Airbus is examining new ways for reviving the A380 sales by launching a new program called 'A380-plus'. The new program will enable Airbus to add 50 seats to the jet while modifying the staircase onboard and adding fuel-saving wingtips, as it aims to lower the operating costs and ensuring extra fuel efficiency by 2%.

Quote:
"Beyond the new tweaks, the health of the programme depends on getting costs low enough so that Airbus can keep output ticking over at 12 a year without losing money, while it waits for what it hopes will be a rise in demand as air travel grows."

Do you fellow members think that the new plan will lure airlines who operate the A380 to keep their planes for a longer period or attracting new airlines? Why is Airbus still putting hopes on the A380 program?

Source: http://gulfnews.com/business/aviation/a ... -1.1990639

dubaiamman243 wrote:

Airbus is examining new ways for reviving the A380 sales by launching a new program called 'A380-plus'. The new program will enable Airbus to add 50 seats to the jet while modifying the staircase onboard and adding fuel-saving wingtips, as it aims to lower the operating costs and ensuring extra fuel efficiency by 2%.

Quote:
"Beyond the new tweaks, the health of the programme depends on getting costs low enough so that Airbus can keep output ticking over at 12 a year without losing money, while it waits for what it hopes will be a rise in demand as air travel grows."

Do you fellow members think that the new plan will lure airlines who operate the A380 to keep their planes for a longer period or attracting new airlines? Why is Airbus still putting hopes on the A380 program?

Source: http://gulfnews.com/business/aviation/a ... -1.1990639

Who will order his first? Tim Clark or Robert Mugabe?

Winglets, 11-across Y, and a staircase? We're.. Not enough IMHO.

Lightsaber

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?

Well 50 extra seats, aerodynamic improvements for 2% less fuel, and some other improvements for existing machines. Well this is the A380, it will be gone in years and no one has ordered it for years. Now this again it's typically a warmed over kind of... wait, it's simply a good idea. 50 seats is CASM down 10%? Seats will still be wider than 777/787 right?

airbus gambled on a380 and lost...huge capacity and huge price tag on single plane with low frequency vs
smaller capacity and lower price tag and higher frequency.
i know the a380 has its fanboys but this is just putting lipstick on a pig

As with any projects, it would make sense if the return is, in present value terms, greater than the investments. Its not for anyone to judge unless they have concrete numbers. For all we know, this could be a 3hr $200 job for a mckinsey consultant (not likely) or a 3 million man hour expense which would not be worthwhile

LovePrunesAnet wrote:

airbus gambled on a380 and lost...huge capacity and huge price tag on single plane with low frequency vs
smaller capacity and lower price tag and higher frequency.
i know the a380 has its fanboys but this is just putting lipstick on a pig

And Yet Boeing is spending billions developing the 779 which has higher CASM than the 380 in some configurations. Its easy to be sceptical and dismissive. Market conditions change all the time. If what you said is true than A/B should never make another airplane bigger then the 787/A330.

dubaiamman243 wrote:

Airbus is examining new ways for reviving the A380 sales by launching a new program called 'A380-plus'. The new program will enable Airbus to add 50 seats to the jet while modifying the staircase onboard and adding fuel-saving wingtips, as it aims to lower the operating costs and ensuring extra fuel efficiency by 2%.

Quote:
"Beyond the new tweaks, the health of the programme depends on getting costs low enough so that Airbus can keep output ticking over at 12 a year without losing money, while it waits for what it hopes will be a rise in demand as air travel grows."

Do you fellow members think that the new plan will lure airlines who operate the A380 to keep their planes for a longer period or attracting new airlines? Why is Airbus still putting hopes on the A380 program?

Source: http://gulfnews.com/business/aviation/a ... -1.1990639

I don't think more seats is going to help.

lightsaber wrote:

Winglets, 11-across Y, and a staircase? We're.. Not enough IMHO.

Lightsaber

It is certainly possible that Airbus could devise an NPV-positive product enhancement without fundamentally changing the prospects of the A380 program. After all, ANY positive NPV project should be pursued by rationale management.

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...

DfwRevolution wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Winglets, 11-across Y, and a staircase? We're.. Not enough IMHO.

Lightsaber

It is certainly possible that Airbus could devise an NPV-positive product enhancement without fundamentally changing the prospects of the A380 program. After all, ANY positive NPV project should be pursued by rationale management.

Sure but while the product might be enhanced for a small capital outlay, any development that does not result in further sales to keep the line alive is not creating any return. Would the Plus version tip the balance and convince customers to order where they would not have ordered the nonplussed version?

Maybe you don't win any incremental new orders but instead sell it as an optional price adder to your existing backlog.

dubaiamman243 wrote:

Why is Airbus still putting hopes on the A380 program?

Because they have to. Abandoning the program would cost them billions of dollars, thousands of egos and a slice of humble pie. They're valiantly trying to squeeze all that's left in the A380 but I don't think there's much more to squeeze.

downdata wrote:

LovePrunesAnet wrote:

airbus gambled on a380 and lost...huge capacity and huge price tag on single plane with low frequency vs
smaller capacity and lower price tag and higher frequency.
i know the a380 has its fanboys but this is just putting lipstick on a pig

And Yet Boeing is spending billions developing the 779 which has higher CASM than the 380 in some configurations. Its easy to be sceptical and dismissive. Market conditions change all the time. If what you said is true than A/B should never make another airplane bigger then the 787/A330.

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.

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.

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.

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.

But has it? Can you show how many new p2p routes has the 787 opened? I think Boeing was wrong. The 787 is mostly plying exactly the same routes as planes before it.

hongkongflyer wrote:

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

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

That sounds like not much, but if you convert it into a CASM advantage we are talking about over 5%.

This sounds like something that ultimately won't get the go ahead.

Strato2 wrote:

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.

But has it? Can you show how many new p2p routes has the 787 opened? I think Boeing was wrong. The 787 is mostly plying exactly the same routes as planes before it.

AUS-LHR immediately comes to mind. What about MAN-PVR? (I saw two 787's in PVR just yesterday) SJC-PEK? SJC-LHR? These are just off of the top of my head.

I think it's safe to say the 787 has opened many new p2p markets.

barney captain wrote:

Strato2 wrote:

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.

But has it? Can you show how many new p2p routes has the 787 opened? I think Boeing was wrong. The 787 is mostly plying exactly the same routes as planes before it.

AUS-LHR immediately comes to mind. What about MAN-PVR? (I saw two 787's in PVR just yesterday) SJC-PEK? SJC-LHR? These are just off of the top of my head.

I think it's safe to say the 787 has opened many new p2p markets.

I have flown LHR-AUS many times. And it has been operated by a 777-200 quite a few times.

We'll see if anyone is going to order it. 2% decrease in fuel seems attractive, as the 50 extra seats, might be interesting to some, but the more seats you put on a road, the average price will be driven down. So the 10% reduction in CSAM in a standard configuration might not be enough to offset it.

Strato2 wrote:

But has it? Can you show how many new p2p routes has the 787 opened? I think Boeing was wrong. The 787 is mostly plying exactly the same routes as planes before it.

Well if Boeing was wrong, then Airbus is also wrong given they subsequently developed the A350. Both the B787 and A350 have sold in large numbers, so if that means Boeing/Airbus got it wrong, then I'd like to know what your definition of success is !!

In terms of new P2P routes, the upcoming QF PER-LHR route is one example of a ultra long haul p2p route made viable by the B787.

rotating14 wrote:

downdata wrote:

LovePrunesAnet wrote:

airbus gambled on a380 and lost...huge capacity and huge price tag on single plane with low frequency vs
smaller capacity and lower price tag and higher frequency.
i know the a380 has its fanboys but this is just putting lipstick on a pig

And Yet Boeing is spending billions developing the 779 which has higher CASM than the 380 in some configurations. Its easy to be sceptical and dismissive. Market conditions change all the time. If what you said is true than A/B should never make another airplane bigger then the 787/A330.

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.

Most 787s are flying hub to hub or hub to spoke, not really how Boeing predicted the future.

barney captain wrote:

Strato2 wrote:

But has it? Can you show how many new p2p routes has the 787 opened? I think Boeing was wrong. The 787 is mostly plying exactly the same routes as planes before it.

AUS-LHR immediately comes to mind. What about MAN-PVR? (I saw two 787's in PVR just yesterday) SJC-PEK? SJC-LHR? These are just off of the top of my head.

I think it's safe to say the 787 has opened many new p2p markets.

SYDSpotter wrote:

In terms of new P2P routes, the upcoming QF PER-LHR route is one example of a ultra long haul p2p route made viable by the B787.

LHR is a big hub, not really a good example of P2P.

The idea was the 787 would connect smaller cities with other smaller cities, bypassing large hubs. That's not really happening.

SYDSpotter wrote:

Well if Boeing was wrong, then Airbus is also wrong given they subsequently developed the A350. Both the B787 and A350 have sold in large numbers, so if that means Boeing/Airbus got it wrong, then I'd like to know what your definition of success is !!

Airbus never promoted the A350 for P2P travel. They always assumed it would fly out of hubs.

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.

barney captain wrote:

Strato2 wrote:

But has it? Can you show how many new p2p routes has the 787 opened? I think Boeing was wrong. The 787 is mostly plying exactly the same routes as planes before it.

AUS-LHR immediately comes to mind. What about MAN-PVR? (I saw two 787's in PVR just yesterday) SJC-PEK? SJC-LHR? These are just off of the top of my head.

I think it's safe to say the 787 has opened many new p2p markets.

The only one of those that you mentioned that could be even remotely accurately labeled "p2p" would be MAN-PVR.

The other three are just spokes to two of the largest hubs on the planet. Absolutely nothing point to point about them.

SYDSpotter wrote:

Strato2 wrote:

But has it? Can you show how many new p2p routes has the 787 opened? I think Boeing was wrong. The 787 is mostly plying exactly the same routes as planes before it.

Well if Boeing was wrong, then Airbus is also wrong given they subsequently developed the A350. Both the B787 and A350 have sold in large numbers, so if that means Boeing/Airbus got it wrong, then I'd like to know what your definition of success is !!

In terms of new P2P routes, the upcoming QF PER-LHR route is one example of a ultra long haul p2p route made viable by the B787.

Misunderstanding from misrepresentation.

Boeing needed something in the size of the A330 slot ( in the longhaul core market the A330 had trounced the 767 soundly
and was beginning to eat into 777 territory. 777 was expensive to create, Boeing needed the pricing power of an uncontested model)

Airbus needed a VLA to round out its portfolio. ergo the A380.
Airbus did not need a better A330 mousetrap <check> though they took their time to understand that
but they needed something above the A330. So we see the birth of the A350 XWB.

The marketing trick leveraged by Boeing was to paint this in philosophically differing future projections how traffic would evolve.

This was complemented by "Quads are uncompetitive by design".
( IMHO Airbus does not have much technical lever to neutralize that. ( compare 787 <> A330/A350Mk1. sitting this out worked in the end.)

They have to either introduce a strong countervailing meme or wait for Boeing's meme to destructively clash with reality. That takes time.)

Dutchy wrote:

We'll see if anyone is going to order it. 2% decrease in fuel seems attractive, as the 50 extra seats, might be interesting to some, but the more seats you put on a road, the average price will be driven down. So the 10% reduction in CSAM in a standard configuration might not be enough to offset it.

Well, that's the point isn't it? Of course, the 50 extra seats would reduce CASM significantly, but I haven't heard any airline complaining the A380's problem is lack of seats.
Not even EK. Of course, if offered, EK would be the first to be interested. And I believe these changes are aimed to entice EK investing further in the A380, placing a follow up order to replace a second batch of GP7200 powered A380s. With an already lower production rate planned, this might enable Airbus to bridge the cap to a point in time where an A380neo will be attractive to launch (this is when other airlines than EK and SQ will start thinking about replacing their current A380s).

It will indeed interesting to see if the proposed changes will result in a new A380 order. If so, it may rescue the A380 program. But I'm skeptical. I wouldn't be surprised if Boeing is already talking to A380 operators about a 777-10X, which IMO would be large enough for some (AF, TG, CZ, QF, KE) to replace their A380 fleet.

frigatebird wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

We'll see if anyone is going to order it. 2% decrease in fuel seems attractive, as the 50 extra seats, might be interesting to some, but the more seats you put on a road, the average price will be driven down. So the 10% reduction in CSAM in a standard configuration might not be enough to offset it.

Well, that's the point isn't it? Of course, the 50 extra seats would reduce CASM significantly, but I haven't heard any airline complaining the A380's problem is lack of seats.
Not even EK. Of course, if offered, EK would be the first to be interested. And I believe these changes are aimed to entice EK investing further in the A380, placing a follow up order to replace a second batch of GP7200 powered A380s. With an already lower production rate planned, this might enable Airbus to bridge the cap to a point in time where an A380neo will be attractive to launch (this is when other airlines than EK and SQ will start thinking about replacing their current A380s).

It will indeed interesting to see if the proposed changes will result in a new A380 order. If so, it may rescue the A380 program. But I'm skeptical. I wouldn't be surprised if Boeing is already talking to A380 operators about a 777-10X, which IMO would be large enough for some (AF, TG, CZ, QF, KE) to replace their A380 fleet.

Only CX really wanted the A380-900, but I guess that train has passed a long time ago.

I think this strategy follow a standard Airbus tradition...

Small steps leads to the major goal. Ones I would like to see how an EK A380 with these additional 50 seats with the RR PIP3 compares to the first A380 delivered to the EK. That number will be critical to show if EK will purchase the A380 plus or keep the current batches of A380.

Airbus major goal is to make EK order another batch of CEO making the A380 survive before they have a generatrion of engines ready let say 2025.

What they are saying here is that they are able to add around 10% seats for low cost, improve fuelburn to compensate the additional weight to fly this additional 50 seats without need to charge the customer too much additional.

For me this sounds like a 10% increase in CASM and for companies like EK equal revenue.

It also opens up for a A350-11 in the sence that both CASM improvements of A380 gives it reason to exist and makes it compete with a 779 and A350-11.

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.

Where might new sales come from,having completed one 10 year sales cycle?
Nothing in N America,S America,Africa.The big three European groups have all ordered (inc the other VLA the 748).Onlt IAG say they want (6) more but feel they can acquire them cheaply second hand.
The Middle East has acquired 100's and do not want more.
The Far East/Australia 'majors' have ordered and are not ordering more.
So you get a total of circa 315 A380's of which 280-290 ish will be built,plus circa 30 B748's.

The only market therefore is the replacement market.Which has already started.5 for Singapore Air and a %age of Emirates last order of 40 (20 perhaps?).Some airlines -Malaysia (Thai?) will not reorder.There will probably be others.

Therefore the potential replacement market spread over 15 yeas is...? 200 max?
The question therefore is what improvements are necessary to maximise the sales of these replacement aircraft in the face of a potential new (but smaller -although more efficient) VLA the 777-10?

Maximising/modernising the 'internals'.Yes of course.In theory you can improve efficiency by 10% (if you can fill the extra seats).And that's without going 11 abreast.
Blended winglets of some kind.Have to really.Which modern aircraft does not have this treatment today?None.And 2% is well worth having.If it can be retrofitted then so much the better.
A further engine PiP.Yes if it's possible- cheaply.

If that's not enough then you are into big bucks.

Sorry should have added a word on route fragmentation.This has been happening slowly for a long time -the 767 and 330.Now the 787 and 330Neo.Next up at the other end the A321NEO NEO LR.But but he looks of it the coup de grass will be the 797/MOM.Fragmentaion and P toP will only increase this reducing the size of the VLA market.Even the 777-8 will ( we have heard) start taking long distance routes eliminating the classic stop over.

So it's really hard if not impossible to see any expansion of the VLA market what so ever, with the reverse more likely.Not an area for Airbus to spend their hard earned Euros.

frigatebird wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

We'll see if anyone is going to order it. 2% decrease in fuel seems attractive, as the 50 extra seats, might be interesting to some, but the more seats you put on a road, the average price will be driven down. So the 10% reduction in CSAM in a standard configuration might not be enough to offset it.

Well, that's the point isn't it? Of course, the 50 extra seats would reduce CASM significantly, but I haven't heard any airline complaining the A380's problem is lack of seats.
Not even EK.

Japp, that's the part I don't understand... let me start by saying Airbus is not stupid, they talk to their customers and know their specific needs much better than we do. But al we hear from the public statements by the airlines is that they don't want a larger A380 but a more efficient A380.

Dutchy wrote:

Only CX really wanted the A380-900, but I guess that train has passed a long time ago.

Just for the records, both LH and AF said they could use the A380-900 in their networks but that's long time ago...

Remember when we used to hear of projects to improve the 747-8. This could be of that ilk.

Regarding the endless P2P vs. VLA-wars here on a.net.
I never understand why people see this as black and white, or as simple as in one of these Western Movies:
P2P = John Wayne
VLA = the bad guy
The bad guy makes trouble for almost 90 minutes, John Wayne comes, kills him, end of story. Bad guy (VLA) dead, John Wayne (P2P) the big hero.

Unfortunately (or fortunately for bad guys), life is not that simple. There is a market for both approaches or why are there about 250 VLA’s flying above us while we discuss here…

barney captain wrote:

AUS-LHR immediately comes to mind. What about MAN-PVR? (I saw two 787's in PVR just yesterday) SJC-PEK? SJC-LHR? These are just off of the top of my head.

I think it's safe to say the 787 has opened many new p2p markets.

Those are all HUB-2-p routes. The same exact type of routes that have always existed.

airbazar wrote:

barney captain wrote:

AUS-LHR immediately comes to mind. What about MAN-PVR? (I saw two 787's in PVR just yesterday) SJC-PEK? SJC-LHR? These are just off of the top of my head.

I think it's safe to say the 787 has opened many new p2p markets.

Those are all HUB-2-p routes. The same exact type of routes that have always existed.

And the hubs became bigger and bigger. People argued the 787 would make hubs to disappear... which clearly never happened.

KarelXWB wrote:

airbazar wrote:

barney captain wrote:

AUS-LHR immediately comes to mind. What about MAN-PVR? (I saw two 787's in PVR just yesterday) SJC-PEK? SJC-LHR? These are just off of the top of my head.

I think it's safe to say the 787 has opened many new p2p markets.

Those are all HUB-2-p routes. The same exact type of routes that have always existed.

And the hubs became bigger and bigger. People argued the 787 would make hubs to disappear... which clearly never happened.

It actually helped make hubs bigger because due to its economics and size, it makes a lot more "spoke" routse like LHR-AUS, viable.

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".

frigatebird wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

We'll see if anyone is going to order it. 2% decrease in fuel seems attractive, as the 50 extra seats, might be interesting to some, but the more seats you put on a road, the average price will be driven down. So the 10% reduction in CSAM in a standard configuration might not be enough to offset it.

Well, that's the point isn't it? Of course, the 50 extra seats would reduce CASM significantly, but I haven't heard any airline complaining the A380's problem is lack of seats.

Airlines don't complain, but are often looking at ways to increase seating capacity. Many A380s cabins were designed in the early 2000s, an era where luxury was still a bit of an option in the aviation sector. Even Emirates would have designed a different cabin:

“When we did the A380 in the early days I don’t think we optimized the space as best we could,” Clark said. “We were faced with a 500-seater and that is an awful lot of seats...but the demand for it is so strong that we now have to take the two decks back to bare metal and rebuild them."

Ref http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... nt-a380neo

EK has already announced the introduction of Premium Economy seating, so all Airbus has to do is design the perfect mix of 4 classes for a winner.

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.

Every time I have ever been on a BA A380 it has been full (multiple LHR-HKG-LHR, SFO-LHR), I know that doesn't tell us about yield but the flights were certainly full.

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".

Actually, I thought the re-profiled rear stairs was discussed publicly (on here?) only a few weeks ago... It's about compressing the galley/lavs/stairs space at the back to get another seat row in. IIRC the spiral stair becomes a two-stage straight stair with a landing midway (like in houses). That allows some re-packaging of equipment and other usable space around it.

rotating14 wrote:

dubaiamman243 wrote:

Why is Airbus still putting hopes on the A380 program?

Because they have to. Abandoning the program would cost them billions of dollars, thousands of egos and a slice of humble pie. They're valiantly trying to squeeze all that's left in the A380 but I don't think there's much more to squeeze.

It won't cost them billions. They have already written off the costs.

RickNRoll wrote:

rotating14 wrote:

dubaiamman243 wrote:

Why is Airbus still putting hopes on the A380 program?

Because they have to. Abandoning the program would cost them billions of dollars, thousands of egos and a slice of humble pie. They're valiantly trying to squeeze all that's left in the A380 but I don't think there's much more to squeeze.

It won't cost them billions. They have already written off the costs.

They would still have to write off several billions though.

olle wrote:

Ones I would like to see how an EK A380 with these additional 50 seats with the RR PIP3 compares to the first A380 delivered to the EK. That number will be critical to show if EK will purchase the A380 plus or keep the current batches of A380.

Or retrofit to existing fleet.

Most of this is natural evolution to optimise capacity.

The reference to wingtips is interesting, probably a bigger investment than tinkering with the staircase and 11-abreast layouts, but such developments have been part of the evolution of many other programmes in the past.

No reference to new engines or a small stretch. Looks to me like the final, relatively low-cost, iteration of the A380-800 ceo design, in the hope of bridging the production gap until market demand picks up and / or engine technology creates a sufficient efficiency gain to invest in a proper neo.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Most of this is natural evolution to optimise capacity.

The reference to wingtips is interesting, probably a bigger investment than tinkering with the staircase and 11-abreast layouts, but such developments have been part of the evolution of many other programmes in the past.

You're absolutely right. Look at the first 747 and its upstair lounge. Long gone!

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!

I really don't see this going through at all.