Archives du mot-clé A330

A330neo Launch : Airbus press release

So, it did happen : Airbus launched the A330neo as wildely expected : see Airbus press release

Characteristics are similar to what was discussed in this blog on June 1st.

In summary :

– A330-200neo renamed A330-800 and A330-300neo renamed A330-900 have both been launched

-A330neo has 14% fuel consumption advantage vs CEO

-A330neo has 5% airframe maintenance advantage vs CEO (updated maintenance program and new Bleed System).

-A330neo will feature winglets and larger wingspan (around 3m)

-First delivery is expected in Q4 2017

-Farnborough commitments amount to 121 aircraft (interestingly mainly lessors)

To close, a little rendering…

A330neo picture

A330-200neo vs A350-800 operating costs comparison

In previous posts, we have concluded that Airbus lacks wide-body capacity to with respect to market demand & Boeing, in particular in 250 seater market. In this context, there are 2 solutions: develop a competitive version of A330 i.e. A330neo or build new A350 facility.

In this post, we will estimate cost positioning of A330-200neo vs A350-800 to be able to choose.

 First of all, some design data from A330-200, A330-200neo & A350-800

 

A350-800

A330-200

A330-200neo

Seating (bi-class)

276

246

246

Range (nm)

8250

7400

> 7400

MTOW max

259

242

245

List price

261

222

242

Discounted list price (25% A350 & 30% A330-200)

196

155

169

 (see assumptions at end of article)

 Secondly, we have computed the relative direct operating costs positioning of A330-200, A330-200neo and A350-800. The results are as follows:

A332neo_A358 DOC comparison 

So,

  • A330-200neo is very well positioned vs A350-800 with
      • DOC/seat disadvantage of only ~4%
      • DOC/trip advantage of ~4.5%

At this stage of analysis & maturity of data, this analysis shows that in terms of operational costs, A350-800 & A330-200 are very similar.

In addition,

  • A350-800 development is riskier vs A330-200neo, specially with respect to fuel burn advantage results
  • A330 is widely used aircraft and introduction costs for A330neo will be very low for all operators which is multimillion dollar advantage vs new generation aircraft
  • A330neo development does not any additional FAL

 Overall, going for A330neo seems to be the best option!

  Assumptions

DOC_IATA 

  • Operating costs detailed computations:
 

Benchmark

A350-800

A330-200

A330-200neo

Direct operationg costs per seat

Fuel costs

47%

80.0%

100%

89.0%

Maintenance costs

18%

89.1%

100%

95.0%

Ownership costs

15%

112.4%

100%

109.0%

Crew costs – Cabin & Flight

9%

100.0%

100%

100.0%

Charges -Landing & Navigation

12%

107.0%

100%

101.2%

 

Total

91.32%

100.00%

95.41%

 

Direct operating costs per trip

Fuel costs

47%

89.8%

100%

89.0%

Maintenance costs

18%

100.0%

100%

95.0%

Ownership costs

15%

126.1%

100%

109.0%

Crew costs – Cabin & Flight

9%

100.0%

100%

100.0%

Charges -Landing & Navigation

12%

107.0%

100%

101.2%

 

Total

99.84%

100.00%

95.41%

  • Benchmark: IATA airlines costs share
  •  A350-800 fuel burn – Airbus source (quoted in PPR forum)A330-200neo fuel burn: Leeham news
    •  23% fuel burn per pax  vs A330-200 on 4000nm route  
    • Degradation of 3% following A350-800 redesig
  • A330-200neo engine maintenance advantage based on A320neo & fact that engine maintenance costs  ~1/2 aircraft maintenance cost
  • Charges proportional to MTOW max

A330neo vs A380neo: the market view

There’s been a lot of discussion on development of ‘neo’ concepts on widebody aircraft recently, specially for Airbus aircraft and after B777X launch.

In this article, we will focus on A330-300 & A380 and try to understand if market demand as it stands today justifies an A330neo or an A380 development.

Note: A330-200 is not treated here.

Market demand

Using Airbus & Boeing market forecasts for A330-300 & A380 aircraft, we find following rough demand estimates

Data

A330-300neo A330-300neo A380neo A380neo

Market forecast origin

Airbus Boeing Airbus

Boeing

Market 2013-2032

1752 1673 1124

550

Market share

30% 30% 70%

70%

Market / year 44 42 39

19

Assumptions:

  • A330-300neo & A380neo EIS = 2019
  • A330-300neo production rate = 72 AC / year
  • A380neo production rate = 30 AC / year

Development costs & depreciation aircraft

Data

A330-300neo A330-300neo4 A380neo A380neo7

Dev cost – Aircraft (2013 – M€)

2000 2000 3500

3500

Depreciation horizon (years)

10 10 10

10

Dev. costs ~ Depreciation / year (M€)

200 200 350

350

Dev. costs ~ Depreciation / AC (M€) 4.6 4.8 8.9

18.2

Assumptions:

  • A330-300neo development costs = A320neo development costs x 300 /150 ~ 2 000 M€ (300 is standard seat capacity for 3-class A330-300 & 150 is standard seat capacity for bi-class A320)
  • A380neo development costs = A320neo development costs x 525 /150 ~3 500 M€ (525 is standard capacity for 3-class A380 & 150 is standard seat capacity for bi-class A320)

Conclusion

  • A330-330 type aircraft demand is x1.5 / x2 vs A380 demand – at this stage, Airbus A380 forecast demand seems too optimistic (1300 aircraft over next 20 years => > 60 aircraft /year but average A380 yearly sales to date only 30!)
  • A380neo development costs should also be x1.75 vs A330neo
  • Pending specific profitability analysis (even if I would not expect very big surprises), A330neo development seems more attractive than A380neo as
    • A330neo development cost per unit of aircraft demand stands at ~4.7M€ whereas
    • A380neo development cost per unit of aircraft demand stands at ~14 M€