Let's not drag the Queen into this.

To the topic at hand:

We should not look at the 78J at EY as confirmation that it will work for EK.

EK is a whole other operation. Cargo is quite important for them and they cram as many pax as they can into an aircraft.

EK also has many more flight banks. So, many 78J sized flights may need to operate at times when it is really hot.

EY is also not the poster child for good decision making. They made very questionable decisions worth billions that almost any of us armchair CEOs on here could have told them were doomed to fail.

I, personally have always doubted the 78J's performance in HOT ME weather. The A359 does seem like a better fit for these conditions in this particular size category.

IMO, EK should cancel at least 36 A380 (maybe even cap the fleet at 120-130) and replace them with ~50 A359. Allow the 78J MOU to lapse and convert some/most of the 778 into 779 - they can barely handle daily service to the biggest South American stations and to some of their smaller US ones, so I do not see how they plan to operate around 20 daily ULH 778 flights to this kind of destinations even 5 years from now. Also, the A359 will be better than the 778 for some of these ULH flights if they operate at night.

Something like:
- ~50 A359
- ~125 A380
- 20 778
- 130 779

Noshow wrote:

I don't understand why EK seems to be zigzagging so much concerning their fleet. Why all this back and forth and now even like a different strategy for way more midsized planes? Do they have a plan like they used to have? Have they come under political pressure by their government? It doesn't feel like the old days for sure. It started with that surprise U-turning order announcement at Dubai. They never did that before. And now everything and nothing. Bring back the old style please.

They never had a real fleet plan, other than PR praising every move STC makes.

EK's issues are multifaceted both external and internal

1) BASAs are either maxed out or under the microscope.
2) Two type fleet plan is to maximum flight crew productivity. EK doesn't want any fragmentation in crew scheduling, they wanted to squeeze every last drop of productivity from pilots, which is now backfiring. IMHO crew exodus is the reason they keep switching equipment between 777 and A380 based on crew availability, not based on market conditions.
3) Capacity Dumping and Price Lowering(CDPL) technique failed, competitors didn't fold as expected. In fact, even the worst competitors became lean and mean.
4) Because of blockade on Qatar, Iran-Dubai premium market vanished.
5) Because of UAE-KSA co-operation, KSA-Dubai tourism under pressure.
6) US ban probably had some impact.

Noshow wrote:

I don't understand why EK seems to be zigzagging so much concerning their fleet. Why all this back and forth and now even like a different strategy for way more midsized planes? Do they have a plan like they used to have? Have they come under political pressure by their government? It doesn't feel like the old days for sure. It started with that surprise U-turning order announcement at Dubai. They never did that before. And now everything and nothing. Bring back the old style please.

It is not the old days. There growth is constrained by both bilaterals and limited prime time slots. There profits are small and thus insufficient to launch DWC's major expansion. The government has little other revenue than hotel taxes and EK to run them.

EY and QR over-expanding reducing profits. The regional downturn hurts profits.

However, EK has definitively u-turned before:
A346 order cancelled (missed specifications)
A333 MOU lapsed

They teased the 748I, but I'm not sure that was a u-turn.

They had an era where growth was so profitable, any widebody would do. Now at miniscule profits, they must evaluate. I see no improvement for 5+ years due to TK, ET, 6E and others.

Lightsaber

Interesting. Thanks.

MoKa777 wrote:

I, personally have always doubted the 78J's performance in HOT ME weather. The A359 does seem like a better fit for these conditions in this particular size category.

Won't the same "too Hot" issues come up for the 77X too?
Not long ago water injection was bandied about then dropped.
What kind of promises did Boeing make at time of contract signing?

If Emirates management really wants to make progress all it has to do is to care about its flight and cabin crews, not about shiny planes, floor space, and showers.

1) Have mixed fleet, one medium capacity and one large capacity types from both Boeing and Airbus. A pilot joined as a FO on the medium capacity plane has three promotion opportunities. Now a DEC on 77W/A380 has a dead-end job on day one. There is no career progression.

2) Have separate crew groups for long haul and short haul. Yes, productivity will take a hit but crew physical health, mental health and morale will go up.

I don't foresee TK or Indigo(India) taking over EK.

Turkey is not Dubai, whatever happens in ME, Dubai always stayed a safe haven. IMHO Turkey already burned that bridge. Turkey's bad reputation will be a hurdle for TK/SAW.
Indigo(India) is at best a no-service carrier and at worst a negative service carrier. If Norwegian, WOW, FlyDubai and AirAsia X are not able to dominate long-haul LCC market, Indigo never will.

ewt340 wrote:

sonicruiser wrote:

The biggest winner of all of this is gonna be the 747-8. Boeing is not as stupid as Airbus to willingly throw away a massive order, this is Boeing's order to lose.

This B747-8 fever is getting worse and worse by day.....

Boeing kill B747-8i with B777-9. Just like how Boeing kill the previous B747 with B777-300ER.....

I still can't believe how people still thinks Emirates would order B747-8 instead of B777-9.

yeah, the a380 is inefficient relevant to the competition, but the 748i is even less efficient. it simply makes no sense

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Noshow wrote:

The 747 freighter is certainly not dead for the time being. Think Amazon. They haven't even started yet.
However as all those 777-300ER will come to the freighter conversion market soon they might kill 747F freighter demand from below.

The 748F and 77W converted freighters are for totally different markets. The 748F is for transporting freight long haul as efficiently as possible. The aircraft don't sit on the ground more than they have to. Converted 77W freighters would be heavily depreciated and not cost much to sit on the ground and fly 2 cycles per day. The real competitor for the 748F will be the 778F. Possibly even a 779F might make a good direct replacement for the 748F for airlines that aren't interested in overflying freight hubs like ANC.

also dont forget the nose door for the dedicated new build freighters for stuff like oversize cargo

Ek going with the 748 would be like ba’s decision to build it. A person who puts a blind fold on because the person in front of him couldn’t see. In other words as dumb as it gets.

WayexTDI wrote:

ClipperYankee wrote:

I don't think either deal would pass regulatory muster on either side of the Atlantic. Remember that P&W and Boeing were basically the same company once (along with United and Hamilton Standard) and the U.S. feds forced it to be broken up.

Why would that be? Engine making and Airframe making are 2 different businesses, complementary and not overlapping; one wouldn't be buying the other to kill a competitor, so I doubt anti-trust would apply here.

Also, in the case of P&W, Boeing & United, the main problem was United (an airline) and Boeing (an Aiframe manufacturer) being owned by the same company; that provided an unfair advantage to United of getting airplanes cheaper and faster from Boeing.
When they were told to split, P&W and Hamilton Standard were more collateral damage to the scandal than the cause of it.

And, as others have said, that was in 1934; we're in 2019...

Well, yes. It's not 1934 but say Airbus buys RR, just for one argument of the two, I doubt Airbus would be thrilled to sell Boeing engines to hang on the 787, for example, and that is limiting competition in the eyes of governments, and not just in the U.S.
All of a sudden you'd be able to buy just GE 787s, and I know we appear to be heading in that direction anyway with each manufacturer "allying" themselves with the respective engine maker but we're not there yet. The 797, or whatever it turns out to be, may still offer an engine option.
If Airbus, or Boeing, made their own engines in house it might be different.

ClipperYankee wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

ClipperYankee wrote:

I don't think either deal would pass regulatory muster on either side of the Atlantic. Remember that P&W and Boeing were basically the same company once (along with United and Hamilton Standard) and the U.S. feds forced it to be broken up.

Why would that be? Engine making and Airframe making are 2 different businesses, complementary and not overlapping; one wouldn't be buying the other to kill a competitor, so I doubt anti-trust would apply here.

Also, in the case of P&W, Boeing & United, the main problem was United (an airline) and Boeing (an Aiframe manufacturer) being owned by the same company; that provided an unfair advantage to United of getting airplanes cheaper and faster from Boeing.
When they were told to split, P&W and Hamilton Standard were more collateral damage to the scandal than the cause of it.

And, as others have said, that was in 1934; we're in 2019...

Well, yes. It's not 1934 but say Airbus buys RR, just for one argument of the two, I doubt Airbus would be thrilled to sell Boeing engines to hang on the 787, for example, and that is limiting competition in the eyes of governments, and not just in the U.S.
All of a sudden you'd be able to buy just GE 787s, and I know we appear to be heading in that direction anyway with each manufacturer "allying" themselves with the respective engine maker but we're not there yet. The 797, or whatever it turns out to be, may still offer an engine option.
If Airbus, or Boeing, made their own engines in house it might be different.

Honestly, I still don't see a problem. Car makers do it all the time (they supply powertrains and/or complete cars to competitors), competing aerospace suppliers collaborate all the time.

We shall see.

WayexTDI wrote:

ClipperYankee wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

Why would that be? Engine making and Airframe making are 2 different businesses, complementary and not overlapping; one wouldn't be buying the other to kill a competitor, so I doubt anti-trust would apply here.

Also, in the case of P&W, Boeing & United, the main problem was United (an airline) and Boeing (an Aiframe manufacturer) being owned by the same company; that provided an unfair advantage to United of getting airplanes cheaper and faster from Boeing.
When they were told to split, P&W and Hamilton Standard were more collateral damage to the scandal than the cause of it.

And, as others have said, that was in 1934; we're in 2019...

Well, yes. It's not 1934 but say Airbus buys RR, just for one argument of the two, I doubt Airbus would be thrilled to sell Boeing engines to hang on the 787, for example, and that is limiting competition in the eyes of governments, and not just in the U.S.
All of a sudden you'd be able to buy just GE 787s, and I know we appear to be heading in that direction anyway with each manufacturer "allying" themselves with the respective engine maker but we're not there yet. The 797, or whatever it turns out to be, may still offer an engine option.
If Airbus, or Boeing, made their own engines in house it might be different.

Honestly, I still don't see a problem. Car makers do it all the time (they supply powertrains and/or complete cars to competitors), competing aerospace suppliers collaborate all the time.

We shall see.

Has there actually been any talk from Airbus that they are even interested in buying RR? I don't recall ever hearing a peep about it and I would be extremely surprised if the idea is under any consideration by either party.

While I can't see it ever happening, the topic might make for an interesting thread of its own.

WayexTDI wrote:

ClipperYankee wrote:

I don't think either deal would pass regulatory muster on either side of the Atlantic. Remember that P&W and Boeing were basically the same company once (along with United and Hamilton Standard) and the U.S. feds forced it to be broken up.

Why would that be? Engine making and Airframe making are 2 different businesses, complementary and not overlapping; one wouldn't be buying the other to kill a competitor, so I doubt anti-trust would apply here.

Also, in the case of P&W, Boeing & United, the main problem was United (an airline) and Boeing (an Aiframe manufacturer) being owned by the same company; that provided an unfair advantage to United of getting airplanes cheaper and faster from Boeing.
When they were told to split, P&W and Hamilton Standard were more collateral damage to the scandal than the cause of it.

And, as others have said, that was in 1934; we're in 2019...

And explain to me why Standard Oil is not back as one company after so long. That was in 1911, and is still valid now.

You would have to repeal the Air Mail Act of 1934 before your imaginary Airbus-RR merger can happen.

The basics of this tread is on the two current A380 orders for EK. The 2013 order for 50 which has 20+ delivered so far, and the 2018 order for 20+16 options which still does not have firmed engines.

We do not know which order specifically is in discussion between EK and Airbus, but it is likely the fate of some of the 2013 order being cancelled and the 380 line closed. Those cancelled frames and any deposits on the 2018 order are rumored to be converted to A330 or A350 planes to save their value as well as some pride.

Airbus is faced with the decision to wrap up and close out the 380 line, unless mothballing the line is considered an option. This could be avoided if some white knight places an order for 50, saving the icon. If the line will be closing it is pointless to run it at a 6/year rate, much better to run at 8-10 per year like the current rate until all frames to be delivered are completed. The workers than can go to other lines that need people.

I recall there are 30 some remaining in the backlog that are solid, will all 30 be produced. Does EK want 30 in the next 4 years? That is a lot of added iron when the current fleet appears full.

The only thing is EK has not take delivery of new planes since January 2019 with A6-EVH of A380 and A6-EQP of 77W (The last 77W) as the latest in fleet. Also EK and Japan's ANA is the sole remaining operator that still has an A380 on order. My thought is will EK still get new A380 this year?

jeffrey0032j wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

ClipperYankee wrote:

I don't think either deal would pass regulatory muster on either side of the Atlantic. Remember that P&W and Boeing were basically the same company once (along with United and Hamilton Standard) and the U.S. feds forced it to be broken up.

Why would that be? Engine making and Airframe making are 2 different businesses, complementary and not overlapping; one wouldn't be buying the other to kill a competitor, so I doubt anti-trust would apply here.

Also, in the case of P&W, Boeing & United, the main problem was United (an airline) and Boeing (an Aiframe manufacturer) being owned by the same company; that provided an unfair advantage to United of getting airplanes cheaper and faster from Boeing.
When they were told to split, P&W and Hamilton Standard were more collateral damage to the scandal than the cause of it.

And, as others have said, that was in 1934; we're in 2019...

And explain to me why Standard Oil is not back as one company after so long. That was in 1911, and is still valid now.

You would have to repeal the Air Mail Act of 1934 before your imaginary Airbus-RR merger can happen.

This is what I can find for the Air Mail Act of 1934:

The Air Mail Act of June 12, 1934, drafted at the height of the crisis by Black (and known as the "Black-McKellar bill"), restored competitive bidding, closely regulated airmail labor operations, dissolved the holding companies that brought together airlines and aircraft manufacturers, and prevented companies that held the old contracts from obtaining new ones

and

After the Air Mail scandal of 1934, the U.S. government concluded that such large holding companies as United Aircraft and Transport were anti-competitive, and new antitrust laws were passed forbidding airframe or engine manufacturers from having interests in airlines

Unless someone finds something else, what's prohibited is aircraft or engine manufacturers and airlines to be the same company (directly of via a holding); associating an aircraft manufacturer and an engine manufacturer would not violate the Act.

SQ789 wrote:

The only thing is EK has not take delivery of new planes since January 2019 with A6-EVH of A380 and A6-EQP of 77W (The last 77W) as the latest in fleet. Also EK and Japan's ANA is the sole remaining operator that still has an A380 on order. My thought is will EK still get new A380 this year?

January 2019 was 5 days ago...

The topic is EK orders. Not why Curtis-Wright couldn't have existed.

ramzi wrote:

SQ789 wrote:

The only thing is EK has not take delivery of new planes since January 2019 with A6-EVH of A380 and A6-EQP of 77W (The last 77W) as the latest in fleet. Also EK and Japan's ANA is the sole remaining operator that still has an A380 on order. My thought is will EK still get new A380 this year?

January 2019 was 5 days ago...

Has not take deliveries of new planes since the beginning of January

SQ789 wrote:

ramzi wrote:

SQ789 wrote:

The only thing is EK has not take delivery of new planes since January 2019 with A6-EVH of A380 and A6-EQP of 77W (The last 77W) as the latest in fleet. Also EK and Japan's ANA is the sole remaining operator that still has an A380 on order. My thought is will EK still get new A380 this year?

January 2019 was 5 days ago...

Has not take deliveries of new planes since the beginning of January

January 1st was 37 days ago...... there must be trouble brewing if it has been that long since last delivery!

SQ789 wrote:

ramzi wrote:

SQ789 wrote:

The only thing is EK has not take delivery of new planes since January 2019 with A6-EVH of A380 and A6-EQP of 77W (The last 77W) as the latest in fleet. Also EK and Japan's ANA is the sole remaining operator that still has an A380 on order. My thought is will EK still get new A380 this year?

January 2019 was 5 days ago...

Has not take deliveries of new planes since the beginning of January

According to airfleets, EK didn’t got a plane in January and February 2018 at all. So nothing new.

Well an EK A380 was performing test flights today in primer so it won't be long before they take an aircraft from Airbus.

LoganTheBogan wrote:

Well an EK A380 was performing test flights today in primer so it won't be long before they take an aircraft from Airbus.

I guess its A6-EVJ

Richard28 wrote:

January 1st was 37 days ago...... there must be trouble brewing if it has been that long since last delivery!

A380 production rate for 2019 is 8 frames overall. That is one every 45days... and don't forget the Airbus traditional back loading of deliveries to Q4. And not all A380 are EK A380

kevin5345179 wrote:

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

scbriml wrote:

They can't cancel an order they haven't placed! EK has let LOI/MOU lapse in the past, so it shouldn't be that shocking.

Leeham news are suggesting that the 78X is still underpowered for EK's requirements.

https://leehamnews.com/2019/02/04/ponti ... -emirates/

Yet neighbouring Etihad is experiencing NO issues with its 787-10s....so I call BS on that front.

And EY's 787-10s are duel class I believe, so not exactly lightly loaded machines.

and Leeham reported that market intelligence says EY wants out from remaining 78J order

https://leehamnews.com/2019/02/04/ponti ... ent-250274

No kidding. Market intelligence says EY also wants out of their A350 order, should we conclude the A350 is a terrible performer in the ME hot and high conditions?

The Leeham article mentions some news I haven't read before regarding A330/A350 production. The A330neo will drop from 6 to 4,5/month and then to 3,5/month from the middle of this year. That's even lower than the 777 production. Will make it even harder to compete with the 787 regarding economies of scale, and also the A350 may become a better option even despite being considerably lager - the article mentions the A350 production will go from 10 to 13 month, something I haven't seen confirmed earlier.

MoKa777 wrote:

I, personally have always doubted the 78J's performance in HOT ME weather. The A359 does seem like a better fit for these conditions in this particular size category.

I can understand that, although I believe for EK the A359 and 78X were incredibly evenly matched. Simply said the 78X IMO would be cheaper to operate, however the A359 would have better (more consistent) revenue capabilities. As to why EK makes yet another u-turn and appears not to firm the 78X MoU, it's vague... The engine's perfomance was a known factor, acknowledged by STC in an interview before the MoU was announced. He even said he could understand Boeing's position not wanting to make a special enfine for just one customer. So perhaps EK expected some improvements on the whole package, and were disappointed.

As for the A350, the big advantage I can see is that the MTOW can be tailor made for any mission. And even can be uprated from 8 hour missions to much longer ones.

Are all the other A380 RR customers also receiving compensation from RR in regards to the T900?
The performance shortfalls should impact all the other customers too, so I would think they are also receiving some kind of compensation. But I suppose it would depend on their contracts. Surely at least SQ would have had something in place on their last 5 frames?

According the article below, "Rolls-Royce announced in its half-yearly results that it would take a £554m abnormal charge for problems with Trent 1000 engines used on the Boeing 787 and Trent t900 engines used on the Airbus A380."

It also states "This represented about 40 percent of the total cash costs expected to be incurred in resolving the Trent 1000 issues to 2022."

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/tre ... -billlion/

That got to hurt. And doesn't sound like the compensation to (at least) EK is included in that. But maybe it is. I would think it's a recurring cost.

The only way to recover some of that cost is to sell more engines (obviously) and get rid of the T900.

If EK cancels the 787 and A380 and goes with more 777X, RR doesn't see a dime and still liable for compensation.
If EK keep the 787 and order more 777X instead of A380, the 787s will probably be GE powered. And RR remains liable.
If EK cancels the 787 and converts the A380s to A330N or A350, RR might be relieved of their compensation in exchange for heavily discounted engines on those birds. Which still doesn't really do much for RRs financial situation. RR would probably have to give the engines away when you factor in the compensation on the already delivered A380 frames.

And all of the above is obviously bad news for the A380. Airbus will gain the "material loss" it is taking on the A380. But there are also other cons associated with that decision which is and has been debated to no end on this forum.

At the end of the day, the decision will come from the parties involved. But I still think the best solution is to certify the T7000 on A380. We know it's what EK has wanted, and is the lowest risk solution for RR.
Other than a cost split for Airbus, it will be business as usual as far as the A380 goes.

olle wrote:

Killing A380 will probably push Airbus for a A350-1100NEO around 2025. with Emirates will then sit as the major customer for B779. with. A350-1100 neo will there be a market for 779 outside emirates?

BA should have done the CFRP fuse on the 777X.

No matter how long, it will eventually bite them!



cheers

Noshow wrote:

I don't understand why EK seems to be zigzagging so much concerning their fleet. Why all this back and forth and now even like a different strategy for way more midsized planes? Do they have a plan like they used to have? Have they come under political pressure by their government? It doesn't feel like the old days for sure. It started with that surprise U-turning order announcement at Dubai. They never did that before. And now everything and nothing. Bring back the old style please.

Really, it has been coming for quite a while.

STC has been for years been haranguing the other airlines of the world that the A380 is what they want; and so they should buy more of them.
But it is not, and (quite predictably) the other airlines have passed on the A380.
And will continue to do so.
(Have to coin a recent judgement from AJ at QF; he has become noticeably more outspoken as time has gone on and now summarises:
"I would have to be really drunk to ever order another A380".).

Meanwhile, undeterred, STC has simultaneously been haranguing RR and AB to produce an A380neo - despite the obvious fact that the rest of the airline industry has already headed-off in the direction of big twins long, long ago.
(It was the 777W that killed both the A380 and B747-8i. Nothing else.)

So now the EK strategy is in ruins.
The A380 has come to the end of the trail and, sadly, only the abyss is ahead.
(But let's remember that technically and for the poor long-suffering passengers, it has been one of the best planes in the sky.
But financially; - it should never have been built. )

No wonder EK looks to have lost direction.

cheers

brindabella wrote:

olle wrote:

Killing A380 will probably push Airbus for a A350-1100NEO around 2025. with Emirates will then sit as the major customer for B779. with. A350-1100 neo will there be a market for 779 outside emirates?

BA should have done the CFRP fuse on the 777X.

No matter how long, it will eventually bite them!



cheers

The A350-1000 is already a low volume product. We are going to stretch it again and put new engines on it and presumably move the A350 family center of gravity further up the size scale? Ok...doesn’t seem like an overall winning play to me but to each their own.

The real mistake in this market was the cross section for the A350. Make it a 10 across and kill the 777 dead. Instead they avoided stepping on the A380’s toes by sticking to 9 wide but didn’t make it light enough for the smaller sized plane to be viable. It also wasn’t big enough to at least keep the 777X from taking a very valuable top portion of what should be the A350’s market from it.

I also don’t see opening up a NEO war being where the A350 wants to go vis a via the 787 which as the lighter and less rangy plane would likely benefit more from the increased SFC. You start hauling around empty structure on the A350 unless you are flying absurd distances. The stretch would be fine but you risk moving the product out of the market sweet spot and having the 787 eat more of your lunch.

Slug71 wrote:

If EK cancels the 787 and A380 and goes with more 777X, RR doesn't see a dime and still liable for compensation.
If EK keep the 787 and order more 777X instead of A380, the 787s will probably be GE powered. And RR remains liable.
If EK cancels the 787 and converts the A380s to A330N or A350, RR might be relieved of their compensation in exchange for heavily discounted engines on those birds. Which still doesn't really do much for RRs financial situation. RR would probably have to give the engines away when you factor in the compensation on the already delivered A380 frames.

Or, just cancel both A380 and 77X, firm up 781, order 789s, A359s and A359-ULRs.

bigjku wrote:

The A350-1000 is already a low volume product. We are going to stretch it again and put new engines on it and presumably move the A350 family center of gravity further up the size scale? Ok...doesn’t seem like an overall winning play to me but to each their own.

The real mistake in this market was the cross section for the A350. Make it a 10 across and kill the 777 dead. Instead they avoided stepping on the A380’s toes by sticking to 9 wide but didn’t make it light enough for the smaller sized plane to be viable. It also wasn’t big enough to at least keep the 777X from taking a very valuable top portion of what should be the A350’s market from it.

I also don’t see opening up a NEO war being where the A350 wants to go vis a via the 787 which as the lighter and less rangy plane would likely benefit more from the increased SFC. You start hauling around empty structure on the A350 unless you are flying absurd distances. The stretch would be fine but you risk moving the product out of the market sweet spot and having the 787 eat more of your lunch.

Yep, I agree.

The original plan was to do the A350 Mk 1 to hold the 787 at bay and then do a clean sheet to really take on the 777.

Instead, A350 Mk 1 lost to the 787 at QF, AC, etc then Airbus panicked and threw out the plan and ended up with A350 XWB.

I'll argue we've ended in an interesting place when it comes to widebodies:
o Best A330 replacement: 787
o Best 772 replacement: A359
o Best 77W replacement: 77X
o Best A380 replacement: Unnecessary

And I doubt this is where Airbus wanted to end up.

bigjku wrote:

The A350-1000 is already a low volume product. We are going to stretch it again and put new engines on it and presumably move the A350 family center of gravity further up the size scale? Ok...doesn’t seem like an overall winning play to me but to each their own.

It's "low-volume" now because we are still very early into the 777-300ER's replacement cycle.

bigjku wrote:

The real mistake in this market was the cross section for the A350. Make it a 10 across and kill the 777 dead. Instead they avoided stepping on the A380’s toes by sticking to 9 wide but didn’t make it light enough for the smaller sized plane to be viable. It also wasn’t big enough to at least keep the 777X from taking a very valuable top portion of what should be the A350’s market from it.

Airbus' design philosophy is based around an 18" seat width and to go 10-abreast at that would have made the A350-1000 at least as wide if not wider than the 777 and would have eaten into it's significant empty weight savings. Also, every 777 operator moved from 9-abreast to 10-abreast did so to lower their CASM and the A350 already has a lower CASM at 9-abreast than the 777 at 10-abreast so they could effectively compete.

bigjku wrote:

I also don’t see opening up a NEO war being where the A350 wants to go vis a via the 787 which as the lighter and less rangy plane would likely benefit more from the increased SFC. You start hauling around empty structure on the A350 unless you are flying absurd distances. The stretch would be fine but you risk moving the product out of the market sweet spot and having the 787 eat more of your lunch.

The bulk of the market today is 300+ seats, dominated by the 777-300ER. I think the A350-1000 is well-placed as is to take a fair bit of that market. The 777X is, IMO, not the most-effective counter to the A350-1000, but it is the only counter Boeing could really offer as they are in no way ready to commit to a clean-sheet NLA. I am not sure Airbus is going to need to stretch the A350-1000 - they should take the majority of the 777-300ER replacement market anyway with what they have.

Revelation wrote:

bigjku wrote:

The A350-1000 is already a low volume product. We are going to stretch it again and put new engines on it and presumably move the A350 family center of gravity further up the size scale? Ok...doesn’t seem like an overall winning play to me but to each their own.

The real mistake in this market was the cross section for the A350. Make it a 10 across and kill the 777 dead. Instead they avoided stepping on the A380’s toes by sticking to 9 wide but didn’t make it light enough for the smaller sized plane to be viable. It also wasn’t big enough to at least keep the 777X from taking a very valuable top portion of what should be the A350’s market from it.

I also don’t see opening up a NEO war being where the A350 wants to go vis a via the 787 which as the lighter and less rangy plane would likely benefit more from the increased SFC. You start hauling around empty structure on the A350 unless you are flying absurd distances. The stretch would be fine but you risk moving the product out of the market sweet spot and having the 787 eat more of your lunch.

Yep, I agree.

The original plan was to do the A350 Mk 1 to hold the 787 at bay and then do a clean sheet to really take on the 777.

Instead, A350 Mk 1 lost to the 787 at QF, AC, etc then Airbus panicked and threw out the plan and ended up with A350 XWB.

I'll argue we've ended in an interesting place when it comes to widebodies:
o Best A330 replacement: 787
o Best 772 replacement: A359
o Best 77W replacement: 77X
o Best A380 replacement: Unnecessary

And I doubt this is where Airbus wanted to end up.

I think the best 77W replacement is very much in doubt.

Slug71 wrote:

Are all the other A380 RR customers also receiving compensation from RR in regards to the T900?
The performance shortfalls should impact all the other customers too, so I would think they are also receiving some kind of compensation. But I suppose it would depend on their contracts. Surely at least SQ would have had something in place on their last 5 frames?

EK issue primarily relates to DXB, in regards to engine settings (and in turn impact on maintenance fees), rate of performance degradation, and loss of maintenance rewards. Doubtful SQ experience the same issues.

EK compensation in the form of maintenance payment holidays / discounts, and credits for premature off wing time and 'lost' rewards.

EK have the advantage of extensive EA history to use for comparative purposes.

Revelation wrote:

bigjku wrote:

The A350-1000 is already a low volume product. We are going to stretch it again and put new engines on it and presumably move the A350 family center of gravity further up the size scale? Ok...doesn’t seem like an overall winning play to me but to each their own.

The real mistake in this market was the cross section for the A350. Make it a 10 across and kill the 777 dead. Instead they avoided stepping on the A380’s toes by sticking to 9 wide but didn’t make it light enough for the smaller sized plane to be viable. It also wasn’t big enough to at least keep the 777X from taking a very valuable top portion of what should be the A350’s market from it.

I also don’t see opening up a NEO war being where the A350 wants to go vis a via the 787 which as the lighter and less rangy plane would likely benefit more from the increased SFC. You start hauling around empty structure on the A350 unless you are flying absurd distances. The stretch would be fine but you risk moving the product out of the market sweet spot and having the 787 eat more of your lunch.

Yep, I agree.

The original plan was to do the A350 Mk 1 to hold the 787 at bay and then do a clean sheet to really take on the 777.

Instead, A350 Mk 1 lost to the 787 at QF, AC, etc then Airbus panicked and threw out the plan and ended up with A350 XWB.

I'll argue we've ended in an interesting place when it comes to widebodies:
o Best A330 replacement: 787
o Best 772 replacement: A359
o Best 77W replacement: 77X
o Best A380 replacement: Unnecessary

And I doubt this is where Airbus wanted to end up.

Revaluation, if I may expand for non-EK too:
757 replacement: A321 incl. LR
767/A300 replacement: A330 or 787, last 797?
A330 replacement: 787, in particular 787-10
A340 replacement: 787 and A350
772 replacement: A359
747 & 77W: 77W (early 747s) and now 777X
A380 replacement:. None

Half of all aircraft sales should be growth. So we shouldn't be waiting for 77W replacement. Heck, we're at the end of the 744 cycle. While the A35K is good, it really looks as if the A359 has outstanding economics for the cross section. The CASK of the A35K is too close to the A359 at this time.

Airbus is not where they want to be, as you noted. I'm done speculating on the A389NEO. I could make a business case for it 4 or 5 years ago; I cannot today. Aircraft technology is perishable, that is a sad fact of the industry. There are reasons the 717 didn't sell (I know, blasphemy here), as well as limited sales for the 748I, A330NEO, and MD-11. Technology moves on.

Lightsaber

Note:. I'm more hopefully on the 777X due to a wing material change, folding wingtips, and mission optimization. I doubt it will sell as well as the 77W/777F/77L, but I see more obvious sales, if it makes promise.

EK has much more competition who is now much better managed. They are accepting reality.

Now to see what happens with the 787-10. Is it truly done? I suspect negotiations are intense with EK.

I also suspect (hope?) that when this resolves, EY will rationalize their widebody orders.

Lightsaber

smartplane wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

Are all the other A380 RR customers also receiving compensation from RR in regards to the T900?
The performance shortfalls should impact all the other customers too, so I would think they are also receiving some kind of compensation. But I suppose it would depend on their contracts. Surely at least SQ would have had something in place on their last 5 frames?

EK issue primarily relates to DXB, in regards to engine settings (and in turn impact on maintenance fees), rate of performance degradation, and loss of maintenance rewards. Doubtful SQ experience the same issues.

EK compensation in the form of maintenance payment holidays / discounts, and credits for premature off wing time and 'lost' rewards.

EK have the advantage of extensive EA history to use for comparative purposes.

I'm specifically referring to the missed fuel burn performance that was supposed be given by the last T900 PiP.
Did only EK get that PiP, or did all RR customers receive that PiP (and therefore miss out on those SFC gains).

Has Emirates decided on anything?

When are we going to know more?

The lengthy discussion in this thread does not provide any hint whatsoever. It's going round and round without any clear conclusion.

Does anyone here really know anything about Emirates?

Lengthy discussion in threads, where nobody knows anything for sure, is pretty much the reason to be here...

What we knew, and are now seeing reinforced, is that nothing is final with EK until an airplane is delivered. There's no doubt both Boeing and Airbus are in intense discussions with EK. We can see the problems causing those discussions pretty clearly just from market reality, but we won't know how the parties elect to solve them until either an announcement is made or a final decision leaks through a reliable source.

If there's an overarching theme here, though, it's that EK's mission profile is very, very hard on engines, and airframe decisions are likely to be driven by engine decisions rather than the other way around. I can easily imagine a scenario where Boeing loses the 787 order without any new 777X orders only because RR gives EK a deal it can't refuse on Trent 7000s and XWBs. I can likewise imagine a scenario where Airbus ends up losing A380 orders without replacement because EK is finished with RR and runs into the arms of GE.

VV wrote:

Has Emirates decided on anything?

When are we going to know more?

The lengthy discussion in this thread does not provide any hint whatsoever. It's going round and round without any clear conclusion.

Does anyone here really know anything about Emirates?

Really?

1 - Nobody here knows, or isn’t telling.

2 - Nobody here knows, or isn’t telling.

3 - It’s what happens when little is known.

4 - Very little, or they’re not saying (aside from one vociferous poster who claims to be an EK pilot).

Hope that helps.

This morning an internal email from QF states that they have formalised an agreement with Airbus NOT to take the last 8 A380’s.

May be unrelated to the opinions in this thread, but the timing is interesting.

seabosdca wrote:

Lengthy discussion in threads, where nobody knows anything for sure, is pretty much the reason to be here...

What we knew, and are now seeing reinforced, is that nothing is final with EK until an airplane is delivered. There's no doubt both Boeing and Airbus are in intense discussions with EK. We can see the problems causing those discussions pretty clearly just from market reality, but we won't know how the parties elect to solve them until either an announcement is made or a final decision leaks through a reliable source.

If there's an overarching theme here, though, it's that EK's mission profile is very, very hard on engines, and airframe decisions are likely to be driven by engine decisions rather than the other way around. I can easily imagine a scenario where Boeing loses the 787 order without any new 777X orders only because RR gives EK a deal it can't refuse on Trent 7000s and XWBs. I can likewise imagine a scenario where Airbus ends up losing A380 orders without replacement because EK is finished with RR and runs into the arms of GE.

Your last scenario is definitely not on the cards!

Slug71 wrote:

smartplane wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

Are all the other A380 RR customers also receiving compensation from RR in regards to the T900?
The performance shortfalls should impact all the other customers too, so I would think they are also receiving some kind of compensation. But I suppose it would depend on their contracts. Surely at least SQ would have had something in place on their last 5 frames?

EK issue primarily relates to DXB, in regards to engine settings (and in turn impact on maintenance fees), rate of performance degradation, and loss of maintenance rewards. Doubtful SQ experience the same issues.

EK compensation in the form of maintenance payment holidays / discounts, and credits for premature off wing time and 'lost' rewards.

EK have the advantage of extensive EA history to use for comparative purposes.

I'm specifically referring to the missed fuel burn performance that was supposed be given by the last T900 PiP.
Did only EK get that PiP, or did all RR customers receive that PiP (and therefore miss out on those SFC gains).

EP3 engines were the latest pip. If the engines are not EP3 they never will be but all engines are now EP3 to whoever orders them. I’m not sure where this SFC performance issue comes from but the issue is with turbine life not SFC. A modification is in progress.

Slug71 wrote:

I'm specifically referring to the missed fuel burn performance that was supposed be given by the last T900 PiP. Did only EK get that PiP, or did all RR customers receive that PiP (and therefore miss out on those SFC gains).

Rolls-Royce has said that all Trent 900 engines are under TotalCare maintenance agreements so they should all receive each PiP as it is released. The latest PiP was the Trent 900EP3 (Enhanced Performance 3) which was introduced in 2016 on EK's first Trent 900 new-builds. The package included "casing improvements, optimization of cooling air and sealing and improvements around the high pressure turbine".

Whatsaptudo wrote:

This morning an internal email from QF states that they have formalised an agreement with Airbus NOT to take the last 8 A380’s.

May be unrelated to the opinions in this thread, but the timing is interesting.

If true it seems to me like they're clearing off the loose ends in the order book, ready to fulfill final obligations and potentially call it day. Would be quite the coincidence to trim off 10 orders a few weeks ago, Qantas' this week all while negotiating the status of the A380 with EK. Only time will tell I suppose.

Stitch wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

I'm specifically referring to the missed fuel burn performance that was supposed be given by the last T900 PiP. Did only EK get that PiP, or did all RR customers receive that PiP (and therefore miss out on those SFC gains).

Rolls-Royce has said that all Trent 900 engines are under TotalCare maintenance agreements so they should all receive each PiP as it is released. The latest PiP was the Trent 900EP3 (Enhanced Performance 3) which was introduced in 2016 on EK's first Trent 900 new-builds. The package included "casing improvements, optimization of cooling air and sealing and improvements around the high pressure turbine".

Errr... Casings cost $1 million+ each, so unless the old casing could be honed into shape, that part wouldn't apply.


Lightsaber

Interesting comments from Al Baker regarding the A380. Seems to be a lot of A380 talk not just on these boards following on from the EK discussions

The A380’s structure can take another 100 tons. It would have been better if they had tailor-made the wing to suit the size of the airplane. Which means you would have taken so much weight off the wing that you would have been able to make it very fuel-efficient and then it would have been a perfect airplane.

The above quote is a sad reality, and only reaffirms what we already know. Designed in the first place for a stretch, when in fact the original was too large to be economical. I do wonder if the A380s fate would have of been any different with a much more efficient wing for the aircraft size...

Whatsaptudo wrote:

This morning an internal email from QF states that they have formalised an agreement with Airbus NOT to take the last 8 A380’s.

JamesCousins wrote:

If true it seems to me like they're clearing off the loose ends in the order book, ready to fulfill final obligations and potentially call it day.

Australian media have confirmed Qantas has cancelled their outstanding A380 orders.

Air France wants to offload half of its A380 fleet:

https://m.faz.net/aktuell/finanzen/fina ... 27689.html

[url][/url]

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

Air France wants to offload half of its A380 fleet:

https://m.faz.net/aktuell/finanzen/fina ... 27689.html

this has been a very bad week for the a380 lol. ek doestn want it, qf doesnt want it, af doesnt want it, qr trash talked it, etc.

I don't think that the A380 line is coming to an end, or at least, I don't think that it should.

EK POV
I think that EK is facing challenges that I've mentionned before.
Rising financing cost due to faltering business model, intensifying competition from China on Europe-Asia routes.

I think that there is nothing wrong with the A380, but rather, there is something wrong with the way airlines are using it.
The A380 is a 850 seater people hauler and it is being abused at corporate jet densities.
Airbus has sold the market too much on the cruise ship concept and airlines have misunderstood the real purpose of this aircraft.

It's not that airlines can't fill it. They can, but the A380 only fits in specific business plans.
Airlines nowadays are used to milking the premium cabins to make aircraft like the B77W operate profitabily.
But this concept doesn't work for the A380 and current A380 operators have come to this realisation by reducing premium cabins and increasing the economy class.
As an example, 8 First and 66 J seats out of Kuala Lumpur? Are they insane?

A380 operators have made the mistake of focussing too much on the premium cabins. This works only for a handful of routes where business traffic dominates. This could work on a JFK-LHR route. But an operator like AF shouldn't have any trouble filling a 550 seat Y cabin to one of the most popular leisure destinations in the world. Sure, there is business in Paris too, but not everyday and all year round. There is however always a huge inbound and outbound leisure demand.

EK is one of the first ones to have come to the realisation that their Y cabin is making sense but not the forward cabins, hence why they have swiched to that 615 seat configuration recently. Even that is such a waste, they should really add additional economy class cabins at 11-abreast and/or even 12-abreast and capitalise on that.
Sure, businessmen fly EK as well, but the competition from non-stop operators is too fierce for EK to survive.

If you can really fill 80-100 F/J seats, you shouldn't be operating an A380, but an all-premium B77W or A330 if range permits.
Otherwise, you should capitalise the A380's floor space by selling economy class seats, until you can force some competitors who can offer non-stop routes out of business or out of main routes and grab their premium traffic. Take significant Y traffic away from any competitor.

Airbus POV
It would be a huge mistake for Airbus to stop A380 production to focus on the A350.
The A350 has its own backlog and it's huge.
Any A380 sale, even at the same price as an A350, is a sale. It will take more to build an A380 that an A350, but trends today do not mean anything in 5 years. Heck, we were supposed to be at 200 USD a barrel of oil by now according to big shot anaylysts, but look where we are.


In a cheap oil environment, it doesn't matter how much more fuel efficient the A330neo, A350, B787 or B77W is.
If A380's can be had for cheap, you're basically getting a lot of additional capacity to sell for just a bit more cost.
You have lower capital cost per unit,
The A380 presents a unique opportunity in that you basically get a B77W with an A330 cabin on top of it, and you only need to pay a month's lease cost worth of additional fuel to haul it around.
So basically, you can lease a B77W and get a B77W, or you could lease an A380 and get a B77W + A330 and the fuel is free on the A330 if you pay the lease on it, or pay the fuel and the lease is free.