DocLightning wrote:

222 A380s have been delivered with a backlog of 108 as of 31 March. As of 30 June 708 787s have been delivered and 1377 total have been ordered. 326 77X have been ordered, so it is already close to topping the A380 before first flight.

Boeing's prediction was pretty low, but Airbus's was way too optimistic. The A380 program will probably not make an overall program profit. A 777-9 that can carry 80+% of the A380's payload on 50% of the A380's engines is going to present a major problem for the A380 program.

Plus Boeing is hinting at a 777-10X stretch that would be just under the current 80 meter limit and could be a 1 for 1 replacement for the 747-8i but with half the engines. Airbus made a huge mistake by optimizing for an A380-900 stretched version that likely won't happen, but if it does happen will be about 2 decades after the launch of commercial service rather than 2 or 3 years after the first commercial flights.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Plus Boeing is hinting at a 777-10X stretch that would be just under the current 80 meter limit and could be a 1 for 1 replacement for the 747-8i but with half the engines.

Something they should have done from Day One, but at least they engineered in the possibility of stretching it to 80m.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Airbus made a huge mistake by optimizing for an A380-900 stretched version that likely won't happen, but if it does happen will be about 2 decades after the launch of commercial service rather than 2 or 3 years after the first commercial flights.

I don't believe it was a mistake. Most commercial airframes had stretches, the 747 being the outlier until the 747-8. Airbus' basis for launching the A380 was that existing hubs would not expand and new airports would not be built, so the A380-800 itself would have eventually become too small and a larger A380-900 would be required. But hubs did expand and new airports were built.

I don’t think optimizing the A380 for a stretch was the A388’s big issue. It was optimizing it so the stretch would easily still have fantastic payload-range versus merely “good” payload-range that was the issue. The A388 is super gimped versus it’s actual possible potential, because nobody really needs it’s actual theoretical potential. That plays out in its weight.

Revelation wrote:

Strato2 wrote:

Boeing should be more concerned with the Hunchback that had it last passenger unit delivered a year ago and has a backlog of 0 than the A380 with over 100 aircraft left to deliver. Maybe Boeing will keep re-announcing every LOI, MOU, commitment, firm with cargo customers two times like they did with Volga years apart.

Oh well, at least Boeing got the consolation price, a $3.9B contract from the DoD for two presidential aircraft.

As one famous president once said, "Mission Accomplished!".

Actually he never said that and the speech he gave from the carrier deck was focused on the difficult road ahead and not what had already been accomplished.

Going to the past instead of the future...would have been interesting to see how the A380 with its ize would have done had it started before the 90s oil crisis as the 747 did.Remember, everyone (large enough) and their parent, uncles and aunts wanted the 747 and they kept buying it indeed during and after the crisis...

Pan Am, Delta, American, United, Northwest, TWA, Eastern (yes, leased I know) British, Air Canada, Avianca, Aerolineas Argentinas, Cathay Pacific, CAAC, KLM, Viasa (leased also) Iberia, South African, Wardair, Braniff, Cargolux, Lan Chile, Lufthansa, Luxair, Aer Lingus, Nigeria Airways, Iran Air, Iraqi Airways, Qantas, Thai Airways., ANA, Korean Air, Air Madagascar..everybody wanted it, these and many more got it! Maybe some of these could have gone A380 instead...

bob75013 wrote:

Boeing's: A Total of 60 A380/747 sized aircraft will be sold over the next 20 years, AND Airbus will not fill all 380 orders currently on the books:

http://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-e ... jet-2018-7

Airbus's:best years for A380 are yet to come

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44867749

Who is right? Time will tell

Boeing is right. All Airbus is doing is trying to sound confident to keep the brand alive so that they can recoup their costs. The A-380 was and is a dud. Time has already told. One thing that should be noticed is many A-380 operators going for twins instead of more A-380's.

FlightLevel360 wrote:

I think Airbus is correct. As much as I respect Boeing what they said simply does not make sense. Once there is a demand spike in air travel it will make sense.

The A-380 missed. Once their is a travel spike, (Which implies a decline as well) plan on it being filled by larger twins with very extended range. Airbus has yet to be right on the A-380. The real issue is how long before Airbus throws in the towel?

Strato2 wrote:

Boeing should be more concerned with the Hunchback that had it last passenger unit delivered a year ago and has a backlog of 0 than the A380 with over 100 aircraft left to deliver. Maybe Boeing will keep re-announcing every LOI, MOU, commitment, firm with cargo customers two times like they did with Volga years apart.

Doubtful all of those orders will occur. The 747 is nearly done except for freighters. The 747 had its day, something the A-380 never will. Time and technology has passed it by.

dredgy wrote:

I see VLAs being important again only in one situation - where the world agrees to a carbon tax which makes multiple frequencies of smaller planes too expensive to operate. If charged on a carbon emissions per passenger/seat basis, then an A380, especially reengineed, probably will make a lot more economic sense.

No country, in the end, will be stupid enough to carbon tax its economy to death. Spain tried to go green and fell on its butt. Twins are far more efficient and thus burn less fuel.

My only suggestion to Airbus....if they can the 380....would be to check with Boeing...:re the 757...before they ditch the tooling.

ltbewr wrote:

What could deeply affect the VLA markets, including the A380 or even the largest A350 and B777's will be the eventual rise in oil prices to well over $100/bbl as supplies dwindle and major economic crashes deeply cutting demand and affordability on many routes.

Supplies will n be dwindling anytime soon. We have discovered massive reserves. Oil shale in Colorado and Utah are over 700 billion barrels.

I think the other issue is the VLAs are not necessarily more efficient at some legacy airports.

Works great at DXB where it's only 380s and 777s and the airport is designed around it.

But at JFK it can only use a limited number of taxiways and requires a large gap with smaller aircraft due to wake turbulence, I suspect two 787s would be just as good.

MIflyer12 wrote:

One can go back more than 15 years ago, when Airbus was arguing the future was VLAs to congested airports, and Boeing was arguing the intercontinental future was fragmentation. Boy, did Airbus blow that forecast. Boeing has already won this fight.

You're somewhat right but not entirely.

The two forecasts that were made BOTH projected substantial growth in point-to-point traffic, but the Airbus forecast argued that certain very popular airports with slot constraints (LHR, HKG, HND for example) would still need VLAs due to the fact that these places are the places everyone wants to go. As a result, Airbus projected a parallel niche for VLAs serving airports with both slot constraints and serving substantial O&D markets.

Airbus WAS wrong, but for a reason no one really predicted: the A380 (alongside the 10-abreast 777-300ER) (alongside other favorable factors like fortunate geography and very airline-friendly policy environments) allowed Emirates to achieve absurd economies of scale and a very broad network. The A380's biggest success was to create a superconnector airport, not to run flights between high-O&D-traffic hubs.

Boeing was certainly closer to the truth. And in the long run, we will see more point to point travel in smaller planes. But there will always be a market for the lower-yield traffic willing to connect to save a buck. I think in the future we will probably see a two-tier airline situation, with premium airlines operating more on point-to-point and lower yield hub-and-spoke-centric carriers. VLAs will be concentrated at the latter.

The truth is always somewhere in the middle. I don't think it's as bleak as Boeing suggests and I don't think it will be as successful as Airbus thinks it will.

If Airbus decides to make improvements or develop the freighter version then I think the A380 has a chance. If not, then they will only sell another 50-75 frames beyond the EK order

Eyad89 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

The 779 will make more profit per flight.
Lightsaber

779 will make more profit per seat, not per flight. A380 could still make considerably more profit per flight than 779 could.

If we assume 779 has a 13% CASM advantage over A380, A380 only needs to sell 50 more seats per flight to cover for the CASM difference. Anything more than extra 50 seats sold will push profitability towards the A380 side.
Going by a 2-class configuration for both (414 vs 600+), There's a big margin for A380 to make more profit per flight, provided those 50+ seats are filled of course.

I know, EK is probably the only airline that could get this extra profit consistently, but that's what the numbers show in theory

I cannot image how you computed this. And I don't believe it.

32andBelow wrote:

Well Boeing caters to the US market that has copeous amounts of airports and routes. Whole Europe puts slots on everything so it make sense airbus caters to that.

Anybody consider the Tarrif Discussions that are presently ongoing? If the Donald has his way, I think a whole new set of circumstances will develop that may have much deeper influence on this subject than our usual A vs B discussions on this forum...……..

Stitch wrote:

I don't believe it was a mistake. Most commercial airframes had stretches, the 747 being the outlier until the 747-8. Airbus' basis for launching the A380 was that existing hubs would not expand and new airports would not be built, so the A380-800 itself would have eventually become too small and a larger A380-900 would be required. But hubs did expand and new airports were built.

It would have been one thing if the base model had been about the size of a 747-800 with better economics than any potential 747 stretch and but with range to handle very long haul routes with no ETOPS restrictions. The stretch could have been to the about the size of the A380-800 but with much better economics than the one that was built.

The A380 as designed has an efficient stretch that would be longer than 80 meters. The problem is very few airlines need that much capacity. I remember reading Airbus claims that the A380-900 would have the capacity to replace 747-400's on routes that airlines then had 2 747-400's flying within an hour of each other like LHR-HKG. How many city pairs have enough demand with just the right distance and time zone differences to justify building a plane that can carry 600-900 passengers?

cougar15 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

Well Boeing caters to the US market that has copeous amounts of airports and routes. Whole Europe puts slots on everything so it make sense airbus caters to that.

Anybody consider the Tarrif Discussions that are presently ongoing? If the Donald has his way, I think a whole new set of circumstances will develop that may have much deeper influence on this subject than our usual A vs B discussions on this forum...……..

Tariffs usually temper demand causing less need for VLAs.

Yes, airports are getting more crowded, and slots will have to be used more efficiently. But, among widebody missions, we are seeing the results in the form of upgauges in much smaller categories. 767-300s are getting replaced by A330-300s/900s and 787-9s. A340-300s are getting replaced by A350-900s. And so on. It will be several generations of aircraft before anything as big as the A380 is needed outside of the very most slot-restricted markets--mostly, those where the A380 is flying successfully today.

The airlines have made clear through their orders that the widebody aircraft category of the moment is the 787-9/A350-900 category. That likely means the next jump will be to aircraft the size of the 787-10 and A350-1000. Even the 777-9 is a bit big for this moment, let alone the A380.

The same old topic all over again.

This is more like a religious debate than anything else. It's all about faith.

DocLightning wrote:

222 A380s have been delivered with a backlog of 108 as of 31 March. As of 30 June 708 787s have been delivered and 1377 total have been ordered. 326 77X have been ordered, so it is already close to topping the A380 before first flight.

Boeing's prediction was pretty low, but Airbus's was way too optimistic. The A380 program will probably not make an overall program profit. A 777-9 that can carry 80+% of the A380's payload on 50% of the A380's engines is going to present a major problem for the A380 program.

I guess I am not the only one that saw the folding wing tips of the new 777 as the straw that breaks the camels back? And yes, I know its ironic that I refer to the 380 as an animal with a hump...

LightningZ71 wrote:

As has been exhaustively discussed, the growing capabilities of the Heavy twins and the long range narrow bodies has enabled more point to point flying to economically be done. Those point to point routes are able to reduce the load on hub cities with respect to connecting flights. Something else that I would argue is not very well understood is the improvement in the ability of technology to aid in route planning. Over the years, route and fleet utilization planning tools have matured, enabling airlines to more efficiently use their existing smaller aircraft to route traffic through their network. This improved routing has enabled them to grow despite having hubs that can be quite congested. Those tools also improve their capability to determine in a short period of time how traffic flows of passengers are changing on a day to day and week to week basis. Having more, smaller but highly efficient frames available to fill out their route network has reduced their need for the largest of frames in all but the most congested or specific of cases.

Another thing to keep in mind, the travelers that pay the most tend to value convenience over value. They would rather have an airline that has more frequent flights with smaller craft to give them flexibility on when they schedule their travel. Recreational/Leisure travelers are more willing to wait for a cheap fare and willing to pile like sardines in the back of a VLA that only leaves a couple of times a day.

For me, this pretty much sums up the situation. Even the smaller capacity 748 has been pretty much killed off by these factors, not the least of which is the large twin situation.

bigjku wrote:

Stitch wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

Boeing's: A Total of 60 A380/747 sized aircraft will be sold over the next 20 years, AND Airbus will not fill all 380 orders currently on the books.

There are a number of outstanding A380 orders that are not expected to ever be fulfilled.

FlightLevel360 wrote:

I think Airbus is correct. As much as I respect Boeing what they said simply does not make sense. Once there is a demand spike in air travel it will make sense.

Air Traffic has been growing between 5 and 8% a year the past two decades, but that growth has been predominately absorbed by frames smaller than VLAs (predominately single-aisle). The A321's success is coming in part at the expense of the A380.

There are very few airports where the solution to capacity and number of movements is going to be found at the top end of the spectrum. The vast majority are crowded more by the number of narrowbody flights rather than widebody ones.

I've been reading this cheap line over and over on airliners.net. Narrowbodies are the culprits etc... That is plain boeing NMA propaganda.
Like with the Dreamliner where Boeing sold the B787 as a point to point aircraft instead of a B767 replacement that it really was, Boeing is now trying to sell a NMA for more than it is, ie a B757 replacement.

In busy airports, you need both narrowbodies and widebodies to fulfill their own roles.
But replacing all those narrowbodies by heavy wake turbulence category aircraft is not a solution, quite to the contrary it will enhance the problem because the separation minima will increase both for landing and take-off.

The A380 brings a solution to both airport and airspace congestion, but we're not at a critical point yet. Wait until the Chinese travel boom explodes, followed by India later on.

China is still in a growing phase, but they'll be the next Emirates, times 20. There is no doubt about it.

And then, the A380 will no longer become a matter of luxury, but one of shear necessity.

By the end of this century, the world population will double while disposable incomes will rise at the same time.

Boeing is still building variants of the soon to be 50 year old B747 and already 50 year old B737.
So yeah, it's pretty predictable that variants of the A380 should start to fill the skies starting from the 2030's regardless of evolutions in areas like the powerplants.
If anything, the A380 will be one of the first to benefit of the next big evolution in powerplants, simply because of its ability to offer more redundancy.
The current A380 engines are pretty efficient but by 2030, there should be another 20-30% reduction in fuel burn for powerplants and I'm not sure that Boeing and Airbus would be willing to invest in another wave of NEO programs for the B787, A330 and A350 that soon.

Waterbomber wrote:

I've been reading this cheap line over and over on airliners.net. Narrowbodies are the culprits etc... That is plain boeing NMA propaganda.
Like with the Dreamliner where Boeing sold the B787 as a point to point aircraft instead of a B767 replacement that it really was, Boeing is now trying to sell a NMA for more than it is, ie a B757 replacement.

And yet the 787 program has already achieved 30% more orders than the whole 767 program in a third of the time, and delivered nearly 2/3 the total 767 production, while the majority of the 767 fleet remains active. Almost like the 787 expanded the universe of roles available to smaller widebody aircraft.

Similarly, I have a feeling Boeing would be pretty disappointed if it could only sell 1,050 NMA.

The A380 brings a solution to both airport and airspace congestion, but we're not at a critical point yet. Wait until the Chinese travel boom explodes, followed by India later on.

You're advancing an explosive growth thesis, but the history of wealth-developing Asia has been one of slow and steady growth over decades. We've gone from (a) local narrowbodies and infrequent hub-based TPAC 747s to (b) local A300s and more frequent hub-based TPAC 777s to (c) local hub-to-hub A330s and P2P narrowbodies and TPAC hub-to-hub 777s and P2P 787s/A330s. The next logical step is something NMA-like for the local P2P flights, a few more A380 on major TPAC routes, and aircraft like A350-1000s for some of the P2P TPAC routes. China may need 50 more A380 but it's not going to need 500 A380 for a long time.

I'm not sure that Boeing and Airbus would be willing to invest in another wave of NEO programs for the B787, A330 and A350 that soon.

I think the A350-1000 will be right in the sweet spot of the market around then and will be the obvious candidate in Airbus's lineup for a new engine. Boeing is going to have a hell of a time competing with an A350-1000neo. A380-size aircraft won't be needed in that kind of volume for a very long time.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Plus Boeing is hinting at a 777-10X stretch that would be just under the current 80 meter limit and could be a 1 for 1 replacement for the 747-8i but with half the engines. Airbus made a huge mistake by optimizing for an A380-900 stretched version that likely won't happen, but if it does happen will be about 2 decades after the launch of commercial service rather than 2 or 3 years after the first commercial flights.

Has there been any hinting or news on this more recently than 2016?

Waterbomber wrote:

bigjku wrote:

Stitch wrote:

There are a number of outstanding A380 orders that are not expected to ever be fulfilled.




Air Traffic has been growing between 5 and 8% a year the past two decades, but that growth has been predominately absorbed by frames smaller than VLAs (predominately single-aisle). The A321's success is coming in part at the expense of the A380.

There are very few airports where the solution to capacity and number of movements is going to be found at the top end of the spectrum. The vast majority are crowded more by the number of narrowbody flights rather than widebody ones.

I've been reading this cheap line over and over on airliners.net. Narrowbodies are the culprits etc... That is plain boeing NMA propaganda.
Like with the Dreamliner where Boeing sold the B787 as a point to point aircraft instead of a B767 replacement that it really was, Boeing is now trying to sell a NMA for more than it is, ie a B757 replacement.

In busy airports, you need both narrowbodies and widebodies to fulfill their own roles.
But replacing all those narrowbodies by heavy wake turbulence category aircraft is not a solution, quite to the contrary it will enhance the problem because the separation minima will increase both for landing and take-off.

The A380 brings a solution to both airport and airspace congestion, but we're not at a critical point yet. Wait until the Chinese travel boom explodes, followed by India later on.

China is still in a growing phase, but they'll be the next Emirates, times 20. There is no doubt about it.

And then, the A380 will no longer become a matter of luxury, but one of shear necessity.

By the end of this century, the world population will double while disposable incomes will rise at the same time.

Boeing is still building variants of the soon to be 50 year old B747 and already 50 year old B737.
So yeah, it's pretty predictable that variants of the A380 should start to fill the skies starting from the 2030's regardless of evolutions in areas like the powerplants.
If anything, the A380 will be one of the first to benefit of the next big evolution in powerplants, simply because of its ability to offer more redundancy.
The current A380 engines are pretty efficient but by 2030, there should be another 20-30% reduction in fuel burn for powerplants and I'm not sure that Boeing and Airbus would be willing to invest in another wave of NEO programs for the B787, A330 and A350 that soon.

We always tend to think of 4 holers having 4 identical engines. Do they provide flexibility and other options, like a pair of 777X engines inboard, plus a pair of the current ones outboard. GE and RR on the same plane!

seabosdca wrote:

Waterbomber wrote:

I've been reading this cheap line over and over on airliners.net. Narrowbodies are the culprits etc... That is plain boeing NMA propaganda.
Like with the Dreamliner where Boeing sold the B787 as a point to point aircraft instead of a B767 replacement that it really was, Boeing is now trying to sell a NMA for more than it is, ie a B757 replacement.

And yet the 787 program has already achieved 30% more orders than the whole 767 program in a third of the time, and delivered nearly 2/3 the total 767 production, while the majority of the 767 fleet remains active. Almost like the 787 expanded the universe of roles available to smaller widebody aircraft.

Similarly, I have a feeling Boeing would be pretty disappointed if it could only sell 1,050 NMA.

The A380 brings a solution to both airport and airspace congestion, but we're not at a critical point yet. Wait until the Chinese travel boom explodes, followed by India later on.

You're advancing an explosive growth thesis, but the history of wealth-developing Asia has been one of slow and steady growth over decades. We've gone from (a) local narrowbodies and infrequent hub-based TPAC 747s to (b) local A300s and more frequent hub-based TPAC 777s to (c) local hub-to-hub A330s and P2P narrowbodies and TPAC hub-to-hub 777s and P2P 787s/A330s. The next logical step is something NMA-like for the local P2P flights, a few more A380 on major TPAC routes, and aircraft like A350-1000s for some of the P2P TPAC routes. China may need 50 more A380 but it's not going to need 500 A380 for a long time.

I'm not sure that Boeing and Airbus would be willing to invest in another wave of NEO programs for the B787, A330 and A350 that soon.

I think the A350-1000 will be right in the sweet spot of the market around then and will be the obvious candidate in Airbus's lineup for a new engine. Boeing is going to have a hell of a time competing with an A350-1000neo. A380-size aircraft won't be needed in that kind of volume for a very long time.

The B787 has come to replace the B767 in the Boeing line-up but also at airlines. The reason that you are seeing that a majority of B767's produced are still active is because the replacement cycle is in full swing. Also, the fact that the B767 freighters both built as such or converted ones are popular, does keep them active longer.
B787's are replacing B767's but also larger aircraft such as A330, A340, B777's, B747's.
But essentially, it is replacing the B767 in the line-up.

About wealth development in Asia, in China per capita disposable incomes have doubled in 10 years.

So back to the A380, I think that the current phase is great for the A380. Let everyone fly to everywhere using B787/A350. Eventually flights will be merged into bigger aircraft and that's when the A380's moment will come.

Is there a point at which the fuel price is such that the hub and spoke system regains efficiency over point to point and running quads between hubs (with smaller feeders from spokes) becomes more economic?

Polot wrote:

cougar15 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

Well Boeing caters to the US market that has copeous amounts of airports and routes. Whole Europe puts slots on everything so it make sense airbus caters to that.

Anybody consider the Tarrif Discussions that are presently ongoing? If the Donald has his way, I think a whole new set of circumstances will develop that may have much deeper influence on this subject than our usual A vs B discussions on this forum...……..

Tariffs usually temper demand causing less need for VLAs.

Yes, those from US manufracturers that affected countries would otherwise have ordered. As such these tarrifs could well stimulate European built plane sales to the likes of China! The EU and China are negotiating free trade agreements as we speak, the US is imposing 25% tarrifs and the Chinese will retaliate. I see this in Airbus´s favour.
And I think the so often discussed UFO orders in the airshow threads are a sign of things to come, if these US policies come into place. I doubt Boeing is to wrapped about what Donald is up too, Airbus is quietly laughing. Perhaps this political mess will turn into a Lifeline for the 380, perhaps not.

Waterbomber wrote:

Eventually flights will be merged into bigger aircraft and that's when the A380's moment will come.

I think it's more likely that we'll see increasingly larger twins fulfill the role you're forecasting for "bigger aircraft". In other words, the need for bigger planes will not imply the need for more A380s. Airlines will turn to newer and more efficient designs. The A380's moment has likely passed, if it ever came at all. -ir

My money goes on A380, and perhaps the A389, or whatever it will be called. Everybody hear see just the aircraft market, and the air industry. Big mistake!
Some 10 years ago, the traffic between MAD and BCN was dominated by the airplanes. As I remember, in 2007, the number of pax that had flown where around 4mil/year. As for 2017 they lost around 19% of pax. Where did they go!? High Speed Rail! I see this as the future meaning for transportation on the short distances, from 200 to 800km and maybe beyond. Keep in mind that Belgium, France and UK are linked by a HSR. As is Spain with France. In Germany, France, Italy, Spain are growing in fast pace. As they do in China. Will be much more easy to take a HSR Train in short to medium distances then a flight. The train, arrives and depart from the center of the towns. Meanwhile, the planes don't. On a short math, it takes the same time to reach Madrid from Barcelona by train, or by plane. But the is more convenient the train. No intermediary means of transport, or lesser to reach the final destination, less inconvenience (check in, be in the airport at least 1h before...and so one). The train can be more or less carbon neutral ( works with electricity, produced by windmills or hydropower) than a plane. And climate change, will be as the years go by, a real challenge.
As the flight, becomes more and more available for people, the demand will grow. Some 20-30 years ago not everybody could afford a trip in plane. Today, they can, at least in short to middle distances. The increment in TATL flights, in the TPAC flights is because you have demand. And this demand will continue to grow every year, as the income per capita in Asia and Africa grows.
It will be more cost efectiv to maintain 2-3-4 flights daily from point A to point B, or cut 2 flights, put an 380/389 and stuff it with pax!? Pay some few hundred euros/dollars extra for several hours or prefer waiting!!?? Some people will rather pay than wait, but the vast majority for sure will not.
When 747 first arrived, everybody said it was madness. Today is the Queen of the sky's. But.... to reach this status, needed a long time. The world had gone global, and this means liberty of movement. Bear in mind the history: DC-3/Dc-4, Comet, 707, DC-10, MD11, 747... big...bigger...biggest....
And not just in aviation.
Maybe I am wrong...maybe not

Anybody who travels understands the one common denominator, time is the most precious commodity.

How AB missed this, I’ll never understand.

Calling the 380 a whale was inaccurate. It is a dinosaur. A beautiful creature but bound for extinction before it ever flew.

Waterbomber wrote:

I've been reading this cheap line over and over on airliners.net. Narrowbodies are the culprits etc... That is plain boeing NMA propaganda.

Well, no, it's not NMA propaganda. Both Boeing and Airbus are planning to raise narrowbody production rates (not including the A220 here yet) to 60 frames or more per month. In fewer than two months, both Airbus and Boeing will deliver more A32X/737s each than the planned number of A380 deliveries over the next decade. Even with the 787 and A350 programs reaching unprecedented delivery rates for widebodies, the numbers are still dwarfed by the A32X and 737.

Waterbomber wrote:

Like with the Dreamliner where Boeing sold the B787 as a point to point aircraft instead of a B767 replacement that it really was, Boeing is now trying to sell a NMA for more than it is, ie a B757 replacement.

Do you honestly think the actual 787 customers, the airlines, paid even the slightest attention to the idea of the 787 as a "point-to-point aircraft?" No, they looked at the capabilities Boeing promised and ordered based on how they believed the 787 would fit into their fleets and route networks, period. OK, maybe Norwegian is deploying them point-to-point, but they're the exception.

The 787 has been far more than a 767 replacement as well. The 767 isn't capable of routes like BOS-NRT, SIN-SFO, or PER-LHR. The NMA will indeed serve as a 757 replacement, but large 767 operators are showing great interest in the NMA because it will be a much more direct replacement for the 767 in terms of seats and range than the 787 has been.

Waterbomber wrote:

China is still in a growing phase, but they'll be the next Emirates, times 20. There is no doubt about it.

The world's largest domestic market has zero A380s and a very limited number of domestic widebody flights. Given that the Chinese government has almost no barriers to building entirely new airports (and these are often viewed positively as economic development engines) I am not convinced that the internal Chinese market will need A380s. Moreover, the Chinese government has invested heavily in high-speed rail and that will siphon demand away from air travel.

StudiodeKadent wrote:

Airbus WAS wrong, but for a reason no one really predicted: the A380 (alongside the 10-abreast 777-300ER) (alongside other favorable factors like fortunate geography and very airline-friendly policy environments) allowed Emirates to achieve absurd economies of scale and a very broad network. The A380's biggest success was to create a superconnector airport, not to run flights between high-O&D-traffic hubs.

Absent EK's use of the A380 and 777 to create its superconnector hub, I doubt other carriers would have ordered in aggregate as many A380s as EK has. Sure, LH/AF/BA/QF might have picked up a dozen more each, but I also suspect a large portion of the traffic now carried by EK would have been carried on widebody twins in city pairs like AMS-BLR, FRA-ISB, LHR-CCU, etc. So while EK's development of the DXB hub suppressed A380 orders from other carriers, EK has still been a net benefit to the program.

From where I sit the future for the A380 revolves around high density city pairs where business travel demands a minimum level of capacity at the right time of day.

Singapore Airline schedule A380 flights out of Sydney to meet underlying peak demand business travel to Singapore. For other times of the day other aircraft such as the 777-300ER and more recently A350-900's are used for the lower demand period times of the day.

QANTAS are currently shifting A380 capacity from long haul flights such as SYD-LAS and SYD-LHR to its Asian network. In short this move allows them to meet underlying demand for medium haul flights.

If you have passengers asking you to make available a certain number seats market forces will dictate a price point where the A380's economic remain viable.

travelhound wrote:

............

Nice to see a poster actually building his(her?) opinion by way of looking at reality.
Thank you.

WIederling wrote:

travelhound wrote:

............

Nice to see a poster actually building his(her?) opinion by way of looking at reality.
Thank you.

What is the reality?

Reality is as follows:

Outside of EK who used the 380 to move many trips form 3 stops to 2 AB forget that time is the most precious commodity.

787, 350, 777, 321XLR and 797( if built) all enable more p2p services while at the same time reducing risk.


Just not that difficult.

You know I wish airbus would kill the a380 to stop driveling posts on a.net.

I think we often forget the problem for large high capacity aircraft is not their base CASM econimics, but the ability of Airlines to sufficiently produce enough revenues to cover low demand seasons where the incomes from passengers isn't enough to pay for the cost of the flight.

For example airline A flying a single A380 with 500 seats, with 7 flights per week for 52 weeks of the year on a route would be at a distinct disadvantage to Airline B flying 787's adjusting flights to suit demand on a weekly and monthly basis.

For example, Airline B might fly 14 787 flights per week matching the number of seats sold by Airline A with the A380 during peak periods, but reduce flights during lower demand periods (i.e. number flights anywhere between 7-14 flights per week).

Qf648 wrote:

You know I wish airbus would kill the a380 to stop driveling posts on a.net.

Considering the venom it has received here over a decade some posters mental health would be in serious jeopardy if they didn't have the A380 to vent their anger and frustration on. So in a way the A380 protects some fragile minds.

Strato2 wrote:

Qf648 wrote:

You know I wish airbus would kill the a380 to stop driveling posts on a.net.

Considering the venom it has received here over a decade some posters mental health would be in serious jeopardy if they didn't have the A380 to vent their anger and frustration on. So in a way the A380 protects some fragile minds.

I guess one person's venom is many people's common sense.

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... a380s.html

I invite you to read the above press release in full. Airbus creates a fake order and then uses the fake order as a validation of the A380's popularity. After (7) years how many frames had Amedeo placed? Enron leadership went to jail for this kind of bs.

Isn’t Airbus basically required to say that the A380’s best days are ahead of it for the sake of their investors? As an investor in a corporation, if my CEO says “this asset is losing money and will continue to do so, but we’re not going to get rid of it.” I would not be a happy shareholder.

ScottB wrote:

Waterbomber wrote:

Like with the Dreamliner where Boeing sold the B787 as a point to point aircraft instead of a B767 replacement that it really was, Boeing is now trying to sell a NMA for more than it is, ie a B757 replacement.

Do you honestly think the actual 787 customers, the airlines, paid even the slightest attention to the idea of the 787 as a "point-to-point aircraft?" No, they looked at the capabilities Boeing promised and ordered based on how they believed the 787 would fit into their fleets and route networks, period. OK, maybe Norwegian is deploying them point-to-point, but they're the exception.

I think your point is solid but went a step too far. I think traditional carriers did give the 787 some attention beyond fitting into their current route network, because it offered its payload/range at lower CASM than their current fleets could provide.

travelhound wrote:

From where I sit the future for the A380 revolves around high density city pairs where business travel demands a minimum level of capacity at the right time of day.

That future becomes pretty limited if that is its main mission. It certainly doesn't pay for a new engine, stretch or wing. We just saw it doesn't even pay for winglets, given that A380+ found no acceptance.

Waterbomber wrote:

The A380 brings a solution to both airport and airspace congestion, but we're not at a critical point yet. Wait until the Chinese travel boom explodes, followed by India later on.

China is still in a growing phase, but they'll be the next Emirates, times 20. There is no doubt about it.

And then, the A380 will no longer become a matter of luxury, but one of shear necessity.

China has policy options for dealing with airport congestion that the West simply does not share. They are putting an economically unreasonable amount of money into high speed rail, and have the ability to condemn land for the project, essentially with impunity. Through joint ventures, much of the work for the trainsets can be done locally, which provides further policy advantages over buying from A or B.

While we on this board talk about VLA aircraft in terms of 450-600 or so passengers, Chinese high-capacity trainsets carry1,200 passengers. Per Wikipedia, they carried 1.7 billion passengers in 2017. That's almost half the worldwide total of passengers flown by airlines, after 100 years of airport building.

I'm not sure China could physically get enoughf people moving using aircraft, and they have the governmental authority to have options the West does not have.

Edit to add, assuming 5 minute headway (which may be overly generous due to the physics involved with high speed rail), the capacity of a single rail line is 14 trainsets per hour, which means it would require 5 lines out of Beijing to match PEKs average of 70 aircraft movements per hour.

qf2220 wrote:

Is there a point at which the fuel price is such that the hub and spoke system regains efficiency over point to point and running quads between hubs (with smaller feeders from spokes) becomes more economic?

I asked this question on another thread, and it was pointed out to me that the 787 actually has a lower fuel consumption per seat mile than the 747 or the A380, even when the larger aircraft are full.

NameOmitted wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

Is there a point at which the fuel price is such that the hub and spoke system regains efficiency over point to point and running quads between hubs (with smaller feeders from spokes) becomes more economic?

I asked this question on another thread, and it was pointed out to me that the 787 actually has a lower fuel consumption per seat mile than the 747 or the A380, even when the larger aircraft are full.

Except that it's not true.
The B787s are being configured in 9 abreast Y. The equivalent on the A380 would be 11 to 12 abreast Y.
Compare apples to apples and the A380 will probably end up with a few % lower fuel burn per seat than a B787.

For the quad naysayers, who said that Airbus won't make a twin out of the A380?
I think that in the next phase, Airbus is going to develop the A380 in two versions, the same way they did with the A330/A340 combo.
A shorter range big twin with two big engines and a quad with new engines and perhaps a stretch.

The GE90 is not sufficient to power a lower MTOW shorter range twin "A370", but new engine technology could make it feasible within a decade.

Airbus has many options regarding this aircraft going forward.

NameOmitted wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

Is there a point at which the fuel price is such that the hub and spoke system regains efficiency over point to point and running quads between hubs (with smaller feeders from spokes) becomes more economic?

I asked this question on another thread, and it was pointed out to me that the 787 actually has a lower fuel consumption per seat mile than the 747 or the A380, even when the larger aircraft are full.

The current quads are neither efficient nor cost effective versus an A35K or 779. Those planes will make more profit per flight even if demand would have filled the A380.

There is only one major customer for the A380. Unless Airbus is able to find 3 to 5 more, we are well past peak A380 production.

Lightsaber

Waterbomber wrote:

The B787 has come to replace the B767 in the Boeing line-up but also at airlines. The reason that you are seeing that a majority of B767's produced are still active is because the replacement cycle is in full swing.

Ok, I am somewhat lost at this line of reasoning, we all know that the A330 killed the 767 in the market place, sales dried up, the only operators of the a/c were the US carriers who are claimed to be nationalistic and Boeing kept the line open looking for a military contract. So who are the carriers now into the 767 replacement cycle, if anything, the 787 is cutting into the A330 replacement cycle.

However, this is an A380 thread so will leave that for another thread, I just thought the reasoning worthy of a comment.

travelhound wrote:

From where I sit the future for the A380 revolves around high density city pairs where business travel demands a minimum level of capacity at the right time of day.

Singapore Airline schedule A380 flights out of Sydney to meet underlying peak demand business travel to Singapore. For other times of the day other aircraft such as the 777-300ER and more recently A350-900's are used for the lower demand period times of the day.

QANTAS are currently shifting A380 capacity from long haul flights such as SYD-LAS and SYD-LHR to its Asian network. In short this move allows them to meet underlying demand for medium haul flights.

If you have passengers asking you to make available a certain number seats market forces will dictate a price point where the A380's economic remain viable.

So basically once demand hits a certain point the A380 is a good option.

I see a perfect test of your thesis: is the A380 preferred on the world's busiest longhaul route, or do the benefits of frequency remain dominant?

A380 fails that test; there are none on LON-NYC.

For your thesis to be true I think you need an additional necessary condition beyond (1) passengers demand X seats at Y time: (2) airlines cannot provide X seats by increasing frequency.

For (2) to hold we need a level of slot congestion and frequency saturation that not even JFK-LHR reaches. Outside of EK's congested ops, that's unlikely to happen.

It simply must be faced that capacity gauge comes at the cost of frequency, risk, and/or yield. Capacity gauge must therefore always pay its way via compelling economics.

Matt6461 wrote:

I see a perfect test of your thesis: is the A380 preferred on the world's busiest longhaul route, or do the benefits of frequency remain dominant?
A380 fails that test; there are none on LON-NYC.

Unfortunately Matt, you left yourself open to this caveat.
The BA terminal at JFK cannot handle the A380, in few years time when it is capable the A380 will appear, and since BA and AA are the dominant carriers on the route etc etc etc.