Production rates will be driven by these key points:
The customers for the A339 are Tier1 airlines that can negotiate engine agreements with RR and
Tier3 airlines that are looking for an easy upgrade path for their A330ceos (limited to 10-12 year commitments).
The A339 is more expensive than the B789 due to its shorter expected economic life.
Leasing companies are key to the A330NEO program.
The A339 is substantively more expensive than a comparable B789. An estimated useful life of an A339 is ~19yrs versus a B789 at ~25yrs. An estimated amortized year-one cost of an A339 versus a B789 is 16m versus 12m respectively. viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1441781&p=22090379#p22090379
The factors and formula are generalized/average/rule of thumb. The thesis and scale are the point.
Data: direct financing is a comparatively disproportionate challenge
Data: airline costs of new-type introduction are disproportionate, as a factor in frame acquisition, for tier 3 and 2 airlines versus tier 1; staff training, infrastructure adaptation investments, …
hypothesis: WB aircraft are globally over-ordered
hypothesis: leasing companies are focused on non-A330neo programs
hypothesis: Tier 1 airlines will evaluate the A339 with the advantage of being able to competitively negotiate with RR (in house maint agreements)
hypothesis: Tier 2 airlines are better served in the WB class by purchasing the longer (economic) life 787/350. They may get pushed into an A339 discussion based on Boeing sales misbehavior
hypothesis: Tier 3 airlines will optimistically evaluate the A339 as a lower risk/cost upgaging replacement for their A332s
hypothesis: Leasing companies will be key to the A339P program; sales, upselling; esp in the tier 3 airline market
hypothesis: The biggest compeditor to the A339 are used economic A333s
hypothesis: The A.net board was overly pessimistic about the A330neo prospects in late 2018, sentiment whooshed over a rational mean as the board became overly optimistic about A330neo prospects in late 2019
opinion: Airbus should view the leasing companies as their primary customer-partner for the A330neo passenger program, and incentivize them accordingly. This would include an AB commitment to restrict direct A339P sales campaigns to a carved-out exception list
opinion: Airbus in conjunction with the leasing companies need to solve for "second use utility"
opinion: Airbus should effect a pre-certified and evolvable P2F conversion method and modify the A339 design with this 2nd use in mind
The proposed A350 freighter impairs the A330neo program. Further, the economic life argument can be structured to compare an A350F versus an A330NEOF with similar results. The expected longer life of an A350F makes the frame an equal or better value proposition from a acquisition price perspective. The proposed A350F intuitively shortens the manufacturing life of the A330neo. The gap between the A321 and the A359 will attract engineers and business minds.