EASA And FAA Award Type Certification To The Airbus A330-800neo

After a long wait, the A330-800neo has finally achieved certification. Airbus announced today that the smallest A330neo has received joint Type Certification from both the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

A330-800 inflight
The A330-800 has been certified by two major regulatory bodies today. Photo: Airbus

The A330-800 gets certified

The A330-800 has been long awaited in our skies. Despite its larger brother, the A330-900, being in service for over a year, Airbus has needed to separately certify the -800 with the regulators. Previously, Airbus had planned certification of the type for mid- to late-2019, but announced in October that the timeline was being shifted to ‘early 2020’.

For a while, the industry wondered if this type would ever make it to certification at all. With just 10 on order in the autumn last year, it was mooted that perhaps the variant would be scrapped altogether. Well, now it’s clear that Airbus is right behind its baby widebody, as it has achieved certification today.


The joint Type Certification was awarded to the A330-800 by both the major regulators – the FAA and EASA. Although there has been some push back against following the FAA’s lead since the MAX debacle, it’s likely that other regulators will follow suit soon.


Details of the certification

Airbus says that the A330-800 testbed that performed the flight test campaign was MSN1888. It completed the program in 370 test flight hours and has undertaken 132 flights since its first in November 2018, which you can watch below.

The initial certification of the type is for a maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of 242 tons, for a range of up to 7,500 nmi. Passenger capacity is typically between 220 and 260 passengers in a three class configuration, or up to 406 in an all economy, high density layout.


So far, only a handful of airlines have ordered the A330-800. Kuwait Airways has eight on order, Uganda Airlines has two and there are four logged as sold to an ‘undisclosed customer’. Air Greenland recently announced it would be taking one aircraft to replace its aging A330-200.

Air Greenland has ordered a single A330-800neo. Photo: Airbus

Airbus’ clever play for the long game

With still only a handful of orders for the type, you might wonder why Airbus is even bothering to press on with the -800 project. However, the European planemaker is actually being very smart in its strategies here, because it is playing the long game for sales.

The -800 is somewhat on a par with the A330-200 in terms of passenger capacity. That, essentially, is its problem. There are many -200s still out there with plenty of life left in them, so airlines are not ready to make an order for a replacement. When they do, however, there is a readymade, fuel-efficient replacement there for them, all certified and ready to go.

The introduction of the -800 will also deal a death blow to any hopes Boeing had of resurrecting its ‘New Midsize Airplane’ (NMA) project. Last year, Airbus CCO Christian Scherer described the position of any NMA coming out of the Boeing stable as being stuck between a ‘rock’ and a ‘hard place’. The ‘rock’ is the long-range A321neo, and the ‘hard place’ is the A330-800.

What he means by this is that there is no market left for a ‘797’, as Airbus has offerings at the top end and the bottom end of the NMA spectrum. For now, at least, Boeing has shelved all plans for the NMA while its new boss Dave Calhoun reassesses the direction the company takes in the future. With the A330-800 now a step closer to entering service, it’s one more reason for the planemaker not to revisit this idea.

Are you looking forward to seeing the A330-800 in action? Let us know in the comments.


Leave a Reply

3 Comment threads
3 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
newest oldest most voted

Great airplane and I’m pretty sure we’ll see orders slowly come in as A330-200s age. The 787 will probably need even more production cuts, and it’s doubtful that it will ever become profitable. This also kills the top end of the NMA business case.

Boeing will probably be forced into a new narrow body aircraft, which will easily be countered by an A220 stretch and the ever more capable A321neo. Boeing is screwed short, medium and long term.

Bravo Airbus.


Boeing was shortsighted when in opened up the SC plant to produce the 787, and delivering over 158 a year isn’t sustainable. The 787 program is a wild success, with nearly 1500 orders however, which is more than the combined orders of the A330neo and A350. The fact the 787 has been so successful has positioned Boeing’s wide body lineup in better position than Airbus, a position Airbus is working rectifying by killing the A380. Boeing was caught completely flat footed by a one two punch of the A220 success and the Max grounding, leaving it with no good short… Read more »

Luis De Stefano

Actually A330-800 has 6 extra seats compared to A330-200, obviously at equal level of comfort through better utilization of cabin space (SpaceFex & SmartLav), carrying 252 v 246 pax. Likewise A330-900 transports 310 pax v 300 for A330-300, again at equal level of comfort. This so far unloved version has 2 strong suits. One is ultra long range (offers 7-8,000NM range with a full cabin) and it can be configured with up to 400 pax for a 6,000NM range for LCC’s. Both are obviously niche markets, and I do hope that with time clever airlines will take advantage of these… Read more »


It has two other advantages. A good takeoff run and good performance in “hot and high” airfields of particular concern to African, Middle Eastern and some South American carriers. The A330-800 is of course lighter and shorter than the A330-900 but Id say it can rotate further without danger of a tail strike, this also helps takeoff run. When used as a MRTT (muli role tanker transport) the large fuel capacity of the A33-800 (139.5 tons) means it doesn’t need any extra tankage added allowing it to be used as a passenger transport for soliders and LD3 containers. I suspect… Read more »


Surprised the FAA didn’t do the “safety” certification denial that EASA usually does to American aircraft. You’d think the FAA would be as interested in “protecting” the “safety” of American aerospace jobs as its European counterpart is of European ones.