Iloveboeing
Topic Author
Posts: 339
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:02 am

A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 4:26 am

I was thinking about an A380-900. It could be 276 feet long, carry over 1,000 passengers, and be powered by higher-thrust variant GE90-115B engines (127,900 lbs). I know the GE90-115B was built exclusively for the B777-300ER, but could it be used on the A380? I think it will give the extra power it needs for the extra payload. Wouldn't such an aircraft be interesting? It could be used in places like China and India.......
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23206
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 4:44 am

It should in theory fit, since it has a smaller fan diameter then the GP72xxx series and identical to the Trent 900.

However, as noted the engine is exclusive to the 777 family so it would not be available for the A380. Also, the GE90-115 is significantly more powerful then what an A389 would need to get into the air, so it would be uneconomical.
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 4:44 am

It's already been thought of, and sometime ago, Airbus even had the standard configuration seat map on it's site at one point. The wing has already been designed with the -900 in mind.

Will it see the light of day? If EK is still around, I'd say yes.  Wink
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
 
LHStarAlliance
Posts: 2096
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 9:15 pm

A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 4:47 am

IMO this is the real 380 as it will have a better casm than the 388
Boycott The Olympic Games In Beijing !
 
Iloveboeing
Topic Author
Posts: 339
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:02 am

A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 4:49 am

Quoting LHStarAlliance (Reply 3):
IMO this is the real 380 as it will have a better casm than the 388

Agreed. The CASM for an A389 would just be amazing!
 
Iloveboeing
Topic Author
Posts: 339
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:02 am

A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 4:52 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
Also, the GE90-115 is significantly more powerful then what an A389 would need to get into the air, so it would be uneconomical.

But wouldn't the extra power be useful for taking off from shorter runways and higher elevations?
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 4:56 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
However, as noted the engine is exclusive to the 777 family so it would not be available for the A380. Also, the GE90-115 is significantly more powerful then what an A389 would need to get into the air, so it would be uneconomical.

I don't know if the GE90 is exclusive to the 777, but I am under the impression that GE couldn't offer an engine in the same power class as the GP7200 for the A380 due to Engine Alliance rules.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
Iloveboeing
Topic Author
Posts: 339
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:02 am

A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:00 am

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 6):

I don't know if the GE90 is exclusive to the 777, but I am under the impression that GE couldn't offer an engine in the same power class as the GP7200 for the A380 due to Engine Alliance rules.

Is the GE90 in the same power class as the GP7200? The GE90-115B is significantly more powerful than the GP7200 (over 25,000 lbs more, I think).
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5019
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:04 am

The A380-900 is what EK wanted in the first place.

Doubt though it will happend in near future, hope I´m wrong.....

Micke//  crossfingers 
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
CJAContinental
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 9:03 pm

A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:17 am

When the A380 was in development stages there was a lot about three very possible variants of the A380, the 700, 800, and 900. They differ in capacity, 455, 555, 655, and thus range.

I think the A380-900, was about 79.6 metres long.

Question is, would there be enough demand for this!! EK?
Work Hard/Fly Right.
 
GQfluffy
Posts: 3072
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 1:25 pm

A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:19 am

Quoting Iloveboeing (Thread starter):
was thinking about an A380-900.

Isn't the wing on the A388 optimized for the A389?
This isn't where I parked my car...
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23206
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:21 am

Quoting Iloveboeing (Reply 7):
Is the GE90 in the same power class as the GP7200?

At the low end, yes.

The GP7200 series is available in 68k, 70k and 77.5k variants.

The GE90 is(was) available in 76.4k, 77k, 90k, 93.7k, 110.1k and 115.5k variants.
 
Iloveboeing
Topic Author
Posts: 339
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:02 am

A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:21 am

Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 10):

Isn't the wing on the A388 optimized for the A389?

I think so. I read on wikipedia that it was.
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:27 am

Quoting Iloveboeing (Thread starter):
It could be used in places like China and India.......

This assumption keeps popping up. Why exactly would China and India be more likely to use a huge aircraft? Their populations are huge in total, but in terms of those with the affluence to be flying they are roughly equivalent to the US or EU.

China and India have yet to order the scores of A388's that were predicted. There's no evidence that an A389 would do any better.
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
CJAContinental
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 9:03 pm

A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:35 am

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 13):
the affluence to be flying they are roughly equivalent to the US or EU.

Affluency is not constant, more people will be able to afford it. Because these routes would be domestic, and around 650 passengers could board, then flight would be cheap anyway.

This is already happening in Japan, check out the flights from Haneda on ANA 777-300's. There could be demand for the A380-900 there to, as one Aircraft with 650 passengers on board, would be more economically viable and efficient than two aircraft with half the number.
Work Hard/Fly Right.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23206
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:54 am

Quoting CJAContinental (Reply 14):
Because these routes would be domestic, and around 650 passengers could board, then flight would be cheap anyway.This is already happening in Japan, check out the flights from Haneda on ANA 777-300's. There could be demand for the A380-900 there to, as one Aircraft with 650 passengers on board, would be more economically viable and efficient than two aircraft with half the number.

And yet Japan has gone from the 747-400 to the 777-300 and soon to the 787-3. The A388's sheer bulk makes her inefficient for short-haul work. The same problem affects the efficiency of the 787-3 (which is far heavier then she needs to be for the missions she will undertake), but the 787-3 can be used at scores of airports within Japan, China and India that the A388 can't. Boeing may yet go back and do a "787-2" that really tries to make a light, efficient high-capacity, high-cycle, short-haul plane that would appeal to the domestic markets of many countries and regions.
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:01 am

Quoting CJAContinental (Reply 14):
Affluency is not constant, more people will be able to afford it.

You're an optimist. I'm not. I don't see where the fuel will come from to power such a standard of living for another 2 billion people. pessimist 

Quoting CJAContinental (Reply 14):
one Aircraft with 650 passengers on board, would be more economically viable and efficient than two aircraft with half the number.

Economicially viable and efficient for who? From the airline's point of view, two efficient aircraft (A350/B787) allow more flexibility in scheduling and routing. Less risky, by far...especially as fuel prices rise and traffic declines. pessimist 
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:02 am

Quoting Iloveboeing (Reply 5):
But wouldn't the extra power be useful for taking off from shorter runways and higher elevations?

Yes, but there would be way too much excess power that you don't need at the vast majority of the airports. Be assured, the A389 would have enough power even without the GE90-115B.
Also, IIRC, the GE has a worse SFC than the Trent 900 / GP7200.

IMO, future versions of the A380 would be powered by the A350's engines anyway.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
Iloveboeing
Topic Author
Posts: 339
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:02 am

A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:13 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 17):
Also, IIRC, the GE has a worse SFC than the Trent 900 / GP7200.

Forgive my limited engine knowledge, but what's SFC?
 
Lemurs
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:13 am

A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:27 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
The same problem affects the efficiency of the 787-3 (which is far heavier then she needs to be for the missions she will undertake), but the 787-3 can be used at scores of airports within Japan, China and India that the A388 can't. Boeing may yet go back and do a "787-2" that really tries to make a light, efficient high-capacity, high-cycle, short-haul plane that would appeal to the domestic markets of many countries and regions.

Is there any other airplane remotely in the category of the 787-3 in terms of tons-per-pax? I'm not saying you're entirely wrong, I just fail to see what the competition is for high-density short haul. As far as I can tell, this is the lighest, most efficient widebody ever offered for short haul. What would make the -2 a better fit, other than shaving weight off? (Something that could almost assuredly be done with the -3 as production matures.)
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:37 am

Quoting Iloveboeing (Reply 18):
Forgive my limited engine knowledge, but what's SFC?

Specific fuel consumption. It describes the amount of fuel used for a standard unit of thrust in a given time. The problem is: different engine manufacturers apply different conditions when stating SFC. Some give it for takeoff, some for cruise (obviously, this is important).

Without going too much into detail: The engines used on the A380 have newer technology than the GE90, and so their fuel burn is lower.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
LHStarAlliance
Posts: 2096
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 9:15 pm

A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:39 am

And what about the GEnx on the A389 ?? Would this work ??
Boycott The Olympic Games In Beijing !
 
Iloveboeing
Topic Author
Posts: 339
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:02 am

A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:40 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 20):

Without going too much into detail: The engines used on the A380 have newer technology than the GE90, and so their fuel burn is lower.

Oh ok, I understand now. Thanks a lot!
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: A380-900?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:43 am

Quoting LHStarAlliance (Reply 21):
And what about the GEnx on the A389 ?? Would this work ??

Yes, but only the version for the A350. The one for the 787 can't be used as it has no bleed air, and the one for the 748 has not enough thrust.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
brendows
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:55 pm

RE: A380-900?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:12 am

Quoting CJAContinental (Reply 14):
Because these routes would be domestic, and around 650 passengers could board, then flight would be cheap anyway.

Flying a 773 with ~550pax would be way, way cheaper, and the fuel burn would almost be cut in half.

Quoting A342 (Reply 20):
Without going too much into detail: The engines used on the A380 have newer technology than the GE90, and so their fuel burn is lower.

Yes, but it's not that much lower, the reduction in noise level over the GE-90 is the biggest improvement.
 
airfrnt
Posts: 2002
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:05 am

RE: A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:16 am

It simply won't happen, unless something dramatically changes world wide. The sales are not there for the 389, to say nothing to supporting a new variant of the frame. As it is Airbus dropped a variant last week (okay, supposedly postponed for 10 years).

It's simply not possible to be able to fill that may seats in a competitive market. Even EK's business model is showing clear signs of change at this point with talk of a second hub.
 
NYC777
Posts: 5076
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:00 am

RE: A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:18 am

Since the A388 is a niche aircraft then the A389 is even more so. There simply not enough carriers/rouste that would need such an airplane. My understanding that the A389 development was to piggyback off the A380F.

With that program postponed indefinetely, I see the A389 of ever becoming reality a very remote thing.
That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
 
MarcoT
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 9:55 pm

RE: A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:47 am

Quoting Lemurs (Reply 19):
Is there any other airplane remotely in the category of the 787-3 in terms of tons-per-pax?

Ehem, the A300-600 at 90.9 tonnes OEW is almost exactly 10 tonnes lighter, and it seates 266 vs 296... Smile
Too short space for my favorite hopelessly long winded one liner
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23206
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:15 am

Quoting Lemurs (Reply 19):
Is there any other airplane remotely in the category of the 787-3 in terms of tons-per-pax?



Quoting MarcoT (Reply 28):
Ehem, the A300-600 at 90.9 tonnes OEW is almost exactly 10 tonnes lighter, and it seates 266 vs 296.

The 787-3 might beat it on efficiency, however, thanks to the GEnx and Trent 1000 engines, but if JL and NH wanted the A300, they had three decades to buy it and instead chose the 767.

Quoting Lemurs (Reply 19):
What would make the -2 a better fit, other than shaving weight off?

Shaving weight off would be what made it a better fit, if not for Japan, then perhaps other country's domestic use (like the US, EU, India, and China). The 787-3 still carries a lot of the structure (and therefore mass) of the 787-8, which is 10 tons heavier because she's designed to carry a lot more fuel to travel a good deal farther. If that unnecessary mass could be removed, range would improve (where needed) as would payload (where range was not needed) and in either case, efficiency would also improve.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:29 am

Quoting CJAContinental (Reply 14):
This is already happening in Japan, check out the flights from Haneda on ANA 777-300's. There could be demand for the A380-900 there to, as one Aircraft with 650 passengers on board, would be more economically viable and efficient than two aircraft with half the number.

A few problems here. 1. Japanese airports charge landing fees based on aircraft weight. If your load factors are not high on the larger aircraft, your costs per passenger will be high. 2. Keeping your fleet utilization is high is important for making money on short haul, so it isn't clear that reducing frequency helps, especially if you reduce ticket revenue by not delivering what the customer wants when they want it.

Quoting A342 (Reply 17):
Yes, but there would be way too much excess power that you don't need at the vast majority of the airports. Be assured, the A389 would have enough power even without the GE90-115B.
Also, IIRC, the GE has a worse SFC than the Trent 900 / GP7200.

I'm not sure about that. I found a widebodyphotog table with GE90 and Trent 900 numbers, and the latter is higher.



Quoting MarcoT (Reply 28):
Ehem, the A300-600 at 90.9 tonnes OEW is almost exactly 10 tonnes lighter, and it seates 266 vs 296... 

That's with the 787-3 in 8Y. With 9Y configurations that would certainly be used in Japan for a domestic fleet, the capacity is something between 310 to 330 in 2 class.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 397
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

RE: A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:46 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
It should in theory fit, since it has a smaller fan diameter then the GP72xxx series and identical to the Trent 900.

Actually, the fan diameter on the trent 900 and GPX-7000 are both 116" the fan on the GE90-92B is 123" and the fan diameter on the GE90-115B is 127". The Trent 900 and GPX-7000 were designed to power the A380-900, and are certified for 84,000 lbf thrust, but are only rated at 70,000 lbf thrust for the A380-800.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1769
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:42 am

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 30):
I found a widebodyphotog table with GE90 and Trent 900 numbers, and the latter is higher.

If the SFC of the Trent 900 is 0.561, I've got a bridge to sell you.

The A389, if it sees the light of day, will be powered by the Trent XWB and its GE counterpart.

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 27):
With that program [the A380F] postponed indefinetely, I see the A389 of ever becoming reality a very remote thing.

Actually, it'll be the other way around. Without the A389, it is very unlikely that the A388F will ever be re-started.
 
SkyyMaster
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:34 am

RE: A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:51 am

Why on earth would Airbus want to consider other models of an aircraft they can't sell now? By my calculations, they are still some 260 airframes short of their stated break-even on the current 380. Yeah, lets build a longer, bigger one. Invest a few billion more euros and see how many airlines outside Emirates buy it. When they roll their 1,000th 380 off the assembly line, then you can convince me.
 
legoguy
Posts: 2971
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:59 pm

RE: A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:08 am

No pictures around of what an A380-900 would look like?
Can you say 'Beer Can' without sounding like a Jamaican saying 'Bacon'?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23206
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:17 am

Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 31):
Actually, the fan diameter on the trent 900 and GPX-7000 are both 116" the fan on the GE90-92B is 123" and the fan diameter on the GE90-115B is 127".

Must have gotten my original figures crossed somewhere. Oh, well. I updated them all from the 2007 Engine Yearbook so they're good to go now.

Quoting Legoguy (Reply 34):
No pictures around of what an A380-900 would look like?

While a Photoshop job, it's probably roughly accurate.

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/photos/big/00007039.jpg
Courtesy of Modified Airliners. Fake by Ediney from a template by Konstantin Von Wedeustaed.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11864
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:24 am

First, I'm not sure about the obsession with the GE-90.

The A380 is by contract the Engine Alliance. GE can not go solo on that airframe until ~2020 IIRC. By all means come back and tell me the exact year, but its not for a long time.

The A389 has been proposed and the GP7200 will grow into that role. For the higher thrust, the TSFC improves.  spin  That's the nature of gas turbine engines both the trent and GP7200 are loafing a bit with the A388 and thus don't shine as much as a stressed engine in TSFC.

Quoting Brendows (Reply 24):
the reduction in noise level over the GE-90 is the biggest improvement.

 checkmark 

Unless the A380 can meet QC2 noise guidelines... its not worth much.

The A389 is just going to be a stretch of the A388. The difference in looks... minimal. However, I do expect the A389 to be the predominant model of the A380 family. An extra lift of ~100 passengers... yawn. Make that 200... and you're talking an economic advantage. This is the version of the A380 that interests me, not so much the A380. Its like the 744 (50% of 747 sales) vs. the 743.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 397
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

RE: A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:12 pm

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 36):
I do expect the A389 to be the predominant model of the A380 family.

I would agree, it should be the definitive, most efficient model, but who is going to order it and when?
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1769
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:13 pm

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 33):
Why on earth would Airbus want to consider other models of an aircraft they can't sell now? By my calculations, they are still some 260 airframes short of their stated break-even on the current 380.

It is a common fallacy that the A388 needs to come anywhere close to break-even before launching the A389. The launch decision would be made if they could make a decent ROI on the incremental investment required to build the A389, of course taking into account any sales robbed from the A388. While that investment will no doubt increase due to the A388F program freeze, it won't be an astronomical sum because of all the -900 features already accounted for in the -800. This will be low hanging fruit, and it won't take much of a market demand for Airbus to pick it.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 35):
While a Photoshop job, it's probably roughly accurate.

Very nice... but missing a key spotting feature: door 7 upstairs at the front Big grin
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:15 pm

Quoting Iloveboeing (Reply 4):
Agreed. The CASM for an A389 would just be amazing!

Unfortunately so would the trip costs. You'd probably have to fill 450 seats on most routes to break even. That is a *HUGE* risk for any airline. I doubt very much that any airline that has an independent CFO or Board FInance Committee would ever order such a beast. though I'm sure certain airlines ran by princes and such might.

The important issue for Airbus is that ANY sale of an A389 would most likely be a replacement for an A388 sale. So the net incremental revenue produced by launching the A389 would never be enough to justify the investment.

Just ask yourself the question "How many airlines would order an A389 instead of an 77W, 748I, A346?". Then ask the question "How many airlines would order an A389 instead of an A388".

That will quickly convince you that the A389 has very dim prospects.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 4:00 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 38):
It is a common fallacy that the A388 needs to come anywhere close to break-even before launching the A389. The launch decision would be made if they could make a decent ROI on the incremental investment required to build the A389, of course taking into account any sales robbed from the A388. While that investment will no doubt increase due to the A388F program freeze, it won't be an astronomical sum because of all the -900 features already accounted for in the -800. This will be low hanging fruit, and it won't take much of a market demand for Airbus to pick it.

I agree. In fact I think the money invested in the A380 program to date won't be recovered without offering follow on models. The much greater break even point due to ballooning program costs and delays combined with a low and late peak delivery rate means the current model will become noncompetitive with other more modern widebody offerings before break even.

I wonder if the 777 program broke even with the 772A, 772ER and 773A given the expense of that program. It certainly has with the 777LR models added on given the low cost of that upgrade and Boeing's pricing power due to the noncompetitiveness of the A340NG.

Whether the A389 ends up an easy and cheap program remains to be seen, and whether there will be a sufficiently large market to generate muc of a return remains in doubt. But I don't see break even for the program without it or some other new A380 model.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
Sangas
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 8:52 pm

RE: A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 4:40 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 38):
It is a common fallacy that the A388 needs to come anywhere close to break-even before launching the A389. The launch decision would be made if they could make a decent ROI on the incremental investment required to build the A389, of course taking into account any sales robbed from the A388. While that investment will no doubt increase due to the A388F program freeze, it won't be an astronomical sum because of all the -900 features already accounted for in the -800. This will be low hanging fruit, and it won't take much of a market demand for Airbus to pick it.

Once the hoopla of the "ceremonial" delivery to and EIS with SQ later this year, as well as deliveries to and EIS with other early operators in commercially meaningful numbers plays-out over the 6--18 months following the first delivery, the A380 will rapidly fade as the marquee programme at Airbus anyway.

As it turned-out, given fundamental changes in the marketplace since the A380 was launched, primarily the composite fuselage/advanced technologies juggernaut introduced by the 787 programme, Airbus would had to have flawlessly executed the development/industrialisation phase of the A380 programme in order to have any hope of the programme ever being profitable enough to justify the enormous investment. It will now be difficult to achieve an IRR of greater than 20% (i.e. high enough to justify the risk) even on incremental investments to "refresh/enhance" the product line in order to stimulate additional sales. Sometimes ostensibly "low hanging fruit" can be tricky to profitably exploit, particularly when the orchard in question is negatively affected/impacted by events beyond the farmer's control, you need look no further than what just happened with the A380F for a good example of this phenomenon. Considering the fact that less than a year ago with 27 firm orders in hand, and FX loudly extolling the A380F's virtues and future prospects, there could have been no "lower hanging fruit" to harvest when it came to the A380 program? It's truly breathtaking how quickly it fell to the ground, rotten.
A camel only sees the other camels' humps
 
centrair
Posts: 2845
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:44 pm

RE: A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 4:53 pm

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 29):
A few problems here. 1. Japanese airports charge landing fees based on aircraft weight. If your load factors are not high on the larger aircraft, your costs per passenger will be high. 2. Keeping your fleet utilization is high is important for making money on short haul, so it isn't clear that reducing frequency helps, especially if you reduce ticket revenue by not delivering what the customer wants when they want it.

Not to mention JL and NH's main competition on the core route (HND-ITM) that see the high density config is the Shinkansen. Price is competative and time is the same or faster. Shinkansen...downtown-downtown.
Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:20 pm

Quoting Iloveboeing (Thread starter):
I know the GE90-115B was built exclusively for the B777-300ER

Not really, The GE-90-115B is offered as an optional engine on the B-777-200LR and B-777-200F. But, I guess you can say the engine is used exclusively on the B-777, right now.

Quoting A342 (Reply 17):
A389 would have enough power even without the GE90-115B.
Also, IIRC, the GE has a worse SFC than the Trent 900 / GP7200.

Yes, the A-380-900 would not need all the power offered by the GE-90-115B. But to say the Trent-900 and GP-7200 have a lower SFC than the GE-90 is comparing apples to oranges. The GE-90 is in a totally different thrust class than the Trent-900 and GP-7200.

Quoting A342 (Reply 20):
The engines used on the A380 have newer technology than the GE90, and so their fuel burn is lower.

Again, this is an apples to oranges comparison.
 
A520
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 1:12 am

RE: A380-900 Possibilities?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:45 pm

My guess is that, if a 389 fly, it would not be in the near future, but more probably after the EIS of the 350, i.e. in 2015-2020. Technologies developed for the 350 will naturally find their ways to the stretch 380 (such as the new engines) and the 388 will at this time integrated enough in day to day operation to allow a new leap in size.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4970
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: A380-900 Possibilities?

Tue Mar 06, 2007 12:20 am

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 32):
Why on earth would Airbus want to consider other models of an aircraft they can't sell now?

 checkmark 

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 38):
Unfortunately so would the trip costs. You'd probably have to fill 450 seats on most routes to break even. That is a *HUGE* risk for any airline.

This is I believe why so many airlines are replacing 747's with 777's. You don't make as much money when you have to turn away passengers but you also lose far less when you have empty seats. Each airline has to figure what the right size is for the load variations, and with the coming of the 787 and A350 the argument for the A380 is only going to be valid for routes that are slot restricted and have consistently high load densities. With the CASM for the 787 and the A350 being comparable to the A380 I predict that the A380 will sell comparatively few more, and any money spent in developing new variations will be wasted. Airbus needs to concentrate on the A350 and A320RS and not continue chasing rainbows with the A380.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
Tristarfreak
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:14 pm

RE: A380-900 Possibilities?

Tue Mar 06, 2007 12:28 am

although an A380-9 might be in Airbus' plan for the "long haul" I don't think it is coming soon especially with Airbus trying to get the A350XWB rolling and then there is the A320NG they are working on as well I think that after that gets underway then maybe Airbus might think about expanding the A380 line
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4970
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: A380-900 Possibilities?

Tue Mar 06, 2007 12:31 am

Quoting Tristarfreak (Reply 45):
although an A380-9 might be in Airbus' plan for the "long haul" I don't think it is coming soon especially with Airbus trying to get the A350XWB rolling and then there is the A320NG they are working on as well I think that after that gets underway then maybe Airbus might think about expanding the A380 line

By that time CFRP airliners will be accepted as the only way to go and the A380 will be a dinosaur. Let it die in peace.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
YULWinterSkies
Posts: 1266
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:42 pm

RE: A380-900 Possibilities?

Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:12 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
And yet Japan has gone from the 747-400 to the 777-300

A 773 with 10 abreast and mostly Y seats is not significantly smaller in capacity than a 744... Remember it is longer.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
and soon to the 787-3.

Its victims will be the 767s, not the 744s or 773s. There are also many 767s flying domestically in Japan.
When I doubt... go running!
 
NoWorries
Posts: 493
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:55 am

RE: A380-900 Possibilities?

Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:20 am

Assuming there is demand for something the size of A389, if Airbus (or Boeing for that matter) were to build it using spun CFRP barrels, I'm assuming the reduced weight would result in somewhat smaller wings -- so would the "footprint" of an CFRP A389-equivalent be any more manageable within existing airport infrastructures? Would the wake problem for an A389-equivalent be any worse that the A388? Even if "footprint" and wake are manageable, I'm assuming the boarding and disembarking process would be quite long for such a large plane -- there doesn't seem to be an immediate solution to that problem -- anyone up for 2+4+4+2 seating  spin . Just my uninformed opinion, but the more one thinks about such a large plane, the less sense it seems to make.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: A380-900 Possibilities?

Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:02 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 42):
But to say the Trent-900 and GP-7200 have a lower SFC than the GE-90 is comparing apples to oranges. The GE-90 is in a totally different thrust class than the Trent-900 and GP-7200.

The comparison is entirely valid. SFC is given per unit of thrust, and so can can compare engines of any thrust class.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 42):
Again, this is an apples to oranges comparison.

Why ? Maybe I should have said: "As they have newer technology, their SFC is lower." Anyway, you are free to prove me wrong !
Exceptions confirm the rule.