I am not sure I fully buy into your

Quoting seahawk (Reply 99): In the end the Airbus options will be for airlines not willing to wait for slots at Boeing.

statement.

In the long range market I think you are wrong - here the competition will be the A350 Vs 787. There both lines are effectively full.

In the shorter haul (lets call it regional) market then Airbus has an additional option which is available earlier.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 77): And yes, Airbus and Boeing have wasted over 10 Billion Buckaroos each on the 787 and A350 programs, that much is now clear...

There was an interview with Jim McNerney in AviationWeek prior to Farnborough and he seems to agree With your statement:

Quote: What I would like to have done is pursued 70 percent of the technology that still would have satisfied 95 percent of [customer desires]. It would have gotten to them quicker, and it would have cost us less. I can think of five or six specific examples of things we did that didn’t add much to the performance or the efficiency of the airplane. We’ve just got to be a little more careful.

http://aviationweek.com/farnborough-.../interview-boeing-ceo-jim-mcnerney

Quoting Stitch (Reply 88): Well we have to remember these are "Generation One" CFRP airliners so I would expect future generations to improve over time.

   The lessons learned from using CFRP in as large scale as Boeing and Airbus has done will probably define modern manufacturing for the next 50 years. Although the ROI on the A350 and 787 might not have been justified, the leap in manufacturing know-how and lower price on CFRP from increased volume will change manufacturing worldwide.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 95): So is the 767MAX next? Same engines and GEnx-3 as options, development costs shared with the tanker program, sized slightly larger than the 763, new wingtips with greater span, etc.

It may be too heavy, but Boeing has talked about a new short-haul twin aisle as well as a 757 replacement. It would require a larger update to work as a short-haul twin. On the other hand, it has been very efficient on sectors shorter than 3000Nm with winglets.

Quoting fleabyte (Reply 93): they need to upgrade those little overhead bins of the A330, otherwise, this might be a good aircraft for economics, but the little windows and little bins are obsolete and make the thing seem antiquated from a passenger perspective, It will be interested how all the special deal leased A330 fall out of the fleets when the 787-8, 787-9 and 787-10 are delivered at 14 per month. It will be interesting to see where all those 6 to10 year old A330 go. Maybe Delta

It always amazes me how people struggle with overhead bins. I'm not watching the bins during an 10-hour flight.

[Edited 2014-07-16 01:57:27]

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 89): There has been a lot of talk here about fuel burn, trip cost and all that stuff. But one of the main difference between a A330neo and the A330ceo will be noise. The Trent 7000 will move the A330 to the group of airliners with a low noise rating and that could be in some cases as important in the not too far future as low fuel burn.

I'm also surprised that this has not gotten more attention. Don't think it was even mentioned as a selling point by Leahy or the RR man during the launch presentation. Seems a substantial benefit worth pointing out.

Another area that didn't get any focus was the cockpit. Does that mean that it will be unchanged from the A330 with no improvements migrated from the A350XWB or is this one of the areas that will be addressed in the phase to design freeze?

Quoting wolbo (Reply 103): Another area that didn't get any focus was the cockpit. Does that mean that it will be unchanged from the A330 with no improvements migrated from the A350XWB or is this one of the areas that will be addressed in the phase to design freeze?

The regional A330 will get some A350 cockpit features. Logically the A330neo will get them as well.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 39):

The assumption yourself and Aspire have made is not correct. MZFW is a structural limit where and additional increase needs to be fuel, normally this fuel is in the wings. The fuel counters the bending moment generated by the mass in the fuselage. The additional mass in the pylon, engine, and wing extension counters this bending moment, it is like having the equivalent amount of fuel in the tanks. Where this is complicated is the wing extension will increase the bending moment as it is adding lift further away from the fuselage.

The best way to look at how much weight is involved is to take the percentage of additional fuel Airbus has attributed to the additional mass, not the increase in MZFW. Personally I think this aircraft will have more payload over the current A330.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 41):

Aspire is crap, they don't know wha they are doing.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 50):

The A340 centre gear is for a better term, a takeoff gear, it is not needed on landing. At light weights it sometimes does not even touch the ground. Currently the 343 can go to 276, they also have the a340-500/600 gear which has a much higher rating. Performance wise, the current A330-300 is good for around 255t.

They have not shown any pictures of the new gear, I would not be surprised with neo they will go with the A350 tilt, and with the lower induced drag better takeoff performance.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 60):

The original A350 had a new cfrp wing and al-li welded fuselage. This is a lot cheaper and much lower risk to do as it does not involve an all new wing, or a folding wing, or both.

Quoting paparrucho (Reply 75):

Boeing designed the 787 as a long haul aircraft, it is pretty heavy for medium/short haul. We know on very short routes in Japan a 767-300ER with winglets has a lower block fuel burn than a 788. When compared to today's A332, the 788 lifts about 5t less payload.

This old slide shows the main cost and revenue differences between the a332 and the 788, on the cost side fuel was the main difference, Airbus also touched on the changes in the maintenance planning document and pneumatic control to reduce maintenance costs.



Everyone would be in agreement in saying the A330/340 program is fully paid for, a small investment of 2billion, if the take 10 million out of the first 200 sales, it will also pay for itself very quickly. Compared to the 15 billion spent on the 787, and 10 billion on the a350, it makes a lot of commercial sense. Also the OEMs generate more of their revenue from in service aircraft than from the initial sales.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 77):

The original A350 could meet and exceed the 787, just need to know what data point you were talking about. The current A332 will carry more over shorter routes, where the 787 excels is over longer routes. That is where you see the advantage of the engine, as you have to carry fuel so far, and that comes at a cost.

I have always maintained a well designed AL component can be better, it all depends on the application. Airbus has not dismissed the 777 X as being warmed over, what they have said, which no one will dispute is the 777X has a much higher empty weight, and higher block fuel burn. The numbers Boeing are quoting are on a 400 seat configuration (and the freely admitted no one will configure it that way), at long range. Airbus is saying they have an aircraft that will not lift as much, nor as far, but at a much lower direct operating cost. Given realistic average load factors for passengers is at 80%, and cargo around 50%, you could fit that load on an A350-1000 at a lower cost.

We need to look at where the A330neo is realistically going to employed, it will be sub 4500nm routes (10 hour), if your business case is driven by mainly longer routes that that, the 787 is in a class of its own.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 78):

Boeing is not saying the 777X has lower fuel burn than the A350, they are doing the comparison on a per seat basis, if you were to ask Boeing they would freely admit the 777X has a higher block fuel burn.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 63): I *really* wonder if EK will order the A339... It would be a perfect fit into their 'regional' (including to Europe) sub-fleet...

Although they ordered the B777X, they do not have a strategy to replace those widebodies that carry less than 300 passengers. The benefit that an A339 will bring is that the support mechanism is already in place, paid for and fully trained.

Quoting zeke (Reply 105): This old slide shows the main

No kidding, 2 bucks a gallon for jet-A? Its been what, 15 years since then?      

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 102): It always amazes me how people struggle with overhead bins. I'm not watching the bins during an 10-hour flight.

I do not think the cabin interior will be uncompetitive for the next 4-5 years. But at Farnborough Boeing offered an update on the 777X cabin interior and that looks even more modern than the 787 interior. It will offer more hummidity, better cabin pressure as well as larger windows than is currently offereed on the 777. On the long sectors the 777 will be flying this will be make the plane more competitive. I recently flew the 787 OSL-JFK-OSL, and hardly did notice any jetlag. This is because of the 787 Technology. As more 787 becomes available this will be noticed by passengers. I am sure Airbus will do incremental improvements to the interior. If Boeing can increase hummidity and pressure in the cabin on the 777X I am sure Airbus can do the same With the A330neo. The only reason why I think they do not offer this from the start is to prevent a delayed EIS.

Something quite confusing just happened at the Airbus press conference regarding the Air Mauritius A350-900 order, though nobody in the room seemed to have picked up on it. When Leahy was asked about the list price-value of the deal, he said the list price of the A350-900 was $275 million. The same number he gave yesterday for the A330-900neo. Since it's hard to believe both have the same list price, that means he either quoted the wrong A350 price today, or he quoted the wrong A330neo price yesterday...

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 109): that means he either quoted the wrong A350 price today, or he quoted the wrong A330neo price yesterday...

A350-900 list price is $295.2 million.

http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/pr...bus-aircraft-list-prices-for-2014/

Quoting panais (Reply 106): Quoting lightsaber (Reply 63): I *really* wonder if EK will order the A339... It would be a perfect fit into their 'regional' (including to Europe) sub-fleet... Although they ordered the B777X, they do not have a strategy to replace those widebodies that carry less than 300 passengers. The benefit that an A339 will bring is that the support mechanism is already in place, paid for and fully trained.

It's interesting because if the 'compensation' to Airbus for cancelling the A350's was ordering the A380's then the only looser was Rolls Royce, assuming the 50 new A380's are EA powered.

If this isn't the case, and Airbus said they didn't know about the cancellation until it happened, then maybe an A330NEO order is the compensation for both Airbus and Rolls Royce.

The decision in favor of the Rolls-Royce Trent 7000 engine powering the Airbus A330neo has only come after a fierce competition between General Electric (GE) and Rolls-Royce. “Both were clear: they needed to be single source,” Airbus Executive Vice President Programs Tom Williams said at the Farnborough Air Show. Airbus would have liked to go for two engine types from a commercial perspective, but now sees the advantages of the single source deal, he pointed out.

Read more:
http://aviationweek.com/farnborough-...anted-single-source-status-a330neo

Quoting zeke (Reply 105): http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a357/thezeke/fleet%20planning/589a6d2d.png

What would be good to see is a graph of fuel burn per seat against distance for all the contenders in this market. Be interesting to see where (if ever) they cross over

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 107): No kidding, 2 bucks a gallon for jet-A? Its been what, 15 years since then?

Its currently just 2,80US$ gallon, Zeke pointed out its an old slide and to answer your question, anytime before 2005, between that peak and 2007, between end of 2008 and sometime 2010. So for an old slide that was pretty valid.

best regards
Thomas

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 107):

Zeke pointed maintenance costs that are not bound to fuel cost

By the way, 787 was an 8 abrest airliners these days...

Interesting points on the T7000 changes needed,never would have dreamed reducing the electrical power generation woudl be a big issue compared to going to bleed!

"“I can confirm that adding cabin and deice bleed to the Trent T1000 will be one of the simpler tasks when creating the T7000,” Goodhead says. “In fact it will require no hardware change and the additional bleed will affect the engines performance with less then 1/10 of a percent. There are other areas requiring more of our attention, such as the significant reduction in electrical power served to the A330neo airframe compared to the requirements of the 787. The reduction in the drive power to the gearbox where the aircraft’s electrical generators are attached will cause hardware changes on the engines internals. This and the changed mounting of the engine (compared to the mounting of the T700) are more significant challenges for us and Airbus .”
http://leehamnews.com/2014/07/15/air...t-2-engines-and-maintenance-costs/

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 108): Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 102):It always amazes me how people struggle with overhead bins. I'm not watching the bins during an 10-hour flight.I do not think the cabin interior will be uncompetitive for the next 4-5 years. But at Farnborough Boeing offered an update on the 777X cabin interior and that looks even more modern than the 787 interior. It will offer more hummidity, better cabin pressure as well as larger windows than is currently offereed on the 777. On the long sectors the 777 will be flying this will be make the plane more competitive. I recently flew the 787 OSL-JFK-OSL, and hardly did notice any jetlag. This is because of the 787 Technology. As more 787 becomes available this will be noticed by passengers. I am sure Airbus will do incremental improvements to the interior. If Boeing can increase hummidity and pressure in the cabin on the 777X I am sure Airbus can do the same With the A330neo. The only reason why I think they do not offer this from the start is to prevent a delayed EIS.

Yes, and what I also mean is that when I fly on a plane with a lot of space, I do not sit at gate worrying that I will get a space for my carry on, I use my time getting ready for the flight more effectively. Once the bins are shut, they are not important, but pre-boarding a big factor

Quoting StTim (Reply 100): I am not sure I fully buy into your

Think about it. With the forecasted demand and the money already invested in the A350, 787 and 77X programmes, the A330NEO is cheap to develop.

Up-grading the production line of the A350 would have probably cost more, than doing the NEO. And even if both Boeing products would be superior to the Airbus offerings, up-grading the production facilities to cover 100% of the market would be so expensive, that the unit costs would become not competitive.

So as it currently looks, the market is bigger than the combined production of the A350 + 787 + 777X, so even if the A330NEO is the worst of the batch, it is still having a ~14% CASM better than a current A330 (which means better than a 767 and early 777 too) No if it is cheaper to buy and can be had earlier, the business case works, even if the 787 is better.

A bit more technical background information on the A330neo:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...330neo-engineering-demands-401664/

[Edited 2014-07-16 09:33:20]

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 119): A bit more technical background information on the A330neo:

Thanks, that's very interesting.

Seems that Airbus are aiming for zero overall weight increase - impressive.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 119): A bit more technical background information on the A330neo:

I wonder how much time they will need for flight testing and certification. The changes to the wing seem to be more than minor...

Quoting astuteman (Reply 66): I think you'll find it's a more efficient wing than the a350mk 1 had - it's 4m greater span

Hmmm... Let me do more research, I thought the Mk1 did more on wingtip treatment...   

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 119): A bit more technical background information on the A330neo:

I found this fascinating: Williams adds that the engine-nacelle interface will also be “critical” to the design effort. “You can easily lose 1-1.5% [efficiency] between a well-optimised and a poorly-optimised configuration,” he says.
Due to the greater shock wave interaction (engine closer to wing), nacelle optimization is going to be very critical.

Good find in that link.

Lightsaber

Quoting aviaponcho (Reply 115): By the way, 787 was an 8 abrest airliners these days...

Another note that at least I find relevant: 787 will be flying the RR T1000-TEN in 2016, a year ahead of T7000 on A330neo.

Re: Landing gear: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...330neo-engineering-demands-401664/ says it will be unchanged from the 242T A330ceo.

Norwegian’s CEO has this to say about the A330neo.

"Kjos said he thinks that Airbus jet “will be a very good competitor,” but he’s content to stick with the Dreamliner.

Contrary to claims by Airbus, he said. “The 787-8 will have better fuel burn. The 787-8 is much lighter, and weight is very crucial to fuel burn.”

As for the notion that Airbus might undercut the 787 on pricing of the A330neo, he said that for international airlines “45 to 50 percent of your operating cost is fuel” and the difference in the cost of buying the two planes won’t make up for a big deficit in fuel efficiency."

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/boeing...etter-and-better/?prmid=obinsource

The A330neo would not fit Norwegian’s route network, and the airline is a bit small to add an aircraft from another manufacturer. After all, we're talking about a seat-cost difference of 1 to 3%, depending on the cabin configuration.

Revelation,
The T1000-10 has run on the test already and several engines are in manufacture well on plan.
From the time scales quoted the concept most have all long lead time components requiring no or minimal change.
The main component I look after can be be production ready 12months after the design interface is sealed. This sets the critical path of the forging development which is 30weeks.
There are components with critical paths of over two years, this time scales means those parts will not change. All these critical paths are known and what we work with and plan too. It's not guess work, it's a robust plan based on previous plans that worked.
I am guessing here but due to component interfaces with my components which do have long lead times mine will probably not change at all.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 88): Well we have to remember these are "Generation One" CFRP airliners so I would expect future generations to improve over time.

But was the lesson learned not how to do it better next time but rather just not to bother? I mean, both Airbus and Boeing are sticking with the A320/737 into the next decade, and now both have decided to stick with another set of older non-CFRP designs into the next decade in the 20 year old 777 and the 25(45) year old A330?

The RR T1000-ten and RR T7000 will be produced in much bigger numbers then for example genx i assume by the move that RR is single supplier to A330neo. How will this affect future developments? Will genx be able to develop as fast?

Quoting olle (Reply 128): How will this affect future developments? Will genx be able to develop as fast?

Given the large demand in the 300-seat market, competition will be tough. We may expect future improvements like engine PIPs and weight reductions. And GE is winning the bulk of the 787 engine orders.

If somebody has posted this already than have me excused. Their are so many new posts every time I look.

Now there is talk about doing the conversion from the A330 to the A330neo weight neutral.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...rce=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

It is not clear to me if that includes the engines or only the frame. If it is only the frame the two engines will add about 2t together.

That would mean that both the A330neo gets even closer to the B787, but also that the for the A330 against the A330neo only a lower sales price would be left. It would also increase the range still more with the possibility of the same payload at the same fuel loads as the A330ceo.

That should be at 2 t weight difference 150 nm and at 0 t weight difference 300 nm additional range above the numbers in the presentation.

[Edited 2014-07-16 14:19:53]

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 127): But was the lesson learned not how to do it better next time but rather just not to bother? I mean, both Airbus and Boeing are sticking with the A320/737 into the next decade, and now both have decided to stick with another set of older non-CFRP designs into the next decade in the 20 year old 777 and the 25(45) year old A330?

Production / Engineering Capacity and Time to Market concerns seems to be driving the decision on the A320neo/737MAX and A330neo/777(MA)X. After all, Boeing is going to CFRP for the 777X's wing rather than staying with Al.

The main takeaways from the 787 and A350 programs are to pay closer attention to project and supplier management. I don't think the materials change

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 114): Its currently just 2,80US$ gallon,

.80 cents a gallon is a big increase.

and I don't think a single US airline is paying that. IIRC Delta's fuel guidance for the year is right a 3.00-3.10 a gallon.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 114): Zeke pointed out its an old slide and to answer your question, anytime before 2005, between that peak and 2007, between end of 2008 and sometime 2010. So for an old slide that was pretty valid.

just a joke.

Quoting aviaponcho (Reply 115): Zeke pointed maintenance costs that are not bound to fuel cost

cool your jets, its a joke.

jeesh

Production slow downs likely coming to A330 and A380 lines?


"Recent profits warnings from airlines such as Lufthansa and Air France-KLM have stoked fears of a sharp slowdown in demand for new aircraft or even cancellations.

However, shares in Airbus closed down 2.5 percent after the company told analysts it may have to cut output of its best-selling twin-aisle A330 passenger jet to get through a three-year transition towards an upgraded model launched at the show.

Airbus Chief Executive Fabrice Bregier acknowledged on Monday that his company's demand forecast implied that average production over the expected lifespan of the revamped jet project would be lower than the current 10 a month."


http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...show-britain-idUSL6N0PR22R20140716

They are at 10 A330/month and IIRC only have been that high in the last what 18 months or 2 years at most. Cutting it in half is still probably higher than the average rate they have had over the life of the program!

Quoting mffoda (Reply 133): Production slow downs likely coming to A330 and A380 lines?

They did secure a 70 frame A330-300 order from China in March, but there were rumors it could have been up to 200, which would have helped bridge the production rate during the transition period.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 134): They are at 10 A330/month and IIRC only have been that high in the last what 18 months or 2 years at most. Cutting it in half is still probably higher than the average rate they have had over the life of the program!

I was under the impression that Airbus raised the rate to 10 to maximise the benefit to be gained from demand caused by the 787 delays, and were always planning to reduce it as 787 production ramped up, regardless of whether they launched a neo.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 133): and A380 lines

I can't see how you've got this from the linked article, unless you are inferring it from the "fears of a sharp slowdown in demand ... or even cancellations" comment. But if that's the case, why single out the A380? A slowdown in market demand would affect all programs at both Airbus and Boeing.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 136): I was under the impression that Airbus raised the rate to 10 to maximise the benefit to be gained from demand caused by the 787 delays, and were always planning to reduce it as 787 production ramped up, regardless of whether they launched a neo.

Sounds correct to me, thats why I dont see all the doom and gloom some do on hearing of a rate cut.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 112):

So GE did compete and wanted to be on the programme, something a particular member has been harping on about it being untrue.

Quoting Lowbank (Reply 126): The T1000-10 has run on the test already and several engines are in manufacture well on plan.

Yes, indeed. I was pointing out that marketing people probably are comparing A330neo to 787 with an earlier version of T1000 (Package C or maybe even Package B), yet by the time A330neo ships the 787 will have had the T1000-TEN/T7000 level of tech for a year or more.

Quoting Lowbank (Reply 126): From the time scales quoted the concept most have all long lead time components requiring no or minimal change. The main component I look after can be be production ready 12months after the design interface is sealed. This sets the critical path of the forging development which is 30weeks. There are components with critical paths of over two years, this time scales means those parts will not change. All these critical paths are known and what we work with and plan too. It's not guess work, it's a robust plan based on previous plans that worked.

Yes, it is great when you find you can find a way to not have to change those parts with critical path over two years, otherwise we would not be reading stuff like:

Quote: Although most new engine development programs take an average of around six years to come to market, Rolls is halving the time by basing the Trent 7000 on the Trent 1000-TEN

Ref: http://aviationweek.com/farnborough-...anted-single-source-status-a330neo

If I am understanding the earlier comments, lightsaber thought the addition of bleed ports would be one of the two year or greater kinds of changes.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 136): I can't see how you've got this from the linked article, unless you are inferring it from the "fears of a sharp slowdown in demand ... or even cancellations" comment. But if that's the case, why single out the A380? A slowdown in market demand would affect all programs at both Airbus and Boeing.

Oh,

Sure, here you go....

"* Airbus shares fall on projected dip in A330 production"

And...

"Late in the day, Airbus sought to reassure participants after a German broadcaster reported the planemaker's plans to upgrade the doors on its A380 superjumbo could mean the programme breaking even later than expected.

A spokesman said Airbus was testing improvements to the doors after incidents mainly involving noise during flights and that it expected the upgrade to be approved in the autumn, and fitted to all planes rolling off the production line from 2015.

He said it was unclear how much the upgrade would cost but that Airbus was "well on track" to reach breakeven on the A380 in 2015, as planned."

Is that helpfull?

Regards,

Quoting mffoda (Reply 133): Production slow downs likely coming to A330

Quoting mffoda (Reply 140): Is that helpfull?

It was always the plan to cut A330 production after 2015 as the A350 ramps up. Nothing new here.

For the A330neo, Airbus is aiming at producing 7 to 8 jets per month.

[Edited 2014-07-17 00:33:23]

Quoting mffoda (Reply 140): Is that helpfull?

No because it says absolutely nothing that suggests an A380 rate cut.

As much as I find the A330NEO exciting, I do also have questions.

Back in the early 1990s, the McDonnell-Douglas MD-11 was built. It was essentially a stretch DC-10 with new engines and they stuck winglets onto a 20 year old wing design. It got clobbered to death by an aircraft with a heavier OEW - the Boeing 777.

The A330NEO is going to use new engines on a 40 year old fuselage (A300) and 25 year old wings with A350 wingtips. The 787 has a lighter OEW than the A330 and has more range.

Something is not adding up.

Quoting Pacific (Reply 143): The 787 has a lighter OEW than the A330 and has more range.

But there will be airliners that will not have it in the time they need that superior plane. Or that will not have the money to buy it. Ad there is where the A330 will (and is) selling in the hunfreds.

The MD-11 versus A330neo is a completely different story, and the A330neo is pitched at a different market. In addition, it will sell on availability as Boeing will always have a large 787 backlog.

Quoting Pacific (Reply 143): Back in the early 1990s, the McDonnell-Douglas MD-11 was built. It was essentially a stretch DC-10 with new engines and they stuck winglets onto a 20 year old wing design. It got clobbered to death by an aircraft with a heavier OEW - the Boeing 777.

Ah, but the MD11 missed its performance targets and had a third engine. That didn't help.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 140): Is that helpfull?

For me it isn't, because I still can't see anything anywhere that suggests fears of a cut in A380 production .....

As far as the A380 goes, all I can see is a reference to the sort of continuous improvement that all airliners get, and a re-affirmation that production break-even is on track next year

Quoting Pacific (Reply 143): The 787 has a lighter OEW than the A330 and has more range.Something is not adding up

I think it's simple. It's becoming clear how much lighter the 787 really was when you finally stick comparable engines on the A330.
To compensate, the A330NEO now has wings which are 4m longer span than the 787 - a characteristic which will go a long way to mitigate the fuel burn penalty of the extra weight.
But it can't compensate for, say, the A339 having both a higher OEW and a lower MTOW than the 787-9.

The 787-9 has 11t more MTOW, and will be a lot lighter - I don't know - 7-8 tonnes?
Something has to give. And it's the amount of fuel it can carry with a given payload.

As a result, the A339 appears to get within a few percentage points of fuel burn, but by dint of having, what, 18-20 tonnes less fuel available it won't fly nearly as far - 6 200Nm vs c. 8 000Nm

Rgds

Transaero becomes the 5th A330neo customer and signs for 12 aircraft.

http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/new...aero-airlines-commits-to-20-a330s/



[Edited 2014-07-17 04:04:21]

In addition, an undisclosed Asian customer signed for 4 A330-800neo aircraft.

http://twitter.com/MaxABEd/status/489720294580699136

That's it for the Farnborough air show. The A330neo is launched with 121 commitments from 6 customers.