mjoelnir wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

The problem with the TXWB and T7000 as mentioned somewhere here before, is their weight. It would add close to 5 tons extra under the wings.
That only leaves the T1000 as an option.

The T7000 is lighter than the T900, it is the bleed version of the T1000 ten.

Yes, the problem with the T7000 is thrust. It doesn't make enough of it.

Strato2 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

EK not wanting the frames till 2021 is a long standing fact. Airbus must be factoring it into their plans, but all possible plans involve a lot of risk and a lot of cost. The bottom line is they get the bulk of the money upon delivery. Producing the EK frames early means paying for the parts and labor up-front and taking the risk that some sort of business and/or political calamity will not come along and leave Airbus stuck with $billions of aircraft with no customer. Not producing them early means losses on the production line. Rock, meet hard place.

Hyperbole. If there's lot of risk then Boeing must be shuddering as they have 150 777X that should arrive Dubai at about the same time.

Sure, the 777X program has a lot of exposure to business and/or political factors with EK, but the big difference is that Boeing won't be in a situation where they'll have to build 25 frames two years in advance or have to shut down the production line and deal with restarting it later. Another is that the A380 program really doesn't have any other customers except for NH's tiny order, and, seemingly, no likelihood of getting more, whereas I would not say that about the 777X program.

Polot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

The problem with the TXWB and T7000 as mentioned somewhere here before, is their weight. It would add close to 5 tons extra under the wings.
That only leaves the T1000 as an option.

The T7000 is lighter than the T900, it is the bleed version of the T1000 ten.

Yes, the problem with the T7000 is thrust. It doesn't make enough of it.

And, of course, the minor detail that its manufacturer has decided to not fit it, or any of the other current Trents, to the A380.

anfromme wrote:

Egerton wrote:

Apart from engines, we seem to be at a technological pause because the cost of launching a new brand new aeroplane is risky, like betting the farm.

[quote= "anfromme]Well, fuel prices have come down, so even the pressure on engine development has eased off a bit.[/quote.]

Anfromme, the whole of your post #737 reads well to me, as do your low frequency but valued contributions to A.net.

On the tech pause, the continuation of 'betting the farm' by the engine fraternity may be because of the relatively low hanging fruit when compared to the airframe side of things. However, I do find it strange that the engine triumvirate have a business model involving initial heavy loss making over many years. This cannot continue.

.

Matt6461 wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

tjh8402 wrote:

The irony is that EK's overwhelming success with the A380 is part of the reason why other airlines haven't gone for it in large numbers - all the passengers they might've need an A380 to carry are already flying on Emirates's.

I've thought about this too.

Classic a.net myth. Were this true, we'd see more A380's in areas where EK isn't competitive and fewer where they are.
In fact we see the opposite: Southeast Asian airlines who face the biggest EK competition (SQ, MH, TG) have the biggest share of A380 capacity while TPAC airlines who don't face much EK competition have very few A380's.
The fact is Airbus expected China to order loads of A380's but they didn't because the A380 isn't very good for its size.

MH and TG are hardly examples of the A380's success. Neither is wanting any more planes, with MH preferring to be rid of theirs, and TG reportedly now regretting getting the plane. There have been other Pacific carriers besides those you cited that have gone for it: QF, OZ, KE, and CZ (I'm not including NH). .

The competitors I was thinking about was more the European. It's not a starting revelation that EK has been taking traffic from the European legacies. Consider that QF left BA for EK. Another side effect of EK's operation has been not just fewer passengers that the legacies have to carry, but less revenue and profits, making it harder to afford expensive VLA's like the A380. Consider that BA wants more A380s, they just don't want/can't afford to pay for new ones.

tjh8402 wrote:

MH and TG are hardly examples of the A380's success.

That's irrelevant.. If you want to say (as the poster did) that EK has, on net, caused fewer A380 orders, then you would observe an "EK effect" on A380 orders. I.e. airlines that compete with EK more would order fewer A380's and vice versa. This is quite straightforward conceptually and empirically observable. The facts simply don't match the narrative.

tjh8402 wrote:

The competitors I was thinking about was more the European. It's not a starting revelation that EK has been taking traffic from the European legacies.

Sure but again stick to the logic of the proposition. Absent EK, would the European legacies have ordered 142+ more A380's. No way.
And again, this is an area where you can check the disparate impact of EK on areas where it competes and where it is marginal.
EK is a very minor player on TATL and Europe-NEAsia. That's probably 2/3 of European legacies' longhaul business. It beggars imagination to believe that legacies would order scores of A380's to take EK's place in more minor markets (SEAsia, Kangaroo) when they don't use them broadly in their core longhaul markets where EK is a nonfactor.

tjh8402 wrote:

Consider that BA wants more A380s, they just don't want/can't afford to pay for new ones.

This is sloppy thinking as well. BA can buy whatever planes it wants: it has good credit and access to financial markets for financing. BA said the A380 is too expensive new, which is another way of saying it would buy more if the plane were more efficient. Money is fungible - airlines don't really care whether they spend a dollar on fuel or capital.

The value of a capital asset is proportional to the amount of profits expected from it. The A380 sells at ~60% of the 777-9 per seat - it's very cheap comparatively. It's just not very valuable because it's not a profitable aircraft. This is basic economics.

I don't think it is so much a game of 'bluff', as it is bottom line concerns. Airbus can only build it with enough orders, price per modification etc. , but EK can only take it with enough improved efficiency and price. They are both under pressure, one needs more money and the other needs more performance per the buck.

Egerton wrote:

However, I do find it strange that the engine triumvirate have a business model involving initial heavy loss making over many years. This cannot continue.

That wasn't their intention. It is just that RR/GE both royally screwed the pooch on the T1000/GENx. They completely over promised and under delivered. Since the Trent XWB and GE9X was building upon the T1000/GENx tech with the assumption that everything would meet specs that meant in addition to spending a ton of extra money on the initial T1000/GENx to get them to meet their promises, RR/GE had/have to spend a ton of extra money on those engines to ensure that they met their promised performance (successfully with the Trent XWB, still too early to say with GE9X). The money that GE/RR had/have coming in is based on contracts signed years ago where they were a little too aggressive when it came to pricing. Hence now the heavy initial losses with hope that it is made up by service contracts (and why they all want exclusivity contracts now).

All while spending a ton of money on the low end of the market on the LEAP/Passport/whatever RR is researching to compete against the PW GTF.

As for PW, well they just can't help but to screw up any jet engine they have developed for the past 25 or so years.

Polot wrote:

That wasn't their intention. It is just that RR/GE both royally screwed the pooch on the T1000/GENx. They completely over promised and under delivered. Since the Trent XWB and GE9X was building upon the T1000/GENx tech with the assumption that everything would meet specs that meant in addition to spending a ton of extra money on the initial T1000/GENx to get them to meet their promises, RR/GE had/have to spend a ton of extra money on those engines to ensure that they met their promised performance (successfully with the Trent XWB, still too early to say with GE9X). The money that GE/RR had/have coming in is based on contracts signed years ago where they were a little too aggressive when it came to pricing. Hence now the heavy initial losses with hope that it is made up by service contracts (and why they all want exclusivity contracts now).

Indeed true, but after TXWB it seems on T7000 RR made a change that they had to back out late in the game, which meant a lot of costly re-testing, which also messed up the schedule. I raise this point not to denigrate RR (such things happen in development...), but to show that their spending has been greater than anticipated, which might explain why they decided against coming up with an engine for A380NEO. I don't know if it was known at the time, but we now know the last T900 PIP didn't go according to plan either, which presumably also meant more spending than intended.

Thanks. I have a different view. For many years all three have been beating up each other on selling price, in order to make money over the lifetime maintenance of their engines. Agreed that in some cases design, initial production and testing costs have got out of control. But in my view that is not the key issue. It is their long standing business model which is wrong. That model is the Gillette model.

Revelation wrote:

Indeed true, but after TXWB it seems on T7000 RR made a change that they had to back out late in the game, which meant a lot of costly re-testing, which also messed up the schedule. I raise this point not to denigrate RR (such things happen in development...), but to show that their spending has been greater than anticipated, which might explain why they decided against coming up with an engine for A380NEO. I don't know if it was known at the time, but we now know the last T900 PIP didn't go according to plan either, which presumably also meant more spending than intended.

I thought the T7000 followed corresponding changes and delays on the T1000ten, being a derivative of that engine, just with additional bleed and smaller power take off.

mjoelnir wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Indeed true, but after TXWB it seems on T7000 RR made a change that they had to back out late in the game, which meant a lot of costly re-testing, which also messed up the schedule. I raise this point not to denigrate RR (such things happen in development...), but to show that their spending has been greater than anticipated, which might explain why they decided against coming up with an engine for A380NEO. I don't know if it was known at the time, but we now know the last T900 PIP didn't go according to plan either, which presumably also meant more spending than intended.

I thought the T7000 followed corresponding changes and delays on the T1000ten, being a derivative of that engine, just with additional bleed and smaller power take off.

I can't remember where I read a more detailed story, but https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... icing-snag says:

Delays to the first flight of Airbus SE’s revamped A330neo jetliner stem from an unexpected requirement for extra testing of the model’s Rolls-Royce Holdings Plc engines, according to the planemaker.

... and my recollection is that this 'extra testing' came from a change they made late in the development cycle. Or I could be mixing things up. In any case, it's extra testing which adds extra costs and delays deliveries which delays revenues, which is the main point.

Revelation wrote:

but we now know the last T900 PIP didn't go according to plan either, which presumably also meant more spending than intended.

Not entirely correct.

The latest T900 PIP was exactly on schedule and without issues. All details can be found here. Emirates issues with the T900 were related to the design of the engine: the original coating was not good enough to operate in DXB climate, forcing shorter maintenance intervals because the engine degraded faster than the GP7200. So RR designed a new coating and all was fixed. The coating issue was present, even without the PIP.

KarelXWB wrote:

Revelation wrote:

but we now know the last T900 PIP didn't go according to plan either, which presumably also meant more spending than intended.

Not entirely correct.

The latest T900 PIP was exactly on schedule and without issues. All details can be found here. Emirates issues with the T900 were related to the design of the engine: the original coating was not good enough to operate in DXB climate, forcing shorter maintenance intervals because the engine degraded faster than the GP7200. So RR designed a new coating and all was fixed. The coating issue was present, even without the PIP.

Interesting -- thanks for the clarification.

Speaking about engines, Bloomberg published the following article:

Rolls-Royce Weighs Tweaking Engine to Give a Lift to Airbus A380

Rolls-Royce Holdings Plc is seeking ways to upgrade its engines for Airbus SE’s A380 as the planemaker attempts to win orders for the slow-selling superjumbo jet, the company’s biggest.

“We are contemplating what we can do over and above with Airbus,” Eric Schulz, Rolls-Royce’s head of civil aviation, said in a Bloomberg TV interview. “As soon as we mature a new technology we have a tendency to go back and roll it back to the product. We have done quite a lot of this already on the Trent 900.”

Sounds like RR is willing to spend more money on T900 upgrades. How much more room for improvement would the T900 have?

Eric Shulz, President of RR Civil Aerospace and therefore their top chappie in a recorded interview by Bloomberg made clear that no decision has been considered and one was not likely for some time. I read that as 95% never.

This on post #375 of the A330neo thread

Matt6461 wrote:

BA said the A380 is too expensive new, which is another way of saying it would buy more if the plane were more efficient.

Not necessarily.

Even if you ignore the affects of things like interest or inflation, just the different tax treatment of operating costs and capital expenditure can make enough of a difference to make or break the business case.

Matt6461 wrote:

The value of a capital asset is proportional to the amount of profits expected from it.

This is simply not true. Even if you believe that every capital asset has zero value when the business stops using it.

If an airline bought two identical aircraft, at the same price, one to operate LHR-SYD and one to operate LHR-JFK, do you seriously believe that they would expect to generate the same profit from both?

Matt6461 wrote:

The A380 sells at ~60% of the 777-9 per seat

No it does not. Given that the A380 has ~50% more seats, that would mean that an A380 sells for less than a 779.

You are definitely way off the mark with your relative prices at the biggest customer for both types.

Matt6461 wrote:

It's just not very valuable because it's not a profitable aircraft. This is basic economics.

Makes you wonder why a number of A380 operator CEOs are on the record saying that it is one of their most profitable aircraft then. I guess they must not understand basic economics.

I still think an NEO using the Trent XWB-75/84 would be the best way to go. It could be certified the quickest of any option, would provide at least a 7-8% improvement over the Trent 900 and the weight could be compensated for by some lightening in other areas of the aircraft if need be. Combined with the "Plus" features, your'e looking at up to 20% casm improvement.

What sort of cost would Airbus be looking at if they were to redesign the wing?
And possibly produce some/all of the fuselage sections with CFRP?
How many sales would it take to recoup the cost?

SCAT15F wrote:

I still think an NEO using the Trent XWB-75/84 would be the best way to go. It could be certified the quickest of any option, would provide at least a 7-8% improvement over the Trent 900 and the weight could be compensated for by some lightening in other areas of the aircraft if need be. Combined with the "Plus" features, your'e looking at up to 20% casm improvement.

The article Karel linked to above in #765 ends with:

The A380plus and upgrades being considered still fall well short of the so-called “neo” upgrade that Emirates has been demanding, but for which Airbus and Rolls-Royce say there isn’t a business justification.

There will not be a Trent-based A380NEO.

The question isn't whether or not there will be an A380NEO, the question is whether or not there will be an A380 program. We can see above that they are soon about to face a production gap. There isn't a NEO that can come together in time to change that, the customer interest just doesn't exist. The program's biggest supporter is (again) openly questioning the direction of the program:

Emirates expects Airbus to give it a clear idea of the general future of the A380 program before it will consider another order for the aircraft.

“I want to know what Airbus will do with the aircraft,” Emirates Airline President Tim Clark said on the sidelines of the Paris Air Show. Whatever Airbus decides to do with its struggling widebody “will have major residual value and financial implications for us.”

Ref: http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... a380-order

Speedbored wrote:

Even if you ignore the affects of things like interest or inflation, just the different tax treatment of operating costs and capital expenditure can make enough of a difference to make or break the business case.

Sure.
So a cheaper plane isn't more efficient, ceteris paribus?

Speedbored wrote:

Makes you wonder why a number of A380 operator CEOs are on the record saying that it is one of their most profitable aircraft then. I guess they must not understand basic economics.

1 is a number. Who besides Clark?

Isn't the more reasonable wonder, for someone in your position, why nobody wants the aircraft?
Might economics have a bit to do with that, considering the kind of enterprise airlines tend to be?
Not many CEO's are going to denigrate their current fleet, though a few have re the A380 (e.g. Joyce at QF).

speedbored wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

BA said the A380 is too expensive new, which is another way of saying it would buy more if the plane were more efficient.

Not necessarily.

Even if you ignore the affects of things like interest or inflation, just the different tax treatment of operating costs and capital expenditure can make enough of a difference to make or break the business case.

Tax effective lending, my speciality, can turnaround upfront acquisition costs, moving lifetime ownership and operating costs.

The market awaits with interest (apologies for the pun), new opportunities post-Brexit, to push the envelope.

Planesmart wrote:

speedbored wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

BA said the A380 is too expensive new, which is another way of saying it would buy more if the plane were more efficient.

Not necessarily.

Even if you ignore the affects of things like interest or inflation, just the different tax treatment of operating costs and capital expenditure can make enough of a difference to make or break the business case.

Tax effective lending, my speciality, can turnaround upfront acquisition costs, moving lifetime ownership and operating costs.

The market awaits with interest (apologies for the pun), new opportunities post-Brexit, to push the envelope.

The wonders of finance are inexhaustible.
Nonetheless, it can't be the case in general that paying more to Airbus would save money for an airline - assuming wondrous finance in the less case and the more.
More clearly, it can't be the case that wonder finance means BA should pay Airbus more to save money - else that would be the gripe: "I'd buy more A380's but Airbus isn't charging me enough!"

speedbored wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

The A380 sells at ~60% of the 777-9 per seat

No it does not. Given that the A380 has ~50% more seats, that would mean that an A380 sells for less than a 779.

You are definitely way off the mark with your relative prices at the biggest customer for both types.

Ignoring undisclosed 777X launch prices, at which almost every sale to-date has been recorded, and list prices, Boeing's now 'tough love' pricing policy means it's very likely you can purchase an A380 (EK configuration) for similar or less money than a 779.

Interesting to what extent Boeing will share economies of scale with third party buyers prepared to acquire EK configuration 779's.

Airbus, and I suspect EK and BA, have been sitting on the fence, waiting for hard data on the 777X, before making a decision on the A380. Rumour is that Boeing has slowed deliberately, partly at the request of customers, and partly to make the wait untenable for Airbus.

Likely to be further controlled 'slippages' at Boeing. The challenge for Airbus, is to work out if they are required because of real performance issues, or because customers want deliveries to slip, or to make life harder for the A380.

Planesmart wrote:

Rumour is that Boeing has slowed deliberately, partly at the request of customers, and partly to make the wait untenable for Airbus.

Interesting. So your rumor mill is telling you that Boeing is slowing on the 777X (development? disclosure? marketing?) to conceal performance information?

Planesmart wrote:

Boeing's now 'tough love' pricing policy means it's very likely you can purchase an A380 (EK configuration) for similar or less money than a 779.

That's pretty surprising. My remark upthread was offhand and approximate on the per-seat differential (off by ~10% or so); I didn't expect this.
What's Boeing's thinking on holding so firm on 777X pricing? Are they waiting for a fuel spike like in the heydays of 77W sales?

The only reason why the A380 did not see more orders is because it is inefficient. It is struggling to reach the CASM of a 777, while an optimized version could be and should beating the 777/777X by 20%.

ro1960 wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Most of this is natural evolution to optimise capacity.

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

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

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

Almost every airliner that has lasted more than 10 years (Concorde and VC-10 being notable exceptions IMHO) , has had it's manufacturer try to optimize it's space utilization. The 737 and A320 familys' galley and lav configs come to mind. 747 upper deck seats are an older example. Thank you very much.
Look at this effort by rockwell collins http://beaerospace.com/products/structures-and-integration/737-advanced-lavatory/.
737, 727, 747, 767 have all acquired wingtip devices after EIS, so what's wrong with this one?

Lets just wait and see if airlines and lessors order it.

Matt6461 wrote:

Planesmart wrote:

Rumour is that Boeing has slowed deliberately, partly at the request of customers, and partly to make the wait untenable for Airbus.

What's Boeing's thinking on holding so firm on 777X pricing?

Compliance with Board guidance (directives) in respect to new model minimum financial targets, re-drafted following less than stellar 748, 787 and 777X results / projections.

Review of outstanding orders, including enforcement of contract T&C's (including model hopping and deferral penalties), triggering of put options, and capping MOU timeframes, are part of the ongoing process.

Matt6461 wrote:

tjh8402 wrote:

MH and TG are hardly examples of the A380's success.

That's irrelevant.. If you want to say (as the poster did) that EK has, on net, caused fewer A380 orders, then you would observe an "EK effect" on A380 orders. I.e. airlines that compete with EK more would order fewer A380's and vice versa. This is quite straightforward conceptually and empirically observable. The facts simply don't match the narrative.

I think you're ignoring the fact that nearly *ALL* non-EK orders were placed *BEFORE* EK competed with anyone!

Basically, a handful of European and South-East Asian airlines (plus Qantas) dipped their toes with some modest orders - mostly for Europe / Asia+Australia routes - and before they could even consider increasing fleet size EK came out of nowhere and threw dozens more A380s on those routes.

TG and MH are then good examples of airlines who probably had their plans severely curtailed by EK's subsequent growth.

That is why those airlines didn't / couldn't order more A380s. That is the point that was being made.

SCAT15F wrote:

I still think an NEO using the Trent XWB-75/84 would be the best way to go.

It would be an unwise move. The Trent XWB is just too heavy and would put a lot of additional weight on the A380. Secondly, by the time A380neo would enter service, Trent XWB engine will be ~ 8 years old. You do not want to introduce a new aircraft with older engine technology. Airbus made that mistake once (remember that lightsaber called the original A380 engines "frankensteined"), the A380 engines could have been so much better.

As it needs to compete against the 777-9, A380neo would need similar engine technology as the GE90X (i.e. RR Advance). Remember that RR did bid on the 777-9, they should have a good idea what could fit the A380neo.

SomebodyinTLS wrote:

TG and MH are then good examples of airlines who probably had their plans severely curtailed by EK's subsequent growth.
That is why those airlines didn't / couldn't order more A380s. That is the point that was being made.

I've taken pains to say that the only point I'm addressing is the ***NET*** impact of EK on A380 orders. I don't doubt there would have been more non-EK orders absent the ME3 and agree that Southeast Asian carriers would have ordered more most likely. Nonetheless, I don't see MH/TG increasing their orders and I don't see SQ exceeding 40 in a no-ME3 world.

You might have some cognitive resistance to the idea that anyone could think EK hurt A380 sales. That's understandable. But believe me, folks here are not ashamed to say that publicly.

If somebody thinks Airbus will replace the Superjumbo with another VLA in 2020's I have a bridge and brewery in Brooklyn waiting to be sold.

The next VLA will probably be a 450-600 seat BWB twin or triple, maybe in the early 2030's. (450 if things don't change, 600 if they do)

Any "new VLA" talk is speculation, the industry is going through a VLA boom right now with the A350 and 777X. The focus for the next 10 years is going to be MOM while the A380 runs its course. No use for Boeing or Airbus to throw more billions at developing a VLA when they both have good investments already.

Strato2 wrote:

If somebody thinks Airbus will replace the Superjumbo with another VLA in 2020's I have a bridge and brewery in Brooklyn waiting to be sold.

There's actually a good business case for it.

Or are we looking at the end of the VLA market (450+) period?
748i is gone and so too perhaps is the A380 in 2020.
Is the future more as Boeing sees it P2P?
Some will be heavy traffic P2P with 400 seaters like the 779.
But maybe that's what we are actually seeing.
You know Boeing tried time after time to replace the 744 and was rejected.Finally they just launched the 748 and got burned.Aorbus launched the 388 and got the same treatment.Perhaps it is writ large.Its over.
Just a thought...

787 9 and 10, and the 350 9 and 10 (and likely 11), especially the largest 2 or 3 models will eat up most of the space at the upper end. There may not be any room for all that many sales at the 777 8 and 9 size - Airbus may be able to just let Boeing have those. Boeings 797 and Airbus counter will be ferocious competitors up to 5000 miles. There ain't going to be much room left at the top. Particularly, how many routes need more than 6 or 7000 miles?

Slug71 wrote:

There's actually a good business case for it.

The confounding issue for Airbus (aside from loss of face) is that an optimal VLA would steal a lot of sales from A350. Viewed in isolation, you can probably sketch out a good business case for a VLA project with positive NPV. If you add in the opportunity cost of foregone A350 profits, however, maybe not. The VLA project's NPV would have to exceed the negative delta to expected A350 profits. That could be on the order of $20bn.

This is the problem with duopoly. OEM failure does not have the consequences that it would in a competitive market.
Hopefully Embraer, Bombardier, or (more likely) China/Russia can be competitive in this space sooner than later.

Matt6461 wrote:

SomebodyinTLS wrote:

TG and MH are then good examples of airlines who probably had their plans severely curtailed by EK's subsequent growth.
That is why those airlines didn't / couldn't order more A380s. That is the point that was being made.

I've taken pains to say that the only point I'm addressing is the ***NET*** impact of EK on A380 orders.
[...]
You might have some cognitive resistance to the idea that anyone could think EK hurt A380 sales. That's understandable. But believe me, folks here are not ashamed to say that publicly.

Perhaps if you didn't put your bias into your idea of what I'm thinking then you'd realise that I agree that the ***NET*** effect is that EK has hurt overal A380 sales.

Sheesh - always with the arrogance.

Matt6461 wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

There's actually a good business case for it.

The confounding issue for Airbus (aside from loss of face) is that an optimal VLA would steal a lot of sales from A350. Viewed in isolation, you can probably sketch out a good business case for a VLA project with positive NPV. If you add in the opportunity cost of foregone A350 profits, however, maybe not. The VLA project's NPV would have to exceed the negative delta to expected A350 profits. That could be on the order of $20bn.

This is the problem with duopoly. OEM failure does not have the consequences that it would in a competitive market.
Hopefully Embraer, Bombardier, or (more likely) China/Russia can be competitive in this space sooner than later.

Good point.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

SomebodyinTLS wrote:

TG and MH are then good examples of airlines who probably had their plans severely curtailed by EK's subsequent growth.
That is why those airlines didn't / couldn't order more A380s. That is the point that was being made.

I've taken pains to say that the only point I'm addressing is the ***NET*** impact of EK on A380 orders.
[...]
You might have some cognitive resistance to the idea that anyone could think EK hurt A380 sales. That's understandable. But believe me, folks here are not ashamed to say that publicly.

Perhaps if you didn't put your bias into your idea of what I'm thinking then you'd realise that I agree that the ***NET*** effect is that EK has hurt overal A380 sales.

Sheesh - always with the arrogance.

Sorry if that came off as an attack. I thought you perceived me as responding to a point about non-EK A380 sales only as opposed to net A380 sales. I was simply clarifying my point and said that I did not impute to you the idea that EK had a net negative effect on A380 sales (I attributed "cognitive resistance" to your imputation of that belief to others - tongue in cheek remark).

Matt6461 wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

I've taken pains to say that the only point I'm addressing is the ***NET*** impact of EK on A380 orders.
[...]
You might have some cognitive resistance to the idea that anyone could think EK hurt A380 sales. That's understandable. But believe me, folks here are not ashamed to say that publicly.

Perhaps if you didn't put your bias into your idea of what I'm thinking then you'd realise that I agree that the ***NET*** effect is that EK has hurt overal A380 sales.

Sheesh - always with the arrogance.

Sorry if that came off as an attack. I thought you perceived me as responding to a point about non-EK A380 sales only as opposed to net A380 sales. I was simply clarifying my point and said that I did not impute to you the idea that EK had a net negative effect on A380 sales (I attributed "cognitive resistance" to your imputation of that belief to others - tongue in cheek remark).

Okay - hatchet buried...

Matt6461 wrote:

Airbus is comparing today's A380Plus at 575 seats to some baseline of 497 seats. Before today, when did you ever hear Airbus refer to the A380 as a 497-seater? I certainly never did, but it serves their purpose for press coverage at the air show. Don't be Leahy's marks.

KarelXWB wrote:

That would be the 4-class configuration at 497 seats that Airbus "launched" a few years ago.

Finally found the seat map for the 4-class configuration at 497 seats. I had seen it few years ago but couldn't find it anymore:



And here is the same 4-class cabin with 78 additional seats (575 seats total) on the A380plus:



Ref https://leehamnews.com/2017/07/05/a380p ... -analysis/

The old configuration at 550 seats was 3-class and would probably fit over 600 seats on the A380plus.

KarelXWB wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

Airbus is comparing today's A380Plus at 575 seats to some baseline of 497 seats. Before today, when did you ever hear Airbus refer to the A380 as a 497-seater? I certainly never did, but it serves their purpose for press coverage at the air show. Don't be Leahy's marks.

KarelXWB wrote:

That would be the 4-class configuration at 497 seats that Airbus "launched" a few years ago.

Finally found the seat map for the 4-class configuration at 497 seats. I had seen it few years ago but couldn't find it anymore:



And here is the same 4-class cabin with 78 additional seats (575 seats total) on the A380plus:



Ref https://leehamnews.com/2017/07/05/a380p ... -analysis/

The old configuration at 550 seats was 3-class and would probably fit over 600 seats on the A380plus.

That's the first I've ever seen that 497-seat layout. From the November 2016 FAST issue we have the 544-seat layout that Leahy has been using in comparisons against the 777-9 for at least a year:



Google [Airbus FAST A380] for the link to the document.

Notice that this is also a 4-class layout with 9ab PY, 11ab Y, and herringbone J.
My suspicion that Airbus invented the 497-seat layout for A380Plus marketing copy therefore remains.

I don't dispute that, measured against a baseline ~2008 A380, the Plus could gain ~80 seats in the brochure layout. All I'm saying is that very little of this is new and most of the densification proposals have been rejected already. Mostly it's the front stairs revision that's new.

Notice also that Airbus has 16 rows of J and a lav between Doors 6 and 7 on the UD. QR has 12 rows and a lav in that space: this is a VERY tight herringbone J configuration.
The recommended pitch of 42in is lower than AA's herringbone pitch on the 77W (43in). Removing the storage bins does not make the A380 UD wider than a 77W. Plus you have the fuselage curving in on the outer J seats. These would probably be the worst herringbone seats ever offered.

In fact this layout gives the A380 the worst hard product of any non-ULCC airliner in J, PY, and Y.
...given that most of these cabin enhancements have been on the market for years (bin removal, 11ab), I remain unimpressed with this offering.

That's not to say it's nothing; it's just not much. All these ideas would have been great in 2006. Probably too little too late now.

I won't be surprised if Leeham's follow-on piece to the one you posted opines that the Plus is as good as a NEO and therefore very "competitive" or something like that.
While I have the utmost respect for Bjorn's technical opinion, I don't feel compelled to defer to his business/marketing judgement. He predicted the launch of a NEO for years and implied that even the CEO was a great product.

EDIT: Notice also that the J lavs in the "Plus" layout are significantly smaller than in the just-invented 497-seat layout. Same with F lavs.
These are the games one can play with LOPA's; it's why brochure seat counts and any comparisons based on them are a fool's game.

KarelXWB I'd also refer to this post by yours truly two years ago: viewtopic.php?t=589823&start=50#p9141253

In it I link to an Airbus presentation comparing a 544-seat A380 against a 291-seat 777-9.
In other words, Airbus has been touting the 544-seat layout pictured above for years - as I've been saying.
We can pretend that the A380 is 90% bigger than the 777-9 but we can't pretend that Airbus magically conjured 80 seats between PAS2017 and last November.

Matt6461 wrote:

Airbus magically conjured 80 seats between PAS2017 and last November.

They've added about 50 seats.

The 497 seat layout is the pre-change 4-class layout.
The 544 seat layout adds in the 11 abreast "enhancement".
The 575 seat layout adds the front & rear staircase and crew rest changes.

Nothing underhand going on.

Speedbored wrote:

The 497 seat layout is the pre-change 4-class layout.
The 544 seat layout adds in the 11 abreast "enhancement".
The 575 seat layout adds the front & rear staircase and crew rest changes.

Except for a few added details (544 adds side bin removal, for example) I have no beef with that.
Here's what I'm saying: Airbus has been shopping most (~70%) of the densification delta when measured against a pre-4/9/11ab J/PY/Y layout for several years now. These changes do not seem to have changed sales.
The Plus is definitely a Plus and I've been suggesting the stairs removal since 2014.
But is it a 13% efficiency delta? That's far-fetched.
Does a 3% efficiency delta move airlines from no to yes? When even EK doesn't bite that seems doubtful.

There's nothing underhanded about this - at least no more underhanded than typical OEM marketing ploys. The 77W+, for example, isn't even close to the 3% efficiency gain claimed by Boeing; it's mostly just LOPA marketing manipulation. That's fine for both to do, no reason to fault the salesmen for doing their job. We just shouldn't buy the line.

Not saying that to anyone in particular btw - by this point it's too long a thread to check who specifically said "13% lower costs."

Bjorn/Ferpe @ Leeham gives lots of red meat: A380Plus: First analysis

One interesting tidbit I found was, after he commented on the A380s low aspect ratio wing being saved by the effective fuselage packaging, is:

The A380Plus split winglet improves the effective aspect ratio of the wing to 8.4. It changes the pressure distribution of the wing outwards. To regain an optimal total pressure distribution (which shall be close to elliptical for the whole wing) adjustments are necessary to the wing’s surfaces. The sections outboard of the engines are retwisted and there is a 30mm recamber of the wingarea between the engines, Figure 2

Pretty interesting how inter-related all these things are. Unfortunately he doesn't comment on if these "adjustments" are the reason why the winglets are not offered as a retrofit, but one can guess that they are..

Plenty more at the above link.

And he promises a Pt 2 where he compares the Plus to the 779, should be very interesting!

Matt6461 wrote:

Speedbored wrote:

The 497 seat layout is the pre-change 4-class layout.
The 544 seat layout adds in the 11 abreast "enhancement".
The 575 seat layout adds the front & rear staircase and crew rest changes.

Except for a few added details (544 adds side bin removal, for example) I have no beef with that.
Here's what I'm saying: Airbus has been shopping most (~70%) of the densification delta when measured against a pre-4/9/11ab J/PY/Y layout for several years now. These changes do not seem to have changed sales.
The Plus is definitely a Plus and I've been suggesting the stairs removal since 2014.
But is it a 13% efficiency delta? That's far-fetched.
Does a 3% efficiency delta move airlines from no to yes? When even EK doesn't bite that seems doubtful.

There's nothing underhanded about this - at least no more underhanded than typical OEM marketing ploys. The 77W+, for example, isn't even close to the 3% efficiency gain claimed by Boeing; it's mostly just LOPA marketing manipulation. That's fine for both to do, no reason to fault the salesmen for doing their job. We just shouldn't buy the line.

Not saying that to anyone in particular btw - by this point it's too long a thread to check who specifically said "13% lower costs."

Were do you get 3%? I would say that Emirates has no hurry answering if they would order an A380 plus, they have still 47 A380 on order and we know that EK really wants a neo. Tom Enders mentioned a possible A380 order from China, perhaps the A380 + is aimed in that direction..