Sounds like the thread title needs to be updated..

If Emirates are not going to commit to A330neos at this time, I think you can downgrade "Great" to "Good" unless something else changes, still having a better year than other companies that make large airplanes that shall not be mentioned, who would probably like to move on........

Exeiowa wrote:

If Emirates are not going to commit to A330neos at this time, I think you can downgrade "Great" to "Good" unless something else changes, still having a better year than other companies that make large airplanes that shall not be mentioned, who would probably like to move on........

A good year is good enough, great is a bit pretentious, I myself talked always about a good year. To end the year with a higher backlog than in the beginning of the year is always good.

The 787 is not dead in the water this year, perhaps we will see a 50 frame Emirates order?

GoSharks wrote:

Sounds like the thread title needs to be updated..

I'd say even without the EK order the 339 still had a great year.

2019 is the year that Airbus went from being a A350 wb offer to also have a A330Neo offer that custoners dare to purchase.


I would say that 2019 is a great tear for the Airbus and pribably gives Airbus calmnes for thevfuture

Revelation wrote:

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?

Yes, I believe so.

My point was that there was a pool of money that had to be spent on Airbus and RR products as opposed to Boeing and GE/CFM products.

Agreed.

I expect a similar situation now exists with 777X & 787. Which would put the 787 firm favourite to win that.

Amiga500 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

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

Yes, I believe so.

My point was that there was a pool of money that had to be spent on Airbus and RR products as opposed to Boeing and GE/CFM products.

Agreed.

I expect a similar situation now exists with 777X & 787. Which would put the 787 firm favourite to win that.

Just if Emirates wants to cancel 777-8/9. Otherwise they could order the A330neo and defer the 777-8/9.

mjoelnir wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Yes, I believe so.

My point was that there was a pool of money that had to be spent on Airbus and RR products as opposed to Boeing and GE/CFM products.

Agreed.

I expect a similar situation now exists with 777X & 787. Which would put the 787 firm favourite to win that.

Just if Emirates wants to cancel 777-8/9. Otherwise they could order the A330neo and defer the 777-8/9.

I expect the certification landscape to be far more arduous than it was 2 years ago for the 777X. Which will mean a multi-year slippage.

Overall program viability is already questionable. Airbus launch a A350-1000ULR and is the 777X program viable based on the projected figures we are aware of today? I'm really not sure.

Can the 777-9 really carry an OEW penalty of ~25T over the A350-1000 (16%), carry ~8-10% more people and deliver the same CASM? Dubious. Very very dubious.

Amiga500 wrote:

Can the 777-9 really carry an OEW penalty of ~25T over the A350-1000 (16%), carry ~8-10% more people and deliver the same CASM? Dubious. Very very dubious.

I'm equally skeptical, but it does have engine tech that is half a decade ahead of the XWB, and 10 abreast seating.

I do see the 777X as the A380 of the 2020's. It will be bought in small numbers by some airlines and big numbers by Emirates. I can't see it having a long production life.

Re the A330NEO, I think Airbus/RR thought it would have a production run of circa 400 and would be happy with that. It's already sold > 250 and I think orders will trickle in on a regular basis, just like they did for the A332/3.

I don't think Airbus will replace it. When the A320 replacement comes along it will be a bit bigger / more capable and that will be its replacement.

kurtverbose wrote:

Re the A330NEO, I think Airbus/RR thought it would have a production run of circa 400 and would be happy with that. It's already sold > 250 and I think orders will trickle in on a regular basis, just like they did for the A332/3.

Airbus and RR are certainly expecting far more than 400 orders out of the plane. It’s a follow up to one of the most popular widebodies (A330ceo) and competing directly with the fastest selling wide body (787). Only getting 400 orders would be seen as a disappointment by both manufacturers.

Polot wrote:

kurtverbose wrote:

Re the A330NEO, I think Airbus/RR thought it would have a production run of circa 400 and would be happy with that. It's already sold > 250 and I think orders will trickle in on a regular basis, just like they did for the A332/3.

Airbus and RR are certainly expecting far more than 400 orders out of the plane. It’s a follow up to one of the most popular widebodies (A330ceo) and competing directly with the fastest selling wide body (787). Only getting 400 orders would be seen as a disappointment by both manufacturers.

Just set the goalpost far enough, so you can claim a failure.

It is a follow on model and has only to pay the changes to the wing for the engines, some extra aerodynamic cleanup, some weight saving actions and a MTOW increase complete the picture.
Hardly any cost for the production changes, as most parts, including the wing production, run on the same lines as the A330ceo.
So the two models have to haul in a very limited amount of development cost, with the A330-900 doing the heavy lifting.

I assume that 150 deliveries wipe out all extra cost over and above the ceo. 400 frames deliveries would be financial a roaring success. Just count the number of single wide body models, that make it over 400 frames. Sales not deliveries.

1. 777-300ER 844
2. 787-9 834
3. A330-300 789
4. A330-200 660
5. 767-300ER 583
6. 747-400 442
7. 787-8 425
8. 777-200ER 422

And here are deliveries:

1. 777-300ER 812
2. A330-300 769
3. A330-200 639
4. 767-300ER 583
5, 787-9 498
6. 747-400 442
7. 777-200ER 422

that is it regarding single models doing more than 400 sales or deliveries.

In regards to RR, it is not a complete new engine, but an engine based on components out of the building kit. 800 engines plus spares would be dream come true for RR.

9,534 miles SIN-EWR currently longest commercial route in the world

armchairceonr1 wrote:

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.

If Project Sunrise fails to produce a jet that can carry the desired payload to London, I've often wondered if Istanbul or Helsinki will compete with Emirates.
7,481 SYD- DXB
9,300 SYD- IST
9,438 SYD- HEL
10,573 SYD- LHR

mjoelnir wrote:

Polot wrote:

kurtverbose wrote:

Re the A330NEO, I think Airbus/RR thought it would have a production run of circa 400 and would be happy with that. It's already sold > 250 and I think orders will trickle in on a regular basis, just like they did for the A332/3.

Airbus and RR are certainly expecting far more than 400 orders out of the plane. It’s a follow up to one of the most popular widebodies (A330ceo) and competing directly with the fastest selling wide body (787). Only getting 400 orders would be seen as a disappointment by both manufacturers.

Just set the goalpost far enough, so you can claim a failure.

It is a follow on model and has only to pay the changes to the wing for the engines, some extra aerodynamic cleanup, some weight saving actions and a MTOW increase complete the picture.
Hardly any cost for the production changes, as most parts, including the wing production, run on the same lines as the A330ceo.
So the two models have to haul in a very limited amount of development cost, with the A330-900 doing the heavy lifting.

I assume that 150 deliveries wipe out all extra cost over and above the ceo. 400 frames deliveries would be financial a roaring success. Just count the number of single wide body models, that make it over 400 frames. Sales not deliveries.

1. 777-300ER 844
2. 787-9 834
3. A330-300 789
4. A330-200 660
5. 767-300ER 583
6. 747-400 442
7. 787-8 425
8. 777-200ER 422

And here are deliveries:

1. 777-300ER 812
2. A330-300 769
3. A330-200 639
4. 767-300ER 583
5, 787-9 498
6. 747-400 442
7. 777-200ER 422

that is it regarding single models doing more than 400 sales or deliveries.

In regards to RR, it is not a complete new engine, but an engine based on components out of the building kit. 800 engines plus spares would be dream come true for RR.

I was not talking about finances, I was talking about “ I think Airbus/RR thought it would have a production run of circa 400 and would be happy with that.“ Airbus certainly did not launch the plane in 2014 thinking it would have a production run of ~400 units (and probably would have laughed at you and pointed at the huge success of the A330ceo if you suggested so), and if they only got around that Airbus would be evaluating why the Neo is not getting more traction in the market place.

mjoelnir wrote:

400 frames deliveries would be financial a roaring success.

In regards to RR, it is not a complete new engine, but an engine based on components out of the building kit. 800 engines plus spares would be dream come true for RR.

Quite correct - and one reason both GE and RR insisted on exclusivity - there wasn't the volume for two manufactures to make a profit, even with a derivative.

Also - what's the production rate now, 50 a year? That's 8 years production to make 400 frames. Still a big success.

I think Airbus said at launch they hoped to sell 1000 - well that was obviously marketing hype. That's 20 years production at the current rate. Can you imagine 50 a year being delivered in 2039 when both Airbus and Boeing will have new single aisle's carrying maybe 250 people 5000 miles for a fraction of the cost?

kurtverbose wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

400 frames deliveries would be financial a roaring success.

In regards to RR, it is not a complete new engine, but an engine based on components out of the building kit. 800 engines plus spares would be dream come true for RR.

Quite correct - and one reason both GE and RR insisted on exclusivity - there wasn't the volume for two manufactures to make a profit, even with a derivative.

Also - what's the production rate now, 50 a year? That's 8 years production to make 400 frames. Still a big success.

I think Airbus said at launch they hoped to sell 1000 - well that was obviously marketing hype. That's 20 years production at the current rate. Can you imagine 50 a year being delivered in 2039 when both Airbus and Boeing will have new single aisle's carrying maybe 250 people 5000 miles for a fraction of the cost?

Both RR and GE wanted exclusivity on the A330neo because they did not want to fight over the frame when they had both spent billions on the far over budget T1000/GEnx programs (often overlooked here because of focus on Boeing) that they would probably never get back from 787 sales alone. They are/were expecting more than 400 frames. They viewed the A330neo as their meal ticket to turning around those programs.

Polot wrote:

Both RR and GE wanted exclusivity on the A330neo because they did not want to fight over the frame when they had both spent billions on the far over budget T1000/GEnx programs (often overlooked here because of focus on Boeing) that they would probably never get back from 787 sales alone. They are/were expecting more than 400 frames. They viewed the A330neo as their meal ticket to turning around those programs.

They're all sunk costs. You ignore sunk costs when you're making an investment decision.

What is your source for them expecting more frames?

PacoMartin wrote:

9,534 miles SIN-EWR currently longest commercial route in the world

armchairceonr1 wrote:

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.

If Project Sunrise fails to produce a jet that can carry the desired payload to London, I've often wondered if Istanbul or Helsinki will compete with Emirates.
7,481 SYD- DXB
9,300 SYD- IST
9,438 SYD- HEL
10,573 SYD- LHR

Yeah HEL is the closest oneworld hub from SYD, perhaps we'll see the Project Northern Lights in the future

Even now Australia is surprisingly big market for Finnair, via HKG SIN BKK NRT. A couple of years back Australia was in their TOP10 best-selling countries, most probably still is.

kurtverbose wrote:

Polot wrote:

Both RR and GE wanted exclusivity on the A330neo because they did not want to fight over the frame when they had both spent billions on the far over budget T1000/GEnx programs (often overlooked here because of focus on Boeing) that they would probably never get back from 787 sales alone. They are/were expecting more than 400 frames. They viewed the A330neo as their meal ticket to turning around those programs.

They're all sunk costs. You ignore sunk costs when you're making an investment decision.

What is your source for them expecting more frames?

Sure, but that was the reason for the exclusivity demands. Obviously they both saw a market for a Neo, or else they wouldn’t have offered an engine. But they didn’t want to split the market because they wanted the whole pie for themselves since they had lost so much on developing the engines so far, and the split market on the 787 made it difficult to recuperate. You ignore sunk costs when making investing decisions, but they still affect the overall health of the company which affects a company’s appetite for risk. The Neo was seen as relatively low risk (for GE/RR) but high reward with exclusivity clauses.

Polot wrote:

kurtverbose wrote:

Polot wrote:

Both RR and GE wanted exclusivity on the A330neo because they did not want to fight over the frame when they had both spent billions on the far over budget T1000/GEnx programs (often overlooked here because of focus on Boeing) that they would probably never get back from 787 sales alone. They are/were expecting more than 400 frames. They viewed the A330neo as their meal ticket to turning around those programs.

They're all sunk costs. You ignore sunk costs when you're making an investment decision.

What is your source for them expecting more frames?

Sure, but that was the reason for the exclusivity demands. Obviously they both saw a market for a Neo, or else they wouldn’t have offered an engine. But they didn’t want to split the market because they wanted the whole pie for themselves since they had lost so much on developing the engines so far, and the split market on the 787 made it difficult to recuperate. You ignore sunk costs when making investing decisions, but they still affect the overall health of the company which affects a company’s appetite for risk. The Neo was seen as relatively low risk (for GE/RR) but high reward with exclusivity clauses.

If RR or GE would have expected a 1000 frames sales run, they would not have needed exclusivity. GE did not even really bother to make a serious offer, so their expectations could not have been high.

Polot wrote:

I was not talking about finances, I was talking about “ I think Airbus/RR thought it would have a production run of circa 400 and would be happy with that.“ Airbus certainly did not launch the plane in 2014 thinking it would have a production run of ~400 units (and probably would have laughed at you and pointed at the huge success of the A330ceo if you suggested so), and if they only got around that Airbus would be evaluating why the Neo is not getting more traction in the market place.

Development costs of around $2B USD.

Over 400 frames that is $5m USD per frame.

That would be a sensible low risk investment decision.


I would expect they will have gone ahead on the basis of (i) selling at least 400 frames so program is profitable in its own right, (ii) putting price pressure on 787 and (iii) quickly providing an effective solution to the market between the A350-900 and A321.

With the way things are right now - I'd expect Airbus are looking at (and expecting to) sell far more than 400 units.


Don't forget, down the line Airbus are almost certain to move the MRTT onto the A338 platform. There are 39 A332 MRTT flying and a further 21 on the orderbook.



[I'm surprised that Airbus haven't got the likes of DHL in a room with the German govt (just picking them as an example) and said: look, we build an MRTT which DHL can use as a transport most of the time, but the German govt pay DHL a retainer per year and can priority rent it for tanker duties as and when they need it. Similar to AirTanker in the UK.]

Amiga500 wrote:

Polot wrote:

I was not talking about finances, I was talking about “ I think Airbus/RR thought it would have a production run of circa 400 and would be happy with that.“ Airbus certainly did not launch the plane in 2014 thinking it would have a production run of ~400 units (and probably would have laughed at you and pointed at the huge success of the A330ceo if you suggested so), and if they only got around that Airbus would be evaluating why the Neo is not getting more traction in the market place.

Development costs of around $2B USD.

Over 400 frames that is $5m USD per frame.

That would be a sensible low risk investment decision.


I would expect they will have gone ahead on the basis of (i) selling at least 400 frames so program is profitable in its own right, (ii) putting price pressure on 787 and (iii) quickly providing an effective solution to the market between the A350-900 and A321.

With the way things are right now - I'd expect Airbus are looking at (and expecting to) sell far more than 400 units.


Don't forget, down the line Airbus are almost certain to move the MRTT onto the A338 platform. There are 39 A332 MRTT flying and a further 21 on the orderbook.



[I'm surprised that Airbus haven't got the likes of DHL in a room with the German govt (just picking them as an example) and said: look, we build an MRTT which DHL can use as a transport most of the time, but the German govt pay DHL a retainer per year and can priority rent it for tanker duties as and when they need it. Similar to AirTanker in the UK.]

The problem with the MRTT is they will likely have to redo a lot of testing (since it has completely different engines with potentially different wake properties effecting refueling operations). It’s not like there is a huge MRTT fleet to begin with and most customers probably don’t want a split fleet.

I also believe some of the internal wing structure that made the original A330ceo a relatively easy candidate for a MRTT (thanks to the A340) was altered/removed for the neo.

Polot wrote:

it has completely different engines with potentially different wake properties effecting refueling operations

That is a vary important point. Also the wingtip treatment will likely affect this. Such issues have proved problematic to fine-tune on a number of airframes in the past - so on the basis of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" we may never see a neo MRTT, absent a really substantial order, say from the USAF.

But I do think there will be a freighter.

Amiga500 wrote:

Polot wrote:

I was not talking about finances, I was talking about “ I think Airbus/RR thought it would have a production run of circa 400 and would be happy with that.“ Airbus certainly did not launch the plane in 2014 thinking it would have a production run of ~400 units (and probably would have laughed at you and pointed at the huge success of the A330ceo if you suggested so), and if they only got around that Airbus would be evaluating why the Neo is not getting more traction in the market place.

Development costs of around $2B USD.

Over 400 frames that is $5m USD per frame.

That would be a sensible low risk investment decision.


I would expect they will have gone ahead on the basis of (i) selling at least 400 frames so program is profitable in its own right, (ii) putting price pressure on 787 and (iii) quickly providing an effective solution to the market between the A350-900 and A321.

With the way things are right now - I'd expect Airbus are looking at (and expecting to) sell far more than 400 units.


Don't forget, down the line Airbus are almost certain to move the MRTT onto the A338 platform. There are 39 A332 MRTT flying and a further 21 on the orderbook.



[I'm surprised that Airbus haven't got the likes of DHL in a room with the German govt (just picking them as an example) and said: look, we build an MRTT which DHL can use as a transport most of the time, but the German govt pay DHL a retainer per year and can priority rent it for tanker duties as and when they need it. Similar to AirTanker in the UK.]

Regarding the MRTT, Germany has 4 A310MRTT and is partner in a multinational group running running in the future several MRTT together.

Regarding sales numbers, Airbus has traditionally calculated with rather low numbers for program break even, often 250 frames. That has worked for all frames, but the A380, where both cost and development time run away with the program, original program break even point was again 250 frames. So even the much vilified A340, did not so bad compared with original planing. Both the A320 and the A330 sold in the multiples of the planed sales numbers.
Program break even is here defined as all cost including development paid back.

sibibom wrote:

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

I know it is not in Boeing's orders and deliveries table as yet, but it might be worth considering the following tweet.
https://twitter.com/emirates/status/119 ... 58690?s=21

VV wrote:

sibibom wrote:

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

I know it is not in Boeing's orders and deliveries table as yet, but it might be worth considering the following tweet.
https://twitter.com/emirates/status/119 ... 58690?s=21

So the 787 manages perhaps 52 firm orders this year. Still does not stand under a production rate of 144 frames. Whereas 57 A330neo orders compare well with a 60 frame a year production rate. Nobody expected the A330neo to match 787 orders.

mjoelnir wrote:

VV wrote:

sibibom wrote:

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

I know it is not in Boeing's orders and deliveries table as yet, but it might be worth considering the following tweet.
https://twitter.com/emirates/status/119 ... 58690?s=21

So the 787 manages perhaps 52 firm orders this year. Still does not stand under a production rate of 144 frames. Whereas 57 A330neo orders compare well with a 60 frame a year production rate. Nobody expected the A330neo to match 787 orders.

I think it is Boeing's problem and they need to deal with it.

VV wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

VV wrote:

I know it is not in Boeing's orders and deliveries table as yet, but it might be worth considering the following tweet.
https://twitter.com/emirates/status/119 ... 58690?s=21

So the 787 manages perhaps 52 firm orders this year. Still does not stand under a production rate of 144 frames. Whereas 57 A330neo orders compare well with a 60 frame a year production rate. Nobody expected the A330neo to match 787 orders.

I think it is Boeing's problem and they need to deal with it.

Yes, cutting production rates.

mjoelnir wrote:

VV wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

So the 787 manages perhaps 52 firm orders this year. Still does not stand under a production rate of 144 frames. Whereas 57 A330neo orders compare well with a 60 frame a year production rate. Nobody expected the A330neo to match 787 orders.

I think it is Boeing's problem and they need to deal with it.

Yes, cutting production rates.

My maths tells me that could be approximately a 3% increase in production costs, not too much to worry about I wouldn’t think, certainly better then going at 14 whilst the backlog drops. The demand vs production costs vs selling costs vs competition probably has a nice sweet spot on an economists spreadsheet but has too many caveats in the world where people live to be useful.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

VV wrote:

I think it is Boeing's problem and they need to deal with it.

Yes, cutting production rates.

My maths tells me that could be approximately a 3% increase in production costs, not too much to worry about I wouldn’t think, certainly better then going at 14 whilst the backlog drops. The demand vs production costs vs selling costs vs competition probably has a nice sweet spot on an economists spreadsheet but has too many caveats in the world where people live to be useful.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You talk about the 12 a month that means 144 frames a year. The average sales of 787 the last 10 years is 61 one frames a year. The backlog is coming down fast and a 30 frame order from Emirates does not change things a lot, the 787 is still well below 100 frames this year, slightly more than fifty so far.

Since it's not yet confirmed that the Etihad 787 is cancelled, just that it will not be delivered before 2023 you can't really count it yet.

With the other cancellations this yeae being mostly dead wood you can say that Boeing was able to fill about 100 new production slots with firm orders (if Etihad cancels it's about 80). So the backlog of allocated production slots hasn't declined that much this year.

This is similar to what happened the last couple of years. Boeing has continued to book new orders, even with multiple cancellations of orders that were often placed more then 10 years ago. They obviously didn't book enough new orders to keep the production going on at 14 per month. But the increase might have been a bit of a bluff, creating new delivery slots for orders that didn't fall their way. Like the original EK order, AirAsiaX, even more Chinese orders and they would have expected more orders from India.

If the orders continue to come like they have in the past couple of years and with almost all the dead being cancelled it should not be an issue to keep the rate going at or even increase to 14 again from 2023.

The A330neo did not have a constant stream of new orders coming in as the 787, and there as a much younger program also less dead wood (only the Iran order). By only comparing the net orders you do not get the complete picture.

But then again, you don't have to compare it all the time. The A330neo can ofcourse also be successful next to an also successful 787. It's the hart of the widebody market, for which I don't see a slump at all. I don't think that this years order total so far will be just be one off. It might not get as many new orders as the 787, but enough to keep it profitable for Airbus.

Momo1435 wrote:

Since it's not yet confirmed that the Etihad 787 is cancelled, just that it will not be delivered before 2023 you can't really count it yet.

With the other cancellations this yeae being mostly dead wood you can say that Boeing was able to fill about 100 new production slots with firm orders (if Etihad cancels it's about 80). So the backlog of allocated production slots hasn't declined that much this year.

This is similar to what happened the last couple of years. Boeing has continued to book new orders, even with multiple cancellations of orders that were often placed more then 10 years ago. They obviously didn't book enough new orders to keep the production going on at 14 per month. But the increase might have been a bit of a bluff, creating new delivery slots for orders that didn't fall their way. Like the original EK order, AirAsiaX, even more Chinese orders and they would have expected more orders from India.

If the orders continue to come like they have in the past couple of years and with almost all the dead being cancelled it should not be an issue to keep the rate going at or even increase to 14 again from 2023.

The A330neo did not have a constant stream of new orders coming in as the 787, and there as a much younger program also less dead wood (only the Iran order). By only comparing the net orders you do not get the complete picture.

But then again, you don't have to compare it all the time. The A330neo can ofcourse also be successful next to an also successful 787. It's the hart of the widebody market, for which I don't see a slump at all. I don't think that this years order total so far will be just be one off. It might not get as many new orders as the 787, but enough to keep it profitable for Airbus.

I would be interested how you are counting. Before the Dubai show it was 43 net orders. that plus the 30 for Emirates, the only new firm 787 orders on this show, do make 73. Minus 20 Etihad would be 53. Let us say 73 and that stands under a monthly production of 6 frames.

mjoelnir wrote:

Momo1435 wrote:

Since it's not yet confirmed that the Etihad 787 is cancelled, just that it will not be delivered before 2023 you can't really count it yet.

With the other cancellations this yeae being mostly dead wood you can say that Boeing was able to fill about 100 new production slots with firm orders (if Etihad cancels it's about 80). So the backlog of allocated production slots hasn't declined that much this year.

This is similar to what happened the last couple of years. Boeing has continued to book new orders, even with multiple cancellations of orders that were often placed more then 10 years ago. They obviously didn't book enough new orders to keep the production going on at 14 per month. But the increase might have been a bit of a bluff, creating new delivery slots for orders that didn't fall their way. Like the original EK order, AirAsiaX, even more Chinese orders and they would have expected more orders from India.

If the orders continue to come like they have in the past couple of years and with almost all the dead being cancelled it should not be an issue to keep the rate going at or even increase to 14 again from 2023.

The A330neo did not have a constant stream of new orders coming in as the 787, and there as a much younger program also less dead wood (only the Iran order). By only comparing the net orders you do not get the complete picture.

But then again, you don't have to compare it all the time. The A330neo can ofcourse also be successful next to an also successful 787. It's the hart of the widebody market, for which I don't see a slump at all. I don't think that this years order total so far will be just be one off. It might not get as many new orders as the 787, but enough to keep it profitable for Airbus.

I would be interested how you are counting. Before the Dubai show it was 43 net orders. that plus the 30 for Emirates, the only new firm 787 orders on this show, do make 73. Minus 20 Etihad would be 53. Let us say 73 and that stands under a monthly production of 6 frames.

He is counting gross orders, which for the 787 currently stood at 70 something as of the end of October.

The 787 hasn’t had much issues attracting orders this year, but has had some hits to the backlog (eg Aeroflot for 22, Jet Airways for 10). With of these it has been known for a while that delivery is suspect.

mjoelnir wrote:

VV wrote:

...

I think it is Boeing's problem and they need to deal with it.

Yes, cutting production rates.

Maybe so.
Even then it is their problem.

Perhaps the competition is not ramping up fast either.

mjoelnir wrote:

Momo1435 wrote:

Since it's not yet confirmed that the Etihad 787 is cancelled, just that it will not be delivered before 2023 you can't really count it yet.

With the other cancellations this yeae being mostly dead wood you can say that Boeing was able to fill about 100 new production slots with firm orders (if Etihad cancels it's about 80). So the backlog of allocated production slots hasn't declined that much this year.

This is similar to what happened the last couple of years. Boeing has continued to book new orders, even with multiple cancellations of orders that were often placed more then 10 years ago. They obviously didn't book enough new orders to keep the production going on at 14 per month. But the increase might have been a bit of a bluff, creating new delivery slots for orders that didn't fall their way. Like the original EK order, AirAsiaX, even more Chinese orders and they would have expected more orders from India.

If the orders continue to come like they have in the past couple of years and with almost all the dead being cancelled it should not be an issue to keep the rate going at or even increase to 14 again from 2023.

The A330neo did not have a constant stream of new orders coming in as the 787, and there as a much younger program also less dead wood (only the Iran order). By only comparing the net orders you do not get the complete picture.

But then again, you don't have to compare it all the time. The A330neo can ofcourse also be successful next to an also successful 787. It's the hart of the widebody market, for which I don't see a slump at all. I don't think that this years order total so far will be just be one off. It might not get as many new orders as the 787, but enough to keep it profitable for Airbus.

I would be interested how you are counting. Before the Dubai show it was 43 net orders. that plus the 30 for Emirates, the only new firm 787 orders on this show, do make 73. Minus 20 Etihad would be 53. Let us say 73 and that stands under a monthly production of 6 frames.

Gross orders so far this year was 78, 108 after the EK order. A handfull of those were order swaps and recent orders but the majority were the large cancelations of old orders without any fixed production slots, like the Aeroflot and Jet Airways orders.

As I said, you cannot count the Etihad order until it's actually confirmed that it's canceled and not just again delayed, now until after 2023.

You always seem to forget how many orders the 787 got in it's 1st couple of years and how many of those early orders are still being delivered right now. Just counting the last X number of years. The early issues and delays have worked in favor of Boeing in the end when it comes down to keep the production going at a high rate. And yes, 12 will still be a high rate.

Revelation wrote:

EK's choice to take A359 and not take A330neo is a small disappointment and a bit of a surprise to me. I was hoping we'd hear more about why A330neo was dropped but so far no joy.

I would have thought the restructuring of the 777X order downward in a swap for 787 frames would have been the clear rationale behind that.


They might order the A330neo later (can't see it now), but I'd say they would have got the better deal from Boeing doing it in this order.

Revelation wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

EK's choice to take A359 and not take A330neo is a small disappointment and a bit of a surprise to me. I was hoping we'd hear more about why A330neo was dropped but so far no joy.

I would have thought the restructuring of the 777X order downward in a swap for 787 frames would have been the clear rationale behind that.


They might order the A330neo later (can't see it now), but I'd say they would have got the better deal from Boeing doing it in this order.

Some interesting related comments from https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ai-462434/ as to why the A330neo fell out:

Explaining the background to FlightGlobal in Dubai this week, Clark said he thought the A330neo was "a great aeroplane. But when all the planners got involved they thought the A350-900 would be a better bet than the A330-900. What I said was: 'We leave it in the mix and see how that will work for us [in the future].'"

So, it could come back to EK, but I'm quite doubtful.

It seems many of us were thinking EK was looking for a regional aircraft, but EK really was just looking for smaller wide bodies to do what their A380s/77Ws have been doing.

Apart from quite a few A350 and 787 being used regional. I would say Emirates was locking for flexible frames, being able to do from regional to UHL.

A poster upthread noted airlines are going to common types.

Steven F. Udvar-Házy: Yes. We're working with virtually every one of the A380 operators. Yes, most of them will phase out the aircraft at 12 years as it des not work for them. Some may hang on for a little while longer, but definitely the A380 fleet is going to shrink at a very rapid rate. And what we're seeing is that most of the airlines that we're dealing with are not interested in replacing them with the largest twin-engine widebodies. The actual trend is the other way. They're more interested in increasing frequencies, in existing city pairs. While the 787-9, the 787-10, the A350-900, the 1000 are the four models with great economics that appear to be the most interesting for these airlines.
from the EK A380 thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1435033

So as good as the A339 is, it needs enough users. The payload at range competition includes easy financing.

Revelation wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Apart from quite a few A350 and 787 being used regional. I would say Emirates was locking for flexible frames, being able to do from regional to UHL.

Of these new purchases (50 A350, 30 789) and allegedly 20 pending purchases, it will be interesting to see how many end up being used for "regional" (five hours and below?) versus "long haul" (more than five hours?).

By this definition, ME, India, NW Asia, Central Russia/Federation, Eastern Europe, Eastern Africa would be regional, others not.

The 787 is very economical on this definition of regional. With a limit of Validity of 66,000 cycles, bring on the short hops! But technically, regional is until you need a crew rest..

The A359 will be used on regional feed too. But I'd bet it is for a more consistent product BOM-DXB-ORD. Or DTW :flammed:

The 789 also has legs. What will be telling is crew rest arrangements. For example, QR's 788s lack crew rest and are thus limited to... Serving say 80% of the world's population.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=4500nm%40doh

I'd bet most A359s have a crew rest.

Lightsaber

A damper on what might be a great year..... .....

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -o-462461/

An obstacle for firm 787 and A330NEO sales, EK want paper de-rate prices for fixed price maintenance without the actual de-rate, and no hostile operating environment surcharges. RR has played ball with the A350, but neither GE or RR seem keen to negotiate for engines they know are going to accrue more cycles and visits to DXB and DWC.

Who, if anyone, will blink first? Could this be one factor that influences an air frame manufacturer acquiring an equity interest in an engine OEM?

Historically, Boeing and Airbus have exercised significant influence over the engine OEM's. But with customers increasingly dealing direct, firm air frame sales are failing because engine deals are not being concluded, or triggering a price re-negotiation to compensate for a higher than expected engine deal, and / or more onerous terms.

I notice 4 A330-800 undisclosed orders have quietly appeared in the order book for November.

Most likely Garuda.

The A330neo has 61 net orders so far this year. There are 285 A330-900 and 14 A330-800 ordered in total. 34 A330neo delivered this year including November.

All together 1790 A330 ordered and 1484 delivered.

mjoelnir wrote:

The A330neo has 61 net orders so far this year. There are 285 A330-900 and 14 A330-800 ordered in total. 34 A330neo delivered this year including November.

All together 1790 A330 ordered and 1484 delivered.

As we are now still in the last month of the year and as many/most companies prefer to close the books "clean" at end of the year, it is likely we will see some further firming of orders till 31-Dec-2019.
It is now a really good year for the A330 Neo program.

Any chance of getting close to 100 orders?

That would be pne of the best 330 years for a long time.

olle wrote:

Any chance of getting close to 100 orders?

That would be pne of the best 330 years for a long time.

What do you call a long time? 2016 there were 106 gross and 83 net orders and 2015 156 gross and 136 net.
The down years were 2018 and 2017 with 27 and 21 net respectively.