Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Topic Author
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 12:17 am

Looking at the current order books for the A330-200, -200F and -800neo, I'm not too impressed. The backlog of the three types are:

A332: 52
A33F: 9
A338: 10

Now granted, the A330-200 has sold well historically, but the A330-200F and A330-800neo are NOT selling. The A330neo was launched, I believe, in part to replace the poor selling A350-800, which the A330-800neo was intended to replace.

Is even the A330-200F and -800neo viable in the long term in terms of sales? What happens if Hawaiian and Transasia convert their orders to the -900neo?

[Edited 2016-02-24 16:22:03]
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27675
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 12:29 am

As the A330-300 gained much of the usable range of the A330-200, orders shifted to the A330-300 because it's larger size and similar trip costs shifts the economics in it's favor.

We're just seeing the same thing with the A330-800 vis-a-vis the A330-900.

As for the A330-200F, the general low demand for new-build freighters is likely having an impact on sales.
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Topic Author
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 12:35 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
As the A330-300 gained much of the usable range of the A330-200, orders shifted to the A330-300 because it's larger size and similar trip costs shifts the economics in it's favor.

   Obviously.

*****************

One more thing, everyone. This is just a general question, as I have nothing against the A330. I've acknowledged just how good she is and am just tapping into curiousity.

[Edited 2016-02-24 16:36:44]
 
User avatar
anfromme
Posts: 883
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:58 pm

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 12:46 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Thread starter):
but the A330-200F and A330-800neo are NOT selling

True enough, but for different reasons.
The -200F was launched at a time when Airbus (and Boeing) expected more life in the dedicated freighter market.
Airbus has sold a few -200F - but didn't get those very few big orders out there, as they were competing against the 767F. The 767F is the only type left on a line line that needs to fill slots to bridge to KC-767 production. The A330-200F is built on the same line as the pax A330, which has still seen very healthy demand recently. In other words: Boeing was happy to give very aggressive deals on the 767F, while Airbus likely didn't feel inclined to sell -200Fs at bargain prices if it could just as well fill their production slots with A330 pax at much healthier margins.
The -800neo in the meantime - I was a bit surprised Airbus actually launched this considering how the -300, with its growing capabilities in terms of range, eschewed the -200 in the long run. Surely, the -900 would be just as capable, so there was little need for an -800. Seems Airbus saw things differently.
But you're right - 10 orders so far isn't impressive at all. Just over 5% of all A330NEO orders...

Quoting Boeing778X (Thread starter):
Is even the A330-200F and -800neo viable in the long term in terms of sales?

Well, the -200F has already been developed. There's no cost associated with keeping it on offer.
It shouldn't be too difficult to adopt the dedicated freighter on the NEO line, too, should there be any demand.
The -800, though... it is only a minor variant, so cost associated with developing it should be minimal. Still, 10 frames are unlikely to cover it. But Hawaiian is a customer - Airbus spend quite some time and effort getting them away from the A350-800 (which isn't now going to happen). Not building one plane, getting a customer to convert to another type - and then not building that plane, either... that would surely piss Hawaiian off.
Although it's of course possible that Hawaiian and Transavia are still going to convert to the -900. If they don't, the -800 is probably going to be built, with a few minor additional orders maybe. I'd be surprised if 50 get built, though.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2831
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 1:12 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Thread starter):
Now granted, the A330-200 has sold well historically, but the A330-200F and A330-800neo are NOT selling. The A330neo was launched, I believe, in part to replace the poor selling A350-800, which the A330-800neo was intended to replace.

It's all downhill from there, as above, the A333 and A339 can do almost the same job better, and the 787 mops up for anyone needing the range.

Quoting Boeing778X (Thread starter):
Is even the A330-200F and -800neo viable in the long term in terms of sales? What happens if Hawaiian and Transasia convert their orders to the -900neo?

I think the answer is no if you exclude A330 tankers, its future is limited. It may have a role at DL if they decide on it as a 763 or (gasp!) 764 replacement, but that's a long way in the future and probably not likely,

Hawaiian won't cancel, they want the size more than anything, but if they do, then the plane doesn't get built.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 1:12 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Thread starter):

The backlog of the A330-200 + A330F is more than the backlog of all the versions of the the 777-200 + 777F.
The A330-200 + F having slightly more orders than all versions 777-200 + F, 676 to 670 respectively.

The A330-800 has admittedly a very small backlog, but I expect some further sales of that frame, some future MRTT and some future freighters on that basis, perhaps in the end a similar number as the 777-8 + F will end with.
 
trex8
Posts: 5697
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 1:21 am

Surely if Airbus could keep the A300-600F alive for years after the A300 pax was stopped, keeping the A330-200/200F alive while they make A330-300s is a piece of cake.
 
azjubilee
Posts: 3737
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2000 5:26 am

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 1:41 am

Quoting anfromme (Reply 3):
Although it's of course possible that Hawaiian and Transavia are still going to convert to the -900. If they don't, the -800 is probably going to be built, with a few minor additional orders maybe. I'd be surprised if 50 get built, though.

Doubtful they'll up-gauge to the -900. If they wanted to increase the gauge of plane, they would likely have converted the A350-800 to the -900. If Airbus fails to build the -800neo, then a 787 order is surely Boeing's to lose.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 2:03 am

I don't think that the A330-200F not selling says much about the airplane. The cargo market for new planes is very weak. Everyone is interested in 767 converted freighters and other cheap options.

Like others said, the A330-200 benefitted from range. The A330-300 weight increased and gave it enough range but with lower CASM. The A330-800 has the same problem and also a competing airplane that has better fuel burn in the 787-8. The A330-800 isn't good at anything. It has the worst CASM of the next generation widebodies and has no range advantage over its competitors or other upside. The A330-900 is superior for airlines.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 5):


The backlog of the A330-200 + A330F is more than the backlog of all the versions of the the 777-200 + 777F.
The A330-200 + F having slightly more orders than all versions 777-200 + F, 676 to 670 respectively.

While I don't think it is a good idea to turn this into an A vs B thread, the 777-200 is essentially dead. There have been about five 777-200ERs built this decade and no one really needs the LR. It has the same problem as the A330-200/800. Higher CASM
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26710
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 2:35 am

Quoting anfromme (Reply 3):
767F is the only type left on a line line that needs to fill slots to bridge to KC-767 production.

Nice, we take a thread about A330 and make it about... the 767F!

The 2011 FX order for 21 frames filled the gap to the KC-46 due to the slow production rate.

The second 2015 order of 50 firm and 50 options won't start deliveries till 2017 and is not a gap filler.

Any future orders won't be because the 767 is "on a line line that needs to fill slots".

FX is getting the 767s at a good price and they work will with their current infrastructure.

The same can be said for the US Air Force.

Other nations favor the A330MRTT for good reasons as well.

Ref: http://aviationweek.com/blog/glance-top-11-boeing-767-orders
 
Aither
Posts: 1315
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:43 am

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 4:23 am

Also most airlines do not operate large number of widebody aircraft (unlike single aisle): so they have to choose between a smaller and a bigger variant of the same type, not both. It's often better to choose the biggest because the potential revenue generation typically far offset potential yield dilution to fill the aircraft on markets where it would be oversized.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27675
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 4:32 am

Quoting anfromme (Reply 3):
The 767F is the only type left on a line line that needs to fill slots to bridge to KC-767 production. The A330-200F is built on the same line as the pax A330, which has still seen very healthy demand recently. In other words: Boeing was happy to give very aggressive deals on the 767F, while Airbus likely didn't feel inclined to sell -200Fs at bargain prices if it could just as well fill their production slots with A330 pax at much healthier margins.

Airbus was more than willing to discount the A330-200F to get launch orders.

The 767-300F fit into existing families at UPS and FedEx dimensioned for the A300, A310, MD-10 and MD-11. The A330-200F does not because of it's wider span.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22255
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 5:49 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 5):

The A330-800 has admittedly a very small backlog, but I expect some further sales of that frame, some future MRTT and some future freighters on that basis, perhaps in the end a similar number as the 777-8 + F will end with.


And not only that, but they already had to reneg on the A350-800 customers. I don't think they have the heart to do it again. HA could sue their pants off for breach-of-contract and use the proceeds from the suit to buy Boeing.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1974
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:04 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 9):
Nice, we take a thread about A330 and make it about... the 767F!

The 2011 FX order for 21 frames filled the gap to the KC-46 due to the slow production rate.

A little of a overreaction? He stated the reason the A332F isn't selling is because Boeing discounted the 767F to fill the gap until the KC-46. You state the same. The follow up order was then the for the 767F as it is currently in the fleet and you don't have to have the cost of introducing a new aircraft to your business.

If they had ordered the A332F initially you would have expected them to place a second order as well for the A332F as it is already in the fleet.
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Topic Author
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:07 am

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 8):
While I don't think it is a good idea to turn this into an A vs B thread, the 777-200 is essentially dead. There have been about five 777-200ERs built this decade and no one really needs the LR. It has the same problem as the A330-200/800. Higher CASM

I don't think anyone would disagree. Not counting the 777F, the -200 is indeed gone, for the most part.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 5):
The A330-800 has admittedly a very small backlog, but I expect some further sales of that frame, some future MRTT and some future freighters on that basis

Sure, but how far down the road is that? All the MRTTs are relatively new, and as mentioned, the A330F isn't selling itself.

Maybe in the next 10-12 years, there will be mass retirements of 767s, A300s and 747s, and a potential A338F, as well as a 778F can take advantage of the opportunity.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7439
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:09 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Thread starter):
Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

About the same as the 787-8's I'd guess - maybe a tad worse.

10 orders vs 71 deliveries in 2015
A backlog of only 145 now, and 20 sales in the last 3 years (since Feb 2013)

Sales in this market size have been vanishingly small for a few years now.
It seems fairly clear that both the A338 and 787-8 now survive on the back of their bigger siblings, which are universally selling well.

Rgds
 
bjorn14
Posts: 3595
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 2:11 pm

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:37 am

I suspect some 332s will be converted to 338s or at least I hope so we can get real world numbers. So she can prove herself worthy. My fave long haul a/c.
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Topic Author
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:47 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 15):
About the same as the 787-8's I'd guess - maybe a tad worse.
Quoting astuteman (Reply 15):
It seems fairly clear that both the A338 and 787-8 now survive on the back of their bigger siblings, which are universally selling well.

  

Sales of the 787-8 will dwindle farther, I promise you. Watch my theory about 3 member families work it's magic.

The A338, on the other hand, comes from a dual member family, and I guess would do well, in theory, only it hasn't.
That is, as of yet.

But that only goes to show how good the A333/339 really is.
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 9:06 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 17):
The A338, on the other hand, comes from a dual member family, and I guess would do well, in theory, only it hasn't.
That is, as of yet.

If the A330 as a whole can keep up production of 7-8 frames per month until let say 2025 I believe Airbus is more then happy. No one expected it survive until 2018 as I remember it in 2007 when the rollout of 787 happend.

That in 2016 it is one of the most profitable production lines of all WB is a miracle with still at least 10 more profitable years to come.

Freight is killed by 787, 350 etc. I doubt it will come back.

This is currently a bigger problem for Boeing while it has 3 different offers in this segment.
 
HAL
Posts: 1773
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 1:38 am

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 9:43 am

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 8):
The A330-800 isn't good at anything. It has the worst CASM of the next generation widebodies and has no range advantage over its competitors or other upside. The A330-900 is superior for airlines.

The -800 has a 1000 mile range advantage over the -900. That is the reason HA is going for the smaller version. They don't need the capacity of the -900, but they do want the range of -800 (and sadly, that of the 358 even more).

HAL
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 11:03 am

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 8):
While I don't think it is a good idea to turn this into an A vs B thread, the 777-200 is essentially dead.

So why do we not see a thread about the non viability of the 777-200 line and its side kick the 777F?

The A330-200 and its sidekicks the A330MRTT and the A330F has been one of the most viable wide bodies ever. It is build on the same line as the A330-300 and the A330-300 is fully viable but soon replaced by the -900.
The A330-800 is viable as it is again build on the same line as the A330-900 and as long as that is going there will be no problem producing the odd A330-800, A330MRTT and A330F.

[Edited 2016-02-25 03:13:31]
 
User avatar
anfromme
Posts: 883
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:58 pm

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 11:13 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 9):
Nice, we take a thread about A330 and make it about... the 767F!

Begging your pardon?
The 767F was one of many things I did mention in my post, and to not mention the A330F's main competitor would seem odd in a thread that's partly about the A330F, wouldn't it?
Also, your picking out this single mention of the 767F and dedicating a full post on it probably goes a longer way in re-focusing this thread on the 767F than my original post would have.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 9):
The 2011 FX order for 21 frames filled the gap to the KC-46 due to the slow production rate.
The second 2015 order of 50 firm and 50 options won't start deliveries till 2017 and is not a gap filler.
Any future orders won't be because the 767 is "on a line line that needs to fill slots".

I was referring to past orders only and you're right that the second FedEx order wasn't primarily a slot-filler. But I was just trying to give a somewhat simplified overview of the general market position the A330F finds itself in.
So allow me to elaborate:
The 767F is the only commercial 767 type with any order left to be filled.
Even once the 767 production line hits its 1.25/month target rate for the KC-46 (i.e. once the main slot gap is filled), there's still plenty of scope left to profitably build cheap freighters on it.
That's quite a different story to the A330 line and goes some way in explaining why the 767F has handily outsold the A330F lately, chiefly thanks to FedEx, who hold 100% of the 767F's backlog.

Mind you, I just tell it as I see it and I think both are doing a perfectly rational thing given their respective positions with regard to the 767 and A330 production lines and their supply/demand.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 13):
A little of a overreaction? He stated the reason the A332F isn't selling is because Boeing discounted the 767F to fill the gap until the KC-46. You state the same. The follow up order was then the for the 767F as it is currently in the fleet and you don't have to have the cost of introducing a new aircraft to your business.

  

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Airbus was more than willing to discount the A330-200F to get launch orders.

Absolutely - and they're discounting A330 pax (CEO and NEO) as well. The A330F launch was almost 10 years ago, though, i.e. before the cargo market caved in the way it did after 2008, and at a point when Airbus expected A330 pax demand to slowly shrink. They'd had a good experience building A300Fs long after the A300 pax had stoppped selling and were probably hoping to repeat the trick.
My point was that on an ongoing basis, Airbus was and is not hell-bent on selling A330Fs while they were/are still able to sell pax A330s at healthier margins even as their production rate hit an all-time peak of 10/month.
As things stand I do wonder where the A330F is going to go - the A330 line itself will keep going for a bit on pax planes thanks to the NEO. In a way, NEO is taking the role originally assigned to the A330F, i.e. helping in the transition of winding down A330CEO pax production.
But once A330 pax has fully transitioned to NEO, the A330F is a bit of an oddball family member.
In parallel to ~60 NEOs a year, 2 or 3 CEO freighters probably won't even be particularly cheap to build (and thus sell).

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
The 767-300F fit into existing families at UPS and FedEx dimensioned for the A300, A310, MD-10 and MD-11. The A330-200F does not because of it's wider span.

True, but looking at capacity, that probably wasn't the only factor at play here.
The DC-10 and MD-11 are mostly getting replaced by 777F, which has an even wider span than the A330F (a good 13m wider than the MD-11, actually).

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 8):
I don't think that the A330-200F not selling says much about the airplane. The cargo market for new planes is very weak. Everyone is interested in 767 converted freighters and other cheap options.

  
...and even converted freighters aren't exactly selling in drones these days.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 20):
So why do we not see a thread about the non viability of the 777-200 line and its side kick the 777F?

Well, we could start that, too, see where it takes us...   

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 20):
The A330-200 and its sidekicks the A330MRTT and the A330F has been one of the most viable wide bodies ever. It is build on the same line as the A330-300 and the A330-300 with is fully viable but soon replaced by the -900.

I don't think there is any disagreement that the -200 itself has been very successful. The thread starter itself says so:

Quoting Boeing778X (Thread starter):
Now granted, the A330-200 has sold well historically, but the A330-200F and A330-800neo are NOT selling.

As such, I do think it's worth looking at what future the -200F and -800 may have without disputing that their base model, the -200 was a very viable and profitable plane for Airbus.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 20):
The A330-800 is viable as it is again build on the same line as the A330-900 and as long as that is going there will be no problem producing the odd A330-800, A330MRTT and A330F.

I'd fully agree if NEO production was already in full swing. But as things stand, the -800 has not been fully developed and certified yet, and it only holds 10 orders against it, which is likely far fromo covering the additional development cost the -800 incurs. I think it's a fair question to wonder whether the -800 is going to happen at all.
After all, the A350-800 was also canned with few orders for it, and there is/was serious speculation about Airbus and/or Boeing maybe not doing the 737-7 and A319NEO after all, as they had captured so few orders.

As I said above, I think the -800 is going to happen, but on its own, it'll be cost-neutral at best and is going to mostly be a tool to keep the likes of Hawaiian (who otherwise would not only defect to Boeing but also demand hefty penalty payments) and generate a few add-on orders. However, the -800 is also an investment in future potential (and revenue/profit), as it would be a likely base for a next generation MRTT and/or freighter.

[Edited 2016-02-25 03:25:34]

[Edited 2016-02-25 03:26:34]
 
bobdino
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:55 am

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 11:18 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 5):
The A330-800 has admittedly a very small backlog, but I expect some further sales of that frame, some future MRTT and some future freighters on that basis, perhaps in the end a similar number as the 777-8 + F will end with.

It wouldn't surprise me if the MRTT alone was enough justification to neo the A330-200. Quite possibly cheaper over 20 years to do an MRTT-neo than to continue to try to build the existing MRTT with out of production engines, etc.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 11:18 am

Quoting anfromme (Reply 21):
As things stand I do wonder where the A330F is going to go

They will either offer ceo A330F or neo it. It is a payload question and if the neo can offer the same or higher payload.
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 5915
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 11:24 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Thread starter):
Is even the A330-200F and -800neo viable in the long term in terms of sales?

Depends what you mean by 'viable'.

To Airbus, the cost of developing the A330-800neo is minor. Most of the design and certification work will be common to the 2 frames (-800 and -900). The same goes for production. As long as any version of the A330 neo is being built, the capacity to build the other version can be maintained at virtually no cost. Manufacturing a -800 will, I would say, cost Airbus essentially the same as manufacturing a -900.

The only real cost to offering the -800 neo is whatever additional cost will have to be borne by Airbus to develop and certify 2 versions instead of one. Since this is an evolution of an existing design, I will venture in saying this cost is quite low.

Will 10 orders cover that extra cost (assuming they deliver those and fail to sell any additional frames)? I don't know, but I don't think it's what's keeping Airbus execs up at night.

Ditto the A319neo, for that matter.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20114
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 12:10 pm

Quoting Boeing778X (Thread starter):
Is even the A330-200F and -800neo viable in the long term in terms of sales?

It's really not a question of viability because the shorter A330s are not a stand-alone program, they're part of a larger family. Are they selling in huge numbers? No, but it really doesn't matter.

Both Airbus and Boeing are persisting with the smallest member of the neo/MAX families for a variety of reasons, despite poor sales numbers. The A319neo and MAX7 don't have to be considered in isolation, just like the A330-200/800.
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1746
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 12:55 pm

Quoting francoflier (Reply 24):
the cost of developing the A330-800neo is minor

They need it for freighter and MRTT applications, as well as pax, so the minor cost will likely be spread over several dozen sales in the next 10 years. More than enough to justify keeping it in the line up.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26710
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 1:19 pm

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 13):
He stated the reason the A332F isn't selling is because Boeing discounted the 767F to fill the gap until the KC-46.

And I don't agree with that.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 13):
You state the same.

No. I pointed out the nature of the sales but I did not say the reason A332F isn't selling is 767F.

Quoting anfromme (Reply 21):
The 767F is the only commercial 767 type with any order left to be filled.
Even once the 767 production line hits its 1.25/month target rate for the KC-46 (i.e. once the main slot gap is filled), there's still plenty of scope left to profitably build cheap freighters on it.
That's quite a different story to the A330 line and goes some way in explaining why the 767F has handily outsold the A330F lately, chiefly thanks to FedEx, who hold 100% of the 767F's backlog.

I don't think the A330F and 767F have much overlap, meaning if you're a 767F customer you're not a A332F customer and vice versa for all the reasons made clear during the KC-46 bid. The A330F carries more further but is a lot heavier and takes up a lot more ramp space.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 1:34 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 20):

So why do we not see a thread about the non viability of the 777-200 line and its side kick the 777F?

You are welcome to start that discussion if you want. I think Boeing agrees with you which is why they are not building 777x that is the same size as the 777-200.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 17):

Sales of the 787-8 will dwindle farther, I promise you. Watch my theory about 3 member families work it's magic.

The A338, on the other hand, comes from a dual member family, and I guess would do well, in theory, only it hasn't.
That is, as of yet.

But that only goes to show how good the A333/339 really is.

According to this article: http://seekingalpha.com/article/2989...us-threat-to-the-boeing-787minus-8

The 787-8 has 5-10 percent lower trip fuel burn than an A338 is projected to. Even if the A338 has about a 3% capacity advantage, it is still not going to match 787-8 CASM regardless of stage length. Over 20 years, the difference in fuel burn is going to add up and it will be hard to offset that with acquisition price.

The story for the A339 vs 789 is closer. The A339 CASM is quite a bit better than the A338. Airbus also most likely has a higher profit margin on the larger plane as well. That means both the airlines and manufacturer want to push airlines towards the larger plane. It would be very hard for Airbus to win an A338 vs 788 sales campaign. Airbus has a much better shot at A339 vs 789, so I think they would want to convince airlines to buy larger and take advantage of lower CASM.

[Edited 2016-02-25 05:40:28]

[Edited 2016-02-25 05:42:34]
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 1:34 pm

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 14):


Quoting Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 5)::

The A330-800 has admittedly a very small backlog, but I expect some further sales of that frame, some future MRTT and some future freighters on that basis

Sure, but how far down the road is that? All the MRTTs are relatively new, and as mentioned, the A330F isn't selling itself.

KC-Y?

The 767 variant is too small.

The Mobile FAL was originally meant for the A330MRTT in the event of a KC-X win. Going out on a limb, if they offered to move assembly of A330-800MRTT to Mobile, would they get the win?

Certainly the political argument is a lot more convincing now they have a line on US soil than it was for KC-X.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 1:42 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 28):
The 787-8 has 5-10 percent lower trip fuel burn than an A338 is projected to.

Seems unlikely. The trip fuel burn difference between an A332ceo versus 787-8 today is ~ 13%. As the A338 is projected to be 10% more fuel efficient than its predecessor, difference with the 787-8 would be more in the 1-3% range.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10380
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 2:36 pm

Freighters are seeing a very low demand and when you need the range of the A332 you are doing better with the 787.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 3:05 pm

Regarding the 2 'shrinks' (338 and 788) as that is what they are effectively from a PAX use (not freighter) POV.
It's really become a race to the bottom for both.Neither is selling so it hardly matters whether one is marginally better than the other.
Simple fact is the 789 and the 339 give you more for effectively the same cost/running cost so why wouldn't you.
Just the same as 319-320 or 737-738 argument.

Regarding this article -Reply 28

According to this article: http://seekingalpha.com/article/2989...us-threat-to-the-boeing-787minus-8

It does make me wonder about the so called 250 plus/5000nm MOM market.
OK these 2 aircraft are capable of a little more than that range wise.But you don't have to fill the tanks right up! They are not miles away from MOM specs.Yet no one is biting. Perhaps because it (MOM) isn't there?
I think you'l find it's sort of where the A321NEO LR is right now (give or take).

Which is why all the bother!
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 3:15 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 30):

Seems unlikely. The trip fuel burn difference between an A332ceo versus 787-8 today is ~ 13%. As the A338 is projected to be 10% more fuel efficient than its predecessor, difference with the 787-8 would be more in the 1-3% range.

Seeking Alpha is a relatively credible website. They have charts and plots showing what the fuel consumption per passenger is and also shows that depending on range it is 5-9% better on the 787. It changes quite a bit depending on range since the 787 advantage is stronger over longer stage lengths.



Even Leeham who usually directly posts Airbus marketing numbers says the 787-8 has a 3-4% advantage over the A338. Even the Airbus marketing slides from the A330neo launch ignored the A338 vs 788 and focused the discussion on A339 vs 789. I speculate that Airbus knows that the A338 is not a competitive airplane and wants to sell the A339 instead.

I'm not trying to make this an A vs B discussion, and my apologies if it looks like that. I believe Boeing prefers to sell 787-9s or 787-10s and Airbus prefers to sell A339s instead of A338s. Neither 787-8s nor A330-800s have been selling particularly well recently. Larger airplanes have better costs for airlines and better profit for the manufacturers.

[Edited 2016-02-25 07:28:41]
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 3:44 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 33):
They have charts and plots showing what the fuel consumption per passenger is and also shows that depending on range it is 5-9% better on the 787.

Just because a website puts some charts online doesn't the information is correct. Airlines operating A332ceo and 788 fleets claim the block fuel burn between the two aircraft is 13%. We also know the A338neo comes with 10% block fuel burn reduction. Now when someone tries to tell me the difference between A338neo and 788 will still be 'up to 10%', it rings some alarm bells. It doesn't add up.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 33):
Even Leeham who usually directly posts Airbus marketing numbers says the 787-8 has a 3-4% advantage over the A338.

Just to be clear: I did not claim A338 comes with an advantage and I'm aware of the Airbus slide claiming 3% difference. However, 3-4% is something completely different than 5-10%. It's a big difference; 3% can be offset by lower purchasing costs, 10% cannot.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 33):
I'm not trying to make this an A vs B discussion

It's not about A vs B. It's about numbers not adding up. If someone tells you 1 + 1 = 3, it should ring an alarm bell.

[Edited 2016-02-25 08:16:28]
 
PDPsol
Posts: 1226
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:09 am

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 3:57 pm

Quoting HAL (Reply 19):
The -800 has a 1000 mile range advantage over the -900. That is the reason HA is going for the smaller version. They don't need the capacity of the -900, but they do want the range of -800 (and sadly, that of the 358 even more).

Well, it must be a right-sized capacity issue, rather than required range, as the A330-900neo can complete all the HA missions without any issues. HNL-JFK, HNL-NRT, and even southeast Asia HNL-SIN are under 11,000 KM, and the A330-900neo has a 12,100 KM range.

One would imagine HA will simply switch their order to the A330-900neo, and Airbus will cancel the A330-800
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7500
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 4:16 pm

Quoting PDPsol (Reply 35):
One would imagine HA will simply switch their order to the A330-900neo, and Airbus will cancel the A330-800

It would be a less interesting time when that happens...    ...

http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/photogallery/big/800x600_1418940180_A330-800neo_Hawaiian.jpg
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi...418940180_A330-800neo_Hawaiian.jpg


http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/photogallery/big/800x600_1436517234_A330-800neo_Airbus_RR_V07.jpg
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi...7234_A330-800neo_Airbus_RR_V07.jpg

[Edited 2016-02-25 08:24:09]
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 4:30 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 28):
The 787-8 has 5-10 percent lower trip fuel burn than an A338 is projected to.

What i would like to contest. All numbers CASM and rough. The 787-8 is about 21% better than the 767-300ER. The A330-200 is about 3 to 5% better than the 767-300ER. The A330-800 is supposed to be somewhere between 10 to 14% better than the -200. That never leaves 10% between the 787-8 and the A330-800.
I would say 3% is realistic and 5% is high. Add to that the ability of Airbus to offer the A330-800 for a far lower price than Boeing the 787-8 and make a good profit the situation doe not look so simple to me.

[Edited 2016-02-25 08:31:04]
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27675
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 4:39 pm

Quoting anfromme (Reply 21):
True, but looking at capacity, (fitting into existing facilities) probably wasn't the only factor at play here.

The DC-10 and MD-11 are mostly getting replaced by 777F, which has an even wider span than the A330F (a good 13m wider than the MD-11, actually).

Outside of payload lift, the MD-10F and 767-300F are relatively complimentary. They're within 7% in terms of total volumetric capacity and at design payload, the 767F flies about 10% farther. The MD-10's advantage is payload lift, which is 30% higher. However, if FX is mostly flying light-weight cargo, the MD-10s might not be anywhere near their MZFW and therefore the 767F is likely the better overall platform for those missions.

The 777F appears to be primarily replacing the MD-11F at FX and until recently, they were deferring 777F deliveries and extending MD-11F retirements.

I therefore believe that the 767F was just the more better fit for 5X and FX as an A300 / A310 / MD-10 replacement. I'm sure both looked at the A330-200F, but even if price was similar (for whatever reason), I believe the 767F would still have won the RFP.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10380
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 5:00 pm

The performance of the A339 is not better compared to the 787-9. Imho the A330NEO is dead on arrival and any airl

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 37):
What i would like to contest. All numbers CASM and rough. The 787-8 is about 21% better than the 767-300ER. The A330-200 is about 3 to 5% better than the 767-300ER. The A330-800 is supposed to be somewhere between 10 to 14% better than the -200. That never leaves 10% between the 787-8 and the A330-800.
I would say 3% is realistic and 5% is high. Add to that the ability of Airbus to offer the A330-800 for a far lower price than Boeing the 787-8 and make a good profit the situation doe not look so simple to me.

I think 10% is conservative.

If the 767 is the benchmark, say CASM = 100

767 = 100
787 = 79
A330CEO = 97
A33NEO= 87

Difference between the 787 and the NEO =8 or 10% worse than the 787
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 5:20 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 34):

Just because a website puts some charts online doesn't the information is correct. Airlines operating A332ceo and 788 fleets claim the block fuel burn between the two aircraft is 13%. We also know the A338neo comes with 10% block fuel burn reduction. Now when someone tries to tell me the difference between A338neo and 788 will still be 'up to 10%', it rings some alarm bells. It doesn't add up.

Do you have a source that backs up your numbers? If you have a source I'd be glad to look at it to better understand the numbers. What ranges are you talking about? What seat counts are being used? What airlines have provided A330-200 vs 787-8 fuel burn numbers? I provided a source that looked at actual fuel burn rates, provided seat counts and range numbers to back those up.

Here is another source that is skeptical of Airbus' fuel burn numbers on the A330neo:

http://airwaysnews.com/blog/2014/07/...330neo-has-a-viable-business-case/

I am only going based on numbers I see. The numbers that I see make it look like the A330-800 is not a very good airplane. The 787-8 and A330-900 look much better. Even a used A330-200 or 300 look like a better long term fleet plan since the only advantage of an A330-800 is low purchase prices, so you may want to consider buying used airplanes. Airbus is going to try to offset 3-10% higher fuel burn (depending on the source) with purchase price. I don't know how low Airbus can go, but an airline can pick up a used A330 for only about $25 million and only have 16-23% higher fuel burn.

[Edited 2016-02-25 09:34:37]
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 5:25 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 39):
The performance of the A339 is not better compared to the 787-9. Imho the A330NEO is dead on arrival and any airl

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 37):
What i would like to contest. All numbers CASM and rough. The 787-8 is about 21% better than the 767-300ER. The A330-200 is about 3 to 5% better than the 767-300ER. The A330-800 is supposed to be somewhere between 10 to 14% better than the -200. That never leaves 10% between the 787-8 and the A330-800.
I would say 3% is realistic and 5% is high. Add to that the ability of Airbus to offer the A330-800 for a far lower price than Boeing the 787-8 and make a good profit the situation doe not look so simple to me.

I think 10% is conservative.

If the 767 is the benchmark, say CASM = 100

767 = 100
787 = 79
A330CEO = 97
A33NEO= 87

Difference between the 787 and the NEO =8 or 10% worse than the 787


It is completely clear, the A330 died the moment the 787 arrived on the scene.   

It is just the market that has not realized that. Best selling widebody in 2015, the A330 with netto 140 frames.
 
User avatar
anfromme
Posts: 883
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:58 pm

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 5:40 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 27):
I don't think the A330F and 767F have much overlap, meaning if you're a 767F customer you're not a A332F customer and vice versa for all the reasons made clear during the KC-46 bid.

Let's not go there again.
I'm not saying one or the other is better, but to even dispute that the two are even roughly in the same niche is stretching things just a tad.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 27):
Quoting enzo011 (Reply 13):
He stated the reason the A332F isn't selling is because Boeing discounted the 767F to fill the gap until the KC-46.

And I don't agree with that.

The 767 production gap was one aspect of my original summary of the A332F's situation, which was as follows:
The A330F is selling because the cargo market isn't great. It's so weak there was effectively only one really big prize out there, FedEx, which the A330F didn't win. Also, the A330F was and is up against much cheaper competition*. Lastly, the pax version is doing better than Airbus anticipated, hence they have little incentive to sacrifice margin in order to sell A330Fs just for the sake of it.
Admittedly, the way my original post was written you could read it as meaning that all 767F sales were thanks to the production gap, which technically isn't correct, and which I've already clarified.
But seriously... I'm not quite sure where the defensiveness about the 767 comes from when it was a single aspect of a general statement about one of the two A330 variants I've written about.


*To clarify: Cheaper because a) the 767 as such is cheaper (~15% at list prices), further helped by b) Boeing at one point looking to fill production slots before the KC-46 came on line. Also cheaper because there are ex-pax 767 and A330s out there that can be converted to dedicated cargo planes.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 38):
The 777F appears to be primarily replacing the MD-11F at FX and until recently, they were deferring 777F deliveries and extending MD-11F retirements.

I'd expect current fuel prices to play into that as well.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 38):
I therefore believe that the 767F was just the more better fit for 5X and FX as an A300 / A310 / MD-10 replacement. I'm sure both looked at the A330-200F, but even if price was similar (for whatever reason), I believe the 767F would still have won the RFP.

I think with the parameters as they were, it was a pretty clear and sensible decision.
If the price difference hadn't been what it was - not sure, but that's neither here nor there, anyway.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7439
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 5:47 pm

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 28):
The 787-8 has 5-10 percent lower trip fuel burn than an A338 is projected to. Even if the A338 has about a 3% capacity advantage, it is still not going to match 787-8 CASM regardless of stage length. Over 20 years, the difference in fuel burn is going to add up and it will be hard to offset that with acquisition price.

I don't think it actually works like that in the real world.
The purchases either via lessor or direct, will IMO be made on an NPV basis using an average cost of capital
That's typically how capital investments work.
In reality this tends to make variations after the first 5-6 years incresingly irrelevant

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 33):
Even the Airbus marketing slides from the A330neo launch ignored the A338 vs 788 and focused the discussion on A339 vs 789.

I'm pretty sure that Airbus admitted the A330-800 suffered a 4% fuel burn penalty relative to the 787-8.
That aligns to the left hand side of your chart at least  
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 40):
Here is another source that is skeptical of Airbus' fuel burn numbers on the A330neo:

I'm not sure that I'm reading the same article. The one I read seems to say that the A330NEO IS competitive, rather than it isn't, even allowing for improvements likely to be made to the 787

Quote:
By EIS, as we mentioned in our 787 report earlier this week, we expect the A330-800neo to come within 2% of the seat-mile economics of present day Boeing 787-8s, and the A330-900 to come within 0.5% of present-day.

It makes the fuel burn delta between the A330-800 and 787-8 on a 4 350nm mission about 7% after a projected 2.5% improvement in the 787 fuel burn is factored in.

It makes the fuel burn delta between the A330-900 and 787-9 on a 4 350nm mission about 5% after a projected 2.5% improvement in the 787 fuel burn is factored in.

Rgds
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 5:50 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 41):

It is just the market that has not realized that. Best selling widebody in 2015, the A330 with netto 140 frames.

How many of those A330 orders were A330-200, A330-200F or A330-800 orders? There are a few recent A330-200 orders like Rwandair, Turkish, etc, but not that many.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 5:59 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 40):
Do you have a source that backs up your numbers? If you have a source I'd be glad to look at it to better understand the numbers. What ranges are you talking about? What seat counts are being used? What airlines have provided A330-200 vs 787-8 fuel burn numbers? I provided a source that looked at actual fuel burn rates, provided seat counts and range numbers to back those up.

Here is another source that is skeptical of Airbus' fuel burn numbers on the A330neo:

http://airwaysnews.com/blog/2014/07/...330neo-has-a-viable-business-case/

Quote: "We project that the A330-900neo will be the larger seller of the two variants, primarily due to ithe popularity of the A330-300 with Asian airlines. The A330-900neo will achieve operating cost parity (excluding capital costs) with the 787-9 out to about 3,000 nautical miles, and will be extremely competitive out to 4,000 nautical miles."

and "the A330-800/900neo comes within 3-4% of the operating economics of the 787."

Not very sceptical it seems to me and that while giving the 787 a maintenance and other cost advantage and excluding capital costs and using still a high oil price.
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 6:09 pm

I think the A330 family will be a surprising volume seller and cash cow, becoming the entry-level, volume selling wide-body, due to price (low cost of production versus 737/A320 price increases), prompt delivery and rating commonality. Monthly production could reach double figures before the end of the decade.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 6:30 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 44):
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 41):

It is just the market that has not realized that. Best selling widebody in 2015, the A330 with netto 140 frames.

How many of those A330 orders were A330-200, A330-200F or A330-800 orders? There are a few recent A330-200 orders like Rwandair, Turkish, etc, but not that many.

17 A330-200, 4 A330F, 0 A330-800, together 21 ordered in 2015. Deliveries in 2015 were, 30 A330-200 and 3 A330F.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:06 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 43):

I'm pretty sure that Airbus admitted the A330-800 suffered a 4% fuel burn penalty relative to the 787-8.
That aligns to the left hand side of your chart at least

Based on my experience, if Airbus numbers show a 4% fuel burn penalty, that chart is probably close to reality. Airbus and Boeing both choose favorable configurations that best suit their own product. With the OEW differences, the fuel burn percent differences won't be the same over all ranges.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 45):

and "the A330-800/900neo comes within 3-4% of the operating economics of the 787."

The numbers for 787-8 vs A338 are quire a bit different than 787-9 vs A339 that I have seen. The A339 comes closer to the 787-9 than the A338 to the 787-8. Any source that combines the two is probably using very generic averages.

Even with the 787-8 vs A338, the market for that size of airplane is relatively small right now.

[Edited 2016-02-25 11:07:37]
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Airbus A330-200/-800neo - Viability?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:35 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 48):
The numbers for 787-8 vs A338 are quire a bit different than 787-9 vs A339 that I have seen. The A339 comes closer to the 787-9 than the A338 to the 787-8. Any source that combines the two is probably using very generic averages.

It was your source. We are still far from 10%. And somewhere in your source was mentioned 2% difference between the A330-800 and 787-8 in operating cost, 0.5% between A330-900 and 787-9. Yes the size of that market is small, but the A330-200 sold a few into that market last year.

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