Revelation, Airmagnac, thanks for those detailed posts. Very instructive and interesting, even for the lay man here.

Aircellist wrote:

Revelation, Airmagnac, thanks for those detailed posts. Very instructive and interesting, even for the lay man here.

Some of the old-timey posts ( i.e. viewtopic.php?t=420537 and similar ) make for interesting reading, too. Some of the links to related posts do not work, but you can google the name of the thread (the old forum software is good about giving the name of the thread) and it more often than not comes up.

I think you'll find the characterization of the way the A380 was discussed back in the 2000s is a bit different than what some members here suggest. Sure, there was a lot of negative opinions (many of which have been borne out), but there also was a real sincere effort to try to understand what was going on and why it happened, and in general most members were helpful.

Does any one have any accurate #'s on this program vis-a-vis cash flow?

What did they spend? What revenues have been generated?

If we understood this we might have a better discussion.

It does not matter. The money is spent

One thing to consider is that one advantage a 4 hauler like the A380 might have over the big twins is than an ultrafan type engine is perhaps easier to scale to the required size and integrate than it would on a big twin and therefore it could profit from the ultrafan like SFC advantage for quite a few years before an ultrafan type engine would become viable on a big twin design.

Any thoughts on that?

In 2006 spirits where high. Try posting a thread with a tiitle like that now. Chances it get deleted are high. The 777 had it's high days and the hot selling 787 was on schedule, would be clicked together changing the industry forever P2P.

Matt6461 wrote:

AirMagnac wrote:

It was already clear you know little about engineering. It is now clear that finance and history are not your strong points either.

And I get criticized for attacking people here?
What say you Aircellist

Where is the "personal" attack vector in tentative judgement of your proficiency?
You've been pretty derisive of other posters competence served with insult dressing added.
So either tone down or accept that others reflect your style.

seahawk wrote:

It does not matter. The money is spent

And written off and has had its influence on earning calls and profits in the past.

mjoelnir wrote:

seahawk wrote:

It does not matter. The money is spent

And written off and has had its influence on earning calls and profits in the past.

Written off Maybee for airbus, but the European tax payer has invested some money that does not pay off.

Seahawk, given that some are proposing new money be invested it matters.

Planeflyer wrote:

Seahawk, given that some are proposing new money be invested it matters.

It does not. It only matters if additional money should be invested into the program or not.

And how does AB judge if they will get a return on such future money? Somebody puts some estimates together. And then somebody else says well why should we believe these estimates are anymore accurate than previous and so on and so forth.

We are essentiialy having that discussion here in an informal manner w/o any numbers.

The past is by no means the perfect predictor but it is an indicator.

Planeflyer wrote:

And how does AB judge if they will get a return on such future money? Somebody puts some estimates together. And then somebody else says well why should we believe these estimates are anymore accurate than previous and so on and so forth.

Past performance is no indication of future results, any new investment will need to have its own business case that relates to current market conditions and current forecasts.

spacecookie wrote:

Written off Maybee for airbus, but the European tax payer has invested some money that does not pay off.

Even if sales for Airbus were at a net loss up till 2015 once incuded penalties and additional design cost for each unit, the manufacture of each aircraft is linked to lots of economic activity which generates direct tax returns, as well as indirect economic stimulus to the manufacturing areas with indirect tax returns, customs revenue on imported parts etc etc...
And if your point is what Americans call Launch Aid and what Europeans call Reimbursable Launch Investment, than the goverments probably got their money back for the A380, and anyway when integrated over all Airbus programs (in particular the A320) then euro goverments are raking in money by the bucketload.

As a european tax payer I have many grave concerns these days. Goverment investments in the A380 are not one of them.

airmagnac wrote:

spacecookie wrote:

Written off Maybee for airbus, but the European tax payer has invested some money that does not pay off.

Even if sales for Airbus were at a net loss up till 2015 once incuded penalties and additional design cost for each unit, the manufacture of each aircraft is linked to lots of economic activity which generates direct tax returns, as well as indirect economic stimulus to the manufacturing areas with indirect tax returns, customs revenue on imported parts etc etc...
And if your point is what Americans call Launch Aid and what Europeans call Reimbursable Launch Investment, than the goverments probably got their money back for the A380, and anyway when integrated over all Airbus programs (in particular the A320) then euro goverments are raking in money by the bucketload.

As a european tax payer I have many grave concerns these days. Goverment investments in the A380 are not one of them.

There are investments for new factory's ore renewals there is where the money will never return,because the production rate is no as expected and the employment that should made by this big super jumbo was not worth it.

We have many concerns this days in Europe, most of them are not even caused by our actions.

Zeke, are you saying you don't use your experience to guide future decisions?

Seems to me AB is going to evaluate thre areas:

financial impact ( and the past cash flow will be helpful in this)

whether the factors that so far have impeded the program still exist .

New factors that may make an upgrade worth doing

I think the biggest factor playing against the existing program and any future upgrades is the cost of fuel.

Sub 60 $ per bbl will be with us for the next 15-20 years and this is going to make P2P and ULH much more important to Airline profits.

I feel for the guys that planned out the 380. In so many ways they did a wonderful job but no one could possibly imagine what the Aggie petro eng department was about to enable. Heck, most still don't get it.

Planeflyer wrote:

Zeke, are you saying you don't use your experience to guide future decisions?

It is a business decision, what I think, feel, past experiences etc don't come into play.

Taxi645 wrote:

One thing to consider is that one advantage a 4 hauler like the A380 might have over the big twins is than an ultrafan type engine is perhaps easier to scale to the required size and integrate than it would on a big twin and therefore it could profit from the ultrafan like SFC advantage for quite a few years before an ultrafan type engine would become viable on a big twin design.

Any thoughts on that?

You know that's an interesting point and one that rarely comes up vis-a-vis the A380 re-engining efforts.

I'm sure Lightsaber will know more about this, but I think you're right that in general new engine tech needs to be matured on mid-sized examples before it can safely be scaled up for the top end of the big-twin market.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

You know that's an interesting point and one that rarely comes up vis-a-vis the A380 re-engining efforts.

I'm sure Lightsaber will know more about this, but I think you're right that in general new engine tech needs to be matured on mid-sized examples before it can safely be scaled up for the top end of the big-twin market.

Well not that interesting apparently.

I wonder if we focus on the 777-9, what kind of rotor diameter we would be looking at for a GTF 777-9, if we assume 12% improvement in SFC compared to the GE9x and assume half of that goes to range extension and the other half to fuel weight savings. I wonder if that rotor diameter would fit under the new wing? I don't want to derail this thread, but it is relevant for the A380NEO business case, how cost effective, if at all, a GTF could be fitted under the new wing of one of the A380's main competitors for orders. Not that I really expect us to be easily be able to answer that question.

Taxi645 wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

You know that's an interesting point and one that rarely comes up vis-a-vis the A380 re-engining efforts.

I'm sure Lightsaber will know more about this, but I think you're right that in general new engine tech needs to be matured on mid-sized examples before it can safely be scaled up for the top end of the big-twin market.

Well not that interesting apparently.

Well, I won't pretend to know much about engines, so I will wait with baited breath for input from the experts...

Revelation wrote:

Also from the now-closed thread, we had:

Taxi645 wrote:
1 A reasonably efficient fuselage layout which has recently gained a 9% improvement in floor area utilization (without compromising comfort) and a 15% increase in floor area utilization with reducing seat width but still well on the good side of the contemporary trend in comfort/seat width.

When you put the numbers to it, I find it interesting that none of the current operators who've chosen to not take up their original full slate of orders (AF, LH, presumably QF, etc) have yet reacted to such clear improvements as a way to boost the performance of their current fleets, and the only reactions we have is from one operator who found the A380 to be surplus to requirements (MH) and one lessor who is taking a return and has not been able to interest the more traditional operators (Doric). It suggests to me that in general more seats per frame is not that interesting to the market.

Considering my comment in that thread was made in relation to the NEO and not the CEO or plus, I'll point out why that doesn't tell us the complete picture:

Only recently the full 47 seats at equal comfort and 81 seats and average seat width has become available.

As you yourself argue a VLA needs a large CASM advantage. A 9% improvement floor area utilization is significant for the CEO but not enough to really open the gap to the big twins. So it might help to add some sales to bridge the time to the NEO, but in itself it won't make the plane really sufficiently competitive in the market to guarantee a longterm future. In contrast, with the A380NEO the 9% would add to an already quite large CASM gap and thus giving it much more impact and will come at a time that air travel market has probably seen eight further years of growth which will improve yields at this larger capacity.

There is a difference with getting this configuration installed from delivery or during it's service live.

They probably did the cabin optimizations as part of the NEO effort. Since that got postponed they then could easily offer it for the CEO/plus.

Revelation wrote:

Your other statements are interesting but we've just had one round of NEO talks that failed, and there's no evidence to suggest that a new engine and/or wing can come together in time to change the fortunes of the product.

And there is no evidence to suggest the opposite. In a forum such as this, where we speculate and brainstorm about what can be, without the full inside knowledge of the industry, evidence is not really a suitable criteria to go by. We have to do with mostly public knowledge and (hopefully) well founded arguments.

Personality I'm glad the NEO got postponed. Although very attractive to EK and the like, for Airbus it would not have been. The SFC leap was not sufficient, it would get easily leapfrogged by next generation architecture engines (unlike a mid 20's NEO) and it wouldn't allow Airbus to address as effectively the limitations of the 80M box as the fuel weight saving from a next generation engine would.

If they'd done the NEO now, they would've had to do yet another costly “NEO2” soon after or let the program die. A mid 20's NEO hurts now (badly), but if they manage the bridge the gap (and I think they will since the role of a mid 20's NEO is just too important to both Airbus and airliners) it will be very successful from both a revenue as well as a strategic point of view.

Revelation wrote:

We now have a good idea of what the A380 market size is and there's no clear trend showing it will take off any time soon. In fact, one can make a good argument that it will be smaller than the current A380 market. An investment there may not pay off.

Equally, good arguments can be made it will be much larger than the current A380 market. We have a pretty good idea of what the 2005-2020 market was for the A380 with it's design choices and development issues. Sure it tells us a lot, but I reckon it will differ significantly, perhaps even fundamentally, in key parts to a well optimized A380NEO 2025-2040 market.

Revelation wrote:

Airbus itself is saying mid-2020s for the next possible NEO and that means losing a lot of money between now and then. We shall see if they continue to accept the loss and if the market turns around and starts showing more interest in VLAs, or not. Lots of discussion around this in earlier threads, e.g. viewtopic.php?t=1355693&start=200#p19374369 ...

Indeed.

Generally people tend to get hung up too much about what is and have troubling imagining what can be.

If we compare a roughly 2025 EIS A380NEO with the EIS of the A380CEO:


Aviation growth/Market:
* More and higher volume suitable routes
* More congestion (of course congestion issues don't only get solved at the top)
* There were no low cost long haul airliners, who's customers value low ticket prices more than frequency compared to your average passenger.
* There was no A380CEO replacement market


Capital cost/logistics:
* No CATIA disaster like with the CEO
* A380 supply chain is in place and well understood
* Largest part of the R&D is already done and paid off.


Fuel burn per seat mile:
* No overbuilt wing because of unrealistic growth expectations
* No highly underused floor area as with the CEO up till very recently.
* A middle of the next decade A380NEO will have a larger engine SFC advantage compared to competitors than the CEO had at it's launch. A GTF for the NEO is lower risk (smaller engine) and will have a much larger market because can it be shared with 787 and A330 replacement than any big twin GTF will have.
* Next decades fuel prices will most likely put a larger emphasizes on fuel burn per seat mile than the A380 time market.





In my view they have two options:

1 Design a completely new wing around a roughly 500T MTOW (same fuselage length, same range).

At the next engine PIP say around 2029 somewhere (dependent on market development) they could launch a 7.000nm simple stretch (equal MTOW) for a bizarrely low fuel burn per seat mile across the Atlantic, Middle-East trunk routes, inner Asia etc. To give a clearer picture of what this would do, this would close to half the fuel burn per seat mile compared to the A380CEO. I don't have to explain that such things change the market.


2 Launch a modest stretch that cancels a large part of the fuel weight saving so the necessary design work to weight optimize is more limited and it is easier (and much cheaper) to base it on the existing wing.



As mentioned before people have troubling realizing the tremendous fuel burn per seat mile improvement a mid 20's NEO can have and what impact that would have on the aviation market. I could give another go at trying to calculate the A380NEO fuel burn per seat improvement in light of the recently introduced cabin improvements, but given my lack of technical knowledge I'm not sure if it would be worth the effort.


@KarelWXB, if you want the NEO discussion continued in the “Airbus A380 MidLife Upgrade, 2021?” thread instead, just let me know. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1355693

A 2025EIS will bring no engine worthy to re-engine the 787/A330NEO. That is something for an EIS after 2030. The engine alone must bring clearly over10% improvement (net improvement).

To achieve this compared to the Trent 7000/ Ten you are looking at ALECSYS technology level engines. http://cleansky.eu/sites/default/files/ ... LECSYS.pdf

I'll add one more point to the floor area utilisation vs yields discussion. Ask yourself if a low cost long haul passenger will have the same criteria in regards to cabin experience as the average current passenger. I think most can figure out the answer to that and A380NEO fuel burn per seat mile can have a pivotal role in that development. A new chapter in aviation: LEVEL already sold over 100.000 tickets, viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1360285

Welcome to the new world.

A380-800NEO (new wing)

So let's take the current 575T MTOW.

-39T reduction in fuel load from -15% SFC (ultrafan).
-12T from a new wing designed for the new much lower MTOW.
-3T from the empennage
-3T from the MLG
-5T from other weight optimizations from further detail work and 25 year technology improvement (3D printing) seems a very conservative estimate in my view.
-2T from the engines. (the nacelles for the high bypass will still be roughly equal size, but the cores will be lighter because the over 10% reduction in MTOW despite the smaller wing)

+6.5T from 47 extra seats, passengers and baggage (at equal comfort, see plus)

gives: -57,5T

This 10% reduction in MTOW will lead to a further 3,75% reduction in required fuel weight meaning -8T. Doing another weight fuel loop saves another ton.

Brings the total MTOW down to 508,5T




If we then try to make an estimate about the fuel per seat mile delta (all assumptions):

-15% from ultrafan SFC
-1.5% from adaptive wing
-1.5% from sharklets
-2% from optimized wing for 508,5T instead of 650T capable within 80M box.
-2% further aero optimization

+% engine drag (I'll assume equal, but probably less)

-3,75% from lower weight over an average flown distance

Total:
-24% trip fuel

Seats:
+47 (at equal comfort).

Fuel per seat mile delta (compared to CEO pre plus):
-30%!

Fuel per seat mile delta 9/11-abreast (compared to 8/10-abreast CEO pre plus):
-32%

As can be seen the savings in fuel per set mile compared to the A380CEO are much bigger than the savings from the 777x over the 773ER which is said to be -20%. The reason for this larger improvement is in the aforementioned, low floor area usage and over designed/not very efficient wing of the A380 combined with a leap in engine architecture. In other words the A380NEO would enjoy a 14% better fuel burn per seat mile advantage over the 777x than the A380CEO had over the 773ER. And that plan still sold 300 copies in a smaller aviation market. Perhaps people will now better understand what potential such an A380NEO would have.


If for fun sakes we would extent that calculation to a A380NEO 100 seat simple stretch (equal MTOW, 1st PIP, 7.000nm) the numbers become even more impressive:

Fuel per seat mile delta (compared to CEO pre plus):
-40%!

Fuel per seat mile delta 9/11-abreast (compared to 8/10-abreast CEO pre plus):
-43%




A380-900 NEO (optimized old wing, identical empennage, MLG etc.)

This is the lower investment alternative since the stretch compensates the majority of the fuel weight saving and thus there is less to no incentive for major revisions to MLG, empennage and to a lesser degree the wing.


6-row stretch (+100 seats). So let's take the current 575T MTOW.

-39T reduction in fuel load from -15% SFC (ultrafan).
-2T from optimization of the current wing.
-5T from other weight optimizations from further detail work, 25 year technology improvement and again the lower MTOW (seems a very conservative estimate in my view)


+15T empty weight from the 6 row stretch
+14T of extra payload required to fill it.
+4T from the engines.

You then arrive at a total of 562T. Another weight fuel loop saves another 2 tons.

So that gives a 560 MTOW. So despite the 6 row stretch -15T compared to the CEO.


If we then try to make an estimate about the fuel per seat mile delta (all assumptions):

-15% from ultrafan SFC
-1% from new wing end solution
-1% other slight wing optimizations.
-2% further aero optimization

+3% engine drag
+2% wetted area drag


Total:
-16% fuel

Seats:
+100 (stretch), +47 (plus style cabine optimization).

Fuel per seat mile delta (compared to CEO pre plus):
-35%

Fuel per seat mile delta 9/11-abreast (compared to CEO pre plus):
-38%

So even a (stretched) redesign, that leaves the MLG, empennage and most of the wing alone would still safe 35% fuel per seat mile at equal comfort compared to a pre plus A380CEO. I think they'll manage getting those planes filled.



P.S. I'll admit, quite a few assumptions (and based on limited technical knowledge), but I think I've kept them all very conservative.

Other engines took a similar time to develop. Airbus is no where near launching a NEO programme. Why do you think the gap is only till 2022?

Just a random, but educated, guess. Could just as well be 2025...or 2021.
While RR has not formally launched a new engine, they have the Advance3 research & demonstator program running, which can evolve into a new engine, provided there is an aircraft program available for it. Like Tech-X became Passport, and Leap-X became... well, Leap-X. IMO around 2022-25 RR could - and must, if NEO is to happen - have an engine ready that is 15% better than T900 (T900 EIS in 2007, and assuming 1% technology improvement per year, gives you 2022).
It won't need a 5-year warning because a cousin of that engine may soon be running as an Advance3 demonstrator.

That is assuming Airbus doesn't touch the airframe. On A330NEO, 10% engine sfc improvement was enough, because the other 4% came from aero and other airframe improvements. RR should easily do 10% better than T900 by 2022.

People here keep talking about hanging the TXWB on it.. but how about a T7000 growth version, with larger fan, and insertion of technologies from Advance3...?

I appreciate the two long, substantive posts, [b]Taxi645[/], which neatly divide their points.

Taxi645 wrote:

* More and higher volume suitable routes

This doesn't necessarily follow from traffic growth. Even between the largest global cities, the majority of longhaul traffic is not O&D.
If traffic growth causes a proliferation of point-point options and of other connecting options, the overall effect on total traffic for megaroutes is ambiguous.

Taxi645 wrote:

* More congestion (of course congestion issues don't only get solved at the top)

Congestion is basically a non-issue when we're talking about 777+sized longhaul ops.
Even the busiest airport have no more than a few dozen such flights per day, out of up to a thousand flights per day.
Until 777-sized movements becomes something like average, there are always densification options at smaller gauge that cost less in frequency.
No airport besides DXB is near that inflection point; by 2025 it will be simply no airport.

Taxi645 wrote:

There were no low cost long haul airliners, who's customers value low ticket prices more than frequency compared to your average passenger.

Indeed. This is key, IMO. LCC LH will nudge FSC's towards efficiency over frequency, at least to a degree.
Then again, maybe not. Maybe it becomes more profitable to double-down on the high-yield strategy for long haul post-LCC proliferation. Maybe the FSC's won't feel able to compete.
Whichever future happens, it will depend on the relative costs.
IMO a huge raison d'etre for a future VLA (A380 or no) is that it would offer economies of scale available only (or at least primarily) to deeply-hubbed FSC's.
...which could motivate wholesale migration to the type by FSC's, with more marked product segmentation (a trend that 2 decks helps).

Taxi645 wrote:

To give a clearer picture of what this would do, this would close to half the fuel burn per seat mile compared to the A380CEO. I don't have to explain that such things change the market.

I don't disagree, but you don't need to wait to 2029 for that. A clean sheet A380ish plane launched today for 2025 EIS could likely halve A380's fuel burn per seat.

Taxi645 wrote:

Brings the total MTOW down to 508,5T

This is oddly close to what I projected a few years back for a ~2021 rewing with RR Advance engines.
viewtopic.php?t=775071 (contains links to preceding threads regarding weight and aerodynamics).
I can't stand by everything I wrote in those threads, having learned some more since, but the broad outlines still seem right to me.
Were I to rerun the model with 2025 engines, I'd probably be a little more aggressive than what you suggest (particularly on the empennage savings, for example).
So I might quibble with a few of your subsidiary points but agree in general.

Taxi645 wrote:

A380-800NEO (new wing)

So let's take the current 575T MTOW.

-39T reduction in fuel load from -15% SFC (ultrafan).
-12T from a new wing designed for the new much lower MTOW.
-3T from the empennage
-3T from the MLG
-5T from other weight optimizations from further detail work and 25 year technology improvement (3D printing) seems a very conservative estimate in my view.
-2T from the engines. (the nacelles for the high bypass will still be roughly equal size, but the cores will be lighter because the over 10% reduction in MTOW despite the smaller wing)

+6.5T from 47 extra seats, passengers and baggage (at equal comfort, see plus)

gives: -57,5T

This 10% reduction in MTOW will lead to a further 3,75% reduction in required fuel weight meaning -8T. Doing another weight fuel loop saves another ton.

Brings the total MTOW down to 508,5T




If we then try to make an estimate about the fuel per seat mile delta (all assumptions):

-15% from ultrafan SFC
-1.5% from adaptive wing
-1.5% from sharklets
-2% from optimized wing for 508,5T instead of 650T capable within 80M box.
-2% further aero optimization

+% engine drag (I'll assume equal, but probably less)

-3,75% from lower weight over an average flown distance

Total:
-24% trip fuel

Seats:
+47 (at equal comfort).

Fuel per seat mile delta (compared to CEO pre plus):
-30%!

Here's where I most significantly disagree.
You appear to give only ~2% L/D improvement. That's far too small for a rewing that would reduce total wetted area by at least 10% between wing, empennage, and engines.

Simple suggestion for handy trip-fuel estimator: Use the Breguet range equation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_(aeronautics)
The math in that article gets a little ahead of this words guy, so the important takeaway is that range is proportional to:

L/D * ln(MTOW/LandingWeight) / SFC

From this simple equation, we can see that 10% greater L/D and 15% lower SFC already gets you close to 30% trip fuel savings. That's before any weight change!
With any significant weight savings, hitting 40% trip differential isn't hard.

Re your -900NEO on the current wing, a few quibbles:

Taxi645 wrote:

-2T from optimization of the current wing.

Actually the wing would be significantly heavier. Why?
The added weight of fuselage+contents would create significantly higher wing bending moments, requiring much reinforcement via more skin/spar material.

Taxi645 wrote:

Fuel per seat mile delta 9/11-abreast (compared to CEO pre plus):
-38%

This is too aggressive IMJ. To better estimate the effect, I'd suggest estimating L/D relative to A380 then combining that with weight and SFC via the Breguet equation to get fuel burn. In the past the best I've modeled is not quite -30% per seat. Maybe I could be nudged into doing a bit more work on that front; for now back to work.

seahawk wrote:

A 2025EIS will bring no engine worthy to re-engine the 787/A330NEO. That is something for an EIS after 2030. The engine alone must bring clearly over10% improvement (net improvement).

To achieve this compared to the Trent 7000/ Ten you are looking at ALECSYS technology level engines. http://cleansky.eu/sites/default/files/ ... LECSYS.pdf

The 10% rule is a general rule of thumb. Other factors influence a product launch see below.

1 Going of public information ultrafan SFC improvement over the TEN would be around 11%. Even if it's lower that doesn't necessarily mean the end of the world, see below.

2 If we are looking at a 2025 A380NEO EIS, we would be looking at around 2027-2028 EIS for the A330replacement.

3 And this probably most important. It's not clear that the A330NEO is going to last till 2030. As argued before the A330 MTOW is too close to the A350, there is too much overlap for the long term (short term it is a nice production complement). Because of MTOW growth and SFC improvement it has passed it's ideal range bracket hence why the 800 isn't selling and we, in the end, effectively might see a one model (900) NEO. Therefore there are good arguments to replace the A330 next decade with a plane that is optimized for a much lower MTOW that puts it back in the required range bracket and is a better complement to the A350 in Airbus product range. The fact that the SFC improvement is not "clearly over 10%" might not be that crucial.

Matt6461 wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

* More and higher volume suitable routes

This doesn't necessarily follow from traffic growth. Even between the largest global cities, the majority of longhaul traffic is not O&D.
If traffic growth causes a proliferation of point-point options and of other connecting options, the overall effect on total traffic for megaroutes is ambiguous.

Taxi645 wrote:

* More congestion (of course congestion issues don't only get solved at the top)

Congestion is basically a non-issue when we're talking about 777+sized longhaul ops.
Even the busiest airport have no more than a few dozen such flights per day, out of up to a thousand flights per day.
Until 777-sized movements becomes something like average, there are always densification options at smaller gauge that cost less in frequency.
No airport besides DXB is near that inflection point; by 2025 it will be simply no airport.

We'll have to wait and see how it goes.

Matt6461 wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

There were no low cost long haul airliners, who's customers value low ticket prices more than frequency compared to your average passenger.

Indeed. This is key, IMO. LCC LH will nudge FSC's towards efficiency over frequency, at least to a degree.
Then again, maybe not. Maybe it becomes more profitable to double-down on the high-yield strategy for long haul post-LCC proliferation. Maybe the FSC's won't feel able to compete.
Whichever future happens, it will depend on the relative costs.
IMO a huge raison d'etre for a future VLA (A380 or no) is that it would offer economies of scale available only (or at least primarily) to deeply-hubbed FSC's.
...which could motivate wholesale migration to the type by FSC's, with more marked product segmentation (a trend that 2 decks helps).

I'm also thinking about LCC LH itself. With the huge cost saving from both LCC as well as the enormous fuel savings per seat of a mid 20's A380NEO we could see a whole new demographic being able to (regularly) fly. If that happens, we'll be looking at a totally different air transport market and a plane like the A380NEO would be instrumental to that development.

Taxi645 wrote:

If we compare a roughly 2025 EIS A380NEO with the EIS of the A380CEO:

Aviation growth/Market:
* More and higher volume suitable routes
* More congestion (of course congestion issues don't only get solved at the top)
* There were no low cost long haul airliners, who's customers value low ticket prices more than frequency compared to your average passenger.
* There was no A380CEO replacement market


Capital cost/logistics:
* No CATIA disaster like with the CEO
* A380 supply chain is in place and well understood
* Largest part of the R&D is already done and paid off.
* A380 infrastructure in place at many airports


Fuel burn per seat mile:
* No overbuilt wing because of unrealistic growth expectations and a lot less induced drag because of much better MTOW to wingspan ratio (80M box).
* No highly underused floor area as with the CEO up till very recently.
* A middle of the next decade A380NEO will have a larger engine SFC advantage compared to competitors than the CEO had at it's launch. A GTF for the NEO is lower risk (smaller engine) and will have a much larger market because can it be shared with 787 and A330 replacement than any big twin GTF will have.
* Next decades fuel prices will most likely put a larger emphasizes on fuel burn per seat mile than the A380 time market.

One important thing I forgot: * A380 infrastructure in place at many airports

Matt6461 wrote:

Here's where I most significantly disagree.
You appear to give only ~2% L/D improvement. That's far too small for a rewing that would reduce total wetted area by at least 10% between wing, empennage, and engines.

Simple suggestion for handy trip-fuel estimator: Use the Breguet range equation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_(aeronautics)
The math in that article gets a little ahead of this words guy, so the important takeaway is that range is proportional to:

L/D * ln(MTOW/LandingWeight) / SFC

From this simple equation, we can see that 10% greater L/D and 15% lower SFC already gets you close to 30% trip fuel savings. That's before any weight change!
With any significant weight savings, hitting 40% trip differential isn't hard.

Please don't take my attempts at modelling anything to seriously. As said not much use without sufficient technical proficiency.

From what I understand wing area has relatively little influence on induced drag. The large wing area decreases induced drag when as the same time the correlating low aspect ratio increases Di by the same amount. What does seem to be important is the lift (MTOW) to span ratio. With the reduced MTOW of an ultrafan A380NEO the lift to span ratio becomes much better.

So relatively the square of the reduction of MTOW (required lift) divided by the square of the increased effective span (winglets) gives say 0,87*2/1,022*2 = 0,78. Or a 22% reduction in induced drag. If we assume like you say a 55% component of induced drag, the total drag reduction due to Di would be 12%. That's without lower form and parasitic drag from smaller dimensioned wing.

That's quite a lot. By looking at all the numbers and equations the large wing area of the A380 is not so much the problem (It's wingloading it quite normal). It's the very inefficient lift to span ratio. Both a MTOW decrease from an ultrafan NEO as well as the winglets will greatly improve this. Again my technical knowledge probably makes this all a bit of rubbish.



On more comment about a A380-900NEO simple stretch. While it would have unbelievably good fuel burn per seat, it seems it would be rather weak on payload on shorter ranges. This would pose the opposite problem to the 800 which has a relatively small cargo volume, a 900NEO simple stretch would have much more cargo volume but perhaps not the payload needed to carry it.

In that light a smaller stretch that improves the balance between cargo volume and payload would make sense. They just have to weight that improved balance against the fact that letting the MTOW go up too much again significantly reduces the aerodynamics gains you made but reducing the MTOW so much relatively to the 80M span.

Eventually, if aviation keeps growing, the A380 could make a comeback. Although a lot of secondary routes will open up, the pressure on hubs will also increase if there is an overall growth in passenger numbers. I think it will take a long time, though. Hopefully they can keep the line open until then.

I'm hoping we'll see some LCC jumping on the used A380s coming up on the market in the coming years. Will be interesting to see.

Taxi645 wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

Here's where I most significantly disagree.
You appear to give only ~2% L/D improvement. That's far too small for a rewing that would reduce total wetted area by at least 10% between wing, empennage, and engines.

Simple suggestion for handy trip-fuel estimator: Use the Breguet range equation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_(aeronautics)
The math in that article gets a little ahead of this words guy, so the important takeaway is that range is proportional to:

L/D * ln(MTOW/LandingWeight) / SFC

From this simple equation, we can see that 10% greater L/D and 15% lower SFC already gets you close to 30% trip fuel savings. That's before any weight change!
With any significant weight savings, hitting 40% trip differential isn't hard.

Please don't take my attempts at modelling anything to seriously. As said not much use without sufficient technical proficiency.

From what I understand wing area has relatively little influence on induced drag. The large wing area decreases induced drag when as the same time the correlating low aspect ratio increases Di by the same amount. What does seem to be important is the lift (MTOW) to span ratio. With the reduced MTOW of an ultrafan A380NEO the lift to span ratio becomes much better.

So relatively the square of the reduction of MTOW (required lift) divided by the square of the increased effective span (winglets) gives say 0,87*2/1,022*2 = 0,78. Or a 22% reduction in induced drag. If we assume like you say a 55% component of induced drag, the total drag reduction due to Di would be 12%. That's without lower form and parasitic drag from smaller dimensioned wing.

That's quite a lot. By looking at all the numbers and equations the large wing area of the A380 is not so much the problem (It's wingloading it quite normal). It's the very inefficient lift to span ratio. Both a MTOW decrease from an ultrafan NEO as well as the winglets will greatly improve this. Again my technical knowledge probably makes this all a bit of rubbish.



On more comment about a A380-900NEO simple stretch. While it would have unbelievably good fuel burn per seat, it seems it would be rather weak on payload on shorter ranges. This would pose the opposite problem to the 800 which has a relatively small cargo volume, a 900NEO simple stretch would have much more cargo volume but perhaps not the payload needed to carry it.

In that light a smaller stretch that improves the balance between cargo volume and payload would make sense. They just have to weight that improved balance against the fact that letting the MTOW go up too much again significantly reduces the aerodynamics gains you made but reducing the MTOW so much relatively to the 80M span.

Welp I'm just back from a two-week ban, thus the delay in responding. C'est la internet.

Anyways...

Lemme just say that I appreciate your attempts at modelling and your humility about results. Few of us are experts and all we non-expert amateurs can do is try our best. Your projections are similar to mine in many respects. Don't ever get discouraged by sniping from people who want to show off what they know (or think they know); just keep asking questions and crafting hypotheses.

From what I've learned here from folks like OldAeroGuy and others, as well as from reading, you are right that induced drag at plane-level relates to span^2 and not directly to aspect ratio.

BUT aspect ratio indirectly impacts induced drag in other ways.

First, for two wings of equal span but different areas, the bigger wing will be heavier (unless we're talking extremely high AR, in which case thickness effects might dominate). The A350-1000's wing will be heavier than -900's for example, due in part to added area.

Second, induced drag increases linearly with the inverse of air density. Thus more Di the higher you fly. Modern airliners generally cruise at ~.5 lift coefficient, so a bigger wing means higher optimal cruise FL and thus higher induced drag. That delta is mitigated by lower (All other) drag at higher FL and by lower temps meaning better SFC - at least until the stratosphere at ~FL 37.

The calculation you use to approximate the impact on cruise L/D by separating the components of drag is basically what I do plus a modification of all drag for FL.

Taxi645 wrote:

On more comment about a A380-900NEO simple stretch. While it would have unbelievably good fuel burn per seat, it seems it would be rather weak on payload on shorter ranges.

A ~25ft stretch would give the -900 room for 46-48 LD3. That's about the same as 777-9 but with ~80% more pax and bags.

So even though the -900 Would be slightly better on cargo than -800, no double-decker will ever even approach a one-deck plane on cargo per pax capacity. It's the simple arithmetic of one belly for two decks, versus one for one.

That shouldn't matter much to a good double-decker though, because cargo is a sufficiently small portion of trip revenue that a double decker' s relative inefficiency there should amount to something like a rounding error.

That's not the case with a bad double-decker like the A380, which has a razor-thin edge over one-deckers and is materially impacted by its paucity of cargo revenue.

Matt6461 wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

On more comment about a A380-900NEO simple stretch. While it would have unbelievably good fuel burn per seat, it seems it would be rather weak on payload on shorter ranges.

A ~25ft stretch would give the -900 room for 46-48 LD3. That's about the same as 777-9 but with ~80% more pax and bags.

So even though the -900 Would be slightly better on cargo than -800, no double-decker will ever even approach a one-deck plane on cargo per pax capacity. It's the simple arithmetic of one belly for two decks, versus one for one.

That shouldn't matter much to a good double-decker though, because cargo is a sufficiently small portion of trip revenue that a double decker' s relative inefficiency there should amount to something like a rounding error.

That's not the case with a bad double-decker like the A380, which has a razor-thin edge over one-deckers and is materially impacted by its paucity of cargo revenue.

I understand the argument. Isn't "cargo" volume overrated nowadays with all in belly cargo space available? Does anyone know the load factors for belly cargo?

Dutchy wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

On more comment about a A380-900NEO simple stretch. While it would have unbelievably good fuel burn per seat, it seems it would be rather weak on payload on shorter ranges.

A ~25ft stretch would give the -900 room for 46-48 LD3. That's about the same as 777-9 but with ~80% more pax and bags.

So even though the -900 Would be slightly better on cargo than -800, no double-decker will ever even approach a one-deck plane on cargo per pax capacity. It's the simple arithmetic of one belly for two decks, versus one for one.

That shouldn't matter much to a good double-decker though, because cargo is a sufficiently small portion of trip revenue that a double decker' s relative inefficiency there should amount to something like a rounding error.

That's not the case with a bad double-decker like the A380, which has a razor-thin edge over one-deckers and is materially impacted by its paucity of cargo revenue.

I understand the argument. Isn't "cargo" volume overrated nowadays with all in belly cargo space available? Does anyone know the load factors for belly cargo?

Depends what you mean by "overrated."
FinnAir, for example, was making up to 15% of trip revenue off cargo a few years ago. Even if that figure has been cut in half, 8% typically exceeds an airline's profit margin.

So it's not a huge number relative to revenue but It's potentially huge relative to airline profits.

Even more so relative to OEM profits. Considering that only a few percentage points separate models like A330/350/380 and 787/777, winning by a whisker of cargo might make or break a program.

I'd say cargo is overrated in discussions of a good 2-decker versus 1-deckers, but not in discussions of a bad 2-decker like the A380.

Matt6461 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

A ~25ft stretch would give the -900 room for 46-48 LD3. That's about the same as 777-9 but with ~80% more pax and bags.

So even though the -900 Would be slightly better on cargo than -800, no double-decker will ever even approach a one-deck plane on cargo per pax capacity. It's the simple arithmetic of one belly for two decks, versus one for one.

That shouldn't matter much to a good double-decker though, because cargo is a sufficiently small portion of trip revenue that a double decker' s relative inefficiency there should amount to something like a rounding error.

That's not the case with a bad double-decker like the A380, which has a razor-thin edge over one-deckers and is materially impacted by its paucity of cargo revenue.

I understand the argument. Isn't "cargo" volume overrated nowadays with all in belly cargo space available? Does anyone know the load factors for belly cargo?

Depends what you mean by "overrated."
FinnAir, for example, was making up to 15% of trip revenue off cargo a few years ago. Even if that figure has been cut in half, 8% typically exceeds an airline's profit margin.

So it's not a huge number relative to revenue but It's potentially huge relative to airline profits.

Even more so relative to OEM profits. Considering that only a few percentage points separate models like A330/350/380 and 787/777, winning by a whisker of cargo might make or break a program.

I'd say cargo is overrated in discussions of a good 2-decker versus 1-deckers, but not in discussions of a bad 2-decker like the A380.

Depends on the marginal cost of supporting that revenue. Flying freight does not come for free. So 15% of trip revenue is not straight to the bottom line.

Not the 'highly profitable' debate again.....

Matt6461 wrote:

I'd say cargo is overrated in discussions of a good 2-decker versus 1-deckers, but not in discussions of a bad 2-decker like the A380.

Sure. First of all, you need a good a/c. But you say is that relative less cargo space isn't a deal breaker. So perhaps Airbus can make a good 2-decker, A380-850 plus new engines, in order to lower the CSAM far enough.

Matt6461 wrote:

Depends what you mean by "overrated."
FinnAir, for example, was making up to 15% of trip revenue off cargo a few years ago. Even if that figure has been cut in half, 8% typically exceeds an airline's profit margin.

So it's not a huge number relative to revenue but It's potentially huge relative to airline profits.

Welcome back.

You are quoting years old information, during a period when Finland encouraged exporters and importers to use the national carrier, and with no countervailing information on passenger loads and yields.

In the real world today, which passenger airlines achieve even half those numbers? Or a quarter?

Unless Finnair is an A380 prospect, relevant numbers should be drawn from airline data and senior executives of those operating A380's (excluding comments about freight only operations).

Planesmart wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

Depends what you mean by "overrated."
FinnAir, for example, was making up to 15% of trip revenue off cargo a few years ago. Even if that figure has been cut in half, 8% typically exceeds an airline's profit margin.

So it's not a huge number relative to revenue but It's potentially huge relative to airline profits.

Welcome back.

You are quoting years old information, during a period when Finland encouraged exporters and importers to use the national carrier, and with no countervailing information on passenger loads and yields.

In the real world today, which passenger airlines achieve even half those numbers? Or a quarter?

Unless Finnair is an A380 prospect, relevant numbers should be drawn from airline data and senior executives of those operating A380's (excluding comments about freight only operations).

FinnAir is concededly a favorable example.
If we're going to continue this discussion, however, let's be clear on the grounds of argument.
My assertion is simply that cargo can significantly impact the profitability equation for an airliner.
What does "significant" mean? I mean that it is sufficient to influence an airline's purchase decision.

Consider a pax-only CASM comparison of two planes. Say they're separated by 8% CASM.
Then take those two planes, normalize their capacity for cargo-equivalent passengers, and rerun the CASM comparison.
IMJ if the cargo-adjusted CASM changes the picture by even 2%, that's significant. Again, that's on the order of 25% of typical airline profit margin.

You really have to posit extraordinarily low yields and/or extremely high non-fuel cargo costs to avoid seeing a 5% CASM adjustment to A380 versus A350/A330/777/787 when moving from pax-only to cargo-adjusted analysis.

I have, in the past, put forward some basic numbers to support that 5% assertion; 2% would be even easier.
I'm not going to make the mistake of the past again, however, and put in work running numbers absent clearly laid out agreement as to the terms of the discussion.

So, do folks disagree that an A380 could see 2% cargo-adjusted CASM hit on a 10hr mission compared to twin widebodies? (assuming typical load factors etc.).
What about 5%?
10%?

At what percentage level would you disagree that the impact is "significant"?