YYZALA From Canada, joined Nov 2009, 152 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 8964 times:
Have Airbus launched the A389 from the beginning, how do you think their orders would have looked today? Would it be the ultimate killer on CASM or would airlines have trouble filling all the seats? Would the 748i have more sales? Please discuss
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26720 posts, RR: 83 Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 8791 times:
Airbus followed the standard plan - release the "baseline" model now and then offer the "stretch" down the road to take advantage of better economics and traffic growth.
If Airbus had launched the A380-900, it would have likely been the only model offered (as the A380-800 would have been a "shrink" and offered poorer operating economics). The A380-800 already handily out-classed the 747-400 on size and operating economics, so I don't think the A380-900 would have been embraced any stronger than the A380-800 was.
I don't think an A380-900 only offering would have helped the 747-8 much, if at all.
CXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 2697 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 8761 times:
I seem to remember a lot of people talking about the A380(-800) simply being too big, and it will see very little orders. Then EK came along, things have changed. Now, people want the -900 to come.
So, I wonder what the response would have been if the A380 was launced as the -900. There would have been even bigger doubts (but I am inclined to think that EK would have wiped those doubts as well).
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 8196 times:
Quoting YYZALA (Thread starter):
Have Airbus launched the A389 from the beginning, how do you think their orders would have looked today?
Less. The larger you go, the less aircraft you need.
Quoting YYZALA (Thread starter): Would it be the ultimate killer on CASM or would airlines have trouble filling all the seats?
The A380-800 is already the ultimate killer on CASM. The -900 would be even better, but the problem is the latter (capacity), not CASM, even for the -800.
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3132 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 8122 times:
no, but they should have made the A388 the baseline instead of the shrink. I don't think there would be much discussion about the 748i and Airbus would have captured more orders from 77W customers.
There is a huge amount of wieght locked up in the current A388 that is there only for its future A389 and A388F versions. The future A389 might not be quite as impressive, but clearly Airbus was going to have to wait a decade or two to launch the A389 even if the program ran flawless. Thats enough time to buy back range and MTOW growth using technology instead of a larger heavier base frame.
TheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3347 posts, RR: 30 Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 8043 times:
Don't forget that engine technology made significant improvements in the last few years. So we might see a new A380-900 with much more advanced engines than the current engines used in the 800. So maybe the 900 will have the same range as the current 800 (or at least comparable performance), which would not have been possible if the 900 had been launched already some years ago.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9138 posts, RR: 96 Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6319 times:
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 4): no, but they should have made the A388 the baseline instead of the shrink.
I have to say I completely agree with that
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 4): The future A389 might not be quite as impressive, but clearly Airbus was going to have to wait a decade or two to launch the A389 even if the program ran flawless. Thats enough time to buy back range and MTOW growth using technology instead of a larger heavier base frame.
And that is the reason why .
I'd love to be able to see the specs for an A388 that was designed to be an A388, and not an A389, or A380F
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4957 times:
IIRC, the A-3XX/A-380 was launched as a family of aircraft, like most new airplane programs of today. The A-380 family would have had two members to start the program, the A-380-800 and the A-380-800F, and then a follow on model, the A-380-900. This is why the A-388 has the wing it does, optimized for the heavier "F" and -900 models. This would save money and engineering resourses later in the program by just designing one wing for all models. The A-380-1000 was at one time thought to be the next streched model, but now, if Airbus ever goes to the -900 model, it could be as long the -1000 would have been, out to 87m. IIRC, one of the leasing companies is pushing for the 87m version of the A-389, while EK would prefer a lenght of 80m-85m.
goblin211 From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 1209 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3021 times:
The way I see it, it's like launching the 2012 model of a car before the 2011 version. You want the latest and most efficient, etc. I don't see why Airbus even bothered to do a 900 other than money of course. I can't imagine that whale getting even longer.
2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 982 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2595 times:
Consider also; that if they had decided to launch what is currently called the 900; they would have called that plane the 800 for marketing reasons. Thus, the A380-800 would have launched first anyway (and the current concept of the 1000 would be called the 900).
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3594 posts, RR: 36 Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2537 times:
Airbus made the right move with the A380 as she is today imho. They did overbuild some things, and still are untouchable as a CASM king. This overbuilding gives the airframe all the room it might possibly need for future growth. The only risk is they have taken is that things progressing over time so fast that part of what they overbuild/over-designed needs a redesign anyway before they will bring out the A380-900. I am convinced they will bring the A380-900 to the market in this decade, and it might also still have EIS this decade. .
Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 5): Don't forget that engine technology made significant improvements in the last few years. So we might see a new A380-900 with much more advanced engines than the current engines used in the 800. So maybe the 900 will have the same range as the current 800 (or at least comparable performance), which would not have been possible if the 900 had been launched already some years ago.
The new engines (hopefully Trent-XWB) will surely help a great deal. But don't forget that the option of a centre tank is also still a possibility. With that, the new engines, the benefits of the weight saving program which goes on as long as they build the A380, and further upcoming aerodynamic improvements, the A380-900 could imho easily have a better range then the current A380-800. . A ULR-VLA? .
ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2537 times:
N14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2313 posts, RR: 25 Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2112 times:
Quoting astuteman (Reply 6): I'd love to be able to see the specs for an A388 that was designed to be an A388, and not an A389, or A380F
This is something I also thought about but I never considered it worth to start a separate thread: how much better would the A 388 be if they would have designed it as a pure A 388 or let's call it the A 380-800 NDFTA389 *)
1.) smaller wings, meaning shorter wings?
2.) shorter wings (if true) would enable some fancy winglets?
3.) "lighter" main landing gear? I suppose the number of wheels would be the same but the structural design would eventually lead to some significant weight savings?
In other words, wouldn't it make sense to think about an optimized A 388? Most probably there is no incentive for Airbus since the A 388 is already CASM-king.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1901 times:
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 15): 1.) smaller wings, meaning shorter wings?
I suspect they'd keep the span and shrink the chord...higher aspect ratio (all other things being equal) reduced induced drag.
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 15): 2.) shorter wings (if true) would enable some fancy winglets?
You only do winglets if you have to..span increase is better. I think you're more likely to see raked tips like the A350/787/777.
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 15): 3.) "lighter" main landing gear? I suppose the number of wheels would be the same but the structural design would eventually lead to some significant weight savings?
You could pull wheels out if the weight dropped enough but, for the same payload/range, you wouldn't need as much structure so you could bring MTOW (and fuel burn and landing fees and structure) down.
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 15): In other words, wouldn't it make sense to think about an optimized A 388?
It absolutely makes sense to think about it...but it doesn't make sense to do it, otherwise Airbus would have done it.
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Nov 2009, 152 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26720 posts, 
From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 2697 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3347 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9138 posts, 
.
From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 786 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3594 posts, 
. A ULR-VLA? 
.
Printer friendly format 
