• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 19
 
claymii
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2016 8:12 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sat Mar 11, 2017 7:26 am

Hey! Does anyone know how much fuel per passenger and 100km a fully seated A380 with 853 seats needs? Recently I read that a 500-seat A380 needs under 3l/100km and passenger. So I wonder why everyone says the A380 needs to be more efficient when they only put 400~600 seats in it...
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sat Mar 11, 2017 8:06 am

SCAT15 wrote:
The fact remains that even a 2005 vintage A380-800 is still more efficient per seat then the 2019 777-9 when you account for usable cabin floor area which is the only fair metric when comparing these two aircraft


Let's say a 2005 A380 is 1%less efficient than would be a 2020 A380. Conservative, right?

I wonder if notorious A380-bashing Amedeo has an opinion on the comparison:
Image

So Amedeo sees a 0.4% edge for today's A380 based on cabin area. ...which would make 2005's A380 worse before we even get to cargo.

Please - explain why Amedeo is a stooge for Boeing propaganda.

My prediction of your response: *crickets*

But I'm all ears
Last edited by Matt6461 on Sat Mar 11, 2017 8:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 677
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sat Mar 11, 2017 8:07 am

Bald1983 wrote:
In the past, the flying would be from Mega Hub to Mega Hub then connect on both sides. The A-380 was built on that premise. That is no longer the case, thanks to the 787 and the A-350.


Look at Emirates route map and see how many of those are hub to point. On A380...

SFO is not the biggest hub for UAL but, again, thanks to the 787, is getting bigger. Are you expecting Boise to Bristol? The A-380 lost.


Emirates A380 Manchester to Dubai to somewhere, on the other hand, is an attractive option. The A380 hasn't "lost" because it was neither a one-or-the-other "competition", nor is it a one-or-the-other market now.
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sat Mar 11, 2017 8:30 am

N14AZ wrote:
history keeps repeating itself


I'm typing this response pretty drunk en route home on my phone (not driving, rest assured). So I'll be brisk though I may expand if you provoke me enough.

1. Don't treat business case predictions as scripture. They're easily manipulable documents. 300 sales isn't the same as 300 sales if prices differ. Price is influenced by demand (radical idea on a.net) and demand fell short. Ergo we'd expect price to fall short of predictions as well. To believe otherwise is to assume zero price elasticity for quantity of A380's demanded, which isn't even true of heroin.

2. 747's piano bars were adaptations for unplanned, accidental space (original 747 design lacked partial UD). A380, original, designed with 2 decks from start.

3. Don't mistake passion for anger. I'm pretty F $#ing obsessed with efficiency and the ability of science to advance human welfare. A380 is a colossal waste of an opportunity to make travel cheaper, better. Has huge impact on lives of millions of immigrant diaspora who can't afford travel at current prices, about whom Airbus and airlines dont care - rationnaly. The irrational, partisan allegiance to a bad product here from average A.netters is more galling. They'd rather root for their team than face the human and technical facts.
 
parapente
Posts: 1776
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sat Mar 11, 2017 8:50 am

Thanks for your posts Matt.Yes it's worth R.E.M. Bering the present existing economics of the A380 Vs the (yet to be built) 777-9.But it is getting 'awfully close'!
As such these internal mods' are more than window dressing.25+additional seats for main stair and galley mods is well worth having.
I re listened to an interview the Emirates CEO gave.He noted that future aircraft would be fitted with the new lighter 'slimmer backed' economy seats.He states that this will give him an additional two rows without changing pitch.Thats a further 20 seats right there (45+ in total).

I also noted he once again rejected the 11 across option.I think he is concerned about the 'A380 effect'.Offing Y 18.5" seats is clearly a key element.Having flown with them twice I concur.It beats all other Y hands down.

Re the blended winglets and 'just' 2%.
Got me thinking.So I looked up the 747 Aviation Partners giant winglets aircraft that they tested about 8 years ago.
A couple of things struck me.One was the 7% fuel saving they found.But the other was the enormous size of the BW's.
I am guessing that the 380 wing could neither take the weight not stay in the 80mtr box with such large appendages.

When Airbus started their A320 winglets trials they initially used a smaller winglets but it was not as efficient as the larger one they ended up with.However it looked an awful lot like the wingtips of the A350/A330neo.
Whilst simply a guess I think this may be the direction thay have taken.Less internal strengthening of the wing would be required indeed it may (may) be retrofittable.Hence 'only' getting 2%.
But we all get excited when an engine manufacturer PIP's an engine and gets ha
F to one percent.So 2 percent is not to be sniffed at.

Others mods.
They have spoken about moving the pilot rest room to release more floor area.
Removing side cupboards on the upper deck.This only works for herringbone sleeper seats but does allow for 'X' extra (can't remember how many).

Finally.
Emirates are going to introduce a 'Premium' class.If we take these extra circa 50 'free' seats and consider them as 30 Premium seats.Whilst keeping the Y count the same.I bet that would add up to a whole bunch of extra profit considering that Premium sell roughly X2£ to economy.
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sat Mar 11, 2017 9:18 am

parapente wrote:
Gosh we have been through this so many times!
From my POV its best to start from a marketing/sales perspective and work backwards (technically) from there.


This.

And that's part of the reason why it is difficult to discuss the topic constructively here at a.net, because we are in most cases more knowledgeable about technology than actual market situations. What does EK internally believe their market development will be? If they predict more passengers in roughly the current arrangement, then they will buy a better-CASM slightly-more-passengers machine for sure. In some numbers at least.

Unless of course EK wants something more radical. Which they have kind of implied in the past. But was that radically enhanced version for the CASM or for lengthening or new engines or for what? It is difficult to tell from the outside.

Others? Much less unclear what they want.

But if I was Airbus, I'd go around the customer base and ask what it would take for them to order, and then work from there. But I'm sure they are.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5058
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sat Mar 11, 2017 9:20 am

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.

This I think is the case. The A380 is simply too big and too much risk for most airlines, and there are smaller planes with equal range and almost equal CASM for a lot less money and much lower trip costs that, while they cannot match the yield if the A380 is full, have a lot less risk if you cannot fill an A380. I think most airlines have concluded that the A380 does not fit their needs, and minor tweaks are not going to change that calculation. It would take a major improvement in efficiency to do that, and that would be too expensive for Airbus, given that there is no guarantee of return. They could only do it if they got some major commitments from several airlines, and I do not see that happening.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
neutrino
Posts: 1206
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 5:33 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sat Mar 11, 2017 9:40 am

Jet-lagged wrote:
ro1960 wrote:
77west wrote:
Hang on - remove the staircase? I know there is another one at the back, but I thought the staircase also acted as an emergency evac route which legally allows passengers in the front bit of the upper deck with no door in front of them. Perhaps they will install a ladder...


Read again: it's "modify" not "remove". The article says Airbus is looking at a "slimmed down staircase".


Oh, darn. I was going to suggest a fireman's pole.

And I was intending to say; provide a few knotted ropes accessed through trapdoors at both ends of the aisle. 100% real estate savings.
Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sat Mar 11, 2017 10:44 am

rotating14 wrote:
His point was that Boeing bet on more point to point travel with the 787. Airbus thought that the major hubs would be too congested with limited gate space, and with that, the A380 would alleviate this dilemma. But Boeing’s bet, albeit expensive, lengthy and problematic at times, seems to have paid off. One isn't better than the other, one just beat the other to the punch.


I would say both Boeing and Airbus was right and wrong at the same time. Neither the A380 nor the 787 has so far been a financial success. The high development cost of the A380 should be seen in light of reused technology, developing the A350, thus one can argue that the A350 would be in trouble if it hadn't been that the A380 came before it.

Air traffic has indeed increased and hubs are increasingly congested with limited space. And yes, airlines and airports are addressing this problem with larger aircraft. Instead of upsizing the widebodies flying into the hubs, narrowbody planes have been upsized (737-7 ▶ 737-8 and A319 ▶ A320 ▶ A321). All hubs are essentially doing this, except DXB.

The 787 have indeed, to some extent, opened more point-to-point travel, but it turned out to large and to capable to really revolutionary medium to long haul travel. It was designed to be a 767 replacement and a A330 killer, but became to large, to capable, and to costly to archive those goals. In the last 10 years more A330s has been sold then 787s. That is why we hear so much about a possible clean sheet NMA/MOM.

If the A380 goes below 12 per year, production will be ended and it will never be restarted again. If Airbus can make cabin modifications and this results in more aircraft sold, I think it is worth it, even if it is at a slight loss per aircraft sold. We never know what the future might hold. Just maybe, the A380 time yet to come.
 
User avatar
neutrino
Posts: 1206
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 5:33 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sat Mar 11, 2017 10:50 am

SCAT15F wrote:
For that matter, the 779 wing which Boeing touts as its "biggest ever" -composite or otherwise- is a flat out lie. The 748 wing is a full 1000 sq ft/ 20% larger in area. The span has nothing to do with the size.

That's no flat out lie. I'll grant you that its at most, I repeat; at most using the truth to tell a lie. It all lies (pun) on the broad definition of big, bigger, biggest and similar words.

To give a personal example, both my sons are bigger than me; one vertically and the other horizontally, as I am always saying. The taller one is lighter and the wider is shorter but both can definitely be described as bigger than me without going into specifics. A cursory look at the three of us together proves it though I'm still heavier than one and taller than the other.
Back to aircraft related, the A380, An-225 and the Spruce Goose have all been called biggest at the same time; without any specific qualifications. As mentioned, its all a matter of definitions.

The future casual observer, without going into the weights will say that the 779 is overall higher, longer and wider (wingspan) than the 748. By that matrix, he's correct. That's not a lie, much less your erroneous description of a "flat out lie".


p.s.Your wording of "The span has nothing to do with the size." could be construed as a flat out lie. You will be better off saying "The span has nothing to do with the wing area." That would be no lie, though I am not saying its totally correct. Personally, I would have reworked that sentence completely but I better end here lest I'll be accused of being too pedantic.

Cheers, or to paraphrase another A-netter; With Respect.
Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
 
WIederling
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:54 am

SEPilot 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.

This I think is the case. The A380 is simply too big and too much risk for most airlines, and there are smaller planes with equal range and almost equal CASM for a lot less money and much lower trip costs that, while they cannot match the yield if the A380 is full, have a lot less risk if you cannot fill an A380. I think most airlines have concluded that the A380 does not fit their needs, and minor tweaks are not going to change that calculation. It would take a major improvement in efficiency to do that, and that would be too expensive for Airbus, given that there is no guarantee of return. They could only do it if they got some major commitments from several airlines, and I do not see that happening.


Everybody "densifies" seating in their 777s.

Nobody does this to the A380 while load factors there seem quite acceptable.

The issue thus is not price nor CASM but available routes.
( except you have a "Super Hub" like Emirates were any destination scoops up traffic
for all other destinations in the network. Many other airlines linger in the bottle they created
from competing in a field of locked up and suboptimal business model "Frequency Uber Alles".
dinosaurs all over again.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 15657
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sat Mar 11, 2017 12:51 pm

caoimhin wrote:
Is it really that you can't be bothered to say something even neutral about your "opponent"? I even see the hardiest of Boeing fans say that the the 748i needs to go. Or that the 737MAX was a bridge too far. Or that the 77X is too niche. Surely if they can criticise "their" product line and occasionally give credit where credit is due their adversary, so can you.

People (including the poster being described) aren't as A-vs-B as they are made out to be. To me that's just a simplistic, lazy characterization. I think you are trying to make that very point, no? Besides, we're supposed to be discussing/debating ideas, not making personal characterizations.

Matt6461 wrote:
That Airbus is only now considering this obvious solution illustrates the madness and strategic wrongheadedness with which the program was conceived and executed: under no serious analysis is a flashy staircase or two worth 50 seats.

To make that design tradeoff requires a focus on something other than efficiency (grandiosity and European pride, for instance), or requires a misplaced confidence that the design will be so good, and is so well -placed in the market, that its manufacturer can be lazy around the edges of value proposition and go for, idk, prestige.

On the other hand maybe the big stairs were considered a necessity prior to the proliferation of UD jetways. Even then, 50 seats is such a big fracking deal that contingency/options should have been in place for this from the start.

I think it was a marketing flourish, trying to make people think of the cruise ship experience, and of course make more sales which clearly was needed both back then and now. I also do think it was a way to make the upper deck seem more accessible and less scarry in the days when as you say there weren't a lot of UD bridges around.

N14AZ wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
To make that design tradeoff requires a focus on something other than efficiency (grandiosity and European pride, for instance), or requires a misplaced confidence that the design will be so good, and is so well -placed in the market, that its manufacturer can be lazy around the edges of value proposition and go for, idk, prestige.

I don't know much but there is one thing I know for sure, something like "European pride " doesn't exist. So this was definitely no reason.

You protest too much. There's plenty of evidence that "European pride" does exist and is particularly strong with regard to the A380 project.

Here's a few quotes from the A380 launch event:

"Europe has written one of the most beautiful pages in its history today," said Airbus CEO Noel Forgeard. "Today we're No. 1 in the high technology sector."

Joining Forgeard in the festivities were airline managers from three continents, 500 journalists, along with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero and French President Jacques Chirac. The leaders represented the four countries that are producing the most important components for the A380 and, together, have extended credit lines totalling over €3.2 billion in order to start the project.

"The christening of the A380 is for all of us a moment of emotion and pride," French President Jacques Chirac said, describing the super jumbo as a "great success for Europe." He added that he hoped people would take that success and use it to help transform Europe into the world's "headquarters for technology."

Gently playing off the American competition, Germany's Schroeder said the A380 example showed the advantages of "good old Europe." Traditions like cooperation, he said, fairness towards all employees of a company and social sensitivity had helped lead the company to success and major technological achievement. "Europe is still in a great position to set the tone of the future," he said.

Ref: http://www.spiegel.de/international/the ... 37358.html

The press echoed the theme:

The sound of backs being patted rippled through the European papers. The event was "a celebration of the exemplary nature of cooperation between France, Germany, Britain and Spain", said the French daily Le Figaro. "The largest airplane in the world, the pride of Europe, a snub to the Americans!" trumpeted Grégoire Biseau in Libération . No longer was "European cooperation" a "hollow phrase", cheered the Spanish El País. Here was proof that "success is possible given the will and unity of purpose". The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, meanwhile, witnessed Europe "writing a new chapter in the history of aviation" that was "likely to open a new era in mass tourism".

In Britain, the Daily Telegraph joined the chorus, commending "another landmark in the rise of a remarkable European joint venture". The Sun, however, was quick to point out that "nearly half of... this wonderful aircraft is made or designed in Britain". First and foremost, it insisted, the A380 was "a triumph for British talent".

Ref: https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ressreview

Matt6461 wrote:
I'm interested whether this is decently sourced. Smart folks here have said blended winglets would require aileron rework; non-blended winglets aren't very useful. Maybe that's why we see only 2% fuel benefit - given A380"s disproportionately high share of induced drag you'd expect it see better gain from winglets than other planes.

I think the ~2% figure is appropriate when the airplane already has some wingtip treatments. The 4-5% figure we see is for airplanes that had no previous treatments such as 737/757/767/A320.

racercoup wrote:
So EK is nobody? If you sold A380s and EK said they wanted 50 more, would you call them a nobody? Do you even grasp how much revenue that is and will be for Airbus? Who cares if EK is the primary purchaser - as long as they're purchasing and paying, I can assure you Airbus won't.

Seems these days EK is more concerned about not getting merged with QR than it is with adding 50 A380s worth of capacity.

EK has already said they plan to keep buying A380s even if they don't get improvements, so I wouldn't use them as a motivation to improve the A380.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
Waterbomber
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:51 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sat Mar 11, 2017 4:56 pm

IMO, the only concept that is worth exploring is the following:
-Full engine interchangeability with the A35J
-Full-size stretch to 80 meters and beyond, 1000+ max seating, MTOW and MZFW bump, higher payload and OEW, same fuel burn, same range, more cargo capacity.
-Cockpit commonality with the the A350 family

There's a lot of talk about the aircraft concept here, but a big part of aircraft costs are in the engines.
For instance, I could see JAL ordering a couple of A380's for their high density, restricted routes like LHR, if the A380 can be seen as a bigger version of the A350 that they will also operate.
This will also enable the A380's to maintain residual values, if only by the value of their engines, significantly reducing the risk for financing.


Engine commonality can play a big role in convincing many A35J customers, among them many A380 CEO operators, to order the stretch.
It could also convince EK to order the A35J.

Airbus can succeed where Boeing failed with the B748i/B787 combo.
There's still a world of difference between having the 'same' engine and a 'similar' one.
Last edited by Waterbomber on Sat Mar 11, 2017 5:11 pm, edited 4 times in total.
 
User avatar
NWAROOSTER
Posts: 1065
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:29 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sat Mar 11, 2017 4:59 pm

ro1960 wrote:
77west wrote:
Hang on - remove the staircase? I know there is another one at the back, but I thought the staircase also acted as an emergency evac route which legally allows passengers in the front bit of the upper deck with no door in front of them. Perhaps they will install a ladder...


Read again: it's "modify" not "remove". The article says Airbus is looking at a "slimmed down staircase".

Maybe Airbus could use a spiral staircase like was used in the 747-100 and most 200s. Sarcasm intended. All Airbus is doing is chasing their tail. The A380 has a life expectancy similar to the 747-8i.
Procrastination Is The Theft Of Time.......
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2277
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sat Mar 11, 2017 7:29 pm

Waterbomber wrote:
This will also enable the A380's to maintain residual values, if only by the value of their engines, significantly reducing the risk for financing.

Engine commonality can play a big role in convincing many A35J customers, among them many A380 CEO operators, to order the stretch.
It could also convince EK to order the A35J.
There's still a world of difference between having the 'same' engine and a 'similar' one.

A decade ago, you would have been right on the money.

Increasingly WB engines are leased with PBTH, so neither owned by, or maintained by the airline operator. An issue for engine OEM's and their financiers, but not sure they care that much, as both the lease, and especially PBTH are not straight lines as engines age.

It's the ownership of engines, and especially PBTH, plus the relationship between air frame and engine manufacturers, that has had a great impact on aircraft re-engining in the last four decades. In a green world, we would see more, not less re-engining, extending the lives of air frames, which are as strong, if not stronger than ever.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6543
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sat Mar 11, 2017 7:50 pm

Revelation wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
I'm interested whether this is decently sourced. Smart folks here have said blended winglets would require aileron rework; non-blended winglets aren't very useful. Maybe that's why we see only 2% fuel benefit - given A380"s disproportionately high share of induced drag you'd expect it see better gain from winglets than other planes.

I think the ~2% figure is appropriate when the airplane already has some wingtip treatments. The 4-5% figure we see is for airplanes that had no previous treatments such as 737/757/767/A320.


As a point of order, the A380 has pretty much exactly the same wing tip fences on it that the A320CEO had, only scaled up. The sharklets have provided 4% improvement on longer sectors.

The issue as I see it is that adding sharklets to the A320 increased span by c. 5ft. The A380 wing has nowhere to go inside the 80m box

Rgds
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sat Mar 11, 2017 8:02 pm

Revelation wrote:
N14AZ wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
To make that design tradeoff requires a focus on something other than efficiency (grandiosity and European pride, for instance), or requires a misplaced confidence that the design will be so good, and is so well -placed in the market, that its manufacturer can be lazy around the edges of value proposition and go for, idk, prestige.[end of Matt's quote]

I don't know much but there is one thing I know for sure, something like "European pride " doesn't exist. So this was definitely no reason.

You protest too much. There's plenty of evidence that "European pride" does exist and is particularly strong with regard to the A380 project.

I think we have to differentiate between two things here. I was referring to the role of "European pride" during the design phase of the A380 whereas you quoted some political statements and press releases. These are two pair of shoes.

Matt's claim (by the way, I hope he came back safe and has no headache today...) was that the engineers who designed the A380s layout made a design tradeoff in favor of "grandiosity and European pride". I worked in multi-national teams of engineers, economists and other experts and I never ever felt anything like "European pride".

Okay, maybe it was different at Airbus at that time. Maybe they all sat in one big room. The German engineer had a super-efficient design with a small ladder instead of this grand stairway, but, you know, these Germans prefer to leave the office at 5pm sharp, when the British and Spanish engineers just came back from their lunch break. They looked onto the German's design drawings in horror and said something "good lord, these narrow-minded German engineers, let's do something grand, to celebrate the heritage of British steamboats and Spanish sailing ships, let's do a proper grand stairway!" ...

Anyhow, enough for today. I think I will now do what Matt did yesterday before he went offline... Cheers!
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sat Mar 11, 2017 9:43 pm

astuteman wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
I'm interested whether this is decently sourced. Smart folks here have said blended winglets would require aileron rework; non-blended winglets aren't very useful. Maybe that's why we see only 2% fuel benefit - given A380"s disproportionately high share of induced drag you'd expect it see better gain from winglets than other planes.

I think the ~2% figure is appropriate when the airplane already has some wingtip treatments. The 4-5% figure we see is for airplanes that had no previous treatments such as 737/757/767/A320.


As a point of order, the A380 has pretty much exactly the same wing tip fences on it that the A320CEO had, only scaled up. The sharklets have provided 4% improvement on longer sectors.

The issue as I see it is that adding sharklets to the A320 increased span by c. 5ft. The A380 wing has nowhere to go inside the 80m box

Rgds



Exactly. Unless they are willing to break the 80m box, all they can do is tweak the wingtip fence, hence only a 2% gain.
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 2857
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sat Mar 11, 2017 10:13 pm

tjh8402 wrote:
The A380 is not designed for hub to spoke, its designed for hub to hub. SYD-DFW. CDG-ATL. FRA-IAH. As Polot explained, the A380 is based on the idea that travel from A, B, C, and D to G, H, I, and J would be ABCD-E-F-GHIJ with E and F being megahubs through which was funneled all the traffic from the surrounding non hub cities (ABCD to E and GHIJ to F), meaning that all passengers traveling between those two geographic areas would be traveling between E and F, no matter what their origin and destination. Instead, with the 787, the traffic is now splintered at Hub E, with non stop direct service to GHIJ, bypassing hub F entirely, lowering the amount of traffic between E and F and making the A380 less necessary.

For a real world example, look at UA at SFO and China. In the past, people in the US going to Hangzhou, Beijing, Shanghai, Chengdu and Xi'an might've flown US-SFO-NRT-China (connecting with UA partner ANA's megahub in Tokyo to continue to China or making use of US 5th freedom flights from there), driving up traffic SFO-NRT and making a VLA an asset. Now, they bypass Tokyo entirely, with UA offering non stop flights to those Chinese destinations (typically on 787s) directly from SFO. Naturally, this lowers the traffic on SFO-NRT (because of less connecting traffic), lessening the need for a plane the size of an A380.


I think you will find that the vast majority (even when discounting EK) of A380 routes are hub-to-point.

I don't think I suggested that the ABCD-E-F-QWERTYZ is not valid. Just pointing out that all those 787/350 routes have a hub on one end or the other. Therefore, by definition, can not be labeled p2p.
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 1159
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sat Mar 11, 2017 10:31 pm

SCAT15F wrote:
astuteman wrote:
Revelation wrote:
I think the ~2% figure is appropriate when the airplane already has some wingtip treatments. The 4-5% figure we see is for airplanes that had no previous treatments such as 737/757/767/A320.


As a point of order, the A380 has pretty much exactly the same wing tip fences on it that the A320CEO had, only scaled up. The sharklets have provided 4% improvement on longer sectors.

The issue as I see it is that adding sharklets to the A320 increased span by c. 5ft. The A380 wing has nowhere to go inside the 80m box

Rgds



Exactly. Unless they are willing to break the 80m box, all they can do is tweak the wingtip fence, hence only a 2% gain.


What about a foldable wingtip that would allow taxiing down existing taxiways and parking at existing gates but would be a bit wider than 80 m going down the runway?
 
bunumuring
Posts: 2028
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:56 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sat Mar 11, 2017 10:55 pm

Hey guys,
An A380plus may be attractive to Qantas to 'use up' those eight indefinitely deferred A380-800 orders, replacing the earliest -800s (including dear old, patched up, 'Nancy-Bird' of QF32 infamy) and/or allowing for some growth. Just like Singapore Airlines and its five extra A380s being delivered in the near future. QF has suggested recently that a mid-life refresh of the A380s' interiors is on the cards so they will have a shortfall in availability as they are cycled through this refurbishment. An A380plus conversion of these eight orders, plus an additional four-six orders for later delivery could allow the turn over of the entire QF A380 fleet in the longer term... And QF is one airline that needs the capacity and capability of this plane, flying it hub to hub exclusively and (to the best of my knowledge) filling it profitably.
Qantas has many decisions to make: super ULH or not using the 777-8 or A350? MAX versus Neo as a 737-800 replacement? What to do with the eight deferred A380-800 orders, if anything at all? How many additional 787 orders and which model (I believe that they will stick with the -9)?
All of these decisions are obviously influenced by the others in some way, I believe. A giant jigsaw puzzle that once sorted and with all the pieces (decisions) put together, will provide a map forward to a profitable and expansionary future for QF.
Interesting times.
Cheers,
Bunumuring.
I just wanna live while I'm alive!
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:50 pm

N14AZ wrote:
Matt's claim (by the way, I hope he came back safe and has no headache today...) was that the engineers who designed the A380s layout made a design tradeoff in favor of "grandiosity and European pride


I'm all good, thanks. Nothing a lot of coffee didn't fix. ;)

That's not exactly my claim - that designers at individual points were saying, "hey let's increase the grandiosity of this or that particular element." Maybe that happened but...

I mean that the raison d'etre project as a whole contained gradiosity: a belief that size was a virtue in itself. Given that basic strategic error, efficiency was in the back seat rather than the driver of size.

My point, then, is you can only make the bad stairs tradeoff given a theory of the case such as described above. That tradeoff doesn't occur in a more efficiency- focused project like A350 or 787.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sun Mar 12, 2017 12:02 am

astuteman wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
I'm interested whether this is decently sourced. Smart folks here have said blended winglets would require aileron rework; non-blended winglets aren't very useful. Maybe that's why we see only 2% fuel benefit - given A380"s disproportionately high share of induced drag you'd expect it see better gain from winglets than other planes.

I think the ~2% figure is appropriate when the airplane already has some wingtip treatments. The 4-5% figure we see is for airplanes that had no previous treatments such as 737/757/767/A320.


As a point of order, the A380 has pretty much exactly the same wing tip fences on it that the A320CEO had, only scaled up. The sharklets have provided 4% improvement on longer sectors.

The issue as I see it is that adding sharklets to the A320 increased span by c. 5ft. The A380 wing has nowhere to go inside the 80m box

Rgds


Right, thanks. I was thinking of the A320CEO's differential die to sharklets but couldn't recall it.

If A320 sees 4%, we would see 5-6% from similar application on A380, as sharklets help induced drag for small parasitic drag penalty, and as A380's drag composition is more induced than for any modern airliner.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 15657
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sun Mar 12, 2017 1:37 am

PW100 wrote:
What is happening with the 787 (and 350, 330, 330neo) is that quite a lot of routes get direct access to a hub on the other side of the pond, thereby reducing relative importance of the major hub-hub trunk routes. What is also happening is that these light twins create a lot more hubs, on either end. 25 Years ago we only had a handful of hubs in Europe with more than a couple of trans-Atlantic flights. Today we are in double digit numbers.

Yes, all those planes are part of the point to point phenomena, as is the A380 in many instances too, and even 737 (see below).

The main theme to me is that the market developed more in the model that Boeing predicted and so we see that demand for the A380 has not followed the projections Airbus made for it. They are very fortunate that EK is using them on the scale it is, but the problem for the A380 program is that there isn't a 2nd or 3rd EK out there wanting to buy A380s whereas there are dozens if not hundreds of airlines using twins in the way Boeing predicted and the way that the Airbus big twins also flourish in.

The model you describe (double digit number of hubs) is what we are used to on the North American continent and have been for a long time. If anything there will be more and more hubs springing up over time. The real problem for the A380 is that these new hubs aren't new DXBs.

PW100 wrote:
Note that trans-Atlantic p2p might be just around the corner with A321neoLR, and perhaps MOM mid next decade. These planes should trigger a new, heavy round of trans-Atlantic fragmentation.

TATL P2P is coming this spring. A321neoLR has been beaten to the punch by the much maligned 737 MAX! :-) Cork in Eire to Providence in Rhode Island and most of the rest of the Norwegian routes qualify as P2P and also spoke to spoke too.

astuteman wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
I'm interested whether this is decently sourced. Smart folks here have said blended winglets would require aileron rework; non-blended winglets aren't very useful. Maybe that's why we see only 2% fuel benefit - given A380"s disproportionately high share of induced drag you'd expect it see better gain from winglets than other planes.

I think the ~2% figure is appropriate when the airplane already has some wingtip treatments. The 4-5% figure we see is for airplanes that had no previous treatments such as 737/757/767/A320.


As a point of order, the A380 has pretty much exactly the same wing tip fences on it that the A320CEO had, only scaled up. The sharklets have provided 4% improvement on longer sectors.

The issue as I see it is that adding sharklets to the A320 increased span by c. 5ft. The A380 wing has nowhere to go inside the 80m box

Rgds

Thanks for the correction. It seems the A320ceo wingtip fences were pretty forgettable to me at least. It's impressive to replace them and still end up with 4% on the longer routes that many narrowbodies find themselves on.

Matt6461 wrote:
N14AZ wrote:
Matt's claim (by the way, I hope he came back safe and has no headache today...) was that the engineers who designed the A380s layout made a design tradeoff in favor of "grandiosity and European pride

I'm all good, thanks. Nothing a lot of coffee didn't fix. ;)

That's not exactly my claim - that designers at individual points were saying, "hey let's increase the grandiosity of this or that particular element." Maybe that happened but...

I mean that the raison d'etre project as a whole contained gradiosity: a belief that size was a virtue in itself. Given that basic strategic error, efficiency was in the back seat rather than the driver of size.

My point, then, is you can only make the bad stairs tradeoff given a theory of the case such as described above. That tradeoff doesn't occur in a more efficiency- focused project like A350 or 787.

Thanks, I agree. I doubt the engineer in the trenches decided the size of the staircases. The grand staircases did fit in well with the program-level thinking during the pre-launch era. It is a bit of a surprise that it's taken them this long to get around to using the space more efficiently.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sun Mar 12, 2017 2:56 am

Revelation wrote:
I doubt the engineer in the trenches decided the size of the staircases.


Right, a more succinct way of putting it.

Ever since I began posting here, folks have construed my criticisms of the A380 as entailing a critique of Airbus engineering. It's weird given that I've never claimed to know anything beyond a few top-level equations for drag and weight, most of which I've learned or have been prompted to learn here.

The A380 business case turned on a conceptual issue both much more simple and much messier than engineering specifics: do humans want to travel in bigger or smaller herds? Airbus looked at historical trend lines (increasing success of 747, for example) and projected forward. Boeing had a more expansive conceptual framework that asked what people wanted rather than simply what regression analysis projected.

That's the nub of decades of bad a.net wars IMO: some folks presume that because technical questions are necessary to answering a question about human behavior, the issue is basically a technical one. That's just not logically true, however. A necessary condition of an analytical problem isn't what defines the problem. It's a necessary condition of advanced AI, for example, that we don't run out of silicon. But that's not what defines discussions of AI. The open question relates to consciousness and deeper, messier questions than silicon reserves.

With the A380, the first-order question wasn't technical but human. Did Boeing or Airbus have a better prediction of how we apes want to fly? Everything after that question is small potatoes in comparison.

A novelist would have been better-placed deciding the A380 launch decision than engineers. Tolstoy resurrected, given 5 minutes of explanation about 787 or A380, would have known to bet on 787 unless the costs were radically different.
 
User avatar
caoimhin
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2014 12:30 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:59 am

Revelation wrote:
People (including the poster being described) aren't as A-vs-B as they are made out to be. To me that's just a simplistic, lazy characterization. I think you are trying to make that very point, no? Besides, we're supposed to be discussing/debating ideas, not making personal characterizations.


Respectfully disagree as to some posters not being as binary as they are made out to be. Some certainly are. As to it being simplistic or lazy, I cannot fathom another rationale for a person being so willing to consistently and reliably take the same drearily predictable position on any issue between these manufacturers. Label it as simplistic if you like. I'd love to be wrong, and to think that your one has no agenda and has a rational basis for uniformly denigrating Boeing and praising Airbus.

You're right, we're here for discussion and debate. If I've personally insulted anyone, I apologise to that end. In the interest of healthy discussion, however, blind partisanship is helpful to no one.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6543
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sun Mar 12, 2017 9:44 am

Matt6461 wrote:
astuteman wrote:
Revelation wrote:
I think the ~2% figure is appropriate when the airplane already has some wingtip treatments. The 4-5% figure we see is for airplanes that had no previous treatments such as 737/757/767/A320.


As a point of order, the A380 has pretty much exactly the same wing tip fences on it that the A320CEO had, only scaled up. The sharklets have provided 4% improvement on longer sectors.

The issue as I see it is that adding sharklets to the A320 increased span by c. 5ft. The A380 wing has nowhere to go inside the 80m box

Rgds


Right, thanks. I was thinking of the A320CEO's differential die to sharklets but couldn't recall it.

If A320 sees 4%, we would see 5-6% from similar application on A380, as sharklets help induced drag for small parasitic drag penalty, and as A380's drag composition is more induced than for any modern airliner.


For what it's worth I agree with your logic completely.
But not inside the 80m box.
Not without folding tips.
And even then the plane will still break 80m on the runway - where separation between runway and taxiways could well be an issue for a number of airports.

Rgds
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 1954
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sun Mar 12, 2017 10:01 am

Revelation wrote:
I doubt the engineer in the trenches decided the size of the staircases.

Actually, that is exactly what happened. The suggestion being put forward by some people that the A380 staircase design was due to delusions of grandeur on the part of Airbus management is pure fantasy.

The reason for the 2-abreast staircase on the A380 is entirely due to the fact that it was designed to be capable of being efficiently loaded and unloaded entirely via the main deck doors. Primarily due to the fact that few (no?) airports at that time had airbridges capable of reaching the upper deck. http://www.davis-associates.co.uk/CaseS ... irbusA380/

Now that the majority of airports handling regular A380 operations have upper-deck-capable airbridges, and that many operators have decided on low density (high premium) seating layouts on the upper deck, most A380 operations can mow be handled equally efficiently with an aircraft with a lower capacity staircase.

Yes, it really is as simple as that. No conspiracy theories necessary.
 
Unflug
Posts: 715
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:25 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sun Mar 12, 2017 10:35 am

LAX772LR wrote:
ro1960 wrote:
A.net forum is filled with topics about cramming in a few more seats here and there on 50+ year old designs like the 737 or a little younger ones like the A320 and everyone finds it perfectly normal. Here we have a manufacturer trying to optimize a recent model and everyone is bashing it? People!

They're questioning its utility. It's not unreasonable.

Hardly anyone uses the A380 to its capacity even now, so what good is adding more seats going to do (overall) in a real-world scenario? The per-seat cost is only lowered if you FILL the extra seats...


The point is not to increase maximum capacity (which nobody uses anyway) by 50 seats, they will not do another evacuation test for this ;-)

The goal is to get 50 more seats at identical comfort level (and cost).
 
olle
Posts: 739
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sun Mar 12, 2017 12:18 pm

If I understands it Boeing 779 gains around 10% in capacity with an major investment for flying the same distance using the same amount of fuel as todays B77W that will be charged to the customer vs 77W. It seems fantastic.

If A380+ gets a minor investment gain 10% in capacity flying as I understand it the same distance as todays A380
I do not understand why this is not fantastic?

Until now the current A380 has got a CASM advantage over the 77W so why should not the A380+ have the same CASM advantage over the 779 then?
 
spacecookie
Posts: 177
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2015 3:57 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sun Mar 12, 2017 1:09 pm

olle wrote:
If I understands it Boeing 779 gains around 10% in capacity with an major investment for flying the same distance using the same amount of fuel as todays B77W that will be charged to the customer vs 77W. It seems fantastic.

If A380+ gets a minor investment gain 10% in capacity flying as I understand it the same distance as todays A380
I do not understand why this is not fantastic?

Until now the current A380 has got a CASM advantage over the 77W so why should not the A380+ have the same CASM advantage over the 779 then?



Hello MR. CASM,

please take in count
-acquisition price
-maintenance price

and about that "available cabin floor area" its amusing how to see that this is the only point in favor of the a380
 
Waterbomber
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:51 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:40 pm

Planesmart wrote:
Waterbomber wrote:
This will also enable the A380's to maintain residual values, if only by the value of their engines, significantly reducing the risk for financing.

Engine commonality can play a big role in convincing many A35J customers, among them many A380 CEO operators, to order the stretch.
It could also convince EK to order the A35J.
There's still a world of difference between having the 'same' engine and a 'similar' one.

A decade ago, you would have been right on the money.

Increasingly WB engines are leased with PBTH, so neither owned by, or maintained by the airline operator. An issue for engine OEM's and their financiers, but not sure they care that much, as both the lease, and especially PBTH are not straight lines as engines age.

It's the ownership of engines, and especially PBTH, plus the relationship between air frame and engine manufacturers, that has had a great impact on aircraft re-engining in the last four decades. In a green world, we would see more, not less re-engining, extending the lives of air frames, which are as strong, if not stronger than ever.


Yes, the market is becoming more liquid on the engines and LRU's. However, PBTH leases on non-temporary engines owned by different lessor/OEM/MRO than the airfame is still a rarity, because of complexity issues (recordkeeping, costs split, risk, legal issues, etc...).

Engine interchangeability between the A35J and an A38J would enable to achieve the following synergies:
-Engines constitute 30% of an aircraft's value. Commonality in this area brings big advantages and savings.
-Less downtime during AOG given larger spare engine availability
-Lower maintenance costs through parts commonality, larger spares pool, less maintenance error through specialisation of engineers
-Lower risk for airlines and financiers leasing the aircraft + engines combo, which is still the norm. Even if the airframe becomes unpopular, the engines will remain popular, hence reducing risk and ownership cost
-Engine improvements are easier to implement given a larger pool
-RR can close the Trent 900 line and focus all resources on the Trent XWB line, reducing cost and price.
-The A38J can also incorporate system changes that would increase commonality with the A35J in the area of non-airframe components: cockpit/avionics, LRU's, cabin equipment, EWIS, general parts. This could increase parts commonality to over 60% and even to over 90% if you consider only the most frequently changed parts.

Airbus could then very easily sell the "A35J + a few A38J" formula to existing and potential A350XWB operators. If you look at current operators of the B77W, you'll find that many of them could be potential customers for this formula.
It would also give airlines who ordered or are considering a B779 order, some food for thought.

To incorporate the larger XWB engine variants in an efficient way, the A38J would ideally offer 15% higher MTOW and be stretched by 10% for a 15% larger pax capacity, 20% larger cargo capacity.


This is the only viable and sustainable future for the A380 program.
 
Taxi645
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sun Mar 12, 2017 4:05 pm

astuteman wrote:
For what it's worth I agree with your logic completely.
But not inside the 80m box.
Not without folding tips.
And even then the plane will still break 80m on the runway - where separation between runway and taxiways could well be an issue for a number of airports.

Rgds



That's might be one of the dilemma's for Airbus now perhaps. Investing in new wing ends in MAX style for instance will help the plus, but might lead to double cost when they would do a more significant wing redesign to make use of the considerable fuel weight and consequent weight saving from GTF engines for a NEO. Those weight savings would help significantly in enabling a more efficient wing design within the 80m box without requiring the extra costs and impracticalities of folding wingtips.

I can imagine they want to do wing ends that they can carry over to the NEO, but will that allow sufficient increase in wing efficiency for the potentially lighter GTF NEO?
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sun Mar 12, 2017 4:13 pm

The A380 is already an ultra long haul aircraft, just like the A350 and 777-8. I wonder if, with a MTOW increase and an additional center fuel tank, could we have an A380 ULR, that is flying even longer haul ?

I can imagine an A380 ULR selling a few dozen, as such an large aircraft would be ideal on ultra-long flights.

I'm thinking about:

Singapore to New York, Chicago, Atlanta etc.
London, Paris, Frankfurt to Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne etc.
Dubai to Buenos Aires, Santiago, Panama City etc.
Dubai to Auckland etc.
Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne to New York, Chicago etc.

http://www.greatcirclemapper.net/en/gre ... &speed=860

Since the A380 wing and MLG is designed with a stretch in mind, a MTOW increase on the current variant should be easy.

The A380 relatively small cargo capabilities, compared to 777-8 and A350 is positive thing when doing ultra-long haul.
 
User avatar
BobleBrave
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sun Mar 12, 2017 4:53 pm

Waterbomber wrote:
Yes, the market is becoming more liquid on the engines and LRU's. However, PBTH leases on non-temporary engines owned by different lessor/OEM/MRO than the airfame is still a rarity, because of complexity issues (recordkeeping, costs split, risk, legal issues, etc...).

Engine interchangeability between the A35J and an A38J would enable to achieve the following synergies:
-Engines constitute 30% of an aircraft's value. Commonality in this area brings big advantages and savings.
-Less downtime during AOG given larger spare engine availability
-Lower maintenance costs through parts commonality, larger spares pool, less maintenance error through specialisation of engineers
-Lower risk for airlines and financiers leasing the aircraft + engines combo, which is still the norm. Even if the airframe becomes unpopular, the engines will remain popular, hence reducing risk and ownership cost
-Engine improvements are easier to implement given a larger pool
-RR can close the Trent 900 line and focus all resources on the Trent XWB line, reducing cost and price.
-The A38J can also incorporate system changes that would increase commonality with the A35J in the area of non-airframe components: cockpit/avionics, LRU's, cabin equipment, EWIS, general parts. This could increase parts commonality to over 60% and even to over 90% if you consider only the most frequently changed parts.

Airbus could then very easily sell the "A35J + a few A38J" formula to existing and potential A350XWB operators. If you look at current operators of the B77W, you'll find that many of them could be potential customers for this formula.
It would also give airlines who ordered or are considering a B779 order, some food for thought.

To incorporate the larger XWB engine variants in an efficient way, the A38J would ideally offer 15% higher MTOW and be stretched by 10% for a 15% larger pax capacity, 20% larger cargo capacity.


This is the only viable and sustainable future for the A380 program.


That is a very interesting thought indeed, but I wonder what would be the technical feasability of such a move :

    Trent XWB Dry weight: 7,277 kg
    Trent 900 Dry weight: 6,246 kg

With a 1t difference per engine would the wing need strengthening ?
Bob le Brave
 
WIederling
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sun Mar 12, 2017 5:30 pm

spacecookie wrote:
Hello MR. CASM,

please take in count
-acquisition price
-maintenance price

and about that "available cabin floor area" its amusing how to see that this is the only point in favor of the a380


Still all those metrics acount per seat.
777X is an expensive upgrade.
A380-Plus even less than a NEO remake.

77W list is $320m
A35k list is $360m
779X list is $400m ( +$80m/25%)
A388 list is $437m
Murphy is an optimist
 
spacecookie
Posts: 177
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2015 3:57 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sun Mar 12, 2017 6:14 pm

If someone can correct me if I am wrong, the a380 has reached the mtow due a limitation of the landing gear system.
 
WIederling
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sun Mar 12, 2017 6:40 pm

spacecookie wrote:
If someone can correct me if I am wrong, the a380 has reached the mtow due a limitation of the landing gear system.


IMU it is maxed out somewhere beyond 650t ?

The wing is designed for 650t same for the landing gear.
Currently not all wheels have brakes installed. that would have to change.
All else ....
Murphy is an optimist
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 5574
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sun Mar 12, 2017 6:53 pm

spacecookie wrote:
If someone can correct me if I am wrong, the a380 has reached the mtow due a limitation of the landing gear system.


You are wrong. The landing gear was designed to cover the A380F and A380-900 too.
 
Bald1983
Posts: 293
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:59 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
Bald1983 wrote:
In the past, the flying would be from Mega Hub to Mega Hub then connect on both sides. The A-380 was built on that premise. That is no longer the case, thanks to the 787 and the A-350.


Look at Emirates route map and see how many of those are hub to point. On A380...

SFO is not the biggest hub for UAL but, again, thanks to the 787, is getting bigger. Are you expecting Boise to Bristol? The A-380 lost.


Emirates A380 Manchester to Dubai to somewhere, on the other hand, is an attractive option. The A380 hasn't "lost" because it was neither a one-or-the-other "competition", nor is it a one-or-the-other market now.

Emirates is one airline and does not have a domestic mission. The vast majority of airlines that do things besides somewhere to Dubai are going for the twins. Example, like I said, Perth to London. The only reason for going through Dubai is fuel.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3302
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:45 am

olle wrote:
If I understands it Boeing 779 gains around 10% in capacity with an major investment for flying the same distance using the same amount of fuel as todays B77W that will be charged to the customer vs 77W. It seems fantastic.

If A380+ gets a minor investment gain 10% in capacity flying as I understand it the same distance as todays A380
I do not understand why this is not fantastic?

Until now the current A380 has got a CASM advantage over the 77W so why should not the A380+ have the same CASM advantage over the 779 then?


Your understanding isn't quite correct. The 779 carries its design passenger load further than the 773ER.

Consider that the 779 has a higher OEW than the 773ER (heavier engines, larger and heavier wing and longer body). In addition, the passenger payload is 10% higher (10% more passengers).

As a result, the 779 full pax ZFW will be considerably higher than the 773ER. But the MTOW for both airplanes is the same, 351.5t.

Therefore, the 779, while carrying 10% more passengers, will burn less fuel than the 773ER when flying the same mission length.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Mon Mar 13, 2017 2:39 am

astuteman wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
astuteman wrote:

As a point of order, the A380 has pretty much exactly the same wing tip fences on it that the A320CEO had, only scaled up. The sharklets have provided 4% improvement on longer sectors.

The issue as I see it is that adding sharklets to the A320 increased span by c. 5ft. The A380 wing has nowhere to go inside the 80m box

Rgds


Right, thanks. I was thinking of the A320CEO's differential die to sharklets but couldn't recall it.

If A320 sees 4%, we would see 5-6% from similar application on A380, as sharklets help induced drag for small parasitic drag penalty, and as A380's drag composition is more induced than for any modern airliner.


For what it's worth I agree with your logic completely.
But not inside the 80m box.
Not without folding tips.
And even then the plane will still break 80m on the runway - where separation between runway and taxiways could well be an issue for a number of airports.

Rgds


You may be right about the regulatory issue here.
OTOH, Boeing expects to certify the 777x for Group V runways. Companies don't make that kind of investment if there's any regulatory risk, so they must have assurances it will work.

I guess Airbus wouldn't know about the regulatory runway separation issue unless it tries.

What I'd love to see from Airbus is some sense of urgency here. The program is heading for ~2021 death and hoping that market conditions will shift towards the A380 just isn't a plan.
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Mon Mar 13, 2017 2:51 am

Whalejet wrote:
flee wrote:
Malaysia Airlines and Airbus are exploring a 720 seat configuration for the A380. Perhaps Airbus is looking at this right now.

Source? Seeing everything coming out of MH in the past years, I thought they are moving their fleet in the opposite direction of the 380.


A380s for the Haj and Umrah
The Group is working towards finalising plans for the formation of a new airline, utilising six A380 aircraft, to service the Haj and Umrah market. Interviews for key positions, for this airline, have already been initiated with plans underway with Airbus to increase the seat capacity to 720 seats on the aircraft.


Please see: http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/my/en/c ... _2016.html
 
olle
Posts: 739
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Mon Mar 13, 2017 5:14 am

WIederling wrote:
spacecookie wrote:
Hello MR. CASM,

please take in count
-acquisition price
-maintenance price

and about that "available cabin floor area" its amusing how to see that this is the only point in favor of the a380


Still all those metrics acount per seat.
777X is an expensive upgrade.
A380-Plus even less than a NEO remake.

77W list is $320m
A35k list is $360m
779X list is $400m ( +$80m/25%)
A388 list is $437m



Even if we talk big discounts of these prices, 779 after launch discounts will be expensive compared to a A388+ per seat.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6543
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Mon Mar 13, 2017 6:14 am

Matt6461 wrote:
astuteman wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:

Right, thanks. I was thinking of the A320CEO's differential die to sharklets but couldn't recall it.

If A320 sees 4%, we would see 5-6% from similar application on A380, as sharklets help induced drag for small parasitic drag penalty, and as A380's drag composition is more induced than for any modern airliner.


For what it's worth I agree with your logic completely.
But not inside the 80m box.
Not without folding tips.
And even then the plane will still break 80m on the runway - where separation between runway and taxiways could well be an issue for a number of airports.

Rgds


You may be right about the regulatory issue here.
OTOH, Boeing expects to certify the 777x for Group V runways. Companies don't make that kind of investment if there's any regulatory risk, so they must have assurances it will work.

I guess Airbus wouldn't know about the regulatory runway separation issue unless it tries.

What I'd love to see from Airbus is some sense of urgency here. The program is heading for ~2021 death and hoping that market conditions will shift towards the A380 just isn't a plan.


There's an inbuilt assumption here that because you haven't seen anything, Airbus haven't tried, and don't have a sense of urgency.

I find it unrealistic to assume that Airbus are not working very hard on cementing, or discarding, the options they have around the A380.
They haven't got a lot of time.

Rgds
 
tommy1808
Posts: 5998
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:13 am

parapente wrote:
Where might new sales come from,having completed one 10 year sales cycle?.


If the current US administration can really swing the globe against globalization, we may we see bilaterals become stricter again, so growing internationally via frequency may become a lot harder.

best regards
Thomas
Times are changing: 70 years ago the USA went to war to defeat the Nazis, now they elect them to run their country.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:45 am

astuteman wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
astuteman wrote:

For what it's worth I agree with your logic completely.
But not inside the 80m box.
Not without folding tips.
And even then the plane will still break 80m on the runway - where separation between runway and taxiways could well be an issue for a number of airports.

Rgds


You may be right about the regulatory issue here.
OTOH, Boeing expects to certify the 777x for Group V runways. Companies don't make that kind of investment if there's any regulatory risk, so they must have assurances it will work.

I guess Airbus wouldn't know about the regulatory runway separation issue unless it tries.

What I'd love to see from Airbus is some sense of urgency here. The program is heading for ~2021 death and hoping that market conditions will shift towards the A380 just isn't a plan.


There's an inbuilt assumption here that because you haven't seen anything, Airbus haven't tried, and don't have a sense of urgency.

I find it unrealistic to assume that Airbus are not working very hard on cementing, or discarding, the options they have around the A380.
They haven't got a lot of time.

Rgds


You're quite right, there are plans and options being considered and we're not privy to those discussions.
But I want to SEE the sense of urgency! Why isn't Airbus briefing A.net on potential developments!?! So inconsiderate.

Kidding of course but my slightly more valid whining about urgency is directed at the forum. We've spent years debating various deckchair arrangements and debating whether the ship is sinking. Hopefully by now it's clear the ship is sinking and that more radical solutions are needed.
 
WIederling
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:39 am

Bald1983 wrote:
The only reason for going through Dubai is fuel.


Einstein: make the model as simple as possible. but not simpler.

DXB works as a classification yard ( in railway terms).
The geographic advantage is sitting halfway between major multicentered civilized "islands".
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 1954
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:10 am

Matt6461 wrote:
OTOH, Boeing expects to certify the 777x for Group V runways.

Do they? It's not what they claim in the latest published ACAPS document:
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commer ... ochure.pdf
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2277
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:56 am

WIederling wrote:
spacecookie wrote:
Hello MR. CASM,

please take in count
-acquisition price
-maintenance price

and about that "available cabin floor area" its amusing how to see that this is the only point in favor of the a380


Still all those metrics acount per seat.
777X is an expensive upgrade.
A380-Plus even less than a NEO remake.

77W list is $320m
A35k list is $360m
779X list is $400m ( +$80m/25%)
A388 list is $437m


779 list has been extrapolated from the average $266m launch price (some customers paying less), applying a so-called market average launch discount to arrive back at list.

Current 779 list (a hypothetical measure), after recent Boeing re-pricing, means the 8 & 9 are not far from straddling the A380 list.

If there wasn't a softening in traffic growth (downturn in some markets), and Boeing hadn't signed up nearly a decade's worth of 777X production at close to cost, the A380 might have won a few more top-up orders from EK, BA, SQ and LH.

Now, unless there are performance, production or engine issues with the 777X, and/or further A380 cost-effective improvements, those 777X sales have sealed the A380's fate.

No A380, and the 779 list will be close to USD500m.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 19

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos