Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
There's more to real news than a news release.
Comments Open Forum
Jan. 6, 2026: LNA is creating this Comments Open Forum to allow Readers opportunities to comment about any post (note, we said “Post”, not any “Topic”). All comments will be held for review and Moderation per our new policy. The Open Forum enables Readers to Comment on paywall articles (to the extent the paywall preview is open to all readers). LNA is increasingly shifting to paywall from freewall articles, but we are not becoming exclusively paywall.
Maintain civility and follow Reader Comment rules.
A new Open Forum will be posted weekly.
So, am I correct in saying that readers could comment here about one or more of the following articles from the past few days?
– A220 stretch / regional status;
– New Airbus commercial CEO;
– Latest market share numbers?
Or is something else intended?
Any published Leeham post of any timeframe may be commented on. References to other articles with links also may be published as they relate to the published Leeham topic. This is broadly viewed as technical papers, articles in other newspapers (etc) about (for example) Emirates Airlines on Boeing, Airbus, engines, etc.
Nothing on politics unless there is a direct relationship to the Leeham post, wars, COVID, and so on except if there is a direct impact on commercial aviation. As before, I do not find relevant things about Communism, Fascism, ancient history and stuff like this.
Hamilton
Okay, well then, here goes.
This topic has been handled by Leeman in the past, but was also the subject of an AirInsight article this week. Relevant in view of the recent pick-up in A330neo orders, and general lack of widebody slots.
Readers may find the article’s pentagon comparison diagram instructive / interesting.
“A330neo vs 787-9: Is Boeing’s Premium Worth It?”
https://airinsight.com/a330neo-vs-787-9-is-boeings-premium-worth-it/
It had to be Airinsight, eh? 🙂
Sorry…I just saw the article popping up yesterday, and found that pentagon very informative.
I do recall this being a subject here on LNA on various occasions, but don’t have the relevant LNA links to hand.
Interesting as I read it yesterday I( believe.
I thought it was worth a Bookmark as its one of the few places I have seen an assessment of the A330NEO engines.
Being more a tech geek than a financial guy, I found the shrug off of the issues most interesting.
Airbus has to be ruing the day they did not get a GE engine on the A330NEO.
That is an awful on wing time. We have seen the reports on poor ops on the A350-1000.
It makes sense why its not selling, single aisle you can adjust with but wide body leaves a big hole.
Makes good sense you don’t want to buy into unreliable.
Add in the twist that despite the fixes for the Trenat 1000, there are airlines that still are having an impact from those engines – it takes both time and major costs to get the fixes into engines.
I think GE & Boeing used to make strong partnership comitments to each other, openly, which seemed a good idea in the high days of 777, 737 and exploding 787 forecasts.
Things have changed & GE has made several efforts to get on the A350 and A330. Which would basically in line with Airbus policy of offering multiple engine types on each aircraft types too..
The extensive publication of high quality freewall posts enabled LNA to have a much wider readership than other industry supported newsletters, resulting in LNA being influential in public conversations on aviation issues.
By reducing these freewall posts I assume that the loss of this influence is not important to LNA.
Will this loss be compensated for with an increase in subscriptions?
We’d rather have more money and fewer views than more views and not make as much money.
no more free research from posters….its a business and poster choice new ownership means new rules!
It’s always been a business.
Places to linger for dialog change over time.
Slot constraints is growing again, and Tim Clark wants new A380s for his booming business connecting megahubs. The more seats pr slot the more profits, so he can outbid the 2-engine operators, with 50 more seats eq, On LH, 6 times a day, thats 600 extra pr day. TC has suggested to AB to make a Neo with 25% lower running costs. TC flies 120 A380s. 777x will take that, when the 38o retires.
The Achilles heel of the A380 is that converting F gates to H gates is pricey for the airport, & they risk their most prized realstate eg apron m2, on that A380 flights. Same for airlines, who can only use their 380s on airports that has made the investments.
Now, could we could mitigate that somehow? Like the killer feature. Now if the 38oNeo got longer & new folding wings, so it would fit into standard 70m F gates? That would allow the megahubs to use 380Neos on normal gate Fs, with 590 pax, so not longer having to risk their priced realsestate, but expanding the pax thru on the same apron m2. Even if they have to invest in dual level gates, that is small amounts. Also when more airports invest in accommodating the A380neo w folding wings, the airlines get more freedom to fly with them, as they a no longer dependent on the existence of H gates, just F gates. 3G was the iPhones killer feature.
That could be a topic for an article: Are folding wings and F gate compatibility the killer feature for the renewed A380Neo?
Just some thoughts off the top of my head.
TC Wants: But he does not want to pay for his wants, he wants a deal. The A350-1000/777X are not selling in huge numbers, decent but not huge. All the economics against the A380 are still there. People were dropping the A380 before termination and there was zero used market. The price per the -900 Variant would have been twice the 777X price.
Folding Wing: You would have to do an entirely new wing for it to work. Something like 4 Billion. An adder is the existing wing box, it would need to change and cascades into major fuselage changes.
Resurrection Suppliers: No shared systems, a hydraulic pump is going to need to be twice as big as any hydraulic pump. Even if you can get the original supplier to build it, its going to cost a lot more in limited number build.
If there are common items (fasteners) there are a lot not. All have to be resurrected or new design.
You are probably talking a 15 billion dollar program that has all the issues of a non flexible design.
It should be noted TC was flying the A380 to a number of non A380 needed cities.
Airbus had the -900 design ready to go, it was built into the A380. Airbus saw no future for a -800 let alone a -900.
I gather a 777-10 is possible. Probably a one off for TC and only viable as a stretch of the 777X and or a A350-1500
Hi Scott, I like this idea of the open weekly forum,
Let’s see how this works out.
Thanks.
+1
Given the obvious supply line problems and associated quality escapes, seems A and B should be looking to return to a – more – vertical integration model of operations for the long term.
Case in point ex-Spirit repurchase/purchase of course forced by its financial problems, but perhaps also resulting n better industrial performance under the new parents.
The original model worked pretty good.
Some like electronics has gone so far as to be impossible (my view) to created a cost competitive option.
Clearly structures was a Bridge To Far. I have seen the model fail repeatedly. But Boeing trying to do their own APU? (in conjunction with a partner)
My model was I focused on the work that was impossible to hire out and hire out what I could as I had more than I could handle of the first.