Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
IT Defers A380 Purchase Two Years  
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31007 posts, RR: 86
Posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 11046 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quote:
India’s second largest private carrier, Kingfisher Airlines Ltd, has deferred its purchase of five A380 aircraft, the world’s largest, by two years as it has sought to lower operating costs for the plane, according to two executives with the carrier.

A Kingfisher executive, who refused to be identified, said the airline has requested Airbus SAS to modify certain specifications for the A380s it has ordered so as “to increase fuel and operational efficiency”.

“Kingfisher Airlines is looking at A380s with a lower weight to fly non-stop between India and the US. This may delay our A380 acquisition programme by about a year,” the executive said. “But we have not heard from Airbus yet.”

The airline is still keen on the A380s and does not plan to cancel its orders, he added.
A Kingfisher spokesperson confirmed the delays.

LiveMint.com


This may very well be the precursor to an eventual IT cancellation of their A380 order. The current plane, even in it's most potent form, cannot fly from India to Western North America via a trans-polar routing with a payload greater then 35t. Since IT is a two-class airline, one would expect a seat-count approaching 600 I imagine 35t is not enough,

EK is using the 001 spec model for their two-class services, but that model is designed for medium-ranged missions, not ULR. It looks like IT would have to have the A380-800R which could carry around 60t that distance, but we don't know when Airbus is planning to release that model.

54 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 10938 times:



Quoting Stitch (Thread starter):
EK is using the 001 spec model for their two-class services, but that model is designed for medium-ranged missions, not ULR. It looks like IT would have to have the A380-800R which could carry around 60t that distance, but we don't know when Airbus is planning to release that model.

I have the feeling the -900 is higher on the priority list then a 800R. However a -800R would not be very difficult if you have an 800 and 900.



fyi 8000nm straight line still air ranges from DEL and BOM

They sold / converted their A340-500 orders..


User currently offlineKhobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 10896 times:



Quoting Stitch (Thread starter):
by two years as it has sought to lower operating costs for the plane

Ummm, what? Lower operating costs for the plane??? I thought these things could fly at 50% LF and still make gazillions of dollars for their operators. Seems a very strange thing for IT to say, no?


User currently offlineHawkerCamm From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 405 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 10802 times:

Provided they eventually take up their A380 commitment this can be seen as good news for Airbus. They can now move up other carriers and reduce the finanical compensation due on delayed frames. It also reduces the cost of introducing another customer specification.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31007 posts, RR: 86
Reply 4, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 10791 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Keesje (Reply 1):
I have the feeling the -900 is higher on the priority list then a 800R. However a -800R would not be very difficult if you have an 800 and 900.

The -800R depended on the -800F since they shared the same systems (brakes, wings and optional center fuel tank). That Airbus actually started building a set of wings for the first A380-800F makes me believe that they could very well have completed the design of the plane which should allow them to design an A380-800R relatively quickly.

That being said, how many airlines need to haul 55t 18,000km and just how efficient will an A380-800R be in that configuration since that is 30t below the payload the current A380-800 can carry out to 12,000km.



Quoting Khobar (Reply 2):
Ummm, what? Lower operating costs for the plane??? I thought these things could fly at 50% LF and still make gazillions of dollars for their operators. Seems a very strange thing for IT to say, no?

The pundits comments aside, even an A380-800R is going to haul less payload non-stop between India and North America then an A380-800 can making a stop in Europe along the way, even if nobody or nothing gets on or off at the EU stop.

And that A380-800 will burn less fuel - even with the stop - then the A380-800R will and if people or product get off and on at the EU stop, then the total payload that A380-800 is carrying will be that much greater.

It's why ULR operations just aren't that popular. The economics just don't pencil out compared to making the stop en-route.

[Edited 2009-02-05 09:51:55]

User currently offlineKhobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 10688 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
The pundits comments aside, even an A380-800R is going to haul less payload non-stop between India and North America then an A380-800 can making a stop in Europe along the way, even if nobody or nothing gets on or off at the EU stop.

Yeah because of the fuel, but that doesn't address my "pundits" comments - are my numbers wrong? Is the A380 not profitable at 50%+ load factor? In other words, instead of trying to fly 600 people to NA which would be at a loss (according to IT), fly 300 people. I hadn't seen a qualifier that said when flying 50% LF, the profit comes from the additional cargo capacity - in fact when this 50% LF was kicked around here a while back I hadn't seen any mention of cargo at all which is why I didn't include it in my comments.

Perhaps you can shed some light on the cargo issue with regards to the 50% LF figure, so I can better understand.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31007 posts, RR: 86
Reply 6, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 10578 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Khobar (Reply 5):
Perhaps you can shed some light on the cargo issue with regards to the 50% LF figure, so I can better understand.


Honestly, all I can offer is the following "spit-balling" and I might be making incorrect assumptions here, so no need to rake me over the coals if I am wrong. Just please provide the accurate data. Thanks.

Airbus' A380-800 payload-range charts give a general "Maximum Passenger Payload" of 50 tons, which I am guessing is for 555 passengers seated in three-classes of service. In a 2006 article, the New York Times said a current Economy seat weighs an average of 35kg. New advances in seat design were said to knock 7kg off that, so let's assume IT's seats weigh 30kg each so 500 would be 15t. IT's First Class seating looks like UA's new Business Class or BA's Club World. I don't know what that weighs, but would 100kg be considered excessive? If not, 100 seats would be 10t. So around 25t at 600 passengers, leaving 17t for their bags. Limiting each passenger to one bag at 23kg would mean they'd need 14t for the bags, but of course the actual bag count will be higher thanks to the Business Class folk, so it looks like you could be able to carry 600 passengers and their bags the distance. If IT halved the seat-count, then they'd open up say around 20t for revenue cargo.


But regardless of the actual numbers, at a 50% general load-factor, IT might as well fly an A340-500 or a 777-200LR since you can put 50 First Class and 200 Kingfisher Class seats in there at a lower operating costs (especially with the 77L) and you'd have tens of tons of non-luggage revenue payload, as well.

[Edited 2009-02-05 10:28:46]

User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10042 posts, RR: 96
Reply 7, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 10215 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Stitch (Thread starter):
It looks like IT would have to have the A380-800R which could carry around 60t that distance, but we don't know when Airbus is planning to release that model.

The paradox that raises, though, is that an A380-800R will almost certainly be more expensive to operate, and they specifically say they want to reduce operating costs.

Disregarding ULR ops - on a like-for-like basis an A380-800R will burn a bit more fuel, as the OEW will be higher (some 8 tonnes, I'm led to believe), but I'm going to guess it will take an even bigger hit on Landing and Navigation fees, if these are linked to certified MTOW (as I'm also led to believe).

My guess is that their ideal is to try and "push the envelope" like EK are, but even more so.

But EK, with 58 on order, are likely to be more successful than IT in that respect.

DEL-LAX is around 6 900Nm - some 300Nm less than the DXB-LAX route EK are planning to operate their A380's on, and about the same as MEL-LAX which QF already operate their ("unimproved") A380's on with no difficulties whatsoever. So I don't see that being an issue.

BOM looks a completely different prospect, with BOM-LAX being somewhere approaching 7 600Nm, according to the great circle mapper. I'm guessing the extra 400Nm (over DXB-LAX) makes a big payload hit at that range, with any headwind allowance.

Puzzling. They sure as hell are unlikely to get an A380 that will run that sort of stage length comfortably, year round, that costs LESS to operate than the current plane..

Quoting Stitch (Thread starter):
This may very well be the precursor to an eventual IT cancellation of their A380 order

That would be my guess, too.
A pax A380 cancellation.
Well. It's likely to make someone happy, I guess  Wink

Rgds


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31007 posts, RR: 86
Reply 8, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 10142 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Airbus says the A380-800R will add 1000nm of range to the current A380-800. So with the "baseline" plane capable of flying 85 tons a bit over 6500nm, that would put the "baseline" A380-800R at 7500nm with that payload.

Now, those figures are provided by Airbus "for information only" and actual customer planes will vary from those figures. We also know that SQ and QF have reported very strong performance with their birds.

Even with cabin fittings, full seats, full LD3 positions and such these planes may not be hitting the full 85t payload weight, which would allow for an extension of range.

Once EK gets their two-class birds into service, that will likely give us a decent yardstick to measure how IT's planes will perform and then we can try and extrapolate whether or not an extra 1000nm of range would allow them to meet their desired/required targets,



As to why IT wants a "more efficient" baseline plane, if they believe they cannot do direct operations, depending on where they would have to perform their en-route stopover, they may feel they will be at a disadvantage to say, EK, who would likely use DXB/JXB as their point, putting them closer to India (for better payloads).

[Edited 2009-02-05 12:58:40]

User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 9, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 10056 times:



Quoting Khobar (Reply 2):
I thought these things could fly at 50% LF and still make gazillions of dollars for their operators.

Only if one makes extremely optimistic assumptions about yields. If an airline can sell half the seats for an average of $10,000 each, they will make a lot of money. If they sell half the seats for $10 each, they will lose a lot of money. Yields are every bit as important as load factors. Arguably yields are more important.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 7):
I'm going to guess it will take an even bigger hit on Landing and Navigation fees, if these are linked to certified MTOW (as I'm also led to believe).

Some airports would charge higher landing fees for a hypothetical A380-800R and some would not.


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6453 posts, RR: 54
Reply 10, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 9925 times:

Two years isn't much considering how much else Airbus has to do on other programs. An -800R seems way too optimistic.

But how "ready" are the RR Trent 1000 and Trent XWB engines these days? It will be a rather simple task to produce a variant of one of those engines and put it on the present day A380.

If it offers a 3-4-5% fuel efficiency gain compared to the Trent 900, then it seems like the IT numbers could fit. Also anything else would mean would mean higher operating costs, now lower. Except if Airbus could shave 15 tons off the current design, which I find completely unrealistic.

To me there is absolutely no doubt that the A380 at a pretty early stage will take advantage of the new generation of engines which are being developed for the B787 and A350. I also assume that the very slow trickle in the A380 order book during the last couple of years is to a large extent caused by uncertainties about future A380 propulsion.

But how can Airbus talk about this? Well, they don't. They have been completely silent about this subject, most likely in order protect the current A380 order book. Also there isn't much of a subject, at least not to put into contracts, as long as the new engines haven't proven their specs with much degree of accuracy.

Could the A380 be the first plane to be put into service with the new engines? Before B787 and A350? Hopefully not. That would mean a new and really bad delay to the B787 program. But I would take a bet that the A380 will take advantage of the new RR engines before the A350. But not more than I can afford to lose the bet.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31007 posts, RR: 86
Reply 11, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 9833 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm not sure how realistic a near-term re-engine program of the A380 with Trent XWBs would be. The last reports I read said Rolls expected to achieve certification for the engines in 2012 which would match the time Airbus is projected to complete the first A350X-900. Once that is done, they could conceivably put four of them on F-WWOW to start the process of certifying them for the A380-841, but what of SQ and QF who have already taken delivery of Trent 900 powered A380s and have additional frames under production with that model engine? And airlines like LH and CZ who will get their first birds prior to the Trent XWB can be certified? I can't see these airlines taking some of their birds with Trent 900s and the other rest with Trent XWBs.

Plus does Rolls want to write off almost their entire Trent 900 investment? They already enjoy a slight lead against Engine Alliance in total sales (90 to 84) so they certainly don't need the Trent XWB to win power deals on the A380 and if they divert production to A380 sales, that will impact their ability to meet future A350 delivery commitments.


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2214 posts, RR: 56
Reply 12, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 9690 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Plus does Rolls want to write off almost their entire Trent 900 investment?

Any bean counter will tell you that an engine sold is an engine sold. I doubt the profit margins will be very different on a Trent 900 vs. a Trent XWB. It will make no difference to RR's bottom line.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
they certainly don't need the Trent XWB to win power deals on the A380

It is probably an attractive proposition to offer the same engine across an A380 / A350 fleet, allowing full interchangeability. Just like the 747 and 767 of yore. This would be a proposition that EA couldn't match, unless they offer an engine for the A350.

That being said, I have no idea if the performance delta justifies the certification costs.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31007 posts, RR: 86
Reply 13, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 9635 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 12):
Any bean counter will tell you that an engine sold is an engine sold. I doubt the profit margins will be very different on a Trent 900 vs. a Trent XWB. It will make no difference to RR's bottom line.

Rolls has to account for the moneys spent on the Trent 900 somehow. They can't just wish it away into another dimension no more then GE could when they stopped making the GE90-7xB and GE90-9xB in favor of only GE90-11xBs.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 12):
It is probably an attractive proposition to offer the same engine across an A380 / A350 fleet, allowing full interchangeability.

But that is going to require SQ, for example, to pull perfectly-good Trent 900s and replace them with brand new Trent XWBs. And if they don't have a "power by the hour" deal with Rolls, then they also have their own maintenance and spares costs already sunk which will need to be scrapped, as well.


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6453 posts, RR: 54
Reply 14, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 9562 times:

I see your point, Stitch. The final Trent XWB for the A350-900 will not be ready early enough. But it will also be too powerful for the A380.

If the idea of fast re-engining of the A380 is not out in the blue, then it will be based on the Trent 1000 modified with bleed system from the Trent XWB (or Trent 900).

Writing off Trent 900 investments? Isn't the Trent 900 much of a stepping stone to the 1000 and XWB? If RR has the building blocks for an improved Trent 900 engine, then they will rather sell four of them than four "old" 900s. They will only sell additional engines in case they can beat their competitor Engine Aliance on some sales.

Certification of such an engine could be a very small job on top of the Trent 1000 certification.

If "only" 50 or 60 frames will be finished with the -900 engine, then the 900 label won't be in the record books. But 200 - 300 engines won't be all that bad compared to other RR versions such as Trent 600 or RB-211-535.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
...but what of SQ and QF who have already taken delivery of Trent 900 powered A380s and have additional frames under production with that model engine? And airlines like LH and CZ who will get their first birds prior to the Trent XWB can be certified? I can't see these airlines taking some of their birds with Trent 900s and the other rest with Trent XWBs.

You have a point there. The last customer to get an inferior product will always be disappointed. But if a producer - aircraft producer or not - never improves his products, then he will sure lose to his competitors in the long run. There was also a last customer to receive a 737 Classic. All planes are constantly being gradually upgraded a little, and there is always someone to take the last "old" stuff.

Anyway, a substantial part of 380-841s on order today may not be delivered with present day Trent 900 engines. If my theory has some validity, then I would expect that RR ends Trent 900 production at the same time as they replace it with that "improved Trent 900" on their production line.

Maybe Airbus is already negotiating with customers about contract changes for post 2011 -841 deliveries, and maybe this whole IT story was simply the product of such a negitiotion coming to an end.

It could seem like a win-win story for everybody. IT gets their planes later, planes which they due to the financial crisis won't need as early as anticipated. Airbus gets a little rest on their hard pressed delivery schedule. IT gets a slightly improved product which fits their need better. Airbus may get a slightly increased price, and a motivated customer who can demonstrate the improvement from day one.

Of course it is only speculation.

But what else can it be? A plane, which fulfills IT range and payload needs as they describe it, does not exist today. Add to that "improved operating costs". New and so dramatically improved products don't come in two years. The A380 already has passed a few weight saving excercices, there are no low hanging apples there. So the whole issue must be a new mixture of almost already existing off the shelf stuff. Otherwise Airbus wouldn't have the engineering capacity to produce it in the foreseeable future, and certainly not in a couple of years.

I wouldn't rule out a 70k lbs bleed version of Trent 1000 in 2011 ready to put on the A380 improving the fuel efficiency by a few percent. Replacing the Trent 900 on the production line from day one.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2290 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 9523 times:



Quoting Khobar (Reply 5):
Is the A380 not profitable at 50%+ load factor? In other words, instead of trying to fly 600 people to NA which would be at a loss (according to IT), fly 300 people.

One problem with these numbers is that if you limit yourself to selling 300 seats, then 300 seats will actually become your airline's 100 percent LF, and no airline will ever be able to sell 100 percent of all seats for sale on all flights. If you limit yourself to selling 300 seats, you will sometimes sell only 250, 200 or even 150 seats. Demand is not the same every day of the week or every month of the year.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 7):
DEL-LAX is around 6 900Nm - some 300Nm less than the DXB-LAX route EK are planning to operate their A380's on, and about the same as MEL-LAX which QF already operate their ("unimproved") A380's on with no difficulties whatsoever. So I don't see that being an issue.

Looking at the map, it seems that the great circle between DEL-LAX is passing over the Himalayas and parts of Siberia where there may be limited routes available for passenger airplanes. I would guess that you would have to add a few hundred miles to avoid the mountains and find a good routing across northern Russia.



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31007 posts, RR: 86
Reply 16, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 9479 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 14):
Anyway, a substantial part of 380-841s on order today may not be delivered with present day Trent 900 engines. If my theory has some validity, then I would expect that RR ends Trent 900 production at the same time as they replace it with that "improved Trent 900" on their production line.

I fully expect Rolls to improve the Trent 900. But it will still be a Trent 900. And chances are many of those improvements will be able to be retro-fitted to Trent 900s built and delivered prior to those improvements being created.



It may be a "simple" thing to certify the Trent XWB for the A380-841, but certification isn't the only factor. It could very well be one of the least-important ones.

And it is not like the A380-800 needs to burn X% less fuel to fly Y% farther to sell. It already has plenty of compelling reasons for airlines to buy it now as it is.

Not to mention the A380-841 IT would get today is better then the A380-841 they expected when they ordered the plane 42 months ago. So if they don't like it's performance now, why the heck did they order it in June 2005?


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6923 posts, RR: 63
Reply 17, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 9465 times:



Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 14):
But 200 - 300 engines won't be all that bad compared to other RR versions such as Trent 600 or RB-211-535.

"Trent 600"? For the AE MD-11 order that never flew? For the KQ 767-400ER order that was never placed? The Trent 600 was only a concept (in fact, more than one). None ever flew or was built. And as for the RB211-535...! I think you'll find it sold rather more than "200-300".  Wink Do you perchance mean the -524? Even that achieved double the number you're dealing with.

The Trent 500 has sold getting on for 500 engines. So just 200-300 T900s would actually be RR's poorest result on a big fan.


User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 9439 times:

I wonder how much money they can make from offer maintenance servic in let say Bangalore or Chennai for the A380? The current operators (Qantas, SIA and Emirates) fly past India
a lot and I could see a market for a service center.


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6453 posts, RR: 54
Reply 19, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 9390 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
I fully expect Rolls to improve the Trent 900. But it will still be a Trent 900.

Yup, now we are talking names. A Trent 900 improved with -1000/-XWB technology might easily be named -900-2 or -900-B or such.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
So if they don't like it's performance now, why the heck did they order it in June 2005?

Good question. But if we bring it a little further, I know one airline (SAS) which back in 1947 badly needed a fleet of ERJ-170 and ATR-42. They bought DC-3 and DC-6 instead, replacing them with CV-440 and DC-7 some years later. You can only buy what is offered by producers.

The IT order is 3½ years old. During those years some small print in the A380 sales brochures has changed.

There must have been some changes since the plane, which IT is bragging that they are going to get, it was not offered in 2005. No plane manufacturer offered a plane with that large combination of range and payload capability in 2005. But if IT doesn't lie to us, then Airbus must offer that for sale today for delivery in a few years time. And that seems to have opened a viable non-stop route opportunity for IT.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineFrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3766 posts, RR: 11
Reply 20, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8535 times:

All that talk about aircraft capacity and economics is fascinating, but what about the fact that IT is in a s#*%load of financial problems, business is far from what they thought it'd be and they can't really afford new planes right now?


Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13138 posts, RR: 100
Reply 21, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8364 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Wow, one airline delaying (probably canceling) their A380 order has deteriorated into an engine thread.

Awesome!  bigthumbsup 

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 12):
That being said, I have no idea if the performance delta justifies the certification costs.

For an A380R?  no  But for the A380-900, an airframe where the 83,000lbf thrust of the first XWB isn't oversized? (Certainly not for the Udvar-Hazy 85m A380-900 nor my dream of an 87m or 89m A389, these might be pushing towards requiring 85k to 90k of thrust).  hyper 

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
But that is going to require SQ, for example, to pull perfectly-good Trent 900s and replace them with brand new Trent XWBs. And if they don't have a "power by the hour" deal with Rolls, then they also have their own maintenance and spares costs already sunk which will need to be scrapped, as well.

"Sunk costs." They'll live. Since there is at least three years more of T900 production, there will be enough other airlines flying the T900 that it won't be that bad of an orphan.

I see no cost advantage for putting the Trent XWB on the A388. A388R? Sure! A388F? ok (but less market demand for a small fuel burn drop).

Quoting RedChili (Reply 15):
I would guess that you would have to add a few hundred miles to avoid the mountains and find a good routing across northern Russia.

Planes fly over the Himalayas every day. The 'hot winds' (compared to the Stratosphere's temperature, that is...) bouncing off the mountains do create extra 'wear and tear' on the engines (thermal shock), but its no big deal. I do not know the air traffic control corridors available, but there is no reason to avoid flying over them for ULH.

And what is with the discussion of a 50% load factor? I've never seen a study showing the A388 having that much lower CASM than any other modern widebody. SQ mentioned an A388 costs 105% of the per flight costs of a 744. Hmmm... A 77W is at 80% of the per flight costs of a 744... So unless you can make ~1/3 more revenue than a 77W, that's what an airline will fly. If there is > 1/3rd more revenue, the A380 is a money making machine. I really like the A388, but it has its niche. Oh... its a large niche... but certain statements seem ... out of context and flaimbait.

IT has not yet developed the 'trunk routes' to justify rotating in A380's. Its really that simple. They do not have SIN-SYD or SIN-LHR where every additional seat can be sold at a yield that would increase profit. The same could be said about DXB-LHR/JFK/BOM/SYD or SYD/MEL-LAX. Some airlines made a fortune flying 744's on trunk routes. But too many bought 747's for prestige.  no  Fly to make money. IT isn't ready. They should have deferred for 4+ years.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 22, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8173 times:



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 21):
And what is with the discussion of a 50% load factor? I've never seen a study showing the A388 having that much lower CASM than any other modern widebody. SQ mentioned an A388 costs 105% of the per flight costs of a 744. Hmmm... A 77W is at 80% of the per flight costs of a 744... So unless you can make ~1/3 more revenue than a 77W, that's what an airline will fly.


If those were the only two aircraft choices, then that would be true. However, many airlines have chosen and will continue to choose A350s and 787s because they offer better economics for most missions.

Also, because yields and load factors are inversely related, a 33% increase in revenue requires a greater than 33% increase in number of tickets sold. The exact number depends on the shape of the demand curve, but might be about 50%.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 21):
If there is > 1/3rd more revenue, the A380 is a money making machine.

Only if the 777-300ER was already a money-making machine.  Smile


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10042 posts, RR: 96
Reply 23, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 7986 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
Rolls has to account for the moneys spent on the Trent 900 somehow. They can't just wish it away into another dimension

If the sale gets replaced 1 for 1 with a TXWB, I'm sure the accountants won't be too bothered.
If the TXWB gave RR a significant advantage, and gave a 1 for 1.5 advantage in sales, the accountants would be delighted.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 21):
Wow, one airline delaying (probably canceling) their A380 order has deteriorated into an engine thread.

 bigthumbsup 

EA will have a big part to play in this scenario. By 2012 they are already going to improve the GP7000 another 2% over the 1% better than spec SFC it's already producing.

If the EA have what I understand to be their way, they will see a heavily developed GP7000 deployed on the A350XWB.
On the basis that the GP7000 at spec was supposed to 4% less effecient than the GEnx, itself supposed to be 2% less efficient than the Trent XWB, then by 2012 EA will have already made up 3% of the 6% gap there supposedly is between the GP7000 and Trent XWB.
Can EA make up the other 3%?
If so, RR will HAVE to respond or get frozen off the platform.

TXWB or heavily re-worked T900? Who cares? The result will be the same  cloudnine 

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 21):

IT has not yet developed the 'trunk routes' to justify rotating in A380's. Its really that simple

That sounds sensible.
That said, delaying/deferring their order will allow the weight improvements, and SFC improvement we already know are coming to be implemented and embedded.
It may be that simple, too  Smile

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 21):
And what is with the discussion of a 50% load factor?

IIRC Airbus have postulated that it's possible to break even with 56%-58% LF's on an A380.
Insofar as SQ reckon it has 20% better CASM than its 747's, if they can break-even with 75% LF's on the 747 (which they should), then around 55% for a break-even LF on their A380's doesn't sound out of the park.
Which given the current c90% current LF's they seem to be attracting, indeed has to make their A380's an absolute money machine  Smile

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 21):
the A380 is a money making machine

 bigthumbsup 

A notion that gets severely frowned upon in some quarters, of course, so don't tell anyone  shhh   Smile

Rgds


User currently offlineParapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1587 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7279 times:

Very interesting thread. EK has placed a very big bet on itself. It is fully aware (of course) of its geographic position and the new 5 runway airport. You can see the other players reacting. BA (with the traditional LHR stop) has really worked hard at making BA the No1 airline for the India /USA routes. They do have a good reputation and a powerful frequent flier programme. Added to this are their awsome connections within the USA.

Clearly an Indian Airline or indeed a Packastani one for that matter cannot fight BA or EK. So they are looking to offer a different service -non stop. This IMHO will affect EK far more than BA. But there are (as stated) the economics of it. Clearly "smaller" aircraft like the 777-200LR and the 345 need a very high percentage of premium traffic to make money -but this (as shown above) may not be the case for the 800R. And that (IMHO) is what its all about.

If the routes under discussion can be flown with an economic payload then I believe that the EK /hub will be simply missed out (and to a lesser extent LHR as well). Many cities have emerged and died as "hubs" both in the days of railways and steam ships -the same is and will be true of Airline hubs. Its something Boeing has been saying for years. They have concentrated their discussions on (new) long thin routes- why -because that is what the 787 does. But there are also long "thick" routes and this is the kingdom of the longer ranged 380's.

I am not sure whether I want to be in EK's boots right now. But - and there is a big but. EK has the money and the infrastructure whilst Kingfisher has not. This also counts for alot.

We all know that there "should" have been a place for economy translantic flights from the UK. There "should" have been a place for discount business travel across the same pond -but where are they all now?

Re engines. I would have thought it would be a "core" upgrade to the T900 using XWB parts. Or at most a core replacement similar to the T500 (T1000 core) at one time. Hanging brand new and different engines is (I was led to believe) a very expensive exercise.


25 Baroque : Ahem, unless you accept this particular deterioration has is negative deterioration - ie improvement. I suspect we have had hints that re-working wil
26 Hloutweg : Because now they see themselves in trouble and unable to operate it efficiently and aee looking for excuses to delay taking delivery of it?
27 Zvezda : There is absolutely no guarantee that 90% load factors will make any money for an airline. 100% load factors with poor yields lose money. This was th
28 DLPMMM : According to Dow Jones, it has nothing to do with the A380-800R, but rather waiting for the A380-900 version. QUOTE from ATW: Kingfisher Airlines defe
29 Incitatus : I agree with this but I prefer a slightly different writing: ULR operations are more expensive than two midhauls. For example, flying SYD-BKK-LHR wit
30 Babybus : Maybe IT should just be honest and say they can't afford it. I could understand if it was Air India buying them but not IT. The A380 is not an aircraf
31 Stitch : Well the 46,000 liters in the center tank are said to be good for another 1000nm per Airbus. Airbus can scale TOW out to 625mt (the limit for the bra
32 ComeAndGo : there's an article on the subject on atwonline.com which states that the airline is waiting for the A389 for flights to the US west coast. I'd assume
33 Stitch : But some are of the opinion that owning and operating an A380 is what elevates one above being a "second fiddle" airline. But enough jocularity... IT
34 Lightsaber : I consider it along the lines of a get together that has 'deteriorated' to draining a selection of fine wines or scotch. All for the better! I sort o
35 Stitch : What kind of lead time are we looking at? Mid to Late 2010's? If so, it could be doable in time to meet the needs of current A350X customers who want
36 Astuteman : That's why I was particularly careful to make my quote specific to SQ's A380. Only an idiot would suggest its the right airframe for every route/airl
37 Ojas : I really wonder where will IT use those A380s? No airport in India is a major hub and thus it is difficult to justify an A380 for Kingfisher Airlines.
38 Astuteman : Not saying you're wrong, but Airbus themselves have said that an A380-900 wouldn't be entering service until 2015, and I suspect that may be optimist
39 Khobar : I thought it was discussed here that SQ or EK (or Airbus, or an a.netter) had actually made such a claim without qualification. If I misread somethin
40 DLPMMM : I made no comment, so it would not be me that is wrong. The quote is from Dow Jones and ATWonline. I just thought it was an interesting tidbit that w
41 Art : I think they got round it by merging/taking over another Inndian carrier that met the five year rule.
42 Lightsaber : More. The casing, once its redesigned, would take two years. I've neglected the engineering time to put in the new bearings and an entirely new engin
43 Post contains links Trex8 : you mean the UK taxpayer may not get all its money back??? Blair is obviously not as good a gambler as Thatcher was with the A320! Rolls-Royce has be
44 DingDong : That's probably true, yes. Well, the Trent XWB for the A350-900 is rated at 83,000 lbf. The Trent 970 series used on various A380-800 models can appr
45 Asiaflyer : IT never took delivery of any A340-500 IIRC. They currently serves LHR with A330-200 from both BOM and BLR. I really hope IT can get these routes wor
46 Post contains images Astuteman : What's interesting about this is that the 83k lb Trent XWB for the A350-900 is the "base" engine, and the 74k lb version for the A350-800 is a "de-ra
47 PP705 : A little of topic but I notice a few posters from UK here. Kevin Peterson has been signed by the Bangalore Royal Challengers in the IPL. The Bangalore
48 MEA-707 : IT knew all specifications of the A-380 when they ordered it. It really seems to me it's some negotiating trick to get rid of this order without too m
49 Rheinbote : I think these are the two major root causes for the deferral.
50 Baroque : Might that not be killing four engines one one bird - although after the Hudson landing perhaps one should not mention engines and birds together. Do
51 Astuteman : I recall it from a Fightglobal article on the Trent XWB that I will have to dig out You know I do But (repeating myself) if the exam question is a st
52 Post contains links Aviationbuff : IT to defer all wide-body till 2012 http://www.business-standard.com/ind...stock-for-rs-2000-cr/00/29/348281/ The article states that not only A380 bu
53 Nimish : Slightly off-topic, but BA's reputation in India is not the best owing to the sub-stellar baggage handling, and their pathetic FFP program (for econo
54 Post contains links Zeke : I think you have hit the nail on the head there. They need to develop a route with a smaller aircraft like a 77W first to build the customer base and
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...
LH To DIA: Two Years To Get 748i-Ready posted Wed Feb 6 2008 13:45:59 by DIA
It's Outstanding To See Two 707-138's Preserved! posted Thu Aug 2 2007 00:34:37 by CV990
Etihad Defers A380 Deliveries posted Wed Jun 20 2007 20:29:53 by Blsbls99
It's A Bird, It's A Plane, It's An A380! posted Mon Jun 11 2007 00:22:16 by HALFA
GF Back In Profit In Two Years posted Fri May 11 2007 15:06:05 by CV580Freak
Father Of The 747 Says It Puts A380 In The Shade posted Thu Jul 20 2006 09:49:12 by Leelaw
Boeing B787: Two Years On April 26 posted Fri Mar 31 2006 05:57:45 by DfwRevolution
Flight Plan;is It An A380 Or? posted Wed Sep 14 2005 07:35:04 by Ppostro
Virgin Defers A380 Delivery posted Tue Jan 25 2005 20:43:25 by Bigphilnyc
A380 With Two Engines And Belly Fairing And Apu... posted Sat Dec 11 2004 08:21:40 by A380900
Boeing B787: Two Years On April 26 posted Fri Mar 31 2006 05:57:45 by DfwRevolution
Flight Plan;is It An A380 Or? posted Wed Sep 14 2005 07:35:04 by Ppostro
Virgin Defers A380 Delivery posted Tue Jan 25 2005 20:43:25 by Bigphilnyc
A380 With Two Engines And Belly Fairing And Apu... posted Sat Dec 11 2004 08:21:40 by A380900