Hawaiian Airlines is currently rethinking about its A330neo order and could choose to order 787's instead

The airline wants is looking at starting 13 hours flights but is unsure what airplane is best for that role

Hawaiian Airlines wants to connect its Pacific island home to the other side of the world and begin 13-hour flights. But it's not sure what airplane it wants to use.
The airline is rethinking its multibillion-dollar plan to buy Airbus A330neo jets, according to chief executive Mark Dunkerley.

Dunkerley told CNNMoney this week the tepid sales have Hawaiian weighing whether the A330neo is "the right airplane for us," or whether it will turn instead to Boeing, the planemaker's U.S. rival.

The A330-800 touts a 7,500 nautical mile range, meaning Hawaiian could connect Honolulu to points as far as India, western Australia, London or even Moscow. The airline wants to court leisure travelers from the other side of the world to Hawaii.

Dunkerley said the airline is talking to Airbus about its options, but is also looking closely at a possible purchase of 787 Dreamliners from Boeing (BA).
"The best way of figuring out if this is the right aircraft for us or the Airbus alternative is to be talking to both of them," said Dunkerley.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/06/news/co ... index.html

Only reason I can see for Hawaiian going to the 787 is because they both see a use for all three models in the fleet and because they want to start non-stop services to Europe. The 787-8 would service as a direct replacement for the A330-200 and the 787-9 would open up non-stops to Western Europe. The 787-10 can also do Japan and the US so it would offer growth for the densest trunk routes.

And yes, the A350-900 would open up Europe for them, as well, but that would require them to maintain two disparate families (from a technical perspective, if not crew) whereas the 787 offers effective commonality. I could see that commonality as a reason for choosing the A350-800 in the first place, as it would have allowed them to both have growth for the A330-200 services and launch European services with the A350-900 available for future growth on both sets.

Having an orphan fleet is also a reason to avoid the A338. Having very similar A330-200s helps, but being the only operator of the A330-800 is not a good thing. Anything unique to that airplane whether it be a navigational database or unique part numbers in the air conditioning system or bleed system due to the NEO improvements unique to the smaller frame, will cost more for spare parts and be harder to find. Leasing companies and financiers don't like orphan products either. There's too much risk of them not finding a new customer and being scrapped early in life like some A318s or A340-500s. The good news is that the A339 and A338 are very similar and there aren't big changes from the A332. That will help the business case for Hawaiian.

My favorite aircraft is on an order roll. Who's next? Emirates perhaps?

Newbiepilot wrote:

Having an orphan fleet is also a reason to avoid the A338. Having very similar A330-200s helps, but being the only operator of the A330-800 is not a good thing. Anything unique to that airplane whether it be a navigational database or unique part numbers in the air conditioning system or bleed system due to the NEO improvements unique to the smaller frame, will cost more for spare parts and be harder to find. Leasing companies and financiers don't like orphan products either. There's too much risk of them not finding a new customer and being scrapped early in life like some A318s or A340-500s. The good news is that the A339 and A338 are very similar and there aren't big changes from the A332. That will help the business case for Hawaiian.

The spare parts you are mentioning, like navigational database and parts in the air condition or the bleed system, are not unique to the A330- 800, but the same as on the A330-900. Everything the same, wing, engines, spare parts, but a shorter fuselage. Their is even a considerable commonality with their very young fleet of A330-200. Get rid of the old 767-300 and a very simple wide body fleet is left. The 251 t MTOW version will than move the A330-800 into ULH capabilities, past the 787-9 in range.

787fan8 wrote:

My favorite aircraft is on an order roll. Who's next? Emirates perhaps?

Which article are you reading? Order? Which order?

Would be a shame, but I can see why it would happen. Similar to AA there are a few ways to 'compensate' Airbus, but would Airbus play hardball to avoid losing the only customer for the -800?

While it doesn't look great now, I think the A338 could get a new lease of life (pun intended) as the A330neo transitions into the A330ceo lease market which is still quite strong even as A332 sales have slowed.

Any financier surely must be worried about the residual value of the A338. Not unheard of. Many got burned on the A318 and would be reluctant to back something only ordered in small quantities by a single airline.

Airbus were sucked into the 330NEO, by the success of the 320NEO series. They are finding out that putting new engines on everything doesn't necessarily mean you are going to have another instant success story. Sure the 330NEO is going to be a highly capable aircraft, but Airbus already had that in the 350 and with the lower fuel prices, the chief reason for swapping from CEO's to NEO's has all but evaporated. Airbus are ending up with an aircraft that can fly forever, but doesn't carry any more passengers than it's predecessor and quite frankly, doesn't need the range that it is going to end up having.

The lukewarm sales are proving this to be the case. Most airlines who have ordered the 330NEO would have been better off getting the 350 in the long run, whether that had been the still born 358, or the more flexible 359 and used abuse them on the shorter routes the 330NEO was suppose to be better on. Don't get me wrong, the 330NEO will be a fine aircraft, but Airbus would've been better served just doing the full family of 350's.

jupiter2 wrote:

Airbus were sucked into the 330NEO, by the success of the 320NEO series. They are finding out that putting new engines on everything doesn't necessarily mean you are going to have another instant success story. Sure the 330NEO is going to be a highly capable aircraft, but Airbus already had that in the 350 and with the lower fuel prices, the chief reason for swapping from CEO's to NEO's has all but evaporated. Airbus are ending up with an aircraft that can fly forever, but doesn't carry any more passengers than it's predecessor and quite frankly, doesn't need the range that it is going to end up having.

The lukewarm sales are proving this to be the case. Most airlines who have ordered the 330NEO would have been better off getting the 350 in the long run, whether that had been the still born 358, or the more flexible 359 and used abuse them on the shorter routes the 330NEO was suppose to be better on. Don't get me wrong, the 330NEO will be a fine aircraft, but Airbus would've been better served just doing the full family of 350's.

The A330neo will sell on its availability, commonality and low capital costs. Lower fuel costs will favour it more once the A330ceo is out of production, and we already have some indications that leasing companies will do well with it. 9 airlines have been confirmed as customers (including lease deals) and over 150 orders are 'secure' (very likely to be delivered). Don't forget that it's been a lean period for all widebodies, until a spate of recent orders the 787 had been selling slowly, the 777X isn't flying off the shelves and the A350's orders have been slow. A lot of aircraft the A339 will replace are new A330s anyway, and new aircraft don't need to be retired.

The market completely rejected the A358, and I don't see how it would have done any better even if Airbus had optimised it more.

MrHMSH wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

Airbus were sucked into the 330NEO, by the success of the 320NEO series. They are finding out that putting new engines on everything doesn't necessarily mean you are going to have another instant success story. Sure the 330NEO is going to be a highly capable aircraft, but Airbus already had that in the 350 and with the lower fuel prices, the chief reason for swapping from CEO's to NEO's has all but evaporated. Airbus are ending up with an aircraft that can fly forever, but doesn't carry any more passengers than it's predecessor and quite frankly, doesn't need the range that it is going to end up having.

The lukewarm sales are proving this to be the case. Most airlines who have ordered the 330NEO would have been better off getting the 350 in the long run, whether that had been the still born 358, or the more flexible 359 and used abuse them on the shorter routes the 330NEO was suppose to be better on. Don't get me wrong, the 330NEO will be a fine aircraft, but Airbus would've been better served just doing the full family of 350's.

The A330neo will sell on its availability, commonality and low capital costs. Lower fuel costs will favour it more once the A330ceo is out of production, and we already have some indications that leasing companies will do well with it. 9 airlines have been confirmed as customers (including lease deals) and over 150 orders are 'secure' (very likely to be delivered). Don't forget that it's been a lean period for all widebodies, until a spate of recent orders the 787 had been selling slowly, the 777X isn't flying off the shelves and the A350's orders have been slow. A lot of aircraft the A339 will replace are new A330s anyway, and new aircraft don't need to be retired.

The market completely rejected the A358, and I don't see how it would have done any better even if Airbus had optimised it more.

The main point here is the A338, the A339 will sell as it already has. Its little brother isn't selling nearly as well.


Boeing does have some slots opened up with that production rate increase...

ikolkyo wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

Airbus were sucked into the 330NEO, by the success of the 320NEO series. They are finding out that putting new engines on everything doesn't necessarily mean you are going to have another instant success story. Sure the 330NEO is going to be a highly capable aircraft, but Airbus already had that in the 350 and with the lower fuel prices, the chief reason for swapping from CEO's to NEO's has all but evaporated. Airbus are ending up with an aircraft that can fly forever, but doesn't carry any more passengers than it's predecessor and quite frankly, doesn't need the range that it is going to end up having.

The lukewarm sales are proving this to be the case. Most airlines who have ordered the 330NEO would have been better off getting the 350 in the long run, whether that had been the still born 358, or the more flexible 359 and used abuse them on the shorter routes the 330NEO was suppose to be better on. Don't get me wrong, the 330NEO will be a fine aircraft, but Airbus would've been better served just doing the full family of 350's.

The A330neo will sell on its availability, commonality and low capital costs. Lower fuel costs will favour it more once the A330ceo is out of production, and we already have some indications that leasing companies will do well with it. 9 airlines have been confirmed as customers (including lease deals) and over 150 orders are 'secure' (very likely to be delivered). Don't forget that it's been a lean period for all widebodies, until a spate of recent orders the 787 had been selling slowly, the 777X isn't flying off the shelves and the A350's orders have been slow. A lot of aircraft the A339 will replace are new A330s anyway, and new aircraft don't need to be retired.

The market completely rejected the A358, and I don't see how it would have done any better even if Airbus had optimised it more.

The main point here is the A338, the A339 will sell as it already has. Its little brother isn't nearly as well.

jupiter2 made no references to the A338 specifically. As he's only said 'A330neo' I can only assume he's talking about the whole program.

mjoelnir wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Having an orphan fleet is also a reason to avoid the A338. Having very similar A330-200s helps, but being the only operator of the A330-800 is not a good thing. Anything unique to that airplane whether it be a navigational database or unique part numbers in the air conditioning system or bleed system due to the NEO improvements unique to the smaller frame, will cost more for spare parts and be harder to find. Leasing companies and financiers don't like orphan products either. There's too much risk of them not finding a new customer and being scrapped early in life like some A318s or A340-500s. The good news is that the A339 and A338 are very similar and there aren't big changes from the A332. That will help the business case for Hawaiian.

The spare parts you are mentioning, like navigational database and parts in the air condition or the bleed system, are not unique to the A330- 800, but the same as on the A330-900. Everything the same, wing, engines, spare parts, but a shorter fuselage. Their is even a considerable commonality with their very young fleet of A330-200. Get rid of the old 767-300 and a very simple wide body fleet is left. The 251 t MTOW version will than move the A330-800 into ULH capabilities, past the 787-9 in range.

99% commonality between the 338 and 339. That's probably about as good as it gets. Whether that helps the residual value of the 338 is a whole 'nother ballgame.

MrHMSH wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

The A330neo will sell on its availability, commonality and low capital costs. Lower fuel costs will favour it more once the A330ceo is out of production, and we already have some indications that leasing companies will do well with it. 9 airlines have been confirmed as customers (including lease deals) and over 150 orders are 'secure' (very likely to be delivered). Don't forget that it's been a lean period for all widebodies, until a spate of recent orders the 787 had been selling slowly, the 777X isn't flying off the shelves and the A350's orders have been slow. A lot of aircraft the A339 will replace are new A330s anyway, and new aircraft don't need to be retired.

The market completely rejected the A358, and I don't see how it would have done any better even if Airbus had optimised it more.

The main point here is the A338, the A339 will sell as it already has. Its little brother isn't nearly as well.

jupiter2 made no references to the A338 specifically. As he's only said 'A330neo' I can only assume he's talking about the whole program.

Oh I know, but the only thing selling in the neo family is the A339, it’s literally the whole program.

ikolkyo wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

The main point here is the A338, the A339 will sell as it already has. Its little brother isn't nearly as well.

jupiter2 made no references to the A338 specifically. As he's only said 'A330neo' I can only assume he's talking about the whole program.

Oh I know, but the only thing selling in the neo family is the A339, it’s literally the whole program.

Yes, but jupiter2 reckons the whole A330neo program was a mistake, so I'm arguing that it's not. If he wanted to make the point that the A338 wasn't a good idea, then he could have said it.

For what it's worth I think Airbus may as well do the A338, but orders may come slowly.

KarelXWB wrote:

parapente wrote:

Well that's bye bye to the -800 then (IMHO).

aemoreira1981 wrote:

If true, this means that there is no way that the A330-800 ever gets built as this takes over virtually all of its missions. It would likely kill off the 787-8 Dreamliner as well.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Yes I see this killing off the A330-800.

Stitch wrote:

I expect Airbus is committed to the A330-800 regardless since the work is so basic compared the A350-800 <-> A350-900. If Airbus does cancel the A330-800, it would be for competitive reasons to support the A330-900 by keeping slots open for future RFPs.

Slash787 wrote:

I don't think so they would cancel the A330-800, but well maybe they could, you never know.

FYI Airbus today released a few photos of MSN 1888, the first A330-800. It shows pre-assembly is already well advanced:









http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/photo-gallery.html

As per this post by KarelXWB in the A330neo MTOW Increase thread, production of the first A338 has begun. Since HA is currently the only customer for the type, it is reasonable to assume that this aircraft would be destined for their fleet.

Is it not too late for HA to be having second thoughts about their future fleet..?

Jayafe wrote:

787fan8 wrote:

My favorite aircraft is on an order roll. Who's next? Emirates perhaps?

Which article are you reading? Order? Which order?

I believe he's referencing the recent TK order as well as the JL 788 top-up.

The biggest issue for the A332 started when MTOW for the A333 increased. With similar operating costs if you could make it with a full load (where earlier versions of the 333 couldn't) then it makes sense to use the 333 instead most of the time. See for example, Finnair being able to use the 333 with a full load on routes it initially used the A340 for. However given the design is so close to the A339, the 338 won't cost must to maintain production, and there's likely to be a good life in it as a freight model given it will be able to lift more than the larger 339. Think of the 772LR. It didn't sell well in a pax model either. But the changes made were basically the same as the 773ER so the program really didn't have any burden by offering the shorter pax model.

I think HA will stick with it. If range is what they want, the 251t MTOW beats both the 788 and 789. Asiana will likely convert their A358 order to the A338 too.

RL777 wrote:

Jayafe wrote:

787fan8 wrote:

My favorite aircraft is on an order roll. Who's next? Emirates perhaps?

Which article are you reading? Order? Which order?

I believe he's referencing the recent TK order as well as the JL 788 top-up.

You are correct. I was also referencing Malaysia Airlines and Egyptair as well.

But those orders still have no reference on this thread as Hawaiian have not ordered any Boeing 787s where as the airlines your referring to have done.

To clarify, I think the 330NEO program as a whole is a waste. Sure, the 339 may do alright in the end, but if they are building the 338 for one commercial customer and then hopes for freighters or tankers down the line, I believe that is a mistake. There will be plenty of recent build 332's more than capable of being converted and performing those tasks to just about the same standard as a 338.

Hindsight is wonderful, but a full 350 family would make more sense for Airbus, than having to maintain two separate, but over lapping wide body aircraft lines. But, hey they are stuck with them now, it's Airbus' cash they are burning, so in reality it means little to me, except another aircraft type to try and photograph.

Would love to see HA pick up the 787 and have a fleet of 787s in Hawaiian colors based here in Honolulu!

I would imagine HA has been having second thoughts since the A358 was dropped. Being the only customer for the A338 has to be a very undesirably position. Wouldn't surprise me at all if they turn to the 787 instead.

What type of penalties would HA have should they dump the Airbus and move to Boeing? An all 787 fleet answers all of the needs the airline may have today, tomorrow and we'll I to the future.

Follow the money, the airline has deposits with Airbus and will be getting Airbus aircraft. If they had a larger fleet or were considering major growth they could go to Boeing and get a small fleet of 787's to work beside their Airbus fleet whichever the finally get, but I do not believe that much growth is in the cards, so,,,,,talk of a Boeing purchase is supposed to do what, scare Airbus to give them a better price? As for Boeing, why would they offer a deal when they know the airline is to small an financially challenged to cancel its Airbus purchase and pay penalties, has that ever been done?

par13del wrote:

As for Boeing, why would they offer a deal when they know the airline is to small an financially challenged to cancel its Airbus purchase and pay penalties, has that ever been done?

Boeing could buy the A330-800s off of Hawaiian, but I don't see that happening as their re-sale value would probably be very poor so they would need to factor that into the price they offer the 787s for.

CX747 wrote:

What type of penalties would HA have should they dump the Airbus and move to Boeing? An all 787 fleet answers all of the needs the airline may have today, tomorrow and we'll I to the future.

Well, they ordered the A350-800 IINM and ended up converting to the A330-800. Perhaps they were given flexibility in that conversion? Perhaps they used the deposits for their A321neos? Who knows. I'm not holding my breath that they'll switch to the 787 but anything is possible.

Stitch wrote:

par13del wrote:

As for Boeing, why would they offer a deal when they know the airline is to small an financially challenged to cancel its Airbus purchase and pay penalties, has that ever been done?

Boeing could buy the A330-800s off of Hawaiian, but I don't see that happening as their re-sale value would probably be very poor so they would need to factor that into the price they offer the 787s for.

Could? Sure. But why in the world would they?

Stitch wrote:

Boeing could buy the A330-800s off of Hawaiian, but I don't see that happening as their re-sale value would probably be very poor so they would need to factor that into the price they offer the 787s for.

Last time Boeing did something like that it prompted Airbus to mention something about not supporting those specific frames.....

par13del wrote:

Stitch wrote:

Boeing could buy the A330-800s off of Hawaiian, but I don't see that happening as their re-sale value would probably be very poor so they would need to factor that into the price they offer the 787s for.

Last time Boeing did something like that it prompted Airbus to mention something about not supporting those specific frames.....

Which they later decided not to do. It would have been a very poor marketing tactic to employ.

Someone wants a BIG discount from Airbus.
Could HA go with Boeing? Sure but you have to factor the cost of training all the employees on a new type of airplane, buy new parts and whatever comes with maintaining a 787.

Possible outcomes:
1) HA stays with the A330-800
2) HA converts the order to A330-900
3) HA converts the order back to A350, this time ordering the A350-900

I don't see HA ordering the 787. If HA wanted the 787, they would have ordered it instead of A330/A350 combo. I agree the replies on HA talking to Boeing as a negotiation tool to keep Airbus honest.

Austin787 wrote:

I don't see HA ordering the 787. If HA wanted the 787, they would have ordered it instead of A330/A350 combo.

That logic does not hold in the industry. Airlines "correct" orders for similar types all the time, we saw it often with the A340:

• SQ ordered A343s then quickly swapped them out for 77Es
• AC ordered A345s then quickly swapped them out for 77Ls
• CX ordered A346s then quickly swapped them out for 77Ws

The A330-800NEO would be canceled as with the A350-800XWB
Hawaiian Airlines and Asiana Airlines, both respective orders of these aircraft, have considered removing these aircraft as they're not economically viable for both Airbus and the pax traffic.

Austin787 wrote:

Possible outcomes:
1) HA stays with the A330-800
2) HA converts the order to A330-900
3) HA converts the order back to A350, this time ordering the A350-900

2 and 3 will likely to happen, but not 1.

jaybird wrote:

Would love to see HA pick up the 787 and have a fleet of 787s in Hawaiian colors based here in Honolulu!

Absolutely! Can anyone create a rendering of a HA 787 in the 2017 livery?

jupiter2 wrote:

But, hey they are stuck with them now, it's Airbus' cash they are burning, so in reality it means little to me, except another aircraft type to try and photograph.

Hint it's not Airbus whose cash is burning because of the existence of A330NEO.

I always thought the 787 was a better fit for HA than the neo. Then again this means that the 338 will be unplugged and killed. A combo of the 788 and 789 would be the best, and the latter could fly to Europe non-stop, but if they could find a market for the 78K that would be amazing!

The 787 ramp up makes a lot of sense now. This seems to be another order in the bag.
No one wants to be the sole customer of an aircraft model anyway. The resale value will be terrible and you are forced to flew it to the end end of its economic life. If you do not have an inhouse maintenance team like LH Technik or BA Cardiff, it makes very little sense even if it is offered to you at a very significant discount.

Stitch wrote:

Only reason I can see for Hawaiian going to the 787 is because they both see a use for all three models in the fleet and because they want to start non-stop services to Europe.

Why would Hawaiian want to fly to Europe? I believe the question "Why no direct flights from Europe to Hawaii?" is asked on a regular basis on this forum. And the answer is always the same. Low yields and similar beach destinations much closer to home.

Or is Hawaii - Europe a completely different market than Europe - Hawaii?

The HA CEO's statements seem to make it just as likely that they will switch back to the a350 or stay on with the a338. I suspect what they may be looking for is a residual value guarantee from Airbus similar to what some a346 customers got.

ap305 wrote:

The HA CEO's statements seem to make it just as likely that they will switch back to the a350 or stay on with the a338. I suspect what they may be looking for is a residual value guarantee from Airbus.

Sounds like it, or a no-cost move up to the 251t A339NEO.

A guaranteed future minimum value buyback like the A346 sales had sounds more like it to me. HA just want certainty on their balance sheets. Negotiating via the press is hardly a rarity nowadays and can help push things along.

The first 338 is being built currently and people still say that it will never be built...

Hey guys,

Re : nonstop Hawaii. - Europe flights....
There would be a small, very small, market I guess for Australia-Hawaii-Europe flights for Australians to take advantage of, and probably Europeans as well. I imagine that a tropical island stopover in a stable, attractively priced Pacific paradise on an airline with an arguably good reputation in Australia would be an attractive option for the kangaroo route travellers.
How do I know? My family flew via Hawaii (and Vancouver) to and from Europe years ago by choice. The few days in tropical Hawaii was designed to help us acclimatise back to Australia's summer after a white Christmas in Europe... And it worked a treat!

As for the A330-800neo in Hawaiian's fleet, I was surprised when they chose the A350 in the initial order all those years ago. Hawaiian always just 'seemed' to me to be a perfect match for the Dreamliner and I agree with posts above that all three models of the 787 could be effectively used on Hawaiian's routes. Perhaps the A330neo deposits could be used for additional A321LRs for HA or additional ATRs for Ohana?

Cheers,
Bunumuring.

I agree with a few other posts that the A330neo should be replaced. What is the purpose of investing in order airframe design with new engines..? A350-900 would be a great fit for Hawaiian as its gives them a modern aircraft. The advantage it has over the A330neo (and B787 or B777) would give them the range to fly to new destinations (eg: Europe, West Australia) with addtional seat capacity without being over supply (probably a 10 to 20 seat additional capacity over current A330's). Mid-sized airlines such as Finnair, Asiana and perhaps Thai airways have chosen this aircraft to replace their B757's and B767's for this reason. A359 continuity with current order of A321 which them cross training of pilots and maintenance.
Hawaii has a good geographical location in that to can fly to most destinations and cover most continents with a A359 range of 7500 nautical miles. It's similar to Singapore and Dubai with that advantage of it's location. I've travelled to Phuket a few times and seen the amount of Russians who few direct from the former USSR. This is a untapped market for Hawaiian Airlines so a Airbus A350-900 has good capacity and range to service this type of market.

yonahleung wrote:

The 787 ramp up makes a lot of sense now. This seems to be another order in the bag.
No one wants to be the sole customer of an aircraft model anyway. The resale value will be terrible and you are forced to flew it to the end end of its economic life. If you do not have an inhouse maintenance team like LH Technik or BA Cardiff, it makes very little sense even if it is offered to you at a very significant discount.

Its too early to say that an order is in the bag

I agree with qf789,
It's way too early to suggest a 787 order.
It does appear to be another example of an airline's management negotiating a deal using the media. This seems to be on the rise these days.
Cheers,
Bunumuring

I do not understand why people talk about needing more range in regards to the A330-800, more capacity or payload, yes, but range?
There is no frame of similar size with more range. If the range of the A330-800 is not enough, the 787 will not do either.