XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3133 posts, RR: 4 Posted (6 years 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 17722 times:
Just noticed in multiple places that Airbus is now rating the A380 as having 525 seats in "standard" configuration instead of the 555 they had been using in the press for years now. You can see this both on the specifications page, and on the commonality page
This seems strange as the specifications page at least would seem like it would have the right number, and yet its different than the older materials and some of the other pages still reference 555.
WINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 70 Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 17624 times:
Quoting XT6Wagon (Thread starter): Just noticed in multiple places that Airbus is now rating the A380 as having 525 seats in "standard" configuration instead of the 555 they had been using in the press for years now. You can see this both on the specifications page, and on the commonality page
Interesting find.
I suspect that this may have to do with the recent Lufthansa Route proving test in which the cabin was equiped with about 525 seats. It could also be a type with a 2 in place of a 5.
Quoting WINGS (Reply 1): I suspect that this may have to do with the recent Lufthansa Route proving test in which the cabin was equiped with about 525 seats.
That sounds more plausible, 525 seats may have turned out to be a more ideal seat config.
Tom_EDDF From Germany, joined Apr 2000, 449 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (6 years 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 17043 times:
Well, from a single passenger point of view, it doesn't make much of a difference whether you're involved in a fatal accident of a Cessna 152, Boeing 737 or an A380 in high density config...
EI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (6 years 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 15433 times:
Quoting EISHN (Reply 13): Quoting EI321 (Reply 2):
Of the carriers whom have revealed how many seats their A380s will have, could somebody make a list?
Air France 538
Emirates 489/517/644
Qantas 501
Lufthansa c550
Malaysia c500
Qatar c490
Singapore c490
Thai 500-530
Virgin Atlantic 500-550
XJETFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 326 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (6 years 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 15309 times:
I imagine most airlines will not pack these aircraft like sardines. I also think the F-Class will be very nice. I can't see buying these expensive aircraft to only go second rate on the higher dollar seats. I suspect there will be some nice bars built on some of these aircraft also with high dollar drinks. Most airliners would be in the ballpark of 475 to 500, I would think.
Who do you think will have the best F-Class overall? Who will have the most amenities overall?
Aminobwana From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (6 years 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 14839 times:
[
Quoting XT6Wagon (Thread starter): XT6Wagon From United States, joined Feb 2007, 503 posts, RR: 1
Posted Fri Apr 27 2007 02:17:58 your local time (7 hours 6 minutes ago) and read 1917 times:
Just noticed in multiple places that Airbus is now rating the A380 as having 525 seats in "standard" configuration instead of the 555 they had been using in the press for years now. You can see this both on the specifications page, and on the commonality page
This seems strange as the specifications page at least would seem like it would have the right number, and yet its different than the older materials and some of the other pages still reference 555
1) It could be a typo, but this is not probable, as appearing two times. But unfortunately, there are many
of such contradictions both at AIRBUS and BOEING Websites.
Further, see 2) below
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 9): Lumberton From United States, joined Jul 2005, 2525 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted Fri Apr 27 2007 05:24:36 your local time (4 hours 53 minutes 19 secs ago) and read 1912 times:
Perhaps the performance is exceeding expectations and the CASM projections will be fullfilled with the lesser number?
2) I do not know what CASM means, but I assume there is a typo in your text, and what is you are
thinking that the reduction of 30 pax distributed over the 3 classes compensates the frame overweight
of 6,000 Kg, which would be compatible.
3) If the reduction to 525 is real, there are some questions:
- How would LH modify its seating arrangements ??
- As LH, the only airline which bought both aircrafts, has foreseen 555 pax for the A380 and if I am not
wrong 400 or the B748, and if I assume that the comfort level in both cases is roughly the same
(is this so ??), the A380 carried 39% more passengers at equivalent conditions. With the reduction to
525, this figure reduce itself to 31%, which obviously affects the operation and fuel cost per pax. How
will this affect the economic comparison of these aircrafts (abstracting the santimonious statements of
both companies that the are "not competing" ??)
Morvious From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 702 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (6 years 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 14693 times:
Quoting RJ111 (Reply 16): So perhaps they're just playing around with numbers to make sure it beats/matches/comes closer to the 748I
Why do they need to? There is no way you could compare the two because they will be used for a different game. The only thing I could inmagine is like what people already said. Most airliners will have less seats then the 525 mentioned or the 555 that was first told. There are not much carriers around that would buy the A380 to have more seats in it then 525. !YET!
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 21 Reply 18, posted (6 years 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 14248 times:
Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 19): 2) I do not know what CASM means, but I assume there is a typo in your text, and what is you are
thinking that the reduction of 30 pax distributed over the 3 classes compensates the frame overweight
of 6,000 Kg, which would be compatible.
Cost Per Available Seat Mile. I would have to think that when Airbus pitches this aircraft to a particular airline customer, they crunch the costs and provide a projected CASM for that particular customer. I was opining that perhaps the technical performance of the A380 allows them to use fewer seats to achieve the same CASM figure.
[Edited 2007-04-27 19:11:33]
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
The design payload has not changed, if I were to see something say "typical passenger seating", I would not then to jump and say the specification has changed, a typical passenger seating for a 744 is about 380 pax, some operators are down around 330 pax, the spec says 416.
Aminobwana From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (6 years 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 13520 times:
Quoting Morvious (Reply 20): Morvious From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 583 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted Fri Apr 27 2007 10:37:51 your local time (2 minutes 5 secs ago) and read 24 times:
Quoting RJ111 (Reply 16):
So perhaps they're just playing around with numbers to make sure it beats/matches/comes closer to the 748I
Why do they need to? There is no way you could compare the two because they will be used for a different game. The only thing I could inmagine is like what people already said. Most airliners will have less seats then the 525 mentioned or the 555 that was first told. There are not much carriers around that would buy the A380 to have more seats in it then 525. !YET!
As I already indicated in my reply 19, I do not agree with the concept of "not competing: As you say
rightly, few carriers need more than 500 seats in a plane which can operate adequately only in a few
Mega-Airports, so the VLA market concentrates on the 350-425 pax range (always referring to the
same comfort level (pitch+widths) as the A380 offers (or offered?) for 555. In turn, this cannot be covered
by the B787/A350, i.e. the B748i.
So, why I am saying that nevertheless they are competing ??. Assuming, as could be the case of LH,
they would nead i d e a l l y 6 A380 and 40 B748i, would it be logical complicate the fleet buying both.
when, now c o m p a r i n g both aircraft for the sector where the A380 would be ideal the B748i is only
slightly less convenient ??
(in the case of LH, they are probably for the moment sticking to the A380's because the German
Government are pressuring them to do so !)
To take such decision, they must be compared, i.e. so they are competing ! !!
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7726 posts, RR: 73 Reply 21, posted (6 years 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 13308 times:
Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 24): So, why I am saying that nevertheless they are competing ??. Assuming, as could be the case of LH,
they would nead i d e a l l y 6 A380 and 40 B748i, would it be logical complicate the fleet buying both.
when, now c o m p a r i n g both aircraft for the sector where the A380 would be ideal the B748i is only
slightly less convenient ??
(in the case of LH, they are probably for the moment sticking to the A380's because the German
Government are pressuring them to do so !)
I am not sure if you are aware of the news in the past year, just a minor update, LH has already ordered the 748i, other Boeing press releases can be found here http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
Aminobwana From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (6 years 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 13158 times:
Quoting RJ111 (Reply 16): RJ111 From United Kingdom (England), joined Sep 2004, 2155 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted Fri Apr 27 2007 09:48:54 your local time (2 hours 1 minute 45 secs ago) and read 1996 times:
The range has gone up accordingly with 8,200nm at 525 pax.
So perhaps they're just playing around with numbers to make sure it beats/matches/comes closer to the 748I.
Yes, you are right, This means 200 miles more (+ 2.5%), for 30 less passengers (-5.5%). Makes not
much sense ifdone at purpose, but possibly by eliminating these 30 passengers they have reduced
overall weight more than 6,000 kg, so the excess could be transformed in 200 m range increase !
In any case if in a very particular route such 200 miles were needed, this was not a reason to reduce the
generally the pax load, eliminating a few seats or simply reduce the occupance there on such flights would
solve the problem
It appears that Airbus brochure data for the A380 is reducing the design passenger count (555 vs 525) to add 200nm to the design range (8000nm vs 8200nm). The payload-range chart given on page 64 of Zeke's reference is consistent with the gain in range for a 30 passenger payload reduction.
This is an interesting change to the way the airplane is being marketed.
[Edited 2007-04-27 20:42:55]
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
BoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (6 years 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 12858 times:
Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 27): This is an interesting change to the way the airplane is being marketed.
What do you make of it?
25 Zeke: It was updated in Jan 2007, the document has been about for about 9 years that I know of in various forms.
26 AADC10: I am sure that 555 in three class configuration is an exaggeration. Boeing does the same thing, claiming that a "typical" 3 class 744 configuration (w
27 Keesje: I´m sure airlines are not to impressed by these changes. What useally happens is the marketing, network, catering and crew specialist sit together t
28 OA260: I think SQ/EK/VS will be the top 3 but then theres QR who are fast becoming one of the best.
29 RedChili: The "typical passenger seating" quoted by Airbus on a public web site doesn't mean much at all. No airlines follow these "recommendations" anyway! May
30 A342: I'm fairly sure you're wrong. It won't be more than 500, maybe 510. As a comparison, the LH 748i will seat about 400.
31 Dougloid: Senor BoomBoom, get out your AC43-13 and your pocket calculator. Then go back to the articles about the grand fandango press joyride in the A380 abou
32 Ikramerica: Actually, in a "real" 3-class configuration, 525 is doable depending on premium ratio. Because you can't just invent premium traffic on a route, it's
33 OA260: Yes Upper class is better than alot of others F class so I would consider VS product F class.
34 OldAeroGuy: The payload-range plot dates back to 2002, so it really is out-of-date, no flight test data included. Guess the real world performance data missed th
35 Slz396: Since the reduction in payload is in line with the range gain, one should first of all read in this that the A380 indeed meets all of its design spec
36 Ikramerica: But while I agree it is a more real number, the quoted passenger counts are not based on real numbers, but on a set standard criteria for Y, J and F
37 Walter747: Would the 644 be all Y configuration?
38 Brendows: There's not enough space to accommodate 11 abreast downstairs and 9 abreast upstairs. Why? The main deck on the A380 is only 21 cm wider than the 747
39 WingedMigrator: Probably not. All-Y was tried during the evacuation test, and that was 853 passengers plus 20 crew. 11 abreast downstairs works with 16.5 inch seats.
40 Zeke: Why do they need to update the range/payload if it is meeting its performance targets ? Flight test data has been included in the document, almost al
41 WingedMigrator: For everyone's benefit, here is the curve they're talking about
42 OldAeroGuy: Where has Airbus ever said the A380 is meeting its payload-range performance targets? The only statements I've seen say that they are making their pa
43 Zeke: from http://www.lufthansa-financials.de/s...nvestors%20Day2007NicoBuchholz.pdf A380 - 549 748-i - approx 410 "Source: LH Corporate Fleet Strategy and
44 Boeing767-300: With reference to the payload chart in reply 41 it shows the payload to be around 52 ton for 8000NM. What constitutes "Payload" 525 passengers + bagga
45 Zeke: Both A & B use 210lb/95 kg as the "design" mass for a passenger and their baggage across all aircraft types. Design payload for the 380 is 116,550 lb
46 Boeing767-300: And the answer to the question "is payload passengers baggage and freight" is??? Surely there is an average weight for cabin fittings for any given a
47 OldAeroGuy: " target=_blank>http://www.eads-nv.com/1024/en/inves....html We've discussed these vague statements before. While I agree that TOFL and Approach Speed
48 Dougloid: Folks, in the words of Fox Moulder, "The truth is out there." You have but to look for it and understand what it is.
49 Zeke: Well that's the industry we are in, the 744 design payload is only 39t, with about the same fuel burn as a 380. The source was Mario Heinen, the 380
50 XT6Wagon: Congratulations, I love your ever biased numbers. Nothing beats the magic way your Boeing numbers never match reality. At least this time we can kind
51 Zeke: I think it was clear from that post that it was an excerpt of a presentation by Mario Heinen. NB, the January 25, 2007 presentation to LH investors I
52 Ikramerica: A more reasonably number for the 748 is 425 seats if you are going to put 525 in an A380. That takes into account the more generous space of the A380
53 Keesje: For yrs this crazy assumption of the ~ 100 seat difference between b748i and a388 http://www.airliners.net/discussions...general_aviation/read.main/2
54 Zeke: I agree if you just go on proportions, see below for what I think they are doing in terms of adding seats where the additional plugs are added. Their
55 Keesje: I think that might be incorrect assumptions. http://www.airliners.net/discussions...eneral_aviation/read.main/3393800/
56 OldAeroGuy: Which says that range and fuel burn meet guarantees, not targets. Besides, you're changing the subject. I asked you to provide a source substantiatin
57 Ikramerica: Since I didn't do it, why are you yelling at me? See, you are having a problem because you didn't read. 525/555= 95%. That means that the 525 is a RE
58 Zeke: The drag comment was in that last link I provided, "In particular, aerodynamic drag is even lower than expected. The nose section and front fuselage
59 Scbriml: According to JP, BA operates no fewer than 7 different configurations on their 744s. These range from 14/39/348 to 14/62/215, so I would see them hav
60 WingedMigrator: It's always a hoot to see everyone practice Seat Magic (TM) Which dead space is that, again?
61 Elvis777: Dougloid, How about throwing us a bone !? I would like to see Marley's ghost. I do believe that Moulder was right, the truth is out there, But I have
62 OldAeroGuy: Is this the link you're referring to? http://www.aviationindustrygroup.com...s/a380flighttestinggat-947-953.pdf It's the last link you provided prior
63 Zeke: OAG, I give up. Despite producing quote after quote after quote after quote, you are still being pig headed. I will leave it up to yourself in future
64 Zvezda: The most plausible explanation for this is that performance is close to projections and therefore no change has been needed. It's also possible, but
65 Zeke: Simple, put up or shut up, show us any "credible hard evidence" that refutes those claims. The information is not "out-of-date", it was released at t
66 ANCFlyer: Well, the usual players have again derailed a thread into a pissing contest over A versus B. Therefore, this thread is done.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3133 posts, 
From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, 
From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, 
From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7726 posts, 
From Germany, joined Apr 2000, 449 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From France, joined Dec 2004, 868 posts, 
From Indonesia, joined Feb 2006, 258 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Feb 2007, 1506 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
