Does anyone know the current status of the sole A330-800 built? AFAIR, last time it has been seen in February, engineless, being towed out of the paining facility.

Where is it? What are the next steps? Do they plan to put engines on it and do certification flights despite having no customers or has all work on this frame been stopped until orders emerge?

Hawaiian (HA) cancelled the last order. There is a prototype, but AFAIK, the frame was completed as that was the low cost way to get it off the production line.
Have there been any flights? I personally think a high MTOW A338 based freighter would do well (better than the A332 based freighter if there is enough MTOW to allow using the center fuel tank to supply much needed range).

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

There is a prototype, but AFAIK, the frame was completed as that was the low cost way to get it off the production line.

That's right, it's MSN1888.

lightsaber wrote:

Have there been any flights?

No. I doubt it has engines (someone would have seen and photograph it if it was the case).

lightsaber wrote:

I personally think a high MTOW A338 based freighter would do well (better than the A332 based freighter if there is enough MTOW to allow using the center fuel tank to supply much needed range).

Yes, and the MRTT too. But what will they do with MSN1888? Wait until someone orders if not a 338, at least a 330neo-based freighter or MRTT? Is it even possible to convert an already built passenger 330 to a freighter or an MRTT? There seems to be quite a bit of structural differences between them...

workhorse wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

There is a prototype, but AFAIK, the frame was completed as that was the low cost way to get it off the production line.

That's right, it's MSN1888.

lightsaber wrote:

Have there been any flights?

No. I doubt it has engines (someone would have seen and photograph it if it was the case).

lightsaber wrote:

I personally think a high MTOW A338 based freighter would do well (better than the A332 based freighter if there is enough MTOW to allow using the center fuel tank to supply much needed range).

Yes, and the MRTT too. But what will they do with MSN1888? Wait until someone orders if not a 338, at least a 330neo-based freighter or MRTT? Is it even possible to convert an already built passenger 330 to a freighter or an MRTT? There seems to be quite a bit of structural differences between them...

Well they have to certify the A330-800 before they can do any modifications to it. So it will be used for flight testing, eventually.

workhorse wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

There is a prototype, but AFAIK, the frame was completed as that was the low cost way to get it off the production line.

That's right, it's MSN1888.

lightsaber wrote:

Have there been any flights?

No. I doubt it has engines (someone would have seen and photograph it if it was the case).

lightsaber wrote:

I personally think a high MTOW A338 based freighter would do well (better than the A332 based freighter if there is enough MTOW to allow using the center fuel tank to supply much needed range).

Yes, and the MRTT too. But what will they do with MSN1888? Wait until someone orders if not a 338, at least a 330neo-based freighter or MRTT? Is it even possible to convert an already built passenger 330 to a freighter or an MRTT? There seems to be quite a bit of structural differences between them...

The idea of a tanker is just silly. Look at who has already taken delivery of a modern tanker, the very few that are left that might be interested in the near term and realize that a tanker is a 30-50 year investment for air forces. It just doesn’t make sense.

workhorse wrote:

Yes, and the MRTT too. But what will they do with MSN1888? Wait until someone orders if not a 338, at least a 330neo-based freighter or MRTT? Is it even possible to convert an already built passenger 330 to a freighter or an MRTT? There seems to be quite a bit of structural differences between them...

I'm not sure about a civil freighter but the RAAF is in the process of getting two ex QF A330-200s converted to KC-30A standards.

https://australianaviation.com.au/2017/09/sixth-raaf-kc-30a-arrives-at-amberley/

ikolkyo wrote:

Well they have to certify the A330-800 before they can do any modifications to it. So it will be used for flight testing, eventually.

Actually, they can restart with a new structure A338. But it is likely the current will be certified prior to a modification.


Unless everything is based off an A338F, in which case Airbus has a completed airframe, minus engines and probably a few other expensive goodies (avionics should be transferred eventually).


LIghtsaber

I expect that once it is certified it will join the Airbus test fleet, possibly replacing MSN 871, which was the KC-45A demonstrator built for the USAF's KC-X RFP that was re-purposed as a test frame some five years ago.

The introduction of 251t A330-900neo pretty much kills the business case for the standard a330-800neo since the payload-range of the two are somewhat identical.

Jefford717 wrote:

The introduction of 251t A330-900neo pretty much kills the business case for the standard a330-800neo since the payload-range of the two are somewhat identical.

If the business case was replacing existing fleets of 332s then yes. The 339 is now capable to do everything a 332 does while burning less fuel and carrying more passengers. The hypothetical 251t 338 will fly further, but not as far as the 359. It is not very likely we will see another order for a passenger 338.

So, the question is, what will become of the existing frame?

Stitch wrote:

I expect that once it is certified it will join the Airbus test fleet, possibly replacing MSN 871, which was the KC-45A demonstrator built for the USAF's KC-X RFP that was re-purposed as a test frame some five years ago.

Is it even worth to certify it now? How much will it cost vs. just scrapping it (in the scenario where there's no new orders at all)?

vhqpa wrote:

I'm not sure about a civil freighter but the RAAF is in the process of getting two ex QF A330-200s converted to KC-30A standards.

Well, that's good news. So they might just store the frame until eventually someone needs a new MRTT.

I don't see a 338F also...
332F didn't perform so good, with more and more 767F being sold.
IMHO we will have a Boeing monopoly on big (767, 777, 747) and small (738 conversions? A dedicated MAX?) freighters.

FatCat wrote:

I don't see a 338F also...
332F didn't perform so good, with more and more 767F being sold.
IMHO we will have a Boeing monopoly on big (767, 777, 747) and small (738 conversions? A dedicated MAX?) freighters.

The 767Fs success is down to just 2 massive customers, one of which was already a 767 operator.

Boeing won't have a monopoly, although they are in a slighty better position when it comes to new-build freighters. There will be the new build ATR 72-600F at the bottom, along with about 3 secondhand-ATR conversions. Then there are 3 separate A320 and A321 cargo conversion programmes in the running, and the A330-300 conversion. Airbus is involved in at least one of the A320/A321 conversions, and the A330-300 conversion, and arguably the ATR 72-600F as well.

Besides that, the market for new-build freighters is so small that just one massive order can flip the tables completely. Look at the initial FedEx order for 767s, or potentially the rumours about Amazon and UPS being in talks with Airbus for 100x hypothetical A330-1000 freighters. There is a large glut of A300s, MD-11s, 747-400s and older 767s that will need replacement within the next 10 years too.

VSMUT wrote:

FatCat wrote:

I don't see a 338F also...
332F didn't perform so good, with more and more 767F being sold.
IMHO we will have a Boeing monopoly on big (767, 777, 747) and small (738 conversions? A dedicated MAX?) freighters.

The 767Fs success is down to just 2 massive customers, one of which was already a 767 operator.

Boeing won't have a monopoly, although they are in a slighty better position when it comes to new-build freighters. There will be the new build ATR 72-600F at the bottom, along with about 3 secondhand-ATR conversions. Then there are 3 separate A320 and A321 cargo conversion programmes in the running, and the A330-300 conversion. Airbus is involved in at least one of the A320/A321 conversions, and the A330-300 conversion, and arguably the ATR 72-600F as well.

Besides that, the market for new-build freighters is so small that just one massive order can flip the tables completely. Look at the initial FedEx order for 767s, or potentially the rumours about Amazon and UPS being in talks with Airbus for 100x hypothetical A330-1000 freighters. There is a large glut of A300s, MD-11s, 747-400s and older 767s that will need replacement within the next 10 years too.

Didn't know about the A320/A321 freighter conversion project.
Thanks for your reply!

workhorse wrote:

vhqpa wrote:

I'm not sure about a civil freighter but the RAAF is in the process of getting two ex QF A330-200s converted to KC-30A standards.

Well, that's good news. So they might just store the frame until eventually someone needs a new MRTT.

More likely market it as an ACJ. Unless it can be upgraded to 251t I doubt it will see pax service, as I expect any small numbers of 338 sold from now on will be 251t.

I guess it is now simply awaiting certification along with the 359. I think it has already flown in order to cover off any 338-specific certification issues.

I know the 788 days are supposedly numbered but they are still selling in small numbers. Why wouldnt an airline which needs a 250 seater not want a A338 as opposed to a 300 seater A339/A359 if they want a neo rather than a 787. It will be a niche product perhaps but some people may still need that slightly greater range than even a 251t A339 has without the extra seat capacity. Or they just want a 250 seater even for shorter ranges. If you cannot wait for the 797 and are an Airbus A330 operator but dont want a new 787 sub fleet you can get something in a year or two as opposed to mid next decade.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

workhorse wrote:

vhqpa wrote:

I'm not sure about a civil freighter but the RAAF is in the process of getting two ex QF A330-200s converted to KC-30A standards.

Well, that's good news. So they might just store the frame until eventually someone needs a new MRTT.

More likely market it as an ACJ. Unless it can be upgraded to 251t I doubt it will see pax service, as I expect any small numbers of 338 sold from now on will be 251t.

I guess it is now simply awaiting certification along with the 359. I think it has already flown in order to cover off any 338-specific certification issues.

The A338 hasn’t flown yet. AKAIK it hasn’t even ever had engines hung on it yet. Right now with no customers there is no urgent need to get the A338 ready and certified, all attention will be on getting the A339 certification wrapped up and first deliveries out the door.

trex8 wrote:

Why wouldnt an airline which needs a 250 seater not want a A338 as opposed to a 300 seater A339/A359 if they want a neo rather than a 787.

The A330-900 can perform almost every real-world mission an A330-200 is currently handling with similar trip costs and better CASM than an A330-800 along with more potential RASM if you can fill those extra seats and ULD positions.

So the real question is why would an airline buy an A330-800 instead of an A330-900? And as we have seen, they would not as it doesn't pencil out financially to do so.

I know this might sound too far-fetched, but would be possible to modify the A330-800 by adding fuselage length and other structural modifications to make it a 900? I suppose this would be super expensive though.

Stitch wrote:

trex8 wrote:

Why wouldnt an airline which needs a 250 seater not want a A338 as opposed to a 300 seater A339/A359 if they want a neo rather than a 787.

The A330-900 can perform almost every real-world mission an A330-200 is currently handling with similar trip costs and better CASM than an A330-800 along with more potential RASM if you can fill those extra seats and ULD positions.

So the real question is why would an airline buy an A330-800 instead of an A330-900? And as we have seen, they would not as it doesn't pencil out financially to do so.

Because it will have a lower trip cost than the A330-900.

If you have a fleet of A330-200 and want to add a few frames of the same size.

Regarding the financial side, we do not know how low Boeing was prepared to go to get rid of the A330-800 and if they will make a profit on that deal. Selling below cost to an USA airline is not dumping if Boeing does it.

mjoelnir wrote:

Stitch wrote:

trex8 wrote:

Why wouldnt an airline which needs a 250 seater not want a A338 as opposed to a 300 seater A339/A359 if they want a neo rather than a 787.

The A330-900 can perform almost every real-world mission an A330-200 is currently handling with similar trip costs and better CASM than an A330-800 along with more potential RASM if you can fill those extra seats and ULD positions.

So the real question is why would an airline buy an A330-800 instead of an A330-900? And as we have seen, they would not as it doesn't pencil out financially to do so.

Because it will have a lower trip cost than the A330-900.

If you have a fleet of A330-200 and want to add a few frames of the same size.

Regarding the financial side, we do not know how low Boeing was prepared to go to get rid of the A330-800 and if they will make a profit on that deal. Selling below cost to an USA airline is not dumping if Boeing does it.

Lower trip costs but also fewer seats to spread the cost out over. So unless you absolutely can’t fill the larger -900 the per seat costs come out to be similar if not better for the larger model. “Lower trip costs” is not going to drive A338 sales all that much (hasn’t helped A319neo or 73G max, did not help A318 or 736). It needs to find it’s niche, or else the A339/789/A359 is going to nip away at the upper end of its market and the 797/A320plus plus or Awhatever is going to chip away at the lower end.

mjoelnir wrote:

Because it will have a lower trip cost than the A330-900.

But how much lower? I posit probably not much and not enough to cover the CASM/RASM gap just as the A330-200 could not do it against the A330-300 as the latter saw significant Operating Weight increases that made it a more capable and flexible airframe.

mjoelnir wrote:

If you have a fleet of A330-200 and want to add a few frames of the same size.

And yet carriers have not done that - they went larger, be it A330-300, A330-900, A350-900 or 787-9.

mjoelnir wrote:

Regarding the financial side, we do not know how low Boeing was prepared to go to get rid of the A330-800 and if they will make a profit on that deal.

And yet the main argument proposed for the A330neo was that it could be purchased for significantly less than a 787...

And you're both intelligent enough and informed enough to know that purchase price is but one of many factors an airline evaluates when reviewing an RFP for a specific model and comparing it against other RFPs for other models (both from the same OEM and across OEMs).

And if Boeing is really willing to price a 787 at whatever it takes to "kill" an A330-800 sale, you have to believe they would do the same to "kill" an A330-900 sale and an A350-900 sale. And yet Air Asia did not cancel their A330-900s for 787s even though Tony visited the 787 FAL. And airlines are still buying A350-900s.

Devilfish wrote:

The A338's unique selling point has always been its lower acquisition cost compared to the competition. It's gone now that Boeing had obviously offered the 787 at a very attractive price.

Well, price is not everything. The biggest market potential for the 330neo is in China: there's a couple of hundreds of 330s there that will need replacement more or less soon. They will not be replaced by 787s whatever their price is. Donald took care of that (and as an economy class passenger frequently travelling to China, I thank him very much!).

So it's either 350 or 330neo. The 350 is too big at least for some routes.

workhorse wrote:

Jefford717 wrote:

The introduction of 251t A330-900neo pretty much kills the business case for the standard a330-800neo since the payload-range of the two are somewhat identical.

If the business case was replacing existing fleets of 332s then yes. The 339 is now capable to do everything a 332 does while burning less fuel and carrying more passengers. The hypothetical 251t 338 will fly further, but not as far as the 359. It is not very likely we will see another order for a passenger 338.

So, the question is, what will become of the existing frame?

In my view, the upcoming Condor / Thomas Cook order will be a litmus test for the A338. This is possibly its best opportunity to sell frames.

workhorse wrote:

Well, price is not everything. The biggest market potential for the 330neo is in China: there's a couple of hundreds of 330s there that will need replacement more or less soon. They will not be replaced by 787s whatever their price is. Donald took care of that (and as an economy class passenger frequently travelling to China, I thank him very much!).

Sorry, the decision has nothing to do with POTUS: China spreads their RMB around, and it only makes sense for them to replace an Airbus WB with another Airbus WB. They haven't ordered anything yet IAC, and it could be a good while. If they go A, the narrative put forward among the chattering class will be this is to stick it to Trump, not the obvious like with similar. But what if they decide to go 787 to appease him? Well then it's "hair on fire" time on a.net fo shizz.

To really make it an effective freighter, wouldn't they need to extend the nose gear about a foot to have a level floor? I really don't understand why Airbus never really went after this (the 330's had a pittance of freighters off the line over it's career, and even conversion companies, if it were practical, it would seem would be anxious to offer such models.)

workhorse wrote:

Devilfish wrote:

The A338's unique selling point has always been its lower acquisition cost compared to the competition. It's gone now that Boeing had obviously offered the 787 at a very attractive price.

Well, price is not everything. The biggest market potential for the 330neo is in China: there's a couple of hundreds of 330s there that will need replacement more or less soon. They will not be replaced by 787s: Donald took care of that. So it's either 350 or 330neo. The 350 is too big at least for some routes.

This is a very simplistic view of a highly complex situation.

China in general trades more with the US than it does with the whole of the EU and it has a much larger surplus with the US than it does with the EU as well. Both China and the US have interest in resolving the issue.

What you see are basically opening negotiating positions. China has an interest in maintaining trade levels with the US just as the US has similar interest doing the same with China. China doesn’t maintain such a large trade disparity with other partners. In fact one of the simplest ways for China to meet the US halfway on the issue and get resolution would be to import more US finished goods of which airplanes are the simplest and are needed anyway. I won’t be shocked at all if this happens as part of ongoing trade negotiations.

Or we can just stick to the simple narrative.

For those keeping track at home the selling points for the A330neo have evolved as follows.

It’s cheaper to buy (it’s not)
It is just as efficient (also no)
It can be acquired more quickly (not anymore)
Trump has made it more attractive by his trade actions (I am sure this one is a winner)

It’s just funny. For all the blood spilled on the 737 being a dead duck and in trouble it has something like 40-45% of its market and a delivered share of 49.2% in 2017.

The A330neo has 39% market share order wise since launched and in the last 3.5 years has been outsold 306 to 87 putting it at a 22% market share once we get past launch orders. Deliver rate wise it’s planned for 50 which is, shockingly, basically exactly the ratio of its sales to the 787 excluding the launch year of orders.

So as far as China saving it, feel like we heard this before on the A380 too, I would say that’s a huge maybe. But if they do order several hundred expect a steep price. They can and will demand the things largely be built in China at that point.

To me worrying about the A338 is academic when the A330neo as a whole is one program that can accurately be said is in death spiral (this gets tossed around frequently regarding military programs but is accurate here). It is very early in that spiral and it still could pull out. But it meets all the classic criteria. Declining production volumes mean rising cost mean less interest mean less volume mean more rising cost and so on. Focus on the A338 seems silly when the whole family needs sales quickly just to get its footing back underneath it.

texl1649 wrote:

To really make it an effective freighter, wouldn't they need to extend the nose gear about a foot to have a level floor?

New-build A330-200 freighters have an extended nose gear (via a lower mounting point) to maintain a level loading floor. If Airbus ever decides to offer an A330neo new build freighter, it would have the same.

There are a good deal of older A340-200 and A340-300 VIP frames. What about marketing the A338 ACJ to these customers? Examples of such would be Qatar Amiri Flight, Saudia Special Flight Services (operator of the first A342 prototype, HZ-124, msn 4), Royal Brunei Airlines (msn 46), Alpha Star/Sky Prime, and various European countries with A340 VIP frames (like France and Germany). The A338 ACJ would be lighter than the frames they currently use and have a range of 8,000 nmi. As for a freighter, FedEx and UPS have substantial A306 fleets, albeit later build (FedEx has the last A306 built), and could either be sold on the A338 freighter for expansion or replacement, especially in Asia-Pacific for FedEx? I'm not sure it would have a place in the UPS fleet now, as UPS does not have any aircraft on operating leases. Also, what about looking towards the Asia-Pacific rim for freighters interested in wide-body freighters that are smaller and more versatile than the 747 or 777?

aemoreira1981 wrote:

What about marketing the A338 ACJ to these customers?

The new-build widebody VIP market is pretty soft right now. There is at least one 787 VIP on the market and Boeing was unable to sell LN004 and LN005 as VIP frames. And there are three Heads of State-level airframes are available for sale - two 747-8 VIP and one A380-800ACJ.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

As for a freighter, FedEx and UPS have substantial A306 fleets, albeit later build (FedEx has the last A306 built), and could either be sold on the A338 freighter for expansion or replacement, especially in Asia-Pacific for FedEx?

Both UPS and FedEx have selected the 767-300F for their current and future A300-600RF replacements.

Stitch wrote:

Both UPS and FedEx have selected the 767-300F for their current and future A300-600RF replacements.

This exact thing and the fact that the 767F line is so full... wonder if there would be a great spot to market an A330F at the "reasonable" cheap to DHL/Amazon...

on the pax side... I'm surprised that carriers like Omni don't standard fleet and go for the A330neo.. seems like a place to get a quick easy sale for the A338.. even the relaunch World seems a place Airbus could target to talk away from the 787.

ThePinnacleKid wrote:

This exact thing and the fact that the 767F line is so full... wonder if there would be a great spot to market an A330F at the "reasonable" cheap to DHL/Amazon...

There was a media report Amazon was talking to Airbus about a larger "A330-1000" freighter, but considering their entire fleet is contracted 767s there have also been media reports of them in talks with Boeing for a significant number (50-100) of new-build 767-300Fs as well as them continuing to add frames via more P2F conversions with their existing partners.

ThePinnacleKid wrote:

on the pax side... I'm surprised that carriers like Omni don't standard fleet and go for the A330neo.. seems like a place to get a quick easy sale for the A338.. even the relaunch World seems a place Airbus could target to talk away from the 787.

Due to lower average utilization, charter and ACMI firms favor older, used airframes for their low price and third-party spares. Omni's 767s average 20 years and their 777s 13.

As for World, I'm skeptical they will get off the ground and their original plan was to buy second-hand 787-8s, not new. And due to lack of any available used 787s, are now looking at second-hand A330s and 777s. Though recent reports say they will instead start with 737s or A320s before moving on to widebodies in the future.

My guess is, that it will be tailored for a Freighter & Tanker. And will also work well as an ACJ.

mjoelnir wrote:

Stitch wrote:

trex8 wrote:

Why wouldnt an airline which needs a 250 seater not want a A338 as opposed to a 300 seater A339/A359 if they want a neo rather than a 787.

The A330-900 can perform almost every real-world mission an A330-200 is currently handling with similar trip costs and better CASM than an A330-800 along with more potential RASM if you can fill those extra seats and ULD positions.

So the real question is why would an airline buy an A330-800 instead of an A330-900? And as we have seen, they would not as it doesn't pencil out financially to do so.

Because it will have a lower trip cost than the A330-900.

If you have a fleet of A330-200 and want to add a few frames of the same size.

Regarding the financial side, we do not know how low Boeing was prepared to go to get rid of the A330-800 and if they will make a profit on that deal. Selling below cost to an USA airline is not dumping if Boeing does it.

Selling low is not a clear dumping case with regards to the 788. Boeing is taking advantage of the AA order to rework the 788 to the 789 design. So the 788 will change to a 789 shrink later this year. https://leehamnews.com/2018/04/17/boein ... mmonality/

texl1649 wrote:

To really make it an effective freighter, wouldn't they need to extend the nose gear about a foot to have a level floor? I really don't understand why Airbus never really went after this (the 330's had a pittance of freighters off the line over it's career, and even conversion companies, if it were practical, it would seem would be anxious to offer such models.)

There is the existing gear bay "bubble" modification that moves the regular nose gear leg attachment point down to achieve a level stance.

jagraham wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Stitch wrote:

The A330-900 can perform almost every real-world mission an A330-200 is currently handling with similar trip costs and better CASM than an A330-800 along with more potential RASM if you can fill those extra seats and ULD positions.

So the real question is why would an airline buy an A330-800 instead of an A330-900? And as we have seen, they would not as it doesn't pencil out financially to do so.

Because it will have a lower trip cost than the A330-900.

If you have a fleet of A330-200 and want to add a few frames of the same size.

Regarding the financial side, we do not know how low Boeing was prepared to go to get rid of the A330-800 and if they will make a profit on that deal. Selling below cost to an USA airline is not dumping if Boeing does it.

Selling low is not a clear dumping case with regards to the 788. Boeing is taking advantage of the AA order to rework the 788 to the 789 design. So the 788 will change to a 789 shrink later this year. https://leehamnews.com/2018/04/17/boein ... mmonality/

It is not a dumping case anyway. An USA manufacturer can give its frame away without it being dumping, they can sell the frame as far below cost as they want to. It is only dumping when a foreign manufacturer does it.

Airbus can fly it and certify it at a pretty low cost, then park it until they are ready to do a Tanker treatment and also a Freighter.

The A338 comes down the very same Toulouse production line that the A339 does. No idle lines waiting for orders. Yes it has been a disappointment so far, but if someone like AirTanker comes in with an order or a major Air Force wants them, then the design is qualified and ready. I can see AirTanker being the client to launch the A338NEO-MRTT as Airbus is a major partner and TOW have also been doing well placing the aircraft with ACMI leases.

mjoelnir wrote:

jagraham wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Because it will have a lower trip cost than the A330-900.

If you have a fleet of A330-200 and want to add a few frames of the same size.

Regarding the financial side, we do not know how low Boeing was prepared to go to get rid of the A330-800 and if they will make a profit on that deal. Selling below cost to an USA airline is not dumping if Boeing does it.

Selling low is not a clear dumping case with regards to the 788. Boeing is taking advantage of the AA order to rework the 788 to the 789 design. So the 788 will change to a 789 shrink later this year. https://leehamnews.com/2018/04/17/boein ... mmonality/

It is not a dumping case anyway. An USA manufacturer can give its frame away without it being dumping, they can sell the frame as far below cost as they want to. It is only dumping when a foreign manufacturer does it.

Do you have any evidence that Boeing is selling at a loss or are you just saying that because you are upset Airbus has lost all A330-800 sales campaigns?

Channex757 wrote:

Airbus can fly it and certify it at a pretty low cost, then park it until they are ready to do a Tanker treatment and also a Freighter.

The A338 comes down the very same Toulouse production line that the A339 does. No idle lines waiting for orders. Yes it has been a disappointment so far, but if someone like AirTanker comes in with an order or a major Air Force wants them, then the design is qualified and ready. I can see AirTanker being the client to launch the A338NEO-MRTT as Airbus is a major partner and TOW have also been doing well placing the aircraft with ACMI leases.

Why would they have any need for a new tanker? The ones they have are around 6 years old or so if not a bit less. They likely have a useful life of 30-50 years.

I have asked before but will do so again, who needs enough tankers in the next 10-15 years to justify the certification effort and increased cost of the newer engines and doesn’t already have such aircraft on order or in service? I don’t see it. Most of NATO, Australia, Japan and the US have ordered. I wouldn’t expect another round of major tanker development for 30 years.

bigjku wrote:

Channex757 wrote:

Airbus can fly it and certify it at a pretty low cost, then park it until they are ready to do a Tanker treatment and also a Freighter.

The A338 comes down the very same Toulouse production line that the A339 does. No idle lines waiting for orders. Yes it has been a disappointment so far, but if someone like AirTanker comes in with an order or a major Air Force wants them, then the design is qualified and ready. I can see AirTanker being the client to launch the A338NEO-MRTT as Airbus is a major partner and TOW have also been doing well placing the aircraft with ACMI leases.

Why would they have any need for a new tanker? The ones they have are around 6 years old or so if not a bit less. They likely have a useful life of 30-50 years.

I have asked before but will do so again, who needs enough tankers in the next 10-15 years to justify the certification effort and increased cost of the newer engines and doesn’t already have such aircraft on order or in service? I don’t see it. Most of NATO, Australia, Japan and the US have ordered. I wouldn’t expect another round of major tanker development for 30 years.

The engines would be the same as the A339...
The certification and development will most likely apply to Freighter and ACJ variants too. Airbus stated a couple years ago that they were interested in doing a 2.0 version of the MRTT that could do SIGINT and Battle Management roles.

mjoelnir wrote:

It is not a dumping case anyway. An USA manufacturer can give its frame away without it being dumping, they can sell the frame as far below cost as they want to. It is only dumping when a foreign manufacturer does it.

Let's call it legal dumping, if you prefer, but still dumping. Immoral, unfair and indefensible , but that's what happens when a legal framework is designed to isolate a monopoly and apply massive dosis of protectionism.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

There are a good deal of older A340-200 and A340-300 VIP frames. What about marketing the A338 ACJ to these customers? Examples of such would be Qatar Amiri Flight, Saudia Special Flight Services (operator of the first A342 prototype, HZ-124, msn 4)

Another example is the only A340-8000 ever built, better known as A340-200E.

Jayafe wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

It is not a dumping case anyway. An USA manufacturer can give its frame away without it being dumping, they can sell the frame as far below cost as they want to. It is only dumping when a foreign manufacturer does it.

Let's call it legal dumping, if you prefer, but still dumping. Immoral, unfair and indefensible , but that's what happens when a legal framework is designed to isolate a monopoly and apply massive dosis of protectionism.

Now now now, jafafe, you are letting your anti Boeing bias show thru a bit too much...

after all, anything that Airbus builds in the US can be sold in the US for whatever price it wants to sell it too.

Nice to see that the a.net weekly "A330neo is doa" thread tradition is still a thing.

Regarding the A330-800, I expect it will be certified but not until A339 deliveries are underway. In the meantime there's no need to do anything with the airframe, especially whilst engines are in short supply.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Do you have any evidence that Boeing is selling at a loss or are you just saying that because you are upset Airbus has lost all A330-800 sales campaigns?

Why are you questioning this of mjoelnir and not bigjku's claim that the A339 costs more than a 787-9?

bigjku wrote:

Or we can just stick to the simple narrative.

Donald is a simple man.

bigjku wrote:

It’s cheaper to buy (it’s not)

Source?

bigjku wrote:

Channex757 wrote:

Airbus can fly it and certify it at a pretty low cost, then park it until they are ready to do a Tanker treatment and also a Freighter.

The A338 comes down the very same Toulouse production line that the A339 does. No idle lines waiting for orders. Yes it has been a disappointment so far, but if someone like AirTanker comes in with an order or a major Air Force wants them, then the design is qualified and ready. I can see AirTanker being the client to launch the A338NEO-MRTT as Airbus is a major partner and TOW have also been doing well placing the aircraft with ACMI leases.

Why would they have any need for a new tanker? The ones they have are around 6 years old or so if not a bit less. They likely have a useful life of 30-50 years.

I have asked before but will do so again, who needs enough tankers in the next 10-15 years to justify the certification effort and increased cost of the newer engines and doesn’t already have such aircraft on order or in service? I don’t see it. Most of NATO, Australia, Japan and the US have ordered. I wouldn’t expect another round of major tanker development for 30 years.

Ask not who wants them, but instead what Airbus can offer.

The A338NEO doesn't need to have a full tanker fitout. AirTanker operates a number as just militarised versions of the A332, for troop movements and the like. They do have some structure and wiring in the mix so that they could be converted quickly in wartime. A military troop hauler with a cargo door could be an interesting product, as topups for existing operators who have that need.

There's also the possibility of an AWACS version.

The A338 could be offered in several configurations, offering the buyers all sorts of facilities from the tanker to the Presidential type aircraft with extras on board like secure communications. Airbus Military needs to get on board.

bigjku wrote:

[

I have asked before but will do so again, who needs enough tankers in the next 10-15 years to justify the certification effort and increased cost of the newer engines and doesn’t already have such aircraft on order or in service? I don’t see it. Most of NATO, Australia, Japan and the US have ordered. I wouldn’t expect another round of major tanker development for 30 years.

So does anyone have a ball park, if not at least order of magnitude, number as to how much it would cost to certify something like an A338 when the A339 is/will be shortly certified and there are 2 decades of data from the A332 and how it differs to an A333 to guide you. Are we talking many hundred million or 50 million US$??? How much it costs would seem to make a big difference as to whether A will proceed with certification with no/few orders.

zkojq wrote:

Nice to see that the a.net weekly "A330neo is doa" thread tradition is still a thing.

Regarding the A330-800, I expect it will be certified but not until A339 deliveries are underway. In the meantime there's no need to do anything with the airframe, especially whilst engines are in short supply.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Do you have any evidence that Boeing is selling at a loss or are you just saying that because you are upset Airbus has lost all A330-800 sales campaigns?

Why are you questioning this of mjoelnir and not bigjku's claim that the A339 costs more than a 787-9?

bigjku wrote:

Or we can just stick to the simple narrative.

Donald is a simple man.

bigjku wrote:

It’s cheaper to buy (it’s not)

Source?

Neither bigjku nor mjoelnir gave sources. In my opinion, implying that an airplane may have been sold at a loss and creating accusations of dumping is worth questioning. No one that I know has the actual sales price of a 787-9 or A330-900, but if Boeing is selling the 788 or 789 at a loss, either deferred costs would be increasing or Boeing would be taking a forward loss (like how Bombardier took a forward loss when they sold the CSeries to Delta). Neither of those are true, so therefore we have evidence that what Mjoelnir Implied is not true. He didn’t explicitly say the airplane was sold at a loss, so that is why I asked.

[threeid][/threeid]

trex8 wrote:

bigjku wrote:

[

I have asked before but will do so again, who needs enough tankers in the next 10-15 years to justify the certification effort and increased cost of the newer engines and doesn’t already have such aircraft on order or in service? I don’t see it. Most of NATO, Australia, Japan and the US have ordered. I wouldn’t expect another round of major tanker development for 30 years.

So does anyone have a ball park, if not at least order of magnitude, number as to how much it would cost to certify something like an A338 when the A339 is/will be shortly certified and there are 2 decades of data from the A332 and how it differs to an A333 to guide you. Are we talking many hundred million or 50 million US$??? How much it costs would seem to make a big difference as to whether A will proceed with certification with no/few orders.

It will take a minimum of 400 flight test hours. Due to the shear quantity of data an paperwork to fill out, each flight hour takes 500 to a 1000 engineering/pilot/manager/technician hours. So $5 million (fuel, ATC, other fees)+ 400*500*$250=$55 million to $100 million, if there are no huge issues. I exclude route proving hours as by then the team is tiny.

No, Textron for example doesn't staff to these levels, but not is a Cessna certified for as extreme of cross wind, cold, or many other test points demanded of a commercial aircraft. Nor are the charts as precise (which costs allowed range, payload, cycles, allowed hours and so on).

Lightsaber