Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

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

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

Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:54 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 49):
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.

You are selectively reading the article.

"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."

followed by

By the expected EIS of the A330neo in the fourth quarter 2017, we project that Boeing will gain an additional 2.5% worth of incremental fuel burn improvement on the 787-8, and -9 thanks to weight reduction of 1-1.5% and other initiatives.

Also note that the article is talking about seat mile economics and not fuel burn. 2% seat mile costs is 4% fuel burn per seat. Add to that 2.5% incremental fuel burn and we are right back to where the chart that I posted earlier said.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 43):
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

The article says that the A339 is competitive. It says parity on 3,000 mile routes. While I personally don't really believe that, I am backing up my comments with references and being honest.
 
pygmalion
Posts: 839
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:47 am

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

Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:57 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 43):
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.

The article is from July 2014 and the PIP improvements the article talks about happened in 2015. They are projected any longer.. they are in place.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

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

Thu Feb 25, 2016 8:26 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 50):
You are selectively reading the article.

As you are.

Quoting pygmalion (Reply 51):
The article is from July 2014 and the PIP improvements the article talks about happened in 2015. They are projected any longer.. they are in place.

The big part of the pip being the engines and guess who gets the similar pip engines.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 12212
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

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

Thu Feb 25, 2016 8:35 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 52):
The big part of the pip being the engines and guess who gets the similar pip engines.

But that is already factored into the A330neo's numbers when doing the comparisons...

It is 2017 A330 engine (with 787 derived PIPs) vs 2014/2015 787 engine (wihout PIPs) and 2017 A330 engine (with 787 derived PIPs) vs 2017 787 engine (with PIPs).

Of course with the A330 they are technically not PIPs, as the improvements will presumably be baked into the launch engine.

[Edited 2016-02-25 12:36:38]
 
User avatar
Pohakuloa
Posts: 219
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:28 am

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

Thu Feb 25, 2016 9:00 pm

Quoting PDPsol (Reply 35):

There are many things that are right in your post that unfortunately does not translate into the real world at HA. HAL would likely be the first to tell you that on paper numbers are vastly different from the numbers he deals with in his window office where he works.

Range is an issue as to why HA initially took the 358. Right sizing capacity at the airline had everything to do with why it did NOT change to the 359, even wanting the range it provided. IIRC, Airbus verbally or otherwise guaranteed a range to HA on the 338 year round both ways which likely is he reason HA jumped rather quickly to the 338. Again, it does not need/want the capacity jump to the 339 or it would have gone with the 359 as azjubilee alluded to. They desire the range jump for markets not yet existing in the HA network which have not even been mentioned publicly by the airline I believe in large part due to not having the equipment that is guaranteed capable of doing said routes.

Unfortunately, and in just my observations as an enthusiast who likes to read and pay attention, unless HA drastically changes the seat configuration on the 338 in relation to their current fleet of 332s, the guaranty that Airbus made to HA may indeed fall short. I am unsure that they will change the 338 so much from the 332 at HA to make that viable.

As to what will HA do if they choose not to take the 338 due to shortcomings on the part of Airbus is anyone's guess, however as much as I would love to see a 788 in HA livery I really don't believe that could be an option, at least at this point in time. Nothing is certain in aviation as we know, but that would indeed surprise me and many others I am sure.

Respectfully,
Pohakuloa
 
User avatar
sassiciai
Posts: 1143
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:26 pm

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

Thu Feb 25, 2016 9:20 pm

I think a lot of you guys need to get out a bit more into the real world!

If you only stand back a bit and look at what you are eternally wanking on about, the trivia and minutia! Actually, it doesn't matter one iota in the real world. You're banging on about theoretical numbers, most of the time.

Your input is not requested by the average airline in determining its next purchase. It will have access to the real numbers that it asks for!

So the real answer to this is in the real outcome - which offerings are actually ordered, paid for, and accepted!
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

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

Thu Feb 25, 2016 10:50 pm

There are airlines which operate A332 and A333 in parallel, reserving the A332 for the longest legs. Typically the A333 fleets are bigger today.

As has been mentioned here, I share the view that the battle of the A338 against the 788 is uphill.
A339 against 789 is more on a planar ground, since these serve slightly different markets, the 339 more the mid to long range, the 789 the long to very long range.

So if an airlines looks for a replacement of its long range fleet, let us take one of the not so big ones, it might happen that the 339 misses the range for a few routes and is optimal for most of them - in such a scenario an offer of A338/A339 may be very attractive vs. a 788/789 combo, while the 339 alone would loose.

In this sense, even a small number of sold 338 may generate a lager number of 339 sales, and than it does its job.

It may be, that during time when the 339 gets even more capable these few 338 orders are upgraded to 339s - if they generated the sales they are justified even if never built.

Airbus should not invest a lot into items specific to the 338, as they intended to do for the 358.
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1184
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

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

Fri Feb 26, 2016 12:52 am

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 8):
The A330-800 has the same problem and also a competing airplane that has better fuel burn in the 787-8.
Quoting roseflyer (Reply 8):
The A330-800 isn't good at anything.

Phenomenal field performance. Airbus is projecting ~8300ft field length at a 242t TOW weight. That's with 72k rated engines. 787-8 can't touch those numbers. The 338 will be even better at higher temps and altitude.

Quoting anfromme (Reply 21):
.and even converted freighters aren't exactly selling in drones these days.

Actually the 767F conversion lines at Bedek are full.

Quoting anfromme (Reply 21):
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.

Speculation from uninformed quarters. Airbus and Boeing have been very clear that they intend(ed) to follow through and produce those models. I suspect a handful of high margin sales to corporate operators would cover their development costs

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 28):
Over 20 years, the difference in fuel burn is going to add up and it will be hard to offset that with acquisition price.

Back to your old habits eh.

Trent772B A330-200 at 190t FL380 FF is ~5.25t/hr
T1000A 788 at same weight and altitude is ~4.6t/hr

Lets be conservative and assume an A338neo equipped with the same T1000 is only 10% more fuel efficient and will burn ~ 4.75t/hr. Assuming a widebody is utilised for 4700FH/year and Jet-A is $500/t, I calculate a $7m fuel burn penalty for the 338neo over 20 years. Even with the lower maintenance requirements for the 788, it won't come close to the offsetting the higher price tag.

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.
Quoting roseflyer (Reply 33):
Seeking Alpha is a relatively credible website.

Actually, I can tell you straight off that information and chart presented is incorrect. How? The 788 will have lower seat and trip fuel burn over ALL sector lengths, not just longhaul (with the same number of seats).

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 34):
Just because a website puts some charts online doesn't the information is correct.

  

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 34):
Airlines operating A332ceo and 788 fleets claim the block fuel burn between the two aircraft is 13%.

And most of that is due to higher takeoff and climb fuel burn of the A330 engines. 16t/hr FF for the 788 at TO compared to 22t/hr for the A330. 10t/hr FF during climb versus 13t/hr for the A330. The UK CAA maintains an ICAO engine emissions database where these fuel burn figures can be x-checked.

Swap A330 generation engines with the T1000/Genx and you're left with the 787's better aero giving it a slight edge.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 34):
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 francoflier (Reply 24):
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.
 
 
HAL
Posts: 1773
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 1:38 am

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

Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:47 am

Quoting PDPsol (Reply 35):
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

No, HA wants more range than their current aircraft, which is why they originally went for the 358. There's quite a few markets they can't fly now that they want to (HNL-HKG), and need the extra range without additional size. And you have to remember that published range has very little to do with real-world range. The published range of the current 332 is 6400nm. However I have personally flown trips at max gross weight HNL-PEK that would have had to offload cargo if the headwinds were any stronger. HNL-PEK is only 4400nm. That's just 69% of advertised range. Do not, ever, believe that airliners can make their published max range, especially in ETOPS operation. In order to open new, longer routes, HA wants something equal in size to their current fleet, but with longer legs. 1st choice: 358. Since that's unavailable, the 338 becomes the next best choice.

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

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

Fri Feb 26, 2016 7:27 am

I know that what I'm about to say is touchy/feely to some, but how would DL fair if they ordered 20 or so A330-800neo's to replace the 767-400s?
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

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

Fri Feb 26, 2016 7:40 am

Quoting Chaostheory (Reply 57):
Airbus and Boeing have been very clear that they intend(ed) to follow through and produce those models. I suspect a handful of high margin sales to corporate operators would cover their development costs

The same principle applies to those as the A330-200. They can be the cheapest option given that you already own the longer models.

Also, they can enhance a fleet of longer models by adding range and operation performance where it is required, then flowing where the smaller size is not a problem on the revenue side. Just because they are not a majority of sales does not mean they aren't helping to sell the larger model.

You can build a better system with both types. The system is what makes the money, both airline systems and OEM production lines.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20121
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Fri Feb 26, 2016 10:05 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 59):
I know that what I'm about to say is touchy/feely to one

Fixed that for you!   

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 59):
but how would DL fair if they ordered 20 or so A330-800neo's to replace the 767-400s?

I guess the question is, what (if anything) does the 764 give DL that the A339 can't? Is the A339 so much bigger than the 764 that DL might see the need for the smaller A338?
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

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

Fri Feb 26, 2016 10:31 am

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 28):
Over 20 years, the difference in fuel burn is going to add up and it will be hard to offset that with acquisition price.
Quoting Chaostheory (Reply 57):
Lets be conservative and assume an A338neo equipped with the same T1000 is only 10% more fuel efficient and will burn ~ 4.75t/hr. Assuming a widebody is utilised for 4700FH/year and Jet-A is $500/t, I calculate a $7m fuel burn penalty for the 338neo over 20 years. Even with the lower maintenance requirements for the 788, it won't come close to the offsetting the higher price tag.

In addition I googled some numbers.

It appears Airbus can sell you a brand new A330-300 for just $90 million. A330-200 goes for roughly $80 million. Market value is estimated at $100 million and $90 million respectively. A330neo comes with a 10% premium. The 787-8 sells for ~ $120 million today with the 787-9 being 15% more expensive.

Putting those numbers together.

> A330-200: $90 million
> A330-800: $99 million (10% premium)
> A330-300: $100 million
> A330-900: $110 million (10% premium)
> B787-8: $120 million
> B787-9: $138 million

You can get an A330 roughly 20-25% cheaper versus 787. Not to mention Airbus are willing to sell A330s below market value. Even if we take the $7 million fuel diff and lower maintenance into account, you just can't fill that gap. I'd argue the economics of both aircraft types are pretty similar, despite the 3% higher fuel burn on the A330neo.

The 787 is well known for its high production costs. Numbers will go down when Boeing moves to 12 jets per month later this year, but it will come nowhere close to the A330.

[Edited 2016-02-26 03:15:43]
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

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

Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:08 pm

Very simple, if an airline needs a new airplane with more range and a higher capacity than an A321, the least expensive next new frame up is now the A330-200 and later will be the A330-800.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

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

Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:46 pm

Quoting HAL (Reply 58):

No, HA wants more range than their current aircraft, which is why they originally went for the 358. There's quite a few markets they can't fly now that they want to (HNL-HKG), and need the extra range without additional size. And you have to remember that published range has very little to do with real-world range. The published range of the current 332 is 6400nm. However I have personally flown trips at max gross weight HNL-PEK that would have had to offload cargo if the headwinds were any stronger. HNL-PEK is only 4400nm. That's just 69% of advertised range. Do not, ever, believe that airliners can make their published max range, especially in ETOPS operation. In order to open new, longer routes, HA wants something equal in size to their current fleet, but with longer legs. 1st choice: 358. Since that's unavailable, the 338 becomes the next best choice.

Airbus is advertising that the A330-800 has more range than the 787. Range is important to Hawaiian because Hawaii is in a terrible spot for headwinds. Flights from Hawaii to Asia have stronger headwinds than any other parts of the world. I believe block time HNL-Korea is 11 hours yet it is only 7 hours for Korea-HNL.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 62):

It appears Airbus can sell you a brand new A330-300 for just $90 million. A330-200 goes for roughly $80 million. Market value is estimated at $100 million and $90 million respectively. A330neo comes with a 10% premium. The 787-8 sells for ~ $120 million today with the 787-9 being 15% more expensive.

Do we have any sources for the production cost of an A330? A few posters have been sharing that Airbus can build it for 80 or 90 million. I am curious what that actually entails. Does that exclude all options and buyer/seller furnished equipment?

I would think that the A330neo would need at least a 10% premium. Airbus has to cover the 2 Billion in development costs. Launch customers usually get big discounts, so Air Asia probably is not paying a significant percent of that. 2 Billion spread over 200 airplanes is 10 million per plane.

Airbus advertises that they can sell the A330 neo for cheap enough that it makes up for the higher fuel burn. That may be possible for the A339, but the bigger fuel difference on the A338 is going to be much harder to make up for.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 43):

In reality this tends to make variations after the first 5-6 years incresingly irrelevant

I see airplane sales usually use lifecycles of 12-20 years. Most are 20, but some airlines work with high depreciation and have shorter lifecycles.

A 1% fuel burn difference equates to about $1 - 2 million in fuel over 20 years. That's how significant discounts can sell end of life airplanes like the A330-300 or 777-300ER even though they have significant fuel penalties. Airbus discounting the A338 enough to offset fuel costs is going to make it hard to recover development costs.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

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

Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:51 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 64):
Airbus discounting the A338 enough to offset fuel costs is going to make it hard to recover development costs.

Whats the 338-specific development cost as opposed to the 338+339 overall development cost?

Fractions I'd imagine.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

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

Fri Feb 26, 2016 2:10 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 65):

Whats the 338-specific development cost as opposed to the 338+339 overall development cost?

Fractions I'd imagine.

Yes it would be fractions, but it wouldn't be inconsequential. There's a lot of certification costs associated with the airplane. Flight control laws, FMC, etc will all have to be updated along with all the flight testing associated with it. Usually stretches and shrinks are inconsequential add on cost, but $100-300 million in development costs currently spread over 10 airplanes isn't very good. I would not be surprised if Airbus cancelled the program if no one else ordered it. It would be cheaper to convince Transasia and Hawaiian to upgrade even if they don't want to.

[Edited 2016-02-26 06:11:52]
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

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

Fri Feb 26, 2016 4:06 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 66):
Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 65):

Whats the 338-specific development cost as opposed to the 338+339 overall development cost?

Fractions I'd imagine.

Yes it would be fractions, but it wouldn't be inconsequential. There's a lot of certification costs associated with the airplane. Flight control laws, FMC, etc will all have to be updated along with all the flight testing associated with it. Usually stretches and shrinks are inconsequential add on cost, but $100-300 million in development costs currently spread over 10 airplanes isn't very good. I would not be surprised if Airbus cancelled the program if no one else ordered it. It would be cheaper to convince Transasia and Hawaiian to upgrade even if they don't want to

IMO we could put the additional cost of certifying the A330-800 instead of only the A330-900 at below 0.5 billion EUR more likely at about 0.25 billion EUR.
250 million EUR divided by 20 would make 12,5 million per frame even at 500 million EUR we would look at 25 million EUR only. Peanuts compared with what a sale of an 787-8 would have to carry.
If we put the whole 2.5 billion on the 185 frames already ordered, we come to 13,5 million USD. That is for add on sales for a written off frame, both in regards to development and production investments.

[Edited 2016-02-26 08:30:10]
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10385
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Fri Feb 26, 2016 4:37 pm

The A330 can work, if you need the plane quickly, do not have the desire for long missions and get a good price for the plane.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20121
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Fri Feb 26, 2016 6:34 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 68):
do not have the desire for long missions

Define "long missions". The A330-200/800 are long-range aircraft.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10385
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Fri Feb 26, 2016 7:41 pm

3500-4000nm is the range in which the A330 is said to be kind of competitive to the 787, so I would think that anything above 5000nm will see a too big performance deficit for the NEO compared to the 787.
 
deltal1011man
Posts: 5399
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

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

Fri Feb 26, 2016 8:01 pm

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 59):
I know that what I'm about to say is touchy/feely to some, but how would DL fair if they ordered 20 or so A330-800neo's to replace the 767-400s?

what do you mean? they would fair just fine. They have 25 330NEOs already.


but why are replacing 764s when the airline ha plenty of other airplanes that are older and need replacing first? Hell you can ask the same question about how DL would fair if they replaced the Pratt powered 330s with 338/339s. They are of the same vintage IIRC.


but again, DL doesn't replace airplanes just to make anet happy or to have a sexy fleet list in its 10Ks.

[Edited 2016-02-26 12:01:36]
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

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

Fri Feb 26, 2016 8:17 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 70):
3500-4000nm is the range in which the A330 is said to be kind of competitive to the 787, so I would think that anything above 5000nm will see a too big performance deficit for the NEO compared to the 787.

If you exclude capital investment.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

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

Fri Feb 26, 2016 8:32 pm

Basic question, will the A339 NEO beat today's HGW 242T A333 CEO in terms of range, or any other performance? Is the A339 bigger?

I could research, but it may be a little too nuanced for that, and others may be wondering the same thing.
 
deltal1011man
Posts: 5399
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

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

Fri Feb 26, 2016 8:48 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 73):

The 339 will have a little bit better range (~250NM IIRC) over the 333 242T. The 339 will have the same MTOW but I thought I saw that Airbus was talking about a 245T 333 which I believe would mean a 245T 339 also.

Its the same fuselage but I think Airbus is expecting to add a row of Y due to spaceflex and some cabin clean up, IIRC.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7439
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

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

Fri Feb 26, 2016 10:23 pm

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 74):
The 339 will have a little bit better range (~250NM IIRC) over the 333 242T

400Nm better in fact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330neo

Quote:
The enhancements together with seat increase will reduce the fuel burn per seat by 14% on a 4,000-nautical-mile (7,400 km) flight, and increase range by 400 nautical miles (740 km).


I know the quote is Wiki, but the data comes from Airbus press releases

Rgds

[Edited 2016-02-26 14:25:27]
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

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

Fri Feb 26, 2016 10:35 pm

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 74):
The 339 will have a little bit better range

Oh, interesting. Had not heard about the 245T. You gave several details that weren't that well known, thanks.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 75):
know the quote is Wiki, but the data comes from Airbus press releases

Yes but I guess Airbus quotes 6,350nm (revised?) for the A333 242T, versus 6,520nm for the A339. Both at 242T. Given the NEO engines must be heavier (?) the NEO aircraft will carry less fuel, would that be a reasonable point of view? Granted, the truth may not even be public yet.
 
deltal1011man
Posts: 5399
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

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

Sat Feb 27, 2016 12:52 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 75):

400Nm better in fact

thanks!

Quoting Flighty (Reply 76):

Oh, interesting. Had not heard about the 245T. You gave several details that weren't that well known, thanks.

and I might have just had a dream about it. I just think I have heard about going to 245T

Quoting Flighty (Reply 76):

Yes but I guess Airbus quotes 6,350nm (revised?) for the A333 242T, versus 6,520nm for the A339.

I believe so.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 76):
Both at 242T. Given the NEO engines must be heavier (?) the NEO aircraft will carry less fuel, would that be a reasonable point of view

Well AFAIK Rolls has not given a empty weight of the Trent 7000 yet. Looking at the Trent 1000 it looks like it is about 12,000lbs dry. The Trent 700 is about 2,000lbs less, the GE CF6-80E1 is about 1,000lbs less and the PW4000-100 is about the same weight (again, dry). So it really depends on a few things
1) what kind of weight savings/gains does the Trent 1000-TEN have over the Trent 1000
2) what kind of weight savings/gains does the Trent 7000 have over the Trent 1000-TEN.
My understanding of the Trent 7000 is its suppose to be a Trent 1000-TEN with some Trent XWB technology and wont be bleedless.

So its hard to say but for a carrier like DL who is mostly PW4000-100 powered 330 then it shouldn't be to much of a weight change.

having said all of that, someone more knowledgeable on the subject might be able to chime in and correct me.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 76):
Granted, the truth may not even be public yet.

AFAIK its not. Even if it is at the point the number is probably going to change.
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1748
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

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

Sat Feb 27, 2016 2:42 pm

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 77):
I just think I have heard about going to 245T

My recollection is it was a recent speculation attributed to John Leahy. That suggests there is a market for it, but not yet a closed business case.
 
r2rho
Posts: 3096
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

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

Mon Feb 29, 2016 10:25 am

IB is taking 8xA332's as we speak - so there are still carriers who find it useful, even though its usefulness has decreased as the A333 has gained capability.

The A338 will not be a huge seller (like the 778), but just by offering it, Airbus keeps pricing pressure on the 787. Sure, the A338 may not be able to do the extreme end of the 787 envelope, but if it can do most of the missions at a cheaper acquisition price, mission accomplished. The A338 does not need to be as good as the 788 - it just needs to be good enough. And give or take 2%, everything seems to point out that it will be good enough.
There will be some orders, not huge, but some. The A338 is also needed for Airbus to offer a NEO freighter and MRTT variants some day, it's not only pax.

Quoting anfromme (Reply 21):
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).

The French AF will be receiving MRTT's almost into the mid-2020's, which suggests CEO production will continue in parallel at least until then, so a little bit less of an odball. But eventually Airbus will have to transition to full NEO.

Quoting Chaostheory (Reply 57):
Phenomenal field performance. Airbus is projecting ~8300ft field length at a 242t TOW weight. That's with 72k rated engines. 787-8 can't touch those numbers. The 338 will be even better at higher temps and altitude.

Thanks for that info, I was not aware. That is some killer field performance for a widebody.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 74):
I thought I saw that Airbus was talking about a 245T 333 which I believe would mean a 245T 339 also.

John Leahy has at least been talking about it, which means that its feasability and business case is likely being studied internally.
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1748
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

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

Mon Feb 29, 2016 12:25 pm

Quoting r2rho (Reply 79):
The A338 is also needed for Airbus to offer a NEO freighter and MRTT variants some day, it's not only pax.

and the ACJ corporate market

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