This figure includes cost of production frames and is therefore very arbitrary. The real R&D cost is only known to Boeing, and program break-even will probably be known to Boeing only.
|Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 21):|
The money is spend. Further investment will be judged only by how much additional revenue those investments will produce in the future.
This is always the hardest part in airplane comparison. I wonder if it is really possible, even. For example EK
: they could put 11 abreast Y seats in their A380s to take advantage of its wider cabin. But they don't. Reason: they don't want to put up their passengers with a possible middle seat of 5. They want to keep the A380 as a premium product, thus generating more revenue. And that is the other half of the equation, and more important than cost: what revenue will it create! And it must be clear for EK
that the A380 in a less 'efficient' 10Y configuration will generate more revenue bottom line than 11Y. So the whole CASM debate tells just half the story.
FWIW, I hope Airbus will decide in favor of the A380neo. I think it will not just make the A380 attractive to other airlines, but will keep their current customers investing in new A380s as well. I must say I am a bit disappointed with the A380 fleet sizes of big airlines like LH
(12) and AF
(12). With the A350-1000 and 777-9 around the corner, I'm a bit doubtful whether these airlines and others with even smaller fleets will purchase further A380ceo's. LH
cancelling 3 A380s after their 777X purchase, and BA
not interested in converting their options into firm orders are signals Airbus has to address IMO.
I just hope to see more different A380 liveries
I'm not so confident about Amadeo placing their frames...
146,318/19/20/21, AB6,332,333,343,345,346,359,388, 722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9, 742,74E,744,752,762,763, 772,77E,773,77W,788 AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E75/90,F50/70