Airbus A330neo

>>1037782
It's too bad that observable reality proves your entire argument wrong.

>>1037782
There have been 1056 orders for 787-8s and 787-9s.

There have been 186 orders for A330-800neos and A330-900neos.

It's really not even fucking close and never will be.

>>1037786
And there have only been 10 orders... fucking 10... of the -800neo variant.

Pain in the ass to work on, annoying airbus automated design, kill it with fire.

ITT: Behead all those who insult Boeing.

>>1037782

I like how sleek and fuel efficient the new A330 No Engine Option looks. Never liked those big turbines anyways.

>>1037786
>An aircraft that has been in fleet service for over 6 years has more orders than an aircraft that hasn't entered full production yet.

What a stunning insight, Holmes. Pray tell, how do you do it?

I wonder how these posters are going to react when Boeing announces 767MAX (it's supposedly being shopped around to a few airlines to line up launch customers).

>>1037927
The A330neo is never going to come even remotely close to getting to the number of orders that the 787 has as of right now. And Airbus never thought it would either; that was never the intention. You don't even understand why it exists and what it was planned for. Maybe it's time you stop talking about things of which you have no knowledge.

>>1037932
The 767MAX simply isn't going to happen. They'll just do a MOM aircraft instead, because that's where the actual money is.

>>1037940
>The A330neo is never going to come even remotely close to getting to the number of orders that the 787 has as of right now. And Airbus never thought it would either; that was never the intention. You don't even understand why it exists and what it was planned for. Maybe it's time you stop talking about things of which you have no knowledge.
Please explain. Other than job subsidies, why would you bother with a plane you aren't going to sell.

>>1037940
>The A330neo is never going to come even remotely close to getting to the number of orders that the 787 has as of right now. And Airbus never thought it would either; that was never the intention.

Then why did you compare order numbers like for like? Oh, because the Boeing number was bigger, and we must Defend Boeing At All Costs.

Boeing, Boeing über alles...

>>1037945
To keep jobs and production lines going until the A350 lines are ramped up.

Airbus studied the A330neo earlier than they actually launched the program, and the results of that study led them to launch the A350 program instead.

The neo program on the A330 also limits their ability to do the same for the A380, but to be honest, the A330 is a better bet than the A380 from a business standpoint anyway.

>>1037947
Because OP compared the two directly. Are you really that fucking dense? If you want to whine about it, bitch at OP.

>>1037947
Airbus does plenty right, like the A321neo and A350 for example. You're just too much of a piece of trash to grasp the concept of giving credit where credit is due and being critical of things that deserve criticism.

>>1037945
They are going to sell, but the estimated market for that size of aircraft was smaller than Airbus's earlier projections. So they cancelled the A350–800 (which was costly to develop) and offered the A330neo instead.

>>1038051
They did it to themselves. The vast majority of A350-800 orders were either cancelled outright or converted to A350-900 orders. Not many converted to A330neos.

>>1038077
My point is the A330 has been a great success, and was (until the B787 came out) much more efficient than its competitors. And even in the time since Boeing started delivering 787s, not as many have been built as A330s.

Now with B787s outselling A330s, the do nothing option would see Airbus lose market share to Boeing. They compared the options and decided on building the A350-800. But it wasn't selling well, and there's a long term trend towards bigger aircraft in every segment of the market. Also it would take a long time to build, whereas the A330neo could be here sooner and would have a much greater chance of being profitable. So they opted for that instead.

It was a sensible decision, but it's too early to say if it was the right decision. We don't even have a reliable fuel use comparison with the B787 yet.

>>1037945
It costs very little to develop.

It's just new engines (>90% of the development was already done for A350 engines, just resizing them down for A330) and a few minor upgrades here and there (all from A350, just refitting them onto A330 if necessary).

A330neo is there to sell to customers who aren't sold on A350, need smaller planes to complement their A350 or B777 fleet, or just need 1-to-1 replacement of their aging A330 fleet.

>>1038179
The thing is, the A350-800 was smaller than the A330-900. I think it had more to do with the A330 being optimized for shorter ranges and the A350 optimized for longer ranges. The A350-800 peaked at 182 orders and the A330-900 has 176 orders. Take that for whatever it's worth.

File: 1478988667365.png (1MB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 960x720px

>>1037848
>No Engine Option

>>1038274
some 358 customers like Hawaiian moved to 338 instead?

>>1041315
Only 10 total A330-800s have been sold, 6 of them to Hawaiian (which were all converted from A350-800 orders)