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

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:54 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 169):
But on thinking about it it does make some sense.

It does but I have to admit to being surprised. Still looking for a reason not to believe it.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 170):
Of course, the A3510 will have a similar fuel burn advantage over the A388.

Of course. I don't think the moral of this analysis is that the A388 is an inefficient aircraft its a statement to how much of a force these twin aircraft are (all of them).

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 170):
It puts into context Richard Aboulafia's comments in Leeham's video posting where he says that the A380 really only works for the ME3 and their unique position in the world airline market.

It does. Everything they fly is trunk routes indeed. Its a great business model. I wonder if the ME3 didn't exist would more airlines have bought A380s? I suspect so. This trend though just means that more airlines need to buy big twins and it looks like they won't be at that big of a disadvantage.

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 171):
I have suggested before that the 389 may be built when the 388 cannot compete against newer twins.

I think we will see airlines filling the A388 with more seats before we see an A389. When it reaches the density figures similar to the 777 then I think we know airlines are looking for more capacity and confident they can fill it.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 174):
I don't have so much time to model in these day but had a quick check when this whole things started and the figures did not seem totally wrong from what I could see.

I have to say ferpe that whether or not you agree with Leeham's conclusions you have to agree that your work is being substantiated yet again as being fair and accurate. In a very polarizing place your work appears to be above reproach. Thank you.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 175):
Also the quality of the experience. Airlines have deliberately made the A380 a better experience as a selling point.

Right and airlines have stated that they can get ~3% in additional revenue per seat because of it. Lets factor that in as its a known figure but it doesn't make up for double digit differences in fuel burn.

Quoting zeke (Reply 176):
Their datum is 525 seats, why are you all of a sudden increasing density ?

I don't think right-sizing is just about reducing the 777 seats, its about increasing the A380 seats like Airbus is now marketing it as as a ~560 seat aircraft and like Leeham is doing in their work for the neo versions.

Honest question: if EK sends both A380s and 777s to the same locations (LAX for example) and they operate both aircraft why can't we take the seating that EK uses on both of their aircraft and go from there? Same operator, same clientele, same destination. Making up fictitious seating numbers and answering a question that nobody is asking: what would the difference be? - is certainly worse then answering the question What is the difference?

Quoting zeke (Reply 176):
All of the types I mention have special taxi charts, limited gates, and taxi restrictions worldwide

Relevant airports don't need multi-million dollar renovations to handle the A330 or the 777.

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 177):
According to the CMO page 34, there will be 760 new 'large' passenger widebody deliveries and 610 new 'large' freighter widebody deliveries 2013 to 2032.

I see the problem, you are looking at Boeing's CMO. I was referring to Airbus'. Check it out. Its interesting to see where the differences lie. I've posted it above but you can find it easy enough. Thanks for trying to figure out where the discrepancy is.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 179):
The 779X is larger.

We have to find some numbers on that. Certainly the 779 is smaller than the current 747. Are you comparing to past versions of the 747?

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 179):
- If the A380 really would be worse than the 77W, Airbus could simply not just go, whitewash the facts, closing and reversing the gap and publish lies about a sudden double digit advantage to an audience that in many cases are even operating both 77Ws and A380 (so the audience would know from first hand). That is not credible.

Its marketing. They take examples that paint their picture brightest. I tried to open up the marketing material that you sent but both of my browsers timed out. I would like to look to see what the assumptions are, but I find third-party work to be the best chance of objectivity (though not always). Will definitely look if you point me.

Quoting parapente (Reply 181):
The only reliable guide as to what is ( and will be) really going on is where people put their money not mouths.

Very true. Since the A380 was launched over 4,600 twins were purchased and about 400 VLAs were purchased and yet there still seems to be a question about which direction aviation is heading. And those VLA's are now only 10% more expensive than the biggest twin.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 189):
I think Ferpes per m2 approach makes a hell lot more sense than supposedly fair seatplans.

I think both of these analysis have shown to reflect similar m2 numbers (See OldAeroGuy's post) but we need to know what the denominator is so you can get a fuel for unit cost/revenue and margin. An airliner that can make better use of the floor space will mean more profit for the operator vs the airliner that can't capitalize. There's the rub.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 180):
There are still a few routes where no conceivable aircraft is too big and the advantage required is not in the ball park you suggest:
SYD-LAX
HKG-LHR
many routes out of LHR, HND, HKG and DXB.

Yet half those airports don't have a home operator with an A380?

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 197):
And those complaints have been proven correct many times, so they do add to this discussion imho. The numbers in Zeke's as always well documented posts clearly indicate that. Like the numbers in reply 186.

I shouldn't have made a comment. Every conversation seems to require qualitatively-challenged naysayers and cheerleaders. Check. Will just ignore next time, mea culpa.

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 199):
As an example, rates from Australia are basically pretty cheap, not a huge export market and what is exported tends to fresh produce to Asia.
Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 199):
Rates to Australia on the other hand can be 2 to 4 times higher for the same space.

Very interesting to know which way freight is headed. I always though Australia would be big on outgoing cargo too but I guess most of it goes by water.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Thu Feb 06, 2014 2:03 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 203):
Every conversation seems to require qualitatively-challenged naysayers and cheerleaders.

In my opinion that has not to be the case. And I am neither of the examples you describe above.  .

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 203):
I think we will see airlines filling the A388 with more seats before we see an A389. When it reaches the density figures similar to the 777 then I think we know airlines are looking for more capacity and confident they can fill it.

This I can fully agree with.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 203):
Very true. Since the A380 was launched over 4,600 twins were purchased and about 400 VLAs were purchased and yet there still seems to be a question about which direction aviation is heading. And those VLA's are now only 10% more expensive than the biggest twin.

I don't think anybody is seriously doubting this. The trend is clear and unmistakable. There is discussion about very large fourholers and their possible future in the civil aviation market. Especially the A380 is targeted here since it is the airplane which has quite a lot potential for further development, but the upcoming big twins sure are putting pressure on the airplane.

That is what the Leeham report is speculating about, and rightfully so. Even if the numbers seem a bit skewed imho. But speculating we do best here on A-net.  .
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12174
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Thu Feb 06, 2014 2:16 pm

Quoting Mutt (Reply 202):
Well, if we're going to split hairs here when comparing the fuel burn per sq/m of floor space, we have to compensate for the 777-9's wider effective cabin due to the contoured side walls - that is not accounted for in Zeke's 358.2 sq/m figure.

At the risk of really splitting hairs: do we know that the increase will be available at floor level as well or at seat level only?

best regards
Thomas
....the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14769
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Thu Feb 06, 2014 2:17 pm

Quoting Mutt (Reply 202):

Well, if we're going to split hairs here when comparing the fuel burn per sq/m of floor space, we have to compensate for the 777-9's wider effective cabin due to the contoured side walls - that is not accounted for in Zeke's 358.2 sq/m figure.

Was not aware it was a change in floor width, just the side walls to change the dimension at the arm and shoulder.



Have you got better information than the slide form Boeing ?
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5532
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Thu Feb 06, 2014 2:46 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 203):

Of course. I don't think the moral of this analysis is that the A388 is an inefficient aircraft its a statement to how much of a force these twin aircraft are (all of them).

The biggest factor making the A388 inefficient is the 80m wing span limit. If it could have an appropriate wingspan (and hence a decent aspect ration) it would be significantly more efficient. But two big engines are inherently more efficient than four medium one, both because the engines themselves are more efficient but because the total drag is less.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 203):

I think we will see airlines filling the A388 with more seats before we see an A389. When it reaches the density figures similar to the 777 then I think we know airlines are looking for more capacity and confident they can fill it.

  
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:20 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 203):
if EK sends both A380s and 777s to the same locations (LAX for example) and they operate both aircraft why can't we take the seating that EK uses on both of their aircraft and go from there? Same operator, same clientele, same destination. Making up fictitious seating numbers and answering a question that nobody is asking: what would the difference be? - is certainly worse then answering the question What is the difference?

Using ferpe and leeham's data (via OldAeroGuy) we have these fuel burn figures:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 163):
Trip Fuel

Ferpe

A388 149.7t
773ER 94.1t
779X. 84.4t

Leeham

A388 183.5t
773ER 114.4t
779X. 102.5t

Note I did change Leeham's 779 figure to 102.5t not 102.4t but that is a small change.

So EK seat counts are 517 on the A380 (although I think the 489 seat version is still more common) and 364 on the 77W (I believe the most common) and 395 for the 779.

Ferpe
A388 - .28956
77W - .25852
779 - .21367

Leeham
A388 - .35493
77W - .31429
779 - .2595

Difference:

Ferpe
A388 - Base
77W - (10.7%)
779 - (26.2%)

Leeham
A388 - Base
77W - (11.5%)
779 - (26.9%)

And the 779 vs the 77W:
77W - Base
779 - (17.3%) - ferpe
779 - (17.4%) - Leeham

Which gets us in line with: "“The -9X will have a 16% to 17% delta in fuel burn (compared to the current 777-300ER), and is an aircraft that is redesigned inside and has a new wing,” says Emirates Airlines president Tim Clark. "
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/awx_11_17_2013_p0-637685.xml
----------------------------

Some explanations why the densities are different on the 77W vs the A380:
(1) The A380 is a wider cabin but does not add more seats width-wise! Underutilized floor space. 1.5" per seat (17.0 vs 18.5) is 1.5" for the entire length of the lower deck plus A380 space outside of 18.5" seats that they are currently not utilizing (appears substantial as they are going to 11 abreast without dropping below 18")
(2) 7 abreast in J (77W) vs 4 abreast in J (A380) (42% more seats per row taking up just 20% more length per row)
(3) 5 exits or 72.8 passengers per exit on the 77W or 64.6 seats per exit on the A380; will improve on 779 with exit change
(4) 14.8% Premium in 77W vs 17.4% in A380
(5) Bars, Stairs, Showers on the A380 and not on the 777: What is this on the right that EK has on the lower deck that takes up the room of 12 seats anyway?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/3537452473/

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 207):
The biggest factor making the A388 inefficient is the 80m wing span limit. If it could have an appropriate wingspan (and hence a decent aspect ration) it would be significantly more efficient.

I think you are right but I wouldn't be surprised if the weight needed to support the upper deck doesn't bring down efficiency as well relatively to the one deck aircraft. Conceptually double deck should be more efficient logically (in my twisted mind anyway) but I think it practice the weight for incremental seats on the upper deck cost more than those added to a single deck.

tortugamon
 
mffoda
Posts: 1099
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:24 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 200):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 179):
- If the A380 really would be worse than the 77W, Airbus could simply not just go, whitewash the facts, closing and reversing the gap and publish lies about a sudden double digit advantage to an audience that in many cases are even operating both 77Ws and A380 (so the audience would know from first hand). That is not credible.

Its marketing. They take examples that paint their picture brightest. I tried to open up the marketing material that you sent but both of my browsers timed out. I would like to look to see what the assumptions are, but I find third-party work to be the best chance of objectivity (though not always). Will definitely look if you point me.

In order to present a 12% better relative fuel burn per seat they assume: A380 @ 525 seats and the 777-300ER @ 305 seats.
harder than woodpecker lips...
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12174
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:39 pm

Quoting mffoda (Reply 206):
In order to present a 12% better relative fuel burn per seat they assume: A380 @ 525 seats and the 777-300ER @ 305 seats.

That would assign 1.1m2/seat on the 773 and 1.04m2/seat for the Airbus A380. So A380 @ 496 seats vs. 77W @ 305 seats would be more realistic and just give 7% fuelburn/pax advantage for the A380.

best regards
Thomas
....the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:44 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 194):
Note: With this and the A380Neo21 version from Leeham, that would mean a 3% fuel burn advantage per Pax vs. the 777-9x. Not much and almost certainly not enough to compensate for cargo revenue, if any, but if you need to haul passengers or over distances that do not allow for cargo the A380 will remain the most economic option.

It does not have to beat fuel burn, it has to be competitive. The A380 is another type of aircraft, like the A330 versus 777 are, and will be used to serve different markets. A A380neo with a high amount of premium seats (like Korean Air) could generate more revenue, despite the higher fuel burn per seat. And a A380neo with 640 seats for bulk transport (like Transaero) could still have the lowest fuel burn per seat.

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 199):
If the 380 carries a full pax load of say 500 and still has room for 5t of cargo, but the 779 carries a full pax load of say 350 and still has room for say 20t of cargo, which aircraft is going to be a better revenue generator compared to cost ? They both are at 100% pax load, but one is carrying an extra 15t of revenue under the floor. Of course that's all hypothetical,

Those 150 additional pax generate far more revenue than the cargo does.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 206):
The biggest factor making the A388 inefficient is the 80m wing span limit.

I believe optimal wing span for the -800 would be 85 meters, which can only be achieved by folding wing tips.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 206):
But two big engines are inherently more efficient than four medium one, both because the engines themselves are more efficient but because the total drag is less.

That's in the single digits though.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 205):
(1) The A380 is a wider cabin but does not add more seats width-wise! Underutilized floor space. 1.5" per seat (17.0 vs 18.5) is 1.5" for the entire length of the lower deck plus A380 space outside of 18.5" seats that they are currently not utilizing (appears substantial as they are going to 11 abreast without dropping below 18")

The issue is you are now comparing a 2013 A380 cabin layout with a 2020 777-9 cabin. In 2020, the A380 cabin with similar comfort to the 777 should look as follows:

> A A380 with slimline seats gives us 558 pax
> A A380 with slimline seats in 11-abreast gives us 588 pax

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 205):
What is this on the right that EK has on the lower deck that takes up the room of 12 seats anyway?

Crew rest area.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 205):
although I think the 489 seat version is still more common

Less than half the fleet are equipped with 489 seats.

[Edited 2014-02-06 08:47:12]
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
mham001
Posts: 5745
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:51 pm

Quoting Mutt (Reply 199):
Well, if we're going to split hairs here when comparing the fuel burn per sq/m of floor space, we have to compensate for the 777-9's wider effective cabin due to the contoured side walls - that is not accounted for in Zeke's 358.2 sq/m figure.

Thank you, I was wondering why this wasn't mentioned.

Square meters is an inaccurate metric, it depends largely on how it it used. From what I can see, there is a significant amount of unused space along both wall lines on the upper deck of the A380.

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

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Thu Feb 06, 2014 5:10 pm

Quoting mffoda (Reply 206):
In order to present a 12% better relative fuel burn per seat they assume: A380 @ 525 seats and the 777-300ER @ 305 seats.

Thanks! Don't know why I couldn't get the images to show up.

I believe there are two operators that seat 525+ seats in their A380s and there are 8 operators that seat 305 or less in their 77Ws. So that is the top 20% of A380 operators and the bottom 27% of 77W operators being compared. Furthermore, I believe all but one of these 8 are 9 abreast (Angola I think is 10 but I have the hardest time finding out for sure) and most of them are 4-class not 3 class: (BA, CX, ANA, JAL etc.)

Saudi Arabian Airlines
British Airways
TAAG (Angola Airlines)
Korean Air
Singapore Airlines
Cathay Pacific Airways
Japan Airlines
All Nippon Airways

I did an analysis a couple months ago of all 77Ws:
https://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...ral_aviation/print.main?id=5761528

The average three-class configuration of a 77W is close to 350 seats. This a straight average and is not weighted.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 208):
I believe optimal wing span for the -800 would be 85 meters, which can only be achieved by folding wing tips.

I would love to see it that bird.  
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 208):
> A A380 with slimline seats in 11-abreast gives us 588 pax

Now we are talking. Now that is using the floor space to its potential. Passengers won't be happy but accountants will!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 208):
Crew rest area.

Should have known, duh. Ok, add that to my list of reasons why they are not comparable. 77W's rest areas don't take up floor space.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 208):
Less than half the fleet are equipped with 489 seats.

Thanks.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 209):
Square meters is an inaccurate metric, it depends largely on how it it used. From what I can see, there is a significant amount of unused space along both wall lines on the upper deck of the A380.

But the calculation is based on floor space not efficient use of wall space. I don't quite see how it is relevant. Though it is tough to sleep against the wall on the lower deck if you are stuck in Y.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
Stitch
Topic Author
Posts: 26773
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Thu Feb 06, 2014 6:20 pm

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 193):
That the 380 is a crap lifter of freight with full passenger loads is one of it's major problems afaik, also one of the reasons you will probably never see it in a true high density configuration.

It's better than the 747-400 on volume (after passenger bags) and much better than the 747-400 on weight.

And the 747-400 (or slightly larger versions) was the target.



Quoting zeke (Reply 198):
On a DXB-SYD flight, an A380 will lift more cargo than a 77W.

Is that by weight, volume, or both (assuming a density of ~160kg/m^3)?


Quoting tortugamon (Reply 133):
Boeing's definition has been '747 or larger'.
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 179):
The 779X is larger.
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 200):
We have to find some numbers on that. Certainly the 779 is smaller than the current 747. Are you comparing to past versions of the 747?

Boeing's seating figures for the 747-400 is 416, so that would still be larger than the 777-9 at 407 seats.

So we'd have to be comparing it to a 747-100, -200 or -300.
 
starbucks
Posts: 1288
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:29 pm

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Thu Feb 06, 2014 6:38 pm

Twitter, @ReutersAero

Breaking - Airbus studies possible A380 engine revamp after RR signals it may be willing to upgrade Trent 900, sources say, but no decision
 
User avatar
Stitch
Topic Author
Posts: 26773
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Thu Feb 06, 2014 6:44 pm

Quoting starbucks (Reply 212):
Breaking - Airbus studies possible A380 engine revamp after RR signals it may be willing to upgrade Trent 900, sources say, but no decision

Well the Trent 900EP2 (Enhanced Performance) is on the way for mid-2014 and will be the standard engine for all RR-powered A380 deliveries from that time. It is expected to reduce fuel burn by 0.5-0.8%. As all Trent 800 engines are under TotalCare maintenance agreements, what can be retrofitted from the EP2 to the current EP engines will be done so as a PiP.
 
User avatar
ssteve
Posts: 1382
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:32 am

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:09 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 195):
Quoting SSTeve (Reply 173):
If Boeing can put a composite wing and folding wingtips on the 777, airbus can do the same for the 388

Don't forget that Boeing is doing this by building a completely new wing. They had to do significant alterations on the A320 wing to add sharklets; so I suspect that adding folding wingtips to the existing wing would not be a trivial exercise. From what I have read Airbus designs their wings much closer to the limits than Boeing does, which is why they have a harder time adding wingtip accessories. This is not a criticism, as it means that they carry less excess weight.

Oh yeah, no doubt adding a new composite wing is about as close to a new airplane as you can get without starting from scratch.

My point was more that a few comments seemed to despair that any sort of refreshed A388 could ever compete with the 777-9 on a per-seat basis. But absent some natural wing span limits, the updates going into the 777-9 are available for the A388. I wouldn't want to even advertise them as available until the backlog looks terrible, though, because it will be another huge investment.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5532
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:19 pm

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 214):
I wouldn't want to even advertise them as available until the backlog looks terrible, though, because it will be another huge investment.

And this is the problem. Unless the improvements will result in enough additional sales to justify the investment, it should not happen. And unless trends change, I cannot see that the demand will be there.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:40 pm

Quoting starbucks (Reply 212):
Airbus studies possible A380 engine revamp

More info:

Quote:
Airbus is exploring fresh ways to improving sales of the world's largest passenger jet after receiving a potentially key signal of support from at least one of its engine makers, industry sources said.

Faced with patchy demand for the A380 superjumbo, Britain's Rolls-Royce has indicated it may be willing to upgrade its Trent 900 engines to help Airbus dig its way out of a recent sales trough, the sources said, asking not to be named.

However, no decision has yet been taken and Airbus has said its first priority is to keep carrying out other gradual improvements to the 525-seat aircraft, which entered service in 2007.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/0...-singapore-a-idINL5N0LB4OV20140206

If RR wins this EA might as well get out of the A380 business.

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 214):
My point was more that a few comments seemed to despair that any sort of refreshed A388 could ever compete with the 777-9 on a per-seat basis. But absent some natural wing span limits, the updates going into the 777-9 are available for the A388.

The 779 updates are going to cost ~$10 Billion to incorporate That is between 15-20% of the value of all of the A380 orders for the entire program or the total revenue for every A380 delivered for more than the last two years and it would take an Engine OEM willing to invest $2 Billion more for a program that has only sold 300 units so far so, no, I do not see 777x-style updates available to the A380.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
Stitch
Topic Author
Posts: 26773
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:01 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 216):
If RR wins this EA might as well get out of the A380 business.

Seven of eighteen customers are powered by EA, including the largest - EK.

From numbers I have read, the Trent 900EP2 will get that engine to rough parity with the EA GP7200 on fuel burn. And per an article published in November 2013, EA are themselves considering major upgrades to the 7200 family beyond a mid-2014 upgrade to the cooling system for the turbine blade, shrouds and nozzles. Said upgrades could involve a redesign of the blades of the compressor and turbine stages and a software change to optimize clearance control for the fan case. They are also said to be considering a new centerline engine, though that project could run north of USD 1 billion.

While we have been focusing on a new GE and RR engine for the A330neo, if there really will be an A380neo, perhaps it will be a new EA and RR engine that can be adapted to both platforms. I believe it is a given that the European Union would rescind their existing restrictions on EA so as to allow an engine for the A380neo to also be used on the A330neo.

[Edited 2014-02-06 12:03:32]
 
starbucks
Posts: 1288
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:29 pm

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:08 pm

Another via Jon Ostrower, Twitter:

Quote:
WSJ BREAKING: Airbus Nears Decision To Offer A380 With New Engines From 2020 — Sources wsj.com
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:23 pm

Quoting starbucks (Reply 218):
Quote:WSJ BREAKING: Airbus Nears Decision To Offer A380 With New Engines From 2020 — Sources wsj.com

EIS in 2020, so if the Leeham report is accurate, it would be the 'A380ne21' proposal offering 9100 nm range at 560 seats and 13 % reduction in fuel consumption per seat compared to the current 525 seat A380-800 (or 7 % reduction in trip fuel consumption, if I calculated correctly). It would be also the longest range Airbus, making it an unexpected Boeing 777-8X competitor (granted at much larger capacity).

[Edited 2014-02-06 12:26:02]

[Edited 2014-02-06 12:34:45]
 
User avatar
Stitch
Topic Author
Posts: 26773
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:28 pm

If they're doing an A380neo, they have to be doing an A330neo, as well.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:52 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 217):
Seven of eighteen customers are powered by EA, including the largest - EK.

Sure but only EK is actively buying. And whoever wins the order will put in the investment to get the fuel burn and I don't necessarily see the other OEM spending the money to match just to split the already small market for future orders.

I would be extremely surprised if there is an engine option on this NEO. It should be winner takes all on this update.

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 219):
EIS in 2020

Which rules out new engine to me. Automatically means a derivative but it gives them enough time to make substantial changes. Plus if they want to use the same engine on the A380 and the A330 it has to be ready for the A330neo which is now rumored for 2018.

It took five years to neo the A320, its going to be need to be less than that for the A330.

tortugamon
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1854
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Thu Feb 06, 2014 9:12 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 200):
Its marketing. They take examples that paint their picture brightest. I tried to open up the marketing material that you sent but both of my browsers timed out. I would like to look to see what the assumptions are, but I find third-party work to be the best chance of objectivity (though not always). Will definitely look if you point me.

You are right!! The link has become dead since yesterday.

I don't know how long the google cache will stay (but without images), but here it is:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...pr13.pdf+&cd=1&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=ch

At least the second link is still there (though less detailed):
http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/pr...?eID=dam_frontend_push&docID=36635

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 216):
That is between 15-20% of the value of all of the A380 orders for the entire program or the total revenue for every A380 delivered for more than the last two years and it would take an Engine OEM willing to invest $2 Billion more for a program that has only sold 300 units so far so, no, I do not see 777x-style updates available to the A380.

The difference is that A380 engines are much more similar to those used on thousands other twins...
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Thu Feb 06, 2014 9:45 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 222):
You are right!! The link has become dead since yesterday.

Thanks for sending it. mffoda looks like he was right, it looks like they drive a lot of the cost per seat off of the seat assumptions. See reply #210.

In short it looks Airbus is using a high A380 seating configuration that are seen on about 15% of A380s in service and comparing it to low 77W seating configured 77Ws that are seen on less than 15% of those in service (and most of them are 4-class not 3).

To put this in even starker terms: Airbus is using a seat count for the 77W that is 10 seats lower than it says will comfortably fit on an A359 yet the 77W is wider and 7m (23') longer.

And this is why I try to ignore any performance claims coming from either OEM.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14769
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:21 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 223):
Thanks for sending it. mffoda looks like he was right, it looks like they drive a lot of the cost per seat off of the seat assumptions. See reply #210.

In short it looks Airbus is using a high A380 seating configuration that are seen on about 15% of A380s in service and comparing it to low 77W seating configured 77Ws that are seen on less than 15% of those in service (and most of them are 4-class not 3).

To put this in even starker terms: Airbus is using a seat count for the 77W that is 10 seats lower than it says will comfortably fit on an A359 yet the 77W is wider and 7m (23') longer.

I do not understand why you information like this, we are not comparing any real like cabin configs, we have trying to benchmark types using a consistent basis. It was only in 2012 when Boeing started to deliver more 777s with 10 across than they did with 9 across.

Airbus clearly states they are using "using same-comfort standards and comparable cabin layouts", above myself and Fepe have done this

Quote:
..................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

Fepes numbers show the 77W is 12% high fuel burn per sq m than the A380.

And I did similar here

Quoting zeke (Reply 185):
525 seats, made up of 10F, 84J, 431Y, works out to be 1.105 sq m of cabin per seat. Using 343 sq m for the 77W, and a 2.6m plug (358.2 sq m for the 777-9X), using the same average seating density I get 310 seats for the 77W and 324 seats for the 777-9X.

Then I tried the current 10 abreast 77W marketing config 22F, 70J, 288Y (380 seats total). That gives me 0.903 sq m of cabin per seat. The same density and distribution on the A380 would be 34F, 107J, 441Y with 582 total. Likewise for the 777-9X, using the same density as the 10 across 77W I get 22F, 73J, 301Y, 396 total (almost exactly the same as Leeham).

Using the same "using same-comfort standards and comparable cabin layouts" on the 77W as the 525 seat A380, Fepe and myself both cam up with a configuration in the low 300 seats mark.

I went further, and applied the 380 seats 10 across marketing layout used by Boeing on the 77W, and used that " same-comfort standards and comparable cabin layouts" came up with a seat count for the A388 of 582 seats.

The person being inconsistent here is you, Boeing in their numbers is using less than 1 sq m per cabin seat in all of the long haul configs, whereas Airbus is using more the 1 sq m per seat for the A380. When Airbus then have benchmarked other aircraft to the A380, they have applied the same cabin rules, which for the 77W means low 300 seats.

Boeing on the other hand when they benchmark other aircraft to their product line have a higher density in their aircraft and when they use to compare with the A380. Nobody has ever asked Boeing the number they would fit in the A380 with cabin product rules, I would suggest to would be close to the 580s seats I worked out. That is 200 seats more than their 10 across 77W layout.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3908
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:05 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 176):
Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 163):The two independent checks seem to agree very well.
They dont, what Ferpe's actually worked out was based upon floor area

But Ferpe himself doesn't have a problem with what I posted.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 174):
Thanks OldAeroGuy, I kind of remember that we had been through this before and that they were pretty equal but that the 77W surprisingly might be slightly ahead,



Quoting ferpe (Reply 174):
Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 163):Do either of you have a link where an airline compares seat mile costs between the A388 and the 773ER?You should be able to find a video of Sir TCC KBE at one of the airshows giving a speech to the reporters when EK placed a follow on order for A380s, during that speech he stated the A380 advantage on the 77W.

Note that the quote above is from Zeke, Reply 176, not Ferpe and my comments are to Zeke.

Since you're the one making the claim Zeke, please provide proof of the quote if you're able to do so.

Sir Clark did say the 779X fuel burn per seat would have a 16% - 17% fuel burn advantage over the 773ER. Tortugamon has provided that link. Did you think Sir Clark was comparing the A388 to the 773ER?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 205):
Which gets us in line with: "%u201CThe -9X will have a 16% to 17% delta in fuel burn (compared to the current 777-300ER), and is an aircraft that is redesigned inside and has a new wing,%u201D says Emirates Airlines president Tim Clark. "
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....5.xml
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 205):
Difference:

Ferpe
A388 - Base
77W - (10.7%)
779 - (26.2%)

Leeham
A388 - Base
77W - (11.5%)
779 - (26.9%)

And the 779 vs the 77W:
77W - Base
779 - (17.3%) - ferpe
779 - (17.4%) - Leeham

Yet another way to look at the data. Thanks tortugamon.

Quoting zeke (Reply 176):
Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 156):The question is one of degree. At some airports, A388's require the use of a "clearance" car on the taxi way. I've never heard any 777 or the A346 with this requirement. I suspect none will be required for the 779X or the A3510 either.They are used all over the world, depends on layout and local configuration. I have even had to shut down and be towed in at some gates in the A330. It is a function of the airport design, not the aircraft.

So tell us Zeke, do the 773ER and the A388 have the same ground handling procedures at say, LAX? Your implication is that they are the same.

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 183):
Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 166):Airbus appears to not be using originally built infrastructure for the A380 due to lack of demand.I am afraid that's not correct. At XFW they are using all stations and they even added new hangars (unfortunatelly I cannot remember for which purpose exactly). They realized that the outfitting process takes longer than anticipated. So they are using all stations but simply need more time for the outfitting stations.

Fair enough. Even though Airbus planned the infrastructure for 45 A388 deliveries per year, 30 per year maybe the production limit based on actual experience

[Edited 2014-02-06 15:08:39]

[Edited 2014-02-06 15:11:25]

[Edited 2014-02-06 15:17:53]

[Edited 2014-02-06 15:19:16]

[Edited 2014-02-06 15:55:56]
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
mffoda
Posts: 1099
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:29 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 224):
Using the same "using same-comfort standards and comparable cabin layouts" on the 77W as the 525 seat A380, Fepe and myself both cam up with a configuration in the low 300 seats mark.
Quoting zeke (Reply 185):
525 seats, made up of 10F, 84J, 431Y, works out to be 1.105 sq m of cabin per seat. Using 343 sq m for the 77W, and a 2.6m plug (358.2 sq m for the 777-9X), using the same average seating density I get 310 seats for the 77W and 324 seats for the 777-9X.

The problem with your sq. m of cabin per seat argument, is that it doesn't address the additional unusable space for seating because of additional exit doors, isle width, lav's, galleys, staircases (that subtract space from both decks) and other aircraft specific add on's like showers, bars, duty free shopping area's and or on deck crew rest area's.

Perhaps someone can figure out what the real world available sq. m per seat is after deducting the "must have" unusable space requirements (exit doors, lav's, galleys and staircases). This would certainly effect the straight L x W arguments, when actually determining available seat space...

Does anyone want give it go?  

[Edited 2014-02-06 15:50:29]
harder than woodpecker lips...
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:44 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 217):

Good points. But if its 2020 do we really expect it to be a Trent 900 or a GP7270 derivative? With that much lead time certainly they can use the newer technologies? Then again, if is going to be the same engine for the A330 and the A380 then it has to be available sooner. I can't see a Trent 900 being put on an A330 can you? I think RR is going to use the Trent Ten as the base and be really ready for 2018 for the 787-10 and A330neo EIS (perfect timing) and then upgrade it continuously until Airbus is ready in 2020 for the A380.

Some additional questions:
(1) Obviously this neo would seriously damage resale value of existing A380s (which can't make Doric happy). I assume the technology will not be

(2) QF, AF, VS, have delayed their A380s, some to 2018/2019, doesn't this effectively kill those orders? Why would QF take its final 6 A380s in 2019 if there are going to be better ones just one year later? With resale values prospects very low won't every A380 operator have to look at their A380 fleet and make sure they are comfortable with what they have and what they have on order for the next 20 years because selling before that will certainly not be a good prospect.

(3) EK is said to be the force behind this (and everything A380) and their 50 unit over is the carrot for this engine upgrade but they have said that they are supposed to receive 25 of their 50 unit order starting by 2017/2018 so is this neo version only going to apply to the other 25 units?

(4) RR has to be the favorite by a wide margin because they are no doubt going to go with a Trent 1000 or XWB derivative as they now have until 2020 and those should be better than a Trent 900 or a GP7270 and EA would have nothing to respond to that and I don't see GE sharing GEnx technology with Pratt so GE would have to go it alone and become a new engine provider per se on the A380 in order to win it. Will the EU be ok with a US-made engine exclusivity on the A330neo and the A380 over a comparable RR product?

But then again this engine decision has to be Emirates' choice not Airbus.

tortugamon
 
thegeek
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Fri Feb 07, 2014 12:15 am

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 188):
There is no way QF would get a 389

I reckon there is, if they can operate a daily A388 + 744 a few hours apart on SYD-LAX. I'd question if 4 airlines on the route will be sustained though.

I guess it does raise the question of where else one could be used though. Maybe SYD-HKG?

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 188):
HND, for domestic ?

I thought HND had been opened up to international, on a slot restricted basis.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9387
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Fri Feb 07, 2014 12:32 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 227):
(3) EK is said to be the force behind this (and everything A380) and their 50 unit over is the carrot for this engine upgrade but they have said that they are supposed to receive 25 of their 50 unit order starting by 2017/2018 so is this neo version only going to apply to the other 25 units?

First, if the engine is a Trent something, whatever type, RR can mix and match the Trent, it could anyway come 2018 and be the same for both the A330 and A380.
Second, why should EK stop at this order of 50? Perhaps this 50 are not the pull, but talking about additional orders.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3908
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Fri Feb 07, 2014 12:38 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 224):
Airbus clearly states they are using "using same-comfort standards and comparable cabin layouts", above myself and Fepe have done this

Quote:..................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
Fepes numbers show the 77W is 12% high fuel burn per sq m than the A380.

Actually they don't.

Using the A388 as the base:

773ER: 3.12/3.08 = 1.013 or +1.3% (no where near 12%)
779X: 2.63/3.08 = .854 or -14.6%
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5532
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Fri Feb 07, 2014 12:46 am

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 230):
Using the A388 as the base:

773ER: 3.12/3.08 = 1.013 or +1.3% (no where near 12%)
779X: 2.63/3.08 = .854 or -14.6%

And since for just about all configurations in the real world the A388 has fewer passengers per square meter than either the 77W or the 779 it follows that the 77W uses less fuel per seat, and the 779 considerably less, than the A388.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Fri Feb 07, 2014 12:55 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 224):
It was only in 2012 when Boeing started to deliver more 777s with 10 across than they did with 9 across.

46% of 2011 deliveries were 10-abreast as well. Virgin Australia fits 361 on their 77Ws at 9 abreast 18.5" comfortable seats. AI, TK, QR, TG, CA, CI, GA, BR, etc all have comfortable 9 abreast seating with much higher seat counts.

Quoting zeke (Reply 224):
Fepes numbers show the 77W is 12% high fuel burn per sq m than the A380.

Agreed. It is cheaper to fly one square foot of carpet on an A380 than it is on a 77W. We need to check the math though as that is definitely not 12%

Quoting zeke (Reply 224):
Using the same "using same-comfort standards and comparable cabin layouts" on the 77W as the 525 seat A380, Fepe and myself both cam up with a configuration in the low 300 seats mark.

That makes sense. A380s are very underutilized. If an airline wants to similarly underutilize the space then low 300s and below like makes sense like it does for JAL, ANA, CX, KE, and SQ. But the A380 has a lot of wasted space that can't be utilized even if an airline wants to. It doesn't offer 77W flexibility.

Quoting zeke (Reply 224):
Nobody has ever asked Boeing the number they would fit in the A380 with cabin product rules, I would suggest to would be close to the 580s seats I worked out. That is 200 seats more than their 10 across 77W layout.

Appears equally valid. 77Ws are usually ordered in more dense seating so the equivalently dense A380 of 582 seats makes sense. Which is why we are seeing Airbus push for 11-abreast and they will get closer to that 582 figure. The higher the seat count the more unrealistic it is for more airlines.

I bet SQ's A380s have lower CASM then their 77Ws and if SQ, CX, ANA, BA, CX stick with comfortable 9-abreast Y and 4 abreast J then the A351 will beat the 779 and the A380 might even be close (ok maybe not that far). Sparingly configured A380s beat similarly configured 77Ws: Point ceded! But any advantage would be tiny and it 77W flexibility and cargo capability would negate it.

Additionally, this isn't how most 77Ws are configured and likewise most 77Ws beat most A380s. Using the A380 standard is not fair for 77Ws and using the 77W standards for A380s is similarly not fair (because no one can fill it!  ) A380s are not currently able to take advantage of their space like a 77W can.

Long haul is not just for the premium airlines anymore and EK isn't configuring their aircraft like premium airlines do and I think they are forcing airlines to adapt. 10-abreast is what is common now and it will take a 580 seat A380 to beat that standard and no airline has gotten there yet so if you are willing to go 10-abreast, 77W will have the CASM advantage.

Comparing two configurations that neither airliner uses is pointless. I prefer to ask the question: What does the airline value and how will they configure the aircraft and then determine which will have an advantage for that airline. And that is why I took an EK A380 and compared it to an EK 77W because it takes the selection/premium airline bias out and it shows the way an airline will look at. If you are EK a 779 makes a ton of sense.

JAL evidently decided 9-abreast and low capacity: A351 makes perfect sense. LH and CX looks like they are going to the dark side: Hope your seniority is high enough Zeke so you can get the call up to the big leagues! JK of course.

tortugamon



[Edited 2014-02-06 17:19:29]
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Fri Feb 07, 2014 1:17 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 229):
why should EK stop at this order of 50? Perhaps this 50 are not the pull, but talking about additional orders.

It shouldn't and it won't I just wonder if EK will by RR Trent 900 engines for the first 25 if RR Trent 1000 Ten's win for the neo project. I guess I just assumed that EK was placing the 50 unit order and expected them all to be for the upgraded engine but it appears not because the timing will not work out.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 225):
Yet another way to look at the data.

It is and further substantiation (or false confidence) that the data and at least some of the analysis is accurate. There are just too many pieces of information fitting together that I am beginning to believe it.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 226):
The problem with your sq. m of cabin per seat argument, is that it doesn't address the additional unusable space

Agreed.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 230):
Actually they don't.

Good catch. I missed it. Just a 7 abreast J cabin could be enough for a 77W to have a better CASM now that I look at it. Let alone a 10-abreast Y cabin: not really that close.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 231):
And since for just about all configurations in the real world the A388 has fewer passengers per square meter than either the 77W or the 779 it follows that the 77W uses less fuel per seat, and the 779 considerably less, than the A388.

Much more succinct then my attempt. Well said.

tortugamon
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:34 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 227):
EK is said to be the force behind this (and everything A380) and their 50 unit over is the carrot for this engine upgrade

It goes further than that - EK already had a lot of orders outstanding. Counting those in, Airbus currently has 182 outstanding orders for the A380, and 96 of those, over half the backlog, are from Emirates!

Airbus will be in touch with their current and possibly future customers, of course - but on the face of it it would make no sense at all to spend millions on an engine upgrade unless Airbus can be sure that they would gain a large number - arguably a hundred or more - of additional orders as a result?

[Edited 2014-02-06 19:41:05]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
Mutt
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 11:06 am

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:21 am

Well, I'll tell you one thing, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that, according to the picture in reply 209 by Mham001, there is a good 8% of the A380's upper deck that is unusable due to the curvature of the sidewall. So if the upper deck is roughly 40% of the A380's floor area, then we are looking at approximately 3% of the total floor area of the A380 that is unusable. What does that do to Ferpe's numbers, raise it from 3.08 to 3.17? Should it be called equivalent floor area? Apparently not all floor area is equal.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1854
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Fri Feb 07, 2014 5:07 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 231):
And since for just about all configurations in the real world the A388 has fewer passengers per square meter than either the 77W or the 779 it follows that the 77W uses less fuel per seat, and the 779 considerably less, than the A388.

This only means that the 777 has less comfortable real world configurations than the A380, which distorts the comparison. I thought we have moved on from such pointless discussions. The topic is, how to factor different real world configurations out of the equation.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 4129
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:28 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 216):

Quoting starbucks (Reply 212):
Airbus studies possible A380 engine revamp

More info:

Quote:
Airbus is exploring fresh ways to improving sales of the world's largest passenger jet after receiving a potentially key signal of support from at least one of its engine makers, industry sources said.

Faced with patchy demand for the A380 superjumbo, Britain's Rolls-Royce has indicated it may be willing to upgrade its Trent 900 engines to help Airbus dig its way out of a recent sales trough, the sources said, asking not to be named.

However, no decision has yet been taken and Airbus has said its first priority is to keep carrying out other gradual improvements to the 525-seat aircraft, which entered service in 2007.

Sorry for being sceptical (again), but that doesn't sound like a New Engine Option to me but rather like another PIP.

If I remember correctly we had already two PIP's for RR-powered A 380s. So maybe the engine producers are also considering low hanging fruits?
 
astuteman
Posts: 7086
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:32 am

Quoting mffoda (Reply 226):
Does anyone want give it go?

Don't need to. The quoted cabin area figures already account for this.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 227):
QF, AF, VS, have delayed their A380s, some to 2018/2019, doesn't this effectively kill those orders?

They convert to the new one?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 232):
Additionally, this isn't how most 77Ws are configured and likewise most 77Ws beat most A380s

This is a point that most people miss. You are correct. And yet EK for one point to their A380's as the moneymakers, in a way that they don't with their 777's.
The picture is a lot more complex than just fuel burn per seat or per m2

Quoting Mutt (Reply 235):
then we are looking at approximately 3% of the total floor area of the A380 that is unusable. What does that do to Ferpe's numbers

Nothing. The figures already allow for that

Rgds
 
art
Posts: 3217
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Fri Feb 07, 2014 7:57 am

Quoting Nav20 (Reply 234):
Airbus will be in touch with their current and possibly future customers, of course - but on the face of it it would make no sense at all to spend millions on an engine upgrade unless Airbus can be sure that they would gain a large number - arguably a hundred or more - of additional orders as a result?

They need to significantly improve A388 efficiency IMO if they want to maintain sales and to make it more likely that current users re-order to replace their original A388's. I suspect that time is on the A388's side - traffic growth in the coming years should make it easier to fill the A388. I wonder how many more hubs will start becoming slot constrained as time goes by, too. The more that do, the more attractive it becomes to use a slot to land/take off with the maximum number of pax you can fit in an aircraft.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12174
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:05 am

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 237):
Sorry for being sceptical (again), but that doesn't sound like a New Engine Option to me but rather like another PIP

I don´t see how they have to wait 6 years to develop a pip and why they would have to announce this so early, unless it is a real major PIP.
Within the LEMCOTEC Program RR (and other) are working on a concept for a 373KN Turbofan (seems just about perfect for a higher MTOW A388 or a A389) with sfc 33,7% (target) below the Trent 772 reference. Since that program is already more than two years old, i could see a lot of that technology ending up in a real major PIP with an EIS nine years later.

best regards
Thomas
....the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 4129
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:10 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 238):
And yet EK for one point to their A380's as the moneymakers, in a way that they don't with their 777's. The picture is a lot more complex than just fuel burn per seat or per m2

Thank you, all over this week I was following this thread and I constantly asked myself "Am I trying to make things more complicated than they are? Maybe I am doing the same mistake when making Dynamic Prime Cost analysis as part of my job? Should I rather pick up the most important cost group and not even touch the issue of different revenues for different options?" So thank you for releasing me from self-doubts  

Seriously, it's perfectly clear that the last 200 posts were referring to fuel consumption only. Nevertheless, you ask yourself how Airbus was able to sell a single A 380 if theses numbers are correct. Maybe we can ask Leeham to make a comprehensive analysis. I would love to see this...
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1739
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:22 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 208):
Those 150 additional pax generate far more revenue than the cargo does.

Sure they are, but they also cost a lot. My comparison was the two aircraft with full pax loads plus whatever cargo they could lift, while the revenue of an extra 150 pax will be more, will the airline make more money operating the 380 at 500 pax + 5t cargo, or a 779 at 350 pax + 20t cargo ? It is hypothetical as I said, but just using pure operating costs without purchase/lease costs, I would imagine that the 779 will bring the airline a higher profit margin, though at a lower revenue level.

Quoting zeke (Reply 198):
Where is your information coming from that you know your are "sure" ?? On a DXB-SYD flight, an A380 will lift more cargo than a 77W.

My info is purely anecdotal, the freighter started not long after the 2nd nonstop flight, which was a 77L, then 77W, then 380, wouldn't have expected the 77L to be restricted, the 77W definitely restricted, especially out of SYD and the 380, probably not out of DXB, but out of SYD, yes, at least with freight uplift. As for the 380 vs the 77W to SYD, I would hope it would, that's what it was designed for wasn't it ? The 77W is at the edge of it's max range doing SYD/DXB, I would be surprised if it carried any freight besides express on that leg.

Quoting zeke (Reply 198):
Not sure he does, have a look at this
http://centreforaviation.com/analysi...-exceeds-demand-by-over-100-128013
Quoting zeke (Reply 198):
You are right in that it is an extra revenue stream, however yields are terrible. Significant overcapacity in the market.

Yes, cargo is in the duldrums, has been for years, yields are crap at present and yes there is overcapacity. When air cargo picks up again is when the worlds major economies are booming again, it is a very good indicator of what growth there is in economies. Yields and overcapacity go hand in hand, there just isn't enough product compared at present and that's why all those older freighters and BCF's are being parked. There is so much belly space out there that is must be a nightmare filling main deck freighters, with the exception of a few ports. Only have to look at JL and AF and how there freighter fleets have disappeared, or all but disappeared.

But, airfreight will pick up again, like everything else, it's a cyclical market and yields will improve again over time.

Quoting zeke (Reply 198):

You are talking two differnt stage lengths then, as the A380 can carry a full load and freight DXB-LAX, whereas the 77W cannot carry freight over that sector in addition to a full load.

Actually I was comparing a 380 to a 779 not 77W.

Quoting zeke (Reply 198):
That 15t of freight may not be worth as much as one premium passenger, and instead of having to carry 100 kg to earn that, you have to carry 14,900 kg more. Ona long haul flight that could cost you an additional 5t of fuel.

See earlier in this reply, but if you can carry it on top of your full pax load, every airline would do it.

Quoting zeke (Reply 198):
At the moment, DXB/DWC are in chaos with freight being locked out, not sure you will be getting full anything from there.
http://theloadstar.co.uk/dnata-congestion-dwc/

Lol, that doesn't surprise me in the slightest, having seen how a lot of places run (or is it ruin) how freight is processed through terminals.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 211):
It's better than the 747-400 on volume (after passenger bags) and much better than the 747-400 on weight.

And the 747-400 (or slightly larger versions) was the target.

It should be better, it's competing against a 1960's designed fuselage. At present seating configs it should be a bit better than 744's on volume, but that will change as airlines put more seats in and lose freight space.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 228):
I guess it does raise the question of where else one could be used though. Maybe SYD-HKG?

For what is currently one daily flight, not really likely.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 228):
I thought HND had been opened up to international, on a slot restricted basis.

It has and realistically for most airlines would be their preferred airport in Tokyo. However, things have changed enormously in Japan over the last 20 years, airports have been rebuilt such as Haneda and new airports built such as Kansai, even Narita is much bigger now. What this has all meant is that there is no longer the need for 600 seat 747's flying domestically because the airport infrastructure across the country has changed so dramatically. There are extra airlines flying and the average aircraft size has fallen (albeit they still have a lot of seats in their domestic wide bodies) and there are a lot more of them and couple this with the excellent rail network, the need for aircraft 747 and bigger has diminished to the extent it is virtually non existent domestically.
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1739
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:50 am

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 241):
Seriously, it's perfectly clear that the last 200 posts were referring to fuel consumption only. Nevertheless, you ask yourself how Airbus was able to sell a single A 380 if theses numbers are correct. Maybe we can ask Leeham to make a comprehensive analysis. I would love to see this...

Because the 380 when first released was so far ahead of it's competition !

It still is and will be a relevant aircraft, the problem is, without a major makeover it will be beaten by smaller, but still large aircraft which are twins, even by it's own manufacturer. However, it will still have a market, the market probably isn't the size that manufacturer had first envisioned, but it's still there.

The choice Airbus has to make is, do we keep improving the product through small incremental upgrades, such as engine PIP's and keep producing at a similar or slightly slower pace, or spend moderately big bucks for a quick big improvement in the hope that besides EK, more airlines will re-order and other new customers will come forward. It's not an easy decision.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5532
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:26 am

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 236):
This only means that the 777 has less comfortable real world configurations than the A380, which distorts the comparison.

Not necessarily, although that is probably true. It also says that the A380 has more unusable floor space, and hence comparing floor space is not the best metric. There really is no perfect metric, because the planes are so different, and their utilization will vary from airline to airline. It is really very hard for us armchair CEO's to accurately determine which one will be most profitable for any given airline. But that will not prevent us from trying.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 238):

This is a point that most people miss. You are correct. And yet EK for one point to their A380's as the moneymakers, in a way that they don't with their 777's.
The picture is a lot more complex than just fuel burn per seat or per m2

Exactly.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Fri Feb 07, 2014 11:56 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 210):
Now we are talking.

Here is the seat map with slimline seats, adding an additional 25 Y seats.

http://oi57.tinypic.com/10qz0a9.jpg

There is no 11-abreast seat map yet, I expect Doric to reveal it soon.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 210):
Now that is using the floor space to its potential.

The A380 is very spacious and one should not forget, most of today's A380 cabins were designed in the early 2000's. If Airbus would redesign the cabin with today's high fuel prices in mind, it would look different. Therefore, I support the Leeham article which shows a 2020 A380 cabin with 560 seats. I would take it even a bit higher.

Quoting starbucks (Reply 212):
Breaking - Airbus studies possible A380 engine revamp after RR signals it may be willing to upgrade Trent 900, sources say, but no decision

And more important, Airbus considers 1 engine supplier.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 220):
If they're doing an A380neo, they have to be doing an A330neo, as well.

Yes, those come hand in hand IMO.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 233):
I guess I just assumed that EK was placing the 50 unit order and expected them all to be for the upgraded engine but it appears not because the timing will not work out.

Those 50 A380s will all be delivered in 2016, 2017 and 2018. That's before the NEO enters the market.

Expect EK to place more A380 orders for further fleet replacement. Those might be the first NEO's.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 210):
Should have known, duh. Ok, add that to my list of reasons why they are not comparable. 77W's rest areas don't take up floor space.

I believe EK is the sole A380 operator who places the crew rest area on the passenger deck.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 238):
This is a point that most people miss. You are correct. And yet EK for one point to their A380's as the moneymakers, in a way that they don't with their 777's.
The picture is a lot more complex than just fuel burn per seat or per m2

  

[Edited 2014-02-07 03:58:35]
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Fri Feb 07, 2014 1:53 pm

Quoting Nav20 (Reply 234):
It goes further than that - EK already had a lot of orders outstanding.

But only 50 don't have the engine commitment agreement already in place. They cannot easily switch engines from EA for the other 90.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 236):
how to factor different real world configurations out of the equation.

Its funny because most of the time I try to take fake seat maps and make them more realistic for real world application. It seems odd to take the real world out.

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 237):
Sorry for being sceptical (again), but that doesn't sound like a New Engine Option to me but rather like another PIP

It does and I don't believe it.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 238):
They convert to the new one?

So they have some more A380s to sell for 2018 and 2019 with current engines.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 238):
The picture is a lot more complex than just fuel burn per seat or per m2

It is. We do not put enough importance on revenue which is probably most important. If you didn't consider revenue and market share growth you would not understand EK's A380 purchases in my opinion.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 240):
I don´t see how they have to wait 6 years to develop a pip and why they would have to announce this so early, unless it is a real major PIP

They don't. I agree.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 245):
Here is the seat map with slimline seats, adding an additional 25 Y seats.

Looks good. Definitely could go a step further to 11 seats. The 747 brought down fairs around the world and I really would like to see the A380 be able to have a similar impact but I just don't see it at 525 seats. Or even 580 for that matter. I want to see some Transaero sized A380s operating between hubs dragging down economy inter continental fares and I hope I never have to fly in one in back  
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 245):
Those 50 A380s will all be delivered in 2016, 2017 and 2018

I thought Sir TC said just the first 25 are for before 2018. Could have sworn its the current A380 video on Airbus' website from DAS.

tortugamon
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3908
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Fri Feb 07, 2014 2:01 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 238):
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 232):Additionally, this isn't how most 77Ws are configured and likewise most 77Ws beat most A380s
This is a point that most people miss. You are correct. And yet EK for one point to their A380's as the moneymakers, in a way that they don't with their 777's.

While I agree that EK holds the A380 in high regard due to the passenger amenities it can provide, I don't recall that EK has said they favor it was a profit maker compared to the 773ER. Given that EK 3 class 773ER's have 354 to 360 seats while their A388's are at 489 to 497, it's hard to see where the A388's profit margins are significantly better. Can you provide a link?


Quoting astuteman (Reply 238):
The picture is a lot more complex than just fuel burn per seat or per m2
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 241):
Seriously, it's perfectly clear that the last 200 posts were referring to fuel consumption only. Nevertheless, you ask yourself how Airbus was able to sell a single A 380 if theses numbers are correct. Maybe we can ask Leeham to make a comprehensive analysis. I would love to see this...

I agree with both these thoughts. It is more complex than just fuel burn per seat. At the same time, fuel burn is 50% - 60% of an long range airplane's operating costs. There has been a general belief here on a.net that the A388 was greatly superior to any other airplane.

This thread and Leeham's article correctly point out that the A380 and the 773ER are roughly equal and the need for A380 improvements if it is to maintain parity with the new large twins.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Fri Feb 07, 2014 2:21 pm

247.
"agree with both these thoughts. It is more complex than just fuel burn per seat. At the same time, fuel burn is 50% - 60% of an long range airplane's operating costs".
But the differential between the fuel burn of the various planes discussed is tiny.
What really matters is.
How many people you carry
What your load factors are (type of plane)
Fixed costs for operating a particular route.

We have just seen Virgin bow out of Australia,Quantas dissolve their BA marriage and fall in line with EK.BA move down to 773 er's. Why? Because EK has sucked out all the traffic! (size matters).
And while you can down size to a smaller plane your fixed costs for operating the route remain - well - fixed!
So there comes a point (350 seaters?) below which it is not profitable to run these routes at all.Thats what is happening all over the place.

If ( as I believe is happening) BA move their 'big boy' 380's on to the South African routes - what then ( as an example) happens to SAA? They cannot just move to smaller and smaller planes however efficient they are - for the above fixed costs reason.

It's going to get very bloody out there I predict.The A380 really is a game changer and more are leaving the factory evey month....
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1854
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Leeham.net Discusses Possible A380 Improvements

Fri Feb 07, 2014 2:22 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 246):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 236):
how to factor different real world configurations out of the equation.

Its funny because most of the time I try to take fake seat maps and make them more realistic for real world application. It seems odd to take the real world out.

It is not funny, if you would read exactly what I have written!
Factor out the influence of different real world configurations is the topic I am talking about.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!

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