Mortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3225 posts, RR: 2 Posted (5 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 21021 times:
EK hoping for triple decker aircraft ...
Adel Al Redha, executive vice president of engineering and operations at Emirates, said the airline wants to be able to fit at least another 283 passengers on board each plane.
"I think the size we would look at right now is the treble aircraft configuration that goes from 500 to 800 passengers."
However, he said it would likely take at least another decade for a triple-decker style plane to be developed.
How close would a possible 380 900 or 1000 version come to this ( I am guessing EK wan't 3 class configuration, since one can already put 800 in a 380 with an all economy class configuration today ) ?
RL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4537 posts, RR: 13 Reply 1, posted (5 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 21004 times:
If they want to pay to upgrade the airports to accomodate such an aircraft then fine. My guess is by the time such an aircraft would exist that we would also have aircraft capable of making the DXB connection unnecessary.
Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26676 posts, RR: 83 Reply 3, posted (5 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 20413 times:
I've seen dual-deck BWB concepts that seat around 1000 in three classes so I expect that is the future when it comes to UHCAs (Ultra High Capacity Airplanes).
ASA From Bangladesh, joined Dec 2010, 378 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (5 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 19810 times:
Quoting leftyboarder (Reply 2): Another decade? Nah! Give it until Christmas for Santa to drop it down the chimney.
I don't think it needs a long wait at all - EK can just convert the cargo holds into windowless passenger cabins ... or rather sleeping cabins, like the crew rest areas ... and VOILA!!! charge them a premium for sleeper class
MaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 15717 posts, RR: 48 Reply 5, posted (5 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 19775 times:
Apparently someone got offended by my 380 comment , so let me say this: the market for very large aircraft is so limited now, how on earth would any manufacturer risk any money developing something larger?
StickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 622 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (5 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 18841 times:
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 5): the market for very large aircraft is so limited now, how on earth would any manufacturer risk any money developing something larger?
Whatever EK wants, it will have to be a plausible derivative of the 380 - otherwise it just won't happen.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9135 posts, RR: 96 Reply 8, posted (5 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 18593 times:
Quoting Mortyman (Thread starter): How close would a possible 380 900 or 1000 version come to this ( I am guessing EK wan't 3 class configuration, since one can already put 800 in a 380 with an all economy class configuration today ) ?
The supposed "double-stretch" 85m A380-1000 "S U-H" should fit about 670 seats in a configuration equivalent to their 517 seats on their A380-800's.
That's about the same as putting 390 in a 748i, or 300 in a 777-300ER
Putting 800 into such an A380-1000 would be the same as about 475 on a 748i or 375 on a 777-300ER
On the same basis as the 853 seat capacity for the A380-800, it would be certified for 1 080 seats
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 7): Whatever EK wants, it will have to be a plausible derivative of the 380 - otherwise it just won't happen.
Not in the next 20 years for certain.
I can't see a plane of that capacity being a "tube with wings" personally.
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 4989 posts, RR: 29 Reply 9, posted (5 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 18059 times:
I think this story has more to do with the fact that EK doesn't like to be out of the news for very long more than a serious request, or wish, for an aircraft type.
Flying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4111 posts, RR: 39 Reply 11, posted (5 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 15960 times:
Quoting autothrust (Reply 10):
The A380 size itself was a huge challange. (tranport of parts, assembly, separation issues, noise, pavement load,evacuation etc..)
They can forget it, unless they use a A380-900 in single class layout.
Would certainly take quite a bit of modifications, but the idea of using part of the hold as an extra deck is not too far-fetched. At the end of the day Airbus did already do this with the A340-600, where the washing rooms were put into the hold area. Would certainly require extra doors, windows atc - and the downsite is a reduced (aka non-existent) cargo capacity.
For people-mover flights such as UAE to India this could, however, be a workable option in the medium term.
brilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3163 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 14050 times:
Who would want to fly such a behemoth? The boarding process is bad enough now, imagine what adding another 200 people to that. Never going to happen. Which airline apart from EK, I guess would even want such a plane with the present aircraft being hard pressed to fill what they have on a regular basis.
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7721 posts, RR: 73 Reply 13, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 13746 times:
Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 11): Would certainly take quite a bit of modifications, but the idea of using part of the hold as an extra deck is not too far-fetched.
Was it on the DC-8 that they had the underfloor smoking lounge ? It has been done before, Lufthansa has their toilets on the A340 under the main deck.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10647 posts, RR: 100 Reply 14, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 13592 times:
Quoting Mortyman (Thread starter): However, he said it would likely take at least another decade for a triple-decker style plane to be developed.
Won't happen. As already noted, by the time the market is ready for such an airframe, it will be a BWB.
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 5): how on earth would any manufacturer risk any money developing something larger?
Development work is going on with BWBs which have amazing economics for large passenger loads. Due to the longer chord of the wings, the BWBs will be the better configuration for over 600 unless it is the Udvar-Hazy A389 in the mid-term. Long term it will be the BWB.
Quoting astuteman (Reply 8): The supposed "double-stretch" 85m A380-1000 "S U-H" should fit about 670 seats in a configuration equivalent to their 517 seats on their A380-800's.
Which is why one won't see anything bigger. It is a question of when we have a longer A380 and what length. 80m to 87m is the potential range and I think Airbus will go big and follow Udvar Hazy's advice.
Quoting astuteman (Reply 8): I can't see a plane of that capacity being a "tube with wings" personally.
Agreed. Not with the FAA informally telling airframers that certain exit concepts from BWBs will be approved (assuming the airframer is willing to do the evacuation test).
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3582 posts, RR: 36 Reply 15, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 13591 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 13): It has been done before, Lufthansa has their toilets on the A340 under the main deck.
Yes they do. And that works perfectly fine. Then again, a full triple deck A380 is not going to happen, but the A380-1000 as one time proposed by Steven Udvar-Hazy might see the light of day some day. Though first we will wait for the A380-900, which we could see entering service in 2020 or so. .
YYZYYT From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 852 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 12982 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 13): Was it on the DC-8 that they had the underfloor smoking lounge ? It has been done before, Lufthansa has their toilets on the A340 under the main deck.
L1011 - no pictures of the interior of the lounge, but some references to the lounge:
MrCazzy From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 35 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (5 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 12850 times:
appart from the huge size and time it would take for this aircraft to be developed it would not be worth the time and money for whoever develops the aircraft, it would be such a large plane that there would not be nearly enough airlines who want such a big plane.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26676 posts, RR: 83 Reply 19, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 12581 times:
Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 11): Would certainly take quite a bit of modifications, but the idea of using part of the hold as an extra deck is not too far-fetched.
McD did a study for an MD-11 with a "Panorama Deck" that would have had a passenger compartment in the forward hold. Their mock-up had First Class in this area.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16803 posts, RR: 57 Reply 22, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 10194 times:
Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 11): Would certainly take quite a bit of modifications, but the idea of using part of the hold as an extra deck is not too far-fetched.
Until you get to the bit where you have to cut extra holes in the fuselage for emergency egress. And the bit where you now have no cargo capacity.
YULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 6 Reply 23, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 9986 times:
Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 1): If they want to pay to upgrade the airports to accomodate such an aircraft then fine. My guess is by the time such an aircraft would exist that we would also have aircraft capable of making the DXB connection unnecessary.
In an aviation market that is becoming increasingly hub-oriented (which, like it or not, is the current situation), there will never be a real need for ultra-long-haul longer than the longest routes are today.
It is much less economical to carry relatively few passengers with a whole lot of fuel used up to carry the extra weight of the extra fuel that keeps you running longer, than it is to carry many more passengers at once, between 2 hubs, in an aircraft that is not used at its full range capability.
Most people transiting at DXB are between 2 flights that could already be flown as one non-stop by 'regular' l-h a/c such as A330 or 777 (not talking 772LR), but are not because of lack of demand to warrant a flight, or at least lack of demand to justify a cheap flight.
And there are plenty of people who fly A-DXB-B when there have always been direct A-B flights anyway, because adding the flight change allows for cheaper fares.
People want to fly for cheap, this is all what matters. Yes, this includes business people as companies are not willing to throw too much money in plane tickets either.
So... triple deckers.. yes perhaps but not for at least 20-30 years or so when the A380 becomes used up to the bone and obsolete. I sort of anticipate a triple-aisle before a triple-decker, however...
Vimanav From India, joined Jul 2003, 1470 posts, RR: 20 Reply 24, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 9948 times:
Given that current designs more have the payload and range capabilities to go nearly from anywhere to anywhere non-stop or with one stop, the new challenge and focus should be on speed. Considering that speed would come at a pretty high rate of fuel burn, an alternative cheaper fuel source will have to be developed. Once that is done, the premiums would be driven by aircraft that could do LON NYC in an hour or SIN LAX in two. So my personal expectation for future growth is in the realms of speed more than size.
brgds//Vimanav
Sarfaroshi kii tamannaa ab hamaare dil mein hai, Dekhnaa hai zor kitnaa baazu-e-qaatil mein hai
25 N62NA: I think the only supersonic aircraft that we'll be seeing for civilian use in the remainder of this century will be biz-jets. 500 miles per hour is "
26 flybynight: Instead of bigger, I would prefer to see faster. If supersonic (and I am not taking about Seattle's former NBA team) can be made more effecient than t
27 flyingturtle: I found it strange that nobody mentioned the Stratocruiser... David
28 fanofjets: The way I look at it, if J.K. Rowling and the cinema folks could come up with a triple-decker bus for the Harry Potter series, why not a triple-decker
30 SEPilot: I cannot see any rational airframe manufacturer putting up the kind of money required for a new VLA unless and until the market for them is much stron
31 musapapaya: What EK wants is a flying city, like a big cruise ship but in the air - I hope they know what they are talking about.....
32 francoflier: Not to mention that any investment in such aircraft would only be covered by EK's potential need for it, as they seem to be the only takers out there
33 kanban: check out the A390 in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8ZrZ...er&playnext=1&list=RD04h6lGe5IlAds later on in the same video is a mul
34 KC135Hydraulics: There's another deck on an A340?! Pictures of this, please!
36 ODwyerPW: Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. I've been avoiding any stories featuring FR, AI or EK recently, for that reason.
37 macsog6: Over the years, speed was always the deciding factor, witness BA's call sign "Speedbird". As soon as someone figures out how to produce an engine tha
38 HB-IWC: While there may be some desire for media attention behind this announcement, do not underestimate the saturation issues which EK is facing and which
39 JoeCanuck: All EK has to do to get themselves any kind of plane they want is to pay for it. If they want to pony up for a triple decker, then somebody will make
40 lightsaber: Which is why for *some* large airlines, they will need VLAs. Most people want to maximize the value of their time (e.g., sleep on a flight), so certa
41 JoeCanuck: Yes and no. Airbus went through a lot of trouble to make the -1000 bigger and more capable just for customers like EK, then EK goes and disses them i
42 LGWflyer: If Airbus would build such a plane i'd want it to be called the A3000EK (Emirates Edition) At least they are not being way over the top unlike what FR
43 JoeCanuck: I'm not even criticising EK. They are promoting their airline at every turn in a crowded, cutthroat market. EK's actions have forced a lot of changes
44 LGWflyer: Yeah I know, I wasn't even thinking of that don't worry. Yes EK are one of the major players in the airline industry, they are certainly trying to be
45 JoeCanuck: True...it's a mixed blessing but generally, the airlines that fail were bound to anyway. If EK didn't get them, Ryanair would. The glamour is gone, I
46 LGWflyer: Yes a shame it has come to this. Also now there does not seem to be many new airlines succeeding straight off the bat, as they have fierce competitio
47 lightsaber: Airbus changed the A350-1000 to specifications other than what EK wanted. EK wanted the most economical Europe to DXB hauler and other -1000 buyers d
Sponsor Message: 
From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3225 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4537 posts, 
From Turkey, joined Apr 2008, 647 posts, 
From Bangladesh, joined Dec 2010, 378 posts, 
, so let me say this: the market for very large aircraft is so limited now, how on earth would any manufacturer risk any money developing something larger?
From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 3890 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9135 posts, 
From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 4989 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1480 posts, 
From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4111 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7721 posts, 
Which is why one won't see anything bigger. It is a question of when we have a longer A380 and what length. 80m to 87m is the potential range and I think Airbus will go big and follow Udvar Hazy's advice.
From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3582 posts, 
From India, joined Jul 2003, 1470 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
