On Sunday we heard Boeing talk about the “failed” A350 in light of the imminent A330neo’s arrival. Then on Monday Airbus respond with an announcement of its intent to offer the A330neo, and go announce 105 orders. It also scored a few more A350 orders.
At airshows its expected that these two firms poke fun at each other. The audience laps it up.
So what’s wrong with the idea of an A330neo anyway? Turns out that its nothing special; its just an airplane updated with a new wing and engines along with some other technology tweaks. Just like the 737 MAX, the 777 MAX and the 747-8 MAX.
But for the banter, airshows would be a lot less fun.
“Its just an airplane” should be “it’s just an airplane.” ‘Its’ means ‘belonging to it’. It’s on the other hand is a contraction of “it is.” Like the difference pointed out above, ‘can’t’ has a very different meaning than ‘cant’, which is derived from cantare in Latin.
As far as picking fun at the A350 and calling it a failure, that’s a bit extreme, but I think Boeing is right, in a way. The A350 should have been able to cover that segment, but there wasn’t enough interest from the airlines in the smaller model. Kind of sad when you can sell an older generation airplane better than a fancy high-tech new one. Granted, I realize there are lower capital costs with the A330, but still. If the A350 were truly the huge success that Airbus would like us to think it is, the A350-300 should have been a smash hit.
By 747-8 MAX, you mean the 747-8I, right?
It seems to me that the A330neo announcement confirms that Airbus’ widebody twin strategy is a failure. They tried to use the A350 to take on both the 787 and 777. By dropping the A350-800, which is inevitable, and substituting the A330neo, they will now have a last generation aluminum jet competing with an all new composite based jet for at least the next decade. When the A330neo comes out in 3 years, it will be significantly slower, have less range, and burn more fuel than the 787 does now. The only advantages it will have are existing fleet commonality, rock-bottom price and faster delivery dates.
Meanwhile, the A350-1000 won’t be able to match the 777-9X’s passenger capacity, so the 777 will continue to have the high end of the twin market to itself. As the 777-300ER has demonstrated, that is a very successful monopoly to have. AIrbus made a huge mistake with the slow selling A380. Because of the resources used on that project, Airbus couldn’t afford to take on the 787 and 777 as separate product lines. Because of that mistake, Boeing should dominate wide body twin sales for years to come. The main problem Boeing will have is a lack of enough 787 production capacity to offset the A330 delivery date advantage.
Nice repeat of Boeing’s PR: “Airbus’ widebody twin strategy is a failure”.
Have you a source for your fuel burn claim except Boeing said so?
Cruise speed of the B787 is about 3.5 % faster than for an A330. That is about 15 Minutes on an 8-hours trip.
According to the Airbus press conference the A330-800 will have more range than the 787-8 then comparing “apples with apples”, e.g. same assumption for pax weight. See page 14 here: http://www.ausbt.com.au/files/A330neo%20Launch%20Presentation.pdf
or listen to the press conference: http://youtu.be/LgVLH0KYZsc?t=5m40s
This was said in public and I didn’t hear any comment by Boeing about this.
“The only advantages it will have are existing fleet commonality, rock-bottom price and faster delivery dates.”
What do you think airlines worry about? As long as the financing costs for an A330CEO offset the higher fuel burn against a 787 airlines will even buy CEOs. What about A330-500R (68 m) or A330-600R (74 m) CEO for short inter Asia trips? (Lengths according to A340 fuselage lengths.)
Did you listen to what Fernandez of AirAsiaX said during the announcement of the MOU about 50 A330-900? He claimed that this Airbus will have 15 % less DOC compared to a 787-9.
“the A350-1000 won’t be able to match the 777-9X’s passenger capacity”
Did you check EIS for new aircraft by Airbus. Nothing announced after 2018. What about an A350-1100 with Rolls-Royce “Advance” engines in 2019? The A330NEO is freeing up some A350 slots. This could lead into another 747-8i disaster.
Yes we decided (tongue in cheek) to call the 747-8 a MAX and also the 777x a MAX because they follow the prescription of new wing and engines plus some other tweaks. If this solution works for Boeing (throw in the 737MAX as well), why should they call the A350 a failure and also deride the A330neo?
Failure? With wide-body 1000+ order book?
A330neo is the best wide-body decision this year. Next: A380neo program 2018-2020. And A350neo program 2021-2023 with Advance engine. Airbus is a good competitor…
The most important is to predict market changes. In 1998-2008 there are more A330-200 deliveries than A330-300. Since 2010 it changed. A350-800 is a design from 2006… Resizing can be done at A350neo (2021-23?). Didier Evrard (head of A350 program): There is a growth potential which is built in the design. Stretching the A350-1000 is possible. But isn’t a priority now.
Maybe the A350neo family will have four members: two lowest and cheaper (61m+66m, MTOW 219R+269) and two highest structures (69m+75m, MTOW 309, larger wing).
A350-1000 will be a B777-300ER killer. There is no doubt. But it will has very little time before B777X.
A380 is a niche, but a prestigious design. What Boeing responds to the A380neo with a range over 9000nm and A380-900 with 600+ pax?
Yes, I agree with Mr. Johnson, The main problem Boeing will have is a lack of enough 787 production capacity to offset the A330 delivery date advantage. Boeing has to work very hard to increase her production up to 14 planes / month or even more.
Apparently in your world composite aircraft have no weight or performance advantages compared to aluminum aircraft. So why did Airbus use composites for the A350?
The funniest part is Hazy hit Airbus below the belly for even considering the A330 re-engine orignl (Ver 1.0) and now we come full circle except he is the BIGGEST proponent saying it will see 1000 or more. Hmmmm
That tells you the mfgs should not listen to the airlines (interesting concept but….)
So what Airbus should have done was NEO the A330 and came out with a 777 competitor for the billions they spend.
The A350 looks like a nice enough program but caught between 3 competing aircraft (one is their own) and it makes an interesting conundrum
Just what is the long term for the A350 if it can’t grow?
At some point Boeing will come up with the rolling paperwork concept in that on one flight the 787 is registered as a light regional and they pay for that part, next is a mid length flight and they pay for that part and then the long range which they pay that part (both payments to Boeing and landing fees).
Composite parts are sometimes easier to build and to maintain than aluminium parts. As I remember the A350 cockpit section is still made out of aluminium. Goeing all composite seems not the best solution at the moment.