Quoting NAV20 (Reply 49): if my 30% estimate is right, flying 400 people in a big twin will be more profitable than flying 500 (20%) more passengers in a jumbo?

Absolutely. And flying 400 people in a big twin will be less profitable than flying 720 people (80% more) in a jumbo. I hope you see what I did there.

And it wasn't just arbitrary: the cabin floor area difference between the largest 777 and the largest A380 will ultimately be about that much. It's a funny thing, size... it may even justify more engines.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 50): And flying 400 people in a big twin will be less profitable than flying 720 people (80% more) in a jumbo. I hope you see what I did there.

Fair enough - and good fun, WingedMigrator.  

But now please inform me which airports/routes currently have such overwhelming demand that they require booking/boarding of 720 passengers to any single destination at any one time? Don't fly much nowadays - I'm retired - but I don't recall EVER encountering any?  

[Edited 2013-10-06 23:21:39]

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 51): I don't recall EVER encountering any?

Quite so, and truly the wonder of the future and things that don't exist yet.  

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 50): Quoting NAV20 (Reply 49): if my 30% estimate is right, flying 400 people in a big twin will be more profitable than flying 500 (20%) more passengers in a jumbo? Absolutely. And flying 400 people in a big twin will be less profitable than flying 720 people (80% more) in a jumbo. I hope you see what I did there.

It seems to me that cost comparisons between lower capacity WB's and A380 need to be made on the basis of similar floor area per pax to be valid. Eg if A380 has 50% more floor space than 744, valid cost comparisons should be based on A380 being configured to carry 50% more pax than 744. Ditto A380 v 787, A350, 777 and 777X.

Quoting art (Reply 53): It seems to me that cost comparisons between lower capacity WB's and A380 need to be made on the basis of similar floor area per pax to be valid. Eg if A380 has 50% more floor space than 744, valid cost comparisons should be based on A380 being configured to carry 50% more pax than 744. Ditto A380 v 787, A350, 777 and 777X.

You're talking to the right guy with Wingedmigrator. He's been producing charts on that basis for years now ...  

Rgds

Quoting art (Reply 53): It seems to me that cost comparisons between lower capacity WB's and A380 need to be made on the basis of similar floor area per pax to be valid. Eg if A380 has 50% more floor space than 744, valid cost comparisons should be based on A380 being configured to carry 50% more pax than 744. Ditto A380 v 787, A350, 777 and 777X.

We also need to take into account the revenue comparisons, as well.

Korean Airlines, for example, flies as few as 42 more people in their A380-800s then their 747-400s, but the A380 has over twice as many Business Class seats (49) and 7 less Economy seats so when both planes are at full loads, the A380-800 brings in substantially more revenue even if the operating costs are probably higher.

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 39): Quoting EPA001 (Reply 19): Folding wing tips could very well also be seen on a further developed A380. And might even take the wingspan to almost 90 meters or so. Agreed that it is possible. And would be even better looking than the current wing. However... From what I understand, the current wing was designed with the 389, & 38H already in mind. And if you ever see one A380 from behind, and one from the side at the same time (Seriously, I love working at LAX sometimes,   ), you can see that the span as already quite a bit longer than the fuselage length as it is. So the question would be do they really need to go to 90 meters? Again, I have no doubt they would do an extension with folding tips if they wanted/needed to. I'm just not convinced it's necessary.

I can fully agree with the content of your post. My post about folding wingtips is therefore more speculative. Indeed the A380 wing was designed with the A380-900 and the A380-F in mind, so the weight of these possible variants would not pose a problem.

But since the big twins are closing in on efficiency (though there is a lot more to civil aviation then efficiency alone) it might be something worth to think about. Airbus initially wanted a wing with a span of about 84 meters. Now new technologies have been developed, and maybe that wing span is not necessary anymore, but if Airbus will consider a major overhaul for the next generation A380's, it might be worth their while to investigate this option. Along with other improved aerodynamics, new engines and weight optimisations.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 55): Korean Airlines, for example, flies as few as 42 more people in their A380-800s then their 747-400s, but the A380 has over twice as many Business Class seats (49) and 7 less Economy seats so when both planes are at full loads, the A380-800 brings in substantially more revenue even if the operating costs are probably higher.

I follow what you are saying - that different aircraft (even the same aircraft) can have different seat configurations giving different amounts of revenue according to how you break down premium and standard seating numbers. I still think that for the purposes of making meaningful cost comparisons one should use pax per sq metre as the basis for cost calculation. Perhaps the simplest approach would be to compare aircraft based on all Y seating at a given seat width and pitch allowing a given area per pax.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 49): Short answer is, WingedMigrator, none of us part-time amateurs know yet.   But the 'broad' answer is, if my 30% estimate is right, flying 400 people in a big twin will be more profitable than flying 500 (20% more) passengers in a jumbo?

I find your numbers skewed to the 2 engine's advantage. First 500 is 25% more than 400. Secondly I don't know what two engine plane with 400 passengers would equal 500 passenger in an 4 engine plane and finally my gut feeling is that 30% is a very high estimate. Seems too much numbers out of the air and not enough fact.

Quoting art (Reply 57): I still think that for the purposes of making meaningful cost comparisons one should use pax per sq metre as the basis for cost calculation.

Why? I'm just curious as I haven't heard of an airline doing it that way. Generally (unless you just want to capacity-dump), there's a lot of pretty involved research into what a given market will yield, and eventually (almost always with some amount of fine tuning) a plan with how to maximize the revenue from that market (i.e. premium/non-premium ratios, cargo volume etc..) is come up with. They really don't care much just how many seats are going into a market, just that they're not leaving money on the table. Which is something dumping lots and lots of Y seats on a long haul will usually cause to happen.

Just as an aside, an example of researching markets overcoming the urge to throw more seats at a city pair can be found with EK. As of 2008, they had planned on half their A380 fleet being 2 class, 644 seat config. You'd have some pretty good per seat costs there, or PAX/sqM if you like; certainly industry leading at the time. But they backed off from that when it became apparent revenue wasn't going to follow that one.

Quoting art (Reply 57): Perhaps the simplest approach would be to compare aircraft based on all Y seating at a given seat width and pitch allowing a given area per pax.

So what do we do when we have an A380 limited (by exit/evac standards) to 853 PAX still has more of both than a maxed out 77W?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for more space per PAX, but at a certain point, you're just flying around more metal per PAX. This is why revenue is king here.

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 59): Quoting art (Reply 57): I still think that for the purposes of making meaningful cost comparisons one should use pax per sq metre as the basis for cost calculation. Why?

Simply (and I mean crudely and basically) it gives a ball park capability for aircraft in terms of cost. Was A340 not eclipsed by 777 because 777 cost was lower for similar capability? Similarly was 744 not eclipsed by A340 on a cost basis?

I'm just referring to the cost of a capability. I'm not referring to how to best generate revenue from that capability. That's a fine art, to be sure.

[Edited 2013-10-07 05:08:51]

Quoting cmf (Reply 58): First 500 is 25% more than 400

Sorry, cmf, straight arithmetical mistake, you're right.  

Quoting cmf (Reply 58): finally my gut feeling is that 30% is a very high estimate.

Really don't see why? Only two engines to check/service/repair, instead of four? A 50% reduction in servicing time, on the face of it? I opted for only a 30% reduction in cost because the engines concerned are more powerful, and will therefore use more fuel per engine?

Maybe the clinching argument, in the end, has to be that (as the thread confirms) Airbus hasn't sold any jumbos so far this year; and Boeing have only 'firmly' sold two, both freighters? And there have been cancellations/conversions? And further, on the other hand, there've been a lot of orders for big twins - including a big one from Lufthansa?

[Edited 2013-10-07 06:02:13]

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 42): It is way, way too early to judge whether they made the right decision.

It is not too early.

First flight 8 1/2 years ago. EIS 6 years ago. Very small net orders over the last three years. One customer holds ~35% of the total order book.

It is possible that the VLA market develops further making the maintenance of the A380 program viable. But Airbus incurred substantial costs by offering it to the market too early.

Quoting incitatus (Reply 62): One customer holds ~35% of the total order book.

So? I wonder if people will use the same argument when EK soon orders 100 777X aircraft   

Quoting incitatus (Reply 62): It is possible that the VLA market develops further making the maintenance of the A380 program viable.

Boeing kept the 747 alive for 40 years, I think we should have a bit more patience.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 61): Really don't see why? Only two engines to check/service/repair, instead of four? A 50% reduction in servicing time, on the face of it? I opted for only a 30% reduction in cost because the engines concerned are more powerful, and will therefore use more fuel per engine?

But you're doing the same arithmetic mistake again. I do not have time to look up the current numbers and my memory my be slightly off but fuel represent 30% - 40% of cost and maintenance represent 6% to 8%. However, engines are only one part of maintenance. Let's count high and say it is half. Altogether that represent maximum 44% of total cost. Now lets apply the full 30% you think is right and you get 13.2% Far below the 25% extra capacity. And that is still based on higher density in the twin.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 61): Maybe the clinching argument, in the end, has to be that (as the thread confirms) Airbus hasn't sold any jumbos so far this year; and Boeing have only 'firmly' sold two, both freighters? And there have been cancellations/conversions? And further, on the other hand, there've been a lot of orders for big twins - including a big one from Lufthansa?

How is this a clinching argument? It is a small segment. You should not expect a constant flow of orders. All that matters is if they get enough orders. With a few years backlog I don't see how it is time to call the undertaker.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 63): So? I wonder if people will use the same argument when EK soon orders 100 777X aircraft

Sure, if all the 777X gets is about 300 orders after being offered for 12 years I will say exactly the same thing.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 63): Boeing kept the 747 alive for 40 years, I think we should have a bit more patience.

I did not write it off. Like I said, it is possible that the market picks up.

Quoting incitatus (Reply 62): One customer holds ~35% of the total order book.

Spurious argument. What it does indicate is that the focal point for mass passenger connectivity has moved geographically to the middle east. For that purpose, the A380 has found a very useful and highly profitable place. It is therefore no wonder that the majority of frames have gone to that region.

Quoting incitatus (Reply 62): But Airbus incurred substantial costs by offering it to the market too early.

That makes no sense. You're saying the costs would have been less had they launched it today? What costs are you referring to? I have a vague memory of Airbus stating that development costs will be amortised in the near future.

Quoting incitatus (Reply 62): It is not too early.

We shall have to agree to differ.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 63): Boeing kept the 747 alive for 40 years, I think we should have a bit more patience.

  

Which is exactly what some say of the B748. Who am I to disagree.   What's good for the goose should also be good for the gander, but it doesn't always work out like that when fanboyism gets involved.

Rgds

Quoting cmf (Reply 64): You should not expect a constant flow of orders.

Maybe agree in principle, cmf pal.............

But having been in business in another area, I'd reckon that, with a new model that hasn't 'paid for itself' yet, and no new orders of any kind for a year, you'd sure be having a bit of trouble sleeping at night.........  

[Edited 2013-10-07 07:31:10]

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 67): But having been in business in another area, I'd reckon that, with a new model that hasn't 'paid for itself' yet, and no new orders of any kind for a year, you'd sure be having a bit of trouble sleeping at night........

Why would this cause sleeping problems? As has been explained to you in thread after thread the development costs are paid and there are several years worth of orders.

Not that it would cause me any sleeping problems but if I was C level at Airbus or Boeing it would be getting the 787 troubles and developing 777x or making sure everything with the A350 continue without hiccup that would have me concerned.

But what happened with the number crunching? Do you agree with the second error so we can put that discussion behind us?

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 66): Spurious argument. What it does indicate is that the focal point for mass passenger connectivity has moved geographically to the middle east. For that purpose, the A380 has found a very useful and highly profitable place. It is therefore no wonder that the majority of frames have gone to that region.

You seem to be after a very careful choice of words talking about "that region". When it comes to the A380 it is not "that region". It is "that carrier". QR and EY do not really need a single A380 frame beyond a me-too reason. How many Emirates-sized airlines can be supported in the Middle East? So far evidence says only one.

Of course it matters that a large share of A380 orders were made by a single carrier. It shows the existing market is partially filled with demand constrained by geography and company strategy.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 63): Boeing kept the 747 alive for 40 years, I think we should have a bit more patience.

And they did so with the B747-100, the-200, the -300, the -400ER and now the B748. And they built quite a lot of freighters of them.

What is different is the fact that the B747 sold on capacity first, and later on range. Unique combinations that were only rivalled when the A340-600 and later on the B77W took to the skies, Which is not even that long ago.

The A380 faces a lot more tough competition from the moment she was launched and had her EIS, but still holds enough growth potential for many years to come. So far we have only seen the A380-800 where multiple new variants could still be created. Such large programs will for sure run at least 30 years. We will see new A380 orders for this version, but especially for a renewed version of the A380. Like for example an A80-900 and/or an A380-1000, the famous SUH version.  .

Quoting art (Reply 57): I still think that for the purposes of making meaningful cost comparisons one should use pax per sq metre as the basis for cost calculation.

However, such a metric is a rather artificial one and one that likely has little bearing on how airlines make their fleet planning decisions. A 777-300ER configured with 550 Economy seats is likely going to have lower operating and trip costs than an A380-800 configured with 850 Economy seats because the 777-300ER is so much lighter and therefore will burn less fuel. And while the A380-800 would generate more total revenue, Economy has the lowest margins (especially since a route that could support 550 to 850 passengers a flight would be pure leisure and therefore the most price-sensative) and therefore chances are the 777-300ER's profit margin would be higher.

Only LH and AF have configured their A380-800s with what would be considered "design seating capacity" - most are 75 to 100 seats less, having chosen to load the plane up with premium cabin seating since they put A380s on their most lucrative travel times on their most lucrative routes. Instead of using the A380's extra space to maximize the number of passengers they can seat, they're using some of it for more passengers and some of it to provide greater comfort per passenger (as carriers did in the early days of widebody service) in order to drive higher yields per passenger (though higher fares).

Quoting art (Reply 60): Was A340 not eclipsed by 777 because 777 cost was lower for similar capability? Similarly was 744 not eclipsed by A380 on a cost basis?

The 777 offered lower operating costs and greater capacity, so the 777 was more profitable to employ on a route and airlines scheduled appropriately.

The 747 may or may not have lower operating costs than the A380 (it depends on the data you look at), but the A380 has a definite revenue advantage from it's greater capacity - even if they're not maximizing that capacity advantage by not maximizing the seating density to the level they could. And that revenue advantage is sufficient to make the A380 more profitable to employ than the 747 and scheduled appropriately.

Airbus is talking to several airlines about firming up positions for the A380 before the end of this year, the manufacturer’s Chief Operating Officer-Customers John Leahy said on the sidelines at the ISTAT Europe conference in Barcelona.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/avd_10_08_2013_p03-02-624427.xml

"Leahy says the Lufthansa decision was a “flavor du jour,” adding “let’s see what the market is like in one or two years.” According to Leahy, the Lufthansa cancellations affect slots beyond 2015 so does not affect Airbus’s current production run.

"But following the Lufthansa reduction, several more orders for the A380 look shaky. Leahy says that “it is publicly known” that Virgin Atlantic has cancellation rights in its order for six aircraft. He also indicated that Hong Kong Airlines, which has ordered 10 A380, might “convert” its commitment to “other products.”

"Indian operator Kingfisher Airlines is still listed with five orders, although the carrier stopped flying in 2012."

Terrifically-interesting article, KarelXWB, thanks for finding it. And thanks to Leahy too, for being so open and frank. He can afford to be, I guess - given that he's retiring soon.......  

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 73): And thanks to Leahy too, for being so open and frank. He can afford to be

Not just Leahy, Airbus is a very transparent company  

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 72): Airbus is talking to several airlines about firming up positions for the A380 before the end of this year, the manufacturer’s Chief Operating Officer-Customers John Leahy said on the sidelines at the ISTAT Europe conference in Barcelona.

Several orders this year? JL knows his stuff so perhaps he could hit the target of 25 sales for 2013. I suppose he would need Doric to order to get close to that number.

Yes, he also mentioned the Doric order which could be firmed before the end of the year.

[quote=NAV20,reply=73]Terrifically-interesting article, KarelXWB, thanks for finding it. And thanks to Leahy too, for being so open and frank. He can afford to be, I guess - given that he's retiring soon.......


You're missing the actual news in the article: with less than 3 months to go, Leahy is not abandoning his goal of selling 25 A380s by year-end, and says in public that he is close to sealing several deals.

Leahy is not the kind of guy who would say this without a solid basis. He is usually quite cautious with sales predictions.

Also reported by other sources, e.g. (in German):

http://www.finanzen.ch/nachrichten/a...---Leahy-hofft-auf-A380-Zus-682741

Interesting as well are the comments on the Doric order. While Leahy leaves open the possibility that the order might not be finalized by year-end (which would be later than what Airbus and Doric were suggesting at Le Bourget), he is confident that the deal "will not dilute other orders".

Bregier was quoted in the French press yesterday with similar messages, including a declared hope that the Doric deal will help clinch other sales:

« J’ai bon espoir que l’accord avec Doric nous apporte des éléments supplémentaires pour gagner de nouvelles commandes »

http://www.challenges.fr/entreprise/...-a350-qui-rit-a380-qui-pleure.html

By contrast, Leahy’s statements on the Virgin, HK Airlines, and Kingfisher orders contain no news. Leahy just confirms what we have known since a long time (notably from the airlines themselves).

[Edited 2013-10-08 06:11:58]

Quoting Scipio (Reply 77): You're missing the actual news in the article: with less than 3 months to go, Leahy is not abandoning his goal of selling 25 A380s by year-end, and says in public that he is close to sealing several deals. Leahy is not the kind of guy who would say this without a solid basis. He is usually quite cautious with sales predictions.

Indeed he has proven his predictions many times in the market. Making him the number 1 salesman in this industry.  . So let's wait what the year still holds in store for us.

Well the sales target was 30 last year and that didn't quite happen. Also, even if he isn't using spin, the quotes don't indicate that those dreaming of a massive UAE order soon have much basis in reality.

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 79): Well the sales target was 30 last year and that didn't quite happen.

Was it 30 or was it 25 copies? And the year is not over yet.  .

According to a web search the 2012 target was 30

> 2012 gross target was 30 units
> 2013 gross target is 25 units

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 61): Really don't see why? Only two engines to check/service/repair, instead of four? A 50% reduction in servicing time, on the face of it? I opted for only a 30% reduction in cost because the engines concerned are more powerful, and will therefore use more fuel per engine?

Nav, your 30% number has no basis in reality.

The most recent example we have had of a 2-holer and a 4-holer competing head-to-head was B777-300ER vs A340-600. In comparable 9-abreast vs 8-abreast configurations, the difference in fuel burn per seat was generally reported as being in the high single digits. See, for example, this 2005 article, which cites 8-9% based on industry sources:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...hanced-a340-to-take-on-777-203391/

This difference not only reflected the number of engines: the B77W was structurally more efficient (in part due to a wider fuselage), and was a later design. Applying the rule that engine technology evolves at a pace of 1% efficiency gain per year can already explain away about 3% of the B77W's advantage.

In the end, what really settled the battle was not the number of engines, but:

- the 77W's wider/roomier cabin, which allowed 10-abreast seating (even with this 10-abreast seating being much less comfortable than the A340-600's 8-abreast configuration...), and
- Airbus's decision to launch the A350XWB rather than continuing to invest in the A340.

I also seem to recall that Airbus and Rolls Royce assured airlines that maintenance costs of the A340's four Trent-500s were comparable to those of the B777's two GE90's ...

Before that, we had the competition between the B777-200ER and the A340-300. Also in that case, nothing indicates a difference in operating costs coming anywhere close to 30%.

Nav, your 30% number has no basis in reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


Virgin have stated the B787-9 burns 27 percent less than the A340-300 and they are comparable

http://www.virgin-atlantic.com/tridion/images/787nov_tcm4-523607.pdf

[Edited 2013-10-08 09:09:45]

[Edited 2013-10-08 09:16:49]

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 84): Virgin have stated the B787-9 burns 27 percent less than the A340-300 and they are comparable

The A340-300 entered into service in 1993. The B787-9 is scheduled to enter into service in 2014. I think that this 21-year technology difference explains most of the 27 percent difference in fuel burn...

Everything else equal, a modern 4-engined plane will have nothing like a 30% cost disadvantage versus an equally modern 2-engined plane.

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 66): I have a vague memory of Airbus stating that development costs will be amortised in the near future.

That's not mathematically possible. Airbus has yet to reach cash positive status on production units, so there has been no amortization of the dev costs, especially if you consider the time value of money (dev cost ares immaterial at this point though - its all sunk). At this point, Airbus is looking to make profit on future production, fleet support and upgrades.

Why is CX not ordering the A 380? Are they preferring frequency over going big? CX just announced a 4th daily flight to LAX; seems like this route is a perfect candidate for a twice daily A 380 service.

Quoting Scipio (Reply 77): with less than 3 months to go, Leahy is not abandoning his goal of selling 25 A380s by year-end, and says in public that he is close to sealing several deals.

The problem is that 20 of those 25 are to the leasing company Doric Asset Finance, and Leahy is less positive that order will be signed by the end of the year. So a bit mixed signals.

Quoting glbltrvlr (Reply 86): Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 66): I have a vague memory of Airbus stating that development costs will be amortised in the near future. That's not mathematically possible. Airbus has yet to reach cash positive status on production units, so there has been no amortization of the dev costs, especially if you consider the time value of money (dev cost ares immaterial at this point though - its all sunk). At this point, Airbus is looking to make profit on future production, fleet support and upgrades.

As you say the dev costs are gone and spent and "there's no point crying over spilt milk" so it's just a case of how much money they can make back on the A380 in the future. With production break-even approaching this will start to be the case in 2015 I believe.

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 84): Virgin have stated the B787-9 burns 27 percent less than the A340-300 and they are comparable

Why don't you go all the way compare it to a Comet?

Look, there's no question that, at the moment, where the engines are available, you build a twin, but let's not overstate the case by pulling stupid figures out of, well, nowhere. As Scipio points out, the real fuel burn delta between the A346 and 77W was sub 10% (obviously with PIPs and TIPs the 77W has left it standing since). And that's against an airframe that's poorly conceived, wing root extensions done on the cheap (the guys at Wichita identified 5000 lbs they could get out of it), engines done on the cheap, thick skin gauges because of the structure needed to cantilever away from the centre of lift through that short (in height) and long fuselage. All on a misguided bet that fuel would stay cheap and acquisition costs would trump efficiency. Add in 1% for the 2 year difference in EIS it's actually amazing the delta wasn't larger.

I would love to know what the fuel burn difference would have been if propulsion config was the only difference, very low single digits would be my guess, and that could be offset slightly by routings in some cases, and field performance in others. As regards maintenance, I'm trying to find a link, but I recall RR stating that it would cost no more to maintain the 4 trent 500's than the two GE90's. As I understand it, the biggest theoretical win for twins is in dispatch reliability, but the 787 is on a mission to level that particular playing field  .

[Edited 2013-10-08 10:40:12]

As per Airbus's Carcaillet, the A380 will be improved over time, "as and when the market need arises" and "as and when markets and Airbus interest coincide".

However: “For now, the A380 is just the most efficient aircraft on the market – full stop.”

These statements seem consistent with Bregier's musings about a "refresh" around 2020. They suggest we shouldn't expect anything major before then.

Airbus seems confident that it can continue to sell the current A380 for the next few years ...

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...0-improvement-options-open-391478/

Quoting Scipio (Reply 91): As per Airbus's Carcaillet, the A380 will be improved over time, "as and when the market need arises" and "as and when markets and Airbus interest coincide". However: “For now, the A380 is just the most efficient aircraft on the market – full stop.”

At present, it still is. And will be for several years to come.

And what I (and others) have repeatedly said about the runtime of the program:

Quote: This is a 40-year programme we’ve entered into, this is not just one model.

So we can expect an improved A380 for EIS around 2020-2022 or so. With no doubt improved aerodynamics, lower weights, new engines, etc, etc. The fact that there will be more then one model, something we always expected, hints at a possible A380-800R for long range, and/or at the A380-900/-1000. Maybe also as "R-models".

The A380 will be out there for a long time to come. As Astuteman already stated yesterday: "I wonder where our Australian friend is".  .

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 92): “For now, the A380 is just the most efficient aircraft on the market – full stop.”

Ummm, not full stop. Need to add "if the routes exist that allow the operator to fill the aircraft with a financially viable mix of fares on a consistent basis." The fact is that efficiency is not the controlling factor, profitability is. History also suggests that an operator with a single digit need for a particular model of aircraft is also going to have problems meeting the profitability gate.

Quoting glbltrvlr (Reply 93): Ummm, not full stop. Need to add "if the routes exist that allow the operator to fill the aircraft with a financially viable mix of fares on a consistent basis."

But that is also true for the competition. And all things being equal (relatively seen when the size of the different aircraft is taken into account) at present the A380 is the most efficient aircraft on the market. But you are correct that most airlines go for more premium seating in their A380's and the customers are still willing to pay the extra buck to fly premium on an A380. To me the best ride in the sky.  .

Btw, the quote you posted was not mine.  .

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 56): But since the big twins are closing in on efficiency (though there is a lot more to civil aviation then efficiency alone) it might be something worth to think about. Airbus initially wanted a wing with a span of about 84 meters. Now new technologies have been developed, and maybe that wing span is not necessary anymore, but if Airbus will consider a major overhaul for the next generation A380's, it might be worth their while to investigate this option. Along with other improved aerodynamics, new engines and weight optimisations.

Certainly. And another thing I keep thinking about...

The 380F...

Given a choice on where to deploy engineering resources, could airbus look into removing the need for the main deck/upper deck floor? As of now, it is structurally integral to the frame, and this does take a lot away from it capability wise, as it renders the airframe pretty much only useful as a parcel or can carrier. But if that floor were no longer necessary, you would have something at least equal to the 748f capability wise WRT outsized cargo.

I'm not going to address what I think the market might be for this, since I have truly no idea. But the 380 as an outsized cargo carrier would work in terms of sheer lift for distance. As well, it can overcome the disadvantage of not having Nose Loading simply by adding an Aft Ramp, a la 124, C5, and a few others. I understand that wouldn't be the easiest undertaking, but if there were eventually a market for at least 75 - 100 such beasts world wide, I can see that that would indeed be worth the engineering effort to get after.

Now we just need to Keesje to come out of retirement and make us some drawings,  

Quoting art (Reply 60): Simply (and I mean crudely and basically) it gives a ball park capability for aircraft in terms of cost. Was A340 not eclipsed by 777 because 777 cost was lower for similar capability? Similarly was 744 not eclipsed by A340 on a cost basis?

Not really, no. The 744 was only ever really supplemented, not replaced by any 340 series. Especially where the -600 is concerned, most operators that purchased or leased the 346 held onto their 744s; indeed one carrier still operates the later and not the former (though that will not last forever based on their going away from quads in general).

As for the 777, we'd have to be more clear which 777 vs which 340 are we talking about. A 77A is much more efficient, but nowhere near as capable as a 346, while the same can be said of a 343 vs a 77W.

But generally, the reason we see more 777s than 340s today does have as much to do with capability as with cost. And in the case of things like climbout performance (which is a contributor to operational cost and a big part of the reason why 4-eng aircraft really can't hope to compete on cost for segments in the mid-short haul range), there are advantages to twins that quads would have to bring a lot of capability to the table to stay relevant.

There are still things that a 346 can do that a 77W can't, like a MTOW take off from JNB let's say, that keep the type very useful to some operators. IIRC, even the 744 had trouble with that one, which was why SAA went with 346s over their 744s.

Quoting cmf (Reply 64): However, engines are only one part of maintenance.

The most expensive part. To the point that unless there is a very compelling reason, two are always better than four.

Quoting cmf (Reply 64): Let's count high and say it is half.

Honestly, I'd say that's more likely low than high, even for a twin. In addition to much higher per-unit/kg costs for most components, you also have much more frequent inspections, and shorter on-wing times than just about any airframe component there is.

Quoting cmf (Reply 64): How is this a clinching argument? It is a small segment. You should not expect a constant flow of orders.

Not a constant flow, like 50- 100 per year, no. But a few more years like the last few, especially where the 748i is concerned, and we can see that it really is an issue of where the future is headed and less of quad VLAs being a "niche" product.

Quoting cmf (Reply 64): With a few years backlog I don't see how it is time to call the undertaker.

Indeed so. While the future may not be rosy, they aren't dead yet.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 70): Like for example an A80-900 and/or an A380-1000, the famous SUH version.  .

Really, if they're serious about that road (and for the record I do have doubts about that one), they really should just skip right ahead to the 1000. At least with that, the economics of scale really do start to help out. Given that the subtype development cost would be the same, I see Airbus doing better with that, but that's my opinion.

Quoting art (Reply 75): I suppose he would need Doric to order to get close to that number.

Wouldn't hurt, but my read was that Leahy is not factoring this and has 25 other orders.

Quoting Scipio (Reply 85): Everything else equal, a modern 4-engined plane will have nothing like a 30% cost disadvantage versus an equally modern 2-engined plane.

Why not? It isn't just the fuel penalty. There are a lot of factors that work against, not for, quads.

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 95): Why not? It isn't just the fuel penalty. There are a lot of factors that work against, not for, quads.

I thought I and others already answered that question higher up in this thread. We have not seen differences that large in real life between contemporaneous 2- and 4-engined competitors...

What are the main costs related to operating an airliner?

- fuel: four engines gives you a disadvantage, but the A340-B777 experience suggests this disadvantage is in the single digits
- crew: depends on size of the airplane, not the number of engines
- capital costs: the A346 was cheaper than the B77W...
- landing and air traffic fees: a four-engined airplane might have a small disadvantage to the extent that it is heavier for a given size
- maintenance: here we agree that 4 engines will typically be more costly to maintain than 2. However, not twice as costly (smaller engines are cheaper to maintain than bigger engines). And, as pointed out above, maintenance is less than 10% of total costs...
- support services and overhead (catering, baggage handling, other airport services): all this is independent of the number of engines hanging underneath your wings...

I really can't see how one could possibly get to a 30% cost difference purely on the basis of four engines versus two ...

It's an absurd number.

[Edited 2013-10-09 07:47:01]

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 61): Really don't see why? Only two engines to check/service/repair, instead of four? A 50% reduction in servicing time, on the face of it? I opted for only a 30% reduction in cost because the engines concerned are more powerful, and will therefore use more fuel per engine?

And don't forget the pax to pilot ratio also come into play. On a 380 there are far more pax to pay for the people up front - all expenses inclusive - than on a 787....

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 67): But having been in business in another area, I'd reckon that, with a new model that hasn't 'paid for itself' yet, and no new orders of any kind for a year, you'd sure be having a bit of trouble sleeping at night.........

In that case the Airbus CEO might be talking to his also not sleeping counterpart in Boeing who has even bigger problems having the 787 turn arround - both the 380 and the 787 should have been turning in a huge profit on what they have sold by now - none og them have done so unfortunately. But be happy. The 350 seems so far to be breaking the trent.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 94): Btw, the quote you posted was not mine.

Sorry - knew that. Just lazy on my part.

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 95): Given a choice on where to deploy engineering resources, could airbus look into removing the need for the main deck/upper deck floor? As of now, it is structurally integral to the frame, and this does take a lot away from it capability wise, as it renders the airframe pretty much only useful as a parcel or can carrier. But if that floor were no longer necessary, you would have something at least equal to the 748f capability wise WRT outsized cargo.

Unless you want to run the interior unpressurized (like the 747-400LCF), I cannot see how you could do such a thing without making it so much heavier in terms of structural reinforcement that you'd take a significant payload hit.

Also, with the location of the cockpit, you'd either need to hang it off the bottom (ala the A300-600ST) or go with a swinging rear section like the 747-400LCF, which again would likely require it to be unpressurized.