Airliners.net

Link/Source: https://worldairlinenews.com/2018/02/06 ... aint-shop/



1st flight is scheduled for mid 2018
Has a 242 Max tone takeoff weight and can flight routes up to 7,500 nautical miles.
Configuration of up to 250 passengers.

Which airline(s) are scheduled to take delivery of the A330-800.

I'm old enough to remember all of the nay-sayers here, "Airbus will never build it!" Well here it sits on the ramp for all to see! Congrats, Airbus!

Goodyear wrote:

I'm old enough to remember all of the nay-sayers here, "Airbus will never build it!" Well here it sits on the ramp for all to see! Congrats, Airbus!

Anyone over three is old enough considering the first (and only) order was placed on 18 December 2014. And the "Cancellation Chorus" did not really gain momentum until around the time the first frame was due in the FAL since there was still only a single order for the type so if Airbus wished to suspend or cancel the model, that was the logical time to do it.

AirbusMDCFAN wrote:

Which airline(s) are scheduled to take delivery of the A330-800.

Hawaiian is the only current customer for the type with six on order.

I would have prefered to see Airbus building the A350-800 instead of the A330-800

Looks great! Maybe Hawaiian will take some more to expand.

My opinion is that A330 NEO (esp the 800) is technological dead-end, and a risk reduction exercise for the A350 which has turned out brilliantly. Don't even see a huge market for this A/C.

Hawaiian is the only only airline scheduled to take A330-800.

Just on the tankers and freighters which will eventually be based on this rather than the A332ceo and the likely low development cost I suspect Airbus will do just fine.

irelayer wrote:

My opinion is that A330 NEO (esp the 800) is technological dead-end, and a risk reduction exercise for the A350 which has turned out brilliantly. Don't even see a huge market for this A/C.

I think it will see a few top up orders, but it hardly needs to sell for the program to become profitable anyways, the A330 sold a shed load and the 330neo development costs were fairly low, at around 2 billion dollars. Based on some quick maths AB need to make about $8million on each frame to breakeven (with any further orders reducing that cost futher...)

Hopefully we'll get to see them test it at Cardiff like they did with the A350 1000!

Stitch wrote:

Anyone over three is old enough considering the first (and only) order was placed on 18 December 2014. And the "Cancellation Chorus" did not really gain momentum until around the time the first frame was due in the FAL since there was still only a single order for the type so if Airbus wished to suspend or cancel the model, that was the logical time to do it.

Hawaiian is the only current customer for the type with six on order.

It will sell.
Market logic says :
1. there are 659 A332 flying ( and 40 in the backlog ) that will need to be replaced by a similarly-sized model or larger
2. A338 should sell below & be available for a good half decade before Boeing commercially produces it's twin-aisle NMA/MoM
3. Some A321 long regional services could be upgraded to A338, specially in Asia.
4. Airbus bet on it.

Stitch wrote:

Goodyear wrote:

I'm old enough to remember all of the nay-sayers here, "Airbus will never build it!" Well here it sits on the ramp for all to see! Congrats, Airbus!

Anyone over three is old enough considering the first (and only) order was placed on 18 December 2014. And the "Cancellation Chorus" did not really gain momentum until around the time the first frame was due in the FAL since there was still only a single order for the type so if Airbus wished to suspend or cancel the model, that was the logical time to do it.

AirbusMDCFAN wrote:

Which airline(s) are scheduled to take delivery of the A330-800.

Hawaiian is the only current customer for the type with six on order.

I'm old enough to remember where I was when the Eagles won the super bowl !
Dilly Dilly for Philly Philly !

Back on topic... It will be great to see this bird in new HA colors. Though not sure how i feel about the black eyeliner It took a while but its starting to grow on me with the A350...the same can't be said about the A330 series.

Was the decision to give these frames the eyeliner treatment purely aesthetic in nature or is there any performance advantages?

77H

JamesCousins wrote:

irelayer wrote:

My opinion is that A330 NEO (esp the 800) is technological dead-end, and a risk reduction exercise for the A350 which has turned out brilliantly. Don't even see a huge market for this A/C.

I think it will see a few top up orders, but it hardly needs to sell for the program to become profitable anyways, the A330 sold a shed load and the 330neo development costs were fairly low, at around 2 billion dollars. Based on some quick maths AB need to make about $8million on each frame to breakeven (with any further orders reducing that cost futher...)

One customer with 6 fragile frames on order is snot someone who I'd invest saying is opting for a top up order. You have to believe that Airbus has been trying to sell this bird to everyone minus Randy Tinseth. In addition, flying the only model of an aircraft family does not bode well with financiers.

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... ulls-b787s

rotating14 wrote:

JamesCousins wrote:

irelayer wrote:

My opinion is that A330 NEO (esp the 800) is technological dead-end, and a risk reduction exercise for the A350 which has turned out brilliantly. Don't even see a huge market for this A/C.

I think it will see a few top up orders, but it hardly needs to sell for the program to become profitable anyways, the A330 sold a shed load and the 330neo development costs were fairly low, at around 2 billion dollars. Based on some quick maths AB need to make about $8million on each frame to breakeven (with any further orders reducing that cost futher...)

One customer with 6 fragile frames on order is snot someone who I'd invest saying is opting for a top up order. You have to believe that Airbus has been trying to sell this bird to everyone minus Randy Tinseth. In addition, flying the only model of an aircraft family does not bode well with financiers.

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... ulls-b787s

There maybe other orders in the future. Airlines like Thomas Cook and IAG may order it in the future not every airline will replace their A330 200s with A330 300s or 900s there will be some that want a smaller version.

rotating14 wrote:

JamesCousins wrote:

irelayer wrote:

My opinion is that A330 NEO (esp the 800) is technological dead-end, and a risk reduction exercise for the A350 which has turned out brilliantly. Don't even see a huge market for this A/C.

I think it will see a few top up orders, but it hardly needs to sell for the program to become profitable anyways, the A330 sold a shed load and the 330neo development costs were fairly low, at around 2 billion dollars. Based on some quick maths AB need to make about $8million on each frame to breakeven (with any further orders reducing that cost futher...)

One customer with 6 fragile frames on order is snot someone who I'd invest saying is opting for a top up order. You have to believe that Airbus has been trying to sell this bird to everyone minus Randy Tinseth. In addition, flying the only model of an aircraft family does not bode well with financiers.

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... ulls-b787s

I'm not just referring to Hawaiian, there's other, small airlines globally that operate small A330-200 fleets, with infrastructure in the 330, whereby the neo is a great fit. There were 650+ A332's delivered, there's market for the -800neo, even if it is pretty small. Low development costs = easy to reach ROI. The 787 for example cost 16x the 330neo program to develop, the risk for AB is super low here and the pricing leverage they can offer as such could be a big win for them.

AirbusMDCFAN wrote:

Link/Source: https://worldairlinenews.com/2018/02/06 ... aint-shop/



1st flight is scheduled for mid 2018
Has a 242 Max tone takeoff weight and can flight routes up to 7,500 nautical miles.
Configuration of up to 250 passengers.

Which airline(s) are scheduled to take delivery of the A330-800.

The 251t variant will have a range approaching 8 200nm with 250 pax - phenomenal long range point-to-point machine.

Rgds

love the low profile nacelles.. really improves the image

From that angle it looks kind of A310-ish...

Anyhow, congratulations to Airbus.

Just curious, has any variant of a model only had 6 orders this far along in the production process?

An A330 that in typical configuration, can outfly an A346, a 77W, and any standard 747 model ever built.... insane!

ericm2031 wrote:

Just curious, has any variant of a model only had 6 orders this far along in the production process?

747-400ER

(freighters excluded, that is)

Goodyear wrote:

I'm old enough to remember all of the nay-sayers here, "Airbus will never build it!" Well here it sits on the ramp for all to see! Congrats, Airbus!

They built the A300B1 as well and only sold two

LAX772LR wrote:

An A330 that in typical configuration, can outfly an A346, a 77W, and any standard 747 model ever built.... insane!

That's quite an astonishing leap from the original A332, which flew just over 6200nm I believe.

I think the A338 will pick up orders, but would be surprised if they came in large batches from large airlines, I think like the A339, a lot of orders will be for fewer than 10 units, and they will start to add up if Airbus and the lessors can get lots of airlines to sign up. I wonder if AA are still considering it as part of their options for the A350 order?

Although it will suffer against the 787 on the longest routes where it can fly but the A339 can't, I think it could still be a good fit for many airlines, it now offers true long-haul capability, and maybe some smaller/startup airlines could use it for very long routes. Here's hoping!

Looks quite good even if I'm not sold on the A330neo's wingtips yet.

AirbusMDCFAN wrote:

Link/Source: https://worldairlinenews.com/2018/02/06 ... aint-shop/



1st flight is scheduled for mid 2018
Has a 242 Max tone takeoff weight and can flight routes up to 7,500 nautical miles.
Configuration of up to 250 passengers.

Which airline(s) are scheduled to take delivery of the A330-800.

Interesting quote from the article in the link above:
"With over 1,700 orders, the A330 is the most popular widebody aircraft ever, having flown nearly one million annual flights. Today, close to 1,400 aircraft have been delivered to 118 customers ..."
Boeing's site shows 1,814 orders with 1,386 delivered thru Dec '17.
Beautiful plane, no doubt but "most popular widebody aircraft ever" based on....?

XAM2175 wrote:

ericm2031 wrote:

Just curious, has any variant of a model only had 6 orders this far along in the production process?

747-400ER

DC10-15

...if one were to consider that a "model" variant.

Respects and credits to previous posters:
Irelayer “My opinion is that A330 NEO (esp the 800) is technological dead-end, and a risk reduction exercise for the A350 which has turned out brilliantly. Don't even see a huge market for this A/C.”
Trex8 “Just on the tankers and freighters which will eventually be based on this rather than the A332ceo and the likely low development cost I suspect Airbus will do just fine.”
Rotating14 “…flying the only model of an aircraft family does not bode well with financiers.”
Astuteman “The 251t variant will have a range approaching 8 200nm with 250 pax - phenomenal long range point-to-point machine.”
LAX772LR “An A330 that in typical configuration, can outfly an A346, a 77W, and any standard 747 model ever built.... insane! ”

Data:
~619P + ~38F = ~657 A332 deliveries
~179 frames, ~30%, direct purchases by leasing companies. This does not include SLBs.
~40-50 mid-life frames were ‘stored’ in the 2017/18 off-season
The A332F and A332-P2F are dominated by RR; making the RR powered A338F a natural upgrade candidate.

Hypothesis:
The A338-251t variant, A321 and CS300 effectively captures HA for Airbus.
There is ‘air’ in the 44 remaining A332 orders. AB will be optimistic about converting A332 --> A338 orders.
The A338 will be a niche aircraft with 59 (sic) passenger, xx freighter, xx MRTT deliveries. A332-243 p2f conversions will mute A338F demand in the near-to-mid term. Will this be a factor in the A338F launch timing?
The bubble in stored, mid-life A332s is a growing phenomenon. Leasors are recognizing economic disappointment on what they optimistically expected to be a frame with a functional life of 25 years.
Is the A338 frame an example of Aengus Kelly’s growing concerns for his industry and the potential mis-steps of the less seasoned players?
The wingspan and diameter of the hull are detracting characteristics when considering the A338 for the MOM market.
The A338 applies price pressure on the B789 phenomenon. Similar to AB’s economic strategy of using the A340 to mitigate B747 profits; or Boeing’s mimicking the technique by using the 748i versus the superior A388.
The A339-package freighter will prevail over its smaller sibling as a MD-11 replacement and will be the inertia that spurs the timing of the 789F.
Boeing's 'ownership' of the freighter market is a constant burr in the Airbus cockpit.

Unsubstantiated A-net regurgitation: Airbus military (MRTT) operates on a ~zero net profit basis; reworded- profit becomes a less dominate factor in the model.

I hope the A338 cost little to develop and the freighter market rebounds.

Anyone remember the phenomenal A340-8000, that could fly 8,000nm with 250 pax? Problem is, it had a bigger sibling that did 7,350nm at similar costs. Not to forget also, an all-new Boeing 777-200ER.

I see parallels here with the A339 capable of 7,350nm while not only does Boeing have the 787-9, you also have the A359 to contend with.

High-CASM ULR shrinks historically never sold well, starting with the 747SP.

They need it for the MRTT anyway. So even if this stays the only airliner frame, the extra cost is limited. It could replace quite a few 767-300ERs while offering much more range and still lower operating costs. But with current fuel prices, there is no need to hurry for airlines. Especially with the big order bubble in the industry.

Congratulations to Airbus, what an evolution the -200/-800 went through. I still remember some experts here proclaiming that the -800 will never be built...

JamesCousins wrote:

I'm not just referring to Hawaiian, there's other, small airlines globally that operate small A330-200 fleets, with infrastructure in the 330, whereby the neo is a great fit. There were 650+ A332's delivered, there's market for the -800neo, even if it is pretty small. Low development costs = easy to reach ROI. The 787 for example cost 16x the 330neo program to develop, the risk for AB is super low here and the pricing leverage they can offer as such could be a big win for them.

All of those airlines have had ample time to take a good look at the A338 and have yet to order any.
The only thing the A338 has to offer over the A339 is range and I just don't see small airlines wanting to get into the ULH business.
TP is one such "smallish" airline with a sizable fleet of A332's. They are replacing them all with A339's.
The only reason HA is taking these A338's is out of corporate stubbornness. They had already sunk their money in AB and they insist on wanting to fly to Europe.
I just don't see any other airline operating a passenger A338 and I'm not even entirely convinced that it will fly for HA. IMO, the longevity of the A338 in HA's fleet is 100% dependent on the viability of the Hawaii-Europe market, which I happen to believe it exists but not large enough to tie up 6 frames.

The A330-800 is basically an A330-200 Enhanced with new engines. 99% commonality with the A330-900 as well. It's needed for future MRTT and Freighter variants. I've always been confident they would build this aircraft, and they did.

airbazar wrote:

All of those airlines have had ample time to take a good look at the A338 and have yet to order any.
The only thing the A338 has to offer over the A339 is range and I just don't see small airlines wanting to get into the ULH business.
TP is one such "smallish" airline with a sizable fleet of A332's. They are replacing them all with A339's.
The only reason HA is taking these A338's is out of corporate stubbornness. They had already sunk their money in AB and they insist on wanting to fly to Europe.
I just don't see any other airline operating a passenger A338 and I'm not even entirely convinced that it will fly for HA. IMO, the longevity of the A338 in HA's fleet is 100% dependent on the viability of the Hawaii-Europe market, which I happen to believe it exists but not large enough to tie up 6 frames.

Well that’s not a gross mischaracterization of the facts regarding HA at all. (Sarcasm)

azjubilee wrote:

airbazar wrote:

All of those airlines have had ample time to take a good look at the A338 and have yet to order any.
The only thing the A338 has to offer over the A339 is range and I just don't see small airlines wanting to get into the ULH business.
TP is one such "smallish" airline with a sizable fleet of A332's. They are replacing them all with A339's.
The only reason HA is taking these A338's is out of corporate stubbornness. They had already sunk their money in AB and they insist on wanting to fly to Europe.
I just don't see any other airline operating a passenger A338 and I'm not even entirely convinced that it will fly for HA. IMO, the longevity of the A338 in HA's fleet is 100% dependent on the viability of the Hawaii-Europe market, which I happen to believe it exists but not large enough to tie up 6 frames.

Well that’s not a gross mischaracterization of the facts regarding HA at all. (Sarcasm)

It's not a [mis]characterization at all. It's an opinion and I made it clear by starting my sentence with "IMO".

JetBuddy wrote:

The A330-800 is basically an A330-200 Enhanced with new engines. 99% commonality with the A330-900 as well. It's needed for future MRTT and Freighter variants. I've always been confident they would build this aircraft, and they did.

Remind me again, how many orders are there for the A338 based MRTT and Freighter? Has it even been launched?
There's just zero interest in the market for the A338 being pax, freighter, or MRTT.

airbazar wrote:

Remind me again, how many orders are there for the A338 based MRTT and Freighter? Has it even been launched?

Probably none at the moment, but do you expect Airbus to keep manufacturing the "CEO" version indefinately?

Goodyear wrote:

I'm old enough to remember all of the nay-sayers here, "Airbus will never build it!" Well here it sits on the ramp for all to see! Congrats, Airbus!

The only nay-sayer I remember was Their MegaRoyal SuperMajesty Istvan Udvar-Hazy The One and Only. He was also the first one to order it.

amdiesen wrote:

Respects and credits to previous posters:
Irelayer “My opinion is that A330 NEO (esp the 800) is technological dead-end, and a risk reduction exercise for the A350 which has turned out brilliantly. Don't even see a huge market for this A/C.”
Trex8 “Just on the tankers and freighters which will eventually be based on this rather than the A332ceo and the likely low development cost I suspect Airbus will do just fine.”
Rotating14 “…flying the only model of an aircraft family does not bode well with financiers.”
Astuteman “The 251t variant will have a range approaching 8 200nm with 250 pax - phenomenal long range point-to-point machine.”
LAX772LR “An A330 that in typical configuration, can outfly an A346, a 77W, and any standard 747 model ever built.... insane! ”

Data:
~619P + ~38F = ~657 A332 deliveries
~179 frames, ~30%, direct purchases by leasing companies. This does not include SLBs.
~40-50 mid-life frames were ‘stored’ in the 2017/18 off-season
The A332F and A332-P2F are dominated by RR; making the RR powered A338F a natural upgrade candidate.

Hypothesis:
The A338-251t variant, A321 and CS300 effectively captures HA for Airbus.
There is ‘air’ in the 44 remaining A332 orders. AB will be optimistic about converting A332 --> A338 orders.
The A338 will be a niche aircraft with 59 (sic) passenger, xx freighter, xx MRTT deliveries. A332-243 p2f conversions will mute A338F demand in the near-to-mid term. Will this be a factor in the A338F launch timing?
The bubble in stored, mid-life A332s is a growing phenomenon. Leasors are recognizing economic disappointment on what they optimistically expected to be a frame with a functional life of 25 years.
Is the A338 frame an example of Aengus Kelly’s growing concerns for his industry and the potential mis-steps of the less seasoned players?
The wingspan and diameter of the hull are detracting characteristics when considering the A338 for the MOM market.
The A338 applies price pressure on the B789 phenomenon. Similar to AB’s economic strategy of using the A340 to mitigate B747 profits; or Boeing’s mimicking the technique by using the 748i versus the superior A388.
The A339-package freighter will prevail over its smaller sibling as a MD-11 replacement and will be the inertia that spurs the timing of the 789F.
Boeing's 'ownership' of the freighter market is a constant burr in the Airbus cockpit.

Unsubstantiated A-net regurgitation: Airbus military (MRTT) operates on a ~zero net profit basis; reworded- profit becomes a less dominate factor in the model.

WHY is no one simply stating what is going on with the A330neo program? The REAL competition to the A330-800neo is the B787-9, and the competitor to the A330-900neo is the B787-10, with both Boeing models 'blowing the doors' off the A330neo. The market has been comparing the A350-900 to the Dreamliner, ignoring the A330neo as the real 'comp'.

Airbus needs to aggressively court, lobby, market, cajole, influence, and convince the carriers operating 619 A330-200 to flip for the A330neo. They should be able to sell its amazing range, efficiency, and PRICE, something only some posters appear focused on. Not all carriers rely on lessors, many can source long-term acquisition capital quite well. These carriers SHOULD select the A330neo as it is SIGNIFICANTLY less expensive, as in tens-of-millions-of-US-dollars less expensive! Boeing is hamstrung by the massive capitalized, yet-to-be-amortized,development costs, greatly limiting its own pricing flexibility.

AR is currently in the market for A330-200 replacements and has listed the Dreamliner and the A350 as potential replacements, apparently deciding to 'discard' the A330neo option. WHY IS AIRBUS not aggressively selling them on the A330neo? Why is Airbus not also aggressively selling the A330neo to every current ceo operator already? Why are those carriers failing to place orders for frames?

When were HAs planes supposed to be delivered? If the 251t A339 isnt due till 2020. then the 251t A338 will even be later. So some of HAs planes will have to be 242t ??
http://aviationweek.com/new-civil-aircr ... eing-787-s

LAX772LR wrote:

An A330 that in typical configuration, can outfly an A346, a 77W, and any standard 747 model ever built.... insane!

Yet when you step back and think about it, Airbus built up a catalog of designs that made the A340 "classic" have similar or better range than those planes, and they've been migrating those designs back to A330, whilst also optimizing A330 (getting rid of common A330/A340 wing in favor of A330 specific wing, aero tweaks) and taking advantage of new engine tech. To some degree, it's "found money". Design tweaks paid for to some degree by A340, engine tweaks paid for to some degree by 787 and A350 development efforts. Add to that some A330 specific optimizations and of course integration and test, and you have a product with "insane" range.

[quote="airbazar]It's not a [mis]characterization at all. It's an opinion and I made it clear by starting my sentence with "IMO".[/quote]

That’s cool. Only there is no corporate “stubbornness” as the A330-800 is up for re-evaluation at the the moment as the needs of the company have evolved. No information has been given either way on the fate of the order, but Boeing is being considered. Further, there is no “insistence” on Europe. Go back and review how Dunkerley and his team broach that issue. HA also has it’s sights set on getting deeper into Asia where the 332’s range is limited, so a longer haul aircraft is possible for those reasons as well, so it’s not all about Europe.

PDPsol wrote:

amdiesen wrote:

Respects and credits to previous posters:
Irelayer “My opinion is that A330 NEO (esp the 800) is technological dead-end, and a risk reduction exercise for the A350 which has turned out brilliantly. Don't even see a huge market for this A/C.”
Trex8 “Just on the tankers and freighters which will eventually be based on this rather than the A332ceo and the likely low development cost I suspect Airbus will do just fine.”
Rotating14 “…flying the only model of an aircraft family does not bode well with financiers.”
Astuteman “The 251t variant will have a range approaching 8 200nm with 250 pax - phenomenal long range point-to-point machine.”
LAX772LR “An A330 that in typical configuration, can outfly an A346, a 77W, and any standard 747 model ever built.... insane! ”

Data:
~619P + ~38F = ~657 A332 deliveries
~179 frames, ~30%, direct purchases by leasing companies. This does not include SLBs.
~40-50 mid-life frames were ‘stored’ in the 2017/18 off-season
The A332F and A332-P2F are dominated by RR; making the RR powered A338F a natural upgrade candidate.

Hypothesis:
The A338-251t variant, A321 and CS300 effectively captures HA for Airbus.
There is ‘air’ in the 44 remaining A332 orders. AB will be optimistic about converting A332 --> A338 orders.
The A338 will be a niche aircraft with 59 (sic) passenger, xx freighter, xx MRTT deliveries. A332-243 p2f conversions will mute A338F demand in the near-to-mid term. Will this be a factor in the A338F launch timing?
The bubble in stored, mid-life A332s is a growing phenomenon. Leasors are recognizing economic disappointment on what they optimistically expected to be a frame with a functional life of 25 years.
Is the A338 frame an example of Aengus Kelly’s growing concerns for his industry and the potential mis-steps of the less seasoned players?
The wingspan and diameter of the hull are detracting characteristics when considering the A338 for the MOM market.
The A338 applies price pressure on the B789 phenomenon. Similar to AB’s economic strategy of using the A340 to mitigate B747 profits; or Boeing’s mimicking the technique by using the 748i versus the superior A388.
The A339-package freighter will prevail over its smaller sibling as a MD-11 replacement and will be the inertia that spurs the timing of the 789F.
Boeing's 'ownership' of the freighter market is a constant burr in the Airbus cockpit.

Unsubstantiated A-net regurgitation: Airbus military (MRTT) operates on a ~zero net profit basis; reworded- profit becomes a less dominate factor in the model.

WHY is no one simply stating what is going on with the A330neo program? The REAL competition to the A330-800neo is the B787-9, and the competitor to the A330-900neo is the B787-10, with both Boeing models 'blowing the doors' off the A330neo. The market has been comparing the A350-900 to the Dreamliner, ignoring the A330neo as the real 'comp'.

Airbus needs to aggressively court, lobby, market, cajole, influence, and convince the carriers operating 619 A330-200 to flip for the A330neo. They should be able to sell its amazing range, efficiency, and PRICE, something only some posters appear focused on. Not all carriers rely on lessors, many can source long-term acquisition capital quite well. These carriers SHOULD select the A330neo as it is SIGNIFICANTLY less expensive, as in tens-of-millions-of-US-dollars less expensive! Boeing is hamstrung by the massive capitalized, yet-to-be-amortized,development costs, greatly limiting its own pricing flexibility.

AR is currently in the market for A330-200 replacements and has listed the Dreamliner and the A350 as potential replacements, apparently deciding to 'discard' the A330neo option. WHY IS AIRBUS not aggressively selling them on the A330neo? Why is Airbus not also aggressively selling the A330neo to every current ceo operator already? Why are those carriers failing to place orders for frames?

It's not only Boeing that has to recoup development costs, Airbus has something called the A350, you might've heard of it before.....Being too aggressive with the 330neo means pissing on many of the A350's potential sales. Besides, Airlines certainly don't buy just based on price but performance and efficiency as well, by all accounts the 320neos are selling at a premium compared to the 737max's but are still clearly ahead on orders + backlogs. It's certainly not inconceivable that the 787's advantages in efficiency and capability outweigh the 330's pricing advantage, especially if financiers give better rates for the former type.

PDPsol wrote:

WHY is no one simply stating what is going on with the A330neo program? The REAL competition to the A330-800neo is the B787-9, and the competitor to the A330-900neo is the B787-10, with both Boeing models 'blowing the doors' off the A330neo. The market has been comparing the A350-900 to the Dreamliner, ignoring the A330neo as the real 'comp'.

Airbus needs to aggressively court, lobby, market, cajole, influence, and convince the carriers operating 619 A330-200 to flip for the A330neo. They should be able to sell its amazing range, efficiency, and PRICE, something only some posters appear focused on. Not all carriers rely on lessors, many can source long-term acquisition capital quite well. These carriers SHOULD select the A330neo as it is SIGNIFICANTLY less expensive, as in tens-of-millions-of-US-dollars less expensive! Boeing is hamstrung by the massive capitalized, yet-to-be-amortized,development costs, greatly limiting its own pricing flexibility.

AR is currently in the market for A330-200 replacements and has listed the Dreamliner and the A350 as potential replacements, apparently deciding to 'discard' the A330neo option. WHY IS AIRBUS not aggressively selling them on the A330neo? Why is Airbus not also aggressively selling the A330neo to every current ceo operator already? Why are those carriers failing to place orders for frames?

Let us see, the 787 outsold the A330 in 2017. And that is blowing of the doors of the A330neo.

Care to look at 2016, 2015 or 2014?

JustSomeDood wrote:

PDPsol wrote:

amdiesen wrote:

Respects and credits to previous posters:
Irelayer “My opinion is that A330 NEO (esp the 800) is technological dead-end, and a risk reduction exercise for the A350 which has turned out brilliantly. Don't even see a huge market for this A/C.”
Trex8 “Just on the tankers and freighters which will eventually be based on this rather than the A332ceo and the likely low development cost I suspect Airbus will do just fine.”
Rotating14 “…flying the only model of an aircraft family does not bode well with financiers.”
Astuteman “The 251t variant will have a range approaching 8 200nm with 250 pax - phenomenal long range point-to-point machine.”
LAX772LR “An A330 that in typical configuration, can outfly an A346, a 77W, and any standard 747 model ever built.... insane! ”

Data:
~619P + ~38F = ~657 A332 deliveries
~179 frames, ~30%, direct purchases by leasing companies. This does not include SLBs.
~40-50 mid-life frames were ‘stored’ in the 2017/18 off-season
The A332F and A332-P2F are dominated by RR; making the RR powered A338F a natural upgrade candidate.

Hypothesis:
The A338-251t variant, A321 and CS300 effectively captures HA for Airbus.
There is ‘air’ in the 44 remaining A332 orders. AB will be optimistic about converting A332 --> A338 orders.
The A338 will be a niche aircraft with 59 (sic) passenger, xx freighter, xx MRTT deliveries. A332-243 p2f conversions will mute A338F demand in the near-to-mid term. Will this be a factor in the A338F launch timing?
The bubble in stored, mid-life A332s is a growing phenomenon. Leasors are recognizing economic disappointment on what they optimistically expected to be a frame with a functional life of 25 years.
Is the A338 frame an example of Aengus Kelly’s growing concerns for his industry and the potential mis-steps of the less seasoned players?
The wingspan and diameter of the hull are detracting characteristics when considering the A338 for the MOM market.
The A338 applies price pressure on the B789 phenomenon. Similar to AB’s economic strategy of using the A340 to mitigate B747 profits; or Boeing’s mimicking the technique by using the 748i versus the superior A388.
The A339-package freighter will prevail over its smaller sibling as a MD-11 replacement and will be the inertia that spurs the timing of the 789F.
Boeing's 'ownership' of the freighter market is a constant burr in the Airbus cockpit.

Unsubstantiated A-net regurgitation: Airbus military (MRTT) operates on a ~zero net profit basis; reworded- profit becomes a less dominate factor in the model.

WHY is no one simply stating what is going on with the A330neo program? The REAL competition to the A330-800neo is the B787-9, and the competitor to the A330-900neo is the B787-10, with both Boeing models 'blowing the doors' off the A330neo. The market has been comparing the A350-900 to the Dreamliner, ignoring the A330neo as the real 'comp'.

Airbus needs to aggressively court, lobby, market, cajole, influence, and convince the carriers operating 619 A330-200 to flip for the A330neo. They should be able to sell its amazing range, efficiency, and PRICE, something only some posters appear focused on. Not all carriers rely on lessors, many can source long-term acquisition capital quite well. These carriers SHOULD select the A330neo as it is SIGNIFICANTLY less expensive, as in tens-of-millions-of-US-dollars less expensive! Boeing is hamstrung by the massive capitalized, yet-to-be-amortized,development costs, greatly limiting its own pricing flexibility.

AR is currently in the market for A330-200 replacements and has listed the Dreamliner and the A350 as potential replacements, apparently deciding to 'discard' the A330neo option. WHY IS AIRBUS not aggressively selling them on the A330neo? Why is Airbus not also aggressively selling the A330neo to every current ceo operator already? Why are those carriers failing to place orders for frames?

It's not only Boeing that has to recoup development costs, Airbus has something called the A350, you might've heard of it before.....Being too aggressive with the 330neo means pissing on many of the A350's potential sales. Besides, Airlines certainly don't buy just based on price but performance and efficiency as well, by all accounts the 320neos are selling at a premium compared to the 737max's but are still clearly ahead on orders + backlogs. It's certainly not inconceivable that the 787's advantages in efficiency and capability outweigh the 330's pricing advantage, especially if financiers give better rates for the former type.

Yes, but what, EXACTLY, are the '787 advantages in efficiency and capability' relative to the A330neo? A330-800neo comparable range/capacity (bit less range) to the B787-9, while A330-900neo comparable (even more range!) to the B787-10. So the question begs itself: what in the world is going on?

Of course, totally agree with the A350 capitalized development cost quandary Airbus finds itself, with potential influence the issue could have on A330neo marketing efforts. Airbus would, presumably, prefer an A350-900 order over an A330-900neo order! Nonetheless, both are completely different models, with different missions. Some carriers may very well want the A350-900, without requiring all its capabilities, rather than order the A330neo. However, from a completely objective, data-driven assessment perspective, no reason for Airbus to have these types of marketing and sales performance issues with the A330neo. I suspect carriers will pull the trigger on A330neo orders once TP, and others, place these frames into revenue service.

mjoelnir wrote:

PDPsol wrote:

WHY is no one simply stating what is going on with the A330neo program? The REAL competition to the A330-800neo is the B787-9, and the competitor to the A330-900neo is the B787-10, with both Boeing models 'blowing the doors' off the A330neo. The market has been comparing the A350-900 to the Dreamliner, ignoring the A330neo as the real 'comp'.

Airbus needs to aggressively court, lobby, market, cajole, influence, and convince the carriers operating 619 A330-200 to flip for the A330neo. They should be able to sell its amazing range, efficiency, and PRICE, something only some posters appear focused on. Not all carriers rely on lessors, many can source long-term acquisition capital quite well. These carriers SHOULD select the A330neo as it is SIGNIFICANTLY less expensive, as in tens-of-millions-of-US-dollars less expensive! Boeing is hamstrung by the massive capitalized, yet-to-be-amortized,development costs, greatly limiting its own pricing flexibility.

AR is currently in the market for A330-200 replacements and has listed the Dreamliner and the A350 as potential replacements, apparently deciding to 'discard' the A330neo option. WHY IS AIRBUS not aggressively selling them on the A330neo? Why is Airbus not also aggressively selling the A330neo to every current ceo operator already? Why are those carriers failing to place orders for frames?

Let us see, the 787 outsold the A330 in 2017. And that is blowing of the doors of the A330neo.

Care to look at 2016, 2015 or 2014?

Issue is not whether Dreamliner sales exceed A330neo orders but, rather, WHY?! Both aircraft families offer comparable mission capabilities. However, the A330neo is priced significantly less than the Dreamliner. Why aren't the likes of current ceo operators, MU, AR, and CA ordering the A330neo? Everyone understands the A330neo marketing program is relatively new, and Airbus certainly lost considerable time before launching the neo program in 2015. That loss in momentum may very well be the reason Airbus finds itself in a poor marketing environment for the neo. Nonetheless, there should be A LOT more coverage, more activity, and more orders coming out of this program. If Airbus really wants the A330neo to compete with the Dreamliner, it needs to take Boeing on directly, client-by-client.

AirbusMDCFAN wrote:

Link/Source: https://worldairlinenews.com/2018/02/06 ... aint-shop/



1st flight is scheduled for mid 2018
Has a 242 Max tone takeoff weight and can flight routes up to 7,500 nautical miles.
Configuration of up to 250 passengers.

Which airline(s) are scheduled to take delivery of the A330-800.

I just want to note that Airbus quotes this as a 257 passenger typical configuration (of course it's usually lower than Airbus figures). The maximum seating is 406.

With the A350-1000 performance targets met, and its better than expected lift-range specs, it will be a formidable competitor to the 777NG. So the A338 and A339 become very important in the Airbus lineup because they can be offered at a great price while covering a lot of missions of the old 777, the 787 and legacy Airbus products. Airbus will offer these new versions and adjust aggressively its price because they can, and the commonality and availability of the aircraft in a reasonable time will be huge selling point. The A338 will sell for sure in long thin routes and can be had sooner than the competition, more so if Boeing sells only 789 and 787-1000... Maybe Boeing has to consider redoing the 767 to fill that segment that very long ago was covered by the 762 and the A310, because we know the 787-3 is dead as Jimmy Hoffa.

Best Regards TRB

Sancho99504 wrote:

Hawaiian is the only only airline scheduled to take A330-800.

I have a feeling someone else will consider the model...someone like Aerolineas Argentinas, for which the A330-900neo is too much plane but which could use the A330-800 to add flexibility and more European destinations, especially with Norwegian taking it on head-on. South African Airways could take some if it ever gets its financial shape in order, or via a trade-in of A340-300s for A330-800s.

AA might trade their A359 orders for some A338's and use those to replace remainder of their 767 fleet

JetBuddy wrote:

airbazar wrote:

Remind me again, how many orders are there for the A338 based MRTT and Freighter? Has it even been launched?

Probably none at the moment, but do you expect Airbus to keep manufacturing the "CEO" version indefinately?

No but what does that have to do with the fact that no one wants an A338?
There will be so many cheap A332's hitting the used market and available for p2f or p2mrtt conversions that will make a brand new freighter/mrtt based on a brand new A338, financially illogical. That is why no one is asking for it and that is why Airbus hasn't launched it.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I have a feeling someone else will consider the model...someone like Aerolineas Argentinas, for which the A330-900neo is too much plane but which could use the A330-800 to add flexibility and more European destinations, especially with Norwegian taking it on head-on. South African Airways could take some if it ever gets its financial shape in order, or via a trade-in of A340-300s for A330-800s.

In what way is it too much plane? The capacity different is about 20 seats. Based on the config it might even be less. TP has about the same number of seats in their A332's as they do on their A340's for example. That is exactly why the A338 is not selling. This is not a 772 vs 77W type difference. All you're getting with an A338 is more range and higher CASM. But if you don't need the range at all, then take the A339 and get 20 extra "free" seats.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Sancho99504 wrote:

Hawaiian is the only only airline scheduled to take A330-800.

I have a feeling someone else will consider the model...someone like Aerolineas Argentinas, for which the A330-900neo is too much plane but which could use the A330-800 to add flexibility and more European destinations, especially with Norwegian taking it on head-on. South African Airways could take some if it ever gets its financial shape in order, or via a trade-in of A340-300s for A330-800s.

Exactly my thoughts as well on AR, and even SA! However, I read (somewhere) AR had 'discarded' the A330neo, focusing only on the Dreamliner vs. A350. This makes no sense for AR, which has already been informed by the current administration it is on its own from now on, no more subsidies, price controls, labor union control, or preferred treatment by the state. AR needs a profit machine, at low cost, and the A330-800neo would be fabulous for their EZE-FCO route. The frame could even be used to re-open EZE-LAX, and even shoot for re-opening EZE-CDG!

Airbus is now on the case with the A330neo. Eric Shulz, the brand-new Airbus sales chief, has stated sales for the A330neo 'must accelerate'. This Reuters article was just published today, we must be discussing a very relevant business topic:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sing ... SKBN1FR144

Shulz states he wants at least two new A330neo customers this year, and reiterated Airbus very impressed and pleased with the neo performance. Time for those orders to start falling in line with expectations!

airbazar wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

airbazar wrote:

Remind me again, how many orders are there for the A338 based MRTT and Freighter? Has it even been launched?

Probably none at the moment, but do you expect Airbus to keep manufacturing the "CEO" version indefinately?

No but what does that have to do with the fact that no one wants an A338?
There will be so many cheap A332's hitting the used market and available for p2f or p2mrtt conversions that will make a brand new freighter/mrtt based on a brand new A338, financially illogical. That is why no one is asking for it and that is why Airbus hasn't launched it.

Freighters/tankers usually follow the initial pax version EIS by years. The neo isnt even certified and you think people will be lining up to buy the freighter/tanker?? Where were all those 777 freighter orders in the late 90s/early 2000s? Or the 787 ones now???