Air Europa Orders Airbus A350, Despite All-Boeing 787 Long Haul Fleet

The Spanish government, which was in favour of Air Europa being bought by IAG, wanted them to fly to Asia from Madrid. Maybe that’s what the order is for

it is hard to believe that an airline the size of Air Europa will have both the 787 and A350 in its longhaul fleet.

I suspect Airbus is making it worth their while to get rid of the 787s

Tim's Airbus fanboy BA alter ego should be jerking off extreme hard after these Airbus orders.

Clearly they are getting rid of the 787s.

At any given moment, BA and VS have 787s in the hanger with "engine" issues and other things. They are NOT alone.

Can someone pull a report on how many 787's are currently in non-flying condition, but are active frames? The number is quite shocking. I have not looked at this in a while, so perhaps the situation has changed.

I'm not a Boeing hater, but the 737, 787s and 777-X's have all had and continue to have massive, massive issues. It's quite sad, since Boeing was amazing before the MD merger.

You mentioned that these are "engine" issues.

BA and VS 787s both have RR Trent 1000 engines whose faults never stopped appearing. Unlike Trent XWBs.
Suddenly problems caused by an engine supplied by RR outside make Boeing the party at fault.

An interesting (to me) article would be how many airplanes Boeing and Airbus make each month/quarter/year, of which types, and where they are going. You post a lot of articles about orders, but they are always theoretical future deliveries. Real world production and delivery numbers would be similarly (or in my case, much more) interesting.

You are a Boeing hater because you are blaming Boeing for things that aren’t their fault. The Trent 1000 issues aren’t Boeing’s fault because Boeing does NOT design, make, repair, or replace engines.

If you still truly believe that Boeing is to blame for this issue, then you must also blame Airbus for the PW1000G issues, Cathay grounding A350s in September 2024 in the wake of CX383, CX383 itself, LX1885, MU721, AF66, and QF32.

it's business, plain and simple and facts not emotions are all that matter - at least for people that do not have their being wrapped around companies.

Airbus is simply building more total airplanes and making a profit doing so while Boeing continues to lose money on widebody volume making promises they cannot deliver -just as has been true with the MAX.
Boeing had a healthy headstart on widebodies long before the 787 battery issues which were the beginning of Boeing's widebody issues that persist with the 777X. Boeing will overcome their 777X issues and is preparing to boost 787 production even further now that they have overcome many of the production issues. the 787 could well become the best-selling widebody by a very wide margin.

it is all facts. I wish Airbus and Boeing and the airlines that fly their products only the best.

I was also surprised, but remember Hawaian Air did the same, switching from recent A330 to ongoing B787...

If so, I’m curious where the airline feels it would need to compromise with the A330neos?

I can help you with this one:

The A330NEO (or actually, its Trent engine) has a well-known issue in tailwind/crosswind scenarios. The current nacelle design inadvertently splits the airflow in a way that stalls the compressors fairly easily, if commanding full thrust while in a 20kt+ crosswind or any tailwind; both of which MAD airport is prone to.

DL also faced enormous trouble with this issue too at HND (and to a lesser extent TPE) which was a contributory reason to them pulling A339s out of there, and standardizing A359s across the Pacific.

The workaround is to limit max (or even high) takeoff thrust until the aircraft reaches 30kt ground speed, then increase. Doesn't sound like much, but it can eat up a disgusting amount of runway. Anything less than 12,000ft and you're leaving considerable payload behind, in order to maintain performance requirements on single engine.

Madrid has 14,000ft available, but its 2,000ft elevation cancels that out.

Airbus and RR have a fix for this, but it'll be some time before delivered A330NEO frames have it.

Kinda foolish. When you have most of your fleet one aircraft then you only purchase a few your costs go considerably up in the long term. Parts are based on volume there not set. Only need 10 engines you will pay considerably more then 100 engines a year.

They will get some instant savings now for long term pain. What happens when you have bean counters in charge of your company. They only see the here and now for end of the year bonuses.

Wow, this is a pretty bold move from Air Europa — going from an all-B787 long-haul fleet to potentially 40 Airbus A350-900s is a big shift. The A350’s lower fuel burn and strong economics could really help them grow profitably, especially on Latin American routes.
It’ll be interesting to see how many of those 40 actually become firm orders and how deliveries are phased. Either way, this feels like a strategic bet on comfort + efficiency rather than just replacing old planes.

Aviation enthusiasts give wayyyyyyyyyyy too much credence to the "commonality" concept.

Yes, there are savings to be had in acquisition cost due to volume, and in common crew ratings. But that's just two factors in a much larger equation.

Performance, mission profile, availability, MRO (conduct and/or contracts), sales incentives, OEM dependency risk, political interests, etc, all play factors of varying importance, based on the airline.

let's keep in mind that TK is a major A350 customer; their partnership could well include MRO support

part of the problem at HND is that the airport frequently does tailwind departures which affects just about every longhaul airline and aircraft.
and part of the reason for DL moving the 339s off the Pacific is that the 359 has much better cargo capabilities; you need only see the improvement in DL's cargo revenue in the 3rd quarter to see that it makes all kinds of sense to make the 350 DL's near exclusive TPAC plane - and the 35K will only build on that.

remember that DL started the SEA-Asia hub with 767s, upgraded to 339s and is now using 359s even though other airplanes in the current and future fleet can operate the routes from a range perspective. The 359 has far more premium seats than the 339 so DL's strategy is also about revenue growth esp. in light of AS' addition of SEA-Asia flights.

and the ability to swap out the 339s for 359s is possible as the ex-Latam 350s have nearly all been converted to DL standard configurations.

The 359 is just a natural stepping stone in growth including for cargo for SEA-Asia; operational issues with the 339 certainly existed but there are a lot of reasons why the 359 makes sense from SEA as it does from DL's other gateways to Asia

and if DL goes ahead w/ the 787-10, it could replace the 359 for DL from SEA.

"The company’s president mentions the A350 allows the airline to expand its network “without compromise,” so is that intended to contrast the A350 to the A330neo?"

I'm thinking the "without compromise" quoted here is just a literal translation of "sin compromisos", meaning "without obligation" or "non-binding", not "without compromising".

So it's just referring to the fact that it's a non-binding order, which is consistent with this being an MOU. It's not a value judgement on Boeing 787 vs. Airbus 350 vs. 330-neo.

MOU for aircraft orders always include a down payment, and stiff penalties if the order is not firmed up which is why you'll see MOU conversion rate into firm orders at - or almost - 100%.

The RR engine, on the 787, as highlighted by other comments is problematic (look at BA switching to the GEnX engine) and Air Europa has been badly impacted by this, so they probably are fed up with it.

Finally their aircraft are leased so it probably makes it easier to switch to the A350 which is clearly a replacement aircraft.

As to why they went to the 350 vs. the 330neo, my guess is they needed more capacity.