So with HA cancelling the last outstanding order for its 6 A338s, what does the future of this bird look like? Certainly seems like Boeing has accomplished its goal of killing the plane.

Also, why did Airbus already build a prototype for testing if it isn't even going to sell at all/what's going to happen to the entire A330neo program now?

A338 can still be used as a freighter/tanker platform, pax wise its future is uncertain.

No one buys orphan fleets. Look at the 736 or A318, the market has already spoken.

Convert all A338 orders into the larger A339?

SQ789 wrote:

Convert all A338 orders into the larger A339?

There are no A338 orders left, and as such, nothing to convert.

And even if there was a A338 order, Airbus cannot unilaterally convert the order as that would be considered a material change to the contract.

It is possible that the A338 will receive zero orders in pax form. I think this market may be better served in future by the proposed B797 and rewinged A321LR variant

Every airliner was an orphan airliner once. Every n the 737 was an orphan airliner in a distant history. So let's wait and see.
With the Trump administration at the controls China might turn out as a major customer foor this model...

The A330neo program as a whole will be just fine.

I suspect the 330neo and 777x programs will be ok, not just fine. Maybe the x just a little better, maybe not.

Believe posters are jumping to conclusions way too early to determine whether the A330-800 will actually succeed as a long haul passenger aircraft, or not. The A330-800 offers many advantages over the comparable Dreamliner, while offering the same efficiency, or cost-per-average seat-mile/kilometer. Some analysts have stated they believe the Dreamliner offers better efficiency over the A330-800, the reality is the A330-800 has yet to make its first flight, although preliminary results from the A330-900 test program have been very good.

The 330-800 offers:
- lower (list) capital acquisition costs overnight compared to the Dreamliner
- superior 8-abreast Y class passenger comfort
- flexible delivery timing
- superior range with the 251t variant to be released in two years

These points have been made in several threads, with many stating HA proved Boeing can undercut Airbus on price. However, that misses the argument Boeing may have simply offered the order assuming zero, or even negative, marginal profit. List prices are what we see as the public, unless someone, typically an anonymous leaker wishing to keep their identity a secret, reveals terms of the sale agreement to the world.

Separately, others have argued Boeing’s high current production rate, increasing to 14 per month, allow it to offer the Dreamliner at ever-lower prices. It may very well be true Boeing’s production costs are decreasing for the Dreamliner. However, very uncertain whether those costs are actually, or will actually fall, below production costs for the 330neo.

Airbus is just starting to market and offer this aircraft to carriers, now that the 330-900 test program is well underway, with performance data becoming available. Their are 620+ 330-200 frames flying passengers all over the world which will need to be replaced over the next 20 years, or so. These carriers potential customers for the 330-800. Some 330-200 operators, like AA, have selected the Dreamliner over the 330neo. What Airbus needs is for one of those 330-200 operators to make a launch order for the 330-800 and confirm the variant as an effective competitor to the 787-8.

PDPsol wrote:

Believe posters are jumping to conclusions way too early to determine whether the A330-800 will actually succeed as a long haul passenger aircraft, or not. The A330-800 offers many advantages over the comparable Dreamliner, while offering the same efficiency, or cost-per-average seat-mile/kilometer. Some analysts have stated they believe the Dreamliner offers better efficiency over the A330-800, the reality is the A330-800 has yet to make its first flight, although preliminary results from the A330-900 test program have been very good.

The 330-800 offers:
- lower (list) capital acquisition costs overnight compared to the Dreamliner
- superior 8-abreast Y class passenger comfort
- flexible delivery timing
- superior range with the 251t variant to be released in two years

These points have been made in several threads, with many stating HA proved Boeing can undercut Airbus on price. However, that misses the argument Boeing may have simply offered the order assuming zero, or even negative, marginal profit. List prices are what we see as the public, unless someone, typically an anonymous leaker wishing to keep their identity a secret, reveals terms of the sale agreement to the world.

Separately, others have argued Boeing’s high current production rate, increasing to 14 per month, allow it to offer the Dreamliner at ever-lower prices. It may very well be true Boeing’s production costs are decreasing for the Dreamliner. However, very uncertain whether those costs are actually, or will actually fall, below production costs for the 330neo.

Airbus is just starting to market and offer this aircraft to carriers, now that the 330-900 test program is well underway, with performance data becoming available. Their are 620+ 330-200 frames flying passengers all over the world which will need to be replaced over the next 20 years, or so. These carriers potential customers for the 330-800. Some 330-200 operators, like AA, have selected the Dreamliner over the 330neo. What Airbus needs is for one of those 330-200 operators to make a launch order for the 330-800 and confirm the variant as an effective competitor to the 787-8.

These are all valid points, but the A338 remains without order while the first test plane has already been built. I just wonder who would buy this plane going forward and what sort of lease on life it can get? So far, it seems that the 788 and the 789 have completely owned the market for new planes in this market. And if any carriers do buy this plane, what sort of routes would it be deployed on?

PDPsol wrote:

Believe posters are jumping to conclusions way too early to determine whether the A330-800 will actually succeed as a long haul passenger aircraft, or not. The A330-800 offers many advantages over the comparable Dreamliner, while offering the same efficiency, or cost-per-average seat-mile/kilometer. Some analysts have stated they believe the Dreamliner offers better efficiency over the A330-800, the reality is the A330-800 has yet to make its first flight, although preliminary results from the A330-900 test program have been very good.

The 330-800 offers:
- lower (list) capital acquisition costs overnight compared to the Dreamliner
- superior 8-abreast Y class passenger comfort
- flexible delivery timing
- superior range with the 251t variant to be released in two years

These points have been made in several threads, with many stating HA proved Boeing can undercut Airbus on price. However, that misses the argument Boeing may have simply offered the order assuming zero, or even negative, marginal profit. List prices are what we see as the public, unless someone, typically an anonymous leaker wishing to keep their identity a secret, reveals terms of the sale agreement to the world.

Separately, others have argued Boeing’s high current production rate, increasing to 14 per month, allow it to offer the Dreamliner at ever-lower prices. It may very well be true Boeing’s production costs are decreasing for the Dreamliner. However, very uncertain whether those costs are actually, or will actually fall, below production costs for the 330neo.

Airbus is just starting to market and offer this aircraft to carriers, now that the 330-900 test program is well underway, with performance data becoming available. Their are 620+ 330-200 frames flying passengers all over the world which will need to be replaced over the next 20 years, or so. These carriers potential customers for the 330-800. Some 330-200 operators, like AA, have selected the Dreamliner over the 330neo. What Airbus needs is for one of those 330-200 operators to make a launch order for the 330-800 and confirm the variant as an effective competitor to the 787-8.

I am sorry but this is just an awful excuse. The plane has been on offer for nearly 4 years. They have not just started selling it. Let’s just call a spade a spade.

It’s a miss. Pure and simple. Particularly with how most airplanes are ordered now. The 783 was a miss. The 764 was a miss. The A345/6 were misses. It happens. Being delusional about the prospects of the A338 won’t help anyone at Airbus.

Would the 338 make a better freighter than the 767?

bigjku wrote:

PDPsol wrote:

Believe posters are jumping to conclusions way too early to determine whether the A330-800 will actually succeed as a long haul passenger aircraft, or not. The A330-800 offers many advantages over the comparable Dreamliner, while offering the same efficiency, or cost-per-average seat-mile/kilometer. Some analysts have stated they believe the Dreamliner offers better efficiency over the A330-800, the reality is the A330-800 has yet to make its first flight, although preliminary results from the A330-900 test program have been very good.

The 330-800 offers:
- lower (list) capital acquisition costs overnight compared to the Dreamliner
- superior 8-abreast Y class passenger comfort
- flexible delivery timing
- superior range with the 251t variant to be released in two years

These points have been made in several threads, with many stating HA proved Boeing can undercut Airbus on price. However, that misses the argument Boeing may have simply offered the order assuming zero, or even negative, marginal profit. List prices are what we see as the public, unless someone, typically an anonymous leaker wishing to keep their identity a secret, reveals terms of the sale agreement to the world.

Separately, others have argued Boeing’s high current production rate, increasing to 14 per month, allow it to offer the Dreamliner at ever-lower prices. It may very well be true Boeing’s production costs are decreasing for the Dreamliner. However, very uncertain whether those costs are actually, or will actually fall, below production costs for the 330neo.

Airbus is just starting to market and offer this aircraft to carriers, now that the 330-900 test program is well underway, with performance data becoming available. Their are 620+ 330-200 frames flying passengers all over the world which will need to be replaced over the next 20 years, or so. These carriers potential customers for the 330-800. Some 330-200 operators, like AA, have selected the Dreamliner over the 330neo. What Airbus needs is for one of those 330-200 operators to make a launch order for the 330-800 and confirm the variant as an effective competitor to the 787-8.

I am sorry but this is just an awful excuse. The plane has been on offer for nearly 4 years. They have not just started selling it. Let’s just call a spade a spade.

It’s a miss. Pure and simple. Particularly with how most airplanes are ordered now. The 783 was a miss. The 764 was a miss. The A345/6 were misses. It happens. Being delusional about the prospects of the A338 won’t help anyone at Airbus.

Arguing Airbus needs to somehow recognize the 330-800 was a ‘miss’ as a passenger model competing with the 787-8 is delusional in itself. Are you suggesting Airbus ‘admit’ the 330-800 is a failure as a long haul passenger replacement for the 330-200 and only market the model as a freighter or military variant? Airbus has yet to even fly the 330-800, which means actual performance data is not available.

The marketing process is only beginning now, that is a fact, not an excuse. It recognizes the new Airbus sales chief just announced earlier this year their wide body sales efforts will focus on the 330neo. Are you suggesting Airbus simply abandon sales efforts for the 330-800, only to focus on the 330-900? Last time we checked, carriers prefer the flexibility of multi-model aircraft ‘families’ over single-variant programs.

Lots of carriers are candidates for the 330-800, including numerous 330-200. We should give the Airbus sales and marketing team a bit more credit for understanding the market and their clients before stating they have failed with 330-800. Zero orders today do not mean the variant will not win orders from customers in the future.

I am trying to think of any plane that ever went through a flight test program with no orders. This is the first time that I can think of. The fact that Airbus hasn’t grounded their test airplane and kept moving forward even though they probably knew a while ago that the Hawaiian order was at risk tells me that they must know someone will buy it. Perhaps they can sell some business jet versions for oil tycoons.

I think the biggest asset the A330-800 has for Airbus is keeping the price of the Boeing 787-8 in check. Why not, a bit of the same strategy Boeing used for the Boeing 747-8i/F series.

The A330-800 probably find some use as a niche aircraft and more importantly as a freighter (and military craft).

bigjku wrote:

PDPsol wrote:

bigjku wrote:

I am sorry but this is just an awful excuse. The plane has been on offer for nearly 4 years. They have not just started selling it. Let’s just call a spade a spade.

It’s a miss. Pure and simple. Particularly with how most airplanes are ordered now. The 783 was a miss. The 764 was a miss. The A345/6 were misses. It happens. Being delusional about the prospects of the A338 won’t help anyone at Airbus.

Arguing Airbus needs to somehow recognize the 330-800 was a ‘miss’ as a passenger model competing with the 787-8 is delusional in itself. Are you suggesting Airbus ‘admit’ the 330-800 is a failure as a long haul passenger replacement for the 330-200 and only market the model as a freighter or military variant? Airbus has yet to even fly the 330-800, which means actual performance data is not available.

The marketing process is only beginning now, that is a fact, not an excuse. It recognizes the new Airbus sales chief just announced earlier this year their wide body sales efforts will focus on the 330neo. Are you suggesting Airbus simply abandon sales efforts for the 330-800, only to focus on the 330-900? Last time we checked, carriers prefer the flexibility of multi-model aircraft ‘families’ over single-variant programs.

Lots of carriers are candidates for the 330-800, including numerous 330-200. We should give the Airbus sales and marketing team a bit more credit for understanding the market and their clients before stating they have failed with 330-800. Zero orders today do not mean the variant will not win orders from customers in the future.

I believe Airbus built the A350 too big and the A330neo isn’t good enough. They are going to need a new widebody plane but haven’t left themselves a great space to do it in. I am suggesting they recognize the problem sooner rather than later.

The A330neo program will do fine. A339 has enough orders for a few years worth of production, so Airbus has time to come with the right response to the proposed MoM and B788.

PDPsol wrote:

bigjku wrote:

PDPsol wrote:

Believe posters are jumping to conclusions way too early to determine whether the A330-800 will actually succeed as a long haul passenger aircraft, or not. The A330-800 offers many advantages over the comparable Dreamliner, while offering the same efficiency, or cost-per-average seat-mile/kilometer. Some analysts have stated they believe the Dreamliner offers better efficiency over the A330-800, the reality is the A330-800 has yet to make its first flight, although preliminary results from the A330-900 test program have been very good.

The 330-800 offers:
- lower (list) capital acquisition costs overnight compared to the Dreamliner
- superior 8-abreast Y class passenger comfort
- flexible delivery timing
- superior range with the 251t variant to be released in two years

These points have been made in several threads, with many stating HA proved Boeing can undercut Airbus on price. However, that misses the argument Boeing may have simply offered the order assuming zero, or even negative, marginal profit. List prices are what we see as the public, unless someone, typically an anonymous leaker wishing to keep their identity a secret, reveals terms of the sale agreement to the world.

Separately, others have argued Boeing’s high current production rate, increasing to 14 per month, allow it to offer the Dreamliner at ever-lower prices. It may very well be true Boeing’s production costs are decreasing for the Dreamliner. However, very uncertain whether those costs are actually, or will actually fall, below production costs for the 330neo.

Airbus is just starting to market and offer this aircraft to carriers, now that the 330-900 test program is well underway, with performance data becoming available. Their are 620+ 330-200 frames flying passengers all over the world which will need to be replaced over the next 20 years, or so. These carriers potential customers for the 330-800. Some 330-200 operators, like AA, have selected the Dreamliner over the 330neo. What Airbus needs is for one of those 330-200 operators to make a launch order for the 330-800 and confirm the variant as an effective competitor to the 787-8.

I am sorry but this is just an awful excuse. The plane has been on offer for nearly 4 years. They have not just started selling it. Let’s just call a spade a spade.

It’s a miss. Pure and simple. Particularly with how most airplanes are ordered now. The 783 was a miss. The 764 was a miss. The A345/6 were misses. It happens. Being delusional about the prospects of the A338 won’t help anyone at Airbus.

Arguing Airbus needs to somehow recognize the 330-800 was a ‘miss’ as a passenger model competing with the 787-8 is delusional in itself. Are you suggesting Airbus ‘admit’ the 330-800 is a failure as a long haul passenger replacement for the 330-200 and only market the model as a freighter or military variant? Airbus has yet to even fly the 330-800, which means actual performance data is not available.

The marketing process is only beginning now, that is a fact, not an excuse. It recognizes the new Airbus sales chief just announced earlier this year their wide body sales efforts will focus on the 330neo. Are you suggesting Airbus simply abandon sales efforts for the 330-800, only to focus on the 330-900? Last time we checked, carriers prefer the flexibility of multi-model aircraft ‘families’ over single-variant programs.

Lots of carriers are candidates for the 330-800, including numerous 330-200. We should give the Airbus sales and marketing team a bit more credit for understanding the market and their clients before stating they have failed with 330-800. Zero orders today do not mean the variant will not win orders from customers in the future.

I believe Airbus built the A350 too big and the A330neo isn’t good enough. They are going to need a new widebody plane but haven’t left themselves a great space to do it in. I am suggesting they recognize the problem sooner rather than later.

If they want it to succeed they better offer Delta a deal they can't refuse to replace their 767 fleet

PDPsol wrote:

Arguing Airbus needs to somehow recognize the 330-800 was a ‘miss’ as a passenger model competing with the 787-8 is delusional in itself. Are you suggesting Airbus ‘admit’ the 330-800 is a failure as a long haul passenger replacement for the 330-200 and only market the model as a freighter or military variant? Airbus has yet to even fly the 330-800, which means actual performance data is not available.

NO marketer would ever admit that their plane is a failure. But based on what Airbus are seeing with the A339, I bet they have a pretty good idea on the A338. And still no takers.

PDPsol wrote:

The marketing process is only beginning now, that is a fact, not an excuse. It recognizes the new Airbus sales chief just announced earlier this year their wide body sales efforts will focus on the 330neo. Are you suggesting Airbus simply abandon sales efforts for the 330-800, only to focus on the 330-900? Last time we checked, carriers prefer the flexibility of multi-model aircraft ‘families’ over single-variant programs.

Sorry that is absolutely not a fact. There used to be orders, now there are none. All the arguments you make can be applied to the B778 and yet even with real orders, some here are saying it's a flop or never going to be built.

PDPsol wrote:

Lots of carriers are candidates for the 330-800, including numerous 330-200. We should give the Airbus sales and marketing team a bit more credit for understanding the market and their clients before stating they have failed with 330-800. Zero orders today do not mean the variant will not win orders from customers in the future.

Let's look at the A332 replacement market. Where are the orders? Are they too soon to market, or is there no there there? It would be silly to say there will be zero orders for the A338 EVER, but remember the A332 killer was the A333. Why shouldn't the neo follow suit? There's a reason they built the A339 first, right?

PDPsol wrote:

Believe posters are jumping to conclusions way too early to determine whether the A330-800 will actually succeed as a long haul passenger aircraft, or not. The A330-800 offers many advantages over the comparable Dreamliner, while offering the same efficiency, or cost-per-average seat-mile/kilometer. Some analysts have stated they believe the Dreamliner offers better efficiency over the A330-800, the reality is the A330-800 has yet to make its first flight, although preliminary results from the A330-900 test program have been very good.

The 330-800 offers:
- lower (list) capital acquisition costs overnight compared to the Dreamliner
- superior 8-abreast Y class passenger comfort
- flexible delivery timing
- superior range with the 251t variant to be released in two years

These points have been made in several threads, with many stating HA proved Boeing can undercut Airbus on price. However, that misses the argument Boeing may have simply offered the order assuming zero, or even negative, marginal profit. List prices are what we see as the public, unless someone, typically an anonymous leaker wishing to keep their identity a secret, reveals terms of the sale agreement to the world.

Separately, others have argued Boeing’s high current production rate, increasing to 14 per month, allow it to offer the Dreamliner at ever-lower prices. It may very well be true Boeing’s production costs are decreasing for the Dreamliner. However, very uncertain whether those costs are actually, or will actually fall, below production costs for the 330neo.

Airbus is just starting to market and offer this aircraft to carriers, now that the 330-900 test program is well underway, with performance data becoming available. Their are 620+ 330-200 frames flying passengers all over the world which will need to be replaced over the next 20 years, or so. These carriers potential customers for the 330-800. Some 330-200 operators, like AA, have selected the Dreamliner over the 330neo. What Airbus needs is for one of those 330-200 operators to make a launch order for the 330-800 and confirm the variant as an effective competitor to the 787-8.

These are excuses, data for the 338 can be extrapolated from the 339 quite easily. Excellent computer modelling means expected performance data is known in advance.

Very few aircraft in the last 2 decades have gotten to this stage with no orders in place. The AC seems to be a dud for pax ops at this point. It's main selling point was going to be lower capex but Boeing seems to have lowered 787 production cost enough to be able to reduce or eliminate that price advantage. I can almost bet the 358 would have done better in its original form and it would have cost less too...

If there was some confusion inside Airbus 15 years ago over which wide body market segment its products were ‘supposed’ to compete with, that confusion is certainly over now. The A350 was burdened with some cognitive dissonance over whether it was supposed to address the Dreamliner market, or the 77W/77L/77X market. Today, Airbus is crystal-clear with its product strategy, even if there is some overlap with the 787-10 and the 350-900 running sub-4,000 nm missions. The 330neo is the direct competitor to the Dreamliner, and the 350 is the direct competitor to the 777.

If the 330neo is not ‘good enough’ to compete with the Dreamliner, then performance results would presumably reflect that inferior efficiency, range, acquisition price, etc. However, the data released to-date, including preliminary certification testing indicates the 330neo is actually very competitive with Dreamliner. Clients have not had the 330neo ‘on their mind’, particularly 333/332 operators with current 242t variants and no plans for replacement anytime soon. However, who says the likes of SA, AR, IB, LH, and PRC carriers like MU won’t make good use of the competitive market and order some readily-available, ultra-long haul, efficient, low cost 330-800’s?

I think that A338 start selling when A332 is not available anymore. There is market for capable small widebody, AA 787-8 order proved that.

PDPsol wrote:

If there was some confusion inside Airbus 15 years ago over which wide body market segment its products were ‘supposed’ to compete with, that confusion is certainly over now. The A350 was burdened with some cognitive dissonance over whether it was supposed to address the Dreamliner market, or the 77W/77L/77X market. Today, Airbus is crystal-clear with its product strategy, even if there is some overlap with the 787-10 and the 350-900 running sub-4,000 nm missions. The 330neo is the direct competitor to the Dreamliner, and the 350 is the direct competitor to the 777.

If the 330neo is not ‘good enough’ to compete with the Dreamliner, then performance results would presumably reflect that inferior efficiency, range, acquisition price, etc. However, the data released to-date, including preliminary certification testing indicates the 330neo is actually very competitive with Dreamliner. Clients have not had the 330neo ‘on their mind’, particularly 333/332 operators with current 242t variants and no plans for replacement anytime soon. However, who says the likes of SA, AR, IB, LH, and PRC carriers like MU won’t make good use of the competitive market and order some readily-available, ultra-long haul, efficient, low cost 330-800’s?

It's all swings and roundabouts...seems everyone thinks the 787 is the best thing since slice bread...maybe it is. Just seems to me that Boeing sees the A338neo as a credible threat to their sales of the 787 and will do all they can to stop it. Or an impediment to their 797 plans

Newbiepilot wrote:

I am trying to think of any plane that ever went through a flight test program with no orders. This is the first time that I can think of. The fact that Airbus hasn’t grounded their test airplane and kept moving forward even though they probably knew a while ago that the Hawaiian order was at risk tells me that they must know someone will buy it. Perhaps they can sell some business jet versions for oil tycoons.

The first 707. LOL But it was called the 367-80, and had to be widened twice before being offered for sale.

waly777 wrote:

These are excuses, data for the 338 can be extrapolated from the 339 quite easily. Excellent computer modelling means expected performance data is known in advance.

More than half of the planes launched in the last years disagree with your empty senseless statement. Designs tend to over and/or under deliver (fuel consumption, dragging, range, etc). That has happened before and after computer modelling (see last E2 data from certification and test flight this year, as an example). That goes to a surprise or a redesign of some components. It's called real life, and that's why real live testing, certification and data are required. For all the manufacturers and all the customers. Besides some interesting points in the contracts that also protect both parts depending on where the ball fails when talking about real data.

Dutchy wrote:

I think the biggest asset the A330-800 has for Airbus is keeping the price of the Boeing 787-8 in check. Why not, a bit of the same strategy Boeing used for the Boeing 747-8i/F series.

The A330-800 probably find some use as a niche aircraft and more importantly as a freighter (and military craft).

This is very true, if the only thing it does is cause Boeing to reduce 788 prices by $10M then it's probably worth (or costing Boeing more than Airbus) building and certifying at least one, which most of the parts were likely ordered for a while back. Offering AR or SA some on a lease deal at competitive rates might be a good way of demonstrating their performance. HA had been offered A338s in lieu of A358s they were perhaps not ideologically attached to the plane when Boeing made a good offer for 787s.

bigjku wrote:

I believe Airbus built the A350 too big and the A330neo isn’t good enough. They are going to need a new widebody plane but haven’t left themselves a great space to do it in. I am suggesting they recognize the problem sooner rather than later.

The A350 is not "too big". Lets not forget it was demanded by customers to be this way. It's a replacement for 777-200ER/LR and 777-300-ER. I can foresee orders surging as not many current operators of 777 will be too keen on upsizing to a 777-X.

The A330neo is a replacement for the A330ceo and there lies the problem. The biggest share of 330's was sold in the middle-late part of the program and they are just too new. In the mean time their hope is to catch the 767 operators who are willing to upsize to a bigger, more capable plane spending a little less money than with 787.

papatango wrote:

If they want it to succeed they better offer Delta a deal they can't refuse to replace their 767 fleet

I've checked and Delta currently have 70ish 767. The risk is, of course, that most of those are in the MOM kind of mission and Delta could turn their heads towards the 797.

Jayafe wrote:

waly777 wrote:

These are excuses, data for the 338 can be extrapolated from the 339 quite easily. Excellent computer modelling means expected performance data is known in advance.

More than half of the planes launched in the last years disagree with your empty senseless statement. Designs tend to over and/or under deliver (fuel consumption, dragging, range, etc). That has happened before and after computer modelling (see last E2 data from certification and test flight this year, as an example). That goes to a surprise or a redesign of some components. It's called real life, and that's why real live testing, certification and data are required. For all the manufacturers and all the customers. Besides some interesting points in the contracts that also protect both parts depending on where the ball fails when talking about real data.

I see i touched a raw nerve there. If you have to resort to insults, then you don't have much of a point. The data has been available to customers including best/worst case scenarios and the 339 is already flying.
The proof of the pudding is in the order book and your tantrum is unlikely to change that unfortunately.

Everyone seems to forget Transasia ordered the A338 few years before it went bankrupt after their two ATR crashes. This wasn’t a A358 conversion etc it was a straight up order. This even after taking delivery of A333s. While A will almost certainly not see every A332 replaced with an A338 there will be a place. In GEs case they obviously needed something smaller than a 300 seater and with range.
There’s another Taiwanese carrier with likely similar requirements and a much larger fleet of A330s than GEs 4 A333s. And they need 24 new frames by the mid 2020s with most of those by probably 2022 unless they want to put their A333s through a 3rd heavy check and their leased ones through a 2nd and extend the leases. With nothing in size between a 738 and a A333/359 and 38 Airbus widebodies (with 6 A359 options which need firming by this year) in the fleet by this fall when the last of their 14 A359s are delivered. CI would be an ideal A338 customer. Something between the 737 and A333/359 in size for regional, something small enough to pioneer new longer routes which is smaller than the A359 ( and its a long way to N America from Taiwan or to Europe avoiding most Chinese airspace). This will be an order for A to lose. While getting 787s is certainly possible, especially if they see the-10 as something they will need, having a common fleet for flight crew given their moderate size must be very attractive.

For those who say that the A330 replacement market hasn't come yet, when that market comes in say, the mid-2020s where late Model A330s are gonna get replaced, what additional advantages would the A330neo gain over the 787 that it doesn't currently possess now?

-Capex? That argument is getting shaky now, how much belief is there that Capex advantage would still exist as the 787 gets a few more years to trim down production costs further?
-Availability? A couple years of 14/month production can work down backlog real fast, certainty its hard to expect backlog for the 787 to be higher in the next 3-4 years than now.
-MOM program? Many of those A330 operators are Asian airlines who use the A330 on primarily medium haul and regional routes, the MOM program (if launched) should be more concrete in a few years and be another competitive candidate for those orders.

If the A338 isn't selling now when those supposed "advantages" are greater, I fail to see it being more appealing to airlines a couple of years later...

JustSomeDood wrote:

For those who say that the A330 replacement market hasn't come yet, when that market comes in say, the mid-2020s where late Model A330s are gonna get replaced, what additional advantages would the A330neo gain over the 787 that it doesn't currently possess now?

-Capex? That argument is getting shaky now, how much belief is there that Capex advantage would still exist as the 787 gets a few more years to trim down production costs further?
-Availability? A couple years of 14/month production can work down backlog real fast, certainty its hard to expect backlog for the 787 to be higher in the next 3-4 years than now.
-MOM program? Many of those A330 operators are Asian airlines who use the A330 on primarily medium haul and regional routes, the MOM program (if launched) should be more concrete in a few years and be another competitive candidate for those orders.

If the A338 isn't selling now when those supposed "advantages" are greater, I fail to see it being more appealing to airlines a couple of years later...

I think it’s interesting that just about 2 years ago Hamilton at Leeham mocked Boeing’s suggestion that the Airbus strategy on widebodies was a mess. Sales numbers since that article ran aren’t pretty. People can live in denial that there is a problem. But there certainly appears to be the possibility of a problem, as much as many people want to deny it’s even possible.

bigjku wrote:

I believe Airbus built the A350 too big

That appears to be the least fact/logic based conclusion here thus far.... Airbus offered a smaller model, and no one wanted it.

Not sure how someone can then conclude that they're building it "too big," when that's what customers have been purchasing, versus smaller options!

bigjku wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

For those who say that the A330 replacement market hasn't come yet, when that market comes in say, the mid-2020s where late Model A330s are gonna get replaced, what additional advantages would the A330neo gain over the 787 that it doesn't currently possess now?

-Capex? That argument is getting shaky now, how much belief is there that Capex advantage would still exist as the 787 gets a few more years to trim down production costs further?
-Availability? A couple years of 14/month production can work down backlog real fast, certainty its hard to expect backlog for the 787 to be higher in the next 3-4 years than now.
-MOM program? Many of those A330 operators are Asian airlines who use the A330 on primarily medium haul and regional routes, the MOM program (if launched) should be more concrete in a few years and be another competitive candidate for those orders.

If the A338 isn't selling now when those supposed "advantages" are greater, I fail to see it being more appealing to airlines a couple of years later...

I think it’s interesting that just about 2 years ago Hamilton at Leeham mocked Boeing’s suggestion that the Airbus strategy on widebodies was a mess. Sales numbers since that article ran aren’t pretty. People can live in denial that there is a problem. But there certainly appears to be the possibility of a problem, as much as many people want to deny it’s even possible.

I fail to see a problem just because Airbus lost 6 orders from HA. All this gloom and doom over a single model is a bit OTT, a bit like the endless demise of the A380 threads that permeate this site.

Deeso wrote:

bigjku wrote:

I believe Airbus built the A350 too big and the A330neo isn’t good enough. They are going to need a new widebody plane but haven’t left themselves a great space to do it in. I am suggesting they recognize the problem sooner rather than later.

The A350 is not "too big". Lets not forget it was demanded by customers to be this way. It's a replacement for 777-200ER/LR and 777-300-ER. I can foresee orders surging as not many current operators of 777 will be too keen on upsizing to a 777-X.

The A330neo is a replacement for the A330ceo and there lies the problem. The biggest share of 330's was sold in the middle-late part of the program and they are just too new. In the mean time their hope is to catch the 767 operators who are willing to upsize to a bigger, more capable plane spending a little less money than with 787.

Sure but that assumes the 777 was the ideal size for all the routes it was flying to begin with. To some degree you see the 747 phenomenon with it I suspect. When it was bought there weren’t a ton of good alternatives if you needed the payload and range.

I am sure plenty of airlines wanted a bigger and different option than the 787. But I am not so sure that just because airlines ordered lots of 777 means that they will replace at that size. At least not all of them.

[twoid][/twoid]

LAX772LR wrote:

bigjku wrote:

I believe Airbus built the A350 too big

That appears to be the least fact/logic based conclusion here thus far.... Airbus offered a smaller model, and no one wanted it.

Not sure how someone can then conclude that they're building it "too big," when that's what customers have been purchasing, versus smaller options!

People have mostly stuck to the 900. The 1000 isn’t selling all that well. It seems like many of the most important 77W customers that one would expect to be all in on the A350-1000 aren’t to this point.

And customers are buying smaller planes. They are buying 787’s. They aren’t interested in A330neo’s.

bigjku wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

bigjku wrote:

I believe Airbus built the A350 too big

That appears to be the least fact/logic based conclusion here thus far.... Airbus offered a smaller model, and no one wanted it.

Not sure how someone can then conclude that they're building it "too big," when that's what customers have been purchasing, versus smaller options!

People have mostly stuck to the 900. The 1000 isn’t selling all that well. It seems like many of the most important 77W customers that one would expect to be all in on the A350-1000 aren’t to this point.

You are seriously jumping the gun here.

The oldest 77W on the planet is only 14yrs old, the overwhelming majority much younger. The only airlines currently replacing them are southeast and west Asian carriers who typically lease in 12yr stints.

It's going to be nearly another decade before the replacement cycle for that model and the A346 kicks into full swing. To say that the A35K has a sales problem, to the point of OEM error, is beyond fallacious at this point.

AI126 wrote:

Also, why did Airbus already build a prototype for testing if it isn't even going to sell at all/what's going to happen to the entire A330neo program now?

Airbus had a A330Neo programme and it is a family of two models. They were developed simultaneously. HA's order cancellation came very late in the day - after all the decisions to proceed with the programme were made. So it was too late to cancel them. Do note that the A338 is not just about pax aircraft. It is also a platform for other applications like freight, tanker, and other military purposes.

The A330Neo programme will be similar to the A330ceo programme. There won't be any spectacular sales numbers - just steady sales as and when airlines need to order aircraft for their fleet. Sales will increase if the price of oil goes up significantly. Otherwise, airlines prefer to have control over their CAPEX and won't make orders unnecessarily.

Almost 1500 planes is/was fairly spectacular. Add the almost 400 340s - even more so.

LAX772LR wrote:

bigjku wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

That appears to be the least fact/logic based conclusion here thus far.... Airbus offered a smaller model, and no one wanted it.

Not sure how someone can then conclude that they're building it "too big," when that's what customers have been purchasing, versus smaller options!

People have mostly stuck to the 900. The 1000 isn’t selling all that well. It seems like many of the most important 77W customers that one would expect to be all in on the A350-1000 aren’t to this point.

You are seriously jumping the gun here.

The oldest 77W on the planet is only 14yrs old, the overwhelming majority much younger. The only airlines currently replacing them are southeast and west Asian carriers who typically lease in 12yr stints.

It's going to be nearly another decade before the replacement cycle for that model and the A346 kicks into full swing. To say that the A35K has a sales problem, to the point of OEM error, is beyond fallacious at this point.

I stand by my contention that it’s too big and too capable for a huge number of routes and that this hurts it up against the 787. Ironically it does this while not quite being big enough kill the 779 for those airlines that need the most capacity and payload they can get.

As a 9 across airliner delivered with 8,100 NM of range it’s a great technical achievement. But things that will occur natural over time don’t really favor it. Increased engine efficiency is going to drive its range up over time, particularly if you ever do a full on re-engine. But even PIP’s should add a few percentage points in fuel burn every 4-5 years. But hardly anyone needs more range than it already has so that’s effectively wasted weight and capability.

We have largely seen this born out in sales campaigns. Where the range isn’t needed like at EK the 787-10 is simply more efficient. When maximum capacity and payload is demanded it doesn’t seem to quite beat the 777X which and all new airliner should have killed.

To me Airbus got all wonkey on widebodies when it went for the A380. It doesn’t really have a market place but it influenced a lot of other things they did. The A350 would have been better off as either a 10 across CFRP aircraft that would have fully killed off the 777 and any variants that would have been attempted or as a more direct competitor to the 787.

I believe Airbus didn’t do the former because it would have killed not just the 777 but also the A380 and they just couldn’t bring themselves to do it. They then tried to have their cake and eat it to by straddling the 787 and 777 and while that has done ok it has some issues. The smallest and most direct 787 competitor in the A350 lineup was dropped. The largest and most direct 777 aircraft missed on the biggest fish in that market in EK and has basically earned a split of the market beyond that to this point with the 777x.

I mean just go down the list of 77W operators. EK has already decided. Cathay was a split. Qatar was a 2-1 split for the 77X. Air France hasn’t ordered a direct replacement yet but maybe they are just downsizing. Who knows. Turkish Airlines hasn’t touched either of the two yet, bet it ends up a split based on their recent history. Ethiad is a split. JAL was a convert so that was good. I don’t see the huge order numbers sitting out there to be had for aircraft of that size. If you had been willing to kill the A380 with a 10 across CFRP plane you likely win almost all these orders unless Boeing responds with a new plane itself in an area that probably can’t support two new planes IMHO.

The A330neo looks somewhat vulnerable as well. Maybe people are right and we are just waiting on the business case for the a330neo to bloom. We are also waiting on the case for the A350-1000 to bloom. Just seems like a lot of waiting is going on.

Well it took some time for the A321 to bloom, and bloom it did!

If we go back 7 years or so, it seems to me Airbus had to make a choice.

The 320 was doing well, the 380 was doing poorly. The 330 was entering a twilight period and was competing against a new model where in the long run it would have difficulty competing (787). The 350 was going to do well, but was going to be squeezed by the 787-10 from below and the 777-9x from above. It was also going to be constrained by production limits (13/m maximum vs 14/m 787 + 6-10/m 777-8,9) and the difficulty in competing with 2 optimized model lines (787-8, 9, 10 + 777-8, 9).

The choice to fill the gap between 320/321 and the 350-9 (225 seats to 325 seats) was to go 1. 330 size new jet or MOM sized jet 2. 330neo

The 330 neo was supposed to be cheap, easy, and on time with economics within single digits of the 787. Somehow, this hasn't worked out and the 787 is winning orders hand over fist. Whether this is because Boeing is selling with lower margins, building at lower costs, or getting more downstream money through aftermarket program offerings is hard to tell.

So was the critical Airbus decision not to tackle a New 330/MOM sized model a major mistake?

It looks like the 330-800 is in trouble. The 330-900 is going to do ok, but if it was that good, why haven't they been able to get orders...they should be able to ramp up to 11/m (peak 330ceo volume). Has the 330-900 advantage in cost and availability disappeared?

bigjku wrote:

I stand by my contention that it’s too big and too capable for a huge number of routes and that this hurts it up against the 787. Ironically it does this while not quite being big enough kill the 779 for those airlines that need the most capacity and payload they can get.

The A359 has carved out its own place in the market, which is different from the 777X's and it generally holds its own against equivalent 787s.

As a 9 across airliner delivered with 8,100 NM of range it’s a great technical achievement. But things that will occur natural over time don’t really favor it. Increased engine efficiency is going to drive its range up over time, particularly if you ever do a full on re-engine. But even PIP’s should add a few percentage points in fuel burn every 4-5 years. But hardly anyone needs more range than it already has so that’s effectively wasted weight and capability.

This is true of aver airliner, not just the A350. All the 777 and 2 of the 787 variants are also very long rangers.

We have largely seen this born out in sales campaigns. Where the range isn’t needed like at EK the 787-10 is simply more efficient. When maximum capacity and payload is demanded it doesn’t seem to quite beat the 777X which and all new airliner should have killed.

We've seen it in some sales campaigns, not all. Given that the 777X only has 7 confirmed customers so far (5 of whom have the A350 on order as well) I think it's a stretch to say that these 777Xs deals really harm the A350 too much. The A350 is an excellent lifter, by the way, not a 778 but it will go very far.

To me Airbus got all wonky on widebodies when it went for the A380. It doesn’t really have a market place but it influenced a lot of other things they did. The A350 would have been better off as either a 10 across CFRP aircraft that would have fully killed off the 777 and any variants that would have been attempted or as a more direct competitor to the 787.

Airlines said they wanted an aircraft of the A350's size and have largely put their money where their mouth is. I think it may not be perfect for everything it's being asked to cover but targeting a larger aircraft segment brings its own risks. It would have left the 787 unopposed, for a start, in an era when routes are fragmenting which favours slightly smaller aircraft. The 777X may yet suffer at least a little as a result of this.

I believe Airbus didn’t do the former because it would have killed not just the 777 but also the A380 and they just couldn’t bring themselves to do it. They then tried to have their cake and eat it to by straddling the 787 and 777 and while that has done ok it has some issues. The smallest and most direct 787 competitor in the A350 lineup was dropped. The largest and most direct 777 aircraft missed on the biggest fish in that market in EK and has basically earned a split of the market beyond that to this point with the 777x.

There was not enough market for the A358 once the A359 was selected as the (more optimised) base model. If it was good enough they would have kept it but it offered too much capability for most and not enough efficiency. EK may be a big miss but they are only one airline and Airbus has to go where there is more potential, i.e. at other airlines.

I mean just go down the list of 77W operators. EK has already decided. Cathay was a split. Qatar was a 2-1 split for the 77X. Air France hasn’t ordered a direct replacement yet but maybe they are just downsizing. Who knows. Turkish Airlines hasn’t touched either of the two yet, bet it ends up a split based on their recent history. Ethiad is a split. JAL was a convert so that was good. I don’t see the huge order numbers sitting out there to be had for aircraft of that size. If you had been willing to kill the A380 with a 10 across CFRP plane you likely win almost all these orders unless Boeing responds with a new plane itself in an area that probably can’t support two new planes IMHO.

BA, UA, DL, EY, QR, TG, SQ, CX, PR, JL, AF, KL, CA, MU, CZ, CI, OZ, ET. That's a pretty comprehensive list of 777 operators alone that have ordered A350s. 16 of those are 77W customers. Also add TK who have signed an LoI (and they have for the 787 as well for that matter). There are more out there, some of those airlines won't have chosen the replacements for the 77Ws, but with the A350 on property it's hardly controversial to suggest a lot of those orders could go to the A350.

The A330neo looks somewhat vulnerable as well. Maybe people are right and we are just waiting on the business case for the a330neo to bloom. We are also waiting on the case for the A350-1000 to bloom. Just seems like a lot of waiting is going on.

The A330neo is in more trouble than the A350, I think it's not a in a great place but I'm not as pessimistic over it as some on here, it may not sell in vast numbers but 400-500 is realistic and would deliver a return to Airbus, while keeping 787 prices honest. The A35K has a pretty solid business case, but as was mentioned by LAX772LR the 77W fleet is still very young on the whole. Why do you need to replace them so soon, especially in a situation where fuel costs are not so high, favouring keeping older aircraft?

flee wrote:

Well it took some time for the A321 to bloom, and bloom it did!

The A321 took some time to bloom because it's initial engines were puny, leading to crap ranges and short runway performance (more important at that period) not satisfactory to airlines, two things that were greatly improved with higher thrust and more efficient engines over time. While in contrast, the A338 is overcapable (read: heavy) for 99% of routes and airlines out there, it just isn't very efficient at those routes relative to competition, something that's tougher to change, airframe-wise, than performance.

Maybe in retrospect going back to circa 2006, Airbus should have staggered the A350 to compete against both the 787 and 772ER replacement. Keep the A358, and A359, shelf the A35K for later and create an A346E/neo (the concept was studied at the time) rather than allowing the 77W to eat up the market all those years.

fightforlove wrote:

Maybe in retrospect going back to circa 2006, Airbus should have staggered the A350 to compete against both the 787 and 772ER replacement. Keep the A358, and A359, shelf the A35K for later and create an A346E/neo (the concept was studied at the time) rather than allowing the 77W to eat up the market all those years.

The A340E would have only arrived several years before the A350, and was already rejected by airlines. They certainly would further rejected it knowing that the plane would only be an expensive stopgap worthless after a few years when the A35K came along.

In my personal opinion (for however little that it's worth), Airbus would have been better served in offering the 330-800 as a hybrid of the -200 and -900 in that it would have all of the airframe upgrades of the -900NEO, but would have instead used the latest PIP of the -200 engines instead of the larger, heavier NEO engines. The advantage would have been a lower total purchase cost for airlines, a significantly lighter aircraft that makes more sense for intermediate range regional flights, all while realizing improved fuel burn numbers over the outgoing -200s from having the aero improvements and likely having the latest engine PIP as opposed to older engines on the older frames. Yes, it would have added complication to the program, but it wouldn't have been anything that Airbus couldn't have handled. As compared to the 788, it wouldn't have had equivalent range to be sure, but, it would have been significantly cheaper for airlines to purchase and would have likely been nearly as economical in regional, high density use.

The real question is always timing. The 338 pax window would close firmly if/when there is both a NMA (available for delivery) and a 788 max. But even today, the 767 production line will soldier on for at least a decade, so I’m not sure it’s a waste to offer the 338, as an available simple little brother to the 339.

From the AA thread ( forgot that we also had an A338 specific thread...) Scott's take (requires subscription) now up at Leeham: American A330neo loss casts shadow over sales prospects says:

Airbus hoped that an American order, for 20 -800s, would prove to be the endorsement of the program that was needed to spur worldwide sales.

Boeing was just as adamant that, like Hawaiian, American order the 787. In this case, Boeing had the leg up: the 787 was already in AA’s fleet (37 of 42 previous orders were already delivered). American wanted to simplify its fleet, not add another type. And airline officials were skeptical of the -800 for the very reason Airbus was so in need of AA’s order.

Seems Scott is willing to go with the notion that the A330-800 has (unfortunately) become an untouchable of the airline industry.

I don't hold that point of view.

I think sooner or later someone will come along with a big enough order to re-launch the A330-800.

While it would have been nice for AA to be that customer, it's not mandatory. There's plenty of time for the product to gain acceptance. Till then the A330-900 backlog will get the product out into the field and give everyone a better comfort level about the program.

PDPsol wrote:

(...)

The 330-800 offers:
- lower (list) capital acquisition costs overnight compared to the Dreamliner
- superior 8-abreast Y class passenger comfort
- flexible delivery timing
- superior range with the 251t variant to be released in two years
(...)

These are all questionable. 9-abreast in the 787 does not seem to put a dent on its sales. The airlines are the ones that chose 9-abreast. In fact, one might argue that if the cross section of the A330 had a few more inches in width, it would give potential airline customers an option they do not have right now. Lower acquisition costs is something we do not know for sure, only Airbus and airlines really know. And the flexible delivery timing is a direct result of poor sales.

The 251t variant is a bit of mixed blessing because it closes the range gap between the A330-800 and the A350-900. Airbus improves the A338 as a competitor to the 788, and at the same time improves it as a competitor to the A359. Let's say Airbus finally strikes a A338 sale - would it be a win against the 788 or a sell-down from the A359?