11 aircraft ordered and six delivered: It's a fairly sad record thus far for the Airbus
A330-800. What's even worse is that a little over a third of these aircraft
may ultimately be canceled, changing the record to just seven aircraft ordered.
Having entered service a little under two years ago, why is this shorter A330neo variant
continuing to do so poorly? In this video, we examine the current state of the aircraft type,
and reasons why airlines are deciding to look to other comparable products instead.
Launched in 2014 and first entering commercial service in 2020, the A330-800 has certainly had
a generous amount of time to generate interest from airlines and collect orders. Unfortunately,
not much has materialized over the years, as just four airlines are currently in
Airbus' order books for the -800. These carriers and their order quantities are:
Air Greenland (with just 1 ordered) Garuda Indonesia (with 4)
Kuwait Airways (with 4) And Uganda Airlines (with 2)
As Simple Flying has reported previously, Hawaiian Airlines at one time had six Airbus A330-800neo
aircraft on order. However, at the last minute, the carrier made the decision to cancel its
order. Instead, the US carrier would switch over to Boeing, ordering ten 787 Dreamliners.
The reasons for the switch was rather interesting,
and certainly a topic we will cover in a later section of this video.
As of this video's publication, six -800s have been delivered, with two going to
Uganda Airlines, and four to Kuwait Airways. The first aircraft was delivered to Kuwait Airways
in 2020, with the type operating its first commercial service in November the same year.
Interestingly, and unfortunately, two of the airline's four A330-800s are currently
parked for reasons unknown. As for the two active aircraft, the jets have been
flying from Kuwait City to Kathmandu, Kuala Lumpur, Paris, and Casablanca in recent days.
To frame the mystery of the A330-800's poor sales, it's worth examining Airbus' intention
behind offering the aircraft in the first place. The A330-200 was designed to have a lower capacity
than the -300, but as a result, have lower fuel burn and greater range. This made the
variant ideal for long-haul operations where demand wouldn't justify the larger A330-300.
And so, with near-identical cabin dimensions, the A330-800 was designed to be a direct replacement
for the A330-200. Indeed, Airbus notes that the 25% improvement on fuel burn was made possible
with a "re-optimised wing," which is 64m (210ft) across compared to the A330-200’s 60m (197ft).
Airbus adds that the updated variant "incorporates the latest-generation
Rolls-Royce Trent 7000 engines, along with new technologies and multiple aerodynamic
improvements for increased lift and reduced drag, including composite winglet devices."
And we can't exactly fault Airbus for offering the A330-800 to airlines,
and investing resources into developing this variant. Indeed, the A330-200 was a decent seller,
having accumulated orders for over 500 examples of the passenger variant, with another 38 examples
of the A330-200F (freighters) produced. Dozens more A330-200s would be produced and sold as
government and executive jets, with the Royal Air Force's A330MRTT "Voyager" being just one example.
Sadly, despite the -200's popularity, airlines haven't
exactly been seizing the opportunity for a straight-up modern replacement.
With so many airlines operating the -200, it would make sense to modernize with the -800:
The type rating is identical, capacity is the same, and maintenance crews are already
familiar with much of the airframe. But if we look at airline orders, it's clear that many
carriers around the world have decided that this shorter A330neo variant is not worth their time
and resources. In fact, the airlines listed here were (or are) operators of the A330-200,
but have decided to only place orders for the A330-900, and not the -800.
Air Belgium Air Mauritius
Azul
Condor Delta
ITA Airways Malaysia Airlines
MEA (Middle Eastern Airlines) TAP Air Portugal
Sadly, an even longer list of airlines operating the A330-200 have opted to ignore
the A330neo completely, looking to other aircraft to fill a similar role instead.
We won't list every carrier here, but KLM, Air France, and American Airlines are just a few
of the carriers who operate (or have operated) the A330-200 but haven't looked at any A300neo
variant as a replacement. This, of course, is one massive hint for the -800's unpopularity.
There are several reasons we can offer that might
explain the continued unpopularity of the A330-800. Let's go through the list...
With a similar fuselage length and width, the Boeing 787-8 competes well with the A330-800. The
major difference is that the shortest Dreamliner variant was launched 10 years earlier. Despite
some major setbacks early-on and a delivery halt more recently, the Dreamliner program has now
delivered over 1000 airframes, quenching some of the demand that might have been met by the
A330neo. The Dreamliner's competitive economics in terms of range and cargo capacity also provide
some convincing reasons for airlines to go with Boeing rather than a comparable Airbus product.
This may be one of the biggest reasons why many A330-200 operators have not ordered the -800,
as they have already modernized their fleets with either the 787-8
or 787-9. This is indeed the case with many airlines, including (but not limited to):
Air China Air France
American Airlines Avianca
China Eastern China Southern
Etihad KLM
And Qantas
Considering how many A330-200s these airlines operate, and the Boeing 787s they have ordered,
it's not too surprising that they no longer have a need for the -800.
As outlined by Leeham News, there isn't much of a difference in flight crew cost
between the A330-800 and -900. In terms of maximum capacities,
the -900 is capable of accommodating a little over 50 more passengers. In terms of crew cost,
just a single additional flight attendant is required to manage this increased capacity.
Additionally, maintenance costs between the -800 and -900 are the same, with Leeham News
adding that navigation, landing, and handling costs are also quite similar.
Thus, it's calculated that the A330-900 per-seat cost is 13% lower than the -800.
So, while the A330-800 objectively is a little more fuel efficient and can fly further,
the -900's increased capacity allows airlines to accommodate more passengers
and generate more revenue, with near-negligible additional cost.
Yes, the A330-800 does have a published range that is nearly 1,000 nautical miles above the -900. To
be more specific, Airbus notes that the shorter variant can fly a maximum of 15,094 km (8,150 nm)
versus the -900's 13,334 km (7,200 nm). However, it appears that A330-200 operators that have
chosen the -900 simply don't need the extended range, instead opting for the higher capacity.
While it's perhaps not a huge reason, it's also important to consider the fact that the A330neo
program is tied exclusively to the Rolls-Royce Trent 7000 powerplant. This single-engine "option"
stands in stark contrast to the original A330 platform, which offered three options:
The General Electric CF6-80E
The Pratt & Whitney PW4000 Or Rolls-Royce Trent 700
If we look at A330-200 operator Korean Air specifically, we can see that the airline has more
often chosen aircraft that are powered by either General Electric or Pratt & Whitney engines.
Even when it comes to the airline's aircraft that have multiple engine options,
the airline has opted to go with the option that is not Rolls-Royce.
The Airbus A380, Boeing 747, 787, and 777 are just some examples of this decision-making pattern.
Perhaps adding Rolls-Royce powerplants to its fleet would be present complexity
than it wishes to handle. Something that could also be the case for other airlines.
It may sound strange: The A330-800's lack of popularity is due to it's lack of popularity?!
But perhaps one of the more obscure reasons for snubbing the A330-800 comes from
Hawaiian Airlines, who ordered the type but eventually canceled and switched to the 787.
Speaking to Business Insider, airline CEO Peter Ingram told Business insider:
"Unfortunately, the A330-800 has not proved to be as popular in the marketplace...it doesn't
make sense to remain committed to an airplane that had the risk of not being sufficiently
accepted in the marketplace in the future. So the lack of orders for the A330-800 opened
us up to having a competition to look at the widebody platform for us going into the decade."
While this reasoning is completely understandable, it also becomes a
self-fulfilling prophecy. Hawaiian Airlines sees it as unpopular, cancels its order,
and thus further reinforces its unpopularity. That's not to say that Hawaiian's order of six
-800s would be the catalyst for a flood of orders, but there's always the chance
of a 'snowball' effect, with more airlines considering the type as others come onboard.
So what's next for the A330-800? Well, at the time of this video's publication, Airbus is
going through the last few test procedures as it prepares Air Greenland's single A330-800
for delivery before the end of the year. The jet will replace the carrier's -200, which it intends
to sell for the right price. Air Greenland's decision to purchase the -800 demonstrates one
of the key strengths of the variant: The ability to take-off and land on short runways - an issue
common at the various airports around Greenland. Unfortunately, this ability isn't very sought
after when it comes to many of the world's airports and their sufficiently long runways.
If we were to try and be optimistic, we could say that higher fuel costs combined with
pandemic-gained-wisdom could prompt airlines to consider the A330-800. The aircraft's lower
capacity and slightly higher efficiency could be a good hedge against another COVID-19-like
occurrence, where travel restrictions severely restrict demand and activity.
Additionally, some A330-200 operators have yet to update their fleets,
giving a small sliver of hope for more orders. In this respect, Aerolineas Argentinas will
be an interesting airline to watch, as the carrier operates eight A330-200s. However,
these jets are just 12 years old, meaning that their replacement could be a decade away.
Garuda Indonesia will be another interesting airline to watch. While its order for four
-800s is still on the books, the airline has been looking to restructure and become
more efficient and profitable. In March of this year we reported that the airline was
considering canceling some of its aircraft orders, which might just include the -800.
It will also be interesting to see if Airbus chooses to modernize other products based on the
A330-200 platform, such as the A330MRTT and the A330-200F. When it comes to the A330MRTT, military
customers around the world would certainly make good use of the -800's increased efficiency
and range, in addition to short-field take-off performance. A freighter variant is more difficult
to predict - particularly as Airbus focuses on the A350F, as well as its stake in EFW, which
has been seeing a surge of airlines wanting to convert their older Airbus jets into freighters.
Finally, we always have the possibility of government and executive customers placing
orders for the private version of the A330-800: The ACJ330neo.
Ultimately, the A330-800 looks like it could very well end up as a rare aircraft in a very
niche role - something that the Boeing 767-400ER found itself in over two decades ago. In the end,
only Delta Air Lines and Continental Airlines would order the stretched 767 variant, and Boeing
ultimately only racked up orders and deliveries for just 38 aircraft from the two carriers.
Of course, the 767-400's unpopularity is at least better than the current
state of the A330-800 and its 11 (but possibly just seven) aircraft ordered.
So what do you think about the current and future state of the Airbus A330-800?
Is its golden age yet to come? Or is it already in the history books as a
flop? Share your thoughts and opinions by leaving a comment!