It's Time To Stretch The A380

Max Q · Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:45 am

I see this as the only way for this aircraft to succeed in the marketplace.

The existing aircraft has been a great technical success but has only really worked well for Emirates, they seem uniquely situated to make money with these aircraft on a big scale.

All other operators really just have 'token fleets' that they could probably do without, they're not exactly indispensable, and many are having second thoughts and / or are cancelling orders.

Problem is, it's just not enough of a capacity jump from the 77W and especially the future -9, with its incredible economics.

Now a stretch 'NG' with new engines would really be a game changer, it could offer unprecedented economics, as a true VVLA it could truly separate itself from the Megatwins and provide a real economic solution for the heaviest routes to the most congested airports in the world . I think this would really generate new interest in the program

And if that doesn't work I think the program is doomed !

PlanesNTrains · Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:55 am

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):
And if that doesn't work I think the program is doomed !

Newsflash: ALL programs are "doomed", just like ALL people are "doomed". It's just a matter of when.

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):

Now a stretch 'NG' with new engines would really be a game changer, it could offer unprecedented economics, as a true VVLA it could truly separate itself from the Megatwins and provide a real economic solution for the heaviest routes to the most congested airports in the world . I think this would really generate new interest in the program

I agree that a theoretical A380-900neo would be an awesome airframe, and I certainly hope it comes to fruition (actually, I'm also a big fan of a truly theoretical A380-1000neo, but that's likely not going to happen).

However, beyond that, I think your post is really full of conjecture and not necessarily representative of what's really going on out there. First, by virtue of being the biggest, its market is obviously going to be smaller. The fact that EK has scores in service and on order might very well be dampening demand by others who might have otherwise ordered it. Just my opinion.

As far as "many" having second thoughts or cancelling orders, I'd just like to see that quantified before I jump on board. EK just cancelled 70 A350's. QF dropped scored of 787 orders. Things happen, As they say, it ain't over till it's over. I choose to believe that if Airbus re-engines the -800 that it will gain some additional orders and be more competitive - if not a natural fit - with the coming 779X.

-Dave

StTim · Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:57 am

The problem is that a stretch would do wonders for Emirates but probably nothing to worse for the other legacy carriers who are struggling with the size as it is. The seat economics of the 779 are not there until the turn of the decade at the earliest. The issue is filling the current seat numbers. It does look a little as if it has been a step up too far BUT the plane has effectively flown most of it's life under the cloud of a global depression. That has made it tough. As the world economy recovers it may find life easier.

Max Q · Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:04 am

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 1):

Newsflash: ALL programs are "doomed", just like ALL people are "doomed". It's just a matter of when.
Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):

That makes no sense. I''m talking about the economic viability of an aircraft and if it will ever be profitable for Airbus.

There is no correlation to human life, so there's a 'newsflash' for you.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 1):
However, beyond that, I think your post is really full of conjecture

Nonsense, look around the world and see how few A380's there are apart from EK. The market is small
and it's getting smaller, its just not 'big' enough.

Few airlines want to operate a thirsty behemoth that only carries a few people more than the thrifty 777 and can't carry much cargo. Time for a game changer or forget it.

Ab345 · Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:10 am

This has been a very productive week for EK related topics and the cancellation spawned quite a number of threads

On your topic: As with all the models that come out the A380 too has to also evolve at some point. If I m not mistaken what we have seen up to now are increases in MTOW that have given it extra range thus unblocking of seats and some weight reductions right?

NEOing it and creating the A389 would sure be creating a beast that would make Mr Clark very happy and would probably secure Airbus an extra 100 frames give or take some ceo conversions, but for the predictable future I think it will stay there, and this coming from an Airbus guy btw.

If this is to be approached it should be around the end of the decade with possible EIS around 2024 maybe? Studies and approaches to the matter can be simulated at any point Airbus wishes and act on the accordingly.

Personally speaking of course , I don't think you need to "react" the moment your opponent makes a move.Evaluate first. Most users perceive the 77X as the best thing since sliced bread (and it may be) but a whole bunch of scenarios ranging from A350-1100, 1200, A389, NEOs everywhere is a bit too much for a company to handle. You sell your products on their own merits and try to work out into that any disadvantages your opponent might have.

PlanesNTrains · Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:23 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 3):
That makes no sense. I''m talking about the economic viability of an aircraft and if it will ever be profitable for Airbus.

There is no correlation to human life, so there's a 'newsflash' for you.

Good grief. Apparently the smiley didn't resonate with you. What I would say, though, is that "The A380 is doomed..." is really just words. Of course it's doomed - at some point. You don't say when that will be, so I guess we're left to just nod our head in agreement. So - I'll nod.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 3):
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 1):However, beyond that, I think your post is really full of conjecture
Nonsense, look around the world and see how few A380's there are apart from EK. The market is small
and it's getting smaller, its just not 'big' enough.

Conjecture. Def: 1. An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

-Dave

Upperdeck · Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:04 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 3):
its just not 'big' enough.

Forgive me but it's a VERY big aircraft. Surely the point is how airlines utilise that extra space, rather than the size of the airframe itself?

Also, It seems a regular comment that the Emirates A380 orders are somehow bad for the program because they're the only ones to have ordered it in massive numbers. When A380s are seen all over the world, I doubt Airbus will concerned about the livery. EK had the foresight to use the A380 as a USP on which passengers deliberately choose to fly over other types.

BA's alternative and perhaps more measured approach to using the A380 to free up slots for route expansion in a heavily slot-restricted base without really offering a different in-flight product to their other aircraft is another way to use the -800 for commercial advantage.

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):

I see this as the only way for this aircraft to succeed in the marketplace.

Would love to know how this success is defined! Units sold? Profitability per unit? Profitability versus development costs? Engineering achievements utilised in other programs? Passenger satisfaction/preference?

bunumuring · Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:17 am

Well I guess a possible A380-900/neo has a better chance with Qantas than the 777-9X... Or ummm, maybe not! But somewhere down the line those A380s will need to be replaced!
Cheers,
Bunumuring.

par13del · Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:27 am

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):
Problem is, it's just not enough of a capacity jump from the 77W

Quoting upperdeck (Reply 6):
Forgive me but it's a VERY big aircraft. Surely the point is how airlines utilise that extra space, rather than the size of the airframe itself?

Begs the question, does Airbus pressure clients to not increase the seat count on the A380, because if they don't where exactly is it coming from that the A380 needs to be larger?
Is it for range or more cargo, so far I have not heard any complaints about pax bags being left behind.
How much larger and heavier will the a/c be made for an incremental increase in pax numbers?

tortugamon · Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:29 am

I have not heard an airline state that they would order the A380 except it is too small. It's nearly 50% bigger than a 77W

tortugamon

warren747sp · Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:40 am

It's probably easier to stretch the upper deck of the 748!!

StTim · Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:48 am

I am not sure that is correct. My understanding is that any further extension of the top deck on a 747-8 will impact airflow around the HTP and the VTP - which is a critical area.

777Jet · Mon Jun 16, 2014 12:08 pm

Quoting StTim (Reply 2):
The problem is that a stretch would do wonders for Emirates but probably nothing to worse for the other legacy carriers who are struggling with the size as it is.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 9):
I have not heard an airline state that they would order the A380 except it is too small. It's nearly 50% bigger than a 77W

If there are airlines that don't order it now because it's too big then those airlines most certainly won't order it if it's bigger!

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):
Problem is, it's just not enough of a capacity jump from the 77W and especially the future -9, with its incredible economics.

Really? Not enough capacity jump from the 77W to the A380 despite the economics?

How many deliveries would it take for such a project to break even? 200? I don't know. But, unless EK guarantees to take that many plus 20% then I can't see this happening...

Ab345 · Mon Jun 16, 2014 12:18 pm

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 12):
If there are airlines that don't order it now because it's too big then those airlines most certainly won't order it if it's bigger!

Well since there is no generic index of how an airline can make an airframe work I believe this whole school of thought is best described in the infamous CX point of view that the 388 would not be economical to operate (mainly due to cargo limitations) while a 389 would be. Again according to their route structure There was a flightglobal article back from late 2010

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/as...11/could-cathay-launch-the-airbus/

chiad · Mon Jun 16, 2014 12:21 pm

In my opinion the A380 program will soldier on with about as many orders as deliveries per year in average (between 20 and 30).
An A380NEO will make the program viable to at least 2030. The A380NEO will come though I am less certain about the A389, but darn .... I hope so.

It wont be runaway successes like A350, or B777X or B787 (nor the A330NEO) but it will secure Airbus profits (if it hasn't already).
I think it's also important to remember that the A380 is an icon and the flag carrier in every Airline that has it in its fleet.
This important to Airbus IMHO.

Revelation · Mon Jun 16, 2014 12:39 pm

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):
I see this as the only way for this aircraft to succeed in the marketplace.

It will stay in the marketplace as long as Airbus continues to fund it. Think of it as the Microsoft Phone of the aircraft world.

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):
All other operators really just have 'token fleets' that they could probably do without, they're not exactly indispensable, and many are having second thoughts and / or are cancelling orders.

I don't agree with this. The ones who are using it successfully could not just fall back to other products. The real problem for Airbus is that it is not being purchased in the numbers as was the 747. A lot of the 747 replacement market ended up not going for bigger planes but instead going to the A350-1000 (see UA) and 777 family. If their rosy predictions were true there would be a lot more action for the A380.

When I see the following:

I don't see something outright doomed, but I see something with a tepid existence. Yes, it has 324 orders, but where are the next 324 orders going to come from, and when?

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):

Now a stretch 'NG' with new engines would really be a game changer, it could offer unprecedented economics, as a true VVLA it could truly separate itself from the Megatwins and provide a real economic solution for the heaviest routes to the most congested airports in the world . I think this would really generate new interest in the program

Airbus is having a hard time talking itself into the A330NEO and seems to be looking at A380NEO due to pressure from their largest customer. I would not expect to see the stretch for a very long time if ever.

SKAirbus · Mon Jun 16, 2014 1:40 pm

A lot of the A380 success may depend on what happens with airport expansion projects, especially in the South East of England. If there is a status quo and Heathrow and Gatwick remain as is (there is a risk of that) and the Estuary airport isn't built then a number of airlines may require larger aircraft to cope with demand.

BA will also require more A380s I'm certain as otherwise they have no prospect of expansion on home turf...

boeingguy26 · Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:45 pm

As the idea sounds ideal, I highly doubt anything passed a re-engine can happen. How can you invest into a stretch option if you have not yet broken even in the original option? Investors will see it as too risky. Especially with upcoming aircraft (A350, B787, and B77X) being so efficient.

The A380 is very niche. The aircraft is efficient after so many seats are filled and nowadays, any carrier that is not in the Middle East (particularly EK) can garauntee filling the seats to make the aircraft efficient.

Boeing778X · Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:48 pm

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):
The existing aircraft has been a great technical success but has only really worked well for Emirates

...And will only continue working very well for Emirates!
Who's going to buy the A389 besides EK? Even if EK did buy it, they're not going to order enough to keep it alive for long.

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):
Problem is, it's just not enough of a capacity jump from the 77W and especially the future -9, with its incredible economics.

Planes like the A350, 787 and 777X, A380 or not, ARE the future.
And I'm willing to bet that the 779 can fit 450 people in a two class configuration, compared to the 550 in the A388, and that's with two less engines.

hivue · Mon Jun 16, 2014 4:02 pm

Could someone succinctly describe the market sweet spot (if it exists) for large, four-engine airliners? EK seems to have hit it (or think they have) but no one else.

Stitch · Mon Jun 16, 2014 4:04 pm

The A380-800 is significantly larger than any other commercial airframe in revenue service and if that's not enough for it to "succeed" in the marketplace, then making it even bigger doesn't strike me as helping.

I expect that if the A380-800 "only works" for Emirates, then the A380-900 is going to "only work" for them, as well.

While a number of people on a.net who have no operational airline experience or knowledge believe CASM is the only metric that matters, the folks who run the Fleet Operations and Planning departments of the world's airlines - folks who have extensive operational airline experience and knowledge - are purchasing airframes that don't always have the best CASM in their class. So if an A380-800 is not appropriate for a carrier even though it has excellent CASM, an A380-900 is not going to be appropriate just because it has even better CASM.

As much as some folks bang-on about how much of a "niche" the A380-800 is, fact is the airframe has secured almost 75% of the sales of the 747-400 passenger model in about 80% of the time. And unlike the 747-400, which "everyone" (

) knows was bought for it's range and not it's capacity, the A380-800 is actually being bought for it's capacity (even if it also has excellent range).

The 777-9 is going to win 747-400 replacement RFPs where capacity is not the most important metric, just as the A340-600 did and 777-300ER is doing. But where it is, the A380-800 will continue to win them against the 777-9 (and A350-1000) just as she has won them against the A340-600 and 777-300ER, CASM be damned.

jetjack74 · Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:54 pm

The fact that only 1 airline is buying this behemoth is testament that it's already a failure. If Emirates wasn't around, Airbus probably never would've gone ahead and built it. Yes it has 324 order, and 140 of those come from 1 carrier. Without them, you might as well refer to it as the legend that Concorde was, only visible in a fleeting moment. And the airline who buying them, will be flooding the market with these with a few years as the rest of their orders will be replacing the the current ones. And then who operates them? Some flimsy fly-by-night operation in Afirica probably

Quoting hivue (Reply 19):
Could someone succinctly describe the market sweet spot (if it exists) for large, four-engine airliners? EK seems to have hit it (or think they have) but no one else.

EK has hit it because they have a "skies the limit" operation. They, like all the other ME3(as they're called) have all the monetary and logistical resources available to them that is funded by a govt faction. These are State-owned Enterprises, not a for-profit private company. Everyone marvels at EK's "through the roof" profits like they're an enigmaYet they're funded by a blank-check operation. No mystery to it at all.

Ncfc99 · Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:58 pm

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 18):
And I'm willing to bet that the 779 can fit 450 people in a two class configuration, compared to the 550 in the A388, and that's with two less engines.

A 2-class A388 is going to seat more than 550 unless it is very premium heavy, EK's seat up to 517 in 3-class with 399 Y on the lower deck. Their 2-class birds are going to be 620+. Put a 388 in sardine can config(11 abreast) and it's going to be nearing 700 seats.

Also, isn't the 779 going to be exit limited at 440, or am I talking out of my APU?

Stitch · Mon Jun 16, 2014 6:13 pm

Quoting jetjack74 (Reply 21):
The fact that only 1 airline is buying this behemoth is testament that it's already a failure. If Emirates wasn't around, Airbus probably never would've gone ahead and built it.

Considering Emirates was never considered a customer when Airbus was developing the airframe...

Flighty · Mon Jun 16, 2014 6:13 pm

Just want to say that yes, a stretch version can sell MORE than the original version. There is preceent for that in the 737 and the 777 (in time). And in time, the A321.

If the A380 today were the 389 NEO, it would be more compelling, not less compelling. It is true that airlines struggle with the large size. But if it can soundly beat the 777 on economics, then they will happily deal with that struggle. If not, then of course the A380 has next to no business case.

[Edited 2014-06-16 11:16:25]

Aquila3 · Mon Jun 16, 2014 6:17 pm

Quoting jetjack74 (Reply 21):
If Emirates wasn't around, Airbus probably never would've gone ahead and built it.

For the 1Kth time. EK was NOT considered a Customer at the time the A380 was designed and first built.
This says all of your post, looks like...

Ncfc99 · Mon Jun 16, 2014 6:20 pm

Quoting jetjack74 (Reply 21):
The fact that only 1 airline is buying this behemoth is testament that it's already a failure. If Emirates wasn't around, Airbus probably never would've gone ahead and built it. Yes it has 324 order, and 140 of those come from 1 carrier. Without them, you might as well refer to it as the legend that Concorde was, only visible in a fleeting moment. And the airline who buying them, will be flooding the market with these with a few years as the rest of their orders will be replacing the the current ones. And then who operates them? Some flimsy fly-by-night operation in Afirica probably

If you have checked the order book, which I take it you have, you will know there is more than one airline buying it. If it wasn't for EK, some of those frames would have been ordered by other airlines as the customers would still be there, BA/QF/TG/MH/SQ would be carrying more people on the kangaroo route or do you think the EK pax would not exisdt? And besides, when the 380 was first being designed, EK wasn't the airline it is today.

Quoting jetjack74 (Reply 21):
EK has hit it because they have a "skies the limit" operation. They, like all the other ME3(as they're called) have all the monetary and logistical resources available to them that is funded by a govt faction. These are State-owned Enterprises, not a for-profit private company. Everyone marvels at EK's "through the roof" profits like they're an enigmaYet they're funded by a blank-check operation. No mystery to it at all.

Yes it is state owned, but so is SQ, why is EK singled out? EK makes profit, they had start up capital way back and since then have been self funding. They use their location to their advantage, they use UAE tax laws of the land to their advantage. That's no different to US airlines using chapter 11 to their advantage to shed debt, pension liability etc. The mystery is why the usual twaddle is posted again and again. Or maybe its no mystery to it at all.

N14AZ · Mon Jun 16, 2014 6:38 pm

I am slightly confused. The thread-title is "It's time to stretch the A 380". So when I clicked the thread title to see the discussion I expected the usual "not now, maybe later"-discussions, where typically someone would refer to the A 380-1000-version and so on and so on...

Inestead of this, the true intention of this thread becomes apparent even by the poster himself:

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):
All other operators really just have 'token fleets' that they could probably do without, they're not exactly indispensable, and many are having second thoughts and / or are cancelling orders.

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):
Problem is, it's just not enough of a capacity jump from the 77W and especially the future -9, with its incredible economics.

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):
And if that doesn't work I think the program is doomed !.

followed by such precious contributions such as

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 18):
And will only continue working very well for Emirates!

[quote=jetjack74,reply=21]The fact that only 1 airline is buying this behemoth is testament that it's already a failure. If Emirates wasn't around, Airbus probably never would've gone ahead and built it.

which is pure BS since initially, EK ordered just a handful airframes...

... makes me think that this thread has been started with one particular intention. Anyway, I am so tired about such discussions. I guess I need an a-net-holiday...

brilondon · Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:10 pm

I don't believe that there is a widespread market for such an aircraft. I can't believe that there is not a bigger market for the present version. The biggest problem is that it may be too big an aircraft for the present economic climate. I don't believe that EK is making gobs of money on the A380 but they may be looking at future growth and are hoping that the world economy picks up and starts filling their aircraft. I was on one a couple of weeks ago and it was not full as far as I could see but that was a mid week flight and I am sure that during peak times they fill it.

toxtethogrady · Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:37 pm

A stretch A380 would seriously challenge some airport designs. You might be able to stretch it to 262 feet in length, but anything bigger would not fit in most terminals. Is there a demand in the market? Only Emirates knows...

dlphoenix · Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:45 pm

Airbus has a very small incentive to spend money streching the A388.
It is already the airframe with the largest capacity in the market and airlines cannot turn to the competition for a bigger airplane.
They may go for a Neo if the CASM dissandvantage will send customers to the 777x.

But spending billions on a strech - not until a someone comes up with a twin with similar capacity.

DLP

Navigator · Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:53 pm

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):
I see this as the only way for this aircraft to succeed in the marketplace.

The existing aircraft has been a great technical success but has only really worked well for Emirates, they seem uniquely situated to make money with these aircraft on a big scale.

And Singapore Airlines? and Korean Air? and Lufthansa? Honestly why do you just spread something like this without any factual background whatsoever?

jetjack74 · Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:55 pm

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 27):
which is pure BS since initially, EK ordered just a handful airframes...

... makes me think that this thread has been started with one particular intention. Anyway, I am so tired about such discussions. I guess I need an a-net-holiday...

Pure BS, yeah OK. And you have have intricate knowledge of the coversations between Airbus and EK and the others. You're tired of these discussions because you believe everything you see in papers and magazines, and thats the official word. If Emirates and the other pyramid schemes had to operate under the same rules as all the airlines of the world, they wouldn't be half the size of what they are. Im not saying they're wrong for the way they operate, cis they're just exploiting the environment under which they operate, which has virtually no limitations at all. But do you see the other airlines of the world with over 100 of these on order? No, not even close

Quoting Stitch (Reply 23):
Considering Emirates was never considered a customer when Airbus was developing the airframe...

Yeah, they just waltzed in and bought up the entire factory floor, merely because they could.

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 26):
If it wasn't for EK, some of those frames would have been ordered by other airlines as the customers would still be there,

Not nearly as many. Many of those airlines probably bought the aircraft, either outright, or at all because of EK and their scheme to dominate the global airline trade. From a competitive environment, the airlines in direct threat from them really had no choice.

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 26):
EK makes profit, they had start up capital way back and since then have been self funding.

Self-funded, like you mean the Emir? Does EK just purchase land and build an airport just because thy feel like it?
All in allEK is nothing but a marketing arm for the Kingdom of Dubai as is LH for Germany and BA for the UK, but EK is over the top with it.

Stitch · Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:01 pm

Quoting jetjack74 (Reply 33):
Yeah, they just waltzed in and bought up the entire factory floor, merely because they could.

No, merely because it meets their traffic growth needs.

If the A380 didn't exist, EK would have over 100 747-8s on order and we'd be still be talking how that airframe is a niche - though the narrative would change to say this is because it has three-figures of sales to one customer instead of two-figures of sales to a half-dozen.

romeobravo · Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:06 pm

If you could stretch the A380 to the full 80m then you'd have a far more competitive aircraft on almost any route than the current A388.

The OEW increase and drag increase would be minor as the plane is already built to handle higher gross weights. But you'd have drastically higher capacity in terms of seats and cargo. Think of the amount of space you could offer first class passengers, or the amount of sardines you could cram on the steerage deck.

You can point to demand, but demand is a function of price, and whilst RASM would be down the CASM would be ridiculous.

mjoelnir · Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:18 pm

Quoting brilondon (Reply 28):
I don't believe that EK is making gobs of money on the A380

That is what Emirates is telling us, that they make gobs of money on the A380. They say the limiting factor on how many A380 they will operate is the infrastructure of DXB.

DocLightning · Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:30 pm

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):
All other operators really just have 'token fleets' that they could probably do without, they're not exactly indispensable, and many are having second thoughts and / or are cancelling orders.

Well-run airlines do not order "token" airplanes. They order airplanes that they intend to fill, fly, and profit from.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 35):
You can point to demand, but demand is a function of price, and whilst RASM would be down the CASM would be ridiculous.

Not so far down that people would start buying tickets to places they don't need to go. There are only so many people who need to get from, say, SFO to FRA every day. You could make the seats available for free tomorrow and I'm still not going, not because the price ain't right, but because I don't need to go to FRA.

You are talking about differences in CASM of a few percent at most. And the CASM curve starts to flatten out at much larger aircraft sizes.

So the first question you have to ask is: "Which airline has enough demand to fill an A389 and to which cities?" I can see BA from LHR to JFK and AF from CDG to JFK. I can see links from those three cities to NRT. Maybe LAX-SYD. Now, you have to ask a question about frequency. LHR-JFK has a bunch of frequencies per day. Is replacing a 779+789 with an A389 going to bring an advantage in CASM?

I see a world-wide market for fewer than 100 (and probably fewer than 50) A389s in the current climate. And do you know who would be ordering A389s who wouldn't be otherwise ordering A388s? Nobody. Because every A389 order is one A388 order that didn't happen.

romeobravo · Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:04 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 37):
You could make the seats available for free tomorrow and I'm still not going, not because the price ain't right, but because I don't need to go to FRA.

That's only because you've chosen one of the dullest major cities in Europe. I'm pretty certain free flights to LHR or CDG would interest you. Besides FRA must have a lot of onward travellers, so in a hub spoke operation you're not just comparing SFO-FRA, but SFO to a whole variety of city pairs that BA, AF and KL are competing on via their own hubs.

Never the less your anecdote isn't a substitute for real demand curves.

A 7m stretch would add 15% extra capacity in passengers. and 20% more LD3s yet probably only result in something like 4% more in OEW, so CASM reduction would be more than a few percent.

Viscount724 · Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:11 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 3):
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 1):
However, beyond that, I think your post is really full of conjecture

Nonsense, look around the world and see how few A380's there are apart from EK. The market is small
and it's getting smaller, its just not 'big' enough.

I completely disagree. The A380 isn't in strong demand because it's too big for them, not because it's too small.

What airlines are urging Airbus to stretch the A380? None that I'm aware of.

The A380 is certified for 800+ passengers. Carriers can easily increase seating capacity if they wish. They're also looking at increasing seating density by going from 10-abreast to 11-abreast in Y class on the main deck.

astuteman · Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:21 pm

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):
Problem is, it's just not enough of a capacity jump from the 77W and especially the future -9, with its incredible economics.

Seriously? An A380-800 offers 65% more passenger capacity than a 77W and 55% more capacity than a 777-9X.
A 6m stretch A380-900 would offer 80% more cabin space than a 777-9X.
How big a jump are you looking for?

Quoting StTim (Reply 2):
The issue is filling the current seat numbers. It does look a little as if it has been a step up too far

I've always been an advocate of the stretched A380's, but I'm forced to agree.
A380's today typically have seating densities about 20% lower than the big twins do.
I think that needs to close a bit first

Quoting Max Q (Reply 3):
The market is small and it's getting smaller, its just not 'big' enough.

Current market behaviour suggests the opposite of both of those ...
The market for bigger planes is clearly strengthening.
The A380 is a big leap from the next plane down

Quoting boeingguy26 (Reply 17):
How can you invest into a stretch option if you have not yet broken even in the original option?

Easy. The original break-even has nothing whatsoever to do with the ROI on a potential stretch

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 18):
And I'm willing to bet that the 779 can fit 450 people in a two class configuration, compared to the 550 in the A388, and that's with two less engines

Just so you have a bit of context, 450 people in a 777-9X equates to 700 in an A380-800 and 800 in an A380-900 stretch. That's with 4 engines

550 in an A380 is equivalent to only 350 in the 777-9X

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 35):
The OEW increase and drag increase would be minor as the plane is already built to handle higher gross weights. But you'd have drastically higher capacity in terms of seats and cargo.

The stretch should offer about 14% more capacity for about 4% higher fuel burn.
In the case of EK I strongly feel that they intend to hang on to the premium feel for their A380's.
In that sense, once they've increased their 3-class capacities to about 550 (equivalent to 350 on a 777-9X) I think they'll turn to a stretch for further growth.

Fitting "RR Advance" type engines on a NEO in particular will make an A380-900 attractive - it would sport a range within 100Nm of the current A380-800 at the same MTOW, carrying 14% more people but burning about 8% less fuel.
That gives a truly long-range aircraft without requiring the MTOW hit.

Rgds

Boeing778X · Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:22 pm

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 22):
Also, isn't the 779 going to be exit limited at 440, or am I talking out of my APU?

I find your sense of humor humorous indeed

That's a very good question. I wouldn't think they'd limit it at 440.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 39):
What airlines are urging Airbus to stretch the A380? None that I'm aware of.

Which goes back to the title of this thread.
No one.

PW100 · Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:26 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 37):
Well-run airlines do not order "token" airplanes. They order airplanes that they intend to fill, fly, and profit from

Agree. I would also agree that some A380 operators (MH, TH) would not be considered well-run (well, at least from my limited point of view that is), so other factors may be in place here (like prestige).

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 37):
Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 35):You can point to demand, but demand is a function of price, and whilst RASM would be down the CASM would be ridiculous.
Not so far down that people would start buying tickets to places they don't need to go. There are only so many people who need to get from, say, SFO to FRA every day

I think this is only partially true. If jet-fuel got so expensive that airlines had to double ticket prices, I'm sure demand will drop significantly. I'm also sure that if ticket prizes drop, that would open up new markets, and attract travelers who would previously not fly said route. Lower pricing could open FRA-SFO for holiday travelers who would previously only consider FRA-JFK/EWR, or just FRA-Southern-Europe.

PW100

Stitch · Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:28 pm

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 22):
Also, isn't the 779 going to be exit limited at 440, or am I talking out of my APU?

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 41):
That's a very good question. I wouldn't think they'd limit it at 440.

The exit configuration of four Type A and one Type III doors per side would set the Evacuation Limit at 475.

astuteman · Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:31 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 39):
What airlines are urging Airbus to stretch the A380? None that I'm aware of.

EK have been doing so from the outset.
CX have also expressed a preference for a stretch over the current plane

Rgds

bchandl · Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:34 pm

Quoting StTim (Reply 2):
the plane has effectively flown most of it's life under the cloud of a global depression. That has made it tough. As the world economy recovers it may find life easier.

How long are we going to use that excuse? I mean, it's so overused even Barack quit using it for covering up his failures.

Sure, it entered the market when both the aviation and the general macro economy was in the dumps. I totally agree. I also agree that a recession of that magnitude could have dissuaded airlines from ordering the A380....

HOWEVER, the airline industry pax numbers have recovered to pre recession numbers, and shows very positive growth going forward. So I would argue any airline that was dissuaded from ordering them 6 years ago would be ordering them now.

Except they're not. Which tends to suggest that the problem was less the economy and more the fact that the airplane is nothing more than a niche product that can only be profitable for a few select airlines.

Regardless of whether the last decade was a recession or the "roaring twenties", the A380 would not have been a hot seller.

homer787 · Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:38 pm

Although I think that a stretch would make the A380 look much better. Kind of like the difference between an A343 and an A345(6). I am curious how a stretch would work as it is almost as long as the 748 is only 3.4 meters longer, and barely fits in the box. Also, many of the 388 operators are having difficulty filling the plane, especially during low season. It seems that it would be unlikely since it would be such a niche aircraft that Airbus would have a difficult time covering the development expenses with additional sales.

aklrno · Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:44 pm

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 22):
Also, isn't the 779 going to be exit limited at 440, or am I talking out of my APU?

I was regretting reading this thread (I am not interested in the topic) until I came to that sentence. Made it all worthwhile.

bchandl · Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:49 pm

Quoting homer787 (Reply 46):
Also, many of the 388 operators are having difficulty filling the plane,

Bingo. This is the issue with the plane for almost every airline in the world that doesn't have it in their fleets. The CASM, MTOW, Range and performance are all acceptable. Size is the killer.

So the answer is to stretch the plane that already has a "size issue" for the majority of the world's airlines?

What.

I think sometimes A.net stops thinking about planes/design in "what kind of plane would sell" and instead talks in "well boy, wouldn't this look cool!"

That's how we get on topics about STRETCHING the world's largest pax airplane, that can barely sell beyond EK because of it's size. That thinking is also how we get "My recently fired, for using drugs on the job, UA ramper buddy says WN is merging with Alaska Air, doing a hostile takeover of DL and commissioning Boeing to produce 2,000 797s!"

A stretched 380 would 100% be a money loser for A. Any EK sales would come at the sacrifice of currently booked -800 sales. Does no good to build a stretched model only to have your only orders to be EK switching 50 -800 orders to -900.

[Edited 2014-06-16 15:57:42]

AvObserver · Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:55 pm

No it's not. Not until someone other than Emirates shows interest in it. Airbus has made that abundantly clear to EK. It IS time to reengine it, though, provided a plurality of existing operators are on board. Again, doubt Airbus will do it for EK alone but it should be easier to whip up interest for this than for the stretch which nobody, aside from Emirates, seems to want.

racercoup · Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:12 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 44):
EK have been doing so from the outset.

Airbus has already lost billions on an airframe that will never be recouped, while EK and others have made a bundle.
Are they really foolish enough to add to the misery?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net