There was also the MSN8000 wing failure at 145% instead of 150% of ultimate load.
I think XT6Wagon was refering to that issue.
(A380 problems: wings 2x; wiring; door seals, engines 2x ??)

Eyad89 wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

speedbored wrote:

AA, for example, flew almost 80bn empty ASKMs in 2016 and still made a huge profit.

Ok, compare 2016 numbers

AA-81.5% load factor with ~402K departures.
EK-75% load factor with ~187K departures.

Last time AA had load factor below 80% was in 2004.
And AA is not ordering planes like there is no tomorrow, even with such huge profits.

We cannot blame the A380 alone for the 75% load factor. What about the fact that their smallest frame is 77W? And many of those frames are over 400 seats. They are forced to send 77W even to the thinnest of routes. If their A380 isn’t doing well on some routes, they can simply downgrade to 77W. But what if their 77W isn’t doing so well? What happens to their loadfactor then?

We can only make a conclusion if we see the average loadfactor per route/type.

Or they downgauge further to a 77L

mariner wrote:

And some of the finest aircraft I've ever flown have been financial disasters - the VC-10, for example.

The ultimate example being Concorde - an amazing achievement, awesome aircraft to fly in, but a huge financial disaster. Very glad they did it though.

I'm also not certain that any of these "financial disasters" were actually quite as bad as people seem to think. Even loss making programs create lots of jobs, are often still profitable for suppliers, and always provide technology development and learning opportunities. And just because an aircraft is made and sold at a loss does not mean that the manufacturer cannot achieve significant earnings from supporting that aircraft post-sale.

speedbored wrote:

mariner wrote:

And some of the finest aircraft I've ever flown have been financial disasters - the VC-10, for example.

The ultimate example being Concorde - an amazing achievement, awesome aircraft to fly in, but a huge financial disaster. Very glad they did it though.

I'm also not certain that any of these "financial disasters" were actually quite as bad as people seem to think. Even loss making programs create lots of jobs, are often still profitable for suppliers, and always provide technology development and learning opportunities. And just because an aircraft is made and sold at a loss does not mean that the manufacturer cannot achieve significant earnings from supporting that aircraft post-sale.

When folks here consider a plane X as a failure, they don’t really mean a failure in the financial sense, rather they mean the plane didn’t get many orders. The 787 is a great example, it may not be a profitable program, or it may barely make it out of the red, but the fact that it might end up being the widebody with the most orders in history makes it a grand success. Or ar least that’s the vibe I get when I read some posts here.


In my eyes, success is subjective, and Concorde made its designers proud, hence it is a success in my opinion.

kitplane01 wrote:

I'll answer that.

Airbus has been building A380s for at least 12 years. They have presumably already extracted much of the possible efficiency and learning that can be had. The production rate is slowing. They have not told the media of new and important production cost reductions, which if they did exist their stockholders would want to know about.

We have reasons to believe that the costs are not going to significantly decrease ... and no reason to believe otherwise.

Their geographically scattered production system is probably exactly what you don't want to minimize production costs under a low rate schedule.

Your obsessed with the cost side of the equation. Due to lack of orders and the ensuing low production rates, Airbus has clearly not been able to realise anticipated costs savings. So earlier orders are being produced at a marginal loss (probably profitable when ancillary revenue is taken into account). However there's the other side of the equation, revenue. Do you honestly think that they are daft enough to continue to sell at a loss making price now that the ugly reality is clear? On the same terms as the current deliveries, from an order in 2013 when expectations were quite different?

Or put it another way, by you logic, since Boeing underestimated their recurring costs on the 787 program, they will have continued to sell aircraft at the same prices forever?

At least some folks understand what "non-material loss" means, when I first heard it I put it in the same category of "companies loosing profit".

Airbus hade One goal. Keep A380 in production 10 years.

In 2027 the market for bigger airplanes will have increased. Many 747 and current A380s is up for replacement.

Neo with a new more efficient RR engine is available. With a stretch and wing extensions perhaps it will be 20% more efficient then current model and the 20% efficiency difference to b777x and a350 will be restored.

I have the sensation that 777x will be complicated to sell in 2027.

EK likes to replace its aircraft in 12-15 year cycles, which Airbus will be very aware of. As EK would want to order A380s for fleet replacements during the 2020s and beyond, then it should not have been too hard for Airbus to make the commitment to keep production going, especially as there is hope of getting orders from China (which is expected to become the world’s biggest air travel market in 2022, surpassing the US).

olle wrote:

Airbus hade One goal. Keep A380 in production 10 years.

In 2027 the market for bigger airplanes will have increased. Many 747 and current A380s is up for replacement.

Neo with a new more efficient RR engine is available. With a stretch and wing extensions perhaps it will be 20% more efficient then current model and the 20% efficiency difference to b777x and a350 will be restored.

I have the sensation that 777x will be complicated to sell in 2027.

It's hard to picture how EK's business and whatever other top-off / replacement orders come along will justify a 2027 NEO. A lot rides on getting China to take the finishing line and to start buying and utilizing a meaningful number of A380s, and doing this in a way that doesn't cannibalize EK's business.

Revelation wrote:

olle wrote:

Airbus hade One goal. Keep A380 in production 10 years.

In 2027 the market for bigger airplanes will have increased. Many 747 and current A380s is up for replacement.

Neo with a new more efficient RR engine is available. With a stretch and wing extensions perhaps it will be 20% more efficient then current model and the 20% efficiency difference to b777x and a350 will be restored.

I have the sensation that 777x will be complicated to sell in 2027.

It's hard to picture how EK's business and whatever other top-off / replacement orders come along will justify a 2027 NEO. A lot rides on getting China to take the finishing line and to start buying and utilizing a meaningful number of A380s, and doing this in a way that doesn't cannibalize EK's business.

I doubt EK would have made the recent order if they didn't believe an eventual re-engine of the A380 is likely.

Just an arithmetic note: For EK to have a hundred 380s flying, but buying 6 a year it needs to fly each 380 16.5+ years. In the past they bought and received a lot more in some years, a less in others. Were we to chart this against their actual fleet acquisition and retirement it will tell us a fair amount about their strategy. We don't know when they will start retiring planes. We also don't know the consequences of some of the early models being possibly a little defective.

speedbored wrote:

mariner wrote:

And some of the finest aircraft I've ever flown have been financial disasters - the VC-10, for example.

The ultimate example being Concorde - an amazing achievement, awesome aircraft to fly in, but a huge financial disaster. Very glad they did it though.

I'm also not certain that any of these "financial disasters" were actually quite as bad as people seem to think. Even loss making programs create lots of jobs, are often still profitable for suppliers, and always provide technology development and learning opportunities. And just because an aircraft is made and sold at a loss does not mean that the manufacturer cannot achieve significant earnings from supporting that aircraft post-sale.

One of my first contracts was a UK Government review of the financial and non-financial benefits of Concorde way back in the 70's, in a contract managed by a global financial firm.

For example, the acquisition and experience gained with CNC machinery, enabled UK companies to tender for subsequent Airbus, BaE and even Boeing (offset) contracts. And RR entered into the very first PBTH contract, though it wasn't known as such at the time.

Everyone has a price.

Airbus is not immune to this. If anyone can make Airbus an offer that they can't turn down, it's Emirates. EK has proven itself to singlehandedly be responsible as the reason the world's largest passenger airplane continues to live on for at least another decade or two and that is nothing to sneeze at. They have serious street cred in Toulouse, and Airbus KNOWS Emirates wants the NEO and have a guarantee that they will order them if Airbus makes the NEO. Based on EK's track record for the past 100 A380's, Airbus has no reason not to believe them and that is Emirates's biggest ace. Airbus knows that if Emirates wants 200 A380NEO's, they will take delivery of 200 A380NEO's and it is almost impossible for the cost-benefit analysis to not favor an update at that level of scale. Airbus have done an A320NEO, an A330NEO, and they would be idiots not to do an A380NEO with a guarantee of production. I cannot emphasize how important this point is. At least 70-80% of the plane is done from the start, and Airbus doesn't even have to guess what the order book looks like- they already know! When a loyal customer shows you their cards, you don't say no, it's just not something you do if you don't want them to walk away from orders in the future. A customer who wants your product so much that they are willing to give you a huge order just so you can keep making it is the dream scenario for any company, and Airbus has nothing to lose. Any new A380's that Airbus makes are money that it's not losing by not making them. Airbus can crunch the numbers as can anyone else because the NEO order is public knowledge. Airbus' talk of not making the NEO is little more than a smoke and mirror negotiating tactic to secure future production- which they have now gotten. However the reality is, they are not going to lose one of the best monopolies of all time because some armchair CEO decided otherwise; these are very expensive planes and to own this market of all markets is a dream come true for any aerospace giant. It is utterly laughable to think Airbus will not make the NEO, especially after this top up order, which basically has the sole purpose of being a very expensive message from EK that they will fund this program for as long as it takes to make the NEO, so Airbus better make it. $16 billion is a shit ton of money for any industry, and it is not taken lightly by anyone; it is to make a statement. Now that EK has removed any doubt about the fate of the program for as long as it would take to make the NEO and made their ambitions clear, there is nothing left to negotiate; they wanted a guarantee of production and they got it. The BA order is the icing on the cake, and after that Airbus will announce the A380NEO and EK will buy 200 of them as promised. Ultimately, what Airbus wants is a production bridge to get new orders as air travel rockets as they forecasted it would, and for the plane they designed and the EK order gives them exactly that, so it is beyond foolish to think the NEO will not be built to accomplish this. As existing orders reach a close, the A380NEO will live on into the 2050's and by that time, any airport where congestion is bearable now will not be then. If you look at the growth in air travel in the last 30-40 years, it is not hard to realize that the A380 is indeed a plane ahead of its time, but one that would be perfect when its time finally arrives. The world that Airbus had originally designed for will finally be a reality and it will prime time for the program as EK reaps the advantages of a world that many find impossible today. My dad has frequently told me that he could not imagine the level of air travel he sees today in his wildest dreams, and that it is only going to go up from here. The A380 will be for that time what the 787 is today; the right aircraft at the right time. Airbus has bet on the right aircraft at the wrong time, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Just an arithmetic note: For EK to have a hundred 380s flying, but buying 6 a year it needs to fly each 380 16.5+ years.

I believe that the 6-rate is currently just a study, rather than a definite decision - they have announced a cut to rate 8 from next year and, with one or two additional top-up orders (e.g. from BA), rate 8 might just end up being sustainable.

CFRPwingALbody wrote:

No this issue: Aviationweek A380 Wing rib feet crack

stress from thermal cycling and less than optimal alloy. ( additionally CFRP and AL mix )
not a "reinforcement".

speedbored wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Just an arithmetic note: For EK to have a hundred 380s flying, but buying 6 a year it needs to fly each 380 16.5+ years.

I believe that the 6-rate is currently just a study, rather than a definite decision - they have announced a cut to rate 8 from next year and, with one or two additional top-up orders (e.g. from BA), rate 8 might just end up being sustainable.

The issue is the ghost orders. EK and BA are only two airlines. 8 per year requires other A380s going down the line.

I do not believe Airbus is making an out the door profit on this EK order. I do think it cuts losses (e.g., prevents vendor payments) and that ancillary revenue will help pull the order into the black.

I look at this from an economy of scale. Many A380 parts are rarely needed to service the inservice fleet and might only be required at the end of a heavy maintenance interval (about every 12 years). If Airbus is making 6 per year, they need 24 parts (assuming one part per engine). Thus, if they need one part a year, they meet the minimum manufacturing economy of scale of 25 (ghad, I cannot wait for more 3D printed parts where the minimum economy of scale is one). So this small production rate will allow the A380s to limp into their maintenance checks in a profitable fashion.

Which is a long winded way of saying, Airbus will make more money (or lose less on a program basis) keeping the A380 in production.

Lightsaber

I've read that Airbus can break even with a production of 20 A380s a year, but can limp along for a while with just six to protect second-hand values - although suppliers may not be too happy.

neomax wrote:

Everyone has a price.

Airbus is not immune to this. If anyone can make Airbus an offer that they can't turn down, it's Emirates. EK has proven itself to singlehandedly be responsible as the reason the world's largest passenger airplane continues to live on for at least another decade or two and that is nothing to sneeze at. They have serious street cred in Toulouse, and Airbus KNOWS Emirates wants the NEO and have a guarantee that they will order them if Airbus makes the NEO. Based on EK's track record for the past 100 A380's, Airbus has no reason not to believe them and that is Emirates's biggest ace. Airbus knows that if Emirates wants 200 A380NEO's, they will take delivery of 200 A380NEO's and it is almost impossible for the cost-benefit analysis to not favor an update at that level of scale. Airbus have done an A320NEO, an A330NEO, and they would be idiots not to do an A380NEO with a guarantee of production. I cannot emphasize how important this point is. At least 70-80% of the plane is done from the start, and Airbus doesn't even have to guess what the order book looks like- they already know! When a loyal customer shows you their cards, you don't say no, it's just not something you do if you don't want them to walk away from orders in the future. A customer who wants your product so much that they are willing to give you a huge order just so you can keep making it is the dream scenario for any company, and Airbus has nothing to lose. Any new A380's that Airbus makes are money that it's not losing by not making them. Airbus can crunch the numbers as can anyone else because the NEO order is public knowledge. Airbus' talk of not making the NEO is little more than a smoke and mirror negotiating tactic to secure future production- which they have now gotten. However the reality is, they are not going to lose one of the best monopolies of all time because some armchair CEO decided otherwise; these are very expensive planes and to own this market of all markets is a dream come true for any aerospace giant. It is utterly laughable to think Airbus will not make the NEO, especially after this top up order, which basically has the sole purpose of being a very expensive message from EK that they will fund this program for as long as it takes to make the NEO, so Airbus better make it. $16 billion is a shit ton of money for any industry, and it is not taken lightly by anyone; it is to make a statement. Now that EK has removed any doubt about the fate of the program for as long as it would take to make the NEO and made their ambitions clear, there is nothing left to negotiate; they wanted a guarantee of production and they got it. The BA order is the icing on the cake, and after that Airbus will announce the A380NEO and EK will buy 200 of them as promised. Ultimately, what Airbus wants is a production bridge to get new orders as air travel rockets as they forecasted it would, and for the plane they designed and the EK order gives them exactly that, so it is beyond foolish to think the NEO will not be built to accomplish this. As existing orders reach a close, the A380NEO will live on into the 2050's and by that time, any airport where congestion is bearable now will not be then. If you look at the growth in air travel in the last 30-40 years, it is not hard to realize that the A380 is indeed a plane ahead of its time, but one that would be perfect when its time finally arrives. The world that Airbus had originally designed for will finally be a reality and it will prime time for the program as EK reaps the advantages of a world that many find impossible today. My dad has frequently told me that he could not imagine the level of air travel he sees today in his wildest dreams, and that it is only going to go up from here. The A380 will be for that time what the 787 is today; the right aircraft at the right time. Airbus has bet on the right aircraft at the wrong time, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Great write up. One of the best pecies of dialogue I have seen about the A380.

Every Emirates/A380/Airbus basher should read this.

speedbored wrote:

The ultimate example being Concorde - an amazing achievement, awesome aircraft to fly in, but a huge financial disaster. Very glad they did it though.

I agree, the most exciting aircraft I've ever flown - an extraordinary combination of thrill and prestige.

I get a somewhat reduced version of this every time I get on the Emirates A380 to/from Australia. The sense of space is wonderful and even now I am always slightly amazed that such a huge machine can get off the ground. It doesn't have the punch of Concorde - you don't get to see the curve of the earth or experience the super sexy landing - but I take what I can get - LOL. The space remains great.

Most every other aircraft is bland in comparison. I flown the 787 and A350, it's tough to pick between them, and the 777 feels - to me - slightly claustrophobic. I think choosing the A380 may be the smartest move Emirates ever made, it has, for many passengers, a wow factor.

That this hasn't translated to sales is puzzling, but I suppose part of it is tied up with the GFC and the rise of the LCC's/ULCC's - the general down-grading of civil aviation that happened for a while.

I'm amazed that British (or someone) doesn't use them for LHR-JFK. It would restore some of the lost sense of prestige that would set British apart from the crowd.

Posters on a.net keep telling me that people flying the route want frequency - a concept much loved by US airlines - but I'm not suggesting that the A380 would be the only aircraft British would fly trans-Atlantic.

mariner

mariner wrote:

speedbored wrote:

The ultimate example being Concorde - an amazing achievement, awesome aircraft to fly in, but a huge financial disaster. Very glad they did it though.

I agree, the most exciting aircraft I've ever flown - an extraordinary combination of thrill and prestige.

I get a somewhat reduced version of this every time I get on the Emirates A380 to/from Australia. The sense of space is wonderful and even now I am always slightly amazed that such a huge machine can get off the ground. It doesn't have the punch of Concorde - you don't get to see the curve of the earth or experience the super sexy landing - but I take what I can get - LOL. The space remains great.

Most every other aircraft is bland in comparison. I flown the 787 and A350, it's tough to pick between them, and the 777 feels - to me - slightly claustrophobic. I think choosing the A380 may be the smartest move Emirates ever made, it has, for many passengers, a wow factor.

That this hasn't translated to sales is puzzling, but I suppose part of it is tied up with the GFC and the rise of the LCC's/ULCC's - the general down-grading of civil aviation that happened for a while.

I'm amazed that British (or someone) doesn't use them for LHR-JFK. It would restore some of the lost sense of prestige that would set British apart from the crowd.

Posters on a.net keep telling me that people flying the route want frequency - a concept much loved by US airlines - but I'm not suggesting that the A380 would be the only aircraft British would fly trans-Atlantic.

mariner

Terminal 7 at JFK can't handle the A380. No A380 capable gates. If they could send it there, there probably would have been a one off by now.

I doubt they'll ever be an A380 gate etheir, a complete dump of a terminal that pratically needs knocking down and re building. Some stands require aircraft to shut down and be tugged on.

flee wrote:

douwd20 wrote:

The one airline the A380 works for signs up for more. Not a shocker really. The inevitable is just kicked down the road.

I believe that is what Airbus needs precisely for the market to catch up. By 2025-2030, more and more airports will run out of slots and frequencies cannot be increased. The only way to increase capacity is to use larger aircraft. RIght now, many airlines are abandoning smaller jets like the B737-7 and A319 and upgauging to the B737-9/-10 and A321.

The A380 will never sell anywhere near Airbus's rosey scenarios. Hub and spoke is fading and point-to-point is expanding. The A380 only works for hub-and-spoke and even then only in a limited number of airports. It will always be a niche market. Had it not been for one airline, Emirate, the A380 would have died years ago.

douwd20 wrote:

Had it not been for one airline, Emirate, the A380 would have died years ago.

But - happily - there was that airline and the A380 didn't die.

mariner

scbriml wrote:

Shame they couldn't get this done and dusted for the Dubai air show.

I guess some people will be disappointed.

Lots of chest thumping for an airplane that was about to be pulled off life support until this order came through, which speaks VOLUMES for a "prestige aircraft".

But, personally, great it will be around for a little bit longer. Might actually get a chance to fly on it, and experience one of those suites.

mariner wrote:

douwd20 wrote:

Had it not been for one airline, Emirate, the A380 would have died years ago.

But - happily - there was that airline and the A380 didn't die.

mariner

Whatever it is, the travelling public are richer for it. The A380 is good for passengers.

It is just a shame that many other airlines are not able to exploit its capabilities.Emirates is an airline that not only talks but is also prepared to put their money where their mouth is. Kudos to them and I do hope to see them operating the whalejet for a long time to come!

Arion640 wrote:

Terminal 7 at JFK can't handle the A380. No A380 capable gates. If they could send it there, there probably would have been a one off by now.

I doubt they'll ever be an A380 gate etheir, a complete dump of a terminal that pratically needs knocking down and re building. Some stands require aircraft to shut down and be tugged on.

Since I've never been at Terminal 7, I got curious about it's layout, so I had a look at Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Termi ... 73.7827185

I know that this satellite picture is just one random point in time, but still it's a bit fascinating that there are FOUR 747's from British Airways parked at the same time. How common/uncommon is that?

douwd20 wrote:

Hub and spoke is fading and point-to-point is expanding. The A380 only works for hub-and-spoke and even then only in a limited number of airports.

That's Boeing propaganda. The reality is the opposite. More and more people go through more efficient and attractive hubs on long haul markets, even when they can fly non stop. Where there are such effective hubs it's more difficult for other airlines to open new direct routes.
The A380 does not have to be able to fly to hundreds of different airports. If the top 30 are compatible it's probably enough. Looking at where EK is flying with their A380s, they probably are already compatible.

WIederling wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

We have reasons to believe that the costs are not going to significantly decrease ... and no reason to believe otherwise.

The footprint of A380 dedicated infrastructure has been significantly reduced. Buildings have been repurposed
and some associated workforce are thus removed from the A380 production cost run up. ( now available to A350 and my guess A320 production.)

Their geographically scattered production system is probably exactly what you don't want to minimize production costs under a low rate schedule.

Some really hate that, do they?
But it is quite effective for high value product manufacture. Even more for low number production.

I understood that the production system has changed from a rate=30 to a rate=8 system. Airbus management contains smart people who don't want to waste resources.

But why would a scattered production system be *better*? Consider the transportation problems. Surely custom built dedicated ships are not cheap, and you cannot sell 2/3 a ship if your production rate goes down.

BaconButty wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I'll answer that.

Airbus has been building A380s for at least 12 years. They have presumably already extracted much of the possible efficiency and learning that can be had. The production rate is slowing. They have not told the media of new and important production cost reductions, which if they did exist their stockholders would want to know about.

We have reasons to believe that the costs are not going to significantly decrease ... and no reason to believe otherwise.

Their geographically scattered production system is probably exactly what you don't want to minimize production costs under a low rate schedule.

Your obsessed with the cost side of the equation. Due to lack of orders and the ensuing low production rates, Airbus has clearly not been able to realise anticipated costs savings. So earlier orders are being produced at a marginal loss (probably profitable when ancillary revenue is taken into account). However there's the other side of the equation, revenue. Do you honestly think that they are daft enough to continue to sell at a loss making price now that the ugly reality is clear? On the same terms as the current deliveries, from an order in 2013 when expectations were quite different?

Yes.

And I think that because the Airbus CEO says so. Aviation Week writes: Bregier said Airbus knows it can profitably built 20 A380s, down from the current level of 27. He indirectly conceded that going to 12 aircraft will not be profitable. “I don’t say we will break even at 12,” he said. On the other hand, he stressed that losses incurred at that production rate “will not be material for Airbus". http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... 380-orders

olle wrote:

In 2027 the market for bigger airplanes will have increased. Many 747 and current A380s is up for replacement.

Neo with a new more efficient RR engine is available. With a stretch and wing extensions perhaps it will be 20% more efficient then current model and the 20% efficiency difference to b777x and a350 will be restored.

IMJ a -900NEO with Ultrafan engines could see 35+% reduction in fuel/pax, smaller reductions in capital/pax and crew/pax, plus slight reductions in engine mx and fees per trip. Given the A380's life extension, it's our only hope for a future in which VLA's play a big role. viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1384423

Picking a specific year, however, seems wrong. Instead, we'd see a gradual process in which, every year, a certain number of routes would reach a thickness at which A380 makes sense. That would depend on local conditions more than time, though the trend with time would favor the A380.

And then we should remember that an innovative business like EK can upend this dynamic to everyone's surprise. It isn't inconceivable that a "TPAC EK" - or two - could emerge some day with a -900NEO.

oslmgm wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Terminal 7 at JFK can't handle the A380. No A380 capable gates. If they could send it there, there probably would have been a one off by now.

I doubt they'll ever be an A380 gate etheir, a complete dump of a terminal that pratically needs knocking down and re building. Some stands require aircraft to shut down and be tugged on.

Since I've never been at Terminal 7, I got curious about it's layout, so I had a look at Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Termi ... 73.7827185

I know that this satellite picture is just one random point in time, but still it's a bit fascinating that there are FOUR 747's from British Airways parked at the same time. How common/uncommon is that?

Thats very common. Almost a daily thing. BA are sending a plane to JFK every 1.5-2 hours during the day, but due Heathrows curfew they can't depart home until the evening NYC time.

Arion640 wrote:

oslmgm wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Terminal 7 at JFK can't handle the A380. No A380 capable gates. If they could send it there, there probably would have been a one off by now.

I doubt they'll ever be an A380 gate etheir, a complete dump of a terminal that pratically needs knocking down and re building. Some stands require aircraft to shut down and be tugged on.

Since I've never been at Terminal 7, I got curious about it's layout, so I had a look at Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Termi ... 73.7827185

I know that this satellite picture is just one random point in time, but still it's a bit fascinating that there are FOUR 747's from British Airways parked at the same time. How common/uncommon is that?

Thats very common. Almost a daily thing. BA are sending a plane to JFK every 1.5-2 hours during the day, but due Heathrows curfew they can't depart home until the evening NYC time.

Then maybe that's another reason for using older 747s instead of new A380s, if the utilization is not very high?

douwd20 wrote:

Hub and spoke is fading

?????
Except for a couple of occasions due to major global events, passenger traffic through hubs has been growing year-on-year for over 30 years. The worlds major hubs are busier than ever and there are more major hubs than ever before. A quick look at any IATA annual report will show you this.

douwd20 wrote:

and point-to-point is expanding.

True. But at a slower rate than trafic in general is growing. Again, it's in the IATA annual reports.

Marketing hype and reality are rarely the same.

oslmgm wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

oslmgm wrote:

Since I've never been at Terminal 7, I got curious about it's layout, so I had a look at Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Termi ... 73.7827185

I know that this satellite picture is just one random point in time, but still it's a bit fascinating that there are FOUR 747's from British Airways parked at the same time. How common/uncommon is that?

Thats very common. Almost a daily thing. BA are sending a plane to JFK every 1.5-2 hours during the day, but due Heathrows curfew they can't depart home until the evening NYC time.

Then maybe that's another reason for using older 747s instead of new A380s, if the utilization is not very high?

True but I think that on this particular route, the savings from having older, paid-for aircraft sitting on the ground would probably be exceeded by the operating cost savings, and revenue from additional seats, that would be provided by an A380. But, as others have already pointed out, A380 is currently not an option for BA at JFK due to airport constraints.

kitplane01 wrote:

But why would a scattered production system be *better*? Consider the transportation problems.

you have semi finished product transport problems once in a while.

you have workforce commuting problems twice every day.
This has negative effects on:
time wasted in commute.
housing prices.
qualified workers.
required payment levels to meet expenses.
then behind every qualified worker for your manufacturing site there is a pyramid of secondary jobs
whose families too have to find living space in the same area. Finally as a community you don't want to
have your job market dominated by a single entity. Have that go belly up and your general living standards
go to hell. ( See the rust belts in the US or the Montan industries in Germany)

As an example in Germany there are quite a range of medium production sites in "strukturschwache" regions.
Lots of qualified people that have no interest in living in or near a big city.
Not only Airbus. Look at marque employers like Meyer Werft at Papenburg, Rohde & Schwarz at Teisnach, ...

I'm also not certain that any of these "financial disasters" were actually quite as bad as people seem to think. Even loss making programs create lots of jobs, are often still profitable for suppliers, and always provide technology development and learning opportunities. And just because an aircraft is made and sold at a loss does not mean that the manufacturer cannot achieve significant earnings from supporting that aircraft post-sale.

The mistake is to view the A380 as an isolated program rather than within the strategic big picture. Among the non-tangible positive effects of the A380 are:
- it exposed the flaws of the old consortium structure, forcing a corporate restructuring and complete change of mindset which made Airbus the integrated company it is today
- The A350 is a texbook example of a perfectly managed aircraft program. Coincidence? I think not. All the engineers that worked on A380 continued to work on A350 right afterwards. Many, many lessons were learned from the A380, which were directly - and successfully - applied to the A350 program
- Not visible to the typical observer, systems-wise the A380 is a generational leap from A32x & A330/340 families. Apart from designing a new systems architecture, Airbus had to redo much of their IT infrastructure to handle the vasts amounts of data involved. The A350's systems are a minor evolution from the A380 (again with lessons learned), and all the IT infrastructure was already in place from A380.

Even a quick look at any recent IATA annual report would debunk the "point to point is the future" myth.
The numbers of unique city pairs with airline service has shown a pretty constant increase in numbers year on year for at least 10 years, and the rate of increase has been outstripped by the general increase in passenger seat-miles. If anything, the rate of increase of unique city pairs has fallen slightly since 787 EIS. The data suggests that point-to-point is actually decreasing slightly as a percentage of the total market.

I agree and IMO, this has more to do with market dynamics thatn with aircraft types. Alliances and JV's have done a lot of damage to p2p flying - in many cases airlines prefer to route pax via their partner's hub rather than open up a new secondary destination. See for example UA dropping STR and making HAM seasonal - they will still get most of the money as those pax now fly via FRA on the TATL JV, so why bother?

Arion640 wrote:

Terminal 7 at JFK can't handle the A380. No A380 capable gates. If they could send it there, there probably would have been a one off by now.

I doubt they'll ever be an A380 gate etheir, a complete dump of a terminal that pratically needs knocking down and re building. Some stands require aircraft to shut down and be tugged on.

BA is now putting £52 million ($65m) into that 'dump', and not making it A380-capable, go figure...
Ref: https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2016/11/2 ... it-enough/
Ref: http://www.futuretravelexperience.com/2 ... erminal-7/

Seems it can't cope with being hit with the current flow of 747s, an A380 seems to be out of the question.

flee wrote:

It is just a shame that many other airlines are not able to exploit its capabilities.Emirates is an airline that not only talks but is also prepared to put their money where their mouth is. Kudos to them and I do hope to see them operating the whalejet for a long time to come!

As mentioned above, when the owner of the airline looks at his money, he sees a picture of his brother or his nephew. Also, when he's not busy running the airline he switches desks and runs the national aviation authority. It's a pretty unique position to be in.

Revelation wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Terminal 7 at JFK can't handle the A380. No A380 capable gates. If they could send it there, there probably would have been a one off by now.

I doubt they'll ever be an A380 gate etheir, a complete dump of a terminal that pratically needs knocking down and re building. Some stands require aircraft to shut down and be tugged on.

BA is now putting £52 million ($65m) into that 'dump', and not making it A380-capable, go figure...
Ref: https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2016/11/2 ... it-enough/
Ref: http://www.futuretravelexperience.com/2 ... erminal-7/

Seems it can't cope with being hit with the current flow of 747s, an A380 seems to be out of the question.

flee wrote:

It is just a shame that many other airlines are not able to exploit its capabilities.Emirates is an airline that not only talks but is also prepared to put their money where their mouth is. Kudos to them and I do hope to see them operating the whalejet for a long time to come!

As mentioned above, when the owner of the airline looks at his money, he sees a picture of his brother or his nephew. Also, when he's not busy running the airline he switches desks and runs the national aviation authority. It's a pretty unique position to be in.

BA were renovating as they call it in the states when I was there in November.

Have you flown from there? It is a complete dump and not impressive for a premium passenger (I was flying J at the time). Extremley crowded with low ceilings. This is BA's flagship route and makes T5 look like a palace.

Until I see some pictures of improvements or experience it for myself, I will still maintain that it is possibly one of the worst terminals I have been in, it is dire.

Looks like the EA GP7200 may have a shot with the new order and stay in production afterall. Deal is expected to be firmed by Feb 15th.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... 0-contract

And another deal expected to follow soon.

Even if hub traffic is growing, it does not imply A380 is better than A350 or B787. Instead it implies that there are more twinjet flights growing at the hub than at non-hub locations. It is only when a hub (or, a carrier's slot allocation) is "maxed out" with large capacity twinjets that a quad becomes necessary.

The power of shrinks is what kills quad economics over the annual cycle. It is just too hard to overcome the incremental costs of a quad with the incremental revenue on seats over #300, which are going to be low-yielding seats. So the case for the A380 almost never works. It is a vicious cycle that Airbus never even addressed in its promotional materials. The type of super-congestion I mention, being jammed with 350-seat twinjets, is rare today and may occur more frequently in 2025-2030, so A380 has a case then.

neomax wrote:

Everyone has a price.

Airbus is not immune to this. If anyone can make Airbus an offer that they can't turn down, it's Emirates. EK has proven itself to singlehandedly be responsible as the reason the world's largest passenger airplane continues to live on for at least another decade or two and that is nothing to sneeze at. They have serious street cred in Toulouse, and Airbus KNOWS Emirates wants the NEO and have a guarantee that they will order them if Airbus makes the NEO. Based on EK's track record for the past 100 A380's, Airbus has no reason not to believe them and that is Emirates's biggest ace. Airbus knows that if Emirates wants 200 A380NEO's, they will take delivery of 200 A380NEO's and it is almost impossible for the cost-benefit analysis to not favor an update at that level of scale. Airbus have done an A320NEO, an A330NEO, and they would be idiots not to do an A380NEO with a guarantee of production. I cannot emphasize how important this point is. At least 70-80% of the plane is done from the start, and Airbus doesn't even have to guess what the order book looks like- they already know! When a loyal customer shows you their cards, you don't say no, it's just not something you do if you don't want them to walk away from orders in the future. A customer who wants your product so much that they are willing to give you a huge order just so you can keep making it is the dream scenario for any company, and Airbus has nothing to lose. Any new A380's that Airbus makes are money that it's not losing by not making them. Airbus can crunch the numbers as can anyone else because the NEO order is public knowledge. Airbus' talk of not making the NEO is little more than a smoke and mirror negotiating tactic to secure future production- which they have now gotten. However the reality is, they are not going to lose one of the best monopolies of all time because some armchair CEO decided otherwise; these are very expensive planes and to own this market of all markets is a dream come true for any aerospace giant. It is utterly laughable to think Airbus will not make the NEO, especially after this top up order, which basically has the sole purpose of being a very expensive message from EK that they will fund this program for as long as it takes to make the NEO, so Airbus better make it. $16 billion is a shit ton of money for any industry, and it is not taken lightly by anyone; it is to make a statement. Now that EK has removed any doubt about the fate of the program for as long as it would take to make the NEO and made their ambitions clear, there is nothing left to negotiate; they wanted a guarantee of production and they got it. The BA order is the icing on the cake, and after that Airbus will announce the A380NEO and EK will buy 200 of them as promised. Ultimately, what Airbus wants is a production bridge to get new orders as air travel rockets as they forecasted it would, and for the plane they designed and the EK order gives them exactly that, so it is beyond foolish to think the NEO will not be built to accomplish this. As existing orders reach a close, the A380NEO will live on into the 2050's and by that time, any airport where congestion is bearable now will not be then. If you look at the growth in air travel in the last 30-40 years, it is not hard to realize that the A380 is indeed a plane ahead of its time, but one that would be perfect when its time finally arrives. The world that Airbus had originally designed for will finally be a reality and it will prime time for the program as EK reaps the advantages of a world that many find impossible today. My dad has frequently told me that he could not imagine the level of air travel he sees today in his wildest dreams, and that it is only going to go up from here. The A380 will be for that time what the 787 is today; the right aircraft at the right time. Airbus has bet on the right aircraft at the wrong time, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Very detailed posts, what I get from it is more orders for A350Ks and 7779s more so than A380s. Everything you stated regarding world traffic was stated 10-15 years ago when the A380 was launched. LHR, and Frankfurt are constrained NOW, what you state is happening now yet we do not see the equipment uptick that many believe. I am not a basher just a realist. The A380 has its place as EK has shown and a NEO would have impressive fuel savings if the RRs are able to be used on the A380. But those RR Ultras will also be on smaller widebodies that are easier to fill.

Again, the A380 has its place in the market and the market will decide its fate, I just do not believe the numbers will be as big as some think.

speedbored wrote:

mariner wrote:

And some of the finest aircraft I've ever flown have been financial disasters - the VC-10, for example.

The ultimate example being Concorde - an amazing achievement, awesome aircraft to fly in, but a huge financial disaster. Very glad they did it though.

I'm also not certain that any of these "financial disasters" were actually quite as bad as people seem to think. Even loss making programs create lots of jobs, are often still profitable for suppliers, and always provide technology development and learning opportunities. And just because an aircraft is made and sold at a loss does not mean that the manufacturer cannot achieve significant earnings from supporting that aircraft post-sale.

In the end, what matters is whether the planes make money for the manufacturers and the airlines that fly them. Twenty orders and an option for 16 more, may keep the program from expiring but it is going to take more than that to "save" the A-380. The Concorde was a magnificent piece of design and engineering but it was too small and too fuel inefficient to be anything more than a national prestige aircraft. The A-380 was intended to be a big seller but also a European prestige aircraft to usurp the 747. Not it is just a European prestige aircraft introduced at a time when the huge four engine planes were becoming extinct.

res that last dozen posts: smaller planes get bigger, very large planes get fewer.

flee wrote:

mariner wrote:

douwd20 wrote:

Had it not been for one airline, Emirate, the A380 would have died years ago.

But - happily - there was that airline and the A380 didn't die.

mariner

Whatever it is, the travelling public are richer for it. The A380 is good for passengers.

It is just a shame that many other airlines are not able to exploit its capabilities.Emirates is an airline that not only talks but is also prepared to put their money where their mouth is. Kudos to them and I do hope to see them operating the whalejet for a long time to come!

Other airlines do not look at the A-380 because they want to make money. They won't with an A-380. https://www.wearefinn.com/topics/posts/ ... c-flights/ https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ef-444961/ The quads burn a lot of fuel, far more then the twins. The 787 and A-350 is also good for passengers.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

res that last dozen posts: smaller planes get bigger, very large planes get fewer.

Obviously. A larger plane has more seats per item.
The relevant statistic is seats available per airframe size slot ( "transport stream volume" ) .

frmrCapCadet wrote:

res that last dozen posts: smaller planes get bigger, very large planes get fewer.

Nice. This and smaller planes fly further. What many said before, a lot of 747 were bought for range not size.

Bald1983 wrote:

speedbored wrote:

mariner wrote:

And some of the finest aircraft I've ever flown have been financial disasters - the VC-10, for example.

The ultimate example being Concorde - an amazing achievement, awesome aircraft to fly in, but a huge financial disaster. Very glad they did it though.

I'm also not certain that any of these "financial disasters" were actually quite as bad as people seem to think. Even loss making programs create lots of jobs, are often still profitable for suppliers, and always provide technology development and learning opportunities. And just because an aircraft is made and sold at a loss does not mean that the manufacturer cannot achieve significant earnings from supporting that aircraft post-sale.

In the end, what matters is whether the planes make money for the manufacturers and the airlines that fly them. Twenty orders and an option for 16 more, may keep the program from expiring but it is going to take more than that to "save" the A-380. The Concorde was a magnificent piece of design and engineering but it was too small and too fuel inefficient to be anything more than a national prestige aircraft. The A-380 was intended to be a big seller but also a European prestige aircraft to usurp the 747. Not it is just a European prestige aircraft introduced at a time when the huge four engine planes were becoming extinct.

In what context with Concorde, the programme or its time flying for BA/AF?

It was a national prestige aircraft but certainly made BA a lot of money pre July 25th 2000.

Bald1983 wrote:

The quads burn a lot of fuel, far more then the twins.

Of course the A380 burns a lot more fuel. Just about the same as TWO 787s burn.

If you have more load than a 777, you'll be flying TWO planes (= four engines) if you aren't using a quad . . . (or leaving the balance to the competition).

Slug71 wrote:

Looks like the EA GP7200 may have a shot with the new order and stay in production afterall. Deal is expected to be firmed by Feb 15th.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... 0-contract

And another deal expected to follow soon.

Shows what a cruel business this is:

While Rolls-Royce Holdings Plc is supplying Trent 900 turbines for the last 50 A380s ordered by Emirates, the Dubai airline is leaning toward a rival powerplant offered by the so-called Engine Alliance of GE and Pratt for the new batch, according to people familiar with the matter who asked not to be named.

And:

Rolls has balked at offering its turbines on the same keen terms with which it won the initial Emirates business, and made clear that there’s no prospect of developing the much more fuel-efficient Neo -- or new engine option -- model for which the carrier has lobbied.

Seems RR was expecting to win EK's future orders at a 'less keen' price after investing in the PIP.

Instead, EK is now sniffing at EA's skirts.

Yet:

Emirates will ask EA to deliver a step change in fuel efficiency for the four-engined A380, seen as vital for it to remain competitive with the newest twin-engine wide-body planes, though the venture is likely to offer only incremental upgrades given the limited market, one of the people said.

So EK is seemingly going to split the small A380 market between the two vendors.

Makes one wonder about the likelihood of seeing RR bid for future A380 NEO placement. Sure, they need a home for their new engine tech, but they also need a business case that works.

Revelation wrote:

Makes one wonder about the likelihood of seeing RR bid for future A380 NEO placement. Sure, they need a home for their new engine tech, but they also need a business case that works.

It's not like RR is going to halt research and development going forward. If they want to stay relevant and on top of the game, they will need to. The A380neo is not the only project that would benefit from further development of this class of engines.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

res that last dozen posts: smaller planes get bigger, very large planes get fewer.

Pretty sure that is simply not true.

The number of very large planes is increasing. What most people don't seem willing to accept is that many of the big twins [b]are[/] VLAs.