Airliners.net

I think by now it's safe to say that the A380 program is dead.

Not yet. If they finally get that EK follow on order now they can bridge some time with low rate production until some new engine generation becomes available in the mid 2020s. As air traffic will have grown by then again the case for big aircraft might improve so a stretch would not be unthinkable.
Say, Emirates wants to put in 20 percent more seats on each flight and rolls over it's A380 fleet with a more efficient engine generation at the same time. Didn't they even paint parking marks for some "A380-900" somewhere in a hangar?

Noshow wrote:

If they finally get that EK follow on order

If.

Noshow wrote:

Not yet. If they finally get that EK follow on order now they can bridge some time with low rate production until some new engine generation becomes available in the mid 2020s. As air traffic will have grown by then again the case for big aircraft might improve so a stretch would not be unthinkable.
Say, Emirates wants to put in 20 percent more seats on each flight and rolls over it's A380 fleet with a more efficient engine generation at the same time. Didn't they even paint parking marks for some "A380-900" somewhere in a hangar?

Thing is, EK has already pushed very hard for A380neo in 2014-6 and could NOT make it happen.

Thiat was back when engine makers were in a better position than they now are.

In the interim Airbus pushed "A380 Plus" with new winglets, and other aero and cabin tweaks, and could NOT make it happen.

Now we're in a place where EK has already migrated their First Class product (minus showers) to 777-300ER and is going to start receiving 777-9 with its all new wing and state of the art engines in a year or two, followed by 777-8 a year or two after that.

I don't think we'll be seeing a 1:1 roll over of the EK A380 fleet.

If you really want to follow up on this, check out: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A ... 2F+a380neo

And a summary: This is not a fight between Airbus, engine makers, and EK. They all would like to make the business case to continue production. The campaign slogan, Its the economy, stupid, comes to mind. Substitute business case, and in the case they are synonyms.

Revelation wrote:

moa999 wrote:

First thing is engines. Much of the current defecit comes from a 2 gen old engine and I doubt the current engine manufacturers will be willing to develop a new plant... To fix this any future A380 needs to use stock 330/350 or future derivative engines.

Thing is, the current A380 did not get stock A330 engines at launch and Airbus's Tom Williams told us the TXWB/T7000 was not a good match for the A380.

http://aviationweek.com/singapore-2014/ ... nvolvement tells us:

(Airbus executive vice president of programs Tom) Williams does not see a common new engine for the A330 and A380 as the optimal solution. Concerns include the sizing of the core and overall architecture, as well as weight. “It really does not make much sense,” he believes.

The T1000/T7000/TXWB core is too big, and the engine weigh too much. I think it's too much to ask for one engine to be sized appropriately for a medium twin like A330, a big twin like A350 and a big quad like A380. I think T1000 is designed for 787 but too big/heavy for 747-8i and contributed to the later program's disappointing results.

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=602795 makes for some interesting reading:

The decision to go ahead with the A380, which Williams admits “he was part of”, may have been a mistake. The company is breaking even on each one it makes but after multi-billion development costs Williams admits the programme “will never be profitable”. However, he notes the decision more than a decade ago to make the giant jet came at a time when Airbus saw “Boeing making a ton of money on the 747, exchange rates were different, the oil price was different”.

Things have changed at Airbus since the company was set up in the Sixties with backing from European governments to take on US dominance in aerospace, Williams claims. “The days when we did some projects for ego, valour or pride are gone,” he says.

Was the A380 done for these reasons? “I don’t know but it was probably on the cusp,” he says.

IMHO Airbus's chief engineer is telling us that the A380's day has passed and that ego/valour/pride was involved in the launch decision.

That article is from 2014, before the T7000 was even a thing. The T1000 has also been updated to the TEN (which is what the T7000 essentially is). There is a very small weight difference (roughly 200kg) between the the T900 and T7000. The T7000 appears to weigh less than the GP7200 in fact.
The T7000 also has a slightly smaller diameter.

The TXWB is too heavy.

Slug71 wrote:

That article is from 2014, before the T7000 was even a thing. The T1000 has also been updated to the TEN (which is what the T7000 essentially is). There is a very small weight difference (roughly 200kg) between the the T900 and T7000. The T7000 appears to weigh less than the GP7200 in fact.
The T7000 also has a slightly smaller diameter.

The TXWB is too heavy.

Correct, but the context for Williams's response was a "common new engine for the A330 and A380" and certainly T1000 was a known thing and T7000 was easy to envision, yet he said the idea made little sense.

We see right now with the delay in EK's 20 ship order that making the economics of ordering A380s with engines that are already certified is challenging.

It suggests that doing a certification program for T7000 would be even harder to achieve financially.

If we wonder how the bigger Trents work on A380, there should be some data on that:



And yet, no A380neo.

WIederling wrote:

American 767 wrote:

Airbus tried to sell it to major freighter operators, but without success. There was a time when UPS showed interest in it. UPS was thinking of buying it but decided not to so Airbus aborted the A380F project.

You are making up history here. not unusual for some posters. But still not the way it happened.

25 A380F ~~May 2006
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 424#Orders

Then Airbus ran into trouble with the base model ( mostly wiring, a black hole of engineering hours )
and work on the -900 and -800F was pushed on the backburner and very low heat.
From there -800F orders seem to have been morphed or canceled in a mutual arrangement.

And UPS used the A380F order to cancel the rest of their A300F order. Worked out great -- no AB airplanes, no penalties

Revelation wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

That article is from 2014, before the T7000 was even a thing. The T1000 has also been updated to the TEN (which is what the T7000 essentially is). There is a very small weight difference (roughly 200kg) between the the T900 and T7000. The T7000 appears to weigh less than the GP7200 in fact.
The T7000 also has a slightly smaller diameter.

The TXWB is too heavy.

Correct, but the context for Williams's response was a "common new engine for the A330 and A380" and certainly T1000 was a known thing and T7000 was easy to envision, yet he said the idea made little sense.

We see right now with the delay in EK's 20 ship order that making the economics of ordering A380s with engines that are already certified is challenging.

It suggests that doing a certification program for T7000 would be even harder to achieve financially.

If we wonder how the bigger Trents work on A380, there should be some data on that:



And yet, no A380neo.

It very well may have made little sense back then, I'm not so sure it still holds true though. The A380 has seen very little orders since then, and the T900 and GP7200 is all but EOL today (and pretty much has been for at least a year). The last PIPs did not meet expectations either.

I'd love to hear how he feels about now.

Slug71 wrote:

It very well may have made little sense back then, I'm not so sure it still holds true though. The A380 has seen very little orders since then, and the T900 and GP7200 is all but EOL today (and pretty much has been for at least a year). The last PIPs did not meet expectations either.

I disagree. The way I read his concerns:

(Airbus executive vice president of programs Tom) Williams does not see a common new engine for the A330 and A380 as the optimal solution. Concerns include the sizing of the core and overall architecture, as well as weight. “It really does not make much sense,” he believes.

.. suggests to me he's really saying the needs of a quad and a big twin are divergent, and I'd suggest they'll diverge more with time as engines get more optimized for their roles.

Slug71 wrote:

I'd love to hear how he feels about now.

On this we can agree. The article I linked to is a nice read, and I'd love to hear more from him. I read he's retiring shortly. I'd love to read his biography, if he chooses to write one. Same goes for any of the principals involved in the A380 program.

If the current EK top up order gets an engine and goes unconditional, the odds of a NEO, which may or may not grow in size, increase.

If the top up order fails due to lack of an engine, could Plan B be a commitment by RR or GE to offer a re-engine path for the current and to be delivered A380 fleet, linked to 777X and 787 orders going unconditional?

EK may never be in as powerful a position in the future as they are now, with three conditional mega aircraft and engine orders. Boeing / GE's to lose. The 777X order, at least tranche 1, is fast approaching a milestone to go unconditional supported by substantial pre-delivery payments and guarantees. Unless 777X timetable has slipped, and / or EK has deferred first deliveries, should be an announcement in the next 60 days.

Taxi645 wrote:

Personalliy I think Airbus will wait with any A380NEO/stretch deciscion till Boeing has decided on the NMA for two reasons:

1 They will know where Boeing resources (financial, R&D etc.) will be committed too in the relevant period.

2 When knowing the NMA offering they can define the specification and timing of the A330 successor, which engines the A380NEO probably needs to close the bussiness case from an engine perspective.

I will add to this that this timing allows Airbus to see how Brexit will turn out, what will be the consequences and choose a strategy regarding British production moving forward. This could be very relevant to future wing production and have an influence on A380NEO business case.

Wingtips56 wrote:

Since nobody has yet to put seats in a 380 that reach it's design maximum, nor has anyone bitten at the proposed 11-abreast additional capacity, I don't see the need for a 380 stretch. If current potential capacity hasn't been exploited, then why would an even larger potential capacity be considered?

Because to put it very simple, you would get (some amount of) stretch almost for free. The weight saving potential on an ultrafan generation A380 is so large that at a certain point the advantages of reducing the weight further vs. gaining fuselage efficiency (revenue provide length vs. overall length in this case) probably very quickly starts to tilt to the later.

bigjku wrote:

I don’t see these engines working on an A380 stretch. Assuming MTOW stays the same

Well you explain it yourself. The assumption is wrong considering the huge fuel weight reduction a ultrafan type engine would provide and then we're not even talking about further weight reduction possibilities in the A380 which are enormous as well. There are plenty of threads about it.

In general the A380CEO was a good but not a great plane when it was launched. Not a great plane like the 787 or A350 for instance. To put a 10 plus 8 tube (you could argue 11/9 even) within an 80m wingspan with the engine tech at that time meant rhere were some serious compromises.

The A380-800 was already heavy for it's wingspan and the short fuselage meant a large percentage of the length would not provide revemue. The 900 didn't have the latter problem but was heavier still and meant more risks regarding yield.

It was a reasonable deciscion, Airbus just shot itself in the foot with the wiring drama compromising sales potential in the period it was still most competitive.

If it can hold out a few more years people can see what that the 10/8 fuselage can do when it's weight is optimized for the sold capacity, it is not hampered by such an induced drag penalty, fuselage efficiency is greatly increased with a small stretch and reduction in non fuselage parasitic drag and running state of the engines (which bypass ratio's it's closest competition can't run without huge investment and chane of concept).

We will know if it will get another shot either before the end of the year and if the deal pulls through probably within the next two years.

Some good points made there Smartplane.And no doubt that's why this 'stuff' is 'leaking' into the media.We have a major air show coming up and the EOY timing you mentioned.So decisions are fast approaching.It may be being further confused by what's going on amongst the ME3 - or is it 2? Even project sunrise might be having a small effect.There is also the major launch of a brand new premium class by Emirates which could have some consequences on space/capacity.

Wingtips56 wrote:

Since nobody has yet to put seats in a 380 that reach it's design maximum, nor has anyone bitten at the proposed 11-abreast additional capacity, I don't see the need for a 380 stretch. If current potential capacity hasn't been exploited, then why would an even larger potential capacity be considered?

People seem to keep walking right past this point. A large SUV can hold 8 passengers. Airbus is already selling a 12 passenger SUV that few people are asking for, and their fans are saying they should build a 15 passenger SUV just because the initial design work allows for one.

Taxi645 wrote:

Because to put it very simple, you would get (some amount of) stretch almost for free. The weight saving potential on an ultrafan generation A380 is so large that at a certain point the advantages of reducing the weight further vs. gaining fuselage efficiency (revenue provide length vs. overall length in this case) probably very quickly starts to tilt to the later.

"Almost for free" is off target. Even if the plans exist somewhere and even if there is built in room for growth, you still have a lot of money to spend doing detailed design, new tooling, initial build, flight test, certification, etc.

We saw the A380+ prototype winglets and it would have been "almost for free" to productize them, but still no joy.

Taxi645 wrote:

If it can hold out a few more years people can see what that the 10/8 fuselage can do when it's weight is optimized for the sold capacity, it is not hampered by such an induced drag penalty, fuselage efficiency is greatly increased with a small stretch and reduction in non fuselage parasitic drag and running state of the engines (which bypass ratio's it's closest competition can't run without huge investment and chane of concept).

What about the huge investment that engine maker will need to make on "state of the art" engines for a "concept" that is now on life support?

Why wouldn't they put their engines on a platform that has a lot more market potential than the A380 platform?

Taxi645 wrote:

We will know if it will get another shot either before the end of the year and if the deal pulls through probably within the next two years.

Even getting this spotty deal into place took all of Leahy's skills, including a threat to close down the line.

The fact that this deal isn't closing on schedule is yet another signal that the A380 is on thin ice.

To me the more interesting event on the calendar is when Enders and his administration walk off the stage.

The new administration might prefer a better diet than the digestible losses that Enders et al have been taking in.

Revelation wrote:

Wingtips56 wrote:

Since nobody has yet to put seats in a 380 that reach it's design maximum, nor has anyone bitten at the proposed 11-abreast additional capacity, I don't see the need for a 380 stretch. If current potential capacity hasn't been exploited, then why would an even larger potential capacity be considered?

People seem to keep walking right past this point. A large SUV can hold 8 passengers. Airbus is already selling a 12 passenger SUV that few people are asking for, and their fans are saying they should build a 15 passenger SUV just because the initial design work allows for one.

Taxi645 wrote:

Because to put it very simple, you would get (some amount of) stretch almost for free. The weight saving potential on an ultrafan generation A380 is so large that at a certain point the advantages of reducing the weight further vs. gaining fuselage efficiency (revenue provide length vs. overall length in this case) probably very quickly starts to tilt to the later.

"Almost for free" is off target. Even if the plans exist somewhere and even if there is built in room for growth, you still have a lot of money to spend doing detailed design, new tooling, initial build, flight test, certification, etc.

We saw the A380+ prototype winglets and it would have been "almost for free" to productize them, but still no joy.

Taxi645 wrote:

If it can hold out a few more years people can see what that the 10/8 fuselage can do when it's weight is optimized for the sold capacity, it is not hampered by such an induced drag penalty, fuselage efficiency is greatly increased with a small stretch and reduction in non fuselage parasitic drag and running state of the engines (which bypass ratio's it's closest competition can't run without huge investment and chane of concept).

What about the huge investment that engine maker will need to make on "state of the art" engines for a "concept" that is now on life support?

Why wouldn't they put their engines on a platform that has a lot more market potential than the A380 platform?

If you had made a sincere effort in understanding what I am saying in this very thread, you wouldn't be asking both questions. I'm a bit tired of spelling everything out (several times) to people who don't have an open mind to anything else but "no".

Revelation wrote:

Even getting this spotty deal into place took all of Leahy's skills, including a threat to close down the line.

The fact that this deal isn't closing on schedule is yet another signal that the A380 is on thin ice.

To me the more interesting event on the calendar is when Enders and his administration walk off the stage.

The new administration might prefer a better diet than the digestible losses that Enders et al have been taking in.

Agreed it is on thin ice. If the deal goes through chances for a neo are much better. If not.....

I'm sure the new administration will make a sound business deciscion.

I'll add one more consideration. The only way I can see them not stretching the NEO would be when the weight saving of not doing a small stretch would be critical to make a significant amount of laminar flow work on a new wing. If the drag/economics improvement would be equal or close to the CASM reduction of a small stretch then I could see a plausible reason to not stretch.

I think Revelations observations and adherence to the historical facts are spot on.
Historically speaking it does (did) look like a NEO was considered orca 2-3 years ago when the T1000/TXWB were new engines ( the latter requiring a half stretch).But for whatever reasons it didn't happen and that's just a fact.
RR have long since moved on to a completely new architecture in the 'Advance/Ultra'.
Now. Whether they can be persuaded to build a 75klbs version is unknown.But highly unlikely unless they planned to build one anyway for a 787 NEO.Which I doubt as it would simply upset the. Existing status quo.And right now neither needs an expensive bun fight like that.

If one is really looking for far fetched scenarios one could perhaps see an Emirates proposal that offered RR the 787 engine deal 'if' they offered the T7000 on the 380.But even then it's not really up to RR as they don't hang the engines -Airbus do and there's nothing in it for them.Now if Emirates were to swap the 7810's for the 339 then that would be different.But they won't as Emirates are very unlikely to accept 16.5" seats in Y.The 359 seems too much plane for Emirates sadly.

Just purely from a mathematical point of view, let's say they would make the 380-800 or -900 with a completely new wing (777X-style), how far off would we be from a potential TwinEngineOption? Meaning, how much additional thrust would we need from the most powerful engine today (or in 10 years time), to make the A380 fly with only 2 of them?

That should make the big bird a lot more attractive, no?

Carlos01 wrote:

Just purely from a mathematical point of view, let's say they would make the 380-800 or -900 with a completely new wing (777X-style), how far off would we be from a potential TwinEngineOption? Meaning, how much additional thrust would we need from the most powerful engine today (or in 10 years time), to make the A380 fly with only 2 of them?

That should make the big bird a lot more attractive, no?

You would likely need 60% more thrust than the 77X engines to get it done. Depends how much weight the A380 sheds. But a lot. Not sure it sits high enough. I am not sure the fans would fit if sized up to that capacity with the current gear.

bigjku wrote:

Carlos01 wrote:

Just purely from a mathematical point of view, let's say they would make the 380-800 or -900 with a completely new wing (777X-style), how far off would we be from a potential TwinEngineOption? Meaning, how much additional thrust would we need from the most powerful engine today (or in 10 years time), to make the A380 fly with only 2 of them?

That should make the big bird a lot more attractive, no?

You would likely need 60% more thrust than the 77X engines to get it done. Depends how much weight the A380 sheds. But a lot. Not sure it sits high enough. I am not sure the fans would fit if sized up to that capacity with the current gear.

Then how about 3? Throwing one up - you - know - where? Ok, pls ignore that.

I actually miss the good old days of aviation, when extreme plane designs were still allowed. Like the only double-decker single aisle;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breguet_Deux-Ponts

Just beautiful.

The A380 was the wrong aircraft at the wrong time, and conceived under assumptions which have proved faulty. It is built to be stretched, which means it has too much wing and is too heavy for the size that it is. But it also has the misfortune to have been designed just before a major innovation hit the industry, CFRP construction. If a stretch were to be built it would have to offer significantly better economics than the next larger plane available, currently the 779, and have enough demand to sell enough to make the project financially viable. The first part is possible, especially as the original was built with a stretch in mind,but since only one airline seems even remotely interested in it the second clearly is not. So I would say the A380 stretch will fly just as soon as it has a herd of flying pigs to escort it.

Carlos01 wrote:

Just purely from a mathematical point of view, let's say they would make the 380-800 or -900 with a completely new wing (777X-style), how far off would we be from a potential TwinEngineOption? Meaning, how much additional thrust would we need from the most powerful engine today (or in 10 years time), to make the A380 fly with only 2 of them?

That should make the big bird a lot more attractive, no?

You would need engines that produce roughly 160,000lbs of thrust each. That is not going to happen any time soon.

parapente wrote:

I think Revelations observations and adherence to the historical facts are spot on.
Historically speaking it does (did) look like a NEO was considered orca 2-3 years ago when the T1000/TXWB were new engines ( the latter requiring a half stretch).But for whatever reasons it didn't happen and that's just a fact.
RR have long since moved on to a completely new architecture in the 'Advance/Ultra'.
Now. Whether they can be persuaded to build a 75klbs version is unknown.But highly unlikely unless they planned to build one anyway for a 787 NEO.Which I doubt as it would simply upset the. Existing status quo.And right now neither needs an expensive bun fight like that.

If one is really looking for far fetched scenarios one could perhaps see an Emirates proposal that offered RR the 787 engine deal 'if' they offered the T7000 on the 380.But even then it's not really up to RR as they don't hang the engines -Airbus do and there's nothing in it for them.Now if Emirates were to swap the 7810's for the 339 then that would be different.But they won't as Emirates are very unlikely to accept 16.5" seats in Y.The 359 seems too much plane for Emirates sadly.

A NEO 2-3 years ago just didn't make sense. Before 2030 doesn't make sense IMO. It needs a major update in addition to a NEO to remain competitive as it ages.
The Ultrafan is supposed to be a scalable engine, so it should be workable.

The T7000 might be far fetched, but makes the most sense. Airlines will save money on the maintenance and parts commonality. And the will be future PIPs.
There will be nothing with the T900. Very bad for the used A380 market. It may not really be up to RR pushing for the T7000. But it would benefit them more to make that happen than spending any more money on the T900.

A well supported engine would be a much better selling point for Airbus too. With some redesigned winglets (that can preferrably be retrofitted), I would think a 4% gain should be achievable. And is a pretty minimal update compared to what will be needed for a true NEO.

Slug71 wrote:

A NEO 2-3 years ago just didn't make sense.

2-3 years ago is right when A330neo was being mooted. Doing A380neo instead or in parallel would have bought EK's undying admiration and a solid launch order (at least these 20 and probably more), perhaps a tranche of SQ renewals instead of 777Xs, maybe BA/AF/QF/whomever, maybe a re-engine program to add value to those whom invested so much into the A380, some great 'halo' press coverage, etc. Yet the result was yes to A330neo, no to A380neo. Airbus had to be realize what no NEO would mean to A380, and yet, no NEO.

Revelation wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

A NEO 2-3 years ago just didn't make sense.

2-3 years ago is right when A330neo was being mooted. Doing A380neo instead or in parallel would have bought EK's undying admiration and a solid launch order (at least these 20 and probably more), perhaps a tranche of SQ renewals instead of 777Xs, maybe BA/AF/QF/whomever, maybe a re-engine program to add value to those whom invested so much into the A380, some great 'halo' press coverage, etc. Yet the result was yes to A330neo, no to A380neo. Airbus had to be realize what no NEO would mean to A380, and yet, no NEO.

We've already had this discussion:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1365209&start=100#p19600721

Taxi645 wrote:

Just ask yourself, what engine would a A380NEO launched in 2016 have had?

1 If it was based on the XWB it would've been heavy (engine-wise) and the SFC improvement would've been limited. So the scope for entering a weight saving loop to improve the weight to wingspan ratio would've been close to nil. It would've prolonged the competitiveness of the A380 but not for long. There would've been no business case.
2 If based on the RR advanced engine the SFC would improved more, but still not enough to really start turning the weight down. Furthermore there would still be almost zero room to stretch the plane and still achieve a meaningfull weight saving to improve induced drag.
2b If based on the RR advanced engine the risk and cost would have been very substantial. Why? Because what other plane will use it to share development cost and risk? None as far as I can see. To develop an engine solely for the A380 would have been both very costly and very risky. Again there would've been no business case.

The above also goes for any engine based on the Trent 1000/7000 but more strongly. The fuel savings from that engine would by far not be enough to address the issues which plague the A380CEO increasingly since launch, which are the result of trying to squeeze a 10/8 tube within a 80m wingspan, yet would still cost a lot to integrate onto the frame. Of course it didn't went through. We've discussed this numerous times already. As argued in this very thread and many others, the fuel savings from ultrafan type engine would enable Airbus to address these issues from the A380CEO. It's just a question if 1 They would be able to close the business case since it would be a serious investment and 2 If the A380 production line will last long enough.

SEPilot wrote:

The A380 was the wrong aircraft at the wrong time, and conceived under assumptions which have proved faulty. It is built to be stretched, which means it has too much wing and is too heavy for the size that it is. But it also has the misfortune to have been designed just before a major innovation hit the industry, CFRP construction. If a stretch were to be built it would have to offer significantly better economics than the next larger plane available, currently the 779, and have enough demand to sell enough to make the project financially viable. The first part is possible, especially as the original was built with a stretch in mind,but since only one airline seems even remotely interested in it the second clearly is not. So I would say the A380 stretch will fly just as soon as it has a herd of flying pigs to escort it.

I wasn't aware Airbus was offering a mid twenties A380NEO yet?

aviationaware wrote:

I think by now it's safe to say that the A380 program is dead.

Well, as all the zombie films have taught us, just because something is dead doesn't mean it can't continue to flail around and gobble up precious resources, like brains, or, in the case of the A380, factory space and cash. -ir

Taxi645 wrote:

The above also goes for any engine based on the Trent 1000/7000 but more strongly. The fuel savings from that engine would by far not be enough to address the issues which plague the A380CEO increasingly since launch, which are the result of trying to squeeze a 10/8 tube within a 80m wingspan, yet would still cost a lot to integrate onto the frame. Of course it didn't went through. We've discussed this numerous times already. As argued in this very thread and many others, the fuel savings from ultrafan type engine would enable Airbus to address these issues from the A380CEO. It's just a question if 1 They would be able to close the business case since it would be a serious investment and 2 If the A380 production line will last long enough.

Interesting how the discussion in this thread has bounced between T7000 being a suitable engine for A380neo back to it being an unsuitable engine for A380neo.

My point was more along the lines of a T7000 A380neo would have made it much more likely that the A380 would survive long enough to get to UltraFan, and no A380neo makes it not at all likely that A380 survives long enough to get to UltraFan.

Airbus must have realized this 2-3 years ago so either (a) there was no love or money that convince RR to put T7000 on A380 or (b) Airbus didn't want to invest its love and money into making a T7000 A380neo happen.

Personally I doubt an UltraFan A380neo plus stretch will be a viable product, even if A380 survives long enough to make that a possibility. I would think the market for such a frame will be around half what the A380 MkI has achieved and that is not enough dosh to make it happen. The big twins have already made their mark, 777x will be an even better big twin, EK already has First sans showers on the 777 platform, the big boned A380 just isn't flexible enough to merit a refresh.

I'd think UltraFan would find itself on the fabled A350-1100 and A380 will be left wanting.

Revelation wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

A NEO 2-3 years ago just didn't make sense.

2-3 years ago is right when A330neo was being mooted. Doing A380neo instead or in parallel would have bought EK's undying admiration and a solid launch order (at least these 20 and probably more), perhaps a tranche of SQ renewals instead of 777Xs, maybe BA/AF/QF/whomever, maybe a re-engine program to add value to those whom invested so much into the A380, some great 'halo' press coverage, etc. Yet the result was yes to A330neo, no to A380neo. Airbus had to be realize what no NEO would mean to A380, and yet, no NEO.

Offers were / have been on the table in the timeframe you describe, and earlier. Getting RR engines under the wings was step one, as they were seen as the more likely engine OEM to offer a PiP, and later, a model upgrade path.

But Airbus and EK have struggled with pricing, funding and risk sharing, moving further apart in that time, rather than closer. And then more recently, RR has had a change of mind and heart (and fortunes too).

There are two key issues in play, and the EK A380 order isn't directly one of them.

The first, is air frame and engine OEM strategic alliances, and future ownership. Airbus may now be ambivalent about selling more A380's to EK. However, the last 12 months has highlighted how exposed the company is to suppliers, especially RR and PW. Not only performance and reliability, but pricing and customer relations.

Boeing is observing Airbus exposure to RR/PW, and realises what goes around, comes around. It's key engine supplier is for sale.

Current debate within air frame OEM's, is can we manage major projects better, and / or at less cost, than the engine OEM's? Are there additional benefits from harmonising air frame and engine developments earlier than at present?

The second is availability of the A380 caps VLA pricing. Ignoring list prices, negotiated unit prices for the 778 and 9 would probably be USD30m higher, if the A380 (and 748 offering) were removed from the market, something not lost to EK, IAG and others. Increased 777X model sales and margins, would result in the Boeing board signing off on the 10.

Current margins are super slim. Major customers increasingly calculate and fix lifetime (cradle to grave) costs for aircraft, engines, parts, maintenance, insurance and finance.

Result is OEM's seeking higher margins from small and medium airlines, which over time, make them less competitive (despite being more nimble), widening the gap between them and the majors, resulting in acquisitions and failures, with majors becoming even more major / mega.

Who would have thought a low volume aircraft model could be a factor in the future shape of commercial aviation manufacturing?

The thing is a sales dog. Why would they stretch it?

Oh wait it’s Airbus. Standby for stretched 380

smartplane, thanks for your detailed post including its recollections and its projections.

In particular, I think many participants in this thread haven't really taken in:

smartplane wrote:

But Airbus and EK have struggled with pricing, funding and risk sharing, moving further apart in that time, rather than closer. And then more recently, RR has had a change of mind and heart (and fortunes too).

I suspect I'm still not taking in the "realignment" of the relationships between the airframe vendors and engine manufacturers that you write about.

Interesting times.

Nobody wants the current one because it's too big, why would anyone want an even larger one?

Well, as all the zombie films have taught us, just because something is dead doesn't mean it can't continue to flail around and gobble up precious resources, like brains, or, in the case of the A380, factory space and cash.

It'll be dead for good once the regular production, gently used SQ and EK models start hitting the market. Anyone that wanted one will be able to purchase one for a song. If that demand even exists.

Revelation wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

The above also goes for any engine based on the Trent 1000/7000 but more strongly. The fuel savings from that engine would by far not be enough to address the issues which plague the A380CEO increasingly since launch, which are the result of trying to squeeze a 10/8 tube within a 80m wingspan, yet would still cost a lot to integrate onto the frame. Of course it didn't went through. We've discussed this numerous times already. As argued in this very thread and many others, the fuel savings from ultrafan type engine would enable Airbus to address these issues from the A380CEO. It's just a question if 1 They would be able to close the business case since it would be a serious investment and 2 If the A380 production line will last long enough.

Interesting how the discussion in this thread has bounced between T7000 being a suitable engine for A380neo back to it being an unsuitable engine for A380neo.

It might have been technically suitable, but certainly not economically.

Revelation wrote:

My point was more along the lines of a T7000 A380neo would have made it much more likely that the A380 would survive long enough to get to UltraFan, and no A380neo makes it not at all likely that A380 survives long enough to get to UltraFan.

So a new engine with just a very small SFC improvement, which doesn't enable addressing any of the issues which have been hampering the A380 from the beginning, to enable another new engine just 8 years or so later? Come on, that's not serious. It's not hard to imagine them struggling with pricing, funding and risk-sharing...

Of course they didn't go through with it. It would have been exactly like the CEO situation but just a few years later, bound to get obsolete soon as well.

Revelation wrote:

Personally I doubt an UltraFan A380neo plus stretch will be a viable product, even if A380 survives long enough to make that a possibility. I would think the market for such a frame will be around half what the A380 MkI has achieved and that is not enough dosh to make it happen. The big twins have already made their mark, 777x will be an even better big twin, EK already has First sans showers on the 777 platform, the big boned A380 just isn't flexible enough to merit a refresh.

Well, we just have to agree to disagree. A major update based on ultrafan typed engines (shared with an A330 successor), enabling to address all the comprises Airbus had to make to get a 10/8 tube inside a 80m wingspan would see a major CASM advantage that the CEO currently lacks and urgently needs. In my view it would enable game-changing CASM values, enabling a whole new demographic to fly (ignoring future environmental regulations for the moment).

That's the problem with all the "didn't work on the CEO" arguments. It's like buying a car because it's got a shiny new gearbox, yet the engine ain't running. The A380 doesn't have sufficient CASM advantage for it's size. It needs it's fundamentals fixed, everything else is indeed just putting lipstick on a pig.

Revelation wrote:

I'd think UltraFan would find itself on the fabled A350-1100 and A380 will be left wanting.

You do realize the diameter an ultrafan engine would have on an A350-1100?

Taxi645 wrote:

So a new engine with just a very small SFC improvement, which doesn't enable addressing any of the issues which have been hampering the A380 from the beginning, to enable another new engine just 8 years or so later?

https://i1.wp.com/leehamnews.com/wp-con ... -specs.jpg suggests 7.5% SFC improvement for TXWB which I would not categorize as "very small".

Taxi645 wrote:

Well, we just have to agree to disagree. A major update based on ultrafan typed engines (shared with an A330 successor), enabling to address all the comprises Airbus had to make to get a 10/8 tube inside a 80m wingspan would see a major CASM advantage that the CEO currently lacks and urgently needs. In my view it would enable game-changing CASM values, enabling a whole new demographic to fly (ignoring future environmental regulations for the moment).

The real issue I'm addressing is not all the comprises Airbus had to make, it is keeping the program alive so it has a chance to address all the comprises Airbus had to make.

Right now the program is right on the edge: no engine deal, no lifeline to the future.

Instead with a manageable investment in 2014-5 it'd have a CASM bump to provide better than 777W economics and narrowing the gap to 77X economics, and it'd have it pretty much now if the plans were put into effect, or maybe a year from now, but certainly soon enough to capture this EK order and perhaps others. Instead back then we got Airbus saying it'd do the program if EK financed it ( ref: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=592217 ) and that was a non-starter. Now we have a program with nothing at all to offer to retain existing customers, never mind attract any new ones.

Your plan counts on A380 still being in production (or bearing huge costs to restart production), an A330 successor under development if not in production (which would stretch the timeline of when an A380neo could start), RR deciding to direct UltraFan to that program yet hopefully not overly optimizing it for the twin application, stretching the A380 to improve CASM, presumably adding better winglets and other aero optimizations and doing cabin optimizations, adapting A380 to UltraFan, etc.

That's a massive spend for a market that has not been able to support the investment directed to it so far.

It might have been better to have done an incremental spend a few years ago to try to keep interest in the program alive.

Revelation wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

So a new engine with just a very small SFC improvement, which doesn't enable addressing any of the issues which have been hampering the A380 from the beginning, to enable another new engine just 8 years or so later?

https://i1.wp.com/leehamnews.com/wp-con ... -specs.jpg suggests 7.5% SFC improvement for TXWB which I would not categorize as "very small".

As you know, we were discussing the Trent 7000, which based on the 1000 suggests 5,4% and not the XWB which would have been too heavy and therefore counterproductive for a NEO. You yourself were dismissing the XWB based on mr. WIlliams quote just a few posts ago. That 5,4% extends it competitiveness what some 6 to 7 years? Now ask yourself when was the last significant order for the CEO apart from EK and add those 6 to 7 years. I think you know what I'm getting at.

Taxi645 wrote:

Well, we just have to agree to disagree. A major update based on ultrafan typed engines (shared with an A330 successor), enabling to address all the comprises Airbus had to make to get a 10/8 tube inside a 80m wingspan would see a major CASM advantage that the CEO currently lacks and urgently needs. In my view it would enable game-changing CASM values, enabling a whole new demographic to fly (ignoring future environmental regulations for the moment).

The real issue I'm addressing is not all the comprises Airbus had to make, it is keeping the program alive so it has a chance to address all the comprises Airbus had to make.

Right now the program is right on the edge: no engine deal, no lifeline to the future.

Indeed that is the "short term" issue. Yet, not an issue you can solve with a non closing business case...

Instead with a manageable investment in 2014-5 it'd have a CASM bump to provide better than 777W economics and narrowing the gap to 77X economics, and it'd have it pretty much now if the plans were put into effect, or maybe a year from now, but certainly soon enough to capture this EK order and perhaps others. Instead back then we got Airbus saying it'd do the program if EK financed it ( ref: https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtop ... 3&t=592217 ) and that was a non-starter. Now we have a program with nothing at all to offer to retain existing customers, never mind attract any new ones.

Your plan counts on A380 still being in production (or bearing huge costs to restart production), an A330 successor under development if not in production (which would stretch the timeline of when an A380neo could start), RR deciding to direct UltraFan to that program yet hopefully not overly optimizing it for the twin application, stretching the A380 to improve CASM, presumably adding better winglets and other aero optimizations and doing cabin optimizations, adapting A380 to UltraFan, etc.

That's a massive spend for a market that has not been able to support the investment directed to it so far.

It might have been better to have done an incremental spend a few years ago to try to keep interest in the program alive.

As said I don't think there ever was a good business case for any of the existing engines.That's clear by no one willing to fully commit to it. I reckon they hoped it was more profitable to hope for a few plus orders and/or takes some losses on a trickle production rate. We'll soon know if it will work. I don't think it's likely that production will be restarted if it is ended.

Having a A330 successor under development is quite likely in the appropriate period though. The A380NEO more urgent and the twin a few years later.


P.S. I've noticed the thread has moved to Travel, Polls & Preferences....

Revelation wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

So a new engine with just a very small SFC improvement, which doesn't enable addressing any of the issues which have been hampering the A380 from the beginning, to enable another new engine just 8 years or so later?

https://i1.wp.com/leehamnews.com/wp-con ... -specs.jpg suggests 7.5% SFC improvement for TXWB which I would not categorize as "very small".

As you know, we were discussing the Trent 7000, which based on the 1000 suggests 5,4% and not the XWB which would have been too heavy and therefore counterproductive for a NEO. You yourself were dismissing the XWB based on mr. WIlliams quote just a few posts ago. That 5,4% extends it competitiveness what some 6 to 7 years? Now ask yourself when was the last significant order for the CEO apart from EK and add those 6 to 7 years. I think you know what I'm getting at.

Taxi645 wrote:

Well, we just have to agree to disagree. A major update based on ultrafan typed engines (shared with an A330 successor), enabling to address all the comprises Airbus had to make to get a 10/8 tube inside a 80m wingspan would see a major CASM advantage that the CEO currently lacks and urgently needs. In my view it would enable game-changing CASM values, enabling a whole new demographic to fly (ignoring future environmental regulations for the moment).

The real issue I'm addressing is not all the comprises Airbus had to make, it is keeping the program alive so it has a chance to address all the comprises Airbus had to make.

Right now the program is right on the edge: no engine deal, no lifeline to the future.

Indeed that is the "short term" issue. Yet, not an issue you can solve with a non closing business case...

Instead with a manageable investment in 2014-5 it'd have a CASM bump to provide better than 777W economics and narrowing the gap to 77X economics, and it'd have it pretty much now if the plans were put into effect, or maybe a year from now, but certainly soon enough to capture this EK order and perhaps others. Instead back then we got Airbus saying it'd do the program if EK financed it ( ref: https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtop ... 3&t=592217 ) and that was a non-starter. Now we have a program with nothing at all to offer to retain existing customers, never mind attract any new ones.

Your plan counts on A380 still being in production (or bearing huge costs to restart production), an A330 successor under development if not in production (which would stretch the timeline of when an A380neo could start), RR deciding to direct UltraFan to that program yet hopefully not overly optimizing it for the twin application, stretching the A380 to improve CASM, presumably adding better winglets and other aero optimizations and doing cabin optimizations, adapting A380 to UltraFan, etc.

That's a massive spend for a market that has not been able to support the investment directed to it so far.

It might have been better to have done an incremental spend a few years ago to try to keep interest in the program alive.

As said I don't think there ever was a good business case for any of the existing engines.That's clear by no one willing to fully commit to it. I reckon they hoped it was more profitable to hope for a few plus orders and/or takes some losses on a trickle production rate. We'll soon know if it will work. I don't think it's likely that production will be restarted if it is ended.

Having a A330 successor under development is quite likely in the appropriate period though. The A380NEO more urgent and the twin a few years later.


P.S. I've noticed the thread has moved to Travel, Polls & Preferences....

Taxi645 wrote:

Indeed that is the "short term" issue. Yet, not an issue you can solve with a non closing business case...

Yet they keep having "digestible losses" for each A380 they are making, by definition a non-closing business case.

It's really about what your corporate imperatives are.

Currently they're suffering indigestion but probably all for naught.

A bigger amount of indigestion would have greater likelihood of having suffered it for an eventual successor.

Revelation wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

Indeed that is the "short term" issue. Yet, not an issue you can solve with a non closing business case...

Yet they keep having "digestible losses" for each A380 they are making, by definition a non-closing business case.

It's really about what your corporate imperatives are.

Currently they're suffering indigestion but probably all for naught.

A bigger amount of indigestion would have greater likelihood of having suffered it for an eventual successor.

Well with today's news the subject of the thread became more relevant again. I think Airbus chose the lesser of two evil's. I think in a year or two we will know what the long term future for the A380 will look like.

One more point I wanted to add, perhaps not the most important, but still a nice side effect. The 777 is currently one of the nosier wide-bodies, the A380 one of the quietest. I don't expect the 777x to improve much in the noise department. A geared fan A380 with a ~20% thrust reduction however, would significantly reduce upon the already low noise levels on the A380. As said not the most important variable in a purchase decision, but the difference in noise comfort would become quite large indeed.

Taxi645 wrote:

Well with today's news the subject of the thread became more relevant again. I think Airbus chose the lesser of two evil's. I think in a year or two we will know what the long term future for the A380 will look like.

Airbus didn't choose anything. Emirates and RR came to an agreement -- the question is which won lost the argument.

7BOEING7 wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

Well with today's news the subject of the thread became more relevant again. I think Airbus chose the lesser of two evil's. I think in a year or two we will know what the long term future for the A380 will look like.

Airbus didn't choose anything. Emirates and RR came to an agreement -- the question is which won lost the argument.

The sentence you are referring to is about the discussion on either getting the T7000 on the A380 or the current don't do much to the airframe and let the production trickle on at a small loss so we leave a possible window opportunity open for a A380NEO later.

Just to illustrate the point a bit further. I reckon a ~205T MTOW A330 successor with a 58-60m wingspan would require around 57.000-59.000 lbf. A 505T MTOW ultrafan A380NEO with plus-style winglets would probably be around 60.000-64.000 lbf. That would be close enough to not meaningfully compromise efficiency at either application with one base design..