Quoting Revelation (Reply 50): A380 will need to sell against today's twins and improved succesors, which are much better than the ones it was selling against in 2000.

I'm sure they are.
What I'm not sure about is why you are studiously ignoring that the reason we're discussing an A380 upgrade is to bring improvements of a similar scale to the A380 and restore, maybe even improve, it's competitiveness against the new twins.
The A380 that needs to sell against today's improved twins will be an equally improved A380.

For me, though, the real point here is that, where the 777 is requiring a complete make-over - all-new CFRP wings, new engines, a fuselage stretch, a re-sculpting of the interior, et al, to deliver that 15%-16% fuel burn per seat improvement, all that's being suggested of the A380 is to hang new engines with 10% better SFC off the wings, and make a few judicial aero and weight improvements.
Oh, yes, and add 6% or so more seats in the same fuselage yet still retaining a considerable space per seat advantage over it's twin competitor.  

A relatively trivial task in comparison, I would have thought.

If EK really get their way, and Airbus fancy a bit more of a challenge, but still a lot less than the 777X, an "RR Advance" powered A380-900 would offer 20% better fuel burn per m2 than the current plane, and 25%-30% better fuel burn per seat if the slightly more dense configurations were adopted.
And offer the same range capability as today's plane on the same MTOW
That dwarf's the improvements being offered by "the big twins"
There's a tasty back-pocket item  

Rgds

Quoting astuteman (Reply 51): If EK really get their way, and Airbus fancy a bit more of a challenge, but still a lot less than the 777X, an "RR Advance" powered A380-900 would offer 20% better fuel burn per m2 than the current plane, and 25%-30% better fuel burn per seat if the slightly more dense configurations were adopted. And offer the same range capability as today's plane on the same MTOW That dwarf's the improvements being offered by "the big twins" There's a tasty back-pocket item

Now you're talking! An A380-900neo would be a killer airframe. Bring it on.

-Dave

The A380 as it presently is, has a payload to OEW ratio that is unfavorable. It's volume limited payload in a typical configuration is ~ 62t, with an OEW of ~ 285t the ratio is ~.22. By the same criteria a 77W is ~.33. On a 6500nm sector with the 62t aboard it will burn 174.5t of fuel. A payload drop of 20% down to 49t drops the burn down to 168.9t or ~ 3.3%. A further payload drop of 10% brings the fuel down only an additional 1.5%. It is my view that an operator of the type has to recognize that their cost per payload unit rises pretty dramatically as the payload drops off. This helps to explain why some operators shuffle their A380 fleet looking for the city pairs that are offering the best returns.
If a new engine will reduce burn by 9% and they can get 10t of weight out, the fuel burn will drop by 13% or ~$23000 on a 6500nm sector. Not to be sneezed at!

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 55): On a 6500nm sector with the 62t aboard it will burn 174.5t of fuel.

You're fuel burn numbers are about 10t too high.

As a pointer, the JFK-DXB A380 flight has a trip fuel burn between 140-145t with a take off weight around 520t.

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.

If the A351 is going to seat 340, I have to think the A359 will be pretty close to 300 especially in two-class, which satisfies the 300-seat claim. Although I have read a quote from him saying that 340 was the minimum he needed now.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-1...-a350-as-boeing-stalls-on-777.html

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.

I think this argument is somewhat valid. I think there would be a need for more A380s if EK didn't exist but I don't think it would be anywhere near the amount that EK has ordered. But this is largely academic as we will never know. I think these new changes will make it more appealing to more airlines though.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 34): 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".

I did not indicate that EK's orders weren't valid, indeed they are some of the most meaningful orders in history, just that the A380 program wouldn't be the same without them. And vice versa. IMO the most meaningful decision makers regarding the A380s future are located in Dubai, not Toulouse.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 37): 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.

If Airbus doesn't launch a major improvement package than it is hard to see airlines buying the same A380s to replace their existing A380s next decade (this includes EK in my opinion). I really don't see the A380 and the 777-9x competing but if the A380 doesn't improve it is hard for me to believe that the 779 wouldn't take at least a few A380 customers during replacement. This is about ROI and it will be $1-3 Billion and I wouldn't be surprised if they give themselves another 15 years and replace the vast majority of current A380s plus growth with that investment. The alternative is not very good.

Quoting 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.

Break even per aircraft; not the whole program. That is not a small number of years away.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 44): An A380X might Convince EK to take more A380s but less 777X's than originally intended. Might be a tempting thought for Airbus...

EK is in market share grab mode and they are buying as many A380s as they can feasibly take IMO. I would bet that they would have an entire fleet of A380s if they could so I don't think an improvement to the frame is going to make them order any more than they already can. I think they are limited by DXB and the airports that they fly to (Cat E vs F) and of course demand per route. I envision a mix favoring the A380 for many years to come.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 46): 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.

That timing just doesn't sound right to me. EK was an early customer and I just can't see them waiting until 2017. Plus I don't think 2017/2018 A359 customers can just switch the A351 as I suspect the separate supply chain and final assembly is limited. (Guess)

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 49): That Boeing made buckets of money on the 747 was a myth that Airbus couldn't get out of their mind

The best selling wide body in history with virtually no competition for 30+ years certainly made Boeing a lot of money.

tortugamon

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

As others have pointed out, those seats will still be (a bit) wider than a 10-abreast 777 Y cabin. And people are happily boarding those 777s.

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.

The development costs have been written off and the unit cost will become profitable next year. Airbus can only move forward with the A380 because canceling the program would cost them even more money.

I strongly believe the whale can secure another 350 - 400 orders with new engines / more improvements. If you have a competitive product, someone will buy it. And putting the financial crisis behind us, people will automatically take more risks again.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 47): and with the lower delivery rate due to the wing cracks, that might not happen, now

Production has been increased to 30 units per year again and will remain at this level for at least the next four years.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 52): I think I stated my point of view pretty clearly:

Unlike people might think, filling the seats itself is not really the problem. You have to fly the A380 on high yield routes, or big trunk routes with lots of Y seats (like Transaero and Emirates* will do).

IATA forecasts also show that 400+ seat routes are expected to double before the end of the decade.

I think the future will see more A380s with lots of Y seats and less premium seats. The luxury point of view is an image from the previous decade.

* Emirates will soon operate two-class A380s with over 600 seats.

[Edited 2014-05-03 15:22:46]

Quoting Revelation (Reply 45): 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.

Do you really believe that the only revenue an OEM makes off an airframe is from the initial sale?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 57): Break even per aircraft; not the whole program. That is not a small number of years away.

Realistically I'm not sure if Airbus is still chasing the program break even point. Those costs have been written off. More important, the A380 will generate positive cash in 2015.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 60): Realistically I'm not sure if Airbus is still chasing the program break even point. Those costs have been written off. More important, the A380 will generate positive cash in 2015.

Well you can't hit program break even until the program stops bleeding cash so first thing is first and that is positive cash flow per frame. However, stockholders certainly are paying attention to program break even and it will play a roll in future projects when they go for approval/financing and it certainly will be considered when they go to the board for neo approval. Even though it certainly is not nearly as important (at this point) as some like to make out.

tortugamon

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 60): Realistically I'm not sure if Airbus is still chasing the program break even point. Those costs have been written off. More important, the A380 will generate positive cash in 2015.

I believe when Airbus "First floated" 2015 as a possible break even point... It involved a certain production rate (which they didn't hit) and was before the wing crack issue. It also was speculating on favorable currency exchange possibility?

Don't think any of that materialized??

Quoting ChaosTheory (Reply 56): As a pointer, the JFK-DXB A380 flight has a trip fuel burn between 140-145t with a take off weight around 520t.

Piano-X shows that an A380 at 520t TOW DXB-JFK ( 13hrs 45m) burns ~168t of fuel. Piano-X 's numbers are considered to be pretty accurate. 16% difference is quite a spread.   

Quoting Revelation (Reply 52): I think I stated my point of view pretty clearly:

You did. It's one I don't even come close to buying.

On the one hand you say the A380 now has to compete with ever more efficient big twins which are killing it's appeal . On the other you say improving it's efficiency is irrelevant because a 10% fuel burn reduction is marginal in it's effect anyway. Heaven forbid.

All I see the classic "having your cake and eating it argument" that is the usual refuge of those who want to end the A380's prospects but don't have a real argument to offer.
And presented as a fact, rather than an opinion.

"The A380 won't sell unless it's improved. It won't be improved because it wouldn't sell". Marvellous.

I don't see why a 10%+ fuel burn reduction added to a 5%-6% increase in seating is significant for the 777X, but not for the A380NEO.

That EK are very actively pursuing a "NEO" clearly shows that it is. IMO

Rgds

Quoting KarelXWB (Thread starter): > New cabin options to fit in more passengers would further reduce CASM

A new cabin instead of EK adding an additional seat per row? Wow! Now EK is talking! I know EK have cited reasons of passenger comfort to rule out 11 abreast seating but with EK there is always the more cost effective option of just adding that extra seat per row. I wouldn't be surprised to see an 11 abreast EK A380...

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 23): As always a good analysis from you, this time on the GE situation. Thanks for posting.

No, it's really not, he recanted that whole ststement in post 22 as he admits that he was incorrect..

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22): 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.

No, not really I did not claim that EA was formed specifically to power the A380 rather that the engine they applied to the EU for the waiver for was built to specifically power the A380, the Boeing projects were dead and in the application to the EU (which I again urge you to read) one of the justifications put forward by EA for the JV was that the A380 was the only likely application for the engine.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 64): All I see the classic "having your cake and eating it argument" that is the usual refuge of those who want to end the A380's prospects but don't have a real argument to offer.

Yup, as usual in an A380 thread haters gonna hate, there is really no point in trying logic or rational argument on them. Their world is cognitive dissonance.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 62): I believe when Airbus "First floated" 2015 as a possible break even point... It involved a certain production rate (which they didn't hit) and was before the wing crack issue. It also was speculating on favorable currency exchange possibility? Don't think any of that materialized??

It's based on a production rate of 30 frames per year which they had in 2012 and now have in 2014. The rate will stay at 30 for the next four years. During the financial press conference earlier this year, Mr. Enders told the press Airbus is still on track to meet the break even point in 2015. The wing crack issue had little to none influence, production rate was only down to 25 in 2013.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 67): t's based on a production rate of 30 frames per year which they had in 2012 and now have in 2014. The rate will stay at 30 for the next four years. During the financial press conference earlier this year, Mr. Enders told the press Airbus is still on track to meet the break even point in 2015. The wing crack issue had little to none influence, production rate was only down to 25 in 2013.

Here is the original "FG" article regarding break even from May 2010. (and a few quotes from it)

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...0-could-break-even-in-2015-342126/

chief financial officer Hans Peter Ring during EADS's first-quarter results presentation. He said that the "maturity" of the A380 "still needs to be improved", but adds that, if progress continues, then "certainly there is some hope that, towards the end of the [five-year] planning horizon, we are approaching break-even".

Ring says the estimate does not amount to formal guidance but rather an "extrapolation of current trends". He adds that the improvement in the US dollar would also "impact positively the whole situation".



Notice the last sentence... "improvement in the US dollar would also "impact positively the whole situation" That hasn't happened. In fact, its been mostly negative over the past four years.



However, Airbus has instigated another recovery programme and is confident it can deliver at least 20 aircraft in 2010 as it aims to stabilize production at around three A380s a month over the next two years.

Based on that output, Flight International projects deliveries should reach around 200 aircraft by 2015-16, when EADS hopes to be closing on break-even.


"confident it can deliver at least 20 aircraft in 2010".. (didn't happen)

"stabilize production at around three A380's a month over the next two years". (didn't happen)


So it seems they say allot different things about A380 break even... But by not meeting the goals they set for themselves and still saying they are on track to meet those goals is a bit confusing... No?  

We're talking about unit cost break-even, not the program break even point.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18): 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.

It stuck Airbus as unreasonable and rightly so, RR should thank their lucky stars for GE's obdurate stupidity as they were about to lose most of the A350 cake but have somehow ended up owning 100% of the A350XWB cake, an aircraft with a much brighter future than the original A350.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 68): But I will note that I find it interesting that the EU felt that having the GP7200 on a four-engined plane was fine from a competitive situation, but having it on a two-engine frame was not fine from a competitive situation. But then, in addition to the A380, Airbus was also working on the A340-500 and A340-600...

Are you seriously suggesting that anybody had a plan to hang 4 GP7200's on a A340? We have been through the reasons why a PW/GE merger would be anti-competitive before and allowing them to JV on twins would be a merger in all but name. By 2000 it was obvious that the A380 would be the last clean sheet design of a 4 engined commercial airliner.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 69): Here is the original "FG" article regarding break even from May 2010. (and a few quotes from it)

Airbus this very year have said they are still on track to break even in 2015 - information that post-dates your quotes by some 4 years.
So why are we flying kites over this still?
There are more forward-looking debates to be had on this thread, I'd suggest

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 67): During the financial press conference earlier this year, Mr. Enders told the press Airbus is still on track to meet the break even point in 2015. The wing crack issue had little to none influence, production rate was only down to 25 in 2013.

Exactly

Rgds

The 2010 article is outdated. For example, in the last few years Airbus reduced the A380 production cost by 30%.

[Edited 2014-05-04 13:04:13]

Quoting astuteman (Reply 64): That EK are very actively pursuing a "NEO" clearly shows that it is. IMO

I think there is a decent likelyhood of this airplane getting built. EK has a huge route design invested in the A380 and they need it to present a compelling alternative (a VERY compelling alternative) to the point to point twin traffic that is starting to happen and can to erode the hub transit activity in Dubai.

It is a real problem for EK as I see it, as I believe the p2p twin concept will grow, so they need to make sure they keep competitive. The current A380 is losing its edge.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 77): And a 777-9 is only going to offer another 20 or so Economy seats - no competition to an A380-800 sitting 150-200 seats above that.

Or even more in the kind of high-density configuration that EK has wet dreams about   

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 70): We're talking about unit cost break-even, not the program break even point.

I was as well, and so was the article. By 2010, no one (including Airbus) was talking program break even by 2015.

Your not suggesting that the original 2002 break even number of 250 frames was still in play... Are you?


Listen, I get the Love/Hate A380 deal here on a-net... Detractors and Defenders... But some things don't necessarily pass the sniff test?

Quoting astuteman (Reply 73): Quoting mffoda (Reply 69): Here is the original "FG" article regarding break even from May 2010. (and a few quotes from it) Airbus this very year have said they are still on track to break even in 2015 - information that post-dates your quotes by some 4 years. So why are we flying kites over this still? There are more forward-looking debates to be had on this thread, I'd suggest

Couple of things astuteman...

1st: They were Not my quotes! They were the Airbus CFO quotes.

"So why are we flying kites over this still?
There are more forward-looking debates to be had on this thread, I'd suggest"

2nd: Because the goal post keeps moving! And there are holes in their logic.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 73): Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 67): During the financial press conference earlier this year, Mr. Enders told the press Airbus is still on track to meet the break even point in 2015. The wing crack issue had little to none influence, production rate was only down to 25 in 2013. Exactly

Also, because Airbus said "The wing crack issue had little to none influence" as KarelXWB suggested... How would you explain the straight half a Billlion dollar write off's? (and we are not quite finished with the write offs)...

As to having "little to none influence" (I suspect he means "Little" instead of "none" influuence). In the below 2013 link (only 1 year ago) it says...

http://aviationweek.com/awin/slowing...lenge-break-even-a380-program-2015

Airbus, which is under increasing pressure to prove the viability of its A380 production rates, yesterday conceded that it still needs to fill a “single-digit number” of production slots for the type in 2015.

Speaking during EADS’s first-quarter results conference call, CFO Harald Wilhelm—who also holds the same role at Airbus—stressed that it is a high priority to fill the remaining slots as quickly as possible.

Demand for the A380 has been declining for some time. The manufacturer also has reduced production this year from 30 aircraft to 25, to incorporate the newly designed wing rib-feet and spars that will become standard for new deliveries from 2014, a decision that has resulted in a significant inventory build-up and produced a €3.2 billion ($4.1 billion) negative free cash flow in the first quarter.


I don't know about you? But, Airbus said it resulted in " a €3.2 billion ($4.1 billion) negative free cash flow in the first quarter."

http://aviationweek.com/awin/slowing...lenge-break-even-a380-program-2015

If that is classified as a "little to none influence"... Then I stand corrected.   

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 74): The 2010 article is outdated. For example, in the last few years Airbus reduced the A380 production cost by 30%.

OTOH, If we stick with Airbus' predictions in 2010, we should be seeing allot better then 30% improvement over the last four years...

Quoting Stitch (Reply 75): And increased the delivery rate by 50%.

But, still misses the're own mark of 3 per month... (considering Airbus' = 11 or 11.5 calendar year)

Quoting mffoda (Reply 79):

I don't think the wing crack has any influence because the problem is fixed for new deliveries going forward and, again, by breakeven they mean selling an A380 for more than it cost them to make an A380 and a problem in 2013 or 2014 doesn't impact unit profitability in 2015. Airbus has acknowledged their production rate for 2015 and still intend on hitting profitability at that rate and in light of everything that has come including all the items you mention so I think Karel and Astuteman are wondering where the new information is here that they all of a sudden aren't going to be profitable (per unit!) in your opinion. I don't see any reason to doubt Airbus' recent claims.

Regarding 2015 slots I thought it was recently revealed that EK is taking those. Could be wrong but I thought those couple slots have been filled at this point.

tortugamon

Quoting Stitch (Reply 77): "Point to Point" really means "Hub to Point" or "Point to Hub" and I don't see such services as being a major future threat to EK when you consider they themselves are successfully implying the A380 on "hub to point" services from DXB to cities like AMS, BCN, BNE, FCO, MAN, MUC and ZRH in the face of "hub-to-point" flights to those cities from US, EU and Asian carriers. Heck, ZRH can support A380 services from SQ, as well.

Is there that much O&D traffic behind all the 380 hub to point? Seems like there are other destinations in the mix somewhere to support that.

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 81): Is there that much O&D traffic behind all the 380 hub to point? Seems like there are other destinations in the mix somewhere to support that.

It is probably better understood as Point-Hub-Point or Hub-Hub-Point. Connecting all primary and some secondary cities via the DXB hub appears to be the strategy and of course the more routes you have the easier it is to launch a new route as just one additional route can open up dozens and dozens of new route possibilities helping loads on existing routes at exactly the same time.

tortugamon

Quoting Stitch (Reply 72): the 777 family looks to be "the gift that keeps on giving" to GE

Quoting Stitch (Reply 72): Not the GP7200, but the GP7172 they were planning for the 767-400ERX would have fit on the A340-500 and A340-600 and the over 10K thrust de-rate would have significantly improved on-wing time, I imagine. Airbus was looking at new engines for the A340-500 and A340-600 Enhanced project and invited GE, P&W and RR to discuss engines for that model along with future programs over the next one to two decades.

So your point here is that Boeing kept cancelling projects that denied EA the chance to produce more engines or that GE alone killed the A340 too efficiently to allow EA to produce more engines?

What exactly is your point here..

Quoting mffoda (Reply 79): Also, because Airbus said "The wing crack issue had little to none influence" as KarelXWB suggested... How would you explain the straight half a Billlion dollar write off's? (and we are not quite finished with the write offs)...

They relate to rework on the planes delivered in the period. 2015 planes won't be reworked.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 79): Airbus, which is under increasing pressure to prove the viability of its A380 production rates, yesterday conceded that it still needs to fill a “single-digit number” of production slots for the type in 2015.

which are now taken

Quoting mffoda (Reply 79): I don't know about you? But, Airbus said it resulted in " a €3.2 billion ($4.1 billion) negative free cash flow in the first quarter."

Because of the production hiatus in that quarter. In 2013. Not 2015.

The only place where the goalposts appear to be moving is on here......

Frankly, if the Airbus financial presentation of the 13th Jan claims they are on target to achieve production break-even in 2015 on 30 deliveries (not 3 per month), I'm not inclined to disbelieve them. Unless something significant changes.

http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/ho...?eID=dam_frontend_push&docID=20289

slide 16

Rgds

Quoting astuteman (Reply 6): The Advance would give an A380-900NEO close to the same range as today's A380-800 on the same MTOW....

Indeed. The beauty of the A380NEO is that the huge MTOW's the airframe was initially designed for would never become necessary - opening the door to structural weight reductions which would take the efficiency gains further, if Airbus chooses to. While some of that may require complex airframe redesigns and may not happen, I'm sure that there is still a good bit of low-hanging fruit left.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 79): I was as well, and so was the article. By 2010, no one (including Airbus) was talking program break even by 2015. Your not suggesting that the original 2002 break even number of 250 frames was still in play... Are you?

I never said that. I was talking about unit cost in reply #60, on which you replied to.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 79): Listen, I get the Love/Hate A380 deal here on a-net... Detractors and Defenders... But some things don't necessarily pass the sniff test?

It has nothing do to with defending. During the annual press conferences in January 2012, 2013 and 2014 Airbus management has repeatedly said the A380 unit cost will become profitable in 2015. In other words, every A380 Airbus sells will add positive cash to the company's cash flow.

I'm not making this up, all the information is available on the internet.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 79): Also, because Airbus said "The wing crack issue had little to none influence" as KarelXWB suggested... How would you explain the straight half a Billlion dollar write off's? (and we are not quite finished with the write offs)...

The write offs will not increase the unit cost. Airbus just took a profit hit in 2012/2013. Therefore, the wing issue will not stop the unit cost from becoming profitable in 2015.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 79): But, still misses the're own mark of 3 per month... (considering Airbus' = 11 or 11.5 calendar year)

The break-event point is based on a production rate of 30 A380s per year / 2.7 per month.

Many media websites don't know that Airbus only works 11 months a year, thus they simply write 3 frames per month. Airbus themselves however are speaking about 30 A380s per year.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 79): Airbus, which is under increasing pressure to prove the viability of its A380 production rates, yesterday conceded that it still needs to fill a “single-digit number” of production slots for the type in 2015.

All remaining 2015 slots have been taken by Emirates. The current production of 30 per year is secured for the next four years.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 79): If that is classified as a "little to none influence"... Then I stand corrected.

I think you are missing the point: all those write offs will not drive the A380 unit cost upwards. Airbus just took a hit in their profit margins in 2012/2013.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 84): Frankly, if the Airbus financial presentation of the 13th Jan claims they are on target to achieve production break-even in 2015 on 30 deliveries (not 3 per month), I'm not inclined to disbelieve them. Unless something significant changes.

  

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 80): breakeven they mean selling an A380 for more than it cost them to make an A380 and a problem in 2013 or 2014 doesn't impact unit profitability in 2015.

  

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 80): Regarding 2015 slots I thought it was recently revealed that EK is taking those.

  

[Edited 2014-05-05 08:30:18]

Quoting Revelation (Reply 86): What I said is that it does not compete with big twins because it has 100+ more seats (and soon more) and two extra engines.

In which case why did you bring "ever more efficient" big twins into a conversation about the A380's competitiveness?
The A380 has always had more seats than the big twins.
And contrary to your assertion, the delta is actually going to decrease with the advent of the 777-9X.
But the "ever more efficient" does matter, and it does undermine the case for having those extra seats, even on routes that can justify them.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 86): You're saying you're confident that Airbus can get 24 orders per year each and every year over the next 14 whilst used A380s are making their way onto the market, and I just don't see who will be buying that many VLAs.

EK gets you a long way down the road  
I don't believe they will carry on buying today's airframe as replacements for their current ones when the "big twins" are becoming ever more efficient.
Can't see it

Quoting Revelation (Reply 86): Because the increase in efficiency comes with a cost and is not going to change the buying decision.

Exactly the same can be said of the 777X, which is considerably more expensive than it's predecessor.
Are you writing that off as well?
FWIW I'm not. I think it has a great future
But then I've always been a fan of consistency of argument.
I have to apologise, but just can't see the consistency in yours. Might just be me of course

It doesn't matter I suppose.
You're allowed to believe there's no future in this aircraft, just as I'm allowed to believe that this thread is clear evidence that there is

rgds

Qatar Airways has joined Emirates to become a possible A380neo candidate.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...hat-two-customers-for-an-a380-neo/

Quoting Revelation (Reply 37): 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.

If an airline has a choice, I believe they would still offer more frequency over more capacity. So unless they can't provide the frequency or, as is the case with EK they know for a fact they can fill those extra 100+ seats, then they will order it.

Quoting tomcat (Reply 43): 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.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 47): 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.

And let's not forget that when the A346 was launched fuel prices weren't where they are today. It's the high price of fuel that ultimately killed it off because it couldn't compete with a twin.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 64): All I see the classic "having your cake and eating it argument" that is the usual refuge of those who want to end the A380's prospects but don't have a real argument to offer. And presented as a fact, rather than an opinion.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 64): I don't see why a 10% fuel burn reduction added to a 5%-6% increase in seating is significant for the 777X, but not for the A380NEO.

Because in the same period that the A380 has been for sale, ~1,000 777's have been sold, but only 324 A380's. Which is to say that in 15 years there's clearly a market for a 777 whereas the market for the A380 is tepid as best. And to improve on an already high-in-demand product makes business sense, especially if you want that product to remain relevant, whereas for a tepid product it is more akin to throwing good money after bad. Now I'm not saying that Airbus shouldn't invest more in the A380; I'm just answering your question about why it's good in the one instance but not necessarily in the other.

By the way, aren't most of these posts opinion anyway, especially when discussing business cases?

Quoting redflyer (Reply 91): Because in the same period that the A380 has been for sale, ~1,000 777's have been sold, but only 324 A380's. Which is to say that in 15 years there's clearly a market for a 777 whereas the market for the A380 is tepid as best.

They were able to sell as many A380s as they could produce, doesn't look that bad to me.

Quoting Unflug (Reply 92): They were able to sell as many A380s as they could produce, doesn't look that bad to me.

I'm not sure that's accurate. I think they could produce more A380s at this point. I think they decided to remain around 30 per year because there was no need to do more at this level of backlog (without being at risk of decreasing the production rate in the not too distant future).
I'm pretty certain there could be more A380s out there at this time if demand had been huge.

Quoting redflyer (Reply 91): If an airline has a choice, I believe they would still offer more frequency over more capacity. So unless they can't provide the frequency or, as is the case with EK they know for a fact they can fill those extra 100+ seats, then they will order it.

Some destinations have restrictions on frequency that are good candidates for the A380. Sydney and Heathrow, for example. Some long distance destinations are only convenient at certain times anyway.

[Edited 2014-05-13 19:38:22]

Quoting redflyer (Reply 91): Because in the same period that the A380 has been for sale, ~1,000 777's have been sold, but only 324 A380's.

The average sales are the same as the 747 passenger model did in the last 40 years. I think the A380 is right where it belongs.

Haven't we just had the a380/EK debate?

The answer is simple, there would still be the project without EK, it would just be in a hell of a shape.

Quoting coolian2 (Reply 96): Haven't we just had the a380/EK debate?

Yes. And being A.net we only discuss a subject once and then move on  

Quoting coolian2 (Reply 96): The answer is simple, there would still be the project without EK, it would just be in a hell of a shape

But you seem to have come away from it with the wrong conclusion.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 97): But you seem to have come away from it with the wrong conclusion.

I think the term I used last time was "less ideal"

Quoting coolian2 (Reply 96): The answer is simple, there would still be the project without EK, it would just be in a hell of a shape.

I guess the same could be said of the 747-8I.