Bald1983 wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

If a bullfrog had wings he would not bump his butt so much. Boeing is a lot closer to meeting its sales projections; the A-380 is not. But for Emirates, the program would be dead. Even if the parameters change, the A-380 was designed to fly from one mega hub to another mega hub and there are not that many mega hubs. It would be very expensive to build shells and wait for someone to buy them. It is expensive to build them and it is expensive to store them.

Which is exactly why Airbus needs give the A380 a big update. Understandably (because of costs), they are reluctant to spend more money on the program. With good reason. But by the sounds of it, new engines might be a must. The GP7200 is done this year and RR won't provide anymore PIPs for the T900. Any potentially interested buyers will not like that. I wouldn't. That would be a GAP of almost 10 years until another efficiency improvement is done when the Ultrafan is available. Most likely the 10 years of commitment EK is asking for. Airbus most likely knows, that means they'll have to certify new engines now (which wasn't foreseen).

It sounds like you are starting from the position of saving the A-380 and working backwards. The better approach is to go with aircraft that meet your needs and that would be twins, 787's A-350's, etc. The A-380 was built and marketed on a flawed premise, mega-hub to mega hub. If it were not flawed, there would be a lot more of them flying, write now.

JHwk wrote:

lerc wrote:

First time poster here so take it easy lol.

Im curious...having seen the chaos that happened at JFK over the recent storm and all the congestion with so many planes, doesn't it demonstrate that airports are at capacity thus making the case for larger airplanes down the road.

It takes much longer to expand an airport with a 25-50 gate terminal than it is to build an A380.

Couldn’t Airbus pause the program until airlines realize there simply isn’t enough space in airports for the current frequency over capacity model?

While I think Airbus is best off pausing production for 2-3 years, airport congestion isn't a simple issue that can just be solved by a bigger plane.

Issues like JFK are often exacerbated by larger planes; I remember being on a 748 with both our flight and a 380 being cancelled after departure at LAX within 15 minutes. TBIT was a mess for about 4 hours trying to deal with the mess.

DfwRevolution wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The business case for the A380 was solid. Market prediction solid, launch customers solid for the size of the plane.

No, it wasn't. This is plainly revisionist history. The Airbus market outlook in 2000 estimated a need for 1,200 VLA aircraft between 2000-2020. In reality, the actual market size was closer to 400 aircraft. How can you describe an estimate as "solid" when it was wrong by 66 percent?

Plenty of third-party analyst believed the A380 marketing case was too aggressive prior to launch because of trends - such as route fragmentation - that were observable at the time. Many of these critics were labeled as "Euro-skeptics" or "Boeing spokesmen" or whatever.

DfwRevolution wrote:

"Hub-to-spoke" versus "point-to-point" is simply arguing semantics. They are the exact same thing.

7BOEING7 wrote:

keesje wrote:

I would not be shocked at all if we see 25 A380s for china, 30 for Emirates and 6-10 for BA. Often the press is right on the ball, sometimes they are merely repeating each other, quoting predictable analysts and writing what supports their financers preferences.

Why would BA buy/lease new ones when at the same time plenty of used ones are expected to be available at what one would expect to be very low prices/lease rates.

Jetty wrote:

Aither wrote:

How do you get these 4x daily ? on long haul routes almost nobody flies more than 2 and then flying above 2 one of the flights is often a 747 or an A380.
I agree there are a few counter examples but these are exceptions typically from airlines not having enough such routes to order a sub fleet of 747s or A380s.

Just from my home airport AMS I know 4 long haul destinations (ATL, MSP, DTW, JFK) with 3/4 flights daily of which none are 747/A380. But those flights are spread over the day and connect to different flight banks thus no upgrade in capacity desired.

Revelation wrote:

Aither wrote:

seahawk wrote:

That sadly ignores realities like the geographical placement of your hubs. The US3 would face much bigger problems if they would move all traffic to maybe 2 megahubs each, as other airlines could connect the secondary cities (which still would have huge catchment areas) directly to their hub. And it is no different in Europe. If the ME3 can offer many one stop connections, you are at a disadvantage if you need two stops for the same trip. Airlines serving a market with real original demand need other strategies as airlines aiming to thrive on connecting traffic.

Sorry but I really do not understand your argument here.
You are right that 2 stops is not attractive. But that's exactly why you need a more powerful hub so you can aggregate enough demand to fly non stop to secondary markets.
The US because of geography indeed need 2 international hubs (east+west) + 1 central (domestic/latin america). That's not the case in Europe and almost anywhere else.

The more time passes the more the world markets look like the US one and this means the world is moving away from the A380's strengths.

Currently the EU market looks more and more like the US market as consolidation continues to take hold.

It's no longer BA with LHR vs LH with FRA, it's IAG with LHR, MAD, BCN, etc vs LH with FRA, VIE, MUC, BRU, etc.

And that's how China is evolving too. US3, EU3, CN3.

More airports with more direct journeys for more people.

Fewer people shlepping to the LHRs and FRAs and AMSs of this world unless the want to get to London, Frankfort, or Amsterdam.

And no A380 sales for a very long time now.

muralir wrote:

I'm curious for those who say that a simple stretch of the a380 (without a new wing or engine) is too expensive, doesn't the 747-8 prove the opposite? The 748 was launched with an expectation of probably only selling at best 100-200 planes. Granted Boeing didn't view it as a blockbuster like the 787 or 777. But neither was it going to be a multi-billion dollar boondoggle. I figure it was probably targeted to break-even at 100 sales, and was meant mainly to keep a380 pricing honest. It accomplished that.

Similarly, a stretched a380, if it means additional orders from EK, should be a reasonable expense, with reasonable break-even points, no? (excluding the already spent program development costs which will likely never be recouped anyway)

muralir wrote:

I'm curious for those who say that a simple stretch of the a380 (without a new wing or engine) is too expensive, doesn't the 747-8 prove the opposite? The 748 was launched with an expectation of probably only selling at best 100-200 planes. Granted Boeing didn't view it as a blockbuster like the 787 or 777. But neither was it going to be a multi-billion dollar boondoggle. I figure it was probably targeted to break-even at 100 sales, and was meant mainly to keep a380 pricing honest. It accomplished that.

Similarly, a stretched a380, if it means additional orders from EK, should be a reasonable expense, with reasonable break-even points, no? (excluding the already spent program development costs which will likely never be recouped anyway)

fsabo wrote:

muralir wrote:

I'm curious for those who say that a simple stretch of the a380 (without a new wing or engine) is too expensive, doesn't the 747-8 prove the opposite? The 748 was launched with an expectation of probably only selling at best 100-200 planes. Granted Boeing didn't view it as a blockbuster like the 787 or 777. But neither was it going to be a multi-billion dollar boondoggle. I figure it was probably targeted to break-even at 100 sales, and was meant mainly to keep a380 pricing honest. It accomplished that.

Similarly, a stretched a380, if it means additional orders from EK, should be a reasonable expense, with reasonable break-even points, no? (excluding the already spent program development costs which will likely never be recouped anyway)

I don't think emirates is interested in a stretch, 11 across, or anything that increases capacity. What they want is more efficient engines. RR no longer seem to be willing.

Waterbomber wrote:

Keeping the A380 going is about saving jobs.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Keeping the A380 going is first and foremost about keeping the maintenance and supply networks going and having the model available as long as there is a chance for an uptick in sales. As long as that chance is there then it would be stupid to write off all the millions and millions invested in infrastructure for nothing.

parapente wrote:

Have to agree with Faso.Not are they interested in a stretch (they were a while back) they have even said as much.Nor are they willing to remove the 'A380 effect'.Its got super spaciousness .Something no other aircraft has these days and it's a big brand plus.
I know many people who will always choose the A380 over other a/c if there is a valid choice.
Nope the A380 is pretty perfectly tailored for Emirates needs as it is.'Course they would love new engines but they ain't getting them-period.

mzlin wrote:

Airbus is proposing an industrial partnership with China to save the A380:

https://www.ft.com/content/f67dd44e-f34 ... 65a6ce1a00
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/airb ... -3lfcptksw

Seems like a pretty desperate measure as it has clear downsides. No doubt Chinese companies will sooner or later recruit the engineers and managers from the joint venture to their internal efforts to build their own widebodies to directly compete with Airbus and Boeing. Also it is an indication that the A380 would not be profitable for the foreseeable future if built in Europe (but we know that already), whereas China would be willing to eat the costs in exchange for the education.

So Airbus' business plan is, if you can't make money from your trade secrets, then give them away to a competitor who can! Maybe something they learned from Bombardier...

keesje wrote:

They never did it before with decades of opportunities.

mzlin wrote:

Airbus is proposing an industrial partnership with China to save the A380:

https://www.ft.com/content/f67dd44e-f34 ... 65a6ce1a00
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/airb ... -3lfcptksw

Seems like a pretty desperate measure as it has clear downsides. No doubt Chinese companies will sooner or later recruit the engineers and managers from the joint venture to their internal efforts to build their own widebodies to directly compete with Airbus and Boeing. Also it is an indication that the A380 would not be profitable for the foreseeable future if built in Europe (but we know that already), whereas China would be willing to eat the costs in exchange for the education.

So Airbus' business plan is, if you can't make money from your trade secrets, then give them away to a competitor who can! Maybe something they learned from Bombardier...

Waterbomber wrote:

We should also celebrate successes and the A380 is a success so far, in my view.
In the 20 years between 1989 and 2009, Boeing delivered 467 passenger B744's.
In the 10 years between 2007 and 2017, Airbus delivered 216 passenger A380's, almost half of the total B744 deliveries. So if you look at these numbers, it's clear that the A380 has taken over the B744's market completely, despite losing some 36 sales to the B748i.

OldAeroGuy wrote:

And between October 2007 and October 2017, 654 773ER's were delivered.

Revelation wrote:

It's pretty audacious of EK to demand that Airbus deliver them a plane with ~820 passenger capacity that is so efficient that they can put ~520-615 into it instead. That worked for a while but then the 77W reset the bar economically.

Strato2 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

It's pretty audacious of EK to demand that Airbus deliver them a plane with ~820 passenger capacity that is so efficient that they can put ~520-615 into it instead. That worked for a while but then the 77W reset the bar economically.

You do realise 77W preceded the A380 and it's economics were fully known when the A380 took to the skies. Also to compete economically the 77W needs to be configured with the absolutely suckful 10-abreast seating.

Strato2 wrote:

So what? ........

seahawk wrote:

Yet even with the newest engines a A380 at 10 abreast won´t win against a 10 abreast 777X, you would need to go 11 abreast and do a stretch and then it would offer too much capacity.

Strato2 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

It's pretty audacious of EK to demand that Airbus deliver them a plane with ~820 passenger capacity that is so efficient that they can put ~520-615 into it instead. That worked for a while but then the 77W reset the bar economically.

You do realise 77W preceded the A380 and it's economics were fully known when the A380 took to the skies. Also to compete economically the 77W needs to be configured with the absolutely suckful 10-abreast seating.

Strato2 wrote:

OldAeroGuy wrote:

And between October 2007 and October 2017, 654 773ER's were delivered.

So what? 773ER is a lower capacity plane. One could also then argue that Airbus sold thousands of A320-series planes during the same timeframe. A smaller plane will nearly always sell better than the bigger one. Almost the only exception is the 747-8i that has utterly failed against the A380 in this respect.

Strato2 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

It's pretty audacious of EK to demand that Airbus deliver them a plane with ~820 passenger capacity that is so efficient that they can put ~520-615 into it instead. That worked for a while but then the 77W reset the bar economically.

You do realise 77W preceded the A380 and it's economics were fully known when the A380 took to the skies. Also to compete economically the 77W needs to be configured with the absolutely suckful 10-abreast seating.

fsabo wrote:

muralir wrote:

I'm curious for those who say that a simple stretch of the a380 (without a new wing or engine) is too expensive, doesn't the 747-8 prove the opposite? The 748 was launched with an expectation of probably only selling at best 100-200 planes. Granted Boeing didn't view it as a blockbuster like the 787 or 777. But neither was it going to be a multi-billion dollar boondoggle. I figure it was probably targeted to break-even at 100 sales, and was meant mainly to keep a380 pricing honest. It accomplished that.

Similarly, a stretched a380, if it means additional orders from EK, should be a reasonable expense, with reasonable break-even points, no? (excluding the already spent program development costs which will likely never be recouped anyway)

I don't think emirates is interested in a stretch, 11 across, or anything that increases capacity. What they want is more efficient engines. RR no longer seem to be willing.

Slug71 wrote:

fsabo wrote:

muralir wrote:

I'm curious for those who say that a simple stretch of the a380 (without a new wing or engine) is too expensive, doesn't the 747-8 prove the opposite? The 748 was launched with an expectation of probably only selling at best 100-200 planes. Granted Boeing didn't view it as a blockbuster like the 787 or 777. But neither was it going to be a multi-billion dollar boondoggle. I figure it was probably targeted to break-even at 100 sales, and was meant mainly to keep a380 pricing honest. It accomplished that.

Similarly, a stretched a380, if it means additional orders from EK, should be a reasonable expense, with reasonable break-even points, no? (excluding the already spent program development costs which will likely never be recouped anyway)

I don't think emirates is interested in a stretch, 11 across, or anything that increases capacity. What they want is more efficient engines. RR no longer seem to be willing.

EK was interested in a small stretch a couple of years ago. I think they would still prefer a small stretch to add additional seats as opposed to the reconfigured cabin that the Plus offers. If Airbus has to certify new engines on the A380 now, may as well add a small stretch and optimize the frame as much as possible too.

mjoelnir wrote:

[list=][/list]

seahawk wrote:

Yet even with the newest engines a A380 at 10 abreast won´t win against a 10 abreast 777X, you would need to go 11 abreast and do a stretch and then it would offer too much capacity.

The A380 beats the 777-300ER at 10 seats a row and it would beat the 777-9 at 10 seats a row with comparable engines.

fsabo wrote:

muralir wrote:

I'm curious for those who say that a simple stretch of the a380 (without a new wing or engine) is too expensive, doesn't the 747-8 prove the opposite? The 748 was launched with an expectation of probably only selling at best 100-200 planes. Granted Boeing didn't view it as a blockbuster like the 787 or 777. But neither was it going to be a multi-billion dollar boondoggle. I figure it was probably targeted to break-even at 100 sales, and was meant mainly to keep a380 pricing honest. It accomplished that.

Similarly, a stretched a380, if it means additional orders from EK, should be a reasonable expense, with reasonable break-even points, no? (excluding the already spent program development costs which will likely never be recouped anyway)

I don't think emirates is interested in a stretch, 11 across, or anything that increases capacity. What they want is more efficient engines. RR no longer seem to be willing.

strfyr51 wrote:

fsabo wrote:

muralir wrote:

I'm curious for those who say that a simple stretch of the a380 (without a new wing or engine) is too expensive, doesn't the 747-8 prove the opposite? The 748 was launched with an expectation of probably only selling at best 100-200 planes. Granted Boeing didn't view it as a blockbuster like the 787 or 777. But neither was it going to be a multi-billion dollar boondoggle. I figure it was probably targeted to break-even at 100 sales, and was meant mainly to keep a380 pricing honest. It accomplished that.

Similarly, a stretched a380, if it means additional orders from EK, should be a reasonable expense, with reasonable break-even points, no? (excluding the already spent program development costs which will likely never be recouped anyway)

I don't think emirates is interested in a stretch, 11 across, or anything that increases capacity. What they want is more efficient engines. RR no longer seem to be willing.

If RR is not willing to build a new 1 off engine for the A380, and GE Can't because of their agreement with Boeing? Then PWA is the only engine builder left.
but then again? Who is going to guarantee the sales and PWA's revenue and engineering costs?

Slug71 wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

Which is exactly why Airbus needs give the A380 a big update. Understandably (because of costs), they are reluctant to spend more money on the program. With good reason. But by the sounds of it, new engines might be a must. The GP7200 is done this year and RR won't provide anymore PIPs for the T900. Any potentially interested buyers will not like that. I wouldn't. That would be a GAP of almost 10 years until another efficiency improvement is done when the Ultrafan is available. Most likely the 10 years of commitment EK is asking for. Airbus most likely knows, that means they'll have to certify new engines now (which wasn't foreseen).

It sounds like you are starting from the position of saving the A-380 and working backwards. The better approach is to go with aircraft that meet your needs and that would be twins, 787's A-350's, etc. The A-380 was built and marketed on a flawed premise, mega-hub to mega hub. If it were not flawed, there would be a lot more of them flying, write now.

I am for saving the A380. It truely is a great aircraft to fly in. But I think it's going to take a big commitment to get more sales. Risky move and a decision i'm glad i do not have to make. It may have been a flawed premise, but the crash of the global economy was by far the biggest flaw. The aviation industry was hit really hard. Airbus is very lucky EK's business plan worked, and they'll be in good shape if air travel does double by the mid-2030s as expected. The A380 isn't limited to mega-hub to mega-hub.

mzlin wrote:

Airbus is proposing an industrial partnership with China to save the A380:

https://www.ft.com/content/f67dd44e-f34 ... 65a6ce1a00
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/airb ... -3lfcptksw

mjoelnir wrote:

[list=][/list]

seahawk wrote:

Yet even with the newest engines a A380 at 10 abreast won´t win against a 10 abreast 777X, you would need to go 11 abreast and do a stretch and then it would offer too much capacity.

The A380 beats the 777-300ER at 10 seats a row and it would beat the 777-9 at 10 seats a row with comparable engines.

Bald1983 wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

It sounds like you are starting from the position of saving the A-380 and working backwards. The better approach is to go with aircraft that meet your needs and that would be twins, 787's A-350's, etc. The A-380 was built and marketed on a flawed premise, mega-hub to mega hub. If it were not flawed, there would be a lot more of them flying, write now.

I am for saving the A380. It truely is a great aircraft to fly in. But I think it's going to take a big commitment to get more sales. Risky move and a decision i'm glad i do not have to make. It may have been a flawed premise, but the crash of the global economy was by far the biggest flaw. The aviation industry was hit really hard. Airbus is very lucky EK's business plan worked, and they'll be in good shape if air travel does double by the mid-2030s as expected. The A380 isn't limited to mega-hub to mega-hub.

If an aircraft needs to be "saved" within ten years of its introduction into service, the answer should be why save it?

Slug71 wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

I am for saving the A380. It truely is a great aircraft to fly in. But I think it's going to take a big commitment to get more sales. Risky move and a decision i'm glad i do not have to make. It may have been a flawed premise, but the crash of the global economy was by far the biggest flaw. The aviation industry was hit really hard. Airbus is very lucky EK's business plan worked, and they'll be in good shape if air travel does double by the mid-2030s as expected. The A380 isn't limited to mega-hub to mega-hub.

If an aircraft needs to be "saved" within ten years of its introduction into service, the answer should be why save it?

Because if air travel does double by the mid-2030s as expected, it will be needed. It is much cheaper and less risky to keep it around at a low rate production and give it a refresh, than design an all new VLA to be ready by that time. It probably wouldn't need to be saved within ten years of it's introduction if the global economic collapse didn't happen. I think both the A380 and 747-8 would have sold better (much closer to Boeing's outlook anyways).

Indy wrote:

I've seen it stated more than a few times that Emirates NEEDS the A380. Why does it need that jet over other high capacity jets? Their 2 class 77W seats something like 427 people and the 3 class seats 360. Best thing about every other widebody is that you can serve more destinations than the A380. You aren't limited to the highest demand routes and aren't limited to the airports that are equipped to handle the A380.

Indy wrote:

You aren't limited to the highest demand routes and aren't limited to the airports that are equipped to handle the A380.

PHLCVGAMTK wrote:

Question for people who are more knowledgable about industrial production and process: if Airbus shuts down the A380 program and converts the assembly lines to, say, A350 production, how many A350s per year could Airbus be building in that space? And can Airbus sell that many A350s?
...