LightningZ71 wrote:

If the 252t version of the 338 really has that kind of range, I can't really see much of a market demand for the 788 unless it is sold at a lower price. At best, it has a minor fuel burn advantage over the 338, but the 338 will be able to carry more mass/volume farther, allowing greater flexibility in operations all around.

There won't be much market demand for a 252t A338 either. If more range is truly desired by airlines Boeing would have bumped the 788's MTOW to that of the 789 to give it more range. 788 vs A338 decisions will come down to fleet commonality/purchase price, MTOW increases are primarily for the A339 (i.e., feeling pressure from airlines like Air Asia X who want assurance their dense A339s can make it to London).

I thought we already discussed that the "brochure range" of 6550nm (ESAD) translates into a 5400nm-ish great circle city-pair distance? Adding 9t to MTOW would enable city pairs of just short of 6000nm, reliably & year-round, i.e. D7's KUL-LHR route (or many other SE Asia - Europe combinations).

I would not say this MTOW bump is much needed, but it makes the A330 even more versatile/attractive.

Newbiepilot wrote:

A higher MTOW on the A339 will give it enough range that Hawaiian will no longer need the smaller A338. This could be the end of the A330-800. I suspect investing in an MTOW increase makes more sense than only building 6 A338s.

As I understand it, HA doesn't want the A339 because it is too large, not because it lacks the performance necessary.

LightningZ71 wrote:

If the 252t version of the 338 really has that kind of range, I can't really see much of a market demand for the 788 unless it is sold at a lower price.

It seems a fair bit of the A330-200 replacement market might have been absorbed by the 787-8 already so future RFPs between the two may not be many in number.

Stitch wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

A higher MTOW on the A339 will give it enough range that Hawaiian will no longer need the smaller A338. This could be the end of the A330-800. I suspect investing in an MTOW increase makes more sense than only building 6 A338s.

As I understand it, HA doesn't want the A339 because it is too large, not because it lacks the performance necessary.

LightningZ71 wrote:

If the 252t version of the 338 really has that kind of range, I can't really see much of a market demand for the 788 unless it is sold at a lower price.

It seems a fair bit of the A330-200 replacement market might have been absorbed by the 787-8 already so future RFPs between the two may not be many in number.

I see some 23 former A330-200 users. JetAirways and AirIndia seem to have introduced 787-8. Maybe some of todays 61 operators will too. I don't have the impression the 787-8 absorded the segment just yet.

http://www.aviationinfo.nl/passagiersvliegtuigen/22-airbus-a330-200

keesje wrote:

Stitch wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

A higher MTOW on the A339 will give it enough range that Hawaiian will no longer need the smaller A338. This could be the end of the A330-800. I suspect investing in an MTOW increase makes more sense than only building 6 A338s.

As I understand it, HA doesn't want the A339 because it is too large, not because it lacks the performance necessary.

LightningZ71 wrote:

If the 252t version of the 338 really has that kind of range, I can't really see much of a market demand for the 788 unless it is sold at a lower price.

It seems a fair bit of the A330-200 replacement market might have been absorbed by the 787-8 already so future RFPs between the two may not be many in number.

I see some 23 former A330-200 users. JetAirways and AirIndia seem to have introduced 787-8. Maybe some of todays 61 operators will too. I don't have the impression the 787-8 absorded the segment just yet.

http://www.aviationinfo.nl/passagiersvliegtuigen/22-airbus-a330-200

He said "fair bit", not all or even most.

I do wonder how many of those operators have or would choose to upsize? Maybe none? Maybe a lot?

It's amazing to see how capable the A330 is/can be! I just hope they install proper crew bunks on those ULR 339's...

I can see why thr A330 NEO has an edge over the 787s for LCCs as they are able to fit 9 abreast on an A330. Hope Boeing can come out with a 10 abreast option @ 16 inch width with narrower aisles. Until then the 787 is a tough sell to loyal LCC A330 customers like Air Asia who will no doubt continue to flex their muscles in stealing market share from the traditional carriers.

lightsaber wrote:

caoimhin wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

What surprises me is that the empty weight of the A339 is 2 tons less then the 789 and it has more range.

Have I misread something as to range?

I think a mis-type. The A339 does weigh less, but losses 1000nm of range as shown in the OP post.
So there are a range of missions the A339 will be attractive.
What is needed is to determine the actual range. In general, one needs to add about 20% to the actual range for winds, ATC, and such.

Here are GCMAP from LAX for 5000, 6000, and 7000nm range circles.


This shows from the US West coast, the A339 (A little over 5,000nm useful range) could make LHR, DUB and even TPAC to North Japan.

But this is an extreme example. Move further East in the USA and the A339 becomes very usefull. e.g., MCO to IST. (Orlando Florida to TK's hub in Istanbul.) What will matter is economics with a payload.

It also needs to gain economy of scale. Initial examples benefit from A330CEOs. There need to be 20+ airlines operating a type to create a healthy resale market (otherwise one ends up with the 717/MD-90 market where the whims of one customer determine the resale value or lack of resale value).

It will be interesting to watch this competition. Most TPAC routes go by default to the 789. That extra 1000nm of range just matters too much. Same with Europe to Asia. But enough routes exist it should do well.

I do find it interesting that the A330NEO is only viable thanks to a LCC, AirAsiaX.

Lightsaber

I see your point, but I find it unfair. Remember, the A330 is European and likely so is much of its operators. So the range is actually pretty reasonable as it provides access to both Asia and North America. While American Carriers (and of course Air Canada, can't forget about you ) will likely mostly operate the 787, which is useful as East or West, you will need to fly over the oceans.

with the romours of A330 get versions of 245 tons and it has even been mentioned here at A.net 252 tons, what will the 245 and 252 tons versions give as improvements? When can we expect them?

olle wrote:

with the romours of A330 get versions of 245 tons and it has even been mentioned here at A.net 252 tons, what will the 245 and 252 tons versions give as improvements? When can we expect them?

It was Leahy last week at the ISTAT that mentioned "up to 251t" https://mobile.twitter.com/jonostrower/ ... 2849993731

It would mean more payload at the same range, or more range with the same payload, or a combination.

It would make the A330-900NEo more suitable e.g. for Pacific flights.


6700NM from PEK

A339 NEO 251 T with let say 6900nm (they say close 7000) how will this compare to a B789 with what I remember 253T?

olle wrote:

A339 NEO 251 T with let say 6900nm (they say close 7000) how will this compare to a B789 with what I remember 253T?

Design Range for the 787-9 is around 7600nm, but design range is non-representative of what an actual airline would get out of a 787-9 in their actual configuration and using their flight planning rules (in other words, real-world it will fly a fair bit less distance than that). Assuming Airbus' figure is also Design Range, in general the 787 should fly maybe 10% farther in real-world. But overall, I expect both planes would be able to comfortably handle most airline missions up to around 14 hours duration.

What will the 251T A338 version mean that we get an A338F version? How will this sell compared to the A332F version?

olle wrote:

What will the 251T A338 version mean that we get an A338F version? How will this sell compared to the A332F version?

It might mean little to nothing, to be honest, as freighters are more concerned with MZFW than MTOW. The A330-200F does offer a 178,000kg MZFW WV, which is 2,000kg more than the highest A330-800 MZFW WV. So depending on how MZFW changes on the 251,000kg WVs, a future A330-800F may just match the current A330-200F.

That being said, the A330-200F is already a very capable airframe that slots quite nicely in between the 767-300F and 777-200F and it pretty much perfectly fills the role the DC-10F/MD-10F did with much better economics.

Boeing is apparently less vocal on incremental improvements on the 787-9.

Will their be payload-range, new cabin options, larger maintenance intervals.

Obviously the Trent1000 Ten is coming up..

keesje wrote:

Boeing is apparently less vocal on incremental improvements on the 787-9. Will their be payload-range, new cabin options, larger maintenance intervals.

Well we believe they've hit the wall for MTOW boosts, so they'll need to lighten OEW. Maintenance intervals should extend as in-service data provides more accurate MTBF targets. And I would not expect a new Signature Cabin for at least a decade.

olle wrote:

A339 NEO 251 T with let say 6900nm (they say close 7000) how will this compare to a B789 with what I remember 253T?

A339 NEO @ 242t already is at 6,650nm brochure range. ( and 7600nm for the 787 would need a 25t payload derate from MZFW )
9..10t more fuel should translate to 1.5h / 700nm more range. ~~7,350nm ?

Stitch wrote:

Design Range for the 787-9 is around 7600nm, but design range is non-representative of what an actual airline would get out of a 787-9 in their actual configuration and using their flight planning rules (in other words, real-world it will fly a fair bit less distance than that). Assuming Airbus' figure is also Design Range, in general the 787 should fly maybe 10% farther in real-world. But overall, I expect both planes would be able to comfortably handle most airline missions up to around 14 hours duration.

UA are doing LAX-MEL each day at around 15.5hrs to 16hrs+a bit. My model which is based on actual 789 performance shows a likely 34t payload. ESAD is ~ 7400nm.

Stitch wrote:

keesje wrote:

Boeing is apparently less vocal on incremental improvements on the 787-9. Will their be payload-range, new cabin options, larger maintenance intervals.

Well we believe they've hit the wall for MTOW boosts, so they'll need to lighten OEW. Maintenance intervals should extend as in-service data provides more accurate MTBF targets. And I would not expect a new Signature Cabin for at least a decade.

The 787-9 is already an excellent long-haul performer, it doesn't need another MTOW bump. Airbus is trying to match the 787-9 by increasing the A330 MTOW, not the other way around.

sunrisevalley wrote:

UA are doing LAX-MEL each day at around 15.5hrs to 16hrs+a bit. My model which is based on actual 789 performance shows a likely 34t payload. ESAD is ~ 7400nm.

Even with their low-density configuration (252 seats) UA were originally blocking a few seats on the LAX-MEL leg when seasonal winds limited range https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=579905. Do we know if they are still blocking seats? Any idea what that means for payload?

tealnz wrote:

Do we know if they are still blocking seats? Any idea what that means for payload?

If you go back to the original thread you will see these seats were released before departure and from a UA insider typically the 789 was going out LAX-MEL with all seats plus some freight and mail. A typical flight time is about 15hrs 40min ; A ~33t payload (252 passengers 5t freight) max's out at ~16hr 15 min.

JoeCanuck wrote:

MoKa777 wrote:

I think the A330neo is a very sensible and capable choice for any airline and stands a good chance of gaining a significant share of the market.

It is amazing how similar they are. I think Airbus made the right move by moving ahead with the A330neo programme.

Range is a bit deficient in the -900neo but that is not a problem for most airlines and most routes. Also, one should not forget that this range is still up on the highest gross weight -300ceo.

Price is listed higher for the -900neo than the 787-9 but I believe Airbus will be more willing and (importantly!) able to offer deeper discounts than Boeing, in addition to a quicker delivery (likely/probably, since the 787 backlog is going down to levels where Boeing might be able to compete on delivery dates as well).

Price is a major factor mostly because of lower fuel prices. Purchase price, lease price and insurance could all possibly be lower for the -900neo.

Fleet integration will also be easier for many airlines who operate the A330ceo at the moment and as you mention, there are A LOT of those around.

So to conclude - if I was on an airlines fleet planning team, the A330neo (specifically the -900neo) would be a major consideration in this segment of the market.

There is a potential for quite a difference in passenger numbers due to the 789's option of 9 abreast economy...and before we get too deeply into the 17 v 18" drama...in real life, the actual difference is often half that. For instance, AC's 789's have 9 abreast 17.3" seats in Y and 8 abreast 17.8" seats in Y....so basically an index finger's difference...not even a thumb's width.

I mean, if AC's seats are torture...the 9 abreast 339 would have to be classified as positively criminal.

That 17.3" seat bottom includes space under the seat armrest. The A330 18" seat does not include space under the armrest. So it's really 17" on the 787. Do the math on the listed seat/Arm rest widths.

I have looked closely at the economics of both the A330-900 Neo and the 787-9. My honest impression is they are very close....particularly on missions under 4000nm. The 787-9 appears to have about a 2% lower CASM on missions under 4000nm and about a 4-5% lower CASM on missions over 4000nm.

Now Airbus prices the A339 about $25 million more than the 789. That is fact. Many here on ANet claim Airbus is offering much greater discounts than the 789. I have no way of knowing if this is true.....and I seriously doubt anyone at Anet knows if that is true.

I would say if the pricing is right the A339 is a fine choice as a TATL aircraft. if there is a need for more range such as transpacific it looks like the 789 is the better choice.... Again depending on price.

Boeings are priced like a Chevy and Airbus' like a Honda, the actual equipment fitted in the Honda as standard is optional on the Chevy. So the list price is not really comparable besides which it is generally accepted by the industry that A330s are dirt cheap with significant discounts off list as the line is fully paid for while Boeing only just started getting positive cash flow on the 787 manufacturing.

trex8 wrote:

Boeings are priced like a Chevy and Airbus' like a Honda, the actual equipment fitted in the Honda as standard is optional on the Chevy. So the list price is not really comparable besides which it is generally accepted by the industry that A330s are dirt cheap with significant discounts off list as the line is fully paid for while Boeing only just started getting positive cash flow on the 787 manufacturing.

I heard that theory from multiple posters with zero factual support. It makes for a nice story.

I am not saying it is false....just call me deeply skeptical without supporting evidence. I have no idea regarding the discounts Boeing or Airbus offer on different planes or to different customers. If you know factually what discounts are offered on the 789 vs A339 please let us all know.

Thanks

Specific pricing is usually under an NDA so no surprise people aren't giving numbers.

Airlines are required to publicly disclose through their financial reporting their capital expenditures. While not literally accurate as it can (and usually does) include ancillaries like engines, spares and training, it can give a fair approximation of what an airline paid on divided per-frame basis.

ElroyJetson wrote:

trex8 wrote:

Boeings are priced like a Chevy and Airbus' like a Honda, the actual equipment fitted in the Honda as standard is optional on the Chevy. So the list price is not really comparable besides which it is generally accepted by the industry that A330s are dirt cheap with significant discounts off list as the line is fully paid for while Boeing only just started getting positive cash flow on the 787 manufacturing.

I heard that theory from multiple posters with zero factual support. It makes for a nice story.

I am not saying it is false....just call me deeply skeptical without supporting evidence. I have no idea regarding the discounts Boeing or Airbus offer on different planes or to different customers. If you know factually what discounts are offered on the 789 vs A339 please let us all know.

Thanks

If you want to hear how Airbus calculates the list price of its aircraft from the horse's mouth, there are a few videos of John Leahy saying that. Go Google them up!

The question is not list price. That is publicly available. The question is specific discounts offered to different customers on different aircraft.

You claimed Airbus offers much greater discounts on the A339 than Boeing does on the 789.

I asked if you have proof of this. I understand the theory.....I'd like to see the evidence.

ElroyJetson wrote:

I asked if you have proof of this. I understand the theory.....I'd like to see the evidence.

As Stitch has mentioned, there are NDAs that airlines have to abide by. That is why public data is not available.

Isn't the empirical evidence clear - that Airbus is able to make a good deal of sales of its aircraft that many here believe are inferior to Boeing's?

I do necessarily feel the A339 is inferior to the 789. As a TATL aircraft the A339 looks like a great plane to me.

Since both frames are so close....particularly on shorter missions, I think price would be a key variable. I am just saying I do not necessarily believe Airbus is massively discounting the A339 relative to the 789. It might be the case....but I do not accept it as gospel without evidence.

ElroyJetson wrote:

I do necessarily feel the A339 is inferior to the 789. As a TATL aircraft the A339 looks like a great plane to me.

Since both frames are so close....particularly on shorter missions, I think price would be a key variable. I am just saying I do not necessarily believe Airbus is massively discounting the A339 relative to the 789. It might be the case....but I do not accept it as gospel without evidence.

Each airline has its own network of routes and its own payload characteristics - they usually buy the aircraft that is best suited to their operational and business priorities. So what is better for one airline may not be so for another. There are very few clear cut cases like the A321Neo vs B737-9Max or the B777-300ER vs A340-600, where one aircraft is clearly superior to the other.

Airbus A330 Neos will always have a cost advantage over Boeing 787s because most of its development costs have already been written off. Boeing 787s start off at a disadvantage because, in addition to current production costs, it has to take a charge for the huge deferred costs that Boeing has accumulated in the Balance Sheet over the years.

Airbus list prices are marked up deliberately so as to mask its true production costs and also to hide the margins that are available to Airbus for discounting. That is the reason why common wisdom in the aviation community concluded that Airbus are able to give big discounts on the A330 Neo.

flee wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

I do necessarily feel the A339 is inferior to the 789. As a TATL aircraft the A339 looks like a great plane to me.

Since both frames are so close....particularly on shorter missions, I think price would be a key variable. I am just saying I do not necessarily believe Airbus is massively discounting the A339 relative to the 789. It might be the case....but I do not accept it as gospel without evidence.

Each airline has its own network of routes and its own payload characteristics - they usually buy the aircraft that is best suited to their operational and business priorities. So what is better for one airline may not be so for another. There are very few clear cut cases like the A321Neo vs B737-9Max or the B777-300ER vs A340-600, where one aircraft is clearly superior to the other.

Airbus A330 Neos will always have a cost advantage over Boeing 787s because most of its development costs have already been written off. Boeing 787s start off at a disadvantage because, in addition to current production costs, it has to take a charge for the huge deferred costs that Boeing has accumulated in the Balance Sheet over the years.

Airbus list prices are marked up deliberately so as to mask its true production costs and also to hide the margins that are available to Airbus for discounting. That is the reason why common wisdom in the aviation community concluded that Airbus are able to give big discounts on the A330 Neo.

Yes, Boeing said they wanted to recoup 75m of the development cost per plane. Perhaps that is the greatest asset for Airbus, keep the price in check for the 787. When the current 210 orders are fulfilled Airbus probably have recouped their development cost, especially most of the cost will be bare by the engine developer, Rolls Royce.

The A338/9 will have a nice, probably do a lot of transatlantic flying and they are competitive with that.

Airbus themselves have stated the CEO is more economical than the NEO on shorter missions because of its lower weight. In arguing the A330 is already a MOM aircraft they advised the average A330 flight distance is around 2000nm.

If we consider airlines like Jetstar who swapped out their 305 seat A330-200's for 330 seat 787-8's have said on multiple occasions the fuel efficiency of the 787 make it a very profitable aircraft to operate, we have to ask ourselves what are the advantages of the A330NEO. Jetstar operate their 787's predominantly on short and medium haul flights, not long haul flights.

If we consider the airlines who have actually ordered the A330NEO, there have been quite a few statements that infer these aircraft will be predominantly used on medium haul routes (10 hours).

As such, for many airlines the economics of the A330NEO could be based upon a route structure/profile of 4500-6500nm. For routes greater than these distances it seems Airbus airlines have ordered the A350 and for routes less than these distances it seems Airbus airlines have simply maintained their existing fleets of A330CEO's. Consider TAP Portugal (A330NEO) and Finnair (A350-600). CAPA have done a considerable amount of research on these airlines, including their route profiles, markets and preferred type of plane.

If the economics of the A330NEO is based around a very narrow spectrum of the medium wide body market, the purchase price advantage might only be realised when airlines have a majority of routes that fit within the A330NEO's preferred route profile spectrum. If airlines operate a majority of routes outside of this spectrum it seems the higher cost 787 and A350's become the preferred options.

The Malaysia Airlines RFQ will be a good indicator of where all of these aircraft fit within the market. They have made comments to the effect the competition will be between the A330NEO and the "higher cost" 787. As such, for a "higher cost" 787 be competing with the A330NEO we would have to assume there has to be some very distinct advantages to justify its higher upfront costs.

ElroyJetson wrote:

I do necessarily feel the A339 is inferior to the 789. As a TATL aircraft the A339 looks like a great plane to me.

Since both frames are so close....particularly on shorter missions, I think price would be a key variable. I am just saying I do not necessarily believe Airbus is massively discounting the A339 relative to the 789. It might be the case....but I do not accept it as gospel without evidence.

Airbus is able do deeply discount the A330neo, the development cost, but the cost for the change to neo, and the investment for the production facilities, are written off a long time ago..
Boeing is not able to deeply discount the 787. The evidence you need are 27 billion deferred cost that has to be recouped. After that Boeing can start to recover the development cost.

travelhound wrote:

Airbus themselves have stated the CEO is more economical than the NEO on shorter missions because of its lower weight. In arguing the A330 is already a MOM aircraft they advised the average A330 flight distance is around 2000nm.

If we consider airlines like Jetstar who swapped out their 305 seat A330-200's for 330 seat 787-8's have said on multiple occasions the fuel efficiency of the 787 make it a very profitable aircraft to operate, we have to ask ourselves what are the advantages of the A330NEO. Jetstar operate their 787's predominantly on short and medium haul flights, not long haul flights.

A lot of jetstar flights are over 3000nm.

http://www.jetstar.com/au/en/dreamliner/routes

The shortest one is BNE-DPS at 2400nm. So the swap from a A330-200 is an obvious one and shows exactly why the A330NEO is needed. The 787-8 might be slightly more fuel efficient (2-3% is consensus) than the NEO but with the NEO least 10% cheaper in purchase price, it makes sense for capital sensitive airlines as well as lessors.

The 787's are also used on domestic flights within Australia.

ElroyJetson wrote:

I have looked closely at the economics of both the A330-900 Neo and the 787-9. My honest impression is they are very close....particularly on missions under 4000nm. The 787-9 appears to have about a 2% lower CASM on missions under 4000nm and about a 4-5% lower CASM on missions over 4000nm.

Now Airbus prices the A339 about $25 million more than the 789. That is fact. Many here on ANet claim Airbus is offering much greater discounts than the 789. I have no way of knowing if this is true.....and I seriously doubt anyone at Anet knows if that is true.

I would say if the pricing is right the A339 is a fine choice as a TATL aircraft. if there is a need for more range such as transpacific it looks like the 789 is the better choice.... Again depending on price.

Elroy, you say that you have found CASM on the 787-9 is slightly better, 2-5%. What assumptions, seatspecs and class build up is behind that? That totally determines the CASM you refer to. The A330NEO seems a little lighter than the 789, has a slightly smaller frontal area, higher aspect wing and can carry slightly less fuel in it tanks. The NEO's RR engines are only slightly newer than the 787's. Maybe A330NEO is therefor the just slightly more fuel efficient aircraft. I would certainly believe your economics / CASM estimation, but I would certainly need some basic evidence.

ElroyJetson wrote:

trex8 wrote:

Boeings are priced like a Chevy and Airbus' like a Honda, the actual equipment fitted in the Honda as standard is optional on the Chevy. So the list price is not really comparable besides which it is generally accepted by the industry that A330s are dirt cheap with significant discounts off list as the line is fully paid for while Boeing only just started getting positive cash flow on the 787 manufacturing.

I heard that theory from multiple posters with zero factual support. It makes for a nice story.

I am not saying it is false....just call me deeply skeptical without supporting evidence. I have no idea regarding the discounts Boeing or Airbus offer on different planes or to different customers. If you know factually what discounts are offered on the 789 vs A339 please let us all know.

Thanks

Here are three sources indicating that the A330neo has lower capital costs or purchase price than the 787-9.



At the Farnborough air show, Airbus launched the A330 Neo, or new engine option - new version of its popular A330 aircraft featuring more fuel efficient engines – with a declaration that it would sell at a significant discount to Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner.

https://www.ft.com/content/a999f9c4-0b7 ... 144feabdc0



Even John Leahy admits the A330neo sales campaign is about having lower capital costs

Introducing the new aircraft, John Leahy, chief operating officer, said the A330neo would have a lower capital cost than its rival 787, but admitted his new aircraft would have a slightly shorter ranges though said this did not concern him.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... liner.html


The Airbus marketing charts show 1.05 million as the lease rate for the A330neo and 1.25 million for the 787-9.

https://www.ausbt.com.au/files/A330neo% ... tation.pdf

travelhound wrote:

If we consider airlines like Jetstar who swapped out their 305 seat A330-200's for 330 seat 787-8's have said on multiple occasions the fuel efficiency of the 787 make it a very profitable aircraft to operate, we have to ask ourselves what are the advantages of the A330NEO. Jetstar operate their 787's predominantly on short and medium haul flights, not long haul flights.

When did Qantas order that batch of 788 tagged for use by JetStar?

Afair early on 788 were sold for much less than an A330(-200).
With 10..12% lower fuel _and_ lower capital cost the 788 obviously are an improvement over using the old set of A330.

There have been several reports of airlines talking about ordering B787s recently and very few about the A330Neo. This in itself must be an indicator of the way things are going

fcogafa wrote:

There have been several reports of airlines talking about ordering B787s recently and very few about the A330Neo. This in itself must be an indicator of the way things are going

Lets wait and see what happens at the Paris Air Show - Airbus likes to save orders for announcement during the show. Somehow, I suspect this year's orders will be few and far between.

keesje wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

I have looked closely at the economics of both the A330-900 Neo and the 787-9. My honest impression is they are very close....particularly on missions under 4000nm. The 787-9 appears to have about a 2% lower CASM on missions under 4000nm and about a 4-5% lower CASM on missions over 4000nm.

Now Airbus prices the A339 about $25 million more than the 789. That is fact. Many here on ANet claim Airbus is offering much greater discounts than the 789. I have no way of knowing if this is true.....and I seriously doubt anyone at Anet knows if that is true.

I would say if the pricing is right the A339 is a fine choice as a TATL aircraft. if there is a need for more range such as transpacific it looks like the 789 is the better choice.... Again depending on price.

Elroy, you say that you have found CASM on the 787-9 is slightly better, 2-5%. What assumptions, seatspecs and class build up is behind that? That totally determines the CASM you refer to. The A330NEO seems a little lighter than the 789, has a slightly smaller frontal area, higher aspect wing and can carry slightly less fuel in it tanks. The NEO's RR engines are only slightly newer than the 787's. Maybe A330NEO is therefor the just slightly more fuel efficient aircraft. I would certainly believe your economics / CASM estimation, but I would certainly need some basic evidence.

I posted the link in another thread. Wiki fuel efficiency in aircraft. The links to the source data is in the appendix. The data is fascinating.


Fuel burn for a 3000nm mission for an A339 is 21 lbs per mile. The 789 is 20.5 lbs per mile on a similar mission. Roughly a 2-3% difference. As I said.....very close on intermediate length missions.

CASM is within the same range.

fcogafa wrote:

There have been several reports of airlines talking about ordering B787s recently and very few about the A330Neo. This in itself must be an indicator of the way things are going

The thing with the A330neo is that it may not get a number of big, high-profile orders, but then it will steadily add numbers through the leasing market. The A330ceo lease market is very strong, they get re-homed quite quickly. We've had some indications that the A330neo will pick up that mantle, with WW and MK both confirmed, and MH and AB* possibly getting. I don't think the A330neo is in too much trouble. It will pick up eventually, as will the other widebodies which you have to say have all been selling slowly in recent years.

*Assuming they survive.

ElroyJetson wrote:

I have looked closely at the economics of both the A330-900 Neo and the 787-9. My honest impression is they are very close....particularly on missions under 4000nm. The 787-9 appears to have about a 2% lower CASM on missions under 4000nm and about a 4-5% lower CASM on missions over 4000nm.

Now Airbus prices the A339 about $25 million more than the 789. That is fact. Many here on ANet claim Airbus is offering much greater discounts than the 789. I have no way of knowing if this is true.....and I seriously doubt anyone at Anet knows if that is true.

I would say if the pricing is right the A339 is a fine choice as a TATL aircraft. if there is a need for more range such as transpacific it looks like the 789 is the better choice.... Again depending on price.

Airbus doesn't price the A330neo at $25m more than the 789, it's not a fact. Newbiepilot has supplied you with evidence otherwise, and it's well known within the industry that list prices are very rarely if ever the actual price that airlines pay for an individual aircraft. Boeing and Airbus compete against each other, and the airlines can drive the price down that way, and larger orders also typically get discounts. They also offer discounts to bridge production, where there is less incentive for airlines to buy the product that is about to be phased out, as seen in the 777 and A330ceo lines.

MrHMSH wrote:

fcogafa wrote:

There have been several reports of airlines talking about ordering B787s recently and very few about the A330Neo. This in itself must be an indicator of the way things are going

The thing with the A330neo is that it may not get a number of big, high-profile orders, but then it will steadily add numbers through the leasing market. The A330ceo lease market is very strong, they get re-homed quite quickly. We've had some indications that the A330neo will pick up that mantle, with WW and MK both confirmed, and MH and AB* possibly getting. I don't think the A330neo is in too much trouble. It will pick up eventually, as will the other widebodies which you have to say have all been selling slowly in recent years.

*Assuming they survive.

ElroyJetson wrote:

I have looked closely at the economics of both the A330-900 Neo and the 787-9. My honest impression is they are very close....particularly on missions under 4000nm. The 787-9 appears to have about a 2% lower CASM on missions under 4000nm and about a 4-5% lower CASM on missions over 4000nm.

Now Airbus prices the A339 about $25 million more than the 789. That is fact. Many here on ANet claim Airbus is offering much greater discounts than the 789. I have no way of knowing if this is true.....and I seriously doubt anyone at Anet knows if that is true.

I would say if the pricing is right the A339 is a fine choice as a TATL aircraft. if there is a need for more range such as transpacific it looks like the 789 is the better choice.... Again depending on price.

Airbus doesn't price the A330neo at $25m more than the 789, it's not a fact. Newbiepilot has supplied you with evidence otherwise, and it's well known within the industry that list prices are very rarely if ever the actual price that airlines pay for an individual aircraft. Boeing and Airbus compete against each other, and the airlines can drive the price down that way, and larger orders also typically get discounts. They also offer discounts to bridge production, where there is less incentive for airlines to buy the product that is about to be phased out, as seen in the 777 and A330ceo lines.

The list price for an A339 on Airbus' website is $287.7 mil. The list price for a 789 on Boeing's website is 264.6 mil.

That is a $23 mil difference per plane. Maybe check things out before you attack another poster.

ElroyJetson wrote:

keesje wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

I have looked closely at the economics of both the A330-900 Neo and the 787-9. My honest impression is they are very close....particularly on missions under 4000nm. The 787-9 appears to have about a 2% lower CASM on missions under 4000nm and about a 4-5% lower CASM on missions over 4000nm.

Now Airbus prices the A339 about $25 million more than the 789. That is fact. Many here on ANet claim Airbus is offering much greater discounts than the 789. I have no way of knowing if this is true.....and I seriously doubt anyone at Anet knows if that is true.

I would say if the pricing is right the A339 is a fine choice as a TATL aircraft. if there is a need for more range such as transpacific it looks like the 789 is the better choice.... Again depending on price.

Elroy, you say that you have found CASM on the 787-9 is slightly better, 2-5%. What assumptions, seatspecs and class build up is behind that? That totally determines the CASM you refer to. The A330NEO seems a little lighter than the 789, has a slightly smaller frontal area, higher aspect wing and can carry slightly less fuel in it tanks. The NEO's RR engines are only slightly newer than the 787's. Maybe A330NEO is therefor the just slightly more fuel efficient aircraft. I would certainly believe your economics / CASM estimation, but I would certainly need some basic evidence.

I posted the link in another thread. Wiki fuel efficiency in aircraft. The links to the source data is in the appendix. The data is fascinating.


Fuel burn for a 3000nm mission for an A339 is 21 lbs per mile. The 789 is 20.5 lbs per mile on a similar mission. Roughly a 2-3% difference. As I said.....very close on intermediate length missions.

CASM is within the same range.

I don't take CASM serious without seatcounts, you should't neither. Data is great, specially objective, complete data with clear assumptions and starting points. Otherwise you fall victim to the apples & oranges business.

Both aircraft have the same engines, one is slightly lighter and sleaker. The other one is more fuel efficient, because its our Boeing 787 Dreamliner?

ElroyJetson wrote:

The list price for an A339 on Airbus' website is $287.7 mil. The list price for a 789 on Boeing's website is 264.6 mil.

That is a $23 mil difference per plane. Maybe check things out before you attack another poster.

Attacking you? You made a post I disagreed with, and I posted explaining why I disagree. It's a forum, you debate, criticise, get criticised, praise, get praised. C'est la vie.

OK, I worded it wrongly. The list prices are accurate. But when I say 'priced' I mean 'sold'. Can you supply evidence that the list price is what airlines actually pay? Because I'm 100% certain that most airlines will pay a much lower price. I'm not even sure what the circumstances are where the actual list price would be paid.

But specific to this example are facts that we know and can derive information

The 787 has had huge development and production costs, and needs to pay at least some of it back. If Boeing lowers the price to compete, they don't earn back their invested money on development, infrastructure for building 787s and specifically for this case compensation for the delays. So they're understandably not too keen to discount. The A330 on the other hand has long paid back its initial development cost, as it has sold over 1000. The A330neo is a small investment, $2bn. As there is relatively little expenditure to earn back, Airbus can afford to discount it but still make money on each unit. The A330 competes on its commonality with existing A330 fleets, its availability and its low capital costs. The 787 competes on its better fuel-efficiency, better capability and (I believe) lower maintenance costs.

keesje wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

keesje wrote:

Elroy, you say that you have found CASM on the 787-9 is slightly better, 2-5%. What assumptions, seatspecs and class build up is behind that? That totally determines the CASM you refer to. The A330NEO seems a little lighter than the 789, has a slightly smaller frontal area, higher aspect wing and can carry slightly less fuel in it tanks. The NEO's RR engines are only slightly newer than the 787's. Maybe A330NEO is therefor the just slightly more fuel efficient aircraft. I would certainly believe your economics / CASM estimation, but I would certainly need some basic evidence.

I posted the link in another thread. Wiki fuel efficiency in aircraft. The links to the source data is in the appendix. The data is fascinating.


Fuel burn for a 3000nm mission for an A339 is 21 lbs per mile. The 789 is 20.5 lbs per mile on a similar mission. Roughly a 2-3% difference. As I said.....very close on intermediate length missions.

CASM is within the same range.

I don't take CASM serious without seatcounts, you should't neither. Data is great, specially objective, complete data with clear assumptions and starting points. Otherwise you fall victim to the apples & oranges business.

Both aircraft have the same engines, one is slightly lighter and sleaker. The other one is more fuel efficient, because its our Boeing 787 Dreamliner?

I provided you the data. You can look at the specific sources in the appendix. There is much that goes into aircraft efficiency than simply weight and engines.

If you would like an overview of some of the factors that go into aircraft efficiency read this. Regardless....both the A339 and 787-9 are close as I have said repeatedly.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft

MrHMSH wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

The list price for an A339 on Airbus' website is $287.7 mil. The list price for a 789 on Boeing's website is 264.6 mil.

That is a $23 mil difference per plane. Maybe check things out before you attack another poster.

Attacking you? You made a post I disagreed with, and I posted explaining why I disagree. It's a forum, you debate, criticise, get criticised, praise, get praised. C'est la vie.

OK, I worded it wrongly. The list prices are accurate. But when I say 'priced' I mean 'sold'. Can you supply evidence that the list price is what airlines actually pay? Because I'm 100% certain that most airlines will pay a much lower price. I'm not even sure what the circumstances are where the actual list price would be paid.

But specific to this example are facts that we know and can derive information

The 787 has had huge development and production costs, and needs to pay at least some of it back. If Boeing lowers the price to compete, they don't earn back their invested money on development, infrastructure for building 787s and specifically for this case compensation for the delays. So they're understandably not too keen to discount. The A330 on the other hand has long paid back its initial development cost, as it has sold over 1000. The A330neo is a small investment, $2bn. As there is relatively little expenditure to earn back, Airbus can afford to discount it but still make money on each unit. The A330 competes on its commonality with existing A330 fleets, its availability and its low capital costs. The 787 competes on its better fuel-efficiency, better capability and (I believe) lower maintenance costs.

Thanks. I was very precise in my language when I said list price. None of us know the discounts either manufacturer is giving out. I just cringe when I hear people state for a fact either Boeing or Airbus is giving out much bigger discounts than the other on any specific frame. The fact John Leahy claims as much means zero. Don't you think Boeing exec's would say the same thing?

My speculation is Airbus is giving out a steeper discount on the A339 than Boeing is on the 789. But the fact is I have no idea....nor does anyone else not involved in the deals.

ElroyJetson wrote:

Thanks. I was very precise in my language when I said list price. None of us know the discounts either manufacturer is giving out. I just cringe when I hear people state for a fact either Boeing or Airbus is giving out much bigger discounts than the other on any specific frame. The fact John Leahy claims as much means zero. Don't you think Boeing exec's would say the same thing?

My speculation is Airbus is giving out a steeper discount on the A339 than Boeing is on the 789. But the fact is I have no idea....nor does anyone else not involved in the deals.

I don't see why you'd cringe when people talk about discounts, they are probably right.

I wouldn't take everything Leahy says literally, but then he is literally the guy selling the airliners, so if he says there are discounts, I'd wager there are. He's also very mouthy compared to Boeing's equivalents.

We don't know how much discounting there is, but we know there is some. It's standard practice. I remember debates about it on A.net, but I can't find them. Nor can I find an independent source. But I promise you, it happens at quite a steep rate.

ElroyJetson wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

The list price for an A339 on Airbus' website is $287.7 mil. The list price for a 789 on Boeing's website is 264.6 mil.

That is a $23 mil difference per plane. Maybe check things out before you attack another poster.

Attacking you? You made a post I disagreed with, and I posted explaining why I disagree. It's a forum, you debate, criticise, get criticised, praise, get praised. C'est la vie.

OK, I worded it wrongly. The list prices are accurate. But when I say 'priced' I mean 'sold'. Can you supply evidence that the list price is what airlines actually pay? Because I'm 100% certain that most airlines will pay a much lower price. I'm not even sure what the circumstances are where the actual list price would be paid.

But specific to this example are facts that we know and can derive information

The 787 has had huge development and production costs, and needs to pay at least some of it back. If Boeing lowers the price to compete, they don't earn back their invested money on development, infrastructure for building 787s and specifically for this case compensation for the delays. So they're understandably not too keen to discount. The A330 on the other hand has long paid back its initial development cost, as it has sold over 1000. The A330neo is a small investment, $2bn. As there is relatively little expenditure to earn back, Airbus can afford to discount it but still make money on each unit. The A330 competes on its commonality with existing A330 fleets, its availability and its low capital costs. The 787 competes on its better fuel-efficiency, better capability and (I believe) lower maintenance costs.

Thanks. I was very precise in my language when I said list price. None of us know the discounts either manufacturer is giving out. I just cringe when I hear people state for a fact either Boeing or Airbus is giving out much bigger discounts than the other on any specific frame. The fact John Leahy claims as much means zero. Don't you think Boeing exec's would say the same thing?

My speculation is Airbus is giving out a steeper discount on the A339 than Boeing is on the 789. But the fact is I have no idea....nor does anyone else not involved in the deals.

Indeed we don't know, but we do know that list price doesn't mean anything. If you compare the list price of Boeing and Airbus, you will notice Airbus is quite a bit more expensive and perhaps Boeing indeed doesn't include the interior, but if you have to decide between the two a specific offer is going to be made, tailer made to the airline.

Logic dictate that the 339 should be cheaper to buy than the 789, the 789 is more capable and a bit more fuel efficient (although we have to wait for real live numbers, (the A339 hasn't even flown yet).