The orders and commitments announced by Airbus and Boeing at the Farnborough Air Show last week for the A330ceo, the A330neo, the Boeing 777-200LRF and the 777-300ER will help fill the looming production gaps for the two airplanes, but work by both OEMs still needs to be done.
See the production gaps, before the orders and commitments were announced, by clicking the following links:
Airbus A330 delivery schedule, 2015-2020
Hawaiian Air’s A350-800s: Hawaiian Airlines July 22 ordered six Airbus A330-800s and simultaneously dropped its order for six A350-800s. HA also took six purchase rights for the A338. Deliveries begin in 2019.
The A338 is slightly smaller, nominally at 252 seats, and has somewhat less range at 7,600nm than the 276-seat, 8,250nm A358, but only Hawaiian knows how much it needed the extra range. Losing the extra seats does give HA a hit to revenue potential, however. For wide-body airplanes, Airbus says each seat has the revenue potential of $2m/yr.
Offsetting the revenue loss is a far lower capital cost for the A338 vs the A358. Our economic analysis, based on technical specifications estimated before the Farnborough Air Show and before Airbus revealed data for the A338, showed the A338 pretty close to the A358 on a pure operating cost basis, not including adjustments for capital cost.
In our first two parts of the analysis of the Airbus A330neo launch at the Farnborough Air Show, we have gone through the information provided by Airbus and Rolls Royce and provided comments on what these really mean from a practical point of view.
Areas we wanted to verify with our independent model have been how the A330neo would perform versus the A330ceo, especially on shorter ranges, than the Airbus example of 4,000nm and how it would stack up against the Boeing 787.
We give the first answer to these questions with data from our proprietary, independent model. This is first-cut data and we bring it forward in time as there is some confusion on what Airbus has said about the shorter range performance of the A330neo. Read more
It doesn’t matter what the competition does, it’s always inferior–until you do it yourself.
The continued, and tiring, war of words between Airbus and Boeing throughout the decades is monotonous and self-serving. If you step back, it’s also amusing.
Consider:
And so it goes.
The fact of the matter is, however, that minor and major makeovers of existing airplanes have long been a fact of life, maximizing investment and keeping research and development costs under control. The Douglas DC-1 was the prototype for the DC-2, which begot the DC-3. The DC-4 (C-54) begot the DC-6, DC-6B and DC-7 series. The Lockheed Contellation was reworked from the original L-049 through the 647/749/1049 (in various versions) and finally the 1649.
Then came the jet age, with vastly more expense, and model upgrades became the norm. The sniping today between Airbus and Boeing goes unabated in an era of historical model improvements.
Further to our initial analysis of the launched Airbus A330neo, here is our follow up diving deeper into engine matters and maintenance costs.
The A330neo engine
We met with Rolls Royce Vice President Customer Marketing Richard Goodhead to talk about the Trent T7000 for the A330neo and to straighten some misconceptions around the engine. First the base facts as presented by Airbus and Rolls Royce Monday: Read more