Pontifications: A330neo future bleak from COVID impact

Aug. 17, 2020, © Leeham News: At least half the Airbus A330-900 skyline is with airlines that are in administration, technically insolvent or with a politically sanctioned carrier.

By Scott Hamilton

These could be characterized as in Red Alert.

The COVID-19 crisis places the remaining orders in Yellow Alert.

Airbus, as of its July website tally, has 226 A330-900s in backlog. One hundred fourteen of these, or 50.44%, are in Red Alert.

Risky skyline

There also are 14 A330-800s in backlog. Eight are with Kuwait Airways (two for delivery this year). Two are for Uganda Airlines. The rest are with Unannounced customers.

Seventy-eight -900 orders are from AirAsiaX, which is technically insolvent. The airline is operating minimal service for cargo and repatriation of travelers. AirAsiaX represents 34.5% of the -900’s backlog. The future of the order—and the airline—is in doubt.

Iran Air’s order for 28 -900s is in indefinite suspense due to US sanctions. With the amount of US content in the A330neo, Airbus is unable to export any airplanes to Iran.

This chart does not include 46 orders from Undisclosed customers. Without detail, it is impossible to assess the risk factor of these.

Virgin Atlantic sought Administration the UK and Chapter 15 bankruptcy in the US. Its restructuring plan indicated intent to eliminate the A330ceos from its fleet. The plan provides for acceptance of the neos. However, until or unless Virgin is successfully restructured, the neo orders (as well as A350-1000s) must be categorized as at risk.

Future of the A330neo

Even before the virus crisis erupted globally in March, the future of the A330neo program had a cloud over it. There are only 336 orders since the program was launched in 2014. The skyline quality was weak due to the AirAsiaX concentration and the Iran Air order.

The production rate was reduced before the virus crisis. Production is now going to 2/mo. The A330-800 is a niche airplane with a range of more than 8,000nm.

COVID-19 may mean the death knell for AirAsiaX. Even if it doesn’t, whether the carrier will maintain its huge neo order is a question.

What’s the future for the A330neo program? “Bleak” is probably the best word to describe it.

USTR, Airbus WTO

The US Trade Representative’s office last week said—to no surprise—that Airbus still hasn’t complied with rulings by the World Trade Organization. Over illegal subsidies.

Airbus last month claimed it finally complied with the WTO rulings over A350 launch aid. (The WTO has yet to agree or disagree with this claim.) Airbus disputed a WTO ruling that it still hadn’t complied with A380 launch aid findings. USTR also points to this aspect in its statement last week.

The USTR maintains its 15% tariff on Airbus aircraft imported into the US from Europe. A320s assembled in Mobile (AL) are exempt. US content is exempt from tariffs.

Related article

“Airbus profoundly regrets that, despite Europe’s recent actions to achieve full compliance, USTR has decided to maintain tariffs on Airbus aircraft — especially at a time when aviation and other sectors are going through an unprecedented crisis,” the company said. “Airbus trusts that Europe will respond appropriately to defend its interests and the interests of all the European companies and sectors, including Airbus, targeted by these tariffs.”

The European Union has been waiting for the WTO to authorize the amount of tariffs the EU can levy on Boeing airplanes and US goods in the illegal subsidies case over 787 support.

56 Comments on “Pontifications: A330neo future bleak from COVID impact

  1. Which widebody is not hit by covid.

    Much more interesting to me is what customers will do. Emirates said they want to know if new software is included in the 777X. Makes me think about software audits which never happend. Emirates is asking this because they don’t trust Boeing’s culture. Why stop there, when Boeing management put pressure again on certifying engineers this year. Emirates might see the garbage job the FAA is doing. FAA can do all they want, it’s useless if customers won’t take the planes. What will happen then … they will buy Airbus.

    I have much sympathy for Emirates because they seem to care about their customers.

  2. Emirates business plan for moving large number of pax thru their main hub is at risk. International travelers will be one of the last sectors to recover. Tough time for Emirates. Maybe they should buy couple hundred Global 7500 and provide premium flight options for business and rich clients. Qatar has a small fleet of biz jets. Emirates can make it better on large scale.

    • Emirates are flying 123 B777 and six A380.
      On 11 August Emirates operated 229 sectors, 42% of a normally good day with 550 sectors.
      113 of the 229 sectors were with pax.
      27 sectors by freighter aircraft.
      89 sectors by passenger aircraft with cargo only.
      (Tim Clark interview on FlightGlobal)

      I would say Emirates are not bad with the options they have. That’s why it makes sense that Clark wants a certain timeline of 777X deliveries which Boeing can’t give. And Clark wants to know if the 777X comes with new software and maybe other faked parts too. Clark has to assume that many 777X parts were self-certified by Boeing with certifying engineers under management pressure.
      To me this is just the start to reduce more 777X orders.
      Other airlines will follow.

      • Clark is on the record as saying he’s confident that increased scrutiny after the MAX saga will help assure a thorough certification process for the 777X as an amended type.

        He’s concerned about Boeing’s schedule in the event of a more rapid recovery. He wants to be sure that certification issues don’t result in further delay, as has occurred in the MAX recertification. But there is nothing right now to indicate that will happen.

        The third 777X has joined the certification test fleet, so things are moving along. No regulators have raised red flags on the 777X.

        The real issue is demand reduction due to COVID, which is also the issue for the A330. Clark is pretty firm on his outlook and orders, but other customers may be softer. So Boeing will need to navigate that as best they can, and negotiate with customers like Clark that are more ready to move ahead. Airbus will need to do the same.

        • There is not really increased scrutiny. Many parts were self-certified with undue pressure and FAA is not touching it. Dickson is a Trump soldier, it might change next year.

          Undue pressure on certifying engineers for the
          MAX (proven),
          787 (proven) and
          777X (very likely, who is so foolish to believe that Boeing had a different culture under Muilenburg for the 777X).

          Now Clark wants to know about new software on the 777X. Sure there is new software. Where is the independent audit?

  3. Scott,
    It seems to me that it is not just A330neo that has a “bleak future”, but also B777-8 and -9. The order backlog is just a few hundred and if my memory is right, mostly Mideast carriers. The collapse in international travel and hence demand for long-haul aircraft, as well as the poor financial status of airlines should affect both A330neo and B777x. How healthy is the B777x backlog? Or have you already commented on these matters in earlier posts?

    • @Kant: We’ve written many times about the weakness in 777X. We’ve been skeptical of this program for well over a year.

        • General comment:
          People in this forum complain about Boeing not

          Yes, there are market factors always plus the COVID-19 panicdemic, but a company is in trouble if it cannot fund the future.

          Even in the lean 70s Boeing was funding parameter studies, that resulted in the 767 fuselage size when they decided to launch. And funding common flight deck physical configurations among different fuselage diameters.

          OTOH Douglas and Lockheed did not proceed with twin versions of their trijets. They did leapfrog Airbus with trijets, and studied twin versions (and made at least basic presentations to airlines)..

          PS: Scott, the typeface herein is defective – ’70s above looks like 7 oh, proper typeface has zero of greater height.

          • “”in the lean 70s Boeing was funding parameter studies, that resulted in the 767 fuselage size””

            And they were successful with the 767.
            204t MTOW and 104t OEW of the 767-400 still don’t look bad. I wonder how much weight could be saved today for a plane with the 767-400 cabin size.
            Last year they checked the 767 again and it seems they did not like it.
            There must be something wrong between the 70s and today.

  4. What is to prevent Iran from leasing modern jets from a leasing company that is based in a non-sanctioned state that doesn’t follow the US line?

    would think there would be a heady business in setting up a holding company in a state that doesn’t respect the sanctions to buy out an existing leasing company with planes in posession, then leasing those planes to Iran.

    Even if they can’t ever buy another plane because the US would block future sales to them, they still would seem to be able to send the ones they have…

    • The breadth and depth of the US OFAC sanctions regime is immense. There is basically no way to do this openly. Insofar as it happens it is done via several third parties to obscure the transactions.

  5. The only reason the A330CEO sold in the numbers it did was Boeing hosed up the 787 program and gave them a 5 year opening when things were going wild wide body sales wise.

    What the low numbers of NEO sales tells you is what would have happened if Boeing got it right (granted they can’t get anything right anymore)

    But in one of those alternative universes like Turtledove writes………….

    • 777X was launched in 2013, A330neo one year later in 2014.
      After Delta made the first A330neo order, the 777X accumulated a negative order total.

      For Airbus it’s not a problem, the A330neo was cheap to develop and the other families (A220, A320, A350) sell better.

      But for Boeing it doesn’t look good.
      The 787 can’t beat the A330neo. Hawaiian only chose the 787 because it was cheaper, so cheap that Boeing can’t earn something.
      Now the beancounters needed to pressure 787 certifying engineers again. Makes me think what airlines will do with their 787 order. Who wants to have faked planes, surely not the passengers. Some greedy airlines don’t care about pax, but in the end they won’t win.
      You can’t win with a bad product. Delta knows this, after the 787 accu disaster Delta ordered Airbus.
      And the MAX is an epic bad product. Nearly 2 years after JT610 and Boeing is still falling deeper. Boeing is resistent to learn, still doing their jedi mind tricking and Clark is calling them out. Clark is doing this because FAA is a joke.

      The MAX crashed because elevators were not working, either the elevators are too small or the stabilizer is too big. JATR called the stabilizer system “novel” and FAA is not picking up on it, leaving it under the carpet same as other parts.

      • Leon
        I recently retired from a flight planning vendor that had customers flying both the A339 and the various models of the 787. The 787-8 and the 787-9 are trans-Pacific aircraft. The A339 is not. In this context trans-Pacific includes non-stop flights between SFO/LAX and SYD/MEL. Moreover the 789 can carry more payload than the 772 between EWR and HKG. The A339 cannot. The A339 really shines as an A333 replacement, carrying similar or larger payloads with less fuel burn. For this reason it made sense for Delta to order them.

        • Thanks Steve,

          I thought Bjorn recently posted that A339 can be used transpacific.
          Only 46 A339 are in service. Some airlines also operate or ordered A350, so they might use their A339 for shorter range. If range would be so important, airlines could order A338 which they obviously didn’t do.
          A330neo can be ordered in different weight variants, 230t-251t MTOW and 177t-181t MZFW, which results in different range.

          Do you know the weight variants of the planes you managed and especially their airline specific OEW? So we can look deeper into it. I think it’s very interesting to know about some real numbers.
          For example ET302, a MAX-8, had 47090kg OEW with 160 seats, 2t more OEW than can be found elsewhere. 2t more OEW means 20 pax less or less range.

          Most 787-8 are from the early years when it had massive weight problems. I want to see the real numbers.
          For the 787-9 it’s similar. The 787-9 has shorter wings which also helps with weight but its shorter wings are less fuel efficient.
          The 787-10 can’t do the 7000nm EWR-HKG.

          There is a reason why Hawaiian originally favored the A338. Now they can read about how Boeing jedi mind tricked certifications and all future pax can read about it too.

          • Leon
            Bjorn indicated in a subscription-required post the changes required to make the A339 a trans-Pacific aircraft. Since I don’t have a subscription I don’t know the specific changes he discussed. No doubt it would include a composite wing.
            When I ran flight plans for the A339/788/789 I used a representative OEW from the customer’s fleet. At the time of my retirement I used the MTOW from the aero performance load we received from AirBus, which had one MTOW. For comparison we had multiple aero performance loads for the A359, which included different MTOW’s. As I recall one load also included a PIP.

          • Thanks Steve,

            I don’t have the subsciption too so I don’t know which numbers Bjorn used.

            Bjorn, March 5:
            Airbus gave an update on their new 251t variant of the A330-900 this week. With a 251t MTOW, the former mid-ranger is mutating to an able long-hauler.
            The true long-haul aircraft in the Airbus lineup is the A350, the go-to aircraft from Airbus for Pacific-Ocean crossings. But with a nominal 7,200nm range, the A330-900 is no longer the trans-Atlantic aircraft it was. It will be an alternative to the A350 for many trans-Pacific routes.
            Bjorn, March 12:
            We saw in the first article the A330-900 251t is now a credible long-range aircraft, including the long hop over the Pacific ocean.
            The Airbus A330-900 in its 251t version can serve many US to Asia routes that were reserved for the A350-900 before.

            So if it’s true that the 251t MTOW version was first delivered in March, you might not have the numbers from this version.
            It has nothing to do with new wings.

            The 251t version was announced long ago and since then I used the improvements, same as airlines would use it for order considerations. Before, the max MTOW was only 242t.

            A330neo is cheap. New composit wings would destroy this advantage. If airlines want carbon wings they can choose A350.

            Each single plane has its own OEW depending on seating, lavatories, galeys and more. The real OEW can be very different, see the example of ET302. The OEW of 787-8 should vary even more because of the weight problems it had during production.

          • Originally, they wanted the a350 8, not the neo..they wouldn’t produce it ,so they went with the 787..
            Basically,ab ,down to one widebody program…
            Can’t see the demand for the 330 neo increasing anytime soon..
            Hmm the Trent problem started with the 787, progressed to the a350, we all know what comes next… fortunately,so few in service now…

          • Steve,

            according to Airbus the last A330-900 delivered was on 27 February to Delta. This match Bjorn’s article from 5 March.
            Delta might have the only 251t version of the A339 in service.

          • Leon
            Your statement that the 787-9 wings are not very fuel efficient does not convey much useful information. If you are an aero performance engineer please explain it so those of us with a dispatcher/flight ops level of knowledge will understand. Thanks!

          • Today I read about Quantas,
            they have their A330-200 stored
            and operate their A330-300, that was no surprise.
            The surprise was that Quantas stored their 787-9 too …

          • Surprise, Airbus claims their wing is more efficient. Have any independent links?

          • Lars,

            if Airbus’ sales department is using the efficiency data, airlines might have a chance on court if promisses are not true.
            It’s the same when Boeing said that the MAX doesn’t need simulator training. That might have cost Boeing $1b.

            But you are free to show claims from Boeing that the 787 is more efficient. Hawaiian might have chosen the 787 from the start.

        • Leon: All airlines try to get the best match for their routes.

          Delta had a history with the A330 that worked for them and generally have shifted to Airbus.

          The 787 was a legacy order from North West they did not act on until the fleet renew came up, they then used it as a foil to get better pricing from Airbus (certainly allowed to do that).

          On the other hand they at one time had a slot that they filled with a pretty larger order of 737-900s.

          Delta assessed the A330 and the A350 as suiting their needs and routes and went with it. They upped A330-900 and deferred some A350s

          But keep in mind that they have 150 or so 737s not on a replace list, over 100 757s as well as a 50+ 767s.

          While its not on any radar, if they realized a need to 787 that fit slots and in numbers they would order those.

          And in the mix of all that is Delta Tech ops and having the expertise on various aircraft and engines out there.

          With the A220 and A320 they have P&W GTF which is a new area.

          With all the A330 operators out there its illuminating that few A330NEO were ordered. Easy to get terms and long term commitment which has not happened.

          I have nothing against the A330, but the hype for the A330NEO never was convincing and Hazy with his over 1000 is further and further away.

          • When did Hazy say that.
            Times are changing, he has a new toy now.

            The 330neo is mostly new engines and 9t more MTOW. The A359 weights are still much more attractive 280t MTOW with 142.4t OEW vs 251t and 137t on the A339. But the A339 is still doing the job.

            Deliveries of the 330ceo peaked between 2012 and 2015. CEO’s are too young to expect replacements but they should come.

          • Leon
            I should have been more specific when I referenced trans-Pacific routes. The A333 and the A339 can fly the trans-Pacific tracks published daily. These tracks will often include parts of the older, fixed NOPAC structure. However the A339 cannot fly nonstop from the West Coast to New Zealand or Australia. Reference composite wings the aeronautical engineer in our company explained to me that they give efficiencies that exceed the capabilities of metal wings. Hence the reason that the 787, 777X, and A350 have them.

          • Steve,

            then the A380 should not be able to fly the routes too, because A380 has metal wings.

            The wings of the 787 are not very fuel efficient because they are short. Are they short because it’s cheaper to produce?
            Other Boeing have short wings too, must be Boeing’s modus operandi.

            In your other post you mentioned the routes SFO/LAX – SYD/MEL. The maximum distance is LAX – MEL with 6900nm. The 251t A330-900 should be able to do it, you should believe Bjorn.

  6. I going to repeat myself at the risk of being redundant, but I think Airbus and Boeing (and the others) need to make some impromptu changes to their passenger cabins and relevant environmental control systems to eliminate pathogen transfers aboard commercial airlines. Now I am not talking about some sort of Sci-Fi pod-vessel-case like from the movie Interstellar, but I think the airlines, plane manufacturers and the dying to be relevant FAA need to put their heads together and get a program so air travel can at least reach 70 – 75% of where it was before. They’ve known about this problem for years, back when people were getting TB, and even more recently. Leadership, that’s what’s needed…

    • I think the issue there is that there isn’t significant evidence of cluster outbreaks or pathogen transmission on aircraft. It’s the other elements of traveling, where those risks do exist, that are holding back air traffic. For that, the world and the public need to be on the same page about mitigation measures for all the other activities travelers want to do and enjoy, at their destinations.

      But that’s a much larger problem that the aviation industry can’t solve A vaccine could help tremendously in that regard, depending on effectiveness & efficacy.

    • The combination of HEPA filters (equivalent to N100!) and mandatory masks for the pax should make the in-flight environment reasonably safe, assuming the pax obey the rules.

      Then there are airports to worry about, though …

      • Keep in mind the cabin on de-boarding is an serious issue. Chaotic and lots in your face.

        Of course if you stay seated until the rush is past you are better off.

        What should happen is unload back to front.

        • Also, and as IATA acknowledged last month (July 10) in a reply available on my LinkedIn page, the rapid rates of onboard air circulation/refreshing & HEPA rated filtration applies ONLY inflight (& when taxiing from/to the gate) – NOT when the aircraft is at the gate using Pre-Condition Air (PCA) units during boarding, pre-departure dwell time & deplaning.

          Other than United’s mainline aircraft, which upgraded onboard air quality better resembling the more robust refresh rates & using HEPA rated filters during boarding, pre-departure dwell time & deplaning on July 27th, the filtration rating for PCA’s is typically “G4”, which is several notches LOWER than HEPA, and the refresh rates are also not nearly as robust as that touted by airlines, IATA & others in their ongoing advertisements seeking to assure the general public that flying is safe.

          And this is unfortunate because the period during boarding, pre-departure dwell time (waiting for everyone to board, stash their carry-on/hand baggage & settle into their seats) & deplaning is when the risk of Covid19 transmission is at its highest.

          So, while most agree time inflight (when refresh rates are robust & rapid & HEPA filters are in use) is low risk for Covid19 exposure, the time on the ground transiting the airport, including when aboard the aircraft parked at the gate (except for United’s mainline only aircraft), or of course, the extent of cooperation by others’ to wear masks PROPERLY (as no chin guards/supports or noses need not be covered…) & comply with other elements of proper social distancing are still factors those at elevated risk of progressing to the more severe, or even potentially life threatening effects if exposed to Corona Virus still need to keep in mind as they make their benefit/cost or other risk determinations before flying.

          I hate being such a party pooper.

          But, given the seriousness of potential risks arising from Covid19 exposure, literally life or death for some, the industry’s omission of a significant discrepancy in the equipment used, the refresh rates & especially the sub-HEPA rated filters for ventilation provided by PCAs vs exceptional, hospital surgical room air quality touted in ads & other PR messaging is too important to gloss over as it has.

          • The PCA units are open-circuit, they condition outside air and blow it into the aircraft, at about 100 cubic meters per minute for NB, double that for WB. So the air turnover rate would not be as high as in flight, but also there is no 50% recirculation as in flight (to preserve humidity), so the filtering is not really relevant. The filter is meant for outside air, 10 micron or so.

            This means when the aircraft is at the gate, unless the airline requires the use of onboard systems as Delta has, the air quality still would be likely better than that in the airport itself.

            Agreed that it’s not as good as when the onboard systems are active, but not sure if it’s all that significant. Gate time is a small percentage of the time spent on board the aircraft.

            Again if aircraft travel was a frequent source of transmission, we would see it in the COVID transmission data via contact tracing. That has not yet happened, after several months.

  7. I am struggling to understand how rolls-royce is going to get much money in now that the activeist investors have bailed out at a loss after persuading/forcing them to do some stupid things.
    The aviation industry is their ideal victim, massive cash flow hides their short term money pumping activities.
    Something is going to have to be done to stop this from happening time after time, with the inevitable government bailout when national interests are threatened.

    • Just call RR the Yo Yo company.

      May well be a factor in the lack of A330NEO purchase knowing you are buying engines that will have to be redone!

      Actually resembles Boeing to a great degree but Boeing has more places to suck money from (or people that lend it, the goal is to get your money back before they crater)

    • Perhaps RTX will swallow them and integrate it with PW. I dont know why RR walked away from V2500 and GTF partnership from PW/MTU. By doing so they are completely out of narrow body market. Now they are developing tbeir own geared engine while PW is well ahead.

      • Simple really , it had major wide body programs for both B787 and A350. It was a business decision to leave the smaller narrow body engine market which had huge volumes but was tending to be ‘a commodity’.
        RR only had 32.5% of IAE with Pratt and the other partners , so it wasnt the ‘prime’ contractor and the engines werent part of the future with re-engining programs
        Pratt meanwhile didnt have any new engines in the widebody area apart from its partnership with GE on the A380, but was investing in the GTF.

  8. Rejoice! Less Harley Davidsons in the EU. Less hiddious noise from this mechanically crude monstrosity.

    • If it helps I bought a nice Ural! Nice mufflered engine.

      Harleys are for people that go to Sturgis, posers and Covidiots.

  9. Personally I feel that that the 777x will flop big time akin to the A380. It has a customer base that is even narrower than the A380 and with more king ranger smaller planes hitting the market, the 777-X may suffer the same fate.

    The A330Neo is a proven, comfortable, and efficient plane with basically the same or more range at the 777x. It cheaper and easier to fill.

    • Those 1000 777-300ER will start being 20 years old from next year.. all the 747-400s that remained aren’t coming back.
      Essentially almost all 777X development costs have been spent and in current circumstances can be mostly written off by Boeing to give free cash flow after the first 100 have been built.
      Airlines are a bit wary about new engine reliability and if there are any software gliches… Small issues in the scheme of things, apart from that Boeing should sell 50 plus per year no trouble

      • Clearly the sweet spot for wide body is between the 787/A330 and the A350/777-300.

        777-X was overly reliant on the ME3 and we have to see where that goes.

        What happens to Cathay Pacific with the Chinese take over in Hong Kong?

        It does have a nice spread of others in much smaller numbers than the ME orders.

        At best it seems a so so seller.

        The A350 sits perfectly in the old 777-300 slot, The 787-10 covers part of it as well.

        Post Covd and A380-747 the move may be to stay with smaller more flexible aircraft.

  10. Arkia is not operating since the pandemic outbreak. It’s future is unknown. I don’t think you can mark it’s orders as safe.

    • Lets forget about AirAsiaX, Iran Air, Virgin Atlantic, ARKIA and even more. Lets say the backlog is only 100. With a production rate of 2 per month and the 15 already produced but undelivered A330 Airbus can produce for at least 3 years. I would be surprised if there are no new orders within 3 years.

      It’s just normal that some airlines close business every year, but the rest will step in. It’s normal that some companies are poorly managed.
      Airbus is not one of them, they have good products and bought half of the A220 for $1.

      • “It’s normal that some companies are poorly managed.
        Airbus is not one of them, they have good products and bought half of the A220 for $1.”

        And they also built the great white elephant, the 380 and paid 4 Billion dollars in fines for illegal business practices (which the consensus is they got off lightly).
        Not indicative of a well managed company.

        • If airlines could fill the A380 they had an advantage and pax had lots of space, good for both.
          Boeing’s answer was the 777X, we can watch together how that goes.

  11. Acording to Airbus 46 A339 are delivered and in fleets, the chart says 38.
    Lion Air is missing, 2 ordered, 2 delivered, 4 in fleet.
    Air Senegal is missing. 2 ordered, 2 delivered, 2 in fleet.
    Air Calin is missing. 2 ordered, 2 delivered, 2 in fleet.
    BOC is missing, 2 ordered, 2 delivered.

    • @Leon, the chart was looking at Unfilled orders only. Customers that took delivery are excluded.

    • Leon
      Thank you for the reference to the Airways article. Actually I was looking for more detail than AirBus sales and marketing information. However it was fun re-reading the A330neo article.

      • I think you won’t get other flight testing infos for now because Delta has the only 251t version. What I was able to read from Bjorn was that even Bjorn used the 287 pax sample, why, and his result was 7200nm too.

        But you can find the amount of wing surface and aspect ratio data to get an impession, but this data is not a flight test and Airbus did much more on the wings as you could read.

  12. Pretty harsh, I don’t doubt the A330neo is in trouble, but which widebody is not?
    Technically, the A330neo lacks orders and has clump risk with Air Asia as biggest customer.

    But de facto are all major airlines in a somewhat state that they can’t take over WB planes nor do they need them.
    Lufthansa Group, Europes largest airline, secured government aid around 9 bn. €.
    Air France KLM did the same.
    I don’t know about the US airlines, but I do know that Qatar and Emirates are just flying because of government support.

    So there might be a difference in technical terms, de facto are all the airlines in trouble due to a meltdown in international travel.

    Let’s take a look at the B777x:
    20 LH – in gouverment support
    25 Etihad – this order will be void anyway, already in big trouble before Corona crisis
    21 Cathay Pacific – in government aid / bankruptcy, hit hard by HK protests and Corona afterwards. Travel in SEA is still shut down
    115 Emirates – in government aid – hit hard by Corona crisis, as long haul travel is not expected to raise again before 23/24/25.
    60 Qatar – see Emirates
    20 ANA this order should be secure
    20 SIA in goverment aid, missing long haul demand might hurt demand for large WB planes
    18 BA this order should be secure

    I went over the same for A350 and B787, that’s the same story.
    The B787 has a larger backlog, but a higher rate and there are now used planes available. Especially lessors might reduce their orders, or delay them.
    Boeing is in danger of double trouble, the B777x looks very weak with horrible timing, how bad is it your plane is late and your customers don’t care but are rather happy they don’t have to take it?
    And the B787 has a high rate with a shrinking backlog, a few cancellations or bankruptcies and they are in trouble.
    Airbus is way better off, the A330neo is in trouble, but it has way lower development costs, most of the job was already done with the first A350 try.
    And it’s a perfect cross Atlantic plane, which might show with US and EU carriers.
    Boeing has a 6 bn. $ bill on the B777x and the deferred cost on the B787. I guess that’s a bit more trouble as Air Asia in trouble.

  13. The 777X has 309 0rders – that is lass then the A380 had and less than the A330neo as it stands right now. It is big and heavy and heavily dependent on the ME orders and hubs which will soon be bypassed by 787-9’s and A350’s.

    Am I missing something?

Leave a Reply

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