Chaostheory
Posts: 1134
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Tue Jan 05, 2016 9:14 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 89):
It has?
Do you have any evidence to support that?
Whilst the 787 has been evolving, so too has the A330. Maintenance intervals are remarkably similar, despite the 787 hype
I think your assertion is far from a given.

Actually, this is a point that Airbus has to concede. We studied the proposed MPD prior to 789 purchase and the man hour requirement is vastly lower than the 767/A330/777. Of course, we won't have a true picture until the first heavy checks are done but initial reports with regards to the lighter checks are positive.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 89):
There seems to be an almost embarrassing enthusiasm to play the A330-900 down on this thread.
A bit curious, IMO

An understatement.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1828
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Tue Jan 05, 2016 9:25 pm

Quoting billreid (Reply 95):
Yes. Absolutely correct.
Reality is the A350 is losing more sales to the A330 than the B787.
But it takes a very smart sales department to improve an old product to hurt flagship salesthat cost gazillions in development costs.

You are in business to sell a product to the customer. When you do that you make money.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6955
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:12 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 99):
Sorry you are being put off by this thread.

Don't sweat it. I'm not.  
Quoting Revelation (Reply 99):
Here and elsewhere I've been supportive of the A330 family, ceo and neo alike.

Can't and won't argue with that  
Quoting Revelation (Reply 99):
In the case of my post you've quoted, I was responding to a post saying that A330s on average fly 2000 nm routes and that factors such as landing fees based on weight favor the A330ceos

Again. Don't sweat it. You weren't in the firing line. not even close. I only used your comment to reinforce a point.  
Quoting Revelation (Reply 99):
I would hope we could find a way to discuss this without upsetting people.

Agree. For what its worth, you've said nothing to upset me. By the same token I don't understand why you would be upset by my post.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 91):
Dated info but some is here:

Yes. It's dated. Airbus changed the intervals to match the 787 in 2009, as pointed out by Trex8.

Quoting Chaostheory (Reply 100):
Actually, this is a point that Airbus has to concede. We studied the proposed MPD prior to 789 purchase and the man hour requirement is vastly lower than the 767/A330/777. Of course, we won't have a true picture until the first heavy checks are done but initial reports with regards to the lighter checks are positive

But this is worthwhile feedback that indicates the 787 still has an edge   

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 91):
If a cutting edge CFRP fuse and wing doesn't beat a wing treatment then the A350 is in as much trouble as the 787. I personally don't believe that.

Of course the all singing CFRP beats a wing treatment. But rather than use your blunt instrument, why not look at the specifics a bit more. The A330-900 is unquestionably heavier - it's an older tech frame.
Airbus have had to resort to adding 4m to the span to offset the impact on induced drag.
That results in a more aligned fuel burn, despite the weight.
But the penalty is seen in the capability, as the A330-900 just can't carry the same weight of fuel and payload as the 787-9.
Advantage 787-9. It's just a case of having some care about what the advantage is  

Rgds
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2470
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:51 pm

Quoting billreid (Reply 95):
Reality is the A350 is losing more sales to the A330 than the B787.

It's not as if Airbus care, they allow airlines to switch. It frees up early A350 slots. That may have clinched the DL order.

Quoting billreid (Reply 95):
But it takes a very smart sales department to improve an old product to hurt flagship salesthat cost gazillions in development costs.

So king of like Boeing making the 777X after spending billions on the 747-8? How do we have 2 manufacturers if both have stupid sales departments? And why are the sales departments deciding to improve the aircraft rather than the board and the designers? We're flying aircraft made by morons!

Quoting billreid (Reply 95):
The B-789 is a smarter size for thier business model regardless of the bells and whistles.

What bells and whistles?

The A350 is a good size for Thomas Cook because they carry a lot of people. The 789 could be as well, but they go for high density.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:20 am

I for one think the 787 is best for LCCs and that is why I downplay the chance of the A330neo taking a significant part of the market. As an airplane the 787 offers either better fuel efficiency or better range than the A330neo. The only real selling point for the A330 is purchase price. That is a tough way to sell airplanes. It might work for some LCCs especially if tied to favorable terms on A320s. I think the A359 is a great plane as well. I don't think it fits the needs of any current LCCs.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 89):
The A330-900 has sold 150 examples in a fraction of the time it's taken the 787-10 to sell 164 copies.
I'd be interested to see what you think a strong order book looks like after 18 months on offer

We will see if the A330neo does get significant orders. It has the chance. I can say that a strong order book includes a diverse mix of large well established airlines. Of the A330neo customers only Delta, TAP and Hawaiian are financially well established. Once we find out where those leasing customer planes are going I might change my mind. Right now the order book looks like the 747-8 did back in 2006. Back then we were promised more orders but few showed up.

Quoting Chaostheory (Reply 100):

Quoting astuteman (Reply 89):
It has?
Do you have any evidence to support that?
Whilst the 787 has been evolving, so too has the A330. Maintenance intervals are remarkably similar, despite the 787 hype
I think your assertion is far from a given.

Actually, this is a point that Airbus has to concede. We studied the proposed MPD prior to 789 purchase and the man hour requirement is vastly lower than the 767/A330/777. Of course, we won't have a true picture until the first heavy checks are done but initial reports with regards to the lighter checks are positive.

The 787 maintenance costs will be lower when structural inspections are done. It should be 30% lower since you will not find he same level of corrosion on a composite structure as you will on aluminum. The 787 MPD was very aggressive from the start with systems tasks. Most planes take over a decade to escalate intervals. The A330 for he most part matches he 787. They may remain similar or we might see 787 intervals double like most planes do after two decades in service.

[Edited 2016-01-05 20:33:27]
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21606
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Wed Jan 06, 2016 5:42 am

Quoting trex8 (Reply 87):
Wasnt Air Asia X going to use 10 across on the A350??
Quoting Chaostheory (Reply 97):

Packs on/Packs off take offs have a negligible impact on fuel burn. I'd hazard a guess and say it is less than 50kg for a 767/330.

The Packs are not the only bleed.

As for the A330 NEO vs. the 787, the A330 NEO has some serious advantages. DL basically worked out that their CASM would be lower with the A339 than with the 789. That said, it is a generation older. The 787's wing is a brand new 3D-CFD model made of CFRP. Its high-lift devices do things that the A330's cannot, like drooping the spoilers (the A350 does this, too). And, importantly, it has about 1000 nmi of extra range over its competitor. The A330NEO could be made to have the same range as the 787...but in doing so it would gain a lot of weight and not be as efficient.

For an airline like DL, the A330NEO for TATL ops is optimal. For a LCC, a single type with more flexibility (the 787) is a better choice.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Wed Jan 06, 2016 6:15 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 86):

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 82):
If the A339 is unneeded, what else would you buy for 1:1 A333 replacement?

An A333, either one of the 'gap fillers', or a used one?

Two years ago, I'd say go A359.
One year ago, I'd say go A339.
Today I'd say go new A333, and/or possibly even pick up used 332's/333's on the second-hand market.

Quoting StTim (Reply 90):
For me I think Airbus will sell several hundred NEO's (my personal guess is around 500) and each of these will be a 787-9 that is not sold.

Uh....That's a bit selective I'd say.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 92):
and Airbus has massively more latitude when it comes to lowering the purchase price.

They also have multiple options: A330ceo/A330neo/A350 vs essentially 787.

Quoting StTim (Reply 94):
I accept that the 330NEO will also scavange orders from the 350. That was an oversight. I suspect Airbus are comfortable with that as it means, at present, they will deliver the 330NEO and also fill the 350 slot for the same period.

It's like magically appearing orders.  
Quoting roseflyer (Reply 104):
I can say that a strong order book includes a diverse mix of large well established airlines. Of the A330neo customers only Delta, TAP and Hawaiian are financially well established.

I cringe when I see comments like this (and others) where we try to set a certain threshold that we arbitrarily deem something "successful". Another case (up thread) is "Let's wait and see how neo orders come out this year. If they sell 60-80, then ..." What seems to happen is that the bar keeps getting moved. "Ok, sure, UA ordered some A330neo's, but until we see X+2 carriers ordering them, they won't be TRULY successful." or "Well, they sold 35 this year, but we REALLY need to wait until the end of 2017 before we TRULY can say ....".

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 105):

For an airline like DL, the A330NEO for TATL ops is optimal.

Just like the 777 vs A330 decision at NW.

-Dave
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1828
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Wed Jan 06, 2016 8:10 am

LCCs also seem to prefer the 787 over the 777.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:44 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 86):
Right, which is just a business decision

A wise business decision, as it will leave the customer no other choice than buying the A339 instead.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 106):
Today I'd say go new A333, and/or possibly even pick up used 332's/333's on the second-hand market.

In a few years from now you will not be able to buy a new A333 because Airbus plans to stop production. And used A333s are rather scarce, there's no second-hand market for the moment; the worldwide A333 fleet is not due yet for replacement.

The A332 has better availability on the second-hand market, though not in large numbers yet.

[Edited 2016-01-06 01:54:24]
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:16 am

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 83):
The 787-9 is a perfect one for one replacement for the A330-300.

Nobody denies that. Just to be clear, the 789 is an excellent aircraft.

However, dismissing the A339 as a good replacement doesn't make sense, IMO.

Let's go through the arguments:

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 83):
Capacity is equivalent.

Same argument is valid for the A339, it has the same size as the A333.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 83):
Fuel burn is better.

Same argument is valid for the A339.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 83):
Maintenance is lower.

Same argument is valid for the A339, it will have lower maintenance costs than the A333.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 83):
Range is better.

Same argument is valid for the A339.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 83):
Some argue that the A339 is equivalent but I don't think that a good comparison has been made yet.

Ha, we finally agree on something. But if a good comparison has not been made yet, then how:

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 83):
personally do not think they will be on par.

Can you already conclude A339 and 789 would not be 'on pair'?

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 83):
I don't really trust their judgment on A339 vs 787-9.

That's fine.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:26 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 109):

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 83):
personally do not think they will be on par.

Can you already conclude A339 and 789 would not be 'on pair'?

I don't conclude, I predict. I think the 787 has a much better wing. The A350 has an even more efficient wing for long haul e 787 flying, if you want to argue that the A330neo is better than the A330 I agree. I think the 787 is even better. I think it will fit in most LCCs fleet better. I predict it will sell many more. I don't know sales prices. From what I read that is the A330 advantage. Since I don't have any facts about that I can't really predict much. If Airbus sells the airplane for 20% less and has good product support they probably can offset fuel burn differences. The problem is that no one knows what oil prices will be. For that reason I think it is better to go with the most efficient plane you can get. However not all airlines think that. Delta is a shining example of caring more about acquisition cost than fuel burn for every plane in their fleet. They are a bit of an outlier.

[Edited 2016-01-06 02:26:48]
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:45 am

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 110):
I think the 787 has a much better wing.

That's a given, the A330 wing is 20 years old. The 787 wing is newer.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 110):
I think the 787 is even better.

Just to be clear, nobody denies that the 787 is better. Airbus too says A330neo is 3% less efficient than the 787.

Everyone agrees.

The lower efficiency is being offset by lower acquitting costs. And now it comes:

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 110):
For that reason I think it is better to go with the most efficient plane you can get. However not all airlines think that.

Many aircraft purchases boil down to 'getting a good deal'.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:30 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 111):

Many aircraft purchases boil down to 'getting a good deal'.

Getting a good deal may be even more important for low cost carriers. While I understand that the 787 development costs were outrageous, the A330 will probably have fewer planes to spread out its much smaller costs. I wonder how much cheaper Airbus is willing to sell it.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21936
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Wed Jan 06, 2016 12:35 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 102):
By the same token I don't understand why you would be upset by my post.

Fair enough. I think it's been an interesting discussion.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 108):
A wise business decision, as it will leave the customer no other choice than buying the A339 instead.

Taking away a choice that works best for a customer isn't necessarily a best business decision. I'm not going to crunch the numbers, but it seems the A330neo's extra cost (due to costlier engines and more R&D paydowns) and extra weight (causing more challenge in the climb and causing higher ATC and landing fees) make it less desirable to the carriers that fly in on 2000nm routes. Of course we see there's lots of carriers (DL comes to mind) that want to fly it on routes that average a lot more than 2000nm. But it might be wise to keep ceo on the order books.

Nice to see SA taking 5x A333.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Wed Jan 06, 2016 1:34 pm

I don't get why all conclude for the 787-9 and the A330-900 "Capacity is equivalent", especially when both are aquipped with an all or nearly all-economy layout,.

The A330-900 is less than 1m (about 30") longer, but in most cases it will be 8-abreast, where the 787-9 will be 9-abreast in any case. For that, the 787-9 should have at least 20 more seats. Only if we go 9-abreast on the A339 things chance, but than we have even less range (compared to a 787-9).

[Given - conseravtive - 40 usable rows we get 360 pax for an all economy 787-9, fo an A339 with 41 rows we get 328, with 42 rows we get 336 pax]
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Wed Jan 06, 2016 1:58 pm

Quoting dare100em (Reply 114):
The A330-900 is less than 1m (about 30") longer

You need to look at available cabin floor space instead of airplane length. Both A333 and B789 offer some 260 mm² floor space, hence equal capacity.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
jetblue1965
Posts: 5050
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:28 pm

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Wed Jan 06, 2016 2:16 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 115):

You need to look at available cabin floor space instead of airplane length. Both A333 and B789 offer some 260 mm² floor space, hence equal capacity.

Floor space is only 1 metric. From the 10-abreast 777s we can see how one can squeeze a whole lot more within the same floor space

Another item we know is that while most operators are completely comfortable with 9b on 787 and 10b on 777, only the most ULCCs of them would do 9b on 330, so floor space alone doesn't paint a complete picture.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Wed Jan 06, 2016 2:26 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 116):
From the 10-abreast 777s we can see how one can squeeze a whole lot more within the same floor space

Yup, but Boeing doesn't offer 10-abreast on the 787. So 9-abreast B789 versus 8-abreast A333 gives you about the same capacity. And more than 90% of all A330 operators does have 8-abreast.

Even if you go 10-abreast in the B789, you can go 9-abreast in the A333, resulting again in the same capacity. When you have two aircraft with equal floor space, both should be able to fit the same amount of seats.

[Edited 2016-01-06 07:08:03]
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:29 pm

Quoting StTim (Reply 90):
For me I think Airbus will sell several hundred NEO's (my personal guess is around 500)

I would think they are planning on producing it for at least 10 years so that would mean a ~4.5 monthly production rate on average. Reducing a FAL, even a modular one that can be re-purposed, from 10 per month to 4.5 won't be easy.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 93):
I have no clue what the A330neo mx checks are or the definition of a D check in the 2005 article you link to but "heavy" mx checks in 2009 for a A330ceo are every 12 years

Thanks for the info. Still, checks should be shorter in duration as I mentioned.

Quoting Chaostheory (Reply 100):
Actually, this is a point that Airbus has to concede. We studied the proposed MPD prior to 789 purchase and the man hour requirement is vastly lower than the 767/A330/777. Of course, we won't have a true picture until the first heavy checks are done but initial reports with regards to the lighter checks are positive.

Thank you for the first-hand info. Its contributions like these that make this site interesting.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 102):
But the penalty is seen in the capability, as the A330-900 just can't carry the same weight of fuel and payload as the 787-9.
Advantage 787-9. It's just a case of having some care about what the advantage is

Agreed and I don't doubt that there are certain missions where the added weight and added cruise efficiency shrink the gap between the A339 and the 789 to a point where the A339 makes a very compelling argument. Its probably in the 3,000nm-5,000nm area which is certainly a lot of routes and not-coincidentally, where DL plans to operate the aircraft.

If a new engine plus $2B worth of wing work (etc) can make a 30-year old frame (with continuous improvements) can compete with a $30B+ family on every route then we are hopeless to expect major innovation in this industry again in the near future. And I know you are not saying every route, just making a broader point.

Quoting dare100em (Reply 114):
I don't get why all conclude for the 787-9 and the A330-900 "Capacity is equivalent", especially when both are aquipped with an all or nearly all-economy layout,.

EY and VS operate both the A333 and the 789 and tend to have very similar configurations and seat counts on both aircraft. With the A339 they are planning on changing a couple small things around to offer more seating options.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:32 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 118):
With the A339 they are planning on changing a couple small things around to offer more seating options.

The Space Flex cabin option adds 10 additional economy seats.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:33 pm

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 107):
LCCs also seem to prefer the 787 over the 777.

Well that would stand to reason.  
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 108):
In a few years from now you will not be able to buy a new A333 because Airbus plans to stop production.

Sure. But we're a few years out for that still.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 108):
And used A333s are rather scarce, there's no second-hand market for the moment; the worldwide A333 fleet is not due yet for replacement.

Sure, but I guess I'd envision a hybrid approach, purchasing or leasing new A333ceo's now (for example) and supplementing them with used frames down the road. I'm not suggesting that it's a perfect scenario but when you are in a low fuel cost environment, it might make more sense to stick with what's cheapest to acquire even if operating costs are a bit higher. If fuel starts rising there will likely be slots available for 787's and A350's (and of course A333neo's) in a relatively reasonable timeframe, including from lessors if that's what's needed.

-Dave
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
jetblue1965
Posts: 5050
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:28 pm

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:33 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 117):
So 9-abreast B789 versus 8-abreast A333 gives you about the same capacity.

Both the seats and the aisles are far narrower on the 787 in your scenario (read : higher density), so capacity is not 1-to-1 mapping.

Floor space is 1-to-1 only under the assumption that seat comfort / density is the same, which we know isn't the case here. A 2-4-2 on 330 is very comfortable while 3-3-3 on a 787 is somewhat mediocre, but 3-3-3 on 330 requires convening the Nuremberg Trials.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:42 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 121):
Both the seats and the aisles are far narrower on the 787 in your scenario
Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 121):
A 2-4-2 on 330 is very comfortable while 3-3-3 on a 787 is somewhat mediocre

But that's how it works: 99% of all 787 operators use 3-3-3, and more than 90% of all A330 operators use 2-4-2. What's the point of comparing theoretical numbers when nobody uses them in the real world.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
jetblue1965
Posts: 5050
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:28 pm

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:47 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 122):

But that's how it works: 99% of all 787 operators use 3-3-3, and more than 90% of all A330 operators use 2-4-2. What's the point of comparing theoretical numbers when nobody uses them in the real world.

The floor space usage of a row of 3-3-3 787 does not equal that of 2-4-2 330, so I still don't see how floor space metric alone means they're identical capacity ?
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:53 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 102):
Yes. It's dated. Airbus changed the intervals to match the 787 in 2009, as pointed out by Trex8.

Furthermore, maintenance costs will be further reduced on the A330neo.

http://oi67.tinypic.com/w6v6n4.jpg

I'm convinced the 787 will still have lower maintenance costs due to its CFRP structure, but the gap will be even more narrowed.

[Edited 2016-01-06 08:53:38]
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Wed Jan 06, 2016 7:11 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 104):
The only real selling point for the A330 is purchase price. That is a tough way to sell airplanes.

People often I think seem to gloss over the process of acquiring capital to purchase new aircraft as though it were trivial. I think for most businesses it isn't. Cashflow and credit availability for the sums of money involved in fleet acquisitions are inevitably going to be a factor in purchase decisions for all but the largest airlines.

In addition, the risks involved with purchasing a cheap aircraft are substantially lower. Remember, as long as you can make profit with the plane you're doing well. You might make more profit with a 787, but at the cost of a greater financial risk. Balancing those two factors may be what decides between the 33N and the 787.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 110):
Delta is a shining example of caring more about acquisition cost than fuel burn for every plane in their fleet. They are a bit of an outlier.

Clearly it works for them though. I think they are an outlier in as much as they are a large, established carrier who still buy older planes; I think there are many smaller, less established carriers with similar fleets, for the reasons above.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 104):
I think the A359 is a great plane as well. I don't think it fits the needs of any current LCCs.

I don't think so either. It's too much plane, just as the 777 was.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 112):
While I understand that the 787 development costs were outrageous, the A330 will probably have fewer planes to spread out its much smaller costs. I wonder how much cheaper Airbus is willing to sell it.

Development cost of the A330NEO is probably lower by an order of magnitude than the 787. But development cost is only one part of the equation- unit production cost is also (presumably) going to be substantially lower for the A330. So each plane is going to be cheaper to make and have less development cost to pay for, which likely adds up to a significant saving.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 110):
The problem is that no one knows what oil prices will be. For that reason I think it is better to go with the most efficient plane you can get.

Nobody knows for sure, but one can make predictions. And most people's prediction is that fuel prices will stay relatively low. The 787 is obviously the more capable aircraft, but I think there's life in the A330 yet. I don't think the NEO will sell anywhere near as well as the 787. But I think 500 frames is very achievable.

As for which program will make more profit.......   
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
StTim
Posts: 3479
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Wed Jan 06, 2016 7:24 pm

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 125):
most people's prediction is that fuel prices will stay relatively low. The 787 is obviously the more capable aircraft, but I think there's life in the A330 yet. I don't think the NEO will sell anywhere near as well as the 787. But I think 500 frames is very achievable.

The other factor that is at an historical low at the moment is the cost of capital. It is likely that over the next few years the interest rates will move and they will not move downwards. This change in capital costs will be advantageous for the A330.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Wed Jan 06, 2016 7:57 pm

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 125):
People often I think seem to gloss over the process of acquiring capital to purchase new aircraft as though it were trivial. I think for most businesses it isn't. Cashflow and credit availability for the sums of money involved in fleet acquisitions are inevitably going to be a factor in purchase decisions for all but the largest airlines.

The increasing trend toward aircraft leasing lessons this impact.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 119):
The Space Flex cabin option adds 10 additional economy seats.

Cool, didn't know the number of seats but that is what I was referring to. I know the same option isn't exactly available for the 787 yet but I imagine if it can be done to one it could be done to the other so I imagine the 10 additional seats won't be the net change between the two models.

tortugamon
 
waly777
Posts: 742
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:07 pm

Quoting Chaostheory (Reply 57):

Interestingly our 332 are btw 124 and 126T for DOW

And 333 is roughly 131T for DOW....similar 3 class config to the 789 which is below 130T DOW for a similar mission profile.

789 is lighter from what I've seen.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:17 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 127):
The increasing trend toward aircraft leasing lessons this impact.

It does, but it doesn't eliminate it. And where there are airlines either unwilling or unable to lease aircraft, there's a market for the A330.

Quoting StTim (Reply 126):
The other factor that is at an historical low at the moment is the cost of capital. It is likely that over the next few years the interest rates will move and they will not move downwards. This change in capital costs will be advantageous for the A330.

Absolutely. In fact there are also plenty of developing markets where cost of capital is high even now.
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1134
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Thu Jan 07, 2016 12:17 am

Quoting waly777 (Reply 128):
Interestingly our 332 are btw 124 and 126T for DOW

And 333 is roughly 131T for DOW....similar 3 class config to the 789 which is below 130T DOW for a similar mission profile.

789 is lighter from what I've seen.

My 124.5t figure is aircraft empty weight. Depending on the airline and route network, add another 3-4t for crew+catering. 130t+ all in for an A333 is atypical.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Thu Jan 07, 2016 12:18 am

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 129):
Quoting StTim (Reply 126):
The other factor that is at an historical low at the moment is the cost of capital. It is likely that over the next few years the interest rates will move and they will not move downwards. This change in capital costs will be advantageous for the A330.

Absolutely. In fact there are also plenty of developing markets where cost of capital is high even now.

While that maybe true, capital costs can be spread over 10-15 even 20 years. Operating costs are "up front" costs so while price and financing is important, IMHO its secondary to availability and operating costs.

With price of "black gold" down to the mid $30's, having a plane which is less efficient (but "cheaper") would certainly help. That being said, one doesn't really know the price of oil 3-6 years down the road. I see a great probability of oil $50-$60 in 3-5 years than
"Up the Irons!"
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Thu Jan 07, 2016 12:55 am

Quoting jacobin777 (Reply 131):
While that maybe true, capital costs can be spread over 10-15 even 20 years. Operating costs are "up front" costs so while price and financing is important, IMHO its secondary to availability and operating costs.

That's a matter of cashflow rather than credit cost. The credit still costs you money, even if it's amortized.

Quoting jacobin777 (Reply 131):
Operating costs are "up front" costs so while price and financing is important, IMHO its secondary to availability and operating costs.

For most airlines that's true. But it's incorrect IMO to say that's always the case. There are circumstances where acquisition costs are more important, hence my belief that reports of the A330's demise are greatly exaggerated.
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1828
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Thu Jan 07, 2016 1:17 am

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 129):
It does, but it doesn't eliminate it. And where there are airlines either unwilling or unable to lease aircraft, there's a market for the A330.

The business case for the A330 NEO is not that it is a better plane than the 787 and will outsell it. The business case is that with a relatively small investment Airbus will have a product to sell that will produce a profit. Hence the smaller market share is not a problem. Airbus will get the 'leftovers' from the 787, but they will be profitable leftovers.
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:04 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 115):
Quoting dare100em (Reply 114):
The A330-900 is less than 1m (about 30") longer

You need to look at available cabin floor space instead of airplane length. Both A333 and B789 offer some 260 mm² floor space, hence equal capacity.

[...]

Even if you go 10-abreast in the B789, you can go 9-abreast in the A333, resulting again in the same capacity. When you have two aircraft with equal floor space, both should be able to fit the same amount of seats.

This is simply not correct. As others have stated the 789 is in 99% of cases a 9-abreast plane an the A339 is in 90% plus case an 8-abreast plane. So while the 789 is less compfortable (shoulder width) it has more seats per floorspace as long as you don't go for 9-abreast on the A339.

You can compensate this to some degree with a norrower pitch in the A339 - which is typically done by Airlines, so instead of 1 more economy row (like would be expected from the the lenght difference of 30") it likely will have two more rows (e.g. 42 for the A339 instead of 40 for the 789). Still the 789 will have at least 20 more seats. "Flex cabin layout" and other ponytricks can be adopted by Boeing too and are not Airplane specific.

The 789 will have (slightly) more seats in most cases for an all or near all economy layout. For mixed lauyouts the diefference shrinks significantly. Together with a smaller pitch in economy for the A339 this leads to the very similar counts of actual operators like VS but isn't a given. Look at ANAs intra-Japan all-economy 789. They have 395 seats (18 business in 3 rows, 377 economy in 45 rows!). It is impossible to reach that number with a A339 WITHOUT going 9-abreast. Only if you compare an 9-abreast A339 to an 9-abreast 789 the A339 should have about 10 seats more. Maybe that's the way LCCs go. But this will cut further into the range cababilities of the A339.

[Edited 2016-01-06 23:15:14]
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1707
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:13 am

Quoting dare100em (Reply 134):
This is simply not correct. As others have stated the 789 is in 99% of cases a 9-abreast plane an the A339 is in 90% plus case an 8-abreast plane. So while the 789 is less compfortable (shoulder width) it has more seats per floorspace as long as you don't go for 9-abreast on the A339.

You can compensate this to some degree with a norrower pitch in the A339 - which is typically done by Airlines, so instead of 1 more economy row (like would be expected from the the lenght difference of 30") it likely will have two more rows (e.g. 42 for the A339 instead of 40 for the 789). Still the 789 will have at least 20 more seats. "Flex cabin layout" and other ponytricks can be adopted by Boeing too and are not Airplane specific.

The 789 will have (slightly) more seats in most cases for an all or near all economy layout. For mixed lauyouts the diefference shrinks significantly. Together with a smaller pitch in economy for the A339 this leads to the very similar counts of actual operators like VS but isn't a given. Look at ANAs intra-Japan all-economy 789. They have 395 seats (18 business in 3 rows, 377 economy in 45 rows!). It is impossible to reach that number with a A339 WITHOUT going 9-abreast. Only if you compare an 9-abreast A339 to an 9-abreast 789 the A339 should have about 10 seats more. Maybe that's the way LCCs go. But this will cut further into the range cababilities of the A339.

I don't fully understand your argument. For LCCs the A330 will be 9-abreast. In that case the A333 will seat more as the 787 is limited to 420 seats. The A333 for Cebu already has 436 seats installed. If people on here are complaining about a possible 10-abreast A350 being a nightmare, what does that make a 787 at 10-abreast?

In airlines that operate both types already we see with EY that the A330 has the same seat count as the 787, but it has more premium seats. If you had the same amount of J seats you would have more seats in the A333. VS has 2 more seats in the A333, and it has more premium seats.

So when looking at seats cabin floor area seems a good way to measure the amount of seats available for an airline, especially as real world examples actually confirms this.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1828
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:32 am

I have been on a A330 at 9 abreast (Air Asia). For the price it was worth it and it was full.
 
StTim
Posts: 3479
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:43 am

Quoting jacobin777 (Reply 131):
While that maybe true, capital costs can be spread over 10-15 even 20 years. Operating costs are "up front" costs so while price and financing is important, IMHO its secondary to availability and operating costs.

The thing is that financing costs (and lets assume most LCC's lease) are fixed costs. You pay the same per month regardless of load factor/fuel costs etc. Lease costs will be based on interest rate. If the rate goes up then you will pay more - period.
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Thu Jan 07, 2016 12:08 pm

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 135):

I don't fully understand your argument. For LCCs the A330 will be 9-abreast. In that case the A333 will seat more as the 787 is limited to 420 seats. The A333 for Cebu already has 436 seats installed. If people on here are complaining about a possible 10-abreast A350 being a nightmare, what does that make a 787 at 10-abreast?

Yes, in 9-abreast the A339 will have more pax capacity (about 1 row given the same pitch e.g. 9 seats). No question about that. A 10-abreast 787 isn't even an option and IMO at the edge of even beeing "technically" operable. Even a 10-abreast A350 is already narower than a 9 abraest A339 which is considered "packed". A 10-abreast 787 would have seats about 15" without armrest.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1707
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Thu Jan 07, 2016 12:34 pm

Quoting dare100em (Reply 138):
Yes, in 9-abreast the A339 will have more pax capacity (about 1 row given the same pitch e.g. 9 seats). No question about that. A 10-abreast 787 isn't even an option and IMO at the edge of even beeing "technically" operable. Even a 10-abreast A350 is already narower than a 9 abraest A339 which is considered "packed". A 10-abreast 787 would have seats about 15" without armrest.

And for the purposes of this thread we are looking at LCCs and the A350, 787 and A330. So trying to compare a 8-abreast A330 to a 9-abreast 787 is not a apples to apples comparison for this thread.

With regards to the A350 vs the 787 it seems as though the A350 is too heavy to compete against the 787 with regards to LCCs. If your margins are thin then you have to look at the most economical aircraft you can get. In this instance it would probably be the 787, especially if those carriers were able to secure early slots at competitive prices from Boeing.

These days the prices will not be as cheap for a new order, especially with the 788 still not making more money than it is to produce one. In that instance the A330 is better competition to compete for LCCs business than its stablemate the A350.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Thu Jan 07, 2016 5:04 pm

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 132):

Quoting jacobin777 (Reply 131):
While that maybe true, capital costs can be spread over 10-15 even 20 years. Operating costs are "up front" costs so while price and financing is important, IMHO its secondary to availability and operating costs.

That's a matter of cashflow rather than credit cost. The credit still costs you money, even if it's amortized.

I don't disagree with you but again, my point being that IMHO capital costs is secondary to operating costs.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 132):
Quoting jacobin777 (Reply 131):
Operating costs are "up front" costs so while price and financing is important, IMHO its secondary to availability and operating costs.

For most airlines that's true. But it's incorrect IMO to say that's always the case. There are circumstances where acquisition costs are more important, hence my belief that reports of the A330's demise are greatly exaggerated.

That's why I was speaking in terms of "general situations".  
Quoting StTim (Reply 137):
The thing is that financing costs (and lets assume most LCC's lease) are fixed costs. You pay the same per month regardless of load factor/fuel costs etc. Lease costs will be based on interest rate. If the rate goes up then you will pay more - period.

Interest rates have barely gone up and even when they do, while the percentage change will be large, the actual amount won't be.
"Up the Irons!"
 
astuteman
Posts: 6955
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:51 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 118):
If a new engine plus $2B worth of wing work (etc) can make a 30-year old frame (with continuous improvements) can compete with a $30B+ family on every route then we are hopeless to expect major innovation in this industry again in the near future

Unfortunately, as much as we might crave geekery, reality says that in the period of highest oil prices ever, the following programmes have been launched.

A320NEO
737MAX
A330NEO
777X

and we discuss A380NEO.

The business case for all-new airframes has been marginal with oil over $100 per barrel.
At $30 per barrel it is even more marginal.

One of your colleagues suggested that the A330CEO was a stronger competitor to the 787 than the A330NEO is.

Whilst I don't agree, the sentiment is clearly there.

The full monty cutting edge technology has its advantage blunted by a) the huge outlay, b) the risk, and c) the long wait.
It is what it is

Quoting jacobin777 (Reply 140):
I don't disagree with you but again, my point being that IMHO capital costs is secondary to operating costs

I don't think it's that simple, my friend.

I'll virtually guarantee that Capital decisions made by airlines are driven by a NPV calculation modified by a risk profile.
The relative weighting of capital vs operating cost will be heavily dependent on the Weighted Average Cost of Capital employed in the NPV calculation.
Therefore it is highly likely that lower operating costs beyond c. 5-6 years of acquisition will have very little influence on the decision.

Rgds
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Thu Jan 07, 2016 8:18 pm

Quoting jacobin777 (Reply 140):
Interest rates have barely gone up and even when they do, while the percentage change will be large, the actual amount won't be.

Can you clarify this? The actual amount of what won't be large, and relative to what? It seems to me that even a modest interest rate increase can have a substantial effect when compounded. And I think interest rates vary in other parts of the world.

Quoting jacobin777 (Reply 140):
I don't disagree with you but again, my point being that IMHO capital costs is secondary to operating costs.

I understand your point- I'm just emphasizing that I believe it to me true only in some cases, particularly for LCCs.

I don't disagree that the 787 will be a better fit for the majority of LCCs, however the claim that the A330 cannot take a significant chunk of that market as well, due to the various factors discussed above, seems far-fetched to me.
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Thu Jan 07, 2016 8:55 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 141):
The business case for all-new airframes has been marginal with oil over $100 per barrel.
At $30 per barrel it is even more marginal.

In the presence of high fuel costs large fuel burn improvements should only increase demand for major improvements over existing options but instead, I would say that the list of recent projects is more due to where each aircraft was in its lifecyle and therefore the 'cost involved' vs 'fuel percentage gained' ROI analysis more so than anything else. Engines and CFRP wings/Wingtip treatments are the big areas of aircraft improvement right now and have outpaced fuse improvements, and each of these aircraft had more room for such modifications and that is why we saw what we saw, in my opinion.

If oil had been at ~$40/barrel like it was when the 787 was launched, then I am not sure those program launches would have been any different but certainly it was considered a high water mark when the 787 was launched and greatly contributed to its tradeoffs/design that was centered around fuel efficiency.

I agree that large scale investments when oil is cheap are harder to pencil but everything is relative, program life cycles are long and airline mgt's memories are longer. Interesting and hopefully not boring times.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:19 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 143):
I would say that the list of recent projects is more due to where each aircraft was in its lifecyle and therefore the 'cost involved' vs 'fuel percentage gained' ROI analysis more so than anything else.

I think it also has something to do with the execution failures on the 787 (and on A's side the A380). Past performance is always going to be a factor when determining risk.

And I wouldn't expect a poorly-executed $30 billion airplane to be 15 times better than a well-executed $2 billion one; after all a fair chunk of the $30 billion was waste. That doesn't mean innovation doesn't produce results or that innovation is somehow dead- it just means the development costs might not be the best yardstick of performance.

I agree with your broader point though, and I think so does everybody else. I don't think anybody's suggesting the A330NEO is as capable as the 787, nor that it will live as long. But IMO it's equally incorrect to suggest that the A330 won't be a success in the LCC market, or that its current orders are solely a matter of availability.
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:35 pm

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 144):
And I wouldn't expect a poorly-executed $30 billion airplane to be 15 times better than a well-executed $2 billion one; after all a fair chunk of the $30 billion was waste. That doesn't mean innovation doesn't produce results or that innovation is somehow dead- it just means the development costs might not be the best yardstick of performance.

Agreed but I think its important to look at the specifics. The A330neo could get within a handful a percentage points on fuel burn of the 787 for $2B. They offer a tradeoff on fuel, maintenance, and range, but offer lower cost and better availability...they estimate the number of planes they can sell and out comes the ROI equation. Its a go. I am not sure such semi-low hanging fruit always exists. For the 777 it sure didn't. A $2B investment wouldn't have made the X fly. Likewise I don't think an improvement to the MAX in the $1-3B range will make that program work relative to the A320.

So my point is that each aircraft was new enough that a small investment and new engine technology could make those programs work. Sure not as big of an improvement over clean sheet but enough when coupled with a lower selling price.

To get back to your $30 Billion point....There is no $2B solution to make the 767 15% better than the A330. Its a non-starter, so a new program needed to exist. Fuel costs are nearly irrelevant as Boeing needed to compete in this space and it wasn't. What aircraft comes out of design is contingent on fuel price but the large investment is a necessity.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 144):
But IMO it's equally incorrect to suggest that the A330 won't be a success in the LCC market, or that its current orders are solely a matter of availability.

Agreed, and I hope people don't think I have been making that argument. Price and availability and the fact that fuel burn is similar enough to make these other factors relevant are the factors in my opinion.

tortugamon
 
r2rho
Posts: 3096
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Fri Jan 08, 2016 2:17 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 118):
Reducing a FAL, even a modular one that can be re-purposed, from 10 per month to 4.5 won't be easy.

The CEO FAL is already ramping down to 6 per month before NEO introduction. So another hypothetic ramp down to 4.5 won't be dramatic. I guess Airbus is currently offsetting the A330CEO ramp down with A350 ramp up, hence why it is not being painful in terms of jobs, workshare etc.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Fri Jan 08, 2016 3:04 pm

Quoting r2rho (Reply 146):
So another hypothetic ramp down to 4.5 won't be dramatic.

Well I think there will be a decent overlap with the A330ceo so the total production rate won't go down to that level in the near future.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 146):
I guess Airbus is currently offsetting the A330CEO ramp down with A350 ramp up, hence why it is not being painful in terms of jobs, workshare etc.

Makes sense, I thought some of the A350 ramp up was supposed to take on A380 space as well but I can't recall where I read that.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Sat Jan 09, 2016 11:38 am

So many new posts since my last visit, it will take me some time to respond to everyone.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 141):

The business case for all-new airframes has been marginal with oil over $100 per barrel.
At $30 per barrel it is even more marginal.
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 143):
If oil had been at ~$40/barrel like it was when the 787 was launched

Boeing made the 787 business case at $40 per barrel.

Of course, the 787 was a bit of a different story as Boeing needed an A330 competitor / 767 replacement.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: LCCs Prefer The 787 Over The A350

Sat Jan 09, 2016 12:24 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 79):
The real question is who the leasing companies are going to deliver the planes to. Those 150 orders are a bit tenuous. We will see what happens and if it sells well in East Asia.

Those lessors have a large A330 customer base. Air Lease Corporation is one of the biggest lessors out there. Most of those A330neo orders will most likely be placed with existing customers, either for replacement of a current A330 when the lease expires, or for additional growth.

A guy like Udvar-Házy knows his business.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.

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