Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What About The Proposed 380-900?  
User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 11727 times:

I was just wondering how long Airbus may intend to extend the A380-900 (length), How many passengers it would carry in 3 class or in a single high density, the likely launch date for such an aircraft?? I think aesthetically the 380-900 would be much better looking not that it matters...



[Edited 2008-02-17 20:35:03]


We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
67 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 11673 times:

Hmm, by the looks of the first A380s, no one wants to fly high density +800 yet, so my guess would be that they certify
it with the same amount of passengers and increase 1st class. Maybe it´ll be different in 10 years time when the 2nd hand A380ies come to the market for charter companies, but not today.
I don´t think Airbus are going to launch it soon, enough airlines have to make commitments first...


User currently offlineGlareskin From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1303 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 11640 times:



Quoting EA772LR (Thread starter):
I think aesthetically the 380-900 would be much better looking not that it matters...

Of course it matters for aviation fans! And some airlines have shown interest too. Emirates not the least of them all....

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifieda...inerphotos/photos/big/00006210.jpg


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



There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
User currently offlineChiad From Norway, joined May 2006, 1133 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 11490 times:



Quoting Alessandro (Reply 1):
I don´t think Airbus are going to launch it soon, enough airlines have to make commitments first...

I read somewhere that Airbus wanted the -800 up and running with 4 deliveries a month before they launch the -900.
If that is reach in 2009, then it's possible that the -900 will be launch as well.

I also think that Airbus has received enough indications from airlines, especially EK, to launch it.
Some people, I read, believe that the -900 will be the main seller of the A380.
I hear that the the A380 wings are supposedly designed to fit the -900 better than the -800.

No matter what ... I cant wait to see this aircraft being launch, it's first flight and EIS.
That's when the B747 wow-factor really becomes a distant memory!


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9979 posts, RR: 96
Reply 4, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 11418 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting EA772LR (Thread starter):
I was just wondering how long Airbus may intend to extend the A380-900

Have a quick peek at WingedMigrator's profile - there's a great picture of a substantially stretched A380 there...  biggrin 

Quoting Chiad (Reply 3):
I also think that Airbus has received enough indications from airlines, especially EK, to launch it

The title of WM's A380 stretch is "The Steve Udvar-Hazy Edition", which gives you an idea that lessors are interested, too  Smile.

I have heard/been told these:-

Above 88m is possible, but not economically viable due to the excessive structural weight
Above 87m needs a second pair of additional doors, which pretty much eliminates the advantage.
85m-86m is the "sweet spot" for the airframe (would result in some 30% more usable space BTW, and be nearly double the cabin size of a 744  Smile )
Anything with a range less than the 744 won't be accepted
Anything with a range greater than the 773ER will be considered fabulous

I'm told many existing customers (EK, ILFC, and others), and some prospective ones (e.g. CX) have pressed Airbus to ignore the 80m "box" limit and go for gold (maximise the airframe's potential).

WM's drawing shows an 85.1m long A380 with 19 frames inserted, which, I believe (and can't even remotely substantiate) has resulted from some discussions between Airbus and ILFC/Steve U-H.

Quoting Alessandro (Reply 1):
Hmm, by the looks of the first A380s, no one wants to fly high density +800 yet

EK might.
However, my gut feel is the next A380 derivative will be a -800R - a substantially heavier, longer range version of today's plane with T900/GP7000, and aerodynamic upgrades, (+4 tonne or so of extra weight removed)
EIS (guessing) - c 2012/2013

My  twocents  is on a stretch becoming available for EIS in c. 2016/2017, after a) Airbus have got out from underneath the A350 and b) can turn their attention to getting the Trent XWB certified on the A380 airframe.
So the market (IMO) has 8 or 9 years to get used to a bigger A280

Of course the above is all conjecture, but its not just mine  Smile

Regards


User currently offlineTheoden From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 61 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 11334 times:

If I were Airbus I'd be thinking more about a new narrow body than a -900. I don't think demand for VLAs has been strong enough for the -800 to break even. And since the plane was apparently "optimized" for a stretch version, I have to ask what the reasons were for not building the optimized version first? Whatever the reasons were to build the -800 first instead of the -900, are they still valid today?

However, since the -900 would be a modification and not a new build, maybe it could be built for low enough costs. They already did all the tough work for the -800 and I'm sure they'll get the wiring right this time. This would be my hope.

Theoden



Fear no darkness!
User currently offlineSmokeyrosco From Ireland, joined Dec 2005, 2112 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 11314 times:

Based on nothing what so ever, I'd imagine that they might wait until the 380 is approaching break-even point before looking at a 900


John Hancock
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9979 posts, RR: 96
Reply 7, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 11224 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Theoden (Reply 5):
If I were Airbus I'd be thinking more about a new narrow body than a -900

I don't think the two need to be mutually exclusive.......

Quoting Theoden (Reply 5):
Whatever the reasons were to build the -800 first instead of the -900, are they still valid today?

One can only guess that the growth was put in to accommodate demand growth over a long period of time.
Perhaps they saw the -800 as a big enough step up from the 744 for this decade

Quoting Smokeyrosco (Reply 6):
Based on nothing what so ever, I'd imagine that they might wait until the 380 is approaching break-even point before looking at a 900

Conventional A-net wisdom that uses that logic predicts that you will never see a stretched A380....

I suspect they'll wait until a) the resources are available, and b) the demand is there.
I personally don't think break-even on the current plane is even remotely a consideration in deciding to launch a -900

Regards


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 11169 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 7):
I suspect they'll wait until a) the resources are available, and b) the demand is there.

I think several customers and others expressed serious interest.

CX ' Tony Tyler comments are interresting, he said they will likely take A380 with additional range (R) or payload (-900). http://www.airliners.net/discussions...general_aviation/read.main/3677047

John Leahy recently said Airbus will start development in 2010. A lot of work was already incorporated in the -800 and 800F development / testing / certification, including some "-800F" max. landing weight landings.. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...1085&sid=aFDn7WN3Sybc&refer=europe


User currently offlineSmokeyrosco From Ireland, joined Dec 2005, 2112 posts, RR: 13
Reply 9, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 11166 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 7):
Conventional A-net wisdom that uses that logic predicts that you will never see a stretched A380....

No actually, I never said it wouldn't happen, don't put words into my mouth sir. In fact I think it will happen. I was giving my opinion of when it would happen, that is all. If I'm right or wrong doesn't matter, it's a prediction that I have made based on my own thoughts and experiences and nothing else as I have stated.

Also, is there really such a thing as "conventional A-net wisdom"?



John Hancock
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6870 posts, RR: 63
Reply 10, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 11122 times:



Quoting Smokeyrosco (Reply 9):

Also, is there really such a thing as "conventional A-net wisdom"?

Conventional A-net ignorance?

Conventional A-net stupidity?

Conventional A-net prejudice?

 Wink Wink Wink

Anyway, the A380-900 isn't an afterthought. It was part of the original concept. It was the A3XX-200 (with the -100 being the plane we now know and love ... OK, 'now know' ... and the -50 [yes!] being a shrink).

Will Airbus do it? Of course!

They have the 500+ seat market all to themselves now. Bring on the -800R! Give us the -900! They don't really have much to lose now.


User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 11044 times:



Quoting Chiad (Reply 3):


Quoting Alessandro (Reply 1):
I don´t think Airbus are going to launch it soon, enough airlines have to make commitments first...

I read somewhere that Airbus wanted the -800 up and running with 4 deliveries a month before they launch the -900.
If that is reach in 2009, then it's possible that the -900 will be launch as well.

I also think that Airbus has received enough indications from airlines, especially EK, to launch it.
Some people, I read, believe that the -900 will be the main seller of the A380.
I hear that the the A380 wings are supposedly designed to fit the -900 better than the -800.

No matter what ... I cant wait to see this aircraft being launch, it's first flight and EIS.
That's when the B747 wow-factor really becomes a distant memory!

Could be, but I doubt it gets certified for more passengers, since none of the current customers intend (AFAIK) to
fly +800 passengers.


User currently offlineRamzi From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 535 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 10925 times:



Quoting Chiad (Reply 3):
I hear that the the A380 wings are supposedly designed to fit the -900 better than the -800.

The wings were not build FOR the A380-900. They were built such that an A380-900 could be possible in the future, but they were still built for the -800.

Quoting Theoden (Reply 5):
Whatever the reasons were to build the -800 first instead of the -900, are they still valid today?

On average, the A380-800 can carry around 500 pax in three classes. Try to imagine the -900, one that can carry 650 or 700. Wouldn't that scare you as being the next step from the 744 which has a capacity of what, around 375? You're talking close to a double capacity leap from one plane to another, both being made for the same market.

True, EK did show interest, but in the end EK are gambling. Frankly I have not the slightest doubt they will make the most out of their A388s and I am positive they thought of everything before they ordered 58 of them. But can any one here imagine them with another 20 A380s even larger than the A388s? Can anyone think of around 20 destinations that the A388 is barely enough for? Can anyone think of new destination that will indeed present a market for the A389 in the future? Maybe there is, but i personally doubt there is anything the A388 can't cover. EK have some configured such that they can carry some 650 passengers, and lets say, with that, they need to fly more passengers to a certain destination, how about some 50 or 60 77Ws? Oh wait, there are 57 other A388s too!

To be fairly honest, I sure as hell hope they make an A389. Before anything, I want to see what EK will do.



There will come a time when you believe everything is finished - that will be the beginning.
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9979 posts, RR: 96
Reply 13, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 10884 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Smokeyrosco (Reply 9):
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 7):
Conventional A-net wisdom that uses that logic predicts that you will never see a stretched A380....

No actually, I never said it wouldn't happen, don't put words into my mouth sir

Relax, Sir.

"I never said you never said it wouldn't happen, so don't put words in my mouth".... box   biggrin .

Joking apart, I was merely commenting that in the past other posters have used the argument that a) the A389 won't get developed until the A388 breaks even, and then b) the A388 will never break even.

It wasn't my intention to imply that you thought the same. Apologies if it came across like that.

Quoting Smokeyrosco (Reply 9):
Also, is there really such a thing as "conventional A-net wisdom"?

That's a good question. Smile

Quoting Alessandro (Reply 11):
Could be, but I doubt it gets certified for more passengers, since none of the current customers intend (AFAIK) to
fly +800 passengers.

I'd put money on an 85m-86m A380 being certified for around 1 100 passengers.  Smile
It seems to be standard practice to certify planes for as many pax as you can physically get in.

Regards


User currently offlineSeabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5325 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 10775 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 13):
I'd put money on an 85m-86m A380 being certified for around 1 100 passengers.  

Fun at customs!  headache 

Quoting Smokeyrosco (Reply 6):
Based on nothing what so ever, I'd imagine that they might wait until the 380 is approaching break-even point before looking at a 900

If the -900 is as good as it should be it will make achieving break-even on the whole program considerably easier. Especially if it is like the "Udvar-Hazy Edition" it should slaughter everything else ever built on CASM.


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4680 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 10699 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 4):
However, my gut feel is the next A380 derivative will be a -800R - a substantially heavier, longer range version of today's plane with T900/GP7000, and aerodynamic upgrades, (+4 tonne or so of extra weight removed)
EIS (guessing) - c 2012/2013

My twocents is on a stretch becoming available for EIS in c. 2016/2017, after a) Airbus have got out from underneath the A350 and b) can turn their attention to getting the Trent XWB certified on the A380 airframe.

I believe the -800R will basically be a shortened version of the -900 you describe. This way range will substantially increase. But I guess if somebody wants it, Airbus can do an -800R with the MTOW and engines of the stillborn -800F very quickly, much of the design work has already been done. IMO EIS would be no later than 2011.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 10637 times:



Quoting Ramzi (Reply 12):
Can anyone think of around 20 destinations that the A388 is barely enough for? Can anyone think of new destination that will indeed present a market for the A389 in the future? Maybe there is, but i personally doubt there is anything the A388 can't cover.

It seems both Boeing:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cmo/images/lg_growth_rates_rgns_cmo07.gif

and Airbus :

http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/docu...f/PDF_dl/04-passenger-aircraft.pdf

foresee the world market to nearly tripple in the next 20 years.

Mostly concentrating around hubs (current 80% of all long haul travel is between 20 hubs)

Hubs are becoming ever more constrained.

I think the A380 is in the middle of this market development and improved versions will be part of the airline fleets (capasity, range, both, engine / systems improvements, etc.)


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9979 posts, RR: 96
Reply 17, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 10509 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting A342 (Reply 15):
I believe the -800R will basically be a shortened version of the -900 you describe

Yes. I think it will be a shrink version of the stretch too  bigthumbsup 

Quoting A342 (Reply 15):
Airbus can do an -800R with the MTOW and engines of the stillborn -800F very quickly, much of the design work has already been done. IMO EIS would be no later than 2011.

Can't argue with you.
Both engines are already certified to 80k lb anyway, which is more than a 600t A388R will ever need.
I suggested 2012 primarily because that's when Airbus say fully "lightened" A380's will be rolling off the production line.

A 2011 EIS might still leave early planes with a tiny OEW disadvantage to later ones.

Quoting A342 (Reply 15):
But I guess if somebody wants it

Given that the fuel burn delta will be minimal, I would think a 600t version will be very popular..  thumbsup 

Regards


User currently offlineRamzi From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 535 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 10265 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 16):

Agreed. Thanks for the Airbus pdf, interesting. Here's what I think. First of all, although factually demand is increasing in large numbers, this does not necessarily mean capacities between two specific locations will be much greater. As for the hubs, you are right, a bunch of very large aircraft will be needed for example to carry all the traffic coming into DXB that's forwarding to say Hong Kong, or Tokyo, or say Malaysia. But the passengers on these flights will have accumulated on several other flights from many other locations. That being said, try to imagine an A380 size aircraft from every location. For example, an A380 from LHR to DXB, one from JED, one from Cairo, one form CDG, one from JFK, one from LAX, and a few others. I think we agree a large number of those will be transfers. Now, imagine that in total, there has to be around the same number of A380s flying to the same number of destinations at the other end of the connection. This is huge. I mean, its MASSIVE. You're talking about at least 500 passengers on every flight. And this is probably how EK will run their business. So far as huge as all this is its very likely to be functioning soon. Now lets get into some detail. Take the LHR-DXB-SIN connection. We have say 500 passengers going through DXB form London to Sydney. Demand rises to three times after twenty years. So 500 passengers now want to get to SIN from LHR. What are their options? EK via DXB, SQ non-stop, probably BA non-stop. When the demand increases, most likely all three airlines will add a frequency. Demand is satisfied. Then what? Another triple in another 20 years? Fine, same thing done again. Is there a gap? Your opinion will probably say yes, we need a larger aircraft. My opinion will say no, the A380 is large enough for a while to come. Why? Well when there can be 3 airlines with 2 different timings each, why have two airlines with one timing each? Ok, now we come to the issue of slots. But many airports in the world are actually not that overloaded. Many airlines will prefer to provide their passengers with a time option rather than a very loaded large single flight. Here, the A380 would seem to be more than big enough for such a system to run. Moreover, EK were the only airline to order the A380 in such a number, and I think its safe to say people are quite surprised and confused. "Where the hell are they going to fly all those giants to?" With time, more airlines will order it, fleets will grow, and the model will be improved. According to your statistics, in 20 years the demand will triple. Do you agree that 3 times as many A380s will be flying then? I believe that will be the case. Go another 30 years. At that point, if the growth continues to rise at the same pace, larger aircraft will certainly be needed, to use up less slots, to move more passenger more efficiently, etc. You're talking about 50 years from now, and this is all an IF. Also, I don't believe an ideal hub can function with such large capacity aircraft. If all flights hold 500 passengers a lot of frequencies will be canceled and the hub will be much harder to run.
Your statistics confirm that the A388s are much needed, and the orders will increase, no doubt about it, and also with time improvements will come into existence, maybe an A380R. But an even larger aircraft will not fly any time in at least the next 20 years. Even if the demand is there, it won't be as large as need be. After all like many said, the A380 has not yet met its break even point, are these statistics really enough to convince you an A389 will fly soon? In 20 year, maybe. A very neutral maybe. Before that, unlikely. After all, delivery of the A388s will not stop until at least 15 years from now and I think the slots are loaded until around 2014(?), and the orders are still coming in.



There will come a time when you believe everything is finished - that will be the beginning.
User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 10197 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 13):
Quoting Alessandro (Reply 11):
Could be, but I doubt it gets certified for more passengers, since none of the current customers intend (AFAIK) to
fly +800 passengers.

I'd put money on an 85m-86m A380 being certified for around 1 100 passengers.
It seems to be standard practice to certify planes for as many pax as you can physically get in.

Regards

I doubt it this time, shall it be done at Hamburg again and dare risk delays if they fail? Current load seem enough...


User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 10165 times:



Quoting Ramzi (Reply 12):
On average, the A380-800 can carry around 500 pax in three classes. Try to imagine the -900, one that can carry 650 or 700. Wouldn't that scare you as being the next step from the 744 which has a capacity of what, around 375? You're talking close to a double capacity leap from one plane to another, both being made for the same market.

True, EK did show interest, but in the end EK are gambling. Frankly I have not the slightest doubt they will make the most out of their A388s and I am positive they thought of everything before they ordered 58 of them. But can any one here imagine them with another 20 A380s even larger than the A388s? Can anyone think of around 20 destinations that the A388 is barely enough for? Can anyone think of new destination that will indeed present a market for the A389 in the future? Maybe there is, but i personally doubt there is anything the A388 can't cover. EK have some configured such that they can carry some 650 passengers, and lets say, with that, they need to fly more passengers to a certain destination, how about some 50 or 60 77Ws? Oh wait, there are 57 other A388s too!

To be fairly honest, I sure as hell hope they make an A389. Before anything, I want to see what EK will do.

They surely want to have more 1st class seats, also take the population growth in Asia into account, so I think A389 will fly when Airbus has enough commitments.


User currently offlineRamzi From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 535 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 9995 times:



Quoting Alessandro (Reply 20):
so I think A389 will fly when Airbus has enough commitments.

Well of course it will if the commitments are there, the question is when will they be there, and when will Airbus have enough faith in a larger A380 to market it all the way? Like I said, this will (in my opinion) not be soon. The A388 is just getting started, only two deliveries so far, a third soon.



There will come a time when you believe everything is finished - that will be the beginning.
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6836 posts, RR: 46
Reply 22, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 9883 times:



Quoting Theoden (Reply 5):
If I were Airbus I'd be thinking more about a new narrow body than a -900. I don't think demand for VLAs has been strong enough for the -800 to break even.

It depends partly on what Boeing does next. If they launch the 737RS after the 787 program winds down Airbus will be forced to follow. That will make it difficult to put more resources into the A380. A lot also depends on the state of the world economy. Remember that in the early 1970's Boeing nearly went bankrupt because they had gambled more than the net worth of the company on the development of the 747 and a major recession hit and they were having extreme trouble getting airlines to take planes. If we do enter a serious recession it will certainly impact demand for VLA's in particular. I was of the opinion that the A380 program will never break even and hence it would be foolish to develop other variants, but if there is actually more demand for the -900 than the -800 then perhaps it makes sense to build it at some point. But if it is done at the expense of developing the A320RS while Boeing is developing the 737RS then it will be extremely foolish.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 7):

I suspect they'll wait until a) the resources are available, and b) the demand is there.

 checkmark 
Just as long as those resources are not more urgently needed for a program that has more profit potential, such as the A320RS. However, if Boeing decides to rest on their laurels again and happily divide the narrowbody market with the A320 then why not go for the A389?



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4387 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 9849 times:

Airbus will make this a slow release. Why?

The best selling planes 30 years ago was the 737-200, basically a 100 seater. 15 years ago it was 737-300, a 133 seater, now it is A320 and B737-800, 180 seaters.

So aircraft size went up at the most popular, so also in average by 30% in 15 years, or 20% in decade. So we know that growth of passenger numbers by about a factor of three will break down to twice the number of planes that are 40% bigger.
So an A380-900 will be needed in 10 years from now. It will be there before Boeing can offer Y3, and will be more economical on all routes where it can be filled. Now that Y3 is at least 10 years away, there isn't much pressure for the A389.


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4680 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 9830 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 17):
Yes. I think it will be a shrink version of the stretch too  bigthumbsup 

Nice wording, isn't it?  biggrin 

I meant to say that both the "real" -800R and the -900 will probably feature Trent XWB engines.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
John Leahy recently said Airbus will start development in 2010.

I have to agree with Astuteman's timing suggestion. Get the A350 in the air first, then you can launch the A380-900 and the -800R with Trent XWB engines.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
25 Rheinwaldner : The A389 would only serve the biggest hubs. There would be no more custom congestion than today because at these hubs often thousands of passengers a
26 Post contains images Keesje : Ramzi thnx for giving it all a good thought! As far as DXB and Emirates are concerned they will try to skip SIN on the kangaroo route. All of Austral
27 Revelation : I would hope that they built the -800 first by asking customers what they would buy first. I imagine that had the customer base favored the -900, tha
28 SKAirbus : That didn't seem to stop Boeing with the 748i... one commitment for the pax version so far...
29 Post contains images Smokeyrosco : ah no worries, I probably just didn't get enough sleep last night! Tell me why I don't like Mondays!
30 Post contains images EA772LR : Holy Smokes!! That'd be impressive to say the least. Because likely the -900 version would have been too much of a jump from the 744-way too big for
31 SEPilot : The difference is that Boeing had plenty of commitments for the 748F, and the cost to develop the 748i once the 748F is certified is a small fraction
32 Revelation : I appreciate your analysis, Burkhard, but I imagine that some will be upset that you used data from the past instead of instead using some powerpoint
33 Post contains images Astuteman : I think the interesting issue here is the number of airlines that I hear are pressurising Airbus for the stretch, and not just the originally planned
34 Post contains images WingedMigrator : Behold the awesome A380-900 Udvar-Hazy Edition (That's the one at the bottom. The one in the middle is the baseline stretch contemplated since progra
35 Post contains links and images Keesje : Leahy said some airlines are considering 3-5-3 on the main deck..
36 Post contains images Astuteman : Ah..... I like the "real -800R" thing I don't think airlines will wait until 2016/2017 for a longer-range A380. I'm hearing your previous 2011/2012 a
37 SEPilot : Granted developing the A389 will not be anything as major as a complete new plane. But since Airbus was voicing questions about where the money to de
38 Post contains images Astuteman : F***ing hell! Stumpy to skinny in one fell swoop!    Fantastic stuff, guys. Thanks    Have you cheated and put a smaller tail on too, Keejse? Edi
39 Post contains images Ramzi : Thank you. Also, the 748i, after-all, is a leap off the 744. The A380 is a completely new aircraft in every way. If it took the A388 that long, I don
40 Post contains images Astuteman : Nothing will be permitted to put the A320RS at risk when the necessity arises. Why, the A380 of course... Regards
41 Post contains images SEPilot : Can I offer you an astounding deal on a bridge in Brooklyn?
42 Post contains images Astuteman : Do you deliver or do I have to come and get it? Rgds
43 Post contains images Keesje : It seems GE is under some market pressure to come up with something more efficient >80klbs Boeing 777 NG (driven by Boeing) Boeing 787-10 (to big for
44 Post contains images SEPilot : Shall we meet in the middle?
45 Post contains images Ramzi : I like I would not want to fly that, except in F or J of coruse Are these four enough to launch the program? Will any have significantly large orders
46 A342 : Bingo! That's what I meant. What about a range of 10,000nm? Or is that too optimistic? It would be the ideal aircraft for SYD-LHR/JFK nonstop.
47 Post contains images EA772LR : Thanks guys for keeping the thread about the 380-900 and not A vs. B. Isn't it nice!?
48 Astuteman : No. A 625t -800 with -XWB engines should comfortably beat 10 000 Nm. Regards
49 Post contains images A342 : Heck, the Kiwis could fly to good old LHR non-stop!
50 Post contains images EA772LR : I suppose if you're gonna have a ULH flight from AKL-LHR nonstop (9910nm according to GCM) , the A380 would be the most comfortable aircraft to fly i
51 Rheinwaldner : For stretches the tail can be smaller because controlling the moment forces requires less rudder and elevator area. If that giant plane would sell si
52 Alessandro : Well, the cargohauler is the bread and butter for the programme, also remember that the B748 is follow up on a 40 year old programme, with many crews
53 Post contains images LifelinerOne : I have a feeling that Airbus isn't going to follow suit when Boeing announces the B737RS. The replacement market is huge and Boeing can only built so
54 Post contains images Astuteman : FWIW I know that, and had already spotted that WingedMigrator has indeed "cropped" the tail of his A380 SUH edition. Hence the "too" in my message to
55 NCB : They are. The biggest handicap of the A389 is the engine. Though the frame is capable enough, the engine's economy need to be improved. The XWB engin
56 SEPilot : I find your logic somewhat curious. Airbus should go ahead and spend two or three billion dollars stretching a plane that has a potential of a few hu
57 Legoguy : Could the current A380-800's ever be re-engined with the Trent XWB or GEnx engines? Also, am I the only one who think the current A380-800 would look
58 Astuteman : Now that the -XWB engines exist (or will), I suspect the GEnx will never be considered. It's essentially too small (particuarly for growth variants o
59 Art : LifelinerOne continued in the same post: Regarding your comment: "I find your logic somewhat curious. Airbus should go ahead and spend two or three b
60 SEPilot : Bear in mind that at the time of the introduction of the A320 Airbus had two models and was not yet established as a leading aircraft manufacturer. T
61 Post contains images PW100 : I guess that this is the reason that many potential airlines are a bit nervous to order the A380 [or any VLA for that matter] right now. Ordering now
62 CJAContinental : I'm not sure if anyone wants to fly a high density +800 yet, though didn't emirates and a few others express interest at the idea of the A380-900 any
63 Astuteman : Absolutely right. But I'm assuming that a) developing an A320 RS won't consume quite the level of resource that the A380 and A350 have/will, and b) 7
64 PW100 : Well, I would guess that development cost for an A389 and/or A388-XWB would approach that for the 748 program. Perhaps not as much as the A380 wing i
65 Post contains images LifelinerOne : And I don't see why they can't remain a leading manufacturer by launching planes later than Boeing does, if they offer a better product than Boeing i
66 Post contains images Astuteman : Depending on what they do, it might, it might be less. As you say, the wing is good for anything they want to do, and that is the single biggest cost
67 Post contains images PW100 : Yep, fair enough! Wouldn't that be a hard requirement for the A380UHR . . . (just noticed your signature) Cheers
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...
TAM Receives 75th Airbus, But What About The MD11? posted Tue Jan 9 2007 18:27:46 by Jog
If DL Left SLC What About The Regionals? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 06:23:42 by IdaBoy
GA To Operate 763s? What About The A330s? posted Fri Sep 29 2006 20:51:25 by Mandala499
Oilprice Down - What About The Fuel Surcharges? posted Fri Sep 22 2006 23:41:18 by Chiguire
What About The Two DC-10s Which Crashlanded 2006? posted Sat Aug 12 2006 01:39:11 by NA
Canada Election'06-What About The Airports/airline posted Wed Jan 4 2006 20:02:15 by RicardoFG
What About The BRU - CDG Route? posted Wed Sep 21 2005 13:26:20 by SNBA
Cayman Airways: What About The Future? posted Tue Jul 26 2005 15:00:37 by Caymanair
If UA Go Bust...what About The Regional Carriers? posted Wed May 25 2005 23:06:20 by RootsAir
Long-Haul A/C Subs... What About The Crews? posted Wed Jan 5 2005 09:53:56 by QantasHeavy