B777LRF wrote:

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?'.

It is not comfort, comfort, comfort. It is profits, profits, profits. In the end, you will not make the choice; airlines will. If it just comfort, you should just purchase your private airliner.

mjoelnir wrote:

par13del wrote:

Jayafe wrote:

That's definitely one more US trauma about the A380. The airports that could support the A380 and can't handle it (regular operation) are not more than a few around the whole world (US apart as they simply refuse slightly adapting their facilities for absurd nationalistic reasons).

Since the USA is not the center of the universe and no USA carrier has bought the A380 why should their airports which are not government owned be accused of nationalism if they don't build un-needed facilities to accommodate the A380, after all, Airbus is on record stating that any airport that can handle an B747 can also handle an A380.
The minor inconvenience should pose no problem since at most they will handle one a//c per day if lucky.

Why did than the USA airports made a push to accommodate the 747-8, fewer of them in operation and also no USA airline flying them.

The 747-8 already fits. The A-380 does not. Why spend the money for an aircraft that looks like it is all but done?

Even if EK were to move forward on an order, I would expect much of the global finance community would have second thoughts themselves about taking part in such a deal where the underlying valuation and future of the asset is so murky.
Frankly, A380 could wipe away hundreds of millions out of banker pockets on existing deals, let alone the risk of making new ones.

PHLCVGAMTK wrote:

par13del wrote:

Jayafe wrote:

That's definitely one more US trauma about the A380. The airports that could support the A380 and can't handle it (regular operation) are not more than a few around the whole world (US apart as they simply refuse slightly adapting their facilities for absurd nationalistic reasons).

Since the USA is not the center of the universe and no USA carrier has bought the A380 why should their airports which are not government owned be accused of nationalism if they don't build un-needed facilities to accommodate the A380, after all, Airbus is on record stating that any airport that can handle an B747 can also handle an A380.
The minor inconvenience should pose no problem since at most they will handle one a//c per day if lucky.

10 of the 13 airlines that fly the A380, fly it to the United States. The exceptions are QR, MH, and TG. This is a confounding fact in many of the discussions involving the A380, the US market, the US3 in particular, and economic nationalism (in either direction). At this point, with Boeing out of the VLA game for now, I don't think it's productive to relitigate the nationalism issues connected to the A380 launch.

CFRPwingALbody wrote:

First let me come back on my 4x daily flight schedule for each alliance. On second thought I think this is valid for flights up to 10-11 hours. For this 4x daily flight schedule four planes are required because they can fly the return route the same day. When the route gets longer the schedule reduces because a plane can only fly in one direction. (or requires three days for two return trips.) I think the A380 being a long - ultra long range plane, is designed for these longer (11+ hours) routes.

Unfortunately, while the various alliance JVs help aggregate a lot of demand, the alliances cannot, or at least do not, purchase aircraft jointly. One partner or the other has to take on the capital risk, and train pilots and maintenance crews. Over the Atlantic, the US3 were content to free-ride on the EU3's VLA fleet purchases, but I think this leads to over-fragmented route planning on thick routes, where you might otherwise see the A380 with (more of) a market, but instead see this pattern of 4+ smaller widebody flights daily in a short window (I would also include 3+ daily flights including a 747).

United States flagged airlines did not pass on the A-380 due to nationalism. The three main airlines, United, American, and Delta, all fly Airbus products. Even Alaska does right now. Of the major airlines, only Southwest does not fly any Airbus planes. Nationalism had nothing to do with USA carriers passing on the A-380's. The planes were too big. For that matter, no USA flagged carrier has acquired the 747-8 either. Those carriers decided that twins, whether Boeing or Airbus fit their needs.

Liverpoola380 wrote:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/15/airbus-admits-it-will-have-to-stop-making-its-a380-if-theres-no-new-deal-with-emirates.html

Sad time for all, hopefully EK will work with them to firm up a new order soon.

Why?

Noshow wrote:

Assuming Airbus would terminate the A380. What would they cover the upper market with? Think about passenger growth. Think about China and India.
A350-1000? Or another 777-9-sized A350? What engine should be used for it?
Boeing would party for years. The old 747 monopoly would be back in form of the 777X. Airbus would shrink to just be "that midsize twins" guy,

I believe that the A-350 program is evidence that Airbus would adapt.

Bald1983 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

par13del wrote:

Since the USA is not the center of the universe and no USA carrier has bought the A380 why should their airports which are not government owned be accused of nationalism if they don't build un-needed facilities to accommodate the A380, after all, Airbus is on record stating that any airport that can handle an B747 can also handle an A380.
The minor inconvenience should pose no problem since at most they will handle one a//c per day if lucky.

Why did than the USA airports made a push to accommodate the 747-8, fewer of them in operation and also no USA airline flying them.

The 747-8 already fits. The A-380 does not. Why spend the money for an aircraft that looks like it is all but done?

The 747-8 uses cat-6 gates like the A380 if i'm not mistaken.

Bald1983 wrote:

Liverpoola380 wrote:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/15/airbus-admits-it-will-have-to-stop-making-its-a380-if-theres-no-new-deal-with-emirates.html

Sad time for all, hopefully EK will work with them to firm up a new order soon.

Why?

Why?

Perhaps we're aviation nuts, and we like more diveristy. Especially 4-holers . . . ?

JamesCousins wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

I expect they are also making regular trips to IAG HQ to try and shift a few more.

Airbus are in a very tricky position. WW has stated BA could operate more, but with so many impeccably maintained A380s arriving on the used market, from the likes of EK, with lessors struggling to get rid of them it may be tricky to justify paying top dollar for new ones from Airbus. The 380 is getting even more precariously placed, but I'm guessing EK will pull through with an order to keep the 380 going for now...

The main issue there being the ones coming off lease from Emirates have EA's stuck under the wings.

Unless MH are willing to cull their fleet Realistically BA doesn't have any 2nd hand aircraft for a few years yet.

Revelation wrote:

I wouldn't be that sad. He's just doubling down on the negotiating ploy that was started when the "sources" leaked that Airbus is willing to shut down the A380 if no deal arises. The dynamics are no different. The state of play is no different now than it was when EK snubbed Airbus in Dubai.

To me the dynamics seem to have changed dramatically over the course of the last year. Culminating in the infamously shameful DXB airshow charade.

Until not so long ago, EK was using A380 cancellation as leverage in getting better terms. It seems the tide has turned and that lever (of A380 cancellation) is now firmly in Airbus' hands. EK is no longer calling the A380 shots, they are now in the passenger seat . . .

I think the main error is that Airbus didnt forecast the markets correctly .....

- Passengers want direct flights from point to point and no the old wheel and spoke model airbus thought would still work
- flight frequency is wanted .... and not less flights with a bigger plane
- Still uses too much fuel ..... even if the CASM looks decent.
- 380 only good for major airports. Medium size airports mostly cant service an A380 or doesnt have the requirements.

I think this plane came out 10-15 years too late. I know the technology wasnt available. Once Boeings 777 program took off, it was the slow downfall of the 747 and will eventually be the downfall of the A380.

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:

- Passengers want direct flights from point to point and no the old wheel and spoke model airbus thought would still work

As long discussed, p2p market is a myth. That was also a forecast that was wrong. HUBs exist and will keep existing.

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:

- flight frequency is wanted .... and not less flights with a bigger plane

That depends on the airline and the business model/strategy. There are several around that don’t follow that.

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:

- Still uses too much fuel ..... even if the CASM looks decent.

I would strongly recommend you to check your numbers, or to revisit your definition of “decent”. As long as the plane is full filled, it’s CASM is amazing.

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:

- 380 only good for major airports. Medium size airports mostly cant service an A380 or doesnt have the requirements.

One more US myth. 95% of airports with a core base of passengers to support the service of an A380 are able to handle the A380.

PW100 wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

Liverpoola380 wrote:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/15/airbus-admits-it-will-have-to-stop-making-its-a380-if-theres-no-new-deal-with-emirates.html

Sad time for all, hopefully EK will work with them to firm up a new order soon.

Why?

Why?

Perhaps we're aviation nuts, and we like more diveristy. Especially 4-holers . . . ?

Well, then that is why we have photos. However, the purpose of any business is to make money.

Jayafe wrote:

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:

- Passengers want direct flights from point to point and no the old wheel and spoke model airbus thought would still work

As long discussed, p2p market is a myth. That was also a forecast that was wrong. HUBs exist and will keep existing.

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:

- flight frequency is wanted .... and not less flights with a bigger plane

That depends on the airline and the business model/strategy. There are several around that don’t follow that.

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:

- Still uses too much fuel ..... even if the CASM looks decent.

I would strongly recommend you to check your numbers, or to revisit your definition of “decent”. As long as the plane is full filled, it’s CASM is amazing.

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:

- 380 only good for major airports. Medium size airports mostly cant service an A380 or doesnt have the requirements.

One more US myth. 95% of airports with a core base of passengers to support the service of an A380 are able to handle the A380.

The A-380 model was point to mega-hub to mega hub, to point. That model did not pan out. I grant you we will never see Olympia Washington to Nice. However, we do not see nearly as much the mega hub to mega hub. The 787 and the A-350 are a lot more flexible.

mjoelnir wrote:

Why not, if one needs one. All air frames will see the end of production. If you buy one, you can expect the airframer to be there the next 20 years if you need spare-parts or service.

Same reason EK is hesitating if not refusing to buy new ones without concessions: the price of those spare parts goes way up once production stops.

Jayafe wrote:

...As long discussed, p2p market is a myth. That was also a forecast that was wrong. HUBs exist and will keep existing..

P2P is not a myth as city pairs doubled over last decade. The never-ending discussion is about 787's contribution to the P2P market.

It doesn't matter which frame enabled a given P2P route, it is going to eat into some indirect H2H/SH2SH/MH2MH route. The operator with the biggest plane(or) highest trip cost takes the hit.

BHXLOVER wrote:

Indy wrote:

I've seen it stated more than a few times that Emirates NEEDS the A380. Why does it need that jet over other high capacity jets? Their 2 class 77W seats something like 427 people and the 3 class seats 360. Best thing about every other widebody is that you can serve more destinations than the A380. You aren't limited to the highest demand routes and aren't limited to the airports that are equipped to handle the A380.

Because for a start EK has 8 daily A380 flights to and from LHR. They do not have the slots to carry that much traffic on 77W's

And there is no reason EK cannot use the current A380's for another 20 years to fill this. The model of only using aircraft for 12 years is a little short sided.

Revelation wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Why not, if one needs one. All air frames will see the end of production. If you buy one, you can expect the airframer to be there the next 20 years if you need spare-parts or service.

Same reason EK is hesitating if not refusing to buy new ones without concessions: the price of those spare parts goes way up once production stops.

Why can EK not buy spares now. Plan for the future if you need the VLA. EK's model of only using aircraft for 12 years does not fit with the rest of the world. EK could also buy up used 380's since everyone says the market price will tank when production stops. They then have cheap spare's to soldier on with the fleet. Point is these aircraft can fly well past 2030 and no one knows what kind of aircraft will be in production at that time for replacement.

itchief wrote:

Revelation wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Why not, if one needs one. All air frames will see the end of production. If you buy one, you can expect the airframer to be there the next 20 years if you need spare-parts or service.

Same reason EK is hesitating if not refusing to buy new ones without concessions: the price of those spare parts goes way up once production stops.

Why can EK not buy spares now. Plan for the future if you need the VLA. EK's model of only using aircraft for 12 years does not fit with the rest of the world. EK could also buy up used 380's since everyone says the market price will tank when production stops. They then have cheap spare's to soldier on with the fleet. Point is these aircraft can fly well past 2030 and no one knows what kind of aircraft will be in production at that time for replacement.

Being the sole operator is even worse. Not everything can be cannibalized from an existing frame.

Polot wrote:

itchief wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Same reason EK is hesitating if not refusing to buy new ones without concessions: the price of those spare parts goes way up once production stops.

Why can EK not buy spares now. Plan for the future if you need the VLA. EK's model of only using aircraft for 12 years does not fit with the rest of the world. EK could also buy up used 380's since everyone says the market price will tank when production stops. They then have cheap spare's to soldier on with the fleet. Point is these aircraft can fly well past 2030 and no one knows what kind of aircraft will be in production at that time for replacement.

Being the sole operator is even worse. Not everything can be cannibalized from an existing frame.

I am not saying it will be perfect but the A380 has been flying long enough to be able to predict spare need into the future. If you want a VLA and one is not going to be produced this will be the only option going forward. Would it be the best way to do it, no, but it will work. I know this does not follow what EK wants and that is a more fuel efficient model.

Jayafe wrote:

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:

- Passengers want direct flights from point to point and no the old wheel and spoke model airbus thought would still work

As long discussed, p2p market is a myth.

Just curious, but what is the myth of P2P markets?

Revelation wrote:

fcogafa wrote:

Quote from Leeham today regarding the A380....
============
Breigier warned about giving cooperation talks with China around A380 too much weight.

Hmm... Seems like another life line is being pulled back in... Seems like the end of days for the A380 is upon us...

Indeed, as I explained in your thread, I felt EK had played one step too many in a Game Theory perspective.
Airbus has now officially accepted the possibility of cancelling the whole programme if EK do not put in a sizable order to keep production running at 6 frames a year for the next decade, Leahy added "6-8" to make for any top-ups or or order by new airlines.
Brégier officially stated today the industrial garantee EK were asking for, it is now up to them to play ball or not, I don't see what else could Airbus offer, even the Chinese deal is wishful thinking until China officially says otherwise.

itchief wrote:

And there is no reason EK cannot use the current A380's for another 20 years to fill this. The model of only using aircraft for 12 years is a little short sided.

No reason? So your theory is that EK has not done the calculations and instead has picked 12 years out of a hat? C'mon. Younger models need less maintenance, don't need to go through an extra long and expensive heavy check, have already captured most of the tax benefits, etc.

itchief wrote:

Revelation wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Why not, if one needs one. All air frames will see the end of production. If you buy one, you can expect the airframer to be there the next 20 years if you need spare-parts or service.

Same reason EK is hesitating if not refusing to buy new ones without concessions: the price of those spare parts goes way up once production stops.

Why can EK not buy spares now. Plan for the future if you need the VLA. EK's model of only using aircraft for 12 years does not fit with the rest of the world. EK could also buy up used 380's since everyone says the market price will tank when production stops. They then have cheap spare's to soldier on with the fleet. Point is these aircraft can fly well past 2030 and no one knows what kind of aircraft will be in production at that time for replacement.

Why not? How would you like to be told you need to pay for (or finance) today everything you think need for the next 20 years instead of buying things as you need them out of your future income? These parts aren't cheap, and there will be no resale avenue for them in the future except for scrap, so you're committing lots of money for many things you may or may not even need.

Bald1983 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

par13del wrote:

Since the USA is not the center of the universe and no USA carrier has bought the A380 why should their airports which are not government owned be accused of nationalism if they don't build un-needed facilities to accommodate the A380, after all, Airbus is on record stating that any airport that can handle an B747 can also handle an A380.
The minor inconvenience should pose no problem since at most they will handle one a//c per day if lucky.

Why did than the USA airports made a push to accommodate the 747-8, fewer of them in operation and also no USA airline flying them.

The 747-8 already fits. The A-380 does not. Why spend the money for an aircraft that looks like it is all but done?

If the 747-8 would "fit" the A380 would fit. They are in the same category. The airports were made to fit, mainly by giving exceptions for the 747-8.

Until the mega-hubs of the world break with the landing fee structure based on aircraft weight, VLA aircraft will be at a disadvantage.

Landing fees for high demand airports should be based on demand for a particular time slot, not aircraft size/weight.

Everyone does realize manufacturing economies of scale cannot be overcome by dictate? Airbus must order 25+ per year of items or the price of the item goes up (basically, it costs about the same to make 15 as 25 items as that is just how mass production works). Commercial airframes cannot be economically supported at prototype production costs... Note: In the future this economy of scale will shift thanks to 3D printing, but we're talking about an airframe developed before 3D printing was certified for aerospace use. In fact, aerospace will benefit more from 3D printing than any other industry for support of older frames. So when can we 3D print an engine case?

Everyone also realized that the 779 and A350-1000 changes the economics?
Here is a Leeham slide (who, in my opinion, favors Airbus):
https://leehamnews.com/2014/02/03/updat ... -involved/

The 779 will burn 4.8 cents of fuel per passenger seat mile versus the A388's 5.5 cents of fuel (yes, higher than the 777-300ER's 5.2 cents). Or, the 779 will have a 13% lower fuel cost per seat versus today's A388. Emirates has been demanding a 10% fuel burn improvement. The A380 saves money elsewhere (e.g., same pilot costs albeit with more people).

itchief wrote:

BHXLOVER wrote:

Indy wrote:

I've seen it stated more than a few times that Emirates NEEDS the A380. Why does it need that jet over other high capacity jets? Their 2 class 77W seats something like 427 people and the 3 class seats 360. Best thing about every other widebody is that you can serve more destinations than the A380. You aren't limited to the highest demand routes and aren't limited to the airports that are equipped to handle the A380.

Because for a start EK has 8 daily A380 flights to and from LHR. They do not have the slots to carry that much traffic on 77W's

And there is no reason EK cannot use the current A380's for another 20 years to fill this. The model of only using aircraft for 12 years is a little short sided.

EK could keep buying, but they must finance. Does EK need the A380? No. Why would they? They are the world's #1 777 operator and will grow with the 779. Although, 'limited to airports that can serve the A380' hasn't been much of a handicap (an amazing number of airports are a gate away from being A380 ready).

What is needed is economics. Any A380s ordered today will spend most of their lives flying out of DWC instead of DXB. (Although I have doubts on Dubai having the funds to open the EK sized terminal at DWC on time.) So Emirates will have much flexibility on aircraft selection.

Is the cost savings of the 779 enough to buy more LHR slots? Maybe or maybe LHR seats go up in price and more passengers fly out of STN, LGW, or maybe even with the 787-10 LTN and maybe more flights to BHX? Airlines are managed for profit, not market share and certainly not seats. Every A388 could have its lease extended for the time at DXB. The reality is there is a reason people mention LHR as there really are few airports to support the A380 unless the A380 has a low enough CASM to justify its size.




Lightsaber

Further comments from Leahy that Airbus WILL close the line absent an EK deal:

Speaking via webcast Monday, Airbus sales chief John Leahy said negotiations for Emirates to buy more of the superjumbo were ongoing.

"We are still talking to Emirates and quite honestly they are probably the only one in the marketplace who can take a minimum of six A380s a year for a period of eight to 10 years," he said.

"If we can't work out a deal with Emirates I think there is no choice but to shut down the program," Leahy added.

http://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/15/airbus-a ... rates.html

Previous reporting was that Airbus was "prepared" to close the line absent EK's largess, we now know closure is pretty certain absent an EK deal. If even Leahy admits this, it must be so. His comments don't imply a lot of hope for those China talks either.

Apropos of Lightsaber's points above, Airbus also says 6/yr is the absolute minimum it will produce.

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:

I think the main error is that Airbus didnt forecast the markets correctly .....

- Passengers want direct flights from point to point and no the old wheel and spoke model airbus thought would still work
- flight frequency is wanted .... and not less flights with a bigger plane
- Still uses too much fuel ..... even if the CASM looks decent.
- 380 only good for major airports. Medium size airports mostly cant service an A380 or doesnt have the requirements.

I think this plane came out 10-15 years too late. I know the technology wasnt available. Once Boeings 777 program took off, it was the slow downfall of the 747 and will eventually be the downfall of the A380.

That is the main factor. They blew big time the market forecast just as they did for the A340. Huge jets and 4-engine jets airlines were moving in the opposite direction long ago. Boeing thought there would be a market just not very much and certainly not enough to justify billions in development. But Airbus was long anxious to dethrone the 747 as the Queen of the Skies. Unfortunately royalty is now dead.

lightsaber wrote:

The 779 will burn 4.8 cents of fuel per passenger seat mile versus the A388's 5.5 cents of fuel (yes, higher than the 777-300ER's 5.2 cents). Or, the 779 will have a 13% lower fuel cost per seat versus today's A388. Emirates has been demanding a 10% fuel burn improvement. The A380 saves money elsewhere (e.g., same pilot costs albeit with more people).


Lightsaber

We already know that RR has ditched the idea of any further PIPs though. I think a reconfigured cabin to help achieve that 10% is also out of the question. It seems no matter which way you look at it, Airbus is either going to have to make some big updates to the frame to achieve that 10% or a combination of current generation engines and less extensive updates to the frame. But either way it will require a cash injection.

douwd20 wrote:

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:

I think the main error is that Airbus didnt forecast the markets correctly .....

- Passengers want direct flights from point to point and no the old wheel and spoke model airbus thought would still work
- flight frequency is wanted .... and not less flights with a bigger plane
- Still uses too much fuel ..... even if the CASM looks decent.
- 380 only good for major airports. Medium size airports mostly cant service an A380 or doesnt have the requirements.

I think this plane came out 10-15 years too late. I know the technology wasnt available. Once Boeings 777 program took off, it was the slow downfall of the 747 and will eventually be the downfall of the A380.

That is the main factor. They blew big time the market forecast just as they did for the A340. Huge jets and 4-engine jets airlines were moving in the opposite direction long ago. Boeing thought there would be a market just not very much and certainly not enough to justify billions in development. But Airbus was long anxious to dethrone the 747 as the Queen of the Skies. Unfortunately royalty is now dead.

I disagree. It is only PART of the problem. Again...this keeps getting overlooked, we had a major global economic crisis which shook up the whole industry at it's introduction! That could not be predicted during development and even when the warning signs began to appear, it was too late. Thats what effectively killed the 747.

Matt6461 wrote:

Further comments from Leahy that Airbus WILL close the line absent an EK deal:

Speaking via webcast Monday, Airbus sales chief John Leahy said negotiations for Emirates to buy more of the superjumbo were ongoing.

"We are still talking to Emirates and quite honestly they are probably the only one in the marketplace who can take a minimum of six A380s a year for a period of eight to 10 years," he said.

"If we can't work out a deal with Emirates I think there is no choice but to shut down the program," Leahy added.

http://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/15/airbus-a ... rates.html

Previous reporting was that Airbus was "prepared" to close the line absent EK's largess, we now know closure is pretty certain absent an EK deal. If even Leahy admits this, it must be so. His comments don't imply a lot of hope for those China talks either.

Apropos of Lightsaber's points above, Airbus also says 6/yr is the absolute minimum it will produce.

Reply #3 of this thread from two weeks ago said the same thing, but without naming the Airbus source. This seems to me to have been a successful corporate communications exercise: leak the bad news to "prepare the ground", then two weeks later you can quietly confirm it as you blare out the excellent year end results.

Arion640 wrote:

JamesCousins wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

I expect they are also making regular trips to IAG HQ to try and shift a few more.

Airbus are in a very tricky position. WW has stated BA could operate more, but with so many impeccably maintained A380s arriving on the used market, from the likes of EK, with lessors struggling to get rid of them it may be tricky to justify paying top dollar for new ones from Airbus. The 380 is getting even more precariously placed, but I'm guessing EK will pull through with an order to keep the 380 going for now...

The main issue there being the ones coming off lease from Emirates have EA's stuck under the wings.

Unless MH are willing to cull their fleet Realistically BA doesn't have any 2nd hand aircraft for a few years yet.

Ah you make a very good point. I don't know how open BA might be to some EA 380's at the right price. There's also the 4/5 Singapore 380s coming off lease, which are RR engines, although I know 1 has been swallowed up by HiFly

Revelation wrote:

Reply #3 of this thread from two weeks ago said the same thing, but without naming the Airbus source. This seems to me to have been a successful corporate communications exercise: leak the bad news to "prepare the ground", then two weeks later you can quietly confirm it as you blare out the excellent year end results.

Sounds about right.

Just saw that CAPA has an analysis of the A380-China value proposition. It includes a lot of the points about slot congestion that I've been making for years:

Questions about the future of domestic flying in China are not centred on the A380, which few expect to be dedicated for domestic services. Already, the 787 and A350 are deemed too heavy for regular domestic service. The question then is about the sales prospects for the A330neo, or Boeing’s possible new aircraft (797).

Theoretically, using the A380 or other widebody aircraft on high-frequency domestic routes would help either consolidate existing slots or slow the consumption of new slots. But using the A380 on its intended long haul international missions would have a limited contribution to solving slot challenges.

https://centreforaviation.com/insights/ ... aft-392569
It also reminds us (yet again) of the A380's dillutive impact on yield, and argues that volume is NOT the problem for Chinese airlines (long haul) now or any time soon; yield is the problem.

lightsaber wrote:

Does EK need the A380? No. Why would they? They are the world's #1 777 operator and will grow with the 779.

Even if it doesn't need the A380, which I think is false, I think it does need it, to not have the A380 would cause a huge trouble for their operations.

If the A380 program stops, Airbus could also take the A380 out of service too and no longer offer support for it, like they did with Concorde if it is totally unviable. That would be one way to cut the losses of the program, stop all A380s from flying, permanently.

Revelation wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Why not, if one needs one. All air frames will see the end of production. If you buy one, you can expect the airframer to be there the next 20 years if you need spare-parts or service.

Same reason EK is hesitating if not refusing to buy new ones without concessions: the price of those spare parts goes way up once production stops.

Don't worry. With a global fleet of ~300 the spare parts will be readily available with the right price. It has been said here that 200 planes is enough for that to happen.

Slug71 wrote:

douwd20 wrote:

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:

I think the main error is that Airbus didnt forecast the markets correctly .....

- Passengers want direct flights from point to point and no the old wheel and spoke model airbus thought would still work
- flight frequency is wanted .... and not less flights with a bigger plane
- Still uses too much fuel ..... even if the CASM looks decent.
- 380 only good for major airports. Medium size airports mostly cant service an A380 or doesnt have the requirements.

I think this plane came out 10-15 years too late. I know the technology wasnt available. Once Boeings 777 program took off, it was the slow downfall of the 747 and will eventually be the downfall of the A380.

That is the main factor. They blew big time the market forecast just as they did for the A340. Huge jets and 4-engine jets airlines were moving in the opposite direction long ago. Boeing thought there would be a market just not very much and certainly not enough to justify billions in development. But Airbus was long anxious to dethrone the 747 as the Queen of the Skies. Unfortunately royalty is now dead.

I disagree. It is only PART of the problem. Again...this keeps getting overlooked, we had a major global economic crisis which shook up the whole industry at it's introduction! That could not be predicted during development and even when the warning signs began to appear, it was too late. Thats what effectively killed the 747.

Boeing killed their counter to the A380 in 2001. Pretty good read on the market in my mind.

Egerton wrote:

Is it the case that EK will be wise to wait until it has more data on the 777-9 and its GE9X engine? Only then can EK decide its needs between the actual A380ceo and the actual 777-9.

EK has the 777W (predecessor of the 777X) and the A380 in their current inventory, unless Boeing abandon's the 777X program, EK will be operating both variants of the 777 along with the A380 at the same time, they are not in a sales campaign for either frame, they have already committed to purchase. Based on the size difference, the 777X will only replace the A380 if they do not exist, In my opinion, if EK has to extend leases on A380's they will do so, unless other carriers decide to snap them up to deny EK, something which I think will not happen. It cost too much money to reconfigure an A380, storage is probably also high.

I suspect the issue is the A380NEO not the CEO or the small enhancements proposed for the CEO, so far, Airbus has not been able to line up its financial numbers to do the NEO, and based on current financial situation in the ME due to lower oil prices, EK just does not at this time have the financial resources to self fund the NEO development.

Strato2 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Why not, if one needs one. All air frames will see the end of production. If you buy one, you can expect the airframer to be there the next 20 years if you need spare-parts or service.

Same reason EK is hesitating if not refusing to buy new ones without concessions: the price of those spare parts goes way up once production stops.

Don't worry. With a global fleet of ~300 the spare parts will be readily available with the right price. It has been said here that 200 planes is enough for that to happen.

yet we hear that 757 parts costs are an ever increasing problem for Airlines. Can airlines with less than EK's fleet remotely hope to compete if A380 parts double or triple in price for them... While 779 and A35X parts remain common and relatively cheap.

XT6Wagon wrote:

Strato2 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Same reason EK is hesitating if not refusing to buy new ones without concessions: the price of those spare parts goes way up once production stops.

Don't worry. With a global fleet of ~300 the spare parts will be readily available with the right price. It has been said here that 200 planes is enough for that to happen.

yet we hear that 757 parts costs are an ever increasing problem for Airlines. Can airlines with less than EK's fleet remotely hope to compete if A380 parts double or triple in price for them... While 779 and A35X parts remain common and relatively cheap.

Maybe lightsaber will jump in, but having read enough posts here, it's clear there is a price jump when production ends. Then there is more or less steady state (corresponding to the 200-300 frame number mentioned above) where consumables that are used often enough so prices are at least predictable. Then as the world fleet hits the point where such economy of scale is no longer possible there are "last call" purchases before production facilities are shut down and then prices become unpredictable.

I would imagine EK did not predict end of production so early in the life of many of the frames it still has on order, so I imagine that they under projected the cost of running their A380 fleet.

EK CEO has been saying for several years now his biggest concern with regard to the A380 is keeping it in production, and I think this is one aspect of that concern.

Bald1983 wrote:

PW100 wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

Why?

Why?

Perhaps we're aviation nuts, and we like more diveristy. Especially 4-holers . . . ?

Well, then that is why we have photos. However, the purpose of any business is to make money.

Well, YOU asked the question. How can you be amazed that someone else is sorry if the limited diversity in airliners will get even smaller?

I gave an honest answer that I expect would suit most of our fellow members. I like discussing aviation. I like taking pictures of airplanes. The more models, the happier I am. Sorry to hear that you don't belong to that club of aviation enthusiasts.

That might be your opinion of it, but to me EK snubbed RR recently when they intimated they might be prepared to go back to Engine Alliance for their next order. Rolls Royce had been working hard to re-secure Emirates as a client, and Tim Clark had stated that their future purchases would all be RR on the A380 and 787 if they were to order that.

For that client to then declare they would go back to an inferior, non-PIPed GP7200 is a huge snub to Rolls. RR have said that future PIPs on the engine are uneconomical and a matter of diminishing returns. The only justification for a GP7200 buy would be the fantastic price EK bragged about initially, or some kind of weird spite move I fail to understand, Either way, it's a snub to Rolls who pulled out the stops to get the higher thrust Trent 900 on their aircraft.

Channex757 wrote:

That might be your opinion of it, but to me EK snubbed RR recently when they intimated they might be prepared to go back to Engine Alliance for their next order. Rolls Royce had been working hard to re-secure Emirates as a client, and Tim Clark had stated that their future purchases would all be RR on the A380 and 787 if they were to order that.

For that client to then declare they would go back to an inferior, non-PIPed GP7200 is a huge snub to Rolls. RR have said that future PIPs on the engine are uneconomical and a matter of diminishing returns. The only justification for a GP7200 buy would be the fantastic price EK bragged about initially, or some kind of weird spite move I fail to understand, Either way, it's a snub to Rolls who pulled out the stops to get the higher thrust Trent 900 on their aircraft.

Well they can't go back to the GP7200, production ends this year. The way I see it is, RR said no more PIPs for the T900 and EK said they'll explore other options. I don't recall them specifically saying they'd be going back to EA. If anything, RR snubbed the A380. No potential customer is going to like the fact that there will be no further PIPs for the A380 period.

RR isn't doing particularly well financially - so all programmes need to be commercially viable. There are less than 150 A380s with Trent 900 engines - that makes further PIPs extremely expensive. Unless Airbus (and EK) can give RR some clarity with regards to future sales, how can RR justify developing more PIPs?

Few comments:

For passenger growth, moving from A320 to A321 & 738 to 737-10 will have much more impact than A380 being availlable for sale or not.

Also, expect more LCC long haul. Scoot have 375 seats in their B787-9 for flying SIN-BER/ATH etc. That's an extra 100 or so seats capacity right there vs legacy airlines

A380 is completely unsuitable for China domestic. Answer there is HSR (shinkansen) on trunk routes

The B779 isn't that much bigger than a 773ER or A350-1000. 10% more seats or so. Not clear that Airbus will be at any disadvantage

My is that the A380 is vital to EK's business model and in the end, they'll pony up with a sizable order and all this talk of the end of the program will fade away as not only EK, but the likes of BA place follow-up orders. Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.......

Jayafe wrote:

Indy wrote:

You aren't limited to the highest demand routes and aren't limited to the airports that are equipped to handle the A380.

That's definitely one more US trauma about the A380. The airports that could support the A380 and can't handle it (regular operation) are not more than a few around the whole world (US apart as they simply refuse slightly adapting their facilities for absurd nationalistic reasons).

What's absurd is this post. More US airports would absolutely adapt for the A380 IF it made economic sense to do so. Since no US carriers operate it, that limits the rationale for doing so. For only the biggest east and west coast airports, JFK and LAX, does it make sense. Attaching a silly nationalistic angle to this is just comical. U.S airlines rejected the A380 AND the B747-8I because big quads no longer fit their business models. If you could look beyond your apparent hatred of the U.S., you'd see that's ALL it's really about.

flee wrote:

RR isn't doing particularly well financially - so all programmes need to be commercially viable. There are less than 150 A380s with Trent 900 engines - that makes further PIPs extremely expensive. Unless Airbus (and EK) can give RR some clarity with regards to future sales, how can RR justify developing more PIPs?

Agreed.
That's pretty much why I mentioned earlier, I think it's possible RR did so to make a case for T7000 on the A380. If EK wants a 10% improvement, RR knows most of that will have to come from Airbus as a PIP will only make up a small portion. And a order of 36-38 wont justify the cost of another PIP. No other airlines are much interested in it, in its current form or the Plus. So totally understandable from RR's POV. Leads us back to the article about EK wanting a "massive update".

ER757 wrote:

My is that the A380 is vital to EK's business model and in the end, they'll pony up with a sizable order and all this talk of the end of the program will fade away as not only EK, but the likes of BA place follow-up orders. Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.......

Agreed.
If I were to guess, around 45 frames with new winglets and engines. Together with this, RR or GE will supply the 787s too.

You mean they want to do a 787MAX already?

Emirates' order is so important to the A380. I guess the airline can obtain loads of concessions from Airbus for the next order if it happens.

Apart from the slot situation and LHR and certain other airports, I think EK has another special need for the A380 regarding traffic rights. I believe they have many key areas where they are restricted by the number of flights to a country/destination not the number of pax. If this is correct the A380 is obviously very important to them. Furthermore based on how successful they have been at getting market share if the agreements have to be renewed or renegotiated then it seems unlikely to me that the terms will improve for EK. If this is a correct assumption then EK most definitely needs the A380 probably more than Airbus needs EK.