Eyad89 wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

We can reasonably predict fuel burn performance from 3 metrics: weight, SFC, and L/D

Isn’t the weight factor already considered in the L/D calculations (induced drag), why count it again separately?

There's a long answer and short answer:

The short is that cruise L/D does not vary with weight. (except to a very small extent related to the variation of Reynolds numbers with altitude, and the small delta to gravitational acceleration with altitude, among other even smaller factors).

The long answer involves explaining the short answer.
Are you aware of the effect of air density on induced drag?

Taxi645 wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

Regardless, none of it works if the 380 doesn't get the Ultrafan in a timely manner...and really I don't think RR can pull it off.

As said, why would Airbus and EK go through all this trouble building and buying a plane past it's competitive cycle at a trickle rate to bridge the gap to ultrafan and not built in contingency for one or two years delay? Of course they wouldn't. As if they would say, well we managed to pull through to 2025 but now there's a delay so we'll pack our bags, throw away hundreds of millions and call it a day.

They'll have margin built in in case there are delays with ultrafan, but yeah it's not easy sailing to get there.

If everybody decides to commit to the 380neo, then sure, they'll eat a delay. But so far, nobody has committed to it. The Ultrafan is being developed regardless, and will go on the 350neo. The XWB engines are more efficient than the T900's and the 350 line is busy. There isn't the same urgency for that neo so the problems that will be caused by the inevitable delays, aren't as big of a deal.

That one or two year delay, (I'm a pessimist so I think closer to 3 or 4), still puts the 380neo a decade away from EIS. That's a lot of resources tied up for a long time slowly doling out an aircraft nobody else wants.

It's still a good plane. It's not the most versatile, but it is the best people mover ever. As it is, it's a useful tool for EK, but they pretty much have as many as they need. EK isn't in a hurry to take the ones they have on order. They knew all about the T900, when they made the switch, and I'm guessing the only reason they did switch, is that they sucked huge guarantees out of RR.

If RR lives up to their side, EK wins. If RR doesn't, EK has an easy out and they still win.

EK will be flying at least some of the 380's it has for another 15 or 20 years and they will need some fleet renewal aircraft.

Airbus would love to sell more ceo's and the neo, and I'm sure EK would love to buy some...for the right deals. I'm sure they are negotiating about this very thing, right now. It's all going to depend on how quickly RR can develop the ultrafan, how long Airbus can justify keeping the line open and how long EK is willing to pay and wait.

Matt6461 wrote:

The short is that cruise L/D does not vary with weight.

No, Matt. It is only that the MAXIMUM possible L/D for a given plane is independent of weight. Maximum L/D is an intrinsic property of a design that is not affected by weight, speed, angle of attack, or altitude. But L/D isn't the same as maximum L/D. Commercial airplanes cruise at a speeds and altitudes that wouldn't achieve maximum L/D.

For a given flight, a plane would be achieving a certain L/D that is determined by simply dividing lift by drag (or Cl by Cd). For a given speed and altitude, weight has a direct impact on induced drag and eventually total drag and L/D at that moment. Having said that, the best L/D ratio this plane can achieve remains unchanged even if weight, attitude, or speed change.

Matt6461 wrote:

Are you aware of the effect of air density on induced drag?

Sure, induced drag increases as air density decreases ( higher altitudes)

Eyad89 wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

The short is that cruise L/D does not vary with weight.

No, Matt. It is only that the MAXIMUM possible L/D for a given plane is independent of weight. Maximum L/D is an intrinsic property of a design that is not affected by weight, speed, angle of attack, or altitude. But L/D isn't the same as maximum L/D. Commercial airplanes cruise at a speeds and altitudes that wouldn't achieve maximum L/D.

For a given flight, a plane would be achieving a certain L/D that is determined by simply dividing lift by drag (or Cl by Cd). For a given speed and altitude, weight has a direct impact on induced drag and eventually total drag and L/D at that moment. Having said that, the best L/D ratio this plane can achieve remains unchanged even if weight, attitude, or speed change.

Matt6461 wrote:

Are you aware of the effect of air density on induced drag?

Sure, induced drag increases as air density decreases ( higher altitudes)

There is more than one non-dimensional L/D value. Optimal Cruise L/D is like max L/D in being generally independent of weight.

I'd encourage you to take this discussion to my fundamentals thread in TechOps.

Matt6461 wrote:

Eyad89 wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

The short is that cruise L/D does not vary with weight.

No, Matt. It is only that the MAXIMUM possible L/D for a given plane is independent of weight. Maximum L/D is an intrinsic property of a design that is not affected by weight, speed, angle of attack, or altitude. But L/D isn't the same as maximum L/D. Commercial airplanes cruise at a speeds and altitudes that wouldn't achieve maximum L/D.

For a given flight, a plane would be achieving a certain L/D that is determined by simply dividing lift by drag (or Cl by Cd). For a given speed and altitude, weight has a direct impact on induced drag and eventually total drag and L/D at that moment. Having said that, the best L/D ratio this plane can achieve remains unchanged even if weight, attitude, or speed change.

Matt6461 wrote:

Are you aware of the effect of air density on induced drag?

Sure, induced drag increases as air density decreases ( higher altitudes)

There is more than one non-dimensional L/D value. Optimal Cruise L/D is like max L/D in being generally independent of weight.

I'd encourage you to take this discussion to my fundamentals thread in TechOps.

Sure, would provide the link for the thread? I couldn't find it ..

@Eyad89

viewtopic.php?t=1388895

Part 2:
https://leehamnews.com/2018/12/13/has-t ... more-28837

Quote from https://leehamnews.com/2018/12/13/has-t ... more-28837

quote : Configured to equal comfort standards the A380 is surprisingly competitive on seat mile costs to the A350-1000 and 777-9.
We then lowered the A380 seat count from Airbus’ latest proposals, to find the cross-over point. It’s pretty close to Emirates two-class A380s.


That is on the A380 with the current engines. An engine upgrade to something similar in burn as on the 777-9, would again make the A380 the most economical frame per seat. No wonder that Emirates is still asking for a neo.

But equal comfort standards I suspect also means 11 across Y and removing bar/stairs for more seats.
(Ie. The Plus pack)

moa999 wrote:

But equal comfort standards I suspect also means 11 across Y and removing bar/stairs for more seats.
(Ie. The Plus pack)

... which also presumes A380 customers want more seats in their aircraft and are willing to pay for the "upgrade".

EK has said a big no to A380+ interior options, whilst begging for the aero tweaks and new engines.

Maybe Airbus's big new strategic review for the new CEO will cause Airbus to poop or get off the pot with regard to the A380.

Early indications are that they are more focused on improving A320 production and preparing for the inevitable A320 replacement.

mjoelnir wrote:

Quote from https://leehamnews.com/2018/12/13/has-t ... more-28837

quote : Configured to equal comfort standards the A380 is surprisingly competitive on seat mile costs to the A350-1000 and 777-9.
We then lowered the A380 seat count from Airbus’ latest proposals, to find the cross-over point. It’s pretty close to Emirates two-class A380s.


That is on the A380 with the current engines. An engine upgrade to something similar in burn as on the 777-9, would again make the A380 the most economical frame per seat. No wonder that Emirates is still asking for a neo.

This is more of the same basically stupid Leeham analysis of the A380. They've been saying for years now that the A380 is "competitive" on seat costs.
Nowhere in their analysis does Leeham account for the capacity/efficiency tradeoff that airlines obviously make.
Instead, Leeham asks only which is more efficient - A380 or smaller competitors - and ignores the marginal cost of A380 seats versus the marginal impact on yield of the A380's extra seats and/or lower frequencies.

For that reason, Leeham has been consistently wrong in its A380 projections and will continue to be wrong so long as it maintains its simplistic conception of the concepts of efficiency and competitiveness.

I suspect though EK could on average fill an extra 50 seats.

But it does explain why a stretch is unlikely in my mind. Far better to optimise the wing for the current configuration in any neo.

Matt6461 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Quote from https://leehamnews.com/2018/12/13/has-t ... more-28837

quote : Configured to equal comfort standards the A380 is surprisingly competitive on seat mile costs to the A350-1000 and 777-9.
We then lowered the A380 seat count from Airbus’ latest proposals, to find the cross-over point. It’s pretty close to Emirates two-class A380s.


That is on the A380 with the current engines. An engine upgrade to something similar in burn as on the 777-9, would again make the A380 the most economical frame per seat. No wonder that Emirates is still asking for a neo.

This is more of the same basically stupid Leeham analysis of the A380. They've been saying for years now that the A380 is "competitive" on seat costs.
Nowhere in their analysis does Leeham account for the capacity/efficiency tradeoff that airlines obviously make.
Instead, Leeham asks only which is more efficient - A380 or smaller competitors - and ignores the marginal cost of A380 seats versus the marginal impact on yield of the A380's extra seats and/or lower frequencies.

For that reason, Leeham has been consistently wrong in its A380 projections and will continue to be wrong so long as it maintains its simplistic conception of the concepts of efficiency and competitiveness.

The Leeham analysis is of course a slap in the face of A380 haters, that are quite a few of them on this forum. The point for an airline to have use of the A380 is of course the ability to fill it. But that argument is in place every time you compare a bigger frame with a smaller one. It is in place even if you compare a 737-8 with a 737-10 or A320 with an A321. If you can not fill it, you have no use for it.
But the biggest user of the A380 is increasing its use of the A380 compared to the 777-300ER, will replace old A380 with new A380, even while replacing the 777-300ER with 777-9. The declaration of Emirates, that the A380 makes them money and is their most effective frame, still stands.
A lot of the airlines that have no use for the A380, will also have no use for the 777-9. Both times because they are to big to fill and smaller rather effective frames are available.

mjoelnir wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Quote from https://leehamnews.com/2018/12/13/has-t ... more-28837

quote : Configured to equal comfort standards the A380 is surprisingly competitive on seat mile costs to the A350-1000 and 777-9.
We then lowered the A380 seat count from Airbus’ latest proposals, to find the cross-over point. It’s pretty close to Emirates two-class A380s.


That is on the A380 with the current engines. An engine upgrade to something similar in burn as on the 777-9, would again make the A380 the most economical frame per seat. No wonder that Emirates is still asking for a neo.

This is more of the same basically stupid Leeham analysis of the A380. They've been saying for years now that the A380 is "competitive" on seat costs.
Nowhere in their analysis does Leeham account for the capacity/efficiency tradeoff that airlines obviously make.
Instead, Leeham asks only which is more efficient - A380 or smaller competitors - and ignores the marginal cost of A380 seats versus the marginal impact on yield of the A380's extra seats and/or lower frequencies.

For that reason, Leeham has been consistently wrong in its A380 projections and will continue to be wrong so long as it maintains its simplistic conception of the concepts of efficiency and competitiveness.

The Leeham analysis is of course a slap in the face of A380 haters, that are quite a few of them on this forum. The point for an airline to have use of the A380 is of course the ability to fill it. But that argument is in place every time you compare a bigger frame with a smaller one. It is in place even if you compare a 737-8 with a 737-10 or A320 with an A321. If you can not fill it, you have no use for it.
But the biggest user of the A380 is increasing its use of the A380 compared to the 777-300ER, will replace old A380 with new A380, even while replacing the 777-300ER with 777-9. The declaration of Emirates, that the A380 makes them money and is their most effective frame, still stands.
A lot of the airlines that have no use for the A380, will also have no use for the 777-9. Both times because they are to big to fill and smaller rather effective frames are available.

Oh my lord. It is possible to realize that the 380 might not be the holy grail of aircraft without being a hater.

The Leeham analysis doesn't explain why, if the economics are so compelling, that the only airline to fully embrace the 380, is EK. As they are with the 777, they are replacing their old aircraft with new aircraft, which makes sense from a cost/benefit standpoint, but they aren't significantly increasing their fleet. If the 380 was such a superior economic force, one would think that other airlines would be pretty much forced to buy it just to compete...but they are just not buying it.

As it is, production will be down to 6 per year very soon. At that rate, it seems possible that EK 380 retirements may outstrip replacements. I'm sure every airline on the planet is well aware of the realities of 380 ownership, so why aren't they buying? It's not a paper aircraft. It's had over a decade of real life service data from which to draw. Airbus has said they are taking a loss on every unit produced.

If EK really wants a 380neo, all they have to do is order enough ceo's to keep the line open until a neo can be produced, order enough of them to at least pay for the program and plunk down enough cash so they have a stake in the program.

So when could a stretched 380neo enter service? The engine of choice would be the Ultrafan. Let's say it will actually be ready by 2025, (I doubt it but sure). That means a 380neo would have to be launched within a year to make the 2025 mark, so the airframe is ready when the engine is. Then, there would be at least a couple of years of flight testing the aircraft before it could get certified. Realistically, that puts EIS at maybe 2027 if everything goes perfectly and since that hasn't happened in a long while, 2030 seems more likely.

That's over 10 years of EK buying 6 per year and Airbus continuing to take a loss on every 380 they sell. Are EK and Airbus willing to wait that long?

I don't think so...but it's possible.

JoeCanuck wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

This is more of the same basically stupid Leeham analysis of the A380. They've been saying for years now that the A380 is "competitive" on seat costs.
Nowhere in their analysis does Leeham account for the capacity/efficiency tradeoff that airlines obviously make.
Instead, Leeham asks only which is more efficient - A380 or smaller competitors - and ignores the marginal cost of A380 seats versus the marginal impact on yield of the A380's extra seats and/or lower frequencies.

For that reason, Leeham has been consistently wrong in its A380 projections and will continue to be wrong so long as it maintains its simplistic conception of the concepts of efficiency and competitiveness.

The Leeham analysis is of course a slap in the face of A380 haters, that are quite a few of them on this forum. The point for an airline to have use of the A380 is of course the ability to fill it. But that argument is in place every time you compare a bigger frame with a smaller one. It is in place even if you compare a 737-8 with a 737-10 or A320 with an A321. If you can not fill it, you have no use for it.
But the biggest user of the A380 is increasing its use of the A380 compared to the 777-300ER, will replace old A380 with new A380, even while replacing the 777-300ER with 777-9. The declaration of Emirates, that the A380 makes them money and is their most effective frame, still stands.
A lot of the airlines that have no use for the A380, will also have no use for the 777-9. Both times because they are to big to fill and smaller rather effective frames are available.

Oh my lord. It is possible to realize that the 380 might not be the holy grail of aircraft without being a hater.

The Leeham analysis doesn't explain why, if the economics are so compelling, that the only airline to fully embrace the 380, is EK. As they are with the 777, they are replacing their old aircraft with new aircraft, which makes sense from a cost/benefit standpoint, but they aren't significantly increasing their fleet. If the 380 was such a superior economic force, one would think that other airlines would be pretty much forced to buy it just to compete...but they are just not buying it.

As it is, production will be down to 6 per year very soon. At that rate, it seems possible that EK 380 retirements may outstrip replacements. I'm sure every airline on the planet is well aware of the realities of 380 ownership, so why aren't they buying? It's not a paper aircraft. It's had over a decade of real life service data from which to draw. Airbus has said they are taking a loss on every unit produced.

If EK really wants a 380neo, all they have to do is order enough ceo's to keep the line open until a neo can be produced, order enough of them to at least pay for the program and plunk down enough cash so they have a stake in the program.

So when could a stretched 380neo enter service? The engine of choice would be the Ultrafan. Let's say it will actually be ready by 2025, (I doubt it but sure). That means a 380neo would have to be launched within a year to make the 2025 mark, so the airframe is ready when the engine is. Then, there would be at least a couple of years of flight testing the aircraft before it could get certified. Realistically, that puts EIS at maybe 2027 if everything goes perfectly and since that hasn't happened in a long while, 2030 seems more likely.

That's over 10 years of EK buying 6 per year and Airbus continuing to take a loss on every 380 they sell. Are EK and Airbus willing to wait that long?

I don't think so...but it's possible.

It is an endless posting against the A380, the moment it is mentioned. No other frame written about here on a.net faces a similar unrelenting hate posting. Nobody says that the A380 is a success, even the biggest fans of the A380 accept that.

And yest that is exactly what Emirates does, ordering more A380 when Airbus gets to the numbers that would result to a shut down, or to a to slow production. Today the backlog for undelivered A380 frames for Emirates alone is still 54 frames and the last order is done that way, that production will not fall below 9 frames a year for Emirates only. So yes, it could possible be that production runs out after six years if no new orders come in. 6 years backlog is usually an acceptable time frame for any other airplane but the A380 here on a.net. What do we know what will happen in 6 years.

I think Airbus is in a much better position with the A380, running a 9 frames production each year for the next years, than Boeing with their 747-8 with a 3 years backlog of 20 frames at a production rate of 6 a year.

And the A380 would not need the ultra fan, no engine that beats the GE9x by 10%. A new engine 10% better than the T900 would do. RR is testing such a design at this time, it is called the Trent advanced.

mjoelnir wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

This is more of the same basically stupid Leeham analysis of the A380. They've been saying for years now that the A380 is "competitive" on seat costs.
Nowhere in their analysis does Leeham account for the capacity/efficiency tradeoff that airlines obviously make.
Instead, Leeham asks only which is more efficient - A380 or smaller competitors - and ignores the marginal cost of A380 seats versus the marginal impact on yield of the A380's extra seats and/or lower frequencies.

For that reason, Leeham has been consistently wrong in its A380 projections and will continue to be wrong so long as it maintains its simplistic conception of the concepts of efficiency and competitiveness.

The Leeham analysis is of course a slap in the face of A380 haters, that are quite a few of them on this forum. The point for an airline to have use of the A380 is of course the ability to fill it.

No, Matt's point is not as simplistic as the one you're addressing: it's not just about filling the plane, but what filling the plane does to yields (it drives them down) and what it does to frequencies (it makes it hard to offer more of them so you can't offer the kind of flexibility business travelers pay a premium for). Therefore the A380 needs to have better not equal CASM than smaller competitors to make up for these factors.

JoeCanuck wrote:

Oh my lord. It is possible to realize that the 380 might not be the holy grail of aircraft without being a hater.

I don't know why emotions get thrown into a discussion of business strategies, unless of course it's a debating tactic.

You can't defeat an argument by logic, change over to a simpler argument and try to win that instead.

You can't defeat an argument in the logical domain, switch over to the emotional domain by using terms such as "hater".

JoeCanuck wrote:

The Leeham analysis doesn't explain why, if the economics are so compelling, that the only airline to fully embrace the 380, is EK. As they are with the 777, they are replacing their old aircraft with new aircraft, which makes sense from a cost/benefit standpoint, but they aren't significantly increasing their fleet. If the 380 was such a superior economic force, one would think that other airlines would be pretty much forced to buy it just to compete...but they are just not buying it.

Of course EK is going to talk up the A380. Their owner His Highness the Emir bought off more than he could chew with DWC on top of that pesky vision 2021 thing and so now EK is stuck with DXB's two runways for the foreseeable future, and they're also hemmed in by limited bi-laterals that His Highness could not expand, so A380 is still a need for EK. Yet the financiers see the challenges of getting others to take on used A380s and a lack of investment in the product by Airbus so they reduce the residuals on future leases meaning EK has to pay more per month. EK needs to prevent the A380 bubble from bursting as long as it can.

I think the original financing was fairly conservative (particularly given the lack of freighter conversion)
But I wouldn't be surprised if there is limited demand for any future aircraft.

Does anyone have a split on owned v leased by airline?

11Y A380 is so great.... That no one wants it.

A big issue is that the giant wingbox coupled with two decks of people means that there is very little cargo room left compared to the A350/777. 11Y doubles down on that by adding even more bags to the limited space.

With the pathetic production rate the A380 is currently at, I very much doubt that Airbus can sell the A380 at a price that makes sense for *any* airline not EK, thus making the 10Y vs 11Y moot.

If I was fleet planning, I'd rather have A350 or 777x as they are vastly more flexible frames for an Airline to plan around. They also are certain to be in production 10-15 years from now.

mjoelnir wrote:

I think Airbus is in a much better position with the A380, running a 9 frames production each year for the next years, than Boeing with their 747-8 with a 3 years backlog of 20 frames at a production rate of 6 a year.

And the A380 would not need the ultra fan, no engine that beats the GE9x by 10%. A new engine 10% better than the T900 would do. RR is testing such a design at this time, it is called the Trent advanced.

Airbus freely admits that they are losing money currently on every A380 produced, and have done so for many years. They have termed the losses as "tolerable" or "digestible"

Boeing claims to be making money currently on every 748 produced, and has claimed so for many years.

In my opinion; a company making money producing and selling a product is in a much better position than a company loosing money making and selling a similar product.

It is estimated that Airbus has lost over $25 Billion dollars developing and during initial production of the A380; and of course the overall total keeps climbing as they only broke even on production for I believe about 1.5 years and have had losses ever since. Airbus has not been willing to provide the financial cost or status of the program - and only makes general statements.

I believe that Boeing wrote off less than $4 Billion dollars for the 748 development and initial production (program accounting rules required them to do so). The numbers can be assembled by looking at the Boeing financial reports - and I've seen the reports of what the overall total was.

Again; in my opinion; Boeing appears to also have been better off in the past with the A747-8 program than Airbus with the A380.

All of those statements above have been said before here on A-net; complete with linked references. I've never seen anyone really challange either the Boeing numbers or the estimated Airbus losses on the A380. I am sure you are familiar with them.

I am not sure what you are basing your claims on that you see Airbus in a better position with the A380 vs Boeing with the 747-8.

Have a great day,

moa999 wrote:

I suspect though EK could on average fill an extra 50 seats.

But it does explain why a stretch is unlikely in my mind. Far better to optimise the wing for the current configuration in any neo.

A stretch and a new higher composite part wing are not mutually exclusive. The better the SFC of the engine though the more it makes sense and if you have to do the work of engine integration and new wing end devises with wing twist changes and perhaps want to reconsider wing development and production in the UK anyway......


BTW, the capacity - yield relation seems to be ignored from both sides of the argument. Not only is yield ignored when focussing solely on CASM for economics of the A380CEO, but on the flip side the huge CASM advantage of a possible NEO is ignored when looking at it's economics by focussing solely on yield.

Saying a stretch or 11 abreast doesn't work for the CEO so it automatically doesn't work for the NEO, while the latter will have a much larger CASM advantage over the competition than the CEO ever had, is selectively ignoring one side of the same equation, while at the same time using the other side when it does suit the argument.



P.S. The argument against the Trent advance has already been made in this very thread and others:

- Timing doesn't work
- SFC improvement is too small to effectively reengineer the fundamental issues the CEO struggles with.
- competition can close in on it's SFC quite easily while the bypass ratios of ultrafan require large modifications to the wings of the big twins, thus improving the bussiness case of a possible NEO.


Feel free to address that argument.

If you squeeze in seats into the A380-800 as airlines do in their new 777 today you end up with better cost per seat for the A380. Many airlines wasted space in their first configurations (like with the 747 back then).
Now when you have newer engines and a stretch the advantage is even bigger. Think evening departures from any hub airport. Thats's your market for it. So stretch the A380!

Revelation wrote:

No, Matt's point is not as simplistic as the one you're addressing: it's not just about filling the plane, but what filling the plane does to yields (it drives them down) and what it does to frequencies (it makes it hard to offer more of them so you can't offer the kind of flexibility business travelers pay a premium for). Therefore the A380 needs to have better not equal CASM than smaller competitors to make up for these factors.

Right. And thanks Rev.
Unfortunately we can't count on our interlocutor to understand anything contrary to his identity.

On the broader point, if you're not talking about yield when discussing filling a plane you're about 40 years behind the curve. Revenue management, including a deep focus on yield, is the hallmark of modern airline operations. It's more than a little odd that Leeham's posts don't recognize this.

Revelation wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

Oh my lord. It is possible to realize that the 380 might not be the holy grail of aircraft without being a hater.

I don't know why emotions get thrown into a discussion of business strategies, unless of course it's a debating tactic.

It's just because the same boring, repetive, simplisitic, angry one-liners against the A380 get repeated again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

For more than FIFTEEN YEARS already!

And - guess what? - the A380 is still being produced, so they have not actually been "correct" so far. That gives people here every right to point out that black-and-white opinions like those are not, in fact, indisputable truths.

Yet to counter a (not true) "truth" in any way makes you an emotional fan-boy...

From where I'm sitting, all the emotion is coming from one side - and it's aimed at the A380 from haters who just never stop wishing for the day they can finally say they were "right" all along.


Yes, we know that things didn't pan out as hoped (although I think that was largely due to circumstances changing a lot between program launch and EIS - some self-inflicted, some beyond Airbus' control) but the aircraft still fulfils a role and still has a potential future role (with an update) - and people vastly underestimate the damage and penalties that cancelling it would inflict - financially, loss of public/self image, etc.

mjoelnir wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

The Leeham analysis is of course a slap in the face of A380 haters, that are quite a few of them on this forum. The point for an airline to have use of the A380 is of course the ability to fill it. But that argument is in place every time you compare a bigger frame with a smaller one. It is in place even if you compare a 737-8 with a 737-10 or A320 with an A321. If you can not fill it, you have no use for it.
But the biggest user of the A380 is increasing its use of the A380 compared to the 777-300ER, will replace old A380 with new A380, even while replacing the 777-300ER with 777-9. The declaration of Emirates, that the A380 makes them money and is their most effective frame, still stands.
A lot of the airlines that have no use for the A380, will also have no use for the 777-9. Both times because they are to big to fill and smaller rather effective frames are available.

Oh my lord. It is possible to realize that the 380 might not be the holy grail of aircraft without being a hater.

The Leeham analysis doesn't explain why, if the economics are so compelling, that the only airline to fully embrace the 380, is EK. As they are with the 777, they are replacing their old aircraft with new aircraft, which makes sense from a cost/benefit standpoint, but they aren't significantly increasing their fleet. If the 380 was such a superior economic force, one would think that other airlines would be pretty much forced to buy it just to compete...but they are just not buying it.

As it is, production will be down to 6 per year very soon. At that rate, it seems possible that EK 380 retirements may outstrip replacements. I'm sure every airline on the planet is well aware of the realities of 380 ownership, so why aren't they buying? It's not a paper aircraft. It's had over a decade of real life service data from which to draw. Airbus has said they are taking a loss on every unit produced.

If EK really wants a 380neo, all they have to do is order enough ceo's to keep the line open until a neo can be produced, order enough of them to at least pay for the program and plunk down enough cash so they have a stake in the program.

So when could a stretched 380neo enter service? The engine of choice would be the Ultrafan. Let's say it will actually be ready by 2025, (I doubt it but sure). That means a 380neo would have to be launched within a year to make the 2025 mark, so the airframe is ready when the engine is. Then, there would be at least a couple of years of flight testing the aircraft before it could get certified. Realistically, that puts EIS at maybe 2027 if everything goes perfectly and since that hasn't happened in a long while, 2030 seems more likely.

That's over 10 years of EK buying 6 per year and Airbus continuing to take a loss on every 380 they sell. Are EK and Airbus willing to wait that long?

I don't think so...but it's possible.

It is an endless posting against the A380, the moment it is mentioned. No other frame written about here on a.net faces a similar unrelenting hate posting. Nobody says that the A380 is a success, even the biggest fans of the A380 accept that.

And yest that is exactly what Emirates does, ordering more A380 when Airbus gets to the numbers that would result to a shut down, or to a to slow production. Today the backlog for undelivered A380 frames for Emirates alone is still 54 frames and the last order is done that way, that production will not fall below 9 frames a year for Emirates only. So yes, it could possible be that production runs out after six years if no new orders come in. 6 years backlog is usually an acceptable time frame for any other airplane but the A380 here on a.net. What do we know what will happen in 6 years.

I think Airbus is in a much better position with the A380, running a 9 frames production each year for the next years, than Boeing with their 747-8 with a 3 years backlog of 20 frames at a production rate of 6 a year.

And the A380 would not need the ultra fan, no engine that beats the GE9x by 10%. A new engine 10% better than the T900 would do. RR is testing such a design at this time, it is called the Trent advanced.

There is a new "stretch too far" 737 hate thread started about once a month. If you think the A380 is the only criticized aircraft on a.net then you have your head in the sand.

mjoelnir wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

The Leeham analysis is of course a slap in the face of A380 haters, that are quite a few of them on this forum. The point for an airline to have use of the A380 is of course the ability to fill it. But that argument is in place every time you compare a bigger frame with a smaller one. It is in place even if you compare a 737-8 with a 737-10 or A320 with an A321. If you can not fill it, you have no use for it.
But the biggest user of the A380 is increasing its use of the A380 compared to the 777-300ER, will replace old A380 with new A380, even while replacing the 777-300ER with 777-9. The declaration of Emirates, that the A380 makes them money and is their most effective frame, still stands.
A lot of the airlines that have no use for the A380, will also have no use for the 777-9. Both times because they are to big to fill and smaller rather effective frames are available.

Oh my lord. It is possible to realize that the 380 might not be the holy grail of aircraft without being a hater.

The Leeham analysis doesn't explain why, if the economics are so compelling, that the only airline to fully embrace the 380, is EK. As they are with the 777, they are replacing their old aircraft with new aircraft, which makes sense from a cost/benefit standpoint, but they aren't significantly increasing their fleet. If the 380 was such a superior economic force, one would think that other airlines would be pretty much forced to buy it just to compete...but they are just not buying it.

As it is, production will be down to 6 per year very soon. At that rate, it seems possible that EK 380 retirements may outstrip replacements. I'm sure every airline on the planet is well aware of the realities of 380 ownership, so why aren't they buying? It's not a paper aircraft. It's had over a decade of real life service data from which to draw. Airbus has said they are taking a loss on every unit produced.

If EK really wants a 380neo, all they have to do is order enough ceo's to keep the line open until a neo can be produced, order enough of them to at least pay for the program and plunk down enough cash so they have a stake in the program.

So when could a stretched 380neo enter service? The engine of choice would be the Ultrafan. Let's say it will actually be ready by 2025, (I doubt it but sure). That means a 380neo would have to be launched within a year to make the 2025 mark, so the airframe is ready when the engine is. Then, there would be at least a couple of years of flight testing the aircraft before it could get certified. Realistically, that puts EIS at maybe 2027 if everything goes perfectly and since that hasn't happened in a long while, 2030 seems more likely.

That's over 10 years of EK buying 6 per year and Airbus continuing to take a loss on every 380 they sell. Are EK and Airbus willing to wait that long?

I don't think so...but it's possible.

It is an endless posting against the A380, the moment it is mentioned. No other frame written about here on a.net faces a similar unrelenting hate posting. Nobody says that the A380 is a success, even the biggest fans of the A380 accept that.

The correct thing he is pointing out is that you can not separate capacity and yield management. And that is the biggest problem of the A380. More seats for the same CASM are only interesting if those seats can be sold creating the same RASM.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Revelation wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

Oh my lord. It is possible to realize that the 380 might not be the holy grail of aircraft without being a hater.

I don't know why emotions get thrown into a discussion of business strategies, unless of course it's a debating tactic.

And - guess what? - the A380 is still being produced, so they have not actually been "correct" so far. That gives people here every right to point out that black-and-white opinions like those are not, in fact, indisputable truths.

Yet to counter a (not true) "truth" in any way makes you an emotional fan-boy...

From where I'm sitting, all the emotion is coming from one side - and it's aimed at the A380 from haters who just never stop wishing for the day they can finally say they were "right" all along.

Yes, we know that things didn't pan out as hoped (although I think that was largely due to circumstances changing a lot between program launch and EIS - some self-inflicted, some beyond Airbus' control) but the aircraft still fulfils a role and still has a potential future role (with an update) - and people vastly underestimate the damage and penalties that cancelling it would inflict - financially, loss of public/self image, etc.

Re: "From where I'm sitting, all the emotion is coming from one side" -- did you just post that in the same post that you used the word "hater" to describe "the other side"?

And did you take the starting point "the 380 might not be the holy grail of aircraft" and extrapolate that in to "the A380 is still being produced"?

I think you did, and so you're following the same debate play book:

You can't defeat an argument in the logical domain, switch over to the emotional domain by using terms such as "hater".

You can't defeat one argument by logic, change over to a simpler argument and try to win that instead.

Criticism is just that, criticism, not hatred.

If it's repetitive it's because the same old pattern has been followed: Airbus promising N new A380 customers year after year without getting any, stalwarts such as LH and AF cancelling orders, QF saying they're not taking up their pending orders and VS cancelling, Airbus talking up a NEO but never closing on one, used A380s coming on the market with barely any interest from future operators, Airbus saying China is the future for A380 and offering them a finishing plant and they don't take it, Airbus talking up A380+ but getting no takers, STC saying the engine deal will close in a month and we hear nothing for two months, etc.

Instead, you shift the argument to saying it isn't dead yet. Great, it isn't dead yet, so you can make one point that stands, but that ignores the fact that it is the walking dead, walking in with its digestible losses to the "Next Chapter" strategic review where the CEO-in-waiting reportedly “wants to go fast and introduce a new state of mind; he wants to turn the page on the past" and "that profits will be embedded in strategy" ( ref: viewtopic.php?p=20930363#p20930363).

It'll be interesting to see how that turns out. A380 is pretty much the poster child for an old state of mind from the past that comes with embedded losses, but as you point out, maybe it comes with a poison pill that makes it un-killable. In theory the new leadership can finally "get off the pot" and draw out a road map for something other than zombie status for A380, or (IMHO more likely) they can put it down. It'll be interesting to see the new C-suite team earn their big pay packets.

If you kill the A380 you have empty space in Toulouse that could add another A320 series production line which would allow you to modernize the existing ones.

Revelation wrote:

Re: "From where I'm sitting, all the emotion is coming from one side" -- did you just post that in the same post that you used the word "hater" to describe "the other side"?

Yes I did, quite deliberately. You asked where the emotion comes from - well that's where it comes from! There is a group who view themselves as "one side" and they do indeed seem to "hate". Q.E.D.

Note that I didn't say *I* was on a particular side since I don't view things that way... but thanks for putting words in my mouth and painting me as part of that stupid game!

And did you take the starting point "the 380 might not be the holy grail of aircraft" and extrapolate that in to "the A380 is still being produced"?

I think you did, and so you're following the same debate play book:

NO I BLOODY DIDN'T! Sheesh, and you ask where the emotion comes from?!?

You can't defeat an argument in the logical domain, switch over to the emotional domain by using terms such as "hater".

I am not in an argument. You, however, seem to be. Again, I am not playing that game.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

And did you take the starting point "the 380 might not be the holy grail of aircraft" and extrapolate that in to "the A380 is still being produced"?

I think you did, and so you're following the same debate play book:

NO I BLOODY DIDN'T! Sheesh, and you ask where the emotion comes from?!?

I showed you the post and your reply where you did. Sheesh, indeed.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

You can't defeat an argument in the logical domain, switch over to the emotional domain by using terms such as "hater".

I am not in an argument. You, however, seem to be. Again, I am not playing that game.

It's not plausible to suggest that you're not in an argument when you keep talking about sides and keep using terms such as hater.

I made a bunch of points about the A380 past present and future and you chose to ignore them in favor of more us vs them talk.

This one's on you.

I'm only responding since you keep starting me into it by attributing things to me which I my say.

I only made ONE POINT about where the emotion comes from, since you asked... the rest is all in your mind.

SomebodyinTLS wrote:

And - guess what? - the A380 is still being produced, so they have not actually been "correct" so far.

This is a laughable attempt to change the terms of the debate.
No A380 detractors were saying that Airbus would fail to sell any A380's; the contention was that the business case didn't make sense. The most pessimistic projections - by Richard Aboulafia for example - predicted no more than 300 deliveries by this time. That prediction earned Aboulafia the eternal scorn of A380 fanboys but it was too optimistic by half.

There is no serious case that the A380 has been a success or that its detractors have been wrong. To pretend otherwise is to deny reality.

We need to accept that the A380 has so far been a failure. Only then can you ask what to do next.

Matt6461 wrote:

We need to accept that the A380 has so far been a failure.

As this is supposed to be aviation enthusiast site and having flown the bird I'd say you are 100% wrong.

Strato2 wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

We need to accept that the A380 has so far been a failure.

As this is supposed to be aviation enthusiast site and having flown the bird I'd say you are 100% wrong.

Holy failed comprehension, Batman!

Try to read it again, with emphasis on the "the contention was that the business case didn't make sense" part.

Strato2 wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

We need to accept that the A380 has so far been a failure.

As this is supposed to be aviation enthusiast site and having flown the bird I'd say you are 100% wrong.

I agree with your sentiments Strato2. As a regular long distance passenger, nothing compares, especially in Y.

Think Matt probably missed the word 'commercial' in front of failure.

In terms of passenger VLA sales and deliveries, the A380 may in hindsight hold the honours for decades, or even this entire century.
.

mjoelnir wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Quote from https://leehamnews.com/2018/12/13/has-t ... more-28837

quote : Configured to equal comfort standards the A380 is surprisingly competitive on seat mile costs to the A350-1000 and 777-9.
We then lowered the A380 seat count from Airbus’ latest proposals, to find the cross-over point. It’s pretty close to Emirates two-class A380s.


That is on the A380 with the current engines. An engine upgrade to something similar in burn as on the 777-9, would again make the A380 the most economical frame per seat. No wonder that Emirates is still asking for a neo.

This is more of the same basically stupid Leeham analysis of the A380. They've been saying for years now that the A380 is "competitive" on seat costs.
Nowhere in their analysis does Leeham account for the capacity/efficiency tradeoff that airlines obviously make.
Instead, Leeham asks only which is more efficient - A380 or smaller competitors - and ignores the marginal cost of A380 seats versus the marginal impact on yield of the A380's extra seats and/or lower frequencies.

For that reason, Leeham has been consistently wrong in its A380 projections and will continue to be wrong so long as it maintains its simplistic conception of the concepts of efficiency and competitiveness.

The Leeham analysis is of course a slap in the face of A380 haters, that are quite a few of them on this forum. The point for an airline to have use of the A380 is of course the ability to fill it. But that argument is in place every time you compare a bigger frame with a smaller one. It is in place even if you compare a 737-8 with a 737-10 or A320 with an A321. If you can not fill it, you have no use for it.
But the biggest user of the A380 is increasing its use of the A380 compared to the 777-300ER, will replace old A380 with new A380, even while replacing the 777-300ER with 777-9. The declaration of Emirates, that the A380 makes them money and is their most effective frame, still stands.
A lot of the airlines that have no use for the A380, will also have no use for the 777-9. Both times because they are to big to fill and smaller rather effective frames are available.

emirates has a 0.5% profit margin. Even American, with all of their issues, has like a 5% profit margin. Delta's is north of 10%. I think it's pretty fair to say that the emirates model has a lot of flaws

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

I'm only responding since you keep starting me into it by attributing things to me which I my say.

Damned auto-correct...

Matt6461 wrote:

There is no serious case that the A380 has been a success or that its detractors have been wrong. To pretend otherwise is to deny reality........

.....respectfully disagree 'Matt'....

It depends on your definition of 'success'.

In my opinion, and that of millions of other passengers, the A380 is the best ride in the sky bar nothing else, and I mean nothing.

So, you're right; the business case has not been successful; but to say there is 'no serious case' is completely wrong IMO. Airbus have produced a machine that is transformational in terms of passenger experience, so that fact alone represents one very serious case to be made in its favour.

Revelation wrote:

Strato2 wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

We need to accept that the A380 has so far been a failure.

As this is supposed to be aviation enthusiast site and having flown the bird I'd say you are 100% wrong.

Holy failed comprehension, Batman!

Try to read it again, with emphasis on the "the contention was that the business case didn't make sense" part.

Would the business case still not have made sense had 9/11, wars, the global recession, and record high oil prices not happened? Should Airbus just have paused or cancelled the A380 that far into development? All those factors had a HUGE impact on travel. Especially international. How should Airbus have better prepared and predicted for those things to happen and the impact it would have on one of their products as result?

How would the market be today if all that never happened? Would both the A380 and 747-8i be much more competitive and successful?

SelseyBill wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

There is no serious case that the A380 has been a success or that its detractors have been wrong. To pretend otherwise is to deny reality........

.....respectfully disagree 'Matt'....

It depends on your definition of 'success'.

In my opinion, and that of millions of other passengers, the A380 is the best ride in the sky bar nothing else, and I mean nothing.

So, you're right; the business case has not been successful; but to say there is 'no serious case' is completely wrong IMO.

There's a lot of parallels between A380 and Concorde:
Passengers loved the experience
Their manufacturers lost serious amounts of money on them
The manufacturer's competition started down the same path but bailed out before cutting metal
It'll probably be decades before any manufacturer walks down the same path

SelseyBill wrote:

Airbus have produced a machine that is transformational in terms of passenger experience, so that fact alone represents one very serious case to be made in its favour.

That's subjective. For every positive (extra space due to inability to go 11x) you can find a negative (deplaning with 525 other people at the same time).

SelseyBill wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

There is no serious case that the A380 has been a success or that its detractors have been wrong. To pretend otherwise is to deny reality........

.....respectfully disagree 'Matt'....

It depends on your definition of 'success'.

In my opinion, and that of millions of other passengers, the A380 is the best ride in the sky bar nothing else, and I mean nothing.

So, you're right; the business case has not been successful; but to say there is 'no serious case' is completely wrong IMO. Airbus have produced a machine that is transformational in terms of passenger experience, so that fact alone represents one very serious case to be made in its favour.

I don't think anybody disputes the passenger benefits to flying on the 380. By most accounts, it's a pleasant experience. I am looking forward to experiencing it myself. The thing is, airlines and Airbus are businesses, and neither has been able to make the business case for the 380 work.

There are plenty of airliners that were enjoyed by the passengers but ultimately failed as products. The conditions required to make the 380 a success just didn't materialize. It's number one benefit is to move large numbers of passengers into slot restricted airports. As it happens, slots aren't nearly as scarce as predicted. Hubs became more efficient, bigger airports were built, current airports were expanded, and point to point has become more pervasive.

Newer generation twins are more versatile and give airlines more options on how to deploy their fleets, while still offering comparable seat/mile costs.

I don't have a clue as to why somebody would bring the 748 into the discussion. I don't recall anybody hailing it as a paragon of aeronautical success, or even lauding Boeing for going ahead with the program.

The simple facts are that Airbus is losing money on the 380, and will soon be down to producing 6 per year. RR won't PIP the engines anymore, so while it's performance will remain the same, the competition will get more efficient. Sure, a 380neo could happen but can Airbus keep the money losing project going for at least another decade, while investing more billions of dollars into a program that has only one customer asking for it?

I don't think so.

Strato2 wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

We need to accept that the A380 has so far been a failure.

As this is supposed to be aviation enthusiast site and having flown the bird I'd say you are 100% wrong.

I would imagine most of the negative comments are from people who don’t fly on the 380 very often or at all.

RB211trent wrote:

Strato2 wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

We need to accept that the A380 has so far been a failure.

As this is supposed to be aviation enthusiast site and having flown the bird I'd say you are 100% wrong.

I would imagine most of the negative comments are from people who don’t fly on the 380 very often or at all.

Where are the negative passenger experience comments? So far, at least in this thread, most, (if not all), of any criticism has been about the business case, or lack thereof, for the 380.

This thread has gone way off topic.

JoeCanuck wrote:

RB211trent wrote:

Strato2 wrote:

As this is supposed to be aviation enthusiast site and having flown the bird I'd say you are 100% wrong.

I would imagine most of the negative comments are from people who don’t fly on the 380 very often or at all.

Where are the negative passenger experience comments? So far, at least in this thread, most, (if not all), of any criticism has been about the business case, or lack thereof, for the 380.

There are no negative passengers experience comments, that’s my point. If you’ve flown on one you would probably consider the 380 a success, I cannot understand why people constantly bleet on and on about business cases as if it affects their bank balance. I think Tim Clark knows slightly more about it than the average detractor on here.

RB211trent wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

RB211trent wrote:

I would imagine most of the negative comments are from people who don’t fly on the 380 very often or at all.

Where are the negative passenger experience comments? So far, at least in this thread, most, (if not all), of any criticism has been about the business case, or lack thereof, for the 380.

There are no negative passengers experience comments, that’s my point. If you’ve flown on one you would probably consider the 380 a success, I cannot understand why people constantly bleet on and on about business cases as if it affects their bank balance.

It shouldn't be a surprise that a thread about contracts between EK and RR for A380 engines isn't about passenger experience.

There are plenty of threads about passenger experience over in Trip Reports.

Maybe some people would be happier reading those.

It's a fact that people (including myself) find threads with discussions of big stakes deals and the related business cases interesting, even when they don't impact our bank balances.

Just like some people like trip reports.

Maybe this thread would be more interesting if STC finally signed the engine contract like he said he'd do by the end of October?

Thread has gone off topic and will be locked