Updated: Emirates firms up order for up to 36 additional A380s

neutronstar73 · Mon Jan 22, 2018 6:42 pm

Smart for Emirates to go back to EA away from the RR engine. EA's engine has been and, apparently according to RR, will always be better, since RR is not going to develop the Trent 900 any further. So it looks like RR will stay behind the GE/PW power for the foreseeable future.

/not that I'm surprised that the EA engine is better....has been for a while now.

speedbored · Mon Jan 22, 2018 6:43 pm

PW100 wrote:
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).

Oh stop being silly. You really ought to know by now that there are never any more passengers than will fit in the biggest twin.

Matt6461 · Mon Jan 22, 2018 6:44 pm

flighty wrote:
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.

That's true of seats 0-250 compared to 251-300 as well, yet the 787-9 is far more popular than -8.
Revenue is only one side of the equation; cost matters as well.
If the average cost of added seats is 50% of the baseline seats (as with 789 versus -8), then you add more seats.
You're right that A380 can rarely cover its incremental costs (~80% cost factor for added seats versus 77W), but it's not because it's a quad. It's because it's a bad airliner.

But now that the A380 has a bridge to 2025, it's entirely plausible that a future A380NEO will offer ~50% marginal capacity cost.

flyingclrs727 · Mon Jan 22, 2018 6:50 pm

According to Bloomberg, the Engine Alliance is in the running to power the new Emirates A380 order.

GE Engine Venture May Oust Rolls From Emirates A380 Contract

By Benjamin D Katz and Rick Clough
January 22, 2018, 5:13 AM EST
Updated on January 22, 2018, 9:43 AM EST

General Electric Co.’s A380 engine venture with Pratt & Whitney may be poised to muscle back in on the double-decker jet following Airbus SE’s deal to sell 36 superjumbos to Gulf carrier Emirates.....

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/arti ... 0-contract

Tedd · Mon Jan 22, 2018 7:14 pm

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.

I`m very surprised by this. During the last competition between these two engines wasn`t it the case that EA weren`t willing
to improve the GP7200, but that RR were willing to PIP the Trent 900, & one of the reasons Trent won out? Of course we
don`t know what difference in SFC between the two, but Emirates will have a handle on it by now, & since operating these
four-holers is all about fuel economy, I find it odd they`d consider the less fuel efficient ( if it really is ) engine over the supposedly
more improved one. Perhaps the Trent isn`t coming up to expectations? My thoughts are that it is though, & that Emirates might be
leveraging a more favourable price from RR. If that isn`t the game, then may the best engine win, since both engines are
excellent turbines.

Flighty · Mon Jan 22, 2018 7:28 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
flighty wrote:
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.

That's true of seats 0-250 compared to 251-300 as well, yet the 787-9 is far more popular than -8.
Revenue is only one side of the equation; cost matters as well.
If the average cost of added seats is 50% of the baseline seats (as with 789 versus -8), then you add more seats.
You're right that A380 can rarely cover its incremental costs (~80% cost factor for added seats versus 77W), but it's not because it's a quad. It's because it's a bad airliner.

But now that the A380 has a bridge to 2025, it's entirely plausible that a future A380NEO will offer ~50% marginal capacity cost.

The incremental cost from 787-8 to 787-9 is almost nothing. The high incremental cost from A350 to A380 requires extraordinary justification. The fact that load factor is inconsistent at the margin... and market fragmentation leads to higher yields... cuts the A380 case to shreds. Unless you need it for saturated markets... then yes, it is absolutely the tool. And I hope it has a bright future.

Slug71 · Mon Jan 22, 2018 7:39 pm

Tedd wrote:
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.

I`m very surprised by this. During the last competition between these two engines wasn`t it the case that EA weren`t willing
to improve the GP7200, but that RR were willing to PIP the Trent 900, & one of the reasons Trent won out? Of course we
don`t know what difference in SFC between the two, but Emirates will have a handle on it by now, & since operating these
four-holers is all about fuel economy, I find it odd they`d consider the less fuel efficient ( if it really is ) engine over the supposedly
more improved one. Perhaps the Trent isn`t coming up to expectations? My thoughts are that it is though, & that Emirates might be
leveraging a more favourable price from RR. If that isn`t the game, then may the best engine win, since both engines are
excellent turbines.

That's what I thought too. Maybe EK is trying to get some leverage from GE for their 787 order too?

Revelation · Mon Jan 22, 2018 7:41 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
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.

I agree, there's lots of different ways for that tech to be utilized.

Slug71 · Mon Jan 22, 2018 7:46 pm

Revelation wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
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.

I agree, there's lots of different ways for that tech to be utilized.

I'm sure they will pitch a variant of their Ultrafan for the A380NEO if it happens.

CFRPwingALbody · Mon Jan 22, 2018 8:09 pm

AFAIK there is only one Qantas A380 with EA engines left on order. Wasn't the delivery of that plane planed for this year (2018)?
EK is using a higher trust variant of the RR Trent900 for their 52 A380s..

Tedd · Mon Jan 22, 2018 9:08 pm

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
AFAIK there is only one Qantas A380 with EA engines left on order. Wasn't the delivery of that plane planed for this year (2018)?
EK is using a higher trust variant of the RR Trent900 for their 52 A380s..

You are correct that EK went with the higher powered Trent 900, the only other A380 operator that used that
enhanced version was in fact Qantas, they never chose EA for their A380`s.

Bald1983 · Mon Jan 22, 2018 9:16 pm

PW100 wrote:
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).

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-17/q ... dy/9333616

https://www.wearefinn.com/topics/posts/ ... c-flights/

Matt6461 · Mon Jan 22, 2018 9:23 pm

Flighty wrote:
The incremental cost from 787-8 to 787-9 is almost nothing

Not true. Per Bjorn at Leeham, trip cost dlta is about half of capacity delta. IIRC ~10% and ~20% respectively.
A loaded -9 is ~10% heavier than a loaded -8, has more fuselage drag and same span. 10% more lift and ~3-4% lower L/D means ~13-15% more drag. Same engines so delta drag = delta fuel burn. Add to that more cabin crew, slightly higher fees, more lease/ownership cost and you're very far from "almost nothing."

flighty wrote:
The high incremental cost from A350 to A380 requires extraordinary justification.

No dispute there but it's just simplistic to say "Quads/VLA's drool." You have to look at some actual numbers and apply some economic logic to correctly identify the problem. The A388 just isn't very efficient for its size.

Tedd · Mon Jan 22, 2018 9:27 pm

Slug71 wrote:
Tedd wrote:
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.

I`m very surprised by this. During the last competition between these two engines wasn`t it the case that EA weren`t willing
to improve the GP7200, but that RR were willing to PIP the Trent 900, & one of the reasons Trent won out? Of course we
don`t know what difference in SFC between the two, but Emirates will have a handle on it by now, & since operating these
four-holers is all about fuel economy, I find it odd they`d consider the less fuel efficient ( if it really is ) engine over the supposedly
more improved one. Perhaps the Trent isn`t coming up to expectations? My thoughts are that it is though, & that Emirates might be
leveraging a more favourable price from RR. If that isn`t the game, then may the best engine win, since both engines are
excellent turbines.

That's what I thought too. Maybe EK is trying to get some leverage from GE for their 787 order too?

That could be the case true, but RR have an advantage, & it may be most effective on the B787-10 since the 3-spool
has better "hot & high" performance.
Thinking on the future of a A380Neo, isn`t RR in the driving seat for better prospects due to it`s Advance & ultimately
UltraFan? It`s true perhaps that we don`t know much about what GE or PW are doing in that sector, but we are aware
of RR pressing ahead. For this reason alone I`d favour them to secure EK`s next A380 order, & it wouldn`t do them any
harm in placing them at the head of the queue for a B787Neo when that time arrives.

Matt6461 · Mon Jan 22, 2018 9:37 pm

Slug71 wrote:
I'm sure they will pitch a variant of their Ultrafan for the A380NEO if it happens.

More like the A380NEO will happen if RR pitch an Ultrafan variant (or if someone else does). Convincing an engine OEM to join will probably be a NEO's biggest hurdle. Might have to wait for Boeing to MAX the 787 later next decade, then A380NEO piggybacks on the R&D.

KarelXWB · Mon Jan 22, 2018 9:53 pm

Tedd wrote:
I`m very surprised by this. During the last competition between these two engines wasn`t it the case that EA weren`t willing
to improve the GP7200, but that RR were willing to PIP the Trent 900, & one of the reasons Trent won out?

EA was not willing to commit to further PIPs, even when there is room for improvement. Perhaps EA changed its mind.

dtw2hyd · Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:08 pm

I think EK wants RR to offer Trent 972-GBE :duck:

Tedd · Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:40 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
Tedd wrote:
I`m very surprised by this. During the last competition between these two engines wasn`t it the case that EA weren`t willing
to improve the GP7200, but that RR were willing to PIP the Trent 900, & one of the reasons Trent won out?

EA was not willing to commit to further PIPs, even when there is room for improvement. Perhaps EA changed its mind.

It certainly looks that way. With a 1.4% improvement, if it`s achievable, I wonder if it puts it on a par with Trent
or surpasses it? Either way they are close. Perhaps price is a factor in the GP7200`s favour. I still can`t reconcile
why EK would jeopardise a decent relationship with RR, since they may come to rely on them for a Neo.

douwd20 · Tue Jan 23, 2018 6:57 am

Aither wrote:
That's Boeing propaganda.

Let me know when Airbus's forecast of 1200 VLA market materializes and I will eat my words. The sales figures for the 787 and A350 proves the point. The hub busters have already won.

David_itl · Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:24 am

douwd20 wrote:
The hub busters have already won.

Please can you advise me when BA started flying MAN-BNA, BHX-BDL, GLA-BUF with 787s? After all, those are the hub-busting flights we were meant to be getting, not the hub-spoke that has occurred and which envelops all suitable types from 757 through to A380.

CFRPwingALbody · Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:20 am

Tedd wrote:
CFRPwingALbody wrote:
AFAIK there is only one Qantas A380 with EA engines left on order. Wasn't the delivery of that plane planed for this year (2018)?
EK is using a higher trust variant of the RR Trent900 for their 52 A380s..

You are correct that EK went with the higher powered Trent 900, the only other A380 operator that used that
enhanced version was in fact Qantas, they never chose EA for their A380`s.

Not Qantas but Qatar, still has one (their 10th) A380 with EA engines on order.
Thanks for correcting me.

RR Trent972B had a failure in 2010. The EA7200 had a failure last year.
Is it already clear what caused the Air France engine three fan to break off the engine?

Arion640 · Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:37 am

[threeid][/threeid]

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
AFAIK there is only one Qantas A380 with EA engines left on order. Wasn't the delivery of that plane planed for this year (2018)?
EK is using a higher trust variant of the RR Trent900 for their 52 A380s..

Did I read that right? Qantas have rollers.

Unflug · Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:38 am

douwd20 wrote:
Aither wrote:
That's Boeing propaganda.

Let me know when Airbus's forecast of 1200 VLA market materializes and I will eat my words. The sales figures for the 787 and A350 proves the point. The hub busters have already won.

Airbus projected a global market of 1200 VLA over 20 years, with VLA defined as aircraft seating more than 400. They never excpected the A380 to have 100% market share in that segment.

scbriml · Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:47 am

douwd20 wrote:
The sales figures for the 787 and A350 proves the point. The hub busters have already won.

No, the sales figures show airlines are quite happy with smaller. more efficient planes.

How many A350s or 787s are flying non-hub to non-hub routes? No hubs have been "busted" and as pointed out up-thread, hub traffic is growing faster than non-hub traffic.

Geoff1947 · Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:54 am

douwd20 wrote:
Aither wrote:
That's Boeing propaganda.

Let me know when Airbus's forecast of 1200 VLA market materializes and I will eat my words. The sales figures for the 787 and A350 proves the point. The hub busters have already won.

Most A350s and 787s fly from hubs !

Geoff

toxtethogrady · Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:41 pm

And now IAG is nosing around the A380 for additional orders. New or used?
http://awin.aviationweek.com/ArticlesSt ... fault.aspx

Tedd · Tue Jan 23, 2018 1:21 pm

Arion640 wrote:
[threeid][/threeid]
CFRPwingALbody wrote:
AFAIK there is only one Qantas A380 with EA engines left on order. Wasn't the delivery of that plane planed for this year (2018)?
EK is using a higher trust variant of the RR Trent900 for their 52 A380s..

Did I read that right? Qantas have rollers.

You bet, they went with Trent 972`s highest thrust version available for the A380. Checkout this superb
vid from YMML Spotting Team from Melbourne Australia. Quality of the filming is outstanding.

https://youtu.be/JHVDsca-c5I

Tedd · Tue Jan 23, 2018 1:43 pm

neutronstar73 wrote:
Smart for Emirates to go back to EA away from the RR engine. EA's engine has been and, apparently according to RR, will always be better, since RR is not going to develop the Trent 900 any further. So it looks like RR will stay behind the GE/PW power for the foreseeable future.

/not that I'm surprised that the EA engine is better....has been for a while now.

Quite the bold statement. As with all, you are entitled to your opinion, but such opinions should be informed &
probably backed up with accounts from people with experience of the engines.

EK aren`t going back to EA, but they may be in the running for an order, that's all. You say "the EA engine is better
.....has been for a while now" of the two turbines the Trent is the one that's been improved most, & one of the
contributing factors in it`s choice to change from EA to RR.

Finally there`s been accusations from some members that EK aren`t happy with their RR`s, I have to believe this
to be nonsense since EK haven`t complained, & to back this up, I`ve seen these birds being worked hard since
introduction via FlightRadar. Both these turbines are excellent & pretty evenly matched.

Tedd · Tue Jan 23, 2018 1:59 pm

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
Tedd wrote:
CFRPwingALbody wrote:
AFAIK there is only one Qantas A380 with EA engines left on order. Wasn't the delivery of that plane planed for this year (2018)?
EK is using a higher trust variant of the RR Trent900 for their 52 A380s..

You are correct that EK went with the higher powered Trent 900, the only other A380 operator that used that
enhanced version was in fact Qantas, they never chose EA for their A380`s.

Not Qantas but Qatar, still has one (their 10th) A380 with EA engines on order.
Thanks for correcting me.

RR Trent972B had a failure in 2010. The EA7200 had a failure last year.
Is it already clear what caused the Air France engine three fan to break off the engine?

Unless I`ve missed it, there`s been no word on the cause of the break-up of the engine. Perhaps it`s still a
little early to expect a report. There was lots of speculation on these pages due to the excellent pics of
the front of the turbine, & a lot thought the main fan housing shaft could be the culprit. I was of the opinion
that it would most likely be a fan blade shearing, & that it led to a catastrophic imbalance which led to the
break-up, but nobody agreed with me on that thought, so I`m particularly interested to know!

Revelation · Tue Jan 23, 2018 2:13 pm

In isolation, it doesn't make sense for EA to PIP the engine just to win 36 orders. They have all the evidence they need to show that investing in the engine does not guarantee future business, since RR would be getting the board to the face after investing in a PIP. It'd make more sense if it was in conjunction with winning the 787-10 business. If GE + EA wins that business, they'd have pushed RR out of one of the largest accounts in the world.

Revelation · Tue Jan 23, 2018 2:31 pm

Tedd wrote:
I`m very surprised by this. During the last competition between these two engines wasn`t it the case that EA weren`t willing
to improve the GP7200, but that RR were willing to PIP the Trent 900, & one of the reasons Trent won out? Of course we
don`t know what difference in SFC between the two, but Emirates will have a handle on it by now, & since operating these
four-holers is all about fuel economy, I find it odd they`d consider the less fuel efficient ( if it really is ) engine over the supposedly
more improved one. Perhaps the Trent isn`t coming up to expectations? My thoughts are that it is though, & that Emirates might be
leveraging a more favourable price from RR. If that isn`t the game, then may the best engine win, since both engines are
excellent turbines.

Some data points:

In April 2014 EA discusses upcoming PIPs: https://leehamnews.com/2015/06/17/engin ... tes-wants/

In April 2015 when winning the business for the 50 ship order, RR with PIPs was said to be 4% more efficient: https://leehamnews.com/2015/04/16/rolls ... 380-order/

In November 2015, EA discusses PIPs that have yielded ~1.4% and future PIPs that could yield similar results yet were difficult to justify business wise: http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... 00-upgrade

From the last link:

However, the business case for the upgrade—to apply to both new and retrofit engines—has become less certain following an April decision by Emirates to switch to the competing Rolls-Royce Trent 900 for its next batch of 50 aircraft. Given the current firm backlog and present A380-production rate, Engine Alliance President Dean Athans has said the manufacturing line remains busy through 2016. But beyond that, without substantial new orders, the future looks increasingly uncertain. “You have to face reality,” he said. “Unless things pick up, things start to wind down in the second half of 2017.”

The potential upgrade package could include further improvements to the high-pressure turbine section and would further improve fuel burn. GP7200 fuel performance has improved by around 1.4% since the start of the program. “If we threw everything else in, we’d get a similar number as a best case,” Athans said, adding the JV would “probably pick two-thirds” of the optional turbine improvements for the package.

One could conclude that perhaps EA has reduced that 4% gap to 2.6% and has unfunded opportunities to reduce it to 1.2%, but of course we are just using press release info.

Tedd · Tue Jan 23, 2018 2:56 pm

Appreciate those data points Revelation, thanks mate.

flee · Tue Jan 23, 2018 3:13 pm

Revelation wrote:
In isolation, it doesn't make sense for EA to PIP the engine just to win 36 orders. They have all the evidence they need to show that investing in the engine does not guarantee future business, since RR would be getting the board to the face after investing in a PIP. It'd make more sense if it was in conjunction with winning the 787-10 business. If GE + EA wins that business, they'd have pushed RR out of one of the largest accounts in the world.

Don't forget that the PIPs will also work on existing engines - so there might be some additional MRO revenue to help cover the costs of the PIP.

mjoelnir · Tue Jan 23, 2018 3:21 pm

Revelation wrote:
In isolation, it doesn't make sense for EA to PIP the engine just to win 36 orders. They have all the evidence they need to show that investing in the engine does not guarantee future business, since RR would be getting the board to the face after investing in a PIP. It'd make more sense if it was in conjunction with winning the 787-10 business. If GE + EA wins that business, they'd have pushed RR out of one of the largest accounts in the world.

144 orders plus spares, they already missed 200 orders plus spares with Emirates moving over to RR the last time.

emiratesdriver · Tue Jan 23, 2018 3:42 pm

Finally there`s been accusations from some members that EK aren`t happy with their RR`s, I have to believe this
to be nonsense since EK haven`t complained, & to back this up, I`ve seen these birds being worked hard since
introduction via FlightRadar. Both these turbines are excellent & pretty evenly matched.

All factual, the RR Trent family of engines is disliked within EK engineering circles and has been for a long time, EPR probe issues, false stall indications as well as significantly higher than planned fuel burn are just some of its current in service issues at EK.
Just as I said previously that the 380 order was still in the works, don’t be at all surprised if the RR engine order is reduced or cancelled.

JerseyFlyer · Tue Jan 23, 2018 4:16 pm

If RR has not held to the price of the previous 50x order for this new 20+16 order, they would / should have expected EK to compete it.

But EK will only go back to EA if they offer a better technical / financial deal. The undecided 7810 deal may be part of the overall negotiation. This complicates matters more for EA than for RR, due to the PW involvement - PW will not want to lose money on the A380 application alone, whereas GE and RR may be prepared to in order to secure the 7810 deal.

Revelation · Tue Jan 23, 2018 4:59 pm

JerseyFlyer wrote:
If RR has not held to the price of the previous 50x order for this new 20+16 order, they would / should have expected EK to compete it.

It's pretty clear that RR's fiscal imperatives have changed a lot since April 2015. There's a new CEO, there's been a lot of cost shedding and reorganization going on since, and now we see their commercial leader Schulz is moving to Airbus. I think it's a fair conclusion to reach that indeed RR wasn't willing to match the earlier pricing and thus is willing to accept the potential re-entry of EA to the market. Of course, EA's re-entry comes with its own complications so RR might yet win the day by standing pat.

But EK will only go back to EA if they offer a better technical / financial deal. The undecided 7810 deal may be part of the overall negotiation. This complicates matters more for EA than for RR, due to the PW involvement - PW will not want to lose money on the A380 application alone, whereas GE and RR may be prepared to in order to secure the 7810 deal.

I think EK wants RR to be a strong competitor, but I think RR is more interested in cashing in on the huge backlog of A350 engines and strengthening their balance sheet rather than fighting for market share on 787 and A380.

PW100 · Tue Jan 23, 2018 5:17 pm

douwd20 wrote:
Let me know when Airbus's forecast of 1200 VLA market materializes and I will eat my words. The sales figures for the 787 and A350 proves the point. [b]The hub busters have already won.[b]

That statement could not possibly be any further from reality, as over 90% of all 787 and A350 operate from a hub. In fact, these twins have increased hub strength significantly.

You may be more succesfull in claiming that the growth has somewhat bypassed the traditional international "superhubs" (ATL, JFK, ORD, LAX, LHR, CDG etc), and that the super efficient twins have enabled a lot of smaller hubs (CLT, SFO, EWR, BRU, MUC, ZRH, WAW), but even that statement is by no means black and white.

douwd20 · Tue Jan 23, 2018 6:13 pm

PW100 wrote:
That statement could not possibly be any further from reality, as over 90% of all 787 and A350 operate from a hub. In fact, these twins have increased hub strength significantly.

You may be more succesfull in claiming that the growth has somewhat bypassed the traditional international "superhubs" (ATL, JFK, ORD, LAX, LHR, CDG etc), and that the super efficient twins have enabled a lot of smaller hubs (CLT, SFO, EWR, BRU, MUC, ZRH, WAW), but even that statement is by no means black and white.

It's not a question of my success but the A380s lack of success mate. Had there been no Emirates and it's unique place geographically the A380 would already be in the cemetery.

Airlines don't like 4 engine aircraft nor 3 engines aircraft. They don't even like 2 engines except passengers don't like dying much.

As far as China being Airbus's last hope I suspect when that time arrives China will most likely build its own modern whale.

Jayafe · Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:19 pm

douwd20 wrote:
It's not a question of my success but the A380s lack of success mate.

That is an opinion, not a fact. And an opinion (properly shown as wrong in a massive amount of discussions) that you keep posting in any A380 thread. Seriously, no matter how many times you repeat it the bird is still in production and being ordered. Its death has been announced +5 times in the last 5 years, and here it is still.

douwd20 wrote:
Had there been no Emirates and it's unique place geographically the A380 would already be in the cemetery.

Had there been no Wright brothers, there would be no planes!!
Had there been no Airbus, Boeing would be the king!!
Had there been no Boeing, Airbus would be the king!!

Now, let's move from kindergarten and get back to the real world.

anfromme · Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:25 pm

douwd20 wrote:
PW100 wrote:
That statement could not possibly be any further from reality, as over 90% of all 787 and A350 operate from a hub. In fact, these twins have increased hub strength significantly.

You may be more succesfull in claiming that the growth has somewhat bypassed the traditional international "superhubs" (ATL, JFK, ORD, LAX, LHR, CDG etc), and that the super efficient twins have enabled a lot of smaller hubs (CLT, SFO, EWR, BRU, MUC, ZRH, WAW), but even that statement is by no means black and white.

It's not a question of my success but the A380s lack of success mate. Had there been no Emirates and it's unique place geographically the A380 would already be in the cemetery.

It's actually a question of definition - you're calling the A350 and 787 "hub-busters", which PW100 responds to by basically proving the notion wrong that the A350 and 787 are anything even remotely resembling hub-busters. They're not.
If one follows your arguments, one gets the impression that what you actually mean is that the A350 and 787 are A380-busters. That argument definitely has a bit more merit than the tired old (Boeing-inspired) argument that the A380 didn't sell because hub & spoke is dead. Hube & spoke is not dead, far from it. Nothing whatsoever has changed if I want to fly PAD-NYC, ORK-AUS or even (as we did last year) HAM-MIA. In each case, I still connect via a hub (MUC, LHR and FRA, respectively - all very traditional hubs, and more hub-hops are easily achievable on each of the routes). That said, nobody ever expected the A380 to sell better than the 787 and A350.
The reason for the A380's lacklustre sales isn't the (non-existent) death ob hub/spoke, but the fact that large twins became so good and large that few airlines could justify the extra investment required. Add to that a somewhat risk-averse environment that the A380 was launched into.

douwd20 wrote:
Airlines don't like 4 engine aircraft nor 3 engines aircraft. They don't even like 2 engines except passengers don't like dying much.

That's another one of those things... The number of engines is not why the A380 didn't sell that well so far.
Björn from Leeham did an analysis a couple of years back basically finding that there's not much actual merit to the whole twin vs quad debate on principle - i.e. it really depends on what airplane you're comparing to what airplane, with the number of engines not really being a deciding factor regarding the overall efficiency of the plane. By his analysis, maintenance for teh A380's four engines is actually lower than for the two on a 777-300ER.
https://leehamnews.com/2015/12/11/bjorn ... -or-quads/
Point being - it's nothing to do with hub & spoke, it's nothing to do with 2 vs 4 engines, it's to do with very efficient airplanes being available that are still big, but a good bit cheaper to acquire than an A380.
I know, that's not as good/catchy a story as "hub and spoke is dead" or "it's goit two engines too many" are, but hey, what can you do.

Bricktop · Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:38 pm

PW100 wrote:
douwd20 wrote:
Let me know when Airbus's forecast of 1200 VLA market materializes and I will eat my words. The sales figures for the 787 and A350 proves the point. [b]The hub busters have already won.[b]

That statement could not possibly be any further from reality, as over 90% of all 787 and A350 operate from a hub. In fact, these twins have increased hub strength significantly.

You may be more succesfull in claiming that the growth has somewhat bypassed the traditional international "superhubs" (ATL, JFK, ORD, LAX, LHR, CDG etc), and that the super efficient twins have enabled a lot of smaller hubs (CLT, SFO, EWR, BRU, MUC, ZRH, WAW), but even that statement is by no means black and white.

I'd go as far to say that a hub is on one end of every single A350 or B787 trip. The owning airline's home hub. For example, where do VN and ET fly from? There's very likely someone else's hub on the other end. The whole point to point hub bypass is a stupid argument perpetuated by fanboys on one side or the other. Let's take BA: Fly a 787 from LHR to BNA. AHA, says one side, LHR is a hub!!! (notwithstanding where else do BA fly 787's from if not LHR). The other says, AHA, it's no because now the pax don't have to change at JFK or ORD!. Fun times!

Planesmart · Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:43 pm

EK have encountered two sellers who want to extract commercial terms. No collusion. Just a perfect storm.

Unlikely EA will be revived to build 80 engines, with a possibility of a few more, unless GE take out the other partners. PW and RR are increasingly providing each other with manufacturing and technical assistance, so at the very least, GE would have to take out PW from EA. Ditto for MTU.

And then they have to negotiate a unit price and maintenance terms agreeable to all.

In terms of engines, for EK, the hot/high performance of the RR offering must (should) equate to lower PBTH charges.

PBTH fees are modelled on customer usage profiles, with a fixed and variable component. The variable component relates predominantly to thrust and duration. Theoretical numbers, but there is a crossover point, where selecting a higher powered engine could be cheaper than the lowered powered version.

For example, all things being equal (duration), variable PBTH fees will be higher if 100% use of 78K thrust is used, versus 97.5% on an 80K model.

This has to be qualified, because sometimes, the only difference between lower and higher powered variants, is the software and different PBTH fees and guarantees (for example, performance erosion may be quicker on the higher powered variant), with no differences to actual components.

So with higher-powered versions, RR should have the edge, unless real use experience at EK is resulting in lower than planned PBTH profitability.

GE and RR are reflecting the more hard-nosed commercial stance already adopted by Boeing and Airbus, which is seeing previously zero or waived penalties (deferrals, model hopping, etc), being enforced for even the largest customers.

Planesmart · Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:58 pm

emiratesdriver wrote:
Finally there`s been accusations from some members that EK aren`t happy with their RR`s, I have to believe this
to be nonsense since EK haven`t complained, & to back this up, I`ve seen these birds being worked hard since
introduction via FlightRadar. Both these turbines are excellent & pretty evenly matched.

All factual, the RR Trent family of engines is disliked within EK engineering circles and has been for a long time, EPR probe issues, false stall indications as well as significantly higher than planned fuel burn are just some of its current in service issues at EK.
Just as I said previously that the 380 order was still in the works, don’t be at all surprised if the RR engine order is reduced or cancelled.

EK are skilled negotiators. I'm sure every 't' was crossed and 'i' was dotted, including price, performance and penalties.

Not sure why the technical issues you describe are an issue for EK engineering. Based on your earlier posts, EK have spare aircraft all over the show due to weak demand and lack of crews. Prolific, repeat issues such as you describe, trigger PBTH credits, which escalate over time.

Ditto for higher than planned fuel burn. How is EK engineering involved? The RR engine contract includes performance guarantees, including an erosion rate. If these have been breached, EK is compensated. Uplift more fuel - uplift more compensation.

If all true, increases the liklihood RR will deliver a PiP.

Revelation · Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:04 pm

Planesmart wrote:
So with higher-powered versions, RR should have the edge, unless real use experience at EK is resulting in lower than planned PBTH profitability.

Yes, presuming predicted performance and endurance matches actual. It'd be interesting to have access to the data telling us what the trend lines look like for EA and RR.

Planesmart · Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:04 pm

flee wrote:
Revelation wrote:
In isolation, it doesn't make sense for EA to PIP the engine just to win 36 orders. They have all the evidence they need to show that investing in the engine does not guarantee future business, since RR would be getting the board to the face after investing in a PIP. It'd make more sense if it was in conjunction with winning the 787-10 business. If GE + EA wins that business, they'd have pushed RR out of one of the largest accounts in the world.

Don't forget that the PIPs will also work on existing engines - so there might be some additional MRO revenue to help cover the costs of the PIP.

EmiratesDriver claims issues with RR engines, which if true in scale and magnitude, could well see a PiP.

Taking a PiP is usually mandatory on PBTH contracts, which in turn triggers an increase in fees.

speedbored · Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:17 pm

douwd20 wrote:
Had there been no Emirates and it's unique place geographically the A380 would already be in the cemetery.

If EK had never existed, what aircraft would the rest of the world's airlines be using to carry the 60million extra passengers that EK would no longer be transporting?

mariner · Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:24 pm

douwd20 wrote:
Had there been no Emirates and it's unique place geographically the A380 would already be in the cemetery.

Posters keep saying this - or variations of this - in every A380 thread, as if it were something original and as if those of us who support the 380 are stupid and can't do arithmetic.

The factual point is that there was/is Emirates.

mariner

KarelXWB · Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:40 pm

Planesmart wrote:
Not sure why the technical issues you describe are an issue for EK engineering. Based on your earlier posts, EK have spare aircraft all over the show due to weak demand and lack of crews. Prolific, repeat issues such as you describe, trigger PBTH credits, which escalate over time.

Besides, RR TotalCare takes care of the T900 maintenance.

kitplane01 · Wed Jan 24, 2018 12:01 am

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.

Suppose everything you wrote is true. Then why hasn't it happened already? If what you wrote is true, then one would expect to ALREADY see an A380neo.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net