Boeing displaces Airbus at Hawaiian, wins 787-9 deal; airline cancels A330-800 order

Feb. 20, 2018, © Leeham Co.: Boeing has displaced Airbus at Hawaiian Airlines, winning an order for 787-9s. Hawaiian canceled an order for six A330-800s, the only order on the books for this sub-type.

An announcement could come as early as this week.

The campaign has been underway for months and the outcome was expected. Airbus offered to cut the price on the -800 and also offered the A350-900. The latter always was considered too big by carrier executives.

Boeing’s effort to displace Airbus A330neo at Hawaiian is part of an all-out, hand-to-hand combat campaign by Boeing to kill the A330neo program in advance of the potential launch of the Boeing 797.

LNC detailed the battle here.

Winning Hawaiian

Information obtained by LNC over several months, concurrent with the Hawaiian contest, indicated Boeing appeared to be winning over airline executives.

Although not directly related to the campaign, Boeing Capital Corp agreed to release Hawaiian from three 767-300ER leases well in advance of the termination dates. Hawaiian’s desires to exit the 767 fleet had been stated publicly many times.

The airplanes are going to United Airlines. This was described to LNC as not a sweetener to win the 787 order, but the favor by BCC clearly was a psychological link. BCC was under no obligation to terminate the leases early.

LNC is told Boeing “was determined to win at any cost.” Boeing bid below Airbus’ cost of building the airplanes, LNC is told, though it’s unclear whether this was below the cost of the A330-800 or the A350-900. Since Hawaiian wanted out of the A330 contract, because it was the only customer for the airplane, the context suggest the Boeing price was below the cost of the A350-900.

Shades of Bombardier trade case

This form of aggressive pricing by Boeing and the desire to keep a competitor out of the US has parallels to the trade complaint Boeing filed against Bombardier over the Delta Air Lines CSeries order.

Boeing acknowledged it offered extremely aggressive pricing to sell 65 737-700s to United Airlines to block a sale by BBD to UA for the CS100. Although Boeing wasn’t even in the competition that was being run between BBD and Embraer, Boeing swooped in with an offer for a reported $22m and won the order. (Ancillary deals involving the 777-300ER and the 787 were also involved, LNC was told at the time.)

At Delta, Boeing—which didn’t offer any 737 in this competition—charged Bombardier with price dumping. Bombardier responded that it was a special launch customer price for a key airline in the US market.

Boeing argued that launch customer pricing for an eight-year old aircraft program is nonsense. But the 787 program is now 14 years old and if the alleged pricing below the cost to produce the Airbus is true, then Boeing offered the 787-9 for something less than $115m and perhaps less than $100m

The normal sales price of a 787-9 is in the $125m range, market intelligence indicates. The cost to produce a 787-9 is now believed to be between $80m and $90m, Wall Street analysts suggest.


Boeing made a similarly aggressive move to persuade another A330neo customer to switch. AirAsiaX has 60 A330-900s on order, a big chunk of the backlog. If Boeing succeed in persuading AirAsiaX to switch, the A330neo program would have been seriously hurt.

The airline announced at the Singapore Air Show it was sticking with the A330neo.

As LNC described in its Feb. 8 post, Airbus hopes to sell the A330neo to United and American Airlines. Boeing wants the carriers to be launch customers for the 797. If Boeing wins these two campaigns, the A330neo will be dealt a serious blow.

277 Comments on “Boeing displaces Airbus at Hawaiian, wins 787-9 deal; airline cancels A330-800 order

  1. Hurray! I might still want to fly Hawaiian after they send the 767 into the sunset. As soon as my city gets the Airbus, I’ll wait for Southwest.

    • Then you drive home in your Japanese or German car, use your Korean phone, turn on your Japanese air conditioner, drink Brazilian coffee, drink Vietnamese tea, eat Mexican fruit and vegetables, drink Dutch beer, drink Italian wine, eat Ghanese chocolate.

        • NO
          you’ll have to sit down to cherish some good food.

          would be a waste otherwise.

          see “Tampopo” for a good explanation.

      • Sorry, a Wrangler 4Dr./4WD Rubicon for wheels. And, Kauai Dark Roast is the way to go for a good, solid, luxurious wake me up coffee! Little beats a Stag’s Leap Cab, at least in the red cat. Tea is for Brits, veges and fruits from this side of the Rio Grande/Central Valley/Florida. Also, Lienenkugel’s Snowdrift Vanilla Porter, at least for this time of year! Lastly, I’ll grant you in the foreign department, Aldi (German) chocolate truffles at $3.99 a box—the value to cost is off the scale!

    • I love some good jingoism as much as the next guy. But I’d still rather have the wider seat on the A330.

      Fortunately I don’t fly HA, so doesn’t really affect me (though on the margin I’d prefer the 787 lose these orders so that the A338 doesn’t become an “orphan”).

  2. I think Boeing’s behavior on this deal guarantees that Boeing will not meddle with any of the bigger CS variants (CS300, CS500, CS700, etc)! In this sense, this deal for Hawaiian is good news, as it precludes “bad” future trade court behavior by Boeing!

    • I don’t see how. In the case of BBD the argument was they were dumping by selling into a foreign market (Delta, US) for less than the sale into the home market (AirCanada, CA).

      A sale to Hawaiian is in Boeing’s home market so there is no trade case to be brought, at least not one for dumping. In fact if Hawaiian got them for cheap that would seem to set a new low that could be used to fend off future charges of dumping into foreign markets.

      • You’ve got this the wrong way around,Boeing will be trying to prove that Airbus went too low and dumped trying to beat Boeing,who are allowed to go as low as they like in their home market. I can appreciate why this has confused people,its a ridiculous strategy.

    • I don’t think the behaviour of Boeing will have any bearing on whether they go after others, call it hypocrisy, they will call it business

      • Nothing ethical about corporations

        Individuals can be, corporations, money machines.

  3. By making so much effort to kill the competition (the A330Neo or the C-series), Boeing implicitly recognizes that the competition is very valuable. So much valuable that losing money doesn’t matter. Do they realize in Chicago that a huge discount looks like self-denigration and is nothing else than a free advertisement for the competitor ?
    It’s the second time in a few weeks that Airbus should thank Boeing for its help. No need to be concerned about the A330Neo program.

    • I think they want to preemptively kill the secondary market for A330-800neos, ten to twelve years from now. Borrowing a phrase from AA’s chief, Boeing wants A330-800neos to become an “orphaned” aircraft fleet; they hope to do so by preempting any and all orders.

      • Agreed hbi72, but I also think Boeing feels like they can kill the A330-800 program outright and make Airbus get no return on that portion of the A330Neo investment while also weakening the business case for the A330-900Neo.

        Another way to think of that is a company willing to endure a $20M loss to force their competitor to have a $200M loss is a good deal for you competitiveness in the market.

        • Even if the biggest discount and the highest estimate of the build cost for the 787 is assumed to be correct (we will never actually know how close they are to the truth) Boeing is still selling them for 10 million more than they cost to produce currently and that cost will continue to go down.

          • If Boeing sells 787s for 10 million more than it costs to produce, they need to sell 2,800 787s before they paid off the development “asset” (read cost) and start making money.

          • I have no doubts that by the end of production, the 787 will have sold at least 3000.

            There is always the 787NEO to look forward to!

          • Hopefully the B787 Max will have 18” wide seats up the back.
            Going to 9 abreast has killed a good aircraft for the sake pennies.

            Shame on the airlines who spec the seats.
            And shame on the manufacturer who pushes it.

            Very, very low rent.

          • Julian: Or, the way the stock’s been flyin’, you take an “oops, $10B or so”, NONCASH hit, and, roll on! (It’s free cash flow, baby, that counts!)

        • @Garrett

          That is an interesting perspective to have. In my view a relative win you are suggesting is worth it if it leads to an endgame eg driving their competitor into bankruptcy or similar. In this context that will not happen. So to me it is just about Boeing losing $20m+ which is poor business. It also may have knock on adverse effects, retaliation from Airbus, setting an excessively low market price for B789. I don’t think this deal is good for Boeing long-term

          • Boeing always thinks long term. If Boeing is a problem you will suffer for a long time

          • Well as we saw with the BBD case, loosing money is not a problem for Boeing.

            On the other hand, Airbus claimed they could sell the A330NEO for less than a 787.

            That proven not to be true.

            Long term we get to see if its a bad Boeing move or not.

          • @Checklist
            I don’t understand your point. I don’t see a long-term perspective in this sales push, I could be wrong. The dilemma in any sales campaign is to treat it as a ‘must win’. The trouble with this reasoning is that only one party can win and by fighting too hard neither OEM makes a penny out of the deal. Perhaps they are trying to kill off the neo. I really don’t see how they can do that, the neo is developed, fully paid up and a low cost product at the end of its learning curve. Airbus just need to get aggressive and this sort of thing will force their hand. As it stand Hawaii have got a bargain for a relatively small order.

          • Sowerbob:

            I don’t get the end of its learning curve.

            How many have been delivered?

          • @TW

            You are correct, the learning effect relating to the neo changes will exist but this is a minimum change development and the base aircraft will have exhausted the learning effect some time ago.

          • TransWorld: “Loosing” money’s not a serious problem, unless it leads to losing money! LOL

    • What’s missing in the analysis is Hawaiian previously ordered the A-350-800 which Airbus subsequently canceled. Hawaiian has developed a long term strategic expansion plan around a platform designed for long thin routes. This really left no alternative but the B-787 as the A-330-800 NEO really is not a replacement for A-350-800.

      • But the A338 was never the same size of A358.
        The A339 though is.

        So does Hawaiian really need the range of A338 or A359/b789?

        Are the missons not possible with an A339 which should offer great economics and communialty with the exisitng A332 fleet?

        • There has been a lot of shifting and shuffling.

          Hawaiian said it wanted the A330 Rev I, then forced to the A350, then had a shot at the 800.

          In the end? Hmmm.

          • Are you suggesting a BA sponsored fishing trip?

  4. Take no prisoners Boeing! Kick some more dirt in AB’s face! LOL (And get cracking on the ‘97, and make Delta “an offer they can’t refuse” on the it.)

    • I don’t see so many incensed remarks when that dastardly Airbus took the Delta single aisle order A321NEO!

      Something about it was a hotly contested contest as well.

      The bullies, they just knew Boeing could not compete with it.

    • Me thinks Delta’s purchase contract for the 797 should have a clause that forbids further meddling and trade court antics (by Boeing) on future CS300, CS500, CS700 and CS900 variants.

      • Afaics most protective ( and usually blatantly one side ) moves on the US side have backfired sooner or later.
        ( just like the Versailles Treaty limitations on Germany were counterproductive.)

        Most of the “its a drag, unfair” laments are based already on legislation and treaties focusing on taking advantage.
        Shortterm. Longterm the global community routes around it.
        big helper: A rather greedy culture.

      • I Think DAL is out for launch Customer pricing and Engine shop rights a la LHT with rights to do Everything on the selected Engine without letting others besides UAL get the same propriatory rights.
        We will see if Boeing swallows it or decides only a few loyal and understanding customers get the launch order pricing (UAL, AA, Southwest, ANA, Air China, Singapore Airlines, Ryanair, Norwegian). We might se by next Paris Air Show.

        • I think there could be a big tug of war for the first 2/3 years production. By then 767’s and 757’s will be getting past their expiry dates. Production ramp-up hick-ups is not what will need.

          This potential bottle neck could actually create opportunities for AB?

          • Yes, most the launchings of new planes have real tremendous obstacles to overcome (787, 380, CSeries). Going back the 747, DC-10, L1011. Airbus took years before they moved to the XWB350. It truly is a game of chess, and by all accounts both AB and BA are winning right now. Which we all know explains BA’s attack on BBD.

  5. Will there be an order for more A321s? How is Hawaiian getting it’s deposit back?

  6. As the A330Neo development is almost done, it’s too late to try to kill the program. If the goal is to make a clean sweep before launching the 797, it’s not a good idea at all. Airbus will have nothing to lose to retaliate with aggressive prices (the boomerang effect). The 797 would be obviously the first casualty of a price war in the middle of market sector.

    • And the 330neo is real, flying and tangible, whereas the 797 isn’t even vapourware at the moment. Plus we shouldn’t forget that the A350 is a pretty good option too, and that’d be tough to beat no matter what the 797 turns out to be.

        • This will be the third year the 787 will be making a profit (that is growing with each model rolled off the line).
          Were all those wide body orders “Hail Mary” passes last year?

          • “This will be the third year the 787 will be making a profit”

            let me correct that for you:
            This is the third year Boeing is able to reduce the deferred cost basket. … 7 years to 🙂
            On paper they have taken profits from the 787 all the time.

          • Birdy: If it comes to the light of day, the 797 will be a segment all by itself and Airbus will have no chance to compete.

            Boeing is marginal with the -10 against the A321, the only -10 allure is fleet commonality.

            An A322 still would not be a direct 797 competitor (and that end configuration can or even has changed)

          • @Geo

            Going to a production output of 14 per month on the 787 means that Boeing needs a a whole lot more orders for post 2021 deliveries*. If selling at near cost is what Boeing is up to, then this whole charade smacks of desperation — a last-ditch effort (Hail Mary pass) to take out the A330neo.

            Obviously, Boeing is feeling the downward pricing pressure on the 787 from the A330neo. Up until now, Airbus has prioritised securing A330ceo orders during the transition to the A330neo. That is now changing.

            With the 787 in a financial black hole, Boeing can’t afford to sell at near cost for very long, as each 787 that now remains in the current accounting clock needs to be sold at a profit of some $30 million per frame, which BTW is a totally unrealistic proposition.

            Somehow, the irrational leadership at Boeing seem to believe that they can actually manage to first take out the A330neo, then raise (discounted) prices on the 787, while seeling a whole lot more 787s, in order to maintain production output at 14 frames per month post 2021 — all the while ignoring that the A350 XWB programme is expected to reach the point of break-even late next year, giving Airbus extra leverage in future sales campaigns.



          • @Geo

            To be pedantic not a profit but cash positive. Cash is far more important than that arbitrary profit figure anyway. Still a lot of development expenditure to cover I would venture as well as the deferred production cost but definitely achieving good progress

          • @Transworld said “If it comes to the light of day, the 797 will be a segment all by itself and Airbus will have no chance to compete.”

            The question is how big that segment is, with the A321 (and possibly A322 in the future) nibbling at it from the bottom. Killing the A338 does help that, though.

          • A short term priority for AB could be to do a relatively low cost wing update for the A321 to make it as efficient as possible for <3500 Nm missions and sell it at prices that will make airlines not considering the NMA for such routes.

            Going for an A322 could financially not be the right decision except if its an NSA?

        • No, I obviously don’t. It should be pretty obvious, though, that the 787-9 competes with both the A330-900 and the a350-900.

          • Heck of an accomplishment that it covers both so well.

  7. So all this points to the MoM’ster being a warmed over B767 NG or an sandblasted A330 clone with eight 17” wide seats up the back.

    MD TA
    90T OEW
    180T MTOW
    6K NM nominal range.
    58M fuselage
    230 seats — 4 class with lie flat up front.

    Consequently very Trad and very vulnerable on both flanks to a pincer movement:

    A325 / A328 or Super Duper 60.
    A370 aka the A310 MK2.

    MD in this context means medium duty.
    The over 125T OEW HD lard bucket TA’s just seem so yesterday.

    • A pincer movement would be a sensible strategy for Airbus, but rather than rivalling Boeing’s spending on new airframes, it would make far more sense to use new derivatives of those that are currently in production. That way some of the benefits of the R&D for the new aircraft could be applied to those as well.

      There are two obvious contenders:
      The long awaited A322 (leaving open the possibility of a 323 further into the future)
      A331 (a lighter weight, shorter range version of the 332)

      Maybe while they’re at it they could do a 334 for very busy short haul routes?

      Eventually Airbus will have to develop a new composite aircraft, doing things that are not possible with conventional metal framed aircraft, and they can call that the 370. But it won’t be practical to do that to compete with the 797 for the middle of the market where demand is limited.

      • If this is a chess game the easiest way to stall the NMA is for AB to launch 320+ and 321+ aircraft with the same updated wing. This will force BAC to develop the NSA which AB could keep at bay for a few years.

        Weaken the 789 with offering the 339 at very low prices and market its merits.
        This will give AB time to get their ducks in a row.

      • They don’t need to magic up a MD A330 — they have the A300/310 parts bin / component set and fuselage cross section to get them moving before they get exotic with a new wing and tail surfaces.

        If they use this platform it would be interesting to find out what they can put in the air with a 70T / 80T /90T OEW, and at what marginal cost?

        Nothing over the top.

        Run with the best Trad tech for the fuselage barrels.
        New high tech / MD saddle and wing box.
        Plus spend on a new A350 style nose for kerb appeal.
        New wing with the latest CFD and cost effective new materials.

        Consequently low risk at every turn.
        70T OEW points to less than 50M fuselage length so capacity might be bit marginal up against an A321+.

        Main issue is that any modern A300 sized aircraft would have a 14% economic advantage against any B767 MAX sized marketing special.

        Consequently BA will have to spend real money on a new fuselage profile to move the market forward.

        Points to the BA MoM’ster as a TA being at the lower end of the possible spectrum.

        However the lower they go the nearer it gets to SA high volume economics.

        • A310 size is far too small. There’s no point trying to get a widebody down to 70t empty if it’s at the expense of capacity; if the job can be done with single aisle, the economics dictate that it should. For a successful pincer movement, Airbus would need not only the best possible singe aisle aircraft, but also the lightest widebody with a significant advantage over that. But it doesn’t need the huge advantage in range that the A330 ceos have, let alone that of the neos.

          And don’t the A300 and A330 have the same fuselage cross section?

  8. This sounds like a pyrrhic victory. With seemingly a lot of irrational behaviour on the part of Boeing’s management lately, combined with what looks like a long line of aggressive accounting practices on the 787, is this another Enron waiting to happen?

    • One thing that surprises me is that HA went for the 787-9 (which is closer in size to the A330-900neo), rather than the 787-8. But of course, the 787-8 has cost allocation problems, as this type costs almost as much for Boeing to produce as the 787-9.

      If HA did actually try to purchase the 787-8, did Boeing counter with a 787-9 with a slightly higher price tag? The dumping allegation would have been more compelling had they sold HA the 787-8, since that type is burdened with higher production costs.

      • LOL!

        I couldn’t care less what type of aircraft that Hawaiian Airlines is operating. It’s interesting to note, though, that the B-boys out there are practically salivating with excitement that HA, apparently, will be taking six 789s instead of six A338s.

        • Wait, BA gave a 65% discount on the 789 just to secure a 6-12 aircraft order?!? That’s insane. At least with the 73G it was a 10x bigger order, the aircraft is going out of production, and BA isn’t competitive in that market anyway.

          Now every future 787 customer is going to balk at paying over $100m, and if BA doesn’t give them similar terms they’ll just say, “Oh boy, that 251t A330neo looks awfully tempting, Airbus is making us a good offer that we’re about to sign unless you give us sub-100m pricing!”

          • Boeing’s strategy is to stop AB sales and make money with service contracts.

          • I am more amused at how upset the Airbus side is.

            Long term its interesting to see how it all plays out.

            Right now the 787 looks pretty good.

            That could change, but for a failed program its made a heck of a recovery.

            I admire what Airbus did on the A350 and I admire what Boeing has finally managed on the 787.

            Those kind of production costs were not supposed to occur with its over expensive method of build.

            It seems to me that both Airbus and Boeing have come up with a way to make composite aircraft that are totally different and equally cost efficnet for difference reasons.

          • @transworld
            I think people (on both sides of the aisle) have been ligitimately critical with how B787 development was handled.
            And they can still be legitemately critical of the 787-8, the batteries that get into thermal runaway events (though contained), and the borderline ponzi scheme accounting Boeing uses in regards to development costs.
            However the B787 -9 is an awesome plane that will continue to get plenty of orders.

  9. Okay well this tidies up the order book for A338 and reduces pressure on the need to get it certified anywhere this side of Christenden. Airbus better take the gloves off and start bringing a gun to a knife fight. I have a feeling that the whole market has just got tasty. If they are making B789 for what is suggested then A339 are going to be made for a considerable amount less. Airbus can go to war on discounted A330neo or even ceo with a view to simply blowing Boeing negotiations out of the water. I don’t see the logic of Boeing doing this on anything other than a pure knee jerk. Surely they are gaming all scenarios!! Simulation and all manner of sophisticated scenario planning has been around for a long time and Boeing have failed on this consideration time and again recently.

    I am shocked, recent decisions smack of desperation and will not be without consequence

    • @Sowerbob

      As for your last sentence, that’s the type of question people should ask. With historical high stock prices for Boeing — and if everything that’s going on at Boeing is so hunky-dory — why does Boeing’s management seem to be so irrational and why do they seem to act out of desperation (i.e. trade war against Bombardier; delusions on the part of Boeing’s Law Department on a positive outcome at the WTO; NMA; 737-10; huge and unsustainable discounts on the 787 etc.)?

      • “With historical high stock prices for Boeing ”

        “Boeing’s management seem to be so irrational”

        compare to the last wheezes of the mortage derived $financial_thingy market. the crash was afair preceeded by going quite a bit overboard in health predictions.

        • Sowerbob:

          The A330-800 has been built, do they just park it?

          Long term something has to be in that slot for a F as well as the MRT role (unless they keep the A330CEO going forever)

          Airbus has put a lot of bucks into the 800, now they have to figure out what to do with it.

          • Airbus could have dropped the price on the A330-800 or 900 .

            They did not. Disarray at the top?

          • ONE A338NEO frame to fly for certification.
            That is big bucks?

          • Big gamble, but then they can pull the trigger on short notice in event of significant orders?

            In some way I think AB is glad the Hawaii 338 order is behind them. Was also wondering if they sometimes wish the few 319NEO orders could “go away”?

    • With Leahy and Bregier on the way out and Enders leaving next year, Airbus is somewhat stunned in it’s reactions.

      Airbus has huge issues, no new products in the pipeline since a while and facing agressive moves by Boeing.
      The B787 is a more modern aircraft than the A330 and offers another seat in Y.
      If they price it agressively at the same cost of an A330neo, airlines will but B787.

      Airbus needs to get going, first would be to kill B777x with a A35k stretch.
      Then kill NMA with a A321neo stretch.
      And price A330neo even more agressiv.
      Airbus has 2 superior programms and a winner on it’s hands.
      A320neo dominates B737max, A350 could dominate upper market,
      so somehow limit Boeings B787 sucess with A330neo, and have CS in the hand.

      If i were airbus, I would analyse if countinung an A380 does make any sense at all.
      Get rid of that, focuse on the winners and hurt Boeing with A320neo family and A350.

      • “If i were airbus, I would analyse if countinung an A380 does make any sense at all.”

        If you didn’t notice: that has just been tabled.:-)

        Loss of leadership is a BIG issue though.

      • @ Sash

        Am a bit confused, you say no new products for Airbus! I beg to differ. They have the A350 platform, the A330neo platform and the Cseries platform all recently launched. What they haven’t done or apparently needed to do as of yet is to add additional products to the portfolio beyond the core ones. Boeing have pushed out the B787-10, MAX 10 to fill niches and as such have even less potential to launch something new beyond the X

        • Yeah,
          Enders didnt go for any new product.

          Neither A35k stretch, nor A380neo, nor anything.

          Dev. of airbus is not doing much and even laid off people.

          A350 and A330neo where done before Enders. A320neo is the same.

          Tell me, what’s in the pipeline for Airbus?

          Also, you statment is wrong.
          Max 10 is not to fill niches, it’s a desperation move to not loose the market to A321neo due to the inferior B737max 9.

          The 10 has been arround for a while and basically is now the other part of a 2 plane family, the B788 is somewhat out of production and catalogue. The manufacturing issues are mentioned here, and it looks like Boeing is not motivated to sell the B788.
          The B789 is the best dreamliner for sure.

          • Sash:

            I think it should be clarified that the A320 does not dominate. Its pretty close with the 737-8.

            Airbus does have a huge leg up on the A321.

            Airbus has stated that the market in the 777-9 area has been sucked out. Ergo no A350-1200.

            The A350 overall is pretty nice, but the 1000 is still iffy though an argument can be made its day will come with 777-300ER retirements.

            The 787 is proving to be the wide body market seller.

          • @ Transworld:

            A320neo is dominating somewhat 55-60%. Ofc you noticed we talk about families, right?

            Airbus is notrously known for having a poor understanding of the market. Just remember A380 and 1st A350.
            There are a lot of 400pax aircrafts around (B744). There’s growth.
            A direct competitior to B779x would ruin Boeings economics.

            The B787 is selling nicely, but as seen Boeing is selling this on price. If they would charge what it cost them, market would look different.

            You can just not take that 20bn deffered cost out of calc.
            I don’t know what Boeing trys, if the think they can stop A330neo early or if they are in for scale and aftermarket to get the B787 program profitable, but If it’s true and you can buy the B789 from about 125 and the 10 for 135 mio. $ how should you expect Airbus to price the A330neo against?
            How can Boeing make money at this price, especially with that material the use (titanium, cfk) ?
            It’s so far not usual to give a 50% discount on a well demanded modern airplane with a huge backlog.

          • No, we don’t always look at families.

            In the case of the A320, its taken as a bit small now and the pax count of the -8 gives it a bit better leg up.

            Its the hear of the market.

            The A321 tells us its better than the 737-X/X and always was though not a badly beaten.

            Its working up to 50% of the A320 sales.

            Understanding where the strengths, weakness and where its going is important for the future.

            Stretch the A320 and make it even better is a good idea and option for Airbus.

    • You have to wonder if Airbus gets aggressive on 330NEO pricing if that doesn’t end up hurting the A350

      • With the Hawaii order “out of the way” (that wanted long range for European destinations) AB could consider options for the 338 such as lower MTOW (230T), engines de-rated to 67Klb, increase seating (to ~270) by moving some amenities to the hull and reduce range to ~6000Nm? Maybe some smart engineering could create magic at a low price?

        Could be a blessing in disguise?

        • Heavy for the mission air frames don’t work well.

          A few exceptions, the China regional A330CEO and the Japan market.

    • Suspect increasing WB production to 13 A350+7 A330+1/2 A380+ 70 A320 per month is as much as Airbus can tackle at once. 300+ A330NEO at 7 per month is 4 years@11 months per year. No slots until 2023????

      • Once the 339’s actual performance figures comes out AB could have some bullets for their gun.

        End of the day I believe that AB needs a new 350-family (351-X) to compete with the 789 and 78J. This will possible need a new wing box, smaller wing (360-380 Sqm), etc. Two aircraft based on these changes could be;

        351-1) ~280 pax, 70-75 Klb engines (UF’s?), 7500-8000Nm range,
        351-2)~340 pax, 79/84Klb engines (XWB?), 6500-7000Nm range.

        It will be costly but a long term answer to the 787’s. The 351-2 possibly the first for development due to engine availability and the A339 being there. An 351-1 could be the “game changer” if its introduced with Ultrafans.

        • Why should Airbus replicate the 787’s overloaded wing?

          you’ll never fight an over bounding (PR,pricing,politics, priming journalists with bashing templates) business practice as presented by Boeing with product changes.
          ( see “the death of the A350Mk1”, “lackluster interest in the A380”, now “flipping customers with existing contracts”. )

          A sideband attack like the A350XWB was the right kind of counter. for the A380 “sitting it out” until real world pressures kill the Dreamliner Meme.

  10. This is expected news. Hawaiian has the unique requirement that their new long haul aircraft are supposed to be able to fly to Europe non-stop (making the A330-900 unviable), but at the same time need to be reasonably sized (A350-900 has too many seats for Hawaiian’s liking). The A350-800 was the plan they originally wanted, and the A330-800 was always a consolation prize that became more sour the smaller the order book for that variant got.

    Now, Hawaiian is going for an aircraft that has exactly the same size and capability as they want, but they give up the commonality with their A330 fleet. Better to make a painful break than draw out the agony.

    • That might be relevant , Europe is a stretch for the 800NEO.
      But why then back in 2014 swap out the 350-800 for the 330-800 ?

      The marketing of hawaii to Europeans would be expensive, as they have plenty of choices already and hawaii is a mass market location where longer distances/longer flying times are a hard sell.

      To me ,China would be a better bet for more flights to Hawaii

      • Europe is not a stretch f0r the A330-800. The 252 tonne version will pack a range of 8250 nm which is more than all 787 models.

        Disappointing news and thumbs down for Hawaiian. They had the opportunity to continue long-haul services with the most preferred 2-4-2 configuration but chose to go for that ordinary 9 abreast 787 cabin. I guess it was too good to be true.

        • Werhmeim: Hawaiian has been adamant it wanted the A330 upgraded.

          They settled for the A350 until the NEO came out.

          Now, they have assessed otherwise but the 787 looks to suit the need. Maybe just overall more versatile.

        • “Europe is not a stretch f0r the A330-800. The 252 tonne version will pack a range of 8250 nm which is more than all 787 models.”

          What? That can’t be right. At all. Or else it would be a contender for QANTAS’s requirement for ULR capability.

          • 😉

            though I think that Qantas want more capacity.
            not A338 but more A359/778X.

    • The 350-800 had an initial order book of nearly 200. The 789 wouldn’t have been the success it is if the 358 was there, a major AB “blunder”?

      • With the redesign of A350, most of the A358 orders were upgraded to A359.

        Shrinks have historically bad numbers, are not economic.

        Airbus has a well suited widebody portfolio, with weaknesses on the lower (A330neo) and upper (A380, A35k stretch) end.

        • Agree with this in general, but the 332 picked-up a healthy percentage of 330 orders.

          Problem with a shrink OEM’s don’t want to invest in smaller wing. An 350-800 with the 359’s 440Sqm wing will an over kill, with an 360-380m wing and lighter wing box its a winner.

          Airbus could make great strides if they develop a new wing, (etc) for an 280 seat 350 that could also be used on an 359 or slightly longer aircraft. B789/78J equivalents, basically another 35Series parallel to the 350 with its own wing, will be costly but could have good returns and be low risk.

  11. Poorly written article that seems like a hurrah piece for the boys and girls of Boeing sales and marketing.

    The -800 variant was dead, and am sure Airbus is happy to not have to certify it.

    Delta is super excited for the 330 Neo, no mention of that large order in the article.

    • @Moises: This is funny; over at, the accusation there is I’m shilling for Airbus.

      More to the point, the campaign was about the A330-800, not the A330-900, hence no mention of Delta. The article does point out Boeing tried to flip AirAsiaX, the largest customer for the A330-900.

      • @Scott
        “A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.”

        • Well we are getting a lot of participants we don’t usually see.

          Apparently they don’t follow the blog as Leeham is harder on Boeing when they mess up than anyone I can think of.

          Equally so of Airbus.

          Good for laughs though.

  12. Did Hawaiian just forget that their Samoan customer base might not feel comfortable into 787 3-3-3 poor 17” Seats ?

    This is the beginning of the end of Hawaiian being a caring airline, flying Eco Class with Hawaiian will now be a nightmare. Not even Mai Tai will save an 8h flight in a tiny seat.

    • The airline has made it known that the plane that they are ordering is too big for it.They got the planes cheap,so they might as well go 8 abreast.

  13. As Scott said this was coming and just a matter of time.

    Hopefully this makes Airbus realizes they need what as I see an ~5-7m shrink of the 359 as the 338/9’s is not cutting it with airlines. This ~275 seat aircraft could potentially be developed in 2 different aircraft depending on wing and engine selection;

    1) 280 Sqm wing, 5000-6000Nm (NMA market),
    2) 360 Sqm wing, 7500+ Nm (789 market).

    An aircraft along the lines of option 2 could potentially replace the the 330-800 and 900.

    This could actually create a natural MoM gap in the AB line-up between an 321+/322 and 350-X and pave the way for a new aircraft with seating between 220 and 275.

    All that could save the 338 for example is if an airline like Indigo orders 50 for their planned long haul ambitions?

    • p.s. The say ~360-380 Sqm new wing could also be used on an 359 size aircraft with 6500-7000NM range to compete directly with the 787-10.

      Two birds with one stone (wing), job done. Such a relatively “simple” develpment could put AB back in the wide body market in a big way.

      • congrats mate, you have a good fantasy.

        If airplane dev. would be so easy, just twerk a little here and there, combine fuselage and just a new wing, that’s it.

        Just one question: Why should Airbus – already having a decent fuselage and plane (A339neo) – go for a shrink! (uneffective!) of a well selling plane (sell larger A35k and stretch to make $$$) ?
        They abandoned A358 in the A350 redesign process and went for A330neo.

        Airbus doesnt need to be back in the Widebody market, they have a very sucessful A350 and a still selling A330.
        They are in the game.
        If they need something, it’s a A35k stretch to directly compete with B779x.

        • Anton: The military has a term for that, its called reinforcing failure.

          The judgment has to be, this is not working, not this is not working so lets do it some more.

          • Good one, in my part of the world we had a saying in my native language in the military which I can’t use here.

            Boils down to keep “going” (spelled differently) north irrespective.

        • Few points, the 330NEO’s are not selling, 350 modern CFRP fuselage. Wetted area per pax for the 350 ~8% less than for the 330’s.

          How long must AB sit and watch how the 789 just keeps on accumulating sales? Boeing marketing is killing the 330NEO, they won’t be able to do that with an 350 based aircraft.

          • The problem is its extremely difficult (almost impossible) to lighten up an air-frame on a shrink.

            The A350-800 was a shrink that did not sell.

            So an all new optomised 767 size jet?

            There is a reason all these ideas don’t get any play.

            A light 767 has the same issue.

  14. The A330 NEO is too slow vs. the 787. Airlines recognize they will have to take a revenue hit with the A330 NEO especially with business travellers.

    • Based on what?
      Please check cruise speeds. And check the difference in cruise speeds on other AB vs BA products. I’ve never heard of the marginal differences being a factor.

      In private/business jets the differences in speed are bigger and bragging rights can be a factor: “My plane is faster than yours”.

      In turboprops vs small jets cruise speed is a factor. For instance according to Air Baltic replacing Bombardier Dash 8 with CS100, the CS100 higher cruise speed allows them to use the plane on more flights per day.

      • Kind of like Chip speeds in the days or yore?

        Nah, slow chips are fine, parallel process, works fine lasts a long time.

  15. I think you’ll see IAG’s level and the like mopping up a330neo slots as they become available and priced ‘right’… Secondary markets for a tried and tested frame with huge commonality with its sisters is not a huge gamble… Keep it flying 20yrs as designed to do… No need for secondary markets.

    Comes down to cost. HA is a small boutique airline that can’t really take large risks

    Shame how nasty business is though… It does ‘indicate’ the position the 797 is aiming for in terms of (over) weight and capacity. Guess building a really light 797 is becoming impossible as they do the real math… Aka the 50k+ thrust requirements being touted by GE.

    Hard to admire or even like Boeing these days.

    • I have to agree on that one.

      I don’t agree because of the HA move though.

  16. So my assumption that production expansion to 14/m went hand in hand with strong low pricing ( and to displace the A330NEO if possible.)
    so Xavier will find 60% discounts next year for Boeing?

  17. Why this?

    The A338 is the equivalent of B788.

    The B789 and A339 face off against each other.

    I can’t see why Hawaian should have switched to A350 if the A339 seems to be right sized.

    That order was for 6 aircrafts, they have 24 A332.

    That deal doesn’t make any sense for me at all.

    So Boeing persuaded a airline over price to a aircraft that doesnt make any sense at all.

    • Some only Freedom Fries MAGA pressure added?
      Still I think that “win” is a costly affair for Boeing.

        • Sash: It may be they have had plenty of time and input on the 787 and its performacne and while I agree you don’t make a decision on price alone, this may have been, it does more things better overall than the A330/A350 does for our routes and future plans.

          • Hawaiian is P&W Engine territory so to buy a few RR T7000 powered A330neos might scare them even though Delta Tech Ops will take care of them as they do for Hawaiians present A330 Engines.
            Boeing might tell them that they could switch to RR T1000-TEN powered 787’s and keep the RR deposits for an Aircraft that is much more liquid in the market with Boeing guaranteed buy back prices. Even the DoD might offer some more volume to/from Hawaii if they buy Boeing Aircrafts.

      • * A310 ~762
        * A300 ~763 ( this correct?)
        * A332,A338 is ~~788 size, also ~764
        * A333,A339 is ~~789 size.
        * A359 is ~7810 size
        —* 778X intermediate
        * 3510 is ~~777-300 size
        * 779X

    • The Airbus A330-900neo and the Boeing 787-9 are separated by 1000 nautical miles range. They are aircraft for slightly different mission types.

  18. Rerun of the bombardier complaint.
    Push the price really low and then claim that you are being forced to offer a ruinous price because of dumping.Obviously this is nonsense if you win the deal.This is why Airbus have made it known that they couldn’t go below the cost of manufacture.The 330Neo was always a stopgap which will be squashed to death between 787 and 797. Boeing have now pushed the price of the 737,787 and 797 much lower,costing themselves hundreds of millions of dollars. Raving mad.

    • I don’t see that the 797 has any part in this.

      The A330NEO clearly has moved up and not down.

      The A330NEO can’t compete with a Boeing 767W with latest pip engines let alone a notional 797.

      Airbus claims that they cover that MOM gap with the A330 is just press spin. They don’t. No one does right now.

      All coverage is a compromise and there is not a lot of market for a compromise.

      The 767 is the best option from the high end, the A321 is the best from the low end and neither really nails it.

  19. Seems like a pretty short-term oriented strategy by Boeing. The harder they attack the A330neo now, the sooner Airbus will be forced to counter the 797 with a new design. Strategically I’d consider it smarter to let Airbus in their belief that they have the MoM covered with the A330neos and A321s and have them sell a few of their planes. In seven years Boeing will have a technologically superior plane and Airbus might have started too late to catch up. Airbus was once lucky that Boeing screwed up the introduction of the 787, giving them enough time to develop the A350, I would not bet on Boeing repeating this mistake.

    • Jup.
      If Boeing fights the A330 in full spectrum war
      that would indicate that the A330 is a direct and effective
      competitor to the MoM ( or whatever will be catwalked soon.)

      Next thing they will unpack silver bullets, oaken stakes and prepare for burning the A330 in a nuclear flash. ( See why Trumps needs those “smaller” nukes 🙂

    • I don’t see the A330neo being replaced any time soon, any new Airbus model will come in the large SA category in my view. Competing directly with the B797 is a recipe for disaster for all concerned Along the lines of a DC10 vs L1011 death embrace for a relatively small market. So Airbus will adopt a bit of asymmetric warfare pitching a highly capable large SA against the small TA of the B797 and competing effectively for 80%+ of the prospective market.

      This means the A339 has to be made to work as it is with us for the foreseeable future. If Boeing are competing heavily on price they appreciate it as a formidable competitor. This has all the ingredients of a slugging match. My understanding is that the A330neo is considerably cheaper to produce. I am guessing at lower costs in the region of $10-15m a pop.

      If I were an airline I would be licking my lips at the thought of the ‘bargains’ out there

      • Yup… On all counts 😀

        When the 330neos are through their flight tests… They’ll start to sell. Lot’s of life left in that frame.

        • Pretty much stuck on no sales movement while the 787 continues to sell and ramp up.

          The 800 loss aside and it is miner, its not making waves towards the big numbers.

          Lots of near term slots open and still no.

    • I think also that’s whats going to happen here. AB will developed 350 variants that will directly compete and better the 787-9/10 but also challenge the larger of the NMA.

      So the 787’s must enjoy the sun while its still shining.

      • Well the A350-800 is off the books.

        So sans a major lighten up of that air- frame?

  20. Hawiaan is a successful airline. They selected an airplane to fit with their business plan, which is to fly direct to Europe. Someone suggested earlier they should fly to China instead. Lots of airlines already fly this route, that’s not their business plan.
    And I’m sure they got a great price on the airplane.

    • Somebody seriously tell me why Europeans would want to fly to Hawaii on Hawaiian? First, what’s wrong with Spain, the Riviera, and Morocco? And, then I’m hard pressed to think of the need for more than a daily BA/AA flight out of LHR, an LH/UA out of Frankfort, and maybe, Condor and TUI 3 times a week from similiar locales. What’s left for Hawaiian?

      • @MontanaOsprey:
        “Somebody seriously tell me why Europeans would want to fly to Hawaii…”
        Don’t know but they obviously hv already been doing it in larger numbers than many folks expected. 2016 annual foreign visitor arrival statistics published by Hawaiian tourism authority:

        We all knew Japan is the largest foreign visitor source but Europe being about 10% of that is lesser known. On the other hand, there’re upto 22x daily Hawaii-Japan nonstops but zero for Hawaii-Europe. By relative mkt size and despite geog diff re routing options, it doesn’t seem unrealistic to expect Hawaii-Europe capable to support more than a daily nonstop.

        “…on Hawaiian?”
        Probably for the same reasons why Aussies+Kiwis “would want to fly to Hawaii on Hawaiian…”

        HA has been operating upto 3x daily HNL-AKL/SYD/BNE for yrs.

        “..what’s wrong with Spain, the Riviera, and Morocco?”
        By the same token, what’s wrong with Malaysia, Bali and Phuket for Aussies+Kiwis still choosing to visit Hawaii instead?

        “…I’m hard pressed to think of the need for more than a daily BA/AA flight out of LHR, an LH/UA out of Frankfort…What’s left for Hawaiian?”
        Despite AKL-HNL is daily by NZ and SYD-HNL is 8x wkly by QF/JQ, there’s still room left for HA to serve AKL+SYD daily plus being the only game in town for BNE-HNL…..go figure.

        • I am not an 787 fan boy but if HA wants to fly directly to Europe the 789 most likely the best balance between size and range.

          From a business model its possibly better to “pick-up” European travelers (and other) through connections such as Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, etc. For such routes there is more flexibility in aircraft type and frequencies depending on capacity requirements, all these are <5000Nm from Hawaii and could be served with 332's to 78J's. Japan to Hawaii could be a good NMA route.

          An alternative is to serve an European Hub or two such as London/Paris/Frankfurt which are all less than 6500Nm from Hawaii (polar route) and serve it with higher capacity aircraft such as 359', etc. but not too many destinations.

  21. If Boeing tries to do it it’s a master stroke !

    Eliminate checkers from the chessboard for 797!

    Heeyy! Having a good plane is good but having a monopoly is something else.

    Anyway the A330 is in intensive care.
    The blogosphere is shaking.
    It’s always a good sign for Boeing!

  22. Airbus NEED A350-800 at this point. They need to put smaller wings and engines with less thrust. They also need to reduce the range by 20% to 6500nm which is a really big market for most airlines.

    With this modifications, Airbus would be able to crushed B787-9 sales. It’s been proven that airlines often doesn’t need the extra range.

  23. With Air Asia, I think it needs to be kept in mind that if the dropped the A330NEO they had a lot of money to return.

    This way they can keep kicking the planes down the runway with revised deals as they are talking about the A350 now and Airbus would transfer those orders.

  24. Maybe part of this is Hawaiian wants to keep access to used 717s, and Boeing can help secure those for a good price in the future.

  25. The never-ending B and A flame wars.

    What are the data? And (speculation)?
    Boeing: 787- It is (somewhat?) more expensive than the 330 but more capable

    1. B787 is selling well and is increasing rate to 14/m.
    2. Potential sales slots are opening up due to the increased rate
    3. Areas of emphasis are likely the 787-10 and 787-9; a lot of 787-10 sales in future?
    4. 787-8 is a specialty offering now?

    Airbus: 330- It is cheaper to manufacture, has open slots, and (initially) may be easier to get sooner

    1. A330-800 is effectively dead (right now) with question of orphan status for the future
    2. A330-900 is selling slowly and has had delayed entry to service, thereby (somewhat) nullifying the earlier slot availability advantage
    3. A330-900 is only sellable option?
    4. (There is too big a gap between the a321 and the a350-900 and the offering here is somewhat subpar?)

    My guess is that Boeing is succeeding in lowering production costs of the 787 and is able to compete with the 330neo line. If Boeing can continue to sell at close to 1:1 book to bill at rate 14….

    • Mike, you are far too rational in your approach, I don’t think you can argue with any of what you are saying… it appears to me that Boeing have ramped production to take advantage of the cost reduction benefits of accelerating cost reduction and plain old asset sweating of the fixed cost base. This has to be tempered by the need to chase sales which will lead to the need to price more keenly. Whether this payoff works will be difficult to assess. Additional issues come into play such as offering near term slots and the risk of running dry of orders. But it is an aggressive play that may work.

      I wonder how low Airbus will go to keep the A339 in the game? What is the true cost of an A339? When Airbus go hunting I think you will find they have enough takers to keep them happy. The users get a known quantity that mixes it quite convincingly with the B789 for most missions in spite of age.

      • Maybe AB is playing a cunning strategic game.Wait for the 787 to go to 14/month, BA developing the NMA and then drop 330N and 321 prices by significant margins as the the MAX backlogs starts to peter off.

        This could choke BA’s sales and profit margins for new orders? So the 330N a decoy for BAC to drop 787 prices.

        • It is reality that if Boeing can make 14 x 787 a month in a facilities that are making 12, the cost gets spread out more.

          Of course they have to sell all those slots.

          So the trade off is a bit lower price vs more sales?

          Long term can they sustain it, or is it really more an 8 to 10 x 787 a month market.

          To me that is the key aspect, how it plays out in the future.

  26. Many people (including Scott) are commenting and speculating about the sad fate of the A330 Neo. It starts from a “serious blow” to the kiss of death imposed to the A330-800 and even the A330-900.
    As we are all free to speculate as we want, I suggest a much positive pontification : the A330-800 canceled by Hawaian would be perfect for the longhaul subsidiary of Indigo or any low-cost startup. Airbus has been very discerning and successful in the past with newcomers like JetBlue, Indigo, Wow, Wizz or Air Asia / Asia X. Let’s remember what John Leahy told to Scott about the A330-800 (and we can assume that JL had in mind some ongoing sales campaigns).
    I wouldn’t recommend to anybody, especially to JL’s friends in Seattle, to underestimate Airbus whether in the low-cost market or in the middle of market (with the A321 and the A330). Considering that the long-haul low-cost market or the Chinese market is much bigger than the Europe to Hawai market, I don’t understand why we should overvalue the lost order of only 8 A330-800 to a secondary airline.
    My 2 cents of pontification.

    • Well when we see those sales, great forecast

      On the other hand Air Asia has kicked the A330 orders down the runway so not one I would count on.

      • As you know I am a bit off a 330 “fan boy”, not mainly for the 18″ seat width an quiet cabin but for traveling with the family the 2-4-2 seat layout works well. For business travel all the “nonsense” in the front is basically the same for most aircraft.

        I have always been moaning about the 787’s, but if I have choice in economy between an 330 and 359 I will still take the 330.

        • That would be my choice as well but I like foot space more than width.

          But, its not what the customer demands, its what they get.

    • @Birdy–It wasn’t Leahy but Crawford Hamilton (no relation) who outlined the LCC strategy to us.

  27. @Birdy

    That’s a spot on analysis!

    The 251 metric tonne MTOW, 8250nm capable A330-800 would seem to a very good option, in the near- to mid-term, for LCCs planing to operate relatively thin routes between India and North/South America, between South East Asia and North America and between China and North America.

    Nearly half of the world’s air traffic growth will be driven by travel to, from, or within the Asia-Pacific region in the next 20 years. Hence, Boeing’s seemingly desperate measure in trying to get AirAsia to switch their wide-body fleet to 787s — they know where the growth is and they missed out on the Indian LCC scene. The all Airbus operator Indigo — the only profitable airline in India — which has a 40 percent market share in the domestic Indian market, is apparently planning a Norwegian-type intercontinental expansion, and then some.

    • Analysis is something you do to an event that has happened.

      Forecasting is iffy at best, sometimes known as guessing.

      I know what the temperature is right now, I can make an analysis what its going to do latter based on past experience.

      In this case, we now have no temperature to start with and no past experience for analysis for the future.

      My best guess of 250 is looking better all the time.

      We certainly are not remotely even on the on ramp to Hazy 1000+ .

      That could change but right now I am not seeing it.

      What does cause me some wonder, if Boeing management had not hosed the 787 program up at its start, what would the Airbus Boeing world look like now?

      • To be honest, if the NMA is an elliptical CFRP 2-4-2, with 17.2″ seats and 18″ seats for the middle 2 seats, and can take LD3-45’s it could be something special.

        A standard fuselage Li-Al could also work depending what the NSA is planned to be build off.

      • @TransWorld

        Analysis is a way to interpret data and derive insights. In fact, it’s an in-depth review and sorting of the current facts, which may be a more-than-sufficient assessment for many decision-making scenarios.

        In this case, the “current fact” is the air traffic growth in Asia which has clear business implications for the OEMs.

  28. Whilst I believe leeham to to amongst the least biased news organisations in the entire world,I would be interested to know if the recent trip to Airbus HQ was entirely self funded. Also Airbus must have plans for the middle market, as their gap is just as bad as Boeing’s. No one has got a sniff of it other than the mythical A322,which l have my doubts about.

    • The A321 Super I think depends solely on what Boeing does in the single aisle, less than the NMA.

      The 737-900/9 sold, not great but sold for those who wanted to keep their commonality.

      You could easily see a 797 and an A321 complementary to each other in airlines that run more than a single type.

      If Boeing finally does a single aisle, then its a check if its an upgrade or an all new configuration that Airbus could not match with a new wing ala Suger High or Low.

      Airbus may have one gap, Boeing has two now, the 737RS and something to compete with the C Series.

      • The A321 Super or A322 has its design limitations and the big advantage is to keep the same Engine installation as the present A321neo with a tad highter thrust. So the natural development is a stretch for and aft the wingbox, new CFRP wingbox and wings together with normal design/cost evolution, hence that will not change much until the 797 comes into production.
        That makes Airbus move for a A322 is timed by availability of thrust bumped PW1135G or LEAP-1A2’s to 35k as the extra fuselage sections, wingbox and wings most likley sits in the Airbus computers already fully analyzed waiting for a go-ahead for production /vertification in the UK/Northen Ireland and some UK goverment Money.

          • So most likely;

            321 “Super”, current 321, length 44m,
            322, =B752, length 47m,
            323, =B753, ~54m (we know it didn’t) work.

            So if I could consider options for an all bells and whistle stretch/es for the 321 for a large single aisle family with all new wing, 4 wheel bogies, and new engines it could possibly be;?

            A322, length 47m, range 4500Nm,
            A323, ~50m, 3500Nm,
            A321ULR, 47m, 5000Nm.

            This will cost big bucks and not sure about the size of the market. Possibly better to do a 321 and LR “Super” and consider something new/different between the 321’s and 339?

          • Anton:

            Read my lead in post to this section, I used the A321 Super label.

            Very sensitive to credit where its due!

        • @Claes

          What is your estimate on the wing area for the A322? Similar to a B757 at 185 m2 from now at 124 m2, or it can be smaller?

          • Critical questions, think the 35Klb engines “fixed”. MTOW and range the key factors I think.

            If the 322 is planned as a longer range aircraft (4000+Nm) the wing sweep and span needs to change. Fuel capacity of the320/1’s wing seems an issue.

            If its planned as higher capacity but “standard” (~3500Nm) range it could possibly stay in Cat-C and be used on an 321 (U)LR.

            Due to thrust limitations and stretch MTOW probably limited to ~100T, so wing will also need to have good lifting properties.

            These are all very interesting for me as just a man on the street. Sure there are numerous options flying around AB’s drawing boards.

            Personal view, don’t spend to much on it, could become an 340-like program.

            AB’s needs in the 220-280 seat class are huge, they are in need of something special. Build a new aircraft around an A+++ grade engine?

          • @Anton

            Many thanks, clear to me now.

            Existing A321neo’s wing can only be extended by 2m on each side to fit Cat C. Therefore, what an A322 can bring to the family has its limitations and I agree with you that Airbus knows how this looks like, although an A322 with 2L entry will be very efficient, imo.

            Totally agree on the need for a new design for 220-280.

      • Lot of talk of putting a plastic wing on a 321neo. Note that along with a new model, the BBD merger gives AB a new production facility currently building composite wings only 2 feet shorter than the ones on the 321neo. Not to mention the team that designed them.

  29. Due to the A330-800 Boeing had to lower the price for 787-9 drastically
    for Hawaiian Airlines. More future customers may ask for such a price and demand it because they could order the A330-800.

    Airbus may sell no A330-800 at all but it is also possible Boeing may lose more money due to the A330-800 than Airbus had to pay for complete certification process.

    • Possible, maybe not, seems to depend on what the real end goal is.

      Have to wait and see if they shot themselves in the foot.

    • Due to the A330-800 Boeing had to lower the price for 787-9 drastically
      for Hawaiian Airlines. More future customers may ask for such a price and demand it because they could order the A330-800.

      This is exactly what Boeing complained about in its Bombardier trade case. Seems it’s OK when Boeing does it but not when a competitor does it.

      • Scott, OT, but have you guys covered the Max 9-ER? I saw a short article recently about Primera upping its order of Maxs by two, both 9-ERs. I don’t think there’s much on this version out there, after a google search. Thanks, MO.

        • Orders stand at 71 for it (maybe 73 if this is not logged yet).

          Primera looks like its only taking -9s.

      • @Scott Hamilton:

        Dumping is really used in an international context so I’m not even sure Boeing can be accused of “dumping” since it was a domestic sale. Also, we know Boeing’s complaint was more strategic than anything else. I’m not saying it was the right strategy, only that it might be the best one Boeing management felt.

        Also, we don’t even know if Boeing is to lose money on this deal. Add in ancillaries, etc. and it could be that Boeing will actually make a good profit on this deal.

        Finally, lets not forget Boeing’s current profit margins (IIRC >10%) is excellent by historical standards and certainly crushing Airbus’ recent profit margins (though I expect that to improve somewhat).

        • Was wondering if there was a hand shake to sell 737-7’s for cost -10% to replace 717’s?

          Lets see how this pans out, CS300’s most likely the best to replace 717’s, A320’s will have commonalities with the 321’s, the 319N is another orphan.

          Hawaiian’s 332’s fleet is actually new, 1-8 years old but sure Hawaiian is in Boeing’s NMA file for 2030 to replace 332’s?!

          • @Anton,

            Again, we simply don’t know. Since HA didn’t take any B737-7’s (that we know of), it could simply be a matter Boeing gave an excellent price to HA for a plane which they felt suited their needs the best.

            Some “chess match” here with Boeing wanting to “kill off’ the A338 and not have to somewhat complete with the potential B797(for 2030 as you state)? Maybe. Again, we simply don’t know.

            I do agree however that the CS3000’s (or some other type which competes with it) is a great option for HA. Lets not forget HA has the A321NEO on order/delivered and I do believe it will play an important part of their fleet/strategy.

        • I’, well aware of the difference between international price dumping and domestic pricing. This isn’t the point. The point is, Boeing is engaging in the same tactics, setting aside the legalities.

          • @Scott Hamilton,

            Whether it’s tactically right or not is irrelevant(for the record I felt it was the wrong move by Boeing).

            Boeing’s management and legal department has a duty to support the company any way (legally) possible.

            Also, we (at least me) don’t know the full terms of the deal (maybe you do). How do know Boeing isn’t going to come up profitable on this deal?

          • @Jacobin777

            FWIW, the willful ignorance of Boeing’s Law Department comes across as tactical stupidity; perhaps, though they’re just ruefully unaware of the fact that aggressive lawyering has consistently been found to be counter-productive,

          • The point Scott is making (not that he needs me to talk for him) is that according to Boeing, dropping prices for one or two clients is detrimental to profitability of the whole program.

            Boeing Vice Chairman Ray Conner testified that “it will only take one or two lost sales involving major U.S. customers before the commercial viability of the MAX 7 — and therefore the U.S. industry’s very future — becomes highly doubtful.”

            During the media campaign around the CSeries trade case Boeing also claimed that dropping prices “below market prices” for one or two customers would mean future costumers would expect the same discount/price.
            The issue Boeing has with the CSeries isn’t just with losing the Delta order (which they didn’t lose because they had nothing on offer). But also with winning the United deal for 40 737s but having to drop the price (to below production cost?) just to block the CSeries.

            The Hawaiian deal seems to be at a price level that will negatively impact future 787 prices (exactly what they complained Bombardier was doing).

            Keep in mind this is coming from a mindset of seeing Airbus as a socialist government sponsered work project that’s blocking Boeing from their God given right to the market. And a fear to “never again” (in relation to Airbus) let Bombardier grow and become a serious competitor.

          • Scott:

            I am a bit surprised. Its the legality of price dumping that has relevance, not the semantics of the tactics.

            While some business entities do have integrity, many do not and Corporations try to say they do when in fact its all smoke and mirrors.

            Boeing being two faced? Really! Shock. Spend 32 billion on a program that should be only 12 and then screw down on the workers (and the management that caused that 20 billion cost overrun?)

            The only real impact of the tactic is that legally BBD can say that there is now supporting data to say huge discount can go on well into a program.

            Its a point but fairly miner in that the ITC saw that as well for early programs and that was the relevancy at the time.

        • Boeing are definitely not dumping with this deal. Boeing will probably consider that Airbus is dumping just by putting a bid in.
          Maybe Airbus are scared to offer a really low price after the Bombardier case,or maybe they just want to make a profit.

          • “Maybe Airbus are scared to offer a really low price after the Bombardier case,”

            Or rather that Airbus is targeting the massively larger Asian market, in particular. Forcing Boeing to lowball their bid is just shrewd business tactics.

          • @OV-099 ,

            I don’t think anyone really knows what the dynamics of the situation are. Also, as long as what management is requesting isn’t illegal then I don’t think the legal team has really too much say in the matter about management decisions.

    • Its a lot off money for certification but think there is more pros than cons.

      One could be that the 338 could be more efficient than predicted/published and AB want to test that. It will also send the message that the 338 is not dead and available and it not free reign for BA in that segment.

      The 338 is a competent medium size long range aircraft.

  30. If this Hawaiian story is correct, it is really going to hurt the residual value for the A330-900NEO. Now, the A330-900NEO would be an orphan.

    • 8 planes cancelled out of 200 orders will hurt residuals- for a plane that hasnt even had EIS ? Dont be ridiculous

      There would be something like 5-10 787 orders dropped every year for various reasons, but the nett orders is positive

  31. With comments that like that Qatar could need 100 aircraft for an envisaged airline in India strengthen the possible requirements for an NMA like aircraft.

    The 330NEO’s are in the doldrums at the moment, if AB does not develop an NMA a last throw of the dice could be to develop a new centre section, wing box, wing (CAT-D), etc that could be used on both the the 338/9 length fuselages.

    You could then have two aircraft with 5000Nm (257 seats) and 4000Nm (290 seats) ranges for example.

    Engines a big question, 55-60Klb’s?

  32. Depending on engines EIS could be around 2023, approximately 3 years before the “797”?

  33. There is one joker card here that needs to be considered- the a330neo is beating it’s spec well enough in testing for Fernandes to turn down the give away 787s. The supposed efficiency gap between the a330neo and the 787 may be much smaller than originally predicted by the end of the test program.

    • Or staying with Airbus allows him to move to the A350 and kick the order can down the runway like he has for a while.

  34. Could we see AB go for a big “promo/spring/show” sale of the 330-200CEO’s and focus on an 338 with “Advantage-3” engines.

    BAC is not going to re-engine the 788, the NMA’s range will be less than 5500Nm.

    This will result in the 338 being the only ~250 seat aircraft with 6000+ Nm range.

    The 767F’s are not getting newer, an 338F could put it in a class of its own.

    • At least in the freighter world, the 767 rules and with all the feed stock, will do so for so for some time.

      New one for FedEx and UPS as well as conversions for UPS.

      The A33-200F did not/ is not selling and putting a lot of money into a freighter that won’t sell is a downward spiral.

      Freighters have their own dynamic, MD11s are still viable or UPS and FedEx with no plans to drop them into the far future

      • Agree, but an 338F in 5 years might have a place in the sun.

        As I can make out not easy to make freighters from plastic aircraft?

        • Keep in mind, if an MD11 is a viable freighter (and it is) then the whole thing is weird.

          But the DC10/FedEx MD10 was not?

          Why did FedEx buy new 767F when they had feedstock for 767 Conversion from Pax?

          Read the link I sent on UPS, 767s, MD11, A300 and 747 (and FedEx is dumping their A300)

          I don’t know if the A330F is too big, not enough range or? No one is buying it (and few conversions)

          Put a really costly plastic aircraft into that mix and it seems not to even think about it. 747 was intended for that role from the start (F) so it was an easy move.

          777F sells because there is not enough feedstock for a CF.

          Airbus would need to see a demand for a A330-800F and then have not seen it for the A330F. The latest ubber efficient engines are not what drives freighters (see MD11)

          The longer Boeing has a hold on the market the less room there is for someone to move in.

          The 747 may outlive the A380 on F orders alone.

          But you did not see a 777F until well into the program.

          So a 787F/A350F is 10 years away (if it comes)

          I don’t doubt it can be done but the balance seems to stick with the older airframes.

    • Just a technicality, as they will be wanting to convert to another Airbus type, like A321’s Gives them some leverage.

      I saw somewhere recently that around 65 orders for 787s have been cancelled in the last 4 years, extra orders give them a nett positive. That doesnt mean the 787s are bad , they are a fine plane.

      • @dukeofurl:
        “Just a technicality, as they will be wanting to convert to another Airbus type, like A321’s…”
        I don’t doubt it at all and this kind of conversion arrangement, often done in a quiet/low profile way by this industry, is typical. In fact, I predict HA will most likely convert 338 x6 into either:
        A) 332 x6….basically a top-up order
        B) 321Neo x8…..likely in 321LR config to allow HA to hit U.S. mainland mkt further east such as IAH /MSP and address American Samoa mkt all without widebody risk/op cost.

        Still, leehamnews should not hv used the term “cancels” re 338 @ HA for obvious reason(they could hv reported contract for 338 will likely be converted into another Airbus type) even if they reported correctly a 789 deal is imminent.

        “I saw somewhere recently that around 65 orders for 787s have been cancelled in the last 4 years..”
        1. Pls kindly cite your source.
        This is a bold claim as it does not match movements of the actual total 787 firm order statistics reported on / over the past 4yrs(i.e. not much changes by my observation until it started to rise significantly last yr).
        2. When U said “orders”, your definition include options, rights, LoIs?
        If so, then your claim may make more sense. E.g., it was reported 21hrs ago that QF let one 789 option lapsed(a.k.a. ‘cancel’)….this type of things happen all the time regardless of Airbus or Boeing widebody type but not necessarily reported each time.
        3. Even if U referred only to firm orders and are correct, it’s no big deal in the grand scheme of things.
        a) 65 frames cancelled in 4yrs are not too bad relative to about 650 still sitting on the backlog.
        b) The SQ top-up order for 78J x19 + EK’s LoI for 787 x40 last yr alone nearly match the 65 frames cancelled across 4yrs.
        4. Boeing must hv received far more new orders than 65 frames cancelled across 4yrs so net growth still occurred. Otherwise, production rate increase fm 12 to 14 per mth could not hv made sense…..and recall already reported 787 delivery is overbooked or nearly so till 2021 if rate stays @ 12/mth.

  35. So what if Hawaiian has fooled Boeing and orders both types?I often wonder why airlines pay huge cancellation fees in a sellers market. Why not just accept delivery and then move them on?

    • Fairly certain HA will take 789’s. If they don’t cancel the 338’s orders I can see them changing it to 339’s to be used on higher density routes.

      As their 332 fleet is “very new” they may consider to start an LLC with some of those?

      • If they stay with the 338’s they could rotate it with the higher capacity 789 on a seasonal basis for example based on traffic demand for the planned longer haul routes?

      • So move on the 332. The more I think about it the more sense it makes.I can’t see how any clause excluding the other manufacturer could be legally binding. Genius move,saving $100million +.Saves paying for lot of maintainence.

  36. As if it isn’t enough that Scott is laughably accused by some people to be shilling for Airbus, It wouldn’t fair to blame Leehamnews if finally Hawaian keeps its order. Whatever the fate of the A330-800 order, all of this buzz is revealing the war behind the scene between A & B and I don’t know any better source of information than Leehamnews. All of what we can read on Leeham is very enlightening about the forces at play and It’s always funny to see how it brings forum to the boil…
    Let’s go back to the facts : several Airbus managers including Eric Schultz recently said that in 2018 it’s time to be more “aggressive”, I undestand it as a declaration of (price) war. There’s a battle of nerves between A and B. Leaks to the press could be organized by one side or the other (or both). Clouding and obfuscation are weapons in this kind of war.
    On Boeing’s side, they need to demonstrate that the A330 is “has been”. They have plenty of 787 slots (14 per month now) to sell and they need to make a clean sweep to prepare the 797 launch.
    On Airbus’s side, the A330 production rate of 6 per month is easier to sustain. In this war (and it’s probably the first time), Airbus is not the challenger. On the middle of market, Boeing needs to displace Airbus.
    On the widebodies market, Airbus is the challenger and needs to displace the 777. The A350-1000 EIS is just the beginning of this other war. Like the A330Neo, it’s much too early to declare a winner just by comparing the current number of orders on both sides. By the way, nobody seems worry about the 777X but the GE9X development is late (still not in flight test) and I noticed a comment on Seattletimes (where many Boeing workers are posting) saying that the 777X development is running 14 months late. It’s just a rumor but …

    • @Birdy

      Keep i mind that those who are accusing to be shilling for Airbus are usually doctrinaire US-centric A.netters. Apparently, most high quality posters/commenters on have long since disappeared from the site. They seem to have lost interest in due to extreme infantile behaviour. Today, regional forums appear to be what was 10-15 years ago. That’s where informed posters gather and where earnest and intelligent discourse is one based upon insight and knowledge. has lost the vast majority of posters from Asia and the Indian subcontinent and most Europeans seem to have lost interest. What you’re left with is a vast majority of US-based posters; many of whom that are seemingly willfully ignorant** about the global nature of the industry and the world at large — and they typically don’t look kindly upon those who are engaging in “absolutely un-American activities”.

      **Urban Dictionary: Willful ignorance: a practice most commonly found in the political or religious ideologies of “conservative” Americans.

      • This article is using a lot of litotes. Let’s sum up without euphemism : the glider is on track but the engine is not. One day or another, they will have to put the airframe and the engine together.

        • OK, Birdy, you have not given an example to demonstrate your assertion that “This article is using a lot of litotes.” I will assume there are none to be found.

  37. @Birdy
    A good analysis of the current state of play. I think the point of note is that with the TA supply somewhere near 40 per month there is going to be constant competition to keep the assembled lines chugging at near full capacity. This is going to force both OEMs into making some aggressive moves.

    The way I see it is that Airbus have been a bit distracted and Boeing are currently in full war mode. This is a long game however and the two behemoths are so well balanced in terms of size and capability that a fatal blow is nigh on impossible. This will lead to a ‘natural equilibrium’ of sales due to the availability of slots, desperation of the OEM to make the sale etc etc.

    What makes things fun is that cost is determined heavily by volume and increasing volume can only be gained by more aggressive sales. There is a virtuous and vicious circle that starts with pricing strategies adopted and most strategies seem to point to lower prices to boost sales.

    Of course this is not going to work if both OEMs adopt the same strategy and that is where the market has potential to become unstuck. They may become stuck in a downward spiral of pricing and margins but without gaining market share and volume.

    Let’s see what happens! From my perspective Airbus appears to have attempted to maintain margins on the A350 platform whilst Boeing have consistently from day one been more aggressive in pricing the B787, substantiating this is difficult beyond anecdote however

  38. IAG looking for new aircraft for LEVEL I presume. Example of why AB should certify the 338.

    The main thorn in AB’s flesh is the 789 at the moment (with the 78J lurking), they should do deep soul searching of developing an A350-800NEO. New wing (350-380 Sqm), use of Advantage 3 technology on updated T7000 or XWB engines. This same wing could also be used on the 359 or a moderate stretch of it take the 787-10 head on.

    BAC created a perception about the 789’s and the opposite for the 338/9’s. This could possibly be AB’s highest priority at the moment to sort out?

  39. Not sure this site is much more than gossip and rumor. Hawaiian denied it is canceling the Airbus order less than two days after this was published.

  40. And folks, a new world record for fewest aircraft involved and most comments!

    Obviously this should be an Olympic event.

    Now where to put it.

    OAA (other aircraft athletes?)

  41. One issue with the move to a B787 is that 28 of its nominal 33 seat advantage is down to the plebs playing sardines up the back.

    9 abreast in a B787 — Qatar out of Auld Reekie a few times — is a waste of a good aeroplane. If that is the only way BA can make the figures stack up then it was a huge fail in the programme configuration phase.

    Consequently the B787 with 9 x 17.5?” is bad.
    However the B7double7 with 10 x 17.2” is shameful.
    It is not progress it is Tycoon capitalism running amok.

    All their plane economics is just so much passenger hating tripe.
    Apples vs Apples please — surely the Trade press should speak out?
    Just where will it all end.

    Saddle seats are not fit for a city bus.

    • What if Hawaiian use the better fuel economy and amazing price to go 8 abreast.You would be pretty much apples and apples,with the 787 being nicer.I suppose you would have to go behind the paywall for the answer to that one.

    • What if Hawaiian use the better fuel economy and amazing price to go 8 abreast.You would be pretty much apples and apples,with the 787 being nicer.Or just have less average seat occupancy with 9 abreast. I suppose you would have to go behind the paywall for the answer to that one.

    • At some point seat mile cost comparison must include seat width or cabin floor space, lets compare apples with apples?

      Why not compare a 789 with 9 abreast with an 339 (AirAsiaX) at 9 abreast (17.2″ vs 16.5″)? BAC is very happy to do comparisons with the 339 at 8 abreast (18″)?

      And the 797, my guess is 17.2″ seats that is available for the 787’s or they even could go 17″ like on the 737’s, CFO’s probably don’t know what the difference between 17″ and 18″ in economy is or means “to their valuable guest”, pay, shut-up, fly?!

  42. @Anton:
    “Why not compare a 789 with 9 abreast with an 339 (AirAsiaX) at 9 abreast (17.2″ vs 16.5″)?”
    Sure. In those configs, a 789 can easily lift a lot more Rev$ cargo kg in the belly than a 339(especially in AirAsiaX’s typical 370+ seats with a tiny premium cabin) over the same distance. It’s similar to how a 332 @ 8abreast can easily lift a lot more Rev$ cargo kg in the belly than a 763ER @ 8abreast(these are very rare but I hv seen examples @ charter operators) over the same distance.

    This is why for investment in widebody types intended mainly for routes beyond shorthaul(i.e. where air cargo mkt is a substantial Rev$ generator), airlines /lessors often focus far less relentlessly on the lowest possible per seat/km cost than casual commentators like yourself on aviation websites.

    • Airline such as AirAsiaX makes money by charging luggage check-in fees, belly revenue?

      • @Anton:
        “…AirAsiaX makes money by charging luggage check-in fees, belly revenue?”
        I did not say “belly revenue”. I repeatedly used the term ‘revenue cargo’. U think luggage flying together with their owner pax sitting above is the same kind of mkt as commercial cargo in terms of revenue stream? Man, I’m speechless….

  43. Paris Air Show in about 4 months, could it be the battle of the twin aisles?

    Hope there are a few surprizes, doesn’t mind who. Will be my first one, looking forward to it. Nice if the 339 is there.

    • @Anton:
      “Hope there are a few surprizes, doesn’t mind who”
      U are lying. U do mind who….based on the subjective bias consistently displayed on your comments here toward 1 manufacturer. Otherwise, U wouldn’t state things like “Nice if the 339 is there.”….

      • Like launching the 322 or NMA, something like that.

        The 737-10 or 777-9 won’t be there?

Leave a Reply

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