Putting together the Ostrower and Leeham reports it's clear there's now an issue around the 78J summer performance out of Dubai. Leeham did a detailed analysis of the numbers before the original 78J MoU was announced and explained the issues around performance in the heat. Sounds as if that analysis might have been pretty solid.

We're seeing different accounts of whether it's the 359 or the 330neo that's now under consideration. Either is plausible. The 359 has the big wing and no shortage of thrust. It's heavier/more capable than what EK might want for a regional aircraft – but there's always the option of buying a regional variant, like SQ, in the knowledge there's thrust available to do eight to ten hour sectors with the payloads EK needs. The 330neo likewise has a big wing (= better takeoff performance) and a bit more headroom on thrust (because it's a smaller/lighter aircraft than the 78J). For an EK-sized order Airbus will also sharpen their pencil on price. And EK are already familiar with the aircraft. Wouldn't rule it out if EK want some cheap lift.

The 787-10 is just a terrible aircraft, why any sane airline would order is beyond me.

<sarcasm now off>

Right now this is a dance between Airbus, RR, EK, Boeing, and GE. What each of these parties wants and can do is being brought to the table. How can EK stop having the 380, what it needs for a fleet if it is unavailable, and how to soften the delivery schedule as EK is not growing like it was 5 years ago. Airbus probably wants to shut the 380 line before all of the real backlog is delivered (those other ghost orders will soon be cancelled), but that takes some dancing with EK as well as RR to stop some of the 380s that are about to enter parts production.

I would expect EK to take other Airbus planes to replace the current 380 order if they are wanting to delay deliveries. If it is Airbus wanting to deliver less 380's to EK then EK wants, that probably would not result in any Airbus orders except at a very good deal.

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

scbriml wrote:

They can't cancel an order they haven't placed! EK has let LOI/MOU lapse in the past, so it shouldn't be that shocking.

Leeham news are suggesting that the 78X is still underpowered for EK's requirements.

https://leehamnews.com/2019/02/04/ponti ... -emirates/

But Emirates’ interest in the A350 stems more from a realization the Boeing 787-10 won’t do the job the airline wants, according to the sideline conversation at the conference.

Yet neighbouring Etihad is experiencing NO issues with its 787-10s....so I call BS on that front.

And EY's 787-10s are duel class I believe, so not exactly lightly loaded machines.

and Leeham reported that market intelligence says EY wants out from remaining 78J order

https://leehamnews.com/2019/02/04/ponti ... ent-250274

kevin5345179 wrote:

and Leeham reported that market intelligence says EY wants out from remaining 78J order

That is said to be due to EY's financial situation, not 787-10 performance.

AsiaTravel wrote:

I find it baffling that EK would order a type without making sure it can fly out of DXB at all times. Unless the order is conditional to an engine improvement but we see how this is going with RR and the A380.

The 787 MoU was an effort to unlock negotiations with GE/EA to bid meaningfully again on the A380, and act as a wake up call to RR.

Boeing knew the back story, which is why they have been so muted on the prospect of delivering 787's to EK, and why engine negotiations haven't progressed. Unfortunately, so did all the other players, though a few EK pilots were fooled by leaked 787 documentation.

Deposit for the MoU? Wouldn't cover a fraction of one 777X.

Stitch wrote:

kevin5345179 wrote:

and Leeham reported that market intelligence says EY wants out from remaining 78J order

That is said to be due to EY's financial situation, not 787-10 performance.

while they take other -9 ? hum .......

Revelation wrote:

747-8i technically still can be ordered.

Apparently Boeing keeps it on the book because if they cancel it officially they have to write some checks to some of the vendors of the pax specific parts.

And a much larger cheque to LH.

The same issue exists with the Airbus and the A380. The buybacks on the A380 fleet so covered, cease to be contingent at the moment production ceases.

EK undoubtedly has a purchase price contract which has pre-agreed discounts for additional volume, a spiral that cannot be exited without agreement of both, but at a cost to one. RR as the late comer, may be in a different position.

At some point, Airbus might insist RR delivers, and provide financial assistance to cover lifetime performance compensation, or RR is used as the scapegoat to cause production shutdown.

Very likely RR will become a division of Airbus, sooner now than later.

kevin5345179 wrote:

while they take other -9 ? hum .......

Looking at the latest spreadsheets, they have one 787-9 ready for delivery and one undergoing assembly (both at CHS). If they rejected them, they'd incur penalties and forfeit monies already spent.

I am surprised that Airbus has apparently NOT included the sidewall sculpting they developed for the A350 Mk 1 into the 330neo.

It would better accommodate 9-across economy seating for "regional" flying, which might be just enough to tip this sort of order towards Airbus.

I Doubt rr will become part of ab but I’m curious about thinking why they will.

Its interesting that long haul, international carriers continue to reduce capacity while just last week on these very some boards some were taking exception to my statement that international yields are collapsing/weak.

AsiaTravel wrote:

There are no evidences for or against it and EY's 781 haven't flown in summer yet. For all we know Etihad might be limited on some routes or can only fly full load in the morning or they just don't have any issue. Anything right know is speculation. Time will tell.

So as of now, no one knows how the 787-10 is performing for EY, penalties or no, do they keep such info under wraps?

Eyad89 wrote:

AECM wrote:

A339NEO

Span: 64 m
Mean chord: 7.270 m
Area: 465 m2
AR: 8.8
Thrust: 2 x 324.0 kN / 72,834 lbf

B78J

Span: 60.12 m
Mean chord: 6.27 m
Area: 377 m2
AR: 9.59
Thrust: 2 x 340 kN / 76,000 lbf

Airbus and Boeing have different ways of calculating wing area. Boeing’s method gives a smaller area than Airbus’s method while measuring the same area. So it won’t be right comparing those numbers without using the same method.

AR should be (effective span)^2/ area. A339’s effective span should be more than 64m since it has a blended winglet. 78X’s effective span should be less than 60m since it has a raked wingtip.

Wiki has the 330CEO at 361.2m2 wing - I don't think the new wingtips added 94m2 of wing area.

Planeflyer wrote:

I Doubt rr will become part of ab but I’m curious about thinking why they will.

Because RR Commercial provides 100% of Airbus WB engines, and GE almost 100% of Boeing WB engines.

When RR catches a cold, so does Airbus. And ditto Boeing, when problems occur at GE.

Both companies futures / ownership are in doubt - RR because of compensation and rectification costs, and GE because the parent reluctantly has to divest it's two cash cows to satisfy financiers (or sell all it's lesser performers).

We've seen both A & B become proactive with ownership of key suppliers.

The trend to mega customers splitting air frame and engine negotiations, has resulted in air frame OEM's negotiating (pleading) with engine OEM's to protect air frame sales and vice versa. If you are going to transfer profits and credits to secure sales between OEM's, you may as well control and own the entire shooting match.

The unknown, and probably most contentious, is what happens for NB engines. Does RR acquire PW Commercial, or just a subset (NB engines only), and GE acquire Safran, or just a subset (NB engines only)? Mitsubishi would object, so perhaps acquisition (or strategic shareholding) of the MRJ by Airbus removes that obstacle. A would object to B acquiring Safran, and for a high volume product line, B might like a PW option for the 737 in future (imagine if the NEO didn't have dual supply, or the MAX used PW exclusively instead of the LEAP?).

It's just a natural progression of what's happened from the day the first aircraft, engine, car, tyre, etc was built. Mega airlines are part of the reason suppliers and support industries must re-invent themselves and form mega groups. And vice versa.

smartplane wrote:

Because RR Commercial provides 100% of Airbus WB engines, and GE almost 100% of Boeing WB engines.

When RR catches a cold, so does Airbus. And ditto Boeing, when problems occur at GE.

RR's portfolio of products goes well beyond WB engines supplied to A, granted they are probably the most significant source of revenue. A acquiring RR will be taking on a lot of deadweight and distractions in managing them when they should be focusing on their own end of things building the airframes and managing their own projects. I mean this isn't as easy as absorbing a struggling cabin parts maker or something similar to it. Powerplant manufacturing is far more complex, much more resource-intensive, and in itself deals with a vast number of sub-suppliers, not to mention the amount of risk involved.

Erebus wrote:

smartplane wrote:

Because RR Commercial provides 100% of Airbus WB engines, and GE almost 100% of Boeing WB engines.

When RR catches a cold, so does Airbus. And ditto Boeing, when problems occur at GE.

RR's portfolio of products goes well beyond WB engines supplied to A, granted they are probably the most significant source of revenue. A acquiring RR will be taking on a lot of deadweight and distractions in managing them when they should be focusing on their own end of things building the airframes and managing their own projects. I mean this isn't as easy as absorbing a struggling cabin parts maker or something similar to it. Powerplant manufacturing is far more complex, much more resource-intensive, and in itself deals with a vast number of sub-suppliers, not to mention the amount of risk involved.

Good points, engines and ac are very different businesses. I guess it could happen but that is o lot of concentrated risk.

I don't think either deal would pass regulatory muster on either side of the Atlantic. Remember that P&W and Boeing were basically the same company once (along with United and Hamilton Standard) and the U.S. feds forced it to be broken up.

ClipperYankee wrote:

I don't think either deal would pass regulatory muster on either side of the Atlantic. Remember that P&W and Boeing were basically the same company once (along with United and Hamilton Standard) and the U.S. feds forced it to be broken up.

They were separated 80 plus years ago. There have been a lot of acquisitions and mergers since. The World is very different, including the size of customers.

emiratesdriver wrote:

smartplane wrote:

emiratesdriver wrote:

The 'widely accepted' breakeven LF's seems a bit economic with the truth, given the difference in the number of non-Y seats on these two models (assuming both V1). Using the latest reported financials, if the LF / breakeven calculation treats every seat as Y, you can get close to the not top secret numbers. Assuming upgrades and points use are at similar ratios, 80% LF in business (89% more seats) and first (75% more seats) paints a different picture.

I’m not going to engage in a tit for tat prove this etc discussion that is typical for this wesite. I will say that the numbers are accurate, generic and widely known around EK.
They have been produced by EK and distributed around the organisation.
I accept that there will always be some variance between types, but no airline would produce a document to specifically identify individual airframes in the fleet.

I'd be cautious about reiterating the rumours floating around as truth!

Interestingly when you do calculate the numbers, EK is no worse off than the likes of SQ, with EK operating a much higher proportion of 380s.

SQ's 2017/18 CASK: (0.084 SGD ) 0.064 USD on March 31, 2018
EK's 2017/18 CASK: (0.234 AED) 0.064 USD on March 31, 2018

At SQ, fuel costs made up 27.3% of operating costs.
At EK, fuel costs made up 28.0% of operating costs.

SQ's 380 fleet proportion: 17/107 (16%) as at March 31, 2018
EK's 380 fleet proportion 102/268 (38%) as at March 31, 2018

Per unit cost, I'm not sure how one could argue that the break-even LF on the 380 is so significantly higher at EK. A like-for-like comparison with SQ (also all WB fleet) shows that even with a much higher proportion (over double) of 380s, SQ and EK are pretty much equal on a unit cost basis. You would think that if EK's 380s had such a higher break-even load factor, the resulting unit costs would be skew the airline's overall unit costs.

The biggest winner of all of this is gonna be the 747-8. Boeing is not as stupid as Airbus to willingly throw away a massive order, this is Boeing's order to lose.

sonicruiser wrote:

The biggest winner of all of this is gonna be the 747-8. Boeing is not as stupid as Airbus to willingly throw away a massive order, this is Boeing's order to lose.

This B747-8 fever is getting worse and worse by day.....

Boeing kill B747-8i with B777-9. Just like how Boeing kill the previous B747 with B777-300ER.....

I still can't believe how people still thinks Emirates would order B747-8 instead of B777-9.

ewt340 wrote:

sonicruiser wrote:

The biggest winner of all of this is gonna be the 747-8. Boeing is not as stupid as Airbus to willingly throw away a massive order, this is Boeing's order to lose.

This B747-8 fever is getting worse and worse by day.....

Boeing kill B747-8i with B777-9. Just like how Boeing kill the previous B747 with B777-300ER.....

I still can't believe how people still thinks Emirates would order B747-8 instead of B777-9.

Has to be a typo on the model, giving the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise, as written it is absurd.

747-8i is dead either way (a 777-10x would be almost the same pax numbers, and the 777-9 is only 50 less)

If, as everyone seems to predict here, the A380 is dead, do you think Airbus will release some of the A380 Plus enhancements as retrofit options (particularly Winglets and 11-across economy)?

Could possibly add some life and value to the existing fleet in a shutdown scenario, and allow Airbus to recoup some R&D dollars.

moa999 wrote:

If, as everyone seems to predict here, the A380 is dead, do you think Airbus will release some of the A380 Plus enhancements as retrofit options (particularly Winglets and 11-across economy)?

Could possibly add some life and value to the existing fleet in a shutdown scenario, and allow Airbus to recoup some R&D dollars.

The new winglet has to come with wing twist, and IIRC, EK in the past publicly stated that they don’t want 11 abreast seating.

So not likely.

moa999 wrote:

747-8i is dead either way.

It aint over til the fat lady sings.

I could see the 747-8 still in production as a freighter after the A380 ends production.

The NMA engines would make a good option to re-engine the 747-8 in 10 years time. It would give a big boost as a freighter and without the A380 on the market it might gain momentum as a passenger aircraft.

I'm curious how many aircraft Boeing would have to pay to cover tge development of a straight engine upgrade.

The 747 freighter is certainly not dead for the time being. Think Amazon. They haven't even started yet.
However as all those 777-300ER will come to the freighter conversion market soon they might kill 747F freighter demand from below.

RJMAZ wrote:

moa999 wrote:

747-8i is dead either way.

It aint over til the fat lady sings.

I could see the 747-8 still in production as a freighter after the A380 ends production.

The NMA engines would make a good option to re-engine the 747-8 in 10 years time. It would give a big boost as a freighter and without the A380 on the market it might gain momentum as a passenger aircraft.

I'm curious how many aircraft Boeing would have to pay to cover tge development of a straight engine upgrade.

Who in their right mind would want a 747-8 Max when the 777-x can meet 95% of the requirements with two fewer engines?

The passenger version of the 747-8 sold about 50 copies. It’s not getting re engined.

morrisond wrote:

Wiki has the 330CEO at 361.2m2 wing - I don't think the new wingtips added 94m2 of wing area.

No it does not. AR for the NEO wing should be well beyond the 10.05 of the CEO wing.
( I' ve stumbled across an increasing number of "strange" edits on Wikipedia.)

Killing A380 will probably push Airbus for a A350-1100NEO around 2025. with Emirates will then sit as the major customer for B779. with. A350-1100 neo will there be a market for 779 outside emirates?

lightsaber wrote:

Erebus wrote:

smartplane wrote:

Because RR Commercial provides 100% of Airbus WB engines, and GE almost 100% of Boeing WB engines.

When RR catches a cold, so does Airbus. And ditto Boeing, when problems occur at GE.

RR's portfolio of products goes well beyond WB engines supplied to A, granted they are probably the most significant source of revenue. A acquiring RR will be taking on a lot of deadweight and distractions in managing them when they should be focusing on their own end of things building the airframes and managing their own projects. I mean this isn't as easy as absorbing a struggling cabin parts maker or something similar to it. Powerplant manufacturing is far more complex, much more resource-intensive, and in itself deals with a vast number of sub-suppliers, not to mention the amount of risk involved.

Pratt would love it if Airbus bought RR, it would open the high end business jet market.

I personally think it would be a strategic mistake. No longer would Airbus bid RR/Pratt/GE or a joint venture. It lock out RR from future Boeing projects, at least bids before public disclosure. e.g., competitors would have a multi year head start designing for a new Airframe.

Since this is an EK thread and they like good competition, it means in the future they would have to encourage ,(buy from) a new entrants.

RR also has expensive service contracts. Will their always be a good business case for it?

Lightsaber

The UK government still holds the golden share in RR so no-one can buy them.

Kindanew wrote:

Who in their right mind would want a 747-8 Max when the 777-x can meet 95% of the requirements with two fewer engines?

The passenger version of the 747-8 sold about 50 copies. It’s not getting re engined.

Cabin area and range:
777-9 - 364m2 7525nm
747-8 - 444m2 8000nm

The 777-10 stretched to 80m only has 385m2 and just manages to reach the 747-400.

The 747-8NEO would have a brochure range near 9000nm. On a 7000nm long haul flight the 747-8NEO could carry twice the payload weight of the 777-9.

That is a massive step up in size and range. Similar to going from the 767 to the 787 in size. Or going from the 787 to 777 in size.

Kindanew wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

moa999 wrote:

747-8i is dead either way.

It aint over til the fat lady sings.

I could see the 747-8 still in production as a freighter after the A380 ends production.

The NMA engines would make a good option to re-engine the 747-8 in 10 years time. It would give a big boost as a freighter and without the A380 on the market it might gain momentum as a passenger aircraft.

I'm curious how many aircraft Boeing would have to pay to cover tge development of a straight engine upgrade.

Who in their right mind would want a 747-8 Max when the 777-x can meet 95% of the requirements with two fewer engines?

The passenger version of the 747-8 sold about 50 copies. It’s not getting re engined.

Just 37 in airline service with three airlines.

Geoff

[photoid][/photoid]

RJMAZ wrote:

Kindanew wrote:

Who in their right mind would want a 747-8 Max when the 777-x can meet 95% of the requirements with two fewer engines?

The passenger version of the 747-8 sold about 50 copies. It’s not getting re engined.

Cabin area and range:
777-9 - 364m2 7525nm
747-8 - 444m2 8000nm

The 777-10 stretched to 80m only has 385m2 and just manages to reach the 747-400.

The 747-8NEO would have a brochure range near 9000nm. On a 7000nm long haul flight the 747-8NEO could carry twice the payload weight of the 777-9.

That is a massive step up in size and range. Similar to going from the 767 to the 787 in size. Or going from the 787 to 777 in size.

But who would want such a machine to transport passengers?

The passenger 747-8 is a flop and the trend in the industry is for planes to be getting smaller.

What makes you think a 747-8 max would be a success and not an A380 neo?

Kindanew wrote:

But who would want such a machine to transport passengers?

The passenger 747-8 is a flop and the trend in the industry is for planes to be getting smaller.

What makes you think a 747-8 max would be a success and not an A380 neo?

I think the VLA market is only big enough for one aircraft to sustain a profitable production rate.

From all reports the A380 makes a loss if it is built at 12 aircraft per month. Boeing can make the 747-8 at a profit at 12 aircraft a month. So if the VLA market can only support 12 aircraft a month then the 747 is the only one that can make it to 2040.

Airlines also like smaller aircraft. The 747-8 is actually half way between the 777 and A380 in size. This is an advantage to the 747.

The 747-8 has a better wing aspect ratio and a better fuselage fineness ratio than the A380. The A380NEO might need more than just new engines.

RJMAZ wrote:

Boeing can make the 747-8 at a profit at 12 aircraft a month. So if the VLA market can only support 12 aircraft a month then the 747 is the only one that can make it to 2040.

Airlines also like smaller aircraft. The 747-8 is actually half way between the 777 and A380 in size. This is an advantage to the 747.

The 747-8 has a better wing aspect ratio and a better fuselage fineness ratio than the A380.

Despite all those "advantages"...

Geoff1947 wrote:

Just 37 in airline service with three airlines.

In fact it's only 36, as one of Air China's is a VIP bird for the Government (B-2479 c/n 41193).

RJMAZ wrote:

Kindanew wrote:

But who would want such a machine to transport passengers?

The passenger 747-8 is a flop and the trend in the industry is for planes to be getting smaller.

What makes you think a 747-8 max would be a success and not an A380 neo?

I think the VLA market is only big enough for one aircraft to sustain a profitable production rate.

From all reports the A380 makes a loss if it is built at 12 aircraft per month. Boeing can make the 747-8 at a profit at 12 aircraft a month. So if the VLA market can only support 12 aircraft a month then the 747 is the only one that can make it to 2040.

Airlines also like smaller aircraft. The 747-8 is actually half way between the 777 and A380 in size. This is an advantage to the 747.

The 747-8 has a better wing aspect ratio and a better fuselage fineness ratio than the A380. The A380NEO might need more than just new engines.

If the passenger 747-8 has so many advantages over the A380, why has the A380 outsold it substantially?

331 firm orders vs 37?

Kindanew wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

Kindanew wrote:

But who would want such a machine to transport passengers?

The passenger 747-8 is a flop and the trend in the industry is for planes to be getting smaller.

What makes you think a 747-8 max would be a success and not an A380 neo?

I think the VLA market is only big enough for one aircraft to sustain a profitable production rate.

From all reports the A380 makes a loss if it is built at 12 aircraft per month. Boeing can make the 747-8 at a profit at 12 aircraft a month. So if the VLA market can only support 12 aircraft a month then the 747 is the only one that can make it to 2040.

Airlines also like smaller aircraft. The 747-8 is actually half way between the 777 and A380 in size. This is an advantage to the 747.

The 747-8 has a better wing aspect ratio and a better fuselage fineness ratio than the A380. The A380NEO might need more than just new engines.

If the passenger 747-8 has so many advantages over the A380, why has the A380 outsold it substantially?

331 firm orders vs 37?

The fact is, neither has sold particularly well. The twins have pretty much sounded the death knell to the big quads...at least as passenger aircraft. The 748F will likely sell a few more but it doesn't compete in any way with the 380.

The 777-9 will probably be significantly more efficient than either, and it isn't exactly flying off of the shelves.

It kind of seems to me that we may be getting close to the peak of airliner demand for this cycle. I won't be surprised if we see a lot more deferrals from a bunch more airlines in the near future. I suspect the downsizing won't be limited to just aircraft size...but numbers as well...with the single aisles being the most immune to this trend.

smartplane wrote:

It's just a natural progression of what's happened from the day the first aircraft, engine, car, tyre, etc was built. Mega airlines are part of the reason suppliers and support industries must re-invent themselves and form mega groups. And vice versa.

It's not such a sequential thing as you make it out to be. There are fads in management. Consider how Boeing owned what is now Spirit, Airbus owned what is now Premium Aerotech, etc. What was once vertical integration became horizontal integration. A new batch of MBAs get shat out of business school ( tip of the hat to the late great Mariner for an interesting set of posts on the 's' word, didn't know at the time he was a famous author! ) and strategy swings back around and the new fad becomes the kind of vertical integration you're talking up. The cynic in me recognizes how many side industries (parasites?) make money as the fad swings back and forth between vertical and horizontal, centralized and distributed, etc. It makes me feel they do things to generate such transitions, much in the way a few fashion houses pay off a few super models to wear an entirely different wardrobe so the rest of the world feels they need new clothes even though their closets are overflowing with perfectly good clothes.

Noshow wrote:

The 747 freighter is certainly not dead for the time being. Think Amazon. They haven't even started yet.
However as all those 777-300ER will come to the freighter conversion market soon they might kill 747F freighter demand from below.

The 748F and 77W converted freighters are for totally different markets. The 748F is for transporting freight long haul as efficiently as possible. The aircraft don't sit on the ground more than they have to. Converted 77W freighters would be heavily depreciated and not cost much to sit on the ground and fly 2 cycles per day. The real competitor for the 748F will be the 778F. Possibly even a 779F might make a good direct replacement for the 748F for airlines that aren't interested in overflying freight hubs like ANC.

RJMAZ wrote:

The 747-8 has a better wing aspect ratio and a better fuselage fineness ratio than the A380. The A380NEO might need more than just new engines.

It doesn't make sense to compare the aspect ratio of two different planes unless those planes have the same lift coefficient (or same wing loading in cruise when L=W) You can't just take two different planes with different weights and wing areas and then compare their aspect ratios. It doesn't work that way.

If you really want compare the induced drag of two different planes, then look at span loading^2.

If you see how the induced drag formula is derived, you will see that aspect ratio by itself has zero impact on induced drag. Aspect ratio is only relevant when you write it as a factor of a given lift coefficient, as in the induced drag coefficient equation. In that equation, if you write lift coefficient in its true form, aspect ratio simply disappears (gets canceled out).

Please avoid Airbus vs. Boeing flamebait and keep the thread on topic.

✈️ atcsundevil

JoeCanuck wrote:

Kindanew wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

I think the VLA market is only big enough for one aircraft to sustain a profitable production rate.

From all reports the A380 makes a loss if it is built at 12 aircraft per month. Boeing can make the 747-8 at a profit at 12 aircraft a month. So if the VLA market can only support 12 aircraft a month then the 747 is the only one that can make it to 2040.

Airlines also like smaller aircraft. The 747-8 is actually half way between the 777 and A380 in size. This is an advantage to the 747.

The 747-8 has a better wing aspect ratio and a better fuselage fineness ratio than the A380. The A380NEO might need more than just new engines.

If the passenger 747-8 has so many advantages over the A380, why has the A380 outsold it substantially?

331 firm orders vs 37?

The fact is, neither has sold particularly well. The twins have pretty much sounded the death knell to the big quads...at least as passenger aircraft. The 748F will likely sell a few more but it doesn't compete in any way with the 380.

The 777-9 will probably be significantly more efficient than either, and it isn't exactly flying off of the shelves.

It kind of seems to me that we may be getting close to the peak of airliner demand for this cycle. I won't be surprised if we see a lot more deferrals from a bunch more airlines in the near future. I suspect the downsizing won't be limited to just aircraft size...but numbers as well...with the single aisles being the most immune to this trend.

The 748F doesn't compete with the A380, because the A380F was a casualty of the wiring fiasco caused by converting CATIA files between different versions multiple times. For the most part A380F orders were replaced with 77F, late build 744F, 744ERF, and 748F orders. All those planes were capable of working with existing infrastructure whereas the A380F would have required lots of new ground handling equipment to handle the second main freight deck. Since the roles the A380F were supposed to fill got filled by other types that have already been built, there is no chance of the A380 ever having either a factory built or converted freighter. I think 748F program helped kill the A380 by thwarting any possibility that an A380F could help amortize the A380 program over more units.

This thread is in fact full of fantasy. What started as a thread detailing EK downgauging now has them buying the failed 747-8. EK's competitors could only hope they would do something so stupid. Let me spell it out for those in favor of the 747-8 and A380:
The day of the quad is OVER.

I'll go further and repeat my assertion that even the 777x is under duress because it is too big.

ClipperYankee wrote:

I don't think either deal would pass regulatory muster on either side of the Atlantic. Remember that P&W and Boeing were basically the same company once (along with United and Hamilton Standard) and the U.S. feds forced it to be broken up.

Why would that be? Engine making and Airframe making are 2 different businesses, complementary and not overlapping; one wouldn't be buying the other to kill a competitor, so I doubt anti-trust would apply here.

Also, in the case of P&W, Boeing & United, the main problem was United (an airline) and Boeing (an Aiframe manufacturer) being owned by the same company; that provided an unfair advantage to United of getting airplanes cheaper and faster from Boeing.
When they were told to split, P&W and Hamilton Standard were more collateral damage to the scandal than the cause of it.

And, as others have said, that was in 1934; we're in 2019...

Kindanew wrote:

If the passenger 747-8 has so many advantages over the A380, why has the A380 outsold it substantially?

331 firm orders vs 37?

You might want to check your sources.

In the past 4 years the 747-8 has had 36 orders the A380 only 4 orders. The 747 also cost Boeing less than a third to develop. The 747-8 is a borderline success the A380 program is a total failure.

15 billion dollar development for 331 aircraft.

4 billion dollar development for for 154 aircraft.

The 747-8 will definitely break even and it has and will continue to make money on each frame.

The accounting is complex but I'll try and dumb it down for you. These numbers are made up but are approximate to keep the math simple.

On each frame Boeing might make $40 million profit. $20 million of that profit will be allocated to pay off the development cost. The other $20 million goes to the end of year company profit. The remaining money from the sale covers the cost of construction.

That $20 million allocated for development is calculated by taking the development cost of $4 billion and dividing it by 200 aircraft. If Boeing works out that it will sell only 150 aircraft then it must take a one off hit of $1 billion. This is what Boeing has done.

Some members think that one off hit means the program has made a loss. That is not the case. Boeing has still been making $40 million profit per frame, they simple did not allocate enough of that profit towards paying off develooment. With 150 frames sold that would be $6 billion of profit which is well over the $4 billion development cost. As Boeing is still making profit on every frame it will or already has broken even and will continue to slowly make a profit.

Now the same can not be said about the A380. It has not been making enough profit per frame to cover development. Airbus is now making a loss on every frame so it will never pay off the development cost.

RJMAZ wrote:

Kindanew wrote:

If the passenger 747-8 has so many advantages over the A380, why has the A380 outsold it substantially?

331 firm orders vs 37?

You might want to check your sources.

In the past 4 years the 747-8 has had 36 orders the A380 only 4 orders. The 747 also cost Boeing less than a third to develop. The 747-8 is a borderline success the A380 program is a total failure.

15 billion dollar development for 331 aircraft.

4 billion dollar development for for 154 aircraft.

The 747-8 will definitely break even and it has and will continue to make money on each frame.

The accounting is complex but I'll try and dumb it down for you. These numbers are made up but are approximate to keep the math simple.

On each frame Boeing might make $40 million profit. $20 million of that profit will be allocated to pay off the development cost. The other $20 million goes to the end of year company profit. The remaining money from the sale covers the cost of construction.

That $20 million allocated for development is calculated by taking the development cost of $4 billion and dividing it by 200 aircraft. If Boeing works out that it will sell only 150 aircraft then it must take a one off hit of $1 billion. This is what Boeing has done.

Some members think that one off hit means the program has made a loss. That is not the case. Boeing has still been making $40 million profit per frame, they simple did not allocate enough of that profit towards paying off develooment. With 150 frames sold that would be $6 billion of profit which is well over the $4 billion development cost. As Boeing is still making profit on every frame it will or already has broken even and will continue to slowly make a profit.

Now the same can not be said about the A380. It has not been making enough profit per frame to cover development. Airbus is now making a loss on every frame so it will never pay off the development cost.

I am specifically talking about the passenger A380 as the cited quotation clearly shows. Of course the freight version of the 747-8 has sold 100% than the freight A380.

This whole thread is spinning itself off topic in the absence of official information from any credible source.

Kindanew wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

4 billion dollar development for for 154 aircraft.

The 747-8 will definitely break even and it has and will continue to make money on each frame.

The accounting is complex but I'll try and dumb it down for you. These numbers are made up but are approximate to keep the math simple.

I am specifically talking about the passenger A380 as the cited quotation clearly shows. Of course the freight version of the 747-8 has sold 100% than the freight A380.

Kindness of some posters appears to be infinite. My ever lasting thanks to RJMAZ.

$4b was initial planning.

With massive scope expansion, all those errors made by drunken Moskovites and delays ( direct and inherited )
I'd expect $8 ..10b to be a much better fitting window for 748 cost.
747 project overall was said to be in (?significant?) forward loss 2..3 years ago.

100%? 0 vs (n{n>0}) in percent is always infinite