There just does not seem to be enough demand for this size plane to make it a risk worth taking. Bear in mind that it also has to hit a moving target; its chief competitor, the 777-9, just like every other plane in production, is going to be continually improved. And it is not exactly selling like hotcakes. The money required to make the A389NEO would be much better spent on an answer to the 797.

Leitwolf22 wrote:

Again it should not take a genius to understand, that a 590t 900 (that figure may be correct), with 35t of additional fuel (!?), will not result in in 1.000km less range! Also there is absolutely no statement on where that additional fuel would be stored. Then 50.000l =! 35t, but rather 39.25t.

Actually it would definitely result in 1000km less range.

You'll have a 10T increase in empty weight
You'll have more surface drag mening the engines need more thrust, or the aircraft will cruise a little loeer down.

To make the most of the extra cabin are you'll have 10% more payload. The A380-900 probably wont be able to use any of the extra fuel capacity.

RJMAZ wrote:

Leitwolf22 wrote:

Again it should not take a genius to understand, that a 590t 900 (that figure may be correct), with 35t of additional fuel (!?), will not result in in 1.000km less range! Also there is absolutely no statement on where that additional fuel would be stored. Then 50.000l =! 35t, but rather 39.25t.

Actually it would definitely result in 1000km less range.

You'll have a 10T increase in empty weight
You'll have more surface drag mening the engines need more thrust, or the aircraft will cruise a little loeer down.

To make the most of the extra cabin are you'll have 10% more payload. The A380-900 probably wont be able to use any of the extra fuel capacity.

Which brings us back to the point that those specs are pointless. What for installing an additional 35t fuel capacity if you can not use it?

What in the world are some of these latter posts grumbling about? If the stretch happens they could wet the wing center box and add thousands of gallons of fuel capacity. Hello...

I think there s little appetite within Airbus at the moment to go for the Full Monty A380-900; it would be costly and time consuming with shaky evidence of commercial return in investment. The minimal risk with maximum return approach Is the NEO strategy. Just as importantly, and this cannot be stressed enough, Airbus needs to show the market that the A380 has a useful commercial life of 25 years. To do that Airbus need to offer existing A380 operators an upgrade path to NEO; the spectre of piles of second hand aircraft unused or scrapped will damage sales severely. Previous widebody jet programs (747, DC10/MD11 and L1011) have all offered improvements and upgrades during long production runs.

Current best in class engines and improved wing tips would provide about 10% improvement in fuel efficiency. If we assume that the RR Trent XWB be used to substitute for the Trent 900 the specific fuel consumption (SFC) decrease from 14.8 (g/KN/s) to 13.5 would reduce fuel consumption by about 8%. Additionally, this reduced SFC reduces the fuel mass required to be carried for each trip further reducing fuel consumption by about 2%. New wing tips, although adding weight, probably save a further 1%. If Airbus waited for the Trent Advance3 then fuel savings (SFC expected to be 12.7) will be in the order of 16% per trip. If Airbus waits even longer for the Trent Ultrafan (SFC expected to be 11.9) then the combined effect on fuel savings could be as high as 25% per trip.

However, Airbus cannot afford to wait. To do so risks Airbus appearing to be not fully committed to the A380. If they started now they could introduce XWB (or variants thereof) powered aircraft by the end of 2021. Just announcing such program would inject a new lease of life into A380 sales. Given this strategy Airbus can extend the A380 program lifetime long enough for airlines to become receptive to an A380-900 variant.

Joe2mercs wrote:

I think there s little appetite within Airbus at the moment to go for the Full Monty A380-900; it would be costly and time consuming with shaky evidence of commercial return in investment. The minimal risk with maximum return approach Is the NEO strategy. Just as importantly, and this cannot be stressed enough, Airbus needs to show the market that the A380 has a useful commercial life of 25 years. To do that Airbus need to offer existing A380 operators an upgrade path to NEO; the spectre of piles of second hand aircraft unused or scrapped will damage sales severely. Previous widebody jet programs (747, DC10/MD11 and L1011) have all offered improvements and upgrades during long production runs.

Current best in class engines and improved wing tips would provide about 10% improvement in fuel efficiency. If we assume that the RR Trent XWB be used to substitute for the Trent 900 the specific fuel consumption (SFC) decrease from 14.8 (g/KN/s) to 13.5 would reduce fuel consumption by about 8%. Additionally, this reduced SFC reduces the fuel mass required to be carried for each trip further reducing fuel consumption by about 2%. New wing tips, although adding weight, probably save a further 1%. If Airbus waited for the Trent Advance3 then fuel savings (SFC expected to be 12.7) will be in the order of 16% per trip. If Airbus waits even longer for the Trent Ultrafan (SFC expected to be 11.9) then the combined effect on fuel savings could be as high as 25% per trip.

However, Airbus cannot afford to wait. To do so risks Airbus appearing to be not fully committed to the A380. If they started now they could introduce XWB (or variants thereof) powered aircraft by the end of 2021. Just announcing such program would inject a new lease of life into A380 sales. Given this strategy Airbus can extend the A380 program lifetime long enough for airlines to become receptive to an A380-900 variant.

There's a logical and empirical flaw with this thinking.
First the empirical flaw: Airbus tried for years to market a NEO; nobody but EK wanted it. We argued its merits on this site for years, google "A380NEO" for those threads. Citing the facts of the matter as a "flaw" is a bit of understatement.

The logical flaw is that the A380's development path should/must follow the typical paths of other programs.
That fails to realize many things, one of which being that the A380 is not a typical program. So far, it is a failure of unique scope and drama. Rectifying this failure should probably require - and indeed does require - revisions of somewhat unique scope and drama.
You're not tweaking a successful design to ensure its continued appeal; you're revamping the economics of a fundamentally flawed and failed airliner.

It may turn out that no feasible revisions to this program make sense. I disagree but it's not a crazy idea to suggest that this program was an error from the beginning and any further investment just compounds that error.

That negative appraisal is the headwind against which any revisions sail, not blithe and superficial comparisons to other programs.

I am hugely impressed with your analysis with regards to what might be possible with the A380 air frame. Yes, the A380 might be flawed from its inception but no less so than the 747. With over 300 sold the first iteration of the A380 has actually done quite well. It is worth just reviewing where the A380 sits. At present! no airline has used the theoretical maximum seating capacity of the A380 (or anywhere near it) so seating capacity is not an issue. The A380plus initiative was met by lack lustre response, reinforcing the point that additional capacity is not a compelling selling point. Airlines primary requirement is to provide a product (flight experience) which generates maximum revenue. Since ‘more seats’ does not address this airline need then the answer must be to explore ways to reduce the the cost of flying the existing complement of seats . The A380plus introduced large wing tip fences and reduced maintenance schedule to help address flying costs A further major cost is the depreciation of aircraft residual values. If, after ten years of operation, an A380 cannot find a second hand market then this impacts costs. A NEO option would reduce fuel costs but if it were made backwards compatible it would also improve residual values. The margin between success and failure is quite narrow and Airbus just need to find the tipping point in their favour. Airbus also need to address the needs of airlines other than just Emirates. ‘Sales begets further sales’ and if Airbus broadens the economic appeal of the A380 they will find further customers by default. The real competitor to an A380 is not one 777x but two 787s.

Oh wow. Could you use paragraph breaks so I can read your post without getting a headache?

stratclub wrote:

Oh wow. Could you use paragraph breaks so I can read your post without getting a headache?

stratclub wrote:

Oh wow. Could you use paragraph breaks so I can read your post without getting a headache?

Lol. My apologies for the headache. It was a stream of thought.

Joe2mercs wrote:

stratclub wrote:

Oh wow. Could you use paragraph breaks so I can read your post without getting a headache?

stratclub wrote:

Oh wow. Could you use paragraph breaks so I can read your post without getting a headache?

Lol. My apologies for the headache. It was a stream of thought.

Well ya. Creativity has no mistress.

Thing is Airbus said that the A380 was ten years ahead of its ( correct) time.' Just wait for pax numbers to increase' etc.Well 10 years has passed and the reverse is true. airline demand for the aircraft has fallen to ...1.
More and more new super efficient twins that now have the required range to link cities direct are arriving every day.With more to come from large (777x) to small (A321LR).More are planned (MOM/XLR). More and more cities are being reached direct whether it be P2P or P2H
Hubs aren't about to disappear any time soon but their hay day has passed.
Even if we look at the mother of all hubs ,Dubai.Emirates load factors are down in the high 70%'s it's too low long term.Right now even the 779 appears to be too big for most airlines.If enough passengers are just not there ( for a VLA) it matters not how efficient an aircaft is ( or isn't).
Airbus simply read the tea leaves wrong.It happens.

In 10 years time we will probably be saying the same thing about the 777X.

In 10 years time I can also see Boeing launching the 787 NEO which will boost range by 10%. This will give the 787-10 the range to effectively fly most flights currently operated by 777's. A further stretch of the 797 will take the role of the current 787-8 on short range flights. This will allow Boeing to make the 787-8ER as a simple shrink of the 787-9. Such a plane could probably fly as far as the 777-8.

Re RJMAZ.Yup 'range' is not the hurdle it once was ( and getting less every decade as you say).It seems Airbus forgot that range was the key selling point after the first iterations of the 747.It simply opened up a massive group of important P2P destinations - it was the only plane capable of doing this.The moment more efficient aircraft came along the game was up.Such aircaft are massive financial risks,the costs involved can literally bring down a large airline.
I believe most agree that after Singapore's replacement order (BA appear to have given up) there is now only Emirates left.One airline! And ( assuming they come to a price agreement with RR) they too are satisfied with their replacements for the next 6++?Years or so.
At the moment they replace their aircraft every 12 (leased) years.But they really don't have to,if they choose not to.Hell some airlines keep aircaft flying 30+ years!

There is a big problem I see with the Emirates A380 order that many haven't seen.

There will be a huge amount of 12 year old A380's coming onto the used market shortly. Only a fraction will find new homes and only a few will get stripped for spare parts.

The majority of A380's will sit there and leasing companies will be forced to offer them at a ridiculously low price. Emirates would be crazy not to play hard ball and buy their own aircraft back at an EXTREMELY good price.

This kills the economics of buying new A380's. Emirates would have originally modelled their fleet replacement and they decided 12 years is the time at which the buy back price is too expensive compared to buying new. If the A380's are a fraction of that price to buy back then it would cause them to definitely keep them.

The bulk of the Emirates A380's are flying medium haul trunk flights. The fuel savings of an A380NEO would not be as great on medium haul flights compared to ultra long haul.

Good point RJMAZ.I imagine this last order will go through with RR engines.At a prod' rate of 6-9 a/c per year then it all finishes in 5-6 years time.Just when the bulk of their leased aircraft have/are coming to a close.
So yes I agree.Why ( Emirates) not buy/ extend the leases at an incredible price .Something is nearly always better than nothing! Seems a sensible option to me.This sort of aircaft can go on for multi decades if required.
I would expect the new build line to close about 2025/6?
What about high volume- low density cargo conversion? Could it make a decent low mass ( particularly upper deck) carrier.No idea myself but both the big American cargo companies were interested at the outset.This time round the aircaft would be nearly free - plus conversion of course - just a thought.

RJMAZ wrote:

This kills the economics of buying new A380's. Emirates would have originally modelled their fleet replacement and they decided 12 years is the time at which the buy back price is too expensive compared to buying new. If the A380's are a fraction of that price to buy back then it would cause them to definitely keep them.

The A380's design flaws killed the economics of new A380s; EK's appetite for new birds owes to its own idiosyncrasies (rule the world from two runways shared with the world; maintain a brand image based on new bling).

While your point about EK renewing leases cheaply makes sense, it obviously isnt something they just failed to think of. EK seems to have judged that it simply must have newer planes than its legacy competitors; I find that judgment odd but what do know of their brand research?

Their brand USP is not so much newer planes but different planes (The super jumbo) and importantly with different brand USP's inside.First class- suites with bathroom shower.Business class.upstairs and silent with a bar and lounge.Economy -space- 18.5" fully padded seats with good food/service.And always at a very competitive price.
I don't think age of aircaft really comes into it.Actually was surprised at their ( very?) last order.Since the aircaft is totally a dead duck that absolutly no one will want in 12 years -what sort of a leasing contract is this?
They know there will be no secondary or tertiary users later and there is no cargo conversion planned.God knows there will be plenty of spares.So what sort of a leasing deal is it? Might as well just borrow from the bank!
Not looked at the numbers carefully but Emirates would want to get rid of all the earlier A380's as they were.
1.Overweight
2. Had 'old' wing twist
3. Non pip'd engines
Guess this last order gets rid of the ones they don't want to use long term.

Matt6461 wrote:

While your point about EK renewing leases cheaply makes sense, it obviously isnt something they just failed to think of. EK seems to have judged that it simply must have newer planes than its legacy competitors; I find that judgment odd but what do know of their brand research?

EK would never have originally planned for A380 resale values to be this poor.

Their whole replacement strategy is based on the planes still having good resale value after 12 years.

Having the youngest airline fleet would have a cost premium. EK has clearly thought the price premium is worth it when planning their fleet replacement. However now that the A380 resalde value is so poor the price premium for having new planes has increased significantly. It will now be very hard if not impossible to justify.

From a brand perspective it will not matter if the A380's exceed 20 years of age as they will be totally unique on the market.

The 787's and 777's will still be replaced after 12 years as thier resale value would be high.

Things are not looking rosey I the A380 garden at present. Some carriers fear of not being able to fill the aircraft and others are concerned about its lack of efficiency. I am aware that 90% of the world’s passengers pass through just 65 airports so demand for larger planes will naturally grow in line with passenger growth. I have a question, is it cheaper to operate two 787s on the same route as one A380, taking into account the initial purchase price, depreciation, maintenance, fuel, landing fees and crews?

Joe2mercs wrote:

I have a question, is it cheaper to operate two 787s on the same route as one A380, taking into account the initial purchase price, depreciation, maintenance, fuel, landing fees and crews?

QF’s CEO says yes.

Plus 2 787s allows for a more flexible fleet planning.

A380 is about 2.2x larger than a 787-9 though. Plus it isn't clear from Joyce's comment that he was including the acquisition cost of the aircraft, as he cited fuel, pilots, and airport fees. Plus Leeham's analysis - as well as others - shows that the A380 is still more efficient than 789.

As I always say, it's terribly superficial to ask only which plane is more efficient. Instead you have to weigh efficiency against capacity (trip cost more accurately). More specifically, you have to compare the cost of marginal capacity for a larger plane against the diminution in yield. To know whether that calculus favors the larger plane for a given airline, we'd have to know something about existing yield curves and projected yields were the bigger plane to be adopted. Unfortunately such data is rare.

We can, however, look at broader trends of when the industry accepts larger planes based on an efficiency rationale. Contrary to what superficial analysts often say, airlines have on many occasions used bigger planes when the smaller option is significantly less efficient (77W vs. 77E/L or A345; 789 vs. 788). From my investigations, it appears that 50% marginal capacity cost (delta seats divided by delta trip cost) produces a successful large plane.

The A380 is nowhere near that 50% marginal capacity cost threshold.

I have always believed there's a way to get the A380 across that threshold due to its excellent fuselage, but that now seems likely to remain forever a hypothetical question.

You can not compare the stretch within an aircraft family to a completely different plane. The stretch usually benefits from offering the most seats within the MTOW limit of the family, so the trip costs allows look favourable. (if the simple stretch can actually fly the route)

The A380 however is so bad no NEO can save it, because in this case the shrink is already too big for most operators.

Matt6461 wrote:

I have always believed there's a way to get the A380 across that threshold due to its excellent fuselage, but that now seems likely to remain forever a hypothetical question.

As you have said, A380 has an outstanding wetted area/pax, which translates to an amazing parasitic drag/ pax. The massive weight overshadowed that great advantage it had.


Ending the A380 production must've left you gutted, after all the time you've invested in this thread

A rumor I heard this past weekend was that -800 production was ending.
Too many changes to use a lot of the tooling and production/manufacturing methods for the new variant.

But that's just a rumor and I have my doubts.

Eyad89 wrote:

The massive weight overshadowed that great advantage it had.

Not just weight, also (wing/tail/engine) drag.

Eyad89 wrote:

Ending the A380 production must've left you gutted, after all the time you've invested in this thread

You have no idea.

Slug71 wrote:

A rumor I heard this past weekend was that -800 production was ending. Too many changes to use a lot of the tooling and production/manufacturing methods for the new variant. But that's just a rumor and I have my doubts.

No longer a rumor, but officially confirmed by Airbus in a press release: https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... rders.html

Stitch wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

A rumor I heard this past weekend was that -800 production was ending. Too many changes to use a lot of the tooling and production/manufacturing methods for the new variant. But that's just a rumor and I have my doubts.

No longer a rumor, but officially confirmed by Airbus in a press release: https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... rders.html

Nice of them to announce this early in the European day. I was worried I'd have to stay up all night.

With the announced end of production before 2025 thread will be locked.