Airbus cleared the air about the A330neo, which we concluded was a must last December, and made the 2014 Farnborough Airshow go off to an exciting start. A lot has been speculated about the A330neo, and in the end it did come out a bit stronger than what most had anticipated. Some of that is marketing but a lot is real, and here we give a first assessment of what was launched.
Let’s start with the specifics as given by Airbus and Rolls-Royce today in presentations and discussions. Here are the A330-800neo and -900neo’s main features:
– New Rolls Royce T7000 engines based on the T1000-TEN with CFRP nacelles from SAFRAN using nacelle technology developed for the A380. We understand the nacelles will have laminar flow leading edge shapes, pylons are from Airbus Toulouse.
– New wingtips based on the curved winglets that were developed for A350.
The new winglets are made from CFRP and extend the A330neo span from 60.3m to 64m, more than anticipated. They are still called sharklets.
– An adaptation of the wings twist to reshape the changed pressure distribution the new wingtips generate to the most optimal distribution for the aircraft. Airbus also optimizes the inner slats outer shape to improve the wings cruise aerodynamics.
– A cabin which is derived from the A350. Both business and economy cabin now look like in the A350, featuring modern IFE/connectivity,
mood lighting and electronically regulated air-conditioning. By using Spaceflex, smart lavatories and an optimized cargo bay crew rest, housing both flight crew and cabin crew, the seat count can be increased with six seats. The cockpit adopts technology from A350 giving increase cockpit commonality with the A350 range.
– Lowered maintenance costs. In total the A330neo will require 50% fewer maintenance man-hours over 12 years; this will reduce the direct maintenance costs by 5%.
– A330neo weights and range as given in the table from today’s Airbus presentation:
Noteworthy are the kept Max Take-Off Weights and increased Max Zero Fuel Weights to keep max payload the same as the A330ceo, despite the A330neo weighing almost 5t more empty.
The changed characteristic of the A330
The marked increase of wingspan and empty weight will change the character of the A330. Were it previously most efficient on short-to-mid-haul missions, it will now use its efficiency gains most effectively on longer haul. Today’s Airbus presentation gives a good picture of the long haul gains:
If we leave the per seat gains for the moment and focus the 12% trip fuel gain, this is valid for 4,000nm missions and beyond. For the common 2,000nm missions or below, the increased weight will negate most if not all of the projected fuel consumption improvements. This has also been confirmed by Airbus VP of Strategy and Marketing, Kiran Rao, in press quotes in the days leading up to Farnborough. What this all means in detail will be subject of deeper analysis with our proprietary airplane model. We will present our overall findings here and put the detailed results in an updated version of our 60 page A330neo report.
For now we can see that the A330-900neo will be as good as today’s A330ceo on short haul but not really better. It will, however, be considerably more efficient on the longer haul 8-10 hours Trans-Atlantic and intra-Asia networks. As the typical A330-300 route of today has an average stage length of 2,000nm, we can see that the A330ceo’s attractiveness will not be gone, but will still be a good alternative for short-haul networks with high capacity requirements. Now that the ambiguity hanging over the A330 program is gone, it should not be difficult to sell the 200 open slots that remains until the A330neo is planned to fully replace the A330ceo production end in 2018. How close the A330neo comes to the efficiency of Boeing’s 787 will be the subject of our next assessment.
The A330neo will be competitive with the in the 250-to-300 seat category, competing with the 787-8/9, complementing the A350-900 and competing with the 777-200ER. Boeing insists on comparing the A330-900 with the 787-10, though the latter carries at least 20 more passengers. We will be taking a look at the Boeing claims that the 787-10 is 30% more economical than the A330-900.
The end result of today’s launch is that Airbus and Boeing enters a new era in widebody competition with very similar yet opposite line-ups. Where one has the derivative spreading its wider wings on the low end (Airbus), the other choose to let the wider wing stretch on the top end (Boeing). They both share the rationale for the derivatives increased wingspan, to carry heavier legacy (aluminum) fuselages.
By Leeham Co EU
Thanks for the very interesting summary! Do you still think their sales target of 1000 copies are too high?
“For now we can see that the A330-900neo will be as good as today’s A330ceo on short haul but not really better, it will however be considerably more efficient on the longer haul 8-10 hours transatlantic and intra Asia networks.”
However, you stated:
” A330-300 to around 6,000 miles. But Airbus also says that a majority of the flights of the aircraft are 2,000nm or less—“regional” service within Asia, Europe and the Middle East.”
If your July 2013 statements are correct then doesn’t that somewhat negate the A339NEO (as compared to the A333) for many “regional” services?
I think that’s where the lower weight derated A330 Regional with 400 seats will come in.
I just think everybody may be happy with 500 orders, and RR with 1000 + engines, just a cheap derivative from the T1000 Ten, with some TXWB adds, going to benefit the B787 too (This has been previously announced, when the Ten has been launched ) !
More orders are just a bonus !
I hope the A330 NEO is going to get a serious (And not commented) Weight rip out, so the induced overweight, may be largely overcomed, through the next years ….
I guess an AirAsiaX order must be close? Rather funny JL saying the only noticeable difference between B787 and A330NEO will be the A330’s wider seats when one of the most likely early customers will certainly use Airbus’ LCC seating with seats that are “only” 1/2 a thumb width narrower than the B787’s.
So just what airliners is the A-338/9 competing head to head against? The B-788/9/10? The A-358/9/10? The A-332/3?
The fuel burn improvements are measured against the A-332/3.
For 2000-3000-4000 nm missions, the A-333 is not as efficient as the B-763/4, but it does carry more pax. The max pax only comes into play if you fill every seat, or at least 95% of the seats on the airplane. An empty seat is not generating any revenue, and is actually an operational cost for that mission. That is true on any airplane.
Before anyone jumps on me about the B-767, I remind you it is still in production and available for sale from Boeing.
Yes, the B-767 has not had any aerodynamic improvements since the blended winglets (B-763ER) or raked wingtips (B-764ER) were added about 10-12 years ago.
But should Boeing decide to introduce an updated version, the B-767MAX (I know we have talked about this here many times before and we do not think Boeing has any plans to update the B-767), they already have the engine, in fact they have two engines, the GEnx-2B, and the RR Trent-1000-TEN. Just hanging the GEnx-2B engine, the same engine on the B-747-8, would be a quick and easy update. Of course, there will still need to be a flight test program and a STC.
That said, I believe there are about 50, or so B-767s (not counting the KC-46A) yet to be delivered, all but one or two are freighters. That is about 2.5 years of delivery slots at the current rate of about 1.5 airplanes per month.
Why are you comparing the A330neo to the 767? The current A330 has left the 767 trailing in its dust to the point where nobody is buying passenger 767s any more. The A330neo just makes the 767 a laughing stock.
When the World’s largest 767 operator order additional A330s rather than more 767s, you know it’s time to move on.
People are too stuck on the idea that the 767 is a 330 competitor…it’s not…and never has been, at least at the -2/300 sizes. The 330 is 80,000lbs heavier than a 762. That’s an entire, loaded 320 difference in empty weight.
On the other hand, a 762MAX slots almost exactly between the 330/788 and the 739MAX/321NEO…right where a true 757 replacement would fit.
It might not sell a ton of passenger models but it would be a perfect 767/757 upgrade for FedEx and UPS…as well as a money saver for the USAF. The -2B’s would fit nicely under a 767 wing…add some more aero tweaks like scimitar winglets, base it on the tanker for economy of scale, and we have a cheap and easy upgrade good for 15% fuel burn improvement.
There is a huge gap between the large single aisles and the smaller twin aisle aircraft. At some point, as the 310, 300, 767 and 757’s get too old to maintain, somebody will want a replacement, and there is only one aircraft affordable enough that fits in there…the 767.
It makes sense to compare the A330 to the 767. They come from the same era and that is good enough for an Airbus comparison? The A330-800 flies further than the 787-8 and carries more as well, right? The A330-900 carries 10 more passengers than the A330-300 and at the increased seating is more competitive than the 787-9 or routes the -9 was not designed to perform. The A330-900 does not fly as far, but it addresses 95% of the route needs of airlines, so why not continue the analysis? One of the aircraft will be in the hands of customers by Q4 of 2017. And, it will have pneumatic systems changed to electrical control? Bleed air no more? An aircraft that is 20 years old is getting a major face lift and that major change will only require less than three years? If Airbus is to remain in the widebody world this aircraft better hit 100% of its marks by due date.
I guess the only major issue with any of this deals with the versatility of the A330NEO. If every flight is more than 2000nm and the flights are 100% full 100% of the time the NEO is a winner. When the airline wants to expand it’s network with lower capacity flights, or it runs at 70 to 77% load factors the NEO fails to be the value play. I guess the commonality factor for parts is going out the window too. The engine and wings are different, so assume the gear will also be different. Those were known known. The change to increased electrical control removes those parts from the A330 bin. Then the interiors are now matching the A350 and not the old CEO, so that removes those parts from the bin. I guess if you get the frames for rock bottom prices the ownership costs are cheaper, but the long term maintenance may not be as claimed.
I know people will say I’m just being against the program, but this story will be a challenge. When Airbus did the A320NEO they middles were much closer and in this case the middles are so different and the amount being played for are big. A miss means the A350-900 and the -1000 are impacted. A delay in the program means the viability of the program is impacted because the 787 increases share against the A330 installed base. Keep in mind also that many of the current A330s will be going to different fleets or to the parking lots. This is much riding on this program now because the bottom end of the widebody market will be lost for 15 years.
l7room, 767 and a330 are significantly different examples from “back then”.
767 is a rather conventional design even for when it was new.
A330 just like its sister A340 is FBW controlling a rather advanced airframe for its time.
The A330 to a significant part rides on FBW for its keeping up with the Joneses 😉
@17room the A330neo is not becoming an electrical aircraft. The bleed air control is just being changed from being pneumaticlaly controlled to being electrically controllled, like on the A380, it’s not a major change. Please stop repeating the same wrong nonsense, you’ve done it in two articles now.
Why does it need to compete head to head with anything? Can’t it not exist on its own merits with a niche of its own?
The fact that A and B planes do not compare exactly is a source of much confusion and debate on this and other sites. The constant need to define the best ac in each percieved “pair” while amusing is quite useless and not value adding.
“But should Boeing decide to introduce an updated version, the B-767MAX…”
What? The 767 is a Loser…nobody wants it! Even the Air Force had to be commanded to accept it as a tanker. So…why would Boeing spend a lot of time and money to create a 767 “Maximum Loser”?
Pi*ing into Airbus soup ? ( cue “The War of the Roses” (1989) 😉
This A330 neo looks great and will be reliable and efficient. The 8 abreast seating will likely make it the most comfortable medium-long haul cabin of all wide bodies. Try it for yourself. Get on an A330 and a 777 for 6 hours and see. There should be high hopes for the aeroplane.
For those who call it a 20 year-old model, they are basically wrong. It is an up-to date plane which will have the A350 cockpit and interior cabin, advanced engines, laminar flow nacelles, and much more. The only tangible advantage the 787 will have is the carbon fiber fuselage. Nothing else. Future PIP’s will likely also further improve efficiency.
Remember that the 737 and 747 are actually from the 60’s, so that argument of being a 20 year old plane is basically two-faced. Same goes for the 777.
Looks like the A350-800 is history. How many incarnations has the A350 program had now – three? Airbus appears to be swapping out the A350-800 for a less efficient airplane. I am guessing the folks in Seattle are popping the bubbly tonight. They will own the small-to-medium widebody category over the next twenty years.
The 787-3 was history too, what does that prove. That more seats brings in more revenue especailly when fuel costs are high
I read recently that Boeing wont put all the possible upgrade into the 787-8 that are going into the 787-9 and 787-10. Do you think this aibus launch will put prasure to put more improvements into the 787-8?
Given the weakness in sales for the A350-800 I can understand the A330-800. The A330-900 is more of a mystery. It is sitting virtually on top of the A350-900. Doesn’t Airbus realize that airlines will play the two airplanes off against one another. I would be worried that it will destroy the pricing for the A350-900. Airlines will try to get the capability of that the A350-900 for free.
The theory is that if you don’t need the 8,000+nm range of the A350-900, go for the shorter-range A330-900. Airbus is positioning the airplanes as complementary, not competitive.
It also means that Airbus can dedicate more A350 production capacity to the -1000. They can still churn out a total of 10+/mo 250-300 seaters from both programs.
And also, orders for either frames will ride on availability. If the A350 is booked full, go for the A330neo. If in the unlikely situation the A330neo is booked full, go for the A350.
Your production point is something that shouldn’t be ignored. Check Boeing’s CMO for projected sales of planes in this segment over the next 20 years. Boeing can’t fill it on their own. Frankly, it’s a great move by Airbus to leverage the amortised A330 production line and supply chain.
The A350-900 is significantly more plane than the A330-900. It will take around 40 more passengers and carries more payload much further. They’re clearly aimed at two different market segments.
I don’t think this 40 more passengers figure is correct. The chart in Scott’s article from Airbus indicates the A330-900 has 310 seats in standard seating. The Airbus website indicates 315 seats is standard seating for an A350-900
The airplanes appear to be virtually on top of one another from a capacity perspective which strikes me as a very bad idea. Scott- It would be interesting to get the Airbus position on this.
Their position is that for those airlines who don’t need the range (and weight) of the A359, the A339 will do just fine, thank you very much. Airbus’ position is the planes complement each other.
Airbus actively (and visibly) rebooked -800 orders to -900 and seems to have discouraged ( not so visible ) further -800 orders long before they started ( visibly ) working towards the A330 NEO.
The time constraints that reduced the bespoke -800 to a shrink -800 reduced its utility.
But keep in mind that the manufacturing methods that will reduce the -1000 weight will also enable to return to an advantaged -800 airframe later on.
At times I have been thinking that the -800 may have been nothing more than a decoy to keep up the (wrong) impression that the XWB competes mostly against the 787 and not with the 777(x).
This it definitely the glass is 10% empty view instead of 90% empty.
The A350-800 was a debacle. The notion that it might be an advantage long term is fanciful.
You should not answer a factual enumeration with wishful thinking ;-?
They will trickled down if the cost benefit justifies it (in Boeings eyes)
The -8 is not going to be the main bird so it will get less attention. -9 na d-10 will be the ones the effort it put into.
Also no need as Airbus has nothing to compete down there. Arguably not to the -200 size either.
Of course what we need is someone profiling an airline and how they pack em en and do a direct across comparison.
And a full 767 is far more efficient than a 60% full A330. If you don’t have the pax numbers then you are not competitive.
Interesting dance on how it average out for each airline.
I would say this is a “Play it Again Sam”
1. Wasn’t it Hazy who said a warmed over A330 was not going to cut it. Now the biggest fan. hmmm
2. Isn’t this the same place where we came in with Ver 1.0 (which seems a lot like Ver 2 and 3.0). 4.0 being the A350 in case anyone is wondering but I may have that wrong as I have lost count. “How many versions I wonder, but you really don’t want to know”.
3. Its going to sell 1000. Ok, we build the A350 why?
4. If this Rev of the A330 is that good, shouldn’t we have built a direct competitor to the 777?
5. If the 800 the same as the A350-800 or ?
6. Doesn’t this shoot all to hell the A330 Chinese regional?
1 – Yes, it was. And they say Americans don’t ‘do irony’.
2 – Who cares, they’re selling hundreds of large planes.
3 – Because the A350 will sell thousands as well.
4 – They have, it’s called the A350.
5 – No, it’s not.
6 – Not at all.
According to 6th: Is it necessary at all for the 330-300R to have a new engine option?
I guess the Chinese gambled and lost to order the 330-300CEO early enough. The price for any 330 will rise now.
Maybe Airbus are sending the Chinese a message? We are tired of being a political football? We’re sick of your mind games? Your economy is slowing down anyway? If you wanted some of the work you had to come to the party? Now stand in line like everybody else.
Well, Airbus still has to see a good number of ceos to bridge the production gap to neo. Provided they can sell enough, I’d also expect some overlap in production (though every ceo built after Dec 2017 will be one less neo available).
“We will be taking a look at the Boeing claims that the 787-10 is 30% more economical than the A330-900.”
– They said that??? Didn’t they say that the 787-10 is 30% more economical than the A330-300?
“President and CEO Ray Conner said at the launch event in Paris. “The 787-10 is 25% more efficient than airplanes of its size today.”” – http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/boeing-launches-787-10-major-orders
…which I imply it to be the A330-300. What has changed?
The 787-9 has replaced the 777-200ER in launch customer Air NZ, and since there havent been any deliveries of that model for a few years we can assume its the same for other long haul
Actually the 787-9 is replacing the 767-300er @ Air NZ. The 777-200er are undergoing a complete cabin refresh and can be expected to stay in the ANZ fleet for a further 6-10yrs
Jon Ostrower @jonostrower 4h
Boeing’s Scott Fancher: 787-10 hit firm configuration in April, says jet is 30% more efficient v. A330-900neo, (Airbus: Neo v. 787-9) #FIA14
LOL at Scott Fancher!
Only 30%, I’m surprised. I fully expected that it would be at least three times as efficient!
I would compare a 300 seat A33-9 to a 360 seat 78-10. I would guess 20% better CASM at best. How good are the 78-10 engines, how much does it cost, and when can you get one are big variables.
“We will be taking a look at the Boeing claims that the 787-10 is 30% more economical than the A330-900.”
As I remember Boeing did the 787-8 comparison against the 767. On the other hand the 787-10 is far bigger than the A333CEO. So why not compare the economics of the 787-10 against the A380?
I can see only possible solution for the 787-10 to be 30 % more economical than the A330-900. The A330-900 flies about 7,000 nm with a reduced pax load…
According to Fabrice Bregier told at this press conference that the A330-800 will consume “slightly less” fuel compared to the 787-8 and the A330-900 will also consume less fuel compared to the 787-9 “or well let’s say equivalent”.
An import remark. You state:
“If we leave the per seat gains for the moment and focus the 12% trip fuel gain, this is valid for 4,000nm missions and beyond. For the common 2,000nm missions or below, the increased weight will negate most if not all of the projected fuel consumption improvements.”
This statement is wrong.
The benefit of a more efficient engine will affect cruise fuel consumption from minute one. Even on short hops (and 2000nm are not short, aircraft spends >90% of time at cruise altitude). The average weight on those missions will be substantially below MTOW.
The “confirmation” by the VP of Strategy and Marketing is bogus as the question has to be framed correctly.
– Did he refer to pure fuel consumption?
– Did he refer to cash operating cost of a reference operator?
– Did he compare new build A330NEO versus an existing A330CEO?
The question is less simple than your analysis implies.
By physics (which do apply everywhere, even if Mr Rao doesn’t know) weight will negatively affect the trip fuel regardless of the trip distance. The effect will be more pronounced at maximum range due to non-linear behavior of lift-over-drag as function of gross weight.
You have to spend fuel on uplifting another 5t of dead weight to cruise altitude. ( Even if that dead weight saves your sfc ass later on 😉 napkin: 242t to 13km should take ~4.4t fuel just the potential energy gain ?
And the potential energy is paid back as kinetic energy when descending. Especially, there is no difference between short range and medium range, with exception of very short (<500nm) routes. Distance-specific fuel consumption tends to become constant above 500nm.
Maybe, if next generation traffic control is considered, I doubt it is right now.
The range for the A330-800 seems strange: just 7,450 nm?
Range for the A330-200 is 7,250 nm according to Airbus:
Just 200 nm more range?
You need to see the launch video where the differences between how Airbus and Boeing define range were explained.
I read somewhere that the A330-800 should have about 400 nm more range than the A330-200.
In comparison with the slide above the -800 gains just 200 nm and the -900 only 100 nm more range. Can you provide a link to the video you mentioned?
Maximum pax range___7450nm______6200nm
A330neo Max pax range————————
787s Max pax range———————–
assumptions______788: 7850nm__789: 8300nm
The full video is available on Airbus’s Youtube site. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgVLH0KYZsc&list=PLjl-u2y72YNy6L-8h_ZzfAXv4iOxRGbRr
Pingback: Dissecting the A330neo from a weight perspective | Aspire Aviation
Airbus’ product analysis dept needs a serious overhaul. time n time again they messed up A310, A340-500/600, A380 n now 330neo. I read the statement of then head of airbus at the launch of 340-600 ” market is lukewarm on large twin!!”
turns out market was ice cold on quads n RED HOT on twins.
they cud hv done 330neo 10 years ago, this wud hv seriously hurt 787 order book during delays n wud hv given the designers a chance to make A350 a specialized 777 competitor. 10 years later why didnt they put a scaled down wing on A350-800….325 sq meters instead of 443? and new optimized engine.cud hv been much lighter and efficient than 787. wud hv made a better investment than A330neo. I don’t understand why A350 fuselage wall thickness is 14″…787′s is 11″…777x’s is 9″ thick that means 3 to 5 inches of extra cabin width from the same fuselage!!
airbus has an extremely talented technical team but the annalists seem to be working for boeing!!!
There seems to be a problem with your keyboard. Perhaps you should get it fixed?
That’s certainly a nice fairytale you’ve got there.
As for wall thickness, you’re forgetting that the frame spacing on the A350 is 25″, while it’s 24″ and about 21″ on the 787 and 777 respectively. Hence, the A350 is optimised in a different fashion (i.e. longer fuselage and different hoop and axial stresses involved etc.) The basic geometric parameters of a conventional semi monocoque fuselage are: the length between the stringers/stiffeners, the frame spacing width, the thickness of the skin, the frame flange height and the thickness of the fuselage frames. In construction, thinner frames on an aircraft or thinner wood joists in your house (i.e. 2.5″ x 3″ instead of 2″ x4″), means thinner overall wall thickness. Simple as that. Of course, to maintain overall strength, when you reduce the frame flange height of a fuselage frame, you’ve got to compensate by increasing the thickness of the frame and/or increase the thickness of the fuselage skin.
As for the cross-sections, the A350 has an external width of 234 inches and a height of 240 inches. The internal cabin width is 222 inches. The 777 has a cross-section of 244 inches and a cabin width of 231″ and 235″ on the 777X. Now, the 777X will only have a reduced frame flange height around the windows; or in the area of maximum internal width, but not around the whole barrel. However, there’s a weight penalty associated with such a modification.
Boeing is doing just that…reducing the frame size while increasing the cabin presure , putting in larger windows, reducing cabin noise, streching and decreasing the overall weight…lets see how they pull it off..
BTW how is your A360X comming along..lol !!!
Pingback: Airbus A330-800 and -900neo, first analysis part 2: engines and maintenance costs | Leeham News and Comment
“Airbus A330-800 and -900neo, first analysis” (which by some reason I did not read
1) There it is a reference to your statement that Airbus said the vast majority of the flights of the A339 would be in the range 2000-4000nm.
If so, BUEING will mostprobaby revive the already prepared project originally for ANA b787-3, ~ 300-310 Pax 2 cl, 3000-3100 NM, List Price $146M, real price about $80M. Possibly, it coud be upgraded to 3500 nm and/or 350 Pax, a state of the Art aircraft
Until now, as the A330was nota real competition for the B787 but sold given its availability, Boeing has addressed this < 4,000 nm market using its 7,200 nm
model, which obviously is out of optimum in this range.
2) Is the statement that the new winglets would improve the efficiency by 4% not a stetch?? Possibly i am wrong, but I am not aware that any other winglet achieved even near such figure.
3) And as for the new engines , is the 10% improvement referred to the original engines of the Ceo?? ome bloggers have insisted that the present engines were
graetly upgraded during the last years, in which case IMO it seems again a stretch to expect that the RR would provide further10% relative to such upgraded engines
Has RR confirmed such??
The 787-3 isn’t a viable plane for the same reason an unoptimised A350-800 isn’t. It carries all the weight of the -8 (minus the difference in wing span) for no benefit. It was dropped for good reasons.
Your list price is way too low – given it has the same fuselage as the -8, I couldn’t see Boeing listing it today for less than $200million.
Lastly, but by no means least, when would Boeing be able to deliver such a plane? Any airline buying it would have to go to the back of the 787 queue (2020/21?) and every -3 sold by Boeing would take a production slot away from a much more valuable model (in the case of the -10, you’re talking about nearly $100million difference in list price!)
If Boeing is to respond to the questions posed by the A330neo, I don’t see the 787-3 as the answer.
Pls. see inserts
PLS SEE inserted RESPONSES below
1) The 787-3 isn’t a viable plane for the same reason an unoptimised A350-800 isn’t. It carries all the weight of the -8 (minus the difference in wing span) for no benefit. It was dropped for good reasons.
And the BOEING designers didn’t realize such seeingly evident fact when they sold the plane to ANA??
As ANA accepted to substitute the order for B788, independent of the real reasons Boeing was happy to get rid of this development task and so amplify the order backlog of the B788.
As for AIRBUS, which waited for many years and only because the qty. of sales was absolutely to low, finally scrapped it and many of these order were not substituted but cancelled. Contrary to what happened at BOEING
2) Your list price is way too low – given it has the same fuselage as the -8, I couldn’t see Boeing listing it today for less than $200million RESPONSE: It is not MY price, Google N787-3. And the today List prices now are not so much higher than then prices then!
3) Lastly, but by no means least, when would Boeing be able to deliver such a plane? RESPONSE: I do not know, it depends how much of the existing work for ANA can be used-
4)Any airline buying it would have to go to the back of the 787 queue (2020/21?) and every -3 sold by Boeing would take a production slot away from a much more valuable model RESPONSE I do not agree. It seems obvious that if as you tell the B783 is basically an adapted B788, and we have here a case somewhat similar as the B7810 as a derivative of the B789, where range was converted to pax – But if it is true that the majority of A330ceo sold are for 2,000 – 4,000 nm, the B783 would have the optimum right in the middle, instead far to high at 7,850 nm of the B788 or 7200 nm of the A352 (or 6200 nm of the A353) (even longer for the neos!) Consequently the efficiency of the B783 would be quite better and that BOEING would compete much better with the A330neo in this 2,000-4,000 range,, taking over a higher percentage of the expiring A330ceo market (seems a longue twister!). By the way, as the B783 is a brother of the B788, it should be built preferable in Washington, not in the NC home of the B7810!!
I realize that all this is still speculation , but this, as I repeatedly stated, is one of the main attraction of the blogs if addressed without fanatism!
List prices are now 35% higher, which would make the 787-3 bang on $200million.
Regardless of how much work Boeing has or hasn’t already done on the -3, they’d be unable to deliver it for a long time. It would also be a ‘low value’ plane for Boeing given every -3 built takes a delivery slot away from a more expensive plane. Boeing would much rather build & deliver -10s than -3s.
1) List prices are now 35% higher, which would make the 787-3 bang on $200million.
Correct: which makes it cheaper ref. B789 ($257m) by 22%) Really quite more than so, as the usual “normal” discount are higher today!! And of course, as it would have the last cry of engines, the efficiency would be most greatly higher!
2) Regardless of how much work Boeing has or hasn’t already done on the -3, they’d be unable to deliver it for a long time. It would also be a ‘low value’ plane for Boeing given every -3 built takes a delivery slot away from a more expensive plane. Boeing would much rather build & deliver -10s than -3s.
The underlying premise of your argument I am not agreeing with. If Boeing want to take over the bulk of this mid rage wide-body market, until now dominated by the A330ceo, it must expand in Washington, and also take advantage of the capacity freed by transferring the B7810 to NC (as already noted, the B783 . is a “brother of the A788 from the manudacturing point of view ) And here the asessment of what is already done with the B783 is very relevant!
Of course, BOEING must decide if they really want to intend to crush their only WB competitor.but on the way create an damaging overcapacity and the danger of newcomers (IMHO certainly not the Chinese, which onlly excel in bluffing). This being an issue we could duscuss separately But, again: if they want to do so, the worst way would be to do it halfhearted!!
By the way: the low IQ way to measure the capability of a competitor to count orders without considering what is ordered covers up th fact that BOEING is in all aspects by far larger and potent thn Airbus generally and both in the civil and military branches. A B777 costs about 4 times mre than a narrow bdy!!
Pls. excuse my many questions, but reviewing th A330 isssue some really strangeissues appear regarding the already questioned 12% efficiency improvement
See the following info regarding the RR version of the A330 QUOTE The Trent 700first ran in August 1990, and certification was achieved in January 1994. 90 minutes ETOPS approval was achieved in March 1995, and this was extended to 120 minutes in December 1995 and 180 minutes in May 1996. In 2009 Rolls-Royce introduced an upgraded version of the engine dubbed the Trent 700EP(enhanced performance) which incorporated a package of improvements derived from later members of the Trent engine family (especially the Trent 1000). These included elliptical leading edges and optimised fan and high pressure turbine tip clearances.Together the improvements provided a 1.22%improvement to the Trent 700’s specific fuel consumption. Some of the improvements were also made available as a retro-fit kit to existing airlines. Further upgrades were announced in 2013 as part of the T700EP2 package. The upgraded engine will be available in 2015 and is intended for higher gross weight A330s. This upgrade package will improve fuel efficiency by about 1% and is likely to be the last upgrade of Trent 700. It may also be available as a retrofit package in the future. UPGRADE In the specs ofthe A330ceo it is stated that the Engine is TRENT 700, I assume that after 2009 deliveries it is 700EP As indicated above, the A330neo will have the 700EP2 If I read above, the Efficiency improvement from EP to EP2 is 1.012*1.01 = 1.022 i.e.2.2%and not 10-12% as stated by Airbus. This could be a bit more ifthe EP2 is lighter, referred to aircraft fuel bun I assume there is some explanation, but cannot find it. Could it be that the 10-12% are referred to the original 1990 version, which anyway, relaedto the relation llast version ceo / future neo would be irrelevant, or this irefers only to mechanical efficiency, which is not the imporatt one Can you help, including regarding my previous comment regardin the + 4% relaed to winglets?????
The engine for the A330neo is the T7000 (not the existing T700). This new engine is developed from the T1000 flying on the 787.
Oton, you can ask the same question 16 different ways and the answer will be the same: the improvements Airbus claims for the neo and our analysis for the neo is over today’s in-service, latest production A330ceo.
II am not aware that my 15 previous questions were responded (if so, my apologies!) until Stealth66 just clarified to me that the Engine of the neo would be a derivate of the same used by the B789, the Trent 7000. (which is not a typo or a undermodel, as I thought, of the 700 used in the A330ceo!!
I now reviewed information regarding the 7000, which you will admit is fairly confuse and bases widely (but not only) on what the authors understood out of the interview with Mr. Goodhead (RR)
I am sorry now to ask you (and Stealth66) to confirm what I understand or tell me basing on supports where I a wrong basing :
1) The T7000 is a derivate of the B789 engines, still not fully developed. Even if such derivation tasks normally would take 4 years, Mr. G. states that he expects to do it in 2 years as the task is relatively “simple”
2) The T7000 has a fuel burn 10% lower than the in service laters ceo, i.e T700EP
3) The T7000 weights ~35% more (~ 1,600 kg each, 3,200 kg total) as the T700EP and is much more bulky, with the air resistance consequences. Neverthess, these drawbacks (estimate??) are expected to be strongly outcompensated by the intrinsec less full burn.
4) QUESTION Would the excess weight of engines and air pressure not impose eventually a reinforcement of the wing, which as far I know is not contemplated in the 2 years timetable.??
5) QUESTION: Scott has answered my 16th question regarding the reference of the fuel burn saving, but not my remark that I did not hear of any case were new winglet or similar allow saving so much as 4% fuel burn!!. Of course, that the engine builder RR (Mr.G) thinks so is not support enough!
Pingback: Question: AC picking up Skymark Airlines A330's? - Page 4 - FlyerTalk Forums