Emirates is in talks with Airbus and Rolls-Royce to create a more fuel-efficient version of the A380, with the promise that the airline will place additional orders for the plane.

> A new engine alone would cut fuel burn by 9%
> Other enhancements would lead to double-digit efficiency gains
> New cabin options to fit in more passengers would further reduce CASM
> The A380neo would be lighter and feature other efficiency gains

Emirates has 140 A380s on order. The last 25 units are meant for replacement and might be delivered with new engines. Additionally the airline would order more A380neo jets for future replacement and growth. Last but not least, Mr. Clark added the A380 is by far the most popular aircraft Emirates flies and is "very profitable" for the group.

Quote: "If they do it, then we will replace the other 65 that are coming up for retirement in that period," said Mr. Clark. "And frankly, we would buy more on top of that."

Full WSJ article:
http://tinyurl.com/lmrpw3x

That EK wants to switch from EA to RR implies that EA will not be offering a new engine (I assume the partnership would need to be re-written for such a scenario and it would only be available for the A380 due to EU regulation).

Agreed.

And for Airbus, a single engine will reduce certification costs.

Its a clear case of Rolls having by far the better engine here. Nothing comes close. 9% is huge.

Sigh... No Udvar-Hazy A380.  

This one sounds like it has a business case.  

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 2): And for Airbus, a single engine will reduce certification costs.

Production rates never achieved volumes sufficient to justify two engines. If there is an A380NEO, it will be sole source due to the low volumes.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1): That EK wants to switch from EA to RR implies that EA will not be offering a new engine

I do not think either GE or Pratt are interested in another joint venture at this time.

Quoting KarelXWB (Thread starter): Last but not least, Mr. Clark added the A380 is by far the most popular aircraft Emirates flies and is "very profitable" for the group.

Here is a non-WSJ link :
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...er-than-ever-it-wants-an-a380-neo/

Lightsaber

Is this an improvement on the current A380 or the lighter, HGW A380 that is supposed to be delivered this year?

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 4): Sigh... No Udvar-Hazy A380.

Not yet.  

But 10%+ better fuel burn has to be a key enabler to such a beast...  

The Advance would give an A380-900NEO close to the same range as today's A380-800 on the same MTOW....

Rgds

Is this possibly to be tied to a new (GE?) contract for A330NEO?

Not sure how much GE9X technology would be applicable to an updated GP7200. The MTU core is certainly different, not to mention the PW parts. Still, GE has obviously done well with Emirates on the 777x order.

Quoting texl1649 (Reply 7):

It'll be a cold day in hell before GE put GE9X technology on a direct competitor to the 777X. Can you imagine the reaction in Seattle / Chicago?

Quoting KarelXWB (Thread starter): "If they do it, then we will replace the other 65 that are coming up for retirement in that period," said Mr. Clark. "And frankly, we would buy more on top of that."

Or else what? Buy 777X and leave behind 125 or so paying customers?

A lot of the "technology" euphemism is simply new (patented) materials; putting advanced blades/high temp components on the GP7200 for an extra 250-500 engines, plus perhaps sole source on the 330NEO would be something I can't imagine GE feeling too guilty about wrt Boeing.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 9): Or else what? Buy 777X and leave behind 125 or so paying customers?

There is no else. Emirates business plan is based on growth, replacing the whales with 777X metal would be a major downsize in capacity.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 11): There is no else. Emirates business plan is based on growth, replacing the whales with 777X metal would be a major downsize in capacity.

Yes, that is my point: Clark has no negotiating leverage at all.

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 3): Its a clear case of Rolls having by far the better engine here.

Taking nothing away from the RR Advance, it helps your competitive position when you are the only option (unless tGE is allowed to sole-bid on the program).  

[Edited 2014-05-01 15:42:25]

Quoting Revelation (Reply 12): Clark has no negotiating leverage at all.

I think Emirates is just showing their support, i.e. they are fully dedicated to the A380 and are here to stay for the long term. Hence Clark is throwing with large numbers in the media.

And Airbus has to be realistic as well. The A380 is here and it can only move forward. That means a re-engine project is unavoidable, the question is when.

[Edited 2014-05-01 14:57:52]

Quoting fruitbat (Reply 8): It'll be a cold day in hell before GE put GE9X technology on a direct competitor to the 777X. Can you imagine the reaction in Seattle / Chicago?

GE is an engine maker (among other things), why would they not try to sell engines on all the planes that might need them, if it looks like it will make money ?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1): due to EU regulation

I have never heard about this, what's the problem exactly ?

Quoting Aesma (Reply 15): GE is an engine maker (among other things), why would they not try to sell engines on all the planes that might need them, if it looks like it will make money ?

Because of this:

Quote: Leahy has accused GE of playing favorites. "The problem we have with GE is they go to Seattle and say, 'What kind of engine should we design for your airframe?'" said Leahy. "Then they come to Toulouse and say, 'Here is the kind of airframe you need to build to fit our engine.'"

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 14): I think Emirates is just showing their support, i.e. they are fully dedicated to the A380 and are here to stay for the long term.

I agree that their very successful business model is such that they need the A380, although one could observe they have bought more than a few 777 family members too, and A330s etc.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 14): And Airbus has to be realistic as well. The A380 is here and it can only move forward. That means a re-engine project is unavoidable, the question is when.

Airbus has no need to rush. EK has no where else to go for an A380 class product. EK's new A380s will only serve to put relatively young EK retired A380s out into the used market which will make it harder for Airbus to sell new A380s.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 15): GE is an engine maker (among other things), why would they not try to sell engines on all the planes that might need them, if it looks like it will make money ?

We know the answer from the A350 saga, no? GE feels they can make more money by not developing new engines that undermine the sales of existing engines.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 15): I have never heard about this, what's the problem exactly?

Honestly, it may be more a contractual issue between Airbus and the Engine Alliance partners (GE and P&W), so I edited my original comments.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 15): GE is an engine maker (among other things), why would they not try to sell engines on all the planes that might need them, if it looks like it will make money?

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 16): Because of this: (JL quote about the relationship between GE and Boeing).

Quoting Revelation (Reply 17): We know the answer from the A350 saga, no? GE feels they can make more money by not developing new engines that undermine the sales of existing engines.

GE did commit to developing a version of the GEnx for the original A350 project. Yes, they were given a two-year exclusivity window, however that might have been driven more by Rolls-Royce needing those two years to develop the Trent 1700 (GE was already working with Boeing on a bleed-air version of the GEnx for the 747 Advanced / 747-8).

GE secured a fair number of orders for that engine, including one worth close to 200 frames from QR (who placed a launch order for as I recall 65 A350s). That was then wiped out when Airbus re-developed the project into the A350XWB and required engine OEMs to develop a brand new engine specific to the new design and not adapt existing 787 engines.

GE must have been having flashbacks to the 777 program and the GE90 project at that point. They alone developed a brand-new engine (the Trent 800 and PW4000 were based on earlier designs) and they lost their shirts. Only through securing a sole-source deal to power the 777-200X and 777-300X - and the subsequent market success of the 777-300ER - were they able to turn a two billion dollar boondoggle into an immensely profitable program and it does not strike me as unreasonable for GE wanting to try and protect that investment by not offering an engine for the A350-1000. A number of their engineers are also said to have believed the A350-800 had no future as-designed (if true, they showed a degree of prescience), but they did have sufficient faith in the A350-900 to develop an engine for both models.

Airbus demanded that GE offer an engine for all three models, which is ironic that five years later they granted RR exclusivity on the A350-1000 to improve the RoI for that program due to the additional changes and expenditures they needed to make (just as GE and P&W demanded for the 777-200X and 777-300X).

GE might have been willing to develop a new engine for the entire A350 family through the Engine Alliance program, however the EU required the GP7000 to be offered only on four-engined programs (perhaps to force them to offer it for the A380 to improve customer interest) and that restriction may have applied to subsequent EA projects (though again, I could see the EU dropping that clause to allow it on the A350 to improve customer interest).

Quoting Revelation (Reply 12): Yes, that is my point: Clark has no negotiating leverage at all.

I would think that the relatively modest sales of the A380 of late is Clark's negotiation leverage, meager as it may be.

-Dave

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18): GE might have been willing to develop a new engine for the entire A350 family through the Engine Alliance program, however the EU required the GP7000 to be offered only on four-engined programs (perhaps to force them to offer it for the A380 to improve customer interest) and that restriction may have applied to subsequent EA projects (though again, I could see the EU dropping that clause to allow it on the A350 to improve customer interest)

Haha, ok lets do this EU thing again.. Here are the facts.

1) GE/PW asked for a waiver to EU competition law to join together as EA to build an engine specifically for the A380, the EU allowed this on the proviso that this engine was only hung on 4 engined aircraft.. EA got precisely what it asked for! They were not "forced to offer an engine for the A380 to improve customer interest" they asked for permission to build such an engine.

2) The EU cannot simply drop the clause (for one thing because the waiver has expired), EA would have to apply for another waiver from EU competiion law in order to build any new engine for sale in the EU, the last waiver took 2 years to grant, EA know where to file the papers and are free to do so at any time.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18): They alone developed a brand-new engine (the Trent 800 and PW4000 were based on earlier designs) and they lost their shirts.

Part of the shirt losing was because early GE90's had problems and GE had to go back to the drawing board and pump in extra money to solve them.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18): Airbus demanded that GE offer an engine for all three models, which is ironic that five years later they granted RR exclusivity on the A350-1000 to improve the RoI for that program due to the additional changes and expenditures they needed to make

I can see the irony here but this is Airbus compensating the OEM for saving them from themselves, RR gave Airbus the engine they asked for for the -1000 but Airbus later changed their minds resulting in extra costs for RR and everybody got to get paid as they say hence exclusivity

[Edited 2014-05-02 02:15:06]

Quoting KarelXWB (Thread starter): New cabin options to fit in more passengers

That can only mean 11 abreast...

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 20): GE/PW asked for a waiver to EU competition law to join together as EA to build an engine specifically for the A380, the EU allowed this on the proviso that this engine was only hung on 4 engined aircraft.. EA got precisely what it asked for! They were not "forced to offer an engine for the A380 to improve customer interest" they asked for permission to build such an engine.

Engine Alliance was originally formed in August 1996 to provide engines for the 747-500X and 747-600X, which were both launched in June 1996. When Boeing canceled both programs in the wake of the Asian financial crisis of 1997, Airbus approached EA to become an engine partner on the A3XX.

http://www.enginealliance.com/en/about/default.aspx

So I was incorrect to suggest the EU forced EA to offer an engine for the A380 and you were incorrect to claim that Engine Alliance was formed to power the A380. So back to neutral corners for the both of us.  

[Edited 2014-05-02 10:35:53]

Quoting astuteman (Reply 6): Not yet.

It still might see the light of day at some point in time......  .

Quoting astuteman (Reply 6): But 10%+ better fuel burn has to be a key enabler to such a beast...   The Advance would give an A380-900NEO close to the same range as today's A380-800 on the same MTOW....

Which is a fascinating prospect.

Quoting KarelXWB (Thread starter): with the promise that the airline will place additional orders for the plane.

How many more would EK be able to take. Though I imagine that if such a RR-engine on the A380 becomes available EK will start to replace the first A380's. Or maybe that process will have already started before this A380-version will become available.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 14): The A380 is here and it can only move forward. That means a re-engine project is unavoidable, the question is when.

Indeed. It is just another step in the logical evolution of the airplane. An evolution every airframe goes through.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18): GE might have been willing to develop a new engine for the entire A350 family through the Engine Alliance program, however the EU required the GP7000 to be offered only on four-engined programs (perhaps to force them to offer it for the A380 to improve customer interest) and that restriction may have applied to subsequent EA projects (though again, I could see the EU dropping that clause to allow it on the A350 to improve customer interest).

As always a good analysis from you, this time on the GE situation. Thanks for posting.  

Instead of "ordering new airframes", wouldn't it be more cost effective to retrofit the modifications while they are down for a C-Check? You may have to go through a brief Re-Certification for the authorities, but it wouldn't be nearly as expensive!

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 23): How many more would EK be able to take.

Considering they are sending them to every airport they can, I expect there is no real upper limit.

Honestly, I'm deeply surprised they still have A350-900s on order as I think they would be most effective with the A350-1000 as the basic airframe (used to launch an initial service), followed by moving to the 777-9 and then the A380-800 as traffic grows.


And if Airbus ever launches the A380-900, I could honestly see EK being a two-frame operator with a couple hundred each of the 777-9 and A380-900. And that thought must put a    in the hearts of the major US, EU and Asian carriers.

Quoting texl1649 (Reply 7): Not sure how much GE9X technology would be applicable to an updated GP7200.

I think the GP7200 would need serious work that GE9x tech couldn't solve alone. I have read that the architecture is dated and would need serious re-work and I don't think either of those OEM's want to share their cutting edge technology with their competitor just to offer an engine for an airframe that hasn't exactly sold extremely well to begin with.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 12): Yes, that is my point: Clark has no negotiating leverage at all.

I would say that its a mutually beneficial situation. They both need each other. The A380 wouldn't be getting this re-engine (at least not yet) if it wasn't for EK and there is certainly rationale that the program would be in a similar position as the 748 if it wasn't for EK. EK can't exactly negotiate all of the Airbus profit out of a deal either because it is in their best interest that Airbus see a long future for the aircraft so they continue to invest. I actually think the A380 contract deals are a lot more friendly on both sides than the 777x negotiations.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 15): GE is an engine maker (among other things), why would they not try to sell engines on all the planes that might need them, if it looks like it will make money ?

Because it costs a lot of money to play the game and the ROI may not be there. And if playing means using the Alliance then they also risk losing some of their technology advantage that they will gain with the GE9x.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 25): Honestly, I'm deeply surprised they still have A350-900s on order as I think they would be most effective with the A350-1000 as the basic airframe (used to launch an initial service), followed by moving to the 777-9 and then the A380-800 as traffic grows.

I would be surprised if they take A359s while the A351 is available. I think this may be an availability issue. I agree that the A351 looks to be better suited for EK at this point.

tortugamon

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 26): I would be surprised if they take A359s while the A351 is available. I think this may be an availability issue.

Anyone know when their first A350-900 is scheduled for delivery and what the delivery pattern looks like (as in number of frames per year)?

They have mumbled about using the 20 A350-1000s they do have on order as replacements for their 3 777-200, 6 777-200ER and 12 777-300 frames, but I just don't see what the A350-900 gets them that the A350-1000 does not.

I thereforeI remain confused as to why they have not converted the A350-900 orders or options to A350-1000s or why they didn't convert those 50 A350-900 orders to cover the 50 A380-800 orders back in December 2013 and then ordered another 50 777-300ERs to bridge the gap between their last current 777-300ER delivery and first 777-8/-9 delivery.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 27): They have mumbled about using the 20 A350-1000s they do have on order as replacements for their 3 777-200, 6 777-200ER and 12 777-300 frames, but I just don't see what the A350-900 gets them that the A350-1000 does not.

They do have A330s and A340s that are ready for replacement as well but I fully suspect that EK will operate more than A351s than A359s.

tortugamon

You are kidding yourself if you don't thin EK has the leverage to pull this off, if the business is anything other then a loss leader. EK has pretty much kept the A380 alive after the initial projections turned out to make Pollyanna look like a emo goth girl in the corner.

My guess is that Airbus said no to a -9, and now Airbus and EK are negotiating over exactly how good they need to make the -8neo to keep EK happy.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 28): They do have A330s and A340s that are ready for replacement as well...

The A330-200 and A340-300 are too small for EK's current fleet needs. They still have the older generation First and Business Class seats probably due to lack of cabin space - note how the A340-500 has to give up Economy seats to fit the same number of newer generation First and Business Class seats as the A340-300, even though it's longer.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 28): ...I fully suspect that EK will operate more A351s than A359s.

Tim Clark has noted that he feels 300 seats is about the minimum seat count he feels is viable, but using the same premium cabin product as found on the A345 / 77L / 77W, the A350-900 can only do that in two classes at ~321 (36 C | 285 Y). In three classes, it will seat ~267 (12 F | 42 C | 213 Y). Tim Clark said 274 in August 2011, so add in a few more Economy seats.

Originally, the A350-1000 could seat 317 in three classes with their latest premium cabin product, however that is now evidently 340 seats with a revised galley configuration. As such, it seems to better fit EK's current and future fleet requirements than the A350-900 does.

[Edited 2014-05-02 14:17:02]

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 26): I would say that its a mutually beneficial situation. They both need each other. The A380 wouldn't be getting this re-engine (at least not yet) if it wasn't for EK and there is certainly rationale that the program would be in a similar position as the 748 if it wasn't for EK. EK can't exactly negotiate all of the Airbus profit out of a deal either because it is in their best interest that Airbus see a long future for the aircraft so they continue to invest. I actually think the A380 contract deals are a lot more friendly on both sides than the 777x negotiations.

Maybe not. If EK had not pre-empted the introduction of the A380 on so many routes, other operators would have had the ability to introduce the type themselves. EK is operating ahead of the curve, and denying others a viable market segment.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 31): If EK had not pre-empted the introduction of the A380 on so many routes, other operators would have had the ability to introduce the type themselves. EK is operating ahead of the curve, and denying others a viable market segment.

If EK didn't exist, I don't think the EU and Asian carriers would have been able to expand the size of the A380 fleets to match the numbers EK have (in service and on order). Their high-density "trunk routes" are mostly long distance O&D and the number of those routes that have the traffic to support many multiple daily A380 services seems to be limited based on their usage patterns. And their connecting city-pairs from those hubs seems to be mostly-short haul and see significantly lower traffic that can be handled comfortably with multiple daily frequencies using narrowbody aircraft.

Dubai, on the other hand, is positioned such that their connecting traffic is more long-haul in nature due to the stage-lengths and therefore frequencies are lower. Dubai's more "central" position between the major population centers of the western EU and Asia allows travelers to fly point-hub-point and therefore connecting via DXB does not entail significantly more transit time compared flying on an EU or Asian carrier where you may have to go point-hub-hub, hub-hub-point or even point-hub-hub-point. If you want to fly hub-hub, there is an advantage and that is where we see EU and Asian carriers employing their A380s, but as I noted above, the numbers of A380s necessary to meet that demand would be a fair bit lower.

Quoting AirFRNT (Reply 29): EK has pretty much kept the A380 alive after the initial projections turned out to make Pollyanna look like a emo goth girl in the corner.

Every single year from 2001 more A380 orders in the books unlike with 787 despite the financial crisis. This plane is going to be produced well into 2030's.

Quoting AirFRNT (Reply 29): EK has pretty much kept the A380 alive

Colourful rhetoric aside, EK's A380 orders are every bit as valid as all of the others.
The inference that somehow EK have ordered so many "just" to keep the programme alive gets seriously tiresome eventually.
EK use the plane EXACTLY as it was intended to be used, on routes that will support it, and they make a LOT of money with them, will continue to do so, and will continue to order them for that reason.
that makes EK's demand a fully integral part of the market demand for this aircraft, whatever else people might want to have us believe.

Likewise any comparisons with the 748i "if it wasn't for EK".
EK could have elected to do this with the 748i.
But they didn't, so those comparisons are meaningless.

References to the original business case aren't though.
Whatever the "marketing" numbers, the business case was based on selling 750 frames in the first 20 years.
I doubt they will achieve that.
But it will be interesting to see just how many have actually been sold when we get to 19th December 2020.
Recognising of course that whatever number that turns out to be will have been unquestionably affected by the 3 years or so delay the programme experienced.  

Quoting Stitch (Reply 32): I don't think the EU and Asian carriers would have been able to expand the size of the A380 fleets to match the numbers EK have (in service and on order).

Again, an interesting academic exercise. EK did, and ARE expanding their fleets as per their plan

Quoting tim73 (Reply 33): This plane is going to be produced well into 2030's.

Agreed. By which time whatever the original business case, or projections were, they'll be nothing more than
a) a footnote in history, and
b) a comfort blanket for those who will always need a mechanism to diss the programme   

Rgds

Quoting Revelation (Reply 17): I agree that their very successful business model is such that they need the A380, although one could observe they have bought more than a few 777 family members too, and A330s etc.

Like the A380, Emirates needs the 777X as well. Yet Clark was making similar statements before Boeing launched the jet "I'll order only 100 of them if .. else .." but there is no else as well.

Throwing with big numbers if just a way of showing their support for an airframe.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 27): Anyone know when their first A350-900 is scheduled for delivery

Not much information available, I understood it will be 2017. If true, Emirates will have a handful -900s in service at the time the -1000 enters the market.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 30): Tim Clark has noted that he feels 300 seats is about the minimum seat count he feels is viable, but using the same premium cabin product as found on the A345 / 77L / 77W, the A350-900 can only do that in two classes at ~321 (36 C | 285 Y). In three classes, it will seat ~267 (12 F | 42 C | 213 Y). Tim Clark said 274 in August 2011, so add in a few more Economy seats.

I expect many of those -900s to have a two-class configuration.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 27): I thereforeI remain confused as to why they have not converted the A350-900 orders or options to A350-1000s

Last year, Clark explained he wants to see in service performance numbers before placing more A350 orders.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 25): Honestly, I'm deeply surprised they still have A350-900s on order as I think they would be most effective with the A350-1000 as the basic airframe (used to launch an initial service), followed by moving to the 777-9 and then the A380-800 as traffic grows.

See above (about performance). Also, I expect many of those A350-900s on order to have a two-class cabin configuration. That makes the A350-1000 perhaps a bit too big (at least for a fleet of 70). We can expect a few conversions in the future, definitely not all.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 30): Tim Clark said 274 in August 2011, so add in a few more Economy seats. Originally, the A350-1000 could seat 317 in three classes with their latest premium cabin product, however that is now evidently 340 seats with a revised galley configuration. As such, it seems to better fit EK's current and future fleet requirements than the A350-900 does.

Hm 66 additional seats is just impossible. I think those 274 seats are from an old configuration, before the galley reconfiguration was applied to the -900.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 23): How many more would EK be able to take.

this is simple, 90-120 new ones every 10-12 years!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 26): I would say that its a mutually beneficial situation. They both need each other. The A380 wouldn't be getting this re-engine (at least not yet) if it wasn't for EK and there is certainly rationale that the program would be in a similar position as the 748 if it wasn't for EK. EK can't exactly negotiate all of the Airbus profit out of a deal either because it is in their best interest that Airbus see a long future for the aircraft so they continue to invest.

The real question is whether or not putting a new engine on A380 at this point in time is something Airbus views as a beneficial situation. Personally, I feel it's not. The program is already a money loser and adding more money not likely to be repaid obviously doesn't help. It also puts an expectation into the marketplace that Airbus will re-engine the A380 each new engine generation, which will continue to keep the program in the red.

One might have a case for future investment if there were new orders to compete for, but in the case of A380 it's just not true. The only reason to buy A380 is if you can profitably sell the 100+ seats it offers beyond the big twins. If you need those seats you buy an A380, and if you don't, you don't, because the two extra engines and all the structure to mount them just adds cost. A new engine might change the math marginally, but not enough to change a buying decision, because while it improves efficiency it also adds cost.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 31): Maybe not. If EK had not pre-empted the introduction of the A380 on so many routes, other operators would have had the ability to introduce the type themselves. EK is operating ahead of the curve, and denying others a viable market segment.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 32): If EK didn't exist, I don't think the EU and Asian carriers would have been able to expand the size of the A380 fleets to match the numbers EK have (in service and on order).

Quoting astuteman (Reply 34): EK use the plane EXACTLY as it was intended to be used, on routes that will support it, and they make a LOT of money with them, will continue to do so, and will continue to order them for that reason.

I think you all are leading to the same point, that EK is using the A380 very effectively and efficiently, probably more so than Airbus figured they would, thus making it very difficult for airlines other than EK to purchase the A380 in the numbers Airbus figured they would.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 34): Whatever the "marketing" numbers, the business case was based on selling 750 frames in the first 20 years. I doubt they will achieve that.

  

Quoting astuteman (Reply 34): Agreed. By which time whatever the original business case, or projections were, they'll be nothing more than a) a footnote in history, and b) a comfort blanket for those who will always need a mechanism to diss the programme

c) an "inconvenient truth" buried by those that don't want to admit the A380 was launched more so out of an excess of pride and optimism as opposed to a solid business case

I always understood that one reason for the Airbus launch of the A380 was to stop the gravy train of B747 orders and the Boeing dominance of the ULA sector. Without the A380, when it was opportune, Boeing was selling the 747 with a huge profit margin (I think)

Now, just as with the B747 family starting at the -100 model, this A380 family will just get better and better with progressive improvements

As stated up-thread by Tim Clark, the A380 is "the preferred aircraft" of the majority of Emirates pax! It must have something positive going for it to get to that point!

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 38): I always understood that one reason for the Airbus launch of the A380 was to stop the gravy train of B747 orders and the Boeing dominance of the ULA sector. Without the A380, when it was opportune, Boeing was selling the 747 with a huge profit margin (I think)

I think that was true in the time period where the launch decisions were being made, but not very much longer after that. The thing that killed the 747 and is restricting the A380 is the big twin, namely 777 and soon A350 too.

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 38): Now, just as with the B747 family starting at the -100 model, this A380 family will just get better and better with progressive improvements

It's hard to draw that parallel. 747 was bought not just for capacity but also for range. In its prime, there were many city-pairs that only 747 could service due to the amount of fuel it could hold in those massive wings. As time has marched on, engines have gotten much more fuel efficient and so many other aspects of aviation design have improved that we now have 787 sized a/c that can fly the long routes. This means that there aren't as many VLA frames being sold, so fewer to recoup the investment. Given all this, Airbus will be challenged to continue to fund the improvements that you mention.

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 38): As stated up-thread by Tim Clark, the A380 is "the preferred aircraft" of the majority of Emirates pax! It must have something positive going for it to get to that point!

This is the same guy who is talking to Airbus about going 11 wide so he can put another 40 seats onto the A380, isn't it?

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 38): As stated up-thread by Tim Clark, the A380 is "the preferred aircraft" of the majority of Emirates pax! It must have something positive going for it to get to that point!

Lets see how "preferred" the A380 is when those same passengers are jammed into 11 across seating.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 37): The program is already a money loser and adding more money not likely to be repaid obviously doesn't help. It also puts an expectation into the marketplace that Airbus will re-engine the A380 each new engine generation, which will continue to keep the program in the red.

What is it with A380 that some of you Americans still try to diss it anyway possible? P*nis envy? The program will break even next year with the current order book. That leaves about 15 more years to make actually money.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 37): c) an "inconvenient truth" buried by those that don't want to admit the A380 was launched more so out of an excess of pride and optimism as opposed to a solid business case

The original business case called for 250 sales to break even. Currently, there are 324 firm orders on the books. I.e., if Airbus project management hadn't screwed up, the project would be far into the blacks by now. The management who launched the project might not be entirely blameless for that major screw-up, but the launch was founded on their business case of selling far more than 250 frames rater than an "excess of pride", as you call it.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 37): an "inconvenient truth" buried by those that don't want to admit the A380 was launched more so out of an excess of pride and optimism as opposed to a solid business case

It's a bit too short, this is not the complete "truth". Without launching the A380, Airbus would have ended up with the A346 competing with the 744 and possibly the 77W and Boeing enjoying comfortable profits on both. Would this have been a more comfortable situation for Airbus, without even knowing what we know today about the competitiveness of the A346? Surely not and I'm not quite sure about what would have been the alternative options for Airbus at that time. Boeing could also have spared the development cost of the 748.

I think that Airbus probably made a bigger mistake by rushing the A346 without evaluating thoroughly its value vs a large twin, rather than eventually launching the A380. On the other hand, they couldn't make use of the GE90, so they had anyway to design a plane able to compete with a large GE90-powered twin and the 744. They probably shouldn't have launched the A345/6 at all and put more focus and money on the A380 development. Otherwise, could you imagine Airbus today with a portfolio limited to the A320 and A330 families? At best they could have been quicker to react to the 787, but they would have remained a tiny company compared to Boeing with all the detrimental effect of having less bargaining power with both their customers and their suppliers. Have you ever tried to get a friendly price from Alcoa for example?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 12): Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 11):There is no else. Emirates business plan is based on growth, replacing the whales with 777X metal would be a major downsize in capacity. Yes, that is my point: Clark has no negotiating leverage at all.

Well, surely EK won't replace A380s with 777-9s. So, the question for Airbus will be: what kind of ROI will we have from upgrading the A380-800? Airbus must find a customer base next to EK. No doubt EK will try to convince Airbus there will be: EK did this with Boeing prior to the 777X launch. And they were proven right.

But how about this: EK hasn't firmed their order for 150 777X's yet. An A380X might Convince EK to take more A380s but less 777X's than originally intended. Might be a tempting thought for Airbus...   

Quoting AustrianZRH (Reply 42): The original business case called for 250 sales to break even. Currently, there are 324 firm orders on the books. I.e., if Airbus project management hadn't screwed up, the project would be far into the blacks by now.

That presumes that selling 250 frames ever would have reached break even, which to me was always optimistic. Wiki sez: "On 19 December 2000, the supervisory board of newly restructured Airbus voted to launch an €8.8-billion programme to build the A3XX, re-christened as the A380" so each and every frame from the first one on would have to have brought in 8.8/250 = EUR 35M profit and not a penny less. Given list price around EUR 300M each and a lot of discounting (you don't think EK pays list when it buys them in chunks of 50 frames, right?) it's hard to see how that ever could have happened, even if such a huge program would have come to market on time and on schedule, which rarely happens.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 25): Honestly, I'm deeply surprised they still have A350-900s on order

I also thought this had to do with availability, withe the older 777s and A330/A340s leaving the fleet soon. But...

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 35): Quoting Stitch (Reply 27):Anyone know when their first A350-900 is scheduled for delivery Not much information available, I understood it will be 2017. If true, Emirates will have a handful -900s in service at the time the -1000 enters the market.

In that case, I doubt the A359 makes sense for EK. They'd better convert every A359 into -1000s, these will be available in 2017 - if all goes as planned.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 35): Hm 66 additional seats is just impossible. I think those 274 seats are from an old configuration, before the galley reconfiguration was applied to the -900.

Back in 2008 EK VP-Route and Fleet Planning Richard Jewsbury noted that the A350-900 would seat the same 290 in three classes as the 777-200ER did, though that may have been with the older generation premium cabin hard product as found on the 777-200ER.

The A350-900 has just about the same cabin floor area than the A340-500, which seats 258 with the current premium cabin hard product. The A350-900 cabin is about 1.5m shorter than the A340-500, however it can do 9-abreast in Economy so I used Airbus' two-class A350-900 seat map (as it has the same Business Class pitch as EK's current Business Class product) and mapped EK's A340-500 configuration on top of it to get 266 seats. Tweaking galleys and lavatories would then allow for the additional 8 Economy seats needed to get the plane to the 274 seat count Tim Clark noted in 2011.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 37): I think you all are leading to the same point, that EK is using the A380 very effectively and efficiently, probably more so than Airbus figured they would, thus making it very difficult for airlines other than EK to purchase the A380 in the numbers Airbus figured they would.

And I think a major reason for that is Dubai's prime location to serve as a connecting point for traffic to/from/transiting the EU, Africa, India, Asia and Oceania. That allows EK to generate "A380 loads" from significantly more cities than the 20 "mega-cities" that Airbus originally projected would be the core for A380 operations in the 21st century.

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 38): I always understood that one reason for the Airbus launch of the A380 was to stop the gravy train of B747 orders and the Boeing dominance of the ULA sector. Without the A380, when it was opportune, Boeing was selling the 747 with a huge profit margin.

Boeing might have been making a decent per frame margin on the 747-400 family, but the line was already winding down when Airbus launched the A380-800 in 2000. Also, Boeing was making a decent margin because all the capital investment had been paid for decades prior, whereas Airbus was just starting their capital investment for the model.

The real reason Airbus launched the A380 was their traffic projections showed that there would be two dozen "mega cities" with populations deep into the millions that could justify the need for aircraft capable of moving 50% more people than the 747-400.

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 38): As stated up-thread by Tim Clark, the A380 is "the preferred aircraft" of the majority of Emirates pax! It must have something positive going for it to get to that point!

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 40): Lets see how "preferred" the A380 is when those same passengers are jammed into 11 across seating.

It will still be more comfortable than flying their 777s. *shrug*

Quoting tim73 (Reply 41): What is it with A380 that some of you Americans still try to diss it anyway possible? P*nis envy? I think you will find that the Australians are the most vocal critics of the A380 program.   [quote=tim73,reply=41]The program will break even next year with the current order book. That leaves about 15 more years to make actually money.

Your statement is incorrect. The A380 is expected to break even on a per frame delivery basis in 2015 (and with the lower delivery rate due to the wing cracks, that might not happen, now). The program as a whole remains far away from breaking even.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 37): c) an "inconvenient truth" buried by those that don't want to admit the A380 was launched more so out of an excess of pride and optimism as opposed to a solid business case

Quoting tomcat (Reply 43): I think that Airbus probably made a bigger mistake by rushing the A346 without evaluating thoroughly its value vs a large twin, rather than eventually launching the A380.

The A340-600 was quite competitive against the 747-400 unless the 747-400 was at near maximum passenger load factor and it won RFPs with carriers who likely would have just ordered more 747-400s if the A340-600 was not available. It was also quicker, easier and cheaper to extend the A340 family then embark on an all-new large twin that would enter the market a decade later than the 777.

Quoting tomcat (Reply 43): On the other hand, they couldn't make use of the GE90, so they had anyway to design a plane able to compete with a large GE90-powered twin and the 744.

If Airbus had wanted to launch twin with the size and operating weights of the 777-200LR and 777-300ER, I expect GE would have offered them the GE90-11xB, as well. And even if they had not, Airbus could have used the Rolls-Royce Trent 8104 and 8115.

Quoting tomcat (Reply 43): They probably shouldn't have launched the A345/6 at all and put more focus and money on the A380 development.

Money was not the A380's problem during the A380's development. Proper oversight was. And then only for the interior configuration.

Quoting tomcat (Reply 43): Otherwise, could you imagine Airbus today with a portfolio limited to the A320 and A330 families?

Honestly, I think Airbus would have been very successful with just those two families, as they are both fantastic families that address the two largest segments of the commercial aviation market. True, they'd be a permanent second place to Boeing, but they certainly would not have been a McD or Lockheed in terms of marketshare.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 37): ) an "inconvenient truth" buried by those that don't want to admit the A380 was launched more so out of an excess of pride and optimism as opposed to a solid business case

Signed - those who wish that was the case - see b) above  

Quoting Revelation (Reply 37): The program is already a money loser and adding more money not likely to be repaid obviously doesn't help

The whole point of this conversation is that it is clear that EK alone will be buying large quantities of an upgraded A380, an upgrade which will cost only a tiny fraction of what a new frame would cost.
I have absolutely no doubt that an upgrade arising via EK's patronage will secure other customers too.
I see no reason why Airbus can't secure at least as many orders for an A380NEO as the current frame has garnered - for some $1Bn - $2Bn tops

Quoting Revelation (Reply 39): This is the same guy who is talking to Airbus about going 11 wide so he can put another 40 seats onto the A380, isn't it?

No it isn't.
He's never asked Airbus for 11-across. he's only ever said they probably would "IF he ever asked". But he never has.
He's made it abundantly clear that in Ek's fleet, the A380's provide the premium offering and he intends to keep it that way.

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 40): Lets see how "preferred" the A380 is when those same passengers are jammed into 11 across seating.

"Jammed" into 18" minimum seats (compared to those on the competitor's offerings?) I'd say that's a "yes"  
The only client actively pushing 11-abreast (Amedeo) has insisted that it is acceptable only if 18" seats can be offered.
As far as EK are concerned, Tim Clark has said exactly the same thing. And he isn't pushing Airbus

Quoting tim73 (Reply 41): What is it with A380 that some of you Americans still try to diss it anyway possible?

Not to mention some that actually aren't.  

Rgds

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 38): Without the A380, when it was opportune, Boeing was selling the 747 with a huge profit margin (I think)

That Boeing made buckets of money on the 747 was a myth that Airbus couldn't get out of their mind. The 744 was already dead as far as profit was concerned before the A380 hit the skys. If you were set on buying a Boeing you had the choice of 777 or 747 for nearly the same price, and most airlines were going 777.

even before that the margins were slim on the 747 line. The 767 had long been the bread winner during the 747 lifetime, nice high margins.

Airbus found out that Boeing really wasn't lying about the VLA market the hard way.