IndianicWorld wrote:

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.

I think it feels a bit different in that there is a likely glut of these previous generation aircraft that were produced at a higher rate than the new generation aircraft all coming on to the second market with approximately half their life span remaining rather than the "ridden hard and put away wet" second hand stock we see when looking at A320ceo and 737ng second hand markets.

Sales of A330NEO are not representative of real interest, but reflect Airbus preference, so long as production capacity permits and customers willing, to sell A350 ahead of A330. Airbus continue to undersell NEO capability enhancements, disclosed and yet to be unveiled.

PW100 wrote:

...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?

No.
Yes.

smartplane wrote:

Sales of A330NEO are not representative of real interest, but reflect Airbus preference, so long as production capacity permits and customers willing, to sell A350 ahead of A330. Airbus continue to undersell NEO capability enhancements, disclosed and yet to be unveiled.

If airlines are willing to take deliveries of those aircraft.

smartplane wrote:

Sales of A330NEO are not representative of real interest, but reflect Airbus preference, so long as production capacity permits and customers willing, to sell A350 ahead of A330. Airbus continue to undersell NEO capability enhancements, disclosed and yet to be unveiled.

I do not thing it makes sense to talk a lot about Airbus preferences what they like to sell. IMO they sell you what you want or need. The plan was to have three different models with the A350, the -800, -900, -1000.

The A330-900 replaces the planed A350-800, similar capabilities for a lower price. Today I think, Airbus could not make the A350-800 inexpensive enough for it to make sense, voila they offer the A330-900, same capabilities lower price with lower development cost.

The A330-800 is the range payload machine for the "poorer" airline, it does a similar job as a 777-8, but at a lower capacity level at a lower investment and is in a similar niche there. But it also plays the role as the lowest investment wide body available.

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 situation is even worse for the A330-800 as previously discussed.

And this is where the disconnect seems to be.....as the A330-800 is meant to address the longer routes.

VV wrote:

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.

So why not compare the used A333 (even a new CEO) against the A339N I wonder what the result would be if they compared the A338 with the A359?

VV wrote:

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

And I'm not convinced it's the older CEOs.

smartplane wrote:

Sales of A330NEO are not representative of real interest, but reflect Airbus preference, so long as production capacity permits and customers willing, to sell A350 ahead of A330. Airbus continue to undersell NEO capability enhancements, disclosed and yet to be unveiled.

Hmmn.....you may be on to something there.....

mjoelnir wrote:

The A330-800 is the range payload machine for the "poorer" airline, it does a similar job as a 777-8, but at a lower capacity level at a lower investment and is in a similar niche there. But it also plays the role as the lowest investment wide body available.

While also keeping the 787s at bay.

mjoelnir wrote:

I do not thing it makes sense to talk a lot about Airbus preferences what they like to sell. IMO they sell you what you want or need. The plan was to have three different models with the A350, the -800, -900, -1000.

IndianicWorld wrote:

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.

The situation I detail now is certainly different for airlines now than for airlines say, 10 years ago making the same fleet decisions.

In say, 2010, if an airline wanted a proven middle-of-the-road aircraft, the only practical choice was the A330, there was no equivalent feedstock of older A330s as competition because A330 deliveries only ramped up by like 2005 (meaning less returns from leases/less leasing activity to begin with) and the early A330s were pre-hgw and significantly compromised in capability. Hence we saw the order and delivery binge for A330s during that time.

Now in 2019/20, if an airline wants a proven middle-of-the-road aircraft, they can choose between new 787s, A350s, A330neos, and A321LRs depending on what routes they want to fly. There is also a ready feedstock of capable older A330s (many delivered from 2010-2015) which will be returning from leases in the next 1-3 years. That's a ton of competition which the original A330 never had to deal with.

JustSomeDood wrote:

IndianicWorld wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

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.

The situation I detail now is certainly different for airlines now than for airlines say, 10 years ago making the same fleet decisions.

In say, 2010, if an airline wanted a proven middle-of-the-road aircraft, the only practical choice was the A330, there was no equivalent feedstock of older A330s as competition because A330 deliveries only ramped up by like 2005 (meaning less returns from leases/less leasing activity to begin with) and the early A330s were pre-hgw and significantly compromised in capability. Hence we saw the order and delivery binge for A330s during that time.

Now in 2019/20, if an airline wants a proven middle-of-the-road aircraft, they can choose between new 787s, A350s, A330neos, and A321LRs depending on what routes they want to fly. There is also a ready feedstock of capable older A330s (many delivered from 2010-2015) which will be returning from leases in the next 1-3 years. That's a ton of competition which the original A330 never had to deal with.

10 years ago, their were heaps of used 767 and A300/310 on the market, having been replaced by increasing numbers of A330. There were huge orders of 787 waiting to be delivered. Than the he days of A330 deliveries arrived. Most of those A330 are young, no reason to believe that they will flood the used market in the very near future. Most used A330, apart from some really old ones, do find new employment fast. Increasing numbers will be converted to freighters, when prices for feed stock drop.

In regards to a slowdown or insufficient order numbers, all orders for all frames are rather slow. What wide body frame has the most net orders so far this year? Actually the A330-900.

JustSomeDood wrote:

The situation I detail now is certainly different for airlines now than for airlines say, 10 years ago making the same fleet decisions.

In say, 2010, if an airline wanted a proven middle-of-the-road aircraft, the only practical choice was the A330, there was no equivalent feedstock of older A330s as competition because A330 deliveries only ramped up by like 2005 (meaning less returns from leases/less leasing activity to begin with) and the early A330s were pre-hgw and significantly compromised in capability. Hence we saw the order and delivery binge for A330s during that time.

Now in 2019/20, if an airline wants a proven middle-of-the-road aircraft, they can choose between new 787s, A350s, A330neos, and A321LRs depending on what routes they want to fly. There is also a ready feedstock of capable older A330s (many delivered from 2010-2015) which will be returning from leases in the next 1-3 years. That's a ton of competition which the original A330 never had to deal with.

Those 2010-2015 delivered A330s are mostly 233-235t versions, which make them insufficient for many airlines even they want to buy or lease from second hand market. Those 330s are good for under 4000nm cargo heavy missions but if you want to fly further with heavy payload you need something else. Finnair is good example of that. A330neo is much more capable than its precense.

mjoelnir wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

IndianicWorld wrote:

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.

The situation I detail now is certainly different for airlines now than for airlines say, 10 years ago making the same fleet decisions.

In say, 2010, if an airline wanted a proven middle-of-the-road aircraft, the only practical choice was the A330, there was no equivalent feedstock of older A330s as competition because A330 deliveries only ramped up by like 2005 (meaning less returns from leases/less leasing activity to begin with) and the early A330s were pre-hgw and significantly compromised in capability. Hence we saw the order and delivery binge for A330s during that time.

Now in 2019/20, if an airline wants a proven middle-of-the-road aircraft, they can choose between new 787s, A350s, A330neos, and A321LRs depending on what routes they want to fly. There is also a ready feedstock of capable older A330s (many delivered from 2010-2015) which will be returning from leases in the next 1-3 years. That's a ton of competition which the original A330 never had to deal with.

10 years ago, their were heaps of used 767 and A300/310 on the market, having been replaced by increasing numbers of A330. There were huge orders of 787 waiting to be delivered. Than the he days of A330 deliveries arrived. Most of those A330 are young, no reason to believe that they will flood the used market in the very near future. Most used A330, apart from some really old ones, do find new employment fast. Increasing numbers will be converted to freighters, when prices for feed stock drop.

In regards to a slowdown or insufficient order numbers, all orders for all frames are rather slow. What wide body frame has the most net orders so far this year? Actually the A330-900.

Let's address your arguments one by one:
- "10 years ago, their were heaps of used 767 and A300/310 on the market", Many of which were 15+ years old and EOL with diminishing OEM/Maintenance support, this is simply not the case here
- "There were huge orders of 787 waiting to be delivered." 787s were far from proven in the early 2010s.
- "Most of those A330 are young, no reason to believe that they will flood the used market in the very near future." Many of those A330s were signed on 8-12Y leases with lessors who are sweating right now to place them with other airlines, and from what I am hearing, they're having a damn tough time doing so because the first-lease airlines want new widebodies, and the usual airlines wanting used planes are re-thinking adding more widebodies and favoring narrowbodies instead.
- "Increasing numbers will be converted to freighters, when prices for feed stock drop." this will necessitate big write-downs on the owners at their current book values, and therefore will take a long, long time before that pans out.

"armchairceonr1" wrote:

Those 2010-2015 delivered A330s are mostly 233-235t versions, which make them insufficient for many airlines even they want to buy or lease from second hand market. Those 330s are good for under 4000nm cargo heavy missions but if you want to fly further with heavy payload you need something else. Finnair is good example of that. A330neo is much more capable than its precense.

Finnair is a good example of an airline that may have been on the market for A330neos but has seemingly chose the A350 instead, and besides, "under 4000nm cargo heavy missions" describes the vast majority of current A330 routes right now.

JustSomeDood wrote:

"armchairceonr1" wrote:

Those 2010-2015 delivered A330s are mostly 233-235t versions, which make them insufficient for many airlines even they want to buy or lease from second hand market. Those 330s are good for under 4000nm cargo heavy missions but if you want to fly further with heavy payload you need something else. Finnair is good example of that. A330neo is much more capable than its precense.

Finnair is a good example of an airline that may have been on the market for A330neos but has seemingly chose the A350 instead, and besides, "under 4000nm cargo heavy missions" describes the vast majority of current A330 routes right now.

Actually Finnair was on the market for original A330neo, that time it was named A350mk1. After A350mk1 delay they took combination of A330s and A340s, and got A350XWB many years later at bargain price. So Finnair doesn't chose A350 instead of A330neo. If they should make that order today with todays price tag I think they would chose A330neo.

And yes, vast majority of current A330 routes is under 4000nm because they cannot go further with heavy payload.

mjoelnir wrote:

...

10 years ago, their were heaps of used 767 and A300/310 on the market, having been replaced by increasing numbers of A330. There were huge orders of 787 waiting to be delivered. Than the he days of A330 deliveries arrived. Most of those A330 are young, no reason to believe that they will flood the used market in the very near future. Most used A330, apart from some really old ones, do find new employment fast. Increasing numbers will be converted to freighters, when prices for feed stock drop.

In regards to a slowdown or insufficient order numbers, all orders for all frames are rather slow. What wide body frame has the most net orders so far this year? Actually the A330-900.

As far as the A330-300 sold during the last ten years are concerned, a hell lot of them are leased aircraft. Many of them will come out of the first rerm of the lease soon. It is still unclear whether operators will lease them again for the second term or if they have ordered other aircraft like A350 or 787 or even 777-300ER.

We will see these A330ceo coming into the secondary market in the coming years. They are relatively young.

A lot of airline will play the game of asking good conditions for A330neo, 787 or A350 against using second hand A330-300 instead. It will be a blood bath in term of lease rate (and pricing).

VV wrote:

A lot of airline will play the game of asking good conditions for A330neo, 787 or A350 against using second hand A330-300 instead. It will be a blood bath in term of lease rate (and pricing).

So, now those second hand A330s have great influence to widebody market overall, not just for A330neos? I think you have started to think this a little a bit more depth.

armchairceonr1 wrote:

VV wrote:

A lot of airline will play the game of asking good conditions for A330neo, 787 or A350 against using second hand A330-300 instead. It will be a blood bath in term of lease rate (and pricing).

So, now those second hand A330s have great influence to widebody market overall, not just for A330neos? I think you have started to think this a little a bit more depth.

Yes and no.

The most affected aircraft will be A330neo because the only one that can play this game is mostly A330 operators. I think I already mentioned this previously.
The reason is extremely simple. Those A330 operators will value the commonality between their current fleet and the incremental growth. It is more economical to go for a young second hand A330-300 than to jump to A330neo and even less to jump to 787.

The A330neo is the one that will get hit most by the pricing/lease rate pressure, followed by the A350 due to the fact A330neo is under huge pressure. The 787 is only partially affected when there is tough competition with A350.

You are not obliged to believe me, but that's how I see the situation will evolve. The A330neo will face a tough competition from relatively young A330-300 that are entering the secondary market in the coming years. The situation is really bad for the A330-800.
As already mentioned on several occasions, the A330-800 is the one that will get really badly hurt by the arrival of young second hand A330-300. I am almost tempted to suggest that Airbus should mothball the A330-800.

Frankly I don't see many of the lessor owned A330CEO's moving around among the bigger carriers.

But it could start to happen soon, we don't know.

Much depends on the price of oil - if it hits USD 100-150, many airlines will be forced to look for more fuel efficient aircraft.

armchairceonr1 wrote:

And yes, vast majority of current A330 routes is under 4000nm because they cannot go further with heavy payload.

I can see why that is a problem for Finnair being on the northern edge of a continent with a population often wanting to fly far south to tropical locations, but I'm not sure that's a problem for a lot of other airlines. 4000nm with heavy cargo fills a lot of needs.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=4000nm%40SIN&MS=bm&DU=mi

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=4000nm%40NYC&MS=bm&DU=mi

armchairceonr1 wrote:

...

And yes, vast majority of current A330 routes is under 4000nm because they cannot go further with heavy payload.

The vast majority of routes flown by 250-300 seat widebody fleet is under 4,000 nm independently of the range capability.
That's where the core of the market is.

By the way 4,000 nmi - 4,500 nmi is also the range target for the NMA.

VV wrote:

By the way 4,000 nmi - 4,500 nmi is also the range target for the NMA.

Is that the NMA that is struggling to find a business case to launch?

VV wrote:

armchairceonr1 wrote:

...

And yes, vast majority of current A330 routes is under 4000nm because they cannot go further with heavy payload.

The vast majority of routes flown by 250-300 seat widebody fleet is under 4,000 nm independently of the range capability.
That's where the core of the market is.

Yes, but before A330neo many A330-300 operators had to split their fleet and use A330-200s or A340-300s together with A330-300. Now most of potential A330 operators need only A330-900 and that's the main reason why A330-800 is not same kind of success what A330-200 was. A330-200&A340-300 combo outsold A330-300 and main reason for that was A330-300's payload range.

enzo011 wrote:

VV wrote:

By the way 4,000 nmi - 4,500 nmi is also the range target for the NMA.

Is that the NMA that is struggling to find a business case to launch?

Do not underestimate the NMA.
It would be wrong to do so.

VV wrote:

enzo011 wrote:

VV wrote:

By the way 4,000 nmi - 4,500 nmi is also the range target for the NMA.

Is that the NMA that is struggling to find a business case to launch?

Do not underestimate the NMA.
It would be wrong to do so.

How do you under- or overestimate a frame that does not exist?

VV wrote:

enzo011 wrote:

VV wrote:

By the way 4,000 nmi - 4,500 nmi is also the range target for the NMA.

Is that the NMA that is struggling to find a business case to launch?

Do not underestimate the NMA.
It would be wrong to do so.

I'm certainly not underestimating your imagination!!


Will the NMA do the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs? [wouldn't want to be underestimating it y'know]

Has Emirates just dropped A330neo or are they just postponing the orders?

From what I have read it sounds like that dropped them in favour of more A350s. I guess on the stage lengths they operate the A350s lighter frame gives fuel burn advantages?

Sent from my moto g(7) plus using Tapatalk

From what I'm reading, the older MOU of 30 A350 and 40 A330neo is replaced in favor of 50 A350s.

The spin is that talks are ongoing for A330neo but they also are for 787 according to the rumour network.

STC is saying he can't get the engines he wants for A330neo?

The great year for A330neo just got a bit less great.

Having EK would have been a great boost to the program.

If EK follows up as rumored with a 787 order too it's another bad sign.

Revelation wrote:

From what I'm reading, the older MOU of 30 A350 and 40 A330neo is replaced in favor of 50 A350s.

The spin is that talks are ongoing for A330neo but they also are for 787 according to the rumour network.

STC is saying he can't get the engines he wants for A330neo?

The great year for A330neo just got a bit less great.

Having EK would have been a great boost to the program.

If EK follows up as rumored with a 787 order too it's another bad sign.

The 787 order (whichever variant it becomes) will have to be powered by GE engines. It is now clear what engine were unsatisfactory for Sir Tim Clark of Emirates. There was at some stage a very lengthy debate about the Trent XWB's reliability on these boards. Good to see Emirates putting that argument to rest.

VV wrote:

Has Emirates just dropped A330neo or are they just postponing the orders?

It looks like they are dropped.

Old order of 70 (30+40), current order of 50 (50+0).

Unless they are thinking of not ordering 787-10...?

They did (and still do AFAIK) have 40x 787-10 on order... so I guess they could go either of A330-900 or 787-10 - the two airframes are damn near identical - with A339 having a little bit more absolute range but I'd imagine very close payload-range.

Let us now see, 43 net orders for the 787 so far this year and 57 net orders for the A330neo so far this year. I would still talk about the A330neo having a good year.

Amiga500 wrote:

VV wrote:

Has Emirates just dropped A330neo or are they just postponing the orders?

It looks like they are dropped.

Old order of 70 (30+40), current order of 50 (50+0).

Unless they are thinking of not ordering 787-10...?

They did (and still do AFAIK) have 40x 787-10 on order... so I guess they could go either of A330-900 or 787-10 - the two airframes are damn near identical - with A339 having a little bit more absolute range but I'd imagine very close payload-range.

Further to this. As a result of the MAX debacle - no one on the planet knows exactly what the 777X certification environment will be like. The EIS is currently scheduled for 2021, which is itself a slippage due to the engine. That few months *could* become a few years if the FAA have to fundamentally revise their delegated authority approach with Boeing - you gotta imagine that scrutiny will be at least twice as intense as it would have been.

With that risk in mind (not saying it will happen - just there is a risk) - what are the chances that EK will hedge their bets by increasing A350 buys (including -1000), and then swap off some of their existing 777X orders for more 787 instead? (Which would mean 787-10 and definitely no A339 buy.)

Revelation wrote:

armchairceonr1 wrote:

And yes, vast majority of current A330 routes is under 4000nm because they cannot go further with heavy payload.

I can see why that is a problem for Finnair being on the northern edge of a continent with a population often wanting to fly far south to tropical locations, but I'm not sure that's a problem for a lot of other airlines. 4000nm with heavy cargo fills a lot of needs.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=4000nm%40SIN&MS=bm&DU=mi

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=4000nm%40NYC&MS=bm&DU=mi

Finnair have quite few tropical destinations, mostly they use widebodies to far east routes like Japan and China. HEL is nearest point at western Europe to Japan and North-East overall, but it's still too faraway for A330-300 with heavy payload.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=4000nm%40FRA&MS=bm&DU=mi

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=4000nm%40HEL&MS=bm&DU=mi

Amiga500 wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

VV wrote:

Has Emirates just dropped A330neo or are they just postponing the orders?

It looks like they are dropped.

Old order of 70 (30+40), current order of 50 (50+0).

Unless they are thinking of not ordering 787-10...?

They did (and still do AFAIK) have 40x 787-10 on order... so I guess they could go either of A330-900 or 787-10 - the two airframes are damn near identical - with A339 having a little bit more absolute range but I'd imagine very close payload-range.

Further to this. As a result of the MAX debacle - no one on the planet knows exactly what the 777X certification environment will be like. The EIS is currently scheduled for 2021, which is itself a slippage due to the engine. That few months *could* become a few years if the FAA have to fundamentally revise their delegated authority approach with Boeing - you gotta imagine that scrutiny will be at least twice as intense as it would have been.

With that risk in mind (not saying it will happen - just there is a risk) - what are the chances that EK will hedge their bets by increasing A350 buys (including -1000), and then swap off some of their existing 777X orders for more 787 instead? (Which would mean 787-10 and definitely no A339 buy.)

The last time the A350-900 was discussed at Emirates, it was that or the 787-10. 50 A350 should blow the possibility of the 787-10. I assume the next round will pit the A330-900 against the 787-9.

mjoelnir wrote:

The last time the A350-900 was discussed at Emirates, it was that or the 787-10. 50 A350 should blow the possibility of the 787-10. I assume the next round will pit the A330-900 against the 787-9.

Really?!?!

Is the A350-900 not much longer ranged?

mjoelnir wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

It looks like they are dropped.

Old order of 70 (30+40), current order of 50 (50+0).

Unless they are thinking of not ordering 787-10...?

They did (and still do AFAIK) have 40x 787-10 on order... so I guess they could go either of A330-900 or 787-10 - the two airframes are damn near identical - with A339 having a little bit more absolute range but I'd imagine very close payload-range.

Further to this. As a result of the MAX debacle - no one on the planet knows exactly what the 777X certification environment will be like. The EIS is currently scheduled for 2021, which is itself a slippage due to the engine. That few months *could* become a few years if the FAA have to fundamentally revise their delegated authority approach with Boeing - you gotta imagine that scrutiny will be at least twice as intense as it would have been.

With that risk in mind (not saying it will happen - just there is a risk) - what are the chances that EK will hedge their bets by increasing A350 buys (including -1000), and then swap off some of their existing 777X orders for more 787 instead? (Which would mean 787-10 and definitely no A339 buy.)

The last time the A350-900 was discussed at Emirates, it was that or the 787-10. 50 A350 should blow the possibility of the 787-10. I assume the next round will pit the A330-900 against the 787-9.

I would not assume that at all. The last time the A359 was discussed versus the 787-10 the 787-10 won. Now due to various circumstances EK has an order for 50 A350s, despite an initial MOU earlier this year for a mix of A339s and A359s. I wouldn’t be confident about it necessarily being A339 vs 789, we still don’t have a clear understanding of the roles these various planes will play.

I am a big fan of RR and A330neo, I hope the things that are bothering STC get fixed ASAP.

Yet I always had some worries about A330neo at EK, STC's style is to buy for prestige, A330neo doesn't fit that profile.

Pushing off spending money till 2023 does fit EK's current profile.

Amiga500 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

The last time the A350-900 was discussed at Emirates, it was that or the 787-10. 50 A350 should blow the possibility of the 787-10. I assume the next round will pit the A330-900 against the 787-9.

Really?!?!

Is the A350-900 not much longer ranged?

Yes, but if the price is comparable and operating costs as well, the does it matter?

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

The last time the A350-900 was discussed at Emirates, it was that or the 787-10. 50 A350 should blow the possibility of the 787-10. I assume the next round will pit the A330-900 against the 787-9.

Really?!?!

Is the A350-900 not much longer ranged?

Yes, but if the price is comparable and operating costs as well, the does it matter?

Best regards
Thomas

That doesn’t necessary preclude the -10 though when comparing versus the A339. It all depends on intended role for the aircraft.

tommy1808 wrote:

Yes, but if the price is comparable and operating costs as well, the does it matter?

Best regards
Thomas

If all else was equal, it'd be mad not to take the A359 as it would lift more further.

[But I'd expect the 78X to have better CASM so all else wouldn't be equal.]

Amiga500 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Yes, but if the price is comparable and operating costs as well, the does it matter?

Best regards
Thomas

If all else was equal, it'd be mad not to take the A359 as it would lift more further.

[But I'd expect the 78X to have better CASM so all else wouldn't be equal.]

Also A359 comes with more airport/ATC charges, etc.

A359 with RR may leave room for Boeing NMA Mk1 with CFM LEAP in a regional role if that ever comes to fruition.

Bottom line is Airbus and RR still hold EK's money from the cancelled A380s.

I think the shift to A350 is more about putting off spending till 2023 since he's getting 50 airframes later rather than 40+30 sooner with what I presume is similar amounts of spending.

Revelation wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Yes, but if the price is comparable and operating costs as well, the does it matter?

Best regards
Thomas

If all else was equal, it'd be mad not to take the A359 as it would lift more further.

[But I'd expect the 78X to have better CASM so all else wouldn't be equal.]

Also A359 comes with more airport/ATC charges, etc.
.

Depends on the MTOW you fly it with...

Best regards
Thomas

Revelation wrote:

Bottom line is Airbus and RR still hold EK's money from the cancelled A380s.

I'd have thought this order would have made that go away no?

Amiga500 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Bottom line is Airbus and RR still hold EK's money from the cancelled A380s.

I'd have thought this order would have made that go away no?

God, I hope so. Otherwise EK is doing it wrong.

VV wrote:

PW100 wrote:

...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?

No.
Yes.

Not convinced. A330neo would be perfect replacement for A330-300. Both for in-class and upgage.

mjoelnir wrote:

I think the points to the A330neo are, that it can be offered for a substantial lower price than the 787, due to lower production cost,

What evidence do you have to support that claim?

Just wondering, when will the A332/A333 production end? Or when will the production end for the CF6-80E1 / PW416x / Trent 700?

mjoelnir wrote:

I think the points to the A330neo are, that it can be offered for a substantial lower price than the 787, due to lower production cost, that it goes well with the A350, to fill in for lower capacity jobs, able to use the same pilot pool, and that it is that near to the performance of the 787, that other considerations matter.

Do you have a source for that?

mjoelnir wrote:

Let us now see, 43 net orders for the 787 so far this year and 57 net orders for the A330neo so far this year. I would still talk about the A330neo having a good year.

22 vs 57 net orders now, EY seems to have dropped 21 B787s

tommy1808 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

If all else was equal, it'd be mad not to take the A359 as it would lift more further.

[But I'd expect the 78X to have better CASM so all else wouldn't be equal.]

Also A359 comes with more airport/ATC charges, etc.
.

Depends on the MTOW you fly it with...

Best regards
Thomas

Exactly. Singapore has 3 different versions of MTOW on the A350 with 3 different cabin layouts

asr0dzjq wrote:

Just wondering, when will the A332/A333 production end? Or when will the production end for the CF6-80E1 / PW416x / Trent 700?

I would say quite a while, there are quite a few MRTT on order.