DDR wrote:

Who can manufacture the best 450-500 seat long range twin? That would be an ideal replacement for the A380. And I don't mean turning a 777 into a slave ship.

There seems to be little demand for large and expensive aircraft. Right now the market concentrates around A350/787 sized aircraft and will probably stay that way for a long time to come. Apparently airlines do not want a 500-seater, be it a quad or twin.

9w748capt wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

I suspect that a 380 could fly for a long time, some airlines have used planes for 25 years. Is there any reason why a 380 could not do the same? 12 years and out always struck me as not all that sensible (in most cases).

They can probably go the longest out of most airliners, cycle's will be racked up at a lower rate compared to short range airliners.

BA have said their 777's will see 30 years of service, I wouldn't be surprised if they push the A380's to do the same thing. No reason why aircraft can't fly this long if properly maintained.

Cycle's? Cycle's what?

1 cycle = 1 takeoff and 1 landing so basically 1 cycle is 1 flight.

[quote]EK and Airbus are playing chicken. Airbus needs the EK order to keep the 380 program going and EK needs the 380 for their business model. (They simply can't get that many seats in and out of London any other way, for example). Of course EK is trying to push Airbus to redeveloping more and Airbus is trying to push Emirates to a higher price by trying to make no deal a viable option.[/quote]

I do agree with this to an extent, however I think airlines are less concerned about the number of seats as the premium they can charge on those already in demand. LHR is definitely well travelled but will the capacity of a 777-x generate a better profit than a A380? For EK I'm not sure market share on this route is as important as the profit margin. This is a great route for the A380 but as market conditions change will it be correct going forward? Time will tell.

WIederling wrote:

9w748capt wrote:

Cycle's? Cycle's what?

Start, Pressurization cycle, Landing. ~= one use cycle.

This is the primary aging mechanism for airliners.

You can swap out the engines or other items on a regular "life expectancy" basis.
But not the fuselage. Traditionally in a D check all aged fuselage parts are replaced.
Still the cost to keep the frame as "equivalent new" rises to prohibitive levels eventually. Scrapyard.

All completely accurate, but irrelevant to the punctuation pedant.

william wrote:

Balerit wrote:

Sounds like another fake news story drummed up from the US to scare Airbus investors.

I give Airbus investors (myself included) much more credit than that.

Same here. But to some here when a London news agency publishes a story with a Paris dateline, it's a US conspiracy against the A380. Too funny.

Balerit wrote:

Isn't it funny how many things changed after Trumps visit to the middle east?

Even if that was true (which I doubt in this case), what do you think POTUS should do if not advance US interests?

The issue they are having with the A380 is that customers already want an updated model, but Airbus isn't looking to improve an aircraft that really only has one remaining customer. They could get 2 A338 for the price of 1 A380, or roughly 1.5 779 for the price of 1 A380. And since EK already has an existing 777X order, they could easily just add to the order.

Seat 16A is still one of the finest J-class offerings around; plenty silent and far from lavs and the bar, yet behind the wings allowing one to gaze and wonder at the ailerons and spoilers doing their dance on landing and take-off. All in blissful silence and with a private minibar to hand - what's not to like about that?

Frankly I couldn't give a rats so and so for the CASMs or RASMs, or whether they can sell the whale facedy thing once they've done using it, or even if they sell any further of them (albeit that'd be a bit sad), all that matters to me as a customer is comfort, comfort and comfort. Nothing provides for that like the A380, and whatever Airbus and EK may decide, that aircraft is, luckily for the comfort of all of us, going to be with us for another 30 years.

If a.net still exists by then, you may bet your bottom Dollar the A380 will be the next B757 'restart production!' queen on these pages, right in front of 'when will LH/BA/AF retire their last A380s?'.

parapente wrote:

Something happened that morning at the Dubai air show.Two airline manufacturers were waiting in the wings to come on stage together for a double order.Something that (I believe) had never happened before.Then the Airbus exec's are told to withdraw.
It's the biggest slight imaginable.Why?
Because they wouldn't guarantee 10 years manufacturing?Nope, because (with this order) the CEO already had guaranteed that!So it's got nothing to do with that.In fact anybody can do the simple maths and see that it's true.Just a quickly made up excuse that doesn't hold a drop of water.
It's something completely different and I'm sure we will never know.Its above aircraft.
Then there are all the recent purchases from the state. 777/9/8,787/10,737max9/10. It tells a clear story doesn't it.If Right now they have become an all Boeing state.I am sure Boeing will build them a 777-10 when required.Twins are the future.
It's not the biggest of problems for Airbus it only brings forward the inevitable.

Quite a conspiracy theory.

The A380 has too long been a lightening rod topic. At this point it would be best to assume this current rumor is likely an aggressive negotiating stance, but not a bluff by Airbus. Let’s just take it for what it is and not relitigate the past or make up a bunch of new bs.

aviationjunky wrote:

...And since EK already has an existing 777X order, they could easily just add to the order.

Doing that, from a company, culture, capacity, PR, technical and infrastructure point of view, is everything but easy.

Jayafe wrote:

Doing that, from a company, culture, capacity, PR, technical and infrastructure point of view, is everything but easy.

This may be true, but that makes it very hard to explain why EK chose to publicly humiliate Airbus at the Dubai Air Show.

To me it suggests EK is also willing to walk away from the A380 if Airbus does nothing to improve the product AND guarantee its longevity.

With LHR getting a third runway and DWC likely being online by the time the last a380 rolls off the production line - there isn't much need for the 380 anymore for the major operators. several growth countries are building huge airports to avoid an issue such as LHR and being slot constrained.

The quad is dead.

The A380 will still be an important aircraft for the foreseeable future for long haul flights to and/or from slot limited and curfew limited airports. Still there are issues. Early builds will be near worthless in resale due to their wiring issues. Then you have the costs of major structural checks years down the line that may cost more than a good part of the cost of a new or even a newer used expanded 777/350 series aircraft. Perhaps too, maybe if take some 380's out, you shrink the number of seats available so you can up yield per seat (with higher fares) and thus profits. EK also has substantial advantages of financing that major airlines elsewhere usually don't have. Let us also not forget in maybe 5-10 years oil prices will go up more than general inflation, customers' pay not be going up to allow to afford travel so less traffic and need for big planes.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

I suspect that a 380 could fly for a long time, some airlines have used planes for 25 years. Is there any reason why a 380 could not do the same? 12 years and out always struck me as not all that sensible (in most cases).

I was just asking because SQ retired its first A380 at 10 years of age. When will EK retire their older A380s?

This is Leahy and/or Schulz negotiating through the press. What Airbus is saying is true, but it is not new and everyone already knows it. Of course the A380 will go away if EK walks away from it! A low double-digit number of potential top-ups from other airlines, and the promise of replacements for their existing frames 20 years down the road, are not enough to keep the line open in the short term. Anyone can see that.

But EK has most of the leverage here. It can successfully execute its business model with existing A380s and new 777-9s for many years to come. Newer and improved A380s could certainly add some revenue for EK, but not enough to give Airbus significant pricing power.

ericm2031 wrote:

777-9’s and potentially a 777x-10/350-1100

Bricktop wrote:

What if EK announced another +/- 30 options for the 777-9. or for some real shits and giggles make some strong PUBLIC hints to Boeing for a 777-10? In fairness, I don't think that the 777-10 would sell a whole lot different than the A380, but what little I have learned from game theory on a.net it makes me think that would shake things up.

I highly doubt there will be a A350-1100 or 777-10. An A350-1100 would be in 777-9 territory with a lower MTOW. A 777-10 would most likely require extra strengthening and present tail-strike risks. The increased weight will have trade-offs too.

This is just Airbus putting pressure on EK.

The A380 is just too big for most airlines. Even if EK and SQ ordered more of the aircraft it would stop at one point and production would end.

KarlB737 wrote:

Or maybe a two engine 747-8 will take its place.

Boeing is already selling a twin-engine 744 (the 777-9). If the A380 disappears, that certainly makes a 777-10X stretch more likely. It would probably come pretty close to 747-8 seating capacity in similar configuration.

DAS17 immature fiasco should be a wakeup call to the industry. Airbus may have had a black eye on one day, but next day it signed the largest A320 order.

20 more years keeping A380 on life support would be a drag on Airbus and its supply chain.

I am afraid the A380 has become an albatross. The sooner Airbus move away from it, the better.
The company should concentrate its finite money and staff on solidifying existing popular programs while exploring future opportunities, not sinking resources into a morbid program for sake of ego or prestige.

seabosdca wrote:

KarlB737 wrote:

Or maybe a two engine 747-8 will take its place.

Boeing is already selling a twin-engine 744 (the 777-9). If the A380 disappears, that certainly makes a 777-10X stretch more likely. It would probably come pretty close to 747-8 seating capacity in similar configuration.

Yeh with less range than a 777-9 or 747-8. A 777-10X will likely have the same MTOW as the 777W / 777-8 / -9, the added weight of a further stretch is going to have a trade-off somewhere.

Antarius wrote:

With LHR getting a third runway and DWC likely being online by the time the last a380 rolls off the production line - there isn't much need for the 380 anymore for the major operators. several growth countries are building huge airports to avoid an issue such as LHR and being slot constrained.

The quad is dead.

I have to respect your POV, because you made it!

But could you explain to all of us when the LHR 3rd runway was approved - is it being built as we speak, and what is the projected operational start date? Thanks for that minor clarification

As for DWC, there is no money available in Dubai to continue building it at anything like the original plan. Unlikely to see Emirates there any time soon. As the date for the last A380 off the line is a moving feast, perhaps this is your only accurate prediction.

Would you bet your life, or even your house (do you own one yet?) on your last silly remark? Or maybe you could expand on what you mean that "the quad is dead". Several B747-400s passed over my house today, and I see shedloads of 4-engined aircraft all over the world on FR24 each day, several types still in production. In the spirit of "never say never", I find your remark unwise

KarelXWB wrote:

DDR wrote:

Who can manufacture the best 450-500 seat long range twin? That would be an ideal replacement for the A380. And I don't mean turning a 777 into a slave ship.

There seems to be little demand for large and expensive aircraft. Right now the market concentrates around A350/787 sized aircraft and will probably stay that way for a long time to come. Apparently airlines do not want a 500-seater, be it a quad or twin.

Very sobering, but spot on.

Revelation wrote:

To me it suggests EK is also willing to walk away from the A380 if Airbus does nothing to improve the product AND guarantee its longevity.

Asking production guarantees up until 2038 is a bit far stretched, nobody can look that far into the future.

Revelation wrote:

DDR wrote:

Who can manufacture the best 450-500 seat long range twin? That would be an ideal replacement for the A380. And I don't mean turning a 777 into a slave ship.

Unfortunately we'll never know what would have happened if Airbus had developed a better four-engine VLA, so it will have to be big twins going forward for quite a while.

It's not that, the A380 was 10 years too late for it's own good.

Boeing778X wrote:

Revelation wrote:

DDR wrote:

Who can manufacture the best 450-500 seat long range twin? That would be an ideal replacement for the A380. And I don't mean turning a 777 into a slave ship.

Unfortunately we'll never know what would have happened if Airbus had developed a better four-engine VLA, so it will have to be big twins going forward for quite a while.

It's not that, the A380 was 10 years too late for it's own good.

Or 30 years too early given that air travel is expected to double by the mid 2030s. Of course, a lot can change between now and then.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

I suspect that a 380 could fly for a long time, some airlines have used planes for 25 years. Is there any reason why a 380 could not do the same? 12 years and out always struck me as not all that sensible (in most cases).

Airplanes are not built to last like they were before just like everything else. We live in a throw away world now.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Revelation wrote:

DDR wrote:

Who can manufacture the best 450-500 seat long range twin? That would be an ideal replacement for the A380. And I don't mean turning a 777 into a slave ship.

Unfortunately we'll never know what would have happened if Airbus had developed a better four-engine VLA, so it will have to be big twins going forward for quite a while.

I think the question on "real" airline execs mind is who can fill 500 seats without discounting ticket prices below cost.

Thats just it..the A380 was never viable..the only serious customer was a petrodollar funded project predicated on taking every other airline's market share.

KarelXWB wrote:

Revelation wrote:

To me it suggests EK is also willing to walk away from the A380 if Airbus does nothing to improve the product AND guarantee its longevity.

Asking production guarantees up until 2038 is a bit far stretched, nobody can look that far into the future.

Indeed, so it suggests:
a) The report is inaccurate (all we have is "LNC is told"...)
b) The parties making the request are naive/stupid/whatever
c) The parties making the request are knowingly asking for the unlikely if not impossible

My guess is (a), but I'm sure some of our conspiracy theorists would go with (c).

The dark hand theory behind (c) then would be that EK is failing due to its excessive number of inefficient A380s and Dubai is broke so won't rescue them, so it wants to kill off the A380 and get out of future orders but doesn't want to be the one seen doing so, so it asks for impossible things and then snubs Airbus for refusing to deliver them, then Airbus looks like the bad guy when all along it's EK who is the bad actor.

We've already had the "dark hand of the US" theory floated here already, so what's one more crackpot theory?

klm617 wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

I suspect that a 380 could fly for a long time, some airlines have used planes for 25 years. Is there any reason why a 380 could not do the same? 12 years and out always struck me as not all that sensible (in most cases).

Airplanes are not built to last like they were before just like everything else. We live in a throw away world now.

Isn't rather that planes fly more nowadays than 20-30 years ago?

The 'news' is a pretty safe bet, given the end of a calendar year is always time for corporate reflection.

More likely this year, given the pending and planned senior management changes in 2018, who can conveniently be attributed (blamed?) for write offs, write downs, redundancies, etc.

From the 2010 order, or earlier, I expect EK negotiated a production guarantee, with a buyback agreement pre-dating this (three levels: trade in against A380 - higher value, trade in against WB - lower value, straight return - much lower value).

Presumably Airbus unwillingness to add further orders on the same terms, and the ripple effect with financiers, caused the order hiccup at Dubai.

Would cessation of production bring forward conditional buyback agreements, which otherwise don't crystalise until X number of years after delivery? Do sale/leaseback leasors inherit buybacks 100%, or are they discounted, or cancelled? Will cessation also provide a 'get out of jail for free card' for those airlines still with binding orders? Or will the model continue to be listed as available, but with a doubling in unit price?

What will Boeing's reaction be? Could airlines looking to defer 777X deliveries, whilst retaining launch discounts, be in for a reality check? Or could IAG, LH and SQ be tempted to top up, in order to keep Boeing honest, while a larger A350 is developed?

My armchair is especially comfortable at this time of year.

Planesmart wrote:

The 'news' is a pretty safe bet, given the end of a calendar year is always time for corporate reflection.

More likely this year, given the pending and planned senior management changes in 2018, who can conveniently be attributed (blamed?) for write offs, write downs, redundancies, etc.

From the 2010 order, or earlier, I expect EK negotiated a production guarantee, with a buyback agreement pre-dating this (three levels: trade in against A380 - higher value, trade in against WB - lower value, straight return - much lower value).

Presumably Airbus unwillingness to add further orders on the same terms, and the ripple effect with financiers, caused the order hiccup at Dubai.

Would cessation of production bring forward conditional buyback agreements, which otherwise don't crystalise until X number of years after delivery? Do sale/leaseback leasors inherit buybacks 100%, or are they discounted, or cancelled? Will cessation also provide a 'get out of jail for free card' for those airlines still with binding orders? Or will the model continue to be listed as available, but with a doubling in unit price?

What will Boeing's reaction be? Could airlines looking to defer 777X deliveries, whilst retaining launch discounts, be in for a reality check? Or could IAG, LH and SQ be tempted to top up, in order to keep Boeing honest, while a larger A350 is developed?

My armchair is especially comfortable at this time of year.

Thanks for a mature, intelligent post with a lot of thought provoking content.

I'll need some armchair time to let it sink in.

Meanwhile, back to the usual a.net fecal typhoon...

So, what's the conclusion?

Planesmart wrote:

What will Boeing's reaction be? Could airlines looking to defer 777X deliveries, whilst retaining launch discounts, be in for a reality check? Or could IAG, LH and SQ be tempted to top up, in order to keep Boeing honest, while a larger A350 is developed?

My armchair is especially comfortable at this time of year.

The 777X is barely larger than the 777W, contrary to a former popular poster about the 400 pax large twin. Boeing already has its cards on the table and the economics of the 777W are already well known, the 777X is supposed to be better with an slight increase in pax numbers, so if one is in the market for an A380 and is hesitant on the price or improvements in the frame, looking towards Boeing is going in a different direction, so far, abuse of the A380 with low pax numbers has not been spoken about since the low numbers have been used to increase luxury.

william wrote:

Airbus can make the production line last for ten years with a 100 unit order from Emirates at 8 a year. However, its not the only thing Emirates wants, they want an improved A380 which is not worth Airbus's ROI at 8 a year.

Yep that's the other huge sticking point. They want an A380-NEO and who can present a business case for billion dollar effort for one airline? Very risky. To say nothing of trying to get Rolls-Royce on board since the Engine Alliance is out of the picture.

sassiciai wrote:

Antarius wrote:

With LHR getting a third runway and DWC likely being online by the time the last a380 rolls off the production line - there isn't much need for the 380 anymore for the major operators. several growth countries are building huge airports to avoid an issue such as LHR and being slot constrained.

The quad is dead.

I have to respect your POV, because you made it!

But could you explain to all of us when the LHR 3rd runway was approved - is it being built as we speak, and what is the projected operational start date? Thanks for that minor clarification

As for DWC, there is no money available in Dubai to continue building it at anything like the original plan. Unlikely to see Emirates there any time soon. As the date for the last A380 off the line is a moving feast, perhaps this is your only accurate prediction.

Would you bet your life, or even your house (do you own one yet?) on your last silly remark? Or maybe you could expand on what you mean that "the quad is dead". Several B747-400s passed over my house today, and I see shedloads of 4-engined aircraft all over the world on FR24 each day, several types still in production. In the spirit of "never say never", I find your remark unwise

Starting from the bottom, the quad is dead doesn't mean all quads suddenly vanish- that should be obvious, arguing the exact wording is petulance. The 744 is dead; production is over and they will continue until the end of their useful life. Same with the 757, 767, MD 80 etc etc.

The point was they have roughly 10 more years of production to go even with zero new orders. By 2027-2028, there is a strong likelihood of having both DWC operational as well as the third runway functional - the latter has a projected operational date of 2025.

You can argue all you want about the future of the quad, but the market has spoken loudly.

I would look into Airbus only for this. The biggest changes currently happening are within the management of Airbus and the biggest problem the incoming team faces is the A380. They probably want this cleared before they take over, because they do not want the team that killed the A380 without ever being responsible for it.

Revelation wrote:

Seems like Airbus went away and played through several rounds of game theory and came up with their next move.
Either that or it's just simple logic: EK makes a bunch of demands that Airbus feels are untenable

All of that & more.
In Game Theory, "threats" must be "credible" or they are "void". I said earlier EK had played one step too many.

Since then, the Airbus management has received several blows changing the dynamics significantly :
1. Brégier - the A380's staunchest advocate within the Airbus management, after being tricked out of "Commercial Aircrafts", also was impeached from ever succeeding to Enders. I actually hold short-sighted Enders responsible for not overseeing his Paris sales teams & playing foul by putting Brégier on a side-track ( there was a good article that explained that well ).
2. Noone of the top management should be there after 2019, so to investors & Game Theory players, Airbus' A380 strategy has no visibility after that, and because Leahy & Brégier are leaving by Feb. 2018, no visibility at all since practically the Dubai Air Show.
3. The net result is that Airbus is now on short-term management - which has good sides, but will likely shoot themselves on the foot.

seahawk wrote:

Airbus is replacing their senior management, so the incoming team will want the A380 problem solved one way or the other. And at the moment ending the program seems to be the saver option.

Not quite. If Airbus scrap the A380, Game Theory shows they will need to develop the A350-1100, or face significant market-share loss ( on top of 2017's ) while Boeing reap monopolistic profits in the VLA sector.

parapente wrote:

Something happened that morning at the Dubai air show.
It's something completely different and I'm sure we will never know.Its above aircraft.

Agreed. Considering the impact, it may actually have been decided before the Dubai Show even ( that is when EK went more vocal, putting both themselves & Airbus in an untenable position ), can be the investigation, of the following that does come up in European media :

dubaiamman243 wrote:

European sources say that reflects growing American influence in the Gulf under President Donald Trump, but U.S. and UAE industry sources deny politics are involved."

Well, still have Some doupts about the EK model, basically uses two types of airplanes for all her network. Wondering what they think about that. If in EK they are satisfied with this model then we will see more 380 coming and the type to hanging around for some time more. If they want to try something else, let’s say a mix of 777-9 and 350 for more flexibility, now is the time to try it and to stop or reduce at least the 380 orders

Antarius wrote:

sassiciai wrote:

Antarius wrote:

With LHR getting a third runway and DWC likely being online by the time the last a380 rolls off the production line - there isn't much need for the 380 anymore for the major operators. several growth countries are building huge airports to avoid an issue such as LHR and being slot constrained.

The quad is dead.

I have to respect your POV, because you made it!

But could you explain to all of us when the LHR 3rd runway was approved - is it being built as we speak, and what is the projected operational start date? Thanks for that minor clarification

As for DWC, there is no money available in Dubai to continue building it at anything like the original plan. Unlikely to see Emirates there any time soon. As the date for the last A380 off the line is a moving feast, perhaps this is your only accurate prediction.

Would you bet your life, or even your house (do you own one yet?) on your last silly remark? Or maybe you could expand on what you mean that "the quad is dead". Several B747-400s passed over my house today, and I see shedloads of 4-engined aircraft all over the world on FR24 each day, several types still in production. In the spirit of "never say never", I find your remark unwise

Starting from the bottom, the quad is dead doesn't mean all quads suddenly vanish- that should be obvious, arguing the exact wording is petulance. The 744 is dead; production is over and they will continue until the end of their useful life. Same with the 757, 767, MD 80 etc etc.

The point was they have roughly 10 more years of production to go even with zero new orders. By 2027-2028, there is a strong likelihood of having both DWC operational as well as the third runway functional - the latter has a projected operational date of 2025.

You can argue all you want about the future of the quad, but the market has spoken loudly.

So the quad is not dead yet! I doubt you know what is behind the wall of the future of what might be developed "tomorrow".

Perhaps the next supersonic will be 6 engined! Oh well, who really cares as you do about quads V twins

I do call you out about LHR3. Can you please update us on what has moved forward here recently, please. As far as I know, this is now at the bottom of a minority government's action list, and will not likely see daylight until the entire opera pf Brexit is played its course!

2030? Would you like to bet LHR3 versus DWC full opening?

I'll bet on more quad orders by then!

Seems another calculated news story to take the focus off the 747 which is really the plane these questions should be asked about.

Strato2 wrote:

Seems another calculated news story to take the focus off the 747 which is really the plane these questions should be asked about.

Seems another calculated post to take the focus off the A380 which is really the plane these questions are and should be asked about.

sassiciai wrote:

Antarius wrote:

sassiciai wrote:

I have to respect your POV, because you made it!

But could you explain to all of us when the LHR 3rd runway was approved - is it being built as we speak, and what is the projected operational start date? Thanks for that minor clarification

As for DWC, there is no money available in Dubai to continue building it at anything like the original plan. Unlikely to see Emirates there any time soon. As the date for the last A380 off the line is a moving feast, perhaps this is your only accurate prediction.

Would you bet your life, or even your house (do you own one yet?) on your last silly remark? Or maybe you could expand on what you mean that "the quad is dead". Several B747-400s passed over my house today, and I see shedloads of 4-engined aircraft all over the world on FR24 each day, several types still in production. In the spirit of "never say never", I find your remark unwise

Starting from the bottom, the quad is dead doesn't mean all quads suddenly vanish- that should be obvious, arguing the exact wording is petulance. The 744 is dead; production is over and they will continue until the end of their useful life. Same with the 757, 767, MD 80 etc etc.

The point was they have roughly 10 more years of production to go even with zero new orders. By 2027-2028, there is a strong likelihood of having both DWC operational as well as the third runway functional - the latter has a projected operational date of 2025.

You can argue all you want about the future of the quad, but the market has spoken loudly.

So the quad is not dead yet! I doubt you know what is behind the wall of the future of what might be developed "tomorrow".

Perhaps the next supersonic will be 6 engined! Oh well, who really cares as you do about quads V twins

I do call you out about LHR3. Can you please update us on what has moved forward here recently, please. As far as I know, this is now at the bottom of a minority government's action list, and will not likely see daylight until the entire opera pf Brexit is played its course!

2030? Would you like to bet LHR3 versus DWC full opening?

I'll bet on more quad orders by then!

Seems an educated respectful discussion is out of the question here. Keep your money and your bets -not worth the time or energy.

Revelation wrote:

Strato2 wrote:

Seems another calculated news story to take the focus off the 747 which is really the plane these questions should be asked about.

Seems another calculated post to take the focus off the A380 which is really the plane these questions are and should be asked about.

Boeing has already come out and said the 747 is done as a passenger variant. they aren't pushing it anymore, it's time is over. So the 747 isn't really worth discussing as Boeing has accepted their fate - it had a magnificent run, but a 77W can basically do everything a 747 can for way cheaper.

Also considering the thread is about EK and the 380.. not sure why the 747 is relevant.

ro1960 wrote:

So if Airbus phases the A380 out, with what will EK replace it once they have retired them all?

With the A380 out of the way, EK can make good on that 100 747-8 order talked about a few years ago. A man can dream can't he? Seeing a 50 year old model outlasting one only 12 years old is a rarity.

TasosANG wrote:

Well, still have Some doupts about the EK model, basically uses two types of airplanes for all her network. Wondering what they think about that. If in EK they are satisfied with this model then we will see more 380 coming and the type to hanging around for some time more. If they want to try something else, let’s say a mix of 777-9 and 350 for more flexibility, now is the time to try it and to stop or reduce at least the 380 orders

I hope that you are aware that at the same press conference where EK was going to commit to ~36 A380 orders but didn't, it did commit to 40 787-10s.

Seems the fleet will be A3800-800, 777-200LR/-300ER/-8/-9 and 787-10 in the near term, with a lot of flexibility and no clear role for an A350 family member that I can see.

Maybe A350-900 could be used for long/thin routes and replace 777-200LR as it ages out, maybe if Airbus has some A380 related deposits that EK prefers to use on A350 rather than A380, but that would mean a lot of spending on logistics to fill a fairly narrow gap.

ro1960 wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

I suspect that a 380 could fly for a long time, some airlines have used planes for 25 years. Is there any reason why a 380 could not do the same? 12 years and out always struck me as not all that sensible (in most cases).

I was just asking because SQ retired its first A380 at 10 years of age. When will EK retire their older A380s?

The early A380 are garbage compared to the ones a couple years later, and thus should not be taken as representative of the A380 as a whole. Hand wiring is the headliner in a list of things that are not production standard.

I think Airbus has a big problem right now in that they can't play hardball with the airlines that like to replace early as they have already ordered frames to dump the early frames, but the later frames are plenty good enough to put on another 5-10 years if thats what the economics say. So Airbus has to stare down expensive upgrades to compete with the 787/A350/777x or discount to make it work out on the spread sheets. They don't build enough to discount, and likely are back to losing money on every frame... just not as much as if they closed the line.

Planes that have had long lives have gotten upgrades, the A330 is a great example in that even without the NEO program, its a much different plane than the A330 before the 787 was on the market. Payload and range increases made the A333 work where the A332 would have been needed before, making a huge difference in the potential profit of those routes. Yet the issue here is that the A380 needs almost none of that. More payload? where do you put it? The cargo hold is tiny, and putting in more passengers simply fills that with bags instead of cargo. More range? I guess thats nice, but its already got enough for its customers, so they aren't exactly going to pay a premium. Only place to go is cheaper to build, but what sense does it make to spend a billion to sell 100 more planes at the same price you have been? 100 over 15+ years.

The A380 died when AF and LH cancelled orders. The A380 still has a future on heavy traffic routes but those are few are far between. I suspect that airlines that currently fly the A380 are going to start cutting there fleet down to numbers that work on those high traffic routes. Routes that do not need at A380 are going to drop them fast.

Look at ORD, they built those A380 gates for EK, LH and BA however non of them want or even NEED to operate a A380 to ORD. I know that BA announced they will bring it to ORD starting this spring but I have heard plenty of rumors that BA is going to axe that.

If it's no more economically viable, the A380 should be taken out of production. No need for a prestige product in the line up of Airbus.

That said, it will be a pity to see the last A380 roll out of the production hall. Hopefully it will find some nice orders soon and Emirates will order some more which will eventually lead to and improved variant or even an A380-850/-900 in the 2020'ish.

Dutchy wrote:

If it's no more economically viable, the A380 should be taken out of production.

"No more"?

UWPAviation wrote:

Look at ORD, they built those A380 gates for EK, LH and BA however non of them want or even NEED to operate a A380 to ORD. I know that BA announced they will bring it to ORD starting this spring but I have heard plenty of rumors that BA is going to axe that.

I think a lot of posters agree that the A380 has limited market appeal. I can't see it ever being operated on the American continent. The ME3 hubs have a unique geographical position which fits very large wide bodies, such as the A380/77W/35J, etc well. The EU are a slightly different case between the two. The EU3 have fewer hubs, closer together, which reduces backtracking and makes traffic easier to funnel. Then can probably make limited use of such large aircraft.

Overall I think IAG have 6-12 too few A380s as they have publicly acknowledged. IAG have even expressed a possibility of operating a single frame, or two at EI and IB. All of that said, they are interested, but only at the right price - much lower than either Airbus or lessors are willing to accept.

The A380 is a fantastic aircraft from a passenger experience. For airlines, its probably a bit heavy, a bit big and a bit limited on cargo. So, for most, the 77W is a less risky option.