Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Leitwolf22 wrote:Again it should not take a genius to understand, that a 590t 900 (that figure may be correct), with 35t of additional fuel (!?), will not result in in 1.000km less range! Also there is absolutely no statement on where that additional fuel would be stored. Then 50.000l =! 35t, but rather 39.25t.
RJMAZ wrote:Leitwolf22 wrote:Again it should not take a genius to understand, that a 590t 900 (that figure may be correct), with 35t of additional fuel (!?), will not result in in 1.000km less range! Also there is absolutely no statement on where that additional fuel would be stored. Then 50.000l =! 35t, but rather 39.25t.
Actually it would definitely result in 1000km less range.
You'll have a 10T increase in empty weight
You'll have more surface drag mening the engines need more thrust, or the aircraft will cruise a little loeer down.
To make the most of the extra cabin are you'll have 10% more payload. The A380-900 probably wont be able to use any of the extra fuel capacity.
Joe2mercs wrote:I think there s little appetite within Airbus at the moment to go for the Full Monty A380-900; it would be costly and time consuming with shaky evidence of commercial return in investment. The minimal risk with maximum return approach Is the NEO strategy. Just as importantly, and this cannot be stressed enough, Airbus needs to show the market that the A380 has a useful commercial life of 25 years. To do that Airbus need to offer existing A380 operators an upgrade path to NEO; the spectre of piles of second hand aircraft unused or scrapped will damage sales severely. Previous widebody jet programs (747, DC10/MD11 and L1011) have all offered improvements and upgrades during long production runs.
Current best in class engines and improved wing tips would provide about 10% improvement in fuel efficiency. If we assume that the RR Trent XWB be used to substitute for the Trent 900 the specific fuel consumption (SFC) decrease from 14.8 (g/KN/s) to 13.5 would reduce fuel consumption by about 8%. Additionally, this reduced SFC reduces the fuel mass required to be carried for each trip further reducing fuel consumption by about 2%. New wing tips, although adding weight, probably save a further 1%. If Airbus waited for the Trent Advance3 then fuel savings (SFC expected to be 12.7) will be in the order of 16% per trip. If Airbus waits even longer for the Trent Ultrafan (SFC expected to be 11.9) then the combined effect on fuel savings could be as high as 25% per trip.
However, Airbus cannot afford to wait. To do so risks Airbus appearing to be not fully committed to the A380. If they started now they could introduce XWB (or variants thereof) powered aircraft by the end of 2021. Just announcing such program would inject a new lease of life into A380 sales. Given this strategy Airbus can extend the A380 program lifetime long enough for airlines to become receptive to an A380-900 variant.
stratclub wrote:Oh wow. Could you use paragraph breaks so I can read your post without getting a headache?
stratclub wrote:Oh wow. Could you use paragraph breaks so I can read your post without getting a headache?
Joe2mercs wrote:stratclub wrote:Oh wow. Could you use paragraph breaks so I can read your post without getting a headache?stratclub wrote:Oh wow. Could you use paragraph breaks so I can read your post without getting a headache?
Lol. My apologies for the headache. It was a stream of thought.
RJMAZ wrote:This kills the economics of buying new A380's. Emirates would have originally modelled their fleet replacement and they decided 12 years is the time at which the buy back price is too expensive compared to buying new. If the A380's are a fraction of that price to buy back then it would cause them to definitely keep them.
Matt6461 wrote:While your point about EK renewing leases cheaply makes sense, it obviously isnt something they just failed to think of. EK seems to have judged that it simply must have newer planes than its legacy competitors; I find that judgment odd but what do know of their brand research?
Joe2mercs wrote:I have a question, is it cheaper to operate two 787s on the same route as one A380, taking into account the initial purchase price, depreciation, maintenance, fuel, landing fees and crews?
Matt6461 wrote:
I have always believed there's a way to get the A380 across that threshold due to its excellent fuselage, but that now seems likely to remain forever a hypothetical question.
Eyad89 wrote:The massive weight overshadowed that great advantage it had.
Eyad89 wrote:Ending the A380 production must've left you gutted, after all the time you've invested in this thread
Slug71 wrote:A rumor I heard this past weekend was that -800 production was ending. Too many changes to use a lot of the tooling and production/manufacturing methods for the new variant. But that's just a rumor and I have my doubts.
Stitch wrote:Slug71 wrote:A rumor I heard this past weekend was that -800 production was ending. Too many changes to use a lot of the tooling and production/manufacturing methods for the new variant. But that's just a rumor and I have my doubts.
No longer a rumor, but officially confirmed by Airbus in a press release: https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... rders.html