cpd wrote:

lowbank wrote:

Earlier this year I flew man - Dubai, then Dubai - Bangkok in Business class on the EK 380.
China southern from Bangkok to Shanghai.
Shanghai to Dubai then Dubai to Man.

I flew three EA powered and one RR. The RR plane seemed slightly less powerful on takeoff but I was taking extra note so could just be me being over sensitive.

The whole experience on EK was amazing. Dubai has been built around having A380’s so I would think they would like to carry on buying the plane. However my boss who flew from Glasgow flew in the EK 777 said there was more room in Business class on the 777 then the A380.

Some 777s have the new business class. I've been in the A380 J and the new J in the 777-300/ER. The 777 feels more spacious because it doesn't have the surrounding cabinets and walls. The new J seat on the 777 is also a bit softer too.

But the A380 is much quieter and also has the bar on board.

Yes the bar, that was good. I can recommend the Port and the red wine.

RB211trent wrote:

lowbank wrote:

I flew three EA powered and one RR. The RR plane seemed slightly less powerful on takeoff but I was taking extra note so could just be me being over sensitive.
.

Both EA and RR engines Cover the same thrust ratings so i don’t see your point.

It was an observation not a point!

I have since spoken to other people at work who observed the same.

The first thing they teach pilots: always trust your instruments, never your seat of the pants intuition.
May I suggest to open a new thread if you want to discuss that? It obviously is totally irrelevant to the core of the discussion and is rather annoying.

lowbank wrote:

hOMSaR wrote:

lowbank wrote:

I flew three EA powered and one RR. The RR plane seemed slightly less powerful on takeoff but I was taking extra note so could just be me being over sensitive.

I think it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for a passenger to judge the relative “power” of different engines. Unless you happened to know the planned takeoff weight of each flight, any local weather conditions that would affect takeoff performance, a flight plan that may call for different thrust settings on takeoff, etc., then you really wouldn’t be able tell (and even then, by what basis does a plane “seem slightly less powerful” than another?).

Yes I know, I work for RR and make parts for that T900. So might be biased but they felt less powerful.

I read some of the comments on here and think “if only they knew” and I cannot tell. Well could but could not keep my job.

Thanks for letting us know that you know what we don't know but won't let us know what you know we don't know

Aircellist wrote:

Thanks for letting us know that you know what we don't know but won't let us know what you know we don't know

Take it easy. people that make this kind of big statement traditionally are not privy to special information.
It is a fib.

WIederling wrote:

Aircellist wrote:

Thanks for letting us know that you know what we don't know but won't let us know what you know we don't know

Take it easy. people that make this kind of big statement traditionally are not privy to special information.
It is a fib.

Wind back about 3 weeks and have a look at Flightradar24 and MSN249 on the Tuesday. Then the week after it flew again same pattern on the Monday, both for 7.5 hours over Germany.
Huh go figure????

lowbank wrote:

Wind back about 3 weeks and have a look at Flightradar24 and MSN249 on the Tuesday. Then the week after it flew again same pattern on the Monday, both for 7.5 hours over Germany.
Huh go figure????

What does it prove?
http://a380.boards.net/thread/1639/a380 ... wsm?page=6

Typical pattern for those cabin test flights. They will check the whole cabin inflight. All seats plus IFE, all lavs, all galleys etc. The point is to do it in flight under cabin pressure and flight conditions so it will take some time to do it properly.
Possibly it's a new emirates cabin version coming up? Might just be minor optical details but big changes behind the scenes like new IFE version or bigger screens and such.

So I think I came across as a right Ass.
MSN 249 was testing a new component.

As always RR are working hard to improve, it’s what we do.

Thanks, lowbank

There is a line in the banking industry that applies here, and is the reason why I still think EK will pull the trigger here - even without the performance improvement that Airbus and RR promised. When you loan someone a little money, and they default - they have a problem. When you loan someone a lot of money, and they default - you have a problem. EK's problem is that they own a huge percentage of overall A380 order book. I think you have to look at "failed" planes such as the 717 to find anything remotely comparable where a single carrier has roughly half (162/332) of the orders and 8 times more orders then any other carrier. EK not picking up the additional orders will result in the value of their own book of A380 plans plummeting. This is even more pronounced because lessors stopped buying the A380 quite a while ago when it became apparent that market demand is not going to be there.

I don't see how EK can walk away at this point.

airfrnt wrote:

There is a line in the banking industry that applies here, and is the reason why I still think EK will pull the trigger here - even without the performance improvement that Airbus and RR promised. When you loan someone a little money, and they default - they have a problem. When you loan someone a lot of money, and they default - you have a problem. EK's problem is that they own a huge percentage of overall A380 order book. I think you have to look at "failed" planes such as the 717 to find anything remotely comparable where a single carrier has roughly half (162/332) of the orders and 8 times more orders then any other carrier. EK not picking up the additional orders will result in the value of their own book of A380 plans plummeting. This is even more pronounced because lessors stopped buying the A380 quite a while ago when it became apparent that market demand is not going to be there.

I don't see how EK can walk away at this point.

As you noted, leasing companies walked away. Nothing EK does will improve their financing terms. Nothing they do will improve the resale value of their fleet. Is there a business case for the add on order or not?

Is there enough of a premium to fly the A380 to pay the higher costs? If not, cut the order.

I very much want to know the answer. Sir Tim's opinion matters a lot more than mine.

Lightsaber

Anything new regarding the stalled deal?

lowbank wrote:

So I think I came across as a right Ass.
MSN 249 was testing a new component.

As always RR are working hard to improve, it’s what we do.

As always

Nice to read then

(sorry for the unecessary brexit workload)

I wonder how many 380's EK needs in its fleet at the same time, right now they have 105 and with this order 57 more. If the 105 is about right the oldest frames will be coming on the market to uncertain values, I recall a lot of the initial ones are leased so others have the value risk there. But how easy would it be to get financing for these last planes. The last 20 plane order would still be flying 20 to 25 years from now. If the economics are tight now, it will be far worse in 20 years.

EK with the many month negotiation with RR might be changing their mind about this.

Emirates once stated that they intended to keep all their A380s and fly them until they are uneconomical to operate and then put them into storage. I do not know if they planed on storing them in Dubai, somewhere nearby or flying them elsewhere for scrapping.

things may change quickly. If EY merge or fail.... and the pressure is ever greater now that yet another investment of theirs, Jet Airways is in trouble, EK may find itself needing extra capacity. Not to mention Air India... well, hasn't exactly been having a great time lately and is likely to lose a lot of paying pax. Ironically that may help Delta's ambitions for India more than any fight with Emirates.

You know it's possible EK may keep the fleet going. The DC-8 got re-engined because until the 767-300ER came along nothing else could do what a CFM powered DC-8-70 could do. Rolls do have options that could work. It's a less than ideal solution but its been done in the past. This will be a tough one. Airbus will want to keep the program alive as theres going to be congestion particularly in Asia that will need Big aircraft. There's going to be politics in Europe that will want to keep it alive for prestige reasons. God knows what the EU is going to look like in 5 years but they'll be some changes so their approach to helping airbus may change, especially if china starts selling too many aircraft. And if a lot of the Legacy carriers look towards the likes of the A350 and 787 to fill their needs, even if it means leaving more economy pax behind that also changes the equation. And if we see more mergers and less carriers that also changes the equation. There's too many unknowns here so I don't see EK selling a single A380 until we get a better idea of whats going on.... and I also don't see carriers like QF or VS taking anymore. SQ yes because like the early 787s, their first lot are dogs breakfast of planes with too many errors in design addressed and complications. In short... I don't think even emirates or airbus themselves know whats going to happen and Boeing certainly doesn't. But I can tell you this. The Boeing 787 and Airbus A350 will be the big sellers. Even if it opens the door for carriers like Norwegian and Jetstar to start more Long Haul Routes. These days you need to fly to make a profit.

I agree with Lufthansa that EK may keep at least some A380 operational for decades. The question is "how many." 100+ is unlikely. 30-50 may be very realistic. The rest of their aircraft can donate parts as needed to maintain the others for decades.

Have a great day,

They will retire them quickly if there is a more economic plane.

seahawk wrote:

They will retire them quickly if there is a more economic plane.

That would require an A380-900 .. -1000 being offered by Airbus.

Or just the 777-9.

Emirates leases their A380 for a limited time only (12 years?) and have always stated they want to lease brandnew aircraft afterwards. So there seems to be some stable EK-reorder market if the A380 gets improved over time.
Looking at the 747 history for comparison: It took several generations, especially engines, to make it the final success as the 747-400. So we need to be more patient with the A380.

The 747-400 came before the twin revolution. All significant orders for the PAX version came before 2000, that is before the 777 took to the skies, mostly before the A332 was delivered and mostly before the A330 had an ETOPS 180 certification. So the orders came when the only twin in competition was the 767. The world is different today.

Agreed. Air traffic is rising and new market fleets like China and India just start to grow into widebody size. I'd expect something bigger than twins might be needed in the future more than ever.

Noshow wrote:

Agreed. Air traffic is rising and new market fleets like China and India just start to grow into widebody size. I'd expect something bigger than twins might be needed in the future more than ever.

And yet we have the case of Iran who has lots of oil money and who had not been able to buy Western aircraft for decades ordering 28 A389, 16 A35K and zero A380s.

I think as India and China grow they'll do the same thing, buy big twins.

seahawk wrote:

The 747-400 came before the twin revolution. All significant orders for the PAX version came before 2000, that is before the 777 took to the skies, mostly before the A332 was delivered and mostly before the A330 had an ETOPS 180 certification. So the orders came when the only twin in competition was the 767. The world is different today.

Sadly, you are correct. I think more 747-400's were purchased for their range than their capacity.
Will the natural growth of traffic save the A380? Unfortunately, I think not, airlines will upsize A320's and 737 to bigger models, also A330's and 767/787 to bigger models or to 777's or A350's. Only for routes where airlines are restricted by frequency will this not be viable and that can't possibly sustain the A380 even at EK. As an aircraft nut and a passenger, I hope I am wrong but I don't think I am.

I agree with the upsizing theory. But why should it end with the 777-9 and not go beyound? Don't know if the A380 will be that aircraft but something bigger than a twin 777-9 (and I am not talking about some possible 777-10X) is entirely plausible to me. The market keeps growing.

There would be a bigger need for big aircraft today if China's government would not artificially split it's market growth into many new smaller regional airlines that start from scratch. So no airline big enough can grow to order more big airplanes for some time.

Noshow wrote:

There would be a bigger need for big aircraft today if China's government would not artificially split it's market growth into many new smaller regional airlines that start from scratch. So [b]no airline big enough[/b] can grow to order more big airplanes for some time.

China Southern: fleet size = 582 including 83 widebodies. On order: 291
China Eastern: fleet size = 512 including 70 widebodies. On order: 178
Air China: fleet size = 397 including 103 widebodies. On order: 169

Not big enough? (figures might not be 100% accurate but enough to illustrate).
Sure, they are not the biggest but I would say they are big enough to order whatever they need and want.

Noshow wrote:

I agree with the upsizing theory. But why should it end with the 777-9 and not go beyound? Don't know if the A380 will be that aircraft but something bigger than a twin 777-9 (and I am not talking about some possible 777-10X) is entirely plausible to me. The market keeps growing.

There would be a bigger need for big aircraft today if China's government would not artificially split it's market growth into many new smaller regional airlines that start from scratch. So no airline big enough can grow to order more big airplanes for some time.

until we can get twins with like 150 k lbs of thrust we can't build double decker twins. seems for now the 777-10x is the biggest twins can get without breaking the 80x80 box or going to a flying wing.

musman9853 wrote:

Noshow wrote:

I agree with the upsizing theory. But why should it end with the 777-9 and not go beyound? Don't know if the A380 will be that aircraft but something bigger than a twin 777-9 (and I am not talking about some possible 777-10X) is entirely plausible to me. The market keeps growing.

There would be a bigger need for big aircraft today if China's government would not artificially split it's market growth into many new smaller regional airlines that start from scratch. So no airline big enough can grow to order more big airplanes for some time.

until we can get twins with like 150 k lbs of thrust we can't build double decker twins. seems for now the 777-10x is the biggest twins can get without breaking the 80x80 box or going to a flying wing.

It's possible, but that engine out scenario would need some serious computerized fly by wire assistance.

Somebody cue up Keejse's Skyliner concept....

musman9853 wrote:

Noshow wrote:

I agree with the upsizing theory. But why should it end with the 777-9 and not go beyound? Don't know if the A380 will be that aircraft but something bigger than a twin 777-9 (and I am not talking about some possible 777-10X) is entirely plausible to me. The market keeps growing.

There would be a bigger need for big aircraft today if China's government would not artificially split it's market growth into many new smaller regional airlines that start from scratch. So no airline big enough can grow to order more big airplanes for some time.

until we can get twins with like 150 k lbs of thrust we can't build double decker twins. seems for now the 777-10x is the biggest twins can get without breaking the 80x80 box or going to a flying wing.

Even 100.000lbs will be challenging from a diameter point of view with the bypass ratios we'll be seeing in the future.

So I guess EK is stating they want better engines, but the business case is not there for the engine makers to invest in such improvements. In exchange EK is probably trying to wring more discounts to make up for the "higher" costs of operating the A380. This is what I think is going on behind the scenes.

EK knows this is a lifeline order and may "think" they have Airbus over the barrel. That thinking only works if EK is convinced the A380 will continue in production. Airbus of course could throw a wrench in EK's plans and say screw it, and shut the thing down. My money is on EK getting even bigger discounts on the A380s in exchange for a larger order.

william wrote:

So I guess EK is stating they want better engines, but the business case is not there for the engine makers to invest in such improvements. In exchange EK is probably trying to wring more discounts to make up for the "higher" costs of operating the A380. This is what I think is going on behind the scenes.

EK knows this is a lifeline order and may "think" they have Airbus over the barrel. That thinking only works if EK is convinced the A380 will continue in production. Airbus of course could throw a wrench in EK's plans and say screw it, and shut the thing down. My money is on EK getting even bigger discounts on the A380s in exchange for a larger order.

The hold up is with engine performance and cost, not Airbus. EK want better cradle to grave engine pricing, a PiP from both, and probably an upgrade commitment.

Doubt Airbus will fund engine improvements for either OEM, unless there is a contra deal on another engine.

Given the Boeing / GM and Airbus / RR strategic partnerships, you would think RR has the edge, if they want the business, enough.

smartplane wrote:

william wrote:

So I guess EK is stating they want better engines, but the business case is not there for the engine makers to invest in such improvements. In exchange EK is probably trying to wring more discounts to make up for the "higher" costs of operating the A380. This is what I think is going on behind the scenes.

EK knows this is a lifeline order and may "think" they have Airbus over the barrel. That thinking only works if EK is convinced the A380 will continue in production. Airbus of course could throw a wrench in EK's plans and say screw it, and shut the thing down. My money is on EK getting even bigger discounts on the A380s in exchange for a larger order.

The hold up is with engine performance and cost, not Airbus. EK want better cradle to grave engine pricing, a PiP from both, and probably an upgrade commitment.

Doubt Airbus will fund engine improvements for either OEM, unless there is a contra deal on another engine.

Given the Boeing / GM and Airbus / RR strategic partnerships, you would think RR has the edge, if they want the business, enough.

I can't see RR caring about A380 orders unless it comes with big bales of money. If you are going to spend money on improving an engine, or cut margins to the bone to put engines on wings.... The 787 and A350 are incomparably better places to do so.

More over with EA being effectively dead, its not like EK has options. So if RR sells A380 engines, good. If RR doesn't sell A380 engines, good. It just doesn't matter to RR. It matters to Airbus and EK, but so far it appears not to matter enough to put money into the issue.

william wrote:

So I guess EK is stating they want better engines, but the business case is not there for the engine makers to invest in such improvements. In exchange EK is probably trying to wring more discounts to make up for the "higher" costs of operating the A380. This is what I think is going on behind the scenes.

EK knows this is a lifeline order and may "think" they have Airbus over the barrel. That thinking only works if EK is convinced the A380 will continue in production. Airbus of course could throw a wrench in EK's plans and say screw it, and shut the thing down. My money is on EK getting even bigger discounts on the A380s in exchange for a larger order.

Which is why it would be better (and probably cheaper) to certify the T7000 on the A380. It would get all the PIPs the T1000-TEN gets, and would benefit from a lower cost parts market. This is especially important for the used A380 market. Paired with a new set of winglets that can be retrofitted, it should be an acceptable gain in efficiency.

XT6Wagon wrote:

smartplane wrote:

william wrote:

So I guess EK is stating they want better engines, but the business case is not there for the engine makers to invest in such improvements. In exchange EK is probably trying to wring more discounts to make up for the "higher" costs of operating the A380. This is what I think is going on behind the scenes.

EK knows this is a lifeline order and may "think" they have Airbus over the barrel. That thinking only works if EK is convinced the A380 will continue in production. Airbus of course could throw a wrench in EK's plans and say screw it, and shut the thing down. My money is on EK getting even bigger discounts on the A380s in exchange for a larger order.

The hold up is with engine performance and cost, not Airbus. EK want better cradle to grave engine pricing, a PiP from both, and probably an upgrade commitment.

Doubt Airbus will fund engine improvements for either OEM, unless there is a contra deal on another engine.

Given the Boeing / GM and Airbus / RR strategic partnerships, you would think RR has the edge, if they want the business, enough.

I can't see RR caring about A380 orders unless it comes with big bales of money. If you are going to spend money on improving an engine, or cut margins to the bone to put engines on wings.... The 787 and A350 are incomparably better places to do so.

More over with EA being effectively dead, its not like EK has options. So if RR sells A380 engines, good. If RR doesn't sell A380 engines, good. It just doesn't matter to RR. It matters to Airbus and EK, but so far it appears not to matter enough to put money into the issue.

See my first comment. The T7000 (A330NEO) is essentially the same engine that the 787 has.

The T7000 and T1000 are derivatives of the T900. It's the same engine with tweaks here and there. The BPR is in the same ballpark.
The pressure ratio is higher but probably at the expense of durability.
So it doesnt make sense to reengine for a small efficiency gain at current oil prices.
I would take a discount today instead of a potential fuel saving tomorrow.
But perhaps RR wants to make money on those engines.

musman9853 wrote:

Noshow wrote:

I agree with the upsizing theory. But why should it end with the 777-9 and not go beyound? Don't know if the A380 will be that aircraft but something bigger than a twin 777-9 (and I am not talking about some possible 777-10X) is entirely plausible to me. The market keeps growing.

There would be a bigger need for big aircraft today if China's government would not artificially split it's market growth into many new smaller regional airlines that start from scratch. So no airline big enough can grow to order more big airplanes for some time.

until we can get twins with like 150 k lbs of thrust we can't build double decker twins. seems for now the 777-10x is the biggest twins can get without breaking the 80x80 box or going to a flying wing.

More like 225k lbs when you look at the thrust requirements of an A380. Always remember when a quad looses and engine the thrust requirement changes for 1/4 per engine to 1/3. If a twin looses an engine the remaining engine must deliver the needed thrust alone.

william wrote:

It's possible, but that engine out scenario would need some serious computerized fly by wire assistance.

Afaik you already have that. Airbus FBW copes transparently with engine out conditions.
QF 32 didn't switch of the AP till they went in for the final landing.
No idea how B handles those things.

william wrote:

Somebody cue up Keejse's Skyliner concept....

Today's tech issue is that all those phantastic renderings of UberMaschines
has broken the knowledge qualified "if it looks good it works good" judgment capability
of people all around.
Like the Connie the Skyliner looked great but would be a PITA to produce
and destroy its efficient look aero advantages with inefficient space use inside.

A real looker. But beauty is just skin deep.

China Southern: fleet size = 582 including 83 widebodies. On order: 291
China Eastern: fleet size = 512 including 70 widebodies. On order: 178
Air China: fleet size = 397 including 103 widebodies. On order: 169

Not big enough? (figures might not be 100% accurate but enough to illustrate).
Sure, they are not the biggest but I would say they are big enough to order whatever they need and want.

They are mostly just growing from single aisles to small widebodies like A330 and 787. My point is it will take some years to grow beyound that. If you had only the old CAAC Air China monopoly it might have ordered hundreds of 747 and A380 by now.

seahawk wrote:

musman9853 wrote:

until we can get twins with like 150 k lbs of thrust we can't build double decker twins. seems for now the 777-10x is the biggest twins can get without breaking the 80x80 box or going to a flying wing.

More like 225k lbs when you look at the thrust requirements of an A380. Always remember when a quad looses and engine the thrust requirement changes for 1/4 per engine to 1/3. If a twin looses an engine the remaining engine must deliver the needed thrust alone.

Yeah but a twin is always better than a quad, right?

Waterbomber wrote:

The T7000 and T1000 are derivatives of the T900. It's the same engine with tweaks here and there. The BPR is in the same ballpark.
The pressure ratio is higher but probably at the expense of durability.
So it doesnt make sense to reengine for a small efficiency gain at current oil prices.
I would take a discount today instead of a potential fuel saving tomorrow.
But perhaps RR wants to make money on those engines.

The T1000 and 7000 aren’t derivatives of the T900. Very different engines.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

seahawk wrote:

musman9853 wrote:

until we can get twins with like 150 k lbs of thrust we can't build double decker twins. seems for now the 777-10x is the biggest twins can get without breaking the 80x80 box or going to a flying wing.

More like 225k lbs when you look at the thrust requirements of an A380. Always remember when a quad looses and engine the thrust requirement changes for 1/4 per engine to 1/3. If a twin looses an engine the remaining engine must deliver the needed thrust alone.

Yeah but a twin is always better than a quad, right?

Nope, personally I think that we won´t see much more than 550kn thrust for an engine for a long time. The engines become too large and too heavy and the economics drop as the single engine performance will be dictating the whole aircraft design too much.

Imho the problem of the A380 is mostly based on the fact that it offers a huge capacity if you use the same seating standards as in a normal widebody. If you use a higher standards, you are having problems to create so much extra revenue that it compensates the reduced economics.

Noshow wrote:

They are mostly just growing from single aisles to small widebodies like A330 and 787.

Right. you can (conveniently or ignorantly - whatever) disregard the small handful of A380s and the not-so-few 777s in their fleets, plus the 5 dozen A350s in their order books. Suit yourself. Don't let facts stand in the way of your own belief/fantasy/whatever.

Noshow wrote:

My point is it will take some years to grow beyound that. If you had only the old CAAC Air China monopoly it might have ordered hundreds of 747 and A380 by now.

Yeah, if and might. Love it.
If Genghis Khan had lived for a decade or two longer, his conquering hordes might have swarmed Europe and the world might still be travelling on horsebacks, or technology might have developed differently and we might by now have hypersonic transports and maybe even teleportation. No big twins and vla quads.
Ok, back to reality. The now is our now!

WIederling wrote:

william wrote:

It's possible, but that engine out scenario would need some serious computerized fly by wire assistance.

Afaik you already have that. Airbus FBW copes transparently with engine out conditions.
QF 32 didn't switch of the AP till they went in for the final landing.
No idea how B handles those things.

Both the 777 and 787 have that capability as well but even "serious computerized fly by wire assistance" won't save you if in the end you don't have enough thrust to maintain flight.

seahawk wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

seahawk wrote:

More like 225k lbs when you look at the thrust requirements of an A380. Always remember when a quad looses and engine the thrust requirement changes for 1/4 per engine to 1/3. If a twin looses an engine the remaining engine must deliver the needed thrust alone.

Yeah but a twin is always better than a quad, right?

Nope, personally I think that we won´t see much more than 550kn thrust for an engine for a long time. The engines become too large and too heavy and the economics drop as the single engine performance will be dictating the whole aircraft design too much.

Ha ha! Suprised that you of all people missed the sarcasm in my reply!

If the deal falls through, do EK and Airbus even need to announce it?

Prost wrote:

If the deal falls through, do EK and Airbus even need to announce it?

i'd imagine they would have to due to financial disclosure regulations, no?

seahawk wrote:

Or just the 777-9.

...or A380neo.

RB211trent wrote:

Waterbomber wrote:

The T7000 and T1000 are derivatives of the T900. It's the same engine with tweaks here and there. The BPR is in the same ballpark.
The pressure ratio is higher but probably at the expense of durability.
So it doesnt make sense to reengine for a small efficiency gain at current oil prices.
I would take a discount today instead of a potential fuel saving tomorrow.
But perhaps RR wants to make money on those engines.

The T1000 and 7000 aren’t derivatives of the T900. Very different engines.

Beat me too it.
That’s like saying they are derivatives of the RB211, well they are three spool engines

Meh

As new planes become more efficient and the A380 stays the same eventually even EK will have to give up on it. As I understand it the 779 is supposed to beat its CASM. It is foolish for EK to buy more of them in that case without some improvement. Since nobody else wants them in the foreseeable future Airbus is not willing to invest in any more improvements, and maybe RR is at the same place, even though they promised to.