More A350-800 orders vanish

Twelve more Airbus A350-800 orders vanished as Aircraft Purchase Fleet canceled, according to the latest tally from Airbus. APF is the special purpose company set up for Alitalia Airlines, which is a financial basket case and probably couldn’t finance a Piper Cub, let alone an A350. In this case, the -800s were not upgraded to -900s or -1000s, according to the monthly Airbus Orders and Deliveries tally. There are now just 34 A358s in backlog.

The shrinking backlog further suggests the need for a refresh of the A330 with a re-engine, in our view. Without the A350-800, Airbus won’t have a competitor in the 250 seat sector that has any current technology. An A330neo with new engines would at least fill some of this void.

Meantime, Delta Air Lines issued a Request for Proposals for 50 wide-body aircraft to replace its aging Boeing 747-400s and some 767-300ERs. Delta’s CEO has said he could be interested in the A330neo. Delta eschews new technology, preferring “proven” technology, which could work against the Boeing 777X powered by an entirely new engine. By the time Delta would be ready to take delivery of its order, the A350XWB and its new technology will have been in service for many years. Delta has a deferred order for the Boeing 787-8 it inherited from Northwest Airlines, and this technology will be mature by the time Delta would be able to take delivery, so the 787 family could be in the mix. So could an A330neo, which would most likely be powered by one of the 787’s engine options, the GEnx or the Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 TEN. Market intelligence tells us Delta is pushing the GEnx, given its strong relationship with GE.

139 Comments on “More A350-800 orders vanish

  1. If Delta take A330 NEO P&W might well be locked out of the wide body business for the foreseeable future, as Delta don’t like new tech., and a GTF wouldn’t be mature. No wonder GE are interested in supplying engines to an A330 NEO. Or could Airbus add a second engine option later? My guess is GE will push hard for an exclusive A330 NEO deal.

  2. I would not be surprised if internally Airbus is already working out integration and production plans for the A330 NEO.

    It seems all conditions are met:
    – A350-800 conversions nearly completed,
    – multiple potential launching customers
    – shrinking A330 backlog,
    – further weight saving/ efficiency opportunities,
    – engine OEM financing,
    – A330F / MRTT opportunities
    – A350 development under control

    Authority To Offer seems near.

    A GENX seems the most win-win A330 NEO choice, ensuring a GE/GECAS position on Airbus twins and expand from its non-exclusive 787 position and disappointing 747-8 sales.

    With demand for the A350 staying high, being more capable the A330 and sold out until 2022 (?) it won’t hurt A350 sales, but continue to disrupt 787 sales/margins.

    • I’m not sure about the GEnx engine. The RR monopoly did not stop the backlog from reaching 800 orders, even AF bought them. And RR have publicly said to be ready if Airbus would ask them to power the NEO. I guess that’s another hint?

      • We’ve been through this several times already. In short, putting the GEnx on an A330neo might be good for GE but not for Airbus; and Airbus, of course, is seemingly reluctant in using GE-engines that primarily have been custom-made for the other OEM.

        IMJ, an A330neo will need an engine as advanced as the RR Advance engine design in order to be fully competitive with the 787. 😉

        • Yes, the RR Advance will have a better TSFC than both T1000 and Trent XWB engines. But it would also compete with the A350-900. Therefore, I think Airbus should keep the range of the NEO to 6,000 nm so it cannot interfere with the A350.

        • Not really. An A330-300neo would become a 7000nm range capable aircraft (pax and bags). The A350-900 is 10 percent bigger and is an 8000nm range capable aircraft; or about the same difference in range and capacity as between the 787-9 and the 787-10.

        • “or about the same difference in range and capacity as between the 787-9 and the 787-10.”

          Maybe I’m missing something, but the A359 hold 314 seats versus 295 on the A333 (diff 19 seats) while the 787-10 can hold 40 additional seats over the 787-9.

        • The A350-900 is wider and has a slightly longer cabin, which accounts for a 12-13 percent greater floor area than that of the A330-300. In comparison, the 787-10 has about 15 percent greater floor area than that of the 787-9. In a typical two or three class configuration, and in a like for like, apple to apple comparison, the A333 and the A359 would have around 30 rows of economy class seats each. On the A359, you’d have one extra seat per row and and an additional 4 seats extra in the back over that of the A330 due to the latter’s aft fuselage tapering (i.e. 7 abreast in the last 4 rows).

        • OV-099,

          It seems you are right. I did some homework by myself. The default A359 cabin has 48 J seats versus 36 on the A333. The 787-10 has only 8 additional J seats over the 787-9. So it’s a trade-off between more premium space or more Y seats.

          Here’s a seatmap for the SAS A330-300 and A350-900, with a difference of 44 seats between the two aircraft:

          That seems a bit more realistic.

        • Yes, that looks about right. 🙂

          Also, an A330neo is perfect for airlines that already have a substantial A330 fleet and are looking for lower cost replacements (i.e. not having to invest in new type-specific flight training devices, aircraft-maintenance tools and facilities etc.).

      • “I’m not sure about the GEnx engine. The RR monopoly did not stop the backlog from reaching 800 orders, even AF bought them”

        GE(CAS) can order 50 the next day. That helps too..

  3. Keesje,

    if you think that there will be 800 A330neo sales against the 787 is that you dream of. .. In fact, if it sold 800 A330ceo recent years is the reason for that is that Airbus had a little respite from the woes of 787.

    Now everybody knows that it’s over! If … the neo is launched s’ sell very little, then the A330 will die in agony peace against the new technology proven 787 family. Keesje also retain the disappointment of sales A350 – 1000 meet the 777-300ER!

    In fact, since the launch of the A350, they s has sold 500 777 LR! Keesje you always use facts to make an against-truth! We must respect those who read here! …


    • “they s has sold 500 777 LR! Keesje you always use facts to make an against-truth”

      Ironic how you talk about facts while posting wrong information 😉

      • Okay XWB, while they are the real figures because you disagree?? There is no irony! Your avatar is a A380 and your nickname is “XWB” I think our discution could be sterile

        • Reading the slide correctly is a though feat.. I’m not so sure Keesje has produced that slide, nor that is about the 330neo either.. Anyway ranting about someone’s bias or non-bias is just tiresome for all readers of this blog.

        • “because you disagree”

          Boeing never sold 500 777 LR aircraft. Please re-check the facts.

      • It looks like an A330neo using RR Advance-type engines would be more than competitive with the 787.

        As for the 777-200LR, Boeing has stacked up a grand total of 54 orders through March 2014.

        • That’s a pretty bold statement, considering even Airbus doesn’t believe that, hence the current reluctance. Even they said even if you put new engines on the A330, it would STILL be behind the 787 and A350.

        • “considering even Airbus doesn’t believe that”

          That was before RR announced the Advance engine. The T1000 or GEnx would cut A330 fuel burn by 10% (additional airframe weight not included). The RR Advance on the other hand is understood to cut A330 fuel burn by 20% (additional also not included). That’s a major difference. A new winglet can cut off another 3-4%, it would make the A330neo very competitive.

          Question is, will or can Airbus wait for the Advance engine?

        • But if Airbus goes for Advance-type engines, won’t that be the type of new technology that Delta eschews?

        • “won’t that be the type of new technology that Delta eschews?”

          It sure would.

        • @Neutron73

          Airbus doesn’t want to say anything specific before they launch. Do you really believe that much more isn’t going on behind the scenes? The advent of the Advance engine isn’t something that has taken Airbus by surprise

          Also, the name of the game is propulsion, propulsion and propulsion.

          An A330neo flying around with an engine having 20 percent better TSFC compared to the Trent-700 on the A330ceo will certainly cancel out the advantage the 787 currently holds over the A330. Hence, my statement wasn’t bold at all, far from it!

        • It looks like an A330neo using RR Advance-type engines would be more than competitive with the 787.

          You make it sound like the 787 will be standing still. Engine advances will make their way to the 787 too.

        • An A330neo will still be competitive with the 787 if the Dreamliner were to be re-engined with an Advance-type engine as well a decade hence. The Trent-1000 engines on the 787 are about 12 percent more efficient than the current Trent-700 engines on the A330ceo. So, even if the 787 should get the same advanced engines, an A330neo incorporating the Advance engine, aerodynamic tweaks and the Scalmalloy® aluminum-magnesium-scandium alloy for structural components, would still be able to nicely compete with the 787.

  4. The results is not 12 A-350 conversions, but 12 A-350 cancelations.

    DL has a lot of options for the WB order, but most current offerings, except the B-77W cannot replace a B-744. I don’t see DL ordering any A-350 versions because of the exclusive RR engines. So, the list of possible WB airplanes includes:



    • “I don’t see DL ordering any A-350 versions because of the exclusive RR engines”

      And yet, the A350 is part of the RFP.

      Many people believed Air France would never take A350s because of RR engines.

      • “Delta eschews new technology, preferring “proven” technology, which could work against the Boeing 777X powered by an entirely new engine.”
        The A-350 versions have all new engines, too. It is the date of the order that will determine which airplanes and engines DL will order, not the in service dates, which will be years later. The date of the order will determine, for DL, the maturity level of airplanes and engines.
        Just because the B-748 is not mentioned in the RFP, does not mean Boeing cannot offer it at a very significant discount to get the B-747 FAL to a point to where Boeing could offer it for the USAF VC-25 replacement.
        But, the most likely DL B-744 replacement could be the B-77W. The B-763 replacement could be any middle size twin from Airbus or Boeing.

        • How does this respond to the fact that RR being the sole engine on the A350, does not mean RR will not order it? And you can put the A350 on the same level of “experimentalness” as the 777X. It’s already a flying, existing plane and 50% through it’s flight test program

        • We also have to realize that Richard Anderson’s recent statements regarding not wanting “experimental” planes borders on ridiculous considering he said the A350 and 787 were pretty far along (when one of those hasn’t even sniffed in-service data yet, and another potentially will have untested engines (A330Neo, maybe)

      • And yet these people are right!

        If AF ordered some A350 it because she had pressure from French politicians!

        AF was not free to choose. She would never accept RR in its fleet!

      • The improvements to the A330, the engines possibly excepted, are not particularly radical. I think Delta is hinting more at all-electric architecture and composite fuselages when it refers to experimental technology, although I have to admit that I don’t quite see where the 777X falls into that category.

    • “B-747-8I”


      “In an internal memo to employees , Delta says it will evaluate the Airbus A330-200 and -300, Airbus A350-900 and -1000, Boeing 777-300ER and Boeing 787-8 , -9 and -10 aircraft variants and corresponding engines from General Electric, Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce.” (subscription required).

      It does not look like the 747-8i is part of the RFP.

    • “The results is not 12 A-350 conversions, but 12 A-350 cancelations”

      There are no A-350 cancelations whatsoever as there is no plane called A-350.

      • I would have thought with newer engines, that the 747-8 to be on par or slightly better than the 777-300ER.

  5. It does make an interesting dilemma for Airbus.

    Offer an A330NEO that sells maybe 150 total to the understandable die-hards who don’t want to give it up, or loose that segment entirely.

    Its not like the A320NEO where there is no competition from anyone as Boeing dithered on the 737 and fell in line offering a me too NEO. That was a case where a much newer aircraft got a leg up on a much older aircraft that dated back in the dark ages of tube engine design (yes you can keep making it lighter to compete, but you also notice fuselage blow outs occur from time to time).

    In this case there is a much newer more modern aircraft to compete with. Keep in mind that the A330 is much like the 737, multiple updates to a 60s design.

    So the business case is how much money do you loose with a re-engine that will never show a profit? Or can you sell enough to break even (not a bad thing).

    It will be interesting, but its a short term attempt at a fix with no long term success as they still cede the market to Boeing.

    While GE is the obvious technical engine choice as they have the bleed air version, that has nothing to do with it. Whoever has the most orders and what engine they prefer as well as RR and how hard they want to compete (another business decision or payback to Airbus).

    • Again, an A330neo using RR Advance-type engines would be fully competitive with the 787. The Advance should be at least 8 percent more efficient than the Trent-1000 engines on the 787. Airbus should easily be able to sell more than 500 units. Please do note that an Advance-type engine for an A330neo would not be featuring a bleedless engine design, hence there would be no easy way of re-engining the 787 with the same type of engine.

      As for the A330; it’s fully fly-by-wire while most of the aircraft — bar the fuselage structure — was designed in the late eighties.

      • And how does the advance engine (2020 ) figure into an A330 NEO launch?

        It does not so you are stuck with current RR or GE offering

        • The GEnx and Trent-1000 engines are already “old” technology. The Advance engine should be at least 8 percent more efficient. It’s a no-brainer, really, that the <Advance engine would become the engine of choice, and incidentally, it looks like its development will perfectly synch with the development of an A330neo programme.

          Rolls-Royce is continually innovating and, as part of that ongoing process, is looking to build on the success of the Trent family of engines with two new generation engine designs.

          The first design, Advance, will offer at least 20 per cent better fuel burn and CO2 emissions than the first generation of Trent engine and could be ready from the end of this decade.

        • Don’t try to explain logical business strategy to these Airbus fans. They believe that the A330NEO will win against anything. Despite the frame being old and dated and the 787 being new, the A330NEO wins in any condition. NEO gets Advanced engines and man oh man you get 20% gains over the newest thing flying. If this entire story is true the 777X will kick the hell out of the A350-1000 and boy Airbus new toy will be dead. And, if that’s the case Airbus will be stuck with the A50-900 and the A330NEO while Boeing has the 787-8,-9,-10 and the new 777X. Who wins 5 years from now. A modern fleet of 787s or a mix of old and new.

        • @17room: That’s beyond ironic coming from you. Do you even read your own posts?

    • “Offer an A330NEO that sells maybe 150 total to the understandable die-hards who don’t want to give it up, or loose that segment entirely.”

      Airbus will obviously not launch an A330neo for just 150 jets.

      Looking at the 200-300 seat market in the last 10 years, Boeing sold around 900 787-8 and 787-9 aircraft, and Airbus another 800+ A330-200/300s. Meaning there was demand for 1,700 – 1,800 jets. Now both Boeing and Airbus forecast a demand for 4,000+ wide-body jets in the 200-300 seat market for the next 20 years, or 2,000+ jets for the next 10 years (i.e. 200 per year). That seems like a fair figure based on the last 10 years and taking future growth into account.

      The 787-10 sits in the 300-400 seat market so that means Boeing will have to increase production for the 787-8 and 787-9 alone to 16 per month to meet demand. I do not see this happening and it should leave room for 5-6 A330s per month, or around 550 to 660 A330neos for the next 10 years.

      • There’s always the option of a stretched A330-400Xneo aircraft having the same 242-metric-tonne increased maximum takeoff weight version as that of the smaller A332/A333. Such an aircraft should be very competitive with the 787-10. In fact, if Airbus were to offer an A332neo/A333neo/A334Xneo family post 2020, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the current monthly output of 10 A330neo frames being maintained through 2030.

        • There is only a small issue: the A330-400Xneo would compete with the A350-900 as well.

        • No, an A330-400Xneo would become a 6000nm intermediate range aircraft, serving a totally different market.

        • Years ago sketched a A330-400. Unlikely IMO. However smaller changes in capacity to optimize the business case (e.g slightly higher capacity then 787-9 with 18 inch wide seats) are possible.

          A 330 with significant better engines then 787 seems unlikely. Better engines would go to both Airbus and Boeing within yrs. Same for the RR Advance with its new materials, adjustable fanblades and gearbox. Unlikely Airbus will wait for that. Continuing the A330 production rates with a 15% better aircraft seems the goal.

        • I’m sure the 787 will get better engines, but not in the same time frame as that of an A330neo. I’d reckon 2025 might be more realistic. The 787 will get the Trent-1000-TEN in 2016. RR will at least want to get some sort of ROI on that engine before possibly offering an Advance-derivative engine for the 787. Also, they seem to be dead serious in wanting to enter the single aisle market with an engine having an even more advanced architecture in the same time frame.

          As for your A340-400, you’ve got the MTOW at 255 metric tonnes and a range of 5500nm. There’s no reason to increase the MTOW beyond 242 metric tonnes and the Advance engine would enable a dash-400 variant to have range exceeding 6000nm (i.e. pax and bags only).

      • Its not just the overall demand, its who wants what.

        If in its glory and the 787 debacle, Airbus has sold and produces 1000 A330s, how is it going to sell more than a small number of a revamped jet against one that is 40 years newer in technology?

        I don’t disagree that there is a segment that the A330NEO would work for and is desired (Air Asia being one and if that is not a shaky operation I don’t know what is). Delta is obviously the gold standard.

        Arlines will say what they want, mfgs have to figure out if they mean it, can they support it, how good are they and in what realistic numbers. You can’t sink money into more than one failure (A380 never to turn a profit).

        The 747 reached its limit technology wise in several areas and its going to be a short production run for the -8. Same for the A330NEO if it happens.

        A300 abandoned the lower twin aisle to the newer Boeing 767.

        NEO only worked for Airbus in a single aisle market where they face an inferior competitor (737 is making a lot of change to even come close to competing with the simple engine change). It would not work against a new offering (other than a 787 production debacle). As particu8alary the P&W GTF improves its going to get worse as Boeing nor CFM can match the upside of the GTF (GTF can move to those same advances materials CFM is using, GE cannot put a GTF on the LEap (and the GTF has its own technology upsides in improving that part of the engine as they go). Boeing will blink on this one and be the first one to offer an all new aircraft (single aisle or otherwise) in that 150-225 size range.

        The 787 will work out its issues and an A330NEO is very limited sales short term solution and its not a viable long term option. Airbus has a gap they can’t fill there short of a new product which is not going to happen.

        Boeing in turn has abandoned a competitive offering in the 777-300 slot and moved upsized and they too have left a gap, ergo the A350-900 and 1000 sales.

        So goes the big dance.

        • The A330 is not “40 years old technology”. Its high aspect ratio wings, for example, were somewhat ahead of its time when the A330 entered into service some 20 years ago.

          The real issue here should not be if an A330neo will be competitive with the 787 — it will, but why the A330 can be turned into quite a formidable competitor to the 787 simply by being re-engined with an engine as advanced as the one that’s going to be put on the 777X, when the 777 itself has to undergo a $10 billion upgrade in order to remain competitive with the A350.

      • What? Who is going to buy them? 200 will be excellent for Airbus. What you don’t understand is that every sale a A330NEO has a impact on the A350 order book. When will the company get on the horse and realize that NEOs are not the cure all. I know Paris will be a big show, but have you looked at current orders recently Boeing is catching Airbus on the narrow body and still owns the widebody world.

        • “every sale a A330NEO has a impact on the A350 order book”

          Perhaps it will, but in the end Airbus can sell more wide-body jets with the A330 and A350 together than the A350 alone can do.

          This chart for example shows how both A330 and A350 can be operated together:

        • In additional to my post above, the A330neo and A350 would allow Airbus to produce 20 wide-body jets per month: around 14 per month for the A350 and 6 per month for the A330neo. We can all agree that the A350 alone can never produce 20 jets per month.

  6. 777x orders stand at 66, like the A358, maybe the economic case is not there. Time to switch gears and build the 757/A300, 150t new airplane in Everett.

    • I will not make you happy to tell you that the Boeing airplanes actually suffer the same fate as the Airbus airplanes!

      TC you have a lot of nerve to compare an optimized with a gradient plane tickets! Moreover, one is between 787-8 & 9 and the other is alone without competitor! Your plan is very bad!

      The 777-X approach 300 orders and commitments!

      • Possibly Boeing learned from the 787. They will not give away the first 300 at or below cost as the program will never recover investment. Looks like a lot of runaway brides to me.

        • Remember Airbus gave away the first 200 A350, when they “converted” the original A350 Mark I to the A350XWB.

      • Interesting. Wonder what those changes will include as one of the premise of the A330neo was to make it very simple and get it to the market fast.

        • This looks very much like Airbus taking a page out of their own playbook from the A320neo program.

        • If they don’t go with GEn2 or Trent then they have time to make further changes.

        • Which further kills their market as the longer its delayed the more momentum the 787 gets.

          What it needs to be remotely long term competitive is an all new wing and then……….

        • IMJ, the 787 has lost a lot of momentum since the heydays of the great “drug-like-rush”. The 787 is basically sold out until the time when an A330neo would enter the market. I would not be surprised top see that that post 2020 an A330neo family should be just about as competitive as that of the 787. As a starter, there’s already a huge amount of A330 operators that can easily fit an A330neo into their fleet without to much of a hassle. For the last 10 years we’ve been hearing how the A330 is soon to be “killed off” by the 787. That sounds a lot like all of the last half century claims that nuclear fusion is just 30 years away — yeah, right!

  7. XWB said :
    “Boeing never sold 500 777 LR aircraft. Please re-check the facts.”

    I repeat, it s has sold 500, 777-300ER since the A350-1000 was launched in 2006. That’s it!

    • LR and ER are not the same. You were initially talking about the LR of which Boeing sold a total of 59 units (gross that is, cancellations if any not included).

      • Two more LRs to go. One more passenger 767-300ER, which has been in production 26 years.

      • The 777LR is program includes the 777-200LR/-300ER & Freighter!

        I did not say 777-200LR!

        But the subject is not there! It s has sold 500,777 +-300ER since the A350-1000 has been launched!


        • You did. Not admitting what you typed does not make you look good on here. Own up to it and move on please.

  8. The slide is offficially Airbus. About a year old, showing 800 A330 were sold since the 787 was launched and announced dead by a large part of aviation enthousiasts.

    I’m sure sure the 777x has 300 orders and commitments. Do you know how many order and commitments the A350 has? Nobody is interested, only orders count. Unless you need “commitments” to boost numbers knowing the bigger public doesn’t notice the difference. “Commitments” were IMO invented when Max needed to look better shortly after its launch.

    Launch of the A330 NEO seems weeks away. Enhancements would likely be in line with earlier studies. Composites tail, LDG, wing, lighter materials, cabin options, cockpit enhancements etc.

    • XWB I think it is (or was..) a business case per business case approach. Cost/ benefits / risks within a limited (4 yrs to EIS) development period. Because the A330 is a 25 years old design incooperating A340 structure and composites, CFD and new metals took off in that period, the opportunities for improvements seem significant. 15% more efficient engine seem realistic (& GE says so). 1-2% for the Sharklets, weight reductions, aerodynamic refinements wing & belly. An all new wing seems out of scope.

      • Very clear, thanks.

        Now all we can do is sit back and wait for the launch.

    • Keesje comparing oranges to apples.

      Keedje you’re so blind (I think not but eyes!) That you compare the 777 – X with all the A350-XWB program. 2 differents programs that do not have the same size and have nearly 10 years of difference in the period of launch!

      You are irrational ! Keesje, you make me laugh! I too am among those who think A330ceo/neo in what form it can not be properly competitive. It will sell too few A330’s vs 787’s.

      Airbus must launched a new program to 2015-2016 or he will give the contract to Boeing in this segment. The idea of ​​the A330neo is not a good idea! We’ll talk! …

    • @keesje;

      “Unless you need “commitments” to boost numbers knowing the bigger public doesn’t notice the difference. “Commitments” were IMO invented when Max needed to look better shortly after its launch”

      Do yourself favor and Google “Airbus commitments”. Airbus/Eads, Boeing and the entire industry use the term “Commitments” routinely. For example:

      “25 JUNE 2011 HEADLINE NEWS
      The unprecedented volume of A320neo orders and commitments announced during this week’s Paris Air Show has more than validated Airbus’ decision to launch this enhanced fuel-efficient version of its single-aisle jetliner family.”

      Note the date above keesje, before the MAX was launched. In addition to the quote above, they used the word “commitments” 3 times in that single press release. You can also find it in numerous Airbus/Eads slide presentations and press releases that predate the MAX. So your answer is NO. Boeing did nothing New regarding the MAX.

      • @Observer: keeje does have a point. If I remembered correctly, yes Airbus was the first to start the lumping of orders and commitment together and it was actually something that was derided by Boeing fanboys and Boeing itself(I remembered Randy Bassler in one of his blog posts taking shots at Airbus that they were doing this to make numbers look better), then suddenly Boeing itself picked up the attitude and started it too. Not sure exactly when, but I do think it was around the time of the MAX, it was as noticeable before and it used to be an “Airbus thing”

    • Commitments do count and no its not a warm and fuzzy for the MFg (they only list orders, we have to add up the commitments). They are not new.

      A commitment gets an airline that actually ordered aircraft in the que of production slots when they need it without having to pay. If all goes well they get them and at often the same negotiated price as the original order.

      Its also a gauge for Boeing and Airbus to see where the program may go, establish production numbers and program estimates.

      It works for mfg and airline and it is an important item for both.

      As in the case of the A380, it also tells the MFGs there is an issue when commitments are not taken up.

  9. Hmm, I forgot to mention that Airbus could put the significanly lighter Advance engines on a fully optimised, slightly larger A350-800 as well (i.e. 7 frame 4.45m shrink instead of a 10 frame 6.35m shrink). MTOW could be close to the original 248 metric tonnes and it would have a range of over 8400nm (i.e. pax and bags only).

    • “Two aircraft must be sacrificed” “the A319neo and the A350-800”
      I would have to agree. The return on investment is not there. Plus, keep the gods happy.

      • TC

        And it would confirm “nine aircraft to certify between 2014 and 207. It is not going to happen.

        Nine aircraft= A320neo CFM + A320neo PW + A319neo CFM + A319neo PW + A321neo CFM + A321neo PW + A350-900XWB + A350-800XWB + A350-1000XWB

        I am not sure when they will certify the A330neo. Is it in 2018 or is it in 2019? How many engine types? Only one (exclusivity) would really be reasonable.

        That’s a kind of very dense period.

  10. There are lots of balls in the air here & it’s refreshing to see such a spontaneous, informative reasonably balanced debate that doesn’t require intervention from Scott, well done chaps.

  11.  Keesje : “15% more efficient engine seem realistic (& GE says so)”…

    Which engine? GEnx? 15%?

  12. Hi, XWB and OV-99.

    We must not fall into the trap of the A330 vs A350 scenario for SAS . This cabin (A330-300) “extreme” 260 seats configuration does not give more savings for SAS.

    The A330 is not a supplement to the A350-900 and is not competitive with the 787, let alone in a scenario of long-haul!

    It’s just marketing for Airbus a war of words that Airbus commit to try to pull orders to 787’s!

    • An A330-300neo should be able to fly all route sectors currently being flown by the A330-200, hence it will be a very good supplement to the longer ranged A350-900.

      As for marketing, I can’t see where Airbus has been talking up an A330neo. Up til now they have rather seemed to want to talk up the strong points of the current offering and not any possible neo offering. For sure though, when they do launch I’m sure Airbus will kick A330neo marketing up a notch.

  13. We must not fall into the trap that most airlines seeks to densify the get older A330’s cabin.

    I think, Airbus is in a second phase of the A340 vs 777 scenario drama …

    We all know that this is not correct!


  14. Yes and no. You don’t know until you try.

    If the fuel issue had been snubbed way back when with Fracking (for better and worse) then the A340 would still be competitive. We now think kerosene fuel is going to stay high but that could change as well.

    Each side defends its turf and you see ultimately how it goes in sales (or more correctional in actual orders, as noted the A380 has a lot of cancelled orders so is now at 2.5 a month and staying there).

    Airbus challenge is to offer if if needed re-offer an A330NEO, see what the interest and commitments really are (talk is cheap) and will it sell in enough to make an investment in not only NEO but other changes if need to get numbers, how long that takes and where that leaves them in regards to the 787. Do you have the engineers to pull it off in light of other commitments.

    Boeing has done and does the same thing. No one airplane is perfect for all operators, its a comprise and a balance for most if not all.

    • Gas from fracking is a flash in the pan.
      Explorations costs are on an upward spiral and their delivery halftime is shorter than expected. ( Expect the US to be on “cold turkey” withdrawal in a decade )

        • Just compare cost for drilling new holes for fracking and the harvest factor.
          As per site flow rates decrease by about 60..70%/year you have to constantly
          keep drilling new holes. Then, you don’t make local friends by fracking. you may harvest gas for a year or two but ground water can be ruined for much longer.
          natural gas prices have to show quite a rise to keep gas sourced via fracking competitive.

          A flash in the pan in historic context, significantly shorter than the oil boom.
          ( compare to any other market where values were talked up into a boom and then
          bust cycle )

    • An A330neo could be a loss to Rolls Royce because the A350 market size is slightly degraded by a possible A330neo sales.

      • The Rolls-Royce investment in the A350 programme is secured for a long time. Just look at the sales figures before EIS. The A350 will be, after the A320, the most successful Airbus programme. And certainly the most lucrative ever. RR doe not need the A330neo badly, like P&W does.

      • This is a bit misleading anyway.

        A350s are larger then the A330s and have a significantly longer range. They are not competitors.

    • For RR it doesn’t really keep them awake at night wether their engines hang under 787, A350 or A330 I guess.

  15. The discussion here is about [airframe size/range/powerplants]offer1 vs [some ditto]offer2, ie the airline operations perspective, largely in utter disregard of respective timelines … whereas Boeing or Airbus concerns center upon brigades of industrial workforce manning sub-assembly and FAL factories … I hear consternation about product overlap between A330 NEO and A350, but fact is A350 is sold out to best-case ramp-up projections, whereas A330 FAL still retains slot availability near-term.

    A natural business-case is there for Airbus to re-adjust the control levers for this first WB FAL to “NEO”, “Regional”, “tweak”, “MegaTwin A336” and/or whatever else is susceptible to keep it purring like a satisfied cat, IN PARALLEL to the A350 FAL.

    Across the Pond, Boeing have TWO FALs churning out WB, THREE with the 767 ! The perspective is as simple as that and as long as WB aircraft are constructed in a Duopoly with restricted throughput capacity serving a high-growth market, the overall strategy mastermind question is what best to do ‘here and now’ not to put the key under the mat for one of Airbus’ or Boeing’s FALs ? Product overlap is not a problem.

  16. Frequent Traveller,

    It is difficult to believe that the product overlap is not a problem between the A330neo and A350-900!

    The operations costs of the A350-900 and the 787-9/-10 for example, will be much greater than the A330neo

    I think, the old machine will have no value against the composite-plastic A350-900 & 787.

    How to meet the growing demand? No problem, the A350 program could easily support a 2nd FAL in Hamburg or Mobile for example.

    He shoulders for that! …


    • A second A350 FAL will start to churn out airframes in numbers when ?
      2020..22 or even later ?
      There is strong demand for -900 and -1000 XWBs. sales are limited by slot availability.
      Any kind of “small” A350 will squat on slots that could be better utilized with the bigger
      brethren. that appears to still be valid if we assume a decission for a second FAL in the near future. ( Tianjin and the US A320 FAL are modelled after well working lines at home. At the moment there is no established perfectly working production line for the A350.)
      Now take notice, a perfectly working A330/340 line exists today. Shifting that to a potential A330 NEO is a significantly lesser task than boosting A350 production on short notice.
      Question: can an A330 NEO take pressure out of the mandated A350 production rise, i.e. take a bit more time get the ramp up nigh perfect ?
      If yes a NEO makes sense. No depression in a350 sales in sight as slots are sold
      well beyond a NEO introduction.

    • Checklist :

      Beyond the initial order intake by an inner ring of “Long Shot Airlines”, other less sophisticated operators will soon discover a need also for A359-class capacity. At the time of evidencing this situation the lead-time for A350 Series solutions will be of 6+ years (as it is today) whereas the lead-time for A330 Series solutions – of typically no more than 4 years – will perfectly suit the planning requisites of those other – numerable – (let’s call them) “Close Shot Airlines”. In particular, Leasing Companies will prosper from this situation, massively investing in planner-friendly A330 Series for interim capacity. The referred market dicotomy will usefully and sufficiently well separate the A350 vs A330 segments to the end result that both will co-exist and prosper, whether there is partial product overlapping or not … same goes for A330 vs 787 Series …

  17. It remains incredible that A (or B) would launch a major new derivative based on being (ONLY) slightly less efficient than the competitor based on having a half generation engine advantage for a potential 5 to 7 years worth of production.

    And it’s a derivative that has been discussed, tweaked, cancelled, re-discussed, abandoned in favor of an all new larger model by the same name, then (now) revived again out of sheer necessity due to capacity constraints on said newer sibling.

    The A-330 is a fine aircraft indeed, but the present dilemma facing A sure looks to reek of poor product planning, which leaves them with a true prisoner’s dilemma; (a) abandon 250 seat market beyond what A330 CEO can produce for the next 10 years, or (b) abandon the upper twin segment to the 777X-1100 which will inevitably happen once A is invested through 2018-2019 on the A330NEO.

    It’s not particularly surprising that the DL (and other majors) looking at a major order in the next 5 years would like to have two viable competitors to work against each other. I’m sure just coming out and saying “please offer us something somewhat competitive that is cheaper up front than what the other guys are offering on a 787, with some semblance of a business case” isn’t ideal.

    New empennage, wing, sharklets, engine, tail, heck at this point just add a slight extension too and composite fuselage panels and call it the A350-700. Seems practical. keesje will invariably anoint it the new queen of the skies through 2100 AD.

  18. The A330 kept selling next to the 787 better then anyone expected, it has production line running at 10 / month from a smooth paid for supply line. Significant upgrades are “on the shelf”, engine OEMS are offering to finance the upgrade, airlines and lessors are asking to move ahead, the A350 is sold out for the next 8 years.

    Now if you were Enders, would you just let die the A330 line? (..again, may I say) The question itself seems unreal.

    Boeing putting new engines under the 737, 2, 3 times, on 747 twice, 777 twice, all smart derivatives, smart business practice. Now Airbus is considering the same for the A330, after the runaway A320 NEO success, people get new insights. Fighting market realities it seems.

    The 787 being “boxed in at the bottom” by the cheaper conventional A330 and larger more capable A350 is a concept most are not ready to face for now.

    “true prisoner’s dilemma; (a) abandon 250 seat market beyond what A330 CEO can produce for the next 10 years, or (b) abandon the upper twin segment to the 777X-1100 which will inevitably happen once A is invested through 2018-2019 on the A330NEO.”

    Dream on texl1649, Putting new engines under the A330, (paid for by OEM) and stretching A350-1000 a few years later. Both no rocket science / enormous projects, but derivatives costing a few billion.

    • Keesje- take the money run but don’t get caught sucking on the tit too long. So you got a blessing from Boeing because they failed to meet the schedule. What’s going to happen next will not be pretty. Have you recently read that the -9 is at weight? Which means the -10 will also be at weight. If the -9 and the -10 are at weight and they exceed performance goals from day one the A330NEO will need to do significantly better than the current specs to keep up. A new engine, and any failure that fails meet performance will see huge defections. Let’s say the Advanced engines from RR are 5% less effective than commitment, will the model hold up? RR failed on the 787 so who is not to say they will miss this deal? GE also has not been a winner on their commitment either. So we go with PW who has no track record in the new world of engines. The NEO has many what ifs and if any fail the NEO is like the -8 is to Boeing. 4 years and the A350 program has the A350-900 and the -1000 while Boeing has the -8, -9, and the -10 which are now meeting and exceeding performance. Do it, but this is not the narrowbody game that Boeing blinked on. This is the widebody and nobody is blinking. DL, Air Asia, CIT, and all of China will push for it because they know Boeing is pushing prices up. Airbus will sell at discounts and get share but what happens when this plan results in the same story as the first A350? Do it the world is waiting to see Airbus put NEO on another program. Do it!!! and if it fails you better have a good plan B because the widebody program at Airbus will be years behind. Those 800 A330s will be the last major sales any widebody will ever have and Boeing will make up the losses they have had with the -8. China is a great region to place your trust. Do it already.

      • “RR failed on the 787 so who is not to say they will miss this deal?”

        Well, the Trent XWB engine performs 0.5% better than expected so it can also go the other way around.

  19. Keesje,

    your condition does not improve! Say it has sold 800 A330s last ten years is not a good argument. Again, you know the reasons for this advantage. I will not repeat! You do not want to change the record, I take that as a lack of respect but also a lack of seriousness from you!

    Just ask yourself what would the A330 orders as today if the 787 and A350 have not been launched? The 787 tear 1000 A330 orders and 700 orders ripped off by the A350-900!

    The truth is out there! And in the next 10 years, there may be still be 800 orders of 787’s and 500 orders for the A350! (My estimate), and IMHO, I think it is more reason to believe that future orders (2014-2024) will be won by the composite-plastic 787 and A350! When the orders of the A330 / A330neo will be the lowest, it will be time to close the FAL.

    This is the most likely scenario in my eyes!

    • RR does pretty well on the TXWB. We still have to see some recent proof for GE getting a non787 engine right, waiting for working Leap engines.
      Both 787 engines missing spec is closely linked to Boeing project management. All over the 787 was a dismal failure in execution.
      Then being “at weight” begs the question “which weight”. Boeing trends to rewriting specs and history to look good. Same with including the various nonhard sales in accounting for market success. Blowing up option numbers is cheap.
      After the grounding there appears to be no acceleration in 787 deliveries.

      • ups, that should have appeared below
        l7room’s post from April 6, 2014 @ 7:23 pm

  20. Exactly … and at an appropriate point in time (more precisely : EIS two years before 777X-1100) the controls of the A330 Series FAL to be subtly re-trimmed pouring out a flow of eg A336 NEO MegaTwins, based upon the 61 m long A346 cabin tweaked with a fifth (over-wing) Type A Emergency Exit (boosting exit-limited seat capacity to 550 pax) with a range sufficiently extended yet NOT OVERLY so as to underbid the economics of its 777X contender on all except 8-10 % of the [UltraLongHaul] routes, leaving for Boeing to pick up crumbles = ULH niche applications, an easy feat thanks to 777X Series excessive Mission Design range/overheavy OWE/big-wing penalty …

    Hardly a dilemma, no rocket science, no big deal : “Cultivez votre jardin” (Voltaire).

    • Frequent Traveller,

      A330-600 “Mega-Twin”? The idea is good but I think he’ll be cannibalized by the A350-1000 & the A380-800! You are really funny idea!

      At the moment …the 777-X do not take crumbs, it has nearly 300 orders & Commitments! …

      Cultivons notre jardin!


  21. “Boeing putting new engines under the 737, 2, 3 times, on 747 twice, 777 twice, all smart derivatives, smart business practice. Now Airbus is considering the same for the A330, after the runaway A320 NEO success, people get new insights. Fighting market realities it seems.”


    you demonstrate a lack of insight scary! I’re already say and repeat that Boeing does not require to undergo what Airbus suffered. If the 737 was re-engined 3 times is that its competitors were not advanced technology, not state-of-the-art!

    The 747, re-engined twice, it was only about 40 years! The 777? A twin engines that kill a quad! And alone in the 400 seater marcket for the 777-X!

    What do you think that old technology can do against state-of-the-art composite-plastic A350 & 787?!

    Keesje, you really need to stop comparing apples to oranges! …

  22. Toning it down a bit, maybe the 737Max is instructive, in fact. I think I have read some comments from keesje noting it is just slightly less efficient than the A320NEO and can only win orders moving forward by being discounted as cheaper. Boeing certainly publicly claims a different story, but I kind of agree with you on this one. But out of respect for consistency in rhetorical argument, what is the reason the Max is a failure in your eyes but the 330NEO would be a success?

    Would success be defined as only 5 years of orders/production (until the next full generation engine is offered on a 787)? And once again (5th time?), what major model derivative have A or B ever launched with the intent of competing on price/unit rather than segment/burn efficiencies?

    Postponing a real rival to the notional 777-1100 by 3 more years to secure 5 years of 250 seat “bargain basement” competitors doesn’t seem prudent or ideal to me. Admittedly, I’m just an armchair keyboard CEO. But a few billion and a few years here and there could mean the difference in long term success for the A380 NEO, A350-1000.

    A few years dithering with an outdated product can indeed be costly (see: AA A320’s). And focusing on the “wrong” parts of a product line where there isn’t a lot of lucrative ways to pick up new business even more so (748), regardless of the emotional attachment toward the old girl. This is why I still fail to see the economic rationale behind investing billions in this new prospective NEO aircraft. Finally, I believe Airbus had a goal to raise profit margins to 8% (or so; operating margin to 10%) by 2015; lowering widebody margins for short term sales doesn’t seem like a practical way to achieve this. But hey, it’s “just a few billion.” I do wish I could relate to that last sentiment!

  23. If the A350-800 is abandoned the A330neo would no longer compete directly with the A350 family because it would be cheaper, have less range and offer less capacity. The big question is how much is it going to cost to develop, which will ultimately determine the asking price.

    Without the A350-8 Airbus needs the A330neo to broaden its offering in the widebody market. The A330neo would be able to retain many customers that would otherwise go with Boeing.

    So I expect Airbus to cancel the A350-800 and launch the A330neo shortly after. With the internal competition eliminated the A330neo would be in a stronger position to face the competition coming from the outside.

  24. What will be the best competitor for the A350-900 and A350-1000?
    Cheap 777-300ERs, payload restricted 787-10 or the heavy 777-8X?

    Look at the 777-200ER replacement orders & Feel the pain. I foresee a re-wing 787 launch within 2 yrs.

    Efficiently moving 300-350 passengers in a decent 18+ inch seat / 3 class cabin flying over 6000NM with a good cargo load. Like the A350s. Thats the gap in Boeing portfolio & the A350 filled it. Randy / McNerney & Conner will vigorously deny this / say the current products are perfect.. until a new solution is worked out. Just like they did with the MAX and 777X.

    Boeing shrunk the 787-9/10 wing in 2009, because getting 1 wing right was enough.. now its getting back on them.

  25. There are a multiple factors that needs to be taken in consideration:
    – The supply-chain for all models. It is easier to have a FAL at 10/month than having one at 20/months, especially when you look at the size of the FAL for WB.
    – Supply-chain is also limited by the sub-contractors, and having two separate FAL, implies that the sub-parts can be sourced from different sub-contractors, ensuring that they can meet the target level of production, especially for WB that require more sub-parts than a NB.
    – A350 is already sold out, just as the 787 is for the next 6 to 8 years, yet their FAL (and their sub-contractors/supply-chain) is not at full capacity yet. Increasing capacity now while there is no proven industrial process yet is gambling with fire. You don’t increase capacity over the max you designed your FAL if you haven’t yet reached this maximum.
    – Using a proven second FAL (just as Boeing is doing with the 777) to increase overall capacity of wings delivered (because, in the end for some airlines, this is what matters) is the smart thing to do. The problem is to try to keep those wings good enough. 777X is one way to keep them good enough, 330Neo is applying the same principles.

    Side note:
    – Comparing the 330Neo to the 737Max is not a good comparaison as the 737 is the only NB offering of Boeing, at a ~40 planes per month, while 330Neo is the second WB offering of Airbus.

    The main issue there is really WHEN and this answers the engine question.
    The rest don’t really matter as 330 and 350 don’t really overlapp that much (medium range vs long range for a start). Only resulting question is booking the FAL until the Neo arrives.

    Airbus did a pretty good job booking its 320 FAL, so I’m pretty sure they know now how to fill in a FAL while waiting for a Neo to come in.

  26. Could it be that Airbus are waiting until they can come to an agreement with the rest of the A350-800 customers before making a public announcment vis-a-vis any A330 NEO concept and the future of the A350-800 (which they always have claimed they will do if there are customers for it)?

    One hopes that Airbus is not flogging a dead horse with an A330 NEO and that they do have enough contact and reliable communication with their customers to make a responsible decision concerning thsi aircraft.

    Last point, while the 777x versions made a big splash at announcement, it seems that not much else is forthcoming in the way of sales or commitments. Perhaps this is another “niche” (if selling a few hundred with minimal design work can be considered niche) that Airbus has decided not to battle for and let Boeing have their way in this segment while Airbus focuses on other products.

    • 300 orders & Commitments for 777-X, this translates into -300 (less) orders & Commitments for A350-1000 & A380-800!

      The big splash (no, a Tsunami) was with Emirates, Qatar, Etihad & LHA. Since Cathay & ANA have joined the party!

      There are Ethiopian & Garuda discution for the 777-X while Garuda wanted the A380 there a year! Saif the 777 – X was not lanched !

      There’s a for Airbus boy for bashing. The 777 will hurt your head!

      I would, my concerns go to the A380-800. The death is near! LOL!

  27. I’d stipulate that it’s fairly obvious the 330NEO wouldn’t compete with the 359 much. Norman Hamel and Keesje didn’t substantively otherwise respond to my points above differentiating (a) 73max failure vs. 330NEO success, or (b) margin objectives for A not being met with this product.

    Yes, it’s pretty clear doing nothing is not an option for A in the lower WB space, but it’s not at all clear a 5-7 year program to sell/deliver new-model A330’s at bargain prices is such a clear business winner.

    No, I don’t think B did the right thing on the 789 wing but why continue to dilute this particular discussion with that debate? Boeing has 400+ orders for the type and it’s got 1000+ flight hours, and will be certified around June. It is true that future tweaks/derivatives offer great potential for improvement for the model, to counter/negate any potential threat a late model 330 derivative may pose; this certainly would support my argument against the business case for the 330NEO.

    • From the point of view of Airbus the customers that are not interested in the A350-800 don’t have too many choices left. It is either the A330neo or they go with Boeing and buy the 787. That is where the business case is.

      From the point of view of Boeing the A350-800 is a fantastic airplane because it helps them to retain their customers. For the A330neo it is exactly the opposite because it drives away potential customers or prevents others from going with Boeing.

      So for Airbus as well as for Boeing there is indeed a business case for the A330neo. Especially if it can be sold at a reasonable price, because widebody aircraft are very expensive. If the 787 had been as cheap to produce as Boeing thought it would we would not be discussing the A330neo today.

      In a sense we could say that Boeing made the business case for the A330neo when it jacked up its prices on the 787. The irony is that today the A330neo business case is strong enough to kill the A350-800. But neither Boeing nor Airbus thinks it’s funny.

      • I can’t see why Airbus couldn’t offer both an A330neo family and an A350-800. An A330-300neo should have a range exceeding 7000nm. An A358 featuring a shrink of 7 frames instead of the 10 originally planned would just about equal the A333 in size. There’s no point in putting a heavy, derated TXWB engine on the A350-800 as the Advance engine would already have the right thrust level required for the A358 (i.e. 75,000 lbs at a MTOW level of 248 metric tonnes); be at least one tonne lighter per engine and at least 5 percent more efficient. However, the A358 would have an additional 1500nm range capability over that of an A333neo. Both Aircraft would complement each other nicely. Also, the A358 should be fully optimised as well and not just be a simple shrink of the A359.

        Hence, the A358 would be a a very good option for operators having a substantial A350 fleet, while an A330neo family would be a very good option for those operators that haven’t yet ordered any A350s but that already have a substantial A330 fleet.

        • I understand your rational for the A350-800, but nobody wants it it seems. Maybe it’s the price/capacity ratio. It’s my new index to measure customer interest. 🙂

        • Well, I’m talking about an EIS for the A358 post 2020. If it were to be fully opimised and if it would using the Advanced engine insted of the TXWB while being slightly longer than originally planned for, it should have about a 10 percent lower fuel burn per seat than the model Airbus originally planned to build. IMJ therefore, it should be very attractive for those A350 operators that would not need the extra capacity of the A359, but that would be in need of more range than what an A333neo could provide.

          Thus post 2020, Airbus could be producing 16-18 A350s per month (i.e. including 3-4 A358s) and 10 A330neo aircraft per month. That would be quite an attractive product portfolio. 🙂

  28. I think a lot will depend on how will be the 787-9 perfoming. If it will perform well, nor Airbus nor customers will be interested in an A330 neo, which will need at least two years of design. Airbus will be loosing cash flow, customer will be buying relatively old technology. I think Airbus will focus on 350-900 and improvements on the 350-800-

    • There is no doubt that the 787-9 will perform as expected. But customers want and need to have a viable alternative. This was clearly demonstrated during the 787-8 debacle. Customers were very happy to have an alternative available at the time. There are many variables to influence a decision like price, specifications, availability, commonality, etc.

      AIrbus had it easy with the 787-8 but it will have to work a bit harder this time and offer a more competitive A330neo. It can be done and it will be done. But the A330neo niche will always remain small when compared to that of the 787. Small, but big enough to compete. And that is what the customers want.

  29. Boeing shrunk the 787-9/10 wing in 2009, because getting 1 wing right was enough.. now its getting back…”


    always a joke! it did not seem to worry about send an article dating from 2009, without informing us 6 tons of excess weight A350-900 in 2014! In 2018, there will be the EIS 787-10 it will be better than the 787 delivered today, of course better than the A350-900 mixes in 2018! Boeing has and will always be a step ahead of Airbus although Boeing has failed to comply with the timetable on the 787! However, the A350 is not better. It happens on that eighth year of development and has not yet been put into service and therefore far from mature and experienced! Boeing is ahead! …

    • I’m just curious, but is the “notion” that “Boeing has and will always be a step ahead of Airbus” something you heard over at , or ?

      • All things 787 is a “fair fan”.
        Add Randy’s cool aid drinking well to the list.

  30. I think Randy should have said: “Airbus is late!” Lol …!

    • ….or, damn! Airbus is running away with more than 60 percent of the single aisle market. 😉

      • I have always shared your viewpoint that Airbus will retain long term a 60% share in the narrowbody market. But don’t you think that it is possible that Boeing will have a 60% share of the widebody market?

        The only reason I am asking you this is because I value your opinion. I know you have great ideas about the options Airbus has in terms of developing its widebody family and I would like to know how you see the future for Boeing in that respect.

        • Well, I’m on record saying that the hugely expensive 777X is vulnerable to an all new Airbus A360X super twin. If Boeing instead had chosen to go for an all new larger WB family instead of upgrading the 777, then Airbus IMO would have found themselves in a much tougher position as Boeing would have had a first-mover advantage and effectively have owned the market segment between the A350-1000 and the A380-800. Since an A330neo IMJ should quite effectively be able to compete with the 787, and due to the fact that it won’t cost Airbus too much in financial and engineering resources, Airbus should be quite well positioned to launch an all new A360X super twin family by the end of the decade.

          IMO, Boeing should have decided to go for a larger 787-11X and a 787-12X using an A350-sized wing (i.e. 20 percent larger in area than the current 787 wing), instead of the 777X programme — AND an all new super twin family. The 787-11X/-12X would have been designed to compete with the A350-900 and the A350-1000.

          So, in order to answer your question; yes, Boeing will continue to deliver more WBs than Airbus for the next few years (i.e. including 747s and 767s), but could find themselves in not too favourable a position by the end of the decade if the A330neo catches on and if Airbus should decide to launch an A360X super twin.

        • Nice assessment OV! It is intellectually honest and makes complete sense from the point of view of a neutral observer. You remind me of CM when we were lucky enough to have him around on Leeham News and Comment.

  31. Lol! Yes indeed,

    it must be admitted, “go to Cesare, what belongs to” this is my motto!
    I do not call me Keesje! Lol!

    Neo is a little ahead of the MAX! But I was talking about the wide body and Randy to reason about it.

    But beware, Max is a little more aggressive this time. Air Canada will replace its A320ceo in 737max!

    The curve starts to close! …


  32. I would add that there is nothing to suggest that Neo is better than Max!

    Neo was launched eight months before the Max. Then Max will change the 737 never had before. If the A320ceo vs the 737NG, were also involved, and that Neo did not change as Max, then there is a possibility that Max is better than Neo?

    The question worth asking!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *