A330neo more likely: The Financial Times of London has a long interview (including a five minute video) with Airbus Commercial CEO Fabrice Bregier (free registration required) in which he says the launch of the A330neo is becoming more and more likely. It remains unclear (and probably unlikely) that the launch will come next week at the Farnborough Air Show, but we don’t think it will be long afterwards.
Air Lease Corp, CIT Aerospace, Delta Air Lines, AirAsiaX and Virgin Atlantic are among those that have publicly expressed interest in the neo. We’ve heard a couple of other names as well.
Although Bregier told us last month he thought the market potential was about 400-500, he says in the FT article it could be more than 1,000.
We’re told there is still some internal division over proceeding with the program, but at the same time signs are continuing to build that the decision is all but a done deal to do so.
Boeing cockpit commonality: Airbus has for years promoted cockpit commonality across its airplane line as an economic and operational advantage vs Boeing. Given the longevity of Boeing’s product development, the 7-Series hasn’t been a common cockpit, though there have been some common elements.
With the development of the 737 MAX and the 777X, this “disadvantage,” if you want to call it that, is diminishing. In a recent interview with Boeing’s Randy Tinseth, VP Marketing, we asked about this. His response:
I don’t think there is any question that over time we have worked to raise the bar across the flight decks, worked to have common training and transition times and we have minimized transition times. We seamlessly transition from the 737NG to the MAX. We have leveraged the 787 and we have continually moved for more commonality. The 787 and 777 have common type ratings. You take your recurrent training in every other simulator training time. With 777X we will look to gain [even] more commonality. You have to find the right mix between commonality and capabilities.
It’s important but not the biggest swinger in the campaign. It doesn’t drive the answer in an economic campaign.
Monarch Airlines, Boeing and Bombardier: Monarch’s widely reported (but still unofficial) selection of Boeing’s 737 MAX for its re-fleeting probably means Bombardier won’t get a slice of this order, a huge disappointment to BBD, which put up a good fight for the deal. Airbus is the incumbent and this will be an important flip for Boeing. BBD was hoping to get a slice of the pie in any Boeing win for the larger mainline jet, with the CSeries taking the smaller end. But we’re hearing Boeing’s ability to offer better commercial terms for a sweeping package aced out BBD’s ability–or lack of it–to offer a similar commercial deal. BBD had hoped for the deal for next week’s Farnborough Air Show. Instead, the headlines will go to Boeing.
Our Farnborough coverage: Leeham News and Comment will be at the FAS, with reporting by our new European associate. Watch for reporting at the end of each day (UK time).
Monarch is something of a coup for Boeing, not at all what was expected & a rare loyalty reversal, it’s encouraging news for Boeing after Airbus’s relentless poaching of Boeing customers.
Unusual as well, lack of focus from Airbus perhaps, rock bottom Boeing pricing, or more likely earlier delivery slots.
Or maybe, just maybe, as the lede article says, BETTER COMMERCIAL TERMS FROM BOEING, perhaps…..
[Introduction Edited as a violation of Reader Comment Rules.]
HERE IS THE TEXT OF THE FT ARTICLE, WHERE I INSETED MY COMMENTS IN CAPITAL LETTERS (as “bolding” or italic do not work!). WHERE I WISH TO HIGHLIGHT, I INTRODUCE “+++”
[FT Text is edited to conform with Fair Use rules and to avoid Copyright violations.]
Airbus has given its strongest signal yet that it will seek to overturn Boeing’s dominant position in the lucrative long-range passenger jet market by embarking on a major overhaul of its popular A330
Brégier, chief executive of Airbus’ passenger jet business, said the probability was “growing every day” that the company would launch an A330 +++with more fuel-efficient engines+++ (THIS BEING A MISLEADING HALF-TRUTH. SEE FURTHER ON!). ASIDE, BOTH LEAHY AND BREGIER ARE PUSHING THE “neo” BETWEEN OTHER TO HIDE THE NEARLY DESPARATE SITUATION ON THE WIDEBODY SECTOR. THEY DO NOT CARE OF ECONOMICS, HOPING THAT THE GOVERNMENTS WILL CHIP IN COVERING THE LOSSES. (reasons see further on), OF COURSE, THE BOARD AND SEEMINGLY MR. ENDERS ARE SEEING THIS DIFFERENTLY.
“If we can find a solution to improve this aircraft I believe it will confirm that we intend to lead the wide-body segment of our market,” he added.
ABOVE BEING A MOST BOLD STATEMENT, AS PRESENTLY AIRBUS IS BY FAR LAGGING, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE LAST DUBAI SHOW COMMITTED B777X ORDERS APPEAR IN THE SALE STATS! (A FACT HE CONVENIENTLY IGNORES!
I HAVE INSISTED NOW FOR A WHILE THAT THE MISLEADING STATEMENT MADE BY AIRBUS THAT THE A330neo WOULD BE SO SUCCESSFUL AS THE A320NEO SIMPLY BY CHANGING ENGINES AND WINGLETS, FORGETTING CONVENIENTLY THAT AT THE TIME THA LATTER WAS LAUNCHED, BOEING HAD NOT A COMPETING MODEL, MUCH LESS A STATE OF THE ART ONE. WHILST THE A330neo NEEDS TO COMPETE AGAINST THE B787.
STILL BEING AS AIRBUS ADMITS IN THE NEXT PHRASE, AN ALL ALU AIRCRAFT
THE TODAY’S A330 IS ALREADY HEAVIER AS THE B787, the A330neo WOULD HAVE HEAVIER ENGINES. THE B787 ALSO HAVING A STATE OF THE ART OVERALL AERODYNAMIC DESIGN, NOT REPLICABLE WITH A “neo”, MAKES THE FUEL BURN ASSERTION A MEANINGLESS BRAG!
He went on to say it may be possible to sell more than 1,000 A330 Neos because the aircraft will be cheaper than the Dreamliner, although analysts are divided on whether this figure is attainable.
ASIDE THAT CAPITAL COSTS, GIVEN TODAY’S FUEL PRICES, ARE MUCH LESS IMPORTANT AS THEY USED TO BE. THE A330 TODAY, EVEN HAVING LESS RANGE THAN THE B787, COSTS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME. THE COST OF THE “neo” WOULD BE EVEN HIGHER!
OF COURSE, IF AIRBUS WANTS TO SELL CHEAP AT A LOSS. THIS CAN BE DONE IF THE BOARD AND ESPECIALLY THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT AGREE!
AND REGARDING OF THE MARKET OF 1000?? A DAYDREAM STIMULATED BY SOME AIRLINES WHICH WISH AIRBUS TO GO FORWARD AND SO PROVIDING THEM WITH A BARGAINING CHIP
WHEN THEY NEED TO BUY B787-8 SIZED AIRCRAFT SO BOEING
DOES NOT ABUSE!!
Airbus needs to take action to extend the life of the A330, which entered service in 1994, because, although it has sold more than 1,300 aircraft, there are just less than 250 remaining on the books to deliver to customers – about two years’ worth of production.
The A330 programme is profitable,
MAINLY, BECAUSE AIRLINES KEPT BUYING IT GIVEN THAT BOEING WAS NOT ABLE TO DELIVER TIMELY!! GIVEN THE RAMP UP OF THE B787 PRODUCTION, A SITUATION NOT TO BE REPEATED IN THE FUTURE!!
The four-engine A380 has struggled to secure large sales – for example, no US airline has bought the superjumbo – but Mr Brégier insisted there was “no urgency” to put new engines on the aircraft to improve its attractiveness.
THEN WHY MR. TIM CLARK IS CLAMORING FOR A A380neo AND AS SOME SOURCES TELL, MENACING TO CANCEL THE 2013 50 UNIT ORDER IF AIRBUS DOES NOT COMPLY (SEE BELOW). FACT IS THAT B.O. BECAUSE THIS TALK AND MARKET ISSUES, AIRBUS CAN NOT EXPECT SIGNIFICANT ORDERS HERE, AT IT BEST!!
IT ISCERTAINLY NOT UNUSUAL TO DELIVER A FEW OVERWEIGHT AIRCRAFT INITIALLY, IN THE MEANTIME CORRECT THE PROBLEM AT THE SUBSEQUENT DELIVERIES AND TAKE LATER BACK THE OBERWEIGHT ONES TO CORRECT
BUT HERE WE ARE SPEAKING (the real figure seems to be about 3.4 Tons) MEANING 3% OF THE EMPTY WEIGHT , WHICH COULD IMPLY SIGNIFICANT DESIGN CHANGES BEFORE THE FIRST DELIVERY (i.e. more delays) TO SAVE COSTS LATER.
Typing with caps lock on is ugly and does nothing to add value to your point. Avoid it.
Sorry! I agree that Caps Locks is not a good solution, but as I explained it was the only way to distinguish what is not the original text, as bold letter are not accepted
As I am new on this blog, could you suggest a better way?? Also, are there a way to make editions??
Oton, when you write a comment, you will see a series of commands across the top (b for bold, i for italic, etc), and if you click one before your sentence and one after, you will get the desired result. Once it’s posted, you cannot edit–only the Administrator can do that.
Interesting comments. Not sure Airbus or Rolls would be caught making claims that can impact performance commitments. Yes the airlines know Boeing is locking up the space and they want a competitive option so they play NEO up. 1000 frames will be interesting if Airbus can book that many, and 400-500 seems awful high as well. If I were Airbus I would put a cap simply to move customers over to the A350 options when they ever come forward. 1000 NEOs at rock bottom prices means 1000 reasons for the airlines to demand A350 discounts. Rolls cares little they get either the NEO or the A350 sales and they slow GE’s control of the space.
The interesting thing that could happen in 10 years or so, if B does prove to own 60-70% of WB orders, what will A do to deal with it’s labor situation if big drawdowns in toulouse happen. It obviously won’t deliberately mimic Boeing with the Charleston/battery fiasco’s, but greater subcontractor component integration/assembly is probably in the cards, and they will already have a more diversified final assembly network globally.
Boeing isn’t planning any layoffs just because Airbus have ~60% of the narrowbody space at the moment. They’re still selling and producing at record levels.
Why would you think this is going to be any different even if Boeing were to get ~60% of the widebody market?
I’m a bit confused why many are so enthousiast about the 777x and its hoped for market share.
The 777X is based on a succesfull aircraft, adding new engines, a new wing and stretched to cater for growth, just like the 747-8. It has gained 68 orders. Boeing started talking about the 777x years ago and the first one will be delivered in 2020. It will have an empty weight 30t higher then the A350-1000 and it’s seatcount is exaggerated to improve cost per seat. The 10 abreast cabin is applauded by all but the passengers.
What is the sales forecast for the 777X? 500? 1000?
Guess the big reason is the 777X will not impact sales of existing frames. The A330NEO makes no sense to anyone except the airlines. Boeing can kill it by driving their prices down to match any deal Airbus offers, or they can offer options to potential customers that drive the decision their way through the incentives. Boeing can offer customers deals on -8s, -9s, and -10s where the overall fleet cost is cheaper than simply buying a A330NEO. All Airbus can say is the A330NEO is competitive to the 787-9, and maybe they can offer discounts on the A350 which might be too big for an airline’s network needs. The loser will be the A350 family. The 777X has no such issues and they real attack is on the competition’s offering. The A330NEO attacks the A350 in terrible ways. If Boeing matches the NEO pricing the A350 price drops also thus impacting the entire profitability of the Airbus 2 hole program.
A can sell the new 50 for 300 at a production cost of 275. B produces the E for 265 and sella them for 270. Now A is thinking of selling a better 30 for 250.
Should B offer E for less than 265?
A produces 30 for less than 200. Which aircraft should A produce?
It seems to me that to continue the discussion of the A330neo is useless, after BREGIER stated it would in any case continue to be all metallic. Performance-wise there would be impossible that they could achieve anything acceptable. Of course they could sell it to a big loss price, end even so, strong airlines would not buy it, as the capital cost are not more so important as before given the super high fuel cost and equally important, the ultralow interest rates.The only takers would be cash strapped smaller airlines.
I would say that the proponent of the NEO are acting out of desperation and that the only rational solution seems to bit the sour apple and redesign the A358!!!.
“…capital cost are not more so important as before given the super high fuel cost and equally important, the ultralow interest rates.The only takers would be cash strapped smaller airlines.”
“Performance-wise there would be impossible that they could achieve anything acceptable.”
Could you perchance give better arguments than “Airbus can’t” for your statement?
After 10 years heavy PR barrage the A330 is still “there” and all factual indication appears to go towards engines being the primary ( if not sole ) factor in A330 787 differences. Not much remains from the original bouquet of superior Dreamliner details that effected the sales rush in its beginning. From today’s view just the A350MK1 would have been an unsexy but fully sufficient answer from Airbus ( and that required it to be strangled in the creche to not devalue investment made by those that had fallen for Boeing PR ).
Next round that tried to kill off competition by dissing was the A320 NEO. And the market already appeared to have developed some immunisation.
It seems to me that to continue the discussion of the A330neo is useless, after BREGIER stated it would in any case continue to be all metallic.
So any discussion about the 777X is also useless? I know the X will get an composite wing but the fat aluminium fuselage will remain. The new wing will even get folding wing tips. We will see when this will work.
My prediction for 777 roll out. July 7th, 20XX.
“If Boeing matches the NEO pricing the A350 price drops also thus impacting the entire profitability of the Airbus 2 hole program.”
On the contrary, it actually improves the profitability of Airbus as a whole. The A330neo will only cannibalize the low end of the A350 performance spectrum like the A350 regionals, which Airbus would have to heavily discount to sell. With that role given to the A330neo, Airbus can focus on making better use of the production capacity by pushing out more of the higher value A350s, especially the -1000s or maybe develop further variants. Allows them to eat more into the 777X market pie instead.
Fair enough, that’s moribound anyway, but the availability of the 777X is the final straw for that programme.
Well, Airbus can give “incentives” as well. Generally, I think you got everything the wrong way round. The pricing advantage would clearly lie with Airbus here. Boeing needs to start making money on the 787. At the moment, they’re still losing money on every 787 delivered. They have absolutely no interest in starting a price war with that plane. Airbus on the other hand are looking at a relatively modest improvement to a type that has paid for itself many times over. Not only that, but most of the development cost of an A330neo would be borne by the engine supplier.
Now, the key to all of this is that Airbus get the A330neo to within ~2-3% of the 787s performance. At least. Otherwise, even lower capital cost isn’t going to make the A330neo attractive enough against the 787’s operating cost.
I would think that Airbus are going to position the A330neo against the 787-8 and -9, and the A350-900 against the 787-10. If the A350-900 is too big for you, so is the 787-10.
Well, it does make the A350-800 in its current form pointless. The A350-900 and -1000 – not so much. As nyx already wrote – the main overlap between A330neo and A350-900 is for lower-range missions. And then there’s also the possibility of an A350-1100, which could end up being a problem for the 777-9X. Although given the current firm sales figures of the 777X, I would imagine Airbus is biding its time before pulling the trigger on any further A350 stretch.
See above – the programme whose profitability would be most at threat if Boeing were to start a price war with the 787 is not the A350.
Just to state the obvious – I’m not saying that everything is hunky dory for Airbus in the widebody segment. They need to get the A330neo right, they need to deliver the A350 (looking ok right now) and later the A350-1000, they need to keep pitching the A380 to recoup money spent on it, they need to possibly give the A380 new engines early in the next decade, and they need to look at whether (and if so, how) to respond to the 777-9X.
But to suggest that everything is hunky dory on Boeing’s side is equally false. They need to start making money on the 787, they need to sell more 777X, plus develop and deliver it on target and on time, facing the potential threat of a stretched A350. They need to say goodbye to the 747.
Oh yes they do!!! If I kill the A330NEO with a huge price reduction to any customer currently purchasing the 787, I take out 34 potential customers for the NEO which cuts in to the 1000 potential sales. So then they opportunity window is reduced, limits the market. What NEO needs is share from airlines who will buy NEO and not impact the A350 potential, and if Boeing chooses to protect their 787 customers they also can impact joint A350 users. Good deals on the 787 family might reduce an airline’s interest for any Airbus option. So incentives can be used to impact other programs which means that creating a rpcing war might have a bigger impact on the supplier who thinks their programs are islands.
Talk about technology taking over and people assuming that new technology is not importart, check out peddle bikes. They now use electronics in their control systems, and we all assume bikes to be dated technology. Although my bike uses old technology, when I do a major climb I certainly want a bike that is light and efficient and I will not buy dated the next time I purchase. Do you think airlines might think the same way? If they do, three years from now do you really think Boeing will need to do as much discounting as Airbus? This is a time thing and when 75% of the market has moved on the other 25% will follow quickly. Airbus, bite the bullet, kill the NEO idea before it kills your widebody program one NEO sale at a time.
Final comment- Boeing is NOT safe and this will not make them more SAFE. The 787 and the 777 will continue to have their challenges, but why put the widebody in your competition’s hands with a stupid idea of trying to keep a production line going? The issue is not today, the issue is 5-7 years from now. Yes the A350-900 can do the upper end of the range requirements, so you kill 59% of your own market with a dated frame? As for the A350-1000, Boeing has pushed that program into a corner by simply placing a upper end on the 2 hole market with the 777-9. Many say 10 abreast will not be accepted but 6 airlines and the 777-9 has more sales than the 350-1000. Here’s the difference in the marketing strategy, Boeing went all in when they offered the -10. Airbus has not gone all in for the A350 program and, from the otuside world, by not going all in on the -800 it appears inside Airbus everyone is not sold on A350. NEO is abd sign and the airlines who are pushing for it know that the strategy is weak. Boeing may very well say to Delta, buy your NEO and best of luck but we’ll see you in 10 years. If Boeing does not drop price, but continues to display 787 performance all the NEO sales are good for Boeing because they display that the 787 a better performer. This could turn out very badly for Airbus and zero performance imporvement on NEO means far less 2 hole market faster. DOn’t do it Airbus because too much is riding on a marketing pitch.
“so you kill 59% of your own market with a dated frame?”
– Where did you get that number from?
“As for the A350-1000, Boeing has pushed that program into a corner by simply placing a upper end on the 2 hole market with the 777-9.”
– More like Boeing moved itself into a corner. They were forced to move out of that market and had to create some new space above it. The A350-1000 has broader market appeal than the 777X and I expect it to garner more sales than the -9X eventually. The latter is simply too much for most airlines out there. True that the 777X has more orders than the A35J right now, but what is it if it weren’t for Emirates? A380 story? We will only know some years from now.
“NEO is abd sign and the airlines who are pushing for it know that the strategy is weak.”
– Or they probably have seen enough real world data by now to know that the 787 costs too much for a mediocre gain for certain roles that can be rivaled by a cheap NEO. This is not to say that they won’t order the 787, however. Just that the performance was not what it was hyped up to be.
“Boeing may very well say to Delta, buy your NEO and best of luck but we’ll see you in 10 years.”
Would they have said the same thing to DL when they ordered the 100 “dated” 737NGs?
When the 7373 MAX was playing Boeing had a different issue. Let’s not mix the two worlds please. The 777-9X was a move out of the corner, because yes the 777W at its end. You are correct, and the 777-9X was the answer to the A350-1000. Boeing moved to a better market position and they chose not to go head to head with the -1000. Thus you are correct. Airbus began saying they were developing the A350-1100 remember that? Which was what? maybe they missed positioning the -1000 because before it had even flown they were making a bigger frame? maybe ~160 sales was not good enough?
Please stop with the 747-8 stories, really who cares that the 777-9X is killing the 747-8I sales. Being real for a minute again, and talking strategy, if Boeing loses a sale to an internal program over losing a sale to Airbus what is the point. If the A380 was eating the 747-8I’s lunch in every offer (which it is) the argument would be worth typing. What we have here is that the A380 had its lunch handed to it when the 777-9X showed up, and by the way the A350-1000 went by the way side too. use your arguments but in a year the 777-9X has reduced the A350-1000 to an after thought. You know when it happened? When BA made the decision to buy the A350-1000 over getting in bed with the 747-8I. Boeing said enough and introduced the 777-9X. Boeing accepted that the 747-8I would not meet customer expectations and killed it internally. Airbus, what’s your next move? Listen to folks here or realize that the A350 program needs real commitment, or all the sales programs will be driven by the A320NEO. Strategy.
You’re assuming that the 787 and A330neo are mutually exclusive. DL and VS both have orders for the 787, and yet have both put themselves into play as very interested in the A330neo. So it’s a bit simplistic to assume that every cheap 787 sale is one fewer A330neo sold.
Furthermore, how deeply do you suggest Boeing should try to cut into the A330neo’s potential sales?
They need to sell and deliver around 1300 787s before making a profit on the programme. That’s ~250 more orders and ~1150 more deliveries than they have so far, and they need to ensure healthy margins on each one of those.
By contrast, the A330neo will break even in or around the 200-300 frame ballpark. As I said – it’s not in Boeing’s interest to start a price war of the 787 against the A330neo.
Technology is important because of the results it gives you. The specific technology… not quite so much.
In the context of airplanes, fuel effciency is a main driver, while also keeping maintenance costs in check.
The 737MAX and A320neo sell like hot cakes without significantly increased composite share. And you can rest assured that the 777X would have retained a metal wing along with a metal fuselage if the current wing could have been tweaked to (efficiently) support the engines and higher MTOW of the 777X.
How would Airbus be doing that if they launched the A330neo?
On the one hand you assume that the A330neo is going to kill the A350, while on the other hand at the same time you assume the 787 is going to kill the A330neo because the 787 is newer technology.
Combined, these assumptions don’t make any sense.
If I go along with the assumption that the 787 is going to kill the A330neo – how would the even newer A350 not also kill the A330neo?
If I go along with the assumption that the A330neo is going to make life really difficult for the A350 – how would it not also make it really difficult for the 787?
Another way of looking at it is that Boeing had to corner itself into the very, very upper end of the twin market because that was the only way they could respond to the A350-1000 with an airplane based on the current 777… by upsizing and not actually competing with the A350-1000.
What consitutes “all in” in terms of an airplane programme, other than betting your future on it?
Marketing pitch. Right. An airplane that Airbus themselves were never really keen on… Leahy wasn’t, Brégier certainly wasn’t, and Enders was very lukewarm on it as well. But the idea got out to them so many times by customers that they actually started studying it.
And you’re describing that as a plane that’s “riding on a marketing pitch”.
In my experience, the more FUD somebody tries to spread about a competitor’s programme, the more worried they actually are about the threat that programme poses.
No, I don’t.
Because they didn’t say that.
In fact, they explicitly said that they’re not developing an A350 stretch beyond the -1000 at this point.
Sales chief John Leahy said Airbus did not need to rush out a so-called A350-1100 or -1200 model to compete with the 777X, which was launched by its rival last year, but added, “There is plenty of time to study A350 stretched versions in the future”.
This was in January 2014 and if you have any more recent quote to the contrary, please do share it.
Anyone who cares about the RoI on the 747-8. Boeing shareholders, mostly.
Interestingly, you’re taking a completely different view on this phenomenon when talking about the A330neo vs A350 and the supposed threat of the A330neo to the A350 order book.
Except that’s not what happened. The 747-8i wasn’t in that RFP. For all that was publicly known, the only time BA ever considered the 747-8i was in the RFP that resulted in their A380 order.
Again – that’s not what happened.
The 777X concept had been bandied about for ages before Boeing finally had LH commit to it, and later still launched it in Dubai 2013.
Don’t believe me. Believe Flightglobal. Back in May 2012, RR was already pushing to oust GE as the 777 incumbent on the proposed 777X, and Boeing had been studying it since 2010/11.
BA ordered the A350-1000 almost a year later, in April 2013. Lufthansa became the first to commit to the 777X in September.
You can safely assume that BA as well as JAL (in October 2013) knew perfectly well that the 777X was on the table when they placed their respective A350-1000 orders.
I need to digest your assessment. But as you write
“”Now, this is a pretty random shot, and I may be way off the mark, but I’m going to say they’re going to re-engine the A330.
Crazy, I know. ;-)””
Can we agree that:
1) If AIRBUS does do so changing only the Engines, this would an extreme bad decision The Board and Enders know so
The only reason would be sheer desperation and the hope, that the EU, mainly France, will dump it on the market and the hope the losses to be carried by these
Airlines supporting this do so obviously like such scenario price- wise!!
The situation here is eerily similar to when they tried to promote the original A350
and even sold it to some unsuspecting airlines, only to be virtually laughed off by the knowledgeable members of the aviation community!
2) If they would perform other changes, as new wings and other hinted by Bregier, the extreme bad would morph — to a very bad idea, especially if composites are discarded
3) The talking point of the “low price”, when even the “classic” A330 is slightly more expensive (assuming logically thair List prices are proportional to the real), makes only sense if they expect subsidies or that the ex=EADS accept the losses.
4) I really wonder that AIRBUS is not afraid to incur again planning and design very public mistakes as with the A350 classic, A358, A340, A380F, to name the more visible.
I see your point, somewhat. The A351 was supposed to be the 77W killer and someday it likely will surpass it but right now, in its current form, I along with others feel it’s not there yet. Sure, the 777x is 30 tons heavier than the A351 and the seat count may be exaggerated to paint a different picture but the reality is that it is selling. Today you see 66 firm, and by the end of the year you’ll have double what the A351 has. To put further pressure on the A351, Boeing is selling the 777x with the 77W and with every 77W sold it is (1) A351 lost. Nobody is ordering the 77W and the A351 but some carriers who have ordered the A351 first, have ordered the 777x afterwards. I doubt that the 777x will eclipse 1000 orders but with NH, EK and QR firming soon, it could reach 300 by the end of the year.
Large 77W operators SQ, CX, AA, BA, AF, UA, QR, EZ, JAL ordered A350s.
The A350 is performing on spec and EIS is sooner then anticipated by all after the 787 drama.
This decade is for the A350. A new reality in the 330-380 seat segment that is still refusing to sink in.
I’d rather not get into the ____ vs _____. There’s no need to mention the 787 delays, everyone knows this. My general point was that I nor yourself are spending our own money for these planes so it’s pointless to argue if it’s 30 tons heavier than the _____. If carriers see it as an asset, let them order it and deal with the specs.
The reality is that the future for the A330 and the A350 families is uncertain and muddy. It’s almost as though the two are competing against each other. Let’s keep it honest. If Airbus loses the EK regional RFP, again, Toulouse may have a problem. If the metal for the A351 is already being cut then I stand firm in my previous statement.
On the one hand you say that the 777X is a great success that will surely surpass the A350-1000 orders before the year is out – all based on 66 firm orders plus some pending MoUs. On the other hand, you’re calling the future of the A350, which has over 700 firm orders and will be delivered in 2014, “uncertain and muddy”. And then you add that you’re not interested in “A vs B”.
I find all of this somewhat contradictory, to be honest.
At the regional end of the A350 family, they are. Other than that – they’re not.
All analysts agreed that losing EK’s A350 order was a huge embarrassment, but no cause for concern for the A350 or Airbus. I fail to see how not winning an RFP from the same airline for the same plane (changing their overall order count by exactly 0) would suddenly mean that Toulouse have a problem.
There is a lot of “analysis” around that is anything but.
Actually analysis appears to be the preferred method of oppinion making and meme creation in the US domain. Competition today is primarily dissing and entangling the competition. Competing on hard product qualities is out 😉
On a side note Boeing seems to have had success in firming some 777x orders.
pressure must have been very high.
“I’d rather not get into the ____ vs _____. There’s no need to mention the 787 delays, everyone knows this.”
Yet, you seem no have no hesitation throwing FUD against Airbus and the A330 and A350 programmes by saying with utmost certainty that, supposedly, “the reality is that the future for the A330 and the A350 families is uncertain and muddy. — well done! May I ask, though, is this business of sowing doubt about Airbus widebodies something that the A-bashers like to believe in -for whatever reason, or is it something else?
Anyway, in the real world the A350 is doing very well, while the A330ceo has done very well since the hyped launch of the 787 a decade ago
Now, the A350-900 is wider and has a slightly longer cabin area, which accounts for a 12-13 percent greater floor area than that of the A330-300, while an A330-300neo would become a 7000nm range capable aircraft (pax and bags); or about the same difference in range and capacity as between the 787-9 and the 787-10. In a typical two or three class configuration, and in a like for like, apple to apple comparison, the A333neo 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).
Hence, an A330-200neo and A330-300neo will not “compete” with the A350 family. Instead, the a330neo family should complement the A350 family rather well. You know, it’s not like the 747-8F and 777F where the latter seems to cannibalise sales of the former.
“”I’d rather not get into the ____ vs _____. There’s no need to mention the 787 delays, everyone knows this.””
But maybe there is the need to mention that not only was the 787 delayed, but Boeing has yet to produce a single 787 at a profit – and the Break-Even point is well beyond 1300 Aircraft. Already, the 787 has accrued $23 Billion in Deferred Production Costs and $3.4 Billion in Deferred Tooling Costs….and the figures keep rising every quarter. And, no one has explained why this Deferred Cost won’t stop growing other than to say something to the effect “We’ll make it up on volume”. Well, I’m afraid it’s a bit late for that. I’m afraid the 787 has already passed the high-gain, steep part of the Production Curve where big gains are easily achievable and is now well into the near-horizontal part of the curve.
As a result, Boeing may little, or no ability to adjust 787 prices to fend off the A330 NEO. As of 2012, the actual price for a A330-200 was $84 Million and the actual price of a 787-8 was about $115 Million – and Boeing was losing Bucketloads of money on every 787-8 delivery – and they still are losing money on every delivery. (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303649504577494862829051078)
Even if Airbus does nothing but Break-even on the A330 NEO, Boeing may lose a lot of money competing with it – if they choose to actually compete. I mean, Boeing may do the smart thing and just minimize their losses for I can’t see – and neither has anyone shown – how Boeing is going to actually make money on the 787 whether they have to compete with an A330 NEO, or not.
Meanwhile, not only are the A330 CEO selling better than the 777 and 787 combined, and every month 2 new A350s are chambered into the production pipeline and the trend will only accelerate (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AlVgPnmHLOovdFdzbVlyQzhYNDhCb1VFN1RkYXkwV3c&output=html).
Like Bob Dylan says…”A hard rain’s a-gonna fall”
I suppose that it is between other the fuel burn, right size and range The typical 407 seat seems compatible, on the lower side, with the 350 of the A350, as the aircraft is somewhat longer and the cabin wider. Also the range is longer. Obviously the customers are able to to decide how many seats they wish to put in and make the cost per seat comparison themselves. Certainly the sale pitches of the sellers are here irrelevant, what the manufacturers must guarantee are the parameters for given conditions as the customer requests
The sales forecast?? A lot!! But a figure will depend what the manufacturers will present during the next 20 or so years!! I use this opportunite to address the way how analysts and media report the specification of aircraft, which may be intentionally provide data with is not comparable and allow both the manufacturers and the fans enter in endless discussions which of competing models are “better” (example Model No.1 indicates weight with full payload (without indiacting the payload figure, the No.2 without)
Even if what I propose here would not solve all the problem, as what is “better” depends of the needs of each individual airline and additional data, it would be greatly helpful if the reporting entity, taking WIKIPEDIA only example, shows the specs of the Aircraft No.1 as they do now, but add the corresponding values for each item of the competing No.2, and conversely, shows the specs of No.2 adding the values for No.1
Pingback: 330 neo - Airline Pilot Central Forums
I seem to have ruffled feathers here because Airbus is on the short end of this particular discussion. I’ll start out by saying that I am not bashing Airbus nor throwing FUD but rather discussing how a product that one manufacturer is now starting to produce, is not where it needs to be. I said that the future of the A350 and the A330 is uncertain and muddy? Do we know if the A330 will be debuted or not? Uncertain. Whats to come of the A350-800? Uncertain. Will Airbus have something to counter the 777x program with a larger wb twin, perhaps the A350-1100? Uncertain. How is Boeing going to fill in the production gap between the 77W and the 777x? Muddy. This is unbiased common knowledge.
I said “It’s almost as though the two are competing with each other”. I added the word almost to give the reader the sense that it is not a definite thing.
EK orders 70 planes then cancels them to later say here is what we want, what can you give us? (the 2nd RFP) If Airbus is cutting or soon to start cutting the metal for the A351 and the Boeing offering is still in the design phase, which model do you think has a better chance of getting the order? The 787-10 EK is a different airline but I’m almost sure that it ordered the A351 on some of the same merits that the rest of the world did. With that said I think that if the 787-10 wins, then
All in all, I have nothing against the Airbus 350 and 330 programs. It’s aviation and that’s why we are all here. My opinion is that while 700+ orders is great and delivering in 2014 is awesome, there are some areas where Airbus has to make some big decisions. You don’t have to agree with me and my opinion. Lets discuss this are share thoughts and opinions about the topics at hand.
You porr baby!!!. You made your bed now live in it!!! You have valid points and they should be expressed despite the feedback. Maybe someone from Airbus will read them and really think about the real challenges and not address the comments from an emotional prospective. Poeple fail to see that the 777-9X has won more orders tahn the A350-1000, and whether large 777-300ER customers have purchased the -1000 means little to whether there is long term viability for the -1000. That may be strange to say, but markets change and size of demand drives aircraft size. As with EK, orders are canceled and that can happen again. If the 777-9X becomes industry baseline the A350-1000 may have all the orders it will ever have. If 787 customers see signficant performance and reliability improvement over currently used frames, the price of a A330NEO will be meaningless. No one will care that it was three years delayed because performance today will drive decisions. Airbus needs to move forward with the A350 program, establish clear direction, and support that direction by offering value. Here’s a datapoint and if it happens Airbus will have a real challenge. EK locked up the 777-8 and -9 orders ahead of the airshow. If, at the airshow they announce an agreement for 787-9s and -10s to replace the A350-900 and -1000 orders, what then?
Folks, the NEO concept might be a nice paper story, but real performance will drive decisions. The 787-9 will fly soon and it is 3 MIL pounds lighter than design, there have been lessons from the -8 and those lessons will go up to the -10. The -10 will become the benchmark of regional widebodies, not the -9s. Yes the A330NEO will have new engines but like the bike, when you climb a hill with new technlogy less energy is required. I love my current bike but I would never pay less money to buy it again over spending a few more dollars to get a newer technology easier riding bike. Look at the tour times are they not coming down because of (drugs) and new technology. The ship is getting ready to sail and you better understand everything that can be done should not be done because the future is the future not the past with a whole lot of NEO.
“”Folks, the NEO concept might be a nice paper story, but real performance will drive decisions.””
Yeah…but the A330NEOs will cost a lot less than the 787s and, as a result, be more profitable for the airlines. Because the 787s are so expensive to build, Boeing will probably not be able to offer better deals on the 787.
Or…who says Airbus may even want to make money on the A330? I mean, Airbus could price the A330NEO at cost, or even a bit below cost, in an attempt to utterly destroy any hopes of the 787 making money and wreck Boeing’s Balance Sheet in the process. Then, Boeing would enter the next decade being financially crippled and without the capital to ever build a new jetliner. (I’m just thinking aloud here)
Same with the A350-1000. Airbus could be waiting for Boeing to get fully committed to a very-expensive 777x redesign and then drop prices on their A350-1000 so they will sell like crazy. As a result, the 777x program could be financially wounded.
There’s a lot of options here.
“Poeple fail to see that the 777-9X has won more orders tahn the A350-1000…”
– Sure, the 777-9X has more orders than the A35J, but with 70% being locked up by a single airline, it’s too early to make any meaningful market share comparisons.
“…and whether large 777-300ER customers have purchased the -1000 means little to whether there is long term viability for the -1000. ”
– That large 77W customers have purchased the -1000 means that Boeing no longer enjoys a free rein on this market segment and they have to fight for it.
“I love my current bike but I would never pay less money to buy it again over spending a few more dollars to get a newer technology easier riding bike.”
– Really poor choice for a comparison.
In my opinion the bigger question is, what is happening in the center of the market, 300-350 seats long haul, the segment the 777s used to dominate.
Boeing is pitching the payload-range restricted 787-10 and super heavy 2021 777-8X here.
W’ll have to see how they stack up against the benchmark A333(NEO), A350-900 and A350-1000.
I think both Airbus and Boeing HQ’s already know the answer. Blunt denial works bad and I expect further action to restore balance.
Did Monarch Airlines buy the 737-7 Max, or just go with 737-8, -9 Max? Because if they didn’t buy the -7, wouldn’t it be conceivable they would use the CSeries 300? Especially, if they were already using A319s?
“Can we agree that:…”
To sum up your rant: “Airbus is terrible”.
However, I’m all ears as to what you think Airbus should do to avert their impending doom and stay in the market. What would be your plan?
I think the fate for Airbus was sealed when they chose to market and produce the A351 to takeover the 77W. It will succeed it, just not right now. New design to takeover a oooolld design. Doesn’t make sense to me. What they SHOULD have done was let Boeing eat up the rest of what’s left in terms of 77W sales and design a more capable twin, essentially leapfrogging the A351 and going with a hybrid of CFRP, a plane with better cargo capabilities than the current 77W, go 10 abreast, etc. Airbus should have known that the 77W would not sail on forever as one of the best wb twin aircraft since the early ’90s. With that foresight, things might be different today.
A359 is just fine the way it is. But the thing is what Airbus wants to do with the A358 and the A330 family. I would let the A330 sales dry up and produce something better than the old design with new engines and minor modifications. What the A330 NEO wants to do is be a 787-8,9 with new engines and the minor modifications but how do you market and produce something that will be extinct in … 10 years or so to only go back to the drawing board and begin from scratch. They’ll win a handful of orders from Asia and perhaps Europe (Virgin) and in the US with Delta. But what then. I just hope there’s more than just a new engine here at play.
In closing Airbus needs to address :
1) how to price the NEO so that you can make a good margin without giving it away.
2) the next clean sheet wb twin aircraft
3) making the A351 and the A380 better in the interim to fend the 777x
4) what direction to take A358 holdouts. They already don’t want to go higher with the -900 and the NEO will be a lateral move in terms of capacity and sales, with the only gains being fuel burn and better CASM. But if you’re going to go through all that trouble, lease a 787-8,9. But that’s just me.