If HA does acquire the 789, does that put western Europe within range from HNL?
The 789 has awfully long legs

bigjku wrote:

A more interesting possibility is that Boeing is basically coming to the end of the 787 accounting block based on its stated size and number of orders. They are basically 100 orders from having the block filled out and that doesn’t include Emirates order yet. Boeing knows it’s cost very well by now and has been ruthless in driving them down. It knows what profit it needs to make to play out that accounting block as well.

Would you please elaborate on this? I don't understand the financial side of the industry at all.

I'm assuming you are saying that the cost of building the production line is amortized over x number of units, are you suggesting they have done better than planned to this point, and so have more flexibility with the units left to be sold to reach x then they might with the next batch?

I guess they decided that going forward with taking a plane they have the only 6 orders to isn't that wise. The 789 has better range than the 332/338 and I guess they may go for a different configuration, like with W (perhaps a lot of those) and a J like Cirrus or Super Diamond. I know they just introduced their new J a couple of years ago, but while the 789 in a standard config is really good for HA, it may be too much plane at the config they may have planned. I won't buy for a second that HA can't sustain W, and that could bring the seat count down. Also I guess Europe is coming next. Yay.

The original order for the A358 and later the A338 was 8. Can we see a larger order for the 789?

airzona11 wrote:

zkojq wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Do we need to remind Leeham that an aircraft sold from Washington state to Hawaiian isn't international commerce? I guess we do.

Read again what was tweeted.

Aggressive pricing, taking out 3 767-300ERs that are going to United involved. Aggressive pricing--sounds like complaints in @Bombardier trade case

He's not saying Airbus has a trade case, he's saying that the pricing is similar to what Boeing complained about in the Bombardier case and hence implying that Boeing is selling below cost.

Except this a domestic transaction...

But it is close to protectionism. I wonder what fur would fly if say Airbus did a similar deal to oust the 787 at BA or Air France?

StTim wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

zkojq wrote:

Read again what was tweeted.



He's not saying Airbus has a trade case, he's saying that the pricing is similar to what Boeing complained about in the Bombardier case and hence implying that Boeing is selling below cost.

Except this a domestic transaction...

But it is close to protectionism. I wonder what fur would fly if say Airbus did a similar deal to oust the 787 at BA or Air France?

We don’t even know what this deal is yet, but how do we know what deals Airbus has done? We aren’t usually privy to all the details of these transactions.

marcelh wrote:

The original order for the A358 and later the A338 was 8. Can we see a larger order for the 789?

All this over 8 freaking planes? What is the big deal?

Stitch wrote:

If HA has indeed chosen the 787-9, I find it not a major surprise in as much there have been what could be called credible reports by Leeham and ch-aviation that Hawaiian has had an RFP out on both the 787-9 and the A350-900 because they were worried that they would end up the only operator of the A330-800.

Yeah, their credible reporting is based of public comments by HAL over the last year. So this isn't rooted in speculation or rumor. It was actually happening, but many couldn't see it staring at them in the face. You and others, including myself were clever enough to make these deductions.

marcelh wrote:

The original order for the A358 and later the A338 was 8. Can we see a larger order for the 789?

Actually, it was for 6. The 332's were also initially 6, which has become 24. HA has always added to their original intentions.

FA9295 wrote:

Austin787 wrote:

787-8 makes more sense for HA if they are going the 787 route.

I agree. Not sure why the 789 was more appealing to HA than the 788... Most people on this thread state that the 789 is "too much plane". The 787-8 cuts that down (although not significantly, but still nonetheless)...

Maybe they want more range?

HA colors will look beautiful on the 789, if this does turn out to come to fruition. Of course that's not to say that their colors wouldn't look great on the A338 as well.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

StTim wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

Except this a domestic transaction...

But it is close to protectionism. I wonder what fur would fly if say Airbus did a similar deal to oust the 787 at BA or Air France?

We don’t even know what this deal is yet, but how do we know what deals Airbus has done? We aren’t usually privy to all the details of these transactions.

It's already a.net fact that this deal is done and the planes were sold below cost. Why Boeing would sell below cost for a plane with a very healthy backlog for an order, which if all goes well could end up in the double digits, I have no idea.

Not too bad for Airbus when Boeing will end up paying them the cancellation penalties from the A330-800neo deal.

So the 339's an orphan Now? HmmmmTricky.
Still makes room for a proper 360.
Was gonna come anyway.

Sooner787 wrote:

If HA does acquire the 789, does that put western Europe within range from HNL?
The 789 has awfully long legs

That puts everything but Africa and the Arabian Peninsula within range, give or take ETOPS restrictions.

parapente wrote:

Still makes room for a proper 360.

Interesting times ahead!

I’m praying to every Hawaiian god that this means nonstop flights to Europe are imminent. They’ll find a very local customer in me, that’s for sure.

Sooner787 wrote:

If HA does acquire the 789, does that put western Europe within range from HNL?

Honolulu-Western Europe is around 6500nm Great Circle, which is around 1000nm lower than the design range of both the A330-800 and 787-9. So accounting for actual airline configurations and real-world conditions, both should be able to take a full load of passengers and baggage with some revenue cargo.

Austin787 wrote:

787-8 makes more sense for HA if they are going the 787 route.

FA9295 wrote:

I agree. Not sure why the 789 was more appealing to HA than the 788... Most people on this thread state that the 789 is "too much plane". The 787-8 cuts that down (although not significantly, but still nonetheless)...

c933103 wrote:

Maybe they want more range?

While the 787-8 likely has enough range to meet the requirements, it is an expensive plane for Boeing to build due to lack of commonality with the 787-9 and 787-10. So I expect Boeing is willing to deal more (as a percentage discount if not actual hard dollar amount discount) on the 787-9 than the 787-8.

marcelh wrote:

Can we see a larger order for the 789?

Perhaps farther down the road. HA has a large A330-200 fleet which is quite young. The A350-800 looks like it offered the mix of capacity and range Hawaiian was looking for to launch limited European services to test the waters and the 787-9 will give them the same. So if a European expansion does well, then I could see HA adding more 787-9s down the road.

Strato2 wrote:

Not too bad for Airbus when Boeing will end up paying them the cancellation penalties from the A330-800neo deal.

I would not be surprised if HA can walk away from the A330-800 deal with zero penalties. And any deposits they had would have been moved to their A321 orders.

parapente wrote:

So the 339's an orphan Now? Hmmmm Tricky.

I don't think the A330-900 needs to worry about being an "only child" anymore than the A330-300HGW did.

This just came into my email.

Boeing displaces Airbus at Hawaiian, wins 787-9 deal; airline cancels A330-800 order

https://leehamnews.com/2018/02/20/boein ... more-26375

The story is now online:

https://leehamnews.com/2018/02/20/boein ... 800-order/

Apparently Boeing wants to avoid the A330-800 from entering service as it prepares the launch of the 797:

Boeing’s effort to displace Airbus A330neo at Hawaiian is part of an all-out, hand-to-hand combat campaign by Boeing to kill the A330neo program in advance of the potential launch of the Boeing 797.

We know Airbus pitches the A330-800 as some sort of MOM airplane.

It also helped that Boeing will allow early termination of some 767 lease contracts:

Although not directly related to the campaign, Boeing Capital Corp agreed to release Hawaiian from three 767-300ER leases well in advance of the termination dates. Hawaiian’s desires to exit the 767 fleet had been stated publicly many times.

...

LNC is told Boeing “was determined to win at any cost.” Boeing bid below Airbus’ cost of building the airplanes, LNC is told, though it’s unclear whether this was below the cost of the A330-800 or the A350-900.

Sounds like an offer HA couldn't refuse, say Godfather style?

With the A338 deal now canceled, does the A332 now become an interim solution at HA with leasebacks now for the owned frames? The B789 opens up BKK, SIN, and LGW as possibilities.

Also, with the last remaining order for the A338 lost, does Airbus cancel it for good while instead increasing the A339 MTOW to 251t?

I suspect the next few campaigns are going to get really competitive.

obelau24 wrote:

I’m praying to every Hawaiian god that this means nonstop flights to Europe are imminent. They’ll find a very local customer in me, that’s for sure.

Though I'd be right there with you clamoring for a nonstop to Europe, I wouldn't get too excited for something imminent. Whatever comes of this RFP will be for deliveries well into the future. Also, I believe the hype over HAL and Europe is so blown out of proportion, fueled by rumors and innuendo from airliners.net. Yes, HA has said casually, someday maybe Europe can be reached with a new fleet. In fact, I think the whole Europe concept was merely based off of a comment Dunkerley said a long time ago to the effect that the A350-800 could allow HAL to reach Europe. Having said that, HAL has said and demonstrated that the Asia/Pacific region is the where the priority lies for their international segment of the business. I can see HA using the future long haul fleet to reach beyond the range of the 332 in the Pacific first. Then, if opportunities materialize that puts Europe in reach with a viable business case, well... now the fleet exists to make that happen.

If HA did not wanted to take the planes, then they should have cancelled the order, Airbus built the 2 test planes for nothing. Maybe Iran Air would be interested in those test planes if HA is not taking them.

Revelation wrote:

Interesting how he didn't say "until we have the A330-800neo" and then provided the 15 hour figure?

The A330-800, and in particular the 251t version, is capable of flying > 15 hour missions.

azjubilee wrote:

obelau24 wrote:

I’m praying to every Hawaiian god that this means nonstop flights to Europe are imminent. They’ll find a very local customer in me, that’s for sure.

Though I'd be right there with you clamoring for a nonstop to Europe, I wouldn't get too excited for something imminent. Whatever comes of this RFP will be for deliveries well into the future. Also, I believe the hype over HAL and Europe is so blown out of proportion, fueled by rumors and innuendo from airliners.net. Yes, HA has said casually, someday maybe Europe can be reached with a new fleet. In fact, I think the whole Europe concept was merely based off of a comment Dunkerley said a long time ago to the effect that the A350-800 could allow HAL to reach Europe. Having said that, HAL has said and demonstrated that the Asia/Pacific region is the where the priority lies for their international segment of the business. I can see HA using the future long haul fleet to reach beyond the range of the 332 in the Pacific first. Then, if opportunities materialize that puts Europe in reach with a viable business case, well... now the fleet exists to make that happen.

While I agree with you almost 100%, I can’t imagine why HA would want the 787-9 if not for the range. The A330 are young, share commonality with the A321 - their new work horse - and can make it to every meaningful destination of interest in the Americas and Asia-Pacific. In my mind the only logical reason they’d bother with a new fleet type is Europe or maybe deep Southeast Asia (can the A330 not make it to BKK and SIN?).

Honestly, it’s a perfect fit: in addition to introducing the Hawaiian islands to nonstop, Europe could also be connected to PPT, AKL, SYD, BNE. Granted there are a plethora of one-stop options now but the market is there to be stimulated or stolen if aggressively priced. It would be the equivalent of FJ in the market between NZ/AU and the US - it’s not a huge player but every little bit helps. I could honestly see twice a week each to LON and PAR working at a minimum. I’d have PAR and PPT share the same flight number and LON and BNE share the same flight number. Codeshare with VS and VA to LON and find a continental partner for PAR - Skyteam isn’t very strong to NZ/AU so maybe AF would be interested? Or even maybe someone like easyjet?

It's been public for over a year that HA would be phasing out the 767s by end of 2018 (http://aviationweek.com/awincommercial/ ... retirement), and that the 3 birds would be going to United.

I guess HA was planning to pay BCC to exit the leases early, and now they won't have to? That Aviation Week article says the previous target for 767 retirement was 2022, maybe that is the original lease end date?

KarelXWB wrote:

Apparently Boeing wants to avoid the A330neo from entering service as it prepares the launch of the 797:

Boeing’s effort to displace Airbus A330neo at Hawaiian is part of an all-out, hand-to-hand combat campaign by Boeing to kill the A330neo program in advance of the potential launch of the Boeing 797.

I can't see a 251T A330neo as a true competitor for the 797. By "killing" the A338, Boeing might forcing Airbus to develop an alternative between the A321 (A322) and the A339.

zkojq wrote:

He's not saying Airbus has a trade case, he's saying that the pricing is similar to what Boeing complained about in the Bombardier case and hence implying that Boeing is selling below cost.

"He" said no such thing. You said it.

Stitch wrote:

If HA has indeed chosen the 787-9, I find it not a major surprise in as much there have been what could be called credible reports by Leeham and ch-aviation that Hawaiian has had an RFP out on both the 787-9 and the A350-900 because they were worried that they would end up the only operator of the A330-800. Leeham has also reported Airbus has been suggesting the A330-800 to American, which would support the prior narrative (secure another major customer to keep Hawaiian).

Being the sole operator shouldn't be much of an issue. In case of orphans, Airbus usually offers generous buyback deals after the lease expires.

This comes as little to no surprise to me. HA didn’t get the plane they originally ordered, they love the A321, that creates a simple solution. Pull a DL. Transfer deposits to the narrowbody and order the competing widebody. Congratulations to Boeing for getting HAs business back. Congratulations to Hawaiian for joining the growing family of 787 operators.

cledaybuck wrote:

marcelh wrote:

The original order for the A358 and later the A338 was 8. Can we see a larger order for the 789?

All this over 8 freaking planes? What is the big deal?

The Leeham article says:

Boeing’s effort to displace Airbus A330neo at Hawaiian is part of an all-out, hand-to-hand combat campaign by Boeing to kill the A330neo program in advance of the potential launch of the Boeing 797.

Not sure I agree with this. Airbus could easily spin up the A338 if/when it wants to undermine the '797'. But it does make great fodder for aviation news sources.

StTim wrote:

But it is close to protectionism. I wonder what fur would fly if say Airbus did a similar deal to oust the 787 at BA or Air France?

Curious, how do you know that? What evidence do you, or Leeham have that indicates they are selling 6 airplanes to a (relatively) two-bit airline at below costs?

StTim wrote:

I suspect the next few campaigns are going to get really competitive.

Definitely, especially since Airbus publicly stated increasing WB orders this year as their goal. In particular the A330. If an airline has a fleet A330/777s that need replacing, this will be good a time to deal, even if one replacement schedule is four or five years out.

Strato2 wrote:

Not too bad for Airbus when Boeing will end up paying them the cancellation penalties from the A330-800neo deal.

Nothing’s ever too bad for Airbus when it comes to you. A factory could go up in flames and you’d say it’s good for the margins from the remaining factories. Lol

If Boeing are as worried about the 330 800 neo as the Leeham article suggests, it must be a lot better than many on this forum have assumed to date

NameOmitted wrote:

bigjku wrote:

A more interesting possibility is that Boeing is basically coming to the end of the 787 accounting block based on its stated size and number of orders. They are basically 100 orders from having the block filled out and that doesn’t include Emirates order yet. Boeing knows it’s cost very well by now and has been ruthless in driving them down. It knows what profit it needs to make to play out that accounting block as well.

Would you please elaborate on this? I don't understand the financial side of the industry at all.

I'm assuming you are saying that the cost of building the production line is amortized over x number of units, are you suggesting they have done better than planned to this point, and so have more flexibility with the units left to be sold to reach x then they might with the next batch?

Boeing uses an accounting block to account for profits on airplanes delivered, in particular on new programs. The basics of it are that over the course of the block of airplanes there is an amount of profit you book with each plane delivered even though you might have lost money on the early ones and made more on the late ones. It evens out the P&L.

Boeing has a block of 1,400 for the 787 of which 1,300 are ordered. Emirates has 40 pending and Hawaii will be whatever it is. Basically they are 50 from the end of the accounting block. To avoid a write off you have to pay for all your built up deferred cost and earn the profits you projected over the block when you get to the end of it. That means, in rough terms, your price less cost to produce has to payoff the upside down frames from early on. For the 787 that was a lot of money and adds to the price of each frame sold. You go lower and you can’t make it back.

Once you get that chewed up that deferred cost drops off. You can sell for price less cost to produce and simply accept whatever margin is deemed appropriate. You no longer have to be getting back those deferred cost.

UGA777 wrote:

United did announce recently that they would be taking 3 used 767-300ERs this year, so that may answer the question of where they are coming from.

Old farts like me remember when HA got their long haul aircraft (DC-8/L-1011/DC-10) used, and now their used 763's are headed to UA?

marcelh wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

Apparently Boeing wants to avoid the A330neo from entering service as it prepares the launch of the 797:

Boeing’s effort to displace Airbus A330neo at Hawaiian is part of an all-out, hand-to-hand combat campaign by Boeing to kill the A330neo program in advance of the potential launch of the Boeing 797.

I can't see a 251T A330neo as a true competitor for the 797. By "killing" the A338, Boeing might forcing Airbus to develop an alternative between the A321 (A322) and the A339.

Having heard countless times that Airbus will respond to any “MoM” from Boeing, I doubt this would have changed anything.

obelau24 wrote:

While I agree with you almost 100%, I can’t imagine why HA would want the 787-9 if not for the range. The A330 are young, share commonality with the A321 - their new work horse - and can make it to every meaningful destination of interest in the Americas and Asia-Pacific. In my mind the only logical reason they’d bother with a new fleet type is Europe or maybe deep Southeast Asia (can the A330 not make it to BKK and SIN?).

Yes, range. That's EXACTLY why HAL wanted the A350-800, got the A330-800neo as consolation and now appears to be ordering the 789. That range is desired to finish reaching the Pacific, which it can't currently do with the 332. PEK/TPE/HKG are pretty much the limits of what the 332 can do for HAL in Asia and MEL in the Pacific. Beyond that, the 332 closes opportunities for HAL. SE Asia, deeper China, perhaps even deeper Australia are the other parts of the Pacific HAL has its sights on. Europe, is an added benefit. HAL is on record saying they won't buy planes for one single route mission, but acknowledges the fact that with range, other opportunities are uncovered. This is why I believe Europe is a bi-product of the range that will allow HAL to complete their mission. Remember, the oldest 332 was delivered in 2010. This imminent order isn't for right now. It's for down the road... the future.

mrpippy wrote:

It's been public for over a year that HA would be phasing out the 767s by end of 2018 (http://aviationweek.com/awincommercial/ ... retirement), and that the 3 birds would be going to United.I guess HA was planning to pay BCC to exit the leases early, and now they won't have to? That Aviation Week article says the previous target for 767 retirement was 2022, maybe that is the original lease end date?

Sort of correct. The original end dates of the 767 were the end of 2020 going into 2021. This was brought forward to the end of 2018, going into 2019 roughly within the last year to the public. The UA news is VERY new news to the public. HA took a 1 time charge in 2017 I( believe) for early lease terminations (I'm guessing the 3 frames headed to UA) and did the sale/leaseback of the owned 767s (580, 581 and 582). I think the latter transaction may be the deal connected to this supposed 789 order.

KarelXWB wrote:

Sounds like an offer HA couldn't refuse, say Godfather style?

Not really godfather style, IMHO. That kind of offer implies that you need to take the offer or suffer the (deadly) consequences. Seems like HA is doing the opposite of suffering: it's getting (IMHO) a better plane for the job at (apparently) a great price and (apparently) being let out of the 767 lease cancellation penalties.

KarelXWB wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Interesting how he didn't say "until we have the A330-800neo" and then provided the 15 hour figure?

The A330-800, and in particular the 251t version, is capable of flying > 15 hour missions.

True. The implication was that he knew he was not taking A338 and would be taking a 15 hour plane.

Slash787 wrote:

If HA did not wanted to take the planes, then they should have cancelled the order, Airbus built the 2 test planes for nothing. Maybe Iran Air would be interested in those test planes if HA is not taking them.

If (as speculated) HA applied its A338 deposits on A321s, then they saw this coming a long time ago and still chose to build the A338s.

mrpippy wrote:

It's been public for over a year that HA would be phasing out the 767s by end of 2018 (http://aviationweek.com/awincommercial/ ... retirement), and that the 3 birds would be going to United.

I guess HA was planning to pay BCC to exit the leases early, and now they won't have to? That Aviation Week article says the previous target for 767 retirement was 2022, maybe that is the original lease end date?

Maybe this is how Boeing is dealing with UA's request to consider the restart of the 767 pax production line.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Also, with the last remaining order for the A338 lost, does Airbus cancel it for good while instead increasing the A339 MTOW to 251t?

Now, PR has a chance to pick up those six for a song.

amirs wrote:

Maybe will be turned into a vvip or test plane.

It would make one heck of a private jet with all that range. I bet some potentates would call dibs on such a cool, one-off specimen.



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVHZ2McWAAEojdE.jpg

source: Airbus Twitter

Revelation wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

marcelh wrote:

The original order for the A358 and later the A338 was 8. Can we see a larger order for the 789?

All this over 8 freaking planes? What is the big deal?

The Leeham article says:

Boeing’s effort to displace Airbus A330neo at Hawaiian is part of an all-out, hand-to-hand combat campaign by Boeing to kill the A330neo program in advance of the potential launch of the Boeing 797.

Not sure I agree with this. Airbus could easily spin up the A338 if/when it wants to undermine the '797'. But it does make great fodder for aviation news sources.

I think Boeing sees the whole A330neo as vulnerable. When the program was launched the economics were based on 7-8 per month moving to 10 per month. Now they are talking about staying at 6 per month. I wonder what impact that has on the price Airbus is willing to sell the plane at? The whole economic case was based on its capital cost being substantially lower than the 787. Is that still true with rates going up on one and down on the other?

KarelXWB wrote:

Sounds like an offer HA couldn't refuse, say Godfather style?

Or just an offer that made the most sense.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

With the A338 deal now canceled, does the A332 now become an interim solution at HA with leasebacks now for the owned frames? The B789 opens up BKK, SIN, and LGW as possibilities.

The A330-200 fleet is large and mostly young, I believe and therefore HA should be in no immediate hurry to replace them. The A350-800 was a solid airframe for HA to start non-stop Hawaii-Europe services as it offered better range and CASM than the A330-200 and slotted in-between the 787-8 and 787-9 in size. When that was cancelled, HA switched to the A330-800 as it also had the range and CASM advantage over the A330-200, but it appears that they did not want to be the only customer for the type.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Also, with the last remaining order for the A338 lost, does Airbus cancel it for good while instead increasing the A339 MTOW to 251t?

Airbus has no reason to withdraw the A330-800 from sale so I expect it to remain on offer as long as the A330-900 remains.

Slash787 wrote:

If HA did not wanted to take the planes, then they should have cancelled the order, Airbus built the 2 test planes for nothing. Maybe Iran Air would be interested in those test planes if HA is not taking them.

Airbus very likely knew when they started production of the first A330-800 that Hawaiian was not going to take it, much less any other future airframe. But they need to certify it anyway so they built it. And now they will have a platform available to use as a testbed for future PiPs as well as a possible freighter or MRTT option.

KarelXWB wrote:

Being the sole operator shouldn't be much of an issue. In case of orphans, Airbus usually offers generous buyback deals after the lease expires.

Yes, but then HA still has to operate the frame for the duration of the lease (10-15 years) before they can send it back to Airbus and collect a residual value check. If the goal of these planes (be they A350-800, A330-800 or 787-9) is to launch new European services, if those services do not work out well and HA cancels them, they will be able to shift a 787-9 pretty quickly whereas they will either have to keep flying the A330-800s for some time until the leases come to and end and they can sell them back to Airbus. On the flip side, if the services perform well and HA wishes to expand, they may feel it will be quicker to secure additional 787-9s than A330-800s.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

If Boeing are as worried about the 330 800 neo as the Leeham article suggests, it must be a lot better than many on this forum have assumed to date

I think what Boeing is worried about is not how the A330-800 performs as a MoM, but what margins Airbus is willing to accept to sell them to potential long-haul MoM operators. Of the four most-likely long-haul MoM operators - UA, AA, DL and DU - two of them already operate sizable A330 fleets (AA and DL). Airbus could offer them A330-800s at "attractive" prices as well as other sweeteners like A330-200 buy backs to convince them to choose the A330-800 over MoM. If Boeing can (effectively) spike the A330-800 now, Airbus may be less-willing to make those kinds of deals later when it comes time for those airlines to decide between MoM and other options.

Devilfish wrote:

It would make one heck of a private jet with all that range. I bet some potentates would call dibs on such a cool, one-off specimen.

Maybe Airbus can throw some ACTs into the back hold to get design range to 8000nm and sell it to the Saudis as an A330-8000 to compliment their A340-8000.

Leeham is speculating a sales price potentially below $100 million for the 787-9. That's dirt cheap, and not much above production cost. They regularly sell for $125 million.

KarelXWB wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Interesting how he didn't say "until we have the A330-800neo" and then provided the 15 hour figure?

The A330-800, and in particular the 251t version, is capable of flying > 15 hour missions.

I certainly see the case ( Game Theory ) why the Chicago Boys at Boeing would want the A338 dead on arrival, makes sense.

But :
1. the A338 is already in FAL
2. Expect Airbus to fiercely fight Boeing on that, they have all to win
3. one must be Yank & insularly so to think Europeans would want to fly all the way to americanized & unpristine Hawaii. Europeans have much cheaper options, Ibiza for starters, all of Spain actually, then Italy & Greece, even the French Riviera for those in want of some glamour, and then all of the Maghreb & Turkey's awsome beaches. Hawaii FIVE O is a remote souvenir & well into oblivion. Brasil or Mexican beaches have way more cachet in comparison with Europeans, just sayin', or the Seychelles & Phuket for that matter. I don't see HA yet in Europe.

So, as I am not in the secrets of the Gods, my take is HA will take their A338, and, perhaps, may order some additional 787, but I'll let you guys quibble on this until I see what HA actually does.

DWC wrote:

2. one must be Yank to think Europeans would want to fly all the way to americanized & unpristine Hawaii.

Guessing you’ve never actually been to Hawaii, or at least anything beyond urbanized Honolulu.

DWC wrote:

Hawaii FIVE O is a very remote souvenir.

Not really, you can buy episodes on iTunes or Amazon for $1-2.

But Hawaii itself is a closer reach to Europe than either Australia or New Zealand.

scbriml wrote:

Continental767 wrote:

HA didn't order the A338 because of the specs. They wanted the A350-800, but Airbus basically forced them to switch to the A330-800.

Nobody forced HA to order the A338. Once the A358 was no longer an option, they had multiple choices, including walking away from Airbus for those planes.

....ummm, considering they had already commited to the A332 and had a good number in their fleet at the time of the A338 decision, I would suspect HA were placed between a rock and a hard place.

If we further consider HA's requirements to fly to Europe with a 15 hour aircraft, we can only suppose their decision to convert the the A358 to the A338 was based on "other" factors.

The recent Leehman twitter post is simply confirming the aircraft type conundrum that has been known about and discussed for years.

Stitch wrote:

Maybe Airbus can throw some ACTs into the back hold to get design range to 8000nm and sell it to the Saudis as an A330-8000 to compliment their A340-8000.

Well, Airbus is already claiming ~8,000nm+ for the 251T version...what more with a much reduced capacity princes' layout? But I was thinking that Airbus should offer it to Bahrain instead to replace their old-tech B764..... .....

JerseyFlyer wrote:

If Boeing are as worried about the 330 800 neo as the Leeham article suggests, it must be a lot better than many on this forum have assumed to date

Based on sales, the airlines seem to disagree. Getting the A338 off the board widens the gap in the market now for the MoM to between the A321 and the A339. And yes, I am purposely not including the A332, even though it is allegedly better economically than the A338 at shorter trips.

george77300 wrote:

Now we might have a aircraft BUILT with no customers or orders. When was the last time that happened.

The Spruce Goose?