Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Air France : OK For The A380-900  
User currently offlineFCKC From France, joined Nov 2004, 2348 posts, RR: 4
Posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 59760 times:

http://www.aerospacemedia.com/site/a...p.php?Id=080602191641.9c2fymc7.xml

AF CEO declared if Airbus launches larger A380 model (A380-900) , he will buy it.

135 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3872 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 59695 times:

Thats what, 4? 5? A380 customers declaring an interest in the A380-900?

User currently offlineCYatUK From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 810 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 59628 times:

WOW

This is very good news for the A380.

I know Airbus has a lot of other issues to sort before launching a new version of the A380 however given the size of AF/KLM I bet they will consider it seriously.

Do you think a possible A380-900 will be only for CDG operations (i.e AF) or does he mean KLM as well?



CY@Uk
User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 59582 times:

Why is the A380-900 so attractive? It just seems so massive! i could see it maybe for someone like SQ with their private rooms and everything needing a lot of space but is AF looking to add a new first class suite like SQs to fill these things or do they really need this much capacity?

User currently offlineKennyK From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 482 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 59092 times:

Air France ordered 10 with 4 options in 2001 then converted 2 options in 2007 giving a total of 12 A388s ordered. I would expect a bit of a larger fleet before going for A389s. I know Emirates and Singapore have expressed an interest and both have larger fleets planned. Who else is on the cards?

User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 59000 times:

Finally the A380 will look proportional..... This could possibly translate into a nice bump in sales for the program that is needed

Modified Airliner Photos:
Click here for bigger photo!
Design © Ediney
Template © Konstantin Von Wedeustaed

(compliments of http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/)

[Edited 2008-06-02 15:02:10]


We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5313 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 58929 times:



Quoting DL767captain (Reply 3):
Why is the A380-900 so attractive?

Because, for those carriers that can fill it, it will absolutely murder everything else on the market in terms of per-passenger cost. Nothing else currently on the drawing board will even come remotely close.  dollarsign 


User currently offlineUnited787 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2691 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 58862 times:



Quoting EA772LR (Reply 5):
Finally the A380 will look proportional.....

I don't think anyone will argue with you that the A389 has much better looking proportions!

Lets hope one of these interests turns into a launch. It seems like Airbus may be ready to undertake a project like this in mid to late 2009.


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 58779 times:



Quoting DL767captain (Reply 3):
Why is the A380-900 so attractive? It just seems so massive!

The aircraft is certainly big but it seems the size gains over the -800 would be dispropotionately larger than the increase in operating costs.

I believe it has the potential to be a somewhat revolutionary aircraft.


User currently offlineJPRM1 From France, joined Aug 2007, 78 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 58651 times:

According to Mr. Spinetta, a bigger A380 would be the answer to the rising cost of oil for relation between big hubs.
Is that the start of a new policy for some airlines to switch from frequencies and point to point to links between big hubs?
What will be the position of american airliners in the future, as DL/NW? Could they be interested also in such airplanes?
Cheers


User currently offlineOzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2711 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 58404 times:



Quoting DL767captain (Reply 3):
Why is the A380-900 so attractive? It just seems so massive! i could see it maybe for someone like SQ with their private rooms and everything needing a lot of space but is AF looking to add a new first class suite like SQs to fill these things or do they really need this much capacity?

That's precisely what people said of the 747 in 1969....



When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
User currently offlineGlobeEx From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 742 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 58298 times:



Quoting DL767captain (Reply 3):
Why is the A380-900 so attractive? It just seems so massive! i could see it maybe for someone like SQ with their private rooms and everything needing a lot of space but is AF looking to add a new first class suite like SQs to fill these things or do they really need this much capacity?



Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 6):

Because, for those carriers that can fill it, it will absolutely murder everything else on the market in terms of per-passenger cost. Nothing else currently on the drawing board will even come remotely close. dollarsign

 checkmark 

The A389 will have incredible good fuel efficiency. You have to think about it that way. Most of the parts on the A380 were designed with the A389 in mind. That means that the sabelizers, and especially the wings are kind of oversized for the A388. And even the A388 will be more efficent than probably any aircraft within the next 10-15 years. The A388 already will be more efficient than a 787 or A350 on a per seat basis. Now imagine you have a A389 with even more improved engines etc........ Will bring a big simile on every CEO's face who's airline can operate it.

GlobeEx



As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
User currently offlineAndhen From Norway, joined Dec 2006, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 58089 times:

I have seen different "guesses" as to how long this aircraft will be.. ILFC and emirates want a 85 m (monster) aircraft, but i would guess 80 m would be more realistic..?

I know the a389 will have the centre fueltanks, and of course increased max take-off weight.. And i reckon it will incorporate weight saving materials and more powerful and effective engines..

I would really like to see an economical analysis of the a388 vs the a389, (hint; LAXDESI/Keesje), based on current knowledge (and assumtions).. Smile

andhen



a332/3, 773-ER
User currently offlineGlobeEx From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 742 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 58020 times:



Quoting JPRM1 (Reply 9):
What will be the position of american airliners in the future, as DL/NW? Could they be interested also in such airplanes?

Well probably not  banghead 

Quoting JPRM1 (Reply 9):
Is that the start of a new policy for some airlines to switch from frequencies and point to point to links between big hubs?

Most airlines haven't really done that yet. That's what Boeing was trying to promote the 787 for. However, they might cut on frequency if the A389 can save them a lot of fuel, especially with rising fuel prices.

In addition you have to think about that. If Airbus manages to implement some more improvements a 20% bigger A389 with full payload might only need a middle one digit number more fuel than a A388 with full payload. If it takes until 2020 maybe even the same or less.

GlobeEx



As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 14, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 57995 times:



Quoting FCKC (Thread starter):
AF CEO declared if Airbus launches larger A380 model (A380-900) , he will buy it.

Maybe 6?

The A380-900 will be like the 748i. 50-100 orders, but a low cost derivative of a better selling product. One hopes it's low cost, at least.

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 3):
Why is the A380-900 so attractive?

Because it can do what the A388 can't: replace 2 frequencies on a route with 1.

With 550-600 seats, an A389 can replace 2 A340/777s on a route where cargo isn't lucrative. All the A388 can do is be used for growth, or replace 3 744s with 2 A388s, or 4 744s with 3 A388s on really dense routes, which are few and far between around the world (at least all flown by one carrier with that many 747s).



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 57939 times:

Others expressed similar interest in a A380-900, notably Emirates, Cathay, Virgin and ILFC.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...general_aviation/read.main/3677047



Last year Airbus was siad to have given a go ahead.


User currently offlineGlobeEx From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 742 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 57895 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 14):
Quoting FCKC (Thread starter):
AF CEO declared if Airbus launches larger A380 model (A380-900) , he will buy it.

Maybe 6?

If EIS would be around 2020 or bit later I would make it well around 10. First: due to the growth of airtraffic and secondly due to the improvement compared to the A388. I mean, EIS of the A388 was like two years ago. That would mean that the A389 would be like 14-15 further in development resulting in a major improvement in terms of efficiency.

One of the main problems I would think Airbus has is, that if they start the A389 programm to early, many airlines might want to skip their A388 orders directly to A389. This might result in a couple of years, where the A380 line won't be fully booked out. However, that is only my wild assumption.

Am I the only person thinking that the A389 might/will be a far bigger sucess than the A388?

GlobeEx



As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 17, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 57861 times:

So that stretch is about 80 seats assuming you only stretch Y and J sections.

Quoting GlobeEx (Reply 16):
If EIS would be around 2020 or bit later I would make it well around 10.

That would be way too late. 2016?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineScipio From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 843 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 57789 times:



Quoting GlobeEx (Reply 16):
One of the main problems I would think Airbus has is, that if they start the A389 programm to early, many airlines might want to skip their A388 orders directly to A389. This might result in a couple of years, where the A380 line won't be fully booked out.

 checkmark 

Airbus has no incentive to launch the A389 as early as some airlines would want. They also might launch the A380F and A380-800R first so as to help keep the line filled as airlines' focus of attention moves from the A388 to the A389.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 14):
The A380-900 will be like the 748i. 50-100 orders, but a low cost derivative of a better selling product. One hopes it's low cost, at least.

Most experts and airline executives see it the other way around and think that the A389 will outsell its (earlier) derivative, the A388. The A389 is a much more compelling product than the A388, due to its expected much lower CASM.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 14):
Because it can do what the A388 can't: replace 2 frequencies on a route with 1.

I don't think you can look at these things on such a simple route-basis. The A389 will change airlines' business models and route structures.

The impact on the global aviation market of EK's massive A380 fleet operating out of its Dubai superhub will be enormous, and it will be even more profound if EK gets its hands on a few dozen A389s.


User currently offlineGlobeEx From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 742 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 57768 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 17):

Quoting GlobeEx (Reply 16):
If EIS would be around 2020 or bit later I would make it well around 10.

That would be way too late. 2016?

Well looking at the schedule of the A350 I would think 2017/18, wouldn't you think? However, I would really like to be proven wrong.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 17):
So that stretch is about 80 seats assuming you only stretch Y and J sections.

Well, yeah, so in general a stretch close to 80m would mean around 13% increase in capacity, wouldn't it? In general a stretch to somthing like 82-85 meters would probably make the most sense, however, THEN we would really get some problems concerning the A380 and airport infrastructure.

GlobeEx



As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
User currently offlineNomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1832 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 57768 times:

I'm not sure if you can say the profit from 100 389 sales would cover development costs if most of those sales were at the expense of 388 sales. Figuring the return the development costs would have to account for that.
It might be misleading to compare a 389 with new generation engines to the old 388. You need to compare it with a new 388 with the same generation engines and whatever other improvements they could copy from the 389 without too much trouble.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 56
Reply 21, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 57420 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 15):

Hey, you're shamelessly stealing my thunder! (with no credit given)

I have a new version of my A389 drawing, also showing the eighty-five meter Udvar Hazy version.

Big version: Width: 800 Height: 800 File size: 148kb
A380-900 'Udvar-Hazy' Edition


I should mention that the fuselage plugs are just reasonable guesses.

Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 20):
It might be misleading to compare a 389 with new generation engines to the old 388. You need to compare it with a new 388 with the same generation engines and whatever other improvements they could copy from the 389 without too much trouble.

Have it your way: the A389 would steal fewer sales from such an improved A388, which would likely share the development costs and further reduce the portion thereof attributable to the A389.

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 3):
Why is the A380-900 so attractive?

Based on reasonable extrapolations rooted in basic physics, it will likely have a CASM that even the new-generation CFRP twins can't touch. The fuel burn will be in the same league, but the maintenance costs will probably be less than 2x big twins (fewer systems) and the cost of ownership, despite the astronomical sticker price, will be much lower on a per-seat basis.


User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5313 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 57375 times:



Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 21):
I have a new version of my A389 drawing, also showing the eighty-five meter Udvar Hazy version.

If it is ever produced, that 85m version will be a very good-looking airplane.


User currently offlineGlobeEx From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 742 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 57309 times:



Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 21):
Based on reasonable extrapolations rooted in basic physics, it will likely have a CASM that even the new-generation CFRP twins can't touch.

Well, to be honest, even now the 787 won't be more efficient than the A388, not speaking of the A389.

GlobeEx



As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 24, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 57295 times:



Quoting Andhen (Reply 12):
I would really like to see an economical analysis of the a388 vs the a389, (hint; LAXDESI/Keesje), based on current knowledge (and assumtions)..

I will take a shot at it. I will go with a fuselage length of 260 feet (79.4 m) for A389. I will further assume that MTOW of A389 will not increase--as is the case with some versions of A333 and A332 having the same MTOW.

The A389 with a 20 foot stretch will carry 625 passengers, 100 more than A388, in Airbus's typical configuration.

Let me present some specs. at design range with XWB engines(2% better sfc) for A389.

A388 A389
# Seats 525 625
OEW 608,400 634,654
MTOW 1,235,000 1,235,000
GSM 0.0161 0.0126
Range 8,200nm 7,600nm
Without increasing MTOW, the A389 will be to A388 like 773ER is to 772LR.

If Airbus is able to reduce A389's weight by 2%, and get another 2% from better aerodynamics for A389, then the range at EIS would be around 8,000 nm--200 nm less than A388.

The A389 platform--with XWB engines, better aero., and lighter materials--could be used to offer A388R (same length as A388) with a range of nearly 8,800 nm.


25 Lightsaber : This is the version that I think will get built. I think I can also speak for a certain fellow A380 fan too: The A389 (either version) will outsell t
26 LAXDESI : Two 789s will burn about 61,500 gallons of fuel for a 8,000 nm mission. One A388 will burn about 68,500 gallons for a 8,000 nm mission. At 8,000 nm m
27 Alangirvan : You would expect A389 to outsell A388 in the same way that the 763ER outsells the 767-200. Nowadays we think of the 763 as the standard 'Classic Coke'
28 LAXDESI : If slots are not a constraint, then I would lean towards two 789s over one A388. 789 will be more flexible; you can go from 28 weekly frequencies to
29 WingedMigrator : This must be his day off... This is a terrible assumption. The landing gear and wing were purposely built for a future increase in MTOW (and fuel cap
30 Rheinwaldner : No signs so far. Possibly after some mergers frequencies will be reduced and aircraft capacity will rise. Two merged airlines better don't double the
31 Post contains links and images Fly-K : MyAviation.net photo: Photo © Konstantin von Wedelstaedt
32 Astuteman : Most assuredly not.... (It will definitely be bigger.. ) For some obscure reason, no-one seems to consider that the A380-900 might also be an excelle
33 Burkhard : ... and slots are of no concern on both ends, which will be valid for less and less areas. When you fly from the Arabian desert to the North American
34 Astuteman : Judging by the picture (thanks Fly-K), they haven't spoken to S U-H yet.... Rgds
35 Post contains links Keesje : Yes, and on PPrune too ! http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=326917&page=5 Your name is on the picture, so that should cover legal claims.
36 Astuteman : Indeed. And as one A380-800 has 220% of the useable floor space of one 787-9, it would be reasonable to expect 2 x 787-9's to provide only 90% of the
37 Post contains links Swallow : John Leahy is on record as saying that development of the 389 'will start in 2010 once the 388 reaches full production'. Production is now 2-3 months
38 Astuteman : Which is probably precisely the reason that Airbus haven't launched it yet.... Rgds
39 Astuteman : Beautiful plane in the pic, BTW. What is it??? Rgds
40 Post contains images GlobeEx : Well I agree with you that the 787 is the better plane on routes that is strong on cargo. However, maybe I should not have used the word "efficient"
41 Art : I think Airbus ideally would want to make the 900 as large as they can up to the limits of the existing wing. What is the point of designing a wing c
42 GlobeEx : They will! If you count out the 748 Boeing most probably won't bring out a similar/bigger aircraft within the next 20 years. At some airports yes, at
43 Keesje : - I think some airlines that did not order the -800 are specificly interested in the A380-900 - More fuel efficient engines developped for the -900 w
44 PlaneWasted : If they make the MTOW greater than 600 tons it will be heavier than the An-225.
45 GlobeEx : I think you missunderstood me. What I meant, how on earth would you build a A389 without attracting customers that already have a A380 on order. Mayb
46 AustrianZRH : Thanks a lot for those numbers. So what happens now to fuel burn if A decides to hang those Trent XWBs under the 388's or even the 389's wing? That w
47 Astuteman : Sorry, you missed my point. In response to LAXDESI's "what if's", I was suggesting that enhancements due to be made to the Trent 900 and GP7000 in th
48 GlobeEx : Okay, thank you for clearing that up. I did miss your point. I agree, specially since it would give Boeing the opportunity to put it on the 777, impl
49 Art : To me your figures demonstrate why the A389 is inevitable. Increasing the capacity of the A380 by about 50% to 800 seats with an attendant fuel burn
50 GlobeEx : There is no way to increase the size of the current A380 by 50%. That aircraft would be like 100 meters long. However, 15% might be a good guess, may
51 Brendows : Correct, and SQ are also using the forward part of the rear cargo hold as a crew compartment, further reducing the available cargo volume on the A388
52 EA772LR : Well as far as I know in order for the 77W to be able to put the TrentXWB on it's wing, the TrentXWB would have to grow much more powerful than it is
53 Post contains images GlobeEx : We were talking about new engines, not the XWBs. But I was just checking that: At the moment the MTOW of the A350-10 and 77W are like 20% different,
54 Astuteman : Got to agree with that. I reckon the 85m 625 tonne version will be 25% larger in cabin area (and a LOT larger in cargo capacity), and burn about 7% -
55 Art : I'll put my hand up here to say that an 88m A389 would fall short of 800 pax based on the same Y class pitch used for a 525 seat 3 class A380. I thou
56 EA772LR : hey there's nothing wrong with a little optimism I think we will have to wait and see what Airbus's final design and spec freeze will be with the 350
57 Astuteman : Based on 525 pax for the A388, on a pro-rata basis, I reckon an 85m A389 would be good for around 660 pax in 3 classes... 88m - c. 700 pax on the sam
58 Post contains links and images N14AZ : Hmmm, reminds me of this: View Large View MediumPhoto © David Oates View Large View MediumPhoto © Marc Lehmann View Large View MediumPhoto
59 TylerDurden : Not in the next ten years, sorry. The program is wallowing in debt. The -900 is a costly upgrade for an already unprofitable product.
60 Sparkingwave : Not only that, you can never trust what an airline CEO says. This sounds suspiciously like what AA told Lockheed about the L1011 before they switched
61 Moo : Actually the -900 variant would be a cheap investment which would more than likely bring in a significant amount of money above what Airbus would inv
62 Astuteman : If this was remotely relevant it would have been worth posting.. As it is.. Mmmm. If Airbus stick to a 79.4m 600 tonne A389, th development cost shou
63 LAXDESI : My post on comparing two 789s to 1 A388 raised quetions about its validity as A388 is about 2.25 times bigger than a B789 in floor area. However, A359
64 WingedMigrator : Where did you get your data? All references I've seen show 552.5 m2 (none directly from Airbus, but there are enough dimensions provided in their ACA
65 Ikramerica : The 637 would be for the A389, most likely. Which is again why I say the A389 is the plane that actually lets you replace 2 older aircraft (a340, 777
66 GlobeEx : You can also cut out around 7000-10000$/day you only save by saving one extra D/Check and around three C/Checks as you have one plane less. If you co
67 LAXDESI : I get this from Airbus product compare section of Airbus site. They provide cabin length/width for both main and upper deck. Adding them up got me th
68 Ikramerica : Wouldn't the A380 checks be MUCH more expensive just due to the size of the jet and the equipment needed to do it, including working on the massive ta
69 LAXDESI : At the risk of getting banned, and assuming a foot wide soffit on both sides, I get around 32 sq. meter of unusable space.
70 Post contains images GlobeEx : Well it will be more expensive but not like twice the costs. But I think I already factored that in. Apart from that, one of the main cost of a C and
71 Ikramerica : You won't, but the people who fight over it might.
72 WingedMigrator : They provide maximum cabin width, which on both decks is greater than floor width, the relevant metric for usable cabin area. Floor width is 6.30 m o
73 Lightsaber : I hope this answers WingedMigrator's question. RR would have quite the advantage on the A389 if they abandoned the Trent 900 and instead went with a
74 Boacvc10 : One issue I have *not* seen discussed on a.net, with respect to the benefits of a VLA (and a stretched A380 aircraft, or any other VLA that may be pro
75 Ikramerica : You'd think not, but man were there some fights over this already! Well, the shear number of parts on an A380 is far greater than on a 787. Wiring, p
76 Moo : On the flip side, bigger typically means better access...
77 Keesje : Wingedmigrator apologies for using your (great) graphics unauthorized !
78 Astuteman : I think the fact that LAXDESI came up with 637 m2 using a common methodology with the other aircraft, and yet we think it's actually 552 m2 fairly re
79 GlobeEx : I know it isn't that easy as I said. And a D/Check of a A380 will definately be more expensive than the D-Check of a A350/787. But simply not twice t
80 Dennys : any way next AF Long Haul generation will consist of 773ER an A388-89 ! ... but in the meantime I whish KLM orders the 747-8i for a change !!! dennys
81 Keesje : KLM current fleet of 20 passenger 747-400 are mostly combis having 260 passenger seats. They seem to be replaced by buying (744ERF, Martinair) and hi
82 Nomadd22 : Why so little for the 389? They're both stretches with new engines. Would the 748s new wing make that much difference?
83 CoolGuy : Wrong. It will only be economical if it's filled with a substantial number of people. If a route only yields enough people per flight for a 767, the
84 Keesje : Yes and when a route only yields enough people per flight for a F50, the F50 is more economical per passenger than the B767. I guess what is meant is
85 Astuteman : No, they're not. At least not as far as I can see. Against the ORIGINAL definition of the A389 The 748 programme is for 2 versions (pax and Freighter
86 SeaBosDca : Did you notice that "for those carriers that can fill it" was right in the beginning of my post? It pays to read a post before disagreeing with it.
87 SparkingWave : But that is also the point. How many carriers will be able to fill an A380-900? Will it be a big enough number to justify the investment in building
88 Astuteman : Depends on a) how far the stretch is pushed b) whether or not you think 500 frames is the break-even for the stretch Rgds
89 Post contains links EGNR : The numbers are guesswork at the moment - Air France simply says: ""If this expanded version was launched, Air France-KLM could order a significant a
90 GlobeEx : Well I think with the A389 would give Airbus the chance to produce some return on their investement. With the current A380 I personally don't really
91 Ikramerica : That's the key. The stretch would hopefully expand the market enough to not only pay for the stretch but to pay for the whole program, taking up the
92 GlobeEx : That's what I was trying to say in the post above. Hehe, 1000. I would give them 700-800, but you never know. GlobeEx
93 Ikramerica : Do you think JL believes 700-800, or do you actually believe it? Because, when you take out the 744combi models, that's 50% premium over the number o
94 GlobeEx : I believe that Airbus could gain up to 700-800 orders for the A388, A388R, A380F and A389(R maybe a at some stage?) until 2030. That would be roughly
95 Astuteman : That would be nice, but it's not a pre-requisite of the A389 IMO (just as well, because it's quite possibly not likely, too.. ) Rgds
96 Nomadd22 : The 748 hasn't had two different stretches planned for two years now. Both versions will be the same length. And combining the costs of the 748 freig
97 Scipio : Who would have thought back in 1970 that Boeing would sell 1500+ B747s?
98 WingedMigrator : The fuselage plugs are of a different configuration and of different lengths for the 748I and 748F. That they add up to the same overall length does
99 GlobeEx : Thats's right, only EK was demanding the shorter version for DXB-USA west coast ops. If you count it like many, that the LH order will be sufficent t
100 Astuteman : They may be the same length, but the stretches are still distributed differently fore and aft....which means more work. No it isn't. The common perce
101 Nomadd22 : I'd surely like to see that beast fly. I could argue that it's too big, but people have probably been making the same arguments since the DC-3 was the
102 Ikramerica : 1000 over the 20 years starting 2006. Should have been more clear. How big is EK going to get?
103 GlobeEx : hehe, not 1000 A380s
104 Scipio : Ok. That's admittedly a taller order, albeit not impossible. With oil at $130, airlines are revisiting their "higher frequencies is better" mantra, w
105 LAXDESI : Let me revise my analysis for A389 by looking at the figures for 772LR and 773ER; here are some numbers: 777ER longer by about 16% 773ER OEW higher by
106 N14AZ : Exactly. Does anybody know how many B747 had been ordered at the time the first operator (PA) received its first B747? For the A380 the number is rou
107 GlobeEx : Hm, I think the MTOW will be about 6-9% higher with the A389 than with the A388. But I think, we can agree that the A389 will most probably be a bett
108 Keesje : Crude calculation are often good enough for analyses like this. When trying out new configurations I useally plot a lot of relevant aircraft in graph
109 Ikramerica : Actually, it doesn't even get you close. You need 8-10 EK like airlines, each ordering 50-100 over the next 20 years, to come close to the 1000 Info
110 Scipio : The assumption was, of course, that not only EK-like airlines would order A380s. Sell 400-500 A380s to 4-5 megacarriers (including follow-up and repl
111 LAXDESI : If the objective is to give it even more range, then going to a bigger engine will acheive that--it may take the range up to 8,900 nm.
112 Ikramerica : Uh, yeah. I get that. I did the math though, and 4-5 doesn't do it. 8-10 EK like airlines ordering 50-100 planes. That's the only way the program get
113 Scipio : EK has spoken publicly about moving to a fleet of 120 A380s, and will most likely place replacement orders for its early A380s before 2026/2028. SQ a
114 A342 : With fuel price at these heights, and no significant drop in sight, every fraction of a % matters.
115 Keesje : Hm lets bite I still foresee 700-800 until 2026 USA + Canada : 50 BA + VS : 50 LH : 30 AF/KL : 30 EK + QR + Ethihad : 120 SQ : 40 MH : 20 China : 100
116 Scipio : Sounds reasonable to me. Now, if 3-4 of these (or other) airlines decide to go the EK route and acquire (mega)fleets of 50-100 A380s, it will easily
117 Astuteman : Like the sound of that.. The minimum MTOW of an A380-900 will be 600 tonnes. Airbus have said this for many years now.. Which is an MTOW rise of 5.2%
118 Post contains images A380900 : Not so fast! Let the thing take to the skies before! I disagree, it should be built because it is big and nice! Also, does Airbus care whether they b
119 LAXDESI : With your numbers,the following specs. are likely: A389 (79.4m) longer by about 8.6% A389 OEW higher by about 3% A389 MTOW higher by 5.2% (using curr
120 Ikramerica : Sounds incredibly optimistic, but I suppose it's reasonable if you predisposed to be that optimistic. BA+VS won't have 50. USA+Canada will have 0-20.
121 Astuteman : Range (assuming the A389 specs will result in a similarly specced A388(R) ) Especially if they go to the full 85m....... Why buy an A330-200 when the
122 Astuteman : I Reckon that's a tad optimistic BTW, LAXDESI. I calc this figure to be somewhere between 4% and 4.5% up on the current A388 That may drop you range
123 Keesje : There are about 250 orders and option now. - CX, ANA, SA have expressed intentions. - India, China and US carriers haven't started ordering (& operat
124 Burkhard : When you see many 744 are parked at FRA and LON, and things run smooth there, replacing a few of them by A388 now and A389 in a decade is nothing tha
125 Frigatebird : Actually, I think A380900 is right... even in the 'pessimistic' 80m Improved Trent 900 version the 389 will be superior the the 388 in all respects,
126 Asiaflyer : Agree, and that's even abit conservative. Very likely the Chinese carriers will have ordered more than that. Agree with you there. The rest of the wo
127 GlobeEx : So they start their own airline, or who is gonna fly them? GlobeEx
128 GCT64 : I'm not picking an argument, but BA & VS operate 70 B744s primarily out of a tightly slot constrained airport (LHR). IF you believe the forecasts for
129 Ikramerica : I don't believe VS will have any. And the 291/299 seat 744s of BA can be replaced with non-VLAs. A 77W at 14/72/32/170 in BA trim is doable. It's why
130 Scipio : The choice of VLAs during that period was limited and increasingly less compelling over time. Hence, 747 sales over the last 10-15 years are only of
131 GCT64 : I can't see how this matches with my two central assumptions: 1. That air traffic continues to grow (2 x UK passenger departures by 2030 is the best
132 FrmrCAPCADET : None of the discussions so far have addressed the CASM/RASM dynamic. And no one in the world at this point knows how $100-200 is going to play out. My
133 Scipio : You seem to assume that airlines will go out of their way to avoid the A380 and opt for alternative solutions, even if less optimal, whenever they ca
134 Ikramerica : No, again you putting words in my mouth (or thoughts into my head), for what reason only you know. When did I ever, ever say airlines would not buy t
135 YULWinterSkies : One can reverse the question and ask why was the A380-700 so unattractive... A stretch has better CASM, that's it. If the A380-700 was the ideal size
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...
Nice Air France Video For B77W Fans ... posted Sat Mar 8 2008 12:32:46 by FlySSC
Air France Updates For Winter 08/09 Sched. posted Sat Jan 19 2008 07:57:07 by FlySSC
Arrival Times For The A380 At Kbdl On 10/2? posted Tue Sep 25 2007 15:24:29 by Golftango
Question Regarding Air France-KLM In The Gulf posted Sat Aug 25 2007 18:14:49 by 777way
"Natural" Length For The A380? posted Thu Jul 19 2007 04:25:39 by A380900
Did I See The New SQ First Class For The A380? posted Sat Apr 21 2007 15:01:45 by CXfirst
Will Sales Pick Up For The CRJ-900 In 2007? posted Sun Dec 31 2006 05:16:53 by CRJ900X
Singapore Seating Plan For The A380 posted Tue Dec 19 2006 20:37:46 by Gh123
Quick Help For The A380 ... (not Really Serious) posted Fri Dec 15 2006 11:12:00 by 764
LH Has New Nick Name For The A380 posted Mon Nov 27 2006 13:16:10 by Columba
Halftime For The A380's 2008 Goals (del. & Orders) posted Mon Jun 30 2008 10:16:11 by N14AZ
Nice Air France Video For B77W Fans ... posted Sat Mar 8 2008 12:32:46 by FlySSC