TTailedTiger wrote:

Well then why aren't the leasing companies buying up A330neos if they are as profitable as you claim? Could it be that there is little to no market for them?

Market size and profit amount are two completely different things, that's why.

LAX772LR wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

You seem to be quite educated on stuff that you completely made up.

The 330 to the 787 is like 767 was to the 330.

Uh, no, it's not.... seeing as unlike that situation, there was no updated 767 in the last decade to compete against a newer generation offering, as most 767s hit the high point of their replacement cycle. The 767 also faced the inability to carry LD3s in tandem, which the A330 could offer in order to more seamlessly mesh with extant fleets.

The same won't be the case.

The -400 was an attempt to make the 767 competitive w 330. The neo will certainly do better but it won’t prevent the 787 from dominating the midsize wb market.

Planeflyer wrote:

The -400 was an attempt to make the 767 competitive w 330.

Slight correction, the -400ERX was an attempt to make the 767 competitive with the A330.
If nothing else, the current -400ER was a stunting of the aircraft, due to DL's requested LGA compatability.

Planeflyer wrote:

The neo will certainly do better but it won’t prevent the 787 from dominating the midsize wb market.

No one's suggesting that the 787 doesn't stand a good chance of dominating, but some 80:20 ratio is at this point, purely imaginative on your part.
There isn't enough data to effectively come to such a conclusion for ongoing market outlook.

LAX772LR wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

The -400 was an attempt to make the 767 competitive w 330.

Slight correction, the -400ERX was an attempt to make the 767 competitive with the A330.
If nothing else, the current -400ER was a stunting of the aircraft, due to DL's requested LGA compatability.

Planeflyer wrote:

The neo will certainly do better but it won’t prevent the 787 from dominating the midsize wb market.

No one's suggesting that the 787 doesn't stand a good chance of dominating, but some 80:20 ratio is at this point, purely imaginative on your part.
There isn't enough data to effectively come to such a conclusion for ongoing market outlook.

So what is your #?

Planeflyer wrote:

So what is your #?

ANSWER: a conclusion that'll be arrived at when there's actual/sufficient data to support it.

Hey guys,
I heard speculation a year or so ago that Jetstar might buy an additional 3-4 Dreamliners to bring the fleet up to the originally planned 14-15 in total. Nothing has happened since. I think that the A321LR moving into the JQ fleet in twelve months or so has probably put a stop to additional 787s. Jetstar Japan however, I could see purchasing 787s for pacific and mainline Asian routes IF the proposed JAL long haul LCC doesn't get off the ground.
Qantas will definitely get some more Dreamliners beyond the currently ordered 14. How many more I believe will depend on the outcome of Project Sunrise and whatever form of MoM that Boeing launch (and Airbus responds with). Many on a.net seem to believe that the Dreamliner 10 would be a great fit in the QF fleet for Asian, peak transtasman and limited transcontinental flights, and I agree.
I don't think that Air New Zealand will order more Dreamliners beyond maybe a couple...
Whatever happened to the Air Nuigini order for a solitary Dreamliner 8? i assume that it is still on order but I have no idea of the delivery date. And what of all of the talk (from PNG itself) of a second to be ordered.....
Korean, ANA and JAL I can see ordering more of various models over time.
Thai maybe a few more but I think they will order more Airbus instead.
Malaysian? All quiet on their 'order' after the big announcement..
Air India? Not for a while due to finances etc.
Dare I say Air Asia X? Who knows?
Lion Air Group? Not a chance in the current climate despite talk ages ago that they were interested in Dreamliners.
China? Yes, many more to all the various airlines, including Dreamliner 10s, if they are allowed to by the Government in light of the strained relationship with the US.
Vietnam Airlines could use some more, including Dreamliner 10s. Bamboo and Vietjet could well end up operating smallish fleets of Dreamliners as well.... Jetstar Pacific however I think will stay with A32Xneos...
That covers my part of the planet...
Cheers,
Bunumuring

LAX772LR wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

So what is your #?

ANSWER: a conclusion that'll be arrived at when there's actual/sufficient data to support it.

I see, a wait and see is approach is not my style.

I fully acknowledge that the 80% estimate is just that but in 5 years I’ll know how right or wrong I was and will learn from it. Developing a number forces clear thinking.

I'm going to add jetfuel to this thread.

The B787 is a great aircraft and can be a money maker if used right.
The current backlog stands at 5 years of production.

The problem is that it's likely that new engine technology will be available for launch in 2025.
With the current backlog and the prospect of a B787Max launch in 6 years, does it make sense for airlines to order big on the B787 right now?

I can see option conversions and some B788 operators ordering B789/B787-10 to improve economics, top up orders here and there, but for anyone considering B787's today as a new aircraft in the fleet or A330 replacement, the A330neo is a serious contender.
If an A338 is considered too stubby and heavy, the same could be said about the B788.

The question is whether Airbus would launch an A330-1000 simple stretch.

With low oil prices and nervous capital markets, as an armchair airline CEO, I would sit on my hands and order nothing.

With DL and LH considered to be the front runners to team up with the national rail to operate AZ how will this impact future widebody orders or leases? Both the 787 family and A350 family would definitely meet AZ'S needs. If 787 family I see a mix of 789 and 78J being used with the 78J for higher demand routes like JFK.The 359 would be ideal for all of AZ'S routes

Waterbomber wrote:

With low oil prices and nervous capital markets, as an armchair airline CEO, I would sit on my hands and order nothing.

"Nervous capital markets" work both ways. They are definitely a negative for startups or domestic carriers seeking to embark on an international expansion. On the other hand they can be a positive for blue-chip carriers. I can imagine that there would be no shortage of investors happy to park funds in 787s or even 339s flying for a relatively low-risk carrier like any of the US3 or the better-managed European legacies. If I were a blue-chip airline manager and were offered good deals in this climate, I'd be happy to take them. I think that's most likely on 787s and A350s, but could see it happening with 339s as well.

Waterbomber wrote:

I'm going to add jetfuel to this thread.

The B787 is a great aircraft and can be a money maker if used right.
The current backlog stands at 5 years of production.

The problem is that it's likely that new engine technology will be available for launch in 2025.
With the current backlog and the prospect of a B787Max launch in 6 years, does it make sense for airlines to order big on the B787 right now?

I can see option conversions and some B788 operators ordering B789/B787-10 to improve economics, top up orders here and there, but for anyone considering B787's today as a new aircraft in the fleet or A330 replacement, the A330neo is a serious contender.
If an A338 is considered too stubby and heavy, the same could be said about the B788.

The question is whether Airbus would launch an A330-1000 simple stretch.

With low oil prices and nervous capital markets, as an armchair airline CEO, I would sit on my hands and order nothing.

Good and interesting points. What is interesting is that the capital markets have been favorable to everyone, when doubt is introduced, it works out more favorably for the well-established carriers (higher credit ratings, etc). With A and B ramping up production, this should pose a buying opportunity.

The 788 still fills a role, especially for airlines with 789s/7810s in the fleet. A330-1000 is even more capital investment, does Airbus have any need for that? A350/787 compliment as much as they compete. That is the money maker for them moving forward.

As far as the A330 is concerned,could anyone imagine a NEO-NEO ? I can't. So if there is to be a new engine(s) somewhere in late next decade - let's say 2026 what will Airbus go for? As stated by an individual who actually worked on the A310 project way back,clearly they know that the A300 basic frame can't go in for ever.The 330 NEO has a fairly simple blended wing extension and that's it.Is it a stop gap response to the 787 and a late one at that.
It's accepted that it is a little inferior to the 787 which is hardly surprising although in Y9ab it becomes very competitive if not a little uncomfortable.But a second reengine?Nope,just won't cut imho.
Don't believe one will hear a whisper for a couple of years, but then.Then it might be time to strike back with a state of the art mid size mid range aircraft.
Until then the 787 will rule the roost,but hopefully the 330neo will appeal to enough existing 330 operators.

In reading the New Zealand Aviation Thread I have seen mentioned a "Code 3" 789 being discussed as being added to the NZ fleet for longer routes AKL-JFK-AKL. What is this aircraft? Boeings response to the A359ULR?
With this being asked which member of the 787 is likely to receive improvements to range and payload? What would be needed to make the 78J more competitive with the A35K? I do realise Boeing does not want to compete with their new 777X family.

Your thoughts

georgiabill wrote:

In reading the New Zealand Aviation Thread I have seen mentioned a "Code 3" 789 being discussed as being added to the NZ fleet for longer routes AKL-JFK-AKL. What is this aircraft? Boeings response to the A359ULR?
With this being asked which member of the 787 is likely to receive improvements to range and payload? What would be needed to make the 78J more competitive with the A35K? I do realise Boeing does not want to compete with their new 777X family.

I'm pretty sure NZ's new 789 is just a lighter, less dense configuration with Trent TEN engines. NZ's existing 789 fleet is configured pretty densely and best optimized for NZ-Asia service.

The 787 landing gear is more or less maxed out on weight, and a larger A350-900-style gear would require a new center wing box and likely cost cargo capacity. So increases in 787 payload range are likely to come from engine fuel efficiency improvements and maybe minor aero tweaks.

The 787-10 is competing with the A350-900 much more closely than the A350-1000, which is significantly bigger. The next engine PIP won't give the 787-10 range comparable to the A350-900, but it should give the 787-10 7000+ nm brochure range using Boeing's newly conservative calculations, enough to open up Europe-Far East and Far East-NA East Coast routes--basically everything that could be flown by an A340-300. The same PIP should give the 787-9 true ULH range of 8500 nm or so. At that point I expect the 787-10 to take the bulk of 787 sales.

seabosdca wrote:

georgiabill wrote:

In reading the New Zealand Aviation Thread I have seen mentioned a "Code 3" 789 being discussed as being added to the NZ fleet for longer routes AKL-JFK-AKL. What is this aircraft? Boeings response to the A359ULR?
With this being asked which member of the 787 is likely to receive improvements to range and payload? What would be needed to make the 78J more competitive with the A35K? I do realise Boeing does not want to compete with their new 777X family.

I'm pretty sure NZ's new 789 is just a lighter, less dense configuration with Trent TEN engines. NZ's existing 789 fleet is configured pretty densely and best optimized for NZ-Asia service.

The 787 landing gear is more or less maxed out on weight, and a larger A350-900-style gear would require a new center wing box and likely cost cargo capacity. So increases in 787 payload range are likely to come from engine fuel efficiency improvements and maybe minor aero tweaks.

The 787-10 is competing with the A350-900 much more closely than the A350-1000, which is significantly bigger. The next engine PIP won't give the 787-10 range comparable to the A350-900, but it should give the 787-10 7000+ nm brochure range using Boeing's newly conservative calculations, enough to open up Europe-Far East and Far East-NA East Coast routes--basically everything that could be flown by an A340-300. The same PIP should give the 787-9 true ULH range of 8500 nm or so. At that point I expect the 787-10 to take the bulk of 787 sales.

Engine tweaks, a bunch of small weight reductions, and small improvements are the future. I think we are two engine PIPs from the 787-10 becoming the highest quantity model, but it will happen.

First PIP: CMC static parts of the turbine
2nd: 2nd row of high turbine CMC
3rd, much later as the CMC isn't even passing in the labs, 1st stage high turbine

georgiabill wrote:

In reading the New Zealand Aviation Thread I have seen mentioned a "Code 3" 789 being discussed as being added to the NZ fleet for longer routes AKL-JFK-AKL. What is this aircraft? Boeings response to the A359ULR?

"Code X" refers to different Air NZ cabin configurations, AFAIK it's purely an NZ internal designation.

Gemuser

The 78J will mostly sell in Asia as A330s and 777s age. It's the best plane for there. America is probably pro-Boeing but I wouldn't be surprised to see someone like AC order a few A330neos for their European network. Airbus would also probably make a hell of a deal for the neo. In Europe it's really anyone's guess. For example I have a hard time seeing airlines like Iberia, Aer Lingus or SAS that have all Airbus fleets (or are headed in that direction) ordering the 787 in the neo's place, while in the case of, say, the LH Group the 787 seems more likely. It will be interesting to see what the LCCs that currently fly A330s decide to do once they're up for replacement as well.

mikejepp wrote:

How about AA adding even more? They seem happy with the 787 and have made it a goal of simplifying their fleet. Their current orders do not allow them to fully retire their 772 and 330 fleets. They have 95 A332, A333, B763, and B772 with only 49 B788/B789 on order.

Also, could we see them ordering the 787-10? The majority of their 330/772 routes are in the 3000-4000nm range.

AA ordered more 787s last April. They will have the largest fleet of 787s (89) in the world, outdoing NH. They also have a tremendous amount of debt due to purchases like these, that some folks are concerned about. I don't think they need anymore, and I don't think an additional top-up order would reflect super well on them either.

OA940 wrote:

The 78J will mostly sell in Asia as A330s and 777s age. It's the best plane for there. America is probably pro-Boeing but I wouldn't be surprised to see someone like AC order a few A330neos for their European network. Airbus would also probably make a hell of a deal for the neo. In Europe it's really anyone's guess. For example I have a hard time seeing airlines like Iberia, Aer Lingus or SAS that have all Airbus fleets (or are headed in that direction) ordering the 787 in the neo's place, while in the case of, say, the LH Group the 787 seems more likely. It will be interesting to see what the LCCs that currently fly A330s decide to do once they're up for replacement as well.

U.S. airlines are the #1, #6, #7, and #10 operators of A320-series aircraft in the world, as well as what will be the #2 operator of A330 aircraft once all deliveries are complete... but, yeah, they're totally biased toward Boeing.

U.S. operators face what may be the most competitive domestic market in the world, and they are certainly not going to let sentiment get in the way of the best deal, whether that is 787 or A330neo.

After the measly 2018 bookings, far less than build I cannot imagine anyone ordering any in 2019.

<<< sarcasm off >>> Boeing sold 109 787's in 2018, it appears that at least 60 will appear this year, possibly various orders we have heard MOU's on will get to the finish line. Between backlog and orders I expect Boeing to be at around 150 deliveries a year for 5 or more years. They have 4 years of backlog currently.

We should have a thread on 767 prospects - it sold 50 and delivered 27 this year. Yes half are tankers but it is a hot freighter at the moment.

seabosdca wrote:

OA940 wrote:

The 78J will mostly sell in Asia as A330s and 777s age. It's the best plane for there. America is probably pro-Boeing but I wouldn't be surprised to see someone like AC order a few A330neos for their European network. Airbus would also probably make a hell of a deal for the neo. In Europe it's really anyone's guess. For example I have a hard time seeing airlines like Iberia, Aer Lingus or SAS that have all Airbus fleets (or are headed in that direction) ordering the 787 in the neo's place, while in the case of, say, the LH Group the 787 seems more likely. It will be interesting to see what the LCCs that currently fly A330s decide to do once they're up for replacement as well.

U.S. airlines are the #1, #6, #7, and #10 operators of A320-series aircraft in the world, as well as what will be the #2 operator of A330 aircraft once all deliveries are complete... but, yeah, they're totally biased toward Boeing.

U.S. operators face what may be the most competitive domestic market in the world, and they are certainly not going to let sentiment get in the way of the best deal, whether that is 787 or A330neo.

Delta will be the only US operator of the A330neo. The A330 is on its way out at AA and they'll be selling snow cones in hell before UA orders it. Hawaiian has a young fleet of A330ceo and they have the 787 on order.

Even though I prefer the A350 myself, I'd be very surprised if AR doesn't order the 787 in any of its versions. However, it might come down to a matter of availability. How soon can we get them? the decision has been delayed already, but I don't think we can wait more than 1.5 years (mid to late 2020) to receive them. Are leased aircraft more redily available?

EL AL will order 78X to replace 772

JamesCousins wrote:

Virgin Atlantic could be a solid contender for a 787 or A350 top up, though ongoing RR engine issues may have put them off. I can't see them retiring their A333s anytime soon, but 789s or A359s could work well for expansion from MAN if they follow their current trajectory.

Virgin have the A35K on order and there A333’s are fairly young. The A350 is Rolls Royce exclusive so once they have replaced the B744 with A35K there might be an A330 Neo order and split there LHR ops to B789 and LGW,MAN,GLA and others ( I believe Northern Ireland seasonal ) as Airbus

Waterbomber wrote:

but for anyone considering B787's today as a new aircraft in the fleet or A330 replacement, the A330neo is a serious contender.
If an A338 is considered too stubby and heavy, the same could be said about the B788.

The 787-8 has a cabin area of 232m2 and an empty weight of 120T. That is 515kg of structure per m2 of cabin area.

The A330-800 has only 237m2 for 132T. That is 554kg of structure per m2 of cabin area.

515 vs 554 is a very large 7% advantage to the 787-8. In shorter flights airport fees become a larger percentage of trip costs. As airport fees are calculated on weight the 787-8 wins.

The A330-800 may have greater wingspan but the inner wing being less advanced may offset all of the lift to drag advantage. So at no point would the A330 have a fuel burn advantage when you compare OEW, payload or cabin area.

lightsaber wrote:

Engine tweaks, a bunch of small weight reductions, and small improvements are the future. I think we are two engine PIPs from the 787-10 becoming the highest quantity model, but it will happen.

First PIP: CMC static parts of the turbine
2nd: 2nd row of high turbine CMC
3rd, much later as the CMC isn't even passing in the labs, 1st stage high turbine

That sounds like GE's plan but what about Rolls?

The ultrafan will be ready to go in 2025 and it will have a gearbox and variable pitch fan. I'm not sure how much of an improvement it will have over the trentten. I'd have to pluck numbers out of thin air. But if it reduced fuel burn by 10% it would easily be enough to bring the 787-10 up over 7000nm and make it the highest selling.

Eventually we will see the 787-11 launch once its range would be over 6000nm. The ultrafan could provide that range.

Thinking out loud but the 787-8 with only 64,000lb of thrust and the 787-11 with 80,000lb of thrust would make it difficult for one engine size. Derating engines aren't ideal efficiency. As the ultrafan will power the larger A350 it would make sense for it to be offered only on the 787-10 and 787-11 with 76,000lb and 80,000lb versions.

GE could offer a scaled up version of the 797 engine for the 787-8 and 787-9.

KQ seems to have declared interest in the -9.

RJMAZ wrote:

Waterbomber wrote:

but for anyone considering B787's today as a new aircraft in the fleet or A330 replacement, the A330neo is a serious contender.
If an A338 is considered too stubby and heavy, the same could be said about the B788.

The 787-8 has a cabin area of 232m2 and an empty weight of 120T. That is 515kg of structure per m2 of cabin area.

The A330-800 has only 237m2 for 132T. That is 554kg of structure per m2 of cabin area.

515 vs 554 is a very large 7% advantage to the 787-8. In shorter flights airport fees become a larger percentage of trip costs. As airport fees are calculated on weight the 787-8 wins.

The A330-800 may have greater wingspan but the inner wing being less advanced may offset all of the lift to drag advantage. So at no point would the A330 have a fuel burn advantage when you compare OEW, payload or cabin area.

The A338 weighs 12t more than the 787-8 and is able to carry 23t more. Translating into payload-range. But I don't these a typical 787 future prospects. Maybe a further redo (after the tail) of the 787-8 would be a good idea.

keesje wrote:

The A338 weighs 12t more than the 787-8 and is able to carry 23t more. Translating into payload-range. But I don't these a typical 787 future prospects. Maybe a further redo (after the tail) of the 787-8 would be a good idea.

That is not how efficiency works. The 12t higher empty weight means with the same payload and fuel load the A330-800 has to takeoff 12T heavier than the 787-8.

Very few 787-8's actually take off at MTOW. So the A330-800 with its higher MTOW offers no advantage.

This is why the 787-8 is a great but slightly large 767-300ER replacement.

RJMAZ wrote:

keesje wrote:

The A338 weighs 12t more than the 787-8 and is able to carry 23t more. Translating into payload-range. But I don't these a typical 787 future prospects. Maybe a further redo (after the tail) of the 787-8 would be a good idea.

That is not how efficiency works. The 12t higher empty weight means with the same payload and fuel load the A330-800 has to takeoff 12T heavier than the 787-8.

Very few 787-8's actually take off at MTOW. So the A330-800 with its higher MTOW offers no advantage.

This is why the 787-8 is a great but slightly large 767-300ER replacement.

Different ways to select / present numbers. If both types fly a 6000NM flight, an A330-800 can take an addition 12t of revenue payload over the 787-8; 3-4 extra PLA pallets. Now does that really make such a difference? Yes I think $o. But, I think the real battle is A339 - 789, not these subtypes.

True it is the less important 'subtype'. But none the less important.Wiki says the 788 has sold 444 and the 332 (pax) 665. So over 1,100 frames in total. Now clearly some of the 332 orders are old and the aircaft have now 'gone'.Also there has been a rapid movement up to the larger standard variants 333/9 and 789 ( which was not available at all for quite a period of time).But not all will need the capacity/performance of the bigger planes.
I note BA ordered,reordered even moved dash9 options to 788's.So it really must suit their smaller connections ( mainly America I think).
So not a trivial market all in all.Certainly good enough for Boeing to revise the 788 to improve profitability so they must be expecting to sell more.
However it probably all rests on whether Boeing launch the 5knm 797 or not.If they do then that is the aircaft that will take the lions share of this sector going forward imho.

Kindanew wrote:

raylee67 wrote:

There are still many 767 that needs to be replaced over the next 10 years or so. Even many airlines with 787 on order does not have enough of them ordered to replace their 767 on a 1-on-1 basis. e.g. ANA still has 17 787s on order, but it still has 31 767 in fleet, and to make the replacement situation worse, some of the 787 on order are going to be replacing the older 777-200A, not the 767s. And you see the same for many other airlines:
JAL - 35 767s, 9 787s remained on order.
LATAM Chile - 18 767s, 12 787s remained on order
The 787 remains to be the best plane to replace 767 for these airlines, unless they want larger planes on some of the 767 routes.

And then there are A330-200s that will need to be replaced too. Airbus does not have a same-size aircraft to replace the A332. A359 is too large as a replacement. A339 does not have the range for the longest A332 route, and arguably it's less of a "new aircraft" than 787. It is possible that some airlines operating the A332 now may choose 787 as replacements, and start ordering in 2019.

A330-800 surely?

Some of JAL and LATAM's 767 are very young, were delivered to bridge the 787 delays. With the current oil prices, these 767s are still doing their pretty efficiently.

As for A332 replacement, I don't think the A338 is required. The 251t A339 has about the same range as the 77E. I don't know exactly what the longest A332 routes are, but I'm pretty sure at least 95% of the current A332 routes can be done by a 251t A339.

bunumuring wrote:

Malaysian? All quiet on their 'order' after the big announcement..

MH's LoI for 787s has expired. The deal is off.

metroline2006 wrote:

JamesCousins wrote:

Virgin Atlantic could be a solid contender for a 787 or A350 top up, though ongoing RR engine issues may have put them off. I can't see them retiring their A333s anytime soon, but 789s or A359s could work well for expansion from MAN if they follow their current trajectory.

Virgin have the A35K on order and there A333’s are fairly young. The A350 is Rolls Royce exclusive so once they have replaced the B744 with A35K there might be an A330 Neo order and split there LHR ops to B789 and LGW,MAN,GLA and others ( I believe Northern Ireland seasonal ) as Airbus

I think there will be very few 787 operators that will order the A330neo, unless Boeing totally messes up.

seabosdca wrote:

OA940 wrote:

The 78J will mostly sell in Asia as A330s and 777s age. It's the best plane for there. America is probably pro-Boeing but I wouldn't be surprised to see someone like AC order a few A330neos for their European network. Airbus would also probably make a hell of a deal for the neo. In Europe it's really anyone's guess. For example I have a hard time seeing airlines like Iberia, Aer Lingus or SAS that have all Airbus fleets (or are headed in that direction) ordering the 787 in the neo's place, while in the case of, say, the LH Group the 787 seems more likely. It will be interesting to see what the LCCs that currently fly A330s decide to do once they're up for replacement as well.

U.S. airlines are the #1, #6, #7, and #10 operators of A320-series aircraft in the world, as well as what will be the #2 operator of A330 aircraft once all deliveries are complete... but, yeah, they're totally biased toward Boeing.

U.S. operators face what may be the most competitive domestic market in the world, and they are certainly not going to let sentiment get in the way of the best deal, whether that is 787 or A330neo.

I didn't say they were biased. I meant that because many of them already have 787s on order they'll probably choose it to replace 767s/A330s and to expand, especially if A330s aren't presently in their fleet. And for the record America isn't just the US, it's the whole thing (NA/SA), and there the chances of 787 orders are quite a bit more than the chances of A330neo orders so...

Hey frigate bird,
Thanks for your information on the Malaysian 787 deal. I wasn't aware of that. Can you point me in the direction of any threads here on a.net that I might have missed that have discussed/are discussing 'what next' for Malaysian in light of this?
Thanks,
Bunumuring

OA940 wrote:

seabosdca wrote:

OA940 wrote:

The 78J will mostly sell in Asia as A330s and 777s age. It's the best plane for there. America is probably pro-Boeing but I wouldn't be surprised to see someone like AC order a few A330neos for their European network. Airbus would also probably make a hell of a deal for the neo. In Europe it's really anyone's guess. For example I have a hard time seeing airlines like Iberia, Aer Lingus or SAS that have all Airbus fleets (or are headed in that direction) ordering the 787 in the neo's place, while in the case of, say, the LH Group the 787 seems more likely. It will be interesting to see what the LCCs that currently fly A330s decide to do once they're up for replacement as well.

U.S. airlines are the #1, #6, #7, and #10 operators of A320-series aircraft in the world, as well as what will be the #2 operator of A330 aircraft once all deliveries are complete... but, yeah, they're totally biased toward Boeing.

U.S. operators face what may be the most competitive domestic market in the world, and they are certainly not going to let sentiment get in the way of the best deal, whether that is 787 or A330neo.

I didn't say they were biased. I meant that because many of them already have 787s on order they'll probably choose it to replace 767s/A330s and to expand, especially if A330s aren't presently in their fleet. And for the record America isn't just the US, it's the whole thing (NA/SA), and there the chances of 787 orders are quite a bit more than the chances of A330neo orders so...

Of course when an airline has invested in a significant 787 fleet and infrastructure, chances to sell new A330 are low, except for political reasons or used ones for commonality reasons (e.g. AC). I think Airbus is focusing on existing A330 operators..https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Airbus_A330_operators#Airline_operators

RJMAZ wrote:

Waterbomber wrote:

but for anyone considering B787's today as a new aircraft in the fleet or A330 replacement, the A330neo is a serious contender.
If an A338 is considered too stubby and heavy, the same could be said about the B788.

The 787-8 has a cabin area of 232m2 and an empty weight of 120T. That is 515kg of structure per m2 of cabin area.

The A330-800 has only 237m2 for 132T. That is 554kg of structure per m2 of cabin area.

515 vs 554 is a very large 7% advantage to the 787-8. In shorter flights airport fees become a larger percentage of trip costs. As airport fees are calculated on weight the 787-8 wins.

The A330-800 may have greater wingspan but the inner wing being less advanced may offset all of the lift to drag advantage. So at no point would the A330 have a fuel burn advantage when you compare OEW, payload or cabin area.

When I was in maintenance, I once had to weigh an A332 joining the fleet. It was an interesting experience, because thanks to that I know that you are way off on your figures. The aircraft clocked in at less than 120 tons empty weight, with crews and catering added, the OEW would have been around 120 tons.

So explain to me how the A338, which is said to have maintained the same OEW as the A332, would suddenly have a OEW of 132 tons?
The dry weight of the Trent 7000 vs. Trent 700 is just 250kg higher.

http://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default ... 7040875992

http://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/ ... 7040717180

Wikipedia is a pretty good source but in this case it is wrong.

The narrower fuselage of the A330 should result in a lower profile drag, the larger span in lower induced drag.
Airbus' marketing material which should be taken with a pinch of salt, puts the A339 at 8 abreast on par with a 9 abreast B789 on fuel burn, but at lower operating costs per flight and per seat.
It's too close to call, but if you go 9-abreast on the A330neo (poor passengers), it'll beat the B787.

http://www.ausbt.com.au/files/A330neo%2 ... RXMnhuKmEP

And I'm not biased, you can look over to the B787 vs A350 noise thread. Just stating things as they are.

raylee67 wrote:

And then there are A330-200s that will need to be replaced too. Airbus does not have a same-size aircraft to replace the A332. A359 is too large as a replacement. A339 does not have the range for the longest A332 route, and arguably it's less of a "new aircraft" than 787. It is possible that some airlines operating the A332 now may choose 787 as replacements, and start ordering in 2019.

If Airbus doesn’t have a same sized replacement for the A330-200, then what does the A330-800neo replace?

Waterbomber wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

Waterbomber wrote:

but for anyone considering B787's today as a new aircraft in the fleet or A330 replacement, the A330neo is a serious contender.
If an A338 is considered too stubby and heavy, the same could be said about the B788.

The 787-8 has a cabin area of 232m2 and an empty weight of 120T. That is 515kg of structure per m2 of cabin area.

The A330-800 has only 237m2 for 132T. That is 554kg of structure per m2 of cabin area.

515 vs 554 is a very large 7% advantage to the 787-8. In shorter flights airport fees become a larger percentage of trip costs. As airport fees are calculated on weight the 787-8 wins.

The A330-800 may have greater wingspan but the inner wing being less advanced may offset all of the lift to drag advantage. So at no point would the A330 have a fuel burn advantage when you compare OEW, payload or cabin area.

When I was in maintenance, I once had to weigh an A332 joining the fleet. It was an interesting experience, because thanks to that I know that you are way off on your figures. The aircraft clocked in at less than 120 tons empty weight, with crews and catering added, the OEW would have been around 120 tons.

So explain to me how the A338, which is said to have maintained the same OEW as the A332, would suddenly have a OEW of 132 tons?
The dry weight of the Trent 7000 vs. Trent 700 is just 250kg higher.

http://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default ... 7040875992

http://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/ ... 7040717180

Wikipedia is a pretty good source but in this case it is wrong.

The narrower fuselage of the A330 should result in a lower profile drag, the larger span in lower induced drag.
Airbus' marketing material which should be taken with a pinch of salt, puts the A339 at 8 abreast on par with a 9 abreast B789 on fuel burn, but at lower operating costs per flight and per seat.
It's too close to call, but if you go 9-abreast on the A330neo (poor passengers), it'll beat the B787.

http://www.ausbt.com.au/files/A330neo%2 ... RXMnhuKmEP

And I'm not biased, you can look over to the B787 vs A350 noise thread. Just stating things as they are.

Not filling in for RJMAZ but he might have gotten the OEW 132t for the 338 from this article, which was a tailored specification for United.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... cs-450083/

LX015 wrote:

If Airbus doesn’t have a same sized replacement for the A330-200, then what does the A330-800neo replace?

The A330-200 had three MTOW weights.

230T from 1998 to 2010
238T from 2010 to 2016
242T from 2016 to 2018

The 230T A330-200 had a range of only 6,300nm.
The 238T A330-200HGW had a range of 6,900nm
The 242T A330-200 had a range of 7,250nm

The 251T A330-800 has a massive range of 8,150nm

The 275T A340-200 which shares the same fuselage length has a range of 7,600nm.

Considering around half of the A330-200's are the short range versions the A330-800 is a very poor replacement, with 21T more weight and 1850nm more range. It would be a perfect A340-200 replacement which sold only 28 aircraft. I dont think any are still flying.

The 787-8 for instance at 228T and 7355nm is the closest one to one replacement.

There is no requirement for an operator to choose the highest MTOW. Airbus would be happy to sell anyone a 233 t A330-800. The problem is that at the ranges where such a thing would be useful the A330-900 will almost always have better economics.

metroline2006 wrote:

JamesCousins wrote:

Virgin Atlantic could be a solid contender for a 787 or A350 top up, though ongoing RR engine issues may have put them off. I can't see them retiring their A333s anytime soon, but 789s or A359s could work well for expansion from MAN if they follow their current trajectory.

Virgin have the A35K on order and there A333’s are fairly young. The A350 is Rolls Royce exclusive so once they have replaced the B744 with A35K there might be an A330 Neo order and split there LHR ops to B789 and LGW,MAN,GLA and others ( I believe Northern Ireland seasonal ) as Airbus

The issues with the RR engines is 787 specific, and I don't believe there has been a complete fix yet? I can't see them adding another type when they're already operating the 787 and A350

I am hoping in 2019 will see NH top off orders for the 78J, Although unlikely due to financial restraint LY ordering the 78J. Is MS a candidate for 78J for CAI-LHR,CAI-CDG, CAI-JFK or will the 789 be the right aircraft to match demand? AF I can see the 78J taking higher demand routes to North America in the future where the 77W might be a tad bit large.

Airbus has delivered more a350 frames than they have recorded as orders over the past five years, reducing the backlog to 659 frames (6 years' production at 10 frames per month) at December 2018. Whilst shorter delivery times offer some sales advantage, I have to wonder what a "comfortable" backlog is for a wide-body aircraft programme. Similarly, the 787 reduced its backlog to 622 frames at the end of 2018 (just over 4 years' worth of production at 12 frames per month). The 787 sold very well in 2018, but still managed to reduce the backlog by more than 3 months' production. Will we see a production increase in the near future (as was intimated by Boeing), or is a reduction more likely?

Hopefully 2019 the 787 will see a few new airlines which have not ordered it as of now. The LH group for OS the 789 would be a good fit as would the 788. For LH I could see the 78J for higher demand routes from FRA and MUC. SR although not likely in the short term I could see a mix of 789 and 78J in their fleet Some reports of both Level and GA evaluating the 787 for their future fleets. Level and GA I could see a mix of 789 and 78J working well for them.

Your thoughts

majano wrote:

Airbus has delivered more a350 frames than they have recorded as orders over the past five years, reducing the backlog to 659 frames (6 years' production at 10 frames per month) at December 2018. Whilst shorter delivery times offer some sales advantage, I have to wonder what a "comfortable" backlog is for a wide-body aircraft programme. Similarly, the 787 reduced its backlog to 622 frames at the end of 2018 (just over 4 years' worth of production at 12 frames per month). The 787 sold very well in 2018, but still managed to reduce the backlog by more than 3 months' production. Will we see a production increase in the near future (as was intimated by Boeing), or is a reduction more likely?

Boeing will run the lines at rate 14 so long as demand and backlog supports it. When it’s time to reduce production they will shut down and move the Washington line to South Carolina. This will likely happen concurrent with a new engine and refresh of the aircraft. That refresh should make the 787-10 a very capable airframe and opens the possibility to a 787-11 being built.

The big EK order is still to be finalized and several campaigns are running that will determine how long rate 14 will run. Boeing’s burn rate with last three years average orders and the 168 rate is 81 frames a year so that works out to a 7.6 year backlog of orders keep coming at similar rates.

I expect the timetable to look like this.

2022-3: NMA line 1 starts going into 777X LRIP space. 77X and 777 consolidated to one line.
2024-26: NMA starts rolling of lines.
2025-7: NMA line 2 setup in current Washington 787 space.
2027-30: 787 with new engines introduced. Possibility of a second line in CHS if demand supports it.

bigjku wrote:

majano wrote:

Airbus has delivered more a350 frames than they have recorded as orders over the past five years, reducing the backlog to 659 frames (6 years' production at 10 frames per month) at December 2018. Whilst shorter delivery times offer some sales advantage, I have to wonder what a "comfortable" backlog is for a wide-body aircraft programme. Similarly, the 787 reduced its backlog to 622 frames at the end of 2018 (just over 4 years' worth of production at 12 frames per month). The 787 sold very well in 2018, but still managed to reduce the backlog by more than 3 months' production. Will we see a production increase in the near future (as was intimated by Boeing), or is a reduction more likely?

Boeing will run the lines at rate 14 so long as demand and backlog supports it. When it’s time to reduce production they will shut down and move the Washington line to South Carolina. This will likely happen concurrent with a new engine and refresh of the aircraft. That refresh should make the 787-10 a very capable airframe and opens the possibility to a 787-11 being built.

The big EK order is still to be finalized and several campaigns are running that will determine how long rate 14 will run. Boeing’s burn rate with last three years average orders and the 168 rate is 81 frames a year so that works out to a 7.6 year backlog of orders keep coming at similar rates.

I expect the timetable to look like this.

2022-3: NMA line 1 starts going into 777X LRIP space. 77X and 777 consolidated to one line.
2024-26: NMA starts rolling of lines.
2025-7: NMA line 2 setup in current Washington 787 space.
2027-30: 787 with new engines introduced. Possibility of a second line in CHS if demand supports it.

All makes sense. The only area that is debatable is whether the order rate of 100+ per annum could be sustained over the medium term.

majano wrote:

bigjku wrote:

majano wrote:

Airbus has delivered more a350 frames than they have recorded as orders over the past five years, reducing the backlog to 659 frames (6 years' production at 10 frames per month) at December 2018. Whilst shorter delivery times offer some sales advantage, I have to wonder what a "comfortable" backlog is for a wide-body aircraft programme. Similarly, the 787 reduced its backlog to 622 frames at the end of 2018 (just over 4 years' worth of production at 12 frames per month). The 787 sold very well in 2018, but still managed to reduce the backlog by more than 3 months' production. Will we see a production increase in the near future (as was intimated by Boeing), or is a reduction more likely?

Boeing will run the lines at rate 14 so long as demand and backlog supports it. When it’s time to reduce production they will shut down and move the Washington line to South Carolina. This will likely happen concurrent with a new engine and refresh of the aircraft. That refresh should make the 787-10 a very capable airframe and opens the possibility to a 787-11 being built.

The big EK order is still to be finalized and several campaigns are running that will determine how long rate 14 will run. Boeing’s burn rate with last three years average orders and the 168 rate is 81 frames a year so that works out to a 7.6 year backlog of orders keep coming at similar rates.

I expect the timetable to look like this.

2022-3: NMA line 1 starts going into 777X LRIP space. 77X and 777 consolidated to one line.
2024-26: NMA starts rolling of lines.
2025-7: NMA line 2 setup in current Washington 787 space.
2027-30: 787 with new engines introduced. Possibility of a second line in CHS if demand supports it.

All makes sense. The only area that is debatable is whether the order rate of 100+ per annum could be sustained over the medium term.

Average orders over past 3-4 years is about 85 or so. So they will burn off about 80 a year at the 165 or so production pace if they can sustain order momentum. That gives them 7-8 years of run. They have an order to finalize with EK for 40. I expect Boeing to win the big Korean Air order as well and think they are well positioned to break in at Lufthansa. Product wise I think the 787-10 makes a ton of sense for airlines with A330’s aging out in the pacific rim. If they can keep up the last two years order pace their burn rate is more like 60 and would represent 10 years of work. I think so long as Boeing is logging 80-100 orders they can keep rates quite high for the plane.

By very rough math over the past few years the market has absorbed around 400 widebodies a year in the 787, 77W, A330, A350 range. The various programs have gone up and down but that number is close enough for this. I consider the 77X to basically be a VLA and not really part of this core market any longer. The 787 among the other three types has a 65-67% order share the last two years. The A330neo has 7-10% and the A350 right around 25%. Those are numbers substantially post EIS for the two new birds. But if Boeing captures just 50% of the core widebody market and it continues to need 300-400 aircraft a year their production rate should be well supported.

bigjku wrote:

majano wrote:

bigjku wrote:

Boeing will run the lines at rate 14 so long as demand and backlog supports it. When it’s time to reduce production they will shut down and move the Washington line to South Carolina. This will likely happen concurrent with a new engine and refresh of the aircraft. That refresh should make the 787-10 a very capable airframe and opens the possibility to a 787-11 being built.

The big EK order is still to be finalized and several campaigns are running that will determine how long rate 14 will run. Boeing’s burn rate with last three years average orders and the 168 rate is 81 frames a year so that works out to a 7.6 year backlog of orders keep coming at similar rates.

I expect the timetable to look like this.

2022-3: NMA line 1 starts going into 777X LRIP space. 77X and 777 consolidated to one line.
2024-26: NMA starts rolling of lines.
2025-7: NMA line 2 setup in current Washington 787 space.
2027-30: 787 with new engines introduced. Possibility of a second line in CHS if demand supports it.

All makes sense. The only area that is debatable is whether the order rate of 100+ per annum could be sustained over the medium term.

Average orders over past 3-4 years is about 85 or so. So they will burn off about 80 a year at the 165 or so production pace if they can sustain order momentum. That gives them 7-8 years of run. They have an order to finalize with EK for 40. I expect Boeing to win the big Korean Air order as well and think they are well positioned to break in at Lufthansa. Product wise I think the 787-10 makes a ton of sense for airlines with A330’s aging out in the pacific rim. If they can keep up the last two years order pace their burn rate is more like 60 and would represent 10 years of work. I think so long as Boeing is logging 80-100 orders they can keep rates quite high for the plane.

By very rough math over the past few years the market has absorbed around 400 widebodies a year in the 787, 77W, A330, A350 range. The various programs have gone up and down but that number is close enough for this. I consider the 77X to basically be a VLA and not really part of this core market any longer. The 787 among the other three types has a 65-67% order share the last two years. The A330neo has 7-10% and the A350 right around 25%. Those are numbers substantially post EIS for the two new birds. But if Boeing captures just 50% of the core widebody market and it continues to need 300-400 aircraft a year their production rate should be well supported.

All your arguments make sense and I realise that you are applying "big strokes" so I will not nit-pick. However, including the 77W in your past deliveries and excluding 77X from the future deliveries tally is debatable to say the least. EK, the biggest single operator of 77W happens to be the biggest customer for 77X. I suspect that adjusting the estimates for 77X deliveries might not change the landscape all that much. My concluding remarks on this subject are that after accounting for future orders, I agree that the backlog is healthy, but the future will tell on a sustainable rate of production. Perhaps your point is also that the rate does not have to be "sustainable" which is a fair argument too.

Would Boeing have increased the 787 to rate 14 if it had any qualms about new orders. I expect 2019 to have around 100 787 orders, so a backlog burn of around 75 planes.

LAX772LR wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

The -400 was an attempt to make the 767 competitive w 330.

Slight correction, the -400ERX was an attempt to make the 767 competitive with the A330.
If nothing else, the current -400ER was a stunting of the aircraft, due to DL's requested LGA compatability.

Planeflyer wrote:

The neo will certainly do better but it won’t prevent the 787 from dominating the midsize wb market.

No one's suggesting that the 787 doesn't stand a good chance of dominating, but some 80:20 ratio is at this point, purely imaginative on your part.
There isn't enough data to effectively come to such a conclusion for ongoing market outlook.

?

since the 359 started getting delivered, it has been 4.5:1 in favor of the 787 versus this model. The 330Neo stole some sales, sure, but I don't think 80:20 is that far-fetched. Is the past 5 years of data insufficient? If anything, the 330Neo is cannibalizing its own brother. It has also outsold the 350 over the same 5 year period.

The advantages the 787 family have over their competition both in unit and operating costs make 4:1 achievable.