Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Status Of A380-700 And A380-900  
User currently offlineRavel From Finland, joined Feb 2006, 137 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 19917 times:

The A380-800 is finally in service and the production is ramping up and I guess the plane seems to operate quite well.

Two other versions have been proposed every now and then, the -700 and -900 versions that are mostly a shrink and a stretch. Especially the -900 has been seen as offered in the future, especially for Emirates.

I am especially interested in the status of -700 - has Airbus said anything about its status? As the wings of A380 are huge, they would seem totally overkill for -700, not even mentioning the engines.

121 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGorgos From Greece, joined Dec 2007, 232 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 19896 times:

The A380-800 is the shrink already. This mythical a380-700 will never take to the skies.

User currently offlineChiad From Norway, joined May 2006, 1079 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 19844 times:



Quoting Gorgos (Reply 1):
The A380-800 is the shrink already. This mythical a380-700 will never take to the skies.

Agreed. It doesn't seem likely without some re-engineering of the wings at least.
But I expect several versions of the -800 and -900 series over the decades.


User currently offlineFlyingClrs727 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 733 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 19844 times:

The 747-8I killed any possiblity of an A380-700. The A380-700 would have had a much worse CASM than the 747-8I with less freight capacity too.

User currently offlineGorgos From Greece, joined Dec 2007, 232 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 19823 times:



Quoting FlyingClrs727 (Reply 3):

Imagine the addition of an even higher/bigger tail. The a380-700 would be seriously out of proportion!


User currently offlineScipio From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 815 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 19710 times:



Quoting Gorgos (Reply 1):
The A380-800 is the shrink already. This mythical a380-700 will never take to the skies.

The only way an A380-700 could perhaps be made a viable proposition is as an ultra-long range plane, e.g., to fly between London and Sydney.

But that would leave it a niche product.

The better, more marketable, and more economical option might be to develop an ultra-long range version of the A380-800 for such routes.


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9841 posts, RR: 96
Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 19659 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Ravel (Thread starter):
I am especially interested in the status of -700 - has Airbus said anything about its status? As the wings of A380 are huge, they would seem totally overkill for -700, not even mentioning the engines.

The A380-700 will never see the light of day. Sorry.
The strengths of the A380 are in its growth potential, not its shrink potential.

Quoting FlyingClrs727 (Reply 3):
The 747-8I killed any possiblity of an A380-700

 checkmark 

Quoting Scipio (Reply 5):
The only way an A380-700 could perhaps be made a viable proposition is as an ultra-long range plane, e.g., to fly between London and Sydney.

Although IMO it is within the A380-800's potential to be developed into a plane that can do this.......
So I don't even see a ULR A380-700 seeing the light of day.

Regards


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 7, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 19655 times:



Quoting FlyingClrs727 (Reply 3):
The 747-8I killed any possiblity of an A380-700. The A380-700 would have had a much worse CASM than the 747-8I with less freight capacity too.

 checkmark 

Quoting Scipio (Reply 5):
The only way an A380-700 could perhaps be made a viable proposition is as an ultra-long range plane, e.g., to fly between London and Sydney.

A hypothetical A380-700 would not be at all well-suited to the LHR-SYD/MEL market. It's CASM would be too high and it's RASM would be too low compared with either a 787 or A350 built for that purpose. For example, a 787-8 with MTOW increased to that of the 787-9 and with two belly tanks added would be better suited. The proposed A350-900R might be even better suited than a 787 derivative.

Unlike the A380-700 which has zero chances of being built, the A380-900 has some chance of being built, but WhaleJet so far do not suggest a viable market for an even larger airliner. If WhaleJet sales pick up to an average of about 50 per year, then I think an A380-900 would be likely.


User currently offlineGorgos From Greece, joined Dec 2007, 232 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 19611 times:

Does anybody remember how many passengers could travel non-stop LHR-SYD in the 340-500? How many passengers could do the same in a a350-900R?

User currently offlinePM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6840 posts, RR: 64
Reply 9, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 19600 times:



Quoting Gorgos (Reply 1):
The A380-800 is the shrink already.

Not really. At least, it wasn't intended that way.

Quoting Gorgos (Reply 1):
This mythical a380-700 will never take to the skies.

It may never happen but it's far from "mythical".

The original A3XX programme envisioned a baseline A3XX-100. That is what we now know as the A380-800. Both a stretch (the A3XX-200) and a shrink (the A3XX-50) were planned. The A3XX-200 will see the light of day as the A380-900 but it seems very unlikely that any shrink will ever fly.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 10, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 19596 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 6):
Although IMO it is within the A380-800's potential to be developed into a plane that can do this.......

If you can reduce SFC by about 20%, then it's possible. However, by that time, Boeing may be working on a replacement for the 787 and Airbus on a replacement for the A350.


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9841 posts, RR: 96
Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 19584 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 7):
If WhaleJet sales pick up to an average of about 50 per year, then I think an A380-900 would be likely.

Still don't agree with this view.
Airbus probably wouldn't even need to generate more than 70 or 80 extra sales in TOTAL, to justify the development cost of a stretched A380-900..

Regards


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 19515 times:



Quoting Gorgos (Reply 8):
Does anybody remember how many passengers could travel non-stop LHR-SYD in the 340-500? How many passengers could do the same in a a350-900R?

SQ's pending 100-seat A340-500 configuration (to be introduced next month) might be able to carry 100 passengers from LHR to SYD, but might not be able to carry any back from SYD to LHR depending on the weather on any particular day. It's a tough route. The A340-500 is simply not efficient enough. Even the more efficient 777-200LR is not capable of providing economically viable service in QF's opinion. I held out hope longer than most that the 777-200LR would be able to do the job, but I was wrong. The only aircraft on the horizon which could plausibly operate an economically viable SYD/MEL-LHR nonstop service are the A350 and 787.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8215 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 19504 times:



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 10):
If you can reduce SFC by about 20%, then it's possible.

Withholding a smartypants remark because obviously you know what's what.

But couldn't they use some A389 parts and paperwork, and create a super payload A388... and be done with it before noon on a Friday?

Quoting PM (Reply 9):
Both a stretch (the A3XX-200) and a shrink (the A3XX-50) were planned.

That's interesting. IAn A380-700 sounds completely ridiculous in the extreme. But hey, that was when 742s needed replacing and the 773ER was not a factor...

Quoting FlyingClrs727 (Reply 3):
The 747-8I killed any possiblity of an A380-700

Well okay but.. I have a hard time believing the 748I has killed anything, except the A380F.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 14, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 19450 times:



Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):
But couldn't they use some A389 parts and paperwork, and create a super payload A388... and be done with it before noon on a Friday?

Setting aside that there is no A380-900 and may never be, simply increasing the MTOW of A380-800 to the point of being able to carry 300 passengers SYD-LHR nonstop would drive up CASM to a point where economic viability is poorer than for the 777-200LR on the route. The only way to make the WhaleJet work for SYD-LHR is to improve efficiency. There is little to be gained from reducing weight or tweaking aerodynamics, which leaves SFC.

Given what is flying today, nonstop SYD/MEL-LHR is just not economically viable. That's not just my opinion, that's QF's (and BA's and VS's) analysis.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):
An A380-700 sounds completely ridiculous in the extreme.

An A380-700 was planned from 1993 until Boeing launched the 747-8. Fortunately, Airbus didn't spend a lot of money on it before cancellation.


User currently offlinePM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6840 posts, RR: 64
Reply 15, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 19453 times:



Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):
I have a hard time believing the 748I has killed anything, except the A380F.

It killed the 747-400!  Wink


User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3349 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 19395 times:



Quoting Gorgos (Reply 1):
The A380-800 is the shrink already. This mythical a380-700 will never take to the skies.

It would be like making an A317. Not on.

Quoting FlyingClrs727 (Reply 3):
The 747-8I killed any possiblity of an A380-700.

 checkmark 

I think the questions are:

Will they make an A389? When? What size? I would think that Airbus should limit the size to suit the existing wing.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 17, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 19371 times:



Quoting Art (Reply 16):
Will they make an A389? When? What size?

Maybe, depending on orders. Leahy said develop is currently planned to start in 2010. Just under 80 meters.


User currently offlineTeme82 From Finland, joined Mar 2007, 1401 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 19342 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Ravel (Thread starter):

I am especially interested in the status of -700 - has Airbus said anything about its status?

Hey have you been drinking the traditional kilju or what ??? I mean that shrink has newer been anything but a vague rumor...

Quoting FlyingClrs727 (Reply 3):
The 747-8I killed any possiblity of an A380-700

LOL... Name one airliner than LH that has 748I order confirmed.



Flying high and low
User currently offlinePM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6840 posts, RR: 64
Reply 19, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 19325 times:



Quoting Teme82 (Reply 18):
I mean that shrink has newer been anything but a vague rumor...

 no 

Quoting PM (Reply 9):
The original A3XX programme envisioned a baseline A3XX-100. That is what we now know as the A380-800. Both a stretch (the A3XX-200) and a shrink (the A3XX-50) were planned.

There was nothing 'vague' about it.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 20, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 19257 times:



Quoting Teme82 (Reply 18):
I mean that shrink has newer been anything but a vague rumor...

No more vague and no more a rumor than current plans for a stretch.


User currently offlineAfterburner From Indonesia, joined Jun 2005, 1204 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 19258 times:



Quoting Art (Reply 16):
I would think that Airbus should limit the size to suit the existing wing.

I believe the wing was designed to fit both A388 and A389.


User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3349 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 19257 times:



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 17):
Leahy said develop is currently planned to start in 2010. Just under 80 meters.

That would add about 7 metres to the fuselage length. Potentially about 7 x 10 x 2 extra Y seats?


User currently offlineDoona From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 3760 posts, RR: 13
Reply 23, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 19230 times:



Quoting Teme82 (Reply 18):
LOL... Name one airliner than LH that has 748I order confirmed.

Hey, it has one hundred percent more orders than the A380-700 at the moment, but that's not the point, the fact that it exists (on paper, with Boeing planning to build it) makes a shortened A380 unecessary.

Cheers
Mats



Sure, we're concerned for our lives. Just not as concerned as saving 9 bucks on a roundtrip to Ft. Myers.
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9841 posts, RR: 96
Reply 24, posted (6 years 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 19208 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 10):
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 6):
Although IMO it is within the A380-800's potential to be developed into a plane that can do this.......

If you can reduce SFC by about 20%, then it's possible



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 14):
Setting aside that there is no A380-900 and may never be, simply increasing the MTOW of A380-800 to the point of being able to carry 300 passengers SYD-LHR nonstop would drive up CASM to a point where economic viability is poorer than for the 777-200LR on the route.

??????

A growth from 570 tonnes to 625 tonnes or more represents a growth of 10% in MTOW. The extra OEW required to achieve this is, I believe, of the order of 10 - 12 tonnes or so, which is about 2.5%-3% of MLW.
So the average in-flight weight increase on a ULR flight is likely to be about 6 or 7%
The lift component of drag in cruise, I am categorically assured, is substantially less than 1/2 of total drag.
Hence the increase in fuel burn per available seat mile is in the 2.5% - 3% range
Fuel burn is about 40% of CASM.
Hence the CASM increase is likely to be of the order of 1 - 2% or so
Which should still beat the "like-for-like" CASM of a) a bog standard 8000Nm 748i, and b) a 9500Nm 772LR

The cost of the FLIGHT will increase substantially, of course, because it's much longer.

The 40 - 45 tonnes or so of extra fuel thus allowed would only need to be allied to a fuel burn reduction of a few % in order to make SYD-LHR eminently viable. Some of this reduction is already going to be realised by forthcoming aerodynamic enhancements.
The SFC reduction would not need to be unattainably large.

At least, that's how I see it.  Smile

Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):
Withholding a smartypants remark because obviously you know what's what.

I failed to withold a response. Hopefully it wasn't a smartypants one..  Wink

Quoting Art (Reply 16):
I would think that Airbus should limit the size to suit the existing wing

The existing wing probably suits all needs anyway  checkmark 

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 17):
Leahy said develop is currently planned to start in 2010. Just under 80 meters

He did say 2010.
Not sure that he said "under 80m".
I suspect the 80m length barrier may prove to be a lot softer barrier than we might think....  Smile

Regards


25 Burkhard : Let us read this like: It has proven that the market in that size class is small, and already covered by a competitive product, that has a desperate
26 PM : 100% of 0 is ... 0!
27 SailorOrion : Er .... The 748I has an infinite number of percent more orders than the A380-700 SailorOrion
28 Zvezda : Depends on how much "more". That's optimistic. ... given a series of optimistic assumptions. What's "like-for-like" here? To make a WhaleJet work SYD
29 Astuteman : It's based on the engineering required, by line item..... Such as? No matter - consider that a rhetorical question..... Regards
30 Zvezda : Already answered in the post you quoted. Make any assumptions you want about a hypothetical derivative WhaleJet. Then compare trip costs with the sam
31 Teme82 : Well that was in the early 1990's when they started to plan the A380 things change you know Well the shrink hasn't even been designed and offered to
32 Zvezda : Except for freighters, there is no popular size class larger than the 777-300ER. Everything above that is a tiny niche.
33 Columba : Don´t be the -700 would be a really ugly aircraft so it is good that it will never see the light of the day
34 SEPilot : That would mean sales that would not happen if the A389 was not offered. Much as some airlines might like it, I can not see the logic in spending add
35 Art : Couple of points if I may. First, all the investment sunk into the A380 has been sunk into it. It might/might not generate an acceptable return. If c
36 Astuteman : Don't disagree with any of that, SEPilot. Hence my earlier assertion that we're only likely to see this beast when the current version starts to run
37 SEPilot : If the A380 does not generate an acceptable ROI, why would spending $1-2 billion more make any sense at all? As I said before, however much certain c
38 Moo : If it makes more money than the incremental investment, why not? Bringing in more money helps Airbus recoup investment on the whole project, regardle
39 SEPilot : But how will it bring in more money (except for the incremental increase from the higher price of the A389) if the only alternative is to buy A388's?
40 Moo : I don't get what you are asking - either way, money is flowing into the A380 program. Numbers based on a vague guess, but acceptable for the sake of
41 SEPilot : This is all true; however my main point is that Airbus has only so many engineers and so much money to put into development, and there are far more i
42 Stitch : For QF, the A340-500 would carry 120 and the 777-200LR would do about 240. The 747-400 was dead long before the 747-8I entered the picture.
43 Rheinwaldner : It was the answer to a series of pessimistic and unrealistic assumptions (-20% SFC). Some people are comfortable with optimistic and some with pessim
44 Columba : I think the airlines that have ordered the 747-8F would also have ordered the 747-400F granted nobody would have ordered any new passenger versions o
45 Stitch : Overall, this is most likely the case.
46 Teme82 : Yeah it seems that the 748F is selling well. Perhaps because the A388F was put to freeze.
47 Zvezda : More like $1B than $2B even with an increase in MTOW. The problem is that all of the A380-900 sales that have been hypothesized on A.net are conversi
48 Ravel : What I wanted to know is the status of those models... I know that -700 will probably never be built So, are there any updates of their status in the
49 YWG747 : What about a A380-1000 that holds 1000 passenger's
50 Astuteman : But that's just your opinion. You've said repeatedly that you consider VS's deferral a de-facto cancellation. Ergo, a conversion to A380-900 is essen
51 Post contains links KennyK : There is quite firm interest in the A389, (quoting from Wikepedia) Singapore Airlines CEO Chew Choon Seng revealed at the delivery of their first A380
52 SEPilot : I suspect that when Y3 debuts its economics will eclipse the A380, stretch or no stretch. Even if it isn't as large, it will make selling the A380 di
53 Astuteman : Don't see any way that a 400-450 seater max Y3 is going to "kill" a 675-700 seat aircraft, even if it has comparable economics. I would totally expec
54 SEPilot : I wouldn't doubt that, but I suspect that it will be in small numbers. Just as the 773 has supplanted the 744, if Y3 beats the economics of the A380
55 1821 : The A340-500 can fly non-stop LHR to SYD with only 107 or 117 passengers. Quantas was looking into purchasing a fair few A345'S specifically for the L
56 Art : Appears to be the current A389 status. The rule of thumb seems to be that customers will opt for the smaller aircraft if CASM matches. I think that A
57 Gearup : Zvezda, I have a question for you. I notice that you consistently refer to the A380 as 'Whalejet'. Why is that? In this thread you would seem to be al
58 Zvezda : I don't believe anyone wrote that. What I wrote is that the orders which have been hypothesized on A.net would be conversions. Neither I nor anyone e
59 Astuteman : Sorry. From my seat, the 773ER supplants the 744 because a) it has about 90% of the passenger space of the 744, b) it is capable of long-haul 10-abre
60 Zvezda : No, the 747-400 stopped selling when smaller aircraft with comparable range became available. According to the famous Boeing customer survey, 60% of
61 Astuteman : Strongly disagree again. The A343 with a 744-matching range has been around a long time. But hey. Whatever floats your boat. Regards
62 R2rho : The thing is, right now Airbus is 65% busy with A350 development, 20% busy with A380 deliveries and service entries, 10% with A400M and 5% with A30X d
63 SEPilot : I still question what the demand for a 675-700 seat plane will be; I think it will be quite small. And if the 450 seat Y3 can offer better CASM and m
64 Stitch : The A388F was put to freeze because it was not able to win any RFPs it was pitched against the 747-400F, 747-400ERF and 747-8F with non-package carri
65 Astuteman : That is what is happening now. The conversation has patently obviously reached its conclusion....... Rgds
66 SEPilot : I still maintain that if Airbus announces that the A389 will not be forthcoming they will buy the A388.
67 Zvezda : Please give us something to back that up. Evidence? Logic? An argument? Asking us to accept it as a matter of religious faith will only work for thos
68 Scipio : The A389 will give airlines an early incentive to replace/complement their A388 fleets, and it will help keep the A380 family and airline business mo
69 SEPilot : Seeing as how the CASM of the 787 beats the A388 (according to some charts I have seen posted here) I would disagree. I think it highly likely that i
70 Scipio : On 787 vs A388 we will have to see the real-world numbers rather than the marketing ones. The latest info we have is that the 787 is overweight and t
71 ACdreamliner : it was designed from the outset ot be dtretched, but its not a shrunk design
72 Astuteman : Indeed. It's exactly how I would characterise your own assertions That's certainly all I've seen. So, we reach an impasse. By the logic that has been
73 AerorobNZ : If the -700 did see the light of day it would look like a modern day 747-SP
74 Stitch : I expect the CASM of the 777 replacement will beat the CASM of the A380-800 and A380-900, but it's rather irrelevant if you can only operate one or tw
75 Zvezda : Indeed. You've previously done so, despite my having provided both logic and evidence. Again, the evidence is the actual sales (and cancellation) his
76 1821 : What we have here is the usual earbashing of a new aircraft. People will side with Boeing and People will side with Airbus. Personally me being euopea
77 WingedMigrator : I have in the past posted charts, so I'm not sure if you were referring to those in particular. My charts do show that the 788 would have a fuel burn
78 XT6Wagon : Sorry, but a check with a mirror should show who the fanboy is. You don't need the 787 to make the A380 sales tank. The A350 will also do it just fin
79 Scipio : I think he was referring to your charts, which I must say I find very enlightening. So, please keep producing them However, you're absolutely right.
80 Scipio : A sensible airline CEO would go for a mixed fleet of A380s and 787/A350s. Parking an airplane is very expensive (revenues = 0 ; costs > 0). Better to
81 Scipio : Let me elaborate a bit on this. Zvezda's First Law is correct, but very limited in its applicability. All else equal, a smaller airplane with the sam
82 XT6Wagon : Scipo, clearly you don't understand basic math, much less hard economic realities. Your last two posts have errors that are so huge that it blows the
83 Post contains images Scipio : Can you point out where I claimed that? The only thing I claimed is that it is less costly to park a 787 than it is to park an A380. If you have a mi
84 Astuteman : No matter how much you believe you view to be "fact", it is an opinion, no less valid, or more, than mine, and no less, or more, "religious" than min
85 Thegeek : All fair points, SEPilot, in fact you are missing one aspect that strengthens your argument: A customer for 4 A389s would need (let's say) 5 A388s. I
86 Zvezda : Yes, but at most airlines pilots are paid by size of aircraft, with 747 pilots typically making many times more than RJ pilots, so there is not much
87 Thegeek : Oh, come on. They won't be paid double for the A380 vs the B787. Even though that A380 is a quad, I doubt that. If you compare a 77W to a 787-8 the l
88 Astuteman : It is what I, and a fair quorum of others, would think. However, given the statements that have been made above, you would be forgiven for thinking t
89 Scipio : That depends on the bargaining power between airline and pilots. Feel free to correct me, but I somewhat doubt that salaries are proportional to size
90 XT6Wagon : Australia has very interesting geography, comparable IMO to only Russia and maybe Canada for having two populated areas with nothing between them. Fl
91 PW100 : Funny when a discussion starts to heat up, people stop reading between the lines and take every bit of not so perfect wording to take a shot at the o
92 Zvezda : I would also pay more to fly SQ A340-500 Business Class (old seats) than to fly UA 747-400 First Class (new seats). The idea that the larger aircraft
93 Zeke : I never knew that, must be just the smaller airliners like EK and CX that pay their pilots the same regardless of the type/size of aircraft they fly.
94 Zvezda : Please read again what you quoted. I didn't write "all airlines" or even "all large airlines." I wrote most airlines ... typically ..." which is true
95 Zeke : The CX core regional jets are the A330 & 777, same with EK AFAIK.
96 Stitch : The real issue is that airline economics can't be reduced to one simple equation. LH launching SEA/PDX-FRA service means that passengers that used to
97 Dennys : refering to the A340-500 for QF , this should have been the right plane to the right route ! Anyway Airbus didn't push the A345 AT ALL : Better to sel
98 Jacobin777 : ..a case in point is AA and BA on JFK-LHR...one of the more famous routes of the world..BA flies only B744's and AA flies only B772ER's, yet neither
99 Zvezda : QF evaluated both the A340-500 and 777-200LR for SYD/MEL-LHR and found both lacking. The right plane to operate the kangaroo route nonstop will be ei
100 EPA001 : Sorry Dennys, I can not follow you on this. Although I admit (I have done so in the past already) being a bit more biased towards Airbus than to Boei
101 Jacobin777 : Does that mean U.S.-based carries should buy only from Boeing? I'm sure that wouldn't be in the best interest for Airbus as many United States compan
102 AirNZ : Then why did you choose to find fault with his wording (considering he never once mentioned First or Business Class tickets selling only after Econom
103 YULWinterSkies : I think Airbus has an alternative to this : a long-range A350.
104 OzGlobal : If you're saying that wide bodies are used routinely in Australia because SYD and PER are separated by a whole continent, you're barking up the wrong
105 Jacobin777 : I have to respectfully disagree here. Basic economic principals stand. This is one reason why QF is having to "reinvent" itself with the likes of JQ,
106 Gigneil : I think a Trent XWB powered A380-800 with a wet center wingbox can do it. The current airframe can handle the MTOW of the A380-800F, which is quite a
107 OzGlobal : What? If QF can regularly fill 767's on east coast Oz domestic routes and regularly use them there and this if different from your experience in the
108 Zvezda : How much additional fuel would that permit? That's quite an assertion! Do you have a source to back it up? If not, can you answer why Airbus would ce
109 Astuteman : For what its worth, the "current" airframe is probably capable of more than that, insofar as its configuration will allow it. But there would obvious
110 Zvezda : It's exactly the same assertion, phrased from the other side of the same coin. To fill all those seats, prices would have to be cut dramatically. To
111 WingedMigrator : 46 cubic meters, with no impact to available cargo volume.
112 Astuteman : Ah. I'd understood your argument to be that the SFC would need to be reduced by 20% to allow an A380 derivative to make the range.... The mist clears
113 Zvezda : The WhaleJet can probably fly SYD-LHR now with zero payload -- at least when the winds are favorable. To operate in commercial service requires a lot
114 CHRISBA777ER : You would have thought that after being proven time and again so wrong about the A380 that the usual haters would know when to shut it and accept it.
115 Post contains links Zeke : AFAIK Airbus has landed the A380 at 595,000 kg already during the earlier test phase, to make that weight on a regular commercial basis (i.e. not und
116 Astuteman : A switch to Trent-XWB would probably give around 6% SFC improvement (over the current engines, which I expect to improve by 1%-2% anyway). If such a
117 Post contains links Rikkus67 : http://www.cardatabase.net/modifieda...earch/photo_search.php?id=00007493 Although it'll never fly, I wanted to see what a fictional -700 would look l
118 XT6Wagon : I don't think they will ever change the engine family. Just too much $$$ on top of currently un-recovered costs. So Airbus would have to pay off RR a
119 Thegeek : That's right. In fact, the 763 is probably too small for MEL-SYD (which has an 85min gate-gate time). In fact, the 764 would probably be better. It's
120 WingedMigrator : That's a strawman argument. As far as EA and RR are concerned, an engine sold is an engine sold, with no change to sunk development costs. The A350 a
121 Astuteman : For RR its a win-win. The engines are remarkably similar in size and thrust. The Trent-XWB design post-dates the A380, so it's theoretically possible
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...
Status Of Swiss A330's And MD-11'S posted Sun Nov 2 2003 02:27:34 by Poh2
Status Of SAA B747SP And B742? posted Tue Oct 21 2003 12:11:38 by Udo
Current Status Of VH-EAA And VH-EAB? posted Tue Jun 25 2002 06:17:05 by VirginFlyer
The Status Of LH's B 742s And Their Staff posted Thu Nov 22 2001 09:44:12 by United Airline
Status Of 737-700 Combi posted Wed Feb 14 2001 06:16:38 by CV990A
Status Of The A380-re-wiring Process? posted Thu Mar 27 2008 05:53:54 by N14AZ
What Is The Status Of The A380 Wiring Rework? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 14:48:08 by Nitrohelper
Prospect Of A380-700 Launch? posted Tue Nov 15 2005 10:27:18 by WINGS
A380,the Big Wing And The 900,700 Or 1000 Version? posted Mon May 2 2005 06:19:50 by A380900
Horizon Air And Future Of CRJ 700 posted Thu Mar 20 2008 21:29:58 by Cschleic
What Is The Status Of The A380 Wiring Rework? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 14:48:08 by Nitrohelper
Prospect Of A380-700 Launch? posted Tue Nov 15 2005 10:27:18 by WINGS
A380,the Big Wing And The 900,700 Or 1000 Version? posted Mon May 2 2005 06:19:50 by A380900
Horizon Air And Future Of CRJ 700 posted Thu Mar 20 2008 21:29:58 by Cschleic
Status Of Sky-eyes And Their Tristar? posted Thu Oct 7 2004 03:27:32 by CX flyboy
Status Of Swiss A330's And MD-11'S posted Sun Nov 2 2003 02:27:34 by Poh2
Status Of SAA B747SP And B742? posted Tue Oct 21 2003 12:11:38 by Udo
Current Status Of VH-EAA And VH-EAB? posted Tue Jun 25 2002 06:17:05 by VirginFlyer
The Status Of LH's B 742s And Their Staff posted Thu Nov 22 2001 09:44:12 by United Airline
Status Of 737-700 Combi posted Wed Feb 14 2001 06:16:38 by CV990A
Status Of The A380-re-wiring Process? posted Thu Mar 27 2008 05:53:54 by N14AZ
What Is The Status Of The A380 Wiring Rework? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 14:48:08 by Nitrohelper
Prospect Of A380-700 Launch? posted Tue Nov 15 2005 10:27:18 by WINGS
A380,the Big Wing And The 900,700 Or 1000 Version? posted Mon May 2 2005 06:19:50 by A380900
What Is The Status Of The A380 Wiring Rework? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 14:48:08 by Nitrohelper
Prospect Of A380-700 Launch? posted Tue Nov 15 2005 10:27:18 by WINGS