Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Confirmed: Airbus To Build A380-900  
User currently offlineMBJ2000 From Germany, joined Dec 2005, 426 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 28485 times:

According to Bloomberg John Leahy has confirmed, Airbus will start developing the A380 stretch in 2010.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...1085&sid=aFDn7WN3Sybc&refer=europe


Like most of life's problems, this one can be solved with bending -- Bender Unit 22
140 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 28487 times:

This has made my day if true.

What sort of timeline are we talking about until formal launch and offering to airlines?



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 28495 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It will be interesting to see how many of EK's current A380-800 orders have conversion clauses to the A380-900...

Also JL might be giving some forecasting on the rumored NH A380 order...

[Edited 2007-11-15 14:32:44]

User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3948 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 28434 times:

Well well well!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
It will be interesting to see how many of EK's current A380-800 orders have conversion clauses to the A380-900...

I don't think they would convert any of them - EK did say they would like to double their order sometime in the future, and I think this will result in that. 58 -800s and 60 or so -900s.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 28340 times:

How long will it take to develop/certify the A389 and bring it to production? Will A350XWB engines be used on it?

User currently offlineMBJ2000 From Germany, joined Dec 2005, 426 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 28339 times:

I wonder when will we read the headline: "Greenpeace criticizes BA for flying empty A380-900s across the pond" Big grin


Like most of life's problems, this one can be solved with bending -- Bender Unit 22
User currently offlineENU From Netherlands, joined Nov 2006, 1166 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 28343 times:

At least the A389 will look better than the thickset A388.

Quoting Moo (Reply 3):
58 -800s and 60 or so -900s.

That would be a solution for the problem of overpopulation  Wink


User currently offlineKL808 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1584 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 28273 times:

WOW.

Im speachless. I thought this would not be in the plan for queit some time.

The boys and girls (Engineers) in Toulouse sure have a lot of work.

Drew



AMS-LAX-MNL
User currently offlineMotorHussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3205 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 28168 times:



Quoting KL808 (Reply 7):
The boys and girls (Engineers) in Toulouse sure have a lot of work.

Wouldn't have thought too much; the wing was designed to be optimised on a 900 series. Very minor changes to wheel bogies etc as well, just three fuselage plugs and "Robert's your mother's brother".

Of course there's more to it than that, but Airbus had always designed the A380 to be a larger model optimally.

Regards
MH



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlineTeme82 From Finland, joined Mar 2007, 1528 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 28169 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting KL808 (Reply 7):
The boys and girls (Engineers) in Toulouse sure have a lot of work.

Well the wings were already made for the -900 so there isn't so much work to be done  Wink



Flying high and low
User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25347 posts, RR: 22
Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 28169 times:



Quoting KL808 (Reply 7):
Im speechless. I thought this would not be in the plan for quite some time.

Note Airbus says they won't even start development until 2010, so it's not exactly imminent.


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3948 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 28169 times:



Quoting KL808 (Reply 7):

The boys and girls (Engineers) in Toulouse sure have a lot of work.

Actually I am inclined to believe they have less work than people think - the A380 was originally designed with a stretch implicitly in mind, the wings were over designed, the A380F undercarriage is suitably beefed up for the weight, the RR Trent 980 is already certified to 85,000LB thrust.

All they have to do really is build it!

(Yes, I probably am over simplifying and missing out loads of behind the scenes stuff, but the reality is they have a huge headstart over themselves)


User currently onlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2528 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 28140 times:



Quoting ENU (Reply 6):
At least the A389 will look better than the thickset A388

Agreed - should even out the proportions a little.

If they start developing in 2010, should we expect to see it in service about 5 years thereafter? Maybe sooner?
Will cargo capacity be higher or will the extra bagage due to more pax take up most of the additional room in the belly?
I think the stretch will sell well if the A388's are flying full for most carriers.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 28080 times:

While I don't think this helps break even, making the investment even less valuable than before (it'll add billions and cut into A380-800 sales), as an enthusiast, I am glad they are pushing forward.

Any mention of the A388LR?

Quoting ENU (Reply 6):
At least the A389 will look better than the thickset A388.

It will look "right" as the A388 looks stubby.  yuck  I think some of the "ugly" criticism of the A380 will fade when they see the -900.  eyepopping 



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineOA260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 27003 posts, RR: 57
Reply 14, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 28047 times:

Great news indeed. But we will have to wait until at least 2015 to get on one.

User currently offlineChiad From Norway, joined May 2006, 1151 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 28059 times:

WOW. Awesome news..  Wow!
I guess the A380-900 is the biggest a commercial airliner can become if the magic 80m mark was to awoided!?!
I cant wait to get the specs for this aircraft. I cant wait to ride in it!


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3948 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 27962 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13):
While I don't think this helps break even, making the investment even less valuable than before (it'll add billions and cut into A380-800 sales), as an enthusiast, I am glad they are pushing forward.

Having just done some 'back of the fag packet' calculations on per airframe costs, I wouldn't be surprised if this was a zero sum investment from Emirates - 'give us the A380-900 and we will buy enough frames to cancel the extra investment'.

If that was the case, Airbus would be insane not to accept the offer.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 17, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 27916 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Moo (Reply 3):
I don't think they would convert any of them - EK did say they would like to double their order sometime in the future, and I think this will result in that. 58 -800s and 60 or so -900s.

Well Clark did say that two-thirds of his current A380-800 orderbook would be A380-900s if it had been available...

One wonders if he ordered so many A380s with the expectation the A380-900 would come and he'd get the first 25-50 for EK which would allow him to more effectively fight competitors flying the smaller A380-800...

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13):
Any mention of the A388LR?

The A380-800R would likely happen around the same time as the A380-800F, since both would draw on each other.

What will be interesting to see is whether or not the A380-900 has the center fuel-tank and other items for extra range, or if Airbus will just go for the "simple stretch" and accept less range for more payload as Boeing would like to do with the 787-10.

[Edited 2007-11-15 15:33:51]

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 18, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 27853 times:



Quoting Moo (Reply 16):
Having just done some 'back of the fag packet' calculations on per airframe costs, I wouldn't be surprised if this was a zero sum investment from Emirates - 'give us the A380-900 and we will buy enough frames to cancel the extra investment'

That might be true. But if Emirates were not given the choice, would they not buy more A388s? In other words, if they think they need 100 VLAs, and they need 60 A388s, they aren't going to just buy 40 748Is when they think they need something like the A389. They'll "make do" with more A388s. They may, may choose 2 A350s instead, but then, so? That helps the A350 program but doesn't add cost to the A380 program.

That's why I say it robs the A388 of orders to fill an even smaller niche. It might be break even on the new investment, but overall, it takes away sales from the A388, which actually puts the investment more in a hole.

Just my opinion. I hope I'm proved wrong. But there is honestly no way to tell, since there aren't two parallel universes, one where EK buys 100 A388s and the other where they buy 60 A388s and 40 A389s...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5467 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 27774 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
What will be interesting to see is whether or not the A380-900 has the center fuel-tank and other items for extra range, or if Airbus will just go for the "simple shrink" and accept less range for more payload as Boeing would like to do with the 787-10.

Keep in mind Airbus's most important customer for this stretch is almost certainly EK. Clark really, really doesn't like airplanes without at least marginal C-market range capabilities. I feel sure they'll put in the extra tanks and whatever reinforcement is necessary to increase MTOW enough to keep the range at least the same as that of the A380-800.

The really interesting question to me is whether Airbus will switch to Trent XWBs (and/or the hypothetical GEnx XWB variant). As ChrisBA777ER has posted before, that could result in absolutely unprecedented per-seat efficiency. Watch out for the EK steamroller.


User currently offlineOA260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 27003 posts, RR: 57
Reply 20, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 27789 times:

There is a good comparason here on WingedMigrator's profile pics :::

http://www.airliners.net/uf/view.fil...2901&filename=1184822231hfKsei.png


User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10736 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 27638 times:

Wow, is all I can say. Well, almost all.

Will we see the first 1000seater flying domestic in Japan?

Quoting ENU (Reply 6):
At least the A389 will look better than the thickset A388.

Agreed, this stretch will set the proportions right.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 22, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 27587 times:



Quoting NA (Reply 21):
Will we see the first 1000seater flying domestic in Japan?

Nope. Very unlikely unless JL and NH merge and are then forced by the government to reduce frequencies and airports are reopened to quads. Oh, and the population of Japan has to start growing again, not slowly shrinking as it is now...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 27316 times:



Quoting Moo (Reply 11):
Actually I am inclined to believe they have less work than people think - the A380 was originally designed with a stretch implicitly in mind, the wings were over designed, the A380F undercarriage is suitably beefed up for the weight, the RR Trent 980 is already certified to 85,000LB thrust.

Interesting "the wings were over designed". I seem to remember that they failed to meet their ultimate load test, but then I could be wrong.


User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 24, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 27240 times:



Quoting 474218 (Reply 23):
Quoting Moo (Reply 11):
Actually I am inclined to believe they have less work than people think - the A380 was originally designed with a stretch implicitly in mind, the wings were over designed, the A380F undercarriage is suitably beefed up for the weight, the RR Trent 980 is already certified to 85,000LB thrust.

Interesting "the wings were over designed". I seem to remember that they failed to meet their ultimate load test, but then I could be wrong.

I believe they failed at 147% of design limit but were beefed up, re-tested and surpassed the 150% well in a following test.

Funnily enough the passing second time didnt get as much publicity on here as when it failed the first one - a lot of people were willing it to fail I think.

I really genuinely believe the 900 will sell better than the 800 eventually and I also think that over the design lifespan from launch to when the last one is scrapped, it is more than possible that they could sell 500+. Fact is we are judging a plane for tomorrow on today's markets - it may seem a little overkill to some now, but my gut feeling is that people will see the A380 makes a pretty compelling case in 10 or 15 years time.

I also think it will evolve with the markets, and the bog-standard 800A model we have today may well only have a service life of twelve years or so before Airbus completely re-works the design, incorporating all the amzing technologial advances we have been seeing of late and also some we havent seen yet.

The final incarnation of the A380 will be a bigger, quieter, greener, more efficient and more expensive beast than we are seeing here.



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
25 Lrdc9 : I like the thickset look. It makes it look stubby.
26 Stitch : Airbus' computer models showed that with the additional reinforcement, the wing was now good for 150%. They did not do a second physical test. I beli
27 PC12Fan : Watch for a switch in orders. EK has stated all along that the -900 is the plane they wanted from the start. I don't believe they did the "actual" wi
28 Tdscanuck : It's roughly equilvalent to qualification by similarity. Airbus knew that the wing design was good to 1.47 so they just had to convince the regulator
29 TruemanQLD : YES! on the serious side, who will order it? -EK Definetly 60+ -QF Maybe 10 -JL Maybe 6 -BA maybe 5 Not many airlines in my view... but time will tell
30 Post contains images WingedMigrator : Bring her on!!! By the way, this diagram is for a notional 6.4 m stretch, the longest possible without breaking out of the 80 x 80 m gate size limit.
31 474218 : All of the above responses prove that the wing was not "over designed" in the first place. So you are saying that Airbus designed their wing to fail
32 Stitch : No, what he is saying that Airbus designed the wing to survive 150%. When it didn't, they analyzed why it broke at 147%, calculated the amount of rei
33 WingedMigrator : It was over-designed in the sense that it is aerodynamically sized for the A389. The A388 consequently has a lightly loaded wing of much greater area
34 Mariner : Some things puzzle me about this. It is not an "official" announcement. The Bloomberg article came out several hours ago, but has scarcely been picked
35 Ikramerica : Funny, because of two things. A. it's not supposed to happen in the first place, and B. they didn't retest it. So maybe it's you who have an agenda a
36 Baroque : At last something more suitable to go with those wings. It depends on what the 2010 means. The date may indicate about when they can get hold of a TX
37 Post contains links ComeAndGo : According to ILFC Udvar-Hazy the cargo capacity of the A388 is minimal. The prime reason to develop the A389 is just that, more cargo capacity. Here's
38 WingedMigrator : Leahy said 2010 program launch for 2015 EIS. For one other data point, the chairman of Cathay recently expressed interest in the A389.
39 Post contains images Speedbird2263 : Oh Happy DaY! I must say Ive been awaiting the news of the A389 being put forward for development after all the nay-sayers on here that repeatedly sta
40 SparkingWave : No one knows what is going to happen in 2010-2015. It's not that cut and dry. Some potential pitfalls: 1. A stretch for such a big plane may seem simp
41 Post contains images WingedMigrator : Oh yeah. It'll be roughly as difficult as making a 787-9 from a 787-8, or an A350-1000 from an A350-900. We're talking some seeeeerious engineering e
42 Airnerd : One more significance of an A380-900: If I'm not mistaken, this will easily be the longest and heaviest aircraft ever built, finally surpassing the AN
43 Ceph : Can't wait to see what new things Airbus has in store for the A389...
44 RedFlyer : You mean we might finally see the gym and bowling alley?
45 Ceph : Erm... I think these things are a bit impossible... You wouldn't want bowling balls to fly around during turbulence. A gym is possible with the weigh
46 ADent : What are the numbers for a simple A389 with the existing engines? Those are all 6000nm flights? I thought the 777-2LR was more efficient than the 777-
47 Ikramerica : But if you make a 787-9 for EIS in 2017 using the same exact technology of 2008, then sure, it's easy. But it won't sell that well. At 2015 EIS, that
48 Zeke : They are coming, should be out the door in 2012 for the A350XWB, the 2010 timing in my view points to a new engine technology.
49 Dw747400 : In fact, it seems like nothing but Leahy discussing a development timeline. The article makes it sound like they are confident the A389 will be offer
50 Ikramerica : Agreed. The TrentXWB would at least be one option. But certifying (and installing) an entirely new engine on the A380-900 is not cheap, so it's not j
51 Post contains images Astuteman : Fantastic if true... They won't be building it unless someone wants it.... This is the big question mark for me. hope they do... Most "material" chan
52 WingedMigrator : If you have performance figures, I'd be glad to plug them in and tweak my models. I should clarify that the Breguet equation is a crude model; the re
53 Post contains images Keesje : A large part of the A380 fuselage is composite : Glare More parts may be replaced by fit / form newer materials like Glare, Al LI and carbon. No doub
54 Post contains images Caljn : Airbus is accustomed to not incurring investment costs. Good for them!
55 Post contains links Aviopic : CentrAI might be the way to go, it's lighter and stronger then Carbon. http://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/news/?id=22248
56 Stitch : I believe Widebodyphotog noted the 77L had the advantage over the 77E at ranges as low as 2000nm, but that might not be just fuel burn, but overall e
57 A342 : Maybe somebody can make qualified statements on the questions I have: If the A389 would be powered by the 92,000lbf engines of the A350-1000, what MT
58 GBan : Yes, but these kind of upgrades will find their way into the 380 at some point anyway, be it stretched or not. They shouldn't necessarily be put on t
59 Stitch : Not sure they're "qualified", but... Right now, the A380-800 is certified for an MTOW of 569mt. The gear is designed to take more then that, but that
60 Baroque : That makes XWBs much more likely. Interesting view and different from earlier suggestions (as in about a year ago!) that the 388 would be quite a bit
61 Keesje : I think somebody told me 86 m is the practical limit for manoeuvring at existing airports. I think the lenght of the A380-900 will be detemrined by l
62 Scouseflyer : So is the 80*80m box not written into certification laws that all passenger planes must comply with?
63 ImperialEagle : IMO this is the one they should have built in the first place. Now the Japanese will certainly get on-board. There will likely be some others that mak
64 Keesje : Obviously if it doesn't fit the rules you can't operate it or you have to adjust the rules and all infrastructure based on it as neccesary..
65 BuyantUkhaa : That rule is just convenient now, but if at some point there is a clear need for bigger planes, just increase the box size.
66 Stitch : That will not be possible because the adjacent A380 gates to either side need, at a minimum, the full 80m for their own wings to fit if they are A380
67 Zeke : From memory, ICAO code F which the A380 fits into, specifies a maximum wing span of 80m, and maximum outer gear span of 16m, but no length limit.
68 Post contains links and images Jacobin777 : ....after the 147% break, Airbus adjusted their "FEM's" (Finite Elemental Methods/Finite Elemental Analysis)....Airbus didn't need to break another w
69 YULWinterSkies : What? After having said the 77W should be the maximum size? I'd love to see this happen, we'll see...
70 Post contains images Ikramerica : I believe that's right. The 80m box is just a number when it comes to length, but the length is not actually fixed. Airports that want to take someth
71 Post contains images FRAspotter : *coughcough*Emirates*coughcough*
72 BWphoto : What about evacuation times? I seem to recall they were pretty close in the -800. I do note "door 6" in the diagram provided by WingedMigrator.
73 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ..this problem occurs at ORD also....I took this A346 photo basically standing from where IB's A343 usually parks at the L-Concourse-though I'm not s
74 Stitch : The A380-800 is certified for 853 people (plus 20 crew), so that should easily cover even a two-class A380-900 passenger load.
75 SparkingWave : You may think it's simple but there's increased weight, increased strengthening of the wing, reinforcement of the fuselage, etc., etc. It's going to
76 RedFlyer : I know, my question was intended as sarcasm.
77 Post contains links and images Lightsaber : Quite a few I bet. I think they'll convert the vast majority they can... and then order more. www.caa.govt.nz/aerodromes/A380paper.pdf Runway, taxiwa
78 Post contains images A350 : Until 2015, Airbus has very roughly 300 production slots for the A380, and 200 of them are already sold. So I wonder if we will see many more orders f
79 Stitch : The current A380-800 lifted off with a take-off weight of around 600mt. She then turned around and touched-down with a landing weight of around 595mt
80 Ikramerica : Maybe you didn't see some of the info, but we are talking an 83m+ length as posited by ILFC, not a 77m length. That adds a more weight above the 79.6
81 Stitch : I tend to think Airbus would be loathe to go beyond 80m. I'm going off the German data, which keeps the span the same, but I suppose Airbus could go
82 LAXDESI : Good point. However, I do not know if A389 will result in incremental operating profit of $30 million each. One also needs to account for additional
83 Lightsaber : Difference between flight testing and ops. While the A380 is designed for 590 MT operations, that doesn't mean its fully ready. Usually airframes "gr
84 AirplaneCrazy : Won't the -900 be heavier? Thus, the fact that the wing fails at 150% for an -800 means that it will likely fail on the -900 without additional work.
85 Jacobin777 : ..it will require maybe a few hundred kilograms (if that even) of strengthening along the ribs, etc....
86 Stitch : True, but the important point to take away is Airbus doesn't have to build the A380-900. They could just keep the A380-800 and airlines will continue
87 Post contains images Stitch : Understood. Which is why I hedged in my statements.
88 Flighty : They need it for the A380 to become a "family" like the A320. Or, like the 777. Or the A330. The family concept is, you get airlines to buy one, the
89 Zeke : Many people make the mistake that the limit load tested was only associated with the -800, where others think is was for the -800F. Normal to gain an
90 Glacote : Since it is longer the A389 should have a smaller (lower?) tail fin. That is not the case on WG's tentative drawing. Assuming a 10% reduction of mome
91 Tdscanuck : It's not a certification requirement, it's an ICAO guideline. You could get certified, but a lot of airports wouldn't be happy with you. Certificatio
92 Zeke : The plan is for the tail/height to remain the same, the engines will have more thrust. Annex 14 only has a width, not length. Think Stitch is referri
93 Post contains images Jacobin777 : .....I didn't state any particular model...just what was done....
94 Post contains images WingedMigrator : It depends on how much they want to spend, and how much they want to stretch... I assumed, given only a few hundred sales, that they would leave the
95 Post contains images A342 : Hi WingedMigrator, maybe you can make an educated guess about my questions: Just trying to think of the potential Super A380.
96 WingedMigrator : To maintain the same acceleration, the thrust needs to grow proportionally to MTOW. However, the heavier aircraft needs to build a dynamic pressure a
97 Dw747400 : Have we seen any other news regarding this? I'm amazed that Airbus would be so quiet regarding this.
98 Ikramerica : One would think so, but the business case for the A380 in general is not entirely sound, so future decisions on the program may be based as much on "
99 Tdscanuck : I'm almost positive that's because the 737NG's are all nose down on the ground and the 736 is so short that the increased pitch down boosts the tail
100 Stitch : True, but I would expect Airbus to launch the A380-900 in such a case only because the A380-800 was no longer selling or selling in such low numbers
101 474218 : There is a serious problem with your theory. The reason the A380 is not selling is because of its size, so building a bigger model makes little sense
102 JoeCanuck : If they go ahead with the -900, it will cost at least a few billion more than what the 380 has cost so far. That means they'll be increasing the numbe
103 Post contains images WingedMigrator : Say what? It's selling enough to keep the line busy for years to come. You don't hear Airbus backing off from their plan of 45 frames per year. So es
104 JoeCanuck : Did I say that they get the money before delivery? Before you can deliver a plane, somebody has to order it. I merely mentioned the first step in the
105 Joni : I thought the A380 was selling.
106 Slz396 : Excuse me? This year, Airbus has sold more A380s than even its most optimistic sales man predicted (20) and for which the executive was publicly ridi
107 Post contains images A342 : Thank you very much for these numbers! Sounds exciting! How many would Tim Clark order? Now what about an A388R with a MTOW of 625 tonnes? I assume i
108 JoeCanuck : Which only makes perfect sense if the 380 is being produced as a showcase for Airbus and not to make any direct profit. The money and resources would
109 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ..explain deep.... ...and you must use your typical Boeing example for bashing.. ...something which you do with the Boeing program incessantly.. ....
110 Thorben : I somewhat doubt that statement. The 747SP was an extremely shortened version which had the goal to get more range. It got a very small amount of num
111 Alessandro : Thorben, depends if they plan to do a cargo hauler or not? Then +80 meters (AN-225 is 87meters long) make sense.
112 Thorben : The An-225 is a single airplane, doing special transports, built mainly for military and spaceship carrying use. A bunch of planes of that size in th
113 Alessandro : JoeC, the thing is that A380-900 could offer 800 passenger with more space for biz travellers, not crammed in economy like in the A380-800.
114 Alessandro : Sure as passengerplane, but as cargohauler? It´s technical possible, but if it´s economical with a +80meter A380 that´s a different story.
115 A350 : No need to speculates, Airbus has already back in 2000 presented a complete family of proposed aircraft, commenting that not all of them will actuall
116 JoeCanuck : I understand that it may work for a few airlines but as a business model for Airbus, the logic still eludes me. Basic supply/demand doesn't work sinc
117 Alessandro : JoeC, they need a bigger A389 to compete on the outsize cargomarket as well, Antonov is definitly making money on the AN-124s and AN-225. Both Libya a
118 NorCal : Outsize cargo is something the A380 can never do because it doesn't have nose loading. Even dense cargo is something it won't ever be able to do (wit
119 474218 : According to the Airbus web site they have sold 165 A380's. Building 45 a year would produce all of them in less than four (4) years. Airbus has also
120 JerseyFlyer : Although cargo and passengers on the same deck is now I think a no no safety-wise, on A380 passengers could be top deck only
121 EI321 : In the instance of the 767, this is mostly due to taller landing gear to address the length. I assume the gear is slightly taller on the 748 also to
122 Stitch : All I have is an HTML copy of a German website that has all that model data. Eventually, though, you reach saturation point at a few hubs with the A3
123 Jacobin777 : ..while I agree its more important now for Airbus to make a sale and get cash (and as you mentioned, as long as its above production costs), talk abo
124 Post contains links and images WingedMigrator : The launch decision for the A389 is a matter of (a) how much extra it will cost and (b) how many extra sales it will generate. When the A388 turns a
125 StoutAirLines : Logically, we should be hearing of plans by Airbus to back off that 45 frames per year rate. Airbus even revealed recently that, beginning next year,
126 Post contains images LAXDESI : Excellent job explaining the concept of sunk costs.
127 Stitch : Airbus will likely have more then 193 orders which will mean the line will continue to have planes to build. Not surprising considering the different
128 Post contains links Mariner : I don't have a Harvard MBA, but I would gues that the major costs of the Stratocruiser were funded from the military predecessor. They (civilian) num
129 StoutAirLines : I applaud your optimism. Certainly, for the sake of the good people of Airbus, let's hope you're right. But, the B747, B757, B767 and even the B777 h
130 Post contains images Stitch : On that, I agree completely.
131 Stitch : So I'm hearing through the grapevine mumblings that VS wants to convert their six A380-800s to A380-900s and are willing to accept a further deferment
132 Post contains links Stitch : If you are a subscriber to Bloomberg.com, there is an interview by Claudia Maedler and Charles Penty with SRB at Dubai. Fair use excerpt: I started a
133 Post contains images WingedMigrator : You're making this up! Airbus has never claimed that they would take the entire VLA market over the next 20 years (1480 or thereabouts), only about h
134 StoutAirLines : Go check it for yourself, WingedMigrator. Why would I make it up? Neither of your assertions were true, originally. The good folks at Airbus initiall
135 Post contains links Moo : http://www.leeham.net/filelib/ScottsColumn70105.pdf Explains it all.
136 Rheinbote : If you have built the Revell scale model kit, grab it and turn it upside down - you'll note that there's a dedicated space for a fifth main landing g
137 EI321 : WHERE CAN IT BE CHECKED?
138 JerseyFlyer : Yet they are also apparently considering both B748 and A388 responses to a new RFP for 10 frames to replace their LGW-based 744s. So, maybe they will
139 Scouseflyer : That's a somewhat back to front way of doing things, but it may be good for them if the new order is at a better rate?
140 Scbriml : Or the original order may have provisions in it that they wouldn't get today on a new order. This could be a similar thing that US did with their A33
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
SIA Says Airbus To Build The 787-9 For Them posted Wed Nov 8 2006 03:10:54 by Jimyvr
Airbus To Test A380 At Addis Ababa, Ethiopia? posted Wed Oct 11 2006 01:57:06 by ETStar
LH And Air China To Build A380 Hangar posted Fri Sep 22 2006 15:55:23 by Manni
AFX: Airbus To Build Additional Model Of A350 posted Mon Aug 28 2006 09:35:21 by SFORunner
Chinese May Ask Airbus To Build Factory In Tianjin posted Sun May 28 2006 15:12:09 by Leelaw
Airbus To Strengthen A380 Wing posted Mon May 22 2006 09:46:41 by Scbriml
Airbus To Build Planes In China posted Thu Mar 16 2006 18:20:13 by TinkerBelle
FI: Airbus To Keep A380 On Revised Schedule posted Tue Sep 6 2005 06:39:14 by Leelaw
LH Allowed To Build A380 Hangar In FRA posted Tue Jun 28 2005 13:13:24 by LoungeLover
How Much To Develop A380-900? posted Wed Jun 1 2005 14:18:27 by Art