Wouldn't normally comment regarding the above post especially as this thread is effectively closed.But just wow.What the hell is wrong with the folks at Bloomberg.They have a reputation ( quality unbiased factual news) to uphold.Of course it's only one small reporting section of a giant news conglomerate,but perhaps senior management should ask some pertinent questions to stop such an esteemed organisation looking stupid.They should certainly be demanding to know what rock solid source led to the article being written in the first place.
I would suggest reading what Sir Tim had to say that there never was a factual story.But only they will ever know - if they ask the question.

LaunchDetected wrote:

Don't want to derail a thread about the engines. But Airbus and Emirates both declared, in their articles (not in their headlines), that it was only a MoU.
https://www.emirates.com/media-centre/e ... 16-billion
https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... a380s.html

The first line of the Airbus PR you linked to clearly states...

Emirates and Airbus firmed up an earlier Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and signed a contract for 20 additional A380s with a further 16 options to be confirmed at a later date.

TropicalSky wrote:

If any of the engine OEM's are acquired by A/B that would be huge......it would definitely mean every project moving forward would have exclusive GE/RR motors beneath their wings without options for a second.....

I'm getting old and I don't trust my memory. So did I dream it that Boeing and PW (and United Airlines???) were once all connected and were then forced to break up?

smartplane wrote:

EK 787 engine decision can be delayed until late 2020, by which time Boeing and Airbus may have acquired GE and RR respectively

Plot twist: What about a GE/RR merger?

PM wrote:

TropicalSky wrote:

If any of the engine OEM's are acquired by A/B that would be huge......it would definitely mean every project moving forward would have exclusive GE/RR motors beneath their wings without options for a second.....

I'm getting old and I don't trust my memory. So did I dream it that Boeing and PW (and United Airlines???) were once all connected and were then forced to break up?

Yes, you're correct.

United Aircraft Corporation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Aircraft

Went on to become United Technologies Corporation UTC

jagraham wrote:

2175301 wrote:

Noshow wrote:

Very short international business trips are a reality for many people. Like those 24 hours at your destination mentioned. Nobody has the time to stay longer than necessary for a presentation, event, congress or similar.

I would concur with you on this. As such, these people focus on schedule more than people with longer trips.

I have never done an international business trip (outside of Canada from the USA). However, the first thing I look for is what schedules work well (or best). While I tend to use Southwest more often than others, I will instantly book on the other airlines if they have a better schedule. Which airline, which aircraft, is not a concern. I do book premium economy or business if I can. For long flights I try for business if available (I do not book lowest cost; but, will not just pay highest either).

My wife periodically fly's to Europe as she is from Ukraine - and again we look at schedule for when she leaves and would get home. Most of her flights are on 777's from/to Chicago across the Atlantic (I believe she has done 747 & 767 as well, and has routed through Atlanta and other east coast USA cities from time to time).

I did look at one international business trip last year - where I likely would have ended up on a A380 between Los Angeles to the Middle East as the main leg; but, the trip never happened.

I tend to find that most other business travelers do the same. Choosing an A380 would be towards the end of higher priority things such as schedule if we have that choice.

I cannot imaging many business people substantially sacrificing schedule just to fly an A380 or any specific aircraft, or insist on flying though a specific hub.

I cannot imaging many business people in other countries having a different priortiy on schedule vs aircraft/hub either. Time saved and schedule is Important.

Thus, the A380 does not command loyalty... not at the number that exist; except perhaps between a few hubs in the world. That has been the A380 problem all along. It only makes sense between a limited number of hubs. Please note that is not a new position of mine - it is an argument that I made when I joined A-net. That the business case did not add up and was based more on ego and fantasy. Back then I think I was one of only 2 or 3 people who withstood the intense criticism of the majority here at the time with that position... How things have changed and my original predictions have all proven out. The A380 is a niche aircraft and only suitable between a limited number of hubs. Few now doubt that.

I do not see a bright future for the A380. That does not mean that certain airlines may not be able to operate it on specific routes for a couple more decades successfully.

Have a great day,

I would say that the natural growth of air travel favors A380 sized aircraft - if they can last that long. The A380 is probably before its time.

The A380 size ahead of its time? Maybe, but not its four engine configuration.

william wrote:

jagraham wrote:

2175301 wrote:

I would concur with you on this. As such, these people focus on schedule more than people with longer trips.

I have never done an international business trip (outside of Canada from the USA). However, the first thing I look for is what schedules work well (or best). While I tend to use Southwest more often than others, I will instantly book on the other airlines if they have a better schedule. Which airline, which aircraft, is not a concern. I do book premium economy or business if I can. For long flights I try for business if available (I do not book lowest cost; but, will not just pay highest either).

My wife periodically fly's to Europe as she is from Ukraine - and again we look at schedule for when she leaves and would get home. Most of her flights are on 777's from/to Chicago across the Atlantic (I believe she has done 747 & 767 as well, and has routed through Atlanta and other east coast USA cities from time to time).

I did look at one international business trip last year - where I likely would have ended up on a A380 between Los Angeles to the Middle East as the main leg; but, the trip never happened.

I tend to find that most other business travelers do the same. Choosing an A380 would be towards the end of higher priority things such as schedule if we have that choice.

I cannot imaging many business people substantially sacrificing schedule just to fly an A380 or any specific aircraft, or insist on flying though a specific hub.

I cannot imaging many business people in other countries having a different priortiy on schedule vs aircraft/hub either. Time saved and schedule is Important.

Thus, the A380 does not command loyalty... not at the number that exist; except perhaps between a few hubs in the world. That has been the A380 problem all along. It only makes sense between a limited number of hubs. Please note that is not a new position of mine - it is an argument that I made when I joined A-net. That the business case did not add up and was based more on ego and fantasy. Back then I think I was one of only 2 or 3 people who withstood the intense criticism of the majority here at the time with that position... How things have changed and my original predictions have all proven out. The A380 is a niche aircraft and only suitable between a limited number of hubs. Few now doubt that.

I do not see a bright future for the A380. That does not mean that certain airlines may not be able to operate it on specific routes for a couple more decades successfully.

Have a great day,

I would say that the natural growth of air travel favors A380 sized aircraft - if they can last that long. The A380 is probably before its time.

The A380 size ahead of its time? Maybe, but not its four engine configuration.

There is no engine and will perhaps never be one of the size, that would make a A380 sized twin possible.

PM wrote:

Implications for the EK 787-10 order?

1/2 of the a380 fleet is EA, other half will be RR.

all of their 777 fleet is GE.

I think at this point we can't draw any conclusions on which engine will power the dreamliners. if i was a betting man, i'd say ge simply because there's more and they haven't had the same issues with the genx as rr has had with their trents. of course, it could be completely possible that there was a package deal made with rr engines for both types, but we porb wont find out for a while.

marcelh wrote:

smartplane wrote:

EK 787 engine decision can be delayed until late 2020, by which time Boeing and Airbus may have acquired GE and RR respectively

Plot twist: What about a GE/RR merger?

Not an expert, but I imagine anti-trust laws would prevent that.

Waterbomber wrote:

ScottB wrote:

Waterbomber wrote:

BA already has an intensive schedule with the B744 wnd would probably be able to do the hourly service with a very premium A380 instead of B744 and gain market share.
Replacing the B744 by B787-10 will result in a capacity reduction and a loss of market share.

Many people tend to focus on unit profit these days, and in the process forget that:
Total profit = unit profit x volume

BA doesn't really want or need to gain market share between NYC & LON because most of what's up for grabs (i.e. not tied down under corporate contracts) is low-yielding traffic in the back of the aircraft. They can't just replace the high-J 744 with premium A380s and maintain the schedule because the market for premium seats in that city-pair is still finite. Because the A380 is ~50% larger than the 744, they'd either need to put in another 150 or so Y seats or reduce schedule by 1/3, which would give them less of an advantage against DL/VS and UA.

Unit profit isn't as simple as you make it out to be in a market like air travel where the suppliers engage in heavy price discrimination and there is high risk of spoilage of product. One of the key reasons why the 77W and 779 (not to mention A359 and A35X) are so attractive against the A380 is that the unit costs are nearly the same, but rather than having to find 450 to 500 customers to fill the aircraft, you really only have to find the 300 to 400 of those who are willing to pay the highest fares -- and that's pretty much why you have a revenue management department. When you're using a smaller aircraft, the unit profit can be higher because you don't need the trash fares sold at near break-even or a loss to fill the seats. If BA has to sell a $399 JFK-LHR round-trip in the low season to fill empty seats in the back of the A380, they're probably better-off operating something smaller.

So in the case of the smaller plane, you may end up with higher profit because the unit profit is sufficiently high to make up for the lower volume.

Your argument is not rational.

If you look at the other players on the LON-NYC market, there is more for grabs than "low-yielding traffic at the back of the aircraft".
DL/VS have 8 daily service with A330/A340 and UA 5 daily with B767.
BA could easily take premium traffic away from any of these flights and gain market share. For instance, they could easily push UA out of the market and take over a large chunk of their corporates.
11 daily with A380 vs 5 daily B767, and BA would have UA for breakfast and DL would struggle too.

Now lets suppose that BA downgrade their B744's to B787-10's, what do you suppose will happen?
UA is going to upgrade to B777's and increase frequencies, DL/VS will increase frequenciea and start eating BA's lunch.

And sorry but 6-7 hours hops are not what the B777X will do best. Plus the B777X is not cheap to acquire and whatever marginal fuel and maintenance cost saving vs. the B744 will disappear in capital cost.

I am sure that if BA could wipe out the competition by getting more A-380's, they would do it. So would anyone else. Fact is, the A-380 was built for a market that does not really exist, at least very much of it. Seriously doubt BA will be having anyone for breakfast using A-380's. The twins, like the 787 and A-350 have better costs and are more right sized for their markets.

mjoelnir wrote:

william wrote:

jagraham wrote:

I would say that the natural growth of air travel favors A380 sized aircraft - if they can last that long. The A380 is probably before its time.

The A380 size ahead of its time? Maybe, but not its four engine configuration.

There is no engine and will perhaps never be one of the size, that would make a A380 sized twin possible.

Two engines good, four engines baaaad.... two engines good, four engines baaaad... etc.

A year or so ago I am sure Sir Tim made a statement about the maximum amount of A380's it was possible to have at their home airport due to space restrictions.It may have been 120 but can't really remember.
The first of their 380 fleet become 12 years old in 1-2 years time so one imagines he will be trading in some leased aircaft as that is their usual modus operandi.Particularly as the timing coincides with their introduction of a new premium class cabin.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

william wrote:

The A380 size ahead of its time? Maybe, but not its four engine configuration.

There is no engine and will perhaps never be one of the size, that would make a A380 sized twin possible.

Two engines good, four engines baaaad.... two engines good, four engines baaaad... etc.

Another "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome" fan I see. ( "Two men enter, one man leaves..........Two men enter, one man leaves...)

So the engine manufacturers won't do engines for the MOM, which at half of Boeing's estimate is 2,000 planes or 4,000 engines because it is too expensive to develop, but they will jump at doing a new state of the art engine for the 380 with an optimistic 100 planes or 450 engines. So right on.

parapente wrote:

What the hell is wrong with the folks at Bloomberg.They have a reputation ( quality unbiased factual news) to uphold.Of course it's only one small reporting section of a giant news conglomerate,but perhaps senior management should ask some pertinent questions to stop such an esteemed organisation looking stupid.They should certainly be demanding to know what rock solid source led to the article being written in the first place.

I wouldn't discount this story being planted by someone at EK in order to try to force some action on RR's part. If you're not getting the answer you want in private negotiations, sometimes negotiating via the media can work. Unfortunately for EK, the decisionmakers at RR stuck to their guns and that's not entirely surprising. The incremental profit from an additional ~150 engines sold to EK probably isn't enough to justify RR investing in the PIP. Heck, it may not even be about the profit, but just about the development resources given the issues at present with their other engine programs and the need to keep their long-term bets (Advance/UltraFan) moving forward. With Engine Alliance more or less out of the picture, if you really want A380, you're taking what RR gives you for now.

marcelh wrote:

smartplane wrote:

EK 787 engine decision can be delayed until late 2020, by which time Boeing and Airbus may have acquired GE and RR respectively

Plot twist: What about a GE/RR merger?

A RR / PW merger is more likely, with the military component of PW, plus SNECMA merging with GE.

But neither GE or RR are in a position financially to undertake such mergers. Airbus and Boeing will be the catalysts, so the final combinations may owe less to logic and more to politics.

RR & PW already collaborate. For example, their own plants and exclusive sub-contractors can work for the other, providing no impact on their own requirements. RR Germany has and is assisting with GTF issues, and PW has acquired some RR component manufacture, so RR can upscale blade and other production work.

Behind the scenes, IAE and it's shareholders and contractors, are also working closely with RR and PW. In the event of a significant global engine merger, will MTU and the Japanese syndicate be included?

mjoelnir wrote:

william wrote:

jagraham wrote:

I would say that the natural growth of air travel favors A380 sized aircraft - if they can last that long. The A380 is probably before its time.

The A380 size ahead of its time? Maybe, but not its four engine configuration.

There is no engine and will perhaps never be one of the size, that would make a A380 sized twin possible.

For quite a long time, engines were such that larger engines were more efficient. There still is an inherent efficiency with increasing fan size, but that is less than 3%. Now GE was able to make the smaller GEnX more efficient than the larger GE90. And the most recent single aisle engines, the LEAP and GTF, are quite close to the big boys in SFC. So the inherent superiority of a twin is not inherent anymore, but we need to wait for a round or two of new designs to see the reality.

william wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

There is no engine and will perhaps never be one of the size, that would make a A380 sized twin possible.

Two engines good, four engines baaaad.... two engines good, four engines baaaad... etc.

Another "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome" fan I see. ( "Two men enter, one man leaves..........Two men enter, one man leaves...)

Actually it was an Orwell reference. Sheep and pigs...

parapente wrote:

Wouldn't normally comment regarding the above post especially as this thread is effectively closed.But just wow.What the hell is wrong with the folks at Bloomberg.They have a reputation ( quality unbiased factual news) to uphold.Of course it's only one small reporting section of a giant news conglomerate,but perhaps senior management should ask some pertinent questions to stop such an esteemed organisation looking stupid.They should certainly be demanding to know what rock solid source led to the article being written in the first place.
I would suggest reading what Sir Tim had to say that there never was a factual story.But only they will ever know - if they ask the question.

So you are upset that on October 8th Bloomberg reported the deal was stalled, but you're not upset that Tim Clark said that the deal would be signed by the end of October, and here we are in November with No Deal signed?

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

william wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Two engines good, four engines baaaad.... two engines good, four engines baaaad... etc.

Another "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome" fan I see. ( "Two men enter, one man leaves..........Two men enter, one man leaves...)

Actually it was an Orwell reference. Sheep and pigs...

If I remember the Animal Farm story line correctly, the slogan started out as "Four legs good, two legs bad", but over time evolved into "Four legs good, two legs better".

Pretty much exactly what happened historically with respect to quads versus twins! -ir

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

william wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Two engines good, four engines baaaad.... two engines good, four engines baaaad... etc.

Another "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome" fan I see. ( "Two men enter, one man leaves..........Two men enter, one man leaves...)

Actually it was an Orwell reference. Sheep and pigs...

Oh my... Now I don't know what made me laugh more: your joke or the fact that your oponent didn't get it!

parapente wrote:

Wouldn't normally comment regarding the above post especially as this thread is effectively closed.But just wow.What the hell is wrong with the folks at Bloomberg.

These are the same folks who published the story about the "spy chips" in Apple and Amazon servers that has been OFFICIALLY refuted (in front of the Congress in Apple's case) by all parties concerned.

IslandRob wrote:

[If I remember the Animal Farm story line correctly, the slogan started out as "Four legs good, two legs bad", but over time evolved into "Four legs good, two legs better".

Pretty much exactly what happened historically with respect to quads versus twins! -ir

But I was alluding to people repeating/believing dogma as fact...

Please keep this thread on topic, thanks.

Channex757 wrote:

RB211trent wrote:

Channex757 wrote:

RR will use a sort-of GTF architecture for the Ultrafan engine. Not as straightforward as the Pratt gearbox, but a definite move away from the three shaft system that their large commercial engines have used so far.

Therein lies a story and several lawsuits between Pratt and Whitney and Rolls.

The Trent 900 is a fairly exhausted design now anyway. It is based on a Trent 500 core and that's how old...?

It’s not based on a Trent 500 core at all. If you compare it to that you may as well compare it to T700 and 800s too.

"It is also the first member of the Trent family to feature a contra-rotating HP spool and uses the core of the very reliable Trent 500."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Roy ... (Trent_900)

RR used the Trent 500 core with a larger fan section, upping the thrust. It was an interesting story at the time as both sides used repurposed designs; the Engine Alliance motor using the lower thrust variant of the GE90 and the fan from the PW4000 series as donors.

Oh it must be right coz it says it on Wikipedia

RB211trent wrote:

Channex757 wrote:

RB211trent wrote:

It’s not based on a Trent 500 core at all. If you compare it to that you may as well compare it to T700 and 800s too.

"It is also the first member of the Trent family to feature a contra-rotating HP spool and uses the core of the very reliable Trent 500."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Roy ... (Trent_900)

RR used the Trent 500 core with a larger fan section, upping the thrust. It was an interesting story at the time as both sides used repurposed designs; the Engine Alliance motor using the lower thrust variant of the GE90 and the fan from the PW4000 series as donors.

Oh it must be right coz it says it on Wikipedia

How predictable.

The Wikipedia article lists data on the engine; just not the most important fact that the T900 was built to keep costs low. Hence the reuse of the core. Engine Alliance was bidding hard with its cheap design so RR needed to be competitive.

RB211trent wrote:

Channex757 wrote:

RB211trent wrote:

It’s not based on a Trent 500 core at all. If you compare it to that you may as well compare it to T700 and 800s too.

"It is also the first member of the Trent family to feature a contra-rotating HP spool and uses the core of the very reliable Trent 500."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Roy ... (Trent_900)

RR used the Trent 500 core with a larger fan section, upping the thrust. It was an interesting story at the time as both sides used repurposed designs; the Engine Alliance motor using the lower thrust variant of the GE90 and the fan from the PW4000 series as donors.

Oh it must be right coz it says it on Wikipedia

You do know that most pages on Wikipedia are well policed and moderated to ensure that all entries are reliably sourced these days.

RB211trent wrote:

Channex757 wrote:

RB211trent wrote:

It’s not based on a Trent 500 core at all. If you compare it to that you may as well compare it to T700 and 800s too.

"It is also the first member of the Trent family to feature a contra-rotating HP spool and uses the core of the very reliable Trent 500."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Roy ... (Trent_900)

RR used the Trent 500 core with a larger fan section, upping the thrust. It was an interesting story at the time as both sides used repurposed designs; the Engine Alliance motor using the lower thrust variant of the GE90 and the fan from the PW4000 series as donors.

Oh it must be right coz it says it on Wikipedia

If you want to do something besides complain, feel free to correct the Wikipedia article. I made several changes to the 787 page. If you list the reason and your references, there's no problem.
Not that I'd expect anybody who types words like "coz" to actualy have a real function in the world.

Channex757 wrote:

RB211trent wrote:

Channex757 wrote:

"It is also the first member of the Trent family to feature a contra-rotating HP spool and uses the core of the very reliable Trent 500."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Roy ... (Trent_900)

RR used the Trent 500 core with a larger fan section, upping the thrust. It was an interesting story at the time as both sides used repurposed designs; the Engine Alliance motor using the lower thrust variant of the GE90 and the fan from the PW4000 series as donors.

Oh it must be right coz it says it on Wikipedia

How predictable.

The Wikipedia article lists data on the engine; just not the most important fact that the T900 was built to keep costs low. Hence the reuse of the core. Engine Alliance was bidding hard with its cheap design so RR needed to be competitive.

Exactly the HP sytem is contra-rotating, the LPT is larger to drive the fan, the IPT is different, the IPC has a different throat area....need I go on.

Nomadd wrote:

RB211trent wrote:

Channex757 wrote:

"It is also the first member of the Trent family to feature a contra-rotating HP spool and uses the core of the very reliable Trent 500."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Roy ... (Trent_900)

RR used the Trent 500 core with a larger fan section, upping the thrust. It was an interesting story at the time as both sides used repurposed designs; the Engine Alliance motor using the lower thrust variant of the GE90 and the fan from the PW4000 series as donors.

Oh it must be right coz it says it on Wikipedia

If you want to do something besides complain, feel free to correct the Wikipedia article. I made several changes to the 787 page. If you list the reason and your references, there's no problem.
Not that I'd expect anybody who types words like "coz" to actualy have a real function in the world.

No I’ve got no purpose in the world coz I build Jet engines

RB211trent wrote:

Nomadd wrote:

RB211trent wrote:

Oh it must be right coz it says it on Wikipedia

If you want to do something besides complain, feel free to correct the Wikipedia article. I made several changes to the 787 page. If you list the reason and your references, there's no problem.
Not that I'd expect anybody who types words like "coz" to actualy have a real function in the world.

No I’ve got no purpose in the world coz I build Jet engines

Having lazy people who complain instead of correcting problems would explain a lot of the issues plaguing RR.

rlwynn wrote:

The 747 was designed as a freighter first and foremost, .

That is not true at all.

I am sorry to inform you that it is absolutely true. This is basically common knowledge. SSTs were to replace it within 10 years and relegate it to its intended purpose, as a freighter and a poor mans VLA passenger aircraft.

Hmm, mid November and still no signed A380 RR engine deal...

deltadc9 wrote:

rlwynn wrote:

The 747 was designed as a freighter first and foremost, .

That is not true at all.

I am sorry to inform you that it is absolutely true. This is basically common knowledge. SSTs were to replace it within 10 years and relegate it to its intended purpose, as a freighter and a poor mans VLA passenger aircraft.

So its intended primary purpose is to serve as a VLA passenger airplane and its fallback mission is freighter.

The numbers show that to be true.

It's nice to have the freighter as a fallback, it is what is keeping the production line alive today.

Revelation wrote:

Hmm, mid November and still no signed A380 RR engine deal...

deltadc9 wrote:

rlwynn wrote:

That is not true at all.

I am sorry to inform you that it is absolutely true. This is basically common knowledge. SSTs were to replace it within 10 years and relegate it to its intended purpose, as a freighter and a poor mans VLA passenger aircraft.

So its intended primary purpose is to serve as a VLA passenger airplane and its fallback mission is freighter.

The numbers show that to be true.

It's nice to have the freighter as a fallback, it is what is keeping the production line alive today.

It is also ironic that Boeings initial plan of offering a 747 passenger model that would quickly turn into a mostly freighter program finally played out in the 747-8 iteration. That is exactly how they saw the 747-100 playing out. But fate took a strange turn and SSTs never "took off" pardon the pun.

It is important to remember that the initial design was as a freighter and a freighter only, and it evolved into a passenger jet when it was resurrected from a failed military proposal. I am surprise at how many here do not know the history. There are several books and many many articles, and even more very good posts here explaining this.

The rough design for the 747 was created in 1963 in response to a U.S. Air Force request for a large new jet transport. The request specified that the transport have a cargo bay that opened at the nose to allow easier level cargo loading, so Boeing placed the flight deck (cockpit) above the door to get it out of the way. And so the 747’s distinctive hump was born. But Boeing lost the bid to Lockheed, whose winning design went on to become the C-5 Galaxy.

After that, passenger airlines were begging for more capacity and range and supersonic speed

1.Boeing had the rough concept lying around after losing USAF cargo jet bid to the C-5
2.The CEO of Pan Am, Boeing’s biggest customer, wanted a much larger passenger jet with more range to bridge the gap to SST's as flagships
3.The 747 was the perfect Plan B for the SST program because it was already (sort of) lying around, it could deliver on Boeing’s promise of a huge jet to Pan Am and others if the 2707 failed, and since it was originally designed as a cargo jet it could be easily reverted to one if the 2707 did succeed. Low risk high reward.

If Boeing was 100% behind the 747 as a long term passenger model program, in my opinion, they would have done a clean sheet design loosely based on the military proposal and not just converted it for passenger service. They would also not have made freighter conversion such a high priority primary requirement. In reality, the hump was not needed at the time, it could have been a one deck plane and delivered on all requirements except being an exceptional freighter. Thank God they left it, visually, functionally, and aerodynamically it was a big hit.

As has been stated elsewhere, the nose door hardware was included on early passenger model examples because they thought the planes would not last their entire lifetime as passenger jets. They kept the design close to as it was initially for freighter sales and conversions because it was in fact a plan B passenger aircraft program and in it reality a freighter converted to a passenger plane that could easily and profitably be converted back to a freighter.

It was a massive case of opportunity and preparation converging, AKA LUCK

deltadc9 wrote:

It is also ironic that Boeings initial plan of offering a 747 passenger model that would quickly turn into a mostly freighter program finally played out in the 747-8 iteration. That is exactly how they saw the 747-100 playing out. But fate took a strange turn and SSTs never "took off" pardon the pun.

I guess we'll have to disagree on what "quickly" is, especially in the context of the late 60s where things were evolving so quickly.

If we use your ten year metric, I'm sure Boeing would have been quite happy to get ten years of mostly pax production then a switchover to freighters.

Keep in mind the 707 was around ten years old when the 747 design decisions were being made, and the 707 needed replacement as it was being undermined by 727 and 737 below and 747 above.

deltadc9 wrote:

It is important to remember that the initial design was as a freighter and a freighter only, and it evolved into a passenger jet when it was resurrected from a failed military proposal. I am surprise at how many here do not know the history. There are several books and many many articles, and even more very good posts here explaining this.

The books and posts here are best inconclusive and at worst supportive of an anti-US, anti-Boeing narrative.

I'll leave it at that.

So, it's pretty interesting that the engine deal that STC said would be signed by the end of October is still not signed.

I wonder what the hold up is?

I wonder if the result will be gaps in the A380 production line?

Revelation wrote:

deltadc9 wrote:

It is also ironic that Boeings initial plan of offering a 747 passenger model that would quickly turn into a mostly freighter program finally played out in the 747-8 iteration. That is exactly how they saw the 747-100 playing out. But fate took a strange turn and SSTs never "took off" pardon the pun.

I guess we'll have to disagree on what "quickly" is, especially in the context of the late 60s where things were evolving so quickly.

If we use your ten year metric, I'm sure Boeing would have been quite happy to get ten years of mostly pax production then a switchover to freighters.

Keep in mind the 707 was around ten years old when the 747 design decisions were being made, and the 707 needed replacement as it was being undermined by 727 and 737 below and 747 above.

deltadc9 wrote:

It is important to remember that the initial design was as a freighter and a freighter only, and it evolved into a passenger jet when it was resurrected from a failed military proposal. I am surprise at how many here do not know the history. There are several books and many many articles, and even more very good posts here explaining this.

The books and posts here are best inconclusive and at worst supportive of an anti-US, anti-Boeing narrative.

I'll leave it at that.

So, it's pretty interesting that the engine deal that STC said would be signed by the end of October is still not signed.

I wonder what the hold up is?

I wonder if the result will be gaps in the A380 production line?

If the engine contract is still not signed, casings, shafts, and rotors are too late. This is worth discussing.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

Revelation wrote:

So, it's pretty interesting that the engine deal that STC said would be signed by the end of October is still not signed.

I wonder what the hold up is?

I wonder if the result will be gaps in the A380 production line?

If the engine contract is still not signed, casings, shafts, and rotors are too late. This is worth discussing.

Neither the A380 order, or engines for same, are unconditional.

Suggests the EK 787-10 engine decision is still in play, so presumably RR is a serious contender. The 787 purchase isn't even a conditional order.

And in the background is the 777X order. If GE won't come to the party on the 787, is the X order at risk as well (for example, EK will want GE to match the deal they have from RR for parts, pre-assembled units and complete engines)?

The commercial aircraft industry is slowing, at the same time as air frame life increases, but economic life decreases.

Boeing had a real charm offensive late last year to move some 777X orders from conditional to unconditional. Number one target was LH, who did the reverse, indicating they had overestimated requirements, and probably wanted fewer units pa, starting more slowly.

If there are concerns for long lead items for an existing model engine because the order isn't unconditional, how many sleepless nights must there be at Boeing and GE?

If GE is perceived as the weakest link with either of these Boeing sales, expect the Boeing reaction to be swift and decisive. And Airbus retaliation in a heartbeat.

From primary sources, not for the first time either:
"747 Creating The World's First Jumbo And Other Adventures From A Life In Aviation" [originally all caps]
Joe Sutter with Jay Spenser / Smithsonian Books

pg 83: "The military C-5 program was doing something extremely important for commercial aviation: fostering the development of high-bypass-ratio turbofan engines,"

pg 84: "I should add that fostering large high-bypass engines was all that the USAF C-5 competition contributed to the Boeing 747, as my new airplane would be called. Time and again there appears in print the logical but false assumption that Boeing took its losing military C-5 bid and revamped it as the commercial 747. In fact, the 747 would be an entirely original design that owes nothing to the C-5." [Italics in the original]

SeJoWa wrote:

From primary sources, not for the first time either:
"747 Creating The World's First Jumbo And Other Adventures From A Life In Aviation" [originally all caps]
Joe Sutter with Jay Spenser / Smithsonian Books

pg 83: "The military C-5 program was doing something extremely important for commercial aviation: fostering the development of high-bypass-ratio turbofan engines,"

pg 84: "I should add that fostering large high-bypass engines was all that the USAF C-5 competition contributed to the Boeing 747, as my new airplane would be called. Time and again there appears in print the logical but false assumption that Boeing took its losing military C-5 bid and revamped it as the commercial 747. In fact, the 747 would be an entirely original design that owes nothing to the C-5." [Italics in the original]

Good try but I doubt you'll ever put the a.net freighter first myth to death -- it's a zombie.

smartplane wrote:

If there are concerns for long lead items for an existing model engine because the order isn't unconditional, how many sleepless nights must there be at Boeing and GE?

You would think there are plenty sleepless nights at Airbus as well, because as EK spends month after month forcing more concessions out of GE and/or RR they watch the A380 go deeper in the red.

The finely tuned "digestible losses" from 6 frames per year presumably become indigestion with less than 6 per year.

Either that, or they are desensitized to A380 losses, since that's all there's ever been.

Revelation wrote:

The finely tuned "digestible losses" from 6 frames per year presumably become indigestion with less than 6 per year.

Either that, or they are desensitized to A380 losses, since that's all there's ever been.

Please give credit where credit is due: Without checking the actual data I do believe that there was a 1.5 year (or so) period where the A380 was at production cost break-even. So, it's not true to say that all they have done is lost money. They broke even for a bit...

I've often wondered if there were parties and bonuses at the time...

Have a great day,

Revelation wrote:

smartplane wrote:

If there are concerns for long lead items for an existing model engine because the order isn't unconditional, how many sleepless nights must there be at Boeing and GE?

You would think there are plenty sleepless nights at Airbus as well, because as EK spends month after month forcing more concessions out of GE and/or RR they watch the A380 go deeper in the red.

The finely tuned "digestible losses" from 6 frames per year presumably become indigestion with less than 6 per year.

Either that, or they are desensitized to A380 losses, since that's all there's ever been.

What worry? Emirates mand 0.46% profit! That is zero point four six percent. Basically break even in the prior fiscal year.

I would be worried too. There is less impetus to renew a fleet than expand in a high profit market.

As I noted before, unless RR went forward at risk (I'm sure Airbus had to), there will be a small shortage of parts. Meh... Not that big of a deal.

Lightsaber

Strato2 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

The A380 isn't large enough. Double decks require 2 staircases, an elevator, plumbing, and a non-optimal cockpit arrangement to work. The A388 needs to be stretched to dilute that added weight per passenger. There is a reason it burns a few percent more fuel per passenger than a 77W. The 779 is promised to burn 20% less fuel per passenger. Lightsaber

Big numbers! We'll see and what are they based on? The regular Boeing torture chamber layout vs. the superior regular Airbus seats or what?

I’m replying to an old thread but won’t the new 777x have improved width from thinner side walls to regain some of what was lost, ironnically because EK? 10x was specifically done EKs request, It was only intended for charter configurations is my understanding, which the entire industry switched to as the norm in short order. I remember when it used to be a more comfy 9X layout. I figured that’s their strategy to push people into upgrading, kind of squeezing them up into paying for a better seat.

Also I’m curious, is there any reason why showers can’t be added to a 777? It’s just more weight and some plumbing that’s all. It doesn’t sound like it’s that big of a technical challenge.

Revelation wrote:

smartplane wrote:

If there are concerns for long lead items for an existing model engine because the order isn't unconditional, how many sleepless nights must there be at Boeing and GE?

You would think there are plenty sleepless nights at Airbus as well, because as EK spends month after month forcing more concessions out of GE and/or RR they watch the A380 go deeper in the red.

The finely tuned "digestible losses" from 6 frames per year presumably become indigestion with less than 6 per year.

Either that, or they are desensitized to A380 losses, since that's all there's ever been.

I hardly see Airbus needing to go below 6 a year. I assume the last Emirates order will not allow to go down to 6 a year.

Revelation wrote:

Hmm, mid November and still no signed A380 RR engine deal...

deltadc9 wrote:

rlwynn wrote:

That is not true at all.

I am sorry to inform you that it is absolutely true. This is basically common knowledge. SSTs were to replace it within 10 years and relegate it to its intended purpose, as a freighter and a poor mans VLA passenger aircraft.

So its intended primary purpose is to serve as a VLA passenger airplane and its fallback mission is freighter.

The numbers show that to be true.

It's nice to have the freighter as a fallback, it is what is keeping the production line alive today.

No, it was Boeings entry against the C5 galaxy for the military freighter contract. When they lost the turned it into a passenger & commercial freighter.

rbavfan wrote:

Revelation wrote:

So its intended primary purpose is to serve as a VLA passenger airplane and its fallback mission is freighter.

The numbers show that to be true.

It's nice to have the freighter as a fallback, it is what is keeping the production line alive today.

No, it was Boeings entry against the C5 galaxy for the military freighter contract. When they lost the turned it into a passenger & commercial freighter.

Except that that is a myth - as I believe was already pointed out on this thread with references from Joe Sutter himself.

mjoelnir wrote:

I hardly see Airbus needing to go below 6 a year. I assume the last Emirates order will not allow to go down to 6 a year.

The last order really isn't an order till there is a signed engine contract, which we still do not have.

Till then, EK has signed up for some expensive gliders.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Except that that is a myth - as I believe was already pointed out on this thread with references from Joe Sutter himself.

Whilst it's not impossible this deal will fall ( which as stated by Airbus would mean th closing of the 380 line) it is imho highly unlikely.Everybody wants it to happen so it's very likely it will.What perhaps is interesting is the timing that fall from that.With the deal on board plus the existing backlog one is looking at 6+ years of production.
Now on a different thread one hears about a potential NEO for the 350.If that is the case then surely it must also be true of the older 787.
The RR Ultra development is coming on quickly now.The engine under test development is stated to fall into the 70klbs-80klbs power bracket.
One imagines at the present rate of progress that the 'Ultra' engine would easily be ready in 5 or so years time.
It's primary focus would of course be the high selling 787/350 aircraft families but it's hard to believe it wouldn't be considered for the A380 which falls exactly into this power bracket.
Thus this order may well be the last of the first generation 380's.Obviously that would be the right time to introduce the revised wing twist and blended winglets along with 'anything else'.
What might the total market be for an A380 mark2 over its lifetime.Probably no more than 200 at best.But that's 800 engines or more -certainly worth having!

But also a risk it's only say 50 frames and just for Emirates.
Agree that any 380neo needs to be essentially the same engine as 350neo to ensure sufficient numbers

Well some movement, but still no deal.

Emirates takes delivery of sitting A380 frame, but no clarity on the pending additional orders.

Airbus Unlocks Emirates A380 Logjam But Engine Standoff Goes On
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... for-airbus