Archives du mot-clé A330NEO

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

A330neo: guessing some features

This article will try to shed some light on specific characteristics of A330neo as development schedule and cost, technical features and economics versus A330ceo.

First of all, concerning its development schedule it is natural to turn to previous and similar incremental developments as A320neo and B737MAX schedules. Development duration for these variants stands at ~5years. It is to be noted that brand new aircraft development duration is not so different being positioned between 5 years and 8 years depending on the type: B777 5.5 years, A330 8 years, A320 5 years, B787 8 years. In any case and taking into account these variability, A330neo development duration should not go below 4 years.

Secondly, concerning its development cost, again, it seems natural to turn to neo and MAX initiatives. For these, figures of 1 B€ -2 B€ seem to be the consensus without taking into account engine development costs bore by engine manufacturer ( B737 MAX development costs being higher as more mods required – see Flight Global article on the subject). Now, how to obtain A330neo development costs? These costs can be split in engineering ie mainly man.hours (incl. subcontracting) and testing hardware (one aircraft demo at max). Concerning Engineering costs, these will be driven by modifications to A330 baseline. It would seem that, as per Airliners.net post, some A350/ A380 cockpit features, additional composite materials in tail structure and sharklets could be  integrated in A330neo in addition to new engine. Overall, these changes are more important than A320neo and seem in line with B737MAX. On testing hardware cost, these will be higher as A330neo aircraft and most parts are bigger. In this context, we would imagine development costs for A330neo standing ~ 1.5 -2 B€ (from 1 B€ on the A320neo).

Finally, let’s get into the economics, latest articles  seem to point out that Rolls Royce should be powering A330neo variant with a variant of B787 engine Trent1000. These variant is expected to bring ~ 15-16% fuel burn advantage vs Trent700 in current A330 aircraft (conservative hypothesis: Trent700 and 800 have same performance – Trent 800 is higher bypass ratio engine and Trent 1000-TEN to be used for neo is 3% more efficient than Trent 1000). Taking the assumption that engine extra weight (~1t), drag and loss of efficiency due to bleed system will be roughly absorbed by sharklets and weight reduction initiatives, it means that A330neo fuel burn advantage vs A330 rests at ~15-16%. Translated in COC, it means ~7-8%

Overall, A330neo should be developed in 4/5 years with a cost of ~1.5/2 B€ and fuel burn advantage of 7-8 % translating in COC advantage

Delta RFP

We have found very interesting analysis on Delta RFP in Airchive blog

In summary, for Delta conservative fleet approach

  • Replacement of B767-300ER : B787 vs A330(neo) => A330neo
  • Replacement of B747: B777-300ER vs A350-1000 => B777-300ER with quite pricing assumptions on B777 vs A350.  Remark: I belive that Airbus will market A380 in this segment in complement of A350.

 

 

 

 

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

Airbus needs A330neo…or another A350 production facility,

A330neo is a very hot topic…Customers are pushing for this development –most notably Delta (see related post). Number of articles in media and blogosphere also go in this direction (see CIT article post & Leeham news blog).

Now, two main reasons are being presented to go for this development

  • #1: Airbus low wide-body production capability in case of no A330neo development
  • #2: A330neo qualities vs A350-800: commonality, similar economics

In this article, we discuss reason #1.

Market demand

Airbus & Boeing long-term projections do not differ significantly in 250-350 pax segment.

It would seem that 2013-2032 average demand for

  • 250-300 pax segment would be ~120 AC/ year
  • 300-350 pax segment would be ~110 AC/ year

In this segment (250-350 pax), Airbus backlog represents ~50% of total.

Airbus production capabilities

In long term, Airbus wide-body capability will be limited to A350.

At present, long-term targets for A350 production rates are ~10 AC/ month i.e. ~120 AC/ year

Therefore, Airbus capabilities will be limited to around 120 A350 per year.

Assumption: Continuing current A330 production (i.e. without any major improvement) is not considered here due to product difference with new generation competitors specially B787

As demands for 250-300 pax, 300-350 pax and 350-400 pax segments seem to be roughly equivalent (projecting recent production rates averages), Airbus production capability in 250-350 pax segment represents roughly 80 A350-800/-900 per year

A330neo needs

If Airbus wants to maintain 50% market share in 250-350 pax segment, it would need to be able to produce 115 AC per year. However, its forecasted long-term capability is 80 AC per year.

Therefore, it would need ~35 extra AC to match demand, thus  A330neo!

Conclusion

To maintain ~50% market share in 250-350 pax market in long-term, Airbus needs additional 35 AC/year capability

  • This extra capability could come via A330neo production with ~3 AC per month rate (early 2000s rates). In addition, A330neo development would probably be perfect to stop what seems to be painful A350-800 development. Otherwise, it would raise A330neo vs A350-800 canibalization issue.
  • Another solution could be to increase A350 production rate to ~13 AC/ month, really a stretch with current production facilities…

 Support data

Table 1: market data

 

Capacity

   

250-300 pax

300-350 pax

Market data

Airbus market 2013-2032

2438

2256

Boeing market

2353

2177

Average

2395

2217

Yearly market

120

111

Current Airbus market share

52%

Source

Wikipedia, Airbus results presentation

Table 2: A330neo needs

   

250-300 pax

300-350 pax

Airbus at 50%

Airbus yearly market share 50%

60

55

Gap between Airbus production capability & market needs at 50%

20

16

A330/ A330neo production capability needs

20

16

A330/ A330neo monthly production capability needs

1.7

1.3

Airbus at 40%

Airbus yearly market share 40%

48

44

Gap between Airbus production capability & market needs at 40%

8

5

A330/ A330neo production capability needs

8

5

A330/ A330neo monthly production capability needs

0.7

0.4

 

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€