Interesting article, can't really blame RR. Could this be the final nail in the coffin for the A380 program?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ium-europe

Or the nudge to push it across the finish line?

I wonder if this has any affect on the 787 order that hasn't been finalized too?

Well that explains a lot

Better order some 747-8s instead

62k64k wrote:

Interesting article, can't really blame RR. Could this be the final nail in the coffin for the A380 program?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ium-europe

How can it not be RR's fault. They aren't meeting performance guarantees.

Maybe Emirates now doesn't need the extra capacity the new A380s will offer and focus on the 120+ B777-8/9s coming online in the next two years?

neutronstar73 wrote:

62k64k wrote:

Interesting article, can't really blame RR. Could this be the final nail in the coffin for the A380 program?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ium-europe

How can it not be RR's fault. They aren't meeting performance guarantees.

Maybe because they want to utilise resources more effectively i.e. on the T1000 and TXWB - what incentive is there for RR to produce a niche and old engine on an airliner where sales have all but dried up? Of course there will be a price to supply them but they won't be cheap.

Sounds like a similar story for EA.

Would have thought that this will cause emirates to go GE on its 787’s as a line for EA to reopen the 7200 line.

I wonder if qantas would have similar issues and if their view of the plane would be different if the performance targets were being met?

if these 36 are cancelled, there's what, like 25 frames left on order? that means that the line could theoretically be shut down as early as 2023. That might mean the 747 production would last even longer than the a380

I find it interesting that EA has basically said that they're not in the running. They haven't formally closed their program down, but it sounds as if they are not interested in taking more orders.

In the end, the A-380 is a plane designed for a market that does not exist. Airbus forecast a market for 1,200 VLA planes and expected the A-380 to grab the bulk of those orders. Airbus was right that the bulk of the VLA orders was grabbed by the A-380 but dead wrong on the fact that there was a 1,200 plane market for VLA s. But for Emirates, the program would already be dead and Emirates is ordering elsewhere. I believe the Gulf Airlines could be due for some rough times when there are aircraft that can fly non-stop from Eastern Australia to Europe, anyway.

If they cancel.the A380 program, they shouldn't.it prior to the new CEO starts his job.

Everybody involved seems to be stuck between in a damned if you, damned if you situation. As an aviation nut it’s hard to watch.

G'day

musman9853 wrote:

if these 36 are cancelled, there's what, like 25 frames left on order? that means that the line could theoretically be shut down as early as 2023. That might mean the 747 production would last even longer than the a380

If those additional aircraft are not taken Airbus may as well cancel the A380 line right now. There appear to be no takers for a future NEO version, stretched, double stretched or otherwise, so it would make sense to stop the losses now. Emirates is going to be upset and will not order anything Airbus for a while, but then again, what will Airbus lose except for reputation and face maybe? Boeing and GE will supply Emirates with 787's and 777X's, but at what cost? I doubt either will make money on their deals with Emirates.

Having sole suppliers for aircraft and engines for an airline the size of Emirates is not exactly desirable, so after some cooling-off period they will be talking to the 'bus company and Rolls again, maybe for better terms than they have now..

Cheers

Peter

musman9853 wrote:

That might mean the 747 production would last even longer than the a380

Of that I am certain regardless of how many orders the Superjumbo has. Boeing will prolong 747's death out of pride so that it outlast the A380 whatever it costs be it producing one frame a year or some other craziness but they will do it.

Strato2 wrote:

musman9853 wrote:

That might mean the 747 production would last even longer than the a380

Of that I am certain regardless of how many orders the Superjumbo has. Boeing will prolong 747's death out of pride so that it outlast the A380 whatever it costs be it producing one frame a year or some other craziness but they will do it.

The 748F is still picking up orders. So I highly doubt they are prolonging it for pride.

The 748i is dead. Boeing basically said it outright.

DocLightning wrote:

I find it interesting that EA has basically said that they're not in the running. They haven't formally closed their program down, but it sounds as if they are not interested in taking more orders.

....and we have to ask ourselves how the market will respond to an engine OEM stating they are no longer supporting the program and/or RR not meeting contract guarantees on aircraft already delivered and/or no longer willing to commit resources to the program to continuously improve the product.

I'd suggest the value of the in-service A380 stock just took a substantial financial hit.

Emirates Airlines is the ONLY reason that Airbus is able to continue building A380 aircraft which may now only being built at a rate of one a month. This may be just enough that Airbus can afford to continue manufacturing them and possibly at a loss. Emirates has 105 A380 aircraft with twenty more on order and sixteen options. There are a small number on order by others, including ANA which ordered three A380 to keep Delta from taking an interest in bankrupt Sky Mark Airlines which had ordered two A380 aircraft.

DocLightning wrote:

I find it interesting that EA has basically said that they're not in the running. They haven't formally closed their program down, but it sounds as if they are not interested in taking more orders.

EA might not be interested for the price. EA promised a PIP for the 50 plane order. Without a PIP, which EK would demand, the engines are not competitive.

Bald1983 wrote:

In the end, the A-380 is a plane designed for a market that does not exist. Airbus forecast a market for 1,200 VLA planes and expected the A-380 to grab the bulk of those orders. Airbus was right that the bulk of the VLA orders was grabbed by the A-380 but dead wrong on the fact that there was a 1,200 plane market for VLA s. But for Emirates, the program would already be dead and Emirates is ordering elsewhere. I believe the Gulf Airlines could be due for some rough times when there are aircraft that can fly non-stop from Eastern Australia to Europe, anyway.

The idea for the A380 dates back the the 1970's and 80's when Airbus had 747 envy. They had to have a plane that was even bigger. They were seeing A300 and A310 customers that were considering the A330 and A340 still buying 747's, because no one else had a plane in that category. They were also envious of the premium prices Boeing was getting. By the time Airbus was actually in a position to build the A380, the niche for VLA's was beginning to come to a close. Ironically Airbus' own A340-600 killed off 747-400 passenger orders well before the A380 program was launched. The 777-300ER killed off the A340-600 by achieving substantially better than expected fuel burn numbers and range during flight testing.

The 747 was designed for an era when most of the international air traffic was funneled trough just a few large hubs and there were just bilateral agreements between countries not multilateral open skies agreements. The Bermuda and Bermuda II agreements between the US and UK only allowed flights between LHR and a short list of US cities. Specifically the cities of Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta were barred up till 2008 from having nonstop flights to LHR. Also only two airlines from each country were allowed to fly between the US and LHR. Pan Am wanted to be able to consolidate lots of JFK-LHR traffic onto a fewer aircraft with better CASM when they ordered the first 747's. Today not only do Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta have nonstop flights to LHR but so does Austin. Any airline from the US can fly to any airport in the UK so long as it meets the safety regulations and can obtain slots. There are lots of open skies agreements around the world that have liberalized international air travel. A VLA has to justify itself on economic performance not on regulatory hurdles that prevent competitors from entering the market.

DocLightning wrote:

I find it interesting that EA has basically said that they're not in the running. They haven't formally closed their program down, but it sounds as if they are not interested in taking more orders.

I'm guessing it's not worth the cost of keeping the line and suppliers open at this point.

musman9853 wrote:

That might mean the 747 production would last even longer than the a380

Strato2 wrote:

Of that I am certain regardless of how many orders the Superjumbo has. Boeing will prolong 747's death out of pride so that it outlast the A380 whatever it costs be it producing one frame a year or some other craziness but they will do it.

Boeing was ready to shut down the 747 program in 2016 and took almost $1.5 billion in financial charges to prepare for it. Then UPS came in with a 14 frame order at the end of the year and followed it up with another 14 this year to keep it open.

It was not a deal made in heaven. Sounds like someone is getting cold feet and is trying to renegotiate their end through a third party and see what gives.

In the spirit of Canadian Thanksgiving this past weekend - It's time to stick a fork in this turkey - it's done!

In all serious though it will be a shame to see it go - but as has been debated many times on A-Net it's future really isn't viable without major investment.

I doubt we will see a replacement from anyone until many Airports worldwide become slot constrained and airlines demand something new and very large.

DocLightning wrote:

I find it interesting that EA has basically said that they're not in the running. They haven't formally closed their program down, but it sounds as if they are not interested in taking more orders.

Am I reading a different article than some of you? From the article:
Engine Alliance has offered to provide Emirates with more of the GP7200 engines, which have “exceptional fuel burn and durability,” the venture said in an emailed statement. “We look forward to an Emirates announcement, and we are also focused on supporting their fleet for decades to come.”

zuckie13 wrote:

Am I reading a different article than some of you? From the article:

I have been puzzled because some other posters were citing parts of the article that I swore weren't there, so I went back to read it and YES, in fact you are reading a different article than I read this morning! The end of the article says:

(Updates with Engine Alliance comment in fifth paragraph.)

Earlier today, the article said that EA had "balked" at the idea of an order.

So apparently some changes were made in the article to clarify the situation because it certainly sounded as if EA had backed out of continuing to support the program.

What about a380 combi version, especially European and Asian destinations.

I believe that the 779 will beat the CASM of the A380, or at least match it. If that is the case I can understand EK balking at buying more without some performance improvement. If I were running the airline I would certainly look at making the 779 the backbone of the fleet, replacing the A380 as they retire since there does not look to be any more improvements coming for it.

DocLightning wrote:

zuckie13 wrote:

Am I reading a different article than some of you? From the article:

I have been puzzled because some other posters were citing parts of the article that I swore weren't there, so I went back to read it and YES, in fact you are reading a different article than I read this morning! The end of the article says:

(Updates with Engine Alliance comment in fifth paragraph.)

Earlier today, the article said that EA had "balked" at the idea of an order.

So apparently some changes were made in the article to clarify the situation because it certainly sounded as if EA had backed out of continuing to support the program.

I'm sure EA is offering, but also balking at the terms. RR bid agressive.

I wonder what this means for the A380.

Lightsaber

Legally, EK's final order is void.
EA (or RR) and Airbus must come to agreement with EK. New management at Airbus could shut down the line. EK can replan.

As noted above, this is a now win situation for all participants.

lightsaber wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

zuckie13 wrote:

Am I reading a different article than some of you? From the article:

I have been puzzled because some other posters were citing parts of the article that I swore weren't there, so I went back to read it and YES, in fact you are reading a different article than I read this morning! The end of the article says:

(Updates with Engine Alliance comment in fifth paragraph.)

Earlier today, the article said that EA had "balked" at the idea of an order.

So apparently some changes were made in the article to clarify the situation because it certainly sounded as if EA had backed out of continuing to support the program.

I'm sure EA is offering, but also balking at the terms. RR bid agressive.

I wonder what this means for the A380.

Lightsaber

Has RR been bidding all that aggressively in recent years though? Seems like the current management team might have played the last EK A380 order differently. RR's stock price actually dropped the day they "won" the order.

I don't doubt there's something brewing from EA though. I remember seeing an EA advertisement on FlightGlobal's website in the last year or so. It was weird because who - besides Tim Clark - would be the target audience for A380 engines?

Matt6461 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

I have been puzzled because some other posters were citing parts of the article that I swore weren't there, so I went back to read it and YES, in fact you are reading a different article than I read this morning! The end of the article says:



Earlier today, the article said that EA had "balked" at the idea of an order.

So apparently some changes were made in the article to clarify the situation because it certainly sounded as if EA had backed out of continuing to support the program.

I'm sure EA is offering, but also balking at the terms. RR bid agressive.

I wonder what this means for the A380.

Lightsaber

Has RR been bidding all that aggressively in recent years though? Seems like the current management team might have played the last EK A380 order differently. RR's stock price actually dropped the day they "won" the order.

I don't doubt there's something brewing from EA though. I remember seeing an EA advertisement on FlightGlobal's website in the last year or so. It was weird because who - besides Tim Clark - would be the target audience for A380 engines?

As noted, EK is legally allowed to negotiate. So is Airbus, RR, and EA.

As to agressive, it had to be a better offer than EA was willing to make as EK switched engines. There is a cost to switching engines. RR won by promising lower fuel burn (amoung all the terms). I was under the impression the 36 were at effectively the terms of the prior 50. (I don't know.).

This opens up too many scenarios. The order is now too late to sustain current production in 2020 due to long lead items. So.. I'm very curious as to the outcome.

Lightsaber

Antarius wrote:

[The 748i is dead. Boeing basically said it outright.

but your forgetting that the entirety of the 747 line lasted 50 somewhat years while the A380 line, in its entirely, will most likely be DOA in less than 15 years.

jumbojet wrote:

Antarius wrote:

[The 748i is dead. Boeing basically said it outright.

but your forgetting that the entirety of the 747 line lasted 50 somewhat years while the A380 line, in its entirely, will most likely be DOA in less than 15 years.

Which is true and yet completely tangential to my statement. My point was that the 747 line isnt open for pride. The F variant is still getting orders and therefore will still be offered.

jumbojet wrote:

Antarius wrote:

[The 748i is dead. Boeing basically said it outright.

but your forgetting that the entirety of the 747 line lasted 50 somewhat years while the A380 line, in its entirely, will most likely be DOA in less than 15 years.

Who cares? I’m not a big fan of the A380, but the vitriol people have for this airplane is absurd. These planes were developed in entirely different eras so comparing lifespans is pointless. And it’s all argument that has been rehashed 8000x over.

SFOtoORD wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

Antarius wrote:

[The 748i is dead. Boeing basically said it outright.

but your forgetting that the entirety of the 747 line lasted 50 somewhat years while the A380 line, in its entirely, will most likely be DOA in less than 15 years.

Who cares? I’m not a big fan of the A380, but the vitriol people have for this airplane is absurd. These planes were developed in entirely different eras so comparing lifespans is pointless. And it’s all argument that has been rehashed 8000x over.

Well we've had the market prediction argument for the 8000x time in this thread. I'm surpised we haven't had the hub vs point to point model argument yet. Ah, can't be long....

Taxi645 wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

but your forgetting that the entirety of the 747 line lasted 50 somewhat years while the A380 line, in its entirely, will most likely be DOA in less than 15 years.

Who cares? I’m not a big fan of the A380, but the vitriol people have for this airplane is absurd. These planes were developed in entirely different eras so comparing lifespans is pointless. And it’s all argument that has been rehashed 8000x over.

Well we've had the market prediction argument for the 8000x time in this thread. I'm surpised we haven't had the hub vs point to point model argument yet. Ah, can't be long....

Always gets me that one considering about 95% of 787 flights have a hub at atleast 1 end of the route.

I think EK switched to RR engines at least partly to encourage them and Airbus to go for the NEO. But since nobody else jumped on the bandwagon both Airbus and RR have realized that it is not going to happen, and RR is less than enthusiastic about further improvements to the A380 engines. The

The 777X, 787 and A380 engine orders are all interlinked. None of these orders is currently unconditional. They remain conditional 'subject to engines', subject to finance on terms acceptable to EK' and some other conditions.

GE will have to make the EA engine available for the A380, at EK cradle to grave target price, with a PiP, as well as a frontline price on 777X and 787 engines.

If they don't, then alternative is RR sort their A380 offer, add other family engines, and the A350 and A330 replace the Boeing orders.

Or B incentivises GE, and A incentivises RR, or............................

B takes an equity interest in GE, which is on offer, and A takes an equity interest in RR, which would be timely, or....

Who will blink first?

Airbus has already been decisive recently with the A220.

Six months, and the global commercial aviation landscape will look rather different.

I mean there has to be an agreement here somewhere. At some point if EK runs a 20 year lifecycle, they will be almost at replacement rate for a slow moving 380 line all on their own.

Airbus is going to have to take the accounting loss, but assuming they can keep the line cash flow positive, no reason to shut it down unless they are seeing a significant opportunity cost to that space.

LupineChemist wrote:

I mean there has to be an agreement here somewhere. At some point if EK runs a 20 year lifecycle, they will be almost at replacement rate for a slow moving 380 line all on their own.

Airbus is going to have to take the accounting loss, but assuming they can keep the line cash flow positive, no reason to shut it down unless they are seeing a significant opportunity cost to that space.

The A380 costs more per passenger than the A35K or 779. My back of the envelope calculations have more profit per 779 flight at less risk.

Most 744s were replaced with smaller 77Ws or recently A359s. EK doesn't need A380s at poor economics. The A380 fuel burn per seat was marginal vs. 77W. It isn't competitive anymore.

747 fans screamed how the plane carried ~60 more people than the 777-300ER. We know the results.

Lightsaber

GalebG4 wrote:

What about a380 combi version, especially European and Asian destinations.

What about letting it die and getting planes that fit the markets?

I am unclear about the problem EK has with RR engine performance for this new order.

We know there are durability issues, but these are being sorted.

We think RR PiP'd the engine for the first EK order. They must have done, or RR's bid would have simply reflected actual performance of then-current spec engines, and there could be no shortfall.

So, is the problem for the new order about not meeting the promised performance from the PiP for the first order, and unconnected with durability, or is it only about durability, or both?

Bald1983 wrote:

GalebG4 wrote:

What about a380 combi version, especially European and Asian destinations.

What about letting it die and getting planes that fit the markets?

I agree but who is going to pay for development costs? Personally think EK would be much much happier if they could change order from A380 to hundred of A350-900,1000 or 2000. Nobody likes flying elephants anymore.

travelhound wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

I find it interesting that EA has basically said that they're not in the running. They haven't formally closed their program down, but it sounds as if they are not interested in taking more orders.

....and we have to ask ourselves how the market will respond to an engine OEM stating they are no longer supporting the program and/or RR not meeting contract guarantees on aircraft already delivered and/or no longer willing to commit resources to the program to continuously improve the product.

I'd suggest the value of the in-service A380 stock just took a substantial financial hit.

Delta TechOps will take over the maint on the existing engines

Bald1983 wrote:

GalebG4 wrote:

What about a380 combi version, especially European and Asian destinations.

What about letting it die and getting planes that fit the markets?

Also isnt the issue that the a380 volume to weight ratio is high, so you hit MTOW long before filling up the space? So unless someone is carrying bulk, it's more structure to haul around than needed. And if you are carrying bulk, there is no nose door possibility either.

Point is, it's never happening. These weekly threads are akin to someone trying to sell you a Microsoft Zune still.

smartplane wrote:

The 777X, 787 and A380 engine orders are all interlinked. None of these orders is currently unconditional. They remain conditional 'subject to engines', subject to finance on terms acceptable to EK' and some other conditions.

GE will have to make the EA engine available for the A380, at EK cradle to grave target price, with a PiP, as well as a frontline price on 777X and 787 engines.

If they don't, then alternative is RR sort their A380 offer, add other family engines, and the A350 and A330 replace the Boeing orders.

Or B incentivises GE, and A incentivises RR, or............................

B takes an equity interest in GE, which is on offer, and A takes an equity interest in RR, which would be timely, or....

Who will blink first?

Airbus has already been decisive recently with the A220.

Six months, and the global commercial aviation landscape will look rather different.

Sounds like Boeing-United all over again, and the US DOJ and EU will take a dim view of it.

Perhaps Emirates doesn't want the order because it's about to take over its next door neighbour? They've got plenty of 380's and plenty of other stuff on order!
It's gonna happen some time it's only a question of when (imho).

lightsaber wrote:

As to agressive, it had to be a better offer than EA was willing to make as EK switched engines. There is a cost to switching engines. RR won by promising lower fuel burn (amoung all the terms). I was under the impression the 36 were at effectively the terms of the prior 50. (I don't know.).

This opens up too many scenarios. The order is now too late to sustain current production in 2020 due to long lead items. So.. I'm very curious as to the outcome.

Lightsaber

Yep, there's a lot more going on than the article covers. RR was aggressive, but did not meet fuel burn, and apparently due to the various T1000 issues is not able to dedicate the resources to make things right. GE's house is not in order and has had setbacks in LEAP and GEnX. EA is saying it's a player but has had no engines roll off its line in quite a while. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_A ... deliveries suggests its last order was in 2012 for Transaero for 2015 EIS, but we know that didn't happen. Before that was a 2011 QR order for 2014 EIS, and none since. Airbus has lost Leahy and has seen Schulz resign and many other "old hands" preparing to retire. With the 2020 production gap being projected, those digestible losses on the A380 become less digestible. Yet EK really needs A380 for large parts of its network to work well. Popcorn time, says I.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

So, is the problem for the new order about not meeting the promised performance from the PiP for the first order, and unconnected with durability, or is it only about durability, or both?

TFA says:

But Rolls-Royce hasn’t being able to meet the fuel-improvement guarantees it previously promised, according to a person familiar with the talks.

Seems the issue is missing fuel burn guarantees for the last PIP.

I presume this means RR is paying some penalties for missing, but EK is not satisfied with such payments.

It also says:

Rolls-Royce itself has racked up millions in charges against durability issues on the engine’s high-pressure turbine blades.

but reading the article, it seems the fuel burn issue is the contentious issue.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

In the end, the A-380 is a plane designed for a market that does not exist. Airbus forecast a market for 1,200 VLA planes and expected the A-380 to grab the bulk of those orders. Airbus was right that the bulk of the VLA orders was grabbed by the A-380 but dead wrong on the fact that there was a 1,200 plane market for VLA s. But for Emirates, the program would already be dead and Emirates is ordering elsewhere. I believe the Gulf Airlines could be due for some rough times when there are aircraft that can fly non-stop from Eastern Australia to Europe, anyway.

The idea for the A380 dates back the the 1970's and 80's when Airbus had 747 envy. They had to have a plane that was even bigger. They were seeing A300 and A310 customers that were considering the A330 and A340 still buying 747's, because no one else had a plane in that category. They were also envious of the premium prices Boeing was getting. By the time Airbus was actually in a position to build the A380, the niche for VLA's was beginning to come to a close. Ironically Airbus' own A340-600 killed off 747-400 passenger orders well before the A380 program was launched. The 777-300ER killed off the A340-600 by achieving substantially better than expected fuel burn numbers and range during flight testing.

The 747 was designed for an era when most of the international air traffic was funneled trough just a few large hubs and there were just bilateral agreements between countries not multilateral open skies agreements. The Bermuda and Bermuda II agreements between the US and UK only allowed flights between LHR and a short list of US cities. Specifically the cities of Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta were barred up till 2008 from having nonstop flights to LHR. Also only two airlines from each country were allowed to fly between the US and LHR. Pan Am wanted to be able to consolidate lots of JFK-LHR traffic onto a fewer aircraft with better CASM when they ordered the first 747's. Today not only do Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta have nonstop flights to LHR but so does Austin. Any airline from the US can fly to any airport in the UK so long as it meets the safety regulations and can obtain slots. There are lots of open skies agreements around the world that have liberalized international air travel. A VLA has to justify itself on economic performance not on regulatory hurdles that prevent competitors from entering the market.

The 747 was designed as a freighter first and foremost, with passenger versions containing the nose door hardware in preparation for conversion to freight service well before the airframes were old. The ONLY reason it was offered as a passenger version was its range and the delays and then cancellation of the SST initiative. It was considered a lower end offering and the higher end offering would be an SST and once SST's took over long range flights the 747 would be relegated to a freighter and for airlines that could not afford or did not need an SST. They expected a few years of decent passenger sales until the SST thing took off. The 747 turned out to be the right plane at the right time, but Boeing didn't plan it that way.