Quoting bchandl (Reply 48): 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!"

From my 6 months as an active member and about a year of just reading the forums I can safely say that a.net has a number of "fetishes".

*There is about a million threads for every minor change of any american airline at any given airport at any given time.
* About 2 million threads about the 787 saga
* 3 million threads about how obliviously dead the A380 is
* A Gazillion threads about EK

and one sacred cow to rule them all....the 77W. Sometimes I feel If I dare say anything about it I might be banned from the site           

Just joking of course  

Quoting bchandl (Reply 48): 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!"

Very funny phrasing and very true. I remember someone at the A380 production thread claiming to have the inside knowledge at BA hq stating that BA was about to stop receiving the A388 at frame #8 and cancel the rest. His phrasing was "just wait and see" I believe

Quoting bchandl (Reply 48): 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.

Right now only a NEO could be a clever development especially if it's regarding the Rolls Advance.

[Edited 2014-06-16 17:07:26]

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 49): It IS time to reengine it, though, provided a plurality of existing operators are on board.

There have been 324 orders placed, 134 which have been delivered. Realistically, the total delivery number of current orders will be around 250.

Say this happens and you get 50% of the operators to replace their fleets within ten years.... that would mean 125neo options.

On top of that, you have to consider how many outstanding CEO options would simply be transferred to the neo option.

IMHO a neo options wouldn't add more that 75 A380 orders, and that's best case scenario.

If they do actually go ahead with this neo, it will show just how much Tim Clark controls that boardroom, and financial logic doesn't.

Quoting bchandl (Reply 48): 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!"

You stated this more succinctly than I would of. Very good point.

Folks, airlines are delaying deliveries and making back channel statements that the 380 is just too big and too hard to economically use. Regardless of what EK wants, Airbus can't sell the current version, apparently because it's too big, so why would they offer a stretch version?

Quoting Ab345 (Reply 51): *There is about a million threads for every minor change of any american airline at any given airport at any given time. * About 2 million threads about the 787 saga * 3 million threads about how obliviously dead the A380 is * A Gazillion threads about EK

Weekly threads about restarting the 757 production line and multiple ongoing threads regarding AA repainting it's airplanes, as well.

Quoting bchandl (Reply 48): 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!"

Oh believe me, THAT would be be the craziest sounding Ramper/Pilot rumor ever   

Quoting Ab345 (Reply 51): From my 6 months as an active member and about a year of just reading the forums I can safely say that a.net has a number of "fetishes". *There is about a million threads for every minor change of any american airline at any given airport at any given time. * About 2 million threads about the 787 saga * 3 million threads about how obliviously dead the A380 is * A Gazillion threads about EK and one sacred cow to rule them all....the 77W. Sometimes I feel If I dare say anything about it I might be banned from the site

you clearly have not been around here long enough.... the one cow that ruled them all is the DC-9, not the 77W  

Quoting Ab345 (Reply 51): and one sacred cow to rule them all....the 77W.

One cow to rule them all, one cow to find them,
One cow to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
In the land of a.net where the shadows lie.

-ir

Quoting bchandl (Reply 52): Quoting AvObserver (Reply 49): It IS time to reengine it, though, provided a plurality of existing operators are on board. There have been 324 orders placed, 134 which have been delivered. Realistically, the total delivery number of current orders will be around 250. Say this happens and you get 50% of the operators to replace their fleets within ten years.... that would mean 125neo options. On top of that, you have to consider how many outstanding CEO options would simply be transferred to the neo option. IMHO a neo options wouldn't add more that 75 A380 orders, and that's best case scenario. If they do actually go ahead with this neo, it will show just how much Tim Clark controls that boardroom, and financial logic doesn't.

You've great points but if they don't re-engine the 380, demand for it will dry up a lot faster. What then?

Just because a 500 passenger 380 isn't that great does not mean a 700 passenger unit at same fuel burn can't work. As proof, consider a 1500 passenger triple decker flying wing. Same fuel burn as an A380. The fuel risk is not greater than the A380. But its annual revenue will be higher, by the way destabilizing the price environment. Of course pesky smaller flying wings may nearly match its unit costs. But an a389 if it utterly kills the 777X economics could supplant the 777.

As this century marches on, the truly affluent 100 million will grow to 1 billion. There will be many mega cities to rival NYC, LON and so on. I do not believe the 77W dictates all future events.

Keep in mind I am a steady A380 basher who never supported the pgm and I preach that RASM always declines with size; ALWAYS. But still. 777X will beat A350 sometimes, and the A380 is a freaking double decker. It, too, may have a role to play, or maybe even a grand destiny. At least I think so. In "theory" there is a real need. But instead of 2020 it will be in 2030.

This product will get built, but Airbus should delay it 10 more years.

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 57): You've great points but if they don't re-engine the 380, demand for it will dry up a lot faster. What then?

Yes, a NEO would sell more units. Without the NEO, orders would dry up faster. I 100% agree. I'm not arguing that.

What I am saying is that the NEO would not sell enough to pay for itself.

This is long, but I don't know how to explain my thoughts other than this math exercise. Follow along if you desire, sorry it's long:

Example:

You own a business that makes X widget and it's going to sell 100 units for $10/widget. The widget costs $500 to design and each unit costs $3.50 to make. After the planned 100 widgets you made $1000 in revenue and $850 in costs.
Revenue: $1000
Costs to Design: $500
Costs to Produce: $350

Total Costs: $850

Profit: $150

However, now your COO comes to you with a new, redesigned drawling of widget X, called widget Y. At this point you have sold 50 of the current X widget. This new Y widget would cost $100 to design and roll out. However, your CFO and marketing team project you can sell 45 units at $12/widget and costs $5.00 to make. However, 30 of those units are conversions of widget X to Y, but that's okay!

It's all great, until you run the numbers.

Revenue (Units Sold of Widget X*Price): 70 (100 - 30 X to Y conversions) $700
Revenue (Units Sold of Widget Y*Price): 45 (30 conversions + 15 new orders) $540

Total Revenue: $1240 *Sounds great, right?*

Original Costs to design widget X: $500
Costs to design unit Y: $100
Costs to produce Widget X: $350 (70*$5)
Costs to produce Widget Y: $225(45*$5)

Total Costs: $1175

Total Profit: $65

When it is all said and done I bet that CEO wished he didn't approve the design of Widget Y.

That scenario is what I am saying is what would happen with an A380neo (Widget Y).

Business isn't about revenue. It's about profits, and greater revenues never mean greater profits. A LOT of people (Not saying you) don't grasp this concept.

As to what Airbus does to change this, IMHO very likely reality, well idk, and that's why I'm not making the big bucks. However, I do know choosing the "bad plan" because you have no other choices is never a good choice. IMHO, an A380neo is that bad choice.

On a more personal note, I'd love to see Airbus do it, and eat their pants on it. Boeing all day!  

With a possible re-engine, would it potentially be possible that it can be a retrofit on existing airframes? Clearly that would involve a bit of work, but would be more popular with the airlines over having to buy new A380s to get any new benefits.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 58): As this century marches on, the truly affluent 100 million will grow to 1 billion. There will be many mega cities to rival NYC, LON and so on. I do not believe the 77W dictates all future events.

Completely agree. Too bad that is not going to happen during the production cycles of either the 777x or A380.

Unless you are really suggesting we will 10x the number of "wealthy" people in the world in the next 20 years. In which case you have gone off the deep end.

All of this chatter amid one great big elephant in the room. Will there be a market for all those EK secondhand Whalejets?

Only time will tell, but I haven' seen one good answer to the question.......

Might want to make sure that the airports can accommodate the "stretch" A380, first.  

Quoting racercoup (Reply 62): Will there be a market for all those EK secondhand Whalejets?

Nope. It's probably a lot of the logic to leasing the early ones, the ones they will retire with new incoming A380s.

It's not their concern. They don' care that by 2020 the second largest operator of the A380 will be the boneyards of Arizona.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 15): Think of it as the Microsoft Phone of the aircraft world.

You mean Windows Phone.

+925

Quoting bchandl (Reply 52): There have been 324 orders placed, 134 which have been delivered. Realistically, the total delivery number of current orders will be around 250. Say this happens and you get 50% of the operators to replace their fleets within ten years.... that would mean 125neo options.

There's a glass-half-empty view for you..

Here's an alternative.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...s-a380neo-possible-by-2025-400405/

Quote: LEK Consulting forecasts demand for another 300 A380s globally through 2024, says John Thomas, head of the firm’s aviation and travel practice. This is based on an analysis of routes where demand for capacity is sufficient and other constraints make the aircraft an ideal option. The demand is in addition to the firm orders that Airbus has on its books, which total 192 aircraft according to Ascend. “This aircraft is very capable,” says Thomas. “Where we see the greatest opportunity going forward is in the 3,000nm [5,556km] to 6,000nm range where it only has an about 3% market share now.”

The article is pertinent to the thread I guess as it discusses an A380 stretch

Rgds

Quoting jetjack74 (Reply 33): 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.

Conjecture and probables do not prove anything. And you're saying airlines ordered it to keep up with the Jones.

Quoting jetjack74 (Reply 33): uoting 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.

Almost all aircraft in the EK fleet are leased, and on the open market, or are you saying the leasing companies are owned by Dubai? Fuel bought on the open market with discounts for volume as any other business. EK don't own the airport, not sure what the airport expansion of Dubai has to do with stretching the A380. Its part of the advantages I was talking about, a government that is pro aviation, not like here in Europe were they are trying to suffocate it.

Quoting racercoup (Reply 50): 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?

The only way I can see Airbus doing the 389 soon would be if EK pony up the $4b or so it would costs to do it, negotiate price based on the fact they have covered the development and take royalties if it is sold to any other airline.

Quoting jetjack74 (Reply 33): 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

Isn't this part of the business as well? Do all airlines have to startup and grow after one sheme? Does an aircraft designer need to look only at traditional customers to evaluate their portfolio? EK is a customer like any other one. And if tomorrow China decides to give money to China Air to buy 1000 A380 in one day, isn't that simply business as well an Airbus did perfectly well (and Boeing then failed here not to see the reality)?

Expensive watches are to a big extent bought by people who where born on money, and Swiss chocolate which was in the past usually just eaten in Switzerland by Swiss people and tourists, make today big money from being sold on Asia ground.

If Airbus tomorrow creates an airplane because they knew it's going to be bought only by one customer but 1000 pieces of it, from tax payers, Airbus won.

That's business.

Alfons

Reply 20

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.


Exactly.
Emirates 'needs' the 380 and Airbus 'needs' Emirates. Its a deadly embrace.
The solution going forwards appears to be.
1.Airbus are not prepared to throw another huge bunch of Euros to build a 900 'just for them'
2.However they are (as effectively RR are paying for it to gain exclusivity) prepared to Re - engine and perhaps improve the wingtip/drag. Certainly 'widen' the interior for 18" 11 abreast for higher density missions/routes.

That's the agreed compromise (it appears).
Such an aircraft can seat 600 pax in 3 classes. It's enough (well it will have to be). It will (in such a guise) remain the most economical pax aircraft for the foreseeable future ( and we are probably talking decades here).
Note as Emirates keep on talking about- 'The 380 effect'.People want (when there is a choice) to fly in a A380. Its (as they say) - a great way to fly. There is no point in denying this fact just because it does not suit certain views.
We should return to this discussion when Emirates are flying 150 of them. Then we will be able to see who is left out there. There are going to be casualties that's for sure!

The question is also (although not quite as extreme) the same for the 777X. It is very suited to the ME3 and less so to the other legacy long haul airlines.

The danger for Boeing is to tune it too much for Tim Clark and lose sales elsewhere. The question is would it be a more profitable route to do so as the ME3 buy planes in quantities not really seen elsewhere.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 3): 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.

Has any airline operating A380s described them as "thirsty"?

Maybe you should tell EK that their A380s are thirsty. At the same time they said they would buy lots of those thrifty 777s, they also placed the largest single order for those "thirsty" A380s. They must be mad.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 40): Easy. The original break-even has nothing whatsoever to do with the ROI on a potential stretch

I understand that aspect. But taking it slightly further, how can you gaurentee ROI on the "stretch" option if the ROI on the standard option has not yet been beneficial? Sure, EK would love a "stretch" option but (1) there will be less airlines buying from the "stretch" option than the standard option and (2) the standard option would be affected even more since you would lose a customer like EK from buying it. I see it as a lose-lose for Airbus's A380 program IMO.

Quoting boeingguy26 (Reply 72): But taking it slightly further, how can you gaurentee ROI on the "stretch" option if the ROI on the standard option has not yet been beneficial?

You cannot guarantee it, but you can project it.

Quoting bchandl (Reply 59): That scenario is what I am saying is what would happen with an A380neo (Widget Y).

The cost to NEO the A380 will likely be very marginal though - maybe only a few billion. Across 200 frames that's only going to be increase the price of the A380 by 10m per copy, which is a fraction of the list price. And if fuel savings approach double digits it'll easily pay that off over its life. Therefore there is room for Airbus to profit.

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 49): No it's not. Not until someone other than Emirates shows interest in it.

Let's get this clear: it's not about EK. EK might want 1,000 A389s but unless they make it clear that they won't accept A388s as an alternative, Airbus has nothing to gain from building A389s.

Airbus will sell the A380-900 when there is a) demand for enough to pay for the program and b) a customer who will buy the A380-900 but not the A380-800. If they can continue to sell A388s without having to spend time and resources on the stretch, then they will.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 75): Airbus will sell the A380-900 when there is a) demand for enough to pay for the program and b) a customer who will buy the A380-900 but not the A380-800. If they can continue to sell A388s without having to spend time and resources on the stretch, then they will.

Then EK should have held off on the 50 A388 order and held a gun to Airbus' head instead. Launch the -900 and we'll order 50 firm of each. Don't, and we'll split the pending 50 between the A388 and the 779X.

I guess that can happen on the next round, though, as with EK, there is always another round.  

-Dave

Quoting Flighty (Reply 58): Just because a 500 passenger 380 isn't that great does not mean a 700 passenger unit at same fuel burn can't work. As proof, consider a 1500 passenger triple decker flying wing. Same fuel burn as an A380. The fuel risk is not greater than the A380. But its annual revenue will be higher, by the way destabilizing the price environment. Of course pesky smaller flying wings may nearly match its unit costs. But an a389 if it utterly kills the 777X economics could supplant the 777.

If efficiency alone was the issue, it wouldn't be an issue. The 380 is already far more efficient than both the 744 and 748. The problem is that it's too much capacity for 99% of the world's airline routes. You can have all the efficiency in the world, relatively speaking, and it's not going to matter if you're flying around half empty airplanes and your network can't support an aircraft of that size.

Quoting racercoup (Reply 62): Will there be a market for all those EK secondhand Whalejets?

Probably not, at least not on the scale that EK will be dumping them on the market. Plus you have to take into account they would be some the earliest build, least efficient, least desirable models. It'll also be interesting to see the effect that has on new build sales. Why buy new when you can buy a gently used, well maintained. 10 year old copy for pennies on the dollar?

Quoting 777stl (Reply 77): Probably not, at least not on the scale that EK will be dumping them on the market. Plus you have to take into account they would be some the earliest build, least efficient, least desirable models

Remind me. how many early build, least desirable A380's did EK receive, and when?

Rgds

Quoting astuteman (Reply 78): Remind me. how many early build, least desirable A380's did EK receive, and when?

Good question.

Then again, this thread turned out to be exactly what we could expect on A-net which is why I stayed way from it for most of the time.  .

A lot of negative nonsense is posted as facts and the actual facts are happily and easily ignored in order to fit the agenda some seem to have here.  .

The dislike (or hate) that certain posters seem to have against an airplane from a specific aircraft manufacturer seems to rule over the rational thoughts they must also be capable of. {scratch chin}. Where as all of us are supposedly aviation enthousiasts, it sometimes is not easy to find in threads where the A380 is being discussed.

Quoting Ab345 (Reply 51): From my 6 months as an active member and about a year of just reading the forums I can safely say that a.net has a number of "fetishes". *There is about a million threads for every minor change of any american airline at any given airport at any given time. * About 2 million threads about the 787 saga * 3 million threads about how obliviously dead the A380 is * A Gazillion threads about EK and one sacred cow to rule them all....the 77W. Sometimes I feel If I dare say anything about it I might be banned from the site            Just joking of course

  .

I don't think it is a joke. I think you have summarised it perfectly. That is at least how I experience these "highlights" usually too.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 76): Then EK should have held off on the 50 A388 order and held a gun to Airbus' head instead. Launch the -900 and we'll order 50 firm of each. Don't, and we'll split the pending 50 between the A388 and the 779X.

Which makes no sense. "You build us a bigger plane or we'll buy a smaller plane than the biggest one available." Airbus would see right through that. EK would only be shooting themselves in the foot.

Quoting 777stl (Reply 77): Plus you have to take into account they would be some the earliest build, least efficient, least desirable models.

EK's earliest frames are the 569,000kg MTOW model so they have 13-14 hour endurance, which is enough to connect most major city pairs. They're also about 3,000kg higher in OEW compared to their latest frames (which I believe are 573,000kg or 575,000kg, which is good for around 15-16 hours of endurance). So the difference is not that large.

All Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engines are under TotalCare maintenance contracts so they're all at the latest PiP spec (soon to be EP2). I would guess Engine Alliance is similar with their GP7200s.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 80): Airbus would see right through that. EK would only be shooting themselves in the foot.

Indeed. Which is why EK happily added another 50 A380's as their clearly favoured flagships (as they have stated numerous times already) to their incredible fleet. Because they are the best cash cows for them which are available to them.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 80): Which makes no sense. "You build us a bigger plane or we'll buy a smaller plane than the biggest one available." Airbus would see right through that. EK would only be shooting themselves in the foot.

I'm sure it does make no sense - I'm not really the best analyst of these situations. However, they have a boatload of -800's. They might, though, have routes that require more than a daily -800 but less than two daily 777X's. So - a 900 might fit the bill. If there's no -900, then they *might* replace one -800 flight with two 777X flights, building to two -800 flights, etc.

So - 777X's could become the growth vehicle over the -800 if a -900 isn't available. Not unlike some of the logic associated with CX's interest in the -900.

-Dave

Quoting Stitch (Reply 73):

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 83): They might, though, have routes that require more than a daily -800 but less than two daily 777X's. So - a 900 might fit the bill. If there's no -900, then they *might* replace one -800 flight with two 777X flights, building to two -800 flights, etc.

Do you realize how much of a niche aircraft that is? You have literally just described a niche, of a niche.

A380 in general is a niche aircraft, now you're parting the segment that the a380 can serve and dicing it up to only the scenarios that are currently served by the A380 but are better served by a -900.

Hence the niche of a niche. If Airbus and Boeing made new planes for every niche that small, we would have 100 different aircraft types and variants flying around.

Well, no there wouldn't, because Airbus and Boeing would have gone out of business by doing that.

EK has had Airbus' balls in the proverbial vice for a decade now and Tim Clark has his hand on the clamp, willing to tighten it until Airbus cracks or only has 'nad soup left.

Airbus needs EK far more than EK needs Airbus. Airbus knows this. Without EK could you just imagine how bad of financial shape Airbus would be in?

The second largest fleet order for the airbus is 20 frames, and only about 5 airlines have firmed orders or deliveries greater than 10.

Nobody outside of EK, or ME3 would take an 389.

As I see it, if the A389 does not get built, there is only one customer who has proclaimed that they will not buy the 388 instead, and that is CX. And they have not committed to buying it; they have only said that they will not buy the A388 but would consider the A389. With that consideration I would estimate that the total increase in A380 orders if the A389 is built would be about a dozen. This will not pay for the program. Re-engining, however, will likely lead to more orders, even if some of them are just replacements for first-generation A388's. But Airbus needs to make sure that any money spent on major improvements to the A380 will result in enough increased revenue to make it financially viable.

Quoting bchandl (Reply 84): A380 in general is a niche aircraft,

  

Quoting bchandl (Reply 84): dicing it up .....the niche of a niche.

  

Quoting bchandl (Reply 84): Airbus and Boeing would have gone out of business by doing that.

  

Quoting bchandl (Reply 84): Nobody outside of EK, or ME3 would take an 389.

Guess what smilie goes here as well.....

Airbus probably wont break even with the A388 anytime soon, if at all ! Why on earth would they invest more money in a stretch....

Thenoflyzone

Quoting bchandl (Reply 84): Airbus needs EK far more than EK needs Airbus. Airbus knows this. Without EK could you just imagine how bad of financial shape Airbus would be in?

Airbus has sold over 14,000 planes in its history. 127 of which have been operated by EK.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 79): A lot of negative nonsense is posted as facts and the actual facts are happily and easily ignored in order to fit the agenda some seem to have here.

Oh please, quit being a martyr.

Weren't some of the early A380s heavier and less efficient than later builds? Doesn't EK own some of the earliest built 380s? Isn't there a HGW version of the 380 in the works(or already complete)?

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 79): The dislike (or hate) that certain posters seem to have against an airplane from a specific aircraft manufacturer seems to rule over the rational thoughts they must also be capable of. {scratch chin}.

It wouldn't be a.net if there weren't some crying and whining. Sigh.

And I'll counter that by stating that it seems certain posters from certain nationalities from a certain continent have sensitive feelings the moment anyone says anything the slightest bit critical of their beloved aircraft of choice. Such that it clouds their judgment and immediately renders them hyperdefensive. I wasn't attacking your beloved A380, merely pointing out that some of EK's examples might suffer on the second hand market because they're early builds.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 81): They're also about 3,000kg higher in OEW compared to their latest frames (which I believe are 573,000kg or 575,000kg, which is good for around 15-16 hours of endurance). So the difference is not that large.

Thanks. That was the point I was getting at.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 87):

Should have specified, but I was referring to the current state of, and future of the A380.

Although, seeing as you apparently read the entire post of mine that you quoted part of, I thought that should have been a given, since the topic and only aircraft mentioned in the post was the A(IRBUS)380.

But I guess not.

Quoting bchandl (Reply 84): Do you realize how much of a niche aircraft that is? You have literally just described a niche, of a niche. A380 in general is a niche aircraft, now you're parting the segment that the a380 can serve and dicing it up to only the scenarios that are currently served by the A380 but are better served by a -900. Hence the niche of a niche. If Airbus and Boeing made new planes for every niche that small, we would have 100 different aircraft types and variants flying around.

Hmmm....I didn't say they "should" do it, just gave a reason why EK "might" need it. For example, today they discussed how they only have five slots at LHR and need the A380-800 to accommodate growth. What's next? I realize that if the -800 is the only option, then it's the only option. However, if a route is maxed out with -800's in five years, what do they do, keep adding more flights? If the 350-900 is too small, and now the 350-1000 is too small, then in 7-10 years will the 777-900 be too small and the 380-800 be too small?

777-300ER/A380-800
to
777-900X/A380-800neo
to
A380-800neo/A380-900neo

Stranger things have happened.

BUT- I'm not advocating, I'm just pondering.

-Dave

Oh, and OEM's have built "niche" planes before, intentionally or not:

767-400ER: 37 sold
A340-500: 34 sold
A340-600: 97 sold
747SP: 45 sold
747-300: 88 sold
737-600: 69 sold
A318: 79 sold

Those 7 models sold a combined 449 units, or an average of 64 units of each sub-model. I'm not saying that means that the A380-900 should be built, but clearly OEM's sometimes do produce variants with limited potential.

-Dave

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 90):

What EK choses to do to combat that issue should not be Airbus' concern. My guess is they will do what other airlines have done when they wanted to grow at LHR. Buy slots.

They're available if you've got the cash. EK could have tried to buy the ones AA just got, if demand is *that* high.

BA wouldn't buy the A389, and they dominate that airport. So to say it is targeted at airlines who serve LHR wouldn't even be accurate, it would be targeted at one specific airline for one specific airport.

Selling planes specifically targeted at one specific airport and one specific airline (like your hypothetical scenario indicates) is a quick way to lose a ton of money.

Airbus should go to the design board thinking "what do my customers want?" they should go to a drawing board asking "What type of plane will make me the most money?". Now for 90% of the time the answers of those questions, they will be identical. The A359 is part of that 10%. That's what I'm saying.........

Look dude, I would love to see Airbus make it, I get to see pictures of what will surely be a crazy unique airplane and Airbus will get financially fried even more than they currently are with the A380 program. Win/Win in my book.

But making it to please one customer, at one or two airports is not a smart way to spend your limited capital.

Quoting bchandl (Reply 92): Look dude, I would love to see Airbus make it, I get to see pictures of what will surely be a crazy unique airplane and Airbus will get financially fried even more than they currently are with the A380 program. Win/Win in my book. But making it to please one customer, at one or two airports is not a smart way to spend your limited capital.

At the risk of being pedantic:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 90): Hmmm....I didn't say they "should" do it, just gave a reason why EK "might" need it.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 90): BUT- I'm not advocating, I'm just pondering.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 91): I'm not saying that means that the A380-900 should be built,

So - to be perfectly clear - I'm_not_advocating_an_A380-900. I'm playing devil's advocate for EK wanting the thing and devil's advocate for past history showing times of niche builds.

-Dave

Quoting bchandl (Reply 89): Although, seeing as you apparently read the entire post of mine that you quoted part of, I thought that should have been a given, since the topic and only aircraft mentioned in the post was the A(IRBUS)380.

It wasn't that clear in all sincerity, but anyway.

Quoting bchandl (Reply 92): BA wouldn't buy the A389

I think if they had any intention of buying more A380 which they probably do as the 744s retire, they most likely would buy a -900 if it were available. They could easily use it anywhere they're flying the A380 today.

Remember, even though it is much larger, operating costs would only be marginally higher.

Quoting bchandl (Reply 92): What EK choses to do to combat that issue should not be Airbus' concern. My guess is they will do what other airlines have done when they wanted to grow at LHR. Buy slots. They're available if you've got the cash. EK could have tried to buy the ones AA just got, if demand is *that* high.

How many flights a day does EK want to fly DXB-LHR? Do they want to fly back-to-back flights? Perhaps instead of spending $30 million on a pair of slots, they might want to spend an additional $30 million on a -900 and then start realizing the additional revenue?

Those are just thoughts, but I agree it's not Airbus' problem, nor did I ever say it was. I was taking it completely from EK's point of view.

Quoting bchandl (Reply 92): BA wouldn't buy the A389, and they dominate that airport.

Which is precisely why they wouldn't buy the A389, more than likely. They have NUMEROUS slots, especially when you throw in their JV partners. They'd prefer to squat on them all day long if they can, like most hub carriers would in a slot-restricted airport.

Quoting bchandl (Reply 92): Selling planes specifically targeted at one specific airport and one specific airline (like your hypothetical scenario indicates) is a quick way to lose a ton of money.

Well, that might very well be true....unless that one airport/one airline option (EK) takes 150 over the life of the airframe.  

-Dave

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 95): How many flights a day does EK want to fly DXB-LHR? Do they want to fly back-to-back flights? Perhaps instead of spending $30 million on a pair of slots, they might want to spend an additional $30 million on a -900 and then start realizing the additional revenue?

But wouldn't they realize additional revenue from the additional flights with the extra slots?

If they don't get additional revenue by adding flights, then they have no business in expanding the route.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 93): So - to be perfectly clear - I'm_not_advocating_an_A380-900. I'm playing devil's advocate for EK wanting the thing and devil's advocate for past history showing times of niche builds.

Okay, that's fair. I guess sometimes when you're reading someones thoughts versus communicating person to person with them some things can be overlooked. My apologies, I was simply trying to outline the idea that I think the -9 is a bad business idea.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 95): Well, that might very well be true....unless that one airport/one airline option (EK) takes 150 over the life of the airframe.

Absolutely, and they definitely will. Please see post #59 where I outlined how more sales do not translate to more profit. This is especially true when the order book is incredibly lopsided.

Airbus will lose it's shirt when Emirates just switches 30 -800s to -900s and adds ~15 frames to make it 45 -9s.

If they made it, they would cannibalize the EK -8 orders to create a few more total orders. It's not like EK will keep all their -8s and order another 45 -9s.

80% of any EK -9 order would have been -8s anyways.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 91): 767-400ER: 37 sold A340-500: 34 sold A340-600: 97 sold 747SP: 45 sold 747-300: 88 sold 737-600: 69 sold A318: 79 sold Those 7 models sold a combined 449 units, or an average of 64 units of each sub-model.

Absolutely correct.

1: Airbus should pop the corks if they sold 64 -9s.

2: If A and B could take back offering any of these models, I bet they would for quite a few of them. I'm pretty sure Boeing would like to take back the 767-400er.

There is a reason HA will never receive a A350-8. It's a simple variant of the A350 right? Limited costs?

But they already know that selling 35 of them will cause a loss, yet it makes since to do it for a bigger plane, and MAYBE, a few more orders from EK?

Quoting 777stl (Reply 88): I wasn't attacking your beloved A380, merely pointing out that some of EK's examples might suffer on the second hand market because they're early builds.

Some of EK's early examples will indeed suffer on the secondhand market. I think the issue is with the "scale" of this problem to which you refer.
We're talking about 20 or so frames tops hitting the market over 5 years or so...

Quoting bchandl (Reply 84): Nobody outside of EK, or ME3 would take an 389.

If EK alone took 100 it would be worth doing just for the extra revenue

Quoting bchandl (Reply 92): I get to see pictures of what will surely be a crazy unique airplane and Airbus will get financially fried even more than they currently are with the A380 program

I'm not quite sure how Airbus would get "fried" on what would be a $1Bn-$2Bn programme tops.
How much do you think the 787-10 is costing?
And the A389 was built into the design at the outset - something I'm not aware the 787-10 shares.

Quoting bchandl (Reply 96): Airbus will lose it's shirt when Emirates just switches 30 -800s to -900s and adds ~15 frames to make it 45 -9s.

LOL. Well a button might pop off  

Again, like Planesntrains I'm not advocating an A389 - not yet anyway.
The NEO needs to come first.
If LEK consulting's figures are anywhere near accurate, and this has garnered another 300 orders on top of the current ones by 2024, then I'd expect that frame utilisation in terms of seats would be starting to press on the A389.
I see it as a mid '20's launch for 2030 EIS now.
The market will slowly come towards these bigger planes in the next 2 decades, provided they are efficient enough

Rgds

Quoting bchandl (Reply 96): But wouldn't they realize additional revenue from the additional flights with the extra slots?

Yes, but again, running perhaps back-to-back flights or flights at lousy times. If EK had more than one hub I'd think more slots would be better. However, having just the one hub focused largely on long-haul connections, I'd think a larger airframe is more advantageous than simply adding more frequencies. But again, that is only taking LHR into account. I'm not sure if arrival/departure times or slot concerns arise anywhere else that an -800 is currently sent.

Quoting bchandl (Reply 96): Okay, that's fair. I guess sometimes when you're reading someones thoughts versus communicating person to person with them some things can be overlooked. My apologies, I was simply trying to outline the idea that I think the -9 is a bad business idea.

Oh, it's fine. My original post created the confusion.

Quoting bchandl (Reply 96): It's not like EK will keep all their -8s and order another 45 -9s.

Yet.  

Quoting bchandl (Reply 96): 2: If A and B could take back offering any of these models, I bet they would for quite a few of them. I'm pretty sure Boeing would like to take back the 767-400er.

I agree, though I'm sure there were strategic advantages to building them. The 737-600 sold (I believe) 63 units to SAS, stealing what would (and should) have been a likely MD-95 order from MCD. While the investment in the -600 was likely not too high, and while it was in reality a poor seller, it put considerable pressure on the MD lineup at a critical time for them.

BUT - I digress. For me, I would LOVE to see an A380-900 (or -1000) just for its shear size and capabilities. While I can see a [limited] need for it over the next 15 years, it certainly isn't a no-brainer.

-Dave

Quoting bchandl (Reply 84): Without EK could you just imagine how bad of financial shape Airbus would be in?

EK transports X million passengers per year. If EK wouldn't exist other airlines would cover this demand of passenger seats. And what kind of aircrafts would that be? Fokkers, Illyuschins, VFWs? No, it would be the usual mix of Boeings and Airbus.

Quoting bchandl (Reply 92): Airbus should go to the design board thinking "what do my customers want?" they should go to a drawing board asking "What type of plane will make me the most money?"

And you seriously think they don't do this every day? The same like Boeing?

Well, glad that's resolved..