As was stated on a separate thread.It is clear that Emirates is reducing its 'working number' of A380's to about 110 (from 140).We can see this via the heavily revised delivery schedule.At present they have given no word as to when the oldest birds will be parted out.Next year sometime perhaps.
But make no mistake the A380 is critical to them - their words (CEO) not mine.Hence a long term slower production rate that will over time replace the existing fleet.Not uber profits but well worth having.Singapore have started their fleet replacement and over time So will others.Not necessarily 1 for 1 but who knows.The aircraft works very well for many operators - but clearly not all.

Frankly in that scenario I think the 'plus'(interior and wing tip mods) is all we will see for quite a while.There is no business case for more.

On a side note.Reducing their planned fleet by 30 aircraft releases 30 positions at DXB.The movement of their local airline to the new 'World' terminal is clearly designed to free up further positions.
What Emirates are now actively discussing (again) is a smaller aircraft whether it be a small twin (797 anybody) or indeed a narrowbody.
Certainly looks like they will have 50+ positions at the airport without changing their 777X order and delivery schedule.(sorry that was off topic).

LAX772LR wrote:

ro1960 wrote:

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

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

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

Since I posted the discussion has become more constructive indeed.

50 additional seats on an airplane almost no operators are filling makes no sense to anyone but EK.

'Almost no operators'?Source please.Have only been on BA's and EK.But they were full every time.
'Anyone but EK'.Since they are the only guys in town that need a load of replacements over the next few years.Yup it does need to appeal to them.

Planesmart wrote:

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

No A380, and the 779 list will be close to USD500m.

I think this assumes no response from Airbus, and there have been hints at a potentially larger and more capable A350. This would certainly put some pricing pressure on the 777X, and I struggle to see why Airbus would rather let Boeing run wild with 777X pricing (though likely in lower volume) than to invest in a "777X killer" of some sort.

reidar76 wrote:

The A380 relatively small cargo capabilities, compared to 777-8 and A350 is positive thing when doing ultra-long haul.

And the A380's relatively large passenger capability, compared to 777-8 and A350 is a negative thing when doing ultra-long haul.

That is the issue with your idea. Yes, Airbus can easily give the A380 ability to fly further, but the market isn't there. The more ULR you go the more niche the traffic generally becomes, and suddenly you will have very real problems profitably filling the A380 for that mega ultra long haul flight. Airbus needs to look at ways to make the A380 more competitive on <7000nm flights. Adding more weight is not the answer to that.

parapente wrote:

As was stated on a separate thread.It is clear that Emirates is reducing its 'working number' of A380's to about 110 (from 140).

I don't think they have ever been totally explicit about how many they need in concurrent operation. When they ordered the last big batch of 50, it was speculated 25 were for expansion and 25 for replacement. They have ordered 2 more since (ex Skymark) for a total of 142 orders.

Assume they need 120 concurrently, keeping each for 12 years. They would need 10 replacement frames a year, assuming even deliveries, which represents a solid "base load" of production for Airbus. Airbus need to sell 2 a year to other airlines to maintain a run rate of 12 annually, per their plan from 2018. Obviously to make a profit, they need to sell more, but Emirates replacement plus 2 does not sound too hard, especially if supported by the proposed product improvements.

Polot wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

The A380 relatively small cargo capabilities, compared to 777-8 and A350 is positive thing when doing ultra-long haul.

And the A380's relatively large passenger capability, compared to 777-8 and A350 is a negative thing when doing ultra-long haul.

That is the issue with your idea. Yes, Airbus can easily give the A380 ability to fly further, but the market isn't there. The more ULR you go the more niche the traffic generally becomes, and suddenly you will have very real problems profitably filling the A380 for that mega ultra long haul flight. Airbus needs to look at ways to make the A380 more competitive on <7000nm flights. Adding more weight is not the answer to that.

But QF might find improvements to the current version of the A380 useful. They would help on the SYD-DFW and SYD-SFO routes.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Assume they need 120 concurrently, keeping each for 12 years. They would need 10 replacement frames a year, assuming even deliveries, which represents a solid "base load" of production for Airbus. Airbus need to sell 2 a year to other airlines to maintain a run rate of 12 annually, per their plan from 2018. Obviously to make a profit, they need to sell more, but Emirates replacement plus 2 does not sound too hard, especially if supported by the proposed product improvements.

But does flying those planes for 12 years, then throwing them away, represent a viable business plan for the A380?

IIRC, Emirates planes are leased (or acquired, then sold/leased back). The lessors expected there to be a secondary market, which has turned out to be non-existent. So, for the next round, the lessors would expect higher payments from EK to make up for the lack of secondary operators. If that happens, then the question is whether it's still profitable enough to get rid of a plane after 12 years, or if they have to look at a longer lifespan (which, then, reduces demand for new planes ordered).

hOMSaR wrote:

The lessors expected there to be a secondary market, which has turned out to be non-existent. So, for the next round, the lessors would expect

Are there any second hand a/c available? Malaysia Airlines did try, but didn't succeed, too high a price? BA seems to be in the marked for secondhand A380. When will the first Emirates A380 be retired? Then we will know.

Dutchy wrote:

hOMSaR wrote:

The lessors expected there to be a secondary market, which has turned out to be non-existent. So, for the next round, the lessors would expect

Are there any second hand a/c available? Malaysia Airlines did try, but didn't succeed, too high a price? BA seems to be in the marked for secondhand A380. When will the first Emirates A380 be retired? Then we will know.

SQ will be the first airline to retire the first A380: 9V-SKA, MSN 003.

Funnily, MH expressed interest... for their new pilgrim airline...

N14AZ wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

hOMSaR wrote:

The lessors expected there to be a secondary market, which has turned out to be non-existent. So, for the next round, the lessors would expect

Are there any second hand a/c available? Malaysia Airlines did try, but didn't succeed, too high a price? BA seems to be in the marked for secondhand A380. When will the first Emirates A380 be retired? Then we will know.

SQ will be the first airline to retire the first A380: 9V-SKA, MSN 003.

Funnily, MH expressed interest... for their new pilgrim airline...

That would be a turnaround, I didn't see that coming When will the MSN003 be retired, should be turning 10

But the conclusion is, that we simply don't know how strong the marked is for used A380, will be interesting to follow though.

I think October this year, IIRC

flyingclrs727 wrote:

But QF might find improvements to the current version of the A380 useful. They would help on the SYD-DFW and SYD-SFO routes.

It might help on DFW-SYD but the question is how much is it really worth it to QF. DFW is one of those places where QF are perennially rumored to be interested in splitting the flight into two nonstops, MEL-DFW and SYD-DFW, with each utilizing the 789. The A380 as is shouldn't have any major problems with SYD-SFO, that route is actually slightly shorter than SYD-LAX.

Dutchy wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

SQ will be the first airline to retire the first A380: 9V-SKA, MSN 003.

Funnily, MH expressed interest... for their new pilgrim airline...

That would be a turnaround, I didn't see that coming When will the MSN003 be retired, should be turning 10

But the conclusion is, that we simply don't know how strong the marked is for used A380, will be interesting to follow though.

I thought Malaysia was proposing to use its existing A380s for the Hajj fleet.

Dutchy wrote:

hOMSaR wrote:

The lessors expected there to be a secondary market, which has turned out to be non-existent. So, for the next round, the lessors would expect

Are there any second hand a/c available? Malaysia Airlines did try, but didn't succeed, too high a price? BA seems to be in the marked for secondhand A380. When will the first Emirates A380 be retired? Then we will know.

But the first A380's on offer from EK are likely to be engined with Engine Alliance engines, not Rolls Royce.

diverdave wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

SQ will be the first airline to retire the first A380: 9V-SKA, MSN 003.

Funnily, MH expressed interest... for their new pilgrim airline...

That would be a turnaround, I didn't see that coming When will the MSN003 be retired, should be turning 10

But the conclusion is, that we simply don't know how strong the marked is for used A380, will be interesting to follow though.

I thought Malaysia was proposing to use its existing A380s for the Hajj fleet.

They are making lemonade out of lemons. They couldn't get enough money selling the airframes.

Dutchy wrote:

Are there any second hand a/c available? Malaysia Airlines did try, but didn't succeed, too high a price? BA seems to be in the marked for secondhand A380. When will the first Emirates A380 be retired? Then we will know.

First aircraft on the used market won't be good barometers of future value, as they are production orphans, with wiring, weight and after production modifications. A few years later before production standard A380's hit the market. A bit like like judging 787 used values if Ethiopian decided to dispose of it's early builds.

Planesmart wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Are there any second hand a/c available? Malaysia Airlines did try, but didn't succeed, too high a price? BA seems to be in the marked for secondhand A380. When will the first Emirates A380 be retired? Then we will know.

First aircraft on the used market won't be good barometers of future value, as they are production orphans, with wiring, weight and after production modifications. A few years later before production standard A380's hit the market. A bit like like judging 787 used values if Ethiopian decided to dispose of it's early builds.

true

flyingclrs727 wrote:

They are making lemonade out of lemons. They couldn't get enough money selling the airframes.

Surely they are quite early builds too, so some potential weight, wiring and mod issues affecting values. MH would have received compensation from Airbus in the form of discounts, or parts credits, or in other forms. In a perfect world, these are used up front to reduce the aircraft notional acquisition cost.

Also what happens when you depreciate commercial aircraft at a slower rate than others in the industry, though to be fair, that's influenced by prevailing country tax rules. You take a big hit if you sell them, or you try to find a buyer willing to pay the dollars.

Once past the EK early builds, they and the leasors will determine market values.

Planesmart wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

They are making lemonade out of lemons. They couldn't get enough money selling the airframes.

Surely they are quite early builds too, so some potential weight, wiring and mod issues affecting values. MH would have received compensation from Airbus in the form of discounts, or parts credits, or in other forms. In a perfect world, these are used up front to reduce the aircraft notional acquisition cost.

MH's earliest A380 is MSN 78. I believe at that point Airbus was over most of the issues with weight and wiring, which I think affected mostly ~MSN 30 or lower. By MSN 78 Airbus had been regularly pumping out A380s for about 4 years.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

hOMSaR wrote:

The lessors expected there to be a secondary market, which has turned out to be non-existent. So, for the next round, the lessors would expect

Are there any second hand a/c available? Malaysia Airlines did try, but didn't succeed, too high a price? BA seems to be in the marked for secondhand A380. When will the first Emirates A380 be retired? Then we will know.

But the first A380's on offer from EK are likely to be engined with Engine Alliance engines, not Rolls Royce.

My instinct is EK's reduction in the rate of new deliveries is for two reasons - softer demand, and a change in EK's A380 fleet strategy.

I suspect the A380 plus is being offered as a new build AND manufacturer retrofit, which will buy Airbus some time, and keep the existing EK fleet around for longer, with RR engines replacing EA, new cabin, wing improvements, and new, extended leases or outright purchase by EK.

The EK fleet is a combination of owned (financed) and leased. The composition of lease funding participants has a very strong 'local' bias.

Based on A.Net comments, the A380 is over-engineered in the wing and undercarriage departments, presumably justifying life extensions.

Early builds will be parts aircraft, unless Airbus can retrofit to latest production standard, with no weight and performance compromises.

hOMSaR wrote:

But does flying those planes for 12 years, then throwing them away, represent a viable business plan for the A380?

IIRC, Emirates planes are leased (or acquired, then sold/leased back). The lessors expected there to be a secondary market, which has turned out to be non-existent. So, for the next round, the lessors would expect higher payments from EK to make up for the lack of secondary operators. If that happens, then the question is whether it's still profitable enough to get rid of a plane after 12 years, or if they have to look at a longer lifespan (which, then, reduces demand for new planes ordered).

We honestly don't know the mindset of the leasors, funding participants and leasee at the time the leases were taken out, and how they have changed in the intervening period.

The appetite to fund (purchase and lease) EK has diminished very little, despite recent financial results, projections, and TC's imminent retirement. In fact there appears to be an almost insatiable demand to get aboard EK leases, even for the most recent A380 and 777 acquisitions. These investors are no fools, and have access to more information than most on A.Net.

A modern commercial aircraft lease consists of five significant components - primary and secondary funding, final balloon payments, side agreements (some of the latter included in the balloon payments), and the impact and implication of taxes.

Don't look at commercial aviation (and vessel) leases as black and white. If you add 2+2 you will get 4, but the answer may really be 5 or 5.5. Tax has a massive impact. Yes, Emirates resides in a tax-free zone. Why do you think the leasing is domiciled outside Dubai, where there are taxes?

So don't be too hasty getting out your violins for the leasors and funding participants. There is still another decade or more of A380 lemonade to be made, and the lemons are not quite as bitter for leasors, funding participants, Airbus, RR, sub-contractors and most operators, as we might imagine.

If EK is up for the end of lease balloon payments anyway (including accrued maintenance and new cabin), and for not a great deal more, they can get new engines (or a sharper maintenance deal from EA), performance improvements, a new coat of paint, and a massive reduction in lease costs, everyone's a winner. Even work for the Airbus A380 team.

And if there are guaranteed buyback prices on some of these aircraft, especially the older ones, the actual cost to EK and the leasor could be close to zero.

diverdave wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

SQ will be the first airline to retire the first A380: 9V-SKA, MSN 003.

Funnily, MH expressed interest... for their new pilgrim airline...

That would be a turnaround, I didn't see that coming When will the MSN003 be retired, should be turning 10

But the conclusion is, that we simply don't know how strong the marked is for used A380, will be interesting to follow though.

I thought Malaysia was proposing to use its existing A380s for the Hajj fleet.

Yes, but they are very ambitious, they already thought about increasing that fleet of pilgrims A380s beyond the six airframes "inherited" from MH. It's in the link above (on page three I think...)

Disclaimer: that's just what I read... of course, right now, where operations haven't even started, it seems to be very optimistic to already think about more A380s.

speedbored wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

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

Do they? It's not what they claim in the latest published ACAPS document:
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commer ... ochure.pdf

Don't understand your comment. The Introduction to the reference you provided states:

"The 777-9X is a derivative of the 777-300ER with a new composite wing. Since the larger wingspan places the 777X into ICAO Aerodrome Reference Code F, all 777X models include folding wing tips, allowing the 777X to operate in airport taxiway and apron/gate system as a Code E aircraft with wingtips folded."

This would seem to validate Matt's point on runway operation.

OldAeroGuy wrote:

Don't understand your comment. The Introduction to the reference you provided states:

"The 777-9X is a derivative of the 777-300ER with a new composite wing. Since the larger wingspan places the 777X into ICAO Aerodrome Reference Code F, all 777X models include folding wing tips, allowing the 777X to operate in airport taxiway and apron/gate system as a Code E aircraft with wingtips folded."

This would seem to validate Matt's point on runway operation.

Only if you think that runways and taxiways are the same thing.

I do not. Nor, I believe, do the FAA, EASA or any other regulator.

I'd recommend reading further into the document than page 2.

speedbored wrote:

OldAeroGuy wrote:

Don't understand your comment. The Introduction to the reference you provided states:

"The 777-9X is a derivative of the 777-300ER with a new composite wing. Since the larger wingspan places the 777X into ICAO Aerodrome Reference Code F, all 777X models include folding wing tips, allowing the 777X to operate in airport taxiway and apron/gate system as a Code E aircraft with wingtips folded."

This would seem to validate Matt's point on runway operation.

Only if you think that runways and taxiways are the same thing.

I do not. Nor, I believe, do the FAA, EASA or any other regulator.

I'd recommend reading further into the document than page 2.

That's a minor but critical distinction. Clearly the plan is to unfold the wingtips upon entering the runway, if not before, which is different than taxiing to a gate.

Speedbored wrote:

Only if you think that runways and taxiways are the same thing.

And your argument works only if you think taxiway and runway requirements will be the same. Nothing in your linked document tells you the runway width requirement.

For discussion of that issue, you need a different document that discusses the regulatory work done in connection with 777x program. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... msjUXS8aIw

Page 11 of this document states 45m runway width for the 777x vs 60m for code F aircraft.

Bald1983 wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

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

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

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

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

Emirates is one airline and does not have a domestic mission.

irrelevant

The vast majority of airlines that do things besides somewhere to Dubai are going for the twins.

irrelevant

The only reason for going through Dubai is fuel.

and bollocks.

OldAeroGuy wrote:

speedbored wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

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

Do they? It's not what they claim in the latest published ACAPS document:
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commer ... ochure.pdf

Don't understand your comment. The Introduction to the reference you provided states:

"The 777-9X is a derivative of the 777-300ER with a new composite wing. Since the larger wingspan places the 777X into ICAO Aerodrome Reference Code F, all 777X models include folding wing tips, allowing the 777X to operate in airport taxiway and apron/gate system as a Code E aircraft with wingtips folded."

This would seem to validate Matt's point on runway operation.

No, it wouldn't seem to do that.
the statement was that Boeing expect to certify the 777X for Group V (presumably code E) RUNWAYS.
The rebuttal you have posted clearly states that the folding wings allow the 777X to operate in airport TAXIWAY AND APRON GATE SYSTEM as a Code E aircraft with wingtips folded.
By definition, TAXIWAY AND APRON GATE SYSTEM operation is not RUNWAY operation.
surely?

Rgds

astuteman wrote:

OldAeroGuy wrote:

speedbored wrote:

Do they? It's not what they claim in the latest published ACAPS document:
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commer ... ochure.pdf

Don't understand your comment. The Introduction to the reference you provided states:

"The 777-9X is a derivative of the 777-300ER with a new composite wing. Since the larger wingspan places the 777X into ICAO Aerodrome Reference Code F, all 777X models include folding wing tips, allowing the 777X to operate in airport taxiway and apron/gate system as a Code E aircraft with wingtips folded."

This would seem to validate Matt's point on runway operation.

No, it wouldn't seem to do that.
the statement was that Boeing expect to certify the 777X for Group V (presumably code E) RUNWAYS.
The rebuttal you have posted clearly states that the folding wings allow the 777X to operate in airport TAXIWAY AND APRON GATE SYSTEM as a Code E aircraft with wingtips folded.
By definition, TAXIWAY AND APRON GATE SYSTEM operation is not RUNWAY operation.
surely?

Rgds

Read the next post. The 777x requires less *runway* width than a Code F airliner. It is not automatic that exceeding code E span on the *runway* brings you to Code F minima.

There Is, therefore, some room to tailor regulations based on actual safety rationales rather than strict adherence to first-order categories.
This rational elasticity is common to most regulatory regimes despite sterotypes- especially when the regulatees are wealthy, politically-connected players.
The A380's exemption from standard rules on service ceiling is another example.

Re our larger discussion, I'm not making an authoritative claim that 80m+ runway span could be certified, only saying you won't know the answer to that question unless somebody tries.
The substantive reason for runway-runway and runway-taxiway parallel distances is not really related to the risk of clipping wings during takeoff role. At the current minimum separation distances (400ft IIRC), an extra 20ft of span wouldn't be relevant. Rather, the restrictions appear to relate to VTP height, presumably due to the risk of a yawing plane with OEI clipping another's VTP after liftoff.

BobleBrave wrote:

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

Trent XWB Dry weight: 7,277 kg

Trent 900 Dry weight: 6,246 kg

With a 1t difference per engine would the wing need strengthening ?

This is the point in the conversation where somebody points out that RR have been flight testing a Carbon fibre fan that together with removing the need for a Titanium engine casing would lower the weight of each engine by about 1t.

Matt6461 wrote:

The substantive reason for runway-runway and runway-taxiway parallel distances is not really related to the risk of clipping wings during takeoff role. At the current minimum separation distances (400ft IIRC), an extra 20ft of span wouldn't be relevant. Rather, the restrictions appear to relate to VTP height, presumably due to the risk of a yawing plane with OEI clipping another's VTP after liftoff.

Minimum separation distance of two Group VI runways is actually 550ft for post-2005 u.s. runways.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/hea ... ummary.pdf

I should revise my "not relevant" to "not necessarily determinative."

The preamble to runway separation regs highlights obstacle clearance, including vertical tail height.

Asuteman I think I can fairly summarize your arguments so far as "these are the regs."

My rejoinder so far is simply, "regs can change, here's some reasons that regulators might consider changing them."

Does anyone know, btw, the procedures for when the An-225 lands on Group VI runways? The probative quality of that answer to our issue would depend on disentangling the impact on taxiway given the fixed 89m span. So maybe not very enlightening but worth asking.

BoeingVista wrote:

BobleBrave wrote:

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

Trent XWB Dry weight: 7,277 kg

Trent 900 Dry weight: 6,246 kg

With a 1t difference per engine would the wing need strengthening ?

This is the point in the conversation where somebody points out that RR have been flight testing a Carbon fibre fan that together with removing the need for a Titanium engine casing would lower the weight of each engine by about 1t.

It's also appropriate to repeat that this particular deck chair arrangement was mooted and rejected. Airbus now tells us we won't see a NEO before middle of next decade. In the unlikely event It happens at all, it likely won't have 10yo engines.

Matt6461 wrote:

Read the next post. The 777x requires less *runway* width than a Code F airliner. It is not automatic that exceeding code E span on the *runway* brings you to Code F minima.

There Is, therefore, some room to tailor regulations based on actual safety rationales rather than strict adherence to first-order categories.
This rational elasticity is common to most regulatory regimes despite sterotypes- especially when the regulatees are wealthy, politically-connected players.
The A380's exemption from standard rules on service ceiling is another example.

Your argument is that because the 777X will exceed the Code E requirements but not require as much runway width as a Code F airplane it would fall into a space of its own? But you would think that once you reach the maximum of a standard and exceed it you would move on to the next category irrespective of the other aircraft that also fall into that category. If a boxer exceeds the maximum weight for a weight class he moves into the next one, even if he isn't close to the maximum weight allowed of the next class as an example.

Do you know if the expected change for reduced spacing from ICAO with regards to taxiway to taxiway separation that Boeing mentioned in your link has happened? They are hoping for a 2019 approval of runway to taxiway separation change but if the first change has not happened regarding taxiway to taxiway changes should we expect a delay with the runway to taxiway separation change as well or at all?

enzo011 wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

Read the next post. The 777x requires less *runway* width than a Code F airliner. It is not automatic that exceeding code E span on the *runway* brings you to Code F minima.

There Is, therefore, some room to tailor regulations based on actual safety rationales rather than strict adherence to first-order categories.
This rational elasticity is common to most regulatory regimes despite sterotypes- especially when the regulatees are wealthy, politically-connected players.
The A380's exemption from standard rules on service ceiling is another example.

Your argument is that because the 777X will exceed the Code E requirements but not require as much runway width as a Code F airplane it would fall into a space of its own? But you would think that once you reach the maximum of a standard and exceed it you would move on to the next category irrespective of the other aircraft that also fall into that category. If a boxer exceeds the maximum weight for a weight class he moves into the next one, even if he isn't close to the maximum weight allowed of the next class as an example.

Do you know if the expected change for reduced spacing from ICAO with regards to taxiway to taxiway separation that Boeing mentioned in your link has happened? They are hoping for a 2019 approval of runway to taxiway separation change but if the first change has not happened regarding taxiway to taxiway changes should we expect a delay with the runway to taxiway separation change as well or at all?

I don't know the answers to your questions.
Like I said, my point is that there is elasticity to any rational regulatory regime, we've seen this elasticity worked by the OEM''s, we therefore shouldn't use the mere fact of existing regs to foreclose >80m span on runways.

Matt6461 wrote:

And your argument works only if you think taxiway and runway requirements will be the same. Nothing in your linked document tells you the runway width requirement.

There you go again, changing the argument. You didn't make any claim about runway width - what you claimed was:

Matt6461 wrote:

Boeing expects to certify the 777x for Group V runways

It is not only the width of the tarmac that determines what codes or groups of aircraft a runway is approved for. You will find that there are very many 45m wide runways around the world that the 777x will not be able to operate from because it has a group VI / code F wingspan, as you will see clearly shown on page 10 of the document that you linked. Regardless of the width of tarmac it can operate from, it still requires the same obstacle clearance as an A380.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

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



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

Emirates is one airline and does not have a domestic mission.

irrelevant

The vast majority of airlines that do things besides somewhere to Dubai are going for the twins.

irrelevant

The only reason for going through Dubai is fuel.

and bollocks.

That is irrelevant how? That is precisely the point. Emirates really brings people from large hubs to other large hubs stopping in Dubai, which is a large hub. They are different then the vast majority of other airlines. I believe that is evidenced by the comparison of sales of both the 787 and A-350 compared to the A-380. I also believe you have a soft spot in your heart for the A-380 and do not like the fact that it has not done that well, certainly well below Airbus's initial projections of 1,200 planes.

WIederling wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

The only reason for going through Dubai is fuel.

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

DXB works as a classification yard ( in railway terms).
The geographic advantage is sitting halfway between major multicentered civilized "islands".

The precise reason for the 787 and the A-350 is to avoid "marshalling yards" and be able to fly non-stop. Dubai and the other Gulf States are one of the few places on Earth where the distance still requires a stop. The fact is that Boeing came much closer to meeting its predictions on 787 sales. Airbus's A-350 l also seems to be doing well. Airbus' predictions on A-380 sales, when they announced the A-380 fell flat. There is a reason. But for Emirates, the A-380 would be dead already. Airbus has reduced production to one plane a month. https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardabo ... bd12e5553d

Bald1983 wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

Emirates is one airline and does not have a domestic mission.

irrelevant

The vast majority of airlines that do things besides somewhere to Dubai are going for the twins.

irrelevant

The only reason for going through Dubai is fuel.

and bollocks.

That is irrelevant how?

It's irrelevant to the discussion on whether P2P or H2H "won" - which *YOU* started.

The majority of flights - including all the other airlines - are P2H. Then there are a lot of H2H routes - also by many other airlines than Emirates, and then finally there are a small number of P2P flights.

The things you said bore no relevance to any of that.

(Note I also don't say that H2H or the A380 "won" - my point is there is no single winner!)

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

irrelevant

irrelevant

and bollocks.

That is irrelevant how?

It's irrelevant to the discussion on whether P2P or H2H "won" - which *YOU* started.

The majority of flights - including all the other airlines - are P2H. Then there are a lot of H2H routes - also by many other airlines than Emirates, and then finally there are a small number of P2P flights.

The things you said bore no relevance to any of that.

(Note I also don't say that H2H or the A380 "won" - my point is there is no single winner!)

What I started was the discussion that Airbus called it wrong with the A-380 and Boeing called it right with the 787, as did Airbus with the A-350. Boeing promoted long and thin routes. I would suggest your comments are irrelevant and an attempt to change the basic conversation, namely whether Airbus was going to make a larger capacity A-380. I suggested routes that came about as a result of the 787 that did not exist before, in response to a person who claimed there were no new routes. Direct flying between cities, bypassing mega hubs, won. Airbus' vision of large mega-hubs lost. Get over it. I have to assume you have a soft spot for the A-380.

And oddly enough the 380 greatest success is as a 1Stop. It does share that success with a 777. EK kind of broke the rule book (and argument with those two).

Bald1983 wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

That is irrelevant how?

It's irrelevant to the discussion on whether P2P or H2H "won" - which *YOU* started.

The majority of flights - including all the other airlines - are P2H. Then there are a lot of H2H routes - also by many other airlines than Emirates, and then finally there are a small number of P2P flights.

The things you said bore no relevance to any of that.

(Note I also don't say that H2H or the A380 "won" - my point is there is no single winner!)

What I started was the discussion that Airbus called it wrong with the A-380 and Boeing called it right with the 787, ...

Copying an A330. That wasn't all too difficult, was it?
Boeing spent a humungous amount of money on a slightly better A330.
If you think that is "getting it right" ...

If you look at this in an objective fashion
Boeing did not have a viable mid market airplane and Airbus did not have a VL²A

Boeing then spent much more money on competing in the PR domain than in real tech.

What you can see today: PR trumps hardware. ... for a while.

WIederling wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

It's irrelevant to the discussion on whether P2P or H2H "won" - which *YOU* started.

The majority of flights - including all the other airlines - are P2H. Then there are a lot of H2H routes - also by many other airlines than Emirates, and then finally there are a small number of P2P flights.

The things you said bore no relevance to any of that.

(Note I also don't say that H2H or the A380 "won" - my point is there is no single winner!)

What I started was the discussion that Airbus called it wrong with the A-380 and Boeing called it right with the 787, ...

Copying an A330. That wasn't all too difficult, was it?
Boeing spent a humungous amount of money on a slightly better A330.
If you think that is "getting it right" ...

If you look at this in an objective fashion
Boeing did not have a viable mid market airplane and Airbus did not have a VL²A

Boeing then spent much more money on competing in the PR domain than in real tech.

What you can see today: PR trumps hardware. ... for a while.

Love the rhetoric. lol Yes, the 787 is an A330 copy. Yes, Boeing spent much much more money in the PR domain than in real tech. Yes the mid-market was not nearly as critical as the VLA market. Yawn. It's like a TV that never changes channels.

The fact is that the A380 has sold pretty decently given its size and the 787 has sold pretty decently given its challenges. Can we move on?

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

(Note I also don't say that H2H or the A380 "won" - my point is there is no single winner!)

Well the score is overwhelmingly in favor of H2P/P2H vs. H2H. Not even the biggest Airbus fanboy is saying the 787 is dead, or the biggest Boeing fanboy is saying the A350 is dead. But even some Airbus advocates are hinting the A380 is circling the drain. Quads are going the way of the dodo. Big twins are where it's at. Bring on the 777-10 and the A350-1100/2000/8000. THAT is where Airbus should put its money, even if it means telling STC to pound sand.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

What I started was the discussion that Airbus called it wrong with the A-380 and Boeing called it right with the 787, ...

Copying an A330. That wasn't all too difficult, was it?
Boeing spent a humungous amount of money on a slightly better A330.
If you think that is "getting it right" ...

If you look at this in an objective fashion
Boeing did not have a viable mid market airplane and Airbus did not have a VL²A

Boeing then spent much more money on competing in the PR domain than in real tech.

What you can see today: PR trumps hardware. ... for a while.

Love the rhetoric. lol Yes, the 787 is an A330 copy. Yes, Boeing spent much much more money in the PR domain than in real tech. Yes the mid-market was not nearly as critical as the VLA market. Yawn. It's like a TV that never changes channels.

The fact is that the A380 has sold pretty decently given its size and the 787 has sold pretty decently given its challenges. Can we move on?

That explains it. The 787 is not a A-330 copy. It is a whole new aircraft made primarily out of composites. The A-380 came nowhere near Airbus' projections for sales and, with the exception of one airline, orders are drying up. The 787-9 flies nearly a thousand miles further then the A-330-300 with the A-330 flying fewer passengers on less fuel. Not a copy at all and I suspect you are aware of that.

Bricktop wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

(Note I also don't say that H2H or the A380 "won" - my point is there is no single winner!)

Well the score is overwhelmingly in favor of H2P/P2H vs. H2H. Not even the biggest Airbus fanboy is saying the 787 is dead, or the biggest Boeing fanboy is saying the A350 is dead. But even some Airbus advocates are hinting the A380 is circling the drain. Quads are going the way of the dodo. Big twins are where it's at. Bring on the 777-10 and the A350-1100/2000/8000. THAT is where Airbus should put its money, even if it means telling STC to pound sand.

Do you realize that A380 has two decks or two floors? It's really 2 airplanes in one. You can stretch a twin and turn it around but it's still one less floor and make it look all gangly and unsightly but at some point there is a law of diminishing returns. The only sure disappearing airplane is 747, on the other hand A380 is here to stay for at least 30 more years as per people in Airbus.

BoeingVista wrote:

BobleBrave wrote:

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

Trent XWB Dry weight: 7,277 kg

Trent 900 Dry weight: 6,246 kg

With a 1t difference per engine would the wing need strengthening ?

This is the point in the conversation where somebody points out that RR have been flight testing a Carbon fibre fan that together with removing the need for a Titanium engine casing would lower the weight of each engine by about 1t.

I think this is the way to go for a quick and inexpensive A388 engine upgrade. The relatively small weight penalty for the Trent XWB should easily be able to be removed from the airframe itself to compensate...

A350 style winglets would be ideal, but the question is can Airbus get away with breaking the 80 meter box or would they have to install folding tips? and would it be worth it to gain potentially 5-6% in efficiency?

I believe Trent XWB's + airframe lightening to compensate + A350 winglet (folding if necessary) would get a ~12% reduction in casm, maybe slightly more... This could be ready by 2020

SCAT15F wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

BobleBrave wrote:

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

Trent XWB Dry weight: 7,277 kg

Trent 900 Dry weight: 6,246 kg

With a 1t difference per engine would the wing need strengthening ?

This is the point in the conversation where somebody points out that RR have been flight testing a Carbon fibre fan that together with removing the need for a Titanium engine casing would lower the weight of each engine by about 1t.

I think this is the way to go for a quick and inexpensive A388 engine upgrade. The relatively small weight penalty for the Trent XWB should easily be able to be removed from the airframe itself to compensate...

A350 style winglets would be ideal, but the question is can Airbus get away with breaking the 80 meter box or would they have to install folding tips? and would it be worth it to gain potentially 5-6% in efficiency?

I believe Trent XWB's + airframe lightening to compensate + A350 winglet (folding if necessary) would get a ~12% reduction in casm, maybe slightly more... This could be ready by 2020

Once again, txwb NEO was mooted and rejected by Airbus/airlines and occupied reams of threads here. That debate is over.

It would be a 4t increase though, would it not?
1t per engine.

If the wing is getting redesigned, they could just shorten it so that it fits inside the 80m box with the winglet.