.
In a year, the new A330-900 will enter service, competing with the successful Boeing 787-9.

The 787-10 is 5.5 meters longer than 787-9 and competes with the slightly shorter A350-900.



Fuselage length differs less than 1 meter. With the new winglets, the A339 has a bigger span. Empty weight seems close.



The Trent1000-ten and Trent7000 seem close in technology, the T7000 is only slightly younger.

No doubt Airbus is targeting the existing 100 A330 operators. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Airbus_A330_operators#Airline_operators

Will the NEO be able to break into this segment?

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.

The NEO already has 186 orders, so it is doing fine.

What surprises me is that the empty weight of the A339 is 2 tons less then the 789 and it has more range. The A339 seats 287 passengers in a standard lay-out and the 789 290 (2 class lay out).

The A339 seems to be quite attractie to airlines.

I have 2 questions.

Are the wing areas similar?

Will the A330neo or 789 have better take off performance?

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 the two aircraft are close in seating capacity.

For First and Business capacity is the same, for economy the 787-9 is equipped predominatly 17 inch 9 abreast and A330 18 inch 8 abreast.

Both options are open / on order(ed) for the 787-9 and A330-900.

keesje wrote:

I think the two aircraft are close in seating capacity.

For First and Business capacity is the same, for economy the 787-9 is equipped predominatly 17 inch 9 abreast and A330 18 inch 8 abreast.

Both options are open / on order(ed) for the 787-9 and A330-900.

Sure, but the 8 abreast Y 787 is definitely an edge case, and the 9 abreast A330 is used by a small minority of customers. For the bulk of the market you need to compare 9Y 787 vs 8Y A330.

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

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.

On a point of pedantry, the BA aircraft in the photo is a B787-8, not a -9.
The 787-9s are in the series starting G-ZBK*.

Will the 787-9 show a higher fuel use compared to the A339, due to carrying around the structure to accommodate the extra 1,000nm?

Dardania wrote:

Will the 787-9 show a higher fuel use compared to the A339, due to carrying around the structure to accommodate the extra 1,000nm?

If the chart in the opening post is correct, the OEW difference is 2 tonnes....probably not enough to be a factor.

It is not really surprising that the 2 aircraft have similar figures.After all the 789 is what a departed CEO of Airbus called a 'Chinese copy'!
What makes me smile is that the 339neo is very close to the aircraft that Mr UH said was not good enough and Airbus needed to go all carbon.
This after Airbus had garnered quite a few orders.Well they did go 'all carbon' but not in the way UH expected.They moved their target up one size to the 777 range!
But I am sure that Airbus (through commonality and price ) are hoping to keep their many existing 330 customers loyal.Personally I much prefer 2X4X2 at 18ins to the 3X3X3 at 17ins.But am well aware that Airlines don't care a fig! Having said that ,giving their loyal customers commonality may well be important to the airlines that already operate 330's so might be a factor from that perspective.
I imagine both aircraft will do ok.But watch out for the 'end of cycle' of the present aircraft market.Times are defiantly going to get much tougher.

JoeCanuck wrote:

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.

If you look at EY and the way it configures its A333 and 789 the difference is only 4 seats in three class configuration. In fact the A330 has 4 more J seats and you could say the revenue potential is higher on the A330 than the 8 seats in Y difference. It looks like the difference will not be that big in capacity between the A339 and the 789, even with the extra seat in Y of the 787.

My understanding is that the A333NEO is 8 across and the 789 is 9 across for comparable capacity offered ?

Afaics the 789 all else being about equal offers 11t more fuel (253t - 242t) representing just short of 2 hours more endurance?

A clear advandtage of the 78-9 over the A330-900 seems to be, airlines / leasing companies have engine choice.


source: https://airinsight.com/

Specially: GE/GECAS choice.

Where are you getting the A339neo empty weight from?

Sorry, but the direct compeditor to the 787-9 is the A330-800 / -200, or the A350-800 if this aircraft ever will enter service.

Boeings competition to the -900 series is the 777 and the 787-10.

DeltaWings wrote:

Sorry, but the direct compeditor to the 787-9 is the A330-800 / -200, or the A350-800 if this aircraft ever will enter service.

Boeings competition to the -900 series is the 777.

The 787-9 is almost identical in capacity to the A330-300/900. The 787-8 is almost identical in capacity to the A330-200/800. You probably can't find two other modern competing widebodies that match up better.

The 787-10 is larger than the A330-900 and slightly larger than the A350-900. The stillborn A350-800 was about halfway in size between the 788/A332 and 789/A339.

BaconButty wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think the two aircraft are close in seating capacity.

For First and Business capacity is the same, for economy the 787-9 is equipped predominatly 17 inch 9 abreast and A330 18 inch 8 abreast.

Both options are open / on order(ed) for the 787-9 and A330-900.

Sure, but the 8 abreast Y 787 is definitely an edge case, and the 9 abreast A330 is used by a small minority of customers. For the bulk of the market you need to compare 9Y 787 vs 8Y A330.

Let us compare Norwegian 9 abreast 787, to Scandinavian A330 with 8 seats across. The seat width on the DY 787 is 17.2 inches. SK A330 is 17.3. Both has pitch between 31 and 32 inches. I have flown both, and I can tell you the real life difference is not that noticable. Even good old Qatar has just 17,5 inch wide seats in their A330.

DeltaWings wrote:

Sorry, but the direct compeditor to the 787-9 is the A330-800 / -200, or the A350-800 if this aircraft ever will enter service.

Boeings competition to the -900 series is the 777 and the 787-10.

I think that's part of the marketing game. In this case (-10) pulling in a higher capacity airframe to win on a cost per seat base.
The airlines look for the right capacity-range and operational trade-offs.

Polot wrote:

Where are you getting the A339neo empty weight from?

Not published. The aircraft is basicly a A330-300, but with heavier engines and all related systems / structure. Airbus claims less (+2%) but I took a conservative +5T weight increase (+4%) for the NEO.

keesje wrote:

.
In a year, the new A330-900 will enter service, competing with the successful Boeing 787-9.

The 787-10 is 5.5 meters longer than 787-9 and competes with the slightly shorter A350-900.



Fuselage length differs less than 1 meter. With the new winglets, the A339 has a bigger span. Empty weight seems close.



The Trent1000-ten and Trent7000 seem close in technology, the T7000 is only slightly younger.

No doubt Airbus is targeting the existing 100 A330 operators. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Airbus_A330_operators#Airline_operators

Will the NEO be able to break into this segment?

Hello, please clarify where you got A339 empty weight? I have a 3 class A333 DOW as roughly 131T and would be surprised if the neo is lighter with the larger wing.

waly777 wrote:

Hello, please clarify where you got A339 empty weight? I have a 3 class A333 DOW as roughly 131T and would be surprised if the neo is lighter with the larger wing.

Leeham as well as Aspire estimate 5T extra for the NEO.

https://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/airbus-a330-300/25

http://www.aspireaviation.com/2014/07/15/dissecting-the-a330neo-from-a-weight-perspective/

WIederling wrote:

My understanding is that the A333NEO is 8 across and the 789 is 9 across for comparable capacity offered ?

In a normal two class layout (business and Y) with A339 and B789 at 8 abreast and 9 abreast in Y respectively, these aircraft will have a similar number of seats. For a premium heavy configuration the A339 might have a slight edge, since the B789 "squeeze in one more abreast" can only be done in Y, not in Y+, J or first.

In a LCC configuration the A339 also goes 9 abreast, and can have a higher number of seats than the 789. The internal cabin length of the A339 is about 2 meters longer than the B789.

LCC examples from seatguru:

Norwegian 787-9, 35 Y+ seats, 309 Y seats at 31" pitch, 17" seat
AirAsia A333, 12 flat business seats and 365 Y seats, 32" pitch, 16.5" seat

CEBU Pacific A333, 436 Y at 30" pitch, 16.5" seat

Legacy carriers examples from seatguru:

British Airways 789: 216 seats (premium heavy)
ANA 789: 215 seats (premium heavy)
KLM 789: 294 seats
American 789: 285 seats
United 789: 252 seats
Japan Airlines 789: 195 seats (8 abreast in Y)
Air Canada 789: 298 seats

Delta A333: 293 seats
Lufthansa A333: 236 seats (premium heavy)
Finnair A333: 289 seats
American A333: 291 seats
KLM A333: 292 seats
Singapore Airlines A333: 285 seats
Air Canada A333: 265 seats
Iberia A333: 278 seats
Virgin Atlantic A333: 266 seats
Scandinavian A333: 262 seats

reidar76 wrote:

Which just highlights how close they are in size unless you go basically all 9Y in the A330.

reidar76 wrote:

For a premium heavy configuration the A339 might have a slight edge, since the B789 "squeeze in one more abreast" can only be done in Y, not in Y+, J or first.

That would favor the 787, not the A330, as the 787 can take any premium seating option the A330 can, while still having 1 more Y seat per a row. It is difficult to compare "premium heavy" layouts though because there is greater diversity in premium seating configurations. ANA and LH both have 48 J seats for example. But LH's A330 have a 6 abreast J cabin with 8 rows, with window seats lacking direct aisle access. The ANA 789 J cabin has staggered 4 abreast seating in 13 rows giving all direct aisle access. Put LH's J seats in ANA's plane and less cabin floorspace will be needed for the J cabin and you can put in more Y boosting seat count.

reidar76 wrote:

The internal cabin length of the A339 is about 2 meters longer than the B789.

It is important to remember, however, that the rear of the A330 tapers inwards, resulting in the last ~4-5 rows having 7 abreast vs 8/9 abreast seating, while the 787 maintains basically a straight 9Y cabin throughout.

MoKa777 wrote:

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).

Airbus will have withheld feature / performance improvements and adopted premium pricing / margins on the A330neo to protect ceo production (switching) and A350 sales. In respect to A350 improvements, most are unlikely until actual 777X performance and customer preference becomes clearer. Some A330neo performance improvements won't see the light of day until the model is further through the production life cycle. Or unless a large order, from a major customer comes knocking.

I expect the two frames will be complimentary in a number of fleets just as the A330ceo and 777 were.

The A330-900 can credibly carry more seats than the a A330-300, due to relocated lavatories/ galleys / crew rest.



However it is up to the airlines. Some might prefer full CEO commonality..

Stitch wrote:

I expect the two frames will be complimentary in a number of fleets just as the A330ceo and 777 were.

Or you could a DL type of outcome more often with 339s and 359s acting complementarily in a fleet based on mission requirements for each operating base.

Honestly you can't put a sheet of paper between these two.Any differences in capacity will be down to the individual owners.
There is a difference on absolute range.However since Airbus are aiming this aircraft at protecting existing customers this has little relevance.
I don't know how much 'commonality' is worth to an airline ( i.e. With its existing fleet of aircraft ,pilots and staff etc) but possibly quite a lot.
Only someone with 'hands on' knowledge could answer that.
I look forward to the testing programme in 2018.
PS
Do we have any proposed interior shots?I imagine it will 'steal' from the A350?

JoeCanuck wrote:

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

Conversely, if that 1/2" is more an imagined difference than a real one, 9-abreast A330's will surely be the way to go - no?

Rgds

I thought the point of going composite was to cut weight How is the 787-9 made of composites heavier than the a330 made of aluminum, when the planes look to be the same size? Composite is all hype? Doesn't make any sense to me...

BiggerJetsPlz wrote:

I thought the point of going composite was to cut weight How is the 787-9 made of composites heavier than the a330 made of aluminum, when the planes look to be the same size? Composite is all hype? Doesn't make any sense to me...

The 787-9 is a more capable airframe so it has additional structure to support higher operating weights. The A350 and 787 are also first generation CFRP designs so they're conservatively "overbuilt".

CFRP does offer real weight savings - the 787-9 and A350-900 are lighter than the 777-200 and the A350-1000 is fair bit lighter than the 777-300ER.

BiggerJetsPlz wrote:

I thought the point of going composite was to cut weight How is the 787-9 made of composites heavier than the a330 made of aluminum, when the planes look to be the same size? Composite is all hype? Doesn't make any sense to me...

The 787 has a wider fuselage, larger, heavier engines (than the A330ceo), and can fly payload much further (the world's longest 789 flight is about 49% longer than the world's longest A333 flight by great circle distance). A "787" made out of aluminum would be even heavier than the current 787.

BiggerJetsPlz wrote:

I thought the point of going composite was to cut weight How is the 787-9 made of composites heavier than the a330 made of aluminum, when the planes look to be the same size? Composite is all hype? Doesn't make any sense to me...

First, the A330-900 is a serious competitor to the 787-9.

Second, the 787-9 allows a considerable higher MTOW, that again gives more tankage at a similar payload and therefore more range.

If the 787-9 would have been build as a simple stretch of the 787-8, than I assume it would have been a lighter frame with a similar range to the A330-900.

Re capacity, folks are missing parameters that are easily found and more relevant than LOA: interdoor cabin length. The 789 is 141.3ft between doors, the A333 is 148ft (A330's narrower fuse means less LOA for tapered sections). That's ~5% cabin length difference. They're about equal in usable nose/tailcone length. The 787 can seat 12.5% more in typical Y configurations per row, which is ~10% more Y capacity per foot (not every foot of cabin is a row and the 787's extra inches don't enable significant delta to galleys/lavs). 10% more Y capacity per foot is probably ~6% more overall capacity per foot (assuming no difference in premium capacity per foot - not a valid assumption given reverse herringbone J configurations).

All in all, I'd expect a 9ab 789 to have a hair more capacity than a similarly configured A333. The difference would be in the low single-digits.

Astuteman wrote:

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


Conversely, if that 1/2" is more an imagined difference than a real one, 9-abreast A330's will surely be the way to go - no?

Indeed. What's your stance here Joe? Do customers not care about the half-inch lost on a 9ab A330, as you claim with the 787 vs. A350?
-------------------------------------------------

Clearly the A339 is going to compete with the 789. IMO a big factor will perceptions of customer response to the 9ab 787. If you're flying TATL or shorter, and are worried about the 787 getting a bad rap at 9ab, A339 is a good option given the similar efficiency propositions.

Stitch wrote:

CFRP does offer real weight savings - the 787-9 and A350-900 are lighter than the 777-200 and the A350-1000 is fair bit lighter than the 777-300ER.

Doubtless true. But how much is attributable to CFRP? 772/W would have been lighter if built with 787/A350 engines for the same range. Despite the increase in engine dry weight per lb-T the wing, empennage, landing gear, and even engines would have been smaller to lift less fuel for a given payload/range profile.

mjoelnir wrote:

Second, the 787-9 allows a considerable higher MTOW, that again gives more tankage at a similar payload and therefore more range.

If you go with the payload fraction ( %OEW of MTOW ) the 789 should show ~5t added structure for the 11t increase MTOW versus the A333. i.e. the gain in structural efficiency is 4% or less.
( still for an attributed quantum leap in every aisle of technology applied the overall result is rather unspectacular. the A330 is 20+ years old. To show what plastic panels can do: the A350-1000 will completely declass the same size 77W ( only ~12 years old ) by 20++%.)

If the 787-9 would have been build as a simple stretch of the 787-8, than I assume it would have been a lighter frame with a similar range to the A330-900.

A 789_S_ as a simple stretch of the 788 would show a proportional reduction in range to the 789/7810 (1300nm/ 20%) "R2P"swap.
my semieducated guess would be that this 789S would fall well below 7000 nm and thus be shorter ranged than the A333.
( But with 20t less MTOW for slightly less range it would use less fuel, be slightly more efficient.')

astuteman wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

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

Conversely, if that 1/2" is more an imagined difference than a real one, 9-abreast A330's will surely be the way to go - no?

Rgds

Absolutely. I'm very interested to see how many airlines adopt 9 abreast in 330's.

Matt6461 wrote:

Indeed. What's your stance here Joe? Do customers not care about the half-inch lost on a 9ab A330, as you claim with the 787 vs. A350?

My stance on this is the same as it's always been; the airlines will decide based on what the passenger is willing to pay for. If it's 9 abreast 330 seating, then we can expect more of that configuration. Air Transat's planes are often packed.

I know a few people who've flown on Air Transat's 330's and they were satisfied with the comfort relative to the savings. I've flown on a 9 abreast 310 for a couple of hours and managed to survive nicely.

On the other hand, it has been an available option for decades and it hasn't really caught on except for a few charter type operations, so I doubt it will be a very popular configuration with airlines, unlike 9 abreast 787's, which has become standard for most of the airlines that fly the plane.

waly777 wrote:

Hello, please clarify where you got A339 empty weight? I have a 3 class A333 DOW as roughly 131T and would be surprised if the neo is lighter with the larger wing.

All of our A333s have a basic weight between 120-123t (2&3 class, regional and medium haul configs), and catering adds between 3-4.5 tonnes depending on the sector. 131 tonnes sounds like B/S.

JoeCanuck wrote:

astuteman wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

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

Conversely, if that 1/2" is more an imagined difference than a real one, 9-abreast A330's will surely be the way to go - no?

Rgds

Absolutely. I'm very interested to see how many airlines adopt 9 abreast in 330's.

how many airlines go for minimalistic meat movers?

The issue is that 9 across is most of the market for the 787 family as it is required to provide competitive performance.
( numbers compared are 9 across 787 vs. 8 across A330.)

he:
how does 8 across seating compare between A330 and 787 in relation to seat mile cost?
How does 9 across seating compare between A330 and 787 for the same metric?

zeke wrote:

waly777 wrote:

Hello, please clarify where you got A339 empty weight? I have a 3 class A333 DOW as roughly 131T and would be surprised if the neo is lighter with the larger wing.

All of our A333s have a basic weight between 120-123t (2&3 class, regional and medium haul configs), and catering adds between 3-4.5 tonnes depending on the sector. 131 tonnes sounds like B/S.

According to this article;

https://airinsight.com/2014/07/23/new-r ... rent-7000/

That combination will make the Trent 7000 about 3,500 pounds heavier than the Trent 7000.

The pair of Trent 7000 engines will weigh an extra 7000 lbs, (so 3.5 tons), compared to the Trent 700's on the ceo, so using your numbers, with just the engine weight added on to a ceo, the weight of a neo, (with catering), could be from 126.5 - 131 tons.

JoeCanuck wrote:

the airlines will decide based on what the passenger is willing to pay for.

That's an uninteresting tautology. Every business makes decisions based on what its customers will pay.
You're responding in this thread and the other as if the issue is, "will the tickets sell at all?" when the issue is really "will the airline sell 787 tickets at a price that influences their decision whether to buy 787's or A330/350?"
If pax pay even 4% less, on average, for 9ab 787 seats than for 8ab A330 seats, then that could make a big difference, given the close-run efficiency/capacity propositions here.

I would pay at least 4% more for 2-4-2 18in seats. If that stance becomes widespread it will influence airline behavior. It may already be doing so: http://leehamnews.com/2017/01/04/market ... 7-concern/

Zeke wrote:

catering adds between 3-4.5 tonnes depending on the sector.

Is that the weight of food/drinks plus carts and dishes? Or just food/drinks?

Matt6461 wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

the airlines will decide based on what the passenger is willing to pay for.

That's an uninteresting tautology. Every business makes decisions based on what its customers will pay.
You're responding in this thread and the other as if the issue is, "will the tickets sell at all?" when the issue is really "will the airline sell 787 tickets at a price that influences their decision whether to buy 787's or A330/350?"
If pax pay even 4% less, on average, for 9ab 787 seats than for 8ab A330 seats, then that could make a big difference, given the close-run efficiency/capacity propositions here.

I would pay at least 4% more for 2-4-2 18in seats. If that stance becomes widespread it will influence airline behavior. It may already be doing so: http://leehamnews.com/2017/01/04/market ... 7-concern/

If, if, if. If means that you don't know for sure, (except about your own preferences)....nobody knows for sure. I certainly don't, and don't claim to.

Business doesn't exist to be interesting; it exists to be profitable. Your issue literally can't be answered now because the answer itself requires time to have passed for results to occur. Thus, what you are looking for is speculation and the answer is, "nobody knows...yet".

Leeham is guessing...the same as me and you. We have access to most of the same information they do...though they call it 'speculating', which just means 'educated guessing'.

I have no idea how well the 330 will ultimately sell in relation to the 787 or how well the 787 will ultimately sell in relation to the 350, or how customers will ultimately accept various configurations of any of the models...nobody does, and I certainly won't claim to be the holder of a magical crystal ball.

One thing I do know, is a successful business is one that makes profit, and that takes customers. A business will fail if it can't or won't adapt to customer needs.

If customers abandon 787's and insist on flying 330's and 350's in the droves, then airlines that fly the 787 will inevitably abandon that aircraft, or adapt it the best they can, in order to compete.

As of right now, (based on my individual analysis of past trends, and speculating about the future), I doubt that's going to happen and we will continue to have the same basic duopoly for decades to come. The 787, 330 and 350 will all live on for decades to come. None of these planes seem to have enough advantage to knock the competition out of the game.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't have any money riding on it, so I'll survive either way.

The planned aircraft MTOW increase to 245 metric tons might increase range for the A330-900 by 200NM. Maybe before EIS. (The 7T MTOW increase on the CEO (from 235T to 242T) increased range by 500NM))
Looking at current A330 operations, it doesn't seem range is a real issue. It might not be the best machine for flying to/from Asia, but their are lots alternatives there.

Another advantage of the 787-9 seems to to be it enables overhead crew rests, A330s often use below floor crew rests.

I can still see the Boeing sales team consider the A330Neo as cheating and faul play.
B787 was supposed to be by itself by now and be able to recover all investments as monopol player in that market....

keesje wrote:

The planned aircraft MTOW increase to 245 metric tons might increase range for the A330-900 by 200NM. Maybe before EIS. (The 7T MTOW increase on the CEO (from 235T to 242T) increased range by 500NM))
Looking at current A330 operations, it doesn't seem range is a real issue. It might not be the best machine for flying to/from Asia, but their are lots alternatives there.

Another advantage of the 787-9 seems to to be it enables overhead crew rests, A330s often use below floor crew rests.

That looks like a mighty comfortable shisha den.

Not as important as payload range, but the 789 features significant improvements in the the maintenance department. Composite materials are not subject to traditional metal fatigue so C checks are much less intensive and are spaced out longer. Troubleshooting and maintenance are suppose to be similar / quicker / easier with the all electric system, significantly less bleed piping to deal with. Overall design focused heavily on reliability and maintenance intervals.

Also, utilization is slightly higher with the Mach .85 vs .80 cruise.