>>1249087Not exactly.
Right now, the capital costs of an Airbus A330ceo are so much lower than that of the 787, that on shorter routes (primarily Transatlantic), the savings on capital costs are far greater than any higher fuel burn costs that the A330ceo has.
This is primarily why IAG can afford to run LEVEL as a budget long haul airline with A330s, because the planes are so cheap now, no matter how high the fuel costs are compared to a 787.
Right now, the main reason why airlines are reluctant to pick up the A330neo is because the A330neo is more expensive than the A330ceo (now that they're all second hand planes now) for a fuel burn that is not significantly lower than that of the A330ceo.
The only reason why the A330neo is selling so poorly is because the A330ceo goes through far less cycles than the A320ceo has, meaning that they get about 10 or so extra years of lifespan compared to a shorthaul A320. Airlines see no real need to replace the A330 with another one that's not really going to change their operating costs significantly.
It's why we're seeing airlines who are wanting to retire very old A330s wanting the A330neo for model unification first, and modernisation second (especially from older A300s).
Delta is the odd one out here, since they're replacing older Boeing 767s with A330neos in order to have a unified all Airbus fleet (eventually).
