• 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 16
 
Whalejet
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 3:31 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Mon Mar 20, 2017 2:26 pm

EK 380 routes that are "Hub-Point"

DXB-PER
DXB-DUS
DXB-ZRH
DXB-CPH
DXB-BHM
DXB-PRG
DXB-VIE
DXB-CHC
DXB-AKL
DXB-KWI
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 23556
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Mon Mar 20, 2017 2:58 pm

BobleBrave wrote:
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 ?


I fail to see a business case for a Trent XWB application on the A380. The engine would be 10-15 years old technology by the time the NEO enters service, and would still running behind the GE90X in terms of fuel efficiency.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
parapente
Posts: 1690
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:28 pm

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... se-430525/

Thanks for the link Karel.Indeed Airbus may have dropped plans for the revamped front 'grand staircase'
But they have certainly built a mock up and shown how many additional seats it would bring to the party.
Personally I would be surprised if they did not offer it.But perhaps there is no demand,who knows.
Also the repositioning of the crew quarters seems sensible to me.The aircraft does need to up its density whilst keeping the key unique marketing benefits that can be offered to all 3 classes.
And yes the moment for 'NEO' is now passed it appears.Probably a sensible decision really.
 
diverdave
Posts: 548
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 1:00 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:44 pm

Whalejet wrote:
EK 380 routes that are "Hub-Point"

DXB-BHM


The good folks of Alabama greatly look forward to the A380 gracing the Birmingham-Shuttlesworth airport. :)
 
Whalejet
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 3:31 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:59 pm

diverdave wrote:
Whalejet wrote:
EK 380 routes that are "Hub-Point"

DXB-BHM


The good folks of Alabama greatly look forward to the A380 gracing the Birmingham-Shuttlesworth airport. :)


Bugger, BHX
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 15307
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Mon Mar 20, 2017 4:36 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
N14AZ wrote:
http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2017/03/11/2533903-airbus-va-presenter-un-a380-plus-avec-davantage-de-sieges.html

A couple of interesting points in that article:
  • confirmed to be presented at Aircraft Interiors, Hamburg, in April
  • "a number of airlines, including Emirates" are interested in the Neo
  • it's about the rear stairs, not the front stairs (which is what I'd always understood but people in this thread keep saying otherwise)
  • customers and prospective customers(!) have been asking for more seats at 18" width (due to passenger preference)
  • available 2020

No mention of weight saving - and the journalist reported rumours of wingtip changes but these were not confirmed.

The FG article linked above says the rear staircase has been proposed in the past for a gain of 20 seats, and now the forward is being proposed too, with another gain of 20 seats. That's at least how I read it. It giives a summary of how to gain 80 seats presuming you go to 11-abreast:

The forward staircase is part of a series of improvements which could enable operators to fit around 80 more seats in the type.

Airbus has previously revealed studies to redesign the aft staircase and remove the sidewall stowage on the upper deck, which together could allow room for 20 extra seats.

Fitting an 11-abreast economy and nine-abreast premium-economy configuration would allow another 34 seats while a combined crew rest – which has been selected by some customers – could permit another three.

Google Translate gives us a coarse translation of the ladepeche.fr article, with a few hot takes highlighted by me:

Airbus refuses to officially quantify the number of additional passengers that the "Plus" version would accommodate but the figure of 40 to 50 circulates. "We do not compromise with comfort since we keep the seats 18", warns the aircraft manufacturer. The A380's current customers and prospects have been offered this option (those wishing to keep the windscreen as possible), which has the advantage of reducing the cost of the passenger transported per kilometer since the A380 would be able to carry more Of 600 travelers. Another improvement in the pipes: the addition of small fins at the tip of the wings to improve the aerodynamics and therefore the consumption of the aircraft. It could still fall by 2% A380 already has a very good ratio with a consumption of 2.9 liters per passenger per 100 kilometers. However, at the Toulouse headquarters, the deployment of this sail option is not confirmed. All of these improvements would be available in 2020 and is intended to support sales of the superjumbo that currently pass through an air hole. The A380 has not received any new orders for two years.

So we may end up with 40 more seats rather than 50, and no winglets. Seems we will retain 18" seating, which is good news.

KarelXWB wrote:
Back in 2006 lots of people, including Boeing PR, claimed the 787 could make hubs to disappear as more airlines would deploy the aircraft from and to secondary airports (i.e. spoke to spoke).

If Boeing PR was saying that "the 787 could make hubs to disappear" then it should be easy to find some actual references/quotes for that. I doubt you can find a credible one. I found a very credible statement to refute it, right from the Boeing VP of sales/marketing and in-service support for the 787, made in a major business magazine. I feel quite confident saying that you are simply wrong to characterize what they were saying as a spoke-to-spoke strategy. You should call it a point to point strategy, that's the words they actually were using.
Last edited by Revelation on Mon Mar 20, 2017 4:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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!
 
astuteman
Posts: 6479
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Mon Mar 20, 2017 11:18 pm

Bald1983 wrote:
Airbus woke up and realized Boeing called it right. They then developed and produced the A-350. I suspect Airbus will make great progress with that aircraft and future developments will center on the A-350 or some new design. The rabbit you speak of that Airbus will pull out of its hat is the A-350.


At the risk of stepping into this somewhat bad-tempered fray, I think this is the stance that some posters are having a bit of an issue with.
I know I do.
It smacks of a "black-and-white" "either-or" scenario, like in some way Airbus only ever built the A380 and Boeing only ever built the 787.
Reality is way more convoluted.

Airbus were already playing in 787 space when the 787 turned up, in the guise of the A330 (and original A340)
They had already "called it right" in that sense.

What they were doing with first the A340NG, and then the A380, was completing a product range.
History shows that the way they did this wasn't "called right".

And that the place that Boeing really called it right, where Airbus didn't was the 777 (vs the A340 especially)
More so even than the 787, I would argue.
Airbus have since fixed that with the A350.

I'm pretty sure that if you look over any time span for the last 10 years, A330 sales have largely matched 787 sales.
There are lots of reasons for this.
I accept that.
But one of them is that Airbus did indeed "call it right" with the A330 in mid-size twin space (in which ever "capital letter 2 capital letter" application you wish to examine).

The "Airbus =A380=wrong" and "Boeing=787=right" is a horrible distortion of the complexity of the market interactions between these 2 great companies.
Sorry. But it is.

Rgds
 
parapente
Posts: 1690
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:50 am

I would say that the above explanation is exactly right.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2215
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:39 am

Airmagnac wrote:
Boeing went on to build the 747-8 and 777X, Airbus has done a lot of work on the A330 and launched the A321LR.


As usual, a.net cannot discuss a discrete decision without trading that decision-maker's errors against the other team's. So much for analytical clarity. But beating them is impossible, might as well join.

It's dim to say that ANY expenditure on a VLA contradicts a belief that spending $15bn on a VLA is dumb. I can reasonably believe that one shouldn't invest $15 in something, yet also invest $4.

That's the nub of the "Boeing was wrong with the 748 too!" Argument, which you seem to make here.

...for other reasons I believe Boeing was wrong about the 748, but that has less to do with VLA's and H2H/P2P going on here - disingenuously by the Airbus crowd btw. Much more to do with brute physics of low-AR wings - same goes for the A380.

But at least Boeing has the excuse that its bad wing was 40 years old and the plane was (supposed to be) cheap.
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 2550
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:56 am

Revelation wrote:
Google Translate gives us a coarse translation of the ladepeche.fr article, with a few hot takes highlighted by me:

Airbus refuses to officially quantify the number of additional passengers that the "Plus" version would accommodate but the figure of 40 to 50 circulates. "We do not compromise with comfort since we keep the seats 18", warns the aircraft manufacturer. The A380's current customers and prospects have been offered this option (those wishing to keep the windscreen as possible), which has the advantage of reducing the cost of the passenger transported per kilometer since the A380 would be able to carry more Of 600 travelers. Another improvement in the pipes: the addition of small fins at the tip of the wings to improve the aerodynamics and therefore the consumption of the aircraft. It could still fall by 2% A380 already has a very good ratio with a consumption of 2.9 liters per passenger per 100 kilometers. However, at the Toulouse headquarters, the deployment of this sail option is not confirmed. All of these improvements would be available in 2020 and is intended to support sales of the superjumbo that currently pass through an air hole. The A380 has not received any new orders for two years.

So we may end up with 40 more seats rather than 50, and no winglets. Seems we will retain 18" seating, which is good news.

Thanks for providing this information. I am a little bit disapointed, I had hoped for a package called “plus” including winglets.
So, I guess we have to wait until April to learn more about Airbus’ specific plans…

PS.: Sorry if I cannot contribute anything to the "a-spoke-is-a-point-but-a-point-is-a-spoke-except-when-it's-not-yet-it-is-but-actually-not-really"-discussion. :'))))))))))
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2215
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:01 am

Astuteman wrote:
smacks of a "black-and-white" "either-or" scenario, like in some way Airbus only ever built the A380 and Boeing only ever built the 787.


...another reason to stick to a discrete decision instead of naively anthropomorphizing corporations and cheering for a team. Much as I'd like to think the White Sox team of my youth is the same entity that I cheer for today, any analysis shows they're different.

It's fine, even commendable, to be naive in sports allegiances. It's pathetic regarding Airbus and Boeing.

Airbus made a bad mistake with the A380. People also employed by Airbus also made some great decisions. Why say more?

KarelWXB wrote:
Back in 2006 lots of people, including Boeing PR, claimed the 787 could make hubs to disappear as more airlines would deploy the aircraft from and to secondary airports (i.e. spoke to spoke). That clearly hasn't happened. Major hubs like LHR still exist and have only become bigger.


I'd love to see you answer Revelation and provide even one instance of Boeing saying hubs would disappear.

Otherwise, it's simplistic caricatures like this that lead these threads down unproductive, causuistic rabbit holes.
 
parapente
Posts: 1690
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:42 am

Slightly off topic.
Over the last year there have been various pronouncements by Emirates about adding a Premium class esp to their A380's.
At first it was 'considering' then a firm 'yes' within the year.Most recently a draw back to 'considering'.Initially I thought this a 'no brainier'.But Reading around it,it is very much not.
There is an LCC (and in general) Y class price war going on.Its the profits they make in business that allows them to trade punches with the Y pricing.
Their concern apparently is that business class pax (who are paid by employers -who tightening purse strings) might be down graded to YP rather than up from Y.
Just wondered what folks views were on this.Clearly their new 2 class A380's could easily accommodate a premY upstairs instead of more Y.
Bur should they?
Regarding the topic in hand.If they adjusted some of their new 380 purchases to 'plus' standard they could in fact add a prem class without dropping any Y capacity.But as always they gotta fill it to make any sense.
My own thoughts?There are many flavours of Y prem.Perhaps one that was closer to Y than Biz to avoid the 'trade down' scenario that clearly concerns them? Trouble is that might be even more of an incentive for corporations to penny pinch - tricky.
 
User avatar
airmagnac
Posts: 412
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:24 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Tue Mar 21, 2017 11:59 am

Revelation wrote:


The thing is, the more subtle truth is that the market did not swing suddenly and significantly from S-H-H-S to P2P or whatever acronyms we ant to use.
The airlines have been operating a strategy of 1 stop S-H-S for decades, and continue to do so. Using A330, 787, 747, 777, A380, and A350.

Neither OEM develops solutions that are specifically optimised for P2P because that's not economically feasible outside a few cases
Neither OEM develops products that would be tailored to fly back and forth between 2 major hubs of an airline (or an airline alliance) because that type of route doesn't exist outside a few cases.
Both OEMs address the reality of 1 stop networks with their coherent families of products, and the 787, A380, 747-8, A350 and 777X were all developed to plug holes in these families.
Back in 2000 Airbus had a hole at the top of its range in which the 747-400 enjoyed a strategic niche, and likely was comforted in its launch decision to launch by the 20th century vision that air transport growth will be supported by ever-bigger airplanes, which turned out wrong in the 21st century.
The Boeing case is even easier, by 2003 the 767 was just not competing against the relatively new A330.

The whole idea of H2H vs P2P is just a PR invention to compare and confront the choices to develop the 787 and A380, which have nothing in common apart from being developed around the same time.
The parody is that the topic is still discussed here after 10-15 years.
You rightfully point out that Boeing's interpretation of "point" is not necessarily an outlying middle-of-nowhere location, and could indeed cover the case of an extended Hub-to-Spoke leg. But that was not the initial idea, nor is it the interpretation of many posters here, from either faction. And the whole notion of P2P has become so convoluted in this thread that I honestly have no idea what is being discussed anymore.


Matt6461 wrote:
It's dim to say that ANY expenditure on a VLA contradicts a belief that spending $15bn on a VLA is dumb. I can reasonably believe that one shouldn't invest $15 in something, yet also invest $4.

That's the nub of the "Boeing was wrong with the 748 too!" Argument, which you seem to make here.

:sarcastic:
Dude, why don't you actually read the post. Nowhere did I mention any OEM decision in terms of right-or-wrong, nowhere did I say that the 747-8 is wrong. The only dim, dumb and wrong thing is the continued insistance that there is a H2H vs P2P philosophy war between the OEMs. The development history of both companies, and the observable reality of air transport, contradict that assertion. That's all. So why are you trying to make it into a black-and-white situation ?
My goal as an engineer is to fill my soul with coffee and become immortal
 
parapente
Posts: 1690
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:18 pm

Whilst the P2P etcetcetc is pointless I do think there is a frightening lesson here which I still do not understand.Indeed it is also perhaps a salient point regarding the new MOM market debate.
As correctly pointed out at the time of the launch decision ME3/Emirates was no more than a glimmer in the eye.One imagines that both Airbus and Boeing did their market research asking all potential customers what they wanted in this sector.One can only imagine that what they heard in response was good enough to commit the billions they did.
.Yet discounting ME3/Emirates (which is fair back then and as stated they weren't even launch customers).The total pax VLA market size turned about to be - what 150 aircraft?IE Nothing (in plane terms) absolutely nothing!

Turning to MOM.Airline companies might say yup I get it (now) hum might buy some.But it costs them diddly squat to say this and more competition means lower prices!
So IMHO Boeing need to uber careful here.I hope it is their judgement not airline owners as clearly this is dangerous 'research'.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6479
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:51 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
Astuteman wrote:
smacks of a "black-and-white" "either-or" scenario, like in some way Airbus only ever built the A380 and Boeing only ever built the 787.


...another reason to stick to a discrete decision instead of naively anthropomorphizing corporations and cheering for a team. Much as I'd like to think the White Sox team of my youth is the same entity that I cheer for today, any analysis shows they're different.


Presumably you can see the difference between

"Airbus made a bad decision with the A380" and "Boeing made a good decision with the 787"

and

"Airbus made a bad decision betting the farm on H2H" and "Boeing made a good decision betting the farm on P2P"

Once we get past the ridiculous, largely meaningless, three letter alphanumerics, and accept that both manufacturers were addressing what they saw (rightly or wrongly) as segments that needed addressing in their line ups, THEN we'll stop disappearing down these ridiculous rabbit holes.

that is nothing whatsoever to do with "cheering for a team".

Rgds
 
FltAdmiralRitt
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:05 pm

If the A380 can accommodate more passengers,

Then some Very Short Haul Flights might make economic (if not Enviromental sense, less polluting, pulling 1,000 cars off the road) sense.
A Rush hour automobile commute time of 2.30 hrs on 60 miles distance brought down to 20 mins. (with special security arrangements of course).
is something SOME OF THE WORKING public might go for at 40$ round trip.

Is it possible to accommodate a maximum of 1,000 passengers, on a reconfigured A380 Plus.
This would be for Secondary Market A380 a 8-10 year old bird. The flight would never reach above 6,000 feet. An agreement on
whether this counts as full cycle with FAA is key. It cannot be done if each round trip 20 min flight counts as full cycle. Maybe they would agree
to count the short hops as 1/3 of a cycle. The aircraft will be at only 250,000 above it's operating empty weight. So main landing gear wear should
not be an issue. (no baggage, and very light fuel load)


Some numbers on Estimated cost (assuming we are using mostly entry level cabin crew.

Income 1,000 pas. x 40$ x 5 days x 48* weeks = 9,600,000 * holidays & slow weeks.adjustment

Crew costs.
Pilots = 300,000 (not international,not long haul)
Cabin Crew = 4,000,000 50 X 80,000* Salary and bene's
Fuel Cost fuel 560,000

What I don't know is the Landing Fees, and Maintenance cost, Especially the C&D overhaul.
Which I suspect is the big Anvil around proposals such as these.
 
c933103
Posts: 867
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:24 pm

FltAdmiralRitt wrote:
If the A380 can accommodate more passengers,

Then some Very Short Haul Flights might make economic (if not Enviromental sense, less polluting, pulling 1,000 cars off the road) sense.
A Rush hour automobile commute time of 2.30 hrs on 60 miles distance brought down to 20 mins. (with special security arrangements of course).
is something SOME OF THE WORKING public might go for at 40$ round trip.

Should have tell your local government to improve trains and highway network instead if 60 miles take you 2.5 hours. Plus A380-accomodating airport within 60 miles distance and with one of them very close to your home and another very close to your workplace seems something very unlikely.

Is it possible to accommodate a maximum of 1,000 passengers, on a reconfigured A380 Plus.

you need to have either standing seat in the A380 or strectch it. Or perhaps somehow convert the cargo hold into pax area.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2215
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:03 pm

airmagnac wrote:
The only dim, dumb and wrong thing is the continued insistance that there is a H2H vs P2P philosophy war between the OEMs.

Astuteman wrote:
"Airbus made a bad decision with the A380" and "Boeing made a good decision with the 787"

and

"Airbus made a bad decision betting the farm on H2H" and "Boeing made a good decision betting the farm on P2P"


Ok you both are making slightly more subtle arguments than for which I gave you credit.
Nonetheless, you're still refuting a caricatured version of the differing market projections ("H2H vs. P2P").
That debate has become bogged down in frustrating semantic crosstalk.
The proper focus is more fundamental than H2H or P2P. It's a matter of more options or fewer. That encompasses number of departure times as well as number or orgination/departure locations.
Humans prefer more options than fewer.
Boeing predicted that this broad human preference for more options would dominate.
To the extent that Airbus' forward-looking analysis was serious at all, it appears to have reasoned that slot scarcity would frustrate satisfaction of basic preferences. I don't know what else - besides a simple extrapolation of trend lines - explains Airbus' shoddy reasoning here.
Airbus was wrong about the structure of the market.
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 2550
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:49 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
Airbus was wrong about the structure of the market.

This company, that was wrong about the structure of the market, is selling roughly half of all commercial airliners every year. But, yeah, they were wrong about the structure of the market.... :roll:
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2215
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Tue Mar 21, 2017 11:36 pm

N14AZ wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
Airbus was wrong about the structure of the market.

This company, that was wrong about the structure of the market, is selling roughly half of all commercial airliners every year. But, yeah, they were wrong about the structure of the market.... :roll:


Terrible argument. Your assumption is that a successful company can't be wrong.

Ask yourself - did Airbus forecast the market correctly when it launched the A380?

Stop deferring to authority and think for yourself.
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2465
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Wed Mar 22, 2017 12:28 am

Another entertaining but sadly partisan thread. But that's reality. Anyway, we'll be on the edge of out seats seeing if Airbus can pull out enough sales with these improvements to keep the A380 going long enough for robust demand to appear. The Fat Lady hasn't sung yet but she's warming up. I've accepted the inevitability of the 747's impending demise but still hold out some faint hope of an A380 sales recovery, despite the extreme pressure its under from the A350-1000 and the 777-9/10. The VLA market might recover just enough to keep the 380 going another 20+ years if overall air traffic, especially for the ME3 carriers, resumes significant growth. But it's not looking too good and even the more optimistic within Airbus must be concerned. The market is a moving target so both airframers have misjudged it at times. What seemed a reasonable market forecast for the A3XX's prospects in the late 90's didn't pan out so well, partly due to the extent that big long range twins have taken over so much from the quads. That couldn't have been so clearly seen when the A380 was on the drawing boards. Airbus made a judgement call based on projected traffic growth and prior success of the 747, a reasonable assumption. That the market trends shifted later away from earlier projections wasn't Airbus's fault and it's possible, though seemingly not probable, that trends could shift the A380's way again. We'll just have to see. If Emirates emerges from its current quandry and demand picks up some again with other 380 operators to replace earlier frames with new ones, the 380 could live long enough to get the NEO it needs. I'm not too optimistic about it but I'm not ready to write off the 380 just yet.
 
User avatar
TheLion
Posts: 274
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 1:14 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:27 am

AvObserver wrote:
Another entertaining but sadly partisan thread. But that's reality. Anyway, we'll be on the edge of out seats seeing if Airbus can pull out enough sales with these improvements to keep the A380 going long enough for robust demand to appear. The Fat Lady hasn't sung yet but she's warming up. I've accepted the inevitability of the 747's impending demise but still hold out some faint hope of an A380 sales recovery, despite the extreme pressure its under from the A350-1000 and the 777-9/10. The VLA market might recover just enough to keep the 380 going another 20+ years if overall air traffic, especially for the ME3 carriers, resumes significant growth. But it's not looking too good and even the more optimistic within Airbus must be concerned. The market is a moving target so both airframers have misjudged it at times. What seemed a reasonable market forecast for the A3XX's prospects in the late 90's didn't pan out so well, partly due to the extent that big long range twins have taken over so much from the quads. That couldn't have been so clearly seen when the A380 was on the drawing boards. Airbus made a judgement call based on projected traffic growth and prior success of the 747, a reasonable assumption. That the market trends shifted later away from earlier projections wasn't Airbus's fault and it's possible, though seemingly not probable, that trends could shift the A380's way again. We'll just have to see. If Emirates emerges from its current quandry and demand picks up some again with other 380 operators to replace earlier frames with new ones, the 380 could live long enough to get the NEO it needs. I'm not too optimistic about it but I'm not ready to write off the 380 just yet.


Some really fair and reasonable points. Hard to find fault, though I suspect some on here will find a way :boxedin:
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 2550
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Wed Mar 22, 2017 6:37 am

Matt6461 wrote:
N14AZ wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
Airbus was wrong about the structure of the market.

This company, that was wrong about the structure of the market, is selling roughly half of all commercial airliners every year. But, yeah, they were wrong about the structure of the market.... :roll:


Terrible argument. Your assumption is that a successful company can't be wrong.

Ask yourself - did Airbus forecast the market correctly when it launched the A380?

1.) of course, a successful can be wrong. No doubt.
2.) I agree with you, that Airbus did not forecast the VLA-market correctly. I think everybody here agrees with that. It's almost a fact since the 20 years of their initial VLA-forecast are almost over and if you compare forecasted and actual VLA-sales you can't deny that the forecast was incorrect.

BUT:

You wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:
Airbus was wrong about the structure of the market.

I would agree with you if you would have written "Airbus was wrong about the structure of the market as regards to VLAs" or something like this...

I don't know, maybe it's a translation problem. Translated into my language your sentence means Airbus was wrong about the structure of the entire market. That's why I felt obliged to comment on that sentence in the way I did.

But, honestly, I think we are wasting our time with playing with words. But even this Airbus ' mistake, in a way: we didn't have these kind of discussions when Airbus managed to collect some significant orders for their VLA, e.g. from EIS until 2012 or so.
 
Taxi645
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:49 am

The A380 has a history of underusing it's cabin floor area (as many have argumented here for quite some time). The mega orders from Emirates made this less of a problem and probably sussed Airbus to sleep a bit. So when the orders from Emirates ended they suddenly woke up to the reality that the big twin come so close in CASM that no one is interested in a higher risk less flexible A380. Only now are they becoming creative to see if they can improve the utilization of that huge floor area to increase CASM gap sufficiently again. Well, it's a few years too late and now they have had to reduce production rates and even risk not being able to bridge the gap to the Neo (I think they'll manage with the plus).

If they had been more on it and made the improvements in floor area utilization sooner, we probably wouldn't have had all this discussion about the viability about a quad like the A380 and perhaps a less drastic production rate cut would've sufficed. Perhaps a bit of a simplified view, but I think largely true.
 
olle
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:02 am

Taxi645 wrote:
The A380 has a history of underusing it's cabin floor area (as many have argumented here for quite some time). The mega orders from Emirates made this less of a problem and probably sussed Airbus to sleep a bit. So when the orders from Emirates ended they suddenly woke up to the reality that the big twin come so close in CASM that no one is interested in a higher risk less flexible A380. Only now are they becoming creative to see if they can improve the utilization of that huge floor area to increase CASM gap sufficiently again. Well, it's a few years too late and now they have had to reduce production rates and even risk not being able to bridge the gap to the Neo (I think they'll manage with the plus).

If they had been more on it and made the improvements in floor area utilization sooner, we probably wouldn't have had all this discussion about the viability about a quad like the A380 and perhaps a less drastic production rate cut would've sufficed. Perhaps a bit of a simplified view, but I think largely true.



this is my conclusion as well... I think that Airbus has been fully busy to avoid an A380 problem with the A350, save the A330 as competotor until mid 2020s and kill off / delay the NSA with the A320Neo.

I think it is surprising that teh A380+ can add around 10% seats while probably still fly longer then the A380CEO did 10 years ago to the similar trip cost and purchase cost as the original A380 without changing as I understand it comfort level for Y.


I still missing that somone compare the A350-1000 with the A380+. Adding 10% should change some numbers compared in fdavour for the A380 compared to the modern twins.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9858
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:37 am

With most of the A380 operators adopting the 787's and 777s ten abreast for long haul, it feels like a kind of inevitable more seats would be added to the A380s maindeck. Unless airlines feel the flag ship premium passengers margins are valuable. 11 abreast is on the table again, it's been on and off for 5 years..

The passengers you miss with the current low density 10 abreast cabin bring in revenue and costs (weight, food, crew service etc.) The questions is if the 10 passengers bring in enough to compensate the margin of missing #11 (ticketprice-total costs). Or if the are no longer willing to pay a big seat A380 flagship premium if cabin desity goes up.. "problem" is at 11 abreast the A380 maindeck seats would still be significant wider (18 inch) then other seats sold long haul.

Image

A pick I took a while ago while at it..

Image

Being relatively long I would love prefer window seat..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 23556
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:27 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
It's supposedly getting redesigned wings optimized for the stretch and will have raked ends with blended winglets like the A330NEO wings. Supposed to use a lot more composites too.

Not a chance that that's true. Redesigned wing would be a 10-digit cost.


A new wing will not resolve the main problem of the A380. Airlines prefer frequency above capacity. And yes, one could use the A380 for frequencies as EK demonstrates in LHR, but most markets don't support that kind of capacity.

Airbus will not invest > $10 billion into an A380 wing update for a market that doesn't exist, might as well start believing in fairy tales.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 15307
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:07 am

Taxi645 wrote:
The A380 has a history of underusing it's cabin floor area (as many have argumented here for quite some time). The mega orders from Emirates made this less of a problem and probably sussed Airbus to sleep a bit. So when the orders from Emirates ended they suddenly woke up to the reality that the big twin come so close in CASM that no one is interested in a higher risk less flexible A380. Only now are they becoming creative to see if they can improve the utilization of that huge floor area to increase CASM gap sufficiently again. Well, it's a few years too late and now they have had to reduce production rates and even risk not being able to bridge the gap to the Neo (I think they'll manage with the plus).

If they had been more on it and made the improvements in floor area utilization sooner, we probably wouldn't have had all this discussion about the viability about a quad like the A380 and perhaps a less drastic production rate cut would've sufficed. Perhaps a bit of a simplified view, but I think largely true.

I think the history of under-utilizing the space relates to the fact that while the A380 is packed on some routes on some days, in general the airlines had problems wrapping their heads around filling the 100+ extra seats in an A380 relative to the 744 they in many cases replaced It's only been recent times that we've seen EK move to the 615 pax two class configuration after a decade in service.

It will be interesting to see which (if any) customers choose the smaller staircases.
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
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 23556
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:13 am

Revelation wrote:
I think the history of under-utilizing the space relates to the fact that while the A380 is packed on some routes on some days, in general the airlines had problems wrapping their heads around filling the 100+ extra seats in an A380 relative to the 744 they in many cases replaced It's only been recent times that we've seen EK move to the 615 pax two class configuration after a decade in service.


Emirates wanted the 2-class A380 much earlier. Due to the early cabin issues, Airbus asked Emirates to wait until the A380 production had become mature.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
Bricktop
Posts: 239
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:11 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
Bricktop wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:
If I take my head away from the wall for a second... to state (again) that the A380 is also mostly H2P/P2H!

That's why the whole "P2P beat H2H, P2P=787, H2H=A380 ergo 787 beat A380" is a complete fallacy.

The A380 has its own troubles (as does the 787) but these are nothing to do with the stupid P2P argument which gets trotted out time after time.


Bolding mine. With all due respect, that’s nonsense. Throwing up the semantic canard of P2P is merely a deflection. Let’s look at the airlines not named Emirates, shall we?


Soooo.... why are we skipping Emirates, if not to deflect?


I didn’t leave out Emirates at all, so there’s no deflection. You’re leaving out that part of my response to make your “point”.

Bricktop wrote:
Now EK has so many A380’s they have to send them to a lot of cities that aren’t in that first tier that will certainly be justifiably caused “points” over “hubs”. But again we get back to my point of having all the eggs in one basket.


Pointed out ably here by Whalejet.

Whalejet wrote:
EK 380 routes that are "Hub-Point"

DXB-PER
DXB-DUS
DXB-ZRH
DXB-CPH
DXB-BHX
DXB-PRG
DXB-VIE
DXB-CHC
DXB-AKL
DXB-KWI


(I fixed his BHX). Your assertion that the A380 is mostly H2P/P2H is simply incorrect. Virtually every airline that is not Emirates flies it H2H. Even Emirates flies it mostly H2H with some H2P. I don’t think anything in A380 V1.5 is going to change that.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
The world has a mix of different airlines flying a mix of different aircraft on a mix of different route types. There is no winning aircraft, there is no winning route type. The end.

Reduction of all the real-world grey areas into black-and-white arguments is just silly.


I quoted this because it is concise and true, so I can find it again. It is applicable to the majority of the arguments on here, so now I have easy access. Thanks!
 
Themack
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 12:55 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:17 pm

N14AZ wrote:
We discussed this on the production thread... how would this new wingtip look like? I guess they will have to stay within the 80-m-box, otherwise it's not a "low-hanging fruit". So no raked winglets... "just" a 767-ish winglet?


Not if you take the 764 raked wingtips. If you use the retrofitted 762/763 winglets yes it could be possible. They could also take the 737Max style winglets.
 
Bricktop
Posts: 239
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:40 pm

PW100 wrote:
Bricktop wrote:
Bolding mine. With all due respect, that’s nonsense. Throwing up the semantic canard of P2P is merely a deflection. Let’s look at the airlines not named Emirates, shall we?

BA: (LHR) BOS, HKG, JNB, LAX, MIA, SFO, SIN, YVR, IAD
AF: (CDG) ABJ, HKG, JNB, LAX, MEX, MIA, JFK, SFO, PVG, IAD
LH: (FRA) PKG, DEL, HKG, IAH, LAX, MIA, JFK, SFO, ICN, PVG, SIN
OZ: (ICN) LAX, JFK, FRA
CZ: (PEK, CAN) LAX, SYD, AMS, CTU
EY: (AUH) LHR, MEL, BOM, JFK, SYD
KE: (ICN) ATL, LHR, LAX, JFK, CDG
MH: (KUL) LHR
QF: (SYD, MEL) DFW, DXB, LHR, LAX
QR: (DOH) BKK, CAN, LHR, CDG, SYD
SQ: (SIN) AKL, PEK, DEL, FRA, HKG, LHR, LAX, MEL, BOM, JFK, CDG, PVG, SYD, NRT, ZRH
TG: (BKK) FRA, HKG, LHR, KIX, CDG, NRT

SOURCE: https://www.iflya380.com/a380-airlines.html

Go through that list and provide the ones you call “points” over “hubs”. ABJ, AKL, YVR and ZRH I will concede. I was going to say Chengdu but that has over 10 million people, but let’s give you that. Maybe IAD even though it’s the capital of a country called the United States of America. So let’s throw Melbourne in there just to piss off the Aussies. Apart from these, slim pickings.

Now EK has so many A380’s they have to send them to a lot of cities that aren’t in that first tier that will certainly be justifiably caused “points” over “hubs”. But again we get back to my point of having all the eggs in one basket.

You do realize that while a lot of those "hubs" you listed are not hubs for the airline concerned, and from a functionality point of view are treated as O&D for that particular airline.

Example: BA is in bed with AA, not with UA. I don't think BA will get any hub feed from SFO-LHR. So while SFO is a hub (for UA), for BA it really is an O&D rote (on the SFO end that is).

So you should eliminate a lot of routes from that list (not to mention that you should add about every EK route . . . ).


Rgds,
PW100

JL always used to go on about the A380 flying between megacities. Very few airlines outside the US have more than one hub. Can UA fill an A380 between EWR and SFO? Of course they can, but that market is about frequency, same as LHR-JFK. BA could easily throw a few A380's on there and have a few fewer B744 or B777 flights, but the market doesn't want that. See also NYC-HKG.

On that list above I included the airline's own hub. So with the exception of CZ and QF, no airlines have the option of flying between 2 of it's own hubs. So yes, obviously there is mostly O&D for BA on SFO-LHR, or really for any of these airlines and routes. They will get their domestic feed as well, but the fact remains that A380's with very few examples flies between megacities. EXACTLY as JL said. He was right. What it does, it does superbly. There just isn't enough of this business, or else we wouldn't be having this discussion. Is there a replacement market? Probably, but what's going to happen to the used frames? If they go to the desert then that's bad for the economics. If they go to existing users, that may mean a new frame doesn't sell. So what new users might take up the used frames? What new megacities have the traffic that aren't being served already?
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 2846
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:25 pm

Bricktop wrote:
Virtually every airline that is not Emirates flies it H2H. Even Emirates flies it mostly H2H with some H2P


In my (limited) view of the market, virtually every Emirates (A380) flight is H2P.

Emirates has only one hub. One could argue that SYD could be considered as a secondary EK hub, and if one digs deep into imagination, some other airlines could be found providing limited feed at some other airports (B6 @ JFK). But in essence EK is one hub airline.

Which airports outside DXB do you feel provide anything more than insignificant feed into their network? I wonder if they add up to be classified as: "Even Emirates flies it mostly H2H"
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2215
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:39 pm

Taxi645 wrote:
The A380 has a history of underusing it's cabin floor area


Folks here often say this. The question is - why did airlines under-utilize the space by nominal seat count?
It's not as if airlines overlook space in airliners, after all.
Rather, it seems more likely that A380's typically occupy a portion of the yield curve where the marginal revenue from adding additional seats is lower than the marginal revenue from increasing passenger comfort.
This is why I'm betting no mainline airline ever goes 11ab (maybe MH's Hajj herders).

We all recognize, hopefully, that at A380 capacity the economic considerations are slightly different from at A350 capacity. We therefore shouldn't expect the same kinds of tradeoffs to apply as in an A350.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 23556
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:58 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
Folks here often say this. The question is - why did airlines under-utilize the space by nominal seat count?


Despite the high customization level, some items on the A380 are fixed. Like the staircase.

The fact that a smaller, redesigned staircase could add 40-50 additional seats just shows how much space is wasted on useless items.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2215
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Wed Mar 22, 2017 5:10 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
The fact that a smaller, redesigned staircase could add 40-50 additional seats just shows how much space is wasted on useless items.


The redesigned front staircase does not add 40-50 seats. Rather, the combination of redesigning both staircases AND going to 11ab adds 50 seats.

That is not, btw, a ~10% increase in capacity. The added seats are all economy; it would only be a 10% increase if the added seats were a proportional mix of F/J/Y.
 
Taxi645
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Wed Mar 22, 2017 5:13 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
Taxi645 wrote:
The A380 has a history of underusing it's cabin floor area


Folks here often say this. The question is - why did airlines under-utilize the space by nominal seat count?
It's not as if airlines overlook space in airliners, after all.
Rather, it seems more likely that A380's typically occupy a portion of the yield curve where the marginal revenue from adding additional seats is lower than the marginal revenue from increasing passenger comfort.
This is why I'm betting no mainline airline ever goes 11ab (maybe MH's Hajj herders).

We all recognize, hopefully, that at A380 capacity the economic considerations are slightly different from at A350 capacity. We therefore shouldn't expect the same kinds of tradeoffs to apply as in an A350.



I think there are a couple of reasons for it:

1 The CASM advantage at launch was such that the maximum efficient use of the floor area was not required to make the plane sell/work (now not so much anymore obviously).
2 The lower density added to the luxury comfortable image/experience of the A380 allowing a ticket premium.
3 Indeed the A380 was quite a bit larger than the next plane, so not fully utilizing the full floor capacity made the transition smaller.

Unfortunately for the A380 it's CASM advantage has shrunk faster than air travel has grown. At the moment there is not much choice than to increase the CASM advantage again by increasing the seating density. I expect the higher density won't sell like hot cakes and many airlines won't have a need for even more seats, but for some it might and I reckon enough to bridge the gap to the NEO. At that point the A380 can switch much easier to a GTF (smaller scale, more easily shared with a A330 replacement/787MAX program) than any large twin can and can therefore again regain a significant CASM advantege for a quite a while.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 23556
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Wed Mar 22, 2017 5:19 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
The fact that a smaller, redesigned staircase could add 40-50 additional seats just shows how much space is wasted on useless items.


The redesigned front staircase does not add 40-50 seats. Rather, the combination of redesigning both staircases AND going to 11ab adds 50 seats.


That's not what Kiran Rao said:

Re-arranging fixtures and fittings within the A380 could accommodate 60 more customers without reducing the width or pitch of its seats, according to Kiran Rao, Airbus’s director of strategy and marketing.


Ref https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -for-seats

It seems 11-abreast would add another 50 seats or so.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
Whalejet
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 3:31 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Wed Mar 22, 2017 5:31 pm

PW100 wrote:
Bricktop wrote:
Virtually every airline that is not Emirates flies it H2H. Even Emirates flies it mostly H2H with some H2P


In my (limited) view of the market, virtually every Emirates (A380) flight is H2P.

Emirates has only one hub. One could argue that SYD could be considered as a secondary EK hub, and if one digs deep into imagination, some other airlines could be found providing limited feed at some other airports (B6 @ JFK). But in essence EK is one hub airline.

Which airports outside DXB do you feel provide anything more than insignificant feed into their network? I wonder if they add up to be classified as: "Even Emirates flies it mostly H2H"


That is true, but Hub-MegaPoint (IE, JFK or HND/NRT) essentially equals H2H because of the vast amount of airlines there. IE, a passenger from Cairo to Wichita would take a connection to DXB, DXB-JFK, and then B6/AA/DL/UA would take that passenger to Wichita. Same with something like Khartorum to Busan: Fly to DXB, then INCN, then a KE or something connection to PUS.
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 1932
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Wed Mar 22, 2017 5:31 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
Rather, the combination of redesigning both staircases AND going to 11ab adds 50 seats.

Wrong. The 40-50 figure quoted in the original news article has nothing at all to do with 11ab (which could add at least 40 more) but is just for the staircase reconfiguration:
The provisionally dubbed A380-Plus makeover would add 40-50 seats to increase the standard interior's capacity to more than 600 seats which would help airlines reduce their costs per passenger.
To make room for those extra passengers, the A380 would do away with the double staircase at the front of the plane in favour of something more compact. The narrower spiral staircase at the back would also be modified.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-airbus ... KKBN16F0YV

But, as the article states, Airbus are not publicly making any claims about the numbers as the changes are still being discussed with airlines and have not yet been finalised.
 
parapente
Posts: 1690
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Wed Mar 22, 2017 5:37 pm

Someone said earlier that when the A380 first came out hardly any airports had fitted the double entrance systems so 'The grand staircase' was probably felt to be necessary back then.It was also a marketing talking point.Today a smaller winding staircase will be fine for most journeys.They have also found that the rear staircase was not really necessary other than crew.
So I expect them to offer these alternatives (plus repositioned crew rest area).The additional space on the upper deck only comes into play if you use 'herringbone' sleeper seats.
Bit like Matt I cannot see any of the legacy airlines moving to the (so called) 18"X11.The 18.5" seats are a real selling point IMHO.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2215
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Wed Mar 22, 2017 6:33 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
That's not what Kiran Rao said:


There are a couple problems with this.
First, even if an Airbus executive says something, that doesn't mean it's true in any reasonable sense. We all know the OEM's ability to manipulate seat count claims is largely un-cabined. Airbus claims its 11ab seats would be 18in, while simultaneously claiming the 777x's 10ab are below 18in. You can make that claim by specifying different armrest widths, but it's an absurd claim from a PaxEx standpoint.
Second, we don't know that Bloomberg really understood the baseline of the comparison - a point connected to point one above.

In general, it's just crazy to believe that smaller stairs are worth up to 60 seats. Crazy and credulous. But Airbus partisans will believe anything Airbus says, that's how we have A380 fanboys here.

Taxi645 wrote:
1 The CASM advantage at launch was such that the maximum efficient use of the floor area was not required to make the plane sell/work (now not so much anymore obviously).
2 The lower density added to the luxury comfortable image/experience of the A380 allowing a ticket premium.
3 Indeed the A380 was quite a bit larger than the next plane, so not fully utilizing the full floor capacity made the transition smaller.


Sure but everything you're saying here is encompassed by my point that it's about marginal revenue and marginal cost, and about where the A380 typically sits on a generalized curve relating marginal revenue and marginal cost.

Most of the time it is not a good strategy to trade space for seat count, targeting a comfort premium. For the A380, however, that is the optimal strategy because the yield for marginal seats is lower than than the marginal revenue from a comfort premium. At least that is what the airlines have projected from their behavior.
 
enzo011
Posts: 1373
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Wed Mar 22, 2017 6:49 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
There are a couple problems with this.
First, even if an Airbus executive says something, that doesn't mean it's true in any reasonable sense. We all know the OEM's ability to manipulate seat count claims is largely un-cabined. Airbus claims its 11ab seats would be 18in, while simultaneously claiming the 777x's 10ab are below 18in. You can make that claim by specifying different armrest widths, but it's an absurd claim from a PaxEx standpoint.
Second, we don't know that Bloomberg really understood the baseline of the comparison - a point connected to point one above.

In general, it's just crazy to believe that smaller stairs are worth up to 60 seats. Crazy and credulous. But Airbus partisans will believe anything Airbus says, that's how we have A380 fanboys here.



The article mentions 60 passengers by moving and modifying fixtures and fitting, including the stairs as one item. So its not only the stairs but a variety of other features that can be moved around and modified to add up to 60 seats.

If you only modify the stairs it will not add 60 seats, but other modifications will add up to 60 seats without going 11-abreast.

Airbus Group SE is exploring ways of carving out extra space on its A380 superjumbos in order to boost capacity and enhance margins for operators, among them modifying the staircases that connect the double-decker jet’s two passenger floors.
 
Taxi645
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:15 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
Sure but everything you're saying here is encompassed by my point that it's about marginal revenue and marginal cost, and about where the A380 typically sits on a generalized curve relating marginal revenue and marginal cost.

Most of the time it is not a good strategy to trade space for seat count, targeting a comfort premium. For the A380, however, that is the optimal strategy because the yield for marginal seats is lower than than the marginal revenue from a comfort premium. At least that is what the airlines have projected from their behavior.


I acknowledge your point that for each airplane, fuselage lay out and airliner/usage etc that curve will be different and an increase in revenue won't always similar to other planes or indeed be guaranteed. Furthermore it is hard to say what that curve exactly looks like for the A380 (if one would be able to generalize that across all it's viable usage applications).

I think that it is fair to state that the mentioned floor use optimizations have a far smaller negative effect on comfort than moving to 11-abreast (although I do think that with future traffic growth, is still a good idea for multiple usage applications) and are the sort of low hanging fruit that Airbus perhaps would've picked up sooner if it weren't for the comfort of the Emirates orders.

About the exact seat count gained by what change, we'll have to wait and see what they will officially offer and even then, as you argue, numbers tend to get skewed to look good and will differ from airline configurations. What we do know that from a CASM point of view the sort of seat increase mentioned is quite considerable, even on an A380.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 23556
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:32 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
There are a couple problems with this.
First, even if an Airbus executive says something, that doesn't mean it's true in any reasonable sense.


That's entirely correct.

Luckily Airbus released several graphs to support their claim. We even had a few topics on the matter:

Airbus Revises A380 Layout
A380 Cabin Improvements

Both graphs do not yet take the forward staircase into account, which would easily add another bunch of seats as the Bloomberg article points out. All together, I can see where those 60 seats are coming from.

The graph also shows that 11-abreast would add another 25 economy seats.

In general, it's just crazy to believe that smaller stairs are worth up to 60 seats. Crazy and credulous.


It's not crazy if we accept the A380 cabin space is under utilized.

There are several explanations for it. I believe A380 cabins designed in the early 2000s had a lot of luxury in mind, wasting a lot of space that could have been used to hold more seats. The luxury concept doesn't fit today's world anymore, hence Airbus starts floating ideas to redesign several cabin parts so it can hold more seats.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
pompos
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 1:47 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:35 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
Taxi645 wrote:
The A380 has a history of underusing it's cabin floor area


Folks here often say this. The question is - why did airlines under-utilize the space by nominal seat count?
It's not as if airlines overlook space in airliners, after all.
Rather, it seems more likely that A380's typically occupy a portion of the yield curve where the marginal revenue from adding additional seats is lower than the marginal revenue from increasing passenger comfort.
This is why I'm betting no mainline airline ever goes 11ab (maybe MH's Hajj herders).

Maybe it's a nice way for Emirates to introduce Premium Economy. Keeping Economy the same number of seats (but more cramped) and using the freed up space to add a more premium product that keeps the yields up.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 1081
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:46 pm

Themack wrote:
N14AZ wrote:
We discussed this on the production thread... how would this new wingtip look like? I guess they will have to stay within the 80-m-box, otherwise it's not a "low-hanging fruit". So no raked winglets... "just" a 767-ish winglet?


Not if you take the 764 raked wingtips. If you use the retrofitted 762/763 winglets yes it could be possible. They could also take the 737Max style winglets.


But Aviation Partners wouldn't design winglets for Airbus. I think there are probably lots of patents that would inhibit Airbus from copying the 737 Max style wingtips.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 1081
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:57 pm

keesje wrote:
With most of the A380 operators adopting the 787's and 777s ten abreast for long haul, it feels like a kind of inevitable more seats would be added to the A380s maindeck. Unless airlines feel the flag ship premium passengers margins are valuable. 11 abreast is on the table again, it's been on and off for 5 years..

The passengers you miss with the current low density 10 abreast cabin bring in revenue and costs (weight, food, crew service etc.) The questions is if the 10 passengers bring in enough to compensate the margin of missing #11 (ticketprice-total costs). Or if the are no longer willing to pay a big seat A380 flagship premium if cabin desity goes up.. "problem" is at 11 abreast the A380 maindeck seats would still be significant wider (18 inch) then other seats sold long haul.

Image

A pick I took a while ago while at it..

Image

Being relatively long I would love prefer window seat..


I've sat on window seats on both sides of LH A380's. In terms of space it's like sitting in an aisle seat.
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2221
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:01 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
There are a couple problems with this.
First, even if an Airbus executive says something, that doesn't mean it's true in any reasonable sense.
Second, we don't know that Bloomberg really understood the baseline of the comparison - a point connected to point one above.

In general, it's just crazy to believe that smaller stairs are worth up to 60 seats. Crazy and credulous. But Airbus partisans will believe anything Airbus says, that's how we have A380 fanboys here.

Sure but everything you're saying here is encompassed by my point that it's about marginal revenue and marginal cost, and about where the A380 typically sits on a generalized curve relating marginal revenue and marginal cost.

When posters discuss with you, it seems to be on the premise, heads I'm right, tails you're wrong, you always want the last word, and ultimately they are fanboys.

Why do you use Airbus statements when they suit your rhetoric, but consider they aren't credible when they don't? If Airbus statements are unreasonable, then should readers discount your ('my point') comments, even more heavily? And is anyone who repeats or supports your views, using the same countering ideology, simply a Matt Fanboy?

Fewer and fewer posters engage with you, which I'm sure you believe is due to your superior intellect, research and knowledge. Please take a more partisan approach, less like you are prosecuting or defending, and more like a judge. And use everyday words, not ones out of a Thesaurus.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2215
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Airbus is examining 'A380-Plus'

Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:34 pm

Planesmart wrote:
When posters discuss with you, it seems to be on the premise, heads I'm right, tails you're wrong, you always want the last word, and ultimately they are fanboys.


I make points vigorously. That's not going to change. If you have a problem with that, feel free not to engage with me.
The method of arguing strongly like a lawyer is the best way to have the truth come out. The judges can judge; we who have points should make them.

Re citing Airbus sometimes: Notice the difference between critical and uncritical citation. If you won't recognize that difference, if you think it's as simple as "you cite Airbus sometimes too" then you're being simplistic and, no, I don't mind saying that. Maintaining analytical hygiene is important; bad lines of reasoning should be called out. Including my own.

KarelXWB wrote:
Luckily Airbus released several graphs to support their claim. We even had a few topics on the matter:

Airbus Revises A380 Layout
A380 Cabin Improvements


None of the graphics in the threads you linked show a gain of 60 seats without going to 11ab.
This graphic, the most recent, shows a 14-seat gain from rear stairs and 3-5 seat gain from combined crew rest:
Image

So there's 19 seats. Getting rid of the front stairs ENTIRELY wouldn't get you another 41 seats.

Taxi645 wrote:
What we do know that from a CASM point of view the sort of seat increase mentioned is quite considerable, even on an A380.


Indeed it is. The most underrated aspect is the removal of the UD side bins to allow for more J seats in reverse herringbone configuration. That makes the upper deck nearly equal to 777 width for J capacity. Big deal.

...which goes again to the strategic errors of this program. The new stairs options should have been offered from the start. That could have made a big difference for a 2010 delivery; it's unlikely to make 2020 A380 more attractive than 777-9.

All of this, most likely, too little too late.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 16

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