PW100 wrote:

Sure. But that only confirms that the early teens are not a good representation of A380 second hand market.

And it doesn't confirm the post-MSN26 frames will have a strong second hand market either.

Right now pre-MSN26 frames represent 100% of the A380 second hand market and will be so for quite some time, unless someone throws in the towel earlier than anticipated.

When do you think the first post-MSN26 frame will be retired?

When an aircraft comes off lease, the leasor should receive end of lease (EOL) payments for accrued maintenance and inspections, an external repaint and interior refurbishment, compensation for damage/abnormal wear, excess hours and cycles, and a raft of other amounts covered in side agreements to the main lease.

Some leasees will negotiate a discount on the end of lease payments, in return for signing a new lease on a new aircraft, or extending an existing lease on another aircraft from the same leasing company, or.....................

Some will undertake EOL work inhouse, because they can do so, at lower cost than in original agreement.

Some are even smarter. They will store your end of lease aircraft for free, thereby deferring any EOL action and payments until the leasor determines it's future (and then they will do the work inhouse), with some even accessible for use on an 'on demand (pay by the hour) basis'.

The waters are muddied, because compensation, almost certainly including buybacks (pre-agreed trade in prices with nominees) and cash occurred early in their lives.

In normal circumstances, the leasor weighs up the desirability of scrapping versus continued operation - sale or another lease.

Very tempting to scrap, because a prospective buyer or new lease customer will do the maths, and want a big chunk of the EOL payment for a re-paint, new interior, cockpit upgrade, training contribution and lease payment holiday.

Increasingly more profitable for the leasor to pocket the lot, part the big ticket items, and let a specialist do the rest. Ideally there is a discreet time separation, and a few changes of ownership, to preserve / protect the tax status of the previous lease and settlements, which is why some aircraft seem to park awaiting their future, when in fact it's already known.

Stitch wrote:

notaxonrotax wrote:

...but look at the early 787´s, the first two are already retired if I´m not mistaken!

No customer-delivered frame has been retired. There are a few VIP models either undergoing interior fitting or for sale and the Trent 1000-powered fleet is being rotated in and out of service due to engine replacements.

How many of the first batch of 787 frames destined for final customer delivery were scrapped or foisted off on museum sites?

Remember: Boeing expected to sell off (near) all frames used for flight testing and qualification.
( no idea if this was just for pushing their cost into longtime storage (aka deferred ... ))

WIederling wrote:

How many of the first batch of 787 frames destined for final customer delivery were scrapped or foisted off on museum sites?

Five.

WIederling wrote:

Remember: Boeing expected to sell off (near) all frames used for flight testing and qualification.

Yes. Boeing does not hold back a frame for further testing like Airbus does.

And remember, Airbus expected to sell A380 MSN002 and MSN004, but the latter was foisted off to a museum site and the former will likely end up similarly.

Stitch wrote:

WIederling wrote:

How many of the first batch of 787 frames destined for final customer delivery were scrapped or foisted off on museum sites?

Five.

WIederling wrote:

Remember: Boeing expected to sell off (near) all frames used for flight testing and qualification.

Yes. Boeing does not hold back a frame for further testing like Airbus does.

And remember, Airbus expected to sell A380 MSN002 and MSN004, but the latter was foisted off to a museum site and the former will likely end up similarly.

In percentage terms, the amount of frames scrapped or donated to museums vs total produced for the 787 is lower than that of the A380.

jeffrey0032j wrote:

Stitch wrote:

WIederling wrote:

How many of the first batch of 787 frames destined for final customer delivery were scrapped or foisted off on museum sites?

Five.

WIederling wrote:

Remember: Boeing expected to sell off (near) all frames used for flight testing and qualification.

Yes. Boeing does not hold back a frame for further testing like Airbus does.

And remember, Airbus expected to sell A380 MSN002 and MSN004, but the latter was foisted off to a museum site and the former will likely end up similarly.

In percentage terms, the amount of frames scrapped or donated to museums vs total produced for the 787 is lower than that of the A380.

The main point, relative to this thread at least, is that the early 787s were never a candidate for the used market therefore had no role in establishing used market valuations.

wa5 wrote:

How many hours / cycles does this bird have up? might be a cheap way into the ultimate personal jet...

My money says coke cans or this option.

Revelation wrote:

The main point, relative to this thread at least, is that the early 787s were never a candidate for the used market therefore had no role in establishing used market valuations.

To be exact, they were not even candidates for the used market, as it was clear their value was 0. In the A380 case, it was even worth it to offer it in case.

ILNFlyer wrote:

wa5 wrote:

How many hours / cycles does this bird have up? might be a cheap way into the ultimate personal jet...

My money says coke cans or this option.

Was anyone else thinking how funny it would have been if, instead of an Air China 747, Kim had turned up at Changi in a China Southern A380 and parked up next to AF1?

Maybe I'm just easily amused...

Jayafe wrote:

Revelation wrote:

The main point, relative to this thread at least, is that the early 787s were never a candidate for the used market therefore had no role in establishing used market valuations.

To be exact, they were not even candidates for the used market, as it was clear their value was 0. In the A380 case, it was even worth it to offer it in case.

Actually, the reason was because they were able to build newer frames a lot cheaper than reworking those early built 787s. Prudent financial decision by Boeing.

The fact that couple of A380s weren't taken up even though Airbus tried to sell them makes the A380's case even sadder.

Jayafe wrote:

Revelation wrote:

The main point, relative to this thread at least, is that the early 787s were never a candidate for the used market therefore had no role in establishing used market valuations.

To be exact, they were not even candidates for the used market, as it was clear their value was 0. In the A380 case, it was even worth it to offer it in case.

That'd be a great point if this was the "dump on the 787 thread".

Anything you need to do to avoid discussing the A380 used market is fine, right?

jumbojet wrote:

Ladies and gentlemen,

I believe we have our very first A380 super jumbo hotel. Germany has a 747 for a hotel, now, Germany can have an A380 for a super jumbo hotel to.

Really ? And where in Germany would that be ? There is one in Sweden but I haven’t heard of a 747 hotel in Germany ?

jumbojet wrote:

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we have our very first A380 super jumbo hotel. Germany has a 747 for a hotel, now, Germany can have an A380 for a super jumbo hotel to.

As JayBCNLON said, that's in Sweden, not in Germany.

wa5 wrote:

How many hours / cycles does this bird have up? might be a cheap way into the ultimate personal jet...

Dr. Peters already tried this. The recruited a Swiss company to sell it as a VVIP-jet. There was an article about it one or two years ago and - of course - a corresponding thread here on a.net.
Here are the results of trying to sell it as VVIP-jet:

...


...


...


...


...


...



...


...

wa5 wrote:

How many hours / cycles does this bird have up? might be a cheap way into the ultimate personal jet...

N14AZ wrote:

Dr. Peters already tried this. The recruited a Swiss company to sell it as a VVIP-jet (but found no takers)..

Even if the airframe could be purchased (relatively) inexpensively, the actual outfitting of a frame into a Business Jet would be hugely expensive and that limits the buyers mainly to Heads of State.

Airbus also has been trying to sell MSN002, an A380CJ, for many years with no success. Boeing also tried to sell LN004 and LN005 as 787 VIPs before giving up. And while there were no public reports of such, I would not be surprised if they tried to sell LN1435 as a 747-8 VIP before moving it to the VC-25B program as a technology and systems testbed. And there is at least one completed 747-8 VIP on the market (ex Sultanate of Brunei, I believe).

N14AZ wrote:

wa5 wrote:

How many hours / cycles does this bird have up? might be a cheap way into the ultimate personal jet...

Dr. Peters already tried this. The recruited a Swiss company to sell it as a VVIP-jet. There was an article about it one or two years ago and - of course - a corresponding thread here on a.net.
Here are the results of trying to sell it as VVIP-jet:

...


...


...


...


...


...



...


...

Airbus also tried after their customer back out of MSN002 and with MSN004. The fact of the matter is there are very few people out there who can afford to maintain a A380 private jet without bleeding themselves completely dry, even if the initial purchase price for the jet is cheap. It’s weight means parking it expensive. It is complex and relatively uncommon so maintanence is expensive. In commercial ops it is efficient per seat, but that doesn’t change the fact that it slurps up a lot of fuel. And many of those people who can afford it would scoff at buying a used jet (even if it is a A380). Who do you think they are, some kind of poor?

In some ways the A380 was a technology leader and had exciting and in some cases leading design features. However, it may well be that Airbus limited the used market by the total custom interior of the A380's that are often unique to each client to the point that they are very expensive to retrofit. Retrofitting of other aircraft interiors - and changing layouts - is virtually never mentioned as a cost consideration for a 10-15 year old other aircraft (and interiors are updated on them).

Yet, I see multiple people from people, including some whom I suspect are fans of A, mentioning the cost of the interior retrofit being too expensive for an A380 such that it is affecting its ability to be marketed as a used aircraft. That to me represents a basic design flaw of Airbus which seems to be clearly affecting its used value and long term utility.

This does not mean that customized interiors could have been allowed (a number of early 747's had a bar on the upper deck accessed by a spiral staircase) - and these interiors were retrofitted to seats at reasonable cost. Just that Airbus apparently went too far in allowing individualization in a way that affects more than just interior fittings (seats, shower modules, etc).

I wonder why Airbus did not just offer several common seating/feature layouts, which could be reconfigured at modest cost; and then an airline who wanted more than that had to pay extra for it. In that case I suspect that most A380s would have had one of the standard layouts; and retrofit cost would have been more typical of other aircraft (on a per seat cost basis).

Have a great day,

2175301 wrote:

I wonder why Airbus did not just offer several common seating/feature layouts, which could be reconfigured at modest cost; and then an airline who wanted more than that had to pay extra for it. In that case I suspect that most A380s would have had one of the standard layouts; and retrofit cost would have been more typical of other aircraft (on a per seat cost basis).

Items like seats, lavatories and galleys are usually "Buyer Furnished Equipment" so airlines order them separately from the airframe and have it delivered to the FAL for installation by the OEM. Also, one of the major selling points Airbus pushed for the A380 was the amount of customization it's size would offer an airline to create a unique and differentiated experience compared to smaller widebodies.

As an aside, Boeing did have a list of "pre-approved" cabin fittings for the 787 family that if selected by an airline would allow outfitting to be quicker, but even then, Boeing still allowed customers to install their own specialized seating (like BA's FIRST and Club World) if they wished.

Today SQ's A380 #4 has been transferred to Tarbes–Lourdes–Pyrénées Airport.

Airbus A380-841 9V-SKD Singapore Airlines ferried 27jun18 SIN-LDE, all white, for storage

Source: https://www.skyliner-aviation.de/regdb. ... av4&page=2

So right now there should be three ex-SQ A380s in Tarbes (SKA, SKB & SKD).

So far no activity from 9H-MIP (ex 9V-SKC). I guess she is still in Singapore.

At least SKA, SKB & SKD have freshly overhauled landing gear. Note sure if the spares market can handle 3 shipsets which should be around $12M-$15M per shipset to purchase. There is already one shipset of spares available.

I saw an all-white A380 when landing at SIN on Tuesday. I think these should make good Hajj charter jets if nothing else.

Stitch wrote:

wa5 wrote:

How many hours / cycles does this bird have up? might be a cheap way into the ultimate personal jet...

N14AZ wrote:

Dr. Peters already tried this. The recruited a Swiss company to sell it as a VVIP-jet (but found no takers)..

Even if the airframe could be purchased (relatively) inexpensively, the actual outfitting of a frame into a Business Jet would be hugely expensive and that limits the buyers mainly to Heads of State.

Airbus also has been trying to sell MSN002, an A380CJ, for many years with no success. Boeing also tried to sell LN004 and LN005 as 787 VIPs before giving up. And while there were no public reports of such, I would not be surprised if they tried to sell LN1435 as a 747-8 VIP before moving it to the VC-25B program as a technology and systems testbed. And there is at least one completed 747-8 VIP on the market (ex Sultanate of Brunei, I believe).

That B747-8 VIP used to belong to Qatari Royal Family, not Brunei.

Erau82 wrote:

At least SKA, SKB & SKD have freshly overhauled landing gear. Note sure if the spares market can handle 3 shipsets which should be around $12M-$15M per shipset to purchase. There is already one shipset of spares available.

Wow, that's interesting and part of what I tried to find out on page 2 of this thread... So out of the 45 Million EUR (that's the price Dr. Peters gets for each A380) the landing gear is worth 12 to 15 Million US$?
And what about the rest?

N14AZ wrote:

Erau82 wrote:

At least SKA, SKB & SKD have freshly overhauled landing gear. Note sure if the spares market can handle 3 shipsets which should be around $12M-$15M per shipset to purchase. There is already one shipset of spares available.

Wow, that's interesting and part of what I tried to find out on page 2 of this thread... So out of the 45 Million EUR (that's the price Dr. Peters gets for each A380) the landing gear is worth 12 to 15 Million US$?
And what about the rest?

What? About 1/4 of the whole plane value is the landing gear?
So what about the engines?
And the Avionic?
There's something not right in here...

FatCat wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

Erau82 wrote:

At least SKA, SKB & SKD have freshly overhauled landing gear. Note sure if the spares market can handle 3 shipsets which should be around $12M-$15M per shipset to purchase. There is already one shipset of spares available.

Wow, that's interesting and part of what I tried to find out on page 2 of this thread... So out of the 45 Million EUR (that's the price Dr. Peters gets for each A380) the landing gear is worth 12 to 15 Million US$?
And what about the rest?

What? About 1/4 of the whole plane value is the landing gear?
So what about the engines?
And the Avionic?
There's something not right in here...

The engines are definitely not part of the price since they belong to RR (power by the hour-deal). Lightsaber and Stitch can explain this in a better way...

The engines are leased on for some time already and then sold separately.

N14AZ wrote:

[Lightsaber and Stitch can explain this in a better way...

Or Noshow....

FatCat wrote:

[Oh thanks for clarifying. [...] - or too less for the rest of the airplane!

That's what Dr. Peters thought as well

Seriously, would be great to learn a little bit more about the value of the different parts.

N14AZ wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

[Lightsaber and Stitch can explain this in a better way...

Or Noshow....

Oh thanks for clarifying.
But still looks like too much for a landing gear - or too less for the rest of the airplane!

9V-SKC has now been registered to HiFlyMalta as 9H-MIP. It how has a webpage on HiFly's website:

http://www.hifly.aero/en/a380/9h-mip.html

zkojq wrote:

9V-SKC has now been registered to HiFlyMalta as 9H-MIP. It how has a webpage on HiFly's website:

http://www.hifly.aero/en/a380/9h-mip.html

Seems they are willing to move forward with just the one for now, while we have "three ex-SQ A380s in Tarbes (SKA, SKB & SKD)" as per the earlier post.

Hopefully SKC can have a profitable future and make work for the three sisters too.

FatCat wrote:

What? About 1/4 of the whole plane value is the landing gear? So what about the engines? And the Avionic? There's something not right in here...

Remember, that's what it is worth for a used frame being scrapped. At the time of purchase, the cost of the landing gear was closer to 5% of the airframe value.

N14AZ wrote:

Seriously, would be great to learn a little bit more about the value of the different parts.

In 2009, the South China Post ran a breakdown of what CX paid for a new A330-300 and 777-300ER:

A330-300 - $93 million

Airframe: $43 million
Engines: $30 million
Cabin Fittings: $12 million
Avionics: $3 million
Landing Gear: $3 million
APU: $2 million

777-300ER - $140 million

Airframe: $56 million
Engines: $60 million
Cabin Fittings: $16 million
Avionics: $3 million
Landing Gear: $4 million
APU $2 million

We, including me, toss around list price and standard discounts. I think we need to come up with a new pricing standard. Especially with engines being leased by the hour prices are utterly confusing and sometimes even meaningless.

The list price on a new set of Mains (2 Body Gear and 2 Wing Gear) is roughly $25M USD. Much higher than a set of new 747-8 Mains but due to the smaller fleet size the burdened costs are being spread over a smaller number of shipsets and almost no spare sales. The 747-8 gear are an up-sized version of the -400 version so burdened costs stayed low. A sale of the 1st spare shipset of A380 landing gear confirms the high price. The SQ overhauls were done 2 years before TBO (12 years) and have roughly 6K cycles since new on them. The spares market is non-existent at this point and that is also keeping the price high as the only source is the OEM.

Erau82 wrote:

The list price on a new set of Mains (2 Body Gear and 2 Wing Gear) is roughly $25M USD. Much higher than a set of new 747-8 Mains but due to the smaller fleet size the burdened costs are being spread over a smaller number of shipsets and almost no spare sales. The 747-8 gear are an up-sized version of the -400 version so burdened costs stayed low. A sale of the 1st spare shipset of A380 landing gear confirms the high price. The SQ overhauls were done 2 years before TBO (12 years) and have roughly 6K cycles since new on them. The spares market is non-existent at this point and that is also keeping the price high as the only source is the OEM.

Are you comparing apples with apples?

A complete new build turnkey set for the A380, including delivery and fitting, with no credit for the return of the old set (for re-build and re-sale), versus a refurbished set from Boeing, minus credit for the return of the old set (for rebuild and re-sale). Try ordering a complete, new build set from Boeing for any version of the 747.

Only an insurance company would pay anything like that amount in the event the current undercarriage was worthless, though I doubt the aircraft would be returned to service if it had sustained that much damage.

So since the engines are leased, the plane is engine less? That means any new owner has to strike a deal with someone to have them installed on the plane? Seems like one more piece of the puzzle is missing. Probably much better off just getting one of the 747-8's. At least parts are easier to come by and as an operator, it will be easier to find and fix.

727200 wrote:

So since the engines are leased, the plane is engine less? That means any new owner has to strike a deal with someone to have them installed on the plane?

All Trent 900s are leased from Rolls-Royce under TotalCare contracts so the new owner would just sign such a contract.

Stitch wrote:

727200 wrote:

So since the engines are leased, the plane is engine less? That means any new owner has to strike a deal with someone to have them installed on the plane?

All Trent 900s are leased from Rolls-Royce under TotalCare contracts so the new owner would just sign such a contract.

In which case makes even more sense to certify the T7000 on the A380. It will benefit from the 787(and maybe A330 NEO) parts market.

Stitch wrote:

727200 wrote:

So since the engines are leased, the plane is engine less? That means any new owner has to strike a deal with someone to have them installed on the plane?

All Trent 900s are leased from Rolls-Royce under TotalCare contracts so the new owner would just sign such a contract.

As I’ve said before, RR does not own engines under TotalCare contracts, The airline chooses whether it wants to go with totalcare or not. In fact RR is leasing the T900s from Dr Peters.

RB211trent wrote:

As I’ve said before, RR does not own engines under TotalCare contracts, The airline chooses whether it wants to go with totalcare or not. In fact RR is leasing the T900s from Dr Peters.

Okay, maybe we're all getting hung-up over the specifics and semantics of what exactly a "leased" and "owned" engine is (I admit to not knowing the details - just going off of other posts on the matter), but statements by RR within the last year or two have noted that all Trent 900s in customer operation were under at least some form of TotalCare agreement (RR themselves define it as "partial" and "total"). And as of 2013, 94% of all Trent family engines in customer operation were under at least some form of TotalCare agreement. So it seems that almost everyone (other than AF/KL and even they may be under a "partial" agreement ) choose RR TC in some form for their Trent family engines.

Flighty wrote:

The gauntlet has been thrown down on the A380 secondary market.

What secondary market?

2175301 wrote:

In some ways the A380 was a technology leader and had exciting and in some cases leading design features. However, it may well be that Airbus limited the used market by the total custom interior of the A380's that are often unique to each client to the point that they are very expensive to retrofit. Retrofitting of other aircraft interiors - and changing layouts - is virtually never mentioned as a cost consideration for a 10-15 year old other aircraft (and interiors are updated on them).

Yet, I see multiple people from people, including some whom I suspect are fans of A, mentioning the cost of the interior retrofit being too expensive for an A380 such that it is affecting its ability to be marketed as a used aircraft. That to me represents a basic design flaw of Airbus which seems to be clearly affecting its used value and long term utility.

This does not mean that customized interiors could have been allowed (a number of early 747's had a bar on the upper deck accessed by a spiral staircase) - and these interiors were retrofitted to seats at reasonable cost. Just that Airbus apparently went too far in allowing individualization in a way that affects more than just interior fittings (seats, shower modules, etc).

I wonder why Airbus did not just offer several common seating/feature layouts, which could be reconfigured at modest cost; and then an airline who wanted more than that had to pay extra for it. In that case I suspect that most A380s would have had one of the standard layouts; and retrofit cost would have been more typical of other aircraft (on a per seat cost basis).

Have a great day,

I believe the REAL issue with the A-380 it was too big, too many engines and Airbus called it wrong, betting on mega-hub to mega-hub on each side of the trip with spokes going out from each mega-hub. Boeing called it right with the 787 and Airbus later did with the A-350.

ILNFlyer wrote:

wa5 wrote:

How many hours / cycles does this bird have up? might be a cheap way into the ultimate personal jet...

My money says coke cans or this option.

As the fuselage and wings of the A380 are mainly composites, coke cans are rather unlikely.

Stitch wrote:

RB211trent wrote:

As I’ve said before, RR does not own engines under TotalCare contracts, The airline chooses whether it wants to go with totalcare or not. In fact RR is leasing the T900s from Dr Peters.

Okay, maybe we're all getting hung-up over the specifics and semantics of what exactly a "leased" and "owned" engine is (I admit to not knowing the details - just going off of other posts on the matter), but statements by RR within the last year or two have noted that all Trent 900s in customer operation were under at least some form of TotalCare agreement (RR themselves define it as "partial" and "total"). And as of 2013, 94% of all Trent family engines in customer operation were under at least some form of TotalCare agreement. So it seems that almost everyone (other than AF/KL and even they may be under a "partial" agreement ) choose RR TC in some form for their Trent family engines.

Yes, all T900s are under maintenance contracts of some form or another, not owned by RR. Totalcare has nothing to do with ownership just maintenance.

RB211trent wrote:

Stitch wrote:

727200 wrote:

So since the engines are leased, the plane is engine less? That means any new owner has to strike a deal with someone to have them installed on the plane?

All Trent 900s are leased from Rolls-Royce under TotalCare contracts so the new owner would just sign such a contract.

As I’ve said before, RR does not own engines under TotalCare contracts, The airline chooses whether it wants to go with totalcare or not. In fact RR is leasing the T900s from Dr Peters.

Virtually all RR WB engines are covered by TotalCare contracts, irrespective of ownership (for WB engines, you have to opt out, and only certain purchasers / operators can do so).

Total Care and RR ownership are not one and the same, though very unlikely RR owned engines are not on TotalCare.

RR does own engines - airlines can lease new and used. For cashflow / funding purposes, RR will from time to time, bundle lease contracts and place them with financiers, as do GE and Boeing Capital.

There is almost certainly a put option on the specific engines in question, being the other part of the buyback on the aircraft.

It seems very unlikely the oldest, earliest build, heaviest and non-production standard of the five will find a flying home. After a period of inactivity and 1-2 ownership transfers, it will fly away for parting, with the engines winging their way back to RR.

Bald1983 wrote:

2175301 wrote:

In some ways the A380 was a technology leader and had exciting and in some cases leading design features. However, it may well be that Airbus limited the used market by the total custom interior of the A380's that are often unique to each client to the point that they are very expensive to retrofit. Retrofitting of other aircraft interiors - and changing layouts - is virtually never mentioned as a cost consideration for a 10-15 year old other aircraft (and interiors are updated on them).

Yet, I see multiple people from people, including some whom I suspect are fans of A, mentioning the cost of the interior retrofit being too expensive for an A380 such that it is affecting its ability to be marketed as a used aircraft. That to me represents a basic design flaw of Airbus which seems to be clearly affecting its used value and long term utility.

This does not mean that customized interiors could have been allowed (a number of early 747's had a bar on the upper deck accessed by a spiral staircase) - and these interiors were retrofitted to seats at reasonable cost. Just that Airbus apparently went too far in allowing individualization in a way that affects more than just interior fittings (seats, shower modules, etc).

I wonder why Airbus did not just offer several common seating/feature layouts, which could be reconfigured at modest cost; and then an airline who wanted more than that had to pay extra for it. In that case I suspect that most A380s would have had one of the standard layouts; and retrofit cost would have been more typical of other aircraft (on a per seat cost basis).

Have a great day,

I believe the REAL issue with the A-380 it was too big, too many engines and Airbus called it wrong, betting on mega-hub to mega-hub on each side of the trip with spokes going out from each mega-hub. Boeing called it right with the 787 and Airbus later did with the A-350.

It did not have too many engines. It simply would not have worked with anything less than 4. Airbus did not call it wrong. The timing was wrong due to 9/11 and the recession. It was far too late for Airbus to hit the brakes by that time.
The setback only put the A380 ahead of its time for the next cycle.

mjoelnir wrote:

ILNFlyer wrote:

wa5 wrote:

How many hours / cycles does this bird have up? might be a cheap way into the ultimate personal jet...

My money says coke cans or this option.

As the fuselage and wings of the A380 are mainly composites, coke cans are rather unlikely.

Wouldn't you buy a GLARE Coke can?

Slug71 wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

2175301 wrote:

In some ways the A380 was a technology leader and had exciting and in some cases leading design features. However, it may well be that Airbus limited the used market by the total custom interior of the A380's that are often unique to each client to the point that they are very expensive to retrofit. Retrofitting of other aircraft interiors - and changing layouts - is virtually never mentioned as a cost consideration for a 10-15 year old other aircraft (and interiors are updated on them).

Yet, I see multiple people from people, including some whom I suspect are fans of A, mentioning the cost of the interior retrofit being too expensive for an A380 such that it is affecting its ability to be marketed as a used aircraft. That to me represents a basic design flaw of Airbus which seems to be clearly affecting its used value and long term utility.

This does not mean that customized interiors could have been allowed (a number of early 747's had a bar on the upper deck accessed by a spiral staircase) - and these interiors were retrofitted to seats at reasonable cost. Just that Airbus apparently went too far in allowing individualization in a way that affects more than just interior fittings (seats, shower modules, etc).

I wonder why Airbus did not just offer several common seating/feature layouts, which could be reconfigured at modest cost; and then an airline who wanted more than that had to pay extra for it. In that case I suspect that most A380s would have had one of the standard layouts; and retrofit cost would have been more typical of other aircraft (on a per seat cost basis).

Have a great day,

I believe the REAL issue with the A-380 it was too big, too many engines and Airbus called it wrong, betting on mega-hub to mega-hub on each side of the trip with spokes going out from each mega-hub. Boeing called it right with the 787 and Airbus later did with the A-350.

It did not have too many engines. It simply would not have worked with anything less than 4. Airbus did not call it wrong. The timing was wrong due to 9/11 and the recession. It was far too late for Airbus to hit the brakes by that time.
The setback only put the A380 ahead of its time for the next cycle.

I'm afraid the next cycle won't be coming anytime soon for the A380. Boeing has this habit of reshaping the market which changes the game play. They have done so with the 757/767 back in the 1980s, and then with the 787 in the 2000s. Airbus has largely followed this trend and as things stand, the 787-A350 pair is the way forward for the market.

I will draw flak for this, but my prediction is that the 777X will eventually replace the A380s in a lot of airlines that are flying the A380 or are looking for a VLA.

jeffrey0032j wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

I believe the REAL issue with the A-380 it was too big, too many engines and Airbus called it wrong, betting on mega-hub to mega-hub on each side of the trip with spokes going out from each mega-hub. Boeing called it right with the 787 and Airbus later did with the A-350.

It did not have too many engines. It simply would not have worked with anything less than 4. Airbus did not call it wrong. The timing was wrong due to 9/11 and the recession. It was far too late for Airbus to hit the brakes by that time.
The setback only put the A380 ahead of its time for the next cycle.

I'm afraid the next cycle won't be coming anytime soon for the A380. Boeing has this habit of reshaping the market which changes the game play. They have done so with the 757/767 back in the 1980s, and then with the 787 in the 2000s. Airbus has largely followed this trend and as things stand, the 787-A350 pair is the way forward for the market.

I will draw flak for this, but my prediction is that the 777X will eventually replace the A380s in a lot of airlines that are flying the A380 or are looking for a VLA.

The 767 was the Boeing's answer to the revolutionary A300. The 787 was designed because the A330 was running away with the midsized twin market. You can easily look at cycles from a different part of the cycle.

The 787 and the A380 have little to do with each other. The A380 was designed to break the Boeing dominance in the VLA sector. Boeing's answer was the 747-8.
The 787 was designed to break the Airbus dominance in the midsized twin market.

Slug71 wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

2175301 wrote:

In some ways the A380 was a technology leader and had exciting and in some cases leading design features. However, it may well be that Airbus limited the used market by the total custom interior of the A380's that are often unique to each client to the point that they are very expensive to retrofit. Retrofitting of other aircraft interiors - and changing layouts - is virtually never mentioned as a cost consideration for a 10-15 year old other aircraft (and interiors are updated on them).

Yet, I see multiple people from people, including some whom I suspect are fans of A, mentioning the cost of the interior retrofit being too expensive for an A380 such that it is affecting its ability to be marketed as a used aircraft. That to me represents a basic design flaw of Airbus which seems to be clearly affecting its used value and long term utility.

This does not mean that customized interiors could have been allowed (a number of early 747's had a bar on the upper deck accessed by a spiral staircase) - and these interiors were retrofitted to seats at reasonable cost. Just that Airbus apparently went too far in allowing individualization in a way that affects more than just interior fittings (seats, shower modules, etc).

I wonder why Airbus did not just offer several common seating/feature layouts, which could be reconfigured at modest cost; and then an airline who wanted more than that had to pay extra for it. In that case I suspect that most A380s would have had one of the standard layouts; and retrofit cost would have been more typical of other aircraft (on a per seat cost basis).

Have a great day,

I believe the REAL issue with the A-380 it was too big, too many engines and Airbus called it wrong, betting on mega-hub to mega-hub on each side of the trip with spokes going out from each mega-hub. Boeing called it right with the 787 and Airbus later did with the A-350.

It did not have too many engines. It simply would not have worked with anything less than 4. Airbus did not call it wrong. The timing was wrong due to 9/11 and the recession. It was far too late for Airbus to hit the brakes by that time.
The setback only put the A380 ahead of its time for the next cycle.

It has too many engines. Yes, you are correct it needed four engines to fly; that is not the point. The point is they built a plane designed to fly from mega-hub to mega-hub with airlines using smaller airplanes for the spokes to and from those mega-hubs. Customers wanted more direct flying. That is why Airbus called it wrong with the A-380 and Boeing (And Airbus) called it right with the 787 and A-350. After the initial enthusiasm, namely for having the prestige to fly the largest plane, why did enthusiasm drop so much? Why is it that, but for Emirates, the A-380 was a dog to sell and even airlines that flew them flew very small fleets of them? The A-380 is ahead of nothing because twin jets are advancing, more fuel efficient, and do not require airports to make major modifications to accommodate them.

mjoelnir wrote:

jeffrey0032j wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

It did not have too many engines. It simply would not have worked with anything less than 4. Airbus did not call it wrong. The timing was wrong due to 9/11 and the recession. It was far too late for Airbus to hit the brakes by that time.
The setback only put the A380 ahead of its time for the next cycle.

I'm afraid the next cycle won't be coming anytime soon for the A380. Boeing has this habit of reshaping the market which changes the game play. They have done so with the 757/767 back in the 1980s, and then with the 787 in the 2000s. Airbus has largely followed this trend and as things stand, the 787-A350 pair is the way forward for the market.

I will draw flak for this, but my prediction is that the 777X will eventually replace the A380s in a lot of airlines that are flying the A380 or are looking for a VLA.

The 767 was the Boeing's answer to the revolutionary A300. The 787 was designed because the A330 was running away with the midsized twin market. You can easily look at cycles from a different part of the cycle.

The 787 and the A380 have little to do with each other. The A380 was designed to break the Boeing dominance in the VLA sector. Boeing's answer was the 747-8.
The 787 was designed to break the Airbus dominance in the midsized twin market.

Both the A-380 and t Boeing 747-8 flopped.