If you have heard of the DC-10 Twin, then you might ask a deceptively simple question: why did McDonnell Douglas create the DC-10 with three engines, rather than a more efficient two-engine layout? At first glance, adding a third engine seems unnecessarily complex, particularly as modern long-haul airliners now thrive with only two. Yet this solution was very difficult to implement back in the 1960s for several reasons. It reflected the technological limitations, regulatory climate, and market demands of that era. Understanding why the DC-10 was conceived as a trijet helps illuminate the transition between the early jet age of four-engine giants and today’s era of fuel-efficient twinjets.
In our article, we will explore that history in detail. We will examine the circumstances that led McDonnell Douglas to adopt a three-engine design, the proposed but unrealized DC-10 “Twin,” and the crucial role of ETOPS (Extended-range Twin-Engine Operations Performance Standards) in shaping global aviation. By revisiting the regulatory landscape, airline strategies, and the technical ambitions of the DC-10, we can see how McDonnell Douglas responded to its time, and why the trijet eventually gave way to the twinjet revolution.
The short answer is that McDonnell Douglas built the DC-10 with three engines because airline regulations in the 1960s and 1970s did not permit twin-engine widebodies to fly long-distance overwater routes. At the time, a rule known as the “60-minute rule” restricted twinjets from operating more than an hour’s flying time away from a diversion airport. This made them unsuitable for transoceanic and many remote transcontinental services. By fitting three engines, the DC-10 avoided these restrictions and became immediately viable for major international routes, without the need for complex exemptions or unproven regulatory changes.
There were also performance reasons. Jet engine reliability was steadily improving, but not yet to the point where airlines or regulators trusted long-haul operations with only two engines. Having three engines meant airlines could advertise strong safety margins and avoid restrictions. Furthermore, the third engine, mounted in the tail, provided additional thrust for high-altitude takeoffs at airports like Denver International Airport and Mexico City International Airport, where thinner air challenged aircraft performance. For airlines, that meant versatility and route flexibility, both key selling points in a competitive marketplace.
The DC-10 Twin, which removed the third engine, was studied by McDonnell Douglas in the early 1970s. This variant would have been lighter, more fuel-efficient, and closer in concept to Airbus’ brand-new A300. However, it could not escape the long-haul limitations imposed on two-engine designs. As a result, McDonnell Douglas shelved the idea, leaving the DC-10 as a trijet throughout its career; meanwhile, the Airbus A300 became a popular choice for traveling across Eurasia throughout the 1970s and 1980s.
Other Factors That Influenced The DC-10 Engine Layout
There are several interconnected factors that shaped the DC-10’s three-engine design: regulatory frameworks, market competition, and technical feasibility. The FAA’s “60-minute rule” applied to all twin-engine jets at the time, regardless of size or reliability. Airlines sought an aircraft that could fly longer, cheaper, and could compete with quadjets, such as the Boeing 707, Boeing 747, or Douglas DC-8, and were thus exempt from restrictions. So, the only feasible way was to remove one extra engine. To compete in that space, McDonnell Douglas had little choice but to develop a widebody that was not bound by the same limitations by creating a trijet.
Equally important was engine reliability. In the 1960s, Pratt & Whitney and General Electric were pushing out new high-bypass turbofan engines, but failures were not uncommon. The risk of losing one engine on a two-engine airliner, while rare, was severe enough to justify restrictions. By contrast, with three engines, the DC-10 could afford to lose one and still complete its flight. This design gave airlines confidence when flying across oceans, deserts, or polar regions, the areas where diversion airports were scarce.
Finally, market competition was critical. The DC-10 was not intended to replace the Boeing 747, but to complement it by offering slightly smaller capacity for high-demand routes. To fulfill that role, it needed range and unrestricted routing flexibility, something a twinjet of the time could not provide.
Industry observers, former airline staff, and aviation historians broadly agree that the DC-10 Twin was an idea ahead of its time. The proposed variant was seriously studied and even marketed to airlines like North Central, which later became part of Northwest Airlines. As described by Northwest Airlines History, concept art and promotional materials showed how McDonnell Douglas envisioned the two-engine DC-10 serving domestic US routes, competing with the Airbus A300 in Europe. It was a logical idea on paper, but one blocked by regulation.
North Central Airlines showed some interest in the DC-10 Twin, but as a smaller regional player, it lacked the resources to commit to what would essentially be a new aircraft type within its fleet. Other airlines were cautious, too. The economic turbulence of the 1970s, marked by oil shocks and recession, meant carriers avoided experimental models with uncertain regulatory status. Instead, most preferred to buy the established trijet variant that was already certified for global routes.
Enthusiasts on forums such as Quora and Reddit and aviation history sites often speculate that if ETOPS had been introduced a decade earlier, the DC-10 Twin might have found buyers and carved out a profitable niche. But timing is everything in aviation. McDonnell Douglas had already struggled to compete financially with Boeing, and the company lacked the resources to launch an all-new derivative without guaranteed demand. In hindsight, the DC-10 Twin is a fascinating “what if,” but not a viable path for the company at that moment.
The Airbus A300, launched in 1972, just two years after the DC-10, provides a striking comparison. It was the world’s first twin-engine widebody, but it was designed primarily for short- to medium-haul European routes. Europe’s regulatory environment was slightly more relaxed than the FAA’s, allowing twins to operate further from diversion airports. Thus, Airbus carved a niche where the DC-10 Twin might have competed, such as high-density, medium-range flying that did not require transoceanic capability.
However, the A300 was limited in scope. It could not initially fly across the Atlantic or operate long-haul to Asia. Airlines saw it as a regional supplement rather than a global flagship. By contrast, the DC-10, with three engines, matched the Lockheed L-1011 TriStar and even challenged Boeing’s smaller 747 variants on specific intercontinental routes. In this sense, the trijet design gave McDonnell Douglas more commercial flexibility.
Became a mainstay for many long-haul airlines, but its reputation is hurt by accidents
McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Twin (proposed)
2 (Twinjet)
Never built
Short-to-medium-haul, efficient alternative to trijet
Restricted by 60-minute rule; could not fly over oceans
Projected ~5,500 km (3,400 mi)
250–320
Never launched due to lack of regulatory approval and limited demand
Airbus A300
2 (Twinjet)
1972
Regional/medium-haul European routes
Restricted by 60-minute rule; initial flights limited to shorter sectors
~4,000–5,500 km (2,500–3,400 mi)
250–300
First twin-engine widebody; found niche success, especially in Europe and Asia
Boeing 767
2 (Twinjet)
1981
Medium-to-long-haul, transatlantic potential
Initially subject to 60-minute rule; gained ETOPS-120 in 1985
~7,400–9,400 km (4,600–5,800 mi)
180–260
First twinjet certified for long overwater routes; paved way for modern ETOPS
This table highlights the DC-10 Twin’s limitations compared to its contemporaries, and why the design never advanced. It also illustrated how the Boeing 767, which arrived a decade later, gained ETOPS certification for cross-Atlantic flights. Had the DC-10 arrived a bit later or had the engine design been more reliable, we probably could have seen the DC-10 Twin in action, but history doesn’t like “what ifs”.
When ETOPS arrived in the 1980s, the tables turned. Suddenly, twin-engine jets like the Boeing 767 and Airbus A310 could cross oceans, offering lower operating costs than trijets. This shift rendered the DC-10 Twin obsolete before it could even fly, as newer twinjets occupied the very market McDonnell Douglas had once hoped to fill. The eventual dominance of twinjets highlights just how quickly the regulatory and technological environment changed.
While the trijet solved regulatory problems, it introduced new challenges. Mounting an engine in the tail created structural and maintenance complexities. Critics argued that positioning a massive turbofan above the fuselage placed additional stress on the airframe and increased risks in case of failure. Pilots, however, generally adapted well, and the design became iconic not only on the DC-10 but also on its successor, the McDonnell Douglas MD-11, as discussed by the users of the Infinite Flight community.
The DC-10’s safety record also became controversial. Catastrophic accidents such as Turkish Airlines Flight 981 in 1974 and American Airlines Flight 191 in 1979 highlighted design flaws unrelated to engine placement, but they cast a shadow over the aircraft’s reputation. In reality, once these design issues were corrected, the DC-10 went on to have a long and generally safe career. Still, the public perception of the DC-10 as “unsafe” was difficult to shake, and some critics unfairly blamed the trijet layout for its troubled early years.
Had McDonnell Douglas launched the DC-10 Twin, it might have faced its own drawbacks. A two-engine widebody without ETOPS approval would have been restricted to short- and medium-haul flights, directly competing with the Airbus A300 and later Boeing 767. That market was already crowded and would have forced McDonnell Douglas into a more challenging competitive space. Ironically, by avoiding this move, the company prolonged the relevance of the DC-10 as a long-haul workhorse.
Ultimately, the DC-10’s three-engine design was a product of its time. McDonnell Douglas needed a widebody aircraft that could compete with Boeing and Lockheed while bypassing regulatory restrictions on twinjets. The trijet provided performance, compliance, and commercial flexibility in an era before ETOPS, ensuring the DC-10 was viable for global service.
At the same time, the unbuilt DC-10 Twin illustrates that McDonnell Douglas saw the potential for a twin-engine future, but the company was constrained by timing and circumstance. Once ETOPS became a reality, twins like the Boeing 767, 777, and Airbus A330 took over the long-haul market, relegating trijets to history and also ousting many quadjets. Yet in the early 1970s, a trijet was the only way forward in the long-haul market dominated by quadjets.
Today, long-range flights are dominated by ETOPS-rated twins like the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350, capable of flying more than six hours from a diversion airport. The DC-10, though now retired from passenger service, continues in limited cargo services and remains an important milestone in aviation history. Its trijet design reflected the best solution available in its time, bridging the gap between the four-engine giants of the 1960s and the twin-engine revolution that defines aviation today.
The Boeing 787 Dreamliner (specifically the Boeing 787-9 variant) is currently the most popular widebody aircraft on the market. It was built to replace the Boeing 767, complement the Boeing 777, and compete with the Airbus A330 (now A330neo) and the A350 that entered service four years after the Dreamliner. It also helped to doom the Airbus A380 as well as the Boeing 747-8i.
Even though Boeing slashed production of the 787 during the pandemic by shutting the assembly line in Seattle, it is currently being delivered in higher numbers than other widebody aircraft. Boeing is also working to expand its production in North Charleston, South Carolina, and ramp up production. Here is what to know about the Boeing 787’s deliveries in 2025 and beyond.
The Number Of Boeing 787s Delivered By Mid-2025
Photo: eric1207cvb | Shutterstock
As of mid-2025, Boeing’s records show it has a total unfulfilled backlog of 993 Boeing 787s on order from a total of 2,199 firm orders. This has made the Boeing 787 the best-selling widebody aircraft in history. But while Boeing wins that accolade, Airbus’ A320 family is the best-selling commercial jet in history and is becoming the most delivered commercial jet.
When it comes to deliveries, Boeing has delivered 399 of its 787-8 variant Dreamliners, 681 of its mid-sized 787-9s, and 126 of the 787-10s. That is a total of 1,206 Boeing 787s delivered since the first example entered service in 2011. While the rival Airbus A350, which entered service in 2015, has proven to be a popular aircraft, the Dreamliner has continued to outperform it in both orders and deliveries. A total of 1,428 A350s have been ordered, of which 669 have been delivered.
Orders for the Dreamliner continue to roll in, and in 2025, Boeing has amassed a total of 243 new orders for its Dreamliners. These are thanks in large part to Qatar Airways, which ordered 120 new 787s, while British Airways and Korean Air have also placed substantial orders. All orders have been for its 787-9 and 787-10 variants, and none are for the 787-8.
Boeing’s Past Dreamliner Delivery Rate
Photo: Peter Krocka | Shutterstock
Before the pandemic, the Boeing 787 was delivered in much larger numbers. Boeing was building them in both Everett in Seattle, and in North Charleston. In 2019, the last “normal” production year for the Dreamliner, Boeing delivered a total of 158 aircraft. In 2020, that dropped to just 53 and to only 14 examples in 2021. In the pandemic, Boeing shut down its Seattle assembly line for the 787.
In 2022, deliveries recovered somewhat to 31 examples and grew to around half the prepandemic rate of 73 in 2023. 2024 was another bad year for Boeing deliveries, with its total deliveries falling back to just 348 commercial aircraft (Airbus delivered 766 that year). In 2024, Boeing delivered 51 Dreamliners, although it has delivered 45 by mid-year 2025.
Boeing 787 Dreamliner deliveries by year since 2019 (per Boeing)
2019
158
2024
51
2020
53
2025 (mid-year)
45
2021
14
2025 (estimated)
75-80
2022
31
Planned end of 2025 rate
84 (seven per month)
2023
73
Total delivered (mid-2025)
1,206
While 2019 was the last “normal” production year for the Dreamliner, 2018 was the last “normal” year for Boeing’s commercial aircraft overall. In 2019, the second Boeing 737 MAX crashed, and Boeing’s deliveries have not recovered since. From 2015-2017, Boeing delivered between 748 and 763 aircraft, rising to 806 in 2018. Since then, the most it has delivered was in 2023, when it shipped 528 aircraft.
At the start of 2025, Boeing projected deliveries of 75 to 80 Dreamliners in 2025. That number includes both new-build jets and those currently in inventory that it has been unable to deliver. At the start of 2025, Boeing had an estimated 25 Boeing 787s built in previous years but stored before delivery. If those jets are delivered, then Boeing’s 2025 production would be 50-55 new aircraft.
787 orders and deliveries per Boeing mid-2025
Boeing 787-8
Boeing 787-9
Boeing 787-10
Total
Total number ordered (per Boeing, may include orders later canceled)
In 2019, Boeing was delivering the Dreamliner at a rate of 14 per month; by the start of 2025, that was just five per month, with plans to increase it to seven per month. Even so, that is only half of the pre-pandemic levels. Part of the issue is that Boeing is trying to restore its world-class quality control to its aircraft to ensure things like the Boeing 737 MAX crashes and the Alaska Airlines door plug blowout don’t happen again.
Leeham News says that when the expansion is finished in 2028, Boeing will have the capacity to reach a rate of 16 per month. If Boeing could deliver the aircraft at a rate of 16 per month, that would translate to 192 aircraft a year.
Story Of The Boeing 787-8
Photo: Minh K Tran | Shutterstock
The Boeing 787-8 was the first to debut, and it attracted a large percentage of the orders. However, the 787-9 hit the market in 2014, and since then it has attracted more orders, with new orders for the Boeing 787-8 drying up over time. Boeing only has 28 orders for the 787-8 remaining on its order book, over half (15) of which are for Emirates.
Since 2020, Boeing has only recorded eight new orders for the 787-8 variant. This suggests that the Boeing 787-8 may soon go out of production. Increased Dreamliner production means more 787-9s and 787-10s and not 787-8s. One of the reasons why the 787-9 is more popular is that the wings are better optimized for that variant than the 787-8 or 787-10.
Boeing 787-8
Boeing 787-9
Boeing 787-10
Range
7,305 nautical miles
7,565 nautical miles
6,330 nautical miles
Typical 3-class seating
248
296
336
Length
186 feet
206 feet
224 feet
The 787-9 is the longest ranged variant with a range of 7,565 nautical miles, compared with the 787-8’s 7,305 nautical mile range and the 787-10’s reduced 6,330 nautical mile range. The 787-8 is being outcompeted by both the 787-9 and the cheaper-to-operate but still large and long-range Airbus A321XLR. The A321XLR comes with a range of 4,700 nautical miles.
Boeing 787 Dreamliner Production To Recover By 2028
Photo: Mehdi Photos | Shutterstock
After a decade-long dip in production due to the pandemic and lingering concerns with Boeing’s quality controls, the Dreamliner appears set to meet and even exceed its previous delivery rates around 2028. In 2025, the Dreamliner’s deliveries will remain around half that of pre-pandemic numbers but above that of 2024.
The 2025 final delivery rate will hinge to some degree on when Boeing can move the already-built Lufthansa Dreamliners and any others it has lying around. The future appears bright for the Dreamliner (except the 787-8) with large numbers of orders continuing to be placed and Boeing looking to restore its previously high levels of production. One of the major areas of uncertainty for the Dreamliner and Boeing aircraft in general is the ongoing trade war.
Both Boeing and Airbus are part of the supply chain integrity coalition, which aims to change how parts are tracked from the production line to the boneyard.
Credit: Sean Broderick/Aviation Week Network
Aviation office bookshelves are stacked with issue-specific reports developed by groups of industry experts and anchored by recommendations about how to make meaningful improvements. In most cases, the final product comes out, and the experts move on, leaving others to tackle the recommendations—and…
Senior Air Transport & Safety Editor Sean Broderick covers aviation safety, MRO, and the airline business from Aviation Week Network’s Washington, D.C. office.
Supply Chain Integrity Coalition Shifts Gears is part of our Aviation Week & Space Technology – Inside MRO and AWIN subscriptions.
Subscribe now to read this content, plus receive full coverage of what’s next in technology from the experts trusted by the commercial aircraft MRO community.
Already a subscriber to AWST or an AWIN customer? Log in with your existing email and password.
The Airbus A330-800neo is one of two variants in the Airbus A330neo family, with the other being the A330-900neo. The A330neo is an upgrade over the original A330 variants, with new engines, updated wingtips, interior improvements, and software upgrades. The A330-900, directly succeeding the A330-300, has proven effective and has even found love in the United Statesat Delta Air Lines. Contrastingly, the A330-800 has been shunned in the US.
In some ways, you can consider the start of the A330neo to be the original A350 program. To compete against the Boeing 787, Airbus took the A330 family and added new engines along with a carbon-composite wing and a new cockpit. Airlines largely rejected the concept, prompting Airbus to create a clean-sheet aircraft, the A350 XWB, and move up in size. The A330neo was developed in the 2010s to slot underneath the A350 in price and capability.
The Airlines That Don’t Want The Airbus A330-800
Photo: Dirk Daniel Mann | Shutterstock
The A330-800 is Airbus’s smallest widebody, and given that the US is home to more Boeing 767s (a similarly-sized twinjet) than any other nation in the world, you’d expect the European manufacturer to make significant efforts to sell this jet here. However, Airbus hasn’t sold a single A330-800to a US airline. This is especially surprising considering that the prior A330-200 has been reasonably successful in the country, being operated by Delta, Hawaiian, and, previously, American Airlines.
United Airlines currently flies 53 aging Boeing 767s, but has committed to the 787 to replace these planes. Hawaiian Airlines, a current A330-200 operator, ordered Boeing 787-9s to replace its Airbus widebodies, although these planes are now slated to remain in service while the Dreamliners get transferred to Alaska Airlines. For American Airlines, meanwhile, its 767 and A330 fleets were fully retired during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the 787 serving as their replacement.
Only four airlines in the US operate passenger widebodies in scheduled service, and by and large, they have opted for the similarly sized Boeing 787. This is despite the fact that these planes are replacing the Boeing 767 or Airbus A330, which are optimized for medium-haul routes, similar to the Airbus A330neo. Notably, Hawaiian Airlines formerly held orders for six Airbus A330-800s, but cancelled them in favor of the Dreamliners.
Why Delta Air Lines Isn’t Buying Them
Photo: Minh K Tran | Shutterstock
Delta Air Lines is the largest operator of the Airbus A330-900 in the world and the largest operator of the A330 series as a whole. It operates 11 A330-200s, 31 A330-300s, and 37 A330-900s with two more on order, but has never ordered the A330-800, and has not announced plans to obtain more A330neos. What’s surprising is that the A330-900s were slated to partially replace the Boeing 767-300ER fleet, an aircraft significantly smaller than the A330-900.
You’d expect Delta to replace these aircraft with the A330-800, given that it would be far closer in size to the 767. However, going with the larger A330-900 instead was a conscious choice. Delta is looking to upgauge its entire network, replacing A320s and 737s with A321neos and 737 MAX 10s, while 767s are to be replaced with larger widebodies. Delta is looking to lower per-seat economics, and larger aircraft variants are cheaper to operate per-seat than smaller variants.
Aircraft Types In Service With Delta
Aircraft Types On Order By Delta
Airbus A220-100
Airbus A220-300
Airbus A220-300
Airbus A321neo
Airbus A319-100
Airbus A330-900
Airbus A320-200
Airbus A350-900
Airbus A321-200
Airbus A350-1000
Airbus A321neo
Boeing 737 MAX 10
Airbus A330-200
Airbus A330-300
Airbus A330-900
Airbus A350-900
Boeing 717-200
Boeing 737-800
Boeing 737-900ER
Boeing 757-200
Boeing 757-300
Boeing 767-300ER
Boeing 767-400ER
Delta only has two A330-900s left on order. It’s expected that at least part of its remaining A350 order will displace existing A330-900s that can replace the remaining 767-300ERs, which would again be a system-wide upgauge. Meanwhile, it’s been heavily speculated that the Atlanta-based carrier is looking to order Boeing 787-10s. With a possible delivery date in the early 2030s, these could replace older A330s and the Boeing 767-400ER, while also being a significant upgauge over both types.
Why The Airbus A330-800 Is Not Selling
Photo: Markus Mainka I Shutterstock
In the US, Delta is looking to upgauge its entire network, while other carriers are focusing on the Boeing 787. However, the A330-800 has also sold poorly around the world, with only eight total orders, while the A330-900 has received nearly 440. Seven have already been delivered: four to Kuwait Airways, two to Uganda Airlines, and one to Air Greenland. One more example is reported to have been ordered in an executive configuration.
The A330-800 is a direct replacement for the Airbus A330-200, which, in Delta’s premium-heavy configuration, seats 223 passengers. At the other end of the spectrum, Hawaiian’s leisure-focused A330-200s seat 278. With the new winglets and more efficient Rolls-Royce Trent 7000, the A330-800 now has a range of 8,100 NM (15,000 km) at a Maximum Takeoff Weight of 251 tonnes, and this is the issue.
The A330-200 that the A330-800 is based on was developed as a shrink of the original A330-300 (replaced by the A330-900). As such, the A330-200/800 is more expensive to operate per-seat than its larger counterparts. In the past, the A330-200 sold due to its additional range, but as the A330-300 grew more capable, sales for the A330-200 dried up. With the A330-900 now having up to 7,350 NM (13,600 km) of range, almost no airline is willing to sacrifice economics for the extra miles.
The Decline Of Short-Fuselage Variants
Photo: Wirestock Creators | Shutterstock
In airliner design, manufacturers typically create the base design (Airbus A320, Boeing 757-200, Airbus A330-300, Boeing 777-200), then they will either shrink the fuselage (Airbus A319, Airbus A330-200) or stretch the fuselage (Boeing 757-300, Boeing 777-300). Shrinking typically results in a more capable plane with higher per-seat costs, while a stretched variant boasts the best per-seat costs but also has less range.
Manufacturers don’t always develop their aircraft in this manner (both Airbus A350 variants are optimized for their size), but this is typically how commercial aircraft are designed. This approach generally proved successful, as the A330-200 made up 46% of passenger A330ceo sales, while the A319, A320, and A321 were all popular. For first-generation A320 variants, only the A318 was a sales flop, with this variant being a shrink of a shrink.
Today, however, the A330-800 is far from the only reengined shrink that’s been unpopular. The A319neo has only received 57 orders, while slightly over 300 orders have been received for the Boeing 737 MAX 7. The 777-8’s development has been paused, and even sales for the Boeing 787-8 have slowed down dramatically. As the larger version of an airliner becomes more capable, such as during a re-engine program, demand for the shrink disappears.
Why Airbus Doesn’t Care About Selling A330-800s
Photo: EA Photography | Shutterstock
From a manufacturer’s position, a shrink allows you to capture a broader segment of the market by addressing the shortcomings of the original model. However, such jets are priced lower than a larger model, but cost practically the same to produce, thereby generating lower profit margins. Manufacturers prefer to sell larger variants whenever possible, as they generate the highest profits.
When significant demand exists for a smaller aircraft that is more capable, manufacturers will price it competitively. The sale price is a significant component in whether an airliner wins an order, and, as such, selling an A330-200 may have yielded lower profits than an A330-300 in the past, but this was still preferable over losing an order to the Boeing 767.
With the A330-800, however, airlines aren’t lining up to buy it, and Airbus spent little on developing it. The A330-900 captures nearly all of the market, and this variant generates higher profit margins. As such, Airbus is incentivized to price the A330-900 competitively, while the A330-800 has low demand and generates lower profits, so Airbus likely budges little on pricing. This lowers demand for the A330-800 even further, but Airbus would still rather sell more A330-900s.
The Bottom Line
The Airbus A330-800 has been sold to three airlines. This is the only widebody in Air Greenland’s fleet and is used for flights to Copenhagen, directly replacing an Airbus A330-200. For Kuwait Airways and Uganda Airlines, the type serves as a small, efficient, cheap widebody that has incredible capability. Kuwait Airways also operates the A330-900, making it easier for the airline to integrate it into the fleet.
While the A330-800 has so far proven a sales dud, Airbus is not focused on the variant’s individual orderbook. Rather, Airbus aims to make money on the A330neo program as a whole, and selling more A330-900s appears to be a winning strategy for the European planemaker. As such, the A330-800 will likely go down as one of the industry’s rarest birds, similar to other reengined shrinks like the Airbus A319neo.
Denver International Airport
Mexico City International Airport
Delta Air Lines
