parapente wrote:

I assume the door next to the staircase is a toilet?

The press release states that the stairs go up to the upper deck and down to the crew rest... that door is to the crew rest (probably a significant part of the space-saving since it takes no additional floor space at all).

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

I don't quite understand how these stairs impact the upper deck layout.
Per exit regulations, all seats have to have exits fore and aft of them.
On the A380, the forward stairs act as the forward exits in lieu of a door.
With the stairs relocated to MD Door 2, any area forward of them on the UD can't hold seats.
Am I right in thinking, then, that this rearrangement requires putting only galleys/lavs/lounge in the area of the UD forward of the stairs? Seems so.

I expect the doors are slightly forward of main deck door 2 and that there are indeed only lavs and galleys ahead of them in the crown space.

I haven't seen details yet, so I'm also curious...

Edit: I just looked harder at the rendering and it shows that the stairs are only just forward of the upper deck door (note the lowered ceiling above the seats in the background)... odd! That places them just aft of the lower deck door 2 - not forward as I expected...

I had the same question as Matt6461
But if the forward part of the cabin is just for first or biz, maybe there can be somme special condition (or simply a hatch to connect with the main deck just next to main deck door 1). They use hatch for flight crew

olle wrote:

So basicly 80 (!?!) seats can be added will smaller changes and kept comfort level?

What has Airbus been doing until recent?

If I interpret the article correctly it's 47 seats without adjusting seat width and 81 with narrowing the seat width (9 and 11-abreat) compared to the original configuration. Still 47 is very significant and that is without advances in seat thickness that allows for more rows with equal legroom.

WIederling wrote:

Bit of a vicious cycle.
Airbus visibly has problems moving A380. So even those that have an active interest try to squeeze Airbus for that little bit more ( er less .
What you see is a game of chicken.
If IAG/BA really wanted only used ones and for cheap : the opportunity was there.

Agreed. IAG throws in 2nd hand planes as leverage, Airbus CFO threatens terminating production, also leverage.

Airbus doesn't want to go much cheaper to make the bridge phase to the NEO too costly. Airlines on the other hand obviously try to get the best possible deal. The current seating optimizations are just a cheaper alternative to bridge the gap to the NEO for Airbus than further reducing pricing at an already not very economic production rate. If enough airlines bite it makes the in between years a bit more affordable. Airbus can afford to see how the next two years go to see who can't resist, after that it becomes more expensive

They took the right decision to wait for a larger leap in engine efficiency and to see some further aviation growth for the NEO. The plus is just a stop gap solution.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Edit: I just looked harder at the rendering and it shows that the stairs are only just forward of the upper deck door (note the lowered ceiling above the seats in the background)... odd! That places them just aft of the lower deck door 2 - not forward as I expected...

The mockups show the stairs aft of door 2 and first class suites forward of the stairs on the upper deck. Airbus must have come up with some way of satisfying the regulations:
http://economyclassandbeyond.boardingarea.com/2017/04/04/airbus-propoes-fit-80-extra-seats-a380/#sthash.tOS6GVAD.dpbs

speedbored wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Edit: I just looked harder at the rendering and it shows that the stairs are only just forward of the upper deck door (note the lowered ceiling above the seats in the background)... odd! That places them just aft of the lower deck door 2 - not forward as I expected...

The mockups show the stairs aft of door 2 and first class suites forward of the stairs on the upper deck. Airbus must have come up with some way of satisfying the regulations:
http://economyclassandbeyond.boardingarea.com/2017/04/04/airbus-propoes-fit-80-extra-seats-a380/#sthash.tOS6GVAD.dpbs

Maybe as Aviaponcho suggests there is some kind of drop-down hatch/slide/ladder/fireman's-pole for those six first-class suites...!? I suppose with only a handful of passengers affected they can get away with a "fire escape" type solution instead of a full staircase.

Still I can not understand how they will be willing to accommodate 11-abreast: Are they going to implement a solution of raising cabin floor level or are they going to adopt the elevated outer-most seat solution?!

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

speedbored wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Edit: I just looked harder at the rendering and it shows that the stairs are only just forward of the upper deck door (note the lowered ceiling above the seats in the background)... odd! That places them just aft of the lower deck door 2 - not forward as I expected...

The mockups show the stairs aft of door 2 and first class suites forward of the stairs on the upper deck. Airbus must have come up with some way of satisfying the regulations:
http://economyclassandbeyond.boardingarea.com/2017/04/04/airbus-propoes-fit-80-extra-seats-a380/#sthash.tOS6GVAD.dpbs

Maybe as Aviaponcho suggests there is some kind of drop-down hatch/slide/ladder/fireman's-pole for those six first-class suites...!? I suppose with only a handful of passengers affected they can get away with a "fire escape" type solution instead of a full staircase.

The mockup still shows a staircase at door 1/the front of the upper deck too...

Clipper101 wrote:

Still I can not understand how they will be willing to accommodate 11-abreast: Are they going to implement a solution of raising cabin floor level or are they going to adopt the elevated outer-most seat solution?!

By either having narrower seats and/or narrower armrests (and narrower seat cushions for the window seats-note that when Airbus measures seat width they measure between armrests).

Polot wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

speedbored wrote:

The mockups show the stairs aft of door 2 and first class suites forward of the stairs on the upper deck. Airbus must have come up with some way of satisfying the regulations:
http://economyclassandbeyond.boardingarea.com/2017/04/04/airbus-propoes-fit-80-extra-seats-a380/#sthash.tOS6GVAD.dpbs

Maybe as Aviaponcho suggests there is some kind of drop-down hatch/slide/ladder/fireman's-pole for those six first-class suites...!? I suppose with only a handful of passengers affected they can get away with a "fire escape" type solution instead of a full staircase.

The mockup still shows a staircase at door 1/the front of the upper deck too...

Clipper101 wrote:

Still I can not understand how they will be willing to accommodate 11-abreast: Are they going to implement a solution of raising cabin floor level or are they going to adopt the elevated outer-most seat solution?!

By either having narrower seats and/or narrower armrests (and narrower seat cushions for the window seats-note that when Airbus measures seat width they measure between armrests).

The picture in the linked story contains a pre-revision A380 - it's plainly labelled and contains the forward front stairs. Presumably there were two models: pre- and post-revision. It's hard to tell from which version comes the close-up of the F suites.

Matt6461 wrote:

The picture in the linked story contains a pre-revision A380

No it does not.

The model shows many different cabin options, including both types of front staircase. The new stairs option is clearly shown in the second picture, and also in the third and fifth pictures.

Interesting quote here:

The aircraft manufacturer says that the modification options were developed in response to requests for higher capacity options that would open up more revenue opportunity. A number of undisclosed customers have signed for linefit and retrofit modifications.

http://apex.aero/2017/04/04/airbus-high ... subsidiary

Some of these changes could be retrofitted, but I imagine the NFS will be a major task.
It would require modifying the floor beams, no? That's a big lift affecting a large structure that impacts the fuselage pressure vessel.
The sidebin removal impacts the ventilation system as well, per Airbus FAST issue re A380 cabin improvements. Seems like a big retrofit task if at all possible.

I wonder who has signed on for line and retro treatment.
I imagine MAS will want all feasible densification measures for its Hajj-haulers.
I could see EK going for the NFS given their investments in UD jetbridges across the network.

Matt6461 wrote:

I wonder who has signed on for line and retro treatment.
I imagine MAS will want all feasible densification measures for its Hajj-haulers.
I could see EK going for the NFS given their investments in UD jetbridges across the network.

Maybe AF as well, see the other thread about their plans to upgrade their A380-cabins

Speedbored wrote:

No, I am interested in letting people know when things you state as "fact" are simply untrue.

Lol. I requested clarification of a point. You're just trying to have an argument.
You decide what you think I'm claiming then adopt the opposite position.
Even if that requires you to say the 747-8 has an all-new wing, the A380 will have 30 sales in 2016, the NEO will definitely launch, the A380 has 9106ft2 exposed wing area. I could go on...
Basically you don't mind sound sounding like a clown if you get to disagree with me. Odd stance.

Matt6461 wrote:

You're just trying to have an argument.
You decide what you think I'm claiming then adopt the opposite position.

How can I possibly have misconstrued your statement:

Matt6461 wrote:

The picture in the linked story contains a pre-revision A380

?
No thinking or deciding was required - it is just plain wrong, as the pictures clearly show. None of the pictures in the linked story contain a pre-revision A380, or even a model of one. The models in the pictures show a whole range of the cabin (and underfloor) outfitting options available with the A380, and the drawers underneath the model contain additional sections that can be swapped with sections that are currently on display.

Every time someone points out that something you have posted is just wrong, you resort to personal attacks. Every single time.

Matt6461 wrote:

Basically you don't mind sound sounding like a clown if you get to disagree with me.

Someone is definitely making a clown of themselves - I'm sure that anyone who looks at the pictures in the linked article will be able to work out for themselves who that is.

Speedbored wrote:

None of the pictures in the linked story contain a pre-revision A380, or even a model of one.

The first picture is captioned, "A380 model before the changes."

This picture:


Got it?

Matt6461 wrote:

Speedbored wrote:

None of the pictures in the linked story contain a pre-revision A380, or even a model of one.

The first picture is captioned, "A380 model before the changes."

This picture:


Got it?

Isn't that a 9 abreast Premium Economy and 11 abreast economy cabin ?

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

Speedbored wrote:

None of the pictures in the linked story contain a pre-revision A380, or even a model of one.

The first picture is captioned, "A380 model before the changes."

This picture:


Got it?

Isn't that a 9 abreast Premium Economy and 11 abreast economy cabin ?

Those row configs have been on offer for a couple years though. The NFS was just released.
The picture is from someone who is at the convention and reporting that it is "before the changes."
Before which changes - all, some, none - is ambiguous from the report.
All I'm trying to figure out is what configuration the UD has in front of the NFS option.
The picture clearly doesn't show full implementation of the NFS configuration, as the old stairs are still there.
That leaves open the question of whether F suites sit in front of the NFS and, if they do (which is entirely possible, even likely), whether further regulatory action is needed or has been issued to implement the proposed configuration.

Is anybody else at the convention who has further insight?

A little further snooping online found this:



From a French article: http://www.journal-aviation.com/actuali ... -de-l-a380

So it looks like complete implementation will place seats ahead of the first UD door, which would require a regulatory waiver.
The forward galley/lavs configuration looks pretty efficient - basically using the space the way most planes use the tailcone.

Not being a French speaker, I used Google Translate for the following interesting quote:

The complete module has already been presented to a first customer at Finkenwerder and the first real unit should see the light in 2018 with a first delivery expected in 2019. Note that the AGSM is also offered in retrofit with an installation that can be carried out In a period close to that of a C-Check.

...this suggests that NFS isn't available as a retrofit, while the AGSM is. Which makes sense given the floor beam modifications required for NFS.
Flight in 2018 and delivery in 2019 suggests SQ might be a customer for the AGSM?

Matt6461 wrote:

The first picture is captioned, "A380 model before the changes."

And the caption is wrong. If you can count to 11 (or even 9) you will see that the model, as configured for that particular photo, is demonstrating both the 11-abreast economy and 9-abreast premium economy seating, along with some other options, all of which form part of the "how to fit 80 extra seats in its A380" changes that the article is about.

As I mentioned before, the model can be configured to include any or all of the proposed changes, alongside any or all of the previous options. Regardless of the captions, none of the pictures in that article "contains a pre-revision A380" as you claimed. Any "clown" ought to be able to see that.

I know that, out of principle, you are determined never to believe a word I say but the entire reason that that model exists at all is to demonstrate to existing and potential customers what options they could include in their existing or future aircraft.

Matt6461 wrote:

Got it?

Matt6461 wrote:

Speedbored wrote:

None of the pictures in the linked story contain a pre-revision A380, or even a model of one.

The first picture is captioned, "A380 model before the changes."

This picture:


Got it?

I know the caption says it is before the changes but looking at the picture it is clear that this is the same model that the pictures is used later on in the article, just showing the whole model instead of sections zoomed in. So if you accept that the pictures after this shows the new possible changes then the caption is wrong on the first picture.

I concede you are correct about what the caption says, but the caption is wrong. Do you accept that?

If the aircraft is too big for most airlines' missions, it's hard to see how adding 50 seats will help.

It's a bit like that Paula Poundstone skit where she complains to the hotel front desk that her room has no shampoo so they bring up a whole handful of lotions. "Do you see that no matter how many lotions you bring, they're still not shampoo?"

No modern full double decker existed prior to the A380.At launch few airports has the facility to embark passengers directly upstairs (and they were the Premium pax).
10 years on that has now changed so a 'grand' staircase is superfluous.Lost space added weight.So it's only sensible for it to go.Not only does it create very valuable space on both decks it neatly allows the crew compartment to be relocated adding more space.
10 years ago they had no idea how much the rear stairs might be used (again it was a new concept).In the event it turned out it was only crew so once again a very sensible change.
The X9 prem economy on the lower deck looks a good use of space too.
But all of it is only playing 'catch up' in terms of use of space.The clever thing is they are not compromising their passenger USP's whilst offering all this.
We will have to see who bites or not.

drgmobile wrote:

If the aircraft is too big for most airlines' missions, it's hard to see how adding 50 seats will help.

I guess the question is how many extra seats need to be sold to get cost of installation and the cost of the extra weight back. Maybe it helps to lower the seat price to simulate more demand.
I can imagine for Emirates this might be a nice way to introduce premium economy with fairly little risk.

enzo11 wrote:

the caption is wrong.

The caption is not wrong because the model is modular.
The picture is of a modular configuration lacking the forward galley/lavs module that the French article documents.
It is, therefore, "before the changes" to extent that the space-saving modifications are not incorporated, only the NFS itself (though that's hard to tell from the pic).

Let's not make this an argument, let's try to figure out the case.
I began by asking what UD configuration is entailed by NFS, and it appears that the configuration does indeed place F suites ahead of the NFS, and that they lack a forward exit. Question answered.

Next question: does this configuration require a regulatory waiver (seems so) and is it likely to be granted?

Another question: Why did Airbus put the NFS behind Door 2 instead of in front? The latter config, combined with forward-sloping stairs, may have left only ~15ft ahead of the stairs on the UD, which would remove the regulatory issue. Maybe it's that they've already solved the regulatory issue. Maybe it's that the further-rearward config better aligns with accessing the underfloor crew rest, which sits at the rear of the forward cargo hold.

Side question: Had NFS and AGSM been option in 2008, do we think there would have been more sales? Seems likely IMO.

Matt6461 wrote:

does this configuration require a regulatory waiver (seems so) and is it likely to be granted?

With my lawyer hat on, I'm wondering whether the requirement of exits fore and aft of any seats specifically mandates satisfaction of that condition at the deck or plane level.
Does anyone have the specific regulatory citation?
I wonder if there's a feasible argument that UD seats ahead of the NFS nonetheless satisfy applicable regs because MD door 1 is ahead of seats?
Intuitively, that seems against the purpose of the regulation, but maybe not.

Matt6461 wrote:

The caption is not wrong because the model is modular.
The picture is of a modular configuration lacking the forward galley/lavs module that the French article documents.
It is, therefore, "before the changes" to extent that the space-saving modifications are not incorporated, only the NFS itself (though that's hard to tell from the pic).

Seriously? You expect us to accept that Matt and the caption are not wrong because the model could have been configured to show an A380 before the changes, as claimed?

The article is about a package of proposed changes that could provide 80 additional seats. It details the changes as:
New forward staircase - 20 seats
Combined crew rest - 3 seats
11 abreast seating - 23 seats
9 abreast premium economy - 11 seats
New rear stairs - 14 seats
Remove sidewall stowage - 10 seats

The model, as configured for the first picture, includes all of these except both new stair options. So it includes 47 of the 81 available additional seats. To even attempt to claim that the picture is "before the changes" is ludicrous. The caption is wrong.

I guess we have to blame that lady in the background... the photographer was told to take some pictures of that model showing the old configuration. But until he had his equipment ready, the lady had already started to open the covers and to play with the configuration... mystery solved

The task for Airbus is to make A380 survive and EK and a few other to buy it and replace existing early birds with it before the Neo arrives in around 7 years.

EK has asked for a bigger version like A385 or A389 and this gives without major investments 15% more seats.

Sounds like a hit to me.

The simple facts that suddenly the CASM figures for 779 vs 350 vs 380+ does not show up everywhere for me shows that Airbus have come up with a surprise here...

N14AZ wrote:

I guess we have to blame that lady in the background... the photographer was told to take some pictures of that model showing the old configuration.

Or maybe he thought that she was the "old model"

Could EK's deferred deliveries be in prevision of these changes ?

This is a reminder that personal attacks against other users is against forum rules. Debate the topic, not the user. Please be respectful of varying opinions.

✈️ atcsundevil

atcsundevil wrote:

This is a reminder that personal attacks against other users is against forum rules. Debate the topic, not the user. Please be respectful of varying opinions.

✈️ atcsundevil

So, back to topic.

Do folks think this seating configuration requires regulatory approval?
If so, any evidence that this is forthcoming, or arguments that it will be?

OTOH, do folks think the regs can be read to apply at plane level rather than at deck level? That would allow Airbus to point to MD Door 1 as satisfying the regulations, despite the fact that accessing MD Door 1 would require heading backwards first.

FG ( https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ng-435924/ ) has an article on this from yesterday.

It talks of a few companies who could be putting the new configuration to use:

MAS is spinning off a subsidiary which will operate its fleet of six A380s as high-density 700-seaters on religious pilgrimage flights. The aircraft currently have 496 seats. The move came after MAS was unable to dispose of its A380s on the secondary market through sale or lease deals.

MAS will cease operating the A380 by the third quarter of 2018 and the aircraft will then undergo seat refurbishment work, with the first pilgrimage flights expected to start by January 2019.

Meanwhile lessor Doric which has a portfolio of A380s leased to their original operators is considering a strategy to offer the type as an ACMI operation. Doric is understood to have acquired seats from Lufthansa for the reconfiguration of the cabin as it prepares to remarket the aircraft.

To convert the A380 from a charter aircraft configuration with a single-class or two-class configuration is not cheap. One remarketing agent estimates that the cost of converting from three-class to charter configuration (mostly economy and some premium economy) would carry a cost of between $15 million and $20 million per aircraft.

Revelation wrote:

FG ( https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ng-435924/ ) has an article on this from yesterday.

It talks of a few companies who could be putting the new configuration to use:

MAS is spinning off a subsidiary which will operate its fleet of six A380s as high-density 700-seaters on religious pilgrimage flights. The aircraft currently have 496 seats. The move came after MAS was unable to dispose of its A380s on the secondary market through sale or lease deals.

MAS will cease operating the A380 by the third quarter of 2018 and the aircraft will then undergo seat refurbishment work, with the first pilgrimage flights expected to start by January 2019.

Meanwhile lessor Doric which has a portfolio of A380s leased to their original operators is considering a strategy to offer the type as an ACMI operation. Doric is understood to have acquired seats from Lufthansa for the reconfiguration of the cabin as it prepares to remarket the aircraft.

To convert the A380 from a charter aircraft configuration with a single-class or two-class configuration is not cheap. One remarketing agent estimates that the cost of converting from three-class to charter configuration (mostly economy and some premium economy) would carry a cost of between $15 million and $20 million per aircraft.

That's crazy. i get it, but it's crazy. That can't help the resale values.

SCAT15F wrote:

The fact remains that even a 2005 vintage A380-800 is still more efficient per seat then the 2019 777-9 when you account for usable cabin floor area which is the only fair metric when comparing these two aircraft. I.e., a 779 in a 405 seat configuration can only be compared honestly to an A388 seating 655.
...
I'm just tired of all the BS promotional sales spin about the 777 vs the A380 (and the 748 for that matter).

Two questions:

1) Can your provide a cite that says the A380 is more economic that the 777-9 on your per-floor-area basis, because there are a zillion citations that say the opposite on a per seat basis.

2) Every reputable airline is flying A380s with *much* fewer than 655 seats. Why do you think that is?

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

new engines thats what emirates wants

StTim wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

TranscendZac wrote:

I still believe there is a place for the A380. The 747-8 can't compete and the 779 is still substantially smaller than the A380 capacity-wise.

Wow - the love and hatred on here for certain types always astounds me.

Some poster just parrot stuff with no thought to intellectual coversation has fact with no ability to other sides/points of view.

Revelation wrote:

FG ( https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ng-435924/ ) has an article on this from yesterday.

It talks of a few companies who could be putting the new configuration to use:

[...]Meanwhile lessor Doric which has a portfolio of A380s leased to their original operators is considering a strategy to offer the type as an ACMI operation. Doric is understood to have acquired seats from Lufthansa for the reconfiguration of the cabin as it prepares to remarket the aircraft.

That's interesting, thanks for sharing that link.

I guess they are talking about MSN 003, 9V-SKA, the first A380 to be retired from its initial operator. So it will become an ACMI aircraft, similar to the various European B744's that you can see during the holiday season or when they have to transfer passengers for cruise ship tours (I forgot the names, Vamos Air? Air Atlantic Iceland, Air Pullerman...)

PlanesNTrains wrote:

That's crazy. i get it, but it's crazy. That can't help the resale values.

I agree, but times change. A380 was launched as a prestige product, and it's done OK at that, but now the market for it is stagnant, and other approaches must be tried.

kitplane01 wrote:

1) Can your provide a cite that says the A380 is more economic that the 777-9 on your per-floor-area basis, because there are a zillion citations that say the opposite on a per seat basis.

The A380 is quite economic when normalizing by seat count or area, but the fact is that larger aircraft need to be even more economic than smaller ones due to risk of yield dilution. Being the same isn't good enough.

kitplane01 wrote:

2) Every reputable airline is flying A380s with *much* fewer than 655 seats. Why do you think that is?

On many routes, adding more seats simply drives yields down. Given the glut in widebody production there aren't many routes that have untapped demand.

N14AZ wrote:

I guess they are talking about MSN 003, 9V-SKA, the first A380 to be retired from its initial operator. So it will become an ACMI aircraft, similar to the various European B744's that you can see during the holiday season or when they have to transfer passengers for cruise ship tours (I forgot the names, Vamos Air? Air Atlantic Iceland, Air Pullerman...)

I think they are talking about the ex-SQ frames but they are only 'considering' this new configuration, because it's a risky move. As above they'd be spending $15-20M per airframe to reconfigure from the traditional 3-class setups to the high density ones, and then have to wonder if they can make the money back because this class of flying (Hajj, cruise ship charters, etc) is traditionally low yielding.

This can't be a terrible thing for Airbus. These frames if converted will give some real-world data for the higher density configurations. Some aspects of these configurations may be acceptable to their more traditional customer base and may eventually help justify additional sales, who knows? It does drag down the prestige factor a bit, but tough times demand tough measures.

It seems MAS has found itself in a place where suspending A380 operations all together is not an acceptable outcome. It seems they've convinced themselves that they can make a go at Hajj flying and their governmental owners are OK with funding that approach. Airbus will rake in the fees for customizing the A380s and will learn a lot of useful things in the process at very little risk to themselves.

It'll be more interesting if Doric takes the plunge since they have real-world investors to answer to, but at this point they also might find every other alternative unacceptable.

Quoting from emiratesdriver in the 'Emirates returning 747Fs to leasors and thoughts on air freight' thread.

emiratesdriver wrote:

..fill up a 2 class or 3 class 380 and you are rarely even close to payload restricted, but you are often (particularly in a 2 class) struggling to load all the bags

If Airbus add another 80 seats, are they going to have enough space for the luggage?

kurtverbose wrote:

If Airbus add another 80 seats, are they going to have enough space for the luggage?

The A380 was designed to carry 800+ passengers and their bags. If you add 80 seats to any existing airline seat layout, you still don't come close to 800 passengers.

So, yes, there is enough space for all of the luggage.

speedbored wrote:

kurtverbose wrote:

If Airbus add another 80 seats, are they going to have enough space for the luggage?

The A380 was designed to carry 800+ passengers and their bags. If you add 80 seats to any existing airline seat layout, you still don't come close to 800 passengers.

So, yes, there is enough space for all of the luggage.

Agreed, the issue in EK service is that they have a generous baggage allowance (its a middle eastern thing) and they do run into problems from time to time. The simple remedy if you put 800 pax on (1 class) is to restrict the baggage allowance, simple.
Just to clarify what speedbored said, the 380 was "designed" and certified for 850 or so passengers, a generic baggage volume and weight would have also been included, so in theory there should be no issue...however once operators get their hands on the airframe...designs and theories are mere paper tigers as economics and marketing trump the day.
FWIW I've had to leave bags behind on a 2 class 380 in EK service.

Also from the now-closed thread, we had:

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

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

Your other statements are interesting but we've just had one round of NEO talks that failed, and there's no evidence to suggest that a new engine and/or wing can come together in time to change the fortunes of the product. Airbus itself is saying mid-2020s for the next possible NEO and that means losing a lot of money between now and then. We shall see if they continue to accept the loss and if the market turns around and starts showing more interest in VLAs, or not. Lots of discussion around this in earlier threads, e.g. viewtopic.php?t=1355693&start=200#p19374369 ...

Is the market really wanting to add more seats? Will some "wave" of reconfiguring A380s happen soon, just like it's happening for the 77W? Or would that simply add too much capacity on some pretty saturated routes? Or is the $15M-$20M spend on the reconfiguration uneconomic?

@kurtverbose wrote:

8% better engines. How much can you reduce the MTOW. If you reduce the MTOW you can reduce wing size, especially if it's a lighter CFRP wing. If you can reduce wing size you can increase aspect ratio, even for the same span. Add folding wings and there's even more scope. Add all that up and together with increased airport congestion and you might have a business case.

However, engine programmes are normally 8 years, so we're really looking at well past 2025 given we're nowhere near a launch date.

Coincidentally, that puts it at the same time period for a 787max, and the thrust requirements are likely to be similar.

We now know that RR is considering the Boeing NMA/MOM as a target for Advance/UltraFan. Both markets are "problematic". We now have a good idea of what the A380 market size is and there's no clear trend showing it will take off any time soon. In fact, one can make a good argument that it will be smaller than the current A380 market. An investment there may not pay off. Similarly, the "middle of the market" product is easily undermined by Airbus from above and below by A330/A321 which are mature programs with plenty to offer. And now you suggest a 787-max type program for the engines too. So, which of these are realistic possibilities?

Revelation wrote:

And now you suggest a 787-max type program for the engines too. So, which of these are realistic possibilities?

First of all, I didn't say there was a business case for a A380NEO - I said maybe.

I can't see an engine programme for a A380NEO alone, it would have to piggy back. By the late 2020's the 787 will have engines circa 20-25 years old. Boeing are not going to be selling many unless they improve the product and that's likely to be with engines.

As for MOM - that's a different subject. If you're saying Rolls wouldn't have the capacity to do both programmes at the same time then that's probably correct, but I'm not sure how much overlap there would be.

What I was putting across is a 2025 NEO timescale is unrealistic, it would have to be a few years later. I don't think Airbus can continue making the A380 until then. It will have to either suspend production or cancel the programme, and the latter seems far more likely.

It just about always costs to shut a program down. Does anyone know what shutting down the 380 would cost Airbus? The obvious importance of that amount is that it could be cheaper to continue incremental improvements and production at 6 per year than shutting down.

Revelation wrote:

Also from the now-closed thread, we had:

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

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

Your other statements are interesting but we've just had one round of NEO talks that failed, and there's no evidence to suggest that a new engine and/or wing can come together in time to change the fortunes of the product. Airbus itself is saying mid-2020s for the next possible NEO and that means losing a lot of money between now and then. We shall see if they continue to accept the loss and if the market turns around and starts showing more interest in VLAs, or not. Lots of discussion around this in earlier threads, e.g. viewtopic.php?t=1355693&start=200#p19374369 ...

Is the market really wanting to add more seats? Will some "wave" of reconfiguring A380s happen soon, just like it's happening for the 77W? Or would that simply add too much capacity on some pretty saturated routes? Or is the $15M-$20M spend on the reconfiguration uneconomic?

@kurtverbose wrote:

8% better engines. How much can you reduce the MTOW. If you reduce the MTOW you can reduce wing size, especially if it's a lighter CFRP wing. If you can reduce wing size you can increase aspect ratio, even for the same span. Add folding wings and there's even more scope. Add all that up and together with increased airport congestion and you might have a business case.

However, engine programmes are normally 8 years, so we're really looking at well past 2025 given we're nowhere near a launch date.

Coincidentally, that puts it at the same time period for a 787max, and the thrust requirements are likely to be similar.

We now know that RR is considering the Boeing NMA/MOM as a target for Advance/UltraFan. Both markets are "problematic". We now have a good idea of what the A380 market size is and there's no clear trend showing it will take off any time soon. In fact, one can make a good argument that it will be smaller than the current A380 market. An investment there may not pay off. Similarly, the "middle of the market" product is easily undermined by Airbus from above and below by A330/A321 which are mature programs with plenty to offer. And now you suggest a 787-max type program for the engines too. So, which of these are realistic possibilities?

Too bad the other thread was closed. By the moderator's logic, we should expect deletion/closing/correction of any A380NEO-related comments now that Airbus has ditched that concept?

Thanks for the .gif in the other thread Taxi645. It neatly illustrates the obsolescence of the A380 wing. I think it was Lightsaber who said he could tell a wing's vintage just by looking at it. As with the .gif, take a look at a planform 707 versus later planes.
Low-AR is a necessary condition of any modern airliner.

Re the cabin reconfigurations, IMO we're still being a little too generous in our characterization of these. Sure, there may be double-digit gains compared to early layouts, but EK's main deck is now at 437 seats at 10ab - only 19 fewer than Amedeo's 11ab layout:


Airlines have as much ability as do we to look at EK's floorplans, yet this densification potential hasn't moved any non-EK frames. Aside from the stairs revision, which adds real value, this is a shift in marketing rather than a shift in value proposition.

Let's add up the numbers:

New forward staircase - 20 seats
Combined crew rest - 3 seats
New rear stairs - 14 seats
These three, applicable to any airline, would add 37 seats alone.

For airlines with herringbone bizclass seats:
Remove sidewall stowage - 10 seats
which brings us to 47 seats. That's without compromising pax comfort.

9 abreast premium economy - 11 seats
With negligible compromise in comfort (9-abreast PY on an A380 is more than good enough), you are now at 58 seats, made up of a combination of J, PY and Y, so not all low-yielding. We haven't even talked about 11-abreast, which IMO would be a mistake that would kill the "A380 effect", and hence why EK rightfully doesn't want it.

That's +58 seats, a good part of it retrofittable during the next cabin upgrade or C-check which is coming up for many aircraft, without a large investment or risk on the part of Airbus, and with no comfort compromise on the side of the airlines.
IMO these cabin mods are mainly aimed at (keeping) existing customers, and convincing hesitant ones who have deferred deliveries (QF...) to stay on board, as well as providing an attractive upgrade when the replacement wave kicks in (already happening for SQ). Any new orders that Airbus may get from this (BA finally giving in? ANA topping up?) will be more than icing on the cake, but are not the driving factor.

The current seating optimizations are just a cheaper alternative to bridge the gap to the NEO for Airbus than further reducing pricing at an already not very economic production rate. If enough airlines bite it makes the in between years a bit more affordable. Airbus can afford to see how the next two years go to see who can't resist, after that it becomes more expensive

Fully agree. Any NEO needs a 15% efficiency improvement and a 10-year production run to justify the investment, and no engine in development today can deliver that over the (still very good) T900. At most 8-10%. Post-2020-2022, it will be a different story. So, the gap until 2022 must be bridged somehow.

They took the right decision to wait for a larger leap in engine efficiency and to see some further aviation growth for the NEO. The plus is just a stop gap solution.

r2rho wrote:

Post-2020-2022, it will be a different story. So, the gap until 2022 must be bridged somehow.

Trent XWB launched 2007, first flight 2012 - 5 years to first flight.
Trent 1000 launched 2004, first flight 2009 - 5 years to first flight.

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

r2rho wrote:

At most 8-10%. Post-2020-2022, it will be a different story. So, the gap until 2022 must be bridged somehow.

The basic error of this thinking is to compare the A380NEO versus the A380CEO only.
The real comparison is (1) A380CEO versus its competition versus (2) A380NEO versus its competiton.
By waiting until ~2025 (earliest realistic chance now), you're putting the NEO25 against better competition.
We'll most likely see a 787MAX by then and, IMO, an Ultrafan'd A350-2000+.
Boeing's MOM/NMA will also compete against the A380 on TATL and <10hr routes (not directly so much, but in shifting traffic away from trunk routes).
And who knows what else. Maybe the Russia-China widebody is taking a big slice of the pie by then.
Against just the planes we can reasonably foresee, it's increasingly harder for any A380NEO to offer a value proposition in 2025.

Never forget that airliners exist in a competitive marketplace.
A mere 15% fuel efficiency delta won't make this plane broadly attractive next decade.
You've got to shoot higher, or let her die.

Worthy alternatives as there may or may not be, only the A380 holds true to the progressive need for higher capacity planes that has marked commercial aviation since its beginning. For sure there will be new city pairs and frequencies opened up by 787/777/A330:A350 XWB types but big cities will continue to grow as will their populations desire/ability to travel, many at peak or favoured hours. Demand that will fill very big planes. However much Airbus can or will be able to lower the seat-mile costs of the A380 will continue to be debated at length. Can (will?) anyone else attempt to launch an all-new design with A380 capacity. I suggest they will not and that the A380 has the "inside track" and will survive at a low production rate and go on to see better sales.

Matt6461 wrote:

Against just the planes we can reasonably foresee, it's increasingly harder for any A380NEO to offer a value proposition in 2025.

Given current market conditions, there simply is no business case to launch the A380neo today. The lack of a proper powerplant would be another issue.