Airliners.net

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Can we move on?

Yes Minister! ( actually : yes please. ... if it is finally understood that PR reasoning does not reflect the REAL reasons. )

Vladex wrote:

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.

Wait, what?? "People in Airbus" say they are going to be making them another 30 years? That would be HUGE news. Or (more likely) that a few will still be in service in 30 years? Maybe you can provide a link so we can parse it ourselves?

In relation with the preceding post, I wonder how much it would cost to 'store' the entire A380 production line once production stops? Say for 10-15 years after 2019 or 2020 when -and if- orders run out. One can logically see demand for VLA's picking up in late 2030 or in the 2040's with increasing and chronic congestion at major airports worldwide...


Faro

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.

Strange... I could have sworn that that was exactly what I said!

The T900 has had ,I believe 2 or 3 PIP's.The latest one just starting now with the next batch of Emirates aircraft.I read somewhere that Roll said that their were taking the learnings and technology from the T1000 and TXWB.That seems logical.

If there was to be a 380 Plus as described covering internals and wing tip treatment.What is the possibility of a further PIP?

Both the T1000/7000 and the TXWB are very similar in thrust to the T900 and historically the Trent family were considered very modular making it easier to swap elements in /out.

I have no idea what areas the previous pips included but a further 1/2% would be very handy for this 'plus' project.
As stated above there will be no NEO in this round.If there ever was one it would be in a decades time when the 787/350 might be up for one.
So a PIP ready for the 'plus' EIS would be handy - perhaps for 2+ years time depending on when (if) it is announced.

Bald1983 wrote:

The precise reason for the 787 and the A-350 is to avoid "marshalling yards" and be able to fly non-stop.

Which is either inefficient or does not scoop all traffic.

OK, you funnel traffic for N destinations through one hub each destination has the same volume of traffic to each of the N-1 destinations.

Your demand for P2P for each pair will be 1/Nth the traffic through the hub.
i.e. 1 A380 in PHP mode versus a myriad business jet in your highly esteemed P2p mode.

There obviously are smaller centers connected by mutual interest that are well served by P2P flights.

But that does not reflect the majority of demand.
That is Major center to major other center, smalish regional to some center
and finally very smalish to another rather smalish destination.

So another PIP for the T900 and make it like T7000 style how much more efficient will that be? What can be done?

I still would like an comperation between the original A380 with original T900 with an A380+ with the T900 with latest PIP...

SCAT15F wrote:

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

What benefit is in this for Rolls? GE+PW have already said they aren't going to improve the GP engine. Rolls has the field all to itself, after investing on a new PIP that turned out to be more troublesome than planned. They could move to the lighter fan + case on a product line that has some competitive pressure and much better sales volume instead. Or they could just use the money to shore up the sagging finances.

WIederling wrote:

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.

By your thinking A380 is nothing more than a 747 copy with a full length upper deck. Airbus then laid on the PR to give us a cruise ship staircase and on-board duty free shops, bars, showers, love shacks, etc.

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.

You should read the CX thread. It turns out the average pax doesn't really want to go to HKG to get to where they really want to go.

Revelation wrote:

SCAT15F wrote:

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

What benefit is in this for Rolls? GE+PW have already said they aren't going to improve the GP engine. Rolls has the field all to itself, after investing on a new PIP that turned out to be more troublesome than planned. They could move to the lighter fan + case on a product line that has some competitive pressure and much better sales volume instead. Or they could just use the money to shore up the sagging finances.

There's no point in having the field all to themselves if they can't sell their pipped up engines.
If RR can sell a different engine that is already being built, per set of 4 units, why not?
Saves them a lot of dough in prodution costs and expands their market.

The A380 needs its stretch if it is to incorporate the heavier version of the TXWB. Soon enough, th A35J will probably overtake the A359 in sales anyway.
The wings are fine with an evolution in wingtip design.
High parts commonality with the A350XWB is a requirement. Remember that Airbus"s success comes from the extensive promotion of commonality.
If the same fuel burn can be achieved with 15% more pax capacity, it is once again unbeatable in terms of CASM.
Customers will line up for a handful of units each, and that's all the A380 needs to stay viable for the next decades.

The widebody market today is P2P-oriented, but when you develop a product, you need to look at 5 to 20 years down the line.
I see alot of joint ventures forming all over the place, each flying the same routes with A330's, B787's, sometimes departing 20 minutes apart.
One of them is JL/AY flying the same HEL-NRT sectors with A330/B789 30 minutes apart in a joint-venture. What a waste.
Everyone wants to fly P2P, but no-one wans to pay more for it.

Bricktop wrote:

Vladex wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

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.

Wait, what?? "People in Airbus" say they are going to be making them another 30 years? That would be HUGE news. Or (more likely) that a few will still be in service in 30 years? Maybe you can provide a link so we can parse it ourselves?

Why would they stop making them when there is growth in airline travel and when there is so many airplanes to replace?
You can find quotes like this all over the internet not that you need it.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/airbus ... 2016-06-03

Airbus said it was planning for a 30 year to 40 year life of the program. The company also is proposing changes to the rear stairs between the two decks to add seats.

Revelation wrote:

By your thinking A380 is nothing more than a 747 copy with a full length upper deck. Airbus then laid on the PR to give us a cruise ship staircase and on-board duty free shops, bars, showers, love shacks, etc.

If that would be truly equivalent hanging Trent 900 ( or comparable gen ) on the 747?-400 or -800? would have sufficed to make it competitive with the A380.

That appears to not be the case.
Trent 7000 on the A330 and Trent1000TEN on the 787 imho provides for a telling comparison.

The A380 plus would never work. Airlines struggle enough keeping the load factors high even with lighter Y configurations.

Vladex wrote:

Why would they stop making them when there is growth in airline travel and when there is so many airplanes to replace?
You can find quotes like this all over the internet not that you need it.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/airbus ... 2016-06-03

Airbus said it was planning for a 30 year to 40 year life of the program. The company also is proposing changes to the rear stairs between the two decks to add seats.

Because at the current rate, the one thing the are not making is money. It's the same deal as the B748. If it wasn't for the UPS order, that would be closing a lot sooner. The edge of the waterfall is coming for the A380. Yes, SQ will replace their first 5 (non-standard builds?) planes, but their fleet does not seem like it's going to grow. The wildcard is always going to be EK right? And who is going to finance these purchases exactly if they are going to be rolled off at 12 years and there is zero evidence of a secondary market? The only hint I have heard about any interest in 2nd hand is WW. And any used purchase displaces a possible new frame. CZ and MH aren't banging down the doors to get more. What new customers are likely, excluding the NH deal which looks like it had other influences involved? North or South America: No. Africa: No. Europe? No. Far East? Who? Australia? Doubtful. Mid East? TK? Not likely. QR or EY? Not likely. And even if they did, not a one of them has more than a dozen frames at most. Who does that leave? All your eggs, meet your one basket in Dubai. The future is the A350-1100 and B777-10. A&B will sell loads of them. As an avgeek, I will be sorry to see the end of the passenger quads instead of tubes with an engine on each side. But sitting on the beach screaming at the tide not to come in doesn't work.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

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.

Strange... I could have sworn that that was exactly what I said!

Don't hurt yourself , but the score is not in the A380's favor and we're already in the 85th minute. Better pray for a lot of added time.

WIederling wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

The precise reason for the 787 and the A-350 is to avoid "marshalling yards" and be able to fly non-stop.

Which is either inefficient or does not scoop all traffic.

OK, you funnel traffic for N destinations through one hub each destination has the same volume of traffic to each of the N-1 destinations.

Your demand for P2P for each pair will be 1/Nth the traffic through the hub.
i.e. 1 A380 in PHP mode versus a myriad business jet in your highly esteemed P2p mode.

There obviously are smaller centers connected by mutual interest that are well served by P2P flights.

But that does not reflect the majority of demand.
That is Major center to major other center, smalish regional to some center
and finally very smalish to another rather smalish destination.

You keep saying that the 787 is for point to point. I said long thin routes. That will often mean hubs, even smaller hubs to points, a long ways away. That does reflect more and more demand. People arrive sooner then they otherwise would have. The A-380 does not do that; it is based pm the premise of mega hubs at both ends, fed by smaller planes at each end. So, in a word, I do not suggest there will ever be 787 service from Boise to Caen, in Normandy. However, there will be plenty of options to Europe that do not involved New York or other mega hubs. There is now direct service to smaller Chinese destinations that do not go through Beijing or Tokyo. The 787 has opened a lot of these markets up and will, in my expectation, open even more. The A-350 should do so as well. The A-380, not so much. It will not meet the original sales projections Airbus stated, when it began the project. It will not even come close.

Airbus had a total of 13 net order for A380's in 2014. 2 net orders in 2015, 0 net orders in 2016 and -2 net orders in 2017 for a total of 13 orders in the past 4 years. That is actually pretty abysmal for a relatively brand new aircraft. the 380 just needs to die a peaceful death. Its been available for sale since 2000. that's 17 years folks. After 17 years of 747 sales, the Queen of the Skies was fairing significantly better. If the 380 had been built say in the 1980's to 1990's, no doubt it would have been a very successful aircraft. Thanks to the engineering marvels of making and flying massive planes with two engines, there just isn't a need for a commercial plane with anything more than 2 engines. RIP A380.

jumbojet wrote:

Airbus had a total of 13 net order for A380's in 2014. 2 net orders in 2015, 0 net orders in 2016 and -2 net orders in 2017 for a total of 13 orders in the past 4 years. That is actually pretty abysmal for a relatively brand new aircraft. the 380 just needs to die a peaceful death. Its been available for sale since 2000. that's 17 years folks. After 17 years of 747 sales, the Queen of the Skies was fairing significantly better. If the 380 had been built say in the 1980's to 1990's, no doubt it would have been a very successful aircraft. Thanks to the engineering marvels of making and flying massive planes with two engines, there just isn't a need for a commercial plane with anything more than 2 engines. RIP A380.

Stop comparing the A380 and 747. Their situations were entirely different.

That the A380 hasn't been selling is precisely why Airbus is examining their options. You say let it die. They say let's see what we can do to enhance the business case.

Of course, Delta never ordered any, so......

PlanesNTrains wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

Airbus had a total of 13 net order for A380's in 2014. 2 net orders in 2015, 0 net orders in 2016 and -2 net orders in 2017 for a total of 13 orders in the past 4 years. That is actually pretty abysmal for a relatively brand new aircraft. the 380 just needs to die a peaceful death. Its been available for sale since 2000. that's 17 years folks. After 17 years of 747 sales, the Queen of the Skies was fairing significantly better. If the 380 had been built say in the 1980's to 1990's, no doubt it would have been a very successful aircraft. Thanks to the engineering marvels of making and flying massive planes with two engines, there just isn't a need for a commercial plane with anything more than 2 engines. RIP A380.

Stop comparing the A380 and 747. Their situations were entirely different.

That the A380 hasn't been selling is precisely why Airbus is examining their options. You say let it die. They say let's see what we can do to enhance the business case.

Of course, Delta never ordered any, so......

Unless the market dramatically changes, the A-380 is done. When the 747 came out, the flying was still to mega-hubs and then take traffic to mega hubs. Even in those ancient days, until the DC-10's design flaws damaged the brand, it was starting to give the 747 a run for its money. Continental unloaded its 747's and used DC-10's. I believe Eastern and Delta did as well. They went with the Tri-Stars. The 747 did very well later when the DC-10 had its problems and was, comparatively speaking a good fit for international flying. However times and technology progressed and with the larger engines and fuel efficiencies, the twins won. There is a large difference with the 747 and the A-380; there was a time the 747 made sense. That cannot be said about the A-380. As I said, it is done.

The reason Airbus is not ready, quite yet, to say let it die, is that Airbus put a lot of money and its prestige into building it. That does not mean, however, that orders are going to pick up.

I think in the end, the A380 may be a technological dead end, especially with the impending arrival of the Boeing 777-9 with 747-400 carrying capacity and nearly 7,800 nautical mile range (which may exceed 8,000 nm in improved versions). In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Boeing is looking at a lower MTOW 777X model (a "777-7" with slightly smaller wings and a range around 7,800 nm) based on the 777-8 that will eventually replace the oldest 777-300ER's from 2021 on.

Bald1983 wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

Airbus had a total of 13 net order for A380's in 2014. 2 net orders in 2015, 0 net orders in 2016 and -2 net orders in 2017 for a total of 13 orders in the past 4 years. That is actually pretty abysmal for a relatively brand new aircraft. the 380 just needs to die a peaceful death. Its been available for sale since 2000. that's 17 years folks. After 17 years of 747 sales, the Queen of the Skies was fairing significantly better. If the 380 had been built say in the 1980's to 1990's, no doubt it would have been a very successful aircraft. Thanks to the engineering marvels of making and flying massive planes with two engines, there just isn't a need for a commercial plane with anything more than 2 engines. RIP A380.

Stop comparing the A380 and 747. Their situations were entirely different.

That the A380 hasn't been selling is precisely why Airbus is examining their options. You say let it die. They say let's see what we can do to enhance the business case.

Of course, Delta never ordered any, so......

Unless the market dramatically changes, the A-380 is done. When the 747 came out, the flying was still to mega-hubs and then take traffic to mega hubs. Even in those ancient days, until the DC-10's design flaws damaged the brand, it was starting to give the 747 a run for its money. Continental unloaded its 747's and used DC-10's. I believe Eastern and Delta did as well. They went with the Tri-Stars. The 747 did very well later when the DC-10 had its problems and was, comparatively speaking a good fit for international flying. However times and technology progressed and with the larger engines and fuel efficiencies, the twins won. There is a large difference with the 747 and the A-380; there was a time the 747 made sense. That cannot be said about the A-380. As I said, it is done.

The reason Airbus is not ready, quite yet, to say let it die, is that Airbus put a lot of money and its prestige into building it. That does not mean, however, that orders are going to pick up.

1. Yes, you keep saying that the A380 is done and has no business case.
2. Your last two sentences were actually both very true. Airbus is trying to salvage their investment, but there are no guarantees.
3. Your missing component, imho, is underestimating how big of a rabbit Airbus can pull out of it's hat, as well as perhaps their desire to see this plane keep selling.
4. I don't remember the last program Airbus cancelled without something else already in service or in development to take it's place. Therefore, I'm assuming that if the A380 does end up being cancelled, we'll see a serious A350-1100/-2000 launched at around the same time. I'm not so sure that's a better outcome for Boeing, to be honest.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

4. I don't remember the last program Airbus cancelled without something else already in service or in development to take it's place. Therefore, I'm assuming that if the A380 does end up being cancelled, we'll see a serious A350-1100/-2000 launched at around the same time. I'm not so sure that's a better outcome for Boeing, to be honest.

The traffic predictions that are the underpinning of the A380 business case shew 2 major contractions after project start.
911 and the GFC. ( Just look at the exponential growth predictions from ~2000 and ~2007.)

For Airbus the question is will Trump kick off some major conflict bringing to a final boil the tensions that have
been introduced in the last 10..15 years or will saneness prevail. (Netherlands rejected Wilders, hooray! )

War: A380 dead. you can't tide over another 2 decades and tech in general will have moved on.
peace: A380 has a chance imho.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

4. I don't remember the last program Airbus cancelled without something else already in service or in development to take it's place. Therefore, I'm assuming that if the A380 does end up being cancelled, we'll see a serious A350-1100/-2000 launched at around the same time. I'm not so sure that's a better outcome for Boeing, to be honest.

4.1 That's why it will be so interesting to see if and how Airbus will proceed with that 350-110/2000 whatsoever-thing. It's a pity they lost that SQ-contract some weeks ago. No, not because I might be an Airbus-fanboy (I am not, I love both blondes and brunettes...), but because we then might have known more about Airbus' planes.

4.2 if they cancel it it will be as they did with the A340. They kept it for some time as a product without any orders and then it was removed from the "shopping list"

keitherson wrote:

Airlines struggle enough keeping the load factors high even with lighter Y configurations.

Since you present this as a fact you surely have no problem to provide some sources for your claim.

This 'plus' thread exists because Airbus have rejected the NEO for now (if the aircraft continues) or ever(if it doesn't.
The 'plus' as far as we know involves
1. a plethora of internal changes that utilise the internal usable space far better - and in the light of 'today' when double level air bridges are now common.
2.A blended wingtip treatment that reduces sac by 2%.
I have asked whether a final engine PIP might not also be cost effectively achieved over the circa 2 year development cycle.

What's the point in all this?
Simply to retain as many of their existing customers as possible for the inevitable renewal fleet.
The main customer is-
Obvious as - frankly are the others.
The will be discussing this with Emirates and hoping to come to an agreement.They may have done so already.
If they can garner 150 odd orders then it buys them 10 years production at present rates.At that time new engines are bound to be being touted for the 787/350.If the demand is there that is the time they will NEO.

If they cannot achieve this with the 'plus' then all VLA sales will go to a 777-10 which is hardly in their interests.

It's a game of poker (with Emirates).They say 're engine and we will buy 100-200 aircraft'.Airbus says 'we can't afford to'
But
We will make the inside 10% more efficient without loosing your 18.5" seats.And we will make the wing 2% more efficient.(and perhaps 1% on the engine).'So how's that'?
We don't know the answer to that question.Most probably as Emirates are not in a fantastic place right now and have much to consider.
But it's worth rembering that this aircraft is functioning very well with half a dozen airlines getting high load factors (thus making good $$$)
BA have as an example stated they want more,Singapore has reordered and what will airlines like LH ,Korea etc etc use instead?It would have to be a much smaller aircraft.So hardly ideal.Its complex.

Bricktop wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Well the score is overwhelmingly in favor of H2P/P2H vs. H2H.

Strange... I could have sworn that that was exactly what I said!

Don't hurt yourself , but the score is not in the A380's favor and we're already in the 85th minute. Better pray for a lot of added time.

If I take my head away from the wall for a second... to state (again) that the A380 is also mostly H2P/P2H!

That's why the whole "P2P beat H2H, P2P=787, H2H=A380 ergo 787 beat A380" is a complete fallacy.

The A380 has its own troubles (as does the 787) but these are nothing to do with the stupid P2P argument which gets trotted out time after time.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

If I take my head away from the wall for a second... to state (again) that the A380 is also mostly H2P/P2H!

That's why the whole "P2P beat H2H, P2P=787, H2H=A380 ergo 787 beat A380" is a complete fallacy.

The A380 has its own troubles (as does the 787) but these are nothing to do with the stupid P2P argument which gets trotted out time after time.

Bolding mine. With all due respect, that’s nonsense. Throwing up the semantic canard of P2P is merely a deflection. Let’s look at the airlines not named Emirates, shall we?

BA: (LHR) BOS, HKG, JNB, LAX, MIA, SFO, SIN, YVR, IAD
AF: (CDG) ABJ, HKG, JNB, LAX, MEX, MIA, JFK, SFO, PVG, IAD
LH: (FRA) PKG, DEL, HKG, IAH, LAX, MIA, JFK, SFO, ICN, PVG, SIN
OZ: (ICN) LAX, JFK, FRA
CZ: (PEK, CAN) LAX, SYD, AMS, CTU
EY: (AUH) LHR, MEL, BOM, JFK, SYD
KE: (ICN) ATL, LHR, LAX, JFK, CDG
MH: (KUL) LHR
QF: (SYD, MEL) DFW, DXB, LHR, LAX
QR: (DOH) BKK, CAN, LHR, CDG, SYD
SQ: (SIN) AKL, PEK, DEL, FRA, HKG, LHR, LAX, MEL, BOM, JFK, CDG, PVG, SYD, NRT, ZRH
TG: (BKK) FRA, HKG, LHR, KIX, CDG, NRT

SOURCE: https://www.iflya380.com/a380-airlines.html

Go through that list and provide the ones you call “points” over “hubs”. ABJ, AKL, YVR and ZRH I will concede. I was going to say Chengdu but that has over 10 million people, but let’s give you that. Maybe IAD even though it’s the capital of a country called the United States of America. So let’s throw Melbourne in there just to piss off the Aussies. Apart from these, slim pickings.

Now EK has so many A380’s they have to send them to a lot of cities that aren’t in that first tier that will certainly be justifiably caused “points” over “hubs”. But again we get back to my point of having all the eggs in one basket.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Stop comparing the A380 and 747. Their situations were entirely different.

That the A380 hasn't been selling is precisely why Airbus is examining their options. You say let it die. They say let's see what we can do to enhance the business case.

Of course, Delta never ordered any, so......

Unless the market dramatically changes, the A-380 is done. When the 747 came out, the flying was still to mega-hubs and then take traffic to mega hubs. Even in those ancient days, until the DC-10's design flaws damaged the brand, it was starting to give the 747 a run for its money. Continental unloaded its 747's and used DC-10's. I believe Eastern and Delta did as well. They went with the Tri-Stars. The 747 did very well later when the DC-10 had its problems and was, comparatively speaking a good fit for international flying. However times and technology progressed and with the larger engines and fuel efficiencies, the twins won. There is a large difference with the 747 and the A-380; there was a time the 747 made sense. That cannot be said about the A-380. As I said, it is done.

The reason Airbus is not ready, quite yet, to say let it die, is that Airbus put a lot of money and its prestige into building it. That does not mean, however, that orders are going to pick up.

1. Yes, you keep saying that the A380 is done and has no business case.
2. Your last two sentences were actually both very true. Airbus is trying to salvage their investment, but there are no guarantees.
3. Your missing component, imho, is underestimating how big of a rabbit Airbus can pull out of it's hat, as well as perhaps their desire to see this plane keep selling.
4. I don't remember the last program Airbus cancelled without something else already in service or in development to take it's place. Therefore, I'm assuming that if the A380 does end up being cancelled, we'll see a serious A350-1100/-2000 launched at around the same time. I'm not so sure that's a better outcome for Boeing, to be honest.

Airbus woke up and realized Boeing called it right. They then developed and produced the A-350. I suspect Airbus will make great progress with that aircraft and future developments will center on the A-350 or some new design. The rabbit you speak of that Airbus will pull out of its hat is the A-350.

Bricktop wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

If I take my head away from the wall for a second... to state (again) that the A380 is also mostly H2P/P2H!

That's why the whole "P2P beat H2H, P2P=787, H2H=A380 ergo 787 beat A380" is a complete fallacy.

The A380 has its own troubles (as does the 787) but these are nothing to do with the stupid P2P argument which gets trotted out time after time.

Bolding mine. With all due respect, that’s nonsense. Throwing up the semantic canard of P2P is merely a deflection. Let’s look at the airlines not named Emirates, shall we?

Soooo.... why are we skipping Emirates, if not to deflect?

The world has a mix of different airlines flying a mix of different aircraft on a mix of different route types. There is no winning aircraft, there is no winning route type. The end.

Reduction of all the real-world grey areas into black-and-white arguments is just silly.

Bricktop wrote:

Bolding mine. With all due respect, that’s nonsense. Throwing up the semantic canard of P2P is merely a deflection. Let’s look at the airlines not named Emirates, shall we?

BA: (LHR) BOS, HKG, JNB, LAX, MIA, SFO, SIN, YVR, IAD
AF: (CDG) ABJ, HKG, JNB, LAX, MEX, MIA, JFK, SFO, PVG, IAD
LH: (FRA) PKG, DEL, HKG, IAH, LAX, MIA, JFK, SFO, ICN, PVG, SIN
OZ: (ICN) LAX, JFK, FRA
CZ: (PEK, CAN) LAX, SYD, AMS, CTU
EY: (AUH) LHR, MEL, BOM, JFK, SYD
KE: (ICN) ATL, LHR, LAX, JFK, CDG
MH: (KUL) LHR
QF: (SYD, MEL) DFW, DXB, LHR, LAX
QR: (DOH) BKK, CAN, LHR, CDG, SYD
SQ: (SIN) AKL, PEK, DEL, FRA, HKG, LHR, LAX, MEL, BOM, JFK, CDG, PVG, SYD, NRT, ZRH
TG: (BKK) FRA, HKG, LHR, KIX, CDG, NRT

SOURCE: https://www.iflya380.com/a380-airlines.html

Go through that list and provide the ones you call “points” over “hubs”. ABJ, AKL, YVR and ZRH I will concede. I was going to say Chengdu but that has over 10 million people, but let’s give you that. Maybe IAD even though it’s the capital of a country called the United States of America. So let’s throw Melbourne in there just to piss off the Aussies. Apart from these, slim pickings.

Now EK has so many A380’s they have to send them to a lot of cities that aren’t in that first tier that will certainly be justifiably caused “points” over “hubs”. But again we get back to my point of having all the eggs in one basket.

You do realize that while a lot of those "hubs" you listed are not hubs for the airline concerned, and from a functionality point of view are treated as O&D for that particular airline.

Example: BA is in bed with AA, not with UA. I don't think BA will get any hub feed from SFO-LHR. So while SFO is a hub (for UA), for BA it really is an O&D rote (on the SFO end that is).

So you should eliminate a lot of routes from that list (not to mention that you should add about every EK route . . . ).


Rgds,
PW100

I wish people would stop saying 'Boeing called it right'. Are you all that gullible, that was nothing more than PR to support a particular type. At the same time Boeing was developing and building the 747, and Airbus was improving the A330. Both had products for both market segments, rather sensibly. Frankly Airbus didnt have any need to build a 787 type at the time because they had the A330 which can do the job almost as well. Boeing was responding to a gap in its product line and an area where Airbus was well ahead, it did not discover some revolutionary market segment I'm sorry to say. And Airbus still manages to sell more A330s these days...

People speak as if Airbus had decided it was only ever going to build A380s for the rest of time and nothing smaller ever again which is clearly nonsense. And if Boeing had such incredible foresight, why did it still build the 748? That's even worse than what Airbus did isn't it, if it built it knowing there was no market?

Bald1983 wrote:

Airbus woke up and realized Boeing called it right.

It's the simplistic rhetoric like this that muddies the constructive dialogue we might otherwise be able to have. It happens in a variety of ways on here, for or against a variety of products and manufacturers, but really doesn't add anything. It just pushes buttons for the sake of pushing buttons.

Planetalk wrote:

And if Boeing had such incredible foresight, why did it still build the 748? That's even worse than what Airbus did isn't it, if it built it knowing there was no market?

They never said there was no market. They said there was less of a market and so decided to warm over an existing product rather than go clean sheet. That their warmed-over 747-8i (beautiful as it may be) didn't gain traction is unfortunate for them, and another blemish on their record. It doesn't really change the A380 argument one way or the other though.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

Airbus woke up and realized Boeing called it right.

It's the simplistic rhetoric like this that muddies the constructive dialogue we might otherwise be able to have. It happens in a variety of ways on here, for or against a variety of products and manufacturers, but really doesn't add anything. It just pushes buttons for the sake of pushing buttons.

Planetalk wrote:

And if Boeing had such incredible foresight, why did it still build the 748? That's even worse than what Airbus did isn't it, if it built it knowing there was no market?

They never said there was no market. They said there was less of a market and so decided to warm over an existing product rather than go clean sheet. That their warmed-over 747-8i (beautiful as it may be) didn't gain traction is unfortunate for them, and another blemish on their record. It doesn't really change the A380 argument one way or the other though.

It does not muddy things at all. My "rhetoric" is not "Up with Boeing and down with Airbus." Airbus made the right call, after the A-380 by developing the A-350. Nonetheless, Airbus called the A-380 market wrong. The Boeing 747-8 seems to be a flop as well. So maybe I am just saying up with twin engine aircraft.

Bald1983 wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

Airbus woke up and realized Boeing called it right.

It's the simplistic rhetoric like this that muddies the constructive dialogue we might otherwise be able to have. It happens in a variety of ways on here, for or against a variety of products and manufacturers, but really doesn't add anything. It just pushes buttons for the sake of pushing buttons.

Planetalk wrote:

And if Boeing had such incredible foresight, why did it still build the 748? That's even worse than what Airbus did isn't it, if it built it knowing there was no market?

They never said there was no market. They said there was less of a market and so decided to warm over an existing product rather than go clean sheet. That their warmed-over 747-8i (beautiful as it may be) didn't gain traction is unfortunate for them, and another blemish on their record. It doesn't really change the A380 argument one way or the other though.

It does not muddy things at all. My "rhetoric" is not "Up with Boeing and down with Airbus." Airbus made the right call, after the A-380 by developing the A-350. Nonetheless, Airbus called the A-380 market wrong. The Boeing 747-8 seems to be a flop as well. So maybe I am just saying up with twin engine aircraft.

The muddying is in assuming that Airbus called it wrong and Boeing called it right, let alone saying that Airbus "woke up and realized Boeing was right", which is just pot stirring.

In reality, the world has changed so much in little more than 15 years. Designing something that is going to last for 30-40 years gets into crystal ball time. I'm not sure that Boeing was really taking much of a risk by making a 787. What was there to get right - it was already a proven market? The A380 was the risk, and Airbus took it while Boeing punted with the 748 then wiped out with the 787. Just like the narrow-body market today, one had an existing product that could be readily adapted to the changing market while the other didn't. One made some relatively modest investments and grabbed the market share lead, while the other continues to thrash about trying to get back in the game. I guess back in the '80s Airbus got it right and Boeing is finally after 30 years waking up and realizing Airbus got it right?

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

It's the simplistic rhetoric like this that muddies the constructive dialogue we might otherwise be able to have. It happens in a variety of ways on here, for or against a variety of products and manufacturers, but really doesn't add anything. It just pushes buttons for the sake of pushing buttons.



They never said there was no market. They said there was less of a market and so decided to warm over an existing product rather than go clean sheet. That their warmed-over 747-8i (beautiful as it may be) didn't gain traction is unfortunate for them, and another blemish on their record. It doesn't really change the A380 argument one way or the other though.

It does not muddy things at all. My "rhetoric" is not "Up with Boeing and down with Airbus." Airbus made the right call, after the A-380 by developing the A-350. Nonetheless, Airbus called the A-380 market wrong. The Boeing 747-8 seems to be a flop as well. So maybe I am just saying up with twin engine aircraft.

The muddying is in assuming that Airbus called it wrong and Boeing called it right, let alone saying that Airbus "woke up and realized Boeing was right", which is just pot stirring.

In reality, the world has changed so much in little more than 15 years. Designing something that is going to last for 30-40 years gets into crystal ball time. I'm not sure that Boeing was really taking much of a risk by making a 787. What was there to get right - it was already a proven market? The A380 was the risk, and Airbus took it while Boeing punted with the 748 then wiped out with the 787. Just like the narrow-body market today, one had an existing product that could be readily adapted to the changing market while the other didn't. One made some relatively modest investments and grabbed the market share lead, while the other continues to thrash about trying to get back in the game. I guess back in the '80s Airbus got it right and Boeing is finally after 30 years waking up and realizing Airbus got it right?

Airbus predicted the mega hub to mega hub and the need for very large aircraft. Airbus predicted a 1,200 plane demand. Boeing, after giving up on the sonic cruiser, went for a very fuel efficient plane that had the performance to transport a medium sized load of passengers over very long distances, making new connections possible. Boeing called that right. Boeing took a risk because of the use of fiber composites, and other innovations. They also took a risk by adopting a supply chain similar to Airbus in having sections of the plane made and taken to Everett or South Carolina. Boeing took a risk as evidenced by the delays. You sound like you are an Airbus partisan and are interpreting what I say as pro Boeing. In reality, both companies eventually called it right, Airbus later than Boeing. If I was being "partisan" about this, I would be bad mouthing the A-350. I am not. As far as the 747-8, I think that can be chalked up to a cheaper upgrade of an existing product to try and take some business from Airbus in the ultra large department. Both of those four engine designs was less then stellar in the area of sales. Very few 747-8's have been sold and Airbus sales, which are now tapering off, (Thirteen net orders in the last three years?) came nowhere near what Airbus predicted and nowhere near what it would cost to break even. In the meantime, Qantas is now flying non-stop from Perth to Europe bypassing the Gulf. New routes have opened up, as I described before, with the 787, as Boeing predicted would happen. Those are just facts. Who knows what happens in the future? Maybe Airbus will get the jump on very new technological breakthroughs and Boeing will have to catch up. That has happened before.

There would need to be either several airlines committing to buying A380 Plus's or a massive order from an airline like Emirates

Bald1983 wrote:

Airbus predicted the mega hub to mega hub and the need for very large aircraft. Airbus predicted a 1,200 plane demand. Boeing, after giving up on the sonic cruiser, went for a very fuel efficient plane that had the performance to transport a medium sized load of passengers over very long distances, making new connections possible. Boeing called that right. Boeing took a risk because of the use of fiber composites, and other innovations. They also took a risk by adopting a supply chain similar to Airbus in having sections of the plane made and taken to Everett or South Carolina. Boeing took a risk as evidenced by the delays. You sound like you are an Airbus partisan and are interpreting what I say as pro Boeing. In reality, both companies eventually called it right, Airbus later than Boeing. If I was being "partisan" about this, I would be bad mouthing the A-350. I am not. As far as the 747-8, I think that can be chalked up to a cheaper upgrade of an existing product to try and take some business from Airbus in the ultra large department. Both of those four engine designs was less then stellar in the area of sales. Very few 747-8's have been sold and Airbus sales, which are now tapering off, (Thirteen net orders in the last three years?) came nowhere near what Airbus predicted and nowhere near what it would cost to break even. In the meantime, Qantas is now flying non-stop from Perth to Europe bypassing the Gulf. New routes have opened up, as I described before, with the 787, as Boeing predicted would happen. Those are just facts. Who knows what happens in the future? Maybe Airbus will get the jump on very new technological breakthroughs and Boeing will have to catch up. That has happened before.

Boeing took more risks with the timeline of the 787 than with the technology. As you mention in your post they started with a new process of assembling an aircraft with new technologies and they thought they would be able to figure it out in 4 years. This was less than earlier products when they were using new technology and new materials and a new assembly method for the company. They wanted to deliver 787's to airlines in about 5 years when it took the 777 6 years before it took its first flight from inception. Boeing had to rush with the 777 to get it ready in time as well and went over budget to keep to the schedule. It was the screw ups with the timeline that cost the 787 more than anything else.

Also, Qantas is not flying from Perth to London now. They are planning to fly this route in 2018 only. You may be right on some of your facts but when you post for a fact that Qantas are flying routes that they only announced and are still working on implementing, how much else should we consider to be accurate?

Bald1983 wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

It does not muddy things at all. My "rhetoric" is not "Up with Boeing and down with Airbus." Airbus made the right call, after the A-380 by developing the A-350. Nonetheless, Airbus called the A-380 market wrong. The Boeing 747-8 seems to be a flop as well. So maybe I am just saying up with twin engine aircraft.

The muddying is in assuming that Airbus called it wrong and Boeing called it right, let alone saying that Airbus "woke up and realized Boeing was right", which is just pot stirring.

In reality, the world has changed so much in little more than 15 years. Designing something that is going to last for 30-40 years gets into crystal ball time. I'm not sure that Boeing was really taking much of a risk by making a 787. What was there to get right - it was already a proven market? The A380 was the risk, and Airbus took it while Boeing punted with the 748 then wiped out with the 787. Just like the narrow-body market today, one had an existing product that could be readily adapted to the changing market while the other didn't. One made some relatively modest investments and grabbed the market share lead, while the other continues to thrash about trying to get back in the game. I guess back in the '80s Airbus got it right and Boeing is finally after 30 years waking up and realizing Airbus got it right?

Airbus predicted the mega hub to mega hub and the need for very large aircraft. Airbus predicted a 1,200 plane demand. Boeing, after giving up on the sonic cruiser, went for a very fuel efficient plane that had the performance to transport a medium sized load of passengers over very long distances, making new connections possible. Boeing called that right. Boeing took a risk because of the use of fiber composites, and other innovations. They also took a risk by adopting a supply chain similar to Airbus in having sections of the plane made and taken to Everett or South Carolina. Boeing took a risk as evidenced by the delays. You sound like you are an Airbus partisan and are interpreting what I say as pro Boeing. In reality, both companies eventually called it right, Airbus later than Boeing. If I was being "partisan" about this, I would be bad mouthing the A-350. I am not. As far as the 747-8, I think that can be chalked up to a cheaper upgrade of an existing product to try and take some business from Airbus in the ultra large department. Both of those four engine designs was less then stellar in the area of sales. Very few 747-8's have been sold and Airbus sales, which are now tapering off, (Thirteen net orders in the last three years?) came nowhere near what Airbus predicted and nowhere near what it would cost to break even. In the meantime, Qantas is now flying non-stop from Perth to Europe bypassing the Gulf. New routes have opened up, as I described before, with the 787, as Boeing predicted would happen. Those are just facts. Who knows what happens in the future? Maybe Airbus will get the jump on very new technological breakthroughs and Boeing will have to catch up. That has happened before.

You are over-simplifying it. That's fine - I am not the proper person to rehash the years of conversations on the topic.

I'm not trying to be pro-A or pro-B. I'm not labeling you as pro-A or pro-B. I'm saying that making statements such as Airbus finally woke up and realized Boeing was right", you are conflating things that don't necessarily belong together, and in the process you needlessly make it an A vs B thing even if that's not your intent.

Anyhow....

We all know that the fat wings of the A380, are tunned to the -900 model, that looking to the trend, seems to be too big, even for operators like EK. What if Airbus takes a mid stretch? Let's call it -850 model. It would be not that expensive to develope, and will keep the CASM very low to the operators.

Byron1976 wrote:

What if Airbus takes a mid stretch? Let's call it -850 model. It would be not that expensive to develope, and will keep the CASM very low to the operators.

Well, that's exactly what Airbus wants to do as part of the NEO-project (if they will do it): new engines and a slight stretch. EK responded to that proposal that they "just" want to have more efficient engines but not a stretch. My interpretation was that Airbus realized that only upgrading the engines might not be enough to keep the A380 competitive and the think they have to stretch it a little bit.

and sorry, if I come back to the initial topic, what was it? hmmm..... ahhh: the A380 plus!

Well, an Airbus spokesman now confirmed that they are preparing an improved version of the A380. Article in French: http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2017/03 ... ieges.html

Aonther source, but just citing the La-Depeche-article, in German: http://www.aerotelegraph.com/airbus-a38 ... t-winglets

Before, when this thread was started, it was just “Airbus is always studying opportunities to improve our aircraft,”

Thx for links and there have (as you say) been plenty of other 'plus' rumour articles in the last few weeks clearly it's a certainty.I imagine it will now be 'launched' at this years air show (June?).So 50 more pax,2% reduction in fuel burn and weight saving.It ain't gonna change the world but better than nothing.If you can fill those seats it's circa a 10% improvement depending on present layout.Premium airlines aren't buying into the 18"X11 route for an additional circa 50 seats but I imagine Malaysia's new concept will.

Will there be increased trip cost for adding 50 seats?
If I am not mistaken most airlines don't have the challenge of too few seats in the A380. Their challenge is more to fill them up every day. Hence, I guess adding 50 more seats make only sense if there is no to little penalty in doing so.

parapente wrote:

Thx for links and there have (as you say) been plenty of other 'plus' rumour articles in the last few weeks clearly it's a certainty.I imagine it will now be 'launched' at this years air show (June?).So 50 more pax,2% reduction in fuel burn and weight saving.It ain't gonna change the world but better than nothing.If you can fill those seats it's circa a 10% improvement depending on present layout.Premium airlines aren't buying into the 18"X11 route for an additional circa 50 seats but I imagine Malaysia's new concept will.

The AreoTelegraph article says that the additional 50 seats are added without making the seats smaller and should have the same comfort as now. Apparently they gonna present the new cabin at Aircraft Interiors Expo beginning of April.

You are welcome.

parapente wrote:

So 50 more pax,2% reduction in fuel burn and weight saving.

Weight saving? I am not able to read the La-Depeche-article, unfortunately. The German aerotelegraph link just mentions two components: 1.) increasing the number of seats by shrinking the staircase and 2.) winglets. So do they intend to incorporate new weight saving measures into the "plus"-version? As, I said, I just ask because of my very limited skills in reading French...

parapente wrote:

.I imagine it will now be 'launched' at this years air show (June?).

As per the aerotelegraph link, the new cabin will be shown first on the Aircraft Interiors Expo in Hamburg at the beginning of April. But I think you are correct, shouldn't it be "launched" during an air show. Then again, it's "just" a modification of the cabin configuration. Also new winglets have never been "launched" during an air show. Maybe Airbus prefers to keep a low profile...

Weight saving.I read it recently in an Australian site that was talking about the 'plus' rumour.So not gospel.Hoever stands to reason if you are going to reduce the rear staircase,reduce the galley/loo area at the back and replace the grand staircase with some sort of a spiral you will reduce your empty weight.
However.Reading a recent piece from the CEO of Emirates his really big weight saving ( plus 2 extra rows of Y) will come from using new 2nd generation slimline backed economy seats that are apparently half the weight.(so he said).I have used their 'old' y seat.Very comfortable but was pretty bulky.Hope comfort levels are mantained with the new ones.
But if what he says is true,then that's a further 20 seats available to him.However much of this 'extra capacity' will disappear when he launches his premium class.I don't think they have shown anything publicly yet other than to say they are doing it.

But as the post above said.All this extra space/capacity is great in theory.But you do need to fill it.Mind you that's exactly the same argument as squeezing X9 across in a 787 as opposed to X8.Fine as long as you fill 'em!

I don't know global A380 load factors.I believe Emirates are good and my flights on BA have always been full to the gunwale's.But that's not everybody by any means.
But from a personal POV with all this additional capacity being planned in ( 50+Y) (actually should have been there from the start really) I really can't see the argument for the half-stretch concept that Airbus were talking about last year.

N14AZ wrote:

http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2017/03/11/2533903-airbus-va-presenter-un-a380-plus-avec-davantage-de-sieges.html

A couple of interesting points in that article:

• confirmed to be presented at Aircraft Interiors, Hamburg, in April
• "a number of airlines, including Emirates" are interested in the Neo
• it's about the rear stairs, not the front stairs (which is what I'd always understood but people in this thread keep saying otherwise)
• customers and prospective customers(!) have been asking for more seats at 18" width (due to passenger preference)
• available 2020

No mention of weight saving - and the journalist reported rumours of wingtip changes but these were not confirmed.

parapente wrote:

I really can't see the argument for the half-stretch concept that Airbus were talking about last year.

But that is the Neo... a bigger upgrade where many improvements - including structural - would be on the table. This A380+ is only about cabin fittings and probably a wingtip fitting for a quick efficiency boost of a few percent.

By the way, I've only ever seen high load factors for A380 flights as well.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2017/03/11/2533903-airbus-va-presenter-un-a380-plus-avec-davantage-de-sieges.html

A couple of interesting points in that article:

• confirmed to be presented at Aircraft Interiors, Hamburg, in April
• "a number of airlines, including Emirates" are interested in the Neo
• it's about the rear stairs, not the front stairs (which is what I'd always understood but people in this thread keep saying otherwise)
• customers and prospective customers(!) have been asking for more seats at 18" width (due to passenger preference)
• available 2020

No mention of weight saving - and the journalist reported rumours of wingtip changes but these were not confirmed.

Thanks for the summary, it's good to have somebody in Toulouse, who can read French

"customers and prospective customers(!) have been asking for more seats"
Hmmmm, that's something new. For some reasons I always kept that interview with TC in my mind, where he said EK doesn't require more seats in the A380s...

It could be also be interpreted as "the customers didn't like the idea of 11-seats-rows", which makes perfectly sense. Passengers like the A380 because of its space. Take this bonus away and the A380 will be just another aircraft...

If Malaysia don't go for X11 for their religious charter flights then the idea will be dead and buried.The 18.5" 'economy' seat in the A380 is one of the key components in 'the A380 effect' (there are others of course).So I don't see airlines messing with that.

rotating14 wrote:

dubaiamman243 wrote:

Why is Airbus still putting hopes on the A380 program?

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

Airbus management that launched the A380 is not around anymore. I doubt current management cares much about the A380. Sure they have to deal with it and try to keep it afloat. But Tom Enders is more a down to earth guy, if A380 production cannot be maintained he will just pull the plug.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2017/03/11/2533903-airbus-va-presenter-un-a380-plus-avec-davantage-de-sieges.html

A couple of interesting points in that article:

• confirmed to be presented at Aircraft Interiors, Hamburg, in April
• "a number of airlines, including Emirates" are interested in the Neo
• it's about the rear stairs, not the front stairs (which is what I'd always understood but people in this thread keep saying otherwise)
• customers and prospective customers(!) have been asking for more seats at 18" width (due to passenger preference)
• available 2020

No mention of weight saving - and the journalist reported rumours of wingtip changes but these were not confirmed.

A mockup of the new staircase was presented last year: