The CEO of Airbus China claims that there's a market for 60-100 A380s in China over the next five years. Well, that's ambitious.

Chinese airlines could need between 60 and 100 Airbus (AIR.PA) A380 jets over the next five or so years as passenger traffic grows, the plane maker’s China head said on Tuesday, amid rising questions over future demand for the super jumbo.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-chin ... SKCN1BU16X

Eyad89 wrote:

The CEO of Airbus China claims that there's a market for 60-100 A380s in China over the next five years. Well, that's ambitious.

Chinese airlines could need between 60 and 100 Airbus (AIR.PA) A380 jets over the next five or so years as passenger traffic grows, the plane maker’s China head said on Tuesday, amid rising questions over future demand for the super jumbo.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-chin ... SKCN1BU16X

Airbus has been hoping for Chinese airlines to take a significant number of A380s for a very long time now. The fact that they haven't has been a huge disappointment. Now would be a great time for that hope to become reality. The real question is why would they now decide to start taking them, especially as their engine tech is now a generation behind the state of the art. It'd be a godsend for the program to get a large enough order to launch a NEO.

“When I look at the market flow, the passenger flow, route by route and the economics, I‘m fully confident that the Chinese carriers will need a minimum of 60 A380s over the next 5 to 7 years,” Airbus China Head Eric Chen said at an event in Beijing.

Everyone can see a need. The real question is whether or not the A380 is the right product to fill that need.

In July, Airbus signed an agreement to sell 140 A320 and A350 planes to China in a deal worth almost $23 billion. China represents around 22 percent of Airbus global deliveries.

Would have been a good time to tuck in a few A380s to the order, but, no...

“A lack of confidence to operate the A380, that is something to work on continuously with the airlines in China,” he said.

Right, it's all about confidence...

The aircraft manufacturer believes the A380 will come into its own in markets that face booming tourism and congestion like China, but the aircraft has struggled to compete with smaller and more flexible twin-engined models.

Yep, it's all about confidence. Yes, indeed.

Mr Chen should consider fine tuning his message. No one is buying that confidence line. The first step in solving a problem is admitting you have a problem.

Seems like Airbus is forecasting sales of 60 A380's to Chinees carriers in the next 5-7 years.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-china- ... BU103?il=0

Ah well, Airbus is also allowed to dream, don't they.

Dutchy wrote:

Seems like Airbus is forecasting sales of 60 A380's to Chinees carriers in the next 5-7 years.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-china- ... BU103?il=0

Appears to be the same article as #951 so same comments apply.

Dutchy wrote:

Ah well, Airbus is also allowed to dream, don't they.

Seems Europeans can get away with saying such things here on a.net, the rest of us get shouted down...

Revelation wrote:

Seems Europeans can get away with saying such things here on a.net, the rest of us get shouted down...

The A380 had had more than its fair share of shouting down here on Anet for the last 15 years - some of that with good merit. A380, nor its (European) fans, certainly did not get away with anything, mind you

Revelation wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Seems Europeans can get away with saying such things here on a.net, the rest of us get shouted down...

Ludicrous comment of the day really... You were likely here throughout the flamefests of the A380, right?

KingOrGod wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Seems Europeans can get away with saying such things here on a.net, the rest of us get shouted down...

Ludicrous comment of the day really... You were likely here throughout the flamefests of the A380, right?

not my quote

If China Southern is to be allowed to operate routes in the new Beijing airport to compete against Air China then they could want a bit more A380, but it's not happening

Airbus should simply focus on other airframes. There is nothing left of interest in this frame. Simply a larger 744 meeting reality slightly sooner. Other than EK no other carrier I know has experienced 380 reincarnation. There is a great deal of talent at Airbus. Let them move on........

PW100 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Seems Europeans can get away with saying such things here on a.net, the rest of us get shouted down...

The A380 had had more than its fair share of shouting down here on Anet for the last 15 years - some of that with good merit. A380, nor its (European) fans, certainly did not get away with anything, mind you

In other words, no one holds the moral high ground, so fire away!

If China orders zero, will the forecasters commit to formally admitting that they are not competent?

What steps will they take to improve their forecasting, should they fail? These are the same questions I asked during the A380 development. Is there any benefit to being right instead of wrong? Who makes more money?

PW100 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Seems Europeans can get away with saying such things here on a.net, the rest of us get shouted down...

The A380 had had more than its fair share of shouting down here on Anet for the last 15 years - some of that with good merit. A380, nor its (European) fans, certainly did not get away with anything, mind you

Well, to be fair, so has the 777X. Only difference. 777X is just getting built, A380 has had 15 years to get where it is.

Flighty wrote:

If China orders zero, will the forecasters commit to formally admitting that they are not competent?

What steps will they take to improve their forecasting, should they fail? These are the same questions I asked during the A380 development. Is there any benefit to being right instead of wrong? Who makes more money?

Strange comment, some projects are a great success, others fail, so what? Decisions are made with the best available information at the time. So move on,

glideslope wrote:

...Other than EK no other carrier I know has experienced 380 reincarnation........

Keep an eye on HiFly

Flighty wrote:

If China orders zero, will the forecasters commit to formally admitting that they are not competent?

What steps will they take to improve their forecasting, should they fail? These are the same questions I asked during the A380 development. Is there any benefit to being right instead of wrong? Who makes more money?

And if some orders come from China will you eat crow?

BREECH wrote:

All true. Very true. But! Airbus is not Boeing. Whatever Boeing did brought to a screeching halt in market domination. Airbus, on the other hand, went from zero to hero (to 51% market share) following its own strategy. So far, what I've seen in Airbus' history for the past 20-25 years is careful decision making and well calculated revolutions in aviation. If they could do it, they would stretch it or make a new wing, etc. But they can't.

Also, how's this for a justification.That overengineered wing gives A380 its trademark climb. And that's not a bad thing for fuel economy, either. The sooner you get to your FL, the sooner you pull down the engines and start cruising. Knowing Airbus (as a regular ticket punter of course), I think they know what they're doing. They are WAITING. They have enough orders to last them for a few years. Then more orders from EK come. And then... like I said, we need to see what happens to the used ones.

Also true.

I'm sure a newly designed wing wouldn't have that much of an impact on it's climb though given the design advances and weight reductions to be had.
If the possible Chinese orders hold any water, i'm sure there is a good chance EK will match it. If Airbus can get orders for 150 frames, a $4-6 billion development (for new wings and other improvements) cost would add roughly $27-40 million to the cost per frame. Roughly the same increase as the A330-CEO to NEO. I'm sure BA would be another interested party and may a few replacements from others.

It would certainly be a good looking plane.

The cost to buy one as just so expensive.

For IAG. Maybe operate the upper deck with BA service for example. F/J/W/Y and then downstairs 10/11 abreast Y/Y+ with Level crew?

Slug71 wrote:

BREECH wrote:

All true. Very true. But! Airbus is not Boeing. Whatever Boeing did brought to a screeching halt in market domination. Airbus, on the other hand, went from zero to hero (to 51% market share) following its own strategy. So far, what I've seen in Airbus' history for the past 20-25 years is careful decision making and well calculated revolutions in aviation. If they could do it, they would stretch it or make a new wing, etc. But they can't.

Also, how's this for a justification.That overengineered wing gives A380 its trademark climb. And that's not a bad thing for fuel economy, either. The sooner you get to your FL, the sooner you pull down the engines and start cruising. Knowing Airbus (as a regular ticket punter of course), I think they know what they're doing. They are WAITING. They have enough orders to last them for a few years. Then more orders from EK come. And then... like I said, we need to see what happens to the used ones.

Also true.

I'm sure a newly designed wing wouldn't have that much of an impact on it's climb though given the design advances and weight reductions to be had.
If the possible Chinese orders hold any water, i'm sure there is a good chance EK will match it. If Airbus can get orders for 150 frames, a $4-6 billion development (for new wings and other improvements) cost would add roughly $27-40 million to the cost per frame. Roughly the same increase as the A330-CEO to NEO. I'm sure BA would be another interested party and may a few replacements from others.

The idea for the "Plus" is to do cheap changes to improve the appeal of the A380 in the next few years. Massively revised wings, weight reduction, and new engines would be put off till a major revision in the middle of the 2020's. The longer an A380neo can be put off, the more advanced the technology will be that can go into it.

I think A380Plus is Airbus's way of saying, we've had enough of A380 as an aircraft of prestige, now it's time for it to become just a workhorse. And, in my humble opinion, that's an important milestone. Right now a lot of airlines want it but think of it as a white elephant. Airbus needs to break that spell and show them that it can be JUST A AIRPLANE. Like any other. It's not made of crystal, it doesn't require more attention, you don't need to fuel it with myrrh. You can just use it the way you want. And if you want to sardinize it like 777, go ahead, it's your toy, play with it.

Slug71 wrote:

Also true.

I'm sure a newly designed wing wouldn't have that much of an impact on it's climb though given the design advances and weight reductions to be had.
If the possible Chinese orders hold any water, i'm sure there is a good chance EK will match it. If Airbus can get orders for 150 frames, a $4-6 billion development (for new wings and other improvements) cost would add roughly $27-40 million to the cost per frame. Roughly the same increase as the A330-CEO to NEO. I'm sure BA would be another interested party and may a few replacements from others.

You should consider that revenue is going to come after investment. Such calculation needs a discount rate. To make the project viable either Airbus has to charge significantly more per airframe or the order book has to increase by more than 150.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

The idea for the "Plus" is to do cheap changes to improve the appeal of the A380 in the next few years. Massively revised wings, weight reduction, and new engines would be put off till a major revision in the middle of the 2020's. The longer an A380neo can be put off, the more advanced the technology will be that can go into it.

While that would be ideal, the cheap route doesn't seem to have had any appeal. Of course, that could change come Dubai but i guess we'll just have to wait and see. At this point though, it seems airlines want more than what the Plus has to offer. A NEO with the Ultrafan/Advance can still be done around the end of the 2020s/early 2030s even with all the improvements done sooner.

incitatus wrote:

You should consider that revenue is going to come after investment. Such calculation needs a discount rate. To make the project viable either Airbus has to charge significantly more per airframe or the order book has to increase by more than 150.

Which should be plausible. If Airbus can get EK and chinese carriers to do at least 75 each, that already hits the 150 mark. Additional orders from BA, LH, and SQ should at least be likely too, among other replacement orders. 200 shouldn't be a too far fetched goal. A roughly 25% improvement in efficiency WITHOUT the reconfigured cabin must certainly get some appeal.

airzona11 wrote:

For IAG. Maybe operate the upper deck with BA service for example. F/J/W/Y and then downstairs 10/11 abreast Y/Y+ with Level crew?

As I started reading that sentence my mind raced ahead to the idea of BA service and branding on the upper deck, with Iberia service and branding on the lower deck. True double-decker that the A380 is AF/KLM could that as well.

Not that it would ever happen.

Jet-lagged wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

For IAG. Maybe operate the upper deck with BA service for example. F/J/W/Y and then downstairs 10/11 abreast Y/Y+ with Level crew?

As I started reading that sentence my mind raced ahead to the idea of BA service and branding on the upper deck, with Iberia service and branding on the lower deck. True double-decker that the A380 is AF/KLM could that as well.

Not that it would ever happen.

Yeah same thoughts. The airlines are stratifying their offering more and more, with premium seating shrinking.

For IAG, they could do this LHR-LAX for example. But the problem is they earn a premium offering multiple daily flights. That is a lot of seats on 1 flight. It works great if you only offer 1-flight.

Which comes full circle to a central single hub operation built on massive connections... aka EK @ DXB.

Frankly if the Chinese ordered a dozen A380's the champagne would flow.It would take enormous pressure off the programme.It would buy Emirates some much needed time.And may encourage one or two others to make small additional orders.

Jet-lagged wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

For IAG. Maybe operate the upper deck with BA service for example. F/J/W/Y and then downstairs 10/11 abreast Y/Y+ with Level crew?

As I started reading that sentence my mind raced ahead to the idea of BA service and branding on the upper deck, with Iberia service and branding on the lower deck. True double-decker that the A380 is AF/KLM could that as well.

Not that it would ever happen.

Iberia service and branding wouldn't work (neither would KLM/AF). Iberia is an already established full service airline based in MAD. You can't split a A380 in half and have the two decks come from two different airports. Having both BA and IB branding/ service on the same plane on the same route is just going to confuse people (I.e how is the BA Y service different from the IB Y service? If you make BA all the premium classes and IB the Y people are going to start to think IB is a lower service Y only airline). It makes more sense to do it with someone like Level who they are trying to establish as a LCC with clear distinct service standards from BA.

Thinking about the difference between the A330 and A340. Could there be a twin-engine A380?

The main differences between the A330-300 and the A340-300 is of course twin-engines vs. four-engines, and with or without the center main landing gear. Huge difference in MTOW, for aircraft with the same fuselage, wings and tail.

A twin-engine A380 could use a derivative of the GE9X with a thrust increase. Removing the center main landing gear, if possible, would save weight. Of course range would be significantly reduced, but such an aircraft could be highly efficient.

parapente wrote:

Frankly if the Chinese ordered a dozen A380's the champagne would flow.It would take enormous pressure off the programme.It would buy Emirates some much needed time.And may encourage one or two others to make small additional orders.

Sure, and with China Southern's five frames, it'd push the Chinese into #3 behind EK and SQ in terms of A380 operators.

So, why isn't it happening? Is it a lack of "confidence" as Airbus's executives are claiming? Or is it simple math, which tells the Chinese airlines and others that for the same cost of the A380 you can have your pick of the big twins and have some change in your pocket?

The only thing that is known is that it's been a long time since CSA ordered those A380s and they're having a hard time making them work due to issues in getting routes that work for the giant Whale.

Yup that's exactly the point-routes.If any country can (or will in future) it has to be China.If 'they' can't then who could?
I don't know if they are struggling with their existing a/c /routes.Hard to imagine that they are or the Airbus pronouncements are hollow .
But I don't know myself one way or the other.

BREECH wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

I don't recall there ever being a further shrink.

It exists in the overworked mind of a man called Ishtvan Udvar-Hazy. But then a lot of things do. It's a spacious mind.

What ever Udvar-Hazy has in his mind. An A380 shrink it is not.

Strato2 wrote:

hongkongflyer wrote:

If I am correct, no airline is currently using the 380 at their full capacity.
No one will be impressed by the new additional 50 seats lor.

Well the same can be said about just any plane with the rare few exceptions.

Funny, I have crossed the Pacific several times in the last 4 years, and there was not a single empty seat (at least in coach) on any of them. Does "using a plane to full capacity" mean stuffing passengers in the overhead bins and the baggage hold?

SEPilot wrote:

Strato2 wrote:

hongkongflyer wrote:

If I am correct, no airline is currently using the 380 at their full capacity.
No one will be impressed by the new additional 50 seats lor.

Well the same can be said about just any plane with the rare few exceptions.

Funny, I have crossed the Pacific several times in the last 4 years, and there was not a single empty seat (at least in coach) on any of them. Does "using a plane to full capacity" mean stuffing passengers in the overhead bins and the baggage hold?

I think he meant close to the plane's max capacity (800 whatever seats).

Revelation wrote:

parapente wrote:

So, why isn't it happening? Is it a lack of "confidence" as Airbus's executives are claiming? Or is it simple math, which tells the Chinese airlines and others that for the same cost of the A380 you can have your pick of the big twins and have some change in your pocket?

The only thing that is known is that it's been a long time since CSA ordered those A380s and they're having a hard time making them work due to issues in getting routes that work for the giant Whale.

The government regulated internal market has to do with it. Not all, but quite.

I haven't followed this thread, and I'm a human, so I can't read 1k comments, but will Airbus offer a conversion program or will it just be a new plane? A conversion would be useful for many A380 operators.

OA940 wrote:

I haven't followed this thread, and I'm a human, so I can't read 1k comments, but will Airbus offer a conversion program or will it just be a new plane? A conversion would be useful for many A380 operators.

New aircraft only, no retrofit program has been offered.

reidar76 wrote:

Thinking about the difference between the A330 and A340. Could there be a twin-engine A380?

The main differences between the A330-300 and the A340-300 is of course twin-engines vs. four-engines, and with or without the center main landing gear. Huge difference in MTOW, for aircraft with the same fuselage, wings and tail.

A twin-engine A380 could use a derivative of the GE9X with a thrust increase. Removing the center main landing gear, if possible, would save weight. Of course range would be significantly reduced, but such an aircraft could be highly efficient.

The A330/340 wing was designed from the outset for 2 and 4 engines. It was quite an engineering effort, given the different structural requirements. It isn't just a simple matter of cutting off the four engines and sticking on two bigger ones. The amount of work that would be needed to make it work, I'm not sure if it would be justifiable over going for a new design which fills that segment (which in some ways the hypothetical A350-1100/-2000 would have been). An interesting idea though.

V/F

reidar76 wrote:

Thinking about the difference between the A330 and A340. Could there be a twin-engine A380?

The main differences between the A330-300 and the A340-300 is of course twin-engines vs. four-engines, and with or without the center main landing gear. Huge difference in MTOW, for aircraft with the same fuselage, wings and tail.

A twin-engine A380 could use a derivative of the GE9X with a thrust increase. Removing the center main landing gear, if possible, would save weight. Of course range would be significantly reduced, but such an aircraft could be highly efficient.

You would need some huge engines! 150,000lbs each at least. A hybrid system would be cool with two regular and two electric engines. Would be a long time away before any of those options could happen though.

WIederling wrote:

What ever Udvar-Hazy has in his mind. An A380 shrink it is not.

GOOD LORD! 19 frames! Does anyone happen to know the MTOW for the -900 variant? Will it actually be physically larger than Antonov's 225? Right now I think it's smaller but heavier, isn't it? Which I don't understand since A380 is made of plastic and An-225 is a solid cast-iron molding. How is that possible? Or is it the other way round, A380 is bigger but lighter? That'd make more sense.

BREECH wrote:

WIederling wrote:

What ever Udvar-Hazy has in his mind. An A380 shrink it is not.

GOOD LORD! 19 frames!

Please take a deep breath and relax.

BREECH wrote:

Does anyone happen to know the MTOW for the -900 variant?

No, because it hasn't been developed, and doesn't look like it will be any time soon. There may be some internal numbers floating around airbus, but even then those would be design studies rather than firm configurations.

BREECH wrote:

Will it actually be physically larger than Antonov's 225? Right now I think it's smaller but heavier, isn't it? Which I don't understand since A380 is made of plastic and An-225 is a solid cast-iron molding. How is that possible? Or is it the other way round, A380 is bigger but lighter? That'd make more sense.

The An-225 has a length of 84.0m, a span of 88.4m, empty weight 285,000kg and MTOW 640,000kg (raised from an earlier 600,000kg). It is very definitely not made of cast iron (goodness knows where that idea came from?) but rather aluminium.

The A380 has a length of 72.7m, a span of 79.8m, empty weight 277,000kg and MTOW 575,000kg. It is very definitely not made of plastic (again goodness knows where that idea came from?) but rather primarily aluminium, with a reasonable number of composite components.

I would warmly encourage you to do a little research on these sorts of things before posting a bunch of guesses.

V/F

SEPilot wrote:

Strato2 wrote:

hongkongflyer wrote:

If I am correct, no airline is currently using the 380 at their full capacity.
No one will be impressed by the new additional 50 seats lor.

Well the same can be said about just any plane with the rare few exceptions.

Funny, I have crossed the Pacific several times in the last 4 years, and there was not a single empty seat (at least in coach) on any of them. Does "using a plane to full capacity" mean stuffing passengers in the overhead bins and the baggage hold?

several days over 4 years, is not a very good example.

Today you can fly BNE, SYD or MEL to LAX or SFO for around $800 & that's not going via Asia. From SYD to LAX could be direct. The airlines have had this sale going in low season for around 3-4 months now & theya re obviously filling seats very slowly. I think what is happening, is people are too scared to ask for time off outside their normal 4 weeks, due to the massive recession we had to have.

It seems like Chinese aviationa authority have just published a policy, saying, in order to improve on-time performance, for multi-runway airports (like PEK/PVG), max takeoff slot should be restricted to 75% of design goal, and single runway airports up to 80%.

It also mentioned that all airports with flight on-time performance less than 70% in nine months in a year will see capacity cut, with the definition of on time being within 8 minutes of planned departure time. Also, all the airports located on the Eastern half of China should not increase slot by more than 5% in a season, and all the airports that require slot control will extend the slot control to cover all times in a day.

Seems like those Chinese carriers would really need some A380 if all these policies being said are implemented? Was Airbus counting on this?

VirginFlyer wrote:

I would warmly encourage you to do a little research on these sorts of things before posting a bunch of guesses.

V/F

www.cheapsenseofhumor.com AMAZING deals this fall.

c933103 wrote:

max takeoff slot should be restricted to 75% of design goal, and single runway airports up to 80%.

I'm sorry to interrupt, but what does it mean? Do they mean, the airport should only assign 75-80% of the available slots?

BREECH wrote:

c933103 wrote:

max takeoff slot should be restricted to 75% of design goal, and single runway airports up to 80%.

I'm sorry to interrupt, but what does it mean? Do they mean, the airport should only assign 75-80% of the available slots?

No. It means they should limit the number of slots to 75% of the maximum capacity of the runway. i.e. leave some slack in order to be able to cope better with incidents and adverse weather.

I suspect that the majority of frequent flyers would welcome the introduction of just such a policy at many of the worlds busiest airports.

BREECH wrote:

I'm sorry to interrupt, but what does it mean? Do they mean, the airport should only assign 75-80% of the available slots?

speedbored wrote:

No. It means they should limit the number of slots to 75% of the maximum capacity of the runway. i.e. leave some slack in order to be able to cope better with incidents and adverse weather.

I think it's the same.

BREECH wrote:

VirginFlyer wrote:

I would warmly encourage you to do a little research on these sorts of things before posting a bunch of guesses.

V/F

http://www.cheapsenseofhumor.com AMAZING deals this fall.

It's spring here, and in six months time it will be autumn, not fall To be honest I prefer a higher quality sense of humour rather than a cheap one thank you very much; that may explain why I hadn't realised you were trying to have a laugh as opposed to being serious with your questions about A380 and An-225 sizes and weights which I took the time to look up for you.

V/F

VirginFlyer wrote:

in six months time it will be autumn, not fall To be honest I prefer a higher quality sense of humour rather than a cheap one thank you very much; that may explain why I hadn't realised you were trying to have a laugh as opposed to being serious with your questions about A380 and An-225 sizes and weights which I took the time to look up for you.

Being told off on manners by an Aussie. OUCH! I was serious. But I thought saying An-225 was poured into a mold with cast iron was OBVIOUSLY a joke. I was wrong.

parapente wrote:

Frankly if the Chinese ordered a dozen A380's the champagne would flow.It would take enormous pressure off the programme.It would buy Emirates some much needed time.And may encourage one or two others to make small additional orders.

Sorry, a bit off-topic. Why do Emirates need time?

Eyad89 wrote:

The CEO of Airbus China claims that there's a market for 60-100 A380s in China over the next five years. Well, that's ambitious.

It's not actually. When you need to transport the full population of the United States from A to B through congested airports twice a year, you DO need bigger planes. The problem is that Chinese airlines copy European and American models like they copy Gucci sunglasses. With the same final result - a disfugured conterfeit. China is screaming for A380 but because they are not copying the Emirates model, they don't even look into it. That and the Chinese's chronic inability to run an effective business.

At some point if Airbus does decide to redesign the wing and make some other improvements, might not be a bad idea to look into a lightweight SR version with smaller fuel tanks.

That Udvar-Hazy edition looks well proportioned aesthetically. Huge though!

BREECH wrote:

VirginFlyer wrote:

in six months time it will be autumn, not fall To be honest I prefer a higher quality sense of humour rather than a cheap one thank you very much; that may explain why I hadn't realised you were trying to have a laugh as opposed to being serious with your questions about A380 and An-225 sizes and weights which I took the time to look up for you.

Being told off on manners by an Aussie. OUCH! I was serious. But I thought saying An-225 was poured into a mold with cast iron was OBVIOUSLY a joke. I was wrong.

Actually I hail from a group of islands to the east and and a bit south (the ones which have had a bit of a fuel kerfuffle recently), but in fairness I did spend a number of years in the West Island. Please don't consider it a telling off, more a joking response to your joke.

Seriously though, it's clear from your posts here over the last few weeks that you're enthusiastic and have a lot you want to contribute (well either that or you're a troll, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt). My advice would be that you maintain that enthusiasm, and use it to do a little background reading on topics before posting in them. For example in this case you could have talked about the size and weight comparisons of the A380-800 and An-225 (information which is very easily available online), then asked if there were any figures available for a proposed A380-900 and how would these compare to the An-225, and I'm certain you would have got some decent responses. Avoid making statements of fact if you're not confident you can back them up, and be willing to admit when your understanding was incorrect (for instance when you suggested all but a few of the 21 longest routes in operation have been going for more than 10 years, when in fact only 2 have, and, of the remaining 19, more have started in the past 5 years than before that). In this way you will learn a lot here, and as time passes be able to contribute an increasing amount too. Unfortunately there have been plenty of users who have come here over the years certainly very enthusiastic, but have rabbitted on about this and that without taking the time to read a bit or to listen to others' viewpoints, then eventually leave all upset when no one seems to want to interact with them any more. Someone once described it as being like a seagull, swooping in, crapping on everything, then flying off again. Please don't be another one of these people. Please don't be a seagull.

Anyway this is all well off the beaten path of A380 plus, so let's not divert this thread any further. Feel free to PM me if you want to take this up further.

V/F