Airbus Cuts Production Plans for A330 Jet

seahawk · Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:09 am

BHXLOVER wrote:
seahawk wrote:
The beginning of the end. With such a low production rate, they can not compete with the 787 on price and this weakens the weak position even further.

What about the 100's of 330ceo's that are flying around and not yet due for replacement? As pointed out, fleet commonality and type rating are important cost savings.

Anyway, I hate this A v B stuff on here. Fanboyism is killing this place.

You plan for a long operational life of the new plane, so the common type rating with the plane you are phasing it out is only a temporary advantage. Worse economics however are a factor for the whole service life and the A330NEO is worse than the 787 by a noticeable margin. It only becomes interesting if the capital costs compensate for the worse economics, but this is not happening.

keesje · Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:35 am

seahawk wrote:
BHXLOVER wrote:
seahawk wrote:
The beginning of the end. With such a low production rate, they can not compete with the 787 on price and this weakens the weak position even further.

What about the 100's of 330ceo's that are flying around and not yet due for replacement? As pointed out, fleet commonality and type rating are important cost savings.

Anyway, I hate this A v B stuff on here. Fanboyism is killing this place.

You plan for a long operational life of the new plane, so the common type rating with the plane you are phasing it out is only a temporary advantage. Worse economics however are a factor for the whole service life and the A330NEO is worse than the 787 by a noticeable margin. It only becomes interesting if the capital costs compensate for the worse economics, but this is not happening.

.. / Yes ? Basic specs (weight, aerodynamics, engines sfc) don't come up with his. If anyone in 2005 had dared to suggest A330s with CF6 & Trent 700 's would leave the line at 5-6 a month around 2018 with more than 1400 flying, laughter and dismissal would be his/hers. Air Canada will add 4 next year.

ihmcallister · Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:56 am

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
:idea: Airbus still has 27x A330MRTT and 4x A330F left to deliver. AFAIK especially the MRTT conversion is time consuming. This production rate decrease could very well be caused by a increase of MRTT and Freighter production on the A330 FAL line. The FAL could very well be running at a higher rate than deliveries for about two years time.
What also stands out, is the fact that Airbus build the A330 completion center in China, but there are no A330NEO orders from China.
But indeed it's not surprising A330 production drops further.

The MRTT doesn't affect production rates as such. Each aircraft rolls off the line as usual in Toulouse as a basic standard version, then ferries to Spain for the extensive conversion effort.

Eyad89 · Mon Apr 30, 2018 8:19 am

Unlike previous years, deliveries of A350 in Q1 are moving ahead quite well. Airbus seems to have learned how to do it faster now. What is the target for this year? 100?

CFRPwingALbody · Mon Apr 30, 2018 8:27 am

AFAIK the A300/A310 FAL is now the A320 FAL in Toulouse, a new FAL was build for the A330 and A340. The A350 uses a lot of the A330/A340 facilities, but also required several new facilities.
But I don't know where the sub-assemblies for the A300, A310 A330 and A330 were/are build. This could be at the same facilities with the same tooling, but most likely the tooling has been replaced / upgraded several times. I agree with the point that Airbus management is much beter capable in overseeing the consequences and reasons for the Delivery rate reduction.
I know MRTTs don't take longer to build on the A330FAL, but their delivery only happens after the MRTT conversion in Spain has been completed. So the production rate might reduce less than the delivery rate. But MRTT can't explain a rate reduction from 67 to 50 annually. I think the maximum effect of increased MRTT production could only be a high single digit delivery rate reduction.
The production rate must decrease to explain the full delivery rate reduction.

brindabella · Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:57 am

keesje wrote:
Air Canada will add 4 next year.

Always a favourite of mine & the super-slender new wings just make it look all the more handsome!

:hyper:

cheers

A320FlyGuy · Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:58 am

SC430 wrote:
A320FlyGuy wrote:
One thing people tend to forget about the A330 line - a lot of the tooling was long ago paid for and has been amortized. Don't forget - the A330 uses the A300 fuselage. Much of the tooling on the line is the same tooling that was used to build A300 fuselage components many years ago. So that reduced the costs. A330/A340 wing design was common to both models and again, the costs were amortized early on in both programs. So now you have 2 major costs that are not factored into the price. Now, look at the avionics platform - that's an outgrowth of the A320. So aside from cabin design changes and the incremental changes that always happen over time, you've got an aircraft that isn't actually "all-new" and wasn't all new at launch in the 1980s - the A330 is and has always been a derivative that has borrowed from other programs. So Airbus can afford a production cut without taking a huge hit to the bottom line. Also, Airbus has a rather interesting method of accounting for its commercial programs that are almost byzantine in complexity. In short, I think the people in Toulouse who are paid far more than those of us speculating on this forum know what they are doing.

What you are describing is an airplane that is relatively inexpensive to make and highly profitable. This makes the situation worse. Make a few less A380's , who cares the cost more to build than you sell them for. A330's are very profitable, delivering less of them bears heavily on the companies profits.

But it's actually the inverse...with tooling costs not hanging over the production line accounting, you have freedom to build a few less aircraft to keep the production line active and supply chain flowing. If Airbus had tooling costs on top of everything else, each and every A330 sold would be critical to the life of the program. Right now, a slight reduction is acceptable and can be absorbed.

A320FlyGuy · Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:00 am

brindabella wrote:
keesje wrote:
Air Canada will add 4 next year.

Always a favourite of mine & the super-slender new wings just make it look all the more handsome!

cheers

Last year, I took my Mum and Grandmother to England for a vacation. We went over on a 767-300ER and came home on C-GHKR. My 92 year old grandmother commented on how sleek the A330 looked and she couldn't believe how much more spacious and quiet it was over the 767. Even my Mom noticed...it really is a great plane from every respect.

texl1649 · Mon Apr 30, 2018 11:34 am

It’s not really common to replace an aircraft with the same type, at least from a widebody perspective (747 in its hey day excepted). Typically, substantial generational gains are available. 330NEO win rate seems to be an average example.

Jayafe · Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:01 pm

texl1649 wrote:
It’s not really common to replace an aircraft with the same type, at least from a widebody perspective (747 in its hey day excepted). Typically, substantial generational gains are available. 330NEO win rate seems to be an average example.

UA and the 767 affair, to mention an example (as many others) begs to differ.

Polot · Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:18 pm

Jayafe wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
It’s not really common to replace an aircraft with the same type, at least from a widebody perspective (747 in its hey day excepted). Typically, substantial generational gains are available. 330NEO win rate seems to be an average example.

UA and the 767 affair, to mention an example (as many others) begs to differ.

???

UA are not planning on replacing the 767s with an aircraft that shares a common type with the 767. They are, however, looking at picking up some used 767s to tide them over until something comparable with substantial generational gains is available. Even when they were asking about new 767s that was to be for an interim basis.

Airlines don’t have to wait for something comparable to A330 size and capability- one replacement has been in service for over 6 years and the other will be in just a few months.

Newbiepilot · Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:40 pm

keesje wrote:
If anyone in 2005 had dared to suggest A330s with CF6 & Trent 700 's would leave the line at 5-6 a month around 2018 with more than 1400 flying, laughter and dismissal would be his/hers. Air Canada will add 4 next year.

You mentioning Air Canada brings up a problem for Airbus selling more A330neos. Air Canada is not buying new A330s, they are buying used. Brussels airlines, Air Transat and Hong Kong airlines, etc jumped into the used A330 market. TAP bought multiple A330ceos from Singapore. Having a good used market and having low costs to transition planes between airlines is beneficial for the A330 since it keeps the market healthy. Unfortunately for Airbus, the number of used airplanes on the market is sufficient that airlines are able postponing buying new. Not a terrible problem to have, but it is something affecting production rate.

TAP, The A330neo launch customer, added 4 A333s last year that are only 9 years old. Those should have been A339s if not for the delays to the program.

LewisNEO · Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:55 pm

Eyad89 wrote:
Unlike previous years, deliveries of A350 in Q1 are moving ahead quite well. Airbus seems to have learned how to do it faster now. What is the target for this year? 100?

Allthough it is an A330NEO topic... https://leehamnews.com/2017/10/04/airbu ... tion-rate/ and https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... et-448127/

So I guess 10/13 per month in 2019 makes more than 100 per year. I didn't find any recent information for 2018, but I guess somewhere be between 80 and 100.

Do not forget the Airbus productionline is different, it produces planes horizontally next to each other instead of a regular productionline where planes are manufactered vertically in line of each other. This explains different appearances in the speed at which the final output is being delivered. It takes airbus a little more time to scale up, but when they are, it moves very smooth.

texl1649 · Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:07 pm

Jayafe wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
It’s not really common to replace an aircraft with the same type, at least from a widebody perspective (747 in its hey day excepted). Typically, substantial generational gains are available. 330NEO win rate seems to be an average example.

UA and the 767 affair, to mention an example (as many others) begs to differ.

Sure, let's talk about 767 operators who owned/operated 767's and bought new 764's to replace them. Or L1011, or DC-10 to MD-11. Or A300 or A310 examples.

The only real obvious one I can think of is SAS going to MD11 to replace their DC10's? I don't believe the UA or DL 764's replaced older 767's. I think United ordered their 767 PAX as new build in 1997. Those are some tired birds today.

Polot · Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:15 pm

rbavfan wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
RickNRoll wrote:
HA ordered a plane with a much longer range for a reason. The A330 didn't fit that basic requirement.

Prior to cancellation, it actually did.
The recent 251T uprate option gives the A338 the same range as the A358 proposal.

A358 range - 8200nm
A338 range - 8150nm

And not only that, but according to Leeham, the A338 will also out-distance the 789, given the same payload.
https://leehamnews.com/2018/03/29/is-ai ... 300-seats/

So range can't be the issue, it had to be cost.

That 251t was at an increased price and would not be available for HA's first deliveries. Thats a tough combination choice and sent it to Boeing.

I do not want to harp too much on the HA order I do find it interesting on how A.net’s narrative towards HA and the A338 has changed. Now the A338 was a poor fit for HA who really had no choice to move to the 787 because of range concerns. But before, when the 787 talk was just rumors, the range question was just a side show and HA was firmly committed because no matter the range the A338 could easily replace the A332s (which HA has been operating successfully for years now, despite its lack of range versus the 787 or A358) in the fleet by operating the routes with greater efficiency.

HA’s order is a perfect example of one that Airbus should have easily won and kept.

seahawk · Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:44 pm

But did not, which imho speaks about doubts in product by HA.

LXwing · Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:58 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
TAP bought multiple A330ceos from Singapore. Having a good used market and having low costs to transition planes between airlines is beneficial for the A330 since it keeps the market healthy. Unfortunately for Airbus, the number of used airplanes on the market is sufficient that airlines are able postponing buying new.
TAP, The A330neo launch customer, added 4 A333s last year that are only 9 years old. Those should have been A339s if not for the delays to the program.

Bad example, this does not demonstrate your point at all. TAP leased 4 ex-SQ A333 for short term (apparently 2 years only) capacity increase due to various reasons, one of them being the delay in getting their A339neo. They did not order A330 in place of A330neo whatsoever. In fact it is quite the opposite, as their initial order of 14 A330neo (from conversion of 12 A359) has since been increased to a total of 21 A339, between bought and leased frames. The A333 will be leaving for Air Canada.

keesje · Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:23 pm

I think the SQ fleet is a kind of unique, substantial (22 aircraft), very young (15 delivered since 2013), with the most popular (Trent700) engines. No surprise they are easily finding new homes. Most A330 of the line today go to China. I can see A330 follow-up orders from China soon.

texl1649 · Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:54 pm

keesje wrote:
I think the SQ fleet is a kind of unique, substantial (22 aircraft), very young (15 delivered since 2013), with the most popular (Trent700) engines. No surprise they are easily finding new homes. Most A330 of the line today go to China. I can see A330 follow-up orders from China soon.

Well you’d certainly think that is likely, as far as Chinese orders, given the new final line they built for them in China. The delay has been really odd.

5427247845 · Mon Apr 30, 2018 4:04 pm

Polot wrote:
HA’s order is a perfect example of one that Airbus should have easily won and kept.

It's not. You seem tot forget that HA also choose GE as engine supplier. In this case it's not just A versus B but Airbus/RR versus Boeing/GE. We will never know what HA would have chosen if the A339 could also be equipped with GE engines....

Polot · Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:08 pm

marcelh wrote:
Polot wrote:
HA’s order is a perfect example of one that Airbus should have easily won and kept.

It's not. You seem tot forget that HA also choose GE as engine supplier. In this case it's not just A versus B but Airbus/RR versus Boeing/GE. We will never know what HA would have chosen if the A339 could also be equipped with GE engines....

HA didn’t choose the 787 just because GE is an engine supplier. You are forgetting a third option- Boeing/RR. GE may have offered a better deal, but HA flies RR powered A332s, RR powered 717s, PW (ie not GE/CFM) powered A321s, and had a contract with RR first for the A358 then the A338. Perhaps Airbus and RR were both a little too complacent?

HA is a relatively small carrier, was (prior to 787) moving to an all A330 widebody fleet (all with less range than the A338/787/A350), has A321neos as their narrow body aircraft of choice for mainland USA flights, and a previously somewhat strained relationship with Boeing due to issues dating back to leases and HA’s bankruptcy. Airbus has even more capable A338s coming down the pipeline (251t version) and HA could easily make do with 245t A338s in the interim (or else how have they been surviving with the A332?). That is the perfect A330neo customer that you would expect to remain in the Airbus fold and not deflect.

astuteman · Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:26 pm

seahawk wrote:
But did not, which imho speaks about doubts in product by HA.

I'm pretty sure HA said that one of the key factors was not wishing to have an orphan model in their fleet.
Which, yes, expresses doubts about the product, but not in any performance sense, or in any sense pertinent to the A330-900.

And personally I'm also pretty sure (like a lot of the industry seems to b) that being a US state, Boeing could cut deep into the price of the 787-9 and invoke the risk of a dumping claim against Airbus. That is something Boeing can do in the USA, but not elsewhere in the world.
(And no, they can't do it to the A320NEO in the USA because a) Airbus can build them cheap and at high volume, b) the model is not at risk, c) the volumes are too large).

I'm also pretty sure we now know where the US3 stand on the A330NEO. 1 for, 2 against.

Rgds

5427247845 · Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:27 pm

Polot wrote:
marcelh wrote:
Polot wrote:
HA’s order is a perfect example of one that Airbus should have easily won and kept.

It's not. You seem tot forget that HA also choose GE as engine supplier. In this case it's not just A versus B but Airbus/RR versus Boeing/GE. We will never know what HA would have chosen if the A339 could also be equipped with GE engines....

HA didn’t choose the 787 just because GE is an engine supplier. You are forgetting a third option- Boeing/RR. GE may have offered a better deal, but HA flies RR powered A332s, RR powered 717s, PW (ie not GE/CFM) powered A321s, and had a contract with RR first for the A358 then the A338. Perhaps Airbus and RR were both a little too complacent?

HA is a relatively small carrier, was (prior to 787) moving to an all A330 widebody fleet (all with less range than the A338/787/A350), has A321neos as their narrow body aircraft of choice for mainland USA flights, and a previously somewhat strained relationship with Boeing due to issues dating back to leases and HA’s bankruptcy. Airbus has even more capable A338s coming down the pipeline (251t version) and HA could easily make do with 245t A338s in the interim (or else how have they been surviving with the A332?). That is the perfect A330neo customer that you would expect to remain in the Airbus fold and not deflect.

HA chooses what's in their best interest. They flew 767, changed to A330 and now 787. And chose the A321neo because it's the best plane to fit their needs, not because it's an Airbus.

keesje · Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:28 pm

I think Hawaiian Airlines was /is seen as high profile Airbus customer.

Sending out all the wrong messages & perceptions for Boeing' s other domestic & East Asian customers.

Probably the offer Boeing GECAS made them, includes this factor.

Polot · Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:37 pm

marcelh wrote:
Polot wrote:
marcelh wrote:

It's not. You seem tot forget that HA also choose GE as engine supplier. In this case it's not just A versus B but Airbus/RR versus Boeing/GE. We will never know what HA would have chosen if the A339 could also be equipped with GE engines....

HA didn’t choose the 787 just because GE is an engine supplier. You are forgetting a third option- Boeing/RR. GE may have offered a better deal, but HA flies RR powered A332s, RR powered 717s, PW (ie not GE/CFM) powered A321s, and had a contract with RR first for the A358 then the A338. Perhaps Airbus and RR were both a little too complacent?

HA is a relatively small carrier, was (prior to 787) moving to an all A330 widebody fleet (all with less range than the A338/787/A350), has A321neos as their narrow body aircraft of choice for mainland USA flights, and a previously somewhat strained relationship with Boeing due to issues dating back to leases and HA’s bankruptcy. Airbus has even more capable A338s coming down the pipeline (251t version) and HA could easily make do with 245t A338s in the interim (or else how have they been surviving with the A332?). That is the perfect A330neo customer that you would expect to remain in the Airbus fold and not deflect.

HA chooses what's in their best interest. They flew 767, changed to A330 and now 787. And chose the A321neo because it's the best plane to fit their needs, not because it's an Airbus.

Yes, and the fact that HA decided that switching to the 787 was in their best interest, and not sticking with the A330neo (which on paper should check so many boxes for them) raises eyebrows.

keesje wrote:
I think Hawaiian Airlines was /is seen as high profile Airbus customer.

Sending out all the wrong messages & perceptions for Boeing' s other domestic & East Asian customers.

Probably the offer Boeing GECAS made them, includes this factor.

I don’t think HA has that much pull on Boeing’s domestic and East Asian customers- they are really a minor bit player. The message was to put Airbus and the A330neo program on notice, not to calm down Boeing’s customers. I don’t think Boeing customers are questioning the long term future of the 787 program at this point.

JayinKitsap · Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:14 pm

Back around 2005 was a heated competition between B & A for HA's planes, HA selected the A358 and A330's for their needs. Part was that B could not deliver the 787 to them for many years, but A330s were available relatively quickly. The A358 went away leaving HA a bit stranded, with the original order they were to have had them by now. The A338 order they were placed into wasn't exactly the plane they wanted, but the biggest issue was being an orphan with a high lease cost or limited resale value 10 years out. I think coupled with RR's problems with engines and GE's prices. So HA will be an operator of both companies planes.

keesje · Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:37 pm

I think the A330-800 must have been out of the window early on, when it became an orphan.

Hawaiian ordered the 787-9 and apparently Airbus couldn't get them move over (again) to order the similar sized A330-900s.

PlanesNTrains · Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:46 pm

keesje wrote:
I think the A330-800 must have been out of the window early on, when it became an orphan.

Hawaiian ordered the 787-9 and apparently Airbus couldn't get them move over (again) to order the similar sized A330-900s.

Why is the A330-800 an orphan?

keesje · Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:09 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
keesje wrote:
I think the A330-800 must have been out of the window early on, when it became an orphan.

Hawaiian ordered the 787-9 and apparently Airbus couldn't get them move over (again) to order the similar sized A330-900s.

Why is the A330-800 an orphan?

Why? Don't know. I know the A330-200 sold very well because it was the small LH haul machine to open new destinations, with 250 seats and good cargo, when Asia boomed 20 years ago. The A330-800 is a re-engine.

Sales of similar smaller, capable aircraft like 767-300ER, 787-8 and 777-200ER also dropped after a decade of strong sales.

PlanesNTrains · Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:14 pm

keesje wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
keesje wrote:
I think the A330-800 must have been out of the window early on, when it became an orphan.

Hawaiian ordered the 787-9 and apparently Airbus couldn't get them move over (again) to order the similar sized A330-900s.

Why is the A330-800 an orphan?

Why? Don't know.

Awesome, thanks.

JayinKitsap · Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:51 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
keesje wrote:
I think the A330-800 must have been out of the window early on, when it became an orphan.

Hawaiian ordered the 787-9 and apparently Airbus couldn't get them move over (again) to order the similar sized A330-900s.

Why is the A330-800 an orphan?

HA had an order for 6 A338's, no other airline orders for it.

Polot · Mon Apr 30, 2018 8:00 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
keesje wrote:
I think the A330-800 must have been out of the window early on, when it became an orphan.

Hawaiian ordered the 787-9 and apparently Airbus couldn't get them move over (again) to order the similar sized A330-900s.

Why is the A330-800 an orphan?

HA had an order for 6 A338's, no other airline orders for it.

He meant how did the A338 get into a position where HA was the only customer (after TransAsia folded).

amdiesen · Mon Apr 30, 2018 8:07 pm

The horse is the A338, Anet is the protagonist

bigjku · Mon Apr 30, 2018 8:10 pm

Polot wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:

Why is the A330-800 an orphan?

HA had an order for 6 A338's, no other airline orders for it.

He meant how did the A338 get into a position where HA was the only customer (after TransAsia folded).

As range for the longer twins has increased with MTOW increases and more efficient engines there is not as much demand for the shrunken versions. Particularly if they largely use the same wing, undercarriage and empennage as you don’t save all that much weight.

There are not that many routes that demand the extra range of an A338 over an A339. And for the really in demand routes that go that far there are aircraft that can get you more capability that people seem to opt for.

Newbiepilot · Tue May 01, 2018 3:59 am

keesje wrote:
I think the SQ fleet is a kind of unique, substantial (22 aircraft), very young (15 delivered since 2013), with the most popular (Trent700) engines. No surprise they are easily finding new homes. Most A330 of the line today go to China. I can see A330 follow-up orders from China soon.

I think many are waiting on A330neo orders from China. Most of the A330s delivered in the last year went to China. So why no A330neo orders from China?

MrHMSH · Tue May 01, 2018 4:04 am

Newbiepilot wrote:

I think many are waiting on A330neo orders from China. Most of the A330s delivered in the last year went to China. So why no A330neo orders from China?

Your 2nd sentence is a solid reason, why do you need to replace brand new A333s? They're good on the shortest (domestic) legs, and in a lower fuel price environment still hold up on longer routes. Also: it's China, they could easily be angling for a political edge and would hold an A330neo order as a nice big carrot.

AvObserver · Tue May 01, 2018 4:35 am

Production cuts are hardly an immediate concern for the A330 NEO since it only cost about $2.5 billion USD to develop it. A lower production rate will help ensure continuation of the line while Airbus seeks new orders, likely including from China. Surely Airbus planned it to be a companion program to the A350 which will largely supplant it over time. I'm sure they don't expect it to continue to sell in the stratospheric numbers it formally did with the much newer, albeit larger A350 also in the stable. It doesn't need huge sales to remain a profitable program for years to come. No need to worry.

Eyad89 · Tue May 01, 2018 6:36 am

Let's agree that some customers might find A339 and A359 equally tempting, especially if A339 is offered at the right price. Their seating capacity, operating costs, and range are not that far from each other. It is nothing a cheaper A339 can't fix. If A339 is produced at a high rate and sold at a cheap price (but still profitable), then the profitability of the A350 program will be affected.

Perhaps it was a strategic goal from Airbus to produce A330neo at lower rates so that the A350 can shine a bit. A330neo only costs $2 billion, there's no doubt it will be a profitable program. With the current logbook, Airbus only needs $12 million per frame to achieve a positive ROI. For Airbus, in order to make both A350 and A330neo programs profitable, A350 has to be produced at higher rates (such as12/month), and A330neo has to be produced at lower rates.

JerseyFlyer · Tue May 01, 2018 7:32 am

The Chinese and Saudi ceo "regional" orders were to be the bridge between ceo and neo production. The neo is delayed so the bridge is stretched. Therefore the production rate needs to be cut. Simply mathematics.

seahawk · Tue May 01, 2018 7:45 am

That would only be the main reason, if orders would be stable, but the A330NEO is seeing negative orders in the last months with more airlines cancelling than ordering.

keesje · Tue May 01, 2018 9:05 am

seahawk wrote:
That would only be the main reason, if orders would be stable, but the A330NEO is seeing negative orders in the last months with more airlines cancelling than ordering.

I assume you mean the 6 A330-800 cancelled by Hawaiian? AA was about A350's and suddenly the big news was Boeing beat the A330NEO with more 787s. All in all less earth shattering than some media want everyone to believe. Or everyone wants to believe & the media is helping out

caljn · Tue May 01, 2018 10:12 am

A320FlyGuy wrote:
brindabella wrote:
keesje wrote:
Air Canada will add 4 next year.

Always a favourite of mine & the super-slender new wings just make it look all the more handsome!

cheers

Last year, I took my Mum and Grandmother to England for a vacation. We went over on a 767-300ER and came home on C-GHKR. My 92 year old grandmother commented on how sleek the A330 looked and she couldn't believe how much more spacious and quiet it was over the 767. Even my Mom noticed...it really is a great plane from every respect.

And I can tell a tale of a someone preferring a 767 over a 330. It's called anecdotal evidence. Useless, though your effort is duly noted.

frigatebird · Tue May 01, 2018 11:41 am

texl1649 wrote:
keesje wrote:
I think the SQ fleet is a kind of unique, substantial (22 aircraft), very young (15 delivered since 2013), with the most popular (Trent700) engines. No surprise they are easily finding new homes. Most A330 of the line today go to China. I can see A330 follow-up orders from China soon.

Well you’d certainly think that is likely, as far as Chinese orders, given the new final line they built for them in China. The delay has been really odd.

Was wondering too why China hadn't ordered not only the A330neo, but has so far skipped the 787-10 as well. However:

MrHMSH wrote:
it's China, they could easily be angling for a political edge and would hold an A330neo order as a nice big carrot.

I think you've hit the nail right on the head there.
Both A339 and 787-10 should be expected to find homes at multiple Chinese airlines. Will be interesting to see which one will be ordered first. Both have capabilities suited excellently to the Chinese market, and political reasons are probably the main reason for both why they haven't been ordered by CAAC yet.
When these are ironed out, I believe the 251t A339 will be the main replacement substitute for the A332, while the 787-10 will fill the role the A333 currently has. Both have enough payload/range and some extra capacity to cater for the growing Chinese market.

Polot · Tue May 01, 2018 12:13 pm

JerseyFlyer wrote:
The Chinese and Saudi ceo "regional" orders were to be the bridge between ceo and neo production. The neo is delayed so the bridge is stretched. Therefore the production rate needs to be cut. Simply mathematics.

The “bridge” Is basically over. The Neo is entering the final leg of certification and will be entering service in a couple of months. The production rate is being cut because Airbus doesn’t have enough A330 orders (ceo or neo) going forward to sustain current production levels. Note the production cut is not immediate-it is starting next year when the Neo will be in service.

A320FlyGuy · Tue May 01, 2018 8:51 pm

caljn wrote:
A320FlyGuy wrote:
brindabella wrote:

Always a favourite of mine & the super-slender new wings just make it look all the more handsome!

cheers

Last year, I took my Mum and Grandmother to England for a vacation. We went over on a 767-300ER and came home on C-GHKR. My 92 year old grandmother commented on how sleek the A330 looked and she couldn't believe how much more spacious and quiet it was over the 767. Even my Mom noticed...it really is a great plane from every respect.

And I can tell a tale of a someone preferring a 767 over a 330. It's called anecdotal evidence. Useless, though your effort is duly noted.

So what's wrong with expressing an opinion. I've always found the A300/A310/A330 to be far more comfortable in economy then the 767 and (depending on configuration, even the 777.

amdiesen · Wed May 02, 2018 8:29 am

Polot wrote:
The “bridge” Is basically over. The Neo is entering the final leg of certification and will be entering service in a couple of months. The production rate is being cut because Airbus doesn’t have enough A330 orders (ceo or neo) going forward to sustain current production levels. Note the production cut is not immediate-it is starting next year when the Neo will be in service.

Yes, with caveats. To your point, we are observing simple hiccups of an A330c-->n/A350 transition versus the years of delayed B787 availability after the 767 orders had practically dried up; (to the benefit of the A330).

caveats:
There are 10 flight ready HNA group A330s on that sky-bridge, with five more queuing.
- 'ntu risk factor' * (264.2m * 0.5) * ~15... ~=$2,000,000,000 worth of depreciable assets sitting on a sky-bridge that may be renamed long-term parking.
Temasek may inspire a transaction that places a few of the HK frames in the air while the paint is still fresh.
While AB and the supply chain may be able to transition full production to neo; would RR be able to place working engines on the frames? (what's the British word for " :sigh:

whew

"

)

lightsaber · Wed May 02, 2018 11:13 am

amdiesen wrote:
Polot wrote:
The “bridge” Is basically over. The Neo is entering the final leg of certification and will be entering service in a couple of months. The production rate is being cut because Airbus doesn’t have enough A330 orders (ceo or neo) going forward to sustain current production levels. Note the production cut is not immediate-it is starting next year when the Neo will be in service.

Yes, with caveats. To your point, we are observing simple hiccups of an A330c-->n/A350 transition versus the years of delayed B787 availability after the 767 orders had practically dried up; (to the benefit of the A330).

caveats:
There are 10 flight ready HNA group A330s on that sky-bridge, with five more queuing.
- 'ntu risk factor' * (264.2m * 0.5) * ~15... ~=$2,000,000,000 worth of depreciable assets sitting on a sky-bridge that may be renamed long-term parking.
Temasek may inspire a transaction that places a few of the HK frames in the air while the paint is still fresh.
While AB and the supply chain may be able to transition full production to neo; would RR be able to place working engines on the frames? (what's the British word for " whew " )

Amdiesen, there are more than hickups; this is the long term plan for production. The rate is dropping. While it could be reversed, it means that the expected announcements at the summer airshows won't be spectacular.

LIghtsaber

JerseyFlyer · Wed May 02, 2018 12:51 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Amdiesen, there are more than hickups; this is the long term plan for production. The rate is dropping. While it could be reversed, it means that the expected announcements at the summer airshows won't be spectacular.

LIghtsaber

We will see. I would not expect too many more orders for the 242t version, if any. The 251t version will be deliverable in about two years time and Airbus has not announced production numbers from then as yet.

Polot · Wed May 02, 2018 1:25 pm

JerseyFlyer wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Amdiesen, there are more than hickups; this is the long term plan for production. The rate is dropping. While it could be reversed, it means that the expected announcements at the summer airshows won't be spectacular.

LIghtsaber

We will see. I would not expect too many more orders for the 242t version, if any. The 251t version will be deliverable in about two years time and Airbus has not announced production numbers from then as yet.

The rate decrease doesn’t go into effect until next year, it is not immediate. Unless orders unexpectedly pick up soon I don’t think airbus would decrease it for 2019 with the expectation that orders will surge for 2020 delivery. Now is the time that Airbus (should) be selling 2020+ slots in major orders, not remaining 2018-2019. Airbus knows what deals are on the table for the air show and how airlines are leaning, discussions don’t start the week before.

SC430 · Wed May 02, 2018 1:31 pm

Polot wrote:
JerseyFlyer wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Amdiesen, there are more than hickups; this is the long term plan for production. The rate is dropping. While it could be reversed, it means that the expected announcements at the summer airshows won't be spectacular.

LIghtsaber

We will see. I would not expect too many more orders for the 242t version, if any. The 251t version will be deliverable in about two years time and Airbus has not announced production numbers from then as yet.

The rate decrease doesn’t go into effect until next year, it is not immediate. Unless orders unexpectedly pick up soon I don’t think airbus would decrease it for 2019 with the expectation that orders will surge for 2020 delivery. Now is the time that Airbus (should) be selling 2020+ slots in major orders, not remaining 2018-2019. Airbus knows what deals are on the table for the air show and how airlines are leaning, discussions don’t start the week before.

In the aerospace industry, cutting next year's production is very immediate !!

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net