Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
dubaiamman243 wrote:Airbus is examining new ways for reviving the A380 sales by launching a new program called 'A380-plus'. The new program will enable Airbus to add 50 seats to the jet while modifying the staircase onboard and adding fuel-saving wingtips, as it aims to lower the operating costs and ensuring extra fuel efficiency by 2%.
Quote:
"Beyond the new tweaks, the health of the programme depends on getting costs low enough so that Airbus can keep output ticking over at 12 a year without losing money, while it waits for what it hopes will be a rise in demand as air travel grows."
Do you fellow members think that the new plan will lure airlines who operate the A380 to keep their planes for a longer period or attracting new airlines? Why is Airbus still putting hopes on the A380 program?
Source: http://gulfnews.com/business/aviation/a ... -1.1990639
LovePrunesAnet wrote:airbus gambled on a380 and lost...huge capacity and huge price tag on single plane with low frequency vs
smaller capacity and lower price tag and higher frequency.
i know the a380 has its fanboys but this is just putting lipstick on a pig
dubaiamman243 wrote:I don't think more seats is going to help.Airbus is examining new ways for reviving the A380 sales by launching a new program called 'A380-plus'. The new program will enable Airbus to add 50 seats to the jet while modifying the staircase onboard and adding fuel-saving wingtips, as it aims to lower the operating costs and ensuring extra fuel efficiency by 2%.
Quote:
"Beyond the new tweaks, the health of the programme depends on getting costs low enough so that Airbus can keep output ticking over at 12 a year without losing money, while it waits for what it hopes will be a rise in demand as air travel grows."
Do you fellow members think that the new plan will lure airlines who operate the A380 to keep their planes for a longer period or attracting new airlines? Why is Airbus still putting hopes on the A380 program?
Source: http://gulfnews.com/business/aviation/a ... -1.1990639
lightsaber wrote:Winglets, 11-across Y, and a staircase? We're.. Not enough IMHO.
Lightsaber
DfwRevolution wrote:lightsaber wrote:Winglets, 11-across Y, and a staircase? We're.. Not enough IMHO.
Lightsaber
It is certainly possible that Airbus could devise an NPV-positive product enhancement without fundamentally changing the prospects of the A380 program. After all, ANY positive NPV project should be pursued by rationale management.
dubaiamman243 wrote:Why is Airbus still putting hopes on the A380 program?
downdata wrote:LovePrunesAnet wrote:airbus gambled on a380 and lost...huge capacity and huge price tag on single plane with low frequency vs
smaller capacity and lower price tag and higher frequency.
i know the a380 has its fanboys but this is just putting lipstick on a pig
And Yet Boeing is spending billions developing the 779 which has higher CASM than the 380 in some configurations. Its easy to be sceptical and dismissive. Market conditions change all the time. If what you said is true than A/B should never make another airplane bigger then the 787/A330.
rotating14 wrote:His point was that Boeing bet on more point to point travel with the 787. Airbus thought that the major hubs would be too congested with limited gate space, and with that, the A380 would alleviate this dilemma. But Boeing’s bet, albeit expensive, lengthy and problematic at times, seems to have paid off. One isn't better than the other, one just beat the other to the punch.
hongkongflyer wrote:If I am correct, no airline is currently using the 380 at their full capacity.
No one will be impressed by the new additional 50 seats lor.
Strato2 wrote:rotating14 wrote:His point was that Boeing bet on more point to point travel with the 787. Airbus thought that the major hubs would be too congested with limited gate space, and with that, the A380 would alleviate this dilemma. But Boeing’s bet, albeit expensive, lengthy and problematic at times, seems to have paid off. One isn't better than the other, one just beat the other to the punch.
But has it? Can you show how many new p2p routes has the 787 opened? I think Boeing was wrong. The 787 is mostly plying exactly the same routes as planes before it.
barney captain wrote:Strato2 wrote:rotating14 wrote:His point was that Boeing bet on more point to point travel with the 787. Airbus thought that the major hubs would be too congested with limited gate space, and with that, the A380 would alleviate this dilemma. But Boeing’s bet, albeit expensive, lengthy and problematic at times, seems to have paid off. One isn't better than the other, one just beat the other to the punch.
But has it? Can you show how many new p2p routes has the 787 opened? I think Boeing was wrong. The 787 is mostly plying exactly the same routes as planes before it.
AUS-LHR immediately comes to mind. What about MAN-PVR? (I saw two 787's in PVR just yesterday) SJC-PEK? SJC-LHR? These are just off of the top of my head.
I think it's safe to say the 787 has opened many new p2p markets.
Strato2 wrote:But has it? Can you show how many new p2p routes has the 787 opened? I think Boeing was wrong. The 787 is mostly plying exactly the same routes as planes before it.
rotating14 wrote:downdata wrote:LovePrunesAnet wrote:airbus gambled on a380 and lost...huge capacity and huge price tag on single plane with low frequency vs
smaller capacity and lower price tag and higher frequency.
i know the a380 has its fanboys but this is just putting lipstick on a pig
And Yet Boeing is spending billions developing the 779 which has higher CASM than the 380 in some configurations. Its easy to be sceptical and dismissive. Market conditions change all the time. If what you said is true than A/B should never make another airplane bigger then the 787/A330.
His point was that Boeing bet on more point to point travel with the 787. Airbus thought that the major hubs would be too congested with limited gate space, and with that, the A380 would alleviate this dilemma. But Boeing’s bet, albeit expensive, lengthy and problematic at times, seems to have paid off. One isn't better than the other, one just beat the other to the punch.
barney captain wrote:Strato2 wrote:But has it? Can you show how many new p2p routes has the 787 opened? I think Boeing was wrong. The 787 is mostly plying exactly the same routes as planes before it.
AUS-LHR immediately comes to mind. What about MAN-PVR? (I saw two 787's in PVR just yesterday) SJC-PEK? SJC-LHR? These are just off of the top of my head.
I think it's safe to say the 787 has opened many new p2p markets.
SYDSpotter wrote:In terms of new P2P routes, the upcoming QF PER-LHR route is one example of a ultra long haul p2p route made viable by the B787.
SYDSpotter wrote:Well if Boeing was wrong, then Airbus is also wrong given they subsequently developed the A350. Both the B787 and A350 have sold in large numbers, so if that means Boeing/Airbus got it wrong, then I'd like to know what your definition of success is !!
Slug71 wrote:It's supposedly getting redesigned wings optimized for the stretch and will have raked ends with blended winglets like the A330NEO wings. Supposed to use a lot more composites too.
barney captain wrote:Strato2 wrote:But has it? Can you show how many new p2p routes has the 787 opened? I think Boeing was wrong. The 787 is mostly plying exactly the same routes as planes before it.
AUS-LHR immediately comes to mind. What about MAN-PVR? (I saw two 787's in PVR just yesterday) SJC-PEK? SJC-LHR? These are just off of the top of my head.
I think it's safe to say the 787 has opened many new p2p markets.
SYDSpotter wrote:Strato2 wrote:But has it? Can you show how many new p2p routes has the 787 opened? I think Boeing was wrong. The 787 is mostly plying exactly the same routes as planes before it.
Well if Boeing was wrong, then Airbus is also wrong given they subsequently developed the A350. Both the B787 and A350 have sold in large numbers, so if that means Boeing/Airbus got it wrong, then I'd like to know what your definition of success is !!
In terms of new P2P routes, the upcoming QF PER-LHR route is one example of a ultra long haul p2p route made viable by the B787.
Dutchy wrote:We'll see if anyone is going to order it. 2% decrease in fuel seems attractive, as the 50 extra seats, might be interesting to some, but the more seats you put on a road, the average price will be driven down. So the 10% reduction in CSAM in a standard configuration might not be enough to offset it.
frigatebird wrote:Dutchy wrote:We'll see if anyone is going to order it. 2% decrease in fuel seems attractive, as the 50 extra seats, might be interesting to some, but the more seats you put on a road, the average price will be driven down. So the 10% reduction in CSAM in a standard configuration might not be enough to offset it.
Well, that's the point isn't it? Of course, the 50 extra seats would reduce CASM significantly, but I haven't heard any airline complaining the A380's problem is lack of seats.
Not even EK. Of course, if offered, EK would be the first to be interested. And I believe these changes are aimed to entice EK investing further in the A380, placing a follow up order to replace a second batch of GP7200 powered A380s. With an already lower production rate planned, this might enable Airbus to bridge the cap to a point in time where an A380neo will be attractive to launch (this is when other airlines than EK and SQ will start thinking about replacing their current A380s).
It will indeed interesting to see if the proposed changes will result in a new A380 order. If so, it may rescue the A380 program. But I'm skeptical. I wouldn't be surprised if Boeing is already talking to A380 operators about a 777-10X, which IMO would be large enough for some (AF, TG, CZ, QF, KE) to replace their A380 fleet.
frigatebird wrote:Dutchy wrote:We'll see if anyone is going to order it. 2% decrease in fuel seems attractive, as the 50 extra seats, might be interesting to some, but the more seats you put on a road, the average price will be driven down. So the 10% reduction in CSAM in a standard configuration might not be enough to offset it.
Well, that's the point isn't it? Of course, the 50 extra seats would reduce CASM significantly, but I haven't heard any airline complaining the A380's problem is lack of seats.
Not even EK.
Dutchy wrote:Only CX really wanted the A380-900, but I guess that train has passed a long time ago.
barney captain wrote:
AUS-LHR immediately comes to mind. What about MAN-PVR? (I saw two 787's in PVR just yesterday) SJC-PEK? SJC-LHR? These are just off of the top of my head.
I think it's safe to say the 787 has opened many new p2p markets.
airbazar wrote:barney captain wrote:
AUS-LHR immediately comes to mind. What about MAN-PVR? (I saw two 787's in PVR just yesterday) SJC-PEK? SJC-LHR? These are just off of the top of my head.
I think it's safe to say the 787 has opened many new p2p markets.
Those are all HUB-2-p routes. The same exact type of routes that have always existed.
KarelXWB wrote:airbazar wrote:barney captain wrote:
AUS-LHR immediately comes to mind. What about MAN-PVR? (I saw two 787's in PVR just yesterday) SJC-PEK? SJC-LHR? These are just off of the top of my head.
I think it's safe to say the 787 has opened many new p2p markets.
Those are all HUB-2-p routes. The same exact type of routes that have always existed.
And the hubs became bigger and bigger. People argued the 787 would make hubs to disappear... which clearly never happened.
77west wrote:Hang on - remove the staircase? I know there is another one at the back, but I thought the staircase also acted as an emergency evac route which legally allows passengers in the front bit of the upper deck with no door in front of them. Perhaps they will install a ladder...
frigatebird wrote:Dutchy wrote:We'll see if anyone is going to order it. 2% decrease in fuel seems attractive, as the 50 extra seats, might be interesting to some, but the more seats you put on a road, the average price will be driven down. So the 10% reduction in CSAM in a standard configuration might not be enough to offset it.
Well, that's the point isn't it? Of course, the 50 extra seats would reduce CASM significantly, but I haven't heard any airline complaining the A380's problem is lack of seats.
“When we did the A380 in the early days I don’t think we optimized the space as best we could,” Clark said. “We were faced with a 500-seater and that is an awful lot of seats...but the demand for it is so strong that we now have to take the two decks back to bare metal and rebuild them."
hongkongflyer wrote:If I am correct, no airline is currently using the 380 at their full capacity.
No one will be impressed by the new additional 50 seats lor.
ro1960 wrote:77west wrote:Hang on - remove the staircase? I know there is another one at the back, but I thought the staircase also acted as an emergency evac route which legally allows passengers in the front bit of the upper deck with no door in front of them. Perhaps they will install a ladder...
Read again: it's "modify" not "remove". The article says Airbus is looking at a "slimmed down staircase".
rotating14 wrote:dubaiamman243 wrote:Why is Airbus still putting hopes on the A380 program?
Because they have to. Abandoning the program would cost them billions of dollars, thousands of egos and a slice of humble pie. They're valiantly trying to squeeze all that's left in the A380 but I don't think there's much more to squeeze.
RickNRoll wrote:rotating14 wrote:dubaiamman243 wrote:Why is Airbus still putting hopes on the A380 program?
Because they have to. Abandoning the program would cost them billions of dollars, thousands of egos and a slice of humble pie. They're valiantly trying to squeeze all that's left in the A380 but I don't think there's much more to squeeze.
It won't cost them billions. They have already written off the costs.
olle wrote:Ones I would like to see how an EK A380 with these additional 50 seats with the RR PIP3 compares to the first A380 delivered to the EK. That number will be critical to show if EK will purchase the A380 plus or keep the current batches of A380.
JerseyFlyer wrote:Most of this is natural evolution to optimise capacity.
The reference to wingtips is interesting, probably a bigger investment than tinkering with the staircase and 11-abreast layouts, but such developments have been part of the evolution of many other programmes in the past.