Thread Airbus 330 NEO


kenyaprince

kenyaprince

Amministratore AC
Staff Forum
20 Giugno 2008
29,897
497
131
VCE-TSF
Airbus anticipates A330neo decision by mid-2014

Airbus is likely to make a decision on whether to move forward with a re-engined A330 by the middle of 2014, says Airbus Americas president Barry Eccleston.


A decision on the aircraft, dubbed the A330neo, is needed in order to ensure that it is competitive with the Boeing 787 but does not erode sales of the European airframer’s own A350 when it enters service, he says at the Phoenix International Aviation Symposium on 4 April.


That entry-into-service window is widely understood to be in the 2017 or 2018 timeframe when there is limited availability of A350s and 787s, based on comments from various lessors and lenders at the International Society of Transport Aircraft Trading (ISTAT) Americas conference in March.


Airline interest will play a large role in Airbus’ decision, says Eccleston.


“There are airlines that are receptive to an A330neo that aren’t going to order the [A350]-800,” said Steven Udvar-Hazy, chief executive of Air Lease Corporation, at ISTAT. “Some of them have been converted to the [A350]-900, but the [A330]neo is getting more attention and we will have to see what happens.”


While not naming any carriers, he said: “There is one large US airline that’s, I think, very interested in the re-engined A330. They have a large number of ageing [Boeing] 767s and 747-400s that they need to do something [about] in the next five years.”


Delta Air Lines released a request for proposals for up 50 widebody aircraft to replace its 747-400s and a significant number of its 767-300ERs earlier in April. It is evaluating the A330-200 and -300, A350-900 and -1000, Boeing 777-300ER and 787-8, -9 and -10 with an order possible in the second half of 2014.


The Atlanta-based carrier says that it is only considering aircraft currently available in the market under the RFP but does not specifically rule out a possible A330neo.


Asian carriers, especially in China, and major European carriers could also be A330neo customers, said Steve Mason, vice-president of aircraft analysis at CIT Aerospace, at ISTAT. They are expected to need additional 250- to 300-seat aircraft between 2018 and 2021 than are currently available, he said.


The A330neo would likely include a new engine as well as other upgrades.


“If we did it, we’d probably be looking to upgrade the engine technology to what we see in the 787 today,” says Eccleston on potential upgrades to the existing A330. “We’d do other things to the airplane as well, if we did it – some aerodynamic tweaks, a sharklet maybe.”


The 787 is powered by either General Electric GEnx or Rolls Royce Trent 1000 engines.
 
getasset.aspx
A
getasset.aspx
getasset.aspx
 
Decisione quanto mai necessaria visto che l'A350 non riesce a sovrapporsi completamente in basso con il B787 ed in alto con il B777-X per il sempre più probabile abbandono del A350-800 e la scelta di limitare le uscite di emergenza sull'A350-1000.
 
A questo punto Airbus non ha altra scelta, anche se sicuramente il futuro 330neo rimarrà un gradino sotto al 787 come tecnologia e presumibilmente come redditività. Handicap che Airbus dovrà compensare probabilmente con il prezzo di acquisto.
Inoltre c'è una certa sovrapposizione tra il 333 e il 359, che andrà a sua volta gestita.
Sicuramente a medio termine Boeing disporrà di una gamma WB più razionale di quella di Airbus, anche perché pensata fin dall'inizio con due modelli con le rispettive versioni ben distanziate tra loro.
Nel caso di Airbus, non si può ignorare il fatto che in teoria il 350 avrebbe dovuto sostituire il 330 e che la carenza di ordini per il piccolo 358 (che Airbus ha scelto di non razionalizzare al meglio) stia facendo spazio ad una soluzione di ripiego.
Col senno di poi, la soluzione migliore sarebbe probabilmente stata quella di realizzare la prima versione del 350 (che di fatto sarebbe stata molto simile al 330 neo), ed affiancarle un A360 totalmente nuovo di dimensioni comparabili a quelle dei 778/779. Anche se in questo modo ci sarebbe stato il forte rischio di uccidere il 380 nella culla.
 
belumosi ha detto:
...
Col senno di poi, la soluzione migliore sarebbe probabilmente stata quella di realizzare la prima versione del 350 (che di fatto sarebbe stata molto simile al 330 neo), ed affiancarle un A360 totalmente nuovo di dimensioni comparabili a quelle dei 778/779. Anche se in questo modo ci sarebbe stato il forte rischio di uccidere il 380 nella culla.
Clicca per espandere...
L'avevano fatto: il 350 versione1 era poco più di un 330neo ma non è piaciuto.
Il 350Xwb attuale ha la potenzialità di crescere e solo "alzando" il suo target lo han differenziato da 330 e 787

Ora si sono accorti che il 330 vende ancora nonostante il 787 e che non c'e' niente ottimizzato per un range non estremo, così nasce il neo.

Ho visto dei numeri sugli economics di 330 e 787: non c'è un abisso, nonostante il gap generazionale.
Per far quadrare i cont,: ricordate che i numeri del 787 vengono dati in confronto al 767 che performa molto peggio del 330.
 
matteoc ha detto:
L'avevano fatto: il 350 versione1 era poco più di un 330neo ma non è piaciuto.
Il 350Xwb attuale ha la potenzialità di crescere e solo "alzando" il suo target lo han differenziato da 330 e 787

Ora si sono accorti che il 330 vende ancora nonostante il 787 e che non c'e' niente ottimizzato per un range non estremo, così nasce il neo.

Ho visto dei numeri sugli economics di 330 e 787: non c'è un abisso, nonostante il gap generazionale.
Per far quadrare i cont,: ricordate che i numeri del 787 vengono dati in confronto al 767 che performa molto peggio del 330.
Clicca per espandere...
Stanno facendo i loro conti, in fondi l'A330 è un buon prodotto e c'è spazio sotto all'A359. Se con modifiche non troppo complicate e costose riescono ad offrire performance accettabili in confronto al B787 per Airbus c'è la possibilità di traguardare fra anni in modo che l'A350 vada a regime in produzione e così possono valutare con calma come evolvere la gamma in basso e toccherà farlo anche in alto per concorrere con B787 e nuovo B777.
 
ANALYSIS: Leahy pitches A330neo against 787

By: DAVID KAMINSKI-MORROWDOHA

Source: Flightglobal.com 2 hours ago
A concept still has to be formally presented to airlines, but a re-engined version of the A330 appears to be taking shape, with Airbus working on an aircraft it believes will match the cash operating costs of the Boeing 787-9 with the same number of seats.
Chief operating officer for customers John Leahy acknowledges that “if we were to do it”, the aircraft – dubbed the A330neo – would have around 1,000nm (1,850km) less range than its rival, but feature similar fuel burn, wider seats and – crucially, – a “substantially lower” capital cost.

big dent

“We believe that would put a big dent in 787 sales,” he said, speaking during the IATA annual meeting in Doha last week. He says the specifications would be guaranteed to carriers, and that the type would be “an unbeatable aeroplane in that category”.

The airframer has not given much detail about its internal re-engining study, but Leahy suggests an A330neo “could be very similar” to the original A350, which was dropped in favour of the A350 XWB family.

“We haven’t shown the airlines the A330neo because we haven’t launched it,” he says. Leahy dismisses any suggestion that Airbus is vulnerable in the 250-seat sector, claiming the 787-8 is “not selling well at all”.

Airbus opted for a scaled-up family in the A350 XWB, but has stopped promoting its own smallest member – the 276-seat A350-800 – in favour of converting customers to the larger -900.

Leahy is adamant that the *airframer is not ditching the A350-800, however, and prefers to talk of its development being “rescheduled”.

While Rolls-Royce remains the only powerplant manufacturer for the A350, with the Trent XWB, Airbus has not confirmed whether an A330neo would have a sole-sourced engine. While an upgraded A330 would not be able to match the absolute performance of an all-new design like the A350 or 787, Airbus would address any shortfall through a competitive pricing strategy.

“If we launch it, the A330neo would have slightly less range than a 787-9, but significantly lower capital costs,” says Leahy.

Boeing, however, is confident its 787 twinjet will see off any threat. John Wojick, Boeing’s *senior vice-president for global sales and marketing, does not see Airbus’s strategy working.

“Offering the most fuel-*efficient operating-economics aircraft in the marketplace is what the customers are really looking for,” he says. “Offering something that’s not as efficient and not as effective, and trying to discount it on price – I don’t really think that’s what the customers are looking for. They’re looking for fuel and operating cost-efficiency, and that’s what we focused on with the 787.”

Launch customer

Meanwhile, Air Lease (ALC) boss Steve Udvar-Hazy is helping steer Airbus’s evaluation of its re-engining “A330neo” project with the view to being a launch customer, and predicts demand for up to 1,200 aircraft. “We’re providing input to Airbus and talking about possibly being a launch customer,” he says. *Udvar-Hazy, who was also *attending IATA, says ALC forecasts a market for 1,100-1,200 *A330neos over the next 20 years, and that the aircraft would replace today’s A330s and A340s at lower trip costs. “We’ve done research and we see maybe 60-70 aircraft a year at the beginning, and then at the back-end of the 20-year period it probably starts tapering down,” he says.

Leahy indicates that Airbus concurs with ALC’s forecast, pegging A330neo long-term demand for at least 1,000 units.

Although the programme is still at the study stage, Udvar-Hazy says if Airbus decides to launch, the type could be available from 2018: “That’s probably what the market is signalling.”

Engine solution

He adds that ALC’s preference is for a choice of engine suppliers. “We don’t particularly care for [a single-source] engine solution. The A330 currently has a choice of three engines – GE, Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce,” he says. “Our preference would be two, because it would create a larger market as a lot of airlines already have a Rolls-Royce or GE infrastructure.”

Another lessor, AerCap, says it would need more information before it would consider an order for a re-engined variant of the A330. Chief executive Aengus Kelly says that it would be “premature” for a lessor to place a launch order and then “try to tell the market what it should use”.

Additionally, AirAsia X, Air Lease Corp and CIT have all *expressed an interest in an A330neo, while Delta Air Lines is rumoured to be a possible launch customer for the variant.

A Farnborough air show launch for the A330neo remains a distinct possibility.

Additional reporting by Max Kingsley-Jones and Ellis Taylor

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-leahy-pitches-a330neo-against-787-400166/
 
Il problema più significativo per il 330 Neo sarebbe il ritardo: col primo 787-9 in procinto di essere consegnato (il primo esemplare che verrà consegnato a metà luglio ad Air New Zealand ha già ultimato i voli di test, quindi attendono solo la fine del programma di certificazione), e il primo 330 NEO non disponibile prima del 2018 (nella migliore delle ipotesi), Airbus ha già ceduto una quota di mercato significativa nel segmento.
Da capire anche chi motorizzerà l'aereo: la piattaforma del 330 è ancora attuale, ma l'aumento di efficienza deve arrivare dai motori. Da escludere P&W, il cui GTF non è ancora testato a sufficienza per un wide body al quale servirà una certificazione ETOPS significativa, rimangono le solite GE e RR. Per un verso, una doppia motorizzazione aiuterebbe le vendite dell'aereo consentendo ai vettori che già hanno il 350 in ordine di affidarsi allo stesso produttore di motori e approfittare di qualche sinergia, ma d'altra parte certificare due motori aggiunge costi e tempo al programma di certificazione dell'aereo: dovendo necessariamente tenere bassi i costi di sviluppo per poter vendere l'aereo a prezzi concorrenziali rispetto al 787, la doppia motorizzazione potrebbe non essere la scelta migliore. Di sicuro c'è che Airbus deve fare presto: la macchina ha certamente potenziale, ma Boeing ha slot ancora disponibili per il 787 nel 2017, e ampia disponibilità nel 2018: capita spesso che i clienti abbiano fretta.
 
Virgin Atlantic has become the latest carrier to show an interest in the Airbus re-engined Airbus A330.


Speaking at Flightglobal’s Ascend Finance Forum in London today, head of strategic fleet planning Alan Leeks confirmed Virgin Atlantic’s interest in the A330neo and said the UK airline could place an order.


Virgin already operates 10 A330-300s, as well as 12 Boeing 747-400s, three A340-300s, 13 A340-600s and four A320s, Flightglobal’s Ascend Fleets database shows.


“On paper, the A330neo looks like a fantastic aircraft, but it depends on the price offering. It has interesting fuel-burn characteristics and will be appealing to a huge number of airlines,” says Leeks.


Should two engine manufacturers participate in the programme, they will invest more in the powerplants, adds Leeks. “If you have a single engine, you become lazy,” he says.


Last month, Airbus executives dampened expectations of an A330neo launch at July’s Farnborough air show, stressing that the airframer does not want to “rush into a decision”.


However, Airbus insists that developing a re-engined version of the small widebody would be “relatively straightforward”.


Airbus's chief operating officer for customers John Leahy confirmed in June that the board is “studying” a re-powered A330 but has concerns about “possible cannibalisation” of sales of the current A330 and smaller variants of the A350.


Virgin Atlantic will take delivery in September of its first Boeing 787-9. The aircraft will be configured in three classes, including premium economy, with 264 seats.


Another 787-9 will join the fleet later in the year, says Leeks. Another seven will follow in 2015.


The airline has traditionally financed its fleet in the operating lease market, but Leeks says the 787-9 fleet will be financed using “other financing products” that allow the carrier to participate in the residual values.


“There is a potential upside on residual values,” he says.
 
kenadams ha detto:
Il problema più significativo per il 330 Neo sarebbe il ritardo: col primo 787-9 in procinto di essere consegnato (il primo esemplare che verrà consegnato a metà luglio ad Air New Zealand ha già ultimato i voli di test, quindi attendono solo la fine del programma di certificazione), e il primo 330 NEO non disponibile prima del 2018 (nella migliore delle ipotesi), Airbus ha già ceduto una quota di mercato significativa nel segmento.
Da capire anche chi motorizzerà l'aereo: la piattaforma del 330 è ancora attuale, ma l'aumento di efficienza deve arrivare dai motori. Da escludere P&W, il cui GTF non è ancora testato a sufficienza per un wide body al quale servirà una certificazione ETOPS significativa, rimangono le solite GE e RR. Per un verso, una doppia motorizzazione aiuterebbe le vendite dell'aereo consentendo ai vettori che già hanno il 350 in ordine di affidarsi allo stesso produttore di motori e approfittare di qualche sinergia, ma d'altra parte certificare due motori aggiunge costi e tempo al programma di certificazione dell'aereo: dovendo necessariamente tenere bassi i costi di sviluppo per poter vendere l'aereo a prezzi concorrenziali rispetto al 787, la doppia motorizzazione potrebbe non essere la scelta migliore. Di sicuro c'è che Airbus deve fare presto: la macchina ha certamente potenziale, ma Boeing ha slot ancora disponibili per il 787 nel 2017, e ampia disponibilità nel 2018: capita spesso che i clienti abbiano fretta.
Clicca per espandere...
Quoto. Airbus deve fare presto, anche perchè non ha altra scelta. Il 330 attuale, per quanto ottimizzato, sarebbe destinato ad un lento declino. Per cui a meno di immaginare una macchina completamente nuova (estremamente improbabile), l'unica scelta rimane la rimotorizzazione. Che a sua volta potrà diminuire ma non colmare completamente il gap con il 787 interamente nuovo e disponibile in 3 versioni contro le 2 del liner europeo.
Secondo me l'indecisione che sembra esserci a Tolosa, nasce proprio dal dubbio se il gioco valga la candela. Nel senso che a fronte di un investimento comunque importante, ci si troverebbe tra le mani un aereo comunque inferiore al concorrente, con la necessità di compensare questo limite con il prezzo. Senza contare che il 330neo diventerebbe un concorrente interno del 359. Perchè non va dimenticato che il 350 è nato per sostituire l'intera famiglia 330/340, quindi una certa sovrapposizione sarebbe inevitabile.
Forse a questo punto potrebbe convenire riprendere in mano il progetto del 358, ottimizzarlo per un peso un po' inferiore a quello previsto e chiudere il discorso 330. Avendo comunque chiaro che la sola famiglia 330/350 non potrà avere una copertura ottimale del mercato come quella garantita da Boeing con il duo 777/787.
La tabella comparativa che c'è a pagina 3 di questo documento Boeing, testimonia bene la situazione anche tenendo conto che è di parte.
 
Ultima modifica:
Se Airbus applica al 350 la stessa politica della Boieng con il 787 (ovvero 50% di sconto) ne vende a pacchi....

Inviato dal mio GT-N8000 utilizzando Tapatalk
 
rcravero ha detto:
Se Airbus applica al 350 la stessa politica della Boieng con il 787 (ovvero 50% di sconto) ne vende a pacchi....

Inviato dal mio GT-N8000 utilizzando Tapatalk
Clicca per espandere...

E' sempre stata una delle politiche di forza di Airbus i grossi sconti.... vai a vedere come sonos tati venduti i 380....
 
(Reuters)

Airbus will both upgrade and rebrand its A330 passenger jet at a launch expected to kick off next week's Farnborough Airshow, people familiar with the matter said on Friday.

The A330-800neo and A330-900neo will be upgraded versions of the A330-200 and A330-300 respectively and include some cabin improvements and 400 nautical miles more range.

The announcement is likely to highlight a 14 percent fuel efficiency increase and a new version of the Rolls-Royce Trent engine.

Airbus declined to comment.

"We do not comment on the usual air show noise," a spokesman said.

Leasing companies are expected to be among the initial buyers, but it was not immediately clear whether the launch would be subject to further board approvals.

In service since the 1990s, the A330 is Airbus's best-selling wide-body jet.

Sales have been stronger than expected recently due to delays in producing the newer Boeing 787. But that advantage is evaporating and Airbus now wants to refresh the design in order to defend its position in the lucrative 250-300-seat market.

Its arrival is expected to spark greater price competition for sales at the lower end of the market for wide-body jets.

Anticipating an air show move by its rival, Boeing said on Thursday the A330 upgrade papered over a series of strategy changes after Airbus counted on its future A350-800.

Sales of that jet have been disappointing, with just 34 left on order.

The name change appears designed to smooth that transition, but Airbus is also keen to distinguish between the current A330, which will remain on sale for regional trips, and the "neo" which will be pitched as a step towards the newer A350.

There had been some speculation that Airbus might call it after the A350 for that reason, but borrowing the name of a different aircraft family can pose branding and certification problems or clash with airlines' pilot union agreements.

The engine, a modified Trent 1000-TEN, will be dubbed Trent 7000, sources said.

The numerology of aircraft models is virtually a science in itself and is watched closely in some key markets such as China. Boeing also uses the 800/900 tag, or more recently 8/9.

"Rebranding the A330 (and)... adopting the more modern -800/-900 speaks to the significant upgrade of the airplane," said aviation analyst Scott Hamilton.

"It speaks to adopting new technology and is consistent with the sub-type branding of the A350."

Details are also emerging of what the A330 redesign, which is still under wraps, will look and feel like to passengers.

The A330neo will have between 252 and 306 seats, slightly more than the Boeing 787-8 or 787-9, and 10 more than the current A330, according to an airline briefing.

In terms of performance, airlines have been told the smaller version of A330neo will have the same range as the Boeing 787-8, while the larger variant will lag the 787-9 by 1,000 miles.

Airbus says most airlines don't need the 787's range or some of its features such as larger windows. Boeing says 787 is more comfortable and efficient, whatever length of trip is considered.
 
Analisi dei futuri WB bireattori: A330neo, A350, Boeing 777-8/9

Ho trovato questa interessante analisi di Aspire Aviation degli sviluppi futuri dei bigetti WB di Airbus e Boeing.
http://www.aspireaviation.com/2014/07/11/airbus-boeing-widebody-game-of-thrones/



Airbus, Boeing in game of thrones for widebody dominance


​

  • Boeing 777X weight figures revealed for first time
  • 3-class 406-seat 777-9X MEW at 362,000lbs, MZFW 527,000lbs, MLW 557,000lbs
  • 4-class 300-seat 777-9X has OEW of 415,000lbs
  • 777-9X 8.8% lighter in MZFW per seat than -300ER, 6.3% lighter than A350-1000
  • Airbus: Existing A330 more efficient than A330neo on 2-3 hour missions
  • Airbus: Existing A330 lift-to-drag optimised at 21
  • GE9X fan size increases to 133.5″, wingspan increases to 235.5ft (71.8m)
  • Boeing ups 280-seat 787-9 range from 8,050nm to 8,300nm, MTOW to 557,000lbs
  • Air New Zealand: First 787-9 “hundreds of kilograms lighter than forecast”
  • Customer interest in A330neo explained by limited 787 availability

As the biennial Farnborough Airshow approaches, the war of words between transatlantic arch-rivals Airbus and Boeing grows increasingly heated alongside the summer temperature. This year the industry’s focus falls on Airbus’s widebody strategy, with the European plane-maker and its proponents arguing a re-engined A330 equipped with new winglets would level the playing field against Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner in the 250-300 seat category, offer the same level of fuel burn at significantly lower capital costs. Nonsense, the other side of the Atlantic retorts, as the 787 has a lower all-in cash operating cost (COC) than the A330neo on all comparable missions.
Worryingly for Airbus, as some industry observers point out, the competitive response now being formulated by Airbus does appear to be a quiet acknowledgement that what it has touted all along – the A350 is “a step ahead of the 787 and a generation beyond 777″ is showing signs of weakness. Critics are quick to point to a shrinking A350-800 backlog of 34 examples that creates a void at the bottom of its widebody product portfolio, which will be partially filled by the A330neo, whereas the 777X is increasingly exerting pressure on not only the 350-seat A350-1000 following Dubai-based Emirates Airline’s order cancellation, but also its flagship A380 superjumbo, prompting calls from its biggest customer to re-engine the aircraft.
That said, Emirates’ scrapping of the US$16 billion 2007 order for 20 A350-1000s and 50 -900s has more to deal with the behemoth outgrowing the uplift the -1000 can provide (“More repercussions on A380 than A350-1000 on Emirates’ cancellation“, 23rd Jun, 14), and in a market estimated to feature 8,984 new widebody aircraft over the next 20 years, according to Airbus’s 2013 Global Market Forecast (GMF), it is safe to assume that it is large enough to accommodate multiple offerings from both airframers.

​
A330neo business case not clear-cut against 787 progress
At the lower end of the widebody market lies the 240-seat 787-8 and the 280-seat -9, the latter of which celebrated its first delivery to launch customer Air New Zealand (ANZ) on 9th July. This follows a 1,500-hour flight test programme during which a capacitor powering the ram air turbine (RAT) was found to be wearing prematurely and the altitude-select dial on the mode control panel (MCP) lacking sufficient torque resistance. The 787-9 won its type and 330-minute extended twin engines operations (ETOPS) certificates on exemptions granted by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that will see a fix for the RAT and MCP issues by February and May 2015, respectively.
With the 787-9 entry into service (EIS) imminent, this symbolises a significant milestone for Chicago-based Boeing which previously saw a breakdown in its global supply chain, 3 years of delivery delays and billions of dollars in cost overruns plaguing its smaller sibling, the baseline -8 variant. From a production standpoint, while the introduction of the -9 into the flow created a temporary bottleneck when combined with a production ramp-up to 10 per month and a hairline crack issue on the composite wing spar of 40 in-production 787s in early March, it increasingly resembles an efficient production line – having shown a 30% unit cost reduction from ZB001, the first -9 ever produced to the 6th unit produced and a 25% reduced total flow time and a 15% improvement on -8 unit cost in 2013. Its Charleston, South Carolina 787 final assembly line (FAL) achieved the production rate of 3 per month despite continued teething issues and caught up with 72% of up to 8,000 jobs behind schedule originally.
For airlines, the 787-9 has incorporated the lessons learnt on the -8, including software fixes that saw its dispatch reliability now averaging 98.5%, in addition to being underweight in terms of manufacturer’s empty weight (MEW) with later examples being 2% underweight. The better-than-anticipated payload/range capability is reflected in Boeing raising the -9′s maximum take-off weight (MTOW) from 251,000kg to 252,651kg (557,000lbs) and its range from 8,050nm (nautical miles) to 8,300nm in a standard 3-class configuration.
“Boeing has had a weight reduction programme in place for the 787-9 and Air New Zealand’s first aircraft will be delivered hundreds of kilograms lighter than forecast,” Air New Zealand (ANZ) spokeswoman Emma Field told Aspire Aviation.
For Airbus, it is becoming more and more apparent a competitive response has to be formed, as the A350-800 backlog dwindles to comprise orders of just 10 from Yemenia, 6 from Hawaiian, 2 from lessor AWAS, 8 each from Asiana and Aeroflot. Ideas being toyed include stretching the A350-800, although this risks cannibalising the sales of a 315-seat de-rated A350-900 Regional. The best course of actions for Airbus, Aspire Aviation reckons, is shelving the A350-800 and converts its loyal customers such as Hawaiian Airlines to the re-engined A330neo (“Hawaiian Airlines likely an early A330neo customer“, 12th Feb, 14), which has yet to secure board of directors’ approval to begin the industrialisation process.
“There’s been much talk about the A330neo, but obviously we must wait to see whether that will come to pass. For now, the A350-800 does three things for us: it has long range, it’s slightly larger than the A330-200s which we fly now, so it provides for a bit of growth, and it’s more fuel efficient, so it represents a hedge on fuel prices,” Hawaiian Airlines chief executive Mark Dunkerley said in a Bloomberg interview.
Interestingly, while Airbus chief operating officer (COO) customers John Leahy talks up the prospects of the A330neo with a 20-year sale potential of 1,000 aircraft whereas Airbus Group chief executive Tom Enders gives a more subtle forecast by saying “here we are talking hundreds probably. We will take the time it takes to come to a sound decision”, “the A330neo is not a done deal” from a technical perspective, in borrowing the words of Airbus executive vice president (EVP) of strategy and marketing Kiran Rao.
First of all, the A330neo which is likely to be powered exclusively by the Rolls-Royce Trent 7000, based on the Trent 1000-TEN (Thrust Efficiency and New Technology) engine, as firstly reported by Aviation Week, will gain 2-3 tonnes of weight – adding around 1 tonne from the larger engine and another 1-2 tonnes associated with centre wing box and fuselage reinforcements. The Trent 1000-TEN which ran for the first time on 3rd June, has a dry weight of 5,765kg, versus the 4,785kg on the 97.4-inch Trent 772C-60 engine. For missions between 2-3 hours, or under 1,200nm, it is very difficult for the 14% block fuel burn per seat reduction to offset the extra deadweight, as the aircraft has minimal fuel penalty arising from carrying fuel.
“For 2-3 hour missions the A330ceos are still more efficient than a neo,” Rao was quoted as saying in an Aviation Week report.
Beyond 2,000nm and particularly on medium to long-haul sectors, the structural and aerodynamic efficiency of the 787-9 will be hard for the A330neo to match and a new winglet is unlikely to significantly improve its lift-to-drag ratio, which is already optimised at 21 and could be boosted to 22.

Moreover, it is not unthinkable for the A330neo to end up being heavier than the 787-9, despite Airbus’s claims to the contrary. The A330-300 has a maximum zero fuel weight (MZFW) of 175 tonnes and the 787-9 181.4 tonnes. While adding 2 tonnes of extra weight still gives the A330neo an advantage on the surface, one should take into account the extra passenger and cargo uplift capability the 787-9 has since MZFW = OEW + maximum payload. The 787-9, for instance, can carry 36 LD-3 containers under floor versus the 33 carried by the A330-300. Once this is factored in, the A330-300neo could possibly be slightly heavier than the 787-9 in terms of OEW.
A noteworthy point is, the per-seat comparisons widely used by both Airbus and Boeing can be skewed by differences in seat count, which has a knock-on impact on empty weights as business-class seats such as Zodiac Aerospace’s Cirrus are disproportionately heavier than slim-line economy seats. In addition, Airbus’s manufacturer’s weight empty (MWE) metric does not include the weights of seats, interiors and galleys, which could amount to 2-3 tonnes on an A320 or 737-sized airplane and 12.4 tonnes (27,327lbs) on a 777-200ER, with galleys weighing 2.67t (5,884lbs) and cargo tares weighing 2.06t (4,540lbs). Although Airbus’s and Boeing’s operating empty weight (OEW) share pretty much the same definition, OEW is an airline-specific measure in an operator’s environment, with more premium seating, galleys and lavatories adding more weight.
Therefore it is essential to keep the business class ratio constant, as well as the galley and lavatory ratio when comparing airplanes on a like-for-like basis. A significant caveat of this approach is the physical space constraint of the airplane, whose configuration could be optimised by adding more seats or could not feasibly accommodate as many seats as its competitor. Boeing’s first-class and business-class pitches at 61-inch and 39-inch, respectively, does not help clarifying matters either, whereas Airbus’s is more realistic at 60-inch.
For example, Airbus claims its 400-seat 199-tonne A330-300 Regional in a 9-abreast configuration with 24 business class and 376 economy class seats has the same cash operating cost (COC) per seat and a 12% lower direct operating cost (DOC) per seat than the 380-seat 787-9 with 24 business and 356 economy seats, primarily owing to cheaper monthly lease rate for the A330-300 at US$900,000 versus US$1.25 million for the 787-9. Once the 787-9′s longer and wider cabin is taken into consideration at 56m and 5.49m, respectively, versus the A330-300′s 50.35m and 5.28m, the comparison may no longer hold (“Boeing 787 availability key in fending off Airbus A330neo“, 21st Feb, 14).
Furthermore, it is worthwhile to consider whether the 295-seat 2-class A330-300neo’s real competitor is the 323-seat 787-10, which has a range of 7,020nm and a maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of 252,651kg (557,000lbs). A 2-class 787-10 could accommodate 360 seats with a MEW of 261,000lbs according to Rev E specification or 275,000lbs in a 260-seat 3-class configuration, Aspire Aviation can exclusively reveal. This equates to a capability of carrying 60 more passengers in a 2-class configuration with a total cargo volume of 6,187ft³ (175m³) versus the A330-300neo’s 5,751ft³ (162.8m³).
This is because Asia/Pacific passenger traffic has been booming with a 7.2% increase in revenue passenger kilometres (RPKs) for the first 5 months of 2014, International Air Transport Association (IATA) figures showed and Boeing forecasts a 6.3% annual growth rate in traffic within the region over the next 20 years, with traffic within China soaring 6.6% a year, according to its latest 2014 current market outlook (CMO).
Having said that, the A330neo does not need to amass the 1,200 orders envisaged by Air Lease Corporation (ALC) founder Steven Udvar-Hazy to be deemed a success and recoup the US$2 billion development cost. With a large installed base of A330s, such as the 31 -200s and 11 -300s that Air China operates, 36 -300s for Cathay Pacific and another 18 operated by its wholly-owned subsidiary Dragonair, 22 -300s at China Airlines, 34 and 27 operated by China Eastern and China Southern Airlines, Airbus only needs to convert a few of them in order to make the A330neo programme profitable.
Such examples include Virgin Atlantic which operates 10 A330-300s and will operate its inaugural 264-seat 787-9 flight on the London Heathrow-Boston route from 28th October onwards, as well as evaluating a replacement for 7 London Gatwick-based 747-400s; and its 49% shareholder Delta Air Lines, which operates 11 -200s, 21 -300s and has an order for 10 242-tonne -300s. Delta also has a request for proposal (RFP) for 50 widebody aircraft and is said to favour the A330neo, although its chief executive Richard Anderson also said “we’re hopeful that the 787-9, with all the lessons learned on the -8, is going to be a really viable airplane”.
“On paper, the A330neo looks like a fantastic aircraft, but it depends on the price offering. It has interesting fuel-burn characteristics and will be appealing to a huge number of airlines,” Virgin Atlantic head of strategic fleet planning Alan Leeks told flightglobal, while chairman Richard Branson told Bloomberg that “it would make a lot of sense for us to have some -10s. We are definitely exploring that.”
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]A350-900[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]A350-1000[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]777-300ER[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]777-8X[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]777-9X[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]787-10[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 17%, align: center"]3-class pax no.[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]314[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]350[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]368[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]350[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]406[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]323[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]315 (2-class Regional)[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]360 (2-class)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 17%, align: center"]Range (nm)[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]8,100[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]8,400[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]7,825[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]9,300[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]8,200[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]7,020[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]6,800 (regional)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 17%, align: center"]MTOW (kg)[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]268,000[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]308,000[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]351,530[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]351,534[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]351,534[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]252,651[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]250,000 (regional)[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]775,000lbs[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]775,000lbs[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]557,000lbs[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 17%, align: center"]MLW (kg)[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]205,000[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]233,000[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]251,290[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]n/a[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]252,651[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]201,800[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]557,000lbs[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]445,000lbs[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 17%, align: center"]MZFW (kg)[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]192,000[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]220,000[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]237,683[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]n/a[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]239,043[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]192,800[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]527,000lbs[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]425,000lbs[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 17%, align: center"]MEW/MWE (kg)[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]119,000[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]n/a[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]337,871lbs[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]n/a[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]362,000lbs (3-class 406-seat; Rev E)[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]261,000lbs (2-class 360-seat; Rev E)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]275,000lbs (3-class 260-seat; Rev E)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 17%, align: center"]OEW/OWE (kg)[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]n/a[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]155,000[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]167,829[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]n/a[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]188,241[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]n/a[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]415,000lbs (4-class 300-seat, Rev E)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 17%, align: center"]Overall length (m)[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]66.89[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]73.88[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]73.9[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]69.55[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]76.48[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]68.28[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 17%, align: center"]Wingspan (m)[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]64.75[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]64.75[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]64.8[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]71.8 (unfolded)[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]71.8 (unfolded)[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]60.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]64.8 (folded)[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]64.8 (folded)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 17%, align: center"]Diameter (m)[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]5.96[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]5.96[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]6.19[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]6.19[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]6.19[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]5.77[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 17%, align: center"]Cabin Width (m)[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]5.61[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]5.61[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]5.86[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]5.96[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]5.96[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]5.49[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 17%, align: center"]Engines[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]Rolls-Royce Trent XWB-84[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]Rolls-Royce Trent XWB-97[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]General Electric GE90-115B[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]General Electric GE9X[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]General Electric GE9X[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]General Electric GEnx-1B PIP 2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]Rolls-Royce Trent 1000-TEN[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 17%, align: center"]Thrust (lbs)[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]84,000[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]97,000[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]115,300[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]105,000[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]105,000[/TD]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]76,000[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 13%, align: center"]70,000 (regional)[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Source: Airbus, Boeing, Aspire Aviation estimates
A350, 777X vie for crown of ultra long-haul leader
A notch above the small widebody category, the A350 and 777X are separately making progress in their “game of thrones” for widebody dominance. The A350 XWB is now closing in on its 2,500-hour flight test campaign after having flown 2,100 hours. The A350 recently completed cross-wind tests with MSN001 in Keflavik, Iceland; MSN005 flew for the first time on 20 June and MSN002 conducted 2 early long flights (ELFs). It has submitted its maintenance programme to the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) ahead of first delivery to Qatar Airways in early-September 2014.
Airbus is reasonably confident the A350 can emerge unscathed from Emirates’ blow and rightly so, as it boasts a nearly flawless execution on the A350 programme after placing 90% of suppliers under constant surveillance and 7.5% under joint improvement plan (JIP). 2.5% of suppliers are deemed as high-risk and transformation plans have been developed jointly to remedy the situation.
With A350 production slots running out until 2019, the most daunting task lying ahead is not remedying shortfall in performance as perceived by some after the Emirates cancellation. The A350-900 is going to match its block fuel burn specification owing to better-than-anticipated specific fuel consumption (SFC) of the Rolls-Royce Trent XWB-84 engine despite the aircraft being 3.3 tonnes overweight with a 119 tonnes manufacturers weight empty (MEW). Nor is it filling the slots vacated by Emirates as Airbus can seize on the opportunity to improve programme profitability.
“It is not good news commercially but not bad news financially. There is certainly going to be no hole in production,” Airbus chief operating officer (COO) customers John Leahy asserted.
Rather, it is the production ramp-up to 10 per month by 2018 that poses the biggest challenge in satisfying the 3,460 medium widebody aircraft being demanded by the market valued at US$1.16 trillion over the next 20 years, according to Boeing’s 2014 latest market forecast.
What remains controversial and heavily contested by both sides of the Atlantic, however, is what market share each of them will attain in a lucrative market with multibillion dollars worth of orders split between them.
Boeing argues its complete product lineup of the 787 and 777X will “box in” the A350 family, whereas Airbus refutes by claiming the 406-seat 777-9X is in a “no man’s land” and “if the 777-300ER is so great, why did [Boeing] launch the -9X?”
“If Airbus doesn’t do something with their product strategy, they’re headed to 30-35% market share,” Boeing vice president (VP) of marketing Randy Tinseth contended.
For the 777X, it seems to be gaining momentum after Emirates finalised a record-breaking US$56 billion deal for 150 777Xs, consisting of 115 777-9Xs and 35 -8Xs; and Boeing winning the fiercely-contested ANA order for 20 examples. Other potential customers include Ethiopian Airlines for 10 examples and aircraft lessor Aer Cap, British Airways (BA), Philippine Airlines (PAL), Eva Air and Singapore Airlines (SIA) which may announce an order of around 20 aircraft at Farnborough and other 777-300ER operators that have collectively placed 722 firm orders, such as Air France that has 38 examples in its fleet.
While Airbus claims the 406-seat 777-9X is 30 tonnes heavier than the 350-seat A350-1000 with the former’s operating empty weight (OEW) at 190 tonnes and the latter at 155 tonnes, such a comparison is a little misleading as the 777-9X is considerably larger than the A350-1000. According to Aspire Aviation‘s multiple sources at Boeing, a 4-class 300-seat 777-9X has an OEW of 188,241kg (415,000lbs) versus the 3-class 368-seat 777-300ER’s OEW of 167,829kg. The 777-9X also has a manufacturer’s empty weight (MEW) of 362,000lbs versus the 337,871lbs for the -300ER, these sources say.
Make no mistake, seat count and class ratio will have an impact on any MEW and OEW metric, but one could use the maximum zero fuel weight (MZFW) as a rough gauge for the 777-9X, -300ER and A350-1000′s respective weight efficiencies. The 3-class 406-seat 777-9X has a MZFW of 239,043kg, whereas the 368-seat 777-300ER’s and 350-seat A350-1000′s stand at 237,683kg and 220,000kg, respectively. Translating into per-seat figure yields 628.57kg per seat for the 777-9X, 8.8% lower than the 645.88kg figure for the -300ER and 6.33% lighter than the 628.57kg figure for the A350-1000.
Provided that Boeing execute the 777-9X well with tight weight control, which balances the need for larger 787-syled dimmable windows and lower cabin altitude that add weight (“Boeing 777X to spark mini-jumbo war“, 28th Mar, 13), the 777-9X is going to be a weight efficient airplane that has an estimated 4.7% lower seat-mile cost than the A350-1000.
Indeed, the 777X only gets larger with an extension of the folding wingtip (FWT) that sees its unfolded wingspan increasing to 71.8m (235.5ft) from 71.1m while keeping its folded wingspan at 64.8m, thereby in compliance with International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Code E airport compatibility rule (“Boeing 777X targets to become ultra long-haul leader“, 1st Jan, 14). Other changes include an increase in the General Electric GE9X engine fan size to 133.5-inch from 132-inch as a result of a thrust increase from 102,000lbs to 105,000lbs, the elimination of noise-reducing chevrons on the engine nacelle, splitting of the outboard flap into two with the addition of an extra hinge to prevent wing flutter, and a wider vertical stabiliser.
It is so large such that Boeing has to demolish buildings at its Everett site for a new 1.3 million ft²carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP) wing plant and a new 350,000ft² final assembly plant with the Frederickson plant building its CFRP empennage. Japanese suppliers which secured 21% of the primary structure work also have to expand their production facilities with Fuji Heavy Industries (FHI) constructing a new plant for building the 777X’s wing box.
That said, Aspire Aviation believes the medium widebody market is large and robust enough to accommodate both the 777X and the A350-1000, especially the latter would be an optimised 350-seater whereas the 777-8X, with the same wing and maximum take-off weight (MTOW) as the -9X, is optimised for 9,300nm missions and opening new routes such as Rome-Sydney and Sydney-New York John F. Kennedy (JFK) International Airport. Not that the -8X has an inferior payload/range capability than the A350-1000, as it is capable of carrying 17 tonnes of additional cargoes over the same stage length, but its aircraft structure is designed and built for such missions, therefore it is difficult to see it achieving the touted 5% lower block fuel burn per seat advantage.
Image Courtesy of Boeing
​
Winner’s curse
Whoever wins the throne of the small and medium widebody dominance, however, there is a price to pay for the success in the form of the winner’s curse, with the A350-1000 and particularly the 406-seat 777-9X cannibalising sales of Airbus’s and Boeing’s very large airplane (VLA) offerings – the flagship A380 superjumbo and 747-8I Intercontinental.
For passengers, the 525-seat A380′s lure remains even after 7 years in service, with Emirates divisional vice president (VP) of commercial operations west Hubert Frach tellingflightglobal “there is no change in terms of attractiveness of the A380. The load factor for the A380 fleet is above average and for us it is a profitable aircraft. It is a customer magnet”.
“Passengers like to fly on the A380. When airlines put the A380 on routes, if they put it at the peak time, departures are going to capture the largest percentage of yield,” Amadeo chief executive Mark Lapidus concurred.
Airbus is also championing the A380′s merits in supplying capacity at lower costs, as British Airways (BA) replaced its 3 daily 747-400 flights with 2 A380 flights which saw a 19% lower trip cost while featuring 5% more premium seats and 7% fewer non-premium seats, thereby being yield-accretive. Air France also substituted 1 272-seat 2-class A340-300 and 1 270-seat 3-class 777-200ER Paris Charles de Gaulle-New York John F. Kennedy (JFK) flights with a 538-seat 3-class A380, which leads to a 17% lower cash operating cost (COC) per seat.
Furthermore, with the number of mega-cities, namely those with more than 10,000 daily long-haul passengers on flights more than 2,000nm long, doubling over the next 20 years from 42 to 89 by 2032, as well as 75% more congested airports, Airbus says the A380 will free up precious slot pairs at airports such as London Heathrow which operates at 97% of runway capacity for growth.
Yet this overlooks the yield dilution arising from the “spillover demand” as a result of the reduction in frequencies, with price-inelastic last-minute business travellers selecting rivals which offer preferred departure times. Examples include Qantas trimming its Hong Kong-Sydney flight frequencies from twice-daily to daily with an A380 while Cathay Pacific flies 4-times daily on the route.
“The business traveller wants frequency. Frequency means you need smaller gauge with range and speed, with good seat mile costs. And in fact, what you want is seat-mile costs lower than the 747-400 with about 100 fewer seats. RASM goes up; CASM goes down, range is longer. You get the drift of why that airplane [A330neo] was an important one and why the A350 will be important. And when you start talking about 350-400 passengers, if you ask a customer do I want to fly – do I want to have a choice of 8 flights a day, 10 flights a day JFK-London or do I want 3, they’re going to pick 10 every time,” Delta Air Lines chief executive Richard Anderson said in a June Bloomberg interview.
Hence the 777-9X would offer incremental growth capacity and the same benefits of yield increase without the inherent financial risk the VLAs carry in being difficult to fill and having a higher break-even load factor (BELF) where BELF = CASK/yield. It would be particularly attractive for carriers such as Hong Kong-based Cathay Pacific which operates 5 times daily to London Heathrow with 2 pairs of flights – CX255 and CX251 departing within 1 hour of each other and another pair – CX239 and CX237 departing within 20 minutes of each other.
It is frequency, not capacity, that forms the trend, with a 60% increase in frequency from 2000 to 2014 on a 58% increase in capacity at the world’s top 25 long-haul airports, thereby leading to a 2% reduction in the number of seats per flight from 304 to 299, Boeing Commercial Airplanes (BCA) vice president (VP) of marketing Randy Tinseth pointed out.
In addition, VLAs have a significant drawback versus the big-twins in having a limited size of revenue cargo volume, or underbelly space that airlines can sell and earn a 60-70% net profit margin owing to the fixed costs and capital costs being shared with the passenger operation. The A380 and 747-8I have revenue cargo volumes of 2,995ft³ and 3,895ft³, respectively, out of a 5,875ft³ total cargo volume and 6,345ft³, versus the revenue cargo volume of 5,200ft³ on the Boeing 777-300ER out of a total cargo volume of 7,120ft³, let alone the 777-9X that has an even longer fuselage with a length of 76.48m.
This matters for carriers such as Cathay Pacific which carries 50% of all its cargo in underbelly space on passenger aircraft and carries around 100 tonnes and 80 tonnes of belly cargoes to London Heathrow and Los Angeles, respectively, or around 20 tonnes per 777-300ER flight (“Cathay Pacific in for the long-haul“, 1st Apr, 14).


In light of these, Boeing is counting on the “Project Ozark” – increasing the 747-8I’s maximum take-off weight (MTOW) to 1 million pounds from 987,000lbs, raising its range to 8,200nm, achieving a weight reduction of 10,000lbs by the end of 2014, a target originally envisioned by end-2016, to drum up sales and restore the 747 production rate to 1.75 a month from the current rate of 1.5.
On the other hand, Airbus is evaluating the prospect of a re-engined A380neo, after its biggest customer Emirates urges Airbus to do so.
“There’s a distinct possibility that the A380neo, if built, would give us an improvement in economics of up to 10-12% so that is definitely worth having. And I’m hoping to move on that fairly soon. Rolls can do a better engine. We can get more weight out of the aircraft. We can improve the aerodynamics,” Emirates president Tim Clark was quoted as saying.
“We can just encourage Airbus to continue and speed up the possible improvements, especially the fuel efficiency and a neo version. If the neo version is coming we could consider ordering more planes,” Emirates chief commercial officer Thierry Antinori stressed.
While such a make-over with a Rolls-Royce RB3025 engine might make sense for its biggest customer, whose 50th A380 was delivered on 10th July and its remaining 90 orders account for 67% of the A380′s 135 unfilled backlog, it could be a pause for concern for the aircraft financing community when Singapore Airlines’ 10-year old A380s begin to come off lease in 2017 and Emirates begins to retire its first examples in accordance with its well-publicised 12-year replacement cycle by the turn of the decade. If it does so, the European plane-maker risks depressing the residual value of an airplane with a limited customer base and little freighter conversion prospect.
Therefore it is understandable for Amadeo’s Lapidus to brush off such an idea, saying “at 11-abreast, the A380 will have 30% better cash operating costs than the Boeing 777-300ER. 777-9X economics will work well at 10-abreast, but not as well as the A380.”
Airbus will have to address this dilemma sooner or later – on the one hand, better economics would improve the A380′s attractiveness for carriers in light of a diminishing backlog which contains uncertain orders such as Virgin Atlantic’s one for 6 examples, Qantas’s remaining 8 unfilled orders and Amadeo’s speculative one that has yet to secure a customer, compounded by vacant slots in as early as 2015; on the other hand, no one dares to tinker a flagship product that saw both Skymark Airlines and Qatar Airways’ deliveries being delayed for a few weeks over interior fitting issues by offering an 11-abreast economy class enabled by raising the main deck floor by 2 inches and adding 35-40 additional seats.
Quite frankly, Airbus does not appear to be making a decision on the A380neo anytime soon, as the market acceptance of the revamped version of a product that has only garnered 234 firm orders after being on sales for 14 years and will break-even on a unit bases in 2015 but not on an aircraft programme basis appears questionable. Emirates has also indicated that it will take the last 25 of its latest order for 50 examples under the existing version should Airbus decide not to press ahead with the A380neo plan and that “there’s nothing out there that resembles what the A380 can do, at all, for us“.
In conclusion, while it remains to be seen whether it is Airbus or Boeing that will end up sitting at the top in the game of thrones for widebody dominance, as Airbus begins to line up launch ordersfor the re-engined A330neo from AirAsia X and a few aircraft lessors ahead of the Farnborough Airshow, there will be a less and less important role for the very large airplanes (VLAs), for which Boeing foresees a market of only 620 aircraft in its 2014 current market outlook (CMO), down from 760 in the prior year.
It turns out that it is not the A380, nor the 747-8I, that “own the sky”, but the “big twins” or “mini-jumbos” such as the A350 XWB and 777X that usher in a new era of efficiency.



 
E' un aereo che certamente darà grattacapi a Boeing: si fossero mossi prima avrebbero potuto sfruttare molto di più i ritardi e i problemi del programma 787, ma di spazio ce n'è ancora, soprattutto considerando il backlog enorme del 787 e i tempi di attesa per riceverne.
Nel frattempo, l'opzione unica per i motori potrebbe alienare qualche cliente (del resto, la stessa Emirates pare aver rinunciato al 350 almeno in parte per la mancanza di una motorizzazione GE) ma è comprensibile, anche perché RR motorizza già oggi la maggioranza dei 330 in servizio. Chi ha già 330 in flotta avrà certamente interesse a valutare la facilità di transizione degli equipaggi e la commonality fra 330CEO e 330NEO. A favore di Boeing ci sarà forse una ancora maggiore collaborazione da parte di General Electric per vendere i 787: per vendere i propri motori, il colosso americano potrebbe incentivare i potenziali clienti non solo con sconti sui motori, ma anche con finanziamenti competitivi da parte di GECAS per l'acquisto degli aerei. GECAS, peraltro, ha solo 10 787 in ordine (tutti della serie -10), e non sembra aver fatto molto a sostegno delle vendite del 787 se si pensa che ILFC-Aercap e Aircraft Lease Corporation hanno ordinato rispettivamente 74 e 45 787.
 
Re: Analisi dei futuri WB bireattori: A330neo, A350, Boeing 777-8/9

kenadams ha detto:
Ho unito questa analisi molto interessante al thread sul 330NEO, dove credo possa aiutare molto lo svolgimento della discussione.
Clicca per espandere...
Ok. :)
Ero indeciso dove postarla perchè riguarda varie macchine.
 
rick@BCN ha detto:
Posso chiedere su cosa basi questa affermazione (riferita ad Airbus in generale e non ad un programma specifico)?
Clicca per espandere...

Ciao Rick,
Sia da discussioni come quelle postate da Mauro, ma anche leggendo vari articoli sui giornali mi sembra(sempre imho) che la politica di Airbus sia molto incentrata su forti sconti, anche se sono a conoscenza che le dinamiche di vendita su aerei (come su mega yacht e tutte le grandi operazioni in genere non si basano solo su sconti, ma anche su altre politiche (rientri di flotte, operazioni finanziarie varie, accordi tra governi, Etc Etc).
 
Devi accedere o registrarti per rispondere qui.


Top Bottom