Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
DartHerald
Topic Author
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 2:08 pm

Future of the A338?

Sun Nov 06, 2022 2:55 pm

The staunchest of Airbus supporters could hardly deny that the A338 has hardy been a runaway success, in part due to the encroachment of the A339 on its capabilities. Has the time come to consider repositioning the A338 as the "light" member of the duo, forgetting about long range and restricting its range to the longer transatlantic routes and similar, and stripping out as much weight as possible. That might make it a more suitable contender for the 767 replacement market than the 787, for example, and take it back towards being more of an A300 successor, and providing the step above the A321XLR-type routes where more seats or a bit more range are required.
 
oceanvikram
Posts: 186
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2017 12:00 pm

Re: Future of the A338?

Sun Nov 06, 2022 3:28 pm

DartHerald wrote:
The staunchest of Airbus supporters could hardly deny that the A338 has hardy been a runaway success, in part due to the encroachment of the A339 on its capabilities. Has the time come to consider repositioning the A338 as the "light" member of the duo, forgetting about long range and restricting its range to the longer transatlantic routes and similar, and stripping out as much weight as possible. That might make it a more suitable contender for the 767 replacement market than the 787, for example, and take it back towards being more of an A300 successor, and providing the step above the A321XLR-type routes where more seats or a bit more range are required.


If it is similar in performance as the 767-300ER, I think it’s a great idea. But then Airbus did have a better product with A332.

There must be a reason they developed 338 or they could have focused on only the A339.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 13822
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Future of the A338?

Sun Nov 06, 2022 3:44 pm

I don’t you will see any A338 only focused development. Airbus will continue to offer it because they already have the plane certified so why not, but only improvements it will get are things also being applied to A339. Selling higher margins A339s will always be the priority.

Airbus has basically stripped all the easy weight out of the A330 platform at this point. Any substantial weight reduction without dramatic changes like a smaller wing will require significant engineering effort, and again would also be applied to A339 too leading to the same outcome- for not much more operating costs you can use the larger plane with higher revenue potential.

If Airbus does dramatic changes like a new smaller wing and substantially lighter structure that can never support max A330 weights you will probably see them market it as a new family (A360 or whatever), and probably built on a different line than the A330neo since there would be substantial production differences.
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 2161
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: Future of the A338?

Sun Nov 06, 2022 5:30 pm

I think the now-defunct Garuda order points to a possible scenario. A 339 fleet for mid-haul routes at highish density where it works well, supplemented by a small number of 338s for a few long haul destinations because that is more economical than a new fleet type for the small number required.

The Airbus order summary last month suggested that a couple of 339 orders had been converted to 338s, so we may know more soon.
 
seat1a
Posts: 938
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 7:52 pm

Re: Future of the A338?

Sun Nov 06, 2022 5:36 pm

One question about the A338 - Would it work on nonstop routes like AKL-JFK/LAX/GRU? Or SYD-JFK/GRU? Thanks!
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 3218
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Future of the A338?

Sun Nov 06, 2022 6:19 pm

As long as the A339 is in production, the A338 will be on offer. Minimal changes and built on the same line, so no reason not to. It will sell very sparsely, hitting as many as 30 would be a surprise.
 
ShamrockBoi330
Posts: 384
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:28 am

Re: Future of the A338?

Sun Nov 06, 2022 7:17 pm

Assume an updated MRTT or even freighter (less likely, but?) could be built based on the 338 platform at some point in the future?
 
Speedy752
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2020 4:13 am

Re: Future of the A338?

Sun Nov 06, 2022 7:32 pm

A light version would just be on paper, it would not be worth airbus’ time to take on a great weight reduction campaign at this stage. It simply finds itself with a set of capabilities and trade offs few airlines find useful. Airlines needing more range than a 339 have almost universally ordered a350s even when they have very small fleets (ITA, air Mauritius). I’d also suspect with 339 pricing there isn’t much room to price a 338 to match capabilities unless a client needs the range. I’d suspect internally Airbus assumed they’d sell a few more than they have but I’d doubt it would have gone undeveloped out of the possibility of future sales
 
trex8
Posts: 5877
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

Re: Future of the A338?

Sun Nov 06, 2022 7:53 pm

Theyre not going to build a A332ceo based MRTT forever, small niche but enough to justify its existence with small orders from airlines.
 
First300
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2022 11:52 am

Re: Future of the A338?

Sun Nov 06, 2022 8:28 pm

DartHerald wrote:
The staunchest of Airbus supporters could hardly deny that the A338 has hardy been a runaway success, in part due to the encroachment of the A339 on its capabilities. Has the time come to consider repositioning the A338 as the "light" member of the duo, forgetting about long range and restricting its range to the longer transatlantic routes and similar, and stripping out as much weight as possible. That might make it a more suitable contender for the 767 replacement market than the 787, for example, and take it back towards being more of an A300 successor, and providing the step above the A321XLR-type routes where more seats or a bit more range are required.


The 330ceo is one of the reasons the 767 passenger version stopped selling so this Talk about an alleged 767 replacement market is exaggerated.
 
LDRA
Posts: 539
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:01 am

Re: Future of the A338?

Sun Nov 06, 2022 8:28 pm

For medium range duty, used A330-300 is probably more suitable than A330-800. T7000 is heavier and more expensive than T700
 
NLINK
Posts: 575
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 3:20 pm

Re: Future of the A338?

Sun Nov 06, 2022 8:50 pm

Speedy752 wrote:
A light version would just be on paper, it would not be worth airbus’ time to take on a great weight reduction campaign at this stage. It simply finds itself with a set of capabilities and trade offs few airlines find useful. Airlines needing more range than a 339 have almost universally ordered a350s even when they have very small fleets (ITA, air Mauritius). I’d also suspect with 339 pricing there isn’t much room to price a 338 to match capabilities unless a client needs the range. I’d suspect internally Airbus assumed they’d sell a few more than they have but I’d doubt it would have gone undeveloped out of the possibility of future sales


Airbus is already offering a lower MTOW to the airlines but there is no interest because the operating costs are so close. I believe theMTOW they are offering is right around 440,000 lbs
 
questions
Posts: 2499
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:51 am

Re: Future of the A338?

Sun Nov 06, 2022 9:24 pm

oceanvikram wrote:
DartHerald wrote:
The staunchest of Airbus supporters could hardly deny that the A338 has hardy been a runaway success, in part due to the encroachment of the A339 on its capabilities. Has the time come to consider repositioning the A338 as the "light" member of the duo, forgetting about long range and restricting its range to the longer transatlantic routes and similar, and stripping out as much weight as possible. That might make it a more suitable contender for the 767 replacement market than the 787, for example, and take it back towards being more of an A300 successor, and providing the step above the A321XLR-type routes where more seats or a bit more range are required.


If it is similar in performance as the 767-300ER, I think it’s a great idea. But then Airbus did have a better product with A332.

There must be a reason they developed 338 or they could have focused on only the A339.


Are any airlines looking for a direct replacement of the 767-300ER?

Seems most operators are content on upgauging and downgauging replacements.

Either lack of interest or A and B can’t make economic sense out of offering a direct replacement.
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 2161
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: Future of the A338?

Sun Nov 06, 2022 9:38 pm

JerseyFlyer wrote:
I think the now-defunct Garuda order points to a possible scenario. A 339 fleet for mid-haul routes at highish density where it works well, supplemented by a small number of 338s for a few long haul destinations because that is more economical than a new fleet type for the small number required.

The Airbus order summary last month suggested that a couple of 339 orders had been converted to 338s, so we may know more soon.


If my thinking on this is correct, the 2 frames converted to 338s should be for Malaysian, who are taking 20 - we will see
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 8322
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: Future of the A338?

Sun Nov 06, 2022 9:50 pm

Polot wrote:
If Airbus does dramatic changes like a new smaller wing and substantially lighter structure that can never support max A330 weights you will probably see them market it as a new family (A360 or whatever), and probably built on a different line than the A330neo since there would be substantial production differences.

Hell, a fuselage between the A300 and A310 with scaled down wings, maybe GEnX-2Bs for good measure, Airbus enters the middle of the market and comes full circle, or shall I say, full A360. ;)

But in all honesty and A310-sized A350 fuselage would probably be more like it.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7784
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Future of the A338?

Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:16 pm

DartHerald wrote:
The staunchest of Airbus supporters could hardly deny that the A338 has hardy been a runaway success, in part due to the encroachment of the A339 on its capabilities.

Why do I feel being alluded to? :scratchchin: Admittedly, I get particularly excited about the A338 everytime Dia de los Muertos comes around. :ghost:

DartHerald wrote:
That might make it a more suitable contender for the 767 replacement market than the 787, for example, and take it back towards being more of an A300 successor, and providing the step above the A321XLR-type routes where more seats or a bit more range are required.

Polot wrote:
If Airbus does dramatic changes like a new smaller wing and substantially lighter structure that can never support max A330 weights you will probably see them market it as a new family (A360 or whatever), and probably built on a different line than the A330neo since there would be substantial production differences.

And yet, Boeing isn't about to pull the trigger and launch its NMA already :? OTOH, they might simply keep on offering the 788 as is.


JerseyFlyer wrote:
I think the now-defunct Garuda order points to a possible scenario. A 339 fleet for mid-haul routes at highish density where it works well, supplemented by a small number of 338s for a few long haul destinations because that is more economical than a new fleet type for the small number required.

Makes one wonder why GA would cancel all 4 only to reorder a couple of A338s later on. :confused:


seat1a wrote:
One question about the A338 - Would it work on nonstop routes like AKL-JFK/LAX/GRU? Or SYD-JFK/GRU? Thanks!

Per the Airbus blurb - with meaningful payload both ways... AKL-GRU is within range, AKL-LAX is very doable, while AKL-JFK is at the edge of its payload/range envelope. Likewise, SYD-GRU is stretching it a bit, but SYD-JFK is definitely beyond its outer limits. And the A338 still has to gain the FAA 251T type certification before it can operate farther inland stateside.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=AKL-GRU/LA ... /JFK&DU=nm


Speedy752 wrote:
I’d also suspect with 339 pricing there isn’t much room to price a 338 to match capabilities unless a client needs the range. I’d suspect internally Airbus assumed they’d sell a few more than they have but I’d doubt it would have gone undeveloped out of the possibility of future sales

There was a ~$50M spread between the two variants back when Airbus still published their list prices. I don't know about now.


TWA772LR wrote:
Hell, a fuselage between the A300 and A310 with scaled down wings, maybe GEnX-2Bs for good measure, Airbus enters the middle of the market and comes full circle, or shall I say, full A360. ;)

Taking us all back to the question of excess power for the aircraft size and the astronomical costs for a new program. :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign:
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 11611
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Future of the A338?

Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:26 pm

questions wrote:
Are any airlines looking for a direct replacement of the 767-300ER?

Seems most operators are content on upgauging and downgauging replacements.


There are no alternatives but to upgauge or downgauge today, so that's where the sales go.

It seems pretty clear that the size of the market isn't big enough to support clean-sheet.

First300 wrote:
The 330ceo is one of the reasons the 767 passenger version stopped selling so this Talk about an alleged 767 replacement market is exaggerated.


How many 330ceos and neos has Airbus sold since the first delivery of a 787? Boeing has orders for ~1500 787s and has delivered over 1,000. (I'll make it easy for you: mine is bigger than yours.
Last edited by MIflyer12 on Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
DartHerald
Topic Author
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 2:08 pm

Re: Future of the A338?

Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:30 pm

Polot wrote:

Airbus has basically stripped all the easy weight out of the A330 platform at this point. Any substantial weight reduction without dramatic changes like a smaller wing will require significant engineering effort, and again would also be applied to A339 too leading to the same outcome- for not much more operating costs you can use the larger plane with higher revenue potential..


This where the non-aerospace engineer like me has to admit to puzzlement. We are constantly told that upgrading an airframe to give higher weights and range brings with it increases in structural weight to strengthen the airframe. So why is it not possible to undo those changes to offer a genuinely lighter frame of a capacity better matched to the 767-300 replacement category? There is surely ab potentially worthwhile market between UA and DL to try exploring the possibility.
 
mig17
Posts: 467
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Future of the A338?

Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:48 pm

DartHerald wrote:
Polot wrote:

Airbus has basically stripped all the easy weight out of the A330 platform at this point. Any substantial weight reduction without dramatic changes like a smaller wing will require significant engineering effort, and again would also be applied to A339 too leading to the same outcome- for not much more operating costs you can use the larger plane with higher revenue potential..


This where the non-aerospace engineer like me has to admit to puzzlement. We are constantly told that upgrading an airframe to give higher weights and range brings with it increases in structural weight to strengthen the airframe. So why is it not possible to undo those changes to offer a genuinely lighter frame of a capacity better matched to the 767-300 replacement category? There is surely ab potentially worthwhile market between UA and DL to try exploring the possibility.

Because if payload/range is not needed, a narrowbody can do it better : even if not better on cost per seat while far better on both trip cost and acquisition cost.
 
TeddyTony
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2019 3:03 pm

Re: Future of the A338?

Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:50 pm

Airbus should've done an A300NEO 5000nmi range and capable of landing on short runways. Definitely would've been profitable.
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 1115
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: Future of the A338?

Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:58 pm

DartHerald wrote:
Polot wrote:

Airbus has basically stripped all the easy weight out of the A330 platform at this point. Any substantial weight reduction without dramatic changes like a smaller wing will require significant engineering effort, and again would also be applied to A339 too leading to the same outcome- for not much more operating costs you can use the larger plane with higher revenue potential..


This where the non-aerospace engineer like me has to admit to puzzlement. We are constantly told that upgrading an airframe to give higher weights and range brings with it increases in structural weight to strengthen the airframe. So why is it not possible to undo those changes to offer a genuinely lighter frame of a capacity better matched to the 767-300 replacement category? There is surely ab potentially worthwhile market between UA and DL to try exploring the possibility.


When you strengthen an airplane to increase payload, the engineers check to see what parts don’t have enough margin and strengthen them. Usually landing gear is where strengthening is required. Sometimes wing to body join is critical. It is very little work to do some strengthening of the structure. Perhaps 5% of parts change. Additionally most airplane systems have additional margin built in. For example the airplane hydraulic pumps are more powerful than needed. It takes very little work to increase MTOW or payload. A 10% MTOW increase may only add 1-2% structure weight.

Going the other way is harder. A shorter fuselage is easy, but the airplane is overbuilt unless structural parts are shrunk. The problem with making things lighter is it takes a lot more analysis to shave a few pounds off each part. You end up with custom made lighter weight parts, which means they cost more since they are limited batch quantities. Airbus would spend a lot of money to make the smaller variant lighter.

Smaller airplanes with less payload offer less profit potential to airlines since payload equals money ( people, cargo, and fuel). Less people and less cargo brings in less revenue. Airlines wont earn as much money over the life of the airplane which means the sales price is lower. So In the end, why would Airbus spend a billion dollars to shrink an airplane that sells for less money? The better solution for Airbus is to just discount the larger A339 and convince the airlines to buy the bigger plane.
 
Breathe
Posts: 1061
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:06 pm

Re: Future of the A338?

Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:59 pm

A330-800neo is essentially the wide-body version of the A319neo. It'll remain in Airbus' sales brochure, and for those who want it, they'll build it since it doesn't have any issues with the production of their other family variants.
 
phatfarmlines
Posts: 2346
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 12:06 pm

Re: Future of the A338?

Sun Nov 06, 2022 11:04 pm

The A338NEO feels like a 767-300 replacement. Someone like DL will need to operate to secondary overseas markets - they can't funnel all of the JV traffic to AMS/CDG, nor operate with less-than-daily flying to secondary markets because the equipment is too big.
 
AIRTRANSAT767
Posts: 133
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2015 12:36 am

Re: Future of the A338?

Sun Nov 06, 2022 11:33 pm

I will not be surprised if Air Transat chooses this model to replace the A330-243 especially delivered in 2000.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 13822
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Future of the A338?

Mon Nov 07, 2022 12:05 am

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
DartHerald wrote:
Polot wrote:

Airbus has basically stripped all the easy weight out of the A330 platform at this point. Any substantial weight reduction without dramatic changes like a smaller wing will require significant engineering effort, and again would also be applied to A339 too leading to the same outcome- for not much more operating costs you can use the larger plane with higher revenue potential..


This where the non-aerospace engineer like me has to admit to puzzlement. We are constantly told that upgrading an airframe to give higher weights and range brings with it increases in structural weight to strengthen the airframe. So why is it not possible to undo those changes to offer a genuinely lighter frame of a capacity better matched to the 767-300 replacement category? There is surely ab potentially worthwhile market between UA and DL to try exploring the possibility.


When you strengthen an airplane to increase payload, the engineers check to see what parts don’t have enough margin and strengthen them. Usually landing gear is where strengthening is required. Sometimes wing to body join is critical. It is very little work to do some strengthening of the structure. Perhaps 5% of parts change. Additionally most airplane systems have additional margin built in. For example the airplane hydraulic pumps are more powerful than needed. It takes very little work to increase MTOW or payload. A 10% MTOW increase may only add 1-2% structure weight.

Going the other way is harder. A shorter fuselage is easy, but the airplane is overbuilt unless structural parts are shrunk. The problem with making things lighter is it takes a lot more analysis to shave a few pounds off each part. You end up with custom made lighter weight parts, which means they cost more since they are limited batch quantities. Airbus would spend a lot of money to make the smaller variant lighter.



To add it’s important to remember the A330 is a two engine version of the A340, a plane that had a MTOW of ~280t.

This is one of the main reasons why Airbus has been able to grow the A330’s so much. Early A330s with lower MTOWs were just severely gimped from the factory, in part to protect the A340. The model (A330) was never really optimized for those lower weights and was always carrying a lot of structure needed to support the A340’s weights for production commonality reasons. Aside from available thrust, the gear are basically the only engineering reason Airbus is reaching max (A340 obviously have an extra MLG to support higher weight).
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10960
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

Re: Future of the A338?

Mon Nov 07, 2022 12:12 am

I'm sure I read a post on here recently, claiming that Delta were being offered a shorter range and lower MTOW A338 as a 767 replacement. Not sure if this is a thing, or just a rumor?
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 8322
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: Future of the A338?

Mon Nov 07, 2022 12:15 am

Devilfish wrote:
Taking us all back to the question of excess power for the aircraft size and the astronomical costs for a new program. :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign:

What's Airbus got to lose? Make a MoM Frankenplane, especially since Boeing has shown their hand and won't make a new plane any time soon. A350 tech already exists. A scaled down wing vs a new wing. And the GEnX2B already exists and is lighter than the Trent 7000.

Ok maybe not a small A350 fuselage, but the A330 fuselage is tried and true.
 
NLINK
Posts: 575
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 3:20 pm

Re: Future of the A338?

Mon Nov 07, 2022 2:24 am

PlymSpotter wrote:
I'm sure I read a post on here recently, claiming that Delta were being offered a shorter range and lower MTOW A338 as a 767 replacement. Not sure if this is a thing, or just a rumor?



There is not a public article that directly says Delta but there is a variant that has a MTOW of right over 440,000lbs instead. This has been shopped around as a 767 replacement to a few carriers.

The problem is it’s still a heavy plane and the fuel burn is almost the same as the 900.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Future of the A338?

Mon Nov 07, 2022 4:25 am

TeddyTony wrote:
Airbus should've done an A300NEO 5000nmi range and capable of landing on short runways. Definitely would've been profitable.

100% agree.

The A330NEO missed the market and made it too close in size and capability to the A350. Optimising for a shorter range improves efficiency on shorter routes.

Timing would have been very difficult. The A300 ended production in 2007 and the long lead term items probably stopped production in 2005.

A380 first flight 2005
A350 first flight 2013
A320NEO first flight 2014
A330NEO first flight 2017

Airbus was extremely busy with the A380 and A350 between 2000 and 2010. This is when a A300NEO would have been launched and it would have then beaten the 787 into service. It would have done well in the long run. Japan uses the 787-8 on short haul. The A300NEO with Trent 1500 engines would have been superior to the 787-8 on short haul due to its shorter range optimisation giving lower weights. It would have been like the perfect 787-3 that Japan originally ordered.

Also the A300NEO would have been great in tight 9 abreast for the Asian low cost carriers. The 787 can't do similar density. Not launching the A300NEO was the first missed opportunity.

Airbus had to launch something to compete agains the smaller 787 so we then got the A330NEO. This was the second misssed opportunity Airbus should have done more with a bigger investment and more optimisation. A cleansheet wing optimised for a lower weight and around the A330-200 fuselage length. This would have created a bigger gap between the A350. The lighter and shorter range optimisation would give a fuel advantage over the 787 on medium haul routes and Airbus then has the A350 to beat the 787 in ultra long haul.

This could have really hit the market hard. Imagine a A330-200 length aircraft with a very high aspect ratio carbon wing. 52m code D wing span optimised for medium haul. Weights would be around 100t empty weight and 200t MTOW. Range around 6,000nm. Such a well positioned aircraft could easily form a 3 aircraft family. A simple shrink gives extra range to do point to point routes. A simple stretch improves efficiency to do regional work.

Will Airbus miss the third opportunity? Right now they should be using their mature A350 technology to launch a full carbon aircraft that is about 10-20% smaller and lighter than the 787.

Airbus shouldn't chase the MOM gap with a poor 7abreast cross section. Keep it 8abreast but don't go too short like the A310. If Airbus has the largest narrowbody and smaller widebody they will capture the MOM market in the middle.
 
User avatar
CarlosSi
Posts: 1055
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 8:29 pm

Re: Future of the A338?

Mon Nov 07, 2022 4:52 am

I guess the question is why ever develop two variants if the operating costs are gonna be the same anyways and airlines don’t mind flying a plane half empty sometimes if it’s for free. Do the extra few sales if any just add a tip to revenue?
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 3218
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Future of the A338?

Mon Nov 07, 2022 4:54 am

RJMAZ wrote:
TeddyTony wrote:
Airbus should've done an A300NEO 5000nmi range and capable of landing on short runways. Definitely would've been profitable.

100% agree.

The A330NEO missed the market and made it too close in size and capability to the A350. Optimising for a shorter range improves efficiency on shorter routes.

Timing would have been very difficult. The A300 ended production in 2007 and the long lead term items probably stopped production in 2005.

A380 first flight 2005
A350 first flight 2013
A320NEO first flight 2014
A330NEO first flight 2017

Airbus was extremely busy with the A380 and A350 between 2000 and 2010. This is when a A300NEO would have been launched and it would have then beaten the 787 into service. It would have done well in the long run. Japan uses the 787-8 on short haul. The A300NEO with Trent 1500 engines would have been superior to the 787-8 on short haul due to its shorter range optimisation giving lower weights. It would have been like the perfect 787-3 that Japan originally ordered.

Also the A300NEO would have been great in tight 9 abreast for the Asian low cost carriers. The 787 can't do similar density. Not launching the A300NEO was the first missed opportunity.

Airbus had to launch something to compete agains the smaller 787 so we then got the A330NEO. This was the second missed opportunity Airbus should have done more with a bigger investment and more optimisation. A cleansheet wing optimised for a lower weight and around the A330-200 fuselage length. This would have created a bigger gap between the A350. The lighter and shorter range optimisation would give a fuel advantage over the 787 on medium haul routes and Airbus then has the A350 to beat the 787 in ultra long haul.

This could have really hit the market hard. Imagine a A330-200 length aircraft with a very high aspect ratio carbon wing. 52m code D wing span optimised for medium haul. Weights would be around 100t empty weight and 200t MTOW. Range around 6,000nm. Such a well positioned aircraft could easily form a 3 aircraft family. A simple shrink gives extra range to do point to point routes. A simple stretch improves efficiency to do regional work.

Will Airbus miss the third opportunity? Right now they should be using their mature A350 technology to launch a full carbon aircraft that is about 10-20% smaller and lighter than the 787.

Airbus shouldn't chase the MOM gap with a poor 7abreast cross section. Keep it 8abreast but don't go too short like the A310. If Airbus has the largest narrowbody and smaller widebody they will capture the MOM market in the middle.


An A300neo sounds good in practice, but the A300 was a very old ship even in 2000, it would have to be an A330 shrink (which would hamper weight) or else a pretty expensive rework,. There's also the question of how big that MOM market is. Though there is no longer a good, modern option (A300/767) available, Boeing has struggled to gain traction for a 797 even when times were good and the company at least seemed in a good position. Going forward it's debatable how much has changed, I see the trend as being that airlines prefer flexibility (in capability) over efficiency. Most airlines use 787s and A350s on long flights, but they will still use them on a big number of routes which would fall within MOM capabilities. Still efficient and only using 1 type. The A321XLR takes up some of the slack from below.

Though I take the point that maybe the A330neo is too close to the A350, even if some airlines do find use for both.
 
oceanvikram
Posts: 186
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2017 12:00 pm

Re: Future of the A338?

Mon Nov 07, 2022 4:55 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
First300 wrote:
The 330ceo is one of the reasons the 767 passenger version stopped selling so this Talk about an alleged 767 replacement market is exaggerated.


How many 330ceos and neos has Airbus sold since the first delivery of a 787? Boeing has orders for ~1500 787s and has delivered over 1,000. (I'll make it easy for you: mine is bigger than yours.


If I am understanding is correct, you are implying that the 787 is the replacement for 767 by Boeing ... agreed.

But does the market sees the 787 as a replacement for 767? To be honest, I don't know, DL and QF as far as I can tell have replaced the 767 with A330ceos, JAL and ANA have definitely replaced the 787 for 767 but this is my humble opinion.

I have no idea how how UA and AA see the 787.

The way I see it, for every A330neo ordered is 1 less 787 ordered. And remember the 787 is was a blank sheet ie. a whole new greenfield project while the A330neo was a brownfield project. Hence the profit margin on the A330neo will be much higher because the development cost was pennies in comparison to 787.

So ... sure yours is bigger than mine ... but I am getting more satisfaction.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 3218
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Future of the A338?

Mon Nov 07, 2022 4:57 am

CarlosSi wrote:
I guess the question is why ever develop two variants if the operating costs are gonna be the same anyways and airlines don’t mind flying a plane half empty sometimes if it’s for free. Do the extra few sales if any just add a tip to revenue?


The A338 is essentially a reworked A332, and the A332's development was done at a time when it could be strongly differentiated against the A333 (much more range at the time), so minimal work was needed to get an A338 done. This allows Airbus to have a near-identical alternative to the 788 to maintain some pricing pressure, even if for most airlines that do want the A330neo there's little reason not to opt for the A339.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 3218
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Future of the A338?

Mon Nov 07, 2022 4:58 am

MIflyer12 wrote:

First300 wrote:
The 330ceo is one of the reasons the 767 passenger version stopped selling so this Talk about an alleged 767 replacement market is exaggerated.


How many 330ceos and neos has Airbus sold since the first delivery of a 787? Boeing has orders for ~1500 787s and has delivered over 1,000. (I'll make it easy for you: mine is bigger than yours.


What an odd response.
 
questions
Posts: 2499
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:51 am

Re: Future of the A338?

Mon Nov 07, 2022 5:21 am

phatfarmlines wrote:
The A338NEO feels like a 767-300 replacement. Someone like DL will need to operate to secondary overseas markets - they can't funnel all of the JV traffic to AMS/CDG, nor operate with less-than-daily flying to secondary markets because the equipment is too big.


See bold. That is Delta’s very strategy for its international network. Delta tends to funnel as much secondary market traffic as it can through its partners hubs. If the yields are high enough, Delta will into the secondary market.
 
First300
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2022 11:52 am

Re: Future of the A338?

Mon Nov 07, 2022 8:43 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
questions wrote:
Are any airlines looking for a direct replacement of the 767-300ER?

Seems most operators are content on upgauging and downgauging replacements.


There are no alternatives but to upgauge or downgauge today, so that's where the sales go.

It seems pretty clear that the size of the market isn't big enough to support clean-sheet.

First300 wrote:
The 330ceo is one of the reasons the 767 passenger version stopped selling so this Talk about an alleged 767 replacement market is exaggerated.


How many 330ceos and neos has Airbus sold since the first delivery of a 787? Boeing has orders for ~1500 787s and has delivered over 1,000. (I'll make it easy for you: mine is bigger than yours.


Your statement has nothing to do with my statement but I will make it even easier for you. I was comparing the 330CEO to the 767: mine will always be bigger than yours. BTW Airbus has orders/sold about 1800 A330s. Again I was just comparing 330 to 767.
 
Noshow
Posts: 3703
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Future of the A338?

Mon Nov 07, 2022 9:49 am

Airbus still hopes for some US tanker deal. This is why they want to keep the A330 line going and invested in the A330neo. Without the A330neo the MRTT would not generate enough business to keep the line open much longer. This is why Airbus needs to find more neo customers. They seem to have lowered the neo-prices compared to the early days when the A330neo was closer to the A350.
 
oceanvikram
Posts: 186
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2017 12:00 pm

Re: Future of the A338?

Mon Nov 07, 2022 11:15 am

Noshow wrote:
Airbus still hopes for some US tanker deal. This is why they want to keep the A330 line going and invested in the A330neo. Without the A330neo the MRTT would not generate enough business to keep the line open much longer. This is why Airbus needs to find more neo customers. They seem to have lowered the neo-prices compared to the early days when the A330neo was closer to the A350.


The US tanker deal will happen when pigs fly, USAF are committed to Boeing.
 
Noshow
Posts: 3703
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Future of the A338?

Mon Nov 07, 2022 11:19 am

USAF picked Airbus. DC picked Boeing.
 
CRJ900
Posts: 2454
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

Re: Future of the A338?

Mon Nov 07, 2022 11:29 am

Asian low-fare carriers Lion, Thai Air Asia, Cebu, CitiLink fly the A339 with up to 436 and 459 seats in 9-abreast on long flights to Middle East. Wonder if they might see use for 395-400-seat A338s for longer flights to Europe.

Perhaps Condor and Sunclass might add the A338 to their A339s for non-stops to Thailand and Bali.

I think higher-density seating will be more popular than range regarding the A338 as legacy carriers will need larger aircraft for their lie-flat premium cabins on long flights, i.e QF and SQ going for A359 and A35K.
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 2161
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: Future of the A338?

Mon Nov 07, 2022 12:22 pm

CRJ900 wrote:
Asian low-fare carriers Lion, Thai Air Asia, Cebu, CitiLink fly the A339 with up to 436 and 459 seats in 9-abreast on long flights to Middle East. Wonder if they might see use for 395-400-seat A338s for longer flights to Europe.

Perhaps Condor and Sunclass might add the A338 to their A339s for non-stops to Thailand and Bali.

I think higher-density seating will be more popular than range regarding the A338 as legacy carriers will need larger aircraft for their lie-flat premium cabins on long flights, i.e QF and SQ going for A359 and A35K.


Regarding 9-abreast economy A330 seating, IIRC Airbus' original A350 Mk 1 proposal, which was a development of the A330, included sculpted sidewalls like they have recently announced for 10-abreast A350 Mk 2s. I have always wondered why this was not carried forward to the A330neo design.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 13822
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Future of the A338?

Mon Nov 07, 2022 12:25 pm

JerseyFlyer wrote:
CRJ900 wrote:
Asian low-fare carriers Lion, Thai Air Asia, Cebu, CitiLink fly the A339 with up to 436 and 459 seats in 9-abreast on long flights to Middle East. Wonder if they might see use for 395-400-seat A338s for longer flights to Europe.

Perhaps Condor and Sunclass might add the A338 to their A339s for non-stops to Thailand and Bali.

I think higher-density seating will be more popular than range regarding the A338 as legacy carriers will need larger aircraft for their lie-flat premium cabins on long flights, i.e QF and SQ going for A359 and A35K.


Regarding 9-abreast economy A330 seating, IIRC Airbus' original A350 Mk 1 proposal, which was a development of the A330, included sculpted sidewalls like they have recently announced for 10-abreast A350 Mk 2s. I have always wondered why this was not carried forward to the A330neo design.

Because doing so would have put the A330neo in direct completion with the A359 that Airbus just spent billions upon billions on and need to recuperate their investment.
 
Jomar777
Posts: 741
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:45 am

Re: Future of the A338?

Mon Nov 07, 2022 12:54 pm

To keep matter short since it seems (or not...) the same:
Why the B787-8 instead of the B787-9?
Why the A350-800 instead of the A350-900?
Why the A330-800 instead of the A330-900?

I am not trying to justify anything. Just asking the question in a more broader way removing the restriction from one frame to all similarly placed.

@moderators - if this warrants a separate thread, please let me know and I open one. Or please feel free (also anyone...) to do so.
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 2161
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: Future of the A338?

Mon Nov 07, 2022 1:01 pm

Polot wrote:
JerseyFlyer wrote:
CRJ900 wrote:
Asian low-fare carriers Lion, Thai Air Asia, Cebu, CitiLink fly the A339 with up to 436 and 459 seats in 9-abreast on long flights to Middle East. Wonder if they might see use for 395-400-seat A338s for longer flights to Europe.

Perhaps Condor and Sunclass might add the A338 to their A339s for non-stops to Thailand and Bali.

I think higher-density seating will be more popular than range regarding the A338 as legacy carriers will need larger aircraft for their lie-flat premium cabins on long flights, i.e QF and SQ going for A359 and A35K.


Regarding 9-abreast economy A330 seating, IIRC Airbus' original A350 Mk 1 proposal, which was a development of the A330, included sculpted sidewalls like they have recently announced for 10-abreast A350 Mk 2s. I have always wondered why this was not carried forward to the A330neo design.

Because doing so would have put the A330neo in direct completion with the A359 that Airbus just spent billions upon billions on and need to recuperate their investment.


Fair enough, but now they have done it for the A350, that opens up room to do it on the A330 (if they see enough additional sales to justify it at this late stage in the A330 life cycle)
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 1115
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: Future of the A338?

Mon Nov 07, 2022 3:06 pm

Jomar777 wrote:
To keep matter short since it seems (or not...) the same:
Why the B787-8 instead of the B787-9?
Why the A350-800 instead of the A350-900?
Why the A330-800 instead of the A330-900?

I am not trying to justify anything. Just asking the question in a more broader way removing the restriction from one frame to all similarly placed.

@moderators - if this warrants a separate thread, please let me know and I open one. Or please feel free (also anyone...) to do so.


If you look at the OEW between the 787-8 and 787-9 (about 20k lbs) it’s a bigger gap than the A330-800 to A330-900 (about 10k lbs). The 787-8 had quite a bit of unique hardware such as the tail to make it lighter. The A330-200 was a straight shrink with no change to MTOW of the A330-300. The A330-200 needed the range which is why it was a straight shrink since the A330-300 initially didn’t transpacific range. The MTOW increases and improved efficiencies in the A330-900 mostly erased the benefits that the smaller A330 offered. The A330-800 OEW is almost the same as the A330-900 which means airlines don’t safe fuel flying the smaller variant.
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 1926
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

Re: Future of the A338?

Mon Nov 07, 2022 3:19 pm

In retrospect the A338 is "overbuilt" for a passenger mission. Maybe the platform makes sense for freight/military use, can't say. But if they meant it as a passenger jet, it is not compelling. Maybe if the A339 were more range constrained, the A338 would have had a clear role. But it doesn't.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Future of the A338?

Mon Nov 07, 2022 3:46 pm

One can not neglect the fact that the 800 and 900 are in general the same aircraft. They are very very similar. So from an Airbus point of view it was more or less free to make the 338. The few additional costs hardly came from designing, it was mostly to pay for certification.
 
meh130
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:02 pm

Re: Future of the A338?

Mon Nov 07, 2022 4:02 pm

I think Airbus wanted a direct competitor to the 787-8 with the A338. The problem is, that requirement had been filled.

I agree, a A338 capacity airplane with a lower MTOW, lower range, and derated engines might fit a 767-300ER replacement opportunity, but I am not sure it would be efficient.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7784
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Future of the A338?

Mon Nov 07, 2022 9:18 pm

TWA772LR wrote:
What's Airbus got to lose? Make a MoM Frankenplane, especially since Boeing has shown their hand and won't make a new plane any time soon. A350 tech already exists. A scaled down wing vs a new wing. And the GEnX2B already exists and is lighter than the Trent 7000.

A whole lot ! To paraphrase, "It's an outcome you wouldn't wish even on your fiercest competitor."

TWA772LR wrote:
Ok maybe not a small A350 fuselage, but the A330 fuselage is tried and true.

Good that you change that...it would be the plumpiest STOGI otherwise. :stretch: Still, a scaled-down wing is essentially a new wing...and a GEnX-2B, even derated, will lug around a similar dead weight. :weightlifter: Unless GE envisions putting a smaller core in it :?:
 
B777LRF
Posts: 3122
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: Future of the A338?

Mon Nov 07, 2022 9:33 pm

It costs nothing to have it on offer, and once in a blue moon an airline will place an order. Prime example of that is Air Greenland replacing their sole -200 with a new -800. At some point in the future, it will provide the platform for a new MRTT. A Freighter is unlikely; the suffers from the same issue as the -200 (either too big or too small). Presently, however, it’s main purpose is to keep Boeing honest on 787 pricing.

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