Airbus ‘old tech’ A330 keeps out selling Boeing ‘new tech’ 787
The morning after Qantas CEO Alan Joyce raised hopes of a role for its much delayed Boeing 787s in its long haul operations new sales for the ‘old tech’ Airbus A330 dealt another blow to the fortunes of the Boeing Dreamliners.
This time it was the sale of another 15 A330s to Turkish Airlines. A few days earlier it was another 10 A330s to Philippine Airlines.
The figures for the year to 30 September are telling in this contest. In the year to the end of September Airbus sold 71 A330s, while Boeing had a negative -22 sales for the ‘plastic fantastic’ Dreamliners as cancellations exceeded orders.
The Qantas cancellation of 35 firm orders for the 787-9 model announced late in August didn’t help, with the A330 continuing on its roll with those additional 25 orders to the Turkish and Philippines carriers this month.
As Joyce made clear yesterday, the conversion of Qantas options for the -9 version of the Dreamliner for purposes such as starting international services from Canberra, among other possible initiatives, depends on Qantas long haul satisfying the management rules for returning to viability by 2015.
Qantas retains firm orders for 15 of the initial version of the Dreamliner the 787-8, intended for Jetstar from sometime in the second half of next year. Plane Talking has already made an early call, in May, that those orders are likely to be switched back to Qantas, which is another topic which calls into question the on-going viability of basing Jetstar widebodies of any type in Singapore.
If any of the marketing hype surrounding the ultra light, ultra strong, ultra efficient high composite or plastic Dreamliners had been true, it would have buried the A330 the same way the A330 buried the Boeing 767 family.
But the 787 was, for a while, a triumph of brochure writing over engineering, and while the Dreamliners continue to hold out promises of better things, what was promised for deliveries from mid 2008, including to Qantas, struggles to be delivered in the present, with only 26 of them handed over to customers in just over a year.
It is late 2012! What this reporter, and many airlines believed in 2008 was that the Dreamliners would have transformed aviation by now, and the A330 would be on the way out, not in, with enough of a backlog to keep production going until at least 2018, as the larger sized Airbus answer to the 787, the similarly high composite A350 series, struggles to meet its revised and delayed targets.
Instead, the old tech A330s continue to look like outperforming the 787s for many airline purposes for some time to come, giving airlines weary of marketing hype the certainty of a known and effective design.












Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.
Kind of funny hearing a Boeing referred to as a plastic fantastic after years of Boeing boys poking fun at the bus with the same epithet.
Has anyone published a graph of aircraft performance? It would be interesting to know what each one’s best at.
Total agreement – Boeing deserves it between the eyes for its terrible delays, but there also needs to be balance…
The few 787s in service are badly overweight and yet are returning fuel burn figures which, within that context alone, are extremely impressive. See, for example: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/avd_06_26_2012_p01-01-470896.xml
Past delays can’t be undone, so maybe we need to reset the clock on the 787 now that it is in service, and judge the aircraft that it is in the air and not the delays that kept it out of airlines’ hands for years.
We’ve done that for another fine, but horribly delayed aircraft, the A380. Maybe, it’s the 787′s turn.
Agree. I’m hoping for good news as the 787s at last appear in substantial numbers on a variety of routes.
What has long intrigued me in all of this is the validity or otherwise of claims that high composite aircraft at this stage of plane maker capabilities, are inherently superior to jets that are substantially made of metal alloys, and the underlying reason for the interest was that these claims were not driven by engineers but marketers.
More recently we are seeing the engineers regain some authority over the sales teams, not just in Boeing and Airbus, but Mitsubishi in its decision as a major contractor to the 787, to switch from composites to alloys in the wing of its MRJ project. Similarly Boeing is equivocal as to the use of more composites in the much needed 777-X family. Some time ago PT published an inadvertently released Georgia Tech document which highlighted the difference between the raw weight savings of composites over alloys, but pointed out that when those structures had to meet the required standards for electrical conductivity and other properties the difference disappeared.
That said, the promise of composites, especially for monocoque type structures, where we can eliminate many of the skeletal components of a metal aircraft, and create an outer body in which the fuselage assumes much of the load and stress distribution, is one that is exciting design teams at both Airbus and Boeing in terms of the ‘shape’ and efficiency of things to come.
a lot of bs
787 orders is more than 830 in just 8 years, with 330 orders about 1300 in 20 years. that’s more than twice in half a shorter period for the 787
the only thing keeping the 330 orders alive is 787 non-existent delivery slots in the near term
same problem the 320neo has, assuring also the success of the 737max
Ben,
Perhaps some balance is good.
Look at the backorder numbers – still very high for the 787, so I doubt Boeing will budge much on price after early discounts, and airlines wanting early slots will pay a premium.
Check the backorder for the A330 – and given a more mature plane, one would expect this provides greater discounts.
Finally, you haven’t mentioned many of the better fuel burn reports coming from ANA. There are a few – but here’s one.
http://www.aspireaviation.com/2012/08/23/boeing-787-dreamliner-programme-starts-to-soar/
Yes, the 787 program was a cluster early, but a few A330 orders to Turkish and Philippines doesn’t make it a better plane.
The 787-8 in long haul service with ANA with 158 seats shows a 21% fuel burn saving over an ANA 767-300ER configured with 216 seats on the same Frankfurt route.
I have mentioned this before, several times, as have most of my colleagues abroad. Do the maths. And let’s keep our hopes up for some much more convincing operational figures from the 787-9.
Pretty bad blog. They order the plane based on slots, not performance.
Your so-called operational figures is very elementary and does not account for the highly lucrative premiums charged for the premium seating of the 787 and direct flights (vs. hub/ spoke fare), shows your lack of knowledge with airline business economics.
Better comparison:
ANA 767-300
Club ANA class: 40 seats (pitch 62″/ 19.5″ width) X 1.5 = 60 EQUIV. SEAT FARES (ESF)
Economy: 176 seats (pitch 31″/ 17.5″ width) X 1.0 = 176 ESF
TOTAL = 236 ESF
ANA 787-8
Business class: 46 lie-flat station-style seats (21″ width) X 2.5 premium factor = 115 ESF
Economy: 112 seats (pitch 31″/18.5″ width) X 1.3 = 145 ESF SubTotal = 260 ESF
Fuel savings bonus: conservatively say 20% at 30% of airline costs = (0.2 x 0.3)+ 1 = 1.06;
Total = 260 x 1.06 = 275 ESF
787′s 275 ESF vs. 767′s 236 ESF….Seems to make sense to me!
Dear dead Eddie,
We are honoured by your presence but never expected ou would come back as a comedian.
Mike,
You’ve totally missed the point, which was about fuel burn,not about how ANA apparently counter intuitively wants to use a Frankfurt slot for an aircraft of any size to reduce their passenger numbers from those offered on a 767-300ER to those they chose to fit in a 787-8.
They guide us to the conclusion that they need more seats not less in their recent upgrading of some of the undelivered -8s they have on order to -9s. The capabilities of the -9 are going to be very important to many operators, and given the extensive reworking of the -9 reported to be underway we have reason for cautious optimism.
While opinions vary on what really went wrong with the program, the most important positive for the future of the 787 is that engineers are said to be back in the driving seat rather than marketers who sold a dream that the designers then had to struggle with to make as real as possible within the capabilities of the partners and the state of the technology.
Even thugh the debate is about 787s v A332s the comparisons you are quoting are with 767s; I think the 787 v 332 bring the figures much closer together which I think is Ben’s point.
Suspect it also has to do with the delivery schedule.
Order a 787 today, I suspect you’re not getting it till 2017. Order a 330 today probably earlier.
If you’re a rapidly growing airline like Turkish, or one who desperately wants new product to get off the EU list like Phillipines, its a simple choice.
Nearly 800 A330′s were ordered since the 787 was launched. A slow kill indeed.
I think during the last few yrs Airbus invested in further enhancing the aircraft, increasing MTOW (240t), enhancing the cockpit (HUD, EFB2), OEW improvements (engineering out the A340, lighter galleys) and developing sharklets.
I think the imminent launch of the 787-10 and relatively slow sales of the A350-800 increase the likelihood of new engines. Matured developments of the RR and GE 787/748 engines could IMO improve fuel consumption with around 10-12%. It would be interesting to see an A330 NEO with Sharklets and GENX compared to the 787.
It would e.g. make a A330-300F a mean (but silent and savy) machine, without direct competition.
Great vote of confidence in composites in fixing A380:
“The permanent fix for new planes will involve ”using metal everywhere” in the wing, replacing carbon-composite elements of the structure.
Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/worst-over-in-airbus-wing-flaw-20120921-26ca6.html#ixzz29M5JPlOm
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.