A330 : Version Passagers ; toute la famille

The 787-10 will have better operating costs than the A330-300 and
more range, even with the recently announced enhancements. But the low
pricing of the A330-300 goes a long way to keeping the airplane
competitive, and the improved range enables the aircraft to cover 90% of
the missions for most airlines.

Boeing is not yet talking pricing for the 787-10 as best we can
determine. Disregarding the list prices of either OEM (they are
meaningless), we understand the 787-9 current is selling for $120m+. The
A330-300 is currently selling for around $100m, according to our
sources.

Recall that we’ve previously written that Airbus cited $900,000 and
$1.2m monthly lease rates for the -300 and the -9 in public
presentations, thus validating the market intel of the capital cost of
buying the aircraft.

Will the 787-10 “kill” the A330-300, as Boeing claims? “Eventually”
is the answer we received during our trip last week in which we talked
with lessors, analysts and advisors. But the view is that this will be
10-12 years away. With an EIS now targeted for 2018 or later for the
-10, Boeing can’t produce enough -10s to make a dent in the market until
well into the 2020 decade, at which point the A330 will be nearing the
end of its natural life cycle in its current form. This undoubtedly is
why Airbus is now saying it will sell the A330 beyond 2020.

Note that we said the A330 “in its current form.”

Suppose eventually Airbus decides to proceed with an A330neo, using
GEnx or Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engines with enhancements to 2020
standards? For about $2.5bn in today’s dollars, Airbus could have an
inexpensive competitor to the 787-9/10 with much better fuel costs,
perhaps on the order of 8%-9% or more for engines plus another several
percent for the airframe. This is the approach it tried to take for the
A350 V 1.0, to market disdain. This is the approach Boeing seems to be
taking for the 777X.

The A350 V 1.0 was a poor concept. But simply doing an enhanced A330neo may well make some sense by the turn of the decade.

One customer we talked with predicted Airbus will proceed with a neo, though he had no timeline forecast.

As of today, Airbus is not, repeat not, talking with the engine OEMs about an A330neo. But never say never.

Airbus has yet to rule out completely a possible sharklet wing-tip modification on the A330 but is not intending to pursue a re-engined version.
Chief
operating officer for customers John Leahy says he will "keep pushing
our engineers" to look at adapting the sharklets - developed for the A320 - to the larger twinjet.
Airbus
has been tweaking the A330's performance, unveiling a 242t maximum
take-off weight version last year which it aims to deliver before
mid-2015.
But Leahy indicates that new engines for the type - creating a theoretical A330neo - would be problematic.
"If
you say 're-engined', then I'd say 'no'," he says. If the aircraft is
already optimised, he says, "[you] don't put one of these heavy engines
on it".
The sharklet suggestion is still facing resistance within
Airbus. Executive vice-president for programmes Tom Williams says he can
"understand the logic" of the suggestion but is "not so sure on the
advantages".
Leahy casually suggests the A330 could still remain
in production in 2022, while Airbus chief Fabrice Brégier says it
remains a lower-cost alternative to the A350.
"If you don't need the full range you can be competitive on many routes with an A330," he says.

AirAsia chief executive Tony Fernandes is continuing to apply pressure on Airbus to re-engine its A330 widebody, even though the company appears to be ruling out the option.
Fernandes,
whose AirAsia group has several franchises in countries around Asia and
is one of the most valuable customers for Airbus, is in Toulouse for
"some important meetings" with the European airframer.
Both AirAsia and Fernandes have a stake in AirAsia X,
the Malaysia-based long-haul, low-cost carrier that has a fleet of nine
A330-300s. It has orders for another 18 A330s and 10 of the
new-generation Airbus A350-900s.
But
Fernandes has been pushing Airbus to come up with a re-engined A330, or
an A330neo, for some time. This, he feels, will be a better option than
the A350-800 that is slated to be a replacement for the longer-range A330-200.
Last year, AirAsia cancelled its orders for the -200 variant as it
feels that they are not economical enough for long-haul services to
Europe.
But an A330neo would interest the airline, and Fernandes
said in a reply on his twitter account: "Yes, I want that plane.
Honestly, [I] don't think the A350-800 is a good plane."
He went on to say that the A330neo and A350-900 will be the "perfect combination" for AirAsia X.
Last
week, Airbus chief operating officer for customers John Leahy said that
he will push the company's engineers to look at adapting the
sharklets – developed for the A320 narrowbody – to the larger A330 twinjet in order to improve its performance.
Airbus
has been tweaking the A330's performance, unveiling a 242t maximum
take-off weight version last year that it aims to deliver before
mid-2015. But Leahy indicates that new engines for the type will be
problematic.
"If you say 're-engined', then I'd say 'no'," he
says. If the aircraft is already optimised, he says, "[you] don't put
one of these heavy engines on it".

Airbus don't get it. They would own the market with the 330 neo. RT
@aeroturbopower: @tonyfernandes Just calculated at least 5% better
fuelburn for A330neo vs. A358 for 6000nm mission

"The A350-800 has got about 1,400nm [2,590km] more range with 30 more passengers,
but it's burning less fuel too - over a 4,000nm [7,400km] mission the
A350-800 burns around 23% less fuel [per seat] than an A330-200,"
McConnell says.