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

This should trigger entertaining A380 posts, which have been quiet for weeks.

Boeing's 10 year forecasts predict the status quo, with for example, no material impact from CORSIA rollout, or related initiatives. No reduction in P2P. No increase in passenger cost of flying (other than inflation). No reduction in the rate of passenger growth by continent.

Boeing should send representatives to ICAO / CORSIA meetings.

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.

Considering Airbus has been selling the A380 since 2001, some 17 years now, not sure how much longer things can limp along.

It could have a second life after all. Lot of big airports are getting fuller and fuller. But it will still be marginal.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If "A Total of 60 A380/747 sized aircraft will be sold over the next 20 years" Then shouldn't Boeing worry about 777-9 which is clearly 747-sized?

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.

FlightLevel360 wrote:

Once there is a demand spike in air travel it will make sense.

this is what Airbus based the a380 business case on and they missed badly. The a380 may see a few orders, but its best days are long past, not coming up.The 747-8i is basically dead and I expect to see zero orders for it going forward.

However, the investment in the 747-8 is starting to make more and more sense now. Not the 8i, but the 8F. The 8F is seeing activity pick up - its best days could be ahead of it.

While Airbus might eventually be right, not sure how long the A380 can hang around to find out.

Since the program launched nearly 2 decades ago, global air traffic has more than doubled (1.67Bil enplanement in 2000 to 3.7bil in 2016).

But instead of becoming ever more concentrated around mega hubs, traffic has fragmented with ever more markets being directly connected very much the argument Boeing was making.

Planesmart wrote:

Boeing's 10 year forecasts predict the status quo, with for example, no material impact from CORSIA rollout, or related initiatives. No reduction in P2P. No increase in passenger cost of flying (other than inflation). No reduction in the rate of passenger growth by continent.

Boeing should send representatives to ICAO / CORSIA meetings.

The impact of CORSIA is far more likely to be a benefit to aircraft like the A350-1000, A330-900, 777-9, and 787-10 than to the A380 (not to mention the A321neo, A220-300, 737-MAX10, and NMA), absent an expensive re-engine and upsizing program for the A380. We're far more likely to see older aircraft being replaced with slightly larger and far more efficient models than the huge capacity increases which would come with A380s.

In fact, a scheme like CORSIA, in concert with highly efficient mid-size widebodies, may actually reduce demand for aircraft like the A380 as point-hub-hub-point routings end up being replaced by point-hub-point itineraries; e.g. PIT-JFK-CDG-MRS replaced by PIT-CDG-MRS or AUS-DFW-LHR-HAM replaced by AUS-LHR-HAM. Flying half-empty A380s across the Atlantic in winter is not exactly great for the environment.

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:

The real backlog of A380s right now is 62: 58 for EK, 3 for NH, and 1 for SQ. At most Boeing will sell a half-dozen passenger 747-8Is as business jets and as VC-25 replacements. I think Boeing anticipates Airbus and EK agreeing to throw in the towel before the remainder of the order is filled; Airbus really should put the facilities and labor to more profitable uses and EK long-term doesn't need a fleet of 162. The poor secondary market for the A380 should give EK plenty of leverage with lessors as their existing leases expire.

c933103 wrote:

Then shouldn't Boeing worry about 777-9 which is clearly 747-sized?

I presume they're talking about 747-8-sized and not 747-100-sized in this context.

Point to point flights reduces congestion at mega hubs. This reduces the need for VLA despite overall traffic growth.

There is a need for VLA's but the demand is not big enough for a cleansheet design by Boeing or Airbus. Modifying the 747-8 or A380 designs further might not produce an aircraft that can beat the overall economics of the 787/A350. The more improvements you add the greater the performance and sales but the grester the development cost. There might not be a point where they can break even.

Boeing could in theory improve the 747 one last time. Adding a 777X type carbon wing and fitting 797 engines would make a massive difference. The 747-8 fuselage is probably more optimal, lighter and can be used as a freighter. An 80m span, super high aspect ratio, lower sweep carbon wing would reduce thrust requirements by 20%. So that is a 20% fuel burn improvement right there and the 797 engines will be mature.

The A380 fuselage requires a stretch to be optimal, a new wing and new engines to be a big seller. We have the shrink of the family with the A380-800, the design was optimised around the stretch A380-900 that never came. It's like the A330-800NEO, 777-8, A319, 737-7 they dont sell as well as the longer model. The A380 should have been optimised for the A380-800 seating capacity. It would have been longer and skinnier most likely 10ab lower deck 6ab upper deck and 80m long allowing a smaller tail. The wing would have then been smaller and maximum takeoff weight would probably be 50T lighter while flying the same payload the same distance.

FlyRow wrote:

It could have a second life after all. Lot of big airports are getting fuller and fuller. But it will still be marginal.

The 779 will make more profit per flight. To be competitive versus the 779, the A380 needs more of a PIP than the plane that outsold it received:
1. CFRP wing
2. Stretch (the #1 issue of the A380 is it isn't long enough to cover the weight of two staircases and an elevator).
3. New engines.

If airports fail to grow, business will go elsewhere. I see growth in VLAs, they will just be twins. Before airlines go to the risk of the A380, we will see more A35K, 779, and even smaller widebodies.

The cost per passenger is too high in the A380. We are only just under 2 years away from 779 EIS, so if anything, I expect more 777X sales or A35K sales years before an A380 recovery.

New runways eliminating the need for so many VLAs:
1. New Istanbul
2. New Beijing
3. Jakarta and new Indonesian hubs
4. Navi Mumbai
5. Navi Delhi?

US growth is moving Southwest to hubs with growth room.

If some cities do not grow enough, they will be bypassed.

I'm excited by frequency and fragmentation enabled by the A321LR, A220, and 797. I think growth will be P2P where that can happen. Otherwise, replace 50 seat RJs with A321 or -10 MAX if slots are that precious. Heck, at LHR build the 3rd and 4th runway to create a brave New world order!

Lightsaber

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

Well back in the late 90's, the Boeing projections led them to develop the 787 and the Airbus projections led them to develop the A380. How well did that go?
I remember reading about both companies' projections in Aviation Week back in those days.

Hopefully Airbus will be more correct this time.

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.

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.

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.

This is actually perhaps a good reason for Boeing to keep the 747-8F trickling down the line, as an insurance policy against a significant carbon tax. I suspect they could ramp up the line and get airlines 747-8I aircraft years before an airline could get a 777 or A350.

c933103 wrote:

If "A Total of 60 A380/747 sized aircraft will be sold over the next 20 years" Then shouldn't Boeing worry about 777-9 which is clearly 747-sized?

Boeing intentionally drew the line between the 777X and the 747-8. The 777X is a different category for the Boeing prediction.

ScottB wrote:

Planesmart wrote:

Boeing's 10 year forecasts predict the status quo, with for example, no material impact from CORSIA rollout, or related initiatives. No reduction in P2P. No increase in passenger cost of flying (other than inflation). No reduction in the rate of passenger growth by continent.

Boeing should send representatives to ICAO / CORSIA meetings.

The impact of CORSIA is far more likely to be a benefit to aircraft like the A350-1000, A330-900, 777-9, and 787-10 than to the A380 (not to mention the A321neo, A220-300, 737-MAX10, and NMA), absent an expensive re-engine and upsizing program for the A380. We're far more likely to see older aircraft being replaced with slightly larger and far more efficient models than the huge capacity increases which would come with A380s.

In fact, a scheme like CORSIA, in concert with highly efficient mid-size widebodies, may actually reduce demand for aircraft like the A380 as point-hub-hub-point routings end up being replaced by point-hub-point itineraries; e.g. PIT-JFK-CDG-MRS replaced by PIT-CDG-MRS or AUS-DFW-LHR-HAM replaced by AUS-LHR-HAM. Flying half-empty A380s across the Atlantic in winter is not exactly great for the environment.

Does CORSIA work by passenger destination or by segment? In other words, suppose a passenger flies XXX-YYY directly. A different passenger flies XXX-HUB-YYY. Passenger #2 burned more carbon because he flew more miles, and more takeoffs. Does the airline's quota reflect that passenger #2 flew two segments and a longer total distance, or just the total miles between XXX and YYY?

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

These are the essentially same predictions each company has made for two decades .. and Boeing has been right every time so far. Unless there is some huge change .. Boeing is still right. Small evolutionary differences are not enough.

I would *LOVE* to know if the predictions that Airbus uses for internal decision making are the same ones they put out for public consumption.

NameOmitted wrote:

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.

This is actually perhaps a good reason for Boeing to keep the 747-8F trickling down the line, as an insurance policy against a significant carbon tax. I suspect they could ramp up the line and get airlines 747-8I aircraft years before an airline could get a 777 or A350.

The 787 burns less carbon per ASM than the 747-8.

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

Boeing is supporting a proven status quo while Airbus is supporting some fairy tale that they are hoping will happen. Airbus missed the mark with the A380 -VS- the 787. Are they setting themselves up for more fail? I have read that there are A380's parked and at least one headed for the the scrap yard. Boeing is letting the 747 die gracefully of natural causes while Airbus has put the A380 on life support. Point Boeing.

Of course you never know, early on, the Queen of the skies (747) was on life support for several years...................

Since this exact same topic was discussed last time (was that last week or not that long ago?), did anybody find any new information that would require a new discussion with a possibly different outcome?


Gruß, masi1157

masi1157 wrote:

Since this exact same topic was discussed last ime (was that last week or not that long ago?), did anybody find any new information that would require a new discussion with a possibly different outcome?


Gruß, masi1157

Exactly. No new info, nothing new to discuss. The current model won't have a future beyond the EK order. It will either receive a massive update or pass away. Untill we receive more information on the former I don't see much use in redoing the same discussion.

Taxi645 wrote:

Exactly. No new info, nothing new to discuss.

And no higher certainty in the conclusions from last time...

Taxi645 wrote:

The current model won't have a future beyond the EK order. It will either receive a massive update or pass away.

...so no need to repeat them.


Gruß, masi1157

Also, as far as fuel burn/emissions per passenger go in larger vs. smaller aircraft, the seats have to be filled for the comparison to be accurate. If an A380 burns 10% less per seat than an A320 (I'm making numbers up) but there are "only" 300 people on the A380, the fuel used to carry around those empty seats will more than offset the increased efficiency.

A full sized pickup truck with crew cab burns a lot more fuel per available seat than a Prius but, if the Prius has one person in it and the pickup has 5, the pickup will be more efficient per passenger. The metaphor isn't size of vehicle, it is efficiency per available seat vs filled seat.

lightsaber wrote:

The 779 will make more profit per flight. To be competitive versus the 779, the A380 needs more of a PIP than the plane that outsold it received:
1. CFRP wing
2. Stretch (the #1 issue of the A380 is it isn't long enough to cover the weight of two staircases and an elevator).
3. New engines.

Of course one of the main problems with the A380 is it is just too big for most airlines. While a stretch may make the CASM numbers look better, it only makes the size problem worse.

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!".

kitplane01 wrote:

ScottB wrote:

Planesmart wrote:

Boeing's 10 year forecasts predict the status quo, with for example, no material impact from CORSIA rollout, or related initiatives. No reduction in P2P. No increase in passenger cost of flying (other than inflation). No reduction in the rate of passenger growth by continent.

Boeing should send representatives to ICAO / CORSIA meetings.

The impact of CORSIA is far more likely to be a benefit to aircraft like the A350-1000, A330-900, 777-9, and 787-10 than to the A380 (not to mention the A321neo, A220-300, 737-MAX10, and NMA), absent an expensive re-engine and upsizing program for the A380. We're far more likely to see older aircraft being replaced with slightly larger and far more efficient models than the huge capacity increases which would come with A380s.

In fact, a scheme like CORSIA, in concert with highly efficient mid-size widebodies, may actually reduce demand for aircraft like the A380 as point-hub-hub-point routings end up being replaced by point-hub-point itineraries; e.g. PIT-JFK-CDG-MRS replaced by PIT-CDG-MRS or AUS-DFW-LHR-HAM replaced by AUS-LHR-HAM. Flying half-empty A380s across the Atlantic in winter is not exactly great for the environment.

Does CORSIA work by passenger destination or by segment? In other words, suppose a passenger flies XXX-YYY directly. A different passenger flies XXX-HUB-YYY. Passenger #2 burned more carbon because he flew more miles, and more takeoffs. Does the airline's quota reflect that passenger #2 flew two segments and a longer total distance, or just the total miles between XXX and YYY?

These are the sort of discussions taking place right now, including reporting to Governments and the public.

And there are initiatives beyond, using CORSIA reporting to change behaviour within specific countries, for example rewards and penalties based on aircraft type and passenger load, whether you allow for or ignore freight, whether this is bundled with noise.....

The most inevitable change will see flattening of demand for short range flights (where climb is a bigger duration of the total flight compared to longer distances), though you wouldn't think so based on current orders and deliveries.

The level of detail is fascinating. For example, how aircraft flying in to replace a defective aircraft are treated? If they are counted, and incur cost based on zero passengers, that will encourage airlines to cover by placing passengers on competitor scheduled flights.

For example, how aircraft on delivery are treated. Will they be exempt? Or will we see greater co-ordination of aircraft entering / exiting fleets and for service?

How much will current anti-competitive legislation need to change, to encourage / facilitate aircraft sharing? For example, could flights contain dedicated cabins for passengers from different unrelated airlines?

The big thinkers are already modelling sensitivity analysis for various scenarios. Most see it as inevitable. A few see opportunities. Some are yet to attend a briefing.

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.

First of all the REAL A380 backlog is more like 70 planes. Secondly every one of those 70 aircraft will cost more to build than they sold for. How stupid is that?

Lightsaber wrote:

To be competitive versus the 779, the A380 needs more of a PIP than the plane that outsold it received:
1. CFRP wing
2. Stretch (the #1 issue of the A380 is it isn't long enough to cover the weight of two staircases and an elevator).
3. New engines

I'm a big fan of a new CFRP wing but I'm wondering whether you think mega-winglets like my latest TechOps bull session would work.
Winglets wouldn't be optimal if course, but perhaps a stretched A380 fuselage is so efficient that even a slightly suboptimal wing would offer transformative economics.

By rudimentary textbook approximations I figure achieving ~315ft effective span via winglets would add ~30k empty weight and ~100m2 Swet, but would increase L/D by approaching 20%. A380 can absorb a big Swet delta en route to addressing its induced drag problem.

Factoring in the added winglets Swet, A380's effective AR would be approaching 10, which gets close enough on the wing for superb fuselage to come into paydirt.

Any thoughts?

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.

I don't think superjumbos have much of a future. Even as demand rises, I think people will look for cheap air travel, which is something that is a lot easier to maintain with smaller, more efficient planes. Unless Airbus/Boeing are able to make a super-efficient superjumbo that can compete with the 787/A350, 737MAX, etc, I don't think superjumbos have much of a shot in the longrun.

I think that improving the environmental impact of aviation emissions for airlines is as simple as implementing a simple carbon tax per seat mile flown, modified based on the model of plane based on its individual efficiency, would achieve the desired results. Maintenance swaps, deliveries, etc are provably quite rare and don't make a significant impact on total carbon output of the various fleets.

The net effect will, of course, make flying more expensive for everyone. This will immediately punish the poorest sections of the populations and as a result, also harm, possibly fatally, the ULCCs (not because they are not operating efficiently, but because they will likely loose a bunch of passengers due to them being extremely price sensitive). Airlines that have newer, more efficient fleets will be the least impacted by the fees as they will have lower fees as opposed to airlines that operate older, less efficient planes. The other major change is that load factors will absolutely become king. The airlines will be responsible for paying penalties for each empty seat as they are not free to fly in an emissions tax regime. If you are flying with a 60% load factor, you have 40% of a plane that is still costing emissions. Those routes will be quickly eliminated unless they are absolutely essential to fleet operations. This will result in fewer flights available in general, and smaller airline fleets. Smaller cities will likely suffer greatly from this as they won't be able to support passenger volumes due to much higher ticket costs from the much higher fees that smaller planes will require. Mid sized cities might actually see a boon from this though. More passengers will then travel to their closest midsized city to fly as they loose service to smaller airports. That is, until the same taxes that are placed on aircraft are also added to automobiles through fuel taxes.

Eventually, you get to a situation like we had before deregulation. Only the middle class, rich, and business travelers will be able to afford to fly or, for that matter, travel. This will negatively impact tourism all over the world for places that are on the lower end (as that's where the less well off can afford to go). As those places begin to disappear, the demand for travel to those locations will taper off as well.

At that point, it's mission accomplished! A significant percentage of the total market could be killed off in short order. Hundreds of modestly old frames will be quickly sent to the scrappers. This might be a boon to the manufacturers. The carbon emission savings will be truly massive. That is, unless the same governments tax new frame production based on the carbon emissions during the construction process. That could easily add millions and millions of dollars to each frame, making them far more expensive to purchase, leading to further ticket price costs as those costs are amortized through frame life-cycle costs.

Perhaps you can allow airlines to invest in green initiatives to help offset their ticket fees? Perhaps Delta could invest in putting solar panels on all of Hartsfield International and their hangars for example? They could earn offset credits for stuff like that. Convert all of their ground equipment to electric powered by solar farms nearby? That would stimulate investment by the airlines that would give them a competitive edge. That could quickly allow the larger players that can better afford to finance large projects to reduce their ticket prices below the LCCs, allowing them to push them out of business, further consolidating the industry and increasing overall efficiency.

-------------------------------------------------------

I realize that a lot of this is doom and gloom, and is perhaps overblown, but, we have to realize, costs will ultimately be pushed onto those that can least afford to bear it. Airlines will not operate as charities. The cost of flying will absolutely go up, reducing demand overall but also reducing the mobility of people all over the world. Tread carefully.

Let's face it: the only chance A380 has is if - and that's a BIG IF - Airbus puts new engines on it.
Which seems very unlikely at the moment. For aesthetics sake, I hope it clears its backlog and then flies into oblivion.

Airbus should devote itself to making A350s even better than they are now. Hell, in 10 years, maybe a further stretch of -1000 would come along?

RJMAZ wrote:

Boeing could in theory improve the 747 one last time. Adding a 777X type carbon wing and fitting 797 engines would make a massive difference. The 747-8 fuselage is probably more optimal, lighter and can be used as a freighter. An 80m span, super high aspect ratio, lower sweep carbon wing would reduce thrust requirements by 20%. So that is a 20% fuel burn improvement right there and the 797 engines will be mature.

As much as I'd love to see that, I don't think it would ever happen. If Boeing decides they need to reenter the VLA passenger market, they'll just pop out the 777-10X: stretch to 80 meters, PIP the engines, and offer lower hold lavs and galleys. 470+ seats and 7000nm range with 777X production costs and economics will get the job done nicely.

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.

LightningZ71 wrote:

I think that improving the environmental impact of aviation emissions for airlines is as simple as implementing a simple carbon tax per seat mile flown, modified based on the model of plane based on its individual efficiency, would achieve the desired results. Maintenance swaps, deliveries, etc are provably quite rare and don't make a significant impact on total carbon output of the various fleets.

The net effect will, of course, make flying more expensive for everyone. This will immediately punish the poorest sections of the populations and as a result, also harm, possibly fatally, the ULCCs (not because they are not operating efficiently, but because they will likely loose a bunch of passengers due to them being extremely price sensitive). Airlines that have newer, more efficient fleets will be the least impacted by the fees as they will have lower fees as opposed to airlines that operate older, less efficient planes. The other major change is that load factors will absolutely become king. The airlines will be responsible for paying penalties for each empty seat as they are not free to fly in an emissions tax regime. If you are flying with a 60% load factor, you have 40% of a plane that is still costing emissions. Those routes will be quickly eliminated unless they are absolutely essential to fleet operations. This will result in fewer flights available in general, and smaller airline fleets. Smaller cities will likely suffer greatly from this as they won't be able to support passenger volumes due to much higher ticket costs from the much higher fees that smaller planes will require. Mid sized cities might actually see a boon from this though. More passengers will then travel to their closest midsized city to fly as they loose service to smaller airports. That is, until the same taxes that are placed on aircraft are also added to automobiles through fuel taxes.

Eventually, you get to a situation like we had before deregulation. Only the middle class, rich, and business travelers will be able to afford to fly or, for that matter, travel. This will negatively impact tourism all over the world for places that are on the lower end (as that's where the less well off can afford to go). As those places begin to disappear, the demand for travel to those locations will taper off as well.

At that point, it's mission accomplished! A significant percentage of the total market could be killed off in short order. Hundreds of modestly old frames will be quickly sent to the scrappers. This might be a boon to the manufacturers. The carbon emission savings will be truly massive. That is, unless the same governments tax new frame production based on the carbon emissions during the construction process. That could easily add millions and millions of dollars to each frame, making them far more expensive to purchase, leading to further ticket price costs as those costs are amortized through frame life-cycle costs.

Perhaps you can allow airlines to invest in green initiatives to help offset their ticket fees? Perhaps Delta could invest in putting solar panels on all of Hartsfield International and their hangars for example? They could earn offset credits for stuff like that. Convert all of their ground equipment to electric powered by solar farms nearby? That would stimulate investment by the airlines that would give them a competitive edge. That could quickly allow the larger players that can better afford to finance large projects to reduce their ticket prices below the LCCs, allowing them to push them out of business, further consolidating the industry and increasing overall efficiency.

-------------------------------------------------------

I realize that a lot of this is doom and gloom, and is perhaps overblown, but, we have to realize, costs will ultimately be pushed onto those that can least afford to bear it. Airlines will not operate as charities. The cost of flying will absolutely go up, reducing demand overall but also reducing the mobility of people all over the world. Tread carefully.

High oil solves the green problem. If you want people to burn less fuel, tax it, but cut my other taxes.

The ULCCs carry far more passengers per gallon of fuel. What this does is destroy the business model of comfy coach. It isn't the seat that burns fuel. Impact is tons of fuel burned.

What this does is destroy long haul economics.

Since the A380 already burns more fuel per passenger than the 77W. Your proposal ensures every A380 is scrapped within 7 years.

Green often equals trade barriers. If you think the current environment is politically contentious, a green economic war (it is nothing less), would be much worse.

I notice much research on predicting Earth's temperature isn't available anymore. We are on track to my 1994 predictions.

If we really cared about carbon, we would build nuje powerplants. Coal is horrible and has been so much of the growth. How about solving the easy first...

Lightsaber

kitplane01 wrote:

The 787 burns less carbon per ASM than the 747-8.

Wow. And significantly so, not to mention more direct flights reduce the number of miles flown to any specific destination.

BlueSky1976 wrote:

Let's face it: the only chance A380 has is if - and that's a BIG IF - Airbus puts new engines on it.
Which seems very unlikely at the moment. For aesthetics sake, I hope it clears its backlog and then flies into oblivion.

Airbus should devote itself to making A350s even better than they are now. Hell, in 10 years, maybe a further stretch of -1000 would come along?

It is too late for just new engines. Now the A380 benefits more from a stretch, but the minimum is new CFRP wings, new engines, and a significant stretch.

The fuel and cost per passenger must be significantly below the 779 and A35K to justify the risk of gauge. I couldn't do it with the current wing. 85m is the minimum new length I could see being economical.

Aviation is brutal economically.

The GE9X is an amazing engine. It is a game changer in long haul fuel burn. So are the folding wingtips. If the 777x only meets promise, I will be sad. In my opinion the VLA market is going to be changed.

I hope the numbers I've read on the A35K were pessimistic. Stretches either provide a great per unit cost savings, or they do not sell (764).

Lightsaber

Long term oil prices will be challenged by electrification of ground transportation starting about in 5 years. And after that it will get worse. A lot of that oil in the ground will be stranded assets. Even now Saudi Arabia is struggling to sell off some of its oil assets but doesn't seem to be able to do so. They are rightfully worried (I said worried, not panicked).

A far out idea - let the carbon tax on air travel go to improve ground transportation to and from airfields. Am I the only one a little scandalized by SeaTac having one of the largest auto-parking garages in the world. And there if a cab or friend drop you off you don't have to walk. Take a van and a little walk, take the light rail a quarter of a mile walk, and it is an unpleasant one to boot.

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.

I have my doubts that will ever happen. The vast majority of the world is rushing headlong into electrifying transportation. In 30 years it's likely that the only things being sold new that still burn fossil fuels will be airliners and cargo ships, and the major concern will be whether they'll be able to support continued investment in extraction and refining.

LightningZ71 wrote:

I think that improving the environmental impact of aviation emissions for airlines is as simple as implementing a simple carbon tax per seat mile flown, modified based on the model of plane based on its individual efficiency, would achieve the desired results. Maintenance swaps, deliveries, etc are provably quite rare and don't make a significant impact on total carbon output of the various fleets.

The net effect will, of course, make flying more expensive for everyone. This will immediately punish the poorest sections of the populations and as a result, also harm, possibly fatally, the ULCCs (not because they are not operating efficiently, but because they will likely loose a bunch of passengers due to them being extremely price sensitive). Airlines that have newer, more efficient fleets will be the least impacted by the fees as they will have lower fees as opposed to airlines that operate older, less efficient planes. The other major change is that load factors will absolutely become king. The airlines will be responsible for paying penalties for each empty seat as they are not free to fly in an emissions tax regime. If you are flying with a 60% load factor, you have 40% of a plane that is still costing emissions. Those routes will be quickly eliminated unless they are absolutely essential to fleet operations. This will result in fewer flights available in general, and smaller airline fleets. Smaller cities will likely suffer greatly from this as they won't be able to support passenger volumes due to much higher ticket costs from the much higher fees that smaller planes will require. Mid sized cities might actually see a boon from this though. More passengers will then travel to their closest midsized city to fly as they loose service to smaller airports. That is, until the same taxes that are placed on aircraft are also added to automobiles through fuel taxes.

Eventually, you get to a situation like we had before deregulation. Only the middle class, rich, and business travelers will be able to afford to fly or, for that matter, travel. This will negatively impact tourism all over the world for places that are on the lower end (as that's where the less well off can afford to go). As those places begin to disappear, the demand for travel to those locations will taper off as well.

At that point, it's mission accomplished! A significant percentage of the total market could be killed off in short order. Hundreds of modestly old frames will be quickly sent to the scrappers. This might be a boon to the manufacturers. The carbon emission savings will be truly massive. That is, unless the same governments tax new frame production based on the carbon emissions during the construction process. That could easily add millions and millions of dollars to each frame, making them far more expensive to purchase, leading to further ticket price costs as those costs are amortized through frame life-cycle costs.

Perhaps you can allow airlines to invest in green initiatives to help offset their ticket fees? Perhaps Delta could invest in putting solar panels on all of Hartsfield International and their hangars for example? They could earn offset credits for stuff like that. Convert all of their ground equipment to electric powered by solar farms nearby? That would stimulate investment by the airlines that would give them a competitive edge. That could quickly allow the larger players that can better afford to finance large projects to reduce their ticket prices below the LCCs, allowing them to push them out of business, further consolidating the industry and increasing overall efficiency.

-------------------------------------------------------

I realize that a lot of this is doom and gloom, and is perhaps overblown, but, we have to realize, costs will ultimately be pushed onto those that can least afford to bear it. Airlines will not operate as charities. The cost of flying will absolutely go up, reducing demand overall but also reducing the mobility of people all over the world. Tread carefully.

A great summary of where we are heading.

Tickets more expensive. Load factors under X penalised. Load factors over Y rewarded. Aircraft sharing. Less frequency. Fewer short duration flights. Arrival of the global mega airline. Increased cost of launching new routes. Fewer small and medium airlines. Mega airlines and alliances (if all survive) self-managing carbon credits. Publication of most / least efficient airlines. Growth of unbranded operators servicing multiple airline brands (HiFly?)

Planesmart - you are sounding like some of my fellow citizens who rant about raising gas tax from the 1994 (?) levels, but quietly swallow huge increase from OPEC. The carbon tax will not be the destruction of aviation.

I don't buy the argument that the efficiency per seat is too bad. Why do carriers configure it in such a low density then? They can easily improve efficiency and still offer a superior comfort.
An 11 abreast A380 is more comfortable than a 10 abreast 777 or 9 abreast 787.
I think the A380 is simply too large. Smaller planes earns more money. If air travel increases more, there is place for airliners of the A380 size.