Quoting racercoup (Reply 49): It is not apples to oranges.......

Yes it is.

Quoting racercoup (Reply 49): His words are meaningless.

Why? He's has been and is one of most successful persons in the aviation industry. He helped Airbus get where they are now, he has sold thousands upon thousands of airplanes. A lot of his predictions came true and as stated earlier he's not afraid to admit when he is in error. You might not like his style but his words are not meaningless.

Quoting racercoup (Reply 49): His words are meaningless.

Why that would be is beyond me. If an CFO at Airbus, who hardly anyone knows by name or reputation (who still remembers his name?), says something about the A380 possibly being terminated if the sales will dry up, which is by all means a very valid claim which can be made for every airliner program, the media basically explodes. In newspapers, websites, twitter and internet forums like this one. Even the stock market reacted (in combination with rather flaw financial result Airbus presented the same day).

So now we have the worlds most successful civil airliner salesman making a strong statement about the A380 and that it will stay an active program for the long term at Airbus, backed up by comments of EK by Tim Clarke that they might purchase up to 200 A380-neo's (which would be the biggest order of all time in aviation history if it would be placed in one transaction as we have seen with the B777-X), and now we read "his words are meaningless"?

If anyone can explain the logics behind the different reactions on the different comments here I would be very much obliged.

A comment like that, combined with the comments of EK, is very meaningful. It most likely means that Airbus and at least EK see a business case for an A380-neo. Which is very, very big news. As big as it is going to get in my book.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 29): If the largest aircraft is the 380ceo, airlines will have no choice to purchase it if they want to move more passengers through slot restricted airports.

This idea gets thrown around as if slot constraints aren't susceptible to financial analysis. As slots become scarce, however, they will be rationed as most scarce goods are - on a market. So we have to analyze what impact slot scarcity has on operating costs.

It appears that SAS sold LHR slots (daily RT flight rights) to TK for $22mil, but sold other slots for $60mil. http://www.mro-network.com/news/2015...rkish-buys-sas-heathrow-slots/4951 What impact does a $60mil slot cost have on operating cost of a long haul flight? To answer that question we'd want to apportion slot costs to trip cost. So what's the annual cost of those slots? It's not $60mil because you can resell it later. Rather, it's the opportunity cost of spending $60mil on that slot. The annual cost should be considered the expected yield on a similarly risky asset. Let's say that expected annual return is 6% (more than the annual equity markets return, btw). That's $3.6mil annually, which would mean ~$5k apportioned to a daily one-way flight (730 one-ways per year). The one-way trip cost of an A380 on 6000nm flight is ~$240k. So slot cost at LHR would be 2% of operating cost. Assuming A380 is 50% larger than 777X, you've saved .67% on CASM for that flight.

The A380 already has a 5-10% CASM advantage over the 77W, depending on seating density and whether you're considering cargo. Does adding a .67% CASM advantage fundamentally change that picture? No, I would judge. It helps the business case for buying A380's at the margin but doesn't change the basic market dynamic.

We have to consider that, for slots traded on a market, the impact will be much greater for short haul narrowbody ops. For a short haul flight whose trip costs are 20% of the A380 on long haul, slot cost would be 25% of operating cost in our example. That's the domain in which the slot costs start to be really determinative and in which airlines will make upgauging decisions. Thus we'll continue to see an increased proportion of orders for A321/B739 versus A320/B738. We might see A330's being used for short haul instead of narrowbodies. We have to realize that a market pricing slots in an environment where narrowbodies still make sense won't ever value slots highly enough to dramatically affect long haul widebody ops.

Plus eventually airports are going to start charging for slots based on actual runway utilization instead of just considering a slot a slot. In that pricing environment, the A380's increased separation distances versus smaller widebodies would factor. That .67% A380 operating cost advantage would shrink even further.

We gotta consider the numbers, guys. For slot costs to make even a 2% difference in operating cost for long haul A380 flights, we'd have to see $200mil slots.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 43): And he was instrumental in getting Airbus were it is today in only a two/three decades. But hey, it is always much easier to criticize people when facts are not important

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 50): He's has been and is one of most successful persons in the aviation industry.

Arguably THE most important person in aviation over the last 30 to 40 years - with a significant margin.

Another order of 200 A380s from Emirates would mean two thirds of all orders from a single customer, something that makes all the alarm bells go off in any risk management system...

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 51): If anyone can explain the logics behind the different reactions on the different comments here I would be very much obliged.

Pretty difficult to explain this, especially since he explicitly said "it is true our CFO raised doubts about the project, but now we all agree to continue".

Quoting AviationAware (Reply 54): Another order of 200 A380s from Emirates would mean two thirds of all orders from a single customer, something that makes all the alarm bells go off in any risk management system...

If I had to have two thirds of my orders for a product from one customer, I'd want that customer to be Emirates.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 52):

Good analysis. That laid things out nicely. Thanks.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 52): We gotta consider the numbers, guys. For slot costs to make even a 2% difference in operating cost for long haul A380 flights, we'd have to see $200mil slots.

No, we don't need to consider the numbers because, as you have explained, their impact is small.

Once again, you have treated this as an academic exercise and completely missed the commercial reality. The commercial issue for many airlines at slot constrained airports is not the cost of the slots but the very limited availability of slots to purchase, most especially at the times airlines require them.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 51): Why that would be is beyond me. If an CFO at Airbus, who hardly anyone knows by name or reputation (who still remembers his name?), says something about the A380 possibly being terminated if the sales will dry up, which is by all means a very valid claim which can be made for every airliner program, the media basically explodes. In newspapers, websites, twitter and internet forums like this one. Even the stock market reacted (in combination with rather flaw financial result Airbus presented the same day). So now we have the worlds most successful civil airliner salesman making a strong statement about the A380 and that it will stay an active program for the long term at Airbus, backed up by comments of EK by Tim Clarke that they might purchase up to 200 A380-neo's (which would be the biggest order of all time in aviation history if it would be placed in one transaction as we have seen with the B777-X), and now we read "his words are meaningless"? If anyone can explain the logics behind the different reactions on the different comments here I would be very much obliged. A comment like that, combined with the comments of EK, is very meaningful. It most likely means that Airbus and at least EK see a business case for an A380-neo. Which is very, very big news. As big as it is going to get in my book.

The same JH that claimed the Dreamliner was a "plastic plane that never would be built? There is nothing new here. We all know EK loves the whalejet - what is new here?

Here's what I think.

Airbus will break even on the A380 this year. Good.

If they are wise, they can proceed with other variants of it.

I think this is how the next A380 should be:

Stretch it (8-12 frames)
NEO it.
Not necessarily rewing it, but re-winglet it, perhaps to an A350 'sabre.'
Modify the wings to become less prone to cracking.
Update interior sculpting.
Update software.

I think we'll have a winner. Still a whale, but at least it'll be more proportional.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 60): I think this is how the next A380 should be: Stretch it (8-12 frames) NEO it.

Given the size difference between the 779 and the A388, they should establish the market for the baseline A388neo before doing any sort of stretching exercise.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 60): Not necessarily rewing it, but re-winglet it, perhaps to an A350 'sabre.'

I would fully expect that to be part of a NEO, considering that the A320neo and A330neo get similar wingtip reworks.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 60): Modify the wings to become less prone to cracking.

They've done that already and the permanent fix is incorporated in every new-built A380 delivered today.

Quoting racercoup (Reply 59): The same JH that claimed the Dreamliner was a "plastic plane that never would be built?

Care to provide a source/link for that alleged quote?

Anyways, it's the same JL that predicted the 737MAX when Boeing and a.net were still fantasising about an NSA as the answer to the A320neo. And yes - the same JL that said in early 2014 "why would I NEO the A330 when it's selling as well as it did in 2013", just to launch the A330neo a few months later.
You'll find similar spins from Randy, who had to do a u-turn on re-engining the 737, predicting the imminent demise of the A330 at the hands of the 787, etc.

Now, what's different here, and what is, contrary to your assessment, indeed news is that he explicitly references the CFO's statements that led to much discussion on a.net and among real analysts regarding the future of the A380. He mentions this and then goes on to say

Quote: Now there's an unanimous agreement on all levels of the company to stick with the A380 for the long term.

If the CFO's statement qualified as news (which it did for you, going by your statements in the corresponding threads), then surely, Leahy's interview - which will no doubt have been coordinated with Enders in advance, then re-read and approved for publication by Leahy (as is the custom with any such interviews these days, not just in the business world) - qualifies as news as well.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 60): Modify the wings to become less prone to cracking.

As Anfromme said, this bit is done already.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 60): Stretch it (8-12 frames)

Again, I think seating densities need to increase on the current model first.
I accept that the plane's primary customer, EK, is committed to a "premium" product, but even they have said that they can up the seating from 489/517 to around 545/550 without disturbing the "feel" or amenities that are offered.
That is between a 6% and 10% increase in seat count, and easily matches the seat count increase offered by the 777-9X over the 77W without having to do a thing to the airframe, OR having to offer 11-across seating.
Something I'm still willing to bet we'll never see on an A380  

They could hedge of course, and add a c. 2.7m stretch, much as the 777-9X will receive.
That would add another 6%-7% to capacity, and have an almost non-existant effect on trip cost.
And still offer a plane with c. 9000nm nominal range as a NEO

Rgds

Quoting astuteman (Reply 62): OR having to offer 11-across seating. Something I'm still willing to bet we'll never see on an A380

Definitely agree, unless they do sidewall sculpting a la 777X.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 62): They could hedge of course, and add a c. 2.7m stretch, much as the 777-9X will receive. That would add another 6%-7% to capacity, and have an almost non-existant effect on trip cost.

This seems true but for a margin that is almost non-existent. Do you think spars would have to be strengthened for increased MZFW though? Or did Airbus design spar strength to incorporate A380-900 and A380F weights from the get go? Seems like spars could be strengthened at constant thickness for the -900 and -F but this is one of those fundamental design questions about which I am uncertain (I took the less favorable assumption - that the current spars can't support -900 and -F MZFW in my A380X model).

Quoting astuteman (Reply 62): That is between a 6% and 10% increase in seat count, and easily matches the seat count increase offered by the 777-9X over the 77W without having to do a thing to the airframe, OR having to offer 11-across seating. Something I'm still willing to bet we'll never see on an A380

It's something I hope we never see on an A380. 11 abreast in an A380?! Now that's cattle class!   

3-5-3 Y! Ouch. Imagine sitting in the very middle! Jonah in the Whale, praying rather fervently.

But yes, I do think an overall stretch is needed, especially with the fact that the 777-9 is a 777-300ER stretch. Certainly, that will allow the A380 to keep an edge.

[Edited 2015-03-07 00:05:08]

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 64): 3-5-3 Y! Ouch. Imagine sitting in the very middle! Jonah in the Whale, praying rather fervently.

The counterargument is that if Boeing can carve 4 inches out of its 777 sidewall then Airbus should be able to carve a proportional amount out of its A380 sidewall (77W's sidewall proportion is exactly one-half that of A380's). If we add 8 inches for A380 sidewall carving plus 3-4 inches for seat-level increase, we'd have 11-12 inches of total seat width delta. That means you take only ~.5in from each seat to get 11-abreast, at which level you still have wider seats than 777X. So I think it's doable. ...but it's 2am in Chicago and I've had a few beers so my arithmetic might be off...

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 64): I do think an overall stretch is needed

Not really. By better utilizing the cabin space one can fit another ~ 30 economy seats without going 11-abreast. Airbus recently increased the OEM configuration from 525 to 558 seats. And if one need additional seats 11-abreast would give them another ~ 30 seats. So that's ~ 60 seats right there without stretching the metal.

Quoting incitatus (Reply 7): I would like to see those reasons spelled out.

I never said I knew what those reasons were did I? But I'm sure the fine folks at LH whose job it is to make the decisions as to what aircraft they should buy, certainly could explain their internal reasoning for the order of both VLAs.

Considering LH is one of the most well run carriers on earth with a never ending vision for the future, I think it is safe to say, those well paid & pretty smart people making those big decisions, with hundreds of millions of Euros of LH money seem to think it's a great idea to fly both the 748i & 380, so that's more than enough for me to know beyond a shadow of a doubt, there is obviously a very valid reason for both frames being in LHs fleet.

I certainly don't feel the need to question their decision making process, they know more than I about their route needs & plans for the future, no one spends that kind of money without doing their hoimework for viability.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 8): I can't think of a single reason why they have a single VLA over the 77W.

I think motorhussey said it in reply 10: "You're meaning LH (which doesn't fly the 77W) or airlines in general? Either way - slot restrictions, timing restrictions, passenger demand, passenger comfort, increased profit potential - all come to mind"

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 10): Think Airbus might challenge that..

Wow, I've never seen that wording before, I just was a few years late being creative. LOL Story of my life.

Quoting Plane Holland (Reply 17): Aah,so that's why Ryanair is doing so poorly.

Is this your attempt at making a joke about the fact since FR doesn't fly the A-380 that they should be failing, because of the A-380 effect comment I made?

I need to ask because it wasn't funny & it came across more like a sarcastic jab then an actual comment with any aviation substance.

As we all know FR is doing well with the 737s they have, funny so is AS & WN. Yet neither one of these carriers compete with EK on any route, therefore the "effect" I mentioned would never apply for these carriers.

If FR competed head to head with EK & FR was flying a 738 & EK a 380, Other than those who could not afford EK, the lions share of the rest would be EK & 380 bound.

Quoting Plane Holland (Reply 46): Concorde was also here to stay. We all know how that turned out.

No plane lasts forever, the Concorde was flown on 2 routes mostly & catered to a select few wealthy passengers, it was doomed from the beginning, especially since rising fuel prices would have rendered it useless not much later than it was retired..

Is that your thing? One negative sentence to refute something someone said, offering no alternate point of view? Sarcasm is a funny thing, much like texting it's difficult to determine the posters intent, but add something useful next time, it makes for more interesting & pleasent conversations here online.  

There is no doubt that 11 abreast with 18in seats can be achieved (in numerous ways) .You only have to look at the huge gap between the outer seat on the wall to find abot 4-5 ins,let alone scupturing and the fact that the seats are 18.5 plus already.The reason for not doing it is the poor person stuck in the middle!
An alternative way of looking at it would be to better utilise the above space and offer 19 plus ins per 'economy' seat.Now that would really increase the 380 'effect'.I had the pleasure a few years back on flying on a brand new Air Canada 773er to Toronto.It was 9 across and I believe it had 19 in seats.Whatever they were they were bloody comfortable! Certainly no need to fly business class on that (day) flight.

The idea of a small stretch is an interesting one - if it can be achieved with no structural mods.Possible perhaps. You start to get close to being able to swap 2 744's for a small stretched 380 perhaps (with the above increased densities 11 across in Y).Now that would be of interest to BA for sure.

Quoting parapente (Reply 68): The reason for not doing it is the poor person stuck in the middle!

Why poor? You're two seats away from the aisle, just like the window seat in 3-3-3 setups.

Well its definitely the worst seat (at least you have a window).But i take your point.It's not half as bad as some people make out - you might thing people are going to prison they way some people write! But Clark has a point.He knows that flying Y on an A380 is 'special' and is very keen not to loose this 'magic' advantage that he has.Hence the 19 inch thought.He will get more rows in anyway.(Slimmer/lighter backed seats).

One thing that is not discussed on this forum regarding the NEO (stretch or no stretch , 11 or 10 etc) is what all the other airlines who have bought (there are very many) the A80
.Some have options that they very well may wish to exercise,many / most will want to replace at some time.They may not be orders of 100 but they sure will add up to 100's together. What sort of Mk 2 380 do they want to see i wonder?
Just a thought.Its not 'all' about TC after all.

Quoting parapente (Reply 70): Well its definitely the worst seat (at least you have a window).But i take your point.It's not half as bad as some people make out - you might thing people are going to prison they way some people write

True. And of course the infamous middle seat has two ways to an aisle (left and right), as opposed to a window seat which has only one single way out.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 60): Stretch it (8-12 frames) NEO it. Not necessarily rewing it, but re-winglet it, perhaps to an A350 'sabre.' Modify the wings to become less prone to cracking. Update interior sculpting. Update software.

If you carve some of the walls out and put in an artificial floor, you have quite a few inches to play with, so a 3-5-3 becomes bearable. Add it to your suggestions and you have a CASM monster. Without compromising comfort. Or alternatively you still have 3-4-3 but with 20+ inches of width, and that would be a goldmine for RASM, EK would probably have a wet dream. Weight increase would be very small as well.

Quoting parapente (Reply 68): The reason for not doing it is the poor person stuck in the middle!

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 64): 3-5-3 Y! Ouch. Imagine sitting in the very middle! Jonah in the Whale, praying rather fervently.

You still have 2-5-2 777s, though fairly rare, the window seats remain as they are in a 3, but 3-5-3 can be acceptable if it's wide enough.

Quoting parapente (Reply 68): The idea of a small stretch is an interesting one

An A380-850?

[Edited 2015-03-07 05:04:49]

I don't know what percent of fliers are in groups of 3 or more. But 5 across accommodates families and such others quite nicely.

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 73): An A380-850?

I'd rather see the earlier discussed -900 variant. And possibly the famous SUH-version which would be an A380-1000.         

[Edited 2015-03-07 10:02:51]

Quoting frmrcapcadet (Reply 74): I don't know what percent of fliers are in groups of 3 or more. But 5 across accommodates families and such others quite nicely.

In my experience in thirty years of booking air reservations, one is the most common arrangement, two is second place & three is the third place winner, so on & so forth, in a like manner.

I have different favorite planes based upon the number in my party. I love the 767 if I am by myself or with one other person, if there is three of us then we book on just about any narrow body aircraft, unless we are in F then it doesn't matter.

The A380-900 has the interesting position that it is the baseline model and the 800 a short version. It will improve CASM (how much?) it will make it replace around 2 smaller air planes in one and it should be low cost while most investments already done. What CASM will a A380-900NEO make?

Quoting anfromme (Reply 61):

I wouldn't take the JL comments as gospel!

The CFO's remarks at the end of last year raised many concerns about the A380 program. I'd suggest if Airbus wanted to keep selling this aeroplane they had to make some type of statement to the market advising they will be supporting the A380 going forward.

I am not sure of many airlines who would be willing to pay cash for the A380 and I am not sure of many financial institutions who would be willing to finance an aircraft where the OEM has little commitment to it. Airbus at the very least had to try and settle these fears.

Realistically, I would have preferred a strong statement to the market about the A380 by the CEO. The JL comments were somewhat wishy washy and were by no means conclusive!

...and let's not forget, ultimately the market will decide. It doesn't matter how "committed" Airbus is if airlines are not willing to buy or financiers are not willing to finance.

The only things that can solve the case of any product is sales. This is exatcly what happens now.

With EK is doing and Airbus can present this to other customers even for replacement. For example the first frames delivered will be 12 years in service pretty soon.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 78): Realistically, I would have preferred a strong statement to the market about the A380 by the CEO.

Both the CEO of Airbus, Monsier Bregier, and the CEO of Airbus Group, Herr Enders, have alread done this in the last three months (i.e. after the CFO's much-discussed statement).

Bregier (11-12-2014): Airbus “will one day launch an A380neo and we will one day launch an A380 stretch.”
Source: http://m.aviationweek.com/commercial...airbus-will-one-day-launch-a380neo

Enders (28-02-2015): Stopping A380 production "was not and is not being discussed"
Source (German): http://m.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/...rd-nicht-eingestellt-13456331.html

Quoting anfromme (Reply 80):

These are not strong statements!

Including terms like "one day" and "not being discussed" in your statements to the market is in like sitting on your hands.

There is no sense of commitment.

A strong statement to the market would include some type of tangible information that the markets can use for determining the viability of the aeroplane in a fleet.

I suspect the EK announcement that they will order 200 NEO's if Airbus launch the plane is a co-ordinated attempt with Airbus to get some interest / momentum going in the market place.

It's going to be very difficult to sell the A380 if airlines don't have it on their shopping list!

Something has to change!

Quoting travelhound (Reply 81): These are not strong statements! Including terms like "one day" and "not being discussed" in your statements to the market is in like sitting on your hands.

These statements are just indications of the thinking, they cannot use any stronger statements before they actually launch the aircraft. I suppose the next step is a formal launch of the A380neo combined with a significant EK order sometime later this year, most likely in Dubai Air Show.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 81): These are not strong statements!

Why should they play their hand?

Why not let it play out was it will?

mariner

Quoting travelhound (Reply 81): I suspect the EK announcement that they will order 200 NEO's if Airbus launch the plane is a co-ordinated attempt with Airbus to get some interest / momentum going in the market place.

I cinsider 200 frames for a product like the A380 is more then "some interest".

Consider that with this and perhaps 100 frams from other companies the total order will be around 600. This means that in time the A380 will probably be produced in more then 1000 frames. Not bad for a VLA.

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 82):

Though I agree Airbus are thinking about the A380, I am not sure we can come to any conclusion about Airbus having definite plans for this plane into the future. I'd suggest they are "shopping" quite a few different solutions with airline customers at the present time. How and if these "behind closed doors" conversations allow Airbus and the A380 to move forward is another question. Economics will determine what the A380 will end up being. The market will ultimately decide!

Quoting mariner (Reply 83):

I think the future of the A380 will have to play out! There are probably hundreds of smart minds working on a solution. What is not a solution today could be a solution tomorrow. In my book the A380 needs a little more time on its side!

Quoting olle (Reply 84):

As a gut feel, I suspect the A380 was a good decade before its time. In saying this I suspect the A380(NEO) will probably come into its own element in the 2020's. The problem per sa is not the A380, but how to keep the line running until that time and what a A380 in the 2020's should be!

[Edited 2015-03-09 02:57:03]

Quoting travelhound (Reply 81): A strong statement to the market would include some type of tangible information that the markets can use for determining the viability of the aeroplane in a fleet.

Certainly in the industry I work in, the largest and most important customers don't get their information by reading press releases. They get it from face-to-face meetings with our sales team.

I can pretty much guarantee you that Airbus's public statements do not reveal the totality of the information they have privately shared with their potential customers.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 81): Including terms like "one day" and "not being discussed" in your statements to the market is in like sitting on your hands.

Not my statements. The CEOs'.

Also - I disagree. They are strong statements. Saying that one day they'll definitely produce a NEO as well as (separately, implicitly later still) a stretch implies they know what they want to do with the plane. It also means that of course they will keep building the A380 until such time. What else do you want, short of Airbus actually launching the NEO?

As for Enders' comment - a bit may be lost in translation here. His actual phrasing (of which I gave an English translation) was "Eine Einstellung stand und steht nicht zur Debatte."
Something "not having been discussed (in the past) nor being discussed (at present)" is a pretty strong statement in German businessspeak. As strong and clearly worded as it gets. To illustrate: Had Enders said an A380neo was not and is not being discussed, it would have practically buried all prospect of a NEO ever seeing the light of day.

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 82): These statements are just indications of the thinking, they cannot use any stronger statements before they actually launch the aircraft.

  

Quoting travelhound (Reply 85): As a gut feel, I suspect the A380 was a good decade before its time. In saying this I suspect the A380(NEO) will probably come into its own element in the 2020's.

Believe it or not, but I actually agree with you on this one.  

The RR Advance may not be the silver bullet Airbus is looking for...

Leeham News provides some notes from ISTAT 2015...

http://leehamnews.com/

"The Rolls-Royce Advance engine intended for the Airbus A380neo appears to be heavy, causing Airbus to return to Engine Alliance to discuss how the GP7200 might be improved. But at best the engine probably could only gain perhaps 5% better fuel consumption, well short of the 10% goal set by Tim Clark, president of Emirates Airline, the largest A380 customer. This means Airbus would have to find 5%, more or less, from the airframe–a challenge.

[Edited 2015-03-09 12:28:47]

Is that rumored weight with or without a composite fan? Even it has a conventional titanium fan, I can't see it being even heavier than the Trent XWB, especially given the lower thrust...

Quoting Mffoda (Reply 88): The RR Advance may not be the silver bullet Airbus is looking for...

Something smells a bit here ......

I think the "5% better fuel consumption" refers to any EA offering.

The Trent XWB already sports about 6% better SFC than the A380's current engines, and the Advance should build on that. I 'd be amazed if the Advance can't be more than 4% better than the Trent XWB that it will be (broadly) based upon.

We all know that the Trent XWB is about a tonne heavier than the Trent 900 (4t per plane)..
With a CFRP fan and casing, I would expect an A380 sized "Advance" to better that.
Airbus might still consider that to be "heavy" of course.

But this looks to me like a strategy to keep EA in the hunt.. I could be wrong  

Rgds

Quoting astuteman (Reply 90): Something smells a bit here ......

Yes, I can smell it too. Or maybe I need to change my socks  

I also really can't see how an Advance engine with so much CFRP would end up heavier than a similar thrust XWB engine. And then when you reduce that to A388 size, it would be even lighter. Or maybe we are looking at A389 size engines   

But then the item on Leeham is under the headline "Snippets heard in the hallways of the 2015 ISTAT annual meeting in Phoenix" so it's all unsubstantiated rumour anyway. Probably from someone at EA trying to   

I think people are reading way too much into what JL said. Unless he is announcing that they are ceasing to take A380 orders he MUST speak optimistically about it. And at this point there is no reason for him not to. But hard realities sooner or later have to be faced. He must have some more orders for it, and before the NEO becomes available. I do not think a decision on the NEO needs to be made for at least a year, and perhaps longer. RR is working on the technology regardless, and they do not need a formal program to continue. They do want a plane to hang it on so that they can get some real world experience with it, but that does not require a commitment at this time. We will see. If the A380 continues to sell like it has for the last couple of years, I cannot see how Airbus can continue building it. But I think they have about a year to give it a chance. However, I do see it as almost certain that if it is continued it will get a new engine.

As if someone 'just' discovered the weight of the proposed engine! How lightly is that now.Come on Leeham you can write better than that!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 90): I think the "5% better fuel consumption" refers to any EA offering.

  

EA have said that if they really push the upgrades, they could get the GP7200 up to 5% better.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...udies-sweeping-changes-for-393272/

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 92): I think people are reading way too much into what JL said. Unless he is announcing that they are ceasing to take A380 orders he MUST speak optimistically about it.

Yes, but he said "we had discussions about the A380 but now we all have the same opinion". This is a strong statement, especially since he is quoted in a respected newspaper.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 92): RR is working on the technology regardless, and they do not need a formal program to continue. They do want a plane to hang it on so that they can get some real world experience with it, but that does not require a commitment at this time. We will see.

Indeed. Some seem to underestimate the decision to write the checks to move the technology from a testbed/prototype environment to a production environment. Sure, you do learn more by making the production engines, but there would not be a lot of direct reuse of the expensive production tooling for the post-Advance engines because they are of a different thrust class than A380 engines are.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 95): Yes, but he said "we had discussions about the A380 but now we all have the same opinion". This is a strong statement, especially since he is quoted in a respected newspaper.

If it's a strong statement of the current unity, it's also a strong statement of previous dis-unity. Given that the A380s economics haven't changed significantly in the last six months I'm pretty skeptical. I think there's been some strong pressure applied to Herr Wilheim to get in line with the corporate imperatives. Not that there's anything wrong with that. A corporation should speak with one voice. It only hurts the corporation to cast doubt on the future of the A380. Compare to Boeing's statements about 748. Sure they're subject to ridicule but that's how the game is played. Of course the fact that Wilheim stepped out of line after reaching the high echelons of corporate life gives more credence to the veracity of his statements.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 96): If it's a strong statement of the current unity, it's also a strong statement of previous dis-unity.

Absolutely. Maybe this statement was deliberately made, to lure Emirates out of reserves, or to trigger results on behalf of the shareholders.

In case the statement was accidental (which is not that unlikely either), it certainly triggered a lot of discussions behind the scenes (probably Airbus internal, with RR, with Emirates, maybe even with TK), which lead to decisions being made.

Quoting olle (Reply 77): What CASM will a A380-900NEO make?

You'll be talking a 15% increase in floor area, so assume that for pax. You will have an increase of 50% in free ld3's after pax bags (12 v 8) - still pitiful in comparison with the single deck aircraft, but yield management doesn't just apply to passengers. All for in increase in take off weight of around 5-6% (14 tonne mew increase - assuming no increase from 575 tonne mtow, 8 tonne pax, 5 tonne revenue cargo, some additional fuel depending on stage length).

How that translates into CASM is anybody's guess, some of the costs will be fixed (say flight crew), some will be proportional to pax count (cabin crew) and some in-between (landing fees, airframe costs). I don't think a 7-8% improvement would to too wild a guess, viz a viz the equivalent A380-800. In comparison the NEO 10% improvement is just fuel burn - half that at least for casm.

This aircraft would have Tim Clark thoroughly moist I'm sure, and would drive out some additional customers. Do it, Airbus!

[Edited 2015-03-10 08:51:06]

Quoting Revelation (Reply 96): Of course the fact that Wilheim stepped out of line after reaching the high echelons of corporate life gives more credence to the veracity of his statements.

The veracity of what he said, or the veracity of what you think he said? I still believe his comments were lost in translation, and not intended to be anything like as dramatic as they have been interpreted.

But hey. it sure made a Happy Christmas for one fair-sized portion of our readership, didn't it?  

Rgds