Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
tortugamon
Topic Author
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:52 am

Quoting abba (Reply 98):

What a terribly inaccurate comment. Japan is one of the busiest aviation markets in the world. Between just two airlines in Japan and two in Korea they have nearly 550 wide body aircraft on-hand or on-order. That is more than LH, AF, and KLM combined. In fact just ANA, JL, and KE have more. JL once operated 100 747s at one point.

These markets are extremely significant.

tortugamon
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:23 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 88):
This was a research exercise with 2 universities. It may end up being nothing more than an interesting project for some engineering grads ...

How much shorter this thread would be if everyone could only grasp that point. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.
 
abba
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:43 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 100):
What a terribly inaccurate comment. Japan is one of the busiest aviation markets in the world. Between just two airlines in Japan and two in Korea they have nearly 550 wide body aircraft on-hand or on-order. That is more than LH, AF, and KLM combined. In fact just ANA, JL, and KE have more. JL once operated 100 747s at one point.

Japanese airlines seems to be scaling back on the size of their frames - possibly due to the demografic development in Japan. It is in this context the very point that JL once operated 100 747s. They don't do it any longer! Neither ANA or JAL are obvious candidates for (many) larger aircrafts of the size discussed here.

Concerning inaccuracy: Why do you suddenly include Korea in this? Korea and Korean airlines are at a very different place than Japan and are compleately out of the discussion in this context. They are certainly candidates for a potential new large twin - just as they ordered A380s while neither of the Japanese airlines have done that so far.
 
tortugamon
Topic Author
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Wed Jan 29, 2014 12:11 pm

Quoting abba (Reply 102):

Your quote said anything 'larger than NBs'. When you said two countries I thought you were referring to Korea bc that was PHX's example but if you were talking about the US: UA has 249 wide bodies on hand or on order (that could possibly be more than any airline not in the Middle East ) furthering the point that Japan and US airlines by a very large amount of non-NB aircraft.

tortugamon
 
racercoup
Posts: 408
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:48 pm

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Wed Jan 29, 2014 12:22 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 93):
I have the production advantage of the 787 over the A350 going over 600 units by 2020.

I'm sure you are closer to the truth. I tend to be overly conservative and I was unable to locate any info on A350 production plans.

Quoting india1 (Reply 91):
If you'll see historical year end totals over the past few years for the 787 vs the 350, you'll notice the difference has been coming down to just under 200 currently. So once Airbus got over their earlier dithering, I'd say they've sold the XWB version of the 350 just fine

You're talking orders, I'm talking delivery's.

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 92):
Did you consider the A 330s delivered in that comparison?

The A330 program has absolutely nothing to do with the debate. Or to put a different spin on it, while the A330/777 programs were slugging it out Airbus was busy with the A380 and Boeing was picking up a lead in the 787/A350 competition.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Wed Jan 29, 2014 12:31 pm

Quoting David L (Reply 101):
Quoting astuteman (Reply 88):This was a research exercise with 2 universities. It may end up being nothing more than an interesting project for some engineering grads ...
How much shorter this thread would be if everyone could only grasp that point.

Trouble is, David L, said 'point' is dead wrong. Said research was fully supported by both Airbus and the German Federal Government; it's 'kosher'............

"But could all that be about to change? The Hamburg-based Airbus Future Project Office along with the Universities of Aachen and Hamburg and Germany's aerospace research center DLR participated in a series of studies into large product development. It was partially funded by Airbus and through the federal aviation research program Luftfahrtforschungsprogramm (Lufo).

"The initial trade studies focused on an extremely large twinjet aimed intriguingly at the 470-seat sector now served only by the 747-8. The work pre-dates the official launch of the 777X, as it was concluded in 2012, but sources familiar with the manufacturer's product development work say the New Long Range (NLR) project is attracting growing interest again as Airbus seeks a response to the 777X."


http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/AW_01_27_2014_p29-657272.xml&p=1
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Wed Jan 29, 2014 12:38 pm

Quoting racercoup (Reply 104):
Or to put a different spin on it, while the A330/777 programs were slugging it out Airbus was busy with the A380 and Boeing was picking up a lead in the 787/A350 competition.

I'm still not understanding this statement. The A380 made its first flight long before the first 787 started final assembly. The move from the A350 MkI to the A350 XWB is what really caused the delays.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
PHX787
Posts: 7892
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:46 pm

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:05 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 100):
What a terribly inaccurate comment. Japan is one of the busiest aviation markets in the world. Between just two airlines in Japan and two in Korea they have nearly 550 wide body aircraft on-hand or on-order. That is more than LH, AF, and KLM combined. In fact just ANA, JL, and KE have more. JL once operated 100 747s at one point.

When it comes to Japan, it is about the absolute right amount of seats. Not too many, not too less. JL learned that their 744 fleet was bringing them down in 2009, and they have since shrunk to the 772 and 3.

The 777 models sell quite well in Japan (and same with the similar sized A350) because they have that magic number of seat capacity that JL and NH want, and they're also quite modifyable. The 3-class 77W that NH flies to the states is a prime example.
Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:37 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 105):
Trouble is, David L, said 'point' is dead wrong. Said research was fully supported by both Airbus and the German Federal Government; it's 'kosher'............

Did anyone say it wasn't "kosher" or that Airbus wasn't involved? All sorts of university studies are funded by government and industry. I've taken part in a couple myself. Sometimes they result in further action and sometimes (usually?) they don't. A lot can be gained by one or more involved parties without anything concrete necessarily coming out of it.

The fact that this study took place means nothing unless Airbus says they're going ahead with it. Until then...
 
Flyglobal
Posts: 540
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:25 am

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Wed Jan 29, 2014 2:09 pm

If (and it’s a big if) Airbus ever considers to add another 'big twin' program between the A380 and A350 it should be an 11 abrest (width as the A380 1st Floor) concept aiming at the 420-500 seat market, let’s say called the A370-XWB.
420+x Seats as the base model should be above the 777-9x and cover the 747-8x range as well.
Such a program wouldn't be necessary as an SOP before 2023, but could be launched 2017 and would have the potential to make the further life of the 777-9x more difficult, even by talking just about it.
Airbus just needs to spread rumors continuously saying: we are considering an 11 abrest large twin concept between the 350 line and the 380 line around it, would gain from another 3 years of engine development with even higher pressure ratio and so on, as well as it would be more clean sheet then the 777.

Still the A380 would survive as a re-engine for 2020 has to be done anyhow and also the long awaited A380-900 could be realized, probably around 2025. I don't see the A380 as such a burden as the- 900 is incorporated and the engine technology will benefit from any actual mid twin technologies (just using 4 instead of 2).

Suddenly the Boeing advantage and Airbus disadvantage seen by some posters currently would turn into the opposite.
Boeing would need to do a new clean sheet then.

Still I doubt if Airbus need another line and if the 400 seat market is that big- bot again decisions are not necessary before 2016/ 2017 – until then we at A’Net have a lot of threads to fill with our armchair visions.

Greetings

Flyglobal
 
abba
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Wed Jan 29, 2014 2:11 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 103):
Your quote said anything 'larger than NBs'.

I agree that NBs was a little quick. I ment to include smaler (compared to the mega one we are discussiong here) twins as well.

PHX787 quoted the States and Japan as markets that were not going to take any large twin of the size we are dealing with here and at the same time said that KE and SQ were exceptions to a general rule established by this reference. The proof should be QF and BA where neither would have any succes with their big aircrafts. The starge part of the logic was that SQ and EK were running the kagaroo route. As far as I know QF and BA are located at each end of that very route....

KE was then in a special situation.

However, I believe that the US and Japan are not etsbalishing a general rule world wide as both are rather unique markets where smaller twins - perhaps the 350/773 being the upper limmit - are standard.
 
tortugamon
Topic Author
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Wed Jan 29, 2014 2:48 pm

Quoting abba (Reply 110):

I agree that by looking at Japan and the US you cannot gain enough rationale to support building a 400+ seat aircraft. I don't see either nations' airlines being significant buyers.

The one thing I do know is that I wouldn't want to build any new projects above 400 seats until we see the impact of the A350 787 and 777x. Many people say that airports adapt. These existing twins can connect all relevant airports at a fuel cost that is lower than an A380 (current version). If airports do adapt (build more runways, gates, etc) then airlines will chose frequency over costlier capacity and the market for VLAs will suffer.

When the dust settles from these aircraft there will certainly be an ever increasing need for larger aircraft but I don't think I would want to get out in front of this sea change until the writing is on the wall.

I thinking improving existing aircraft and launching derivatives is the ideal Airbus strategy for the next decade.

tortugamon
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Wed Jan 29, 2014 3:54 pm

Reply 111.

This IMHO is right.There needs to be a big pause for breath.The market dynamics and aircraft that create these changes are starting to come on stream.Not just the above (Long Thin) planes but of course the (Big Fat) 388.
Taking a look on the new thread covering Emirates home base and its phenomenal traffic growth we are starting (only starting) to see the 388 'effect'.This is a 'one stop' strategy. The 787/350 is the other end of the argument. Downsizing economically and going where possible for premium traffic..
But as stated it is very very early days - a handful of 388's a handful of 787's aand no 350's till next year..

The wize choice is to let it all settle down a little and then see where we are...
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24793
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Wed Jan 29, 2014 4:00 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 88):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 85):
but perhaps the data they gathered showed the mating was not very good.

Or perhaps it showed it was awesome ... who knows?

I thought the context was pretty clear: "An NLR project would also likely end any A380 reengining effort, which is seen internally as extremely challenging in terms of engine/wing integration and aerodynamics.".

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 92):
So why is EK asking RR and EA for an improvement of up to 10%?

I'm sure they're asking, but not sure they're willing to pay for the R&D needed to get there. I imagine Airbus also needs to be convinced that it's worth the opportunity cost and to throw good money after bad.

Quoting David L (Reply 108):
The fact that this study took place means nothing unless Airbus says they're going ahead with it.

I'm sure the amount of money and staff time Airbus spent on this is very small, but it's still intriguing that they would be doing it, especially seeing this addresses such an obvious weakness their product line.

Unfortunately for Airbus the big twin technology wasn't there when they were trying to decide whether or not to go forward with A380 or not.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
abba
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Wed Jan 29, 2014 4:45 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 111):
The one thing I do know is that I wouldn't want to build any new projects above 400 seats until we see the impact of the A350 787 and 777x.

I agree to that too!
 
tortugamon
Topic Author
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Wed Jan 29, 2014 4:49 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 112):

Couldn't agree more.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 113):

I find it odd that EK is asking the engine guys for improvements rather than Airbus. At the time of the 50 unit order Sir Tim Clark was vocal about telling the Airbus board that the A380 is more than viable. This is telling in my opinion


tortugamon
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4416
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Wed Jan 29, 2014 4:59 pm

The 787/350 lend themselves very well to the 1Stop strategy. I suspect that as well as a few P2Ps, increasingly Seattle/Portland sized airports will have 1Stops almost every similar sized and larger airport in the world.

One airline will not provide it all as the Emirates do, who are increasingly have a universal presence. Rather some airlines will offer service from Portland to western Asia, SE Asia, somewhere on the Mediterranean. Essentially a long hop to a region and a narrow body to anything within NB range. And the NBs likely could be code share.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4123
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Wed Jan 29, 2014 5:14 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 105):
Trouble is, David L, said 'point' is dead wrong. Said research was fully supported by both Airbus and the German Federal Government; it's 'kosher'............

Trouble is, do you know how many of these research studies are performed "fully supported by both Airbus and a Government"?
Do you know just how many of those turn out into real projects?
And what evidence do we have on the seriousness of this particular study?

Please do not hesitate to share your insight, as I have no idea, and would wonder how you arrive at such strong conclusions based on thin ice.

One would wonder whether the time scale would be most limited by Airbus engineering resources, or the engine OEM resources. I’d expect a fully new center line of engine for such a project, at around 125000 lb, with built-in margins to go to 135000 lbs.

As much as I like the idea, I do not see such a project EIS in 2023, when launched in 2017.

PW100
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
astuteman
Posts: 7184
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Wed Jan 29, 2014 7:16 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 93):
If this big Twin does get launched I do have a hard time seeing a viable market for the A380

Well, the current version anyway..

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 93):
One if the reasons why I don't think it will happen any time soon.

sorry, my friend. But I believe it's a myth that Airbus will protect the A380 at any cost. In fact, I'd suggest that EK's concern over Airbus's actions is sure evidence that Airbus will do what the market requires

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 105):
Trouble is, David L, said 'point' is dead wrong. Said research was fully supported by both Airbus and the German Federal Government; it's 'kosher'............

trouble is, NAV, none of that makes his (or my) point even remotely wrong

Quoting David L (Reply 108):
Did anyone say it wasn't "kosher" or that Airbus wasn't involved? All sorts of university studies are funded by government and industry

But David, it's SO much more fun to brand this as some sort of spoiling tactic by Airbus, and that the ONLY proof otherwise is that they actually launch the damn thing - a view put forward by respected posters on here who REALLY ought to be a bit more circumspect in their opinions..

Quoting Revelation (Reply 113):
I thought the context was pretty clear: "An NLR project would also likely end any A380 reengining effort, which is seen internally as extremely challenging in terms of engine/wing integration and aerodynamics.".

the context of the journo is pretty clear ..

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 115):
I find it odd that EK is asking the engine guys for improvements rather than Airbus. At the time of the 50 unit order Sir Tim Clark was vocal about telling the Airbus board that the A380 is more than viable. This is telling in my opinion

I don't disagree, to be honest.
It's fascinating though, that avid supporters of these big twins don't seem to see either the 777X or this mythical big Airbus twin as reinforcement that actually, VLA's (provided the economics are right), are a VERY long way from being dead..

Rgds
 
tortugamon
Topic Author
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Wed Jan 29, 2014 7:27 pm

In my latest, and last, installment of answers to questions no one is asking I have mapped out A380 routes for SE Asia A380 operators.

For Thai, Malaysia, and SQ the longest A380 route is 5,878 and the average is 3,827 great circle nautical miles. Unless there is tremendous cargo on these routes (unlikely) these operators do not need full A380 range. It appears that these operators do not need 8knm+ range.

Here is a map of all of the routes;
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=KUL-hkg...Adisc7%2B%22%25U%2212&MS=wls&DU=nm

route source:http://www.routesonline.com/news/29/breaking-news/211486/where-does-the-a380-fly-august-2013-network-update/

It appears to me that a simple stretch to the 777x could play a role if 779 sales remain strong. I am not sure if the same holds true for an A350-1100 but I suspect so.

tortugamon
 
SchorschNG
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:40 am

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Wed Jan 29, 2014 8:23 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 119):
It appears that these operators do not need 8knm+ range.

Since when does it have 8000nm range?
I would credit it with 6500-7000nm range.
Deduct 15-20% to get reliable, all-year all weather range with full payload.
That gives you 5800nm range.

SYD-LAX was 6500nm and apparently the early A380s barely made it (just passengers). Newer versions with better engines, slightly less empty weight and the re-twisted wing will probably make it with some weight to spare. Don't know how weather-prone the actual distance is.
From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Wed Jan 29, 2014 8:54 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 118):
But David, it's SO much more fun to brand this as some sort of spoiling tactic by Airbus

Apparently, though I believe that some people really believe that they believe it.  
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Thu Jan 30, 2014 5:20 am

Quoting PW100 (Reply 117):
Please do not hesitate to share your insight, as I have no idea, and would wonder how you arrive at such strong conclusions based on thin ice.
Quoting astuteman (Reply 118):
But David, it's SO much more fun to brand this as some sort of spoiling tactic by Airbus, and that the ONLY proof otherwise is that they actually launch the damn thing

Don't know how much of this quarrelling is based on stuff I've posted. But, for the record, all I've said (and more or less proved) is that Airbus appear actively to be considering a 'big twin' of their own? And that they appear (wisely in my view) to be aiming it at higher passenger loads than those likely to be achieved by the ''next-generation' B778/9s?

That's only sensible on their part, seems to me? And I for one have definitely not made any mention of 'spoiling tactics' etc.?

So why all the evident hostility?

[Edited 2014-01-29 21:26:18]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1869
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Thu Jan 30, 2014 5:34 am

Quoting Nav20 (Reply 122):
Don't know how much of this quarrelling is based on stuff I've posted. But, for the record, all I've said (and more or less proved) is that Airbus appear actively to be considering a 'big twin' of their own? And that they appear (wisely in my view) to be aiming it at higher passenger loads than those likely to be achieved by the ''next-generation' B778/9s?

Airbus would be remiss if they weren't following a process of continually review the market, and how their product addresses the current and future demand. It is standard for all businesses to do so. The concept was proposed and evaluated a few years ago, but Airbus has not done any actual development on it yet. When they are ready, when they have considered the other options that they are no doubt looking at, they will act.
 
tortugamon
Topic Author
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Thu Jan 30, 2014 8:53 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 118):
Well, the current version anyway..

I am extremely anxious to learn about what they are going to do to it next. I don't think they can wait more than a year or two before launching something and I can't wait.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 118):
t I believe it's a myth that Airbus will protect the A380 at any cost. In fact, I'd suggest that EK's concern over Airbus's actions is sure evidence that Airbus will do what the market requires

I don't think they will protect it at any cost but I think they will spend money elsewhere before they compete with themselves. There is a lot of potential in the frame and I see them dropping to a low run rate and letting the market inevitably come to them before I see them launching a competitive aircraft. Its not unrealistic to assume that in 10-15 years QR, EY, and TK will be more like EK is today and that business model really does not work without the A380. They have time to decide.

I do wonder if an aircraft can survive in this market by delivering ~30 units a year. If the market moves slowly enough it could work but when you need engine OEMs to spend Billions and then have to re-do it every 15 years (even with 4 engines) to stay competitive with other models it loses its value pretty quick. I imagine we will see only one engine oem with the next set of improvements. And the A380 is only 10% more expensive than a 779 at list. Difficult economic realities.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 118):
It's fascinating though, that avid supporters of these big twins don't seem to see either the 777X or this mythical big Airbus twin as reinforcement that actually, VLA's (provided the economics are right), are a VERY long way from being dead..

There is certainly a need for VLAs but I think its tough sledding for the current ones though. I don't think there is an inherent problem with VLAs its that these twins have unfathomable economics. Ferpe's fuel burn numbers seem to indicate that two A350-1000s will burn the same amount of fuel as one A380 on a 6knm mission. (748 is obviously worse) That is ~175 extra people and more flexibility in route planning. The staff and the aircraft will cost more and you may not have two slots but those are difficult economics for a VLA to operate under, in my opinion. Once the A380 improvements come into effect and I assume the fuel burn will reset back to below these smaller twins I think the demand will pick up. By my calculations Airbus needs to get a 15% fuel burn improvement which is a lot but I think they can do it. New engines, wing tips and 11-abreast in Y... If I were in the market for a VLA right now, I would wait until these improvements are incorporated otherwise A351s and 777x look very good. I think CX has the right idea.

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 120):
Since when does it have 8000nm range?
I would credit it with 6500-7000nm range.

I was trying to make the point that it need not have 8knm range. I am not sure if they can even produce a 777-10 but I do know it would be a lot harder, more expensive, and more unrealistic to produce an 8knm 777-10. 6,500-7,000 seems realistic to me.

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 120):
That gives you 5800nm range.

Which is enough for 90% of A380 routes and 7/10 current operators. Its not a slam dunk but I think some operators can find value in it. The most efficient aircraft in the sky always has a place   It would need support of the ME3 before it gets off the drawing board though.

Quoting Nav20 (Reply 122):
Don't know how much of this quarrelling is based on stuff I've posted.

I think their point Nav is that of course they have considered making a big twin; they consider everything. This is just one study that leaked out but they probably have a couple dozen other ones that are equally likely to not get built. I think they are suggesting to not take this study as confirmation of Airbus' next move, rather its evidence of their commitment to knowing their options and capabilities while simultaneously fostering ingenuity and growing talent locally by working with universities.

tortugamon
 
airways1
Posts: 538
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 1999 3:05 am

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Thu Jan 30, 2014 9:14 am

If we're specuting up to 2030, who knows, by then there may be other manufacturers in the picture. I wouldn't be surprised if China has something on the cards by then.
 
SchorschNG
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:40 am

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Thu Jan 30, 2014 10:21 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 124):
There is certainly a need for VLAs but I think its tough sledding for the current ones though. I don't think there is an inherent problem with VLAs its that these twins have unfathomable economics. Ferpe's fuel burn numbers seem to indicate that two A350-1000s will burn the same amount of fuel as one A380 on a 6knm mission.

Right, reasoning a VLA just for its capacity in respect to capacity constraints will make a very weak VLA. It has to offer better economics. Unfortunately, this becomes ever harder.

Definition of VLA: I would simply call any aircraft substantially larger than the rest of the market a VLA. The B747-400 in early 2000s (with A340-600 and B777-300ER being not that far away in capacity) does not represent a true VLA any more, while is surely was a VLA in the early 1990ies.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 124):
I was trying to make the point that it need not have 8knm range. I am not sure if they can even produce a 777-10 but I do know it would be a lot harder, more expensive, and more unrealistic to produce an 8knm 777-10. 6,500-7,000 seems realistic to me.

The last 1000nm hurt most and have a significant impact on my design. Hence, I would actually keep clear of extra long ranges on a VLA. B777-9 and A350-1000 can use up their surplus payload-range capability by transporting cargo in their huge belly freight holds. An A380 cannot.
From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
 
abba
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Thu Jan 30, 2014 10:53 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 124):
I do wonder if an aircraft can survive in this market by delivering ~30 units a year. If the market moves slowly enough it could work but when you need engine OEMs to spend Billions and then have to re-do it every 15 years (even with 4 engines) to stay competitive with other models it loses its value pretty quick.

The important trick here is to have engine commonality between the 380 and a small twin a la the 330 in order to ensure the volume that will allow engines to be continuously improved. This on its own promotes the case of a 330NEO and perhaps at a later date a successor. These two planes are somehow linked in terms of destiny. That might be what Airbus is realizing these days as they admit to be studying a 330neo

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 124):
New engines,

Do not underestimate this one. What Ferpe's calculations also show is that the main reason why the 777x can be as competitive as it happens to be to a significant extent is due to the 777x having newer engines. Engine technology is the primary driver of improvements these days.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 124):
I was trying to make the point that it need not have 8knm range.

One thing is nominal range. Another - with an increasing delta due to improved fuel burn - is real life range.
 
tortugamon
Topic Author
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:03 am

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 126):
The last 1000nm hurt most and have a significant impact on my design. Hence, I would actually keep clear of extra long ranges on a VLA. B777-9 and A350-1000 can use up their surplus payload-range capability by transporting cargo in their huge belly freight holds. An A380 cannot.

It may not be a VLA but Airbus should be the first to try this ~400 seat simple shrink. I think it would take the A350 to about 80m to do the job. If they don't do the A358 I think there is a chance they will do it. It will be tough because it will be the similar capacity as the 779 but won't have the capability. Not sure how much better it needs to be on economics to take enough share and rationalize the investment. The 777-10 would have the benefit of really being in a market segment by itself (assuming the 748 is gone) at around 460 seats. There is a big gap there in between 407 and 525 and if the A380 grows to the A389 (650 passengers) this gap will be enormous. Having an ultra long haul family member,a long haul, and regional family member should help to support it as it will have commonality.

You are right about the extra 1000nm hurting efficiency. I just don't know if a niche airplane can afford to be even more niche by not being able to do every mission.

tortugamon
 
TP313
Posts: 286
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 12:37 am

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:20 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 128):
I think it would take the A350 to about 80m to do the job

78.5 m (7 frames added) will do the job.
This will be more than enough to accomodate the characteristics I listed in the post above:

Quoting TP313 (Reply 99):
If Airbus, by ways of aerodynamic and engine optimization (supposing one can still extract a few more tonnes of thrust from the Trent XWB) can get a 350-1100 to carry 380 pax in 3 classes across 8000 nm, without losing too much commonality,
this study will go directly to the dustbin.

(...) it would be the perfect 10-across 77W replacement...


[Edited 2014-01-30 03:24:44]

[Edited 2014-01-30 03:26:06]
 
tortugamon
Topic Author
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:38 am

Quoting abba (Reply 127):
The important trick here is to have engine commonality between the 380 and a small twin a la the 330 in order to ensure the volume that will allow engines to be continuously improved. This on its own promotes the case of a 330NEO and perhaps at a later date a successor.

It certainly would be the dream scenario. It didn't work out too well for the 748 though.

Quoting abba (Reply 127):
Do not underestimate this one. What Ferpe's calculations also show is that the main reason why the 777x can be as competitive as it happens to be to a significant extent is due to the 777x having newer engines. Engine technology is the primary driver of improvements these days.

The engine technology on the A380 isn't exactly old. And as the A380 hasn't really flown off the shelves as planned I am sure the current engine partners would like more time to try to recoup their investment. It will be interesting to watch.

Quoting TP313 (Reply 129):
78.5 m (7 frames added) will do the job.

Sure, I was trying to get closer to 400 seats. 380 would be a good 77W 10-abreast replacement and more comfortable too. If you look at a list of the longest routes you will see it dotted by the 77W. At that size I do wonder how many customers need the 6km+ range and if they would see the A350-1100 as an adequate replacement. I also wonder how many use their 77W's freight capability. That is why I did the work on the A380 because we are reasonably confident that airline's aren't using it to haul too much freight so it really comes down to range. Its a harder task, in my opinion, when trying to analyze the 77W. I just don't know.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:53 am

Quoting TP313 (Reply 129):
78.5 m (7 frames added) will do the job.
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 130):
Sure, I was trying to get closer to 400 seats. 380 would be a good 77W 10-abreast replacement and more comfortable too.

You have to stretch it in a way it adds another 40 seats. A -1100 with 390 seats would burn almost 10% less trip fuel than a 407 seat 779 on similar missions. And if we adjust the cabin to the same OEM configuration, seat count should be around the same (remember, Boeing uses a tighter pitch in J and F).

[Edited 2014-01-30 04:09:58]
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2861
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:55 am

So what happens if the cost of Av Fuel falls in half over the next 10 years to this market - this is definitely a possibility given the new supplies being found.

Does this favor the smaller WB/ higher frequency strategy - or the Mega 4 Holer Concept.

Personally I believe it happens and Boeings strategy of 14+ 787's a month doesn't seem so crazy - the 787/330NEO class - the new NB!
 
TP313
Posts: 286
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 12:37 am

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:00 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 131):
A -1100 with 390 seats would burn almost 10% less fuel than a 407 seat 779 on similar missions.

I don't know... replicating the 10-abreast 77W performance in a lighter CFRP frame should still
burn less fuel, be easier to do and a cheaper option for those that don't need the very last tonnes/n.m.
that the 779 performance offers.
 
tortugamon
Topic Author
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:09 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 131):
A -1100 with 390 seats would burn almost 10% less fuel than a 407 seat 779 on similar missions.

I can see about 4% savings because of the stretch (similar to the 787-10 vs the 787-9) and 4% savings because there are 4% less seats but I can't find the other 2%.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 132):
So what happens if the cost of Av Fuel falls in half over the next 10 years to this market - this is definitely a possibility given the new supplies being found.

I think airlines will delay their purchases if gas drops in price. The new frames become less valuable. Inflation would drop and interest rates could decline (can they?) spurring more capability to purchase but I think, on a whole, the manufacturers aren't interested in cheap fuel.

tortugamon
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 1014
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:11 pm

Quoting jayunited (Reply 22):
Okay but Airbus had that opportunity the A350 program was a clean sheet design. So now my question is did Airbus purposely hold back the A35J in terms or performance and capacity to try and coax potential customers into the A380?

The heart of the market for Airbus (very successful), was the 77E replacement, the A359. Working good there. A3510 is good in it's space (77W), but not quite as good as the A359.

A359 is a better overall performer than the A3510 and the 77W than the 77E. Different sweet spots engineering wise, each design has one.

So the A3510, a newer but less optimal family design has a bigger task in overtaking the older but optimal 77W.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:47 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 134):
I can see about 4% savings because of the stretch (similar to the 787-10 vs the 787-9) and 4% savings because there are 4% less seats but I can't find the other 2%.

I had the numbers from ferpe, see here (3rd quote in reply #124).
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
tortugamon
Topic Author
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:22 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 136):
I had the numbers from ferpe, see here (3rd quote in reply #124).

Thanks.
Looks like you have re-posted that for me twice. My bad.

One of these days I have to get Mr ferpe to explain to me how the A351 doesn't gain much in terms of fuel burn per m2 vs the A359 but somehow the A350-1100 can add more powerful engines and a ~6m stretch and beef up the MLG and fly nearly as far while consuming 10% less fuel. (This assumes that fuel burn for the A351 and 779 are the same) And how that can be done with only 3k of additional thrust when it takes 13k additional between the A359 and A351 and the latter has the wing extensions. Those are some magical scimtar wing tips.   Comparatively the 787-10 gains 4% and that is a simple stretch which is very different from the A350-1100 stretch mentioned.

I get confused when it is stated that the A350 can also be an excellent performer at the ~79m length vs a frame like the 779 which is supposedly optimized for that dimension. Never before has one wing been so versatile to be able to work superbly well at fuse lengths that are 12m+ apart. I kinda view it like this:

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 135):
A359 is a better overall performer than the A3510 and the 77W than the 77E. Different sweet spots engineering wise, each design has one.

The first version of the 777 performed well at the 77E size but not so well at the 773 size. The 77W performed well at that size but was overkill at the 77L size.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:29 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 137):
One of these days I have to get Mr ferpe to explain to me how the A351 doesn't gain much in terms of fuel burn per m2 vs the A359

The -1100 stretch would require less weight increase than the -1000 does.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 137):
~6m stretch

Adding 40 seats would require 4-5 meters additional stretch.

[Edited 2014-01-30 05:50:41]
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
SchorschNG
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:40 am

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:50 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 137):
The first version of the 777 performed well at the 77E size but not so well at the 773 size. The 77W performed well at that size but was overkill at the 77L size.

The B777-200ER offered a new class of aircraft: long range twin engine aircraft.

Aircraft are usually bought for range and cost, capacity is secondary. If an airline has the choice of
Aircraft A with 7000nm range potential, 330 seats and 100 fuel burn units per seat-km
Aircraft B with 7000nm range potential, 380 seats and 105 fuel burn units per seat-km
It will more often chose Aircraft A. It is more resilent versus drops in demand, too. So, if I was Airbus, I wouldn't be too concerned about "seat gaps". There is a huge seat gap between the A321 and B787, and no one appears to be willing to fill this void (because the resulting aircraft will probably have more fuel burn per seat than larger or smaller aircraft).
From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
 
tortugamon
Topic Author
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:58 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 138):
Because the A351 is 20 tons heavier and differs 10% in parts from the A359, while the -1100 would be around 10 tons heavier (7 tons for the stretch, 3 tons for 2 additional exit doors and the heavier engines) and would differ less than 10% in parts (for example, the -1000 MLG can already handle a MTOW of 320 tons).

I guess I don't understand why the 787-10 stretch doesn't add more doors nor heavier engines and results in less efficiency improvement and more range drop than the A350-1100 does.

If these numbers work out I wonder if anyone will order the A351.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Thu Jan 30, 2014 2:08 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 140):
I guess I don't understand why the 787-10 stretch doesn't add more doors nor heavier engines and results in less efficiency improvement and more range drop than the A350-1100 does.

With 4 Type A doors, the 787-10 has a pax limit of 440 which is fine. A two-class -1100 however will exceed 440 seats (because it already holds 390 seats in three-class) and therefore needs two more exit limits. Otherwise nobody will be able to use it in a 2-class cabin configuration. To save weight, Airbus can use a smaller Type III door like Boeing will do on the 779, resulting in a pax limit of 475.

http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part25-807-FAR.shtml

As for the range, you can see the A350 has a very low wing loading.

[Edited 2014-01-30 06:10:18]
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24793
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Thu Jan 30, 2014 2:08 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 124):
I don't think they will protect it at any cost but I think they will spend money elsewhere before they compete with themselves.

One concept then could be to (finally?) do the A380-900 and then this new big twin would slot in between it and the current A350s.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 124):
Ferpe's fuel burn numbers seem to indicate that two A350-1000s will burn the same amount of fuel as one A380 on a 6knm mission. (748 is obviously worse) That is ~175 extra people and more flexibility in route planning. The staff and the aircraft will cost more and you may not have two slots but those are difficult economics for a VLA to operate under, in my opinion. Once the A380 improvements come into effect and I assume the fuel burn will reset back to below these smaller twins I think the demand will pick up. By my calculations Airbus needs to get a 15% fuel burn improvement which is a lot but I think they can do it. New engines, wing tips and 11-abreast in Y...

Indeed should be interesting how Airbus copes with this basic math issue.

It's hard to see where the ROI comes in any of the A380 scenarios. The cheap and cheerful A380 re-engine doesn't seem to provide enough benefit to garner new attention from the market. The expensive and gloomy A380 re-do (custom engines, cabin and aero tweaks, perhaps the -900 too) may get more market interest yet much more will be needed to return positive ROI. Meanwhile the fact remains that A380 already owns its market segment with no competition threats anywhere to be seen, other than perhaps lease returns of A380s undermining new A380 sales.

A mega-spend for an all-new big twin will cause just as many ROI issues. The 777X is busily grabbing up much of the available market share. The gamble would be that there is enough business to be had to justify the mega-spend and any collateral damage against A350 and A380.

Personally, if it were me, I'd be most inclined to let the A380 wither on the vine and proceed along the lines of the new big twin. That is not the message Airbus is sending, but it's obvious that they wouldn't be sending such a message until the last possible minute.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
EnviableOne
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2013 10:23 am

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Thu Jan 30, 2014 2:23 pm

Personally with the way the technology is going, the market for VLAs may not be dead but, the market for Four engines is definitely on its last legs.

From what I can see, the NLR was targeted as a smaller, more efficient, twin engine Large aircraft and looks like a direct competitor to the Boeing Y3 (Yellowstone large aircraft) that has been further delayed.

but if Airbus was to go ahead with it, you can see Boeing bring it forward.
A wise man speaks because has something to say, a fool speaks because he has to say something - Plato
 
tortugamon
Topic Author
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Thu Jan 30, 2014 3:18 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 141):

All of that makes sense. This is what doesn't. Below are the fuel burn stats from ferpe. I think the A351 figure may have changed by .02 or something but I think they are largely up to date.

...................Block fuel t.........l/100km/m2
787-8.............58.9..................2.96
787-9.............63.2..................2.76
787-10...........67.9..................2.65
350-800.........62.5..................2.86
350-900.........66.2..................2.64
350-1000........75.5..................2.65
777-8.............79.5..................2.80
777-9.............84.4..................2.63
777-300ER......94.1..................3.12
340-600........103.8..................3.66
747-400........123.8..................3.96
747-8i...........118.8..................3.25
380-800........149.7..................3.08

So the 787-10 burns 3.9% less fuel per l/100km/m2 than the 787-9. And it is a simple stretch with no additional doors, wing tips, or engine weight. It also adds 40 seats.

Now in order for the A350-1100 to beat the 777-9 by 10% it would have to have to burn ~2.37 per l/100km/m2 or 10.6% better than the stated A351 figure of 2.65. So they both add about 40 seats but the A351 adds 2 doors and heavier engines and improves vs the A351 2.5X what the 787-10 does vs the 789? I get the wing-loading and the wing tips but I just don't see it.

One possible explanation is that these fuel burn figures are for a 6knm mission and if they are re-run for a 4knm mission the 787-10 drops to a much lower rate.

tortugamon
 
SchorschNG
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:40 am

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Thu Jan 30, 2014 3:20 pm

Quoting EnviableOne (Reply 143):
Personally with the way the technology is going, the market for VLAs may not be dead but, the market for Four engines is definitely on its last legs.

At some point there are simply no engines large enough. Any aircraft in the size of an A380 will retain 4 engines. No engine manufacturer wants to produce 150klbf-engines. The question is if a 3-engine aircraft might be better off than 4-engine aircraft. I actually doubt that, because the saving of one engine does not compensate the headache assiciated with the structural and system layout.

Quote:
From what I can see, the NLR was targeted as a smaller, more efficient, twin engine Large aircraft and looks like a direct competitor to the Boeing Y3 (Yellowstone large aircraft) that has been further delayed.

Many of these studies focus at analyzing what a competitor could do. Breaking the 80m length limit is a severe obstacle, but easier than breaking the span limit. Airbus uses especially this configuration to see what new and rather strange technologies might yield in such aircraft class. The study was launched before the T7X was out. There was the option of Boeing to make a whole new aircraft family. After it got burned with the B787, B747 and B737 the hunger for new aircraft families is probably reduced.

Boeing has likewise a whole room full of A380 look-alikes.
From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
 
airfrnt
Posts: 2174
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:05 am

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Thu Jan 30, 2014 3:41 pm

As much as I wish as a economist / sustainable aviation fan that Airbus finally understands sunk cost and avoidable future cost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs) the pragmatist in me sees the fact that the A380 was pitched as the post-child for the EU and European integration. The cold hard reality is that politics will never allow Airbus to go after a space it could and should win - a mega-twin. On top of that, Airbus is in a innovator's dilemma here. They really can't do something that would undercut their "innovation" - the A380.

it's interesting that word of this even escaped. But I suspect that this is on accident, not that the political forces protecting the A380 at Airbus have weakened.
 
tortugamon
Topic Author
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Thu Jan 30, 2014 3:47 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 142):
One concept then could be to (finally?) do the A380-900 and then this new big twin would slot in between it and the current A350s.

Something tells me that a clean sheet 460 seat CFRP big twin would do a number on the business case for an A380-900.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 142):
Personally, if it were me, I'd be most inclined to let the A380 wither on the vine and proceed along the lines of the new big twin

I think it is valuable to consider the impact of replacement market/timing when it comes to aircraft launch. I think Boeing waited to launch the 777x because they were afraid to get too far in front of the 77W replacement market which really doesn't start up in earnest until the middle of next decade. The A380 seemed to be timed to hit the 747 replacement market.

Likewise a launch of a big twin now would have a tough time fitting into most airlines' plan and what aircraft would it replace anyway? What airline doesn't have orders in place for its 10 year large aircraft plan anyway? DL? EK seems content using A380s to replace A380s and they certainly aren't waiting for an A389 which makes me think it is not coming any time soon. We knew the 777x was coming because Sir Tim Clark was very vocal about it years in advance. He has not mentioned an A389 in a long while.

I think Airbus will wait until they have a plan to beat the A380 by at least 15%, primarily with engines and without a stretch (who is asking for a bigger A380?!) and then they will update it. Its not worth doing it for a 10% improvement. I don't think it will enter service before 2025.


I think there will be a lull in the launch of new large airplanes for another decade or so or until engine manufacturers find another 10-15% somewhere. Until then we will have derivatives. Its been a great 10 year period of aircraft development I think the next 10 will be very boring in comparison.

Quoting AirFRNT (Reply 146):
t's interesting that word of this even escaped. But I suspect that this is on accident, not that the political forces protecting the A380 at Airbus have weakened.

I think that the fact that we have heard about it is a statement to how little Airbus thinks of it.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2578
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:31 pm

I think they will go ahead with this, but not full on until the A350 series is done and selling in bucket loads. By 2030, the A380 is going to be far too inefficient, and I believe Airbus would rather develop an A360 and stretch that into the A380 pax segment later on.
 
SchorschNG
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:40 am

RE: Airbus Mega-Twin Concept

Thu Jan 30, 2014 8:13 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 147):
I think there will be a lull in the launch of new large airplanes for another decade or so or until engine manufacturers find another 10-15% somewhere. Until then we will have derivatives. Its been a great 10 year period of aircraft development I think the next 10 will be very boring in comparison.

I think even the engine manufacturers are running out of steam at some point.
Another 15% of the fuel burn is approaching physical limits.
The current A380 engines are how much above the B777X and A350 engines?
I would guess something like 5 to 10% in SFC, but some of that will be cashed by airframe changes.
A 5% overall fuel burn gain on the A380, combined with either a modest stretch (not the full 80m) and/or some "internal stretching" might do the job for some customers.

I think the big manufacturers should rest with big twin jets for a while to prevent this L1011/DC10 scenario.

I am Western World centric, so I think both should be ready to see what comes from China or elsewhere to react. As often said, there is also a gap in the lower widebody line (below B787), especially for medium ranges.
From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos