Public pressure is building on Airbus to launch a re-engining of its A330 medium-sector, twin-aisle, aging airplane as CIT Aerospace and Air Lease Corp. officials joined Delta Air Lines and AirAsia in their previous overt calls for development of an A330neo. Lufthansa Airlines is understood to be seeking a neo behind the scenes.
GE Aviation and Rolls-Royce are encouraging Airbus to proceed with a neo as a platform for their GEnx and Trent 1000 TEN engines. The GEnx is used on the Boeing 747-8 and the 787; the Trent 1000 TEN is used on the 787.
Speaking before the annual convention of the International Society for Transport Aircraft Trading (ISTAT) this week in San Diego, CIT—a lessor with major orders for the A330, including being the launch customer for the 242 ton version of the A330-300—said that Airbus is at a crossroads with the airplane and it needs to decide within the next six months whether to offer the A330neo with an entry-into-service of 2017 or 2018 or it will miss the market opportunity to do so with a later EIS.
We previously reported CIT’s rationale supporting a neo launch. As we previously noted, CIT sees the Airbus parity with Boeing in the twin-aisle sector at risk if Airbus doesn’t proceed with the neo. This is consistent with our own analysis.
Air Lease Corp. CEO Steven Udvar-Hazy, who has purchased more Airbus aircraft than any other customer during his tenure as CEO of International Lease Finance Corp. and now of ALC, said that the A350-800 is a marginal airplane that would be dropped if Airbus would proceed with the A330neo.
“Lufthansa Airlines is Understood to be seeking a neo behind the scenes.”
I must say that Lufthansa has never been favorable to Boeing. prefer the 787 A330neo shocks me but does not surprise me! LHA does not change. They had preferred the heavy 4 A340 engines as efficient twin 777 engines! Anything …
Lufthansa has never been favorable to Boeing? Sorry, you must be joking: They were pretty much the launch customer ot the 737, they have a massive amount of 744s, they are the only *major* customer of the 748i, and the are the largest customer for the 777X outsite the ME3. So where is LH ‘not favourable to Boeing’?
In those days thats all there was. In recent years they have not budged on the A340 when anyone could see it was not workable.
They were also the ones who ranted about Middle East Carriers driving the range then jumped in with the 777 range (did they learn finally on the A340?)
But they in turn did not buy the 787-10 which is exactly what they asked for. Hmmm
“A330neo shocks me”
Wouldn’t Airbus be a bit embarrassed having to “neo” the A330? It maybe a good plane and all, but it seems their overall strategy is wandering all over the place, like, big hub-hub A380’s for slot constraints, then to super long haul “extra wide body” carbon fiber A350 mid-size twins, now a quickie twin neo for the mid-size.
Not sure it’s a “shock;” are they trying to confuse everyone purposefully or are they just really confused?
“Lufthansa Airlines is Understood to be seeking a neo behind the scenes.”
I must say that Lufthansa has never been favorable to Boeing. prefer the A330neo than the 787 shocks me but does not surprise me!
LHA does not change. They had preferred the heavy 4 engines A340, as efficient twin engines 777 ! Anything …
Lufthansa was launch customer for many Boeing aircraft, including the 747-8 and the 777-X. That’s not excactly what I would call a bias against Boeing. Lufthansa orders what it thinks to be the best fit for their network structure.
You could fault Lufthansa for bad timing, they were launch customer for the A340 in 1993. The EIS of the 777 was 1995, two years later. The bestsellers 777-200ER (EIS 1997) and 777-300ER(EIS 2004) came even later.
But despite its fuel burn disadvantage the A340 is well known for its hot and high performance (south america, south africa) and still is the only option for some ULR flights over water. Its a niche, but ETOPS is not enough for some routes.
No no no no no no, I’ve already explained that LHA has never before ordered 777’s before that 777-9X, because That airplane has not a Airbus competitor! (They ordered the 747-8i as a historic partnership by LHA & Boeing) The truth is they could not ordered the 777-300ER when they have A340-600 with lavatories in the lower lobe as a sacrifice! Then they won seats they order some 747-8I on top of A340-600 and A380-800 on the bottom! …
It is very likely that the 777-9X replace (finally) the A340-600!
So on the one hand you say LH is biased against Boeing, but on the other you acknowledge that the two have a historic partnership.
I feel that’s more than a little contradictory.
Anfromme,
be sure to read between the lines. I put in parenthesis “partnership” but I added:
“The truth is They Could not ordered the 777-300ER When They Have A340-600 with lavatories in the lower lobe as a sacrifice Then They won 747 seats They Some order! -8I on top of A340-600 and A380-800 on the bottom! … ”
Regarding the partnership is what is embellished through Boeing.com and Lufthansa. com! The problem is that I do not think LHA had much opportunity to actually order the 777 -300ER (! Not Swiss, please) and opportunities to order the 787- 10!
I’m still not convinced otherwise.
Sorry. ..
LH ordered the 777-300ER for swiss well before the 777X order
Yes, LH chose the A346 at the time, as did other airlines, including CX, VS, IB, Thai, etc. I guess LH probably later realised that the 773 would have been the better choice in the long term, but then it was too late. And it isn’t like the A346 is an absolutely horrible airplane, either.
For comparison, look at LH’s choice of the 747-8i – in this case they’re literally the only major carrier to order it in significant numbers.
As for the 787-10 – a lot of carriers have orders for the A359, but none for the 787-10. Of all of them, LH is the only one that gave a detailed explanation of why they didn’t order it (“The 787-9 is too small for our requirements and the 787-10 does not have the necessary range for around 40% of the destinations”). And at the same time they ordered 25 A350-900 and 0 787-10, they also ordered 34 777-9X (20 firmed up so far), the latter chiefly to replace the A346s in their fleet.
Sure, you can still insist they’re biased against Boeing, but as LH is a launch customer for the 777X, the launch customer for the 747-8i, a customer for the 777F (not the A330F), and yes, a customer for 777-300ER for its subsidiary Swiss (when A346 would have been cheaper and quicker to acquire) I don’t see much by way of facts to support this.
As I remember Lufthansa was a major pusher for the 737 and launch costumer.
A twin is inherently overpowered vs an equivalent quad, so it can climb faster and steeper . Both must meet engine-out takeoff and climb requirements, but the twin must do so with only 50% of installed thrust vs 75% for the quad. The A330’s excess thrust would give it a hot and high advantage over the A340.
The A340 has a “lead sled” reputation. There were instances when an A340 would start a transatlantic crossing but was not able to reach the required initial cruise altitude for a step-climb flight plan. The airplane would be restricted to a lower altitude for the entire flight. I.e. 29,000 ft. vs. step-climbing 33,000-37,000-41,000 ft
My understanding is just the opposite, the excess thrust in normal circumstances will give a twin an advantage in climbing faster and steeper,
BUT in a hot and high environment you need more thrust to take off and you can only “load” a twin until it can take off with the 50% of the thrust available, while you can load a quad up to a point that you can take off with the 75% of the thrust.
The A330′s excess thrust would give it a hot and high advantage over the A340.
Think again 😉
Then a lot of alleged “reputation” is carefully crafted competitor badmouthing
and as we can read here this seems to work well.
My understanding was that nearly the only niche that the A340 had an advantage was in hot and high and remember reading threads on a.net about where was the point (temperature and height) where the A340 could carry more payload than a 777 (not even a A330!!!)
JD, you were thinking about available thrust with all engines.
But hot and high performance is limited by the “one engine out” after V1 case.
A340-300 :: 3 * 34klbs ( 16.7% of 610klbs MTOW, medium wingloading )
A340-600 :: 3 * 62klbs ( 22.2% of 840klbs MTOW, medium wingloading )
versus
A330-300 :: 1 * 72klbs ( 13.4% of 534klbs MTOW, low wingloading)
T7-300ER :: 1 * 115klbs ( 17,4% of 660klbs MTOW, high wingloading)
Uwe, do we agree then?? My point was that, contrary to what “toyuths” said, a quad HAS an advantage in hot and high environments…
Public pressure for AIRBUS to launch A330 NEO !! .. The general public wouldn’t even know what an A330 was 🙂
True
Is the 10/mo for the 777x an official Boeing target or a just a projection? The current family of smaller 777s including freighters is still at 8.3/mo.
Boeing’s RFP for the 777X assembly site called for 10/mo capacity.
We have a 777 backlog dip currently for the 2017-2020 period. Airlines aren’t stumbeling over each other ordering ordering 777Xs either. Boeing shouldn’t mix up hopes and forecasts. Deliveries declining to 5-6/ month in the next 6 years are realistic, if they sell another 200 777-300ERs.. If past forecasts for 787 deliveries mean anything, the current ones are wrong. If the 787-9 has been improved dramatically over the 787-8, as seems the case, a lot is new. That doesn’t help the learning curve automatically.
I believe that the 787 not the 777x should be used in comparison with the A330 as the next generation 777x is more comparable to the A380. More importantly I think what is more pressing is that will the newer technologies and weight savings trump those of what Airbus is sort of trying to bring to the table. Availability, pricing and engine efficiencies will play major roles as well.
PS Just because we don’t see 777x deals upfront doesn’t mean we won’t see any in the near future. (CX – A380 < 777X.) You know like anyone that ET, PR, and SQ are leaning heavily towards the 777x.
I don’t think the B777-300ER will be in production anymor once the B777X is in full production. So the Boeing monthly widebody production would be more like 24. Nevertheless, Airbus has to do something…
“Boeing shouldn’t mix up hopes and forecasts. ”
Isn’t exactly that what project accounting is all about?
Balance todays real cost against _potential_ future revenue
“Is the 10/mo for the 777x an official Boeing target or a just a projection?”
None of both for the moment. Boeing just wants the new assembly line to be able of producing 10 jets per month in case there is enough demand for such a rate. That’s one of the requirements. The current 777 line is already limited and it was a bit challenging to reach the latest rate of 8.3 per month.
If the new assembly line ramps up in 2020/2021, I can see it reaching 10 per month in 2023/2024.
The A330 NEO program boils down to two questions, in my view:
1) Can a re-engined A330 hold its own against the 787, once the backlog on that plane has been worked through and the plane is available at keen prices?
If YES, then wait for an optimal engine such as the proposed RR Advance.
If NO then AIrbus will need a new plane, not the A330 nor the A350 in its current form, by about 2025. Then:
2) Will a NEO sell at least 300 additional planes compared with the CEO before 2025?
If YES then move quickly to re-engine with current technology engines and then replace the A330 by 2028.
If NO then keep selling as many A330 CEO as possible and replace the plane by 2023.
FF, nicely summarized. Thanks
In terms of development risk, efforts and costs there’s a clear ranking:
1. A330, no changes/small PIP
2. A330-Neo minimal change
3. A330-Neo + extensive changes
4. Optimized A350-800
5. clean sheet
5) Is the worst case. High cost, development risks and production risks.
4) Would need a second FAL to have any meaningful effect on market share without cannibalizing the more profitable larger siblings. But at least the production system would be well known. They know how to clone an the existing FAL, no unknown issues there.
3) Could still be faster and cheaper *if* changes don’t require too much changes to the FAL.
It puzzles me why the A330 wing may need strengthening for the NEO engines, when it shares its ancestry with the A340 wings which were able to carry two engines, and quite heavy ones in the A340-5/600 – surely Airbus must be able to cope fairly easily with this aspect of the re-design?
Roger, it’s not just wing load but how it is distributed. The A330/340 wing was built for two different engine installations, but the NEO is neither of them – it will be a heavier engine with different weight and thrust loads concentrated in one place vs the loads of one A330 engine or two A340 engines.
The A340-500/600 is not the same wing as the original A330-340 wing. It is longer [tip extension] and wider [chord extension]. A heavier wing than the original and stressed for two heavy engines. Again, not the same loads and load distribution as the A330NEO’s engine on the original wing.
“it will be a heavier engine with different weight and thrust loads concentrated in one place vs the loads of one A330 engine or two A340 engines.”
There may be local strengthening needed at the wing around the engine hardpoint. Re: the thrust loads, unless Airbus is planning on adding a significant thrust boost compared to the present A330 engines, there shouldn’t be too much of a problem.
Nyx et al, for a rough preliminary comparison of new vs old A330 engine installation differences, compare the inboard GE-nx installation on the 747-8I vs the 747-400’s GE CF6-80. Bigger pod, new strut, new torque loads from different spinning masses and mass distribution. Different thrust axis from the new strut to wing geometry = new thrust loads..
Will the bigger pod fit the existing A330 landing gear?
It’s a very doable change, but will not be easy nor cheap. Airbus and its customers, not the public, will decide if the market is there at a reasonable cost and flow time.
By the way, what works for a A330NEO would also be mostly applicable to re-engining a 767-300ER. But let us not digress . . . .
“By the way, what works for a A330NEO would also be mostly applicable to re-engining a 767-300ER. But let us not digress . . ”
All digression aside, the 787 has replaced the 767. Maybe you didn’t get the memo.
A330 and A340 wings almost identical except latter strengthened in area of outboard engine pylon with appropriate modification of leading-edge slats 4 and 5. I believe the other difference is the wiring and plumbing serving the outboard engines on the A340.
So, what does the public say about the A350-800?
VV, I have no idea what you are asking for. Airbus seems to convince the A350-800 customers to upgrade to the -900.
Or maybe downgrade to cheap A330.
mhalblaub,
Do you mean that the A330 (neo) would erode A350’s business case?
“Do you mean that the A330 (neo) would erode A350′s business case?”
For the A350-800, maybe yes.
The A330-300 has similar capacity as the A350-800, but 2000nm less range.
Not everyone needs the range of the A350-800, so an A330-300Neo could be an attractive alternative.
keesje,
Are you insinuating hat after eigth years from launch and several hundreds units sold (but dwindling down), suddenly the A350-800.s market changed drastically?
Do you mean that Arbus finally considers that the A350-800 market is inexistent and thus pushes airlines to take A350-900 instead?
Many questions subsist about the A350 program and I do not have the answer.
“Many questions subsist about the A350 program and I do not have the answer.”
VeroVenia, maybe you should look further. Your theories and predictions on e.g. the A350-1000 proved in such a stark contrast with market reality / order books.
Adjusting believes (“premature NEO, boxed A350) and predictions using new realities, instead of deleting them, might provide guidance.
http://verovenia.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/bermuda-triangle/
Were several hundred units of the A350-800 sold? I thought it was more like a couple of hundred units, most of which have traded up to the -900. That does not necessarily imply that the market doesn’t exist, (the 787-8 sold well) but may also suggest that the 787-8 has largely taken this market, or the buyers do not regard the A350-800 as suitable for the job they want doing.
“Do you mean that the A330 (neo) would erode A350′s business case?”
Yes, but just for the A350-800 at the moment.
Did you ever wonder why Airbus started with “-900”?
I expect A350 versions below the -800 with a smaller wing. Maybe as a big 757 replacement.
Did Airbus ever make a significant effort to actually sell the A350-800?
IMHO it was a decoy, detracting from the -1000 foraging in 777-300ER land.
( Did the sales ever go beyond 100 frames?)
Uwe
March 21, 2014 @ 4:29 am
Did Airbus ever make a significant effort to actually sell the A350-800?
IMHO it was a decoy, detracting from the -1000 foraging in 777-300ER land.
( Did the sales ever go beyond 100 frames?)
Yes, Airbus did a significant effort to sell the A>350-800XWB, which was supposed to counter the 787.
It was not a decoy but most probably it was a screw up during the development.
In the beginning of the programme, the order tally was around 200. The A350-800 order tally in 2009 was way above the total orders for the A350-100 TODAY.
See here http://wp.me/aiMZI-3bS
The market hasn’t changed, airbus priorities have.
The A350 order book is going strong. It just makes sense to skip the development of the marginal successful A350-800 for now and free up development capacities for other more urgent efforts (extending life for the A330 production line, A380NEO).
Let the customers upgauge to the higher priced A350-900 or switch to the A330. There’s not much to loose in that.
“Do you mean that Arbus finally considers that the A350-800 market is inexistent and thus pushes airlines to take A350-900 instead?”
?
VeroVenia, Airbus stopped selling the -800s more then two years ago and worked to extract higher value for initial slots by using them to deliver larger aircraft including the -900 and -1000. News like this somehow evaporates from your blog..
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-considers-stretching-a350-800-394761/
The trend is clearly for larger aircraft and has been for some time. Look e.g. at the A332/ 787-8/ 772LR/ 777-8X order books. They aren’t collapsing because of inferior inefficiencies, its just that the market requirements are changing. Same for the CS100.
The only update I can give you is that MSN21 – the first A350-800 – is now listed as an A350-900 for Qatar Airways on the March 2014 firing order list. MSN154 is now set to be the first A350-800, meaning the -800 will not fly in 2015.
The A350-800 as we know it today will not be built.
This leaves two options: Airbus drops the -800 and launches the A330neo, or Airbus uses the additional development time to optimize the -800 and comes back with a better product in 2018.
I have a strong suspicion that the “new” plane in the 2020’s decade will effectively be an A350 NEO, equipped with new lower thrust engines for regional work, and possibly including a new lower weight wing. The -900 will the main model, replacing the A330-300 and competing with the 787-10. There could be a smaller -800 model with a longer range equivalent to the A330-200.
But it’s only worth bring out that new plane when the A350 backlog is burnt down and the current order boom dies out, as it eventually will do. Then they will have the capacity to manufacture it.
CEO Steven Udvar-Hazy, who has purchased more Airbus aircraft than any other customer during his tenure as CEO of International Lease Finance Corp. and now of ALC, said that the A350-800 is a marginal airplane that would be dropped if Airbus would proceed with the A330neo.
Interesting that GE has a bleed air engine ready and RR does not.
Leftovers from the 747-8, a slightly stunted configuration to
match the limitations of the -8 airframe. This also explains
GE’s interest. IMU the effort to add full bleed is not the strain
it is made out to be ( see GenX-1/2 😉
Keesje,
the 777-X currently 5 customers after launch there four months. Since then, three customers are interested! Immediately, we notice the slow orders of the A350-1000 launched 8 years ago! The 777-X program will not carry as you want us to believe!
The size of the 777X order book was and is overstated. In comparison to other types options represent much more of the announced orders.
Surely if there airlines are pressuring Airbus, then they can put their money where their mouth is and commit to some? Airbus would be glad to launch the programme I’m sure if they could probably get about 75-100 orders to go along with it.
What are the benefits of a A330 NEO besides new engines and more seats?
You can use it out of the box 😉
“787-9 is too small for our requirements and the 787-10 Does not Have The Necessary ranks for around 40% of destinations!”
Yes, not only is hypocritical of Lufthansa to Boeing but also jealous of Emirates!
Anfromme, I remember now, you make my task. CEO of LHA had said in May 2013 it is unfortunate that Airbus & Boeing airplanes define their desires according to the Emirates while alluding they will order 787-10 (for his range design), he has hidden his game!
The hypocrisy is that to Boeing 787-10 do not agree for 40% of destinations but … It’s still strange that these Anfromme 40% of destinations have suddenly need! … Suddenly !!! A330neo in design range is lower at 787-10!
Me it shocks me that nobody noticed this hypocrisy of LHA’s CEO!
LHA don’t like Boeing! Sure!
Thanks!
LH was looking to replace B747-400 & A340-600 so yes, the 787-9 is too small and yes the 787-10 doen’t have the range. Remember the quoted ranges are for passenger with baggage only, while LH flies a lot of extra cargo in the belly. The 787-10 would be a great A330-300 replacement but that’s not what the order was about.
Sad to see people taking the LH CEO remarks apart, it’s rare enough we do get official explanations regarding a/c buying decisions!
Saleem71 said “Sad to see people taking the LH CEO remarks apart, it’s rare enough we do get official explanations regarding a/c buying decisions!…”
Sad to see the CEO of LHA being hypocritical when he says that the 787-10 range is too short, but he is interested in the A330neo that has absolutely no more ranks!
The 787-10’s range is too short in order to replace A340s. A330neos or 787s would be for the replacement of their A330 fleet. Also, LH might be more interested in A330neos than 787 due to the massive amount of commonality shared with the large existing A330/A340 fleet. All of the A330/A340 simulators, maintenance facilities etc. can be re-used, just like what’s the case with the replacement of 747-400s with 747-8s.
keesje,
So why the 787-9 orders don’t evaporate like A350-800? The two have very similar payload range capability.
I gues you mean why the 787-8s evaporate/ get replaced by 789/A330/350s? (Chinese, VS, DL, QF, AA). I think you discussed this in one of your blogs.
??? Answer the question from VV. None of the carriers you mentioned canceled 787 orders to order the A350 or A330’s.
keesje,
So why are there still 495 orders for the 787-8?
Precisely. The 787 -9 and -8 have more orders than the whole A350 program.
Rotate,
For information only, the 787-8 has 495 orders and the 787-9 has 404 orders so far.
It is unclear why some people say that the A350-800 is too small. Perhaps the real reason why it does not sell is just because it is not competitive enough.
Sales for the 787-8 are slightly stalling however.
http://www.pdxlight.com/787b.jpg
http://www.pdxlight.com/787a.jpg
Most of those orders were booked in the early days; as the 787-9 offers better economics with only a slightly larger trip cost, the -8 could eventually fade away like the 767-200/A340-200/A330-200/777-200 did/are doing.
XWB,
Don’t you think they don’t have many 787 slots left? If I am not mistaken there are now more than 1,000 787 ordered and only about 130 delivered so far.
The 787-8 sales may “stall” a little bit, but please admit that 787-8 nor 787-9 orders DO NOT EVAPORATE like the A350-800 orders do.
So is the A350-800 “too small” or is it simply NOT competitive enough?
They did not evaporate.
Afaics most were converted ( and some expanded after conversion ) You should not try to write your own history. This is not the 1984 timeline. Though I’m not so certain anymore these days. )
Then nobody knows what behind the scenes gyrations Boeing was forced to do to contain 787 orderbook contractions.
I don’t buy the claim yet that the A350-800 is too small. The 787-8 is even smaller and still has nearly 500 orders. That’s not too bad.
The picture may be heavily distorted by the differences in availability. The 787-8 simply was the only 787 model available for delivery in the beginning. With the EIS of the 787-9 that’s changing now. 787-8 and 787-9 order number are converging. Is the reason converging availability, the assumed industry wide upgauging trend, or both ?
“So is the A350-800 “too small” or is it simply NOT competitive enough?”
I was not talking about the A350. The point is the smaller variants fade away once their bigger siblings with better economics becomes available.
Past:
> 767-200 vs 767-300
> A340-200 vs A340-300
Today:
> A330-200 vs A330-300
> 777-200ER vs 777-300ER
> A350-800 vs A350-900
Future:
> 787-8 vs 787-9
Some are affected by the competition as well.
“The 787-8 sales may “stall” a little bit, but please admit that 787-8 nor 787-9 orders DO NOT EVAPORATE like the A350-800 orders do.”
I was not talking about the 787-9, it’s all about the smallest variant in the family. If you look at the chart I posted earlier, the 787-8 had about 630 orders in 2010/2011. That figure has decreased to 495 as of today, and more conversions are underway. It’s only a matter of time before the -9 overtakes the -8.
It’s not about being too small. It’s about the larger variant offering better economics. The 787-9 offers 20% more seats for only a 7-8% higher trip cost.
The difference between Boeing and Airbus is that Boeing offers the smallest variant first, hence more sales for the smallest type.
Didn’t most of the A350-800 customer order at a time where airbus still planned to create an optimized shrink? Later airbus changed their mind and decided to make a straight shrink from the A350-900 to save on development effort. The straight shrink carries some unneccesary weight from the structures of the larger plane.
Pingback: Airbus needs A330neo…or another A350 production facility, | AirspaceGeek