200+ aircraft on order for a reasonable development cost whilst eating up 787 orders.

Or is it rather a dud?

The A339 definitely looks like it has carved out a market. It fills an important part of the market once the A358 program was suspended.

The A338 is a different story with only 6 orders. I can't think of any airplane that has entered production with that small of an order book.

Isn't it a little bit early to make such an analysis? The first prototype is still missing its engines, let alone FF, EIS etc

I would say that it is a bit premature to consider it a dud or a success. But assuming that they do deliver all 200+ and development costs remain as low as most suspect (in other words, makes it to/past the breakeven point), then yes, it will most likely be a success. Then it's just going to be a matter of how big a success.

I think it is a wise investment. Minimal investment for Airbus en has a good number of extra sales. Gives them more room to maneuver to get the next development on line, A360, a 250 - 370 max. seat airliner to fill the place between the A321NEO and A350-900. And perhaps more important, keeps the price of the 787 in check, because there is a real competitor. For the marked, they have an alternative so they can keep pressure on Boeing and they are able to get slots earlier then with the 787.

The A338 probably will break even at 15 or 20 a/c, just the work for this derivative, so that is also a risk well taken, I think.

I predict a total number of around 500 will be sold. Not the biggest succes, but it will be able to contribute to Airbuses bottomline.

Dutchy wrote:

The A338 probably will break even at 15 or 20 a/c, just the work for this derivative, so that is also a risk well taken, I think.

.

I'm thinking that there will probably be a A338F at some point that this will need to be the base for

scouseflyer wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

The A338 probably will break even at 15 or 20 a/c, just the work for this derivative, so that is also a risk well taken, I think.

.

I'm thinking that there will probably be a A338F at some point that this will need to be the base for

Good call, think that variant will be build as well, so that should be good for another 50 - 100 or so.

I wouldn't say success or failure yet, far too soon. 200+ orders is good enough to be going on with, and we've had an indication that the leasing market may transition smoothly (Air Mauritius will lease A339s), and the A330 leasing market has traditionally been very strong. Airbus can leverage the A330's existing strengths onto the A330neo, and I think it will pick up quite a few orders, even if only a few of them are large or eye-catching.

The 800 was needed for the tanker and the freighter anyway...

I think this aircraft will have a five year sale opportunity. Its main competitor (787) is a very capable and versatile aircraft. It can fly medium and long haul more efficiently.

With the 787 expected to be upgraded in the 2024-2027 time frame, the A330 probably won't be able to compete.

The majority of the NEO's sales are with a very small customer base. In comparison the 787 has a customer base approaching 60 airlines.

On the other had A330CEO users are not in a rush to upgrade to the NEO with current fuel prices and the CEO also has a very wide customer base.

Put it this way: Would Airbus have sold 210 further A330s if they didn't launch the NEO?

It seems like a success before it even began, this program. Very low risk.

I think the A330neo is marketed towards airlines that are capital conscious and may not have access to capital as easily as some of the larger airlines. These are more likely younger/newer airlines, those with tight margins, or smaller airlines (and Delta). It is an important segment since many of these airlines can grow like Air Asia.

The A330ceo fleet for the most part has not reached retirement age. This could lead to many more A330neo orders. The potential Boeing MOM concept might compete fiercely in this segment. If prices can be kept low, a larger derivative MOM could target the replacement market for A330s currently flying regional routes in Asia. The MOM has received a lot of attention for Transatlantic potential, but I see it competing right against the A330neo for the Chinese market.

I think it's main purpose is to attack Boeing's 787 price. Airbus wants the 787 right between the A330neo and the A350.
Don't know if that works. They don't seem to sell to many A330neo recently while newer, improved 787 versions have become pricier.

I think we reached the same conclusion a while ago; it's a bit early,
There a good back / market potential. viewtopic.php?t=1346125
Since then Airbus mentioned a significant 252t MTOW bump is in the works.

If the interest is financial & strategic benefits :
Development cost is reported as roughly 2B$. Given no major issue apart from some slight schedule slippage on the engine side with no impact reported by the first customer TAP, there should be no significant overrun (so far)
Unit sales price is reported here as roughly 80M$. At 10-12% margin (which is on the low side for an established program), the profit margin is around 10M$.
So with the 200 sales so far, the program would be around break-even.

Meaning that any further sale is 10M$ straight into the Airbus bank account. Both in reality and in accounting sheets (seems to be an important distinction around here). Add in the side benefits of development experience, data generated, cabin upgrade, the pricing pressure on the 787... and it looks like a fairly successful project for the next few years.

Beyond a few years, the 787 will slowly pull away via routine corrections and upgrades. But it wll be progressive, as any step change these days seem to come from engines and an engine for the 787 should be adaptable to the 330. So at the very least, it will secure time for Airbus top management to calmly assess how things are evolving in terms of market needs, technologies and other potential products (MOM for instance) and decide how best to proceed.



If the interest is in applying the latest greatest coolest technologies, or at least claiming to change the face of the Earth with the latest greatest coolest technologies, then it is a dismal failure. Boring old-school stuff

The A330, in its two length variants, has outsold the 787 and its three variants in the last decade. The gap has increased since the launch of the A330neo.

There is a reason why Boeing is talking of a larger and larger MOM aircraft. I think it is getting larger in order to better compete with the A330 on medium haul.

Leeham recently had an article about this:
“It would be a two-member family: a smaller, 220-seast 7M7-8X and a larger 260/270-seat 7M7-9X in three class international configuration.”


In the comment section, "Meg" writes:
"Here is a list of 787 operators with a 3 class international configuration (J, Y+, Y). All numbers from seatguru.com.

787-8: Total number of seats

British Airways: 214
Japan Airlines: 161
American Airlines: 226
United: 219
China Southern: 228
ANA: 169

787-9: Total number of seats

British Airways: 216
Etihad: 231
ANA: 207
American Airlines: 276
Virgin Atlantic: 264
United: 252
Aeromexico: 274
Air France: 276
Japan Airlines: 194
Vietnam Airlines: 274

It sounds like Boeing plans to make 787-8 and 787-9 medium range versions."


Here is an overview of A330 and 787 orders in the last decade:

You can easily see the effect the 787-10 launch had in 2013, giving Boeing an order upper hand. A year later the A330neo launched, gradually pulling the number of orders in Airbus' favor. With a possible MTOW increase for the neo, to up 251 t, I think it is more likely that the future might bring an A330-1000, in order to better match the 787-10 in capacity.



The 787 never became the 767 replacement it was supposed to be. It never became the proclaimed A330 killer. In this regard, I think the A330 is a money making success story. The neo variants will move the A330 into longer haul, increasing the MOM gap in Airbus' lineup. I think an long range A321 and a possible A322 should be Airbus' next move, while it is probably best for Boeing to focus on the NSA.

Although the 338 has only 6 remaining orders after the Transasia closure and cancellation, Airbus continues to build and receive new orders for A332s.

So there is a demand for this size of longish-range widebody in the pax market. Plus, as stated above for F and MRTT versions (although with MTOW gains, these could conceivably be based on a 339 frame in the future)

Am I the only one, who has the feeling, that the A330neo is actually that, what the A350 should have been in first place? Before Airbus switched to the XWB-concept, they promoted actually an A330 with new engines and new carbon wings (and some other minor changes) as A350:





As we all know, that didn't work for most airlines, so Airbus had to scrap the idea. Now, after the A350 (successfully) became what we see now, some airlines demanded for an upgraded A330 again - the same thing, many airlines refused ten years ago. So is it a success, too? Actually I believe it is. For the A350 not being a A330-successor as it is much bigger, the "old" A350-design seems to be much more needed, than before. And in fact it got 200 orders by now. And I can imagine some more will come over the next years, making the A330neo a quite good product for both Airbus and the airlines.

conaly wrote:

Am I the only one, who has the feeling, that the A330neo is actually that, what the A350 should have been in first place? Before Airbus switched to the XWB-concept, they promoted actually an A330 with new engines and new carbon wings (and some other minor changes) as A350:





As we all know, that didn't work for most airlines, so Airbus had to scrap the idea. Now, after the A350 (successfully) became what we see now, some airlines demanded for an upgraded A330 again - the same thing, many airlines refused ten years ago. So is it a success, too? Actually I believe it is. For the A350 not being a A330-successor as it is much bigger, the "old" A350-design seems to be much more needed, than before. And in fact it got 200 orders by now. And I can imagine some more will come over the next years, making the A330neo a quite good product for both Airbus and the airlines.

I'm surprised they even bothered calling it an A350

Depends because imo airbus will have to produce a similar number of current A330s.
Imo I think it will be successful but it's too early to say if it is successful already.

VSMUT wrote:

I would say that it is a bit premature to consider it a dud or a success. But assuming that they do deliver all 200+ and development costs remain as low as most suspect (in other words, makes it to/past the breakeven point), then yes, it will most likely be a success. Then it's just going to be a matter of how big a success.

They are competing with the 787 and A350. Fuel is low now, but oil has always been volatile and higher oil prices make airlines think of more fuel efficient aircraft. A330neo's look good now with oil at or below $50.00 a barrel. Sort of a gamble to think oil will stay low for years to come. Trucks and SUV's are selling because the average car or truck buyer just looks at today's prices. Paying on a new vehicle for 5 to 7 years leaves a lot of gamble that prices will stay the same.
Delta buys a lot used used planes because of low acquisition costs and low oil prices. Again, its a gamble. It remains to be seen if the gamble pays off for some carriers buying the A330neo.

conaly wrote:

Am I the only one, who has the feeling, that the A330neo is actually that, what the A350 should have been in first place?

700+ orders suggest that the A350XWB was the right decision.

cheapgreek wrote:

They are competing with the 787 and A350. Fuel is low now, but oil has always been volatile and higher oil prices make airlines think of more fuel efficient aircraft. A330neo's look good now with oil at or below $50.00 a barrel. Sort of a gamble to think oil will stay low for years to come. Trucks and SUV's are selling because the average car or truck buyer just looks at today's prices. Paying on a new vehicle for 5 to 7 years leaves a lot of gamble that prices will stay the same.
Delta buys a lot used used planes because of low acquisition costs and low oil prices. Again, its a gamble. It remains to be seen if the gamble pays off for some carriers buying the A330neo.

Fuel is only one part of the equation, buying the aircraft is an entirely different prospect. It's the same reason why Delta kept those DC-9s flying for ages, or some airlines are ordering last-moment 777-300ERs and even A330-300s. 787s are very expensive, and the A330 can be made and sold for cheap.
Even so, the A330NEO isn't at all that bad, it is almost on par with the 787. Some A.netters have a habit of equating the A330NEO to something like a DC-10, but everything indicates that it will beat the 787 on cost on shorter routes. It has much lower acquisition costs, which makes up for the slightly higher fuel burn. In reality, the A330NEO vs 787 situation compares very similarly to the 737MAX vs A320NEO. The 737MAX is worse, but not enough to not sell a ton of them.
IMHO, A330NEO customers will love the plane. Airbus might not sell more than 500, but they will sell enough to cover all development costs.

VSMUT wrote:

Airbus might not sell more than 500, but they will sell enough to cover all development costs.

And those 500 are sales that may otherwise have been 787s.

conaly wrote:

Am I the only one, who has the feeling, that the A330neo is actually that, what the A350 should have been in first place? Before Airbus switched to the XWB-concept, they promoted actually an A330 with new engines and new carbon wings (and some other minor changes) as A350:

The A350 is a 77E/77W replacement, the A330 doesn't have the legs to do many of the medium-long haul routes with large cargo levels.

VSMUT wrote:

700+ orders suggest that the A350XWB was the right decision.

There are 800+ orders, 821 firm orders to be exact (8 A358, 602 A359 and 211 A35J).

The A359 and A35J is near identical in cabin square Ft. / meters as the 772 and 77W respectively. Likewise, the A338 and A339 is near identical in cabin square Ft. / meters as the 788 and 789 respectively.

There isn't that much direct competition between the A350 and 787. The 787-10 is near A359 size, but these aircraft have very different capabilities. The first one is a medium haul aircraft, while the latter is capable of ultra-long haul.

If A330Neo gets 500 sold it means 1000 engines for RR without major development and 500 frames for Airbus without major development.

I think that A330Neo will sell around 40% marketshare until around 2025 when the 787 will get a Neo treatment.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

And those 500 are sales that may otherwise have been 787s.

Are you sure they wouldn't otherwise have been 350s? People always seem to think the 787 is the only "victim" of a 330 NEO sale, I don't think that's true. For one I don't recall many RFPs pitting the 330 NEO vs the 787 and second, in my view the more salient point, the 330 NEO rounds out Airbus' core widebody offering, four aircraft in total and two stars (339 and 359). Kinda like Boeing's current offering of core widebody twin family (789 and 779). And just like the 777X, I think the vast majority of current and future 330NEO sales will go to long time users of the 330 CEO family.

Airbus as delivered as end of February 2017.

A330-200: 642 aircraft, backlog 44 aircraft.
A330-300: 688 aircraft, backlog 94 aircraft.

Backlog A330-800, 6 aircraft.
Backlog A330-900, 204 aircraft.

In the last 10 years Airbus has received more than 1000 orders for the A330. Even if the neo variants only become half that popular, Airbus should be very pleased. With the current backlog and an additional 500 orders over the next 10 years (50 per year), Airbus can increase production from the current 6 per month to 7 per month and maintain that production to 2028. Around 2030 the A330 might need a new refresh.

wingman wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

And those 500 are sales that may otherwise have been 787s.

Are you sure they wouldn't otherwise have been 350s? People always seem to think the 787 is the only "victim" of a 330 NEO sale

I don't think so. The A330 and A350 are quite different both in size and capabilities. But, even more importantly, Airbus is struggling to ramp up A350 production to 10 per month. It already has the production capability to go 10 per month on the A330 line. Remember that Boeing producing the 787 at a rate of 12 per month is an unprecedented achievement. The current A350 backlog represents more than 7 years production at 10 per month. Airbus needs to free up slots on the A350 line in order to sell more A35Js. This can be done by moving A350 customer over to the A330neo. Increasing the MTOW to a possible 251 t, can open more opportunities in that regard.

People here always assume at it is better for Airbus to sell an A350. The A350 has not meet breakeven yet, while the A330 is Airbus' bread and butter. Airbus will try to convince a customer, whenever they can, to order the A330 instead of the A350. This is better since there is available production capabilities on the A330 line, frees up production slots on the A350 line, and brings in a higher profit.

I would rename the thread "Would You Regard The A330-900neo A Success."

Even then, it remains to be see. Development costs were low, and it is one of the more affordable new widebodies out there, so I don't expect it would be much to break even.

The -800neo will not survive with its current backlog, unless of course, the -800neo becomes a freighter as well. It it can break a triple digit logbook, then sure.

Will Airbus be forced to come up with the -800 this time? HA is the only buyer so far but it was forced off from A350-800 to A330-800 already. You can't really force the same customer into another product twice. Besides, Airbus's product line does not have anything else that would satisfy HA's unique need for A330/A350-800 (that size-range combination). It would be interesting to see what would happen to the -800, or rather what would happen to the HA order.

Lets us now see, the A330-900 has currently 204 orders, if that is all than it is more than the 757-300, 767-200, 767-200ER, 767-300, 767-400ER, 777-200LR or 777-200LR and 777F together, 777-200, 777-300, do I have to go on?

raylee67 wrote:

Will Airbus be forced to come up with the -800 this time? HA is the only buyer so far but it was forced off from A350-800 to A330-800 already. You can't really force the same customer into another product twice. Besides, Airbus's product line does not have anything else that would satisfy HA's unique need for A330/A350-800 (that size-range combination). It would be interesting to see what would happen to the -800, or rather what would happen to the HA order.

Indeed. Perhaps HA will have to look back to Boeing for longer range needs. It remains to be seen if the 330-800neo, if it's even built, can provide that range.

There are plenty of A330-200 operators who will want to replace them with the Neo in due course....... Just because only 1 airline currently has them on order, it doesn't mean they will be the only one.

mjoelnir wrote:

Lets us now see, the A330-900 has currently 204 orders, if that is all than it is more than the 757-300, 767-200, 767-200ER, 767-300, 767-400ER, 777-200LR or 777-200LR and 777F together, 777-200, 777-300, do I have to go on?

Compared to a few thousand comparable A350 and 787, and to a lesser extent, 777 models sold. What's your point?

mjoelnir wrote:

Lets us now see, the A330-900 has currently 204 orders, if that is all than it is more than the 757-300, 767-200, 767-200ER, 767-300, 767-400ER, 777-200LR or 777-200LR and 777F together, 777-200, 777-300, do I have to go on?

I think you must go on if you are to have any hope of making a logical point. Are you saying that the 330-900 is in competition on an individual basis with all of these individual Boeing types and only according to your grouping? This is the type of post that loses me. Airbus itself evangelizes the concept of an aircraft family. Boeing does too, it's a widely accepted notion and let's face it, it's fact. So would you not go back in time and simply compare total sales and backlogs of the 330 family against the 767 family, or perhaps the 330 against the 787 family, or the 330 ad 350 against the 787 family, better yet why not add the 300 and 310 to the mix and compare all of them to the 757-300? Do you see my point? It's that you don't make a good one or even have one at all.

Use whatever time-frame you want and I'd argue that it's best to compare one display of apples to another, let's call the competing displays "widebody twin" apples. Select your time-frame and tell us what you get for deliveries and backlog. And separate from that I find it hard to believe that a 339 sales means only a lost opportunity for a 788 or 789 and not a 358. It simply beggars belief.

Fiend wrote:

There are plenty of A330-200 operators who will want to replace them with the Neo in due course....... Just because only 1 airline currently has them on order, it doesn't mean they will be the only one.

Agreed. I can see the Thomas Cook Group looking at -800's to replace their -200's across their UK and Acandinavian divisions and maybe to replace the 767's at Condor. That would be worth about 20-odd frames alone and, Condor aside, would mean minimal training costs.

azjubilee wrote:

Perhaps HA will have to look back to Boeing for longer range needs.

What Boeing product would meet your fancy here?

WIederling wrote:

azjubilee wrote:

Perhaps HA will have to look back to Boeing for longer range needs.

What Boeing product would meet your fancy here?

If they looked at Boeing, I would imagine the 787 would be in play.

Boeing778X wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Lets us now see, the A330-900 has currently 204 orders, if that is all than it is more than the 757-300, 767-200, 767-200ER, 767-300, 767-400ER, 777-200LR or 777-200LR and 777F together, 777-200, 777-300, do I have to go on?

Compared to a few thousand comparable A350 and 787, and to a lesser extent, 777 models sold. What's your point?

Perhaps you would see it when you would start to think about it.

Most wide body series have very few models beating 200 frames. There is no wide body model having managed 1,000, so I can hardly follow your few thousands. No 787 model has reached a thousand, the 787-8 419, the 787-9 639 and the 787-10 149.
Only one 767 model, the 767-300ER, managed more than 200 and of the 8 777 models 3 managed to beat 200 frames, the 777-200ER the 777-300ER and now the 777-9 with 253.
Any single model in a wide body series having reached 200 is already pretty successful.

mjoelnir wrote:

Lets us now see, the A330-900 has currently 204 orders, if that is all than it is more than the 757-300, 767-200, 767-200ER, 767-300, 767-400ER, 777-200LR or 777-200LR and 777F together, 777-200, 777-300, do I have to go on?

Even if we said no, I don't think that would stop you. (I mean this with love.)

cheapgreek wrote:

Delta buys a lot used used planes because of low acquisition costs and low oil prices. Again, its a gamble.

Perhaps, but it's a well-proven one. DL (and NW) have been doing it for decades, through multiple boom/bust cycles.

Clearly, they find the low CapEx + flexibility allowed by opping a paid off fleet, to be of higher value than any potential fuel savings.

azjubilee wrote:

WIederling wrote:

azjubilee wrote:

Perhaps HA will have to look back to Boeing for longer range needs.

What Boeing product would meet your fancy here?

If they looked at Boeing, I would imagine the 787 would be in play.

A338NEO already has more range than the 788. What else could turn around HA ?

wingman wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Lets us now see, the A330-900 has currently 204 orders, if that is all than it is more than the 757-300, 767-200, 767-200ER, 767-300, 767-400ER, 777-200LR or 777-200LR and 777F together, 777-200, 777-300, do I have to go on?

I think you must go on if you are to have any hope of making a logical point. Are you saying that the 330-900 is in competition on an individual basis with all of these individual Boeing types and only according to your grouping? This is the type of post that loses me. Airbus itself evangelizes the concept of an aircraft family. Boeing does too, it's a widely accepted notion and let's face it, it's fact. So would you not go back in time and simply compare total sales and backlogs of the 330 family against the 767 family, or perhaps the 330 against the 787 family, or the 330 ad 350 against the 787 family, better yet why not add the 300 and 310 to the mix and compare all of them to the 757-300? Do you see my point? It's that you don't make a good one or even have one at all.

Use whatever time-frame you want and I'd argue that it's best to compare one display of apples to another, let's call the competing displays "widebody twin" apples. Select your time-frame and tell us what you get for deliveries and backlog. And separate from that I find it hard to believe that a 339 sales means only a lost opportunity for a 788 or 789 and not a 358. It simply beggars belief.

If you do not see the logical point, I can not help you. If you take the A330 total all models, you look at the second most successful wide body series, if you add only the A340-200/300, same fuselage, same wing, different engines, it is the most successful. Now the A330-900 as a single model has managed to attract 204 orders before EIS, that is more than most single wide body models have managed. There are a few exceptions, the 787-8 and -9, the 777-9 and the A350-900 and -1000.

VSMUT wrote:

conaly wrote:

Am I the only one, who has the feeling, that the A330neo is actually that, what the A350 should have been in first place?

700+ orders suggest that the A350XWB was the right decision.

cheapgreek wrote:

They are competing with the 787 and A350. Fuel is low now, but oil has always been volatile and higher oil prices make airlines think of more fuel efficient aircraft. A330neo's look good now with oil at or below $50.00 a barrel. Sort of a gamble to think oil will stay low for years to come. Trucks and SUV's are selling because the average car or truck buyer just looks at today's prices. Paying on a new vehicle for 5 to 7 years leaves a lot of gamble that prices will stay the same.
Delta buys a lot used used planes because of low acquisition costs and low oil prices. Again, its a gamble. It remains to be seen if the gamble pays off for some carriers buying the A330neo.

Fuel is only one part of the equation, buying the aircraft is an entirely different prospect. It's the same reason why Delta kept those DC-9s flying for ages, or some airlines are ordering last-moment 777-300ERs and even A330-300s. 787s are very expensive, and the A330 can be made and sold for cheap.
Even so, the A330NEO isn't at all that bad, it is almost on par with the 787. Some A.netters have a habit of equating the A330NEO to something like a DC-10, but everything indicates that it will beat the 787 on cost on shorter routes. It has much lower acquisition costs, which makes up for the slightly higher fuel burn. In reality, the A330NEO vs 787 situation compares very similarly to the 737MAX vs A320NEO. The 737MAX is worse, but not enough to not sell a ton of them.
IMHO, A330NEO customers will love the plane. Airbus might not sell more than 500, but they will sell enough to cover all development costs.

Up front purchase costs need to be considered over a number of years. Average life of a jet liner can be 15-20+ years. Without knowing the actual selling price of both planes, its hard to be exact on which is the better deal. Boeing has delivered over 500 frames and the manufacturing cost has dropped due to quicker build times so to say that "787s are very expensive, and the A330 can be made and sold for cheap" is conjecture.

Don't just think narrowly about competing with the 787. Think about Airbus vs. Boeing as a whole. Without the 330neo, Airbus would have had a narrow widebody twin product range -- just the A350-900 and A350-1000. The A350-900 is vulnerable from below with the 787-9, although both have held their own, while the A350-1000 has been having some difficulty with the 777-9X attacking it from above. If Airbus wanted to continue selling 15+ widebodies per month, they needed a wider product range than that.

I don't think the A330neo has a long production run in front of it. As soon as there is the first 787 refresh, it's done. But it will help Airbus maintain production during a near-decade gap and keep the price pressure on the 787.

I was a diehard A330neo skeptic, and I still don't think it will sell like the A330ceo, but it has been more of a strategic success for Airbus than I would have thought.

Well don't forget the 300 and 310! I mean the only difference is the engine, wing and flight controls right? And even if Boeing still sold 500 more widebody twins than Airbus is all of history you could still say that Airbus was the champion and maybe even parade around your neighborhood with a model 330 and a birthday hat. The logic is spellbinding. If you're a trial lawyer I bet you won every case so far.

mjoelnir wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Lets us now see, the A330-900 has currently 204 orders, if that is all than it is more than the 757-300, 767-200, 767-200ER, 767-300, 767-400ER, 777-200LR or 777-200LR and 777F together, 777-200, 777-300, do I have to go on?

Compared to a few thousand comparable A350 and 787, and to a lesser extent, 777 models sold. What's your point?

Perhaps you would see it when you would start to think about it.

Most wide body series have very few models beating 200 frames. There is no wide body model having managed 1,000, so I can hardly follow your few thousands. No 787 model has reached a thousand, the 787-8 419, the 787-9 639 and the 787-10 149.
Only one 767 model, the 767-300ER, managed more than 200 and of the 8 777 models 3 managed to beat 200 frames, the 777-200ER the 777-300ER and now the 777-9 with 253.
Any single model in a wide body series having reached 200 is already pretty successful.

Too bad I don't. This is all an irrelevant load of nonsense.

In the grand scheme of things, the A330ceo, 767 and 777, each having been highly successful, having broken over 1000 deliveries, while the 787 eventually will. Sub models are only part of the whole.

The A350, surprisingly, is still in a triple digit number of orders, and the A330neo has much catching up to do.

Boeing778X wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

Compared to a few thousand comparable A350 and 787, and to a lesser extent, 777 models sold. What's your point?

Perhaps you would see it when you would start to think about it.

Most wide body series have very few models beating 200 frames. There is no wide body model having managed 1,000, so I can hardly follow your few thousands. No 787 model has reached a thousand, the 787-8 419, the 787-9 639 and the 787-10 149.
Only one 767 model, the 767-300ER, managed more than 200 and of the 8 777 models 3 managed to beat 200 frames, the 777-200ER the 777-300ER and now the 777-9 with 253.
Any single model in a wide body series having reached 200 is already pretty successful.

Too bad I don't. This is all an irrelevant load of nonsense.

In the grand scheme of things, the A330ceo, 767 and 777, each having been highly successful, having broken over 1000 deliveries, while the 787 eventually will. Sub models are only part of the whole.

The A350, surprisingly, is still in a triple digit number of orders, and the A330neo has much catching up to do.

Not as irrelevant nonsense as you talking about thousands of orders for a wide body model. If you look only at the whole series, than the A330 has done its work, roaring success. If we look at a single model, few wide bodies managed more than the 204 orders before EIS for the A330neo.

The biggest nonsense you try to offer is looking at the A330ceo and neo separate, but talking about the success of the 777 and 767 as a whole not regarding single models.

During the last 10 years A330 CEO and NEO has been one of the top 2 selling models each year, and many years the top selling model...

Why will this not continue for a while?