Heavierthanair wrote:

G'day

KarelXWB wrote:

The following photo is even better:

With all those wrinkles I assume that thing is made of cotton or polyester fabric?

Heavierthanair gets it right imho.

I'll bet these are fiberglass mock ups on a non-flying aircraft just to excite the Paris crowd. Certified hardware may be quite a bit down the road, for new or existing aircraft.

We will see.

Turnhouse1 wrote:

Something I've always wondered is that the A380 as is has a fairly long range, how far would an A380-800 sized plane, but the with A380-900 undercarriage and engines fly? It should be able to lift a lot of fuel (unless it's volume limited, but the wing is massive) which would give it serious range against either the 778 or A350ULR.

Take a look at http://weekendblitz.com/top-20-longest- ... tes-world/ and then the question is, how much further would anyone want it to go? EK has famously pulled back from some of its optimism with regards to the US. Once QF was able to do DFW and then EK added DXB-AKL I think there wasn't much anyone else wanted from the A380.

Turnhouse1 wrote:

Something I've always wondered is that the A380 as is has a fairly long range, how far would an A380-800 sized plane, but the with A380-900 undercarriage and engines fly? It should be able to lift a lot of fuel (unless it's volume limited, but the wing is massive) which would give it serious range against either the 778 or A350ULR.

Specify MTOW and OEW for your design and we can approximate an answer with the Breguet range equation - L/D and SFC stay the same if we're just using up-rated engines and internal mods to MLG (i.e. the 5th MLG truck).

Assuming:

• current OEW is 616,000lbs
• max range measured with 525 pax @225 each
• MLG, tankage, and wing reinforcement add 10,000lbs OEW

... then a 1,400,000lb MTOW gets you 15.6% farther - ~9500nm range against the -800's 8200nm range.
Assuming DXB-AUK is 17.5 hours, you're around 20 hours with the -800ULR.
SYD-LON is right around there, maybe you'd have to go up a little past 1.4mil MTOW to do it with full payload. Then again even the A380's economy seats would be brutal for 20+ hours so maybe you don't want that capability.

Maybe QF would buy a few -800ULR's for SYD/MEL-LON. If you can sell them for $1bn/frame you might have business case.

Revelation wrote:

Turnhouse1 wrote:

Something I've always wondered is that the A380 as is has a fairly long range, how far would an A380-800 sized plane, but the with A380-900 undercarriage and engines fly? It should be able to lift a lot of fuel (unless it's volume limited, but the wing is massive) which would give it serious range against either the 778 or A350ULR.

Take a look at http://weekendblitz.com/top-20-longest- ... tes-world/ and then the question is, how much further would anyone want it to go? EK has famously pulled back from some of its optimism with regards to the US. Once QF was able to do DFW and then EK added DXB-AKL I think there wasn't much anyone else wanted from the A380.

I would rather sit in a A380 from JFK to SIN or JFK to SYD than a A350ULR or B778. But that's just me.

FlightGlobal gives the following size

The 4.7m winglet – comprising a 3.5m upper sweep and a 1.2m ventral strake beneath – has been unveiled on the MSN4 test airframe stationed at Le Bourget.

And confirms the winglets on MSN4 are just a mock up (or non flight version as they phrase it)

Furthermore,

Airbus says the "new large winglet" design will not be a retrofit, and would only be installed on new-build aircraft.

But the winglet installation is intended to be weight neutral, in order to maximise the improvements in fuel-burn and aerodynamic efficiency.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ts-438319/

A330freak wrote:

And confirms the winglets on MSN4 are just a mock up (or non flight version as they phrase it)

That explains a lot. I guess Airbus won't put this winglet in production until they received some new A380 orders.

KarelXWB wrote:

A330freak wrote:

And confirms the winglets on MSN4 are just a mock up (or non flight version as they phrase it)

That explains a lot. I guess Airbus won't put this winglet in production until they received some new A380 orders.

Fair comment, except that the fuel saving will be worth an unknown but large pile of cash annually. For instance, BA/IAG might justify spending extra capital on a new A380 of about 6 times this annual cash to give a 15% rate of return on its additional investment in shareholders funds. This would greatly increase the real selling price for Airbus, even if the the gain was split between Airbus and IAG. So a possible win win for both Airbus and for IAG.

If this logic is extended to the increased seating of say 50 (non-11), the accountants at IAG and Airbus might find a better A380 will be good for both of them? The real numbers might become available next week.

Some additional high-quality photos of the new winglet:


Airbus A380 F-WWDD MSN004 by Jon Ostrower, on Flickr


Airbus A380 F-WWDD MSN004 by Jon Ostrower, on Flickr


Airbus A380 F-WWDD MSN004 by Jon Ostrower, on Flickr

Intended to boost sales , and could be announced as early as next week during Paris Air Show

https://ca.yahoo.com/finance/news/airbu ... 58565.html

Wow, no retrofit?
How many airlines does Airbus think are out there that say "now that there are winglets, let's order this thing"?

according to flightglobal.com, Airbus is in discussions with Emirates regarding the A380 winglet

Blotto wrote:

Wow, no retrofit?
How many airlines does Airbus think are out there that say "now that there are winglets, let's order this thing"?

Nothing in the Flightglobal article indicates that the interior optimizations and the winglets can not be retrofitted
Reducing fuel-burn by 4% by fitting winglets should interest all the current users of the A380


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/paris-enhanced-a380plus-to-have-higher-mtow-438328/?sfid=701w0000000uP3H&cmpid=SOC|Twitter|Flightglobal|sf89615071&CMPID=sf89615071

Now officially announced by Airbus:

"Airbus presents the A380plus"

Airbus is presenting a development study for an enhanced A380, the “A380plus”. The study includes aerodynamic improvements in particular new, large winglets and other wing refinements that allow for up to 4% fuel burn savings.

The new winglets measure approximately 4,7 metres in height (an uplet of 3.5m, and a downlet of 1,2m). It is designed to improve aerodynamics and reduce drag.

http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-re ... 0plus.html

Video just uploaded by Airbus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fmf8YBigM1Y

Unlikely for Airbus to do this without having a launch partner agreed.

Le Bourget tomorrow morning should be interesting!

If I remember correctly A380 is certified for 840 pax. None of the current operators configure their plane close to this number. So what does the "up to 80 more seats" entails??

kelvin933 wrote:

Nothing in the Flightglobal article indicates that the interior optimizations and the winglets can not be retrofitted
Reducing fuel-burn by 4% by fitting winglets should interest all the current users of the A380

Are we reading the same article?

Airbus says the "new large winglet" design will not be a retrofit, and would only be installed on new-build aircraft.

"You can't pull out the wing fence and plug in the winglet," it states. It has not indicated how soon the winglet could be certified and put into production, and has also yet to reveal the extent of any changes to A380 wing to account for the modification.

Ref https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ts-438319/

fabian9 wrote:

Unlikely for Airbus to do this without having a launch partner agreed.

The press release specifically mentions it is just a 'development study' so that suggests Airbus has not yet committed to launching the A380plus but it intends to do so if there is enough interest.

Wow no retrofit? This A380plus is officially a dud to me, I don't see how this is going to garner new orders from existing operators or gain new customers.

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.

How about Calgary to Bejing on Hainan Airlines for one?

juliuswong wrote:

If I remember correctly A380 is certified for 840 pax. None of the current operators configure their plane close to this number. So what does the "up to 80 more seats" entails??

It entails more seats in a typical three class configuration. The 840 is the limit for A380 under 90seconds evacuation, but can take a little bit more.

BillyD 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.

How about Calgary to Bejing on Hainan Airlines for one?

BA to Chengdu as another

Hope this will boost sales! Congrats Airbus! MTOW is increased to 578tn as well. Anyone know if there's other aerodynamical improvements than the "scimitar"-type winglets?

KarelXWB wrote:

I'm more surprised that Musée de l'Air et de l'Espace, the current owner of MSN4, has given Airbus permission to modify a museum piece.

Airbus gave them the frame and are presumably also assisting in getting it ready for public access.
I'm sure it's not going to be that hard to come to an agreement about attaching some for-show-only winglets (as has now been confirmed in the FG article posted by A330freak) to that museum piece.

ikolkyo wrote:

Wow no retrofit? This A380plus is officially a dud to me, I don't see how this is going to garner new orders from existing operators or gain new customers.

Well, they want to attract customers to new-built A380s, as they're struggling to keep production rates up. In that regard, they need to be sure CASM is competitive with the 777X. It's basically a cheap A380neo they're doing in an attempt to keep the plane attractive enought to be able to wait out the market picking up until a full-blown A380neo makes sense. Hence their focus on new-builts. That is obviously a bit of a gamble, but the resources required for this are not going to break the bank, and it's not even formally launched yet, it's just a study (maybe a study that came out of initial studies for the A380neo). Once they get interest for 20 A380plus or so, the whole enterprise will have been paid for already.

With regard to retrofits, remember that when Airbus launched sharklets for the A320 in 2010, they initially did so only for new-builts, with deliveries from late 2012. They only launched the retrofit programme in 2013, with deliveries from 2015. It's quite conceivable the same thing could happen for some of the A380plus improvements.

Would also like to point out that in this article:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ts-438319/

It says this, "This enabled the airframer to quickly manufacture and install a non-flight version of the composite winglet, to illustrate the geometry and style of the proposed modification." So this is just a mock, like the 787 roll out. This wont fly. Great job Airbus.

Other than Emirates converting their existing orders to this one, I don't see anyone else buying this.

"Airbus is presenting a developmental study for an enhanced version of the A380, called the “A380plus." The study includes aerodynamic improvements that would reduce fuel consumption, as well as an enhanced cabin layout and optimised maintenance planning."

The video highlights all the new features that are being discussed. Good timing for the Paris Air Show

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fmf8YBigM1Y

anfromme wrote:

Well, they want to attract customers to new-built A380s, as they're struggling to keep production rates up. In that regard, they need to be sure CASM is competitive with the 777X. It's basically a cheap A380neo they're doing in an attempt to keep the plane attractive enought to be able to wait out the market picking up until a full-blown A380neo makes sense. Hence their focus on new-builts. That is obviously a bit of a gamble, but the resources required for this are not going to break the bank, and it's not even formally launched yet, it's just a study (maybe a study that came out of initial studies for the A380neo). Once they get interest for 20 A380plus or so, the whole enterprise will have been paid for already.

With regard to retrofits, remember that when Airbus launched sharklets for the A320 in 2010, they initially did so only for new-builts, with deliveries from late 2012. They only launched the retrofit programme in 2013, with deliveries from 2015. It's quite conceivable the same thing could happen for some of the A380plus improvements.

Airbus has make sure there is a second hand market besides scraping. One step in that direction would to retrofit such a winglet. If there is no second hand market I don't see any new orders from the existing customers other than maybe EK. If I can't sell my used A380 at a reasonable price I'd rather continue flying it than making a new order.

MPadhi wrote:

BillyD 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.

How about Calgary to Bejing on Hainan Airlines for one?

BA to Chengdu as another

BA's foray into Chengdu was unsuccessful and has since ended.

anfromme wrote:

It's basically a cheap A380neo they're doing in an attempt to keep the plane attractive enought to be able to wait out the market picking up until a full-blown A380neo makes sense. Hence their focus on new-builts. .

You realize what the "neo" in A320NEO or A380NEO means, right? How is this "basically a NEO" then?

I find it absolutely ridiculous how some people are full of doom and gloom, only hours after this new version has been made public, saying it won't sell anything at all. This is the week before Paris Air Show 2017, and the timing is interesting. I don't think they'd reveal the A380plus today without having any orders to show this coming weekend.

The improvements are significant for a "neo" without new engines. 4% decrease in fuel burn, 13% lower cost per seat, optimized maintenance program, increased MTOW. All great news.

JetBuddy wrote:

I find it absolutely ridiculous how some people are full of doom and gloom, only hours after this new version has been made public, saying it won't sell anything at all. This is the week before Paris Air Show 2017, and the timing is interesting. I don't think they'd reveal the A380plus today without having any orders to show this coming weekend.

The improvements are significant for a "neo" without new engines. 4% decrease in fuel burn, 13% lower cost per seat, optimized maintenance program, increased MTOW. All great news.

I find it equally as ridiculous to pretend this is going to be some sort of game changer. It's lipstick on a pig. The A380s shortcomings have never been about efficiency, it's the fact that it's too large for 99% of the routes in the world.

777PHX wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

I find it absolutely ridiculous how some people are full of doom and gloom, only hours after this new version has been made public, saying it won't sell anything at all. This is the week before Paris Air Show 2017, and the timing is interesting. I don't think they'd reveal the A380plus today without having any orders to show this coming weekend.

The improvements are significant for a "neo" without new engines. 4% decrease in fuel burn, 13% lower cost per seat, optimized maintenance program, increased MTOW. All great news.

I find it equally as ridiculous to pretend this is going to be some sort of game changer. It's lipstick on a pig. The A380s shortcomings have never been about efficiency, it's the fact that it's too large for 99% of the routes in the world.

If the cost is low enough, it would be attractive to airlines to run the plane instead of multi frequency smaller plane. The problem A380 currently having is that the cost benefit is not enough to attract airlines from doing so and the increased revenue from offering multi frequency outweight the cost saving. Granted the A380plus won't change the situation, if the A380 do have the right cost, there areenough routes in the world to fit it into.

777PHX wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

I find it absolutely ridiculous how some people are full of doom and gloom, only hours after this new version has been made public, saying it won't sell anything at all. This is the week before Paris Air Show 2017, and the timing is interesting. I don't think they'd reveal the A380plus today without having any orders to show this coming weekend.

The improvements are significant for a "neo" without new engines. 4% decrease in fuel burn, 13% lower cost per seat, optimized maintenance program, increased MTOW. All great news.

I find it equally as ridiculous to pretend this is going to be some sort of game changer. It's lipstick on a pig. The A380s shortcomings have never been about efficiency, it's the fact that it's too large for 99% of the routes in the world.

Nobody has said it's a game changer. This upgrade is to bridge the gap until a new engine design is ready and an A380neo would make sense. You're right that it's too large for most routes, but the improvements made by this plus version are significant and may sway current A380 operators to order new aircraft as replacements, and tempt certain carriers that have been sitting on the fence to order it. We'll see what happens. The upgrade is making an already great aircraft even better with minimal R&D costs. How is that a negative? A dozen or two new orders would basically save the entire program at this low production rate. Airports are getting more crowded, air traffic is increasing and the A380 will only fit better with time. The A380plus buys some time.

More accurately, the A380 is too large for 99.8% of the airline routes in the world.
There are 49,871 commercial airline routes.
https://garfors.com/2014/06/100000-flights-day-html/
A380s fly on 104 routes.
http://www.routesonline.com/news/29/bre ... rk-update/

AB's building a plane for 0.2% of airline routes was an amazing decision, similar to the (not "their") decision to build the Concorde in many ways, e.g., timing the market, showpiece for European technology, and probably a family of one type.

In the Airbus video the winglets seem much larger than the pictures. I hope the upper deck storage removal is just an option, and the cabin is wider to accommodate 11-abreast seating in Y. The A380 really came a decade or two earlier than it should've

Its not a "launch" because they don't have any customers. If they don't get any, or don't get considerable interest at this airshow, its done.

WPvsMW wrote:

More accurately, the A380 is too large for 99.8% of the airline routes in the world.
There are 49,871 commercial airline routes.
https://garfors.com/2014/06/100000-flights-day-html/
A380s fly on 104 routes.
http://www.routesonline.com/news/29/bre ... rk-update/

Funny statistics, but not very meaningful (if not misleading) without the fraction of the global number of passengers these routes represent. Did you check this number out ?

I responded to the "routes" post. I invite you to provide the pax numbers.

WPvsMW wrote:

More accurately, the A380 is too large for 99.8% of the airline routes in the world.
There are 49,871 commercial airline routes.
https://garfors.com/2014/06/100000-flights-day-html/
A380s fly on 104 routes.
http://www.routesonline.com/news/29/bre ... rk-update/

AB's building a plane for 0.2% of airline routes was an amazing decision, similar to the (not "their") decision to build the Concorde in many ways, e.g., timing the market, showpiece for European technology, and probably a family of one type.

- There are obviously many routes that A380 would fit in term of passenger numbers, for instance ex-LAX, ex-NRT, ex-PEK, ex-PVG, but airlines choose not to operate because they have better alternative airplanes
- And routes and routes aren't equal. You can count how many ASK would be needed for the air route between LHR and JFK every week, and then how many ASK would be needed between YAP and ROR every week.

WPvsMW wrote:

I responded to the "routes" post. I invite you to provide the pax numbers.

You are the one who take the "routes" discussion into an absurd argument. It is not my fault if you put on all routes on the same level and disregard that some are shorter than one hour and carry a hundred passengers a day while others take a solid 12 hours, and see thousands of passengers daily. I said you should take passenger numbers into account, but in fact what you should take into account is passenger miles flown. And on that metrics you would realize quickly that LHR-LAX, ICN-SFO or BKK-CDG count a bit more than the average line in your 50k routes statistics.

danj555 wrote:

Its not a "launch" because they don't have any customers. If they don't get any, or don't get considerable interest at this airshow, its done.

Airbus have orders, which either need to be cancelled with deposits forfeited and penalties paid, or confirmed. Will be a no cost option used as a 'carrot' to trigger the latter.

Theseus wrote:

[ but in fact what you should take into account is passenger miles flown.

I invite you to research and report the ASM of all A380 flights compared to total ASM in commercial aviation.... or do some ASM not count as, IYO, some routes don't count?

WPvsMW wrote:

More accurately, the A380 is too large for 99.8% of the airline routes in the world.
There are 49,871 commercial airline routes.
https://garfors.com/2014/06/100000-flights-day-html/
A380s fly on 104 routes.
http://www.routesonline.com/news/29/bre ... rk-update/

AB's building a plane for 0.2% of airline routes was an amazing decision, similar to the (not "their") decision to build the Concorde in many ways, e.g., timing the market, showpiece for European technology, and probably a family of one type.

Be careful with taking "routes" as some exogenous, metaphysical fact to which airliners must respond. Looking at DXB-LHR in 2000, one surely would have said its pax numbers didn't justify 8x daily A380's.

Planesmart wrote:

Airbus have orders, which either need to be cancelled with deposits forfeited and penalties paid, or confirmed. Will be a no cost option used as a 'carrot' to trigger the latter.

Based on the way the program was managed/mis-managed I doubt there are any deposits to forfeit or penalties to be paid on metal that has not been cut.

Depending on the availability time frame the only airlines I see getting winglets would be EK on their last 25-30 airplanes and maybe ANA -- depending on the cost. I don't see any airlines coming out of the weeds to take a dozen or so just because of this modification nor top offs by any airline presently flying the A380 -- fuel prices are just too low.

Shame they are able to be retro fitted, I'm sure EK and QF would jump on them for a 4% saving to DFW/AKL where they really push the range.

I think its possible Emirates will take these on future builds. Can't see anyone else buying this aircraft again apart from EK, SQ and possibly BA if the price was right.

Perhaps ANA might take these like stated above, they want max density so the 80 seats are beneficial.

The A380 is a captive of slot-controlled airports. A380s do not fly on any of the world's busiest airline routes with pax volume over 3 mln/yr., not even GMP/CJU (highest volume worldwide, around 12 mln/yr), even though KE has A380s. I doubt that NH flies A380s TYO/CTS or TYO/FUK (#2 and #3 worldwide) after EIS of its A380s.

https://www.iflya380.com/?adultCount=1& ... origin=LHR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_b ... air_routes

Wow. The MD-12 has reached it's fully reincarnated form.

I wonder if this improvement can extend the life of the project such that we can eventually arrive to an A388NEO(Plus improvements included) and, eventually a stretch - the the A389NEO. Understandably, most A380 critics cite that the current A380 may be too 'large', that said, the future constraints (essentially the underlying business case for the aircraft) will continue to mount pressures on carriers, who will face that crunch of harder slots, and the need of greater passenger numbers.

Perhaps the combination of EADS's ambitions and EK's plans did not provide the most advantageous setting for the project overall's performance (and/or financial well being). That said, perhaps at a lower rate, and with revised estimates of demand/need (as they have more accurate data now about demand, customer expectations, real-world usage, and perhaps a more intelligent view of the developments needed to ensure profitability for both themselves and customers - albeit it at lower rates, or rather, more manageable forms).