Pontifications: Good, and Bad, news from the Dubai Air Show

By Scott Hamilton

Nov. 25, 2019, © Leeham News: The Dubai Air Show proved to be a mixed bag for Airbus and Boeing.

Each company picked up important orders and commitments.

But each company saw some previously announced commitments reduced in the process, including, for Boeing, a reduction in the backlog for the slow-selling 777X.

The Good News

As expected, Airbus picked up triple-digit orders and commitments for the A320neo family.

Some of these are commitments, with contracts to be firmed up.

  • GECAS orders 12 A330neos, a boost to this slow-selling program, and 20 A321XLRs.
  • Air Senegal orders eight A220s.
  • Air Arabia ordered 120 A320neos, of which 27 are A321s and 20 are A321XLRs.
  • flynas firmed up a previously announced commitment for 10 A321XLRs.
  • easyJet exercised purchase rights for 12 A320neos.
  • Emirates Airline ordered 50 A350-900s, altering a previously announced commitment for a combination of A350s and A330neos and reducing the number from 70 to 50.

Boeing received important validation for the 737 MAX, even though new orders and commitments come from second-tier airlines.

Some of these are commitments, with contracts to be firmed up.

  • Air Astana signed for 30 737 MAXes.
  • Biman Bangladesh orders two 787-9s.
  • Ghana signed for three 787-9s.
  • Emirates orders 30 787-9s.
  • SunExpress orders 10 737-8s.
  • Unidentified order for 10 737-7s, 10 737-10s.

Emirates firmed up 30 of a 2017 commitment for 40 Boeing 787s, but in the process chose the -9 model instead of the -10 of the commitment. It’s fewer airplanes and it’s the smaller, lower-margin model, but for Boeing, it’s good news. The 787 backlog thins out sharply after the turn of the decade. The production rate is being reduced from 14/mo to 12/mo. The order, even at the reduced number, helps the skyline.

De Havilland Canada

De Havilland Canada announced some small deals at the air show, giving a boost to the slow-selling Dash 8-400 (formerly the Q400 under Bombardier’s ownership).

  • The Republic of Ghana signed an LOI for up to six airplanes.
  • ACIA Aero Capital Limited, a small lessor in the Mauritius, plans to acquire three airplanes.
  • Aurora Airlines, a subsidiary of Aeroflot, signed a letter of intent for five airplanes.
  • Palma Holding, a lessor in Dubai, signed an agreement for 20 aircraft.
  • Elin Group of Nigeria will acquire three aircraft.

As a note for readers, the new De Havilland Canada capitalizes the “D”. The original de Havilland Canada is lower case “d”.

The Bad News

Etihad Airways reduced its 787 order by 20 airplanes, finally confirming what’s been known within the industry all year. Still officially on Boeing’s order book: 25 777Xs, but Etihad previously said it only plans to take six of them “in the coming years.”

Etihad previously reduced its Airbus order; there was nothing new on this front at the air show.

Emirates reduced its order for 150 777Xs to 126. It did not identify which model, the -8 or the -9, was included in the reduction of 24 airplanes.

The 777X reductions chop 43 airplanes from the 344 backlog (there is a commitment for 20 others, but this hasn’t been firmed up). Development of the 777-8 has been put off for at least two years, if not longer.

61 Comments on “Pontifications: Good, and Bad, news from the Dubai Air Show

  1. Etihad looks like a basket case, there seems to be no inclination to take any aircraft at present. There is a small airline’s worth of A350’s sitting in or around TLS with their logo painted on them. All a bit different from when I was last there and they were full steam ahead building Etihad A380s.

    I get the feeling that managing the ever diminishing backlog is going to be the game for most programmes over the next 3-5 years

    • The leasing companies should be able to pick up all the A350’s waiting for HNA Group and Etihad to find cash. Delta will help Lan Chile taking over their A350 deliveries, especially the A350-1000’s should be popular for those retiring 777-300ER’s or 747-400 like BA.

  2. With the A380 now finally going out of production has the B777-10X not a better future than the 777-8X. The A350-1000 (319KLb MTOW) is more than strong competition for the 778, an A35K2 (with UF’s) will holds its own against the 779 with sector and seat mile costs.

    That will leave the 787-10 and 777-10X occupying specific market sectors/applications to themselves?

    • Now the 777-10X would only eat orders of the 777-9X and no longer from the competition. Makes no sense for Boeing to spend money here.

      What becomes more likely due to the cancelation of the A380 program, is a A350-1100NEO with the capacity and range of a 777-9X, but the MTOW of a A350-1000.

      • Valid point/s, but an 350-1100 (-2000) can compete with an 779 but not with an 777-10X?

        • An 350-1100 would have equal capacity, range and cost per available seat mile (CASM) to the current 777-9X.
          This is because of the the 777X engines which are half a generation ahead, which compensates the weight penalty of the 777-9X.
          But an A350-1100NEO would be another half generation ahead of the 777X engines, plus the weight benefit of the all carbon fibre A350. This would kill the buisness case of the 777-9X immediately.
          A 777-10X might reach similar CASM, but than Boeing have the same situation as Airbus had it with the A380. A bigger plane with the same CASM as the smaller one from the competition.

          KR Jörg

    • I think the 787-10 with new Engines like the RR Ultrafan will take the role of the 767-300ER had and be quite popular. The 777-10X has a tougher market with its heavier metal frame. With the RR Ultrafan Airbus will have an easier time to stretch the A350-1000 to a -1100ER.

  3. Airbus

    I remember LNA reporting that Boeing was going to thump Airbus this year. Airbus have picked up 700 orders and are likely to see a book to bill ratio of better than one this year. I think that would have happened regardless of the MAX grounding. Now they have to build them.

    I didn’t see it, but the A321XLR appears to be a game changer. Expect a stretch, adding 4-5 rows with a range of 4000nm. Together they will erode the 787/A330 market.

    I don’t know why we keep being told the A330 is slow selling. It’s taken 50% of the market, CEO and NEO, since the launch of the NEO in 2014.

    The prospects for the A350 look brighter and brighter. It’s getting better and better. A new evolutiom will come on stream circa 2022. It’s getting cheaper to make by the minute.

    Expect the A220-500 to be launched.


    The 787 is Boeing’s best airplane but it’s only as good as the A330neo. It needs a significant upgrade.

    The 777X will be less efficient than the A350 when it enters service. It will need to sell on price. If Airbus NEO the A350, the 777X is done.

    The 737 MAX won’t sell in large numbers even if the grounding is lifted. It must be replaced, the sooner the better.

    Boeing’s share will degenerate unless they find new blood. Expect Airbus’ backlog to hover around 7500 for years to come and Boeing’s backlog to decline below 5000.

    • GE apparently had talks with AB re an engine for an A350NEO, but interesting was mention of a second generation GEnx. Don’t know about all agreements for RR being the sole engine supplier for the A330N but think more airlines will consider the 330NEO with GE as an engine option is available?

      The 220-500 and 350-2000 will happen at some stage, an interesting gap for me is between the 359 and 35K (=787-10). Believe there is room for an A350-950, range 6000Nm, 80Klb engines, 359 wing, lighter 6 wheel bogies, etc…..

      • It will be interesting if GE put an engine on the A350. Airbus turned GE down because the GENX wasn’t good enough. I like competition. I think it moves technology forward. So let’s see if a second generation GENX can match the Trent XWB.

        But, I was interested in what Airbus said about the talks with GE. They were explicit in saying the A350 is what it is because of the engine, the Trent XWB. Now the durability numbers are coming in, Airbus know they bet right.

        To be clear, It should be remembered the Trent XWB exceeded it’s specification. The SFC was more than 2.5% lower than specification. That’s without the new Mark 2 fan. It saved Airbus’ bacon because the A350-900 was 3.9 tonnes overweight. That weight has now gone. The Mark 2 fan became available in 2016.

        But coming back to a second generation GENX. RR would have to respond. Would it be Advance or Ultrafan?

        The Trent 7000 is exclusive on the A330neo. But I still prefer competition. So wouldn’t object to GENX

        • @Philip

          GE going to Toulouse to talk to Airbus about putting a GE engine on the A350 smacks of desperation. The stagnant sales, business model and future prospects for the 777X, may have woken up folks at GE Aviation to such an extent that it have made them realise that favourising Boeing over Airbus is no longer sustainable. Apparently, the original GE business model for the GE9X engines had a target of 3400 engine sales.

          However, it’s not very likely that Airbus is going to play ball.

          *One slide–which is available to the conference attendees–showed a market forecast of 3,000 aircraft in a context that appeared to suggest GE sees a market of this number of airplanes for the 777X. We clarified this with Brewer after the panel; the forecast is for the 350-400 seat sector. Brewer told us that GE hopes to capture 1,700 of these aircraft.


          Now, Airbus turned GE down in 2007, because GE wouldn’t offer an engine for the A350-1000.

          GE, apparently, had no intent to provide an engine for an aircraft that would compete with the 777-300ER– an aircraft which they were sole source engine supplier for. Instead GE chose to cast its lot with Boeing and the then forthcoming 777X programme.

          IMJ, this will go down in history as one of the greatest strategic mistakes ever made by any engine OEM.

          “The problem we have with GE is they go to Seattle and say, ‘What kind of engine should we design for your airframe?'” said Leahy. “Then they come to Toulouse and say, ‘Here is the kind of airframe you need to build to fit our engine.'”


          • Seconded. It does sound like are asking, “Please, please, pretty please let us put an engine on the A350”.

            GE have realised that there’s no point aiming for a dominant market share on 787, and there’s no point in having exclusivity on 777X.

            Throw in the fact that there’s no point making engines for 737MAX either at the moment – and possibly forever if the cert agencies really play hard ball – and GE are an aeroengine company with not many aeroplanes to put them on.

            Is that a temporary problem for GE? Perhaps not. Seeking to rekindle a relationship with Airbus would seem to indicate that GE don’t believe Boeing is going to fix their product strategy problems any time soon, even if they get their certification problems sorted out. That’s pretty damaging.

            In contrast RR look like they’ve got a big hit with XWB. Just as well, it’ll likely outweigh their other issues. And if Ultrafan comes good, GE could be in deep trouble.

    • I don’t see the B787 as “only as good as the A330neo”. Its selling at a good pace and Boeing has become very efficient in production——->more competitive selling point. Boeing has practically sold the same amount of B787s in 2017-2019 (3 years) than Airbus has sold A330NEO 6 years! The A338NEO is practically a dud.

      The B737MAX should start to see more sales as: 1)More confidence in the MAX program and 2)Airbus production backlog increases.

      IMHO the B77X will start to see more orders as well. Yes, the A350J will sell too and I don’t think Boeing ever believed that the B77X would sell as well as the B77W.

      The A321 has been a great plane- for sure..so has been the A359.

      Everything else is just speculation (i.e. A350NEO,MOM,etc.).

      • I won’t speculate about 2019 therefore I want to mention that Airbus sold more A330 (ceo + neo) than Boeing 787 since A330neo was offered for sale in 2014 until 2018.

        Orders for A330neo
        2017: 10
        2018: 18
        2019: 34 (until now)
        You may see a pattern there.

        A330-800 is a very cheap dud compared to a maybe 777-8. The dud could also a pain for Boeing in case there is a real competition for KC-10 replacement.

        • And the A330-800 is not even a 777-8 competitor, that is truly an achievement of biblical proportions.

    • I suspect Airbus wont make any moves until A321XLR is in the air and when or whether it decides to fit the optimised flap technology developed for A350 to the rest of the A320 series (not just the A321XLR). It should improve take off and landing performance, brake and tire life and maybe even MTOW slightly without structural changes.

  4. The news I though most interesting was DeHavliand and the good orders numbers.

    I always felt it had a good future if the marketing was put into it. No the hype and spin type but solid presenting of facts. The best diesel sales guys were former mechanics who could talk the numbers.

    The DH 8-400 can do anything the ATR can, the ATR can only win economics a bit. The 8-400 can come very close by throttle back.

    The ATR can’t do the high and hot or the low and hot and hot and humidity.

    Nor can it make up schedule times as well as truncated by routes as its engine out performance is poor for altitude (which in turn means the economics go down the drain) .

    Boeing actually had a decent show.

    I am laughing at Airbus and the A350 and its suggestion of the third engine. No engine commonality in the fleets. That makes the economics suck.

    How soon do they bankrupt RR again? (or RR does itself in – nothing but more bad news on the 1000/Ten/7000 front)

    I had a howl that Tim Clark said RR was in danger of loosing its gold standard. Best laugh of the week.

    Not only the Trent 1000/TEN/7000 on going debacle that is only rivaled by the P&W issues, the 900+ is a miserable failure to meet its specs (TC wonb’t talk about that dumb decision)

    AF can’t loose its A380s fast enough. Great laugh there to as Joe Sutter wisdom is quoted (not intentional) about too high, too heavy.

    Airbus was touting how they had managed to get all of ONE with a pickup airline and it was the wave of the future.


    • It could have been worse for Boeing, which counts as success these days, I guess. Airbus for its part is very reliant on the A320 program, but at least it has it.

      I don’t have any inside knowledge but I predict a certification mess for the 777x. It’s essentially a new plane going through on a certification amendment. If I were a regulator, including a non US one, I would be very uneasy about signing off on a MCAS style certification regime. For the whole plane!

      If Boeing does have to do ground up certification, it probably would have chosen a design with less ambitious changes and would have started the certification years ago and not have to rush round doing it when the plane was supposed to be in service.

      • Flip side is its an FBW with no changes in that so where are the issues going to come from?

        From what I see most certification’s has to do with boring hours in the air that prove?

        Well proven systems?

        • It’s the unknowns. What’s changed and what’s the impact of that change? In the case of the 777x pretty much everything has changed but it is being certified on the premise that nothing much has changed. Don’t know about you but if I were in the hot seat at the FAA, EASA etc I would be uncomfortable going along with that, given a similar but more limited premise saw the crash of two planes and the loss of several hundred lives.

      • FF, yes, I think that’s going to be a problem.

        I find it remarkable that Tim Clark went and had a face-2-face with the new head of the FAA, talking about 777X certification, prounounced himself reassured, and then cancelled a load of 777X orders.

        That cancellation has been portrayed as slowing down the expansion of the airline – fair enough – but it does also reduce their future exposure to a 777X certification problem, either before entry into service or after.

        • So it seems FAA won’t certify alone and DeFazio keeps pressure to clean EVERYTHING up. Good that FAA can point to EASA.
          The TAB report might turn out as a bad joke from the past.

          That’s good, right, that everything will be cleaned.
          Sad it took 347 lives.
          Hard times for Boeing, big lesson learnt, hopefully.
          Much better to choose between Airbus and Boeing than only Airbus.

          • Perhaps everything will be cleaned. Perhaps not. My fear is that Boeing won’t be strong enough to survive the treatment, the condition having been officially recognised only 15, 20 years after the patient showed early symptoms.

            Boeing say they know what the treatment is (their recent reorganisation of who answers to who), but that ignores the fact that there’s question marks over their entire current product line. Knowing now how to better make aircraft counts for nothing if the lifeblood of the company – currently 737MAX, 787 and 777X – stop bringing in revenue. If that is what happens, the company is going to need money from elsewhere to stay alive. The US government probably doesn’t really yet understand what it might take to keep Boeing alive in the meantime, but one can easily see that it’d be very expensive.

            Boeing are also overlooking possible changes to the FAA. The FAA needs a serious look at, and that’s happening. Surely anything the FAA pronounces upon in the immediate future has to be treated with caution? It may have to be reconisdered if the on-going examination of the FAA finds anything awry.

            For example, just imagine the absolute mayhem if the FAA says tomorrow, “MAX is good to fly”, but then retracts that at a later date having been beefed up, taken a closer look at things and discovered something problematic previously overlooked? What if it’s the EUASA (EASA) that points out their oversight for them? That really would be commercial carnage.

            Is it better to choose between Boeing and Airbus? Yes, so long as both companies do the safety engineering *properly*. From what I understand, not even Airbus want a world-wide monopoly. Whether or not they end up in that position anyway might depend on the US government’s / US taxpayer’s willingness to underwrite Boeing, and airlines’ willingness to keep buying Boeing.

            The US government can underwrite Boeing all it likes; if airlines aren’t willing to buy any of their product, Boeing fails.

            Another possibility is that Boeing ride out this initial storm – Airbus can’t mop up all of Boeing’s market share just like that – but gradually over time airlines move over to Airbus. Or Comac.

  5. Interesting to me is that Emirates orders A350-900 and 787-9.
    A350 for long range and 787 for short range?
    If I could get one A330-900neo plus one A220 for the same price as one 787, why would I choose the 787? Did the 787 become so cheap?

    85 A320 and 77 A321. I thought A321 would be prefered much more.
    Only eight A220 is disappointing.
    777X will have a hard time.

    Unidentified MAX orders. Wouldn’t Boeing want to name the Airlines, or Airlines hide their names in this MAX climate, ot are these fake orders.

    40 MAX plus 35 B787 minus 20 B787 minus 24 777X = nearly nothing

    SunExpress ordering the MAX. It’s a joint venture of Lufthansa and Turkish Airlines. More Greedy Airlines.

    • Looks like airlines see the 777-9 as A380/B747 replacement, the 350-1000/1100 (-2000) could take a big bite out of the 77W replacement market.

      As you indicated things were very quiet on 75-150 seat market, starting to have a feeling that some start to believe that changes could be coming to the US Scope Clauses to accommodate the E175E2, although unlikely that will be a biggie for Boeing/Embraer.

    • “Interesting to me is that Emirates orders A350-900 and 787-9.

      Just like with Airbus they have money parked with Boeing.
      getting rid of unwanted / unsuitable 777X turneds the scales towards a 787-9 order ( from a A330Neo/787 mixed pickles bucket )

    • “Unidentified MAX orders. Wouldn’t Boeing want to name the Airlines, or Airlines hide their names in this MAX climate, ot are these fake orders.”

      Oh yeah they are definitely fake orders you know because Boeing does that all the time!

    • Fake orders = jail time for CEO because it might be misleading stock exchange.

      • Boeing have a financing/leasing arm. They could order for themselves. Not fake orders then.

  6. I think the biggest news was GE stating that there would be no new clean sheet engine ( read MOM) until the early 2030’s -say 2032-.So absolutly no chance of a MOM until then.Having said that Boeing seems to have gone cold on it anyway.
    A321neo XLR.Wow it seems to be the ‘must have’ aircraft of the moment.Is this infact the new MOM only smaller?

    • Still believe Boeing can make some very useful for the MoM market using the 787-8 as basis. New Cat-D wing, 60Klb GEnx Mark2 engines, etc., better than anything that’s on the market now and will be for many years.

      An A322 (+20 seats), 3500-4000Nm range, new wing, will have a market for itself for many moons. Put that wing, engines, LG’s, on an A321 (E)XLR with effective range of 5000-5300Nm and AB just have to increase production rates.

        • Not going to argue that but an 787-8″MoM” will share a common production line, suppliers, interiors, etc.

          This is just a wild estimate but looks like airlines will have to replace ~300 (?) 767’s during the next 5 years, maybe an 787-8 with 200-210T MTOW, 5500Nm range and 60Klb (?) GEnxMark2 will do for most airlines.

          The OEW of the 338 is 12T more than the 788, so something drastic will have to change for it to be in play.

    • In hindsight it appears really weird that Boeing did not launch a 757 successor when it was due.
      Funny that Airbus apparently never intended the A321 to fill that role, but it slowly grew into it, and now they have a winner, just when this trend of more and more point to point connections of “medium” distances grows.

      My view is that the MOM idea never really took off and never went beyond a study, as neither a production system for the fuselage nor a matching engine could be found. So no big news for me. Big news would have been if GE really still had a plan of developing an engine for the MOM.

      I’m really curious about the FSA and about some key decisions that will have to be made quite early (and actually should long have been made): Width of fuselage (wide like the MS21?), material of the wings (probably CFRP?), material of the fuselage (probably still aluminum?), engines. Now this last one is potentially the biggest one as Boeing certainly wants to stick to CfM, but need a geared fan regardless. So is CfM developing one? Will there be a consortium of some kind that includes RR? Big chance for P&W?

      • It appears that for the first time the requirements for and FSA/NSA is separating into 3 distinct classes with its own unique requirements. The 100-150 seat category which the A220 could still serve for a long time. Then the large SA 200-250 seat sector which the A321 and variants will cover for still a significant period of time, there is however place here for a high tech small TA.

        The big action could be in the the 150-200 sector (A320/MAX8/C919/MC21) which also is the current most popular for the SA’s. For an OEM to take dominance here there will have to be major advances in the technology to be a market leader.

    • Why would the MOM Boeing talked about, the higher capacity but only 4500nm range version ( around 40-50K thrust) need a clean sheet engine .
      There were various tech that was tested for the Leap engines but not used, such as variable area exhaust nozzle and laminar flow nacelles. There could be others now that suit a 4-500nm range and with a larger core adapted from that on the Leap-A be very suitable for a MOM plane. The same thinking by P&W can scale up for a larger GTF.

      • Well a larger core means everything else has to be adjusted so you have a new engine even if its based off the current offering.

        At 75% new the Trent TEN is a new engine.

        • Looking at the PW1000 series , from the big fan 81 in version at 3.4m length to the baby GTFs with 56 in fan and 2.88m length , there is a lot more different than just going from 3 stages LPC to 2 stages ( and an extra 1000kg)

          75% of Trent TEN is new ?
          As they said -they resized the IPC and HPC from the Trent XWB
          “in the TEN comes from the new compressor system. It employs a scaled version of the IP and HP compressors from the Trent XWB-84. The HP turbine architecture is shared with the Trent XWB-97”

          At least RR had a major new engine to draw on GE, had to spend money and time of their ongoing GEnx durability issues and replace major sections for the whole fleet.
          …..’which includes modifications to the GEnx-1B’s high-pressure turbine (HPT) first-stage nozzles and blades, as well as its combustor lining and fuel nozzles— will offer operators of GEnx-1B-powered 787s approximately 30 percent more time on wing”
          That being its second ‘upgrade done’ faulty parts change.
          I suppose if you keep calling ongoing major parts replacements ‘upgrades’, some people are going to believe you.
          How much of the ‘upgraded GEnx is new ?

  7. TC has long said he wants out of some 777-Xs, BA have his deposit, so he had to take something and 789 is the only thing BA have of interest. Bjorn explained years ago just how limited 787-10 is in Dubai. If TC had to take 789s he was never going to take 339s, nearly the same thing. Can’t help of thinking the 339 MOU was a pricing exercise. AB have TC’s 380 deposit, he also had to take something from them, but had 3 options, 339, 359 or 35K. As he needs something in between 789 and 777, only 350s were ever likely, maybe 787-10 MOU was just to put pressure on the price. A little surprised he didn’t include 35K but he can probably upsize at his leisure when 777-X performance is known, if he wants to. Zero surprises here, I posted a few weeks ago that an EK 339 wasn’t going to happen.

    • Interesting that EK’s planned fleet composition is starting to look like that of Qatar (excl A321N’s), wouldn’t be surprized if EK drops the 778 for 35K’s, same for QR. Maybe better for Boeing to look at an 77-9ER (8000-8500Nm) and/or 777-10X instead of 778

      Could the 778 land up in the same position as the 338? Personally I like the 338 (coming from an area with Hot&High airports where you need range) but AB is trying to make it out as an MoM/332 replacement, the only hope I see at this moment for the 338 is a niche (very) long aircraft (8500+Nm) for thin long routes, but this market maybe only 100 aircraft max? If you can cram 460 seats into an A339 wonder how much you can get into an 338, maybe some options there?

      Range of aircraft are restricted in the ME due to temperatures, can see them using the 789’s for longer & thinner routes.

      On something different but also similar, flyDubai has 120 MAX9/10’s on order, wont be surpized to see 50 or so of those going to A321N’s/XLR’s?

      • “” If you can cram 460 seats into an A339 wonder how much you can get into an 338, maybe some options there? “”

        I would order A330 only with these Lower Deck Facilities. In the past there were lavatory modules available so seating could be added together with a better set up. Next year sleeping modules from Zodiac will be available.
        This makes the A330 more attractive.

  8. Here is a dark horse for you. I’m facinated by what Delta are doing. Not withstanding sanctions, Delta have now bought 35 A330neo and 39 A350s. Are they going to take on the Middle East carriers?

    I hope they do.

    • Interesting point, DAL can pick up a lot of traffic from the East to the US (Seattle). Ethiopean is doing well with its hub in Addis for serving African routes to US/Europe/Asia.

      The ME airlines have noticed the danger from LCC’s from India, QT has now code sharing Indigo and EK with SpiceJet.

      But if you lazy and don’t want to worry about details, get on a flight to Dubai or Doha, you can get a flight from there to basically any place in the world and the chances are good that they serve an airport close to your hometown.

      While on wild arm waving, think of the shakes if one of the ME airlines take over Norwegian, etc…, QT is trying to do it with Air Italy connecting Europe with the US. Alitalia is a sticky one but the upside of Rome as a major European hub is for me a BIG carrot, the “Dubai of Europe”.

      • Just a few examples, Rome will be in reach with an 321XLR from all of India, entire US East coast (Miami marginal), most of Africa. Weather wise Rome is also not a bad locality, there could however be socio-political challenges.

        On the other end of the scale, Rome is 8800Nm from Sydney, so an HGW A35K could potentially connect these 2 cities with direct flights (Perth 7200Nm). Another long one is Santiago, but its still “only” 6500Nm. Longest European connection is Helsinki, 1200Nm.

  9. Some people suggest that a 787-8 is a MOM.In certain circumstances it certainly is.That in some part explains why it’s. sold over 425 aircraft.A huge total for a sub model!
    Size -it’s exactly in the sector at circa 240 pax in a two class layout.
    -But it only really works on longer missions of 5knm plus ( that the aircraft and engines were designed for).And clearly it’s overall structure does not lend itself to a ‘cut down’ (787-3/5).

    As for the ‘proposed’ 767-400NEO.Will just have to see if they can square the business circle, which obviously depends on the future size of the presently expanding ‘low density’ freight market.

  10. ‘A 787-8 would be a 120t OEW MOM. Twice as heavy as a A321. It can fit 300 seats easily on shorter flights,’

    I assume you are not being serious though!
    You know that TUI is not representative! It’s a charter!
    In real world 2/3 class it’s as I suggested -and you know that !
    As for being twice as heavy as an A321. And-so? Why not use a Cessna!They are even lighter!

    The 788 has and is being used as a replacement for the 767-300er ( a MOM) but it can only efficiently do this on the longer sectors (which is why it’s heavier btw).

    Having said that .
    There is no doubt -particularly looking at the many recent sales successes for the A321neo XLR there is little to no doubt that it too is grabbing a share of the MOM market from the other end.
    Indeed it maybe the tip of a rather large iceberg imho as airlines consider the P2P and H2P possibilities of this rather unique aircaft.

    • The 321XLR have short comings when it gets to routes of 3000+NM, cruise speed and effective altitude of pressurization. Due to being a single aisle the A321 size is on the edge of efficient boarding and de-planing times for short(er) sectors, especially in high density AFC format.

      If Airbus can address these in an ~48m long “A322” with 4500Nm effective range they will have a real winner, but this may cost USD5+Billion?

      There are 250-300 seat TA’s that can efficiently fly 4000+Nm routes, I see a substantial requirement in the long term for an 250-300/(350?) seat TA aircraft that can efficiently fly <1000-3000Nm high density routes.

      • Is the A321XLR much needed for 700nm more range than the LR. The A321LR will also get the new RCT. The basic A321 with 3500nm range should still be the best seller. But obviously the XLR is another step in the evolution to the A322.

        Airbus should make the A330neo lighter, both -800 and -900.
        The 787-8 has a 12t lower OEW than the 2m longer A330-800.
        The 787-9 has a 8t lower OEW than the 1m longer A330-900.
        The difference might be the wings. How about the A350 wings on the A330?
        Then a further stretch A330-1000 could make sense with the same 137t OEW. Without center fuel tank but with lower deck modules. These modules are a big advantage vs A321/322. So A330 would be best till 6000nm range and A350 for longer range.

        • Those numbers are for MTOW , airlines usually ask for lower weights based on actual ranges/payloads they need. Often a lower rated engine goes with that.
          The average A330 route is around 2000nm, maybe they are carrying extra payload as freight. Its clear that hardly any planes are running out to the max fuel range with passengers & baggage only.

  11. Both the 787-9 and the longer 787-10 have a fuel capacity of 33,384 US gal / 126,372 L 223,673 lb / 101,456 kg and both have the same MTOW. The 787-10 is a higher capacity shorter ranged variant of the 787-9. The B787-9 can more easily be substituted for a B777 on a long an thin route due to its greater range, so the B787-9 makes more sense than either the B787-10 or the A330-900 for Emirates. The shorter B787-8 for practical purposes has the same fuel capacity as the -9/-10 but a much lower MTOW. I think Qantas was hoping for a B787-8 with the same MTOW as the B787-9/-10 but extra fuel capacity for its “Project Sunrise” project.

    • 787-8 has 164L less fuel capacity than 787-9, so nearly the same.
      787-8 has 8900kg lower OEW than 787-9.
      But the787-8 has 280nm less range.
      Sounds strange that the 787-8 is less fuel efficient than 787-9.

      I would never order the A330-900 with the center fuel tank. Without the numbers are: 787-9 / A330-900
      MTOW kg = 254011 /251000
      OEW kg = 128850 / 137000
      max fuel L = 126372 / 97530
      with fuel density 0.8 kg/L, max fuel kg = 101098 / 78024
      MTOW – OEW – fuel kg = 24063 / 35976
      pax which can be carried with max fuel = 240 / 359
      range nm = 7530 / 6100
      So the question is how many pax can 787-9 carry for a 6100nm range, but the 787-9 won’t reach the pax of the A330-900 and the 787-9 would still need more fuel when the A330-900 is much cheaper than 787-9. How much cheaper, 20 millions?.

      • Leon,

        Goes a long way back. Most of the 787-9 is different to the -8. The -8 was massively overweight. The -9 just about met it’s weight target. What happened with the -9 was not retrofited into the -8.

        • Boeing had extra features on the -9 to maintain the range – laminar flow vertical stabiliser section and again for the nacelles. Which just means flow for a longer period as completely laminar is un-achievable.
          The early weights were given in this story
          “The changes, disclosed in the December 2009 revision of the 787 Airport Compatibility document, identify the MTOW of the baseline 787-8 as 227,900kg (502,000lb) – up 8,400kg from the initially planned 219,500kg – while the 787-9’s weight has grown by 2,270kg to 247,400kg. The short-range 787-3 has seen a 5,000kg increase to 170,250kg.
          The terrible teens were all at ‘219,500kg
          Its hard to know how much the extra numbers divided is for zero fuel weight increase or extra payload to keep the range promises.

Leave a Reply

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