Is the 787 the proper A330 replacement for Hawaiian?

OA940 · Thu Jun 15, 2017 1:23 pm

I was wondering, since the 787-8 has the same capacity as the A330-200 and the 787-9 around the same as the A350-800 which they were planning to use for Europe, and both have long range, is the 787 a good fit for Hawaiian to expand to Europe and go further into America and Asia, all while boosting capacity on current routes?

Polot · Thu Jun 15, 2017 1:42 pm

Technically yes, the 787 is a good A330 replacement. But HA have the A338 on order, which of course is the exact same size as their A332s. Granted they are currently the only customer for the variant...

Amiga500 · Thu Jun 15, 2017 2:01 pm

I'd have though the 789 a better solution - HA doesn't have many short legs does it? So the trade-off of fuel burn efficiency of the 789 vs. the build cost of the 339 would be more toward Seattle.

A 788... maybe buy cheaper ones from leasors that have come off lease? Otherwise it's a poor capital expenditure given model depreciation.

Momo1435 · Thu Jun 15, 2017 2:04 pm

Their A332 fleet is also still very young, they will not be replaced anytime soon. The A358 -> A338 order was, like you already say clearly for expansion. Only if Airbus decides to shelve the A338 it will become a question what Hawaiian will do. I could see them converting the A338 back to the A350 but now the -900. They will probably won't have to pay too much extra for the A359 when this scenario happens. It would be the 2nd time that they will have to change their order because of Airbus, that gives them a lot of bargaining power.

But for now Airbus is still going ahead with the A338.

parapente · Thu Jun 15, 2017 2:26 pm

Airbus really aren't going to build and certificate the 338neo for one order -would you?
It stays there for the moment as their is a MOM was of marketing words raging at the moment.
If you can't sell 338's now how many are you gonna sell when the 797 is launched (no need to answer).
I imagine this order will move (with a nice discount) to 339's.
As for what Airbus decide to do when the 797 launches who knows!I imagine they will protect their 320 line of products with some form of 322 short term but once the 338 is gone ,just like Boeing ,there will be a huge gap in pax/range between the A321NEO and the A339/359.They can't let Boeing simply walk away with it.Clearly brand new engines circa 42k lbs thrust will be required for the Boeing project.I can't see Airbus just ignoring them.

Polot · Thu Jun 15, 2017 2:31 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
I'd have though the 789 a better solution - HA doesn't have many short legs does it? So the trade-off of fuel burn efficiency of the 789 vs. the build cost of the 339 would be more toward Seattle.

A 788... maybe buy cheaper ones from leasors that have come off lease? Otherwise it's a poor capital expenditure given model depreciation.

HA does operate many relatively short hops for widebodies (think Hawaii->West Coast), but I suspect that in the future the A321neo will be eating more and more into those markets.

The biggest issue with the 789/A359+ and HA has always been size. HA is not a premium carrier, their A332s are rather dense (they seat close the same number of people as AA/DL's A333s, and before HA's new premium product use to seat more than those A333s), and they are mostly reliant on O&D traffic to fill them on their routes. Jumping to something even larger means a huge step up in capacity. I'm aware the likes of UA operate dense 777s that seat even more passengers on their Hawaiian routes, but UA has a large domestic network spanning the continental US (+ the loyal passengers than gives them) to help fill them.

ericm2031 · Thu Jun 15, 2017 2:44 pm

Momo1435 wrote:
Their A332 fleet is also still very young, they will not be replaced anytime soon. The A358 -> A338 order was, like you already say clearly for expansion. Only if Airbus decides to shelve the A338 it will become a question what Hawaiian will do. I could see them converting the A338 back to the A350 but now the -900. They will probably won't have to pay too much extra for the A359 when this scenario happens. It would be the 2nd time that they will have to change their order because of Airbus, that gives them a lot of bargaining power.

But for now Airbus is still going ahead with the A338.

I agree. HA has a ton of negotiating power right now. The A330NEO only has 200 orders with a year left before launch. Losing a customer entirely, although only 6 frames, would not be good for Airbus. The model also doesn't really have a marquee list of customers either, so they need to hold onto what they have otherwise the lessors might get a little worried about who they will place their models with and that could trigger a ripple effect.

pabloeing · Thu Jun 15, 2017 3:16 pm

The A338 seems dead......

AWACSooner · Thu Jun 15, 2017 3:26 pm

Just curious, why are we discussing this? HA's 330's aren't even a decade old and they've got contracts with Airbus for 350's et al. As much as I'd love to see them return to Boeing for their fleet needs, this ship has sailed.

jbs2886 · Thu Jun 15, 2017 3:32 pm

AWACSooner wrote:
Just curious, why are we discussing this? HA's 330's aren't even a decade old and they've got contracts with Airbus for 350's et al. As much as I'd love to see them return to Boeing for their fleet needs, this ship has sailed.

Well, they don't have contracts for A350s - that contract became A338.

IMO, Airbus should just drop the A338, Hawaiian should convert those orders to more A321neos and then order 787-9/10s (-9s for longer US and Austral-Asian routes and -10s for US Pacific markets).

Regardless, Airbus has to do something with the A338, as it is 6 aircraft isn't enough to make an entirely new model and I highly doubt Hawaiian would want to be the sole operator of a type. I suspect Airbus is waiting to see what Boeing does with the NMA/MOM/797 and then will respond accordingly - whether that's a A322 or revamped A338.

JetBuddy · Thu Jun 15, 2017 3:53 pm

I believe Airbus will definately go ahead with the A338neo. The costs of developing it along with the A339neo are very low.

MO11 · Thu Jun 15, 2017 3:56 pm

Hawaiian is planning Europe?

jbs2886 · Thu Jun 15, 2017 3:59 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
I believe Airbus will definately go ahead with the A338neo. The costs of developing it along with the A339neo are very low.

Sure, they are low, but not low enough for 6 aircraft.

Polot · Thu Jun 15, 2017 4:00 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
I believe Airbus will definately go ahead with the A338neo. The costs of developing it along with the A339neo are very low.

The costs is low, but I doubt even HA's order is covering it (considering the history of that order Airbus is probably making very little money off of it at this point).

VSMUT · Thu Jun 15, 2017 4:26 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
I believe Airbus will definately go ahead with the A338neo. The costs of developing it along with the A339neo are very low.

Sure, they are low, but not low enough for 6 aircraft.

They need to develop it if they want to hang on to the freighter and airtanker markets.

mjoelnir · Thu Jun 15, 2017 4:30 pm

There are several reasons to build the A330-800. It should be the base for the future MRTT and i would expect a F. Airbus is offering it as a corporate jet.

On the other side we really do not know, if Airbus is in discussions with airlines about the A330-800, the predecessor, the -200, is still selling.

gatibosgru · Thu Jun 15, 2017 4:52 pm

I think the 787 might be too much aircraft for the route that could easily be done with the A330. Add the cost of introducing a new type and it just makes sense for them to stay with the A330 family.

jbs2886 · Thu Jun 15, 2017 4:57 pm

VSMUT wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
I believe Airbus will definately go ahead with the A338neo. The costs of developing it along with the A339neo are very low.

Sure, they are low, but not low enough for 6 aircraft.

They need to develop it if they want to hang on to the freighter and airtanker markets.

Neither of which are big markets right now, but that definitely will impact whether or not it is developed.

OA940 · Thu Jun 15, 2017 6:10 pm

AWACSooner wrote:
Just curious, why are we discussing this? HA's 330's aren't even a decade old and they've got contracts with Airbus for 350's et al. As much as I'd love to see them return to Boeing for their fleet needs, this ship has sailed.

Just out of curiosity, it just popped in my head and seemed like a great idea for HA.

MO11 wrote:
Hawaiian is planning Europe?

They were with the A350-800, buuuuuuuut we all know what happened to that. Their A330-800neo's probably wouldn't be remotely close to economical for European flights from HNL non-stop, and they even said they were looking into the A380 for London and Paris a while back. And the 787 can make the journey (if it can fly LAX-SIN or PER-LHR)

Polot wrote:
HA does operate many relatively short hops for widebodies (think Hawaii->West Coast), but I suspect that in the future the A321neo will be eating more and more into those markets.

The biggest issue with the 789/A359+ and HA has always been size. HA is not a premium carrier, their A332s are rather dense (they seat close the same number of people as AA/DL's A333s, and before HA's new premium product use to seat more than those A333s), and they are mostly reliant on O&D traffic to fill them on their routes. Jumping to something even larger means a huge step up in capacity. I'm aware the likes of UA operate dense 777s that seat even more passengers on their Hawaiian routes, but UA has a large domestic network spanning the continental US (+ the loyal passengers than gives them) to help fill them.

I always thought that they'd launch competitive seats to sustain European flights, and pretty sure they intend to if they wanna go ULH. Maybe even W, since those 15+ hour flights won't be pleasant in Y.

QXAS · Thu Jun 15, 2017 6:38 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
IMO, Airbus should just drop the A338, Hawaiian should convert those orders to more A321neos and then order 787-9/10s (-9s for longer US and Austral-Asian routes and -10s for US Pacific markets).

I agree with this. If Airbus decides against the A338, the 339 and 359 are both to much airplane for HA. It would also be the second time that the order would be forced to a new airplane. I can't see that being very good for HA's relationship with Airbus. But the big question IMO is if HA dropped the order would Boeing be willing to sell 788 to HA? 789 would also seem be to much airplane. But it seems the 789 gives extra seats without much extra operating cost.

RL777 · Thu Jun 15, 2017 6:59 pm

The A338 is unlikely to be built and I have a difficult time seeing the A359 suiting HAs current network unless they're planning some expansion (Europe). The 787 specifically the 788 seems to make the most sense however the 789 has proven to be a better deal given the similar operating costs.

irelayer · Thu Jun 15, 2017 7:03 pm

AWACSooner wrote:
Just curious, why are we discussing this? HA's 330's aren't even a decade old and they've got contracts with Airbus for 350's et al. As much as I'd love to see them return to Boeing for their fleet needs, this ship has sailed.

I really dislike when people ask these questions. To be fair, I've done it in the past. However, this is a discussion forum for exactly this subject. So to be asking this even in the rhetorical sense is a bit silly to me.

Anyway, the title of the thread was "Is the 787 the proper A330 Replacement for Hawaiian?" and the answer to that question is yes.

-IR

lostsound · Thu Jun 15, 2017 7:10 pm

If Hawaiian wanted the 787 they'd order it. The airline knows better about it's operations than A.net, these threads are ridiculous and to me just a bunch of fanfare for a particular aircraft over another.

jbs2886 · Thu Jun 15, 2017 7:25 pm

lostsound wrote:
If Hawaiian wanted the 787 they'd order it. The airline knows better about it's operations than A.net, these threads are ridiculous and to me just a bunch of fanfare for a particular aircraft over another.

Wow, this is a big contribution to the thread. If you don't like this kind of speculation, you probably shouldn't be reading a.net, just stick to the news. Or, if you don't like these threads, why do you read and comment?

cschleic · Thu Jun 15, 2017 7:28 pm

Like said above, the A321NEO probably will cut into some widebody routes, and routes to the mainland probably will start to fragment to secondary cities.

HA's bigger problem will be how to replace the 717s.

jbs2886 · Thu Jun 15, 2017 7:29 pm

QXAS wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:
IMO, Airbus should just drop the A338, Hawaiian should convert those orders to more A321neos and then order 787-9/10s (-9s for longer US and Austral-Asian routes and -10s for US Pacific markets).

I agree with this. If Airbus decides against the A338, the 339 and 359 are both to much airplane for HA. It would also be the second time that the order would be forced to a new airplane. I can't see that being very good for HA's relationship with Airbus. But the big question IMO is if HA dropped the order would Boeing be willing to sell 788 to HA? 789 would also seem be to much airplane. But it seems the 789 gives extra seats without much extra operating cost.

I wonder what is "too much airplane" for Hawaiian with the A321neos coming on board. I suspect the model will change a bit and a 789 (or even 339) may be fine given that the smaller-end is covered by the A321neo. I'm certain Hawaiian can fill a 789/339/359 to LAX, SFO, SEA, JFK and even add other cities (ORD).

Dutchy · Thu Jun 15, 2017 7:32 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
I believe Airbus will definately go ahead with the A338neo. The costs of developing it along with the A339neo are very low.

Second that! Small investment to have a better line-up even if it sells in low numbers.

Stitch · Thu Jun 15, 2017 7:33 pm

parapente wrote:
Airbus really aren't going to build and certificate the 338neo for one order -would you?

Why not? It is not like the differences between the A330-800 and A330-900 are all that great - it's a fuselage shrink and a slightly larger tailplane, as I recall. It can also form the platform for future freighter and MRTT orders. They can also pitch it to Asiana, who still have 8 A350-800s on order that will never be delivered and could use it as an upgauge for their 7 767-300ERs or on new long-haul services not yet ready for A350-900s.

jbs2886 · Thu Jun 15, 2017 7:34 pm

Dutchy wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
I believe Airbus will definately go ahead with the A338neo. The costs of developing it along with the A339neo are very low.

Second that! Small investment to have a better line-up even if it sells in low numbers.

Who cares about a line-up if it doesn't sell. Just give the airline a discount on the 339 to compensate. Its not just a "small investment" (which will be in the millions), but there will be different parts, certifications, etc., that adds cost for the airline, too. Aircraft are not typical production items that you can just add on at little to no cost.

Dutchy · Thu Jun 15, 2017 7:38 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
I believe Airbus will definately go ahead with the A338neo. The costs of developing it along with the A339neo are very low.

Second that! Small investment to have a better line-up even if it sells in low numbers.

Who cares about a line-up if it doesn't sell. Just give the airline a discount on the 339 to compensate. Its not just a "small investment" (which will be in the millions), but there will be different parts, certifications, etc., that adds cost for the airline, too. Aircraft are not typical production items that you can just add on at little to no cost.

I understand, but as mentioned above, it will be the base for the MRTT-NEO and the F model as well. So abandoning the A338 will mean abandoning the freighter and refueling business as well. So for me it make sense to go ahead with the A330-800 for HA, even though there are only 6 on order.

jbs2886 · Thu Jun 15, 2017 7:48 pm

Dutchy wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

Second that! Small investment to have a better line-up even if it sells in low numbers.

Who cares about a line-up if it doesn't sell. Just give the airline a discount on the 339 to compensate. Its not just a "small investment" (which will be in the millions), but there will be different parts, certifications, etc., that adds cost for the airline, too. Aircraft are not typical production items that you can just add on at little to no cost.

I understand, but as mentioned above, it will be the base for the MRTT-NEO and the F model as well. So abandoning the A338 will mean abandoning the freighter and refueling business as well. So for me it make sense to go ahead with the A330-800 for HA, even though there are only 6 on order.

There are a total of 51 MRTTs ordered and 42 Fs - that makes 2 additional variants with their own costs. Furthermore, not developing A338 does not mean Airbus "abandons" the freighter and refueling business. In fact, they could continue to produce A332MRTT and A332Fs - which is what I expect Boeing to continue to do with the 777F (for a time) even after the 777X is being produced.

Also, you says it "will" be the base for the MRTT and F neo versions. I'm not aware of any indication that Airbus intends to develop them anyways.

Dutchy · Thu Jun 15, 2017 7:56 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:

Who cares about a line-up if it doesn't sell. Just give the airline a discount on the 339 to compensate. Its not just a "small investment" (which will be in the millions), but there will be different parts, certifications, etc., that adds cost for the airline, too. Aircraft are not typical production items that you can just add on at little to no cost.

I understand, but as mentioned above, it will be the base for the MRTT-NEO and the F model as well. So abandoning the A338 will mean abandoning the freighter and refueling business as well. So for me it make sense to go ahead with the A330-800 for HA, even though there are only 6 on order.

There are a total of 51 MRTTs ordered and 42 Fs - that makes 2 additional variants with their own costs. Furthermore, not developing A338 does not mean Airbus "abandons" the freighter and refueling business. In fact, they could continue to produce A332MRTT and A332Fs - which is what I expect Boeing to continue to do with the 777F (for a time) even after the 777X is being produced.

Also, you says it "will" be the base for the MRTT and F neo versions. I'm not aware of any indication that Airbus intends to develop them anyways.

Ok, fair enough, would be the base for the MRTT and F versions. Doesn't Boeing have said the 778 will be the base for the F model? Can't find the orders for the 778, even Boeing list them as 777X, not distinguishing between the -8 and -9.

aemoreira1981 · Thu Jun 15, 2017 8:02 pm

parapente wrote:
Airbus really aren't going to build and certificate the 338neo for one order -would you?
It stays there for the moment as their is a MOM was of marketing words raging at the moment.
If you can't sell 338's now how many are you gonna sell when the 797 is launched (no need to answer).
I imagine this order will move (with a nice discount) to 339's.
As for what Airbus decide to do when the 797 launches who knows!I imagine they will protect their 320 line of products with some form of 322 short term but once the 338 is gone ,just like Boeing ,there will be a huge gap in pax/range between the A321NEO and the A339/359.They can't let Boeing simply walk away with it.Clearly brand new engines circa 42k lbs thrust will be required for the Boeing project.I can't see Airbus just ignoring them.

This order might be built so that a freighter version can then be certified off of it...unless the A350-900XWB has a freighter version instead. If HA has to change the order again, the Boeing 787-9 would be the plane that is ideal unless there is a deep discount on the A359. HA needs the maximum range.

jbs2886 · Thu Jun 15, 2017 8:05 pm

Dutchy wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

I understand, but as mentioned above, it will be the base for the MRTT-NEO and the F model as well. So abandoning the A338 will mean abandoning the freighter and refueling business as well. So for me it make sense to go ahead with the A330-800 for HA, even though there are only 6 on order.

There are a total of 51 MRTTs ordered and 42 Fs - that makes 2 additional variants with their own costs. Furthermore, not developing A338 does not mean Airbus "abandons" the freighter and refueling business. In fact, they could continue to produce A332MRTT and A332Fs - which is what I expect Boeing to continue to do with the 777F (for a time) even after the 777X is being produced.

Also, you says it "will" be the base for the MRTT and F neo versions. I'm not aware of any indication that Airbus intends to develop them anyways.

Ok, fair enough, would be the base for the MRTT and F versions. Doesn't Boeing have said the 778 will be the base for the F model? Can't find the orders for the 778, even Boeing list them as 777X, not distinguishing between the -8 and -9.

Boeing has not launched a 77X-F. In fact, I believe Boeing has stated that they will continue to produce 777Fs even while 777Xs are in production. There just isn't a market for newly-developed freighters now (777X or A330neos).

Dutchy · Thu Jun 15, 2017 8:08 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:

There are a total of 51 MRTTs ordered and 42 Fs - that makes 2 additional variants with their own costs. Furthermore, not developing A338 does not mean Airbus "abandons" the freighter and refueling business. In fact, they could continue to produce A332MRTT and A332Fs - which is what I expect Boeing to continue to do with the 777F (for a time) even after the 777X is being produced.

Also, you says it "will" be the base for the MRTT and F neo versions. I'm not aware of any indication that Airbus intends to develop them anyways.

Ok, fair enough, would be the base for the MRTT and F versions. Doesn't Boeing have said the 778 will be the base for the F model? Can't find the orders for the 778, even Boeing list them as 777X, not distinguishing between the -8 and -9.

Boeing has not launched a 77X-F. In fact, I believe Boeing has stated that they will continue to produce 777Fs even while 777Xs are in production. There just isn't a market for newly-developed freighters now (777X or A330neos).

True. If was looking for the breakdown between the -9 and -8 models, but couldnot find it. The -8 hasn't sold in large numbers, but probably more than the 6 HA examples of the A338.

Polot · Thu Jun 15, 2017 8:15 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
I wonder what is "too much airplane" for Hawaiian with the A321neos coming on board. I suspect the model will change a bit and a 789 (or even 339) may be fine given that the smaller-end is covered by the A321neo. I'm certain Hawaiian can fill a 789/339/359 to LAX, SFO, SEA, JFK and even add other cities (ORD).

HA doesn't even fly JFK daily year round. East coast markets to Hawaii are a challenge if you don't have a hub there to funnel traffic through, as far few Americans on that coast are vacationing in the islands.

I have no doubt that HA could fill the 789/339/359 on some of their markets, but it is a question of yields.

KanaHawaii · Thu Jun 15, 2017 9:05 pm

The question: "Is the 787 the proper A330 replacement for Hawaiian?" can be also answered this way:
Yes, it is a viable replacement for the on-again-off-again saga of Airbus's decision to go with a A358 or A338 variant.
BUT: It is only viable should Hawaiian be interested, still, in it's current expansion plans. I get the feeling that the number cruncher at Virgin Atlantic, which now flies 789's and could easily start flying the route should it choose to (it made noise in the past that it might) figured out that it may not be incredibly profitable despite what dreamers may wish it to be.
For Hawaiian, it wouldn't start a route where the profit margins are so thin - thus their pull-out of the Manila and Fukuoka routes due to downward fare pressure, and the inability to gain true traction in the Taipei-Honolulu market, forcing them to reduce fares to cannibalize clientele from a code-share partner - China Airlines.

waly777 · Thu Jun 15, 2017 9:09 pm

Dutchy wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

Ok, fair enough, would be the base for the MRTT and F versions. Doesn't Boeing have said the 778 will be the base for the F model? Can't find the orders for the 778, even Boeing list them as 777X, not distinguishing between the -8 and -9.

Boeing has not launched a 77X-F. In fact, I believe Boeing has stated that they will continue to produce 777Fs even while 777Xs are in production. There just isn't a market for newly-developed freighters now (777X or A330neos).

True. If was looking for the breakdown between the -9 and -8 models, but couldnot find it. The -8 hasn't sold in large numbers, but probably more than the 6 HA examples of the A338.

EY, EK and QR have ordered 53 777-8 so far...

Dutchy · Thu Jun 15, 2017 9:17 pm

waly777 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:

Boeing has not launched a 77X-F. In fact, I believe Boeing has stated that they will continue to produce 777Fs even while 777Xs are in production. There just isn't a market for newly-developed freighters now (777X or A330neos).

True. If was looking for the breakdown between the -9 and -8 models, but couldnot find it. The -8 hasn't sold in large numbers, but probably more than the 6 HA examples of the A338.

EY, EK and QR have ordered 53 777-8 so far...

Ok thanks, quite a lot of the 306 orders so far.

DaveFly · Fri Jun 16, 2017 12:09 am

This subject has come up previously on a.net.

One of the posters then was a Hawaiian Airlines A330 captain. He said it's a moot point. It would be way too expensive for a small airline to ditch one aircraft type for another by a different manufacturer. Even the training costs would be prohibitive. HA is simply not buying any variant of the 787.

And HA definitely does service JFK year-round. It's easy to look up; I don't know why someone would say that.

eamondzhang · Fri Jun 16, 2017 12:17 am

parapente wrote:
Airbus really aren't going to build and certificate the 338neo for one order -would you?
It stays there for the moment as their is a MOM was of marketing words raging at the moment.
If you can't sell 338's now how many are you gonna sell when the 797 is launched (no need to answer).
I imagine this order will move (with a nice discount) to 339's.
As for what Airbus decide to do when the 797 launches who knows!I imagine they will protect their 320 line of products with some form of 322 short term but once the 338 is gone ,just like Boeing ,there will be a huge gap in pax/range between the A321NEO and the A339/359.They can't let Boeing simply walk away with it.Clearly brand new engines circa 42k lbs thrust will be required for the Boeing project.I can't see Airbus just ignoring them.

Airbus still has A332F and MRTT that needs to be replaced eventually. A339 certainly won't do the job properly. Plus VIP customers seldomly buy A333s now, let alone A339, given the y don't need the capacity but they need the range.

In addition the development cost for A338 would be relatively low considering it's only an upgrade and the major part of the certification process will be done on A339.

VirginFlyer · Fri Jun 16, 2017 1:24 am

DaveFly wrote:
One of the posters then was a Hawaiian Airlines A330 captain. He said it's a moot point. It would be way too expensive for a small airline to ditch one aircraft type for another by a different manufacturer. Even the training costs would be prohibitive. HA is simply not buying any variant of the 787.

Didn't they do precisely that when they began moving from the 767 to the A330?

V/F

jbs2886 · Fri Jun 16, 2017 1:43 am

VirginFlyer wrote:
DaveFly wrote:
One of the posters then was a Hawaiian Airlines A330 captain. He said it's a moot point. It would be way too expensive for a small airline to ditch one aircraft type for another by a different manufacturer. Even the training costs would be prohibitive. HA is simply not buying any variant of the 787.

Didn't they do precisely that when they began moving from the 767 to the A330?

V/F

They operate 717s, 767s and A330s. But now they are adding A321neos? That alone defeats your argument. Further, "switching" to a 787 would similarly (1) keep the same # of fleet types for a while, assuming replacement of 767s, and (2) ultimately could reduce the widebody fleet to 1 type.

In addition, Boeing and Airbus often provide the training costs to get the airline to switch, so then that becomes a "moot point."

weekendppl · Fri Jun 16, 2017 1:57 am

eamondzhang wrote:
In addition the development cost for A338 would be relatively low considering it's only an upgrade and the major part of the certification process will be done on A339.

Why is it hard to understand? No matter how low the development cost, they have to amortize it over the number sold and still sell those at a price airlines are willing to pay. $100M sunk in development costs (it's incredibly easy to spend $100M in the aerospace business, trust me) amortized over, say, eight sales, has to add $12.5M (plus profit plus some opportunity rent for having tied up the $100M in the first place) to each of those eight sales. If HA has a marginal business case for spending, say, $240M per aircraft buying these, it only gets worse at the $258M Airbus would have to charge to close THEIR business case for doing the development and making the sale.

Slug71 · Fri Jun 16, 2017 2:17 am

The way the market looks now, I think Airbus should just go ahead with the A350-800 again and convert HA's order back to it.

DaveFly · Fri Jun 16, 2017 2:18 am

The 330s were acquired to replace the 767s and for expansion. The 767s will be gone soon. The 717s are strictly inter island. Apples and oranges. The HA captain also said that the certification costs would be prohibitive as well. It really doesn't matter; shoot me down all you want -- HA will never buy 787s. Ain't gonna happen. But it's fun to spin a thread about a pie in the sky idea. Completely harmless. Continue on.

weekendppl · Fri Jun 16, 2017 2:22 am

aemoreira1981 wrote:
HA needs the maximum range.

To go where? Where are they going to fly it to that will fill the airplane with paying passengers and need 8,500 mi range? LHR? CDG? FRA? They have the HTA survey numbers. They know how big those markets wouldn't be.

For reference:

7,500nm vs 6,500nm from HNL (B789 vs A339 kinds of range)

Slug71 · Fri Jun 16, 2017 2:51 am

And the A358 would have had 8200nm.

weekendppl · Fri Jun 16, 2017 3:00 am

It's a lot easier to cover the world's biggest ocean when you start in the middle of it.

seahawk · Fri Jun 16, 2017 4:53 am

OA940 wrote:
I was wondering, since the 787-8 has the same capacity as the A330-200 and the 787-9 around the same as the A350-800 which they were planning to use for Europe, and both have long range, is the 787 a good fit for Hawaiian to expand to Europe and go further into America and Asia, all while boosting capacity on current routes?

Absolutely, the 787 would be the perfect plane for the airline. 787 for long range missions later added by the 797 for West Coast runs. It would give them the most efficient fleet combination on the market. Sadly they decided to go for a lesser product.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net