ewt340
Posts: 1078
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Sat Mar 07, 2020 11:11 pm

Revelation wrote:
seahawk wrote:
While it does not look good for the NEO, the 787 will also see orders cut soon and used frames will become available at much reduced costs when the crisis shows it´s full effects. And if widebody production goes back to a more normal state, I think the NEO can more easily survive at 2 frames per month than the 787 at 6.

At rate 6, Boeing would simply move all production to the cheaper labor at CHS. It also reduces the number of Dreamlifter flights since a lot of parts flow CHS->PAE. I think they'd either mothball the PAE line, or tear it down to make room for future work. I don't think it will be a matter of survival for either. If it comes to that, Boeing still gets a large amount of its revenue from defense sales that are locked in, Airbus not so much.

ewt340 wrote:
I wonder, if they could fitted A330-800 with Trent 1000-E with 62,264 lbf (276.96 kN) rather than the current Trent 7000-72 with 324.0 kN / 72,834 lbf.

Both engines are extremely similar and came from the same manufacturer with similar specs. This would help -800 to be a bit more fuel efficient. Cause right now it's overpower.

Or, of course, a GEnX-2B as GE is said to be proposing.


I don't think those could be viable though. Currently both A330neo and A350 are RR only aircraft. That would probably be the biggest hurdle for such options. Although, if they did plan to offer it to A350neo, the A330NeoNeo would be interesting.
Last edited by ewt340 on Sat Mar 07, 2020 11:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1078
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Sat Mar 07, 2020 11:14 pm

trex8 wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
I wonder, if they could fitted A330-800 with Trent 1000-E with 62,264 lbf (276.96 kN) rather than the current Trent 7000-72 with 324.0 kN / 72,834 lbf.

Both engines are extremely similar and came from the same manufacturer with similar specs. This would help -800 to be a bit more fuel efficient. Cause right now it's overpower.

Trent 1000 doesn't have enough bleed air which the A330 needs unlike the 787 which needs minimal bleed air. You can always paper derate an engine if needed.

In another thread it was said that the problem the 1000 is having while the XWB wasn't having issue with is because the 1000 installation in the 787 is like running a Formula 1 car with a V12 to its limits while the XWB is like running a big V8 sedately in a regular car. The 7000 installation in the A330neo is probably closer to the XWB situation than the 1000 which should hopefully let it avoid some of the 1000s issues..


I see. It does make sense to derated it. Although, the one thing that I always curious about is the effect of derated engines on the fuel efficiency, would it decrease the consumptions significantly or not.
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 469
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Sun Mar 08, 2020 2:58 am

Devilfish wrote:
LurveBus wrote:
Dude, this is an aviation forum. We like planes. Some more than others. Just as there are fans of the 717 and the 764, the A338 will have at least one cheerleader. Nothing wrong with that.

Thank you. :smile:

LurveBus wrote:
In any case, PR isn’t very likely to get the A338 as they’ve done the long-and-thin thing with A342s in the past and that didn’t work out.

In retrospect, that was with the inefficient, "jurassic" ex-IB birds which at times needed a tech stop in HNL or GUM. What that could be up against is a more efficient, connected, full-IFE modern jetliner. Configure it with a 4a-B, 7a-W, 8a-Y cabin and that's gonna be very attractive for SEA or FCO, at least. All that's needed is an offer from Airbus which PR cannot refuse. PAL is relaunching CEB-LAX with the 77W...I'm anxious what the load factors might be...tough times ahead.


An Airbus offer that PR can't refuse is the exact thing that would probably be refused. No airline management in SEA (a region prone to corrupt behavior) wants to risk their careers over such things given the recent news regarding Airbus order bribes.
 
sabby
Posts: 425
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Sun Mar 08, 2020 8:59 am

ewt340 wrote:
I wonder, if they could fitted A330-800 with Trent 1000-E with 62,264 lbf (276.96 kN) rather than the current Trent 7000-72 with 324.0 kN / 72,834 lbf.

Both engines are extremely similar and came from the same manufacturer with similar specs. This would help -800 to be a bit more fuel efficient. Cause right now it's overpower.

Airlines don't need to de-rate engines for better fuel efficiency, they do it for lower maintenance and operation costs. The maximum thrust certified is only required when the aircraft takes off at MTOW or from a shorter / hot & high runways.
 
LurveBus
Posts: 329
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:21 pm

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Sun Mar 08, 2020 9:24 am

Devilfish wrote:
LurveBus wrote:
Dude, this is an aviation forum. We like planes. Some more than others. Just as there are fans of the 717 and the 764, the A338 will have at least one cheerleader. Nothing wrong with that.

Thank you. :smile:

LurveBus wrote:
In any case, PR isn’t very likely to get the A338 as they’ve done the long-and-thin thing with A342s in the past and that didn’t work out.

In retrospect, that was with the inefficient, "jurassic" ex-IB birds which at times needed a tech stop in HNL or GUM. What that could be up against is a more efficient, connected, full-IFE modern jetliner. Configure it with a 4a-B, 7a-W, 8a-Y cabin and that's gonna be very attractive for SEA or FCO, at least. All that's needed is an offer from Airbus which PR cannot refuse. PAL is relaunching CEB-LAX with the 77W...I'm anxious what the load factors might be...tough times ahead.



I’m talking about the 90’s. The original order of PR was for 6 A342s. They only took delivery of four, and flew them for a short period to LGW, making a nonstop flight between MNL and London for the very first time. When PAL went into bankruptcy, they kept the A343s and the A333s but they dropped the A342s which would go serve AR for quite a while.

In any case, the A343 practically cannibalized its smaller sibling. The 77W did the same to the 77L. The 789 won out over the 788 and the A358 was stillborn. The A338 isn’t likely to exceed the sales of the A342 that came before it given that it simply isn’t as flexible as it’s bigger sibling. For an airline, if the traffic is so low that only an A338 will make it work, why bother flying the route at all? The yields derived from each passenger has to make up for the trip cost, which is very similar to the A339. On the lower end, the A321XLR will do so much better on flights within its range, so that also reduces the niche where an A338 is most effective.

When you add all that up, in the current climate, the A338 has very few applications where it will be the best choice. Airlines like Garuda will definitely make use of its range if it wants to keep its European ambitions. PAL is in no position to order any aircraft right now as they have to deal with getting to profitability in the midst of family infighting. AR, which made steady use of the A342 and is currently abusing their A332s would also have been a good fit, but they didn’t choose it.

Time will tell if the A338 can scrape more orders than the A342. If airlines didn’t really need such a plane back then when range was an issue, they most probably don’t need it now.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13703
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Sun Mar 08, 2020 10:32 am

LurveBus wrote:
Devilfish wrote:
LurveBus wrote:
Dude, this is an aviation forum. We like planes. Some more than others. Just as there are fans of the 717 and the 764, the A338 will have at least one cheerleader. Nothing wrong with that.

Thank you. :smile:

LurveBus wrote:
In any case, PR isn’t very likely to get the A338 as they’ve done the long-and-thin thing with A342s in the past and that didn’t work out.

In retrospect, that was with the inefficient, "jurassic" ex-IB birds which at times needed a tech stop in HNL or GUM. What that could be up against is a more efficient, connected, full-IFE modern jetliner. Configure it with a 4a-B, 7a-W, 8a-Y cabin and that's gonna be very attractive for SEA or FCO, at least. All that's needed is an offer from Airbus which PR cannot refuse. PAL is relaunching CEB-LAX with the 77W...I'm anxious what the load factors might be...tough times ahead.



I’m talking about the 90’s. The original order of PR was for 6 A342s. They only took delivery of four, and flew them for a short period to LGW, making a nonstop flight between MNL and London for the very first time. When PAL went into bankruptcy, they kept the A343s and the A333s but they dropped the A342s which would go serve AR for quite a while.

In any case, the A343 practically cannibalized its smaller sibling. The 77W did the same to the 77L. The 789 won out over the 788 and the A358 was stillborn. The A338 isn’t likely to exceed the sales of the A342 that came before it given that it simply isn’t as flexible as it’s bigger sibling. For an airline, if the traffic is so low that only an A338 will make it work, why bother flying the route at all? The yields derived from each passenger has to make up for the trip cost, which is very similar to the A339. On the lower end, the A321XLR will do so much better on flights within its range, so that also reduces the niche where an A338 is most effective.

When you add all that up, in the current climate, the A338 has very few applications where it will be the best choice. Airlines like Garuda will definitely make use of its range if it wants to keep its European ambitions. PAL is in no position to order any aircraft right now as they have to deal with getting to profitability in the midst of family infighting. AR, which made steady use of the A342 and is currently abusing their A332s would also have been a good fit, but they didn’t choose it.

Time will tell if the A338 can scrape more orders than the A342. If airlines didn’t really need such a plane back then when range was an issue, they most probably don’t need it now.


Hi good post. Agree the A338 potential has been curtailed by both the A330-900 payload-range bump and the smaller lean XLR.

Image

We see a similar pattern with the similar 787. The 787-8s are 10% of the backlog and conversions to -9s have always been ongoing.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Sokes
Posts: 852
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: A330neo - 2020 not so great a year?

Mon Mar 09, 2020 10:06 am

mxaxai wrote:
...
Leeham has this interesting graph from Airbus:
Image


"Large single aisle and mid size widebodies"
Is this a joke? I assume Airbus means to say that A330 is better than B757, B767 and B777-200. Congratulations!
Is B787-9 still mid size or do the B787 in the graph only refer to B787-8?
B777-300 (not ER) is of course not a mid size widebody. However in a chart for up to 10 hours flight it mustn't be missing.

On a second look this chart is about planes relevant to a potential NMA. But the different size of letters used in different sentences is misleading.
I think this is among the worst charts I have seen in a long time.

What about politics?
I haven't read "The art of the deal", but may the import duty on Airbus planes be a bargaining chip? If Boeing beside not being able to deliver B737Max has to reduce B787 production rate as well, what are they to do with the workforce? It's just my opinion, but if the US president asks Europe for a favor, we are not really in a position to say no. And with reduced deliveries unsold slots become more valuable for those customers who really want an A330-900 over a B787.
I agree I'm on slippery ice with this statement. It's just something to think about.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
ewt340
Posts: 1078
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: A330neo - 2020 not so great a year?

Mon Mar 09, 2020 1:08 pm

Sokes wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
...
Leeham has this interesting graph from Airbus:
Image


"Large single aisle and mid size widebodies"
Is this a joke? I assume Airbus means to say that A330 is better than B757, B767 and B777-200. Congratulations!
Is B787-9 still mid size or do the B787 in the graph only refer to B787-8?
B777-300 (not ER) is of course not a mid size widebody. However in a chart for up to 10 hours flight it mustn't be missing.

On a second look this chart is about planes relevant to a potential NMA. But the different size of letters used in different sentences is misleading.
I think this is among the worst charts I have seen in a long time.

What about politics?
I haven't read "The art of the deal", but may the import duty on Airbus planes be a bargaining chip? If Boeing beside not being able to deliver B737Max has to reduce B787 production rate as well, what are they to do with the workforce? It's just my opinion, but if the US president asks Europe for a favor, we are not really in a position to say no. And with reduced deliveries unsold slots become more valuable for those customers who really want an A330-900 over a B787.
I agree I'm on slippery ice with this statement. It's just something to think about.


It does make sense though. A321 and A330 combo is better than B757, B767 and B777-200 combined.
A321 already beat B757. A330 beat B767 and B777-200.

Now boeing have B787-8 and B787-9 to offer for airline in these market these days. Both are long-haul aircraft with massive range which isn't suitable for medium haul flights in 4-8 hours range.
A321ceo able to evolved into XLR which beat B757-200 and MAX10 simultaneously.

While A330-900neo have been a slow seller. What Boeing would probably worry about is the replacement for A330neo. The less order Airbus get for A330neo. The faster their replacement would came into the market. Currently Airbus is in a win-win situation. They got big win with A320neo families and A350. What they need is a bridge in between. But unlike boeing which faces many problems these days, airbus is in a position to take over the medium haul/regional market.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: A330neo - 2020 not so great a year?

Mon Mar 09, 2020 1:33 pm

Sokes wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
...
Leeham has this interesting graph from Airbus:
Image


"Large single aisle and mid size widebodies"
Is this a joke? I assume Airbus means to say that A330 is better than B757, B767 and B777-200. Congratulations!
Is B787-9 still mid size or do the B787 in the graph only refer to B787-8?
B777-300 (not ER) is of course not a mid size widebody. However in a chart for up to 10 hours flight it mustn't be missing.

On a second look this chart is about planes relevant to a potential NMA. But the different size of letters used in different sentences is misleading.
I think this is among the worst charts I have seen in a long time.

What about politics?
I haven't read "The art of the deal", but may the import duty on Airbus planes be a bargaining chip? If Boeing beside not being able to deliver B737Max has to reduce B787 production rate as well, what are they to do with the workforce? It's just my opinion, but if the US president asks Europe for a favor, we are not really in a position to say no. And with reduced deliveries unsold slots become more valuable for those customers who really want an A330-900 over a B787.
I agree I'm on slippery ice with this statement. It's just something to think about.


Please note that this diagram is from 2017. As I read the data, all flights with a flight time up to 10 hours are included, with one exception. The exception is very large aircraft, which is defined as 777-300ER, 747 and A380. These large aircraft are sometimes used on medium haul, for example by Emirates that sends large flocks of A380 and 777 to the EU, India and China etc., all of which are under 10 hours.

Considering that the A380 and 777-300ER aren't included, I think the diagram gives a good overview of the situation. There are about 1400 A330s in service, and the vast majority of these are used on flights less than 10 hours. Compare this to about 500-600 787 in service in 2017 (all variants). Fast forward to 2020, and the 787 has probably gained market share. I assume that 787 birds, on average, is used on longer flights than an A330.
Last edited by reidar76 on Mon Mar 09, 2020 1:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
rrlopes
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:37 pm

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Mon Mar 09, 2020 1:34 pm

sabby wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
I wonder, if they could fitted A330-800 with Trent 1000-E with 62,264 lbf (276.96 kN) rather than the current Trent 7000-72 with 324.0 kN / 72,834 lbf.

Both engines are extremely similar and came from the same manufacturer with similar specs. This would help -800 to be a bit more fuel efficient. Cause right now it's overpower.

Airlines don't need to de-rate engines for better fuel efficiency, they do it for lower maintenance and operation costs. The maximum thrust certified is only required when the aircraft takes off at MTOW or from a shorter / hot & high runways.


Curiously (and counter-intuitively), de-rating the takeoff thrust tends to cause a slight increase in trip fuel. Even though the engines burn slight less per hour while de-rated, the lower thrust causes a higher time spent in takeoff thrust than otherwise. At least on the aircraft I used to work on, this caused more fuel burn (though not very much). The savings in engine maintenance cost would much more than compensate, though...
 
Sokes
Posts: 852
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: A330neo - 2020 not so great a year?

Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:39 am

reidar76 wrote:
[

Please note that this diagram is from 2017.
...
There are about 1400 A330s in service, and the vast majority of these are used on flights less than 10 hours. Compare this to about 500-600 787 in service in 2017 (all variants). Fast forward to 2020, and the 787 has probably gained market share. I assume that 787 birds, on average, is used on longer flights than an A330.


Of course you are right. There is no lie in the diagram. I just mean to say it's misleading.

If the intention was to show competitors to a potential NMA the diagram should have included only A321, B737-900ER, B757, B767, B787-8 and A330-200.
Otherwise the diagram should show all planes.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
9Patch
Posts: 453
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Tue Mar 10, 2020 5:18 pm

Leeham has a new feature, Heard on the Ramp, that contains news briefs:

Heard on the Ramp: Boeing has its 777X sales challenges; Airbus A330neo appears to be next

March 10, 2020, © Leeham News: Last year revealed Boeing 777X order problems, with a small customer base and cancellations or deferrals. Perhaps this year will be the Airbus A330neo’s turn.

Out of 337 orders, 156 A330neos are with airlines in trouble or can’t take aircraft (AirAsiaX, Iran Air, HNA), or 46%.

This is without counting the second level of trouble airlines and lessor orders, which may have challenges placing aircraft in today’s unsettled market.

Image


https://leehamnews.com/2020/03/10/heard ... o-be-next/
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 3886
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:27 pm

Please keep the thread on topic — this thread is about the A330.

✈️ atcsundevil
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6743
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Fri Mar 13, 2020 2:19 am

JustSomeDood wrote:
An Airbus offer that PR can't refuse is the exact thing that would probably be refused. No airline management in SEA (a region prone to corrupt behavior) wants to risk their careers over such things given the recent news regarding Airbus order bribes.

Didn't notice this. Who is going to refuse what? As always, it takes two to tango...SEA does not have a monopoly on avarice, even if they may be less discreet. I guess you missed these highlighted parts from post #47.....

Devilfish wrote:
...bespoke bikes not required...just a fantastic deal.

No one is asking Airbus to break the law. If B could offer 788s at a big discount, A must be capable of cutting a significant amount from the A338's list price as well. Or would it break the bank instead? Are they afraid a cheap but very capable and flexible aircraft would eat too much into the A359's sales? Airbus needs to reconsider or they might have to cull the A338's production altogether (unless COVID-19 does it for them first). Then they will have no candidate for situations like this....

https://www.flightglobal.com/orders-and ... 60.article

Some carriers may not be on their strongest financially, particularly in the midst of this epidemic...but a handful have demonstrated opportunistic decision making.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4490
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: A330neo - 2020 not so great a year?

Sun Mar 15, 2020 10:31 am

Francoflier wrote:
I don't think 2020 will be a great year for widebodies generally speaking, but the 330neo is always going to be the caboose on that train anyway.

By now? the 330 program should be fully amortized as the airplane they built it to compete with isn't even being sold in the passenger configuration anymore. It can't compete with the 787 or 7?77 as it's a "tweener" Not the range of One nor the capacity of the other, It's next competition from Boeing isn't even on the streets yet so by cutting the price? they may generate some business they wouldn't have had otherwise. Because sure as hell? Once the 797 is flying ? It will Sure be old news!
I don't doubt the airplane is useful and can be even more useful in the future in the P2F configuration as it's a right size for it as the Used 767 market dries up. but Airbus is going to have to make the case for it to the largest freight forwarders in the world, aside from FEDEX and UPS. and with this corona Virus around the world? Freight is going to become REAL important as passenger cargo capacity dries up for a while. Aside from that? Cutting the cost will give Boeing a run for the Money.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3714
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Sun Mar 15, 2020 2:35 pm

The crisis aside, over the last 10 years we have the 320/737 taking a big share of routes often and once flown by the 747/380/767/330 and their variants. This is obviously to a lesser degree affecting the 787/350 line. Fleets are being reshuffled, and what was optimal, what in a crisis is optimal, and what will be optimal in recovery may all be substantially different. The 330neo struggles to fill real but narrow niches. A plus is that it can be abused to operate outside those niches economically. Things are not clear.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 703
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

Re: A330neo - 2020 not so great a year?

Sun Mar 15, 2020 4:03 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
Francoflier wrote:
I don't think 2020 will be a great year for widebodies generally speaking, but the 330neo is always going to be the caboose on that train anyway.

By now? the 330 program should be fully amortized as the airplane they built it to compete with isn't even being sold in the passenger configuration anymore. It can't compete with the 787 or 7?77 as it's a "tweener" Not the range of One nor the capacity of the other, It's next competition from Boeing isn't even on the streets yet so by cutting the price? they may generate some business they wouldn't have had otherwise. Because sure as hell? Once the 797 is flying ? It will Sure be old news!
I don't doubt the airplane is useful and can be even more useful in the future in the P2F configuration as it's a right size for it as the Used 767 market dries up. but Airbus is going to have to make the case for it to the largest freight forwarders in the world, aside from FEDEX and UPS. and with this corona Virus around the world? Freight is going to become REAL important as passenger cargo capacity dries up for a while. Aside from that? Cutting the cost will give Boeing a run for the Money.

The initial A330 program yes, but the neo probably hasn't recouped on its R&D costs yet.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19010
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: A330neo - 2020 not so great a year?

Sun Mar 15, 2020 6:48 pm

Sokes wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
...
Leeham has this interesting graph from Airbus:
Image


"Large single aisle and mid size widebodies"
Is this a joke? I assume Airbus means to say that A330 is better than B757, B767 and B777-200. Congratulations!
Is B787-9 still mid size or do the B787 in the graph only refer to B787-8?
B777-300 (not ER) is of course not a mid size widebody. However in a chart for up to 10 hours flight it mustn't be missing.

On a second look this chart is about planes relevant to a potential NMA. But the different size of letters used in different sentences is misleading.
I think this is among the worst charts I have seen in a long time.

What about politics?
I haven't read "The art of the deal", but may the import duty on Airbus planes be a bargaining chip? If Boeing beside not being able to deliver B737Max has to reduce B787 production rate as well, what are they to do with the workforce? It's just my opinion, but if the US president asks Europe for a favor, we are not really in a position to say no. And with reduced deliveries unsold slots become more valuable for those customers who really want an A330-900 over a B787.
I agree I'm on slippery ice with this statement. It's just something to think about.

Why is the chart missing 738 and A320? 70% of my flights out to six hours are those sizes. With the he NEO and MAX (eventual) return to service, I expect the -8/-9/-10/A320/A321 to dominate out to 7 or 7.5 hours going forward. That leaves a tiny 7 to 10 hour market for the A330NEO with the A321xLR and possible 797 chipping away at that.

The A339 needs the planned range increase (as does the 787-10) to stretch out to TPAC and EU to Pacific Asia range.

The issue is the 787-10 is the major competition and we'll debate A339 vs 787-10 here for over a decade.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6743
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Sun Mar 15, 2020 7:22 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
Not the range of One nor the capacity of the other, It's next competition from Boeing isn't even on the streets yet so by cutting the price? they may generate some business they wouldn't have had otherwise.

If they slash prices, I think Airbus should keep the A338 at the 242T limit for it to survive and avoid cannibalizing the sale of its stablemate...and just apply the MTOW/range boost on the A339.

strfyr51 wrote:
Aside from that? Cutting the cost will give Boeing a run for the Money.

Yes...that would prevent them from waltzing away with every tender at the smaller capacity end of the widebody market.


frmrCapCadet wrote:
The crisis aside, over the last 10 years we have the 320/737 taking a big share of routes often and once flown by the 747/380/767/330 and their variants. This is obviously to a lesser degree affecting the 787/350 line. Fleets are being reshuffled, and what was optimal, what in a crisis is optimal, and what will be optimal in recovery may all be substantially different. The 330neo struggles to fill real but narrow niches. A plus is that it can be abused to operate outside those niches economically. Things are not clear.

The OEM's forecast that smaller widebodies would drastically fragment route networks is now abundantly evident. However, the industry is in an even wilder state of flux right now.


jeffrey0032j wrote:
The initial A330 program yes, but the neo probably hasn't recouped on its R&D costs yet.

Given Airbus' claim that R&D outlay for the NEO program was conservatively modest, they probably could get by chugging along at a low production rate to match demand until it picks up again.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 430
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: A330neo - 2020 not so great a year?

Sun Mar 15, 2020 7:36 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Sokes wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
...
Leeham has this interesting graph from Airbus:
Image


"Large single aisle and mid size widebodies"
Is this a joke? I assume Airbus means to say that A330 is better than B757, B767 and B777-200. Congratulations!
Is B787-9 still mid size or do the B787 in the graph only refer to B787-8?
B777-300 (not ER) is of course not a mid size widebody. However in a chart for up to 10 hours flight it mustn't be missing.

On a second look this chart is about planes relevant to a potential NMA. But the different size of letters used in different sentences is misleading.
I think this is among the worst charts I have seen in a long time.

What about politics?
I haven't read "The art of the deal", but may the import duty on Airbus planes be a bargaining chip? If Boeing beside not being able to deliver B737Max has to reduce B787 production rate as well, what are they to do with the workforce? It's just my opinion, but if the US president asks Europe for a favor, we are not really in a position to say no. And with reduced deliveries unsold slots become more valuable for those customers who really want an A330-900 over a B787.
I agree I'm on slippery ice with this statement. It's just something to think about.

Why is the chart missing 738 and A320? 70% of my flights out to six hours are those sizes. With the he NEO and MAX (eventual) return to service, I expect the -8/-9/-10/A320/A321 to dominate out to 7 or 7.5 hours going forward. That leaves a tiny 7 to 10 hour market for the A330NEO with the A321xLR and possible 797 chipping away at that.

The A339 needs the planned range increase (as does the 787-10) to stretch out to TPAC and EU to Pacific Asia range.

The issue is the 787-10 is the major competition and we'll debate A339 vs 787-10 here for over a decade.

Lightsaber


It’s a marketing chart from Airbus, so logically they’ll make sure to exclude the 777-300ER and 737-800 since the goal is to make the A321 and A330 look as impressive as possible. Excluding those planes helps make Airbus look like it has more market share. The capacity difference between the 737-900 and 737-800 is only 20 seats, but Airbus gets to define the middle of the market in their marketing charts.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1878
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Sun Mar 15, 2020 8:56 pm

Obviously freight is in the lower belly, but what needs to be done to the main cabin to allow for light freight in it. Back when combi's were 'legal' they would adjust the number of seats seasonally to even daily (pax for several daytime flights, then cargo in the evening/night). This could be a big help temporarily (if so certified) to have some of the flights be cargo with reduced main cabin loads suitable for the floor. Could a bulkhead be slid in on the seat rails and anchored. I recall the new regs require a smoke as well as a structural barrier, but the current floors then must meet the smoke requirement.

I'm surprised that the 330 freighters have not done well in the market - new build and P2F. The A306 was a hot P2F in its time, there are still a lot of cargo A300's in service long after production ended. I've heard it lacked range a tad for full payload to fit the historical freight routes.

This CV thing has really complicated the A330 backlog, even airlines like DL won't be placing major WB orders in the next few years. For one thing there will be lots of shiny used metal in the desert for bargain hunters, which DL is a master of. If oil prices stay low picking up a 2005 to 2010 A330 would be quite efficient. Leeham's chart above seems to indicate about 150 solid orders, then it gets to questionable ones. That is just a few years production - yikes!
 
amdiesen
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:27 pm

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Mon Mar 16, 2020 1:26 am

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.

A330 NEO
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.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4490
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Mon Mar 16, 2020 3:09 am

smartplane wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Reuters has picked up the story, reports that Airbus is trying to use the more popular A321XLR to sell A330neos.

No news here.

Packaging A320 family with A330/A350 order can trigger earlier A320 delivery slots for existing orders / larger credits for combined order. Boeing do the same with the 787/777 and 737.

Instead of retrospective credits being model specific, are order specific across model types.

Boeing has done this strategy for Years now. While I was at United they gave one price for the 747-400, One price for the 777-200, and a Killer price if we ordered them Both! And that's how we got the 777-200A models. The ER wasn't even an option yet. And when it did come? We went all in on it. The 777-200A was to replace the DC-10's to Hawaii and the DC10-30 specifically on the ORD-HNL route as it had the range on the wing fuel alone which is why the PW-4077 engines rather than the later 4084 or 4090's. It could also fly HNL-AKL or HNL-NRT, so it was a versatile airplane. As it could also fly ORD-LHR, SFO-LHR as well. the price was right even then so Airbus could Bundle any combination of A330/350, A330/A321 A321/320 or A32x/A220. They have plenty of options.. Because the Name of the game at the end of the day? Is to sell Airplanes! May Be? they need to consult with John Lahey again about selling airplanes if he's still in good health. He was a master Salesman!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 23017
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Mon Mar 16, 2020 2:33 pm

amdiesen wrote:
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.

A330 NEO
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.

Interesting post, lots to chew on.

Would a push towards lessors on A330neo help solve the issue of how to keep A330neo from competing with A350?

I guess all of this is academic, the world's airlines are not going to be in a mood for shopping any time soon.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10180
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Mon Mar 16, 2020 3:43 pm

Revelation wrote:
amdiesen wrote:
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.

A330 NEO
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.

Interesting post, lots to chew on.

Would a push towards lessors on A330neo help solve the issue of how to keep A330neo from competing with A350?

I guess all of this is academic, the world's airlines are not going to be in a mood for shopping any time soon.


It’s a chicken vs egg thing though. Most leasing companies are not going to place large speculative orders if there is not a solid operating airline customer base- they will tend to only order if they already have a customer lined up. You need to give them a reason to order the plane (solid diverse customer base) or they will just spend their money on 789s that they know they won’t have an issue placing. Early lessors, who were most of the Neo launch customers, already got burned when it turned out to be harder to place the aircraft than anticipated (which is great for the airlines, not so much the leasing companies). All of this, of course, is talking about when traffic has recovered post COVID-19.

Assuming every A330ceo operator will operate the A330neo is not always an accurate assumption.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 23017
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:16 pm

Polot wrote:
Assuming every A330ceo operator will operate the A330neo is not always an accurate assumption.

Just as assuming no more A330ceo operators will operate the A330neo is not always an accurate assumption.

A330neo has value to Airbus in several different ways.

CV throws a wrench/spanner into the works, but it does that in so many other ways too.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
amdiesen
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:27 pm

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Mon Mar 16, 2020 7:54 pm

Revelation wrote:
Would a push towards lessors on A330neo help solve the issue of how to keep A330neo from competing with A350?
I guess all of this is academic, the world's airlines are not going to be in a mood for shopping any time soon. CV throws a wrench/spanner into the works.


. The participants on this board, esp you and the other experienced members, are appreciated for understanding solutions and anticipating evolution. Respects to more informed opinions; but I see an argument that the two frames do not compete in certain segments. Tier3 airlines operating the CEO are the best example. Their perspective would be the A350 is too much plane/cost/risk. Leasing is the pragmatic solution for this group. Do I go cheap -used A330ceo, take a risk -B787, tactical upgrade -A330neo? Lessors, where there is a level of economic indifference, approach the concept of wise consul**. You can hear the lessor's rep say "Well if you go the A330neo route you can market stability, experience and an upgrade to your customers; "Our team has been flying the A330 for 20+ years, we are please to be serving you in AB's latest state-of-the-art version..."
. Airbus made the rational choice with the NEO, re-assessing and adapting the strategy based on the airliner's strength is important at this point in time to maximize the opportunity. Partnering with the leasing companies, imo, is a "moneyball" solution. (sales plus improving the longevity of the asset)

**Salespeople represent the antithesis of wise consul. Motivated by creating a transaction, they are one of the pressure factors disregarding decision maker time and distorting value propositions.

. CV is surreal, and watching Italy, its potential effects are astonishing. Your wrench/spanner appears to be hard wired to 240v circuit. Memories of a global population growth gif moving in time showed persistent global population growth except for the 'black plague' period it time. CV is the flu on steroids; you put a spotlight on a problem and humanity's capacity to achieve a solution can be just as astonishing. Pop growth + relative global peace ~= spicy debates on the A330neo for the next several years?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19010
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Mon Mar 16, 2020 8:51 pm

Revelation wrote:
I guess all of this is academic, the world's airlines are not going to be in a mood for shopping any time soon.

The airlines must differ or cancel order, en mass. Think about it, the airlines are scrambling to borrow enough to survive. Too many companies are doing that. Growth will be a future event.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 23017
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Mon Mar 16, 2020 9:11 pm

amdiesen wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Would a push towards lessors on A330neo help solve the issue of how to keep A330neo from competing with A350?
I guess all of this is academic, the world's airlines are not going to be in a mood for shopping any time soon. CV throws a wrench/spanner into the works.


. The participants on this board, esp you and the other experienced members, are appreciated for understanding solutions and anticipating evolution. Respects to more informed opinions; but I see an argument that the two frames do not compete in certain segments. Tier3 airlines operating the CEO are the best example. Their perspective would be the A350 is too much plane/cost/risk. Leasing is the pragmatic solution for this group. Do I go cheap -used A330ceo, take a risk -B787, tactical upgrade -A330neo? Lessors, where there is a level of economic indifference, approach the concept of wise consul**. You can hear the lessor's rep say "Well if you go the A330neo route you can market stability, experience and an upgrade to your customers; "Our team has been flying the A330 for 20+ years, we are please to be serving you in AB's latest state-of-the-art version..."
. Airbus made the rational choice with the NEO, re-assessing and adapting the strategy based on the airliner's strength is important at this point in time to maximize the opportunity. Partnering with the leasing companies, imo, is a "moneyball" solution. (sales plus improving the longevity of the asset)

**Salespeople represent the antithesis of wise consul. Motivated by creating a transaction, they are one of the pressure factors disregarding decision maker time and distorting value propositions.

. CV is surreal, and watching Italy, its potential effects are astonishing. Your wrench/spanner appears to be hard wired to 240v circuit. Memories of a global population growth gif moving in time showed persistent global population growth except for the 'black plague' period it time. CV is the flu on steroids; you put a spotlight on a problem and humanity's capacity to achieve a solution can be just as astonishing. Pop growth + relative global peace ~= spicy debates on the A330neo for the next several years?

It's a good argument. One area of concern is: how many airlines see themselves as Tier 3? Most have aspirations, and if they are Tier 3 today they presume they are just a step away from Tier 2 and maybe two steps away from Tier 1. Many see themselves as the next EK in waiting. A good example is DY. Airbus will need to find a lot of carriers that are Tier 3 and don't see themselves reaching for higher tiers in the near future in order for the strategy to pay good returns.

Under normal circumstances I would say anything Airbus can do to keep pressure on Boeing with low risk to themselves is a good move. Unfortunately I don't think these are normal circumstances.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4490
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Mon Mar 16, 2020 9:41 pm

Revelation wrote:
amdiesen wrote:
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.

A330 NEO
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.

Interesting post, lots to chew on.

Would a push towards lessors on A330neo help solve the issue of how to keep A330neo from competing with A350?

I guess all of this is academic, the world's airlines are not going to be in a mood for shopping any time soon.

I do not see what pushing the A330 to lessors would accomplish beyond lowering the list price. The Leasing companies Still have to get the monthly lease rates and turn a profit. And they cannot turn a profit on an airplane that Nobody is buying regularly. the one thing Airbus needs to do is build their Near Best airplane on the first time out because with their incremental improvements? It makes one think that we can bypass any particular model and wait for the next change to get what we need, While the same improvements cannot be retrofitted into the earlier models. Boeing tends to give you the beat they've got with the later improvements usually retrofittable into the models they produced earlier. the 777-200A has no center wing tank, But the 200B does, But the 200A could have tanks installed in the Fwd and Aft cargo bays and the engines upgraded to the 4090 as a retrofit though the price is the factor. . And? there are so many more 777-200B's than -200A's that it makes no sense to do it at all. But! It could be done! Airbus needs to be more elastic in their thinking for the long term. Do the engineering for the best model right up front! Companies can't keep waiting for the next model unless the next model is the "killer-Diller"! People do not feel they're getting the best that Airbus Has in the first model of their Airplanes ( at least in the USA) the people here are looking for Airbus to step up and take their Best Shot coming out the door. Delta? They tend to buy by Price and being First in Line no matter when they order the airplane. When they order a model? They demand they get theirs First? And? at the Best possible Price!.
They do not tend to wait around for "later developments"..
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4490
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Mon Mar 16, 2020 9:51 pm

amdiesen wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Would a push towards lessors on A330neo help solve the issue of how to keep A330neo from competing with A350?
I guess all of this is academic, the world's airlines are not going to be in a mood for shopping any time soon. CV throws a wrench/spanner into the works.


. The participants on this board, esp you and the other experienced members, are appreciated for understanding solutions and anticipating evolution. Respects to more informed opinions; but I see an argument that the two frames do not compete in certain segments. Tier3 airlines operating the CEO are the best example. Their perspective would be the A350 is too much plane/cost/risk. Leasing is the pragmatic solution for this group. Do I go cheap -used A330ceo, take a risk -B787, tactical upgrade -A330neo? Lessors, where there is a level of economic indifference, approach the concept of wise consul**. You can hear the lessor's rep say "Well if you go the A330neo route you can market stability, experience and an upgrade to your customers; "Our team has been flying the A330 for 20+ years, we are please to be serving you in AB's latest state-of-the-art version..."
. Airbus made the rational choice with the NEO, re-assessing and adapting the strategy based on the airliner's strength is important at this point in time to maximize the opportunity. Partnering with the leasing companies, imo, is a "moneyball" solution. (sales plus improving the longevity of the asset)

**Salespeople represent the antithesis of wise consul. Motivated by creating a transaction, they are one of the pressure factors disregarding decision maker time and distorting value propositions.

. CV is surreal, and watching Italy, its potential effects are astonishing. Your wrench/spanner appears to be hard wired to 240v circuit. Memories of a global population growth gif moving in time showed persistent global population growth except for the 'black plague' period it time. CV is the flu on steroids; you put a spotlight on a problem and humanity's capacity to achieve a solution can be just as astonishing. Pop growth + relative global peace ~= spicy debates on the A330neo for the next several years?

I do not men to be insulting BUT? Can you delineate and give examples of Tier 3, tier 2 and Tier 1 airlines are and who they might BE? Many times acronyms are thrown around here and some may know and some may Not know. Like I would bet that if you names 3 Tier 3 airlines? that 2 of the 3 might tell you to pound SandSo just for the sake of clarity? PLease denote the Tiers and who you think are in them. And if possible the methodology that put them there. Thank You!
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1126
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Tue Mar 17, 2020 12:26 am

lightsaber wrote:
Revelation wrote:
I guess all of this is academic, the world's airlines are not going to be in a mood for shopping any time soon.
The airlines must differ or cancel order, en mass. Think about it, the airlines are scrambling to borrow enough to survive. Too many companies are doing that. Growth will be a future event.

Lightsaber

Every airline is going into cash preservation/survival mode now (e.g. look at what has happened at Norwegian) and ordering new planes and CAPEX will be the last thing on their minds. With oil prices tanking, even the most fuel inefficient B744/A340 will do as long as they are fully paid up and not needing a C/D check anytime soon.

Survival is the most important thing and growth is not even in anyone's minds!
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Tue Mar 17, 2020 8:54 am

Well, as a first step Airbus is pausing production in France and Spain for at least 4 days. Both because employees are encouraged to stay at home and also to prepare hygienic measures that minimise infection risk at work, once production starts going again.
https://www.dgap.de/dgap/News/adhoc/air ... ID=1295591

I assume that many suppliers are under similar if not greater pressure, and while freight transport throughout Europe remains possible the recent border closures have led to many-hour long delays - not good for just-in-time delivery.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6743
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Tue Mar 17, 2020 5:12 pm

I think that sums up the situation quite succinctly..... :ill: .....

https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transp ... 27.article


So, for a break from all this gloomy prognostications and to inject a bit of levity into the thread, allow me to revisit an earlier diversion..... :cool2: .....

Image
https://airbus-h.assetsadobe2.com/is/im ... 1&qlt=85,0


It appears Airbus is not totally alien to the world of big motorbikes..... :bigthumbsup:
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
groupguy
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2020 7:15 am

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Mon Mar 23, 2020 7:38 am

surely there must be, or will shortly be many not so old A330s that will be available for lease very cheaply. Demand has plummeted & supply will go through the roof. A perfect storm, but who would pick them up ? Any airline that was about to order some new A330 neos but can see some older A330s for a small fraction of the price. Apologies if that has already been covered. Am trying to read this on my mobile phone,
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 570
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Mon Mar 23, 2020 10:59 am

groupguy wrote:
surely there must be, or will shortly be many not so old A330s that will be available for lease very cheaply. Demand has plummeted & supply will go through the roof. A perfect storm, but who would pick them up ? Any airline that was about to order some new A330 neos but can see some older A330s for a small fraction of the price. Apologies if that has already been covered. Am trying to read this on my mobile phone,


The good old A330ceos might live way longer than expected. As this is bad for the A330neos it is also bad for all the other wide bodies. The first 787s come off lease as well as 777s and in a few years also the 350s. If you can lease dirt cheap A330ceos this will have a massive pressure on lease prices of the other frames as well so I think many airlines will actually replace their 787s, 777s and soon some 350s with A330ceos. It reduces capacity and in a world with reduced air traffic a good old cheap A330ceo will be a great aircraft to use on many routes.

On the other hand it will become really hard to sell neos as well as 350s for Airbus. Boeing will also struggle to get ne 787s out as they have to compete with cheap 330s and second 787s, the latter will be more expensive though. Still cheaper than new ones but more expensive than 330s.
 
Scotron12
Posts: 434
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Thu Mar 26, 2020 10:25 am

As per an Airbus filing, they plan a monthly production rate of 3.5 A330NEOs per month.

Not too bad given the current situation.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKBN21A39T
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Thu Mar 26, 2020 11:48 am

Wing production in Bremen, Filton and Broughton is being slowed down for the next three weeks. https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... nment.html

I suppose, though, that we should keep short-term measures separate from the long-term outlook. Airlines will be very hesitant to receive new jets for the next few weeks or months but demand may very well pick up again afterwards (or it could remain at a low level for a few years - still too early to tell).
 
9Patch
Posts: 453
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Sun Apr 05, 2020 6:48 pm

Scotron12 wrote:
As per an Airbus filing, they plan a monthly production rate of 3.5 A330NEOs per month.

Not too bad given the current situation.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKBN21A39T


Richard Aboulafia article on the Coronavirus pandemic impact:

Twin Aisle Jetliners. This segment will be hit hardest, with rates falling later this year and a more serious drop (20-25% by value) in 2021. There was already an overcapacity problem here, and international traffic will recover slower than domestic. Most programs will be hit, but the A330neo is particularly vulnerable. If Airbus prioritizes the A350XWB, the 330neo could be this generation’s MD-11. B787 rates will fall too; hardly surprising since rate 14 was ill-advised.

http://www.richardaboulafia.com/shownote.asp?id=645
 
VV
Posts: 1552
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Sun Apr 05, 2020 8:20 pm

Are they going to build white tails?
 
Scotron12
Posts: 434
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:33 pm

VV wrote:
Are they going to build white tails?


Has Airbus ever built an white tail?? Usually the tail is one of the 1st painted. So they have certainly built frames that airlines have not taken. But white tails no AFAIK. Correct me wrong.
 
trex8
Posts: 5442
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:43 pm

I can't find it again but in March there was a report from one financial pundit that what the governments ought to do is buy planes from the OEMs. IIRC they were talking about 600 planes over several years. IIRC 3 years, from Airbus. This guarantees the OEM a minimum delivery rate, a guaranteed customer who will not potentially be gone when delivery is due and gives the governments equity which they may even make a profit on. Obviously the terms will be important for both sides but seems a better mechanism than direct grants/loans and other immediate bailouts. etc.
 
Aircellist
Posts: 1564
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 8:43 am

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Sun Apr 05, 2020 10:01 pm

Quick note: Airbus built a few A300 white tails, in the '70s, as far as I know…
"When I find out I was wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?" -attributed to John Maynard Keynes
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 430
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Sun Apr 05, 2020 10:11 pm

Scotron12 wrote:
As per an Airbus filing, they plan a monthly production rate of 3.5 A330NEOs per month.

Not too bad given the current situation.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKBN21A39T


That’s not bad but it probably will need to go down further. If lessors can’t find customers as well as Iran Air, Air Asia X and Hainan can’t take deliveries, the A330neo will be out of production in two years at that rate
Last edited by Weatherwatcher1 on Sun Apr 05, 2020 10:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19010
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Sun Apr 05, 2020 10:18 pm

It has been a long time since white tails were built. There were customer less early 787s, 748s, A300s, and others. I doubt we'll see many white tail A330s. Instead, we might see military tankers...

frmrCapCadet wrote:
The crisis aside, over the last 10 years we have the 320/737 taking a big share of routes often and once flown by the 747/380/767/330 and their variants. This is obviously to a lesser degree affecting the 787/350 line. Fleets are being reshuffled, and what was optimal, what in a crisis is optimal, and what will be optimal in recovery may all be substantially different. The 330neo struggles to fill real but narrow niches. A plus is that it can be abused to operate outside those niches economically. Things are not clear.

This needs repeating. The prior was ended in 2017. Back when the NEO was so new, few flew far. When we come out of this, I expect a high fraction of A321LR/xLR flights. I also expect a -9 ER with the -10 gear. We'll also know Moxie (Breeze) will have 20 A223LR.

I'm trying to remember the last time I flew a TCON flight on any of the aircraft graphed. I've flown A319s, A320s, and 738s. I seem to only fly 752s and 739s as hub stuffers.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
VV
Posts: 1552
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Sun Apr 05, 2020 10:28 pm

Scotron12 wrote:
VV wrote:
Are they going to build white tails?


Has Airbus ever built an white tail?? Usually the tail is one of the 1st painted. So they have certainly built frames that airlines have not taken. But white tails no AFAIK. Correct me wrong.


You are wrong.

Airbus built white tails in the past.
 
Scotron12
Posts: 434
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Sun Apr 05, 2020 10:52 pm

VV wrote:
Scotron12 wrote:
VV wrote:
Are they going to build white tails?


Has Airbus ever built an white tail?? Usually the tail is one of the 1st painted. So they have certainly built frames that airlines have not taken. But white tails no AFAIK. Correct me wrong.


You are wrong.

Airbus built white tails in the past.


My bad :white: but in defense was referring to the A330NEO.

Cheers
 
VV
Posts: 1552
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Sun Apr 05, 2020 11:02 pm

Scotron12 wrote:
VV wrote:
Scotron12 wrote:

Has Airbus ever built an white tail?? Usually the tail is one of the 1st painted. So they have certainly built frames that airlines have not taken. But white tails no AFAIK. Correct me wrong.


You are wrong.

Airbus built white tails in the past.


My bad :white: but in defense was referring to the A330NEO.

Cheers


That one too, although the tail was not actually white.
 
9Patch
Posts: 453
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:51 pm

lightsaber wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
The crisis aside, over the last 10 years we have the 320/737 taking a big share of routes often and once flown by the 747/380/767/330 and their variants. This is obviously to a lesser degree affecting the 787/350 line. Fleets are being reshuffled, and what was optimal, what in a crisis is optimal, and what will be optimal in recovery may all be substantially different. The 330neo struggles to fill real but narrow niches. A plus is that it can be abused to operate outside those niches economically. Things are not clear.

This needs repeating. The prior was ended in 2017. Back when the NEO was so new, few flew far. When we come out of this, I expect a high fraction of A321LR/xLR flights. I also expect a -9 ER with the -10 gear. We'll also know Moxie (Breeze) will have 20 A223LR.

I'm trying to remember the last time I flew a TCON flight on any of the aircraft graphed. I've flown A319s, A320s, and 738s. I seem to only fly 752s and 739s as hub stuffers.

Lightsaber


Richard Aboulafia makes the same case:

...I was right about the A380 being killed by airline route fragmentation, but I didn’t see fragmentation relentlessly pushing average jet size downward. Soon, every transoceanic route will be served by an A321neo XLR or a 787, and nothing bigger. Our twin aisle forecast had been flat; it’s now slightly down. And what was once a 50-50 single aisle-twin aisle market is quickly becoming 65% single aisles (by value).

http://www.richardaboulafia.com/shownote.asp?id=642
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6743
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Airbus considers A330neo production rate cut

Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:37 pm

Scotron12 wrote:
My bad :white: but in defense was referring to the A330NEO.

VV wrote:
That one too, although the tail was not actually white.

This leads me to wonder if the rest of KU's ordered A338s would be built as white-tails...or not at all? :stirthepot:
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos