Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Fri Oct 27, 2006 9:52 pm

11000 pounds per this article. Various posts have alluded to this, but this is the first I've seen from a reputable news organization.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...IRATES-URGENT.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna

Quote:
LONDON, Oct 27 (Reuters) - The biggest buyer of the world's biggest airliner, Dubai-based carrier Emirates [EMAIR.UL], said on Friday the Airbus A380 was 5.5 tonnes overweight in addition to being two years behind schedule.

However, it said it had not yet started negotiations with the plane maker regarding these issues.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Fri Oct 27, 2006 9:55 pm

Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):
11000 pounds per this article. Various posts have alluded to this, but this is the first I've seen from a reputable news organization.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...=qcna

It has been known for a while the plane is a tad overweight...but with the engine SFC's being better than anticipated, it has "compensated" for the weight and basically the A380 is "hitting its numbers" or is quite close to it...

Cheers
"Up the Irons!"
 
Joni
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Fri Oct 27, 2006 9:59 pm

That would be almost exactly 2% of OEW, a bit more than you'd expect considering that the fuel burn targets are being met or exceeded, but pretty much OK, I suppose.

The source doesn't say if this is related to EK's configuration or the plane's basic structure.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22948
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Fri Oct 27, 2006 10:02 pm

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 1):
It has been known for a while the plane is a tad overweight...but with the engine SFC's being better than anticipated, it has "compensated" for the weight and basically the A380 is "hitting its numbers" or is quite close to it...

Yup. Not as good as Airbus wanted, but as good as required.

Alas, with the recent snipes about the 787 being "portly", I expect this news, if true, to be bandied about in counter-sniping, but in the end, it shows that even if the 787 should end up beyond her target weight despite all of Boeing's efforts to address it, it does not automatically mean the 787 will not be as "good as required".
 
Danny
Posts: 3714
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:44 am

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Fri Oct 27, 2006 10:02 pm

The airplane has been flying for some time now and it is known that it meets or exceeds all performance guarantees.
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Fri Oct 27, 2006 10:03 pm

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 1):
Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):
11000 pounds per this article. Various posts have alluded to this, but this is the first I've seen from a reputable news organization.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...=qcna

It has been known for a while the plane is a tad overweight...but with the engine SFC's being better than anticipated, it has "compensated" for the weight and basically the A380 is "hitting its numbers" or is quite close to it...

That doesn't fix payload at all, and the aircraft is payload limited.

And, I might add, 5.5 tons over what figure????

We still don't have a baseline weight unless Clark is referring to the airbus furnished basic operating weight figure of 608,400 pounds.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
Lumberton
Topic Author
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Fri Oct 27, 2006 10:05 pm

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 5):
We still don't have a baseline weight unless Clark is referring to the airbus furnished basic operating weight figure of 608,400 pounds.

Close to 2% over OEW then? Similar to where Boeing finds themselves at present on the 787; Boeing maintains they'll hit the performance targets nonetheless.

[Edited 2006-10-27 15:07:45]
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
scouseflyer
Posts: 2165
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:02 pm

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Fri Oct 27, 2006 10:09 pm

Quoting Danny (Reply 4):
The airplane has been flying for some time now and it is known that it meets or exceeds all performance guarantees.

 bigthumbsup 

I guess if the planes overweight but more efficient so it uses the fuel quantities predicted this isn't a problem
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Fri Oct 27, 2006 10:17 pm

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 5):

That doesn't fix payload at all, and the aircraft is payload limited.

That's a different topic... Wink

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 5):

And, I might add, 5.5 tons over what figure????

We still don't have a baseline weight unless Clark is referring to the airbus furnished basic operating weight figure of 608,400 pounds.

IIRC, it's 2.5% over "promised" OEW....
"Up the Irons!"
 
SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Fri Oct 27, 2006 10:21 pm

Intriguing.

Yet airlines, well Singapore Airlines, still maintain that it is maintaining its performance guarantees.

Or maybe there's a recovery plan for the A380's weight.
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Fri Oct 27, 2006 10:21 pm

Maybe the title of the thread should be
"Rolls Royce" saves Airbus

Ruscoe
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Fri Oct 27, 2006 10:24 pm

Apparently, EK is looking into this before speaking to Airbus about it:

Dubai-based carrier Emirates [EMAIR.UL], said on Friday the Airbus A380 was 5.5 tonnes overweight in addition to two years behind schedule.

However, it has not yet started negotiations with the plane maker regarding these issues, Emirates President Tim Clark told reporters while visiting a new lounge at London's Heathrow Airport designed to handle Emirates' A380s.
One Nation Under God
 
leelaw
Posts: 4520
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Fri Oct 27, 2006 10:38 pm

Dow Jones is also reporting that:

Heathrow, ENGLAND (Dow Jones)--Emirates Airlines President Tim Clark Friday said the Dubai-based carrier hasn't ruled out the possibility of further delays in deliveries of Airbus' A380 airplane.

"It would be foolish to say we do not expect anything further," Clark told reporters at London's Heathrow airport...


http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20061027-706175.html
Lex Ancilla Justitiae
 
cricket
Posts: 2068
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 8:23 pm

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Fri Oct 27, 2006 10:45 pm

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 14):
Dow Jones is also reporting that:

Heathrow, ENGLAND (Dow Jones)--Emirates Airlines President Tim Clark Friday said the Dubai-based carrier hasn't ruled out the possibility of further delays in deliveries of Airbus' A380 airplane.

"It would be foolish to say we do not expect anything further," Clark told reporters at London's Heathrow airport...

You live and learn I guess! Kind of like what happens after a relationship turns sour.
A300B2/B4/6R, A313, A319/320/321, A333, A343, A388, 737-2/3/4/7/8/9, 747-3/4, 772/2E/2L/3, E170/190, F70, CR2/7, 146-3,
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Fri Oct 27, 2006 10:52 pm

Folks...let me explain.

More weight on the basic airplane probably has a negligible effect on performance. No problem there.

But there ARE structural limits.

If the BASIC operating weight of 608,400 still stands, and the zero fuel weight of 795,869 pounds still stands, that means you have 187,469 pounds to dispose of as you wish before you reach ZFW (which is a structural limit) on cargo, passengers, or a mix.

If, on the other hand that 5.5 tonnes is IN ADDITION TO the basic operating weight that takes you to about 620,500 pounds give or take, and that all comes out of what you can carry before you reach the structural limit.

To give you an idea of what 12,000 pounds means in real terms, if you consider that the FAA figure for an adult male passenger is 190 pounds and an average baggage load of 30 pounds for this hypothetical person-although the airlines budget for more-that is 55 fewer passengers you can carry.

Again, we do not have a 'starting point' of honest to god scale weights so all this is sort of hypothetical...but it's not a good sign.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Fri Oct 27, 2006 10:55 pm

Perhaps we can at least agree now why Qantas, SIA, and presumably others, are only planning to carry 500 passengers or less on the A380, instead of the oft-quoted 555 maximum?

If the loading yardstick is still 100kg. average per passenger, 11,000lbs. = 5,000kg. = 50?
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Fri Oct 27, 2006 10:57 pm

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 16):
But there ARE structural limits.

Dougloid, I think most here knew that the A380 will have structural limits...in fact, when it comes to hauling pax and cargo simultaneously, its a terrible plane when compared on a ratio basis to say the A300, B777 or hypothetical B787-10
"Up the Irons!"
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:09 pm

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 18):
Quoting Dougloid (Reply 16):
But there ARE structural limits.

Dougloid, I think most here knew that the A380 will have structural limits...in fact, when it comes to hauling pax and cargo simultaneously, its a terrible plane when compared on a ratio basis to say the A300, B777 or hypothetical B787-10

If I had to take a guess, Jacobin777, I'd *guess* that Airbus plans to certify the GW and ZFW of the A380 conservatively so as to avoid problems with regulators, and will issue service bulletins (after certification is obtained) that will up the ZFW and revise the AFM. They might have more trouble upping the GW and as a result will have to reduce the amount of fuel they can carry which will have an effect on range.

That's if they're acting like normal people faced with this issue would. There ARE internal communication issues in that company.

The other thing is what the effect on weight of the modifications necessary to get the wiring right will cost in weight.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:15 pm

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 6):
Close to 2% over OEW then? Similar to where Boeing finds themselves at present on the 787; Boeing maintains they'll hit the performance targets nonetheless.

Boeing doesnt admit that the FINAL 787 will be 2% overweight . They are currently at around 2% over what they'd like to be ( still within contractual margins) however they are investing both money and engineering recources to bring that figure down .
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:20 pm

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 19):

If I had to take a guess, Jacobin777, I'd *guess* that Airbus plans to certify the GW and ZFW of the A380 conservatively so as to avoid problems with regulators, and will issue service bulletins (after certification is obtained) that will up the ZFW and revise the AFM. They might have more trouble upping the GW and as a result will have to reduce the amount of fuel they can carry which will have an effect on range.

I think that is a fair assessment, but I don't really know all the intricacies of the post-certification (who does..lol)....

That being said, even if they have to reduce the amount of fuel, it will be a small amount..also, as time goes on, they will be able to adopt new technologies which would potentially offset the curret weight issues...

All-in-all, I think its a scratch and the plane will be ok for what it was intended to do when offered back in 2000/2001......while EK is saying one thing, SQ is saying its meeting their criteria in terms of performance (of course, one really doesn't know how it will perform until SQ use it for a while)..but it seems SQ is confident in the capabilities of the A380

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 19):
The other thing is what the effect on weight of the modifications necessary to get the wiring right will cost in weight.

I would say that will probably be at most a "scratch" too..but one never knows....
"Up the Irons!"
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:29 pm

Quoting Joni (Reply 2):
the fuel burn targets are being met or exceeded

Source please? I've read this on A.Net, but nowhere else. Even the EADS A380 update said no such thing. If they were exceeding fuel burn targets, Airbus would be trumpeting the fact - very notable that they are NOT.

Quoting Danny (Reply 4):
The airplane has been flying for some time now and it is known that it meets or exceeds all performance guarantees

It is known by who? Again, outside of A.Net, where is this published?

Quoting Singapore_Air (Reply 9):
Yet airlines, well Singapore Airlines, still maintain that it is maintaining its performance guarantees

Was the statement by SQ anything other than comments from an executive? No data there, either.

Bottom Line: we still have no real evidence of A380 performance, good or bad.
Except that we now have a statement that it is indeed overweight.
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:32 pm

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 21):
.while EK is saying one thing, SQ is saying its meeting their criteria in terms of performance

Occurs to me that EK (who are stuck with having to route everything through Dubai, and therefore can't avoid flying Dubai-Sydney) are likely to be a lot touchier than Singapore at any possible reductions, however 'minor,' in range/payload. Singapore's longest run, as far as I know, would be Changi-Heathrow, which is nowhere near as long.

Qantas wouldn't be too happy either, given that Melbourne-Los Angeles is definitely an extreme-range trip.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:46 pm

First plane(s) off the production line syndrome?
 
n844aa
Posts: 1266
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 10:38 am

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:47 pm

This is something I've been wondering about, and instead of starting a whole new thread on it, maybe it can be addressed here.

The A380 has, of course, undergone significant flight testing at this point, and I recall reading that Airbus and various customers are pleased with performance so far. My question relates to airliners, such as the MD-11, that ultimately disappoint their customers. At which point in flight testing or in service life do these shortcomings become evident? I imagine the right answer is "it depends" so let me try to narrow it down a little: Will excessive fuel burn on the order of a percentage point or two usually become evident in flight testing, or is that something that tends to show up only once the aircraft is in service?

I'm not trying to cast doubt on the performance of the A380, but right now it makes sense to ask this question in this context. And this is something I've been curious about for a while.

[Edited 2006-10-27 17:14:32]
New airplanes, new employees, low fares, all touchy-feely ... all of them are losers. -Gordon Bethune
 
manni
Posts: 4049
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:48 am

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:52 pm

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 22):
Quoting Singapore_Air (Reply 9):
Yet airlines, well Singapore Airlines, still maintain that it is maintaining its performance guarantees

Was the statement by SQ anything other than comments from an executive?

 scratchchin 

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 22):
Bottom Line: we still have no real evidence of A380 performance, good or bad.
Except that we now have a statement that it is indeed overweight.

And where did that statement come from....

LONDON, Oct 27 (Reuters) - The biggest buyer of the world's biggest airliner, Dubai-based carrier Emirates [EMAIR.UL], said on Friday the Airbus A380 was 5.5 tonnes overweight in addition to being two years behind schedule.


Indeed. From a source as reliable, or as unreliable as SIA could be considered.
SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:55 pm

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 14):
Heathrow, ENGLAND (Dow Jones)--Emirates Airlines President Tim Clark Friday said the Dubai-based carrier hasn't ruled out the possibility of further delays in deliveries of Airbus' A380 airplane.

"It would be foolish to say we do not expect anything further," Clark told reporters at London's Heathrow airport...

A significant statement.

"Tell me Mr. Clark, what did you know that you are not telling us and when did you know it?"
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:56 pm

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 5):
We still don't have a baseline weight unless Clark is referring to the airbus furnished basic operating weight figure of 608,400 pounds.

The figure EK was given was most likely relative to the Manufactures Empty Weight (MEW). Not EK's specific OEW for their A380 configuration, which is most likely not firm at this point. The situation now is probably that EK and others are either looking for ways to lighten their cabin componentry or adjusting their payload and fuel burn analysis slightly.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 1):
It has been known for a while the plane is a tad overweight...but with the engine SFC's being better than anticipated, it has "compensated" for the weight and basically the A380 is "hitting its numbers" or is quite close to it...

For this increased weight to be a wash fuel burn would have to be better by 2.5-3% depending on the range point analysis. Don't know if they have squeezed quite that much better burn out of the engines.



-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:58 pm

Manni, please see #23 above.

Given that all the airlines have different route structures, It is perfectly possible (even likely) that some of the customers could live with a reduction in achievable range with full payload, while others couldn't.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3185
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:59 pm

As I recall, many A.net posters declared that the A380 OEW problem was "solved".

It appears that the solution was to accept the OEW penalty.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:00 am

The information regarding A380 fuel burn comes from Airbus, and only from Airbus. For example, "A380, which completed its ninth test flight over the weekend, has exceeded its fuel burn goals, Airbus sources told ATWOnline."

The statement from SQ reads, "Airbus has demonstrated to Singapore Airlines' satisfaction that the engineering design of the A380 is sound. It has performed well in flight and certification tests, and the delays in its delivery have been caused more by production, rather than technical, issues." Thus SQ is relying on what Airbus is telling them.

And then there's Airbus's reaction to Boeing claims regarding A380 fuel burn:

"They're saying it is 10% higher in fuel burn for both the Rolls-Royce and Engine Alliance engines, and that's huge," said A380 product marketing director Richard Carcaillet at the Asian Aerospace show in Singapore.

"We're talking about gross exaggerations..."

A380 product marketing director Richard Carcaillet.

At first I thought it was all relevant to the 748, but that's not the case because Carcaillet states the A380 will have lower fuel burn and trip costs than the 748, so his confirmation of higher fuel burn wouldn't make sense in only 748 context.

Exaggeration is stretching of the truth. That being the case then, according to Carcaillet, even with the RR (at least) engines performing better than expected, overall A380 fuel burn is higher to some extent.
 
brightcedars
Posts: 751
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:18 pm

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:08 am

Well lads, between the options of "on time delivery or slight delay and better than contract performance" on offer by Boeing and "way behind deadline underperformer" on offer by Airbus, let's say "as an armchair CEO", I know who would get my business.
I want the European Union flag on airliners.net!
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:10 am

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 22):

Source please? I've read this on A.Net, but nowhere else. Even the EADS A380 update said no such thing. If they were exceeding fuel burn targets, Airbus would be trumpeting the fact - very notable that they are NOT.



Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 28):
For this increased weight to be a wash fuel burn would have to be better by 2.5-3% depending on the range point analysis. Don't know if they have squeezed quite that much better burn out of the engines.

I've read in quite a few places (reputable resources) that the fuel burn is indeed performing better than originally anticipated...

The 2% overweight is still within "accepted values" and within margin of error...

While Boeing exceeds their performance guarantees often, Airbus is essentially "hitting their numbers"...

Though I take Airbus' statements with a grain of salt, I've read in too many places comments which do not contradict Airbus statements/clamis..

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 23):
Occurs to me that EK (who are stuck with having to route everything through Dubai, and therefore can't avoid flying Dubai-Sydney) are likely to be a lot touchier than Singapore at any possible reductions, however 'minor,' in range/payload. Singapore's longest run, as far as I know, would be Changi-Heathrow, which is nowhere near as long.

SQ have often stated they want to eventually run the A380 on it's SIN-HKG-SFO (SQ 1/2) route...that is to be seen....in fact, wasn't it that SQ wanted to run the A380 on this route first?  scratchchin 
"Up the Irons!"
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:11 am

The article is not too clear about which weight is over. However, since there is the suggestion that SQ will seek compensation, that suggests that the WhaleJet is over the maximum contracted weight rather than the target weight. The contracted weight would be MEW, not OEW.

Trying to look at the bright side, two years is a lot of time to try to trim the blubber.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 17):
Perhaps we can at least agree now why Qantas, SIA, and presumably others, are only planning to carry 500 passengers or less on the A380, instead of the oft-quoted 555 maximum?

If the loading yardstick is still 100kg. average per passenger, 11,000lbs. = 5,000kg. = 50?

50 fewer passengers per flight is a lot of revenue over the life of an airliner.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 19):
The other thing is what the effect on weight of the modifications necessary to get the wiring right will cost in weight.

I don't expect resolution of the wiring problems to add significantly to the WhaleJet's weight.

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 22):
Source please? I've read this on A.Net, but nowhere else. Even the EADS A380 update said no such thing. If they were exceeding fuel burn targets, Airbus would be trumpeting the fact - very notable that they are NOT.

I've not heard this from my contacts at Airbus or the airlines. I've only read it here on A.net.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 23):
Singapore's longest run, as far as I know, would be Changi-Heathrow, which is nowhere near as long.

Actually, SQ's longest run (for which the WhaleJet might be considered) is SFO-HKG. SIN-LHR is the longest run on which it is clear that the WhaleJet can operate nonstop year-round with a viable payload.

Quoting N844AA (Reply 25):
My question relates to airlines, such as the MD-11, that ultimately disappoint their customers. At which point in flight testing or in service life do these shortcomings become evident?

In the case of the MD-11, it became known only after EIS.
 
hb88
Posts: 760
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:25 am

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:17 am

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 22):
Quoting Joni (Reply 2):
the fuel burn targets are being met or exceeded

Source please? I've read this on A.Net, but nowhere else. Even the EADS A380 update said no such thing. If they were exceeding fuel burn targets, Airbus would be trumpeting the fact - very notable that they are NOT.

Quoting Danny (Reply 4):
The airplane has been flying for some time now and it is known that it meets or exceeds all performance guarantees

It is known by who? Again, outside of A.Net, where is this published?

Quoting Singapore_Air (Reply 9):
Yet airlines, well Singapore Airlines, still maintain that it is maintaining its performance guarantees

Was the statement by SQ anything other than comments from an executive? No data there, either.

Bottom Line: we still have no real evidence of A380 performance, good or bad.
Except that we now have a statement that it is indeed overweight.

I know it isn't satisfactory as real evidence, but all the recent internal briefings I've seen (as in briefings given to Airbus employees that contain Bad News as well as good news (note capitalisation)) have indicated that the performance guarantees are being well met and that as far as an aircraft per se etc it is going very well indeed.

However while this is being communicated to the customers, I'm not sure why Airbus aren't making a slightly bigger deal of it. My guess is that we are being a lot more circumspect with media releases, choosing to inform the customers directly without trumpeting anything to the media.

Given the media pasting that Airbus is getting pretty much on a daily basis, in some ways I can understand this. On one hand it would be good to publish some good news, but pretty much all media has been focussing on the delays, EADS machinations, swapping out CEOs etc often in the same article where, say the successful first long flights etc were being discussed. Cynically, successes aren't as interesting as the delays and political machinations.

So long as the customers are being accurately informed, that is all that matters IMO.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:26 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 33):
SQ have often stated they want to eventually run the A380 on it's SIN-HKG-SFO (SQ 1/2) route...that is to be seen....in fact, wasn't it that SQ wanted to run the A380 on this route first?

Yes, SQ originally had hoped to start the WhaleJet on SIN-HKG-SFO-HKG-SIN. This plan was dropped and SQ decided to start with LHR when it became apparent that the WhaleJet was not meeting its payload/range performance targets. That plan was then shelved in favor of SYD when the OZ government didn't grant SQ SYD-LAX rights as had been promised in exchange for the Singapore government letting QF set up a subsidiary in Singapore.
 
manni
Posts: 4049
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:48 am

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:33 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 29):
Manni, please see #23 above.

My comment was not made to cast doubt over the statements made by the SQ or EK executives. I tried to point out the inaccuracies of the poster I quoted.

He calls on a fellow poster, who quotes the CEO of SQ, that he hasn't seen any data. Only the statement of SQ. Playing down the comments.

Then he goes on that the A380 is INDEED overweight and to back it up he has only the statement of.... EK.

Why's a statement of EK (the negative one), enough to accept that the A380 is INDEED overweight, but a statement of SQ (the positive one) worthless to even consider that the A380 might indeed deliver as promised?
SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:44 am

Quoting Manni (Reply 37):
Why's a statement of EK (the negative one), enough to accept that the A380 is INDEED overweight, but a statement of SQ (the positive one) worthless to even consider that the A380 might indeed deliver as promised?

Good point. We have little reason to favor one statement over the other other than our own biases. The little we have is:
Which statement was more specific? Specific statements should be favored over general statements.
Which statement was more concrete? Concrete statements should be favored over abstract statements.
Which statement was more recent? Recent statements should be favored over old statements.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:14 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 36):
Yes, SQ originally had hoped to start the WhaleJet on SIN-HKG-SFO-HKG-SIN. This plan was dropped and SQ decided to start with LHR when it became apparent that the WhaleJet was not meeting its payload/range performance targets. That plan was then shelved in favor of SYD when the OZ government didn't grant SQ SYD-LAX rights as had been promised in exchange for the Singapore government letting QF set up a subsidiary in Singapore.

Ok..thanks for info.. ....that is what I thought..if the A380 can't do HKG-SFO/LAX routinely without decent payload/range throughout the whole year, I'm not so sure if CX will consider purchasing some then....

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 21):
while EK is saying one thing, SQ is saying its meeting their criteria in terms of performance (of course, one really doesn't know how it will perform until SQ use it for a while)..but it seems SQ is confident in the capabilities of the A380



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 38):
Quoting Manni (Reply 37):
Why's a statement of EK (the negative one), enough to accept that the A380 is INDEED overweight, but a statement of SQ (the positive one) worthless to even consider that the A380 might indeed deliver as promised?

Good point. We have little reason to favor one statement over the other other than our own biases. The little we have is:
Which statement was more specific? Specific statements should be favored over general statements.
Which statement was more concrete? Concrete statements should be favored over abstract statements.
Which statement was more recent? Recent statements should be favored over old statements.


[Edited 2006-10-27 18:17:52]
"Up the Irons!"
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:23 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 39):
Ok..thanks for info.. ....that is what I thought..if the A380 can't do HKG-SFO/LAX routinely without decent payload/range throughout the whole year, I'm not so sure if CX will consider purchasing some then....

The B747-400 has to make a tech stop about 5 days per year and it goes out lightly loaded more often than that. CX and SQ wanted significantly better payload/range performance than that.
 
planekrazy777
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 11:57 am

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:25 am

If Airbus needs to drop 11000 pounds on the a-380, they should just tell all pax to lose 20 pounds, Iti'l do alot of people good.  Smile
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:28 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 40):

The B747-400 has to make a tech stop about 5 days per year and it goes out lightly loaded more often than that. CX and SQ wanted significantly better payload/range performance than that.

Which if the A380 can't deliver would be problematic....a tech stop for the A380 will get a bit costly...

I'm curious if the 748I will be able to achieve this.... scratchchin 

Regardless, it seems as if SQ isn't going by the way of the 748I (one never knows though)...
"Up the Irons!"
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22948
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:32 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 40):
The B747-400 has to make a tech stop about 5 days per year and it goes out lightly loaded more often than that. CX and SQ wanted significantly better payload/range performance than that.



Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 42):
I'm curious if the 748I will be able to achieve this....

I have been led to believe that it can.

However, in SQ's case the 748 with the new interior has an identical seat count to the 744 with the old interior so that has helped push SQ towards the A380 since it can carry more seats with the new interior.

As HKG trans-Pacific is a more important market to CX then SQ, there is speculation that the 748 might get the nod because of this. Especially as CX's new premium cabins don't look like they take up appreciably more floorspace then SQ's do.
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:51 am

Quoting Manni (Reply 37):
Why's a statement of EK (the negative one), enough to accept that the A380 is INDEED overweight, but a statement of SQ (the positive one) worthless to even consider that the A380 might indeed deliver as promised?

SQ's statements are not entirely consistent with what Airbus has stated in the past. For example, Airbus PR says the A380 has a lower than expected fuel burn, while the A380 Product Marketing Director says it is higher, but not as much higher as Boeing has claimed.

EK's statements, on the other hand, are consistent with what Airbus has already stated in the past. Since this is a negative for Airbus, it is highly unlikely Airbus would be saying it if it weren't really true. If there's a logical reason to the contrary, I'd like to know it.
 
BOE773
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:02 am

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:58 am

The Engine Alliance engine's data for fuel consumption accumulated so far during flight testing is coming in ahead of the consumption data for the RR engines. That was expected of course.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:08 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 43):

I have been led to believe that it can.

Interesting....

Quoting Stitch (Reply 43):

However, in SQ's case the 748 with the new interior has an identical seat count to the 744 with the old interior so that has helped push SQ towards the A380 since it can carry more seats with the new interior.

 checkmark ..hence my comment of SQ will go by the way of the A380...

Quoting Stitch (Reply 43):
As HKG trans-Pacific is a more important market to CX then SQ, there is speculation that the 748 might get the nod because of this. Especially as CX's new premium cabins don't look like they take up appreciably more floorspace then SQ's do.

 checkmark ...I see CX going for the 748I...they have stated it a few times this is a plane they are very interested in....CX doesn't need the additional 300NM Boeing said it could deliver on the 748I...but the extra seats would be perfect for CX's incremental growth....

Not to mention, I wouldn't be surprised if the meeting in HKG wasn't for a particular reason...
"Up the Irons!"
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:11 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 34):
In the case of the MD-11, it became known only after EIS.

NASA Langley Research Center says otherwise.

Initial flight tests of the MD-11 indicated an unacceptable range shortfall of over 400 nmi. McDonnell Douglas initiated a modification program for the MD-11 known as the Performance Improvement Program (PIP), which included focused efforts to improve the aircraft’s weight, fuel capacity, engine performance, and aerodynamics. Cumulative improvements from modifications identified by the PIP from 1990 to 1995 recovered and subsequently extended the range for the aircraft.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:14 am

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 10):
Maybe the title of the thread should be
"Rolls Royce" saves Airbus



Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 28):
For this increased weight to be a wash fuel burn would have to be better by 2.5-3% depending on the range point analysis. Don't know if they have squeezed quite that much better burn out of the engines.

If indeed it is meeting performance targets and is "a bit on the heavy side" RR must have done a really good job. If GE were to maintain the lead in fuel consumption over RR shown with the 777 vs the 340s with the EA engines, the 380 might look a bit more formidable again.

Then again as Zvezda suggests, Airbus might be hiring a few Norwegian whalers down to hack off the odd bit of blubber during the delay - or the aircraft equivalent of same!

Quoting HB88 (Reply 35):
However while this is being communicated to the customers, I'm not sure why Airbus aren't making a slightly bigger deal of it. My guess is that we are being a lot more circumspect with media releases, choosing to inform the customers directly without trumpeting anything to the media.

Ah well, if they make a statement, it is wrong, and if they do not, well that is wrong too, but then again, eventually they will have to make something public.

Quoting PLANEKRAZY777 (Reply 41):
If Airbus needs to drop 11000 pounds on the a-380, they should just tell all pax to lose 20 pounds, It'll do alot of people good.

Or, they could arm each passenger with a suitable carry on helium balloon, to be allowed to perch up on the ceiling to give a similar effect. Oh, is a 20 pound lift helium balloon that big? Back to plan of having a gym to take weight off the pax!
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:15 am

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 47):
NASA Langley Research Center says otherwise.

I stand corrected.  Smile Thanks!
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:20 am

All this talk about the A380 meeting or exceeding performance targets and/or guarantees does not stand up to scrutiny.

After all the real data that Airbus has accumulated in flight testing, and all the negative publicity that project has gotten, IF there were ANY really BRIGHT SPOTS on the DATA it would have been advertized to high heavens.

What I think is happening is that Airbus has lost configuration control on the plane, has not completed a single plane in an actual's customer configuration, has at least the wiring issue to address, and THEREFORE has no firm idea of WEHRE THE WEIGHT IS GOING TO END UP.

I don't think at this point Airbus knows if the first SG completed plane will be 10,000 or 20,000 lbs overweigth.

Furthermore, I don't think Airbus knows what the difference in OEW of MSN007 is compared to MSN012, as all these frames are being re worked because of wiring and other issues.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
tootallsd
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:02 pm

RE: Reuters-EK Says A380 5.5 Tons Overweight

Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:34 am

Quoting PLANEKRAZY777 (Reply 41):
If Airbus needs to drop 11000 pounds on the a-380, they should just tell all pax to lose 20 pounds, Iti'l do alot of people good.

Isn't that why they are installing gyms in the belly of the beast?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Abeam79, Baidu [Spider], BI777, cheeken, Google Adsense [Bot], ikolkyo, KarelXWB, Ncfc99, olle, overcast, RIXrat, sibille, sirtoby, zkncj and 216 guests