JoeCanuck
Posts: 4598
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Mon Dec 03, 2018 7:51 am

Matt6461 wrote:

So the Ultrafan should have ~17.5% lower SFC than current A380 engines (GP7270 baseline).


I don't think the Ultrafan will be ready for prime time before 2025...and given the track record engine makers have of making deadlines...probably a few years after that. Nothing I've seen has led me to believe that the 380 will still be in production by the time the Ultrafan hits the market. How many 380neo's would EK have to buy to make the investment worthwhile? How much profit is Airbus making on each 380 now?

I think that engine will be the powerplant of choice for the 350neo, but I seriously doubt the 380 will be getting it.
What the...?
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 7556
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Mon Dec 03, 2018 7:55 am

First gen. Trent 700 = 100
Trent 700 EP2 = 97
Trent 900 = 95
Trent 97EP2 = 93
Trent 1000 = 89
Trent 7000 = 86-87
Trent 1000-TEN= 86-87
Trent XWB = 85
Advance = 80
Ultrafan = 75

Looking through my sources - I agree with this estimate.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2840
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Mon Dec 03, 2018 8:00 am

JoeCanuck wrote:
Nothing I've seen has led me to believe that the 380 will still be in production by the time the Ultrafan hits the market.


That's the crux of the issue and the issue of this thread. I tend to believe that EK will roll over and do whatever is necessary to keep the A380 spigot flowing, given the speculative remoteness of DWC and its promised freedom from slot constraints.

JoeCanuck wrote:
How many 380neo's would EK have to buy to make the investment worthwhile?


The A380NEO will NEVER launch unless it's the kind of product that appeals to more than EK. I believe such a product is possible, see my most recent A380NEO thread in TechOps for more.

So yeah I agree we can't be relying on EK to save this program post ~2025.
 
parapente
Posts: 2877
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Mon Dec 03, 2018 11:16 am

Re JoeCanuck.You would never build a brand new engine for it.But they may well use an existing engine.As we know they looked hard at the existing latest crop of engines,so it must have been cost feasible.But as others have said ( many times) these engines did not represent a big enough jump in sfc performance.The RR Ultra or similar is a different proposition entirely.
But it does of course remain entirely speculative at this point in time.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4598
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Mon Dec 03, 2018 8:25 pm

parapente wrote:
Re JoeCanuck.You would never build a brand new engine for it.But they may well use an existing engine.As we know they looked hard at the existing latest crop of engines,so it must have been cost feasible.But as others have said ( many times) these engines did not represent a big enough jump in sfc performance.The RR Ultra or similar is a different proposition entirely.
But it does of course remain entirely speculative at this point in time.


In my opinion, it doesn't make sense to re-engine the aircraft with anything other than the Ultrafan. If that is the case, either it gets the Ultra or the 380 is pretty much done. This is against the backdrop of the assumption that Ultra will continue to be developed and be used on a 350neo and it would require a minimum amount of work to be modified for the 380.

So my questions are;

Will the 380 endure long enough to get the Ultra?

Will there be enough sales to justify the expense of, not just the NEO development work, but whatever expenses are required to keep the line open while waiting for the Ultra, especially if there are, (the almost inevitable), delays?

Would investment in developing a 380neo ever be justified by sales?

Would it be more profitable for Airbus to divert those resources to other programs?

For me, the biggest question is this; If the big twins upgrade to the same gen engines as the 380neo, wouldn't that perpetuate the efficiency differences that exist now between current gen twins and the 380ceo...negating any re-engine advantage and rendering a NEO version pointless?
What the...?
 
bigjku
Posts: 1742
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Mon Dec 03, 2018 9:09 pm

JoeCanuck wrote:
parapente wrote:
Re JoeCanuck.You would never build a brand new engine for it.But they may well use an existing engine.As we know they looked hard at the existing latest crop of engines,so it must have been cost feasible.But as others have said ( many times) these engines did not represent a big enough jump in sfc performance.The RR Ultra or similar is a different proposition entirely.
But it does of course remain entirely speculative at this point in time.


In my opinion, it doesn't make sense to re-engine the aircraft with anything other than the Ultrafan. If that is the case, either it gets the Ultra or the 380 is pretty much done. This is against the backdrop of the assumption that Ultra will continue to be developed and be used on a 350neo and it would require a minimum amount of work to be modified for the 380.

So my questions are;

Will the 380 endure long enough to get the Ultra?

Will there be enough sales to justify the expense of, not just the NEO development work, but whatever expenses are required to keep the line open while waiting for the Ultra, especially if there are, (the almost inevitable), delays?

Would investment in developing a 380neo ever be justified by sales?

Would it be more profitable for Airbus to divert those resources to other programs?

For me, the biggest question is this; If the big twins upgrade to the same gen engines as the 380neo, wouldn't that perpetuate the efficiency differences that exist now between current gen twins and the 380ceo...negating any re-engine advantage and rendering a NEO version pointless?


Shhh...you aren’t supposed to say that. It upsets people.

In reality of course you are right. Unless there is a thrust level where a geared fan can go that is enough for the A380 but not enough for something 777 sized then you are 100% right. If it tops out at 80,000 pounds and the gears are the only way to get higher efficiency then maybe it works out but....

People also ignore that a geared engine isn’t necessarily the whole game either. By many reports the GE9X will set the bar fairly far out there and it seems to have a clear improvement path to drop in more of its advanced materials over time. The geared part frankly seems fairly easy compared to this. Could even be addressed with a JV with Pratt if you had to since they haven’t had any success on large engines at all recently.

Still a quad doesn’t necessarily have to be less efficient. A stretched and new wing and new engines could make the A380neo competitive for a narrow sliver of the market.

I don’t expect the 77X to get much past 500 frames. I wouldn’t expect an A380neo to go much past 300. If there is no A380neo I could see the 77X pushing towards 700 or so over a very long time frame.
 
smartplane
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Mon Dec 03, 2018 9:22 pm

JoeCanuck wrote:
parapente wrote:
Re JoeCanuck.You would never build a brand new engine for it.But they may well use an existing engine.As we know they looked hard at the existing latest crop of engines,so it must have been cost feasible.But as others have said ( many times) these engines did not represent a big enough jump in sfc performance.The RR Ultra or similar is a different proposition entirely.
But it does of course remain entirely speculative at this point in time.


In my opinion, it doesn't make sense to re-engine the aircraft with anything other than the Ultrafan. If that is the case, either it gets the Ultra or the 380 is pretty much done. This is against the backdrop of the assumption that Ultra will continue to be developed and be used on a 350neo and it would require a minimum amount of work to be modified for the 380.

So my questions are;

Will the 380 endure long enough to get the Ultra?

Will there be enough sales to justify the expense of, not just the NEO development work, but whatever expenses are required to keep the line open while waiting for the Ultra, especially if there are, (the almost inevitable), delays?

Would investment in developing a 380neo ever be justified by sales?

Would it be more profitable for Airbus to divert those resources to other programs?

For me, the biggest question is this; If the big twins upgrade to the same gen engines as the 380neo, wouldn't that perpetuate the efficiency differences that exist now between current gen twins and the 380ceo...negating any re-engine advantage and rendering a NEO version pointless?

Logical and rational thoughts, but.....

What is RR and Airbus paying EK for current performance deficiencies? How much and for how long are these payable? Is the only way to cease paying, to progress a PiP or re-engine?

Are the performance deficiencies sufficient to trigger a constructive breach of contract for all remaining EK A380 orders (conditional and unconditional)? What would these cost Airbus and RR in terms of compensation versus the cost to re-engine?

What would be the flow on impact in respect to the existing fleet? For example, trigger buybacks? Inflate buybacks if A380 ceases to be in production?

Rational to those on the outside, might not be quite as rational to those on the inside.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1742
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Mon Dec 03, 2018 9:24 pm

JoeCanuck wrote:
parapente wrote:
Re JoeCanuck.You would never build a brand new engine for it.But they may well use an existing engine.As we know they looked hard at the existing latest crop of engines,so it must have been cost feasible.But as others have said ( many times) these engines did not represent a big enough jump in sfc performance.The RR Ultra or similar is a different proposition entirely.
But it does of course remain entirely speculative at this point in time.


In my opinion, it doesn't make sense to re-engine the aircraft with anything other than the Ultrafan. If that is the case, either it gets the Ultra or the 380 is pretty much done. This is against the backdrop of the assumption that Ultra will continue to be developed and be used on a 350neo and it would require a minimum amount of work to be modified for the 380.

So my questions are;

Will the 380 endure long enough to get the Ultra?

Will there be enough sales to justify the expense of, not just the NEO development work, but whatever expenses are required to keep the line open while waiting for the Ultra, especially if there are, (the almost inevitable), delays?

Would investment in developing a 380neo ever be justified by sales?

Would it be more profitable for Airbus to divert those resources to other programs?

For me, the biggest question is this; If the big twins upgrade to the same gen engines as the 380neo, wouldn't that perpetuate the efficiency differences that exist now between current gen twins and the 380ceo...negating any re-engine advantage and rendering a NEO version pointless?


Also I think this ignores one factor that doesn’t get talked about enough. The A350 absent more stretches isn’t all that suited for an ultra-fan. It already has top of the market range. Likely more range than 95% of routes demand. A more fuel efficient engine will certainly reduce fuel burn but the additional range and payload gains may or may not be useful since it already does very well there.

The frame that benefits the most from new engines IMHO is the 787-10 which picks up very useful range at a lighter weight and makes it an A359 challenger on a lot more routes. I think Airbus would have more work to do to modify the A350 to fit a new engine than Boeing would for the 787. If the engines pickup 10-15% efficiency they can simply make the 789 a ULH airplane, the 787-10 a main market long hauler that could to TPAC work and a 787-11 as a CASM monster.

The A359 would obviously become a ULH king if you just drop new engines like that on it but that market is small. The A350-1000 would again be an aircraft well suited to ULH routes. To get back into the meat of the market you need to cut weight and likely rework the wing. It’s a project on the scale of the 777X in my view. While Boeing would have something closer to the A320neo or 737max if they did the same with the 787.
 
smartplane
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Mon Dec 03, 2018 9:41 pm

bigjku wrote:
The frame that benefits the most from new engines IMHO is the 787-10 which picks up very useful range at a lighter weight and makes it an A359 challenger on a lot more routes. I think Airbus would have more work to do to modify the A350 to fit a new engine than Boeing would for the 787. If the engines pickup 10-15% efficiency they can simply make the 789 a ULH airplane, the 787-10 a main market long hauler that could to TPAC work and a 787-11 as a CASM monster.

Wouldn't that also significantly harm the 777X family?

The advantage of a new generation engine appearing first on a 4 engine aircraft, is you can adopt lower entry ratings.

In service engine knowledge is phenomenal, allowing maintenance contracts to be priced extremely accurately (other than when design defects appear). Maintenance costs are not linear, which is why de-rates can be rewarding for the engine owner and operator. Some owners take this to the nth degree, where they won't accept engines subject to an RTO or single engine operation pre-delivery.
Last edited by smartplane on Mon Dec 03, 2018 9:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1742
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Mon Dec 03, 2018 9:49 pm

smartplane wrote:
bigjku wrote:
The frame that benefits the most from new engines IMHO is the 787-10 which picks up very useful range at a lighter weight and makes it an A359 challenger on a lot more routes. I think Airbus would have more work to do to modify the A350 to fit a new engine than Boeing would for the 787. If the engines pickup 10-15% efficiency they can simply make the 789 a ULH airplane, the 787-10 a main market long hauler that could to TPAC work and a 787-11 as a CASM monster.

Wouldn't that also significantly harm the 777X family?

The advantage of a new generation engine appearing first on a 4 engine aircraft, is you can adopt lower entry ratings.

In service engine knowledge is phenomenal, allowing maintenance contracts to be priced extremely accurately (other than when design defects appear). Maintenance costs are not linear, which is why de-rates can be rewarding for the engine owner and operator, to the point some customers won't accept engines subject to an RTO before delivery.


Very much so. The 77X has limited appeal long term in my view. New engines may let you do a final stretch without mucking about with the engines too much. Then it’s done in my view.

The 77X program might make a bit of money it might not. It’s main value will be in taking off the very top of the A350 market and making the cost to play anywhere above the 77X very high in my view. You would need an all CFRP aircraft of equal size to knock it out of its limited niche. It also in the long run will have huge added value to Boeing as a launching point for further automated production methods, the CFRP wing factory on site with the fuselages and mostly in restoring confidence in upper management that a 787 debacle won’t happen again.

Otherwise it’s an airplane for slot restricted routes and those with very heavy cargo demand.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 15821
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Mon Dec 03, 2018 10:38 pm

bigjku wrote:
smartplane wrote:
bigjku wrote:
The frame that benefits the most from new engines IMHO is the 787-10 which picks up very useful range at a lighter weight and makes it an A359 challenger on a lot more routes. I think Airbus would have more work to do to modify the A350 to fit a new engine than Boeing would for the 787. If the engines pickup 10-15% efficiency they can simply make the 789 a ULH airplane, the 787-10 a main market long hauler that could to TPAC work and a 787-11 as a CASM monster.

Wouldn't that also significantly harm the 777X family?

The advantage of a new generation engine appearing first on a 4 engine aircraft, is you can adopt lower entry ratings.

In service engine knowledge is phenomenal, allowing maintenance contracts to be priced extremely accurately (other than when design defects appear). Maintenance costs are not linear, which is why de-rates can be rewarding for the engine owner and operator, to the point some customers won't accept engines subject to an RTO before delivery.


Very much so. The 77X has limited appeal long term in my view. New engines may let you do a final stretch without mucking about with the engines too much. Then it’s done in my view.

The 77X program might make a bit of money it might not. It’s main value will be in taking off the very top of the A350 market and making the cost to play anywhere above the 77X very high in my view. You would need an all CFRP aircraft of equal size to knock it out of its limited niche. It also in the long run will have huge added value to Boeing as a launching point for further automated production methods, the CFRP wing factory on site with the fuselages and mostly in restoring confidence in upper management that a 787 debacle won’t happen again.

Otherwise it’s an airplane for slot restricted routes and those with very heavy cargo demand.

On missions of 10 to 17 hours, the 779 should have the lowest cost per passenger. Notably lower than the A388.

It will sell more, but not as outstanding as the 77W. The 778 will eventually become a freighter and sell as well as the current 777F IMHO.

Lightsaber

PS late edit, I changed the mission slightly.
You only have the first amendment with the 2nd. If you're not going to offend someone with what you say, you don't have the 1st.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 2813
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Mon Dec 03, 2018 11:22 pm

smartplane wrote:

In service engine knowledge is phenomenal, allowing maintenance contracts to be priced extremely accurately (other than when design defects appear). Maintenance costs are not linear, which is why de-rates can be rewarding for the engine owner and operator. Some owners take this to the nth degree, where they won't accept engines subject to an RTO or single engine operation pre-delivery.


Can we have a little "facts and data" please. Which airlines, which engine. I know it's been mentioned on the A350 delivery topic that certain airlines have a "new engine run" prior to the customer flight but is that just an observation or is it a fact. Although it's been awhile since I've been involved, Boeing doesn't do this, in fact the airplane must be "bought FAA" prior to a customer flight so you couldn't hang two new engines on it and put the customer onboard until the engines had been flown. In fact if an single engine change is required prior to a customer flight, Boeing would always do another flight prior to putting the customer on board. I don't think Airbus operates much differently. Anybody out there with first hand knowledge of AB procedures?

As for a "production" RTO, it's not particularly hard on an engine -- it's a test of the brakes. The engine isn't even taken to full thrust (Boeing), might be because it's prIor to first flight (Airbus) -- I don't know what the detriment would be to force an engine change after an RTO.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2840
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:02 am

JoeCanuck wrote:
Would investment in developing a 380neo ever be justified by sales?


Folks here raise this question often; there's a way to think about it systematically.
First, project a rough program cost - $4bn seems likely for stretched NEO with new empennage and wingtip treatments.
Second, posit some future profit stream that would justify the investment. $1.5bn/year seems adequate.
Third, project some production rate and from that a per-frame profit level. 30/year at $50mn gets you $1.5bn (plus aftermarket revenue). Estimate your production cost/frame and you have a target sales price.
Fourth, project your fuel burn delta as well as maintenance, fees, crew costs. Combine that with the sales price and you can calculate a direct operating cost.
Fifth, analyze whether an A380NEO with your projected operating cost would sell 30 frames/year.

For me the answer to this all quite clear: we should expect 40% or greater per-seat fuel burn delta and critically a plane that offers ~85% more capacity than a 777-9 for ~25-30% higher trip cost. Does that plane sell 30/year? Seems obvious to me that it does.
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Tue Dec 04, 2018 3:54 am

It is increasingly difficult for the engine manufacturers to improve fuel burn these days as the baseline has shifted to modern high bypass ratio turbofans. We are not going to get the same kind of improvements that we saw in the past. So even if there was a Neo for the A380, the most we can expect is 7-8% improvement in fuel burn. Until there is a new breakthrough in engine technology, we are stuck!
 
parapente
Posts: 2877
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Tue Dec 04, 2018 9:16 am

Re flee.It is true that as technology progresses with the same basic concept it does get harder and harder.And indeed ( percentages being what they are) a10% reduction today represents a much smaller advance than 10% of the far bigger numbers 30 years ago.
Having said that.I honestly believe that we have and are seeing some enormous breakthroughs in modern turbines.Progress is not linear and supercomputers and new materials are creating a burst of efficiencies.Todays giant widechord fan blades are massively more efficient in so many ways.It has taken the power of supercomputers and 3D weaving etc to get to these extraordinary shapes,but they have.Gearing is obviously another massive breakthrough,it's not just the fan that becomes so much more efficient ( no supersonic breakaway) the whole turbine now spins at its most efficient speeds.The use of ceramics to achieve temperatures and pressures unheard of and 3D 'burners' that extract a far higher energy from the hydrocarbons used.
Ever further into the future contrarotating fans and open rotor blades are waiting in the wings.Of course there are limits and yes it does get harder but there is more to come right now - and it needs to -With the Global Warming agenda .The spotlight is going to be on aviation and efficiency.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 7769
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Tue Dec 04, 2018 10:38 am

7BOEING7 wrote:
smartplane wrote:

In service engine knowledge is phenomenal, allowing maintenance contracts to be priced extremely accurately (other than when design defects appear). Maintenance costs are not linear, which is why de-rates can be rewarding for the engine owner and operator. Some owners take this to the nth degree, where they won't accept engines subject to an RTO or single engine operation pre-delivery.


Can we have a little "facts and data" please. Which airlines, which engine. I know it's been mentioned on the A350 delivery topic that certain airlines have a "new engine run" prior to the customer flight but is that just an observation or is it a fact. Although it's been awhile since I've been involved, Boeing doesn't do this, in fact the airplane must be "bought FAA" prior to a customer flight so you couldn't hang two new engines on it and put the customer onboard until the engines had been flown. In fact if an single engine change is required prior to a customer flight, Boeing would always do another flight prior to putting the customer on board. I don't think Airbus operates much differently. Anybody out there with first hand knowledge of AB procedures?

As for a "production" RTO, it's not particularly hard on an engine -- it's a test of the brakes. The engine isn't even taken to full thrust (Boeing), might be because it's prIor to first flight (Airbus) -- I don't know what the detriment would be to force an engine change after an RTO.


The only airline I know of that gets the A350 delivered with new engines, changed before customer acceptance flight, is Qatar. The prior test flights are flown with a used engine.
 
moa999
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Tue Dec 04, 2018 10:52 am

As well as the engine i assume any neo will also utilise the plus option which could well add 10% pax.

11 across in Y, smaller stair cases for more room, possibly even lower deck spaces given the work Airbus is doing on the A350
 
smartplane
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Tue Dec 04, 2018 8:32 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
7BOEING7 wrote:
smartplane wrote:

In service engine knowledge is phenomenal, allowing maintenance contracts to be priced extremely accurately (other than when design defects appear). Maintenance costs are not linear, which is why de-rates can be rewarding for the engine owner and operator. Some owners take this to the nth degree, where they won't accept engines subject to an RTO or single engine operation pre-delivery.


Can we have a little "facts and data" please. Which airlines, which engine. I know it's been mentioned on the A350 delivery topic that certain airlines have a "new engine run" prior to the customer flight but is that just an observation or is it a fact. Although it's been awhile since I've been involved, Boeing doesn't do this, in fact the airplane must be "bought FAA" prior to a customer flight so you couldn't hang two new engines on it and put the customer onboard until the engines had been flown. In fact if an single engine change is required prior to a customer flight, Boeing would always do another flight prior to putting the customer on board. I don't think Airbus operates much differently. Anybody out there with first hand knowledge of AB procedures?

As for a "production" RTO, it's not particularly hard on an engine -- it's a test of the brakes. The engine isn't even taken to full thrust (Boeing), might be because it's prIor to first flight (Airbus) -- I don't know what the detriment would be to force an engine change after an RTO.


The only airline I know of that gets the A350 delivered with new engines, changed before customer acceptance flight, is Qatar. The prior test flights are flown with a used engine.

This should be in a separate thread, but....

And Chinese airlines, and others asking / requiring.

Historically, it was only for technical reasons.

Now, because engines (especially WB) are a big cost component, and a significant payment milestone coincides with engine delivery and fitting, customers want to defer this cost, especially if delivery may be delayed.

Also, maintenance contract payments start with the first on wing engine run. And some engine settings including RTO can affect future variable payments.

For aircraft rolled out before Christmas, but with scheduled delivery after, RR has historically deferred the payment milestone. However, neither Airbus or RR like to do this, which is why the run up to Christmas is marked by a flurry of deliveries (and at Boeing too).

Airbus has a pool of RR-owned engines on PBTH for this purpose.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4598
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Tue Dec 04, 2018 11:24 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
JoeCanuck wrote:
Would investment in developing a 380neo ever be justified by sales?


Folks here raise this question often; there's a way to think about it systematically.
First, project a rough program cost - $4bn seems likely for stretched NEO with new empennage and wingtip treatments.
Second, posit some future profit stream that would justify the investment. $1.5bn/year seems adequate.
Third, project some production rate and from that a per-frame profit level. 30/year at $50mn gets you $1.5bn (plus aftermarket revenue). Estimate your production cost/frame and you have a target sales price.
Fourth, project your fuel burn delta as well as maintenance, fees, crew costs. Combine that with the sales price and you can calculate a direct operating cost.
Fifth, analyze whether an A380NEO with your projected operating cost would sell 30 frames/year.

For me the answer to this all quite clear: we should expect 40% or greater per-seat fuel burn delta and critically a plane that offers ~85% more capacity than a 777-9 for ~25-30% higher trip cost. Does that plane sell 30/year? Seems obvious to me that it does.


40% seat mile burn delta for only 4 billion dollars? That's a pretty good deal but seems a bit optimistic to me, as does the concept of 30 sales per year, maintained over enough years to make even that 4 billion dollars back...and I suspect it would be considerably more.

The 380ceo supposedly had similar seat mile advantages over its twin contemporaries and that really hasn't panned out very well. For one thing, its success relies, not just on fuel burn advantage, but raw passenger load numbers into slot restricted airports. It turns out modern twins bring close enough, (if not better), fuel burn economics with the advantage of route versatility and passengers like the convenience of frequency. Slots seem to be more available than predicted from increasing airport efficiency and/or expanding/replacing major airports.

What airlines would buy 30 380neos per year?

As well, if the 380neo can lower fuel burn enough to achieve a 40% fuel burn/seat delta by the mid/late 2020's, much of it would come from next gen engines. Presumably, those would be the Ultra, and since the 350neo would probably be getting those, if the stretch doesn't get the green light, the efficiency advantage of the 380 once again disappears. In the meantime, GE is working very diligently on technologies such as CMC's, (and I suspect GTF's), and the GE9x could very well match the Ultrafan by the time it enters service.

In the meantime, enough 380ceo's have to be made to keep the line open for the decade or so before the neo entered service.

My crystal ball is pretty hit and miss so we'll have to wait and see.
What the...?
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2840
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:57 am

JoeCanuck wrote:
The 380ceo supposedly had similar seat mile advantages over its twin contemporaries and that really hasn't panned out very well.


Only in the dreams of fanboys here, not even Airbus ever claimed something like 40% edge over the twins.
And the fact is that A388 is about as fuel-efficient per seat as 77W - give or take a percentage or two depending on layout.

JoeCanuck wrote:
As well, if the 380neo can lower fuel burn enough to achieve a 40% fuel burn/seat delta by the mid/late 2020's, much of it would come from next gen engines. Presumably, those would be the Ultra, and since the 350neo would probably be getting those, if the stretch doesn't get the green light, the efficiency advantage of the 380 once again disappears.


The edge would not disappear.
The essential thing to realize is that the A380 can add cabin space at 2/3 the "cost" in fuselage drag and weight versus the twins.
It's an advantage that Airbus frittered away with disastrous design decisions last decade, but one which can be mostly corrected.
That means a stretch, new engines, large wingtips, and a new empennage. It doesn't get you an optimal plane but even a slightly suboptimal double-decker is far ahead of single-deck efficiency.
$4bn would be the most expensive NEO project ever, by far. But call it $5bn and it should still pencil out.

JoeCanuck wrote:
In the meantime, enough 380ceo's have to be made to keep the line open for the decade or so before the neo entered service.


Right but Airbus appears prepared to eat that cost.

JoeCanuck wrote:
40% seat mile burn delta for only 4 billion dollars? That's a pretty good deal but seems a bit optimistic to me


Ok so we have a technical disagreement: If Airbus can achieve 40% fuel burn delta for $4bn it has a good project, right?
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4598
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Wed Dec 05, 2018 10:28 am

Matt6461 wrote:

Ok so we have a technical disagreement: If Airbus can achieve 40% fuel burn delta for $4bn it has a good project, right?


IF they can, it would certainly help the case for the NEO...but there is a lot in that IF. If the engines are on time and on spec. If they can both, get enough customers for the neo and fill the ceo slots until neo EIS. If it can beat the big twins in efficiency by enough of a margin, it would go a long way in persuading airlines other than EK to buy it.

Odds are, the 350 will get the Ultra, GE will have PIP'd the heck out of the GE9X and undoubtedly trickled down some tech into the GEnx, so while the 380 would get more efficient...so would the competition.

I can't seem to find anything from Airbus talking about a 380neo since 2015...so are they even still considering it?

I think the fate of the NEO ultimately is down to EK. If they really want it, they will commit to enough of them to support the program themselves. Sales to other airlines would just be bonus. If EK doesn't, won't or can't...then the 380neo, in my opinion, is DOA.
What the...?
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 7769
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Wed Dec 05, 2018 11:19 am

JoeCanuck wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:

Ok so we have a technical disagreement: If Airbus can achieve 40% fuel burn delta for $4bn it has a good project, right?


IF they can, it would certainly help the case for the NEO...but there is a lot in that IF. If the engines are on time and on spec. If they can both, get enough customers for the neo and fill the ceo slots until neo EIS. If it can beat the big twins in efficiency by enough of a margin, it would go a long way in persuading airlines other than EK to buy it.

Odds are, the 350 will get the Ultra, GE will have PIP'd the heck out of the GE9X and undoubtedly trickled down some tech into the GEnx, so while the 380 would get more efficient...so would the competition.

I can't seem to find anything from Airbus talking about a 380neo since 2015...so are they even still considering it?

I think the fate of the NEO ultimately is down to EK. If they really want it, they will commit to enough of them to support the program themselves. Sales to other airlines would just be bonus. If EK doesn't, won't or can't...then the 380neo, in my opinion, is DOA.


On the same engines the A380-800 should be more efficient than everything else. Stretched to -900 and the plus changes should increase the delta.

The Trent advanced should at least equal the GE9x.
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 242
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Wed Dec 05, 2018 11:19 am

JoeCanuck wrote:
Odds are, the 350 will get the Ultra, GE will have PIP'd the heck out of the GE9X and undoubtedly trickled down some tech into the GEnx, so while the 380 would get more efficient...so would the competition


This is a point that often get's brought up and apparently continously needs to get debunkend.

The A380 would not just get the SFC improvement, but as a result could tackle all the inefficiencies which are the result of trying to squeeze a 10/8 tube into a 80m span with 2005 engine tech.

- It's too heavy for it's wingspan (high induced drag)
- Being a shrink means there is a low percentage of length actually providing revenue.
- Being short makes for a large empennage.
- Being short compromises cargo space.

Ultrafan levels of SFC will allow to address these issue by trading fuel weight for more length without adding MTOW, in fact reducing it. Since the twins aren't as compromised in those area's they won't gain anywhere near as much efficiency.

But frankly this has been said so many times already. Perhaps just copy paste the text anytime it comes up again.
Innovation is seeing opportunity before obstacle.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 8728
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Wed Dec 05, 2018 1:10 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
JoeCanuck wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:

Ok so we have a technical disagreement: If Airbus can achieve 40% fuel burn delta for $4bn it has a good project, right?


IF they can, it would certainly help the case for the NEO...but there is a lot in that IF. If the engines are on time and on spec. If they can both, get enough customers for the neo and fill the ceo slots until neo EIS. If it can beat the big twins in efficiency by enough of a margin, it would go a long way in persuading airlines other than EK to buy it.

Odds are, the 350 will get the Ultra, GE will have PIP'd the heck out of the GE9X and undoubtedly trickled down some tech into the GEnx, so while the 380 would get more efficient...so would the competition.

I can't seem to find anything from Airbus talking about a 380neo since 2015...so are they even still considering it?

I think the fate of the NEO ultimately is down to EK. If they really want it, they will commit to enough of them to support the program themselves. Sales to other airlines would just be bonus. If EK doesn't, won't or can't...then the 380neo, in my opinion, is DOA.


On the same engines the A380-800 should be more efficient than everything else. Stretched to -900 and the plus changes should increase the delta.

The Trent advanced should at least equal the GE9x.

Is being more efficient than everything else enough?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 19136
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Wed Dec 05, 2018 1:20 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
The edge would not disappear.
The essential thing to realize is that the A380 can add cabin space at 2/3 the "cost" in fuselage drag and weight versus the twins.
It's an advantage that Airbus frittered away with disastrous design decisions last decade, but one which can be mostly corrected.
That means a stretch, new engines, large wingtips, and a new empennage. It doesn't get you an optimal plane but even a slightly suboptimal double-decker is far ahead of single-deck efficiency.
$4bn would be the most expensive NEO project ever, by far. But call it $5bn and it should still pencil out.

Ok so we have a technical disagreement: If Airbus can achieve 40% fuel burn delta for $4bn it has a good project, right?

Not till you find $4Bn worth of profit (and probably more, since "our" math here typically does not include the engine OEM's cost, and both businesses need to make a good margin to fund future products) from the customer base.

EK is an A380 "enthusiast" but now has the world's largest 777 fleet and the biggest 777x order too, while still having the 787-10 order penciled in as well. I doubt they are going to order A380neo on anything like a 1:1 replacement scale vs A380.

Then you have a bunch of "lukewarm" A380 customers such as SQ, BA, LH, QF, KE who operate relatively small fleets compared to EK and who might best do 1:1 A380 replacement.

Then we have the "hell no" customers such as MH, TG, AF, etc who already know their route network does not support the cost of a Whale sub fleet, even with hugely better economics.

We can quibble but we can't predict an A380neo till we can predict it will not just pay for itself plus a profit margin, but also be more lucrative than other programs that could get funded. Currently Airbus doesn't have industry leading cash flow, and RR has been dancing around the profit/loss line. Clearly there is money to be made in the narrow body space ( you may have heard of A322 somewhere ) and wide body space ( A350-2000, A350neo ) and those programs will need funding too.

Then you'll have to find a way to bring the financial community along with you, because to clear 4bn profit you're going to have to fund ~40bn+ of aircraft, and the Dr. Peters of this world aren't going to be able to sell A380 bonds the same way they did in 2005.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
parapente
Posts: 2877
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Wed Dec 05, 2018 1:57 pm

Yup the key is Emirates 5 years down the line.If they remain both slot restricted at both their home base and end destinations -and they have load factors at 80% ish then it's quite possible imho that they could slap down a carrot of 100+ frames over time.They have dangled this carrot before.If that happens the group of 'other' airlines that successfully operate the A380 would most likely order.This a run of 200 frames (800 engines before spares) is possible.If that engine already exists ( Ultra for 787/350) then it's quite possible it would happen.
But all depends on the RR programme and that's still a long way off at present.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1742
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Wed Dec 05, 2018 2:06 pm

Taxi645 wrote:
JoeCanuck wrote:
Odds are, the 350 will get the Ultra, GE will have PIP'd the heck out of the GE9X and undoubtedly trickled down some tech into the GEnx, so while the 380 would get more efficient...so would the competition


This is a point that often get's brought up and apparently continously needs to get debunkend.

The A380 would not just get the SFC improvement, but as a result could tackle all the inefficiencies which are the result of trying to squeeze a 10/8 tube into a 80m span with 2005 engine tech.

- It's too heavy for it's wingspan (high induced drag)
- Being a shrink means there is a low percentage of length actually providing revenue.
- Being short makes for a large empennage.
- Being short compromises cargo space.

Ultrafan levels of SFC will allow to address these issue by trading fuel weight for more length without adding MTOW, in fact reducing it. Since the twins aren't as compromised in those area's they won't gain anywhere near as much efficiency.

But frankly this has been said so many times already. Perhaps just copy paste the text anytime it comes up again.


The cargo problem isn’t one of overall length of volume but rather you add more passenger for a given unit of length and little space is left over. You will gain some space but not a ton.

Does it get more efficient stretched? Sure because they apparently botched the initial design so badly. But I am not sure it holds a greatly higher market appeal as a bigger plane.

Also whatever it cost it seems like it would be better spent addressing the issues with the A350 that will emerge if you put a significantly more fuel efficient engine on it. Those won’t be cheap to adjust.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 19136
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Wed Dec 05, 2018 2:22 pm

parapente wrote:
Yup the key is Emirates 5 years down the line.If they remain both slot restricted at both their home base and end destinations -and they have load factors at 80% ish then it's quite possible imho that they could slap down a carrot of 100+ frames over time.They have dangled this carrot before.If that happens the group of 'other' airlines that successfully operate the A380 would most likely order.This a run of 200 frames (800 engines before spares) is possible.If that engine already exists ( Ultra for 787/350) then it's quite possible it would happen.
But all depends on the RR programme and that's still a long way off at present.

Thing is, we know A380 at best broke the profit/loss line when it was delivering 27 frames per year. You'd need to be in that ball park to even sniff a profit, because even if they have optimized things as they've downsized they are going to be adding cost when they do a stretch with new tail and wingtips.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 7769
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Wed Dec 05, 2018 2:48 pm

bigjku wrote:
Taxi645 wrote:
JoeCanuck wrote:
Odds are, the 350 will get the Ultra, GE will have PIP'd the heck out of the GE9X and undoubtedly trickled down some tech into the GEnx, so while the 380 would get more efficient...so would the competition


This is a point that often get's brought up and apparently continously needs to get debunkend.

The A380 would not just get the SFC improvement, but as a result could tackle all the inefficiencies which are the result of trying to squeeze a 10/8 tube into a 80m span with 2005 engine tech.

- It's too heavy for it's wingspan (high induced drag)
- Being a shrink means there is a low percentage of length actually providing revenue.
- Being short makes for a large empennage.
- Being short compromises cargo space.

Ultrafan levels of SFC will allow to address these issue by trading fuel weight for more length without adding MTOW, in fact reducing it. Since the twins aren't as compromised in those area's they won't gain anywhere near as much efficiency.

But frankly this has been said so many times already. Perhaps just copy paste the text anytime it comes up again.


The cargo problem isn’t one of overall length of volume but rather you add more passenger for a given unit of length and little space is left over. You will gain some space but not a ton.

Does it get more efficient stretched? Sure because they apparently botched the initial design so badly. But I am not sure it holds a greatly higher market appeal as a bigger plane.

Also whatever it cost it seems like it would be better spent addressing the issues with the A350 that will emerge if you put a significantly more fuel efficient engine on it. Those won’t be cheap to adjust.


If there would be a stretch, cargo volume compared to passenger number would increase more. The area that wing box and MLG takes is taken. So any additional length gives cargo volume only.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 19136
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:00 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
bigjku wrote:
Taxi645 wrote:

This is a point that often get's brought up and apparently continously needs to get debunkend.

The A380 would not just get the SFC improvement, but as a result could tackle all the inefficiencies which are the result of trying to squeeze a 10/8 tube into a 80m span with 2005 engine tech.

- It's too heavy for it's wingspan (high induced drag)
- Being a shrink means there is a low percentage of length actually providing revenue.
- Being short makes for a large empennage.
- Being short compromises cargo space.

Ultrafan levels of SFC will allow to address these issue by trading fuel weight for more length without adding MTOW, in fact reducing it. Since the twins aren't as compromised in those area's they won't gain anywhere near as much efficiency.

But frankly this has been said so many times already. Perhaps just copy paste the text anytime it comes up again.


The cargo problem isn’t one of overall length of volume but rather you add more passenger for a given unit of length and little space is left over. You will gain some space but not a ton.

Does it get more efficient stretched? Sure because they apparently botched the initial design so badly. But I am not sure it holds a greatly higher market appeal as a bigger plane.

Also whatever it cost it seems like it would be better spent addressing the issues with the A350 that will emerge if you put a significantly more fuel efficient engine on it. Those won’t be cheap to adjust.


If there would be a stretch, cargo volume compared to passenger number would increase more. The area that wing box and MLG takes is taken. So any additional length gives cargo volume only.

True, but the stretch also adds more passengers, and the 10+8 cross section adds them at a more significant rate than, let's say, the 777X stretch with 10+0 cross section or A350 with 9+0 cross section.

The big twins are absolute cargo monsters in a way the A380 never will be as long as the 80m box exists.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
parapente
Posts: 2877
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:20 pm

I would question the word 'know' Revelation.Its the one thing ( cost) manufacturers keep very close to their chest! ( I do know that - and am sure you do too).Thats not to say manufacturing 9 frames a year is suddenly highly profitable because it's clearly not! But on a previous thread I referenced 'marginal costing/contribution ' which I believe is relevant in aircaft manufacturing.
Bottom line.I really don't think they would continue to manufacture the product if it really was at a full scale loss position in every sense.Nobody would do that.
I would accept the worst case scenario of B/E at present.It also stops the 779 running away with the VLR market.And no they wouldn't re-Engine in 6+ years time with an 'Ultra' or similar unless it made money for them,just as they wouldn't re twist the wing and develop double blended winglets unless it too could command the price premium required to make a profit.
In truth it's all a long way away.They need to tie up this latest deal asap and just quietly manufacture it as economically as possible for the next 5 years.There is nothing more Airbus can say on the subject and frankly RR has other more pressing matters right now!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 19136
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Wed Dec 05, 2018 5:23 pm

parapente wrote:
I would question the word 'know' Revelation.Its the one thing ( cost) manufacturers keep very close to their chest! ( I do know that - and am sure you do too).Thats not to say manufacturing 9 frames a year is suddenly highly profitable because it's clearly not! But on a previous thread I referenced 'marginal costing/contribution ' which I believe is relevant in aircaft manufacturing.
Bottom line.I really don't think they would continue to manufacture the product if it really was at a full scale loss position in every sense.Nobody would do that.

I'm having a hard time seeing how you can be at near break even with 27/year, then absorb the cost of downsizing facilities, laying off people, and paying higher prices to sub-contractors due to low volume, and still be anywhere near break even.

I suggest "digestible losses" would not be very digestible in other contexts.

Then, ~2025 you're going to ask those same subs to ramp up production using 20 year old tech and be able to do so at similar or better pricing?

parapente wrote:
I
I would accept the worst case scenario of B/E at present.It also stops the 779 running away with the VLR market.And no they wouldn't re-Engine in 6+ years time with an 'Ultra' or similar unless it made money for them,just as they wouldn't re twist the wing and develop double blended winglets unless it too could command the price premium required to make a profit.
In truth it's all a long way away.They need to tie up this latest deal asap and just quietly manufacture it as economically as possible for the next 5 years.There is nothing more Airbus can say on the subject and frankly RR has other more pressing matters right now!

I think we're agreeing that a big part of a future A380neo will be to get enough order volume big enough for both Airbus and RR to decide it's not just worth doing, it's more worthwhile than the other things they can do with their time and money.

I think the next few years will further consolidate the industry around the A321/797/787/A330/A350 sweet spot and make the A380 even more of an outlier than it currently is.

I think the A380 program is at great risk of a post-Enders regime asking itself it they really want to keep it on life support for the next several years just to see if a NEO is viable then.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4598
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Wed Dec 05, 2018 7:12 pm

Taxi645 wrote:
JoeCanuck wrote:
Odds are, the 350 will get the Ultra, GE will have PIP'd the heck out of the GE9X and undoubtedly trickled down some tech into the GEnx, so while the 380 would get more efficient...so would the competition


This is a point that often get's brought up and apparently continously needs to get debunkend.

The A380 would not just get the SFC improvement, but as a result could tackle all the inefficiencies which are the result of trying to squeeze a 10/8 tube into a 80m span with 2005 engine tech.

- It's too heavy for it's wingspan (high induced drag)
- Being a shrink means there is a low percentage of length actually providing revenue.
- Being short makes for a large empennage.
- Being short compromises cargo space.

Ultrafan levels of SFC will allow to address these issue by trading fuel weight for more length without adding MTOW, in fact reducing it. Since the twins aren't as compromised in those area's they won't gain anywhere near as much efficiency.

But frankly this has been said so many times already. Perhaps just copy paste the text anytime it comes up again.


Take a closer look at what you quoted. There's nothing there that needs debunking. I simply point out that all modern engines will be more efficient by the time a 380neo could be produced. Calculating actual relative efficiency gains is speculation. We don't know exactly what the Ultrafan efficiency will be, especially at EIS. So far, engine makers haven't done a great job of living up to their promises right out of the box...and in some cases, not at all. The 787 engines took forever to make their promised SFC.

EK's current problem with RR is that their promised efficiencies of the T900 never materialized at all, and they aren't going to issue any more PIP's to fix them.

Will the first NEO engines make promised SFC from the start? Or, as we've seen from everybody, will they take years after EIS to actually get the engines up to spec?

The X factor in the NEO debate is whether or not anybody really wants or needs a 380neo. The only airline even asking about it is EK, and if they really want it, all they have to do is commit to it. Big. Well, not just that. They would also have to commit to buying enough CEO's to keep the 380 line open until the NEO enters production.

What's the current rate...6 per year? I'm guessing Airbus is losing cash on every 380 it currently builds and someone would have to pay those losses for another decade until the NEO could enter service, PLUS buy enough NEO'S so Airbus could pay off the upgrade, and score a tidy profit otherwise what's the point?

A 10% increase in seat numbers for a stretch doesn't automatically equal a 10% decrease in seat mile costs. Gains from drag/wingtip improvement are unknown. Wing improvements are limited by the 80m box. They could go with a folding wing I guess? A stretch doesn't fix the cargo problem inherent with a double decker; two decks of passengers above one deck of cargo bay.

Airbus is a business and you can't eat money forever. In my opinion, without the NEO, the 380 is done. Without a huge commitment from EK, (and possibly some upfront cash so they don't change their mind), the 380 is done.

Airlines already aren't buying the biggest airliner in the world but they are buying twins by the droves. Correction; they are buying the medium sized twins by the droves. They don't seem keen on the biggest ones. Will they be inclined to buy a bigger, biggest airliner in the world? They aren't asking for it, at least in public, so I think they aren't interested.

I can't see the future and don't claim to. Just like everyone else, I'm speculating. Maybe it will get made and be a super hot seller. I doubt it but time will tell.
What the...?
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2840
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Wed Dec 05, 2018 9:34 pm

JoeCanuck wrote:
I can't seem to find anything from Airbus talking about a 380neo since 2015...so are they even still considering it?


During EK negotiations at the end of last year, Airbus said the deal involved a commitment to "massively" upgrade the plane down the line:

Bregier said “the principal” of a deal with Emirates would involve just such a promise, requiring it to win additional orders elsewhere and upgrade the model “massively” in coming years. “This is the plan,” he added. “We probably need to sharpen the pencils a bit.”


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... her-decade

I doubt there's binding terms in the EK contract for a NEO, but there was likely at least a good faith representation of NEO plans to induce the EK order.

Polot wrote:
Is being more efficient than everything else enough?


No of course not. A 10,000-seater with 1% lower CASM wouldn't sell, for example.
The issue is marginal trip cost versus marginal capacity.
If half of an A380NEO's added seats are "free" compared to twins, then it's in the ballpark of commercial success.
If not, its fate will be the same as the A388.

bigjku wrote:
The cargo problem isn’t one of overall length of volume but rather you add more passenger for a given unit of length and little space is left over. You will gain some space but not a ton.


Correct. Simply stretching the plane won't get you much cargo delta after additional bags are considered.
But cargo isn't that big a deal for the economics of airplane selection except when comparing planes with similar passenger economics.
That wouldn't apply to good NEO, as it'd be far ahead of any other plane (including A350NEO/787MAX).

Revelation wrote:
Not till you find $4Bn worth of profit (and probably more, since "our" math here typically does not include the engine OEM's cost, and both businesses need to make a good margin to fund future products) from the customer base.


If you add engine OEM profit to the business case then you have to back engine sales cost out of the DOC analysis. That would make a much, much cheaper plane for airlines...

In any case, if there is, say, a $2bn future profit stream possible from a NEO then Airbus and some engine OEM could work out a financial structure to fund it. If, say, Airbus could close its case under normal program profit distribution but RR could not, then Airbus would simply have to subsidize RR via a risk-sharing agreement or some other structure. Airbus is already a partner of RR in Ultrafan development. We don't the details of the arrangement but it's surely not free.

If we say an engine OEM partnership adds $1bn to a NEO balance sheet that doesn't necessarily kill the project - it just depends on the actual technical characteristics feasible for a -900NEO next decade. IMJ there's a feasible path to 50% per-pax fuel reduction NEO; if that's true then the business case gets so much easier.

The main reason I have some confidence in my technical projections (however slight) is that Airbus is "disgesting" untold millions to keep the line going. Unless we believe this is entirely for ego/pride reasons - possible but doubtful - then they have to believe some pot of gold is at the end. I don't believe for a second that they buy their shtick about airport congestion (this is for newspapers), so I have to believe their engineers are telling them something similar to what I'm saying re the economic characteristics of a NEO.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4598
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:53 am

Whatever happens, it's another interesting chapter in the 380 saga. I seem to recall a lot of press about it being an 800 seater and was surprised when it went into service with seating in the 500 range. I always thought mass people mover was where it was going to shine.

On that note, what's the word on EK's 2 class 380? How are the loads?
What the...?
 
WIederling
Posts: 7151
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Thu Dec 06, 2018 9:39 am

JoeCanuck wrote:
I seem to recall a lot of press about it being an 800 seater and was surprised when it went into service with seating in the 500 range.


The -900 or the -UDH1000 would have been "right sized".
Airbus seems to have had a pronounced lack of braveness
to not start out with the optimal size. Step too large?
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 242
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Thu Dec 06, 2018 10:23 pm

Seems the good folks at Leeham haven't given up completely on the A380 after all. Perhaps if we ask nicely they'd be willing to put a stretched ultrafan NEO through their performance model as well.

https://leehamnews.com/2018/12/06/is-th ... more-28785
Innovation is seeing opportunity before obstacle.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 15821
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Thu Dec 06, 2018 10:39 pm

Taxi645 wrote:
Seems the good folks at Leeham haven't given up completely on the A380 after all. Perhaps if we ask nicely they'd be willing to put a stretched ultrafan NEO through their performance model as well.

https://leehamnews.com/2018/12/06/is-th ... more-28785

The good folks at Leeham didn't give up on the A346 until long after the market spoke.

Lightsaber

Late edit:
https://leehamnews.com/2013/12/08/airbu ... 40-future/

They were selling used A340s for hot high in 2013. Isn't that what 788s or A359s are for? Very few of those parked A340s found a new home.

Unless there is a pax to freight for the A380, I worry about the 2nd life...
You only have the first amendment with the 2nd. If you're not going to offend someone with what you say, you don't have the 1st.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2840
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Thu Dec 06, 2018 10:47 pm

JoeCanuck wrote:
Gains from drag/wingtip improvement are unknown.


I want to push back on this a little.
Aerodynamics is a super-complex topic but there are fundamental principles from which one can predict fundamental performance with reasonable accuracy.
The improvements envisioned for a NEO stretch - new engines, smaller empennage, and wing tip treatments - confer fundamentals deltas whose fuel-burn impact we can predict within 5% or so.
For an engineer a 5% error is gross incompetence, for us a 5% error to a fuel delta forecast still gives us a good picture of the economics.
For example: if the forecast fuel burn delta is -40% then our 5% error interval is 38-42%.

We can reasonably predict fuel burn performance from 3 metrics: weight, SFC, and L/D.
We can reasonably predict L/D delta from (1) effective span delta due to winglets and (2) delta to wetted area - adjusted slightly for Cdp - from smaller empennage, larger fuselage, and smaller engines.
We can reasonably predict weight delta from the foregoing changes. Weight's probably the hardest to model but its delta range is small compared to A388 OEW so any error delta is likewise small.

A fundamentals-based calculation of the delta to empennage size, engine size, and fuselage get you about even on total parasitic drag.
Using winglets of span/winglet ratio slightly higher than 737MAX gets you ~15% higher L/D.
Weight delta is only on the order of 5% for a -900NEO stretch because of the smaller empennage, much lighter engines.
SFC delta I model as -17.5%.

Combine the following deltas: -17.5% SFC, +15% L/D, +5% OEW, +20% pax.
Use the Breguet Range Equation or really any mental math and you get -40% fuel burn delta easily.
Be aggressive and it's 50%.

Any acceptable error range still leaves you within shot of a compelling NEO product.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 8728
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Thu Dec 06, 2018 10:51 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Taxi645 wrote:
Seems the good folks at Leeham haven't given up completely on the A380 after all. Perhaps if we ask nicely they'd be willing to put a stretched ultrafan NEO through their performance model as well.

https://leehamnews.com/2018/12/06/is-th ... more-28785

The good folks at Leeham didn't give up on the A356 until long after the market spoke.

Lightsaber

Without being able to read the actual article is doesn’t really seem like the good folks at Leeham said anything about the future of the A380. They just note that in their models the A380 performs better per seat than the 77W assuming similar density and load factors.

Now whether there are enough markets to support those higher seat counts, year round (can’t just ignore low season), and thus support the A380 program is another story.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2840
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Thu Dec 06, 2018 10:53 pm

Taxi645 wrote:
Seems the good folks at Leeham haven't given up completely on the A380 after all. Perhaps if we ask nicely they'd be willing to put a stretched ultrafan NEO through their performance model as well.

https://leehamnews.com/2018/12/06/is-th ... more-28785


Note of clarification: Leeham sees 77W and A388 as basically identical on fuel burn. The A388's economic advantage per passenger is on lower engine mx, crew, en routes fees and (especially) acquisition cost. Leeham also says that the A388 has denser seating measured in pax/m2 than 77W, even when both are 10-abreast. I find that hard to believe.

Leeham used this same argument to promote the ~2015 A380NEO proposals and were clearly wrong in that argument.

Also:

Leeham's caveat is that the A380 needs to have the same load factor for better efficiency.
This ignores yield as a factor, which has bigger impact on A388 operators than load factor most likely.
Yield management is the hallmark of sophisticated modern airline operations, to discuss the A380 without discussing yield is to miss the boat.
 
Eyad89
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Thu Dec 06, 2018 11:07 pm

Matt6461 wrote:

We can reasonably predict fuel burn performance from 3 metrics: weight, SFC, and L/D




Isn’t the weight factor already considered in the L/D calculations (induced drag), why count it again separately?
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4598
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Thu Dec 06, 2018 11:09 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Taxi645 wrote:
Seems the good folks at Leeham haven't given up completely on the A380 after all. Perhaps if we ask nicely they'd be willing to put a stretched ultrafan NEO through their performance model as well.

https://leehamnews.com/2018/12/06/is-th ... more-28785

The good folks at Leeham didn't give up on the A356 until long after the market spoke.

Lightsaber


...and the market seems to be saying that it likes frequency and versatility.

The 380 needs a white knight to continue on in any form and EK is the only possible candidate. While it does occasionally present a wish list, it seems to do so with less enthusiasm than what is required to give the relevant parties enough confidence to pull the trigger on the program.

Even if the economics of the required upgrades to the airframe can make sense, what are the odds of the Ultrafan being ready for prime time, in the time frame required?

The the track record of the engine makers over the past decade or so, doesn't offer much in the way of confidence. The Ultrafan is especially problematic being a significant technological departure for RR. Their recent engines have been 3 spool. The Ultra will be a 2 spool GTF, chock full of exotic materials and technology. 2025 is just over 6 years away. Their resources are stretched thin trying to get current engines up to reliability and sfc specs...and they aren't nearly as bleeding edge as the ultrafan is proposed to be.

I think the idea of the Ultra being ready by 2025 is a pipe dream...and in my opinion, without it, there is absolutely no case for the 380neo.
What the...?
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 242
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Thu Dec 06, 2018 11:18 pm

In my view this deal is designed to stretch to the ultrafan including possible delays. Why bother otherwise? Of course EK wanted Airbus to get more airlines in so they didn't have to carry that burden on their own. Well, no one was interested, so now there seems to be some pushing and shoving by each party involved to make it the least painfull for them.

About the market, yes it likes frequences at an acceptable price delta...

Anyways, I obviouly agree with Matt that the A380 has a lot of potential. A NEO's CASM levels would be so low that it not only may reshift the balance with the twins, but could also draw a whole new part of the world population into air travel.

If the A350NEO get's priority over an A330 replacement and they pull through with an A380 update then I expect a significant stretch like Matt has proposed. If the recent job offers were all smoke and mirrors though and we get an A330 replacement first than a more moderate stretch wirh new wings and a serious weight reduction seems more likely.

But indeed, it won't be a cheap upgrade.
Last edited by Taxi645 on Thu Dec 06, 2018 11:36 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Innovation is seeing opportunity before obstacle.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 15821
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Thu Dec 06, 2018 11:31 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
JoeCanuck wrote:
Gains from drag/wingtip improvement are unknown.


I want to push back on this a little.
Aerodynamics is a super-complex topic but there are fundamental principles from which one can predict fundamental performance with reasonable accuracy.
The improvements envisioned for a NEO stretch - new engines, smaller empennage, and wing tip treatments - confer fundamentals deltas whose fuel-burn impact we can predict within 5% or so.
For an engineer a 5% error is gross incompetence, for us a 5% error to a fuel delta forecast still gives us a good picture of the economics.
For example: if the forecast fuel burn delta is -40% then our 5% error interval is 38-42%.

We can reasonably predict fuel burn performance from 3 metrics: weight, SFC, and L/D.
We can reasonably predict L/D delta from (1) effective span delta due to winglets and (2) delta to wetted area - adjusted slightly for Cdp - from smaller empennage, larger fuselage, and smaller engines.
We can reasonably predict weight delta from the foregoing changes. Weight's probably the hardest to model but its delta range is small compared to A388 OEW so any error delta is likewise small.

A fundamentals-based calculation of the delta to empennage size, engine size, and fuselage get you about even on total parasitic drag.
Using winglets of span/winglet ratio slightly higher than 737MAX gets you ~15% higher L/D.
Weight delta is only on the order of 5% for a -900NEO stretch because of the smaller empennage, much lighter engines.
SFC delta I model as -17.5%.

Combine the following deltas: -17.5% SFC, +15% L/D, +5% OEW, +20% pax.
Use the Breguet Range Equation or really any mental math and you get -40% fuel burn delta easily.
Be aggressive and it's 50%.

Any acceptable error range still leaves you within shot of a compelling NEO product.

First, I like your thinking. But I estimate a little more weight and a climb fuel burn penalty, so less of fuel burn savings. I also dream of that efficient of wing tip treatment. Actual might be 2/3rds after comp

However, it is still competitive. If a NEO, stretch, smaller tail, and wing tip treatment.
You only have the first amendment with the 2nd. If you're not going to offend someone with what you say, you don't have the 1st.
 
parapente
Posts: 2877
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Thu Dec 06, 2018 11:39 pm

The reason Emirates has not gone for densification (X11 @18"Y) is because they can't fill what they've already got - look at the load factors.Indeed with their fourth coming launch of Premium class they will be reducing seat numbers.No one needs a bigger A380. Emirates stopped asking for one a long while ago.
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 242
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Thu Dec 06, 2018 11:48 pm

parapente wrote:
The reason Emirates has not gone for densification (X11 @18"Y) is because they can't fill what they've already got - look at the load factors.Indeed with their fourth coming launch of Premium class they will be reducing seat numbers.No one needs a bigger A380. Emirates stopped asking for one a long while ago.


Perhaps not at current CASM level, but we are not talking about current CASM levels...
Innovation is seeing opportunity before obstacle.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4598
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Thu Dec 06, 2018 11:50 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
JoeCanuck wrote:
Gains from drag/wingtip improvement are unknown.


I want to push back on this a little.
Aerodynamics is a super-complex topic but there are fundamental principles from which one can predict fundamental performance with reasonable accuracy.
The improvements envisioned for a NEO stretch - new engines, smaller empennage, and wing tip treatments - confer fundamentals deltas whose fuel-burn impact we can predict within 5% or so.
For an engineer a 5% error is gross incompetence, for us a 5% error to a fuel delta forecast still gives us a good picture of the economics.
For example: if the forecast fuel burn delta is -40% then our 5% error interval is 38-42%.

We can reasonably predict fuel burn performance from 3 metrics: weight, SFC, and L/D.
We can reasonably predict L/D delta from (1) effective span delta due to winglets and (2) delta to wetted area - adjusted slightly for Cdp - from smaller empennage, larger fuselage, and smaller engines.
We can reasonably predict weight delta from the foregoing changes. Weight's probably the hardest to model but its delta range is small compared to A388 OEW so any error delta is likewise small.

A fundamentals-based calculation of the delta to empennage size, engine size, and fuselage get you about even on total parasitic drag.
Using winglets of span/winglet ratio slightly higher than 737MAX gets you ~15% higher L/D.
Weight delta is only on the order of 5% for a -900NEO stretch because of the smaller empennage, much lighter engines.
SFC delta I model as -17.5%.

Combine the following deltas: -17.5% SFC, +15% L/D, +5% OEW, +20% pax.
Use the Breguet Range Equation or really any mental math and you get -40% fuel burn delta easily.
Be aggressive and it's 50%.

Any acceptable error range still leaves you within shot of a compelling NEO product.


Your math is better than mine but I have a few quibbles. So far, we don't know what they would do to the wing. Do they have the room to widen the span for the 15% advantage? Airbus says the sharklets increased fuel efficiency on the 320 by 4%, so working backwards, what is the L/D efficiency improvement due to the sharklets? What gains did the 330neo see? Maybe they go with a folding tip. If so, how much work would it take to mod the wing for that?

New gen engines have been at least as heavy as the previous gen engines, (usually heavier). I'd be interested in seeing a reference to the Ultrafan engines being much lighter. The ultra fan will have a larger diameter which will make it draggier. Any work to the wing will also make it heavier. To me, 5% seems low for the OEW gain for a stretch. The 777-300ER has an OEW almost 20% higher than the 777-200ER. Would they even bother changing the empennage?

The last thing I read was that a stretch would increase seats by 50, which is closer to a 10% increase than 20%.

Regardless, none of it works if the 380 doesn't get the Ultrafan in a timely manner...and really I don't think RR can pull it off.
What the...?
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 242
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:00 am

JoeCanuck wrote:
Regardless, none of it works if the 380 doesn't get the Ultrafan in a timely manner...and really I don't think RR can pull it off.


As said, why would Airbus and EK go through all this trouble building and buying a plane past it's competitive cycle at a trickle rate to bridge the gap to ultrafan and not built in contingency for one or two years delay? Of course they wouldn't. As if they would say, well we managed to pull through to 2025 but now there's a delay so we'll pack our bags, throw away hundreds of millions and call it a day.

They'll have margin built in in case there are delays with ultrafan, but yeah it's not easy sailing to get there.
Innovation is seeing opportunity before obstacle.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2840
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Updated: Sir Tim Clark: Emirates next batches of A380s will be powered by RR

Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:06 am

JoeCanuck wrote:
...and the market seems to be saying that it likes frequency and versatility.


And here's the best option for frequency and versatility:

Image

Instead of flying 3x daily 787/A350's, just fly 100x daily Global 6500 business jets with 10-15 pax.
And you could offer direct routes like BNA-PSA or JAX-MUC, which should have a few PDEW.
Obviously the market cares about frequency and versatility, yes, but also efficiency.
When smaller, more versatile planes take little to no efficiency hit - as with A380 vs. 787/A350 - then airlines use the smaller planes.
When the efficiency implications of scale are very significant, however, there would be a different calculus.

The underlying economics of airliner trends (i.e. efficiency vs. capacity tradeoff) explain the market at a deeper level than a simple description of size category trends. Change the economics sufficiently and you can change the trends.

lightsaber wrote:
I estimate a little more weight and a climb fuel burn penalty, so less of fuel burn savings. I also dream of that efficient of wing tip treatment.


Re climb fuel burn penalty: I estimate a lower T/W ratio for a NEO and therefore a longer climb.
But the aerodynamics of climb - the excess lift and lower speeds - mean that 70-80% of A380 drag during climb is induced rather than parasitic.
The L/D delta, therefore, would be closer to the (inverse of) Di delta: on the order of 25% better climb L/D.
I haven't dug deeply into the math but it seems conservative to estimate that a winglet-ed NEO would have a more fuel-efficient climb, even if that climb were longer in duration. But I'd love to hear your reasons for thinking otherwise.

Re weight I estimate a big savings on engine weight. More on that below.

JoeCanuck wrote:
So far, we don't know what they would do to the wing. Do they have the room to widen the span for the 15% advantage? Airbus says the sharklets increased fuel efficiency on the 320 by 4%, so working backwards, what is the L/D efficiency improvement due to the sharklets? What gains did the 330neo see?


Good questions re A320 and A330 winglets.
Here again we have to look at the underlying reasons for the deltas rather than solely at the observed outcomes.
A320 and A330's drag breakdowns are ~35% induced drag. For the A380 Di is ~55%.
Winglets work by reducing Di at a cost of some Dp and weight delta.
So at first cut you have >40% more impact from similar winglets on A380 versus A320/330.
Then at second cut you consider the Di vs. Dp/weight tradeoff made in optimizing winglet size. A320/330 could have seen further Di delta from bigger winglets, but at some point the Dp/weight delta outweighs the Di delta. For the A380 that crossover point is further out because Di is a bigger portion of drag, implying that the optimal winglet for an A380 is significantly larger than for the A320/330.

JoeCanuck wrote:
New gen engines have been at least as heavy as the previous gen engines, (usually heavier).


That's probably right to a certain extent but not a law of nature. And it isn't so right that the principle overcomes the math of particular cases.
GTF allows for a shorter core with fewer stages as the compressors spin faster. Ultrafan will a shorter, slim-line nacelle that reduces weight somewhat - though core weight is most of engine dry weight.
The A380's engines have low T/W ratios of ~5. I expect Ultrafan T/W to be around ~5.5.
As with most things A380, any discussion of future versions has to be grounded in how bad the current version is. The A388's engines are far too big and heavy for it.

JoeCanuck wrote:
Would they even bother changing the empennage?


The A380's empennage is 90% the area (and therefore the drag) of one wing. They'd be insane not to change it.
Empennages don't get much mention on A.net because... well people just don't know enough. But this is a huge opportunity for A380 efficiency delta.
Airbus planned to change the empennage as part of its last round of A380NEO discussions. http://aviationweek.com/airbus-a380/lea ... on-nearing

JoeCanuck wrote:
The last thing I read was that a stretch would increase seats by 50, which is closer to a 10% increase than 20%.


Why believe what you read when basic arithmetic can tell us more?
A 31ft stretch to the A380 would add 1178ft2 of cabin area (248in and 208in-wide decks). That's 20% of the A380's current cabin area.
20% capacity delta from a 20% cabin area delta underestimates the capacity impact: we'd be adding only the most efficient constant section, and wouldn't need to add any doors.
Plus I haven't accounted for any of the "A380plus" revisions - smaller stairs etc. - that should give another ~3% capacity delta (I don't buy Airbus' higher marketing figures and neither do the airlines obviously).
Plus there are other NEO options - sidewall shaving, aft bulkhead revision.
Last edited by Matt6461 on Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos