Next generation VLA, and why it will be an A380

Bald1983 · Wed May 24, 2017 3:53 pm

Bald1983 wrote:
ASQ400 wrote:
The VLA segment of the market is far smaller than A and B thought 10-15 years ago. A380 got 317 orders, and 748 got 114. That's a total market of 430 planes, give or take, including freighters.
If we assume that the 777-10x can nab 150 of them (that's highballing it), and assume that we'd see a growth of about 20-30 in demand for VLA, we have a market of 300 planes when the current VLA reach the end of their lives (think 2030 for the first ones).
That means there's room for a VLA in the future. The number of these future VLA's would be close to the number of A380 orders.

I believe they would most likely be A380neos. Why?
The A388 makes up 75% of current VLAs, and would make up a larger share as the somewhat smaller 748 takes more of a hit to the 777-10x. The closer technically that the new VLA is to the A388, the better.
Secondly, most VLA operators are A380 operators. EK, particularly, is set to own about 1/3 of all VLAs, and those are A388s. They'd prefer a level of continuity, for operational ease.
Moreover, the A380 line is much more successful than the 748. It is thus more likely that Airbus would invest money into a new one than Boeing.
Lastly, Boeing seems to want to push the 777-10X as a VLA, and this won't make a VLA to "compete" with it.

Here s the problem: It costs money to design a new plane, even if it is based off an existing one. If the market will not allow one to sell enough of the new planes to recoup the money spent on development and make a profit, airplane manufacturers will not embark on the project. I suspect that if Airbus knew a decade and a half ago what the A-380 market turned out to be, there would be no A-380 and a lot more A-350's.

ikramerica · Wed May 24, 2017 4:06 pm

Airbus will offer some kind of A350-1100NEO by then to fill the 440 seat market. It's arguable that the actual 500+ seat market is tiny.

It will depend how the 779 does in service. The 77W sold much better 5-10 years after flight testing after it proved itself and the latest PIP made it that much better.

Amiga500 · Wed May 24, 2017 4:14 pm

The A380 is fundamentally a flawed aircraft. Airbus mismatched the wing and fuselage - left around 10-15% fuel burn on the table and thus vulnerable to the 777-300ER (admittedly this was not in service at the time they committed to A388 rather than A389 - but it was still a pretty foolish thing to do - knowing that an upgrade could leave the performance:risk tradeoff very marginal).

Aside from that, the market isn't close to what they thought... but then that may be a result of the A380 CASM not being sufficiently better than the 777 to allow airlines to price A380 fares a little lower to increase the odds of better RASM.

2175301 · Wed May 24, 2017 4:38 pm

c933103 wrote:
2175301 wrote:
There is no reason that the Airlines cannot maintain the A380's for decades if they are indeed economical and work. It will be a lot easier and cheaper for Airbus to support that than to keep the production line open or design and build a new version. How long did the DC-9 last... and I suspect they would still be flying if there were not other more modern aircraft in their size range. The same thing will happen with the A380s for the few routes where it really makes the most sense.

That pushes the "issue" likely 30 years down the road; and then I suspect there will be other options and approaches.

Have a great day,

weren't some MD aircrafts built with more cycles than others? And I thought airlines are already running out of 757 which terminated production merely 1.5 decades ago

You are correct that the DC-9 series were designed for a large number of cycles. That is because it was a short haul aircraft and often did 6-8 cycles a day (sometimes more) - on a continuous basis. A380's are a long haul aircraft that often do 1-2 cycles a day (perhaps 3) - on a continuing basis. Very large difference in wear and tear on the frame due to cycles. There is no reason that I can see that an A380 cannot be maintained for long haul service for 3 or even 4 decades based on cycle count.

Have a great day,

32andBelow · Wed May 24, 2017 4:42 pm

ASQ400 wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
Until every slot is filled at every time there is no need to run a plane that big.

Except where it makes sense to bring in a lot of pax at once, like to make a bank of connections from a big city.
There's a reason why some A380s are being run and at high load factors

Yes in select circumstances but you could also run a 0700 and an 0800 777 flight if you really need that much lift from 1 city.

incitatus · Wed May 24, 2017 5:06 pm

keesje wrote:

I see little additional orders for new A380s in the next 20 years apart from EK, QR, BA, AF, LH, QF, DL, UA, SQ, CX, AA, AC and similar Hub based airlines operating international networks growing 10-15% every 3 years and oil catching up again.

Was that a joke?

I would shorten that list considerably: EK, BA, LH and maybe SQ.

32andBelow · Wed May 24, 2017 5:11 pm

incitatus wrote:
keesje wrote:

I see little additional orders for new A380s in the next 20 years apart from EK, QR, BA, AF, LH, QF, DL, UA, SQ, CX, AA, AC and similar Hub based airlines operating international networks growing 10-15% every 3 years and oil catching up again.

Was that a joke?

I would shorten that list considerably: EK, BA, LH and maybe SQ.

US carriers would never. We don't have this problem in the US that Europe seems to have. If our airport gets full there are 2-4 airports int he same city that just continue taking the countless 737s.

777PHX · Wed May 24, 2017 5:20 pm

incitatus wrote:
keesje wrote:

I see little additional orders for new A380s in the next 20 years apart from EK, QR, BA, AF, LH, QF, DL, UA, SQ, CX, AA, AC and similar Hub based airlines operating international networks growing 10-15% every 3 years and oil catching up again.

Was that a joke?

I would shorten that list considerably: EK, BA, LH and maybe SQ.

I'd shorten that even further. EK and SQ. LH has 748s and orders for 779s and BA seems content with replacing the balance of their 744 fleet with A350-1000s and 787-10s.

incitatus · Wed May 24, 2017 5:26 pm

777PHX wrote:

I'd shorten that even further. EK and SQ. LH has 748s and orders for 779s and BA seems content with replacing the balance of their 744 fleet with A350-1000s and 787-10s.

SQ is suffering pressure from the ME3 and may need a bigger schedule to compete. That leads to smaller aircraft. SIN has plenty of space. I'd put BA and LH because they have scale in their large home markets and constrained bases at FRA and LHR.

Polot · Wed May 24, 2017 5:39 pm

32andBelow wrote:
incitatus wrote:
keesje wrote:

I see little additional orders for new A380s in the next 20 years apart from EK, QR, BA, AF, LH, QF, DL, UA, SQ, CX, AA, AC and similar Hub based airlines operating international networks growing 10-15% every 3 years and oil catching up again.

Was that a joke?

I would shorten that list considerably: EK, BA, LH and maybe SQ.

US carriers would never. We don't have this problem in the US that Europe seems to have. If our airport gets full there are 2-4 airports int he same city that just continue taking the countless 737s.

It is not just that. With the US3 having ~5 intercontinental hubs each they can generally shift traffic over to their other hubs either by offering new flights or up-gauging (i.e. 787/A330>777/A350) existing flights and free up more seats for the local market without having to turn to VLAs. People take crazy connections (in terms of how out of the way they are) all the time if the price is right.

VLAs are best suited for networks where you only have one main hub that you shuffle all your passenger's through.

32andBelow · Wed May 24, 2017 5:41 pm

Polot wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
incitatus wrote:

Was that a joke?

I would shorten that list considerably: EK, BA, LH and maybe SQ.

US carriers would never. We don't have this problem in the US that Europe seems to have. If our airport gets full there are 2-4 airports int he same city that just continue taking the countless 737s.

It is not just that. With the US3 having ~5 intercontinental hubs each they can generally shift traffic over to their other hubs either by offering new flights or up-gauging (i.e. 787/A330>777/A350) existing flights and free up more seats for the local market without having to turn to VLAs. People take crazy connections (in terms of how out of the way they are) all the time if the price is right.

VLAs are best suited for networks where you only have one main hub that you shuffle all your passenger's through.

But even then I'd rather have 2 planes with wingtip departures in the busy season as opposed to running 300-400 empty seats in February every morning.

ASQ400 · Wed May 24, 2017 5:56 pm

32andBelow wrote:
ASQ400 wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
Until every slot is filled at every time there is no need to run a plane that big.

Except where it makes sense to bring in a lot of pax at once, like to make a bank of connections from a big city.
There's a reason why some A380s are being run and at high load factors

Yes in select circumstances but you could also run a 0700 and an 0800 777 flight if you really need that much lift from 1 city.

And pay double landing fees, double pilots, double cycles, and double slots, all without actually adding alternative times like business travellers want.
The main (valid and true) justification for extra frequency is offering different times for convenience, and the times you name don't do that

32andBelow · Wed May 24, 2017 6:00 pm

ASQ400 wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
ASQ400 wrote:
Except where it makes sense to bring in a lot of pax at once, like to make a bank of connections from a big city.
There's a reason why some A380s are being run and at high load factors

Yes in select circumstances but you could also run a 0700 and an 0800 777 flight if you really need that much lift from 1 city.

And pay double landing fees, double pilots, double cycles, and double slots, all without actually adding alternative times like business travellers want.
The main (valid and true) justification for extra frequency is offering different times for convenience, and the times you name don't do that

It was in response to his hypothetical connecting bank he had to make. The advantage is when demand is low you can reduce it to one flight and save the operating expense. I don't understand why so many of the airports in Europe and Asia are slot controlled. Is it just a money grab? I have a hard time believing every single one of those airports is at absolute capacity.

ist2014 · Wed May 24, 2017 6:02 pm

I see the future at smaller twin widebodies like 788,332neo, new MOM. The reason is that people prefer direct flights, at point to point model unlike hubspoke model it is too difficult to fill vla. Vla will be valuable just in case of slot or bilateral restrictions

Polot · Wed May 24, 2017 6:06 pm

ASQ400 wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
ASQ400 wrote:
Except where it makes sense to bring in a lot of pax at once, like to make a bank of connections from a big city.
There's a reason why some A380s are being run and at high load factors

Yes in select circumstances but you could also run a 0700 and an 0800 777 flight if you really need that much lift from 1 city.

And pay double landing fees, double pilots, double cycles, and double slots, all without actually adding alternative times like business travellers want.
The main (valid and true) justification for extra frequency is offering different times for convenience, and the times you name don't do that

The issue becomes the low season. You can then drop the unneeded frequency, but you have to find an alternative use for the aircraft. That is easier to do with smaller widebodies than VLAs. Every airline has use for VLAs like the A380 during the high season, the issue is what to do with them come low season when demand falls and you need to discount to get butts in the seats. You can't just park a brand new, and expensive, plane for half the year and make money. Adding an additional frequency, even if seasonally, for most airlines works out better.

Irregardless, wingtip flying (on the same airline) on intercontinental routes is generally rare outside a select few markets, not enough to be worth buying a fleet of VLAs over for most airlines.

ASQ400 · Wed May 24, 2017 6:08 pm

ist2014 wrote:
I see the future at smaller twin widebodies like 788,332neo, new MOM. The reason is that people prefer direct flights, at point to point model unlike hubspoke model it is too difficult to fill vla. Vla will be valuable just in case of slot or bilateral restrictions

Restrictions which, mind you, are only increasing. Tokyo (both), LHR, and most other slot-constrained airports are near capacity, and expanding them is next to impossible. When it comes to the thick trunk routes, especially ones with slot constraints, VLA will continue to be needed

32andBelow · Wed May 24, 2017 6:11 pm

ASQ400 wrote:
ist2014 wrote:
I see the future at smaller twin widebodies like 788,332neo, new MOM. The reason is that people prefer direct flights, at point to point model unlike hubspoke model it is too difficult to fill vla. Vla will be valuable just in case of slot or bilateral restrictions

Restrictions which, mind you, are only increasing. Tokyo (both), LHR, and most other slot-constrained airports are near capacity, and expanding them is next to impossible. When it comes to the thick trunk routes, especially ones with slot constraints, VLA will continue to be needed

Yea but there is 0 reason all these people need to be flowed over LHR that currently are. There are many other airports that can take the connections and leave LHR for destination.

ASQ400 · Wed May 24, 2017 6:24 pm

32andBelow wrote:
ASQ400 wrote:
ist2014 wrote:
I see the future at smaller twin widebodies like 788,332neo, new MOM. The reason is that people prefer direct flights, at point to point model unlike hubspoke model it is too difficult to fill vla. Vla will be valuable just in case of slot or bilateral restrictions

Restrictions which, mind you, are only increasing. Tokyo (both), LHR, and most other slot-constrained airports are near capacity, and expanding them is next to impossible. When it comes to the thick trunk routes, especially ones with slot constraints, VLA will continue to be needed

Yea but there is 0 reason all these people need to be flowed over LHR that currently are. There are many other airports that can take the connections and leave LHR for destination.

Aside from the fact that some long-haul nonstops will not become economical in the foreseeable future, the fact that one mx spot is cheaper than 10, and the fact that hub and spoke ops are cheaper to run, there's no reason hubs exist.

Hubs will definitely shrink, but the chance of them being gone is about 0. And as long as extra-busy hubs, particularly ones with thick O&D and connection traffic continue to exist, slots and VLAs will as well

NameOmitted · Wed May 24, 2017 7:09 pm

This has been an interesting discussion with one whole that I don't fully understand.

I understand that that there are huge costs to shutting down a line, and obviously would be huge costs to ramping one up, but how do those costs compare within the context of an overall development of an aircraft?

If, for the sake of argument, we were to assume that the overall market will take a hit in the short term but then grow back to viability as the overall market grows, and if we assume that the 777 will eventually take over the entirety of the 747 market (aside from oversize cargo), how viable would it be for Airbus to shut down the A380 line, and then in a decade or so, rebuild the supply-chain for a NEO option then?

WPvsMW · Wed May 24, 2017 7:22 pm

An "intermittent production" line doesn't work because of technology advances in the "off" phase. Wing efficiency, avionics/IFE, powerplants.... all need certification, which means no one will buy a stale, uneconomic, design if you switched the line "on" a decade later. IOW, "intermittent production" means recertification of the upgrades on an old frame.

32andBelow · Wed May 24, 2017 7:25 pm

ASQ400 wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
ASQ400 wrote:
Restrictions which, mind you, are only increasing. Tokyo (both), LHR, and most other slot-constrained airports are near capacity, and expanding them is next to impossible. When it comes to the thick trunk routes, especially ones with slot constraints, VLA will continue to be needed

Yea but there is 0 reason all these people need to be flowed over LHR that currently are. There are many other airports that can take the connections and leave LHR for destination.

Aside from the fact that some long-haul nonstops will not become economical in the foreseeable future, the fact that one mx spot is cheaper than 10, and the fact that hub and spoke ops are cheaper to run, there's no reason hubs exist.

Hubs will definitely shrink, but the chance of them being gone is about 0. And as long as extra-busy hubs, particularly ones with thick O&D and connection traffic continue to exist, slots and VLAs will as well

Not saying they will go away, but if one airport is full you just flow more over an airport that is not full until that becomes full, etc. etc.

ScottB · Wed May 24, 2017 7:53 pm

ASQ400 wrote:
Restrictions which, mind you, are only increasing. Tokyo (both), LHR, and most other slot-constrained airports are near capacity, and expanding them is next to impossible. When it comes to the thick trunk routes, especially ones with slot constraints, VLA will continue to be needed

No, expanding those airports is most certainly not "next to impossible." The U.K. government is committed to a third runway at LHR and the Japanese government plans to increase capacity at both HND and NRT leading up to the 2020 Tokyo Olympics.

lightsaber wrote:
Unless the A380 is improved to an A389NEO, it is done. I'd like it to stay in production, but it just didn't sell many examples. There is 107 in the backlog minus 29 that are unlikely to be delivered (VS, Air Accord, and Amadeo), leaving only 78 to be produced with the bulk for EK who is differing orders.

I would argue that the real backlog for the A380 at present is 58 orders: 3 for NH, 47 for EK, 1 for EY, 2 for QR, and 5 for SQ. I don't believe the remaining 8 for QF or 10 for an unidentified Chinese carrier will happen. Moreover, I think NH would be happy to walk away from its order (tied IMO to the deal for Skymark's assets) if allowed to do so. I also have doubts about how unspecified "technical issues" with the RR engines lead to EK delaying delivery of about a dozen aircraft.

aw70 wrote:
Remember: all the really costly bits of developing something like the A380 have been paid for. And with a few year's advance warning, mothballing the production for a few years can be done. And neither hanging new engines off the current basic structure, nor adding a smallish stretch, will break the A R&D budget. Especially if it's not done in a hurry.

Mothballing the production is enormously expensive because they have to pay suppliers to maintain the ability to produce relevant parts in the future, as well as keep the associated manufacturing facilities and employees available for production restart. If you plan to restart production in the future, it doesn't make sense to retool the current factories to produce other products because you'll eventually have to retool again to switch to the next-gen A380. Plus it's expensive to retrain employees to work on another product line and then retrain them again back on the A380.

"Breaking the... R&D budget" has nothing to do with the matter; the issue is whether Airbus can realistically recoup its investment on an updated A380 in a worldwide market where adjacent products like a 777-10X or A350-1100/1200/2000 have far larger sales across which to amortize R&D costs and which can offer better capital costs per unit of production (i.e. seat-miles/km) for the airline with competitive operating costs as well.

While IMO the A380 was a project driven by prestige in that the market size numbers were inflated to guarantee a green light for the program, Airbus also didn't undertake the project just to sell 250 aircraft at break-even. They planned to manufacture 4 aircraft per month, roughly 45-50 per year, which would have meant close to 1,000 over the 20-year life of the program. They expected to get the sort of monopoly margins Boeing had managed to command for the 747-400 in the 1990s but unfortunately missed the changing dynamics in the long-haul market which were brought on in part by their own products.

JannEejit · Wed May 24, 2017 7:59 pm

Slug71 wrote:
TWA772LR wrote:
No. It got cancelled due to lack of interest. 20 orders does not a profitable airframe make.

The orders were cancelled AFTER Airbus put a "freeze" on the A380F due to the production delays and teething problems with the pax version.

Yep, that's how I remember it. FedEx and UPS were very much in the market for it. Airbus shelved the F to concentrate on the problems surrounding pax A380 production. That in itself has quite probably prolonged the production of the 748F.

ist2014 · Wed May 24, 2017 8:11 pm

I think name of the game for success will be more frequency rather than more capacity

ScottB · Wed May 24, 2017 8:54 pm

JannEejit wrote:
Yep, that's how I remember it. FedEx and UPS were very much in the market for it. Airbus shelved the F to concentrate on the problems surrounding pax A380 production. That in itself has quite probably prolonged the production of the 748F.

I viewed the UPS order as being a way for 5X to get out of a big order for A300Fs which they had eventually decided they didn't want. They were able to reduce the size of their A300F order by 37 aircraft in exchange for the 10-frame A380F order which was likely viewed as a less-bad option.

airzona11 · Wed May 24, 2017 9:04 pm

Some interesting market factors in play. Consolidation is leading to fewer (and large mega hubs) international hubs but new aircraft can fly father, cost effectively. P2P skips the mega hubs, or allows smaller hubs to have more connections, or allows LCCs to skim traffic from via secondary airports.
I am not sold that the "slot constraint" argument favors the A380/VLA. Airlines continue to get better at dynamic pricing. If you are flying to London as your end destination vs commuting the pricing is going to increasingly favor O/D vs connecting traffic. When you add in JVs, there are very few destinations with only one connection option.

EK is an anomaly. They have 1 hub and really no partners. They have to get as many people from AtoZ via DXB as possible. As a result, they are the largest VLA operator. If they had a JV with someone in Asia and someone in Europe, it would alleviate that pressure. Look at BA, they have their mega hub in LHR, but via JV, they have hubs across Europe, Asia and the Americas to connect passengers. They can use 787s, 777s, Low Density 747s, A350s to capture O/D traffic.

VLAs needed airlines like BA to replace 50 747s with 50+VLAs. Not 12.

There is still demand for VLAs, albeit small demand. Stretches of the 777/A350 can address most of this market with less costly iterations vs entire new designs.

LightningZ71 · Wed May 24, 2017 9:15 pm

The next question in my mind is, How large can a big twin reasonably go? Are the 777-X9 and A350-1100 at the top end of it due to wing length, fuselage length and reasonable landing gear height limits? Is a double decker even an option on a big twin (with very large engine diameters, how tall would the plane be?)? It seems that the current latest gen big twin engines are nearing the limits of practical operational size for the engines as anything much larger won't be able to fit into even the largest of cargo planes in a single piece to ferry to the site of a plane that is grounded due to a failed engine. I suggest that that constraint will limit the maximum single engine thrust to no more than about 150K lbs, which suggests that you can't get much heavier than the 777-9X is now.

32andBelow · Wed May 24, 2017 9:17 pm

airzona11 wrote:
Some interesting market factors in play. Consolidation is leading to fewer (and large mega hubs) international hubs but new aircraft can fly father, cost effectively. P2P skips the mega hubs, or allows smaller hubs to have more connections, or allows LCCs to skim traffic from via secondary airports.
I am not sold that the "slot constraint" argument favors the A380/VLA. Airlines continue to get better at dynamic pricing. If you are flying to London as your end destination vs commuting the pricing is going to increasingly favor O/D vs connecting traffic. When you add in JVs, there are very few destinations with only one connection option.

EK is an anomaly. They have 1 hub and really no partners. They have to get as many people from AtoZ via DXB as possible. As a result, they are the largest VLA operator. If they had a JV with someone in Asia and someone in Europe, it would alleviate that pressure. Look at BA, they have their mega hub in LHR, but via JV, they have hubs across Europe, Asia and the Americas to connect passengers. They can use 787s, 777s, Low Density 747s, A350s to capture O/D traffic.

VLAs needed airlines like BA to replace 50 747s with 50+VLAs. Not 12.

There is still demand for VLAs, albeit small demand. Stretches of the 777/A350 can address most of this market with less costly iterations vs entire new designs.

But EK is in the middle of freaking no where. Why don't they just have a ATL or DEN style airport?

Boeing778X · Wed May 24, 2017 11:58 pm

keesje wrote:
Revelation wrote:
ASQ400 wrote:
And does it truly make sense to expect a separate frame for the freight market? The A380 could have made a pretty good freighter (no nose-loading, but immense capacity). Those 748F's are going to get obsolete right around the same time as the 748I and A388, and I somehow doubt B will reopen the line for a freighter. Thus, I'd expect to see the pax and freighter models put into one line.

Given the current trend line, the current 748Fs will be replaced by 777 freighters and/or belly cargo space. No where near enough demand for an A380neo freighter. It's not suited for heavy freight, its floor is not strong enough. It's only suitable for package hauling, and that means it runs into competition with twin freighters and/or belly space. A380F is so big it's hard to have enough freight between any city pair to justify using it. UPS and FX were going to use it only for their biggest long haul trunk lines, and both have moved on to Boeing products. The A380F needs all-new equipment to access it's upper deck and large gate spacing and in many cases runway upgrades too.

If you want to look at where freight hauling is at, look at the Amazon operation. Started from scratch using cheap 767 pax-to-freight conversions. If one goes tech, no problem, they can afford to have spares sitting around since they are cheap. If one route needs more capacity, just add another leg. If you want to try out a new city, it's pretty easy these days to find an airport that can handle a 767 near most significantly sized cities. Try to imagine replicating that with A380 neos. It'd easily be a factor of ten more expensive or more to get up and running. It'd never happen.

afterburner wrote:
Can we have an objective discussion without derogative remarks?

Things like ugliness/beauty are never objective, and it's hard to ignore how ugly the A380 is. Just sayin'...

Agree, it's ugly.

I see little additional orders for new A380s in the next 20 years apart from EK, QR, BA, AF, LH, QF, DL, UA, SQ, CX, AA, AC and similar Hub based airlines operating international networks growing 10-15% every 3 years and oil catching up again.

Yeah, keesje, don't hold your breath on most of those happening. I mean, the A380 at AA?! Don't be silly

Some of those airlines are probably going to be replacing A380s with 777Xs, notably QF, if they aren't going to operate the 777X already.

Tedd · Thu May 25, 2017 12:10 am

dtw2hyd wrote:
c933103 wrote:
Btw, how many ME3 passengers are Indian? I am not sure if it is correct to assume ME3 primarily depend on Indian traffic .... Or woth another more measurable metrics, how many seats have ME3 sent to India compared to their overall capacity?

EK has four major revenue generators, America, UK, India and Australia.

1) America-Travel/Laptop Ban impact
2) UK-BREXIT impact
3) India-bilateral limits and non-stops.

That leaves only one silver lining, Australia. There is so much talk about USA Travel/Laptop ban, but UK revenues are tanking even with no such restrictions.

Too much disinformation on UK-Brexit. With respect where is the evidence that Emirates revenues are "tanking"? Sure there may
uncertainties, the EU will see to that in anyway they can as they don`t want separation, aside from that it`s business as usual, &
Emirates are performing well re UK as far as I`m aware....they`ve just announced a 2nd daily A380 for BHX. Also I wouldn`t be too
hasty in writing the A380 off. Funny things happen in this industry, & an upturn in air travel in the far east in the not too distant future
could trigger a revival in fortune for this amazing aircraft. I`m pinning hope on engine development over the next 5-7 years which just
might give it a fighting chance.

redroo · Thu May 25, 2017 12:11 am

If LHR had eight runways and terminal space to handle double or triple what it does now... would we even be having the A380 discussion?

lightsaber · Thu May 25, 2017 1:14 am

32andBelow wrote:
ASQ400 wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
Yea but there is 0 reason all these people need to be flowed over LHR that currently are. There are many other airports that can take the connections and leave LHR for destination.

Aside from the fact that some long-haul nonstops will not become economical in the foreseeable future, the fact that one mx spot is cheaper than 10, and the fact that hub and spoke ops are cheaper to run, there's no reason hubs exist.

Hubs will definitely shrink, but the chance of them being gone is about 0. And as long as extra-busy hubs, particularly ones with thick O&D and connection traffic continue to exist, slots and VLAs will as well

Not saying they will go away, but if one airport is full you just flow more over an airport that is not full until that becomes full, etc. etc.

Agree that full airports will be overflown. My employer flies employees to Germany and pays there driving/train time as that is less than the difference in business class seats.

Oh I disagree on hubs shrinking. ATL, PVG, and CAN are growing. The new Istanbul and Beijing airports will be huge. Many hubs want to grow.

Business must bypass full cities. When LAX tickets were tough a few years ago, my employer offered employees jobs in a lower cost area. If too many of a department volunteered, the whole department was moved (your job is moving, are you?). Heck, we watched a sector move out that needed a more open hub.

Few will start a business in a city whose transportation is ful. It is necessary to have access to air travel to grow many business. What matters is access to a hub.

EK flies to LHR and LGW. Eventually they'll fly to LTN and STN. Would it help EK, SQ, and QF to produce a new A380? Yes. But not enough to pay a profit to Airbus.

The 779 andvA350-1100 will meet demand nicely.

Lightsaber

Revelation · Thu May 25, 2017 1:27 am

keesje wrote:
Agree, it's ugly.

Every mama thinks their baby ain't ugly.

ASQ400 wrote:
Ugliness/beauty are irrelevant to operations, in case you haven't noticed. Otherwise, the DC-10 would still be up.

I didn't say it was relevant to operations. In fact I said it is a subjective thing. Thanks for the strawman argument.

incitatus wrote:
I would shorten that list considerably: EK, BA, LH and maybe SQ.

I'd put QF into the list, ordering enough frames to keep SYD-LAX up and running. It's a textbook trunk route, with airport capacity issues on both sides, narrow acceptable time windows due to east-west orientation, and traffic rights issues preventing others from undermining the route. If Airbus can't get QF on board, it's not worth bothering.

Sheesh, if Airbus can't place A30neo frames on SYD-LAX they definitely shouldn't bother making any.

ASQ400 wrote:
Restrictions which, mind you, are only increasing. Tokyo (both), LHR, and most other slot-constrained airports are near capacity, and expanding them is next to impossible. When it comes to the thick trunk routes, especially ones with slot constraints, VLA will continue to be needed

I think some VLAs will be needed. The real issue is how many and how soon? My guess is not enough and too late for the A380neo.

WPvsMW wrote:
An "intermittent production" line doesn't work because of technology advances in the "off" phase. Wing efficiency, avionics/IFE, powerplants.... all need certification, which means no one will buy a stale, uneconomic, design if you switched the line "on" a decade later. IOW, "intermittent production" means recertification of the upgrades on an old frame.

Very interesting point.

IIRC pausing the production line doesn't pause the need to repay launch aid. IIRC the "balloon payment" becomes payable 17 years after launch, no?

ScottB wrote:
I would argue that the real backlog for the A380 at present is 58 orders: 3 for NH, 47 for EK, 1 for EY, 2 for QR, and 5 for SQ. I don't believe the remaining 8 for QF or 10 for an unidentified Chinese carrier will happen. Moreover, I think NH would be happy to walk away from its order (tied IMO to the deal for Skymark's assets) if allowed to do so.

Thanks for doing the digging. I agree with what you wrote. A little more than 4 years at 12/year, presuming EK takes all their frames. The clock is ticking.

ScottB wrote:
I also have doubts about how unspecified "technical issues" with the RR engines lead to EK delaying delivery of about a dozen aircraft.

It's a pretty murky subject. It seems we may never get a clear accounting of it.

ScottB wrote:
While IMO the A380 was a project driven by prestige in that the market size numbers were inflated to guarantee a green light for the program, Airbus also didn't undertake the project just to sell 250 aircraft at break-even. They planned to manufacture 4 aircraft per month, roughly 45-50 per year, which would have meant close to 1,000 over the 20-year life of the program. They expected to get the sort of monopoly margins Boeing had managed to command for the 747-400 in the 1990s but unfortunately missed the changing dynamics in the long-haul market which were brought on in part by their own products.

You're a brave man! I hope you're prepared for howls of protest! :-)

ScottB wrote:
I viewed the UPS order as being a way for 5X to get out of a big order for A300Fs which they had eventually decided they didn't want. They were able to reduce the size of their A300F order by 37 aircraft in exchange for the 10-frame A380F order which was likely viewed as a less-bad option.

That's how I remember it. There were whispers at the time that UPS didn't want to take the A380Fs and wanted their deposits back once the A380F initial "delay" was announced, and then there were follow-on whispers of law suites in both directions. In the end, Airbus announced the program was "suspended" (and some were sure it'd be re-instated!) and everyone got their deposits back. Much sizzle, little bacon.

airzona11 wrote:
EK is an anomaly. They have 1 hub and really no partners. They have to get as many people from AtoZ via DXB as possible. As a result, they are the largest VLA operator. If they had a JV with someone in Asia and someone in Europe, it would alleviate that pressure. Look at BA, they have their mega hub in LHR, but via JV, they have hubs across Europe, Asia and the Americas to connect passengers. They can use 787s, 777s, Low Density 747s, A350s to capture O/D traffic.

VLAs needed airlines like BA to replace 50 747s with 50+VLAs. Not 12.

There is still demand for VLAs, albeit small demand. Stretches of the 777/A350 can address most of this market with less costly iterations vs entire new designs.

Great observations.

Boeing778X wrote:
Yeah, keesje, don't hold your breath on most of those happening. I mean, the A380 at AA?! Don't be silly

Some of those airlines are probably going to be replacing A380s with 777Xs, notably QF, if they aren't going to operate the 777X already.

As above, my opinion is if Airbus can't get QF to order even a few for SYD-LAX, they might as well not bother.

Matt6461 · Thu May 25, 2017 1:32 am

These discussions get so repetitive here...
Nonetheless I'll make the points I often make, in case we have newcomers. I see a few repetitive analytical errors:

Assuming, with no more than superficial thought, that the A380 is a proper solution to real world slot congestion. This is an error because at only one airport (DXB) are average movement gauges big enough that the A380 is the next logical upgrade. Everywhere else you can save slots by moving from A320/738 to A321/739, from NB's to WB's, or from smaller WB's to 77W's. That upgauge costs less in frequency and can save as many slots as A380 upgauging.
Assuming, with no more than superficial thought, that the A380 is doing poorly merely because it's a VLA, instead of because it's a bad VLA. Amiga500 and Lightsaber rightly point out that the A380 is a suboptimal plane. In today's aviation market, there's no room for a suboptimal product; you can't just leave 10-15% fuel efficiency on the table as did Airbus with the A380 (at least).

Combining these two errors, we get a debate that focuses on the wrong questions, where folks debate whether (1) a VLA is economically feasible in today's market and then most assume (2) that if the answer to (1) is "yes" then the A380 is that VLA.

Basically - and as usual - a.net is mostly incapable of disaggregating VLA discussion from discussions of A380's.
This is because partisanship has linked two issues that are not logically tied: A380's attractiveness and VLA attractiveness.

The proper frame for considering a VLA market is to begin by asking how much X trip cost an airline is willing to pay for Y capacity increase.
For example, a 777+50% capacity plane that had 10% more trip cost would likely be very popular, right? Seems obvious to me.
How about +50% capacity and 20% trip cost delta? Still sounds pretty good...

Once you have a decent guess of the necessary X/Y ratio for a popular VLA, you then ask whether building such a plane is technically possible.
Next you ask whether you can sell enough of them, and for enough price premium, to recover expected development costs (that portion of the analysis circles back to the "popular" question, as purchase price will influence popularity).

Airbus did this with the A380NEO already; the numbers didn't pencil out for a pre-2025 NEO. The program won't last to 2025 without a NEO so that's pretty much it.

The more interesting question, IMO, is what would a new clean sheet VLA look like.
Contra the OP, there's just no way it looks anything today's A380. Airbus did a "Super twin" study a few years back, which had ~470 pax and an 80m wing. If that's optimal for a future super-twin, it's far suboptimal for the 650-pax bird that the fuselage/wing needs for optimality.
So it would be sad to see the "next gen" VLA be an A380.
You could maybe rewing it but at this point the cost savings probably would be too low, and the performance penalty too high, versus a ~2025 clean sheet VLA.

Better for Airbus to start from scratch with a smaller VLA of 9-6 or similar cross section.
With a clean sheet and 80m+winglets wing, you could probably build a twin VLA with 30-40% more capacity, smaller engines, and around the same trip cost as the 777-9.

RickNRoll · Thu May 25, 2017 1:43 am

vhtje wrote:
You're ignoring that fact that new, smaller aircraft (hello 787, hello A350) are not only more economical but some versions of them fly much further, increasing the ability of the airlines to offer more convenient point-to-point flying. This change in market shift - which is happening right now - away from international mega-hubs was not on the horizon in the late 1990s when the A380 was conceived.

WPvsMW wrote:
The ME3, and their VLAs, primarily depend upon India to Europe. The growth of nonstops in that market will erode the ME3's one-stop market, which means low LFs on the whales. The whale fleet will shrink (happening already), which means no whale-neo... too small a market over which to spread the R&D costs. At EOL of the whales, the only quads aloft will be Boeing freighters.

^^ This post sums up our flying future perfectly. There are plenty of other examples of the shift away from mega-hubs as well - for example QF's forthcoming PER <> LHR 787 services, which presumably will be extended to other points in Europe as aircraft become available to the airline.

A flight to Perth is a long flight from the east coast of a Australia. It will never be the kind of hub that Singapore and Dubai are.

incitatus · Thu May 25, 2017 2:06 am

Revelation wrote:
I'd put QF into the list, ordering enough frames to keep SYD-LAX up and running. It's a textbook trunk route, with airport capacity issues on both sides, narrow acceptable time windows due to east-west orientation, and traffic rights issues preventing others from undermining the route. If Airbus can't get QF on board, it's not worth bothering.

Sheesh, if Airbus can't place A30neo frames on SYD-LAX they definitely shouldn't bother making any.

Here is my thinking about QF. On the routes to Europe they are about to start to offer nonstops from Australia. The A380 won't have the range for the only route it could work, which is LHR. On the routes to the US, QF is diversifying. SYD-LAX has diminished in importance. Passengers get routed through DFW, and in the future maybe ORD. With a smaller craft, they can offer a different option leaving SYD for LAX, like a 6 pm departure.

And, for larger airlines, a single route does not make a variant. Even if the A380 is refreshed with more range, QF will be wanting to offer nonstops from SYD/MEL/PER to LHR, so large capacity will not be very attractive.

redroo · Thu May 25, 2017 3:38 am

The A380 will be gradually phases out of the QF fleet in favour of smaller aircraft that fly from the Australian capitals direct to destination. The A380 will cover higher capacity routes to USA and Asia, however these too will be phased out over decade as more point to point flying occurs (eg SFO over LAX)

ASQ400 · Thu May 25, 2017 4:23 am

redroo wrote:
The A380 will be gradually phases out of the QF fleet in favour of smaller aircraft that fly from the Australian capitals direct to destination. The A380 will cover higher capacity routes to USA and Asia, however these too will be phased out over decade as more point to point flying occurs (eg SFO over LAX)

SFO isn't point to point. It's just a more efficient hub.

redroo · Thu May 25, 2017 7:13 am

For Aussies used to flying Oz-lax-sfo it is P2P :-)

Waterbomber · Thu May 25, 2017 8:40 am

Here is a solution to all of this: Airbus should build a twin-engined version of the A380.
The same way they had the A330/A340, they could have the A370/A380.

What's to prevent the A380 from becoming a twin engine aircraft?
-Plenty of ground clearance and a redesinged pylon could give more clearance
-You don't need to double the engine's fan diameter to (more than) double the thrust.
-The current thrust ratings on the A380 engines are around 310 kN on each engine, while the GE90 goes to 510kN. It's a small jump from there to 600kN.

Faro · Thu May 25, 2017 9:12 am

VLA will not make economic sense for another 20-30 years...when slots at major airports start becoming extremely -if not prohibitively- expensive...it will happen one day...but it will not happen soon...

Faro

LA704 · Thu May 25, 2017 9:14 am

Waterbomber wrote:
Here is a solution to all of this: Airbus should build a twin-engined version of the A380.
The same way they had the A330/A340, they could have the A370/A380.

What's to prevent the A380 from becoming a twin engine aircraft?
-Plenty of ground clearance and a redesinged pylon could give more clearance
-You don't need to double the engine's fan diameter to (more than) double the thrust.
-The current thrust ratings on the A380 engines are around 310 kN on each engine, while the GE90 goes to 510kN. It's a small jump from there to 600kN.

You would significantly reduce payload as MTOW is restricted to normal climb in an engine out scenario. Assume the A380 departs with 550tons and 4x30 tons of thrust. One engine out means 90 tons remaining. With a 60 ton engine remaining only the MTOW would go down by a third, more or less to 380tons. So either GE/RR/PW build a 90-100ton engine that isn't too big, expensive, heavy, etc. Just imagine something nearly double the size of a GE90. Honestly, I can't see it, unless you make the A380 a high wing design.
Reducing the wing area, new engines, folding wingtips, small stretch (3-4m), shrink the wingbox for more cargo, there are enough options which are cheaper and nearly as effective.

SomebodyInTLS · Thu May 25, 2017 11:09 am

Waterbomber wrote:
Here is a solution to all of this: Airbus should build a twin-engined version of the A380.
The same way they had the A330/A340, they could have the A370/A380.

What's to prevent the A380 from becoming a twin engine aircraft?
-Plenty of ground clearance and a redesinged pylon could give more clearance
-You don't need to double the engine's fan diameter to (more than) double the thrust.
-The current thrust ratings on the A380 engines are around 310 kN on each engine, while the GE90 goes to 510kN. It's a small jump from there to 600kN.

What is this freaking obsession with twins and quads on this site? How on Earth does being a twin suddenly make the same basic A380 design a better aircraft?!?!?

The number and thrust of engines, fuselage weight and sizing and wing weight and sizing are all optimised to match each other. Aside from the fact that an engine doesn't exist which is suitable to carry the A380 as a twin, if you twinify the existing aircraft it would be an inefficient mess - by definition worse than the existing one (unless you spend the kind of money required for a new aircraft programme to fix the pig you've created).

Edit: before someone comes in with the "the wing is too big for the fuselage anyway" argument, "sizing" refers to the structural parts, not only the outside shape.

Revelation · Thu May 25, 2017 11:52 am

Matt6461 wrote:
The proper frame for considering a VLA market is to begin by asking how much X trip cost an airline is willing to pay for Y capacity increase.
For example, a 777+50% capacity plane that had 10% more trip cost would likely be very popular, right? Seems obvious to me.
How about +50% capacity and 20% trip cost delta? Still sounds pretty good...

Would be interesting to look back over time to see how those numbers worked out, i.e. how much capacity and trip cost did the 787 provide versus 767? A350 vs A330? A380 vs 747-400? Given that info, is what you're projecting feasible? Thing is, as usual, capacity and trip cost aren't simple things to define equitably.

Matt6461 wrote:
Once you have a decent guess of the necessary X/Y ratio for a popular VLA, you then ask whether building such a plane is technically possible.

Matt6461 wrote:
Next you ask whether you can sell enough of them, and for enough price premium, to recover expected development costs (that portion of the analysis circles back to the "popular" question, as purchase price will influence popularity).

As you know, though, even cheap additional capacity might be hard to fill without depressing yields. The market now has so many 'exact fit' airplanes. Look at LH's fleet. There's a reason why they operate A330, A340, 747, A380 and soon 777X too.

Matt6461 wrote:
Airbus did this with the A380NEO already; the numbers didn't pencil out for a pre-2025 NEO. The program won't last to 2025 without a NEO so that's pretty much it.

Matt6461 wrote:
The more interesting question, IMO, is what would a new clean sheet VLA look like.
Contra the OP, there's just no way it looks anything today's A380. Airbus did a "Super twin" study a few years back, which had ~470 pax and an 80m wing. If that's optimal for a future super-twin, it's far suboptimal for the 650-pax bird that the fuselage/wing needs for optimality.
So it would be sad to see the "next gen" VLA be an A380.
You could maybe rewing it but at this point the cost savings probably would be too low, and the performance penalty too high, versus a ~2025 clean sheet VLA.

Better for Airbus to start from scratch with a smaller VLA of 9-6 or similar cross section.
With a clean sheet and 80m+winglets wing, you could probably build a twin VLA with 30-40% more capacity, smaller engines, and around the same trip cost as the 777-9.

Yet all the arguments being made above about more frequency and more bypassing of overcrowded airports factors in to things, to the point where it doesn't seem likely there will be a big enough market to pay for a 2025 VLA.

In any case, if you look at the A380 as being an 747/777 main deck with an A330 as an upper deck, you're talking about a future VLA being a 787 main deck with a 737 as an upper deck. It seems like that might not be "a step too far" as the A380 largely has been.

WPvsMW · Thu May 25, 2017 12:15 pm

Revelation wrote:

WPvsMW wrote:
An "intermittent production" line doesn't work because of technology advances in the "off" phase. Wing efficiency, avionics/IFE, powerplants.... all need certification, which means no one will buy a stale, uneconomic, design if you switched the line "on" a decade later. IOW, "intermittent production" means recertification of the upgrades on an old frame.

Very interesting point.

IIRC pausing the production line doesn't pause the need to repay launch aid. IIRC the "balloon payment" becomes payable 17 years after launch, no?

Correct. Av Finance 101. Unless the loan documentation provides a way to defer maturity, the balloon payment is due, or the wheels of foreclosure begin to roll. If the wheels rolls, valuation of the collateral becomes the hot topic.

par13del · Thu May 25, 2017 1:10 pm

ScottB wrote:

I viewed the UPS order as being a way for 5X to get out of a big order for A300Fs which they had eventually decided they didn't want. They were able to reduce the size of their A300F order by 37 aircraft in exchange for the 10-frame A380F order which was likely viewed as a less-bad option.

So when they cancelled the A380F order did they revert to the A300F's, if they did not and it was an outright cancellation, the A300F theory is not relevant as Airbus would have ensured that their penalties for cancellation of the A300F were modified and included in the A380F purchase.

c933103 · Thu May 25, 2017 1:10 pm

RickNRoll wrote:
A flight to Perth is a long flight from the east coast of a Australia. It will never be the kind of hub that Singapore and Dubai are.

East Coast - Singapore is even further away than East Coast - Perth? Not to mention Dubai. Of course there are no other type of connecting traffic there and thus the hub size would be smaller than Dubai/Singapore, but a small hub would still be a hub.

par13del · Thu May 25, 2017 1:22 pm

incitatus wrote:

Here is my thinking about QF. On the routes to Europe they are about to start to offer nonstops from Australia. The A380 won't have the range for the only route it could work, which is LHR. On the routes to the US, QF is diversifying. SYD-LAX has diminished in importance. Passengers get routed through DFW, and in the future maybe ORD. With a smaller craft, they can offer a different option leaving SYD for LAX, like a 6 pm departure.

And, for larger airlines, a single route does not make a variant. Even if the A380 is refreshed with more range, QF will be wanting to offer nonstops from SYD/MEL/PER to LHR, so large capacity will not be very attractive.

A question, did SYD-LAX diminish in importance because they decided to offer flights via DFW?
This may well be a case of a foreign carrier getting caught by what US carriers faced in looking at the A380, they had too many hubs to allow the use of an A380, a theory which many non-Americans thought was bunk.

incitatus · Thu May 25, 2017 1:30 pm

Some of the possibilities listed in this thread are downright financially crazy.

Build another double-decker VLA with a smaller cross section? Sounds like an attempt to make a smaller mistake!

Make the A380 into a twin? It is like renovating a house built in 1700. It will cost as much as making a new one.

Revelation · Thu May 25, 2017 1:32 pm

ScottB wrote:
I would argue that the real backlog for the A380 at present is 58 orders: 3 for NH, 47 for EK, 1 for EY, 2 for QR, and 5 for SQ.

Interestingly enough (for me at least) the (unofficial yet well informed) A380 production list at http://www.abcdlist.nl/a380f/a380f.html shows all of the non-EK frames you project except for 1 of the 3 NH frames in their rendition of the launch order, and no others except EK frames. It seems reality is lining up with your projection.

At a rate of 20/year this year and then 12/year moving forward, the last non-EK plane on order will fly around the end of next year, and it'll be the 247th A380 to fly. EK will have 116 flying at that point. Coincidentally or not, that's right around the figure STC gave for the utmost capacity of DXB. Seems from that point forward they'll have to be in frame-for-frame replacement mode till DWC opens. At that point (end 2018) EK will have 142-116=26 more frames on order and that sustains production till end-2020 at rate 12/year.

So at end-2018, the future of the A380 production line will be all EK and/or any other new business that comes in, and/or any change in status of current unlikely to be taken orders and/or any more deferrals, and remaining EK orders only takes them till end-2020 without another rate cut. Given EK's current wobbly circumstances that can't be a great place of comfort for Airbus.

It's hard to contemplate that the end of the A380 might be as soon as end of 2020, but that's what these projections suggest.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net