is exactly why it was selling well.

So, many airlines are interested by the young second hand A330-300 instead of taking the step to by new and more expensive A330-900 neo. The situation is even worse for the A330-800 as previously discussed.

I have absolutely no doubt there is a very strong pressure in term of pricing or lease rate for the A330-900 due to the presence ofyoung second hand A330-300.

You don't think that the 330neo would be a reasonably good fit to replace all those A330-300 coming available into the second hand market? Or do you expect these to be replaced mainly by even more capable long haulers like the 787 and 350?