Polot wrote:

godsbeloved wrote:

One of the reasons Airbus chose to stay with a bleed air system is lower maintenance costs. Maybe the heavier loads on generators in the 787 engines make maintenance more expensive...

The reason the A330neo sticks with a bleed air system is because to do otherwise would require extensive redesign of many of the A330's systems which would require more time, more money, and result in a plane with less commonality with the Ceo. (Same reason why the 748, 777X, and 737Max have not followed the 787 in having a bleedless system over at Boeing).

I imagine RR 787 engine overhaul costs will be similar to the A330neo's.

On the A330neo that may have been a factor. But airbus has chosen to stick with bleed air on all their new designs because maintenance is cheaper and reliability is higher. One of the Airbus chiefs told us so in an aviation magazine when asked about the A350 design. Part of it was higher loads on generators. "Airbus' contention is that a bleedless systems direct maintenance costs are 40% higher than a conventional bleed air system." Furthermore all engines need some bleed air, so adding an electrical system adds to the complexity.

MrHMSH wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

That has gone well sales wise hasn't it so far Are you sure about that cancellation date for the 358 ? The date I can see was December 2014, when the 330NEO was launched, so Airbus pushed the 330NEO to effectively kill off the 358 and commit themselves to doubling up. Would've been better off finding ways to make the 358 lighter and offer the one family.

The A330neo has sold about 200 frames, not too bad to start with.

One could argue the 787-10 has done even worse as it was launched one year earlier (2013) and holds even less than 200 orders. Yet the argument is that the A330-300 replacement cycle has yet to kick in thus we have to wait.

KarelXWB wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

That has gone well sales wise hasn't it so far Are you sure about that cancellation date for the 358 ? The date I can see was December 2014, when the 330NEO was launched, so Airbus pushed the 330NEO to effectively kill off the 358 and commit themselves to doubling up. Would've been better off finding ways to make the 358 lighter and offer the one family.

The A330neo has sold about 200 frames, not too bad to start with.

One could argue the 787-10 has done even worse as it was launched one year earlier (2013) and holds even less than 200 orders. Yet the argument is that the A330-300 replacement cycle has yet to kick in thus we have to wait.

The 787-10 is one variant of a family of aircraft. The A330neo is compromised of 2 aircraft combined to barely even sell 200.

godsbeloved wrote:

Polot wrote:

godsbeloved wrote:

One of the reasons Airbus chose to stay with a bleed air system is lower maintenance costs. Maybe the heavier loads on generators in the 787 engines make maintenance more expensive...

The reason the A330neo sticks with a bleed air system is because to do otherwise would require extensive redesign of many of the A330's systems which would require more time, more money, and result in a plane with less commonality with the Ceo. (Same reason why the 748, 777X, and 737Max have not followed the 787 in having a bleedless system over at Boeing).

I imagine RR 787 engine overhaul costs will be similar to the A330neo's.

On the A330neo that may have been a factor. But airbus has chosen to stick with bleed air on all their new designs because maintenance is cheaper and reliability is higher. One of the Airbus chiefs told us so in an aviation magazine when asked about the A350 design. Part of it was higher loads on generators. "Airbus' contention is that a bleedless systems direct maintenance costs are 40% higher than a conventional bleed air system." Furthermore all engines need some bleed air, so adding an electrical system adds to the complexity.

All engines have bleed and electrical generation. The difference for the 787 is, less bleed more electricity. Bleed less is in reality a misnomer. The same way if you look at T7000 compared to T1000ten, all the components for bleed are on both engines, but the T7000 extracts more bleed volume for external use and has instead smaller alternators.

In any event Airbus claims bleed air systems have lower maintenance cost, while Boeing claims "bleedless" air systems have lower maintenance cost. They make those claims because Airbus stuck with bleedair, while Boeing went to bleedless. Does Airbus really believe that? Who knows, there are a multitude of other reasons why they may have decided to stick to bleedair for the A350. Does Boeing really believe that? Who knows, there are a multitude of other reasons why they may have decided on bleedless for the 787. Who is right? Who knows, it is really far to early to say.

ikolkyo wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

The A330neo has sold about 200 frames, not too bad to start with.

One could argue the 787-10 has done even worse as it was launched one year earlier (2013) and holds even less than 200 orders. Yet the argument is that the A330-300 replacement cycle has yet to kick in thus we have to wait.

The 787-10 is one variant of a family of aircraft. The A330neo is compromised of 2 aircraft combined to barely even sell 200.

The A339 And A338 are also 2 variants of a family of aircraft, and combined they've sold plenty. The A330neo is still competing against the ceo for orders don't forget, we all agree that the A330neo sells on commonality, availability, price and for airlines that don't need the extra capability. But as long as the A330ceo is in production, it is the best option for those criteria in its size range.

I'm not too concerned about the A330neo, if HA cancels it will be annoying, but not a disaster, if D7 cancels it will be very bad, but we're not so sure what will come of that, could be hot air as much as a likelihood. the A330neo picks up a lot of small orders and lease orders, and that's OK, there is a big market for leasing and small airlines and the A330neo is better placed to fill that than anything else at present.

mjoelnir wrote:

godsbeloved wrote:

Polot wrote:

The reason the A330neo sticks with a bleed air system is because to do otherwise would require extensive redesign of many of the A330's systems which would require more time, more money, and result in a plane with less commonality with the Ceo. (Same reason why the 748, 777X, and 737Max have not followed the 787 in having a bleedless system over at Boeing).

I imagine RR 787 engine overhaul costs will be similar to the A330neo's.

On the A330neo that may have been a factor. But airbus has chosen to stick with bleed air on all their new designs because maintenance is cheaper and reliability is higher. One of the Airbus chiefs told us so in an aviation magazine when asked about the A350 design. Part of it was higher loads on generators. "Airbus' contention is that a bleedless systems direct maintenance costs are 40% higher than a conventional bleed air system." Furthermore all engines need some bleed air, so adding an electrical system adds to the complexity.

All engines have bleed and electrical generation. The difference for the 787 is, less bleed more electricity. Bleed less is in reality a misnomer. The same way if you look at T7000 compared to T1000ten, all the components for bleed are on both engines, but the T7000 extracts more bleed volume for external use and has instead smaller alternators.

In an article, I think in AWST, few years ago on the 7000, something like 20% of the "air" (I assume the bypass) is already used for bleed in the 1000, changing to the needs of the 7000, will only impact efficiency by well under 1% compared to the 1000, everything else being equal.

When the 787 program started Hamilton Sundstrand (who supply the starter, APU and a/c) were somewhat down on whether bleedless would actually produce any cost savings due to cost larger generators.

ikolkyo wrote:

The 787-10 is one variant of a family of aircraft. The A330neo is compromised of 2 aircraft combined to barely even sell 200.

Point being, the aircraft is targeted at the A330-300 market. If both -10 and -900 don't sell in large numbers right now, there's a lot of potential during the next decade when the A330ceo replacement cycle kicks in.

MrHMSH wrote:

The A330neo is still competing against the ceo for orders don't forget,

Sooner or later, A330ceo will go out of production.

trex8 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

godsbeloved wrote:

On the A330neo that may have been a factor. But airbus has chosen to stick with bleed air on all their new designs because maintenance is cheaper and reliability is higher. One of the Airbus chiefs told us so in an aviation magazine when asked about the A350 design. Part of it was higher loads on generators. "Airbus' contention is that a bleedless systems direct maintenance costs are 40% higher than a conventional bleed air system." Furthermore all engines need some bleed air, so adding an electrical system adds to the complexity.

All engines have bleed and electrical generation. The difference for the 787 is, less bleed more electricity. Bleed less is in reality a misnomer. The same way if you look at T7000 compared to T1000ten, all the components for bleed are on both engines, but the T7000 extracts more bleed volume for external use and has instead smaller alternators.

In an article, I think in AWST, few years ago on the 7000, something like 20% of the "air" (I assume the bypass) is already used for bleed in the 1000, changing to the needs of the 7000, will only impact efficiency by well under 1% compared to the 1000, everything else being equal.

When the 787 program started Hamilton Sundstrand (who supply the starter, APU and a/c) were somewhat down on whether bleedless would actually produce any cost savings due to cost larger generators.

I think you got something wrong there. In the T1000 and also the GNX-1B, 20% of the core compressor air is bled for internal use of the engine. To supply cabin air and wing deicing another 5 to 7% is needed. So bleed goes up to max 27 % of core compressor air on the T7000. But that means also that less power is used to turn the alternators via a gear on the T7000 than on the T1000.

mjoelnir wrote:

trex8 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

All engines have bleed and electrical generation. The difference for the 787 is, less bleed more electricity. Bleed less is in reality a misnomer. The same way if you look at T7000 compared to T1000ten, all the components for bleed are on both engines, but the T7000 extracts more bleed volume for external use and has instead smaller alternators.

In an article, I think in AWST, few years ago on the 7000, something like 20% of the "air" (I assume the bypass) is already used for bleed in the 1000, changing to the needs of the 7000, will only impact efficiency by well under 1% compared to the 1000, everything else being equal.

When the 787 program started Hamilton Sundstrand (who supply the starter, APU and a/c) were somewhat down on whether bleedless would actually produce any cost savings due to cost larger generators.

I think you got something wrong there. In the T1000 and also the GNX-1B, 20% of the core compressor air is bled for internal use of the engine. To supply cabin air and wing deicing another 5 to 7% is needed. So bleed goes up to max 27 % of core compressor air on the T7000. But that means also that less power is used to turn the alternators via a gear on the T7000 than on the T1000.

Will defer to your expert knowledge. But Im pretty sure even with the extra bleed(25% more) the Rolls guy said theres under 1% total penalty.

trex8 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

godsbeloved wrote:

On the A330neo that may have been a factor. But airbus has chosen to stick with bleed air on all their new designs because maintenance is cheaper and reliability is higher. One of the Airbus chiefs told us so in an aviation magazine when asked about the A350 design. Part of it was higher loads on generators. "Airbus' contention is that a bleedless systems direct maintenance costs are 40% higher than a conventional bleed air system." Furthermore all engines need some bleed air, so adding an electrical system adds to the complexity.

All engines have bleed and electrical generation. The difference for the 787 is, less bleed more electricity. Bleed less is in reality a misnomer. The same way if you look at T7000 compared to T1000ten, all the components for bleed are on both engines, but the T7000 extracts more bleed volume for external use and has instead smaller alternators.

In an article, I think in AWST, few years ago on the 7000, something like 20% of the "air" (I assume the bypass) is already used for bleed in the 1000, changing to the needs of the 7000, will only impact efficiency by well under 1% compared to the 1000, everything else being equal.

When the 787 program started Hamilton Sundstrand (who supply the starter, APU and a/c) were somewhat down on whether bleedless would actually produce any cost savings due to cost larger generators.

And you need electrical operated compressors to produce cabin air on the 787. The bleed on the A350 is electronical/electrical controlled instead of pneumatic. And that system is also used on the A330neo. Airbus decided there was no savings in going the 787 way and you would end up with a simpler, easier to service system.

Actually it was Leeham and it was 0.1% penalty.

For this purpose, there are bleed ports on up to 50% of the compressor stages, tapping just the right pressure and temperature air to the engines different hot parts, low pressure compressor bleed serving the low pressure turbine, higher pressure compressor bleed serving the intermediate turbine and so on. Adding another 5%-7% of air on top of the 20% in order to supply air for cabin air conditioning and wing deice will not be a significant change, in fact it will not require any new bleed outlets on the engines core.
“I can confirm that adding cabin and deice bleed to the Trent T1000 will be one of the simpler tasks when creating the T7000,” Goodhead says. “In fact it will require minimal hardware changes and the additional bleed will affect the engines performance with less then 1/10 of a percent. There are other areas requiring more of our attention, such as the significant reduction in electrical power served to the A330neo airframe compared to the requirements of the 787. The reduction in the drive power to the gearbox where the aircraft’s electrical generators are attached will cause hardware changes on the engines internals. This and the changed mounting of the engine (compared to the mounting of the T700) are more significant challenges for us and Airbus .”

https://leehamnews.com/2014/07/15/airbu ... nce-costs/

Polot wrote:

trex8 wrote:

armchairceonr1 wrote:

I think many people overstress fuel consumption when comparing economics of different aircraft. I think we can assume that factory new A339 lease cost is about 200000$ lower per month than 789. If 789 fly 15 hours every day, it use about 2500 tons fuel, which cost today 1,25 million$. If A339 use 5% more per seat mile, it cover only 62500$ of 789s extra lease cost. So 789 operator has to still save 137500$/month from other costs, or get extra revenue somehow..

When the neo was launched Rolls said they would provide maintenance for the Trent 7000 at the same cost as a 700 which is probably significantly less than a 1000 TEN ( or XWB). That could add up to significant $$ compared to getting a 787 or A350

I don't recall when RR said that but considering the Trent 7000 probably has more in common with the Trent 1000Ten than the Trent 700 I find that difficult to believe unless RR/Airbus eats some of the Trent 7000 maintenance costs to make sure the Neo engine deals stay attractive (since with the 787 RR also has to compete with GE). I suspect that deal would depend on just how big/important you are to RR. A large airline could probably negotiate a similar cost deal on the 787 in order to get RR's business and not GE's.

So taking into account all the previous comments, which explain my point exactly, could it be that maintenance costs for the T7000 engines are a fair bit lower than for T1000's??

godsbeloved wrote:

Polot wrote:

godsbeloved wrote:

One of the reasons Airbus chose to stay with a bleed air system is lower maintenance costs. Maybe the heavier loads on generators in the 787 engines make maintenance more expensive...

The reason the A330neo sticks with a bleed air system is because to do otherwise would require extensive redesign of many of the A330's systems which would require more time, more money, and result in a plane with less commonality with the Ceo. (Same reason why the 748, 777X, and 737Max have not followed the 787 in having a bleedless system over at Boeing).

I imagine RR 787 engine overhaul costs will be similar to the A330neo's.

On the A330neo that may have been a factor. But airbus has chosen to stick with bleed air on all their new designs because maintenance is cheaper and reliability is higher. One of the Airbus chiefs told us so in an aviation magazine when asked about the A350 design. Part of it was higher loads on generators. "Airbus' contention is that a bleedless systems direct maintenance costs are 40% higher than a conventional bleed air system." Furthermore all engines need some bleed air, so adding an electrical system adds to the complexity.

If the 787's bleedless system resulted in 40% higher maintenance costs, I think the airlines would be expressing some very vocal dissatisfaction with the 787. Yet, what we are seeing is the 787 raking in over a 100 orders so far this year while other wide body orders (from both manufacturers) languish. I am fascinated by the 787's new systems and always looking out for articles and posts discussing the pros and cons of its various new technologies.

godsbeloved wrote:

Polot wrote:

trex8 wrote:

When the neo was launched Rolls said they would provide maintenance for the Trent 7000 at the same cost as a 700 which is probably significantly less than a 1000 TEN ( or XWB). That could add up to significant $$ compared to getting a 787 or A350

I don't recall when RR said that but considering the Trent 7000 probably has more in common with the Trent 1000Ten than the Trent 700 I find that difficult to believe unless RR/Airbus eats some of the Trent 7000 maintenance costs to make sure the Neo engine deals stay attractive (since with the 787 RR also has to compete with GE). I suspect that deal would depend on just how big/important you are to RR. A large airline could probably negotiate a similar cost deal on the 787 in order to get RR's business and not GE's.

So taking into account all the previous comments, which explain my point exactly, could it be that maintenance costs for the T7000 engines are a fair bit lower than for T1000's??

Given Rolls' comments few years ago, no matter what competition GE gives on the GEnx I suspect RR will maintain a price differential to the 700/7000 versus the 1000.

HA won't be the only A338 operator. Remember Airbus is still producing A332 CEO. Shortly that will end. Coupled with that Airbus clearly has another market in mind - tankers and freighters. There is no 777F conversion available. A332 PF replacement and A333 conversions on the other hand... so Airbus has a number of strings to its bow. We should have a clearer idea in the next year. That Airbus hasn't cancelled the aircraft and is proceeding tells us something - there is a market even if it isn't presenting just yet. The MOM is years away if Boeing even decides to proceed beyond concept. Airbus is in a comfortable position at the moment and time is on their side.

JAAlbert wrote:

godsbeloved wrote:

Polot wrote:

The reason the A330neo sticks with a bleed air system is because to do otherwise would require extensive redesign of many of the A330's systems which would require more time, more money, and result in a plane with less commonality with the Ceo. (Same reason why the 748, 777X, and 737Max have not followed the 787 in having a bleedless system over at Boeing).

I imagine RR 787 engine overhaul costs will be similar to the A330neo's.

On the A330neo that may have been a factor. But airbus has chosen to stick with bleed air on all their new designs because maintenance is cheaper and reliability is higher. One of the Airbus chiefs told us so in an aviation magazine when asked about the A350 design. Part of it was higher loads on generators. "Airbus' contention is that a bleedless systems direct maintenance costs are 40% higher than a conventional bleed air system." Furthermore all engines need some bleed air, so adding an electrical system adds to the complexity.

If the 787's bleedless system resulted in 40% higher maintenance costs, I think the airlines would be expressing some very vocal dissatisfaction with the 787. Yet, what we are seeing is the 787 raking in over a 100 orders so far this year while other wide body orders (from both manufacturers) languish. I am fascinated by the 787's new systems and always looking out for articles and posts discussing the pros and cons of its various new technologies.

83 787 orders so far this year.. The bleed system or on the 787 the compressed air system is only a part of the maintenance cost. But to say it the other way round, where are the glowing real world numbers about the reduced maintenance cost in regards to operating 787?

NZ321 wrote:

HA won't be the only A338 operator. Remember Airbus is still producing A332 CEO. Shortly that will end. Coupled with that Airbus clearly has another market in mind - tankers and freighters. There is no 777F conversion available. A332 PF replacement and A333 conversions on the other hand... so Airbus has a number of strings to its bow. We should have a clearer idea in the next year. That Airbus hasn't cancelled the aircraft and is proceeding tells us something - there is a market even if it isn't presenting just yet. The MOM is years away if Boeing even decides to proceed beyond concept. Airbus is in a comfortable position at the moment and time is on their side.

A332/A333 F conversions will hurt the market for new A338Fs as most cargo carriers will go for those much cheaper options as more used A330ceos hit the market rather than go for an expensive new build. Airbus already struggles with selling new build A332Fs as is.

Airbus is not in a dire situation, but the clock is ticking. Boeing is increasing 787 production rate so near term availabity is no longer a trump card Airbus can play, and while the MOM is years away there will be airlines willing to wait (for either the MOM or Airbus’s direct response) rather than just settle on the A338. Of course Airbus won’t cancel the A338 though, Airbus needs something to respond to the 788.

KarelXWB wrote:

The point I was trying to make, and clearly failed to do so, is that as long as Airbus manages to sell A330-200 aircraft it shouldn't be too difficult to sell A330-800 jets once the A330ceo goes out of production.

As I have mentioned way back, there seems to be no commercial sense in assuming the A330ceo will go out of production. The ceo and neo serve different markets with different sticker prices, and different sweet spots.

Egerton wrote:

As I have mentioned way back, there seems to be no commercial sense in assuming the A330ceo will go out of production. The ceo and neo serve different markets with different sticker prices, and different sweet spots.

Airbus may disagree and terminate A330ceo production sooner rather than later.

Even the A320 family line will fully switch to NEO around 2020.

I really don't understand why so many people here predict that A330-800 is dead. A330-800 is upgraded version of A330-200, which keep selling all the time. After A330-200 is gone, A330-800 is going to be cheapest widebody on the market, with very long legs. I think it's not going to be hotseller, but it going to get orders.

armchairceonr1 wrote:

I really don't understand why so many people here predict that A330-800 is dead. A330-800 is upgraded version of A330-200, which keep selling all the time. After A330-200 is gone, A330-800 is going to be cheapest widebody on the market, with very long legs. I think it's not going to be hotseller, but it going to get orders.

From who?

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

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.

My thoughts exactly.

Airbus already has HA deposits as well as a contract price for the frames, how exactly are they going to put on pressure by talking to Boeing?

JAAlbert wrote:

godsbeloved wrote:

Polot wrote:

The reason the A330neo sticks with a bleed air system is because to do otherwise would require extensive redesign of many of the A330's systems which would require more time, more money, and result in a plane with less commonality with the Ceo. (Same reason why the 748, 777X, and 737Max have not followed the 787 in having a bleedless system over at Boeing).

I imagine RR 787 engine overhaul costs will be similar to the A330neo's.

On the A330neo that may have been a factor. But airbus has chosen to stick with bleed air on all their new designs because maintenance is cheaper and reliability is higher. One of the Airbus chiefs told us so in an aviation magazine when asked about the A350 design. Part of it was higher loads on generators. "Airbus' contention is that a bleedless systems direct maintenance costs are 40% higher than a conventional bleed air system." Furthermore all engines need some bleed air, so adding an electrical system adds to the complexity.

If the 787's bleedless system resulted in 40% higher maintenance costs, I think the airlines would be expressing some very vocal dissatisfaction with the 787. Yet, what we are seeing is the 787 raking in over a 100 orders so far this year while other wide body orders (from both manufacturers) languish. I am fascinated by the 787's new systems and always looking out for articles and posts discussing the pros and cons of its various new technologies.

The context was about maintenance of the engines only.

par13del wrote:

Airbus already has HA deposits as well as a contract price for the frames, how exactly are they going to put on pressure by talking to Boeing?

By cancelling? Maybe Airbus has to refund the deposits if Hawaiian cancels. Certainly Airbus had to give a lot to persuade Hawaiian to switch its A358 to A338.

I just learned from a personal source that one airline (not Hawaiian) that wants to buy A330-900neo is forced to buy A350-900 instead. The reason he stated was that the creditors would not secure the loans with A330neo as the 2nd hand value and future of the type was far too uncertain.

JetBuddy wrote:

I just learned from a personal source that one airline (not Hawaiian) that wants to buy A330-900neo is forced to buy A350-900 instead. The reason he stated was that the creditors would not secure the loans with A330neo as the 2nd hand value and future of the type was far too uncertain.

While I don't know if that is true or not, it doesn't surprise me. It has a small customer base. Leasing companies are getting aggressive trying to place A330neos with customers. Air Berlin signed a deal a few months before its demise. Air Asia X rumors are floating that they may switch to A350s make sure it uncertain if they will operate A330neos and even if they do, they may not last long. I see creditors seeing risk with resale value. Delta is one of the few A330neo customers that a creditor will be confident will operate the planes form 20 years.

Newbiepilot wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

I just learned from a personal source that one airline (not Hawaiian) that wants to buy A330-900neo is forced to buy A350-900 instead. The reason he stated was that the creditors would not secure the loans with A330neo as the 2nd hand value and future of the type was far too uncertain.

While I don't know if that is true or not, it doesn't surprise me. It has a small customer base. Leasing companies are getting aggressive trying to place A330neos with customers. Air Berlin signed a deal a few months before its demise. Air Asia X rumors are floating that they may switch to A350s make sure it uncertain if they will operate A330neos and even if they do, they may not last long. I see creditors seeing risk with resale value. Delta is one of the few A330neo customers that a creditor will be confident will operate the planes form 20 years.

10 customers isn't that small a customer base, it's OK for a widebody that is yet to fly, and there will be more orders for it. If the above quote is true is means that maybe a few more airlines do want the A330neo, but for some reason the lessor is fulfilling their own prophecy by not allowing an airline to buy it.

And don't forget, the A330ceo lease market is strong, what happens when the ceo goes out of production? The 787 and A350 aren't really in a position to take advantage of lower capital costs, at least not yet. The A330neo may not get all of those leasing orders but it is the best widebody for the leasing market once the ceo goes out of production.

Polot wrote:

NZ321 wrote:

HA won't be the only A338 operator. Remember Airbus is still producing A332 CEO. Shortly that will end. Coupled with that Airbus clearly has another market in mind - tankers and freighters. There is no 777F conversion available. A332 PF replacement and A333 conversions on the other hand... so Airbus has a number of strings to its bow. We should have a clearer idea in the next year. That Airbus hasn't cancelled the aircraft and is proceeding tells us something - there is a market even if it isn't presenting just yet. The MOM is years away if Boeing even decides to proceed beyond concept. Airbus is in a comfortable position at the moment and time is on their side.

A332/A333 F conversions will hurt the market for new A338Fs as most cargo carriers will go for those much cheaper options as more used A330ceos hit the market rather than go for an expensive new build. Airbus already struggles with selling new build A332Fs as is.

Airbus is not in a dire situation, but the clock is ticking. Boeing is increasing 787 production rate so near term availabity is no longer a trump card Airbus can play, and while the MOM is years away there will be airlines willing to wait (for either the MOM or Airbus’s direct response) rather than just settle on the A338. Of course Airbus won’t cancel the A338 though, Airbus needs something to respond to the 788.

A330 P2F, both -200 and -300 are converted, broadens the base for A330 freighters. It leads to airlines flying A330 freighters and opens the market also for new A330 freighters as more airlines switch to the A330. We have seen the same with Boeing freighters. DHL for example did not use the A330.
Furthermore the A330 P2F program keeps up the price for older A330 frames, promoting retirement of older frames and sales of new A330.

Newbiepilot wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

I just learned from a personal source that one airline (not Hawaiian) that wants to buy A330-900neo is forced to buy A350-900 instead. The reason he stated was that the creditors would not secure the loans with A330neo as the 2nd hand value and future of the type was far too uncertain.

While I don't know if that is true or not, it doesn't surprise me. It has a small customer base. Leasing companies are getting aggressive trying to place A330neos with customers. Air Berlin signed a deal a few months before its demise. Air Asia X rumors are floating that they may switch to A350s make sure it uncertain if they will operate A330neos and even if they do, they may not last long. I see creditors seeing risk with resale value. Delta is one of the few A330neo customers that a creditor will be confident will operate the planes form 20 years.

If you want to lease a A330-900, just talk to Air Lease Corporation, CIT or Avolon, they have A330-900 on order, it would be strange if they would not prepared to lease them.

MrHMSH wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

I just learned from a personal source that one airline (not Hawaiian) that wants to buy A330-900neo is forced to buy A350-900 instead. The reason he stated was that the creditors would not secure the loans with A330neo as the 2nd hand value and future of the type was far too uncertain.

While I don't know if that is true or not, it doesn't surprise me. It has a small customer base. Leasing companies are getting aggressive trying to place A330neos with customers. Air Berlin signed a deal a few months before its demise. Air Asia X rumors are floating that they may switch to A350s make sure it uncertain if they will operate A330neos and even if they do, they may not last long. I see creditors seeing risk with resale value. Delta is one of the few A330neo customers that a creditor will be confident will operate the planes form 20 years.

10 customers isn't that small a customer base, it's OK for a widebody that is yet to fly, and there will be more orders for it. If the above quote is true is means that maybe a few more airlines do want the A330neo, but for some reason the lessor is fulfilling their own prophecy by not allowing an airline to buy it.

And don't forget, the A330ceo lease market is strong, what happens when the ceo goes out of production? The 787 and A350 aren't really in a position to take advantage of lower capital costs, at least not yet. The A330neo may not get all of those leasing orders but it is the best widebody for the leasing market once the ceo goes out of production.

I think the A330neo can get to the point of having a strong resale market with a solid customer base, it just hasn't yet. Delta is a rock solid customer. The rest are less so. TAP is expanding, but not long ago had financial problems, so there's so risk if fuel prices go up or the Portuguese economy struggles, they may contract or shrink. Garuda is also expanding, but has had trouble in its past as well. Iran Air has had varying levels of sanctions, so there could be some risk. Arkia and Air Calin are small operators. Air Asia has frequently changed its long haul strategy, deferred A330ceos, and rumors are even floating around that they may not want all the A330neos they have ordered and could go to the A350. Then there are leasing companies competing with each other to try and secure airplane placements and there have been rumors that they are offering very low lease rates to airlines such as Azul. I'm not saying these airlines are going to fail or paint a doom and gloom picture, but creditors are looking at resale and trying to predict the market in 12-20 years. The customer base isn't as solid as it is for other airplanes like the 787, A350, or A330ceo.

This is very similar to the 737-900ER in the mid 2000s. The airplane launched with Lion Air. Creditors saw risk that Lion Air could flood the used market with 737-900ERs and destroy resale value. Boeing Capital ended up financing some 737-900ERs until the customer base solidified since creditors pushed airlines towards the more popular 737-800. It took a while for customers like United/Delta/Alaska to commit to the airplane and give creditors confidence that there will be a used market. I see the exact same situation happening with the A330neo. It may take some time, but Airbus will need to land some larger long term financially stable airlines. I'm thinking orders from airlines that are A330ceo operators like AA, AC, BA/IB, AF/KL, LH, CX, QF, QR, TK, various Chinese operators, etc. Once airlines with solid credit ratings purchase the A330neo, I think the creditor risks for the A339 will go away. I see the A338 having a much harder time getting those orders.

Newbiepilot wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

While I don't know if that is true or not, it doesn't surprise me. It has a small customer base. Leasing companies are getting aggressive trying to place A330neos with customers. Air Berlin signed a deal a few months before its demise. Air Asia X rumors are floating that they may switch to A350s make sure it uncertain if they will operate A330neos and even if they do, they may not last long. I see creditors seeing risk with resale value. Delta is one of the few A330neo customers that a creditor will be confident will operate the planes form 20 years.

10 customers isn't that small a customer base, it's OK for a widebody that is yet to fly, and there will be more orders for it. If the above quote is true is means that maybe a few more airlines do want the A330neo, but for some reason the lessor is fulfilling their own prophecy by not allowing an airline to buy it.

And don't forget, the A330ceo lease market is strong, what happens when the ceo goes out of production? The 787 and A350 aren't really in a position to take advantage of lower capital costs, at least not yet. The A330neo may not get all of those leasing orders but it is the best widebody for the leasing market once the ceo goes out of production.

I think the A330neo can get to the point of having a strong resale market with a solid customer base, it just hasn't yet. Delta is a rock solid customer. The rest are less so. TAP is expanding, but not long ago had financial problems, so there's so risk if fuel prices go up or the Portuguese economy struggles, they may contract or shrink. Garuda is also expanding, but has had trouble in its past as well. Iran Air has had varying levels of sanctions, so there could be some risk. Arkia and Air Calin are small operators. Air Asia has frequently changed its long haul strategy, deferred A330ceos, and rumors are even floating around that they may not want all the A330neos they have ordered and could go to the A350. Then there are leasing companies competing with each other to try and secure airplane placements and there have been rumors that they are offering very low lease rates to airlines such as Azul. I'm not saying these airlines are going to fail or paint a doom and gloom picture, but creditors are looking at resale and trying to predict the market in 12-20 years. The customer base isn't as solid as it is for other airplanes like the 787, A350, or A330ceo.

This is very similar to the 737-900ER in the mid 2000s. The airplane launched with Lion Air. Creditors saw risk that Lion Air could flood the used market with 737-900ERs and destroy resale value. Boeing Capital ended up financing some 737-900ERs until the customer base solidified since creditors pushed airlines towards the more popular 737-800. It took a while for customers like United/Delta/Alaska to commit to the airplane and give creditors confidence that there will be a used market. I see the exact same situation happening with the A330neo. It may take some time, but Airbus will need to land some larger long term financially stable airlines. I'm thinking orders from airlines that are A330ceo operators like AA, AC, BA/IB, AF/KL, LH, CX, QF, QR, TK, various Chinese operators, etc. Once airlines with solid credit ratings purchase the A330neo, I think the creditor risks for the A339 will go away. I see the A338 having a much harder time getting those orders.

Three leasing companies have A330neo on order, that should inspire some confidence. If the customer base for the A330neo is thin, what is than with the customer base for the 777-8 or the 787-10? One leasing company, ALC, has both the A330-900 and 787-10 on order.
The potential customers for the A330neo are current users of A330ceo and that is a huge market. For me that is the reason that leasing companies have ordered the A330neo. There are still A330ceo being sold and that means both A330-300 and -200. The last three years the A330 has outsold the 787 each year, over the last 10 years the A330 has outsold the 787. We see the first year after 2014, that the 787 outsells the A330 83 to 8 and one year does not make a trend. The 787 had years in the last ten when the sales numbers were negative. I would wait for the A330neo to fly and reach EIS and than look at orders and customer base again.

mjoelnir wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

10 customers isn't that small a customer base, it's OK for a widebody that is yet to fly, and there will be more orders for it. If the above quote is true is means that maybe a few more airlines do want the A330neo, but for some reason the lessor is fulfilling their own prophecy by not allowing an airline to buy it.

And don't forget, the A330ceo lease market is strong, what happens when the ceo goes out of production? The 787 and A350 aren't really in a position to take advantage of lower capital costs, at least not yet. The A330neo may not get all of those leasing orders but it is the best widebody for the leasing market once the ceo goes out of production.

I think the A330neo can get to the point of having a strong resale market with a solid customer base, it just hasn't yet. Delta is a rock solid customer. The rest are less so. TAP is expanding, but not long ago had financial problems, so there's so risk if fuel prices go up or the Portuguese economy struggles, they may contract or shrink. Garuda is also expanding, but has had trouble in its past as well. Iran Air has had varying levels of sanctions, so there could be some risk. Arkia and Air Calin are small operators. Air Asia has frequently changed its long haul strategy, deferred A330ceos, and rumors are even floating around that they may not want all the A330neos they have ordered and could go to the A350. Then there are leasing companies competing with each other to try and secure airplane placements and there have been rumors that they are offering very low lease rates to airlines such as Azul. I'm not saying these airlines are going to fail or paint a doom and gloom picture, but creditors are looking at resale and trying to predict the market in 12-20 years. The customer base isn't as solid as it is for other airplanes like the 787, A350, or A330ceo.

This is very similar to the 737-900ER in the mid 2000s. The airplane launched with Lion Air. Creditors saw risk that Lion Air could flood the used market with 737-900ERs and destroy resale value. Boeing Capital ended up financing some 737-900ERs until the customer base solidified since creditors pushed airlines towards the more popular 737-800. It took a while for customers like United/Delta/Alaska to commit to the airplane and give creditors confidence that there will be a used market. I see the exact same situation happening with the A330neo. It may take some time, but Airbus will need to land some larger long term financially stable airlines. I'm thinking orders from airlines that are A330ceo operators like AA, AC, BA/IB, AF/KL, LH, CX, QF, QR, TK, various Chinese operators, etc. Once airlines with solid credit ratings purchase the A330neo, I think the creditor risks for the A339 will go away. I see the A338 having a much harder time getting those orders.

Three leasing companies have A330neo on order, that should inspire some confidence. If the customer base for the A330neo is thin, what is than with the customer base for the 777-8 or the 787-10? One leasing company, ALC, has both the A330-900 and 787-10 on order.
The potential customers for the A330neo are current users of A330ceo and that is a huge market. For me that is the reason that leasing companies have ordered the A330neo. There are still A330ceo being sold and that means both A330-300 and -200. The last three years the A330 has outsold the 787 each year, over the last 10 years the A330 has outsold the 787. We see the first year after 2014, that the 787 outsells the A330 83 to 8 and one year does not make a trend. The 787 had years in the last ten when the sales numbers were negative. I would wait for the A330neo to fly and reach EIS and than look at orders and customer base again.

Agreed. The Neo has a future and the leasing companies know this because of their relationships with existing operators. When Airbus pulls the plug on the 332 and 333 CEO which they will then bingo - we will see orders.

mjoelnir wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

10 customers isn't that small a customer base, it's OK for a widebody that is yet to fly, and there will be more orders for it. If the above quote is true is means that maybe a few more airlines do want the A330neo, but for some reason the lessor is fulfilling their own prophecy by not allowing an airline to buy it.

And don't forget, the A330ceo lease market is strong, what happens when the ceo goes out of production? The 787 and A350 aren't really in a position to take advantage of lower capital costs, at least not yet. The A330neo may not get all of those leasing orders but it is the best widebody for the leasing market once the ceo goes out of production.

I think the A330neo can get to the point of having a strong resale market with a solid customer base, it just hasn't yet. Delta is a rock solid customer. The rest are less so. TAP is expanding, but not long ago had financial problems, so there's so risk if fuel prices go up or the Portuguese economy struggles, they may contract or shrink. Garuda is also expanding, but has had trouble in its past as well. Iran Air has had varying levels of sanctions, so there could be some risk. Arkia and Air Calin are small operators. Air Asia has frequently changed its long haul strategy, deferred A330ceos, and rumors are even floating around that they may not want all the A330neos they have ordered and could go to the A350. Then there are leasing companies competing with each other to try and secure airplane placements and there have been rumors that they are offering very low lease rates to airlines such as Azul. I'm not saying these airlines are going to fail or paint a doom and gloom picture, but creditors are looking at resale and trying to predict the market in 12-20 years. The customer base isn't as solid as it is for other airplanes like the 787, A350, or A330ceo.

This is very similar to the 737-900ER in the mid 2000s. The airplane launched with Lion Air. Creditors saw risk that Lion Air could flood the used market with 737-900ERs and destroy resale value. Boeing Capital ended up financing some 737-900ERs until the customer base solidified since creditors pushed airlines towards the more popular 737-800. It took a while for customers like United/Delta/Alaska to commit to the airplane and give creditors confidence that there will be a used market. I see the exact same situation happening with the A330neo. It may take some time, but Airbus will need to land some larger long term financially stable airlines. I'm thinking orders from airlines that are A330ceo operators like AA, AC, BA/IB, AF/KL, LH, CX, QF, QR, TK, various Chinese operators, etc. Once airlines with solid credit ratings purchase the A330neo, I think the creditor risks for the A339 will go away. I see the A338 having a much harder time getting those orders.

Three leasing companies have A330neo on order, that should inspire some confidence. If the customer base for the A330neo is thin, what is than with the customer base for the 777-8 or the 787-10? One leasing company, ALC, has both the A330-900 and 787-10 on order.
The potential customers for the A330neo are current users of A330ceo and that is a huge market. For me that is the reason that leasing companies have ordered the A330neo. There are still A330ceo being sold and that means both A330-300 and -200. The last three years the A330 has outsold the 787 each year, over the last 10 years the A330 has outsold the 787. We see the first year after 2014, that the 787 outsells the A330 83 to 8 and one year does not make a trend. The 787 had years in the last ten when the sales numbers were negative. I would wait for the A330neo to fly and reach EIS and than look at orders and customer base again.

Hawaiian isn't waiting until the A330-800 reaches EIS before rethinking their decision.

Like I said earlier, the A330-900 customer base doesn't have the most financially secure customers outside of Delta so far, but that could change. So far Delta is really the only A330ceo major player to buy into the NEO. We'll see what China does. I agree we should wait to see if orders pick up and where financing comes from.

The 787-10 has a customer base of larger and more financially stable airlines. Singapore, EVA, United, British Airways, Air France/KLM, ANA, and Etihad collectively have more stability, which reassures creditors that there won't be a flood of used airplanes on the market. That helps with financing the airplane. Air Asia's CEO said in an interview: “Over the last 10 years we’ve been tweaking the model,” the CEO said. “Now that we kind of know what we want to do, we’re looking at the fleet. We’re toying with the A350. If we went A350, we wouldn’t use the A330neo anymore, we’d go all A350.” That doesn't instill confidence that Air Asia will take delivery of all their A330neos on order and operate them for a full 12-20 years.

Hawaiian's situation being the only A330-800 operator really hurts them get financing. 12 years ago Hawaiian was in bankruptcy, and although a lot has changed since then, creditors see that as risk. I think the 777-8 is going to have the exact same issues with creditors that the A330neo has. So far Etihad, Qatar and Emirates haven't really had trouble financing airplanes in the past. I don't know what airline jetbuddy was referring to, but I assume it is one with fewer financial resources than the ME3. Boeing had to finance a number of airplanes with the 757-300, 717, and 737-900ER through their capital division because creditors saw those programs as risky and didn't offer as attractive terms. Boeing has focused its sales strategy on its newer airplanes like the 787-10, 777x, and 737-10 to have stable "blue chip" airlines be launch customers. That should help with financing. Airbus is taking a different approach with the A330neo where they are pitching a low sales price and attracting smaller airlines looking to grow in the widebody market. That's a viable strategy as well, but can result in additional effort being required to finance the airplanes.

mjoelnir wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

I just learned from a personal source that one airline (not Hawaiian) that wants to buy A330-900neo is forced to buy A350-900 instead. The reason he stated was that the creditors would not secure the loans with A330neo as the 2nd hand value and future of the type was far too uncertain.

While I don't know if that is true or not, it doesn't surprise me. It has a small customer base. Leasing companies are getting aggressive trying to place A330neos with customers. Air Berlin signed a deal a few months before its demise. Air Asia X rumors are floating that they may switch to A350s make sure it uncertain if they will operate A330neos and even if they do, they may not last long. I see creditors seeing risk with resale value. Delta is one of the few A330neo customers that a creditor will be confident will operate the planes form 20 years.

If you want to lease a A330-900, just talk to Air Lease Corporation, CIT or Avolon, they have A330-900 on order, it would be strange if they would not prepared to lease them.

That is not the point here, the point here is financial lease vs operational lease, this decision affects total assets and gearing (and hence tax) for the airline.

mjoelnir wrote:

Three leasing companies have A330neo on order, that should inspire some confidence. If the customer base for the A330neo is thin, what is than with the customer base for the 777-8 or the 787-10? One leasing company, ALC, has both the A330-900 and 787-10 on order.

While that is true, those three leasing customers were also incredibly early customers (all three announced their commitment at the A330neo's launch in July 2014) so it hard to use them as an example of current confidence in the model. Based on the success of the A330ceo and the Neo's advantages over the 787 on paper (lower costs to buy/integrate in fleet, earlier delivery) I suspect at launch most people were expecting more A330neo orders at this point then the current 212.

I don't think anyone disputes the 777-8 customer base is thin, we all know it is a very niche aircraft. The 787-10's current customer base may be thin, but there is a broad 787 base. The A330ceo also has a broad customer base but there is no guarantee that operators will move to the Neo over the A350 or 787 when it comes time to renew their fleet.

In hindsight, HA probably should have split the original order between Airbus and Boeing - A332 for immediate capacity lift and 787-8 or 787-9 for long term growth. They would be getting their 787s right about now.

Instead, HA went for A332 + A358, which became A332 + A338, and now they have this vexing issue with potential value and financing cost for A338.

Polot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Three leasing companies have A330neo on order, that should inspire some confidence. If the customer base for the A330neo is thin, what is than with the customer base for the 777-8 or the 787-10? One leasing company, ALC, has both the A330-900 and 787-10 on order.

While that is true, those three leasing customers were also incredibly early customers (all three announced their commitment at the A330neo's launch in July 2014) so it hard to use them as an example of current confidence in the model. Based on the success of the A330ceo and the Neo's advantages over the 787 on paper (lower costs to buy/integrate in fleet, earlier delivery) I suspect at launch most people were expecting more A330neo orders at this point then the current 212.

I don't think anyone disputes the 777-8 customer base is thin, we all know it is a very niche aircraft. The 787-10's current customer base may be thin, but there is a broad 787 base. The A330ceo also has a broad customer base but there is no guarantee that operators will move to the Neo over the A350 or 787 when it comes time to renew their fleet.

It is enough to put to absurdum talk about non being able to get a leasing contract for a A330neo, you just lease from the companies that have the neo on order. And nobody talks about every A330ceo users has to move to the neo. If every third stays with the A330 and moves to the neo, that would mean 500 additional frames.

mjoelnir wrote:

It is enough to put to absurdum talk about non being able to get a leasing contract for a A330neo, you just lease from the companies that have the neo on order. And nobody talks about every A330ceo users has to move to the neo. If every third stays with the A330 and moves to the neo, that would mean 500 additional frames.

No one said anything about not being able to get leasing contracts for the Neos, just that leasing companies are getting aggressive with pricing to place them (which if anything implies the A330neos are not getting the initial market traction the leasers hoped). Some people here have suggested that there are rumors that getting good financing options is proving more difficult than expected, which is something entirely different than leasing.

Polot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

It is enough to put to absurdum talk about non being able to get a leasing contract for a A330neo, you just lease from the companies that have the neo on order. And nobody talks about every A330ceo users has to move to the neo. If every third stays with the A330 and moves to the neo, that would mean 500 additional frames.

No one said anything about not being able to get leasing contracts for the Neos, just that leasing companies are getting aggressive with pricing to place them (which if anything implies the A330neos are not getting the initial market traction the leasers hoped). Some people here have suggested that there are rumors that getting good financing options is proving more difficult than expected, which is something entirely different than leasing.

Do you want to tell me that the leasing companies having ordered A330neo are now pushing up the leasing price to sit on them and having to take them without being able to lease them? Some of the "rumours" produced here to bash the A330neo start to get ridiculous.

mjoelnir wrote:

Polot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

It is enough to put to absurdum talk about non being able to get a leasing contract for a A330neo, you just lease from the companies that have the neo on order. And nobody talks about every A330ceo users has to move to the neo. If every third stays with the A330 and moves to the neo, that would mean 500 additional frames.

No one said anything about not being able to get leasing contracts for the Neos, just that leasing companies are getting aggressive with pricing to place them (which if anything implies the A330neos are not getting the initial market traction the leasers hoped). Some people here have suggested that there are rumors that getting good financing options is proving more difficult than expected, which is something entirely different than leasing.

Do you want to tell me that the leasing companies having ordered A330neo are now pushing up the leasing price to sit on them and having to take them without being able to lease them? Some of the "rumours" produced here to bash the A330neo start to get ridiculous.

Leasing companies being aggressive with pricing = offering low prices to get airlines to bite (according to some people here rates comparable to the Ceo).

I don’t know if that is true or not, just clarifying what people here are saying.

bzcat wrote:

In hindsight, HA probably should have split the original order between Airbus and Boeing - A332 for immediate capacity lift and 787-8 or 787-9 for long term growth. They would be getting their 787s right about now.

Instead, HA went for A332 + A358, which became A332 + A338, and now they have this vexing issue with potential value and financing cost for A338.

I don't think that would have been a financially sound decision. For one, the A330 and 787 have nothing in common so having two sets of crew for such a small fleet would be bad. By contrast, the A350 and A330 share a common type rating. In addition, IIRC the A332's were part of the package, available on short notice, at a favorable price and a stop gap until the A358's would arrive. Without the A358 there wouldn't have been an A332 order. At least not at a favorable price, I don't think.

Polot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Polot wrote:

No one said anything about not being able to get leasing contracts for the Neos, just that leasing companies are getting aggressive with pricing to place them (which if anything implies the A330neos are not getting the initial market traction the leasers hoped). Some people here have suggested that there are rumors that getting good financing options is proving more difficult than expected, which is something entirely different than leasing.

The tenor was the other way around, not finding a leasing company leasing you an A330neo for an acceptable price, because it would be so risky.

Newbiepilot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

I think the A330neo can get to the point of having a strong resale market with a solid customer base, it just hasn't yet. Delta is a rock solid customer. The rest are less so. TAP is expanding, but not long ago had financial problems, so there's so risk if fuel prices go up or the Portuguese economy struggles, they may contract or shrink. Garuda is also expanding, but has had trouble in its past as well. Iran Air has had varying levels of sanctions, so there could be some risk. Arkia and Air Calin are small operators. Air Asia has frequently changed its long haul strategy, deferred A330ceos, and rumors are even floating around that they may not want all the A330neos they have ordered and could go to the A350. Then there are leasing companies competing with each other to try and secure airplane placements and there have been rumors that they are offering very low lease rates to airlines such as Azul. I'm not saying these airlines are going to fail or paint a doom and gloom picture, but creditors are looking at resale and trying to predict the market in 12-20 years. The customer base isn't as solid as it is for other airplanes like the 787, A350, or A330ceo.

This is very similar to the 737-900ER in the mid 2000s. The airplane launched with Lion Air. Creditors saw risk that Lion Air could flood the used market with 737-900ERs and destroy resale value. Boeing Capital ended up financing some 737-900ERs until the customer base solidified since creditors pushed airlines towards the more popular 737-800. It took a while for customers like United/Delta/Alaska to commit to the airplane and give creditors confidence that there will be a used market. I see the exact same situation happening with the A330neo. It may take some time, but Airbus will need to land some larger long term financially stable airlines. I'm thinking orders from airlines that are A330ceo operators like AA, AC, BA/IB, AF/KL, LH, CX, QF, QR, TK, various Chinese operators, etc. Once airlines with solid credit ratings purchase the A330neo, I think the creditor risks for the A339 will go away. I see the A338 having a much harder time getting those orders.

Three leasing companies have A330neo on order, that should inspire some confidence. If the customer base for the A330neo is thin, what is than with the customer base for the 777-8 or the 787-10? One leasing company, ALC, has both the A330-900 and 787-10 on order.
The potential customers for the A330neo are current users of A330ceo and that is a huge market. For me that is the reason that leasing companies have ordered the A330neo. There are still A330ceo being sold and that means both A330-300 and -200. The last three years the A330 has outsold the 787 each year, over the last 10 years the A330 has outsold the 787. We see the first year after 2014, that the 787 outsells the A330 83 to 8 and one year does not make a trend. The 787 had years in the last ten when the sales numbers were negative. I would wait for the A330neo to fly and reach EIS and than look at orders and customer base again.

Hawaiian isn't waiting until the A330-800 reaches EIS before rethinking their decision.

You do know that for a fact?

Newbiepilot wrote:

Like I said earlier, the A330-900 customer base doesn't have the most financially secure customers outside of Delta so far, but that could change. So far Delta is really the only A330ceo major player to buy into the NEO. We'll see what China does. I agree we should wait to see if orders pick up and where financing comes from.

The 787-10 has a customer base of larger and more financially stable airlines. Singapore, EVA, United, British Airways, Air France/KLM, ANA, and Etihad collectively have more stability, which reassures creditors that there won't be a flood of used airplanes on the market. That helps with financing the airplane. Air Asia's CEO said in an interview: “Over the last 10 years we’ve been tweaking the model,” the CEO said. “Now that we kind of know what we want to do, we’re looking at the fleet. We’re toying with the A350. If we went A350, we wouldn’t use the A330neo anymore, we’d go all A350.” That doesn't instill confidence that Air Asia will take delivery of all their A330neos on order and operate them for a full 12-20 years.

Hawaiian's situation being the only A330-800 operator really hurts them get financing. 12 years ago Hawaiian was in bankruptcy, and although a lot has changed since then, creditors see that as risk. I think the 777-8 is going to have the exact same issues with creditors that the A330neo has. So far Etihad, Qatar and Emirates haven't really had trouble financing airplanes in the past. I don't know what airline jetbuddy was referring to, but I assume it is one with fewer financial resources than the ME3. Boeing had to finance a number of airplanes with the 757-300, 717, and 737-900ER through their capital division because creditors saw those programs as risky and didn't offer as attractive terms. Boeing has focused its sales strategy on its newer airplanes like the 787-10, 777x, and 737-10 to have stable "blue chip" airlines be launch customers. That should help with financing. Airbus is taking a different approach with the A330neo where they are pitching a low sales price and attracting smaller airlines looking to grow in the widebody market. That's a viable strategy as well, but can result in additional effort being required to finance the airplanes.

Regarding the financing of the A330-900 I think one does not have to be very afraid, as several blue chip lessors have that frame on order.

Regarding the 6 A330-800, it would be easy for Airbus to arrange financing if HA should run into trouble with it.

mjoelnir wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Three leasing companies have A330neo on order, that should inspire some confidence. If the customer base for the A330neo is thin, what is than with the customer base for the 777-8 or the 787-10? One leasing company, ALC, has both the A330-900 and 787-10 on order.
The potential customers for the A330neo are current users of A330ceo and that is a huge market. For me that is the reason that leasing companies have ordered the A330neo. There are still A330ceo being sold and that means both A330-300 and -200. The last three years the A330 has outsold the 787 each year, over the last 10 years the A330 has outsold the 787. We see the first year after 2014, that the 787 outsells the A330 83 to 8 and one year does not make a trend. The 787 had years in the last ten when the sales numbers were negative. I would wait for the A330neo to fly and reach EIS and than look at orders and customer base again.

Hawaiian isn't waiting until the A330-800 reaches EIS before rethinking their decision.

You do know that for a fact?

Did you read the article in the original post? It doesn't say they have made up their mind, but it is pretty clear that they are rethinking their order judging by the CEOs comments:

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.

"We're still a big believer in the [Airbus] program, but we also know that Boeing has some terrific alternatives which we're also interested in looking at," Dunkerley said.

I don't know this for a fact, but reading between the lines implies that a 787 order is possible.

mjoelnir wrote:

Polot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

The tenor was the other way around, not finding a leasing company leasing you an A330neo for an acceptable price, because it would be so risky.

Well we will have to agree to disagree. We are clearly reading/interpreting posts differently.

mjoelnir wrote:

Regarding the financing of the A330-900 I think one does not have to be very afraid, as several blue chip lessors have that frame on order.

Having blue chip lessors does not help all that much when it comes to financing. With financing resale value is the biggest concern (related to the aircraft). Ultimately lessors are not the end users of a product, airlines (or scrappers if the plane is worth too little) are. It is those customers that determine the resale value of the plane. Lessors are just middle men trying to sell a plane they already bought new (in this scenario). Lessors don't set the resale value, they give the planes to whoever is willing to pay a price to take them (which in turn sets the value) or cancel their order (or, if they are like Amedeo, have very flexible terms for actually taking on the new plane). Right now that is likely biggest concern in regards to financing the A330neo- it does not have a ton of blue chip airlines.

Granted healthy and strong lessor activity is a general indication of strong resale value, but in the A330neo's case the lessor's orders so far have all been speculative and placed with the aircraft's launch. We are getting to the time where the lessors are having to start to put that speculation into actual firm contracts with customers, and where they will soon learn if they made a good financial choice or are overpaying.

bzcat wrote:

In hindsight, HA probably should have split the original order between Airbus and Boeing - A332 for immediate capacity lift and 787-8 or 787-9 for long term growth. They would be getting their 787s right about now.

Instead, HA went for A332 + A358, which became A332 + A338, and now they have this vexing issue with potential value and financing cost for A338.

Unfortunately with an airline the scale of HA, a split wb fleet would not be in their best interest. If they had twice as many planes, maybe...

Staying on topic, I think the real issue with the A338 (or any other potential wb currently) at HA lies within 2 issues:

1. Size - This has been what HA has desired since it originally placed their wb order with Airbus. A332/A358 - economics of the type, size of the model. IIRC, when asked why not the A333, Dunkerly said it was bigger than the airline needed and desired, same as to the A359. This was readily apparent and affirmed when the A358 was known to be dead and HA held out fr a different option from Airbus and did not convert to the A359. In fact when the announcement for the A338 finally came, Dunkerly had mentioned that AB had assured the aircraft could make it HNL-London. Though doubtful it would be in HA's current configuration, the assurance was verbally given and again they chose the 338 specifically and not the 339 citing size yet again. The size of HA as a whole also would encourage the smaller/lighter model to save on crew/airport fees which in the grand scheme of things may not be much, but to a small airline can make a big difference.

2. Range - We can bend it any way we like, but ultimately HA ordered the A358 for 1 thing only - range. Dunkerly had his eyes set on London and I don't think that desire has changed. I believe the only reason they selected the A338 was because of the range assurances from AB. It was a long shot in HAs dense seat layout that it would happen, but if AB couldn't deliver HA again had nothing to lose. This interview stating HA wants 12-15 hour flights in its future more than doubles down on it's desire for an aircraft with the legs in the size range it currently has.

We all know HA is a niche airline and needs/has sought niche aircraft. Unfortunately in the current state of aviation, HA has terribly limited options. "Non-stop to Hawaii" is their niche and they've been relatively successful despite the anet myth that Hawaii flying is a money pit. HAs relationship with Airbus is akin to their previous relationship with Douglas. I don't see them jumping unless 'it' hits the fan. As much as I would love to see Pualani on a 787, I don't think it would be the best choice for HA at this time.

If Airbus can't/won't give the range that HA desires in the 338, the only 2 options I see are 1. Diverting payments into the A321 balance, or maybe adding a 330 or two (85% chance). or 2. Taking a huge jump from its intended business model and taking the 359 (15% chance).

Bringing Boeing into the fold to look at their options is a no lose scenario for them.

Respectfully,
Pohakuloa

If IB can do MAD-NRT with 242t A332, an extra 450 nm for HNL-LHR should be within the A338 capability, even at 242t, let alone any higher.

trex8 wrote:

If IB can do MAD-NRT with 242t A332, an extra 450 nm for HNL-LHR should be within the A338 capability, even at 242t, let alone any higher.

If HA are that desperate for the extra range then maybe Airbus can make a 251T A338, that will easily make HNL-LHR. The A338 as it is adds 250nmi to the range, so as you say that may be enough anyway.