It's common knowledge that the A380 is flying and that Airbus is debating on whether to do a NEO version or not. The most vocal cheerleader for the NEO has been Sir Tim Clark of EK. So my question is the following : With the sheer number of frames that EK are willing to buy, coupled with the fact that the engine OEM, Rolls Royce in this case, will front most of the development costs associated with the NEO project, why has this project been launched yet?

Quoting rotating14 (Thread starter): why has this project been launched yet?

Dubai air show

gemuser

Quoting rotating14 (Thread starter): ....why has this project been launched yet?

Probably because (some) people are expecting more low hanging fruits than realistic.

Boeing made a lot of "noise" about *20%* when launcing the 787. Less noise about what they compared to (767 of 1980 vintage with minor upgrades).

Everything prior to 787 was regarded "old style". Reality is that the Trent 900 and EA 7000 are some modern and very efficient engines. Look at the A380 fuel efficiency compared to B748 with modern GEnx engines.

If there is only low single percent improvements to gain, and the engines are five million dollars more expensive a piece, then....

This is not a 20-30 years old airliner in need for 20-30 years younger engines.

Does anybody have some trustworthy SFC data to compare for instance Trent 900 and Trent 1000?

Quoting gemuser (Reply 1): Dubai air show

I think Paris.
Airbus is hinting at "significant" orders and I think/hope it includes a NEO for the A380.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...airbus-group-idUSL5N0YC2VS20150521

Quoting rotating14 (Thread starter): Rolls Royce in this case, will front most of the development costs associated with the NEO project, why has this project been launched yet?

I think the A380NEO has already been launched, just not officially.
The reason why I think so is as you state above regarding the development cost and also because it's much more expensive to do "nothing".
Why is it not official yet? IMHO it could be a number of reasons but I think Airbus, and perhaps EK, is waiting for a statically best moment that could include orders from others but Emirates Airlines.
So an airshow is likely it. Possibly Dubai, but I think Paris.

Quoting rotating14 (Thread starter): why has this project been launched yet?

I presume you actually meant "hasn't"  

My take on this is that, even if the decision to go ahead with an A380neo is a "no brainer" (and, while I think it likely I am personally not certain that it is totally clear-cut), it makes sense to delay any announcement of it for as long as possible.

JL is already finding it very difficult to sell the current A380, and Airbus will want to be able to keep the ceo production line running at pretty much the current rate until a neo enters production. He is on the record as saying that a number of sales campaigns are on-going, and all this talk of a neo version will not be helping him with those. Also, having to ramp down production, and then ramp up again later, would be very costly.

I would actually be very surprised if a decision has not already been made at Airbus, with contract negotiations well under way with major suppliers such as RR, but even then, I would not expect a formal announcement until the time is right.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 4): even if the decision to go ahead with an A380neo is a "no brainer" (and, while I think it likely I am personally not certain that it is totally clear-cut)

Have to agree. Only Airbus is in a position to be certain whether A380 sales have 'dried up' in the last year or so because the industry wants a re-engined version, or for other reasons (like, possibly, the fact that Boeing have a proposed 400-seat twin on the horizon)?

[Edited 2015-05-22 00:13:07]

What i dont get about the talk of a stretched 380 is any number of people here at least say the 380 in its current form is too much of a plane to fill so if thats the case why make an even bigger one? The other item they raise is the lack of cargo capacity for the 380 so why then wouldnt they make a kind of combi model where part of the main deck actually carries cargo to augment any lack of passenger demand?

It is a great plane i loved flying in it, and the stretch would look awesome more proportioned and less stubby looking.

Cheers
Dave

Quoting jetsetter1969 (Reply 6): What i dont get about the talk of a stretched 380 is any number of people here at least say the 380 in its current form is too much of a plane to fill so if thats the case why make an even bigger one?

TLDR: Because for many routes costs will drop faster than revenue as the size increases.

Basically, from memory, compared to it's equivalent -800, a -900 will give you 15% more capacity for something like 6% more costs - in terms of revenue cargo (there isn't much space left after bags) you get a nice boost too. Fuel will go up a little more than that, but many costs stay static (flight crew) or will barely rise (maintenance, landing fees). So on routes where demand can be simulated, or that aren't frequency sensitive, the -900 would be a no brainer. There will be other routes where that drop in casm will warrant combining frequencies - in other words the premium the last minute businessman pays no longer covers the higher cost of 2x300 seat widebodies a few hours apart. There are also routes that are slot constrained to the point where demand can only be met by the largest aircraft - these are likely to increase in the 2020's particularly in Asia. And lastly, *if* liberalisation of air travel continues as it has to the benefit of the consumer (and that is now looking like a massive if) we'll see international gateway, hub and airline consolidation accelerate through the next 10-15 years which will further drive demand. And it's not like they'd stop producing the -800!

I personally believe the inability to bring the -900 to market in 2012 as per the original plan hurt the program immensely, but I'm hopeful it could be an aircraft of it's time 8 years from now.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 4): Also, having to ramp down production, and then ramp up again later, would be very costly.

If the A380 is actually launching, and that is a big if, then this would be the reason to keep it unofficial as long as possible. The A380 line is finally running at a good pace but even now, according to most of the sources I have seen, there are not enough orders to keep it running until the EIS for the NEO. As Boeing is experiencing with the 77W and 77X, once you announce an upgraded version of a plane, airlines arent racing to buy more of the older version. The cost of ramping down production for 18 months and then ramping up the line for the NEO would be huge.

As a side note, I personally believe this is the biggest thing holding the NEO back. Airbus fears they may end up having to keep the line open for more than a year with very few planes to build. The hundreds of millions or billions this could cost may make the whole project unattractive. As others have noted, RR would be taking on a lot of the development cost for the NEO. But Airbus bears all of the cost of keeping the A380 line open if orders dry up and they have a gap between the last batch of CEOs being and the NEOs EIS.

The issue with the NEO from Airbus' perspective is that basically no one will buy any at meaningful volumes except EK, so before they start spending billions to NEO and upgrade the whole thing, they'll need a very tight contract with EK, which includes hefty penalties of any deferrals or cancellations.

As much as Airbus loves EK, they can't go onto a $5B R&D project and risk having zero revenue if EK pulls another A350 on them.

They continually denied the A330neo was going to happen then they announced it when everyone was convinced it would not happen.

I think an exec at Airbus said recently that while they might consider doing an NEO, they won't do it for just one customer. And although they might get a handful of orders from other carriers, it would seem that EK would order the lion's share of NEOs. For Airbus, that would be a very risky proposition to put most of their eggs in one basket.

Quoting redflyer (Reply 11): For Airbus, that would be a very risky proposition to put most of their eggs in one basket.

Not that much risk if there is no competition.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 9): As much as Airbus loves EK, they can't go onto a $5B R&D project and risk having zero revenue if EK pulls another A350 on them.

To order what instead? I don't think this business relation is powered by Airbus's love for EK, rather by EK's love for a nice money printing machine.

Quoting redflyer (Reply 11): I think an exec at Airbus said recently that while they might consider doing an NEO, they won't do it for just one customer. And although they might get a handful of orders from other carriers, it would seem that EK would order the lion's share of NEOs. For Airbus, that would be a very risky proposition to put most of their eggs in one basket.

The seat costs and the relative fuel consumption of the A380, now below the 77W and 748, must be considerably below the 777X, 787 and A350 in a few years. That can only be achieved by a re-engined A380. Its up to the engine manufacturer (RR) AND a considerable number of committed clients to guarantee that before Airbus launches it.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 9): As much as Airbus loves EK, they can't go onto a $5B R&D project and risk having zero revenue if EK pulls another A350 on them.

That's right. Nobody seems to be interested other than EK.

Quoting na (Reply 13): Quoting redflyer (Reply 11): I think an exec at Airbus said recently that while they might consider doing an NEO, they won't do it for just one customer. And although they might get a handful of orders from other carriers, it would seem that EK would order the lion's share of NEOs. For Airbus, that would be a very risky proposition to put most of their eggs in one basket. The seat costs and the relative fuel consumption of the A380, now below the 77W and 748, must be considerably below the 777X, 787 and A350 in a few years. That can only be achieved by a re-engined A380. Its up to the engine manufacturer (RR) AND a considerable number of committed clients to guarantee that before Airbus launches it.

One thing the A380NEO, especially an A389NEO would offer is superior CASM as well as an increase in cargo as the wings for the Big Boy are already basically suitable for the stretch.

As an aviation fan it would be awesome to see an A389NEO    but financially, is it viable for Airbus? I have no idea.   .

When I read discussions about the A380, the brought-in arguments about pro and cons for a NEO or stretch, there is usually one kind of a more in-depth debate which I miss. And when it comes up, it's usually of a short half-life. It's not the question why an airline would by a A380 Neo/Stretch, but why do airlines NOT buy the standard A380? And what does it tell us about the Neo/Stretch?

Aren't the reasons that airlines have today - and there are a lot of airlines which are not interested in a A380, more than 777/350/787/330/320/767/757/etc. - making the value adding of a reduced fuel consumption or better CASM (or whatever) meaningless for them? Let's say Hummer is selling today its H3 with an innovative engine which drinks less fuel than a Mini while offering more place for shopping bags and an affordable insurance model. It would increase sales from 0.01% to 0.012% (seen globally). Why? Because people still wouldn't buy it due to the financial impact in increasing the garage size, or no place at all for a garage/parking space, not fitting the image/character of the driver/environment he is living, its image it creates, its size, its daily usability, its social impact to friends/customers/suppliers, its sustainability in long term market movements, or how well it fits in the family "business model" etc. etc.

Which would bring me to the 2nd interesting question as an assumption-follow-up, if Airbus decided for the NEO/Stretch, what could have been the reasoning? Or what's the reason of big brands maintaining a fancy shop at the Champs-Elysée in Paris which year after year creates debts? Or why is BMW producing a 7 version since decades which brings proportionally less cashflow in than the 3 version? Or why do big clothing brands sell budget massproducts in their stores knowing they don't bring money in since years? Or why is a government spending billions for privat companies developing locally extremely costy products, which can be bought-in and customized for much cheaper from abroad? Is it because of tax return, sustained knowledge growth creating new revenues through new businesses, startups, innovation, ideas etc., due to national policies and governing models pushing the always-one-step-ahead belief and attractiveness for new and smart heads, for a better return through a better image, or for trying to stream down the gained knowledge to all other industrial parts of the country?

I could continue for hours now and fill up books.

Which would bring me to my final and 3rd question; is an airline manufacturer today still a tool builder which must take care that every tool it builds is profitable for itself? Or could it operate today as well by more modern standards and methods, investing not only in articles for sale, but also in values, brand, social components, viral marketing etc. by investing in articles, instead of investing in sales? Hasn't the 747 created and fortified an image of quality and innovation for Beoing influencing sales of all its newer airplanes of the last 30 years more than the 747 sales revenues?

Cheers,
Alfons

Quoting rbrunner (Reply 14): That's right. Nobody seems to be interested other than EK.

Its a matter of time and no one knows whats going on behind the scene. Most A380 operators do have new A380 in their fleet and are in no haste.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 9): As much as Airbus loves EK, they can't go onto a $5B R&D project and risk having zero revenue if EK pulls another A350 on them.

Why stop at $5bn? Why not $50bn while we are at it! The A320NEO project is reckoned to cost Airbus c$1.5bn. That includes certifying no less than 6 engine/airframe combinations. The A380NEO would only certify one. Of course, they may take the opportunity to do other stuff - wingtip treatments look a certainty, and an aerodynamic tidy up and weight reduction program likely. But $5bn? Not likely, more like $1-2bn depending on additional work.

Quoting EC99 (Reply 8): The cost of ramping down production for 18 months and then ramping up the line for the NEO would be huge.

This came up in another thread a couple of months ago. Someone did the calculations on how many open orders Airbus had, removing those unlikely to be delivered prior to 2020, and IIRC it was in the high 80's - c17 per annum until the (assumed) NEO EIS of 2020. However, EK have suggested they will bring forward their last 25 on order which brings us up to c. 22pa - close to the current 25pa. So I don't think that's the issue - a couple of other customers is.

I think that if EK do buy the A380Neo, and they would, then the rest will follow, but in time. The timeframe for A380 replacement is between 2020 and 2035 (roughly), depending on if you are EK or SQ who like to retire young, or BA, AF and LH who hang on to their birds for a while. I think Airbus will do it. If they can get 10% improvement at A330NEO-style investment, maybe slightly more, then they can make it somewhat viable.

We are generally seeing a shift to younger planes and less second- or thirdhand widebody operators. While 15 years ago it was quite common to see a 25 year old 747-200 finding a new home its now normal to see 18 year-old 777s being scrapped. With so many new widebodies on order this trend will become the norm. It will continue, perhaps even accelerate for the numerous 77Ws, and likely not stop for the A380 which is in a class of its own.

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 5):

Sales are coming this year, watch this space!!! Boeing has a 400 seat twin, and Airbus have a A380-900 neo which will beat your twin hands down!!

I don't think Airbus will launch A380neo this year. They will deny of course but unlike the A330neo the payoff for putting new engines on the plane now isn't worth it. Trent 900 is actually a very competitive platform with the Trent 1000 and a strong PIP upgrade next year of a 3% fuel saving would already make a huge difference.

A380neo is worth it in the new decade. Now's too early.

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 7): TLDR: Because for many routes costs will drop faster than revenue as the size increases. Basically, from memory, compared to it's equivalent -800, a -900 will give you 15% more capacity for something like 6% more costs - in terms of revenue cargo (there isn't much space left after bags) you get a nice boost too. Fuel will go up a little more than that, but many costs stay static (flight crew) or will barely rise (maintenance, landing fees). So on routes where demand can be simulated, or that aren't frequency sensitive, the -900 would be a no brainer. There will be other routes where that drop in casm will warrant combining frequencies - in other words the premium the last minute businessman pays no longer covers the higher cost of 2x300 seat widebodies a few hours apart. There are also routes that are slot constrained to the point where demand can only be met by the largest aircraft - these are likely to increase in the 2020's particularly in Asia. And lastly, *if* liberalisation of air travel continues as it has to the benefit of the consumer (and that is now looking like a massive if) we'll see international gateway, hub and airline consolidation accelerate through the next 10-15 years which will further drive demand. And it's not like they'd stop producing the -800! I personally believe the inability to bring the -900 to market in 2012 as per the original plan hurt the program immensely, but I'm hopeful it could be an aircraft of it's time 8 years from now.

Exactly my thoughts too. I think the Basic A380-800 is just the "shrink" which has to mainy setbacks in the long run and will vanish after the first 10 years or so - normally. Not in the case of the A380 OFC because it is the onl option.

- The immense wing and the box where made for the -900 (in principal even for a 80m plus -1000)
- The short lenght (compared to the frontal area) in combination with the big Center-box hurts the cargo capabilities severe
- The Overall structure is heavy for the -800, the tail is immense (also bad)

This all leads to an suboptimal combination. The A380 is naturally a 85m plan at least, given the Fitness Ratio and many other aspects. I'm strongly believing that a simple neo (re-engine) while maybe securing some 100 EK orders more won't safe the A380 alone. They Need to put Money in a stretch or let it be at all.

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 18): This came up in another thread a couple of months ago. Someone did the calculations on how many open orders Airbus had, removing those unlikely to be delivered prior to 2020, and IIRC it was in the high 80's - c17 per annum until the (assumed) NEO EIS of 2020. However, EK have suggested they will bring forward their last 25 on order which brings us up to c. 22pa - close to the current 25pa. So I don't think that's the issue - a couple of other customers is.

After doing some other research, your numbers seem basically right. However with the exception of Amedeo's order, which seem like a 50/50 proposition at best, after 2016 is any airline other than Emirates going to be receiving A380s. Is EK going to be ok taking the last 51 A380 CEOs or 40 of the last 51 CEOs off the line? Perhaps they will if that is what it takes to get Airbus to build the NEO but I would have to imagine they would demand a huge rebate on the 2018 and 2019 deliveries.

I wasnt able to fully construct theA380 delivery schedule so if I am wrong and other airlines have deliveries scheduled for 2018-2019 please let me know.

Figures that this instantly became another A380 thread.  

No wait..   

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 18): Why stop at $5bn? Why not $50bn while we are at it! The A320NEO project is reckoned to cost Airbus c$1.5bn.

Quoting rotating14 (Thread starter): With the sheer number of frames that EK are willing to buy, coupled with the fact that the engine OEM, Rolls Royce in this case,

Sorry to be a party pooper but
1) Airbus would love to launch the A380neo today, in particular if RR pays for most of the development.
2) RR has a much smaller incentive (they lose less) to spend a lot more.
3) I suspect RR is playing hard to get so Airbus would take a larger share of the burden.
4) The neo will not be launched until RR decides to join the party - not sure this will happen this year.

DLP.

Quoting dlphoenix (Reply 25): Sorry to be a party pooper but 1) Airbus would love to launch the A380neo today, in particular if RR pays for most of the development. 2) RR has a much smaller incentive (they lose less) to spend a lot more. 3) I suspect RR is playing hard to get so Airbus would take a larger share of the burden. 4) The neo will not be launched until RR decides to join the party - not sure this will happen this year.

RR would want an A380Neo. If EK order 100-200, then that's 400-800 engines in the bag for RR, and if it's the RR Advance that they use, then they have a nice way of getting airmiles and maturity onto the engine that could be the precursor to the RR Ultrafan, which RR will probably launch at some point, and it will allow them to re-enter the narrowbody market independently of IAE.

All of that is speculation to an extent, but 'official sources' have that view. But RR have every incentive to power an A380Neo

I think a NEO is not viable without the RR Advance technology. A Trent-TEN or a Trent-1000 is too small an upgrade from a Trent 900 PIP'ed.

A variant of the Advance is already flying. But to my knowledge, design is not final yet. I don't think an A380 neo can be had until the early 2020's.

Quoting redflyer (Reply 11): For Airbus, that would be a very risky proposition to put most of their eggs in one basket.

Not to mention the resulting residual value of A388CEO aircraft flooding the second hand market.

Quoting dhr (Reply 28): Not to mention the resulting residual value of A388CEO aircraft flooding the second hand market.

Well, there are 3 new ones on the market (may require interior modification or finishing) and 6 used ones available now... I have yet to see any stampede, or even a crawl, by anyone to acquire them. That does not mean that preliminary negotiations are not in progress that might result in a sale; but, clearly no one is really hot to get any of these 9.

That tells a story too...


Have a great day,

Quoting hilram (Reply 27): I think a NEO is not viable without the RR Advance technology. A Trent-TEN or a Trent-1000 is too small an upgrade from a Trent 900 PIP'ed.

I agree with you on this one. There has been a lot of talk about the possible A380-800-neo and possibly an A380-900-neo. But so far nothing is concrete yet. Which might change at the Paris Air Show, or the Dubai Air Show, or maybe Farnborough next year?

With a law case before the courts, I seriously doubt those frames are currently on the market until proceedings are complete.

Quoting dhr (Reply 31): With a law case before the courts, I seriously doubt those frames are currently on the market until proceedings are complete.

The new frames are listed with brokers... So the case must have progressed far enough for the courts to allow sale. It is not uncommon for courts to approve the sale of things before final disposition of a case. Sale might even be required to resolve the case as the overall damages may not be determined until the assets are sold.


Have a great day,

Quoting chiad (Reply 3): I think the A380NEO has already been launched, just not officially.

This is also my internal information from reliable sources in the Middle East (not EK) and Germany (not LH).

Quoting rbrunner (Reply 14): That's right. Nobody seems to be interested other than EK.

There are more airlines interested in a A380NEO   Believe me.

= = =

The A380 improved very much within the years and Airbus was able to squeeze much out of the airframe, wing, software,... Just look at the MTOW improvements. So the airlines are especially content with the latest frames.

Isn't the NEO acronym becoming a little tired.

By the time Airbus actually launch a revised A380, they could be talking about replacing their narrow body A320NEO with a new model.

The business case for an A380NEO has to stack up. I can't see many airlines lining up for it, especially when we consider the range of new aircraft coming to market which is going to give a range of airlines plenty of choices on how to fly passengers from point A to B.

Quoting eisenbach (Reply 33): There are more airlines interested in a A380NEO   Believe me.

That's good news. I'd love to see it happen. I've been following the development of the A380 since the very beginning. Who do you think would be interested?

Quoting na (Reply 17): Its a matter of time and no one knows whats going on behind the scene. Most A380 operators do have new A380 in their fleet and are in no haste

There's an interesting point, na. Point taken on board. Cheers.

Quoting redflyer (Reply 11): And although they might get a handful of orders from other carriers, it would seem that EK would order the lion's share of NEOs

How is this any different from the current a/c?
Airbus may not have expected this when initially offered but it is what it is, so for the NEO they could do the reverse, go into production knowing that one carrier will be the primary purchaser with the hope of selling additional frames to others.

Another day, another new A380 NEO thread   

Anybody got any new or leaked info to share since yesterday's thread???

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 29): Well, there are 3 new ones on the market

Surely, new ones cannot come onto the "second hand market". They are either new, or second-hand. I fail to see how they can be both.

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 29): and 6 used ones available now

Really, where?

If you are referring to the MH ones, they are most definitely not "available now". MHs CEO is on the record stating that MH has not yet decided on which, if any, aircraft will be disposed of. This was all just another case of wishful-thinking-interpretation by a fanboy site which then got picked up without verification by lazy journalists all over the place and posted as "news". I can see MH possibly disposing of 2 frames at some point but I highly doubt they will drop the LHR route which currently utilises the other 4 frames.

Quoting dlphoenix (Reply 25): Sorry to be a party pooper but 1) Airbus would love to launch the A380neo today, in particular if RR pays for most of the development. 2) RR has a much smaller incentive (they lose less) to spend a lot more. 3) I suspect RR is playing hard to get so Airbus would take a larger share of the burden. 4) The neo will not be launched until RR decides to join the party - not sure this will happen this year.

With EK confirming RR for latest batch of A380, I'd expect that they got some form of deal/guarantee with RR on future engine developments, and I would be very surprised if there was not something in there with regards to NEO power.
EK did not give up huge fleet commonality just to be nice to RR. Neither would RR be so nice to EK to give them a killer deal, without a prospect of further future sales. Of course, further sales might be found outside A380 . . .

Quoting dhr (Reply 28): Not to mention the resulting residual value of A388CEO aircraft flooding the second hand market.

Airbus is not (really) active in the secondhand market.
I tend to believe that the second hand market has only (very) limited effects on new build market. Even DL picked large amounts of A330NEO/A350 over upcoming secondhand 77W from EK. Slightly different market space of course, but that should not be in the way of a great deal . . .

Rgds,
PW100

I think Airbus is kind of underestimating the demand for the A380neo. If new engines from Rolls-Royce or the GE/P&W Engine Alliance can cut the fuel burn 8-12%, suddenly a LOT of airlines would be interested, especially those who fly route sectors over 5,500 nm in length. It would certainly attract CX and SQ, who finally gets an A380 model guaranteed to fly between the US West Coast and HKG non-stop on a full pax/cargo load on a year-round basis flying westbound.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 38): Anybody got any new or leaked info to share since yesterday's thread???

Sure. CEOs Fabrice Bregier and Tom Enders are quoted in AV Daily that there will NOT be an A380neo announcement at the Paris Airshow and that Airbus needs more time to consider such a program. Bregier is also quoted as saying that Airbus is still waiting for a Skymark restructuring plan and that the two Skymark planes remain in long term storage. Some existing operators are trying to sell their A380s - a reference to Malaysia Airlines.

[Edited 2015-05-28 17:24:52]

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 38): Anybody got any new or leaked info to share since yesterday's thread???

Yeah in FG a few minutes ago. The last paragraph doesn't bode well for a neo though...

"“We are focusing on having an A380 which is more attractive, which is – from an economics point-of-view – more efficient, with an optimised cabin,” says Airbus chief executive Fabrice Bregier. “This is today’s priority.”

He remains upbeat about the A380’s prospects, despite acknowledging that the type “is in not such a very positive mood” because the market is “probably a little more limited than what we expected”, particularly given that certain customers are experiencing “some difficulties” in their broader operations."

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ts-to-fit-additional-seats-412889/

Quoting glbltrvlr (Reply 42): Some existing operators are trying to sell their A380s - a reference to Malaysia Airlines.

[quote=particularly given that certain customers are experiencing “some difficulties” in their broader operations.]


This wording seems to infer infer more than one airline is trying to sell their aircraft or having difficulties

Furthermore, Malaysiea Airlines are only selling two out of six. Of course, some cannot containt their enthusiasm when it comes to the A380 failing, and interprets this as "current A380 operators are trying to get rid of their A380s"...

Hey A380 hatuhs and lovuhs... I posted a somewhat novel analysis of A380 economics here but it got moved to TechOps.

MBEY: Why A380 Doesn't Sell (and NEO Won't Either) (by Matt6461 May 29 2015 in Tech Ops)

Quoting hilram (Reply 45): Furthermore, Malaysiea Airlines are only selling two out of six. Of course, some cannot containt their enthusiasm when it comes to the A380 failing, and interprets this as "current A380 operators are trying to get rid of their A380s"

Airbus CFO Wilhelm is quoted as saying that Malaysia is getting rid of all six. http://aviationweek.com/commercial-a...80-decision-deepens-airbus-worries

Quoting glbltrvlr (Reply 47): Airbus CFO Wilhelm is quoted as saying that Malaysia is getting rid of all six.

No he isn't.

The only quotes actually attributed to him in that article are:
“cannot see”
“impacting our campaigns”
“a fleet-planning decision by a customer.”
“We still have time to add to [the order book],”

The articles reference (note: not a quote from Wilhelm) to MAS selling A380s contains a very important "alleged" qualifier.

There is also a very important paragraph quoting MAS that makes it clear that they have not actually made any final decisions yet:
MAS said on Friday that it is "still working to finalize the business plan" and that "exploring fleet options to enhance viability of long-haul sectors is one area being looked into."

Quoting na (Reply 20): We are generally seeing a shift to younger planes and less second- or thirdhand widebody operators

Actually the average age of aircraft at retirement has not really changed in recent years.

Aircraft retirement is far more impacted by demand growth, interest rates, and price of fuel than simply a desire to have a younger fleet.

If anything the mix of aircraft being retired has made the average age of aircraft retirements seem younger but if you compare retirements by model they are pretty consistent.
(add '.pdf' to the end of either of these links and paste it in your browser for a recent paper on the subject http://avolon.aero/wp/wp-content/upl...on-White-Paper-FInal-30-March-2015
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/com.../aircraft_economic_life_whitepaper

Quoting na (Reply 20): While 15 years ago it was quite common to see a 25 year old 747-200 finding a new home its now normal to see 18 year-old 777s being scrapped.

I have a list of 10 777s that have been retired of nearly 1,300 produced in 20 years; I think scrapping of 777s is anything but normal right now. There are over 100 777s that are over 18 years old. 777 replacement parts are expensive due to demand for new parts so scrapping prices are artificially high for the time being but that will change.

Quoting na (Reply 20): With so many new widebodies on order this trend will become the norm. It will continue, perhaps even accelerate for the numerous 77Ws

I don't see a reason for the retirements to accelerate. The A350s and 787s were delayed on entering the market and there is pent up demand. Outside of these two models the 77W is still the (second) most efficient aircraft in the sky and until these aircraft are freely available and the 777x is EIS then I think the 77W will be relevant. Its hard to believe it is only just over a decade old.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 48): There is also a very important paragraph quoting MAS that makes it clear that they have not actually made any final decisions yet:

I don't think they will make any final decisions until the market tells them what their aircraft are worth (for sale and for lease) so they can weigh their options but its pretty darn clear that these aircraft are available and MAS wants cash.

tortugamon