Welcome to the Airbus A330neo Sales Campaigns thread - 2023 edition.

Please continue to post your news and discussions below.

Link to the 2022 edition:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1472831

Posted in the production thread, but I think it belongs better here.

AR could potentially be the next A330neo customer, with their CEO speaking about introducing 4 to fly alongside the A332. Not confirmed, but they seem to be in the process. I'd guess these will be the A339, as even EZE-FCO (AR's longest route) should still be doable for a 251T A339. MAD of course no problem.

http://www.airdatanews.com/e195-e2-and- ... rgentinas/

What would be needed to make the EZE-FCO route possible?
- 253T A339? more?
- 10 seats blocked in Y cabin? more?
I'm not familiar with the aircraft's payload chart but it can't be too far off? Of course MAD is 1000km closer but it is also faces some altitude penalty over FCO, I wish AR over time to be able to do it with the A339.

The A339 would be a perfect addition for AR.. I could see them eventually replacing the whole A332 fleet with them..

DCA350 wrote:

The A339 would be a perfect addition for AR.. I could see them eventually replacing the whole A332 fleet with them..

Yes correct but it cannot fly 14:25 hours without a payload restriction on EZE-FCO. All its other routes to MAD/JFK/MIA would have no issue.

Even with the existing A332 has a payload limit on the route + crew take up J class seats for resting purposes.

Just fyi in pre-covid 2019, the top EU p2p markets to/from EZE were as follows:

Round trip below

MAD 554K
BCN 326K
LON 243K
FCO 219K
CDG 129K
AMS 71K
FRA 62K
MXP 47K
IST 37K
ZRH 36K

DCA350 wrote:

The A339 would be a perfect addition for AR.. I could see them eventually replacing the whole A332 fleet with them..

What about the a338? Would it make it? Still 10 seats blocked is nothing.

Aerolineas might however take A330-900s from one of the existing lessor's orderbook rather than a new order from Airbus.

Unrelated does anyone know what happened to the Arkia order? They ordered two, none have been delivered and I cant find anything about a timeline to take delivery nor anything about them being canceled.

AR would be a good airline for the 330neo indeed. But nothing major. The one noticable thing of current A330neo operators is that most first operated A330ceo's, none also have the B787, except Virgin Atlantic but there are other reasons they fly so many types. A combination with the A350 is more common (Delta, Starlux, Kuwait). This means that most big A330ceo operators like Turkish, the Chinese airlines, Qatar, Etihad, Emirates, Lufthansa, Korean, Qantas, Air Canada, EVA, Hawaiian, Thai likely will not buy the A330neo because they bought the B787 already. That said, airlines who are not planning the B787 are more likely to buy 330neo's some day: AR is indeed falling in this group. Air Transat, Cathay Pacific, Iberia, Aer Lingus, SriLankan, PAL, Brussels, SAS, Air Algerie and many airlines flying less than 5 like Tunis Air. These are mostly smaller airlines so I expect order coming in per pair or five, hardly more than 10 per airline.

MEA-707 wrote:

AR would be a good airline for the 330neo indeed. But nothing major. The one noticable thing of current A330neo operators is that most first operated A330ceo's, none also have the B787, except Virgin Atlantic but there are other reasons they fly so many types. A combination with the A350 is more common (Delta, Starlux, Kuwait). This means that most big A330ceo operators like Turkish, the Chinese airlines, Qatar, Etihad, Emirates, Lufthansa, Korean, Qantas, Air Canada, EVA, Hawaiian, Thai likely will not buy the A330neo because they bought the B787 already. That said, airlines who are not planning the B787 are more likely to buy 330neo's some day: AR is indeed falling in this group. Air Transat, Cathay Pacific, Iberia, Aer Lingus, SriLankan, PAL, Brussels, SAS, Air Algerie and many airlines flying less than 5 like Tunis Air. These are mostly smaller airlines so I expect order coming in per pair or five, hardly more than 10 per airline.

I would remove Iberia from that list, particularly with the Air Europa acquisition as Air Europa has lots of 787s coming. Brussels and Aer Lingus are questionable in my view because their groups have the 787 (although its still possible for the A330neo).

zkojq wrote:

Unrelated does anyone know what happened to the Arkia order? They ordered two, none have been delivered and I cant find anything about a timeline to take delivery nor anything about them being canceled.

The order was transferred to sister leasing company MG Aviation and are both delivered operated by Corsair.

behramjee wrote:

DCA350 wrote:

The A339 would be a perfect addition for AR.. I could see them eventually replacing the whole A332 fleet with them..

Yes correct but it cannot fly 14:25 hours without a payload restriction on EZE-FCO.

Curious how you define 'payload restricted', but Airbus certainly doesn't think their product will have a need to block off seats, if that's what you mean, on ~6500nm mission, as is evident from the payload range chart; 31t over 6500nm for 251t MTOW A339.

MEA-707 wrote:

AR would be a good airline for the 330neo indeed. But nothing major. The one noticable thing of current A330neo operators is that most first operated A330ceo's, none also have the B787, except Virgin Atlantic but there are other reasons they fly so many types. A combination with the A350 is more common (Delta, Starlux, Kuwait). This means that most big A330ceo operators like Turkish, the Chinese airlines, Qatar, Etihad, Emirates, Lufthansa, Korean, Qantas, Air Canada, EVA, Hawaiian, Thai likely will not buy the A330neo because they bought the B787 already. That said, airlines who are not planning the B787 are more likely to buy 330neo's some day: AR is indeed falling in this group. Air Transat, Cathay Pacific, Iberia, Aer Lingus, SriLankan, PAL, Brussels, SAS, Air Algerie and many airlines flying less than 5 like Tunis Air. These are mostly smaller airlines so I expect order coming in per pair or five, hardly more than 10 per airline.

I agree that the orders will tend to be small... but they do add up, and a large number of operators (22 already) is no bad thing. The A330neo won't get the big, sexy orders but it's an agile offering that can be delivered at shorter notice. For many airlines the choice will be wait longer for a 787, or get an A330neo in earlier, and the fuel burn is close enough that this will work out better for some current A330ceo operators.

MrHMSH wrote:

Posted in the production thread, but I think it belongs better here.

AR could potentially be the next A330neo customer, with their CEO speaking about introducing 4 to fly alongside the A332. Not confirmed, but they seem to be in the process. I'd guess these will be the A339, as even EZE-FCO (AR's longest route) should still be doable for a 251T A339. MAD of course no problem.

http://www.airdatanews.com/e195-e2-and- ... rgentinas/

But stretching out the range to 6,000 nm is not the A339 sweet spot. It performs best in the 3000-4000 nm window which is why airlines like DL use it almost exclusively TATL. I have no idea if AR carries much cargo but for flights from deep South America to Europe the A350 or 787 would seem to be better choices.

AR already flies the A332 on EZE-FCO so the A338 is a perfect replacement unless they need the extra seats the A339 offer.

AECM wrote:

A330Inter wrote:

What would be needed to make the EZE-FCO route possible?
- 253T A339? more?
- 10 seats blocked in Y cabin? more?
I'm not familiar with the aircraft's payload chart but it can't be too far off? Of course MAD is 1000km closer but it is also faces some altitude penalty over FCO, I wish AR over time to be able to do it with the A339.

The GC distance of EZE-FCO is 6013nm and looking at Airbus A330 ACAPS for 6500nm distance:

A332 (GE) MTOW 242000Kg - Payload ~ 29500Kg
A339 MTOW 242000Kg - Payload ~ 25000Kg
A339 MTOW 251000Kg - Payload ~ 31000Kg

So the A339 can do pretty much the same as the A332, 1500kg payload extra = around 15 extra pax & bags and the same cargo load? Or is that way too simply stated (I'm far from an expert).

ElroyJetson wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

Posted in the production thread, but I think it belongs better here.

AR could potentially be the next A330neo customer, with their CEO speaking about introducing 4 to fly alongside the A332. Not confirmed, but they seem to be in the process. I'd guess these will be the A339, as even EZE-FCO (AR's longest route) should still be doable for a 251T A339. MAD of course no problem.

http://www.airdatanews.com/e195-e2-and- ... rgentinas/

But stretching out the range to 6,000 nm is not the A339 sweet spot. It performs best in the 3000-4000 nm window which is why airlines like DL use it almost exclusively TATL. I have no idea if AR carries much cargo but for flights from deep South America to Europe the A350 or 787 would seem to be better choices.

The A350 and 787 would have better performance, but the transition to the A330neo would be way simpler and cheaper. For a small airline with not many aircraft this would be the niche the A330neo works probably best. AR is not an airline that can afford big spending very easily, the A350 or 787 may simply be too expensive as far as initial investment is concerned.

CRJ900 wrote:

AR already flies the A332 on EZE-FCO so the A338 is a perfect replacement unless they need the extra seats the A339 offer.

One of the reasons the A338 is unpopular, is that the A339 is only marginally more expensive to operate. The extra seats are almost free so to speak. Only if AR already has trouble filling the seats of an A332 it could be better to go for the A338. But if you can't fill an A332 one has to wonder if you really should operate such a route at all

jbs2886 wrote:

MEA-707 wrote:

I would remove Iberia from that list, particularly with the Air Europa acquisition as Air Europa has lots of 787s coming. Brussels and Aer Lingus are questionable in my view because their groups have the 787 (although its still possible for the A330neo).

But Iberia and Aer Lingus (and Level) already have A330s so replacing them with A330Neos would be no big deal. Presumably the Air Europa 787s will be needed for ongoing operations y that airline, though there may be some rationalisation of routes between them, Iberia and Level may take place.

Aer Lingus will likely need to place an order soon since the A330ceo is out of production and the few A330-200s that they are putting back in service are getting a bit old. The A321XLR will be ideal for thin transatlantic and opening new routes but they will need new widebody's eventually.

ElroyJetson wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

Posted in the production thread, but I think it belongs better here.

AR could potentially be the next A330neo customer, with their CEO speaking about introducing 4 to fly alongside the A332. Not confirmed, but they seem to be in the process. I'd guess these will be the A339, as even EZE-FCO (AR's longest route) should still be doable for a 251T A339. MAD of course no problem.

http://www.airdatanews.com/e195-e2-and- ... rgentinas/

But stretching out the range to 6,000 nm is not the A339 sweet spot. It performs best in the 3000-4000 nm window which is why airlines like DL use it almost exclusively TATL. I have no idea if AR carries much cargo but for flights from deep South America to Europe the A350 or 787 would seem to be better choices.

Not being in a sweet spot is no barrier to operating a type on longer routes. AR's long flights are EZE-JFK, MAD and FCO, JFK is well within reach of even an A333, 5433nm to MAD is far from insurmountable for an A339, especially not a 251T variant, FCO isn't super close, but the A339 with 251T MTOW rivals the A332 for range/capability, and since the A332 flies EZE-FCO already it's not a stretch to assume that the A339 will make this as well. EZE-FCO is around 1200nm short of the A339's brochure range, which to me indicates the route is doable. Introducing a new type for a route which flies 3x weekly which - maybe - is restricted noticeably doesn't seem like the best option for an airline strapped for cash. While the A359 or 787 might be a better choice for MAD and FCO if you had aircraft on property, it seems it isn't the best choice for AR to get more expensive ships in at possibly a later date.

EI321 wrote:

Aer Lingus will likely need to place an order soon since the A330ceo is out of production and the few A330-200s that they are putting back in service are getting a bit old. The A321XLR will be ideal for thin transatlantic and opening new routes but they will need new widebody's eventually.

The A330neo would seem to be a good fit here, but I could see the 787 getting a foothold. IAG has never been shy about ordering 787s, albeit 'only' for BA. I'd like to see them get A359s, but this ship seems to have sailed. I think the A359/789's extra range and capability doesn't provide anything EI need though, so could be interesting. IAG airlines tend to hang on to their widebodies for a very long time, so probably a while before we see any moves here, EI's oldest in-service A330 is 'only' 15 years old or so, but half of the fleet is around 6 years or younger.

AECM wrote:

A330Inter wrote:

What would be needed to make the EZE-FCO route possible?
- 253T A339? more?
- 10 seats blocked in Y cabin? more?
I'm not familiar with the aircraft's payload chart but it can't be too far off? Of course MAD is 1000km closer but it is also faces some altitude penalty over FCO, I wish AR over time to be able to do it with the A339.

The GC distance of EZE-FCO is 6013nm and looking at Airbus A330 ACAPS for 6500nm distance:

A332 (GE) MTOW 242000Kg - Payload ~ 29500Kg
A339 MTOW 242000Kg - Payload ~ 25000Kg
A339 MTOW 251000Kg - Payload ~ 31000Kg

How much would an A338 carry over the same route ?
Reading wikipedia (not the best source, just all I have), I see a 338 is 3000 to 5000kg lighter, so I imagine that would give a 34000kg to 36000kg payload. Would that be more useful than the extra floor space of the 339 ?
If no cargo is carried, I would imagine the 339 to be just better, otherwise, the 338 might actually carry more.

Theseus wrote:

AECM wrote:

A330Inter wrote:

What would be needed to make the EZE-FCO route possible?
- 253T A339? more?
- 10 seats blocked in Y cabin? more?
I'm not familiar with the aircraft's payload chart but it can't be too far off? Of course MAD is 1000km closer but it is also faces some altitude penalty over FCO, I wish AR over time to be able to do it with the A339.

The GC distance of EZE-FCO is 6013nm and looking at Airbus A330 ACAPS for 6500nm distance:

A332 (GE) MTOW 242000Kg - Payload ~ 29500Kg
A339 MTOW 242000Kg - Payload ~ 25000Kg
A339 MTOW 251000Kg - Payload ~ 31000Kg

How much would an A338 carry over the same route ?
Reading wikipedia (not the best source, just all I have), I see a 338 is 3000 to 5000kg lighter, so I imagine that would give a 34000kg to 36000kg payload. Would that be more useful than the extra floor space of the 339 ?
If no cargo is carried, I would imagine the 339 to be just better, otherwise, the 338 might actually carry more.

The A338 is/will be a very capable lifter, at a guess it would carry more weight FCO-EZE than the A339, however the sales figures of the A338 indicate that the answer is probably not useful enough. I think airlines would prioritise passengers over cargo, so the A338's main advantage isn't really useful to most airlines. Maybe we'll see some introduced alongside the A339 in the future, but that seems a little fanciful.

A338 vs A339 is also dependent on how AR would be acquiring the plane. If it is by leasing (strong possibility) then the A339 might actually be cheaper then convincing a leasing company to take on the A338. Especially since AR hardly has the strongest credit out there.

I do agree with the comments above that Aer Lingus will eventually go.with the A339. The longest route they fly is DUB-LAX which is comfortably within range, and most of their flights are short TATL (ex: DUB-JFK or DUB-BOS).

EI is a long established Airbus customer, and frankly, their route structure across the pond seems ideally suited to the A339's strengths.

Polot wrote:

zkojq wrote:

Unrelated does anyone know what happened to the Arkia order? They ordered two, none have been delivered and I cant find anything about a timeline to take delivery nor anything about them being canceled.

The order was transferred to sister leasing company MG Aviation and are both delivered operated by Corsair.

Thanks!

Hello, this is my first post.

I am quite surprised, nobody on a-net is talking about the rumor about the upcoming order from indigo for new a batch of widebodies. To be precise they are supposed to order 330neo. The official announcement is supposed to be at the PAS, this summer

MEA-707 wrote:

That said, airlines who are not planning the B787 are more likely to buy 330neo's some day: AR is indeed falling in this group. Air Transat, Cathay Pacific, Iberia, Aer Lingus, SriLankan, PAL, Brussels, SAS, Air Algerie and many airlines flying less than 5 like Tunis Air. These are mostly smaller airlines so I expect order coming in per pair or five, hardly more than 10 per airline.

PR is on record as planning their fleet additions this year. However, their weak fiscal position just coming out of BK protection mitigates against this. Their remaining reconfigured A333s could soldier on to the ME and Oceania for a few more years, being relatively young. Those may even continue flying one-stoppers to NA and Europe before being replaced by A339s. Realistically, the most that could be hoped for is a haul of A338s to take over the nonstop routes (given the long detours) until the LH birds return -- as new-build A359s (or 789s for that matter) are out of the question now. And A350Ks even more so It would take intense negotiations among PR, its creditors and Airbus for this to happen. An announcement at the PAS would be a shocker indeed, as it's not even clear if Airbus is pitching the A338 to PR.

Air Asia X is still interested in the A330NEO's.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/a ... bbb16&ei=7

windian425 wrote:

Air Asia X is still interested in the A330NEO's.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/a ... bbb16&ei=7

Purely speculating, but I wonder if Air Asia X had an under the table gentleman's agreement with Airbus, that they could reinstate some of the 78 orders they previously had before reducing it down to 15, within a certain time frame.

windian425 wrote:

Air Asia X is still interested in the A330NEO's.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/a ... bbb16&ei=7

Of course they are. They still have 15 on order and a top-up isn't beyond belief - they just reported a small profit for 2022 (a six-quarter reporting period to enable tax year adjustment to run on calendar year).

MEA-707 wrote:

AR would be a good airline for the 330neo indeed. But nothing major. The one noticable thing of current A330neo operators is that most first operated A330ceo's, none also have the B787, except Virgin Atlantic but there are other reasons they fly so many types. A combination with the A350 is more common (Delta, Starlux, Kuwait). This means that most big A330ceo operators like Turkish, the Chinese airlines, Qatar, Etihad, Emirates, Lufthansa, Korean, Qantas, Air Canada, EVA, Hawaiian, Thai likely will not buy the A330neo because they bought the B787 already. That said, airlines who are not planning the B787 are more likely to buy 330neo's some day: AR is indeed falling in this group. Air Transat, Cathay Pacific, Iberia, Aer Lingus, SriLankan, PAL, Brussels, SAS, Air Algerie and many airlines flying less than 5 like Tunis Air. These are mostly smaller airlines so I expect order coming in per pair or five, hardly more than 10 per airline.

I would not include Cathey Pacific just yet because of the possibility of a 787-10 order for their medium route operations. As for Iberia, Aer Lingus and Brussels, being part of a group may just complicate things.

The Lufthansa Group has been ordering lots of 787s lately, Brussels may have no choice but to get some of those when time to replace the a330ceo comes.

Devilfish wrote:

MEA-707 wrote:

That said, airlines who are not planning the B787 are more likely to buy 330neo's some day: AR is indeed falling in this group. Air Transat, Cathay Pacific, Iberia, Aer Lingus, SriLankan, PAL, Brussels, SAS, Air Algerie and many airlines flying less than 5 like Tunis Air. These are mostly smaller airlines so I expect order coming in per pair or five, hardly more than 10 per airline.

PR is on record as planning their fleet additions this year. However, their weak fiscal position just coming out of BK protection mitigates against this. Their remaining reconfigured A333s could soldier on to the ME and Oceania for a few more years, being relatively young. Those may even continue flying one-stoppers to NA and Europe before being replaced by A339s. Realistically, the most that could be hoped for is a haul of A338s to take over the nonstop routes (given the long detours) until the LH birds return -- as new-build A359s (or 789s for that matter) are out of the question now. And A350Ks even more so It would take intense negotiations among PR, its creditors and Airbus for this to happen. An announcement at the PAS would be a shocker indeed, as it's not even clear if Airbus is pitching the A338 to PR.

AFIK PAL has not given any hint of intrested in the A330neo so far while finances are tight there has been strong desire to acquire new aircraft with priorty given to long-haul aircraft. From another fourm I've been reading about PAL Management being interested in the Boeing 787 Dreamliner with some leasing compaines (Who also have stakes in PAL as part of BK-11), also having the B787 on the order books. Which are being payed any outstanding due so they won't intervine in fleet planning also potential of there stakes in PAL will be sold of to overseas airline (Rumors to be ANA which has B787 pending for delivery). But until more info becomes available the jury remains open for the A330neo

Sermons wrote:

I would not include Cathey Pacific just yet because of the possibility of a 787-10 order for their medium route operations.

True, and that would be a harsh blow.

CX is one of, if not the, last major A330CEO operators to not yet choose between 787 and A33N, and I'm really hoping they go with the A339 for their regional replacement... but there's every bit the opportunity that they'll opt for the 78X, and possibly even 789 to have an aircraft for thinner TPAC routes (now that things are so different for HKG, and also as a route opener).

There's also the option of them doing none of the above, and simply ordering more A359s and operating those at 250t (similar to SQ) for their regional routes; versus the 251t A339 or 256t B78X.

adorelerock wrote:

Hello, this is my first post.

I am quite surprised, nobody on a-net is talking about the rumor about the upcoming order from indigo for new a batch of widebodies. To be precise they are supposed to order 330neo. The official announcement is supposed to be at the PAS, this summer

That would be great news - 6E definitely needs wide bodies and personally I'm happy if they choose the 330Neo and stick to a 2-4-2 seating in Y!

I vaguely recall an Anet post that quoted Cathay as ruling out the A330NEO, cant find it though

LAX772LR wrote:

Sermons wrote:

I would not include Cathey Pacific just yet because of the possibility of a 787-10 order for their medium route operations.

True, and that would be a harsh blow.

CX is one of, if not the, last major A330CEO operators to not yet choose between 787 and A33N, and I'm really hoping they go with the A339 for their regional replacement... but there's every bit the opportunity that they'll opt for the 78X, and possibly even 789 to have an aircraft for thinner TPAC routes (now that things are so different for HKG, and also as a route opener).

There's also the option of them doing none of the above, and simply ordering more A359s and operating those at 250t (similar to SQ) for their regional routes; versus the 251t A339 or 256t B78X.

LAX772LR wrote:

Sermons wrote:

I would not include Cathey Pacific just yet because of the possibility of a 787-10 order for their medium route operations.

True, and that would be a harsh blow.

CX is one of, if not the, last major A330CEO operators to not yet choose between 787 and A33N, and I'm really hoping they go with the A339 for their regional replacement... but there's every bit the opportunity that they'll opt for the 78X, and possibly even 789 to have an aircraft for thinner TPAC routes (now that things are so different for HKG, and also as a route opener).

There's also the option of them doing none of the above, and simply ordering more A359s and operating those at 250t (similar to SQ) for their regional routes; versus the 251t A339 or 256t B78X.

I think CX has already mentioned that they are reducing aircraft types in their fleet. So the A350s will replace the A330 and B777. I think that this is somewhat easer now that Cathay Dragon is no more and everything goes to the mainline.

LAX772LR wrote:

Sermons wrote:

I would not include Cathey Pacific just yet because of the possibility of a 787-10 order for their medium route operations.

True, and that would be a harsh blow.

CX is one of, if not the, last major A330CEO operators to not yet choose between 787 and A33N, and I'm really hoping they go with the A339 for their regional replacement... but there's every bit the opportunity that they'll opt for the 78X, and possibly even 789 to have an aircraft for thinner TPAC routes (now that things are so different for HKG, and also as a route opener).

There's also the option of them doing none of the above, and simply ordering more A359s and operating those at 250t (similar to SQ) for their regional routes; versus the 251t A339 or 256t B78X.

Actually, excluding CX, a quick search shows 384 A330CEO from some pretty serious operators (CA,MU,CZ,HU,PR,QF,TK,AY,EI,LX,DL,D7,AF) that will be coming up for renewal & this is not an exhaustive search; 246 of these aircraft have an average age above 10 years already, while 136 are already on average above 15 years old. Add CX in and that's an additional 42 aircraft. Gotta be a reasonable chance of some further 330N orders in this batch.

NZ321 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Sermons wrote:

I would not include Cathey Pacific just yet because of the possibility of a 787-10 order for their medium route operations.

True, and that would be a harsh blow.

CX is one of, if not the, last major A330CEO operators to not yet choose between 787 and A33N

Actually, excluding CX, a quick search shows 384 A330CEO from some pretty serious operators (CA,MU,CZ,HU,PR,QF,TK,AY,EI,LX,DL,D7,AF) that will be coming up for renewal & this is not an exhaustive search; 246 of these aircraft have an average age above 10 years already, while 136 are already on average above 15 years old. Add CX in and that's an additional 42 aircraft. Gotta be a reasonable chance of some further 330N orders in this batch.

Sure, but paying attention to what was previously stated: the overwhelming majority of those carriers have already chosen to go with the 787 or A359, to the exclusion of the A33N, with their orders... greatly increasing the possibility that they'll behave similarly in future orders again.

Doesn't guarantee they'll do so, but A33N is definitely at a logistical disadvantage.

CX will not go for the NEO. They use their 330s on regional sectors averaging 2 or 3 hours. The NEO, being heavier, only comes into its own in terms of fuel savings over longer sectors, for which CX already uses the 350 anyway.

I can see them ordering the 787, especially the -10, which would be a great inter-Asia workhorse to replace their 330s and non-ER 777s.

Francoflier wrote:

The NEO, being heavier, only comes into its own in terms of fuel savings over longer sectors, for which CX already uses the 350 anyway.

I can see them ordering the 787, especially the -10, which would be a great inter-Asia workhorse to replace their 330s and non-ER 777s.

You just contradicted yourself in the span of a sentence:

The NEO in regional w/v, has the same OEW as the 781, but a liter MTOW (read that: "regional overflight cost"), and both are heavier than the A333s they'd be replacing.

Sure there are points where either aircraft is more capable than the other (e.g. A339 in max capacity, B78X in max cargo), but if weight was your criterion of primary concern, then your conclusion is contradictory.

https://www.airbus.com/en/airbus-widebody-family-media-assets

A new MTOW increase of 2.6t seems to be coming to the A330NEO alongside other improvements.

godsbeloved wrote:

https://www.airbus.com/en/airbus-widebody-family-media-assets

A new MTOW increase of 2.6t seems to be coming to the A330NEO alongside other improvements.

They use TOW instead of MTOW. I suspect what they mean is the other improvements mentioned (enhanced take off configuration, landing gear retraction improvements, etc) results in the A330neo being able to lift more than current in certain scenarios (re: hot and high, short runway), not that MTOW is increasing.

I think the A350 recently underwent similar improvements.

Editing: listening to the presentation seems to support my view (it’s talked about around the ~23 min mark). I’m having trouble understanding the speaker at the beginning of the slide though and subtitles not working for me. But it doesn’t sound like he means MTOW.

Polot wrote:

godsbeloved wrote:

https://www.airbus.com/en/airbus-widebody-family-media-assets

A new MTOW increase of 2.6t seems to be coming to the A330NEO alongside other improvements.

They use TOW instead of MTOW. I suspect what they mean is the other improvements mentioned (enhanced take off configuration, landing gear retraction improvements, etc) results in the A330neo being able to lift more than current in certain scenarios (re: hot and high, short runway), not that MTOW is increasing.

I think the A350 recently underwent similar improvements.

Editing: listening to the presentation seems to support my view (it’s talked about around the ~23 min mark). I’m having trouble understanding the speaker at the beginning of the slide though and subtitles not working for me. But it doesn’t sound like he means MTOW.

Presentation supports that, too. Slides 18-19. https://www.airbus.com/sites/g/files/jl ... tation.pdf

Francoflier wrote:

CX will not go for the NEO. They use their 330s on regional sectors averaging 2 or 3 hours. The NEO, being heavier, only comes into its own in terms of fuel savings over longer sectors, for which CX already uses the 350 anyway.

I can see them ordering the 787, especially the -10, which would be a great inter-Asia workhorse to replace their 330s and non-ER 777s.

However isnt airbus is trying to revamp the a330neo to be more durable with more landing and take off cycles? u get extra capacity over their a321neo (and in which case i dont think their transfer order of b787-10 can do that). and also reduce on the times the aircraft going into maintenace no?.

Condor ordered three additional A339 for delivery in 2026/7. That raises the total to 21 after a previous addition of two and the original sixteen.

Source (German, didn't find English)
https://www.aero.de/news-46149/Condor-plant-jetzt-mit-21-A330-900.html

Quick summary of the rest of the article:
They're planning to replace the last 767 by spring 2024 and the board originally cleared management for an additional order of five A339 (of which only 3 materialized by now).

It seems Malaysian has options for an additional 20 A359s, with an indication that 15 of these may be on property by 2028.

"According to Izham, the airline group still has an option to add another 20 A330-900s, and will make that decision in 1Q2024.

“We should at least have 35 widebody aircraft by 2028.”

https://theedgemalaysia.com/node/688645

JerseyFlyer wrote:

It seems Malaysian has options for an additional 20 A359s, with an indication that 15 of these may be on property by 2028.

"According to Izham, the airline group still has an option to add another 20 A330-900s, and will make that decision in 1Q2024.

“We should at least have 35 widebody aircraft by 2028.”

https://theedgemalaysia.com/node/688645

*options for 20 additional A339? Man I'd love for this plane do to well-ish.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

“We should at least have 35 widebody aircraft by 2028.”

https://theedgemalaysia.com/node/688645

MH is planning to have around ten A359s. That means it will have 25 A330s. However, no reference was made about the A332 freighters (currently 3) and I suspect they will continue in the fleet for some time.

Could more A350s mean a return to the likes of CDG? Or more likely TYO/SEL/AKL/SYD/MEL which seem to be some of their premium markets.

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Could more A350s mean a return to the likes of CDG? Or more likely TYO/SEL/AKL/SYD/MEL which seem to be some of their premium markets.

According to Aeroroutes, Melbourne and Doha are being upgraded to a A359 daily once by the end of the year for MH. And there's this local aviation forum and someone mentioned internal plan was for a return to CDG/AMS sometime in 2025/2026 as shared in a townhall session.

ChrisDassx wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Could more A350s mean a return to the likes of CDG? Or more likely TYO/SEL/AKL/SYD/MEL which seem to be some of their premium markets.

According to Aeroroutes, Melbourne and Doha are being upgraded to a A359 daily once by the end of the year for MH. And there's this local aviation forum and someone mentioned internal plan was for a return to CDG/AMS sometime in 2025/2026 as shared in a townhall session.

MH A359s seat 11 less pax than their A339s.

I truly feel that for the 2030-40 plan they need the larger A351 for routes like LHR SYD NRT MEL as these 4 routes provide the most network feed for them. MH A351s can seat 371 pax similar to Etihads layout which is a 30% increase versus their A359.

AMS they can forget about due to the slot restrictions there imposed by the Dutch Govt.